HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.202203151
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
March 15, 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: 2557 863 2267
Enter Password: 81611
Click "Join Meeting"
-- OR --
JOIN BY PHONE
Call: 1-408-418-9388
Enter Meeting Number: 2557 863 2267
Enter Password: 81611
I.WORK SESSION
I.A.Destination Management Plan with Aspen Chamber Resort Association (ACRA)
I.B.Entrance to Aspen Education Project
I.C.Council Board Reports & Council Updates
1
MEMORANDUM
To: Aspen City Council
From: Eliza Voss, Vice President Destination Marketing
Date: March 11, 2022
Re: Aspen Destination Management Plan
Dear Aspen City Council,
We are thrilled to be bringing the Aspen Destination Management Plan presentation to the
March 15th work session. As you know, our shift to destination management was well underway
prior to our beginning the work on this specific project in July of 2021. You may have seen the
press release that went out on March 7th announcing the completion of the final plan, which is
available on our website, but I have also included a .pdf version for you to review.
Frank Cuypers and Rebecca Godfrey, both senior strategists with Destination Think, will be
delivering the presentation virtually on Tuesday, and Debbie and I, along with other ACRA staff
members will be live and in person to speak to specific initiatives under the recommended
strategies.
Again, thank you for your participating during the engagement phase of the plan & we look
forward to Tuesday’s presentation.
Best Regards,
Eliza Voss
2
1
THE ASPEN CHALLENGE
Aspen Destination
Management Plan (ADMP)
2022-2027
3
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3
1. INTRODUCTION 5
Foreword 5
Process and methodology 6
What is destination management? 7
2. ENGAGEMENT AND RESEARCH FINDINGS 8
Research 9
Survey 9
Interviews 11
Workshops 12
Conclusions and implications 14
3. THE CHALLENGE 15
Overview 15
The Aspen challenge 16
A way forward 16
4. STRATEGY 17
Pillars 18
Strategic priorities 19
Action with impact 42
5. TIMEFRAME 44
6. MEASUREMENT 46
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Aspen Destination Management Plan
(ADMP) is the result of a research and
strategy development initiative led by the
Aspen Chamber Resort Association (ACRA)
and facilitated by Destination Think.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Designed to enhance the resilience of the community over the next five years
and beyond, the Aspen Destination Management Plan is a critical component
and an acceleration of ACRA’s efforts since 2016, when the organization
started to focus its public efforts on destination management tactics.
Destination management is the coordinated management of all aspects of a destination
that contribute to a visitor’s experience, taking into consideration the perspectives
and expectations of local residents, visitors, industry businesses, the environment,
and local government. Destination management creates sustainable growth to the
benefit of the local community and supports environmental, economic, social, and
cultural values. Collaboration is critical – no one agency can manage a destination
on their own – and it requires coordination and ownership of all stakeholders.
The ADMP should play an important role in helping to implement destination
development across the region, as tourism is still the most important economic
driver of Aspen and surrounding communities. Tourism needs to transform from
a “win-win” deal between visitors and industry into a “win-win-win” deal, involving
residents and the environment. We have already set a path for strong engagement
from residents in the process of developing this plan, starting with desk research
and interviews, a survey, town hall hearings, and a series of co-creation labs.
Based on the findings, we defined the “Aspen Challenge” as follows: Aspen is a
place that has become so popular that the ideal “win-win-win” situation is not
currently possible. As a result, ACRA needs to reflect on how Aspen can survive its
reputation economically (unhappy residents pose enormous business risks), socially
(gentrification and seasonal impacts), environmentally (visitor pressure), and even
existentially (losing its soul). We represented these challenges as three strategic
pillars that need to be addressed to ensure a thriving future for Aspen: address visitor
pressure, enhance the Aspen experience, and preserve small-town character.
3
5
4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Within each pillar, we identified strategic priorities to
help solve the Aspen Challenge, as follows:
Address visitor pressure
1. Engage in 360-degree feedback with residents
2. Enhance visitor education
3. Address traffic and congestion issues
4. Preserve and regenerate the natural environment
5. Accelerate reduction of the carbon footprint of tourism
Enhance the Aspen Experience
6. Improve the resident and visitor experience
7. Diversify visitor markets
8. Catalyze sustainable choices
9. Redefine visitor economy opportunities
Preserve small-town character
10. Advocate for housing crisis solutions
11. Develop resident ambassador program
For each strategic objective, a series of actions have been defined
to help ACRA in its destination management efforts, as well as
phasing to help schedule these initiatives, and role guidance to
assign responsibility. The ADMP also contains examples of global
destinations that have created local solutions to similar challenges.
The most significant challenge in destination management is how to
measure the success of your plan and balance KPIs. In light of this, we
have proposed options for metrics and ongoing measurement that
place less emphasis on return on investment (ROI) and make sentiment
measurement (both for residents and visitors) the highest priority.
In conclusion, if Aspen chooses to maintain the status quo, it will not only
have a negative impact on the quality of life for residents, but also begin
to limit investment opportunities for the local economy. As the city’s
Chamber of Commerce and destination management organization, ACRA
needs to continue their evolution within the destination management
space. This will be achieved by a shift in focus to niche markets, supported
by another style of campaigns, specifically educational ones; action with
impacts; and enhanced investment in development and the community.
ACRA can achieve the shift towards destination management and
thrive alongside Aspen’s reputation by building on best practices
from other destinations to implement the strategic actions set
out in this plan as well as embracing their opportunities to lead,
partner, and advocate to address the Aspen Challenge.
6
55
INTRODUCTION
1 7
6
FOREWORD
1. INTRODUCTION
Aspen Chamber Resort Association’s vision is to create an environment for Aspen to thrive. As your
destination management organization, we are actively engaged at the industry-wide level making informed
decisions on trends impacting the travel & tourism industry. The journey began with visitor-facing education,
accrediting our organization with the highest industry recognition, and incorporating responsible tourism best
practices into programming. Most recently, as part of our five-year strategic plan (2020-2025), we knew that
as a mature destination Aspen would face some significant and unique challenges in the coming years, so
we focused on the goal of coordinating a destination management plan for Aspen.
We now know that the impacts of a global pandemic striking just three months into our five-year plan
amplified the need for this thoughtful approach to destination management. Our work began in July of
2021 and focused on engaging residents and stakeholders to inform the findings. ACRA is ready to evolve
and execute recommendations with partner support, which will build resilience and sustainability into our
economy and ensure that we are bringing value to all those that live, work and play here. We look forward
to working alongside our many stakeholders in a leadership, partnership and advocacy capacity, in order
to transform the recommendations into initiatives using working knowledge of the destination. This will
elicit beneficial outcomes that protect the quality of life for our residents while preserving the very reason
people enjoy coming here.
PROCESS AND
METHODOLOGY
The strategy development followed a six-step process that was anchored by ACRA’s mission and drove
towards the Aspen community’s collective vision. The process included a high level of engagement
with a range of stakeholders following “Design Thinking” principles. This approach ensures we have
a clear understanding of the current state, are able to work with all relevant data, gather stakeholder
insights, co-create where appropriate, and apply best practices through a highly collaborative and
inclusive process. The outcome of this process is a destination management plan that matches the
organization’s ambition, ensures buy-in from all stakeholders, communicates this in aspirational terms
to rally the industry, and includes guidance to measure success. Our staged strategic process is
described chronologically in the diagram below, and the process is designed to be flexible and adaptable
to the Aspen context.
DESTINATION MASTER PLAN AND STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
ENVISIONED
FUTURE
MISSION
VALUES
OBJECTIVES
Step 6
ARE WE GETTING THERE?
Step 5
HOW DO WE GET THERE?
Step 4
WHERE DO WE WANT
TO GO?
Step 2
WHERE ARE WE?
Step 3
WHERE COULD WE BE?
Step 1
PROJECT PLANNING
& FRAMING
Eliza Voss
Vice President Destination Marketing
Debbie Braun
President and CEO
8
7
WHAT IS
DESTINATION
MANAGEMENT?
1. INTRODUCTION
7
While DMOs have traditionally been associated with a promotion-focused
mandate, evolving industry trends and societal needs necessitate the adoption
of a broader set of responsibilities. These responsibilities include the facilitation
of the activities of the visitor economy and the coordination of its stakeholders at
the government, industry, and community level.
Destination management calls for a coalition of many organizations and interests working towards
a common vision, ultimately assuring the competitiveness and sustainability of the destination.
There are many elements of the visitor economy that need to be coordinated in order to achieve
this common vision. Destination management takes a strategic approach to link up these separate
elements into a cohesive tourism ecosystem. Effectively coordinated management can help to avoid
overlapping functions and contradictory efforts with regards to promotion, visitor services, training,
business support, advocacy efforts, and other destination management activities.
Each destination’s unique context and stakeholder engagement will inform the focus of destination
management activities. Globally, it is being recognized that the visitor economy does not inherently
generate net positive outcomes for society. These negative impacts can manifest as economic, social,
and environmental challenges. Effective destination management takes responsibility for a visitor
economy’s negative impacts and uses the power of tourism to find innovative solutions.
The Aspen Chamber Resort Association is a hybrid Chamber of Commerce and destination
management organization, dedicated to supporting the Aspen business community, attracting visitors
to the area, and enhancing the visitor experience. ACRA is fully aware that destination management
involves protecting the quality of life for residents, while preserving the environment, the primary
reason people enjoy experiencing Aspen.
ACRA’S PERSPECTIVE OF DESTINATION MANAGEMENT
• Destination management is about protecting quality of life for our residents.
• Our community is a mature destination, and our residents understand our roots as a tourist
destination. Achieving harmony between residents and visitors is vital if Aspen is to be a
sustainable destination into the future.
• As a sophisticated destination, it is crucial that we avoid the residential discontent that we are
seeing and hearing about in other places.
• The COVID-19 pandemic really highlighted the need to diversify our economy and create resilience
as we look to the future.
• Once again it is time to evolve and see how we can build resilience and sustainability into our
economy and quality of life.
• ACRA is leading the process as Aspen’s destination management organization, but the plan
belongs to the community.
9
88
ENGAGEMENT
AND RESEARCH
FINDINGS
2 10
9
RESEARCH The desk research uncovered a collection of characteristics that make up Aspen’s identity.
• Arts and culture are very important to Aspenites.
• Aspenites are committed to preserving their small-town character, which is evident in city planning.
• The economy would benefit from more diversification. Tourism remains the primary driver of
Aspen’s economy, rivalled only by real estate and construction.
• Aspen is actively committed to environmental stewardship and preserving its natural capital.
• Aspen benefits from public transit, but still struggles with transportation management.
• The city struggles with urban growth and in-migration challenges. From 2000 to 2010, the average
square footage of a home increased from 3,000 to 5,500 square feet.
• Labor shortages have continued to increase since the beginning of the pandemic. Aspen’s cost of
living is 132.5% higher than the U.S. average, despite having North America’s largest subsidized
housing program.
2. ENGAGEMENT AND RESEARCH FINDINGS
In preparing this plan, the Destination Think team has undertaken significant engagement with residents and industry
members. This has been complemented with research into previous destination management initiatives in Aspen and
best practices from other tourism destinations.
SURVEY Residents of the Aspen Region were asked for their opinions of the community through an online survey
(live from July 20 - August 6, 2021). In total, 1,299 residents responded to the survey. This exceeded the
initial quota that was set for 625 responses, assuming a normal distribution of 50%, a margin of error of
5% and a confidence level of 99%.
The survey confirmed that residents see the city’s top assets as predominantly environmental and
social. The top assets in order of priority include the following:
1. Skiing
2. Mountain location
3. Recreation
4. Lakes and rivers
5. Way of life
6. History
7. Festivals and events
8. Climate
Aspen has the dominant personality traits of a large urban city (extrovert + neurotic), but it also
demonstrates the characteristics of a small-town type of personality (agreeable). This is a unique
juxtaposition and most likely the result of an incredibly desirable small town that attracts a significant
influx of visitors from large urban centers. Aspen’s dominant place personality traits differ substantially
from surrounding places. Colorado’s primary place personality trait is highly agreeable. While the
agreeable trait is present in Aspen’s profile as well, it is the additions of neurotic and extrovert that set it
apart from the state as a whole.
It feels like living a double life. In
Aspen, we rub shoulders with and
provide services to some of the
wealthiest and most high-powered
individuals in the world. We also
have to support ourselves through
the financial dichotomy of the
haves and have-nots, which is
supported by the constant push for
more growth for the haves and less
resources for the have-nots. I often
ask myself: how much longer can
locals afford to live here?
““11
With respect to tourism in the community, the majority of respondents did not believe that tourism in
Aspen made them feel more connected to their community (63%). In addition, they did not believe they
had a voice in Aspen’s tourism development decisions. Over three-quarters of respondents agreed that
tourism results in an increase in the cost of living, and they were predominantly neutral (leaning towards
agreement) when asked if tourists in Aspen were a nuisance.
When ranking primary attributes that describe the destination, residents believe Aspen is beautiful, but
express frustration with regards to its touristy nature. Many residents are resentful of the ways in which
the level of visitation and/or type of visitors are leading to a loss of small-town character. In certain
cases, residents believe that some visitors do not adequately respect Aspen.
The primary personality traits that
describe Aspen are extrovert and
agreeable. The strong presence
of the extrovert and neurotic
traits are noteworthy since they
are usually associated with much
larger urban centers.
Residents needed to prioritize
which keywords best suited their
community. Tourism is topic
number one and even overshadows
the pride for the beauty of the
destination. Also becoming
“fake” and “being in transition”
are characteristics that are on the
minds of Aspenites.
OPEN TO EXPERIENCE
NEUROTIC
EXTROVERT
CONSCIENTIOUS
AGREEABLE
38.2%
17.1%
14.5%
3.2%
26.7%
PERSONALITY TYPE: ASPEN
WE ARE BEAUTIFUL BUT ANGRY
ATTRIBUTE PERCENTAGE
Touristy 22.4%
Beautiful 18.9%
Fake 8.1%
In transition 8.0%
Vibrant 5.0%
Safe 4.9%
Social 2.3%
Liberal 2.5%
Place of the past 2.3%
White collar 2.3%
2. ENGAGEMENT AND RESEARCH FINDINGS
10
12
11
INTERVIEWS Telephone interviews were also conducted with local industry members who confirmed some of what
was identified in the research and survey, and they added ideas for future destination management
opportunities in Aspen and ACRA’s future role.
The visitor profile for Aspen is changing
• Since COVID, many stakeholders believe that visitors coming to Aspen are less considerate and
have greater expectations.
• Some suggested that the lack of international travel has had a negative impact on the resident
experience.
• Business owners also indicated that the off season is shrinking, leaving little downtime.
ACRA needs to take a stronger role in promoting responsible tourism
• It was suggested that ACRA could do more targeted promotion.
• ACRA could also proactively handle tourism growth in a destination management role (e.g.,
increasing the use of public transit and other low-impact forms of transportation).
There is a need to address capacity restraints relative to city services
• Some stakeholders believe the city is too busy, with too much traffic and that new homes have
been overbuilt, leaving no room for new development.
• There are more people living in the area year-round, which puts more stress on infrastructure.
• Lack of staff accommodations is a significant issue.
Finding a balance between preserving the city’s character and mass commercialization
• With more chain restaurants and limited ownership controlling much of the commercial retail,
there is a feeling that the community is becoming less authentic - “quirky local shops are being
replaced by high-end brands.”
• Rent is also considered too high for local employees.
A need for more visitor education and visitor experience training for businesses
• There is industry interest in ensuring the business community can speak to the visitor experience
and proactively educate tourists.
• Most businesses want to attract visitors that value the natural world and consider the concept of
sustainability.
Incorporating DEI principles
• Some stakeholders believe the middle class is being pushed out of Aspen, and they recommended
taking an equity lens for review of new and existing policies.
• There was discussion of the city doing outreach to better serve the Spanish-speaking labor
market.
2. ENGAGEMENT AND RESEARCH FINDINGS
11
13
12
Several town halls were hosted in addition to the one-on-one interviews. The following are some of the
key findings from these sessions:
• Aspen’s number one challenge, according to town hall participants, is staff shortages, followed
closely by visitor pressure and social inequality.
• Some stakeholders see Aspen as inclusive, everyone can experience nature, but the barrier to
entry is extremely high.
• The current mood regarding tourism is slightly pessimistic.
• In addition to skiing and winter sports, stakeholders believe Aspen should be recognized for arts
and culture, natural beauty, outdoor adventure, philanthropy, and thought leadership.
The Aspen community feels:
• Exhausted: hard work is required to meet visitor demand, navigate a busy tourist area, and find
time to enjoy the area.
• Lucky: for the ability to enjoy the beauty of the area and the opportunity to be exposed to great thinkers.
• Tied together: people like to get together for any reason (to suffer together, to celebrate, and to give
back to one another).
• Disconnected: locals feel they are no longer part of the personality of the place.
WORKSHOPS WORKSHOP THEMES
Several workshops were hosted with ACRA, the Board of Directors, and industry members.
The following are some key themes that emerged from these gatherings.
Aspen’s ideal visitor
We learned that the ideal Aspen visitor is one who stays more than one night, who wants to give back to
the community and make a difference, and who appreciates Aspen for what it is. There is an opportunity
to attract more diverse visitors, who come because Aspen is a place where everyone is welcome.
Visitor pressure
The challenge of visitor pressure was identified as the issue that ACRA has the most ability to affect
change, and determining how to preserve the soul of the town is intrinsically tied to this issue. Aspen not
only has its own visitor pressure, but it also feels the pressure of Snowmass Village visitors.
Traffic congestion
Traffic congestion exacerbates visitor pressure, especially with increasing numbers of staff having to
commute from down valley and ongoing construction blocking traffic. Making transportation easier for
staff was identified as a significant need in order to improve the visitor experience. As one participant
indicated: “social inequality continues to be in your face in Aspen.”
Negative first impressions
There were also concerns about the need to address negative first impressions of the area. When
visitors arrive by car, often their first glance is of construction, not the small-town character that the
city was founded on. ACRA is ideally positioned between businesses and visitors to preserve Aspen’s
small-town character.
2. ENGAGEMENT AND RESEARCH FINDINGS
Busy times are different from
the past. I can’t put my finger on
what it is, but there’s a different
feel, different spirit that weaves
its way in and out of Aspen, and
feels different from busy times
in the past.
““TOWN HALLS
14
13
Debating year-round tourism
The question was raised, “Is a year-round tourism economy
beneficial for Aspen?” ACRA needs to determine whether the
benefits of infilling the off seasons outweigh the negative impacts.
Stakeholders have expressed that there is a limited period for
businesses and residents to rejuvenate between seasons. A lack of
downtime can upset the balance between visitors and residents.
Prioritizing solutions
Exercises were undertaken to determine which potential solutions
could best help benefit long-term destination management in
Aspen and address the challenges that Aspen is experiencing.
Workshop participants were asked to consider solutions from a
product/experience perspective and from a marketing/promotion
2. ENGAGEMENT AND RESEARCH FINDINGS
perspective. Once identified, participants were asked to think about
how these product and promotional solutions could add value to
the community socially, economically, and environmentally, and
then prioritize them on a scale of both urgency and feasibility.
The following are some examples of how solutions were categorized
by type (environment, social, and economical) and then prioritized
in an urgency/feasibility matrix. Although those in the high urgency/
high feasibility quadrant are the highest priority (“low-hanging fruit”),
it will be important for ACRA to consider how to move forward with
low urgency/high feasibility solutions as well within the next few
years, and advocate for the high urgency/low feasibility solutions.
These exercises were integral to helping us formulate strategic pillars for
the Destination Management Plan for Aspen.
HIGH URGENCY, LOW FEASIBILITY HIGH URGENCY, HIGH FEASIBILITY
Promotion
EXAMPLES OF WORKSHOP SUGGESTIONS
Environmental
Social
Economical
LOW URGENCY, LOW FEASIBILITY LOW URGENCY, HIGH FEASIBILITY
HIGH URGENCY, LOW FEASIBILITY HIGH URGENCY, HIGH FEASIBILITY
Product
Environmental
Social
Economical
LOW URGENCY, LOW FEASIBILITY
LOW URGENCY, HIGH FEASIBILITY
Bylaw
enforcement
Local parking
campaign
Promote safe driving
(make it cool) - both
locals and visitors
Campaign to
manage guest value
expectations
Campaign “Why
Aspen may not be
meant for you”Relax, it’s Aspen
Campaign
Expand upon
resident-centric promotion
(previous campaign
“Faces of Aspen”)
Guest service
/ ambassador
program
Eco-friendly signage /
promotion of businesses
with 100% renewable energy
Building off
existing pledge
(checklist)
Private jet
alternatives
End of season
clean up day Free bus system
from Glenwood
to/from Aspen
More robust
network of
charging stations
Electric vehicle
charging
stations
Wayfinding
Expand
transport
network
Airport
redevelopment
STR
study Ageing
infrastructure
Adopting
regional
transport
Worker
housing Affordable
rentals
(housing)
Local business
incentive
program Community
education
dashboard
Affordable
commercial
rentals
15
14
Following the workshops, the consulting team reviewed the solutions
and reallocated them within the urgency/feasibility matrices where
applicable. The following ideas were considered the most feasible
AND urgent potential solutions for ACRA’s consideration from the
participants’ perspective.
Product/Experience:
• Short-term accommodation study
• Wayfinding
• Visitor education programs
• End-of-season clean-up day
• Community education dashboard
Marketing/Promotion:
• Build on the existing visitor pledge
• Explore developing a campaign such as “Relax, It’s Aspen”
• Expand upon resident-centric promotions such as “Faces of Aspen”
• Develop a “Why Aspen May Not Be for You” type campaign to
manage visitor expectations and increase values alignment
CONCLUSIONS
AND
IMPLICATIONS
Tourism’s economic growth has not translated into equitably raising the bar for everyone in Aspen. Locals
realize that they have excellent services because of tourism, but stakeholder engagement has shown that
the benefits of these amenities does not grant the social license for unlimited growth. ACRA could help
to manage resident expectations and visitor pressure by trying to deliver high-quality experiences to a
smaller target market. ACRA could also work with the city to consider other economic opportunities that
involve tourism, such as developing more low-impact experiences and tourism that reinforce Aspen’s small
mountain town character. Feedback also indicates that maintaining some downtime in the off season for
residents and businesses to rejuvenate would be helpful for harmonious relations between businesses,
residents, and visitors.
Stakeholders believe the traditional tourist to Aspen has changed since the pandemic. Residents are
interested in sharing Aspen culture and turning people into locals when they visit, but believe more visitor
education and values alignment is required. There are also some residents that do not fully participate in
the Aspen community. By actively promoting Aspen’s “mind, body, spirit” mentality, and actively inviting
new residents and second-home owners to community events, perhaps ACRA can encourage residents to
integrate themselves more into the community and reciprocate some of the value they derive from Aspen.
Stakeholders also want the local community to be able to participate in Aspen activities and are concerned
about the loss of talent due to the high cost of living. ACRA cannot solve all of these social issues by
themselves, but there is an opportunity to connect more directly with residents and advocate for the issues
that are most important to the businesses the organization represents.
From an environmental perspective, stakeholders are very concerned about traffic congestion and the
garbage in the streets and on hiking trails, and they are looking for ACRA to take a larger role relative to
responsible tourism. Suggestions included capping the number of cars in the city and promoting use of
electric cars (including rentals). Leading by example will be crucial to encourage behavioral change and
instill social and environmental consciousness.
1414
2. ENGAGEMENT AND RESEARCH FINDINGS
Visitor pressure is rooted in reality. Twenty
years ago there was no summer tourism. In
the last few years, the occupancy in summer
months has been higher than winter. From the
community perspective, it’s ‘we love skiing, and
we love mountains to ourselves in the summer,’
but that dynamic has changed.
““16
1515
THE CHALLENGE3OVERVIEW
There are many macro challenges that are growing
societal concerns, including issues such as inequality
and environmental pressures. The impact of these
challenges has catalyzed DMOs to evolve their
mandates. That being said, the goal is not to try to
take on all macro issues but to focus on the ones that
intersect with the visitor economy and address them
through tourism or tourism-related activities.
17
16
THE ASPEN
CHALLENGE
All destinations face some combination of social, economic, and environmental challenges. Aspen is
no exception, and in many ways its challenges are connected to the success it has achieved in shaping
an attractive visitor experience. The research and engagement uncovered the following challenges:
Staff shortages
A shortage in the labor force has been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic on
both the demand and supply side. This challenge is significantly affected by a lack of
affordable housing and the seasonal nature of many visitor economy jobs.
Mountain migration and gentrification
Residents from many urban centers across the country are attracted to more natural locations, particularly
during the pandemic. These visitors are often wealthy individuals who can drive gentrification. More
people working remotely and second-home property owners who are accused of not integrating
into the community are also contributing to the mountain migration and gentrification trend.
Visitor pressure
Feedback indicates that visitors are not always knowledgeable of or abide by informal behaviors.
A key example of this is when visitors do not respect the environment and have an outsized impact on
the community.
Social inequality
Many people feel that the value generated by tourism is not adequately trickling down to them.
The cost of living is high, and working-class people are being pushed out of Aspen.
Transportation management
This is another challenge that is not new since the pandemic began but has been exacerbated
by it. The increased rubber tire traffic from regional tourism is pushing road capacity to its
limits. The preference for car transportation instead of public transportation is a contributing
factor. Other factors include the growth of the mid-valley region and ongoing construction.
Lack of economic diversification
There are city plans to diversify the economy, but Aspen still operates as and is perceived
as a tourism town. This has been an ongoing challenge throughout Aspen’s history.
In summary, Aspen is in many ways a victim of its own success. It has such a strong reputation
that the demand to visit and live here continues to increase. So the question becomes,
how can Aspen survive its reputation economically, environmentally, and socially?
Purpose-built tourism provides a path forward. It is a version of a visitor economy that
values all stakeholders and achieves a balance of social, economic, and environmental
considerations. Utilizing destination management principles, purpose-built tourism is intentional
in leveraging the visitor economy to push back against community challenges.
Tourism is a potent force with immense potential for good. At its best, traveling increases
empathy, forges friendships between strangers, and redirects resources for the greater
good. When designed with intention, a place’s tourism industry can contribute to a
higher purpose that supports the community and the natural environment.
A WAY FORWARD
3. THE CHALLENGE
16
18
1717
4STRATEGY
A Destination Management Plan begins with a mission:
a mission that acts as a north star for an organization
within the backdrop of the key challenges being faced.
In order to address the challenges, they have been
synthesized into three pillars, representing the main
categories of challenges and the related strategic
efforts needed to address the challenges. The strategic
priorities provide guidance for solutions, supported by an
action with impact to build momentum and community
support. The progress of the strategic efforts are
measured by the KPIs. If the execution is successful,
ACRA’s end vision will be achieved.
19
18
PILLARS
Based on the research conducted and stakeholder
prioritization, the key challenges were distilled to
create three pillars to focus strategic action. These
pillars represent the overlap between stakeholder
priorities and what ACRA can feasibly address.
4. STRATEGY
ADDRESS VISITOR PRESSURE
ENHANCE THE ASPEN EXPERIENCE
MISSION:
Attract visitors to the resort, foster a dynamic Aspen experience, and provide
valuable member benefits to support a sustainable local economy.
THE CHALLENGE FOR THIS PLAN:
How to survive Aspen’s reputation
PILLAR 1:
ADDRESS VISITOR
PRESSURE
PILLAR 2:
ENHANCE THE ASPEN
EXPERIENCE
PILLAR 3:
PRESERVE SMALL-TOWN
CHARACTER
STRATEGIC PRIORITIES STRATEGIC PRIORITIES STRATEGIC PRIORITIES
ACTION WITH IMPACT
KPIs
END VISION:
To create an environment for Aspen to thrive.
PRESERVE SMALL-TOWN CHARACTER
20
19
STRATEGIC
PRIORITIES
This section provides the specific strategic priorities that will help ACRA move
forward to address Aspen challenges. In order to address each pillar, the
strategies are placed in priority order; however, the timing may overlap (see
Section 5 for more detail on strategy timeframe). While each strategic priority is
attributed to a single pillar, in reality the strategies have the potential to contribute
to multiple strategic pillars. Each strategy is supported by a start date and a
recommended role for ACRA to play in its execution.
4. STRATEGY
PILLAR STRATEGIC PRIORITIES START DATE ROLE
ADDRESS
VISITOR
PRESSURE
1. Engage in 360-degree feedback
with residents and industry Phase I Lead
2. Enhance visitor education Phase I Lead
3. Address traffic and congestion issues Phase II Advocate
4. Preserve and regenerate the natural environment Phase II Lead + Partner + Advocate
5. Accelerate reduction of the carbon footprint of tourism Phase III Lead + Partner + Advocate
ENHANCE
THE ASPEN
EXPERIENCE
6. Improve the visitor and resident experience Phase I Lead + Partner
7. Diversify visitor markets Phase I Lead
8. Catalyze sustainable choices Phase I Lead + Partner + Advocate
9. Redefine visitor economy opportunities Phase III Lead + Partner
PRESERVE
SMALL-TOWN
CHARACTER
10. Advocate for housing crisis solutions Phase II Advocate
11. Develop resident ambassador program Phase II Lead + Partner
21
20
ENGAGE IN 360-DEGREE
FEEDBACK WITH
RESIDENTS AND
INDUSTRY
4. STRATEGY
ADDRESS VISITOR PRESSURE
OVERVIEW
ACRA already connects with residents and is supportive of the tourism industry;
however, engagement should be pursued in a more consistent and structured manner.
The use of an online engagement platform can facilitate effective and coordinated
engagement. This could also act to make engagement more visible since ACRA’s
initiatives are not always widely known throughout the community. The City of Aspen
uses a platform called “Aspen Community Voice”; however, ACRA’s engagement
platform would be visitor economy-centric and would leverage a more dynamic
platform that could facilitate deeper engagement. 360-degree feedback within the
community is an essential building block of this Destination Management Plan
because dissatisfied residents pose a significant risk for the visitor economy.
Communicating tourism’s value will become a crucial aspect of stakeholder
management. At a strategic level, ACRA needs to create a new definition of
the value of tourism that goes beyond economics. It must work with residents
and stakeholders to consider how tourism as a whole contributes to resident
well-being and quality of life. Then the DMO’s role will be to ensure that tourism
meets that holistic need and that the true value it generates is known to all.
ACTIONS
• Utilize a platform for community engagement.
-An example of a platform that has been used successfully for civic
engagement and community decision making is CitizenLab. It is a community
engagement platform, allowing governments to engage residents, manage
input, and make decisions.
-An engagement platform can be a mechanism for residents to regularly share
their concerns and crowdsource solutions.
-It can also serve as a community education dashboard to keep residents
informed on ACRA’s current and future actions.
• Whether through an engagement platform or other communication strategies,
there is a need to improve resident awareness of ACRA’s role/successes and the
value of tourism to Aspen.
• Potential focus areas for engagement include strategizing with residents regarding
visitor pressure, crowdsourcing solutions to preserve the small-town character, and
understanding priorities for sustainability initiatives.
• Utilize existing communications with member businesses to communicate locally
what ACRA is already doing.
• It will be important to engage different subsegments of residents, including
permanent residents and temporary residents or second-home property owners.
1.
Role: Lead
Timeframe: Phase I
22
21
ENHANCE VISITOR
EDUCATION
4. STRATEGY
ADDRESS VISITOR PRESSURE
OVERVIEW
Destination management does not call for the elimination of promotion. There
is a different but important role for promotion and communication to manage a
destination. ACRA has already made strides in visitor education but could be bold and
go further. Managing word of mouth and providing the right messaging alongside
supporting campaigns needs to be at the strategic heart of communication initiatives.
The Aspen pledge is a witty and compelling starting point to expand upon.
ACTIONS
• It is important for visitors and second-home property owners to be aware of the
sensitivities of the community. Teach them to admire the way you respect each
other and nature. Promote “The Aspen Way”, “Mountain Ethos”, and the “mind,
body, spirit” mentality of experiencing Aspen to potential visitors in a campaign that
reveals the DNA of Aspen. This will set clear expectations of visitor behavior.
• Revisit and expand on the Aspen visitor pledge. Make the pledge more visible and
accessible with actions such as:
-Road signs before entering the city containing the same messaging and
referring to the pledge.
-Combine a campaign with Aspenites (and/or visitors) that have already taken
the pledge.
-Continuously expand and promote the how to Aspen content.
-Push notifications when entering the airport.
-Visual presence in the streets via posters, billboards, et cetera.
-Relaunch the pledge with a bang. Create a social media campaign that has viral
potential and engage the press.
-Consider incorporating an incentive or reward system for those who sign
the pledge.
• Promote arts and culture even more. History, heritage, and cultural events
distinguish Aspen from neighboring locations and is a source of pride for residents.
• Communicate what it means to contribute to the community and preserve its
small-town character.
• Showcase internal and external sustainability initiatives to demonstrate that ACRA
is modeling ideal visitor behavior.
2.
Role: Lead
Timeframe: Phase I
23
22
ADDRESS TRAFFIC
AND CONGESTION
ISSUES
OVERVIEW
A DMO cannot solve traffic and congestion issues in isolation, but it should keep enabling
the conversation and look for opportunities where the power of tourism can contribute
to solutions. Based on research and the workshops, it was clear that this is one of the
hot topics in the community. Currently there is a great bus system (RFTA) in operation.
Residents wish there were more buses in circulation and free bus service to Glenwood.
One of the biggest problems is the flow of traffic between the airport and town,
particularly where the road narrows to one lane. This traffic flow, combined with
an amount of people entering the town, is creating congestion. The focus for
this strategic priority should be to identify the appropriate traffic and congestion
stakeholders and decision makers and play an advocacy role in arriving at solutions.
ACTIONS
• Advocate for free bus service from Aspen to Glenwood.
• Encourage visiting Aspen without a car and develop an education campaign
showing that Aspen is small and very walkable and accessible to other low-impact
forms of transportation.
• Start the process of turning Aspen into a walking and cycling city such as Seville,
Paris, Barcelona, Copenhagen, et cetera.
• Address the impacts of other tourism economies on Aspen, for example, the visitor
pressure from Snowmass.
• Promote safe driving and encourage both locals and visitors to drive slower.
• Make bridges into a toll bridge (for example, Maroon Creek Bridge) to discourage
too much traffic. The toll could be free for residents.
• Consider advocating for a direct shuttle between the airport and downtown.
3.
Role: Advocate
Timeframe: Phase II
4. STRATEGY
ADDRESS VISITOR PRESSURE
24
23
PRESERVE AND
REGENERATE
THE NATURAL
ENVIRONMENT
OVERVIEW
The natural environment is the backbone of the visitor economy and is the essence of
what makes Aspen so special. Therefore, preserving and ideally playing a regenerative
role in stewarding natural assets is an important aspect of maintaining a resilient
visitor economy for the long term. There are already a number of existing initiatives
such as the reusable bag program and the Maroon Bells reservation system, so the
objective is to build on this momentum. Initiatives under this strategic priority can
take many forms and will be an ongoing effort. While there will be some opportunities
that make sense for ACRA to lead, advocacy efforts and partnerships will often
be necessary to leverage external expertise and create impact multipliers.
ACTIONS
• Establish sustainability goals for Aspen’s visitor economy.
-Use the GSTC Destination Criteria as guidelines for establishing relevant
indicators and setting ambitions.
-GSTC Criteria are informed by the UN Sustainable Development Goals and
have been tailored for the tourism sector.
• The Aspen Center for Environmental Studies could be a helpful partner to identify
focus areas and amplify advocacy efforts.
-Build on the great work ACRA is already doing regarding the Comprehensive
Recreation Management for Aspen and the surrounding area.
-Consider executing a carrying capacity study to identify areas in addition to
Maroon Bells that would benefit from visitor quotas, reservation systems, and/
or dynamic pricing (e.g., increased fees during high-use periods).
• The Aspen Indigenous Foundation is also a potential partner to enhance
sustainability efforts. It is vital to respect and learn from Indigenous principles
and practices.
-One of the organization’s key strengths is community education by sharing
Indigenous wisdom.
• Advocate for the preservation of land outside of the urban growth boundary.
• Work with stakeholders to raise funds that support the preservation and
regeneration of the natural environment. This could include:
-Introducing an eco-fee on tourism-related purchases such as restaurants,
tourism operators, events, et cetera.
-Holding an annual sustainable event to raise awareness and funds for a
specific ecosystem or species under threat.
-Introduce a fee on large groups that visit during busy periods.
• Track progress and measure the sustainability of the destination.
-GreenStep is one service provider that provides destinations with sustainability
assessments and certification.
4.
Role: Lead + Partner + Advocate
Timeframe: Phase II
4. STRATEGY
ADDRESS VISITOR PRESSURE
25
24
ACCELERATE
REDUCTION OF THE
CARBON FOOTPRINT
OF TOURISM
OVERVIEW
Beyond protecting and regenerating the local natural environment, effective
climate action is increasingly being tied to a destination’s license to operate. When
resources become available to ACRA, it will be important to conduct annual GHG
assessments, to establish a baseline, and track progress of the visitor economy.
Until annual assessments can be conducted, there are some areas of high
impact that can be addressed to make progress in the meantime. Areas of focus
for ACRA should include transportation emissions and visitor education.
ACTIONS
• In the tourism sector globally, roughly 75% of emissions can be attributed
to transportation. Air and road emissions will be the largest contributors to
transportation emissions in Aspen.
-ACRA can use this information as a proxy to focus climate action on
transportation-related emissions.
-Work with visitor economy stakeholders to provide incentives (discounts, access,
preferential treatment) for more people to use public transportation and EVs.
-Advocate for a quota on private jet arrivals, introduce a private jet tax, and/or a
plan to reduce airport emissions through a commitment to sustainable forms
of aviation.
-Some current and future forms of sustainable aviation include bio-fuels, green
hydrogen, and battery-powered aircraft.
• Leverage ACRA’s strength in communication to execute educational initiatives.
-Bring awareness to the visitor economy’s impact on climate change and
visitors’ responsibility to be part of the solution.
-This could include supporting the partnership between Aspen Skiing Company
and Protect Our Winters (POW), or finding new partnerships with climate action
organizations to find innovative ways to raise awareness and encourage action.
• Establish climate action goals.
-Go beyond the targets set by the City of Aspen. Their ambitions lack a 2030
target and will only see emissions drop by 80% by 2050.
-Aligning with science-based targets and the Paris Agreement requires that
ACRA’s targets include a 50% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030
and a drop to net zero by 2050.
-Aligning with the Paris Agreement targets should be a minimum threshold to
achieve. Ideally, stronger targets will be established to show leadership.
5.
Role: Lead + Partner + Advocate
Timeframe: Phase III
4. STRATEGY
ADDRESS VISITOR PRESSURE
26
25
IMPROVE THE VISITOR
AND RESIDENT
EXPERIENCE
OVERVIEW
Tourism operators provide products and services to visitors that collectively generate
their experiences. Operators have a tremendous influence on the destination, given
that they invest, attract visitors, and generate jobs and income in the region. They can
also play a key role in protecting the environment and preserving history and cultural
heritage. Ideally, they will also be innovative and responsive to constantly evolving
consumer preferences, demographic change, fragmenting markets, and macro-
economic events by assessing existing products and developing new experiences
on an ongoing basis. It is important for ACRA to support and partner with operators
to ensure that experiences are beneficial for both visitors and residents. Treat visitors
as guests, and they will treat locals as hosts.
ACTIONS
• Limit actions to promote the off season. Many residents indicated that seasonal
dispersal is not the path they want to pursue.
• Co-create a campaign with residents with the objective of preserving the soul of
Aspen. Determining how to preserve the soul of Aspen will enhance both the visitor
and resident experience.
• Work with operators to develop tourism experiences to engage visitors on a
deeper level, limiting mass tourism offerings and emphasizing the development of
transformational niche experiences.
• Improve and rethink wayfinding, particularly in directing visitors to low-impact
experiences.
• Maintain some backstage experiences for residents. Decide which experiences
should be reserved for residents with community input.
• Better support small local businesses. One way to accomplish this is to set up a
cross-selling program where businesses are incentivized to refer customers to
other local businesses.
6.
Role: Lead + Partner
Timeframe: Phase I
4. STRATEGY
ENHANCE THE ASPEN EXPERIENCE
27
26
DIVERSIFY
VISITOR MARKETS
OVERVIEW
For places like Aspen, niche marketing should overtake mass marketing as a cost-
effective way to influence travelers while also improving visitor experiences. Word-
of-mouth recommendations greatly shape travel decisions and perceptions of a
place. When people travel somewhere that is tailored to their greatest interests,
the destination improves its reputation through word of mouth. Niche marketing
produces passionate travelers who act as informal ambassadors. While Aspen
is often known for its skiing, there are other niche offerings that could contribute
to diversifying the visitor market. From architecture buffs interested in a specific
period to environmentally conscious birdwatchers, there is an online community for
incredibly specific interest groups, each having their own culture, influencers, points
of connection, and behavior. When places match their strengths with the needs of
specific, passionate communities, they become more differentiated and competitive.
ACTIONS
• Stop advertising to your direct-fly markets. Aspen is a very established brand, and
people will not stay away because they do not see the ads anymore.
• Stop advertising to the luxury market for now since these individuals will
visit anyways.
• Pursue passion- and value-based targeting instead of geography and
demographics. Invest in netnographic research (“passionography”).
• Make sure diverse audiences see themselves in promotional and
educational material.
• Continue efforts for multilingual communications (particularly Spanish).
• Increase efforts to be a cultural tourism concierge since this is an important aspect
of Aspen’s DNA and the type of visitor that aligns well with Aspenites’ values.
• Engage with the Aspen Indigenous Foundation to support their initiatives, develop
cultural experiences, and attract passion-aligned visitors.
7.
Role: Lead
Timeframe: Phase I
4. STRATEGY
ENHANCE THE ASPEN EXPERIENCE
28
27
BE A CATALYST
FOR SUSTAINABLE
CHOICES
OVERVIEW
Being a catalyst for sustainable choices is primarily about encouraging behavioral change
and, most importantly, making it incredibly easy for people to adopt the desired behavior. It
will also be necessary to enable other leaders and businesses in the community to play a
catalyst role so that there is a critical mass of stakeholders facilitating sustainable choices.
This is a long-term strategy that will evolve over time in terms of focus area and level of
ambition. The key will be to begin by identifying quick wins such as cataloging low-impact
activities or increasing the visibility and frequency of sustainable activities on the website.
ACTIONS
• Catalog and promote experiences that have low impact and ideally positive social
benefits, such as biophilia-based activities.
• Increase the highlighting of sustainable restaurants (plant-based and locally
sourced ingredients), for example, in recommended itineraries.
• Feature public transportation and other forms of low-impact transportation as the
primary way to get around. Feature offsetting options through The Good Traveler
when air transportation is mentioned.
• Continue to encourage voluntourism activities such as tree planting, clean-ups, or
other activities that have restorative and regenerative effects.
• Signal to operators that more attention will be focused on sustainable experiences
and operations so that they are incentivized to reshape their offerings.
• Expand eco-friendly signage and markings on maps so that visitors are more likely
to participate in sustainable offerings.
• Encourage Chamber members to improve sustainable sourcing practices.
• Encourage the respect of Indigenous principles and promote Indigenous
experiences more.
• Work with government and industry stakeholders to develop a plan to phase out
single-use plastics.
8.
Role: Lead + Partner + Advocate
Timeframe: Phase I
4. STRATEGY
ENHANCE THE ASPEN EXPERIENCE
29
28
REDEFINE VISITOR
ECONOMY
OPPORTUNITIES
OVERVIEW
Travel behavior continues to change. Trends are pointing towards people appreciating
staying closer to home, sustainability increasingly driving decision-making, and
demand for more inclusivity. People will seek quality over quantity, and small
communities will play a bigger role. Residents are feeling more empowered to push
back against types of tourism that do not align with their community; so it is important
to co-create the visitor economy with them going forward. As a consequence,
there will be opportunities for the next generation of visitor economy jobs.
ACTIONS
• Ensure that an expanded definition of visitor economy-related businesses
understand how integral they are to the tourism industry and feel the benefits
of tourism. This initiative is about bringing stakeholders together and building
relationships.
• Look at opportunities/experiences regionally that could have lower impact, such as
hiking between towns.
• Engage residents to assist in defining the types of tourism experiences/businesses
they want in the destination. This can be accomplished through 360-degree
feedback initiatives.
• The DMO can suggest and advocate for evolving job opportunities in tourism that
residents benefit from:
-Free tours: leverage the freetour movement and engage local tour guides.
-Farm-to-table concepts: support local food producers and restaurants.
-Niche travel: target aligned travelers who have a positive impact on locals.
-Travel with subject experts: local experts will be needed, from birdwatchers to
uphill skiers.
-Immersive tourism: create possibilities for people that want to stay longer.
9.
Role: Lead + Partner
Timeframe: Phase III
4. STRATEGY
ENHANCE THE ASPEN EXPERIENCE
30
29
ADVOCATE FOR
HOUSING CRISIS
SOLUTIONS
OVERVIEW
Throughout stakeholder engagement activities, issues of affordable housing and
the impact on staff shortages was one of the primary concerns that the community
highlighted. This has been a longstanding community challenge that has been exacerbated
by the pandemic and trends of in-migration. Many productive discussions and initiatives
are ongoing at the City and County level to address this challenging issue. One example
of this is the DOLA grant that Pitkin County received to address homelessness, which
ACRA is involved in supporting. While the housing crisis is a macro issue, it deeply affects
the visitor economy and is in large part driven by the visitor economy; so ACRA has a
responsibility to primarily play an advocacy role in contributing to solutions. Since this
is an issue that extends beyond the visitor economy and requires significant resources,
solutions will require stakeholder participation across government, industry, and residents.
ACTIONS
• By actively promoting Aspen’s “mind, body, spirit” mentality, perhaps ACRA can
encourage all residents to give back.
• Advocate for a tax on short-term rental properties where the funds are allocated
towards affordable housing initiatives.
• Support or advocate for a short-term accommodation study that supports the
ongoing discussion with reliable data.
• Advocate for the development of additional affordable housing and affordable
housing ratios.
• Establish a seat at the table for initiatives that are addressing the housing crisis so
that the challenge is seen through a visitor economy lens, Chamber members have
a voice representing them, and tourism can play a role in the solutions.
• Develop a communication strategy that demonstrates how the tourism industry is
participating in housing crisis solutions.
10.
Role: Advocate
Timeframe: Phase II
4. STRATEGY
PRESERVE SMALL-TOWN CHARACTER
31
30
DEVELOP RESIDENT
AMBASSADOR
PROGRAM
OVERVIEW
When you arrive at the Calgary Airport, the White Hats will take care of you. This
initial interaction with representatives of the community paints a picture of what
the community is all about and sets visitor expectations. Ambassador programs
are designed to provide “temporary locals” with an overview of all there is to
experience, help them discover the authentic community, and tips to stay safe and
behave properly. This can be an inspiring first impression of a community.
ACTIONS
• Create an ambassador program. Provide incentives to locals to engage with the
visitor economy and communicate the value in tourism.
-Set up Aspen Greeters to make visitors feel like guests and make them
understand the community (such as the “Big Apple Greeters” program).
-Develop an “Aspenites buddies” platform that could be a digital extension of
the Aspen Greeters program. This is a mechanism through which Aspenites
can communicate with tourists, second-home property owners, visiting friends
and relatives, and business people who visit the region. Locals could use the
platform to recommend must-see events and places.
-Co-create the ambassador and buddy program with residents.
• Encourage local industry associations to bring their events to Aspen (e.g., law
conferences, et cetera)
• Engage with local environmental groups and organize an end-of-season clean-up
day. Turn this into an event that goes viral.
• Encourage visitors to participate in voluntourism and other activities with a positive
environmental and community impact.
• Encourage community members through engagement and education to provide
better quality customer experiences.
11.
Role: Lead + Partner
Timeframe: Phase II
4. STRATEGY
PRESERVE SMALL-TOWN CHARACTER
32
31
Make your destination management
plan visual and encourage buy-in with an
action with impact. An action with impact
is an initiative to show that residents have
been heard and there is something being
done to address their deepest concerns.
An action with impact is an action that express the DNA of your community and is
co-created and/or executed with your residents. This type of action is emblematic
of your strategy. It is a component of the regional story and also the means of telling
that story. It gives substance to the messages designed for visitors and residents.
An action with impact has intrinsic communicative power and can take the form of
innovation, legislation, an attribute that residents share, or a coordinated act that
expresses the region’s Place DNA. An effective action with impact is suggestive,
remarkable, memorable, picturesque, newsworthy, topical, and/or poetic.
Aspen needs to choose a purpose-based action that expresses the
identity of the region. This type of action has multiple objectives:
• Educate and demonstrate your values.
• Boost civic pride and reinforce Aspenites’ love for their home.
• A group hug during a challenging time when people are still facing the impacts of
COVID-19.
Stakeholders mentioned during the engagement process that they
appreciated previous campaigns that had intrinsic symbolic value such as
“Faces of Aspen”, “Heroes”, and “Relax, it’s Aspen”. You could even turn The
Aspen Pledge into a more visible and celebrated action with impact.
4. STRATEGY
ACTION WITH IMPACT
Iceland pledge 33
3232
TIMEFRAME
5
34
33
STRATEGIC PRIORITIES TIMELINE
PHASE I
1. Engage in 360-degree feedback with residents
2. Enhance visitor education
6. Improve the visitor and resident experience
7. Diversify visitor markets
8. Catalyze sustainable choices
PHASE II
3. Address traffic and congestion issues
4. Preserve and regenerate the natural environment
10. Advocate for housing crisis solutions
11. Develop resident ambassador program
PHASE III
5. Accelerate reduction of the carbon footprint of tourism
9. Redefine visitor economy opportunities
The following table provides suggested timing for the rollout of the strategy.
The phased approach indicates when certain strategies or initiatives should be
launched. Since many of the strategies and associated actions are ongoing in
nature, suggested time periods have been provided for follow-up or ongoing work
that may be necessary.
5. TIMEFRAME
35
3434
MEASUREMENT
6
36
35
The following recommended
KPIs can be used to monitor the
success of the tourism industry
in Aspen and the overall
implementation of this strategy.
QUALITY OF EXPERIENCE
Visitor sentiment
• NPS survey + could provide qualitative question(s) if there is a specific topic/issue that is pertinent
to that period of time.
• Twice per year: beginning of spring and the beginning of fall.
LEVEL OF WELCOME
Resident sentiment
• NPS survey + could provide qualitative question(s) if there is a specific topic/issue that is pertinent
to that period of time.
• Twice per year: beginning of spring and the beginning of fall.
ECONOMIC VALUE
Average visitor spend
• Spend data can be estimated by setting up Visitor Travel Survey data and/or anonymized,
aggregated data from industry partners.
• Ideally it would be helpful to eventually take this metric further and determine the percentage of
economic value that remains in the local economy/community per visitor and optimize for this.
ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE
Number of certified sustainable tourism experiences
• Annual industry survey that facilitates the creation of an inventory of sustainable businesses.
• This is a proxy of environmental performance. In the future it would be beneficial to work with an
environmental organization such as The Aspen Center for Environmental Studies to determine if
there is a more accurate metric(s) that can be used to indicate the health of Aspen’s surrounding
ecosystem.
6. MEASUREMENT
37
36
38
ASPEN DESTINATION
MANAGEMENT PLAN 2022-
2027
The Aspen Challenge
39
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.INTRODUCTION
2.ENGAGEMENT AND RESEARCH FINDINGS
3.THE CHALLENGE
4.THE STRATEGY
5.EXECUTION
40
INTRODUCTION
41
BACKGROUND The Aspen Destination Management Plan (ADMP) is the result of a
research and strategy development initiative led by the Aspen Chamber
Resort Association (ACRA) and facilitated by Destination Think.
Designed to enhance the resilience of the community over the next five
years and beyond, the DMP serves to build from and accelerate ACRA’s
successes.
The process involved deep engagement with Aspen’s visitor economy
stakeholders and included research, interviews, a survey, town halls, and
co-creation labs.
The challenges identified are addressed in the DMP through three
strategic pillars: address visitor pressure, enhance the Aspen experience,
and preserve small-town character.
1.1 BACKGROUND
42
The strategy development followed
a six-step process that was
anchored by ACRA’s mission and
drove towards the Aspen
community’s collective vision.
1.2 PROCESS AND METHODOLOGY
PROCESS AND METHODOLOGY
43
●The coordinated management of all aspects of a destination that
contribute to a visitor’s experience, considering resident, visitor,
industry, environmental, and local government expectations.
●Essential to DMOs -a traditional promotion focused mandate is
no longer adequate.
●A way to sustain the visitor economy for the benefit of the
community.
●Takes a strategic approach to create a cohesive tourism
ecosystem.
●Calls for the facilitation of all visitor economy activities and the
coordination of all stakeholders.
●Necessary for the social license to operate and to create a
resilient long-term visitor economy.
1.3 DESTINATION MANAGEMENT
DESTINATION MANAGEMENT IMPORTANCETO ACRA
44
●Destination management is about protecting the quality of life for
our residents, while preserving the very reason people enjoy coming
here. Our community is a mature destination and our residents
understand our roots as a tourist destination, but we are looking to
find harmony between the two,so that Aspen can be a sustainable
destination into the future.
●As a sophisticated destination, it’s crucial that we avoid a residential
rebellion that we are seeing and hearing about in other places.
●The COVID-19 pandemic really highlighted the need to diversify our
economy and create resilience as we look to the future.
●Once again it is time to evolve and see how we can build resilience
and sustainability into our economy and quality of life.
●ACRA is leading the process as Aspen’s Destination Management
organization, but the plan belongs to the community.
1.3 DESTINATION MANAGEMENT
DESTINATION MANAGEMENT IMPORTANCETO ACRA
45
ENGAGEMENT
AND RESEARCH FINDINGS
46
RESEARCH ●Arts and culture are very important to Aspenites.
●Aspenites are committed to preserving their small-town character, which
is evident in city planning.
●Tourism remains the primary driver of Aspen’s economy, rivalled only by
real estate and construction.
●Aspen is actively committed to environmental stewardship and
preserving its natural capital.
●Aspen benefits from public transit, but still struggles with transportation
management.
●The city struggles with urban growth and in-migration challenges.
●Labor shortages have continued to increase since the beginning of the
pandemic.
2.1 RESEARCH
Desk research uncovered a
collection of characteristics
that contribute to Aspen’s
identity.
47
SURVEY
2.2 SURVEY
Residents of the Aspen region
were asked for their opinions of
Aspen. In total, 1,299 residents
responded to the survey.
RESULTS RESPONSES PERCENTAGE
Less than one year 17 2.2%
One to three years 39 5.2%
Four to six years 59 7.9%
Seven to ten years 83 11.1%
Over ten years 546 73.3%
RESULTS RESPONSES PERCENTAGE
Yes, I live in Aspen.744 65.7%
No, I live outside
of Aspen, but
commute to
Aspen for work.
384 33.9%
UNDER 18
0
65+
155
56–65
197
46–55
239
36–45
287
26–35
216
18–25
34
48
WHAT MAKES ASPEN
ASPEN IN THE EYES
OF THE RESIDENTS?
●Our skiing
●Our mountain location
●Our recreation
●Our lakes and rivers
●Our way of life
●Our history
●Our festivals and events
●Our climate
2.2 SURVEY
49
WE ARE BEAUTIFUL BUT ANGRY
ATTRIBUTE PERCENTAGE
Touristy 22.4%
Beautiful 18.9%
Fake 8.1%
In transition 8.0%
Vibrant 5.0%
Safe 4.9%
Social 2.3%
Liberal 2.5%
Place of the past 2.3%
White collar 2.3%
Residents needed to prioritize
which keywords best suited their
community. Being touristy is topic
number one and even
overshadows the pride for the
beauty of the destination. Also
becoming “fake” and “being in
transition” are characteristics that
are on the minds of Aspenites.
2.2 SURVEY
50
OPEN TO EXPERIENCE 17.1%
26.7%
14.5%
3.2%
38.2%
NEUROTIC
EXTROVERT
CONSCIENTIOUS
AGREEABLE
AGREEABLE
(DUBLIN)
NEUROTIC
(HONG KONG)
EXTRAVERT
(AMSTERDAM)
OPEN TO EXPERIENCE
(MONTRÉAL)
CONSCIENTIOUS
(VANCOUVER)
FIVE TYPES OF PLACE PERSONALITY
The primary personality traits that describe Aspen are extrovert and
agreeable. The strong presence of the extrovert and neurotic traits are
noteworthy since they are usually associated with much larger urban
centers.
ASPEN’S PERSONALITY TYPE
2.2 SURVEY
51
TOURISM & THE COMMUNITY
STATEMENT AGREE NEUTRAL DISAGREE
Tourism in Aspen makes me feel more connected
with my community 10%27%63%
I have a voice in Aspen’s tourism development
decisions 7%19%74%
Increasing the number of visitors to Aspen improved
the local economy 27%27%46%
Tourism results in an increase of the cost of living and
improves the local economy
77%13%10%
Tourists in Aspen are a nuisance 38%44%18%
Tourism causes Aspen to be overcrowded 75%14%11%
2.2 SURVEY
52
BRAND DISCOVERY RESEARCH PRESENTATION NOVEMBER 2021
Yikes! The Aspen Music Festival &
School. The historic downtown with epic
shopping. The amazing and talented
people that are concentrated into one
small mountain city.”
“Unique mining town, with a colorful
history and character with incredible
natural beauty.”
“
World-class arts and culture. You can ski
and hike all over Colorado but no place
else has that and our arts scene.”
“The state would miss its
“celebrity/Hollywood” fame if Aspen
didn’t exist, but Telluride or another
mountain town would fill the void. ”
“
For Colorado, Aspen has been in the
forefront of the combination of mind,
body & spirit. Aspen sets a high bar that
ski towns try to replicate in their
marketing & infrastructure.”
“Throngs of tourists taking selfies in the
middle of the street wearing ridiculous
outfits. The most expensive destination
in the world. A bitter community who
resents tourists and expects things for
free.”
“
The perfect alignment of nature, climate,
activities, culture, cuisine, exploration,
inclusion, regeneration, and relaxation.”
“
World-class recreation, access to
pristine nature, a forward-thinking
LOCAL community, the least-thoughtful
tourist community, the worst drivers in
CO, the most expensive place to live in
CO, an abundance of second-home
owners, one of the widest wealth
gaps.”
“
WHAT WOULD COLORADO MISS?
53
BRAND DISCOVERY RESEARCH PRESENTATION NOVEMBER 2021
Supported by the local community.
Surrounded by natural beauty that
rejuvenates the soul. Comfortable and
quaint, yet luxurious and chic. Inspired by
the community and our constant drive to
explore and connect with nature.
Grounding.”
“Awesome! There is so much going on.
There are loads of city amenities.
There are good work opportunities.”
“
Summer is dreadful. Too many tourists
and incompetent outdoor enthusiasts.”
“Most of the time it is amazing to take
advantage of trails, natural
surroundings and beauty. Sometimes it
can feel too trafficy, overrun, and there
is nowhere to eat that is affordable.”
“
I feel lucky to have grown up here and to
be able to stay here and laminating a very
middle class lifestyle. Basically staying
out of the fray in the core and enjoying
the long time community and the outdoor
recreation opportunities.”
“
It feels like living a double life. In Aspen,
we rub shoulders with and provide
services to some of the wealthiest and
most high powered individuals in the
world. We also have to support ourselves
through the financial dichotomy of the
"haves" and "have nots," which is
supported by the constant push for more
growth for the "haves" and less resources
for the "have nots.” I often ask myself,
"how much longer can Locals afford to
live here?"
“
Aspen itself feels expensive, busy, exciting,
and overwhelming. Living in Aspen, I feel
active, adventurous, peaceful (on the off
seasons), curious and connected to the
community.”
“
[At the] center of the universe and very
remote -both at the same time. Very
fortunate to live here in such a beautiful,
safe, fun , unique and exciting place with
culture, sophistication AND the great
outdoors.”
“
HOW DOES IT FEEL?
54
BRAND DISCOVERY RESEARCH PRESENTATION NOVEMBER 2021
Aspen feels like it is at a cusp. Expanding
thoughtfully could be a way to maintain
charm and unique identity while lessening
the housing shortage and overcrowding.”
“It is on an upswing. Buildings, offices,
new restaurants, new galleries are
always being erected. Homes for
people that don't float on money is a
different story.”
“
No one cares about the workers only
about the millionaires and billionaires.
The Aspen residents and surrounding
communities are left out and monies are
not properly invested. This valley is in
desperate need of affordable housing and
child care options.”
“New full and part time residents who
are less focused on integrating into the
Aspen culture and community, and
more so into bringing their culture and
way of life, essentially diluting our
special community.” “
Aspen has forgotten about it's pledge to
the Environment, the Local Community,
and it's History. Sad but true.”
“The Aspen growth UP is out of control...
Locals are pushed to fight the commute
while tourists (and worse, second
homeowners who are seldom here) push
us farther down the valley. Exceptions
[are] made for [new] businesses that
stand to earn extremely high incomes, are
given accommodations which local
businesses would NEVER receive."
“
It’s becoming increasingly unliveable for
anyone who’s not wealthy. That’s been
happening for decades, but the pandemic
has accelerated this change. It also feels
busier than I’ve seen in my 14 years here.”
“
Slowly. I’m expecting more in problem
solving. We lost the World Cup a few
years ago and nothing happened… the
traffic problem makes life miserable for
everybody… housing for normal people…
Less talking more doing in my opinion.”
“
HOW IS ASPEN CHANGING?
55
INDUSTRY INTERVIEWS
THE VISITOR PROFILE FOR ASPEN IS CHANGING
●Visitors coming to Aspen are less considerate and have greater expectations.
●Stakeholders believe lack of international travel has had a negative impact.
●Off season is shrinking, leaving little downtime for operators.
ACRA NEEDS TO TAKE A STRONGER ROLE IN PROMOTING
RESPONSIBLE TOURISM
●Consider more targeted promotion.
●Proactively handle tourism growth.
A NEED TO ADDRESS CAPACITY
●City is too busy, with too much traffic, and new homes have been overbuilt,
leaving no room for new development.
●More people living in Aspen year-round, putting more stress on infrastructure.
●Lack of staff accommodations is a significant issue.
2.3 INDUSTRY INTERVIEWS
56
INDUSTRY INTERVIEWS
BALANCE BETWEEN PRESERVING THE CITY’S CHARACTER AND
COMMERCIALIZATION
●Community becoming less authentic, with increasing chain restaurants and
limited ownership controlling much of the commercial retail.
●Rent is also considered too high for local employees.
A NEED FOR MORE VISITOR EDUCATION AND VISITOR
EXPERIENCE TRAINING FOR BUSINESSES
●There is industry interest in ensuring the business community can speak to
the visitor experience and proactively educate tourists.
●Most businesses want to attract visitors that value sustainability.
INCORPORATING DEI PRINCIPLES
●The middle class is being pushed out of Aspen, and stakeholders
recommended taking an equity lens for review of new and
existing policies.
●Interest in how to attract more diverse target markets.
2.3 INDUSTRY INTERVIEWS
57
2.4 TOWN HALLS
TOWN HALLS
Town halls were hosted in order to understand the sentiment and
priorities of visitor economy stakeholders.
According to stakeholders:
●Aspen’s number one challenge is staff shortages, followed
closely by visitor pressure and social inequality.
●Aspen is inclusive, in that everyone can experience nature, but
the barrier to entry is extremely high.
●The current mood regarding tourism is slightly pessimistic -
stakeholders feel exhausted by tourism, but also lucky to be
able to enjoy the beauty of Aspen.
●In addition to skiing and winter sports, Aspen should be
recognized for arts and culture, natural beauty, outdoor
adventure, philanthropy, and thought leadership.
58
WORKSHOPS ASPEN’S IDEAL VISITOR
One who stays more than one night, who wants to give back to the
community and make a difference.
VISITOR PRESSURE
Identified as the issue that ACRA has the most ability to affect change.
Determining how to preserve the soul of the town is intrinsically tied to
addressing visitor pressure.
TRAFFIC CONGESTION
Exacerbates visitor pressure, especially with increasing numbers of staff
having to commute from down valley and ongoing construction blocking
traffic.
DEBATING YEAR-ROUND TOURISM
Limited opportunity for businesses and residents to rejuvenate between
seasons. A lack of downtime can upset the balance between visitors and
residents.
2.5 WORKSHOPS
Several workshops were hosted with
ACRA, the Board of Directors, and
industry members.
The following are some key themes
that emerged from these gatherings.
59
Exercises were undertaken to
determine solutions to
Aspen’s challenges and
organize them according to
urgency and feasibility.
2.5 WORKSHOPS
WORKSHOPS
60
CONCLUSIONS
●ACRA could help to manage resident expectations and visitor pressure by trying to
deliver high-quality experiences to a smaller target market.
●The visitor profile has shifted and more visitor education is required.
●The destination would benefit from additional low impact tourism experiences and
economic diversification.
●Stakeholders want ACRA to take a larger role in facilitating responsible tourism.
●Maintaining some downtime in the off season for residents and businesses to
rejuvenate would be helpful for harmonious relations between businesses,
residents, and visitors.
●Locals realize that they have excellent services because of tourism, but stakeholder
engagement has shown that the benefits of these amenities does not grant the
social license for unlimited growth.
2.6 CONCLUSIONS
61
3THE CHALLENGE
62
THE ASPEN
CHALLENGE
STAFF SHORTAGES
A shortage in the labor force has been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic on both
the demand and supply side.
MOUNTAIN MIGRATION AND GENTRIFICATION
Residents from many urban centers across the country are attracted to more natural
locations, particularly during the pandemic.
VISITOR PRESSURE
Visitor volume and behavior are the key contributors.
SOCIAL INEQUALITY
Many people feel that the value generated by tourism is not adequately trickling down
to them.
TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT
Regional increases in rubber tire traffic is pushing road capacity to its limits.
LACK OF ECONOMIC DIVERSIFICATION
There are city plans to diversify the economy, but Aspen still operates as and is
perceived as a tourism town.
3.1 THE CHALLENGE
How can Aspen survive its
reputation economically,
environmentally, and
socially?
63
A WAY FORWARD
●Utilizing destination management principles, purpose-built
tourism is intentional in leveraging the visitor economy to
push back against community challenges.
●A version of a visitor economy that values all stakeholders
and achieves a balance of social, economic, and
environmental considerations.
●When designed with intention, a place’s tourism industry can
contribute to a higher purpose that supports the community
and the natural environment.
3.1 THE CHALLENGE
Purpose-built tourism provides
a path forward.
64
4THE STRATEGY
65
STRATEGIC
FRAMEWORK
4.1 STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK
MISSION:
Attract visitors to the resort, foster a dynamic Aspen experience, and provide
valuable member benefits to support a sustainable local economy.
THE CHALLENGE FOR THIS PLAN:
How to survive Aspen’s reputation
PILLAR 1:
ADDRESSING
VISITOR PRESSURE
PILLAR 2:
ENHANCE THE ASPEN
EXPERIENCE
PILLAR 3:
PRESERVE SMALL
TOWN CHARACTER
STRATEGIC PRIORITIES STRATEGIC PRIORITIES STRATEGIC PRIORITIES
KPIs
ACTION WITH IMPACT
END VISION:
To create an environment for
Aspen to thrive.
66
STRATEGIC PRIORITIES
4.2 STRATEGIC PRIORITIES
PILLAR STRATEGIC PRIORITIES START DATE ROLE
ADDRESS
VISITOR
PRESSURE
1. Engage in 360-degree feedback with residents and industry Phase I Lead
2. Enhance visitor education Phase I Lead
3. Address traffic and congestion issues Phase I Advocate
4. Preserve and regenerate the natural environment Phase II Lead + Partner + Advocate
5. Accelerate the carbon footprint reduction of tourism Phase III Lead + Partner + Advocate
ENHANCE THE
ASPEN
EXPERIENCE
6. Improve the visitor and resident experience Phase I Lead + Partner
7. Diversify visitor markets Phase II Lead
8.Catalyze sustainable choices Phase II Lead + Advocate
9. Redefine visitor economy opportunities Phase III Lead + Partner
PRESERVE
SMALL-TOWN
CHARACTER
10. Advocate for housing crisis solutions Phase I Advocate
11. Develop resident ambassador program Phase II Lead + Partner 67
1.
ENGAGE IN 360-DEGREE
FEEDBACK WITH
RESIDENTS AND
INDUSTRY
OVERVIEW
●Engagement can be pursued in a
more consistent and structured
manner.
●More feedback from a
comprehensive set of stakeholders
will.
4.2 STRATEGIC PRIORITIES
Role:
Lead
Timeframe:Phase I
ACTIONS
●Utilize community engagement
platform.
●Increase resident awareness of
ACRA’s role/successes.
●Increase communications with
member businesses.
●Engage different subsegments of
residents.
68
2.
ENHANCE VISITOR
EDUCATION OVERVIEW
●ACRA educates visitors but could go
further.
●Education is a key component of
managing visitor pressure.
4.2 STRATEGIC PRIORITIES
Role:
Lead
Timeframe:Phase I
ACTIONS
●Promote “The Aspen Way” and the
“mind, body, spirit” mentality.
●Relaunch and expand the visitor
pledge.
●Teach visitors how to take care of the
natural environment and respect the
small town character.
69
3.
ADDRESS TRAFFIC
AND CONGESTION ISSUES OVERVIEW
●This is a priority challenge for the
community.
●Necessary for ACRA to advocate
alongside decision makers.
4.2 STRATEGIC PRIORITIES
Role:
Advocate
Timeframe:Phase II
ACTIONS
●Advocate for free bus service from
Aspen to Glenwood.
●Encourage visiting Aspen without a car.
●Turn Aspen into a walking and cycling
city.
●Direct shuttle between airport and
downtown.
70
4.
PRESERVE AND
REGENERATE THE
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
OVERVIEW
●The natural environment is the
backbone
of tourism.
●Preserving and regenerating the
natural environment is essential in
maintaining a resilient visitor
economy.
4.2 STRATEGIC PRIORITIES
Role:Lead + Partner
+ Advocate
Timeframe:Phase II
ACTIONS
●Establish sustainability goals.
●Partner with environmental groups to
multiply impact.
●Raise funds to regenerate the natural
environment.
●Track progress and sustainability KPIs.
71
5.
ACCELERATE
REDUCTION OF THE
CARBON FOOTPRINT
OF TOURISM
OVERVIEW
●Climate action is increasingly being
tied to a destination’s license to
operate.
●Focus on transportation emissions
and visitor education until a GHG
assessment can be completed.
4.2 STRATEGIC PRIORITIES
Role:Lead + Partner
+ Advocate
Timeframe:Phase III
ACTIONS
●Make public transportation and EVs the
default choice (increasing access,
discounts, preferential treatment).
●Execute educational initiatives.
●Address the externalities of private jets.
●Establish climate action goals.
72
6.
IMPROVE
THE VISITOR
AND RESIDENT
EXPERIENCE
OVERVIEW
●Support and partner with operators
to ensure that experiences are
beneficial for both visitors and
residents.
●Treat visitors as guests, and they will
treat locals as hosts.
4.2 STRATEGIC PRIORITIES
Role:Lead + Partner
Timeframe:Phase I
ACTIONS
●Limit actions to promote the off
season.
●Focus on transformational
experience development.
●Improve wayfinding to low-impact
experiences.
●Maintain some backstage
experiences for residents.
73
7.
DIVERSIFY VISITOR
MARKETS OVERVIEW
●Aspen is primarily known for skiing,
but could be better known for other
niche offerings.
●Diversify visitor markets to align with
Aspen’s strengths and values.
4.2 STRATEGIC PRIORITIES
Role:Lead
Timeframe:Phase I
ACTIONS
●Stop advertising to your direct-fly markets.
●Stop advertising to the luxury market for
now.
●Pursue passion and value-based
targeting.
●Make sure diverse audiences see
themselves in promotional material.
74
8.
BE A CATALYST
FOR SUSTAINABLE
CHOICES
OVERVIEW
●Encourage behavioral change by
making it easy to adopt the desired
behavior.
●Encourage stakeholders to play a
catalytic role.
4.2 STRATEGIC PRIORITIES
Role:Lead + Partner
+ Advocate
Timeframe:Phase I
ACTIONS
●Catalog and promote experiences that
have low impact.
●Provide incentives to members who are
sustainable.
●Continue to encourage ‘voluntourism.’
●Advocate to phase out single use
plastics.
75
9.
REDEFINE
VISITOR ECONOMY
OPPORTUNITIES
OVERVIEW
●Travel behavior and preferences
continue to evolve.
●Residents are feeling more
empowered to push back against
tourism that is not community
aligned.
4.2 STRATEGIC PRIORITIES
Role:Lead + Partner
Timeframe:Phase III
ACTIONS
●Engage residents to assist in defining the
types of tourism experiences/businesses
they want.
●Embrace and engage a broader
definition of visitor economy-related
businesses.
●Encourage the development of new
types of tourism jobs.
76
10.
ADVOCATE
FOR HOUSING CRISIS
SOLUTIONS
OVERVIEW
●Affordable housing and its relation
to staff shortages was a top priority
throughout stakeholder
engagement.
●Many productive discussions and
initiatives are ongoing at the City
and County level.
4.2 STRATEGIC PRIORITIES
Role:Advocate
Timeframe:Phase II
ACTIONS
●Advocate for tax on short-term rentals.
●Short-term accommodation study that
supports ongoing discussion with reliable
data.
●Advocate for developing more affordable
housing.
●Develop a communications strategy.
77
11.
DEVELOP RESIDENT
AMBASSADOR
PROGRAM
OVERVIEW
●Ambassador programs are designed
to set expectations for “temporary
locals”.
●An inspiring first impression of a
community.
4.2 STRATEGIC PRIORITIES
Role:Lead + Partner
Timeframe:Phase II
ACTIONS
●Co-create an ambassador program
with residents.
●Organize an end-of-season clean-up
day.
●Encourage community members to
provide better quality visitor
experiences.
78
ACTION WITH IMPACT OVERVIEW
●Actions that express the DNA of your
community and are co-created
and/or executed with your residents.
●These actions have intrinsic
communicative power and can take
many forms.
4.2 STRATEGIC PRIORITIES
Make your destination
management plan tangible
and encourage buy-in with
tangible action.
ACTIONS
●Educate and demonstrate your
values.
●Boost civic pride and reinforce
Aspenites’ love for their home.
●A group hug during a challenging
time when people are still facing the
impacts of COVID-19.
79
5EXECUTION
80
5. EXECUTION
The following table
provides suggested
timing for the rollout of
the strategy.
TIMEFRAME
81
The following
recommended KPIs can
be used to monitor the
success of the tourism
industry in Aspen and the
overall implementation of
this strategy.
5. EXECUTION
MEASUREMENT QUALITY OF EXPERIENCE
Visitor sentiment: Net Promoter Score Survey twice per year.
LEVEL OF WELCOME
Resident sentiment: Net Promoter Score Survey twice per year.
ECONOMIC VALUE
Average visitor spend: Visitor Travel Survey data, eventually able
to determine economic value remaining in the local economy.
ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE
Number of certified sustainable tourism experiences: Annual
industry survey.
82
THANK YOU
83
MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor and City Council
FROM:Trish Aragon, P.E., City Engineer
Diane Foster, Assistant City Manager
THROUGH:Scott Miller-Director Public Works
Pete Rice, P.E., Division Manager
Mike Horvath, P.E., Senior Project Manager
Jack Danneberg, P.E., Project Manager
MEMO DATE:March 9, 2022
MEETING DATE:March 15, 2022
RE:Entrance to Aspen Education
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Provide Staff direction on the proposed scope of work for the 2022
Entrance to Aspen Education Project.
SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND:
Acknowledging that quite some time has passed since there was a community dialog around the
Entrance to Aspen (ETA), Council requested that the City spend the next year updating project
materials and educating the community about the Record of Decision (ROD) and the Preferred
Alternative(PA) with the goal of creating a shared understanding in the community of what the
ETA project is, what elements of the ETA project have already been implemented, and what
challenges it does not solve.
For a more detailed review, please see Attachment A which contains the background and
history to the Entrance to Aspen.
On September 13, 2021 the following was presented on the Entrance to Aspen:
Information on the Castle Creek Bridge
Scenarios on any changes to the Preferred Alternative
Background on the Preferred Alternative and parking at Buttermilk
Information on busses, light rail, tram and trackless tram
Estimated operations and maintenance costs of BRT
Attachment B contains the Informational Memo from the September 13, 2021 Meeting.
84
2
On November 1, 2021 the budget supplemental for the 2022 Entrance to Aspen Education
Project was discussed. During that meeting Council appropriated $150,000 for consulting
services for the education and outreach around the Record of Decision for the Entrance to
Aspen. These services were to include the following:
Creation of a web site and document library
Print campaign
Community survey and polling
Public open houses
Grassroots videos
Additionally, Council directed staff to come back with a detailed plan on the scope of the
project prior to implementation.
DISCUSSION:
There are three components to this Entrance to Aspen Education Project:
1. Technical Analysis– Obtain clarity around the current state of the Record of Decision
and the Preferred Alternative;
2. Engage with the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) - Understand the risks
of opening the Record of Decision (ROD) & potential for funding; and
3.Community Education– Update the ETA materials and plan to prepare for a community
education campaign.
Step One: Technical Analysis
The ROD and associated Preferred Alterative are complicated written documents that do not
include visual material, public educational documents or specifics on many of the measures
introduced. Before the community engagement process discussed at the November 1, 2021 can
be initiated, a technical analysis must be completed.
Much has changed since the 2007 re-evaluation of the Record of Decision. While some elements
of the Preferred Alternative have been implemented, major portions are still outstanding. The
Aspen community has a new audience that will need to be engaged since the implementation of
the re-evaluation. Consequently, a technical evaluation is necessary for several reasons:
To determine if a reevaluation is needed to preserve the Record of Decision and Preferred
Alternative; and
To determine what has changed since the last re – evaluation; and
To assess what can and cannot be accomplished under the current ROD knowing
technology and needs have changed since the re evaluation.
85
3
The nearly sixty-year-old Castle Creek Bridge is nearing its useful life and the City will need to
determine what the future of the new bridge will be. The bridge acts as the emergency egress
that is critical for both mass evacuation and first responders access to the hospital.
Technical Scope of Work – Obtain clarity on the “as is” condition. This includes answers to the
following:
a. Where are we now?
1) Organize all existing information
2) Define the ROW and depict on a map
3) Have a clear understanding of the components of the transportation
management program that have been implemented and what is required
4) Research technologies (ie trackless tram)
5) Develop cross sections of the Preferred Alternative
6) Assessment of current conditions of the Old Castle Creek Bridge are
determined
7) What has changed since the re-evaluation of the ROD?
b. What can and what cannot be done under the approved ROD?
Step Two: Engage with the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT)
Prior to starting the community education process, we will need to determine process for
engaging CDOT, as well as determine any risk we may face with the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) of opening up the ROD.
Additionally, staff will need to determine the process for including ETA on the 10-year
Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP).
Step Three Community Education
This part of the project includes updating the ETA materials, as well as the planning and
execution a community education process.
Much of the materials and documents that were created for the Entrance to Aspen (ETA) are
outdated and are in a format that is no longer compatible with today’s technology. Staff will
engage one or two external partners to update these documents in a fashion that will help
Council make decisions and present a clear picture to the public.
Where the goal of the education process is to provide community with information to assist them in
understanding the problem, alternatives and opportunities for the ETA.The following items will be
developed, as discussed at the November 1, 2021 City Council meeting:
a. Updated Website & Document Library including Grassroots Videos
b. Print Campaign
c. Public Open Houses, in person if possible
86
4
d. Polling at the end of the public education process
It is important to note that this public education process is not a substitute for a full community
engagement process that will be needed if City Council want to move forward with either
implementation of the last elements of the Preferred Alternative or if City Council would like to
pursue reopening the Record of Decision.
The International Association of Public Participation (IAP2) Spectrum of Public Participation, shown
in a simplified form below, is a helpful tool to understand community engagement processes. For
this project, we will operate primarily in the Inform stage, while also gathering informal feedback
from those who are able to attend an open house, as well as through polling.
https://research.ku.edu/community-engagement
Project Schedule
Step One: Technical Analysis (Initial analysis has commenced and will continue through
this Summer)
Step Two: Engage with the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) (Initial
engagement has commenced and will continue through this Summer)
Step Three Community Education
o Pitkin County Commissioner / City of Snowmass initial meetings scheduled to
occur prior to EOTC Retreat at the end of April
o Presentation of education materials with City Council will occur this Fall
o Public open houses and associated grass roots video along with a print
campaign web site launch will occur this Fall
87
5
o Public Poll will occur at the end of the year
Council Direction Questions
1. Is City Council supportive of the public education process as described, knowing that a full
community engagement process will be needed if any future steps in the ETA project are to be
taken?
2. What is the appropriate level of involvement for EOTC? Others?
3.How does City Council want to be involved in this process?
4. How will City Council determine if this process has been successful?
5. What expectations do you have for this process that have not yet been discussed?
FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Funding equal to $150,000 for this project was appropriated within the
2022 Asset Management Plan Fund budget, under project 141.132.10010.52199.30115:
Entrance to Aspen. Below are budget estimates for the three steps of the Entrance to Aspen
Education Project.
Step One: Technical Analysis
$24,957 of the existing budget will be utilized for a contract with HNTP, Corp. This contract
includes the further education of staff on the history of the project. HNTP will review past
documents and inform staff on implementation and mitigation of past documents.
An estimated $50,000 will be needed to update technical materials.
Step Two: Engage with the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT)
The Technical Analysis in Step One will aid in this step. Funds may be needed if additional
consulting work will be needed to determine any risk we may face with the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) of opening up the ROD.
Step Three Community Education
An estimated $40,000 - $70,000 of the existing budget will be utilized for the aforementioned
public education process. A final cost will be determined after staff issues a Request for
Proposal; staff will do that after the March 15 City Council meeting to be sure that the RFP is
consistent with Council direction on public education. A marketing firm selected by staff will
develop an education plan that ultimately provides the project team, stakeholders, citizens, and
others a shared understanding of the Entrance to Aspen project, including its vocabulary. This
first step of public education is critical for future outreach steps of the project.
88
6
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The Entrance to Aspen project focuses on transit preference
solutions to decrease greenhouse gas emissions from general purpose vehicles. Replacing the
Castle Creek Bridge is a critical investment in the City of Aspen’s future and will define public
transportation for many decades to come.
The intent of the Entrance to Aspen is to meet the local community’s needs and desires,
including the following:
Meets project need and intent and 10 project objectives as outlined in the Preferred
Alternative (refer to Attachment A: 10 project objectives)
Provides capacity for forecasted person trips, but limit vehicle trips
Reduces accident rate on “S” curves,
Provides alternate route for emergency vehicles
Minimizes negative impacts on the environment, open space, and historic & recreational
resources
Reflects character and scale of Aspen
Aesthetically acceptable solution
Allows for future transit options and upgrades
RECOMMENDATIONS:Staff recommends commencing the Entrance to Aspen Education
project as outlined in the following steps:
Step One: Technical Analysis
Step Two: Engage with the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT)
Step Three Community Education
ALTERNATIVES:The Entrance to Aspen Education project can be reduced or expanded as
follows:
1.Reduce the scope of the project and remove components of the community education
step of the project.
2.Include more public feedback in the project and move into the Consult phase of the
IAP2 spectrum. The goal of including more feedback is to keep community informed
and acknowledge the community’s concerns and aspirations for the Entrance to Aspen.
This option will require additional budget authority.
3.Move into the Involve phase of the IAP2 spectrum including working directly with
community to ensure concerns and aspirations are understood and considered. The
goal of this work is to engage with the community to ensure that their concerns and
aspirations are directly reflected in the solution to the ETA. Alternatives will be
developed and feedback will be utilized to influence the alternatives. This option will
require additional budget authority
Attachements:
89
7
Attachment A: Background and History of ETA
Attachment B: Informational Memo from September 13, 2021 Worksession
90
APPENDIX A
Background and History of the Entrance to Aspen
91
BACKGROUND
The purpose of this section is to provide a basic understanding of the Entrance to Aspen (ETA),
Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), Record of Decision (ROD) and Preferred
Alternative, where we are now and what it would take to change it. Please note that throughout
this section, italicized text indicates information from the FEIS and ROD documents.
A BRIEF HISTORY
1990’s Problems with growth, air quality, traffic and congestion
1993 Citizens and elected officials met numerous times and developed the AACP
1993 Paid parking was implemented
1995 Community, elected officials, Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT),
Federal Highway Association (FHWA) to develop Project Need & Intent and 10 project
objectives
1995 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
1996 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS)
1997 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)
1998 Record of Decision (ROD)
2007 Reevaluation of Record of Decision
1975-2002 26 votes
PROJECT NEED
The capacity of the existing transportation system is insufficient during peak periods. Safety,
clean air, the visitor’s experience, and resident’s quality of life are compromised.
PROJECT INTENT
To provide a balanced, integrated transportation system for residents, visitors and commuters
that reduces congestion and pollution by reducing and/or managing the number of vehicles on
the road system. The system should reflect the character and scale of the Aspen Community.
Through a process responsive to community-based planning, the EIS shall identify, analyze,
select and implement the best transportation alternative for the short- and long-term goals of the
community compatibility, safety, environmental preservation, clean air, quality of life, and
transportation capacity. The alternative chosen should be consistent with the
Aspen/Snowmass/Pitkin County goal of limiting vehicles in 2015 to levels at or below those of
1994.
10 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
In 1995 elected officials from Aspen, Pitkin County and Snowmass and representatives from
CDOT, FHWA a technical advisory committee and citizens developed the ten project objectives
that the project must meet. All alternatives would be screened against these ten project
objectives as well as the project need and intent. The project need, intent and project objectives
were the foundation on which the decisions for the FEIS and ROD were made, and other
solutions were measured against.
1. Community Based Planning
2. Transportation Capacity
3. Safety
4. Environmentally Sound Alternative
5. Community Acceptability
6. Financial Limitations
7. Clean Air Act Requirements
92
8. Emergency Access
9. Livable Communities
10. Phasing
CDOT then performed the environmental study of the ETA in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1970. NEPA requires an Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) on projects that could have a significant impact on the environment. The EIS results in a
DEIS, then a FEIS and a ROD. The Federal Highways Administration (FHWA) is the approving
entity. The environmental study in involved extensive public input and numerous technical
studies.
Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)
The FEIS is prepared by CDOT and the FHWA. It evaluates potential solutions to improve
safety and transportation within the SH 82 corridor. Solutions and alternatives are evaluated
against the 10 project objectives and project need and intent. The purpose of the FEIS is to:
develop and evaluate potential alternatives that will improve transportation and safety within the
State Highway 82 project corridor. Approximately 43 alternatives were screened out through
FEIS process. The FEIS presents the Preferred Alternative and describes a summary of
previously evaluated alternatives. The Preferred Alternative described in the FEIS is a variation
of the Modified Direct Alternative evaluated in the DSEIS.
Record of Decision (ROD)
The purpose of the ROD is to document the FHWA and CDOT’s decision on the Entrance to
Aspen (ETA) project. It is compliant with and based on NEPA requirements. It describes the
Preferred Alternative (PA). According to the FHWA, ROD’s do not have a regulatory expiration.
THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE (PA)
The Preferred Alternative came from a screening and selection process as part of the FEIS.
Over 43 different alternatives were reviewed and compared to the project need and intent and
the ten project objectives. The alternatives were screened from consideration through a reality
check, fatal flaw, and comparative, for potential alignment, laneage, profile and travel mode
options.
The Preferred Alternative is a combination of highway and intersection improvements, a transit
system, and an incremental transportation management ™ program. The highway component
will consist of a two-lane parkway that generally follows the existing alignment, except at the
Maroon Creek crossing and across the Marolt-Thomas Property.
The transit component includes a LRT system, that if local support and/or funding are not
available will be developed initially as exclusive bus lanes.
The PA is a variation of the Modified Direct Alternative evaluated in the DSEIS from 1996.
Why is the Preferred Alternative “preferred?”
CDOT and FHWA have chosen the PA because it best meets the local communities needs and
desires, fulfills the project objectives, and provides flexibility in future designs.
Meets project need and intent and 10 project objectives
Provides capacity for forecasted person trips, but limit vehicle trips
Reduces accident rate on “S” curves,
Provides alternate route for emergency vehicles
Minimizes negative impacts on the environment, open space, and historic & recreational
resources
93
Reflects character and scale of Aspen
Aesthetically acceptable solution
Allows for future transit options and upgrades
Elements of the Preferred Alternative that have been implemented
Several elements of the Preferred Alternative have been implemented, constructed and are in
operation. They include:
Maroon Creek Roundabout
Pedestrian overpasses over Maroon Creek Road and Castle Creek Road
Truscott Intersection Improvements (utilities, trail, and pedestrian underpass
improvements)
Harmony Road (highway underpass, pedestrian underpasses, and intersection
improvements)
Realignment of Owl Creek Road and new signals at SH82 and Buttermilk
Conveyance of Right-of-Way (CDOT acquired easement across Marolt for two-lane and
light rail ONLY in exchange for Mills Ranch property to be used as open space)
Maroon Creek Highway Bridge Replacement
In town bus lanes
2007 REEVALUATION OF THE FEIS & ROD
In 2007 the FEIS and ROD were reevaluated to see if:
There were any significant changes had occurred in the project design, concept, or
project scope.
If any regulatory or environmental changes had occurred since the publication of the
FEIS and ROD
If any changes had occurred, if any of these changes would result in any new or
additional environmental impacts
The results of the reevaluation found that there were no significant changes and that the FEIS
and ROD and the Preferred Alternative were still valid.
VOTES
There have been 26 votes from 1975-2002 on various issue related to the ETA in both the City of
Aspen and Pitkin County. Some of the key votes were:
In a 1996 election, Aspen voters authorized City Council to convey the Right-of-Way across the
Marolt and Thomas Properties for a two-lane highway and a corridor for light rail. If the Marolt
and Thomas Properties are to be used for any other purpose (four lanes of traffic or two lanes of
traffic and two dedicated bus lanes as examples) then the question must go back to City voters
because there is NOT approval to use the open space for anything other than two lanes of
highway and light rail.
November 1996 City of Aspen
Shall City Council be authorized to convey ROW over Marolt and Thomas properties for
a 2-lane parkway and a corridor for light rail? Only if:
Finances and design are completed and approved by voters
Cut and cover tunnel of at least 400’
Section of 82 between Cemetery Lane and Maroon Creek goes to open space
Other open space acquired to make up for net loss
94
An alignment sensitive to historical and natural resources is defined
Yes: 1656 (59%) No: 1147 (41%)
May 2001 City of Aspen
Shall City Council be authorized to convey ROW over Marolt and Thomas for a 2-lane
parkway and exclusive bus lanes until the community supports rail funding, if:
It is done according to the ROD
Cut and cover tunnel of at least 400’
New Castle Creek Bridge
Appropriate landscaping
This vote shall not be construed as superseding approval by electorate in
November 1996 for light rail corridor.
Yes: 913 (46%) No: 1056 (54%)
November 2002 City of Aspen
Which do you prefer?
S-Curves: 1405 (56%)Modified Direct: 1123 (44%)
November 2002 Pitkin County
Which do you prefer?
S-Curves: 3079 (51%)Modified Direct: 2963 (49%)
COST ESTIMATIONS:
Various cost estimations have been made over the years. Planning level costs were last estimated
for the ETA Preferred Alternative as part of the Upper Valley Mobility Study (UVMS) in 2016 for
an enhanced BRT and LRT option. Both options had a range of cost estimates (base and prime)
and a contingency of about 30%.
The PA with Bus lanes had an estimated capital cost range of $159,000,000 to
$200,000,000 with an O&M of about $3.2 million per year.
The PA with LRT had an estimated capital cost range of $428,000,000-$527,000,000 with
an O&M of about $6 million per year.
WHERE ARE WE NOW?
The FEIS and ROD have been reevaluated, found to be valid and remain the governing
documents for the Entrance to Aspen. The Preferred Alternative as described in the ROD is the
alternative selected and approved by the FHWA, CDOT, City of Aspen and Pitkin County for the
Entrance to Aspen. The Preferred Alternative currently includes a general-purpose travel lane
in each direction and a LRT envelope. LRT was approved across the Marolt Thomas property
due to the vote in 1996. If the Preferred Alternative was to be implemented with bus lanes
instead of LRT, it would require a vote for the use of open space across the Marolt Thomas
property.
95
PROCESS FOR CONSIDERING OTHER ALTERNATIVES
The FHWA does allow changes or modifications to a Preferred Alternative that was identified
through and EIS process and selected in the ROD. However, under NEPA any changes to an
elected Preferred Alternative would require additional NEPA evaluation and documentation to
determine if that change would result in greater, less or different environmental impacts. The
documentation could range from a simple memo to the EIS file, an amendment or a new
supplemental EIS/Record of Decision depending on the alternative.
If an alternative was fully evaluated in the original FEIS but was not selected as the Preferred
Alternative, a revised ROD may be prepared to document the new Preferred Alternative.
The type of review or documentation is determined by the FHWA based on the information,
change or alternative provided by CDOT and local entities. The community would need to
provide the change or amendment to the ROD and the FHWA and CDOT would determine the
level of review based on the impact of the proposed changes amendments. The FHWA will
decide the process and make the final determination.
See the attached EIS Decision Process matrix.
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
The state and federal authorities have approved and authorized the Preferred Alternative as a
viable alternative for the Entrance to Aspen. Is there support to proceed with the Preferred
Alternative? If there is support for the Preferred Alternative a public vote would be needed to
allow bus lanes to be built across the Marolt Thomas properties because the Preferred
Alternative includes light rail as the approved mode and was approved in a 1996 vote.
If the community and elected officials want to consider a different alternative or change to the
ROD and Preferred Alternative, then a new alternative or any changes to the ROD would need
to be presented to CDOT and the FHWA for guidance on how to proceed and the next steps
needed.
Links to more information:
City of Aspen website:
https://www.cityofaspen.com/275/Entrance-to-Aspen
CDOT website:
https://www.codot.gov/projects/archived-project-sites/SH82/entrance-to-aspen
Entrance to Aspen History Video-How Did We Get Here?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWILmxH6C_I
96
View of Preferred Alternative
97
Preferred Alternative –Roundabout to 7th Street
98
99
DECISION PROCESS MATRIX FOR A PROPOSED CHANGE TO THE
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Hwy 82 RODs are Here
Community Identified
Change or Alternative
Level of Impact
(Determined by
FHWA)
Process Based on
Level of Impact
(Determined by FHWA)
FHWA Determination
100
ATTACHMENT B
Informational Memo from September 13, 2021 Worksession
101
2
MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor and City Council
FROM:John D. Krueger-Director of Transportation
THROUGH:Trish Aragon-City Engineer
Scott Miller-Director Public Works
MEMO DATE:October 10, 2021
MEETING DATE:October 26, 2021
RE:Informational Memo - Entrance to Aspen
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: The purpose of this memo is to provide a follow up to some of the questions
Council asked at the work session on the Entrance to Aspen.
CASTLE CREEK BRIDGE:
What is the latest rating/classification for the Castle Creek Bridge?
The Castle Creek Bridge was built in 1961. It receives regular inspections to review many different
structural elements of the bridge. It receives a sufficiency rating (structural) and a functional rating.
The 2020 inspection report indicated a sufficiency rating (SR) of 50.3. The bridge has a functional
rating of “0” showing it to be obsolete functionally. A functionally obsolete bridge is one that does not
have adequate lane widths shoulder widths or vertical clearances to serve current traffic demand.
When does the Castle Creek Bridge need to be replaced?
Currently the bridge is not listed on the CDOT priority list due to its current rating. A structural rating
below 50 would trigger the bridge to become eligible for the CDOT priority list and possible funding. The
next bridge inspection is scheduled for 2022.
What is the estimated life of the Castle Creek Bridge?
This is difficult to determine. There are many factors to consider. CDOT wouldn’t commit to an
estimated life span of the bridge and feel that it will provide safe service for years to come. Generally,
15 to 20 years is a good estimate based on the recent inspections.
102
3
Is the existing Castle Creek Bridge on CDOT’s radar to be replaced or improved?
The Castle Creek Bridge is not currently on CDOT’s list of bridge replacements due to its recent
inspection and structural rating.
Is the replacement of the bridge on the CDOT 10-year strategic project list/or any CDOT list? What
is the process to replace it?
No. The replacement of the Castle Creek Bridge is not on the CDOT 10-year strategic project list. The
SR of the bridge must be below 50 for CDOT to consider it for replacement. Once the bridge rating
goes below 50 the bridge would go on the list of bridges eligible for funding and replacement based on
priority/need/rating. The lowest rated bridges would receive the highest priority for replacement and
funding.
Is there a cost estimate to replace the existing bridge in the same location?
No. There is not a cost estimate to replace the existing Castle Creek Bridge in the same location.
Is there room for 3 highway lanes on the bridge?
No. Studies have shown there is not capacity for the additional weight of three lanes and the bridge
was designed for a two- lane loading only. CDOT would not allow the current two-lane bridge to
become a three-lane bridge
What happens to the current Castle Creek Bridge if the Preferred Alternative is implemented, and a
new Castle Creek Bridge is built?
If the Preferred Alternative is built with the new Castle Creek Bridge in the new location as part of SH
82 the old Castle Creek Bridge would be turned over to the City of Aspen.
CHANGES TO THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
The attached 2008 memo from Jane Boand, Senior Environmental Planner for David Evans and
Associates details the evaluation process for proposed changes to an approved EIS Preferred
Alternative. It includes the review of the Split Shot Alternative as an example of the process.
Changes to a Preferred Alternative are allowed. However, additional NEPA evaluation and
documentation would be required to determine if the change would result in greater, less, or different
environmental impacts. The environmental impacts would determine the process, documentation, and
next steps by the FHWA. Local Agencies (City) and CDOT would provide information on a proposed
103
4
change to the Preferred Alternative to the FHWA and the FHWA would then determine the NEPA
documentation required.
Many questions about the Preferred Alternative fall into this process. Some of these questions are:
Can portions of the Preferred alternative be left out or not built or do we have to build the Preferred
Alternative as described in the ROD and FEIS?
Can trackless tram be implemented instead of LRT?
Can the multimodal parking facilities at Buttermilk and the Airport be removed or reduced in the
Preferred Alternative?
Can transit modes other than bus or LRT be implemented as part of the Preferred Alternative?
Are there portions of the Preferred Alternative that no longer apply or are relevant?
Most of these questions would follow the EIS Decision Process for Changes to the Preferred Alternative
matrix that is attached as part of the 2008 memo.
PARKING AT BUTTERMILK AND AIRPORT:
Parking facilities at Buttermilk and the Airport are included in the FEIS and ROD. These facilities were
intended as multimodal facilities.
The parking facilities were intended to help keep traffic at or below 1993 levels by providing a facility to
park and then use transit to get to Aspen. In the ROD it states:
Multimodal facilities will be developed at two locations in the project corridor-the Pitkin County Airport
and Buttermilk Ski Area. Each of these locations will accommodate a transit station (or stop) and parking
facilities. The parking demand for each facility was determined based on the parking demand induced
by the incremental TM program. The parking demand will range from 750 spaces at the Buttermilk Ski
Area to 3,600 spaces at the airport. The facility at the Pitkin County Airport will be used primarily by
commuters with an Aspen destination. The Buttermilk Ski Area Facility will primarily be used by day-
skiers and recreationalists. The size of the facilities may be reduced based on several factors including
actual population and traffic growth experience, transit service, success of TM programs, linkages to
other communities, and increased downvalley parking facilities. Construction of the parking spaces can
be phased.
Initially, the construction of these multimodal facilities would not need to be for maximum capacity.
Instead, the number of parking spaces at the multimodal facilities could be developed as the parking
need arises.
The parking spaces at the Pitkin County Airport are owned and managed by the County. The parking
spaces at Buttermilk are owned and managed by the County and SKICO. The City of Aspen Parking
Department contracts with the County to manage the spaces. The spaces closest to SH 82 are for
104
5
short term day commuter parking. The spaces behind these are longer term parking, construction
parking and parking for Sky Mountain Park. There are approximately 347 parking spaces available
seasonally May-November. The commuter parking spaces are free. Overnight parking for up to four
days is $6/day. Oversize and construction vehicles can park for a fee from $40/day.
A portion of the lot can be leased for special events. Parking is free for those who want to use the
Buttermilk or Sky Mountain Park trails.
The SKICO manages the parking spaces at the base of the ski area for skier parking during the ski
season.
QUESTIONS:
Are the parking spaces in the ROD at Buttermilk and the airport still needed?
A study and analysis would be needed to determine if the parking spaces would still be needed. Park
and rides have been built since the ROD in Glenwood Springs, Carbondale, Basalt, Old Snowmass,
Aspen Village, Buttermilk, and the Brush Creek Park N Ride. High frequency BRT has also been
implemented since the ROD. BRT and the additional parking lots could reduce the need for additional
parking at Buttermilk and the airport as stated in the ROD.
Could the multimodal parking facilities at Buttermilk and the Pitkin County Airport be left out of the
implementation of the Preferred Alternative?
The ROD states that the parking spaces could be phased and developed as the need arises. If it was
the desire of the community was to not develop the additional parking spaces at Buttermilk and the
airport as stated in the ROD, the FHWA and CDOT would want to have a justification as to why the
facilities should not be built. The justification would have to address the impacts of not building the
multimodal parking facilities to the Preferred Alternative.
BUSES, LIGHT RAIL, TRAMS & TRACKLESS TRAMS
There are numerous definitions and descriptions of these different transit modes. Most of these
definitions and descriptions are similar. In the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) fact
glossary uses the following definitions for bus and light rail:
Bus is a mode of transit service (also called motor bus) characterized by roadway vehicles powered
by diesel, gasoline, battery, or alternative fuel engines contained within the vehicle. Vehicles operate on
streets and roadways in fixed-route or other regular service. Types of bus service include local service,
where vehicles may stop every block or two along a route several miles long. When limited to a small
geographic area or to short-distance trips, local service is often
105
6
called circulator,feeder,neighborhood,trolley, or shuttle service. Other types of bus service
are express service,limited-stop service, and bus rapid transit (BRT).
Light Rail is a mode of transit service (also called streetcar,tramway, or trolley) operating passenger
rail cars singly (or in short, usually two-car or three-car, trains) on fixed rails in right-of-way that is often
separated from other traffic for part or much of the way in exclusive lanes or ROW. Light rail vehicles
are typically driven electrically with power being drawn from an overhead electric line via a trolley or a
pantograph; driven by an operator on board the vehicle; and may have either high platform loading or
low-level boarding using steps.
The 2007 Revaluation describes light rail as:
Light rail consists of light-weight passenger rail cars operating singly or in short train on fixed rails.
Light rail vehicles are typically driven electronically with power being drawn from an overhead electric
line.
The Preferred Alternative allows for “phasing” of the transit component. It states:
The Preferred Alternative allows for a phased implementation of the transit component of the project.
While LRT is the ultimate transit objective, the Preferred Alternative allows for exclusive bus lanes to be
implemented until and unless LRT funding and public approval is obtained.
A TRAM is a rail vehicle (streetcar or trolley) which runs on fixed rails or tracks and is designed to travel
on streets sometimes in separate rights of way. A tram can also share road space with other traffic and
pedestrians. Trams are usually powered by overhead electric lines.
Trackless trams are a hybrid between buses, light rail, and conventional trams. They are powered by
electric batteries, have rubber wheels, and use sensors to guide their way along roads. Trackless
trams seek to replicate the light rail experience without rails and overhead wires.
QUESTION:
Could trackless tram be implemented as part of the Preferred Alternative as a substitution for LRT?
The term Light Rail can be applied to a broad spectrum of systems. Most tram systems can be
considered light rail. Trackless tram is closer to light rail than other tram systems.
Many communities are considering trackless tram as an alternative to light rail due to its lower cost and
easier implementation.
Since trackless tram is relatively new and does not exist in the U.S. yet it an interpretation from CDOT
or the FHWA would be needed to see if it could be substituted for light rail in the Preferred Alternative.
The impacts of not building LRT and implementing trackless tram instead would have to be provided to
the FHWA for a final determination. Funding could also be a challenge as there are no specific grants
106
7
for trackless tram at this time. The preferred Alternative does allow for a “phased implementation of the
transit component”. Perhaps trackless tram could be the intermediate transit component to light rail.
Trackless Tram Light Rail
ENTRANCE TO ASPEN COSTS:
How do the estimated O & M costs for enhanced BRT in the Upper Valley Mobility Study (UVMS)
compare with current RFTA costs?
The estimated O & M costs for the enhanced BRT system in the UVMS of $3.2 million per year don’t
easily compare to the current RFTA BRT system. The enhanced BRT system in the UVMS included the
cost of additional electric buses, use of the modified direct alignment, upgraded and additional BRT stops,
rehabilitation of the Castle Creek Bridge, and bus service refinements. It would take some in depth
analysis of the current and enhanced system to be able to compare the costs.
OTHER QUESTIONS:
Is the Entrance to Aspen on the CDOT 10-year strategic project list?
No, the Entrance to Aspen is not on the CDOT 10-year strategic project list. In 2019 the Inter Mountain
Transportation Planning Region (IMTPR) went through a planning exercise and came up with a list of
hundreds of projects in the IMTPR to be considered for the CDOT 10-year strategic project list. This
included projects on I-70. This initial list included 40-50 projects for the SH 82 corridor including the ETA.
The planning exercise then reduced the initial list of projects down to the top 10 projects for the IMTPR
which were submitted to the state Transportation Commission for consideration. The ETA did not make
the final IMTPR list. Projects that did make the final list include:
o Snowmass Transit Center
o RFTA Glenwood Maintenance Center
o RFTA Asen Maintenance Center
107
8
2007 REEVALUATION OF THE ENTRANCE TO ASPEN FEIS & ROD
Links to the Reevaluation and technical reports have been included for your review.
In the 2007 Reevaluation System Management Technical Report it referenced some of the Origin and
Destination Study data. The survey showed that 6% of summer trips and 17% of winter trips on SH 82
were made on RFTA. During peak hour winter operations, the RFTA person trip share was 37% in the
morning and 26% in the afternoon. The transit mode in 2004 was approximately 10-13% of all commute
trips in the valley. This was high when compared to other cities Like Portland, Oregon with a 5% mode
split.
FUTURE/ADDITIONAL STUDIES
The Entrance to Aspen over the years has proven to be a data heavy, complicated, and intensive public
outreach issue. To get updated information and data may require more studies or updates of previous
studies to provide Council, staff, and the community with the information it needs to make data-based
decisions. These studies could compare information in previous studies and documents with the current
conditions.
The last Origin and Destination study survey was performed in1993/94 by CDOT. It provided valuable
information and data. A new Origin and Destination study could provide valuable data as to existing
conditions and could compare the data to the original study. An Origin and destination study could be
helpful to answer some of the questions like:
Where do people begin and end their trips?
What is the purpose of their trips?
How many trips are commuter, construction, or recreation related?
Would a different mode of travel make a difference in your trip?
What traffic are we trying to manage-commuters, locals, or construction?
What is driving traffic today?
How will the growth and development in the valley impact traffic?
Who are the single occupant vehicles driving around?
All of these are good questions and need to be answered. It is important to note that the Entrance to
Aspen is a 40-year process with numerous studies, votes and processes. Most staff and consultants
involved in this process over the past 40 years have moved on. A new process will most likely require
the hiring of a consultant team to review previous documents, determine new studies needed and guide
the community through next steps.
Attachments:
2008 Memo-Evaluation Process for Proposed Changes to an EIS Preferred Alternative
108
9
Traffic Count Data-2021
RFTA Ridership 3/4/20-10/4/21
RFTA Regional Travel Patterns Study Summary
Reference Materials and Links:
Record of Decision
2007 Reevaluation of the ETA FEIS & ROD
2007 Reevaluation of the ETA FEIS & ROD-System Management Technical Report
2007 Revaluation ETA FEIS & ROD-Traffic Characteristics and Safety Technical Report
Upper Valley Mobility Study
2014 Regional Travel Patterns Study
109
10
DAVID EVANS
AND ASSOCIATES INC.
DATE:May 28,2008
MEMORANDUM
TO:Ralph Trapani,Principal Project Manager -Parsons Transportation Group
FROM:Jane Boand,Senior Environmental Planner
·SUBJECT:Evaluation Process for Proposed Changes to an EIS Preferred Alternative
PROJECT:SH 82 Entrance to Aspen Split Shot Alternative -Additional Studies
PROJECT NO:PRSNOOOOOOl
COPIES:
The following describes the federal NEPA evaluation process for a new or changed Preferred Alternative selected
in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).Also included is an evaluation of the proposed Split Shot alternative
that follows this process to identify the likely type of NEPA that would be required by the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA)(Figure -EIS Decision Process for Changes to the Preferred Alternative).A description
is also included of the Section 4(f)process that may be required as part of the evaluation process.
Changes to an EIS Preferred Alternative
The Federal Highway Administration allows changes or modifications to a Preferred Alternative that was
identified through an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)process and selected in the Record of Decision
(ROD).However,under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)any change to a selected Preferred
Alternative would require additional NEPA evaluation and documentation to determine if that change would
result in greater,less or different environmental impacts.According to FHWA regulations (Code of Federal
Regulations 23 CFR 771.128-130),such documentation ranges from a simple memo to the EIS file (for a
modified alternative that clearly results in less environmental impact)to a new Supplemental EIS/Record of
Decision (for an alternative that would result in new significant impacts).If the potential significance of
environmental impacts is not known,new environmental studies may be conducted through an Environmental
Assessment (EA)process to make that determination.Ifan alternative was fully evaluated in the original EIS but
was not selected as the Preferred Alternative,a revised ROD may be prepared to document the new Preferred
Alternative.
The type of required NEPA documentation is determined by the FHWA based on information provided by CDOT
and local agencies.The decision process for determining the type of required NEPA documentation is shown in
the following figure -EIS Decision Process for Changes to the Preferred Alternative.
If a new EA or a Supplemental EIS (SEIS)is required,a modified NEPA process must be followed.Steps include
comparing the new alternative to the previous preferred alternative,evaluating any different environmental
impacts,and identifying necessary additional mitigation.Unlike the original EIS,however,a full public and
1331 17th Street,Suite 900 Denver Colorado 80202 Phone:720.946.0969 Facsimile:720.946.0973
110
11"
Ralph Trapani,Principal Project
Manager -Parsons Transportation
Group
May 28,2008
Page 3
agency scoping process to identify any new issues or concerns is not required.However,if the public or an
agency identifies any issues that may affect the new alternative,those issues must be reasonably evaluated.
To the extent practicable,the EA,SEIS or revised ROD must be provided to the same persons,organizations and
agencies that received the original EIS.Comments received must be addressed before a Finding of No Significant
Impact (FONSD or ROD can be signed and the new Preferred Alternative approved.No other activities (final
design,right-of-way acquisition,allocation of funds or construction)can begin before FHWA approval of the
FONS!or ROD,except for areas outside of the "focus area" of the revised alternative (see discussion on Path E
below).
Example -Split Shot Alternative Options
Two versions of a proposed "Split Shot"alternative have been proposed and are under evaluation (see "Split Shot
Alternative Analysis -Additional Studies”,Parsons Transportation Group 2008).Option A includes a roundabout
at Cemetery Lane and Option B reflects a grade-separated intersection at Cemetery Lane.Under both options,a
new two-lane road would extend on a more southerly alignment compared to the Preferred Alternative and would
cross both parklands and trails.Split Shot Options A and B were evaluated to determine what type of NEPA
documentation may be required by the FHWA using the decision process shown in the figure (Paths A-E).
On the eastern portion of the alignment,the Split Shot alternative is substantially different from the Preferred
Alternative (Modified Direct)that was fully evaluated and approved in the original EIS.The Split Shot is
therefore not an "alternative fully evaluated in the EIS but was not the Preferred Alternative"and is not eligible
for documentation in a revised ROD (Path D).
The footprints of the Split Shot options have an overall greater footprint and traverses more parkland acreage than
the Preferred Alternative.Therefore,this alternative is not likely to result in less adverse impact,and a memo to
the original EIS file would not be sufficient (Path C).
The Split Shot alternative options modify only the eastern portion of the original EIS Preferred Alternative,and
much of the original alignment would be unaffected.Therefore,this modification could be considered a change
that is a "location or design variation for a limited portion of the overall project".Under this definition,a new
Supplemental EIS/ROD would be required (Path E).An SEIS can be focused only on the changed portion of the
alignment,and there is no requirement to suspend project activities (ROW acquisition,construction,mitigation)
for the portion of the project area that is already constructed or not directly affected.
The Split Shot options would require more ROW within parklands,which are protected as Section 4(f)resources
(49 U.S.C.303).If there is no other "feasible and prudent"1 alternative,the 4(f)use could be approved if the Split
Shot alternative results in the "least overall harm’“by reflecting all possible planning to minimize harm or
mitigate for adverse impacts.This finding must be approved by the FHWA,although the City of Aspen does
have input into the finding as the "official with jurisdiction 3.
111
12
Ralph Trapani,Principal Project
Manager -Parsons Transportation
Group
May 28,2008
Page 4
Other environmental resources must also be evaluated (noise,visual quality,biological resources,etc.)to
determine whether any significant environmental impacts may result from the Split Shot alternative.If it is
unknown whether significant impacts may result,additional studies and/or an Environmental Assessment (EA)
would be required (Path B).The purpose of an EA is to determine if significant environmental impacts are likely
to result from the Preferred Alternative.If the EA process finds that no significant impacts would result,the
process is concluded with a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONS!).If significant impacts are likely,a new
SEIS/ROD must be prepared (Path A).
In summary,the major environmental difference between the original Preferred Alternative and the Split Shot
options appears to be the greater use of Section 4(f)resources.A Section 4(f)evaluation would be needed to
demonstrate the extent to which the Split Shot alternative could be mitigated,minimized o r otherwise enhanced in
order for the FHWA to conclude that it would result in the least overall harm and can be approved.Overall,it
seems that the most appropriate NEPA documentation for the Split Shot alternative would be Option E (new
SEIS/ROD but project activities outside of the affected area may continue)with a new Section 4(f)evaluation.
The new SEIS would focus only on the Split Shot alternative and does not need to include other new alternatives.
However,public and agency comments on the Split Shot options must be considered,and the FHWA must
determine that the SEIS/ROD and the Section 4(f)evaluation identify adequate mitigation for any adverse
impacts.
1.An alternative is not feasible if it cannot be built as a matter of sound engineering judgment.An alternative is not
prudent if:a)it results in unacceptable safety or operational problems;b)reasonable mitigation does not effectively
address impacts;c)results in additional construction,maintenance,or operational costs of an extraordinary magnitude,d)
causes other unique or unusual factors,or e)involves multiple factors that while individually minor,cumulatively cause
unique problems or impacts of extraordinary magnitude (23 CFR 774).
2.Least overall harm is determined by balancing the following factors:a)the ability to mitigate adverse impacts to each
Section 4(f)property (including any measures that result in benefits to the property);b)the relative severity of the
remaining harm,after mitigation,to the protected activities,attributes or features that qualify each Section 4(f)property
for protection;c)the relative significance of each Section 4(f)property;d)the views of the official(s)with jurisdiction
over each Section 4(f)property;e)the degree to which each alternative meets the purpose and need for the project,f)
after reasonable mitigation,the magnitude of any adverse impacts to resources not protected by Section 4(f);and g)
substantial differences in costs among the alternatives (23 CFR 773.3c).
3.The official(s)with jurisdiction are the official(s)of the agency that owns or administers the property in question (23
CFR 774.17 Definitions).
Attachments/Enclosures: Figure
Initials:jebo
File Name: RevisedAlttechmemo05-27-08
Project Number:PRSNOOOOI
112
13
DECISION PROCESS MATRIX FOR A PROPOSED CHANGE TO THE PREFERRED
ALTERNATIVE
Hwy 82 RODs are Here
Level of Impact
(Determined by
FHWA)
Process Based
on Level of Impact
(Determined by
FHWA)
FHWA Determination
113
14
TRAFFIC COUNTS 1999-2021
MONTHLY 1993 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2021 %2021 %
AADT vs 1993 vs 1993 vs 2020 vs 2020
JAN 23,800 22,701 22,504 22,827 22,945 22,837 23,816 24,398 20,588 23,387 22,584 21,745 21,254 21,994 22,607 23,859 22,956 23,415 23,649 22,766 22,418 21,262 22,005 19,272 -4,528 -19.0%-2,733 -12.4%
FEB 24,300 23,638 23,910 23,932 23,207 23,694 23,400 24,162 22,356 23,000 22,449 21,131 20,730 21,376 21,684 22,077 22,405 22,804 22,825 23,486 21,871 21,717 21,771 20,501 -3,799 -15.6%-1,270 -5.8%
MAR 24,800 25,574 24,590 24,752 23,822 23,812 25,417 25,892 23,618 23,927 23,171 21,967 23,852 22,384 22,436 22,742 23,432 24,285 23,648 23,405 22,650 21,792 15,501 21,793 -3,007 -12.1%6,292 40.6%
APR 18,800 19,734 20,270 19,443 19,900 19,789 18,921 19,420 18,264 18,993 18,882 19,177 18,405 no data 17,134 17,425 17,883 19,163 18,098 17,781 14,528 18,519 8,462 18,627 -173 -0.9%10,165 120.1%
MAY 19,300 18,538 19,944 18,929 19,310 18,837 18,924 19,021 18,051 18,530 17,813 17,392 17,878 17,874 19,077 17,662 17,396 17,208 18,037 17,985 11,294 17,443 13,748 17,313 -1,987 -10.3%3,565 25.9%
JUN 26,200 25,408 25,126 23,719 23,618 25,003 25,650 25,097 22,552 23,940 23,279 22,877 22,701 22,724 25,124 22,966 23,884 24,993 24,501 23,986 21,218 23,259 20,344 23,510 -2,690 -10.3%3,166 15.6%
JUL 28,600 26,579 27,873 27,325 28,777 29,285 29,278 29,544 26,165 27,193 26,187 25,950 26,538 25,849 26,245 26,785 27,286 27,825 26,549 26,489 25,979 26,083 23,766 25,844 -2,756 -9.6%2,078 8.7%
AUG 28,600 25,142 27,375 26,237 27,497 27,391 27,952 27,998 24,233 26,171 24,375 23,374 24,763 24,755 25,077 26,141 25,081 25,621 25,857 25,193 24,690 24,831 22,939 24,341 -4,259 -14.9%1,402 6.1%
SEPT 24,000 23,294 21,964 21,763 22,396 22,231 23,879 23,796 no data*22,068 21,151 no data*21,901 21,590 21,080 21,428 22,033 23,207 23,325 23,246 17,474 22,170 22,402 22,852 -1,148 -4.8%450 2.0%
OCT 20,500 20,038 20,511 19,921 19,969 19,866 20,521 20,371 no data*19,576 19,640 no data*18,350 18,189 18,873 19,024 19,519 20,497 19,772 19,823 14,307 17,782 19,577
NOV 20,000 no data*18,643 18,430 no data*18,220 19,652 18,892 no data*19,076 17,930 no data*17,853 17,531 18,910 no data no data 17,390 17,790 17,910 16,431 16,805 16,483
DEC 25,200 24,743 22,847 22,394 no data*22,880 24,882 22,449 22,567 21,983 21,038 20,376 21,986 23,049 24,788 no data no data 22,524 22,298 22,905 22,066 21,597 20,146
ANNUAL MONTHLY
TOTAL 284,100 255,389 275,557 269,672 231,441 273,845 282,292 281,040 198,394 267,844 258,499 193,989 256,211 237,315 263,035 220,109 221,875 268,932 266,349 264,975 234,926 253,260 227,144 194,053 -24,347 -8.6%23,115 10.2%
ANNUAL MONTHLY
AVERAGE 23,675 23,217 22,963 22,473 23,144 22,820 23,524 23,420 22,044 22,320 21,542 21,554 21,351 21,574 21,920 22,011 22,188 22,411 22,196 22,081 19,577 21,105 18,929 21,561 -2,114 -8.9%2,633 13.9%
The numbers highlighted in yellow mean monthly traffic counts exceeded the 1993 levels
114
15
23,217
22,963
22,473
23,144
22,820
23,524
23,420
22,044
22,320
21,542 21,554
21,351
21,574
21,920
22,011
22,188
22,411
22,196 22,081
19,577
21,105
18,929
21,561
18,500
19,000
19,500
20,000
20,500
21,000
21,500
22,000
22,500
23,000
23,500
24,000
24,500
19992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021AADTAnnual AADT 1999 - 2021
AADT 1999-2021 1993 COMMUNITY GOAL Poly. (AADT 1999-2021)
115
16
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC
2019 21,262 21,717 21,792 18,519 17,443 23,259 26,083 24,831 22,170 17,782 16,805 21,597
2020 22,005 21,771 15,501 8,462 13,748 20,344 23,766 22,939 22,402 19,577 16,483 20,146
2021 19,272 20,501 21,793 18,627 17,313 23,510 25,844 24,341 22,852
1993
Community
Goal
23,800 24,300 24,800 18,800 19,300 26,200 28,600 28,600 24,000 20,500 20,000 25,200
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
11,000
12,000
13,000
14,000
15,000
16,000
17,000
18,000
19,000
20,000
21,000
22,000
23,000
24,000
25,000
26,000
27,000
28,000
29,000
30,000
MONTHLY TRAFFIC COUNT COMPARISON
1993, 2019, 2020, 2021 YTD
2019 2020 2021 1993 Community Goal
116
17
117
18
12:00
AM
1:00
AM
2:00
AM
3:00
AM
4:00
AM
5:00
AM
6:00
AM
7:00
AM
8:00
AM
9:00
AM
10:00
AM
11:00
AM
12:00
PM
1:00
PM
2:00
PM
3:00
PM
4:00
PM
5:00
PM
6:00
PM
7:00
PM
8:00
PM
9:00
PM
10:00
PM
11:00
PM
Inbound 61 37 22 19 33 123 559 1,05 1,20 1,21 1,09 1,21 1,19 1,14 1,08 1,11 1,01 986 844 635 502 359 244 137
Outbound 148 75 57 23 24 69 177 356 562 667 671 819 881 880 961 922 870 900 816 614 552 488 438 326
S-Curves free flow 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700
-
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
Average Hourly Counts
August 2021 MTD
Inbound Outbound S-Curves free flow
118
19
RFTA SYSTEM TRANSIT RIDERSHIP MARCH 4, 2020 – OCTOBER 4, 2021
119
20
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
20,000
22,000
RidershipRFTA All Services: Daily Ridership (Preliminary)
Total Daily Ridership Total RF Valley Total Carbondale Circulator
Total COA Total MB Total ASC
Total RGS Total MAA
120
21
CITY OF ASPEN TRANSIT RIDERSHIP MARCH 4, 2020 – OCTOBER 4, 2021
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
5,500
RFTA City Of Aspen Services: Daily Ridership (Preliminary)
BURLINGAME CASTLE MAROON CEMETERY LANE
CROSS TOWN*GSS: GALENA STREET SHUTTLE HD: HIGHLANDS DIRECT
HUNTER CREEK MAA: MUSIC MOUNTAIN VALLEY
Total COA
121
22
2014 RFTA Regional Travel Patterns Study Summary
122
23
123