The Mountain Corridor is Part of a
Larger Statewide Transportation Network
The I-70 Mountain Corridor is part of the larger State of Colorado transportation system and interacts with that system accordingly. Increasing capacity in one area of the network, does not necessarily decrease congestion and decrease travel times. In fact, increased capacity in one area of the network will likely induce travel demand and put a strain on another area of the network which can negate the benefit of the capacity improvements for most motorists.
While it can be argued that increasing highway lane capacity in the Clear Creek County portion of the Mountain Corridor will reduce congestion and travel times marginally within Clear Creek County, the pinch points in the system actually migrate to other areas of I-70 in Summit and Jefferson Counties so that overall congestion and travel times for typical Front Range recreational trips are not significantly improved.
In addition, the induced demand created by the capacity that an additional lane suggests, will very quickly bring the six lane highway to the same congestion and slow travel times as a four lane highway is today. To make matters worse, capacity would need to be added to US40, SH9, US6, US285, SH91, US24 and other corridor arterials and local roads in conjunction with I-70 expansion in order to prevent complete gridlock once motorists exit I-70.
Data provided in the I-70 Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (below) for Year 2025 travel demand (likely the earliest that any major highway improvements could be accomplished), clearly demonstrates the vulnerability of the Statewide Transportation Network in relationship to six lane highway expansion in Clear Creek County.
Highway Expansion - Creating Tomorrows Transportation Problems Today
Daily Hours of Congestion, 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)
In this comparison, by adding lanes to the Clear Creek
County portion of the Corridor (6-Lane, 65 mph alternative)
the number of hours of congestion witnessed at each of the
monitor locations vary, but in general while improving the
Clear Creek County segment of the Corridor, the six lane
alternative shifts the congestion to Silverthorne, Floyd Hill
and Genesee. By adding lanes and not offering another
travel mode, highway travel is induced from the Front Range.
In this example, the six lane highway performs considerably
better than Minimal Action, but overall is only marginally
better than the Bus in Guideway and not as good as the
Rail and Advanced Guideway Transit alternatives.
Annual Hours of Congestion Level of Service F
(Stop and Go/Bumper to Bumper Traffic)
Year 2025 Projected Westbound Annual Congestion Hours
between C-470 and Frisco at five congestion monitor locations
(from Draft PEIS Page 2 - 101)
* 6-Lane Alternative includes an additional climbing lane
between Morrison (mp 259) and Chief Hosa (mp 253)
In this comparison, by adding lanes to the Clear Creek
County portion of the Corridor (6-Lane, 65 mph alternative)
the number of hours of congestion witnessed at each of the
monitor locations vary, but in general the six lane alternative
increases the number of congestion hours at Empire Jct. and
Floyd Hill and decreases the number of congestion hours at
the EJMT, Twin Tunnels and Genesee. The reduction in
congestion hours at Genesee is in part due to the addition
of a climbing lane between Morrison and Chief Hosa which
is included in the six lane alternative but not in any of the
Transit alternatives. Adding this specific climbing lane
improvement to the Transit alternatives or removing it from
the six lane highway alternative would likely result in a similar
number of total congestion hours between the Transit and six
lane alternatives.
Annual Hours of Congestion Level of Service F
(Stop and Go/Bumper to Bumper Traffic)
Year 2025 Projected Eastbound Annual Congestion Hours
between Frisco and C-470 at six congestion monitor locations
(from DPEIS Page 2 - 101)
In this comparison, by adding lanes to the Clear Creek
County portion of the Corridor (6-Lane, 65 mph alternative)
the number of hours of congestion witnessed at each of the
monitor locations vary, but in general while improving the
Clear Creek County segment of the Corridor, the six lane
alternative increases the number of congestion hours at
Silverthorne, Floyd Hill and Genesee substantially over the
Transit alternatives. By adding lanes and not offering another
travel mode, highway travel is induced from the Front Range
and congestion actually increases over what would be
experienced in the Minimal Action alternative which keeps
the majority of the Clear Creek County Corridor at four lanes.
Again, the Transit alternatives provide a greater amount of
overall congestion relief.
Courtesy of DRCOG
Courtesy of the Victoria Transport Policy Institute:
Reevaluating the Role of Highway Expansion in Reducing Congestion
Reevaluating the Role of Public Transit in Reducing Congestion
Individual market distortions reinforce the cycle of automobile dependency, leading to economically excessive ownership and use.
Click Here for FHWA Planning and Environmental Linkages Approach
Why would you spend huge sums of money to expand a highway that will just result in the same congestion very quickly after the highway expansion is completed?
There are many similarities between the I-93 proposed highway expansion in New Hampshire and the proposed I-70 highway expansion in Colorado.
CLF Sues State DOT and Federal Highway Administration over Decision on I-93
Contact
Julia Bovey, CLF Director of Communications
800-370-0697 x722
Concord, NH (February 7, 2006) - Seeking to protect the air, water and rural character of communities throughout southern New Hampshire, and to promote sound investment of taxpayer dollars, the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) has filed suit in Federal District Court over the State's attempt to solve traffic problems on the Salem-to-Manchester segment of I-93 by simply expanding the highway from a total of four lanes to eight.
"The state will spend nearly a half-billion dollars on a 19.8 mile segment of asphalt, only to see it return to gridlocked, bottleneck conditions by 2020," CLF-NH Director Nancy Girard warns.
"Considering the proposed construction wouldn't be completed until 2012, the Department of Transportation's plan is a short-sighted, fiscally irresponsible 'fix.'"
"What New Hampshire needs is a well-planned, balanced transportation system that will work for the long term, and that will protect the character of our communities rather than fueling yet more sprawl," added CLF Attorney Tom Irwin. "Passenger rail should have been considered as a part of the solution. Unfortunately, the Department of Transportation decided from the beginning that this would be a widening project only, rejecting rail without a proper, objective analysis."
According to a study conducted by the transportation agencies, the proposed four-lane widening will cause an additional 35,000 people to move to southern New Hampshire by 2020. This growth, in turn, will result in more traffic both on I-93 and local roads.
"The State's own traffic models show that growth induced by the widening will result in 1.44 million miles of vehicle travel per day," said CLF volunteer Art Cunningham. "Nearly 1 million miles of that daily travel will take place on local roads. Never, at any point in the planning process, were communities made aware of these facts."
In addition to increasing future traffic on I-93 and local roads, the proposed widening will have far-reaching impacts on air quality and water resources.
"The transportation agencies failed to conduct any meaningful analysis of the toxic air pollution that will result from the widening and the significant congestion it will ultimately cause," said Girard. "And the critical issues regarding chlorides and water pollution simply have not been resolved."
The lawsuit was brought under the National Environmental Policy Act, which requires an analysis of project alternatives and detailed consideration of project impacts. CLF's complaint, which commenced the action, can be viewed here. (PDF)
The Conservation Law Foundation works to solve the environmental problems that threaten the people, natural resources and communities of New England. CLF's advocates use law, economics and science to design and implement strategies that conserve natural resources, protect public health, and promote vital communities in our region. Founded in 1966, CLF is a nonprofit, member-supported organization. It has offices in Concord, New Hampshire; Boston, Massachusetts; Providence, Rhode Island; Montpelier, Vermont; and Brunswick, Maine.
Conservation Law Foundation
Interstate 93 Widening
Fighting for a Balanced Transportation System and Smarter Growth
Simply widening I-93 will not solve traffic woes, as traffic congestion will soon return. New Hampshire needs a balanced transportation system that includes rail and other innovative solutions.
The proposal to widen Interstate 93 has been called one of the most wasteful road projects in America. The project will induce sprawling growth and development along the I-93 corridor and throughout southern New Hampshire. Traffic congestion will soon return and impacts to wetlands and water resources will be severe, as will the loss of open space and forests associated with future induced development.
The New Hampshire Department of Transportation's (DOT) proposal -- to simply double the highway's capacity from four lanes to eight between Salem and Manchester -- is an unsustainable and short-sighted solution. New Hampshire needs a balanced transportation system that includes rail and other innovative remedies.
CLF has been leading the opposition to DOT's short-sighted "fix" and promoting sustainable solutions through a coalition of 13 environmental and public interest advocacy groups, including the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests, NH Audubon, NH Public Interest Research Group (NH PIRG) and the NH Public Health Association. The coalition has called upon DOT to develop a balanced, long-term transportation solution that limits impacts to air and water quality, and that promotes more sustainable, less sprawling development in southern New Hampshire.
CLF filed suit in February 2006 charging that NH DOT and the National Highway Administration violated the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act in their planning and approval of the proposed twenty mile, $700 million widening project.
Courtesy of the
Victoria Transport Policy Institute:
How Transit and HOV Reduces Traffic Congestion (Transit Evaluation)
Urban traffic congestion tends to maintain equilibrium. If congestion increases, people change destinations, routes, travel time and modes to avoid delays, and if it declines they take additional peak-period trips (Rebound Effects). Reducing this point of equilibrium is the only way to reduce congestion over the long run. The quality of travel alternatives has a significant effect on the point of congestion equilibrium: If alternatives are inferior, few motorists will shift mode and the level of equilibrium will be relatively high. If travel alternatives are relatively attractive, motorists are more likely to shift modes, resulting in a lower equilibrium.
The actual number of motorists who shift from driving to transit may be relatively small, just a few percent of total travelers on the corridor, but that is enough to reduce roadway congestion delays. Congestion does not disappear, but it never gets as bad as would occur if quality transit service did not exist.
To attract discretionary riders (travelers who have the option of driving), public transit must be fast, comfortable, convenient and affordable. Grade-separated transit (such as rail on its own right-of-way or buses with HOV Priority features) provides a travel time advantage that tends to attract discretionary riders. When transit is faster than driving, a portion of travelers shift mode until the highway reaches a new congestion equilibrium (that it, until congestion declines to the point that transit is no longer faster). As a result, the faster the transit service, the faster the traffic speeds on parallel highways. Other types of Transit Improvements can also encourage motorists to shift to transit.
Shifting traffic from automobile to transit on a particular highway not only reduces congestion on that facility, it also reduces the amount of vehicle traffic discharged onto surface streets, providing “downstream” congestion reduction benefits. For example, when comparing the congestion reduction benefits of a highway widening project with some sort of transit service improvement, the analysis should not be limited to just the highway that is expanded. It is important to also account for the additional congestion on surface streets where highway traffic discharges resulting from increased traffic volumes, and the reduction in surface street traffic congestion that would result if the transit improvement attracts highway drivers out of their cars.
Improving travel options can therefore benefit all travelers on a corridor, both those who shift modes and those who continue to drive.
Do we have the political will to affect real change?
Or will our future just be more of the same?
