|
OR
Travel Times in the Mountain Corridor
Highway Expansion - Creating Tomorrows Transportation Problems Today
CDOT's Draft PEIS attempts to predict highway travel times in the I-70 Mountain Corridor in the Year 2025.
While the highway travel times projected in the Draft PEIS don't consistently agree with the Congestion Hours suggested in the Draft PEIS, they basically demonstrate that a six lane highway expansion alternative in the year 2025, on average provides worse highway travel times than during the year 2000 on a four lane I-70 highway.
In addition, on average the transit alternatives provide similar projected 2025 highway travel times to a six lane highway alternative and provide Colorado residents and visitors with a Travel Choice.
Annual Average Peak Hour Travel Time
Year 2000 compared to Year 2025
Peak Eastbound and Westbound Trips
Between Copper Mountain and C-470, (65 miles)
(From DPEIS Pages 2 - 85 & 2 – 92)
This chart demonstrates that on average, highway peak trip travel times are better in 2000 on a four lane I-70 than projected highway peak trip travel times in 2025 with a six lane I-70.
In fact, the projected peak highway travel times are very similar whether the highway is expanded or transit alternatives are developed.
The highway expansion alternative does not provide any significant advantage in projected 2025 highway travel times over the transit alternatives.
Peak Hour Westbound Travel Time
Year 2000 compared to Year 2025
Peak Winter Saturday Westbound Trip
Between C470 to Copper Mountain, (65 miles)
(from DPEIS Pages 2 - 86 & 2 - 93)
This chart demonstrates that westbound highway peak hour trip travel times in 2000 on a four lane I-70 are better than than the projected westbound highway peak hour trip travel times in 2025 with a six lane I-70.
In fact, the projected highway westbound peak travel times are worse with the highway expansion alternative than with the transit alternatives.
This would suggest that the transit alternatives actually do a better job of improving projected 2025 westbound travel times than the six lane highway alternative does.
Again, the highway expansion alternative does not provide any significant advantage in projected 2025 highway travel times over the transit alternatives.
Daily Hours of Congestion - Westbound
Level of Service F
(Stop and Go/Bumper to Bumper Traffic)
Year 2025 Projected Westbound Winter Saturday
for a C-470 to Frisco trip at six congestion monitor locations
(from Draft PEIS Page 2 - 102)
In the westbound direction the Congestion Data presented in the Draft PEIS agrees with the highway westbound peak travel times above. The six lane highway alternative does not do as good a job of relieving congestion as the transit alternatives do.
This would suggest that the transit alternatives actually do a better job of improving 2025 projected westbound travel times than the six lane highway alternative does.
Peak Hour Eastbound Travel Time
Year 2000 compared to Year 2025
Peak Summer Sunday Eastbound Trip
Between Copper Mountain and C-470, (65 miles)
(from DPEIS Pages 2 - 86 & 2 - 93)
This chart demonstrates that eastbound highway peak hour trip travel times in 2000 on a four lane I-70 are about the same as the projected westbound highway peak hour trip travel times in 2025 with a six lane I-70. It also demonstrates that the 2025 transit times for the Rail and AGS alternative are better than the 2025 highway travel time of the six lane highway alternative.
The eastbound highway peak hour trip travel time numbers provided in the Draft PEIS don't necessarily agree with the peak hour eastbound congestion numbers provided in the Draft PEIS.
This is yet another item of contention in the Draft PEIS document.
Daily Hours of Congestion - Eastbound
Level of Service F
(Stop and Go/Bumper to Bumper Traffic)
Year 2025 Projected Eastbound Summer Sunday
for a Frisco to C-470 trip at six congestion monitor locations
(from Draft PEIS Page 2 - 102)
This chart demonstrates that projected 2025 peak eastbound highway congestion is actually worse with a six lane highway alternative than with the Rail or AGS transit alternative. The expectation from this chart would be that 2025 eastbound highway travel times would be better with the Rail and AGS transit alternatives than with a six lane highway alternative.
This chart contradicts the eastbound peak hour travel times as presented in the Draft PEIS and would suggest that the Rail and AGS alternatives do a better job of managing projected 2025 peak eastbound highway congestion and improving 2025 peak eastbound highway travel times than the six lane highway alternative does.
Did you chose the right answer?
|
