HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20140225
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
February 25, 2014
4:00 PM, City Council Chambers
MEETING AGENDA
I. Aspen Modern Website Demonstration
II. We-Cycle Program Update
III. Trip Reduction Measures for Development
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John Krueger and Lynn Rumbaugh, Transportation
THRU: Randy Ready, Assistant City Manager
DATE OF MEMO: February 18, 2014
DATE OF MEETING: February 25, 2014
RE: WE-cycle Update and 2014 Request
REQUEST OF COUNCIL:
At this meeting, WE-cycle will provide an update on its summer 2013 launch and the first
season of public bike sharing in Aspen. Also at this work session, WE-cycle will present
requests for assistance with items for its 2014 season including funds for the purchase of
one station as well as continued use of two public parking spaces. Staff is also looking
for Council’s direction to present the updated vending agreement at a regular Council
meeting for formal approval.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:
In 2010 Aspen City Council agreed to allow the use of approved public spaces (including
two parking spaces) for the placement of bike share stations.
In 2011 and 2012, Council approved contracts with CDOT for the purchase of bike share
stations using Federal Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) grants. The City’s
local match for this grant project was $6,023.00.
In 2012, Council approved the purchase of bike share stations from Public Bike System
Company using the above-mentioned CMAQ funds.
BACKGROUND:
WE-cycle is a 501(c)3 organization overseen by Aspen resident Mirte Mallory. The organization’s
stated mission is to: build on the enthusiastic bike culture and transit infrastructure that exists in our
valley today and help transform Aspen’s transportation landscape into one that prioritizes bicycles
and pedestrians over fossil fuel consumptive vehicles.
P1
II.
2
Bike sharing typically involves a number of bicycles made available for shared use as a means of
increasing mobility options and reducing traffic congestion and air pollution. Bike share programs
are often considered a part of the “last mile” solution for transit, meaning that a bicycle can provide
transit users with the link between their station/stop and their final destination. The same can hold
true for the link between bike sharing and carsharing, trail use, carpooling and other alternative
transportation modes. Recognizing this link as well as the alignment with the City’s goal of capping
traffic at 1993 levels, City Council has been supportive of the placement of bike share equipment in
public spaces, using CMAQ grant funding for the purchase of equipment and providing in-kind staff
support from Transportation, Parking, Parks and other departments.
DISCUSSION:
After receiving approvals, grant funding, sponsorships and equipment, WE-cycle launched in
summer of 2013 with 100 bicycles available from 13 stations around Aspen. Locations included
Rubey Park, Gondola Plaza, Hopkins Avenue (Restaurant Row), Paepcke Park and Hunter Creek.
WE-cycle has reported a successful first season with over 2,100 riders, more than 10,000 rides and
over 23,000 miles pedaled for an estimated carbon offset of 15,949 pounds. The most popular
station locations were Rubey Park, Hopkins Avenue and Paepcke Park respectively. From a staff
perspective, installation, operations and usage were more successful than anticipated.
Recently, equipment provider Public Bike System Company (PBSC) has filed for bankruptcy. WE-
cycle does not anticipate a disruption to its bike transit services come system re -opening in May and
P2
II.
3
indicates that PBSC will likely be purchased by another party in the near future . An update can be
provided at the February 25 work session.
WE-cycle plans to operate between May and October of 2014. The goals of its second year are to
optimize station locations and increase ridership by partnering with other entities to communicate
the benefits and convenience of bike sharing.
WE-cycle does face financial challenges as is typical of public transportation programs and requests
both financial and in-kind partnerships from the City of Aspen as outlined in the Financial/Budget
Impacts section of this memo. WE-cycle would also like to discuss with Council a “partnership
statement” indicating that the City as a whole is enthusiastic about bike sharing as a TDM measure.
and supportive of WE-cycle as a partner in furthering its goals of reducing traffic congestion and
reducing carbon emissions.
WE-cycle is also in need of an updated vending agreement in order to operate on public right-of-way
during its 2014 season. A draft vending agreement is attached and, at Council’s direction, staff will
return at a regular Council meeting for formal approval of the agreement.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS:
WE-cycle requests the following financial/in-kind partnership from the City of Aspen. City staff
requests Council direction regarding these requests as well as a funding source for the purchase
of the bike station.
ITEM FINANCIAL IMPACT NOTES
1.Purchase of 1 additional bike station
to be placed at Aspen City Hall (off-
street)
$35,000.00 Responding to demand and
system optimization
2. Continued use of two parking spaces
on Hopkins Avenue and Cooper
Avenue for station placement
$12,000.00 Estimated lost parking revenue
for 6 months during WE-cycle
operation
3. WE-cycle memberships to be offered
to all City employees
WE-cycle to provide
memberships in exchange
for parking spaces. Value
of approximately
($11,000.00) to City
The provision of bike share
memberships to staff would
allow the City to eliminate its
existing bicycle fleet, along with
associated costs and staff time
P3
II.
4
4. City staff and equipment assistance
for moving of stations for special
events
In kind
5. Communication and cross-
promotion partnerships with City
Departments where appropriate
In kind Already underway with
Transportation, Parking, Canary
Initiative, Parks Departments
TOTAL $36,000.00 (Net Impact) $47,000.00 in requests minus
$11,000.00 in season passes
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
In the 1980’s, the City of Aspen was designated a PM-10 (particulate pollution sized 10 microns
or less) non-attainment area by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. A number of
mitigation measures including free transit, paid parking and an anti-idling ordinance helped
Aspen receive a PM-10 maintenance designation in 2003. However, Aspen continues to be
challenged in maintaining and meeting future air quality standards. Programs that decrease the
need for vehicle ownership and/or single-occupant driving are key to reducing PM-10 levels.
Bike sharing is an example of such a program.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff recommends that Council provide direction to WE-cycle the financial and in-kind
items requested. If Council is supportive of this recommendation, funding sources will
need to be identified. Staff is also looking for Council’s direction to present the updated
vending agreement at a regular Council meeting for formal approval .
ALTERNATIVES:
Council could choose to fund or decline some or all of these requests.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Draft 2014 Vending Agreement
P4
II.
5
ATTACHMENT A
DRAFT VENDING AGREEMENT
THIS LICENSE AND VENDORS AGREEMENT, entered into this
day of 2014, by and between the City of Aspen, a municipal corporation
(hereinafter “City”) and WE-cycle (hereinafter “WE-cycle”)
R E C I T A L S
1. WE-cycle represents it is duly licensed under the provisions
of Section 14.08.010, et seq. of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen to
conduct business in the City of Aspen, or it is exempted from licensing
requirements pursuant to Section 14.08.050 of said Code; and
2. WE-cycle represents it is duly licensed to engage in the business
of selling at retail pursuant to Section 39-26-103, C.R.S.
3. WE-cycle has requested permission to conduct vending operations
at the agreed-upon locations within the City limits of the City of Aspen
(see Attachment A – the “License Areas”), between May 1 – November 1,
2014. Locations of WE-cycle kiosks are flexible by definition and may need
to be adjusted based on use patterns/demand or for temporary purposes such
as events, construction, street closures, etc. WE-cycle will discuss and obtain
approval of any changes in location with the City of Aspen Engineering,
Parks, Transportation and Parking Departments before making any changes to
the locations agreed upon herein. Vending operations shall be limited to the
terms and conditions of this agreement; and
4. WE-cycle will conduct its vending business in such a manner as to
minimize police and administrative costs to the City; and
5. The execution of this license is required under the provisions
of Section 15.04.350 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen as a
condition precedent to the vending operations described herein, which
operations are specifically li mited to the dates set forth herein; and
P5
II.
6
6. The parties hereto understand that the vending operation
contemplated by this License and Vending Agreement is an experiment for
the term of this Agreement and shall the execution of this Agreement by the
City shall not be interpreted as anything other than a desire to determine if
the vending operation contemplated herein is in the best interest of the citizens
of Aspen. Thus, it is not contemplated that the term of this Agreement shall be
extended by the City at the conclusion of the term hereof, unless the City
determines, in its sole discretion, that the extension of this Agreement for any
period of time, or upon any conditions, shall be in the best interests of the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties mutually agree for and in consideration
of the sum of One Dollar and other good and valuable consideration, the
receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Grantor and Grantee
covenant and agree as follows:
1. Grant of License. Grantor hereby grants and conveys to Grantee,
its successor and assigns, for the benefit of the general public, a license
(the “License”) over and across the License Areas. (The License Areas and the
square footage for each area is described in Attachment A appended hereto
and by this reference made a part of this Agreement.
2. Permission to Vend. City hereby grants WE-cycle permission to
operate a community bike sharing program, under the provisions of
Section 15.04.350 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, and for that
purpose only, to occupy the WE-cycle kiosks in the License Areas, between
the hours of 12:00 am and 12:00 a.m., May 1 – November 1, 2014.
3. Use. The License Area may be used by WE-cycle for the
placement, operation and maintenance of a community bike sharing kiosk for
the use of the general public to access and use bicycles.
4. Term. The term o f this License and Vendor’s Agreement
shall terminate on November 1, 2014; subject, however, to the right of the
P6
II.
7
City to terminate this agreement by written notice to WE-cycle not less than
sixty (60) days prior to the date that City desires to terminate the Agreement.
5. Reasonable Care in Placement and Maintenance. WE-cycle
agrees to use reasonable care in placement and maintenance of kiosks within the
License Areas and agrees to avoid damage to the surrounding land and
improvements thereto.
6. Kiosk and Bike Advertising Allowance. City hereby grants to
We- Cycle permission to advertise on the agreed upon advertising surfaces
of both kiosks and bikes as described in Attachment B. WE-cycle agrees to
advertising standards regarding content and maintenance as described in
Attachment B.
7. Notices. Notices and other communications that may be given, or
are required to be given hereunder, shall be in writing and shall be deemed
given by the party when delivered personally or when deposited in the United
States mail with sufficient postage affixed and addressed to such party at
the respective address shown below:
CITY OF ASPEN:
City Manager
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO
81611
WE-cycle:
PO Box 360 Aspen, CO
81612
P7
II.
8
8. Maintenance of License Areas. WE-cycle agrees to police the
License Areas as provided under this Agreement and to keep them free of all
litter and debris and neither to permit or suffer any disorderly conduct
or nuisance whatsoever. WE-cycle shall remove any and all equipment,
displays, and property of any kind immediately upon the termination of this
Agreement and shall return the premises to a clean and orderly condition. A
failure to remove all displays, equipment, or property in a timely fashion shall
result in the disposal of the same by the City at the WE-cycle’s expense and
without recourse by WE-cycle against City.
9. Non-Assignability. This Agreement may not be transferred,
assigned, or sublet by either party without prior written consent of the other.
10. Indemnification. WE-cycle agrees to indemnify and hold harmless
the City, its officers, employees, insurers, and self-insurance pool, from and
against all liability, claims, and demands, on account of injury, loss, or
damage, including without limitation claims arising from bodily injury,
personal injury, sickness, disease, death, property loss or damage, or any other
loss of any kind whatsoever, which arise out of or are in any manner
connected with this Agreement, if such injury, loss, or damage is caused in
whole or in part by, or is claimed to be caused in whole or in part by, the act,
omission, error, professional error, mistake, negligence, or other fault of WE-
cycle, any subcontractor of WE-cycle, or any officer, employee,
representative, or agent of WE-cycle or of any subcontractor of We-cycle, or
which arises out of any workmen's compensation claim of any employee of WE-
cycle or of any employee of any subcontractor of WE-cycle. WE-cycle agrees to
investigate, handle, respond to, and to provide defense for and defend against, any
such liability, claims or demands at the sole expense of WE-cycle, or at the option
of the City, agrees to pay the City or reimburse the City for the defense costs
incurred by the City in connection with, any such liability, claims, or
demands. If it is determined by the final judgment of a court of competent
P8
II.
9
jurisdiction that such injury, loss, or damage was caused in whole or in part by
the act, omission, or other fault of the City, its officers, or its employees, the City
shall reimburse WE-cycle for the portion of the judgment attributable to such
act, omission, or other fault of the City, its officers, or employees.
11. WE-cycle’s Insurance.
(a) WE-cycle agrees to procure and maintain, at its own expense, a
policy or policies of insurance sufficient to insure against all
liability, claims, demands, and other obligations assumed by WE-
cycle pursuant to Section 10 above. Such insurance shall be in
addition to any other insurance requirements imposed by this
Agreement or by law. WE-cycle shall not be relieved of any
liability, claims, demands, or other obligations assumed pursuant to
Section 81 above by reason of its failure to procure or maintain
insurance, or by reason of its failure to procure or maintain
insurance in sufficient amounts, duration, or types.
(b) WE-cycle shall procure and maintain, and shall cause any
subcontractor of WE-cycle to procure and maintain, the minimum
insurance coverages listed below. Such coverages shall be procured
and maintained with forms and insurance acceptable to the City. All
coverages shall be continuously maintained to cover all liability,
claims, demands, and other obligations assumed by WE-cycle
pursuant to Section 10 above. In the case of any claims-made policy,
the necessary retroactive dates and extended reporting periods shall
be procured to maintain such continuous coverage.
(i) Worker's Compensation insurance to cover obligations
imposed by applicable laws for any employee engaged in the
performance of work under this contract, and Employers'
Liability insurance with minimum limits of FIVE
HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($500,000.00) for
P9
II.
10
each accident, FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS
($500,000.00) disease - policy limit, and FIVE HUNDRED
THOUSAND DOLLARS ($500,000.00) disease - each
employee. Evidence of qualified self-insured status may be
substituted for the Workmen's Compensation requirements of
this paragraph.
(ii) Commercial General Liability insurance with
minimum combined single limits of ONE MILLION
DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) each occurrence and ONE
MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) aggregate. The policy
shall be applicable to all premises and operations. The
policy shall include coverage for bodily injury, broad form
property damage (including completed operations), personal
injury (including coverage for contractual and employee acts),
blanket contractual, independent contractors, products, and
completed operations. The policy shall contain a severability of
interests provision.
(c) The policy or policies required above shall be endorsed to include
the City and the City's officers and employees as additional insureds.
Every policy required above shall be primary insurance, and any
insurance carried by the City, its officers or employees, or carried by
or provided through any insurance pool of the City, shall be excess
and not contributory insurance to that provided by WE-cycle.
No additional insured endorsement to the policy required above
shall contain any exclusion for bodily injury or property damage
arising from completed operations. WE-cycle shall be solely
responsible for any deductible losses under any policy required
above.
P10
II.
11
(d) The certificate of insurance provided by the City shall be
completed by the WE-cycle's insurance agent as evidence that policies
providing the required coverages, conditions, and minimum limits are
in full force and effect, and shall be reviewed and approved by the
City prior to commencement of the Agreement. No other form of
certificate shall be used. The certificate shall identify this Agreement
and shall provide that the coverages afforded under the policies shall
not be canceled, terminated or materially changed until at least thirty
(30) days prior written notice has been given to the City.
(e) Failure on the part of WE-cycle to procure or maintain policies
providing the required coverages, conditions, and minimum limits
shall constitute a material breach of contract upon which City may
immediately terminate this Agreement, or at its discretion City may
procure or renew any such policy or any extended reporting period
thereto and may pay any and all premiums in connection therewith,
and all monies so paid by City shall be repaid by WE-cycle to City
upon demand, or City may offset the cost of the premiums against
monies due to WE-cycle from City.
(f) City reserves the right to request and receive a certified copy of
any policy and any endorsement thereto.
(g) The parties hereto understand and agree that City is relying on,
and does not waive or intend to waive by any provision of this
contract, the monetary limitations (presently $150,000.00 per person
and $600,000 per occurrence) or any other rights, immunities, and
protections provided by the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act,
Section 24-10-101 et seq., C.R.S., as from time to time amended, or
otherwise available to City, its officers, or its employees.
12. City's Insurance. The parties hereto understand that the City is
a member of the Colorado Intergovernmental Risk Sharing Agency
P11
II.
12
(CIRSA) and as such participates in the CIRSA Property/Casualty Pool.
Copies of the CIRSA policies and manual are kept at the City of Aspen
Finance Department and are available to WE-cycle for inspection during
normal business hours. City makes no representations whatsoever with
respect to specific coverages offered by CIRSA. City shall provide WE-
cycle reasonable notice of any changes in its membership or participation in
CIRSA.
13. Completeness of Agreement. It is expressly agreed that this
Agreement contains the entire undertaking of the parties relevant to the
subject matter thereof and there are no verbal or written representations,
agreements, warranties or promises pertaining to the project matter thereof not
expressly incorporated in this writing.
14. Non-Discrimination. No discrimination because of race, color,
creed, sex, marital status, affectional or sexual orientation, family
responsibility, national origin, ancestry, handicap, or religion shall be made
in the employment of persons to perform services under this contract. WE-
cycle agrees to meet all of the requirements of City's municipal code,
Section 13-98, pertaining to non- discrimination in employment.
15. Waiver. The waiver by the City of any term, covenant, or
condition hereof shall not operate as a waiver of any subsequent breach of
the same or any other term. No term, covenant, or condition of this
Agreement can be waived except by the written consent of the City, and
forbearance or indulgence by the City in any regard whatsoever shall not
constitute a waiver of any term, covenant, or condition to be performed by
WE-cycle to which the same may apply and, until complete
performance by WE-cycle of said term, covenant or condition, the City
shall be entitled to invoke any remedy available to it under this Agreement
or by law despite any such forbearance or indulgence.
16. Execution of Agreement by City. This Agreement shall be binding
P12
II.
13
upon all parties hereto and their respective heirs, executors, administrators,
successors, and assigns. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained
herein, this Agreement shall not be binding upon the City unless duly
executed by the Mayor of the City of Aspen (or a duly authorized official in
his absence) following a Motion or Resolution of the Council of the City of
Aspen authorizing the Mayor (or a duly authorized official in his absence)
to execute the same.
17. General terms.
(a) It is agreed that neither this agreement nor any of its
terms, provisions, conditions, representations or covenants can be
modified, changed, terminated or amended, waived, superseded or
extended except by appropriate written instrument fully executed by
the parties.
(b) If any of the provisions of this Agreement shall be held
invalid, illegal or unenforceable it shall not affect or impair the
validity, legality or enforceability of any other provision.
(c) The parties acknowledge and understand that there are
no conditions or limitations to this understanding except those as
contained herein at the time of the execution hereof and that after
execution no alteration, change or modification shall be made except
upon a writing signed by the parties.
(d) This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State
of Colorado as from time to time in effect. Venue for any court
proceedings shall be in Pitkin County, Colorado.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed, or caused to
be executed by their duly authorized officials, this Agreement in three copies
each of which shall be deemed an original on the date hereinafter written.
P13
II.
14
The City of Aspen
A Municipal Corporation
___________________________________________
Signature Date
WE-cycle
___________________________________________
Signature Date
P14
II.
Page 1 of 8
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Skadron and Aspen City Council
FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner
Trish Aragon, PE, City Engineer
Lynn Rumbaugh, Transportation Manager
Jannette Whitcomb, Environmental Health Program Coordinator
RE: Trip Reduction Measures for Development
____________________________________________________________________________
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff requests formal direction from City Council regarding the
implementation of a trip reduction system for development. The Transportation Impact Analysis
Guidelines are attached as Exhibit B, and the TDM and MMLOS tool is attached as Exhibit A.
PROJECT BACKGROUND: This project focuses on minimizing impacts from cars
associated with new development and was one of the top priorities identified by City Council as
part of implementation of the AACP. City Council was interested in ensuring fairness,
predictability, and consistency in the development process, particularly as it relates to
transportation impacts.
Determining a development’s share of responsibility for impacts is currently done on a case-by-
case basis, starting with meetings of the City’s Development Review Committee which reviews
applications and informally discusses impacts and possible mitigation strategies. Because there is
no set of clear guidelines regarding potential mitigation methods, the applicant often relies on the
Transportation and Engineering Departments to provide a mitigation strategy for the review
process. Currently, a mix of mitigation options is worked out between the applicant, staff, the
P&Z and City Council. There are no clear standards that indicate when a traffic study is required
and what information it should include. Likewise, there are no set standards for the types of
improvements that mitigate transportation impacts. While the city has requested studies for
PUDs and SPAs, there is no consistent scope of work for such studies, and the Land Use Code
does not provide clear direction that a non-PUD/SPA project in the downtown is required to
provide such information.
In December 2012, City Council approved a contract with consultant team Fehr & Peers to
examine the existing system and update it to be clearer, fairer, and easier to manage and
understand. City Council asked staff and the consultant to study the impacts development has on
our transportation system, and look to create a system to mitigate those impacts. In addition,
Council expressed interest in creating a reliable, defensible system that results in actual
improvements, not simply charging an additional fee on development. Since then, staff has
provided project updates to City Council, and received direction in June 2012 to continue with
the project to ensure the City continues to meet its long-standing transportation goals of limiting
trips and prioritizing alternative modes of transportation. Since the June work session, staff and
the consultant team have refined the system and focused on streamlining any new development
requirements.
P15
III.
Page 2 of 8
PROJECT OVERVIEW: Much like the Complete Streets provisions recently adopted by City
Council, this project prioritizes pedestrian, bicycle, and transit transportation infrastructure and
service over automobiles. The intent is to mitigate additional car trips resulting from
development by improving service and infrastructure of alternative modes of transportation,
rather than improving infrastructure for cars. For instance, a new development may generate 150
new daily car trips. Rather than increasing street widths or adding a signal, this system would
require those trips be mitigated by measures that are likely to prevent those trips from even
occurring by providing additional bike racks, participating in Aspen’s carshare program,
investing in a transit stop, or improving a crosswalk.
The purpose of this project is to create a standardized system for development to mitigate its
transportation and air quality impacts, including determining an appropriate “trigger point” for
development to mitigate these impacts, determining when a development should provide a traffic
study, outlining the parameters for an effective traffic study, and creating a system to ensure
proper Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and Quality of Service techniques are
implemented.
The project included five steps that result in a standardized trip reduction system:
1. Establish a trigger point for the requirement of traffic impact studies;
2. Create a trip generation model specific to Aspen’s land uses and development pattern;
3. Develop standardized parameters for traffic impact studies;
4. Create a menu of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) mitigation options
coupled with a scoring system; and
5. Create a menu of Multi-Modal Quality of Service and Level of Service (MMLOS)
mitigation options coupled with a scoring system.
It is important to note that Single-family and Duplex development is currently exempt from any
physical transportation related requirement, and will remain exempt.
LAND USE TRIGGERS: An important aspect of this project is establishing the framework for
which projects are exempt from the requirements and which need to mitigate their transportation
impacts. For the purposes of the new program, affordable housing units and free-market
residential units are considered the same in terms of meeting the thresholds.
The following tiered thresholds have been established based on City Council direction in June, as
well as the Aspen-specific traffic study: exempt development, minor development, and major
development.
Exempt Development: All development currently exempt under Growth Management
would be exempt from any new transportation mitigation system. This includes adding
500 sq ft or less of commercial space, adding a single residential unit, or adding 2 lodge
units to a project.
P16
III.
Page 3 of 8
Exempt Development
Residential
Units
Lodging
Units Net Leasable
Inside the Roundabout 1 1 or 2 1 sq ft to 500 sq
ft
Outside the Roundabout 1 1 or 2 1 sq ft to 500 sq
ft
Minor Development: All development exceeding the exempt thresholds above, and
located inside the roundabout, regardless of size, is considered minor development. In
addition, any development outside the roundabout (along Highway 82, or up Castle or
Maroon Creek Roads, is considered minor development if it meets the following
thresholds:
Minor Development
Residential Units Lodging
Units Net Leasable
Inside the Roundabout All development not meeting Exempt Development
thresholds
Outside the
Roundabout 2 to 10 3 to 24 500 sq ft to 1,799 sq ft
Development in this category would be required to mitigate for their additional trips by
using a checklist of TDM and MMLOS measures. Minor development would not be
required to conduct any traffic studies, but would use the Aspen-specific generation
numbers to determine how many new trips are generated and need to be mitigated. Then
they would use a TDM and MMLOS “mitigation menu” of various infrastructure,
programmatic or operational improvements to mitigate those trips. Examples of menu
items include bike rack installation, carshare memberships, bus pass provision, a
detached sidewalk etc.
Major Development: Major development only applies to projects located outside the
roundabout (along highway 82, or up Castle and Maroon Creek roads) that propose the
following levels of development:
Major Development
Residential Units Lodging Units Net Leasable
Inside the Roundabout N/A N/A N/A
Outside the
Roundabout 11 or more 25 or more 1,800 sq ft or
more
Development meeting these thresholds would be required to conduct a Traffic Impact
Study (TIS) that examines the LOS and MMLOS impacts on the surrounding area and
mitigate for those impacts using the TDM and MMLOS “mitigation menu.” The larger
and more impactful the development, the more menu items would be required.
P17
III.
Page 4 of 8
It should be noted that a mixed-use development will be subject to the highest requirement. For
instance, if a project located along Castle Creek Road proposed 100 lodge rooms, 8,000 sq ft of
net leasable space, and 10 residential units, the development would be required to meet the major
development requirements because the lodge and commercial components trigger that threshold.
Similarly, if a project located inside the roundabout along Main Street proposed 200 sq ft of new
net leasable space, 2 new free market residential units, and 3 new affordable housing units, the
entire project would be reviewed under the minor development requirements because the 5 new
residential units trigger that threshold.
ASPEN SPECIFIC TRAFFIC STUDY: In February and June of 2013, three day traffic counting
studies were conducted throughout town based on Aspen’s different land uses – commercial,
lodging, affordable housing, free-market housing, and essential public facilities. Nine (9)
different locations were part of the traffic counts, representing all the land uses. This traffic
study was a key first step in the process to ensure that any system the City creates is based on
Aspen-specific traffic numbers, not national or international standards that may not be relevant.
The study found that, the Aspen specific generation rates are similar to the industry standard ITE
(Institute of Transportation Engineers) generation numbers. Some of the larger differences from
the ITE generation numbers included 43% higher PM peak trips for affordable housing and 26%
lower for PM peak trips for lodging. Any requirements for mitigation are based off of the
Aspen-specific numbers. In addition, the consultant trained staff on how to conduct counts in the
future, so the numbers can more easily be updated on an annual or bi-annual basis as needed.
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY PARAMETERS: The TIA Guidelines outline the requirements for
Traffic Impact Studies, based on the thresholds above. For Minor Development, an applicant
would simply use the Aspen-Specific trip generation figures to determine how many trips need to
be mitigated. They would then use the TDM and MMLOS mitigation tools to determine which
mitigation measures make the most sense for their site. For instance, a development inside the
roundabout creating 200 sq ft of new net leasable space and 5 new residential units (2 free-
market and 3 affordable) would generate 5.138 trips.1 Using the TDM and MMLOS tools, the
applicant could mitigate those trips through the provision of bike racks (5 trips mitigated), a
detached sidewalk (5 trips mitigated), or through other measures outlined in the tool.
For Major Development, a more detailed study is required, including traffic counts for the site,
and an analysis of how the development will impact the road artery (Highway 82, Castle Creek
Road, or Maroon Creek Road) and existing transit services. These sites will use the same tools
(ie TDM and MMLOS) as described in the minor development section. Additionally these sites
will be subject to a significant impact review. Under this review, significant impacts will be
required to be mitigated. For example, a site may be required to install a right turn lane to
mitigate the impacts of vehicles turning into the project site. Major developments also have the
option of undertaking more extensive TDM/MMLOS measures such as transit service expansion,
1 Under the Aspen specific traffic numbers, the PM peak figures are the highest, generating 0.82 trips per free-
market residential unit, 0.89 trips per affordable housing unit, and 4.14 trips per 1000 sq ft of net leasable space.
(200sq ft / 1000 sq ft = .2 * 4.14 = 0.828 commercial trips; 2 FM units * 0.82 = 1.64 FM residential trips; 3 AH
units * 0.89 = 2.67; 0.828 + 1.64 + 2.67 = 5.138 trips)
P18
III.
Page 5 of 8
the provision of auto-free zones, etc.
TDM AND MMLOS TOOLS: The TIA Guidelines reference an interactive tool that includes
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and Multi-Modal Level of Service (MMLOS). The
program is set up so an applicant can mitigate trips through a combination of TDM and MMLOS
measures.
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) refers to programs or services that maximize the
use of alternative transportation, including buses, carpools, biking, walking, and carshare modes.
TDM techniques include programs such as compressed workweeks as well as outreach and
education programs. Built alternatives such as Park and Rides, bike lanes, and bike racks that
encourage alternative modes of transportation are also an important element of TDM programs.
Finally, economic incentives and disincentives are part of the TDM tool-box, including things
like parking cash-out programs where an employee trades the right to free parking at their
workplace for a cash payment from the employer.
Level of Service (LOS) is a measurement that determines the effectiveness of transportation
infrastructure. LOS A would refer to an area has free-flow of traffic with almost no traffic. LOS
F would refer to an area where the flow of traffic is backed up and frequent slowing occurs.
Typical Level of Service figures only take vehicle drivers into account and only results in larger
roadways. In recent years, Level of Service has expanded to include multiple modes, called
Multi-Modal Level of Service (MMLOS). MMLOS takes all mode types – auto, bicycle, transit,
walking - into account. Staff is proposing to use both traditional LOS and the newer MMLOS as
the basis for mitigating project impacts.
A copy of the draft interactive tool is attached as Exhibit A. Staff is continuing to refine the
formulas within the tool, but staff has included it so Council can see how it works. The tool will
be fully functional by the time public hearings to adopt it take place.
DEVELOPER FEEDBACK: Staff and the consultant have conducted outreach with
developers and land use professionals who have recently been in the land use review process.
Fehr & Peers conducted interviews as part of the first phases of the project, and heard that a set
of clear, written standards outlining what’s required related to transportation mitigation would be
a significant improvement. The interviewees stated the current process is unpredictable, so a set
of written requirements will help a land owner know what is expected of them from the outset
rather than in the middle of the process as sometimes happens today.
Staff sent a copy of the document and tool to developers and land use professionals to review
and provide feedback. Some changes have been made to the tool to clarify sections, including
adding comment boxes to explain certain concepts.
In addition, staff has worked on changes to the document to address some concerns that were
expressed. These include removing quotes from the 2012 AACP that some found confusing and
instead focusing on the City’s long-standing goal to maintain traffic at 1993 levels.
There were some concerns about the reporting and monitoring requirements, especially for
P19
III.
Page 6 of 8
projects that are sold after completion. The program requires 3 years of monitoring through user
surveys to ensure the TDM and MMLOS measures are working as envisioned. Staff believes
surveys are the most effective way to measure the successfulness of the mitigation measures. To
respond to the reviewers’ concerns, staff has updated that section to indicate the monitoring
should be a “good faith effort,” but that an owner or developer would not be punished for factors
outside their control, such as not receiving comments back on a survey.
One consistent comment from reviewers was that the requirement to mitigate 100% of the trips
generated might be too much and could create another impediment to development. Staff ran
some recent cases, including the Aspen Club, through the tool to determine how this program
would have impacted them, and found that this tool results in fewer mitigation requirements.
Once these examples were discussed, the reviewing group was more comfortable with the
document and tool. Staff will run through one of these examples for City Council at the work
session.
Finally, most reviewers felt there should be higher thresholds for exempt development,
particularly for lodge and commercial development. The existing exempt thresholds are based
on the growth management code, as well as the recommendations from the consultant. If
Council is interested in having more development fall under the exempt category, staff
recommends adopting a percentage of trips to be mitigated that is lower than 100%, or making a
policy decision that certain types of development should have higher exempt thresholds. For
example, Council could decide to exempt more lodge development as part of the upcoming
discussions on the potential lodge incentive program.
NEXT STEPS: The next step is to implement the program through a code amendment. Staff is
prepared to process a Policy Resolution and 1st and 2nd Readings in the next few months.
Staff requests City Council provide direction on the program as presented. Staff can incorporate
any changes or clarifications into the code amendments.
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A – Draft Interactive TDM and MMLOS Tool
Exhibit B – Final Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines
P20
III.
Page 7 of 8
Exhibit A – Draft Interactive TDM and MMLOS Tool
(Refer to Attached Excel Workbook)
P21
III.
Page 8 of 8
Exhibit B – Final Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines
P22
III.
1 Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines
Transportation Impact
Analysis Guidelines
Prepared for:
The City of Aspen
P23
III.
2 Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS GUIDELINES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 4
Intent of Study Guidelines .................................................................................................... 5
2. TRIGGERS REQUIRING A TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS ............................. 6
Level of Study ...................................................................................................................... 7
3. LEVEL ONE TIA (FOR MINOR DEVELOPMENTS) ......................................................... 10
Qualifying Conditions ......................................................................................................... 10
Preparation of the Level One TIA ...................................................................................... 10
Level One TIA Outline ........................................................................................................ 11
Mitigation Measures ........................................................................................................... 12
Transportation Demand Management (TDM): ................................................................... 15
Multi-Modal Level of Service (MMLOS) ............................................................................. 15
City Comments and Recommendations............................................................................. 15
Monitoring and Reporting Requirements ........................................................................... 15
4. LEVEL TWO TIA (FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENTS) ........................................................ 18
Level Two TIA Outline ........................................................................................................ 19
Scope of The Study ........................................................................................................... 22
Study Area Boundary ......................................................................................................... 22
Analysis Scenarios ............................................................................................................. 22
Analysis Time Periods ....................................................................................................... 23
Traffic Data Collection ........................................................................................................ 24
Trip Generation .................................................................................................................. 25
Vehicle Level of Service ..................................................................................................... 26
Site Plan Review ................................................................................................................ 29
Consultation with Other Jurisdictions ................................................................................. 29
Impact Assessment ............................................................................................................ 30
Mitigation Measures ........................................................................................................... 33
Monitoring and Reporting Requirements ........................................................................... 34
Submittal of Level Two TIA ................................................................................................ 37
City Comments and Recommendations............................................................................. 37
P24
III.
3 Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Study Levels ................................................................................................................... 8
Table 2: Contribution Credits ...................................................................................................... 13
Table 3: Existing Conditions Data Collection Protocol ................................................................ 24
Table 4: Analysis Parameter Recommendations ........................................................................ 27
Table 5: Transportation, Circulation and Significance Criteria .................................................... 31
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Aspen Specific Trip Generation Calculations…………………………………………38
Appendix B: Sample Site Plan Review……………………………………………………………….41
Appendix C: TDM and MMLOS Glossary…………………………………………………………….43
P25
III.
4 Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines
Introduction
Transportation impact analysis (TIA) guidelines assist
applicants with assessing the potential transportation
impacts of proposed projects. The following guidelines have
been developed to provide a technical approach to
transportation impact analysis for development projects
within the City of Aspen that is simple, consistent and fair
while ensuring that the City continues to meet its
longstanding goal of limiting trips over the Castle Creek
Bridge to 1993 levels.
This document establishes protocol for transportation
impact analyses and mitigation based on the current state-
of-the-practice in transportation planning and engineering.
These guidelines outline different tiered levels of TIA
requirements and mitigation based on the size and location
of a project.
The requirements listed in this document are applicable for
specific land use development projects in the City of Aspen.
It is expected that a property owner and/or developer will
maintain improvements located on their property and pay
for any on-going maintenance costs unless otherwise
established through a land use approval or the municipal
code. Unless already required by municipal code, a land
use approval should address how off-site improvements will
be maintained.
Section 2 identifies specific project parameters or “triggers”
that necessitate a TIA. For projects that do not meet the
exempt threshold, mitigation for any new trips is required
through implementation of TDM and MMLOS measures.
Larger projects, as outlined in the Triggers Section, are
required to complete more comprehensive analysis.
The City of Aspen has established Aspen-specific trip
generation data for all land uses. Development applications
should use these standardized figures to determine trip
generation and mitigation requirements.
Definitions:
Transportation Impact
Analysis (TIA)
A Transportation Impact
Analysis (TIA) evaluates the
potential adverse effects of
proposed projects on
surrounding and supporting
transportation infrastructure
and services. A TIA
determines if the adverse
effects constitute significant
impacts, and, if so, how the
significant impacts
can be mitigated.
Multi-Modal Level of
Service (MMLOS)
Multi-Modal Level of Service
(MMLOS) evaluates the
safety and quality of access
and flow for transit,
pedestrians and bicyclists.
Transportation Demand
Management (TDM)
Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) is the
application of strategies and
policies to reduce travel
demand (specifically that of
single-occupancy vehicles)
P26
III.
5 Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines
Intent of Study Guidelines
The purpose of these guidelines is to create a standardized system for developments to
determine and mitigate transportation impacts. This document applies to both new development
and redevelopment. These guidelines address key elements required for preparing and
reviewing transportation impact analyses in the City of Aspen. This document is a resource to
be applied in concert with professional judgment. The following major issues are addressed in
this document.
Scope and extent of the required study.
Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) triggers and methods.
Mitigation measure requirements including TDM and MMLOS.
Criteria to determine if the transportation-related impacts of a proposed project are
significant.
Monitoring and reporting requirements for mitigation measures.
Guidelines for submittal.
The City of Aspen will primarily review transportation studies and reports based on the
guidelines presented in this document. However, each project is unique, and guidelines are not
intended to require measures that cannot be reasonably implemented. Not all criteria and
analyses described in this document will apply to every project. Early and consistent
communication with the Engineering and Transportation Departments is encouraged to confirm
the type and level of analysis required on a case-by-case basis.
P27
III.
6 Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines
1. TRIGGERS REQUIRING A
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS
Follow the flowchart below and Table 1 to determine the path for your development.
P28
III.
7 Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines
Level of Study and Mitigation
Table 1 shall be used to determine the level of transportation impact study and mitigation
required for the proposed development. These thresholds are based on the City’s Growth
Management Quota System (GMQS), and may be amended administratively over time to reflect
applicable changes to GMQS. For the purposes of this document, development is divided into
three categories: Exempt Development, Minor Development, and Major Development.
Exempt Development is exempt from TIA requirements and TDM and MMLOS
mitigation. The project may proceed directly to land use review or building permit as
applicable.
Minor Development refers to all projects located within the roundabout exceeding the
Exempt Thresholds, and any projects outside the roundabout meeting the thresholds in
Table 1. All minor developments are required to perform a Level One TIA which
includes mitigation using Aspen specific TDM and MMLOS mitigation tools.
Major Development refers to any significant development located outside the
Roundabout (i.e. along the Castle Creek, Maroon Creek, and Highway 82 corridors), and
is required to perform a Level Two TIA which includes Capacity Analysis and a Site Plan
Review. Additionally the development will mitigate using Aspen specific TDM and
MMLOS mitigation tools in addition to mitigating its significant impacts.
If a project falls within multiple development categories, it will be subject to the highest
requirement.
P29
III.
8 Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines
TABLE 1: STUDY LEVELS
Study Level Criteria
Exempt Development
1) All development involving Single-Family or Duplex residential dwelling units
2) All development involving the remodel or expansion of existing free-market
or affordable residential units that does not increase the total number of
free-market or affordable residential units
3) All development outlined as "exempt" in Growth Management (26.470.040)
a) Remodeling or expansion of multi-family residential development as
long as no demolition occurs and no new units are added
b) Remodeling or replacement of existing commercial and lodging
development when no new units or net leasable is added and there is
no change in use
4) All development qualifying for an "administrative" review in Growth
Management (26.470.060)
a) Change in use of historic landmark sites and structures involving no
more than 1 free-market residential unit
b) Minor enlargement of historic landmark sites and structures involving
i) no more than 1 free-market residential unit and
ii) expanding floor area or net leasable/lodge units but not both, OR
expanding both floor area and net leasable/lodge units generating
4 or fewer FTEs
c) Minor expansion of a retail, office, lodge, or mixed-use development
involving no more than 500 square feet of commercial net leasable
space OR 2 lodge units
d) Development involving no more than 500 square feet of essential public
facility space
e) Alley commercial space that is accessed entirely off an alley and has no
internal connections to other spaces in the building
f) Temporary food vending
g) Sale of locally-made products in common areas of commercial buildings
(26.470.060.7)
Minor Development – Inside
the Roundabout
(Level One TIA)
1) Any development located east of the City of Aspen Roundabout and larger
than that outlined in Exempt Development
Minor Development –
Outside of Roundabout
(Level One TIA)
1) Located outside of the City of Aspen Roundabout , and meeting one of the
following:
a) Change in use of non-historic sites and structures involving
i) Less than 11 new free-market or affordable residential unit, or
ii) 3 - 24 lodge units, or
iii) 501- 1,799 square feet of commercial net leasable space
b) Enlargement of a historic site or structure involving no more than 1 new
free-market residential or affordable unit and generating between 4 and
8 FTEs
c) Expansion or new commercial space between 501 and 1,799 square
feet
d) Development adding 3 - 24 new lodge units
e) Development of non-historic sites and structures adding 1 free-market
or affordable housing unit
f) Development adding between 501 and 2,199 square feet of new
essential public facility space
P30
III.
9 Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines
Study Level Criteria
Major Development -
Outside of Roundabout with
Significant Development
(Level Two TIA)
1) Located outside of the City of Aspen Roundabout , and meeting one of the
following:
a) Development adding more than 1,800 square feet of commercial net
leasable space
b) Development adding 25 or more lodge units
c) Development adding 11 or more residential units (free-market,
affordable, or combination)
d) Development adding 2,200 or more square feet of new essential public
facility space
P31
III.
10 Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines
2. LEVEL ONE TIA (FOR MINOR DEVELOPMENTS)
Qualifying Conditions
A Level One TIA, consisting of a TDM and MMLOS analysis
and mitigation, is required for submittal if a proposed
development meets the criteria for Minor Development as
shown in Table 1. Copies of the Level One TIA are to be
submitted as part of the Land Use Application. The report
shall be complete and in accordance with these guidelines.
The Engineering and Transportation Departments will be
referrals for these documents as part of the City’s regular land
use Development Review Committee (DRC) process.
The City is committed to complete analysis for all modes of
travel. This section provides the framework for the scope and
methodology used to apply and assess MMLOS and TDM for
the City of Aspen.
Preparation of the Level One TIA
The Project Applicant shall use the Aspen-Specific trip
generation figures and calculations described in Appendix A,
Table A-1 and A-2 to determine the existing baseline number
of vehicle trips as well as the anticipated vehicle trips created by the project. These are based
on AM and PM peak hour.
The Project Applicant is required to use the TDM and MMLOS tools to identify TDM and
MMLOS measures that have the capacity to fully reduce vehicle trips equal to or greater than
the new peak hour trips generated by the project and that address negative impacts to multi-
modal infrastructure. It is up to the Project Applicant to choose the measure(s) that will be
compatible with the intended purpose of the project.
Selected TDM and MMLOS measures must be reviewed and approved by the City. A Project
Applicant is encouraged to contact Engineering or Transportation Department staff with
questions regarding the appropriateness of chosen mitigation measures.
What is Transportation
Demand Management?
Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) is the
application of strategies and
policies to reduce travel
demand (specifically that of
single-occupancy vehicles)
What is Multi-Modal
Level of Service?
Multi-Modal Level of Service
(MMLOS) evaluates the
safety and quality of access
and flow for pedestrians and
bicyclists.
P32
III.
11 Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines
Level One TIA Outline
The Level One TIA shall follow this general outline:
1) Introductory Items
Front Cover / Title Page
Table of Contents, List of Figures, and List of Tables
2) Introduction
Project Description
Project applicant/contact info
Site plan (include proposed driveways, roadways, traffic control, parking facilities,
emergency vehicle access, and internal circulation for vehicles, bicyclists, and
pedestrians)
Location map (include major streets, study intersections, and neighboring zoning and
land uses)
3) Project Trip Generation using the City of Aspen specific trip generation figures (Table A-1
and A-2 in Appendix A)
AM Peak Trips by Land Use and for entire Project
PM Peak Trips by Land Use and for entire Project
4) Proposed TDM and MMLOS Mitigation Program (Based off TDM and MMLOS Mitigation
Tools)
Copies of completed TDM and MMLOS toolkit spreadsheets
TDM Measure Details (including location of measures)
MMLOS Measure Details (including location of measures)
Enforcement & Financing
Scheduling and implementation responsibility of mitigation measures
5) Monitoring Report
Assessment of Compliance with Guidelines
Results and effectiveness of implemented measures
Identification of Additional Strategies
Surveys and other supporting data
P33
III.
12 Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines
Trip Generation
The peak hour trip generation for a level one TIA is based on Aspen specific trip generation
rates and does not require an engineer to calculate. The Aspen specific trip generation rates are
located in Appendix A in Tables A-1 and A-2. The Aspen specific trip generation rates were
validated for winter and summer season conditions for the following land uses: commercial
office, commercial retail, free-market housing, affordable housing, lodging, essential public
facility, and mixed-use (included restaurant, residential, and commercial). The Community
Development should be consulted if there are questions regarding which land use the proposed
development is classified under.
Mitigation Measures
All projects shall use the Aspen TDM and/or MMLOS Mitigation Tools to determine mitigation
measures that will be used for a project. The tools assign a percent reduction in vehicle trips
(TDM) and point values (MMLOS) to specific measures used to offset the largest peak hour
trip generation. For example, if a projects adds 10 Peak Hour AM trips and 9 Peak Hour PM
trips, it will start with -10 points and will need to mitigate at least 100% of the new trips (10 trips)
in the TDM and MMLOS Tools.
Copies of the completed TDM and MMLOS toolkits delineating the applicants chosen measures
to mitigate at least 100% of the new trips must be provided to the City of Aspen with the
completed TIA.
The TDM and MMLOS Mitigation Tools provide a list of mitigation measures and the percent trip
reduction/points available for each measure, as well as the maximum allowable reduction for
each category.
Proposed TDM or MMLOS mitigation measures should primarily occur on or immediately
adjacent to the project site. For instance, a project may include mitigation measures within the
right-of-way adjacent to the property, if the measures are approved by the City Engineer. Any
development requesting a TDM or MMLOS mitigation measure that will be located off-site shall
be approved by the Transportation and Engineering Departments. In such a case, the TDM and
MMLOS plan shall include the following information:
1) Off-Site MMLOS Measures:
a) Existing roadway system within project site and within the project’s walk shed. The walk
shed shall be defined as a 250 foot radius from the project site. This includes on-street
parking configuration, sight distance limitations, location of driveways.
b) Location and routes of nearest public transit system serving the project.
P34
III.
13 Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines
c) Routes, location and width of pedestrian and bicycle facilities within the walk shed
serving the project.
2) Off-Site TDM Measures:
a) Existing transportation system within the transit shed of the project. The transit shed
shall be defined as a ¼ mile radius of the project site. This includes transit service and
facilities, carshare, and bikeshare facilities.
Changes to Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures that are approved and implemented for a development must be ongoing for
the occupied life of the development. Changes to specific on-site measures may be amended
over time, as long as they result in trip mitigation equal to or greater than the original approval.
Off-site MMLOS infrastructure measures may not be changed. Changes must be approved by
the Engineering and Transportation Departments to ensure the proposed change is appropriate
given the site’s context. Any change that results in the same number of trips mitigated may be
approved administratively. Any major change to the development that reduces the amount of
trips to be mitigated shall be approved by the body (City Council, HPC, or P&Z) that approved
the original measures.
Capital, Operations and Maintenance Contributions
The City of Aspen’s preference for new trip mitigation is through the mitigation measures
identified in the TDM and MMLOS toolkits. However, there is also the opportunity for capital
and operational/maintenance contributions. Should a project be unable to mitigate its trips to the
acceptable level, discussion may be had regarding possible one-time monetary contributions to
capital, operations and/or maintenance of appropriate measures or programs (i.e. purchase of a
car for the car share program, purchase of a bike for the bike share program, etc.).
The contribution will be assigned trip reduction credits. Below is a table showing the value of
credits:
TABLE 2: CONTRIBUTION CREDITS
Trip Reduction Credit Contribution Value
1 $6,000
A project may only use contribution credits if it is pre-approved by Engineering and
Transportation staff. Most often, these contributions will be applicable to projects or programs
identified in Transportation/Engineering long range plans and within the City’s Asset
Management Plan.
Contribution scenarios include:
Concurrent Offsite Mitigation Projects: A project cannot effectively mitigate trips within its
own site, but a good opportunity is available at another location which can be funded by
a financial contribution.
P35
III.
14 Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines
Mitigation Funds: A project cannot effectively mitigate trips within the menu options
available and instead provides a financial contribution for the commencement,
continuing operation, maintenance or improvement of an existing project or program.
P36
III.
15 Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines
Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) is the application of strategies and policies to
reduce travel demand (specifically that of single-occupancy vehicles).
The Aspen TDM and MMLOS toolkit shall be utilized to determine a project’s mitigation for peak
hour new trips to the transportation system. This section delineates and summarizes the Aspen
TDM approaches organized by category and setting that are included in the Aspen specific TDM
toolkit. The toolkit can be used to identify appropriate TDM approaches.
A description of all mitigation measures in the tool is located in Appendix C. The mitigation
categories include Neighborhood/Site Enhancement, Transit, and Commute Trip Reduction.
Multi-Modal Level of Service (MMLOS)
Similar to many cities throughout the United States, the City of Aspen desires to evaluate
transportation services of roadways from a multimodal perspective. This section delineates and
summarizes the MMLOS approaches organized by mode and setting that are included in the
Aspen specific MMLOS toolkit.
The MMLOS toolkit must be completed in its entirety. If the completed toolkit results in negative
points, as a result of not meeting minimum performance measures, these points, in addition to
peak additional trip points, must be mitigated.
A description of all mitigation measures in the tool is located in Appendix C. The mitigation
categories include Pedestrians, Bicycles, and Transit.
The Aspen TDM and MMLOS toolkit can be accessed here:
http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-Development/Planning-and-
Zoning/Current-Planning
City Comments and Recommendations
Copies of the completed TDM and MMLOS toolkit must be provided to the City as part of the
TIA that is submitted as part of the Land Use Application. The city will evaluate the TDM and
MMLOS Plan and comments will be provided to the developer/permittee as part of the
Development Review Committee (DRC) process. Subsequent analysis may be requested
regarding specific transportation issues. In some cases, minor comments raised by city staff
may be addressed in an addendum letter.
Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
Following the implementation of Mitigation Measures, the property owner will be required to
monitor whether the TDM and MMLOS Measures are having the intended effect. Minor
developments will be required to assess and report their compliance each year for three years.
P37
III.
16 Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines
If it is found that the adopted mitigation measures are not effective in mitigating trips for the
development, the mitigation measures should be modified in consultation with the
Transportation and Engineering Departments for the next year. The next year’s reporting
should outline how successful the changes have been. If the property owner/developer has
made a good faith effort to make changes to the mitigation measures but has not been
successful at fully mitigating the trips as expected, the reporting period shall end after 3 years.
If, however, the property owner/developer has not made real attempts to make changes the
reporting period shall be extended by one year and the non-compliance may be reviewed by
City Council to determine appropriate next steps to more accurately mitigate trips.
If an applicant fails to assess and report their compliance, the timeline for reporting will be
extended by one year. Monitoring and Reporting requirements are tied to the property and must
be provided regardless of change in ownership.
Property owners should make a good faith effort to survey the appropriate individuals/groups
based on the development type. Examples include homeowners, tenants, employees and
customers. The purpose of surveying is to determine level of participation and success of
various measures. The owner will not be held responsible should a survey prove infeasible
and/or response rates low as long as a good faith effort has been made. The owner should
contact staff to discuss these types of issues as soon as possible. Traffic counts and analysis
will not be required for Minor TIAs but can be used as an alternate assessment tool. Traffic
counts and analysis will be paid for by the development applicant.
The process is illustrated in the flow chart below. Each project will collect the necessary data
specific to their chosen measures and assess their compliance. The project will submit a report
to the City Transportation Department to document the monitoring process and results. Details
of each step are documented below.
P38
III.
17 Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines
Assessment of Compliance with Guidelines
An annual employee, tenant, visitor, customer and/or homeowner survey is an important
element of the monitoring program. Surveys will be conducted to assess whether
measures are being maintained and if participation levels meet critical mass.
Survey results will provide insight into the success of various TDM measures and provide
the project and the City with guidance on how to change, continue and/or improve upon
those measures. If the measures are not successfully implemented and maintained, the
project will be responsible to refine its program. If an applicant intends to collect vehicle
trip data then they must follow the Vehicle Trip Data Collection guidelines located in the
Level II TIA section of this document.
Identify Additional Strategies
It is recommended that each project review the TDM tool in conjunction with the annual
survey results to identify if refinements to existing strategies and new strategies to
implement are necessary. The project will also identify a timeline for making changes to
existing strategies and implementing new strategies.
Annual Report Submittal
A monitoring report, submitted at least annually to the City of Aspen, will be developed by
the project and the independent transportation firm. The report will include the following
elements:
1) Status of all existing TDM programs – including data on participation rates
2) Status of all recommended TDM programs from prior monitoring report (if
applicable) – including data on participation rates
3) Data collection methodology
4) Survey results
5) Evaluation of performance compared to TDM/MMLOS plan
6) Conclusion of whether compliance is met
7) Next steps (if needed) – future modifications and enhancements of TDM Program,
including time frame of implemented
P39
III.
18 Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines
3. LEVEL TWO TIA (FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENTS)
If the proposed development meets the criteria shown next to “Major Development” in Table 1, a
Level Two TIA is required for submittal as part of the Land Use application. The contents and
extent of a Level Two TIA depends on the location and size of the proposed development, and
the prevailing conditions in the surrounding area. At a minimum, a Level Two TIA shall include a
Site Plan Review, Trip Generation, Capacity Analysis, and TDM, MMLOS, and significant
impact Mitigation Measures.
The developer/permittee is responsible for the preparation of a Level Two TIA. The study is
applicable through a project’s vesting period.
The project applicant shall retain a professional traffic engineer to conduct the transportation
impact analysis. It is recommended that the applicant’s consultant conduct the work in the
following phased manner and seek City acceptance of each task before initiating the next task.
In some cases, review by other affected jurisdictions will be required.
Transportation Analysis Scope of Work detailing project description, site location,
analysis method, area-wide assumptions, study intersections and/or roadways, peak
hours for analysis, and traffic data collection.
Project Trip Generation and Trip Distribution documenting all key technical
assumptions, data sources, and references.
Administrative Draft Transportation Study Report prepared according to the Scope
of Work, Project Trip Generation, and Trip Distribution approved by the City Engineer.
Draft Transportation Study Report addressing the City’s comments on the
Administrative Draft Report.
Final Transportation Study Report / Response to Public Comments addressing
comments from the City (and, if applicable, other jurisdictions – i.e. Pitkin County,
CDOT, neighboring cities, etc.)
P40
III.
19 Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines
Level Two TIA Outline
Details on requirements for the Level Two TIA outline items are defined later in this section.
The Level Two TIA shall follow this general outline:
1. Introductory Items
Front Cover / Title Page – signed and sealed by a registered Colorado Professional
Engineer
Table of Contents, List of Figures, and List of Tables
Executive Summary
2. Introduction/Background
Project description
Project applicant/contact info
Type and size of development
Site plan (include proposed driveways, roadways, traffic control, parking facilities,
emergency vehicle access, and internal circulation for vehicles, bicyclists, and
pedestrians)
Location map (include major streets, study intersections, and neighboring zoning and
land uses)
3. Existing Conditions
Existing roadway system within project site and within the walk shed (within 250 feet
radius)
o On-street parking configuration
o Sight distance limitations
o Location of driveways
Location and routes of nearest transit routes and facilities serving the project
Routes, location and width of nearest pedestrian and bicycle facilities serving the
project
Figure of study intersections with seasonally adjusted AM and PM peak hour turning
movement counts, lane geometries, signal timings, and traffic control
Crash data on study roadways and intersections
Map of study area showing ADT of study roadways
Table of existing AM and PM peak hour average vehicle delay and LOS
P41
III.
20 Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines
4. Existing Plus Project Conditions
Table of trip generation for Project Trip Generation using the City of Aspen specific
trip generation figures (Table A-1 and A-2 in Appendix A)
Figure/map of trip distribution (in percent)
Maps of study area with applicable peak hour turning movements (Project Only and
Existing Plus Project)
Table of Existing and Existing Plus Project intersection peak hour average vehicle
delay
and LOS
Table of Existing and Existing Plus Project MMLOS for pedestrians, bicycles, and
transit
Traffic signal and other warrants
Findings of project impacts
Access and Circulation Design
o Sight distance limitations
o Dimensions from adjacent driveways and intersections
o Potential for shared access facilities
o Demonstration that the number of proposed driveways is the fewest necessary
o Support that the access points will provide safe and efficient multi-modal (traffic,
pedestrian, bicycle and transit) flow
o Internal circulation design, including adequacy of queuing (stacking) at site
access points and other features that may affect traffic operations and safety
o Pedestrian circulation system on-site and along frontage
o Impact to existing transit routes and facilities
5. Future Background Conditions
Table of trip generation for approved project(s) – when applicable, apply reduction
for pass-by trips, transit, internal capture, and other modes.
Figure and/or table of approved projects trip distribution (in percent)
Map of study area with applicable AM and PM peak hour turning movements
(Approved Projects Only)
Table of intersection peak hour average vehicle delay and LOS
P42
III.
21 Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines
Traffic signal and other warrants
6. Future Background Plus Project Conditions
Similar content to Existing Plus Project Conditions
7. Proposed Mitigation Program
Copies of completed TDM and MMLOS toolkit spreadsheets
TDM Measure Details (including location of measure)
MMLOS Measure Details (including location of measure)
Enforcement & Financing
Scheduling and implementation responsibility of mitigation measures
Proposed Significant Impact Mitigation
8. Conclusion and Recommendations
Summary of results, findings, and recommended mitigation measures
9. Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
Vehicle Trip Data Collection
Assessment of Compliance with Guidelines
Identify Additional Strategies
Annual Report Submittal
10. Appendices
Traffic counts
Technical calculations for all analyses
P43
III.
22 Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines
Scope of Study
The contents and extent of a Level Two Transportation
Impact Analysis depend on the location and size of the
proposed development, the prevailing conditions in the
surrounding area, and the technical questions being asked
by decision makers and the public.
Study Area Boundary
Careful consideration of all modes and facilities (i.e., transit,
pedestrian, bicycle, vehicle, etc.) is required when selecting
the study area boundary.
The scope of the study area is ½ mile. The City Engineer must approve study locations before
traffic data collection and analysis commences. Additional facilities may be studied based on
circumstances unique to the site. Applicants should consult with the City Engineer early
regarding any additional study locations based on local or site-specific issues, especially those
related to pedestrians, bicycles, and transit.
Analysis Scenarios
The transportation analysis scenarios are listed below. Additional analysis scenarios may be
required in the transportation impact analysis dependent on project conditions and setting. For
example, other scenarios may be needed to test phasing or other interim conditions, at the
discretion of the City Engineer.
PRESENT CONDITIONS
o Existing Conditions represented by transportation conditions for all travel
modes in the study area based on recent field observations. Traffic volumes for
roadway analysis should be based on recent count data (see Transportation
Analysis Time Periods section below).
o Existing plus Project Conditions represented by project changes to existing
transportation conditions for all travel modes in the study area. Traffic volume
forecasts for roadway analysis should reflect existing conditions plus traffic
generated by the proposed project. For re-use or conversion projects, this will
involve accounting for any existing use of the site that remains or will be
discontinued.
FUTURE CONDITIONS (If required by City Engineer)
o Future Background Conditions represented by transportation conditions for all
travel modes in the study area reflecting all approved projects plus pending
projects or expected development of other areas of the City designated for
growth. In most cases, the project site will likely be vacant under this scenario. In
some cases though, this scenario may need to account for any existing uses on
How do I determine the
study area?
How many traffic
analysis scenarios are
required?
P44
III.
23 Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines
What time periods need
to be analyzed?
the site that could continue and potential increases in development allowed by
ministerial approvals only.
o Future Background plus Project Conditions represented by Future
Background Conditions plus changes to these conditions caused by the
proposed project. This scenario needs to account for whether the project is
changing any existing or planned land uses on the site.
Analysis Time Periods
The determination of analysis time periods will depend on
the travel modes being evaluated. For vehicular analysis,
at a minimum, weekday AM and PM peak hour traffic
volumes will be used in determining compliance with the
vehicle level of service (LOS) standard. For recreational
and other non-typical peak hour uses, weekday afternoon,
weekday late evening, or weekends shall be considered.
Based on the land use of the proposed project and upon consultation with the City, the study
shall analyze traffic operations during the peak hour of the following time periods. The weekday
time periods must occur on a Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday.
Weekday morning peak (7:00 – 9:00 AM)
Weekday evening peak (4:00 – 6:00 PM)
For some projects, the City may substitute or require additional peak hour analysis for the
following time periods.
Weekday mid-day peak (12:00 – 2:00 PM)
Weekday afternoon peak (2:00 – 4:00 PM)
Friday evening peak (5:00 – 7:00 PM)
Weekend midday peak (11:00 AM – 1:00 PM)
Weekend evening peak (4:00 – 7:30 PM)
The determination of study time periods should be made separately for each proposed project
based upon the peaking characteristics of project-generated traffic and peaking characteristics
of the adjacent street system and land uses. The time period(s) that should be analyzed are
those that exhibit the maximum combined level of project-generated traffic and adjacent street
traffic.
P45
III.
24 Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines
Traffic Data Collection
Accurate data is essential to achieve a high level of confidence in transportation analysis
results. Existing traffic conditions data shall be collected using the guidelines set forth in Table
3. The collected data will then be used to perform the respective analyses per the TIA
guidelines.
TABLE 3: EXISTING CONDITIONS DATA COLLECTION PROTOCOL
Data Set Procedure
Peak period turning
movement counts
New traffic counts shall be collected if existing counts are more than two years old.
Counts shall only be collected in winter months (December 15th through March 30th) and
summer months (June 15th through Labor Day). No traffic count data should be collected
outside these dates unless agreed upon by the City of Aspen. The peak hour traffic volumes
should be seasonally adjusted to represent the typical average day of the year (the 30th
highest hour across the Castle Creek bridge).
Traffic counts shall be collected over a two-hour period between 7-9 AM and 4-6 PM and
the highest hour used for the existing counts.
Collect data for all study intersections on a Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday.
Care should be taken to collect data on days when schools are in session.
Bicycles and pedestrians should be included in all counts.
Some projects may require vehicle classification or occupancy counts. Consult with the
City on a case-by-case basis.
Daily traffic counts Collect data for all study roadway segments using the parameters described above for peak
period turning movement counts with the exception of collecting bicycle and pedestrian data.
Multi-Modal
Facilities
Establish existing geometrics from a combination of aerial photography, as-built plans, and
site visits.
Map existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities within the study area (include sidewalks,
crosswalks, signal heads, push buttons, related signing and striping). Document barriers,
deficiencies and high-pedestrian demand land uses including schools, parking, senior
housing facilities, and transit stops or centers. The City of Aspen’s GIS department can
provide this information.
Travel time and
speed
If necessary, travel time and speeds may be measured using radar, Bluetooth detectors, GPS
probe vehicles (i.e., floating car survey), or other validated methodology.
Signal timing Request timing from the City and other operating agencies such as CDOT. Verify timing in the
field.
Crash data Obtain crash data through the local law enforcement or CDOT if on Highway 82.
Mode split Summarize daily and peak hour mode split from study area or communities adjacent to study
area.
Transit routes and
use
Map existing transit routes and stops serving the study area and identify service hours and
levels of use. Document amenities (benches, shelters, bicycle parking, etc.) available at
transit stops and centers within ¼-mile of non-residential projects and a ½-mile of residential
projects. Complete MMLOS analysis per TIA guidelines.
P46
III.
25 Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines
Trip Generation
Applicants required to complete a Level Two TIA are
required to submit a trip generation analysis that identifies
the number of new daily and peak hour vehicle-trips added
by the proposed project. The trip generation estimation for
all new or proposed development projects shall include the
summation of primary trips and diverted linked trips.
The estimation of new trips generated by the proposed development project may include credit
for trips associated with existing uses on the site. Existing uses are those actively present on
the project site at the time data is gathered for the Traffic Impact Analysis.
The final estimate of new daily and peak-hour trips associated with a proposed development
project should represent the net contribution of the proposed project. The City will review the trip
generation analysis and determine if additional analysis is required.
Trip generation analysis should be primarily based on Aspen specific trip generation rates. The
Aspen specific trip generation rates and the respective directional distributions for the AM and
PM peak hours are located in Appendix A in Tables A-1 and A-2. The Aspen specific trip
generation rates were validated for winter and summer season conditions for the following land
uses: commercial office, commercial retail, free-market housing, affordable housing, lodging,
essential public facility, and mixed-use (included restaurant, residential, and commercial). The
City Engineer should be consulted if the proposed development land use is not included in the
validated land use categories listed in Tables A-1 and A-2.
The following figure describes trip types relevant to trip generation and the difference between
the total trips generated by the project versus new trips added by the project.
How do I determine how
many vehicle trips my
project will generate?
P47
III.
26 Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines
Vehicle Level of Service
Historically, vehicle levels of service (LOS) thresholds have been the prevailing criteria applied
to transportation projects. The City of Aspen recognizes that vehicle LOS is one performance
measure that needs to be carefully weighed against other City objectives to balance the
preservation of community values with a safe and efficient circulation system. Vehicle LOS only
assesses traffic operations from a driver’s perspective. It does not capture the perspective of
pedestrians and bicyclists nor does it recognize potential impacts of driving on air pollution or
other environmental resources. As such, potential impacts identified based on the following City
LOS thresholds will need to be weighed against other community values and objectives in
developing mitigation acceptable to the City.
LOS C or better during peak hours is acceptable within the City of Aspen.
For individual turning movements, LOS D, E and F may be acceptable for left-turns or for
minor street unsignalized movements; however some mitigation may be necessary.
In instances where the existing LOS is already less than LOS C, the project should
include mitigation to maintain the LOS and not degrade it further. Mitigation preferences
should focus on reducing vehicle trips, improving the bicycle and walking network,
improving transit services or facilities, and modifying traffic control operations (i.e., signal
timings).
Traffic operations analysis methodology used to calculate LOS shall be based on the latest
version of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM).
If the TIA study area extends into an adjacent jurisdiction, their LOS threshold shall be used for
the impact significance criteria for analysis locations in that jurisdiction. The applicant is
responsible for analyzing project impacts against appropriate jurisdictional standards; however,
impacts will be mitigated consistent with City TDM standards.
Analysis Parameters
Analysis parameters (e.g., signal phasing, conflicting pedestrian volumes, etc.) for Existing and
Existing plus Project conditions shall be based on field measurements taken during traffic count
collection and field observations. This typically applies to Future Background and Future
Background plus Project analysis.
In the absence of field data or for some future conditions analysis, the parameters in Table 3
may be used with City consultation.
P48
III.
27 Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines
TABLE 4: ANALYSIS PARAMETER RECOMMENDATIONS
Parameter Recommendation
Peak hour factor (PHF)
Use measured approach PHF obtained through traffic data collection. For cumulative scenarios
and existing conditions where peak hour factors are not available, refer to the HCM and
maintain consistency through analysis scenarios and peak hours.
If a simulation model is used for analysis, the PHF should be applied over more than a
15-minute period.
Saturation flow rate
A field measurement of the saturation flow rate is recommended in accordance with procedure
in the HCM.
For cumulative conditions, use the value recommended in the most recent HCM unless physical
conditions and traffic controls warrant a change. The 2010 HCM recommends 1,900 vehicles
per hour per lane.
Yellow phase 4 seconds per phase (if traffic signal is present under existing conditions, use existing yellow
phase).
All red phase 1 second per phase (if traffic signal is present under existing conditions, use existing red phase).
Red phase may be greater on high-speed roadways.
Conflicting pedestrians for
signalized intersections
Primarily based on existing pedestrian counts or observations. Otherwise, refer to the most
current version of the HCM to determine the amount of pedestrian activations per cycle into
appropriate categories.
To determine conflicting pedestrians, assume one pedestrian per activation.
Traffic signal cycle lengths
Replicate existing cycle length and phasing (e.g., leading left turns) when possible. For new
signalized locations, segment the cycle lengths into the following three categories unless other
cycle lengths can be justified through the traffic operations analysis.
In and around downtown – limit signal cycle lengths to less than 90 seconds
In and around suburban areas – limit signal cycle lengths to less than 90 seconds
Ensure that minimum pedestrian times are satisfied.
Lane utilization factor If applicable, adjust lane utilization factors based on field observations.
Analysis Tools and Methods
Traffic operations analysis for local roadways and the state highway shall be conducted using
tools and methods approved by the City of Aspen. Recommended analysis tools for Traffic
Impact Studies include Synchro, SimTraffic, and VISSIM. Other tools or methods may be used
upon receiving approval from the City Engineer.
Congested Conditions
Analysts should note that the HCM recommends the use of simulation models to analyze
congested conditions. Since simulation tools can simultaneously evaluate vehicle interactions
across a complete network (including the interaction of multiple modes), they can provide a
more complete understanding of traffic operating conditions during peak congested periods and
what may happen when a specific bottleneck is modified or eliminated. Recommended analysis
tools for simulation analysis include SimTraffic and VISSIM. Other tools or methods may be
used upon receiving approval from the City Engineer.
P49
III.
28 Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines
Transit Level of Service
Information relating to the hours of weekday service, frequency of service, travel time, and peak
passenger load is helpful for determining the extent and quality of service provided to a given
location. The transit system performance measures are to be documented for multi-family
housing, hotel/lodging, and commercial/retail developments that fall under the category of Major
Development per the TIA guidelines.
Level of Service Metric Standard Notes
Hours of Weekday Service (number
of hours service is provided)
20 hours peak/18 hours off- peak When transit level of service
standards are not met, the City of
Aspen, RFTA, and project applicant
should discuss potential
improvements to the transit system
by the project.
Season Frequency of Service (time
between bus arrivals at a particular
transit stop)
15-30 min peak/60 min off-peak
Travel Time Factor (transit travel
time / auto travel time to three
specific destinations that can include
popular destinations such as
shopping centers, schools, or civic
uses)
2.0 X
Peak Load factor (# of passengers /
# of seats)
<1.2
The overall transit system performance LOS is determined as follows:
Level of Service Standards Met
All 4 3 of 4 2 of 4 1 of 4 None
A B/C D E F
When overall transit system performance is operating at D or worse, the applicant and City staff
should engage the transit provider to evaluate the potential for improving transit service for a
particular development. This coordination between land use and the transit system is intended
to increase the utility and attractiveness of the transit system to all users.
P50
III.
29 Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines
Site Plan Review
A detailed site review is required for every project and should, as a minimum, cover the items
below. Appendix B includes a sample illustration of site review recommendations that should
also be considered in the site plan review. Consideration should be given to the following
qualitative and quantitative reviews and summarized in the TIA.
Existence of any current traffic problems in the local area such as a high-accident
location, non-standard intersection or roadway, or an intersection in need of a traffic
signal.
Applicability of context-sensitive design practices compatible with adjacent
neighborhoods or other areas that may be impacted by the project traffic.
Close proximity of proposed site driveway(s) to other driveways or intersections.
Adequacy of the project site design to fully satisfy truck loading demand on-site.
Adequacy of the project site design to provide at least the minimum required throat
depth at project driveways.
Adequacy of the project site design to convey all vehicle types
Adequacy of on-site vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian circulation and provision of safe
pedestrian paths from residential areas to school sites, public streets to commercial and
residential areas, and the project site to nearby transit facilities.
Project site design resulting in inadequate emergency access or response times.
Consultation with Other Jurisdictions
If the study area overlaps with other jurisdictions (i.e. CDOT, Pitkin County, etc.), the other
jurisdictions should be consulted to verify study locations and to specify the impact significance
criteria that should be used in the TIA for these locations. In most cases, overlap will occur for
roadway system analysis.
P51
III.
30 Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines
Does my project result in
a significant impact?
Significant Impact Assessment
The main intent of the TIA is to determine potential
transportation impacts of proposed projects. This information
is essential for decision makers and the public when
evaluating individual projects. This section explains what
operating conditions shall be used when determining an
impact. These guidelines also establish criteria for when a
project impact is considered significant.
Scenario Evaluation
Transportation impact determination for a proposed development project shall be based upon
the comparison of the following scenarios using the significance criteria cited below.
Existing Conditions vs. Existing Plus Project Conditions
Future Background Conditions vs. Future Background Plus Project Conditions
Significance Criteria
A project impact is considered significant when it meets the criteria listed in Table 4.
P52
III.
31 Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines
TABLE 5: TRANSPORTATION, CIRCULATION AND SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
Elements Evaluation Significant Impact Determination
On-site Circulation
Review and evaluate site access locations,
driveway throat depths, size of major
circulation features with respect to operations
and safety, turning movement volumes at site
access points, queuing at site access
driveways, dimensions of truck loading areas,
and emergency access. Address and provide
pedestrian and bicycle access to the proposed
development. See Appendix B for a sample.
Project designs for on-site circulation,
access, and parking areas fail to meet City
or industry standard design guidelines.
Project fails to provide direct pedestrian
and bicycle connection to the pedestrian
and bicycle facilities on-site.
A project fails to provide adequate
accessibility for service and delivery trucks
on-site, including access to truck loading
areas.
Off-Site Traffic
Operations
Conduct intersection and roadway level of
service analyses using methods and
procedures contained in the latest version of
the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)
published by the Transportation Research
Board.
A roadway segment or intersection
operates unacceptably according to the
City of Aspen LOS guidelines (Overall
Intersection LOS C or better during peak
hours, LOS D, E and F may be acceptable
for left-turns or for Minor Street
unsignalized movements. In instances
where the existing LOS is already less
than LOS C, the project should include
mitigation to maintain the LOS and not
degrade it further)
The project adds 10 or more peak hour
trips that cannot be mitigated with TDM or
MMLOS.
Bicycle Facilities
Identify any existing or planned bicycle
facilities that may be affected by the project.
Focus on maintaining or enhancing
connectivity and completing network gaps.
Complete MMLOS analysis per TIA
guidelines.
A project disrupts existing or planned
bicycle facilities or conflicts with adopted
City non-auto plans, guidelines, policies,
or standards.
The project adds trips to an existing
transportation facility or service (e.g., bike
path) that cannot be mitigated with TDM or
MMLOS.
Pedestrian
Facilities and
Americans with
Disabilities Act
(ADA) compliance
Identify any existing or planned pedestrian
facilities that may be affected by the project.
Focus on maintaining or enhancing
connectivity, completing network gaps, and
removing barriers. Disclose evaluation and
documentation of project features (e.g.,
driveway access points) with likely disparate
impact on pedestrians (e.g., longer crossing
time, added conflict points, etc.). Complete
MMLOS toolkit analysis per TIA guidelines.
A project fails to provide accessible and
safe pedestrian connections between
buildings and to adjacent streets and
transit facilities.
A project disrupts existing or planned
pedestrian facilities or conflicts with
adopted City non-auto plans, guidelines,
policies, or standards.
The project adds trips to an existing
transportation facility or service (e.g.,
sidewalk) that does not meet current
design standards for minimum width and
that cannot be mitigated with TDM or
MMLOS.
P53
III.
32
Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines
Elements Evaluation Significant Impact Determination
Transit
Identify any existing or planned transit
facilities that may be affected by the project.
Focus on maintaining or enhancing
connectivity and completing network gaps.
Complete MMLOS toolkit analysis per TIA
guidelines.
A project disrupts existing or planned
transit facilities and services or conflicts
with adopted City non-auto plans,
guidelines, policies, or standards or results
in significant degradation of service
quality.
Intersection Traffic
Control
Evaluate unsignalized intersections located
within the study to determine appropriate
traffic control with or without the project.
Evaluate signalized intersections located
within the study to determine appropriate
signal timing changes needed with or without
the project.
The addition of project traffic causes an
all-way stop-controlled or side street stop-
controlled intersection to meet Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)
signal warrant criteria.
Other
Jurisdictional
Requirements
In situations where several agencies must
approve a development or are responsible for
affected roadways, the applicant must contact
lead and responsible agencies to determine
issues to be addressed, scope of study, etc.
In general, the applicant will be responsible for
analyzing project impacts against appropriate
jurisdictional thresholds; however, the analysis
methodology will be determined by the City in
compliance with the TIA guidelines and the
impacts will be mitigated consistent with City
standards.
The project exceeds established
significance criteria thresholds for
locations under the jurisdiction of other
agencies.
P54
III.
33
Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines
Mitigation Measures
All projects shall use the Aspen TDM and/or and MMLOS Mitigation Tools to determine
mitigation measures that will be used for a project. The tools assign a percent reduction in
vehicle trips (TDM) and point values (MMLOS) to specific measures used to offset the largest
peak hour trip generation. For example, if a projects adds 50 Peak Hour AM trips and 40 Peak
Hour PM trips, it will start with -50 points and will need to mitigate 100% of the new trips (50
trips) in the TDM and MMLOS Toolkits. Major Projects may not be able to achieve enough
points to mitigate 100% of the peak trips through TDM and MMLOS. In these situations
additional mitigation measures are required and must be discussed with and approved by the
City of Aspen Engineering and Transportation Departments (see Table 4).
Copies of the completed TDM and MMLOS toolkits delineating the applicants chosen
measures to mitigate at least 100% of the new trips must be provided to the City of Aspen with
the completed TIA.
Changes to Mitigation Measures
TDM and MMLOS Mitigation measures that are approved and implemented for a development
must be on going for the occupied life of the development. Changes to specific on-site
measures may be amended over time, as long as they result in the same amount of trips
mitigated as the original approval. Off-site MMLOS infrastructure measures may not be
changed. Changes must be approved by the Engineering and Transportation departments to
ensure the proposed change is appropriate given the site’s context. Any change that results in
the same number of trips mitigated may be approved administratively. Any change that
reduces the amount of trips generated shall be approved by the body (City Council, HPC, or
P&Z) that approved the original measures.
If after TDM and MMLOS mitigation has been applied and the net new trips to the system are
not mitigated and/or the project meets the significance criteria in Table 4, additional significant
impact mitigation may be required. In consultation with the City of Aspen Engineering and
Transportation Departments, the mitigation may include modifications to the site plan to
increase pedestrian and bicycle connectivity, signal timing modifications, intersection traffic
control modifications, etc. Every effort to mitigate shall first be made by TDM and MMLOS
measures.
P55
III.
34
Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines
Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
Following the implementation of Mitigation Measures, the property owners will be required to
monitor motor vehicle traffic to ensure that the TDM and MMLOS Measures are having the
intended effect. Major developments will be required to assess and report their compliance
each year for five years. If an applicant fails to assess and report their compliance, the timeline
for reporting will be extended one year.
Property Owners will need to collect traffic count data to evaluate travel behavior near the
development. Traffic counts and analysis will be paid for by the development applicant.
The process is illustrated in the flow chart below. Each project will collect vehicle trip data for
their project and assess their compliance. The project will submit a report to the City to
document the monitoring process and results. Details of each step are documented below.
P56
III.
35
Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines
Vehicle Trip Data Collection
Data collection will be conducted by an independent transportation firm at least once a year.
The data collection should include the following:
1) Selecting a week to conduct the vehicle counts that is consistent with the TIA data
collection and prior year’s data collection time frame. The selection of the week
should be agreed upon by the City’s Engineering and Transportation Departments.
2) The driveway counts will be conducted for:
a) Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday of the selected week
b) Daily (24 hours), morning peak period (7:00 AM to 10:00 AM) ,
and evening peak period (4:00 to 7:00 PM)
c) For the driveways providing access to the project
3) Field observations will be conducted during the AM and PM peak periods for each
of the data collection days to confirm that the survey reflects a typical day.
The independent transportation firm will calculate the AM and PM peak hour vehicle
counts entering the specified driveways. The AM and PM peak hour vehicle counts will
be an average over the three day data collection period. If appropriate, the AM and PM
peak hour vehicle counts may be adjusted based on field observations (i.e. if employees
are parking on the street and thus not captured by the driveway counts).
Survey Collection
Collection of an annual employee, tenant, visitor, customer and/or homeowner survey is
an important element of the monitoring program. Surveys will be conducted to assess
whether measures are being maintained and if participation levels meet critical mass.
Assessment of Compliance with Guidelines
Vehicle trip data and survey results will provide insight into the success of various
measures. The daily, AM, and PM trips will be compared to the submitted TDM and
MMLOS plan within the TIA.
If the trip reduction measures are not successfully implemented and maintained, the
project will be responsible to refine its program.
Identify Additional Strategies
It is recommended that each project review the TDM/MMLOS tools in conjunction with
the annual survey results to identify if refinements to existing strategies and new
strategies to implement are necessary. The project will also identify a timeline for
making changes to existing strategies and implementing new strategies.
P57
III.
36
Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines
Annual Report Submittal
A monitoring report, submitted at least annually to the City of Aspen, will be developed
by the project and the independent transportation firm. The report will include the
following elements:
1) Status of all existing TDM programs – including any data on participation rates
2) Status of all recommended TDM programs from prior monitoring report (if
applicable) – including any available data on participation rates
3) Data collection methodology
4) Documentation of trip reduction methodology and results
5) Evaluation of performance compared to TDM plan
6) Conclusion of whether compliance is met
7) Next steps (if needed) – future modifications and enhancements of TDM
Program, including time frame of implemented
8) Detail of data collection (including AM, PM, and daily counts)
9) Survey results
P58
III.
37
Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines
Submittal of Level Two TIA
A copy of the Level Two TIA shall be submitted as part of the Land Use Application along with
other required development documents. The report shall be complete, in accordance with
these guidelines, and be stamped and signed by the developer/permittee’s transportation
consultant engineer.
City Comments and Recommendations
The City will evaluate the TIA and comments will be provided to the developer/permittee as
part of the City’s Development Review Committee (DRC) process. Subsequent analysis may
be requested regarding specific transportation issues. In some cases, minor comments raised
by city staff may be addressed in an addendum letter.
P59
III.
38
Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines
Appendix A:
Aspen Specific Trip Generation Calculations
P60
III.
39
Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines
The following tables exemplify how trip generation information and assumptions should be
prepared and documented for submittal to the City of Aspen.
TABLE A-1: ASPEN SPECIFIC AM PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION
TABLE A-2: ASPEN SPECIFIC PM PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION
Land Use Trip Rate1 % Entering% Exiting
Commercial 4.1440%60%
Free‐Market Housing 0.8256%44%
Affordable Housing 0.8955%45%
Lodging2 0.3152%48%
Essential Public Facility 1.6640%60%
1 per thousand square feet for commercial and essential public facility;
per unit/occupied room for housing and lodging
* For mixed‐use (at least 2 of the established land uses) sites, a 14% reduction can
be applied to the trip generation
2 Includes vehicle and shuttle trips
Table A‐2
Aspen Trip Generation ‐PM Peak Average
Land Use Trip Rate1 % Entering% Exiting
Commercial 2.2769%31%
Free‐Market Housing 0.6729%71%
Affordable Housing 0.7548%52%
Lodging2 0.2557%43%
Essential Public Facility 0.8662%38%
1 per thousand square feet for commercial and essential public facility;
per unit/occupied room for housing and lodging
* For mixed‐use (at least 2 of the established land uses) sites, a 4% reduction can
be applied to the trip generation
2 Includes vehicle and shuttle trips
Table A‐1
Aspen Trip Generation ‐AM Peak Average
P61
III.
40
Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines
SAMPLE TRIP GENERATION TABLE UTILIZING THE ASPEN SPECIFIC TRIP GENERATION RATES.
HIGHLIGHTED CELLS INDICATE DATA DIRECTLY FROM TABLE A-1 AND TABLE A-2.
TotalTotal
Proposed Land Use AM PEAKPM PEAK% Trips1 Trips % Trips1 TripsTrips % Trips1 Trips % Trips1 TripsTrips
New Aspen Lodge75RMS0.250.3157%1143%81952%1248%1123
Aspen Commercial Development25KSF2.274.1469%3931%185740%4160%62103
5026 76 5373 126
(Size) x (Trip Generation Rate) x (% Trips Entering) = Peak Hour Entering Trips: I.E: (75) rooms x (0.25) x (57%) = 11 trips for AM Peak entering.
KSF = Thousand Square Feet
RMS = Number of rooms
Total New Trips:
Size
Trips Generated
Table 1
Trip Generation Summary - Proposed Development includes a 75 Room lodge + a 25,000 square foot commercial development
Trip Generation Rates1 AM Peak-Hour PM Peak-Hour
Entering Exiting Entering Exiting
P62
III.
41
Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines
Appendix B:
Sample Site Plan Review for Major
Developments
P63
III.
42
Tr
a
n
s
por
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
pac
t
A
n
a
l
ysi
s
G
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
P64III.
Transportation Impact AnalysisGuidelines
Appendix C:
TDM & MMLOS GLOSSARY
Transportation Demand Management (TDM):
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) is the application of strategies and policies to
reduce travel demand (specifically that of single-occupancy vehicles)
Neighborhood/Site Enhancement
On-Site Servicing - Providing creative onsite amenities reduces the need for SOV trips
throughout the day. Services within the development that will reduce the need for auto
trips include healthy vending, grocery, restaurant, recreation rental, dry cleaning, child
care, bicycle repair stations, etc.
Shared Shuttle Service – The use of hotel or other customer service vehicles to shuttle
employees can maximize the use of on-site resources while reducing SOV trips. The
successful project will creatively consider the use of necessary business vehicles for
shuttle purposes. For example, a health club with a guest shuttle could provide
employee transfers to a transit center or park and ride.
Non-Motorized Zones - (Only applicable to Major developments) Larger areas of non-
motorized travel zones provide safe and comfortable space that encourages walking and
bicycling, thus reducing SOV trips. Non-motorized zones are applicable for larger
redevelopment or specific areas only. Public amenity space already required by the City
of Aspen does not qualify for this reduction.
Transit
Network Expansion - (Only applicable to Major developments) - The successful project
will expand the local transit network by adding or modifying existing transit service to
enhance the service near the project site. This will encourage the use of transit thus
reducing SOV trips. The successful project will work with City of Aspen staff to develop
a plan that offers the best trip reduction opportunity.
Service Frequency/Speed – (Only applicable to Major developments) - Reducing transit-
passenger travel time through reduced headways and increased speed and reliability
makes transit service more attractive, thus reducing SOV trips. The successful project
will work with City of Aspen staff to develop a plan for increased service frequency that
offers the best trip reduction opportunity.
Transit Access Improvement – Provision of safe and comfortable access to transit
service is important for generating and maintaining transit ridership, thus reducing SOV
P65
III.
Transportation Impact AnalysisGuidelines
trips. The successful project will improve pedestrian access to a transit stop via
formalization of trails, addition and/or improvement of sidewalk, installation of lighting
and/or way finding or other measures.
Intercept Lot - The provision of a convenient location at which to park a vehicle and
transfer onto an alternative mode can reduce SOV trips. The successful project will
provide for a safe, convenient intercept lot at an appropriate location. Alternatively, a
project can propose methods by which existing intercept lot use can be expanded.
Examples include shuttles to/from existing lots, improvements to existing lots, etc.
Commute Trip Reduction
Participation in TOP - The Transportation Options Program (TOP) is a City of Aspen
operated employer trip reduction service. All TOP employer services are free and
include grant opportunities, bus schedule kiosks and information distribution. The
successful project will work with City of Aspen staff to determine whether TOP
membership is appropriate and, if so, to join the program. (Note: Grant funding from the
TOP program may not be used to offset mitigation measures during until the reporting
period has been successfully completed).
Transit Fare Subsidy - The successful project will provide subsidized/discounted daily or
monthly public transit passes for the RFTA valley system. These passes can be partially
or wholly subsidized by the project, with additional credit being provided for larger
subsidies. Many entities use revenue from parking to offset the cost of such a project.
Employee Parking Cash-out - The term cash-out is used to describe the provision of
employee choice of forgoing their current subsidized/free parking for a cash payment
equivalent to the cost of the parking space. The successful project will require employers
to offer employee/guest parking cash-outs.
Workplace Parking Pricing - The successful project will implement workplace parking
pricing at its employment centers. This may include: explicitly charging for employee
parking, or implementing above market-rate pricing.
Compressed Work Weeks - Compressed work week schedules allow an employee to
work the typical 40-hour workweek in an alternative manner such as 4/10s or 9/80s. This
eliminates the need for work-related travel on the days not worked, thus reducing SOV
trips. The successful project will demonstrate that it will offer compressed work week
schedules to a minimum of 25% of its employees.
Employer Sponsored Vanpool - Employer-sponsored vanpool programs entail an
employer purchasing or leasing vans for employee use, and subsidizing the cost of
program operations and administration. The driver usually receives personal use of the
van, often for a mileage fee. Scheduling is within the employer’s purview, and rider
charges are normally set on the basis of vehicle and operating cost. The successful
project will implement an employer-sponsored vanpool, thus reducing the need for SOV
trips to and from the workplace.
P66
III.
Transportation Impact AnalysisGuidelines
Carpool Matching - Facilitating the formation of employee carpool groups is a method of
reducing SOV trips. The successful project will include use the city of Aspen Commuter
Connect service to create an employee portal to allow for the formation of carpools as
well as the sharing of other important transportation information via a custom employer
web page.
Carshare Program - Carshare programs have been linked to increased use of alternative
transportation modes and reduced SOV trips. The successful project will provide access
to Aspen’s CAR TO GO carshare program. Carshare memberships can be provided to
all employees or residents of new developments.
Bikeshare Program - Bikesharing provides access to a fleet of bicycles for short trips,
thus reducing SOV travel. The successful project will provide membership to and/or
enhance the existing public bikeshare program. Options include membership for staff
and/or membership for guests/customers.
End of Trip Facilities - The provision of convenient facilities for pedestrians and cyclists
encourages these types of alternative modes, thus reducing SOV trips. Non-residential
projects may provide facilities such as showers, secure bicycle lockers, personal lockers,
changing spaces, etc.
Self-Funded Emergency Ride Home - Emergency Ride Home programs reduce barriers
associated with alternative commute modes, thus reducing SOV trips. The successful
project will develop and fund a program to provide commuters who carpool, vanpool,
bike, walk or take transit to work with a reliable and free ride home - usually in a taxi or
rental car when unexpected emergencies arise. The use of the TOP program’s
Emergency Ride Home feature is not applicable for mitigation purposes.
Carpool/Vanpool Priority Parking - Priority parking for carpools and vanpools
encourages and incentivizes employees to ride-share to work, thus reducing SOV trips.
The successful project will locate reserved carpool and vanpool spaces at the front
entrances of the buildings and manage/monitor the use of parking spaces to ensure
compliance.
Private Employer Shuttle - Offering employees a customized trip to work via private
shuttle reduces the need for SOV trips. The successful project will provide an employee
shuttle from nearby transit stations or other identified pick up points to the place of
employment.
Information sharing and marketing/incentivizing are important components to successful
commute trip reduction programs. The successful project will implement marketing
strategies to reduce SOV trips. A trip reduction marketing programs should include a
number of the following strategies:
o orientation to trip reduction programs and benefits
o orientation to specific alternative transportation modes such as bus service
information, bike/walk route maps, etc.
P67
III.
Transportation Impact AnalysisGuidelines
o publishing of web or traditional informational materials;
o events and contests such as commuter fairs, new employee orientations, bike to
work days, etc.
o educational opportunities such bicycle commute/repair classes
o web or traditional materials aimed at guests/customers such as bike/walk maps, free
transit day passes, etc.
P68
III.
Transportation Impact AnalysisGuidelines
Multi-Modal Level of Service (MMLOS):
Multi-Modal Level of Service (MMLOS) evaluates the safety and quality of access and flow for
pedestrians and bicyclists.
Pedestrians
Pedestrian Level of Service (LOS) is based on the criteria outlined below. If the site is not
meeting the minimum sidewalk Level of Service (LOS) B, the project will be required to mitigate
additional points to offset the project’s inability to meet LOS B. The mitigation of not meeting
minimum LOS is in addition to mitigating peak hour new trips. If the site is not meeting the
minimum sidewalk Level of Service (LOS) B, the project will be required to mitigate additional
points to offset the project’s inability to meet LOS B.
The existing sidewalk and pedestrian path Level of Service (LOS) is characterized by sidewalk
continuity, sidewalk width, presence of a landscape buffer, and ADA compliance.
LOS A is characterized by a continuous sidewalk that provides an effective width that exceeds
Aspen’s minimum sidewalk width standards and has a five foot landscape buffer. Effective width
is measured using the sidewalk width and subtracting the shy distance for pedestrians.
Pedestrians avoid the edge of the sidewalk close to the street because it often contains utility
poles, bus shelters, parking meters, sign poles, and other street furniture. Pedestrians also
avoid traveling in the 24 inches of the sidewalk close to buildings to avoid retaining walls, street
furniture, and fences. The sidewalk area that pedestrians tend to avoid is referred to as the shy
distance.
LOS B provides a continuous sidewalk that meets Aspen’s minimum sidewalk width standards
and has a five foot landscape buffer. Encroachments into the sidewalk including door swings,
will be subtracted from the sidewalk width.
LOS C occurs when there are no gaps in the pedestrian sidewalk, but the sidewalk does not
meet current design standards or has encroachments that affect the sidewalk width below the
minimum width standards.
P69
III.
Transportation Impact AnalysisGuidelines
Sidewalk Condition on Project Frontage – The sidewalk along the project frontage
will be assigned points based on whether the sidewalk is detached, if the effective
width is greater than the standard minimum width, and if the proposed landscape
buffer is greater than the standard minimum width.
Sidewalk Condition on Adjacent Blocks – The project will be given opportunity to
mitigate points off site. If the project proposed to improve the condition of sidewalk
on adjacent blocks to the proposed project will be assigned points based on whether
the sidewalk is detached, if the effective width is greater than the standard minimum
width, and if the proposed landscape buffer is greater than the standard minimum
width.
Pedestrian Routes – The pedestrian routes with the proposed project will be
assigned points based on whether the slopes between the back of curb and sidewalk
are equal to or less than 5%, if the curbs are equal to 6 inches, if new pedestrian
access points allow access without crossing a street, if new landscaping is proposed
at the access point, if there is implementation of a crosswalk that improves access to
the proposed access point, if changes to pedestrian access points preserve or
enhance the pedestrian experience, and if the pedestrian access is enhanced to
address any deficiencies.
Driveways, Parking, and Access Considerations - While modifications to driveways,
access, and parking are often necessary for new developments, the design and
placement of access points can have potentially negative impacts. Whereas access
considerations have typically focused on the automobile, the goal of this policy is to
promote and implement access schemes that are multi-modal by creating no net
negative impact on the surrounding pedestrian or cyclist.
Traffic Calming - Providing traffic calming measures encourages people to walk or
bike instead of using a vehicle, resulting in decreased SOV trips. Traffic calming
features may include: curb extensions, speed tables, raised crosswalks, raised
intersections, median islands, tight corner radii, chicanes/chokers, and others. The
presence of traffic calming results in improved pedestrian LOS and vice-versa,
therefore the City of Aspen Asset Management Plan identifies the areas with the
greatest need. Proposed projects can mitigate impacts by contributing funds for the
City of Aspen to install proposed traffic calming measures. If a project applicant
provides a compelling reason for installing traffic calming measures (i.e. traffic
speeds, high levels of activity) not included in City of Aspen’s Asset Management
Plan, the City may consider additional traffic calming measures.
Pedestrian Network - The City of Aspen implements enhanced street crossings at
intersections and midblock locations, as appropriate. The City of Aspen has
developed a plan that identifies locations for the proposed installation of crosswalks
(see City of Aspen Asset Management Plan). The presence of enhanced crosswalks
result in improved pedestrian LOS and vice-versa, therefore the Asset Management
plan identifies the areas with the greatest need. Proposed projects can mitigate
P70
III.
Transportation Impact AnalysisGuidelines
impacts by contributing funds for the City of Aspen to install proposed crossings. If a
project applicant provides a compelling reason for installing a crosswalk (i.e. traffic
speeds, high levels of activity) that is not included in Aspen’s Asset Management
Plan, the City may consider additional enhanced crosswalks outside of the asset
management plan.
Pedestrian Route Directness (PRD) is the ratio of route distance to straight-line
distance for two selected points. The lowest possible value is 1.00, where the route
is the same distance as the "crow flies" distance. Numbers closer to 1.00 indicate a
more direct route, theoretically representing a more connected network. Providing a
pedestrian access network to link areas of the Project site encourages people to
walk instead of drive, thus reducing Single Occupancy Vehicles (SOV) trips.
The successful project will provide a pedestrian access network that internally links
all uses and connects to all existing or planned external streets and pedestrian
facilities contiguous with the project site. The project will minimize barriers to
pedestrian access and interconnectivity. Physical barriers such as walls,
landscaping, and slopes that impede pedestrian circulation will be eliminated.
Bicycles
Modifications to Existing Bicycle Paths - When modifications to a bicycle path are
requested, the overall modifications should not result in any net negative impact to
the bicycle path, as determined by the City of Aspen Parks Department and
Engineering Department.
Bicycle Parking - Vehicular trips are facilitated at origins and destinations by the
provision of minimum vehicular parking requirements. As many drivers know, the
availability and ease of finding parking at one’s destination can greatly affect one’s
access to their destination, overall experience, and may require additional travel as
one searches for an available parking space. Providing bicycle parking is a simple
and relatively low-cost measure that can be used to provide cyclists with parking at
various land uses: commercial/retail, hotel/lodging, mixed-use developments, and
multi-family residential.
Short-term parking is intended for cyclists who will park for two hours or less. It
should be located on the street level, near pedestrian access to the building, and on
the exterior of the building. Long-term parking is intended for cyclists who will store
their bicycle for several hours or longer. This parking should, therefore, provide
greater security and protection from the elements. It is recommended that long-term
bicycle parking be covered and locked. All parking should be located in a secure
location, with adequate lighting, outside of the public right-of-way, and separate from
vehicle parking. Long-term parking should be covered, as previously discussed.
Inverted U-racks and the post-n-ring are recommended for short-term parking (each
accommodates two bicycles). If the project proposes to use bicycle parking, the size
and location must be pre-approved by the city.
Transit
P71
III.
Transportation Impact AnalysisGuidelines
A project is responsible for determining the existing number of points at each bus
stop within the study area, identifying the level of improvement required to meet
Aspen’s basic amenities standard, and implementing or funding the implementation
of the improvements. At a bus stop, the project may elect to provide an enhanced
amenity in-lieu of meeting the minimum amenity standard, per discussions with City
staff. All bus stop modifications should be compliant with City of Aspen and/or RFTA
bus stop standards (depending on location).
Basic Amenities - Transit patron experiences are enhanced by the provision of
amenities at bus stops that provide seating, protection from the elements, way
finding, transit system information, trash cans, and design elements that facilitate
access to transit.
Enhanced Amenities - General purpose vehicles and transit vehicles typically share
right-of-way and drive on the same roads and lanes; however, in some instances
there are modifications that could potentially improve the quality of service for
vehicles in general, and for both individual motorists and/or the transit vehicles and
associated patrons. Relocation of a bus stop to the far-side of an intersection can
benefit multiple modes. For instance, general purpose and transit vehicles benefit by
removing conflicts between through buses and right-turning vehicles, while transit
patrons enjoy improved sight distance at intersection crossings when walking to/from
bus stops. Another example of an enhanced amenity is a bus pull out.
P72
III.
= input
= calculation
DATE:Today
PROJECT NAME:Some Hotel
PROJECT ADDRESS:Some Where
Proposed Land Use Size Entering Exiting Total Entering Exiting Total
Commercial (sf)0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Free-Market Housing (Units)0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Affordable Housing (Units)0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Lodging (Units)0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Essential Public Facility (sf)0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Land Use Trip Rate %Entering %Exiting Trip Rate %Entering %Exiting
Commercial 2.27 0.69 0.31 4.14 0.4 0.6
Free-Market Housing 0.67 0.29 0.71 0.82 0.56 0.44
Affordable Housing 0.75 0.48 0.52 0.89 0.55 0.45
Lodging 0.25 0.57 0.43 0.31 0.52 0.48
Essential Public Facility 0.86 0.62 0.38 1.66 0.4 0.6
AM Peak Average PM Peak Average
Trips Generated
AM Peak-Hour PM Peak-Hour
TOTAL NEW TRIPS
ASSUMPTIONS
ASPEN TRIP GENERATION
Instructions:
1. Trip Generations: Enter the project's new square footage and or unit counts under the "Size" column.
2. MMLOS: Answer "yes" or "no" under each of the pedestrian, bike and transit sections
3. TDM: Choose the mitigation measures that are appropriate for your project.
4. Summary: A summary of the project's mitigated trips.
P7
3
II
I
.
= input
= calculation
Category Sub.Question Answer Points
Is the proposed sidewalk detached?
Is the proposed effective sidewalk width greater than the standard
minimum width?TOTAL NUMBER OF TRIPS MITIGATED:0
Is proposed landscape buffer greater than the standard minimum
width?
0
Is the proposed sidewalk detached?
Is the proposed effective sidewalk width greater than the standard
minimum width?
Is proposed landscape buffer greater than the standard minimum
width?
0
Slopes between back of curb and sidewalk equal to or less than 5%?
Are curbs equal to (or less than) 6 inches?
New pedestrain access points that allow access without crossing a
street?Is new landscaping that improves the pedestrian experience,
proposed at the access point?
Implementation of an improved crosswalk that improves access to
proposed access point?*
Do changes to pedestrian access points preserve or enhance
pedestrian experience?
Is pedestrian access enhanced to address existing deficiencies?
0
Are existing driveways removed from the street?
Pedestrian and/or vehicle visibility unchanged by new structure or
column?
Grade (where pedestrians cross) on cross-slope of driveway 2% or
less?
Signage, striping, mirrors, and other approved devices to address
pedestrian-vehicle conflicts at driveways?*
Enhanced pedestrian or bicyclist entrance that mitigates conflicts at
driveway(s)?
0
Is the project's pedestrian directness factor less than 1.5?
Is the project's pedestrian directness factor between 1 and 1.2?
Are planned traffic calming features implemented in the study area?*
Are basic traffic calming proposed that are part of an approved plan
(speed humps, curb extensions, and signage)?*
Are extensive traffic calming features proposed that are part of an
approved plan (raised crosswalks)?*
Is the project proposing an off site improvement that results in a
pedestrian directness factor below 1.2?*
0
0
Category Sub.Question Answer Points
Is a new access point being implemented with City approved design?
New access points allow access without crossing a street?
Landscaping, striping, or signage improvements to the path at access
point?*
Implementation of crosswalk or other treatment that improves
access to proposed access point?*
Additional improvements agreed upon with City of Aspen staff?
0
Bi
c
y
c
l
e
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
Is the project providing bicycle parking?
0
0
Category Sub.Question Answer Points
Is seating/bench proposed?
Is a trash receptacle proposed?
Is transit system information (signage) proposed?
Is shelter/shade proposed?
Is enhanced pedestrian-scale lighting proposed?
Is real-time transit information proposed?
Is bicycle parking/storage proposed?
Are ADA improvements proposed?
0
Is a bus pull-out at proposed at existing stop?
Is relocation of bus stop to improve transit accessibility or roadway
operations proposed?
Is a new bus stop proposed (with minimum of two basic amenities)?
0
0
*All proposed measures must be approved by the City of Aspen (included in Conditions of Approval or plan approved by staff).
MMLOS Input Page
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
Ba
s
i
c
A
m
e
n
i
t
i
e
s
Subtotal
Pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
R
o
u
t
e
s
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
C
a
l
m
i
n
g
a
n
d
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
Ne
t
w
o
r
k
Subtotal
Pedestrian Total*
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
o
n
Ad
j
a
c
e
n
t
Bl
o
c
k
s
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
o
n
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Fr
o
n
t
a
g
e
Subtotal
Instructions MMLOS: Answer "yes" or "no" under each of the pedestrian, bike and transit sections
Transit Total*
Subtotal
Pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
Dr
i
v
e
w
a
y
s
,
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
,
a
n
d
Ac
c
e
s
s
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
Subtotal
Subtotal
Bi
c
y
c
l
e
s
Mo
d
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
o
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
Bi
c
y
c
l
e
P
a
t
h
s
Subtotal
Subtotal
En
h
a
n
c
e
d
Am
e
n
i
t
i
e
s
Bicycles Total*
Subtotal
P74
III.
Category Sub. Question Answer Strategy VMT
Reductions
What is the project location? -
Will an onsite ammenities strategy be implemented?
Which onsite ammenities will be implemented?
Will a shared shuttle service strategy be implemented?
What is the degree of implementation?
What is the company size?
What percentage of customers are eligible?
Nonmotorized Zones Will a nonmotorized zones strategy be implemented?0.00%
0.00%
Category Sub. Question Answer Strategy VMT
Reductions
Will a network expansion stragtegy be implemented?
TDM Input Page
Onsite Servicing
Shared Shuttle Service
N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
/
S
i
t
e
E
n
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
0.00%
0.00%
Network Expansion 0.00%
Maximum Reduction Allowed in Category
General Inputs
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
S
y
s
t
e
m
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
Instructions:
1. Trip Generations: Enter the project's new square footage and or unit counts under the "Size" column.
2. MMLOS: Answer "yes" or "no" under each of the pedestrian, bike and transit sections
3. TDM: Choose the mitigation measures that are appropriate for your project.
4. Summary: A summary of the project's mitigated trips.
P7
5
II
I
.
What is the percentage increase of transit network coverage?
What is the existing transit mode share as a % of total daily trips?
Will a service frequency/speed strategy be implemented?
What is the percentage reduction in headways (increase in frequency)?
What is the existing transit mode share as a % of total daily trips?
What is the level of implementation?
Will a transit access improvement strategy be implemented?
What is the extent of access improvements?
Intercept Lot Will an intercept lot strategy be implemented?0.00%
0.00%
Category Sub. Question Answer Strategy VMT
Reductions
Will there be participation in TOP?
What percentage of employees are eligible?
Is a transit fare subsidy strategy implemented?
What percentage of employees are eligible?
What is the amount of transit subsidy per passenger (daily equivalent)?
Is an employee parking cash-out strategy being implemented?
What percentage of employees are eligible?
Is a workplace parking pricing strategy implemented?
What is the daily parking charge?
What percentage of employees are subject to priced parking?
Is a compressed work weeks strategy implemented?
What percentage of employees are participating?
What is the workweek schedule?
Is an employer sponsered shuttle program implemented?
What is the employer size?
What percentage of employees are eligible?
Is a carpool matching strategy implemented?
What percentage of employees are eligble?
Is carshare participation being implemented?
How many employee memberships have been purchased?
What percentage of employees are eligble?
Is a bikeshare program participation being implemented?
How many memberships have been purchased?
What percentage of employees/guests are eligble?
Is an end of trip facilities strategy being implemented?
What is the degree of implementation?
What is the employer size?
Participation in TOP
Transit Fare Subsidy
Employee Parking Cash-Out
Workplace Parking Pricing
Compressed Work Weeks
Employer Sponsored Vanpool
Carpool Matching
Carshare Program
End of Trip Facilities
0.00%
0.00%C
o
m
m
u
t
e
T
r
i
p
R
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
Network Expansion
Service Frequency/Speed
Transit Access Improvement
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Bikeshare Program
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Maximum Reduction Allowed in CategoryT
r
a
n
s
i
t
S
y
s
t
e
m
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
P7
6
II
I
.
Is a self-funded emergency ride home strategy being implemented?
What percentage of employees are eligible?
Is a carpool/vanpool priority parking strategy being implemented?
What is the employer size?
What number of parking spots are available for the program?
Is a private employer shuttle strategy being implemented?
What is the employer size?
What percentage of employees are eligible?
Is a trip reduction marketing/incentive program implemented?
What percentage of employees/guests are eligible?
0.00%
#N/A
#N/A
1. 22% work trips represents a mixed-used site (SF Bay Area Travel Survey). See Assumptions Tab for more detail.
Self-funded Emergency Ride Home
Carpool/Vanpool Priority Parking
Private Employer Shuttle
Trip Reduction Marketing/Incentive
Program
Cross Category Maximum Reduction, Neighborhood and Transit
Global Maximum VMT Reductions
0.00%
C
o
m
m
u
t
e
T
r
i
p
R
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
Maximum Reduction Allowed in Category
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
P7
7
II
I
.
P7
8
II
I
.
DATE:Today
PROJECT NAME:Some Hotel
PROJECT ADDRESS:Some Where
Peak Hour Max Trips Generated MMLOS TDM Total Trips Mitigated
PM 0 0 #N/A #N/A #N/A
Trip Generation
SUMMARY
Trip Mitigation NET TRIPS TO BE
MITIGATED
P7
9
II
I
.
= input
= calculation
Trip Type Weekday %
HBW 21.8%
HBShop 25.6%
HBSocial 17.3%
HBS 12.1%
NHB 23.2%
Total 100.0%
Source: SF Bay Area Travel Survey 2000, Regional Travel Characteristics Report, Table 2.1.2
0.69 adjustment from transit ridership increase to VMT [see Transit Accessibility assumptions]
0.69 adjustment from transit ridership increase to VMT [see Transit Accessibility assumptions]
0.69 adjustment from transit ridership increase to VMT [see Transit Accessibility assumptions]
Assumptions Page
Transit
Service Frequency/Speed
Percentage of Work Related VMT
General Input
Neighborhood / Site Enhancements Strategies
Network Expansion
Shared Shuttle Service
P8
0
II
I
.
1.0 Adjustment from commute VT to commute VMT
See appendix for detailed documentation of assumptions
0.69 Adjustment from vanpool mode share to commute VMT [see Transit Accessibility assumptions]
See appendix for detailed documentation of assumptions
1.0 Adjustment from commute VT to commute VMT
See appendix for detailed documentation of assumptions
X% = Global Maximum for:
75%Major
40%Minor
See Introduction Section for detailed documentation of assumptions
X% = Cross Category Maximum for:
70%Major
35%Minor
See Introduction Section for detailed documentation of assumptions
CTR Marketing
Employer Sponsored Vanpool/Shuttle
Global Maximum
Cross Category Maximum
Trip Reduction Marketing Program
Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Programs Strategies
P8
1
II
I
.
X% = Neighborhood / Site Enhancements Maximum for:
5%without NEV
X% =
10%Transit System Improvements Maximum
X% =
15%Total Category Maximum
40%Work Trip Category Maximum
21.8%percentage of trips which are work trips1
1. CAPCOA data updated. MTC (instead of statewide #s) used.
Trip Type Weekday %
HBW 21.8%
HBShop 25.6%
HBSocial 17.3%
HBS 12.1%
NHB 23.2%
Total 100.0%
Source: SF Bay Area Travel Survey 2000, Regional Travel Characteristics Report, Table 2.1.2
Maximum Calculations
Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Programs Strategies
Category Maximums
Neighborhood / Site Enhancements Strategies
Transit System Improvements Strategies
P8
2
II
I
.
Index Description Input Instructions Sources/Notes Percent Applicable
On-Site Services Providing creative onsite amenities reduces the need for SOV trips throughout the day. Services
within the development that will reduce the need for auto trips include healthy vending, grocery,
restaurant, recreation rental, dry cleaning, child care, bicycle repair stations, etc.
Seggerman, K., & Hendricks, S. (2005). Incorporating TDM Into the Land Development Process.
National Center for Transit Research, Center for Urban Transportation Research.
Shared Shuttle Service The use of hotel or other customer service vehicles to shuttle employees can maximize the use of on-
site resources while reducing SOV trips. The successful project will creatively consider the use of
necessary business vehicles for shuttle purposes. For example, a health club with a guest shuttle
could provide employee transfers to a transit center or park and ride.
Degree of implementation: low (< 10 vans), medium (<30 vans), large (>30 vans)
Company size: small (< 100 employees), medium (< 500), large (>500)
Non-Motorized Zones Larger areas of non-motorized travel zones provide safe and comfortable space that encourages
walking and bicycling, thus reducing SOV trips. Non-motorized zones are applicable for larger
redevelopment or specific areas only. Public amenity space already required by the City of Aspen
does not qualify for this reduction.
Only applicable to Major developments Federal Highway Administration. (1998). Transportation and Global Climate Change: A Review and
Analysis of the Literature. USDOT.
Network Expansion The successful project will expand the local transit network by adding or modifying existing transit
service to enhance the service near the project site. This will encourage the use of transit and
therefore reduce SOV trips.
Only applicable to Major developments
Service Frequency Reducing transit-passenger travel time through reduced headways and increased speed and reliability
makes transit service more attractive, reducing SOV trips. The successful project will work with City of
Aspen staff to develop a plan for increased service frequency that offers the best trip reduction
opportunity.
Only applicable to Major developments
Transit Access Improvement Provision of safe and comfortable access to transit service is important for generating and
maintaining transit ridership, thus reducing SOV trips. The successful project will improve pedestrian
access to a transit stop via formalization of trails, addition and/or improvement of sidewalk,
installation of lighting and/or way finding or other measures.
Intercept Lot The provision of a convenient location at which to park a vehicle and transfer onto an alternative
mode can reduce SOV trips. The successful project will provide for a safe, convenient intercept lot at
an appropriate location. Alternatively, a project can propose methods by which existing intercept lot
use can be expanded. Examples include shuttles to/from existing lots, improvements to existing lots,
etc.
Federal Highway Administration. (1998). Transportation and Global Climate Change: A Review and
Analysis of the Literature. USDOT.
Bus Stops with Real Time Arrival The successful project will provide real time arrival signage to accurately inform users of the bus
schedule.
Study of Chicago Transit Authority implementation of real-time tracking on 141 of 144 system buses
over a one-year periord from 2008 - 2009 found a 1.8 - 2.2% increase in ridership.Tang, L., &
Thakuriah, P. (2012, June). Ridership effects of real-time bus information system: A case study in the
City of Chicago. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 22, 146-161.
Participation in TOP The Transportation Options Program (TOP) is a City of Aspen operated employer trip reduction
service. All TOP employer services are free and include grant opportunities, emergency ride home
services, materials, and bus schedule kiosks and distribution. The successful project will work with
City of Aspen staff to determine whether TOP membership is appropriate and, if so, to join the
program.
Transit Fare Subsidy The successful project will provide subsidized/discounted daily or monthly public transit passes for
the RFTA valley system. These passes can be partially or wholly subsidized by the project, with
additional points being provided for larger subsidies. Many entities use revenue from parking to
offset the cost of such a project.
Employee Parking Cash-out The successful project will require employers to offer employee/guest parking cash-outs. The term
cashout is used to describe the provision of a choice of forgoing their current subsidized/free parking
for a cash payment equivalent to the cost of the parking space.
Workplace Parking Policy The successful project will implement workplace parking pricing at its employment centers. This may
include: explicitly charging for employee parking, or implementing above market-rate pricing.
Compressed Work Weeks Compressed work week schedules allow an employee to work the typical 40-hour workweek in an
alternative manner such as 4/10s or 9/80s. This eliminates the need for work-related travel on the
days not worked, thus reducing SOV trips. The successful project will demonstrate that it will offer
compressed work week schedules to 25% of its employees.
Employer Sponsored Vanpool The successful project will implement an employer-sponsored vanpool, thus reducing the need for
SOV trips to and from the workplace. Employer-sponsored vanpool programs entail an employer
purchasing or leasing vans for employee use, and often subsidizing the cost of at least program
administration. The driver usually receives personal use of the van, often for a mileage fee.
Scheduling is within the employer’s purview, and rider charges are normally set on the basis of
vehicle and operating cost.
Employer size: small (< 100 employees), medium (< 500), large (>500)
Carpool Matching Facilitating the formation of employee carpool groups is a method of reducing SOV trips. The
successful project will include use the city of Aspen Commuter Connect service to allow for the
formation of carpools as well as the sharing of other important transportation information via a
custom employer web page.
N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
S
y
s
t
e
m
C
o
m
m
u
t
e
T
r
i
p
R
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
1/2
P8
3
II
I
.
Carshare Program Carshare programs have been linked to increased use of alternative transportation modes and
reduced SOV trips. The successful project will provide access to Aspen’s CAR TO GO carshare
program. Trip reduction potential will depend on the level to which the development participates.
Car share memberships can be provided to all employees or residents of new developments.
Bikeshare Program Bikesharing provides access to a fleet of bicycles for short trips, thus reducing SOV travel. The
successful project will provide memberships to the existing WE-cycle program.
101%
End of Trip Facilities The provision of convenient facilities for pedestrians and cyclists encourage these types of alternative
modes, thus reducing SOV trips. Non-residential projects may provide facilities such as showers,
secure bicycle lockers, personal lockers, changing spaces, etc
Level of Implemnation: low = secure bicycle lockers or personal lockers; high = shower and changing
area, AND secure bicycle lockers or personal lockers. Employer size: small (< 100
employees), medium (< 500), large (>500)
Victoria Transport Policy Institute. (2013, March 12). TDM Encyclopedia. Retrieved October 24, 2013,
from Commute Trip Reduction (CTR): http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm9.htm
Emergency Ride Home Emergency Ride Home programs reduce barriers associated with alternative commute modes, thus
reducing SOV trips. The successful project will provide commuters who carpool, vanpool, bike, walk
or take transit to work with a reliable and free ride home - usually in a taxi or rental car when
unexpected emergencies arise.
Carpool/Vanpool Priority
Parking
Priority parking for carpools and vanpools encourages and incentivizes employees to ride-share to
work, thus reducing SOV trips. The carpool and vanpool spaces are located at the front entrances of
the buildings. Use of parking spaces is monitored to ensure compliance.
Employer size: small (< 100 employees), medium (< 500), large (>500)
Trip Reduction Marketing
Program
The project will implement marketing strategies to reduce commute trips. Information sharing and
marketing are important components to successful commute trip reduction strategies. Implementing
commute trip reduction strategies without a complementary educational and marketing strategy will
result in lower VMT reductions. A trip reduction marketing program may include the following
strategies: orientation of trip reduction and alternative mode options, educational opportunities such
as bicycle commute or repair classes, event promotions, and publications.
Private Employer Shuttle Offering employees a customized trip to work via private shuttle reduces the need for SOV trips. The
successful project will provide an employee shuttle from nearby transit stations or other identified
pick up points to the place of employment.
Employer size: small (< 100 employees), medium (< 500), large (>500)
C
o
m
m
u
t
e
T
r
i
p
R
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
2/2
P8
4
II
I
.