• Front page
• Receive this content on your RSS reader

This Speakout has not been edited.

In June, Denver was one of nine cities selected by the U.S. Department of Transportation as a semi-finalist for a federal program that will provide a total of $1.1 billion to fight traffic jams. Five winning proposals will be announced in August.

If you’ve spent any amount of time in the Mile-High City’s miles-long rush hour traffic jams, it shouldn’t surprise you that Denver made the list. According to the most recent study by the Texas Transportation Institute, the annual delay per person during rush hour in the Denver-Aurora-Boulder metro area grew from 16 hours in 1982 to 51 hours in 2003.

The annual amount of excess fuel consumed per driver in rush hour during the same time period tripled from 10 gallons to 30. Traffic congestion in the Denver metro area costs drivers $786 per person per year in excess fuel and lost time, according to another study.

Another consequence of all this congestion is the adverse effect on our air quality. Denver may be one of the country’s greenest cities today, but that won’t last for long with all those thousands of idling engines out there.

It should also come as no surprise that this increase in traffic congestion has coincided with the Denver area’s population growth, which increased 38 percent between 1990 and 2003. This trend looks to continue, as the area adjacent to U.S. 36 – the highway on which Denver’s proposal focuses – is expected to see a 22 percent increase in population and a 40 percent increase in jobs by 2030. So it’s clear that something must be done soon or the problems will only get worse.

On June 26 in Broomfield, a collection of state and local transportation officials, politicians and business leaders unveiled two options for decongesting the busy U.S. 36 corridor between Denver and Boulder. Both options, each estimated to cost at least $2 billion, aim to expand the 56-year-old highway by adding a high-occupancy vehicle lane. One option would make the 18-mile express lane free for all motorists, while the other would require drivers who are alone to pay a toll. There is also a third option, known as the “no build plan,” that calls for improvements to Park’n’Ride facilities along the highway, but no new lanes.

The U.S. Department of Transportation says that the winning proposals must be “different, innovative and daring” when it comes to fighting traffic. While the proposals on the table are well thought-out, sound plans, they are also somewhat traditional in nature -- they may not be enough.

If Denver wants a real shot at some of that federal money, it must be willing to go out on a limb and propose some fresh ideas, such as applying innovative new technologies to fight traffic. Why not expand the use of high-occupancy toll lanes, already in use on parts of I-25, which use sensors embedded in the pavement to charge express lane drivers based on the amount of traffic?

Or take a look at an even newer technology, already being piloted in other cities, that acts as a “virtual toll booth” for drivers who enter or leave the city center. My company helped Stockholm, Sweden, develop and use such technology to reduce peak-hour traffic by up to 25 percent. So these technologies are proven and available now.

Denver is doing the right thing by encouraging collaboration between government and business. Now if we can just inject some innovative thinking into the mix we’ll come up with a solution to our traffic woes that will have a positive impact on our time, our wallets, and our environment.

Larry Longseth, IBM senior state executive, Colorado

READER COMMENTS

Deport Illegals, it would work wonders.

Deport Illegals, it would work wonders.

POST A COMMENT

• City relying on suspect voting machines
• Economics increasingly vital
• Space the classroom of the future
• Saving America from Media Market Failure
• Beyond 'Sicko': Single Payer System for Both Liberals and Conservatives
• Innovative thinking needed to solve traffic congestion
• No upside to Piñon Canyon expansion
• Questions about uranium mining in Weld County