My Solution to I70 Traffic Problems

raisingarizona wrote

The Wasatch needs to go that way too.

There was talk of making a railroad track up LCC, through Grizzly Gulch, into BCC, through Guardsman into PC. They would build tunnels in the slide paths to keep it running when the road might be closed.

The place is busy enough. Keep the lines so you still get three runs in between lifting interlodge and the valleyites getting up the canyon.

It's only going to get busier, it's probably in the areas best interests to start planning for it before things get really out of control.

In the ideal world we would slow down on procreating but unfortunately our genetic make up and hormonal desires seem to trump logical thinking. Basically, people aren't going to stop f--ing.

If you are lodge living now I get where you are coming from, you are there for one and only one reason but trust me, that will get old before you know it.

Personally I'm all for the interconnect as long as back country access to places like Grizzly Gulch isn't compromised. I believe that is possible but maybe not? In all honesty I think it would be super bad ass and the naysayers are just being reluctant to change but that's just my opinion right now and I'm totally cool with being wrong.

Footer wrote

Sno,

You need a job.  Or a significant other.  Or both.  Surely there is someone out there who would pay you money to obsess over something like this.  Its a good quality to have, go find somewhere to apply it.  Don't spend your summer break inside working on pie in the sky plans to take over the world.

I disagree, as an admitted pie in the sky planning dork I think it's a fine way to spend down time. It's just sort of fun to some people and who knows, hopefully he does get to live his dream doing this sort of stuff. Sure, Sno likes to troll abit for emotional responses but for the most part I appreciate the silly "what if" topics. In all honesty, Sno's posts are in part the reason I started posting around here. And that weirdo that wanted fences lining all of the trails! HAHA! I kind of wanted to smack that dude.

raisingarizona wrote

Personally I'm all for the interconnect as long as back country access to places like Grizzly Gulch isn't compromised.

I haven't looked at a map but my impression is that the UT areas are much closer to each other and SLC. Someone else said it though, building these trains to service ski areas is pretty silly. If it was easy, why would the single WP one have so much trouble when it has the competitive advantages of being the first AND only. Europe is not a fair comparable because those mountains had towns up there first, unlike western NA. Our towns are more spread out even within the town limits. There needs to be another solution but for now the best i can see are the park and rides and express bus lanes. Every full bus is like 50 cars off the road, and if they have WIFI why not? And that would be for commuters daily, not some once a year joe tourist. Because the ridership to service just ski areas could not possibly justify it, ever. Think of how many fewer people would ride it than get on at one single subway station each day, and NYC can barely get a station off the ground for all people... not 1500miles of new track through rugged mountains to service a few elite. It's not even pie in the sky, it's pixiedust and moonbeams and unicorn farts.

Footer wrote

You need a job.

I already have one, which I like a lot.

ml242 wrote

raisingarizona wrote

Personally I'm all for the interconnect as long as back country access to places like Grizzly Gulch isn't compromised.

I haven't looked at a map but my impression is that the UT areas are much closer to each other and SLC. Someone else said it though, building these trains to service ski areas is pretty silly. If it was easy, why would the single WP one have so much trouble when it has the competitive advantages of being the first AND only. Europe is not a fair comparable because those mountains had towns up there first, unlike western NA. Our towns are more spread out even within the town limits. There needs to be another solution but for now the best i can see are the park and rides and express bus lanes. Every full bus is like 50 cars off the road, and if they have WIFI why not? And that would be for commuters daily, not some once a year joe tourist. Because the ridership to service just ski areas could not possibly justify it, ever. Think of how many fewer people would ride it than get on at one single subway station each day, and NYC can barely get a station off the ground for all people... not 1500miles of new track through rugged mountains to service a few elite. It's not even pie in the sky, it's pixiedust and moonbeams and unicorn farts.

The lines I proposed are not 1500 miles.  The Aspen Line is 171 miles from Denver, the Vail Line is 126 miles from Denver, and the Winter Park Line is 82 miles.

The reason the original Winter Park Ski Train failed was because it took over 2 hours and only ran once a day.  People aren't going to use public transportation if it isn't convenient.  Also, it didn't serve the airport, so only locals could take it.

My proposed service would also serve as commuter rail for Silverthorne, Frisco, and a couple other towns that I can't remember the names of.  As I rerouted it to follow the I70 route, it would be cheaper to build, easier to get approved, and serve more than just ski areas.

The issue with expanding bus service is that it's still subject to the poor road conditions and heavy traffic already there.  LOTS of people need to use it to make any difference.  It's always hard to get Americans out of their cars, but easier to do so with a train than a bus.

The reason NYC has so much trouble building subway stations is because there's so much development around them that eminent domain most definitely needs to be used to get them built and people are reluctant to give up their homes and businesses.  When I routed the lines for this service, I avoided using eminent domain for the most part, so there would be less opposition.  Colorado residents are so fed up with the I70 gridlock that getting this approved would be easy.

snoloco wrote

The reason NYC has so much trouble building subway stations is because there's so much development around them that eminent domain most definitely needs to be used to get them built and people are reluctant to give up their homes and businesses.  When I routed the lines for this service, I avoided using eminent domain for the most part, so there would be less opposition.  Colorado residents are so fed up with the I70 gridlock that getting this approved would be easy.

The single reason isn't eminent domain, it's cost. The argument is ridiculous like trying to "prove" god doesn't exist. Phase 1 of California's new line is going to cost 120M per mile. It's going to be a fast rail but the terrain is more moderate. So how much of the traffic on i70 is due to ski areas and how much is due to other uses. How much can the public stomach on infrastructure projects that might not make a dent? My guess is not the dollar amount you are talking about.

Well it cost a whole lot more to build a station in a city vs a more rural area.  Also, underground stations cost dramatically more than at grade stations.  You know very little about railroads.  I learned my letters, numbers, and colors from the NYC Subway because I lived in Queens when I was little.  I've done almost the same amount of research on railroad statistics as I've done on skiing.  I didn't come up with this as a pie in the sky idea.  I mapped every line out making sure it had acceptable grades for a railroad and I've even made up a partial schedule which I haven't posted here.  I have a very long history being interested in railroads, I just didn't mention it here until now because it was unrelated to a ski forum.

snoloco wrote

Well it cost a whole lot more to build a station in a city vs a more rural area.  Also, underground stations cost dramatically more than at grade stations.  You know very little about railroads.

I know that California's new line runs from the Bay Area to the central coast above ground.

Ever since Thomas the train?  I like what you put together, good work.  

This is a fun exercise that is impossible to justify due to the lack of passenger density and no money. The logistics for a family of 4 for a day trip on a Saturday are a nightmare.

1. Load your car for the drive to the train station parking lot. Not bringing lunch - too much to carry.
2. Unload your car for the walk to the actual train station. Hopefully your kids are big enough to carry there own equipment. Hopefully the stop will have an indoor waiting area while you wait for the train.
3. Load onto the train including 4 sets of equipment. Hopefully, nobody will take your equipment by accident or on purpose at an earlier stop.
4. Unload at the ski area train stop and get in line for the shuttle ride to the base area.
5. Shuttle to the lodge.
6. Ski
7. Shuttle to the train station.
8. Load the train for the ride home.
9. Unload from the train station and walk back to the car.
10. Load the car for the ride home.
11. Unload you car at home.
 or
1. Load your car and drive to the ski area. If you leave early enough you can park in close.
2. Unload at the ski area and walk to the base area. If you are close enough you can leave any extra stuff and your lunch in the car.
3. Ski
4. Load you car for the ride home
5. Unload your car at home
4. Load your car for the ride home

Plus - it will be more expensive to take the train. The train will actually force people back into their cars.

I designed the lines to have all the stops right in the base area, except for Aspen and Beaver Creek where the station will be in the town.  That eliminates the shuttle bus step.

You also forgot about the overnight visitors, and didn't mention the time saved by skipping all the traffic.

I think it is more to service the tourist industry which is what drives that region region. If airlines were not such spots to deal with I think it would be a great convenience for a family. It could be a great way to alleviate passenger car traffic through that corrido. Until we get out of this war we can't afford fixing the infrastructure we have.

snoloco wrote

You also forgot about the overnight visitors, and didn't mention the time saved by skipping all the traffic.

and then add back the time to take the gear out, walk across a parking lot to your car, repack car, drive home to the denver suburbs... It would never be used by people locals.

If they could get it to work with one resort it would be a victory. you have created many miles of track and essentially three lines. how many cars would they have, and on what schedule? Because there's no loop or anything to leverage the practicality, just three destinations at ski resorts miles apart. So let's say someone lands and sees the schedule: "Gee kids, the next train to aspen isn't for 90minutes" and then you go right to rent a car.

I gave you the price in California for their above ground track, 120M /mile. In NYC the 8.5 miles for the 2nd avenue line is going to cost 17 billion. In NYC the average daily ridership is what ski areas total for visits in a given year, roughly 6M each.

There is no way this would ever make financial or practical sense. Take everything you "know" about trains and print out your map and put it next to your drawings from middle school art class, it has no grasp of reality. Skiing is a niche sport and regular people dont want to flush away 50 billion+ dollars on something they perceive as for the elite, and in this case they'd be exactly right because this train is for the few at the expense of the man.

I haven't made up the full schedule yet, but I think hourly service to all destinations sounds about right, with half hourly service during peak hours.

You keep saying that locals will never use it locals will never use it.  Locals will actually be a significant portion of the ridership.  Why?  Because they're the ones most fed up with the current gridlock.  If you work a 9-5 job, you have to ski on weekends, and that means lots of traffic that you're going to be sitting in.

If someone is at the verge of giving up skiing because they just can't get to the mountains within a decent time and then they hear that a rail line will be built to serve these ski areas, I'd think that person would definitely want it to be built and then would use it once it opened.  Faced with the choice of sitting in traffic for hours on end in likely poor driving conditions, or getting on a train and getting up to the mountains on or close to schedule in most weather conditions, what would they pick?

snoloco wrote

I haven't made up the full schedule yet, but I think hourly service to all destinations sounds about right, with half hourly service during peak hours.

May-Nov schedule-OFF

There would be service in the summer from Memorial Day to Columbus Day, but only running every hour (no peak half hourly service) and using shorter trains, allowing some equipment to be out of service for maintenance.  Winter service would run from the Friday before Thanksgiving until the 3rd weekend in April.  All times between then there would be no service and track maintenance could be done then.  I know people will say that the ski areas aren't necessarily the big destinations in the summer, but the towns with the ski areas are the biggest towns in the mountains, and there is always activity going on there.

OK Sno, what's your estimate for the cost of this because I have it pegged at 50-60 billion.

It's one thing to joke around about more snowmaking here or there or a high speed quad, but this is a sum of money that I don't think is really easy to wrap your head around. How would this ever get paid for? It costs so much.... I have tried to put it in the context of other rails but this is literally 25 of the new yankee stadiums in a much poorer area. Laguardia airport is getting a complete makeover and will cost 4 billion for the benefit of 25 million passengers a year.

So this costs ten times more and has the reach of at best ten times fewer people, and I think that would be a huge stretch.

Let's say you set a powder alarm overnight and you wake up at 5 and there's 8".... you live in a denver suburb. If you leave in 20 minutes (your stuff is in the car), there will be no traffic and plenty of time for coffee, snacks, and first chair. Traffic will suck on the way home.

Would this person ever drive 25minutes to the train station, pay 5$ for parking, wait in the frigid air for 15 minutes for a train, plunk another 25$ for a RT.... I just don't see it happening.

So you're down to tourists. How many families are you going to put on a train? You're talking about running twice an hour during peak.

It's going to be the two conductors and 6 people!


If you can't understand how billions of dollars could be spent better on a non ski-related project I don't know what to tell you.

Nice troll.

tjf1967 wrote

I think it is more to service the tourist industry which is what drives that region region. If airlines were not such spots to deal with I think it would be a great convenience for a family. It could be a great way to alleviate passenger car traffic through that corrido. Until we get out of this war we can't afford fixing the infrastructure we have.

I would think as a destination area, more people show up to ski from weekend to weekend or arrive midweek and leave on a weekend. The local population is also a huge factor for weekend I-70 tunnel traffic. There would be very little demand for midweek train service.

A 2014 CDOT study suggests $13-16 billion for a maglev train with a lot less track. It would be $39-64 billion for using a the same small amount of track, steel wheels, and tunnels

"There are a number of reasons CDOT wants to install a maglev train rather than a traditional steel wheel and rail system. One of the top reasons is the steepness of the mountain corridor.

The mountain corridor climbs at a 7 percent grade in a number of areas, which poses a problem for steel wheel and rail trains that can only climb 3 percent grades.

If a steel wheel and rail system were installed, nearly 60 percent of the rail would need to travel through tunnels to allow for the train to make the climb to the mountain communities, according to Krutsinger.

The amount of tunneling that would be required to allow a traditional steel wheel and rail system to climb through the mountain corridor makes the option cost prohibitive and increases the estimated costs by three to four times, according to Krutsinger. "

Link

snoloco wrote

You keep saying that locals will never use it locals will never use it.  Locals will actually be a significant portion of the ridership.  Why?  Because they're the ones most fed up with the current gridlock.  If you work a 9-5 job, you have to ski on weekends, and that means lots of traffic that you're going to be sitting in.

You are also not thinking like a midwesterner or westerner.  

Trains/buses/whatever really suck after you leave the east coast.  Stuff is way to spread out, the lines don't go where you want, and the service is dreadfully slow.  Until you get in a car and start drivng accross the US you really don't have a clue how big the midwest and west is compared to the northeast.  No one is trained from birth to look at public transit as a real option like they are in the northeast.  

You don't see any real public transit outside of the coasts.  Chicago is the one exception.  The mentality there is... I have a car, I'm going to drive there.  Even if it will take more time... who cares.  I'm going to rely on me to get me there.  Denver is a car town.  Public transit is trying but it is no where near there.  You have to have a car to live there.  So, if you already have that car... why pay for a train?

I have family in the Littleton area who have a condo in winterpark.  I can not for a second see them doing this.  They have a jeep for a reason.  

You would be better off cutting more lanes for I-70.... a project that would use a sixth of the states GDP to serve a small industry is rather insane.  One of my college friends is a social worker in Denver... I'm sure she could find some better ways to spend that cash.  This project would cost 10x more than the Denver international airport AND the E-470 that connects it to Denver.  For the price of this project EVERY person who skied in Colorado over a 5 year period could go Heli-Skiing instead of resort skiing.... and that assumes that the 12 million people who ski Colorado a year do the full day 1,000 dollar a person heli package.