DOCSLIB.ORG

2035 Transportation Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2035 Transportation Plan Arapahoe County 2035 Transportation Plan November 2010 Adopted December 7, 2010 Resolution Number 100990 Arapahoe County 2035 Transportation Plan November 2010 Adopted December 7, 2010 Resolution Number 100990 Submitted to Arapahoe County 10730 East Briarwood Avenue, Suite 100 Centennial, CO 80120 Submitted by In Conjunction with Felsburg Holt & Ullevig BBC Research & Consulting David Evans and Associates, Inc. 6300 S. Syracuse Way, Ste. 600 th 3773 Cherry Creek N. Drive, Ste. 850 1331 17 Street, Suite 900 Centennial, CO 80111 Denver, CO 80209 Denver, CO 80202 Arapahoe County 2035 Transportation Plan Acknowledgements Acknowledgements The Arapahoe County 2035 Transportation Plan has been prepared in conjunction with the Transportation Division of Arapahoe County. Many individuals have generously contributed to this effort. Board of County Commissioners County Staff Technical Advisory Committee Susan Beckman, District 1 Bryan Weimer, Transportation Division Manager Jim Dyer, District 2 Chuck Haskins, PE, Engineering Services Division Manager Rod Bockenfeld, District 3 Irene Valenzuela, PE, Engineer III Pat Noonan, District 4 Brian Love, PE, CIP Manager Frank Weddig, District 5 Jerry Maschka, Traffic Operation Manager Jim Katzer, PE, Road and Bridge Division Manager Planning Commission Todd Weaver, Budget Manager Mark Brummel Jan Yeckes, Planning Division Manager Arnold Hayutin Julio Iturreria, Long Range Planning Program Manager Kim Herzfeldt Chuck Reno, Open Space, Parks and Trails Coordinator Brett Larson Ethan Watel, Open Space Planning Assistant Leah Martin Andrea Rasizer, Communications Services Director Paul Rosenberg Dave Schmit, PE, Public Works and Development Director Brian Weiss Consultant Team David Evans and Associates, Inc. BBC Research and Consulting Stacy Tschuor, PE, PTOE Adam Orens Joseph Hart, PE Scott Burger, PE, PTOE Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Ian Chase Elliot Sulsky, PE, AICP Heather Gade, EI Steven Marfitano, EI Leah Langerman 2035 Transportation Plan Arapahoe County 2035 Transportation Plan Table of Contents Table of Contents 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1. Background .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2. Purpose .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 1.3. Planning Process ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 3 1.4. Transportation Plan Goals, Policies, and Implementation Strategies ........................................................................................................... 5 1.5. Issues Identification ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 12 1.6. Strategic Management................................................................................................................................................................................. 13 2. Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................................................................................ 16 2.1. Community Profile ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 16 2.2. Roadway System .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 18 2.3. Traffic Volumes ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 25 2.4. Safety ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 28 2.5. Transit Services ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 31 2.6. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities .................................................................................................................................................................. 34 2.7. Level of Service Thresholds .......................................................................................................................................................................... 40 2.8. Area Classification ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 42 2.9. Roadway Capacities ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 45 2.10. County Capital Improvement Program ........................................................................................................................................................ 48 2.11. Current Transportation Funding .................................................................................................................................................................. 50 3. Travel Demand ................................................................................................................................................................................. 53 3.1. Methodology Overview ............................................................................................................................................................................... 53 3.2. Land Use ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 54 3.3. 2020 and 2035 Travel Demand .................................................................................................................................................................... 64 4. Evaluation of Alternatives ................................................................................................................................................................ 68 4.1. Roadway Connections .................................................................................................................................................................................. 68 4.2. Area Transportation Planning Studies ......................................................................................................................................................... 74 November 2010 i Arapahoe County 2035 Transportation Plan Table of Contents 5. Recommended Transportation Plan ............................................................................................................................................... 80 5.1. Roadway Network ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 80 5.2. Paving Plan ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 86 5.3. Transit .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 86 5.4. Bicycle and Pedestrian ................................................................................................................................................................................. 88 5.5. System Management Strategies .................................................................................................................................................................. 89 5.6. Focus Areas .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 89 5.7. Roadway Design Considerations .................................................................................................................................................................. 94 5.8. Costs of Recommended Plan ..................................................................................................................................................................... 101 6. Funding Analysis ............................................................................................................................................................................ 102 6.1. Federal Funding Mechanisms
Load more

Recommended publications
  • April 29, 2019
    April 29, 2019 “After you have exhausted what there is in business, politics, conviviality, and so on - have found that none of these finally satisfy, or permanently wear - what remains? Nature remains.” -Walt Whitman The First Regular Session of the Seventy-second General Assembly convened on Jan. 4, 2019. As of today, there have been 335 bills in the House and 263 bills in the Senate introduced. Expect weekly newsletters from Axiom during the legislative session, and your Capitol Watch bill tracker URL will be sent every Friday. -Team Axiom- With 5 days to go, here's what's still on the Colorado legislature's plate Colorado Politics The list of major bills awaiting final action from the Colorado General Assembly has changed little in three weeks. Out of the 561 bills introduced in the 2019 General Assembly session, 296 are still awaiting actions by lawmakers as of 8 a.m. Monday, with a final deadline of midnight Friday. That's more than the number awaiting action — 271 — just last Wednesday. According to the daily tally from the Office of Legislative Legal Services, 168 bills are pending in the House, 128 in the Senate. Many are non-controversial. But Democratic lawmakers, who hold both chambers, now have to decide what they're willing to let go of before the midnight bell on Friday. While bills like red flag, oil and gas, and National Popular Vote have made it all the way to the governor's desk — and he's signed them — there are plenty of issues dividing the parties that will keep lawmakers up late at night for the next five days.
    [Show full text]
  • The Theodore Roosevelt Expressway and the Central North American Trade Corridor
    The Theodore Roosevelt Expressway and the Central North American Trade Corridor Prepared by Esther Tumuhairwe Mark Berwick Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute North Dakota State University Fargo, ND October 2008 Disclaimer The contents of this report reflect the work of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the information presented. This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Mountain-Plains Consortium in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the contents or use thereof. North Dakota State University does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, disability, age, Vietnam Era Veterans status, sexual orientation, marital status or public assistance status. Direct inquiries to the Executive Director and Chief Diversity Officer, 202 Old Main, (701) 231-7708. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Corridor analysis has been completed for many different designations since the passage of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) in 1991. These studies have been conducted without a clear understanding or blueprint of what should be analyzed. Differences exist in corridor analysis between rural and urban, passengers and freight, the reason for the corridor analysis, and whether the corridor is recognized by all states, provinces, and counties it passes through. The steps necessary to establish a freight corridor are ambiguous therefore, a document that describes the analysis/study process would be beneficial. A review of other corridor studies is provided. The Theodore Roosevelt Expressway and the Central North American Trade Corridors are described, including how they connect to other corridors. This paper provides some demographic and geographic information, but does not address highway capacity needs, right of way needs, restricted speed policy, processes for determining future access, evaluation of current access right of way needs for future frontage roads, and bypass opportunities in and around communities.
    [Show full text]
  • State-Sponsored Reclamation Projects in Colorado, 1888-1903
    Before the Newlands Act: State-sponsored Reclamation Projects in Colorado, 1888-1903 DONALD A. MAcKENDRICK In the summer of 1972 citizens and dignitaries gathered in Montrose to celebrate the sixty-third anniversary of the opening of the Uncompahgre Project, a reclamation scheme that diverted water from the Gunnison River to the Uncompaghre River by way of a 5.8 mile tunnel through the wall of the Black Canyon of the Gunnison and distributed the water to nearly seventy thou­ sand acres of semiarid land in Montrose and Delta counties. 1 The Uncompahgre Project was one of the first reclamation projects undertaken by the federal government under the terms of the Newlands Act (1902). 2 The project had originated as a reclamation undertaking of the State of Colorado. In fact, as the United States Reclamation Service was beginning its long and spectacular career in reclaiming arid lands with the opening of the Gunnison Tunnel, the state government of Colorado was ter­ minating its brief and disappointing career in the same field. "Where the states have failed, the federal government has moved in" is axiomatic in recounting the disappointing years between 1888 and 1903, the years of reclamation experimenta­ tion in the Centennial State. 3 The progenitor of state involvement in reclamation affairs was Alva Adams, who twice sat in the governor's chair between 1 Montrose Daily Press, 14 August 1972; U.S., Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Sun•ey. 1902-1903 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. 1903), pp. 219-35 (hereinafter cited as US. Geolo11ical Survey). 1 The Newlands Act, 17 June 1902, committed from $3 million to $4 million annually to reclaim arid land.
    [Show full text]
  • An Analysis of 1988 Ballot Proposals
    FILE COPY DO mT-NMOVI; FROM WFKd LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL OF THE COLORADO GENERAL ASSEMBLY AN ANALYSIS OF 1988 BALLOT PROPOSALS Research Publication No. 326 1988 I..-",. - ' -.* CQVRADO GENERAL ASSEMBLY 1 *$-.-..; &., OFFICERS MEMBERS SEN. TED L. STRICKLAND SEN. WAYNE ALLARD Chairman SEN. HAROLD McCORMICK REP. CARL B. "BEV" BLEDSOE SEN. JANA MENDU V~ceChaman SEN. RAY PETERSON STAFF SEN. RAY POWERS CHARLES S. BROWN SEN. JEFFREY WELLS Director REP. VlCKlE ARMSTRONG DAVID HlTE REP. CHARLES BERRY Deputy Director REP. CHRIS PAULSON STANLEY 0. ELOFSON REP. GILBERT ROMERO Assistant Director REP. PAUL SCHAUER REP. RUTH WRIGHT LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ROOM 029 STATE CAPITOL DENVER, COLORADO 80203-1784 (303) 866-3521 LE'ITER OF TRANSMI'ITAL August 16, 1988 This analysis of statewide measures to be decided at the 1988 general election has been prepared by the Colorado Legislative Council as a public service to members of the General Assembly and the general public pursuant to section 2-3-303, Colorado Revised Statutes. Eight proposed constitutional measures are analyzed in this publication. Amendments 2,3,4, and 5 were referred by the General Assembly. Amendments 1,6,7, and 8 are initiated measures. If approved by the voters, these eight constitutional amendments could only be revised by a vote of the electors at a subsequent general election. Initiated measures may be placed on the ballot by petition of the registered electors. lnitiated measures require the signature of registered electors in an amount equal to five percent of votes cast for Secretary of State. The provisions of each proposal are set forth, with general comments on their application and effect.
    [Show full text]
  • La Entrada Al Pacifico Planning Study-TTI-12-7-04
    LA ENTRADA AL PACIFICO TRADE CORRIDOR PLANNING STUDY Prepared for: Midland-Odessa Metropolitan Planning Organization and Texas Department of Transportation – Odessa District Prepared by: Texas Transportation Institute December 2004 LA ENTRADA AL PACIFICO TRADE CORRIDOR PLANNING STUDY by by William E. Frawley, AICP Research Scientist Texas Transportation Institute John Overman, AICP Associate Research Scientist Texas Transportation Institute Juan Villa Associate Research Scientist Texas Transportation Institute and Ajay Shakyaver, P.E. Advanced Transportation Planning Engineer Texas Department of Transportation Project Title: Provide Technical Assistance Related to a Future National Corridor Planning and Development Study for the “La Entrada al Pacifico” Trade Corridor for the Midland-Odessa MPO December 2004 TEXAS TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE The Texas A&M University System College Station, Texas 77843-3135 DISCLAIMER The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official view or policies of the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) or the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors would like to thank the project director, Robert Cox, of the Midland-Odessa Metropolitan Planning Organization. The authors would also like to acknowledge the assistance provided by the following individuals for their valuable assistance and input: Lauren Garduno – Texas Department of Transportation James Beauchamp – Midland-Odessa Transportation Alliance In addition, the authors would like to acknowledge Claire Fazio of the Texas Transportation Insitute (TTI) for her work on maps and graphics, Edd Sepulveda of TTI for his statistical work, Lisa Day of TTI for her work on graphics, and Carol Court for her editorial work.
    [Show full text]
  • The Opinion (PDF)
    dictating the specifics of how the legislature might comply with the reading requirement, it is the judiciary’s prerogative and responsibility to declare that the legislature did not comply with that requirement in this case. The supreme court therefore agrees with the district court’s determination that the unintelligible sounds produced by the computers on the Senate floor on March 11, 2019, did not fulfill the reading requirement. However, unlike the district court, the supreme court stops short of telling the legislature how to comply with the reading requirement. It was not within the district court’s domain to dictate the form or manner by which the legislature may comply with the reading requirement. By prescribing how the legislature must comply with the reading requirement, the district court trespassed upon the separation-of- powers tenet so essential to our constitutional system of government. Accordingly, the supreme court affirms in part and reverses in part. The Supreme Court of the State of Colorado 2 East 14th Avenue • Denver, Colorado 80203 2021 CO 17 Supreme Court Case No. 20SC585 C.A.R. 50 Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals Court of Appeals Case No. 19CA1130 District Court, City and County of Denver, Case No. 19CV30973 Honorable David H. Goldberg, Judge Petitioners: Cindi Markwell, Secretary of the Senate; and Leroy M. Garcia, Jr., President of the Senate, v. Respondents: John B. Cooke, Senator; Robert S. Gardner, Senator; and Chris Holbert, Senate Minority Leader. Judgment Affirmed in Part and Reversed in Part en banc March 15, 2021 Attorneys for Petitioners: Recht Kornfeld, P.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Times-Call Inventory P
    Times-Call # Title of File Folder Photo # Brief Description P.40.10 Quayle, Dan - Political 1982* X Republican vice presidential candidate. Issues: defense. P.40.10 Raab, Michael - Political 1982 0 Vice chairman of the Boulder county Democratic Party P.40.10 Randolph, Dick - Political 1980+ 0 First Libertarian to be elected to office in Alaska P.40.10 Rattenborg, Harold D. - Political 1971 0 Longmont City Councilman P.40.10 Rave, Liz - Political 1976+ 0 *No clippings. President of the United States (two terms), former Governor of P.40.10 Reagan, Ronald - Political 1978+ X California Fort Collins Attorney, former municipal judge, and Democrat candidate P.40.10 Redder, Tom - Political 1990* 0 for state House District 46 P.40.10 Reeb, Ray - Political 1986 0 Candidate for House District 45, Republican P.40.10 Reed, Harold D. - Political 1990* 0 Colorado Court of Appeals Judge Boulder County Judge. Issues: lost attempt to keep court reporters, P.40.10 Reed, Thomas - Political 1987 X school suspensions and student's rights. Weld Democratic Party, seeking at-large nomination for Weld County P.40.10 Rein, Shirley - Political 1986 0 Council seat Candidate for Longmont City Ward I Councilman. Issues: lack of control P.40.10 Reineke, Sylvester "Pat" - Political 1971 0 over city growth Possible candidate to oppose U.S. Representative Tim Wirth, D-Colo., in P.40.10 Rice, Russell - Political 1984 0 the Second Congressional District race in November P.40.10 Richard, Dana - Political 1994* X Candidate for CU Board of Regents P.40.10 Richey, Jim - Political 1977-1978 3 Republican hopeful candidate for Colorado Governor.
    [Show full text]
  • Community College of Aurora (Colorado)1
    ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Academic Freedom and Tenure: Community College of Aurora (Colorado)1 (MARCH 2017) This report concerns actions taken by the administra- The college operates under the authority of the State tion of the Community College of Aurora, during the Board for Community Colleges and Occupational fourth week of the fall 2016 semester, to terminate Education, which governs all thirteen institutions in the appointment of part-time instructor of philosophy the community college system. The system’s president Nathanial Bork without affordance of academic is Dr. Nancy J. McCallin. due process. CCA has been accredited since 1988 by the Higher Learning Commission (HLC; formerly the North I. The Institution Central Association of Colleges and Schools). In The Community College of Aurora, with campuses October 2013, the commission acted to continue in the Denver suburb from which it gets its name as the college’s accreditation until 2022–23, “with well as in Denver itself, was established in 1983 as Interim Monitoring.” part of the Colorado Community College System (CCCS). The college enrolls a diverse population II. The Case of Nathanial Bork of about 10,500 students annually, approximately Mr. Nathanial Bork accepted his first appointment as 80 percent of whom are part time. According to an adjunct instructor of philosophy at CCA in January the most recent figures available from the National 2010, shortly after completing an MA in philosophy Center for Education Statistics, these students are at Colorado State University. By fall 2016 Mr. Bork served by fifty-seven full-time and 310 part-time had served at the college for more than six years, (adjunct) faculty members.
    [Show full text]
  • Times-Call # Title of File Folder Photo # Brief Description Boulder County Judge (1971 - 1975)
    Times-Call # Title of File Folder Photo # Brief Description Boulder County judge (1971 - 1975). Boulder District judge (1975 - P.40.10 Dana, Richard - Political 1971 - 1988 3 1984). P.40.10 Daniels, Bill - Political 1974 0 Republican candidate for Colorado Governor (1974) P.40.10 Darby, Lorena (Mrs. John) - Political 1972 - 1976 7 Democratic Colorado State Senator from 24th District (1972 - ?). P.40.10 Davidson, Janic Burnett - Political 1990 0 Colorado Court of Appeals Judge. P.40.10 Davis, Richard - Political 1976 - 1978 1 Independent candidate for Fourth Congressional District (1976 & 1978). P.40.10 De Nier, Robert - Political 1982 3 Republican candidate for Colorado Lieutenant Governor (1982). Boulder City Attorney, was nominated for Boulder County Judge position P.40.10 de Raismes, Joseph N. - Political 1984 0 but it was given to Joseph John Bellipanni. Republican candidate for Colorado's 1st Congressional District. P.40.10 Decker, Arch - Political 1982 1 Opposing Rep. Pat Schroeder (1982). P.40.10 Dick, Nancy - Political 1978 - 1986 12 Colorado Lieutenant Governor (Democrat) (1979 - 1987). P.40.10 Dietze, Peter C. - Political 1984 - 1990 1 University of Colorado Regent (1984 - 1990). P.40.10 Dietze, Peter C. - Political 1978 - 1979 2 University of Colorado Regent (1978 - 1984). P.40.10 Dillon, James - Political 1987 0 St. Vrain Valley School Board candidate (1987). P.40.10 Dino, Mike - Political 1988 1 CU Board of Regents candidate (1988). P.40.10 Dittemore, Betty Ann - Political 1977 - 1978 2 Republican candidate for Colorado Lieutenant Governor (1978). Republican member of Colorado House (1976 - 1980) & Colorado Senate P.40.10 Dodge, Cliff - Political 1987 0 (1980 - 1987).
    [Show full text]
  • Ports-To-Plains Corridor Interstate Feasibility Study
    PORTS-TO-PLAINS CORRIDOR INTERSTATE FEASIBILITY STUDY STRATFORD 87 287 DALHART 54 DUMAS 87 60 40 AMARILLO 60 27 385 LAMESALUBBOCK 84 SEGMENT 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 380 TAHOKA JUNE 30, 2020 BIG SPRING 180 LAMESA MIDLAND ODESSA 349 BIG SPRING MIDLAND SAN ANGELO 158 ODESSA 87 20 385 SAN ANGELO ELDORADO 67 SONORA 190 ELDORADO 10 96 SONORA 83 277 DEL RIO EAGLE PASS 277 35 CARRIZO SPRINGS GULF OF MEXICO MEXICO 1 PORTS-TO-PLAINS CORRIDOR INTERSTATE FEASIBILITY STUDY (HB 1079) LAREDO 281 SEGMENT #2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Ports-to-Plains Corridor Interstate Feasibility Study (House Bill 1079) The Ports-to-Plains Corridor is an international, national and state significant transportation corridor that connects and integrates Texas’ key economic engines, international trade, energy production and agriculture. The corridor also plays a vital role in supporting the growing demographic and economic centers of South and West Texas. The corridor functions as the only north- south corridor facilitating the movement of people and goods in South and West Texas and beyond. Purpose of this Report The Segment #2 Committee Ports-to-Plains Corridor Interstate Feasibility Study Report (Segment #2 Committee Report) provides the recommendations and priorities of the Segment #2 Committee members for improvements to the Ports-to-Plains Corridor in Segment #2. The Segment Committee #2 Report meets the requirements outlined in House Bill 1079 that was signed into law by Governor Greg Abbott on June 10, 2019. The recommendations in this Segment #2 Committee Report will be used by the Ports-to-Plains Advisory Committee to make their recommendations on improvements to the Ports-to-Plains Corridor to the Texas Department of Transportation.
    [Show full text]
  • Paving the Way with an Interstate
    Ports‐to‐Plains Update Paving the Future with an Interstate Topics • Texas Ports‐to‐Plains Interstate Feasibility Study • Future Interstate Designation Legislation • New Mexico Progress • Colorado Highway 71 Truck Freight Diversion Feasibility Study • Ports‐to‐Plains Passing Lanes on US 287 Texas Ports‐to‐Plains Corridor Interstate Feasibility Study What is the Ports‐to‐Plains Corridor? Key Challenges • Connectivity • Nation’s largest inland port, Laredo, Texas is not connected by interstate to the primary sources of energy and agriculture production. • Additionally, there are approximately 600 miles between I‐25 in New Mexico and I‐ 35 in Central Texas, making connectivity for most of Texas a challenge. • Economic Development • The lack of interstate standard infrastructure has negatively impacted the ability to attract economic activity. • Safety • Crash rates on undivided highways are significantly higher than the interstate‐ standard infrastructure. • Access and Mobility • Most of the communities along the Corridor do not have access to an interstate, creating a barrier to economic opportunities. Ports‐to‐Plains Corridor Trends 1990‐2050 Economic Outlook 1990‐2050 Baseline Travel Times 2018‐2050 Baseline Safety 2018‐2050 Baseline Freight Flow & Tonnage 2018‐2050 Baseline Freight Flow & Tonnage Current Export Markets Freight Flow & Tonnage Current Import Markets Corridor Interstate Feasibility Analysis and Findings 2050 Baseline 2050 Interstate Upgrade Corridor Interstate Feasibility Analysis and Findings Corridor Interstate Feasibility
    [Show full text]
  • Colorado's Close and Fluid Senate Race Offers Important Lessons On
    blogs.lse.ac.uk http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2014/10/08/colorados-close-and-fluid-senate-race-offers-important-lessons-on-political-strategy-for- both-republicans-and-democrats/ Colorado’s close and fluid Senate race offers important lessons on political strategy for both Republicans and Democrats. In less than a month’s time, voters in Colorado will go to the polls to decide whether or not they wish to give their incumbent Senator, Democrat Mark Udall, another term, or instead, opt for his Republican challenger, Cory Gardner. Courtenay Daum takes a close look at what is proving to be a very close election race and one that might well decide which party controls the Senate. She writes that low ratings for President Obama and the fact that 2014 is an off year election may work against Udall, but that Gardner is also trailing in fundraising. She argues that the race may well come down to which candidate is best able to get the vote out, especially among core supporters and independents. Colorado’s Senate race between Democratic incumbent Mark Udall and Republican challenger Cory Gardner is one of the closest in the nation. Recent polls indicate that Gardner may have a slight advantage but the race remains too competitive to make any definitive predictions. The Colorado Senate race should be of interest for two significant reasons. First, party control of the U.S. Senate will be decided by the outcome of this and a handful of other close Senate races. Considering that Republicans are unlikely to lose majority control of the U.S.
    [Show full text]