Legislators kill one of two toll bills
Possibility of fees for tunnels on I-70 still moving ahead
By Chris Barge, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Originally published 09:52 a.m., March 27, 2008
Updated 01:13 a.m., March 28, 2008
George Kochaniec Jr. / The Rocky
Sen. Dan Gibbs gets the crowd to yell "No to tolls" during a protest against the proposed I-70 tolls on the west steps of the Capitol on Thursday.
- Email this
- Print this
- Comments
- Change text size
- Subscribe to print edition
- iPod friendly
Plans to charge tolls on Interstate 70 received a split decision at the Capitol on Thursday, with one moving into the fast lane and the other going into the ditch.
Sen. Chris Romer, who kick- started the controversial toll debate, saw a committee kill his bill to levy tolls on I-70 during the weekend ski traffic rush hour and on Sundays year-round.
The Denver Democrat's bill would have charged a toll of a yet- to-be-determined amount on vehicles with fewer than three occupants during peak travel times. The money would have helped fund bus service.
But a plan by Sen. Andy McElhany, R-Colorado Springs, to charge drivers a toll of up to $5 each way at the Eisenhower Tunnel was approved by the Senate Transportation Committee on a 5-2 vote.
"The forces of status quo and gridlock have yet won again in Colorado," Romer said after the committee also voted 5-2 to indefinitely postpone his bill, essentially killing it. "We have a vexing problem, and government has yet failed again to even take a modest step forward of trying a pilot (program)."
Next stop: Senate panel
McElhany's bill is aimed at providing $3.5 billion for whatever highway improvements between Floyd Hill and Summit County are determined necessary.
His bill would exempt residents of Clear Creek, Summit and Gilpin counties from the toll. But opponents complained that businesses in the mountain corridor depend on workers from Denver and elsewhere who shouldn't be tolled for driving to work.
Greg Fulton, president of the Colorado Motor Carriers Association, which represents the trucking industry, told the committee that the bill could violate the federal Commerce Clause because it creates a special class of people exempt from the toll.
"I can't imagine that's a factor," McElhany said later.
Other opponents argued that toll booths would slow down traffic. While McElhany's bill does not dictate where the toll booths would be built, he assured the committee that they could be erected off the shoulder of the highway so as not to impede traffic.
McElhany's bill heads next to the Senate Appropriations Committee, where it must be approved before being considered by the full Senate.
Legislator keeps up fight
Colorado is pre-approved by federal authorities to toll the interstate highway, so if lawmakers give McElhany's bill the green light, the plan will in all likelihood take effect.
Sen. Dan Gibbs, D-Silverthorne, has vowed to make sure that doesn't happen. "We have one down and one to go," Gibbs said after Thursday's hearing.
Gibbs led a rally of about 50 people from mountain communities, and the normally reserved Gibbs shouted as he led a protest on the west steps of the Capitol.
"We think (the toll is) bad for business, we think it's bad for Colorado! In Colorado, tourism is our second-leading economy," Gibbs said. "Us folks in the Front Range, in the foothills and in the mountain communities are united to work together to build a collaborative effort."
Holding up Romer's and McElhany's bills, Gibbs said, "These two bills do not do that. These two bills were put together on the fly, without working with anyone in the mountain communities. What do we say?"
"No!" the crowd chanted.
Protesters held up signs with slogans such as "Tolls are for trolls!" One wore his ski gear, complete with helmet and goggles and held a sign reading "The ski pole rebellion."
His was a reference to Romer, who said skiers half-jokingly hit him over the helmet with their ski poles when they found out he was the sponsor of the one toll plan.
Romer nearly shouted as he encouraged the transportation committee to approve his bill.
But in the end, two hours of testimony from dozens of mostly mountain-area opponents of his plan won the day.
Romer said he will now try to ensure that McElhany's plan passes, especially if an amendment is added to allow for the toll amounts to rise and fall with congestion levels.
McElhany's bill leaves the option of congestion-based tolling open, but does not specify how much to toll, other than to cap the amount at $5.
Comments
Posted by MarineGrunt on March 27, 2008 at 9:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Why would they? They can take the current Highway tax and roll it in to a pet pork project!!!
Works out great for them!
Must be nice to spend all the tax money when you don't pay taxes!!
Posted by Oh_Wise_One on March 27, 2008 at 10:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Time to start the recall for Sens. Chris Romer and Andy McElhany. You know, like, "Speaking Truth to Power".
Just because you are a Senator, doesn't mean you're smart.
Posted by Oh_Wise_One on March 27, 2008 at 10:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
And- ""Those of you who want to solve something...." What part of NO MORE TAXES does this Romer not understand?
Posted by JSeifert on March 27, 2008 at 10:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Like I said before all Truckers need to refuse to ship food, gas anything to Denver as long as there is a toll. Poeple need to stop sking this season, no one use I-70 for the next year. Us 24, 50 even some of the smaller roads. refuse to give 1 dime to these slime balls. Start charging all government workers a extra $5 for everything say its a government toll payment. Park along these idiots homes, in front of the state house. Parking lot owners need to start charging $100 a day to all state personnel to park down down. Make life hurt for these people. They want to make us pay make them pay worse.
Posted by Acemon on March 27, 2008 at 10:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
We have other options. Go to www.FreeSkiBus.org for a low-cost and innovative plan to test whether skiers would actually ride a proposed train into the mountains. Let's test the idea before we actually spend billions of dollars and endure several years of construction delays.
Posted by Froward69 on March 27, 2008 at 10:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
TABOR brought this on...
Posted by Bob299 on March 27, 2008 at 10:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
At least they're talking about it. You can't maintain our current infrastructure without money.
The Feds won't block it because all of the federal dollars are going overseas. It will be a long time before we see any of those dollars.
Posted by MarineGrunt on March 27, 2008 at 10:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I heard a rumor that Bush was the real creator of TABOR!!!
Just sayin'...
Posted by Froward69 on March 27, 2008 at 10:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Actually marine, it was the traitor, carpetbagger, "kickin" Doug Bruce that created TABOR.
bush jr is just a puppet.
Posted by Froward69 on March 27, 2008 at 10:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
BOTH are Republikins.
Posted by RDA on March 27, 2008 at 10:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Romer says this issue is about "leadership". If you have the wrong solution, it's not leadership, it's just a bad idea. Hitler was a "leader", for cryin' out loud. This is a ridiculous idea and isn't it just like a liberal to come up with a way to "tax" us twice for services we are already paying for. Why do I have to take a hit in my wallet to solve this problem? How might this impact businesses in Summit County and beyond if I choose to stay home rather than go skiing? It's preposterous. But it's been a good move for a young politician trying to make headlines. I am ashamed this is even seriously being considered.
Posted by Forever_SheffU on March 27, 2008 at 10:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm so glad the legislature has nothing else to do than to consider a bill designed to humor a state senator with a massive sense of entitlement. Romer can't really expect us to believe this is about anything but his desire to make his own life easier.
Posted by Fred on March 27, 2008 at 10:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I must be the type of person this proposed tax is aimed at.
Why? Because I will no longer ski in Summit County. In fact, this will probably be the end of my residency in Colorado.
It won’t be long before the hard working people of Colorado are run out of the state. Montana might have to close its borders!
Colorado looks more and more like California every day.
Posted by mytwosense on March 27, 2008 at 10:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I applaud these protestors. I might even join them.
Power to the people of Colorado!
Posted by mytwosense on March 27, 2008 at 11:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Fred: "I must be the type of person this proposed tax is aimed at.
Why? Because I will no longer ski in Summit County. In fact, this will probably be the end of my residency in Colorado.
It won’t be long before the hard working people of Colorado are run out of the state. Montana might have to close its borders!"
Hilarious last line in your post, Fred! You know, I'd love to see the drop in revenues for just ONE DAY if Colorado residents chose not to ski one weekend in protest of this law.
Maybe that would jar the ski industry to substantially contribute something towards the efficient transportation of its customers instead of expecting its customers to do so - in addition to the gobs we already spend to ski.
Posted by Elwood on March 27, 2008 at 11:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Create a transportation district with taxing authority to pay for the improvements (whether it be a rail system or highway widening), just like the RTD District. Make the district a corridor from Denver to Vail, including all those communities that would directly benefit from the improvements.
Posted by PACE2008 on March 27, 2008 at 11:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
People are protesting over this, but not Darfur or Tibet. The passion the woman is showing ("Tolls are for Trolls") over tolls and not these human rights issues is just sad.
Posted by ObviousOne on March 27, 2008 at 11:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hmmmm, well lets see... So I could be waiting in a line for a toll booth that will be backed up from Golden to DIA? Sweeeeeet!
Posted by PMSXpress on March 27, 2008 at 11:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
PACE: Maybe that person has already participated in human rights protests too, with at least as much passion. Whose to say?
Sure ain't the Colorado of many years past. That is just sad too.
Posted by gary on March 27, 2008 at 11:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
TABOR brought this on...
NO....Tax Ritter and your nice elected Demoncrats brought this on..it is just more tax and spend....TABOR used to stop crap like this...
Nuff Said
Posted by Firefox on March 27, 2008 at 11:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Pace your an idiot the article as I read it was about tolls not Darfur or tibet, what did you expect people here to write about.
What ever happened to Govt listening to the people, I believe the majority if not all of what I have heard since the start of this idea has been negative so Romer give it up and try and figure out another way to take my money.
Posted by Theoldguy on March 27, 2008 at 11:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The Feds would prefer tollroads and privitization. It gets the monkey off their back.
Now one has to ask, "Does that mean the end of the road tax?"
Posted by Acemon on March 27, 2008 at 11:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Froward69,
Please explain how TABOR caused this. Provide details as needed. The politicians can still raise taxes - TABOR just makes them find the guts to put it to a vote of the people.
www.FreeSkiBus.org shows how we can avoid further waste of tax dollars. Take a look for yourself.
Posted by Earl on March 27, 2008 at 11:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
backward 96 you must have the iq of 3 point above plant life. tabor has nothing to do with federal road funds and it only limits state to inflation which the dems cant live with
all of this so little chrissy romer doesnt have to deal with traffic as she is so special.
Posted by Brain on March 27, 2008 at 11:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
How come the only party affiliation that was noted were the ones protesting?
I hope the Democrat lead legislature votes this in; the pendulum will swing.
Posted by LoFat on March 27, 2008 at 11:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Seems too many people that "shoot from the lip" have waaaay too much time on their hands. Of course everything is "W's" fault. That relieves all the liberal "wonks" from any responsibility whatsoever. Tabor was designed to stop the liberal mis-spending in the first place. This, as so many other cases, requires thought and valid input. All the far left knows is tax, tax, tax. As for all who will attempt to smear, belittle, or assasinate my character for this posting, grow up. Get a life, get a job, and join the human race.
Posted by cakeckh on March 27, 2008 at 11:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Five dollars - it's just five dollars ---- UNTIL they figure out they can charge $ 7.00, then $ 10.00, then $ 15.00. If it passes, it's typical democrap - tax more, spend more!
This is not a plan to lower traffic - it's a plan to tax more, spend more!
Don't worry you will need a season pass for I -70 too!
Posted by RickyLee on March 27, 2008 at 12:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
That's fine. We prefer to snowmobile in the Snowy Range, west of Laramie anyway. I'll be spending all my play money in Wyoming.
Posted by johndoe12345 on March 27, 2008 at 12:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
http://www.freeskibus.org/
This is the best concept yet!!! We need to forward this around CO and get support for it...can someone start an online petition?
I would argue that some type of subsidized fare would even work - with the State and/or resorts picking up 1/2 the price. Its a win-win for all...more skiers and boarders at the resorts, more tax revenue for the mountain communities & state, and better traffic for I70...all for a fraction of the cost of tolls, trains, or expanding I70.
Posted by windbourne on March 27, 2008 at 12:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
wow. some of you are hysterical. First a tax is a fee that is foisted on ALL parties. OTH, a USER FEE is applied to just those that use something. A toll on I-70 to help fund it and even to encourage ppl to car pool, is NOT a tax. OTH, I notice that the very ppl who scream about taxes are the same ones saying that this is a tax and calling for dems to be recalled. Yet, this is being allowed by the FEDS. Not the dems. Not the republican party. But THE FEDS that are controlled by the president. IOW, this was suppose to be free since we have all paid the tax, but apparently not enough is collected, or it is being misspent, or BOTH OF THESE.
I-70 is NOT funded by the state. It is a FEDERAL highway. It is supposed to be mostly, if not fully, supported by the FEDS. Blame the FEDERAL republican who have played games with the budget and lowered taxes for the wealthy (ppl as well as corporations), and increased federal pork spending.
This is a nightmare created over the last 6 years, not in the last 6 months.
Posted by RDA on March 27, 2008 at 12:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
As for the "tax" issue .. a user fee is "taxation" .. just like a tax added to those who buy cigarettes or who buy luxury vehicles. If I don't smoke or buy a Lexus, I don't pay .. but it's a tax nonetheless.
and Pace2008 .. get some counseling. Darfur and Tibet are tragedies but they don't impact my wallet like this stupid legislation could. People may care about those other issues but they are more worried about problems in their own lives. I'd love to save the world .. but charity begins at home.
Posted by JSeifert on March 27, 2008 at 12:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I say help the eviroment shut down the ski slopes. Gets rid of all the CA hippies, Holly ding dongs and all the people that moved here from CA and East coast and all Colorado is a better place. The reason Democrates have a problem with TABOR is it has to be voted on so people actually have a say on what happens in this state not like they want it elites ruling and us making them money with 75% tax's like Europe.
Posted by Diff on March 27, 2008 at 12:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
DO you think Chris Romer has a political future in Colorado?
The way things often go here - probably so ...
I still advocate this is a skier and ski industry problem and there is an easy way to make them pay -
TAX the ski resorts along I70 based on their parking lot slots!
or charge the TOLL to the SKIERS when they park - (more if there is less than 4 in the car)
They are the winners about this problem - they can PAY!
Posted by Diff on March 27, 2008 at 12:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
opps whiners
Posted by PACE2008 on March 27, 2008 at 1:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
RDA,
You don't think that if China is in the middle of a civil war that that impacts your wallet? If China wants to collect on the money we owe them, what will that do to the value of the dollar?
I agree that there shouldn't be a toll. I don't agree that someone screaming their head off over tolls is more important than human rights.
Posted by seeingeyeseesall on March 27, 2008 at 1:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"TAX the ski resorts along I70 based on their parking lot slots"
Good idea. Especially in Vail, where all of the parking is muni-owned by the Town, a tax exempt entity. Vail Resorts owns ZERO parking, folks. Vail owns ZERO ski mountain property... it's all Federal land they lease for very little.
Don't want to pay the toll? DON'T SKI NEXT YEAR. Take a few weekends with your family in Denver. THAT will get some attention, if 30,000 folks just don't show up one weekend.
Those of us who live here and have to use I-70 HATE this idea. Tell us when you won't be skiing - we'll stay home too!
Posted by 777J on March 27, 2008 at 1:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
HORRIBLE IDEA - MAKE THE POLITICIANS LIVE WITHIN THEIR MEANS.
VOTE THEM OUT IN NOVEMBER!
JACK
Posted by JTTAAB on March 27, 2008 at 1:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Tax the resorts. They will raise lift ticket prices so no one can afford to ski, problem solved.
Posted by DavidG on March 27, 2008 at 1:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
We're getting too far off track here. Even if the toll concept somehow makes it through the state legislature, once the powers that be start facing the details of how to support this, its dead. A toll booth at the tunnel would have to have so many lanes, that CDOT would have to blast half the mountain away to build it. Forget about reading license plates. Visitors here are from all over the place and most don't wash their cars until spring. A toll plaza down in the foothills could be built, but the lines would be prohibitive for everyone. Think about getting out of an airport parking lot! This would have to be almost 100% electronic to work and even then you will have to stop everyone from out of state to get them to fork over the $5. I'd bet thats their last trip here!
A simple check with some tollway experts will tell you how many toll booths you need. Add that to the fact that there is no other way up to the mountains and the stark realization will hit home. It ain't going to work here. You might as well throw the money you would spend on tollway infrastructure (booths, lanes, staff, mind readers, etc) and subsidize the various resorts to get them running buses until you build a rail system.
Posted by PACE2008 on March 27, 2008 at 1:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"middle of the highway tolls" are a bad idea. The eastern U.S. states learned this many years ago. That is why they have tolls on the exits. If ANY toll is implemented, put them at the base of the highway exit. A driver takes a ticket when they get on the toll road, and pays varying prices depending on what exit they get off.
An example would be that the exit to St. Mary's glacier (admittedly low tourist traffic) may only charge $1.00 to get off. Conversely, Vail could charge $5.00. Like someone else mentioned, the exits that lead to casino's could charge even more.
Yes, E-470 is setup wrong. I should take a ticket when I get on, and then pay $6.75 one time when I get off at DIA. Besides slowing people down, it is bad for the environment by having to slow down and rev your motor back up again to speed up.
Posted by ColoradoDave on March 27, 2008 at 1:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I can see both sides to this issue and really don't have an opinion.
Seems many poster want to blame the Democratic Party for this. They obviously either didn't read the story or just like to lie and make up facts.
The politicians who the article states are opposed to this idea are listed as:
Dan Gibbs, Democrat;
Joan Fitz-Gerald, Democrat;
Christine Scanlan, Democrat.
That's 3 Democratic politicians.
There are two politicians sponsoring two different tolling plans. the first plan is by Chris Romer a Democrat.
The second plan is by Andy McElhany, a Republican and the Senate Minority Leader.
I know facts get in the way of a Dittohead's belief system but you guys might want to try not getting things so blatantly wrong.
I also find it funny that the normal crew of libertarians who fill the Rocky comment section are oddly silent. I mean don't you guys support User-Fees? In your ideal world shouldn't the Interstate Highway System be sold to a private company which then should be free to charge whatever tolls (fees) the market will bear?
I mean a little consistency would be nice....
Posted by DavidG on March 27, 2008 at 2 p.m. (Suggest removal)
To PACE2008,
Good thought, but where would you put a toll booth at Silverthorne or Vail? Think of the main traffic arteries flowing onto I-70 from Boulder, or traffic driving up the canyon. The wait at the booths would be prohibitive. You might as well drive to Jackson Hole for the weekend.
Posted by GrayOwl on March 27, 2008 at 2:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This is outrageous. You know what will happen if it passes, right? The cons, er, politicians, will skim the money and divert it to unrelated projects. That's why any such bill must carry a penalty (I prefer a felony with mandatory prison time) for any legislator who ever proposes to divert such toll money to any use not directly and demonstrably designed to reduce traffic congestion on that exact segment of I-70 for which the toll is charged. An earlier comment suggested such a toll would enable the pols to skim money that otherwise would have been used for I-70 and apply it to their own pork projects; I agree. Can this be made a felony as well? It's time for accountability.
Posted by bropous on March 27, 2008 at 2:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You must have missed it, ColoradoDave, but conservatives HAVE been taking swings at McElheney, doesn't matter what party he is, the man is a blithering idiot.
Build a freaking train. Problems solved.
Posted by MarineGrunt on March 27, 2008 at 2:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Why does they guy in the picture look like he is getting surprise buttsecks?
Posted by Foghorn on March 27, 2008 at 2:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Its time for a boycott. as a truckdriver myself its time to make a stand and not deliver anything to the mtn towns and resorts so these people can get the picture. My fuel costs are high enough to begin with now this. What a bunch of crap. This wont go to maintain the roads and all, it will just pad the pockets of these so called lawmakers. Leave the damn roads alone. Its clear Romer and the other idiots never spent time behind the wheel of a truck or bus and they have no clue what its like at all to drive these. Boycott Colorado.
Posted by MGD on March 27, 2008 at 2:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It's only a $5 toll if you go one way, you would pay again on your way back. Add $10 in tolls to the skyrocketing cost of gas.
Romer will have fewer working class families to slow his SUV down coming home from future ski vacations.
Posted by FL_transplant on March 27, 2008 at 2:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What else we going to do about the congestion problem? Sit around an bitch instead of taking ownership for failed infrastructure? tax and spend... well of course. Roads aren't free and every day the cost of construction goes up in material prices. So we pay now, or just sit and wait as the problem just grows. I seriously doubt a 5$ toll is going to bankrupt anybody and furthermore, it might even encourage more *gasp* carpooling. Romer is at least approaching the problem.
Posted by Cwillyrun1 on March 27, 2008 at 2:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Romer should learn that despite personal opinions he may have, he's still a representative of his constituents. If they don't want the stupid toll, why is it he wants to ignore it? Because then he can use it for votes to say he tried something. Well, trying doesn't equate into something smart. It's counterproductive when I-70 is used to truck foods and goods into the state and the Denver area, and who will that increase be passed onto? Us, the taxpayers. Who will have to wait in even more congestion on I-70 for toll gates, whether we're hitting the slopes up or not? Us, the taxpayers. I hope that HOV doesn't mean lanes will be divided like they are in Denver. If it takes three or more people to use those lanes, wow, then even more congestion. At this rate, what is an hour trip may end up being three or four for a vehicle with two people in it.
Tabor is a good idea, but blaming Tabor on Republicans is a joke. We the people of the state of Colorado overwhelmingly supported it because of the tax and spend Democrats blowing our money. For that matter, the problems with the roads wasn't created by Tabor in the first place. If some of you knew what you were talking about on that subject, you'd know Roy Romer, as Governor of Colorado, took $500 million federal dollars that were given to Colorado for transportation and diverted all of it to his social programs. That was the start of the problems. A Democrat did it, not a Republican. I'm independant, and both parties are flawed, but the truth is the truth and you can't ignore it.
Taking a bus to the resorts is good until you're the one that gets home at 7 or 8 while your buddies that drove are back by 5 or 6. Time is important, and that's why RTD isn't effective in the metro area for many people. Bus also takes up lanes on the highway, rail has roads to cross and obstacles to deal with (such as clearing heavy snow or fallen trees, for a few examples), but monorail is probably the best idea. Doesn't have things blocking the route, doesn't take up more lanes, can get people to the mountains faster than either rail or car, and is cleaner than either of those options.
Posted by Oh_Wise_One on March 27, 2008 at 3:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
FL_transplant- You can take your butt back to Florida and that would help the congestion problem. I don't know about Fl but here in Colorady, we already pay taxes for roads, bridges and "infrastructure". NO MORE TAXES.
Posted by PACE2008 on March 27, 2008 at 10:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
FL_transplant,
Come on,,, carpooling in a Denali is not practical ;)
Posted by roger44 on March 28, 2008 at 5:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I can see the ads now, "Ski Utah" no toll roads.
Posted by FL_transplant on March 28, 2008 at 8:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I love how the commentary in this forum always turns to a childish assertion that one should leave the great state of Colorado if your not a native. (I'm assuming you are a native of Colorado) If it wasn't for out of staters, this state would be the equivalent of Montana..
Yes we have taxes in FL. Also, tolls are pretty typical in Florida to gain revenue from Tourist.In Fl, locals pay a minimum fee for a pass, while the major cost is passed to tourists. The same could be done here. Since Tourism is Colorado's second largest revenue generator, you would think that people from out of state should be sharing payment for the roads and "infrastructure".
But the question still remains.. what are we going to do about the problem? Poof! build a monorail! yeah right... were talking a decade and billion and billions of dollars. Where does that money come from? How about widen the road... same issue. Plus the impact of 10 years of road construction. The best way is through behavioral changes, and fees and taxes are the best way to change behavior. Furthermore, the money (from tourist) could be used to help solve the problem. If you don't like it, take 285. Or stay in Denver. more skiing for me.
Posted by greentruth on March 28, 2008 at 8:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Just one more reason to fly to Utah and ski. They have better snow anyway, and fewer drunk tax and spend democrats.
Posted by jacka on March 28, 2008 at 8:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Let just do nothing........
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/JskPulguaC8&... name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/JskPulguaC8&... type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
Posted by jacka on March 28, 2008 at 8:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
RMN not web 2.0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JskPul...
Posted by seeingeyeseesall on March 28, 2008 at 8:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is profoundly stupid. Gridlock traffic at 11,000 feet. How much fuel will THIS waste as people wait for an hour in toll-lines? How much will costs rise on the western slope as truckers have to sit and waste diesel?
The folks who think THIS is a good idea are MORONS.
VOTE! Vote these people OUT and back to the fast food service line they belong in.
Posted by enginerd on March 28, 2008 at 8:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Does the federal government allow states to arbitratily collect tolls on interstate highways built with federal funds? Has this question been addressed? If not, this could all be a moot point.
Posted by enginerd on March 28, 2008 at 8:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Does the federal government allow states to arbitratily collect tolls on interstate highways built with federal funds? Has this question been addressed? If not, this could all be a moot point.
Posted by dlwr on March 28, 2008 at 8:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Currently traffic is really bad on Sundays going to the tunnel beginning at 2pm. McElahny says "don't worry we'll build the toll booths on the shoulder so that they do not impede traffic." The very nature of a toll booth impedes traffic! Each car must stop. So now we will screw up traffic 7 days a week rather than just having issues on Sundays or in bad weather. The Interstate system was built with Federal tax payers dollars, I guess I already missed the fight giving the state of Colorado the right to put up toll booths on Federal right of ways. How ironic we are putting the booth at the Eisenhaur Tunnel. I'm sure not what he would have wanted or planned. If the problem is skiier traffic, tax the ski industry. Collect the 5 bucks at the parking lot. That won't happen because all we see now are dollar signs worth 3.5 billion dollars, damn those counters at the tunnel making the multiplication so easy for the pork barrel politicans. I'm ashamed of the greed our elected officals are showing.
Posted by Gary1 on March 28, 2008 at 9:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ski resort owners have skiiers lined up at the lifts, so resort revenue has not declined because of traffic on I70. From the perspective of the resort owner, there is no problem. From the perspective of the front range weekend skiier, what difference does it make whether he or she waits in traffic on I70 or waits in an endless succession of 30 minute lift lines? Why reduce congestion on I70 only to wait in lift lines? Will Romer then call for a tax to limit congestion in the lift lines? Possibly skiiers are making the calculation that the enjoyment of a few hours skiing is worth the aggravation of I70 and long lift lines. That is their choice to make, and others should not be taxed. When ski resort revenue declines because of traffic congestion, the resorts will find creative ways to reduce traffic. The best solutions will be voluntary, not coercive.
Post your comment (Requires free registration.)
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.