HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Mountain West


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Oct 24, 2009, 11:30 AM
SnyderBock's Avatar
SnyderBock SnyderBock is offline
Robotic Construction
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,833
Rebuilding Interstate 70, seams like trouble

Quote:
To rebuild a "structurally deficient" I-70 viaduct, the state needs $800 million. But for now, a $21.6 million "Band-Aid" will have to do.
By Jeffrey Leib
The Denver Post


Every day about 140,000 motorists travel the bone-shaking, 1.6-mile Interstate 70 viaduct in Denver between Brighton and Colorado boulevards.

Bouncing over the 44-year-old bridge's worn joints isn't fun, but travelers might be even more alarmed to see what is happening below.

In many locations, water and de-icing fluids have leaked through the expansion joints and infiltrated concrete piers, girders and columns.

The seepage has caused reinforcing steel embedded in the structure to corrode and swell, and that expansion, in turn, has caused surface sections of the concrete to crack off.

"We have reports that magnesium chloride can decrease the compressive strength of concrete up to 70 percent," said Colorado Department of
Extras

* Watch Video on the I-70 repairs

Transportation engineer Jeff Anderson, referring to the corrosive effect of the de-icing material.

The I-70 viaduct is one of 125 state- owned and maintained bridges rated in "poor" condition and needing replacement.

Yet because CDOT has no prospect for covering the $800 million cost of rebuilding the structure, workers in the next week or so will start applying what agency officials describe as a $21.6 million "Band-Aid."

Contractors will spend at least two years replacing 60 expansion joints on the bridge. Thirty-two of the joints will be "locked" — reconstructed as solid bridge deck — while 28 will be rebuilt as new expansion joints.

Engineers determined that the 28 are enough "to allow the bridge to breathe," Anderson said.

The viaduct was built in the early 1960s for $12.5 million, and a complete reconstruction would easily make it CDOT's most expensive bridge project.

To replace or do major rehabilitation on the other 124 bridges in the state system that are rated in poor condition will cost a total of $600 million, according to CDOT.

Setting priorities

At an estimated cost of $800 million, replacing the I-70 viaduct alone "represents all of our annual budget," said CDOT chief engineer Pamela Hutton. "The dilemma for us is how in the world do we fund just that piece?" ... (continued here--article from source in it's entirety)
My Reaction:

I'm not 100% sure I understand how a $15 million project in 1960 has inflated to $800 million to build it today. That is such a massive amount of inflation, it is unreal...

That being said, there are two solutions to this project which I like:

Option A: relocate this section of I-70 a little to the north and divert traffic threw the new stretch. Then construct a nice at-grade boulevard where the existing stretch of I-70 would be deconstructed.

Option B: Construct an architecturally pleasing structural expanse bridge (such as a cable-stayed, suspension, tied-truss bridge, deck through, etc...) over the existing viaduct. Then once complete, deconstruct the old viaduct below and build a nice at-grade boulevard below the bridge for local traffic.





Quote:
Originally Posted by LAMetroGuy View Post
Desmond Bridge, Port of Long Beach, CA
Photosimulation of proposed bridge allternatives

CURRENT DESMOND BRIDGE


Cable-Stayed Concrete with Twin Pilon Towers


Cable-Stayed Steel Composite with Diamond Towers


Cable-Stayed Steel Composite with Single Pilon Towers


Steel Tied Arch


Cable-Stayed Concrete with Single Pilon Towers
__________________
Automation Is Still the Future

Last edited by SnyderBock; Oct 24, 2009 at 12:05 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted May 7, 2010, 12:05 AM
docroc docroc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 279
removing an urban freeway - in Buffalo - lesson for North Denver?

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted May 8, 2010, 5:39 AM
The Dirt The Dirt is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,212
Does anyone have a clue as to the timeline of the I-70 redevelopment? I was hoping that they would have a plan in place by the end of the year last year. I've said this before, but it seems like the cheapest and best thing to do would be to divert I-70 over to I-270/I-76 and turn the entire existing stretch if I-70 between I-270 and I-75 into a boulevard. It seems much cheaper, as at least one of the bridges on I-270 is wide enough to fit a couple of more lanes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted May 8, 2010, 5:45 AM
The Dirt The Dirt is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,212
Apparently, St.Louis is diverting I-70 away from downtown and to a new bridge.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted May 8, 2010, 10:10 PM
bunt_q's Avatar
bunt_q bunt_q is offline
Provincial Bumpkin
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 13,203
Quote:
Originally Posted by SnyderBock View Post
My Reaction:

I'm not 100% sure I understand how a $15 million project in 1960 has inflated to $800 million to build it today. That is such a massive amount of inflation, it is unreal...

That's only an 8.2% annual increase in construction costs. Seems perfectly reasonable. Think about what the world looked like 50 years ago. Think about how little demand there was for construction materials in the developing world. Think about what the prevailing wages for skilled labor probably were here. Makes perfect sense.

Nominal U.S. GDP was under $1 trillion in 1960 (adjusted it was still under $3 trillion). It's nearly $14 trillion today. We can afford it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted May 10, 2010, 5:53 PM
docroc docroc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 279
Parks Proposed Over Highways

Thought this might be of interest for the discussion of the future if I-70 in Denver. docroc

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...an-parks_N.htm

By Mei-Chun Jau, for USA TODAY
By Haya El Nasser, USA TODAY

Cities are removing the concrete barriers that freeways form through their downtowns — not by tearing them down but by shrouding them in greenery and turning them into parks and pedestrian-friendly developments.

This gray-to-green metamorphosis is underway or under consideration in major cities seeking ways to revive sections of their downtowns from Los Angeles and Dallas to St. Louis and Cincinnati.

Transportation departments are not opposed as long as the plans don't reduce highway capacity. In most cases, traffic is rerouted.

"It's the coming together of people wanting green space and realizing that highways are a negative to the city," says Peter Harnik, director of the Trust for Public Land's Center for City Park Excellence. "Covering them with green space gives you a wonderful place to live and work."

Groups that are not always on the same page — environmentalists and developers — are embracing the "capping" or "decking" efforts for different reasons. Environmentalists encourage more trees and grass to offset carbon emissions and promote walkable neighborhoods to reduce reliance on cars. Developers are eager for space to build on in prime downtown locations. Citizens want parks and amenities they can reach on foot.

"Highways are extremely destructive to the fabric of urban life," says Harnik, author of Urban Green: Innovative Parks for Resurgent Cities. "The noise that emanates from it, the smell."

Capping freeways dates to the 1930s. A recent example is the Rose Kennedy Greenway over Boston's "Big Dig," which created open space by putting elevated roadways underground.

The resurgence of downtowns has turned available pieces of land into hot commodities. At the same time, the drumbeat for more parks in smog-choked cities is getting louder.

"It's essentially like creating oceanfront property," says Linda Owen, president of the Woodall Rodgers Park Foundation in Dallas. "It's an economic engine."

The group leads the effort to build a 5-acre park on the eight-lane Woodall Rodgers Freeway that runs north of downtown, between U.S. 75 and Interstate 35E. Traffic will be channeled to a tunnel. It's part of a bigger plan to revitalize the city's core and connect all corners of a 68-acre cultural district, from museums, restaurants and residential towers to a new opera hall and performing arts center.

"The freeway is like our medieval wall," Owen says. "You couldn't get over it. … The park is just being created out of thin air."

Similar projects are under review in:

• Los Angeles and Santa Monica, Calif. There are four proposals to "cap" obsolete sections of the 101 or Hollywood Freeway — in Hollywood and downtown Los Angeles — and I-10 in Santa Monica with parks and developments that mix residential, retail and office uses.

The area's density makes it difficult to create parkland, but old freeways offer vast spaces that can be used, says Vaughan Davies, the architect and urban designer leading some of the efforts.

"The one in downtown Los Angeles encompasses 100 acres of land and the park itself is about 15 to 20 acres," he says. It would connect Union Station, Chinatown and Olvera Street with City Hall and Little Tokyo.

Another plan would bring a park and school on 40 acres over the Hollywood Freeway through a largely residential area. In Santa Monica, an old section of I-10 would link the area near the Santa Monica Pier with the civic center.

• Cincinnati. In a city that has more expressway interchanges per mile than most cities, freeways cut off the downtown from its riverfront near the confluence of I-75 and I-71.

"We need to reconnect downtown to the river," says Michael Moore, interim director of transportation and engineering.

Several exits were consolidated to create Fort Washington Way, opening about 16 acres of unused space for development and 40 acres for a park on the banks of the Ohio River.

• St. Louis. A design competition is underway to connect the Gateway Arch grounds and downtown over I-70, which divides the two. A non-profit citizen group, City to River, proposes removing a section of the interstate that is not needed since traffic has been shifted to a new bridge north of the Arch.

Turning it into a 1.4-mile boulevard and parkway would "create more valuable real estate, close to the Arch," says Rick Bonasch, a member. "This boulevard would connect downtown casinos, hotels, sports stadiums and the historic riverfront."

The projects face relatively little opposition, Harnik says. "The green movement wants more parkland, and the development community wants a beautiful, quiet park instead of a noisy freeway to build residential or office buildings around them," he says. "The payback in … economic value is high enough to make the whole thing worthwhile."

PARKS PROPOSED OVER HIGHWAYS
City Highway
Cincinnati Interstate 71/Fort Washington Way
Dallas Woodall Rodgers Freeway
Los Angeles Hollywood Freeway
Minneapolis I-90/I-35W
Portland, Ore. I-405
Sacramento I-5
St. Louis I-70
San Diego I-5
Santa Monica, Calif. I-10
Seattle Alaskan Way
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted May 10, 2010, 7:02 PM
bunt_q's Avatar
bunt_q bunt_q is offline
Provincial Bumpkin
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 13,203
Can I make the non-PC statement here? We had a lot of these discussions about whether to cap I-25 or what treatments to go with through "the narrows" (do we even call it that anymore) before T-REX started. Neat idea to park that whole area except for the many bridges. But nothing came of it - it was all just too expensive. And that was through Wash Park - rich folks.

To even talk about anything like that happening through north Denver is absurd. This isn't the same as a freeway "through downtown" (capping I-25 through the CPV would be interesting though, hmm...) I-70 runs through an area that, frankly, nobody cares about. Relocating the highway north is the neighborhood's only realistic shot at anything better. And once it moves, I think the best hope for anything nice would be some hard core landscaping, and even that will take a major effort I am sure. We should get back to discussing how to make this boulevard idea the best it can be for the neighborhood and the city.

I've obviously been out for a while... but whatever happened with the concerns about the stock show on the western end of where the relocated highway would run?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted May 12, 2010, 4:56 AM
1Post2's Avatar
1Post2 1Post2 is offline
going there, no direction
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: the road to nowhere
Posts: 1,212
Quote:
My Reaction:

I'm not 100% sure I understand how a $15 million project in 1960 has inflated to $800 million to build it today. That is such a massive amount of inflation, it is unreal...
Constructing a viaduct over an existing street for the first time is also lot cheaper than building a new viaduct and having to reroute highway traffic in places where there's lots of private property and little extra room to work with.
__________________
I'm in a music video.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Sep 13, 2010, 7:28 PM
docroc docroc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 279
Freeway teardown - future of I-70 through North Denver?

Time to Accelerate Freeway Teardowns? by Neal Peirce

http://citiwire.net/post/2241/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Sep 13, 2010, 7:30 PM
docroc docroc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 279
more on highway removal

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Sep 13, 2010, 10:48 PM
The Dirt The Dirt is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,212
Is there any public activism going on in Denver (petition, web site, etc.) that calls for a demo of I-70 through Denver? I am in huge favor of turning it into a boulevard from I-270 to I-76 and improving those highways to handle the extra traffic. This seems especially like a good idea once the commuter rail to DIA is built.

Burying I-25 through downtown would also be great.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Sep 14, 2010, 4:17 AM
Teshadoh's Avatar
Teshadoh Teshadoh is offline
100% Right 50% Of Time
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: suburban Denver
Posts: 3,657
Where would I-70 be rerouted? Since it is an interstate highway, it would not be able to have a non-interstate grade gap. Though it could continue along I-76 to I-270, that isn't too much of a detour.
__________________
Pudding will not fill the emptiness inside my soul... but it will help.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Sep 14, 2010, 7:44 AM
The Dirt The Dirt is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,212
My thoughts exactly. It would be much cheaper to widen/upgrade I-270/I-76, than any plan that fixed I-70 in place, or diverts and rebuilds it along 58th (which would still leave North Washington in the dust). These highways are already interstate grade, and would need no more than one additional lane in each direction to handle interstate traffic. Intercity and rush hour traffic will continue to use the at-grade boulevard that replaces I-70. As a bonus, in a few years, we will have the DIA commuter rail line along Smith Rd. (1/4 mile south of I-70 now) that could easily pick up the slack.

I-270 already has a couple of bridges wide enough to handle the extra lanes. The biggest issue would be to create a decent enough interchange at I-270/I-76. Lets face it, I-70 already cuts significantly north of downtown as is. Diverting it north another 3 miles isn't going to impact anyone making a long distance trip through Denver. I-270 and I-76 need improvements and maintenance anyway, so why not kill three birds with one stone?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Sep 14, 2010, 11:09 AM
glowrock's Avatar
glowrock glowrock is online now
Becoming Chicago-fied!
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Chicago (West Avondale)
Posts: 19,689
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dirt View Post
My thoughts exactly. It would be much cheaper to widen/upgrade I-270/I-76, than any plan that fixed I-70 in place, or diverts and rebuilds it along 58th (which would still leave North Washington in the dust). These highways are already interstate grade, and would need no more than one additional lane in each direction to handle interstate traffic. Intercity and rush hour traffic will continue to use the at-grade boulevard that replaces I-70. As a bonus, in a few years, we will have the DIA commuter rail line along Smith Rd. (1/4 mile south of I-70 now) that could easily pick up the slack.

I-270 already has a couple of bridges wide enough to handle the extra lanes. The biggest issue would be to create a decent enough interchange at I-270/I-76. Lets face it, I-70 already cuts significantly north of downtown as is. Diverting it north another 3 miles isn't going to impact anyone making a long distance trip through Denver. I-270 and I-76 need improvements and maintenance anyway, so why not kill three birds with one stone?
270 is already a nightmare around rush hour, so another lane needs to be added regardless of adding I-70 traffic to it. I'd say 270/76 would need to be 5 lanes across to handle the load of I-70 traffic...

Ladies and gentlemen, that's going to cost a LOT of money to do...

Aaron (Glowrock)
__________________
"Deeply corrupt but still semi-functional - it's the Chicago way." -- Barrelfish
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Sep 14, 2010, 3:35 PM
The Dirt The Dirt is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,212
That's assuming that the at grade boulevard cant handle any traffic, that people will continue to take I-70 westbound to get to more southernly locations, and other forms of transportation cant handle the load. Widening I-270 will still be cheaper than rebuilding I-70 in place, and having to widen I-270 down the road anyway. That highway still has potholes from snowstorms 3 years ago. I'm not saying I have all of the answers. Actually what I'm saying is that the city should do a study. I still think that the most expensive piece will be the I-25/I-76/US-36 interchange. I-270 has plenty of room to grow, as most of the land surrounding it is industrial and buffered by access roads and creeks.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Sep 14, 2010, 5:11 PM
Brainpathology's Avatar
Brainpathology Brainpathology is offline
of Gnomeregan
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Tacoma
Posts: 1,879
There is also 470 for people who have no wish to go through Denver (why anyone would actually WANT to avoid Denver I have no idea - I hear rumors that these types of people exist though). So much of I-70 is elevated I can't imagine rebuilding that would rival the cost of adding a lane or two along 270/76. The interchange at 36/270/76 was just rebuilt though right? I don't know how many lanes each of the seperate entrances from the East actually have, how many cars would continue on 36 toward Boulder (and then south to I-70 though the rest of the 470 circle if that ever gets done). My recollection though was that the interchange there was Substantially upgraded and that at least for a while it could possibly serve the new route.

At some point, there are going to have to be choices made about how many interstates and hiways we want to maintain. I think looking for opportunities to get rid of as much as possible in inner city areas like I-70 is something we will be forced into sooner or later. Might as well do it as a choice now rather than a last resort in the future.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Sep 14, 2010, 5:32 PM
docroc docroc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 279
I-70

The least cost option for replacing the current mile-long viaduct is more than $ 3/4 billion. And that's pretty much just replacing the existing viaduct with a similar new viaduct between Vasquez and Washington.

(What's that Einstein quote about "the problems we have created cannot be solved with the same thinking that created them" . . . ?)

An appealing alternative is to move the viaduct out of the Swansea and Elyria neighborhoods and reroute the interstate about a quarter of a mile north between 270 and Brighton Blvd. That would be more than $ 1 billion easily.

A variation of that offered on this board has been to continue the relocation about a half a mile north from Brighton Blvd to about Zuni - where the relined I-70 would then continue on the I-76 alignment to Wadsworth - thus bypassing the Globville, Chaffee Park, and Berkeley neighbhorhoods as well. Most of the right-of-way is either undeveloped, underdeveloped, or light industry for that.

It is correct that 46th Avenue could then be a surface boulevard (think East Alameda Avenue Parkway) - which would become a non-interstate route into downtown.

Yet another option indeed would be to simply be to redesignate I-270 and the final segment of I-76 to Wadsworth as I-70 to maintain the east-west interstate route - yes both segments would need to be reconstructed. But again probably only 3 general purpose lanes, plus one (or 2) HOV lanes. Again, the 46th Avenue surface boulevard (48th Avenue from Pecos west) would also be an additional facility to complement the realignment.

I agree that with 470 in place, that is factor that didn't exist when the mistaken decision was made in the 1960s to route I-70 along 46th Avenue and 48th Avenue - instead of locating it north of the city limits.

It's time for highway decisions to be made in terms of livability - including the livability of the historic north Denver neighborhoods. And not just in terms of the straightest line east to west. Yes, mobility is part of livability. But the rerouted I-70 to the north would probably add no more than 4 minutes to an east-west trip across the metro area - and that seems to be pretty close to a win-win in terms of maintaining mobility, and improving livability.

docroc
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Sep 14, 2010, 7:08 PM
soonermeteor's Avatar
soonermeteor soonermeteor is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Norman, OK
Posts: 2,569
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dirt View Post
Apparently, St.Louis is diverting I-70 away from downtown and to a new bridge.
The section through downtown will still be there as it stands right now. It will be an extension of 44. I noticed in the article just below your post though that they are considering turning that small section between the old and new bridge into a street level parkway.
__________________
From Colorado, studying meteorology at OU.

" There is only one duty, only one safe course, and that is to try to be right and not fear to do or say what you believe." - Winston Churchill
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Sep 14, 2010, 11:37 PM
glowrock's Avatar
glowrock glowrock is online now
Becoming Chicago-fied!
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Chicago (West Avondale)
Posts: 19,689
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dirt View Post
That's assuming that the at grade boulevard cant handle any traffic, that people will continue to take I-70 westbound to get to more southernly locations, and other forms of transportation cant handle the load. Widening I-270 will still be cheaper than rebuilding I-70 in place, and having to widen I-270 down the road anyway. That highway still has potholes from snowstorms 3 years ago. I'm not saying I have all of the answers. Actually what I'm saying is that the city should do a study. I still think that the most expensive piece will be the I-25/I-76/US-36 interchange. I-270 has plenty of room to grow, as most of the land surrounding it is industrial and buffered by access roads and creeks.
WHile yes, of course the at-grade boulevard will handle SOME of the traffic of I-70, but I'd guesstimate it won't take more than 10-20% of the load off. Especially west of I-25, the boulevard would be very, very slow due to countless traffic signals with the density of that area. Certainly not so bad in the area that we're really looking to demolish, of course the viaduct.

So you're now dealing with 80-90% of the traffic flow of I-70 now heading up along 270 to 76 back to 70... Fine, with enough lanes, I can see that working. The newly reconfigured and reworked I-25/76/270/36 interchanges can probably handle a substantial amount of that load. However, you're still looking at probably $300-500 million for freeway improvements to even make it remotely feasible, and I could be undercounting substantially there...

You are of course correct that we're going to have to take a hard look at how many freeways we're going to be able to afford to keep up maintenance on.

The problem that we're really facing here is that I-70 is such a major, major route that traffic diversion is a major problem, and of course rebuilding or rerouting the road is a very expensive problem. Nothing like the Embarcadero in San Fran, for example...

More like working with the Big Dig in Boston...

Aaron (Glowrock)
__________________
"Deeply corrupt but still semi-functional - it's the Chicago way." -- Barrelfish
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Sep 15, 2010, 3:27 AM
The Dirt The Dirt is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,212
Quote:
Originally Posted by glowrock View Post
WHile yes, of course the at-grade boulevard will handle SOME of the traffic of I-70, but I'd guesstimate it won't take more than 10-20% of the load off. Especially west of I-25, the boulevard would be very, very slow due to countless traffic signals with the density of that area. Certainly not so bad in the area that we're really looking to demolish, of course the viaduct.

So you're now dealing with 80-90% of the traffic flow of I-70 now heading up along 270 to 76 back to 70... Fine, with enough lanes, I can see that working. The newly reconfigured and reworked I-25/76/270/36 interchanges can probably handle a substantial amount of that load. However, you're still looking at probably $300-500 million for freeway improvements to even make it remotely feasible, and I could be undercounting substantially there...

You are of course correct that we're going to have to take a hard look at how many freeways we're going to be able to afford to keep up maintenance on.

The problem that we're really facing here is that I-70 is such a major, major route that traffic diversion is a major problem, and of course rebuilding or rerouting the road is a very expensive problem. Nothing like the Embarcadero in San Fran, for example...

More like working with the Big Dig in Boston...

Aaron (Glowrock)
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Mountain West
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:42 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.