Legislators kill one of two toll bills; Take our poll

Possibility of fees for tunnels on I-70 still moving ahead

By Chris Barge, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published March 28, 2008 at 1:14 a.m.

Text size

Poll

Should people living in mountain communities have more say about tolling I-70 than skiers do?

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.

Subscribe to the Rocky Mountain News

Comments

March 28, 2008

2:34 a.m.

Suggest removal

mark_senio writes:

Charging to drive a Federal Highway is insane. The Ski resorts need to pay for this problem. Many of us in the Denver area do not Ski and will not put up with the "Tax and Spend" thinking of our elected leaders. What happen to our leadership? Where have the thinkers gone? In this economy, the last thing anyone needs in Colorado is more Taxes. Maybe our Great leaders can spent our "Oil and Gas" taxes to improve this problem. (If there's any left after Metro state college.) They seem to have a endless supply of money from our childrens future to spend. You over educated Rich people are starting to piss off a few of us common folk.
March 28, 2008

4:12 a.m.

Suggest removal

mrfxx writes:

First - the article states that the Feds authorized tolling. Not only do the Feds raid Social Security funds to pay for pork, they raid gasoline taxes which are to pay for roads - SHOCK! So - of course the Feds will authorize it - then blame the "tax & spend" Dems (as opposed to the "borrow & spend" GOP).

Second - believe it or not - applying toll during peak usage actually seems more reasonable to me. The truckers should be able to time their usage (at least most of the time) and so should the skiers, hikers, etc. I'm not sure how to deal with the local residents who might come into Denver for an event, although one would suppose that they normally would be travelling in non-peak times. As far as workers coming from Denver, one would also suppose that they would be travelling before peak traffic time as well. Interesting that the so-call conservative GOP member chose to inflict taxes on everyone all the time - is it possible that he did this knowing it would ultimately be shot down in flames, leaving I70 congestion precisely where it is today?
March 28, 2008

8:11 a.m.

Suggest removal

saveferris writes:

Guess I'll travel on 40 through Winter Park to visit friends in Steamboat rather than through Silverthorne. I wont be shopping at the outlets there anymore if this happens.

I may have to reconsider where I ski too. know a lot of people seem to think that only the rich ski but that's not true. and an extra $40/month, $200/season will have me skiing at Winter Park instead of Keystone or Breck. Because heaven forbid if I only go with one person instead of a truckload of people.

And that's just 2 people. I'm sure there are others that feel the same way. Guess Winter Park should start thinking about expanding parking.
March 28, 2008

8:18 a.m.

Suggest removal

Heidi writes:

Saveferris, I'm sure Winter Park is looking forward to this. Would you rather wait in the long lift lines this may cause? Let's hope this doesn't pass.
March 28, 2008

8:33 a.m.

Suggest removal

saveferris writes:

Well with all of the extra revenue they will be getting they will surely be able to afford to build new lifts! =)

You know, I have to say that I never really heard people complaining about the traffic all that much. We know it's there. We avoid it by going earlier or later if we care that much. Even with all of these articles out there about the propossed tolls, I still don't hear people complaining about traffic. I only hear people complaining about the proposals and gov't wastefullness of funds that are already being collected.
March 28, 2008

8:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

Heidi writes:

I agree. I'm okay with the way it is. I just realize that if I choose to drive I-70 during those "rush hour" times, then I will have to accept any negative consequenses. I definitely don't agree with the mind set that only the skiers cause the problem and they are the only ones that should pay. That would be discrimination. Everyone (with a valid drivers license!) has the right to use the road equally. Everyone contributes to the congestion.
Also, with this new proposal that has passed so far, the tolls collected would go towards highway improvements. Yet there are still people complaining that it is going to cause more taxes for Colorado taxpayers. If anything, it would alleviate some of the responsibility of the taxpayers.
March 28, 2008

9:04 a.m.

Suggest removal

anifak writes:

Some things just don't make sense. I happen to go 50 miles to church in Idaho Springs on Sundays, and now that may cost $10 a trip? I don't make enough money to make that an efficient use of my paycheck (albeit I do travel 50 miles to go there--to those naysayers who may bring that up, I am searching for churches close to home.) If they want a toll, it should be optional and there should be obvious exemptions. How much do you think the mountain economies are going to suffer because people refuse to pay a ridiculous toll? Even E-470 is only $2.00!
March 28, 2008

9:11 a.m.

Suggest removal

Heidi writes:

anifak, obvious exemptions? so if you don't beleive in god you should have to pay a toll? Optional toll? How many people would stop and pay a toll out of the goodness of their hearts? Maybe those going to church.
March 28, 2008

9:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

Raemid writes:

I'm all for fixing problems before they occur. That the traffic is moderately bad now means that we should be fixing it now before it becomes horrible later.

Tolls are an awful "fix" though, as they don't fix anything. They just make a few people rich. If the toll was temporary, and all of the money from the toll went to fixing the traffic problem, then I'd support it.

And fixing the traffic problem doesn't mean taxing people until they're too poor to drive. Roads are public for a reason. They shouldn't be relegated just to the rich people who can afford to pay the tolls. I'm pretty rich, but I'll be taking Loveland pass long before I pay $5 to support some greedy lawmaker (or whatever company builds and maintains the toll booths and takes most of the money).
March 28, 2008

9:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

Heidi writes:

"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."

Hello, McFly...if everyone has to stop to pay the toll, what good would it do to erect the booths off the shoulder???
March 28, 2008

10:08 a.m.

Suggest removal

OpenMinded writes:

I agree. Both of these bills need to go away. If Sen Romer wants a 'pilot program', try something that is related to a mass-transit solution instead of a toll. Before we even consider expanding lanes or even putting in a rail system, lets see what a Denver-Vail bus system may do...stops in Silverthorne, Frisco, Copper, and Vail. The Summit Stage buses will get you to any resort from those stops (except maybe A-Basin). And if the buses are popular enough, then that might suggest that a rail line could be feasible. Honestly, the resorts are so concerned that people are not going to make the trip that they might subsidize part of it themselves...though potentially pass it on through higher ticket prices. What would it take to get you to ride a coach bus instead of drive? $15 round trip? $20? Maybe a flat rate season bus pass? I'd rather sleep for two hours, or read a book, than have to sit behind the wheel and pay attention myself. The opportunity cost alone is worth $20-30.
March 28, 2008

10:15 a.m.

Suggest removal

catlady writes:

So this is how it will work, the State will collect tolls which will be supposedly used for expanding I-70. They will begin collecting tolls on day one of the implementation of this proposed law if it passes. These tolls will amass while all of the EPA/planning/meeting processes proceed. Then after years and years of collecting the tolls, we will be told there isn't enough money to proceed with the I-70 expansion because in the years cost have increased...

Fast Tracks anyone? I've been paying into that crapper for years and have received nothing for it. They haven't even broken ground for a thing.

Call your State Rep and your State Sen and tell them what you think. We're their bosses. If you don't know the name or the phone number of your State elected official, you can find it at: http://www.leg.state.co.us/Clics/Clic...
March 28, 2008

10:52 a.m.

Suggest removal

Acemon writes:

Before we build a train, before we build another tunnel, and before we start charging TOLLS, let's try a low-cost experiment to see if skiers will really ride trains to the mountains. Visit www.FreeSkiBus.org and see for yourself.

If you like my modest plan, send an e-mail to Rocky Mountain News writer Chris Barge and ask him why the Rocky won't cover it.

Better yet, send an e-mail to Senator Chris Romer and ask him what he thinks about test-driving the train concept before we buy it.
March 28, 2008

3:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

LoFat writes:

Som you think the toll road possibility is terrible? I just read in the Pueblo Chieftain that our wonderful Democratic-socialist state legislature is working on a bill mandating individual health insurance. If you fail to comply they will fine you through your income taxes. Welcome to Colorado Comrade.
March 28, 2008

5:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

jjez writes:

Congestion is caused by skiers driving to the ski resorts. Congestion is not a year-round every day thing. Those who cause the congestion should have to pay to alleviate it. Why should those of us who have occassion to drive I-70 but not to the ski areas be forced to pay to potentially eliminate the congestion caused by those who ski? Or, in the summer, those who go to the mountains to bike & hike & camp. If they insist on a toll between Idaho Spgs and the tunnels, it should be an exit toll, charged only to those who get off the highway between those areas. And for the return trip, it would be an entrance toll. Romer is the one complaining about having to sit in traffic because he thinks he should be more priviledged than everyone else. His plan included HOV lanes, which of course he would be using because he skis with his family. Part of the CO lifestyle is spending time in the mountains. If you so choose. But there are those who do not choose, but use the interstate as precisely that, an inter-state. Truckers, for instance, who deliver your goods to you. Tolls for truckers would increase the costs of those goods. Not to mention time spent by them waiting out the toll periods if they choose not to pay. This proposal doesn't just effect those who ski, it will effect every one of us. Higher costs are just the beginning.
March 28, 2008

5:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

jjez writes:

anifak: only $2? How long has it been since you used E470? It's $2 at every toll stop. I avoid E-470 because of the toll, and because you just get going and then you have to stop and pay more money. I don't rightly recall, but I think there are at least 4 toll booths between I-25 and DIA, maybe more. At least $8 bucks. Why pay it if you can get there for free by another route? Sadly, that won't be much of an option with I-70, since there are only two other routes, and one of those adds at least 2 hours to the trip to Grand Junction.
March 28, 2008

7:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

Brain writes:

I will not cast my vote for any rep that votes for this tax/toll!

I am currently e-mailing my reps and will be calling them next to warn them not to vote for this crap!!
March 28, 2008

7:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

Brain writes:

The Democrats have the majority. Go ahead Dems pass this crap!

I hope the people in El Paso county do the right thing and FIRE your rep mcelhany; hopefully I spelt it wrong.
March 28, 2008

7:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

Brain writes:

Heidi: "If anything, it would alleviate some of the responsibility of the taxpayers."??

Kind of like Ref C did? You were just kidding, right?
March 28, 2008

7:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

Brain writes:

Catlady, you make a good point about Fattracks/raketaxdollarsRTD it is subsidized almost 90% by tax payers!
March 28, 2008

8:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

casualobserver writes:

I say tax each skier $5.00 a day to ski, set the toll booths up right at the lifts.
March 28, 2008

9:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

American100 writes:

Saveferris - If you're looking, know of a beautiful duplex on a fishing creek, overlooking the Winter Park resort and a 200 acre meadow.
March 28, 2008

9:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

American100 writes:

Casual observer, great compromise.
March 28, 2008

10:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

happymike44 writes:

First of all you paid for these roads with your tax dollars,why should you have to pay for the use of them.Now the other things why should you have to pay and pay and pay for your family to have a nice time together.I think it is wrong to keep taxing and then tolling people to death.By the way we spend 12 billion a month in Iraq while we pay more for everything,and nothing is getting done for the American people who are paying for this war.Let big oil pay for the war and lets spend the money here for us and our children.I am not anti american,I am exerting my freedom of speech.My ancestors fought the war of independance in 1776,so we all could be free and exert our first amendent right to freedom of speech.
March 29, 2008

8:15 a.m.

Suggest removal

dlwr writes:

I think that it is odd that my comments have been deleted. I question who is doing the deleting, and question if this is censorship in the RMN. My comments did not violate ant policy. Did anybody else have the same problem?
March 30, 2008

2:37 a.m.

Suggest removal

veryconcernedlady writes:

I live in Grand County, near Winter Park. I'm AGAINST any tolls being proposed for I-70 drivers. It would hurt mountain community locals & tourists alike! Here's why I'm opposed to anyone paying $10 round trip, to drive on I-70 between Floyd Hill & the Eisenhower Tunnel (every day, 365 days a year):

1) We all already paid for I-70, and once is enough.

2) I, like others, do jobs/work or have personal needs, that requires driving on I-70, and there are no easy ways around using I-70. (doctor appointments, shopping, airport taxi services, truckers, emergency ambulances--avalanche specialists, recreation)

3) It would hurt our mountain communitites (economically) that rely on tourism, since visitors would refuse to use I-70, in order to avoid paying an extra $10 every time they use I-70 round trip.

4) Safety problems: On days when it's snowy, low visibility, icy roads, there would be vehicle PILEUPS AT OR JUST BEFORE THE TOLL BOOTHS.

5) There are smart ALTERNATIVES to the proposed tolls, already being worked on-trains, buses, etc.- (due to be presented this May of 2008), by groups who were IGNORED, without even State Senator Dan Gibbs (on the Senate Transportation Committee) being told in advance about it!

6) Author of SB 213, State Senator McElhaney, won't say now, what the toll money to be collected now, would be used for in the future.
a) If I-70 were widened, more people from out of state would use it, and the same crowding would happen again, and I predict another toll would be added, later on.
b) Who would actually make lots of money, from the tolls? Anyone know? $10 toll, round trip, EVERY DAY, 365 DAYS A YEAR!

Please contact your State Senators, and tell them to vote NO on SB 213. Call State Senator Dan Gibbs, at 303-866-4873, and ask who to call next, to stop this awful I-70 toll bill!

Call the following State Senators, sponsoring SB 213. Tell them to say NO to this tolling bill: (D)=Democrat, and (R)=Republican:

Senate Transporation Committee:
--Chair: Stephanie Takis (D) 303-866-4855 (Adams County)
--Vice Chair: Suzanne Williams (D) 303-866-3432 (Arapaho & Denver Counties)
--Bob Hagedorn (D) 303-866-4879 (Arapaho County)
--Scott Renfroe (R) 303-866-4451 (Weld County)
--Nancy Spence (R) 303-866-4883 (Arapaho County)

THANK the following 2 state senators, who are against tolls for I-70, NOT sponsoring SB 213:

Dan Gibbs (D) 303-866-4873 (Boulder, Clear Creek, Gilpin, Grand, Jefferson, Summit Counties). See Rocky Mtn. News' article on this webpage about this!

Shawn Mitchell (R) 303-866-4876 (Adams, Broomfield, Weld Counties)

Thank you, Rocky Mtn. News, for listening and keeping us informed! Thanks to all the others, who voiced their opinions, too.

Sincerely,
Carol (veryconcernedlady)
fsds@rkymtnhi.com
March 30, 2008

12:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

Brain writes:

This whole idea started because of congested traffic. How is adding toll booths going to solve this? This is just another way to collect tax money it has nothing to do with solving a traffic problem.
April 8, 2008

5:42 a.m.

Suggest removal

roger44 writes:

Looks like several villages has lost their idiots and they are in politics in Colorado. If they charge truckers everyone down the line pays higher freight costs. As the readers said, stopping at a toll booth only makes the problems worse. Tax those rich ski resorts that use cheap foreign labor, not the poor guy just driving down the road to visit Grandma.

Home › News › Local News

Legislators kill one of two toll bills; Take our poll

Possibility of fees for tunnels on I-70 still moving ahead

By Chris Barge, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published March 28, 2008 at 1:14 a.m.

Poll

Share

Comments

Featured

Columns & Blogs