Lawmaker offers I-70 toll plan
McElhany pushes tunnel-use fee to pay for widening
By Chris Barge, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published March 14, 2008 at 12:30 a.m.
Photo by Darin McGregor / The Rocky
Traffic on eastbound Interstate 70 backs up as Presidents Day weekend crowds return from the mountains. The three-day weekend in February is typically one of the busiest for state ski resorts.
Drivers would be charged a toll of about $5 each way at the Eisenhower Tunnel to pay for widening Interstate 70 between there and Denver if a bill by the Senate's top-ranking Republican is approved.
The Denver Chamber of Commerce supports the bill being drafted by Senate Minority Leader Andy McElhany, R-Colorado Springs, although many leaders in mountain communities prefer mass transit over widening to ease congestion on the highway.
McElhany said his idea is better than one being floated by Sen. Chris Romer, D-Denver, because it gives drivers something concrete - more lanes - in return for their toll money.
Romer is drafting a bill to create HOV lanes on I-70 and collect fees from drivers of vehicles that don't have at least three occupants. The charges would apply only during the ski season rush hour as well as Sunday afternoons year-round.
He welcomed McElhany to the debate over how to unsnarl I-70. He said he could get behind McElhany's idea if it were tweaked to allow some of the money to pay for bus service to the ski slopes.
"First and foremost, I'm very pleased that by my bold initiative that this conversation continues and goes to the next level," Romer said. "Until I see the final plan I don't want to be for or against it, but I'm pleased that the dialogue about using non- tax revenues and fee-based revenues for highway improvements is a full debate."
Romer plans to give McElhany an honorary ski helmet on the Senate floor today - if decorum allows - to prepare him for the fight to come. Romer was half- jokingly hit on the head with ski poles by irate skiers after he floated his tolling plan six weeks ago.
McElhany's plan calls for collecting tolls at the tunnel at all times. He says that would raise about $40 million a year, which could immediately be used to secure a $1 billion bond for the first phase of widening I-70 between Floyd Hill and U.S. 40 - the turnoff for Winter Park.
Eventually, the tolls would pay for $3.5 billion of highway improvements, including boring a third hole next to the Eisenhower and Johnson tunnels.
Residents of Summit and Clear Creek counties would be exempted from paying the toll.
That came as some consolation to mountain-area lawmakers and officials learning about McElhany's plan Thursday. But several still bristled at the idea of encroaching into the roadside communities with widening.
"You can't pave your way out of the congestion problem on I-70. They need to think of something else," Idaho Springs Mayor Dennis Lunbery said.
Lunbery said he and a coalition of town officials up and down the highway corridor support a rail line, not widening.
Lunbery joined Rep. Claire Levy, a Boulder Democrat who also represents Clear Creek County, in saying that studies show adding lanes only encourages more traffic in the long run.
Sen. Dan Gibbs, D-Silverthorne, said Romer and McElhany should put their bills on hold until at least next session.
He added that McElhany's constituents would probably prefer that their lawmaker focus instead on improving Interstate 25 south.
"This is like me introducing a toll road bill into the entrance of the Broadmoor," Gibbs said, referring to the Colorado Springs resort. "Maybe I'll do that."
But Romer said Gibbs' mountain constituents need to prepare themselves for the fact that Denver drivers are fed up with waiting in standstill traffic to go skiing. "I didn't fill the powder keg - I just lit the fuse, and the mountain communities need to know this one's ready to blow," Romer said.
Gov. Bill Ritter's spokesman, Evan Dreyer, said the governor recognizes there's a congestion problem on I-70, but that Colorado Department of Transportation Director Russell George is making good progress on forging a consensus solution with mountain communities.
Dreyer added that McElhany's toll booths could cause problems if they slowed traffic at the tunnels. But in general, he said he liked the unfolding debate.
bargec@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-5059
Mountain gridlock
THE McELHANY PLAN
* Would require drivers to pay a toll of approximately $5 every time they enter the Eisenhower and Johnson tunnels, year-round.
* Would raise about $40 million per year for expansion of I-70.
* The money would be used to pay for $3.5 billion highway widening project, including eventually boring a third tunnel under the Continental Divide.
* First phase would be widening the highway from Floyd Hill to the U.S. 40 exit at a cost of $1 billion.
THE ROMER PLAN
* Would turn I-70 between Floyd Hill and the tunnels into an HOV/toll road on Sunday afternoons throughout the year and during the weekend ski-traffic rush hours in winter.
* Vehicles with fewer than three occupants would be hit with a toll still to be determined.
* Truckers would pay the most.
* Would reverse a lane during peak periods to accommodate more traffic.
* Would require drivers during rush hours first to register their trips on a traffic-monitoring Web site.
THE GIBBS PLAN
* Would put the McElhany and Romer plans on hold.
* Would wait for the I-70 Collaborative group of representatives from towns, counties and major employers along I-70 to submit recommendations this summer that may include a mix of transit and additional lanes.
* Some short-term, low-cost "action items" could be implemented this year.
* The Colorado Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration would consider long-term recommendations as they decide how to improve the highway.
Featured
-
DNC in Denver
Complete coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
-
The Crevasse
A five-part series that examines one tragic day on Mount Rainier.
-
Deadly denial
Sick nuclear workers applied for government compensation but most haven't seen a dime.
-
Final Salute
The Rocky followed Maj. Steve Beck as he took on the most difficult duty of his career.
-
'Colorado's burning'
Coverage of the state's worst wildfires.
-
Columbine shootings
Coverage of the April 20, 1999, shootings at Littleton's Columbine High School.
-
The Crossing
Colorado's deadliest traffic accident killed 20 children on Dec. 14, 1961.
-
Osveli's journey
Osveli Sales left Guatemala for a better life. Two months later, he came home in a box.
-
Wake for an Indian warrior
Oglala Sioux bestow a tribute to the first tribal fatality in Iraq.
March 14, 2008
3:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
warrengfunk7 writes:
I like the THE McELHANY PLAN, but think the third bore under the divide needs to be large enough for a couple lanes of traffic, plus a mag-lev (like what is used in China and Germany), or high-speed electric rail line (TGV-type, like what is used in Europe and Japan).
Remember how much of a success T-REX was for I-25 in Denver? Remember the praise it received from around the nation for effectively combining highway improvements with mass-transit in one integrated project?
Lets attack I-70 the exact same way! Lets add a couple more lanes of traffic. Perhaps make the new lanes HOV/Toll lanes. Perhaps they could also be trucker lanes? Whatever the new lanes use will be, I'm sure we can figure out what will be the best use for them.
Then we can also add a mag-lev line. Hey, they will connect America one day, so why not get it started here? They are elevated, making them easy to build through the mountains without scaring them. They also allow snow and rocks to pass under them, without effecting the train service above. They also travel up to 300mph. Can you imagine the number of skiers and tourist that will be paying to whisk from Denver to Vail in 30-minutes? Can you imagine Denver hosting a Winter Olympics with a mag-lev train like this, making the ski resorts easily accessible from Denver?
Hey, sooner or later, the mag-lev line will start being built out east. New York, Philadelphia, D.C. will probably be connected first. Then it will be built west to Chicago. Then it's going to go Saint Louis, Kansas City and Denver.
But if we already have are part done first It's going to spread out from Denver, making Denver the hub of a new 300mph transcontinental mag-lev line. Other states are going to want to connect to this starter line. Grand junction to Salt Lake City. Salt Lake to Las Vegas. Vegas to LA... LA, Vegas, Salt Lake and Denver, wow now that's some ridership! All those people out east need to be connected this this! So it also extends from Denver to Kansas City, Saint Louis on to Chicago, then to Washington D.C. and New York.
We're talking clean, energy efficient, smooth, safe and 300mph travel speeds here. Hey, we need to keep our highways up to par, but we don't need to go adding too many lanes in the mountains. Add a couple lanes and ALSO add mag-lev.
The last time Denver took the initiative to build a train line to put Denver on the map, Denver went from being a ghost town to bigger than San Francisco. Denver has always taken it's destiny into it's own hands and now it's time for Denver to propel its self into a city of global importance. No one else is going to do it for Denver. It's going to be up to the citizens and the elected officials to make Denver reach out across it's Rocky Mountain Empire and unite this Great Nation once more.
March 14, 2008
5:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
HolierThanThou writes:
THE SENSIBLE PLAN
*Mandate that ski resorts buy bonds to finance purchase of buses.
*Mandate that a percentage of all lift tickets sales go to I-70 ski bus fares and operations.
*Lift tickets constitute bus passes.
*Buses use existing RTD Park-n-ride lots in Denver metro until more parking is needed.
*Reject McEhany and Romer plans. Chastise authors for introducing cockamamie ideas in the legislature.
WHY BUSING WORKS
By converting car passengers to bus riders, each bus eliminates from 10 to 30 cars and SUVs from the highway.
At 60-mph, minimal safe following distance is about 150-feet. So, 10 cars need 1500-feet of roadway while 30 cars need about 4500-feet or about one mile of roadway to travel at speed.
When a highway reaches about 85% peak capacity, traffic jams are likely to result as the density forces reduction of space between vehicles. Drivers naturally slow down as they can no longer sustain minimal safe following distance, thus causing huge traffic jams.
Put another way, if you take 40 bus riders from a typical bus and force them to drive then you need 40 times as many lanes of highway to transport as many travelers. You also increase the likelihood of collisions, injuries, and fatalities by adding more vehicles to the road.
Buses are the most cost-effective solution to the I-70 weekend traffic jam problem.
March 14, 2008
7:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
Firefox writes:
Ten dollars to pass through tunnel and back, what ever happened to throwing two quarters into the toll. This idea is stupid I already pay enough in taxes use it more wisely!
March 14, 2008
7:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
Acemon writes:
Before we spend billions on extra lanes, additional tunnels, toll booths, and trains, let's TEST whether people will use mass transit or not. A very SIMPLE and CHEAP test can be seen at www.FreeSkiBus.org with all the details and numbers that the "other" plans fail to supply. Read for yourself!
March 14, 2008
8:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
Shaupeen writes:
Boy, Romer certainly is a big fan of himself, isn't he?
March 14, 2008
8:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
JohnHKennedy writes:
A great way to make the I-70/tunnel trip EVEN SLOWER!
BUILD A LINE OF TOLL BOOTHS ACROSS IT on Each Side Of The Tunnel.
Build a toll both Traffic Dam across I-70.
That should slow traffic down to a perpetual creep. Many of those who spend money in the mountains will just give up and stay home.
Add some lanes, build a third tunnel if you must
but Don't Make The Trip Any Slower Than It Is... Please!
I understand that the Denver Chamber of Commerce supports the toll booths but this scheme just wastes the time and money of other Coloradoans. Let the The Denver Chamber of Commerce pay for widening I-70 and building a new tunnel.
..
March 14, 2008
8:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
Diff writes:
CHARGE THE SKIERS - via THE SKI RESORTS!
IT is THEIR problem, CREATED BY them -
Put the "toll" on those PARKING to go skiing!
The rest of us who use I- 70 should NOT be paying YEAR ROUND to solve this problem!
March 14, 2008
8:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
Theoldguy writes:
You expect intelligence to come from the legislature? Nope! Just a knee jerk reaction and everyone will pay attitude. At least those on the west slope will enjoy the uncluttered ski joints and lack of Denverites.
March 14, 2008
8:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
KevinD writes:
How come McElhany hasn't heard that widening the road IS NOT AN OPTION.
The towns along I-70 won't allow it, and it doesn't even work in the long term. Once you're done working in 12 years (a construction nightmare that gives us the cold sweats), the traffic has increased enough to put you right back where your were.
March 14, 2008
8:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
spartan1 writes:
A toll for only the people going through the tunnel. What about all the people going to Winter Park, Grand county etc. They don't add to the traffic? The east bound congestion starts because of all the US 40 traffic dumping on I-70. Put a toll at US-40 also.
March 14, 2008
9:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
Diff writes:
This is a Ski Industry problem and the rest of the people using I-70 Should NOT have to pay to fix it for them! There is no serious crowding problem most of the rest of the time! (the other 5 days of 7 days and mid days even on winter weekends) I-70 can be crowed at times for sure but the bulk of the OVER crowding comes during the winter, weekends, at Skiers Rush hour. Also during Summer on Sunday afternoons.
Put the "toll" on those PARKING to go skiing!
Really ... a solution to this is simple, If you either make the ski resorts charge for parking for skiers driving - either a parking lot tax or some type of charge that hits the wallet of skiers who DRIVE I-70, more so at the peak time to go skiing, You would encourage more car pooling and use of public transportation.
YES we need some better and additional forms of buses or other mass transit ( the train is a whole other debate, and I don't think it doable)and maybe some of the new revenue could help to get it started, maybe even help to fund it and make it both affordable and convenient.
A disincentive to drive and some incentive or advantage to using public transportation or to drive (arrive) at off peak hours.
If you hit I70 early - before 6:30 the Traffic is not bad and moves much better - maybe DEEP discounts by the ski resorts for those arriving early could help in the sort term as well.Those early skiers could actually get in a full day by 2 or so in the after noon (and with less crowded slopes early too) and beat the rush back down. Maybe those discounted tickets could expire at 2PM to encourage the early turn out of more drivers as well.
The rest of us who use I- 70 should NOT be paying YEAR ROUND to solve this problem!
Our State legislature needs to listen! - listen to others than the SKI INDUSTRY and the skiers!
March 14, 2008
9:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
temurlan writes:
The Gibbs plan is the only one hinting at common sense. No solution should be considered without the input of all of the communities affected and the Feds.
The train discussed in that first post sounds fun if it was technologically possible. 300mph through the mountains. Would you have to be at least 42" high to ride it?
March 14, 2008
9:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
GrayOwl writes:
Let's see whether I understand this correctly: Sen. McElhany, a decent guy to be sure, wants the toll booths at the tunnel so we can first widen I-70 to the U.S. 40 exit for Winter Park. So the Winter Park skiers and other drivers who head north on U.S. 40 get the benefit of the wider I-70 and don't have to pay any toll. Meanwhile, those who continue on I-70 to the tunnel and points beyond have to pay. How is this fair? It almost makes one wonder whether the Winter Park Ski Resort, as well as the municipalities of Winter Park and Grand Lake, are somehow (financially) involved in this "solution." Yes, those going to the tunnel and beyond would get benefit from a widened I-70 to the U.S. 40 exit. But why should those who turn north on U.S. 40, who also get the benefit, not have to pay, as well?
March 14, 2008
9:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
JSeifert writes:
Refuse to pay then sue the State government and Denver for violating the rights of free travel. This is a Interstate, 70 goes from the east coast to the west coast and was built by the federal government for interstate traval for free. Now the Democrates see it as a slush fund for other things. The money will not be used for roads or anything like that and everyone knows it. Look a the tobacco suit money. Its time to make a stand against these PIRATES hit them were they hurt the worse in the pocket book. Its like the land grab try out east next they will say they are selling the rights to a private sector company who it happens to be own by a Democrat fund raiser or a brothal owner. Free travel will be lost unless you pay and thats all the Democrates want you to do pay to live, to breath, to do anything. Now they want to restrict free movement go when they say you can go but only if you pay. I say every trucker needs to refuse to go to Denver do not deliver any goods, I say to all that travel 70 just stop at the tunnel and refuse to pay until the line goes to Denver. I say to all skiers do not shi this session voice your hatred for these idiots. People need to tell the idiots running this state go back to CA or the east coast, There is still plenty of Tar and feathers in this state leave us and our way of life alone or face us backwards on a rail to Kansas.
March 14, 2008
9:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
warrengfunk7 writes:
Mag-lev is most capable of steeper grades such as in mountains when compared to other forms of trains. It is also the smoothest and most stead ride on Earth. Speeds would be up to 300mph on straight-a-ways but the system would obviously be tested for several months to determine the best operating speeds for each segment of the line. The technology could be the same technology being used in Shanghai as we speak. This mag-lev technology is proven and successful. making references to it is a common propaganda tactic used by anti-transit buts to make it sound like a Disneyland "boondoggle" amusement park ride.
if Denver wants to be the central hub of our nations' future high speed mag-lev network, to help propel Denver into a world class city, then this is where to start. This fast, safe, smooth connection between Denver and Colorado's top tourist destinations will boost tourism to new levels in Colorado. Even the Winter Olympics will come to town, as a result.
Mag-lev train is the most viable solution to this problem.
March 14, 2008
10:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
generalsn1234567 writes:
The ski train is alway sold out. It seems they need another one or make it longer
March 14, 2008
10:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
generalsn1234567 writes:
The idea of charging tolls on the Interstate highway could lead into a frenzy of new interstate highway tolls across the USA, similar to the smoking ban frenzy taking place as we speak.
March 14, 2008
11:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
Diff writes:
One more thought comes to mind - Ultimately this about growth!
To at least mitigate a furthering of the problem - Significantly limit or even put an all out stop on the expansion of Ski resorts that would require or create additional traffic on I 70.
It's all about growth and too many people!
If you build more infrastructure and ski capacity - it will bring in more people and it will be a never ending cycle - Just think if skier capacity had been limited by 50-60% the increase over the past 15- 20 years
This would not be a problem today
This State needs to get a handle on growth over all,and especially on the front range and I 70 west of Denver.Just imagine if we get AHEAD of growth instead of staying behind and in a reactive mode!
There's a thought -
State legislature? Governor Ownes? are you listening?
Oh Sorry -I interuped your lobbyist closed door meeting ...
Mmmmmmm
March 14, 2008
11:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
O_TRAIN writes:
I have no idea what the answer to this problem is - but I would agree we need to leave the truckers out of it. They would just pass on the extra costs to the consumers (us) - so we would be paying twice (three times if you count the original costs of the Hwy).
It seems crazy that there are three competing plans - I would expect the lawmakers to communicate with each other, let the results from the Gibbs plan be known - it seems like political one-upsmanship (sp?). Sort of - "My plan is better than your plan" game. Henry Ford said - "don't let motion be confused with progress"
Warrengfunk - I like your enthusiasm, if you don't already work for the Mag-lev train company - you could get a job as a salesman.
March 14, 2008
noon
Suggest removal
Brain writes:
I haven't experienced this "traffic problem" from skiers ever and now for at least 3 years I haven't experienced the Sunday afternoon traffic because I don’t go skiing (even though I have lived here all my life) and I quit going to the mountains on the weekend about 3 years ago because I don’t want to spend my afternoon sitting in traffic. It already costs me time at workgoing on the weekdays; I will NOT pay toll booths for the #@!!*%# skiers to have better traffic flow. If you can’t figure out how to avoid the traffic on your own then YOU can pay or stay home. I am not going to pay for a bus/transit system because I will not use it; I want the freedom to go wherever I like in the mountains (away from the crowds) and not be herded into buses or rail cars. BTW, there are many places to go in the mountains that don’t require the use of I-70, figure it out!
March 14, 2008
12:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
Logical writes:
Brain, don't tell everyone that there are other places to go in the mountains that don't require using I-70; let's keep that to ourselves!
O-TRAIN, it's good that there are 3 plans being debated. We need to explore every idea anyone thinks of. Many will be dropped very quickly, but others will have merit. The problem is, as you mention, that the legislature is doing the debating. But, it has to start somewhere.
I think the best solution, as mentioned above, is to have the ski resorts "taxed" on their parking. That would encourage carpooling from the front range. But, when you begin taxing the parking, there must be sufficient alternate forms of transport, such as buses, and expanded Ski Train capacity. The one drawback which comes quickly to mind is the locals and destination tourists that are already in the area and then drive to the ski resort. They shouldn't have to pay the tax. Yes, they could take the local shuttle, but that is not practical for many of those people. Still a bug in that plan, but it is certainly the "fairest" way to fund highway expansion or a train. But, no one should expect life to be fair.
March 14, 2008
1:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Diff writes:
Thanks Logical!
Actually the more you think about this the better it seems - not just because I thought of taxing the parking either.
I am sure there are hangups in it but I think they could be worked out - locals (who would bennefit from it as well) could get a once a year parking exemption sticker for maybe $25 or so, then only the skiers would need to get it and they would put in some revenue to help with the I70 traffic and public transportation solution as well. Not sure what might do about the summer users - but something could be worked out - BUT it has to be affordable and yet "painful" enough to get some people out of their cars - a tough thing to do for sure.
AND we need the alternative transportation to be available as well, and at a LOWER cost. With the rising cost of gas that should not be too hard to do tho...
that is why I like taxing the parking lot capacity of the resorts - and let the resort decide how to recover the cost - suggest that they charge for parking - and if they do offer insentives for those not driving a car and for those arriving early enough that they might encourage more people to avoid the busiest times -
Simple, workable and I bet it would be effective and reducing the traffic levels - if not, it would be easy enough to undo!
I also like the idea of busses ran my the ski resorts - like the casino's
These together would be a DARN GOOD place to start and to make an immediate impact!
Now if could just get the legislature to read this - or maybe they could just let us take over this problem - bet WE could hammer out a plan in a week!
Happy Friday All!
OUT
March 14, 2008
4:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
Brain writes:
Logical, your right I don't know what I was thinking. Maybe I can get it removed?
March 14, 2008
9:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
warrengfunk7 writes:
bropous,
I too think that the I-70 corridor can be solved without new taxes and tolls. In fact, pursuing a solution such as the mag-lev train actually opens the door to existing federal funds for construction of mass-transit lines in congested corridors. Up to 40% of the funds may exist for this project in the existing Federal transportation budget.
What is even more promising about mag-lev in the I-70 corridor is not that it takes less space, is easily increased in capacity as traffic grows or that it has minimal impact to the mountains... What's even more promising is the fact the prospect of a private company being awarded a Design-Build-Operate lease for this line.
The State would give the company a 50-year or even 99-year lease to operate this mag-lev line and collect revenue from it, in exchange for that company floating a significant portion of the construction costs to get it built.
1.) So now we have EXISTING Federal Funds covering 20%-40% of the construction costs
2.) We have a private company paying for at least 60% of the construction costs. This company signs a lease to designing-Building and Operate it, so it doesn't become a state run, operated and subsidized operation.
3.) The final element is local contributions. Specifically certain industries which might profit from the increased accessibility to their operations, such as ski resorts along the corridor. It's simple, if say "Vail" wants the line to come close by and have a station located there, they would need to make a significant contribution to this project. Think Park Meadows Mall, they don't want to contribute, they won't get a station to benefit from it.
4.) The Highway element. I think the CDOT should compliment a project like this with I-70 improvements. Re-paving, adding additional trucker passing lanes where there might be a little room, enhanced highway safety features, drainage and/or weather improvements or whatever the CDOT can fit in it's existing budget for this highway.
5.) The tunnel bore for this mag-lev line at the divide, could be made large enough to be a two-level tunnel with teh mag-lev tracks on one level and two-addition lanes of traffic on the lower tunnel level. The additional lanes at Eisenhower would help relieve a bottleneck in the highway.
March 14, 2008
10:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
warrengfunk7 writes:
There are proven mag-lev lines in both Germany and japan as stated, but it is in Shanghai, China where the latest incarnation of the technology and only commercially used mag-lev train is proving to be successful, reliable, fast, smooth and energy efficient.
The Shanghai, China mag-lev line transports thousands of daily riders from Shanghai International Airport to downtown Shanghai each day. The run is approximately 19-miles long (similar in distance from DIA to Denver) and it takes ONLY 7 minutes and 20 seconds to complete the 19-mile trip. The ride is smooth and very quiet.
-The Shanghai Mag-Lev train took 1.33 billion (USD) to construct a 19-mile long line connecting Shanghai International to downtown Shanghai.
-This Shanghai mag-lev line is so successful, China is now extending from Shanghai to the city of Hangzhou, China. Once complete in 2010, this mag-lev train will be 105.46 miles long and only take 27 minutes to travel it's entire length. It's total cost will be an additional $4.5 billion USD (in addition to the existing $1.33 billion Shanghai International line).
This is not Chinese technology though, it is German technology, designed and built by a German company called, Transrapid consortium.
March 18, 2008
1:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
bigjking69 writes:
I've had it with my home state. I'm stationed in California and I don't hear as much ridiculous nonsense as what I see before me. It sounds as if everyone is going off half cocked on ideas where no data has been collected, yet they want to sign them into law. This problem will only continue to get worse in so many ways. Yet from what I can see from the west coast every politician has lost their mind or in other instances lost the ability to stand up for common sense. I would never have thought my beloved state of Colorado would turn into a socialist dictatorship where I'm told I can go to point A to B with the governments permission. My God have these people forgot who they represent, and what country we all live in? It is time we take a stand for common sense, run for state seat, many of those who get into office do so only because they have no competition. These ideas should not be considered, until sufficient thought and discussion has taken place.
March 27, 2008
8:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
comtns writes:
...I'm sure toll booths won't cause a traffic jam.
For all those who think you should just charge skiers, I ask why not charge anyone who is travelling for recreation or pleasure? You could add a $20 for parking at trail heads, an additional $20 camping fees, or an additional 4% sales tax at all restaurants and shops for those who don't live in Clear Creek, Summit, or Eagle counties. I'm not seriously suggesting these solutions, but I merely made these statements to make those who travel for other reasons think about the problem in a fair way. You can't decimate against one group of travelers. Just because you don't ski doesn't mean you don't contribute to the problem when you drive I-70.
March 28, 2008
6:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
lokster writes:
Okay people, focus here: the main congestion issues with I-70 are during ski rush hours, and to a lesser extent, Sunday afternoons in general. I really don't see the backcountry hiking, caving, camping and climbing group as a serious traffic problem, probably because there are hundreds of places for their outdoor sports of choice, vs. dozens of ski resorts. That, and they don't like to gather with 100's of other people, making them even more widely distributed.
In fact, the Romer plan directly speaks to the problem with ski traffic (although I don't think that it will actually solve anything). So, as the problem is largely caused by skiers, several people have suggested reasonable ways to recoupe funding from recreational ski traffic. A good analogy would be tipping your waiter/waitress: you tip 20%+ of the total bill, right? (you should, seriously...). A restaurant doesn't usually charge a flat fee to every patron who walks through the door, do they? No, but you are supposed to pay the servers in direct proportion to the amount of use you get out of them, i.e. how much food/drink you order. Pay-per-use is a pretty simple concept, and one that is nearly universal throughout our country.
I hate tolled interstates, but for precedent take a road trip through Illinois or Pennsylvania: very expensive. I agree with Diff...interstate widening is too little, and will be finished too late. Improve the roads? Of course! But we need to start thinking laterally...buses would be a good temporary solution, heck you could ski, get sloshed, and get a decent nap on the way back to your park-n-ride. Some kind of rail sounds like a better long-term answer though, to be sure.
April 1, 2008
7:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
xerxes7997 writes:
Yeah another rail system...great, just like "fast trax". Sold to the idiot taxpayers at a cost of 4.2 billion now balloned to a cost of 6.8 billion. But hey don't worry "Tax and spend" Ritter will make sure that we bleed the money for these things. Maybe if I don't pay my state taxes this year he'll let me plea bargain to agricultural tresspassing.