HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.202204181
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
April 18, 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: 2559 096 8301
Enter Password: 81611
Click "Join Meeting"
-- OR --
JOIN BY PHONE
Call: 1-408-418-9388
Enter Meeting Number: 2559 096 8301
Enter Password: 81611
I.WORK SESSION
I.A.Entrance to Aspen Education Project
I.B.Council Board Reports & Council Updates
1
INFORMATION 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 18, 2022
MEETING DATE:April 18, 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 it has been 15 years 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 solves and 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.
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
2
2
services for a community education campaign 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 reevaluation.
Components of ROD Completed Components of ROD Not Completed
Ruby Park Transit Center New Castle Creek Bridge
3
3
Aspen Roundabout Cut and Cover Tunnel through Marolt Open
Space
Exclusive Bus Lanes Open Space connection to Municipal Golf
Course
Bus Stop Improvements ROW improvements associated with the
continuation of Main Street to Castle Creek
New Maroon Creek Bridge New Parking Structures
Table 1: ROD Components
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 (i.e., 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?
8) What pieces of the ROD are complete, and what pieces still need to be
completed?
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.
4
4
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
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
5
5
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 / Town of Snowmass initial meetings scheduled to
occur prior to EOTC Retreat at the end of April
o Presentation of education materials to 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
o Public Poll will occur at the end of 2022/early 2023
Project Status
Step One: This step is in process. HNTB is under contract with Ralph Trapani, P.E., as a
technical advisor to start the technical analysis and accumulation of background
information.
Ralph Trapani, P.E. Ralph Trapani is a local transportation engineering expert with over
40 years of civil engineering and planning experience managing major projects in the
local area. During this time Mr. Trapani authored the ROD for the ETA. He helped to
build the highway through Glenwood canyon and Snowmass canyon; he managed the
replacement of the Maroon Creek Bridge; he worked on the development of the Bus
Rapid Transit program and the Aspen Bus Lane Design Project. Given his experience
managing the EIS and ROD to the development and installation of the BRT program
Ralph is a leading expert on the Entrance to Aspen project.
Step Three: Meetings with Snowmass Town Council and Pitkin County Commissioners
have been scheduled for early May. EOTC will be updated on project progress after
these meetings.
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?
6
6
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.
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
7
7
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:
Attachment A: Background and History of ETA
Attachment B: Informational Memo from September 13, 2021 Work Session
8
APPENDIX A
Background and History of the Entrance to Aspen
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
9
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
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.
10
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
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
11
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
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.
12
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.
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
13
Entrance to Aspen History Video-How Did We Get Here?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWILmxH6C_I
View of Preferred Alternative
14
Preferred Alternative –Roundabout to 7th Street
15
16
17
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
18
ATTACHMENT B
Informational Memo from September 13, 2021 Worksession
19
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.
20
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
21
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
22
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
23
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
24
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
25
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
26
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
27
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
28
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.
29
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
30
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
31
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
32
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)
33
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
34
17
35
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
36
19
RFTA SYSTEM TRANSIT RIDERSHIP MARCH 4, 2020 – OCTOBER 4, 2021
37
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
38
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
39
22
2014 RFTA Regional Travel Patterns Study Summary
40
23
41