HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20080708MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: Tyler Christoff, Project Manager, Engineering
THRU: Trish Aragon, P.E., City Engineer
DATE OF MEMO: July 1, 2008
MEETING DATE: July 8, 2008 Work Session
RE: Park Avenue Neighborhood Traffic and Pedestrian Plan
SUMMARY: Staff is presenting pedestrian and traffic safety alternatives for the Park
Avenue. Depending on the outcome of this work session staff will incorporate these
decisions into the 2009 AMP.
BACKGROUND: According to Ordinance No. 25 (series of 2004) sidewalk, curb and
gutter shall be provided across the Park Avenue frontage of 308 and 310 Park Avenue.
The challenge is that the paved road surface is approximately 18 to 21 feet wide
(minimum 24 feet is recommended) and is located on the edge of the right of way
(ROW). As a result, there is not enough room to install the sidewalk as intended by the
ordinance. Council then directed staff at the January 22, 2007 council meeting, to
commission a study to develop a pedestrian improvement plan for the Park Avenue
neighborhood. The goal of the study is to provide recommendations for pedestrian
alignments along Park Avenue Neighborhood.
DISCUSSION: The City of Aspen has contracted with JR Engineering to provide traffic
engineering services and a transportation plan for the Park Avenue corridor and
surrounding neighborhood. The purpose of the study is to provide the City with solutions
to integrate pedestrian access into the existing transportation network.
Elements of this traffic study and transportation plan included: obtaining an inventory of
existing pedestrian facilities, surveying and mapping of the City Right of Way, Roadway
and other features, soliciting input from the Park Avenue residents and other concerned
citizens, and producing three design alternatives.
City Council Work Session
July 8, 2008
Page 2
Neighborhood Meetings
To solicit input and present our findings two neighborhood meeting were held. The first
meeting was held January 24`h 2008. Staff as well as JR Engineering gathered input from
neighbors and discussed current problems and opportunities within the neighborhood.
The second meeting was held April 24th 2008. This meeting was used to present the
design alternatives JR Engineering had produced. Due to a low neighborhood turnout
staff decided to produce a mailer so residents had an opportunity to vote on their
preferred design option. (See attachment A)
Design Alternatives
Citizen input from the two neighborhood meetings was used to create and refine three
design alternatives. These alternatives include:
Alternative /!1: One Way
Option one is a one-way street configuration utilizing Park Avenue and Midland Avenue.
Midland Avenue will be one way north bound. At the north end of Midland where the
road turns west Midland Avenue becomes two-way traffic. Park Avenue will be one-way
southbound beginning at the intersection of Pazk Avenue and Midland Avenue and
ending at SH 82. Hopkins Street will remain as two-way travel. The one way
configuration of the these two roads allows for the addition of on street pedestrian
walkway defined by striping on the asphalt on Park Avenue and on street pazking on
Midland Avenue without having to add additional width to the existing road platform. In
addition two bus pullouts have been added, which will allow traffic flow to continue
during bus rider loading. The intersection of Park Avenue and Park Circle shows a new
configuration that allows for better sight lines and large vehicle movement without
conflicts with oncoming traffic. The new configuration also includes sidewalk along the
western edge azound the curve to provide for safer pedestrian movement. Additional
sidewalk will be added along Hopkins Street to aid in the pedestrian connection to the
park. The cost associated with implementing this option is approximately; $209,000.00
Pros:
1. Accomplishes the goal ofpedestrian safety.
2. Relatively low cost.
3. Low impact to existing landscaping & property.
4. Allows for snow storage.
5. Allows for bus pullouts and some on-street parking.
Cons:
1. Change Traffic patterns on Pazk and Midland Avenues.
2. Increase of travel time for some residents.
3. Existing sidewalks would be of no use.
4. Change in Traffic patterns
City Council Work Session
July 8, 2008
Page 3
Alternative #2 Sidewalk on the West side of Park Avenue
Option two proposes maintaining the two way travel on all roads, as it exists today. To
aid in pedestrian safety an attached/detached sidewalk with curb and gutter is proposed
along the western edge of Park Avenue from SH 82 to the intersection of Park Avenue
and Park Circle. The additional sidewalk will be added to the existing edge of asphalt
and in some areas the sidewalk will be detached with a green belt median, of varying
width, between the road edge and new sidewalk. Therefore the overall road platform will
be increased from its current width. The intersection of Park Avenue and Park Circle
shows a new configuration that allows for better sight lines and lazge vehicle movement
without conflicts with oncoming traffic. Additional sidewalk will be added along
Hopkins Street to aid in the pedestrian connection to the pazk. The cost associated with
implementing this option is approximately; $365,000.00
Pros:
1. Accomplishes the goal of pedestrian safety.
2. Detached trail is aesthetically pleasing.
3. Wide trail allows for more uses.
4. No change in existing traffic patterns
Cons:
High Cost, Difficult to Construct (Boulders, drainage, driveways)
Intrusion into existing landscaping & property.
Impacts some existing on street parking
Alternative #3 Sidewalk on both sides of Park Avenue
Option three proposes maintaining the two way travel on all roads, as it exists today. To
aid in pedestrian safety an attached/detached sidewalk with curb and gutter is proposed
along the western and eastern edge of Park Avenue from SH 82 to the intersection of
Park Avenue and Park Circle. The additional sidewalk will be added to the existing edge
of asphalt and in some areas the sidewalk on the west side will be detached with a green
belt median, of varying width, between the road edge and new sidewalk. Therefore the
overall road platform will be increased from its current width. The intersection of Pazk
Avenue and Park Circle shows a new configuration that allows for better sight lines and
large vehicle movement without conflicts with oncoming traffic. Additional sidewalk
will be added along Hopkins Street to aid in the pedestrian connection to the park.
Acquisition of additional right of way will be necessary with this option. The cost
associated with implementing this option is approximately; $471,000.00
City Council Work Session
July 8, 2008
Page 4
Pros:
1. Accomplishes the goal of pedestrian safety.
2. Traditional suburban street/sidewalk section.
3. Reduced width ofsidewalk -less intrusion to landscaping & property.
4. Allow use of existing sidewalks on both sides of Park Avenue.
5. Allows some snow storage.
6. No change in existing traffic patterns.
Cons:
I . Some construction difficulties.
2. High cost.
3. Some intrusion into landscaping & property.
4. Impacts some existing on street parking.
5. Will require right of way acquisition.
Alternative N4 Do Nothing
Option four offered to the neighborhood was to "do nothing". This option would leave
the neighborhood's traffic and pedestrian infrastructure untouched. Ifth is option is
favored staff would still request Council direction for the layout of the Park Avenue,
Park Circle intersection as well as infrastructure requirements for future development in
the area. Council guidance regarding pedestrians on Hopkins Avenue, street lighting
and bus stop locations are still necessary if this potion is preferred.
Pros:
1. No cost.
2. No change in traffic patterns
3. No intrusions into existing landscaping & property.
Cons:
1. Does not accomplish the goal of pedestrian safety.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Expenditures
associated with Design Options
Ave/Circle
Alternative #1 One Way
Alternative #2 Sidewalk on the
West Side of Park Avenue
Alternative #3 Sidewalk on Both Sides
of Park Avenue
Alternative #4 Do Nothing
Pedestrian
Improvements
$209,439.37
$364, 714.09
$471, 373.72
$0
Intersection
Improvement
Park
$250,000
$250,000
$250,000
$250,000
City Council Work Session
July 8, 2008
Page 5
Funding Available
Due to the possible Park Ave/Park Circle Parcel Redevelopment funding may become
available to provide necessary upgrades at this intersection. Depending on Council's
suggestions staff will program any upgrades to this neighborhood into the City Asset
Management Plan (AMP).
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
Attachment A -- Neighborhood Voter Information Cards
Attachment B -Pedestrian and Traffic Design Options
Park Avenue Neighborhood Traffic Study and Transportation Plan
TxE Crr~ of Asr~rr
The City of Aspen Staff desires to acquire your input in regards to the conceptual safety design
options presented. In an effort to help staff understand the needs of the neighborhood relative to
traffic and pedestrian safety on Park Avenue and Midland Avenue the following four options
have been listed for your rating. On a scale of 1 to 4 with 1 being most favored and 4 being
the least favored please rate the following options:
^ Option 1-One Way traffic pattern with on street pedestrian walkway on Park
Avenue and on street parking on Midland Avenue.
^ Option 2 -Two way traffic as exists today with continuous sidewalk on the west side
of Park Avenue only.
^ Option 3 -Two way traffic as exists today with continuous sidewalk on both sides of
Park Avenue only.
^ Option 4 - Do nothing.
ffi
3
j~
i
f
~, ~.,~~
',~„
w ':J~~ .. °:....~'
~ ~.~
rJM'~~ nR~~V •r
cae w~Y ta~+4es w/' a+ s~T i
,~ ~o. z+00a.4~
os-~s-oe
sHe~T ~ of ~
J•R p~lci
A^a1C ~ ~ • • !fY f1'?h :'iew~OG9 k-y Hd rf~rtnG tC~ R
III.-'4}.i~p.Fs E4-.:~?I-RI~+"
~~ ~
f
J
PARK AVENUE
PEDESTRIAN WALK1i~AY PROJECT - QPT10N 3 -
i~i ~~~Q~i `4d~~Stf ~~~ -
tV ~" 'F J. Yk~Fy ~~ ~~: ~~s.~$~ ?!t .?"'. _~ ~ ki._~ ~~ ~,t~fS, r,. ti`~l~ ~ ~~`f.a
;" ~ ~'
'~... h . ~ . ~ y* ~. ,
~ ` f r.
~,r ~: ~ ~;
~'. ~. f.
` , ~~,,;: ~``°`~ ..: ~ ~~~~ ~ , ~'. TAP ~ ~~=` ,. ~.: ~ ~ ° ~ .~ + ;~
.,
r, r~, .•~
A» ~ r.
. ~ ~ ~ , f ~ , ~yr
~ y i a. Yjro ,s ~f~{
.o~ n ~" ,~ ~~ { r ~
.~~ ~ ~ 9
a ? r
T
,.
..
,.
~ ~ "~ _ ~ ~ r ~ _ "`• ~~
.,:
,,
. ~ ;
~ ~ '
~. ;~. ~, ,.; ~ - ~. its ~;_ ~ •.
„w t 4' ~ '4+~.~fi y~~ ~~~~~ • , !A !, ~ ! ,~;.""~. ~ ~ ~ r tK` ter.
.,
e
J Ml ~~
..
,~ ~ ~ ~ k ~ n~ ~ '~ ~- ~?- it ~ ~ .. •a. _ a ~
,1 y~
}} Ae ti
i.-., ~ls: •. ~- ~ ~ . .~-. 'mob
Y
fiT
~§ .~ ~ X14' .. k]P ,~, ;~ ~' ~~b ."4"-
,;
,_
. `.: .
K ~• ' ~ --`
P ~ ~ ,
-~-
s ri
. ;
i, '~~ ~~. ~~-~ ,~ rarl ~
.,
~',
. ,~, _
a. , - ,
I ,"
~ ~ V j~ y~ ~ F. "r ~ 1C
~. ~ ~~ a .y
}
0 _ -
f '~¢ .:,~
a,
r g ._ ~t" ;~ .~. ~~
i
4 . •`
~., .
• ~, ~ ,
~~- :~ ~ ;
..
i' - ~-,+ _
`~.
;~ ,.
K "'^ ' '
a~
~" ,. • ~ .
~,y*~ * , ~ ~ ~ .
. ,- - ~ - _ ~ , ,.d9rr
E!P ~ ~
f
i
` Ro
~,
.H .
' rv
.~
a
.~ i
1-
~'~., •! f
a~ 3
I~~y_ '~~ jam,,, aF ~ ~, z ,Af~Y ~"
Y~~~ j ~ ~~ ~ ~c~
1..- 9 ARxC12 ~ CaYkGif ti R M4 t
I ~ WK wnE~'brtCl's~t~ 4~
YYp G~a+t'l11.
1C 11' UpgMTAB{i
~ C.LMM at
T" F a~--
- ~ i ~ '~ TS
~~ +~ .~ .
.SOB 1NG. ~1GOa.0i}
-~ .S-~
SHEf T J OF 3
~~~ ~~~
wr C~R7
'JQ ?'l C __ ~ 11:7!. ~!!/~(~ I~ $A $ !~ ~
s~:kr ~ - SC' 113.:!4)-4~•r/~1p.7Q~~we~gwkq~•
¢' ~ J
' «y ~ . -
y
~f-fa'• .. s~
~. .
SIDEWALK ON BOTH SIDES I
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Pedestrian/'I'raffic Safety Committee
Gretchen Born, Lee Cassin, Tyler Christoff, Blake Fitch,
Trisha Nelson, Jerry Nye, Lynn Rumbaugh, Austin Weiss
THRU: Randy Ready, Assistant City Manager
DATE OF MEMO: July 3, 2008
MEETING DATE: July 8, 2008
RE: Pedestrian/Traffic Safety Improvement Options
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: The Pedestrian/Traffic Safety Committee is asking for Council's
feedback on several ideas for 2008-09 pedestrian safety improvements (Attachment A)
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:
In 2004, Aspen City Council directed staff and provided funding to implement the following
pedestrian/traffic improvements.
• Purchase and installation of new in street Yield to Pedestrian signage
• Purchase of four new radaz trailers for use by the Police Deparhnent
• hnproved crosswalk striping with new applicator.
• Installation of pedestrian activated beacons at key locations
Enhanced education
Investigation of options for improving pedestrian movement at Mill and Main
In 2005, City Council authorized Tabor funding for several pedestrian projects. These projects
included the Main Street Sidewalk connection between 5th and 7th, the Lone Pine pedestrian
connection, the Hyman Avenue Pedestrian connection and various ADA ramp improvements
throughout the City.
BACKGROUND:
The City of Aspen Civic Master Plan (CMPAG) was adopted by City Council in December 2006.
The Plan states "Aspen's future should be one in which the automobile pays a smaller role in
people's everyday lives. Other modes of travel should be made as safe and convenient as
possible to facilitate that goal...the level of investment in...more and better bikeways and
walkways should increase. "
Page 1 of 6
The City's Best Year Yet program goal number eight refers to improving the pedestrian
experience in the City of Aspen by a proposal for fending at least four significant pedestrian
improvement projects.
Pedestrian/traffic safety projects that have been comnleted include the following:
Tabor Pedestrian improvements: Following previous Council guidance the Engineering
department has completed the design of the Main Street sidewallc connection, the
construction of Hyman Avenue sidewalk connection, and 24 new ADA compliant curb
ramps in various locations throughout the City. The scope of work for Lone Pine
pedestrian connection is also currently under staff development and should be advertised
late summer 2008.
Wagner Park sidewalk design: The West corridor consists of a detached 5' wide
sidewalk alignment that snakes through the existing trees. The South sidewalk has been
expanded to 10' in width and enhanced with a concrete seating structure along the south
slope of the park.
In 2005 a Rio Grande Park Master Plan was completed (Attachment B) that depicts
pedestrian improvements to include enhancing the bus stop on Mill Street and access into
Rio Grande Park (the plan was updated in 2007).
Trail improvements: Since 2004, the Pazks Department has completed numerous trail
projects throughout the City. Some of these project entail new trails and others aze trail
improvement projects to enhance existing conditions.
• Highlands Trail - A half mile of new trail was built from the Aspen Recreation
Center up to the base of Highlands Village. This section of trail included two
new bridges as well.
• West Hopkins Trail -Anew 8' wide trail was constructed along the south side
of West Hopkins Ave. between 4th and 7th Streets.
• Aspen Club Bridge -Anew 90' long bridge was installed over the Roaring
Fork River just west of the Aspen Club. This new span replaced a very old
and deteriorating bridge and has since been dedicated to Fabi Benedict.
• Post Office Trail -Parks Staff completed missing link behind the Aspen Post
Office to connect the Rio Grande Trail to existing trails by Clark's Mazket and
the Red Brick Recreation Center.
• Rio Grande Trail Improvements -The Rio Grande Trail from Cemetery Lane
up to Aspen was redesigned when the sewer had to be replaced several yeazs
ago.
• Lone Pine Trail Extension - A trail connection was formalized from the Lone
Pine Trail to the Aspen Art Museum.
• Clark's Market Trail -Parks Staff completed a new trail connection from
Monarch St. down to Clark's Market and over to the Post Office
• Water Plant Trail -A new trail was constructed from the Five Trees
subdivision behind the water plant over to the Water Place Housing.
Page 2 of 6
Burlingame Trail -Anew trail was put in adjacent to Harmony Road to
connect to the Burlingame Housing.
Old Stage Trail -Anew 8' wide asphalt paved trail connection was
constructed between the west end of the Highway 82 Bridge to the Burlingame
Trail along the east side of the Mazoon Creek Club.
Little Cloud Trail -Anew single track trail has been completed that re-routes
the historic Little Cloud Trail through the Little Cloud Open Space.
DISCUSSION: Below is a summary of the Pedestrian/Traffic Safety committee's top
recommendations for future pedestrian projects. Preliminary design and/or construction costs aze
included and aze based on 2008 dollars. The projects have been divided based on project type.
The group believes that these options represent the best opportunity to provide improved
pedestrian and bicycle safety. Given that funding is limited, our highest priority measures are
listed summarized at the end of this list.
New Projects
Main Street Pedestrian Median*: The CMPAG found that Main Street itself is "intimidating to
pedestrians and has become a barrier to north-south pedestrian movement. "
A. Install pedestrian refuge (or median) at Main Street and Garmisch Street.
B. Include a raised and/or colored crosswalk, enhanced lighting, an electronic speed limit
sign displaying the speed on oncoming vehicles, and vegetation plantings.
C. Sidewalk installation on the West side of Peapke Park.
D. Estimated design cost of $50,000 and construction cost of $350,000
* It should be noted that, because Main Street is a State Highway, this idea would need to pass through the Colorado
Department of Transportation's approval process prior to implementation
Mill Street/Rio Grande Park Corridor Enhancements:
A. Evaluate feasibility for:
• Shared lane mazking (or sharrow) which is a roadway marking used within
travel lanes shared by bicyclists and other vehicles. The West lane would
be a combined bicycle/vehicle lane.
• A dedicated bike lane on the West side of Mill Street.
• Crosswalk relocation across Mill Street (from bus stop to Clazk's Market).
B. Improved pedestrian interface with Mill Street and Rio Grande Park.
C. Signage and education to inform pedestrians bikers about the pedestrian bikeways
encompassing Rio Grande Pazk and winding from Puppy Smith to the Yellow Brick.
D. Estimated design cost of $90,000 and construction cost of $500,000
East Durant Avenue and Gondola Plaza Pedestrian Corridor Enhancements:
A. Installation of colored concrete crosswalks or intersections at one or several locations
along Durant Ave.
B. Pedestrian protection at Gondola Plaza to keep the public off Durant Ave.
C. Estimated design cost of $45,000 and construction cost of $275,000
Page 3 of 6
Wagner Park Sidewalk:
A. Installation of new sidewalk on West side of Wagner Pazk
B. Widening of sidewalk on South side of Wagner Pazk
C. Estimated construction cost of $250,000
Install missing sidewalk links (Please refer to Attachment A for exact locations):
• Gibson Avenue (from Neal Ave to Maple Lane) -Estimated construction cost of
$40,000
• Original Street (East Cooper Ave to N Alley) -Estimated construction cost of
$40,000
• East of Aspen Pedestrian Connection -Estimated design cost of $180,000 and
construction cost of $800,000
• Cooper Ave Pedestrian Crossing (Galena St) -Estimated design cost of $100,000 and
construction cost of $500,000
Maintenance Proiects
Rubey Park Pedestrian Safety Improvements
A. Upgrade facility to meet ADA requirements
B. Replace/restore existing concrete pedestrian surfaces
C. Improve drainage in and azound the Park
D. Replace/restore bus pads and pavement
E. Estimated design cost of $100,000 and construction costs of $4,000,000
*Rubey Park could be an rtially improved for less money.
Hyman Ave Pedestrian Crossing (Mill St):
A. Replace/restore concrete pedestrian crossing.
B. Estimated design cost of $50,000 and construction cost of $400,000
Misc Projects
Snow Removal Fines Increased: Snow on City sidewalks is a major pedestrian hazazd and
removal fines could be increased (similar to wildlife enforcement).
Suggestion: warning; $250; $500; stop work loss of business license.
Master Plan: Anew transportation and pedestrian bicycle Master Plan should be completed.
The CMPAG recommended "that the City of Aspen work with relevant partners, such as the
CCLC, Parks and Recreation and Pitkin County Open Space and Trails to comprehensively
review existing wayfinding conditions and make recommendations regarding improvements. "
The Master Plan would be ideal for development review planning and impact fees determination
and analyzing citizen complaints.
$200,000 Master Plan Development
Page 4 of 6
Sign Inventory and Replacement Program: Public agencies have until January 2012 to
implement and then continue to use an assessment or management method that is designed to
maintain traffic sign reflectivity at or above the minimum levels according to the Manual of
Uniform Traffic Control Devices and the Federal Highway Administration. Public agencies will
have until January 2015 to replace any regulatory, warning, or ground-mounted guide (except
street name) signs and until January 2018 to replace any street name signs and overhead guide
signs that are identified by the assessment or management method as failing to meet the
minimum reflectivity levels. Using guidelines from the MUTCD, City staff will complete the
sign inventory and develop the replacement program. $50,000 Annually
Electronic Speed Signs: The City would purchase radar "Your Speed" signs with solar panels
that can be installed at various locations throughout the City. The technology includes a built in
traffic counter and provides needed calculations for 85`s percentile and average speed. Reseazch
has shown that speed signs reduce speeds 2-5 mph. Another aspect of electronic signing is
reconnecting power to the "school zone" signs at the school campus. City staff will work with
the school district to get the signs active. $100,000 Implementation
FINANCIAL IMPACTS:
Current Funding Sources
• The Limelight Lodge Commercial project has paid a pedestrian amenity amount of
$782,900.00.
• The pedestrian traffic safety committee has $33,000 in current account balance.
• A portion of open space money could be implemented for landscaping/pazk type projects.
The pedestrian traffic safety committee recommends the following projects as top priorities for
2008-2009. The total expenditures and funding sources aze listed below.
EXPENDITURES (2008 - 2009)
Main Street Pedestrian Refuge Design $50,000
Mill Street/Rio Grand Park Corridor Enhancement Design $90,000
East of Aspen Pedestrian Connection Design $180,000
Snow Removal Fines Increased $0
Transportation/Pedestrian Master Plan $200,000
Electronic Speed Signs $75,000
Ruby Park Improvements $200.000
Total $795,000
FUNDING (As of memo date)
Limelight Lodge Amenity $782,900
Committee Account Balance $33.000
Total $815,900
The recommended list of safety improvements could be implemented with the current Funding
balance.
Page 5 of 6
Future Funding Sources
• The city has been awazded Federal Transportation Administration funds. The
applicability of the funds for Ruby Pazk Improvements is currently being discussed with
the FTA.
• If approved by City Council, the Bidwell and Puppy Smith developments have proposed
participation in pedestrian safety improvements.
• The City Transportation Use Tax might be an option for future funding opportunities.
Not enough information is known at this time to make a determination.
A spreadsheet of future pedestrian project costs broken down by project type, associated yeaz of
completion and cost of improvements has been completed (Attachment D). The Pedestrian
Safety Committee will annually present to City Council project priorities and funding options.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The Aspen Area Community Plan and City Council
commitments have directed the community to keeping traffic at 19931evels in perpetuity. At the
same time, Aspen is now considered a maintenance area for PM-10 (particulate) pollution and
must continue reducing vehicular traffic, the major source of particulate pollution, in order to
sustain this maintenance status. To continue meeting both of these goals, it is imperative that
Aspen provide a safe pedestrian and bicycle environment for its residents and visitors.
Implementing a variety of safety improvements will encourage continued pedestrian and bicycle
activity which reduces traffic congestion, decreases air pollution and preserves a small town's
vibrancy.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: The Pedestrian/Traffic Safety Committee recommends that
Council approve the implementation of the listed funded improvements.
ALTERNATIVES: Council could choose to implement none or only some of the above
recommendations. Council could direct staff to implement alternative options.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Map of recommended projects
Attachment B: RIO Grande Master Plan
Attachment C: CMPAG Section V: Pedestrian Movement
Attachment D: Capital Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvement Cost Estimates (2008-2015)
Page 6 of 6
zQ
0
0
U
C
i
a"
~LOGft7~•+o T(I~hTF-e 7~/~ K//El/HA'NG~to
~itG /GNEb 5~G T/oN of fro C>/zRNG~ T,'~4/L • Ab/RG~//T
To LOWEfZ WfrTE~ oGff}-L/T `j Pt~N05 ~ sToe/-~ v/RT~R G~~Nbs
c dAG~-O~-fiLL'ls~-
ExiT- Foy oA.~•
~;
w ' =-
w _>
~ ~ ~;::
..
5 :,.~'
' . ~«
v
v
STo~°
~1(K~~T TREE PGrFNT/Nr-rs on/
df/!,L yTR~T 6 ~a la?~I~/6E PG
•GOG/tTEl7 A•~OVE 9lDl5MlNAYEP~ '~`-.~?
J'P-~"Tf~fYTMF.M-.~.~d fl/U~f~/ON ST~I~~P-~
~~
RY/NG ~/EGp GoW~~b tlf'o~~ I~~'_
v7h7DR Ul~lu/M'.-r ~qe 75 ~
F~ ~w~r~x a~.ruTy~sTaRri
~GGRN~ of PGaY/N4' /°/~LI~
~,
/ii r9r a''
..
,\ ,l
• ~/VlrNVricv arc
• GoNT~t/Nit(
WITff/N !d•
To remember Aspen's history is to recognize a heritage
of innovation -Aspen is always at a crossroads that has
never been encountered.
-Civic Master Plan Advisory Group
Summary
Previws sections hare included arommendatione on
pedestrian and bike paths ronomad m spvific airy.
This section is intended ro pvnt the'big picwef Phpw-
ing how pedcariaNbike paths rat diffircnt sites combine
together ro improrc pedaviap movement in the dvic
ore.'Ihe overall focus is improring pedestrian morcmem
bctw<cn the dowmrown, awss Main Sveet and down m
Rio Grande Park rand the Roaring Fork River mnidor.
A theme mooing Ihmvghom this eeexlpn h tM n«d to
ecnblish pedao-ian mute that ar<both dwlyvisible
and inviting m pedeslrnnn.
The Big Picture
The CMPAG avommended Ihvs the piecemeal mcom-
mendetions in the Ci.dc Master Plen should be collected
and ondined in z PedvMen Connections Map that
shows uisting conditions, and proposed pedestrian con-
nections indud<d in various sub-area mavcr plans and
in CMPAC mcommcndations.'
Main Street As Barrier
Obermeyer
Place Route
Viewed from the south vde of Main Street and [{unto
btrcey thus are no visual cvu that auggeat a prdesrrim
mute ro Rio CmrNe Park In pan years, a GrNted number
of locals used a nurow illeyjust wut of the Concept 600
building ro get to the Obvmeyv/SmitNGakn properues,
which were ajumble ofbu0dings and parking lots with no
obvious pedestrian roux to Poo Gnnde Puk
Ae pan of th<redevWopment ofObvmeyer Place, a 10-
Faot eamment was esmblished, stoning on Mvn Street and
running along the rant edge ofthe Zupanvs Property. The
mentjoine up with adear pedesrrren-oNy room though
Obermcyer Place and inro Rio Grande Park
The CMPAG rcwmmersded shay °dae easement umb-
lishM as part ofthe Obvmeyv Place approval be aced m
improrc north-much pedestrian morcment between Mvn
Steey Obvmeyv Plue and Rio Grande Park'
PEDESTRIAN ROUTES
+ Obermeyer Place Route
+ Galena Plaza Route
+ N Mill Street Route
`%
ASPEN AREA COMMUNITY PLAN
Aspen's future should be one in which the automobile plays a smaller role in people's
everytlay lives. Other modes of travel should be made as safe antl convenient as
possible to facilitate that goal.... the level of investment in ... more antl better bikeways
and walkways shaultl increase.
The CMPAG frond that Main Strst itself is'indmidao- • Stamped/colomd concr<m x-walker
ingro pWutriana and has berome abarriv to nonh-south •RVCed x-walks
pedestrian movement.' • BWb-outs
•Refuge idanda
The CMPAC recommended that the CityofAapen In addiuonroaddmming Mvn Street itsdE, the Civk
work wdth the Colorado Deportment ofTnneponauon Masw Plarl calla foe phyvcil improvements that would
to uplore deign changes roMain gtrcet ro make a mom vcate three aisible and inviting prdeadan routes avoss
pakPVinn &ieMly, including bra not Gmimd to: Mvn gtrcet to Rio Gnnde Puk end bryond: Thc Obv
meycr Place Roum, the Crilena Plaaa Route and the N.
Milt So-eet Route.
Tbis tlOeYmPnf is PISS PV8118EIP OplieP el wew.esmnpi(Min.Wm, 1]
Clry pf 0.seen Community Ikr2lcpnenl apeRrtrtnt / Lm¢ Pangs Planni,g
PMeVdans scurryacroas Main Street talfic.
a border oflhe µdea(dan cook belwxw Main
Street antl Rio Cantle Park
PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENT
Galena Plaza Route
Vicwcd from Mein Street and Galrna, the Gilcna gveet
Exrem vis not visuilly mvitingm pcdusdans-there is
GNe indication that this is a pNcsMen route.
The CMPAG m«mmmdd, the dcaign of a dramatinlly
improved pcd<avian wry fmm Maio Sveey dvough the
Gilene St. Faenvioq Gilrna Plav and snirw,y down to
and though Rio Cnnde Pvk"
Onc of she primaryvisuil barraers to pedcasrim movement
fmm ham Strect and Gilme Sveet tlvough Ne Gilena St.
Encnvon is the vtcnvve puking of pubGC sa(eryveNda
on the Gilcna Sc Faansivn.tfmother lontlon Bfound
Eorthuc cmergrnry rcryonae vehkies, there would be a
nvong opportuNry ro trmsform the Gil<na 5o-«t Exten-
von inm a more pedesvim-friendly er<v
Iv Section Ill of this mpory TheCMPAG aecommendcd
that the Ciry and County collaborate ro "review and rnlu-
ate the scope of dvic uses at the Zupands Property.°One
edvmng<ofthc 2upantls Ropury u the oppormaairyfor
emnsiw undvground pal'ng, which could accommodate
public safety vehicles Ifemagrnry rapontt vihirlu nn be
acwmmodamd undveround at the Zupedsis Progeny, tlau
could allow the Galena Street Fat. to be rednigned v e pe-
duvim-only uee,with the ex«peon o(thc Gilcna Street
shutde.lhis could'dramaaicaRy improvx the pedestrian way
from Main Svev tluough the Galena Stren Fatcruion ... °
This "bubble ma0 shows an ex-
lentledeast edge, alright includingan
improssd sbinvelUekvata /eatum b
attract pedesrians ro Gakra Plan arM
the Perk TI,¢ renderingaSO shows a
potential buiWingaf me nam edge o/
Me pieta.
At the eat edge of Galena Plan, the CMPAG spuifi-
cellydmd m oppormrity ro milsc the deign ofbuildinga a
method o(inviung pedesviw though the Plev.
]he CMPAG recommerdd ahoy "In conjunction with
the future renovation or repla«mevt ofthc fortnv Youth
C<nrtv the CMPAG rccomm<nds that th<ust edg<o[
Gilcna Piau be considered in the fuvuc v a built edge,
attending to the uisdng uairarrJVdewtor feature, and in-
duding compelling architectural elemma intended to drew
pedestrians across Man Strect.'
A futm<one-storybuilding at the north edge of Gilcna
Plus might siso serve v an vrhiternvelly compelling
vamil element that could drawpedeaviam into Galena
Plaaa.The CMPAG recommended they' ... a building et
the notch edge ofGdrna Plav mould be a wrlcoming and
invraNve dvunaeon point that npisalims on the visa
(and) ucams virility ...'
IDe ulstingstairs at
Galena P lara.
Another kry dement ofthe pedetrian roan through
Galena Plaaa'v the snkw,y down ro Rio Grmde Pvk
The CMPAG recommended °a dramaticilly improved
pedatriavwayfrom Main Ssrecy through the Gilw 52.
Exrcvdov, Galena Plan and stairway down ro and through
Riv Grande Perk
the uisring peduvian upcrirn« Gong the sidewalk neat
m the City-oxved perking lots b lea than wdcorning.
Referring m this aura, The CMPAG Found they °Crcso-
ing a drar edge and demarntion between urban blocks
and public puke is a widely rccogniud end sound urban
design canape'
Rcphune that parking ion with an urban rlge would
unite v more vuible and imitingp~esvim vpvic""• than
would ttrv<ae an important gnkbctw«n Gilw Plaza
and N. Mill Sv«t.
With regardmacaungvisible and inviting pedemun "Every fne street... is one that invites leisurely, safe walking. I[sounds simple and basically i[is.
roams, 76cCMPAG daorecommcnded tluy "9ae design There haveto 6e walkways Nat permit people to walk at varying paces, including most importantly
ofbuildinge within th<avc <orc ahowd imorpomre dc- aleisurely pace, with neithera sense of crowding nor of being alone, and that are safe, primarily
mints that a«inviting and wdroming, and cnhmce the from vehicles."
gaatiry oEth<pMearian up<d<nce.° -From Great Sheets, Allan B. Jac065
ld mrs ooaumenus a!zo miah!e mrne rtwaw.upenpitain.«m,
eib othwen Communib Awelapmem Oapartment / Inrq xanga Pianniig
Th¢ph,NO SlwwsapcHesbian perspecfise, walking along Rio
Grande Plate, wim Rio Grande PeM1 m the righ(andlheCiry-
ownmpaMingro~romen:rc.
Sidevalk on the easfvde o/ the Galena SY Ertension.
Viewo/the Galena St. Extension from across Main S!
t
l
6
PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENT
N. Mill Street Route
Mother method oflmprow;ng the north-much pedcavian
expedencc is the redesign oEN. MiO Strteq from MID
Str«t m the Aspen Art Museum.
'1lre CMPAG fuuvd they Rrwiding a large bull r
between pedestrians and trafficwill inaeax n(cry and
improve the pcdnvian o~perien« era viswl ntheuc of
the area.76ex changes will enrovngc more pedesvran ux,
and improve conditions For evenv mad pubRJprisntt sector
vxm located in this area of rown.°
The CMPAG recommended deny °Ciry Cauncd direct
mkvant public agcneles and privam pectin to collabon-
sively genera a proposil to design, fund and implement
a plvn for she ~mprovcmrnt ofNorch MJI Ss., ro f son
the foBonng:
• Awider buffer berwem pedcatriam and traffic fw
the propose of improving thepedeso-ian rxpaience,
ronsisttne with Aspers hirtotkil streetxape pavan;
• Accommodating ~sdng vdhc Sow,
• Improving safely Cos pedemians and vehicles;
• Coord'madon with the local pedesvisn-bikeway system;
• Improving the visual aesthetic o(sbe area
The SCI War ute shows a poor rrladorvhip with pedcs-
vime avd N. MJI Sv«t. As put ofits review of nc~ SCI
Wet aim (please sec Secdon p, the CMPAG rcrommendcd
an improa d pedeso-ran apaicn« Cor this site
IRdtmtey, this maybe eddcrcdaz parr ofa rednign ofN.
NIJISvas, or as part ofasde lopment ofthc SCl Wctsite
'4 y
;i-v
b
This conceptual mn-
dedngillushates are
memod or esfaDlishing a
UrgerpMeshian butler
on N Mill St.
Pedestrian Movement in ;Downtown Pedestrian Improvements
n.,, r.,.~,r,, n.,.l,
I\IV aUI GIIUG I UI f\
Modxr dement ofenrounging pedestrian movement
between downtmm end the Avadng Fork River art the
improvemcme phoned inside Rio Gnude Pakaz described
in Section IV The Rio Grande Park Mucer Plan indudu
ort formal and visually compelling wvywaye to different
porrioru ofNe Pazk including the John Dcnvv Bancmary.
PcdnMan amcvitln le relation to the sew ponds and wasv-
fells wJl ilw ronviburc to an improved visual eesth<ric and
will invite pedestrians to move tlvoughout the Park
Souda oEMaln Street' The CMPAG xcommerrdd that
the City revisit the Downtown Enhanced Pedesvian Plan.
The CMPAC lewd dmq "Only one phase ofa multi-phatt
DEPP amregy has b«n impkmemcd, and [hat two of the
8 Goa6 ofthe DEPP, adopted by Ciry Council Rrsoludon
in 199] wee:
• To make the downtown core more pedesvim-friendly
and m miu the xmse char automobBca dominam the
dowvcmm area.
Wayfinding
In addition ro physicd impravemcnv ro the pedestrian end
bike system in the civic cox, the CIs~AG also Ca«ud on
wayfinding and signagc isms.
TheCMPAC Eowd any "There is an important balav«
m be struck between providing adequaa signage for visitors
and cluttering streets and paths with too many signs.Thae
van imporcens balan« se be swckbetwxn mainsaining a
x of erycrien« and disroxry fm vidrors vvs us vcat-
ng <onfusiov mgardivg impormvt duuvadons shrough
lack of signage."
Lte CMPAG fouvdthvy illdaough Aspen and Rddn
Counry meintdn an ex«Lent ccgionil pdestrian avd biltt-
wayrystcm, there is slack dwayfinding vgnage dirccdng
visitors within else civic «rc to these oudyrng vmerduea°
The CMPAGalw foundthaq'Inmmemws,adadngway-
fording aignagc appears robe iaadcquare Sonic oEthe brown
sigrvazMam$mK[intcvrctiom.ampryantt the atlsten«of
oos desdnadom witbout kdi«rirsg vahvc tbey are brurd.
A rerMeringwa pedeshian bride and : A ego an the Rio Grande Tmil indiam she dk«dono(Baxlt,
water (astute planrred lw Rio Grande Park. ;bur don rot mrntwn the Aspen Art Museum.'
Looking up N. Mill
5(r,aIN, with SCl West at
right mis is nwan in-
vitlngpedesManroure.
Apedestrian navigates N. Mill Sf.
next to the SCI West sire.
• To take gaata advarnge of oppartunides fw the
utilindon of alleys and pocket parks for pedeeviav
circulntioq social interaction and commercial uvvity.
16e CMPAG «mmmestded that City sniff ronducs a
feedback anilysis on she outrome oFthe Phau I DEPP
implementation, avd present Sodingv ro P&Z and City
Courme ro dcrcrmine if (uvha phases of rbe DEPP shodd
be impkmenmd.
qlx CMPAG found enough widens m mggns shat a mort
mmprthrnsive cwlmdon ofwvyfinding world be use(uLThe
CMPAG r«ommaded,'ther she CiryoEAapen workwish
rtleranr pannem,xrh u the CCLC, Parb &Rec and Piddv
Comrry Opev Spa« &Traila m wmpreheosiwly review
«iadngwayfirrding mnditiora era make remmmwdvdom
regarding impmvcmmv, mnsidaing the CMP Fndivgs,and
uekvng the CMP Pedatrim Com,ccdom Map and oche
rtkvant mapping dommcnv.'
^.a~.
~a
wJ
rms aocament tralso evalaem onunettwww.npmpuaiacom. ~ 19
cm of Asoaa enmmen~h oeeiooment oemnmmt I tm¢ same vlannm¢ !
" . I a CITY OF ASPEN CIVIC MASTER PLAN
Pedestrian Movement
STATD$: Improving pedestdan wnnecrions is one of the Gvic Maser %an's Core
Principles.
$ITE: Pedestrian cimWauon isa wmbination of City sidewalks, pedeMav@bieyclc
nails, bicycle routes on Ciry streets, the pedestrian mall, City Iwrks, iMormil pedestrian
routes, City/County/U.S. govemmen[ pedestrian & bicycle trails, and the linkage areas
between any and all of Neu areas.
ORGANIZATION: The City of Aspen Community Development Drpanment
working with elected officials, is primarily ruponsible for plamsing foran improved
pedestrian experience. %amting is implemented in every lend use proja[ at both We
private and public Icvel.
Public improvements am also the general responsibility of the City Engineu and the
Asset Mermgement Department
DOWNTOWN ENHANCEMENT $ PEDESTRIAN PLAN (DEPP) FINDINGS:
1. ONy ova phase of a multi-phase DEPPstrazegy haz been implemented.
2. Two of the 8 Goals M the DEPE adopted by City Councl Resolution N 199]
To make the downown core roes pedesnien-friendly and tNNmiu the unsc
drat automobile domimte We downtown mee.
To eke greazer edvavmgc of opportunitiu far the tuiliuGOn of illrys and
pocket pmks for pedetden cimWation, social interaction and commemiil
Bctivily.
DOWNTOWN ENHANCEMENT $ PEDESTRIAN PLAN (DEPP)
RECOMMENDATIONS: The CMPAG rerommrnds NetGrysuff wndncte
feWback anilysis on the outcome of the Phase 1 DEPP implemcvmtien, vsd presem
findings m P&Z and City Council to determine if further phazes of the DEPP should be
implemented.
VI$IDN: The CMPPhasel Report Function Analysis-PcdestdaNBicycle mbsection
states snag "A component o(rhe Civic Master %anNng efforts is to provide usefW
e actions to the existing pedestrian and bicycle system. There arc also unique
opponuniGes to improve the quality of pedestrian IiNss ro fulfill other Boils, such u Ne
vimliry o(public spaces. Pedessden paths through Rio Cmnde Park, along boN sides
o(the Park and crossing North Mill Stteeq through Galena %an, through the SG Fist
area, end crossing Main Street have bran identified u those opponuniGes."
In addition, the Physical Analysis section of the CMPPhaze 1 Repon identified various
areas chat could benefit from improved conditions for pedestrians, including Mill Strceq
Main Street and Rio Grande Park.
Since 2001, CMPAG haz adopted draft findings end recommendations that address
many MNe areas identified in the Phase 1 Repon. Also during Graz rime, pcdnMan
links have been m important elemem of site mviewed by the CMPAG end
subuguemly entitled or endorsed by Ciry Council, such az Obermeyer %ace, [hc
Rio Grande Park Master %an and the Aspen SaNetion District Master %m. Staff
and the consultinS team expect m rely on them existing plans as well u CMPAG
recommendaions m cream a pedestrian connections map.
RELEVANT CORE PRINCIPLES:
Creating great people places.
Civic planning must address need for parking while rot inducing addiGOnil
traffic.
]. An eRetive pedetdan and bicycling system orates virility and supports the
goal of lirtdting automobile traffic in the City ofASpen.
MAIN $TA EE7 F IN D I NG$: Main Street is intimidating m pedesrians, and has
become abarrier m noM-south pednoian movement
MAIN STREET REC OMMEN DATIONS:The CMPAG rccommwes that the Gty
N'Aspen work with CDOT tdexplore design changes m Main Strce[ m make it more
pedestrian friendly, including bur noHimimd m:
Stamped/cmlortd concrete x-walks
R819W x-walks
Bulhouts
Refuge Islands
BUILDING DESIGN FINDINGS: Tne aesign of nauemga ran eaner ennana or
deund dx visibility and accessibility of pedestrian mutes.
BUILDING DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONSahe design of baildings within the
c core should incoryomtc elements that arc inviting and welcoming, and enhance
Nc quality of Nc pedevien expedence.
CIVIC MASTER PLAN PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS MAP FINDINGS:
The Civic Masmr %vt enwmpazse many sub-arch wi W n the civic curt the[ include
unbuilt pedestrian elements az pan of endorsed master plans (i.e. Rio Grande Perk
Maher Plan, DEPP) -- or widsin CMPfindings and recommendations.
CIVIC MASTEA PLAN PEDESTAIAN CONNECTIONS MAP
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Thr CMPAG recommetNa that staff and Nc coniulting ream draft a Pedesvian
Comtectiona Map tWt shows existing conditions, proposed pedestrian
connectons includW in various sub-errs master plans and in CMPAG
recommendations.
3. The CMPAG recommends that es sites end sub-erns wihin the civic core
are redesigned end redeveloped, the CMP PedeWan Connections Map be
consulmd in older to ensure pedestrian romwtivity wi Nin the civic cos.
roil aroamaatsaim evanaeie annm.r waw.aapeapnun.wm, ~ 41
0
0
0
°o
s5
O
O
O
O
v1
P1
69
O
O
O
V1
b9
o O
0 0
0 0
~ °o
N ""
fH b9
O O O O
O O O O
O O O O
O '/~ O O
O 7 ~ O
vt N 00
69 b9 69 69
O O
O ~
O
O O
O~ ~
fA 69
0
0
0
0
0
°o
0
vj
0
0
0
0
w7
us
0
0
0
0
ss
°o
0
0
69
O O
O O
O O
O O
vi <Y
69 69
~ O O
O l~
N
69 fA 69
H9 E9
°o `o
o!°o
o c!
..
evayi
0 0.
o ^o:
o co
o -c'
.-~ :.~:
F»'ifi,
0
0
0
0
0
0
fH
69
O ?O!
O y'O'
O tO,'
~-~':
G q
ri N td
O F'~
~~ U ^^ v..
~ OA Y~
4 w w Q
U ~' .p F
bin o U ^q~ ~ O d .~
U N O O ~ a ~" '~' O
A x a ~ U ~ a ~ z
~ ~ .~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ m ~ g
°C7~'',~, ~~ & v "dU E
V b~ a b N NNy ~ y y N.
~ y v F~ b Vl z i p
O O~ O b q P. k. p. ~ v W ~, J.
~U ~d o ~ o' ~cn ~ bx
~ °' o
bb ~ `~aw chid v c ~~Cd`npy'_~-;.
V] v] C ~ 0^yq O ~ ~ phi p, ~F O C ~ T•G
N ^' ~ Q ~ N o o G N `"~ ~ A ~~ ~ ~'~
~~Aw3w~Uv~F~nw~7or~LL
Fsi
~s
~.
,~~
,ti 3
~i
,._:
~ O$
G
ONO M
r Mi
F» 69
~ ~ J
b
a ~O
.~'Q
C O
p b
.-7 P, LL
i~
j; r ;:I
,~;{
w ~[ 9
II
,r-.. i
"r.
n. ~~"
_ ~,
t~
i - .. .~ -
~~