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.

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?

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?

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!

A six lane I-70 will not only jeopardize the safety of more motorists, but will place additional burdens on the corridor communities for Law Enforcement, Emergency Management, Fire Protection Service, Ambulance Service and the Care and Sheltering of stranded motorists.

A six lane I-70 will simply put more vehicles and drivers into the mountain corridor.  Adding highway capacity always induces travel demand, especially in a recreational corridor with a high degree of suppressed demand.  Induced demand often exceeds 100 percent of the new highway capacity, so none of the new capacity is actually available to meet the need of the current traffic volumes. A six lane I-70 will induce vehicle trips greater than its capacity and will actually create congestion levels greater than they are today on a four lane I-70.

Adding lanes is not a viable solution for I-70.  Increasing capacity in one area of I-70 does not necessarily decrease congestion and decrease travel times.  In fact, increased capacity in one area of I-70 will induce travel demand and put a strain on another area of I-70 which will negate the benefit of the capacity improvements for most motorists (see I-70 Congestion). 

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.