My Solution to I70 Traffic Problems

Is a maglev train a monorail?

I was thinking a mono rail might make sense. They can climb 10 to 12% grades and maintain speed at those grades.

I think a system like this could work if done right. At least for the ski season. I'm not so sure about summer since peoples destinations vary so much.

I also don't think it has to be as elaborate as Sno's idea either. A much more simple line from the airport to the base of the foothills right along I-70 and then up to a Dillon/Frisco station and then onto another station at Vail could possibly take care of the majority of traffic. From Dillon/Frisco maybe create other trains or just have a really functional bus system leaving the terminal that takes people directly to all of the surrounding ski areas. At the Vail terminal you could have a bus taking people to BC. I think the other ski areas might actually like to be left out of this sort of connection, part of the charm of Steamboat and the Aspen areas is the fact that they aren't connected to the I-70 shit show scene. That little bit of extra effort it takes to get there is something they likely enjoy having and have been doing just fine as is.

It would be interesting and probably a real good idea if this was an actual proposal to look at the numbers of people driving from Denver to areas such as Steamboat and Aspen. I bet with a destination like Aspen a lot of people fly directly to Aspen and connecting these places by rail might not make any sense.

This main line could basically just follow the same path as I-70. If you start trying to have a rail go directly to each resort you are going to run into a lot more problems. Just imagine all of the private property issues to deal with let alone the tunneling.

The key to this idea working though is that it's efficient, comfortable, affordable, and overall a better option than driving.If you can't pull that off and then market it right you might as well not do it.

The 3% grade limit is for freight trains because they can be over a mile long and only the locomotives at the front are powering it.  Passenger only lines can have steeper grades because trains are lighter and shorter.  If using self propelled electric cars, all the wheels are transferring power to the rails, so there is less risk of wheel slip.

Widening I70 would cost almost as much as what I'm proposing, and would have less of a positive impact.  According to a statistic I read somewhere (not sure exactly where) it would take a 16 lane highway (8 lanes each direction) to carry as many people as a double track railroad running at capacity.  

RA:  The reason I came up with a plan this elaborate is because it provides an new way to get to the mountains from Denver that doesn't involve using I70 at all, and would for many be a better option than driving.  That's what's going to get cars off the road.  A monorail line won't be as fast as what I'm proposing, and a maglev line would cost way more.  One issue with working with the ski areas, is that no one wants to be left out, and no one wants to be the last stop.  Fortunately, the way the lines work out, the smaller ski areas are first, and the larger more popular ski areas are last, so it would could offset some of the issue with one place being before another.  For example, Loveland and A Basin are first and Vail and Beaver Creek are last.  Vail is the most visited ski resort in the country, so it would still draw a lot of people even though it is 2nd to last.  Loveland and A Basin might get a little more business in addition to what they have because they'd be first.  No ski area wants to be last, and no customer wants to have to transfer to get where they are going either.  In my system, most ski areas would have stations right at the base of the mountain, within walking distance of the lifts.  Aspen is the only exception because there are 4 close together ski areas and fewer day visitors heading straight to the mountain upon arrival.  It makes more sense there to build one station in the town than 4 at the mountains, when most people want to go to the town.

I can't say for sure but I did read that the Japanese monorails can climb 10 to 12 % grades and travel at speed of 140+ mph.

Sure you might have an idea that you think is ideal Sno but there would have to be a shit ton of analysis done to justify spending the kind of cash on the project you are talking about. I really think you could have the same effect and not have the rail stop at every ski area. Dillon is pretty darn centrally located in summit County. A terminal there with a well designed bus system could get people to each and every ski area. You aren't going to eliminate all of the auto traffic and I-70 isn't ever going to close so that isn't the goal but I think you could probably knock down at least a third if not more of the weekend traffic if the system made sense.

Or have a stop at Loveland and connect Loveland ski area to A-Basin and A-Basin to Keystone. Then have a lift system connecting Breck to the train terminal and back up to Copper. If we are talking fantasy why not go real big? That would connect everything in Summit County. It would be super bad ass and Euro.

I've changed the map slightly.  I severed the connection between Winter Park and Loveland, eliminating a crossing of the Continental Divide, and a 9 mile tunnel.  That saves many billions right there.  I also eliminated the stop at Echo Mountain Park and rerouted the line along the I70 corridor, eliminating some trestle bridges and tunnels that way too.



There are 6 tunnels in the system running a total of 14.5 miles.  There is a single tunnel in Switzerland that is 37 miles, so no reason that 14.5 miles couldn't be done.  If the link to Aspen is eliminated, the two longest tunnels in the system can go as well, and there would be a total of 7.1 miles of tunneling.

The way I see it, the main line would be the one to Vail and Beaver Creek and it would be built first, along with a spur to Breckenridge.  Local trains would make all stops to Breckenridge, and express trains would run nonstop to Silverthorne and then make all stops to Beaver Creek.  The Winter Park and Aspen branches could be built later as separate phases, making the project more feasible.

My unicorn has read this entire thread, especially the first post, and has given his approval to this plan. Now, excuse me, but I'll go check if he's dumped anymore golden turds so that we can all start paying for this thing.



Do you know that the DIA still isn't paid for, after all this time?

snoloco wrote

The 3% grade limit is for freight trains because they can be over a mile long and only the locomotives at the front are powering it.  Passenger only lines can have steeper grades because trains are lighter and shorter.  If using self propelled electric cars, all the wheels are transferring power to the rails, so there is less risk of wheel slip.

Hilarious - the high school junior chooses to write 3 sentences that countermand what the railroad engineers working for Colorado DOT say is unworkable. I will trust the engineers who actually studied the situation and line placement.

x10003q wrote

snoloco wrote

The 3% grade limit is for freight trains because they can be over a mile long and only the locomotives at the front are powering it.  Passenger only lines can have steeper grades because trains are lighter and shorter.  If using self propelled electric cars, all the wheels are transferring power to the rails, so there is less risk of wheel slip.

Hilarious - the high school junior chooses to write 3 sentences that countermand what the railroad engineers working for Colorado DOT say is unworkable. I will trust the engineers who actually studied the situation and line placement.

I got my information from here, grades of 4% aren't uncommon on metro and commuter railroads.  Most of this line is under that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_steepest_gradients_on_adhesion_railways

Also, I'm not a high school junior.  I'm a college freshman.  Get it right idiot.

Yea, take that X!

Skooled !

snoloco wrote

x10003q wrote

snoloco wrote

The 3% grade limit is for freight trains because they can be over a mile long and only the locomotives at the front are powering it.  Passenger only lines can have steeper grades because trains are lighter and shorter.  If using self propelled electric cars, all the wheels are transferring power to the rails, so there is less risk of wheel slip.

Hilarious - the high school junior chooses to write 3 sentences that countermand what the railroad engineers working for Colorado DOT say is unworkable. I will trust the engineers who actually studied the situation and line placement.

I got my information from here, grades of 4% aren't uncommon on metro and commuter railroads.  Most of this line is under that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_steepest_gradients_on_adhesion_railways

Also, I'm not a high school junior.  I'm a college freshman.  Get it right idiot.

Good, wouldn't want freight to be on this thing, that could slow down ski traffic.  Its not like those mountains are full of minerals that could be used for something that actually benefits society.  A route through the rockies is hardly metro or commuter.  

Maybe President Trump will level one of the peaks and build one of his money making golf courses then install this to get people to his golf course.  

Um there already is a freight line through the mountains.  What's wrong with building one for only passenger trains if the communities around it want to fund it?  Now they might not want it, but if local residents are fed up enough with the I70 gridlock, they might want to make it happen.

And President Trump would install a private airstrip, not a railroad to get people to his golf course.

snoloco wrote

I got my information from here, grades of 4% aren't uncommon on metro and commuter railroads.  Most of this line is under that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_steepest_gradients_on_adhesion_railways

Also, I'm not a high school junior.  I'm a college freshman.  Get it right idiot.

Wikipedia - source for all the top engineering studies

I hear wikipedia has electrolytes

Looks like RA has now been turned against me by the idiots.

I came up with this plan to solve what I think is the biggest issue with skiing in Colorado, which is getting to the ski areas from the airport.  It's something that could turn me away from returning there, and I'm sure I'm not alone.

Not only is there a huge amount of traffic if you're stuck going at the wrong time, but most rental companies do not have enough cars that are well suited for winter driving conditions, and they all sell out quickly and are really expensive.  If you don't get a car that's properly suited for winter conditions and the roads are anything but perfect, they'll call a "Traction Law" into effect and you can't go anywhere unless you have chains, all wheel drive, or winter tires.  You can avoid these problems by taking a door to door van service like CME or Go Alpine, but the fares are like paying the King's ransom, they sell out at busy times, and don't run very frequently.

I've always enjoyed coming up with big engineering projects to solve problems like this.  I thought that discussion on this issue could be a good way to kill time in the off season.  Since some of you decided to personally attack me and act like assholes, maybe I'll stop posting somewhat interesting things like this and just pick fights with everyone in the political thread.

snoloco wrote

Also, I'm not a high school junior.  I'm a college freshman.  Get it right idiot.

That's gold. So how much does it cost sno? You took out a bunch of miles of track, great. Yankee stadium was funded at a huge expense for a billion dollars after a huge fight. This is still going to cost 30x that with your edits, and be used by AT BEST, on a record year, twice as many people. So if it was the greatest idea in the world and reduced traffic to 0 cars, how could possibly get it paid for? You better hope that Benny's unicorn has a little of unicorn ponies running around also dropping gold nuggets, because you are not even close here. There is ZERO way that the communities of Denver and the suburbs could ever afford this ridiculous vanity project of a train for a piddling amount of skiers to go to Vail.

It is hands down the dumbest and most unrealistic thing that has ever been proposed here. We are more likely to see the safety nets installed around every patch of trees in the northeast than see Thomas the Train and friends bringing skiers to the front range.

The Moffat Tunnel cost 15.6 million back in 1927 which translates to half a billion dollars today.  It's 6.1 miles long, and I have 14.5 miles of tunnel in this system.  I'm going to round up and multiply it by 3, so 1.5 billion for the tunnels.

The Vail Line is almost completely along I70.  That's going to be the cheapest part of the line to build since all you need to do is widen where the highway is and add the tracks.  The LIRR is building an 18 mile track for 338 million.  I'm going to double that figure go 700 million for 20 miles because building tracks in the mountains is more expensive.  The Vail Line is 130 miles long and would be double track, so 260 miles of track needed.  That would be 9.1 billion for the Vail Line.  The Aspen Line and Winter Park Line add about another 260 miles of track, so now we're up to 18.2 billion plus the tunnels which I'll raise to 1.8 billion, so the whole thing would be 20 billion dollars, not including the equipment and the stations.  I'm going to add another 10 billion to the 20 billion already for that, plus if there's any other cost overruns.  Anything more than that is waste, but typical for most inneficient government projects.  30 billion for the whole thing is not crazy, and it would create many jobs and improve the economy of that region.

Guys : Tis far better to ignore rather than play this verbal cocoon .

snoloco wrote

Looks like RA has now been turned against me by the idiots.

I came up with this plan to solve what I think is the biggest issue with skiing in Colorado, which is getting to the ski areas from the airport.  It's something that could turn me away from returning there, and I'm sure I'm not alone.

Not only is there a huge amount of traffic if you're stuck going at the wrong time, but most rental companies do not have enough cars that are well suited for winter driving conditions, and they all sell out quickly and are really expensive.  If you don't get a car that's properly suited for winter conditions and the roads are anything but perfect, they'll call a "Traction Law" into effect and you can't go anywhere unless you have chains, all wheel drive, or winter tires.  You can avoid these problems by taking a door to door van service like CME or Go Alpine, but the fares are like paying the King's ransom, they sell out at busy times, and don't run very frequently.

I've always enjoyed coming up with big engineering projects to solve problems like this.  I thought that discussion on this issue could be a good way to kill time in the off season.  Since some of you decided to personally attack me and act like assholes, maybe I'll stop posting somewhat interesting things like this and just pick fights with everyone in the political thread.

Oh, well, there's your problem. You're quite wrong. The biggest problem confronting Colorado resort skiing isn't getting people there quickly and efficiently. It's the opposite. THERES TOO GOD DAMN MANY PEOPLE THERE ALREADY. Have you ever been to Breck on a nice Saturday? And you want to spend like a zillion zillion dollars to make it even more crowded? Dude, take it from someone who has spent a lot of time in Summit the past few seasons. I'm going elsewhere with my business to avoid the CROWDS.
If this is so important to the people of Denver, which it should be, because the weekend traffic sucks big time, then let them pay for it. And, were talkin about the skiers and others who do this every weekend, which is far from all of Denver. Those are the upper middle class outside types who will benefit. Let them pay for it. But, trust me, ain't nobody riding the train. Whatcha going to do with all your ski stuff once you get there? How are you going to park at the Beach? You can't smoke a bowl on a train. Nope, sorry, if you're a tourist, just grab a shuttle at DIA. It's 45 bucks, and gets you there. Just don't arrive on Saturday morning and leave on Sunday after 3. There. Fixed.

Benny, the shuttle that goes to Steamboat Springs from Denver is over 200 dollars, not cheap at all, especially if you have more than one person.  That's a longer trip, but still, most are quite expensive.  The shuttle that goes from HDN to Steamboat Springs is I believe about $45.  Also, most people don't smoke pot, as much as you want them to.

I do admit to being biased because I lived in the city for a period of time and within easy reach of a commuter rail line to the city the rest of the time.  It's a lot easier in many cases to drive to the nearest stop and take the express train to Manhattan than to drive and deal with traffic and parking headaches.  Because of that, I know to look at public transit as an option when visiting other areas, but if you live in an area where there is zero public transit, you most certainly won't have any idea to look at it as an option to getting from the airport to your destination.

I didn't change my opinion Sno. I love the idea of functional public transportation, the previous video just made think of Idiocracy, I really love that movie. I also don't believe that something like this is not in Colorados best interests. Skiing is the biggest industry and the i-70 shitshow is only going to get worse.Are there weed shuttles? If not that could be a good business