Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Study: I‑70 congestion costs Colorado billions annually, with tourism and productivity hit
Loading...
Summary
A Metro Denver EDC analysis presented to the DRCOG TAC estimates I‑70 corridor congestion costs roughly $2.25 billion per year in lost tourism revenue, time and productivity, and flags closures and seasonal travel as growing risks; the study will take stakeholder feedback and add a closures analysis before final publication.
SEAN BRAGG, the Metro Denver Economic Development Corporation senior economist, told the Denver Regional Council of Governments Transportation Advisory Committee on April 20 that updated modeling shows substantial economic losses tied to congestion on Interstate 70 between Metro Denver and the mountain resort region.
"We estimate $47,000,000 in annual tourism revenue at risk from congestion along the I‑70 Corridor," Bragg said, and added that the study attributes about $319,000,000 in annual resident time loss and roughly $1,900,000,000 to productivity declines related to corridor delays. "In total, this leads to our estimate of $2,250,000,000 a year in annual congestion costs," he said, while noting some slide typos and that the report uses consistent methods to compare a 2007 baseline to 2026.
The study, produced as an update to a 2007 analysis, quantifies multiple channels for economic harm: lost tourism spending during closures, higher vehicle repair and operating costs for stranded travelers, longer commutes that reduce worker productivity, and higher costs to freight and supply chains. Bragg emphasized seasonal peaks tied to ski travel and to summer visitor flows and said closures and diversions place disproportionate strain on mountain communities that lack the tax base to cover emergency response costs.
"This is not just a transportation inconvenience — it functions as an economic constraint," Bragg told the TAC. He said the report is primarily an estimate of the cost of inaction and does not evaluate or recommend specific modal solutions; a separate comparative analysis would be needed to weigh options such as transit improvements versus highway widening.
TAC members pressed on details. Chair Justin Schmitz and members asked whether ongoing projects (for example, the Hill project) were included; Bragg said the published draft focuses on present conditions so the team can compare apples to apples with the 2007 work, but staff are preparing a closures addendum and will attempt to model the effect of large construction projects in a follow‑up. Bragg also said the team can split closure costs and impacts by region when requested, noting that emergency‑service strain varies by location.
The presentation listed several headline numbers that program managers and elected officials said would be useful in cost‑benefit conversations. Bragg said the draft will be circulated to stakeholders for feedback in the next few days, with the team aiming to publish the updated report and a closure analysis in May if stakeholder comments permit.
The TAC did not take action on the study; members asked staff to consider regional disaggregation of closure costs and to include the ongoing closure study as an addendum before finalizing the report.
