Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
agenda.council.worksession.20110620
MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: John Krueger and Lynn Rumbaugh - Transportation RE: Entrance to Aspen Survey Results DATE: June 17, 2011 MEETING DATE: June 20, 2011 SUMMARY AND REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL Attached is a report from National Research Center (NRC) regarding the results of the recently undertaken Entrance to Aspen survey. NRC will attend the June 20 City Council work session to discuss this report, and will also present to the Board of County Commissioners on June 21. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION • In 2007, Council directed staff to undertake a major public education and consensus building effort. The resulting Voices on the Entrance endeavor included neighborhood gatherings, a meeting in a box effort, instant voting meetings, and the creation of an Entrance to Aspen documentary. The split shot, and reversible lane concepts were a result of this public process. • In 2007, Council and the EOTC backed a ballot measure asking voters to approve the use of open space for the purpose of creating new bus -only lanes between Buttermilk and the Roundabout. The lanes were opened in the fall of 2008. • In 2009, Council directed staff to stage a transportation open house to include information on the Preferred, Split Shot and Reversible Lane alternatives. These open houses were held on April 2, 2009. • In September, 2010 Council requested that a survey regarding various Entrance to Aspen alternatives be randomly distributed to Aspen and Pitkin County (non - Aspen) registered voters in 2011. 1 BACKGROUND In November of 2007, CDOT and the Federal Highway Administration upheld the Preferred Alternative from the 1998 Record of Decision in an Environmental Reevaluation, determining that the option (two lanes plus rail or two bus lanes on a modified direct alignment across the Marolt/Thomas property, connecting with 7` and Main) was still valid. One of Council's 2010 goals stated: Implement and evaluate the transportation initiatives underway (Rubey Park, AABCButtermilk and in -town transit) and determine the next steps regarding the ETA, leading to a November 2010 election that will winnow the alternatives to those with majority support. Rather than posing a ballot question in 2010, City Council instead approved the hiring of Boulder -based National Research Center (NRC) to develop, administer and tabulate a survey of randomly selected Aspen and Pitkin County voters in early 2011. In mid - March of 2011, surveys were mailed to 2,000 randomly selected registered Aspen voters as well as 1,936 randomly selected Pitkin County (non- Aspen) voters. A total of 1,739 surveys were returned, a 47% response rate. A response rate exceeding 30- 35% for a transportation survey of this complexity is much higher than NRC has seen with other topic- specific surveys. DISCUSSION It is important to note that, per Council direction, this survey did not ask respondents to choose their favorite alternative. Nor did the survey ask respondents whether or not they would vote for the construction and /or funding of any particular alternative. Rather, the survey was used as a tool for understanding citizen opinions and values regarding existing conditions and identified alternatives. Generalizations regarding survey results include: • Respondents rate traffic flow as fair -poor in winter and summer months. • The majority of respondents would not be satisfied with keeping the Entrance alignment as is. • Most respondents indicate a preference for a solution that improves travel time for both private cars and public transportation. • Favored design elements included bus /HOV lanes, roundabout and underpass options. 2 • 60% of respondents indicated support for a 4 -lane (no bus lane) option. This result is discussed in more detail on page 5 of Attachment B. • Respondents indicated opposition to no change, split shot, modified direct, and existing alignment with 3 or 4 lane options. Attachment A provides Council with the final survey report which will be presented to Council by NRC's Tom Miller on June 20. This information will also be presented to the BOCC at their June 21 meeting. FINANCIALJBUDGET IMPACTS There are no financial impacts associated with this memo. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS There will be no immediate environmental impacts unless an alternative is selected and action is taken to implement it. Any option other than the Preferred Alternative will require a new Environmental Impact process. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Comparison of Impacts Chart Attachment B: NRC Survey Results Report 3 ATTACHMENT A COMPARISON OF IMPACTS eltarnathau Code open spate hm pact. Net TaL. travel Tme% Cosign Speed Pnfwnd A/bneeve Time Mersey Ave. Sped 400' Tunnel $81 fl m.ion 2.9 lion 2:301n 22 mph 35 mph 3:31 out 17 mph 3W Laid Badge 9 moan 23 Boas 2:30 Si 22 nph 35 mph 3.31 out 17 mph Split Shot At Gast - Round shoat t34.5 maan 4.9 sans 2:51 in 20 np1. 15 -25mph 4:14 out 18 mph Grade Separated - B 950.8 million 59 saes 2:331n 21 mph 15 - 25 mph 4:49 out 14 mph Reveraibb Lams 97.9 niaon minimal 3:00 In 18 mph 15 mph 3:03 out 19 Mph hb IASI 90 0.0 eves 3:26 In 18 mph Less den 15 mph 4.30 out 10 mph 4 e City of Aspen 2011 Transportation Survey Results May 2011 C NATIONAL RESEARCH C E N T E R nu. 3005 30th St • Boulder, CO 80301 • 303- 444 -7863 • www.n -r -c.com City of Aspen 2011 Transportation Survey Results CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4 SURVEY BACKGROUND 7 SURVEY RESULTS 9 Respondent Profile 9 Perceptions of the Current Entryway 11 Support for Change 13 Anticipated Process and Outcomes of the ETA Change 14 Solution Preferences 21 APPENDIX A: RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS 26 APPENDIX B: SURVEY METHODOLOGY 28 APPENDIX C: COMPLETE SET OF SURVEY FREQUENCIES 32 APPENDIX D: CROSSTABULATIONS OF RESULTS BY RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS 39 APPENDIX E: CROSSTABULATIONS OF RESULTS BY GEOGRAPHY 54 APPENDIX F: CROSSTABULATIONS OF RESULTS BY COMMUTER STATUS 60 APPENDIX G: VERBATIM RESPONSES TO OPEN -ENDED QUESTIONS 66 APPENDIX H: SURVEY INSTRUMENT 76 u L U N v N C O Z t 2 U O - d City of Aspen 2011 Transportation Survey Results FIGURES Figure 1: Frequency of Travel through the Entrance to Aspen 9 Figure 2: Commuter Status 9 Figure 3: Primary Commuting Mode 10 Figure 4: Ratings of Traffic Flow, Ease of Travel and Safety in the Entrance to Aspen 12 Figure 5: Ratings of Support for or Opposition to Options for the Entrance to Aspen 13 Figure 6: Support for or Opposition to Options for the Entrance to Aspen 13 Figure 7: Ratings of Importance of Improvement Goals to the Entrance to Aspen 15 Figure 8: Importance of Improvement Goals to the Entrance to Aspen 15 Figure 9: Preference for Transportation Changes 16 Figure 10: Ratings of Support for or Opposition to New Potential Elements to the Entrance to Aspen 17 Figure 11: Support for or Opposition to New Potential Elements to the Entrance to Aspen 17 Figure 12: Awareness of Different Proposed Solutions to the Entrance to Aspen 19 Figure 13: Sources of Information about Proposed ETA Solutions 20 Figure 14: Ratings of Support for or Opposition to Proposed Solutions to the Entrance to Aspen 22 Figure 15: Support for or Opposition to Proposed Solutions to the Entrance to Aspen 22 Figure 16: Percent Support for by Awareness of Each Proposed Solution 23 Figure 17: Ratings of Support for or Opposition to Potential Modifications to the Entrance to Aspen 25 Figure 18: Support for or Opposition to Potential Modifications to the Entrance to Aspen 25 v v u 2 U To V c C O Z T U N 0. v a` City of Aspen 2011 Transportation Survey Results • EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Survey Background and Methods To capture voter attitudes about potential transportation solutions to the Entrance to Aspen (ETA), the City of Aspen contracted with National Research Center, Inc. (NRC) to conduct a mailed survey of registered voters. The survey questions were designed to learn about voter values and concerns and to determine if different categories of voters (i.e., those who live in Aspen versus elsewhere in Pitkin County, long term versus short term residents, etc.) felt the same about potential solutions. While the various entryway options that have been discussed in the community were tested, support for different characteristics of potential solutions also was measured. The survey, in total, was created to provide guidance to decision - makers and to be used with other sources of information to inform a solution. The 2011 Aspen Transportation Survey was mailed to 2,000 randomly selected registered voters in the City of Aspen and 1,936 randomly selected voters in Pitkin County (excluding Aspen). Approximately 6% of the mailed surveys were returned as undeliverable because the housing unit was vacant or the postal service was unable to deliver the survey as addressed. Of the 3,707 households that received the survey, 1,739 respondents completed a survey, providing a response rate of 47 %. The margin of error is plus or minus 2.4 percentage points around any given percent for the entire sample (1,739 respondents). However, for comparisons among subgroups, the margin of error rises to approximately plus or minus 4% for sample sizes of 400 to plus or minus 10% for sample sizes of 100. The results were weighted to reflect the known age and gender of all Pitkin County registered voters, as well as the correct overall proportions of Aspen -only and Pitkin County (excluding Aspen) voters. Survey Findings High percent of voters weighed -in on Aspen entryway solutions Two - thousand voters in Aspen and 1,936 in the rest of Pitkin County were randomly selected to participate in the survey. The response rate for the 2011 Aspen Transportation Survey was 47 %, a strong response for a survey aimed at a single topic. The rate of response in Aspen (47 %) was equal to that in the rest of Pitkin County (47 %). Voters agreed that traffic flow needs improvement Voters were clear that they believed that ease of traffic flow was fair or poor in both summer and winter. They also indicated that summer and winter pedestrian and traffic safety were suboptimal. Ease of bus travel was thought to be excellent or good during summer and winter. o People wanted a change to reduce congestion and travel time, improve safety and air quality a. Page 4 City of Aspen 2011 Transportation Survey Results The vast majority of voters indicated that they would not be satisfied with leaving the entryway unchanged. About two - thirds of' voters indicated that their top priorities for a change (ratings of' "essential" or "very important ") included reducing congestion, reducing travel time, improving pedestrian and auto safety, keeping the environment unharmed, making air quality better and sustaining Aspen's character. Change to the entryway must happen relatively quickly Almost three in four voters indicated that they felt it was important to complete the entryway "in a timely fashion." Fewer concerned about impact on adjacent properties, minimizing use of open space, reducing noise or encouraging alternative mode travel Less than a majority of voters rated the importance of these goals as essential or very important. Reduce auto congestion by easing auto travel and improving alternative mode travel (but only if auto traffic is improved) Most voters favored entryway improvements that helped both autos and encouraged public transportation. Few voters (5 %) preferred a plan that improved public transportation but that did nothing to mitigate automobile traffic, while a noticeable minority (30 %) favored a plan that focused only on auto traffic and not public transportation. Dedicated bus and HOV lanes, roundabout and underpass were the most favored design elements These three design elements, among seven described, were favored by a majority of voters. Design elements that were not supported by a majority of voters were leaving the current entryway alignment unchanged, dedicated lanes for bus only, a gondola connection and a light rail line. Specific solution options not news to most, but many more were out of the loop Voters were asked if they had heard of each of seven descriptions of proposed entryway solutions, using the wording that has become common in discussing the Entrance to Aspen. Just over half to two- thirds of voters had heard of each of the seven potential solutions. Most wanted "4 Lanes" Sixty percent of voters supported the "4 Lanes" option without separate bus lanes ( "4 Lanes: This option is the same as the "Modified Direct Alternative ", but without bus lanes "). Though "4 Lanes — Bus /HOV" also was supported by a majority of voters, more voters strongly opposed this option than strongly opposed the option without bus lanes. About the same percent supported "2 lanes for ce any type of vehicle in each direction," (62 %) and a majority supported "1 lane for any type of vehicle in each direction with a middle (3rd) lane that will create a second lane in the direction of rush hour traffic" (57 %). However, the three lane alternative had fewer voters who strongly supported it (22 %) compared to the number strongly supporting "2 lanes for any type of vehicle" rtd (38 %). d Page 5 City of Aspen 2011 Transportation Survey Results • More strongly opposed than strongly supported the "existing alignment with 3 or 4 lanes," "Split Shot," "Modified Direct," "Gondola" and no change. Not only did no other solution than the "4 Lanes" option garner majority support, for all the rest, there were more voters in strong opposition than in strong support. V C C N U S U N N 0 O q Z O N A a u a Page 6 City of Aspen 2011 Transportation Survey Results SURVEY BACKGROUND Survey Purpose Aspen City Council, staff and interested citizen groups have been discussing and debating appropriate solutions to congestion that occurs in and around the S- curves at the Highway 82 entryway from Buttermilk to Aspen, or better known as the Entrance to Aspen (ETA). Much has been written about the options and many public events have occurred to convey information and to gather input and perspectives from Aspen residents and others who would be affected by modifications to the right -of -way. This is the first scientific survey of Aspen residents and residents of Pitkin County outside of Aspen. The survey was conducted to determine what residents think about the current situation, what their priority goals would be if modifications to the current alignment were inaugurated and what their preferences are with regard to possible design elements and the goals for potential changes. The common jargon for each of seven proposed solutions was used but so was other wording to gauge support for solutions. More than one question addressed similar options so that more than one window into resident opinion could be viewed. The expectation for the survey was that clarity would emerge to the extent that voters, in the aggregate, noticeably favored one solution or one set of design options more than another, and that voter sentiment would show clear priorities for goals of any entryway change. Although City staff helped to structure the survey so that responses would maximize the likelihood that the results would meet the needs of Aspen City Council, survey research professionals from National Research Center, Inc. (NRC), an independent survey research firm located in Boulder, CO, took the lead in creating the survey questionnaire, designing the sampling plan, choosing the survey methods, analyzing the data and reporting the results. The survey is not intended as a facsimile vote nor as a simplistic opportunity to "pick your favorite" option. It is part of a policy study to help stakeholders understand the preferences of a random sample of Pitkin County (including Aspen) residents. As with virtually every local policy question that employs scientific surveys, the survey results provide a unique context for decisions that rest on myriad inputs. Survey Administration The 2011 Aspen Transportation Survey was administered by mail to a representative sample of approximately 4,000 registered voters — 2,000 in the City of Aspen and 1,936 in Pitkin County (excluding Aspen). Each selected household received three mailings beginning in March 2011. Completed surveys were collected over the following five weeks. The first mailing was a prenotification postcard announcing the upcoming survey. Over the following two weeks, the survey mailings were sent to voters, containing a letter from Mayor Ireland inviting the household to participate in the survey, a three -page questionnaire and postage -paid return envelope. The survey instrument itself appears in Appendix H: Survey Instrument. o About 6% of the postcards were returned as undeliverable because the housing unit was vacant or the postal service was unable to deliver the survey as addressed. Of the 3,707 households that received the survey, 1,739 respondents completed a survey, providing a response rate of 47 %. a Page 7 City of Aspen 2011 Transportation Survey Results Survey results were weighted so that the gender, age and geographic area (Aspen -only versus Pitkin County) of respondents were represented in the proportions reflective of the entire Pitkin County voter population. (For more information see Appendix B: Survey Methodology.) How the Results are Reported For the most part, frequency distributions (the percent of respondents giving each possible response to a particular question) are presented in the body of the report. In addition, the "percent positive" also is reported for most questions in the report body tables and charts. The percent positive is the combination of the top two most positive response options (i.e., "excellent" and "good," "strongly support" and "somewhat support," "essential" and "very important "). On many of the questions in the survey, respondents could give an answer of "don't know." The proportion of respondents giving this reply is shown in the full set of responses included in Appendix C: Complete Set of Survey Frequencies. However, these responses have been removed from the analyses presented in the body of the report. In other words, the majority of the tables and graphs in the body of the report display the responses from respondents who had an opinion about a specific item. When a large percentage of residents (20% or more) chose "don't know," it is noted in the tables and text. For some questions, respondents were permitted to select multiple responses. When the total exceeds 100% in a table for a multiple response question, it is because some respondents are counted in multiple categories. When a table for a question that only permitted a single response does not total to exactly 100 %, it is due to the customary practice of rounding percentages to the nearest whole number. Precision of Estimates It is customary to describe the precision of estimates made from surveys by a "level of confidence" (or margin of error). The 95 percent confidence level for this survey is generally no greater than plus or minus 2.4% around any given percent reported for the entire sample (1,739). For comparisons among subgroups, the margin of error rises to approximately plus or minus 4% for sample sizes of 400 to plus or minus 10% for sample sizes of 100. Comparing Survey Results by Geographic and Demographic Subgroups Survey results were compared by demographic characteristics of survey respondents and by geographic area (City of Aspen and Pitkin County, excluding Aspen). These crosstabulations are discussed throughout the report. The full sets of demographic and geographic comparisons are presented in the following appendices: Appendix D: Crosstabulations of Results by Respondent Characteristics, Appendix E: Crosstabulations of Results by Geography and Appendix F: Crosstabulations of Results by Commuter Status. a a ` Page 8 City of Aspen 2011 Transportation Survey Results SURVEY RESULTS Respondent Profile Respondents represented Aspen and Pitkin County voters in the same percentages that occur in the overall population — 60% from Aspen; 40% from Pitkin County outside of Aspen. Over a third of respondents frequently traveled through the entrance to Aspen — twice per day or more. Just over 1 in 10 respondents were relatively infrequent travelers of this route, passing through the entryway three times per month or less. The rest of the respondents — just over half — traveled through the entryway between once a day and once a week. Figure 1: Frequency of Travel through the Entrance to Aspen 100% About how often, on average, do you travel through the Entrance to Aspen (Buttermilk through the S- curves)? 80% 60% 40% 31% 30% 200% 15% 5% 7% 8% 5% 0% More than 4 2 -4 times per Once a day 2 -4 times per Once per 1 -3 times per Less than times per day day week week month once a month While most of the respondents did not consider themselves to be commuters (62 %), close to a third (31%) considered themselves to be in- commuters to Aspen and 7% thought of themselves as out - commuters. Figure 2: Commuter Status Commuter to Aspen from another community 31% I don't consider '. myself a f Commuter from commuter Aspen to another z 62 % community 0 7% r, z T -0 a v 9 6 a a` Page 9 City of Aspen 2011 Transportation Survey Results Among the commuters, about three in four primarily commuted in a single occupant vehicle. Just over 1 in 10 took the bus and another 1 in 10 carpooled. Figure 3: Primary Commuting Mode Bus 11% Carpool 11% Single occupant Walk vehicle 1 % 76% Bicycle 1% Asked only of those who reported that they were a commuter in Question 2. Respondents were long term Aspen or Pitkin County residents with three- quarters of respondents having lived there more than 10 years and, as would be expected for voters, most were home owners (81 %). About two - thirds of respondents lived in market rate housing (owned or rented) while about a third lived in employee or subsidized housing. Just under 60% of respondents lived west of the roundabout (down valley) with the rest living up valley. The majority of respondents were between 45 and 64 years of age (51%), 28% were under age 45 and 22% were age 65 and older. Women and men were represented in approximately equal proportions. v u L A N N N 0 Z 0) u A a v a Page 10 City of Aspen 2011 Transportation Survey Results Perceptions of the Current Entryway Voters were asked their opinion about the traffic congestion and safety, ease of bus travel and pedestrian safety for both summer and winter. Opinions about conditions through the S- curves were roughly similar for winter and summer travel. Traffic flow was considered to be fair or poor by over three - fourths of voters, whether in the summer or winter, but winter traffic was thought to be worse by a small margin. Bus travel, whether in summer or winter, was considered to be good or better by 7 in 10 voters. Traffic safety was felt to be better than pedestrian safety, regardless of the season, and safety for traffic and pedestrians was somewhat more compromised in the winter than in the summer. A majority or close to a majority considered safety for traffic and pedestrians to be fair or poor summer and winter. It should be noted that about one - quarter of voters selected "don't know" when rating the ease of summer and winter bus travel in the Entrance to Aspen. Results presented in the report body are for those who had an opinion. A full set of responses for each question, including "don't know" can be found in Appendix C: Complete Set of Survey Frequencies. Responses to this question were compared by respondent demographic characteristics. Older women and men (age 35 +) and those who lived in the area longer (over 10 years) generally considered the traffic and safety problems at the S- curves to be worse than did younger voters (18- 34) and those who lived in the area 10 years or less (see Appendix D: Crosstabulations of Results by Respondent Characteristics for more detail). Voters in the City of Aspen and the rest of Pitkin County, by and large had similar perspectives about the items in this question. However, voters in Aspen gave slightly more positive ratings than voters in Pitkin to the ease of traffic flow during summer and winter (see Appendix E: Crosstabulations of Results by Geography). v N u L N N O Z - o Y N 6 v d Page 11 City of Aspen 2011 Transportation Survey Results Figure 4: Ratings of Traffic Flow, Ease of Travel and Safety in the Entrance to Aspen Excellent Good Fair / Poor Summer: Ease of travel v : � 20% by bus ` • . / Winter. Easbe ///, of travel by `�;� >jd� � ; ; 21% >1;47' i9k \\ �� % ll us Summer: Traffic safety � 33% / / fJ r Winter: Traffic safety \\,`*414f;`. 36% 'f / /ii %llff Summer: Pedestrian ���, 31% % � 7 %% 7 � � J / 6// // ' / // / / "� safety Winter Pedestrian safety � 32% was Summer: Ease of traffic ,'<: 33% ;� / / /. /, /,�..� • flow :�. A ,� i Winter: Ease of traffic` 34ry flow 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Percent of respondents c v V L V N N To c c C O Z T -o - o N 0 d N d Page 12 . City of Aspen 2011 Transportation Survey Results Support for Change Among Pitkin County and Aspen voters, there was little equivocation about whether change at the S- curves was needed. Sixty percent of voters strongly supported change to improve traffic at the S- curves and only 10% strongly opposed such a change. At the same time, about half the voters were strongly opposed to leaving the entrance to Aspen as it is. When responses were compared the Location of households in relation to the roundabout, more residents living upvalley than downvalley were okay with leaving the entrance as it is, though change was still the preferred option for the vast majority of upvalley voters (see Append D. by Crosstabulations of Results by Respondent Characteristics for more detail). The vast majority of voters i n both the City of Aspen and the rest of Pitkin favored changing the entryway to improve traffic and only a minority favored leaving the entryway as it is. Still, the support for change was not as strong in Aspen as it w in the rest of the county. L ikewise, the support for leaving the entryway as it is was somewhat more prev alent in Aspen than in the rest of the county (see Appendix E: Crosstabulations of Results by Geography). Figure 5: Ratings of Support for or Opposition to Options for the Entrance to Aspen Support Neither support nor oppose Oppose Change it to improve traffic 17% Leave it as it is 59% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Percent of respondents Figure 6: Suppo for or Oppos ition to Options for the Entrance to Aspen 3s "T g - '� ' t " r"; ti .t f"*.' � " f " r, I r i s o ? . ,, a T R ' C i °R' o f A t f Yy 't' e.y« .kS N Change i t to imp traffic 10 % 7% 6 % 1 % 60% % 10 0% N36 '1 L Leave it as it is 45 % 14 °/ 13% 10 % 19% 100% 28% v 0 C' 2 c 0 7 7 T 2 N 6 v 2 Page 13 City of Aspen 2011 Transportation Survey Results Anticipated Process and Outcomes of the ETA Change Voters were asked to imagine that the decision to improve the Entrance to Aspen was made. They were then asked to rate the importance of each of 14 goals for roadway improvement to the entryway. Although all 14 characteristics were felt to be essential or very important by a meaningful percent of residents, the differences in ratings were large, providing a clear set of voter value priorities. The most important goal of any entryway improvement was to reduce traffic congestion, reported to be essential or very important by four in five registered voters. Completing improvements in a timely fashion was the next most important characteristic, found to be essential or very important by three in four voters, followed by reducing travel time. The characteristics of improvement felt to be important by the fewest voters were noise reduction, minimizing impacts on adjacent properties, minimizing use of open space and encouraging use of alternative modes of travel (such as bus, bike or rail), the only four characteristics that a majority of residents did not find to be essential or very important. Importance ratings for each improvement goals were compared by respondent demographics and geographic location. More renters favored encouraging alternative modes than did owners. Relative newcomers (residents of the area 10 years or less), in greater numbers than residents with more local longevity, felt it important to minimize use of open space, minimize impacts on the environment, encourage alternative mode travel and maintain Aspen's character. Non - commuters also were more concerned with these characteristics of a solution than were commuters. Upvalley voters and those downvalley identified traffic congestion reduction to be the primary concern related to the S- curves; however, more upvalley voters were concerned about maintaining Aspen's character than were those living downvalley. Fewer upvalley voters were concerned about reducing travel time than were downvalley voters. Concerns about impacts on adjacent properties, impacts on tourism, minimizing use of open space, encouraging alternative travel modes and noise were expressed in greater numbers by those living upvalley than those living downvalley, although the rank order of importance for the 14 possible improvement goals was very similar for both groups (see Appendix F: Crosstabulations of Results by Commuter Status for more detail). Generally, City of Aspen residents tended to give lower ratings to the importance of reducing traffic congestion, reducing travel time and improving traffic safety than did those living in the rest ,; of Pitkin County, although these improvement goals were seen as some of the most important for both groups. A higher proportion of respondents residing in Aspen believed it was important to minimize the impacts on the environment and use of open space, reduce noise and maintain the Aspen's character than did those living outside the city limits. (See Appendix E: Crosstabulations of ce Results by Geography for more information on these results.) Z . " z L N d - 1 Page 14 City of Aspen 2011 Transportation Survey Results Figure 7: Ratings of Importance of Improvement Goals to the Entrance to Aspen Reducing traffic congestion aIIIIII 81% Completing the improvement in a timely fashion all. 73% Reducing travel time jIIIIII__ 69% Maintaining or improving air quality illa 67% Improving pedestrian safety 111.1111_.® 67% Improving traffic safety al 65% Minimizing impacts on the environment a 63% Maintaining Aspen's character a 62% Keeping construction costs reasonable -® 60% Minimizing impacts on tourism ®® 56% Encouraging alternative modes of travel (e.g. bus, bike, rail) 49% Minimizing use of open space , 47% Minimizing the impact on adjacent properties -® 43% Reducing noise 35% • • • • 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Percent "very important" or "essential" Figure 8: Importance of Improvement Goals to the Entrance to Aspen ,. .mn,:uv«w..xnae.451,0 wk:S,ad� «fi'...L.'-',..v. s. r u - pg ,¢. u„ aa,'". Reducing traffic congestion 5% 14 °/ 34% 47% 100% Completing the improvement in a timely fashion 5% 22% 40% 33% 100 Reducing travel time 9% 22% 36°k 33% 100 Maintaining or improving air quality 9% 25% 34% 32% 100% Improving pedestrian safety 7% 26% 33% 34% 100% Improving traffic safety 7% 28% 36% 29% 100% Minimizing impacts on the environment 9% 29% 32% 30% 100% u Maintaining Aspen's character 14% 24% 25% 3 1000/0 v V Keeping construction costs reasonable 11% 30% 36% 23°k 100% u Minimizing impacts on tourism 13% 32% 34% 22% 100 ° / v Encouraging alternative modes of travel (e.g. bus, z bike, rail) 22% 28% 25% 24% 100% A 0 Minimizing use of open space 22% 31% 23% 25% 100% m Minimizing the impact on adjacent properties 19% 39% 26 °/ 17"/° 100% r Reducing noise 22% 43% 24°k 12% 100% ' ■ re re 2 0 D- P a g e 15 City of Aspen 2011 Transportation Survey Results When residents were asked to select among four options for the outcome of changing the Entrance to Aspen, the majority (53 %) selected a plan that focused on improving auto traffic at the same time that it improved public transportation. Bus travel alone was supported by only 5% of voters, while 30% of voters favored a plan that would improve auto traffic even if alternative mode travel was not improved. Twelve percent of voters favored a plan of no change. Though the rank order of preferences was the same for longer term residents and relative newcomers, more old time residents preferred a transportation plan that focused exclusively on improving auto traffic and fewer `old timers" compared to "newcomers" supported a plan that favored auto but also encouraged public transit. Commuters also were more supportive of an auto - only solution compared to those who did not commute (see Appendix D: Crosstabulations of Results by Respondent Characteristics and Appendix F: Crosstabulations of Results by Commuter Status for more detail). While similar proportions of those living in the City of Aspen and the rest of Pitkin County desired a transportation plan that involved improving traffic while encouraging public transit, Aspen voters were nearly three times more likely to favor a plan that leaves the current entrance to Aspen intact than were voters living in other parts of the county. (Appendix E: Crosstabulations of Results by Geography). Figure 9: Preference for Transportation Changes A plan that helps A plan that helps to improve public improve automobile transportation, but traffic and also leaves general encourages public automobile traffic transportation (i.e., unchanged buses, bike, pedestrian 5% or light rail) -* 53% A plan that leaves the __._. ,......_... . ._ __...._..... � current Entrance to Thinking about possibly Aspen unchanged improving the Entrance to 12% Aspen, please select which one of the following you A plan that focuses would most prefer as it exclusively on relates to transportation improving automobile v changes. (Please select only traffic one response.) 30% a, ce c 0 d Page 16 City of Aspen 2011 Transportation Survey Results Seven possible elements or design features of a modified entryway were presented to voters to gauge their support for or opposition to each. Three of the seven features gained the support of a slim majority of voters: dedicated lanes for buses and multiple occupancy cars; a roundabout and an underpass. Half of voters opposed an entrance alignment that followed the current roadway and a gondola solution. Features that included dedicated lanes for buses only or a light rail line were supported and opposed by similar percents (each less than a majority). Renters were more supportive of elements that included some form of public transit (e.g., dedicated lanes for buses only, light rail and a gondola) than were homeowners (see Appendix D: Crosstabulations of Results by Respondent Characteristics). Overall, voters living in Aspen and the rest of the county voiced a similar degree of support for each of the potential elements. However, more Aspen voters, than those residing in other areas of Pitkin County, supported leaving the current entrance alignment unchanged (see Appendix E: Crosstabulations of Results by Geography). Figure 10: Ratings of Support for or Opposition to New Potential Elements to the Entrance to Aspen It Support Neither support nor oppose Oppose Underpass ":"<":‘ 24% Roundabout n28 %'\;`= 19% Dedicated lanes for buses and multiple occupancy cars n ,,">". 32% Light rail line iiiii1111116 %; 38% Dedicated lanes for buses only ®15 %'i' 43% Gondola (aerial connection) X 20 %S' 51% Current entrance alignment unchanged (following the 1\� 51% current roadway) �9 % ` .. \`. 1 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Percent of respondents Figure 11: Support for or Opposition to New Potential Elements to the Entrance to Aspen kfi '#I"C.13`: t0 } O D 1-t ' " ',. -�F 'r Y*". "5 -" t{3 s � rikkatta ' `��"i..ser}.I Underpass 16% 8°/0 24% 28% 24% 100% 53% u S Roundabout 11% 8 °/ 28% 28% 25% 100% 53% is Dedicated lanes for buses and multiple occupancy ° 16 / 16% 16% 29% 23% 100 52% cars To Light rail line 29% 9 16% 20% 27% 100% 46% o Dedicated lanes for buses only 26% 18% 15% 22% 20% 100% 42% Gondola (aerial connection) 40°/o 11% 20 % 14% 15% 100% 29% -O Current entrance alignment unchanged (following ° ° the current roadway) 37 / 14 / 19 % 10 % 19 % 100 % 29 % v i Page 17 City of Aspen 2011 Transportation Survey Results • With the short hand nomenclature of the planning discussion publicized over many prior months, voters were asked if they recognized each of the possible entryway transportation solutions. A majority indicated that they had heard of each proposed solution prior to receiving the survey, at the same time between a third and almost a half were new to these descriptions (see Figure 12). The three most recognized solutions were identified as the "4 Lanes ", "4 Lane — Bus /HOV" and "Split Shot," all characterized as including four lanes that cut across a portion of the Marolt /Thomas Open Space. The "4 Lanes" and "4 Lanes — Bus /HOV" were said to be the same as the "Modified Direct Alternative," with alignment that would slightly alter the course of the current lanes but the "4 Lanes" alternative had no bus option while the "4 Lanes — Bus /HOV" had two unrestricted lanes and two lanes for Bus /HOV traffic. Two - thirds of voters reported having heard of these three alternatives. Close to the same percent (64 %) reported having heard of the "Modified Direct Alternative" with two lanes for cars and two for buses or two lanes for cars and light rail in a modified alignment. Slightly fewer voters, but still a majority (60 %) had heard of two options that kept the current alignment; one solution with three lanes and one with four lanes. The least recognized option, still having been heard of by about half (53 %), was the "Gondola (aerial connection)" solution. Upvalley voters and those living in the area more than 10 years were more likely to have heard about each of the entryway solutions than were voters downvalley or those who had lived in the area 10 years or less (see Appendix D: Crosstabulations of Results by Respondent Characteristics). A higher proportion of City of Aspen voters were more likely to have heard about each of the proposed solutions than were voters living outside of the city (see Appendix E: Crosstabulations of Results by Geography). V S U v v K To c oc O q Z T 0 0 O N d N d Page 18 City of Aspen 2011 Transportation Survey Results Figure 12: Awareness of Different Proposed Solutions to the Entrance to Aspen a Have heard of it Have not heard of it "Split Shot " - This option includes 2 lanes for cars, 2 for HOV /Buses with a roundabout or underpass at Cemetery Lane in an alignment that goes across a small portion of the Marolt/Thomas Open Space 4 Lanes - This option is the same as the "Modified Direct Alternative ", but without bus lanes 4 Lane Bus/HOV Alteoption ,sthe same the "Modified Direct Alternative, but with ith lanes lanes unrestricted (so that all vehicles have access) and 2 lanes for Bus /HOV (High Occupancy Vehicles) traffic "Modified Direct Alternative" - This option will include 11111111W 2 lanes for cars and 2 for buses or 2 lanes for cars and light rail in a modified direct alignment (slightly altering the course of current lanes) across a portion of the Marolt/Thomas Open Space Stay in the Existing Alignment - Widen to 4lanes This option keeps the current alignment and uses 2 lanes •�. for cars and 2 for buses Stay in the Existing Alignment - Widen to 3 lanes This option keeps the current alignment and adds a a reversible lane for cars & buses Gondola (aerial connection) - This option would involve a gondola (aerial connection) connecting the Aspen /Pitkin Airport to downtown Aspen at Rubey Park 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% V Percent of respondents E E;; v z d Page 19 City of Aspen 2011 Transportation Survey Results • Voters who had heard of any of the proposed solutions were provided a list of information sources and asked to indicate where they had heard about the various solutions. Respondents also were given the opportunity to write, in their own words, "other" information sources not listed on the survey. These verbatim responses were coded by NRC researchers and grouped into categories. Four new sources of information arose out of the "other" comments: newspapers; radio /TV news /media; work /associations; and election /ballot information. Of those who had heard of any of the seven proposed Entrance to Aspen solutions, most voters reported that their sources of information about the entryway solutions were word of' mouth from family or friends (50 %) and local newspapers (45 %). One in five mentioned having heard of at least one of the proposed solutions by attending a public community meeting and receiving mailings from the City. One in 10 voters or fewer noted that they had heard through the radio, TV news or media (9 %); work or associations (1 %); or election coverage. Fourteen percent of voters said that they did not remember where they had heard of any of the solutions and 3% cited a variety of "other" information sources. (A list of all "other" responses written in by respondents can be found, verbatim, in Appendix G: Verbatim Responses to Open -ended Questions.) Figure 13: Sources of Information about Proposed ETA Solutions Word of mouth from friends or family 50% Local newspapers �� 45% Attended a public community meeting all 19% Mailings from the City 17% Radio /TV news /Media si 9% Work /associations 1% Election /ballot information 1% Don't remember 14% V C Other I 3% v V L 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% v N Percent of respondents* ce To c 0 *Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one option. Percentages represent those who had heard > of any of the solutions listed in question 9. o q a 2 d Page 20 City of Aspen 2011 Transportation Survey Results Solution Preferences Respondents were presented a list of proposed solutions that were outlined using the short hand naming convention from the public discourse about those solutions. This list included: "No change to the existing entrance." Respondents were asked to register their support for, or opposition to, each of the proposed solutions. The option supported by most residents was the "4 Lanes" solution (60 %) followed by the "4 Lanes — Bus /HOV" (51%, see Figure 14). These were the only two options that were supported by a majority of voters. While the difference between support for the "4 Lanes" and "4 Lanes — Bus/HOV" options was nine percentage points, the percent of those who strongly supported the "4 Lanes" option was double the percent that strongly supported the "4 Lanes — Bus /HOV" option (36% vs. 18 %). The percent that strongly opposed the "4 Lane" option (18 %) were the fewest to give strong opposition among the options, and were half of the percent (36 %) that strongly supported "4 Lanes." The percent that strongly opposed "4 Lanes — Bus /HOV" was greater than the percent that strongly supported it (21% strongly opposed versus 18% strongly supported), and this pattern was true for every option except "4 Lanes." For all options but the "4 Lanes," more voters strongly opposed than strongly supported them. When comparing the amount of support for each proposed solution across geographic and demographic subgroups, the same top solutions were indicated by City of Aspen and Pitkin County (excluding Aspen) voters: "4 Lanes" and "4 Lanes — Bus /HOV." For newcomers (those living in the area 10 years or less), "4 Lanes" was supported less than "4 Lanes — Bus /HOV" and the "Modified Direct Alternative," but old timers (those residing in the County for more than 10 years) favored "4 Lanes" and "4 Lanes — Bus /HOV" as the first and second options. More commuters favored "4 Lanes" than did non - commuters, but for both groups, "4 Lanes" was the first choice. Though still a minority, voters living in the City of Aspen were twice as likely to support "no change to the existing entrance" as was even a smaller minority of those living in other areas of the county. (See Appendix D: Crosstabulations of Results by Respondent Characteristics, Appendix E: Crosstabulations of Results by Geography and Appendix F: Crosstabulations of Results by Commuter Status for more information about these comparisons). C V S U R 0 eu C O Z -o U v d - " Page 21 City of Aspen 2011 Transportation Survey Results • Figure 14: Ratings of Support for or Opposition to Proposed Solutions to the Entrance to Aspen Support Neither support nor oppose Oppose 4 Lanes 1111, 11%. 29% 4 Lanes - Bus /HOV 14 % 35% .ma i . Modified Direct Alternative ,® \ 19% `•: 35% Split Shot Ille 21 ° k ,;; 36% Stay in the Existing Alignment - widen to 3 lanes 17 %`..; 42% Stay in the Existing Alignment - widen to 4 lanes 14 16;: 46% Gondola (aerial connection) 19 °% 55% No change to the existing entrance 13 %- 68% 1 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Percent of respondents Figure 15: Support for or Opposition to Proposed Solutions to the Entrance to Aspen s. .,w..s.— ...a......,,... _...mh., iss. -...i, . _ .-a. uu ..,...t-is ..... ,..4 4 -.vs.r si.wd m_,. .... ....... n .'. s.,.� . .M,2s 'a' k k l 4 Lanes 18% 11% 11% 24% 36% 100% 60 4 Lanes - Bus /HOV 21/ 14% 14% 33% 18% 100/ 51% Modified Direct Alternative 221 13% 19% 30% 16% 100 46% Split Shot 22% 14% 21% 28°k 16°k 100% 44% Stay in the Existing Alignment - widen 27% 15 17% 27 % 15% 100°/o 42 to 3 lanes Li Stay in the Existing Alignment - widen 29% 16% 14% 25% 16% 100% 41% = to 4 lanes v Gondola (aerial connection) 42% 13% 19% 14% 12% 100% 26% No change to the existing entrance 54% 14°k 13 °/ 7% 12°k 100 19°k u co m v z c o O ru Z T a a 8 N iii a d - Page 22 City of Aspen 2011 Transportation Survey Results To discover if those more in tuned to the debate had different opinions than relative novices, findings were tested to determine if having heard of an option influenced the support given to it. Although there were some differences, the order of support was generally aligned with the self - reported knowledge of the voter. While those who had not heard of a particular option were less supportive of it than those who had heard of the option, both groups gave top priority to "4 Lanes," followed by "4 Lanes — Bus /HOV." For both groups, the least favored option was the "Gondola (aerial connection)." The "Split Shot" was supported by a much smaller percent (30 %) of those who had not heard of it than the percent that favored the "Split Shot" among those who had heard of it before (50 %). The "Split Shot" was ranked third among the solutions by the voters who had heard of it before, but it was ranked second from the bottom (6th) among those who had not heard of it. Figure 16: Percent Support for by Awareness of Each Proposed Solution glIrl 7 7; 77 r:' 1 77 *'°"` 'f Ttea r le, �s � � t ` ' ➢"�`� ��stga : �M,mY 4 Lanes 2"• 1 64% 1 51% 4 Lanes - Bus /HOV 2 55% 2 45% Split Shot 3 50% 6 30 Modified Direct Alternative 4 49°k 3 39 Stay in the Existing Alignment - widen to 3 lanes 5 46% 4 37 Stay in the Existing Alignment - widen to 4 lanes 6 43% 4 37% Gondola (aerial connection) 7 27% 7 25% `v m v L To U N N c oc O 13 Z -a 0) v A d — d Page 23 City of Aspen 2011 Transportation Survey Results • Voters also were asked to indicate their support for, or opposition to, potential modifications to the entryway based on solution descriptions that did not use nicknames developed from prior planning discussions. The intent of this question was to evoke perspectives about core aspects of possible solutions that would not be colored by connotations that may have been linked to the publicized wording used to describe solutions in the past. Of the five possible solutions related to lane changes, a majority of voters indicated that they supported the two options that would permit unrestricted vehicles to travel on two lanes during (at least) rush hour: two lanes for any type of vehicle in each direction (62% somewhat or strongly support); or one lane for any type of vehicle in each direction with a middle (3rd) lane that will create a second lane in the direction of rush hour traffic (57% somewhat or strongly support). The magnitude of the difference in support for these two options is somewhat masked by summing the percents of those who somewhat and strongly support. In the case of the two lane option for any type of vehicle in each direction, there were many more voters who selected "strongly support" (38 0 /0) than those who selected "strongly support" for one lane for any type of vehicle in each direction with a middle (3rd) lane (22 %) — the other option supported by a majority. While strong opposition for the two lane option was least (12 %) among all options, it was not much less than the strong opposition to the three lane alternative (16 %). However, the ratio of those who strongly supported versus those who strongly opposed was much greater for the two lane option (more than three to one) than the three lane option (somewhat over one to one). More voters strongly opposed the remaining three other lane - related options than strongly supported them. This set of options also tested voter interest in leaving the current configuration unchanged, or increasing bus service but without any new construction. There was little support for either option and considerable opposition to both. Two design features were asked about for a second time and had similar results as the first: there was slim majority supporting a roundabout or underpass at Cemetery Lane (54% support) and the same percentage (54 %) opposed a gondola (aerial connection) between Buttermilk and Rubey Park. Levels of support for different potential modifications to the entrance to Aspen were compared by respondent geographic area. Generally, City of Aspen voters and those living in other areas in Pitkin County supported most of the potential modifications in similar amounts. However, as seen in the responses to some of the other questions, a higher percentage of Aspen voters were in support of no new construction at the entrance than were those in the rest of the county. Residents not living in Aspen - proper were more likely to favor "two lanes for any type of vehicle in each direction," while those residing within the Aspen City limits tended to be more supportive of one s lane for cars and one land for buses only in each direction. For voters in both locations, the two options supported by most, and a majority of voters were " two lanes for any type of vehicle in each ce direction" and " 1 lane for any type of vehicle in each direction with a middle (3rd) lane that will create a second lane in the direction of rush hour traffic" (see Appendix E: Crosstabulations of Results by Geography). 5 a Page 24 City of Aspen 2011 Transportation Survey Results Figure 17: Ratings of Support for or Opposition to Potential Modifications to the Entrance to Aspen va Support Neither support nor oppose Oppose 2 lanes for any type of vehicle in each direction y 25% 1 lane for any type of vehicle in each direction with a middle (3rd) lane that will create a second lane in the 141 11. •' 29% direction of rush hour traffic A roundabout or underpass at Cemetery Lane • :\*\ 23% 1 lane for only cars with a lone driver and 1 lane for t with 2+ people or buses in each direction • i \ 43% 1 lane for cars in each direction and space for a light �' �; rail line �.'' 48% 1 lane for cars in each direction and 1 lane for buses ,,�`� only in each direction °;' 59% A gondola (aerial connection) between Buttermilk and Rubey Park ,' 54% No new construction or changes to the Entrance to Aspen 65% No new construction, but increased bus service • :4 \ 64% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Percent of respondents Figure 18: Support for or Opposition to Potential Modifications to the Entrance to Aspen 2 lanes for any type of vehicle in each direction 12% 13% 13% 24% 38% 100% 62% 1 lane for any type of vehicle in each direction with a middle (3rd) lane that will create a second 16% 13% 14% 35% 22% 100% 57 lane in the direction of rush hour traffic A roundabout or underpass at Cemetery Lane 13% 11% 22% 31% 24°k 100 ° / 54% 1 lane for only cars with a lone driver and 1 lane 23°k 20% 18 28% 10% 100% 39 for cars with 2+ people or buses in each direction 1 lane for cars in each direction and space for a light rail line 34 % 14 % 17% 20 % 15 % 100% 35 % 1 lane for cars in each direction and 1 lane for 33% 26% 15% 19% 7% 100% 26 buses only in each direction v A gondola (aerial connection) between Buttermilk To and Rubey Park 41 % 13% 20% 14% 13 100% 26% To 0 No new construction or changes to the Entrance to 50% 15 14% 7% 13% 100% 21% Aspen No new construction, but increased bus service 46% 18% 18% 10% 7% 100% 17% a N a Page 25 City of Aspen 2011 Transportation Survey Results APPENDIX A: RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS Characteristics of the survey respondents are displayed in the tables in this appendix. ..s.. City of Aspen 60% 1036 Pitkin County (excluding Aspen) 4090 703 Total 10090 1739 .tKUrvT 6rvtGGS. to wi msse 411f5f�k!if jY �'W2�IDL(WaJ %lmawEd�trm1v['dF. ....� a,,,xu4..LuuvaituL Fewer than six months 0% 4 6 to 11 months 1 °/ 26 1 -2 years 2% 43 3 -5 years 790 121 6 -10 years 12% 214 More than 10 years 76°k 1324 Total 100% 1 732 Housing obtained in the free market (either rent or own) 63% 1074 Live in employee/affordable housing (either rent or own) 32 °/ 552 Other 5% 89 Don't know 0% 2 Total 100% 1717 . 1' ,: s i` 3 5 . Mt . 7`°r, „, ' s r riVie'anFTiTECO „.`' 47;0. 83a < .. fF ; `7”" " r' 7 Rent 19% 321 Own 81% 1388 Total 10090 1710 siFferririfig .,_�_.. .,., ,....u.... ✓, isawa. axw`-. m ...+,n..:::saa.. „ssdu eN. ors;:.. e, 4u.._ H.,.<, s. s.:. a. �a.,"> ..as...,.e...+.,:mmrza+.s.<K. Fast (upvalley) of the roundabout 43% 734 West (downvalley) of the roundabout 57% 975 Total 100% 1709 CL) -C U : 1 . _ 1 Page 26 City of Aspen 2011 Transportation Survey Results K f. 74 x �w. `� tea.- .,.��,..... .... ..,...�: 18 -24 years 1 18 25 -34 years 13% 224 35-44 years 14 °/ 236 45 -54 years 24 °/ 412 55 -64 years 27% 460 65 -74 years 16% 276 75 -84 years 5 78 85 years or older 1°k 19 Total 100% 1723 - d > s .w.n".." w 'T: : m per,, n ^se's '1 F ':9CMFY y -, sa d , ititti°`^ 7!P `" "` � c,a.�r,,��+k,. }b te. t 'i t v&1 ..a:, a. a. n w>a.... ,( Female 49 831 Male 51°k 876 Total 100% 1707 V C C V V S V 0 O Z O N a - d Page 27 City of Aspen 2011 Transportation Survey Results APPENDIX B: SURVEY METHODOLOGY Survey Instrument Development The development of the 2011 Aspen Transportation Survey started with questions that were designed for the 2007 Voices on the Entrance process. The goal was to develop a questionnaire that measured respondent preferences for each of the proposed transportation alternatives as well as respondent values surrounding transportation planning. A list of topics was generated for a new survey; questions were developed and modified to find those that were the best fit for the 2011 questionnaire. Through an iterative process between City staff and NRC staff, a new three -page questionnaire was created. Sample Selection In order to reduce the chance of surveying second -home owners, all residents who were registered to vote in Aspen and Pitkin County were eligible to participate in the 2011 Transportation Survey. A registered voter list was obtained in February 2011 from the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder, which contained about 13,800 names of both active and inactive voters. (The County Clerk's Office constituted an "inactive" voter as a voter who had not voted in the past two general elections; they were still registered to vote but had not given notification of a move, death, etc.). The voter list was "cleaned" in order to target active, registered voters in Aspen and Pitkin County. First, duplicate voters living in the same household (i.e., husband and wife) were removed to ensure that each household was represented only once in the sample; therefore, each household containing a registered voter would have the same likelihood of receiving a survey. Secondly, because of the high proportion of second homeowners in Pitkin County, surveys were mailed to the listed mailing address (where voters request their mail to be sent) instead of the physical street address to ensure that the survey reached the hands of the homeowner instead of a vacant household. Consequently, registered voters with mailing addresses outside of the United States were removed from the sample. Third, inactive voters were removed from the list once it was clear that there would be enough active voters to include in the sample. Finally, 2,000 active registered voters in Aspen were randomly selected and 1,936 Pitkin County (excluding Aspen) voters were randomly selected for a total sample of 3,936. An individual within each household was selected using the birthday method. The birthday method selects a person within the household by asking the "person whose birthday has most recently passed" to complete the questionnaire. The underlying assumption in this method is that day of birth has no relationship to the way people respond to surveys. v Survey Administration and Response Rate The surveys were color -coded by the two geographic areas (Aspen proper and Pitkin County) prior to mailing so that responses could be tracked by area. Households received three mailings, one week apart beginning in March of 2011. Three contacts were sent to each sampled household to a maximize the response rate and reduce non - response bias (i.e., the fact that some selected Page 28 City of Aspen 2011 Transportation Survey Results households will decline participation in the survey). Completed surveys were collected over the following five weeks. The first mailing was a prenotification postcard announcing the upcoming survey. The other two mailings contained a letter from Mayor Ireland inviting the household to participate, a questionnaire and self - mailing envelope. About 6% of the postcards were returned as undeliverable because the housing unit was vacant or the postal service was unable to deliver the survey as addressed. Of the 3,707 households that received the survey, 1,739 respondents completed a survey, providing a response rate of 47 %. Confidence Intervals The 95% confidence interval (or "margin of error ") quantifies the "sampling error" or precision of the estimates made from the survey results. A 95% confidence interval can be calculated for any sample size, and indicates that in 95 of 100 surveys conducted like this one, for a particular item, a result would be found that is within plus or minus 2.4 percentage points of the result that would be found if everyone in the population of interest was surveyed. The practical difficulties of conducting any resident survey may introduce other sources of error in addition to sampling error. Despite best efforts to boost participation and ensure potential inclusion of all households, some selected households will decline participation in the survey (potentially introducing non - response error) and some eligible households may be unintentionally excluded from the listed sources for the sample (referred to as coverage error). While the 95 percent confidence level for the survey is generally no greater than plus or minus 2.4 percentage points around any given percent reported for the entire sample (1,739), results for subgroups will have wider confidence intervals. Where estimates are given for subgroups, they are less precise. For each subgroup from the survey, the margin of error rises to as much as plus or minus 14% for a sample size of 50 to plus or minus 7% for 200 completed surveys. Survey Processing (Data Entry) Mailed surveys were returned to National Research Center, Inc. via postage -paid business reply envelopes. Once received, staff assigned a unique identification number to each questionnaire. Additionally, each survey was reviewed and "cleaned" as necessary. For example, a question may have asked a respondent to pick two items out of a list of five, but the respondent checked three; staff would choose randomly two of the three selected items to be coded in the dataset. Once all surveys were cleaned and assigned a unique identification number, they were entered into an electronic dataset. This dataset was subject to a data entry protocol of "key and verify," in which survey data were entered twice into an electronic dataset and then compared. Discrepancies were evaluated against the original survey form and corrected. Range checks as well as other forms of quality control (some of which are described below) also were performed. o- o z The final phase of quality assurance was to identify any instances where a respondent may have completed and returned more than one survey. Through the investigation, no duplicate surveys were found. First, NRC examined the proportion of surveys that were "wave 1" (mailed one week after the prenotification postcard, 73 %) versus "wave 2" (mailed two weeks after the a Page 29 City of Aspen 2011 Transportation Survey Results - prenotification postcard, 27 %), which was tracked by NRC staff as surveys arrived. Through NRC's survey experience, it is generally found that about 30% of the total responses come from the second wave, and that proportion was even lower for this survey. Because three- quarters of the completed surveys were from the first wave, it is very unlikely that there were many, if any, surveys submitted by the same household. Second, all survey packets were printed on colored paper and the surveys that were completed and returned were on paper of the same colors, indicating that no respondent photocopied a survey to submit on standard (white) stationery. Finally, the dataset was analyzed to uncover any duplicate responses. Using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) to check of the profile of responses, NRC researchers identified only four sets of surveys with identical responses for questions 1 through 12 on the survey and coming from the same geographic area (Aspen -only versus Pitkin County excluding Aspen). When responses for the four sets of surveys (a total of 9 surveys) were compared no duplicates were found. For example, one set had two surveys from the first mailing, which meant that even though the responses were the same, the surveys came from two different households so they could not he from the same respondent. Another example was that in a different set of duplicate response profiles for questions 1 through 12, one survey was from "wave 1" and one was from "wave 2 ", but the responses to some of the demographic questions were different (i.e., one was a renter and a woman and the other was an owner and a man). The handwriting on the hard copy of the surveys also was compared and the writing was determined to be different, so it was concluded that these surveys were not submitted by the same person. This kind of meticulous analysis was done for the other two sets of suspicious records. While it cannot be said that it would have been impossible for one respondent to submit more than one survey, NRC researchers are confident that there was no "ballot stuffing" for this survey. Weighting the Data The demographic characteristics of the sample were compared to the registered voters list for the City of Aspen and Pitkin County (excluding Aspen) and were statistically adjusted to reflect the larger population when necessary. Sample results were weighted using the registered voter norms to reflect the appropriate percent of residents by age and gender in the Pitkin County registered voter population. Results also were weighted to reflect the appropriate proportions of City of Aspen -only versus Pitkin County voters. The results of the weighting scheme are presented in the table on the following page. 5 V S N v v C O Z T -c a a - i Page 30 City of Aspen 2011 Transportation Survey Results Sex and Age Female 49 46% 49% Male 51% 54% 51% 18 -34 years of age 14% 7% 14% 35 -54 years of age 38% 36% 38 55+ years of age 48% 57% 48% Females 18 -34 7% 4% 7% Females 35 -54 18% 18% 18% Females 55+ 23% 24% 23% Males 18 -34 7% 4% 7% Males 35 -54 19% 18% 19% Males 55+ 25% 33% 25% Geographic Area City of Aspen 60% 51% 60% Pitkin County (excluding Aspen) 40% 4990 40% 'Source: Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder Registered Voter List purchased on February 78, 2011. Data Analysis The surveys were analyzed using SPSS. Frequency distributions are presented in the body of the report. Chi - square and ANOVA tests of significance were applied to breakdowns of selected survey questions by respondent characteristics. A "p- value" of 0.05 or less indicates that there is less than a 5% probability that differences observed between groups are due to chance; or in other words, a greater than 95% probability that the differences observed in the selected categories of our sample represent "real" differences among those populations. Where differences between subgroups are statistically significant, they are marked with grey shading in the appendices. N V L V N N C O Z T 0 N O. - n`. Page 31 a 'JaluaJ gaieasaa IeuogeN Aq paedaid N eel v C9 ro 0_ ,rc -, ... 0, fir‘ si , : Lin in 'la Tr ^ c ° ''. ' , l' it ' il rt . 4 p f W s1 V �; � z W y. a a W a, ce f e v a o ; e o 0 0 T 6 a k k N al O O 3 ?,...h n t y . H N fix' f G W , ^ - � a t o c yJ L J 0. Q Cm O C rs a J a .h• . 2 2 O > $ c c V O Y' �' F r : O O Y • N ti 4 L L fl +; c c If . A f u. p -a . O_ Q ' .0 t t F OJ W y'..,-,Y F k'Gi Q E Om 3 �s c ? r ., o o E d O .', a k `y a: E If ft, E E w r, c V.', j 9' . v.., ,. O. L O . .� : s 0 0 6 ok ..a_ ' x d >. y o E ". 0 c T -. v ` v ` v ` v c f^ P E E o c O O O I `" v a a %, , 0 O a O M -. t A u u -o o 'JUG 'JaluaD YDJPSsOH leuOI1 N Aq pwedaJd M M TO MT c 0 7 7 1- i A N N 't: i^.' *. s 1 tt v V r o 8 n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 , , r O O £ r.. T 0 CO N o- ' uo Cr l0 ca M V' N VD O^ 1� N m n n M - 4 01 ,....° M M Cl to ,c,;, , N N gYl } j' 1 N N u1 N N h..0 r �r C ti f , ' ,. r` '7-7 N UJ l0 O M N 0 Y d '00 ynu 4 ` 'p o0 N el N 7 kV ' 0% N N'- r M N )" k: S: co SS of N O Yn O , V ,0 M V N N N V ,. M V ‘..0 V N R V1 M N S e- __ 0 --2 ors N ..., N r r O O 01 N. n N V N ifi, J N N M N N M N ¢ CC 4- N. N. 0 N N h O1 O +d• o F j O N N 0 0 o o e y M^ n M l M 0 O £ 7 M M N M M N , :. 03 ' N t n N N M 11 0 o O '- '0 N N M r- (V V < lD C 2 H °LL1 V N ' ^ N N : 01 1f1 C O O O N O N b, 0 a ,- Q O E r t 0 ' • `° V o ro > :: '. O Y ^i 'tai �'; 'o F : e e v ' rYT a s p ._ o z . � Tr 1. o 3 # ' 3 -0 7 u � , A a 1 t " L ` u v. u c a . t. �7 � S ; � v u v co . v • t�~ > >. o a .. .. .-` .. a ,,<. °? v d x v o o E v. „str x, v Y f' Y w w F co d , d co 'o u -- G r ., .. .. .. .. w w f- .. - 0 o a ¢ v m ._ L m o . Y a s a' ,,:c E E E E E E � E a,. c > • t o N u m O 'r Z : k p' . , N N l h N U J •�u� 9a�ua� y»easab �euogeN Aq pwedad V M N b0 WI O 0 M o 1 c0 V1 n CO r— o LO h h d. 0 0 m� of co co I. O co co o .t , 1\ n h.sp .o 0 0 b N d N n N N n Vik 5+� O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 M t{ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 W 0 M uJ k' ." 'i T s" ''s� o i0 01 M up 01 N v1 m O M h 0 10 a 1 •- 01 . 34 ` - 5 ' $s In V 01 co 10 O O ,- v1 N M 1 - Ii CO V v1 lt1 M N M V N 7 f F ': 3z'i F 'i„ ' o o o o o o 0 o o o o 0 ! ? a 45n-rat-IN h M 01 7 N M n N 10 0 7 N M I 9 +N x5 V M N M M N r N N M N — Men u 6 SY� N N 01 e}' 01 O M '^1 01 N O N te' y i, Y' • N 1(1 N M N N 7 N O 'Z. N }_ �M . N 10 '0 141 vt '0 R 1fl M N V V V n 7. Yk£ fli' :1 - V 10 10 M 7 N '.0 V M N 111 2 O 1(1 t e 0 o o � o 0 tf' zi M M M M M M N M N M N N V N , O N N N O . N .. 141 h N N 01 — 0 N 1/40 ^ 01 V M 01 N : -,. k . N M I C I O 10 u) 141 V d' N M V $141. i$4 O 01 N v V N CO 1D 111 - 01 N M N V ' Ce 4. '1','.$, N N N N M M M M N N V N N >- C cu '+` + w 0 ' ' M n N N N O N— V 01 M 10 n N . i j N 41 §. N 1- 7 N M N M M M N e ,: $. 0 C y 4t .:S y a .0 � '' a o 0 0 0 0 _ 8— a— a o a o o a o M ic' E N 01 n N. 01 ,- ,-.- N C) N N M r ' ry `y U E y O '$' . fl- ' t 3 ? O C K 3 ` 1 a m 1— ? F ix ,tx ¢ c u N r "" i s -. C C 8 N N og N , 0 C 0. _ v s IP, s." if , 0 t0 u o , E 0 -0 c Y i q u CO d r = co c- U 1 c 6 lc- < v -0 - a 0 d V - E o cm c a p 0 ?4, , 0 i c a N y C C a E T O N A - -am a E 2 .E 0 '" m "' v os E . Q m m E cu ' (- c a` a > r T A N T 0 r0 N 0 v 0. 2 L C L a' m " C o ul c E E m RA is �a _ c ra m c v (2 , d O a., O , m a- c 1 ' m m y m m a te ` . 0 •E ' E c u . E , u o o 0.0.0.0. 0. u u y u a y a« a, -a 0- 0 c� 0 0 .. . > c9 o" r E E m r Q o o p o 2 A Ga0 0 0 00 00 00 W Le c .- C M C C r ' C -0 C 3 0 au � x co C C C C o0 N N N N ro C N .0 � , . - c . 0 ' ' c . W c . C C CU 'it.,':, c . .„ , s - ' C Y a a 2 Y c v o .E k � 7 ai <. < o 0 'DUI 9aluaD q»easaa ieuopeN ,(q paiedad Ln M a) to ro 11 N N ut N V n 40 Y�' N n '.0 r N 0 V d If M V n n'0 n , V i0 i0 OD d iD SD 40 l0 40 lD F , '0 40 i0 l0 40 4_ b l0 O O O 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O 0 0 O O O O O O O O 0 O O 0 Ln . M N N r 4 Or re/ • N co O 7 D u t U1 in h 40 N 40 40 N r r n V 40 CO - # $ «k M M N. l0 M 0 0 M of O 0 7 7 N. M M o1 n . L M M M N V Cr) M N M 0 O 0 OD O ., N N N N CI V 11 M 01 40 CO 0 Sp to 40 40 40 0 � r.+ { f ix * . m N N O N Ql M 01 40 40 'Yj -O -0 N N N N N N t y N c a n 40 o co O N � E N U O U N N = r M ul O N V 40 . L . Li-) J 09 O -0 c v E y r a Q C y t _N O N O c v C vt 40 N 21- 40 N a N u c N R U N , C Q r r r r r N N - . O O J U v a !. 3 3= c v u o$ E E 0 5 c c M 7 n M M M O _ d '5: J^ O c . _DO 5 - H m 07 bi n V N N N N r U N C roc.e0 c c r L > N 0 ry c J O - 0 0 \ 3 • ' ( > U t` o „ 15 v �o o m i. E u m c E J u J u _N c '^ U L L L L M it � - _ Q j A U 0 a_r . r Q N N u1 CO M Cr V > t U ,b 3 O a n Q N 7 N 1/40 R r N c - O -0 O N 3 Y Y • L : N t 0 a vci m C C U ; " 'O b0 DO c J d O O m o v M o a o e e o ., Q „= a N U O O O 0 ry m � o o- 0 o> > a o = c . L ,, O r O = j T J O O s L q "{tt = i- m L C'i N O c c S O J d J — O rb € K O v° 3 A 3 T U E M V k ` d ' 1. - r0 c 0 a m o � 0 0 c s N O N 6 0 6 _ . r^ E "e.- ` ..- ., ~ ,. y '-" c s 3 LE v N A 3 3 T T J 3 c 1— c N v O v v 4 . E v l G 4 : -« o u o -O c a n . A E m _cl J J m 4 ._ m v o t 0 v S 0 0 0 � t . .,. ° > L° n v 0 o c .E _ .c ', c u v a '^ A e� p= as =o Q v ;c A Le to •'^ 'Sc t' 2 L co 9 U t) G L J L N c 0 O O r ,p W m W 4_ ' .fi, v c v Gl C N- .D N ~ .> o D.. . 0 E O `° ✓ V --� -0 ev, 2 d ,3 a 0 m 3 - a € ,,,,::-.111,:* , _) i 0 d O_ 0 a c ( 0 c s * aye U O o U=& U .Dui 'ialuaD yoieasab IeuogeN Aq pa)edwd so M a) Op h 0 0 0 0) CT to Ao d '2l'''', M M N 0 rn rn 0 ' x ' 7 V 'D M O n N N i� O O O O O O O O O M M a0 .0 N .- h O 0 0 O 0 0 O O O N n N N .0 ' N — — +u ) gg N co tD N : 'CV 3 1. O 7 V lD V 7 Cr) N 7 rn 0 r �Ft e' 1 0 0 0 0 0 2- 0 0 0 yL M M V M M .0 M M M 4 y .;.',Y, QQPP y. x "� . N. w N a CO r. CT a i v in 0 M .D a M .D : l' '' ' � M N vl M N— i K 5 R M •- M � n Fq I 4 { .D i n lD 1. N m rn ,- M N co 7 N W^ .D pp Y r 01 0' 01 00 0 0 01 t :Na, M - N N N - N n O ~ r v � N N r -' ra tn v ' } ' S'S � ;. .1 N N N N N O >- CU +h i I ` } ,� ^ N n n N T M N � 0 CO o N m a ° v m { N V N M N N QY Ill - w ,� 4 : M1 � i d }. E Y 0 0 \ \ 0 0 \ 0 :4 ii N M .O 01 V 01 - V 0 C O C 0 a d ,.% N r , rt a o ° 0 0 -.2 o o° �r t• ' 0 G r N M M N O1 N r°0-, vt Q N = p M M N M 'Q i s v -170 C c v L ' E ^ E 0 o u ri, n c Y u a) - 0 v v m p -0 1 c t= O - r:° A o f u u U 0' t C C v - O i ° J C O - .- _ N r 0 C] W O p u-p c c u 3 E u .“ . O a O E . v =''' % c 0 c c p E E L U v u 4 O . s- '5 } p N O O 0=u0 C C u 4£q 4. t # N ` C c N � c ro ` 2E Y r . o 0 o r , . a ' L v ._ ._ c I o a) [O u v - p - o o v> v a S. , . " y o E y E .� o o P., -> v L L c c a� o T p u u 3 ' O c - O c c ` C o U O V v O - o � - N _ a '0 y 0 co. O X 0 0 'q p" 'Le ` L' 2_ cp 0 v t T`3 a 3 ,E c u E 2.' A p>> ' -O O A 3 O fo L z T r > w T g . ,'x' K o o o p _ v .o d x . ` rr0 s p u t c u 0 v ` ,� v o u o g c m t c o w) v c)? Q d E i.1? ' 0 a o v o 0 0 ° - - 3 3 O 0 t0 p . 'C I"' � F ro C ,_ c L c C O. c t o 6- 3 c c s c","..!.,'"4„ 2 Q c e w o > CI * o co a) N N ` as r a E O O E- 3 O M L al N N Q d Q Z Z .Dui 9a2uaD q»easay ieuogeN Aq paJedwd rn a, on 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o "� e 0 0 0 O O O O O g "+ 6 .` •, aP 7 N % 7 N 2 N M N M n V n N `n ] .¢ N N M O N N il .. . ^ , } M M N FO N n M M 31 .. e `i W W CO M OJ M V i' � 8-2 to CO r- v1 u1 N M $ y i M o o • M t/3 W N '0 — N { N N N V 7 7 M ,, h 0 r + M N^ N\ x0 N N V o o ° p -0, � O '�` v °° e O N x N M N N n N O N N 'l O + c rNn N O O N 03 n F0 0,— n N 03 { 0 r. N N N N � N N `) bars 3 V3 r =, r0 '- M ou co M 03 i 0 M § �'Pu .. T x 2w. 0 (n 2. C t0 ,' n NN O 0 N O rn in . 0 . Art H 3 * N N N N N N �- N 7 N N V M V x0 r c a � ° 44o• N Q N m O- F+1 M rAl l0 4- Fp- CO x0 M co M V V O N O -2 -2 -2 -2. -2. --2 -2 -2 o o e o e N O N N C0 07 N V N N N N N p A a 3 c � + 0 0 o 8 c c x, et o ' - C - • C c A � % ` N co N F U) N " 0 0 'D . 9r x * .. O " 5. C 3 3 t0 J t E s a` o > cc E E "" " : v 'u o0n 0 can „� 1 v - 30 r Y C C ., 2 `. w mo t. 0 6 I 3 t > i s 0 y a in E 0 x x . 0 0 N O 3 r ' ^ 7, d , ' m O m d v .t 0 4) c = 0 a 0 ` -">;. e0 -o c 0 _ s E 16 .- 0.0 v c ^ N N O � 0 L r N A N L k' � c c SL J O O O o. r •y? i 0 S N Fn O O O .' % 8 > s_ O p } i.. a - 4 4 V Z ti to LL 0,L M ,L5 1 i2 2 J O 0 I- Jul 7aluaD gaieasaa leuopeN Aq paJedaJd op M 4) C9 k it. , ^l N 2 ct rfl N O fi o N N M N„ t . W Ol N ^3 j, i i M h O kd M f� Or 1`}' 7 7 N h ht5 't N N ? 4 a . v rn `- ° o = v ^ ° o k i - - N N ` ; n ° o t P Ln °° < T * _ z , = „ , .. to . . a 44 7 ° $ H a N i� „; < A P Q a` 15. Y 3 < 3 S 's ,. d 2'' a yy ' } Fr: y O fic -f L N > p O cc, . Y'rg[ w. - > O # ` > 4 N > N > > O F m i .. ` ' d 'D :� T T T T T T T y .;. c c m . h 4- m a , N m 7 m m i m A E v R: N O t m 0O O x co In Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln O ce V H W> H N M R Len lD h N H 4 < F” lkt .3uI haluaJ qDJPasab IeuopeN Aq pwedad M 4) 09 Tti fx ,UT. 4. ° O N O O a . c e o e e e e O 0 O # .-. N M M h co W N O V ] n CO N O ;, O r,.,:,,_,,,.. n ���� « 4..„ m Z .8 O Q ask ^O ' . a u ! 1 M! too can ta 3 i." iiir - . 400 -0 l f y qy s io P 1111 0 ..:. , . LIJ CO Y ...I z i tL x . z a O y } un N Il ` k ti 11000111 a M° M o O ce "O it s..�P i0. U ) N O O h N N 0 O N En er. I C10 r e' P x t E N M N n n N O 0 V o i o C r mi a '' GG6"' . - O N N N. M N N O a o Q a .; d 2 1- T 0 ti �,` . Yf L N •• E L 0. ut : °?; "�k k O L O x a T v Z .� LAJ 0 3` : =a , 'O p E c a A _ . C a . n : ' 0 0. L o c d a - t E Q. b A El: d O T a) E Q v T et o m ms Q • F , '��, ; E 3 Y E o o o E -to 3 L6 E v u _ p t - n ,a n 3 a E r c c a 03 a 3 a c c .-C g_ ';` k '' M O Y c v c m y o < o q c v c M 1 o F Vl 2,. i n. :"' N O N ‘"' ‘- J N O N u J F-' 301 9aauaD gaiease jeuopeN Aq paeda)d 0 v v on ) e s o o 7 6 e 8- -o. d 0 n a $ O x ,, t o 0 its O N a 7 — p tE i 3 2 > ` * ' 3 � g � 44— II j 9Si mo O > ca r o ca inc 3 r, In Y % 2 c m o t r g t Win ip S > M O a > o ra ' dt '' e 32 s 0 ' bM . S s c.4 ,,,--9. o O p 0 0 cm C'. M � p d T M O N �s t �' .- p d = v 0 Q N Y - o d `o O V o a o 0 +$ N 4) N C) T O ( T— M u 0 M us 3 ° o ' E 0 T 2 = I; it) ff 's ' t '• u O. Q cn 2 E « E a ) ate ' g :' P' -. ,' o 'd P) , ar E ... E E E J u m - 0 0 0 E p c v E E ,"`'�, ; o uu o E N o f E E w u u :f0 o *f .* m p s o °) u v Z w 0 E 0 E E E E E 7 `o $ L # `y 0 72 0 — m p O s y 1 O i +f - _ N ` ._ c a � o a o a o 3 c Y c s_ A .. u u - 0 0 0 0 °c � p o :* 4'. ;AA- e Q — Q — H m _ N_ F 'Jul 9a2uaJ yarease ruoueN Aq peiedaid V v to z ..fir r o - d O 0 0 O ip — v O C M O 0 0 0 3 D - N 3 Y o g ; O o ? o o -� 8- 8— 0 m 0 N s , _ > -OO CO Oi �O N r- O 7 1 — — — 0. 0 N o O v ' " 9m >' = A > _ w v c z v O U Z _ U > r O O 1 : n 1 : — — r'■ E ,9 e NEi _ O 0 v T Oi .- O , -- p 0 O v 4 O v a 5 o c N u Q N v O N j . „. - E a Td N 8o ^ r 0 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 fa v v E E v v t n s +�" • v v E v • u oA o 0 5 0 O '' O ,y r 5, s E .c 3 m o 3 3 v `o v o u o -o u O . O s v O •k ".. > >. v > > c E c c o o m o 0 - a 0 -o c r v h O u - fi . e v a v ¢ u N D N Q v v a v u f , , non u o "z m • auk l ioweD gaieasab ieuogeN Aq paiedaid N V a) 00 ` 'x. v l V M M 0 O v l D 0_ }� �' t' . N n N V N N V M > V'1 a M M O O ' .0 en > N h Lel R N n -1- M §n To S � '; i � 0 = V O N N N .— M s0 O N I' N V n 7 M v cu P r. ° G .ar l ^4 IJ - N -0 e. o a s Rx ��� n in N N. O e0 V en �� 4 s > > c c e e n in V N N 7 M C_ C e KI ear. { . . 3 • s .. 00000000 W O R i tz xo 2 `: �� ��� G� N vl .. s�..., ,.. — > vl M M M O O en vl ic, vi i C Q X6 9 , C m ell a , s" �r �� A O O N: N .1- e0 V M C oc ca It v O N N N ON t _0)- V 0 p eefl C I(1 7 N IN O en c 0 Q H O a ii « Y 3 'q t m e J a >, m -o 0 ➢, E c — ': O v O T 2 3 L O N 'O O T T 3 L O 0 w O T T b0 OJ O w O T >- 00 k L E a 2 ea N N N N c O R, w r a.. c `.. s v v 4,1) O O U"° O O U ,; v U N v N A N v ai v N u . r e tt ' w w F d w w 1— d r w w I� d m r,2 v K . '�, .. .. .. .. w w F 0_ f E '; E E E E v v p? E a` = tie E E t7.5 au v v w r a E E E E c c o c ° E -'O E E E E C C C C E - Dui 'ialuaJ 4oieasaa ieuopeN Aq paiedad M d O 00 CO s d o A --2. 0 N m W go h N > N F , O 1111 '5 T 0 co c 7 ae N J 00 N } . v j k . L y 0 0 > C is 04 at h ` 6 a 0 n (f) i'; ' -- - - 4511;10 ea -c J LA v > c v 1 � CO N h > n N c y C O L t J o E > co m O L O o N. N 9- n r y' m c cu R H� v 'ifs y c '^ a co_ C .. Y v E V k ^' o L m u c N v a. o ▪ Q ca 0 c c ri o> 2 L C c • y V s�J, 3 v .x o o It '-' m L o m , .,. C ) h. . rC - N O L i ta O p s v aL-. A v > y > r .,..„.., , „, ..„.•.,s, v._ 2 N 2 E = o -VO v E il mit o .. .. g ' a 0) = t _v v . ' 0 v v a 0 c > u m > N b SFxY`.j L y 013 ? L v N , I U J C V J C 'JUG 'JaluaJ ipieasab IeuogeN Aq paiedaid 7 V alp o s 0 a o a i c u, i -c-F2 a 1- w M m . � k �; +SR 00 '0 '0 '0 LO Li, V i1 • lD V M h 1/4.0 .... . , ..„- Elelielgelnee ti � 0:/... 0000 13 ���� $. -.Y 5: ME E il x Ce o la N C , . z IIEI _ rts i i a ia: NI cu a 0 l'' . . - H its, c 3 0 v s ,,,„ o. T ab ra v v o v a, .a y - a E ` E c v i _ d . " 3 E E. _E - E i p u v : C 4• m ., C 0 a c E o c V u, 4 m" c o c E ai A c 0 a o p _ a o e E Z a _ _ CI) Eti.E v o a v E '0' r s y v o s� c •J 1 E w o L to to c .0 t 00 00 00 00 .E Ou C C C C 0 C C C N C C C C . E 00 N N N N A I t. s 7 c o o c c E E E E E a h c k : - o - a a n m u a 'c C c 'E o 3 E .ri c •DuI '1awa] q»easab leuoileN Aq paiedad un V a) 00 co d ` ) .— o i n o op N. 7E,"°' n en in F m m 111 m r1 > CO 1/40 O Ln C in V .O V M N. '0 T = v O > c > -0 c c " O 2 0) Q , i0 o e f +f N eeettieee V' 1O M n 1/4.0 in _c 0 0 5 T 0- O J 1 D .. " ..Q .0 .O .0 'et >n u7 .0 4A ' V n ... v -C W H A o 8 82 0 0 2- o 0 2- e e e 0 e 01 N N N O en O N rn O1 V1 en rn O CO 1/40 1/40 .O 1/40 .O kr 7 O V rn N 1/40 >... u v r 0 O O u, 0 e oe -2 o e o 0 o e e $e 2 Q � :Vf v1 r1 � . c V O C 'a co .O N. N. O N .O 2 = 2 T W ,'O .0 ,c, .O t0 V u1 aK1 K ./. M h .{1 U t V p y b at e e e e o aft at o 0 e ci, O. A O N e en CO Ln 0 en N NY O .O N N. C O y — CO h 1/40 1/40 .0 .0 V rn H1 n ‘0 M N .D r E T a 0 - 0 v s N p C .0 O v Q! C C a yi a o v 0 < v ¢> an c o d - a a) u E E V o mi c 0 a a ' - E s v oa up 3.c 0 o c c 3 a 0 0 o m m E E 1 0 aQ o v ?' T E 0 LY a, 0- v d 4) o v v 0 E E V ra O a .- N C a u U j 0 C U O c O O • ° c ' w 0 d u aci v c v .E • 92 _ `o o v cco « c o a c E E 2 v O V v s > aw i0 T ` .0 5 0 C y C > CU o cvw co m a "o T '' ro o f ^ Y E u . E rr o rra v E n .� 0 C u `, u d E a v a ' av v z. a > m v o"_c E� ,E A £ Q v E ' " a o o c o c m m ea c c c c v a 3 c c C C C co N N N_ N ro c N . e • De v � r o o c a . E E E E o r a c v v v -0 - a s .� v c_ c 'c . c u v E . y '= K z E E 2 Y 2 2 2 w z U i 'Dui 9 alue) goteasab leuogeN Aq paedaJd V' v so rt ` ° a � � � � M # 'r o ;g ae a4 0 3 J ' � �ry}.. ae .. ae O 3 p TMe m tp m tT O 1„..';,iff?14,..4,;.7„.0:::. � M Vf O y 0 7,5 "O e # e ae O '�� �t "rr �a > o. c H Y r0 T O � 0 w j O m L,-, NO CZ r• r M \ N 0 N ru - 2 r+1 0 N 0 0 co y cn Le, O 'Y v O c 0 3 ,-h tk; -9- - O c v ,« a ae - O � a # 0 N o U « T try V ' u1 p t O s a a A H O T N V1 M :.: O ,a) O O N yy c O r° v o To m En ¢ _ . ° c m N o a Z i ' co o a a E c r u c c v ect V z c= a oo ra o °- P= v n ° ] ?) r° ¢ o y,. ¢ w C 2 v 0 0 r 0 gp q , ` . tl' N O ar a T E O n r` C ,. u `, c c 0 rri c 0 0 0 Y "' ._,3 U C CN A >- u T m , - w cu a c > 2 a . � 3 - J > 5 a cu x a O o f . E en c to c .� T d o E c 'n E 5 Oo°� '-ii.:„: # Y. � u ' ° 0. a.E v c a .2 n u > z` J m y v v E 00 u z m y c m v N L O L= L v p° O .— O co t L J N >2 ' �� A C N y A N N > L q N O . N V Yo a w L .. L . c t c 7 v ". .•= c O J 9 0 '0 -F., O m m« co °1 ra O- o C a T ,k-.) a= n v o � f F '�. O c O r` O ro O O r` O c O C d O O O O 5 S t= t c c ', c a v c L rraa c c 41 e j c 'O ,t c L ... O O ',2 9-7 O q D % c c u c E .E a c .E E c c 3 c u c J c 2 c r ; q ,. `. U � o c q L y 0 2 0 r L 2 '- 2 O 2 c 2 L g £, '13;.... 24 , -. A X ra J J 'Y — J J J 0 , r0 ` c r G! 0 c O ¢ v ¢ r° a ¢ a m ¢ u H ¢ ¢ v ¢ op ¢ 0 r • •Jul halueJ gaieasab reuopeN Aq paiedad r. V a 0o wiA 0_ 0 0 0 o o d T N N ON h M n1 A p r o 1 rn n i Y y , , S N V N N Cr u1 N a) o N N N en 0'1 ,./. - . N V N N V N N � 8 > _ t =a c -0 as o 0 0 0 0 Jo q� ri O m N 7 o '00 0 N rtt to m V m vi • y . 0 CU O 45' gq O ' t p g ,... .. ® > 0 « '�' v1 N V N In Ln 11 1 a e a) c o 0 0 j . W O s c C t . N N W 2 O O O . 0 . N�` la n1 I' a ,a2>), fhf E 0 I v C N co O cis N IIn .ds3' en t V v v c T O a L 0 c U O U d c U 2 u 9 ii N t y U o o u 0 0. c c O O O c o - o u o o o a - o v - a v O. co 00 7 r... m ,.._ 0 0 • � rca 7 in 0 n j I ' s u E o '^ a c E Le , k- C 1- _ O c < c ?, -o v z c c 4 i ' 0 A c c E— n c < v E v a .o n a"- > > d v — 0 > p c A .`-° oc o o c i m O O O " 3 a N o 0 a u v rTa v v m o ° a c A o _ yy z c O Q ` CO n n n A — c O H Q c n0 -p -O O 0 c O 'O O ler a v v n= m �, 3 v �, v v n- n `� y x m o -v C-3 c d v v o d 3 u u -o` g a 0i • 3 N s U o. ] j Y a) O E9 O c O o 'a v a) O 00 2 c v U o 0 0 u t c4 D U S n o U'L c[ D a Jul Jalua] y»easaa ieuolieN dy paiedaid . co c 0 0 to c d o a o 0 f n n m V t i e .. O �D v] co at at at. rO O S " parr �., _ e : ,. m 0 �aey # i aye 14 't S �Q N n v as , $ a ;s te ;, , ; . . F • lit+ ^ ^ M o e J , 0 0 0 f g 60 v1 l0 '0 '0 l0 ce S e5 $ p N at o 0 „LL '+'' 4 O+ ti: at a M Y1 'in .1- � r1 d 1tQ ' S P ( t A .. m c o O C d a I o t” ss_ o 0 0 0 0 2-2 N , Ln 0 g O q N C N ra N # := v f° 1, u c — `a g y N �' L „,- 0 c m c s S F , . pC N A N V o C au a N . � -° U o A c M -O 7 c v - Y .. < C ^3-=-0> O 0 0 0 < O Y cc 0 ° v 2 n° C - O E. U ° 'tf'! v c v -o c s ' A_o r s a O 3 c L o v L c N o c E .- 3 o 'c 3 . v 3 C . N U H C O N "O w S ° C L N N :- °' 3 0 ° . � v O u o c E m' ,c c o 1 a Bdl c E- 3 #" 5 �, E bc v .A o E, c o . - c o ` m co cu on u E a . > Q , [I u O 0 U O C CU o O i e . a_ D a C O _ o is 2 _ e, c 'o - v O v O . m y v '^ O m C s v O-o m nod Cl p H 3 1 0" D= L. c_ m y € t -,,, Q au u m ; m 2C1: a E .2 N, �a a o c' 0_ ` v y o" o z c r+ c "O ,J u 'O 2 �' =p N Y c fi '�t v 2° - v 0 0 0 0 ° u s oo O E v E a _E .E o ` C O v > v u N d > A C fi r° .x+^n z 3a a 0 v E R ` U c s c o 6o E v 2 u in -- v in tO o. • •auk 9aluaD gareasaa leuoneN Aq pandwd rn 7 v on 0 d s s > '0 '0 in rn '0 '0 '0 '0 a c — o v a) t N O y O j 7 Lc y N L IL � N a o o a o e o J v n M V O O LA ce tn Le T v cr C c 7 U '.:` vi i.'.': �k. ■ rtl U p g p 2 O r E A N C C O N 2 `1 ry o 0 O '^ ce - 5 y 0 u O U U U v C U is C N A c v a o — ,u0 v c '^ v - ; o Q -a -- a u o 0.0 n a J v v O o Q O L c N YC N aa) O O O C L - O C N O Y Y Y O v 0 v u p 3 v U t m c c -Lo as o L < = v v 3 ry '0 ra = O E o o c u -o > 'O c o 0 O _ u > -g -o .2 p o . E N - 2 o w ° O o'- u O ' a F r F 2 0 c U a o m v a) L v -o o 'E E ._ ^! `° ,� v v c v -- o > S a = O c A.E n= = m o o A, O Q 3 c a u 2 w ` m ° v M m E o m c .c o T i O m a ° o °� o 0 - co n o . v 0 N N n a) v u' s E c 7 c -o v > MI NEO . �C s u s N EE 3o 3 o E c ° Luo -C, n _ -o v o v N o E o N o N u a) :a 4-. v) -c s $ O ry O u oo c V O p a .E A 00 > oo !a L . v' a c O C ' ` o D U c c d< Q o Q N C 3 0 > 3 - o a ¢ v sv a ' - = oo 0o y ' 3 - c > uC ucoo o z. —'a( = o U O o o O N c E L O O W g W o v 95 c • La ( C O H j . ' H D m> c m .B O m r O_0 O s. 2-"E• .- c 0 N v N A O U j h T. L 0 O. c E c E N E v 3 v Q r 0 uu o- a E in 'a ,n'a 'auk 1 ia4ua) gaieasab jeuopeN Aq paedaid 0 in d 00 ra 2 ' M I' 0, n N M M ° 99 99 8 _ M- N O' o 0 M `��� �. 1. N V .- j o :' N V 1 N° g\ V c- o o ° o x k # " v v m o M 3 C i ° o ° 0 e 0 0 0 -9.82 , o # c c o o c c • o O ^— M M o p' 1/40 0 O of N O N N OJ L N a% o -- r M r !. co m- e e o ^ co h N 0 V .r 0 VII T 7 ^ V ° N — 2°- °- - O O CT N N O y y Ji M W N p c_ ,- V' N .21. h M C V 4 , `i,_. M V cn N O M CO h w 2 ^ M N re. 1 . - ^ j V M In n .-- 82 ° 7 O V ,— M ^ M v o . _ _ V N = 0 e p o CD c , t O m j O r r _00 , - ,- -- °^ �n an cu O t, O vi N a V M N m r. N 0i. ^ N U o A v C l E o !II c n i. O M V O a O. o c ¢ a v a . o ° o m o a N c Q 0 ° V L ° c 0 O C co N N C ra N 3 C Y t• o e e o o u d 0) E 0 u • `n N ^- N W - M v v E c N o x` ¢' n E E o �' Sat3 U o 0 v o a v J ✓. z°:. c N rv. c H f _ o c c .- c ] o O ° O al ea O .,-.- E ° 'v o CL s v = m y v w v c ''a ° o. v 9- v o o v o ry o o E v o o E v ¢ O'e a -p ' LA r E o �L E o , . , . T E E ` ° 0 0 ° E y, E - E 0 ,� o v E C° o u -0 E ' v o O o c _ u v o ' o -° ' 'o. a c v .� E x v a - ' a 3 0 w E v > v o f ` r m E o 0 m o" m >, c c m O a d u E in, s c o f E s o s E m 3 c ° ° Et v c C c v` E 'o c -c `o v v ° E cu w E > °` . u u = i o° s O . 1€4,4 , u. ;.:xa 3 � a ce w 3 0 0 i�< � � w 3 o O: 'Dui 'ialuaD gpieasay suogeN Aq paiedaid an N tic o o a° 82 d S SSS Ong °OEM VD N i. N UU00 M N O o o O Q it. to N M M N N c u 1 N a J N i! ! 1 I 1 N C 0 C a) a • LA Q O w U m v c c s v 1 Y} cc 0 O O — p 2 O w 2. pc. u to U L Lo O ,s U ( _O -o N U U N N rb rb c 0 • .` d 0 3 E S v . E U N y 1 O ` O O C N 2 c A C U • 7. 5� U U U V U O ° .� O fa co C ;.. J d A d d L-O > v a U 0 •, 4; o _ c d ` E ' O i0 U O U 3 y O 0 t O O it t O. N p` C v 0 Z. U U :e' f T— 0 } O C ic C a 5 ° U m V O N co Y d O O N r... ovo o c 2 - o �a c 3 c 6J — w N C N •3 N C T W c N v f ? A "O _ ` _ C A _ N 0 be) O O a O N M ,_ y; . F N G w S 2 Q Z a .JUG 9aluaJ y»easab ieuopeN Aq paiedaid N ul v CO rII N a > n N vl 00 N 0 V a N > in N M M 0 N u1 N .- 0 N O > > ra C N In a £ at e # a4 `O v l 1.n l at 0 7 `D O O - N N M 'Q 00 r v 0 0 0 5 T o v 10 T. -o 62 22 2 at at at at at at C Cl or. Ln )D 0 i n Ln h N > D ul Al M en '0 Al 141 N Al 3 O v r0 L W N 2 O! n '0 N Cr) N 0 V o n ce > in N M M 0 N 141 N > 0 CU ul 3 v7 2u d o ae at at # e a4 # at C ry O C A a mo ko .p C u o L a a c 00 a v - AI # # # OD N , # a p t p e at III 1- E p O )O M , Y) •7 LA e+1 V NN ,- 0 o >' N L o — 0 c O L C O a a CO O a a Q O N .2) U a) L + - Q c v co O. M 0 oa• N 1 T v a v Q v r` v v L T V -C o o - o '3 > a v -- o> — 7 C L O C ry L C� V -O a 0 N O L L L O 0 — c C '` M Y O v a s .0 O CO C c E V U cn 3 O v 0 0 � t u c c 2 v v O N 0 C . - ` r0 0 p 0 =p c J w C T 0 - O o. c 2 - v j L L t L v v L L 0. < z m y c - 0 0 cm 3 E° v v m co - v o 3 -O C C C C 0 .0 L U v N w o O 0 O y o0 0 c E v C U co, 0 U 0 (00 0 f2 .e. T° . m v v s . m L .- C x C v 15 'O :2-c. > v 0- V C C) > C v y o ° 0 0 0 3 = v c c 0 E « a v 01 v v m -o a U 3 5 _ c a m .c •5 L m o 2 c O U v N N >„,u O T c i , ,-c O r0 V V O C O p p Q O C v O V O C O O L O r0 u u m O LE a — C a 3 0 x 0 0 -' c c o c - £ — — — 0 0 - -o .- o N Q Q Z Z a "Dui haluaj q»eesab ieuopeN Aq paiedaid M N 0 0 b ra dt O N LO 1/40 0 d' N F 9 o 6? e 6- 0 0 i0 in N 7 7 V > 0 in N 0 P V a' 7 �p O `O O '0 " 00 O u1 N- ' vi 7 7 rn M °' 0 4. • � � 0 c c 32 99 92 e s o 0 > m 0 00 . 0 ;,. i a en Le 0 W v ce ! u > 0 un N V V V 7 0 , . 0 000 u _ O O 7 o a a - m LA c o ES' E e et p e s 4 act N N C CD n. u -0 O v o g "' n o, v c v v 2 s a v ", A m en ra ca v "o i- u rn v 3 = 0 0 0 N = 0 0 c c 3= c c v - 0 -0 o n o 0 - ' c 3 3 c ..--.. tit) 0 3 3 o - ' € C N G v 0 x 0 C N v v 0 o> c E E v a> 0> E E � V r0 .� 0 W s v ` v ` N 00 00 f C c , ' 3 0 Q Q p C- 0 0 Q , O 2 N O 0 00 00 > O Q b0 0 0 0 ,' Q 0 C C ; 2 u Y G G v o_ S u G" r v c o w a u m ? v • _c O L x w a in �r �n C CO 3 - 0 v v 0 9 '3 CO 3 0 0 v v 0 0' u _ _ u O w L N C C C , O N N O r` L N C C C I k . } _ o 0 C r0 -O _ v Iw . _ J O 0 O D_ 0 i N 1 L J J O O 0 d ro .( N kiea,'"k: r ' i v v U Z in vi a -71 or U 2 7 cn rn col a Jul 'Ja4ueD gpieasay ieuopeN ,(q paJedaid 7 tin 0 oo a a) vim \ ° ° \ N 6-9 U Y O n N O ,. n O L "v 0 : i 0 oY N b t _ bR O ba 3 Y # p ul W U e Y N en co .«- O. O u ^ y N 4 o 4 m E o V1 " + d. Q O .? ce k r T ��W// O . p U M1 ,w+. ' h in 6L O O V j o a Z O En 1- O 0 f' T li 0 N 4 L Q m I— T ti J n V to v '*s E E E E o U w/ v v Yi 4J O , , 3� F i L L V x c W 0) , o c co u � v Z r < E 0 g, ' ¢ ° E Z O , E W c q E E rc ro� 0 O. 0. t E e - 0. " o , t� ,? E ° u ors G .3 :": N E E ': [ .r w E Q . 3 tz A t . _ -0 3 v E v Y v 4 is t �' � a .co n A 0- S a o " v ' m 'o m e is o o 0 c c ti z, , < v E v E v E s's v 4- H U 'au 'ialuaj y»easab ieeopeN Aq paiedwd N an v cn € r d \ O , .0 u M M M O O u1 N n $ ^ 0 0 2 N h in V N h Q M h N ilr € 4 5 r *"P,r Olt S �p ,g 1�e. R p T . . 8Q o F 0 - w " v" > N c r _ : aS C aae CS 7 N f: 1 o a o .. ,� "� " VY , O O co PV n N t CI n Cr M S 7 N a c t 0 - ` .-� r.,-, 3` 7. . E .. ,. o - s`. N , j S ,4 ^ C c �k v ` $ C b N % 4 .. a d p :2111. tr Q r` i 0 .. F } o E 2 . . E -o N t f a] • k Q ¢ y t a 3 3 o *_ ` u v o s r t v o a v o rr.s 1 6 w o c A v c ` J a - :, I r ` v o - r v v ra -o v v v x u t : a a, O Y w w I— a w w F - a . 1 '. O g v XI- F ` O D N Q ' Y N N N .. . .. .. C D9 — C r „ v o Y u E E E E Q? ?3 «., E v c ''' v nn E - ,� u s :°. °% E E E E c c c c u IL' A m�3mo ���,3333� t' „y-a 4. •JU I 'JaluaD y»easab ieuopeN Aq paedaJd , v t Oi Lr n n O M �o I-. M c vt M N N O M N N o 7 In �D V M h �0 M rn 1411;11, 41 OJ iD Y „ ■ £ ti y �Y J �q ,,p �C ,p 1 W i a g a s T ee ae o ae g y O Y W h lN0 Cr, f+l v�1 V Y?. R n N � . 'Or X O . i C`' b1 N : v u se. ae ae s a e e u e e e a s a a e 44 u� s j Nt:" LO V N W W. M n V7 C • E 9 2 C 0 N N A OV oD C C N N m va v o co o c m t. . = _ v m Q S E N U E 00 J C O O C J 7 £ C r2 !il F o0 _ - c U ti _ c '. E o ` ro c c E , d L 9 1 T O c N U w y N ^' " Y o T O E v N . j O a o j c a °- E 2 20 !..s ° x E Y a 0 Y To o ° o _ 8. t fi N g . E 0- ra ` E v c v ` • :' o a a v - c ' u —y 7137 m '-' -' N ,. A j a d O N ` a ' O o s L t 4J , o a C " O O p � t r v co E u c N C > > u? r, .L L N _c L L C) c O c ry i'4 o f , ) m a o a o, o a . o „, o A g m u ._ v = E u .m m o m E v ;- t a n c. c u a U v? a a a v o ,. c E c E m ¢ v , o 0 0 0 0 p,, b u op . E m c a m o o m o �_,. C C • r t 1 ' c: ' b.0 .c .5 c c c M . tr.) •• N _ N D.0 C .. .= c - r a 0, • a- a . ` " . u u o o c n E E E _ > u a c v t c c u c E c 14 .r e 'o -o a a .e v _c c c c_ ca) 'o c : �-° E = o E :ate n 301 haw ie a� gaasab leuogeN Aq paedad 7 9a n un N 0o ra d 0 0 0 0 N N M rn n n rn Q N., O 0 F *{ N I. V] N 7 rn N e s0 l0 N VD lO 'Y N V €n N 7 rn rn Ln t =' x � cc a N T hO N 4 g w tt in N '7 ut v1 ' *5{ , �4 N 0 R A O c = u En _ v €o o ,-- � m $ - -' , r ) i E ° o ° j J E `o co = 7 C V U N T d' « N T v r0 0 N v °- `° - y v '° ° — v = ..2 u _n E a a '48 ry '. � O r0 N O 0 E i..0 N 2 d u w N v N Op O Ora C 3% __ C 4 n -O 2 > i = . _ N N cz yr ge t h ; a Y s s -o o —° o c °� c u o J T r -o ,� m m ,� B v v o 31 c u A v or, ` � v 'c E s c'o 0 0 o c o ' ff ., C d %. .L.. L N — p C O r0 r0 N N t O a n y n <` 2 ra N V O c yr —_ N t ro € �s '% . v c f f ` _E Q t A o`u N E 3 i 3 u `tl -c J 0 E c A o o- c v O -o v v 'm o=i 0 `% o g�' d o i > s ° A m E4: v E d-c < m c a F _0()C c c v -as c o v a¢ ra c N v To o 0 0 - )` u o < a �, v ' E 0 a 0.0"W = c o., p u r`a O o v . _ m t _ _ v o x o 2 0 a,3 a? v u u L .22 U A x x J° -o v 1 . _ - O -O 2 c p v, O r cn N M W — gy p O y r N p ": ra _ < W . V . . v . r0 --- i A 1 it �, = U A C N G � i `p O rC ,, L . y , y ° r q; c e' 0 2 r0 c c O u = r t aa" N U U d v @� s C C N L -O C U �' v O 'E C = Fs' '4 J v d O L ao J O a N J C J L to° O N O a s A N 04 i m N � : U O U d' U o_ .3 a as I - 3 = V u= o u rn J i n m rn an d ea 301 7aluaJ q»easay ruopeN Aq paJedaid oo in 0 00 s o 0 0 ..„. . 0 . a w e o e' 2 T en in n M N. ,— ,— M n .o u'1 m N �O V I. 2 el ut N M M L N N N e ,t� : j , , i it x ,42 a Nit t Is t i d c r ( p `r — up �N o o i. _ i n 7s a oa m un 01 O ff + i . a k YJ V N V 1- fit' i ; V] N M M Lt N V1 N N 0 0 : ' d t M Q i t C 0 ".41 ry 02 ti U +�, 3 -' • o C N 0 O N y - a o y N ;. O C 0 O O- v ¢ y, O p � +, - O L + O .a 0 Y' m 0 `c T €' < 0') u 0 0 y L T 0 O •` o ` 7 T = 3 o c v E E o '(0 m -o n o u m a 0 x r ul a c o ' N 3 - 0 T m E _ "O _c O. (0 c L 0 o L Y b , o O E v a r c o c c v . E U a 0 T O O c 0 4:, a - O 0 iQ3 0 c 0 N 0 O _c e 0 C C ¢ O 0 V U - - V O N G 7 O o k tl L U 2 E ro N u N u j ggg( 0 -O .. ( c .- U v • ° v v 3 a o co o ca u c • n 0 E 0_ a a 0 i —° m E v 3 >"' c ` m ` m 0 0 A 1 c 0 c 0 . E 14 m in c m o f m ) m m u u O Ti m _0° O o o. ` as 0 c E a g F o 0 0 0- ° 0 - 2 a '^ ` n !> c -2 OO • ._ 0 `0 0 O C 0" 4 ° c U c C L C 0 0 C C 92 U k o N 0 N 0 O O _ , ,�C } m m m m m o9 O O 0 2, ¢- Ce w 'Jul 'e_asaN, a a_daid } t \ N 't -1— �«« ® — ® . � /\ d< eese® o m N - 1 — '— / N tt t 0 CL \ \ . } u «. ) ) cn \ \\ \ /: zz } E E _ if( } > \ � j \ 4 OD $j 2 \)± -- / ) co 0 a / } tt � } } \ \ \� w <B : -2 " e U r at; t Z cr) ,u •JUG 9aMuaD gaieasab ieuogeN Aq paredaad 0 v cc d CA N � aw o e y r o .. 3,-:' o o _ O F$ % n O 1 ^ 7 7— 0— 0 ° Q 7 ' 0 v ���e W A ' I. + 3 > s a y „. C r L y 0 v h s 00 3 a o 0 far.i -C1 >, g �. fit' ._ ` 6, N W 3 v� r'' ,t: c p O. Y CZI of y k '74.1 4' OO_ 0 i. V ,� . 4 v P. N V) N > ;.a NI c N Q 0 E PJ J r - i r° E 0 m v — to e E E u '$" U V f y r T y a L 0 y 4,t,„,.:2„: 4 " v '-5 r > ' E ° - z , k 2 c N G v .s a Q c •• E ;143' I �#' E s o w. o "o O �_ o X ' � . P: D o 3 b c c u v G C y �. E E N '° C. o o v . u W cn U 'z , . -- E = o > >. E E O O o p s E E 0 —o h Y ,g ` , y El) O U v, ,� ,: c c c o. Y u v 0 �- p � 0 0 c 8 x Tv ? >� u t O O E ,- U u 1- in o] U> 09 I— Z .out 9atuaD q»POSBN leuopeN Aq paiedaJd g oA CO a M M M m o ,n U• +` n m N h V1 Q N. M , n N 1'Z 4e y J ..... p �p o T T ' O C C 0 I. u7 7 N n v � h. en i N h Yo a tM iQ 'q' V Ye., 4� ' - M k J CO N i ' N c 0 t 0 a c c 0 N c N a Q t 0 , F ii v j : O O 7r ' O E) O .• cu O _T v CO m N A d C E _ j N "' O O ... ... � ` 1. ,, N '? d 00 u y E � "O N Y � � V .- . F . w w H d V x - Q • w w H d •.' '= N E' G� v v v ' E E . c c u u • JOB haluaD q»easalf ieuopeN Aq paiedaid N 0) 00 o 0 o 0 0 o e e o 0 o a o a o o +;''. e 0 0 0 0 0 o e e e o a o a Y d " . ,_ 01 u1 N. 0 01 M l0 h M Ol N Ni N G O M ° = Y N l0 hO 10 l0 v] v] V �0 R t+1 1� 0 4 4, rr n1 N ^ ka i 0 0 ,G y gyp, y 0 , ( �, ' cn 3 LO a , V' wi AMY R s r ` � OP eq h M O r . P . aa a 0) d R h r\ .o t m �. tit Co N .- N t x Ihr. `a o Z Z n 14 14 la ut 7 M h v1 Y+3' ' ' O z Ln c c fi 0 To o C E 1- g A - (0 V p C O p v C °° -o c N o N p CU 0 m a p A s E - p 0 c o p c o A 4- %h — o 0 y ' o v bc a f. , E o E c p ` c c o p o m u 5„ t . b0 0 y N ra N o C v 4,P,' v ? > - o a o a T a p p N — N �, ? a - > o n > E c v a o L) E c m - x E �e n 0 o p c'� p i 4O c O t Q A . E v E v E s ! a a > � . s+ c >' . ,_ o a v O v a O s s v N m o o « c s - E y m I r m ip ai ip c ip 0-0 N 0) C O c N 0 0. 0 . O u e d .' L .. J U L c o E ` 0 o a tn o m a- ° ' . A A c A c m u - E E T E o E E v ` r 7 n. t n o a r, . > Y d o ` f E E 7 y Q v o 0 0 o A o ' 00 00 pp 0- ,C o C C c c , 0 c c M v 0 t c ° t Y 0 0 r0 rd c o c C c oo N 'N N N [ c _ . 3" a s c E 0 'a • > > > 8 c o . E E E E o . Ti- c v � c c . c E c w K U a c Q Q a Q n Q r- Dui 9aluaD yDleasab IeuopeN )(q pa-1edaid en tD v d N R uu n N d' in 47 '0 tv v at E 1r rf z.. b ` ° ° N ce E F t ° $ a „ � 2q r7 c N v Ln In t 0 t • 0 a tk v c r <, 5 a o o O 2 a p A c 0 o c ` c t - > 7 ) N T N c E v d o 3 - C C �. D. U U a y d o '^ ' � `° m v v v _ r v ca s E - £ N, o v N o< o f m v v ` c v o c m y J E 0 0 Y c n' E c o 3 v_ Da 0 0 ; - FL' -o m ono o 0 cti U ' J u fi < " v v 3 N 2 c O v o a c < N tC b" V 0 u > O N .2 I W m m L L o — M J m _ y C B U N Q s N J H v O d by C k 0 v> ' C c N j c N te r.. L O . _, N �i C C aS C u s` + `o v o o. - E o u E m o w u 3 c `n v ° O O E L C c O C O GO « . N O c C C os m °- v ,_ o c c A c v v � c ... r N C N _m -C co ti u • E v s ‘,..E t a .°-° v N v u 3 v 3 u `° E c 1- ¢' y c A c� c o t J O N C v O i 0 G) > O -J N v v t E' g v a- W O 0 •, u c E > 0 v y C f C ,Li _c V a 00 E . U C v O < rC < (-4 C • c p� C a 0 c u r o v E .-- m o e s' C C O f 0 2 J a m 0 � c 0 _E L x C J v N Y d N- -0=0.7.),;", ~ Gl !� U O .y Y O O Y c L C O C. ' i s V .V " . ' N W C= C N L O - C C V N "OC C C E C d v J ' -O C L J 'O i N N Y W C c ` O `v A J T m T C-0 z- a) co U U m z° U i ' kg Asa - v v 3 = U v u a � ,c2) v O s. „, �a in �a i .Jul 9a2uaD q9ieesab leuogeN Aq paiedeid V 0 IC on m f V v] N 00 0 0 ° N M .V `r N � T N .0 t R • :11:1111 O u1 ■ L ` a a ka . ltV r o o a° o 0 0 y. r 00 4114 N ce v c 9 m a.t '' 3 r p � : c :4..- {4x 44 u. En c) c g r t O y o Q N O '2. 4F 2 ` O d •` C a p O rlii U s i N , -O " C N E E u E A m a o u m o u - o a = _c 2. N m o t o C v ; LW 5 ~ o Y s aS .) T O L L fo ( .°, p E u • O . 0 0 .5 E 4 2 2 N u i co J W Ln -O C :} L O L v N J] C U C -0 -o > N 4J a) ' s ° a .: 4 ° o C m a) 3 E B c 0 o E v cr, ' ' s s E o o a, `_c v v v 00 re 0 oA° t L L E 2 m L ' L o r a� 0 t -o s > 0 a u .... - o E E m i° o , :v > E L L C 0 O L T 'e O U 0 O L. v c tO m 3 v 0 -O O O 3 u T v a l4` ,. ` v E o `v v c s, a a c u g m u u • t. d a ' -- v E o 3 c 7, "o v R s- a; c o u u ` o d `c° m ' L.• o a ro . s o o n y o > 2 v E o o 0 0 "o 0 0 u u ?_ - c :: c c c c c , c c N aflM1 N A O ro v O p L � is ` m m m a) m p 2 O O z- ¢ w 3 o O`_ __ N¢ ¢ 7 z 0- • 301 gp,easab leuopeN Aq paiedaid N v 00 d O a -2 -2 0 * N N V 1— 111 `I" V Y m hip N v- N r M1 N N N V V M 7J it o at o a o 1.0 r7 Ln N 't r` V V 7 0 O 0 0 0 C F- O N a 1. Q t.1 > u v N C C ° N N rn V } O O C N 3 k N O O '2 3 4 A c c 0 > m E E ': N oo W W N. +n +> Y C v X Q Q C > Q Q ry C „Thif N N O W LLJ Q 02 2 0 0 0 v l co .2 W L L C C a g a'47 T 7 C� Z a in in a City of Aspen 2011 Transportation Survey Results • APPENDIX G: VERBATIM RESPONSES TO OPEN -ENDED QUESTIONS Following are verbatim responses to the open -ended question on the survey, sorted alphabetically. The verbatim responses were not edited for grammar but punctuation has been added for meaning or clarity. Question 10: If you have heard of any of the proposed solutions to the Entrance to Aspen mentioned above, how did you hear about it? "Other" responses. • 20 Years in valley read in newspapers • Aspen Times • 20 years of reading the local paper & listening to • Aspen times & daily news. news. • Aspen times cd. • 30 years in Aspen - heard a lot should of let Disney • Ballots, news articles, city meetings over the 30 plan it years • 37 year 'Aspen' resident • Been have 30 years • 40 year resident. • But politician have been (beating off) on this issue • 4-0 yrs of conversation for decades • After 30 years, who knows! Newspapers • Chanel 11 • All above • City councilman • All of the above • CDOT books • All of the above • Coverage in newspaper /radio • All over the place for the last 20 years. • Cowop • Am an aware citizen • Daily newspapers • And papers in articles & letters to editor • Debated from 1968 until now • Appallingly disingenuous! • Discussions on TV • Articles in daily papers; letters to the editor; • Endless and monotonous reporting council meetings on grassroots • Engaged in community! voted! Have been surveyed • Articles in paper again & again! • Articles, letters & editorials in local newspapers • For years - studied for last 20 + years! • Articles /reporting in local newspaper • Former RFTA employee • Aspen deserves to have it's social engineering go • From "Letters" to the editor in the local daily bad • Grass roots - newspapers • Aspen news papers • Grassroots TV • Aspen newspapers (Aspen times & Aspen daily • Have been following for 39 years news) • Have been intimately involved with this issue for • Aspen papers yrs. • Aspen papers • How many times has this been voted on? • Aspen papers • 1 believe in the local paper c • Aspen public radio, newspapers • 1 get my news from Toni Kronberg & Red ant. • Aspen Timer • I have been hearing about this for 40 years & voting • Aspen times on it in 1994 1 suffered a major auto wreck with 3 • Aspen times lanes out of town and no turn lane into the west z" c • Aspen times end. • Aspen times • I have been voting in town for over 30 years - of course Im aware of the entrance to Aspen a Page 66 City of Aspen 2011 Transportation Survey Results • I thought there was an article in the paper • Local paper • I work for the city of Aspen • Local papers • I'm old and over the years of nothing happening I • Local papers can not remember • Local papers • Imagined while driving a cab for 13 years • Local papers • In 30 years who hasn't heard of them • Local papers • In newspaper /talk radio • Local papers • In the press for 40 years • Local papers • Internet and social networking • Local papers • Involved w/ transit & entrance for years • Local papers • I've heard about it for 20 years ad nausea • Local papers • I've lived here a long time & pay attention • Local press • Letters in paper • Local print media • Letters to editor • Long time Pitco resident -as such have heard many • Letters to editor ideas. • Letters to newspaper, city video on history of the • Many sources subject • Maybe on the radio? • Letters, newspaper • Media • Light rail is the only solution for the future • Media • Lived here for 16 yrs • Media • Lived here for 30 years what do you think? Thats • Media how long this has been an issue! • Media • Lived here for 30 yrs. • Media • Lived here for 35 years. • Media • Local media • Media • Local news • Media • Local news • Media • Local news • Media • Local news papers • Media • Local news papers • Media • Local news papers • Media • Local news papers • Media • Local Newspaper • Media • Local Newspaper • Media • Local Newspaper • Media • Local Newspaper & cable broadcasts • Media • Local newspaper coverage • Media V • Local newspaper/ local T.V. • Media c ro • Local Newspapers • Media 6' • Local newspapers • Media z To • Local newspapers • Media ° • Local newspapers • Media - Paper & online z • Local Newspapers • Media & ballot issues - o • Local newspapers • Media (Print) • Local newspapers & radio discussion a Page 67 City of Aspen 2011 Transportation Survey Results • Media coverage -local newspapers. • News paper • Media over years • News paper • Media, news etc • News paper • Media, newspapers • News paper • Media, public meetings, etc. • News paper • Media: newspapers -radio • News paper • Member of "Entrance to Aspen" committee • News paper • New paper • News paper • New papers • News paper • News • News paper • News • News Paper • News • News Paper • News • News paper • News • News paper • News • News paper - previous votes. • News • News paper & e -mail • News • News paper (local) • News • News paper /radio • News • News papers • News & Ncws papers; Also elections, Lots of • News papers elections. • News papers • News accounts • News papers • News articles • News papers • News Articles • News papers • News Articles • News papers • News articles • News papers • News articles, letters to editors • News papers & grass roots T.V. • News articles, paper & online • News papers radio • News in print • News Papers • News media • News programs • News media • News reports • Ncws media • News reports • News Media • News stories • News Media • News /media • News outlets • News /TV • Ncws over 35 years! • Newspaper • News paper • Newspaper v • News paper • Newspaper • News paper • Newspaper • News paper • Newspaper • News paper • Newspaper 2 News paper • Newspaper Z • News paper • Newspaper o • News paper • Newspaper a d Page 68 City of Aspen 2011 Transportation Survey Results • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper ▪ Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper ▪ Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper of • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper A • Newspaper • Newspaper o z • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper z • Newspaper • Newspaper a • Newspaper • Newspaper °. 2 Page 69 City of Aspen 2011 Transportation Survey Results • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper ▪ Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper ` y V • Newspaper • Newspaper u • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper — o • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper T • Newspaper •Newspaper a • Newspaper • Newspaper m 2 Page 70 City of Aspen 2011 Transportation Survey Results • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper • Newspaper - Editorials • Newspaper • Newspaper & at work • Newspaper • Newspaper & editorials • Newspaper • Newspaper & Jeffery Evans • Newspaper • Newspaper & KA ©JX • Newspaper • Newspaper & radio • Newspaper • Newspaper & radio • Newspaper • Newspaper & Radio • Newspaper • Newspaper & radio • Newspaper • Newspaper & radio for decades • Newspaper • Newspaper (local) • Newspaper • Newspaper (Local) • Newspaper • Newspaper / radio • Newspaper • Newspaper articles • Newspaper • Newspaper articles • Newspaper • Newspaper articles • Newspaper • Newspaper articles • Newspaper • Newspaper articles • Newspaper • Newspaper Articles • Newspaper • Newspaper Articles • Newspaper • Newspaper articles • Newspaper • Newspaper articles • Newspaper • Newspaper articles • Newspaper • Newspaper articles • Newspaper • Newspaper articles • Newspaper • Newspaper articles • Newspaper • Newspaper articles • Newspaper • Newspaper articles v • Newspaper • Newspaper articles ro • Newspaper • Newspaper Articles CC • Newspaper • Newspaper articles & letters to editor o • Newspaper • Newspaper articles / letters to editor • Newspaper • Newspaper articles for 48 years! • Newspaper • Newspaper articles thru last 20 + yrs!! Stop asking 0 0_ • Newspaper act!! v Page 71 City of Aspen 2011 Transportation Survey Results • Newspaper articles /advertisements • Newspapers • Newspaper articles /letters to the editor • Newspapers • Newspaper articles - televised meetings • Newspapers • Newspaper coverage • Newspapers • Newspaper coverage & letters to editor • Newspapers • Newspaper coverage; city of Aspen presentations to • Newspapers private groups in past years. • Newspapers • Newspaper editorials • Newspapers • Newspaper letters to editors • Newspapers • Newspaper reports • Newspapers • Newspaper reports • Newspapers • Newspaper reports • Newspapers • Newspaper reports • Newspapers • Newspaper reports • Newspapers • Newspaper reports • Newspapers • Newspaper reports • Newspapers • Newspaper service. • Newspapers • Newspaper stories • Newspapers • Newspaper stories, letters to editor • Newspapers • Newspaper stories /radio • Newspapers • Newspaper TV Grassroots • Newspapers • Newspaper(s) • Newspapers • Newspaper, letter to ed, etc • Newspapers • Newspaper, NPR • Newspapers • Newspaper, Petitioners • Newspapers • Newspaper, radio • Newspapers • Newspaper, radio • Newspapers • Newspaper, Radio • Newspapers • Newspaper, radio • Newspapers • Newspaper, radio, mailings, meetings • Newspapers • Newspaper, Radio, Presentations at my place of • Newspapers work. • Newspapers • Newspaper, TV, Radio •Newspapers • Newspaper, work, studies • Newspapers • Newspaper /City council • Newspapers • Newspaper /letters to the ed • Newspapers • Newspaper /media • c Newspapers u • Newspaper /Media • Newspapers co • Newspaper /opinion, editorials, straight news • Newspapers ° • Newspaper /radio • z Newspapers • Newspaper /radio oc • Newspapers • Newspaper /Web sites • Newspapers • Newspaper -Radio • Newspapers -a • Newspaper -radio • Newspapers a N a ` Page 72 4 City of Aspen 2011 Transportation Survey Results • Newspapers • Newspapers • Newspapers • Newspapers • Newspapers • Newspapers • Newspapers • Newspapers • Newspapers • Newspapers • Newspapers • Newspapers • Newspapers • Newspapers • Newspapers • Newspapers • Newspapers • Newspapers • Newspapers • Newspapers • Newspapers • Newspapers • Newspapers • Newspapers • Newspapers • Newspapers • Newspapers • Newspapers • Newspapers • Newspapers • Newspapers • Newspapers • Newspapers • Newspapers • Newspapers • Newspapers • Newspapers • Newspapers • Newspapers • Newspapers • Newspapers • Newspapers • Newspapers • Newspapers • Newspapers • Newspapers • Newspapers • Newspapers • Newspapers • Newspapers • Newspapers • Newspapers • Newspapers • Newspapers • Newspapers • Newspapers • Newspapers • Newspapers • Newspapers • Newspapers • Newspapers • Newspapers • Newspapers • Newspapers • Newspapers • Newspapers • Newspapers • Newspapers • Newspapers • Newspapers • Newspapers • Newspapers v • Newspapers • Newspapers • Newspapers • Newspapers • Newspapers • Newspapers - both Locals ce • Newspapers • Newspapers & after 40 years here - you hear • Newspapers everything oc ro • Newspapers & letters to the editor. Newspapers • -n • Newspapers • Newspapers & Media -o • Newspapers • Newspapers & radio a Page 73 City of Aspen 2011 Transportation Survey Results • Newspapers & Radio • Paper • Newspapers & radio & public tv! • Paper • Newspapers & voting • Paper • Newspapers & web • Paper • Newspapers (DUH) • Paper • Newspapers / Media • Paper • Newspapers / residing here for 25+ years • Paper • Newspapers and letters to the editor of AT and • Paper ADN • Paper • Newspapers and radio • Paper • Newspapers articles, non - binding ballot questions • Paper • Newspapers local newspapers • Paper • Newspapers over time • Paper • Newspapers radio • Paper • Newspapers reports • Paper • Newspapers TV, lived here 25 yrs • Paper • Newspapers, local radio • Paper • Newspapers, meetings viewed on TV • Paper • Newspapers, radio • Paper • Newspapers, radio • Paper • Newspapers, Radio • Paper • Newspapers, radio, TV local channel • Paper • Newspapers, talking W/ Jeff Evans, a real crusader! • Paper • Newspapers, Wcbsite, etc • Paper • Newspapers /Local TV • Paper • Newspapers /radio • Paper • Newspapers /radio news /local tv • Paper • Newspapers /residing here for 25 + years • Paper & Aspen high society- display 09 -2010 • Newspaper -why isn't that an option 7!! It's been in showed it all the papers for years • Paper & people - talking about if for years -give it up! • Newspapers • Paper & Radio • News- radio /paper • Paper ADS & editorials • Not sure - but local newspapers • Paper letter to new editor • Other surveys for years • Paper times Aspen • Paper • Paper, radio • Paper • Paper, radio • Paper • Paper /radio • Paper • Paper -Aspen c • Paper • Papers • Paper • Papers To • Paper • Papers . • Paper • Papers • Paper • Papers • Paper • Papers a Page 74 City of Aspen 2011 Transportation Survey Results • Papers • Read paper • Papers • Read the newspaper • Papers • Reading papers • Papers • Reading the paper • Papers • Reading, being informed and living here for over 30 • Papers yrs • Papers • Roaring fork leadership • Papers (Local) radio • ROD • Papers letter to editor • SJS #9 • Papers / Website • Snowmass Trans. Officials • Papers - radio -been here 60 years! • Split shot - Common sense -4 lanes -use open space- • Paper -Times No bus or HOV lane • Past rehashing of the same issue. •Stepson is a reporter • Plans@court house, Newspaper • Sterved on the entrance to Aspen & light rail task • Please! This has been an issue for years force committee. • Press • Tab paper • Press • Talking heads are all around us! • Press • Televised • Press • The papers • Press • The papers (both) • Press • These have all been talked about forever ' Press • These solutions have been talked about for years! • Press /media newspaper radio • Thcy have been discussed in person, on radio and in • Print newspapers for 40+ years! • Print media - Newspapers (times & daily news) •This has been talked about for over 30 yrs! • Print news • Tired of all the politics - B.S - use some common • Proposed split -shot w /fuller in 2008 sense! • Public radio • Town chit chat • Radio • Use light rail get rid of buses • Radio • Used to work for the city • Radio • Voted on a straight shot 30 years ago & still hoping. • Radio - Newspaper - Internet • Voted yes yrs. Ago • Radio and newspaper • Watched Meeting on TV • Radio news, news paper • Watched on local channel • Radio newspaper • We have voted on this issue countless times keep • Radio, newspaper the J curve! `m • Radio, newspapers, & websites • Website i j • Radio, paper • Website • Read a little in newspaper • Whatever was in newspapers o ce • Read about in local papers • Word of mouth, newspaper • Read about them • Years & years & years of relashing m • Read articles and saw the film "Entrance to Aspen. • Years of useless votes /newspapers How did we get here" 2 v a ` Page 75 City of Aspen 2011 Transportation Survey Results APPENDIX H: SURVEY INSTRUMENT The survey instrument appears on the following pages. V L V O C O Z T 0 N O N d Page 76 •• 2011 Aspen Transportation Survey Please complete this questionnaire if you are the adult (age 18 or older) in the household who most recently had a birthday. The adult's year of birth does not matter. Your responses are anonymous and will be reported in group form only. For the purposes of this survey, the Entrance to B uttermilk Current Entrance to Aspen Aspen is defined as the portion of Highway 8 Portion of Highway 82 from Buttermilk from Buttermilk through the 5 -curves (see map * a to S - curves (W. Hallam St. & N. 7th St.) at the right). Currently, from Buttermilk to the , � „ e x roundabout, there are two lanes in each (604 \ 1 direction. One lane in each direction is for ` a'' rIII general traffic, while one lane is reserved for r`�bs/ ` \J(I( it ' buses only. From the roundabout through the r „ S- curves, there is one general purpose lane in 're !(j l lane ‘ (both each direction. l dir so ns) i[ - 7( s �� . Cm, ` Roundabout • (.] err iaeum , _ 1 120t1 It ■ 1. About how often, on average, do you travel through the Entrance to Aspen (Buttermilk through the S- curves)? O More than 4 times per day O 2 -4 times per day O Once a day O Once per week O 2 -4 times per week O 1 -3 times per month O Less than once a month 2. Which of the following best describes your commuter status? O I consider myself a commuter to Aspen from another community 4 GO TO QUESTION 3 O I consider myself a commuter from Aspen to another community 4 GO TO QUESTION 3 O I don't consider myself a commuter 4 SKIP TO QUESTION 4 3. Which one of the following is your curent primary method of commuting? O Single occupant vehicle O Bus O Carpool O Walk O Bicycle O Other 4. Please rate Highway 82 from Buttermilk through the S -curves during the summer and then during the winter for each of the following. Summer Winter Poor Fair Good Excellent Don't know Poor Fair Good Excellent Don't know Ease of traffic flow 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Ease of travel by bus 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Traffic safety 1 1, 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Pedestrian safety 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 5. Please indicate the extent to which you support each of the following general approaches to the Entrance to Aspen (Buttermilk through the S- curves). Strongly Somewhat Neither support Somewhat Strongly Don't oppose oppose nor oppose support support know Change it to improve traffic 1 2 3 4 5 6 Leave it as it is 1 2 3 4 5 6 Page 1 of 3 - - 2011 Aspen Transportation Survey - - 6. Regardless of your preference for improving the Entrance to Aspen or keeping it the same, if the Entrance to Aspen were to be improved, please rate how important, if at all, each of the following improvement goals would be to you. Not at all Somewhat Very important important important Essential Reducing traffic congestion 1 2 3 4 Reducing travel time 1 2 3 4 Improving traffic safety 1 2 3 4 Improving pedestrian safety 1 2 3 4 Maintaining or improving air quality 1 2 3 4 Keeping construction costs reasonable 1 2 3 4 Minimizing the impact on adjacent properties - 1 2 3 4 Minimizing impacts on tourism 1 2 3 4 Minimizing use of open space 1 2 3 4 Minimizing impacts on the environment 1 2 3 4 Encouraging alternative modes oftravel (e.g. bus, bike, rail) 1 2 3 4 Reducing noise 1 2 3 4 Completing the improvement in a timely fashion 1 2 3 4 Maintaining Aspen's character 1 2 3 4 7. Thinking about possibly improving the Entrance to Aspen, please select which one of the following you would most prefer as it relates to transportation changes. (Please select only one response.) O A transportation plan that focuses exclusively on improving automobile traffic O A transportation plan that helps to improve automobile traffic and also encourages public transportation (i.e., buses bike /pedestrian or light rail) O A transportation plan that helps improve public transportation, but leaves general automobile traffic unchanged O A transportation plan that leaves the current Entrance to Aspen unchanged O Don't know 8. Please rate to what extent you support or oppose each of the following potential elements of a possible new Entrance to Aspen. Strongly Somewhat Neither support Somewhat Strongly Don't oppose oppose nor oppose support support know Current entrance alignment unchanged (following the current roadway)....1 2 3 4 5 6 Dedicated lanes for buses only 1 2 3 4 5 6 Dedicatedlanesfor buses and multiple occupancy cars 1 2 3 4 5 6 Gondola (aerial connection) 1 2 3 4 5 6 Light rail line 1 2 3 4 5 6 Rroundabout 1 2 3 4 5 6 Underpass 1 2 3 4 5 6 9. Several proposed solutions for the Entrance to Aspen (Buttermilk through the S- curves) have been discussed and are nicknamed and defined as follows. Please indicate whether you have heard of each of the proposed solutions. Have heard of it Have NOT heard of it "4 Lane? This option is the same as the "Modified Direct Alternative ", but without bus lanes 1 2 "4 Lane — Bus /HOV" This option is the same as the "Modified Direct Alternative ", but with 2 lanes unrestricted (so that all vehicles have access) and 2 lanes for Bus /HOV (High Occupancy Vehicles) traffic 1 2 " i r ...Al_ ,,,,•,, This optipn would involve a gondola (aerial connection) connecting the kt i , ;It to downtime,' &Pen at Rubel( Park. 1 2 "Modified Direct Alternative" This option will include 2 lanes for cars and 2 for buses or 2 lanes for cars and light rail in a modified direct alignment (slightly altering the course of the current lanes) across a portion of the Marolt /Thomas Open Space 1 2 "5 i Ths option includes 2 lanes for cars, 2 for HOV /Buses with a roundabout or underpass at CeMettity Lane in an allgnmentthat goes across a small portion of the Mown/Thomas Open Space 1 2 "Stay in the Existing Alignment — widen to 3 lanes" This option keeps the current alignment and adds a reversible lane for cars & buses 1 2 " t,. 1 I,■ : - .,J 4111., - .., „1V <,,,1i Thls option Imps the current alignment and usesm m ties for cats and 2 for buses 1 2 Page 2 of 3 t - - 2011 Aspen Transportation Survey - - 10. If you have heard of any of the proposed solutions to the Entrance to Aspen mentioned above, how did you hear about it? (Please mark all that apply.) O Haven't heard of any of the proposed solutions in Question 9 O "Word of mouth" from friends or family O Mailings from the City O Attended a public community meeting O Don't remember O Other 11. Thinking about the Entrance to Aspen (Buttermilk through the 5- curves), please indicate the extent to which you support or oppose each of the following potential modifications to the Entrance to Aspen. Strongly Somewhat Neither support Somewhat Strongly Don't oppose oppose nor oppose support support know 11 �! f eflp,4.Qf vehide in each. section vdthr a middle ( one i treate a's lane ki tdirect[oft of rush hour trafile 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 lane for cars in each direction and 1 lane for buses only in each direction 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 lane fpr cars in each direction and space fora light rail line 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 lane for only cars with a lone driver and 1 lane for cars with 2+ people or buses in each direction 1 2 3 4 5 6 2 laneetneenY type of vehicle in each direction 1 2 3 4 5 6 A gondola (aerial connection) between Buttermilk and Rubey Park 1 2 3 4 5 6 A roundabout or underpass at Cemetery Lane 1 2 3 •,, 4 5 6 No new construction or changes to the Entrance to Aspen 1 2 3 4 5 6 No new construction, but increased bus service 1 2 3 4 5 6 12. Please indicate to what extent you would support or oppose each of the following proposed solutions (please refer to the definitions on the previous page, if necessary). Strongly Somewhat Neither support Somewhat Strongly Don't oppose oppose nor oppose support support know 4 Lanes 1 2 3 4 5 6 4Lanes Bus /HOV 1 2 3 4 5 6 Gondola e connection) 1 2 3 4 5 6 Modified Direct Alternative 1 2 3 4 5 6 No c larlige;to the existing entrance 1. 2 3 4 5 6 Split shot 1 2 3 4 5 6 Stay in t Existing Alignment - widen to 3 lanes 1 2 3 4 5 6 Stay in the Existing Alignment - widen to 4 lanes 1 2 3 4 5 6 Our last questions are about you and your household. Again, your responses are anonymous and will be reported in group form only. 13. About how long have you lived in Aspen /Pitkin County? 16. Which of the following best describes where you live? O Fewer than six months O 3 -5 years 0 East (upvalley) of the roundabout 0 6 to 11 months 0 6 -10 years 0 West (downvalley) of the roundabout O 1 -2 years 0 More than 10 years 17. In which category is your age? 14. Which best describes your housing status? 0 18 -24 years 0 55 -64 years O Housing obtained in the free market (either rent or own) 0 25 -34 years 0 65 -74 years 0 Live in employee /affordable housing (either rent or own) 0 35 -44 years 0 75 -84 years 0 Other O 45 -54 years O 85 years or older O Don't know 18. What is your gender? 15. Do you rent or own your home? 0 Female O Rent 0 Male 0 Own Thank you for completing this survey. Please return the completed survey in the postage paid envelope to: National Research Center, Inc., PO Box 549, Belle Mead, NJ 08502 -0549 Page 3 of 3 i t , MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and Council FROM: Gram Slaton, Wheeler Opera House THROUGH: Randy Ready, Assistant City Manager DATE: 6 June 2011 MEETING DATE: 20 June 2011 RE: Request To Proceed With 2012 Festival Planning SUMMARY: Wheeler staff is requesting City Council permission to proceed with planning for two of its three annual festivals, in order to take full advantage of the traditional booking process and provide its partners with sufficient leeway to secure the best possible performers for Aspen. BACKGROUND: The Wheeler provided a memorandum for City Council following the completion of the second of its three festivals in April 2011 (Attachment A). This memo summarizes the history of the two key festivals that Wheeler staff seeks to begin moving on shortly, in order to take the best possible advantage of booking opportunities that will surface during the critical summer /fall booking season, which is largely ahead of the City's operating budget approval process. The third festival, which is the MountainSummit: Mountainfilm In Aspen festival, is currently being booked for its third outing for August 25 — 28, 2011. This festival, begun in August 2009, experienced an 84% increase in attendance between its first year and last August's event, with a 38% increase in revenue, and a drop in operating subsidy from ($53,706.27) in 2009 to ($28,885.24) in 2010, a 46% reduction. The Wheeler fully anticipates further growth and operating efficiencies with the 2011 MountainSummit event, and will build in a request for its continuation in the 2012 operating budget after assessment of this year's festival. DISCUSSION: Part of the directive that the Wheeler believes it has received from the present and past City Councils is to create destination product that distinguishes Aspen from all other mountain resort communities and provides a decisive factor for potential guests during their vacation purchase process. This is a directive that also clearly benefits local and part-time Aspen residents as well, and helps Aspen extend its attractiveness as a place to visit, live, and work. While traditional bookings, known as one -offs, are an important element of any performing arts center's profile, the Wheeler is unique in that it has the resources to create unique festivals that provide exceptional multi -day entertainment options, while also fully embodying "The Aspen Idea." With all three of the Wheeler's festivals — The Aspen Laff Festival, the 7908 Aspen Songwriters Festival, and MountainSummit — talent associated with the festivals is encouraged to stay throughout, engage with the local and guest community, and take advantage of Aspen's "laboratory" heritage to broaden and deepen their own work, while also enjoying the myriad opportunities provided by our outdoor recreation environment. This has become a signature of our festivals that extends far into the outside world, and continued the tradition from earlier festivals such as the HBO /U.S. Comedy Arts Festival. To this end, the Wheeler is proposing in its 2012 budget to reduce the number of one -off events it books, in order to better concentrate its resources on producing exceptional festivals, including the impact these festivals have on extending the Aspen brand into the national consciousness. This reduction is also reflective of the fact that two of the festivals (the Aspen Laff Festival and the 7908 Aspen Songwriters Festival) have moved into the winter presenting timeframe, and thus taking up two weeks of the total twelve weeks available for one -off bookings in the January — March period. The Wheeler may extend its booking reach with one -offs by copresenting or otherwise working cooperatively with outside booking entities to assure quality product while staying within a reduced presenting budget. It is important to mention that the two festivals mentioned here have already developed relationships with national media that Wheeler staff expects will continue to grow, and Wheeler staff will continue to seek other opportunities to improve the efficiency of its festivals through local and outside partners, sponsors, and others that can help share the responsibilities of these intensive projects. BUDGETARY IMPACT: While City Council will ultimately review proposed revenue and expense budget numbers for these festivals as part of the Wheeler's overall 2012 operating budget, Wheeler staff is preparing for a very modest expense increase of 5.5% for its overall festival production ($239,300 versus $226,800) for all three festivals, while anticipating very conservatively that total revenues for all three will rise by 15% ($115,000 versus $99,000), leaving a total net operating subsidy of ($124,300). By comparison, final figures on one -off bookings typically receive a subsidy of ($3,109) per booking, based on a three -year average of all Wheeler Presents and similar co- promoted events from 2008 through 2010 (Attachment B), and do not include publicity numbers in these outcomes, as events are cross - promoted and thus very difficult to separate out per event. Thus, the cost of producing festivals, even in their opening years, is roughly the same per -event as for one -offs; however, staff resources are better utilized in a festival situation due to the compressed nature of the festival. It is important to note that the Wheeler does not presently solicit contributions, gifts, or sponsorships for its festivals, in order to not compete with Aspen's arts not- for - profits that may be seeking similar support; however, the Wheeler has not and will not refuse any gifts of support offered. Should Council feel that such resources should be actively solicited, Wheeler staff will follow that directive. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: mLCL 4ip, r- A MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and Council FROM: Gram Slaton, Wheeler Opera House THROUGH: Randy Ready, Assistant City Manager DATE: 18 April 2011 RE: Report on March 2011 Wheeler Festivals SUMMARY: Wheeler staff wishes to share with City Council the financial results of the Wheeler's first two (of three) festivals for 2011. These festivals represent a significant financial investment by the City into creating destination product for Aspen. Results from both the Aspen Laff Festival and the 7908 Aspen Songwriters Festival indicate that the Wheeler's and City's investment is beginning to perform and provide the basis for sustainable annual attractions for Aspen. BACKGROUND: After the demise of the HBO/U.S. Comedy Arts Festival in March 2007, the goal of maintaining unique destination product to strongly differentiate Aspen from other resort destinations was increasingly taken upon by the Wheeler Opera House. This began with producing a new comedy festival, the Aspen Rooftop Comedy Festival (Rooftop), which was done in creative partnership with San Francisco -based Rooftop Comedy, a web -based provider of comedic content. The Rooftop festival ran for three years (2008 — 2010), at the end of May or beginning of June, with the idea being to stimulate a period of low tourist activity in town. This time period was critical for Rooftop in order to serve as a location for the final competitions for its National Campus Comedy Competition, which received media attention all across the United States. The Wheeler in 2009 created a second festival, MountainSummit, with Mountainfilm In Telluride as its creative partner. MountainSummit has run for two years now, doubling its numbers year- over -year, and is scheduled for its third festival August 25 — 28, 2011. A report on that festival will be sent to Council in September. At the direction of City Council in 2010, the Wheeler created a third festival, the 7908 Aspen Songwriters Festival (7908), with rock legend John Oates as its executive producer. The initial 7908 festival was presented September 16 — 19, 2010, with the thought being that this was an appealing week that was not being fully utilized for attracting out -of -town guests. While by all accounts it was a substantial artistic success and attracted national attention, the weekend was found to be crowded with competing events, such as Ruggerfest and all varieties of football, which put the festival at a significant disadvantage. The 2010 calendar also put Yom Kippur on the Friday night of the festival, further dampening sales that the festival should have attracted. Wheeler staff assessed all its 2010 festivals at each festival's conclusion, and made two important changes for 2011. The first was to discontinue its relationship with Rooftop Comedy, as there were found to be conflicting interests in the preferred time period for the event, in creative direction, and in artist selection and festival construction. The Wheeler initiated a new comedy festival that was produced solely in- house, called the Aspen Laff Festival, scheduled for mid -March 2011. The second was to move the 7908 festival into season. Due to a shortage of available weekends, this second outing was scheduled for the end of March 2011, two weeks after the Laff festival. DISCUSSION: Results of the two festivals to -date in 2011 are as follows: • The initial Aspen Laff Festival attained 85.7% of its projected sales goal, or $25,704 (with goal being $30,000). Expenses were ($65,429), plus advertising costs. By contrast, the three Rooftop festivals reached sales of $11,315 in 2008, $17,583 in 2009, and $16,086 in 2010. Final losses on the three Rooftop festivals were ($19,376) for 2008, ($24,074) for 2009, and ($38,233) in 2010. By direct comparison, the loss for the first Laff festival was ($39,725). There are several reasons for the slight increase in loss from the final Rooftop festival to the first Laff festival. First, moving the event into season meant higher prices for airfares (by 17 %) and hotel rooms (by 35% - 50 %, depending on hotel). Second, attracting better talent meant a doubling of artist fees. Wheeler staff also believes that it is as difficult to launch a replacement festival as it is to initiate a. new festival, and that in many ways the Wheeler was starting from scratch again in terms of developing an audience for the Laff festival. Staff expects that in its second year, the Laff festival will see a significant improvement in its attendance and sales numbers. Apart from the budgetary aspects of the Laff festival, it is important to note that the festival attracted Sirius XM as a national media sponsor, and that most of the Laff festival shows were broadcast live nationwide, with repeated mentions of the venue and location, putting a significant spotlight on both the Wheeler and Aspen brands. This is a value -added aspect of the festival that is difficult to quantify in terms of dollars and cents. It is also highly unusual to attract this kind of attention from a national media source for an untried festival, which speaks to the Wheeler's reputation for delivering quality product. Programmatically, the festival truly delivered. Some of the stand -out performances include Christopher Titus' pre- Broadway debut of his two -act one -man piece, "The Neverlution," as well as individual sets by fast - rising new comic Stewart Huff (who will return to the Wheeler for a reprise "Best Of The Fest" event during the winter holidays) and "Chelsea Lately" regular Christina Pazsitzky. The "New Faces" competition featured three Colorado -based comedians, and our own local comedy community launched the festival on Wednesday evening. The festival proved that it is possible to have a successful event with fewer performers enjoying more stage time and that the audience would respond quite favorably to it. While Wheeler staff is disappointed by the numbers for the initial festival, it recommends that the Wheeler be allowed to continue the festival for 2012. A full review and accounting will be conducted for Council at the conclusion of the second festival. Also, the Wheeler is repositioning the festival slightly, so as to avoid St Patrick's Day and free events promoted by Aspen Skiing Company. • The second 7908 Aspen Songwriters Festival exceeded its projected sales goal of $45,000 by 21.5 %. The final figure of $54,687.50 was 264% of the box office sales of the initial festival, which was $20,741. The 2011 festival featured a broader diversity of talent, which in combination with its better positioning in the calendar resulted in a stronger- than - expected performance. Revenue numbers for the initial festival were boosted by $10,500 in sponsorship monies that were not continued into 2011; however, the Wheeler more than made up for the loss in revenue in reduced expenses, no long needing certain costs associated with starting up a new festival. Because of the festival's positioning so late into the winter season, costs for flights were roughly equivalent; however, the cost of hotel rooms was 33% higher. Final loss for the initial 7908 festival was ($86,147); final loss for the 2011 7908 festival was ($48,463), a 44% reduction in Wheeler subsidy. This second festival included a number of notable highlights, including a sold -out house for Keb Mo with special guest Sam Bush, as well as a sell -out for our closing performance by Donavon Frankenreiter and Matt Nathanson, which many people on the way out declared as the best concert ever at the Wheeler. Even smaller shows, such as the combination of newcomer Elizabeth Cook and veteran Kim Carnes, had a special magic to them that audiences recognized as totally unique and something they would never experience outside of a setting such as the 7908 festival. John Oates was on stage with our musical guests much more than he had initially planned, but it made for a tremendous value -added experience and without a single Hall & Oates song being performed. These encouraging signs in the performance of the 7908 festival are enhanced by interest from an Indiana -based media company that produces content for cable television, and at the least we can expect to see short pieces on the 2011 7908 festival appear on the new Velocity network, due to launch in summer 2011. As well, the festival has attracted the interest of the Americana Music Association (AMA), with possible plans to bring the 7908 festival under the umbrella of the AMA along with several other nationally - prominent festivals, with an international corporate sponsor aboard. These are the kinds of developments that can quickly accelerate a nascent festival into a nationally- established and supported event much like the old HBO festival or the Aspen Food & Wine Classic. It is important to note that both festivals performed well within their numbers, as per the 2011 operating budget. We hope that you are as proud of our work and initial achievements as we are, and will continue to support these festivals. We will request some work session time with you in June to get further direction. Please let me know if you have questions or comments about either of these festivals in the meantime. • -1 m ATIOD EArmaomoo OZ,mm omoogw N -1 Ai,m_.o Om m w>1< - c -� -I y &r - N ti D Om Umr OmM " 0 55 m m o o a o � ° N O N o p r w _. 3 3 '� m ' '° `3 m e Z O X aD �n of � � m a� ��m � di �3� ym °� ° E� - � o a ti � O� �' 1p d . 1D >>Fd� . R g m r ~ fl E., 3 ' � 0, vi k - a ^ c ° Z m `c °. a ac K D � o and D I �aODo p m`u c g n2�'n < r ona gs .B W .- . T., a < b I47 U r nmSg3a C:Em Vi a m Im r I gn dn ,a 3 a m 4JJ = 3 m m m a < i5 = 0.5wo w a� m r , �3 a a c () y y N m law ��� ("QM) O 3 � a a .. m � A 3 O ti d' T aaa .9 o°n d ym I1E1 .. 'jm _ . ' m �O�a 3- mm o = = -I -i ° 1 3m my Q v umw m n KU a a _,2 a m - .5 m'N FN WI CO �' �'_. � O m m n Z o m m _ Z � � m . a m C 4 g0. m m 1 -�' ° u a d " O g ` • m �- m 1 a m a.: 3 . ■Aa —m on ao 3. '' m u <° Z < � Io 3 a '� y g a y n m' < a o• ' 2 a R a o m o c o l n'3 0 a m a_ a N x ;m c m $ a 2 �? :I < N m 1 . m n D mom a w: . o S R S l Im Rl m 3.°'� J m. '�` m � - 1 ' a o l °m 1 ° a A 000 xx xxx 1 _ - -. _. __ __._ --- - -. -I. m `e `z 00 -, *`*. *fl `e ****z f� f F FF“ 04 o Ffl E I ���o4F'z�o fFE444'im m 00000“4000%0000000000000 oo'oa00000aoaoa0000000a 000 m xxx xxaoox a o ! o Ixx .. . x xxxga xxx'o xxxx3a xxxa o'm m p -- m - {V O I t U J m J m m m N _ W m fJ m b b W A N (� p _.. pp _ L __ _. -___ _ D O I W Umn I-. +..A A 91 am -4 mmW Sbe° W A P+A O NPNP. +b UOaA UbQ m I +. { �yp� o Nn P O W 1 N W++ W N W ! C o .2 �y O O N + A W N w m A W% m m O A W b + A A N + N + W N N A A {� { p w J r q O m m NW U b J m O m o -4 0 , + P T N S U N A N J O _ S N A ° i J r J a* x _. _. pp y m (� V m q A J I + { m � = I C CO cnow i Jb 'W mai J + A N V N H U J ocno Wo I N W 00100WOA W g1+ � + ONy lV m Ub SVA m O m m m -,. V O b+ Am W mmN V H - +y H HHA H+H+JA W H .+b Um HHH+++ � WJ SA mNm OPWfOJ 5 • S Nl b A O m m W J J S b b W > N O w,N m P pp p m J IA ww OAN bw A UbS 00 O1 O N N a +HHHHF 0 H pibm Jaa m o o 11N 1 - mab mJooUO ( U HH a�qq �p H( 1 X +HRH NHF� F F AWNOFOFIN UNb Um m U JJ A�«woQO1 +AAJ�FCa g m I w w ° I A N N ( r U b V IJ U b W m J N N an d A J 1 ( + y y p + �J U N (� + m m N A A U m W U m+ m O 1 W N J N O U m W S O O+ Q�O O N W m m O O S W m= y (� U o 0 0 (v 0 0 o O U W 0 0 0 N O W U O J m U JU PmW00 _ - N H H H I H F H I F N H i H� F .. - H !wail, ^' H H H X0 0 �q H+ m oOm NN A + A +A ONW4 F J I OOm O «_J F +N AS W O1N +A� « «J F +pO V F A U ry4�1 Aw O mV p V my W+ o n AWmOU bJNU iobbm + m Mm01 V JSfO h r i nON +m o + SIb SJO I J !e.! 1117JfWp� Aym WN F A(JI,mWVAN 1 m OOJOmom00000(J1 2000uUJmuo OI OU°OO +mOONNm OOOO +WUN b ' 000 N OwUOJm -- I __ _ i . _ -. — _ °> m U 0 o Ioo -1 o o0 00 000 0 0000o o o 0000 o0o o w 000 oja = • 0 N ( q H H µ F ((qq y� HH (4�1 F4 � F �q �p {{ y4 H4 � y4 ��pp ((qq D QtQt O V UA o N�. NOTNN Now _ o O o NNP "�J AfJ +AON +JJ H NA +«WOINfII b b lo i ( I 0 1 n v NNbUmO +m}. O m mN N A A�O m W�m mp( NJIJOUm N b -I ( p bb +U Aa'w- w- OvR W A N U 1 0 v0 W+ S 0 N 1 tll 0 V 0°I SJJNNU U N U P 001-4C000 nU O QI°O VOJNWN V O NONO +0 30 ° m W NW m 00 0 S +430N b W U A U m V m P P m CC U 00000 m ° U U - O O (J U O J m m (!• O m ° V 0i000 000000 0 I.4464.0.694469444.64@@@4,940694.96444 ll I - _1 o__ `^F 000lo i o • 8 `NHH4'H'F 0000o000° 0 0 00 000000 1 I I I I F I I it-, 1 0 0 ' 0 8888188888188881800 000.0'0 m 0010mo R- 44 W S 'SO$'0000000000 $ 000SSSSE0000 o 000000g'oo6e00000000000 m 000m000000o`6o'S000 $ oo & I 0 m� � m p � w p N N ° + N H �q H _ {p a p 4411 W _ F p � pp NA P T H yy nn I l l y O A A I OISW H S bm N mo OroA°Wr «AU A • I o ENO SN « « •a Lr. + AONOW A+ WSSm b W 1 0 A w H b o OI N FNI �I Iy W VI I 1Omw -.. OOObW JONO Of 10 U N, N CO fOJ ` I _ « N Un +.l 0 N wO S .- m . A Ub 1 __. �q {{ 11�pp� 1 r r F A W m t]1 1 01 o4 pp IV000 � 4. HH F «ON W4 m H 049 H HF 04 In 1O HAM HHHHHA HA HH Am — U F ° FH OHHU O m oOFS OOFOAUHHH W + F I F F mm �I O0 +000mm 000100 41 _� w 1 _ _. -. — J O O O O O W W U O O O U O - J L m O OO U N �° U O O'V F A O O O O O O H H 1 ° I; c I 000 0 ! 0 0 0 0 0 0 °00100000000000 t o 000l00 ooN0aoo 0 01 al e ow v. • N rrpp eppepp M T N �p ( yy� ��p y r �jl m m N � , j ( p�1 qq 11pp ( Q V o � ff I H4 yy �Ipp p ppp11 �� yy�I ( F 41 y � p {p { � (per W ye {� m M uV ��p1 c J to 44 01 A S W wO � b m m W J N + V m N WNmJON 01 O W1 VIN OUOmoI -" 100+w M0A 01 NN > t il@WOm A ++m.∎0 N �q (q (q yy�� p F O(q y 1 0 F AO µ p O y1 U «O ( pp 41 �p � (p A CO a « NA _ oWPH+N � ▪ pq ly m P p A l o +mV W p m 01NUsm P 0 +1 0 0 N oiim ? H[Nlio(J � b m N « NF+NA+ «wo:4 -• A «YmiZD V SSV Wm m O w - w V yp VW � p1 8� p1l p ��II / p�f �IJ +41 V VI�I�1 y WJ W pq��pp +A( py1A m� Np VpIUIO m „ g 00000WWJJ++b NmNmN +� A +m0(0 VIWa W43ip (�I@WW1 +AA 1O t b1 1VA J fJ tO+ Um mmNA+ +1001ON j �q ��qq ��qq VV�� VV �� y�q{ {{�� mm �q ��qq O I O J I b AC 0PImot S _ F N --.... on Am l OON + W 0 010NNP � Ij n o J Io o b NU WUW O U Z O J + O « HH H a F 0 y H O� b µp iF A NHH + y + + H b1 FF U n J O - 0 A 1O mUU +m1OANmS OIO bJ J +pN A1° U O U O b A O O J W 0 d V+ O O IO W N N I° IO Ai gg o 000l0 00 `^ omm o 0 1l o o 00 I 0oo � o 1 000 1N ° m 1 I I W F N I �.. 1O n O 'O U 0 0 0 0 0 0 N H 1 49 1 HFH H 0 HHH H1 40FI FHt4 H 49F H F FH 0 406944 �p y �q N+ H + F H e -0,--4141m ' WN NO OWONUb Wm +U b _b _W Faw maoowo A IO pp A_A Ab! «ONNPNOVNO + F + A isw wNW+UA4 V wiTila U-w1a lm o g i -o-N NS + O 0(O m mN J O N A J W J m A + O I° U S tom o U PP m O O 1+ q �p mp g y p V� �p +m , W 10 I + . WUU mS_. .. >10 I + A F - m SI w b + ° ml I J t0 A w + m' J + HHHHH + 1 U IO +b ... _ µ m . 1 H+H J HIHHF mmm W HHH HH O. O HHNHFF P N H w H H at p o OI OOOm 0 V � F p p __ w �� �p �q 'mm-w-41 OOOOO Ui H 1_ m y � • y��HHHHHIH fpp w • N � 410 y �� q �p � � m �gIFFF- ' ° p +� l - A es i Ooo 00 A OU0.0 OOI J j . 1 H 1 00oo; 00000°01+ m gggggg00v0000v�+00Ob° A AO U wV 000AUmmW y pyyl ��qq ��qq Ftt+ppAAOOUO �q Sb `O g y � 0 g 0 {� + � �q V a y � �qp — , o +I I V H F i HNHWH4I Al00000o1IlHHiOH I I N J0 NOt m J N F I m m�OIT 0 NOS o000 AOO A(PTp000 W� � N AN JU O HH m rr m f°UAm w !El • m AOS :0o AOmUmo"lo + HH F OmIOOm r JO FFF __ ON a NN N F HHHHHHFmI� S 01 j++ HHwHHHHHHHHHHH 000000 m N+Nm N H Qom' H�F F.H F OOJIpW HHHHN �p m y p + m + m +++ �� + 11 + p + w � + W .IO OJO ANU+bN U.W JA mS°INN X. 01 m N S aa IO A w N 44 A @ OW W N N n j I IOO A+ n O °U I 01 Nj a 2 W y J 1 IIto P F HH H HH 'H F' H_HH HFFF !co ern F F HH HHHHFR tp �p � _ 64N NN +H _ FI 1 00 • D ` o OO H mNO p U +W O°WULJU m: ' oOAO j UlOm N +F IAO J «J.A mmN m IO AAJoomNWm UNA OUAAO NIm + I°O lon WW o Am mA m + N NI°W m U U W A+ . 0 N 41 4� -. y� _. ._ N y �q �q �p N F µ WW p�q y1 O • Ato TR H (q F diH A`++H wiH H. Q � Iy ((pp ((�� (^ (( (( qq �� ' o AloAam Q N blF.11yol ( o p oors � a g omm 4 > � P< � > q lPW°0,i 1 1 N NW an CA V NH N FFy M H COO f H O N H W�N0 0A r �� U OAtOo Ao PO�mm OOfFO N «IFONN . NUONIN +Jo Nm NNW A.. N (p J + b A11 44 49 �1 � W 44 W 49 � I � 1 y y i p s r n r s m p� (m� p r m ey m p y� O1 y yy1 p � . _ - Opp U. N ( U q ( f + W VI Ol O1 W.-rig ( N q (/ � A p 4 + 1 0 0 0 � A g WQ ( f � i g 1 4 1N Jm N I H L +°mOVPA N OOmN y � W y + mw-T y ha JA° +01+m J O OI y� p Qo P nP A W I o m m p m p ^y y «y N b m NO A NNN ( A (pp m HNo FH � N- A . O s 1 PH+ ^ ^ 4Vll n rrnfFiln = V N NN W v W� b ON 10 t S f � O o N S .-40N0+ O N O{mpJW{pp (Oip�ww +ONS + N �Op Oy1i b +pm N.. Vr.. _..Nmp � O N+ A A b+ O W N+ n M W+ 0 0 W O v b 0 a N W U b w U 1° U m m T A A J A