Montrose - Daily Press

MONTROSE ” The city of Montrose collected community input on its proposed downtown traffic improvement designs Wednesday during an all-day open house.

City staff and PBS&J, the city’s design firm for the project, were on hand. Wednesday at the Elks Civic Building to discuss the designs that will make significant changes to both Townsend and Cascade avenues between North and South Second streets.

One of the controversial designs was that of a roundabout at Cascade and South First Street. In the design plans, construction of a roundabout would eliminate 34 parking spaces in the area.

(Use arrows above to view more photos) Advertisement

“With the post office, county and city offices, people still have to go there, but with the furniture store, their concern is if there is not parking there, people may choose to go some where else,” PBS&J group manager and traffic engineer Jim Hanson said.

Ed Moreland and Fred Moreland with Budgetline Furniture at the northeast corner of South First and Cascade, voiced their concerns.

The Morelands believe they will lose business by not having parking in front and along the side of their business. The designs show four spots being removed from the front and four along the south side of their building. The Morelands also foresee load and unloading issues, as well as issues with parking their delivery trucks.

�”�”�”

For the full story, see today's print edition. The online story may not reflect all relevant information that was reported. We encourage readers to obtain the full story by reading the print edition or our e-edition, To subscribe, call (970) 252-7081 or click on the subscription link on the main page.

Comments

Montrose Citizen wrote on Nov 28, 2009 6:05 PM:

" Rounfd about round About, maybe that would give the Code enforcement somehing to do, because they don't do anything currently. If they want a Round About then start at the Black Canyon and go South to Colona or North to Olathe. Those that want to come to Montrose Will and those that do not can be on their way. Real easy, lets not make it Brain Surgery. Cause we don't have the people for that. "




Report Abuse

Ray Murphy wrote on Nov 28, 2009 8:26 AM:

" Definition: Engineer
A person who solves a problem you don't really have with a solution you can't understand.

And in this case at an ill advised cost. Listen to the people. Overwhelming negative is nothing to be scoffed at. Practice politics. Back off. Congratulate the citizens for being concerned and declare victory. Then move on to your next fiasco. "




Report Abuse

a_montrose_resident wrote on Nov 28, 2009 12:43 AM:

" trully, if this ridiculous round a bout is executed before the ogden and woodgate intersection, there should be a revolt. downtown is on it's last leg, and the city is willing to make access this much harder. maybe the city's unemployment insurance can be liable for this idea. "




Report Abuse

Montrose Citizen wrote on Nov 27, 2009 10:37 PM:

" and whi is going to pay for the improvement or the Round About?? Oh I bet it will be the Meadows Parkway people because it will help us out with traffic right. If Montrose is broke and looking at cutbacks then why the heck do we need a round about? Why the south townsend avenue improvement? Must not be too broke, oh but thats right the Meadows Parkway people can pay for it.!!!! NO "




Report Abuse

Jay Walker wrote on Nov 27, 2009 4:29 PM:

" GoneWithTheWind:

If this was truly a classic "good ol' boys" run community installing a roundabout anywhere in town wouldn't be a problem because it wouldn't happen. The real problem is a tug and pull between those that want Montrose to grow and get in line with what other communities are doing and those that want to preserve the small town feel. We can't have it both ways and thus the problems mount. "




Report Abuse

Jay Walker wrote on Nov 27, 2009 12:38 PM:

" I would also like someone to educate us on the history of that intersection. Namely the numerous studies and money spent on previous attempts to fix a problem that doesn't exist. We all know that the main problem in that area isn't the intersection, but the lack of parking. At least we're maintaining some historical consistency here by addressing the wrong problem. "




Report Abuse

Jay Walker wrote on Nov 27, 2009 12:33 PM:

" Are roundabouts in the block sections of towns that common? Is there one at 5th & Ute in GJ? How about 6th & Ute? 11th & Logan in Denver? How about College Drive & 2nd Ave in Durango? Why not? Roundabouts are for OPEN high flow intersections. Miami & Hillcrest. Niagara & Hillcrest. Now those spots make sense. S. 1st & Cascade does not!!! "




Report Abuse

ERW wrote on Nov 27, 2009 10:44 AM:

" So, statistics show less pedestrian accidents at roundabouts... could it be that less people are stupid enough to cross at a roundabout? I wouldn't even consider trusting my life to people driving in circles attempting to get out or in. oh and by the way, last I looked, we were all about historic downtown. What part of roundabout shouts historic. make up your mind you want historic or to be like vail. "




Report Abuse

GoneWiththeWind wrote on Nov 27, 2009 10:35 AM:

" Poor, poor Montrose....haven't we all learned by now that this town is run by a classic 'good ol' boys' society? Seeking community input is a facade. One can give any opinion they like concerning city development, but it is like flatulating in the wind: it stinks while it's happening, but then everyone forgets it after it passes. The roundabout will happen, businesses will suffer, the elderly will be confused and cause accidents, and like me, more people will leave Montrose. You cannot teach an old dog new tricks. Unless of course he has a brain transplant. :) "




Report Abuse

el tut wrote on Nov 27, 2009 8:21 AM:

" before we let mr. ullmann even think about an intersection I think we should find out if all those engineeering skills include sidewalk and curb repair. we have concluded that common sense is NOT a quality the city and county seek based on a long list of past performances and results. "




Report Abuse

Jason Ullmann-City Engineer wrote on Nov 26, 2009 3:30 PM:

" Some project background: Townsend in downtown is very congested during peak hours and the location in the City with the second highest number of accidents in the past 5-years is the block of S. 1st between Cascade and Townsend. In 2008 the City decided to address the congestion and safety problems by converting streets to one-way pairs and moving two traffic signals. This idea was revisited after businesses indicated it was unpopular and a downtown development group suggested that we look into other options. (cont. below) "




Report Abuse

Jason Ullmann-City Engineer wrote on Nov 26, 2009 3:30 PM:

" During a public meeting in February to present other alternatives a majority of attendees preferred the alternative that included closing S. 1st on the east side of Townsend. Based on public input the City moved forward with the project. Traffic analysis of this alternative revealed that the increased number of cars turning at Cascade & S. 1st could be best handled with a roundabout. I understand that many people have personal opinions about roundabouts, however, as an engineer my job is to review available data regarding what solution will function best to move traffic and improve pedestrian safety. (cont. below) "




Report Abuse

Jason Ullmann-City Engineer wrote on Nov 26, 2009 3:29 PM:

" All available studies indicate that modern roundabouts move traffic more efficiently and safely than 2-or 4-way stops, especially in locations with significant turning traffic. This means less backups and lower traffic impacts to businesses. Historic data also indicates that roundabouts are safer for pedestrians because traffic moves slowly and people only have to cross one direction of traffic at a time (12-ft of pavement vs. 70-ft). Creating a safer stop controlled intersection at this location is not as simple as putting up two signs. On street parking in this location creates an added challenge due to reduced visibility. (cont. below) "




Report Abuse

Jason Ullmann-City Engineer wrote on Nov 26, 2009 3:28 PM:

" At a minimum, bulb-outs are needed so pedestrians can see and be seen beyond parked cars near this busy intersection and also require eliminating some parking spaces. Our consultant is currently looking at ways to revise the concept roundabout plans so the number of lost parking spaces is similar to that required for bulb-outs while still providing the necessary turning radius for delivery vehicles. The results of their investigation should be available in a couple of weeks. Although the Ogden & Woodgate intersection does not have nearly the accident history (cont. below) "




Report Abuse

Jason Ullmann-City Engineer wrote on Nov 26, 2009 3:25 PM:

" as the two previously mentioned locations we recognize its undesirable alignment. On Nov. 5th Buckhorn Geotech was selected to prepare plans for that intersection. The City possibly will have the funds to construct improvements to Ogden & Woodgate in 2010 or 2011, however, it will depend on bid prices received for other projects. My staff and I take our job as stewards of your (and our) tax dollars seriously and don’t simply spend money to create a “legacy” or implement a “progressive” design concept. (cont. below) "




Report Abuse

Jason Ullmann-City Engineer wrote on Nov 26, 2009 3:24 PM:

" Roundabouts are a proven method for handling traffic and I assure you our presentation of this alternative was given much thought. I also want to say that during the open house we received as much positive support as negative comments. We encourage citizens, regardless of their position on the project, to fill out the comment form available at City Hall. I will not post additional comments or responses in this location, however, questions or comments can be directed to me at jullmann@ci.montrose.co.us. "




Report Abuse

Bad habits wrote on Nov 25, 2009 7:13 PM:

" the city has a bad habit of spending money for the sake of spending it, you have to look no further than the 4 corners that "beautified" last summer. the downtown redevelopment proposals will force those corners to be torn up once again, therefore the money spent on that project was a complete waste due to impending construction, $2 million, I believe. the city commissioners are a fiscal disaster waiting to happen. "




Report Abuse

progressive wrote on Nov 25, 2009 5:16 PM:

" This roundabout is a good idea! After the city finishes this project they should change all parking in the downtown area to back-in diagonal parking...Montrose is such a progressive town. "




Report Abuse

Ed Moreland wrote on Nov 25, 2009 3:32 PM:

" Patrick you have a great idea. Let's use common sense and try a simple solution first (four way stop) before we make a long term commitment to spending many GRANT (aka TAX DOLLARS) on a round a bout that is not wanted or needed.

Please submit your ideas in writing to the City. Please help us and other downtown businesses survive. The comment forms are available at the Elks Civic Building or Budgetline Furniture. Thanks to those who have already filled out the forms. "




Report Abuse

Round Abouts R OK wrote on Nov 25, 2009 3:08 PM:

" How many of the anonymous among us have actually driven an urban roundabout? Fact is, modern roundabouts, not the archetype European roundabouts, do work. They do not cause any bottleneck in traffic as seems to be the fear out there. There is no stopping as is the case with 4-way stops. The burden is on the driver to learn a new skill. You get used to them. I have come to appreciate them. "




Report Abuse

patrick wrote on Nov 25, 2009 2:30 PM:

" If the fourway does not work we can look into it again. And just because the grant money is available does not mean we need it. Also is the grant money only to be used for roundabouts? come on montrose lets not nuke a simple idea! "




Report Abuse

patrick wrote on Nov 25, 2009 2:29 PM:

" So it seems the people have spoken. we dont want round abouts at this location. lets try the 4 way stop first to see if that clears the problem up. I dont think that a four way stop would cost $3000. im sure that the city has two stop signs in storage some where. Grab some yellow paint bolt on the sign and dig a small hole. i could do this for nearly free. so im sure the city can figure out a way to do the same. "




Report Abuse

Tom Shearer wrote on Nov 25, 2009 9:54 AM:

" Roundabouts are traffic engineers new thing. I think they will be like the islands in the streets.Once roundabouts are installed they will cause a cascading problem up stream that will need traffic studies and more engineering done until finally, they get torn out. Then a few years later here they come again after more studies. The real problem here is politicians and money, like kids and matches. In the mean time we have a public and private dept in this country that is 350% of our Gross Domestic Product. Time to keep the kids from the matches. "




Report Abuse

Wreckingball wrote on Nov 25, 2009 9:30 AM:

" Montrose was a rapidly growing city for years.
Subdivisions were approved, yet the necessary bypasses, highways or parkways were never built. The resulting traffic congestion leading to increased pollution, accidents, injury's and deaths is immoral.
Input by city officials on this blog have gone from "we are listening" to " City needs wriiten comments." Should they disregard those comments, a suggestion box at the summit of Mt. Sneffles could be next. Voters, will the con job ever end? "




Report Abuse

Concerned Montrose Citizen wrote on Nov 25, 2009 12:06 AM:

" Maybe this money could be added to the long talked about arterial project to help get traffic off of Townsend. We could cut traffic and still be able to park in the downtown area. Merchants who receive their goods with trucks could also get products in and out of their businesses.

Long-term residents know how many buildings have been torn down to add to downtown parking, now this project removes the prime parking. What about seniors and disabled people who cannot walk a long way in to businesses? "




Report Abuse

Ed Moreland wrote on Nov 24, 2009 11:37 PM:

" I hope everyone saw KKCO TV tonight and thank you Daily Press for your coverage.

While there is little community support for a round a bout, the City needs to have comments in writing. Please stop by the Elks Civic Building or Budgetline Furniture to pick up a comment form. Or go to cityofmontrose.org and direct comments to Community Development, General Planning. The time to speak is now, not after this project is complete.

The City is only giving until Friday, December 4, to accept public comments. "




Report Abuse

Grant Info wrote on Nov 24, 2009 8:44 PM:

" As I understand this is a DOLA Energy & Mineral Impact Grant, which is funded by severance tax collections on proceeds from mineral extraction (oil, gas, uranium, etc..) on public lands. Many states receive much more in these severance taxes than Colorado (Wyoming) and similarly distribute them to local communities to improve roads and services to citizens in impacted areas. This may be an indirect tax, but it is on the significant profits made by mining companies from land owned by the PEOPLE that they do not have to purchase. "




Report Abuse

Good Idea wrote on Nov 24, 2009 8:35 PM:

" I like the idea of this roundabout...traffic there is not extremely high now, but after the changes are made to access on S. 1st the traffic will be higher. "




Report Abuse

a_montrose_resident wrote on Nov 24, 2009 8:15 PM:

" so, the city got a grant, and does not know how to spend it. yes, most grants are all or nothing. but what this tells me is that the city had no plans for growth, and is scrambling to spend this money. instead of investigating, they are just shooting from the hip and watching for what they hit, sorry, wrong answer. "




Report Abuse

bobeo wrote on Nov 24, 2009 7:01 PM:

" how about a round about at main an townsend. You could knock down all the empty bussiness in the first block and have plenty of room. That would also satisfy the need to spend the grant money. "




Report Abuse

Jimbo wrote on Nov 24, 2009 5:54 PM:

" Thanks Gail Marvel for stepping out and being the only city council person to respond to this blog while the other council members are cowardly hiding. Please tell them what the citzens are saying. I certainly hope the council and city management will listen. "




Report Abuse

Dave wrote on Nov 24, 2009 5:44 PM:

" In the past 10 years I have never seen traffic backup at that intersection. So how will a roundabout benefit a lightly traveled intersection. A four-way stop will suffice there. Get DOLA to fix the Ogden/Woodgate intersection. Sometime try to cross through there - very dangerous "




Report Abuse

Tom Shearer wrote on Nov 24, 2009 4:19 PM:

" Timmy
We want one of these roundabout. In a couple of years we can go down to Flower Motors and pick up a Fiat 500 of an Alph Romeo MiTo and race around the roundabout. It will be so European!! "




Report Abuse

disgusted wrote on Nov 24, 2009 4:05 PM:

" I get sick and tired of hearing people say: Oh, it's ok, it's grant money. Where in the devil do you think they get the grant money? "




Report Abuse

Alan Bowers wrote on Nov 24, 2009 3:56 PM:

" I have lived many places in Latin America where roundabouts worked just fine. The difference is these have been in place for a hundred years and there was ample room to create them without disturbing the business environment. People actually don't usually cross the street there-too dangerous. I think Montrose could handle a roundabout. I just don't think this intersection and nearby businesses would profit from placing one here. Gail-thankyou for your responses. "




Report Abuse

Jay Walker wrote on Nov 24, 2009 3:24 PM:

" I'm not opposed to roundabouts, but like others I'm questioning the location of this one. Sure, roundabouts can be safer for pedestrians because they slow traffic, but how fast are people currently traveling in this area? Not very. This intersection is congested enough to limit speed and too confined for a roundabout. Don't do it just because you can - listen to THE PEOPLE. "




Report Abuse

Timmy wrote on Nov 24, 2009 2:09 PM:

" Gail- So what you are saying is that this project is 100% funded by DOLA? Probably not. More than likely DOLA will match the City dollar for dollar. Say it's a $200,000 project, then the taxpayers are footing the bill of $100,000. This safety issue you speak of could be solved with $3000. Put in a four way stop, clearly mark the crosswalks, plant some flowers and add your cute little pedestrian signs. The parking stays, the pedestrians are safe and you get your beautification. Scrap this roundabout project and put the money towards a more beneficial one. "




Report Abuse

Sinanju wrote on Nov 24, 2009 1:14 PM:

" I am absolutely 100% in favor of the roundabout. As Gail Marvel mentioned, this is a grant funded project so the funds cannot be diverted elsewhere. Roundabouts slow traffic down and force drivers to be more aware of their surroundings. As someone who is on a bicycle in this town on a daily basis, that can only be a positive side effect of a roundabout. "




Report Abuse

wondering wrote on Nov 24, 2009 12:39 PM:

" Ok so its been stated that the money for this really stupid plan comes from a DOLA grant. Not from taxes, so WHERE does DOLA get the money for these grants? Its a state run agency, so do our state taxes go to fund them? Its still paid for by the residents of Colorado, and it appears that the residents (a majority who have spoken out here) so not want a roundabout. "




Report Abuse

Tom Shearer wrote on Nov 24, 2009 10:11 AM:

" Years ago I stopoped going to Europe but learened like most Italian drivers, that the continental roundabout system doesn't work. Italian drivers by nature don't like yielding to other traffic, or to give way on roundabouts, going on or off it, resulting in complete anarchy. When approaching a roundabout in Rome, you frankly do not know what to expect, or how you should proceed. If you don't do it right you get black looks of utter disdain and a backwards peace sign, because you dared to impede their own self-important progress for seconds. "




Report Abuse

Question of Safety wrote on Nov 24, 2009 9:49 AM:

" Why is there now a traffic pedestrian issue. The population is going down in Montrose due to people leaving town. The Telluride traffic is way down. The intersection hasnt changed in years. So why is it now an issue? I think this should be scrapped also and save some taxpayer money. Thanks for listening. "




Report Abuse

Gail Marvel wrote on Nov 24, 2009 9:12 AM:

" Timmy,

The funding for the propose project is a DOLA grant and that funding comes with strings attached. The City cannot divert these funds to other projects, such as helping to offset employee furlough days.

The proposed roundabout is one option being looked at to address the safety/traffic/pedestrian issue. Finding a solution is warranted and necessary.

This is not a ‘beautification project’…but if the final product is attractive, all the better.

Gail Marvel "




Report Abuse

Native Son wrote on Nov 24, 2009 9:02 AM:

" Gail, On a final note - Contrary to your statement, many of us that have gone to the meetings in the past do not feel that we have gotten a fair shake. You may believe that it is true that some may not be pleased no matter what, but it certainly seems that the city only provides lip service and does whatever they want in the final analysis. Why not work to change it? You can, I know you and know you have the ability to do it. "




Report Abuse

Native Son wrote on Nov 24, 2009 8:52 AM:

" I also tend to agree with Timmy. There are numerous unfinished projects throughout the city that need to be addressed and completed before going ahead with more controversial and questionable projects that are not as flamboyant and a monument to those who pushed them through looking to leave a legacy. "




Report Abuse

Native Son wrote on Nov 24, 2009 8:45 AM:

" Gail, I think you are fighting a losing battle intervening in this blog. It comes across as the City once again telling the citizens how it is to be. The absolute arrogence of the statement "its impossible to please everyone" underscores the negative perception that many of the citizens of Montrose have in their view the administration and council. Decisions like this do not justify support. "




Report Abuse

happyinMontrose wrote on Nov 24, 2009 8:28 AM:

" Looks to me like there is a consensus in Montrose to NOT put in roundabouts. I don't see a single blog supporting the idea. Let's see if our "leaders" listen now. I think it's pretty obvious that the citizens do not want roundabouts and maybe it's time to listen. I thought the majority ruled. Or is it "he with the gold, mkes the rules"? "




Report Abuse

Realist wrote on Nov 24, 2009 12:52 AM:

" Get ready for one more comment from the City leadership. WE ARE NOT USING TAX DOLLARS, THIS IS PROVIDED BY A GRANT.

Grants from government agencies are someones tax dollars. Government does not make money other than raising taxes.

Maybe there should be a reallocation of City resources, take money away from the people who are designing these projects and give the money to the City employees on the ground that do actual work. "




Report Abuse

Concerned Montrose Citizen wrote on Nov 24, 2009 12:38 AM:

" There are four entities that are directly connected to the round a bout at this location. Two are opposed to the project, Budgetline Furniture and the Post Office. I have not spoken to the County so I do not know their reaction. I guess that we live in a country ran by the majority so this project will go down RIGHT. Please speak up before it is too late. "




Report Abuse

Concerned Montrose Citizen wrote on Nov 24, 2009 12:30 AM:

" It looks as if the people have spoken. Please do make your comments in written form to the City with your names and addresses. Whether it will make a difference is yet to be seen but if this project progresses many more local, long term businesses will be gone.

Trying to beautify downtown is pointless if people have no resonable way to access the few downtown businesses left. "




Report Abuse

Timmy wrote on Nov 23, 2009 7:50 PM:

" Gail- Yet, you will waste our tax dollars on an unwarranted and unnecessary roundabout. Thanks, but no thanks. I would rather see my tax dollars spent on completing the projects that have not been finished by the City and/or developers (i.e. sidewalks to nowhere, widening Ogden the rest of the way to Woodgate, repairing the intersection at Woodgate/Ogden, E. Oak Grove at each end of the Bridges, etc...) before Council and staff, once again, beautify their work environment/neighborhood. How many employee's jobs wouldn't be furloughed for the cost of one roundabout? "




Report Abuse

Gail Marvel wrote on Nov 23, 2009 4:46 PM:

" All,
Community comments are incorporated in the decisions we make. Not long ago one proposal was to make one-way pairs on North 1st and South 1st to relieve traffic congestion. Because of community conversations and feedback City Staff withdrew that proposal. So, we do listen.

The City has a traffic/pedestrian/safety issue that must be addressed and we are looking at all options…one of which is a round-about. In a perfect world we would make everyone happy, but the reality is it’s impossible to please everyone.

Gail Marvel "




Report Abuse

Meeting issues wrote on Nov 23, 2009 3:18 PM:

" Gail, many of the business owners attended the meetings about townsend last year. City officials told us that people would make u turns to get to our businesses. When asked what to do about delivery trucks and people with long pickups, we were told that they could make the u turns and we needed to learn from other major cities. When asked to demonstrate their opinions, we were told that they didnt come to argue and were done with the conversation. Makes it hard to give my families time up to be ignored. "




Report Abuse

Timmy wrote on Nov 23, 2009 12:24 PM:

" cont....Venting anonymously on blogs is one of the last forms of free speech left in America, because attending your meetings has proven to be pointless. Council doesn't want citizen input, or rational discussion with it's constituents, just people that agree with their own ideals. That is why we anonymously blog.... "




Report Abuse

Timmy wrote on Nov 23, 2009 12:19 PM:

" Gail- Some of us have tried your suggestions in the past, but never received any results. We have attended meetings and open houses and were told by staff that, although some good points were made and they would look into it, that the staff's hands were tied as the "wheels were already in motion." If any of us were to attend and state our opinions, would we actually be heard, or will it fall to the wayside as it always does? The past efforts by citizens have been shot down, so how would this be any different? cont..... "




Report Abuse

fuzzhead wrote on Nov 23, 2009 12:01 PM:

" Attended the meeting: It's so nice you have time to spend at an all day open house to listen to these proposals. I, and most of the other people who posted opposition, have something else going on during the day. It's called a job. Regardless of the City's reasons, the people are against it, so maybe the City can come up with some more reasonable options. "




Report Abuse

Thanks Gail wrote on Nov 23, 2009 11:35 AM:

" Thank you Gail for your comment. I have stopped coming to the meetings after last falls meetings with the comm development manager and staff at the South Townsend planning meeting. The CDOT was listening, KJ was waiting for us to stop talking so he could go home. I hope you are sincere about wanting input, but understand, many of us have stopped trying after interactions with his team. I have better things to do than spend an evening being ignored. "




Report Abuse

Gail Marvel wrote on Nov 23, 2009 9:35 AM:

" Dear Hello - 11/20/09,
Yes, we are listening. However, my hearing is better when constituents communicate through the City web site and sign their name to their comments.

For folks who just want to ‘vent’ anonymously, the Press blog is probably a good forum. However, if you have questions and want to be informed, then participating in meetings, open houses and personally contact City Staff and/or the City Council would be more productive.

Gail Marvel
Mayor Pro-Tem
gmarvel@ci.montrose.co.us "




Report Abuse

Well wrote on Nov 22, 2009 8:12 PM:

" I, personally don't like roundabouts, but, hey, new fad. But, I for one would like to see more of the roads getting fixed than a roundabout. I know that some roads are getting fixed, but a lot of the side roads and crossroads are really in need of help. Why is it that the governments like to spend money on things that the people don't want, oh yeah, I forgot, Change is in this year. Check out HR 45! "




Report Abuse

a_montrose_resident wrote on Nov 22, 2009 7:18 PM:

" if the north to south arterial is constructed, how much congestion will it detour from around towsesnd? "




Report Abuse

nasbond59 wrote on Nov 22, 2009 5:53 PM:

" Roundabouts are a good idea for people who are under twenty five. Us older folks just can't get used to the idea. But it is a change from the past and the studies show they do move traffic quicker. Even more so in fifkteen years when most people are used to them.

the same argument used for roundabouts was used against cars a hundred years ago.

Try riding a horse down the street now and see what happens. "




Report Abuse

California Stopper wrote on Nov 22, 2009 5:16 PM:

" to mj: a roundabout at Hillcrest and Sunnyside is a better idea. Roundabout at South 1st & Casade is a bad idea. The reason is the traffic flow is much less at that intersection and there is a lot of pedestrian traffic. Roundabouts are very bad for intersections where there is pedestrian traffic since no one stops. If built, I predict a lot of pedestian accidents. A four way stop there would solve any problems. "




Report Abuse

alley wrote on Nov 22, 2009 10:33 AM:

" Oh my GOd I didnt hear of this until now. What a stupid idea, all around they are taking away parking, and are going to put in a around about to futher make it difficult. Sign me up I will be more than happy to go against this one. Makes me mad just thinking about it. "




Report Abuse

Hate roundabouts wrote on Nov 22, 2009 9:58 AM:

" I also do not like the idea of the roundabouts. Wreckingball please do not put this on the city street dept they just work there do as they are instructed by Upper management and the city council. Maybe you all should go to these meeting and start a movement to stop these before it happens. You know this are voted in officals and they work for you. "




Report Abuse

Just Maybe wrote on Nov 22, 2009 9:46 AM:

" Just maybe instead of parking next to the post office you should try parking along the street on Park Ave. Oh wait- I forgot- people who live along Park Ave no longer have driveways and are already parking on the street. That helps traffic problems. "




Report Abuse

mj wrote on Nov 22, 2009 9:33 AM:

" The problem with 4 way stops... people don't stop or understand who goes first!!! You can see that problem daily at Hillcrest and Sunnyside!
That area should receive the roundabout.
Roundabout's are not hard to get used to and are effective! "




Report Abuse

no...no...no.. wrote on Nov 22, 2009 8:43 AM:

" I hate the roundabouts.They are horrible and will back up traffic... Thats why we have STOP signs and traffic lights people... "




Report Abuse

Problem Solved wrote on Nov 22, 2009 6:35 AM:

" To solve this problem the post office needs more staff at the counter instead of one on a busy day. that way people will not have to wait for an hour to mail a package. less traffic, more parking.
that was so simple. "




Report Abuse

Dumb Idea wrote on Nov 21, 2009 12:55 PM:

" Taking away parking from not only business but government buildings is good for what reason? Attended the meeting states they do not want to solve one problem by creating another, but that is exactly what is going to happen. Have you ever tried to go to the post office? There is not enough parking there already and to have those spots taken away? Lets not forget that there are alot of elderly people in Montrose, those parking spots are essential. "




Report Abuse

citizen wrote on Nov 21, 2009 11:17 AM:

" I went to the open house. All this comes from c-dot having to move the lights and the traffic coming and going by the post office. They are not trying to send traffic down Cascade. The are trying to get traffic out of what will be a closed off s. 1st. in front of courthouse. Maybe just make s. 1st. one way eastbound for that block. Don't change the intersection at Cascade at all. City spends money on consultants without seeking common sense advice from citizens. "




Report Abuse

COMMON SENSE wrote on Nov 21, 2009 11:02 AM:

" Don't spend taxpayer money on a roundabout that nobody wants. Just make it a 4 way stop at s. 1st. and Cascade. People will be able to cross safely (think about theater traffic at night having to get to parked cars by the library...) and people are used to the concept of stop signs. This does't mean they don't run the stop signs so enforce the law as needed. "




Report Abuse

Bill C wrote on Nov 21, 2009 10:57 AM:

" South First and Cascade? At the expense of already short parking downtown. Oh, I get it. City Staff is inconvenienced at that intersection more, because they work there. Why not kill some more downtown businesses who go back nearly a century? It's worked before in this town. Bring in out-of-town consulting group, so local accountability is lessened. It's the same formula we have seen before with so many of these half-baked ideas. Who gets to pay for the up keep and repairs on the section of South Townsend beyond Niagara (now that we have suffered through the slow CDOT construction)? "




Report Abuse

Attended the Meeting wrote on Nov 21, 2009 10:19 AM:

" Many who have posted probably did not attend the meeting. City staff presented the reason for the project as the solving the traffic congestion on Townsend. In order to do this moving the signals is necessary and when the signal is moved more traffic will be using Cascade which is the reason for the proposed roundabout. They don't want to solve one problem and create another. Most people who post here need to actually participate in the process instead of spending their time at their computers thinking of what uninformed negative comment they can post next!! "




Report Abuse

noonan wrote on Nov 21, 2009 7:39 AM:

" If taking away 34 spaces to the downtown corridor sounds like a good idea...raise your hand. That's what I thought! We are in a similar situation with Mesa State students parking as far South as So. 5th street, ultimately taking spots away from our business as well. Where will you put in a parking lot now? I am for angle parking for all of downtown and lower the speed limit. "




Report Abuse

Wreckingball wrote on Nov 21, 2009 7:36 AM:

" A large roundabout in the Moocherville area of the city would be a great idea. To prevent the devastating loss of the furniture store, the Elks building, court house and post office would be demolished and relocated in metal huts on the fairgrounds. The center of the roundabout could be landscaped with a nice fountain and a monument dedicated to the city street department. "




Report Abuse

Hello wrote on Nov 20, 2009 7:23 PM:

" Hello, is the city listening? I haven't seen any comments from the city or the city council. They have no clue what is going on. There are way too many other intersections to worry about than this one. "




Report Abuse

JWeee wrote on Nov 20, 2009 5:06 PM:

" Isn't this article just stating that the city is looking for public input on the idea of roundabouts? Guess they're getting it... regardless of the short-sightedness and knee jerk reactions common to the "people that speak the loudest" in this town.
I think roundabouts in the locations talked about are probably not a good idea... roundabouts in other high trafic areas are great... Tounsend and Main, maybe? "




Report Abuse

Chris wrote on Nov 20, 2009 3:39 PM:

" I like roundabouts. They work great in the right place. This proposal makes little sense. Why are they trying to solve a problem that does not exist? Try Hillcrest and Sunnyside. for a roundabout location.

If you really want to rennovate downtown try this:

Close Main St. between Townsend and Park for pedestrian traffic only. Make S. 1st one way going East and N. First one way going West between Park and Townsend. "




Report Abuse

to Crash wrote on Nov 20, 2009 2:41 PM:

" Real problems require real thought. This is why they are addressing non problems. This can be done with minimal brain cells and lots of tax dollars. Ironic how they go together. Please dont ask them to tackle real problems, it will only cost you and I more. "




Report Abuse

Stop spending money wrote on Nov 20, 2009 2:38 PM:

" This is a plea to the city staff. Please stop spending my money. I dont recall anyone who pays your salary (ie the citizens of this town) asking you to find a new way to spend money. I realize you are trying to justify your existence. No need. Please just take your salary and do NOTHING. It is cheaper and the city works better that way. "




Report Abuse

fuzzhead wrote on Nov 20, 2009 2:38 PM:

" Just doing a little math, 89% of the people who responded to this article are opposed to the "roundie rounds". Do you think this will influence anyone at the City? Another example of government listening to the people. "




Report Abuse

to PC wrote on Nov 20, 2009 11:15 AM:

" PC, the same person who recommended this is also behind the idea that we transform townsend into a no left turn world. I agree, this guy needs fired along with his crew. I find it odd that everyone he hires has one trait in common. I wont say it for fear of not being PC. "




Report Abuse

Wasting Money wrote on Nov 20, 2009 11:07 AM:

" What a bonehead idea. Please tell me that we are going to use the building inspectors to lay the concrete since they have nothing else to do. If these people have time to hatch out this plan, maybe they should do it on their own time...permanently...instead of on our tax dollars. Lets figure out a way to spend LESS money instead of more. "




Report Abuse

Dangerous wrote on Nov 20, 2009 10:11 AM:

" Why is the city worried about roundabouts at a minor interesection when they should be focused on the most dangerous intersection in town - Ogden and Woodgate. They need to fix this malfunctioned design before someone gets hurt. "




Report Abuse

Genius wrote on Nov 20, 2009 8:32 AM:

" The title of the article should be "Kerwin presents another terrible idea and doesnt listen to those who pay his salary". When will this guy and his team realize this is not SLC. We dont drive compact cars and business is more important than spending our money. This idea is as stupid as the last one they presented to keep north bound traffic on Townsend from turning left. Please leave our town and take your people with you. "




Report Abuse

jm wrote on Nov 20, 2009 7:57 AM:

" before the city of Montrose goes to roundabouts they should think about public trainsit ie : buses you know being on the minds of people for years and not acted on lets get there first "




Report Abuse

Realist wrote on Nov 20, 2009 12:06 AM:

" Has the City thought about where all their trucks will park when they have meetings? Somedays there are white trucks everywhere and several vehicles used by employees at the Elks
Building park in some of the same spaces that will be eliminated. "




Report Abuse

Concerned Montrose Citizen wrote on Nov 19, 2009 11:32 PM:

" A case where the medicine is worse than the disease.

Traffic is always a problem. Retailers try their best to make it easy for their customers to get to them. Then the City wants to make it difficult to park to get to the retailers. Traffic congestion will be greatly reduced downtown when there are no businesses.

Good luck to all the truck drivers delivering to the Post Office, restaurants and movie theater. "




Report Abuse

a dilivery guy wrote on Nov 19, 2009 11:05 PM:

" im one of the dilivery guys that works for the furniture store. putting a round about in this location will just kill our bussness. have you ever been by the store on a saturday afternoon when the movies are going on you cant find a parking space then how are we going to beable to park with only 4 spots. how are we going to get a 53 foot simitruck and trailer to our store so we have the merchentdice to offer our custemers. i love the city of montrose but they need to reconsider their options. "




Report Abuse

montroseres wrote on Nov 19, 2009 10:57 PM:

" I think they should look at other area's of montrose before that intersection. how about a round about at the intersection of Miami and Hillcrest!! "




Report Abuse

JudyJ wrote on Nov 19, 2009 9:27 PM:

" Roundabouts -- as JWeee says -- are a good thing. Today, I'm observing from a city in Oregon with many of them that appear to work really, really well. Ultimately, we all need to stop fighting them because they save fuel and time. Learn how to make it work for you. Still, I wonder why the choice of Cascade and South First was chosen? Other locations might prove to be better choices. "




Report Abuse

nor wrote on Nov 19, 2009 9:10 PM:

" I agree with most that eliminating parking and closing south first in front of the post office and court house is the stupidest thing that this city has come up with in a long time. But then, when has this city cone anything right in the past few years? Leave things alone!! "




Report Abuse

Pedi wrote on Nov 19, 2009 9:01 PM:

" What about pedestians? How will they cross the street when cars are racing around in circles. Let the citizens vote for this and see how many really want a roundabout at that intersection. Also what about thee movie theater with lines out near the street. Bad idea when cars aren't slowing down to stop at the stop sign. "




Report Abuse

Crash wrote on Nov 19, 2009 8:57 PM:

" Time to recall the city manager. Dumb idea. Focus on real problems. "




Report Abuse

Montrose Joe wrote on Nov 19, 2009 8:45 PM:

" Roundabout = Bad Idea
4 Way Stop = Good Idea "




Report Abuse

Mount Rose wrote on Nov 19, 2009 7:23 PM:

" Eliminate 34 parking spaces? Eliminate 34 parking spaces? Eliminate 34 parking spaces? The city managers must be on medical marijuana. Bad location for roundabouts. "




Report Abuse

BobBentBike wrote on Nov 19, 2009 4:31 PM:

" If you want to see a roundabout that will make your head hurt, look for the Magic Roundabout in Swindon England. You can find it on Google maps at the junction of A4259, Fleming Way, Drove Road and Shrivenham Road. Keep in mind that Brits drive on the wrong side. "




Report Abuse

JWeee wrote on Nov 19, 2009 1:52 PM:

" I moved here from a town with many roundabouts... they were great. Kept traffic moving and easy to negotiate. The only negative were due to dumb drivers... Are the folks against roundabouts the same people that constantly run red lights around here? "




Report Abuse

Timmy wrote on Nov 19, 2009 11:23 AM:

" Don't forget, this is the city were talking about.....no foresight, just ignorance. The city will do as the City wants regardless of detrimental input from it's citizens. This roundabout is just one of many, I believe 7 total, the city is proposing around town. My future prediction...increase in vehicle accidents involving the elderly due to confusion and an increase in pedestian accidents due to inattentiveness. It's sure feels like the city has absolutely no planning experience whatsoever. "




Report Abuse

PC wrote on Nov 19, 2009 10:01 AM:

" Forget the parking. Roundabouts are the dumbest traffic control idea ever. Whoever agreed to put a roundabout in should be fired. "




Report Abuse

Sav our Spaces wrote on Nov 19, 2009 7:00 AM:

" I use that intersection almost every day. A roundabout at that location is ridiculous for all the reasons stated in the article- and more. A four way stop would alleviate the problem and save our parking spaces. Wouldn't that money be better spent elsewhere? "




Report Abuse