Flaws in the evaluation of I-70 highway congestion

1.  Congestion in any highway corridor is a function of demand and cost. 

We all know that there is greater peak period travel demand in the corridor than can be accommodated by the current I-70 facility.  When the cost in terms cost in terms of travel time (congestion), cost in terms of vehicle operation, (vehicle cost, insurance, fuel, maintenance, tolls, taxes), cost in terms of the travel experience (accidents, natural hazards and dangerous driving conditions) or cost in terms of the destination experience (resort overcrowding, overuse of public lands, environmental degradation, long waiting lines), reaches our personal threshold, we stop making peak period corridor trips.

2.  Just because we stop making peak period corridor trips, doesn't mean that we stop making trips all together. 

Quite often when the cost of peak period travel becomes too great, we move our trips to non-peak periods.  This can be observed today by the increase in corridor travel on Mondays, Thursdays, Fridays and throughout the entire day on Saturdays and Sundays.  We may also choose closer corridor destinations during peak periods that require a shorter trip, but still provide a valuable recreational experience and produce corridor revenue.

3.  Expanding highway capacity may not generate a significantly lower level of peak period congestion. 

Traffic studies from all over the country point out that once additional highway capacity is made available in a previously congested corridor, many motorists simply change their travel behavior.  A significant number of those motorists that had been avoiding the corridor during peak periods by taking an alternate route or using public transportation simply switch back to driving in the expanded highway corridor, until it very quickly reaches the same congestion level as it had before the expansion.   The alternate routes and public transportation will likely see a decrease in use as more motorists use the primary highway corridor, until the highway corridor reaches previous congestion levels. The I-25 TREX expansion is following this pattern.  This pattern facilitates a form of peak period traffic congestion equilibrium that suggests that traffic congestion in high demand corridors is relatively permanent even when capacity is increased.

4.  Highway Health impacts to adjacent communities increase with highway expansion, not decrease.

The Chamber study tries to make a case that by decreasing congestion, highway expansion can reduce health impacts to adjacent communities.  This assumption is false, especially in arid environments such as Colorado.  Particulate matter especially entrained dust increases as traffic volumes increase.  Adding lanes to supposedly ease congestion just puts more vehicles and traction sand on the road and creates more dust.  The more highway capacity, the more vehicles, the more traction sand, the more emissions, the more dust and noise and the greater the health impacts to residents of adjacent communities – it’s that simple.  

Adding to the health impact problem is the traffic congestion equilibrium that occurs as motorists shift their peak period travel behavior when more capacity is added.  The new peak period congestion will be virtually as bad as previous peak congestion levels, but with a higher number of vehicles and more harmful emissions, posing a greater, not lesser health risk to residents of adjacent communities.   

5.  For the I-70 Corridor, expanding capacity either in terms of highway expansion or new public transportation capacity, will most certainly allow more travel during peak periods. 

It may also however, provide for less travel during non-peak periods, since a larger portion of overall trips are being satisfied by peak period capacity.  Of course resort crowding, public land overuse, long lines at restaurants and other attractions or other overcrowding that diminishes the destination experience, will again force corridor visitors to go back to non peak period trips. 

How crowded are resort communities currently during peak periods and how much greater capacity do they wish to accommodate during peak periods? 

Has anyone asked the current residents of the resort communities how they feel about additional peak period visits and was this a consideration in either the CDOT/BBC/FHU or Chamber studies? 

6. The most desired of all corridor travelers are the destination visitors that are vacationing in Colorado and spending lots of money. 

These folks, however are not the ones congesting the highway.  

How much DIA or Eagle County Airport air traffic puts destination travelers in the corridor during peak periods? 

Certainly there are some peak period corridor motorists and van shuttle occupants coming from or going to DIA or Eagle County Airport as well as motorists and bus trips driving to and from other states.  There are also resort employees traveling the corridor to get back and forth to work, however the majority of peak period motorists in the corridor are Front Range folks that are not the biggest resort spenders. 

At some point the question has to be asked, how much are Colorado residents from around the state willing to pay to allow Front Rangers to have a better peak period travel experience to the mountains, two days a week, when their 5 day a week commute is a fairly unpleasant experience due to congestion, poor road surface quality and lack of public transportation options? 

I couldn't find anything in the Chamber study that addresses this item.

7.  Growth and Water 

Water is likely the single biggest factor to influence growth in both the Western Slope and the Front Range in the future.  The recent CDOT/BBC/FHU and Denver Chamber studies assume that we will have enough water to sustain current growth trends in the Front Range and Mountain Corridor for the foreseeable future including residential and recreation growth that depend on water (winter and summer sports, fishing, hunting, rafting, kayaking and snowmaking). 

Is this a realistic assumption? 

Will the availability of water slow Front Range and Mountain Corridor growth and impact corridor travel behavior in the next 20 years?   

Why is water availability not a factor in these studies? 

8.  SAFETEA-LU created the SAFETEA-LU National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission (NSTIFC) to research highway funding options on a national level.  

The NSTIFC will complete a study on the future of the Highway Trust Fund and alternative approaches to generating revenues for the HTF.  The Governor's Blue Ribbon Panel is conducting a very similar endeavor, only on a state level.  The difference in the two efforts relates to voter approval of any taxing mechanism recommended by the panels.  The Governor's Panel recommendations for additional transportation funding will likely go to the State Legislature resulting in a referred measure going to the ballot in search of approval by Colorado's voters.  The NSTIFC will take their recommendations for additional transportation funding to the US Congress and Congress could pass a taxing measure without voter approval.  It is very likely that an indexed fuel tax, Vehicle Miles Traveled Tax or increased tolling, including congestion pricing will be the outcomes generated by either panel.   

9.  Increased highway costs will be passed on to the user. 

Highway use in the future will cost all users more money.  Fuel prices, fuel tax, VMT tax and tolls will make highway travel for every Colorado motorist more expensive.  The current fuel tax mechanism for paying for highway maintenance and construction is grossly under funded and the costs must be passed on to roadway users.  This will place additional economic constraints on discretionary travel, especially for the the Middle Class, and may slow VMT growth in the corridor.  I have not seen user cost increases used as a factor in any of the recent studies and corridor congestion projections.  The CDOT/BBC/FHU and Denver Chamber studies assume that past Colorado growth trends will continue unrestricted for the next 20 years.  This is a questionable assumption based on water availability, increased highway user costs, increased construction, mobility and access costs, climate change, peak oil and increasing world wide political instability over shrinking oil reserves.

10.  While many corridor motorists are affluent and may not be impacted by increased highway user costs, corridor community residents and employees will be.

Resort employees, Henderson and Climax Mine and Mill employees, corridor teachers, road maintenance crews, Forest Service staff, State Patrol staff, local law enforcement staff, ambulance and fire protection staff, and other government employees will be affected by increased highway user costs.  In many of our communities attracting and retaining qualified employees is an increasing challenge. 

How will an indexed fuel tax, Vehicle Miles Traveled Tax or increased tolling, including congestion pricing impact corridor communities and businesses ability attract and retain employees? 

What will the economic impact be to local governments and corridor businesses for these new transportation taxes or fees? 

Were these economic impacts considered in the Chamber and CDOT/BBC/FSU study?

11.  How will corridor travel be influenced by climate change? 

Since any major corridor expansion project is likely to take 10 to 20 years (based on available funding, approving tax measures, and engineering and construction time frames) climate change could be a factor by that time and may increase or decrease travel demand.  Greenhouse gas emission regulations may also impact travel behavior either by increasing the price of vehicle technologies and/or motor fuels to reduce emissions or by restricting poorer emission performing vehicle operation.  The availability of water may also be affected by climate change and place additional restrictions of Mountain Corridor and Front Range growth.  I have not seen climate change or greenhouse gas emission regulations used as a factor in any of the recent studies relating to growth, travel and congestion projections.  The CDOT/BBC/FHU and Denver Chamber studies assume that past Colorado growth trends will continue unrestricted for the next 20 years.  This is a questionable assumption based on water availability, increased highway user costs, increased construction, mobility and access costs, climate change, peak oil and increasing world wide political instability over shrinking oil reserves. 

12.  How will corridor travel be influenced by peak oil production?

Since any major corridor expansion project is likely to take 10 to 20 years (based on available funding, approving tax measures, and engineering and construction time frames) peak oil will be a factor by that time and may decrease travel demand.  As India and China continue to develop, their oil demand is growing dramatically.  US demand (21 million barrels per day of the 85 million barrels per day consumed world wide) is also growing.  Oil replacements are not growing anywhere near the rate of oil consumption. As worldwide oil production peaks and begins to decline either by geological or geopolitical constraints, (most experts believe this will occur between 2012 and 2015) oil prices will skyrocket.  I have not seen peak oil used as a factor in any of the recent studies relating to growth, travel and congestion projections.  The CDOT/BBC/FHU and Denver Chamber studies assume that past Colorado growth trends will continue unrestricted for the next 20 years.  This is a questionable assumption based on water availability, increased highway user costs, increased construction, mobility and access costs, climate change, peak oil and increasing world wide political instability over shrinking oil reserves. 

13.  How will our changing demographics impact mountain corridor travel in the future?

Based on a recent presentation to DRCOG by James H. Johnson Jr., our national Caucasian population is having less children than previous generations and is not replacing itself.  Winter sports are relatively expensive and there is no question that affluent Caucasians are currently the majority of mountain corridor winter tourists.  The largest growing national demographic sector is the Hispanic and Latino community which may not necessarily value outdoor recreation and public lands in the same way as previous American generations have.   Their priorities for spending disposable income may be quite different than previous Caucasian generations.  This is yet another area that the recent CDOT/BBC/FHU and Denver Chamber studies do not address in their travel growth, congestion and economic impact projections.

14.  How will our aging population impact mountain corridor travel in the future?

As Baby-boomers retire in growing numbers, they will be moving to areas where their children live or to areas that allow them to pursue a desirable retirement lifestyle.  In almost all cases, since they will no longer be commuting to work, they will be driving less. 

What percentage of mountain corridor travelers today are Baby-boomers? 

As Baby-boomers retire to warmer climate locations or even to mountain corridor communities, they will be traveling less and less in the corridor. 

Will their corridor travel numbers be replaced by younger generation corridor travelers?   

This is yet another area that the recent CDOT/BBC/FHU and Denver Chamber studies do not address in their travel growth, congestion and economic impact projections.

15.  Public Safety Agency Impacts

Colorado State Patrol and Trucking Industry officials will tell you that I-70 motorists are the most careless and reckless in the state, as they are always in a hurry to get to their recreation or casino destinations.  Increasing highway capacity does not necessarily reduce traffic incidents, especially in the mountain corridor which is subject to severe winter weather and natural hazards such as rockfall, mud and snow slides and flooding.  There is no question that increasing overall highway capacity allows for more vehicles on the road and more careless and reckless driving behavior and will result in more incidents, injuries and fatalities, not less.  Of course, specific fixes for the most dangerous areas of the corridor today can improve driving safety, but will not completely mitigate the number of accidents that occur as a function of increased traffic volume encouraged by increased highway capacity.

16.  Highway Construction Economic Impacts

At a projected cost of $800,000 per hour for I-70 highway closures, imagine the impact of 15 years of I-70 highway expansion construction to corridor resorts and businesses with no effective alternate mode or alternate route in place.  Highway construction itself, without first establishing an alternate mode or alternate route, poses the single biggest threat to corridor commerce and economic growth in the next 20 years, yet is missing from the recent CDOT/BBC/FHU and Denver Chamber studies. 

Could this have been done intentionally so as not to discourage future highway construction in the corridor?

The Draft I-70 PEIS data predicts a $50 billion economic hit to the 9 county mountain region over the 15 year highway construction period. 

Where is this noted in the Denver Chamber study?

Geopolitics of Peak Oil and the Macroeconomics of Multiple Petrocurrencies

Taking Local Action