# Colorado Politician wants to speed up Denver Ski Traffic



## Just-Thinking-51 (Apr 1, 2011)

Source is The Trucker (www.thetrucker.com) it seem Dan Gibbs (CO Summit County Commissioner) wants to limited or remove truck from I70 through the montains of Colorado so revenue-producing skiers won't be held up in traffic.

I will be written a letter on this one. But does anyone have an good link on what happen to the ski train? I know they had issue with Denver union station, and then Ed Ellis and Amtrak try again, but it end with an law suit. Anyone with some good information?

Thanks in advance.


----------



## George Harris (Apr 11, 2011)

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> Dan Gibbs (CO Summit County Commissioner)


Think about the power a county commissioner has over what traffic moves on an interstate highway. (Answer: None whatsoever.) It is simply getting press exposure and nothing more. This little issue does not even rise to "tempest in a teapot" status.


----------



## Denver (Apr 12, 2011)

The problem with Iowa Pacific Holding picking up the Ski Train was that there was a dispute with Amtrak over liability. Amtrak saw the Ski Train as a regularly scheduled commuter train while IP saw their train as an excursion. The difference meant a lot of insurance money that would be required to run the train. IP sued Amtrak over the issue and lost. So there won't be any new Ski Train in the near future.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Apr 13, 2011)

George Harris said:


> Just-Thinking-51 said:
> 
> 
> > Dan Gibbs (CO Summit County Commissioner)
> ...


So agree with you Mr. Harris however these thing do snowball, and while you do have federal law that prevent restriction, most trucks operated outside the federal law, and under state law. I run 53 foot reefer 102" wide. That above the federal law of 48 feet 98" wide. There are easy things that an county commission can do to cut down on trucks fast and legal.

My letter is/was to The trucker about the former ski train. Gets alot cars off the road, using private money. The only price to be paid is to limited the liability issues.

Also the federal law is easily voided, Ohio closed I70 an few years back to trucks during an construction period. Per Federal law you can't do that but they did. No reason other to keep rush out traffic moving out of downtown Columbus. They also did it down in Cincinnati with more force. (must vist court house). So to limited truck traffic on an interstate it can be done. Best one I ever heard about was drug testing of CMV driver at a state line. Truck were stop for 250 miles to skip have some cop watch them go pee.

In short tourist money is big, and it might be big enough to change freight patterns. I don't carry chains, so in winter I go down thur Albuquerque (From Denver)to get to Los Angeles. Heck with the new chain up area I can not get to Denver from the east with out chains.

Thanks for the replies.


----------



## George Harris (Apr 18, 2011)

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> > Just-Thinking-51 said:
> ...


I think your examples come under the thought that you can get away with something for a while, but if you make it onerous enough and try to keep it in place long enough, you will eventually be called on it. Maybe they even can get away with these road restrictions if there is a reasonable alternative route. I do not claim to be any legal expert.

Perhaps an equivalent: For many years there were local jurisdictions putting speed limits on trains through the town. It general, these things were followed more or less for the sake of public relations. You really do not want to aggravate those that have the power to tax you. However, several years back there were some court cases on these, and local whistle bans, and the end result was that it was determined that local jurisdictions did not have power to regulate in this area due to the Interstate Commerce clause in the Constitution. The same or similar cases resulted in the California Public Utilities Commission having its regulatory teeth pulled where the railroads were concerned, a result that still has their nose out of joint.


----------

