Public Comments Received Surrounding Online Open House Meeting #1
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
CDOT Subaccount: 23484
Public Comments Received Surrounding
Online Open House Meeting #1
The first public open house for the Four Corners Intersection Improvements project was held online to
provide a safe, convenient way for community members to engage during the COVID-19 pandemic. The
open house was held on March 9, 2021 from 6 – 7 p.m. The goal of this public engagement point was to
introduce the project, present the results of alternatives development and analysis, and obtain public
feedback regarding the recommended improvements before moving into preliminary design.
Nearly 55 participants joined the open
house Zoom videoconference. Project
team members provided a 30-minute
presentation, which was followed by 30
minutes of answering questions posed
by participants in the chat feature and
group discussion. A recording of the live
presentation and the presentation
slides were posted on the project web
page (CRgov.com/4Corners) the day
after the open house to facilitate
follow-up comments and allow those
who missed the open house access to
the same information.
This public engagement opportunity was advertised through an email blast to the project mailing list,
news release, and Town of Castle Rock communication channels, including social media. Project
partners and nearby neighborhoods (Douglas County, CDOT, Woodlands, Founders Village, Escavara,
Flat Rock Village, Castle Oaks Village, and Sunstone Village) were provided with event advertisement
graphics for social media posts along with the news release and asked to distribute to their contact lists.
A postcard was mailed to more than 2,700 nearby property owners.
Community members were invited to provide comments during a two-week-long period spanning
before and after the meeting. Prior to the meeting, graphics of the four improvement alternatives
considered were posted to the project web page, along with the evaluation result for each (eliminated,
less favorable, and recommended). Comments were accepted through an online comment form,
Facebook post, email, and phone.
Following is a listing of comments submitted between March 1 – 14, categorized by sentiment. In
addition to comments received, many people requested to sign up for the project contact list. The
online comment form asked respondents to note their interest in the project. 30 people noted they live
or work near the Four Corners intersection. 13 people noted they commute/travel through the
intersection. Some noted both applied. The majority of commenters were in favor of the improvement
recommendations.
David Evans and Associates, Inc. 1 March 15, 2021
CDOT Subaccount: 23484
Four improvement alternatives were considered and evaluated (see project
page). The Improved Signalized Intersection has been recommended. Do you
agree with the evaluation results?
In Favor of Improved Signalized Intersection Recommendation
● Yes. (x 2)
● Yes, Improved signal would help.
● Adding more lanes is always a good thing. I like the stoplight options, not the roundabout
options as people tend to poorly use roundabouts in Colorado.
● I agree that the Recommended option is best, but I was interested in understanding the analysis
of the roundabout option.
● Yes. I agree that adding lanes in all directions is the best alternative... the roundabout sounds
like a nightmare and the others were also suboptimal in their own ways.
● Agree with recommended alternative.
● Double lefts and double through lanes will be great.
● Most of the analysis makes sense from what I am reading.
● Please not another roundabout!!! That would be the worse place to put it! (Facebook: 4 likes, 1
love, 1 laugh)
● Thank God. This intersection is hella dangerous. I would agree with other commenters that I
don't think this is a good candidate for a roundabout. (Facebook: 1 like, 1 love)
● This intersection has had so many accidents, one of which involved my son and his grandma.
The car was totaled, they were ok as were the others involved! This needs attention but with
the amount of traffic we have here I agree, a roundabout may not be the answer.
● No roundabout. There are FAR too many vehicles through that intersection for a roundabout
now, let alone as those traffic levels increase.
● Not a roundabout—that’s just an accident waiting to happen! (Facebook: 1 laugh)
● Please please please do not consider the roundabout option. It will be a nightmare.
● Please remove the roundabout from consideration!
● Definitely not a roundabout. That would be a nightmare.
● Thank you for making the selection you did and not putting in another suicide circle.
● Thanks for reaching out to the community. Much appreciated that we can have input on this.
We live in the Terrain development on the south side. My biggest concern is we have to go
across Hwy 86 at Autumn Sage if we want to walk a dog or something. This is pretty dangerous –
there is 50 mph traffic here. If you have a roundabout at Four Corners, we would have had
continuous flow on 86. Now we get some breaks in traffic where we can get across the street. I
know this is a bit east of the project.
David Evans and Associates, Inc. 2 March 15, 2021
CDOT Subaccount: 23484
In Favor of Roundabout
● No, I would rather have the roundabout option. Because of the stoplight the traffic backs up all
the way south to the next traffic light at KS and beyond. Sometimes all the way to the
roundabout at Ridge and Enderud.
● Bring on the roundabouts! I hate sitting at stoplights! I would love to go all the way south on
Founders/Ridge without stoplights and then down Plum Creek and never have to wait for a light
until Wilcox! (Facebook: 10 likes)
● Agree roundabouts are fantastic! Who wants to sit at a stop light!?!
● In previous Town evaluation, it seemed like the round-a-bout was the design of choice. I think
round-a-bouts have generally worked very well in Castle Rock. They keep traffic moving. I am
curious why this was not recommended.
● I would like you to reconsider the roundabout design, honestly.
● Other than initial cost and design wouldn’t the roundabout design offer the best traffic flow and
safety solution? They are going in everywhere else and this seems like an ideal intersection for
one.
Undecided
● I am not sure yet.
● If the exit of a highway can handle a roundabout (I-25 and the outlets) then there's not too
much traffic at this one. If used properly roundabouts are fantastic. But that being said I'd want
to hear what the experts said. (Facebook: 1 like, 2 love)
Consider Other Alternatives
● Yes somewhat, something needs to be done. Should be larger however. Incorporate part of the
eliminated plan a combination of the two.
● We need to do more to the intersection, particularly the 5th Street Hill.
● Overpass. (Facebook: 2 likes)
● How about a flyover?
● An intersection I did not see on the figures is a Thru U or Thru Turn intersection. It improves
through traffic capacity and moves the left turn out of the intersection. It also reduces speeds
through the intersection itself. Example of this intersection is Draper, UT 12300 S and State St,
east of I-15.
● No I don't agree. The Improved Signalized Intersection addresses current needs but is not
forward thinking or future proof. I agree signaling needs to be improved with additional
roadway or camera sensors to modify traffic signal timing, but it doesn't improve safety for
vehicles or pedestrians. Left turns are the most dangerous part of an intersection and moving
the left turn away from the intersection where there's slower traffic, would be the most
effective at improving safety. The Partial Continuous Flow intersection moves that left turn out
of the intersection for the north/south traffic, while providing a safer left turn for the east/west
traffic. If the speed limits of the intersecting roads were 35 mph I might agree with the Improved
David Evans and Associates, Inc. 3 March 15, 2021
CDOT Subaccount: 23484
Signalized Intersection, but speeds are closer to 50 mph from all directions, even though some
of the posted limits are slower.
Please share your thoughts regarding the Recommended Improvements. What
would you like the Town to consider as preliminary design begins?
● This proposal seems like a better solution vs. roundabout considering the amount of traffic flow.
Any consideration to a traffic light between this intersection and Founders stoplight? It is very
tough left turns from either residential area onto Hwy 86.
● DO NOT ADD A STOPLIGHT BY THE 7-11, EVER. If you could remove the stoplight at the entrance
of Escavera that would be great as well. They are not needed as they just slow down traffic for
1-2 cars who can wait. I would know this as I used to live in Escavera. It was not hard to get onto
Founders Parkway from that neighborhood.
● Please consider alternatives to reduce confusion for those traveling westbound on Hwy 86 and
turning right onto Founders Parkway. There is confusion regarding that far right lane (when it's
okay to enter the lane) because the lane is also used to turn right onto Aloha St. I believe the full
length of the lane should be used for vehicles making either right hand turn because traffic gets
backed up at the light beyond the Aloha St. entrance. Clearer signs/markings would be helpful
so those turning right at Founders Parkway are not surprised by those turning right at Aloha St.
Thank you!
● 2 left turns is not better than 1 left turn. Multiple lanes for the heaviest trafficked directions for
fast signal cycling is best. All right turns should be separate lanes. The church's driveway should
be moved for safety. North/south pedestrian traffic should be rerouted to the King Soopers
entrance on 86 - could integrate with new development southeast of KS.
● Owner of 212 Pizza here - very concerned about access into and out of Founders Marketplace.
As you can imagine this year has been very tough, and we want to make sure we can capitalize
on the growth in the area without compromising access for delivery drivers and customers.
● While this is preliminary design, I still think it's important to think about the impact to residents
and travelers during construction. The intersection is already limited... I surely hope there isn't a
plan to route cars through Terrain to avoid the intersection at times. OMG
● It needs to be larger. With what was recommended will only get us caught up with today’s
volume. We'll be doing this again in 10-15 years.
● I own the property at 899 N. Ridge Road...during the video meeting you discussed that you
would be looking at access. Per the 2030 and 2040 plans, my property is slated for commercial
development and I DO plan to commercially develop this property in the future. I want to
ensure this new intersection takes that into account and also access for the church on the
corner. I want to make sure 899 N Ridge Road WILL have "Left In, Left Out" access. I look
forward to these discussions. Thank you.
● I listened to the Tuesday March 9th presentation, found it very informative and have a few
comments regarding the project.
» Regarding the 3 properties / driveways on the west side of Ridge Road, Southwest corner of
the project, and access to those properties I have the following: I've attached 2 sketches for
adding a suggested "decel/accel" lane for use by all 3 properties along the west side of Ridge
David Evans and Associates, Inc. 4 March 15, 2021
CDOT Subaccount: 23484
Road. Adding this adjacent lane along the west side of the proposed/current southbound
turn lane from 5th Street along Ridge Rd would move all southbound traffic entering or
exiting these 3 driveways out of the turn lane & future southbound lanes ; I believe this
would increase the safety to all traffic movements in that area, allow vehicles entering
these driveways to move out of the traffic flow & allow vehicles exiting these properties
considerable distance to merge into the 2 lanes southbound (especially effective when
extending this additional acceleration/deceleration lane to some point past the 3rd
driveway on Ridge Road). I believe adding this additional lane now is at minimal additional
cost (add is only roadway; curb, gutter, etc. costs already included in the project estimate),
might be less costly than moving the church driveway to the other driveway south at 895 N.
Ridge, would not necessitate reworking the Ridge Rd improvements at some time in the
future if/when any of these 3 properties are possibly commercially developed (including the
relocated utilities , sidewalk, street lighting , the signal pole locations, etc.); I know part of
this is beyond the project limits of 4 Corners, but I believe it Is interrelated with the Ridge
Road widening project. Incorporate plans for this future lane now (to be extended by Others
for a southbound right turn access at the King Soopers light into the 10A lot (895 N. Ridge
Road) for any future commercial development.
David Evans and Associates, Inc. 5 March 15, 2021CDOT Subaccount: 23484
» Marketplace left turn lanes on RT 86 WB & Ridge SB: Also during the discussion on Tuesday,
in reference to consideration of including left turn lanes for improved access into Founders
Marketplace, both off of Route 86 westbound and Ridge Road southbound>>> I believe a
southbound Ridge Road left turn, being so close to the light, would not be beneficial [ it
would have to cross thru waiting traffic in the northbound turn lane] & only minimally add
improved access that already is available from all traffic pattern directions but WB Rt. 86
into the Marketplace side road. I believe the left turn lane option off of Rt 86 west bound
would greatly improve access into the Marketplace, as well as King Soopers.
» Also I am a property owner along the 5th Street widening project, my home backing to 5th
Street on the north side of that project roadway [ in the Castle Crest subdivision]. I'm very
interested in additional project information, prelim plans & drawings, etc. regarding that
project [I've left a few telephone messages to the Project PM in the past].
Do you have any general suggestions and comments regarding this
transportation project?
● Let's always keep budget in mind. Just because we have the money to spend doesn't mean we
need to top it out with the highest bid.
● I would like to add that Hwy 86, Ridge Road and 5th Street all need to be Four lane where they
are not Four Lane presently. If you wait then when done at a later date then the Four Corners
will have to be redone. Just my thoughts on this matter. Improvements to Four Corners is much
appreciated.
David Evans and Associates, Inc. 6 March 15, 2021CDOT Subaccount: 23484
● This is an EXTREMELY busy intersection. Please consider the rush hour traffic when doing
construction. My commute to work is already an hour long. I don't want it to be an hour longer
because of this construction. A roundabout would have been a better option.
● First and foremost, I'm really glad to see the Town is getting started on improving the
intersection. Thank you for that! If not already mentioned, this is a major route for high school
students to get to Douglas County High School and traffic volumes for left turns from Ridge Rd
to 5th Street are higher during the school year.
● While we're at it, can we fix the crazy lanes from there all the way down to the roundabout at
Enderud? Heading south, almost no one turns right onto fifth, so everyone has to merge over to
the left lanes. Then ridge road has several not-so-gentle bends as it winds its way around all the
patch jobs and add-ons it has gone through. (Facebook: 1 like)
● I hope this fixes the issues and idiots that cut other people off.
● I hope everything makes sense and doesn't take long to complete.....my major issue is the
people who speed and race as fast as they can to be the first one to turn east on 86....I’m sure a
lot of road rage has happened as a result of that.
● Hopefully this will include a sidewalk to downtown Castle Rock that should have been done by
now according to the towns plan back in 2016. It is unsafe for pedestrians trying to get from the
Ridge Rd. stop light to the Woodlands stop light. (Facebook: 2 likes)
● This intersection heavily impacts the traffic flow on Founders coming from I 25. I was not able to
tell from the pictures if this issue is being addressed (I surely hope so, but appreciate your
careful consideration if it is not). A major problem with the traffic flow is caused by the
placement of the left turn lanes and lane that continues on to Ridge rd. Approaching that
intersection, cars going straight or left have to be in the left lane, while the right lane ends and
becomes the right turn lane onto 5th St. Most of the traffic turns left or goes straight, so they all
have to be in the left lane. Herein lies the problem. All the way from Crowfoot, drivers have to
start “getting in line” in that left lane, miles ahead of approaching that intersection, rather than
traveling in the right lane. There’s usually a stream of cars in the left lane, and very few in the
right lane. This makes it difficult for people who live in the Terrain to get over when they need
to turn into the 3 neighborhood entrances from Founders. I for one am not going to travel in the
left lane all that way, going 70 mph just too keep from getting run over so that I can turn onto
Copper Cloud way down the road. Yes, I’ve missed my street because I can’t get over. The one-
lane congestion is definitely a safety issue that this project can absolutely have a positive impact
on.
My apologies for any mis-typing as I’m submitting this from my phone. I am more than happy to
discuss further with you at any time. Unfortunately I have a work meeting the night of March
9th. Thank you for your time.
● Travel it every day and back to work, curious what the plans are. Luckily I travel it at mostly off
hours.
● Thanks for your work on this project.
● Thank you for focusing on this intersection.
● Thank you all. This was very helpful.
David Evans and Associates, Inc. 7 March 15, 2021CDOT Subaccount: 23484
● Thank you, Town and DEA.
● Take care of it quickly please.
David Evans and Associates, Inc. 8 March 15, 2021You can also read
