The Lafayette News highlights the impending traffic headache for residents living across Hwy 287 from the imminent Super WalMart.
From the comments quoted, Council looks like they somehow dropped the ball. However I believe the state bases additional lights on the highway on traffic counts, which won't increase until post-WalMart. So the folks in the neighborhood east of WalMart are screwed. Turning south onto Hwy 287 from Caria will be a headache for years. But cheap Advil will always be right across the street.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
Actually the real story is worse than what you wrote, Dan.
The worst is yet come.
Forget 287 and its own set of CDOT and other issues: The picture in the article is of Baseline, with the article impliedly referring to sometimes-dangerous left turn movements onto eastbound and westbound Baseline at Caria.
The stretch of Baseline in question (e.g., the intersection of Caria/Aspen Ridge) is not CDOT, just Lafayette jurisdiction. So the only thing holding up a signal there is funding.
No doubt the worst is yet to come. Traffic counts on Baseline are not about to drop, even if Highway 7 were rerouted (obviously those who drive this stretch of road in the first place are not confined to Highway 7 users).
I'm interested in whether or not the City could lump the maybe-proposed (on the table, or off the table... Kerry?) safety tax (which could be authorized broadly enough to include traffic safety improvements) together with the assumed ballot question to bond for some immediate captial projects (like this light).
That is a question, and it does have some bearing on the interplay between long-term public safety and a fiscally prudent budget.
Just to put that in context, 287 is not the subject of the Lafayette News article. There are major concerns about 287 in general, but the Diamond Circle lights are hanging, so I do think (agree with the LN article and council, I think) that, relatively speaking, the situation at Caria is most critical.
Caria is the main collector street going south from Baseline. This intersection has been on the city's radar for at least 7 years now.
Aspen Ridge Drive is directly north of Caria off Baseline, just west of the gas station. It is the back way into Black Diamond shopping center, Chili's and the back way into the new Super Wal-Mart.
The W*M traffic study said there was no need for a controlled intersection there. A turn lane from 287 to AR Drive was suppose to be in place before a CO was issued.
The CO is going to be issued without the turn lane in. I have e-mails from the city engineer a few months ago saying that would not happen.
As for money to put the controlled intersection in, I believe there are ways to move on this quickly. So I'm going to challenge the city admin to be creative and not wait another 6 months.
For the curious, look at the city council agenda for Tuesday and see what is on the table for AR Drive. Surprise!
D-B wonders why sometimes the city admin needs to be micro managed. This is a example of the need.
The SuperWalMart traffic study said that that commercial subdivision would not cause enough traffic impact to the Caria intersection to trigger a contribution by WalMart for the signal there. The assumption is that people headed to points west will use the "back" road to make a right turn onto westbound Baseline, but other destinations will be handled by Diamond Circle and exits onto 287. We've agreed, Kerry, that this assumption is dubious, though I'm not sure we've ever tried to have a technical discussion to see how much we agree, by degrees. In any event, we'll soon find out how traffic behaves without needing to rely on a model. It's obvious to most that Caria at Baseline is a mess with or without SuperWalMart.
But I'm not really going to disagree with much you've said, Kerry. I think it's mostly fact at this point. Nonetheless, the question still remains, how will the City pay for a signal at Caria?
Whether it's moving funds around now or relying on a bond, I thought there was some sense in previous threads that the City was looking maybe too much at mortgaging future capabilities, including ability to provide essential safety, in the interest of finding a quick fix for a few pressing issues today.
If the pregnant pause is really evidence of anything (and I need a little more persuasion than is usually present here, that the given "pause" is truly "pregnant," if you follow the idiom), then I'm incredibly curious how serious we might be about shoring up the revenue picture...
So I'm asking again: Is it possible to link the bond to a safety tax? If not, what kind of solution do we have for all the budget demands coming down the pike, the projected $35 million in road maintenance above and beyond new signals, realignments, and everything else the City wants to accomplish? Surely revenue has to be part of the answer, doesn't it?
I have requested that the city get creative on funding the controlled intersection at Caria/AR/Baseline.
If history is the judge, what starts out as being what is viewed as a straight forward project turns into a complicated lengthy project. Witness Crossing Drive and now the delayed W*M traffic mitigation. Also it has not been posted yet that the Council is being asked to fund $60,000 of a $180,000 paving project to improve the roads leading to W*M.
I have two ideas as to how to accelerate the traffic light project. Both have been done before. Not being an expert on municipal accounting, we'll see if they can be done.
If the city proposes and voters approve a restructured bond issue, that would not be put in place until early next year. And who knows how long from funding to installation it would take.
The notion of a public safety tax is off the table for now.
The micro management comments must've hit a nerve if you're still bringing it up, Kerry. That makes me feel good.
As I recall, you said the traffic mitigation which is a contingency for the CO was being held up by CDOT. Not much city admin or council can do about that. So, I'm not sure why it's part of this discussion.
Creative funding is needed, and I applaud efforts to fix this as soon as practical.
I just hope Council and Planning Commish members are learning from this traffic mess.
With a light at Caria, there will be 5 lighted intersections within a quarter mile circle. The 287 corridor was known 30 years before it was built. Neither Caria, Aspen Ridge, nor Crossing Drive should've connected to Baseline so close to the 287 corridor.
This situation doesn't show planning, but reacting. As each piece of development occurred, the city reacted. We should expect more from planners.
Please don't make the same mistakes on the east side of town with the Lowe's development.
D-B,
Baseline west of 287 is a city road. CDOT is not involved.
The W*M traffic study submitted and approved includes traffic mitigation on Baseline. When the PUD came up for approval, I asked the W*M developer if the mitigation would be completed before they opened. He said yes.
In March, driving along Baseline to Public Road, it was evident no work had started. I contacted city hall and they reaffirmed to me that no CO would be issued until the work was done. It is in the contract. I kept the e-mail.
Early this week I was told it would not be done due to a problem with Qwest. De ja vu. So I have requested the city to provide a plan for traffic mitigation. Or either close off AR Drive to WM traffic. No reply as of yet.
Now today, W*M wants two roads repaved, one being AR Drive. They paying 2/3rds, the city paying 1/3rd. $60,000.
So we're dealing with an existing mess now being made into a bigger mess. Keep in mind that much of any road work will be occurring after W*M opens.
Why the concern? Because outside of the traffic mess, Lafayette folks west of 287 can just as easily go to Louisville and Broomfield to shop and eat out. Will this happen? It could. I should know.
Will the city et al learn from this? What do you think?
I might have time for more comments later, but about that repaving of Aspen Ridge... I just looked at the Council agenda for next week. Item R is a bargain for the City by any measure.
As far as lessons learned (far less desirable than problems solved at Caria, but okay...), is there something on there about revenue? Still asking.
Can you remind me what specific improvement isn't going to be done at the Diamond Circle intersection, Kerry? I thought it had something to do with the capacity of the turning bays, but I honestly can't remember now, if I ever knew. It is apparent that the lapse is not as significant as King Soopers, because at least in this case the signal will be operational, and whatever is lagging is already known, as opposed to being unburied after King Soopers had already been open for a year, and then two, and then three.
I think the topic at hand and biggest concern from a citywide traffic mitigation perspective right now is how to get the signal in at Caria and Baseline.
I stand corrected, Kerry, Qwest is the holdup not CDOT. I remembered it was a third party, so a good excuse to release the CO on time without the problem solved.
Since the Aspen Ridge/Caria/Baseline intersection has been identified as a problem intersection for some time, seems Qwest should've known about this long ago.
WalMart shoppers will soon learn that trying to get to Baseline via Aspen Ridge only works if you're heading west on Baseline. And, mostly locals will use those back streets. Non locals typically stick to the major thoroughfares. I don't envy the other businesses back there, but they too will learn to go to Diamond Cirlce to escape.
These kinds of work arounds always skew traffic studies. Like the amount of Hwy 7 traffic already skirting Lafayette because going through town is such a mess. "Why do we need a bypass?" Check the backup from north 119th and Hwy 7 around 5pm. There is a de facto bypass in place.
Right now, there aren't a lot of retail options for those navigating these poorly planned intersections. But, when the options appear, who in their right mind will fight the traffic nightmare through Lafayette?
As to your question, Kerry, about whether or not anything will be learned from this - I'm always an optimist. It sure looks like traffic consultants could come in handy, as it's apparent there is no knowledge base in the city to estimate traffic patterns from retail. Most of what the city has done has been reactive rather than proactive.
If you google "public safety tax", the first article is Longmont. Turns out it was an increase in the city sales and use tax. But our fire chief proposed it as a property tax increase. Either way it would pay for fire and police stuff and the General Fund would be freed up for the traffic control. Ain't gonna happen this year.
As for repaving, it's a mixed bag. It is being presented as a "deal". But if there was no W*M would both streets need repaving? If so, why wasn't this part of the W*M deal and paid in full by them? It's probably for their semis delivering stuff. Just in time...
So will this be viewed as another W*M subsidy? After all, if you're a resident and your street is potholed and cracked, that $60,000 will be gone. Wasn't $2.4M enough? Dan might have an opinion. I'm undecided about this today.
One needs to keep in mind folks coming east to W*M. If on Baseline, one would not want to make a left onto 287 and then another left to W*M. I go in and out the back way to Chili's or Black Diamond. One of the gridlock problems.
As for KS and the Crossing Rd lights, that was CDOT country, KS went up in a year, and the Xcel poles were sitting right there. W*M traffic mitigation (turn lane I think) is now two years old and not CDOT. A lot simple problem with W*M expected to outdraw KS (that's what is in the EDA).
So I'm been told not to think about the gridlock on Baseline. Well, folks east of town can go to Larkridge and eventually the new W*M out at that intersection. Folks west of 287 can head east. And the folks who commute daily using Caria to Baseline are just going to be angrier.
Another defacto by-pass is Public Road. That's what the merchants tell me.
Has the city learned from this? If my suggestions are workable, we will see.
I'm starting to get frustrated with hearing about this "learning" but having no idea what principles are to be drawn from the history of traffic problems. Logical conclusions are always welcomed...
Presumably the City will issue a temporary C.O. if the SuperWalMart must have whatever improvements in place to earn the final C.O. TCOs are commonplace, as are the type of coordination problems, particularly with utilities, that have slowed the implementation of traffic improvements while the store is full steam to the finish line. It's a shame that the double leftbound turn won't be in operation right away (I'm pretty sure that's the main impact of this hiccup), but I think the relative safety of that movement will not be compromised, maybe just a temporary dip in the level of service to get into the shopping center while the final improvements are worked out.
And turning $60,000 of money into $180,000, for a project the City had already identified as a priority (without regard to how it might be misconstrued as a "subsidy" just because it is by a certain land use), that just makes sense. Item R has an attached memo that makes this quite clear: "This is work that our street maintenance program has identified as a high priority project due to its poor condition. The estimated cost for this reconstruction is $180,000 and our $60,000 contribution will be leveraged three fold." How is leverage not a lesson that should be followed when it comes to maintenance of the City's essential services?
If it is even possible to get the focus back to Caria, the left turn from the residential collector onto westbound Baseline is really the problem movement at the moment. We'll see if straight-ahead traffic across Baseline from the new commercial area and into the neighborhood becomes another problem. So, again, what are these ideas for funding the signal?
So Caria and Baseline was identified as a mess 7 years ago. A resident took the trouble of taking pictures and presenting to the council a couple of meetings ago. Fact.
The largest retailer in town decides to build the biggest new supercenter in town. A side street that is said will be used extensively connects to said intersection. And little was done to mitigate traffic. Plus both KS and W*M have not completed the traffic mitigation requirements of their PUDs prior to opening. Unlike Crossing Drive, the city is on the hook for a controlled intersection. The simple lesson is don't let this happen again. Twice is enough on Baseline. Fact.
As for the high priority of repaving AR Drive, etc., is there such a priority list? I have never seen such a list. What list? The city had a repaving road budget for five years until 2007 and these two streets evidently weren't that high on a so-called list. Black Diamond and the gas station have been there for several years now. Could the streets have degraded due to the heavy pounding of construction traffic going in and out for over a year while W*M and Chilis is built? Even the suggested bond issue for road repair was not proposed with a list. And just as residential developers are responsible for putting in streets, etc., why was W*M immune if the street structure doesn't meet their needs?
As for my funding suggestions, that will wait.
p.s. Whenever the staff wants to do something or has overlooked something, it becomes high priority.
Aspen Ridge has been in terrible condition for several years, it is a City street, and it is about to serve as a collector, connecting to Harvest Street through Anna's Farm.
The City should do this paving project as a road safety priority. The price break only sweetens the bargain.
Repeat, the road is in terrible condition, and it's about to get a whole bunch of traffic. Traffic on roads that are the City's responsibility. Even if it wasn't a priority before the development of SuperWalMart, the rutted, disintegrating surface of Aspen Ridge Drive is in an unacceptable condition for a collector street in Lafayette.
And seriously, how fundamental is the concept of leverage? Anyone who preaches fiscal conservatism should recognize the benefits of leverage.
Interesting. I've driven both a number of times and didn't notice. So I'll revisit both today.
So how does one explain this expenditure when voters will be asked to approve a road repair bond issue and commit their sales and use tax to pay it off for the next ten years?
How does one explain that suddenly these two roads have higher priority than others in worse shape in town? I don't think the Anna's farm collector street traffic is a major argument here.
How does one explain that the remaining road repair fund will last until a new bond is issued in January? Actually that ones easy. Your roads won't get repaired.
If in such bad shape, why wasn't this addressed in the past six years when Black Diamond and Anna's Farm were being built, with the construction fees, etc. the city received.?
Does the W*M contribution to the two streets that will handle their delivery trucks enough?
Please help me answer these questions, o ye bloggers.
I will also recheck the condition of Aspen Ridge, but I know the section immediately west of the SuperWalMart pad sites is terrible, and I remember the road from there south to Caria probably hasn't ever been repaved from the looks of it. But I'll look again.
Whatever your assessment of the condition of the road, the volume of traffic that has used it the last six years is far less than what will use it now. Apparently there has been little to no major repaving and overlay projects in that span of time, so I don't see any "lesson" to be learned from failure to address this previously. It would have seemed a waste (and wouldn't have attracted a majority of the funding from a private interest) if the project had been done any sooner.
Maybe voters will reject the bond. I know there are some on the council who seem to think the voters should be responsible for making the decision on issues, then these councilors later say they are completely against it. If this bond is going to tie up millions in future City revenues, it's more than just the immediate road improvements that are at stake.
I know I'd be a lot more confident in the bond proposal if it were associated with some sort of plan to generate revenue. Based on what has been said, I guess I must believe that the safety tax is dormant for at least this political season - but that can't stop me from asking why, again and again...
One logical conclusion to draw from the traffic problems in the area of Baseline/287, and therefore to learn from, is this - don't plan for feeder streets like Caria, and Aspen Ridge to connect with a major street like Baseline within 500 ft of another major thoroughfare like 287.
If these feeder streets were farther west perhaps a signal would not have been necessary. Roundabouts are much more expensive, but they keep traffic moving. Siganls are not environmentally friendly, and too many of them too close together will send traffic to other routes.
The Lowe's property has the same potential for eventually having too many lighted intersections too close together.
There are many unknowns about that area. The potential Hwy 7 bypass, and other future developments could dramatically change traffic patterns. My point is to plan for much more traffic than just traffic to/from Lowe's.
D-B,
What the future holds for "controlled intersections" is now shifted to 95th Street (Hwy 42). Two are going to come up in the future. Being in CDOT country, both are dangerous right now and yet more development will increase usage on these, years before anything happens with CDOT.
The road rebonding issue will come up before August if it is to make the Nov. ballot. It is to perform road repair and install two controlled intersections, one at Caria/Baseline. Paid for by future sales and use taxes. There is no increase in revenue tied to this except for future projections on known projects.
One way to look at the $60,000 for repaving and $250,000+ for the controlled intersection at Caria is was this due to W*M? If so, that's around $310,000. If the road repair bond goes through, essentially the city will be borrowing the money to repair for 10 years. That's $450,000. So is this another W*M subsidy?
I'm sure Dan would have a comment on that?
Caria/Aspen Ridge/Baseline has been a problem since 287 was completed. Ask any of the residents who live on the south side of Baseline and wish to head west, or any of the employees/customers of businesses on the north who wish to head east.
This intersection will no doubt get worse with the addition of WalMart to the area, but the problem wasn't WalMart caused.
D-B,
True. Now add Black Diamond, the gas station, Summit (KS), W*M, Vista Ridge,and around 500 homes in Indian Peaks, and Erie traffic from the east.
Back in 2001, the city allocated $2.5M to road repair over 5 years and $5M to economic development out of a fund balance of $11M. Zero to this proposed controlled intersection. Not in the W*M traffic study either.
Now it pops up as part of proposed road repaving bond, a few months before W*M will open.
Coincidence?
So is there is any disagreement about what is out there, in the Black Diamond area, today, or what is about to happen? The biggest question seems to be if there were mistakes made, and, if so, what they were.
I did look at pavement conditions in the vicinity yesterday. It's very possible that these are not the worst conditions in the City, except for the stretch of Aspen Ridge between Diamond and the new subdivision (rear of store, connection to Harvest - that is very bad). So I guess the option would be there to say that absolute priority for the remainder of the street maintenance budget should go to the absolute worst street on the list.
This sounds fine in theory, but does not account for the opportunity to leverage money, get the project done now, or bypass projects that might be beyond the scope that can be handled in the residual budget. As an analogy, the City has a ranking system for open space purchases, but may take acquisitions out of order considering the totality of circumstances.
It is most certainly not a coincidence that the opening of SuperWalMart and this potential paving project are contemporaneous. If the council chooses to look at the opportunity rationally and listen to constituents who want to prioritize the signal at Caria, you can call it a conspiracy, I suppose, but it is one that happened right out in the open.
The SuperWalMart traffic study did discuss Caria, so I'm not sure where that comment is coming from. But the truth of it is that, cumulatively, the situation at Caria has built up over the years as a result of all the developments listed (and more), and none has paid any impact fees to fund a control signal. Lafayette is not an exception, but part of the norm among cities, assessing no impact fees nor requiring any special mitigation when the effect of an individual development is below a relatively high threshold for traffic generation or service expansion generally.
Unless the City is going to undertake subarea planning or some other means of codifying access control, concurrency of public improvements, and special improvement districts or other revenue sources, this issue really does amount to nothing more than politics. Yes, there have been some examples of planning oversights in the north 287 corridor, but nothing is likely to change until there is consensus on a solution.
The point about access control (from Doktorbombay) is well-taken, but it is a little late to do this in the 287 area, so the eastern fringe is truly the place to look at something like that.
Personally, I like the idea of codifying concurrency, to encourage more diligence with utilities and others that tend to hold up that process.
But, really, I think impact fees and revenue must be sufficient to cover the City's responsibilities, and that's what we're talking about in Lafayette. Or not.
Alex,
Your suggestions merit some serious discussion and perhaps some reform.
But right now, based on the W*M EDA, etc., the money doesn't flow that way. Unless the money per development is put in up front, all these funding issues pop up later with no budget to fix them. If it hadn't been for the FEMA grant, we wouldn't even be talking about this now.
Anyway, I called city hall and gave them three suggestions as to what could be done with the paving and controlled intersection. So I'll wait to hear back.
Post a Comment