Letter to the Editor: Bad entrance to Grand Park
March 26, 2013
To the Editor:
The recent music festival brings up many discussion items, including one concerning the costs of the proposed annexation in Fraser.
Anyone trapped in traffic during the event will agree the intersections as constructed at the common boundary between Fraser and Winter Park are an unmitigated disaster. Plans on file from the Grand Park development show the only access to this parcel should have been built in line with the Rendezvous development.
If this had been done and there was a frontage road allowing access to the recreation center and the gas station, then traffic might have flowed more freely past the festival grounds. Instead, many of us found ourselves sitting for a half hour or more waiting to get through this complicated series of driveways and cross streets. Many local businesses saw a downturn in revenue because potential customers stayed home rather than brave this traffic jam.
Even worse, it appears now CDOT may be willing to see three stoplights placed at King’s Crossing, First Street (gas station) and Rendezvous road. Rest assured, if this occurs we will be sitting in long lines on most winter and summer weekends (note the jams caused by a single traffic light in Fraser). At least we can stop in and obtain supplies to drown our sorrows as we wait.
The town (read taxpayers) will one day be faced with addressing traffic issues with bypasses or new intersections – paying the price for a developer who does not build according to plans and holds immediate commercial gain above effective community planning. The alternative will be to see an erosion of our quality of life and acquiring the reputation of limited access due to horrific traffic jams. Visitors will likely then avoid our valley, just as customers avoided local business during the festival.
Full fees paid by developers will help address future, unforeseen costs of development. One more reason to stick to assessing costs based on town regulations, not based on perceived actual costs of development as set by annexation proponents.