Foxfield Traffic Committee IDENTIFY TRAFFIC CHALLENGES AND FORMULATE - - PDF document

Foxfield Traffic Committee

IDENTIFY TRAFFIC CHALLENGES AND FORMULATE SOLUTIONS BASED ON EXTENSIVE RESEARCH AND FEEDBACK FROM RESIDENTS PRESENT RECOMMENDATION TO FOXFIELD BOARD OF TRUSTEES COMMUNITY PRESENTATION ON AUGUST 23, 2018

1

Foxfield Roads Timeline

Future Future 1994 2001 2003 2006 2004 2002 2016 Fugitive Dust Control Plan Paving Completed Foxfield Village Center developed Foxfield Incorporates General Obligation Bonds Passed 1st Traffic Committee Traffic Study Add’l Road Maintenance New Communities/ Developments

1994: Town Incorporated- the Town owns the roads and right of ways and is responsible for their maintenance; this is the Town’s largest asset 2001: Fugitive Dust Control Plan- by 2001, Foxfield was regularly seeing over double the number of daily vehicles that is recommended for dirt roads; “fugitive dust” causing us to exceed air pollution limitations;

• rdered by Tri-County Health to submit a plan of action; strong chance that one agency or another was going to

force paving 2002: GOB passed- roads were paved in 2002 following a vote by residents to take out General Obligation Bonds to fund the project; bonds always go to a vote 2003: Paving Completed 2004: 1st Traffic Committee (since paving)- already seeing cut-through traffic and speeding; their research was helpful for the current committee to build off of since they faced many of the same challenges we still have today in developing a solution 2006: ESTIP formed- beginning of the Foxfield Village Center development 2016: Traffic study- professional traffic study by SEH (engineering firm contracted by Foxfield), found very similar traffic conditions and feasible options, focused on questions pertaining to gating the south end of town and installing speed humps **Future: Add’l maintenance- excessive speeds and volume of cars do wear our roads more quickly, all maintenance costs come out of the Foxfield budget (our money); SEH’s estimate for this year’s maintenance is $68,000. SEH also included estimates for chip sealing the entire town ($650k) and needed mill and overlay work ($150k) for future budgets. **Future: New Communities/Developments- Kings Point to the south; Centennial is currently in the middle of a traffic study to alleviate congestion on Arapahoe Rd, with one possible option being to make improvements to Broncos Pkwy- while this may improve traffic flow on Arapahoe, it will only make it more tempting to cut through Foxfield

2

Link to Map: https://tinyurl.co m/FoxfieldRoads

Map of Foxfield

This map shows the boundaries of Foxfield and the roads that we are responsible for. We have 8 entrances and only 2 lights out to Arapahoe (at Richfield and Waco). We connect to our neighboring communities of Chapparal to the east and Chenango to the south. To the north of us are several large communities including the Farm. A couple major roads to point out:

• Richfield- connects Buckley to Broncos Pkwy; major cut-through route for commuter

traffic

• Hinsdale- connects Chapparal to Broncos Pkwy; another cut-through route
• West part of Hinsdale- not currently a cut-through route; need to be careful not to divert

traffic to Fremont entrance where there is no light

• Buckley- another commuter and school cut-through
• *Easter- major road for Foxfield traffic; tends to see both higher volumes and speeds;

some cut-through; newly installed stop signs may help

• *Waco- very high volumes of traffic here; has a light and a large church; possible cut-

through from Chapparal 3

• 100% of Foxfield’s tax

goes to ACSO (police department)

• 0% goes to Foxfield’s

General Fund or to pay for roads Tax Authority Tax Rate

Percent of Total Taxes

Town of Foxfield 0.004982 5.84% Cherry Creek School District 0.049687 58.24% Arapahoe County 0.012817 15.02% Fire Department (SMFR) 0.009250 10.84% Arapahoe Library District 0.005853 6.86% Developmental Disability 0.001000 1.17% Arapahoe County Recreation 0.000708 0.83% Cherry Creek Basin Authority 0.000453 0.53% Urban Drainage 0.0005 0.59%

• Urb. Drain.- S. Platte

0.000057 0.07% Totals 0.085307 99.99%

Foxfield’s Property Taxes

I’m going to spend a couple minutes on Foxfield’s budget, just for a little background.

• The paving bonds were paid off last year causing your Foxfield taxes to drop to 4.982
• mils. This is a little less than 6% of your total property tax bill, which is less than you pay

the library district.

• Almost 60% of your taxes go to the school district.
• 100% of the Town of Foxfield tax goes to our contract with the Arapahoe County

Sheriff’s Office

• Which leaves 0% that goes to the General Fund
• So to be clear- none of your property taxes currently fund road maintenance or projects

4

General Fund – Significant Revenue Sources

1.

Sales Tax

2.

Highway User Tax

3.

Franchise Fees

4.

Use Tax

5.

Specific Ownership Tax

6.

Motor Vehicle Registration Fees Enhanced Sales Tax Incentive Program (ESTIP):

 Recently ended in June 2018  Our sales tax revenue will increase significantly; ~$130k per year  Potential resource for road project funding

So how is our town funded then? Sales Tax is the bulk of our revenue; 3.75% of the 8% sales tax goes to Foxfield. ~$165K. Other revenue sources come from:

• Highway User Tax ~$40K,
• Franchise Fees seen as a tax on Xcel, IREA & Cable, ~$35K,
• Use Tax for purchases not charged sales tax, ~$10K
• Ownership Tax on vehicles, ~$6K
• Motor Vehicle Registration Fees, ~$4K

**Figures from the 2018 Foxfield Budget, found on FoxfieldColorado.com When FF Village Center was developed, the Town entered into an ESTIP agreement (an Enhanced Sales Tax Incentive Program) to help fund the necessary infrastructure. These types of agreements are fairly common. The Town agreed to give the developer half of the sales tax revenue generated by the Village Center until their bonds were paid off. They paid off their bonds much earlier than anticipated, this past June, so Foxfield now keeps 100% of the sales tax revenue. We expect roughly an addl’ $125 K per year of revenue and have already stopped making ESTIP payments. **Takeaway- The roads were paved several years before the Village Center existed so bonds were the only option to fund that project, especially considering the magnitude of the project. Now, however, we have a thriving commercial district with the added benefit of no ESTIP payments. As a committee, we see no reason why any traffic calming projects proposed tonight would require additional funding other than from the Foxfield General Fund.

5

The Problem: Traffic Volume and Speed

 Overuse of roads  Inconvenience & reduced quality of life for

residents

 Unsafe conditions for pedestrians  Reduced property values  Road & property damage Northbound on Richfield August 14, 2018 about 5:30 pm Photo courtesy of Shadia Ahmad

Overuse of Roads

• Requires more frequent and costly maintenance,
• Other communities did not buy these roads or pay to maintain them

Inconvenience & Reduced Quality of Life

• Unable to exit their driveways due to back up of cars
• Potential inaccessibility for Emergency vehicles during traffic congestion
• Does this picture look rural residential to you?

Unsafe Conditions for Pedestrians

• As well as, children, strollers, cyclists, horseback riders, dogs, etc

Reduced Property Values

• We’re a sought after community specifically because of the rural feel

Road & property Damage

• Due to cut-through vehicles making U-turns; can damage the edge of the road,

the right of way, and private property 6

Direction Street & Address Volume per Day 85th Percentile Speed SB Buckley (6809) 188 cars 30 mph WB Costilla (16815) 130 cars Error 1 WB Easter (7091) 611 cars 28 mph EB Easter (7130) 466 cars 30 mph EB Hinsdale (18150/18058) 299 cars 30 mph WB Hinsdale (17544/17644) 257 cars 33 mph NB (N) Richfield (6888) 788 cars 29 mph SB (N) Richfield (6917) ~600-800 cars 2 26 mph NB (S) Richfield (7172) ~600-800 cars 2 26 mph SB (S) Richfield (7376/7378) 559 cars 29 mph SB Waco (6959) 696 cars 3 28 mph NB Yampa (7187) 204 cars 3 30 mph

Summary of 2018 Weekday Traffic Data

Foxfield has two speed radar signs that record data on speed and volume of traffic. They are moved around town periodically so you’ve probably seen them at some point. This table has a lot of information on it. This is the location and direction the cars are traveling, the volume of cars per day, and the speed of the 85th percentile. You can dive into this table more on your own and are welcome to ask us questions about it later. I want to direct your attention to the highlighted cells. Municipalities and agencies set various thresholds to determine if a road has a traffic problem. As a town, we have the ability to set our own thresholds. I noted roads that have in excess of 400 cars per day traveling on them and locations that have 85th percentile speeds at or exceeding 5 mph over the speed

• limit. So you can see that we have several problem areas.

**Transition- That’s some background… Let’s shift our focus to solutions… **Arapahoe County’s Criteria for considering traffic calming measures include volume exceeding 800 vehicles per day on a residential street and/or that the 85th percentile speed exceeds the posted speed limit by 5 mph or more. Foxfield’s signs only see one direction of travel so I used 400 vehicles per day. Footnotes: 1: Sign measuring very high number of below 10 mph readings 2: Terrain at this location causes the sign to count cars multiple times 3: Possibly counting extra cars 7

Considered But Ruled Out

Too Costly

 Roundabouts  Manned Gates  Toll roads  Traffic Control Road Changes

Not Effective

 Additional Dips  Change Speed Limits to Odd

Number

 Decoy Police Vehicles  Additional Signage

Other Options

 Change Timing on Richfield

Light Cycle

 Ask CDOT to give the Kingdom

Hall access off Lewiston

 Eliminate Road Sections  Radar Vans/Signs

Over the years, residents have put forward many ideas for addressing our traffic problems. The committee spent a significant amount of time evaluating the feasibility of these ideas. While discussing possible solutions we kept in mind:

• The Law: CO State Law, current cases, jurisdiction for specific areas
• Model Traffic Code and other road design documents
• Foxfield’s Municipal code and other guiding documents, such as the Master Plan
• Foxfield’s Budget
• Maps: Town’s right of ways, existing infrastructure and grading
• The advice of many professionals that we consulted during this process

Roundabouts

• Not enough room within right of way, would require additional resident land
• Extensive construction costs

Manned gates & toll gates

• Very expensive initial infrastructure
• Would require employee or significant hardware

Traffic calming road changes

• Ex: chicanes
• Changes to physical road design

Increased Enforcement

• Full time coverage approx $180k per year for 1 person, still couldn’t handle large volumes

Additional dips

• Appear to be minimally effective, cars currently cross at high speed undisturbed

Change speed to odd number (like 27 mph)

• Would soon be ignored

Decoy police vehicles

• Effective for speeding but only for brief period of time

Additional Signage

• Would soon be ignored
• Requires police enforcement to be effective
• May inconvenience residents (Ex. No Right Turns during certain hours)

Change Richfield light timing

• Controlled by Arapahoe County; will not change light to deliberately create inconvenience
• Centennial evaluating this intersection to alleviate congestion already

Access off Lewiston to Kingdom Hall

• Controlled by CDOT; would best possible long term solution but a huge effort
• Past experience suggests that getting access here is very unlikely

Eliminate Road sections

• Parts of Richfield and other roads could be turned into cul-de-sacs by either permanently eliminating sections of roads or

blocking them with curbs or gates

• Potential to significantly impact emergency vehicle response times
• Costly, inconvenient for residents

Radar Vans/Signs

• Vans/signs are very expensive, ACSO does not use or own them
• Human must staff the van at all times and review the photos
• Legality being challenged in court; municipalities are moving away from their use

8

Why Not Use Law Enforcement for Speed Control?

 Off duty officer patrols are limited by budget constraints:  2018 Budget is $11,000 (substantially less than prior years of $20,000)

 ACSO charge for an officer is $70/hr and $20/hr for vehicle

 Currently it is costing more than the revenue it brings in  It is difficult to find off-duty officers that want to provide patrol  Not many cars are stopped and of those stopped ~ 10% are ticketed

Mitigation for speeders to date has been utilization of Law Enforcement. It hasn’t been effective because:

• Off-duty officer patrols are limited by budget constraints
• The 2018 Budget is $11,000, substantially less than prior years of $20,000
• Arapahoe County Sheriff’s Office charges $70/hr for an officer and $20/hr for

vehicle

• Moving traffic enforcement requires specifically rated deputies.
• Currently it is costing more than the revenue it brings in
• It is difficult to find off-duty officers that want to provide patrol
• Not many cars are stopped and of those stopped, only 10% are ticketed

9

 Traffic Control Gates: to reduce volume  Speed Humps: to reduce speed

Possible Solutions

10

Traffic Control Gates

Because the town owns the roads and is solely responsible for their maintenance, Foxfield can legally install gates. 11

 No “Gated Community” style gates  Not rural residential  Not financially feasible

Our committee is NOT proposing a “Gated Community” in Foxfield

• Our committee is NOT proposing a “Gated Community” in Foxfield
• These large, ostentatious examples are “gated community” style gates.
• They are not in the character of a rural residential area as outlined in the town’s master

plan.

• With 8 entrances to Foxfield, gating all entrances is not financially feasible.

12

Traffic Control Gates Control Cut-Through Traffic

 Gates lowered during am and pm rush

hour (and in the event of an accident

• n Parker Rd)

 Full-time access to residents with RF

controllers

 Gates open automatically during power

• utage

 Only two gates needed to eliminate cut

through traffic

 An example of a 2 sided traffic control

gate, also called a barrier gate

 Minimal infrastructure; solar power  Schedule is easily adjustable

• Install gates at 2 locations to shrink the cut-through traffic flow between Parker Rd to

Arapahoe

• Gates lowered only during rush hours and in the event of an accident on Parker Rd.
• RF controllers to allow full-time access to residents, and sensors open gates

automatically for Emergency Vehicles

• Gates open automatically during power outage
• An example of a 2 sided traffic control gate, also called a barrier gate. These gates

provide a physical barrier to cut through traffic.

• Several communities in the area use these types of gates effectively.
• These small unobtrusive gates open quickly in 1 to 2 seconds.

13

Proposed Traffic Control Gates

 Two Gates  Six Entrances Open  Physical barriers to

commuter traffic

Proposed Gate Locations

• Originally 9 gates were discussed. It was narrowed down to gates at 2 locations.
• This map shows the boundaries of Foxfield and proposed placement of two traffic

control gates.

• Placing the gates at these two locations allows six entrances to remain unencumbered

24 hours a day.

• Multiple traffic engineers have advised the committee that gates are the best way to

stop cut though traffic. 14

 Blocks 2 cut-through routes  Richfield connection between

Broncos Pkwy and Arapahoe Rd

 Hinsdale connection between

Chaparral and Chenango

 Chenango is open to sharing the

cost or possibly financing a turn- around to be located on their land

Bridle Path

N

Proposed Gate Location #1: Richfield and Hinsdale

Drawing by SEH, Inc

• One double sided gate installed in the existing median at Richfield and Hinsdale. Both

sides of the gate would require an RF to open.

• Gates closed during rush hour. Rush hour is approximately 6-8am and 3-6 pm
• Drivers coming northbound from Chenango could turn around in a hammerhead to be

constructed on the bridle path. Chenango is open to this and discussing providing some assistance with this.

• The intersection at Richfield and Hinsdale would act as the turn around for southbound
• traffic. Drivers coming southbound would be warned by a flashing sign to turn before

encountering gate.

• This location uses the existing median and road structure as much as possible.

15

 Blocks numerous cut through routes  Traffic avoiding Lewiston Rd

backup

 Rerouting of traffic from the

gate at Richfield and Hinsdale

 Connection to Arapahoe Rd  Non-residents would not be able to

exit Foxfield here, but would continue straight on Easter Way Drawing by SEH, Inc

Proposed Gate Location #2: Fremont Ave. near Easter Way

• Also closed for morning & evening rush hour and as needed for accidents.
• Prevents drivers entering at Fremont to avoid backups at Lewiston and Arapahoe Rd

intersection.

• The 2016 Traffic study was concerned with rerouting traffic to Fremont, if Richfield was

cut off. Installing a gate at Fremont prevents this rerouting.

• Traffic Control Gates can be opened by residents using RF controllers.
• There are several possible gate locations on Fremont Ave.

16

 Multiple bright lights warn drivers  Lights can be positioned in

different directions

Flashing Signs Warn of Gate Closure

Notice should be provided to the wider community that gates are installed and cutting through Foxfield is no longer an option. In addition to posting on social media, signs should be posted at gate locations before and while they are being installed stating the date gates will be lowered. Also, flashing signs at entrances warn drivers when the gates are down. This map shows suggested placement of flashing lights. The picture is an example of lighted signs currently in use at Bow Mar, which combined with gates, effectively eliminated cut-through traffic. 17

 Reduce traffic volume  Minimize inconvenience to residents  Emergency vehicles can access residents and roads  Cameras on gates provide accountability

Gating Benefits

• Reduced traffic volume will return rural residential feeling to Foxfield.
• Residents can always open gates with their RF controllers. Gate closure will be

minimized to only busiest times of the day. Also, Traffic Control Gates open quickly, typically in just 1 to 2 seconds.

• Emergency services have no concerns about gate installation- Sensors open gates

without delay.

• Cameras can be part of the town’s plan to hold those accountable who tamper with the
• gates. Bow Mar has a $1000 fine for tampering with their gate.

18

Estimated Cost for Traffic Control Gates

 2 double sided gates: $7,000 - $12,000 each = $14,000 - $24,000  4 flashing light signs at $3,000 - $5,000 each = $12,000 - $20,000  Turn-around on Fremont

= $10,000 - $15,000

 Turn around at Chenango Bridle Path = $10,000 - $15,000  Engineering Fees = $5,000 -

$7,500

 Total $51,000 - $81,500

• Solar powered to reduced infrastructure cost.
• We may be able to share/split the turn-around cost and the engineering fees with
• Chenango. Chenango board suggested that their signs that say “Gates Down-No Through

Traffic” as they want drivers to assume the gates are always down.

• Estimates for routine maintenance have been projected at $1000 per year per gate.
• Total cost for installation of two gates fits within the town’s budget.

19

 How will delivery trucks get to me when gates are down?  What happens in the event of a power outage?  Will gates slow down Emergency Vehicles?  Will the presence of traffic control gates change the feel of

Foxfield?

Frequently Asked Questions

Answers to questions:

• 1. Delivery trucks should enter Foxfield from Arapahoe Rd during rush hour.
• 2. The gates are weighted and will return to the open position with loss of power.
• 3. Gates have sensors which open for First responders without delay. We have been

assured by the fire department and EMT’s that gates do not slow them down. They are comfortable and used to working with gates in our area.

• 4. Traffic control gate will reduce the high volume of vehicles on our roads, improve safety,

and reduce road maintenance cost, enhancing our rural residential community. 20

Speed Humps

21

Speed Humps

 Dimensions-12 foot travel distance,

3-4 inch height

 Groove design for emergency

vehicles

 Successfully used in many

communities (Ex. Antelope)

 Spacing and location are critical

to effectiveness

Speed Humps: designed to reduce speed, not bring vehicles to a stop

• Dimensions: height of 3 – 4 inches with a travel distance of 12 feet
• Grooves match the larger wheelbase of emergency vehicles preventing them from

having to slow to go over **Humps are appropriate for residential areas; speed bumps are far more aggressive- they can cause discomfort to passengers and damage to vehicles; bumps are more appropriate for parking lots and private roads 22

Spacing & Location

 Critical to effectiveness

 Final placement should be determined by a traffic engineer

 2016 Traffic Study- Recommended a spacing of 400-600 ft for the

longer roads

 For example: East Section of Hinsdale (from Richfield to Yampa)

 Roughly 2,900 ft  Would expect 5-7 humps

• Critical to effectiveness-
• Too close together and you are wasting money and creating a nuisance
• Too far apart and cars are able to return to high speeds between humps;

aggressive drivers tend to slam on the brakes and “gun it” after if they are able to get back to their preferred speed

• Some terrain restraints as well; need engineer’s guidance
• Installing gates is expected to change traffic patterns so new traffic data should be
• btained and evaluated by an engineer before placing humps.

23

Benefits of Speed Humps

 Strong correlation between reduced speeds and reduced

injury/fatality in pedestrian collisions

 Self-enforcing  Shown to be effective in near-by communities  Better utilize existing dips  Economical solution: $2000 to $5000 per hump

• “We found that speed humps were associated with a 53% to 60% reduction in the odds
• f injury or death among children struck by an automobile in their neighborhood.” (From

A Matched Case-Control Study Evaluating the Effectiveness of Speed Humps in Reducing Child Pedestrian Injuries; American Journal of Public Health April 2004)

• Relationship between Speed and Risk of Fatal Injury: Pedestrians and Car Occupants; D.
• C. Richards Transport Research Laboratory September 2010 Department for Transport:

London

• Speed and safety: would bring speeds down to make the roads safer for both

pedestrians and other drivers

• Self-enforcing: difficult to catch speeders, occurs sporadically throughout the day and

sometimes night; slows anyone who crosses

• Shown to be effective: one of the most common traffic calming measures; good

example near by is Antelope (east of us)

• Better utilizes existing dips: drivers can cross the dips relatively unaffected by speeding;

with proper placement, humps prevent cars from achieving speeds high enough to cross dips quickly so drivers will most likely choose to slow instead

• Economical: have received several preliminary bids; ~$2000 Foothills Paving &

Maintenance, ~$3200 Colorado Asphalt Services, ~$5300 Terracare 24

FAQ

 How will humps affect emergency vehicle traffic?  How do you prevent drivers from driving off the road to avoid the

humps?

 How will humps affect trailers?  How will humps affect snow plowing?  What are the routine maintenance requirements?

• 1. We strongly recommend using the groove design because they allow emergency

vehicles to pass over with minimal delay. Private cars have a narrower wheel base and cannot use the grooves to avoid the hump.

• 2. Traffic engineers have warned us that cars will sometimes drive partially off the road to

hit one of the grooves and avoid the hump. Because our roads do not have a paved shoulder, we feel that this is fairly unlikely to become a problem. However, if we are noticing evidence of this occurring, we can install landscape rock on the side of the road to deter this behavior.

• 3. Humps affect trailers. Cars pulling trailers will need to slow significantly when going
• ver them. The placement of humps should be limited to roads with a well-

documented problem with high speeds only.

• 4. The humps will have signs before them warning drivers of their location. We could also

add the reflective poles that Terracare currently utilizes to mark turns for their plows.

• 5. Over time the striping and humps themselves need to be maintained or replaced from

regular wear and tear. This is another example of why we would want to avoid having non-resident cars driving on our roads. 25

Funding

 General Fund money

 Sales tax revenue will increase by - $130K in 2019 due to the end of the

ESTIP

 Paving was funded with bonds because the current sales tax base did

not exist yet

 Fiscal conditions have improved

We do not see a reason at this time to explore other funding options such as bonds or tax increases. 26

Next Steps for Residents

 Look for survey in your mail

 Place in the return envelope and mail by Sep. 7th  All property owners may submit survey (add’l copies on the website)  Results will help guide final recommendation

 Please contact your Board Member or our Mayor with your thoughts

 Contact information can be found on the Town website

https://www.foxfieldcolorado.com

**Big take-away: After receiving your feedback and finalizing our research the Traffic Committee will make a formal recommendation to the board as to how to proceed. However, the Board will ultimately make the decision by voting. They need to hear from the community to know how best to represent us so please take a few minutes to contact your representatives. 27

Questions?

28