It is currently Oct 15, 2019 8:45 pm 






Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Previous topic | Next topic 

  Print view

Online 
 Post subject: Flume Editor's sneak peak, July 23: CR43A ready for signal
Post Posted: Jul 22, 2004 6:33 am 
Flume Editor
Joined: Feb 29, 2004 8:39 am
Posts: 2982
Location: Bailey
The Colorado Department of Transportation began advertising this week for a contractor to construct a fully functional traffic signal at the intersection of U.S. 285 and CR 43A. There have been a number of serious automobile accidents at the intersection since it opened. Construction should begin in early September. More on this in The Flume.

_________________
Come see The Flume at:
http://www.theflume.com


Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
Offline 
 Post subject:
Post Posted: Jul 22, 2004 7:10 am 
Stratospheric Poster!
Stratospheric Poster!
User avatar
Joined: Mar 27, 2004 9:14 am
Posts: 6483
Location: Burland since April 1977
With fear of irritating local civil engineers - If the DOT could design a road with traffic patterns in mind these lights wouldn't be necessary. 43A is the second road they have put in to help clean up the top of Crow Hill and both have been disasters.

Is it the county that keeps poking these holes in 285 so the state has to put in lights or is it the state?

_________________
When I moved here there was nothing, now it's all gone. :(

Mountain folk see the mountains when they drive.
City folk who live in the mountains only see the bumper of the car in front of them.


Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
Offline 
 Post subject:
Post Posted: Jul 22, 2004 7:54 am 
Whoa momma! A top Pinecam poster!
Whoa momma! A top Pinecam poster!
User avatar
Joined: Jan 2, 2004 7:24 pm
Posts: 1835
I hate to see another light go up - however with the # of accidents I would rather see another light than a neighbor get hurt or killed


Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
Online 
 Post subject: Some interesting history
Post Posted: Jul 22, 2004 7:57 am 
Flume Editor
Joined: Feb 29, 2004 8:39 am
Posts: 2982
Location: Bailey
You may recall a previous Board of County Commissioners closed Bulldogger Road (the original street for access to the library) because of resident complaints about the high number of traffic accidents at that intersection. When CR 43A was opened, the current BOCC said it had no choice but to open the road or it would face a lawsuit with Duke Dozier. The line of sight issues, however, at CR 43A are far worse than those back at Bulldogger. I guess time will tell how effective a light will be. I did write an editorial last year stating something should be done there at CR 43A. Of course, cars don't cause accidents; people do!

_________________
Come see The Flume at:
http://www.theflume.com


Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
Offline 
 Post subject:
Post Posted: Jul 22, 2004 9:07 am 
Oh my, Big Time poster!
Oh my, Big Time poster!
User avatar
Joined: May 23, 2002 10:29 am
Posts: 3591
Location: Bailey (CR 68)
43A has been a thorn in my side since it opened. I can understand the BOCC caving to Dozier, but why did they then divert ALL 43 traffic down that road. When they put in the light at 43/72 is solved a lot of the traffic problems which were re-introduced with 43A. I think that the county has opened itself up to a much greater legal liability by creating a dangerous intersection that could be greater than that threatened by a single landowner.
Nearly every day I have to brake to avoid a driver making a quick left turn onto 285 from 43A as I come down from Crow Hill. I blame this dangerous situation for my not seeing the deer that I hit back in April. The deer were crossing 285 from the opposite side and I was watching for the 43A driver about to jump out in front of me.
If I end up seriously injured in an accident at 43A & 285 Park County AND Duke Dozier would be on my list of potential targets for liability.
A light will help the situation but is going to cause accidents as people don't have time to stop coming down Crow Hill.

To the BOCC :P :P
To Dozier :P :P :P :P


Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
Offline 
 Post subject:
Post Posted: Jul 22, 2004 9:48 am 
Oh my, Big Time poster!
Oh my, Big Time poster!
User avatar
Joined: Sep 10, 2002 1:45 pm
Posts: 3519
Location: the wilds of western PA
Well, they sure did make a mess up there. I never made a left turn off of Bulldogger onto 285 when leaving the library and now I won't make a left turn off 43A onto 285 - and it's a bigger hassle to get to the library. I've learned to appreciate the changes made at Conifer & Aspen Park while we were in PA but don't understand what happened on Crow Hill.

_________________
lionsbrooke.com


Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
Offline 
 Post subject:
Post Posted: Jul 22, 2004 12:10 pm 
Whoa momma! A top Pinecam poster!
Whoa momma! A top Pinecam poster!
User avatar
Joined: Jan 2, 2004 7:24 pm
Posts: 1835
I'm new to the area and don't know who Duke Dozier is, the land he owns or his power. Can someone enlighten this newer kid on the block?


Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
Offline 
 Post subject:
Post Posted: Jul 22, 2004 1:30 pm 
Stratospheric Poster!
Stratospheric Poster!
User avatar
Joined: Mar 27, 2004 9:14 am
Posts: 6483
Location: Burland since April 1977
Blueruck wrote:
I'm new to the area and don't know who Duke Dozier is, the land he owns or his power. Can someone enlighten this newer kid on the block?

The way I understand it the Dozier's were the original family in the area. THey owned the whole valley up to and including Harris Park. The have been slowly selling off and developing the area. Mill Iron D (probably for Dozier) was the last, I believe. Now they are developing the area to the west (south) of the big white barn that used to be the old homestead. The main house is behind the hill near Roland Valley. I am pretty sure they own the building with the dentist office and insurance company in it that 43A accesses. I'm also pretty sure a Dozier runs (owns?) the insurance company. I sort of thought the Doziers had something to do with the road situation but did not want to mention that because I am not sure.

_________________
When I moved here there was nothing, now it's all gone. :(

Mountain folk see the mountains when they drive.
City folk who live in the mountains only see the bumper of the car in front of them.


Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
Offline 
 Post subject:
Post Posted: Jul 22, 2004 1:45 pm 
Posts pretty often
Posts pretty often
User avatar
Joined: Mar 20, 2003 12:45 pm
Posts: 83
Location: Lakewood, CO
I am just wondering why the county would face a lawsuit from DD for not putting that road in. Seemed to me that the original 43 worked fine for getting into and out of the library and everything else. I realize that there is more traffic up there than when I lived in the area, but I am also certain other improvements could have been made without adding in that silly 43A thing.

_________________
Chester Bullock, chester@tenxible.com
Lotto and Powerball Numbers
http://www.copowerball.com
1989 Graduate of Platte Canyon HS


Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
Offline 
 Post subject:
Post Posted: Jul 23, 2004 8:02 am 
New Poster
Joined: Feb 2, 2004 4:12 pm
Posts: 3
In the late afternoons, the sun shines on the light at 72/43 making ut difficult to see when coming down Crow Hill - I think mant accidents have ocurred because of this. While I don't like what the road gods did with 43A - I think you should only be allowed to turn right in and out of it and have to go to the existing light to turn left. But if they are going to divert traffic from Burland down to the new light and take out the existing light at 43/72, maybe there will be fewer accidents at both intersections


Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
Offline 
 Post subject:
Post Posted: Jul 23, 2004 3:35 pm 
Prolific Pinecam Poster
Prolific Pinecam Poster
User avatar
Joined: Jun 11, 2002 12:04 pm
Posts: 651
Location: Bailey
jp wrote:
But if they are going to divert traffic from Burland down to the new light and take out the existing light at 43/72, maybe there will be fewer accidents at both intersections


And kill the business at Dellwood... all for the loaf and jug and a super market that we will probably never see


Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
Offline 
 Post subject:
Post Posted: Jul 24, 2004 3:29 pm 
Infrequent Pinecam poster
Infrequent Pinecam poster
Joined: May 26, 2004 12:22 pm
Posts: 10
Location: Elk Creek Highlands
Here's a little history on 43A.
In 1997, the BOCC (Benninghoven, Trast, and Walters) approved a rezoning from residential to Planned Unit Development for the land that now has the office building on it; three or four office buildings were approved. Part of the bigger deal was that the county would also give the development half of the library lot for more commercial sites and build 43A and contracts were signed. Dozier does own an insurance company in the office building and I think he owns the building. The land where the Loaf & Jug is located was rezoned commercial in the 1980's, so that land wasn't part of the deal.

A lawsuit was filed by Friends of Mill Iron D in 1998 against the County and Dozier. A recall was successful in ousting all three BOCC. In 1998, Dozier also filed a lawsuit to have his contract for the road and the library land fullfilled. Because of the Friends lawsuit, everything was put on hold. The suit reached a stipulation that allowed two office buildings. The 1998 BOCC tried settle Dozier's contract lawsuit so all traffic would not be re-routed through his development and kill the businesses at Delwood. He would not budge.

In 2000, two of the current BOCC ( Staples & Walker) won the election and said they would honor the total contract. Tthe lawsuit was dismissed. So we the citizens ended up paying for a road through a private development, probably for a higher cost than was in the contract due to inflation.

The current BOCC which includes Staples and Walker have asked the state to put in a traffic light there. The state is taking bids now. Dozier owns land south of the highway and wants all traffic from Burland routed to this new traffic light. Plans were drawn for this as early as 1995. To close 72, the county will need to get some land or right of way access through the State Land Board land behind and east of the ballfield by 72 and 285. Rosalie could be re-routed across Dozier land now. Also part of the big plan from 1995 was to develop the entire SLB land. I wouldn't be surprised to see that in the near future - as soon as the leasee's lawsuit against the SLB is concluded where they tried to kick him of the land so they could sell it. Guess who wanted to buy it.

Now these current BOCC are working on a contract to do all the excavating for a shopping center to the tune of around $2.5 million and give tax breaks the developer of the shopping center (not Dozier, a big shopping center developer - can't remember their name.) In the last newletter from the BOCC, they wrote they thought the contract would be signed sometime in September.

So, we the citizens will now be paying again to help private development. Whatever happened to the free market determining what is affordable for developers? Now everywhere, not just in Park County, the government is helping developers pay for costs of development.

Yet, in Walker's re-election campaign literature, she says, " I believe in the adage that development should pay for itself." Her actions speak differently.

The newest development mentioned will be north and east of the valley and covers about 2500 acres that runs from Lone Rock to Deer Creek Valley Ranchos. It is bordered on the west by Mill Iron D. The developer David Crane and the Dozier family are waiting on the BOCC to pass clustering regulations so more houses than the current regs allow can be put on smaller lots. Crane has been at meetings and vocal about what should be in the regs. As proposed by the Planning Commission the regs will allow 2 acre lots without central water and sewer, one acre lots with central water and sewer; with up to 60% more houses than would be allowed without clustering. So instead of being able to do around 300 new houses, they will be able to put in around 500 houses and keep half the land in open space for the residents of the development. The meeting of the BOCC is scheduled for Aug. 19 to decide on what will be in the clustering regs.

I really don't think Dozier was the original family or settlers in the area. I know the white house and barn were a stagecoach stop in the mid 1800's and it wasn't the Dozier family who owned it. I'm not sure when they acquired all their land, but thought it was sometime in the mid 1900's and don't think it went as far as Harris Park or the Ranchos. That info could be found in the Assessor's Office records.


Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:

Who is online

In total there are 14 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 14 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
Most users ever online was 2823 on Mar 26, 2012 7:26 pm

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests





Powered by phpBB © 2000-2012 phpBB Group

This website copyright © 1994-2019 by
Pinecam.com is a member of the Platte Canyon Area Chamber of Commerce