Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26

Thread: Bad Idea!

  1. #1
    Yappy little dog!
    Reputation: schnauzers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,881

    Bad Idea!

    This is a VERY bad idea that is pretty much a payoff to build the Toll Road. We'll give you 600 acres of land right next to our big unused highway, so we can build more office buildings.

    Say no to the toll road!

    http://jeffco.us/news/news_item_np_T9_R2170.htm

  2. #2
    Agent of tang
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    713
    have to post this


  3. #3
    Yappy little dog!
    Reputation: schnauzers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,881
    Quote Originally Posted by schnauzers
    This is a VERY bad idea that is pretty much a payoff to build the Toll Road. We'll give you 600 acres of land right next to our big unused highway, so we can build more office buildings.

    Say no to the toll road!

    http://jeffco.us/news/news_item_np_T9_R2170.htm

    And folks, the short of it is that they are going to use $5M of JCOS funds to buy radiated junk land next to a pay-for-use superhighway with urban sprawl. A payoff to the tree huggers so they can build a toll road.

    Man, I am disgusted.

  4. #4
    Rigid in Evergreen
    Reputation: topmounter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,539
    I see 640 acres being added to the Rocky Flats wildlife refuge... but I don't see anything in that doc about building more office buildings.

  5. #5
    Yappy little dog!
    Reputation: schnauzers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,881
    Quote Originally Posted by topmounter
    I see 640 acres being added to the Rocky Flats wildlife refuge... but I don't see anything in that doc about building more office buildings.
    Google candelas.arvada, of which the majority of the infrastructure was paid for by Jefferson County tax dollars. Pretty sneaky too. There wasn't much mention of it. Just a small sign that read Jefferson County Infrastructure Improvements Phase II.

    Anyway, that complix will be on the toll road and right next to th open space.

  6. #6
    bacon! bacon! bacon!
    Reputation: SkaredShtles's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    10,618
    But the highway out there would be progress...


  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    313
    I am confused as to why people are so against this highway-- Indiana is going to stay as is so for those going up towards flatirons from golden, you won't have to use the toll road? What other major impacts is this going to cause.

    I have heard the argument for more traffic, but I can't see that being the case??

  8. #8
    Yappy little dog!
    Reputation: schnauzers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,881
    Quote Originally Posted by pmrider
    I am confused as to why people are so against this highway-- Indiana is going to stay as is so for those going up towards flatirons from golden, you won't have to use the toll road? What other major impacts is this going to cause.

    I have heard the argument for more traffic, but I can't see that being the case??
    These are my arguments and many overlap the anti-toll road people. Also at the risk of being a NIMBY, I am going to say that I really don't want to look at my window and see traffic piling up on 93 to get through a toll.

    -Indiana speed limit will be reduced to 35 - 45. It is currently 55 north of 72 and Indiana. You really don't think they are going to put this in and give people an option, do you?

    -Traffic from those trying to avoid the toll will divert onto 58th Ave, which is a residential street.

    -Additional traffic lights will be added on Indiana.

    -Traffic on Indiana will increase from those wishing to avoid the toll.

    -93, a road that is currently free, will be toll based from 64th Avenue north. Those going to Marshall Mesa (for example) will be charged. Getting to Flatirons from downtown Golden is going to cost you. Either pay the toll or cruise along at mach nothing along Indiana (going slightly northeast) only to turn west and drive another three miles to Flatirons.

    -Is traffic or transportation that bad now that we need a privately funded road that uses a public right of way? This is real important to think about. Your taxes built 93 and they are giving it away to a private company to charge you for it again.

    -Do we need to develop more houses and offices along the 93 corridor? Isn't there enough available space in the metro area? Enough foreclosures? Enough space east that doesn't butt up against a mountain or need to disturb plutonium filled earth?

    -Does Golden really need an underpass at 93 and 19th?

    -Do we really need to "straighten" 93 at Golden Gate Canyon Road?

    -Toll roads are supposed to revert back to the public after they are paid for. The proposed lease on this one is 99 years.

    Sorry, folks. Getting new MTB trails in our Counties is a lost cause. Maintaining access is the important thing now. This one does indirectly affect us. There are many who use BoCo trails that live in JeffCo. You'll now have to pay a fee to get there efficiently.

  9. #9
    Yappy little dog!
    Reputation: schnauzers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,881
    Quote Originally Posted by pmrider
    I am confused as to why people are so against this highway-- Indiana is going to stay as is so for those going up towards flatirons from golden, you won't have to use the toll road? What other major impacts is this going to cause.

    I have heard the argument for more traffic, but I can't see that being the case??
    One more thing...

    If you think that 93 won't get tolled because the agreement states that all communities have to agree, including Golden, think again.

    The Mayor of Golden is leaning more and more towards going with it, because they keep promising him a Shangri La parkway with underpasses, mosaic sound walls, and a few trees in the middle.

    Greed. Lies. Corruption. What a concept!

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    540
    Also at the risk of being a NIMBY, I am going to say that I really don't want to look at my window and see traffic piling up on 93 to get through a toll.
    You moved into your house completely aware that the most likely outcome of 93 was going to be a toll road, it was no secret.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    182
    OK, I'm not a fan of the parkway either, and I have mixed feelings about the Section 16 deal.

    But I have to call you out on a few of your points:

    - Highway 93 would not be tolled from from 64th North. This seems to be the main basis of your rant. It would remain free and as-is. This is dicated by state law which prohibits tolling existing roads.

    - The fear of diverting traffic onto 58th is BS. That is a full 2 miles south of where the parkway would start, where it would diverge from the free and open highway 93.

    - Need an underpass at 19th. Hell yes.

    - Straighten 93 at Golden Gate? Makes sense to me to improve existing adjacent neighborhoods.

    - Do I want to see more development in that corridor? NO. (Buying the S. 16 parcel is a first step towards keeping that from happening. But, there's also that pesky free market and private land thingie.

    Yeah, I know I'm walking into a buzzsaw here, but whatever - it's just the internetz.


    Quote Originally Posted by schnauzers

    -Traffic from those trying to avoid the toll will divert onto 58th Ave, which is a residential street.

    -Additional traffic lights will be added on Indiana.

    -Traffic on Indiana will increase from those wishing to avoid the toll.

    -93, a road that is currently free, will be toll based from 64th Avenue north. Those going to Marshall Mesa (for example) will be charged. Getting to Flatirons from downtown Golden is going to cost you. Either pay the toll or cruise along at mach nothing along Indiana (going slightly northeast) only to turn west and drive another three miles to Flatirons.

    -Is traffic or transportation that bad now that we need a privately funded road that uses a public right of way? This is real important to think about. Your taxes built 93 and they are giving it away to a private company to charge you for it again.

    -Do we need to develop more houses and offices along the 93 corridor? Isn't there enough available space in the metro area? Enough foreclosures? Enough space east that doesn't butt up against a mountain or need to disturb plutonium filled earth?

    -Does Golden really need an underpass at 93 and 19th?

    -Do we really need to "straighten" 93 at Golden Gate Canyon Road?

  12. #12
    bacon! bacon! bacon!
    Reputation: SkaredShtles's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    10,618
    Quote Originally Posted by schnauzers
    These are my arguments and many overlap the anti-toll road people. Also at the risk of being a NIMBY, I am going to say that I really don't want to look at my window and see traffic piling up on 93 to get through a toll.
    Haven't been on E470 lately? This is no longer an issue...

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Crit Rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    310
    One huge issue if this does go through is that the tolls will be way too expensive which forces drivers to look for alternative routes, which under utilizes the new road and overloads existing surface roads.
    E470 is great in theory but few use it because a typical travel on it amounts to ~$5. If it was ~$1-1.50 I'd certainly use it more, thus generating more revenue from me.

    I haven't paid to much attention but my commute is likely to change and the change includes Indiana so now I'm forced to care and have an opinion.

  14. #14
    Yappy little dog!
    Reputation: schnauzers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,881
    Quote Originally Posted by mateomtb
    You moved into your house completely aware that the most likely outcome of 93 was going to be a toll road, it was no secret.
    Most likely? Yes. Approved? No. Can you fight it? Yes.

  15. #15
    Yappy little dog!
    Reputation: schnauzers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,881
    Quote Originally Posted by Crit Rat
    One huge issue if this does go through is that the tolls will be way too expensive which forces drivers to look for alternative routes, which under utilizes the new road and overloads existing surface roads.
    E470 is great in theory but few use it because a typical travel on it amounts to ~$5. If it was ~$1-1.50 I'd certainly use it more, thus generating more revenue from me.

    I haven't paid to much attention but my commute is likely to change and the change includes Indiana so now I'm forced to care and have an opinion.
    Yup.

    Hey, I'm no stranger to tolls. Coming from NJ, it was a way of life. $4 every morning to get across the Delaware River, $4 many a weekend to get across the Delaware to MTB trails (with a hill), $18 to go to New York, $5 to go to northern NJ. And those were PUBLIC roads. But, they were always toll roads and built as toll roads. Not converted to toll roads.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Crit Rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    310
    From Schnauzers linked article regarding outcomes of 93 and if it could be tolled.

    Although Highway 93 is a State Highway, owned and maintained by CDOT, the IGA would prohibit the partner governments from taking any steps to reduce capacity or maintenance on Highway 93, including entering into, or voting to support, agreements that would preclude maintenance, operational or capital enhancements. It would also prohibit the parties from making any agreement to toll the existing lanes of Highway 93 without support from all of the governments and the City of Golden.
    That to me sounds like it would be very unlikely that 93 would become tolled but it is possible which would suck.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    171
    I'm not a fan of the parkway either, but it appears that there's no stopping 'em now.

    A couple of thoughts:
    --Indiana is 50mph north of 72. It needs more lights as it is with all the houses going up out there regardless of whether or not the parkway goes in. I was glad to see them put in bike lanes when they reconstructed the section just north of 72.
    --How would traffic go up on Indiana if there's another road to spread the current traffic out on? Wouldn't it reduce the load on 93, 128, Indiana, and 72?
    --Besides candelas, there's really not that much more private land to develop along this corridor. Take a look at the map. I'm not sure why Jeffco wants this road so bad.

    I really thing the parkway is a bad idea, and I hope BoCo will still oppose it. But...there may be some positives if/when it goes in. It may make my bike commute from Westminster to Boulder safer than it currently is. Reduced traffic on 93 could equate to less fatal car-bike accidents. More tax base could mean more money for trails.

    I guess I'm just trying to see the 'glass half full'...

  18. #18
    Yappy little dog!
    Reputation: schnauzers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,881
    Quote Originally Posted by Scrambler
    OK, I'm not a fan of the parkway either, and I have mixed feelings about the Section 16 deal.

    But I have to call you out on a few of your points:

    - Highway 93 would not be tolled from from 64th North. This seems to be the main basis of your rant. It would remain free and as-is. This is dicated by state law which prohibits tolling existing roads.
    Are you sure about this one?

    [QUOTE=Scrambler]
    - The fear of diverting traffic onto 58th is BS. That is a full 2 miles south of where the parkway would start, where it would diverge from the free and open highway 93.[QUOTE]

    That depends on which plan you look at and which one would be approved. As of now none are and they can always change.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scrambler
    - Need an underpass at 19th. Hell yes.
    Fooey. Let the roadies cross the street.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scrambler
    - Straighten 93 at Golden Gate? Makes sense to me to improve existing adjacent neighborhoods.
    How does it improve them? What are the problems now? The reason they gave was for continuous speed, not property improvement. If anything, it brings the highway closer to the homes on the west side of the highway.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scrambler
    - Do I want to see more development in that corridor? NO. (Buying the S. 16 parcel is a first step towards keeping that from happening. But, there's also that pesky free market and private land thingie.
    That didn't stop Candelas from building on what was to have been open land. Not too mention that it glows in the dark.

  19. #19
    Yappy little dog!
    Reputation: schnauzers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,881
    Quote Originally Posted by jjonas
    More tax base could mean more money for trails.
    JCOS is paying $5M for a SMALL piece of land that is flat and have no intentions of putting a trail on. They could of had a nice 2000 acre parcel in Pine Junction that could have accommodated a lot of trails and possibly gravity based. Their initial problem with that was it was "too small".

    Am I the only one who sees the odd connection to JCOS funding a JeffCo deal? Buying a tiny piece of property with poison soil, next to a highway, for a "wildlife" reserve?

    Maybe there was too much caffeine in my coke today or the fumes from Boulder (it is 4/20 after all) have gotten into my blood stream.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: steadyflow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,050
    Quote Originally Posted by schnauzers
    JCOS is paying $5M for a SMALL piece of land that is flat and have no intentions of putting a trail on. They could of had a nice 2000 acre parcel in Pine Junction that could have accommodated a lot of trails and possibly gravity based. Their initial problem with that was it was "too small".

    Am I the only one who sees the odd connection to JCOS funding a JeffCo deal? Buying a tiny piece of property with poison soil, next to a highway, for a "wildlife" reserve?

    Maybe there was too much caffeine in my coke today or the fumes from Boulder (it is 4/20 after all) have gotten into my blood stream.
    I agree with you....I do not want this toll road going in. Arvada is really who wants it....Golden and Boulder don't. The biggest misconception is that this will connect the Beltway.....it doesn't not even close. And yes I do find it funny that they are creating a wildlife refuge on a superfund site.....seriously, does anyone believe that land is no longer toxic.....I don't.

    I will agree that 93 needs work, but a six lane super highway is not the answer.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    182
    To answer Schnauzers...

    1. I am 99% positive about the state law restricting tolls on existing roads, which is why tolling the exiting Hwy 93 has never been part of the plans. I'm too lazy to look it up right now, but be my guest!

    2. Reroute at Golden Gate - the City has been aquiring that corridor for a long time - a lot longer than those new houses that back to the future re-route. Sucks to be them, but shoulda known better.

    3. Candelas parcel - there is a difference between "open space" and "open land." It's all worth something these days, so if you want it to remain open, it must be purchased as open space. It's no secret that Arvada and the property owner have been wanting to develop this for decades, which yes, is a back-handed way for them to be pushing this road.

    4. The whole RF contamination thing gets thrown about willy-nilly as a red-herring. If you look at the contamination maps, it's all in the center of RF and east (with the prevailing winds), and has been cleaned up (depending on who you believe). It's a huge stretch to say that the S. 16 parcel is contaminated, but if that makes your argument work better, that's cool.

    Word.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    171
    Quote Originally Posted by schnauzers
    JCOS is paying $5M for a SMALL piece of land that is flat and have no intentions of putting a trail on. They could of had a nice 2000 acre parcel in Pine Junction that could have accommodated a lot of trails and possibly gravity based. Their initial problem with that was it was "too small".

    Am I the only one who sees the odd connection to JCOS funding a JeffCo deal? Buying a tiny piece of property with poison soil, next to a highway, for a "wildlife" reserve?

    Maybe there was too much caffeine in my coke today or the fumes from Boulder (it is 4/20 after all) have gotten into my blood stream.
    I agree that the Section 16 land deal was crazy. I really don't see why that parcel was sooo important to spend so much money on. Additionally, they aren't getting the mineral rights and the last I read, the company holding them didn't want to give them up since they may want to mine in the future.

    Poison land??? Yes, it probably has some radioactivity. Likely above residential standards, but not an ecological risk to wildlife. Not a risk to vistors either, if Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge will ever put in some trails.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    171
    Quote Originally Posted by steadyflow
    And yes I do find it funny that they are creating a wildlife refuge on a superfund site.....seriously, does anyone believe that land is no longer toxic.....I don't.

    I will agree that 93 needs work, but a six lane super highway is not the answer.
    "Toxic" means different things to different people. I work on superfund sites on a regular basis as an environmental engineer (supporting EPA sometimes and supporting industry as well). Creating a wildlife refuge out of a superfund site is a really good idea because then people won't be exposed to the contaminants to the same degree as if they built their houses on the site, planted gardens, or drilled drinking water wells. Since most of the wildlife migrates around the 'hot spots' (and I believe the 'hot spots' will be fenced off and managed seperately by DOE), they actually get lower exposure than if you or I were to raise our kids and live our enitre lives on 1/4 acre lot within the superfund boundary.

    But maybe I'm a bit skewed when it comes to superfund sites and living near them...I used to live in Butte, MT...now THAT'S a superfund site.

  24. #24
    Rigid in Evergreen
    Reputation: topmounter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,539
    I just see a ton of FUD coming from both sides of this issue...

    According to the map HWY 93 remains, albeit running parallel with the tollway... there ARE businesses and private homes along that section of HWY 93 and converting the only road that accesses those homes and businesses to a toll road isn't going to happen.. as someone mentioned, that is probably the reason there is a state law against such things.

    edit... Regardless, I can see pro's and con's. Other than periodic trips to Boulder or Superior I don't really have a dog in this hunt. If this was in my backyard, the construction aspect alone would probably make me oppose it.
    Last edited by topmounter; 04-20-2011 at 08:10 PM.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mtbklutz's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    108
    Quote Originally Posted by schnauzers
    These are my arguments and many overlap the anti-toll road people. Also at the risk of being a NIMBY, I am going to say that I really don't want to look at my window and see traffic piling up on 93 to get through a toll.

    -Indiana speed limit will be reduced to 35 - 45. It is currently 55 north of 72 and Indiana. You really don't think they are going to put this in and give people an option, do you?

    -Traffic from those trying to avoid the toll will divert onto 58th Ave, which is a residential street.

    -Additional traffic lights will be added on Indiana.

    -Traffic on Indiana will increase from those wishing to avoid the toll.

    -93, a road that is currently free, will be toll based from 64th Avenue north. Those going to Marshall Mesa (for example) will be charged. Getting to Flatirons from downtown Golden is going to cost you. Either pay the toll or cruise along at mach nothing along Indiana (going slightly northeast) only to turn west and drive another three miles to Flatirons.

    -Is traffic or transportation that bad now that we need a privately funded road that uses a public right of way? This is real important to think about. Your taxes built 93 and they are giving it away to a private company to charge you for it again.

    -Do we need to develop more houses and offices along the 93 corridor? Isn't there enough available space in the metro area? Enough foreclosures? Enough space east that doesn't butt up against a mountain or need to disturb plutonium filled earth?

    -Does Golden really need an underpass at 93 and 19th?

    -Do we really need to "straighten" 93 at Golden Gate Canyon Road?

    -Toll roads are supposed to revert back to the public after they are paid for. The proposed lease on this one is 99 years.

    Sorry, folks. Getting new MTB trails in our Counties is a lost cause. Maintaining access is the important thing now. This one does indirectly affect us. There are many who use BoCo trails that live in JeffCo. You'll now have to pay a fee to get there efficiently.

    AMEN!

    I just don't think the traffic on 93 warrants the expansion that is being proposed. Sure it can get a little busy at times but nothing like I-70 east of the tunnel. Now there's a situation where a toll lane could be beneficial. I'd pay the 5 bucks to avoid ski traffic.
    Last edited by mtbklutz; 04-20-2011 at 08:08 PM.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •