HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.202108231
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
August 23, 2021
4:00 PM, City Council Chambers
130 S Galena Street, Aspen
I.WORK SESSION
I.A.Grant Program Update
I.B.Downtown Core Pedestrian Safety
1
1 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Alissa Farrell, Administrative Services Director
THROUGH: Sara Ott, City Manager
MEETING DATE: August 23, 2021
RE: City of Aspen Grants Program Update
___
REQUEST OF COUNCIL
Council review and approval is requested on the draft overarching philosophy (Attachment A) for the
grants program along with the strategic focus areas found in the ‘Discussion’ section of this memorandum.
The Grants Steering Committee developed the philosophy and strategic focus areas which in turn, will
then be used to develop the grant criteria and next steps.
Currently, the Grants Steering Committee includes Ann Mullins, former Aspen Councilmember, Teraissa
McGovern, previous grants committee member, Lisa Rigsby Peterson, Wheeler Executive Director,
Nathaniel Ross, Management Analyst, and Alissa Farrell, Administrative Services Director. The majority
of the staff committee members are intended to transition off the Steering Committee upon completion
of the initial framework. Council provided direction on the composition of the Grants Steering
Committee at the June 1, 2021 work session (Attachment C).
Additionally, an update on the progress of the Council approved Point b(e) (PBe) recommendations is
provided and an expanded version can be found in the attached Gantt chart (Attachment B). A component
of PBe’s recommendations (Attachment D) are the development of the philosophy and strategic focus
areas.
BACKGROUND
For the 2021 grant cycle, approximately $1.2 million in cash funding was awarded to 88 programs,
excluding the funds distributed to the Red Brick Center for the Arts and the amounts dedicated to the
Intergovernmental Agreements (IGAs) for the health and human services.
On November 18, 2019, City Council gave direction to proceed with an evaluation of the City’s grants
programs. The primary focus was to discern whether and how to 1) bring additional consistency,
transparency, and equity to the programs; 2) streamline and strengthen the programs for community and
grantee benefit, and 3) update and enrich the grant review approach and processes.
On February 22, 2021, PBe, the City’s consultant, presented its grant program evaluation findings and
recommendations, which included:
1. Shift the timelines
2. Redefine the staffing structure
3. Consolidate the programs
2
2
4. Create multi-year partnership grants
5. Redesign and codify review committees
6. Develop strategic priorities for the funding
7. Develop scoring criteria that match the funding priorities
8. Modify the grant applications
9. Develop a communication campaign
10. Introduce grants management software
At the February 22 meeting, Council directed staff to move forward with the recommendations, provide
periodic updates, and return to seek Council guidance on strategic funding priorities.
On June 1, 2021, Council directed staff to implement a Grants Steering Committee to lead the
implementation of PBe’s recommendations. The Steering Committee is presently developing the
framework which includes composing each committee’s purpose, position descriptions, term starting
dates and limits, etc., in conjunction with the selection of the Grant Review Committee members. The
Steering Committee is beginning to develop a robust diverse and inclusive recruitment and
communication plan to solicit applications for the review committees. There will be three Review
Committees with five members on each committee, one member serving as a liaison and linkage from the
Steering Committee. The below diagram provides a visual of the grant committees:
The Grants Steering Committee for the City of Aspen Grants Program does not conduct reviews nor
make funding recommendations but serves as the main strategic arm that liaises with the City on
logistics, works with City Council to set strategic priorities, and is a liaison with the Grants Review
Committees. Furthermore, the Steering Committee serves as the conduit to City Council to advise on
the recommended policies for the City’s grants programs and to maintain the integrity of the grants
programs through management and support of the charters and foundational documents.
Grants Steering Committee Structure:
Steering
Committee
Arts and
Culture
Review
Committee
Community
Program
Review
Committee
Health and
Human
Services
(HHS)
Review
3
3
The Steering Committee selects members for three grant review committees: Arts and Culture Grants;
Community Programs Grants; and Health and Human Services Grants. In contrast with the Steering
Committee, the primary function of the Review Committees is to determine whether and how much
funding to provide to grant applicants. Each Review Committee will include in its membership one
member from the Steering Committee.
The following grant program improvements have been implemented thus far:
Creation of a Grants Steering Committee.
Development of Grants Steering and Review Committee Charters.
o To include each committee’s purpose, recommended number of members, terms start
dates and limits and other bylaws.
Proposed comprehensive grant program philosophy and strategic focus areas for each of the
three grant programs.
Separation of funding for the HHS IGAs from that of the HHS grants in the City’s budget.
Communication of the shift of the grant application release from Spring to Fall, with funding
distribution remaining in April.
Attachment A is the draft City of Aspen Grant Program Philosophy and Strategic Focus Areas.
Attachment B includes an updated and comprehensive Gantt Chart with the timeline for
implementation of the improvements.
Attachment C is the City of Aspen Grant improvement updates and grants steering committee
information.
Attachment D is the Grants Program Evaluation Report Findings which includes Point B(e)’s final report
and recommendations.
DISCUSSION
The Grants Steering Committee is requesting Council input and approval of the draft, overarching grant
program philosophy along with each of the strategic focus areas.
DRAFT - City of Aspen Grant Program Philosophy:
The City of Aspen’s Grant Program supports non-profit organizations that promote a mentally and
physically healthy community; provide protection for our natural environment; and create opportunities
for connections for all community members, through partnerships, ease of access, stewardship, arts and
cultural enrichment, and innovation.
DRAFT - Health and Human Services (HHS) Strategic Focus:
The City of Aspen strives to be a healthy and resilient community by supporting a comprehensive system
of accessible mental and physical health care, human services, and community resources.
For the Health and Human Service (HHS) grants, the application states, “the City prefers grantees who will
serve those who live or work in Aspen. While no specific quota for dollars or client composition is in place,
the City will consider the strength of Aspen connections when reviewing applications.” Should the
geographical preferential focus for the HHS grants remain as is?
4
4
The current outcomes and priorities for HHS are focused on programs that address mental health and
substance abuse, including reduction of suicide rates. In addition, programs that support community and
family connections are also a present priority areas.
Although the overarching philosophy and strategic focus areas are intended to remain consistent
throughout the years, the outcomes and priority areas may be reevaluated and revised dependent on
community considerations and circumstances, periodically by Council.
DRAFT - Arts & Culture Strategic Focus:
The City of Aspen supports artistically excellent non-profit organizations which contribute to the cultural
vibrancy of our community.
Historically, the grants committee with Council direction allowed and approved grants to entities located
throughout the Roaring Fork Valley (defined as Aspen to Glenwood Springs). However, in all cases a
connection to Aspen needed to be present; that is, the grants needed to serve the Aspen workers and/or
Aspen visitors. For example, for the Community Program grants and Arts and Culture grants, if the
applicant could demonstrate their programming benefited employees in the City of Aspen and Pitkin
County this would meet the requirements of these grant programs. As an example, an organization which
provided afterschool programs outside of Aspen and the organization provided metrics to show that the
number of parents/caregivers were in a community outside of Aspen but within the Roaring Fork Valley.
Should the geographical location requirement remain as the following for the Arts and Culture grants:
Must be a non-profit that is headquartered in the Roaring Fork Valley (Aspen to Glenwood Spring) with a
connection to Aspen as defined as programming that benefits Aspen workers, residents, and/or Aspen
visitors?
DRAFT - Community Programs Strategic Focus:
The City of Aspen supports and enhances non-profit organizations which create and deliver high impact
community programming.
In previous years, under Council direction, youth programming has been given precedence in the
evaluation process for the community non-profit grants. Should youth programming continue to be
prioritized over other areas within the community non-profit grants or other grant programs?
Additionally, staff and the committee are seeking guidance on the geographical prioritization of this
grant program:
Should the geographical location requirement remain as the following for the Community Program grants:
Must be a non-profit that is headquartered in the Roaring Fork Valley (defined as Aspen to Glenwood
Spring) with a connection to Aspen as described as programming that benefits Aspen workers, residents
and/or Aspen visitors?
RECOMMENDATION: The steering Committee and staff request approval of the overarching philosophy
and strategic focus areas. The strategic focus areas will then be used for the development of the strategic
priorities, program descriptions, and aligned scoring criteria and matrix development for the grant
evaluation process.
5
5
The criteria and all information will be communicated during a proposed training to be offered to all
potential applicants before the application period. Additionally, it is noted that the scoring and matrix
will not be the sole criteria to determine funding amounts and interviews along with additional
documentation or notes taken may be included as part of an equitable and transparent decision-making
process.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS: To be determined. Staff is requesting FTE support in the 2022 budget process. This
request is based on PB(e)’s recommendation for the focused management, coordination and oversight of
the grants program. However, no additional funds are requested at this time.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
None.
6
6
ATTACHMENT A:
DRAFT
City of Aspen Grant Program Philosophy:
The City of Aspen’s Grant Program supports non-profit organizations that promote a
mentally and physically healthy community; provide protection for our natural
environment; and create opportunities for connections for all community members,
through partnerships, ease of access, stewardship, arts and cultural enrichment, and
innovation.
Health and Human Services (HHS) Strategic Focus:
The City of Aspen strives to be a healthy and resilient community by supporting a
comprehensive system of accessible mental and physical health care, human services, and
community resources.
Arts & Culture Strategic Focus:
The City of Aspen supports artistically excellent non-profit organizations which contribute
to the cultural vibrancy of our community.
Community Programs Strategic Focus:
The City of Aspen supports and enhances non-profit organizations which create and deliver
high impact community programming.
7
7
ATTACHMENT B: PRELIMINARY WORK PLAN FOR GRANTS PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS
Updated as of August 2021
TASKS 21-Feb 21-Mar 21-Apr 21-May 21-Jun 21-Jul 21-Aug 21-Sep 21-Oct 21-Nov 21-Dec 21-Jan 21-Feb 21-Mar 21-Apr
Finalize grant round opening date
Initial communication with grantees and reviewers re
changes
Open 2022 grant round
Finalize amount of 2022 grant funds (Council)
Close 2022 grant round
Review applications
Distribute contracts
Distribute funding
Evaluate staffing structure or consultant approach.
Separate funding line for HHS grants and HHS IGAs
Communicate process change to HHS applicant pool
Update grant application form
Develop/update eligibility criteria, gather key
stakeholder feedback, develop grant parameters and
monitoring process for 1 and 3-year grants
Develop committee options, structure and charters
Steering Committee (SC) develop City
priorities/strategic focus areas and present to Council
Develop draft scoring criteria, based on priorities
Develop draft application forms (under $10,000, over
$10,000, capital)
Verify target audiences
Send initial message re grant cycle and other upcoming
changes
Develop additional key messages re 2022 cycle
Implement touch points according to timelines
Align scoring criteria with funding priorities
Modify grant applications
Develop communication campaign
Shift the grants timeline
Redefine staffing structure
Consolidate grant programs
2021/2022 - Develop 2-3-year partnership grant program. *2022 Application Cycle - Implement/Rollout 2-3-year partnership grants.*
Redesign and codify grant committees
Develop strategic priorities for funding
8
1 | P a g e
ATTACHMENT C: MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Alissa Farrell, Administrative Services Director
Karen Harrington, Quality Office Director
THROUGH: Sara Ott, City Manager
MEETING DATE: June 1, 2021
RE: City of Aspen Grant Improvement Updates
REQUEST OF COUNCIL
This is an update on progress related to advancing the City’s grants programs. Additionally, staff is
requesting guidance from Council on the new, proposed Grants Steering Committee structure and next
steps.
2021 GRANT CYCLE
For the 2021 grant cycle, approximately $1.2 million in cash funding was awarded through a
competitive process to 88 programs, excluding the funds distributed to the Red Brick Center for the
Arts and the amounts dedicated to the Intergovernmental Agreements (IGAs) for health and human
services.
BACKGROUND
On November 18, 2019, City Council provided direction to proceed with an evaluation of the City’s
grants programs. The primary study focus was to discern whether and how to 1) bring additional
consistency, transparency and equity to the programs; 2) streamline and strengthen the programs for
community and grantee benefit, and 3) update and enrich the grant review approach and processes.
On February 22, 2021 (Exhibit A), Point b(e) (PBe), the City’s consultant, presented its grant program
evaluation findings and recommendations:
1. Shift the timelines
2. Redefine the staffing structure
3. Consolidate the programs
4. Create multi-year partnership grants
5. Redesign and codify review committees
6. Develop strategic priorities for the funding
7. Develop scoring criteria that match the funding priorities
8. Modify the grant applications
9. Develop a communication campaign
9
2
At the February 22 meeting, Council directed staff to move forward with the
recommendations, provide periodic updates, and return to seek Council guidance on
strategic funding priorities.
As previously discussed, staff completed the separation of the funding for the Health and Human
Services (HHS) IGAs from that of the HHS grants in the City’s budget.
Lastly, the new timeline proposed by PBe has been introduced to streamline the process for the grant
recipients, reviewers and the City of Aspen. Staff have begun communicating the shift of the grant
application release from Spring to Fall, with funding distribution remaining in April.
DISCUSSION
A priority recommendation from PBe is to implement an overarching strategy and policy-focused Grant
Steering Committee “Steering Committee.”
The Steering Committee would assist in the redesign and formulation, codification, and oversight of
three review teams, one for each of the three grant programs: Community Nonprofit, Health and
Human Services (HHS) and the Wheeler Arts. This includes creating the enabling legislation to provide:
The committee’s purpose
Position descriptions
Recommended number of members
Term starting dates and limits
Decision making processes
Other bylaws determined by the group to be helpful
Further, the Steering Committee would serve as the conduit to City Council to advise on the
recommended policies for the City’s grants program.
Staff has examined two approaches to establishing the Steering Committee.
Option #1: The first approach is to implement a Steering Committee volunteer-based and for City
Council to direct the Committee to implement PBe’s recommendations. City Council would be
responsible for interviewing and appointing these Committee volunteers. Staff is in early
conversations with existing grant committee members about serving on the Steering Committee. Most
members have expressed limited capacity to take on this work at this time but remain committed to
seeing PBe’s recommendations implemented. City Council may choose to advertise for volunteers to
serve on the Steering Committee who do not necessarily have experience with the existing program,
but perhaps have other grant strategy and policy experience to share.
Pros:
An inclusive and holistic community approach.
Fresh perspective on the grants program and PBe recommendations.
10
3
Cons:
Time intensive for Council and for staff. Training and educating volunteers to bring them up to
speed along with the recruitment and Council interview process would cause delays in the
execution of PBe’s recommendations. Many of the recommendations would likely not be
implemented in the Fall application cycle and would be postponed until next year because of
the time intensive process to add volunteers to the Steering Committee.
The next step would be for staff to prepare a resolution to establish the Steering Committee and bring
it before Council for consideration. Then for the City Clerk’s Office to recruit applicants and complete
the volunteer interview and selection process with City Council.
Option #2: The second approach would be for staff to lead the implementation of PBe’s
recommendations, with a robust feedback process with existing grantees. In this model, staff with
grants experience and additional hired technical assistance, would be used to develop the grant
framework for Council’s review. In this capacity, staff would seek Council’s consideration of Council
reviewing and approving the final framework, while staff manage the selection of grant reviewers. An
additional option would be to add a few, experienced volunteers that may have capacity, to this
approach.
The next step would be for staff to draft the policy positions, structure of review
teams, grant criteria, and decision-making processes that would be implemented. This would be
brought before Council for consideration. Upon completion of the structural, grant framework and
review committee members, staff would then be transitioned off the Steering Committee. A
recommendation of the volunteer composition would be provided at that time.
Pros:
This balanced approach would promote a combination of community participation and
staff/consultant expertise to move PBe’s recommendations forward and meet the Fall timeline.
As a transitional step, staff and consultant expertise on the Steering Committee allows for a
focused and dedicated approach to advance PBe’s recommendations in a timely manner.
Included in the consultant’s scope would be to identify and help staff understand the necessary
time and work involved for grants administration. This evaluation would provide the a more in-
depth analysis of PBe’s staffing recommendations around how many hours a committed part-
time or full-time grants position entails.
Cons:
Consultant cost and staff workload reprioritization.
Under either option, staff liaisons will be used to provide support.
Ongoing communication will continue with all applicable parties early, often and fully to increase
equity and transparency.
11
4
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS
Option #1: Steering Committee, no additional funds are necessary.
Option #2: Requires further expenses for additional expertise and capacity for completing the
work. Council should anticipate approximately $15,000 consulting time. This can be funded from City
Council’s existing appropriations or direct staff to bring back funding in fall supplemental.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff is recommending Option #2 for the above stated reasons.
In summary, under Option #2, staff with support, would be able to immediately and
efficiently draft the framework items. This includes composing the committee’s purpose, position
descriptions, term starting dates and limits, etc., in conjunction with the selection of grant
reviewers. After extensive input is gathered and revisions completed, staff would then seek Council’s
review and approval.
12
1 | Page
TO:
FROM:
THROUGH:
MEETING DATE:
RE:
ATTACHMENT D: MEMORANDUM
City Council
Karen Harrington, Quality Office Director
Alissa Farrell, Administrative Services Director
Sara Ott, City Manager
February 22, 2021
Grants Program Evaluation Report Findings
REQUEST OF COUNCIL
Guidance from Council on next steps and preliminary plans to implement the recommendations in the
Grants Evaluation Report.
BACKGROUND
On November 18, 2019, City Council provided direction to proceed with an evaluation of the City’s grants
programs.
DISCUSSION
Project Development
The City grant program has three components:
•Community Nonprofit program
•Health and Human Services program
•Wheeler Arts program
For the 2021 grant cycle, approximately $1.2 million in cash funding was awarded through competitive
processes to 88 programs. (This excludes the amount of funds dedicated to the Red Brick Center for the
Arts and the amounts dedicated to Intergovernmental Agreements for human services). In addition, for
2020 only, an additional $304,528 was awarded to 16 grantees through the Arts and Cultural Arts
Recovery Grant Program, which was put into place to assist with the immediate impacts of the COVID-19
pandemic.
Under Council direction, the City recently completed a formal grant program evaluation. Through a
competitive process, staff hired Point b(e) to conduct the evaluation. In spring 2020, the consultant was
poised to begin the study. However, the advent of COVID-19 delayed the launch of the evaluation project
until third quarter of 2020.
To elicit potential improvements to the grant program, Point b(e):
Conducted best practices research
Observed grant review meetings
Held interviews with grantees, grant reviewers, City staff and managers, and City Council
members
13
2
Hosted grantee focus groups
Conducted surveys of grantees and Council members
In gathering this information, the primary focus was on discerning whether and how to 1) bring additional
consistency, transparency and equity to the programs; 2) streamline and strengthen the programs for
community and grantee benefit, and 3) update and enrich the grant review approach and processes.
Point b(e) collaborated with a project Steering Committee to refine the research questions and
recommendations. The members of the Steering Committee included representatives from multiple
stakeholder groups:
Grants Evaluation Steering Committee Members
Barbara Owen Community Representative
Daniel Ciobanu Community Representative
Julie Gillespie Community and Former Staff Representative
Teraissa McGovern Citizen Grant Committee Representative
Chip Fuller Citizen Grant Committee Representative
Cristal Logan Grantee Representative
Michaela Idhammar Grantee Representative
Lindsay Lofaro Grantee Representative
Zander Higbie Grantee Representative
Valerie Carlin Granting Agency Representative
Point b(e) has completed its work and now has its recommendations for Council consideration.
Project Recommendations
The grant program recommendations are wide-ranging and encompass suggestions that will affect the
program end-to-end. The recommendations include the following:
1. Shift the timelines
2. Redefine the staffing structure
3. Consolidate the programs
4. Create multi-year partnership grants
5. Redesign and codify review committees
6. Develop strategic priorities for the funding
7. Develop scoring criteria that match the funding priorities
8. Modify the grant applications
9. Develop a communication campaign
Details for each of these recommendations can be found in Attachment A, Grant Program Evaluation
Recommendations and an abbreviated summary is included below. The specific details associated with
implementation of the recommendations will require further staff discussion. A preliminary workplan is
available in Attachment B.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: Some recommendations, if implemented, will have budget impacts. For
instance, the acquisition of an electronic grants management system in a future year will have a budget
impact. Additionally, in the short term, the Quality Office will continue to oversee and manage any of
the approved Council revisions to the program. However, in the long-term, there will likely be a funding
14
3
request due to the program administration cost of approximately $50,000 for the management and
coordination of the grants program. This may be in the form of an independent contractor or part-time
employee. In addition, recommendations include 3-year partnership grants, subject to appropriations.
Depending on how those are structured and rolled out, it may have short-term budget impacts. However,
no additional funds are currently requested at this time.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Implementation of the recommendations is not anticipated to have
negative environmental impacts.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
If Council agrees with the nine recommendations, the following table proposes information on the next
steps. Pending Council direction, Attachment B is included as a comprehensive timeline for possible
implementation of the recommendations. Please note that the electronic application software is
tentatively scheduled for acquisition in 2021 and deployment in 2022, and the three-year partnership
grant option is scheduled for development in 2021 and implementation/rollout in 2022.
Recommendation: Proposed Action Plan:
Shift Timeline • Execute and communicate shift of the grant application release from
Spring to Fall, with funding distribution remaining in April.
Redefine Staffing Structure • Further evaluate staffing structure or consultant approach for the
grants program administration.
Consolidation of Grant
Programs
• Implement overarching strategy and policy-focused Grant Steering
Committee.
• Create separate funding line for the health and human services (HHS)
Intergovernmental Agreements (IGAs) from the HHS grant funding line.
• Combine the application processes for the Wheeler, Community
Nonprofit, and HHS grant application and review processes, separating
HHS from the County grant application process.
• Expand opportunities for the community to participate in grant reviews.
Create Multi-year
Partnership Programs.
• Develop and implement a three-year partnership award, contingent up
City budget and partnership reports. One-year grants would remain
available.
Redesign and Codify
Review Committees
• Strengthen and expand review committees to include overarching
Grant Steering Committee and the following review subcommittees:
Arts Review, Health & Human Services and Community Non-
Profit. Consider adding a capital grant program and committee. Include
committee charters.
Develop Strategic Priorities
for Funding
• Work in conjunction with the newly created Grant Steering Committee
to enhance additional strategic focus areas for each program.
• Advance and refine scoring criteria to align with funding focus areas and
develop matrix for grant evaluation.
15
4
Modify Grant Applications • Develop application for grants under $10,000, offer separate
application for grants over $10,000 and implement a system for capital
requests.
Develop a Communication
Campaign
• Collaborate with the Communications Office and the Grant Steering
Committee volunteers in the development of a targeted campaign to
communicate Council approved improvements.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
16
5
ATTACHMENT A:
GRANT PROGRAM EVALUATION RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT
FROM POINT B(e)
17
Grant Programs Evaluation
Final Recommendations
Submitted February 17, 2021
Prepared by Point b(e) Strategies, LLC
18
City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 1
Table of Contents
Introduction and Methodology ................................................................................................................ 2
Recommendations ................................................................................................................................... 3
#1 Shift the Timeline ............................................................................................................................... 4
#2 Redefine the Staffing Structure ......................................................................................................... 6
#3 Consolidate the Grant Programs ....................................................................................................... 7
#4 Create Partnership Opportunities ...................................................................................................... 8
#5 Redesign and Codify Review Committees ........................................................................................ 9
#6 Develop Strategic Priorities for the Funding .................................................................................. 12
#7 Develop a Scoring Criteria That Matches Funding Priorities ........................................................ 13
#8 Modify the Grant Applications ........................................................................................................ 14
#9 Develop a Communication Campaign ............................................................................................ 15
Implementation Outline ........................................................................................................................ 17
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 18
Additional Resources ............................................................................................................................ 18
Appendix A: City of Aspen Grantee Survey Summary ......................................................................... 19
Appendix B: Key Stakeholder Interview Summary .............................................................................. 27
19
City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 2
Introduction and Methodology
The City of Aspen (the City) partnered with Point b(e) Strategies, LLC (Point b(e)) to evaluate its grant
programs. The City of Aspen grants approximately $1.5 million per year to organizations seeking to
improve the quality of life for residents in the City of Aspen and the Roaring Fork Valley. The City’s
grant programs have been supporting nonprofits for decades. For example, since 2011, the City of
Aspen has granted over $13 million to local organizations through its three grant programs: Health
and Human Services (HHS), Community Non-Profit and Wheeler Opera House Arts grants.
Collaboratively, the City and Point b(e) developed an evaluation of the grant programs with the
following goals in mind:
• Bring additional consistency across the City’s grant programs.
• Streamline the grant programs.
• Update the grant review approaches and processes, including governance and staffing.
Additionally, Point b(e) and the City sought ways to increase transparency, equity and accountability
throughout the grant programs, while remaining responsive to the needs of local organizations and
the community.
Point b(e) utilized a mixed-methods approach to evaluate the City’s grant programs and understand
the unique needs of the community of Aspen and the Roaring Fork Valley. Each method is described
in detail below.
Steering Committee. Point b(e) and the City created a Steering Committee to help guide the
evaluation process. The Steering Committee was composed of 12 members, including City staff,
members of the Citizen Grant Review Committee, nonprofit leaders, staff from other philanthropic
institutions, and local members of the community. The role of the Steering Committee was to assess
whether the goals and outcomes of the evaluation aligned with their expectations, weigh in on the
development of the evaluation tools, and bring the perspectives of the community to the process.
Document Review and Best Practice Research. Point b(e) reviewed grant-related documents from
the City for all grant programs to understand the grantmaking processes. Additionally, Point b(e)
researched best practices in grantmaking to inform recommendations.
Citizen Grant Review Committee Observations. Point b(e) observed three meetings of the Citizen
Grant Review Committee for the Wheeler Arts and Community Non-Profit grants. Similarly, staff
observed two Citizen Grant Review Committee Meetings for the Pitkin County Healthy Community
Fund, as it related to the Health and Human Services funding. These observations provided
opportunities to understand the current process to evaluate applications and determine funding
amounts.
Grantee Survey. Point b(e) administered a survey to all current grantees of the City’s grant programs
to gather thoughts and feedback about the grant application and evaluation processes. The survey
was administered online via Survey Monkey to 99 individuals, with 59 (60%) respondents completing
the survey. Results of the grantee survey were quantitatively and qualitatively analyzed. The results
of the survey are provided in Appendix A.
20
City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 3
Key Stakeholder Interviews. Point b(e) conducted nine key stakeholder interviews to gather in-depth
information about the grant programs. Interviewees included members of the Citizen Grant Review
Committee for Wheeler Arts and Community Non-Profit grants, members of the Citizen Grant Review
Committee for Pitkin County’s Healthy Community Fund for the Health and Human Services grants,
staff with the City of Aspen, and the City Manager. Additionally, Point b(e) administered an online
survey to all of Aspen’s City Councilmembers. One Councilmember completed the electronic survey,
and two Councilmembers opted for telephone interviews. All of the key stakeholder interviews and
Councilmember surveys were qualitatively analyzed. The findings are presented in Appendix B.
Grantee Focus Groups. Point b(e) facilitated three focus groups with a total of 12 current grantees of
the City of Aspen. Focus group participants were recruited through the grantee survey, and survey
respondents had the opportunity to self-select into a focus group. Focus group participants
discussed ways to bring more transparency, accountability and equity to the City’s grantmaking.
City of Aspen Recommendation Meetings. Upon drafting the initial recommendations for the grant
programs, Point b(e) facilitated two meetings with City staff and the City Manager to understand their
perspectives on the recommendations and how to best align them with the unique needs of the City
of Aspen.
Point b(e) used data, insights, feedback and research from all of the above data collection methods
to formulate the recommendations presented in this report.
Recommendations
Throughout the data collection process, it was clear that there are a number of strengths in the City’s
grantmaking. It is a unique and historical City tradition, which illustrates a consistency and
commitment to ensure funds are available year after year. Through the grant programs, the City is
making a statement that it values organizations serving the community of Aspen and the Roaring
Fork Valley. There are a number of dedicated and engaged community members who have
volunteered significant time and energy to see that these programs bring important funds to
organizations. Finally, the City’s grant programs enrich life in the mountains by supporting nonprofits.
The data collection process also revealed numerous opportunities to improve the City’s grant
programs. The recommendations presented below outline a process to transform the City’s grant
programs into more equitable, efficient, transparent and accountable processes. The
recommendations are a targeted synthesis of data gathered from the research in the community
combined with best practices in philanthropy and grantmaking.
Point b(e) proposes nine recommendations to transform the City’s grant programs. Each
recommendation below outlines the current structure for context, followed by a detailed explanation
of the recommendation, along with applicable justification based on the evaluation methods. These
changes are significant and will require a concerted effort from City staff and community volunteers.
However, Point b(e) believes that this community is more than capable of making these changes. At
the end of the report is a recommended implementation outline that demonstrates the feasibility of
these changes while maintaining the current award cycle that is vital to the success of the nonprofits
that rely on this funding.
21
City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 4
#1 Shift the Timeline
The timeline of the grant process from Funding Announcement to Award is quite lengthy. Shifting
some dates will streamline the process for the grant recipients, review committee and the City of
Aspen.
Current Structure
● The Funding Opportunity Announcement is released to grant recipients and the public in May
and open until August 1st.
● The City’s volunteer grant reviewers (including the Citizen Grant Review Committee (CGRC)
members for Wheeler Arts and Community Non-Profit grants and a City Council member for
HHS grants) have about a month to review nearly 90 City cash requests, plus City in-kind
requests. The reviewers make funding recommendations in September, before the final
dollar amount available for awards in the upcoming year has been formally approved by City
Council. In 2020, due to budget uncertainties associated with COVID impacts, the Committee
had to assume a much smaller amount of available funding than in previous years for the
Wheeler Arts grants and come up with a formula for escalating the awards should more
funding become available.
● In October, as a part of its budgeting process, Council reviews and approves the final budget
for grants and the recommended grant awards are presented. At this point, the funding
recommendations are public; however, Council has the authority to adjust the committee’s
recommendations after this time.
● Contracts are distributed for signatures in January or February.
● Funds are distributed to grantees in April.
Figure 1 provides an overview of the current timeline.
Figure 1. Grant Timeline.
22
City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 5
Proposed Recommendations
● Shift the timeline for the grant application release from spring to fall, with funding award
distribution remaining in April.
● Keep City Council approval of funding amounts for each category (Arts, Community Non-Profit
and Health and Human Services (HHS)) during the budget process in November, which
allows the CGRC to know the final funding amounts available to award.
● Close applications early in the new year, giving the reviewers six weeks to make funding
recommendations.
● This shortens the grant process from an 11-month process to a six-month process.
Figure 2 provides an overview of the proposed timeline based on recommendations.
Figure 2. Proposed Grant Timeline.
Justification
● While grantees appreciate consistency in this grant cycle, the summer is often their most
active season for programming, which means this application is due at their busiest time of
year. Shifting it to a fall release and a winter deadline will allow them to complete the
application at a more convenient time either before the holiday season or during January.
● This past year, the CGRC did not know how much funding was available to award to grantees.
This led to a far more complicated evaluation and allocation process that required the
creation of an equation to increase funding amounts after initial recommendations were
made. While recognizing that 2020 presented unique challenges and uncertain funding
levels, for the CGRC to most effectively review applications and make decisions, it needs to
know the amount of funding available before it makes its allocation recommendations.
● Based on research in philanthropy, the typical grant award process lasts approximately six
months.
○ Pre-award phase (4 months)
23
City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 6
■ Funding Announcement is publicized.
■ Applications are typically due 30–60 days later.
■ Applications are reviewed over a 1- to 3-month period.
○ Award Phase (1–2 months)
■ Funding decisions are finalized.
■ Applicants receive awards.
● As was seen this past year with the COVID pandemic, a lot of factors can shift for a small
organization in 11 months. Shortening the grant cycle will mean that organizations are better
able to write and adhere to the applications they submit to the City. This will allow them to
better report on the impact of programs and the use of funds in subsequent grant cycles.
#2 Redefine the Staffing Structure
Staffing the grant programs within the City has shifted between departments over the years. The
grant programs are currently housed in the Wheeler, with less than one FTE of time allocated. In
2020, the Quality Office provided significant assistance and support to the Wheeler staff. Point b(e)
recommends housing the grant programs in a permanent department and devoting the appropriate
staff hours to the programs. This will allow the City to measure impact and gain accountability from
fund recipients in an efficient manner that can ensure the grant programs best meet the
community’s needs.
Proposed Recommendation
● Reconsider placement of grant programs administration, taking into account the multi-
disciplinary nature of the programs and the benefits of a more strategic approach to the
programs.
● Increase staffing levels associated with the programs, so that staff can more effectively cover
the associated needs.
● Revisit and reintegrate the necessary portions of grants management within the job
descriptions of City staff.
● Introduce a grants management software to ease the operational burden on City staff,
grantees and the review committee.
Justification
● Administration of grant programs takes a significant number of staff hours. Typical
administrative costs for grant programs range anywhere between 5–20% of the overall fund,
with the median at 7%. Without this investment, staff have little time to assure the programs
meet more than minimal standards, much less best practices in programs management.
24
City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 7
#3 Consolidate the Grant Programs
The current grant programs do not have one process, but two, one of which is very reliant on Pitkin
County and the decisions of a single individual. Streamlining the process into one unified system will
increase efficiency and consistency and help create a far more equitable distribution of funds
through the empowerment and onboarding of a more diverse set of community volunteers.
Current Structure
● All Wheeler Arts and Community Non-Profit applications are reviewed by one committee
made up of four individuals from the community, one of whom is the chair of the Wheeler
Opera House Board of Directors. These individuals have to review approximately 80
applications in two weeks. Subsequently, they interview a subset of applicants and then
come together in consensus meetings to make their final recommendations.
● The Health and Human Services grant applications are currently tied to Pitkin County’s
Healthy Community Fund grant application process. A member of Aspen’s City Council sits in
on Pitkin County’s decision-making process and makes recommendations based on those
meetings as well as their own review of the applications. This individual is responsible for
making decisions for the City of Aspen’s HHS grants.
Proposed Recommendation
● The process through which grants are awarded should be consolidated into one system that
is applicable for all those that receive City funds, including Wheeler Arts, Community Non-
Profit and HHS grants. This will separate the HHS grant process from the Pitkin County’s
Healthy Community Fund process entirely.
● Separate the funding line for the health and human services-related Intergovernmental
Agreements (IGAs) from the HHS grant funding line. This funding, while dedicated to HHS
services, is not available for competitive grants.
● Establish a strategy- and policy-focused Grants Steering Committee (described in more detail
below.)
● Expand opportunities for more community members to become involved in City grants
review. Create separate review committees for each of the three grant programs (described
in more detail below.)
Justification
● The current system wherein the Wheeler Arts and Community Non-Profit grants are awarded
by one Citizen Grant Review Committee puts an undue burden on Committee members.
Because of the number of applications they need to review, it is challenging to spend
appropriate time on each application to ensure an equitable and transparent process.
● Funding decisions should be made by individuals within the community who have specific
content-area expertise and experience in order to adequately assess the applications. Peer
and community-led review processes have been shown to increase equitable distribution of
funds.
25
City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 8
● Standardizing the process for which all City grants are awarded allows for a more equitable
process that will allow the City to better track its outcomes and ensure accountability to
those whose tax dollars are funding these programs.
● Applicants will no longer have to be as concerned about applying for the “proper” grant
program. With an integrated process, if someone applies for an inappropriate program, their
application can be redirected to the correct program more easily prior to review.
#4 Create Partnership Opportunities
These grant programs have been funding organizations in the community for decades. Many of these
organizations have received the same or similar funding year after year. The history and trust
between the two have long been established. Formalizing this process into a multi-year partnership
opportunity will further the long-established trust and increase accountability for the City. Point b(e)
also recommends continuing to provide one-year grants for organizations that are new to the City’s
grant programs or for organizations implementing new programs.
Current Structure
● All grant applicants submit the same application to the City whether they are new or long-
standing recipients, regardless of financial ask.
● Funding decisions are often made based on the funding given the year before.
● The total budget for the grant programs has largely remained stagnant over the past few
years, despite an influx of applications from new organizations.
● There is no formal reporting process or requirement for grant recipients.
Proposed Recommendation
● Create a new type of grant—a three-year partnership award. The funding would go toward
general operating costs and would be contingent upon City budget renewal as well as
partners completing a yearly status and outcomes report.
● Each year, rather than submit another application, partners would submit an evaluation
report that would track their outcomes for the year and verify that the funds were spent as
intended.
● Continue to evaluate applicants in subgroups distinguished by their grant program.
● Stagger the initial terms of the partnership grants, such that over time, the grant review
committees are annually reviewing one third of the partnership applications.
● One-year grants would still be available, thus allowing new organizations the chance to apply
and prove themselves eligible for partnerships in the future or accomplish shorter-term
goals.
26
City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 9
Justification
● The most significant emerging best practice in philanthropy is the creation of multi-year
operating grants.
○ It fosters a feeling of partnership between funders and fund recipients.
○ It allows organizations more flexibility to adapt to participant and community needs.
○ It allows financial stability for organizations that often increases funding from other
sources and frees staff time to focus on participants rather than cumbersome grant
applications.
○ It allows funders to truly measure their work because it requires a yearly evaluation
of results.
● Aspen has many grantees who have been receiving similar funding levels year after year.
Introducing a three-year partnership grant will allow the City to formalize a longer-term
partnership with these grantees.
● This process will also result in fewer applications year after year for the CGRCs to evaluate,
thus allowing them more time to focus on new applications or applications where situations
have changed (such as the onboarding of a new Executive Director).
#5 Redesign and Codify Review Committees
The integration of Health and Human Services Grants into the current Citizen Grant Review
Committee is not feasible given the capacity and expertise of the individuals on the current
committee. In order to ensure that the grant funds are distributed to the organizations that are best
meeting community needs, applications should be reviewed by a broad range of individuals that
interact with the services on a regular basis and/or have skill sets that are directly applicable to
application review. This recommendation, therefore, focuses on strengthening and expanding
participation in the review of City grants, building on the current volunteer reviewer.
Further, reviewers currently operate without the guidance of a formal charter describing how they are
appointed, how long their terms are, their roles and responsibilities and their expectations. To
remedy this, Point b(e) recommends that the City formalize the roles of reviewers.
Current Structure
● The current Citizen Grant Review Committee for Wheeler Arts and Community Non-Profit
grants exists without a charter or a formal appointment process. There are no term limits or
formal processes to govern members’ appointment or actions.
● During the 2020 review process, the Citizen Grant Review Committee was comprised of four
individuals, some of whom have sat on the committee for decades.1 They are passionate,
1 We acknowledge the loss felt by the community with the passing of a dedicated and long-standing committee
member this year.
27
City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 10
dedicated, intelligent and well-respected individuals who were all selected by various
processes and never formally appointed.
● The review of the HHS grants is currently the responsibility of one individual from City
Council. As with the Citizen Grant Review Committee, there are no guidelines for when and
how the reviewer for the HHS grants is selected nor for how long they should serve.
Proposed Recommendations
● Reformulate review responsibilities into four separate bodies, each with its own purpose and
funding dollars.
o Citizen Grant Steering Committee—This body does not conduct reviews nor make
funding recommendations but serves as the main strategic arm that liaises with the
City on logistics, sets strategic priorities, and monitors the subcommittees below.
Members of the City, including the City Manager, could potentially serve on this
committee, but should not be the only members of it.
o Arts Citizen Grant Review Committee—This subcommittee will review and make
recommendations for awards for the Wheeler Arts grants. This group should be
comprised of individuals who have a passion for and experience with the Arts in
Aspen and the surrounding community. Individuals could include local artists, gallery
owners, radio hosts, stage managers, patrons, Wheeler Board Chair, etc.
o Community Non-Profit Citizen Grant Review Committee—This subcommittee will
review and make recommendations for all awards for the Community Non-Profit
grants. This group should be comprised of individuals who have a passion for and
experience with the community nonprofit work in Aspen and the surrounding
community. Individuals may work in schools, run youth mentoring programs, be high
school students, work in outdoor/environmental programming, or run local
community gardens or other nonprofits, etc.
o Health and Human Services Citizen Grant Review Committee—This subcommittee will
review and make recommendations for all the Health and Human Services grant
funds. This group should largely be comprised of individuals who work in or have
lived experience with Health and Human Services. Individuals could include local
doctors, mental health service providers, school district representatives, individuals
with disabilities, case managers or day-program operators.
o Point b(e) recommends that one person from each subcommittee sit on the
overarching Steering Committee to serve as liaison between the groups.
28
City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 11
Figure 3. Structure of the Grant Steering Committee and Subcommittees
● Develop a charter for Committees that includes: purpose, term limits, recommended number
of members, decision making processes, and other bylaws.
● These charters should be accompanied by job descriptions and desired skill sets of
members.
o All committees should include representation from the communities that the funding
is designed to impact. This includes youth, BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and People of
Color) individuals, local artists, etc.
o Other recommended skill sets include: financial, legal, nonprofit management,
philanthropy, equity, subject matter expertise, etc.
● All Committee members should be term limited in their service, which should be outlined in
the job description and charter.
● A targeted recruitment plan should be developed and circulated within the community in
order to fill all open positions with a representative population.
Justification
● A thorough review of a grant application can take up to six hours. A thorough review of an
application is paramount to ensuring funds are distributed to those who will best impact the
community.
● The current structure leads to overworked volunteers who are challenged to devote adequate
time to ensuring an objective and equitable review process.
Grant Steering
Committee
Arts Review Committee Health & Human Services
Review Committee
Community Non-Profit
Review Committee
29
City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 12
● Representation from the communities that the funding is designed for allows the committees
to truly understand the needs of the community and therefore award funding where it will
have the greatest impact.
● Formalizing the committees with the addition of charters will allow for increased direction
and a greater degree of alignment with and accountability to the City’s priorities.
● Term limits allow for a graceful transition on and off the committee. This will increase interest
in serving if it is known that it is for a set amount of time. It also allows for the addition of
new perspectives and the opportunity to adapt to changing community needs.
#6 Develop Strategic Priorities for the Funding
This grant funding is designed to positively impact the City of Aspen. In order to most effectively do
that, the desired impacts need to be stated, clarified and evaluated.
Current Structure
● There are currently strategic focus areas and funding priorities for the grant programs;
however, they do not appear to be thoroughly understood by the grantees or aligned with the
grant application.
● The general grant review criteria for the Wheeler Arts and Community Non-Profit programs
are posted on the City website, but no matrix is available to help applicants understand what
is needed to score well on criteria.
● The HHS grant application includes language on the City’s focus areas, but as with the other
grant programs, no scoring matrix is available to help guide applicants in understanding
expectations.
● The relative role of formal numeric scoring in overall considerations is not well
communicated.
Proposed Recommendations
● City staff should work with the newly created Steering Committee to create strategic priorities
for each grant program. These grant priorities should be aligned with the City’s mission,
priorities and desired outcomes.
● Priorities should be revisited on a regular basis along with the City of Aspen’s priorities.
● Priorities should be re-evaluated every three years.
● All grants should align with the strategic priorities.
Justification
● Currently, neither the CGRC nor grantees understand what the City’s funding priorities are for
the grant programs. Setting strategic priorities will allow the City to evaluate impact based on
the priorities that City Council and the Steering Committee deem important for the
community.
30
City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 13
● Strategic priorities allow fund recipients to understand where the community is focusing
attention. This might allow them to better understand why they did or did not receive funding,
or to share an aspect of their programming that is aligned with the City that they did not
know was a priority.
● This is not designed to tell organizations how they should shape their programming, but
rather allows them to understand what the City is prioritizing, and how those priorities are
designed to strengthen the community as a whole.
#7 Develop a Scoring Criteria That Matches Funding Priorities
Point b(e) recommends developing an application scoring system that allows the CGRCs to evaluate
applications against the established strategic priorities. This will allow the CGRCs to ensure funding
is distributed to organizations and programs that are best aligned with the strategic priorities.
Current Structure
● Two years ago, scoring criteria was introduced to the Citizen Grant Review Committee. Prior
to that time, no numeric scores were used to guide decision-making. This year the CGRC
calculated scores for individual applications, however, the scoring rarely factored into final
decisions about funding amounts and was deemed relatively cumbersome by the CGRC
members.
● No numeric scoring criteria exist for the HHS grant evaluations.
Proposed Recommendations
● Scoring criteria needs to be created based on the strategic priorities set by the Steering
Committee and the City.
● The criteria and the requirements to score at each level should be made public to all
applicants with the Funding Opportunity Announcement.
● The criteria should be integrated into the review process by the CGRC through the use of a
grant management system.
● Applicants' scores should be used as the primary basis for funding decisions.
○ If an application scores below a certain threshold, they should not receive any
funding.
○ If an application scores above a certain threshold, they should receive funding. The
amount they receive will not necessarily be their full ask but will be based on further
criteria as elaborated below.
● Final funding amount should be based on total available budget, total dollar amount of
approved applications, appropriateness of proposed budget, final score, and any other
criteria the review committee deems relevant. These criteria should be finalized prior to the
application review and published with the application.
31
City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 14
Justification
● Establishing a criteria and matrix by which to assess alignment allows for the greatest
amount of objectivity in a grant-making process.
● If an applicant is unhappy with their award, they can be given their score to understand why
they were not funded. Because the score will not be the sole criteria that determines funding
amounts notes should be taken about which other criteria precluded organizations from
receiving their full ask. This also allows an opportunity to improve their application to receive
funds in future years.
● Scoring criteria provides an opportunity for new organizations to have a pathway to increase
funding if their work aligns with the City’s strategic priorities. However, if overall budget for
the grant programs does not increase, this will decrease funding for other grantees.
#8 Modify the Grant Applications
Grant applications should give reviewers just enough information to make an informed funding
decision without requiring them to wade through pages of irrelevant information. Due to the changes
in prioritization and types of grants, the City’s grant applications will need to be streamlined and/or
modified.
Current Structure
● Potential Wheeler Arts and Community Non-Profit grantees submit one application to the City,
while HHS applicants submit a city-specific addendum to the Pitkin County Healthy
Community Fund application. This application process is the same for all funding amounts
ranging from $2,000–$100,000 or for in-kind donations.
● The application for the Wheeler Arts and Community Non-Profit grant is eight pages long with
extensive financial, board and salary information requests. While the City portion of the
County application form is only two pages, it follows a much lengthier County application.
● Capital requests are made to the City on an ad hoc basis throughout the year, outside of the
grant programs. If a capital request is made using the Community Non-Profit or Wheeler Arts
grant application, it is usually denied because capital requests are not typically considered
eligible for City grant programs funding. This places the city in a situation where capital
requests are inconsistently considered on an ad-hoc basis without uniform evaluation
criteria. Because of this, it may result in inconsistent decision making and may be perceived
as biased.
Proposed Recommendations
● Develop an application that is specific for grant requests under $10,000. Questions should
be limited to those that are most important to assist the evaluators with scoring the
application. Additionally, Point b(e) recommends requiring a much more limited financial
request, such as requesting the organization’s 990 or Profit & Loss Statement and Balance
32
City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 15
Sheet. Questions surrounding staff salaries & other funding sources should be greatly
limited, if included at all.
● For requests of more than $10,000, a more robust application should be created. This will
include all three-year partnership requests that total more than $10,000 over the three-year
period. If the City feels questions around other funding sources, staffing structure, and
organizational capacity are relevant in order to make funding decisions for these larger
grants, they should be included in this application only.
o Financial reporting should still be limited to documents that organizations already
have rather than asking for a budget based on City’s line items.
o Information requests should still be limited to information that assists with decision-
making for the review committees.
● A system for capital requests needs to be established and shared with the community, which
should articulate a time frame. A separate application that is relevant to capital requests
needs to be created, and a selection of the reviewers needs to be devoted to reviewing these
applications. Additionally, it should be noted that funding for capital requests continues to
remain separate and outside of the funding for the Wheeler Arts, Community Non-Profit and
HHS grant programs.
Justification
● Overly cumbersome grant applications do not benefit anyone. They lead to more time spent
completing applications for organizations that are often understaffed. Time spent filling out
applications can be better utilized to strengthen programs or create more robust evaluation
processes. Additionally, the longer the application is, the longer it takes for the volunteers to
review.
● The majority of the current CGRC members expressed that they do not have the capacity to
review the significant financial information in each application, leaving it unread, and
therefore unused.
● “Right sizing” grant applications is becoming increasingly common among grantmaking
institutions because it allows organizations that are getting significantly less funding from a
source to devote less time to the application. This is particularly important for smaller
organizations that are often staffed by one or two individuals and do not have grant writers
on staff.
● Capital campaigns often include information such as blueprints, building plans and
significant budgets. Because of this, it takes a specific skill set to evaluate their merit. As
such, a specific committee comprised of volunteers from the community who have that skill
set should review and pass recommendations on to the City Manager. If established, it
would require an additional grant review subcommittee, with at least some subject matter
experts added.
#9 Develop a Communication Campaign
The City of Aspen is on the cusp of making big changes to the way it distributes grant funds. This is
an exciting new endeavor that will increase equity, transparency and efficiency. The final
recommendation is to communicate this plan early, often and fully.
33
City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 16
Current System
● Information is disseminated to grant recipients and the community in a variety of ways, with
limited structure for how or who receives information directly related to the grant programs.
o The basic grant eligibility requirements, overarching criteria, grant applications and
award process and schedule are posted on the City of Aspen website at
https://www.cityofaspen.com/383/Grants
o Current grant recipients are emailed the fund announcement when made public.
o City staff respond to emails and phone calls regarding the programs.
o City Council meetings are open to the public, so anyone can attend the meeting
where decisions are finalized.
o Emails are sent to the grantees with their award amounts. As well, those who do not
receive funding are contacted via email. Staff also respond to questions from
individual organizations regarding the funding decisions.
Proposed Recommendations
● Create a targeted campaign within the City and surrounding communities that communicates
and announces the new, more equitable and transparent City grant process.
● This campaign should include the recruitment of volunteers for the Steering Committee and
program-specific review committees.
● It should target potential grant recipients that have not received funding but may be eligible.
● It should communicate all changes to the grant application, timeline and review process.
● Lastly, it should include a process wherein decisions are shared quickly with those who do
and do not receive their full dollar amount, such as took place in 2020 when emails were
sent to all grantees early. This will ensure that complaints are handled efficiently, rather than
over an extended period of time. The scoring results should be the backbone of the
communication process.
Justification
● The number one way to create transparency is to communicate. The City should
communicate all shifts in opportunity, priorities and funding.
● Grant recipients are currently unaware of significant aspects of the grant programs that have
been made public through memos or at City Council meetings.
● Point b(e) has proposed significant programmatic and process adjustments that will affect all
grantees and the community as a whole. It is vital to the success of the program that these
changes are communicated to all potential stakeholders early, often and accurately.
34
City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 17
Implementation Outline
35
City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 18
Conclusion
If implemented, these nine recommendations will strengthen the City of Aspen’s grant programs.
They will increase transparency, efficiency and accountability, and help ensure the equitable
distribution of funds to organizations that are best serving the community. They are not minor
tweaks, but large changes that will require staff and volunteer time and energy in order to
accomplish. Yet, they are extremely feasible to enact over the next year. The City of Aspen is filled
with intelligent individuals who are extremely passionate about their community. Point b(e) has no
doubt that the City staff will be able to effectively work with the community to foster real change for
the City’s grant programs and therefore the community as a whole.
There are alternative options to the recommendations offered, such as outsourcing management of
the entire grant program or the creation of administrative only reviews. However, Point b(e) feels that
in strengthening and empowering community members to take a more focused scope, the grant
programs will best be able to meet the needs of the City of Aspen and the Roaring Fork Valley. This
approach will work best when implemented in its entirety and by combining a more targeted
prioritization of fund dollars with a review process to match.
Additional Resources
DirectRFP®. “7 RFP Scoring Guidelines You Need to Improve Transparency and Buy-In.” DirectRFP®,
4 June 2019, directrfp.com/rfp-scoring-guidelines-to-improve/.
DirectRFP®. “Write RFP Questions The Right Way & Get Better Responses.” DirectRFP®, 4 June
2019, directrfp.com/write-rfp-questions-the-right-way-and-get-better-responses/.
Edwards, Sandy. “The Benefits of Multiyear Grantmaking: A Funder’s Perspective.” Philanthropy
News Digest (PND), 31 Jan. 2013, https://philanthropynewsdigest.org/commentary-and-
opinion/benefits-of-multiyear-grantmaking
Gibson, Cynthia M. “Deciding Together: Shifting Power and Resources Through Participatory
Grantmaking.” IssueLab, IssueLab, 2 Oct. 2018,
participatorygrantmaking.issuelab.org/resource/deciding-together-shifting-power-and-
resources-through-participatory-grantmaking.html.
National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy. “Criteria for Philanthropy at Its Best. Benchmarks
to Assess and Enhance Grantmaker Impact” 8 March, 2019,
https://bjn9t2lhlni2dhd5hvym7llj-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-
content/uploads/2016/10/paib-fulldoc_lowres.pdf
36
City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 19
Appendix A: City of Aspen Grantee Survey Summary
Point b(e) administered a survey to all current grantees of the City of Aspen’s grant programs. The
survey was administered online via Survey Monkey to 99 individuals, with 59 (60%) respondents
completing the survey. The results of the survey are presented below.
Type of Funding Applied for This Year
Respondents were asked to identify the type of funding they applied for—Wheeler Arts, Community
Non-Profit or Health and Human Services.
Figure 1. Type of Funding
Number of Years Received Funding From the City of Aspen
Respondents were also asked to indicate the number of years they have received funding from the
City of Aspen.
20%
59%
20%
Type of Funding
% HHS % Community Non-Profit % Wheerler Arts
37
City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 20
Figure 2. Number of Years Received Funding
Strengths of the City’s Grant Programs
Respondents were asked to describe the strengths of the City’s grantmaking programs. Responses
fell into several themes:
• The funding supports organizations that help the community in a variety of ways and
illustrates the City’s commitment to the community (n=26).
• The application process—The online form is easy, the process is clear, the grant guidelines
are straight forward, there are fewer redundant questions this year (n=18).
o HHS grantees appreciate that the application is connected to the Pitkin County
application, as it reduces duplication (n=5).
• The supportive team is responsive to questions and provides good communication
throughout the process (n=14).
• The funding is consistent and reliable (n=12).
Grant Application Process
Respondents were asked to provide feedback about the grant application process by rating a series
of statements on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = Strongly Disagree and 5 = Strongly Agree. Figure 3
displays the results.
39%
11%
27%
23%
Number of Years Received
Funding
0-5 Years 6-10 Years 11-19 Years 20+ Years
38
City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 21
Figure 3. Feedback About Grant Application
Opportunities for Improvement
• Reduce the number of questions on the application, modify the way financial data is
requested, consider a new online platform for the application, provide an abbreviated
application for smaller grants.
• Allow opportunities on the application for grantees to elaborate on their impact, show the
extent of services provided, or share a client story.
• Consider a multi-year grant cycle, rather than annual applications.
Grant Evaluation Process
Respondents were asked to provide feedback about the grant evaluation process by rating a series
of statements on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = Strongly Disagree and 5 = Strongly Agree. Figure 4
illustrates the feedback by grantees.
80%
93%
91%
91%
86%
78%
76%
76%
78%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
The City’s funding priorities were clearly communicated.
The eligibility criteria to apply for grants was clearly
communicated.
The City’s grantmaking staff was responsive to
questions during the application process.
The City’s grantmaking staff was helpful during the
application process.
The grant application process was clear.
The online grant application was easy to use.
The amount of information required on the grant
application was reasonable.
Based on the information asked in the grant application,
I believe the City has a good understanding of my
organization’s programs.
Based on the information asked in the grant application,
I believe the City has a good understanding of my
organization’s goals.
Feedback About Grant Application
% Agree or Strongly Agree
39
City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 22
Figure 4. Feedback About the Grant Evaluation Process
Respondents were also asked to rate how the City’s grant application compares with other grant
applications their organizations submit, on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = It is more time consuming
than most applications to 5 = It is less time consuming than most applications.
Figure 5. City’s Application Compared With Other Grant Applications
64%
46%
63%
61%
46%
46%
45%
75%
67%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
I understand the criteria used to evaluate my
application.
I understand the criteria used to determine my draft
funding amount.
I believe all applicants are treated equally in the grant
evaluation process.
I believe all applicants are treated fairly in the
determination of draft funding amounts.
The City is transparent with its process for evaluating
the applicants.
The City is transparent with its process for selecting
grantees.
The City is transparent with its process for determining
draft funding amounts for grantees.
The City’s grantmaking staff is responsive to questions
about the evaluation process.
The City’s grantmaking staff is responsive to questions
about draft funding amounts.
Feedback About the Grant Evaluation Process
% Agree or Strongly Agree
31%
36%
34%
City's Application Compared with Other
Grant Applications
Selected 4 or 5 (It is less time consuming than most applications)
Selected 1 or 2 (It is more time consuming than most applications)
Selected 3 (Neutral)
40
City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 23
Opportunities for Improvement
Respondents were asked to provide feedback about how the City can improve its grant evaluation
process. Responses fell into the following themes:
• Increase transparency in how award amounts are determined.
• Increase clarity about how committees make decisions and the criteria that are used.
• Consider a 'Zero Budget' exercise where applications are evaluated regardless of the
previous year's awards or historical trends.
• Provide a rubric about how applicants are scored.
• Provide a pathway for organizations to increase the amount of funding, particularly for
organizations that receive low amounts.
• Provide clarity in the role of City Council in the funding decisions.
Timing of the Grant Application Process
Respondents were asked to provide feedback about the timing of the grant application process by
rating a series of statements on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = Not At All Satisfied and 5 = Very
Satisfied. Results are displayed in Figure 6 below.
Figure 6. Feedback About the Timing of the Grant Application Process
Respondents were also asked to rate the length of time it takes to receive awarded funds compared
with other funders. Responses were on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = It takes longer than most funders
to 5 = It is faster than most funders. Figure 7 presents respondents’ feedback.
81%
69%
86%
78%
81%
75%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
The date the grant opens.
The date the grant is due.
The length of time the grant remains open.
The length of time to announce awards.
The length of time to finalize contracts.
The length of time to receive funds.
Feedback About Timing
% Satisfied or Very Satisfied
41
City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 24
Figure 7. Time to Receive Funds Compared With Other Grants
Opportunities for Improvement
Respondents were asked to provide recommendations for how the City can improve the timing of the
grant process.
• Consider changing the timing to not coincide with summer programming.
• Reduce the time it takes from application to receiving funds.
29%
27%
44%
Time to Receive Funds Compared with
Other Grants
Selected 4 or 5 (It is faster than most funders)
Selected 1 or 2 (It takes longer than most funders)
Selected 3 (Neutral)
42
City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 25
Overall Satisfaction With the Grant Programs and Impact of the Grant Programs
Respondents were asked to rate how satisfied they are with the City’s grantmaking process overall on
a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = Not At All Satisfied and 5 = Very Satisfied. Figure 8 presents the results.
Figure 8. Satisfaction With the City’s Grant Programs
Respondents were asked to provide feedback about the impact of the City’s grantmaking on their
organization, the community, and their field. They rated a series of statements on a scale of 1 to 5,
where 1 = No Impact and 5 = Significant Positive Impact. Results are presented in Figure 9.
Figure 9. Feedback About the Impact of the City’s Grantmaking on Organization, the Community, and
the Field
79%
72%
71%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Application process
Evaluation process
Award process
Feedback on City's Grant Process Overall
% Satisfied or Very Satisfied
88%
92%
76%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Impact on my organization.
Impact on my community.
Impact on my field.
Feedback on Impact of City's Grantmaking
% Positive Impact
43
City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 26
Opportunities for Improvement
Respondents were provided a final opportunity to provide feedback about how the City’s
grantmaking programs can be improved. Results fell into the following themes:
• Increase communication about the evaluation process.
• Clarify criteria to determine funding.
• Consider a multi-year grant cycle.
• Decrease the overall time frame.
• Identify a pathway for smaller grantees to increase their funding.
• Provide a rubric for how applicants are scored.
• Streamline the requested financials.
44
City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 27
Appendix B: Key Stakeholder Interview Summary
Point b(e) conducted nine key stakeholder interviews to gather in-depth information about the grant
programs. Interviewees included members of the Citizen Grant Review Committee for Wheeler Arts
and Community Non-Profit grants, members of the Citizen Grant Review Committee for Pitkin
County’s Healthy Community Fund for the Health and Human Services grants, staff with the City of
Aspen and the City Manager. Additionally, Point b(e) administered an online survey to all of Aspen’s
City Councilmembers. One Councilmember completed the electronic survey and two
Councilmembers opted for telephone interviews. All of the key stakeholder interviews and
Councilmember surveys were qualitatively analyzed, and respondents from both data collection
methods are referred to as interviewees. The findings are presented below.
Overall Strengths and Impact of the City of Aspen’s Grant Programs
Interviewees highlighted several strengths of the City’s grant programs. Feedback focused on the
unique, historical impact the City has on arts, culture, nonprofits and health and human services
programs. There is a level of consistency and a commitment of the City to ensure funds are there
year after year. The grant programs are important to the economic, public health and social fabric of
the community. It is a statement that the City values organizations within a small community and it
funds a wide array of organizations within the valley. The grant programs enrich life in the mountains
through the support of nonprofits. Finally, organizations can use the funding from the City as
leverage for more donations.
Interviewees did address concerns about the challenge of understanding the overall impact of the
City’s grant programs. For one interviewee, the role and importance of the City’s grant programs has
not been clearly defined or set. Another interviewee commented that it is unclear what the long-term
goals of the programs are and how they are aligned with the community plan.
Recommendations
Interviewees highlighted the following recommendations:
• Revisit the purpose of the grant programs and clearly define the goals of the grant programs,
aligned with metrics and objectives; create a funding program that can tell a story about why
it’s important the City donate and how much it should contribute; answer the question about
the effect the grant programs have on the community; provide better structure and clarity
about what the City is hoping to achieve with this funding.
• Increase funding when necessary to accommodate for increases in cost-of-living and
additional grant applicants. This can include an increase in the RETT funding.
• Change the order in how funding is approved and allocated.
Community Non-Profit and Wheeler Arts Grants Citizen Grants Review Committee
Interviewees highlighted the knowledge and experience of the current Citizen Grants Review
Committee. Members are active in the community, attend events, and the committee has
representation from Wheeler Opera House, which is important to interviewees. Interviewees are
45
City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 28
appreciative of the engaged and intelligent members who are currently on the review committee and
recognize that the members respect the community and the nonprofits.
Recommendations
Interviewees highlighted the following recommendations:
• Provide more structure around the make-up of the review committee. For example,
interviewees highlighted that members should be appointed by City Council, and members
should cover a broad range of skill sets and areas of expertise, including business,
entrepreneurship, health, arts, culture, etc. There could also be youth/younger populations
on the committee. Additionally, there could be sub-committees to review the different grants
to align with specific members’ expertise. While it’s great to have historical knowledge on the
committee, interviewees noted that it would be appropriate to have term limits for members.
• Develop a charter for the review committee. The structure could be more formalized, with a
chair, vice chair, etc. There should be rules on how members are selected/appointed, how
they are trained, and the criteria used to make decisions. There should also be structures in
place for the City’s role with the review committee, such as the amount of oversight or
management that should be provided.
Health and Human Services
The City of Aspen’s Health and Human Services (HHS) grant funding process is different than the
Community Non-Profit and Wheeler Arts Grants process. The City’s grant application is attached to
the end of the Pitkin County Healthy Communities Fund Health grant application. Several
interviewees were appreciative of the integration of the application process and noted that the City
of Aspen enjoys several benefits from that integration. Pitkin County provides more oversight and
accountability with those funded through the County funding, and the City of Aspen gets to benefit
from that oversight. Interviewees expressed that the City and County have worked as great partners
over the years, and by having the City and County coordinate funding, there is more continuity in the
grant programs.
Recommendations
Interviewees highlighted the following recommendations:
• Increase communication about funded organizations between the City and County programs.
• Provide more representation from the City of Aspen on the Pitkin County Citizen Grant Review
Committee. Currently, only one City Councilperson sits on the review committee, and that
Councilperson is terming off this summer. There should be more individuals with a wider
range of expertise making decisions about the City’s HHS grant funds.
Transparency
Interviewees were asked to describe the extent to which there is transparency in the grants process.
A few interviewees noted that the process has transparency because funding amounts are made
public during the City Council meeting in which they are discussed. Individuals have access to who
46
City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 29
was funded and the amount they received. However, many interviewees noted that the process to
make those decisions, specifically why organizations are funded a specific amount, lacks
transparency.
Recommendations
Interviewees highlighted the following recommendations:
• Develop more rigorous scoring criteria. Interviewees expressed a desire to have solid
evaluation criteria with accompanying data in order to respond to applicant questions. Once
a scoring matrix is in place and used, the results can be disclosed to applicants so they can
improve the next time.
• Provide information about scoring criteria and funding limits at the time the application is
released. Interviewees noted it would be helpful if applicants were aware of total funding
available, applicable funding limits, and evaluation criteria when they received the
application. It would be ideal for applicants to see at the time of award a data-driven process
that illustrates how they scored and the rationale for the amount of funding received.
Role of City Council
Interviewees were asked to discuss the role of City Council. Interviewees agreed that City Council has
final decision-making powers on grants that are funded and that they make their decisions based on
the recommendations of the Citizen Grant Review Committees, both for Community Non-Profit and
Wheeler Art grants, as well as for HHS grants.
Recommendations
Interviewees highlighted the following recommendations:
• City Council needs to establish the goals and objectives of the grant programs and revisit
these regularly.
• City Council needs to allocate the amount of total funding for the grants, and many
interviewees indicated it is time to assess increases in the amount of funding that is
allocated overall.
• Communication and clarity should be increased. There is a gap between the decisions of the
Citizen Grants Review Committee and City Council. While City Council has the final say in
grant decisions, they don’t have a full picture of the evaluation criteria and the process to
determine funding amounts.
Administration
Interviewees were asked to discuss questions related to the administration of the grant programs,
such as whether they should continue to be managed in-house by City staff and whether the staffing
structure is effective and efficient. Several interviewees indicated it is important the grant funds
continue to be managed by the City, as opposed to a third party. According to one interviewee,
because the funding comes from taxpayer dollars, it provides more accountability to have it
managed by the City, and the funding should not go to an outside group. A few interviewees
47
City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 30
mentioned the possibility of having an organization such as Aspen Community Foundation manage
the funds.
Regarding staffing of the grant programs, several interviewees expressed that there needs to be
better infrastructure to support the programs and more staff time devoted to the programs.
Interviewees expressed that it has been passed around to staff and departments, which has caused
a lack of consistency within the City.
Recommendations
Interviewees highlighted the following recommendations:
• Develop better infrastructure and staffing system within the City to manage the grants. While
many interviewees indicated the current department is a logical home for the programs, they
agreed there needs to be more staff time allocated to managing the programs.
• Adopt a grants management software program. Pitkin County recently adopted a new
program to manage grant applications and tracking. A few interviewees highlighted the need
to adopt a program that can better manage grants—from application, to contracting, to
tracking progress.
Additional Recommendations
Interviewees were asked to provide any additional thoughts on improvements to the grant programs.
The following recommendations emerged:
• Adjust the timeline of the grant programs. The process from the time the application is made
available to when the grantees receive funding is too lengthy.
• Streamline the application itself, specifically the financial information. Potentially develop a
short form and a long form depending on the size of the ask. Include more questions on the
application that ask about how the funds will be used and how funds were used in the past.
Include questions about the salaries of organizational leadership and questions around the
number of people served and those under the age of 18. Also, include questions that illicit
more information on an organization’s impact.
• Develop a two-year grant cycle.
48
ATTACHMENT B: PRELIMINARY WORK PLAN FOR GRANTS PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS
TASKS 21-Feb 21-Mar 21-Apr 21-May 21-Jun 21-Jul 21-Aug 21-Sep 21-Oct 21-Nov 21-Dec 21-Jan 21-Feb 21-Mar 21-Apr
Finalize grant round opening date
Initial communication with grantees and reviewers re
changes
Open 2022 grant round
Finalize amount of 2022 grant funds (Council)
Close 2022 grant round
Review applications
Bring funding recommendations to Council
Distribute contracts
Distribute funding
Evaluate staffing structure or consultant approach.
Select staffing option
Separate funding line for HHS grants and HHS IGAs
Communicate process change to HHS applicant pool
Update grant application form
Develop/update eligibility criteria, gather key stakeholder
feedback, develop grant parameters and monitoring
process for 1 and 3-year grants
Develop committee options for City Manager review
Approve committee structure and charters
Solicit committee members
Train committee members
Implement committee changes
Prepare guidance document on City priorities
Share guidance with Steering Committee (SC)
Collaborate with SC to propose grant funding priorities
that are in alignment with City priorities
Develop agreement on purpose/use/role of scoring
criteria
Develop draft scoring criteria, based on priorities
Align scoring criteria with funding priorities
Modify grant applications
Shift the grants timeline
Redefine staffing structure
Consolidate grant programs
2021 - Develop 3-year partnership grant program. *2022 - Implement/Rollout 3-year partnership grants.*
Redesign and codify grant committees
Develop strategic priorities for funding
49
TASKS 21-Feb 21-Mar 21-Apr 21-May 21-Jun 21-Jul 21-Aug 21-Sep 21-Oct 21-Nov 21-Dec 21-Jan 21-Feb 21-Mar 21-Apr
Develop draft application forms (under $10,000, over
$10,000, capital)
Implement final forms in 2022 grant cycle
Verify target audiences
Send initial message re grant cycle and other upcoming
changes
Develop additional key messages re 2022 cycle
Select communication media, timing and frequency
Implement touch points according to timelines
Develop communication campaign
50
INFORMATION MEMORANDUM
TO: City of Aspen Mayor and Council
FROM: PJ Murray, EIT – Project Manager
Pete Rice, PE – Division Manager
Lynn Rumbaugh – Transportation Manager
THROUGH: Trish Aragon, PE – City Engineer
John Krueger – Director of Transportation
Mitch Osur – Director of Parking and Downtown Services
MEMO DATE: August 16, 2021
MEETING DATE: August 23, 2021
RE: Safety and Mobility in the Downtown Core
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: City staff is requesting Council’s approval to proceed with further
design on safety measures for Galena and Cooper Streets to increase the safety in the downtown
core for the spring and summer of 2022.
SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND: Tourists and locals enjoy Aspen’s streets, trails, and
sidewalks year-round by car, foot, and bike. As vehicles, pedestrians and bikers enter a denser
area in town, such as the commercial core in Aspen, interactions between them are unavoidable.
Unfortunately, many of these interactions result in near misses, conflict, and accidents.
The City of Aspen has been exploring how right-of-way (ROW) space could be allocated
differently to increase safety for pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers. By improving the routing for all
modes of travel through the corridor, safety for all users is indirectly increased. When pedestrians
and bikers have designated use areas, cars are better able to anticipate their movements and
safer interactions occur.
The “Safety and Mobility in the Core” project is a vision for a safe and connected downtown core
for all users. The project is in a conceptual phase and is based largely in the understanding that
the City of Aspen ROW, which contains streets, sidewalks, utility corridors, and more, is a public
space with potential to serve the work force, tourists, and the community more fully.
In its existing condition, the ROW in downtown Aspen is dedicated primarily to vehicles – both
moving and parked. On average, about 70% of the ROW is allocated for cars which is occasionally
shared with bicycles, and the remaining 30% is dedicated to the pedestrians. Per the Aspen
Community Voice survey, published from 8/6/21-8/16/21, the predominate mode of transportation
used in the core is pedestrians (50%) followed by bicycles at (31.5%) and last vehicles (16%).
This initial survey indicates an inequity in space allocation and layout of the core corridors in
downtown.
51
Page 2 of 11
The “Safety and Mobility in the Core” project team is exploring how space could be allocated
differently in the ROW with three goals in mind:
1. Increase safety for all users, including pedestrians, bicycles, and vehicles.
2. Improve mobility and connectivity in the downtown core for pedestrians and bicyclists.
3. Prioritize transit and/or shared mobility options over the use and storage of single
occupancy vehicles.
On February 1, 2021, staff first presented this project to Council, as a follow up to Council’s
request to increase safety in the core. Staff posed the question about whether to proceed with an
“intersection-by-intersection” piecemeal approach or with a holistic “corridor-based” approach.
Council directed staff to proceed with a holistic approach to provide safe, dedicated space to
facilitate better understanding and anticipation of the movements of other modal users in the core.
With this holistic approach, more significant improvements in user safety can be made since the
improvements are carried beyond the intersection boundary. This approach includes
improvements at the intersections for pedestrians and bikers and modifications to the roadway
cross section that dedicates space and infrastructure for bicyclists, just as it currently does for
vehicles and pedestrians. By creating a safer zone for both bicyclists and pedestrians in
intersections and roadways (together referred to as “corridor”), the core would balance the priority
of all users, instead of the current vehicle-centric model. Safety is increased when pedestrians
and bicyclists have designated use areas, which provides more separation, fewer interactions,
and allows vehicles to better anticipate their locations and movements.
During the February work session, Council directed staff to incrementally expand the
improvements and safety measures beyond the intersection boundaries to include the entire
street corridor. This approach is holistic in nature and allows safe, dedicated space to be provided
for all users along the streets.
On June 21, 2021, staff returned to Council with a conceptual corridor-based approach. Three
corridors were presented where opportunity exists for these improvement projects. These
corridors were also identified by the Pedestrian and Bicycle Masterplan and the Downtown
Enhancement Pedestrian Project (DEPP) as areas for improved connectivity and safety.
1. Hopkins Ave Corridor
2. Hyman Ave/Mill St Corridor
3. Galena St/Cooper Ave Corridor
During the June work session, staff presented high-level concepts to Council that showed what
the above corridors in the downtown core could look like. Each concept showcased a variety of
safety improvement strategies which can be treated like a menu. These strategies are listed
below:
Conversion of parking from head-in to parallel to reallocate space for a balanced roadway
• Counter-flow protected bikeways on one-way streets
• Activation areas
• Increased pedestrian corridors
Curb extensions to improve sightlines for all users by decreasing the width of the crosswalk
Transitioning to vehicle-free corridors for 100% priority on pedestrians and bicycles.
Council members agreed there is opportunity to shift the priority of our street corridors from vehicle
dominance to a more equitable balance in which the safety and mobility for all users is prioritized.
52
Page 3 of 11
Council requested Staff present a direction on how to achieve modifications that would increase
safety and lead to a more balanced streetscape. Several aspects need further study and planning
including the impacts on parking, transportation, commercial deliveries, and emergency response
to the core if the parking and access throughout these corridors is modified.
The result of the June work session was for staff to outline incremental improvements to increase
the safety and mobility for all users within the corridors of the downtown core and return to present
these incremental steps to Council. Additionally, Council requested that staff provide a parking
and transportation mitigation plan for the proposed scenarios. Council indicated they wanted a
basic understanding of the community’s values on the core through the first steps in public
outreach process.
DISCUSSION: Balancing the core corridors is essential to increase the safety between vehicles,
pedestrians, and vehicles. Staff recommends beginning in incremental stages and to initially focus
on the Galena corridor which includes Galena St from Hopkins to Cooper as well as Cooper Ave
from Galena to Hunter as shown in Figure 1 below. Once safety improvements proven successful
within this corridor and Council and the community are supportive, Staff will incrementally
implement similar improvements along the other corridors that were presented on June 21st. The
approach will focus on measures that can be implemented in 2022 that will allow the public to
assess the improvements without increasing the impact throughout the core and minimizing
infrastructure modifications needed within the initial steps.
The Galena corridor was selected as the initial Safety in the Core study corridor for the following
reasons:
Currently a one-way street,
Continuity of businesses type along the corridor,
Greatest room for improvement due to head-in parking on both sides of the street,
Existing transit routes,
Identified in the Downtown Enhancement Pedestrian Project (DEPP) and the Pedestrian
and Bicycle Masterplan as a barrier to connectivity and called out for widened pedestrian
corridors.
Contains intersections that include heavy pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle interactions.
Figure 1. City of Aspen Downtown Core + Galena Corridor
53
Page 4 of 11
To increase safety within the entire corridor, Figure 2 below shows the beginning steps for
improvement to the Galena to Cooper corridor. This concept includes the modification of the
corridor cross-section to convert all head-in parking to parallel parking on both sides of the street.
By converting head-in parking to parallel parking the vehicle/bicycle conflicts are significantly
reduced as parallel parked cars have improved sight lines for pulling out of parking spaces. In this
concept, cyclists traveling the direction of traffic flow share the vehicular lane in a similar fashion
to the bikeways outside the core. Cyclists traveling against traffic in the northern direction utilize
a protected counter-flow bikeway. Vehicular travel on Galena Street will remain the same as the
current state. Safe, clear, and dedicated space for all users is provided and enhanced in this
concept.
Parking Impacts:
This parking configuration impacts a total of 44 parking spaces of 86 total parking spaces
in this corridor (51%) or 7% of spaces in the core.
The Galena loading zone and Cooper loading zone will be reassigned to the opposite sides
of the street.
One ADA parking space, one official vehicle (police) space on Galena and the two
taxi/hotel loading zone spaces on Cooper Ave will be redesignated in the corridor.
Parking Financial Impacts:
The annual parking revenue impact by this concept on Galena St is $149,500 for 23
spaces.
The annual parking revenue impact for this concept on Cooper Ave is $147,000 for 21
parking spaces.
TOTAL parking revenue impact for 44 spaces = $296,500/year.
Figure 2. Galena Corridor
54
Page 5 of 11
In addition to the modifications of the street corridor outlined above, staff recommends
modifications to the turning motions allowable at the intersection of Galena and Hyman, adjacent
to the Ute Mountaineer. The Figure 3 below shows the proposed turning motions for this
intersection.
Figure 3. Galena Corridor - Turning Motions
This modification to the corridor removes the left-turn from Galena to Hyman, vehicles will only be
permitted to travel south on Galena. By removing the left-turn option allows drivers to focus solely
on pedestrians traveling east-west, across Galena St, instead of watching the east-west and
north-south cross walks of this intersection. This simplifies the intersection and removes potential
for conflict. With the removal of the left-turn on Galena, Hyman can become a one-way street,
traveling east to west, from Hunter to Galena, as shown on the graphic above.
Intersection improvements are also incorporated in the above corridor improvements. The
improvements that have been discussed and supported in previous work sessions are curb
extensions to decrease the crosswalk width, decrease the length of time pedestrians spend in the
flow of vehicular traffic, improve sight lines, and overall facilitate safer interactions. These
improvements were implemented and tested in a temporary condition at the intersection of Spring
St and Cooper Ave, adjacent to City Market per Council’s direction during the July 2020 work
session. The intent of this temporary project, shown below in Figure 4, was to understand if the
modified layout with curb extensions improved safety of the intersection and if so, use this layout
as a template that could be installed at other intersections in town that receive similar vehicular,
pedestrian and bicycle traffic volumes to provide consistent, predictable interactions throughout
town.
55
Page 6 of 11
Figure 4. Spring and Cooper Temporary Intersection Improvement Project
While this temporary improvement project was installed, Council directed staff to study the
impacts of curb extensions at the intersection of Spring St and Cooper Ave to verify these
measures increase the safety of interactions before it can be used as a template or permanently
implemented. Staff collected interaction data in July 2019 and July 2021 to compare the
differences between the living lab and prior conditions. Below are the results of the living lab at
Spring St and Cooper Ave. Figure 5 below, shows the intersection layout.
Figure 5. Spring and Cooper Intersection
Vehicle – Stop Sign Interactions: Figure 6 below shows the following results for vehicle – stop
sign interactions on the East and West sides of the intersection which shows an improvement of
up to 14% from the data collection in 2019 of the vehicles that completely stop at this intersection
when a temporary curb extension is in place.
56
Page 7 of 11
Figure 6. Vehicle - Stop Sign Interactions
This is an indication that a temporary curb extension increases driver visibility due to a higher
percentage of cars stopping at the stop bar and thus a 5% decrease of cars stopping in the
intersection and 6-9% decrease of vehicles not stopping at all.
Vehicle – Pedestrian Interactions: Figure 7 below shows the following patterns for pedestrian –
vehicle interactions on the North and South sides of the intersection where we saw a significant
increase in cars stopping for pedestrians.
Figure 7. Vehicle - Pedestrian Interactions
57
Page 8 of 11
This is up to 25% increase in pedestrian safety, further showing an improvement for driver visibility
as more cars stopped for pedestrians while the modifications were installed than in 2019.
In addition to collecting physical data by observing the intersection, a survey was posted on Aspen
Community Voice to collect input from the community regarding the success of this project. The
survey was posted on June 14th, 2021 and as of August 9th, 2021 47 participants had engaged
with the survey. The survey results are included in ATTACHMENT B of this memo packet. The
feedback received was mixed, however this survey does show support for implementing
permanent improvements that do not include the bollards or the planters but something visually
aesthetic instead.
Based on these results, the intersection is seeing improved compliance at the existing stop signs.
Staff recommends permanent implementation of the curb extensions with four-way stop signs for
the greatest improvement of safety at the Spring St and Cooper Ave intersection. Due to the heavy
vehicle and pedestrian interactions at this location, a four-way stop is warranted per code. It’s
important to understand stop signs alone will not increase the safety to the level that the
combination with the curb extensions will. The addition of a four-way stop does not minimize the
crosswalk length, provide better visual sight lines, or identification for both pedestrians and
vehicles. Staff continues to recommend this permanent solution based on the data collected and
the success of projects like this in town (spring and main, gondola plaza). The permanent design
will be presented to Council at a later date and coordinated with Parks, Streets, Engineering, etc.
During the July 2020 Work session where Council directed staff to temporarily implement these
improvements, Council requested that staff explore ways to provide consistency for all users at
the intersections in the core. This living lab was considered successful and therefore could be
installed at other core intersections. Staff is proposing this layout to the following specific
intersections within the Galena corridor:
Galena & Hopkins – City Hall
Galena & Hyman – Ute Mountaineer
Galena & Cooper – Paradise Bakery
Cooper & Hunter – Skye Gallery
Mitigation Plan: This project requires partnerships between many City of Aspen departments
such as Engineering, Parking, Transportation, Parks, and Police. Staff members, from these
departments, met to discuss innovative solutions for mitigating the parking and connectivity
implications these concepts introduce. See below for a discussion on these mitigation techniques.
Parking Mitigation Techniques: There is a total of 682 parking spaces within the commercial core
area, shown below in Figure 8 by the orange shaded polygon. Engineering partnered with Parking
to determine approaches for increasing parking availability in the downtown core. These options
are listed below:
1. Option 1: Reclassify parking spaces, either currently in the commercial core area or
adjacent to the core boundary, from residential parking spaces (residential parking fees
apply) to core parking spaces (core parking fees apply). Examples of these locations are
listed below and shown in Figure 8. The inclusion of these areas in the downtown core
parking inventory would generate 47 new core spaces.
A. 200 Block of E Hopkins, north side of the street (Across from Francis Whitaker Park)
58
Page 9 of 11
B. 300 Block of S Monarch, east side of the street (across from the Limelight)
C. 300 Block of E Durant Ave, south side of the street (along Mountain Chalet/St Regis)
D. 400 Block of S Mill St, east side of the street, (along the Ice Rink/Hyatt Grand Aspen)
E. 400 Block of E Main St, south side of street, (along St Mary’s Church)
Figure 8. Parking Mitigation
2. Option 2: Additional programming options to increase parking availability
a. Enhance the existing valet parking program.
b. Designate pick up/drop off zones near high use areas such as pharmacies, stores,
restaurants, etc.
c. Reduce construction vehicle parking in the downtown core.
d. Identify additional parking areas to be included in the downtown core parking
boundary or where new spaces can be created.
Transportation Mitigation Techniques: Below are examples of ways to enhance the existing transit
and connectivity methods in Aspen’s downtown core as well as introducing new techniques to
assist our community, tourists, and workforce navigate through the core.
1. Option 1: Increase the Galena Street Shuttle service to include the summer season. The
shuttle route provides service from the garage to the downtown core utilizing Galena Street.
This service currently operates only in the winter due to previous budget reductions that
curtailed the original winter/summer schedule.
By reimplementing the summer-time service of this route, users of the Rio Grande Parking
Garage will gain a convenient, consistent shuttle service to the downtown core. There are
improvements to the existing route that could be explored to make this more efficient and
convenient such as a shorter “headway” or length of time it takes the shuttle to return to
that same location, additional bus stop locations for pickup/drop off and service later into
the evening.
59
Page 10 of 11
Estimated costs: $130,000 - $230,000 depending on hours of service and assuming driver
availability. (Note: Increasing frequency on the Hunter Creek bus route during peak season
is a high priority item in the Short-Range Transit Plan. Adding summer Galena Street
service would provide that recommended service to a good portion of Hunter Creek riders.)
2. Option 2: A second option could be to utilize existing Downtowner service or similar on-
demand car service. This service already exists and serves both the garage and the core
however staff could explore means for enhancing this program, such as ensuring shorter
wait times for service to/from the garage by providing a dedicated shuttle vehicle for a
garage to core route (vehicle to door and door to vehicle). Additional service hours could
also be considered.
Estimated costs: Dependent upon type of service improvements desired.
Public Input: Council requested staff to gather initial input from the community, including Aspen
Chamber Resort Association (ACRA), and citizens. The first steps in staff’s outreach efforts
included a survey on Aspen Community Voice (ACV), and meetings with the following groups:
three ACRA board members, business owners along the Galena corridor, and stakeholders. The
community was invited to provide their questions or comments on the topic and take an online
questionnaire.
Attachment A included with this memo shows the responses from the Aspen Community Voice
survey. Main takeaways:
92 community members engaged with this survey.
The primary mode of navigating the core is as a pedestrian, at 50% of survey respondents,
second most popular mode of transportation is by bicycle, at 31% of respondents and lastly
16% primarily drive. This corridor is vehicle-centric however the modes of transportation
used are mixed.
While 50% of the survey respondents are primarily pedestrians in the downtown core,
nearly 60% of the respondents drive in the core as well.
There is a high level of safety concerns from all transportation users while navigating the
downtown core – the majority of pedestrians, cyclists and drivers feel somewhat unsafe or
unsafe in the core (38% of pedestrians, 63% of cyclists and 51% of drivers).
88% of survey respondents support testing incremental temporary changes as a pilot
projects in the core that are designed to improve pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle safety.
84% of respondents support installing improvements if parking impacts are also addressed.
A common theme from the comments is that there are many distractions for drivers,
cyclists, and pedestrians to navigate safely.
If Council directs staff to proceed with implementing and testing improvements along the Galena
corridor, a more robust public outreach program will be developed with the expertise of the
Communications Department. The next steps in the engagement process will follow the
conversation and Council's direction at the August 23 Work Session. Staff plans to build on their
foundational engagement work and continue community conversations about their desired safety
and mobility results in the City's downtown core. Additional outreach may include pop-up events,
different focus groups, a public meeting, and a follow-up questionnaire for idea refinement as
needed.
60
Page 11 of 11
FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Staff will fully assess financial impacts after receiving Council’s direction
during the August 23rd work session. Staff has included estimated costs for the implementation of
a temporary project Spring 2022. A final cost estimate will be presented to Council for consent
after receiving approval to proceed.
2022 Initial Costs:
Striping $15,000
Protected Bike Lanes $18,000
Signage $5,000
Temporary Design $22,500
TOTAL $60,500
Additional funding will be required for Parking and Transportation based on Council direction.
Funding equal to $150,000 for this project was appropriated within the 2022 Asset Management
Plan Fund budget, under project 51440: Downtown Core Pedestrian Safety.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Implementing improvements for pedestrians and cyclists will not
only improve the safety and mobility aspects of the core for all users, but it is anticipated that a
more balanced approach to corridors will reduce the carbon footprint of the City as biking and
walking within the core become more safe, convenient, and equitable.
ALTERNATIVES: Alternative corridors could be selected in the core to test safety and mobility
improvements.
RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends Council approve temporary modifications to the ROW
cross section along the Galena corridor to provide safe, dedicated, and consistent (predictable)
space for all users in the core and to test the success of these measures.
ATTACHMENT A – Safety and Mobility in the Downtown Core Aspen Community Voice Survey
Results
ATTACHMENT B – Spring and Cooper Living Lab Aspen Community Voice Survey Results
ATTACHMENT C – ACRA member meeting notes
61
Project Report
06 August 2021 - 16 August 2021
Aspen Community Voice
Safety & Mobility in the Downtown Core Project
Highlights
TOTAL
VISITS
393
MAX VISITORS PER
DAY
248
NEW
REGISTRATI
ONS
3
ENGAGED
VISITORS
101
INFORMED
VISITORS
218
AWARE
VISITORS
344
Aware Participants 344
Aware Actions Performed Participants
Visited a Project or Tool Page 344
Informed Participants 218
Informed Actions Performed Participants
Viewed a video 0
Viewed a photo 0
Downloaded a document 2
Visited the Key Dates page 0
Visited an FAQ list Page 0
Visited Instagram Page 0
Visited Multiple Project Pages 117
Contributed to a tool (engaged)101
Engaged Participants 101
Engaged Actions Performed
Registered Unverified Anonymous
Contributed on Forums 0 0 0
Participated in Surveys 92 0 0
Contributed to Newsfeeds 0 0 0
Participated in Quick Polls 0 0 0
Posted on Guestbooks 0 0 0
Contributed to Stories 0 0 0
Asked Questions 12 3 0
Placed Pins on Places 0 0 0
Contributed to Ideas 0 0 0
Visitors Summary
Pageviews Visitors
8 Aug '21 10 Aug '21 12 Aug '21 14 Aug '21 16 Aug '21
500
1000
62
Tool Type
Engagement Tool Name Tool Status Visitors
Registered Unverified Anonymous
Contributors
Qanda Questions Published 81 12 3 0
Survey Tool Safety & Mobility in the Downtown Core
Questionnaire
Archived 177 92 0 0
Aspen Community Voice : Summary Report for 06 August 2021 to 16 August 2021
ENGAGEMENT TOOLS SUMMARY
0
FORUM TOPICS
1
SURVEYS
0
NEWS FEEDS
0
QUICK POLLS
0
GUEST BOOKS
0
STORIES
1
Q&A S
0
PLACES
0
IDEAS
Page 2 of 13 63
Widget Type Engagement Tool Name Visitors Views/Downloads
Document 06.18.2021 | Memo to Council for June 21 Work Session 2 2
Document 07.14.2021 | Informational Memo to Council 1 1
Aspen Community Voice : Summary Report for 06 August 2021 to 16 August 2021
INFORMATION WIDGET SUMMARY
2
DOCUMENTS
0
PHOTOS
0
VIDEOS
0
FAQS
0
KEY DATES
Page 3 of 13 64
Visitors 81 Contributors 15 CONTRIBUTIONS 15
Aspen Community Voice : Summary Report for 06 August 2021 to 16 August 2021
QANDA
Questions
Page 4 of 13 65
Safety & Mobility in the Core
Aspen Community Voice Comments
# DATE RECEIVED COMMENT CONTENTS
1 08-09-21 Make every intersection in the core a 4 way stop and make stop signs
more visible by suspending them over the road. Stop signs are very
hard to see because of trees, parked cars, etc. If every intersection was
a 4 way stop, it would be safer for pedestrians. It would slow down
drivers in the core and give them less incentive to drive in the core.
2 08-09-21 Please start treating people on bicycles as vehicles and making them
respect the rules of the road. Years ago when it was decided that
bicycles do not have to stop at stop signs was the beginning of the
demise! I use my bike almost exclusively to get in and out of town for
shopping, banking and work. It is horrific to see what the bicyclist do!
They blast through stop signs, pass on the left side of traffic, right on
sidewalks! This needs to stop and somehow we need to start enforcing
these rules!
3 08-09-21 Pedestrian safety would be improved if the crosswalks had warning
lights in the pavement. One manufacturer is
https://www.tapconet.com/product/in-road-warning-light-system
4 08-09-21 Safety starts with enforcement of intersection crossing,and j-walking. If
pedestrians can do whatever they want what are drivers to do?
5 08-09-21 Bike rental companies should have educate customers better about
town bike safety. Such as, using a bell or their voice when passing
pedestrians. This is a real problem at 8th and Hallam where bikes share
sidewalk with pedestrians. All rental bikes must be equipped with a
horn or bell. E bikes can go very fast. It is only a matter of time before
we see more accidents.
6 08-09-21 How long will restaurants and other downtown businesses be allowed
to use public right-of-ways for their private purposes? I was under the
impression that expansion into public space was for a limited time, but
have not seen plans to end this incursion. In addition to fairness issues
(some get these spaces, others don't) some 'temporary' structures
block sight-lines and create traffic safety problems. Can you tell the
public when these eyesores will be eliminated?
Publicly Answered: The last day for permitted street activation is
currently October, 31, 2021. The presentation on August 23 is to review
the option to improve the safety for pedestrians, cyclists, and vehicles; it
will not focus on activation within the ROW. Staff is proceeding with
Council for direction at a work session scheduled in September to
discuss the future for any activation.
7 08-09-21 Why can’t the bicycle shops instruct bicyclists NOT TO RIDE ON THE
SIDEWALK? I was confronted yesterday by several e-biking families.
8 08-09-21
The city really needs to enforce the traffic and safety laws with bike
riders. I see them everyday ignore stop signs, bolting in between cars
on to the street. Especially in the West End and in the Core.
66
9 08-09-21 I have sent many emails to Council in the past few years regarding this
issue. NOTHING has changed. Making a street one way is not going to
change anything, bikers don't care about one way streets! I don't
understand the mentality of this town, they make a big deal about
making a street one way, like that is going to change anything? Why not
close a couple of the street downtown? Many towns across the world
are closing their core to cars and are doing great (Florence, IT. is one of
them). One street that can be closed is Galena from City Hall to
Paradise Bakery, then to old Boogies building. That street has had two
major accidents and all cars do is drive around looking for parking
space. Bikes go the wrong way and now with e-bikes, there will be
more cause for concern. Maybe start small but this town is now
impossible to ride your bike. Now when I want to do an errand, I walk
because biking is too dangerous and not fun any more. Basically, this
town is not fun any more.
10 08-09-21 The city really needs to enforce the traffic and safety laws with bike
riders. I see them everyday ignore stop signs, bolting in between cars
on to the street. Especially in the West End and in the Core.
11 08-09-21 Safety in the Downtown Core. Thank you for attempting to address this.
It is crucial and essential to our lives. Everyday I see bicyclists in droves
going the WRONG WAY since this has become a one way street. That
"fix" is not working. The news of little girl who was struck by a car and
killed was nearly a block away to the Paradise corner. Speaking of
Paradise corner, another vehicle hopped up on the brick there too but
on the other side of the street .... it is just a matter of time before the
new blood and and influx of people now deemed a part of our
community who are out enjoying their stroll are going to feel the brunt
of vehicular idiocracy. There are so many gawkers and sandwich boards
on the tight sidewalks that even the average pedestrian or local on a
time crunch hoping to catch a bus home is forced to bleed into the
street to pass people who are window shopping or generally standing
around on the sidewalk. My adolescent asks me daily (seeking
independence) if she can "go into town" "walk around town" - um, no
thanks. Please alleviate traffic out of the core as much as possible.
Show support for foot traffic. Develop an intuitive plan for deliveries.
Care about NOT caring about the fancy Bugatti and Rolls-Royces parked
close to the 5 star Michelin restaurant someone got reservations for
months in advance. Parking revenue streams are not worth our lives.
12 08-09-21 Why does this project limit it's scope to the core? Cyclists and walkers
need to get to the core from other areas of Aspen. In particular, the
pedestrian through-way on Hopkins is extremely dangerous and
burdensome for cyclists with the intersection of Hopkins with S Aspen,
S Garmisch, and S 1st street. If Aspen wants to consider itself a bike-
friendly town, it has a long way to go.
Publicly Answered: The core has been identified by the Pedestrian and
Bicycle Master Plan as a barrier for connectivity for pedestrians and
cyclists. In order to address the connectivity barrier, safe dedicated
space for all users needs to be provided. The City works to improve
bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure throughout town, the core is the
67
focus of this project, and will include improvements to some key
intersections. We are working on other connectivity projects in
town that focus on providing safe routing into the core such as the Lake
Ave pedestrian bikeway and a project in the Park and Midland Ave
neighborhoods. Pedestrian and bicycle improvement projects occur
incrementally by working with and gaining support from the community
and Council.
12 08-09-21 I fully support improving the pedestrian and bicycle experience in the
core. Hopkins should have moved forward as envisioned for cyclists and
pedestrians. I think at this time with the desire for more outdoor dining
areas this could be revisited. Less cars and more pedestrian friendly
areas are a plus for the dynamic of this community. Better
thoroughfares for cyclists in the core to get around the pedestrian malls
and heavy motor traffic areas. Galena should have 2 way bike row
between Hopkins and Cooper as well as on Cooper between Galena and
Hunter. 1 way streets don't necessarily improve the pedestrian
experience but definitely make it harder to cycle through town.
13 08-09-21 I feel we need to take back the parking spaces and right of way the
restaurants were allowed to use, they’re a big problem with sight lines
and create more traffic flow problems. E bikes are also a huge problem
Int he core area. Honestly I don’t do any business in town anymore,
after you suffer the traffic, trying to park for $6, try not to collide with
anyone, it’s not worth the hassle. I consolidate all my trips into a one or
two and head mid valley.On another note could we stop using the word
“VITALITY” in our project language, we a re way past needing anymore
“vitality”.
14 08-10-21 I am a local drivers ed instructor and am driving through the core all of
the time with students so I drive with a lens of observation safety, and
concern all of the time. I have so many suggestions and outlining them
here may not work due to space. Some are very easy and maybe not
too costly… others are more disruptive.
Privately Answered: I've forwarded your comment onto the project
manager, PJ Murray. She indicated she'd also received a direct email
from you. She will follow-up with you directly through the email you
provided there.
15 08-10-21 I know this isn't the Core, but...Why won't the City and County return
the speed limit to 25 mph going east out of town past City Market? It
changes to 35 mph at Cleveland Street, well within city limits. This is a
high density area, with pedestrians and bicycles trying to cross the
street or enter traffic. Nowhere else in town is 35 mph allowed.
Publicly Answered: Speed limit signs do not influence driver speeds
rather roadway geometry, vehicle type and driver characteristics.
Speed limit signs are based on speed studies that take these factors into
consideration. Based on the Speed Studies done for this stretch of
highway CDOT has determined that the speed limit needs to be 35 mph.
In order to lower the speeds on this roadway, the roadway geometry
would need to change.
68
Visitors 177 Contributors 92 CONTRIBUTIONS 92
Aspen Community Voice : Summary Report for 06 August 2021 to 16 August 2021
ENGAGEMENT TOOL: SURVEY TOOL
Safety & Mobility in the Downtown Core Questionnaire
Please select the option(s) that best describes you.
72 (78.3%)
72 (78.3%)
3 (3.3%)
3 (3.3%)
11 (12.0%)
11 (12.0%)
2 (2.2%)
2 (2.2%)4 (4.3%)
4 (4.3%)
Aspen Resident Aspen Business Owner Commuter Visitor Other (please specify)
Question options
Page 7 of 13
Mandatory Question (92 response(s))
Question type: Radio Button Question
69
Aspen Community Voice : Summary Report for 06 August 2021 to 16 August 2021
What is your primary transportation modality that you use to navigate through the
downtown core?
15 (16.3%)
15 (16.3%)
29 (31.5%)
29 (31.5%)
46 (50.0%)
46 (50.0%)
2 (2.2%)
2 (2.2%)
Car Bicycle Pedestrian - Walking Other (please specify)
Question options
Page 8 of 13
Mandatory Question (92 response(s))
Question type: Radio Button Question
70
Aspen Community Voice : Summary Report for 06 August 2021 to 16 August 2021
What other modes of transportation do you use to navigate through the downtown
core (please select all that apply)?
34 (58.6%)
34 (58.6%)
2 (3.4%)
2 (3.4%)
31 (53.4%)
31 (53.4%)
29 (50.0%)
29 (50.0%)
9 (15.5%)
9 (15.5%)
Car Motorcycle Bicycle Pedestrian - Walking Other (please specify)
Question options
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Page 9 of 13
Mandatory Question (58 response(s))
Question type: Checkbox Question
71
Aspen Community Voice : Summary Report for 06 August 2021 to 16 August 2021
Taking about other vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians into consideration as you
experience traveling in the downtown core, how comfortable (or safe) do you feel
when:
22 (23.9%)
22 (23.9%)
8 (8.7%)
8 (8.7%)
12 (13.0%)
12 (13.0%)
24 (26.1%)
24 (26.1%)
13 (14.1%)
13 (14.1%)
20 (21.7%)
20 (21.7%)
10 (10.9%)
10 (10.9%)
13 (14.1%)
13 (14.1%)
12 (13.0%)
12 (13.0%)
28 (30.4%)
28 (30.4%)
33 (35.9%)
33 (35.9%)
40 (43.5%)
40 (43.5%)
8 (8.7%)
8 (8.7%)
25 (27.2%)
25 (27.2%)
8 (8.7%)
8 (8.7%)
Uncomfortable (Unsafe)
Somewhat Uncomfortable (Unsafe)
Neutral
Somewhat Comfortable (Safe)
Comfortable (Safe)
Question options
100255075
Walking
Biking
Driving
Page 10 of 13
Mandatory Question (92 response(s))
Question type: Likert Question
72
Aspen Community Voice : Summary Report for 06 August 2021 to 16 August 2021
Have you experienced an interaction with a vehicle, pedestrian, or bicycle that felt
unsafe while navigating through the downtown core?
84 (91.3%)
84 (91.3%)
8 (8.7%)
8 (8.7%)
No Yes
Question options
Page 11 of 13
Mandatory Question (92 response(s))
Question type: Radio Button Question
73
Aspen Community Voice : Summary Report for 06 August 2021 to 16 August 2021
Do you support testing changes incrementally through temporary pilot projects in the
downtown core designed to improve pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle safety?
81 (88.0%)
81 (88.0%)
9 (9.8%)
9 (9.8%)2 (2.2%)
2 (2.2%)
N/A No Yes
Question options
Page 12 of 13
Mandatory Question (92 response(s))
Question type: Radio Button Question
74
Aspen Community Voice : Summary Report for 06 August 2021 to 16 August 2021
Would you support installing improvements in the downtown core to increase safety
if consideration to potential parking impacts is also addressed
77 (83.7%)
77 (83.7%)
13 (14.1%)
13 (14.1%)2 (2.2%)
2 (2.2%)
N/A No Yes
Question options
Page 13 of 13
Mandatory Question (92 response(s))
Question type: Radio Button Question
75
Safety & Mobility in the
Downtown Core
Questionnaire
SURVEY RESPONSE REPORT
06 August 2021 - 16 August 2021
PROJECT NAME:
Safety & Mobility in the Downtown Core Project
76
REGISTRATION QUESTIONS
Safety & Mobility in the Downtown Core Questionnaire : Survey Report for 06 August 2021 to 16 August 2021
Page 1 of 38
77
Q1 Please enter your zip code and wait for the drop down menu to locate your zip code and
then click on the correct entry. If you do not wait for the drop down menu, you will get an error
message.
78 (84.8%)
78 (84.8%)
4 (4.3%)
4 (4.3%)3 (3.3%)
3 (3.3%)3 (3.3%)
3 (3.3%)2 (2.2%)
2 (2.2%)1 (1.1%)
1 (1.1%)1 (1.1%)
1 (1.1%)
Aspen, CO 81611 Basalt, CO 81621 Aspen, CO 81612 Carbondale, CO 81623 El Jebel, CO 81623
Aspen-Gerbaz, CO 81611 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Question options
Mandatory Question (92 response(s))
Question type: Region Question
Safety & Mobility in the Downtown Core Questionnaire : Survey Report for 06 August 2021 to 16 August 2021
Page 2 of 38
78
Question type: Region Question
Safety & Mobility in the Downtown Core Questionnaire : Survey Report for 06 August 2021 to 16 August 2021
Page 3 of 38
79
Q2 Age
18 (19.6%)
18 (19.6%)
45 (48.9%)
45 (48.9%)
21 (22.8%)
21 (22.8%)
8 (8.7%)
8 (8.7%)0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
19 - 29 30 - 49 50 - 64 65 +18 and under
Question options
Mandatory Question (92 response(s))
Question type: Radio Button Question
Safety & Mobility in the Downtown Core Questionnaire : Survey Report for 06 August 2021 to 16 August 2021
Page 4 of 38
80
Q3 Gender
39 (43.3%)
39 (43.3%)
51 (56.7%)
51 (56.7%)
Male Female
Question options
Optional question (90 response(s), 2 skipped)
Question type: Radio Button Question
Safety & Mobility in the Downtown Core Questionnaire : Survey Report for 06 August 2021 to 16 August 2021
Page 5 of 38
81
SURVEY QUESTIONS
Safety & Mobility in the Downtown Core Questionnaire : Survey Report for 06 August 2021 to 16 August 2021
Page 6 of 38
82
Q1 Please select the option(s) that best describes you.
72 (78.3%)
72 (78.3%)
3 (3.3%)
3 (3.3%)
11 (12.0%)
11 (12.0%)
2 (2.2%)
2 (2.2%)4 (4.3%)
4 (4.3%)
Aspen Resident Aspen Business Owner Commuter Visitor Other (please specify)
Question options
Mandatory Question (92 response(s))
Question type: Radio Button Question
Safety & Mobility in the Downtown Core Questionnaire : Survey Report for 06 August 2021 to 16 August 2021
Page 7 of 38
83
Q2 What is your primary transportation modality that you use to navigate through the
downtown core?
15 (16.3%)
15 (16.3%)
29 (31.5%)
29 (31.5%)
46 (50.0%)
46 (50.0%)
2 (2.2%)
2 (2.2%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
Car Bicycle Pedestrian - Walking Other (please specify)Motorcycle
Pedestrian - Mobility Aid (e.g., wheelchair, walker, etc.)
Question options
Mandatory Question (92 response(s))
Question type: Radio Button Question
Safety & Mobility in the Downtown Core Questionnaire : Survey Report for 06 August 2021 to 16 August 2021
Page 8 of 38
84
Q3 What other modes of transportation do you use to navigate through the downtown core
(please select all that apply)?
34 (58.6%)
34 (58.6%)
2 (3.4%)
2 (3.4%)
31 (53.4%)
31 (53.4%)
29 (50.0%)
29 (50.0%)
9 (15.5%)
9 (15.5%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
Car Motorcycle Bicycle Pedestrian - Walking Other (please specify)
Pedestrian - MObility Aid (e.g., wheelchair, walker, etc.)
Question options
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Mandatory Question (58 response(s))
Question type: Checkbox Question
Safety & Mobility in the Downtown Core Questionnaire : Survey Report for 06 August 2021 to 16 August 2021
Page 9 of 38
85
Q4 Taking about other vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians into consideration as you
experience traveling in the downtown core, how comfortable (or safe) do you feel when:
22 (23.9%)
22 (23.9%)
8 (8.7%)
8 (8.7%)
12 (13.0%)
12 (13.0%)
24 (26.1%)
24 (26.1%)
13 (14.1%)
13 (14.1%)
20 (21.7%)
20 (21.7%)
10 (10.9%)
10 (10.9%)
13 (14.1%)
13 (14.1%)
12 (13.0%)
12 (13.0%)
28 (30.4%)
28 (30.4%)
33 (35.9%)
33 (35.9%)
40 (43.5%)
40 (43.5%)
8 (8.7%)
8 (8.7%)
25 (27.2%)
25 (27.2%)
8 (8.7%)
8 (8.7%)
Uncomfortable (Unsafe)
Somewhat Uncomfortable (Unsafe)
Neutral
Somewhat Comfortable (Safe)
Comfortable (Safe)
Question options
20 40 60 80 100
Walking
Biking
Driving
Mandatory Question (92 response(s))
Question type: Likert Question
Safety & Mobility in the Downtown Core Questionnaire : Survey Report for 06 August 2021 to 16 August 2021
Page 10 of 38
86
Q4 Taking about other vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians into consideration
as you experience traveling in the downtown core, how comfortable (or safe) do
you feel when:
Walking
Safety & Mobility in the Downtown Core Questionnaire : Survey Report for 06 August 2021 to 16 August 2021
Page 11 of 38
87
Comfortable (Safe) : 22
Somewhat Comfortable (Safe) : 24
Neutral : 10
Somewhat Uncomfortable (Unsafe) : 28
Uncomfortable (Unsafe) : 8
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Safety & Mobility in the Downtown Core Questionnaire : Survey Report for 06 August 2021 to 16 August 2021
Page 12 of 38
88
Comfortable (Safe) : 8
Somewhat Comfortable (Safe) : 13
Neutral : 13
Somewhat Uncomfortable (Unsafe) : 33
Uncomfortable (Unsafe) : 25
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Biking
Safety & Mobility in the Downtown Core Questionnaire : Survey Report for 06 August 2021 to 16 August 2021
Page 13 of 38
89
Comfortable (Safe) : 12
Somewhat Comfortable (Safe) : 20
Neutral : 12
Somewhat Uncomfortable (Unsafe) : 40
Uncomfortable (Unsafe) : 8
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Driving
Safety & Mobility in the Downtown Core Questionnaire : Survey Report for 06 August 2021 to 16 August 2021
Page 14 of 38
90
Q5 Have you experienced an interaction with a vehicle, pedestrian, or bicycle that felt unsafe
while navigating through the downtown core?
84 (91.3%)
84 (91.3%)
8 (8.7%)
8 (8.7%)
No Yes
Question options
Mandatory Question (92 response(s))
Question type: Radio Button Question
Safety & Mobility in the Downtown Core Questionnaire : Survey Report for 06 August 2021 to 16 August 2021
Page 15 of 38
91
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 01:27 AM
While biking vehicles have gotten too close and been going too
fast. While driving, other vehicles are still too close and going too
fast and not stopping for pedestrians.
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 05:37 AM
SUV drivers blindly backing out of parking
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 07:01 AM
Parked cars pulling out at you
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 07:09 AM
Every day during this crazy summer. Tourists walk into the street
without looking. I feel most unsafe on my bike going from East
Aspen to the trail system.
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 07:17 AM
People are driving through stop signs and lights constantly and
than flip you off as you are crossing the street. Absolutely no
repercussions. The city wants us to not use our cars, but does
nothing to keep us safe. The exiles and bikes are even worse than
the cars. They think they always have the right away.
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 07:19 AM
Vehicles do not see or look for bikes. I often encounter hotel
shuttles idling in the middle of the road that I have to go around
unsafely. Cars take left turns without looking for oncoming bikes.
Cars creep into intersections only looking the direction of vehicle
traffic, not looking for pedestrians.
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 07:33 AM
East and west traffic (stop signs) think that north and south traffic
has stop signs so they pull out in front of you.
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 07:34 AM
Too many eBikes and one wheels not paying attention to the
pedestrian mall rules of no bikes, and not paying attention to stop
signs.
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 07:37 AM
I was driving at the time, slowly because of ice, westbound on
restaurant row. No more than 10 mph. From in between two cars
Q6 If you answered yes to Question #6, please share what occurred that made you feel
uncomfortable (unsafe)
Safety & Mobility in the Downtown Core Questionnaire : Survey Report for 06 August 2021 to 16 August 2021
Page 16 of 38
92
parked parallel, out came a baby carriage with the mother pushing
it without looking in either direction, only straight ahead. I slammed
my brakes, locking them up and skidding on the ice, nearly side-
swiping one of the parked cars on my right. The woman stopped,
looked at me, and wagged her finger. It was unreal.
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 07:41 AM
I've been hit 2 x by cars on my bike and have avoided many close
calls with cars.
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 07:49 AM
Almost every time I walk or drive downtown (which is 4-5 times per
week) I nearly hit a pedestrian or are nearly hit by a car when I'm
walking. The street crossings feel poorly marked and there's low
visibility on most corners because of so much street parking. To
make matters worse, tourists are looking around and at their
phones rather than at the road and cars. Everyone I know talks
about the lack of safety in the downtown.
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 08:03 AM
Car backing up when biking on street in designated bike area.
Also, there should be 4-way stop on corner of Copper/Spring - too
many potential accidents there.
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 08:14 AM
Constant string of e-bikes riding wrong way on one way section of
Galena Street. Also e-bikes going wrong way on bike lane near
Original Curve, often.
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 08:21 AM
Cars don't stop at stop signs, they don't see pedestrians and
certainly don't see bicycles.
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 08:25 AM
Speeding ebike almost hit me
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 08:28 AM
Drivers not stopping or looking, drivers speeding, bicycles not
paying attention, or swerving unnecessarily, pedestrians crossing
without looking, or not near crosswalks. I think the entrance to the
Hopkins Pedway where it crosses S. Aspen Street is especially
dangerous. The e-bike phenomenon has really exacerbated
problems in my opinion. It seems pretty obvious the cyclists who
can flow with traffic and those who are more of a risk to everyone
else around them.... I think the bike lane in green on Mill Street has
really helped and I feel much safer there than I did before. I also
think that drivers see and tend to abide by that much more than
Safety & Mobility in the Downtown Core Questionnaire : Survey Report for 06 August 2021 to 16 August 2021
Page 17 of 38
93
they do on other streets.
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 08:31 AM
Vehicles not aware of my presence while crossing intersections as
a pedestrian. As a biker it’s very difficult crossing town. Watching
for pedestrians and vehicles like a dangerous game of “whack-a-
mole”!
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 08:35 AM
Vehicles driving through the core not following the speed limits or
stopping for those in crosswalks. Bikers on the road not following
the rules of the road.
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 08:40 AM
More than one near-miss with cars and bicycles in the downtown
area.
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 08:48 AM
People don't follow the rules of the road and/or traffic signals.
Bikers and walkers think they have the right of way , no matter
what. They do not.
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 08:50 AM
Vehicles not being on high enough alert to pedestrians when they
are crossing in a crosswalk. Vehicles not being aware of their
surroundings to bikes/ pedestrians in the downtown core.
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 08:53 AM
It happens almost every day walking to my office
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 09:07 AM
people walk into the street without looking and cars ignore stop
signs
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 09:16 AM
I am a community member that rides a bike through the downtown
core 99% of the weekdays throughout the entire year. I have
uncomfortable interactions with vehicles on a daily basis. Vehicles
frequently stop at stop signs that are not present (on streets that
run North/South) to let bikers go, those same vehicles frequently
do NOT stop at stop signs when traveling East/West through the
downtown core. This behavior is typical year round. The usual
suspects are people with large vehicles that are registered out of
state. MOre often than not the driver is not 100% focused on
operating the vehicle and is distracted (texting, phone use, talking,
etc.).
Safety & Mobility in the Downtown Core Questionnaire : Survey Report for 06 August 2021 to 16 August 2021
Page 18 of 38
94
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 09:18 AM
I was crossing Galena as a pedestrian at the crosswalk. A car
missed running me over by centimeters, had I not stopped walking.
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 09:27 AM
Either Allow auto traffic to flow or block off streets. It’s too in
between now
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 09:48 AM
While biking having a car try to pass me on restaurant row. It was
very busy at the time and I had enough to worry about with cars
pulling out of their parking spaces and people jaywalking.
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 09:57 AM
I am nearly hit by cars running stop signs and/or driving the wrong
way down one way roads EVERY DAY walking around town. It is
shocking to me how many people do not stop for the stop signs or
notice the one way signs. What's more frustrating, is that we don't
have enough APD presence to force people to actually pay
attention.
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 10:01 AM
General lack of attention, use of hand-held cellphones, speed have
impacted crossing at Clark's Market in spite of crossing signal.
Same for other crosswalks.
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 10:14 AM
Biking downtown is becoming next to impossible.
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 10:47 AM
On multiple occasions, while riding my bike, vehicles are nearly
backed into me while backing out of a parking spot. While walking,
I have found that the wide streets and intersections have allowed
vehicles to drive dangerously fast. It often feels that I don't have
enough time to cross a street before a vehicle approaches.
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 10:56 AM
There have been multiple occasions where pedestrians don't
understand that on ice I cannot stop as easily in a car and they
walk in front of me before I have come to a complete stop. I have
had the same experience from the opposite perspective, being a
pedestrian that is not confident that a car will stop.
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 11:01 AM
Walking and biking Pedestrians are everywhere and don’t have
any respect for vehicles. Or the normal rules of the road. They
Safety & Mobility in the Downtown Core Questionnaire : Survey Report for 06 August 2021 to 16 August 2021
Page 19 of 38
95
have been given the ability by our local government to do what ever
they want and it needs to stop
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 11:14 AM
Folks rolling through stop signs, not paying attention while pulling
out of a parking space, not following the rules of the road in
general.
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 11:15 AM
Car not stopping at stop bar or yielding to pedestrians
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 11:16 AM
At intersections in the core, on any mode of transportation, it is
very difficult to see when it is safe to cross! The curb extensions in
town definitely help. I've also witnessed many bikers assume
vehicles will stop for them, even when the vehicle has the right of
way or the bike has a stop sign, the bikers often act as though they
"rule" the streets.
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 11:31 AM
Bikes riding against traffic, not lowing aware of their surroundings
and thinking they always have right of way
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 11:34 AM
Many cyclists do not acknowledge stop signs or follow the laws of
traffic as they relate to turning. In addition, many cyclists ride in the
center of traffic lanes as opposed to at the edges. Pedestrians do
not always use crosswalks and can often be seen standing in the
middle of Galena to take photos with Ajax in the background.
Pedestrians do not look both ways before stepping out in front of
cars.
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 11:34 AM
While waiting to cross main street at Galena a car went through the
red light and didn't even slow down. At the crosswalk at the bottom
of the "jail trail" crossing Rio Grande a car didn't stop for
pedestrians. After getting off the bus at Paepcke and crossing main
street cars often do not stop for pedestrians.
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 11:44 AM
-Cars stopping when they have the right of way (me at stop
sign/stop as yield/ie car on Spring, me on Hopkins). -Other cyclists
doing bad (stop as yield). -Pedestrians jumping out into street from
between cars. -Cars pulling out from parked without even trying to
look. -Galena: cars looking for parking; stopping, no blinker;
backing up for a spot without seeing me on a bike behind them. -
Hoards of rental ebikes are terrifying. -Cars trying to pass (me on a
Safety & Mobility in the Downtown Core Questionnaire : Survey Report for 06 August 2021 to 16 August 2021
Page 20 of 38
96
bike) within one block to next stop sign, squeezing me to parked
cars, then meeting them at the stop sign (Hopkins).
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 11:45 AM
I have been almost hit while biking or walking multiple times. Once
I was walking in a crosswalk and a motorist almost hit me. He then
yelled at me for being in his way. I have almost hit cyclists while
driving due to all the blind intersections.
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 11:49 AM
Primarily as a biker, it's the general ignorance to our local laws and
tourists being tourists, sightseeing and/or on their phones while
driving. Defensive riding is key to navigating the core safely.
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 12:56 PM
When driving people walking or on bicycles don't look both ways
before crossing the street (either on their phones or caught up in
their trips) and many other drivers do not understand the one ways
we have or where stop signs are or aren't and will assume there is
another stop sign or they can drive down all the streets and drive
where they do not have the right of way.
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 12:57 PM
Walking - people on bikes not heeding the rules of the road- ie
getting off bike in the pedestrian mall , cars turning onto main while
I am in the middle of the crosswalk when it is my time to use the
crosswalk. Riding bike- Cars cutting me off when I am obeying the
rules of the road , people not using crosswalks , people walking out
into the road from between cars using their baby stroller as a lead.
Cars - Bikes not heeding the rules , people not using crosswalks,
etc
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 01:33 PM
Bicyclists going the WRONG WAY on the ONE WAY on GALENA;
foot traffic at Paradise corner to RFTA
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 01:38 PM
I look as best I can - but other do nto. look whether they are in a
car (on the phone, etc) or on a bike. Bikes in particular have no
idea of the rules. I'll say it here and other places - you are a
moving vehicle or a pedestrian - consequently, obey the rules of
your chosen category. E,.g. - don't ride across pedestrian cross
walks; STOP at stop signs, etc
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 01:49 PM
Often cars do not stop at pedestrian crossings, and through main
street cars speed a lot.
Safety & Mobility in the Downtown Core Questionnaire : Survey Report for 06 August 2021 to 16 August 2021
Page 21 of 38
97
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 01:58 PM
Speeding drivers not yielding to pedestrians in crosswalks (Main
S), seems to be zero enforcement, pedestrians on phones in the
middle of the street, vehicles not stopping at stop signs,
bicycles/ebikes not announcing themselves, motorized vehicles
using Hopkins Ave to avoid main st traffic
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 02:15 PM
Cyclist going against the traffic on E Cooper Ave and S. Galena St
are extremely dangerous. Isn’t this illegal. Cyclist not stopping at
stop signs. Not even slowing down. This happens all the time every
single day.
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 02:37 PM
As a pedestrian, tourists in cars having trouble navigating
intersections. They stop when there is no stop sign and go through
marked stops.
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 02:51 PM
Peds not looking before entering crosswalk, cars distracted when
peds crossing, no one sees bicycles. I try to avoid downtown as
much as possible, even tho I work downtown
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 03:18 PM
Drivers are not looking for cyclists, there are too many drivers, and
there are too many intersections without stops for cars on the
pedestrian through-way, in particular the intersections of Hopkins
with S Aspen, S Garrmisch, and S 1st.
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 03:25 PM
I commute to work on Galena St every day from Castle Ridge. I am
almost hit by vehicles daily. Although I have never been hit, cars
come within inches of hitting me and I believe it is only a matter of
time before I am hit. Generally vehicles backing up do not account
for the fact there are bicyclist on the roads. Specifically the area
designated for a bike bath through the core. These streets should
have a better system to make them even more bike friendly. As a
pedestrian crossing the street is terrifying because of the street
parking. You must stick you head around the back of a car to see if
there are vehicles coming. This is scary because you must jump
back if they are coming. Crossing the street is scary because often
cars don’t see you crossing so you must get out of their way even
though you have they right away on a cross walk. Main Street
needs better cross walk lights so vehicles can actually see
pedestrians crossing.
Safety & Mobility in the Downtown Core Questionnaire : Survey Report for 06 August 2021 to 16 August 2021
Page 22 of 38
98
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 03:47 PM
Increasing instances of vehicles not giving pedestrians & cyclists
the right of way. Increased presence of cyclists full on biking on
pedestrian malls and sidewalks, not coasting and traveling short
distances but full on biking. Pedestrians not being aware and
present while in roadways.
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 04:24 PM
Nearly hit cyclist who did not observe traffic signs.
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 04:38 PM
Several times cars have too much activity to fully pay attention to
the pedestrian crossing or fail to fully stop at the intersection
because they can't see the oncoming vehicles.
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 05:22 PM
Cars not stopping when I walk across the street. Bikes swerving in
front of my car. Pedestrians coming out between cars in the middle
of the street. Pedestrians, cars and bikes stopping in the middle of
the road.
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 06:10 PM
It is very hard to see when making a turn downtown (non-all way
stops) because of the parked cars. But it is hard to edge out
because of the constant stream of pedestrians
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 08:15 PM
trying to cross Cooper/Spring. the new stripes and pole help
somewhat
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 08:41 PM
A truck was traveling too fast on Aspen street, from Main towards
Hyman. I swerved on my bike to avoid it and ended up flying over
my handlebars and hurting my shoulder (Grade 5 AC separation)
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 10:05 PM
Cars continually run stop signs in the core, park illegally, and drive
too fast. Pedestrians jay walk everywhere. Bicyclists follow some
secret rule book that no one is allowed to see.
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 10:09 PM
Everyday occurrences of e-bikes running stop signs at 20mph.
Cars not stopping at stop signs, or stopping when there isn’t a stop
sign and trying to wave you on when there is oncoming traffic. And
pedestrians who don’t look and walk across the street at non
designated walk crosses.
Safety & Mobility in the Downtown Core Questionnaire : Survey Report for 06 August 2021 to 16 August 2021
Page 23 of 38
99
Screen Name Redacted
8/10/2021 12:24 AM
A car hit my vehicle when a tourist driver ran a stop sign
Screen Name Redacted
8/10/2021 08:24 AM
Encountering intersections on a bike is terrifying. I never know if
cars see me, and if they do see me I don't know if they are going
to give me reasonable space. And then regarding biking through
corridors: If I bike along the edge of the road, I don't know if cars
see me. If I bike in the middle of the road, cars try to pass (this
happens on durant by Rubey Park especially). And then of course,
cars pulling into/out of parking are generally not cognizant of bikers
I don't think cars have any place in the core. They're a hazard to all
other users.
Screen Name Redacted
8/10/2021 08:58 AM
Driving through the core is uncomfortable. There are pedestrians
everywhere coming from every direction. When I bike through the
core there are often cars backing up of the head in parking that
can't see me and I don't see them moving until it is to the point of
slamming my brakes or swerving.
Screen Name Redacted
8/10/2021 10:02 AM
I have been passed by cars when oncoming traffic is present,
forcing me off the road. I have almost been hit by cars running stop
signs. I have almost been hit by bikes running stop signs. I've
almost been hit by cars blindly pulling out of parking spots. I have
almost been hit by cars blindly pulling into parking spots.
Pedestrians walk in the middle of the road or jump out between
cars without looking.
Screen Name Redacted
8/10/2021 10:14 AM
I mostly walk or bike and there have been many incidents of
people driving too fast or not looking where they're going that have
made me feel unsafe. It gets particularly bad when town is very
crowded, because the influx of cars and pedestrians makes it hard
to navigate safely.
Screen Name Redacted
8/10/2021 12:27 PM
Many times pedestrians are on their phones walking through
intersections or middle of the street. Cars often fail to stop fir
pedestrians. Bikes often do not follow traffic rules.
Screen Name Redacted
8/10/2021 01:54 PM
Bicycles going wrong way on streets, running stop signs. People
jay walking. The child that was hit and died was on a pedestrian
friendly corner with no curb that jutted out into the street. It gave
the parents a false sense of security, the child taught to wait at a
curb for parents to cross street did not realize the street danger
Safety & Mobility in the Downtown Core Questionnaire : Survey Report for 06 August 2021 to 16 August 2021
Page 24 of 38
100
and was in the middle of traffic before the unsuspecting driver
could react. Please consider your responsibility in that child's
death!!
Screen Name Redacted
8/10/2021 02:19 PM
Cars that don't stop at stop signs or drive erratically through the
core.
Screen Name Redacted
8/10/2021 07:13 PM
It is difficult as either a bike rider or car driver to watch out for the
other. Bikes should have the right of way at all intersections on the
ped/bike ways.
Screen Name Redacted
8/10/2021 08:25 PM
drivers not stopping or acknowledging cross walks, especially those
with flashing lights on main street (in front of police station and
original curve) almost on a daily basis; drivers speeding up coming
past the Galena stop light around the original curve. E- bikes -
families of e-bikes riding on the sidewalks and bicycles, mainly e-
bikes riding against traffic
Screen Name Redacted
8/10/2021 11:32 PM
People routinely stepping into traffic between cars without looking,
bicycles going the wrong way on the 1 way and blowing through
stop signs without even slowing nearly running into me broadside.
Screen Name Redacted
8/10/2021 11:58 PM
Tourists who do not pay attention, constantly.
Screen Name Redacted
8/11/2021 08:55 AM
Cyclists (and pedestrians) do whatever they want in this town with
no fear of retribution. They ride/walk in the middle of the road when
there is a bike path/sidewalk within 10 ft of them. Cyclists use the
pedestrian crosswalk systems to ride their bike across streets and
across the highway when they are supposed to walk it across.
Cyclists ride next to each other all over town sometimes 3 or 4 in
the street instead of single file. They are the most entitled people I
have ever come across and they have zero fear of any
consequences.
Screen Name Redacted
8/11/2021 09:30 AM
Almost got hit when i had the right of way. Not going fast either.
Screen Name Redacted
8/11/2021 04:02 PM
I feel like every time I am walking or riding someone runs a stop
sign in a hurry. I know every time is an exaggeration, but it is
Safety & Mobility in the Downtown Core Questionnaire : Survey Report for 06 August 2021 to 16 August 2021
Page 25 of 38
101
definitely often (and too frequent)
Screen Name Redacted
8/11/2021 04:13 PM
Pedestrians crossing mid-block or against the traffic signal. Cars
waiting for parking spots blocking intersections. Drivers going the
wrong way down the one-way street. Cars pulling out quickly from
alleys.
Screen Name Redacted
8/11/2021 08:30 PM
Car rolling through stop sign as I approached intersection on bike.
Driver didn't notice me until I yelled. Numerous cars have tailed me
for 3+ blocks on the Hopkins bike/ped lane while I'm biking. Biking
on Hopkins from the core headed out of town there's a hill at
Aspen or Garmisch that you go down to a stop sign. Stop signs
should be reversed to allow bikers right of way there.
Screen Name Redacted
8/12/2021 10:40 AM
Pedestrians stepping out into traffic without looking; bikes darting
out in front of oncoming traffic; people standing in the middle of the
street talking to each other or on the phone
Screen Name Redacted
8/12/2021 11:47 AM
Cars are very unaware of bikers. And in the core cars are always
driving too fast. I have had countless encounters where I felt
unsafe. People not stopping at stop signs, backing out of parking
spots, going to fast, flying by to pass me when I am going the same
speed as them etc.
Screen Name Redacted
8/14/2021 09:01 PM
A Range Rover with FL plates ran a Stop sign by City Market, hit
me and then flipped me off. This is the most serious example of
cars hitting or threatening me, a common occurrence, especially
downtown.
Screen Name Redacted
8/15/2021 06:56 PM
Cars do not look for or see pedestrians, even at crosswalks.
Optional question (83 response(s), 9 skipped)
Question type: Essay Question
Safety & Mobility in the Downtown Core Questionnaire : Survey Report for 06 August 2021 to 16 August 2021
Page 26 of 38
102
Q7 Do you support testing changes incrementally through temporary pilot projects in the
downtown core designed to improve pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle safety?
81 (88.0%)
81 (88.0%)
9 (9.8%)
9 (9.8%)2 (2.2%)
2 (2.2%)
N/A No Yes
Question options
Mandatory Question (92 response(s))
Question type: Radio Button Question
Safety & Mobility in the Downtown Core Questionnaire : Survey Report for 06 August 2021 to 16 August 2021
Page 27 of 38
103
Q8 Would you support installing improvements in the downtown core to increase safety if
consideration to potential parking impacts is also addressed
77 (83.7%)
77 (83.7%)
13 (14.1%)
13 (14.1%)2 (2.2%)
2 (2.2%)
N/A No Yes
Question options
Mandatory Question (92 response(s))
Question type: Radio Button Question
Safety & Mobility in the Downtown Core Questionnaire : Survey Report for 06 August 2021 to 16 August 2021
Page 28 of 38
104
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 01:27 AM
The main problem is vehicles. And mostly visiting vehicles. There
needs to be more done to teach & reminds & enforce visitors that
they are now in a small town and no longer a city.
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 07:01 AM
Less cars!
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 07:17 AM
Take out all parking and roads and make it a true pedestrian mall.
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 07:19 AM
Aspen needs to decide if it is car focused or ped/bike focused.
Right now it is car focused. The expansed patios at restaurants
make it impossible for me to push my double stroller on the
sidewalk. In addition the poor visibility for bikes makes it so unsafe
I don’t ride my bike through town with the kids in the chariot, I drive
instead. To me, Aspen right now encourages people to drive. If
Aspen stands for reducing traffic and green alternatives, then the
core should not be car focused. It is very confusing to have so
much messaging about alternative transportation, yet such an
unsafe downtown core. A car should be the least efficient way to
navigate the core. Right now it is the fastest and the safest. I think
we should keep the patio expansions, but widen the sidewalks and
create bike lanes. The fire department should have the only
parking on Hopkins aside from disabled spots. A few years ago
council was lobbied by restaurants that they could not survive
without their parking. However, the last couple years they happily
gave up parking for their own financial gain. To me, parking in the
core should be significantly limited. I still ride my bike to work, but I
know many people who drive because it is easier and safer.
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 07:33 AM
Less cars = safer downtown core. It may be worth exploring how to
build a parking garage in an accessible location, such as under
Wagner Park, so that people can park then walk vs. circling
endlessly searching for parking on the street.
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 07:34 AM
Some how we need to enforces No bikes or eBikes or one wheels
or hoverboards or electric scooters on the mall!
Q9 Please share any additional comments you may have about improving mobility and
safety in Aspen’s Downtown Core.
Safety & Mobility in the Downtown Core Questionnaire : Survey Report for 06 August 2021 to 16 August 2021
Page 29 of 38
105
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 07:37 AM
The sooner we can get to a car-free core, the better. This is going
to take some monumental shifts that begin with “intercepting” cars
at the Intercept Lot. How many more people need to die?? And
besides, with all the new urban refugees, we seem to have
acquired a new “honking” phenomenon. This should warrant a
ticket. We don’t do that here!
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 07:41 AM
why don't the aspen police enforce traffic laws? blowing through
stop signs, red lights, speeding and driving while texting
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 08:14 AM
New levels of e-bike rentals have increased inexperienced cyclists
on roads, paths and bike lanes. Level of danger has increased
significantly this year. It’s not necessarily the e-bike but the new
type of rider that has no problem disregarding all safety and legal
rules. Not only does this endanger them and others, it’s making all
cyclists look bad.
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 08:21 AM
Close more streets to cars. Expand the mall to Mill St from
Monarch to Hopkins. Make Restaurant row on Hopkins a
pedestrian only mall with only HANDICAP parking and delivery
trucks allowed.
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 08:31 AM
I regularly bike Hopkins between East and west ends. Create
protected bike lane through core with speed bumps or other
methods to slow bikers down. Shocking how fast other bicyclists
go thru the core.
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 08:35 AM
Have more cops patrolling the downtown core getting on to people
that just stop with their 4 ways on in the middle of the road. Move
the cops from just sitting on main street to watching the downtown
core streets as well
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 08:40 AM
Automobile parking consumes an inordinate amount of available
space. I recognize that people depend on cars for their mobility but
would look for ways to create parking spaces outside the core.
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 08:43 AM
I have issues with Question #7. I'm in support of installing mobility
improvements to the downtown core but we have a parking garage
so public parking is my least concern.
Safety & Mobility in the Downtown Core Questionnaire : Survey Report for 06 August 2021 to 16 August 2021
Page 30 of 38
106
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 08:48 AM
We need parking. If people need to ride their bikes downtown
follow the rules of the road and they will be fine. Huge entourages
need to remove themselves from the core.
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 09:07 AM
stop trying to change everything around, just make police do their
jobs and start patrolling, issuing tickets, and keep us safe
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 09:16 AM
I feel that the Hopkins Ave. ped/bike street is such a benefit for
connecting the East and West sides of town. The issue is that
there is no clear route through town after Garmisch Street. Make
the entire length of Hopkins a dedicated bike lane. That would
really help with the flow of bicycle traffic through town. I would also
suggest having the APD actually enforce traffic laws that help
protect bicyclists.
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 09:27 AM
West end side traffic in our core DANGEROUS. get rid of S
Curves!!!
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 09:48 AM
Bike lanes are great. Especially if you want bikes to respect the
laws of the road (e.g. stop signs and stop lights).
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 09:57 AM
The walking malls need to have gates similar to Base Village in
Snowmass to keep bicyclists from riding their bikes down the
walking malls. Further, there is no punishment for those who
disobey and don't dismount- there should be a fine associated with
breaking this rule, especially now that you have eBikes zipping by!
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 10:01 AM
Generally, enforcement of speed and pedestrian priority could be
increased. Speeds of 35-45 mph on Main Street translate to higher
speeds on side streets.
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 10:47 AM
I understand that the idea of converting pull-in spaces to parallel
spaces is a hot-button issue, especially among business owners,
even though we know that the data shows the rate of accidents,
property damage and fatalities goes down when the spots are
reconfigured. I recommend Googling the town of Groningen,
Netherlands. In the 1960's the town pushed to remove all cars from
the urban center. The businesses were adamantly opposed and
Safety & Mobility in the Downtown Core Questionnaire : Survey Report for 06 August 2021 to 16 August 2021
Page 31 of 38
107
argued that they would lose all their customers. The initiative was
approved despite the resistance. The town is thriving today, even
without cars in the center. I support converting pull-in parking to
parallel parking in Aspen and hope that Engineering & City Council
remain strong despite the resistance that will come.
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 11:01 AM
The more “safety measures” that or city puts in to place the more
absent minded the general public becomes.
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 11:14 AM
We don't need more cars in Aspen - the entry roads should not
expand since making roads bigger doesn't make traffic better and
there isn't room in Aspen for more cars anyways. Biking in
downtown Aspen is definitely the scariest form of transport for me,
even following the suggested routes.
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 11:15 AM
Pedestrians and bike users need to be prioritized over vehicles in
the core with certain vehicle routes choosen.
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 11:31 AM
Ban bikes in downtown core!
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 11:34 AM
I fully support measures for increased pedestrian and bicycle
mobility and safety in the downtown core, even at the expense of
fewer parking spaces. I believe that more people would be inclined
to use alternative methods of transportation to get into Aspen if
there were fewer parking spaces.
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 11:44 AM
As of now, it's a free-for-all Disney Land and no one follows rules.
Take cars out of the core.
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 11:45 AM
I try to avoid going into the downtown core (via any mode of
transport) at all costs. It's just not worth the aggravation and
danger.
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 11:49 AM
I like the bulb outs that we've been trying throughout town, and via
observation, seems to slow down vehicle speeds and make
pedestrians pay attention to what they're "walking into" vs. a
regular crosswalk.
Safety & Mobility in the Downtown Core Questionnaire : Survey Report for 06 August 2021 to 16 August 2021
Page 32 of 38
108
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 12:56 PM
Parking is already an issue. If parking is to be removed it should be
added elsewhere to compensate.
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 12:57 PM
Start handing out tickets to violators. Removing parking is not the
answer.
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 01:33 PM
alleviate vehicular traffic; our "new" influx and community deserves
the safety
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 01:38 PM
People need to know the rules of being a pedestrian or a cyclist.
We need to hand out a nice laminated card to everyone that rides
a bike or rents one. Bikers expect cars to see them no matter what
crazy thing they do. SO TEACH THE RULES OF THE ROAD.
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 01:49 PM
Please do more to combat speeding and pedestrian crossing
safety! Its as if cars forget it is a legal requirement to stop at a
crosswalk
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 01:58 PM
Its dangerous in town please do everything you can to keep people
safe.
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 02:15 PM
Educate pedestrians and cyclist! Cyclist think they are above the
law. Why community officers doing nothing about it. Pedestrians
are walking everywhere on our streets. They do not pay any
attention what is going on around them, glue to their cellphones.
We do have sidewalks. It’s not only drivers always at fault. We
need to coexist.
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 02:51 PM
All intersections need to be 4way stop or none. Peds need to be
directed to specific crossing locations. Perhaps make more mall
without car access
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 03:18 PM
I think Aspen should prioritize sustainable forms of transportation,
biking, walking, and bussing, and cars should be discouraged from
the core.
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 03:25 PM
There should be 4 way stops at EVERY intersection in the core.
This would make bicyclists and pedestrians feel much safer. Along
Safety & Mobility in the Downtown Core Questionnaire : Survey Report for 06 August 2021 to 16 August 2021
Page 33 of 38
109
with traffic cameras. The corner of Hyman and galena specifically
needs attention, because cars take right turns down the one way
street way too often.
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 03:47 PM
The crossing signals on Main St. at 8th and at 1st are placed in a
way that they are mistakenly activated when people are crossing
the side streets and not Main St. creating a false warning for
vehicles. These should be repositioned so they are obvious to
which street they are meant to be used for. Not sure if this is the
case on the East of Main as well but may be. It seems that
vehicles are less inclined to yield to pedestrians and cyclists in
crosswalks. Greater education and outreach is needed.
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 04:24 PM
Streets need to be turned into pedestrian malls, underground
garage or surface parking built in Marolt open space and shuttle
provided to downtown core. There are simply too many cars in the
downtown core given the number of cyclists and pedestrians.
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 06:10 PM
As long as rule changes are properly notified to RFV in advance,
I’m all for trying new options, but if it will be changing frequently to
where I never know how to drive/walk/navigate, I’d rather see a
one time change. Driving in Aspen is very stressful for me, and I’ve
driven a lot of cities.
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 08:15 PM
Angle parking with stripes is a more efficient way of providing
space for cars. Changing to parallel will reduce available spaces
and cause more cruising/searching. So if any streets are to be one-
way, that street should definitely have head-in parking. By the way
- bulb-outs are not safer and create ice lakes in the winter.
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 08:41 PM
Speed bumps or stop signs on Aspen Street. Photo speed traps on
Aspen Street.
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 10:05 PM
Raised pedestrian crossings. More stop signs. More one-way
streets with angle parking to fit more vehicles.
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 10:09 PM
Whatever is implemented must be easy for tourists to understand,
our current condition of two way stops at four way intersections is
too difficult to navigate when the majority of the people driving
have no idea what to do and are people watching instead of
Safety & Mobility in the Downtown Core Questionnaire : Survey Report for 06 August 2021 to 16 August 2021
Page 34 of 38
110
driving. My (unprofessional) suggestion would be to place four way
stops at every intersection to force everyone to stop (including
bikes) and asses the intersection before going through. It will slow
down vehicular and bike traffic, …but isn’t that the point. Either
way I am happy Aspen is trying to do something. It has gotten to
the point that driving in the core is a constant point of frustration.
The town has become too busy and needs more organization to
adapt to the current conditions we now face. Thank you
Screen Name Redacted
8/10/2021 12:24 AM
This mobility lab project is like rearranging the deck chairs on the
Titanic. The City should shelf this idea and focus on the real traffic
problem in town: stopping out of towners from speeding through
and congesting residential neighborhoods like the West End
Screen Name Redacted
8/10/2021 08:24 AM
The role of cars in the downtown core should be very, very limited.
Create the infrastructure to make a comfortable experience for
pedestrians, bikers, e-bikers, and transit. A few other changes that
would help the core become car free and allow more mobility and
vitality: - upgrade We-Cycle fleet to be entirely e-bikes (some Cities
have been doing this for years with success - i.e. Madison, Wi) -
increase transit options and downtowner service. It would be
interesting to innundate the core with downtowners for a winter -
have them queued up at hot spots like City Market, Rio Grande
Parking, and Gondola plaza - and allow people to use them with or
without the app. - incorporate more loading zones, restaurant pick
up zones, and pedestrian drop off zones.
Screen Name Redacted
8/10/2021 08:58 AM
Remove the head in parking, expand the walking areas, install bike
lanes in both directions. The best parts of the core are the walking
malls with no vehicles. Relocate parking and take back the core for
pedestrians.
Screen Name Redacted
8/10/2021 10:02 AM
This is no longer a town, it's quasi-Disneyworld and we need to
accept that. We need to get cars out of the downtown core any
way possible, regardless of the amount of parking spaces it
affects. It doesn't matter how many safety features we attempt, the
amount of cars is the problem.
Screen Name Redacted
8/10/2021 10:14 AM
I would support any projects that discourage auto use. I think
having fewer cars in town would improve safety greatly and it
would help with traffic congestion and environmental concerns. I
would like to see the pedestrian mall expanded and have more
Safety & Mobility in the Downtown Core Questionnaire : Survey Report for 06 August 2021 to 16 August 2021
Page 35 of 38
111
bike path options.
Screen Name Redacted
8/10/2021 12:27 PM
Close off the core to vehicle traffic. Enforce traffic rules on cars,
bikes & pedestrians.
Screen Name Redacted
8/10/2021 01:54 PM
Please remove the unregistered vehicles blocking the parking
spaces in town. Please start to enforce parking rules in town
without being prompted by citizen's. Please make the streets of
Aspen conform to the norms of most cities. Roads are great for
commerce just check with the Romans. The rents are higher in
Aspen on streets open to traffic and less on the malls. You do your
citizens an injustice if you teach them to disregard basic road
etiquette and parking rules.
Screen Name Redacted
8/10/2021 07:13 PM
Even as a resident, I was denied being able to access a residential
parking pass, so making it safer to bike would be nice.
Screen Name Redacted
8/10/2021 08:25 PM
If Rio Grande place is considered a part to the Downtown Core -
something needs to be done to slow traffic down coming around
the curve approaching between the new city building and the park.
There are crosswalks which are rarely observed by drivers and
they simply speed up going over the speed tables . This is a
popular route for pedestrians (many with mobility impairments),
cyclists and dog walkers accessing the park, theater tent and Rio
Grande system. It is also an area that parents/drivers are often
parked/waiting in no parking zones for people/kids at the
skateboard park, forcing other traffic to go around them, further
putting pedestrians at risk.
Screen Name Redacted
8/10/2021 11:01 PM
I answered no to question #8 as it is too vague to know what
you're even suggesting. But when you mention parking impacts,
that usually means losing spaces, and every plan you contrive
usually takes parking spaces away. We cannot lose ANY more
spaces unless you're going to build a garage under Wagner, which
frankly should have happened years ago. On another front, please
remove all the bollards(?) by City Market. They're a distraction for
pedestrians, drivers, everyone, and totally unnecessary. They don't
improve safety, as you can't see what pedestrians are going to do
until they're in the middle of the street anyway. Our streets were
paved for automobiles, not bikes. As to the 'bike lanes' that have
been painted on our streets, you are giving people a false sense of
security by thinking they can ride in these 'lanes' and not come into
Safety & Mobility in the Downtown Core Questionnaire : Survey Report for 06 August 2021 to 16 August 2021
Page 36 of 38
112
contact with cars. Guess again, cars need the space and are going
to be in the 'bike lanes' so they can get down the road. These are
accidents waiting to happen. And restricting south/west end streets
to one block only for car traffic? Ridiculous. By the way, are all
these bike riders you're trying to accommodate going to ride their
bikes in the winter?
Screen Name Redacted
8/10/2021 11:32 PM
Increase awareness of visitors about using the flashers on Main St.
The lights not only alert drivers to pedestrians, but also alert traffic
that the car in front of you is stopping (I've seen cars rear-ended on
Original curve while waiting for pedestrians to cross and the cars
behind them didn't expect to stop). Perhaps info at hotels and
supplied by property managers along with the restaurant guides
and other info routinely provided.
Screen Name Redacted
8/10/2021 11:58 PM
Non residents need to pay attention. Walking, biking, driving- get
off your phone and use your eyes and common sense.
Screen Name Redacted
8/11/2021 08:55 AM
Write tickets or at least give written warnings to careless cyclists
and pedestrians. They put both themselves and drivers at risk.
Screen Name Redacted
8/11/2021 04:02 PM
less cars, more pedestrian and bike access. there is plenty on
parking. I own a retail store and feel like there is enough parking.
or that if people have to park and walk a little ways it will not affect
our stores and restaurants. people are here to walk around town
anyway.
Screen Name Redacted
8/11/2021 04:13 PM
If continually removing parking places, please create another
parking lot. The cars all end up driving circles looking for spots and
that can be a hazard.
Screen Name Redacted
8/11/2021 08:30 PM
Aspen should be focused on becoming bike and ped friendly. In
winter bike/ped routes should be groomed for walking, fat bikes
and xc skiing. Money should be invested in creating more in-town
mini shuttles that run to Aspen neighborhoods and key aspects of
the core every 20 minutes.
Screen Name Redacted
8/12/2021 10:40 AM
Aspen has been at capacity all summer; too many tourists, too
many cars; impossible traffic on Main St at all hours of the day.
Safety & Mobility in the Downtown Core Questionnaire : Survey Report for 06 August 2021 to 16 August 2021
Page 37 of 38
113
Screen Name Redacted
8/12/2021 11:47 AM
Please do whatever you can to make biking in town safer. We live
in the perfect town to commute on a bike. Less cars, more bikes!
Screen Name Redacted
8/14/2021 09:01 PM
Since the malls have been the most successful aspect of
downtown for ped/bike safety and business, we should expand the
malls and increase traffic law enforcement, as folks know, but they
show they don't care by the way they run Stops, speed, don't use
turn signals and literally hit and kill people downtown including the
little girl a year or two ago and a person hit up on the sidewalk by a
Red Mt. Range Rover. Town and downtown traffic seems out of
control and dangerous at times and it hardly encourages walking
and biking, just the opposite.
Screen Name Redacted
8/15/2021 06:56 PM
There is no reason to have so many cars in the core. Other cities
have created successful pedestrian areas. Aspen needs to do this
to protect residents, visitors, and tourists.
Optional question (67 response(s), 25 skipped)
Question type: Essay Question
Safety & Mobility in the Downtown Core Questionnaire : Survey Report for 06 August 2021 to 16 August 2021
Page 38 of 38
114
Safety & Mobility in the Core
Social Media Engagement
Facebook
Original Post
• 2,234 Reach
• 5 Likes
• 84 Post Clicks (6 Photo | 13 Link | 65 Other such as profile, etc.)
Boosted Post:
• 2,337 Reach
• 45 Post Engagements
• 26 Post Reactions
• 12 Link Clicks
• 3 Landing Page Views
Instagram
• 307 Accounts reached
• 4 Actions Taken
Twitter
Post results
• 186 Impressions
• 1 Engagement
• 1 Image Click
115
Summary Report
14 June 2016 - 09 August 2021
Aspen Community Voice
PROJECTS SELECTED: 1
Spring & Cooper Intersection Safety Enhancements Living Lab
FULL LIST AT THE END OF THE REPORT
Highlights
TOTAL
VISITS
128
MAX VISITORS PER
DAY
16
NEW
REGISTRATI
ONS
0
ENGAGED
VISITORS
47
INFORMED
VISITORS
55
AWARE
VISITORS
102
Visitors Summary
Pageviews Visitors
1 Jul '21 1 Aug '21
25
50
75
116
Aspen Community Voice : Summary Report for 14 June 2016 to 09 August 2021
PARTICIPANT SUMMARY
ENGAGED
INFORMED
AWARE
47 ENGAGED PARTICIPANTS
000
16030
000
000
000
000
018
000
000
Registered Unverified Anonymous
Contributed on Forums
Participated in Surveys
Contributed to Newsfeeds
Participated in Quick Polls
Posted on Guestbooks
Contributed to Stories
Asked Questions
Placed Pins on Places
Contributed to Ideas
* A single engaged participant can perform multiple actions
Spring & Cooper Intersection …47 (46.1%)
(%)
* Calculated as a percentage of total visits to the Project
ENGAGED
INFORMED
AWARE
55 INFORMED PARTICIPANTS
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
47
Participants
Viewed a video
Viewed a photo
Downloaded a document
Visited the Key Dates page
Visited an FAQ list Page
Visited Instagram Page
Visited Multiple Project Pages
Contributed to a tool (engaged)
* A single informed participant can perform multiple actions
Spring & Cooper Intersection …54 (52.9%)
(%)
* Calculated as a percentage of total visits to the Project
ENGAGED
INFORMED
AWARE
102 AWARE PARTICIPANTS
102
Participants
Visited at least one Page
* Aware user could have also performed an Informed or Engaged Action
Spring & Cooper Intersection …102
* Total list of unique visitors to the project
Page 2 of 6 117
SURVEYS SUMMARY TOP 3 SURVEYS BASED ON CONTRIBUTORS
Aspen Community Voice : Summary Report for 14 June 2016 to 09 August 2021
ENGAGEMENT TOOLS SUMMARY
0
FORUM TOPICS
1
SURVEYS
0
NEWS FEEDS
0
QUICK POLLS
0
GUESTBOOKS
0
STORIES
1
Q&A'S
0
PLACES
1 Surveys
46 Contributors
47 Submissions
Spring & Cooper Intersection
Questionnaire
46
Contributors to
Page 3 of 6 118
DOCUMENTS TOP 3 DOCUMENTS BASED ON DOWNLOADS
PHOTOS TOP 3 PHOTOS BASED ON VIEWS
Aspen Community Voice : Summary Report for 14 June 2016 to 09 August 2021
INFORMATION WIDGET SUMMARY
5
DOCUMENTS
4
PHOTOS
0
VIDEOS
0
FAQS
0
KEY DATES
5 Documents
0 Visitors
0 Downloads
2019 Traffic Counts Summary -
Spring Street Pedestrain-
Vehicle Interactions.jpg
0
Downloads
2019 Traffic Counts Summary -
Cooper Avenue Vehicle Stop
Sign Interactions.jpg
0
Downloads
Spring and Cooper Intersection
Conceptual Illustratives and
Diagrams.pdf
0
Downloads
4 Photos
0 Visitors
0 Views
Spring and Cooper Intersection
Living Lab May 2021 (4).png
0
Views
Spring and Cooper Intersection
Living Lab May 2021 (3).png
0
Views
Spring and Cooper Intersection
Living Lab May 2021 (2).png
0
Views
Page 4 of 6 119
REFERRER URL Visits
www.aspentimes.com 13
www.google.com 11
l.facebook.com 1
m.facebook.com 1
t.co 1
www.apcha.org 1
www.bing.com 1
Aspen Community Voice : Summary Report for 14 June 2016 to 09 August 2021
TRAFFIC SOURCES OVERVIEW
120
Page 5 of 6
PROJECT TITLE AWARE INFORMED ENGAGED
Spring & Cooper Intersection Safety Enhancements Living Lab 102 55 47
Aspen Community Voice : Summary Report for 14 June 2016 to 09 August 2021
SELECTED PROJECTS - FULL LIST
Page 6 of 6 121
Spring & Cooper
Intersection Questionnaire
SURVEY RESPONSE REPORT
14 June 2016 - 09 August 2021
PROJECT NAME:
Spring & Cooper Intersection Safety Enhancements Living Lab
122
REGISTRATION QUESTIONS
Spring & Cooper Intersection Questionnaire : Survey Report for 14 June 2016 to 09 August 2021
Page 1 of 22
123
Q1 Please enter your zip code and wait for the drop down menu to locate your zip code and
then click on the correct entry. If you do not wait for the drop down menu, you will get an error
message.
26 (89.7%)
26 (89.7%)
1 (3.4%)
1 (3.4%)1 (3.4%)
1 (3.4%)1 (3.4%)
1 (3.4%)
Aspen, CO 81611 Carbondale, CO 81623 Woody Creek, CO 81656 Aspen, CO 81612
Question options
Mandatory Question (29 response(s))
Question type: Region Question
Spring & Cooper Intersection Questionnaire : Survey Report for 14 June 2016 to 09 August 2021
Page 2 of 22
124
Question type: Region Question
Spring & Cooper Intersection Questionnaire : Survey Report for 14 June 2016 to 09 August 2021
Page 3 of 22
125
Q2 Age
1 (3.4%)
1 (3.4%)
12 (41.4%)
12 (41.4%)
14 (48.3%)
14 (48.3%)
2 (6.9%)
2 (6.9%)0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
19 - 29 30 - 49 50 - 64 65 +18 and under
Question options
Mandatory Question (29 response(s))
Question type: Radio Button Question
Spring & Cooper Intersection Questionnaire : Survey Report for 14 June 2016 to 09 August 2021
Page 4 of 22
126
Q3 Gender
13 (44.8%)
13 (44.8%)
16 (55.2%)
16 (55.2%)
Male Female
Question options
Optional question (29 response(s), 0 skipped)
Question type: Radio Button Question
Spring & Cooper Intersection Questionnaire : Survey Report for 14 June 2016 to 09 August 2021
Page 5 of 22
127
SURVEY QUESTIONS
Spring & Cooper Intersection Questionnaire : Survey Report for 14 June 2016 to 09 August 2021
Page 6 of 22
128
Q1 I experienced this intersection as a:
30 (63.8%)
30 (63.8%)
2 (4.3%)
2 (4.3%)
15 (31.9%)
15 (31.9%)
Pedestrian Cyclist Motorist
Question options
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
Mandatory Question (47 response(s))
Question type: Checkbox Question
Spring & Cooper Intersection Questionnaire : Survey Report for 14 June 2016 to 09 August 2021
Page 7 of 22
129
Q2 Previous to the installation of the bollards and planters, I felt:
13 (27.7%)
13 (27.7%)
15 (31.9%)
15 (31.9%)
19 (40.4%)
19 (40.4%)
Concerned about safety in this intersection Neutral about safety in this intersection
Not concerned about safety in this intersection
Question options
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Mandatory Question (47 response(s))
Question type: Checkbox Question
Spring & Cooper Intersection Questionnaire : Survey Report for 14 June 2016 to 09 August 2021
Page 8 of 22
130
Screen Name Redacted
6/30/2021 02:59 PM
I think it increases the chaos of the intersection, is confusing, and
leaves less room for error. To me, it encourages pedestrians to get
further into the vehicle zone and just makes it all scarier.
Screen Name Redacted
7/02/2021 03:26 AM
It has slowed down drivers, which is good. But the planters are a
little distracting for proper visibility.
Screen Name Redacted
7/02/2021 10:07 AM
Don’t really like them. i think motorist pull forward further into the
intersection to see around them.
Screen Name Redacted
7/02/2021 10:30 AM
Ugly. Too much to look at.
Screen Name Redacted
7/02/2021 12:23 PM
If the bollards were further in the road I think it would increase the
visibility as you attempt to cross the street. As it is now, I haven't
found cars to slow down more or be aware of people crossing the
street. The parked cars create the biggest blocks in sight lines as a
pedestrian.
Screen Name Redacted
7/02/2021 07:19 PM
I felt safer. And I think they look great! Cooper is such a busy
street.
Screen Name Redacted
7/02/2021 07:38 PM
I didn’t get my foot run over by a car
Screen Name Redacted
7/02/2021 09:45 PM
We walked through just tonight and I commented on how nice it is!
(Fyi, This is my 26th year in Aspen and I do not feel that way about
other changes.)
Screen Name Redacted
7/03/2021 08:17 AM
It didn't change my experience
Screen Name Redacted Seems okay but the lousy drivers and the arrogant drivers,,,,
Q3 Please share a few thoughts about how the bollards and planters affected your
experience in the intersection as it relates interactions with other intersection traffic and
visibility.
Spring & Cooper Intersection Questionnaire : Survey Report for 14 June 2016 to 09 August 2021
Page 9 of 22
131
7/03/2021 08:29 AM
Screen Name Redacted
7/03/2021 08:49 AM
They positively affected the safety of this intersection.
Screen Name Redacted
7/03/2021 09:58 AM
The planters help but I think a 4 way stop would be better. Cars go
so fast through the intersection and don’t turn to look for people.
Screen Name Redacted
7/03/2021 11:13 AM
Don’t think it’s necessary. We are turning into a nanny state
Screen Name Redacted
7/04/2021 09:58 AM
Indifferent
Screen Name Redacted
7/04/2021 12:06 PM
I believe that they make the intersection more dangerous for
vehicles and pedestrians.
Screen Name Redacted
7/05/2021 05:41 AM
West Smuggler is a far greater issue. Over 1,000 cars and trucks
funnel through West Smuggler each weekday between 3pm and
6pm. This is an actual safety issue - a real serious one. This
should be the top of Councils priority.
Screen Name Redacted
7/05/2021 05:47 AM
West Smuggler is the city's single biggest safety issue. The report I
read, which apparently was not even commissioned by the City,
shows over 1,000 cars/trucks. 1,000 cars/trucks funnel through
West Smuggler each week day between 3pm and 6pm. How is it
even possible the City can allow this to happen?
Screen Name Redacted
7/05/2021 05:55 AM
I live on Hyman Street in Aspen. I do have good friends that live
on West Smuggler. That street is in far bigger crisis mode than any
other street in Aspen. The City should prioritize and fix that street.
I read a report that said within 24 hours over 2200 cars/trucks drive
through West Smuggler each day. Over 1000 cars/trucks driver
through West Smuggler each weekday from 3pm to 6pm. No street
lights like Main Street, no sidewalks like Main Street, no police
officers enforcing laws like on Main Street. How can the City in
good conscience allow this? Seems like only a matter of time
before a real accident happens. One that actually could be
prevented.
Spring & Cooper Intersection Questionnaire : Survey Report for 14 June 2016 to 09 August 2021
Page 10 of 22
132
Screen Name Redacted
7/05/2021 06:02 AM
The problem on West Smuggler street is a far greater concern. It is
an actual crisis. A crisis. I read a report that shows over 1000
cars/trucks drive through West Smuggler each week day from 3pm
to 6pm. This is a shocking number. None of them stop at the stop
signs. Most of them speed. This is a massive safety and
environmental crisis. How is it possible the City has allowed this to
happen without consulting with the residents of West Smuggler? It
seems like the City is concerned about the impact of change on
other streets but did not think twice about allowing the above crisis
to build.
Screen Name Redacted
7/05/2021 07:58 AM
I live on West Smuggler. This is the street that needs to be
addressed and fixed by the City. I read a report, provided by
westendpedestriansafetygroup, and the numbers are shocking.
Simply shocking. In a 24 hour time frame, over 2,200 cars and
trucks drive through West Smuggler. Each weekday, from 3pm to
6pm, a three hour time frame, over 1,100 cars and trucks drive
through West Smuggler. And while this happens, as I have seen
firsthand, the traffic laws are broken by nearly each car and truck.
This is truly unbelievable that this is happening and nothing is
being done by the City. Nothing. Why were the residents of West
Smuggler not consulted while this problem built up? The City
consults with residents of other streets before a change is made.
The change that has happened on West Smuggler (ie: 2,200 cars
and trucks using it as an exit point) was allowed to happen without
any consideration. Please fix and address this issue - it should be
your number one priority.
Screen Name Redacted
7/05/2021 08:09 AM
You have now made it more difficult for drivers and pedestrians
now walk even more in the middle of the street
Screen Name Redacted
7/05/2021 08:15 AM
I am a concerned citizen of Aspen. I have friends who live on West
Smuggler. I have spent time on this street. What the City has
allowed to happen there is unfathomable to say the least. I read a
report that showed over 1,100 cars and trucks funnel through West
Smuggler each weekday from 3pm to 6pm. These statistics are
shocking. It is like Main Street moved to West Smuggler. Yet on
West Smuggler there are no street lights and I have never seen a
police officer enforcing traffic laws. No one stops at the stops
signs, no one pays attention to the speed limit. This issue is a
crisis an absolute crisis. Please address this before someone gets
hurt.
Spring & Cooper Intersection Questionnaire : Survey Report for 14 June 2016 to 09 August 2021
Page 11 of 22
133
Screen Name Redacted
7/05/2021 09:50 AM
Hello, I am a concerned citizen of Aspen. I believe the biggest
health and safety issue for the City is on West Smuggler. I recently
read a report completed by a traffic consultant out of Denver and
the numbers quite frankly shocked me. Over a 24 hour period over
2,200 cars and trucks pass through West Smuggler. Each day,
over 1,100 cars and trucks pass through West Smuggler between
3pm and 6pm. How is it possible that on a small neighborhood
street that this is allowed to exist? I have read about how the City
Council's primary focal points are safety and environmental. Is this
in fact true given what is being allowed to happen on West
Smuggler? The numbers are shocking. Do the City Council
members realize that small children play on that street? In yards?
On bicycles? This appears to be negligence in my humble opinion.
Please fix this before someone gets hurt.
Screen Name Redacted
7/05/2021 10:14 AM
The "bollards" and planters are incredibly unattractive. I'm not sure
why the City thought that it is desirable to try out such an ugly
interim solution, but I would have preferred that the City go ahead
and build attractive neckdowns, while trying to minimize the impact
on available parking on either side of the neckdowns. Giving
pedestrians who actually use the crosswalks the protection of the
neckdowns is a good thing, and might encourage a few (of the
many) pedestrians who think that they have the right of way to
cross the street anywhere (such as the pedestrian in your photo)
might actually choose to use the crosswalks. Of course, a little
enforcement of the restriction against jaywalking would be helpful,
but that will never happen with our current police chief in office.
Screen Name Redacted
7/05/2021 06:28 PM
Improved safety. Drivers are more likely to see me and stop so I
can cross the street safely. I am more concerned about the Mill
Street and Main Street intersection as a pedestrian.
Screen Name Redacted
7/05/2021 11:15 PM
The bollards make sightlines more challenging for those of us of
short stature. Also It makes getting into the limited parking spot
immediately to the sw of city market pharmacy on Spring, and Se
on Cooper even more challenging.
Screen Name Redacted
7/06/2021 08:17 AM
Hello. I am a concerned citizen of Aspen. With regard to biggest
safety issue that the City is facing, it is without question West
Smuggler. Each week day, between 3pm and 6pm - thousands of
cars and trucks pass through on West Smuggler. The City has
allowed it to become Main Street. But Main Street has traffic lights
and police officers to enforce traffic laws. West Smuggler does not
Spring & Cooper Intersection Questionnaire : Survey Report for 14 June 2016 to 09 August 2021
Page 12 of 22
134
have this so the result is pretty much mayhem. I think it is a matter
of time before someone gets hurt. I would strongly urge the Mayor
and each City Council member to walk over to West Smuggler one
day and witness it firsthand. It is a shame that this has been
allowed to happen on a neighborhood street. Please act and act
swiftly.
Screen Name Redacted
7/07/2021 11:41 AM
Hello – I am a concerned Aspen citizen living on Hopkins. I often
use West Smuggler to commute through West End on my bicycle.
I agree with the comments that have been made on this forum.
The traffic there from 3pm to 6pm is extremely dangerous. I read a
recent report that shows 1100 cars and trucks pass through West
Smuggler each weekday from 3pm to 6pm. That works out to 12
cars and trucks per minute during this 3 hour time. Seems
inexcusable that the City would allow this to happen. I recall the
new Mayor specifically running on traffic reform as part of his
campaign. He needs to make good on his promise and fix this
issue. The visual each day: watching the procession of cars and
trucks barreling through a neighborhood street is horrible.
Someone is bound to get hurt. I rarely ride my bike through West
Smuggler during 3pm to 6pm because of this safety concern (Main
Street might be safer) – it is a real shame I should not have to
avoid neighborhood streets for fear of my safety.
Screen Name Redacted
7/08/2021 07:38 AM
I believe you have to be careful in season wherever you cross. I
have no idea if planters and bollards have helped but the bollards
do not look good.
Screen Name Redacted
7/08/2021 09:44 AM
The bollards are too far out in the street and make pedestrians
hidden. It appears to put their first step into traffic. These sidewalks
and corners was just fixed with new concrete and do not need to
be replaced until the life expectancy of the project is up or the
concrete fails. The ripping up and replacing new concrete
sidewalks and corners is a waste of resources and not very green
or smart.
Screen Name Redacted
7/09/2021 03:16 PM
It doesn't seem to increase visibility of pedestrians to cars. It's still
feels like a game of chicken while people dart out in front of cars,
hoping they will let them cross.
Screen Name Redacted
7/13/2021 12:36 PM
Decreased visibility. Pedestrians are now emboldened to cross
diagonally instead of straight across one street at a time.
Spring & Cooper Intersection Questionnaire : Survey Report for 14 June 2016 to 09 August 2021
Page 13 of 22
135
Screen Name Redacted
7/13/2021 08:57 PM
Not visually attractive and don’t see how they enhance safety
Screen Name Redacted
7/14/2021 08:18 PM
The bollards are idiotic and cause further confusion and visual
distraction at the already-busy intersection. How about a four way
stop to slow traffic and some actual law enforcement?!
Screen Name Redacted
7/15/2021 04:28 PM
They have not affected pedestrian safety.
Screen Name Redacted
7/16/2021 09:40 AM
I have to pull into the intersection to see. I think the bollards do
help slow cars down and create better crossing area definition
Screen Name Redacted
7/24/2021 08:46 AM
In my opinion they take up to much space. Just like by Main and
Mill street you extend sidewalks/crosswalks and pedestrians stand
on the street. Also by Durant and Hunter street there is now no
space for cars to pull over except blocking the entire intersection
and let out or pick up people.
Screen Name Redacted
7/24/2021 08:47 AM
Pedestrians always stand on the street prior crossing it and not on
the sidewalks, planters and bollards are making people stand in the
middle of the street. How is this safe? Our sidewalks are wide
enough for pedestrians, there is no need for this
Screen Name Redacted
7/27/2021 08:52 PM
Creates unnecessary obstructions to turning and restricts flow for
longer vehicles. Also makes parallel parking more difficult adding
to chaos in the area.
Screen Name Redacted
8/01/2021 08:43 PM
I don’t like it and don’t think they are helpful.
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 07:57 AM
The problem is not with cars. People driving cars for the most part
obey safety rules and regulations. The problem is that pedestrians
and bicyclists don't follow basic safety rules. They act like absolute
idiots. Bikes don't stop at stop signs, they ride against traffic, they
cross the street anywhere forcing people in cars to constantly be
on guard not to hit one. People renting bikes should be required to
complete a short safety test before renting bikes and the test
should state that they are aware that Aspen police will give out
Spring & Cooper Intersection Questionnaire : Survey Report for 14 June 2016 to 09 August 2021
Page 14 of 22
136
tickets for bicyclists who do not obey safety rules -- the same as
they do for people driving cars recklessly.
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 08:36 AM
Heightened visibility for pedestrians for for automobile traffic
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 12:08 PM
The bollards and planters definitely cause users to slow down and
pay attention to the intersection. I'm in support of these permanent
solutions in the future.
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 01:51 PM
Cars often speed through here and rarely stop at the stop walk
unless you are halfway across it
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 03:05 PM
Confusing and no help for cyclists.
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 03:29 PM
I feel these improve the experience and safety of pedestrians. I
think they make pedestrians wanting to cross more visible to
vehicles.
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 07:48 PM
I love it! Cars actually stop for pedestrians! I feel so much safer
and not hanging out in the road trying to cross. Lets expand it!
Mandatory Question (47 response(s))
Question type: Essay Question
Spring & Cooper Intersection Questionnaire : Survey Report for 14 June 2016 to 09 August 2021
Page 15 of 22
137
Q4 How do you feel about making safety improvements at this intersection permanent?
17 (36.2%)
17 (36.2%)
20 (42.6%)
20 (42.6%)
6 (12.8%)
6 (12.8%)
4 (8.5%)
4 (8.5%)
I would support permanent safety improvements I would not support permanent safety improvements
I am neutral on permanent safety improvements I am undecided on permanent safety improvements
Question options
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
Mandatory Question (47 response(s))
Question type: Checkbox Question
Spring & Cooper Intersection Questionnaire : Survey Report for 14 June 2016 to 09 August 2021
Page 16 of 22
138
Screen Name Redacted
6/30/2021 02:59 PM
I think your previous question is totally loaded. Of course I would
encourage safety at intersections. But, the so called "safety" lab
that is there is so confusing, that it seems less safe.
Screen Name Redacted
7/02/2021 10:07 AM
Making it a four way stop seems like an easier solution. It’s
confusing for drivers, especially tourists, who generally seem to
assume it is, which causes confusion for everyone. And then with
pedestrians isn’t he crosswalk, it adds to the guessing game.
Screen Name Redacted
7/02/2021 12:23 PM
a flashing crosswalk signal would be a great feature at this
intersection. It gets people's attention, and forces pedestrians to
look both ways and pause as well.
Screen Name Redacted
7/02/2021 07:19 PM
What a great idea!
Screen Name Redacted
7/02/2021 09:45 PM
Why would they NOT be kept in place?
Screen Name Redacted
7/03/2021 08:29 AM
Never ending attempts to correct the human race are noble but
doomed to failure
Screen Name Redacted
7/03/2021 11:13 AM
I am all for safety in Pedestrian crossings…however, people need
to take responsibility for themselves in enjoying our small town
atmosphere. If we keep erecting guardrails, barrels, bumpers
disguised as flower pots we will be a very unattractive place for
locals and tourists alike. We are an old, beautiful small town with
old , small, out of date sized narrow roads and most people with
common sense recognize the need to be cautious when interacting
in our pint sized town and streets…if we keep acting like a nanny
state erecting all the cautionary accoutrements that are in place
now our little gem of a town will be reduced to nothing more than a
living lab of cautioness rather that celebrate the beautiful, unique
mountain town that it is…if we keep going down this road we might
as well install guardrails and an escalator going up the Ute Trail
and Smuggler Mountail .
Q5 Please share any additional comments regarding safety at the Spring & Cooper
Intersection
Spring & Cooper Intersection Questionnaire : Survey Report for 14 June 2016 to 09 August 2021
Page 17 of 22
139
Screen Name Redacted
7/04/2021 09:58 AM
Outbound Commuter Traffic on West Smuggler is the biggest traffic
problem in Aspen, so that’s where The City should focus its efforts
and resources
Screen Name Redacted
7/04/2021 12:06 PM
who is this really benefitting.....locals, visitors, City of Aspen Staff?
Screen Name Redacted
7/05/2021 05:41 AM
Again, West Smuggler is the larget bike/pedestrian safety issue
that the City of Aspen is facing. Please address it first.
Screen Name Redacted
7/05/2021 05:47 AM
Read prior comment
Screen Name Redacted
7/05/2021 05:55 AM
I live on Hyman Street in Aspen. I do have good friends that live
on West Smuggler. That street is in far bigger crisis mode than any
other street in Aspen. The City should prioritize and fix that street.
I read a report that said within 24 hours over 2200 cars/trucks drive
through West Smuggler each day. Over 1000 cars/trucks driver
through West Smuggler each weekday from 3pm to 6pm. No street
lights like Main Street, no sidewalks like Main Street, no police
officers enforcing laws like on Main Street. How can the City in
good conscience allow this? Seems like only a matter of time
before a real accident happens. One that actually could be
prevented.
Screen Name Redacted
7/05/2021 06:02 AM
The problem on West Smuggler street is a far greater concern. It is
an actual crisis. A crisis. I read a report that shows over 1000
cars/trucks drive through West Smuggler each week day from 3pm
to 6pm. This is a shocking number. None of them stop at the stop
signs. Most of them speed. This is a massive safety and
environmental crisis. How is it possible the City has allowed this to
happen without consulting with the residents of West Smuggler? It
seems like the City is concerned about the impact of change on
other streets but did not think twice about allowing the above crisis
to build.
Screen Name Redacted
7/05/2021 07:58 AM
I live on West Smuggler. This is the street that needs to be
addressed and fixed by the City. I read a report, provided by
westendpedestriansafetygroup, and the numbers are shocking.
Simply shocking. In a 24 hour time frame, over 2,200 cars and
trucks drive through West Smuggler. Each weekday, from 3pm to
Spring & Cooper Intersection Questionnaire : Survey Report for 14 June 2016 to 09 August 2021
Page 18 of 22
140
6pm, a three hour time frame, over 1,100 cars and trucks drive
through West Smuggler. And while this happens, as I have seen
firsthand, the traffic laws are broken by nearly each car and truck.
This is truly unbelievable that this is happening and nothing is
being done by the City. Nothing. Why were the residents of West
Smuggler not consulted while this problem built up? The City
consults with residents of other streets before a change is made.
The change that has happened on West Smuggler (ie: 2,200 cars
and trucks using it as an exit point) was allowed to happen without
any consideration. Please fix and address this issue - it should be
your number one priority.
Screen Name Redacted
7/05/2021 08:15 AM
I am a concerned citizen of Aspen. I have friends who live on West
Smuggler. I have spent time on this street. What the City has
allowed to happen there is unfathomable to say the least. I read a
report that showed over 1,100 cars and trucks funnel through West
Smuggler each weekday from 3pm to 6pm. These statistics are
shocking. It is like Main Street moved to West Smuggler. Yet on
West Smuggler there are no street lights and I have never seen a
police officer enforcing traffic laws. No one stops at the stops
signs, no one pays attention to the speed limit. This issue is a
crisis an absolute crisis. Please address this before someone gets
hurt.
Screen Name Redacted
7/05/2021 09:50 AM
Hello, I am a concerned citizen of Aspen. I believe the biggest
health and safety issue for the City is on West Smuggler. I recently
read a report completed by a traffic consultant out of Denver and
the numbers quite frankly shocked me. Over a 24 hour period over
2,200 cars and trucks pass through West Smuggler. Each day,
over 1,100 cars and trucks pass through West Smuggler between
3pm and 6pm. How is it possible that on a small neighborhood
street that this is allowed to exist? I have read about how the City
Council's primary focal points are safety and environmental. Is this
in fact true given what is being allowed to happen on West
Smuggler? The numbers are shocking. Do the City Council
members realize that small children play on that street? In yards?
On bicycles? This appears to be negligence in my humble opinion.
Please fix this before someone gets hurt.
Screen Name Redacted
7/05/2021 06:28 PM
Not sure how the bollards will work during winter months. Snow
piles may hinder drivers from seeing pedestrians
Screen Name Redacted Highlighting the crosswalks at this intersection and placing signs
Spring & Cooper Intersection Questionnaire : Survey Report for 14 June 2016 to 09 August 2021
Page 19 of 22
141
7/05/2021 11:15 PM requesting people to please uses said crosswalks would do more
to increase safety here. The biggest problem I have seen as a
pedestrian and motorist at this location is that people simply
wander back and forth across this street from wherever they
please usually heading from City Market back to their cars and v.v.
Screen Name Redacted
7/06/2021 08:17 AM
Hello. I am a concerned citizen of Aspen. With regard to biggest
safety issue that the City is facing, it is without question West
Smuggler. Each week day, between 3pm and 6pm - thousands of
cars and trucks pass through on West Smuggler. The City has
allowed it to become Main Street. But Main Street has traffic lights
and police officers to enforce traffic laws. West Smuggler does not
have this so the result is pretty much mayhem. I think it is a matter
of time before someone gets hurt. I would strongly urge the Mayor
and each City Council member to walk over to West Smuggler one
day and witness it firsthand. It is a shame that this has been
allowed to happen on a neighborhood street. Please act and act
swiftly.
Screen Name Redacted
7/07/2021 11:41 AM
Hello – I am a concerned Aspen citizen living on Hopkins. I often
use West Smuggler to commute through West End on my bicycle.
I agree with the comments that have been made on this forum.
The traffic there from 3pm to 6pm is extremely dangerous. I read a
recent report that shows 1100 cars and trucks pass through West
Smuggler each weekday from 3pm to 6pm. That works out to 12
cars and trucks per minute during this 3 hour time. Seems
inexcusable that the City would allow this to happen. I recall the
new Mayor specifically running on traffic reform as part of his
campaign. He needs to make good on his promise and fix this
issue. The visual each day: watching the procession of cars and
trucks barreling through a neighborhood street is horrible.
Someone is bound to get hurt. I rarely ride my bike through West
Smuggler during 3pm to 6pm because of this safety concern (Main
Street might be safer) – it is a real shame I should not have to
avoid neighborhood streets for fear of my safety.
Screen Name Redacted
7/08/2021 09:44 AM
If you want cars to stop at stop signs, the police should issue
tickets. If you want to save pedestrians lives, have the police issue
jaywalking tickets. if you do not enforce the law no amount of
garbage in the road will make it safe to walk in the road.
Screen Name Redacted
7/09/2021 03:16 PM
I don't think the bigger corners have solved the root of the problem.
Ultimately, cars just don't know that they need to yield to
Spring & Cooper Intersection Questionnaire : Survey Report for 14 June 2016 to 09 August 2021
Page 20 of 22
142
pedestrians. I think stop signs or educational pedestrian right-of-
way signs would be cheaper and more effective.
Screen Name Redacted
7/13/2021 12:36 PM
Have you looked at Original and Cooper? Especially now that
there is supposedly a bus stop there with no lighting and no where
for bus riders to stand and wait.
Screen Name Redacted
7/14/2021 08:18 PM
NO MORE “BUMP-OUTS” or other elimination/stealing of taxpayer
owned parking spaces!
Screen Name Redacted
7/15/2021 04:28 PM
I feel the planters do not help pedestrian safety (instead they just
take up valuable parking spots). Perhaps make it a four way stop or
add a pedestrian signal? Other safety improvements should be
considered.
Screen Name Redacted
7/24/2021 08:46 AM
I walk, bike, drive a car and motorcycle and have no problems with
the way it is.
Screen Name Redacted
7/24/2021 08:47 AM
Educating people to not stand in the middle of the streets and
crossing streets properly would help. Sidewalks are getting bigger,
streets are getting more and more narrower. We are going wrong
direction with this.
Screen Name Redacted
7/27/2021 08:52 PM
I've used the intersection for years as both pedestrian and driver. If
all types of users follow basic traffic rules and are considerate
there is really no problem.
Screen Name Redacted
8/01/2021 08:43 PM
The city is focusing on pedestrians and bicycles too much. We all
need to coexist! Cars included, not all people can walk or bike into
town. The few of us that can are lucky.
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 08:36 AM
Anything that increases automobile awareness of pedestrians is
welcome. Spring Street traffic often moves too fast in this
penultimate block near the mountain. Cooper Street traffic is also
too fast at times, and stop sign adherence is not consistent
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 12:08 PM
I think the 2 way stop is confusing for those not accustomed to this
intersection (all visitors). The majority of close calls that I witness,
Spring & Cooper Intersection Questionnaire : Survey Report for 14 June 2016 to 09 August 2021
Page 21 of 22
143
primarily cars, are due to drivers assuming it is a 4 way stop.
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 03:05 PM
Pedestrian activated strobe lights
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 03:29 PM
I experience this intersection and all others as a pedestrian, cyclist
& motorist. I feel that these types of improvements would be
helpful on all intersections that experience large amounts of
pedestrian traffic.
Screen Name Redacted
8/09/2021 07:48 PM
It is much safer. Please keep it and expand to other parts of
Aspen.
Optional question (34 response(s), 13 skipped)
Question type: Essay Question
Spring & Cooper Intersection Questionnaire : Survey Report for 14 June 2016 to 09 August 2021
Page 22 of 22
144
ATTACHMENT C ACRA Meeting Notes || 08/02/2021 COA Attendants: PJ Murray – Project Manager, Pete Rice – Division Manager, Mitch Osur – Director of Parking and Downtown Services, Sarah Moden – Engineering Intern General Comments :
Part of Aspen’s identity is to be able to walk to the dentist, shops, restaurants, etc. Aspen is unique and wants to stay unique.
Agreement that it feels unsafe when bikes, pedestrians and vehicles occupy the same space
o Likes the idea of Galena being a bikeway for people to get into the core. Supportive of dedicated bike areas so bikers aren’t on every street.
Prefer small incremental steps to this design. Starting the smaller the better.
Voiced concern for the safety of the Galena/Durant intersection. Would like to have increased safety at this intersection.
Do not support cyclists not “following the rules of the road”, i.e. stopping at all stop signs, causes confusion and conflict.
Concerned about the increased traffic that will result in the reduction of parking spaces in the core – will more circulation occur?
Agreement that parallel parking is the safest parking configuration due to increased sight lines.
Concern for the number of drivers and cyclists going the wrong way on the Galena one-way.
Pedestrian safety is of top priority – prefer to not lose parking unless directly to safety.
Parking in Rio Grande Parking Garage is not a preferred option.
Businesses would be supportive of reducing some parking numbers to for increased safety and of relocating parking spaces within the core boundary.
Would like to see better lighting at night for intersections and cross walks in the Core and along Main St.
Supportive of removing construction related parking from the core.
In future presentations to ACRA members: include a slide that explain how this benefits businesses and studies of what other cities have done this successfully.
145