HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Public Safety 2005-10-27'41 /.1 PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE AGENDA October 27,2005 8:00 A.M. POLICE DEPARTMENT Action 1. Agreement between Park R.-3 School District and the Town of Estes Park (tentative) 2. Segway Purchase Reports 1. CACP Accreditation Status 2. Are You Okay Program 3. Update on Town Employee ID System 4. Town Pedestrian Crosswalk Study Follow-up to August Public Safety Committee Action Item with recommendations FIRE DEPARTMENT Action 1. Slash Collection Site Request Reports 1. The Dive Rescue Truck delivery 2. Fire Safety Trailer Delivery NOTE: The Board of Trustees (or Public Safety Committee) reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared.
Estes Park Police Department Memo To: Chairman Wayne Newsom and Public Safety Committee Board Members From: Lowell Richardson, Chief of Police CC: Randy Repola, Town Administrator Date. October 25,2005 Re: School Resource Officer Agreement Town of Estes Park and Board of Education Park School Distrid R-3 Backaround Finalization of the working agreement between the Town of Estes Park and the Board of Education Park School District R-3 is complete. Town Attorney White and Park School District R-3 attorney's have reviewed and concurred with the terms of the presented agreement. This completes the last step before implementing the School Resource Officer program in the Estes Park Schools starting January 21 2006. BudaeVCosts None for this phase Recommendations Staff recommends approving the agreement for signature by the Mayor of the Town of Estes Park. 1
1 . AGREEMENT This AGREEMENT ("Agreement"), made and entered into the 22nd day of November, 2005 by and between: THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF PARK SCHOOL DISTRICT It-3 (hereinafter referred to as "BOARD") AND TOWN OF ESTES PARK (hereinafter referred to as "TOWN") WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the BOARD desires the TOWN to have police officers serve as School Resource Officers in several of its schools to assist in maintaining safe school environments, to improve school law enforcement collaboration, and to improve perceptions and relations between students, staff and law enforcement officials. WHEREAS, the BOARD and the TOWN both recognize the outstanding benefits that the School Resource Officer program has for the citizens of Estes Park and particularly for the students attending the BOARD'S schools. The parties agree that it is in the best interests of the BOARD, The TOWN, and the citizens of the community to continue the program as set forth in this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the parties agree as follows: SECTION 1. DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE TOWN 1.01 TOWN shall provide one (1) School Resource Officer (hereinafter referred to as SRO) to the school campus operated by the BOARD: List Schools and Addresses here: 1.02 The SRO shall abide by BOARD Policies and regulations and TOWN Policies, rules and regulations. 1.03 TOWN shall be responsible for the supervision, control, and direction of all aspects of employment of the police officer assigned to the SRO Program.
1.04 TOWN shall ensure that the exercise of the law enforcement powers by the SRO is in the compliance with the authority granted by law. 1.05 The SRO shall not function as a school disciplinarian or security officer, and shall not intervene in the normal disciplinary actions of the school system, nor be used to witness any disciplinary procedures in the school. The SRO, at all times, will be expected to act within the scope of authority granted by law. (a) To perform law enforcement functions within the school setting. (b) To identify and mitigate, through counseling and referral delinquent behavior, including substance abuse. (c) To foster a better understanding of the law enforcement function. (d) To develop positive concepts of law enforcement. (e) To develop a better appreciation of citizen rights, obligations and responsibilities. (f) To provide information about crime prevention. (g) To provide assistance and support for crime victims identified with the school setting, including abused children. (h) To promote positive relations between students and law enforcement officers. (i) To enhance knowledge of the fundamental concept and structure of law. (i) To provide to students instruction in various aspects of law enforcement and education. The SRO shall consult and coordinate instructional activities through the principal. 1.06 Qualifications for officer assignment to the SRO program are: (a) The applicant must be a full-time peace officer, level 1, as defined by C.R.S. §18-1-901(3)(1)(I), with a minimum of three (3) years of law enforcement experience. (b) Shall possess a sufficient knowledge of the applicable Federal and State laws. City and County ordinances, and Board of Education polices and regulations. (c) Shall have access to police resources to conduct criminal investigations. (d) Shall possess even temperament and set a good example for students. (e) Shall possess communication skills that would enable the officer to function effectively within the school environment. 1.07 The TOWN reserves the right to change the officer assigned to SRO duties during the course of the agreement.
1.08 The SRO shall be on duty at the school during regular school hours when students are required to attend, unless the police department emergency needs or law enforcement requirements prohibit. Whenever possible, a replacement police officer should be assigned, on a temporary basis, if the absence of the existing officer is approved by the TOWN and exceeds one (1) day subject to resource availability. SECTION 2. DUTIES AND RESPONSIBLITIES OF BOARD 2.01 The principal at the designated school shall be the on-site contact person for the SRO. The Superintendent of Schools shall designate the Director of Safety, Security and Emergency Planning to serve as the district liaison for the program. 2.02 The BOARD agrees to provide the SRO at each school an office to conduct matters of confidentiality with a desk, necessary office furnishings and a telephone. 2.03 The BOARD shall maintain control over the content of all educational programs and instructional materials. 2.04 SRO's shall have access to educational records under these conditions: (a) Law enforcement access to educational records shall be in compliance with all applicable laws, policies, regulations, and procedures. (b) The BOARD designates officers assigned to the SRO program as agents of the BOARD's law enforcement program, and as such SRO's shall have access to confidential educational records to perform work that is directly related to their duties at the school. (c) Law Enforcement access to records for purposes outside the scope of the SRO's duties at the school shall be limited to: (1) Public information, such as yearbooks or student directory information (2) Information needed in an emergency to protect the health or safety of the student or other individuals, based on the seriousness of the threat to someone's health or safety; the need of the information to meet the emergency situation and the extent to which time is of the essence. (3) If confidential student records information is needed, but no emergency situation exists, the information may be released only upon the issuance of a search warrant or subpoena to produce the records. SECTION 3. TERM OF AGREEMENT
.. 3.01 This agreement shall be made for a 12-month term, beginning the 1st day of August 2005 through the 15th day of June 2005. 3.02 This agreement shall continue in effect until the duration of the term described in paragraph 3.01 or until terminated by either of the parties in accordance with the terms listed in Section 4 below. SECTION 4. TERMINATION 4.01 Either party may terminate this agreement by serving written notice upon the other party at least thirty (30) days in advance of such termination. SECTION 5. INVALID PROVISION 5.01 Should any part of this Agreement be declared invalid by a court of law, such decision shall not affect the validity of any remaining portion which shall remain in full force and effect as if the invalid portion was never a part of this Agreement when it was executed. Should the severance of any part of this Agreement materially affect any other rights or obligations of the parties hereunder, the parties hereto will negotiate in good faith to amend this Agreement in a manner satisfactory to the parties. Failing agreement on such amendment, either party may by notice in writing, terminate this Agreement forthwith subject to the provisions of this Agreement relating to termination. SECTION 6. INDEMNIFICATION 6.01 The BOARD agrees to indemnify and save harmless the TOWN for any liability whatsoever arising out of the negligent acts ofthe BOARD's employees or agents. The TOWN agrees to indemnify and save harmless the BOARD of any liability whatsoever arising out of the negligent acts of the School Resource Officer or the TOWN. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to affect in any way the TOWN or the BOARD's rights, privileges, and immunities, including sovereign immunity as provided by law. The parties hereto understand and agree that the BOARD, the TOWN, and their officers and employees are relying on, and do not waive or intend to waive by any provision of this Agreement, the monetary limitations or any other rights, immunities, and protections provided by the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, C.R.S. 24-10-101 et seq., as from time-to- time amended, or otherwise available by other provision of law to either party, their officers, or their employees.
. SECTION 7. ASSIGNMENT 7.01 Neither party to the Agreement shall, directly or indirectly, assign or purport to assign this Agreement or any of its rights or obligations in whole or in part to any third party without the prior written consent of the other party. SECTION 8. NO WAIVER 8.01 The failure of either party to enforce at any time any of the provisions, rights, or to exercise any elections provided, shall in no way be considered to be a waiver of such provisions, rights or elections or in any way effect the validity of the Agreement. The failure to exercise by either party any of its rights herein or any of its elections under the terms or conditions herein contained shall not preclude or prejudice it from exercising the same or any other right it may have under this Agreement, irrespective of any previous action or proceeding taken by it hereunder. SECTION 9. COMPLETE AGREEMENT 9.01 This Agreement is the complete Agreement of the parties; may be amended or modified only in writing; and supersedes, cancels and terminates any and all prior agreements or understandings of the parties, whether written or oral, concerning the subject matter hereof. SECTION 10. CHOICE OF LAW 10.01 This Agreement shall be governed by and construed and interpreted according to the laws of the State of Colorado. It shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the successors of the TOWN and BOARD. SECTION 11. NON-DISCRIMINATION PROVISION 11.01 The parties shall not discriminate against any employee or participant in this program because of race, age, religion, color, gender, national origin, martial status, disability, or sexual orientation. SECTION 12. NOTICE PROVISIONS 12.01 When any ofthe parties desire to give notice to the other, such notice must be in writing sent by US Mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the party for whom it is intended at the place last specified; the place for giving notice shall remain such until it is changed by written notice in compliance with the provisions of the paragraph. For the present, the parties designate the following as the respective places for giving notices:
.. To BOARD: Superintendent of Schools Park School District 1601 Brodie Avenue Estes Park, Colorado 80517 To TOWN: Chief of Police Town of Estes Park P.O. Box 1287 Estes Park, Colorado 80517 AUTHORITY PROVISION Each person signing this Agreement on behalf of either party individually warrants that he/she has fultlegal power to execute this agreement on behalf of the party for whom he/she is signing, and to bind and obligate such party with respect to all provisions contained in this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed this Agreement as of the day and year first written above. PA~K SCHOOL DISTRICT R-3 La *--< Preiidkht, BoarM *f Education Date: November 22,2005 Town of Estes Park By John Baudek Mayor Town of Estes Park Date: November 22,2005
. I Estes Park Police Department Memo To: Chairman Wayne Newsom and Public Safety Committee Board Members From: Lowell Richardson, Chief of Police CC: Randy Repola, Town Administrator Date: October 25,2005 Re: Segway (Human Transport Device) Purchase Backaround Beginning in the year 2006 the police department no longer will provide Community Service Officers in the downtown area as we customarily have done in the past. The Estes Park Police Department will continue to provide a presence in the downtown area with one Master Police Officer and one Community Service Officer. Their duties and responsibilities are outlined as follows: 1. Provide assistance to local businesses. 2. Manage traffic flow when deemed necessary. 3. The CSO will perform parking enforcement in all timed Municipal Parking Lots and signed areas. (With the help of the Clancy Parking System to be discussed at a future time). 4. The assigned police officer will provide all police services in the core downtown (specifically all of Elkhorn and all of Moraine to the Piccadilly Shops). 5. Provide assistance to visitors as needed. 6. Patrol all the trails and parks in the downtown area. These primary responsibilities allow the department to provide continued services the public has grown accustomed to while maintaining a high quality of service with less staff. In order to provide these direct services in a timely manner and allow the two staff positions to cover as much ground as possible strong consideration is given to alternative modes of transportation forthese officers. Specifically, the Segway Human Transport Device. Over the Labor Day weekend and during the Highlands Scottish Festival, David Floyd Owner and Operator of Segway of Northern Colorado loaned two Segway devices to the Estes Park Police Department for use during these special events. Estes Park Police Officers put these devices through rigorous testing; up hills, driving on non-paved dirt terrain, driving in tight narrow spaces, on mud, gravel and navigated through heavy pedestrian tramc. The overwhelming response by police staff is this tool allows greater mobility more rapidly with little or no interference with congested pedestrian traffic. A brproduct during this 1
demonstration phase was the overwhelming positive responses we received from the general public (This is anecdotal not scientifically verified. These public comments suggest increased and continued positive community relationships for police employees assigned to the downtown area. Budget/Costs In reviewing prices for these devices consideration was given to the type of and the amount of use a Segway would be exposed to for police use. Therefore, staff identified the Segway XT as the appropriate tool for police use. All basic models (which can be purchased through the manufacturer for the same price) are listed at $4,995.00. Because this is a police vehicle additional accessories are required; LED red & blue lights, a siren, saddle bags (for carrying equipment), customized paint and decal to match the police department vehicle fleet colors. Please review the itemized cost breakdown: (1) Segway XT $4,860.00 (1) Light and motion Red/Blues LED warning light set $590.00 (1) Soft bag carrier with frame $275.00 (1) Control Shaft carrier bag $99.00 (1) Custom paint and decal application $500.00 (1) Shipping $120.00 (1) Optional second Lithium-lon battery ($1,450.00) Total W/O Battery $6,444.00 Total With Battery $7,894.00 There is no annual maintenance contract, the unit comes with a (12) month parts and labor warranty. In addition the company offers a complete replacement if any component (transmission, gyro, computer or memory head) breaks under normal use at no cost for the life of the unit. Leasing options were explored and those expenses are as follows: (12) Month lease/$1.00 buyout $8296.08 (annually) (24) Month Lease/$1.00 buyout $4208.34 (annually) (36) Month Lease/$1.00 buyout $3,011.40 (annually) Recommendations Due to the versatility of the Segway (Special events, parades, downtown patrol, bike path patrol, Riverwalk patrol, parking enforcement etc...) staff recommends purchasing one XT Segway for the department. Since the cost of the unit is universally comparable to any other distributor staff recommends purchasing the unit from Segway of Northern Colorado a locally owned and operated business in Estes Park. • Page 2
Segway Of Northern Colorado Invoice No. XT-0002 788 Columbine Drive Estes Park, Colorado 80517 (970) 577-1729 (970) 577-1729 FAX Press 4 WWW.Segwayofnorthemcolorado.com INVOICE m c-- Customer Name Estes Park Police Department Date 8/31/2005 Attention Chief Lowell Richardson Order No. City Estes Park State Colo ZIP 80517 Rep Dave Floyd Phone (970) 586-4000 FOB Qty Description Unit Price TOTAL 1 Segway Model XT OR HT human Transporter $4,860.00 $4,860.00 1 Lithium-ION Battery Set INCLUDED $O.00 1 Lithium-ION Battery Set SPARE BATTERY SET QUOTE $1,450.00 $1,450.00 1 Light and Motion RED/BLUE LED Warning Light Set QUOTE $590.00 $590.00 1 25.0 Soft Bag carrier w/frame structure $275.00 $275.00 1 12.0 Control Shaft Bag, black $99.00 $99.00 delivery and training 1 Shipping Direct: per unit $120.00 $120.00 Key activation is software programmable; allows instant OFF/ON, available only on enforcement-type of Ht or XT unit. Other accessories are available upon request. SubTotal $7,394.00 ~- Payment Details Shipping & Handling $0.00 O Taxes Colorado O Trade #VALUE! TOTAL $7,394.00 QUOTE IS NET PER UNIT NO TAX IS BID NOR IMPLIED Office Use Only Farewell
. Are You OK? A phone system designed to make sure that all is well. The Are You OK (RUOK) telephone calling system is to provide a sense of security and caring for the elderly, shut-ins, disabled persons or anyone in our community who needs to be checked upon daily. The system is used in over 550 cities throughout the United States and Canada. Unlike an emergency alarm phone system, this system takes the initiative in establishing contact with the subscriber. Hooked to a computer and phone line within the Estes Park Police Dispatch center, the computer places phone calls at subscriber-designated times. The subscriber can answer the computer's question simply by lifting the telephone receiver and then replacing it after hearing "Hello, Are you OK?" When the computer calls a subscriber and gets no answer or if there is a busy signal several times in a row, the computer notifies the police dispatcher and a patrol officer or deputy is dispatched to go out and find out why. The system is flexible; calls can be made once a day or more and it can also be programmed to not call on certain days. The computer can also generate a printout o f the subscriber's address, medical history, doctor and next-of-kin for responding officers. All information is confidential and is collected when the subscriber joins the program. Changes are easy to make with a simple phone call to the dispatch center. Information will then be forwarded to the Manager or Supervisor to be changed in the computer. The system is offered at no charge to subscribers within the Town of Estes Park. Any person interested in signing up or interested in additional information may contact Support Services Manager Cherie Bartram at the Estes Park Police Department (970) 577-3850 Monday through Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm. Once an application is completed, the subscriber will start receiving their daily telephone call right away!
Are You O.K? Estes Park Police Subscriber Interview Form Subscriber Phone Date: Time to Call: Service Number: AM - // PM Subscriber Name and Address: Doctor and Clergy: Last Name First Name Doctor's Name Street Address Doctor's Phone Apt. Bldg Name Apt. # Clergy Name City Clergy Phone In Case of Emergency Notify: Last Name First Name Last Name First Name Street Address Street Address City State Zip Code City State Zip Code Next of Kin: Last Name First Name Last Name First Name Street Address Street Address City State Zip Code C ity State Zip Code Phone Number Phone Number Is there a key on premises: YES NO Location: Live Alone? YES NO Medical History: Physical Impairments: Special Orders / Location of Orders: Remarks:
00 00 1.¥ $..~ - 2-Nf 2 t i.·-,4 i>. i r,ts 237.~2..34 7.9~90'*Dr? :9- 7.-"-c.,r.:79 i. 9-11.-:f:25% 2:.1.4
ZONE EVALUATIONS Officer: SCHUMAKER Date: 10/20/05 Location: Downtown corridor Zone: 1 Nature of concern: Crosswalk safety for pedestrians. Goals/Objectives obtained? To improve pedestrian safety In the downtown corridor. Who/~hat are responsible? Motor vehicle operators, Pedestrians, local and state officials. Who/~hat are effected? Why? Local and visiting pedestrians, Law enforcement. (WHY?) Safety for pedestrians, Law Enforcement expected to keep pedestrians safe. Is the solution appropriate? Why? Yes. To improve or remove high risk crosswalks would increase pedestrian safety for community and visitors. Are further actions necessary? Yes, Monitor solution and track positive or negative effects. Participants satisfied with resolution? Undetermined at this time. Ongoing assessment needed? Yes, if solutions are implemented.
ZONE INITIAnVE - ACCIDENT REVIEW DOWNIOWN CORRIDOR BY: OFFICER SCHUMAKER In August of 2005 I was assigned a zone initiative to do a comprehensive study on pedestrian safety and the affects pedestrians have on traffic accidents from 2001 to present. The research I compiled consists of the number of accidents in the downtown corridor, the number of accidents that occurred with-in or near a pedestrian crosswalk and if pedestrians were directly involved in the cause of the accident. I also conducted interviews with business owners near the crosswalks. The following information will show how many accidents, there locations, what time of year they occurred and ifpedestrians were involved. In reference to the time of year I will refer to Memorial Day through Labor Day as peak season. Attachments will show exact dates. This information does not include parking lots or private property accidents. In 2001 there were 42 accidents in the downtown corridor. Ofthese 42 accidents 4 of them were pedestrian involved accidents. Ofthe 4 accidents involving pedestrians 3 of them were crosswalk related and one intersection related. Two of the pedestrian crosswalk related accidents happened at the Macgregor and Elkhorn, one at Macgregor and Park Lane and one at Hwy 34 & hwy 36. Ofthe four pedestrian related accidents one ended in injury. Of the four pedestrian involved accidents 3 were in peak season. In 2002 there were 57 accidents in the downtown corridor. Ofthese 57 accidents 5 of them were pedestrian involved accidents. Of the 5 accidents involving pedestrians all 5 of them were crosswalk related. Two of the pedestrian crosswalk related accidents happened at Macgregor and Elkhorn, 2 at Wiest and Moraine and 1 at Moraine and Elkhorn. Ofthe five pedestrian related accidents 3 ended in injury. Ofthe 5 pedestrian involved accidents 3 were in peak season. In 2003 there were 56 accidents in the downtown corridor. Ofthese 56 accidents none of them were pedestrian involved accidents. There was 1 accident involving a bicyclist. In 2004 there were 73 accidents in the downtown corridor. Of these 73 accidents 5 of them were pedestrian involved accidents. Ofthe 5 accidents involving pedestrians all 5 of them were crosswalk related. Three of the pedestrian crosswalk related accidents happened at the Macgregor and Elkhorn, 1 at Wiest and Moraine and 1 at Hwy34 & hwy 36. Ofthe five pedestrian related accidents 1 ended in injury. Ofthe 5 pedestrian involved accidents 4 were in peak season.
In 2005 to date there were 32 accidents in the downtown corridor. Ofthese 32 accidents 4 of them were pedestrian involved accidents. Of the 4 accidents involving pedestrians all 4 of them were crosswalk related. Two of the pedestrian crosswalk related accidents happened at the Macgregor and Elkhorn, 2 at Wiest and Moraine. Of the 4 pedestrian related accidents 3 ended in injury. Of the 4 pedestrian involved accidents 4 were in peak season. The combined total ofaccidents in the downtown corridor from 2001 to present is 266. Of these 266 accidents 18 were pedestrian involved. Also of these 266 accidents 90 of these accidents were crosswalk related or in proximity of a crosswalk. The majority of the 90 accidents resulted in citations for following too closely / rear end accidents. Of the 90 cross walk related accidents 32 accidents occurred at or in proximity to Macgregor and Elkhorn and 17 at or in proximity to the Moraine/Wiest crosswalk. At the crosswalk located at 350 E Elkhorn or between it and Macgregor crosswalk 37 accidents occurred. The other 3 accidents occurred at Elkhorn and Riverside or Elkhorn and Moraine A little over one third of the accidents that occurred in the downtown corridor were pedestrian or crosswalk related. Over one half of the 90 accidents occurred or was in proximity to crosswalks that did not have a traffic control device. There are two crosswalks that are responsible for this percentage. They are located at Elkhorn and Macgregor and Moraine and Wiest. These two crosswalks make up for over one half of the total of crosswalk related accidents. In reference to traffic control devices I am referring to stop lights that actually control traffic. Of the 18 pedestrian involved accidents 9 of the accidents occurred at Elkhorn and Macgregor and 5 occurred at Moraine and Wiest totaling 14 of the 18 vehicle verses pedestrian accidents. From this study it is not practical to fault any one thing for the cause of these accidents except for the crosswalks themselves. At Elkhorn and Macgregor the majority of the accidents that involved pedestrians happened on the south side of the street. The main cause for this is poor visibility for both pedestrians and motor vehicles. When motor vehicles come offof Riverside and turn east bound on Elkhorn they are looking at traffic as they merge. By the time they flow into traffic they are in the crosswalk zone. Another problem with this merging traffic is if the inside lane of the east bound traffic is stopped for pedestrians the merging vehicle can not see pedestrians unless they are directly in their lane. Also when these vehicles stop it obscures the view for the pedestrian to see the outside traffic lane until they are already in it. This is true for the north side also. Anytime a vehicle is stopped for pedestrians it obscures the vision for the pedestrians and motor vehicle operators from seeing each other. Though this crosswalk has a pedestrian crossing light it has done little to improve the safety. The problem is the signs are on the sidewalks and when most drivers come into this congested area they are focusing on where they are going. The lights do provide some advanced warning for the crosswalk if the pedestrians use the lights and the drivers look to the side to see them flashing. The warning signs that are placed in the middle of the crosswalk are of little use unless the
traffic is moving slowly enough that the drivers can stop when they see the signs and that they are approaching a pedestrians crossing. The crosswalk at Wiest and Moraine experience the same problem, poor visibility high congestion. This crosswalk has no advance warning and preoccupied drivers add to the danger. There are only a few solutions to this dilemma. One would be to man these crosswalks during peak season. This would take most of the burden offthe pedestrian to watch for traffic thus making crossing safer. The problem with this solution is that it is not cost effective, would be tedious for the person working and if someone does get hit while we are manning the crosswalk there could be liability issues. Another solution would be better warning systems such as flashing lights in the center of the roadway and high enough for drivers to see. The downfall to this is that it would be an obstruction to turning vehicles and would be unattractive to the downtown appearance. An over or underpass is out of the question due to cost and appearance. The most pliable solution would be to remove these crosswalks completely. Both of these crosswalks are in close proximity to main crosswalks that are control by traffic control devices. Some might say that removing these crosswalks will encourage jay-walking. The truth is pedestrians are going to cross where they want, crosswalk or not. If they are not in a legal crosswalk it is there responsibility to yield to traffic. The problem is we have crosswalks that are designated but dangerous. These crosswalks give our pedestrians a false sense of security. Some of the merchants I talked to in the area of these crosswalk state that they observe pedestrians almost getting hit by motor vehicles daily and that pedestrians come into there business stating that they almost got hit in the crosswalk and that it is getting too crazy around here. Another merchant stated that she observes close calls where people are almost hit all through-out the day. In conclusion we have a responsibility for the safety of our visitors and community pedestrians. Based on the information in this study to eliminate these two crosswalks would not only increase the safety for the pedestrians but would also assist in the flow of traffic through the downtown area. It is our goal to provide a place where visitors and community members can go and experience the best that Estes Park has to offer. Eliminating these crosswalks would provide a safer alternative to pedestrians thus making there experience in Estes Park a good one.
ry 0 CD LU LL -1 3 I~< ~-or LL 1- LU 00 Z 0 5 0 ... Al MI~//~I; _I --1 f. Z .- 0~4 t-£17 : '411,1 1 =-\ I -t -- .4=r,1 - -- J e·lia 11-113-11 tae 1 *A -' L l}Il i 3 J- r*Y., 1 1 4 1 1 1 LI_T -1- ' 1 1 11'f -1 -- lili 1 -1- 1 -1 -- 9 1124 41- 1 1 ---1 -1 1 27 1 11 iff-1111 '1 7.:. 1 T L W il, ''JI- Ii'll LLI d t r_ 7 I - E .- 4 17- =If T -- 1 ,; 11 - -2- 1. 1 OUT OF 90 CROSSWALK 18 PEDESTRIAN VS RELATE ACCIDENTS 310IH3A • OVER ONE THIRD
1- 0 LU R I Of &-O LL 1- A 00 1.0 $ .. Z 19+0 1,7.3. < 1 F . '.· T. !~f{?3~- ...4 -9- 1- D Ii-':t --1% 1.-- - a 4 : == 28*3 261 1: i i. 4 0-..?......1-. trf.1,1.% 11* : E :r 2 · i *e .* ) I # F 'LU.. $ -,6 < .7 : ) I t 0 41€.1*:1 -* 1 -1. Di '-·- 1 -4 2 -t ,ft.49% ,LS I . 2 1 - r r·f:iter. - ' · 'f**'« " 4544· f : f i'*323* :·5·c 0,4 1 *tfi.'41.,6 L' 111-1. 1.-L |4 9 ·· J. a. 5%4.*:Iltffik I I :t:FR.Ut 'lid [-1,-411 y Q'#?32. L -- .1 '*92- 169 21 1--7-ir - - -- 1 1 41 i.-• 1 ===,md....lili.,Eale/ "IIIIIIIIIIIE -- ~-r-'cir Di----7 -g' 6 Lt I ~f ZL- I . f~ I - 4-1~~ 1-1.'-6*'-Mt .. OUT OF 90 CROSSWALK E 18 PEDESTRIAN VS VEHICLE RELATE ACCIDENTS
-1 9 0 CO 0 9 LU 00 LU I 1- Z LLI O LU CO 02(0 <1-0 ~ Ill Of +IMODO .. -b.-2, fi ·- 6,..249¢* 1 <T #1,"- L --:1...Z+ -.-- 1 -1 1~41 1--1.=:yflowl'.?9#ftc @1 e*+46 4 & 4 ™ , r ~p -1-7 0 '-, L, -*a 41/. · i - _, , 2-2 - -·-z·4 44;-&18Y 9- k -/6, al:34 1 11.-1- i &79#0. 4. . i -z-- -4,_-'--1 -7-ilt 1,« . ar=... .i -1 ~ tor A'Pi'-~ r*6/43* ~- '- ''2'1--li~,ARA'dft-y·r-~2,< 4 9 00 #%4 4 y.. 1 2-111121_z-_1--= ·u/5--5~23% A.-> U .g: 3 - - $_ I_ ' i.,ri --" 4 -pittij 44 7-„. r , i- -1 16-. 2-T-.= £13*iz f - £ ' - n¥F'*gE.=dii - -11 -4 2 ig -3._2.-4.-f L'.r: 01 -------Ii Egn··WIVT , . - 1 y , 6 - -1 1 1 1- 1 - .4-Ce-- 1 1 -9.1 T 1 4 1 -1- 1-/.Prk OC C E EL <- ORN AREA BETWEEN ELKHORN & EAST TO CROSSWALK WI RAFFIC CONTROL DEVICE. IDENTS OCCURRED MACGREGOR CRO S>IlvM p 1-154 t,14
LeXIS1Ne,[1SllM) UJ Page 1 of2 42-4-802. Pedestrians' right-of-way in crosswalks. (1) When traffic control signals are not in place or not in operation, the driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way, slowing down or stopping if need be to so yield, to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a crosswalk when the pedestrian is upon the half of the roadway upon which the vehicle is traveling or when the pedestrian is approaching so closely from the opposite half of the roadway as to be in danger. (2) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply under the conditions stated in section 42-4-803. (3) No pedestrian shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and ride a bicycle, walk, or run into the path ofa moving vehicle which is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard. (4) Whenever any vehicle is stopped at a marked crosswalk or at any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection to permit a pedestrian to cross the roadway, the driver of any other vehicle approaching from the rear shall not overtake and pass such stopped vehicle. (5) Whenever special pedestrian-control signals exhibiting "Walk" or "Don't Walk" word or symbol indications are in place, as declared in the traffic control manual adopted by the department of transportation, such signals shall indicate and require as follows: (a) "Walk" (steady): While the "Walk" indication is steadily illuminated, pedestrians facing such signal may proceed across the roadway in the direction of the signal indication and shall be given the right-of-way by the drivers of all vehicles. (b) "Don't Walk" (steady): While the "Don't Walk" indication is steadily illuminated, no pedestrian shall enter the roadway in the direction ofthe signal indication. (c) "Don't Walk" (flashing): Whenever the "Don't Walk" indication is flashing, no pedestrian shall start to cross the roadway in the direction of such signal indication, but any pedestrian who has partly completed crossing during the "Walk" indication shall proceed to a sidewalk or to a safety islands and all drivers of vehicles shall yield to any such pedestrian. (d) Whenever a signal system provides for the stopping of all vehicular traffic and the exclusive movement of pedestrians and "Walk" and "Don't Walk" signal indications control such pedestrian movement, pedestrians may cross in any direction between corners of the intersection offering the shortest route within the boundaries of the intersection while the "Walk" indication is exhibited, if signals and other official devices direct pedestrian movement in such manner consistent with section 42- 4-803 et). (6) Any person who violates any provision ofthis section commits a class A traffic infraction. Source: L. 94: Entire title amended with relocations, p. 2352, § 1, effective January 1, 1995. L. 2005: (3) amended, p. 1354, § 2, effective July 1. Editor's note: (1) This section was formerly numbered as 42+702 and the former section 42-4-802 was relocated to section 42-4-902. (2) Section 3 of chapter 301, Session Laws of Colorado 2005, provides that the act amending subsection (3) applies to offenses committed on or after July 1, 2005. http:#198.187.128.12/colorado/lpext.dll/Infobase4/62085630d9/630db/63bbf/63bd0?f=te... 9/22/2005
LexisNexis(TM) CD Page 1 of 1 A pedestrian "Jay-walking" across a highway is required to yield the right-of-way to automobiles, and failure to do so is negligence per se. Dennis v. Johnson, 136 Colo. 357, 317 P.2d 890 (1957 http://198.187.128.12/colorado/lpext.dll/Infobase4/62088630d9/630db/63bbf/63be6?f=te... 9/22/2005
LeXISNeXISUM) CD Page 1 of 1 The care and caution required of an 11-year-old child, who while crossing a multiple lane highway was struck by defendant's automobile, depend on its maturity and capacity and is also dependent on the circumstances of each particular case. Schaffner v. Smith, 158 Colo. 387, 407 P.2d 23 (1965). http://198.187.128.12/colorado/lpext.dll/Infobase4/620817630d9/630db/63bbi/63be6?f=te... 9/22/2005
LexisNexis(TAI) CD Page 1 of 2 42-4-803. Crossing at other than crosswalks. (1) Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway. (2) Any pedestrian crossing a roadway at a point where a pedestrian tunnel or overhead pedestrian crossing has been provided shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway. (3) Between adjacent intersections at which traffic control signals are in operation, pedestrians shall not cross at any place except in a marked crosswalk. (4) No pedestrian shall cross a roadway intersection diagonally unless authorized by official traffic control devices; and, when authorized to cross diagonally, pedestrians shall cross only in accordance with the official traffic control devices pertaining to such crossing movements. (5) Any person who violates any provision of this section commits a class B traffic infraction. Source: L. 94: Entire title amended with relocations, p. 2353, § 1, effective January 1, 1995. Editor's note: This section was formerly numbered as 42-4-703 and the former section 42+803 was relocated to section 42-4-903. ANNOTATION Am. Jur.2d. See 7A Am. Jur.2d, Automobiles and Highway Traffic, §§ 318-320; 8 Am. Jur.2d, Automobiles and Highway Traffic, § 477. C.J.S. See 60A C.J.S., Motor Vehides, § 782. Law reviews. For artide, "One Year Review of Torts", see 37 Dicta 67 (1960). Annotator's note. Since § 42-4-803 is similar to § 42+703 as it existed prior to the 1994 amending of title 42 as enacted by SB 94-1, relevant cases construing that provision have been induded with the annotations to this section. A pedestrian "Jay-walking" across a highway is required to yield the right-of-way to automobiles, and failure to do so is negligence per se. Dennis v. Johnson, 136 Colo. 357, 317 P.2d 890 (1957). Instruction based on this section alone is erroneous. In an action by a pedestrian against a motorist for injuries allegedly occurring at an intersection, an instruction based upon subsection (1) of this section, which fails to advise a jury of the qualifications thereof contained in § 42-4-707, is erroneous. Allison v. Trustee, 140 Colo. 392, 344 P.2d 1077 (1959). The care and caution required of an 11-year-old child, who while crossing a multiple lane highway was struck by defendanfs automobile, depend on its maturity and capacity and is also dependent on the circumstances of each particular case. Schaffner v. Smith, 158 Colo. 387, 407 P.2d 23 (1965). http:#198.187.128.12/colorado/lpextdll/Infobase4/6208 f/630d9/630db/63bbf/63be6?f=te... 9/22/2005 Pre·i,· Do, . ·illh Neit DIX
2001 ACCIDENT REVIEW DOWNTOWN CORRIDOR PED CS # 01- DATE LOCATION CAUSE INVOLVED 26 JAN 1 W ELKHORN @ JAMES STREET WILDLIFE NO 171 FEB 2 HWY 34 & HWY 36 FTC YES 729 MAY5 300 BLOCK E ELKHORN FTC NO 899 MAY 27 HWY 34 & HWY 36 FTY NO 911 MAY 29 HWY 34 & HWY 36 FTC NO 941 JUNE 2 MORAINE & DAVIS FTC NO 986 JUNE 9 100 BLOCK MORAINE AVE FTY NO 1028 JUNE 17 300 BLOCK E ELI<-HORN FTC NO YES 1040 JUNE 18 200 BLOCK E ELKHORN FTC NO INJ 1063 JUNE 21 ELKHORN & BIGHORN FTY NO 1133 JUNE 29 100 BLOCK E ELKHORN FTY NO FTY BICYCLE 1201 JULY 7 HWY 34 & HWY 36 TO PED YES INJ HWY 34 & 1221 JULY 8 ELKHORN & MORAINE HWY 36 NO 1235 JULY 10 ELKHORN & RIVERSIDE FTC NO 1251 JULY 12 HWY 34 & HWY 36 FYY NO FAILED 1335 JULY 21 300 BLOCKE ELKHORN SINGLE LN NO 1387 JULY 21 HWY 34 & HWY 36 FTC NO PED CAUSE NO 1478 AUG 2 ELKHORN & MACGREGOR FTC
2001 ACCIDENT REVIEW DOWNTOWN CORRIDOR PED CS # 01- DATE LOCATION CAUSE INVOLVED 1500 AUG 4 ELKHORN & RIVERSIDE FTC NO IMPROP 1525 AUG 7 200 BLOCK E ELKHORN LN CHANGE NO UNSAFE 1553 AUG 10 MORAINE & ELKHORN BACKING NO 1688 AUG 26 HWY 34 & HWY 36 FTY NO 1762 SEPT 1 300 BLOCKE ELKHORN FTC NO UNSAFE 1904 SEPT 18 ELKHORN & WEIST BACKING NO 1965 SEPT 26 300 BLOCKE ELKHORN FTC NO 1979 SEPT 28 HWY 34 & HWY 36 FTY NO CARELESS 2007 OCT 2 ELKHORN & WEIST DRIVING NO CARELESS 2031 OCT 5 ELKHORN & BIGHORN DRIVING NO 2057 OCT 9 300 BLOCK E ELKHORN WILDLIFE NO 2079 OCT 13 ELKHORN & PARK LANE FTY NO 2096 OCT 14 200 BLOCK E ELKHORN FTC NO 2291 NOV 12 443 W ELKHORN FTC NO CARLESS YES 2299 NOV 14 MACGREGOR & PARK LANE DRIVING INJURY NO 2310 NOV 16 200 BLOCK E ELKHORN CITATION NO NO 2359 NOV 22 ELKHORN & MACGREGOR CITATION NO 2382 NOV 26 900 W ELKHORN NO TOO FAST FOR CONDITIONS
2002 ACCIDENT REVIEW DOWNTOWN CORRIDOR PED CS # 02- DATE LOCATION CAUSE INVOLVED 189 JAN 27 300 BLOCK E ELKHORN LANE VIO. NO 393 FEB 21 HWY 34 & HWY 36 FTC NO 586 MAR 22 100 BLOCK W ELKHORN NO 610 MAR 23 100 BLOCK W ELKHORN NO 820 APRIL 13 500 BLOCK W ELKHORN NO 1012 MAY 10 300 BLOCK E ELKHORN NO 1021 MAY 11 100 BLOCK E ELKHORN DUI NO 1063 MAY 16 100 BLOCK MORAINE LANE VIO. NO 1065 MAY 16 ELKHORN & MORAINE YES 1071 MAY 17 RIVERSIDE & ELKHORN LANE VIO. NO 1084 MAY 18 200 PARK LANE NO 1133 MAY 24 HWY 34 & HWY 36 FTC NO FTC 1147 MAY 26 100 BLOCK W ELKHORN NO 1149 MAY 27 ELKHORN & MORAINE LANE VIO. NO 1169 MAY 29 333 WONDERVIEW NO 1211 JUNE 2 300 BLOCK E ELKHORN NO 1219 JUNE 3 ELKHORN & MORAINE LANE VIO. NO 1223 JUNE 3 100 BLOCK MORAINE CARELESS NO
2002 ACCIDENT REVIEW DOWNTOWN CORRIDOR CS # 02- DATE LOCATION CAUSE PED INVOLVED 1270 6/8 400 W ELKHORN NO 1349 6/16 300 BLOCK E ELKHORN NO 1357 6/17 MACGREGOR & PARK LN NO 1383 6/17 HWY34 & HWY36 NO 1388 6/19 HWY34 & HWY36 NO 1400 6/20 300 BLOCK E ELKHORN NO 1408 6/21 MORAINE & WIEST FTY YES 1503 7/1 ELKHORN & RIVERSIDE NO 1533 7/4 200 BLOCK MORAINE NO 1653 7/14 ELKHORN & MACGREGOR FTC NO 1658 7/14 100 BLOCKE ELKHORN FTC YES 1718 7/20 200 BLOCK MORAINE YES 1747 7/23 HWY34 & HWY36 FTC NO 1772 7/26 MORAINE & ELKHORN NO 1825 7/31 100 BLOCK E ELKHORN NO 1927 8/8 ELKHORN & RIVERSIDE LN VIO NO 1930 8/8 200 BLOCK MORAINE FTC NO 1937 8/9 300 BLOCK E ELKHORN BACKING NO
2002 ACCIDENT REVIEW DOWNTOWN CORRIDOR PED CS # 02- DATE LOCATION CAUSE INVOLVED 1963 8/10 MORAINE & DAVIS FTC NO 1978 8/10 300 BLOCK E ELKHORN BACKING NO 1993 8/13 E ELKHORN & PARK LN NO 2037 8/17 100 BLOCK MORAINE NO 2040 8/17 200 BLOCK W ELKHORN NO 2060 8/20 100 BLOCK E ELKHORN FTC NO 2062 8/19 MORAINE & ELKHORN NO 2179 8/31 200 BLOCK E ELKHORN NO 2206 9/3 401 W ELKHORN NO 2270 9/14 HWY 34 & HWY 36 NO 2279 9/15 200 BLOCK E ELKHORN FTC YES 2342 9/23 E ELKHORN & PARK LN LN VIO NO 2353 9/25 200 BLOCK W ELKHORN BACKING NO 2360 9/24 300 BLOCKE ELKHORN NO 2394 9/29 100 BLOCKE ELKHORN FTC NO 2452 10/6 HWY 34 & HWY 36 NO 2457 10/3 MORAINE & ELKHORN NO 2496 10/15 300 BLOCKE ELKHORN NO
2002 ACCIDENT REVIEW DOWNTOWN CORRIDOR PED CS # 02- DATE LOCATION CAUSE INVOLVED 2506 10/15 300 BLOCK E ELKHORN FTY NO 2812 11/29 HWY34 & HWY 36 FTC NO 2838 12/5 PARK LN & ELKHORN NO
2003 ACCIDENT REVIEW DOWNTOWN CORRIDOR PED CS # 03- DATE LOCATION CAUSE INVOLVED UNSAFE 31 1/5 300 BLOCK E ELKHORN BACKING NO 67 2/12 200 BLOCK E ELKHORN NO 88 1/14 HWY 36 & HWY 34 FTC NO 234 1/5 200 W RIVERSIDE NO 292 2/17 300 BLOCKE ELKHORN FTC NO 343 2/24 500 W ELKHORN NO 362 3/1 HWY 36 & HWY 34 NO 363 3/1 200 W ELKHORN NO 377 3/4 HWY 36 & HWY 34 NO 449 3/19 HWY 36 & HWY 34 NO 517 4/7 400 W ELKHORN H&R NO 655 4/30 ELKHORN & MORAINE FTC NO 669 5/3 300 BLOCK E ELKHORN FTY NO 722 5/14 300 BLOCKE ELKHORN NO 772 5/23 HWY 36 & HWY 34 NO 827 5/29 HWY 36 & HWY 34 NO 843 6/2 300 BLOCK E ELKHORN FTY NO 912 6/14 100 BLOCK E ELKHORN FTC NO
. 2003 ACCIDENT REVIEW DOWNTOWN CORRIDOR PED CS # 03- DATE LOCATION CAUSE INVOLVED 952 6/20 300 BLOCK E ELKHORN FTC NO 1010 6/27 ELKHORN & MORAINE NO 1044 6/30 HWY 36 & HWY 34 FTC NO 1053 7/1 ELKHORN & MORAINE NO 1102 7/4 ELKHORN & MORAINE NO 1150 7/13 HWY 36 & HWY 34 NO 1172 7/15 HWY 36 & HWY 34 FTC NO 1200 7/18 ELKHORN & RIVERSIDE NO 1239 7/24 ELKHORN & MACGREGOR NO 1256 7/26 300 BLOCKE ELKHORN FTC NO 1313 8/2 ELKHORN & RIVERSIDE FTC NO 1331 8/4 HWY 36 & HWY 34 FTC NO 1387 8/9 200 BLOCK MORAINE DUI NO 1408 8/11 300 BLOCK E ELKHORN NO 1446 8/16 ELKHORN & MORAINE NO 1459 8/18 HWY 36 & HWY 34 NO 1473 8/20 300 BLOCKE ELKHORN FTY NO 1014 6/27 HWY 36 & HWY 34 CARELESS NO
2003 ACCIDENT REVIEW DOWNTOWN CORRIDOR PED CS # 03- DATE LOCATION CAUSE INVOLVED UNSAFE 1512 1/5 100 BLOCK MORAINE BACKING NO 1562 2/12 200 BLOCKE ELKHORN NO 1581 1/14 200 BLOCK E ELKHORN FTC NO 1603 1/5 ELKHORN & RIVERSIDE NO 1615 2/17 300 BLOCKE ELKHORN FTC NO 1710 2/24 HWY 36 & HWY 34 NO 1725 3/1 200 BLOCKE ELKHORN NO 1759 3/1 300 BLOCK E ELKHORN NO BACKING 1769 3/4 300 BLOCK E ELKHORN UNSAFE NO BACKING 1772 3/19 200 W ELKHORN UNSAFE NO 1842 4/7 400 W ELKHORN NO 1865 4/30 ELKHORN & MORAINE FTC NO 1922 5/3 200 BLOCKE ELKHORN FTY NO 1981 5/14 ELKHORN & MORAINE NO 2067 5/23 300 BLOCKE ELKHORN NO 2091 5/29 200 BLOCK E ELKHORN NO
2004 ACCIDENT REVIEW DOWNTOWN CORRIDOR PED CS # 04- DATE LOCATION CAUSE INVOLVED UNSAFE 17 1/5 100 BLOCK E ELKHORN BACKING NO 18 2/12 300 BLOCK E ELKHORN NO 60 1/14 HWY 36 & HWY 34 FTC NO 61 2/5 RIVERSIDE & ELKHORN NO 150 2/17 300 BLOCK E ELKHORN FTC NO 161 2/24 HWY 36 & HWY 34 FTY NO 182 3/1 300 BLOCKE ELKHORN NO 203 3/1 200 E ELKHORN NO 279 3/4 100 BLOCK MORAINE CARELESS NO 308 3/19 300 BLOCKE ELKHORN NO 326 4/7 300 BLOCKE ELKHORN NO 328 4/30 ELKHORN & MORAINE FTC NO 376 5/3 ELKHORN & MACGREGOR FTY NO 407 5/14 300 BLOCK E ELKHORN NO 423 5/23 300 BLOCK E ELKHORN NO 560 5/29 ELKHORN & MORAINE NO 592 6/1 300 BLOCK E ELKHORN FTY NO 608 6/14 100 BLOCKE ELKHORN FTC NO
2004 ACCIDENT REVIEW DOWNTOWN CORRIDOR PED CS # 04- DATE LOCATION CAUSE INVOLVED 710 6/1 RIVERSIDE & ELKHORN NO 719 6/9 ELKHORN & MORAINE LN VIO NO 753 6/14 ELKHORN & MORAINE FTC NO 761 6/15 100 BLOCK MORAINE NO 778 6/18 300 BLOCKE ELKHORN FTC NO 779 6/18 100 BLOCK W ELKHORN FTY NO 791 6/19 HWY 36 & HWY 34 NO 829 6/23 HWY 36 & HWY 34 NO 841 6/25 ELKHORN & RIVERSIDE CARELESS NO DUI 856 6/26 200 BLOCKE ELKHORN CARELESS YES 870 6/28 HWY 36 & HWY 34 NO 917 7/4 HWY 36 & HWY 34 FTC NO 934 6/28 WEST ELKHORN FTY NO 947 7/7 300 BLOCK E ELKHORN NO 969 7/9 300 BLOCK E ELKHORN NO 986 7/10 HWY 36 & HWY 34 NO 1012 7/13 ELKHORN & MORAINE FTY NO 1021 7/13 100 BLOCK MORAINE FTC NO
I . 2004 ACCIDENT REVIEW DOWNTOWN CORRIDOR PED CS # 04- DATE LOCATION CAUSE INVOLVED 1028 7/15 ELKHORN & RIVERSIDE LN VIO NO 1031 7/14 200 BLOCK E ELKHORN NO 1040 7/19 HWY 36 & HWY 34 FTC NO 1059 7/20 ELKHORN & MORAINE LN VIO NO 1066 7/22 HWY 36 & HWY 34 FTC NO 1085 7/25 ELKHORN & MORAINE NO 1107 7/27 ELKHORN & MORAINE LN VIO NO 1121 7/27 300 BLOCK E ELKHORN NO 1122 7/27 100 BLOCK MORAINE NO 1151 7/29 300 BLOCKE ELKHORN NO 1183 8/2 400 BLOCK W ELKHORN NO 1184 8/2 ELKHORN & MORAINE FTC NO 1186 7/25 300 BLOCK E ELKHORN FTY NO 1205 8/4 ELKHORN & MACGREGOR NO 1222 8/6 300 BLOCK E ELKHORN NO 1240 8/9 300 BLOCK E ELKHORN FTC NO 1246 8/7 200 BLOCK W ELKHORN FTC NO 1262 8/11 HWY34 & HWY36 FTC NO
2004 ACCIDENT REVIEW DOWNTOWN CORRIDOR PED CS # 04- DATE LOCATION CAUSE INVOLVED 1263 8/11 200 BLOCKE ELKHORN FTC NO 1295 8/16 200 BLOCKE ELKHORN NO 1303 8/16 MORAINE & WIEST FTC YES ' 1421 9/1 HWY34 & HWY36 FTC YES 1425 9/2 RIVERSIDE & ELKHORN FTC YES 1456 9/3 HWY 36 & HWY 34 NO 1506 9/14 300 BLOCKE ELKHORN NO 1528 9/17 300 BLOCK E ELKHORN IMP BACK NO 1 \ 4 1548 9/18 300 BLOCK E ELKHORN YES 1593 9/29 HWY 36 & HWY 34 FTC NO ji 1629 10/3 300 BLOCKE ELKHORN IMP LN NO l 1664 10/8 ELKHORN & MORAINE FTC NO 1683 10/11 400 BLOCK W ELKHORN FTY NO 1935 12/4 ELKHORN & MORAINE NO 1938 12/5 HWY 36 & HWY 34 NO 2033 12/23 ELKHORN & MACGREGOR FTY NO J 1 , 1 1 ; i'J
2005 ACCIDENT REVIEW DOWNTOWN CORRIDOR PED CS # 05- DATE LOCATION CAUSE INVOLVED 251 2/24 ELKHORN & MACGREGOR FTY NO 359 3/22 200 BLOCKE ELKHORN NO 380 3/25 300 BLOCKE ELKHORN FTC NO 399 3/31 300 BLOCK E ELKHORN IMP BACK NO 425 5/9 200 BLOCK E ELKHORN FTC NO 556 5/9 300 BLOCK E ELKHORN IMP BACK NO 568 5/12 HWY 36 & HWY 34 NO 689 5/31 200 W ELKHORN CARELESS YES 745 6/5 300 BLOCKE ELKHORN NO 751 6/7 ELKHORN & RIVERSIDE FTC NO 803 6/12 400 W ELKHORN NO 852 6/23 200 BLOCK MORAINE FTC NO 875 6/26 200 BLOCK MORAINE FTC NO 886 6/27 ELKHORN & MORAINE NO 915 7/1 200 BLOCK MORAINE FTC YES 940 7/1 200 W ELKHORN NO 982 7/10 300 BLOCKE ELKHORN NO 992 7/11 ELKHORN & MORAINE LN VIO NO
2005 ACCIDENT REVIEW DOWNTOWN CORRIDOR CS # 05- DATE LOCATION CAUSE PED INVOLVED 998 7/12 300 BLOCK E ELKHORN NO FTY 1009 7/13 200 BLOCKE ELKHORN PED YES 1187 8/1 HWY 36 & HWY 34 NO 1204 8/2 200 W RIVERSIDE LN VIO NO 1214 8/3 300 BLOCKE ELKHORN IMP BACK NO FTY 1227 8/5 500 W ELKHORN PED YES 1240 8/6 HWY 36 & HWY 34 NO 1251 8/8 200 W ELKHORN FTC NO 1261 8/9 HWY 36 & HWY 34 NO 1473 9/12 HWY 36 & HWY 34 NO 1544 9/23 400 W ELKHORN NO 1564 9/28 ELKHORN & MORAINE FTC NO 1631 10/7 300 BLOCKE ELKHORN NO 1625 10/7 300 BLOCKE ELKHORN CARELESS NO
, 4 MEMORANDUM To: Public Safety Committee From: Fire Chief Scott Dorman Date: October 27,2005 Subject: Slash disposal program- site location Background: Larimer County, Colorado State Forest Service and the Estes Park Volunteer Fire Department have combined efforts in the last few years to promote wildfire mitigation work. This mitigation work, performed by homeowners, is to lessen the effects of a wildfire on the private property and forests in our area. The interest from property owners toward this effort has been exceptional, although one concern keeps recurring, "what can be done with the slash, it's too expensive to take it to the landfill." A slash collection site pilot project was implemented in the fall of 2003. The pilot project was a huge success and we would like to continue this program as grant funds become available. The Estes Park Volunteer Fire Department applied for, and received, a 50/50 matching mitigation grant for a collection site from Larimer County. This grant provides $3,100 to hire a contractor to chip/grind the slash and remove the material. Budget: The County Wildfire Mitigation Grant will pay all costs up to $3,100. This grant is a 50/50 matching grant, with the town's match being made through in-kind services (i.e. providing a collection site and firefighter labor at the collection site). The only expense to the Town of Estes Park would be in providing a front-end loader, for a day, to help remove the material. Recommendation: The Estes Park Volunteer Fire Department recommends opening a collection site. The requested site location is on the Fairgrounds property, the drop off area is fenced off and behind a gate. Fire department personnel would monitor the site during the drop offtimes. The site would be open on Saturdays from 9:00 am until 3:00 pm with the dates to be announced in the spring of 2006. By providing a collection site we will be partnering with the area residents in protecting the properties and forests in and around Estes Park, thereby helping to preserve our pristine area.
h - .. Estes Park Police Department Memo To: Chairman Newsom and Public Safety Committee From: Lowell Richardson, Chief of Police CC: Randy Repola, Town Administrator Date: October 27,2005 Re: Downtown Traffic Study (Pedestrian Crosswalks) Background Recent auto-pedestrian accidents in the downtown corridor necessitated a comprehensive study and analysis of traffic accidents in downtown Estes Park. The results of this study are reviewable in the Zone Initiative Report completed by Master Police Officer Schumaker (2005). The report identified over a five-year period (2001-2005), 266 accidents were reported to police. Of these 266 accidents, 18 accidents involved pedestrians meaning 6.7% of all downtown accidents are pedestrian related. The purpose of this study was to identify the number of auto-pedestrian accidents that are crosswalk related within downtown Estes Park. In his report, (2005, Zone Initiative Report; page 2.), Officer Schumaker identified 33.8% of all accidents in the downtown area occurred at non-controlled intersections (mid-block) and of these accidents 6.7% are pedestrian involved. Furthermore, the study identi#ed 77.7% of auto-pedesMan accidents occur at two downtown mid-block crosswalks (Elkhom and Macgregor) and *loraine and Wiest). Areview of these two intersections requires a closer examination. E/khom and Macgregor a mid-block crossing location represents 50% of a# downtown auto- pedest/jan accidents (Schumaker, 2005; pg.2) this location is a busy easVwest main thoroughfare through downtown. At this location, a pedestrian activated warning device to motorists exists to allow mid-block crossing by pedestrians. Moraine and Wiest a mid-block crossing location represents 27.7% of a# downtown auto- pedestrian accidents (Schumaker, 2005; pg.2) this location is a north/south thoroughfare providing ingress and egress to Rocky Mountain National Park. At this location, a pedestrian activated warning device to motorists exists to allow mid-block crossing by pedestrians. Endemic to both locations is poor visibility for the traveling motorist, no early warning device to motorists, and heavy traffic volume during the visiting season (Schumaker, 2005; pg.3). An informal survey of local merchants revealed "close calls" occur routinely, posing potential dangers for the pedestrian. Considering the likelihood of future accidents to occur and the prohibitive costs associated with staffing or additional signage requirements there is limited alternatives to address this issue. However, staff concurs with the conclusions presented by Schumaker (2005) in his report recommending removal of the pedestrian warning devices for the overall safety of pedestrian visitors and residents. 1
BudqeUCosts $1,000.00 for guard rails at Macgregor and Elkhorn $1,000.00 for curb replacements at Macgregor and Elkhom $500.00 for removal of signs at Macgregor and Elkhorn Recommendations Staff recommends immediate removal of the signs at Elkhorn and Macgregor since this location represents 50% of all auto-pedestrian accidents. As part of the removal process staff recommends installing crossing barriers on the northwest comer of the intersection and at the south curb location, to include curb replacement for the north and south curb lines. Furthermore, with the removal of the pedestrian signs from this location staff recommends a one-year study (2006) of Moraine and Wiest to assess the need to retain pedestrian crossing at this location as well. 'We have a responsibility for the safety of our visitors and residents" (Schumaker, 2005) and staff concurs with this assessment. • Page 2