DENVER | Transportation Thread

[EngiNerd]

Final EIS up for the I-70 East corridor reconstruction.

http://www.i-70east.com/

http://www.i-70east.com/reports.html#feis
As we pretty much already knew

FHWA and CDOT have identified the Partial Cover Lowered Alternative with Managed Lanes Option as the Preferred Alternative for the I-70 East project

[Denver Dweller]

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_29...huge-waste-tax

[bobg]

Originally Posted by Denver Dweller

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_29...huge-waste-tax

So a 1.2 billion dollar project is wasting 58 million dollars by expanding to 10 lanes instead of 8?

What's the cost of expanding from 8 to 10 in a few decades? I think that's what's driving this 10 lane expansion now. Sure forecasts may be inaccurate that far in advance on both demand and cost, but if they are going to do a project of this scale 58 million seems like a bargain to hedge against another mega project there in a few decades.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by bobg

So a 1.2 billion dollar project is wasting 58 million dollars by expanding to 10 lanes instead of 8?

What's the cost of expanding from 8 to 10 in a few decades? I think that's what's driving this 10 lane expansion now. Sure forecasts may be inaccurate that far in advance on both demand and cost, but if they are going to do a project of this scale 58 million seems like a bargain to hedge against another mega project there in a few decades.

It seems that the biggest criticism from this group is that there wasn't enough evaluation done of a replacement option that either has no expansion capacity or with one additional lane. That's a valid criticism.

Thank God, there's no mention of the idiotic idea of rerouting I-70 along I-270 and with the hugely added cost. Though I'm for it if we just barricade off the old I-70 and leave it as is. Maybe turn Globeville and Elyria Swansea into urban warfare training centers.

[bobg]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

It seems that the biggest criticism from this group is that there wasn't enough evaluation done of a replacement option that either has no expansion capacity or with one additional lane. That's a valid criticism.

Thank God, there's no mention of the idiotic idea of rerouting I-70 along I-270 and with the hugely added cost. Though I'm for it if we just barricade off the old I-70 and leave it as is. Maybe turn Globeville and Elyria Swansea into urban warfare training centers.

Agreed that there was little analysis on one additional lane. I recall seeing tons of analysis on no expansion but would have to delve back into those documents again.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

It seems that the biggest criticism from this group is that there wasn't enough evaluation done of a replacement option that either has no expansion capacity or with one additional lane. That's a valid criticism.

No, it isn't a valid criticism. That is the "No Action" alternative. It got the exact same evaluation as the other alternatives.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

No, it isn't a valid criticism. That is the "No Action" alternative. It got the exact same evaluation as the other alternatives.

Is the "No Action" alternative assume that all you do is replace the existing infrastructure with no other changes? Or is it doing "no action" at all?

Because that's kind of a huge difference and you know that.

[EngiNerd]

The A-line train probably couldn't come at a better time since it will be up and running while I-70 is under full scale construction. Bet they see some influx of riders due to that.

[mr1138]

Pages 3-2 through 3-5 of the FEIS describe the "no-action" alternative as being a replacement viaduct with expanded shoulders and no additional lane capacity (http://www.i-70east.com/FinalEIS/cha...ternatives.pdf). It does not appear that they looked closely at a trench with no additional capacity, or at either a trench or replacement viaduct with only a single additional lane (though one of the build alternatives looks at a viaduct with the full expansion to 10 lanes - nothing appears to look at the 8-lane alternative). Or am I missing something?

It's hard to decide where I fall on this matter. I tend to agree that we should be investing less in additional automobile capacity and more on transit - but this feels like a systemic criticism as opposed to one that can be lobbed at an individual project. Without any broader adopted policy or funding mechanism to shift resources from highway expansion to rapid-transit in a meaningful way, I find it hard to fault CDOT for advocating what is likely the best bang-for-the-buck. I'm sure bobg is absolutely correct that adding 2 lanes decades from now would cost a LOT more than just building that capacity now. And my gut tells me that it is inappropriate to use an individual project such as this - which has to consider things like current fiscal realities and the rapidly aging condition of the current viaduct - as a proxy for a broader policy discussion about our overall transportation system. It seems like that kind of approach would just make each side of the argument more deeply entrenched while the existing infrastructure continues to deteriorate.

[EngiNerd]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Is the "No Action" alternative assume that all you do is replace the existing infrastructure with no other changes? Or is it doing "no action" at all?

Because that's kind of a huge difference and you know that.

In my post above, you will see there is still over $500 million allocated under the "No Action" alternative, this is because replacement of the viaduct and several bridges would still be required, just no new lanes would be added.

[Denver Dweller]

http://denver.streetsblog.org/2016/0...colfax-avenue/

[EngiNerd]

Originally Posted by mr1138

Pages 3-2 through 3-5 of the FEIS describe the "no-action" alternative as being a replacement viaduct with expanded shoulders and no additional lane capacity (http://www.i-70east.com/FinalEIS/cha...ternatives.pdf). It does not appear that they looked closely at a trench with no additional capacity, or at either a trench or replacement viaduct with only a single additional lane (though one of the build alternatives looks at a viaduct with the full expansion to 10 lanes - nothing appears to look at the 8-lane alternative). Or am I missing something?

It's hard to decide where I fall on this matter. I tend to agree that we should be investing less in additional automobile capacity and more on transit - but this feels like a systemic criticism as opposed to one that can be lobbed at an individual project. Without any broader adopted policy or funding mechanism to shift resources from highway expansion to rapid-transit in a meaningful way, I find it hard to fault CDOT for advocating what is likely the best bang-for-the-buck. I'm sure bobg is absolutely correct that adding 2 lanes decades from now would cost a LOT more than just building that capacity now. And my gut tells me that it is inappropriate to use an individual project such as this - which has to consider things like current fiscal realities and the rapidly aging condition of the current viaduct - as a proxy for a broader policy discussion about our overall transportation system. It seems like that kind of approach would just make each side of the argument more deeply entrenched while the existing infrastructure continues to deteriorate.

I think its because CDOT knows you really only get one shot at a project like this in a 30-50 year span, and are preparing for the future. Just like TREX did as well. Once you dig, you cannot go wider in the future without major expenditure.

I always felt like the cover lid is a pet project, yes I don't doubt it will have some benefit the neighborhood, but just seems to me the cost to place the lid and maintain it doesn't justify.

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by EngiNerd

I think its because CDOT knows you really only get one shot at a project like this in a 30-50 year span, and are preparing for the future. Just like TREX did as well. Once you dig, you cannot go wider in the future without major expenditure.

Exactly. The time to discuss whether or not we really want to add more capacity to our highway network would be BEFORE undertaking an EIS process such as this. The EIS process has to operate within the framework of the system that exists - not the system we wish existed (both in terms of available funding and adopted goals/priorities). With only one shot at getting it right, and the clock ticking on the condition of the existing viaduct, it seems entirely appropriate for CDOT to advocate getting as much done as possible with the resources currently available to them.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by EngiNerd

In my post above, you will see there is still over $500 million allocated under the "No Action" alternative, this is because replacement of the viaduct and several bridges would still be required, just no new lanes would be added.

Thanks, I was lazy and hadn't gotten into the EIS yet and didn't see what "No Action" described. I do assume that CDOT's cost-benefit analysis looked the at the alternatives and determined that adding two lanes was beneficial due to the minimum cost increase- because $58 million in savings is chump-change for two additional lanes and that's why an eight-lane option wasn't seriously evaluated. But, since it's not there I cannot be sure.

This project absolutely needs to happen and what it does end up doing is much more than a highway expansion. It's more an urban renewal project with the sinking of they highway, drainage improvements, local streets, an expanded sidewalk network, and the cover. Given that a large chunk of the money for this project is coming from the Bridge Enterprise and you cannot just wish that funding into another non-road project we should be embracing be fully embracing this gift.

[bunt_q]

It's worth noting that the NEPA is for the ultimate project. The initial procurement only contemplates striping for 8 lanes from Brighton to Colorado (one new managed lane). The second managed lane will be added later. It just doesn't make sense to do a trench for only 8 lanes when you know you'll need 10 in a few years.

Also worth noting that none of the usual induced demand arguments apply because the lanes being added are tolled lanes.

[RyanD]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

It just doesn't make sense to do a trench for only 8 lanes when you know you'll need 10 in a few years.

Isn't our highway use supposed to go down now, given our new way of thinking here?

I have nothing good to contribute to this conversation.

I just love how all the Downtown mentalities think the big evil highway is going to a) effect them in any sort of way and b) think it's not needed given the not-so-great alternatives we offer and influx in population. It's like saying, we don't support... [blank (gun control, gay marriage, etc, etc, etc, etc, big bad evil highways, etc, etc)], even though it won't effect their everyday lives, or the city around them.

[seventwenty]

I-70 EAST PLAN: COUNCILWOMAN WANTS MORE TIME TO REVIEW 13-YEAR STUDY

Originally Posted by Westword

After thirteen years, thirty days to study a three-volume FEIS? Make that five volumes, says Debbie Ortega, the at-large Denver City Council member who attended many of those meetings; she's already asked CDOT to extend the public-review period, and fellow councilmembers Robin Kneich, Rafael Espinoza, Paul Lopez, Paul Kashman, Wayne New and Stacie Gilmore all signed off on her letter requesting an extension that would give the public another thirty days to review the FEIS.

. . .

In fact, Ortega notes, the three volumes of the FEIS are all the comments about that compromise "and how they’re responding to them, and these send you back to the original two volumes....I want to have adequate time to look at it, and make sure the neighborhood has adequate time to look at it."

Denver City Council essentially signed off on that compromise by approving a CDOT cost-sharing agreement last July, before the co-signers of Ortega's request for more time joined the council. "That's when Denver pretty much gave the green light to CDOT," says Ortega. "I didn't support that, either."

Then, as now, she wanted to know about the impact of the project on the people who live nearby. "My primary concern has been to ensure that the work that's going to happen in the ultimate and final record of decision actually addresses the health and safety of the neighborhood," she says. "My staff and I are going through it with a fine-tooth comb. One of the challenges has been that Denver and CDOT have continued to meet on an ongoing basis to negotiate on a lot of things in this final document. It's only through reading it you're going to know what those details are."

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by RyanD

Isn't our highway use supposed to go down now, given our new way of thinking here?

I think this is definitely the promise of the New Urbanists. Thinkers, writers, and bloggers have been making this point for a long time; and I think we definitely see the idea echoed in the statements of politicians, planners, and developers. The reality though is that unless these ideas are officially cemented in government policy, we can't really expect decisions to be based in that logic.

I'll admit I'm fairly ignorant of CDOTs master planning process or adopted policies. For that matter I haven't really read Denver's either, though their city policies probably would little affect on a major interstate highway like I-70.

In Boulder (which I do know), for example, there are officially adopted policies in the city's Transportation Master Plan that set goals like maintaining or reducing Single Occupant Vehicle use (or "mode share shift" to other modes). These policy goals then help inform a decision making process like an alternative analysis, and sometimes result in the city taking a different position from CDOT. And progressive, "anti-car" policies can still be highly controversial and draw heavy resistance from more conservative pro-car thinkers.

I don't necessarily expect CDOT to advocate for an option with fewer lanes if that is not the policy or culture within their organization. As I said before, I feel that's something that needs to be addressed ahead of time at the organizational level and not on a project-specific basis.

[The Dirt]

I know it's fun to jump on the bunt-wagon but, can someone tell me why we need 12 lanes though? I know 4 of them are managed lanes but, I-25 only has 2 managed lanes open in the direction of rush hour. The argument that we'll need the capacity in the next 10-20 years so let's build it now because it's cheaper doesn't hold water. We're all smart enough on here to know what induced demand is. All we're doing with this expansion is enabling shit suburban development by Aurora way out by Watkins (which is already on the drawing board).

For the record, I know that it's too late to change this plan and everyone just wants to whine but, I can still hate this plan. We don't need to studying the study of the study so that we can be super-double-pinky-swear sure of what we already knew in the first place. I commute this way every day and it directly impacts me but, I really don't think that relieving congestion is a good strategy. The viaducts need to be replaced, the deck is unnecessary and expensive but, why do we need to expand a 4-6 lane highway to 12 lanes? I know that it's not politically viable but, I'd like to see this section of the highway turned into a single occupancy toll road. Big rigs, delivery vehicles, and anyone with 2+ passengers will be exempt.

[bunt_q]

EDIT: Nevermind...