EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Charging skiers to use I-70
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Charging skiers to use I-70 - Page 4

post #91 of 108
Report post? Wow, if you interpreted any of that as a personal attack I apologize. I've studied these issues in some detail as I think they are one of the most insidious ways we will reduce productivity, destroy quality of life, and inhibit economic growth this century.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry_Morgan
Seems counter-intuitive; when traffic builds to capacity, then traffic slows. Slowing traffic artificially doesn't seem like it would increase capacity that much, but perhaps it will.
Everything I've read on the topic and every urban locale I've been in that has tried it suggest it will work in the sense of increased throughput, though obviously in areas with a lot of growth it isn't going to fix anything permanently. I think the key is to make sure that the limits are monitored and controlled so that drivers at off peak times aren't penalized.
post #92 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by segbrown View Post


I have never once seen anyone "slam on the brakes" when the flakes start falling. Far too often it's the SUVs roaring past me (while I'm doing 40) that I come upon 5 min later, upside down in the median.

Especially in Officers Gulch ... that's one of the most dangerous stretches of road in Colorado, because people don't realize that "flat" doesn't equal "safe."
First of all, to stay on topic, this is another reason why I'm glad I only ski or go to the mountains for anthing else during the week. I can't imagine driving in the traffic on the weekends.

I have seen people slam on the brakes...not because the snow is falling, but because they don't realize traffic is stopped for one reason or another on I70. I just close my eyes and hope they don't spin toward me!

Otherwise, I agree. No matter the vehicle, it is the speed. On a "normal" day, it take me 75 minutes to get from Centennial to Copper. Yep, that is driving fast, but only on clear roads. If there is any question of ice/slush/snowpack, then I turn into grandma driver. FYO, I drive an Explorer. I have been known to drive VERY slow, but I have never ended up in a ditch...and don't plan on it. And, yes, Officer's Gulch is one of the most dangerous areas. They should almost leaves the wrecks there for the season as a warning to other drivers!

I do have one friend though, that is just frightening! She sold her old Honda Accord for a Toyota Forerunner and now she thinks she is invinsible..especially since she has the rollover stablilization mechanism. Two weeks ago she drove to Beaver Creek. Quite a bit of sliding & fishtailing going on. But, she is one of those people that think just because you have 4x4, you can still drive 65mph in snowpack/ice/slush conditions.
post #93 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garrett View Post
I've studied these issues in some detail as I think they are one of the most insidious ways we will reduce productivity, destroy quality
Since I am an amateur on traffic congestion and engineering issues (fortunately for many of us expert status is not a prerequisite to posting on this forum), please explain you thoughts on this in more detail. I'd like to learn more since the state may very well be asked to vote on various aspects of this in the future, and I'd like to cast a well-informed vote.
post #94 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by lj535i View Post
Also agreed, but let me repeat and add to what I said in response to BreckView which was: 1) it's going to take several combined remedies/solutions to deal with this problem, 2) we have a problem now and there are things we can do now to deal with the problem in the short term.
Agreed on both counts (other than that I don't really have a problem. I just get stuck skiing in New England 95% of the time.)

There are two different issues:

1) At peak times, there are enough cars that I-70 is jammed up even without extra crap going on.

2) A lot of extra crap happens on I-70 (snow/ice, animals on the road, bad drivers, maybe bad ramp layout as mentioned above.)

Some of issue #2 can be addressed, and should be if possible. But even if the road is clear and perfectly maintained, it doesn't help if there are just too many cars/hour trying to get through. You'll jam up somewhere, primarily where it goes from three lanes down to two.

Issue #1 is not going away unless you somehow discourage people from using I-70 at peak times and/or encourage them to use some other method of getting to the ski areas at those times. Peak time tolls seem like a good way to discourage that -- and even if it doesn't, at least you've got a revenue source to work on expanding capacity or providing alternate ways out there...
post #95 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthias99 View Post
...Peak time tolls seem like a good way to discourage that -- and even if it doesn't, at least you've got a revenue source to work on expanding capacity or providing alternate ways out there...
I don't mind peak tolls ... but differentiating between who is using the road and for what is a big problem.

Speaking to the choir, I'm sure...
post #96 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by segbrown View Post
I don't mind peak tolls ... but differentiating between who is using the road and for what is a big problem.

Speaking to the choir, I'm sure...
In an earlier post I mentioned how that proposal seemed to be a logistical nightmare at best. In terms of tolls, it's a lot simpler to charge the people who are using the road than it is to somehow not charge the people who don't use it (that system is just dying to be abused), or having some sort of reimbursement system (overly complicated, lots of overhead, and maybe also prone to abuse.)

People from the area have also mentioned that the summer weekend traffic is just as bad if not worse (I've only been there in the winter), and obviously that is not being caused by skiers...
post #97 of 108
I wonder if the road would be a mess at 8:35.
post #98 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry_Morgan View Post
I have to challenge the assumption that "I've already paid for the road" is any answer to the problems in America. Subsidizing roads with income tax shifts the burden from the road users to the wage earners.

Better a system where roads are paid from from tolls, gas taxes and the like. Look at Europe, where the freeways are more expensive than the trains. Congestion and pollution are reduced, and users are bearing their share.

Food for thought.
Actually, I-70 is primarily funded through the federal highway trust fund, which is funded through gas taxes.

Mike
post #99 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by PBR View Post
I really don't think this will ever pass, this guy is a dimwit. Sounds like he is personally sick of waiting with all the common people. I still don't understand why an efficient bus system wouldn't work, as this would be the only solution that won't cost insane amounts of $$$$$$$$$. With a good bus system I wouldn't oppose maybe a 3-5 dollar toll as long as the toll money could subsidize the bus program meaning lower rares.
Agreed. That would be a good system, reduce highway casualties, help the environment and reduce the amount of time everyone spends in traffic. A $5 toll per car would also give people a greater incentive to ride-share, saving them $10 both ways.

I see where he's coming from with this idea but the fee is too large and it's not clear where the money is going. And the positive incentive idea is just too complex to implement and presents too many opportunities for abuse.
post #100 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by lnester View Post
That web site is interesting. So, they're planning stuff to help out by the year 2025?? Talk about being behind the curve!

This is always the case with highways around the nation. They build it at X lanes. 5 years later, when it's congested, they decide to add a lane. By the time they're done adding the lane, it's already congested again, so they plan to add another lane.

Why can't gov't officials have the foresight to just build the damn thing 6 lanes wide in the beginning?? That way you only have construction once! Yes, you may have overkill in the beginning, but eventually populations catch up. I know, I know...funding is always a problem.

Oh well...
The problem is that demand expands to meet and exceed supply, whatever that supply is. Once they finish adding another lane people think "Oh, the traffic is no longer unbearably horrible. I think I'll start commuting fifteen minutes later again." Everyone adjusts their habits and peak demand is exceeding capacity again.

The only real solution is peak capacity pricing which would encourage people to either use other transport methods or drive off peak hours. Effectively we already have peak capacity pricing, by driving during peak hours people spend both their time and gas, given opportunity loss (lets say their time is worth $20 an hour) and $5 worth of gas many people probably already effectively pay a $25 toll by driving during peak hours on I70. These costs are already what's limiting traffic during peak hours and something people automatically factor into their decisions about when to commute. But instead of going to road construction or alternative transport this money is simply wasted and the environment is damaged.
post #101 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by habacomike View Post
Actually, I-70 is primarily funded through the federal highway trust fund, which is funded through gas taxes.

Mike
Too bad they can't put a gas tax on this thread, we wouldn't have to pay tolls...
post #102 of 108
post #103 of 108
Not a bad result. A $5 toll wouldn't have made much, if any, difference anyway. Perhaps they'll think about how to implement a tolling system that actually might improve things.

Mike
post #104 of 108
Folks, it was all just political grandstanding. I-70 was built with federal funding under the Federal Interstate Highway Act. The State of Colorado has no authority to institute tolls on Interstates built using primarily federal funding under the Act. Pre-existing grandfathered-in exceptions (such as the Pennsylvania Turnpike) are expressly listed in the Act, and do not include I-70. I suspect that the esteemed Sen. McElhany was told by the Legislature leadership to withdraw the bill rather than to publically make our State look ridiculous.
post #105 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by raspritz View Post
Folks, it was all just political grandstanding. I-70 was built with federal funding under the Federal Interstate Highway Act. The State of Colorado has no authority to institute tolls on Interstates built using primarily federal funding under the Act. Pre-existing grandfathered-in exceptions (such as the Pennsylvania Turnpike) are expressly listed in the Act, and do not include I-70. I suspect that the esteemed Sen. McElhany was told by the Legislature leadership to withdraw the bill rather than to publically make our State look ridiculous.

Senator McElhany rhymes with:



Do you suppose there is any relation?

And, more importantly, would you buy a "slightly used" Interstate from either?
post #106 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by raspritz View Post
Folks, it was all just political grandstanding. I-70 was built with federal funding under the Federal Interstate Highway Act. The State of Colorado has no authority to institute tolls on Interstates built using primarily federal funding under the Act. Pre-existing grandfathered-in exceptions (such as the Pennsylvania Turnpike) are expressly listed in the Act, and do not include I-70. I suspect that the esteemed Sen. McElhany was told by the Legislature leadership to withdraw the bill rather than to publically make our State look ridiculous.
Evidently you don't know about the urban partnership program.

Mike
post #107 of 108
I am familiar with that Program, Mike. I have never once seen ski traffic congestion within the Denver city limits, and somehow I doubt that Downieville would qualify for the Program.
post #108 of 108
Raspritz

you claimed that Colorado had no authority to introduce tolling on a Federal Interstate Highway. I provided the Urban Partnership Program as an indication that your claim is incorrect. Also see http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/tolling_pricing/index.htm

Tolling is a proven method to manage congestion, whether it is in an urban or non-urban area.

Mike
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Skiing Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Charging skiers to use I-70