I-70 on lawmakers' agenda today

Posted by Raemid on March 26, 2008 at 1:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Toll lanes don't solve traffic problems. They just reduce the number of lanes available for the large amounts of traffic. They also provide a financial incentive for someone to create traffic jams instead of solving traffic problems. It changes the focus from providing solutions to serve the public needs to greed.

We'd be better served by people willing to solve the problem instead of finding ways to make the problem worse and make more money in the process.

Posted by theQ on March 26, 2008 at 1:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Typical...worrying about something like congestion now instead of having the foresight to see this when they constructed it. Your idiots ...all of you.

Posted by joggle on March 26, 2008 at 2:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It's not reasonable to expect government to pay for roads with enough capacity to handle possible traffic loads 40 years in the future (heck, it's hard to determine what those needs will even be). Also, it's important to remember that I-70 was a very difficult road to construct, one of the last (if not last) interstate in the original national interstate plan to be completed due to the challenging geography.

Even if they add a lane in each direction (at tremendous cost) it still probably won't have enough capacity to prevent regular weekend traffic jams, just make it a little less painful, much less enough capacity for 2048. What's needed is a long-term solution that can have easily upgradable capacity. The only thing I know of that can do this is a railroad.

Posted by Froward69 on March 26, 2008 at 2:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I say bore a tunnel from Morrison to Keystone. year round use, easily expandable, safer, less damage to environment etc etc...

powered by geothermal turbines... the future.

alas TABOR throws forward thinking out the window.

Posted by JSeifert on March 26, 2008 at 3:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I say the hell with the skiers and close the ski resorts! Problem solved. Or since skiers make up the problem charge them $100 a shot every time they go down hill to pay to Colorado Tax payers for causing this problem. Or maybe everyone get over themselves and plan ahead and leave early or later sunday or not go at all. This is just a reason to make rich poeple happy and stick it to the Tax payer for something they already have. I say everyone park at the senate and govenors house then take a bus to ski. See how they like it.

Posted by Heidi on March 26, 2008 at 3:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

JSeifert, I am assuming that you are a Colorado tax payer. How do you think charging a toll is going to affect you?

Posted by JSeifert on March 26, 2008 at 3:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well I can say if they pass the toll like they did with that waste of 470 I will be taking 24. Because I be damm if I will pay to use a road that I have used for 30 years with out paying a toll just so rich skiers can have a nice drive. I can say one thing the truckers if they are smart will stop shipping to Denver that will stop the toll right then also you are going to see a reduction in visitors to the area because who wants to pay a toll.Me I will refuse to drive and pay a toll on a road me and alot of other tax payers accross the country have already payed for. Its a interstate road refusing to allow persons free traval is against the law in this country, This is not some just built road I say sue the crap out of the state and any lawmaker that signs on to this.

Posted by Heidi on March 26, 2008 at 3:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't agree with a toll either. I don't see how this can legally pass into law, but won't be shocked if it does. Everyone who drives on I-70 contributes to the congestion. I think this is all wasted time and effort when all a toll is going to accomplish is benefit those who are willing to pay. But then again, will it really have that much impact on the congestion? I drive on the road, and I am willing to accept the consequences if I drive during the "rush hours".

Posted by Heidi on March 26, 2008 at 3:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As far as E470 is concerned - when I was a resident in Arapahoe county, I had to pay a tax specifically for that road when I renewed my vehicle registration. How can they charge a tax for a toll road? And I never even used the road! Just asking.

Posted by MeAgainstMachine on March 26, 2008 at 4:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I propose an elevated tram or expansion of existing railways. Right there will be a huge decrease in traffic to mountain resorts for both winter enthusiasts to summer mountain bikers and hikers. If I could jump on some form of mass transit to make it to Breck or Keystone, I would in a heart beat. There is nothing worse than sitting in a traffic jam on I-70 when you're all smashed up from riding the park all day. Couldn't we just use the rail that is already in place for the Union Station to Winter Park resort...expanding it for destinations like Breck and Keystone and some as far as Vail and Beaver Creek? I bet a round trip ticket would be less than the gas it takes to get there. We'll lower weekend fuel demands and it would surely be more environmentally friendly than all of us with our SUVs. Come on CO, get it together. Lets stop serving special interests and start serving the people. The government is already allowing oil companies to rape us with fuels costs and now they want to get a little wet paw off of a road that was funded and built a long time ago and is maintained with our tax money. Almost seems like double dipping into the already cash strapped tax payer pockets.

Posted by joggle on March 26, 2008 at 4:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

JSeifert: I'm not sure how much you've driven around the country, but it isn't THAT unusual to have a toll on an interstate highway. Heck, it wouldn't even be the first stretch of I-70 to have a toll (there's already one on a stretch heading into Kansas City and has been there for years). I've driven from one end of I-70 to the other and the stretch near the Eisenhower Tunnel during Saturday and Sunday morning and afternoon in the ski season is the most congested I've seen. It wouldn't surprise me at all to see a toll to help ameliorate the congestion.

Posted by Acemon on March 26, 2008 at 4:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Blaming the ski resorts for weekend I-70 traffic is like blaming all of the Denver-metro businesses for the daily traffic jams on I-25. Skiers have options, but most people want to drive and ski only when they feel like it.

Before we spend billions on a train to the mountains, let's test whether people will actually use it. Check out my proposal, complete with real-world prices and easy-to-verify numbers at www.FreeSkiBus.org

All it takes is one easy click.

Posted by joggle on March 26, 2008 at 5:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think buses would be a great solution, especially in the short term. However, as I think American and European history has shown, trains are clearly the better alternative in the long run. It's a shame that American cities tore up most of their public transit railroads back in the 30s-50s, switching to buses.

However, even if railroads were to be built it would still take a long time (over 10-20 years probably) so if we want any immediate changes buses would definitely be the way to go.

Posted by jjez on March 26, 2008 at 6:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If they insist on a toll, it should be an exit toll, charging only those who are actually GOING to the ski areas! And banning semi's during the rush hours has got to be about the most idiot thing anyone has suggested (in previous discussions). Truckers have a 14-hour window where they can only drive a maximum of 11 hours. Having to pull over for 2 hours will really screw them up. And delay any goods and services getting to their destinations. And increase the costs of goods being shipped. Let those who cause the mess, pay for the resolution of the mess. Or just tell them to get off their high horses and deal with it! In theory, a train is a good idea, but I wonder how it would work in practical application. People don't take public transportation to work, I doubt people are going to want to lug their skis, poles, boots etc on a train.

Posted by Raemid on March 27, 2008 at 8:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

If they do make a train, they'd need to heavily subsidize the ticket cost. If the tickets cost $50 a piece to help pay for the enormous cost of building and maintaining the system, then nobody will use it. When was the last time you took the expensive train from Denver to Winter Park?

An alternative would be to make it a free train from the airport and Denver to the mountain areas, then add a $20 tax to the price of every lift ticket. That would encourage people to take the train (since you're paying the $20 anyway), would provide a fast and easy way for tourists to hit the slopes, increasing tourism. A lot of Colorado's economy is driven by tourism - increasing tourism is good if we can avoid jamming the roads like we have been.

I also like the free bus idea, maybe to supplement the train, making more stops, ...