DENVER | Transportation Thread

[youngregina]

Originally Posted by seventwenty

Such a part of the problem come June!


Source

And how do you plan on enforcing this law?

Actually there are cities up here in Canada that have mandatory winter tires in effect during the winter season. Insurance rates are a great incentive to get everyone on board. And if you are caught in an accident, police will check your tires to make sure the are properly outfitted. If they aren't, insurance won't pay for damages and you will incur a city or provincial fine depending on where you are.. It is enforceable but more so because people don't want to take the risk of hefty fines if they are caught blocking traffic, in an accident, or injuring someone because they couldn't stop in time.

I reckon most of that traffic come June is tourist traffic. So that's a problem most picturesque cities have.. and not necessarily a bad one.

[Scottk]

Originally Posted by seventwenty

Such a part of the problem come June!


Source

And how do you plan on enforcing this law?

Yes, I understand that this wouldn't help much in the summer but it would make a HUGE difference in the winter. Especially on days like yesterday and today. I don't understand how this doesn't make sense to you. Any measures that will improve I-70 traffic, even if it is only during half of the year, should be taken.


As to enforcement; numerous states in America have laws requiring snow tires on certain roads. I-80, which connects the San Francisco bay area to the Lake Tahoe ski resorts requires snowtires, and sometimes even chains during bad weather. Police have a checkpoint on the highway before entering the mountains. Anyone who doesn't meet the requirements is turned back. As stated above, Canada also has similar programs in place in numerous locations.

Colorado could also go about it a more simple way - Big signs on I-70 near golden stating that winter tires are required.... no checkpoint, but if someone gets stuck or into an accident because of bald tires the police could write tickets with expensive fines. Maybe not quite as effective as a checkpoint, but word would get out over time.

[TakeFive]

youngregina... Very Interesting


With respect to I-70 West,
The only viable solution I've seen so far is to toll the Eisenhower Tunnel in order to create funds to start on/do a better fix.

This may be the best example of why I keep hoping and hammering for cooperation from Congress on a Transportation Bill. Nothing like a few billion $'s from your Uncle Sam. A toll might still be needed to come up with the matching dollars but that would be a lot more appealing than no Federal help.

I did note from Cathy Proctor's update on I-70 thru Denver that the project has been downsized from $1.8 billion to only $1.17 billion.
I would guess that I-70 into the mountains and I-25 up to Ft. Collins are probably equal in priority for CDOT.

[seventwenty]

Originally Posted by Scottk

Yes, I understand that this wouldn't help much in the summer but it would make a HUGE difference in the winter. Especially on days like yesterday and today. I don't understand how this doesn't make sense to you. Any measures that will improve I-70 traffic, even if it is only during half of the year, should be taken.


As to enforcement; numerous states in America have laws requiring snow tires on certain roads. I-80, which connects the San Francisco bay area to the Lake Tahoe ski resorts requires snowtires, and sometimes even chains during bad weather. Police have a checkpoint on the highway before entering the mountains. Anyone who doesn't meet the requirements is turned back. As stated above, Canada also has similar programs in place in numerous locations.

Colorado could also go about it a more simple way - Big signs on I-70 near golden stating that winter tires are required.... no checkpoint, but if someone gets stuck or into an accident because of bald tires the police could write tickets with expensive fines. Maybe not quite as effective as a checkpoint, but word would get out over time.

I just don't think it'll help as much as you (and CDOT) are hoping it will. The main issue is capacity. I'm not in favor of a tire checkpoint; I'd expect it'd make a bottleneck that affects people on 470. And tire tickets after an accident are assuming there will be accidents, which means traffic jams. That being said, I support the law on safety grounds even if I don't think it's going to reduce congestion as much as people hope.

[Sam Hill]

Originally Posted by Brainpathology

That would cost millions of dollars. We need to freeze spending on highways and put it toward more transit.. not spend more money on highways to make them less convenient.

Although you're completely spot on that the vast majority of people are foolishly using cars thinking that they are more economical and faster in the long run. Spend half the amount we do on roads every year on transit and there would be no contest between the two. None.. at all.

IMO intentionally degrading one transportation system to make another more appealing is asinine. If you want to make public transportation more appealing by improving public transportation, fine. I love mass transit so I’m all for it. But intentionally making it more difficult and/or expensive to get around by car, in the hopes of forcing more people into using mass transit, in a metropolis with the population density of Denver’s, is going to accomplish nothing more than making it more difficult, in general, for everyone to get around, which to at least some extent will hurt the economy.

I’ve seen a lot of ridiculous comments around here and at Denver Infill lately along the lines of, “hopefully this makes the traffic worse so people have to use public transportation.” I’ve just been biting my tongue until now.

[Stonemans_rowJ]

Originally Posted by Sam Hill

IMO intentionally degrading one transportation system to make another more appealing is asinine. If you want to make public transportation more appealing by improving public transportation, fine. I love mass transit so I’m all for it. But intentionally making it more difficult and/or expensive to get around by car, in the hopes of forcing more people into using mass transit, in a metropolis with the population density of Denver’s, is going to accomplish nothing more than making it more difficult, in general, for everyone to get around, which to at least some extent will hurt the economy.

I’ve seen a lot of ridiculous comments around here and at Denver Infill lately along the lines of, “hopefully this makes the traffic worse so people have to use public transportation.” I’ve just been biting my tongue until now.

I don't think anyone is suggesting to "degrade" our infrastructure like highways, but we need to think way more pragmatically about future investments and expenditures. Cars are but one element of our transportation system. They absolutely dominate though.

We need to give greater weight to other modes. It should be more of a level playing field.

Cars, and automobile infrastructure, are so heavily subsidized and it is not sustainable by a long shot. At the same time, new technologies and trends are emerging and they are not receiving the same subsidies because highway infrastructure eats it all up. For instance if mass transit was subsidized more with reduced fares and more lines, etc. streetcar, more people would use it. Paradigms, the ways people move, are changing. Boomers, the burbs, and their cars are not what we should be doubling down on.

Fortunately it seems many decision-makers in people in Denver get this.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Stonemans_rowJ

I don't think anyone is suggesting to "degrade" our infrastructure like highways, but we need to think way more pragmatically about future investments and expenditures. Cars are but one element of our transportation system. They absolutely dominate though.

We need to give greater weight to other modes. It should be more of a level playing field.

Cars, and automobile infrastructure, are so heavily subsidized and it is not sustainable by a long shot. At the same time, new technologies and trends are emerging and they are not receiving the same subsidies because highway infrastructure eats it all up. For instance if mass transit was subsidized more with reduced fares and more lines, etc. streetcar, more people would use it. Paradigms, the ways people move, are changing. Boomers, the burbs, and their cars are not what we should be doubling down on.

Fortunately it seems many decision-makers in people in Denver get this.

Eww Boy. I'll start with this reference:

Cars, and automobile infrastructure, are so heavily subsidized and it is not sustainable by a long shot.

I guess technically if we "collectively" pay for what we want - ie. taxation - you could call that a subsidy. Normally though that's not what people think of as a subsidy.

Actually your assertion seems more ideological, political than sound; It would seem a bit ridiculous. I recently noted the following:

The transit subsidy was established during the Reagan administration in 1983. The rule requires that 20 percent of all revenue that is collected from the 18.4-cents-per-gallon federal gas tax be diverted to a mass transit account within the Department of Transportation's Highway Trust Fund.

Essentially for over 25 years not only has the highway trust fund been self-supporting but users of road and bridges have paid for a lot of transit. Now that's a subsidy.

Regarding RTD's transit operations and ongoing rail investment what percentage would you say is being paid for by road and bridge users as compared to transit rider/users?

...but we need to think way more pragmatically about future investments and expenditures.

It should be more of a level playing field.

How about or what if road and bridge users decided they didn't want to subsidize transit any more but were still willing to pay for road and bridge improvements. Let transit riders pay their own freight weight. Is that what you mean by a level playing field?

Haha, I can play a pretty good conservative when I want to. Or, perhaps be careful what you wish for.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Even Cirrus would acknowledge that the DC Metro is having their own budget issues.

WMATA is a basket case in lots of ways, absolutely.

[Stonemans_rowJ]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Eww Boy. I'll start with this reference:

I guess technically if we "collectively" pay for what we want - ie. taxation - you could call that a subsidy. Normally though that's not what people think of as a subsidy.

Actually your assertion seems more ideological, political than sound; It would seem a bit ridiculous. I recently noted the following:

Essentially for over 25 years not only has the highway trust fund been self-supporting but users of road and bridges have paid for a lot of transit. Now that's a subsidy.

Regarding RTD's transit operations and ongoing rail investment what percentage would you say is being paid for by road and bridge users as compared to transit rider/users?


How about or what if road and bridge users decided they didn't want to subsidize transit any more but were still willing to pay for road and bridge improvements. Let transit riders pay their own freight weight. Is that what you mean by a level playing field?

Haha, I can play a pretty good conservative when I want to. Or, perhaps be careful what you wish for.

Is the highway trust fund still self-supporting? I thought it was facing large shortfalls and being "subsidized" from general funds?

[TakeFive]

^^ The trust fund is no longer self-supporting. My previous quote:

The federal government normally spends about $50 billion per year on infrastructure projects, but the gas tax only brings in about $34 billion annually typically. Lawmakers have turned to other areas of the federal budget in recent years to close the gap.

Why I used a 25 year guess which would be 2008 from 1983. I've heard that there was a surplus pot that they have now depleted. Additionally, in the last decade there were many "earmarked" projects. Then in 2009 we had the ARRA which was effectively a multi-year omnibus bill that had extra money for road and bridges and was especially transit friendly. Fastracks would know.

If we continue to experience re-shoring whether a Japanese manufacturing facility in Phoenix or a very large Proctor and Gamble facility in West Virginia etc. - the country's surface infrastructure system will remain critical for efficient commerce. Railroads carry a lot of the bulk goods from ports initially as well as autos, agricultural products, coal, now oil etc. etc.

[bobg]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Essentially for over 25 years not only has the highway trust fund been self-supporting but users of road and bridges have paid for a lot of transit. Now that's a subsidy.

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Why I used a 25 year guess which would be 2008 from 1983. I've heard that there was a surplus pot that they have now depleted.

The problem with framing it that way is those users of roads and bridges were not always driving on federal highways but the tax was being collected regardless. A lot of those roads/bridges people drove on during that time frame were local roads and the more local you get the more the roads were financed through things like property tax, sales tax, state income tax, etc. So I am not sure self-supporting is the best way to word that. Certainly historically it was solvent, and certainly the trust fund helped pay for transit, but to call it self-supporting based solely on the federal data is a little off the mark IMO.

[TakeFive]

^^ Dang, that's opening way too many cans of worms. Wish I knew better all the specifics but I can assure you it's way over may head.

I know they use all kind of formulas for dividing up lots of different pots. I believe states get an undefined amount while having to qualify for matching funds in other cases. I think cities may get some as well. Certainly they get grants. I recall that So. Broadway was (I think) over 50% Federal dollars for example.

But there's no question that the 18.4 cents per gallon only covers a small percentage of all road, bridge and transit needs. More importantly since it hasn't been raised since 1993 it probably pays for about half as much as then between construction cost inflation and more fuel efficient cars.

It's a huge challenge but there is nothing more critical than infrastructure and we spend much less as a percentage of GDP than Europe and an even smaller fraction of what China is spending. We love to spend for bombs and bullets though.

[Wizened Variations]

I had made a serious attempt to comment less in this blog, due to how properties owners, politicians, and, RTD, ruined any chance of a good through downtown public transportation system. However, after reading this week end's editorial in the Denver Post- 02/21/15 titled "Funding plan for I-70 fix risk-free" and the follow up articles in the Sunday 02/22/15 Denver Post concerning the need for alternative financing for highway projects due to dropping (in real dollars) revenue from the Federal gasoline tax, I had to comment.

A) Read the Environmental Impact statements, part one via http://www.i-70east.com/SDEIS/I-70EastEIS_SDEIS-Vol1.pdf. The cute little cover to the cut between Clayton and Columbine Street for an extra $125 million or so, to give those cute kids safe passage over a 12 LANE HIGHWAY to their school. Read about the demographics with the Latinos and poor Blacks in areas labeled "Globeville" and "Elyria and Swansea" (talk about two places that over the total distance between I-25 and Colorado Blvd that will get ANY benefits. (I suppose the Mlllenials might walk their poodles in the 'park'- and that's a good thing...) Come on people!

B) With the RTD transportation hub as a THROUGH connector dead (give me a break! 40 minutes to go from the Federal Station to the 40th and Colorado Station including walk and transfer?) Transportation through Downtown is about dead anyway, so this "Improvement" killing the East line, and crippling the Gold Line for anything besides commuting to Lodo from those in new stick wall settlements is just another nail in the coffin.

Just rip up the DIA line tracks and be done with it!

We'll get something like Toronto's titanic 401, or Houston's I-10, instead. Hell, make I-70 20 lanes wide. Stay in the 5th lane going east I-25 and play mp3 files!

C) Nothing in life is risk free! Nothing. No one with one milligram of business savvy is going to sign any contract with a state or a federal agency that does not GUARANTEE a return on their investment, regardless of whatever the future economy brings. When dealing with government agencies as a business person, any one worth their 'salt' will always get taxpayer money guarantees either as a backstop, or through some other 'discrete' tax or tax guaranteed bond vehicle.

So again, going back to that horrid Goldman Sachs fiasco on US 36 (you know, the Company that cooked Greece's books- wink, wink, to get Greece's financial's accepted so that Nation could get into the EU and made a billion or two doing it), there is no such thing as a free lunch. Regardless of the rhetoric, if the costs exceed initial estimates the private entities involved will do the "DIA Airport gambit", finish half the project and demand more money. That's how companies that build government projects make their best profits (the new Veteran's Hospital sure is something else, eh?)

D) I have said in the blog locked on June 6th by Cirrus, that there are few incompetent politicians. Instead, politicians can appear incompetent despite making very rational decisions that aid those who provide money for elections, for their political party, and, for various pet causes that politicians might favor. The price politicians pay for 'not delivering' favors to those who paid to have those favors delivered, is to beconsidered 'incompetent" in the press, in political adds, and, in talk radio.

So, all has been done with careful, studied, deliberate calculation.

[Stonemans_rowJ]

Originally Posted by Wizened Variations

A) Read the Environmental Impact statements, part one via http://www.i-70east.com/SDEIS/I-70EastEIS_SDEIS-Vol1.pdf. The cute little cover to the cut between Clayton and Columbine Street for an extra $125 million or so, to give those cute kids safe passage over a 12 LANE HIGHWAY to their school. Read about the demographics with the Latinos and poor Blacks in areas labeled "Globeville" and "Elyria and Swansea" (talk about two places that over the total distance between I-25 and Colorado Blvd that will get ANY benefits. (I suppose the Mlllenials might walk their poodles in the 'park'- and that's a good thing...) Come on people!

B) With the RTD transportation hub as a THROUGH connector dead (give me a break! 40 minutes to go from the Federal Station to the 40th and Colorado Station including walk and transfer?) Transportation through Downtown is about dead anyway, so this "Improvement" killing the East line, and crippling the Gold Line for anything besides commuting to Lodo from those in new stick wall settlements is just another nail in the coffin.

Just rip up the DIA line tracks and be done with it!

We'll get something like Toronto's titanic 401, or Houston's I-10, instead. Hell, make I-70 20 lanes wide. Stay in the 5th lane going east I-25 and play mp3 files!

Good post.

It's a joke to pretend the new cut and cover will magically reinvent those neighborhoods. They'll still be equally as cut off, maybe more so. And then there's the environmental impact, the cost, etc. etc.

I've been saying this all along. A new, improved, huge behemoth of I-70 will cannibalize the train. Between that concrete collosus and the ample, cheap parking at DIA, I just don't see the train being effective.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by Stonemans_rowJ

Good post.

It's a joke to pretend the new cut and cover will magically reinvent those neighborhoods. They'll still be equally as cut off, maybe more so. And then there's the environmental impact, the cost, etc. etc.

It's won't, it merely a government subsidy to a poor neighborhood. Nothing will reinvent those neighborhoods unless you burn them down. The pathetic "Grand Boulevard" option that opponents have proposed wouldn't do anything either. Unless you tear out all of the industry, tear down all of the houses, and start anew, you're not going to see any kind of improvement.

I've been saying this all along. A new, improved, huge behemoth of I-70 will cannibalize the train. Between that concrete collosus and the ample, cheap parking at DIA, I just don't see the train being effective.

No it won't. The EIS for the East Line did factor in an expanded I-70 for the ridership numbers. It's not going to cannibalize ridership, anymore than projected, because the majority of I-70 traffic isn't heading downtown (it's either through traffic or metro traffic) and, as Wizened mentioned in his diatribe, our rail system isn't configured to be a through system, it's a hub-spoke system with downtown as the destination. We'll get the projected ridership on the line, but we certainly aren't going to have a line that carries 100K-plus people per day minus significant changes to the rail system, e.g. greater frequencies and higher speeds.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Stonemans_rowJ

Good post.

It's a joke to pretend the new cut and cover will magically reinvent those neighborhoods. They'll still be equally as cut off, maybe more so. And then there's the environmental impact, the cost, etc. etc.

I've been saying this all along. A new, improved, huge behemoth of I-70 will cannibalize the train. Between that concrete collosus and the ample, cheap parking at DIA, I just don't see the train being effective.

I'm always happy to take the other side - haha.

The Interstate system was built as much, if not more so to benefit commerce. I-70 remains a critical piece to the interstate movement of goods and services. If it was just for commuters we could have a different conversation. The alternative of moving I-70 to the north could have been a nice solution however the additional cost could not be justified. Just like wanting rapid rail from Denver through the mountains is a wonderful idea nobody has figured out how to come up with the $20 billion needed.

This project, not due to be completed until 2022 will likely be congested soon after opening, at least for the toll-free parts. It didn't take the TREX improvements many years before it became once again a rush hour mess. I grant that it may be a less-than-ideal solution but it is absolutely necessary.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

It's won't, it merely a government subsidy to a poor neighborhood. Nothing will reinvent those neighborhoods unless you burn them down. The pathetic "Grand Boulevard" option that opponents have proposed wouldn't do anything either. Unless you tear out all of the industry, tear down all of the houses, and start anew, you're not going to see any kind of improvement.



No it won't. The EIS for the East Line did factor in an expanded I-70 for the ridership numbers. It's not going to cannibalize ridership, anymore than projected, because the majority of I-70 traffic isn't heading downtown (it's either through traffic or metro traffic) and, as Wizened mentioned in his diatribe, our rail system isn't configured to be a through system, it's a hub-spoke system with downtown as the destination. We'll get the projected ridership on the line, but we certainly aren't going to have a line that carries 100K-plus people per day minus significant changes to the rail system, e.g. greater frequencies and higher speeds.

Good points; I agree.... mostly.

With respect to the "lid," Phoenix did something equivalent. They didn't complete I-10 through Phoenix until 1990 and there is a half-mile stretch with a lid on it. The 10 lanes were nice in 1990's; now it's very congested.

Generally, the distance is too far to serve as a great connection between neighborhoods. The park has been more successful in being an area for the homeless to hang. There are changes in the works so time will tell. Phoenix, though, is such a different kind of place from Denver that I wouldn't necessarily suggest the same result.

When you look at the new master plans for Globeville, River North Greenway, Western Stock Show Center and the Elyria and Swansea neighborhoods there could indeed be lots of change in the future. I don't think gentrification is needed so much as the things that are already envisioned.

[Stonemans_rowJ]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

I'm always happy to take the other side - haha.

The Interstate system was built as much, if not more so to benefit commerce. I-70 remains a critical piece to the interstate movement of goods and services. If it was just for commuters we could have a different conversation. The alternative of moving I-70 to the north could have been a nice solution however the additional cost could not be justified. Just like wanting rapid rail from Denver through the mountains is a wonderful idea nobody has figured out how to come up with the $20 billion needed.

This project, not due to be completed until 2022 will likely be congested soon after opening, at least for the toll-free parts. It didn't take the TREX improvements many years before it became once again a rush hour mess. I grant that it may be a less-than-ideal solution but it is absolutely necessary.

Seems like it would be more cost effective to move it to the north, using 270 and 76, which are existing roads with room on the sides to potentially expand, going mostly through industrial area. I know that plan was proposed. This argument is even stronger if we assume that the main purpose of the road is for interstate commerce and not local commuters. If you're moving goods across many states, what's a few extra miles?

[Scottk]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

This project, not due to be completed until 2022 will likely be congested soon after opening, at least for the toll-free parts. It didn't take the TREX improvements many years before it became once again a rush hour mess. I grant that it may be a less-than-ideal solution but it is absolutely necessary.

This reminded me of something I was thinking about the other day.

What is CDOT going to do once I25 needs to be expanded? It seems like expansion through the tech center would be impossible, given the light rail on one side and numerous office buildings directly fronting the highway on the other side. That section that cuts through the highlands will also be extremely difficult to expand

[BG918]

With respect to I-70 West,
The only viable solution I've seen so far is to toll the Eisenhower Tunnel in order to create funds to start on/do a better fix

A toll like what they have on NW Parkway could lower congestion and help pay for an expansion of the tunnel. Cheapskates could take Loveland Pass.