# US 50 shutdown!



## glenn (May 13, 2009)

Damn, that is an awful way to go.
Vibes++


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

Luckily from what I heard the fuel ran away from the river. Plus they had hazardous materials crews and AHRA personel on hand quickly...still though, ANOTHER rolled tanker in the Bighorn Canyon....one of these days I hope they re-route hazmat trucks around the canyon.

They said on the radio that initially they tried to put the fire out with water, and it created a giant black cloud (duh) that lingered and moved down river...

I do feel bad for the driver's family though...unfortunate indeed.


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

image courtesy of the Mountain Mail


----------



## climbdenali (Apr 2, 2006)

Where would you route tankers around Bighorn Sheep Canyon?? Over Vail/Loveland Passes? Through Westcliffe on 69? All the way south through Alamosa on 285 and 160? Just curious.

50 is a major East/West highway for trucking across the state, and country.


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

climbdenali said:


> Where would you route tankers around Bighorn Sheep Canyon?? Over Vail/Loveland Passes? Through Westcliffe on 69? All the way south through Alamosa on 285 and 160? Just curious.
> 
> 50 is a major East/West highway for trucking across the state, and country.


It likely won't ever happen, but every year tankers roll over between Cotopaxi and Salida. Several in the last 5 years have dumped their contents into the river. In fact there has been 3 instances of this in the same spot near Rincon in the last year or so.
About the only other option I can think of is highway 9 from Parkdale up to 24 and then back down to 50 via 285....and this option would add a shit ton more traffic on my commute every day, but I still think it would be better than a tanker truck dumping in the river every 6 months.


----------



## ski_kayak365 (Dec 7, 2003)

The other option is that state patrol needs to crack down on truckers speed in the canyon too. Every time they roll is due to either speeds or falling asleep, though I would guess speed is the main issue in that canyon. Course, I don't want more cops slowing me down, but then again.....safety and water issues.

Since HW 50 goes to I70 anyway, they just need to divert truckers w/ hazmat to 70 prior to denver or up I25. 160 would be a bad idea, just what we need is them rolling in either the SF rio Grande or Pagosa side.

There has to be a cost effect way to allow for those metal tanks to have some kind of fire retardant or other such option to contain it as soon as the tank goes over. Sparking metal on concrete is just what a gas tanker needs.

Lmyers...AZ is shit outa snow, unless we get some major storms, stay away this year, sorry.


----------

