The Driver Factor.

Simply stated, mobility in the mountain corridor for all travelers is dependent on the behavior of each individual vehicle driver in the corridor. One bad driver decision resulting in a wreck can cause hours of delays for all of us.

Regardless of vehicle technology improvements, allowing the freedom of every individual to drive and control their own personal vehicle on a high speed freeway, results in the worst car or truck driver setting the pace for everyone else.

Wind driven ground blizzards creating zero visibility (day or night) mandate I-70 closures, regardless of the number of lanes. Driving in deep snow or under zero visibility conditions is extremely dangerous. How many drivers do you want passing you on either side (as six lanes would allow) in white out or deep snow conditions?

DRIVING IS NOT A RIGHT, IT IS A PRIVILEGE.

A privilege that many motorists take for granted. This is especially true in the mountain corridor where there is not only no other feasible alternate highway route, but no other transportation mode available to mountain corridor travelers.

I-70 is it, and all our mobility is subject to the driving behavior of every corridor driver, cars and trucks.

In my research into the I-70 problem, the number 1 outstanding issue which time and time again is missing from the tens of millions of dollars spent on the I-70 analysis, is simply the behavior of corridor drivers.

Colorado State Patrol officials in Clear Creek and Summit Counties report that virtually every I-70 accident year round is a result of drivers operating vehicles at greater speeds than the conditions demand. Every law enforcement official (both local and state) as well as every emergency service provider that I have spoken to, tells me that the corridor drivers are the most aggressive, careless, reckless and irresponsible in the state of Colorado. Emergency Service providers risk their lives every day responding to I-70 incidents.

The appalling corridor driver behavior is witnessed by locals, truckers and public safety agency staff every day. Corridor drivers are always in a hurry. They don’t obey speed limits or law enforcement direction. They fight with State Patrol or local agency staff that is directing traffic. Road closures are a nightmare for the emergency service and law enforcement personnel. Every single driver considers themselves to be the single exception to the rule. They are arrogant, stubborn and difficult. I have witnessed this first hand and believe that the emergency service folks are saints for putting up with the abuse they receive from corridor drivers.

Making highway expansion the priority improvement for the corridor just encourages more of the same aggressive driver behavior. It will simply increase accidents, injuries and road closures, which will only increase driver delays, not decrease them. Even if new technologies are developed that make personal vehicle driving more energy efficient, cleaner and quieter, we will still be faced with more aggressive and careless driving producing more accidents and more delays.

The single most cost effective throughput improvement in the mountain corridor is a permanent police presence to keep motorists speeds under control and reduce the number of accidents, road closures, hazardous material spills, injuries and fatalities.

Police winter inspection of Front Range vehicles heading up to the High Country could make a huge improvement to I-70 throughput by reducing the number of bad weather incidents. All vehicles would be subject to a random inspection to make sure that they have snow tires with good tread depth, autosocks and/or chains in the vehicle before leaving the Denver Metro area.

Many corridor motorists complain about truck drivers who are unprepared for winter driving conditions, but how many automobile drivers are also unprepared for winter driving in the High Country? All it takes is for one unprepared motorist to crash and the rest of us wait for hours in traffic jams.

An increased Police presence in the mountain corridor ought to be the highest priority action for the I-70 PEIS process because it will not only increase throughput and decrease delays, but it will also save lives.

Webmaster

Mountain highway lanes are rarely at full capacity due to rain, hail, fog, snow, wind, ice, flooding, sun glare, avalanche control, breakdowns, construction, accidents, police activity, wildlife on the roadway, rockfalls, snow slides, slow moving vehicles, unfamiliar, bad or slow drivers and any adjacent activity to the highway that provides an opportunity for motorists to slow down and look. Any of these activities can impact motor vehicle travel, regardless of the number of lanes in a specific direction.

In addition, there is a known interaction between vehicular traffic in adjacent highway lanes. Due to this interaction, adding a general purpose lane does not necessarily double the vehicle capacity of the adjacent lane. Typical throughput of the additional lane will be 20 to 30 percent less than the adjacent lane.

Once a road becomes sufficiently crowded, then it becomes harder for drivers to coordinate with each other. Each driver has to anticipate what other drivers will do, and because information is transmitted between cars only via brake lights and turn signals which are crude devices at best (and turn signals aren’t always used), anticipation often turns into over-reaction. A single driver who’s too ready to hit the brakes can slow down an entire highway. And because drivers have no bigger picture of what traffic looks like, their decisions (whether to get off at this exit or trudge onward, whether to move out of this lane or stay in it) are haphazard at best.

During periods of any volume, it takes very little to create a traffic jam. A sudden lane change, hard breaking or a sudden entrance from an on ramp and a huge ripple of braking is created that can bring traffic to a stop and go condition for miles. Instead of the elegant, patterned movements of birds, drivers produce the stop-and-go disorganization of a traffic jam.

A mountain highway is an extremely variable transportation medium and only as good as the quality and consistency of the vehicles and drivers using it. I-70 motorists are some of the most careless and reckless in the State according to Colorado State Patrol and Trucking Industry officials. Skiers, Snowboarders and Casino Patrons are very often in hurry to get to their destinations and do not tolerate slow drivers or traffic very well.

Most I-70 motorists have seen significant multi-vehicle accidents and even roll-over incidents when there is just a dusting of snow. Even sun glare can cause significant delays and multi-vehicle accidents.

For most I-70 Mountain Corridor motorists, the most lengthy traffic delays they have or will experience are a result of highway construction, snow or rockslides, accidents and/or bad weather that cause substantial traffic interruption and even complete road closures.

Often the traffic ripple effect of an accident or construction activity can last for hours, well beyond the actual clearing of the vehicles or clearing of the construction equipment involved. Passing motorists may never actually see the accident or construction activity, but can experience the delays they caused for several hours.

If Our Goal is to Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled and take Vehicles off the I-70 Highway, then how does Highway Expansion Help?

A six lane I-70 will simply put more vehicles and drivers into the mountain corridor. A significant number of I-70 mountain corridor motorists are outdoor recreationists or casino patrons who tend to be fairly aggressive drivers. A six lane I-70 will invite more careless driving, more reckless driving in bad weather, more road rage incidents and more accidents, the impacts of which result in six lanes of congestion istead of four lanes of congestion and little or no improvement in travel times.

A six lane I-70 will be just as vulnerable to bad weather, poor driver behavior, avalanche control, accidents and highway construction, as a four lane I-70 and will provide no option to these events, but to sit in traffic and wait with everyone else.

Courtesy of the Victoria Transport Policy Institute

Traffic congestion is often a symptom of more fundamental problems, such as inadequate mobility options (including lack of travel choices such as public transportation and alternate routes) that force people to drive for every trip. Dispersed land use patterns also increase travel distances. In these areas, expanding roads may reduce short term symptoms but exacerbate long term problems.

Although roadway projects (particularly safety and reliability improvements) can be an appropriate part of a State’s transportation program, continually expanding congested highways tends to be inefficient. The first highways in an area often provide large economic returns, but marginal benefits diminish as more capacity is added for the following reasons:

The first highways projects are generally the most cost effective, because planners are smart enough to prioritize investments. For example, if there are several possible highway alignments on a corridor, those with the greatest benefits and lowest costs are generally built first, leaving less cost effective options for subsequent implementation.

Interregional highways (those connecting cities) are generally constructed first. They tend to provide greater economic benefits and have lower unit costs than local highway expansion, due to numerous conflicts and high land costs in urban areas.

Adding capacity tends to provide declining user benefits, since consumers are smart enough to prioritize trips. For example, if highways are congested, consumers organize their lives to avoid peak automobile period trips. As highway capacity increases they travel more during peak periods, perhaps driving across town during rush hour for an errand that would be deferred, or moving further away from their worksite. Each additional vehicle mile provides smaller user benefits, since the most valued vehicle-miles are already taken.

The main transportation problems in urbanized communities are traffic congestion, inadequate mobility for non-drivers, and various costs associated with increasing motor vehicle traffic, including road and parking facility costs, accidents and pollution emissions, all problems reduced with improved travel options, more efficient travel behavior, and more accessible land use development.

With a mature highway system, it may be better to increase transport diversity and encourage efficiency rather than continuing to expand capacity.

A comfortable and convenient rail based transit solution in the mountain corridor will provide a very attractive travel choice in bad weather for Rocky Mountain travelers of all ages and must be the priority improvement component of the I-70 PEIS process! It is the only alternative that will provide real congestion relief and improved travel times in the I-70 corridor.

A highway expansion alternative is also the most destructive solution (environmentally, economically and socially) to Corridor Communities, Corridor Resorts and Colorado in general.

A highway expansion ONLY solution for the I-70 mountain corridor (as proposed by CDOT as the "Preferred" alternative in the Draft PEIS) means that Colorado residents and visitors have as their only option for travel in the corridor; personal vehicle, van shuttle or bus driving to resort destinations (even in blinding snow storms and treacherous icy road conditions). These unpleasant and dangerous experiences ignore traveler safety, discourage future Colorado visits and limit Front Range access to the major mountain resorts; instead of facilitating safety and access, and providing an option to driving in bad weather.

When it snows at 2 inches per hour or more (which is common in the Mountain Corridor, especially from Silver Plume through Vail Pass), there is no way CDOT can keep up with snow removal operations on four lanes, let alone six lanes.

Heavy snow, wind, avalanches, rockfalls and traffic accidents causing injuries and fatalities, drive I-70 closures and shut down the High Country economy. Why would we spend billions of dollars on I-70 highway expansion that will be just as vulnerable to weather related closures that shut down mobility in the mountain corridor and impede the state's resort economy? Wouldn't we be better off investing those same dollars in a safer and more reliable transportation option such as fixed guideway transit?

All a six lane I-70 will do is allow more unprepared motorists to crash and be injured, allow more trucks to jack-knife and wreck, allow more horrific traffic backups and strand more motorists throughout the corridor when the inevitable highway closure occurs. This is not rocket science. Colorado needs an option to driving in the corridor in winter weather conditions, which is when many Front Range Residents and Visitors want to get to the Resorts!