Denver Debates Completing Its Highway Beltway

[SnyderBock]

How about the private toll company, which will be making profit off this toll road (a toll road which won't be built without them and their profit making agenda); simply require them to pay for all the grade crossings and street infrastructure upgrades throughout Golden? Other options would be to tunnel under Golden or build a suspension bridge over it.

So which is more expsensive, upgrading every main street, intersection and construct grade seperate crossing through all of Golden; Tunnel under Golden, or build a bridge over the Table Top Mesa suspending over the Coors Brewery and cominng down alongside the National Renuable Energy Labratory, where it could easily tie right into the I-70/C-470 interchange area. If they can't make profit with either of those options, they shouldn't build it.

[min-chi-cbus]

Originally Posted by texcolo

I know that I-225 is blocked by the Arsenal, but I just don't understand why you would have a loop that only went 1/4 of the way around town. I also don't understand why you wouldn't make it 4 lanes in each direction. There's at least 100,000 people on both sides of that highway and it's still 2 lanes in each direction.

This has been the problem in the Twin Cities for decades now.....2-lane outer belt interstates that are usually jammed (sometimes for most working hours of the day) and incredibly expensive to widen (especially since much of the area's development sits right up against the freeway, and there wasn't a plan to widen the freeway when it was built in the 60's and 70's).

I almost ENVY the way freeways are built out West.....with room to grow (even though I prefer mass transit myself)!

[mhays]

You mean the non-coastal West presumably. Coastal cities generally don't have margins around freeways. This makes adding lanes, or building rail on the side, or building a bike path on the side, extremely expensive.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

How about the private toll company, which will be making profit off this toll road (a toll road which won't be built without them and their profit making agenda); simply require them to pay for all the grade crossings and street infrastructure upgrades throughout Golden?

That's certainly been discussed. But no, I don't think this is a profit-generating enterprise if you force them to pay for those bridges through Golden. Unless they could toll that section too. But there isn't ROW to add new toll facilities, and we're not allowed to convert the existing (free) facilities to toll (nor would that ever be possible politically). The Northwest Parkway has had enough trouble making ends meet. Nobody is under any delusions that this road will make a boatload of money, I don't think.

[SnyderBock]

I agree. So maybe it shouldn't be built, or perhaps it should be a PPP joint venture with the CDOT, to provide all neccessary enhancements, beyond the actual toll road. I really don't care eitherway. I think the CDOT will eventually upgrade 93 from Boulder to Golden. Perhaps this Toll should only go straight to 93, where it would connect up, about halfway between Boulder and Golden, and just dump traaffic off onto the upgraded 93. It really doesn't seem like a needed highway, or even a top priority. There are so many other projects, which would have far more positive impact of traffic, than this project.

[min-chi-cbus]

Originally Posted by mhays

You mean the non-coastal West presumably. Coastal cities generally don't have margins around freeways. This makes adding lanes, or building rail on the side, or building a bike path on the side, extremely expensive.

I'm sorry, but which coastal Western metropolis is lagging in freeway infrastructure again? Before Atlanta and Houston, cities like LA and SF lead the nation in terms of super wide freeways. They were built to be huge out West. In the Twin Cities, for instance, not only are there 2 lanes in each direction, but the median between the lanes is only wide enough for the addition of 1-2 more lanes in each direction. On the southern part of the I-494 belt, there is a capacity demand for 4-5 lanes (or more) in each direction and I have no idea how they propose to do it with the "tiny" amount of space available to work with.

[mhays]

Seattle, San Francisco, and Portland would be examples were we have a lot less freeway mileage than the norm. Take a cross section of each and you find fewer freeways than Minneapolis or most others, along with fewer major arterials. The freeways that do exist generally have a lot of bridge, viaduct, ditch, tunnel, or otherwise constricted potential capacities.

[SnyderBock]

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K

[SIZE="5"]
...Residents of Golden, a small town just west of Denver, have said that allowing a highway through their valley would rupture their community.

Is there seriously many that don't know Golden is a small town just west of Denver? I mean, it is mentioned daily, nationally, on pretty much every Coors Beer comercial ever made (for decades know). Anyway, just thought that was funny.

[glowrock]

And since when is Golden just a "small town"?

Aaron (Glowrock)

[SnyderBock]

Right, home to the world's largest single point brewery, the Colorado School of Mines, the National Renewable Energy Labratory (NREL) and a fairly substantial population.

I think, "...Residents of Golden, a western suburb of Denver, have said that allowing a highway through their valley..." would have been more accurate. But even then, it's not a new highway through their valley, just a new highway tieing into the one that already goes through their valley. There would likely be little through traffic, as most who use this new toll road, would have Golden as their likely destination or origination point.

However, I do feel that increased air pollution, would be worth a study, if the valley they live in, traps it in. In that case, perhaps Golden can find a bypass route for all the highways (current and proposaed), which go/would go through their valley. This would be a project for Golden to spearhead along with the CDOT.

I stil don't think the toll road is needed. CDOT should upgrade hwy 93 and then 120thish (is it?) between 93 and US36. That should be sufficient.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by mhays

Seattle, San Francisco, and Portland would be examples were we have a lot less freeway mileage than the norm. Take a cross section of each and you find fewer freeways than Minneapolis or most others, along with fewer major arterials. The freeways that do exist generally have a lot of bridge, viaduct, ditch, tunnel, or otherwise constricted potential capacities.

Yeah, I was just looking at a map of Seattle yesterday thinking about how underserved the core is (which is good in my opinion) by expressways.

Cities like Kansas City and St. Louis have the most expressway milage per capita (as a result of concerted efforts at urban "renewal" during a time in which missouri had much more influence in DC) and as a result they have built themselves (ourselves) out of congestion, and devastated massive quarters of the city as a result in both cases.

[min-chi-cbus]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

Yeah, I was just looking at a map of Seattle yesterday thinking about how underserved the core is (which is good in my opinion) by expressways.

Cities like Kansas City and St. Louis have the most expressway milage per capita (as a result of concerted efforts at urban "renewal" during a time in which missouri had much more influence in DC) and as a result they have built themselves (ourselves) out of congestion, and devastated massive quarters of the city as a result in both cases.

That's true: you can't build more freeways and expect sprawl not to happen and urbanization TO happen. At the same time, you want an efficient EXISTING system that isn't underbuilt or underutilized.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

Is there seriously many that don't know Golden is a small town just west of Denver? I mean, it is mentioned daily, nationally, on pretty much every Coors Beer comercial ever made (for decades know). Anyway, just thought that was funny.

Yes, for people in the US, who watch football games.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

Yeah, I was just looking at a map of Seattle yesterday thinking about how underserved the core is (which is good in my opinion) by expressways.

Yes, and we almost got rid of one of them, highway 99, much of which is a viaduct that could fall down. About 1/4 of the electorate wanted to replace it with surface street changes and more transit...I'll call them the non-pragmatic greens. They teamed with people who wanted a new viaduct or repair the current viaduct to try to stop it. In the end, we're building a new freeway tunnel deep underground for 9,000 feet, as a bypass only. Traffic heading to or from Downtown (rather than through it) will have a reconfigured surface street and some other connections. Of course transit is always a priority. Early phases are under construction onsite, and a TBM 58' wide and hundreds of feet long is under construction in Japan I think.

[i-215]

Rather than build a tollway, why not gradually upgrade sections of SR-93 through Golden? Add a grade separated interchange here and there until it slowly turns into a freeway?

They can even program it into existing fuel tax revenues over 20 years, which will eliminate the need to toll. The only toll road they'll need to build is the extension of the Northwest Parkway to SR-93.

Sounds like a win-win to me.

[bunt_q]

That is all they're doing, the toll road proposal is pretty much only from the Northwest Pkwy to 93.

Golden doesn't want the rest grade separated (and without the toll road, grade separation wouldn't be necessary). And I don't want to pay for grade separation, even incremental, that is only necessary because a toll enterprise wants to build their road and generate new traffic. Not that traffic's all bad - its a sign of mobility and economic activity - we just have more pressing needs right now.

Are you talking about some sort of TIF using gas taxes? That would never generate enough to pay for the road (not to mention, we don't exactly have a lot of extra highway money rolling around). This road definitely needs the toll. That's its only purpose, really. There isn't the traffic to need it. The road (combined with development it will stimulate) is a money making enterprise. But one that isn't being asked to pay for its full costs. I would view state-funded grade separations in Golden as a direct subsidy to the toll enterprise, basically.

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

That is all they're doing, the toll road proposal is pretty much only from the Northwest Pkwy to 93.

Golden doesn't want the rest grade separated (and without the toll road, grade separation wouldn't be necessary). And I don't want to pay for grade separation, even incremental, that is only necessary because a toll enterprise wants to build their road and generate new traffic. Not that traffic's all bad - its a sign of mobility and economic activity - we just have more pressing needs right now. .

This is where I disagree... I'm of the opinion that Highway 6/93 should be grade separated RIGHT NOW through Golden, because that is where the worst of the gridlock occurs. I could actually care less about the toll road, I just think that it may be the element that finally "breaks Golden's back" and forces them to grade separate the rest.

I will again admit however that I know I am in the minority on this opinion... I happen to also think that Foothills Parkway in Boulder should be completely grade separated, which is something the citizens of the people's republic would never allow in a million years. I just don't understand how all that gridlock and idle exhaust is seen as preferable to cars moving smoothly, and cross streets passing safely over or under the high traffic thoroughfare. I guess the mental block of a "highway" vs. something that can be mentally imagined as a "city street" is just too great for most people to overcome.

And I understand the "build it and they will come" philosophy about building more highways too... but grade separation in Golden would only serve to clear up an already congested road. And I'm all for alternate transportation, but until somebody proposes rail connecting Golden and Boulder directly, the private automobile is still BY FAR the best way to get between the two cities; or from Boulder up to the ski resorts for that matter. And yes, the link DOES need to be improved.

[bunt_q]

You're actually not alone. I would have no problem grade separating the 93/58/6 intersection. A bit of a challenge with the creek there and the canyon, but eventually would make sense.

19th St may not be as necessary yet... North Golden would be problematic because they've built right up to the highway, and you'd need some sort of local access.

But here's the thing, I'm not interested in breaking the camel's back today, because even if I am not opposed to grade separating through Golden, I think that is priority #753 in the metro area. We are decades, maybe more, from having money available to do those projects. So why would we want to force it today? Golden's right about one thing - this road will dump tons of traffic onto those roads. If we can't fix that until 2050, maybe the discussion should shift to whether the toll road is necessary today.

As for Foothills, I wouldn't grade separate that solely as a cost benefit measure. There is essentially zero growth up there. And traffic frankly isn't that bad. With an unlimited budget, yeah, I'd grade separate Foothills too (especially because Boulder County's comp plan would prevent that transportation improvement from becoming a sprawl engine). But governing is about prioritizing, and that one is metro area road priority #1,037 on my list.

[mr1138]

I suppose you make a good point about it not being enough of a priority to push very hard right now. Though as a daily Longmont-Boulder commuter, I beg to differ that traffic on Foothills "isn't that bad." Foothills (and the rest of the Diagonal Highway for that matter) turns into a virtual parking lot every morning and evening. It's not uncommon to see Valmont and/or Highway 52 back traffic all the way up to the next stoplight. I think its funny when news reports talk about US 36 being "gridlocked" by a traffic accident, when the same speeds are considered par for the course on the Diagonal.

Of course you're probably right that it isn't a priority, but I think part of the reason for that is because it's a political non-starter and not necessarily because it wouldn't have a benefit. In a way, the fact that Boulder will see little growth in the future could actually be a good reason to justify the project, because it can't be argued that it will just "bring more traffic." It can be justified truely on the grounds that it will ease gridlock and needless idling (which studies show has an ENORMOUS carbon footprint).

[bunt_q]

We don't have enough money to worry about things like carbon footprint in our highway investments, unfortunately. We have to keep up with growth and maintenance of decaying infrastructure first. The failing bridge comes before the rising oceans.

I've driven that road enough. Does it suck? Sure. But compared to other parts of the metro, present and future, I'm pretty sure it's nothing (delay-hours are measurable). Same for Golden, not enough traffic and not enough delay to compete with, just one example, the billion dollar I-70 viaduct. But most importantly, Foothills and 93 (unless we add a tollway) are not likely to get much worse in the immediate future. If we have to choose between two projects (which of course we do), the one that's going to continue to get worse has to take priority over the relatively stable one.

Something else to consider about grade separations. We shouldn't do them unless they are absolutely necessary because it's not just a one time cost. It's an ongoing cost in bridge maintenance and eventually replacement. A traffic signal is much more affordable. Adding long term costs to an area that isn't growing much might not make long term fiscal sense. At least, the life cycle costs and revenues need to be considered and weighed against the problem we're trying to solve.