AURORA | It’s not unusual to see a car T-boned at the intersection of Sixth Avenue Parkway and Gun Club Road, in part because of the high volume of traffic, said Ashley Schultejann who lives in one of a growing number of neighborhoods near Denver International Airport.
“Lots of people talk about that intersection because it’s a huge frustration,” said Schultejann, who has lived in Aurora’s Cross Creek neighborhood near the E-470 corridor for 10 years. “I don’t think it’s even neighborhood traffic. I think it’s from the surrounding area. People coming from Southlands who make this commute instead of taking the toll road, it has caused havoc. It’s the only road out of my neighborhood so I’m forced to use it.”
Anna Bunce, Aurora’s traffic manager, said traffic signals can be challenging to install at the time they are needed in busy neighborhoods because of the way public improvement agreements are structured to fund them.
That’s because unlike many other public improvements, which are typically the responsibility of a developer when a housing development is first constructed, traffic signals often are not required to be installed at the same time as roadways and sidewalks.
By the time a traffic signal is needed for a neighborhood years down the road, the original developer often has passed the funding obligation on to a metro district or other entity, and money for the needed improvement is not available, said Bunce.
“The metro districts say they have no money, and the city doesn’t budget for it,” she said.
Which is why the City of Aurora is now requiring developers of future housing developments in the city to set aside a certain amount of money toward future traffic signals in escrow in case the neighborhood becomes so heavily trafficked that one or more signals are eventually needed.
According to city documents, that cost would be determined by a traffic impact analysis by a city engineer. Under the measure, the developer will pay into the escrow prior to receiving a building permit. If within 15 years, the need for a traffic light doesn’t exist, the money from the account will be returned, with interest, to the developer.
“It’s not every new development that comes in that’s going to have to do this,” Bunce said.
Any existing Public Improvement Phasing agreements will remain intact, under the measure.
For the particular intersection near Schultejann’s home, a signal warrant study has already been conducted and the intersection is on the city’s 2015 signal construction list, said Bunce. That’s pending completion of some associated geometric improvements that are necessary before the signal can be activated, which are also scheduled for 2015 construction.
By the time a traffic signal is needed for a neighborhood years down the road, the original developer often has passed the funding obligation on to a metro district or other entity, and money for the needed improvement is not available, said Bunce.
Bunce said the city anticipates a reimbursement of 50 percent of the total signal cost per a 2004 Public Improvement Phasing Agreement from the Cross Creek Metro District for the signal.
Bunce said funding traffic signals in the city becomes particularly difficult when there are economic downturns, which often causes housing developments to change hands.
“This (measure) tries to simplify what can be a complicated situation,” she said.
The measure was approved at a regular Aurora City Council meeting July 13 with Councilwoman Marsha Berzins voting no. Councilwoman Barb Cleland was absent from that meeting.
It was also endorsed by the Home Builders Association of Metro Denver.
Sad that the agreement made in 2004 committing the Cross Creek Metro District, was made by a 100% developer ran board, not one consisting of home owners (at the time). Now a 400+ home and 96 Condo neighborhood (who’s board wasn’t advised this matter would be discussed by the City) is possibly on the hook to pay 50% of what will most likely be a near million dollar improvement – even though the more than half the use is by people not in the neighborhood avoiding E-470 tolls, commuters to and from the school campus, and the larger Traditions and Adonea neighborhoods 500+ homes now with growth well above 1000 homes… I’m all for paying for our share – just say’n…. 😉
As pointed out in the article the bulk of the traffic are the speeders who race to and from work and NOT neighborhood drivers. My position is that issuing tickets for these speeders would contribute significantly to the cost of the stop light necessary due to their dangerous and careless driving habits.
The traffic is also a result of two large schools. Getting onto Gun Club out of Cross Creek is difficult at best and nearly always dangerous when the school traffic is present. A signal is needed sooner than later.
I live along the corridor and I have often been bothered by the lack of improvements done to Gun Club. The city is more than happy to allow the development but does very little to upgrade the road to accommodate the traffic that comes along with the development. Hundreds, if not thousands of homes, are built and use Gun Club as a main road yet 12 or 15 years later, Gun Club remains a two lane road. Another issue is the multi-jurisdictional control over the road. CDOT controls SH 30 which is Gun Club from Buckley AFB to Qunicy. City of Aurora picks up again from Quincy to beyond going towards Southlands Mall. Aurora, or maybe Arapahoe County?, has oversight on Gun Club from Murphy Creek to Cross Creek.