Search by keyword or six-digit Content ID
My Stuff | Register | Help


What's Hot

    Stories
  1. 1. Shoeboxes making a world of difference 1
  2. 2. County acquires and preserves another 771 acres 0

    Events
  1. 1. Annual Holiday Cookie Exchange! (Not Rated) 0
  2. 2. Happy Holidays from Brothers BBQ! (Not Rated) 0

    Blogs
  1. 1. Chance encounter led to enchanted evening with Carol Channing 2
  2. 2. Twenty vampires found living in our home 2

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Castle Rock [Change Location]

Blog Entry 2 of 2 Town Council Not Answering Questions about N. Mead
At the July 14th Council meeting it was the understanding Alternative 7M (Atrium at-grade) was dropped from consideration. The purpose of the August 18th meeting was for Council to recommend 1 of the 2 remaining options; Refined Alternate 6 (Castlegate) or Refined Alternate 7 (Atrium grade-separated). Apparently sometime prior to the August 18th meeting, 1 or more Council members changed their mind. Without going into detail, the August 18th meeting resulted in bringing Alternative 7 back to life, backtracking from 2 to 3 alternatives, delaying yet again any progress on the project. Perplexed by the altered agenda of the August 18th meeting, I emailed the following question to Council members: 1. Did you request reconsideration of Alternative 7M or the railroad talks prior to the August 18th meeting? (The Town has already been turned down twice by the RR) Four of the councilmen indicated they had not requested reconsideration. Mayor Reed, Councilman Dulleck and Councilman Wilson have chosen not to respond, which has raised additional questions in my mind: 2. Who or what organization expressed a desire for you to reconsider Alternative 7M or resume talks with the railroad? 3. What are the names of the individuals or organizations? Mayor Reed, Councilman Dulleck and Councilman Wilson, please answer the questions. The Citizens have the right to know what group or individual is influencing Council on the direction of this project.

Blog Url: http://denver.yourhub.com/~MeadowsResident

North Meadows Extension project

Article Contributed on: 9/5/2009 12:57:57 PM

The September 4th press release announcing a meeting among State Legislators & Castle Rock claimed a $10 million savings if 1 mile of RR track were relocated, allowing an at-grade, signalized intersection at Highway 85 & Atrium. The statement does not convey the entire truth. Why?

- With Atrium, traffic congestion will reappear after commercial build-out, requiring more money to solve the same problem again.

- Castlegate is a long-term, permanent solution, ultimately being significant cost savings. Also, Castlegate does not require RR track relocation.

- Pursuing the RR will delay progress & increase costs due to negotiations, consultant fees & environmental risk.

- The RR relocation will place the tracks much closer to Plum Cr, increasing risk of major environmental disasters should there be a derailment, not only affecting Castle Rock but all of Denver given Plum Cr flows into the Metro Valley.

- A signalized, at-grade intersection at Hwy 85 & Atrium hinders efficient traffic flow to Denver increasing traffic accidents/fatalities.

- In a few years, we'll have another slow & clogged artery like Founders/Meadows Pkwy.

- Commercial projects, like Atrium, are built by Developers. Residents shouldn't pay for their roads & infrastructure.

- The TAP Bond issue is for a commuter route to & from Denver. Atrium is not a direct route as it meanders through future commercial development.

RR discussions should not be pursued. Castlegate is the best long term, permanent solution & does not require RR track relocation.

Guidelines: Be kind. Abusive commentary may be removed. If you believe someone has been abusive, please click "Report Abuse".

SUBMIT COMMENT
Talk Back : submit comments to the blog

*Note: you need to log-in to add a comment or rating.
Thank you! Your comment has been updated.