HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20100727~ '~-~
~ ~
~ ~
~~ //~~ -tom
V1 ~ ~
Q ~
y-- m n '~
~ ~
l~ aCll,O O
~ ~ ~ ~
:~' 4 m .~
~ N
N
N
d
0
a
U
u
~~~
.*
D
N
m
D
~o
a
as
V
fD
0
~a
,~
.9
~~
6~
~ar
~9
q,~~
~9
may
~9
/`
4~
~`
,~
9
9~
~~~
~a
b9
O~~
9
~'o`
~9
O~
c~
9
a~~
0
~a
6,~
O
'bay,
~o
9a,,
~10
'~
ay,~
0
d~
0
~.
~_
~~
N
i
~D
tI'~
0
CD
~D~
O
-r,
N
O
N
N
Q
0~
~D
~-r
N
o~o~o~o~o~
m
.~.J
W
O
N
O
3
4~
4~
0
a
Q
a~
a~
a~
oc
a~
x
w
N
Q
Q
0
U
1
n
O
-„
D
a
c~
CD
CD
^~
W
Q~
c/')
a~
J
M
O
O
N
_O
Q~
m
N
a--~
V
Q~
U
x
H
cn
•~
~~
c
O 'a
.~ ~
....~
O O
V '~
a
~1 ~
cn cn
- o
o
~ N
a
DC
0
t10~, ti
w-
.~
V
r
O ~
L
mac' a°
N
V
6
~O
~ ~
c
0
V
0
~Q o
O~, +_~
L
a
N
V
~O
o~
0
ti
9~0~
V
S~o~
0
V
d0~~ C1
c
ar
N
~oo~ _~ o
R
v ~
3 !~
s l
0
v
O O 4 O O O O O O
°o °o °o °o o °o a a °o
Q ~ ~ ~ d Q Q
N ei O Q~ 00 I~ ~D ~ d'
ei ri e~i tJ} to V- th V~ V1
ifi VY V?
,;
~:,
r.
~ ~
~ ti
o
o
L1
N }
a+
0
O
O
Q
~~
~a
oQ
1p
~ ~S
~'
va
-~
~ ~
~~6
~~
O,
~O
D pd'
r,
`.
-„
a' ~O
09
~O
'l0
~O
1~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ N ~ N
~ oo ~o o N i~
°
o o o a o 0
O O O O O O
0 0 0 0 0
0
w
0
O
O
Q
r
O
OrQ
x
n
0
o'
i
fD
O
N
~ O
o ~. O
°w a~ w
~~ ~
o a <
~ x CD
~ o N
O.
~ ~
rp O~
a ~
N
C
CD
rn
W
^~
W
^~
`W`
^/
W
J a
m a ~
o °~
o =
N a •°-'
O
~ Qa
O ~ ~
N a c
a
n, 0 N
W Y
~ c a
~ ~ N
/'~' /~/~~yy
/W/ V
I..L
~~
^~
W
^~
l..L
^O
^W
W
a--+
.~
IU
~l
a~
°r
o~
~o
o~
~~
O~
~~
O~
90
o~,
~~
~~
~D
O~
~O
d~
V
V'1
V
ti
a~
J
<c
d
k/
b Q
e N
~ Q
4
a "'
o
~_
C)
0
v
°a °o °o °o °o ~ °o o tr°,
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 o ci o o c o
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o ~r- o ~n o 6n o ~
pt M M N N F-I ei t/}
V1 t!~ t!'F tl~ tl1 V? V>
n ~
,..; o
p a
.~ n
D ~,
~ ;,
~o 0
o~,
~o
oQ
~o
~ °s
m
'20
Da,
1Q
O)
~o
o~
.,
o'
A
.,
~. ~O
09
~O
't0
?0
Jf
N
O
O
W =
O
N ~
O v-
F.- ~.
F-~ ~
'~
fD
~•
f7
fD
Q
0
~~
rn
0
O
W
r
CD
C
CD
~D
N A Q~ Oo O N
O O O O O O
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0~ o
rn
^~
W
^~
W
^~
W
rl ~O^
u
J ^\
v /'
W V
O
~~
JV 11
v r
O
w
l~
v r
0 0 0 0 0
O 1 1 w
J/1 J/1 Vl ~./l
~~ \ o o~ o 0 0
~ p c-I N O O\\\ M
~ N ~,_„~ d- M M N N m~
00 '-'
cn ~ ~ ,-.
~ O o o M O Oo\0 Oo\0 ° N
~ N l~ ~ ~ N ~ rl ~ 00
O
+~
N
Q
O
_ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
V
U Q N X ~ ~
N ~' ~ ~ ~ N hA X
ca ~' c6 ~ - ~ c~
U ~ ~ ~ ~
~ 4J O O :~' O ~ p ~
o~ oC V U V 2~ ~~
C
c~
a
0
c~
n
O
-„
D
N
rn
x
N
c--I
cn
4~
5...
~~
n~
W
v~
~..~..~
c~
V
0
a~-+
Q.
W
pip ~ ~ 0 0 0
~ ,
~ ~ O O ul ~ O
m N ri ~ C~ r-1 c--I r-I
O
-F~
Ca
4-
O
L
C6
U
a--~
C6
0
U
a--i
Q
O
L
O
-f--i
5...
~1--~
0
a
.~
m
^~
W
U
.~
L
i
.`
O
V
4~
.~
4~
G
Q
c~
Q
O
a
«•
U
o_
D
N
3
~t
N
N
1--~ ~
c ~
as s
~ o
~~
N ~ ~
D
~_
~•
~Q
~~
~~
~+
~ T
~~ ~
p\ Y'1"1
~+ c
w Q.
4° vo
D
O
e-F
~•
Q
v~'
~+
~.
_.
O
C
3
tb
F~ (' J
C ~
~ O
--+
A ~
c`°~ ~
'G
N ~
0 ~
C J.
0
~ N
c ~.
~,a f i}
G ~
~_
h
w v+
T
N+
r-r
N ~
.-- Q
O
A 3 finA]`
G ~ F
R ~•
N ~ O
Q.
rn
v
-~
~~
N
0
0
O
fD
Q
D
0
n
O
v
~D
CD
r-F
0
Q
~_
/~~
~V/M
uOu
1uu
I"~
~/
rn
~ •
TT~
lV
^V1
W
L
-1--~
v~
~..~..~
N
m
-~
O
N
Ql
O
0
N
.~
M
O
DC
.O
.~
O
a
z
•
O
c~
O
N
O1
O
O
N
O
L
L.L
•
c--I
r-I
0
N
c6
O
O
N
C6
OC
O
i
LL
•
Q
O
i
4-
.~
U
a~
00
ca
O
L7
O
.~
Q
O
U
ca
ca
t/')
•
U
C6
Q
0
V
.~
DC
N
DO
U
•
0
0
N
c6
a--+
N
J
ca
Q
U
.~
c~
ca
_~
Ca
O
C~
4}
-~
L.L
•
r-I
~--I
O
N
0
a~
U
c~
m
L
4c~
C
O
Q
O
•
~ ~
CQ O
~ N
~
~ .
~
. ~ ca
~
O ~-
N ~
~
~ ~ ,
a--+
._
~ o ~
~ ~ 2
~ ~ O
~ ' cn
~ ~
V
U ~ ~
U Q ~
O ~ ~
N ~ U
~ ca
~
~ ~
~
U
~ ~
00 •-
, ~
• •
•
a
a
0
..
U
4s
k:
the CiIY of Aspen
Memorandum City pttornev~ C~ice
TO: Mayor and Members of Council
FROM: John P. Worcester
DATE: July 26, 2010
RE: Amendment to the City Charter -Voting Procedures
City Council has indicated to the public that it will place on the November 2010 ballot question
or questions that will allow the voters to decide if they wish to repeal or retain instant run-off
voting procedures. The repeal of instant run-off voting procedures may only be accomplished by
amending the City of Aspen Home Rule Charter. This would require repealing the instant run-off
voting procedures and enacting a voting procedure to take its place. City Council has discussed
various alternative voting procedures, but it has not decided which procedure it wishes to offer
tot the voters as an alternative to instant run-off voting. The purpose of your scheduled work
session and this memo is to discuss the potential alternatives that have been discussed to date.
ALTERNATIVE ONE -WINNER TAKES ALL: A ballot question that approves an ordinance
that amends the City Charter by eliminating any reference to run-off elections, instant or
otherwise, and allows the office of Mayor and members of council to be won by the candidate(s)
that receive the most votes.
ALTERNATIVE TWO -REVERT TO TRADITIONAL JUNE RUN OFF ELECTION. This
ballot question would seek to approve an ordinance that would amend the City Charter to
eliminate the instant run-off voting procedure, but would reinstate the traditional June run-off
election if no candidates for council received 45% plus one vote of the votes cast for council
members, and continues the requirement for arun-off in June for candidates for mayor if no
candidate receives 50% plus one of the votes cast for the at office.
ALTERNATIVE THREE -COMPROMISE. This ballot question would seek to approve an
ordinance that would amend the City Charter to eliminate the instant run-off voting procedure,
but would reinstate the traditional June run-off election if no candidate for mayor or council
receives 40% plus one vote (instead of 45% + 1 for council and 5% +1 for mayor) of the votes
cast for each office. This compromise eliminates the instant run-off procedure, but reinstates the
June run-off procedures if the candidates are not able to receive a lower threshold of votes cast.
This compromise would theoretically eliminate the need for run-off elections unless the
candidates were unable to achieve a minimum of 40% of the eligible votes.
ALTERNATIVE FOUR -HYBRID. This ballot question would seek to approve an ordinance
that would amend the City Charter to eliminate the instant run-off voting procedure for the office
of Councilmen, but retain the instant run-off voting procedures for the office of Mayor.
ALTERNATIVE FIVE - RETAIN A MODIFIED FORM OF IRV. This ballot question would
seek to approve an ordinance that would amend the City Charter to change the current form of
IRV. It would not eliminate IRV, but allow voters to choose a different form of IRV.
ALTERNATIVE SIX -MULTIPLE QUESTIONS. This alternative would pose more than one
of the previous alternatives and ask the voters to approve all alternatives that they "can live
with." The question receiving the most votes, provided it also received a majority of votes in
favor of the amendment, would be implemented by ordinance.
Staff needs direction from council as to which ballot question(s) it desires to place on the ballot
for the November election. Once that direction is provided, staff can prepare an ordinance
amending the City Charter and a resolution referring the ordinance to the electors for their
approval.
cc: City Manager
instant runoffvo[ing
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM : Tyler A. Christoff, Project Manager, Engineering.
THRU: Tricia Aragon, P.E., City Engineer
DATE OF MEMO: July 7`h 2010
MEETING DATE: July 27`h 2010
RE: Main Street Citizen Pedestrian Safety Committee Recommendations
SUMMARY: Staff is updating City Council on current recommendations formulated by the
Main Street Citizen Pedestrian Safety Committee. Staff requests Council's direction on the next
steps in implementing these recommendations or their directions for soliciting additional public
input.
BACKGROUND:
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:
In 2004, Aspen City Council directed staff and provided funding to implement the following
pedestrian/traffic improvements.
Improved crosswalk striping with new applicator.
Installation of pedestrian activated beacons at key locations
In 2005, City Council authorized Tabor funding for several pedestrian projects. These projects
included the Main Street Sidewalk connection between 5`h and 7`s, various ADA ramp
improvements throughout the City among others.
Ina 2008 City Council Work session, staff was directed and provided funding to implement the
following pedestrian/traffic improvements:
City Council directed the committee to move forwazd with Main Street Median design.
Two or three electronic speed signs were to be purchased and placed in various locations
(with solar panels) in the City. This item was later removed from the 2009 Budget due to
lack of funds.
City Council identified pedestrian improvements along Aspen's Main Street as one of the ten
Best Year Yet Goals to be complete by the end of 2009. Staff pursued development of the
project in an accelerated time frame based on Council direction to construct a one (1) block
"test" section of an enhanced pedestrian crossing area to Main Street as soon as possible. This
project attempted to create safer and easier pedestrian crossings of Main Street at the
intersections through the use of center planted medians, enhanced pavement materials, street
plantings and improved lighting at strategic locations. The Main Street Streetscape project
would have a secondary, equally important benefit by enhancing the visual quality of the corridor
for both motorists and pedestrians.
Staff and SGM presented the proposed design as it has been developed to date to the HPC Board
on Januaryl4th 2009. The HPC members did not support the proposal as presented, expressing
criticism to the idea of continuous raised landscape medians in the center of the Main Street
corridor. The HPC believed that continuous landscaped medians were "too urban", and they
were out of historic character of a wide open corridor flanked by tall stately street trees.
Staff held a Public Open House, January 28`h in City Council Chambers to solicit public
comment on this proposal.
After a public open house and a subsequent City Council work session the Main Street Median
Project was tabled. However, funding is still required to close out this project.
Remaining funding from the Main Street Median project was set aside be used to design and
implement alternative pedestrian improvements along the Main Street Corridor.
The Pedestrian and Traffic Safety committee provided City Council with a list of potential
pedestrian improvement projects in July of 2009. Council directed staff to pursue one project
related to Main Street. Staff was directed to finance the design and construction of two
alternative material crosswalks with funding from the Public amenity fund.
Due to the large amount of public interest in Main Street pedestrian safety staff formed The Main
Street Pedestrian Safety Committee. The purpose of the committee was to gather citizen input
and present the opportunities and constraints of the cun•ent Main Street corridor.
Committee Process:
Staff established a committee of citizens that had expressed interest in Main Street and
pedestrian issues in the past. This group was made of citizens that had contacted staff or
council members, expressing interested in pedestrian safety. (See attached committee
roster) In addition to the residents that participated in this committee, various City staff
members participated in these meetings. John Krueger and Lynn Rumbaugh from the
Transportation Department and Trish Aragon and Tyler Christoff from the Engineering
Department all participated in the groups discussions while providing guidance to the
group and organizing the meetings.
Six committee meetings were held as follows:
March 24`h 2010 Sister Cities Room 5-7pm
Apri17`h 2010 City Council Chambers 5-7pm
Apri128`n 2010 Sister Cities Room 5-7pm
May 19`n 2010 Sister Cities Room 5-7pm
June 9d' 2010 Sister Cities Room 5-7pm
July 21g` Sister Cities Room 5-7pm
The group was asked by staff for their opinions, thoughts, solutions, and complaints
regarding pedestrian safety along the Main Street corridor. After initial comments were
recorded, staff presented a brief synopsis of the fundamentals of traffic calming and
pedestrian safety treatments used throughout the U.S. and the world. Combining the
groups own, strong ideals with accepted treatments and safety practices produced
creative, logical and progressive solutions for Aspen. Staff and Committee members
shazed ideas, concepts and renderings through a Facebook page that was able to be
viewed by the public. Using this type of multimedia the group was more effectively able
to shaze imagery and come to consensus on what the Main Street Corridor should look
and feel like.
Committees Recommendations:
Throughout the Committee's discussions it was noted that major changes to the character
and feel of the Main Street corridor was not an acceptable solution. However, the
committee also agreed, current conditions along the corridor were unsafe and a detriment
to the community as a whole. From these two underlying values the Committee was able
to shape their recommendations.
After several meetings and analysis of pedestrian and traffic data the group was able to
unanimously recommend four intersections that could best utilize pedestrian and traffic
calming treatments. (Refer to attached meeting minutes) These intersections were
indentified as: 8`n Street, 3rd Street, Garmisch Street, Hunter Street. The selection of each
intersection was selected based on: pedestrian counts, impact to the comdor as a whole,
public usage, and lack of signalization.
Committee Rating Matrix
The Commlttee developed the intersection rating matrix as a way to progressively select
treatments for each crossing. This tool allowed the group to select individual treatments
that could ultimately build towards a safer crossing. The matrix allowed group members
to select different treatment options despite differing options. Staff suggests Council use
the matrix in the same fashion to select the treatments they believe fit best with our safety
goals as well as the community ascetic. (refer to the attached rating matrix)
8`n Street
8`n Street was selected due its location as the entrance into the residential neighborhoods
of Aspen. Group members believed that pedestrian and traffic calming treatments at 8`n
Street would set precedence for the rest of the corridor. The Committee noted that
vehicle speeds and pedestrian interactions were an issue at this intersection. The group
proposed various treatments including: In-laid crosswalk lights, alternative material
crosswalks, In-laid striping, curb bulb outs, pedestrian island refuge, additional crosswalk
illumination, relocation of the crosswalk, possible pedestrian channelization/barrier,
repositioning of street lights, electronic "Your Speed Is" Signage, and Photo radar.
Additionally the group discussed the possible realignment of traffic and bus lanes; This
option includes a dedicated bus lane in each direction. By allowing a dedicated bus lane
in this option, it creates a bus pull out area outside of the lane of traffic. It also allows for
the installation of a curb extension which would decrease the amount of time pedestrians
are exposed to traffic.
Because the Aspen Institute's SPA requires that they receive deliveries off of 7`h, the
northbound left turning movement needs to be preserved. In order to preserve this
movement and allow for a dedicated bus lane, the southbound lane of 7`s street would be
eliminated under this option. (refer to attachment for treatment matrix and 3-D
rendering)
3'd Street
3`' Street was selected due to its proximity to the lodging district and skier shuttles.
Due to its location pedestrian traffic is an important form of transportation in this azea.
The 3`d Street intersection also provided a predictable,logical and expected spacing for
pedestrian treatments along the Main Street Corridor. From previous traffic and
pedestrian studies, 3`d Street was noted as a significant pedestrian crossing area. The
group proposed various treatments including: In-laid crosswalk lights, alternative material
crosswalks, In-laid striping, curb bulb outs, pedestrian island refuge, and additional
crosswalk illumination. (refer to attachment for treatment matrix and 3-D rendering)
Garmisch Street
Garmisch Street seemed an obvious choice for committee members. The location of
adjacent schools, bus stops, Paepke Pazk, and businesses has created large pedestrian
volumes unfit for the current crossing treatments. Group members noted that this
crossing was an important link for commuters, visitors, and locals alike. The location of
this crossing a block away from signalized crossings made it an important candidate for
some sort of pedestrian treatments. The group proposed various treatments including: In-
laid crosswalk lights, alternative material crosswalks, In-laid striping, curb bulb outs,
pedestrian island refuge, and additional crosswalk illumination. (refer to attachment for
treatment matrix and 3-D rendering)
Hunter Street
Committee members noted that Hunter was another important link for visitors and locals
alike. The crossing provided a link across Main Street from the Obermeyer Place Trail.
The location of this crossing a block away from signalized crossings made it an important
candidate for some sort of pedestrian treatments. From previous traffic and pedestrian
studies, Hunter Street was also noted as a significant pedestrian crossing area. The
group proposed vazious treatments including: In-laid crosswalk lights, alternative material
crosswalks, In-laid striping, curb bulb outs, pedestrian island refuge, and additional
crosswalk illumination. (refer to attachment for treatment matrix and 3-D rendering)
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Expenditures far Proposed Intersections
8`n Street
3~d Street
Garmisch Street
Hunter Street
Funding
Public Amenity Fund*
$ 345,000
$ 290,000
$ 290,000
$ 290,000
Total $ 1,215,000
$ 50,000
Total $ 50,000
* The Public Amenity Fund shall be used solely for purchase development or
capital improvement of land or public rights-of--way for open space, Public
amenity, or recreational purposes within or adjacent to the applicable area in
which this requirement applies. More precisely this fund can be used in the CC,
C-1, MU, NC, S/C/I, L, CL, LP and LO Zone Districts. This area represents the
City's primary pedestrian-oriented downtown, as well as important mixed-use,
service and lodging neighborhoods.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS: This project would provide safe and direct pedestrian
connections throughout the City thus encouraging the use of alternative forms of transportation.
This would in turn reduce GHG emissions, and the overall traffic volume in the City.
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff requests Council's direction on the next steps in
implementing these recommendations or their directions for soliciting additional public input.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
U
I
~ e
V I
d
L
d
~4
I
i+
d I
i
e't'~',. g~;~ ~~,
i P ray k. ~
~[i
i ~
i ti,
~ ~ ; ~`.
,1
„~~ ~ ~ ra
~~.' ~~~
`~~ ~ "3~`a'~
- !`.i
f~~
1t~~'
f
6 ~~
-_~
,~
r~
~.
a,
~y',
k „r.
~,
~~~~~
N '
~ r ,~~"
~,.~~`~
~~
4 ~~~1
7;t i
at 'I
~ r 'S
~+~vd ~l1 1 !~~
~: ~
t~ ' ~ f ~ Q' ~ ~ ~"L
~, ~~~ ~y p
R~~" i
~,.. ( t ,
byS
,/+ l , ~ '!
('fir .~~,.
`~' -~
1 ~A~ ~ µ .
! M ~~
u
€:' ~
~~- ~ .~ r~r ~ a
V„~ ~,
~"
~'J~ Y ~
~ _ ~ _ . ~r..~. ,.,
~~ ~ ~ ~~,
~4
~' ~ Y.s ~
~~ ~~ tl'a°~ .r',
4! r, . 1
x
r~sv ~~i
~~
~~ ,
~-
;~ .
r
~,.
`.q
~,,
~ ~_
1~
^F
R ~~
t '•q
.~ ~
~ ~ ;11
A ~~ ,~
,;. ~ ~
r<:,
~ ~
,,;
r ~ ,
~ .n , -
~ r.
~ ,,
z
0
v
d
H
L
d
i+
d
d
L
d+
_~
H
.~
L
^
~o , ~~.~ ,~ ~ ~:
..~s rN~~.~ ..
~_~
~~ 1
~ ,`
'l
wf~f. .
r
_~~
:~
r,`
~P ~ s
iI~' ~ a
~~.~I
k
~,.,
..,~
~ ;,
~~'~ 5
,. ,
;;,
., v,
`;
`~' = ~~'
..ti x ~
.%~
0 0 0
o v~
0
0
0
'.
N
N
N
X
~L
N
N
++
C
L
_~
Q
~_
~L
N
Q~
a
a~
a~
+r
c
,~
L
V
~ N m
C C
L L L L t -O ~ N > O.
M I\ LO Vl !f M N ~"~ ~ = V7
City of Aspen
Main Street Citizen Pedestrian Safety Committee
Recommended Traffic and Pedestrian Treatments
In-laid Crosswalk Lights
The flashing crosswalk systems consist of heads imbedded in the pavement, a controller and
push-button activation devices. Heads are installed at locations perpendicular to the crosswalk
across both approaches and across all lanes to increase visibility and command attention.
Illumination is provided by LED banks in each head which sit behind a clear lens. At the
recommendation of the manufacturer, the heads are mounted at varying low angles to the
roadway centerline.
Alternative material Crosswalks
Current crosswalk areas would be replaced by an alternative material such as colored concrete.
This difference in materials creates a visual for motorists and clearly designates pedestrian
crossing zones in the Main Street Corridor.
In-laid Striping
In laid striping was a proposed improvement to increase crosswalk striping life. Pavement
marking stripes, because they are higher than the surrounding pavement surface, are subject to
rapid wear caused by traffic and snowplows. As they wear they lose visibility- their ability to
guide drivers- particularly in wet weather. Wear on the stripes can be greatly reduced and
their useful lives considerably increased by placing them in shallow grooves in the surface of
the pavement.
Curb Bulb Outs
Curb extension (or also neckdown, bulb-out, curb build-out, nib, elephant ear, curb bulge and
blister) is a traffic calming measure, primarily used to extend the sidewalk, reducing the
crossing distance and allowing pedestrians about to cross and approaching vehicle drivers to
see each other when vehicles parked in a parking lane would otherwise block visibility.
Pedestrian Island
A refuge island, also known as a pedestrian refuge or pedestrian island, is a small section of
pavement or sidewalk, completely surrounded by asphalt or other road materials, where
pedestrians can stop before finishing crossing a road. It is typically used when a street is very
wide, as the pedestrian crossing can be too long for some individuals to cross in one traffic light
cycle.
It is also often used when no light exists, and pedestrians need safe harbor after managing one
direction of traffic, before taking on the next. This significantly improves the amenity for
pedestrians trying to cross busy streets, as they are much more likely to find two small gaps in
traffic rather than one situation in which gaps for both directions coincide. Since this reduces
their average waiting time, it also improves safety -with impatient pedestrians less likely to use
gaps that turn out to be too short for safe crossing.
Crosswalk Illumination
Bollard posts containing linear light sources inside. These posts have been shown to sufficiently
illuminate the pedestrian but not the background, consequently increasing contrast and
improving pedestrian visibility and detection. Although this method shows promise in being
incorporated into crosswalk lighting standards, more studies need to be done
Move/Relocate Crosswalk
Currently the crosswalk location at 8th Street does not correspond to the pedestrian preferred
path of travel. Due to this discrepancy, pedestrian often cross outside of striped crossing areas,
creating an unexpected hazard for motorists. By moving the crosswalk closer to the preferred
path, the committee believes it will capture more if not all the pedestrian crossing traffic.
Reposition Street Lights
Due to the sometimes non-uniform spacing of street lights throughout the Main Street corridor
pedestrian crossings are often times under lighted. By relocating these existing light posts
closer to the pedestrian crossings, we are provided opportunities for addition lighting and
recognition of the crossing zones.
Your Speed Is Signage
An interactive sign, generally constructed of a series of LEDs, that displays vehicle speed as
motorists approach. The purpose of radar speed signs is to slow cars down by making drivers
aware when they are driving at unsafe speeds. They are used as a traffic calming device in
addition to or instead of physical devices such as speed humps, speed cushions, speed tables,
and speed bumps.
Photo Radar
A traffic enforcement camera is a system, including a camera and avehicle-monitoring device,
used to detect and identify vehicles disobeying a speed limit or some other road legal
requirement.
m
THE CITY OF ASPEN
Main Street Citizen Pedestrian Safety Committee Roster
Name
David Guthrie
Bert Myrin
Michael Levine
Jim Markalunus
Lindsay Smith
Beth Hansen
Tapio Niskanen
Ginny Haberman
SheriSanzone
Valerie Alexander-Yaw
Kathy Fry
Anna Gagne
Rob Weien
Mark Rothman
THE Crn OF ASPEN
Main Street Citizens Pedestrian Safety Committee
Meeting #1--Minutes
March 24, 2010 -Sister Cities Room 5-7pm
Attendees
Bert Myrin, Mark Rothman, Lindsay Smith, Anna Gagne, David Guthrie, Sheri Sanzone, Ginny
Haberman, Tyler Christoff, Trish Aragon, Lynn Rumbaugh
(.Committee Mission
To provide City Staff and City Council with; ideas, guidance, opportunities, constraints, and
potential creative solutions to pedestrian issues along Aspen's Main Street Corridor.
((.Committee Schedule
4 meetings total, Present recommendations to City Council, Meeting scheduling based on group
availability
III.Open Group Discussion
Staff opened the meeting for group comments, suggestions, identification of problem areas,
and general comments regarding pedestrian safety along the main street corridor.
• Monarch Street/Main Street Intersection was noted to have an inconsistent pedestrian
activated crossing light/timing
• Blinking Pedestrian Lights at 8`h Street and Original Curve are ineffective
• Flags for pedestrian crossing like those used in Sun Valley were solutions proposed in
the past to City Staff
• The location of the 8`h Street crosswalk was noted to be in an un usual spot
• On demand crosswalk notification lighting was discussed
• An education program for bus, shuttle, taxi, hotel, rental cars and other seasonal
employees regarding the speed limit on Main Street would be beneficial
• Channelization of pedestrians using railings or other methods, toward crosswalks was
suggested
• Green center bollards need to be uniform throughout the Main Street corridor
• A balance of function or aesthetics was mentioned as something important to the
community
• Visual clutter and sign pollution along Main Street creates confusion
• Coordination or contact with CDOT and the committee was requested for a future date
• A consistent, and intuitive design of pedestrian solutions would provide more useful
• Radar speed signs, similar to the installation near Target in Glenwood were provided as
a positive example of this technology in the field
• Lack of street lighting makes the ability to see pedestrians difficult
• Street lighting is inconsistent for even motorists and illumination of crosswalks is poor
• A crosswalk lighting concept described by Jim Markalunus was discussed and supported
by a number of group members
• Poor enforcement of the State pedestrian law was noted
• Increasing the attractiveness of busses and alternative forms of transportation would be
a viable way to reduce motorists on Main Street
• Provide solutions that will assist the increasing elderly population
• Most difficult/dangerous crossings were identified as 8th Street, Garmisch St, Original
Curve, and the 6th Street thru 8th Street Blocks of Main
• Providing signage and guidance that would be familiar to even visitors to our City
• Increasing pedestrian facilities along main Street to provide a more pedestrian friendly
feel
• Snow management issues, including removal, wind-rows in crossing areas, and general
methods were all commented on
• Speed cameras were mentioned as an effective tool to reduce speeding, provide public
"education" and a revenue source
• Moving our 25mph speed limit signs more to the west of the Castle Creek Bridge was
suggested as a way to reduce speeds of inbound vehicles
• Staff was asked to provide group members with background on past main street
projects, the Downtown enhancement plan, the Cities Pedestrian Master Plan, CDOT
accepted traffic calming/pedestrian solutions, and a presentation on general principals
oftraffic calming and pedestrian safety
IV. Next Meeting Time/Date
Wednesday April 7th 2010 City Council Chambers, 5-7pm
m
THE Crrr OF ASPEN
Main Street Citizens Pedestrian Safety Committee
Meeting #2
April 7th, 2010 -City Council Chambers Room 5-7pm
Attendees: Virginia Haberman, Mark Rothman, Bert Myrin, Lindsay Smith, Rob
Weien, David Gutherie, Tyler Christoff, Trish Aragon, John Krueger, Lynn
Rumbaugh
I.Wrap-up of Meeting #1:
Staff discussed the best method of contact or discussion with the group. The Facebook page
was discussed and noted as a method to share ideas, documents, and discussions. City staff
offered to provide documents via email and hardcopy as requested as well. Staff provide a
brief synopsis of meeting #1 and introduced Rob Weien who was unable to attend the first
meeting.
ILTraffic Calming'101':
Staff provided a brief introduction to traffic calming methods. The presentation included the
four key elements of traffic calming: Non-physical, Vertical Control, Horizontal Control and
Volume Control. Examples of each element and their ability to be used on Main Street were
discussed.
III.Main Street Median Project
City Staff presented the conceptual plans for the Main Street Median Project of 2009. The
committee was shown typical sections, plan views of the entire corridor, crosswalk layouts, and
design choices were discussed. The unpopularity of the project was discussed as well as costs
for this type of treatment.
IV.Open Group Discussion
Staff opened the meeting for group comments, suggestions, identification of problem areas,
and general comments regarding pedestrian safety along the main street corridor.
• The resistance in the community to overhead installations was noted in the group
• CDOT, HPC, and Maintenance activities (streets department) was discussed as three key
stakeholders providing resistance to change
• How pedestrian actually approach main street and its' crossings was mentioned as an
issue needing to be addressed
• Inlaid crosswalk striping was suggested as a easy method to increase visibility without
having much public outcry
• A fiscally responsible, phased solution was noted as a way for a solution to gain public
and council support
• Issues at the Hunter Street crossing were noted due to the area appearing as a mid
block crossing
• Speed enforcement on Main Street was again shared by the committee as a concern
• All Bus stops locations needed visible and safe crossings was discussed
• The use of textured pavements as a visual cue to motorists was suggested at some or all
crossing locations. This texture was described as something that would mimic the
pedestrian malls brick pattern to gain consistency throughout the town
• The group noted that the visablity of striping and pavement can be a problem for up to
six months out of the year.
• Traffic and volume issues were noted, due to Main Street being our only arterial,
east/west roadway
• The abundance of children at the Garmisch/Main intersection was discussed as a major
concern
• Members of the group expressed concern that a median 'refuge' would not feel safe
enough for pedestrians
• The idea of reducing traffic with the use of out of town parking and mass transit solution
was mentioned as an idea that had been proposed in the past.
• Support for the 20mph City wide speed limit was supported by the group. The
extension of this policy on to Main Street was proposed
• The use of a few different treatments were discussed as the way to make some real
impacts to traffic patterns, and driver habits
• Indented or recessed sidewalk crossing lights were proposed as an option for increased
crosswalk visibility. This option was noted to have real maintenance issues, however
the benefit seemed to outweigh these costs.
• Some sort of concentrated overhead lighting system for 8th and Garmisch, bus stops and
other crossings was proposed as a solution to increase visibility to motorists
• Smaller, less than 12 foot long medians, center refuges was discussed as a way to gain
some of the benefits of full medians without the costs or aesthetics
• An incremental reduction of speed limits as vehicles approach town was proposed as a
way to lower vehicle speeds on Main Street
• The product of conductive concrete was discussed as a way to keep crossing areas clear
of snow in the winter months
From this open discussion, a few specific options were identified. These include:
• Some sort of raised crosswalk/intersection that would be acceptable at Main Street
speeds and traffic volumes
• A small less than 12' length median/refuge
• Radar speed signage
• In pavement/in laid pavement markings at crosswalks and as a temporary median
• Identifications ofpedestrian approaches to Main Street crossings
Staff will examine these options and provide the group with cost analysis, and visual depiction
of each.
V. Next Meeting Time/Date
Wednesday, April 28~h 2010, Sister Cities Room
THE CITY OF ASPEN
Main Street Citizens Pedestrian Safety Committee
Meeting #3
April 28th, 2010 -Sister Cities Room 5-7pm
Attendees: Virginia Haberman, Mark Rothman, Bert Myrin, Rob Weien, Anna
Gagne, Sheri Sanzone, Tyler Christoff, Trish Aragon, Lynn Rumbaugh
Wrap-up of Meeting #2
Staff discussed the Facebook page and noted new posts, diagrams, and webinars. Staff
provided a brief synopsis of meeting #2 and reviewed the requests of committee members.
Staff showed the committee in-laid median options and discussed feasibility. Committee
members discussed alternatives to in-laid such as stamped or milled pavements/concrete.
Review of Garmisch Street Options Posted on Facebook
Staff presented 2 alternatives previously posted on the Facebook Page and discussed the option
of raising a pedestrian crossing area at this intersection as well. An engineer's estimate was
provided for each option. Committee members discussed alternatives:
• Islands with some sort of pedestrian protection such as bollards was noted as a way to
provide a "real refuge" for pedestrians.
• Pedestrian islands were discussed as a way to bridge the gap between traffic law and
real life motorist and pedestrian behavior
• Committee members expressed concern that most motorists don't know the actual law
that vehicles must yield (in both lanes of travel) to pedestrians.
• Group members suggested a pedestrian island with increased education and
enforcement would be a worthwhile improvement at this intersection
• Members liked the idea of curb blub outs for the inbound traffic lanes while also noting
that outbound lanes shouldn't have them so traffic is able to "evacuate' town more
efficiently
• Some members were concerned about community push back' on median or island
applications because of the perceived change.
• Pedestrian activated, recessed in-pavement lighting was unanimously supported by the
group.
• The ability of in-pavement lighting to provide a visual indication of crossing while not
significantly changing the historic character of Main Street was sighted as a reason to
support such an option.
• Current installation of blinking pedestrian lights was noted as a confusing signal to
drivers
• Islands were discussed as possibly providing a "false sense of security"
• Advanced stop line/bars were discussed, however most felt there were already too
many pavement markings on Main Street.
• Group member expressed interest in, In-laid (micro milled thermoplastic striping) to
provide a year round visual delineation of crosswalks
• 100% of group members liked curb returns (curb bulb outs)
• One member was against the pedestrian island and one member was "50/50" on this
option
• 100% of group members supported in laid crosswalk lighting
Review of 8`h Street Options Posted on Facebook
Staff presented 4 alternatives previously posted on the Facebook Page and discussed the option
of raising a pedestrian crossing area at this intersection as well. An engineer's estimate was
provided for each option. Committee members discussed alternatives:
• Group members supported moving the current crosswalk east, to the eastern side of the
Stn Street intersection
• It was suggested that that current (western) crossing not be re-striped from now on to
eliminate pedestrian and driver confusion
• The option depicting a center island raised concern about lane widths and traffic
movements around parked busses.
• One group member suggested the need for a speed camera that gave tickets to
speeding vehicles
• Concerns were noted about changingthe lilac bush, Poppies, and other historic
amenities in the area.
• Group members like the idea of striping a bus lane in both the eastbound and
westbound directions to channelize traffic
• Staff was asked to provide additional information on left hand turning movements on
7`h Street, the Aspen Meadows, a z- or offset type pedestrian crossing, historic
constraints and lane width.
• 100% of group member supported moving the crosswalk to the eastern side of 8`h Street
From this open discussion Staff was asked to provide additional information for the group's
fourth meeting:
• Staff was asked to provide a maintenance budget for lighting options
• Staff was asked to provide a grid matrix showing each alternative and each intersection
the group has discussed. This was noted as a way to add or subtract options in order to
gain approval from the stakeholders and ultimately, City Council.
• Staff was asked to provide data on lane width and the feasibility of a center island at this
location.
• Staff was asked to provide budgets for each option; these budgets would include
installation along with continued maintenance.
• Staff will provide more visuals of installations in other communities
• Staff was asked to provide more refined depictions of both the 8`h Street and Garmisch
Crossings per the group's recommendations
Discuss next Meeting Time/Date
May 19`h Sister Cities Room 5-7pm
THE Cn7 OF ASPEN
Main Street Citizens Pedestrian Safety Committee
Meeting Minutes #4
May 19th, 2010 -Sister Cities Room 5-7pm
Attendees: Ginny Haberman, Bert Myrin, Scott Miller, Sheri Sanzone, Anna
Gagne, Tyler Christoff, Trish Aragon
Wrap-up of Meeting #3/Revisions to Minutes
Staff recapped meeting #3 and reviewed the requests of the committee
members. No changes to the minutes were noted.
Staff Presentation of Committees Requests
• Staff provided a maintenance budget for lighting options
• Staff provided a grid matrix showing each alternative and each intersection the group
has discussed.
• Staff provided data on lane width and the feasibility of a center island at 8`h Street. Staff
developed a striping and a transit lane plan for the group as well. Two options were
depicted. One with a center island and one with a curb bulb out on the southern side of
Main.
• Staff provided budgets for each option; these budgets included ongoing maintenance if
pertinent.
• Staff provided more visuals of installations in other communities and other conceptual
installations.
• Staff provided more refined depictions of both the 8`h Street and Garmisch Crossings
using 3-d 'sketch-up' models.
Group Discussion of Options at 8`h Street
• Group members supported moving the current crosswalk east, to the eastern side of the
Stn Street intersection
• It was suggested that that current (western) crossing not be re-striped from now on to
eliminate pedestrian and driver confusion
• Group members like the idea of striping a bus lane in both the eastbound and
westbound directions to channelize traffic and suggested staff develop this concept
further.
• Committee members expressed mixed support for both the center island and the curb
bulb outs.
• Group members that liked the curb bulb outs liked that they shortened crossing
distances, provided better pedestrian visibility and channelized traffic and buses in a
logical manner. This solution was noted to have challenges with the existing locations of
both bus stops.
• Other group members supported the center refuge island and discussed it as more of a
compromise. This option was described to have less impact to merging traffic and the
locations of the current bus stop.
• Other members like the idea of the implementation of striping only in this location. It
was noted that the other physical measures have great benefits however change the
current roadway layout maybe too much for large scale public buy in.
• All group member supported the inlaid pavement lighting as well as the crosswalk
lighting option presented by Jim Markalunus.
• Radar "Your Speed" speed sign was also unanimously supported by the group. However
members suggested this sign is implemented on the western side of the Castle Creek
Bridge.
• Group members were divided on the Radar ticketing sign installation. Many saw this
sign as a last option for traffic calming and pedestrian safety. The group suggested the
the "Your Speed" sign be installed with the option to easily upgrade this sign to a
"ticketing' sign in the future if needed. Members also expressed concerns that a sign
like this could alienate visitors to our town.
Group Discussion of Options at Garmisch Street
• Committee members expressed concern that many of the current pedestrian signage
throughout the Main Street corridor is confusing and needs to be removed or updated
• Members liked the idea of curb blub outs for the inbound traffic lanes while also noting
that outbound lanes shouldn't have them so traffic is able to "evacuate" town more
efficiently
• All group members supported the inlaid pavement lighting as well as the crosswalk
lighting option presented by Jim Markalunus.
• The ability of in-pavement lighting to provide a visual indication of crossing while not
significantly changing the historic character of Main Street was sighted as a reason to
support such an option.
• The majority of the group members supported the island/bulb out combination in this
area to achieve a better pedestrian crossing.
• It was noted that the other physical measures have great benefits however change the
current roadway layout may be too much for large scale public buy in.
Group Discussion of Options along the Main Street Corridor
The committee discussed other potential intersections warranting improvements and used the
provided matrix to add treatments to each:
• The committee identified the, Stn Street, 6tn Street, 3`d Street, Garmisch Street, Hunter
Street, and Spring Street as important pedestrian crossings needing additional safety
infrastructure.
• The matrix will be revised in the next meeting and other group members will be asked
to weigh in on treatments at these intersections and any others that may require
additional infrastructure.
• Staff will look into closing 7tn Street to thru-traffic southbound
• Staff will provide additional detail on City Right of Way on Hallam between 7tn and Stn
and the potential to move the southern bus station if necessary
• Staff will examine the Hunter Creek crossing and why the Obermeyer sidewalk/trail does
not line up with this crosswalk.
Next Meeting Time/Date
June Stn 2010 5-7pm Sister Cities Room
THE CITY OF ASPEN
Main Street Citizens Pedestrian Safety Committee
Meeting Minutes #5
June 9, 2010 -Sister Cities Room 5-7pm
Attendees: Ginny Haberman, Bert Myrin, Scott Miller, Sheri Sanzone, Rob Weier,
Trish Aragon
Wrap-up of Meeting #4/Revisions to Minutes
Staff recapped meeting #4 and reviewed the requests of the committee
members. No changes to the minutes were noted.
Staff Presentation of Committees Requests
• Staff received input from the Transportation Dept for the closing of 7th Street to thru-
trafficsouthbound. They were not aware of any restrictions to closing this movement
but suggested that Staff investigate the Aspen Institute SPA to make sure.
• Staff passed around the February 2004 S Curves Citizen task force recommendation
analysis which showed a cul-de-sac at 8th street.
• Staff provided additional detail on City Right of Way on Hallam between 7th and 8th and
the potential to move the southern bus station. According the plat information there is
an additional 12.5 feet available for pedestrian and roadway improvements on the
north and east side of the property.
• Staff showed the aerial of the Hunter Creek crossing and why the Obermeyer
sidewalk/trail does not line up with this crosswalk. It looks like the crosswalk was alined
in a way to minimize impacts on an existing tree.
Staff presented an updated pedestrian improvement matrix. Requested that the
committee submit the matrix prior to June 16th. Staff will then incorporate the requests
into the AMP.
Committee Requests of Staff
• Staff will contact the Aspen Institute regarding the possible southbound closure of 7th at
Main street.
• Staff will request input on the ped matrix from the Police Dept, Fire Dept,
Transportation dept, Streets Dept, Com dev and Parks Dept.
• Staff will request input on the ped matrix from the Aspen Main Street facebook fans.
Next Meeting Time/Date
Will be scheduled prior to the Council Work Session on the Main Street Pedestrian
Improvements