DENVER - I-70 Relocation

[docroc]

http://www.psrc.org/projects/growth/...-map_FINAL.jpg

Relocate Interstate 70? – It Makes Sense

The Colorado Department of Transportation, the City of Denver, and other agencies and groups are to be commended for thinking outside the box when it comes to the future of Interstate 70 in north Denver. A leading proposal, to relocate the highway just north of its current alignment – and just north of the neighborhoods of Swansea and Elyria – makes sense on many counts.

From the transportation perspective, moving the highway to an area that is not as hemmed in allows for new configurations of this important east-west link to better accommodate new exclusive high-occupancy lanes from Denver International Airport into the heart of the metropolitan area. Removing the elevated portion of the highway can also serve to reconnect neighborhoods and communities for which I-70 has been both a barrier and a burden. Besides the noise and visual pollution of the elevated roadway, studies have shown that areas near heavily traveled freeways have elevated levels of air pollution, especially fine particulates, and increases in asthma and other respiratory diseases.

Relocating I-70 would also provides new economic development opportunities – both along the light industrial lands along the new alignment – as well as redevelopment and infill opportunities along a reinvigorated East 46th Avenue through Swansea and Elyria. Rebuilding 46th Avenue as a parkway fits with the original parks and parkway plan for the City of Denver, before we opted instead for a superhighway through north Denver – and would also provide another parallel surface transportation corridor from Downtown Denver to the northeast part of the city.

It is very likely that if I-70 were to be built today – especially in the era of attention to environmental justice – it is doubtful that the roadway would have been allowed to penetrate through these residential communities. Environmental justice is a federal term that requires transportation projects and other programs receiving federal funds to address the needs of and impacts on minority and low-income populations. It was a mistake not to route I-70 just a few blocks north of its current alignment to skirt around these neighborhoods and leave them intact. Fortunately, we have an opportunity to correct this mistake.

One of the outstanding issues with relocating I-70 north of its current alignment is how to tie it back into the portion of the highway that continues to the west. Among the issues are finding the right-of-way near Brighton Boulevard and the National Western Complex to bring the roadway back south and reconnect with its current alignment in the Globeville neighborhood.

We would propose to continue the innovation approach of realignment of I-70 for about another two miles north of its current location. The highway could continue north of Globeville and the Chafee Park neighborhood to a point where it would then connect with Interstate 76 somewhere between Zuni Street and Federal Boulevard. It would then be collocated along a widened stretch of I-70/76 along the current I-76 to Wadsworth Boulevard to where it would reconnect with its current alignment in Jefferson County.

This would only be approximately two additional miles of relocated highway, but again would be in an area where the corridor is not as hemmed in. Where I-70 and I-25 would intersect, there would actually be room to construct access to and from high-occupancy vehicle lanes for both highways, as well as general purpose lanes.

Also, the current alignment of I-70 through the Chafee Park and Berkeley neighborhoods in northwest Denver would also be converted into a surface level parkway along 48th Avenue, that would create a more pleasant arterial for various modes of travel. Land that is now used for the service roads north and south of I-70 could be redeveloped from Pecos Street to Tennyson Street, creating opportunities for literally dozens of new home sites, businesses, and shops to help the redevelopment of these close-in neighborhoods.

It is interesting that the Transportation Department’s cost analysis of relocating I-70 to the north shows that that option is actual quite economical when compared to alternatives to remove and reconstruct an elevated structure along the current alignment. And that is just an analysis of the roadway infrastructure costs. When you also take into account the added benefits – both economic and social – of creating new opportunities for infill and redevelopment of neighborhoods near the core of the metropolitan areas, the cost analysis of moving about a total of five miles I-70 only improves.

Finally, relocation can be done in a manner that minimizes the construction-related hassles the region experienced when I-25 was reconstructed as part of the T-Rex project. Relocating I-70 is the right choice both for north Denver and for improving mobility for the entire region.

[HigherHigher]

I really hope they go with the re-alignment to the north and re-connect these neighborhoods. It looks like CDOT is already working on an extensive study. Any idea when this might actually move forward? I am guessing it won't happen until the next round of funding... stumulus or otherwise??

I did find some good information from the CDOT web site... http://www.i-70east.com/

[blm3034L!fe]

I think it's a good idea, the question is would they also consider widening the entire I-70 Corridor? Because that is one messed up stretch of highway IMO. They also need to widen I-25 North like they did to I-25 South. Along with I-225 and highway 36 all of these freeways are so freaking out of date for the current 3.1 Million population in the Denver area. Even though fast tracks is coming people will still be driving and the population is not slowing down, in fact I think Denver's population might be seeing a major Boom in the next 5-10 years.

IMO Fast Tracks will help but it will not solve the transportation issues Denver's highway systems are currently struggling with.

[1Post2]

The more we can keep grade separated highways out of central Denver, the better.

[The Dirt]

I love that they're doing this. I would have just had people go all the way up I-270 then down I-76. It would be cheaper to upgrade I-270 and I-76.

[SnyderBock]

The re-route looks like a perfect solution. Not just the current re-route portion being studied,
but the entire length being proposed! I also love the idea of a "Grand Boulevard" being built
in place of the current I-70 location after it is relocated north a few miles!


Image from: www.psrc.org

[i-215]

Even I like it!

Except what are they going to do with the Mouse Trap? I always thought that interchange was cool.

[electricron]

I think it's a great idea. Fort Worth just recently rerouted I-30 a few blocks (not a few miles) away from downtown.

[soonermeteor]

That would move I-70 closer to the already crowded 76/25/270/boulder turnpike interchange area. It's going to turn into one big clusterf**ck.

[glowrock]

Originally Posted by soonermeteor

That would move I-70 closer to the already crowded 76/25/270/boulder turnpike interchange area. It's going to turn into one big clusterf**ck.

I tend to agree on this one, soonermeteor. With the whole 76/25/270/36 disaster just NOW fixed appropriately, moving I-70 even closer to it will only make matters worse in the area...

Look, I have no problem with them doing a cut and fill of I-70 in its current alignment, or even moving it a little further north. But moving it that far north is a serious problem in terms of traffic flow...

Granted, something needs to be done. It's just not a reasonable situation to simply rebuild it in its current location. But I'm not sure what the right answer really is. No way you can widen 76 and 270 enough to handle I-70 traffic without additional roadway, so you can't just expand those two and eliminate I-70 entirely in those 7-8 miles... Just not sure...

Aaron (Glowrock)

[Ilsaz]

I realize that I-70 east of I-25 is a problem area. But west? Unless I am missing something, that seems to be just fine. Not to mention the ridiculous cost of rebuilding onramps and overpasses, building a new (and better?) mousetrap where traffic is clusterfucked already.

I can't imagine it would be much more expensive to just bury the sucker.

Not that the above plan doesn't have it's good points, it just seems like it is causing as many problems as it solves. And I think the 25/70 interchange is working pretty good. Then again, I don't ever have to use it during rush hour, so what do I know.

Reroute I-70 east and eliminate the viaduct. I'm OK with that. But why mess with the immediate western portion?

[SnyderBock]

Well, I don't see any logical way to re-connect I-70 after the short re-routed northeast segment. Turn Brighton Boulevard into I-70 and reconnect it near 36th Street in River North?

It looks like to me that I-70 west of I-25 also cuts through much more dense neighborhoods and would be tightly confined on both sides from future improvements a few decades down the road. Why not remove I-70 from their neighborhood as well?

They could rebuilt the new mousetrap further north, using the latest engineering efficiencies and have available all the land they need to do so.

Also, with a grand boulevard taking I-70's current locations place, there will be a considerable amount of I-70 traffic exit and take that boulevard instead of I-70. This will result in several thousand fewer cars using the mousetrap (new mousetrap) each day.

This plan is perfect. The two criticisms I have read are not yet well thought out. I say leave the traffic analysis and preferred alternative selection up to the experts.

[glowrock]

Plan is perfect, eh? SnyderBock, while I definitely respect the hell out of your initiative in coming up with proposals like this, you're not exactly spending a whole lot of time thinking about costs. Any plan as grandiose as this one would cost a cool couple of billion dollars, more than likely. Where do you think this magical pot of money is going to come from?

Engineering efficiencies? The Mousetrap isn't an old interchange. Well, originally it was old, but the newest portions of it are only 3-4 years old now... I see no reason to completely abandon an interchange that cost a few hundred million dollars and just poo-poo it as the cost of city reconnection. Look, I'm with you that I-70, in the best circumstances, could/should be moved a bit further north to the more industrial area. However, the costs involved are likely so prohibitive as to make that impossible.

Given that, why not just consider something a little less grandiose?

Aaron (Glowrock)

[PLANSIT]

This will be a huge asset in reconnecting those neighborhoods destroyed by its original construction. However, I have to disagree with the "Parkway" in its place. Oklahoma City is currently relocating a stretch of I-40 through downtown and replacing it with a boulevard. The problem stems from a pedestrian standpoint that the new boulevard will create another physical and mental barrier/obstacle for those who want to cross it. Even with just 2 lanes E and W, plus turn lanes, you are looking at 70+ feet to cross. As it reads, they seem to have address using some of the ROW for open space and redevelopment, but hopefully they don't create another monster and a real reconnection for those neighborhoods occurs.

[bcp]

it would be nice if they made this boulevard not just a mini-hghway with trees, but zoned as mainstreet with taller, intense, mixed-uses. this can actually serve the neighborhoods that have been kinda hosed by the highway as well as buffer them from the noise of the boulevard.

walk on to main streets for some action...move off of it to get back to your quiet hood.

[The Dirt]

Yeah, I'm getting the feeling that the land may be redeveloped into some suburban style boulevard, but I'm crossing my fingers for something a little more intimate.

[bcp]

yeah...see what faces 6th in lowery...god awful SFH that are set back by a yard and additional frontage road...

the city really seems to 'get' main streets...but they are awful slow in dropping down the zoning along our former main streets (broadway, federal, 38th etc.)

[Strange Meat]

Are there any other major metros where the central core has such little freeway access? I mean, the closest you can get to the CBD on a freeway is 25 near 20th or 15th or thereabouts. I'm certainly not complaining about this, as it's great to have a nice chunk of downtown uninterrupted by freeways, but it's something that I think seems kind of quirky compared to other places. I love it.

[docroc]

Originally Posted by glowrock

I tend to agree on this one, soonermeteor. With the whole 76/25/270/36 disaster just NOW fixed appropriately, moving I-70 even closer to it will only make matters worse in the area...

Look, I have no problem with them doing a cut and fill of I-70 in its current alignment, or even moving it a little further north. But moving it that far north is a serious problem in terms of traffic flow...

Granted, something needs to be done. It's just not a reasonable situation to simply rebuild it in its current location. But I'm not sure what the right answer really is. No way you can widen 76 and 270 enough to handle I-70 traffic without additional roadway, so you can't just expand those two and eliminate I-70 entirely in those 7-8 miles... Just not sure...

Aaron (Glowrock)

Not inappropriate concerns to raise . . .
however, among the issues to consider - ultimately you have to decide what the priorities? Just the optimal movement of traffic? What what neighborhoods and where people live? What about opportunities to not only re-seam these neighborhoods together, but create an opportunities for redevelopment and infill close to the downtown area?

I like BCP's comment regarding a well designed boulevard with the appropriate mainstreet type zoning along it - just think of the infill and development opportunities along that 5 mile or so stretch between Vasquez Boulevard and Harlan Street. New housing, reestablished commercial districts, reinvigorated parks serving more transit-oriented development - it could be pretty cool!

In my book, the priority should be on making these neighborhoods whole again - with all due respect, the comments focusing more on the highways and traffic seem to not be sensitive to communities they impact. Those seem to be concerns more on engineering and movement of machines, rather than on the quality of the places where people live and work in North Denver.

Regarding the mousetrap?? It'll still be there, and will serve and the interchange between the new surface boulevard where it intersects with I-25. So it's not being wasted, its not being thrown away. Probably at a larger scale than the normal interchange between a freeway and a surface thoroughfare, but no big deal.

Regarding a new interchange where the relocated I-70 would intersect with I-25 - actually being able to design afresh has some advantages too. If the I-70 corridor is to incorporate HOV/HOT lanes in the future - there really is no opportunity to add at the current mousetrap ramp configurations that would provide for HOV-to-HOV only ramp access between the 2 interstates. That could, however, be designed into the new interchange along a realignment. So you could have general purpose lane ramps between I-25 and I-70 as well as separate ramps for HOV . . . this treatment in and of itself would go a long way to address the traffic "mess" issues of concern.

And others who have comment on this thread have also picked up on the fact that the this proposal for a realigned E-W corridor through north Denver would actually provide additional traffic benefits with both (1) a relocated interstate highway AND (2) a new surface boulevard as part of the mobility mix.

I shutter at the thought of a reconstructed I-70 in its current location becoming a 10-12 lane monstrosity in the future from DIA to Wheat Ridge - not out of the realm of a DOT-type of perspective of having simply to consider engineering traffic with disregard for the communities through which it is located. If there is more traffic demand for E-W movement through the northern sector of the city - then I would argue that having one facility designed mainly for through traffic (i.e, the relocated I-70) and a more context-sensitive surface boulevard for more localized traffic is a better solution. I-70 could remain an 8-lane type of facility (3 general purpose lanes and an HOV lane in either direction) and the surface boulevard could be a 4-lane arterial, with complete streets type of treatments for transit and sidewalks as well.

Yes, the I-70 and I-25 interchange would be closer to the I-25 interchange with I-76/US-36 - but again, that could be well designed to improve the overall flow of all of the highways in the area. Again, the HOV-to-HOV issue - since the current I-25 HOV/HOT lane exits onto US-36 to Boulder, the realigned I-70 could easily be designed to connect with that HOV system. (Something that is nearly impossible to try to retrofit into the existing mousetrap.)

As for burying or depressing I-70 from some point near the Colosseum and continuing that west . . . that definitely has some intrigue. I'd say that is just another example, though, that reinforces that I-70 was ill-sited from the get go and never belonged along the 48th Avenue alignment in North Denver.

Finally, how far "north" of the current 46th Avenue/48th Avenue should the relocated highway go? Take some time and go check the area out. East of I-25 there's ample right-of-way roughly where 50th or 52nd Avenue would be aligned. West of I-25, because of a bluff and existing residential areas on that southern edge of Adams County, the best right-of-way seems to be an alignment somewhere roughly between 54th and 57th Avenues. I-70 would intersect with the I-76 alignment somewhere between Zuni and Federal and continue westerly from that point.

[docroc]

Originally Posted by Snodrifter

Are there any other major metros where the central core has such little freeway access? I mean, the closest you can get to the CBD on a freeway is 25 near 20th or 15th or thereabouts. I'm certainly not complaining about this, as it's great to have a nice chunk of downtown uninterrupted by freeways, but it's something that I think seems kind of quirky compared to other places. I love it.

Check out nearly every major city in Europe and elsewhere around the globe. The U.S. stands out as a nation that opted to "evolve" what was to be an "interstate" system - to serve urban commuting into and out of the core.

I agree, I like that I-25 skirts downtown rather than penetrates it as in many other American cities . . .

Note - there are cities taking steps to take interstate-type highways out of their downtowns - such as what Portland did with the highway along the west bank of the Willamette. Actually, I'm pretty proud of what Denver has done with removing its web of viaducts . . .