New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

I-70 Traffic Sunday pm - Page 2

post #31 of 56
A couple of things would make the bus thing work.

1. Legally give them the right to drive in the breakdown lane to bypass traffic.

2. Make it affordable.

3. Because of 1, they can leave later and arrive earlier. That means a 7-7:30 departure from Morrison arrives at Copper by 8:30-8:45

4. Drop at the lift. I pay for parking - so you can save a few bucks on parking and use it for the bus.

Anyone interested in a petition or some other expression of interest that might get the ski areas seriously thinking about this?

Otherwise, it may soon be Eldora, here I come.

Mike
post #32 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by icanseeformiles(andmiles) View Post
Only Silverton and Wolf Creek have more snow this year.
Yea, but the terrain is limited.
post #33 of 56
I wonder if it could be done profitably. If so, an enterprising entrepreneur may want to try it...
post #34 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Korporal View Post
I was stuck in the thick of it this past Sunday. It took 5 hours to go from Copper to Colorado Springs. There was a car stalled in the middle lane coming up to the Eisenhower tunnel (or whatever the East-bound side is caled). I have never skied in this part of the country before, but the people I was with have lived in the Springs and skied off of 70 for a few years, said it was the worst they had ever seen it.
If you live in the springs, and ski in summit county, never, never, never, never, never, never, never take I-70. Take Colorado Highway 9 south from Frisco/Breck (make sure you drive the speed limit through Alma & Fairplay) to US Highway 24 west to Colorado Springs. In "ideal" conditions the CO9 to US24 route is about 10 minutes longer than the I70 to C470 to I25 route, but when was the last time road/traffic conditions were "ideal?" (Unless, of course, you're driving at 2 am in the middle of the summer.)

J
post #35 of 56
There used to be a lot of charter buses going up I-70 from the Denver area during the '80's. Where I worked they had a ski club which ran 5 or 6 trips per season with full 2 buses. By the late '80's they had trouble filling one bus so they stopped running the trips. For a short time RTD ran some buses to ski areas. They never looked very full. The traffic was heavy then, but not as bad as it is now. Maybe its time for someone to test the market for bus service along the lines of the casino buses.
post #36 of 56
Quick fix - Ban trucks during peak use. Think about how many times you've been cruising along steadily only to slow to a crawl just to pass a couple trucks. Every white knuckled touron has to merge into the passing lane to get by. Also, they sometimes shut down the tunnel to let hazmat that can't go over loveland pass through.

http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_4730084
post #37 of 56
BBOC - I can't tell you how many times I've thought about that "truck ban" idea while driving I-70 to the mountains. I just wonder if there's any legal leg to stand on to make that happen (or whatever would block the idea).

I would love to see a truck ban from 7:00 a.m.-9:00 a.m. and from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. from Genessee to Dillon on Saturdays and Sundays. It'll never happen though.
post #38 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noodler View Post
I would love to see a truck ban from 7:00 a.m.-9:00 a.m. and from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. from Genessee to Dillon on Saturdays and Sundays. It'll never happen though.
It seems so reasonable though. If my schedule ever changes to where I'm forced back into weekend skiing I'd be interested in seeing what it would take to pursue that.
post #39 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBOC View Post
Quick fix - Ban trucks during peak use. Think about how many times you've been cruising along steadily only to slow to a crawl just to pass a couple trucks. Every white knuckled touron has to merge into the passing lane to get by. Also, they sometimes shut down the tunnel to let hazmat that can't go over loveland pass through.

http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_4730084
That is the dumbest idea I have heard in quite some time. They are out there making a living, and we are recreating. How would you feel is someone suggested you wait three hours at work before coming home, because you inconvienced someone trying to get to their Frolf game at the park?
post #40 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by matt7180 View Post
That is the dumbest idea I have heard in quite some time. They are out there making a living, and we are recreating. How would you feel is someone suggested you wait three hours at work before coming home, because you inconvienced someone trying to get to their Frolf game at the park?
Did you read the article? He actually addressed that.

Recreation is a huge component of income for a pretty significant chunk of the revenue for those areas through which I-70 passes. Getting those recreational dollars to where they'll be spent (instead of having them turn around due to traffic) is an important part of the financial health of the mountain communities.
post #41 of 56
There are people that like the 1-70 gridlock. Me among them. No I do not like sitting in stop and go traffic. I go up Fridays and come back Mondays to avoid it. Just think how more crowded Summit County would be on the weekends if the drive was easy. :

I suspect too that the movers and shakers like the traffic as well. It certainly helps drive up the prices of all the condo developments.
post #42 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by matt7180 View Post
That is the dumbest idea I have heard in quite some time. They are out there making a living, and we are recreating. How would you feel is someone suggested you wait three hours at work before coming home, because you inconvienced someone trying to get to their Frolf game at the park?
Did you read the article? He actually addressed that.

Recreation is a huge component of income for a pretty significant chunk of the revenue for those areas through which I-70 passes. Getting those recreational dollars to where they'll be spent (instead of having them turn around due to traffic) is an important part of the financial health of the mountain communities.
post #43 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kima View Post
I suspect too that the movers and shakers like the traffic as well. It certainly helps drive up the prices of all the condo developments.
I had one o' them condo things in Winter Park. One of the best things we ever did, but not cheap. Drove up Friday, so traffic wasn't bad, though Friday night snow storms could be ugly. Sunday afternoon, we'd go back to the condo, have dinner, hot tub, shower, etc., then drive home later, when there was relatively little traffic.

We lived in Fort Collins; no direct bus service.

Once in WP, our vehicle went into the underground parking and never moved until it was time to go home. Always used the buses, friends going the same way anyway, etc. to avoid short distances (hard on the engine, esp. in the winter) and parking lot bruises.

We might also note that, in the case of Winter Park, the ski train runs full.

And Steve, killclimbz is right. The slower speeds are caused by too many people in too little space. As the road becomes more crowded and following distances decrease, people tend to slow down. Even though Americans are, in general, fairly aggressive drivers who often tailgate, the density on I-70 is high enough so that even a few drivers leaving more room in front of them will slow everything down. Once the speed goes down, people are once again comfortable with a given following distance - until the density goes up again. This may be irritating, especially when some people get too timid, but it probably reduces the number of 100-car pileups...

It's a little bit like water suffering more pressure loss when you try to force too much through a given size of pipe, or seeing more voltage drop in an electrical current when too much amperage is pulled through a wire that's not big enough.

Given your technical interests, Steve, you might like to research traffic flow a little. If I remember correctly, simple traffic flow can be modeled by a differential equation. You know, just a little light reading...:
post #44 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by jhcooley View Post
Given your technical interests, Steve, you might like to research traffic flow a little. If I remember correctly, simple traffic flow can be modeled by a differential equation. You know, just a little light reading...:
Try this.
post #45 of 56
That's a pretty cool road traffic simulator Faisasy - nice link.
post #46 of 56
The cars in this sim even drive like jerks. Cars waiting on the ramp will go around a truck waiting to merge keeping the truck from being able to merge.
post #47 of 56
I wasted quite a bit of time on this sim when I first found it. :-D

In the Uphill Grade simulation, first set the truck percentage to zero and wait until the all-car traffic is moving freely. Then slowly increase the truck percentage -- the slowdown with even a low truck percentage is quite startling.
post #48 of 56
That's a pretty awesome simulation.
post #49 of 56
Wow!!! That sim really illustrates the truck problem even if it is an oversimplification. I had a very busy flow going without trucks with no problem, add 5% trucks and traffic almost stopped.

I must say that I don't agree with the article I posted in the fact that he was advocating a total truck ban. I was only thinking peak bans (ie ski traffic).

Boo hoo for the truckers, but it certainly beats the 4-5 hour ski commute (that trucks sit through as well) and dropping astronomical tax dollars on more roads/alternative transport.
post #50 of 56
OK, I know there's lawyers on epicski. Can a truck ban be enacted, or is that a restraint of interstate commerce?
post #51 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by jhcooley View Post
....Given your technical interests, Steve, you might like to research traffic flow a little. If I remember correctly, simple traffic flow can be modeled by a differential equation. You know, just a little light reading...:
Ack, I spent much of the 1990s editing technical papers for the Transportation Research Board (division of National Academy of Sciences in Wash DC). You guys are giving me flashbacks. Me no like.
post #52 of 56
How about this,
Why don't they (CDOT) implement a special speed restriction during peak traffic periods, it seems to me like the major traffic backups begin in the curves east of Idaho Springs. People slow down to around 40 mph in the curves causing heavy backups. I think of it this way, the I-70 corridor from summit county to Denver is pretty much a closed system, that is, almost everyone gets on the road in summit county and gets off the road in Denver. So, if you have people leaving the traffic plagued area at 45mph and people entering the traffic plagued area at 75 mph I feel that traffic backups are imminent. What would happen if the speed limit was 35mph from Silverthorne to the US6/Blackhawk exit? I'm pretty much speculating here, but I think it might also help with the congestion at the on-ramps, since all of the on ramps on I-70 are so short you'd need a Porsche to get up to speed before merging.
post #53 of 56
My daughter pointed out an interesting fact she learned from her fluid dynamics class: when a fluid flows from a larger pipe into a smaller one, it speeds up (steady state). We got to observe this first-hand at the top of Floyd Hill; I think we sped up from 10 to 15 mph when the third lane went away.
post #54 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrbd View Post
My daughter pointed out an interesting fact she learned from her fluid dynamics class: when a fluid flows from a larger pipe into a smaller one, it speeds up (steady state). We got to observe this first-hand at the top of Floyd Hill; I think we sped up from 10 to 15 mph when the third lane went away.
True but there really is no direct relationship between a purely physical dynamic and a primarily human one.

In fact, if anything, the reverse relationship is actually true the case of driving. The fluid in the smaller tube has to accelerate to get out of the way of the fluid behind it that is physically pushing it. And it will do so because it doesn't have a stupid brain like a driver that tells it that to speed up would be a naughty thing.

When the driver, who is determined (as we all know) to keep their speed constant, remains at the same speed in the narrower section of roadway, the cars (fluid) are then forced to start backing up behind them until the flow is cut off.

Remember, here in NY when you decide which lane is the nicest one to drive in, you own it for the rest of the day and never have to look behind you until you are all the way safely home.

The case you're talking about where the speed increased, is likely an increase relative to the slower speeds forced on traffic as the squeeze approaches but probably in the same speed range as it was far enough behind the pack to no be effected by increasing volume.

In addition to that, one human factor may be a conscious decision to actually speed up just a little due to the decreased opportunities from interference from lane changes on either side.

Once again, here in NY, once you claim your lane you should only look in the rear view mirror to confirm that you really look as awesome as you know you do and to see that your homies in the back seat are enjoyn' the hip-hop witcha.
post #55 of 56
Ok, 'steady state' was not the correct description of the effect I was trying to describe.
post #56 of 56
I settle in for these trips by packing my playmate full of sandwiches and busting out my Freedom Rock cassette collection ... sure makes the time fly by!!!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Skiing Discussion