DENVER - I-70 Relocation

[FrancoRey]

So if we do this whole re-alignment of I-70 to I-270 and 76, that would effectively kill 270 as a freeway, right?

What are we to do? Rename the old western I-70 section from I-25 to I-76 the new I-270? Lol. Or does that designation go to the 3/4 mile of I-270 left from I-76 to US 36? What a lame length of freeway.

I say Denver calls that old western I-70 section I-370. Weird...

Or I-570. Or I-276. Or I-425....

[docroc]

Since you asked about the route numbering, why not revert it back to Colorado 72? That was the designation for E 46th Av and W 48th Av before I-70 was built. (Note: If you look at old planning maps for Denver - those 2 streets were designated to be part of the city's parkway system - before the interstate era.) So, if were at the point that I-70 will assume the routing designation of what is currently I-270 and the final segment of I-76 to Wadsworth - then let's bring back state route Colorado 72!

[docroc]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

You can't really get any worse than I-70 right now. Gridlock is gridlock, whether you have 25,000 cars or 50,000 cars. It's like the difference between -30 degrees and -40. You can't expand I-70 - there's not much room, you can only improve it (at huge cost), which means years of construction and closed lanes, and in the end you're going to just get a toll/HOV lane that will not address the traffic load. If we want I-70 to be a smooth ride, prepare to demolish more neighborhoods, have lengthy eminent domain battles, and ignore the fact that Elyria Swansea, North Washington, and Globeville will continue to be within the Bermuda triangle.

With a total length of 10 miles and an average speed of 35 mph (I'm being very generous), it currently takes about 17 minutes to get from I-270 to I-76 during rush hour driving on I-70 (Google estimates 25 minutes in traffic). Taking the northerly route adds 2 miles to the trip and is about 20.5 minutes by my estimates (Google estimates 30 minutes in traffic). An additional 3.5 to 5 minutes is not much of a sacrifice.

If you want to take the boulevard, you're looking at 15 major intersections that would definitely need street lights - Quebec, Monaco, Holly, Colorado, Steele/Vazques, York, Brighton, Washington, Pecos, Zuni, Federal, Lowell, Tennyson, Sheridan, and Harlan. Any additional lights will not get priority during rush hour, but lets just say it'll be an additional 15 lights. Assuming a speed limit of 35, with traffic light wait times bringing this down to 20 mph, you're looking at a 30 minute commute. With a street level boulevard you're also open to snaking down side streets, or cutting over to 44th, 52nd, or MLK. If there's an accident on the freeway, you're screwed. If there's an accident on a surface street, you have many options.

It's probably going to be very expensive, but it would be the cheapest option, and the cheapest to maintain in the long-run option compared to the choices that we have been given. If we roll together the total cost of maintaining I-76, I-270, and I-70, it'll be more expensive even in the short run than if we upgrade I-76 and I-270 and remedy I-70. The nice thing about I-76 and I-270 is that they run mostly through open land, with eminent domain being far less of an issue. The bonus is that we reintegrate old neighborhoods, investing in an area that would help bring property values up and hopefully be the first step in economically invigorating northern Denver.

Well thought out - yes, there are many solid approaches for how the surface boulevard could be constructed - I like the comparison with E. Alameda Avenue Parkway between Havana and Colorado Boulevard - there would be about a dozen plus major intersections along 46th Avenue/48th Avenue - and with a parkway median along the route - other streets would simply have stop signs and could only access onto the boulevard with right turn only.

[SnyderBock]

They could name it, Hickenlooper Blvd.

[docroc]

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

They could name it, Hickenlooper Blvd.

Hickenlooper Blvd, eh?

Well, we had:
Currigan Hall (R.I.P.)
McNichols Arena (R.I.P)
Pena Blvd
Webb Municipal Bldg

Hmmm . . .
. . . and locals could refer to the boulevard as the "Hick" - a la references to Colfax as the "Fax" . . .

[Ilsaz]

Originally Posted by FrancoRey

So if we do this whole re-alignment of I-70 to I-270 and 76, that would effectively kill 270 as a freeway, right?

What are we to do? Rename the old western I-70 section from I-25 to I-76 the new I-270? Lol. Or does that designation go to the 3/4 mile of I-270 left from I-76 to US 36? What a lame length of freeway.

I say Denver calls that old western I-70 section I-370. Weird...

Or I-570. Or I-276. Or I-425....

I realize you are being cheeky, but this wouldn't fit with Interstate Highway naming protocol. Odd numbered prefixes are for spurs. Even numbers, like I-270 are for subroutes that reconnect with the main Interstate.

Mostly likely the I-76 to I-270 will just become the new I-70.

Please don't flame me. I post my comment in the sincere interest of rattling off a little trivia about Interstate highway naming conventions.

[Teshadoh]

...and the 'old' I-70 becomes "Business I-70". There isn't a need to renumber the freeway segment. Of course that is a moot point if you just tear the crap down.

[The Dirt]

Well, Colfax is technically still Business I-70. I do like the sound of Hick Road.

One other thing to mention is that there is virtually no large retailer, grocers, or hotels along the current stretch of I-70. Aside from a Village Inn, I can't think of many that are directly reliant on highway traffic to bring in customers. Okay, maybe a ton of gas stations, but they're like weeds - they thrive everywhere. This means that you're not going to get much of a concerted effort from I-70 business leaders up in arms over the rerouting. In fact, ground level traffic may actually spurr business growth. Additionally, there are a couple auto-centric shopping centers along I-76 that would be thrilled about the extra traffic.

[Fritzdude]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

Well, Colfax is technically still Business I-70. I do like the sound of Hick Road.

One other thing to mention is that there is virtually no large retailer, grocers, or hotels along the current stretch of I-70. Aside from a Village Inn, I can't think of many that are directly reliant on highway traffic to bring in customers. Okay, maybe a ton of gas stations, but they're like weeds - they thrive everywhere. This means that you're not going to get much of a concerted effort from I-70 business leaders up in arms over the rerouting. In fact, ground level traffic may actually spurr business growth. Additionally, there are a couple auto-centric shopping centers along I-70 that would be thrilled about the extra traffic.

Dirt - you've brought up some excellent points - and very well rationalized. It's fair to say that I-70 throughout the city is scar to north Denver. If removed, I bet you would have a flood of investment. But 270 and I76 would have to be seriously upgraded - ala T-Rex style - with up 6 lanes of traffic and HOV lanes to accommodate the increased load. But it's doable and would be cheaper to maintain. I like the idea!

[docroc]

[QUOTE=It's fair to say that I-70 throughout the city is scar to north Denver. If removed, I bet you would have a flood of investment. But 270 and I76 would have to be seriously upgraded - ala T-Rex style - with up 6 lanes of traffic and HOV lanes to accommodate the increased load. But it's doable and would be cheaper to maintain. I like the idea![/QUOTE]

Fritzdude - I totally concur . . .
I can see redeveloping occurring almost immediately along the stretch of 48th Av between Harlan and Zuni - once the freeway is removed. There will be opportunities to seem these neighborhoods back together with Highlands and Sunnyside to the south - which continue to show impressive redevelopment as people rediscover the benefits of close-in living. I can see TOD-type development between Harlan and Sheridan, along the north end of Lake Rhoda there at Lakeside, and again at Federal & 48th.

Tejon and 48th used to be a neighborhood node with a grocery store and other retail - and it could attract that development once again.

And for the stretch of the new surface boulevard from Globeville east to Vasquez Boulevard, there would be similar opportunities for both commercial and residential redevelopment - at Brighton Boulevard for sure as well as Vasquez. And York and 46th would be a great candidate for a new TOD planning effort. (Let's deal with that Purina plant and its air quality violations while we're at it!)

[docroc]

http://www.denverpost.com/portlet/ar...shipId=3293139

Interesting article in today's Post - with some implications for this thread on I-70 replacement.

We have known for some time that the elevated segment of I-70 has needed to be replaced - but according to CDOT - much of I-270 needs to be rebuilt as well - along with significant portions of I-76 west of Pecos.

In my book, this speaks more and more to simply realigning I-70 on top of 270/76 - reconstructing that as our major E-W interstate - and do it with 3 general purpose lanes - and 1 (or 2) HOV/HOT lanes - which would intersect well there at the interchange with US 36 (no room for HOV/HOT to incorporated into the Mousetrap - not to mention what an additional abomination that would be on Globeville.

And then reconstruct 46th Av/48th Av between Colo Blvd and Harlan Street as a boulevard with attention to complete street design that incorporates good surface transit, as well as good sidewalk connectivity along the route and into the existing neighborhoods - Swansea, Elyria, Chaffee Park, and Berkeley.

[The Dirt]

Originally Posted by docroc

http://www.denverpost.com/portlet/ar...shipId=3293139

Hey, docroc, do you have a link to the actual article?

[docroc]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

Hey, docroc, do you have a link to the actual article?

You bet - here you go . . .

http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_16094902
Report: More than half Colo. roads in poor shape

It's an AP article in the Post titled: Report: More than half Colo. roads in poor shape

http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_16094902

[The Dirt]

Thank you!

Judging from the original graphic, it looks like I-70 from Pecos to Colorado is in good shape. They definitely just resurfaced this back in July. Still, 11 years as a marker of long life seems pretty short in the long scheme of things. If there was a petition to study the relocation today, CDOT or whoever probably won't commit until next year, won't come out with the results of the study until 2013, there won't be any plans to build until 2015, there won't be any funds until 2017, construction wouldn't start until 2019, and won't finish until 2022.

Am I being pretty realistic?

[docroc]

http://www.grist.org/article/2010-10...ray-lahood-sa/

Okay, City & County of Denver, let's come up with a plan for I-70 and get in line for highway removal funds.

I like the comments above that talk about what has happened since I-70 was built through North Denver neighborhoods in the mid-60s to help make the case for simply replacing it with a grand surface boulevard. The other limited access highways which did not exist in 1960 - namely the 270/76 inner belt just to the north of I-70 and 470 - are routes that could handle through vehicular traffic.

Moreover, I-270/76 is a better route for possible HOV/HOT lanes coming from the eastern portion of I-70 and the DIA area into the I-25 corridor - given the integration opportunity with the HOV/HOT lane connection at the interchange with US-36 to Boulder.

Let's make that inner-belt an improved E-W freeway through the north metro area where it is light industrial and fewer environmental and social impacts - and take down the elevated I-70 monstrosity through Swansea and Elyria - while reverting 48th Avenue back to a surface boulevard/parkway in Chaffee Park and Berkeley.

[bunt_q]

Let's talk about this grand boulevard... the Hick, or whatever we're calling it. I am concerned that we're talking about 4 or 6 lanes of pavement with a big green treed median (think MLK) and nothing more, and calling that grand. But that isn't enough to create a boulevard, let alone a grand one. The City/County of Denver has good experience creating grand arterials, not much at creating grand boulevards. Are we talking about moderate density something, presumably mixed use, framing this thing along that entire length? Is there enough ROW (and demand, and community support) for that?

[llamaorama]

Why not make a plan that considers what objectives are needed to really connect the separate sides along with how this affected by the existing embankments and remaining pieces of freeway? There might be situations where at some intersections, the overpasses would stay. Like, from Colorado Blvd to the east, its all industrial on either side and is on raised embankments, again, so it would be less work to leave it alone and renew the overpass sections. I dunno, other freeway removal projects in the past have dealt with viaducts mostly, right? Like the embarcadero and central freeways, and that one in Milwaukee. Have there been any projects that handled roads which run up and down on berms and into trenches? Its one thing to remove the old bridges but would it be difficult or costly to fill in and grade out all the dirt work that is there?

[docroc]

Good issue to raise, bunt-q -
There are many different types of complete street treatments - and I think the treatment for the segment between Colorado Boulevard and Brighton Boulevard could be very different in character than the segment from Pecos Street to Sheridan Boulevard.
You're right, that it should be more than asphalt lanes with a long green strip down the center.
For it to be truly a well designed boulevard for its context - it needs to accommodate transit easily, as well as safe places for pedestrians and bicyclists - both along the thoroughfare and at crossing points.
A good example already in the metro area would be Alameda Avenue between Leetsdale Drive and Quebec Street - it has bus turnouts making transit easier, sidewalks that are safe for walking and biking - especially when they have some physical separation from the roadway - and clearly marked pedestrian crossing at signalized intersections.

Other things that could be incorporated along a surface 46th Avenue Boulevard in NE Denver would be BAT (business access and transit) lanes along the outside portion of the thoroughfare that were dedicated for bus use only, as well as right turns into adjacent businesses. Along the 48th Avenue segment between Rocky Mtn Lake Park and Berkeley Lake Park, a bike lane using different pavement materials adjacent to the boulevard is another possibility.

Take a look at some webpages for "complete streets" to see all the different ways in which surface roadways are being reconstructed to better handle all modes of travel, including motorists, pedestrians, and transit users. A fairly good example is the City of Shoreline in the Seattle metropolitan area, which has taken a fairly yucky state highway (Hwy "99") and transformed it into what has the potential to evolve into a grand boulevard - with (1) a landscaped median and parkway plantings along either side, using vegetation that is more indigenous to that region, (2) general purpose lanes in either direction for vehicular traffic, (3) BAT lanes for transit - ultimately 15 minute headway bus rapid transit service will be introduced along the route, (4) continuous sidewalks that are separated from the street, (5) a parallel continuous bicycle trail that is sometime adjacent to the street and sometimes a block or so back away from the highway, and (6) traffic signals at fairly regular internals with crosswalks using different paving materials.
There have been major reconnections back into adjacent neighborhoods as well.
You might want to check out images for that project too - there are a lot of different ways to do boulevard and complete street treatments that are successful - it would be great to see that come to north Denver and be part of a revitalization effort to a part of town that has been been negatively impacted for more than 40 years because of a bad highway siting decision.

[bunt_q]

Complete Streets examples are fine, but that sort of presumes a certain level of activity; it presumes there is something there. But there is NOTHING up there now. No traffic generators, no destinations, no where to bike or walk to/from... Similarly, where would the transit go? A 46th ave downtown feeder? To Fitzsimmons, the airport? Who's riding that transit and why?

Alameda is an interesting example. But I think you're too focused on the physical design of the street itself. That's the easy part (at least up there, where we'd have a clean slate to work with).

But what about the land use to go with it? Not sure how much Complete Streets informs us there. Do we see that becoming an E Colfax/S Broadway? A Monaco Parkway? An East Evans? A S University? I don't want to move a highway just for the sake of moving a highway. That area is NOT the Embarcadaro - I don't know of any freeway removal projects off the top of my head that are suitable for comparison.

I'd be afraid to use the Alameda example. That's a suburban arterial through a largely residential area - mostly a fence canyon. Are we just looking to replace I-70 at street level, while shielding what residential (very sad residential) is there now? Or are we looking to build that area up some? (if so, I'm not sure what with...)

Should we go scoop up little old decimated polluted victorians while they can still be had for under $150k, I wonder?

[Octavian]

Something else to keep in mind . . . the difficulty of securing ROW for high speed rail. Might some of the existing I-70 ROW be used for this purpose?