HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.202202281
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
February 28, 2022
4:00 PM, City Council Chambers
427 Rio Grande Place, Aspen
WEBEX MEETING INSTRUCTIONS
WEBEX MEETING INSTRUCTIONS
TO JOIN ONLINE:
Go to www.webex.com and click on "Join a Meeting"
Enter Meeting Number: 2558 954 7969
Enter Password: 81611
Click "Join Meeting"
-- OR --
JOIN BY PHONE
Call: 1-408-418-9388
Enter Meeting Number: 2558 954 7969
Enter Password: 81611
I.WORK SESSION
I.A.Carbon - Council Goal: Organics Waste Diversion Ordinance Options
I.B.Childcare Capacity Goal Update
I.C.Paepcke Transit Hub Bid Update
1
MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor and City Council
FROM:Liz Chapman, Environmental Health and Sustainability
Ainsley Brosnan-Smith, Environmental Health and Sustainability
THROUGH:CJ Oliver, Environmental Health and Sustainability Director
Phillip Supino, Community Development Director
MEETING DATE:February 28, 2022
RE:Organic Waste Diversion and Solid Waste Code Changes
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff is seeking direction from Council to determine which
tactics staff should pursue to reduce organic material buried in landfill and update the
Solid Waste Chapter of the Municipal Code (Title 12). Staff is also seeking direction
from Council about funding mechanisms for waste programming.
PREVIOUS ACTIONS: Aspen City Council has taken a variety of actions since 2005 to
reduce waste buried in the landfill (Exhibit A). Title 12 of the Municipal Code was last
amended in 2013 to require trash and recycling space minimums in new developments.
In January 2022, Council set waste diversion goals as part of the ICLEI Race to Zero
commitment:
Reduce organic material going to landfill by 25% by 2025 and 100% by
2050
70% total diversion of waste from landfill by 2050
BACKGROUND: Through a variety of voluntary policies, programs, and incentives, Aspen
has steadily increased the amount of organic material diverted to compost from 0 to
over 700 tons per year. However, this is only diverting 3-4% of organic material found
in the municipal waste stream, which is far below the 37% of organic material identified
in the 2015 composition study of municipal solid waste in Aspen. Staff estimates 10% of
the retail food sector in Aspen are currently diverting organic material to the
composting facility at the Pitkin County Solid Waste Center which is important because
national studies indicate that 60-80% of a retail food businesses waste is organic. Staff
from the Environmental Health and Sustainability department invites participation in
waste diversion by providing free consultations, trainings, signage, and indoor collection
containers to any business, homeowners association (HOA) or individual who requests
assistance. Pitkin County provides all-metal bear-proof organic collection containers to
any business, or HOA, free of charge when they subscribe to an organic collection
service. Despite this support, participation has stagnated and demonstrates voluntary
2
427 Rio Grande Place Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | Phone: 970-920-5000 | aspen.gov
participation is not an effective or sufficiently fast way to achieve Council’s adopted
waste goals.
Staff undertook an outreach effort to the retail food service sector from November 2021
through January 2022 to understand the barriers, concerns, and support for increasing
participation in organic diversion (Exhibit B). The respondents to the survey indicated
there was interest for the city to write legislation to increase participation, but concern
about wildlife safety with increasing organics collection containers in the alleys of the
downtown core. In addition to the wildlife hazard, the most common barriers cited were
lack of space and the increased cost to implement a new diversion program. Several
respondents suggested the city provide some financial incentives to businesses to
increase participation in organic diversion programs.
DISCUSSION: Title 12 (Solid Waste) of the Municipal Code needs to have several
corrections and updates, as well as substantive changes to advance organic waste
diversion and put the community on track to achieve Council’s goal. These corrections
and changes will be part of a future discussion with Council after decisions have been
made about the most significant changes presented in today’s memo. Regardless of the
approach chosen, staff recommends providing a 12-month grace period between
passing the new ordinance and requiring compliance. This period will allow City staff
to train and equip businesses, as well as allowing time to receive needed equipment
with the current constraints global supply chain.
Items for Council to consider:
1) Change Title 12 to prohibit food in the landfill trash and recycling containers.
a. Voluntary participation in diversion programs does not result in
capturing the maximum potential of divertible materials, as is evident
in the recycling rate in Aspen having plateaued over the past 10 years.
b. Food waste prohibition will divert the maximum organic material and
allows businesses to find other ways to reduce organic material
(donation of excess, inventory control to reduce waste, self-haul
organics to a compost facility, etc.).
c. Educating the community and monitoring for compliance are the most
straightforward when compared to mandating businesses subscribe to
an organic collection service.
d. Municipalities which have mandated subscription to an organic
collection service have experienced contaminations levels so high that
the organic loads are frequently landfilled instead of composted.
2) Provide funding for adequate staff to administer waste programming and
long-term planning. (Additional $200,000/year)
a. The day-to-day requirements to maintain current waste programs and
the need to conduct long-term planning and analysis require two full-
time staff (Senior Waste Specialist and Waste Specialist).
3
427 Rio Grande Place Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | Phone: 970-920-5000 | aspen.gov
b. The 2005 version of Title 12 instated a full-time staff person
(Environmental Ranger) to monitor downtown alleys for compliance.
This position no longer exists.
3) Subsidize costs for organic collection program for program participants.
(Additional $0 to $500,000)
a. The retail food service listed this as a method for the city to increase
participation in organic diversion.
b. The additional costs of organic waste collection programs are a top
concern of the retail food sector.
c. If the volume of trash is reduced through organics diversion, adding
organic collection can be cost neutral. However, many restaurants
share dumpsters with multiple businesses and do not realize these cost
savings.
d. If businesses can reduce waste food through inventory control or food
donation, then the cost of organic collection could be reduced or
eliminated.
Wildlife concerns expressed by the retail food sector during the outreach process are
shared by city staff. Any increase in organic diversion activity will likely increase the
number of collection containers and this will increase the attraction of wildlife
(especially black bears) to the downtown core. The Aspen Police led a Bear Task Force
with other city departments and have had some success in reducing wildlife hazards in
Aspen over the past two years. The observations and concerns resulting from these
efforts have been incorporated into staff’s suggestions in this memo. Although there is
the potential for worsening bear-human conflicts by increasing organic collection, staff
believes there are tactics to mitigate these impacts. These tactics will be part of the
next discussion with Council when discussing specific ordinance changes and details of
the program structure.
Currently, waste programs, equipment and staffing are paid for with general fund
monies. Most of these program and policy changes will increase city expenditures.
Therefore, staff encourages Council to consider creating a dedicated funding source,
which may include:
-Surcharge on waste originating in Aspen and deposited at Pitkin County Solid
Waste Center,
-Fees related to development activities (construction and demolition),
-Tax on municipal solid waste collected within Aspen.
Summary of costs
Program change Additional Cost to
City
Annual Costs to Businesses
Prohibiting food waste 0 $0-$15,000
Additional staff (2 FTE)$200,000/year Varies with funding source
Subsidies $0-500,000 Rebates to participating
businesses
4
427 Rio Grande Place Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | Phone: 970-920-5000 | aspen.gov
Summary of revenue options
Source of Funding Considerations
Surcharge on Aspen waste Requires partnership with Pitkin County
New fees on development activity Not directly related to organic waste, but
waste stream broadly. Solid waste diversion
and fees are being considered in the
residential moratorium code amendment
process.
Tax on municipal waste generated in
Aspen
Must be voter approved. Spreads the cost
through the entire community. Taxes can be
regressive, where the financial burden is
not necessarily distributed equitably based
on impact.
General Fund Competes with other City programs
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS:The financial impact varies with the decision. If Council
decides to pursue additional funding mechanisms, the impacts to the general fund
would be lessened (Exhibit C).
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Increasing local compost production not only reduces
greenhouse gas emissions from the landfill, but also provides a soil amendment to
improve local soils. Reducing the amount of material buried in the landfill also extends
the useful life of our local landfill and converting organics into compost decreases the
pollutants created within a landfill. If Council pursues additional staffing as
recommended, this increases the education, monitoring, and enforcement of the
wildlife safety portion of Title 12. This increase will lead to a reduction in the access
wildlife have to human waste materials which could improve the health of wildlife and
reduce bear-human conflict.
Aspen organics buried
in landfill (tons)
Metric tons of carbon
dioxide equivalent
emissions
Aspen organics
diverted to compost
(tons
Avoided emissions and
sequestered metric
tons of carbon dioxide
equivalent
7303 (2019)3944/year 432 (2019)320/year
0 (2050)0/year 7735 (2050)5404/year
Estimates created using the EPA WARM calculator, based on 2019 municipal solid waste figures and
assuming no organic material is buried in landfill by 2050. This does not account for increased waste
amounts.
5
427 Rio Grande Place Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | Phone: 970-920-5000 | aspen.gov
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends changing the Solid Waste portion of the
Municipal Code (Title 12) to:
-Prohibit food in the landfill trash by modifying Title 12.
-Convert Waste Specialist position to permanent status.
-Reinstate the Environmental Ranger position within a city department.
-Direct staff to develop a new funding mechanism to pay for waste
programming necessary to achieve Council’s waste and climate goals.
NEXT STEPS: Staff will return with a modified Solid Waste Ordinance (Title 12) for
Council to consider in a few months. If Council decides to explore new funding for waste
reduction and diversion programs, staff will return with options for Council to evaluate
in late 2022.
EXHIBITS:
Exhibit A – Key Council Waste Reduction Efforts
Exhibit B – Outreach to Retail Food Service Summary
Exhibit C –Costs and Funding of Waste Programs (current and proposed)
6
EXHIBIT A
Key Aspen City Council Waste Reduction Efforts
2005 – Council revised solid waste ordinance
Recycling service required to be paired (and billed) with trash services
Yard waste prohibited from landfill trash
Increased recycling participation and amounts
Complaint based enforcement (except for reporting requirements)
2010 – Council approves Rio Grande Recycle Center (RGRC) improvements
Increased recycling amounts
Business use contributed bulk of cardboard
Seasonal yard waste collection
2010 - State grant for expanding compost operations at Pitkin County
landfill
Distribution of indoor collection containers for organics
Purchased mixer for use at landfill compost system
Compost specific hauler began offering curbside service
City staff coordinated compost collection at some large restaurants
2011 – Council adds language in Municipal Code to add compost collection
Distributed educational materials about compost collection
442 tons of organics collected from Aspen (2011-2014)
2012 – Council added a Waste Reduction Fee to Municipal Code
Banned single use plastic bags from Aspen grocers
Reduced single use bags
85% of grocery customers do not use disposable paper bags
City staff have distributed over 13,000 reusable bags since 2012
Saved 1/4 of 1 day of landfill space over the last eight years
2013 – Council added Trash and Recycling Space requirements in new
construction
Actively enforced (part of permit process)
As new developments are created, fewer dumpsters will be in the alleys
When buildings have adequate space for waste containers, diversion is
expected to increase
2015 – State grant (sponsored by Pitkin County)
Created SCRAPS Community Compost Collection program
Media campaign and branding
Provided free bear-proof dumpsters for outdoor collection
Compost increased to 4% of MSW over 4 years (~20% of restaurants
participate)
2140 tons of organics collected from Aspen (2015-2019)
Over 319 accounts for curbside compost service
7
2017 – Council and BOCC partner for Solid Waste Assessment study
Waste composition results
35% of municipal waste could be recycled
40% of municipal waste could be composted
Primary recommendations:
Revise City and County solid waste ordinances to be in alignment
Increase organics diversion in the MSW sector (compost collection)
Increase C&D reduction and diversion
2019 – Council approved change to Targeted Collections at RGRC
Increased yard waste amounts composted
Expanded metal recycling opportunities
2020 -Council set a Tier 1 Goal re: Waste Management
Develop a long-range community waste management plan to reduce
waste in the highest impact landfill diversion areas
Provide incentives to increase voluntary diversion of waste
Consider policy changes to address wildlife conflicts, consider
construction impacts, and increase landfill longevity
2022 –Council signed the Race to Zero agreement and set waste diversion
goals
Reduce organic material going to landfill by 25% by 2025 and 100%
by 2050
70% total diversion of waste from landfill by 2050
8
22 Total Survey
Participants
Questions
Multiple Choice Option Vote Tally Multiple Choice Option Vote Tally
1
Yes 17 Yes 5
2
Yes 15 Yes 4
No 2 No 1
Is the business you own or manage a food service
establishment?
Do you recycle at your business(es)?
Do you live in Aspen?
Do you work in Aspen?
Where do you recycle?
5 Aspen Community Member Respondents
Answers from 5 Aspen Community Members
(not in food service)Answers from 17 food service workers
Appendix I. Results from the survey, Organic Waste Diversion in Aspen .
17 Food Service Respondents
9
Those who
answered
"Yes" to
question 2
Work 2
Cost savings.2 Home 5
It's good for the
environment. 13 Around the community.2
Staff are interested in
recycling. 6
Our customers like
that we recycle. 5 I have curbside service.5
Write in:"I believe it's mandatory"
Those who
answered
"No" to
question 2
Yes.4
We don't have space
for collection
containers.
1 No 1
Other (please specify).1
Write in:
We recycle but our trash
service places both the
trash and recycling into the
same truck :(
I compost at home.2
Do you separate organics from your landfill trash?
Do you have curbside service, or do you take your
recyclables to a center?
Where do you do this?
Why do you recycle?
Why not?
10
3
I have curbside compost
collection service at home.2
Yes 7 I have curbside compost
collection service at work.1
No 10
Those who
answered
"Yes" to
question 3
I have curbside service.2
It's good for the
environment. 6
Staff are interested in
composting. 1
Do you compost at your business(es)?
Why do you compost?
Do you have curbside service, or do you take your compost
to the Pitkin County Landfill Compost Facility?
What barriers get in the way of diverting organic matter
from the landfill?
11
Write in: "We don’t because cost
too much time and labor"Bears and other wildlife. 3
Those who
answered
"No" to
question 3
I'm not sure how to do it. 1
It takes too much
time.3 There isn't space for
collection containers.3
We don't have space
for collection
containers.
7 Write in:
"The collection containers can be
unmanageable for a single person
with a large load of organic
material. "
Staff isn't interested
in composting.3
"Honestly, We used to have
curbside back in Maine and it was
much more visiblely used in
community....just havent made the
effort to sign up with a company
here in the valley."
It's not a law.4
Write in: "Cost prohibitive", "Cost
prohibitive"
Reduced greenhouse gas
emissions. 3
Less material in the landfill. 4
4
Less odor in the trash. 1
What do you believe the benefits are of diverting organics
from the landfill?
What barriers get in the way of diverting organic
matter from the landfill?
Why don't you compost?
12
Bears and other
wildlife. 11 It reduces my cost for trash.2
Smell.8
It can be processed into
compost or feed for
livestock.
5
Staff isn't sure how to
do it. 5
There isn't space for
collection containers.9 Yes 5
The cost for service
and supplies.8
The added labor to
staff. 6 Provide containers for
organics collection.4
Write in:"no barriers, it's easy"Impose fees for putting
organics in the trash. 2
5
Provide incentives when
organics are diverted.3
Do you think the City of Aspen should support the diversion
of organic waste?
How do you think the City of Aspen could support organic
waste diversion?
What do you believe the benefits are of diverting
organics from the landfill?
13
Reduced greenhouse
gas emissions. 10 Subsidize the cost. 3
Less material in the
landfill. 16 Other (please specify).1
Less odor in the trash. 6
It reduces my cost for
trash. 4 Yes 4
It can be processed
into compost or feed
livestock.
12 No 1
6
Yes 15
Should there be legal requirements to divert organic waste in
Aspen?
Do you think the City of Aspen should support
businesses in diverting organic waste?
14
No 2
7
Provide containers for
organics collection.13
Impose fees for
putting organics in the
trash.
3
Provide incentives
when organics are
diverted.
10
Subsidize the cost. 14
How do you think the City of Aspen could support
your business in organic waste diversion?
15
8
Yes 7
No 10
"It would be great if
the City funded the
Composting effort"
Please include anything else youd like to share
about organic waste dicersion in Aspen
Should there be legal requirements to divert
organic waste in Aspen?
16
Outrech Type Audience
Reached Date
In person visits to
resturaunts with flyers
for the survey and
webinar in spanish
and english.
67 Resturaunts month of
December 2021
Food waste webinar
with pannelists:
compost haulers,
composting
businesses and PitCo
Landfill
12 12/16/2021
Emailed all resuraunt
contacts on file to
take survey, attend
webinar and notify of
council meeting.
Emailed contacts 3
different times.
88 11/29/21;
1/14/22; 1/27/22
17
Feedback from in person visits
to Restuarants
Indicated only the management
would respond to the survey;
interested in diverting compost
interested
Very positive and interested.
Concerned about customer
education, costs and service
frequency
interested cost-concerns education-concerns
Very negative. Said he had
composted before and it was a
pain and not worth it.
not-interested time-concerns
very positive. Took fliers for
survey
interested
Comments Categorized
18
Jour de fete is 100% support of
this he just needs help
convincing his HOA to allow him
to have a been.
interested
property-manager-
disapproval
Very positive. Said he had
participated in compost
diversion in Crested Butte
interested
Butcher block manager got
composting started at bumps.
Big barrier for them is how to
deal with space constraints in
their alley will there be a
community compost location for
tight alleys. space-constraints
He was enthusiastic to hear
about this and would make sure
staff fill out survey.
interested
Concerned about extra
containers; training staff and
customers; "not quite there yet"
space-constraints education-concerns
19
Enthusiastic, but said there have
been problems with customers
contaminating trash
interested education-concerns
Wants to participate, but cannot
because of the shared trash
space with Aspen Condominums.
There is not enough room for
another waste container
space-constraints
Already composts.
interested
Do not compost. Don't really
have a lot of waste b/c they
order their food pre-washed, cut,
and prepped. Up for composting,
though.
interested
Can’t get receptacles from hauler
receptacle-shortage
20
already composts and recycles
interested
"into it", asked me to come back
when Chef was there
interested
Stopped compost collection due
to expense
cost-concerns
Wants to participate but cannot
affrod the extra cost
cost-concerns interested
Very worried about the smell,
overflowing trash cans, and
keeping up with sorting during
busy times
education-concerns time-concerns smell-concerns
21
Finds participating in compost
collection easy; noted the bears
cannot get into the bin; very
enthusiastic
interested
interested and said he would
post flier
interested
Thinks everyone should compost
interested
Interested, took all the fliers
interested
Space is their main constraint.
Said the head chef was
interested in composting.
interested space-constraints
22
Don't compost b/c they're so
small. Share a dumpster with
retail in the back. Open to it for
sure.
space-constraints interested
Don't compost anymore. Used
to, but it heated up too quickly
and started to smell. Also, had a
colony of maggots. Open to
trying it again.
smell-concerns interested
23
Categories Count
"Interested"20
"space-constraints"5
"education-concerns"5
"education-concerns"4
24
"cost-concerns"3
"time-concerns"2
"smell-concerns"2
"not-interested"1
"property-manager-
disapproval"1
25
"receptacle-shortage"1
26
Exhibit C -Costs and Funding of Waste Programs (current and proposed)
Proposed waste expenditures Costs Revenue source Notes
Waste Specialist $100,000/year undetermined Currently a
temporary position
“Environmental Ranger”$100,000/year undetermined A previous position
which was
eliminated
Subsidies to participants $0 to
$500,000/year
undetermined
Current waste expenditures
Senior Waste Specialist $106,000/year General Fund
Rio Grande Recycle Center
operations and equipment
$185,000/year General Fund
Education/Outreach/Advertisin
g
$45,000/year General Fund Anticipating a need
to communicate
new ordinance
rules to community
All other waste programming
outside of recycle center
$25,000/year General Fund
Single use bag fee
expenditures
Expenditures equal
revenues
Reusable bags for free
distribution
$13,000/year Waste Reduction
Fee
Monies collected
from these fees are
restricted by
ordinance and
cannot be spent on
on-going City of
Aspen expenses.
Electronic waste collection
event(s)
~ $27,000/year Waste Reduction
Fee
Summer intern to help reduce
waste at events on City of
Aspen properties
$15,300/year Waste Reduction
Fee
27
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Shirley Ritter, Director, Kids First
THRU: Sara Ott, City Manager,
Diane Foster, Assistant City Manager
Scott Miller, Assistant City Manager
MEETING DATE:February 28, 2022
RE:City Council’s Childcare Capacity Goal update
PURPOSE:
The purpose of this memo is to provide an update for achieving City Council’s Critical 2-year
childcare capacity goal.
SUMMARY & BACKGROUND:
On August 10, 2021, City Council adopted Resolution #76_Series 2021, which directed staff to
increase the number of available childcare spaces.
This will be accomplished through:
1. Plan, design to repurpose or build new buildings to add physical capacity to increase
available childcare space.
2. Increase the recruitment and retention of qualified early childhood teachers.
3.Generate funding to support the development of new childcare spaces.
This goal runs for two years, with an expected completion date of July 2023. This is a short
timeframe to accomplish this overall goal, however, the next two years will include measurable
steps, to show accomplishments that are achievable. The need to expand childcare capacity has
been an ongoing part of Kids First’s mission. This City Council goal provides added support and
a clear path to achieve this goal.
In previous meetings we have provided information from the childcare needs survey conducted
by the City of Aspen, Town of Basalt, and the Town of Snowmass Village.
Background information that is important to provide context has to do with how childcare is
regulated and what quality means for young children. This is relevant to the discussion on
capacity, but not something we generally get the chance to talk about. The table below shows the
total number of programs, classrooms, and desired daily capacity for children. This information
was reported to Kids First by the program directors.
28
2
Name Director Colorado
Shines
rating
Days open Ages
licensed
to serve
Number of
classrooms
Desired
Capacity by age
children/day
Aspen
Country Day
Laurie
Frampton &
Tsvetana
Mawicke
4 5 days a week,
school schedule,
180 days annually
Preschool 2 32 Preschoolers
Aspen
Mountain
Tots
Dawn Ryan 1 4 days week,
closed Fridays,
185 days annually
Toddler,
Preschool
2 8 Toddlers
16 Preschoolers
Aspen
School
District
Darilynn
Cairncross
4 5 days a week,
school schedule,
185 days annually
Infant,
Toddler,
Preschool
5 8 Infants
8 Toddlers
45 Preschoolers
Aspen
Sprouts
Cathy
Coffee
2 5 days a week,
252 days annually
Preschool 1 7 Preschoolers
Camp
Snowmass
Sue Way 1 Seasonal -
summer
Early
Learning
Center
Leslie Bixel 3 5 days a week,
year-round,
240 days annually
Infant,
Toddler,
Preschool
8 16 Infants
18 Toddlers
64 Preschoolers
Growing
Years
Adele
Matthee
4 5 days a week,
year-round,
244 days annually
Infant,
Toddler,
Preschool
5 8 Infants
16 Toddlers
30 Preschoolers
Little Red
Schoolhouse
Christina
Holloway
1 5 days a week,
year-round
Toddler,
Preschool
2 10 Toddlers
18 Preschoolers
NJS Kinder
Cottage
Mary Wolfer 1 Doesn’t report,
Closed Mondays
Preschool 1 30 Preschoolers
Playgroup
Aspen
Kadi
Kuhlenberg
1 Doesn’t report,
Closed Mondays
Toddler,
Preschool
3 8 Toddlers
28 Preschoolers
Tree House Sue Way 1 Seasonal, winter Infant,
Toddler,
Preschool
Woody Creek
Kids
Christina
Holloway
1 5 days a week,
year-round, 160
days annually
Toddler,
Preschool
2 10 Toddlers
18 Preschoolers
Wildwood Tine Person 4 5 days a week,
year-round, 209
days annually
Preschool 2 34 Preschoolers
Licensing & Colorado Shines Rating
Colorado licensing is considered the minimum level for safe care and programs are required to
meet these rules.
Colorado Shines is a voluntary rating program run by the state and includes levels one through
five; all programs who meet licensing requirements are a level one. From that point, programs
voluntarily work to increase quality by taking classes or earning points in several areas that are
shown to indicate quality for young children. These areas include workforce and professional
development, family partnerships, leadership, management, and administration, learning
environment, and child health. When programs are working on their Colorado Shines rating,
they work with Kids First coaches to make observations, assessments, and provide coaching to
earn points in all these areas. Kids First receives funding to provide a limited number of hours to
support coaching for high quality childcare and the programs receive funding for materials and
professional development for the same purpose, from the state. This is an overview of how
29
3
programs earn quality ratings:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1c7xCyiti7zJOE_ORzb3mDAjHf2dKdsJ8/view
Number of Children in a Classroom & Waitlists
To support higher quality many of our local childcare programs choose to reduce the overall group
size and increase the ratio of adults to children. There are national and state standards that
require a maximum group size; for example, the Colorado Preschool Program (CPP) allows no
more than 16 children in a preschool group. As we’ve mentioned in the past, infant numbers are
considerably lower – licensing allows 10 babies (think 6 weeks to 12 months old) in a group with
2 caregivers. Higher quality standards look more like 8 babies with 2 caregivers. If you’ve spent
any time in an infant room, you know the difference is dramatic.
As you can see on the chart above, we currently have 32 spots for infants. This connects directly
with the waitlist information that shows165 infants on 3 waitlists! That’s about 5 times the available
spaces – which translates into 16 to 17 infant classrooms We also learned that although some
parents put their name on all the lists, many do not. They want specific programs, hours, location,
or quality level. We also know that because waitlists are so long and difficult to predict, that many
parents use unlicensed care, family care, or do not go back to work after having that baby. As
mentioned previously, some parents also can work from home and care for children (still not ideal
for anyone involved) however, many parents that work in jobs requiring in-person work do not
have that option. This has been shown to be extremely inequitable and places an even greater
burden on those who often have fewer resources and greater need.
Over the last 3 weeks, staff has reached out to local childcare programs to talk about waitlists.
We agree that this is a messy system, and we continue to look for a more systemic solution for
families and for the programs. The need shows up every place there are families, one program in
Carbondale/El Jebel area has 512 children on the waitlist. More childcare is needed in many
places, and it will all have a positive outcome for families.
Infant Toddler Preschool TOTAL
Program 1 80 80
Program 2 109 0 16 125
Program 3 5 5
Program 4 4 3 6 13
Program 5 52 95 71 218
Program 6 32
165 98 178 473
History of the Yellow Brick as a childcare and childcare support facility
During the previous work-session with council, staff was asked to bring information regarding the
history and purchase by the City of Aspen, of the yellow brick building. As has been discussed,
the purchase from the Aspen School District was complicated and involved a cash price as well
as playing fields and other considerations. We have records that show the city paid $1,520,370
in cash for the yellow brick building in 1998. This was the result of several years of planning,
budgeting, and negotiations, and used reserve funds from what is now the 152 fund for that cash
price.
30
4
Prior to that year, childcare programs were housed in the yellow brick building and the city made
over $209,700 worth of repairs from 1995 to 1998. In the following years the city invested over
$2,250,000 in the building, including a new roof, playground replacement, new flooring, a lowered
ceiling in the gym, and other ongoing repairs and maintenance.
As we discussed during budget presentations, operationally we budgeted for $177,760 in
revenues for 2022, while budgeting $221,730 in expenditures. This is an intentional subsidy that
allows a lease cost of $11 per S.F. annual amount. This lets childcare programs occupy the space,
use the common elements of the building and the playgrounds, and provides an affordable space
for childcare in Aspen. The average monthly rent for one classroom in the yellow brick is $746.
Updating the lease for Aspen Mountain Tots & Issuing a new RFP for space in Yellow Brick
Currently staff is working with Aspen Mountain Tots to incorporate language into the yellow brick
building lease that meets everyone’s needs and expectations concerning breaks and lease terms.
Additionally, city staff is working to ensure a smooth transition in June for Playgroup Aspen, who
plans to leave the building and discontinue operations at that time. The next step will be to
distribute a request for proposals (RFP) for a new organization to operate childcare in the three
rooms that are being vacated. That will be open as soon as possible with the intent to review and
choose that childcare provider by early May, allowing time to complete all the steps to re-open
that space this summer. The Kids First Advisory Board and staff will look for a program that most
closely meets the community need for childcare and has the ability to run a successful program.
DISCUSSION:
This goal includes five key workplan areas with activities that will happen for the next two years.
These elements are:
1. Planning and Design for a new childcare building,
2. Recruitment and Retention of early childhood workforce,
3. Funding to meet the community need for early childhood,
4. Policy,
5. Long-range Planning.
1. Planning and Design for a new childcare building:
An infant childcare room at Colorado Mountain College (CMC) renovation in the classroom
continues, with replacement of some floor covering, cabinets, plumbing and electrical
work. Equipment and furnishing are expected later this week.
o We continue to advertise and hold conversations with qualified persons to operate
this program. Our hope is to work with CMC to create this room as an incubator
with training and experience working with infants. The Kids First Advisory Board
will approve the final selection and award a lease for the space.
o We plan to open this room this spring – as soon as work is completed, an operator
identified, and a childcare license is in place.
31
5
City staff has selected a design firm to begin work on the Burlingame childcare site. Staff
has met to get agreement on contract details and plan to bring the contract to city council
in March for contract approval.
RELATED UPDATES:
Aspen School District is continuing to develop their plans for a new early childhood
building on the school campus. At this point, it will create new space for the current 5
classrooms of childcare they offer. Those classrooms are now housed in 3 different
buildings, including a construction trailer on the site. This new building will be a great space
for young children, but it will not include additional classroom space.
The Town of Basalt has awarded a design contract for a new childcare building in Willits
on town-owned land, as well as an agreement with Blue Lake Preschool to operate the
new facility in addition to their current childcare classrooms.
The Town of Snowmass Village is working with consultants to determine the childcare
need specific to Snowmass Village, and the feasibility of creating additional capacity in the
town.
2. Recruitment and Retention of early childhood workforce:
Kids First staff are nearing implementation of a new incentive program to provide stronger support
for childcare recruitment and retention. This includes individual incentives paid to staff based on
their retention, education, credential level, and more quality indicators. This is an area that is
especially challenging for existing childcare programs. Many are limited in their ability to enroll
more children because of the difficulty of recruiting and retaining staff.
Kids First has hired an early childhood intern and is providing education and experience needed
for her to successfully move into a lead teacher position in a local childcare program.
Kids First continues to engage with CMC with plans to use the infant room space as a learning
lab to provide early childhood teachers with educational resources and hands-on experience. We
think of this as a form of “incubator” to support job progression for early childhood staff, whether
their goal is to be a director, early childhood teacher, or other early childhood expert.
3. Funding to meet the community need for early childhood
Staff has continued to strengthen relationships with potential funding partners, to better
understand their needs related to childcare. Kids First is contracting with an organization that
specializes in capital campaign planning and execution that has created a strategy for
collaborative planning and fund development. This work began in February. This plan will:
•Define a structure for the leadership group looking forward (clarified responsibilities,
authority, expectations for participation, etc)
•Develop a strategic vision for the project
•Identify key messages for engaging the community
•Outline a project budget and develop a strategic fund development plan to support the
design/development and launch of the childcare facility
•Provide the comprehensive set of information in a clear, practical and user-friendly report
for the group (and community at large)
32
6
We continue to monitor federal stimulus funding that includes several supports for both existing
programs, expansion of capacity for childcare, as well as workforce supports, professional
development, CCCAP rates, early childhood mental health services, indoor air quality, and access
to inclusive care for all children. Since January, local childcare programs were able to access
stabilization grants through the Colorado Office of Early Childhood, from ARPA stimulus funding.
Based on the size and Colorado Shines rating of the program, our local programs may access up
to $80,000 over 9 months to help support workforce and families in a variety of ways.
https://sites.google.com/state.co.us/publicsitetest/child-care-stabilization-and-sustainability-
grants?authuser=0
4. Policy
The Colorado legislative session is underway, and Kids First staff is participating with regional
partners to provide a unified voice to support policy that has a positive outcome for young children
and families. Shirley chairs the policy committee for the Rocky Mountain Early Childhood Council
and is actively involved in the Rocky Mountain Preschool Coalition advocacy meetings.
5.Long-range Planning
Kids First will include annual evaluation and re-assessment of the data concerning both physical
space needs and enrollment capacity, as well as staff capacity. Staff will compare progress with
future needs and consider our financial ability to support increased capacity and staffing
operationally. We will continue to participate with regional and state partners for technical support,
and opportunities to work regionally. Our goal is to support families much longer than the 2-year
council goal, making quality childcare the foundation for successful learning for all young children.
Kids First staff is working with Roaring Fork Leadership on a project that would gather data from
families and childcare providers to create a better system for managing waitlists. The team is
working toward a goal of making recommendation to Kids First for a way to make waitlists easier
for childcare programs to manage, and easier for families to access childcare. They expect to
report on this by May 2022.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS:
Each of the areas listed above requires trained staff as the primary means of accomplishing this
work. Capital costs as well as consultants will be required in some cases.
As this goal work evolves, funding and staffing needs will be discussed with city management
and City Council, project budgets will be included and discussed.
NEXT STEPS:
Staff will continue to share this plan and activities with Aspen City Council and follow quickly with
subsequent meetings to begin discussing policy and getting direction from City Council.
Key Council Dates from the Timeline:
March 2022: Proposed contract for Burlingame Childcare design firm to City Council
April 18, 2022:Work session or Info Only Memo to update and get direction from city
council
33
MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor and City Council
FROM:Mike Horvath, P.E., Project Manager
Pete Rice, P.E., Division Manager
Trish Aragon, P.E., City Engineer
THROUGH:Scott Miller, Public Works Director
MEMO DATE:February 28, 2022
RE:Paepcke Transit Hub Construction Work Session
SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND: The city is working to improve the safety of pedestrians
and provide adequate facilities to promote higher bus ridership in order to alleviate the
dependency on single vehicles. Improving transit ridership is critical in maintaining
historical 1993 vehicle counts and providing choice ridership at the second busiest bus stop
in the city. Understanding this critical nature of providing comfortable, safe and efficient
infrastructure that encourages ridership over single vehicle occupancy. Staff received
considerable After consideration of the considerable amount of public feedback and
evaluation of the existing conditions, Engineering and Transportation staff identified the
intersection at Garmisch Street and Main Street as an area in need of improvements to
increase pedestrian safety, improve bus stop infrastructure and alleviate the ponding of
water. The project area is depicted below in Figure 1.The multi-modal approach brings
another important goal of the Aspen Community Plan to life.
Figure 1:Limit Area for Project
34
The Garmisch Street and Main Street bus stop is the second most utilized bus stop in the City
of Aspen. Due to the location of the bus stop, this serves as one of the biggest conduits for
pedestrians to connect to a bus stop from the northern side of Main Street. The inbound BRT
stop on South Garmisch has limited bus infrastructure and pedestrian safety is a concern
when crossing Main St.
The intersection is the main stop for people accessing the BRT system with destinations
north of Main Street. A significant amount of pedestrian traffic is created that consistently
interacts with vehicles on Main St. The Main Street pedestrian crossing (at Garmisch Street)
is one of the busiest non-signaled Main St. crossings in the city. Pedestrians are required to
cross five lanes of traffic and visibility can be impaired by loading buses and vehicles. An
additional concern for staff is the high number of kids that utilize this area due to the
proximity of the Yellow Brick school.
Several areas near the outbound bus stop need improved slopes to convey storm water
properly. During rain events or a snowmelt period, considerable amounts of water pool near
the outbound bus stop creating unsafe and uncomfortable conditions. Pedestrians need to
walk through water and ice during several periods of the year making it difficult to load
buses as seen in Figure 2 below.
Figure 2: Drainage Issue
Five phases are planned for this project as presented to Council. Phases 1 through 4 have
been completed. The phases are broken out as follows:
Phase 1 – Inventory Analysis (completed)
35
Phase 2 – Conceptual Engineering Planning (completed)
Phase 3 – Design: 30% and 90% Design Development (completed)
Phase 4 – Final Design/Construction Drawings (completed)
Phase 5 - Construction
Phase 1 of the project included public outreach and a survey of the project area. The Paepcke
Transit Hub Project performed extensive public outreach during Fall 2019. The outreach
included pop-up events at the bus stops, public City forum exhibitions, Aspen Community
Voice page, and meetings with stakeholders (internal and external). The project received
hundreds of comments and interviewed 20 stakeholders. Interviewed stakeholders include
multiple City departments, Molly Gibson, Yellow Brick, Hotel Aspen, Red Brick, Aspen
Reprographic, We-Cycle, Next Gen, ACRA, Pitkin BOCC, and local property management.
Three major themes developed throughout the outreach: increase safety at Main St crossing,
expand bus stop amenities, and improve pedestrian connectivity. Overall, the community
and staff were overwhelmingly supportive of the project. The public outreach report can be
found as Attachment A.
Phases 2 through 4 included the design development into construction documents and were
approved by Council in July 2019 and July 2020. The Paepcke Transit Hub project seeks to
improve access, comfort and safety for users of transit, bike share, car share and
pedestrian/cycling options at one of the busiest locations in Aspen. Specifically, the Paepcke
Transit Hub project will:
Create a safer inbound transit stop on Garmisch Street by providing a formal bus stop
and supporting pedestrian connections.
Create safer pedestrian crossings at intersections at or near Highway 82 and Garmisch
Street by improving the geometric design of pedestrian routes, the visible site lines
between vehicles and pedestrians and pedestrian crossing indications.
Create a safer, more comfortable transit stop for outbound passengers at Aspen’s second
busiest outbound bus stop by providing a shelter, real time transit signage, trash
receptacles and other amenities.
Provide power to the car and bike share stations, allowing for the installation of an
electric car share vehicle and electric bikes at this key location as well as increased bike
share capacity.
The public outreach was considered along with staff design guidelines to develop the
conceptual design transitioning into construction documents. Staff has worked diligently
with RFTA, CDOT, local stakeholders, and consultant team to develop a construction level
design that improves the functionality and safety for all users within the project area. The
renderings for the project can be found in Attachment B of this document.
The final design supported by Council during a work session in November 2020, addresses
the major three themes developed in the public outreach and identified by staff. In the
designs, the Main St crossing is improved by a raised island between the bus lane and vehicle
lanes with a Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacon (RRFB) as well as a western crossing with
RRFB’s. This allows for increased sight of the RRFB by vehicles when buses are loading and
provides a pedestrian refuge while crossing (see Figure 3 below). The design also formalizes
36
the in-bound bus stop on Garmisch with a bus pull off with pedestrian connections in every
direction. A midblock crossing is proposed on Garmisch to provide predictable and
consolidated pedestrian flow (see Figure 4 below). A bus shelter and improved amenities are
proposed at the outbound bus stop on the north side of Main St. Improved amenities include
on-demand heaters for winter use similar to other BRT stops down valley. These design
elements were strongly supported by the public at all outreach events and interviews.
Figure 3: Improved Main St Crossing and Bus Shelter
37
Figure 4: Bus Pullout and Other Improvements on Garmisch St
New We-Cycle station pads are included on both the north and south sides of Main St, which
increase the bike share program capacity in the area. Infrastructure is proposed to account
for the future electrification of the stations as popularity of E-bikes increases. Two electric
vehicle charging station are also proposed; one for public use and one for the Car-to-Go car
share program.
The utilities are to be upgraded below the new concrete bus pad at the outbound bus shelter.
This should prevent that surface from construction disturbance for the foreseeable future.
Both the water and storm mains are proposed to beupsized. Drainage and conveyance to the
stormwater system is to be improved to prevent puddling and splashing of people waiting
for the bus on the north side of Main St.
City staff has worked with adjacent property owners to limit the impacts to private property.
Landscaping and other property improvements have been agreed to in order curtail the
effects of the project on the surrounding community while increasing the safety and
functionality of the public infrastructure in the area.
The Paepcke Transit Hub project was originally advertised for competitive bid in June 2021
and no bids were received at that time. The project was then advertised again for competitive
bid on September 27, 2021. One bid was received and opened on January 7, 2022.
Qualifying bids were received from one (1) Contractor as summarized below:
Gould Construction $4,000,160
DISCUSSION: Staff has discussed the bid internally and some clarifications have been
38
requested by City Manager’s Officeas the bid submitted exceedstheallocated project budget.
The Financial Impacts section provides full details for the budget, but the Discussion will
evaluate the reasons for the project cost and review similar projects within the valley. .
Investigating the budget shortfall requires comparing the bid to the cost estimate provided
by the design consultants. This comparison demonstrates there is not one material that is
creating the cost increase between the estimate and the bid. Numerous items came in more
than 75% over the 2021 Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Costs including landscaping, storm
infrastructure, concrete, traffic control, project maintenance (street sweeping, temporary
bus stop, etc.), electrical, and aspects of demolition.
After reviewing the Construction Cost Index on Engineering News Record which estimates
national projects, overall construction is up 8.4% and building costs are up 14.9% over the
last year. Both those numbers include material costs and labor. Studying specific materials,
asphalt is up 19.3% and concrete is up 17.5%. Skilled experienced labor is up 2.9% over the
last year, and staff has received local feedback that “skilled experience labor” is difficult to
find/keep currently in the Roaring Fork Valley (RFV). This information is based on averaging
20 cities throughout the US. The RFV market is much more vulnerable to larger increases
due to accessibility, labor availability and material availability, but this demonstrates the
current market trends on a nation level.
The current budgeting and bidding environments are higher in the RFV but are not
anticipated to be reduced in the following years. The HWY 82 Resurfacing project managed
by CDOT received 2 bids: one for 127% and one for 152% of the engineer’s estimate earlier
in January. The Brush Creek Project presented by EOTC came in at approximately 186% of
the estimate. In both cases, the state is proceeding on increasing the allocated budget.
A growing concern for contractors is the reliability of labor within the valley due to housing.
Contractors are hesitant to commit to a large project with the shortage of labor and
specifically drivers. The Paepcke Transit Hub did not receive a bid earlier in the summer.
After reaching out to four contractors in the area who could do this work, the labor shortage
is a critical concern for contractors. Contractors provided a similar response to the RFTA
Pedestrian Underpass project in Glenwood Springs that received zero bids. The labor
shortage will be a growing concern in the valley for contractors for years to come.
Material pricing, specifically concrete, is a good indicator on pricing of a project as a whole.
Concrete bid prices for City projects have fluctuated per the table below over the past three
years. Material costs only plays a small role in concrete unit pricing. Accessibility to the
application, labor rates, complexity of concrete cross section and jointing, quantity, concrete
availability, and concrete mix design all contribute to development of unit pricing.
Table 1: Historic Concrete Pricing
2019 - Concrete Replacement2020 - Park Circle 2021 - Concrete Replacement 2022 - Paepcke Transit Hub 2022 - HWY 82 Resurfacing
Sidewalk (SY)118.00$ 135.00$ 132.00$ 166.00$ 183.00$
Type 2 Curb & Gutter (LF)44.00$ 60.00$ 59.00$ 58.00$ 60.00$
Reinforced Concrete Pad (SY)330.00$ 200.00$ 197.00$ 510.00$ 245.00$
*8" with steel *6" without steel *8" with steel *9" with steel & curbing *10" without steel
Concrete Unit Pricing per Year
39
Utilizing the Curb and Gutter prices shown in the table above,the past three years have seen
a 40% increase in concrete pricing compared to the 17.5% from the Construction Cost Index
for concrete.
Figure 5:Concrete Pricing
Lagging indicators of actual construction costs over the past 10 years would suggests that
costs may stabilize but it is unlikely that they will decrease.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS:Staff recommends that it is in the City’s best interests to award the
construction contract to Gould Construction and the other contracts listed to their respective
consultants/contractors while deferring non-top priority projects. These contracts total
$4,414,028 per Table 2 below.
Project Item Costs
Gould Construction Bid $ 4,000,160.00
Construction Inspections $ 163,849.00
Outreach $ 45,975.00
Materials Testing $ 18,170.00
Tree Mitigation $ 4,365.00
Construction Administration $ 45,688.00
Contingency (approx. 3%)$ 135,821.00
Total $ 4,414,028.00
Table 2: Project Costs
Funding for this project is equal to $1,910,302 and it was appropriated within the 2022 Asset
Management Plan Fund budget, under project 50486: Garmisch Bus Stop &Pedestrian
Improvements and other funding sources. Other funding sources are discussed in detail
below in Table 3.
Funding Source Amount
40
Project Account $ 849,608.00
CDOT Grant Funding $ 800,392.00
Project Budget Subtotal $ 1,650,000.00
Small Lodge Fund $ 79,418.00
Utility Distribution Maintenance Fund $ 77,364.00
Electric Cable Replacement Fund $ 103,520.00
Project Budget Total $ 1,910,302.00
Table 3: Existing Project Funding
The Transportation and Engineering Departments collaborated to submit Multi-Modal
Operations Fund (MMOF) and Revitalizing Main Streets (RMS) grant applications for the
Paepcke Transit Hub project. Both MMOF and RMS grants are awarded and managed by the
Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). The Paepcke Transit Hub project was well-
received and awarded with $650,392.00 in funding from the MMOF grant and $150,000 from
the RMS grant. Specifically, the MMOF grant agreement will fund the project as follows.
The Transportation Department will manage the MMOF and RMS grants. These grants
decrease the net budget by $800,392, but the 2022 Asset Management Plan will require an
increase in budget allowance from $1,910,302 to $4,414,028 prior to reimbursement from
CDOT. The project costs are more than the estimated project budget at time of MMOF grant
submittal of $1,300,784, so only 50% split of estimated cost of $1,300,784 will be
implemented on the total construction cost within the MMOF grant. The MMOF grant expires
in June 2023; therefore, all construction and reimbursement requests must be completed by
this date in order to receive the full MMOF funding. $56,840 of construction funding is also
being reimbursed by RFTA and local development. Staff will work to increase RFTA’s
contribution if Council provides direction to proceed. The total reimbursement for the
projects totals $857,232. These reimbursements will decrease the final money spent by the
City to a total of $3,556,796 per Table 4below.Itis also important to note that only the MMOF
Grant was utilized in the development of the appropriated project budget, therefore the
other $206,840 of reimbursements outside of the MMOF Grant (RMS Grant, Main St Bakery,
& RFTA) will offset a portion of the requested Spring Supplemental.
Reimbursement Source Amount
CDOT Grant (MMOF)$ 650,392.00
CDOT Grant (RMS)$ 150,000.00
CDOT Grants Subtotal $ 800,392.00
Main St Bakery $ 6,840.00
RFTA $ 50,000.00
Reimbursement Subtotal $ 857,232.00
Project Total Cost $ 4,414,028.00
Reimbursement Subtotal ($ 857,232.00)
Final City Expenditure $ 3,556,796.00
Table 4: Project Reimbursement
41
The Small Lodge Fund is being utilized for right-of-way improvements adjacent to the Molly
Gibson Lodge, totaling $79,418. The Molly Gibson would ultimately be responsible for the
construction of these improvements without the project, therefore the use of the Small Lodge
Fund per the request of the developer. The Paepcke Transit Hub will complete them as part
of the project to minimize construction impacts and maximize the functionality of the
corridor.
The Utility Distribution Maintenance Fund will be utilized to cover all costs associated with
upgrading the water main line and fire hydrant in the project area, totaling $77,364. The
Electric Cable Replacement Fund will also contribute $103,520 to cover additional electrical
infrastructure benefitting the electrical distribution grid. These inter-departmental
contributions save the City money as separate improvements are combined under one
project scope.
Project Total Costs $ 4,414,028.00
Appropriated 2022 Budget including Grants ($ 1,910,302.00)
Project Budget Shortfall $ 2,503,726.00
Table 5: Budget Shortfall
The additional $2,503,726 listed above in Table 5 will be requested through project
deferment and in the 2022 Spring Supplemental. The Engineering Department has
prioritized the 2022 budgeted projects per Table 6 below. Prioritization was based on
impacts to the traveling public, sustainability, safety, Council direction, and other relevant
criteria. The table also includes the appropriated 2022 budgets. This demonstrates the total
2022 Engineering Capital Improvement Plan budget and the deferment amount for the
projects proposed to be deferred.
Priority
Ranking Project / Program 2022 Budget
Proposed
Deferment
1 Paepcke Transit Hub $ 1,910,302.00 -
2 Downtown Core Pedestrian Safety $ 75,000.00 -
3 Spring and Cooper Street Intersection
Improvements $ 295,000.00 -
4 Concrete Replacement – Including 2021 Carry
Forward $ 695,614.00 $ 275,064.00
5 Hallam Street Roadway Improvements at Yellow
Brick Building $ 275,000.00 $ 275,000.00
6 Red Brick Roadway Improvements $ 155,000.00 $ 155,000.00
7 Hyman Pedestrian Connectivity Improvements $ 59,000.00 $ 59,000.00
8 Ute Avenue Traffic Calming and Trail Connection $ 122,000.00 $ 122,000.00
9 ADA Pedestrian Improvements – 2022 $ 97,000.00 $ 97,000.00
10 ROW Improvement Planning $ 150,000.00 $ 150,000.00
Total $ 3,833,916.00 $ 1,133,064.00
** A portion of the concrete replacement fund is reappropriated to allow for Spring & Cooper/General
Concrete Replacement to proceed. $420,550 from Project 4’s budget will be utilized for Project 3.
Table 6: Project Prioritization
42
The Engineering Department proposes to move forward with projects 1 through 3 on the
priority list while also keeping $102,000 for on-demand concrete replacement projects that
arise during the season. Council approved a construction contract for projects 3 & a portion
of project 4 on February 22nd and gave direction to proceed with project 2 during the
February 15th work session. These projects benefit the wide-spread community and have an
urgent demand. This results in deferring projects 4 through 10 on the project priority list
(Table 6) until Council re-evaluates them through the budgeting process and re-
appropriating their 2022 budget for the construction of the Paepcke Transit Hub project.
The re-appropriated budget would total $1,133,064 per the Table 6 above. A Spring
Supplemental request is proposed to cover the remaining balance of $1,382,622 calculated
in Table 7 below. The Spring Supplemental would be divided evenly between the AMP Fund
and the Transportation Fund. Each fund would contribute $685,331 per Table 7 below.
Paepcke Transit Hub
2022 Project Budget $ 1,910,302.00
2022 Re-Appropriated Project Budget $ 1,133,064.00
Total Project Cost ($ 4,414,028.00)
Project Budget Shortfall after Budget Reappropriation ($ 1,382,662.00)
Splitting Project Shortfall
AMP Fund $ 685,331.00
Transportation Fund $ 685,331.00
Table 7: Project Shortfall after Reappropriation
With the CDOT grants, the project is under the CDOT Local Agency Project regulation. City
staff and consultants will work with CDOT to deliver a satisfactory product. This also
requires the City to go under contract with Gould for the bid amount of $4,000,160. The City
is negotiating certain aspects of the project that will lower the overall costs, but not affect
the end product or the grant funding. This decrease in the project costs is proposed to remain
in the project budget as additional contingency if unforeseen field conditions require project
change orders. Staff is working diligently to also increase funding from outside sources
including RFTA and other grant possibilities. This funding described above is existing
proposed funding without further successful efforts to decrease project costs and increase
outside funding sources. It is prudent the City go under contract with Gould at this time to
ensure there is adequate time for pre-construction coordination to occur prior to breaking
ground.
ENVIORONMENTAL IMPACTS: The project seeks to increase the usability of the entire
corridor for alternative methods of transportation. The improved bus stops and amenities
with greater pedestrian connections should upsurge the use and convenience for bus riders
in the area. The new paver We-Cycle stations will increase the capacity of the bike share
program as well as provide infrastructure for future electrification of the shared bikes. Two
electrical vehicle (EV) charging stations will be installed; one for public use and one for Car-
to-Go. The EV charging stations will decrease the reliance on fossil fuels and influence
individuals towards the use of electrical vehicles. This proposed combination of
43
infrastructure ultimately will produce more multimodal users within the City of Aspen with
less reliance and use of fossil fuel vehicles.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff seeks Council direction on how to proceed with the 2022
Paepcke Transit Hub Project Construction Contract with Gould Construction and other
associated contracts in the amount of $4,414,028 for implementation of Phase 5 through
project deferment and a Spring Supplemental as described in the Financial Impacts section
of this memo. Staff will add the contracts to the consent calendar for the Council meeting on
March 8th for approval.
ALTERNATIVES: Staff has explored the below alternative options:
1) The City accepts the bid as is and proceeds forward covering the budget shortfall solely
through supplemental. This would result in a Spring Supplemental of $1,251,863 out of
BOTH the AMP Fund and the Transportation Fund. This alternative would not include any
project deferment. This could mean staff may need to cut some other projects in the AMP to
afford this – from Engineering to Police to Streets to Recreation.
2) City re-advertises for bids. Most likely with this, the City will lose our current grant
award of $800,000 due to the expiration date of the grant reimbursement. City staff has a
current 100% completion rate for finishing projects associated with state grants. It’s not
easy to receive grants in general, but if staff turns away money, staff will lower the chances
for future chances at grants. Not utilizing the large grant funding received by this project
will have an impact down in the future on the ability of the City to obtain grant funding.
3) City can revisit the scope of this project and proceed with certain elements of the
project. This again would result in omission of the current grant award of $800K. It would
also require a re-advertisement for bid process with the limited scope. This option might
allow other City identified ROW projects to continue vs. being deferred by this project.
4) City can focus on the improvements incrementally, as possible, and still tackle it over a
longer horizon. This gives it some momentum but allows time to consider the bigger
picture too. Performing work on Main Street is a considerable operation, the more staff
breaks it out, the more fees the City will have in mobilization, traffic control and most likely
materials. It is key to be aware that there are not a lot of contractors in the valley who do
this work. Bidding could get harder for a project if try to break it out separately as re-
advertisement for bid would be necessary for each “phase”.
5) City tables this project for now for the reasons listed below. However, this option
prolongs the existence of an unsafe pedestrian environment in a largely popular area and
lackluster transit and bike amenities at the second busiest transit hub in town.
a) The construction industry is going through a boom cycle right now and labor is
in short supply.
b) The supply chain problems are making projects more costly and that some of
this could be transient and self-correct.
44
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
ATTACHMENT A – Public Outreach Report
ATTACHMENT B – Project Renderings
45
Paepcke Transit Hub Improvements -
Phase I Public and Stakeholder Input Report
October-December 2019
Prepared By: PR STUDIO December 23, 2019
46
Paepcke Transit Hub Improvements - Phase I
Public and Stakeholder Input Report
Updated: December 23, 2019
REPORT CONTENTS
• Outreach Summary
• Major Input Themes
• Reoccurring Ideas for Solutions
• Attachments
o Attachment 1 - Phase I Comments
o Attachment 2 - Aspen Community Voice Pinned Comments Maps
o Attachment 3 - Stakeholder Interview Sheets
o Attachment 4 – RFTA Supervisory Staff Survey
o Attachment 5 - Outreach and Publicity Log
PHASE I OUTREACH SUMMARY
Phase I: October-November 2019
All collected input is included in this report to focus the direction of conceptual design process in
phase II. Outreach activities included pop-up events at the Paepcke Transit Hub, interviews with
project neighbors and key stakeholders, Aspen Community Voice input, and comments via social
media, phone and email.
Key Phase I Questions: Throughout phase I, various community input activities were focused around
these questions:
• What physical improvements do you (the community) envision to improve the safety, function
and/or experience for this transit hub?
• What is the single most important thing you would like the design and engineering team to
consider?
47
Paepcke Transit Hub Improvements - Phase I
Public and Stakeholder Input Report
Updated: December 23, 2019
MAJOR INPUT THEMES
Quantities reflect totals from Aspen Community Voice, public events, stakeholder interviews and the
RFTA staff survey.
• Desire for covering or shelter at outbound stop with enhanced seating, real time bus signs and
better route information
(~102 unique comments/mentions on shelter/covering; ~59 comments/mentions on seating)
o Lack of shelter from the elements
▪ “Can we please have some sort of shelter on Main St for those waiting to go
downvalley? It is totally exposed and the snow, rain and sun are brutal.”
o Lack of waiting space/seating for bus riders
▪ “it can get really busy in the afternoon”
▪ “I usually see people sitting on the planters or leaning on the building”
o Lack of bus route information at stops
▪ “it took me a while to figure out which bus was right”
▪ “I also see and help tons of tourists figure out the bus stop. It isn't clear to visitors
which bus is coming next and which one they should take. They stop every bus
and ask. A clear schedule with a BRT like screen when the next bus is coming
would help everyone out.”
• Main Street pedestrian crossing is distressing/feels dangerous (~95 unique
comments/mentions)
o Impaired site-lines/sun glare
▪ “It is very scary crossing the road with the kids as cars don't see you”
o Distracted drivers/traffic speed
o Path conditions (snow/ice)
• Garmisch is disorganized and has conflicting user corridors (~70 unique comments/mentions)
o No defined path for pedestrians dismounting the bus
▪ “people cross behind the bus and cars are turning onto Garmisch”
▪ “The majority of brt bus riders getting off at Paepcke in the mornings head to
main street to go east or cross to go north and east. They first have to walk along
garmisch and contend with vehicles parking at the molly gibson, then cross
garmisch which causes traffic problems with vehicles entering garmisch from
main.”
o Inconsistent stop for inbound BRT buses on Garmisch
▪ “sometimes the bus stops by Main and sometimes it stops farther up the street”
• Sidewalk connections could be improved (~41 unique comments/mentions)
o Addition of sidewalk for riders dismounting on Garmisch
▪ “The lack of sidewalk (and therefore shoveled surface), creates a sheet of ice to
maneuver around the bus.”
o Addition of sidewalk to major destinations (Yellow Brick, Red Brick)
▪ “I would like to see a continuous sidewalk on the East side of N. Garmisch all the
way from Main Street to the Red Brick. There is sidewalk part of the way…”
o Addition of green space buffer between Main and Paepcke
▪ “Sidewalk on Paepcke side of Main is in bad shape, could use a green buffer
between street and sidewalk, currently slush goes up onto sidewalk”
48
Paepcke Transit Hub Improvements - Phase I
Public and Stakeholder Input Report
Updated: December 23, 2019
REOCCURRING IDEAS FOR SOLUTIONS
• Add a shelter with real time signage
o Several individuals indicated that it should look like the stops at 8th Street/other BRT stops
• Add more seating
• Add bathrooms
• Add bike racks
• Add green space buffer between Main and south sidewalk
• Improve bus route information and maps/wayfinding signage
• Consolidate/relocate inbound bus stop(s)
o Various alternate locations were noted including consolidating both stops onto either
Main or Garmisch, moving the stop to Aspen Street and moving the stop further west on
Main
• Make crosswalk more visible/move the crosswalk/get rid of the crosswalk
o Add post in middle of road/have lit up crosswalk/innovative striping
• Make Garmisch Street one-way
• Improve lighting
• Improve road condition
• Add a bus ticket machine
• Add a sidewalk/designated path for those dismounting on Garmisch
• One-way Garmisch Street
• Add a median on Main Street
• Add overpass/underpass for crossing Main Street
It should be noted that approximately ten people commented that the area works fine as is and
that no changes are necessary. The overwhelming majority identified ways the area could be
improved.
49
Paepcke Transit Hub Improvements - Phase I
Public and Stakeholder Input Report Attachment
Updated: December 23, 2019
Phase I Comments
Attachment 1
50
Main and Garmisch/Paepcke Transit Hub
Phase I Public Comments
*Date *Via *Comment *M *C *S *G *W
10/9/2019 Pop-up
There should be a sidewalk on the park side of Garmisch. The flashing lights work well, but
a stopl light at that intersection might be better. A cover for the bus stop would be good.M C W
10/9/2019 Pop-up Getting off at inbound stop is dangerous, crossing main, turning cars onto Garmisch M G
10/9/2019 Pop-up Change to no right turns to Garmish during peak (blind spot)G
10/9/2019 Pop-up
Not a fan of the inbound stop. It's dangerous on Garmisch, you have to cross behind the
bus G
10/9/2019 Pop-up
It's hard to see the bus signs as they pull up. Crossing the street is dangerous, people don’t
stop. Add a shelter and more seating. The most important thing is the crosswalk across
Main.M C S
10/9/2019 Pop-up
Add a traffic signal, people zoom by -or have it as a camera intersection. I'd like more
lighting on Garmisch and in the west end and more seating.S
10/9/2019 Pop-up Get rid of the bench and put more seating S
10/9/2019 Pop-up More seating (+9 check marks)S
10/9/2019 Pop-up People putting their bags on the ground so we can sit S
10/9/2019 Pop-up There are people all over the place and in the grass S
10/9/2019 Pop-up It would be nice to have an awning or coverage of some kind C
10/9/2019 Pop-up Real time bus signs (+5 check marks)C
10/9/2019 Pop-up Shelter! (+10 check marks) Rain, cold in winter C
10/9/2019 Pop-up
Shelter for waiting at the outbound bus stop. Garmisch gets crowded with hotel guests
coming in and out. Mostly people stop for pedestrians at the crossing lights.C
10/9/2019 Pop-up Cars don't stop for pedestrians crossing Main M
10/9/2019 Pop-up I use the stoplight at Aspen instead of the flashers M
10/9/2019 Pop-up Maybe add a ped light in the middle of main Street M
10/9/2019 Pop-up Need a speed bump on Main M
10/9/2019 Pop-up Need more educations on ped lighting M
10/9/2019 Pop-up Pedestrian underpass or over pass (+3 check marks)M
10/9/2019 Pop-up Tough crossing, distracted drives, sun glare in afternoons (+3 checkmarks)M
10/9/2019 Pop-up Visitors don't understand the pedestrian lights M
10/9/2019 Pop-up
Dangerous crossing Main, add bump-in for inbound local bus on Main St; Add restroom -
lots of special events at Paepcke Park and people waiting for the bus. Add more public
bike racks, especially on the park side M
10/9/2019 Pop-up Add cigarette butt capture and recycling
10/9/2019 Pop-up Add more formal bus bay for outbound stop
Updated: 12/23/2019 Page 1 of 1051
Main and Garmisch/Paepcke Transit Hub
Phase I Public Comments
*Date *Via *Comment *M *C *S *G *W
10/9/2019 Pop-up Add skiier information signs, where to go, wayfinding signs
10/9/2019 Pop-up
Buses should get priority, be on a fast track through. Minimal improvements needed, but
make it better for buses.
10/9/2019 Pop-up Esta bien, no problems for me
10/9/2019 Pop-up
Generally everything works smoothly, but would be great if PD helped with traffic and
road rage during the peak. PD should help give priority to busses and wave them through
traffic.
10/9/2019 Pop-up I like the pedestrian flashers because I can cross immediately (+3 check marks)
10/9/2019 Pop-up It all works just fine for me
10/9/2019 Pop-up Need a public bathroom, but it should be invisible
10/9/2019 Pop-up Need route map nearby
10/9/2019 Pop-up Need to consolidate inbound drop offs at Paepcke Park
10/9/2019 Pop-up No change is needed. It can get crowded, but a bus shelter wont fix that.
10/9/2019 Pop-up Tourists are often confused on how to get to their destination
10/15/2019 ACV Pin Pin I - Better crossing/ designated stop for inbound BRT passengers M G
10/15/2019 ACV Pin Pin L - Shelter/heating for extended seating and winter time C S
10/15/2019 ACV Pin Pin B - Lots more seating and heating needs to be made S
10/16/2019 Pop-up
(x3) People don't stop, honk and are impatient even when you can see people crossing;
Bus stops in different places, better if all buses stop at Main and can cross at light; Shelter,
need more seating M C S G
10/16/2019 Pop-up
Add a shelter, have to hide under building when it is really busy; especially in summer,
need PD enforcement of pedestrian lights and speed; people behind bus not seeing
pedestians, some people don't wait and go around bus M C G
10/16/2019 Pop-up
Covered space for snow/rain; Like inbound on Main better than Garmisch because it
seems dangerous with traffic behind bus and people crossing; when there is a bus there
traffic backs up; people on Main Street drive too fast M C G
10/16/2019 Pop-up
Everything is great; Drop off on Garmish is dangerous, people coming around corner; Bus
should stop closer to Hopkins; People cross behind bus; Good job to Dan Bankenship for
all his work; Seems like it would be a lot of money for a shelter; water by outbound stop
splashes up sometimes G
10/16/2019 Pop-up
Bus stop should stop at Aspen Country Inn; Need more lighting while waiting for bus; Need
more seating S
10/16/2019 Pop-up
Add shelter like 8th Street for winter, it gets nasty outside; Cars come flying through on
Main M C
Updated: 12/23/2019 Page 2 of 1052
Main and Garmisch/Paepcke Transit Hub
Phase I Public Comments
*Date *Via *Comment *M *C *S *G *W
10/16/2019 Pop-up
Bus driver occupied w/ telling riders which bus is right; Shelter would be appreciated;
Crosswalk not sufficiently lit up, maybe add post in middle of road; Underpass would be
awesome; Not as many visitors use this stop; Path is nicer from Rubey M C
10/16/2019 Pop-up Cars moving too fast; Proper bus stop with shade M C
10/16/2019 Pop-up
Need lighting for night time, hard to read signs at night; Hard crossing Main; Add a shelter
for rain M C
10/16/2019 Pop-up
Una casita para la lluvia y nieve; Las personas y las coches no respecten los luces; Hay
personas que no saben como usar las luces {a shelter for the rain and snow; people and
cars don't respect the pedestrian lights; there are people who don't know how to use the
crossing lights}M C
10/16/2019 Pop-up Cover for rain/snow; Need BRT to stop at golf course C
10/16/2019 Pop-up Heated shelter; No cigarettes C
10/16/2019 Pop-up
Real time signs when bus is coming, like other stops, feels more connected; Flash lights
generally work, make drivers more aware, sometimes distracted drivers C
10/16/2019 Pop-up Shelter with place to purchase ticket; Crossing is fine, people tend to stop C
10/16/2019 Pop-up Sometimes not a place to sit; Bus shelter; A lot of people coming and going C
10/16/2019 Pop-up
Una casita para el nieve y la lluvia; mas asientos y luces {a shelter for the snow and rain;
more seating and lights}C
10/16/2019 Pop-up
Drivers have a hard time seeing flashing beacons, generally look both ways; A lot of
people at 5pm; Everything is good; Good bus service M
10/16/2019 Pop-up
Estas bien, hay mucho traffico; Sometimes cars don't stop for people crossing; En vierno
es peligroso; don't like people Smoking marajuana {everything is good, there is a lot of
traffic… in winter it is dangerous}M
10/16/2019 Pop-up
Trash can not strong enough for bears; Maybe add a drinking water fountain; Travelers
can't see lights, so I don't like crossing at flashers; When snow melts, there is a big puddle
& we get splashed M
10/16/2019 Pop-up I get off at Rubey because the walk from Rubey is nicer
10/16/2019 Pop-up
it seems like all the buses come at same time, spread apart then you could catch more
constantly
10/16/2019 Pop-up Pedestrian crossing works fine; Add a bit of a bus bay
10/16/2019 Pop-up
Pretty good overall; Outbound can get crowded, seating is a problem; Everyone pretty
good at stopping, most people pay attention, some don't; For regulars/locals, signage is
fine, every now and then tourists don't know where they're going
Updated: 12/23/2019 Page 3 of 1053
Main and Garmisch/Paepcke Transit Hub
Phase I Public Comments
*Date *Via *Comment *M *C *S *G *W
10/17/2019 Email
I picked up your flyer yesterday, at my usual bus stop. Here are my suggestions:
-Can we please have some sort of shelter on Main St for those waiting to go downvalley?
It is totally exposed and the snow, rain and sun are brutal.
-Coming upvalley the BRT drops you in the middle of the street between the bus and
parked cars. It is not safe how people then cross the street. Can there be a real stop on
Main Street? Maybe before the bus makes its turn, or it could use the local stop and turn
a block later?C G
10/17/2019 ACV
South Garmisch Street should be a one-way street. As there is no traffic light, it is difficult
for cars to exit from that street. It would make it easier for buses to turn onto the street
(and might provide additional space for Car-to-Go or bicycle racks) and make it a bit
safer for pedestrians who do not need to deal with cars pulling out from S Garmisch as
they cross the street. Decreasing some of the activity with cars at that intersection would
improve safety.M G
10/17/2019 ACV Provide a covered bike rack for commuters who bike from bus stop to work year round
10/21/2019 ACV Pin
Pin T - Continuous sidewalk needed on both sides of Garmisch from Main Street RFTA bus
stop at Paepcke to Koch Lumber Park. When I used to take my toddlers from bus stop on
Main/Paepcke to Wildwood bus at Koch Lumber Park there was never a consistent safe
path without having to cross Garmisch more than once. Further, when RFTA ski bus or X
turns at Garmisch, it lets passengers out in middle of street near Paepcke park on
Garmisch which is also not a safe cross area for massing of passengers trying to exit the
front and back of bus. G W
10/21/2019 ACV
Invite people to use the bus by providing lighted bus shelters on both sides of the street.
Within the shelter, provide information that it is an in-bound or out-bound bus and map
the stops it makes. Equally important, indicate the time the next bus will arrive - this could
be digital indicating the minutes remaining before the bus arrives or if it is delayed.C
10/21/2019 ACV Pin Pin K- Shelter similar to 8th Street bus stop should be added.C
10/21/2019 ACV
Make Paepcke the main Aspen RFTA and transit hub; REduce the number of large RFTA
uses circulating around Aspen by replacing Rubey Park with PAepcke.
10/21/2019 ACV Pin Pin M - Not a lot get off here, maybe get rid of it.
10/21/2019 ACV Pin Pin R - Can get onto 82 from here. Should be one way into south area of town.
Updated: 12/23/2019 Page 4 of 1054
Main and Garmisch/Paepcke Transit Hub
Phase I Public Comments
*Date *Via *Comment *M *C *S *G *W
10/23/2019 ACV Pin
Pin O - I would like to see a continuous sidewalk on the East side of N. Garmisch all the
way from Main Street to the Red Brick. There is sidewalk part of the way. Many bus riders
and pedestrians take this route from the bus stop to the Red Brick and also on to the Post
Office.W
10/23/2019 ACV Pin
Pin H - I think you need to add a stop light at this intersection. I have seen numerous
people almost get hit by vehicles. I personally was involved in an car accident at this
intersection when the car I was riding in stopped on Main Street because of a flashing
light and a pedestrian crossing Main Street. While the car I was riding in stopped, the car
behind us did not stop and plowed into us. I was injured. If there were a stoplight, the
accident would not have happened. M
10/25/2019 ACV
I drive in the city every day as a limo driver and I just don't see the traffic at this bus stop
to warrant all this expense. This is BS, nonsense idea
10/28/2019 ACV Pin
Pin J - BRT riders getting off and heading south and east are often unable to get from the
street where they are dropped off to the sidewalk due to snow banks, forcing them to
walk in the icy street between the parked cars and the bus that just dropped them off.G W
10/28/2019 ACV Pin
Pin S - This BRT stop is not ideal. Regardless of where the bus ends up stopping, riders are
left in the middle of the road. With no access to a sidewalk, this stop is unpleasant and
dangerous. G W
10/28/2019 ACV Pin
Pin D - The majority of brt bus riders getting off at Paepcke in the mornings head to main
street to go east or cross to go north and east. They first have to walk along garmisch and
contend with vehicles parking at the molly gibson, then cross garmisch which causes
traffic problems with vehicles entering garmisch from main. It's a shitshow. Ideal would be
to have buses pull alongside paepke park to get out of the drive lane of garmisch.
Paepcke park could give up some square footage to a bus pullout lane with an island for
rider disembarking.G
10/28/2019 ACV Pin
Pin G - I would like a safe crossing that gives pedestrians and cars time to cross/realize
there are people crossing. This is especially important when there are icy roads. M
10/28/2019 ACV Pin Pin A - Enhanced seating would be welcome in this location
10/28/2019 ACV Pin
Pin F - Consider a large pull out bus stop on main for upvalley BRT drop offs- this would
eliminate the garmisch drop off problems. Then route the BRTs up Aspen St (or put the
drop off on Aspen st alongside Paepcke)
Updated: 12/23/2019 Page 5 of 1055
Main and Garmisch/Paepcke Transit Hub
Phase I Public Comments
*Date *Via *Comment *M *C *S *G *W
10/28/2019 ACV Pin Pin Q - There needs to be a bike rack at this location. Bikes end up attached to trees, etc.
10/28/2019 ACV Pin
Pin U - Need to trim the branches of trees over the sidewalk on garmisch and on hopkins
for pedestrians.
11/1/2019 ACV Pin
Pin N - Doesn't have to be a shelter but some type of safe pull out for inbound BRT buses
to drop passengers at a cross walk.
11/2/2019 AVC Q&A Why not consistency on inbound bus stops for both local and BRT G
11/6/2019 ACV Pin
Pin E - I don't like to get off at this stop given we have to walk in the street and there is no
sidewalk. It was one of the few unfortunate things with BRT. The old drop off was so much
safer on Main St given the sidewalk. Is there anyway to have the drop off on Main right
before Garmisch?M W
11/6/2019 Email
When getting off the bus at the inbound stop of Paepcke Park, I had another thought
today. I think to improve safety, it would be better to have a buffer between the street
and the sidewalk. Right now they abut each other and I have visions of my toddler falling
into the street when she runs to the crosswalk. W
11/6/2019 ACV
Bus Shelter & Safer Crossing for Pedestrians - At least twice a day we use the Paepcke bus
stops as we drop off our kids at the yellow brick or picking them up. It is very scary crossing
the road with the kids as cars don't see you. The light helps to cross but maybe a raised
cross walk?
As for the down valley Paepcke Park stop, I would like to see a big covered bus shelter.
We are usually waiting with multiple families with small kids as it is snowing. I little cover
would help. A pull out bus stop would help keep the kids safer as they wouldn't be right on
the road waiting for the bus.
I also see and help tons of tourists figure out the bus stop. It isn't clear to visitors which bus
is coming next and which one they should take. They stop every bus and ask. A clear
schedule with a BRT like screen when the next bus is coming would help everyone out.
Any update to the bus stops would be a major improvement.M C
Updated: 12/23/2019 Page 6 of 1056
Main and Garmisch/Paepcke Transit Hub
Phase I Public Comments
*Date *Via *Comment *M *C *S *G *W
11/6/2019 ACV Pin
Pin C - Consider lighting and / or an additional Main St. crosswalk on the west side of
Garmisch (the side BRT riders get off on). Having lights on the other side of the street
would also give drivers on main st. more time to stop when the lights start flashing (i'm
thinking of the hunter street intersection near the police building)M
11/6/2019 ACV Pin Pin P - How about this as the drop off?
11/8/2019 ACV
Garmisch sidewalk - The inbound Garmisch stop is dangerous - the lack of a curb makes
a high step down from the bus, usually onto ice in the winter. The lack of sidewalk (and
therefore shoveled surface), creates a sheet of ice to maneuver around the bus. Off
loaded passengers are forced to contend with the bus pulling out (while being positioned
much too close to those big tires), limited sight distance around the bus for vehicles
traveling towards Main, and other in-coming buses and traffic turning in from Main
(sometimes too fast that suddenly have to brake). The biggest improvement should be
safety here, and include designated pedestrian route, not the free for all that exists.
Winter conditions have always been treacherous, and I have fallen here before.
M G W
11/8/2019 ACV
We need a second bridge over Castle Creek to ease the back-up of commercial traffic
and so that buses can flow in and out freely.
11/9/2019 Facebook Give people a covered warm well lit place to wait C
11/9/2019 ACV
Designated bus slips - The buses should have designated stop locations along the
sidewalk similar to Rubey Park (maybe just two, one for downvalley and one for local).
Most people wait near the one sign at the corner and then end up walking back down a
lineup of buses. This is especially confusing for non-residents. It would make for faster
queueing and loading if they were clearly marked areas where each stopped.
11/9/2019 Facebook Put a boutique bus stop where the defunct gas station is.
Updated: 12/23/2019 Page 7 of 1057
Main and Garmisch/Paepcke Transit Hub
Phase I Public Comments
*Date *Via *Comment *M *C *S *G *W
11/21/2019 Email
all the city needs is a bus shelter with seating and proper signage installed at the
Paepcke Park down valley bus stop. Also a sign; no parking for delivery trucks on this
block.
A more desperate need is to improve the Hunter street and Durant street bus stop and
intersection!
The continual flow of pedestrians, (which backs up traffic during rush hour), needs to be
controlled with a pedestrian traffic light; like the ones on our Main Street intersections.
Also a large sign Over the roadway double parking is never allowed on this block.
Maybe this winter we could place a traffic cop at this intersection form 3 till 6pm.
Snow and ice build up at The bus stop on the corner of Hunter and Durant needs to be
removed so bus riders can disembark safely. Riders are let off at this bus stop wearing ski
boots. This bus stop has very poor drainage.C S
11/30/2019 Email [See last page in attachment for full message]M C S G W
11/30/2019 ACV
Yes. One way would help a lot on Garmsch. If it remains 2 way, just make it NO LEFT TURN
ONTO MAIN.S G
11/30/2019 ACV
[RE: "Idea: Garmisch sidewalk]
By RFTA Staffer: This letter describes why it would be a safer solution if the bus stop was on
Main Street prior to the turn onto Garmisch. I agree with danger and uncomfortable
feeling for the exiting passengers. It is dark, wet, slick, intimidating. It would cost much less
$$ to move the stop onto MainStreet.
By AshleyH (original poster): I agree with RFTA Staffer. Before BRT, my express bus would
stop on Main, and it was much safer. A proper stop, one way or the other (on Main before
or after Garmisch, or removing parking on Garmisch to accommodate one), should be
the priority. The flashing crossing across Main was a huge upgrade to this location,
already.G
12/4/2019 Dec. Forum crossing behind bus G W
12/4/2019 Dec. Forum Shelter and bike parking; Better cross walk C W
12/4/2019 Dec. Forum Have to jump over snow at crossings. Improve.M W
Updated: 12/23/2019 Page 8 of 1058
Main and Garmisch/Paepcke Transit Hub
Phase I Public Comments
*Date *Via *Comment *M *C *S *G *W
12/4/2019 Dec. Forum Main Street pedestrian crossing is distressing/feels dangerous (+7 check marks)M W
12/4/2019 Dec. Forum Use flashing red light @ xing- no one stops for yellow M W
12/4/2019 Dec. Forum sidewalk to Red Brick W
12/4/2019 Dec. Forum Important!! [sidewalk to Red Brick]W
12/4/2019 Dec. Forum Blinking cross walk (+2 check marks)W
12/4/2019 Dec. Forum Pedestrian Markings W
12/4/2019 Dec. Forum Most of traffic going north, everyone crosses; no set bus stop W
12/4/2019 Dec. Forum Sidewalk connections could be inproved throughout area. (+6 check marks)W
12/4/2019 Dec. Forum dangerous for walking. Add w crosswalk, (2) crossings W
12/4/2019 Dec. Forum widen sidewalk on paepcke; bus pull out for inbound on main W
12/4/2019 Dec. Forum Need full stoplight at Main + Garmish! It's Dangerous M G
12/4/2019 Dec. Forum Increase radius (+1 check mark)G
12/4/2019 Dec. Forum Garmisch is disorganized and has conflicting user corridors (+7 check marks)G
12/4/2019 Dec. Forum formalize bus stop on Garmisch G
12/4/2019 Dec. Forum afraid to hit people/bus when turning right to Garmisch; hard to see on Garmisch G
12/4/2019 Dec. Forum taxi drop off have to beware of bus G
12/4/2019 Dec. Forum MAKE BLEEKER ST; Garmicsh to Library pedestrian G
12/4/2019 Dec. Forum don't mind Garmisch; light helps a lot, add shelter and route info! w/ real time G
12/4/2019 Dec. Forum Shelter + Seating @ DV C S
12/4/2019 Dec. Forum
Desire for shelter/covering at outbound stop with more seating, real time bus signs and
better route information (+10 check marks)C S
12/4/2019 Dec. Forum Shelter + Seating C S
12/4/2019 Dec. Forum be careful of lighting, night sky. Shelter, add bike parking w/ cover C
12/4/2019 Dec. Forum shelter w/ actual shelter from elements, the one at 8th is open in the front C
12/4/2019 Dec. Forum make it like 8th street, so many people wait C
12/4/2019 Dec. Forum Winter maintenence @ crossing (+ 2 check marks)M
12/4/2019 Dec. Forum I fall all the time [@ crossing]M
12/4/2019 Dec. Forum education on how to use lights, maybe different color M
12/4/2019 Dec. Forum hard to reach RFB as bike rider M
12/4/2019 Dec. Forum education on how to use the button M
12/4/2019 Dec. Forum cut + cover underpass for Main St crossing M
12/4/2019 Dec. Forum More route info
12/4/2019 Dec. Forum separating ski buses? closer?
12/4/2019 Dec. Forum Like the blinking lights
Updated: 12/23/2019 Page 9 of 10
G
M
M G
59
Main and Garmisch/Paepcke Transit Hub
Phase I Public Comments
*Date *Via *Comment *M *C *S *G *W
12/4/2019 Dec. Forum No pullout (+1 check mark)
12/4/2019 Dec. Forum Cost of shelter not worth it, prices go up every year. Don't wait very long at the stop
12/4/2019 Dec. Forum Real time Bus signs do not work!
12/4/2019 Dec. Forum Top priority is keeping the park
12/4/2019 Dec. Forum Maybe bus outbound down garmish; proximity
12/4/2019 Dec. Forum Children's play area
12/4/2019 Dec. Forum easy to miss lights, especially if not familiar with that
12/4/2019 Dec. Forum designate a stop G
12/4/2019 Dec. Forum more bike parking
12/4/2019 Dec. Forum no one-way, adds circulation; maybe no lefts
12/4/2019 Dec. Forum if you actually use the light it works
12/4/2019 Dec. Forum Should the routes change? Maybe stop needs moved to S. of Paepcke
12/4/2019 Dec. Forum mainstreet is really busy, side streets arent as busy, move the bus stop to a side street
12/4/2019 Dec. Forum people don’t know bus stopping inbound on Main
12/4/2019 Dec. Forum Busses miss me at night; busy during xgames
12/4/2019 Dec. Forum trash can and recycling
12/4/2019 Dec. Forum can we move to Aspen?
12/4/2019 Dec. Forum Keep tranquillity of park; public safety is critical
12/4/2019 Dec. Forum
Covered, lighted downalley bus stop like 8th St.
Better sidewalk connections
Use w. side of park for more bike parking inbound bis stop. Make that setreet one way
toward the mountain.C W
Updated: 12/23/2019 Page 10 of 1060
1
Bryana Starbuck
From:Rubey Park Info <rubeyparkinfo@rfta.com>
Sent:Saturday, November 30, 2019 3:50 PM
To:PaepckeTransitHub@gmail.com
Subject:Paepcke bus stop ideas
Hello,
Recently RFTA employees received a flyer in our work mailboxes asking for our ideas to improve the stop at this bus
stop. I saw after I looked at the webpage that the time is near the end for community comments. That the 2nd phase has
already begun. Please consider adding my knowledge of the area of concern because I have been working as a bus
driver and Rubey Park Information specialist since 1994. I am sorry I didn’t get involved in the debate in a more timely
manner.
I joined the project website as RFTA Staffer today, and left one suggestion and commented on a couple earlier
comments. I would be happy to speak to anyone in the planning team. Feel free to email my personal email at
sagpski@gmail.com or call my phone# 970‐379‐1983. I can be reached at Rubey Park 925‐8484 Thursday, Friday and
Saturdays.
INBOUND:EASTBOUND
1.The Paepcke Park stop for City Buses on Main Street is in a safe
location. Midblock. There should be a shelter and better signage there.
2.BRT stop on Garmisch and Main/Hopkins is not safe nor an appropriate space to drop
off passengers. It is a left over stop from the time the Snowmass Ski Buses were the
only buses turning off of Main onto Garmish. A lot of money could be spent clearing the
area, changing direction of traffic, adding a sidewalk, adding a bus shelter, and so
on. There is a much simpler fix in the mix.
a.Move the bus stop from Garmish after the turn, to Main Street midblock
between 1st and Garmish. Add better signage, a bench, and/or a shelter onto the
sidewalk.
1.The shelter design does not have to match the other RFTA shelters that are
large and cumbersome.
2.A clever designer could create one that the neighborhood wouldn’t neigh
about.
b.Do not allow left turns onto Main Street from Garmisch.
c.Garmish can be turned into a ONE WAY STREET in the SOUTHERN DIRECTION.
d.Add a Pedestrian Light at Garmisch crossing E/W to meet the crosswalk on Main
Street N/S crossing. Alternative would be
another Traffic Light added to Main Street at Garmisch. No Please!
e.There will be a few problems created for the buses that will turn after the drop
off.
1.Pedestrians walking to the corner and crossing before the buses are able to
make the turn, causing a backup as they wait.
More Later. Thank you. Susan Anderson RIDE RFTA!
[redacted for participant privacy]
61
2
The information contained in this e‐mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the
recipient(s) named above. This message may be an attorney‐client communication and/or work product and as such is
privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for
delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that
any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify us immediately by e‐mail, and delete the original message.
62
Paepcke Transit Hub Improvements - Phase I
Public and Stakeholder Input Report Attachment
Updated: December 23, 2019
Aspen Community Voice
Pinned Comment Maps
Attachment 2
63
Paepcke Transit Hub Improvements - Phase I
Aspen Community Voice “Place a Pin” Comments
Updated: November 13, 2019
All Pinned Comments
64
Paepcke Transit Hub Improvements - Phase I
Aspen Community Voice “Place a Pin” Comments
Updated: November 13, 2019
Seating
65
Paepcke Transit Hub Improvements - Phase I
Aspen Community Voice “Place a Pin” Comments
Updated: November 13, 2019
Crossings
66
Paepcke Transit Hub Improvements - Phase I
Aspen Community Voice “Place a Pin” Comments
Updated: November 13, 2019
Drainage
67
Paepcke Transit Hub Improvements - Phase I
Aspen Community Voice “Place a Pin” Comments
Updated: November 13, 2019
Bus Shelter
68
Paepcke Transit Hub Improvements - Phase I
Aspen Community Voice “Place a Pin” Comments
Updated: November 13, 2019
Other
69
Paepcke Transit Hub Improvements - Phase I
Public and Stakeholder Input Report Attachment
Updated: December 23, 2019
Stakeholder Interview Sheets
Attachment 3
70
Paepcke Transit Hub Improvements - Phase I
Stakeholder Interviews to Date
Updated: December 23, 2019
STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS TO DATE
Please note that interviews with various key stakeholder interviews/outreach efforts are ongoing
including nearby businesses, building property managers/owners, special events, RFTA, and public
safety personnel.
Date Organization Name(s)
10/14/19 COA - Transportation Lynn Rumbaugh
10/14/19 COA - Transportation John Kruger
10/15/19 COA - Special Events Nancy Lesley
10/15/19 COA – Street Jerry Nye
10/15/19 Aspen RePrographic Tim Perry
10/15/19 Red Brick/Aspen Parks & Recreation Desiree Whitehead
10/17/19 COA - Environmental Liz Chapman & Sandy Doebler
10/17/19 Yellow Brick Nancy Nichols and team
10/18/19 Hotel Aspen/Molly Gibson Jeff Bay
10/21/19 COA – PD Linda Consuerga
10/21/19 COA - Parking Mitch Osur
10/21/19 Molly Gibson (Stan Clauson Associates) Stan Clauson & Britni Johnson
10/23/19 COA - Climate Action Ashley Perl & Laura Armstrong
10/23/19 COA – Parks Austin Weiss
10/28/19 WE-cycle Mirte Mallory
10/30/19 Next Gen/Bleeker Moms Kimbo Brown-Schirato
10/31/19 ACRA Diana Morrisey
11/5/19 Pitkin BOCC Kelly McNicholas Kury
11/21/19 Property Management – 100 E. Main Troy Forbes
12/12/19 100 E. Main Condominium Association Board
71
PAEPCKE TRANSIT HUB IMPROVEMENTS
[INTERNAL] Stakeholder Interview
Version: 11/11/2019 4:15:24 PM
Stakeholder Organization: COA Transportation
Stakeholder Name: Lynn Rumbaugh
Date: 10/14/19
Tell me about your observations about this area along Paepcke Park on Main Street and Garmisch
specifically safety, function and/or experience.
• The inbound BRT bus stop is unsafe, dropping passengers (including many children) into a busy
street. The outbound bus stop is very busy and does not offer adequate seating, lighting, trash
receptacles, signage or other functions. The crossing of Main is scary, even with the ped signal.
If you could wave a magic wand, what changes would you make at this transit hub and why?
• Outbound: a transit station similar to 8th street with lighting, real time signage, bike/ski racks,
adequate seating and trash. Inbound: Buses should be able to pull off the road and drop
passengers in a safe, lit location with a safe crossing and enough time for turning cars to see
them and slow down.
What is the single most important thing you would like the design and engineering team to consider?
• Safety and the need to make transit competitive by offering proper amenities.
Are there and common questions or comments you and your colleagues receive regarding t his
area? What are you hearing people in the community say?
• The number one thing we hear is that the inbound is unsafe. Secondarily, we receive
complaints about lack of seating and trash receptacles as well as lack of real time signs on the
outbound.
Who else should we be talking with?
• Yellow brick, Kids First, Red Brick (recreation), local employers, businesses at the outbound bus
stop that are impacted by trash and lack of seating.
Any final thoughts or questions?
• We should sit down with RFTA staff for an in-person discussion.
72
PAEPCKE TRANSIT HUB IMPROVEMENTS
[INTERNAL] Stakeholder Interview
Version: 11/11/2019 4:12:38 PM
Stakeholder Organization: City of Aspen
Stakeholder Name: John D. Krueger
Date: Oct 14, 2019
Tell me about your observations about this area along Paepcke Park on Main Street and Garmisch
specifically safety, function and/or experience.
•
These are very busy bus stops with high usage on a daily basis. There are conflicts between buses,
cars and pedestrians. A safer and more efficient intersection needs to be developed.
If you could wave a magic wand, what changes would you make at this transit hub and why?
• A full bus stop out of traffic on Main and Garmisch with safe pedestrian connections. The bus
stops should have all amenities like snow melt, shelters, real time signage, bench, trash can
and lighting. Easy access to all of the other amenities like carshare and bike share Good way
finding to town and other locations.
What is the single most important thing you would like the design and engineering team to consider?
•
A safe location for the buses and pedestrains. Remove unsafe situations and conflicts.
Are there and common questions or comments you and your colleagues receive regarding t his
area? What are you hearing people in the community say?
•
There needs to be improvements made in this area for safety reasons, ease of use by riders and
pedestrians.
Who else should we be talking with?
•
Transit users, bike share users and car share users. Also all other stake holders-neighbors, RFTA staff
and business in the area.
Any final thoughts or questions?
• This is a good project and long overdue. There are unsafe conditions that need to be
rectified.
73
PAEPCKE TRANSIT HUB IMPROVEMENTS
[INTERNAL] Stakeholder Interview
Version: 11/11/2019 4:17:12 PM
Stakeholder Organization: COA Special Events
Stakeholder Name: Nancy Lesley & Sandy
Date: 10/15/19
Tell me about your observations about this area along Paepcke Park on Main Street and Garmisch
specifically safety, function and/or experience.
• In spring summer fall, lots of walking and use as pedestrian, feel safer at traffic light crossing.
• Events: 4th July, start of parade route, utilize entire cross section of Main St for parade
• Other events that use Garmisch: Paepcke, used as vehicle re-route or head in parking utilized
for staging and event prep, Arts Festival
• Right hand turns heading west on Main onto Garmisch are dangerous
• Straighten sidewalk on north side of Paepcke
If you could wave a magic wand, what changes would you make at this transit hub and why?
• Move car to go location, We-Cyle re-location, public restrooms in park
What is the single most important thing you would like the design and engineering team to consider?
• Safety
Are there and common questions or comments you and your colleagues receive regarding this
area? What are you hearing people in the community say?
• Nothing much
Who else should we be talking with?
• Car to Go, We-cycle, Parking (Mitch), downtown services
Any final thoughts or questions?
• Events utilize head in parking, porta-potties location, would have to re-work certain events,
close Garmisch for Food & Wine Load In, Arts Festival closes north bound traffic on Garmisch
for duration
74
PAEPCKE TRANSIT HUB IMPROVEMENTS
[INTERNAL] Stakeholder Interview
Version: 11/11/2019 4:11:27 PM
Stakeholder Organization: COA Streets
Stakeholder Name: Jerry Nye
Date: 10/15/19
Tell me about your observations about this area along Paepcke Park on Main Street and Garmisch
specifically safety, function and/or experience.
• Snow plowing to middle on Main, sides on Garmisch
If you could wave a magic wand, what changes would you make at this transit hub and why?
• Okay with current function, pedestrian safety is issue, look at moving stop west
What is the single most important thing you would like the design and engineering team to consider?
• Snow removal
Are there and common questions or comments you and your colleagues receive regarding t his
area? What are you hearing people in the community say?
• No complaints, cross walk lights out
Who else should we be talking with?
• Sounds like we covered all the necessary entities
Any final thoughts or questions?
• Not supportive of pedestrian island, two wind rows
75
PAEPCKE TRANSIT HUB IMPROVEMENTS
[INTERNAL] Stakeholder Interview
Version: 11/11/2019 3:55:13 PM
Stakeholder Organization: Aspen Reprographic
Stakeholder Name: Tim Perry
Date: 10/15/19
Tell me about your observations about this area along Paepcke Park on Main Street and Garmisch
specifically safety, function and/or experience.
• Main things we keep hearing is need for improved lighting at crosswalk and where the busses
drop off
• If a shelter is possible for outbound, that would be good – people stand in the courtyard while
waiting, there is not enough place to sit
• Wayfinding signage, people don’t know the bus system, what is this bus, need electronic real
time signage
If you could wave a magic wand, what changes would you make at this transit hub and why?
• The safety of the crossing if that could be figured out, people push the button and wait hoping
that people stop, people don’t always pay attention there
Are there and common questions or comments you and your colleagues receive regarding t his
area? What are you hearing people in the community say?
• There are some trash problems, not as bad as it used to be
Who else should we be talking with?
• Yellow Brick
Any final thoughts or questions?
• None
76
PAEPCKE TRANSIT HUB IMPROVEMENTS
[INTERNAL] Stakeholder Interview
Version: 11/11/2019 3:59:29 PM
Stakeholder Organization: Red Brick/City of Aspen Parks & Recreation
Stakeholder Name: Desiree Whitehead
Date: 10/15/2019
Tell me about your observations about this area along Paepcke Park on Main Street and Garmisch
specifically safety, function and/or experience.
• Flashing lights have helped, but still room for safety improvements for traffic to stop for
pedestrian crossings
• Water splashes onto sidewalks
• Need coverage for weather at outbound stop, like what is at 8th Street
If you could wave a magic wand, what changes would you make at this transit hub and why?
• Adding a shelter and fixing the crossing, give people a spot wait
What is the single most important thing you would like the design and engineering team to consider?
• Crossing at Main Street, people getting off with kids to go to Yellow Brick
• Use stop for small kids, crossing Main Street is hard with a lot of kids
Are there and common questions or comments you and your colleagues receive regarding t his
area? What are you hearing people in the community say?
• Cars not making complete stops
Who else should we be talking with?
• Sarah Roy, COA, Red Brick
Any final thoughts or questions?
• None
77
PAEPCKE TRANSIT HUB IMPROVEMENTS
[INTERNAL] Stakeholder Interview
Version: 11/11/2019 4:14:26 PM
Stakeholder Organization: COA Environmental Health
Stakeholder Name: Liz Chapman
Date: 10/17/19
Tell me about your observations about this area along Paepcke Park on Main Street and Garmisch
specifically safety, function and/or experience.
• Felt safe, frequent user, pedestrian, bike and vehicle user of intersection, rapid flash beacon
makes feel safety, keep RFB, does not like no sidewalk on Garmisch, Garmisch bus stop needs
to be formalized and pedestrian connections, would like to see road width remain the same,
Outbound bus stop: not as important as Garmisch, but would appreciate upgrades, bus route
posters do not help people from out of town, real time sign needed (useful information), ticket
purchasing kiask
If you could wave a magic wand, what changes would you make at this transit hub and why?
• Bus lane on incoming bus, not to stop traffic, creates dangerous situation for crossing peds
What is the single most important thing you would like the design and engineering team to consider?
• Safety
Are there and common questions or comments you and your colleagues receive regarding t his
area? What are you hearing people in the community say?
• Poorly lit at Garmisch stop
Who else should we be talking with?
• Taxi drivers, most frequent drivers
Any final thoughts or questions?
• Mobility pickup/drop off
• Trash, recycle bins at both stops
• No compost at this stage due to contamination
78
PAEPCKE TRANSIT HUB IMPROVEMENTS
[INTERNAL] Stakeholder Interview
Version: 11/11/2019 4:05:17 PM
Stakeholder Organization: Kids First
Stakeholder Name: Cecelia Martin, Trevor Brown, Adley Kent, Baily Ostertaz, Nancy Nichols
Date: 10/17/2019
Tell me about your observations about this area along Paepcke Park on Main Street and Garmisch
specifically safety, function and/or experience.
• Nancy – I ride the BRT every day and getting off the bus on Garmisch is not safe, crossing
behind the bus to get to Main Street
• Crossing Main Street especially in winter, road is slick, can never know for sure if a car is going
to stop
• Make a cut out like on 8th Street, have buses turn down Aspen St and people can cross at
stoplight instead of RFB, less worry about crossing Main Street
• Cecelia – would like same idea as 8th Street for here, place for bus to pull off, ride bike into
town and, one lane will stop and the other doesn’t stop, safety is definitely the priority
• Not a lot of cars see the flashing lights, maybe something can be improved about that or get
rid of it all together, motorists treat it as more of a suggestion
• Adley – at the outbound bus stop, waiting bus riders congest the sidewalk and make it
awkward; pedestrians can’t get through
• Trevor - at Garmisch to Main Street, stop left turns onto Garmisch, people pulling out of hotel
cause congestion, add a center median on Main to prevent left turns, carve out space for the
buses to stop
• If the BRTs were to turn on Aspen, they might have to get rid of parking, but would be worth it
• When the weather isn’t ideal, I feel bad trespassing, typically have to shelter under the
building, people prefer the shade of the tree, Business did fence off garden area
• Seating is important too, people often use the ledge while waiting
• Improve street lighting for night, worried that bus won’t see me waiting
• Perhaps underpass/overpass
If you could wave a magic wand, what changes would you make at this transit hub and why?
• Safety, figuring out how you can cross the street and not get hit, people might not walk to the
light
• Like the look of 8th Street stop, people have shade/shelter for both inbound and outbound
What is the single most important thing you would like the design and engineering team to consider?
• Safety
Are there and common questions or comments you and your colleagues receive regarding t his
area? What are you hearing people in the community say?
• Same thing with parents, getting on and off the bus with kids and it’s not safe
Who else should we be talking with?
• A lot of post office workers use stop
79
PAEPCKE TRANSIT HUB IMPROVEMENTS
[INTERNAL] Stakeholder Interview
Version: 11/11/2019 4:05:17 PM
Any final thoughts or questions?
• Not attached to that corner as the pickup spot, open to other locations
80
PAEPCKE TRANSIT HUB IMPROVEMENTS
[INTERNAL] Stakeholder Interview
Version: 11/11/2019 4:01:52 PM
Stakeholder Organization: Molly Gibson/Hotel Aspen (HayMax Hotels)
Stakeholder Name: Jeff Bay
Date: 10/18/19
Tell me about your observations about this area along Paepcke Park on Main Street and Garmisch
specifically safety, function and/or experience.
• Transit hub is very busy, consistently people waiting for pickup
• Dangerous crossing across Main Street even with flashing light, cars don’t pay attention or
don’t see people crossing
• Busy crosswalk for bus riders and hotel guests, staff
• When a bus is picking up ppl westbound, it blocks ability for cars to see pedestrians
• No designated stop on Garmisch, sometimes blocks guests in and out
• People making right turn go around bus, often close calls
• Identifying designated BRT cutout on Main Street side for inbound, blocks traffic
• Other BRT stops have under pass/overpass, this BRT stop is busier
• People would cross there even if there weren’t a flashing light
• Maybe a crosswalk on west side, but would rather resources go to existing crosswalk, maybe
lights in roadway like in Boulder
• Current position of WE-cycle station is permanent and convenient with existing crossing
• Hard to hit crossing light while on bike
• Because hotels on other street, a lot of users not from town, don’t have familiarity, should
design for lowest common denominator
• Add shelter with message of bus times
• Larger, clearer display for routes – which bus should I take?: See Aspen city routes
• Poster sized/kiosk display with popular destinations (Bells, arc, ski shuttles, Snowmass, Buttermilk,
Highlands) consolidate those stops at one stop, explain the routes
• Shelter would be great, people stand on grass, cigarettes and trash – somewhere for people
to sit, get out of the rain with proper trash receptacles
• When buses turn right from Main, when someone wants to turn left it gets cluttered/crowded
• Add curb cut on Main Street
• Buses stopping in the middle of the street on Garmisch just isn’t the right solution, popular drop
off, but people do get on there in winter time
• Would be great to have ticket machine
• Can ACRA contribute informational kiosk that is tourist oriented
• Signage should be in Spanish too
If you could wave a magic wand, what changes would you make at this transit hub and why?
• Crosswalk, somebody will get hit there – it is not an if, but when.
Are there and common questions or comments you and your colleagues receive regarding this
area? What are you hearing people in the community say?
• How do I get to…?
• What bus do I take to get to …?
• Information about transit, WE-cycle
• Loading zone for downtown town
81
PAEPCKE TRANSIT HUB IMPROVEMENTS
[INTERNAL] Stakeholder Interview
Version: 11/11/2019 4:01:52 PM
Who else should we be talking with?
• Medical/dental office
• School to different activities
Any final thoughts or questions?
• Financial contributions/special entitlements for hotel
82
PAEPCKE TRANSIT HUB IMPROVEMENTS
[INTERNAL] Stakeholder Interview
Version: 11/11/2019 4:13:31 PM
Stakeholder Organization: COA PD
Stakeholder Name: Linda Consuegra
Date: 10/21/19
Tell me about your observations about this area along Paepcke Park on Main Street and Garmisch
specifically safety, function and/or experience.
• Formalizing bus stop on Garmisch important, pretty good overall, usage of RFB key, more
lighting, /familiar citizens & well marked
If you could wave a magic wand, what changes would you make at this transit hub and why?
• Have a location for inbound BRT stop and pedestrian connection to Main
What is the single most important thing you would like the design and engineering team to consider?
• Garmisch stop and pedestrian connectivity to Main St crossing
Are there and common questions or comments you and your colleagues receive regarding t his
area? What are you hearing people in the community say?
• Rear end accidents
Who else should we be talking with?
• Talk with PABST as designs come in
Any final thoughts or questions?
• North bound traffic on Garmisch hard to turn left onto Main, like one-way idea
83
PAEPCKE TRANSIT HUB IMPROVEMENTS
[INTERNAL] Stakeholder Interview
Version: 11/11/2019 4:16:27 PM
Stakeholder Organization: COA Parking / Downtown Service
Stakeholder Name: Mitch Osur
Date: 10/21/19
Tell me about your observations about this area along Paepcke Park on Main Street and Garmisch
specifically safety, function and/or experience.
• Biggest compliant: when buses are parked, cannot see RFB on north side of street, no drop-off
location and pedestrian conveyance
If you could wave a magic wand, what changes would you make at this transit hub and why?
• Bus shelter on north side, drainage and wind an issue
What is the single most important thing you would like the design and engineering team to consider?
• Convenience for bus users
• No route maps and confused tourists
Are there and common questions or comments you and your colleagues receive regarding t his
area? What are you hearing people in the community say?
• Parking in bus lane on north side of Main St after 3 PM
Who else should we be talking with?
• ACRA
Any final thoughts or questions?
• Concerns about removing head in parking at Paepcke Park with change to parallel, fear of
push back from citizens about removal of parking, one-way southbound interesting idea
• Busy hotel area with need for parking, Molly Gibson parking
84
PAEPCKE TRANSIT HUB IMPROVEMENTS
[INTERNAL] Stakeholder Interview
Version: 11/11/2019 3:48:26 PM
Stakeholder Organization: Molly Gibson Land Planner / Stan Clauson Associates
Stakeholder Name: Stan Clauson and
Date: 10/21/19
Tell me about your observations about this area along Paepcke Park on Main Street and Garmisch
specifically safety, function and/or experience.
• Buses stop mostly by alley
• Changing to parallel parking on Molly Gibson side
o 3 spaces - 2 loading and 1 handicap (closest to alley w/ flush curb)
o ADA curb on alley side alley
• No designated space for pedestrians
• Perhaps a bus stop further up the street for more formal bus stop, step out onto paved surface,
a bit further from Main Street, not many people stand there and wait
• Sidewalk on Paepcke side of Main is in bad shape, could use a green buffer between street
and sidewalk, currently slush goes up onto sidewalk
• Molly Gibson is adding green space on Main Street side and sidewalk buffer (maybe)
• Add shelter for outbound
• If stops can be consolidated, BRT should use Main Street stop and bus can go up Aspen
• Crossing generally works fine, perhaps some PD enforcement at RFB, maybe a little bit of
education about ped lights, people don’t always pay attention
• Look should be similar to 8th Street with real time bus signs would be amazing
• Transit hub area does need improvement, but generally works the way it is today
• Left turn right turns, perhaps medians at this intersection, no left turn pocket on to Garmisch.
There is a conflict with people turning onto Garmisch, especially when bus is stopped and
people are walking in all directions
• If Garmisch was one way, could cause more circulation and speed, and would impact flow of
guests
If you could wave a magic wand, what changes would you make at this transit hub and why?
• Sidewalk to walk on
What is the single most important thing you would like the design and engineering team to consider?
• Wider, detached sidewalk
• Encourage awareness
• Better lighting
• Led lighting connected with RFB specifically at crosswalk
Are there and common questions or comments you and your colleagues receive regarding this
area? What are you hearing people in the community say?
• Out of town visitors ask for recommendations on what to do
• How hard is it to get from A to B?
• Creating public space
• WE-cycle on both sides of street
• Could be better signage, particularly in winter for ski destinations, better wayfinding
• Is it possible to move Highlands stop?
• Ski circuit bus?
85
PAEPCKE TRANSIT HUB IMPROVEMENTS
[INTERNAL] Stakeholder Interview
Version: 11/11/2019 3:48:26 PM
Who else should we be talking with?
• Clarks
• Write water engineer – did work on stormwater and conditions
Any final thoughts or questions?
• Make it known that flashing signals can be used by bike riders and are allowed to use on bike;
• Keep that ped signal available
• Buttons placed for ADA purposed, not labeled with directions of use
• What’s the right signage for these buttons?
• MG looking to submit building permit application in March, 6-9 mo. Processing time fall 2020-
spring 2021
• Hotel Aspen starting work with utility work, spring 2020 hotel aspen
• Any attempt to move 3 parking spaces by MG would be incredibly problematic
86
PAEPCKE TRANSIT HUB IMPROVEMENTS
[INTERNAL] Stakeholder Interview
Version: 11/11/2019 4:06:53 PM
Stakeholder Organization: COA Environmental Health
Stakeholder Name: Ashley Pearl & Laura Armstrong
Date: 10/23/19
Tell me about your observations about this area along Paepcke Park on Main Street and Garmisch
specifically safety, function and/or experience.
• Downvalley bus is fine, nice to have shelter, decent buffer
• Crossing is decent, RFB is great
• Inbound BRT must be formalized, inbound local needs separation, no way finding
If you could wave a magic wand, what changes would you make at this transit hub and why?
• Ped connections, ped safety
• Garmisch south of Main is scary for bikes and ped, with no connectivity to Hopkins bike/ped
way
• Big misconnection
What is the single most important thing you would like the design and engineering team to consider?
• Sidewalk along park and opposite side
Are there and common questions or comments you and your colleagues receive regarding t his
area? What are you hearing people in the community say?
• No
Who else should we be talking with?
• Parent group that influenced sidewalk on Hallam
Any final thoughts or questions?
• EV charging on Garmisch near park, not high priority since one is being installed on 1st
• Check in with Ron on capacity of transformer, check in with Laura
87
PAEPCKE TRANSIT HUB IMPROVEMENTS
[INTERNAL] Stakeholder Interview
Version: 11/11/2019 4:07:45 PM
Stakeholder Organization: COA Parks
Stakeholder Name: Austin Weiss
Date: 10/23/19
Tell me about your observations about this area along Paepcke Park on Main Street and Garmisch
specifically safety, function and/or experience.
• Garmisch not ideal for bus stop with existing infrastructure, need shelter on north side of Main
• All aspects need to be looked at (Car-to-Go, We-cycle, etc.)
• Sidewalk makes sense on Garmisch (both sides of Garmisch)
• Need Bike parking
If you could wave a magic wand, what changes would you make at this transit hub and why?
•
What is the single most important thing you would like the design and engineering team to consider?
• Protective of Paepcke Park, don’t want to change that space drastically
Are there and common questions or comments you and your colleagues receive regarding t his
area? What are you hearing people in the community say?
• No real complaints
Who else should we be talking with?
• Open Space Board once we have conceptual design
• Chat with landscaping architects about sidewalk on northside of park
Any final thoughts or questions?
• Bus pullout in park: large encroachment with pullout and sidewalk
• One-way Garmisch: extension to park, challenging though
• Parallel Parking on West side of Paepcke: no heart burn over that, parking user stand point: no
issue
• Bike lockers utilized?
88
PAEPCKE TRANSIT HUB IMPROVEMENTS
[INTERNAL] Stakeholder Interview
Version: 11/11/2019 4:04:14 PM
Stakeholder Organization: WE-cycle
Stakeholder Name: Mirte Mallory
Date: 10/28/19
Tell me about your observations about this area along Paepcke Park on Main Street and Garmisch
specifically safety, function and/or experience.
• Scary intersection for both pedestrians and cyclists
• Stations on both sides of street is good because riders don’t have to cross street, bikes don’t
have to be returned to opposite side
• Two stations important for safety
• Crosswalk very narrow corridor but large intersection because crosswalk is accessed via
sidewalk, feels like you have to mount sidewalk with bike – on both sides, isn’t biker friendly
• Whole intersection could be treated as slow zone, as is traffic moves fast through intersection
• How could Garmisch quadrant be treated as own, slower intersection space
• Cars come up fast up to crosswalk, distance between stop bar and crosswalk is close
• Need lights at Molly Gibson side before crosswalk
• Could there be visual demarcation before crosswalk, painting treatments to slow traffic – art,
vibrant demarcation – like in front of Gondola plaza @ Durant
• Slowing things down is really important
• Consider parking
• Bus shelters, important onboarding location, no shelter from elements, people gather under
building or tree, people linger/wait
• Off boarding on Garmisch, people get off and dispersing
• Stopping by crossing and site lines, maybe better if crossing pushed west?
• Where car-to-go and Paepcke parking is important, but important to consider site lines
• Buses turning right, cars backing up
• Parallel parking
• Bike racks needed - bikes are attached to trees, banisters, need to encourage bike riding
• Bike storage on outbound side, more on north side – should be on both sides
If you could wave a magic wand, what changes would you make at this transit hub and why?
• Bus shelter with real time signage, more places to sit, bike racks, a creative, colorful
dynamically painted intersection that appropriates that quadrant between Paepcke as
pedestrian bike crossing and they have priority there, alignment of pedestrian crosswalk,
elevated crosswalk (speed table)
What is the single most important thing you would like the design and engineering team to consider?
• Safety generally, Safety of the intersection
Are there and common questions or comments you and your colleagues receive regarding t his
area? What are you hearing people in the community say?
• Will share online portal
89
PAEPCKE TRANSIT HUB IMPROVEMENTS
[INTERNAL] Stakeholder Interview
Version: 11/11/2019 4:04:14 PM
Who else should we be talking with?
• Transit users, Pitkin OST
Any final thoughts or questions?
• Put something at intersection for people to leave comments, dry erase board, chalk
• Kids first
90
PAEPCKE TRANSIT HUB IMPROVEMENTS
[INTERNAL] Stakeholder Interview
Version: 11/11/2019 4:09:17 PM
Stakeholder Organization: Bleeker Moms
Stakeholder Name: Kimbo
Date: 10/30/19
Tell me about your observations about this area along Paepcke Park on Main Street and Garmisch
specifically safety, function and/or experience.
• Lot of teachers use bus stop
• Guandlet, wondering if people stop
• Can’t see flasher b/c of bus (outbound station)
• Scary with kids, no hang out, want bus shelter, kids be contained
• Kids use to ski from school
• Needs better signage, routage information, glass signage at Ruby (mini ruby with buses
staging/stationing)
• Move bus stops for ski buses down the road, separate
• Real time with bus capacity
If you could wave a magic wand, what changes would you make at this transit hub and why?
• Overall user experience, treat it similar to 8th St
What is the single most important thing you would like the design and engineering team to consider?
•
Are there and common questions or comments you and your colleagues receive regarding t his
area? What are you hearing people in the community say?
• See below
Who else should we be talking with?
• Teachers: use for bus transportation around town
• Next Gen
Any final thoughts or questions?
• Cross walk on Main should have flashers, especially at night
• Make life easier for commuters that make town go around
91
PAEPCKE TRANSIT HUB IMPROVEMENTS
[INTERNAL] Stakeholder Interview
Version: 11/11/2019 4:00:46 PM
Stakeholder Organization: ACRA
Stakeholder Name: Diana Morissey
Date: 10/31/19
Tell me about your observations about this area along Paepcke Park on Main Street and Garmisch
specifically safety, function and/or experience.
• Busy stop with a lot of foot traffic across Main
• Can get dangerous crossing 82
• A dozen or so pedestrians at a time crossing, going in all different directions
• Generally flashing lights work, but sometimes people don’t stop
• Sometimes people don’t know what flashing lights mean or how to use them
If you could wave a magic wand, what changes would you make at this transit hub and why?
• Where the BRT stops on Garmisch, most people it seems go to cross Main and it seems
disorganized
What is the single most important thing you would like the design and engineering team to consider?
• Safety
Are there and common questions or comments you and your colleagues receive regarding t his
area? What are you hearing people in the community say?
• It seems like most visitors start their trip or ask about directions from Rubey Park – not so much
from other stops in town
Who else should we be talking with?
• Food and Wine, Ruggerfest, Arts Festival
• PD BBQ
Any final thoughts or questions?
• None
92
PAEPCKE TRANSIT HUB IMPROVEMENTS
[INTERNAL] Stakeholder Interview
Version: 11/11/2019 3:57:34 PM
Stakeholder Organization: Pitkin County BOCC
Stakeholder Name: Kelly McNicholas Kury
Date: 11/5/19
Tell me about your observations about this area along Paepcke Park on Main Street and Garmisch
specifically safety, function and/or experience.
• Winter time concerns, crossing gets icy
• Sidewalk in front of Paepcke Park
• Pretty wide stretch of road, have to cross quickly
• Timing – significant waiting period for buses
• There is nowhere warm to wait - two young kids when it’s cold, windy. I have to figure out
where to wait; No place to get shelter
• Paepcke Park could be rejuvenated more – very active during events
• Maybe add a few picnic tables with number of people that gather
• Food trucks by park
• Opportunity for real time signage, better wayfinding
• Should align with other bus stops
• Key destinations, a lot of tourists, not sure which bus to get on
• Can get dark in winter, but lighting is not a stand out issue
• Getting cars to recognize pedestrian at night
• Kiddos in grass & trees and people taking shelter in the grass and trees
If you could wave a magic wand, what changes would you make at this transit hub and why?
• Snow free path across Main St., deicing, shoveling
What is the single most important thing you would like the design and engineering team to consider?
• Safety
Are there and common questions or comments you and your colleagues receive regarding this
area? What are you hearing people in the community say?
• None specifically
• People help others cross street, get off bus
Who else should we be talking with?
• Admin at Yellow and Red Brick
Any final thoughts or questions?
• “When getting off the bus at the inbound stop of Paepcke Park, I had another thought today.
I think to improve safety, it would be better to have a buffer between the street and the
sidewalk. Right now they abut each other and I have visions of my toddler falling into the
street when she runs to the crosswalk.”
93
PAEPCKE TRANSIT HUB IMPROVEMENTS
[INTERNAL] Stakeholder Interview Guide
Version: 11/21/2019 11:21:58 AM
Stakeholder Organization: 100 E. Main Property Manager (Romero Group)
Stakeholder Name: Troy Forbes
Date: 11/21/2019
Tell me about your observations about this area along Paepcke Park on Main Street and Garmisch
specifically safety, function and/or experience.
• We’ve been at 100 E. Main for almost 2 years. We have terminated our contract for the end of
the year, but still there through the end of the month, not involved after Dec. 31
• The traffic for bus stop has been a concern, there is only a small bench, building planter area
4x4 wood, there is a commercial sign to be installed early December
• People waiting for the bus hang out on the planter, go into the lobby
• Our team tries to keep the area cleaned off, trash and cigarette butts accumulate
• Have had to get bikes removed. They get left there, stuck by side of building, latched to the
trees. Have talked with PD.
• Talked about getting a bike rack, added a small one by alley, needed to get a ROW permit
for bike rack elsewhere
• People waiting on the bus sprawl across the property, often 7-8 people hovering or in the
lobby
• Have told ownership that something built might help prevent lobby goers or the trampling of
grass, bushed damaged from people
• Property owners seem very supportive of bus stop enclosure that could shelter people during
weather
• My big question – what are the plans for the space with the limited area?
If you could wave a magic wand, what changes would you/ownership make at this transit hub and
why?
• Would like to see the traffic that is waiting for the bus to be contained in a place that makes
sense for them to be and out of the lobby, off of the planter - a nice, clean looking place
• There is a dental office, has complaints about smoking and crowding
• Keep people from sprawling out
• We’ve had to keep an eye out for wear on property including planter painting, shrub damage
• A solution for bikes, that goes with keeping everything contained
Are there and common questions or comments you and your colleagues receive regarding t his
area? What are you hearing people in the community say?
• Crowding, people coming into the lobby
• When it gets cold, people have tendency to go into lobby – restrooms get used (now locked),
have talked about increasing security, but it is not as big of deal now that they’re locked.
Have added no loitering signs to remind people that lobby is not a bus stop waiting area –
have to clean that lobby from weather days
• Similar concerns with summer
• With special events, doctor’s offices are on normal business hours, entrance to lobby is locked
outside of business hours
• Have had conversations about adding more signs
• Increased trash with special events
• Making sure there is regular cleaning of the area
94
PAEPCKE TRANSIT HUB IMPROVEMENTS
[INTERNAL] Stakeholder Interview Guide
Version: 11/21/2019 11:21:58 AM
Who else should we be talking with?
• Dr. Paula Kadison
• Dr. John Miller, Dentist
• Janey and Moan (sp?) – front desk
• Penthouse resident, Kimberly Paige
• Board meeting Dec. 12, 10AM at library
Any final thoughts or questions?
• The crossing is big deal, helps people cross the street
95
PAEPCKE TRANSIT HUB IMPROVEMENTS
[INTERNAL] Stakeholder Interview Guide
Version: 12/23/2019 5:36:46 PM
Stakeholder Organization: 100 East Main Street Condominium Association
Stakeholder Names: Ben Wolff (Frias), Mike D (Frias), Troy (Romero), Dr. John Miller, Tiffany, Paula,
Pam, Tom
Date: December 12, 2019
Tell me about your observations about this area along Paepcke Park on Main Street and Garmisch
specifically safety, function and/or experience.
• Important that our sign is able to be seen
• Trees out front are legacy
• Tiffany part of development team
• Hight traffic area - people want to come in and use restroom, or seek shelter, especially when
weather is bad
• Association pays to clean the lobby, keep up grounds
• People on the association’s property creates liability, people sitting on planters, walking on
grass; limited growth in planters. I don’t think people want to sit there, but they have no
alternative. Give people an alternative place to sit.
• Limited clean up from RFTA. Cigarette butts, water, glass would be on the ground if association
didn’t help with the clean-up.
• Most people use trash can when available, often full or over flowing
96
Paepcke Transit Hub Improvements - Phase I
Public and Stakeholder Input Report Attachment
Updated: December 23, 2019
RFTA Supervisory Staff
Survey Responses
Attachment 4
97
Paepcke Transit Hub Improvements - Phase I
RFTA Supervisory Staff Survey Responses
Updated: December 23, 2019
PAEPCKE TRANSIT HUB RFTA STAFF SURVEY
42 responses
Survey and Engagement Themes Quantities:
27 unique mentions - Main Street crossing
29 unique mentions - Covering or shelter at outbound stop
27 unique mentions - Seating
29 unique mentions - Garmisch is disorganized
Question 1 - Please check mark the level of importance for each potential area for improvement:
No improvement
needed
Somewhat important
to examine
Critical to improve
Main Street crossing 15 votes 12 votes 12 votes
Bus route signage 10 votes 14 votes 15 votes
Signage for Tourists
(skiing information,
Maroon Bells, etc.)
7 votes 15 votes 18 votes
Street lighting 14 votes 12 votes 14 votes
Seating 10 votes 14 votes 13 votes
Shelter at outbound
bus stop
10 votes 12 votes 18 votes
Designated Bus Stop
at inbound bus stop
on Garmisch
12 votes 10 votes 18 votes
Road Condition 10 votes 10 votes 19 votes
Other... 1 vote - 10 votes
Other:
9 responses
• Moving curb on SW corner of Main & Garmisch to make inbound right turns safer
• Double yellow line at Garmisch/Main
• Dropping people off on Garmisch is unsafe, too dark -need more lights
• Crossing signal is blocked by bus outbound, Cars turn right in front of bus as leaving
• Buttermilk Crossing
• Bus pull off area so buses are not blocking road
• Winter days very slippery at Main/Garmisch
• A reflection mirror at Rubey so the MV & Cemetary can see if cars are coming from the bus
side (Big blind spot)
• I know this is not a transit hub issue - X-games info for out of towners. We lose huge tracts of
time with tourists who don't know about fares, etc
98
Paepcke Transit Hub Improvements - Phase I
RFTA Supervisory Staff Survey Responses
Updated: December 23, 2019
Question 2: What problems do you and other RFTA staff most often see? (check all that apply)
• People are lost/need directions (29 votes)
• Cars don’t see pedestrians (22 votes)
• Pedestrian crossings aren’t safe on Main Street (20 votes)
• Pedestrian crossings aren’t safe on Garmisch Street (16 votes)
• People are getting on the wrong bus (18 votes)
• Other…
Other:
13 responses
• Too dark - need lights
• Because too many Aspen Drivers have their head up their ass
• They don't wave you down
• No light at Gamisch
• Ear buds and Cell phones - Honking loud horn does not help!
• People are getting on the wrong bus, Huge issue with Garmisch, especially for someone with
disablility
• People asking for bus info
• Pedestrians don't look, just walk out into the street or don't use visible signaling device or
gestures at night
• People not paying attention and using cell phones
• People are confused about where to board on inbound bus to Rubey
• People trying to sneak rides beyond the intercept lot down valley
• Pedestrians don't yield even when lights are flashing
• People walk in front of moving traffic
99
Paepcke Transit Hub Improvements - Phase I
RFTA Supervisory Staff Survey Responses
Updated: December 23, 2019
Question 3 - What questions are drivers/RFTA staff asked the most at these stops? (check all that
apply)
• How do I get to _________? (27 votes)
• Is this the bus for ________? (29 votes)
• How much is bus fare? (11 votes)
• What time is the next bus? (25 votes)
• How do I buy bus tickets? (8 votes)
• Other…
Other:
5 responses
• Too dark – need lights
• You’re late!
• Is this free?
• When is BRT?
• BC & Hwy 82
100
Paepcke Transit Hub Improvements - Phase I
RFTA Supervisory Staff Survey Responses
Updated: December 23, 2019
Question 4 – If you could wave a magic wand, what changes might you make at this transit hub
and why?
20 responses
• Make the crossing and right run safer for inbound buses on the run from Main onto Garmisch
• Street corner. 3 points of service; BRT goes right on Garmisch ends at parking area (ice, cars
backing out, car pulling out onto Main, More lighting, signage. On Main it's a sticky wicket.
Make Main one lane? with bus lane taller pedestrian flashing signs so buse s don't block
view. Put flashing lights in middle of road. CDOT would love that - as usual it's a conundrum
of many in Aspen.
• Nice shelter across from park on Main St. Outbound, like at 8th Street
• Shelter, more seats, maybe a button people press that activ ates a light as bus request
• We desperately need to improve communication with the Hispanics! Spanish language
signs/materials are desperately needed!
• There is no such thing with magic so why speculate or dream?
• Information Booth at Paepcke Park. Bus pullou t on Main. Safer drop off on Garmisch - Molly
Gibson parking creates many issues often blocking bus ability to drop off. Ice needs
cleaned off in this area. Drop off at curb rather than in street is essential. Crosswalks with
crossing lights and street lig hts.
• The north side flashing light is not visible to outbound motorists when buses are stopped on
the north side. Shelter
• Better supervisiors, they need to do their job better so the drivers can do their job better
• Inbound BRT Garmisch/Paepke Park stop on Main St. instead on Garmisch with cross walk -
Just like 8th Street
• Gosh. The mind reels. Option paralysis.
• Make all the pedestrians, bikes, automobiles vanish and leave the hub for buses only!
• More room to tun when turning south onto Garmisch. To miss the curb in an ?, you have to
often wait while blocking traffic on Main to let a car coming out of Garmisch move into
traffic while you block their view. That curb needs to be moved while also eliminating
parking there where we are often blocked by limos and delivery trucks.
• More comfortable seats for the drivers
• A bus stop sign at the corner of Hopkins & Garmisch (inbound). Most people expect to be
picked up/dropped off at Molly Gibson alley. This is a bad spot for buses to stop because
sometimes there are 3 buses there at the same time, building up traffic on Main.
• All the stuff above, but info for rides most important!
• I think RFTA/Aspen should come up with some instructional videos for the whole bus system
throughout the valley. Then people can just go onli ne and watch a tutorial video for how
our system works and have individual videos for specific routes and destinations and other
videos with tips on how to board, pay and etc. Put it all online and teach the public before
they ride, how to ride.
• OK
• I like Aspen the way it is, don't change anything!
• Little information at Paepke outbound...Buttermilk doesn't pick up here. Maybe flashing light
for people to cross at Garmisch. Move light pole to North 4' and take away first parking
space.
101
Paepcke Transit Hub Improvements - Phase I
Public and Stakeholder Input Report Attachment
Updated: December 23, 2019
Public and Stakeholder
Outreach and Publicity Log
Attachment 5
102
Paepcke Transit Hub Improvements - Phase I
Public and Stakeholder Outreach and Publicity Log
Updated: December 31, 2019
Date Activity Reach
October-November Individual Stakeholder Meeting
Interviewees
30 participants to date
10/9/19 Pop-up Event at outbound stop
(English and Spanish)
~45+
10/10/19 Pop-up Event at Paepcke (English and
Spanish)
~15+
10/11/19 Aspen Community Voice Page
Launched
342 Total Visits
20 Engaged Visitors
122 Informed Visitors
260 Aware Visitors
10/14/19 Press Release - Aspen Community
Voice Hosts Two New Public Input
Initiatives
10/15/19 Media Hit – Staff Report, Aspen Daily
News, “City seeking input on Paepcke
Park transit, Galena Plaza redesign”
10/16/19 Pop-up Event at Paepcke (English and
Spanish)
~20+
10/16/19 Pop-up Event at outbound stop
(English and Spanish)
~50+
10/21/19 Aspen Community Voice email to all
registered users
11/1/19 Email to COA Community
Development NotifyMe Newsletter
11/8/19 Boosted Facebook Post 2,474 Reached
105 Engagements
2 comments
11/8/19 Instagram and Twitter Posts
11/13/19 RFTA supervisory staff survey (English
and Spanish)
42 responses
11/18/19-12/4/19 Publicity for Feedback Forum event
including newspaper ads, email blasts,
social media post and flyers
11/29/19 Media Hit – Staff Report, Aspen Daily
News, “City of Aspen hosting
feedback forum at the Limelight”
103
Paepcke Transit Hub Improvements - Phase I
Public and Stakeholder Outreach and Publicity Log
Updated: December 31, 2019
12/2/19 Event Reminder Release - City of
Aspen Feedback Forum at the
Limelight
12/3/19 Media Hit – Carolyn Sackariason,
Aspen Times, “City of Aspen trying to
get a grip on outreach efforts”
12/4/19 Joint Open House at Limelight, 2
sessions
100+ participants
12/5/19 Media Hit – Alycin Bektesh, Aspen Daily
News, “Attendees deem Aspen’s
feedback frenzy a success”
12/12/19 100 W. Main Board Meeting 9 participants
Approximate Commenting Participants to Date: 333+ participants
104
PAEPCKE TRANSIT HUB
IMPROVEMENTS
105
PAEPCKE TRANSIT HUB IMPROVEMENTS
july 2021OVERALL SITE PLAN
not to scaleN1Larger Curb Radius for
Bus Turning Movements
2 Permeable Paver Parallel Parking for
the Molly Gibson
3 Mid-Block Crosswalk
4 Bus Pull off
5 Permeable Paver Parallel Parking
6 WeCycle Bike Parking Station
7 Car To Go Parking Space w/ EV
Charging Station
8 New Detached Sidewalk
9 Improved Bus Stop Drop Off
10 Improved Crosswalk
11 New Bus Stop Shelter
12 Bike Parking (Public)
13 New Crosswalk
14 Drainage Improvements
15 Bike Parking (Public)
16 Restroom Enclosure
17 Raised Refuge Island
1
2
3
4 5
16
5
7
8
8
8
9
10
17
10
10
11
12
13
14
6
6
12
molly gibson lodge
hotel aspen
main street/hwy 82
paepcke park
sardy house120 e main110 e main
e hopkins ave garmisch streetn aspen street106
july 2021
PAEPCKE TRANSIT HUB IMPROVEMENTS
not to scaleNGARMISCH STREET ENLARGEMENT
1 Larger Curb Radius for Bus Turning
Movements
2 Permeable Paver Parallel Parking for the
Molly Gibson
3 Mid-Block Crosswalk
4 Bus Pull off
5 Permeable Paver Angled Parking
6 WeCycle Bike Parking Station
7 Car To Go Parking Space w/ EV
Charging Station
8 New Sidewalk
9 Bike Racks (Public)
10 Restroom Enclosure
12
3
4
5
8
10
8
8
9
57
6
garmisch street main street/hwy 82e hopkins avepaepcke park
molly gibson lodge
107
july 2021
PAEPCKE TRANSIT HUB IMPROVEMENTS
not to scaleN7WeCycle Bike Parking Station
8 New Detached Sidewalk
9 Improved Bus Drop Off w/ Wider Sidewalk
10 Improved Crosswalk
11 New Bus Stop Shelter
12 Bike Parking (Public)
13 New Crosswalk
14 Proposed Drainage Improvements
15 Raised Refuge Island
MAIN STREET IMPROVEMENTS
8
8
10
13
10
12
12
11
7
15
1414
9garmisch streetmain street/hwy 82
paepcke park
sardy house
120 e main110 e main
108
july 2021
PAEPCKE TRANSIT HUB IMPROVEMENTS
MAIN & GARMISCH BUS STOP
10 New Raised Refuge Island
11 New Raised Island for Signage
12 WeCycle Bike Parking Station
14 Proposed Drainage Improvements
a Exterior Benches to match Aspen BRT
Station Standard
b Shelter Benches to match Aspen BRT
Station Standard
c Rain Garden
d Concrete Apron
e Real Time Bus Arrival Signage
f RFTA Bus Route Map
g Smokers Tower
h COA Standard Bear Proof Trash and
Recycling Receptacles
i 45” Tall Laptop/Leaning Rail w/ Outlets
j Built in Ski/Snowboard Rack
e
14
14
d
d
f
f
j
e
c
a
a
12
10
10
11
bb b a
a
a
g
ah
h
ii
c
c
109
july 2021
PAEPCKE TRANSIT HUB IMPROVEMENTS
GARMISCH BUS PULL OFF
110
july 2021
PAEPCKE TRANSIT HUB IMPROVEMENTS
GARMISCH STREET
111
july 2021
PAEPCKE TRANSIT HUB IMPROVEMENTS
GARMISCH & MAIN STREET
112
july 2021
PAEPCKE TRANSIT HUB IMPROVEMENTS
MAIN & GARMISCH DROP OFF
113