HomeMy WebLinkAbout972754.tiff . yam
WELD COUNTY
To the Editor: December 17, 1997
Farmer&Miner 1997 Pr, 19 AN 9: L$
HURRY UP AND WAIT: THE NEW I-25 -SH119 INTERCHANGE CLERK
Those of us who travel to Longmont know the frustrations and inconvenience of getting through TO THE P.•
the 1-25 interchange at Del Camino while it is under reconstruction. Traffic is back up through
several traffic light cycles, traffic is halted to permit construction equipment to cross and one
must bump along temporary roadways. Most of us tolerate this with the vision of a light at the
end of the tunnel,being a new efficient interchange that can be crossed with ease and no delay.
However,is this light one of the end of past delays or a train of new problems headed at us?
First, let's look at the design of the new interchange. There are now three traffic signal
controlled intersections. One is at Turner Blvd., one at the west on-off ramps and one at the
combined east on-off ramps, frontage road intersection. The new interchange configuration will
have four intersections controlled by traffic lights. They will be at Turner Blvd., the west and
east side on-off ramps and the new separate location of the frontage road. Coming from the Tri-
town area we will have one additional traffic light at which to wait. The main changes to the
interchange are to provide double left turn lanes, increase the space for vehicles backed up
waiting for traffic signals and four through traffic lanes under the 1-25 overpass.
1. The need for the traffic signals at the east side on-off ramps, where there is the greatest
volume of traffic, could be eliminated by constructing a half clover leaf access to and egress
from the interstate. Traffic would flow continuously without waiting and back ups, and the need
for any turn lanes would be eliminated. By adequately spacing of the lane crossovers for use
these clover leaf ramps on the interstate traffic speed would not be impeded. The costs involved
and land required would be comparable to the present design.
2. Use of the interchange by Tri-town area residents would be further facilitated by eliminating
the need to wait for a traffic light to access I-25 northbound and to wait for two signals to
proceed from northbound I-25 to eastbound WCR24.
3. However the most glaring flaw in the new design is that it will be incapable of handling the
anticipated traffic flow at the interchange even after spending upwards of 17,000,000 dollars.
My speculations were confirmed by the Weld County MUD Plan Background information
publication of February 10, 1997 which states,"The proposed interchange improvement will not
accommodate the growth proposed in the MUD area...". Added to this must be the traffic being
generated by the ongoing development in the annexations to Frederick and Firestone. This
writer advised the Colorado Dept. of Transportation Region IV Transportation Director and
Chief Engineer by letters and with drawings a year and half ago of this situation and proposed
the above revisions,receiving no response. To the best of my knowledge there was no input from
Firestone or Frederick as to the interchange design when the local CDOT hearings were held.
An interesting sidelight to this situation is that for years Firestone government had proposed the
construction of an interchange at WCR20 as part of its envisioned "WCR20 gateway to
Firestone". With the annexation of most of the land along WCR20 by the Town of Frederick or
its rezoning for development under the County,,Firestone's gateway focus has moved by default
to WCR24 and the site of the above interchange"improvements". The Weld County publication
quoted above continues; "which would suggest planning for additional freeway access capacity
other than at SH 119". It is ironic that the continued congestion at the Del Camino interchange
will ultimately necessitate the construction of an interchange at WCR20 which is now a gateway
to Frederick.
John S.Folsom Mike: please advise of any changes I-25.DOC
/62
/IR�� f r513- 2 972754
Hello