Few fans of state’s fixes for I-70 | SummitDaily.com

Few fans of state’s fixes for I-70

Summit Daily/Brad Odekirk Traffic along I-70 is busier in the westbound lanes Sunday morning as skier traffic increases flow, but afternoon traffic often comes to a standstill along I-70 under the Bakersville overpass going eastbound on weekends due to skier traffic and Front Rangers returning home after weekend getaways.

AVON – State officials have plenty of ideas for fixing traffic congestion on I-70 through the mountains, but if you ask Nick Fickling, they all lack one fundamental thing: vision.”How do you want the Colorado mountains to be when this is over?” Fickling, an Avon resident, asked at a meeting Wednesday in Eagle County, where state transportation officials discussed their ideas to reduce congestion on the freeway between Denver and Glenwood Springs. Most who spoke out agreed with Fickling. While the state agency clearly prefers widening I-70 to more high-tech and expensive options, plenty of High Country residents don’t. Their disagreement centers on priorities. The state agency is focused on affordable options – those that cost less than $4 billion, the spending limit set by state transportation director Tom Norton. But many residents believe the focus should be on fixing the problem for several years to come, regardless of cost. “Where did the $4 billion number come from?” asked Stan Zemler, Vail’s town manager. “Clearly the correct solution will cost more than $4 billion.”In need of improvement

Transportation officials predict that by 2025, if nothing along I-70 changes, it will take more than four hours in the winter to go from Vail to the C-470 interchange just outside of Denver. During the summer, it will take even longer.The state agency could simply expand I-70 to six lanes, three in each direction. That would require new bores at the Eisenhower Tunnel and the Twin Tunnels east of Idaho Springs. Another solution is adding two high-occupancy vehicle lanes – typically for vehicles containing two or more passengers. Those lanes could reverse directions during the busiest hours. Laying down more pavement isn’t the only way to go. Transportation officials also have considered building a light rail system or a so-called “advanced guideway system,” which essentially is a rail elevated above the road, such as a monorail. They’ve also considered adding buses that would run on a rail.State officials also considered using combinations of highway expansion, buses and a railway. Doing nothing is not an option, transportation officials say, because it wouldn’t accommodate the demand for travel in 2025, which is expected to be about 17.5 million trips in a year through the Eisenhower Tunnel.People vs. the StateJust expanding the highway would meet that demand in 2025 and about one percent more, according to the transportation department’s study. A transit system – rail, advanced guideway or busing – could accommodate travel in 2025, plus about 4 to 6 percent more.

A combination of expansion and mass transit could handle the most travel, with about 11 to 12 percent more than 17.5 million expected in 2025.However, all options other than expanding the highway or adding a bus system exceed the $4 billion threshold. The state agency prefers busing or highway expansion. Several people at the Wednesday meeting believe widening the highway is the worst option. Avon Councilwoman Kristi Ferraro said she wonders if widening the interstate will suppress tourism. “We could be killing the goose that lays the golden egg,” she said. Laying down more pavement will also create more sand and sediment that could end up in the rivers, said Caroline Bradford, executive director of the Eagle River Watershed Council. Whatever is done to I-70, it should function beyond 2025, Bradford said.Quality of life issue?Some of the most vocal opponents of adding lanes to I-70 were Clear Creek residents who drove up for the meeting in Avon. Because the highway runs through a narrow canyon in Clear Creek County, any expansion of the road would require new lanes to be elevated over existing lanes.

Trudy Rapp of Dumont accused the state agency of “abusing its discretion” by announcing its preference for widening the highway so early on. Rapp wanted a third-party to investigate the transportation department. “Your agency has widely paraded the decision that an (advanced guideway system) is dead,” she said. It will be noisy and the construction – expected to last about 15 years – will wreak havoc on the area, Clear Creek County residents fear. Others argue that by the time the expansion is finished it will no longer be able to accommodate traffic.Clear Creek County resident Ed Rapp said the cost of widening the interstate will be more than $4 billion anyway. “This would be all pain and no gain,” Rapp said. Supporters of a rail or guideway system remain optimistic. As a community and a state, Colorado is really getting away from the “Californification” of one car to one person, said Amy Phillips, an Avon councilwoman. Phillips suggested I-70 could be an extension of the light rail system that will be built in Denver.

Support Local Journalism

Support Local Journalism

As a Summit Daily News reader, you make our work possible.

Now more than ever, your financial support is critical to help us keep our communities informed about the evolving coronavirus pandemic and the impact it is having on our residents and businesses. Every contribution, no matter the size, will make a difference.

Your donation will be used exclusively to support quality, local journalism.

For tax deductible donations, click here.

Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.

User Legend: iconModerator iconTrusted User