Transportation Master Plan - crgov.com

September, 2011

Transportation Master Plan

Prepared for:

Town of Castle Rock

100 N. Wilcox Street

Castle Rock, CO 80104

Prepared By:

In association with

Executive Summary ES1

Executive Summary Introduction This Transportation Master Plan (TMP) emphasizes improvements to the existing street system, enhanced bicycle routes, and upgrades to pedestrian facilities along the primary street system. The TMP also includes long range forecasts of the Town’s transportation system to assess the ability of future transportation projects to meet 2020 and 2030 travel demand. Since the Town Council has designated the North Meadows Extension to US 85 and I‐25 project as the Town’s top transportation priority, it was included in the street network used in the 2020 and 2030 traffic models.

The following text and figures provide a summary of the reasons for the master plan, an assessment of existing transportation conditions, and the recommendations that were developed during the TMP process.

Reason for Updating the TMP

The primary purpose of the TMP is to help guide transportation decisions to best address the future needs and visions of the Town. The plan provides the Town guidance in the allocation of its funding to meet the transportation needs of the community.

The previous TMP was completed in 2003 and revised in 2004 and 2007. Although the existing plan is still a very usable document, a number of conditions have changed that make an update advisable. Several of the major projects identified in the 2003 TMP have been completed and others have been partially completed. Figure ES‐1 shows the 19 major transportation projects that have either been completed, or partially completed, since 2003. These projects have helped address the effects of recent traffic growth. The Town, the Colorado Department of Transportation and private developers have all contributed to these improvements. The “ring road” around the town, which was first proposed in the Town’s original Transportation Master Plan, has now been completed. These projects address the following issues identified in the previous Transportation Master Plans:

Improve the regional facilities serving the Town Improve the Town’s I‐25 interchanges Improve east‐west access across I‐25, the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF RR), the

Union Pacific Railroad (UP RR), and East Plum Creek Improve streets serving the downtown area

A Pedestrian and Bicycle Friendly Community

In addition to developing a safe and efficient roadway system, the Town wishes to be a pedestrian and bicycle‐friendly community. To do this, an integrated plan was prepared that will lead to the development of a system of “on” and “off” street bike routes, multi‐use trails and multi‐use sidepaths (8‐10 ft. wide paths that are located along major streets) throughout the Town. In the past, people have primarily viewed walking and bicycling as forms of exercise and recreation. The Town wants these forms of transportation to also be used in commuting to/from work, for shopping trips and for other day‐to‐day errands. This TMP gives a much greater emphasis to achieving this goal.


Figure ES‐1: Major Transportation Projects Undertaken Since 2003


Growth and Development of the Town

Since 2003, Castle Rock has experienced tremendous growth, with the Town’s population increasing by more than 60%. However, the recent economic downturn has made it necessary to significantly revise the population and employment forecasts used in the previous plan. During the last 30 years, most of the growth has been in single‐family residential developments located away from the Town center. Population has outgrown employment by nearly two to one, creating a large disparity between housing and jobs. This disparity has resulted in increased commuting to areas outside Castle Rock for employment. The Town Master Plan calls for future growth to have a higher density, and include an increased amount of mixed‐use development, which will have a higher proportion of employment. Future growth projections provided by the Town’s Development Services Department are shown in Table ES‐1. Over the next 20 years, approximately 8,000 households are expected to be built in Castle Rock along with 4,000,000 square feet of commercial and office development. Table ES‐2 shows the projected change in population and employment as a result of household and commercial development.

Table ES‐1: Projected Land Use Changes

Land Use 2010‐2020 Change

2020‐2030 Change

Single Family Homes (units)

3,325 4,650

Retail Square Footage (Sq Ft)

656,000 407,000

Industrial Office Space (Sq Ft)

265,000 165,000

Office Square Footage (Sq Ft)

1,604,000 994,000

Source: Castle Rock Development Services Department

Table ES‐2: Projected Population and Employment Change

2010 2030 % Increase

Population 46,000 64,100 39.3%

Employment 18,500 31,700 71.4% Source: Castle Rock Development Services Department / Muller Engineering Company

EXISTING CONDITIONS Street System Performance The major street system was analyzed to assess its operational performance during periods of peak traffic flow. Street segments are generally described as having light, moderate or heavy congestion. Figure ES‐2 shows the congestion levels that are found on the Town’s street network during the evening (PM) peak hour, which typically has the heaviest congestion of the day. Roadways with heavy congestion include:

Founders / Meadows Parkway through the I‐25 interchange area Crowfoot Valley Road north of Founders Pkwy. Wilcox Street from 5th St. to Wolfensberger Rd. Ridge Road south of SH 86/5th Street SH 86 east of Founders Parkway SH 85, north of the Town limits

The congestion on Wilcox Street is likely due to traffic from the Douglas County School District offices, the Douglas County administrative offices and Town Hall.


Figure ES‐2: Existing PM Peak Hour Congestion Levels

For the most part, the street system is shown as operating acceptably. Even though there will be periods of time during the peak hours when traffic builds up and creates “stop and go” conditions, especially within the Founders / I‐25 interchange area, these are generally of a short duration.


Several intersections also experience heavy congestion during the morning and evening peak hours. These intersections are mostly clustered along the Founders/Meadows corridor and also on 5th Street in downtown Castle Rock as noted below.

Founders Parkway /I‐25 NB and SB Ramps Founders Parkway /Allen Way Founders Parkway / Crowfoot Valley Road Founders Parkway /5th St./SH 86

Meadows Parkway/SH 85 Meadows Parkway/Prairie Hawk 5th Street/Wilcox Street 5th Street/Perry Street

The last three intersections are controlled by the Town. The others fall under the jurisdiction of the Colorado Department of Transportation. Pedestrian and Bicycle System Many of the 110 miles of bicycle and pedestrian facilities that presently exist within the Town have been completed within the past 10 years. These facilities include both paved and unpaved multi‐use trails, on‐street bikes lanes and 8 ft. wide multi‐use sidewalks alongside many major streets. The Town’s trail system connects neighborhoods with parks and open space areas. Multi‐use sidepaths along many major streets connect to, and complement, this trail network. Two branches of the Colorado Front Range Trail meet within the Town. This “crossroads” is formed by the East Plum Creek Trail that will connect to Chatfield State Park and the McMurdo Gulch Trail that will connect to the Cherry Creek Trail that leads to Cherry Creek State Park. A major part of the East Plum Creek Trail has been completed within the Town limits and was dedicated in 2009. This portion of the trail extends from south of Plum Creek Parkway to almost a mile north of Meadows Boulevard. It is the major north‐south multi‐use trail through Town. The McMurdo Gulch Trail, is presently under design, with portions of it planned for construction in 2012/2013.

Throughout the year, numerous activities are held in the downtown area. Fairs, farmer’s markets, parades and special events are common. In order to encourage pedestrian activity, a number of amenities, such as pedestrian lighting, enhanced crosswalks and signing, have also been constructed within the downtown area to create a more “walkable” environment. It is the goal of the TMP is to develop a bicycle/pedestrian system that meets the collective needs of pedestrians as well as those of recreational, commuter, and sport cyclists alike.

RECOMMENDATIONS The recommended transportation plan provides for improved mobility for automobile, pedestrian and bicycle travel modes. Due to the discontinuation of the Town’s bus system, transit improvements were not addressed in this TMP.


Roadway Plan The 2030 Roadway Plan was based upon an analysis of the Town’s anticipated growth in households and employment over the next 20 years. A traffic model was prepared and utilized, previous studies and regional planning efforts were reviewed, and public input was taken. Comments and suggestions were solicited from other Town Departments that rely upon the transportation system to fulfill their responsibilities.

In general, the roadway plan closely conforms to the plan included in the 2003 TMP, with the following exceptions:

The easterly limit of the North Meadows Extension has been extended from US 85 to I‐25. A new two lane road, roughly paralleling East Plum Creek, from Meadows Parkway to the

Liggett Road extension has been added to the plan. Coachline Road, from Wolfensberger Road to Meadows Boulevard, is now being shown as a two

lane arterial instead of a 4 lane arterial. Projected future traffic volumes are not large enough to require the additional 2 lanes.

Red Hawk Drive, Butterfield Crossing Drive, Foothills Drive, Diamond Ridge Parkway, and Sapphire Pointe Boulevard are being shown as residential collector roadways.

Prairie Hawk from Meadows Blvd. to Plum Creek Parkway has been changed from a 4 lane arterial to a 2 lane arterial. The majority of development along Prairie Hawk is located along only one side (the west side) of the street. There will be no development along the east side of the street south of the commercial area in the southeast quadrant of Meadows Parkway and Prairie Hawk Dr. This will limit the congestion problems from turning traffic that often require a wider street cross‐section.

Figure ES‐3 shows the proposed 2030 roadway plan, the roadway classifications and the number of travel lanes of each facility. Figure ES‐4 shows the locations and type of roadway projects needed to implement the recommended plan.

Project Evaluation and Comparison The projects shown in Figure ES‐4 were evaluated using a variety of criteria in order to assess their relative importance to the Town’s transportation system. Seven of the criteria are very subjective in nature. Because of this, a “Yes/No” rating system, rather than a numerical one, was used. Table ES‐3 shows the results of the evaluation. Input related to several of the criteria was provided by the Town’s Fire and Police Departments and the Development Services Department. The Castle Rock Economic Development Council also provided input on the potential economic impact of certain projects. Project costs were developed by the Town’s Public Works Department and were based on 2010 construction costs. After completing the criteria ratings for each project, the projects were then classified as being either first or second “tier” projects. As with the individual criteria, this was also a subjective process. The projects weren’t “ranked”, only put into “tiers” that reflect the general importance of the project to the Town. These criteria relate only to vehicle travel, and do not reflect how well the project would support bicycle and pedestrian travel. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities, that meet the recommendations of the Bicycle and Pedestrian elements of this TMP, will be incorporated into each project.


Figure ES‐3: Recommended 2030 Roadway Plan


Figure ES‐4: Recommended Roadway Projects


Table ES‐3: Roadway Project Prioritization

(Note: While “Yes” indicates a positive attribute, in the case of the “Environmental Mitigation Required” criteria, it

is just the opposite. For this criteria, a “No” response would be the most desirable.)

First Tier Roadway Projects As seen from Table ES‐3, the “First Tier” projects had the highest percentage of “yes” responses; although the I‐25/Crystal Valley/Dawson Ridge interchange met all but one of the criteria it was still classified as a “Second Tier” project. In deciding upon the groupings, the amount of developer funding that would be used in a project was often the deciding criteria. The I‐25/Crystal Valley/Dawson Ridge interchange project will certainly be of value to the Town, but it is a project that will be almost completely funded by the adjacent developments and not by the Town. Of this group of projects, the Town Council has established the North Meadows Extension project as the Town’s top priority. This project provides the greatest positive impact from the standpoint of easing traffic congestion, improving emergency access and supporting economic development. Since the Town will dedicate most of its transportation funding to this project, completion of the remaining “First Tier” projects will be primarily dependent upon the development of adjacent properties. One of the Town’s primary responsibilities is to provide emergency services. In order to do that most efficiently there should a number of routes available to a responder in case their primary route is blocked or unusable. All six of the “First Tier” projects either construct a missing portion of street (Projects #2, 6), extend an existing street so that it connects to other streets (Projects #1, 3, 4), or relocate a road away from a serious barrier that could block the ability of emergency units to respond (Project #5). Not only do these projects improve police and fire response, they will also increase economic development opportunities, serve future development areas and reduce roadway congestion.

Project ID

Number Project

Planning Level

Cost Estimate

(millions)

Developer

Participation

Improves

Police

Response

Improves

Fire

Response

Supports

Economic

Development

Improves

Traffic Flow

Environmental

Mitigation

Required

1 North Meadows Extension $66.5 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

2 Woodlands Blvd Connection $5.2 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No

3 Liggett Rd ‐ Extension to Caprice St $3.8 No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

4 Prairie Hawk Dr ‐ Extension (Wolfensberger to Plum Creek Pkwy) $2.5 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No

5Prairie Hawk (West Frontage Rd) ‐ Relocation (Plum Creek Pkwy to

Dawson Ridge) $15.8 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No

6 Perry St. ‐ Connection to East Frontage Rd $5.7 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

7 Crowfoot Valley Rd Widening $3.5 Yes No No No Yes No

8 Castle Oaks Drive Construction $9.5 Yes No Yes No Yes No

9 Meadows Blvd Widening (Prairie Hawk to Coachline) $2.6 Yes No No No Yes No

10 Prairie Hawk Dr ‐ Improvements (Meadows Blvd to Wolfensberger) $2.6 Yes No No No Yes No

11 New Roadway Between Meadows Blvd to Liggett Rd $6.0 Yes No No Yes No Yes

12 Liggett Rd ‐ Widening (south of Blackfeather) $4.4 Yes No No No Yes No

13 Wolfensberger ‐ Widening (Prairie Hawk to Coachline) $5.9 No No No No Yes No

14 5th St improvements (Gilbert to Founders Blvd) $4.3 No No No No Yes No

15 Ridge Rd ‐ Widening (SH 86 to Plum Creek Pkwy) $2.3 No No No No Yes No

16 Plum Creek Pkwy ‐ Widening (I‐25 to Wolfensberger) $3.8 No No No No Yes No

17 Valley Dr Completion (Hover to Hudson Ln) $3.2 No Yes Yes No Yes No

18 Plum Creek Pkwy ‐ Widening (Gilbert to Ridge Rd) $4.4 No No No No Yes No

19 Crystal Valley/Dawson Ridge/I‐25 Interchange $38.5 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

20 Crystal Valley Pkwy ‐ Widening (I‐25 to Lake Gulch Road) $9.3 Yes No No No Yes No

21 East Frontage Rd ‐ Improvements $4.0 Yes No No No No No

SECOND TIER PROJECTS

FIRST TIER PROJECTS


While the initial phases of each of these projects may not build the roadways to their ultimate width, they do help “complete” the basic roadway network. With the Town’s commitment to the completion of the North Meadows Extension, the Town’s ability to fund an additional project within the next 10 years may be limited. So it is important that, if possible, the “First Tier” projects not be reliant upon Town funding. Funding for five of these projects will include developer participation. Only one project, the Liggett Road extension, is expected to be entirely funded by the Town.

Second Tier Roadway Projects Most of these projects involve either widening or improving an existing street or roadway, instead of building a completely new one. Although the projects in this grouping are classified as “Second Tier” Projects, they are still important and will significantly improve the operation of the Town’s transportation system. This classification simply refers to the fact that it is the Town’s intention that the “First Tier” be finished before work on this group is started. Since some of these “Second Tier” projects will be constructed as part of the development of adjacent properties, and are not being funded by the Town, they may actually be completed prior to some of the “First Tier” projects. Second Tier projects that provide the most improvement to traffic flow include:

#7: Crowfoot Valley Road Widening – construction of an additional 2 lanes between Founders Parkway and Sapphire Pointe Boulevard

#9: Meadows Boulevard Widening – construction of an additional 2 lanes between Prairie Hawk Drive and Coachline Road

#14: 5th Street Improvements – widening, construction of turn lanes and other improvements between Gilbert Street and Founders Parkway

#15: Ridge Road Widening – construction of an additional 2 lanes between Plum Creek Parkway and SH 86

Both 5th Street and Ridge Road are on DRCOG’s 2035 Regional Transportation Plan and may be eligible to compete for operational funding through their Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Detailed descriptions of each of the 21 roadway projects are provided in Chapter 4 of the TMP.

Bicycle Plan The goal of the Bike Plan is to provide safe and efficient bicycle routes between Castle Rock’s residential areas, the downtown area, the interchange overlay districts, schools and shopping areas. Bicycling can play an important role in meeting the Town’s transportation needs as well as being a popular recreational activity. Additionally, a well‐planned and utilized bicycle system can encourage people to use their bicycles instead of their automobiles for commuting, shopping and other trips. This can improve air quality and promote a healthy lifestyle. Figure ES‐5 shows the framework of the Bicycle Plan.


Figure ES‐5: Recommended Bicycle Plan


The proposed bicycle system has a series of facilities that perform specific functions: Loops – these seven routes serve the residential areas and don’t extend beyond the limits of the

individual neighborhood. They serve as “collector” routes within neighborhoods and tend to be located along collector streets. They provide access to neighborhood amenities such as schools, parks and the open space trail system.

Runs ‐ there are six “runs” that provide direct connections between the neighborhoods and downtown Castle Rock. These routes follow collector and arterial streets leading generally into the downtown area. These routes cross several major barriers such as I‐25, the UPRR and BNSF RR and East Plum Creek. Being major streets, they also are typically less “hilly” than the local street system

Connectors – there are 10 “connector” routes throughout Town. As their name implies they help connect the “loop” routes, the “runs”, the “ring route” and the regional trail system to one another. These routes help fill in gaps between the other routes and take bicyclists into the downtown area.

Circumferential Route – this route (“ring route”) surrounds the Town and connects all of the routes together

Regional Trails – the regional trail system follows major geographic features and runs through Town connecting neighborhoods to open space areas and parks. It also connects to portions of the statewide trail system

Appendix D provides additional details of each of the proposed routes.

Pedestrian Plan Pedestrian activity is important to a community’s vitality and quality of life. The best way to encourage people to walk is to provide them with a continuous, well designed sidewalk or trail network. The network needs to connect residential areas with places of work, shopping, dining and recreation. While the sidewalks found along the residential streets are a part of the overall network, the only sidewalks and “multi‐use sidepaths” identified in the TMP are those along the major street system, as these are the facilities that lead to primary destinations and activity centers. Sidewalks in residential areas are typically 4‐5 ft. in width; multi‐use sidepaths are basically sidewalks that are 8‐10 ft. wide. They are wide enough to accommodate a variety of users, such as pedestrians, bicyclists, skaters, etc. The recreational trails that have been constructed through the Town’s open space areas are also considered to be “multi‐use”, as they are typically 8‐10 ft. wide and used by both bicyclists and pedestrians. One of the goals of this TMP is to connect the multi‐use sidepaths, along the major street system, with the multi‐use trails through the open space areas in order to expand the overall path system. Figure ES‐6 shows the recommended multi‐use sidepath/trail system.


There are numerous missing sections of multi‐use sidepaths and multi‐use trails that need to be completed. In selecting projects for construction, there are many criteria that should be considered. Among them are:

The posted speed and traffic volumes of the adjacent street The distance to alternate facilities Locations of schools and the ages of the children who attend Commercial centers Employment centers Whether the project eliminates a “missing link” in a facility Project cost Connection to the downtown area Support of the adopted pedestrian and bicycle plan

Table ES‐4 shows the missing sections of sidepaths and sidewalks that should be given special consideration during the prioritization of construction projects. Some are along streets that serve schools and recreation areas; others are along major roads and streets where pedestrians have no alternative routes.


Figure ES‐6: Recommended Pedestrian Plan and Project Priorities (The side paths shown in the bicycle

plan are the same as those in the pedestrian plan. For more detail on the side path system refer to the

sectional Bicycle Plan maps in Appendix D.)


TABLE ES‐4: Sidepath and Sidewalk Projects

Project locations are shown in Figure ES‐6.

Project ID

NumberProject Name Project Description

Length

(Ft)

Width

(Ft)

Planning

Level Cost

Estimate

Safe route

to school

Connection for

traffic

generators

Near

alternative

facility

Support

biking/walking

Downtown

Estimated

Developer

Contribution

FIRST TIER PROJECTS

1Crowfoot Valley Road ‐

Founders Pkwy to Sapphire Pointe

Blvd

8 foot multi‐use sidepath ‐

northwest side; 5,100 8 $400,000 No Yes No No 25%

2 Founders Parkway ‐

Crowfoot Valley Road to Beechnut Pl.

8 foot multi‐use sidepath on east

side of Founders Pkwy 1,700 8 $175,000 No Yes No No 0%

3Founders Parkway ‐

Crowfoot Valley Rd to Woodlands

Blvd

8 foot multi‐use sidepath ‐ south

side 2,800 8 $125,000 No Yes No Yes 0%

4Heritage Ave ‐

School Boundary to Sundance5 foot sidewalk ‐ south side

750 5 $100,000 Yes Yes Yes** No 50%

5Oman Road ‐

North of Gilbert St. 5 foot sidewalk ‐ east side

1,000 5 $100,000 Yes Yes No No 0%

6Fifth St. ‐

Woodlands to Valley Drive

8 foot. multi‐use sidepath ‐south

side 2,100 8 $500,000 No Yes No No 0%

7Mikelson Boulevard ‐

Suffolk Ave to Sovereign St. 5 foot sidewalk ‐ inside of loop

5,800 5 $300,000 Yes No Yes* No 0%

8Praire Hawk Drive ‐

Wolfensberger Rd to Meadows Pkwy

8 foot multi‐use sidepath‐ west side ‐

(from south of New Hope Rd. to the

end of existing 5' sidewalk); 3,550 8 $240,000 No Yes No Yes 0%

9Ridge Road ‐

Plum Creek Parkway to Mikelson

Blvd. 8 foot multi‐use sidepath ‐ east side

2,800 8 $300,000 No Yes No Yes 0%

10Wolfensberger Road ‐

Coachline to Red Hawk Drive 8 foot multi‐use sidepath ‐south

side 5,100 8 $700,000 No Yes No Yes 25%

11 Coachline Road ‐

Wolfensberger Rd to Park Entrance 8 foot multi‐use sidepath ‐ west side

2,300 8 $300,000 No No No No 75%


Beechnut Place to Crimson Sky Drive 8 foot multi‐use sidepath‐ east side

7,100 8 $500,000 No Yes No No 50%

SECOND TIER PROJECTS


5th St. to Castle Oaks Right of Way 8 foot multi‐use sidepath ‐ east side

1,800 8 $300,000 No Yes Yes* No 100%

14Fifth St. ‐

Valley Drive to Founders Pkwy 8 foot multi‐use path 2,800 8 $600,000 No Yes No No 0%

15South St. ‐

Gilbert to Oman5 foot sidewalk

1,000 5 $100,000 Yes Yes No No 0%

16Enderud Boulevard ‐

Mikelson Blvd. To Heritage Ave.5 foot sidewalk ‐ east side

500 5 $70,000 Yes No Yes* No 0%

17Mikelson Boulevard ‐

Willow St. to Enderud Boulevard 5 foot sidewalk ‐ east side

500 5 $70,000 No Yes Yes* Yes 0%

18 Crystal Valley Parkway‐

East of Lions Paw St. to West Loop Rd

8 foot multi‐use sidepath ‐ south

side 2,800 8 $350,000 No No Yes No 100%

19Front Street ‐

Cantrill St to 5th Street 8 foot multi‐use sidepath ‐ east side

1,100 8 $150,000 No Yes No Yes 0%

20Park Street ‐

Jason St. to North of 8th St. 5 foot sidewalk ‐ west side

1,000 5 $150,000 No Yes Yes No 0%

21Perry Street ‐

South Street to Plum Creek Pkwy8 foot multi‐use sidepath ‐ west side

2,000 8 $300,000 No Yes Yes Yes* 0%

22Emerald Drive‐ Plum Creek Blvd. to

Emerald Court8 foot multi‐use sidepath

450 8 $70,000 No Yes Yes Yes 0%

23Plum Creek Blvd. ‐ Mount Royal Drive

to Emerald Drive 8 foot multi‐use sidepath 1,100 8 $150,000 No Yes Yes* Yes 0%

* Must cross multi‐lane or divided roadway** Temporary sidewalk in place

Total

Unit Price Sources: CDOT Cost Data 2009,2010 ‐ Castle Rock PMP 2010, 2011 ‐ Castle Rock Opinion of Costs for Roadway Construction 2010

i September, 2011

Transportation Master Plan

Prepared for:

Town of Castle Rock

100 N. Wilcox Street

Castle Rock, CO 80104

Prepared By:

In association with

ii September, 2011

Acknowledgements

Town of Castle Rock

Town Council

Paul Donahue, Mayor, Council District 1 Brian Logan, Council District 2 Jennifer Green, Council District 3 Chip Wilson, Council District 4 Renee Valentine, Council District 5 Clark Hammelman, Mayor Pro Tem, Council District 6 Joe Procopio, Council District 7

Public Works Commission

Joe Procopio, Town Council Liaison JoBeth McFadden, Chair Richard Morton, Vice‐Chair Ken Brink Donna Hawk Mike Riedmuller Bob Washburn Robert Wells

Planning Commission

Joe Procopio, Town Council Liaison Leslie Lee, Chair Barbara Dash, Vice Chair Ryan Christensen Michael Fronczak Andrew Hauss Chris Pace Rick Wood

Castle Rock Staff

Robert Goebel, Director of Public Works Bob Watts, Transportation Planning Manager Ann Skinner, Transportation Planning Analyst Dan Sailer, Traffic Engineer Manager Martin Hudson, Development Services, Long Range Planning Jeff Smullen, Superintendent of Parks Rich Havel, Trails Planner Jason Reynolds, Development Services, Project Manager

iii September, 2011

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1

Purpose and Basis for Updating the TMP ................................................................................................. 1

Previously Completed Transportation Projects ........................................................................................ 2

Guiding Principles and Policies ................................................................................................................. 4

Relationship to Community and Regional Planning .................................................................................. 6

2.0 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................... 8

Bicycle System ......................................................................................................................................... 17

Pedestrian System ................................................................................................................................... 22

3.0 Future Conditions ............................................................................................... 26

Travel Demand Model ............................................................................................................................ 26

Year 2020 ‐ Future Conditions ................................................................................................................ 28

Year 2030 ‐ Future Conditions ................................................................................................................ 37

4.0 Recommended Transportation Plan ............................................................ 47

Roadway Plan .......................................................................................................................................... 47

Major Roadway Project Descriptions ...................................................................................................... 52

Intersection Improvement Projects ........................................................................................................ 58

Downtown Street System ....................................................................................................................... 61

Pedestrian Plan ....................................................................................................................................... 62

Bicycle Plan ............................................................................................................................................. 65

Appendices A – Household and Employment Forecast Data

B – Summary of Public Comments

C – Travel Demand Forecasting Technical Memorandum

D – Bicycle Plan

iv September, 2011

List of Figures Figure 1‐1: Major Transportation Projects Undertaken Since 2003…………………………………………………….. . 3

Figure 2‐1: Existing Functional Street Classification and Number of Lanes…………………………………………….9

Figure 2‐2: Daily Traffic Volumes……………………………………………………………………………………………... .......... 11

Figure 2‐3: Existing PM Peak Hour Congestion Levels …………………………………………………. ....................... 13

Figure 2‐4: 2010 Fifteen Highest Accident Rate Locations………………………………………………………………….. 14

Figure 2‐5: Projects That Will Help Complete the Basic Roadway System ………………………………………….. 16

Figure 2‐6: Existing Multi‐Use Sidepaths and Trails…….……………………………………………………………………… 19

Figure 2‐7: Existing On‐Street Bicycle System…………………………………………………………………………………….. 20

Figure 2‐8: Barriers to Bicycle Travel…………………………………………………………………………………….. ............. 21

Figure 2‐9: Inventory of Multi‐Use Sidepath System………………………………………………………………………….. 23

Figure 3‐1: Household and Population Growth in the Castle Rock Travel Demand Area…………………….. 26

Figure 3‐2: Castle Rock Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ)…………………………………………………………………………… 27

Figure 3‐3: Household Growth by Traffic Analysis Zone (2010‐2020) ..................................................... 28

Figure 3‐4: Employment Growth by Traffic Analysis Zone (2010‐2020)………………………………………………. 29

Figure 3‐5: Estimated Year 2020 Traffic Volumes using the Base Condition Street Network ................. 31 Figure 3‐6: Estimated 2020 PM Peak Hour Congestion using the Base Condition Street Network ....... 32

Figure 3‐7: Estimated 2020 Traffic Volumes when Selected Projects are Added to the 2020 Base Street

Network ................................................................................................................................................... 35

Figure 3‐8: Estimated 2020 PM Peak Hour Congestion Levels when Selected Projects are Added to the

2020 Base Street Network….. .................................................................................................................. 36

Figure 3‐9: Estimated 2030 Traffic Volumes when the Interchange and the Selected Projects are Added

to the Base Street Network ..................................................................................................................... 38

Figure 3‐10: Estimated 2030 PM Peak Hour Congestion Levels when the Interchange and the Selected

Projects are Added to the Base Street Network ...................................................................................... 39

Figure 3‐11: Estimated 2030 Traffic Volumes – Base Roadway Network + Selected Projects ................ 45

Figure 3‐12: 2030 PM Peak Hour Congestion Levels – Base Roadway Network + Selected Projects ...... 46

Figure 4‐1: Recommended 2030 Roadway Plan…………………………………………………………………………………. 50

Figure 4‐2: Recommended Roadway Projects……………………………………………………………………………………. 51

Figure 4‐3: Recommended Intersection Improvements……………………………………………………………………… 61

Figure 4‐4: Recommended Pedestrian Plan and Project Priorities……………………………………………………... 64

Figure 4‐5: Recommended Bicycle Plan……………………………………………………………………………………………… 67

Figure 4‐6: Bicycle Facility Types………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 68

List of Tables Table 4‐1: Roadway Projects .................................................................................................................... 49

Table 4‐2: Sidepath and Sidewalk Projects .............................................................................................. 63

Documents

Transportation Master Plan - crgov.com