Thinking about I-70, I dont think the portion theyre talking about is going anywhere, and it never seemed especially likely that it would have been removed. My outsiders impression is that people were mostly indifferent or just lightly sympathetic when it came to the organized opposition.



Since the reconstruction project is underway and the lawsuits have concluded (at least, the ones Ive seen reporting on), its not a realistic candidate for removal now, although I suppose it works better than something that was just rebuilt. Whats more egregious, I think, is the reports characterization of Colorado. To start, Id say the key characteristic of Current political climate in Colorado is opposed to freeway expansion is untrue; while theres growing interest in alternatives to driving, especially around Denver, I think its more often wanted as addition to a accelerated highway work, not a replacement (e.g., front range rail and GPLs in addition to the HOT lanes being added to I-25).



The last paragraph describing the political environment also has some suspect leaps of logic. On the rejection of last years transportation ballot measures, Id argue the general motivation was much more anti-tax and anti-toll than anti-freeway. (The multi-model component of the tax-based measure was also used as a talking point by opponents, although Im not sure how much of a factor that really was.) Education and health care, meanwhile, came across as the focus of the gubernatorial election; transportation was a footnote in the environmental portion of Poliss platform, and the only reference to it in his sites key issues now is about electrification. Actually, considering how transportation becomes a larger issue and talking point each year, I was mildly surprised by how little it was involved in the last round of elections.