HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20230619AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
June 19, 2023
4:00 PM, City Council Chambers
427 Rio Grande Place, Aspen
I.Work Session
I.A Elected Officials Transportation Committee Meeting Preparation
I.B Park Avenue Improvements Project
I.C West End Mobility Safety Assessment
Zoom Meeting Instructions
Join from a PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone or Android device:
Please click this URL to join: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/83169796766?
pwd=M0s0RGo2ajczRzY5RzBTdXF2aEtKZz09
Passcode: 81611
Or join by phone:
Dial:
US: +1 346 248 7799
Webinar ID: 831 6979 6766
Passcode: 81611
International numbers available: https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kZBBB85kq
1.. June 29, 2023 EOTC Agenda -_LD_6-15-23.pdf
2. EOTC Decisions Reached April 6, 2023 - DRAFT.pdf
3. AIS - Buttermilk Crossing and Transit Signal Bypass_June 29, 2023 EOTC
Meeting.pdf
2023.06.06 ButtermilkCrossingReport_Final.pdf
4. AIS - 2023 Work Plan Updates_ EOTC June 29, 2023.pdf
2023 6-19 Park Avenue Improvement Project - Work Session Memo.pdf
Attachment A - Initial Engagement Report - July 2020.pdf
Attachment B - Community Survey and Pubic Engagement Report - Fall 2020.pdf
Attachment C - Park and Midland Traffic Study - January 2021.pdf
Attachment D - Design Acknowledgement Forms - February 2022.pdf
Attachment E - Community Input via Project Email - May 2023.pdf
Attachment F - 90% Construction Drawings.pdf
2023-06-19 West End work session memo.docx
Attachment A Consor Safety Study Memo_v3_5.23.23.pdf
1
1
I.D Council Led Discussion - West End Traffic Modification Requests
I.E Council Board Reports & Council Updates
2
2
Elected Officials Transportation Committee (EOTC)
Thursday, June 29, 2023 - 4:00pm
Snowmass Village Town Hall Council Chambers
130 Kearns Rd. Snowmass Village, CO 81615
Host and Chair – Town of Snowmass Village
MEETING IS VIRTUAL AND IN PERSON
You can view the livestream on Grassroots TV (Channel 11 CGTV)
Microsoft Teams Meeting:
https://www.google.com/url?q=https://teams.microsoft.com/l/meetup-
join/19%253ameeting_MGEzYzVhNWMtYmYyMy00Yjc4LTg5ZTItNWRmMjg0MTdkNzdh%2540thread.v2/
0?context%3D%257b%2522Tid%2522%253a%2522d759049d-4ca0-42d7-9a39-
8f055adb6a27%2522%252c%2522Oid%2522%253a%2522e43a234f-81c3-48b4-b054-
3cd6f6f35e78%2522%257d&sa=D&source=calendar&ust=1686526443177421&usg=AOvVaw3SnYLCXM7
E3Un0c-87EOHJ
Meeting ID: 261 601 114 249
Passcode: MzUwyd
Download Teams: https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.microsoft.com/en-
us/microsoft-teams/download-app
AGENDA
I. 4:00 – 4:05 CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
II. 4:05 – 4:10 APPROVAL OF APRIL 6, 2023 ACTION MINUTES
III. 4:10 - 4:20 PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
(Comments limited to three minutes per person)
IV. 4:20 - 4:30 EOTC COMMITTEE MEMBER UPDATES
V. 4:30 – 5:30 PUBLIC HEARING: BUTTERMILK PEDESTRIAN CROSSING
Mark Frymoyer, SGM
Charlotte Francisco and Jason Jaynes, DHM
Linda DuPriest, Regional Transportation Director, EOTC
Decision needed: Administrative direction authorizing staff
recommendation TBD
(Motion, Second, and Roll Call Vote by Jurisdiction)
VI. 5:30 – 6:00 INFORMATION ONLY: UPDATES (Q&A)
A. Snowmass Regional Transit Analysis next steps
3
B. Snowmass Transit Center status
C. Brush Creek Park & Ride project
D. New Castle Creek Bridge
E. HOV Lane Enforcement
F. Permanent Automatic Vehicle Counters
VII. ADJOURN MEETING (Motion, Second, and Roll Call Vote by Jurisdiction)
* Next Regular EOTC meeting is August 31, 2023 – Pitkin County, Host & Chair
EOTC Background, Documents, and Packet Materials may be found here:
https://pitkincounty.com/1322/Elected-Officials-Transportation-Committ
EOTC Vision: We envision the Roaring Fork Valley as the embodiment of a sustainable transportation
system emphasizing mass transit and mobility that contributes to the happiness and wellbeing of
residents and visitors.
EOTC Mission: Work collectively to reduce and manage the volume of vehicles on the road and
parking system and continue to develop and support a comprehensive multimodal, long-range strategy
that will insure a convenient, equitable and efficient transportation system for the Roaring Fork Valley.
Summary of State Statue and Ballot Requirements: The 0.5% County Transit Sales and Use Tax shall be
used for the purpose and financing, constructing, operating and managing a public, fixed route mass
transportation system within the Roaring Fork Valley.
4
ELECTED OFFICIALS TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE (EOTC)
AGREEMENTS & DECISIONS REACHED
REGULAR MEETING
April 6, 2023
Location (In Person and Virtual) – Pitkin County Board Room
Pitkin County - Host & Chair
• For a video production of this meeting, go to:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oT0alpfFK3U&list=PLYAoFMw_qLSv-
q6AcF02Zi07y-aPnU3Mp&index=1
• To access the Elected Officials Transportation Committee meeting packet material:
https://www.pitkincounty.com/1322/Elected-Officials-Transportation-Committ, then
‘EOTC Archived Packets’)
Elected Officials in Attendance:
Aspen – 4 Pitkin County - 5 Snowmass - 3
Mayor Torre Steve Child Susan Marolt
Rachael Richards Kelly McNicholas-Kury Tom Fridstein
John Doyle Greg Poschman Alyssa Shenk
Ward Hauenstein Patti Clapper
Chair Francie Jacober
Absent: Mayor Bill Madsen, Britta Gustafson
______________________________________________________________________________
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Commission Chair Francie Jacober called the meeting of the Elected Officials Transportation
Committee (EOTC) to order at 4:00 p.m. followed by a roll-call for attendance.
APPROVAL OF THE OCTOBER 27, 2022 ACTION MINUTES
Mayor Torre made a motion to approve the Agreements and Decisions reached from October 22,
2022. The motion was seconded by Council Member Shenk.
A group vote was called; all members voted Yes.
PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Commissioner Jacober requested any public comment for items not on the agenda. Toni
Kronberg came forward. Ms. Kronberg thanked Councilmember Richards for her service. In
addition she offered her views on the Entrance to Aspen, which included a presentation and
comments on the idea of a Skycab gondola system. Ms. Kronberg asked if there had been
5
progress on past proposals for the Skycab, and expressed her desire to see future progress.
Members discussed the idea. Ms. Kronberg would like to bring the idea back in front of the
EOTC in the future, and Commission Chair Jacober encouraged that.
EOTC COMMITTEE MEMBER UPDATES
Councilmember Richards reported on a memo from Colorado Department of Transportation
(CDOT), which answered City of Aspen Councilmembers’ questions about the Entrance to
Aspen. Commissioner Jacober asked for clarification on how the Record of Decision was
reached, and how a potential new one might come about. Deputy City Engineer Pete Rice
explained the process and addressed multiple questions from EOTC members. It was suggested
the EOTC hold a retreat to discuss the Entrance to Aspen, but Mayor Torre and Councilmember
Hauenstein suggested that the City of Aspen deliberate further before more extensive discussion
by the EOTC. The City of Aspen will take up the issue on May 15th.
SNOWMASS REGIONAL TRANSIT SERVICE ANALYSIS
Sam Guarino, Transportation Director for Town of Snowmass Village and Mark Warner of
Warner Transportation Consulting presented findings from the Snowmass Regional Transit
Service Analysis, initiated by the EOTC in 2022 as part of Near Term Transit Improvement
Program. The goal of the analysis is to determine RFTA’s capacity to increase direct service (one
seat ride with no transfer needed) between Aspen and Snowmass Village. Members discussed
and asked questions. Councilmember Richards asked who would pay for additional service,
whether RFTA would absorb the cost or it would be funded by the Town or EOTC. A cost
estimate for the additional service is expected by the June 29th meeting.
INFORMATION ONLY: UPDATES (Q&A)
A. Near Term Transit Improvement Program – As part of the Buttermilk Crossing and Transit
Signal Bypass analysis, staff and the consultant team determined that the Transit Signal Bypass
proposal was not feasible. A more complete report on that will be given at the June or August
EOTC meetings.
B. Brush Creek Park & Ride – Staff updated the EOTC on the parking lot construction project
which is scheduled to begin May 1st. Staff explained where temporary parking will be provided
while the main parking lot is demolished and rebuilt. In addition, staff explained that there will
not be enough room for the food truck to operate, as it in itself takes us ten spaces, and then also
attracts additional car trips to the lot, for which there won’t be parking capacity. EOTC members
discussed various aspects of the Brush Creek lot and how it functions, including potential future
amenities and enhanced transit service.
C. HOV Lane Enforcement – Staff presented the issue of the County’s legal opinion that the
EOTC’s funding, the Transit Sales Tax, cannot be used to enforce motor vehicle driver behavior.
Members discussed the issue; suggestions on how to move forward included finding other types
of funding to pursue HOV lane enforcement. Mayor Torre requested that staff conduct further
research on best practices in different types of HOV lane configurations and bring the issue back
6
to the EOTC. Commissioner McNicholas-Kury requested further information on if a 3-person
requirement for HOV lanes changes the Record of Decision. Commissioner Poschman requested
a future discussion about speed limit enforcement. Commissioner Child pointed out serious
issues with the HOV lane being on the right lane of the highway vs. the left lane, and how
vehicular traffic interacts with bus operations.
D. Dynamic Road Pricing --
Staff presented their recommendation that Dynamic Road Pricing be delayed until the New
Castle Creek Bridge infrastructure is determined.
ADJOURN REGULAR MEETING
Commissioner Jacober moved to adjourn the regular meeting of the Elected Officials
Transportation Committee at 6:00 p.m. Council Member Richards seconded the motion. Motion
passed with 11 yea votes.
City of Aspen
_________________
Torre, Mayor
City Council
_________________
Nicole Henning
City Clerk
Town of Snowmass Village
_________________
Bill Madsen, Mayor
Town Council
_________________
Megan Boucher
Town Clerk
Pitkin County
___________________
Francie Jacober, Chair
Board of County Commissioners
7
___________________
Julia Ely
Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners
___________________
Linda DuPriest
Regional Transportation Director
8
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
EOTC MEETING DATE: June 29, 2023
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Buttermilk Crossing and Transit Signal Bypass
STAFF RESPONSIBLE: Linda DuPriest, Regional Transportation Director
ISSUE STATEMENT: As one element of the Near Term Transit Improvement Program,
the Buttermilk Crossing and Transit Signal Bypass has been underway since late 2022 with SGM
engaged as lead consultant. The two elements of this project are located in the area at the
intersection of Owl Creek Rd and Hwy 82, and include a feasibility study of a proposed
bicycle/pedestrian crossing to serve the transit stops near Buttermilk ski area, and improvements
at the Harmony Drive/Hwy 82 and Owl Creek Rd/Hwy 82 intersection, intended to ease
movements of RFTA buses through the area and speed up transit times. The technical advisory
team of staff from Pitkin County, City of Aspen, Town of Snowmass Village, and EOTC plus
engineers with SGM recommend against the Transit Signal Bypass Project due to concerns about
safety for buses, other vehicles and pedestrians, plus the determination that the ideas proposed
would not achieve significant travel time savings for RFTA buses traveling through the area. The
consultant team will present findings from the analysis.
The Buttermilk Crossing Evaluation of Concept Alternatives produced two technical
recommendations for a grade-separated pedestrian and bicycle crossing, an overpass and an
underpass, including cost estimates. In addition, an extensive public outreach process was
conducted by DHM. Reports for both elements will be presented, and administrative direction
will be sought by the EOTC on whether to pursue one of the crossing treatments.
Staff recommendation: TBD by prep meeting on June 20th.
ATTACHMENTS:
9
BUTTERMILK CROSSING AND TRANSIT SIGNAL BYPASS
EVALUATION OF CONCEPT ALTERNATIVES
ELECTED OFFICIALS TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
June 2023
Prepared by
118 West Sixth Street, Suite 200
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
970.945.1004
970.945.5948 fax
10
EOTC – Buttermilk Crossing and Transit Signal Bypass June 2023
Evaluation of Concept Alternatives i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Executive Summary 1-1
2.0 Project Background 2-1
2.1 Project Overview/Previous Study 2-1
2.2 Project Purpose 2-3
2.3 Project Partners 2-4
2.4 Consultant Engineering Team 2-4
2.5 Description of Existing Facilities 2-4
2.5.1 RFTA – BRT Transit Stations 2-4
2.5.2 Existing At Grade Crossing 2-5
2.5.3 State Highway 82 2-5
2.5.4 Buttermilk Parking Lot 2-6
2.5.5 SH-82 and Owl Creek Road Traffic Signals 2-6
2.5.6 Multi-use Trails and Existing Underpass Locations 2-7
2.5.7 Parcel Owners 2-8
2.6 Environmental Assessment and Environmental Permit Review 2-9
2.6.1 Wetlands 2-9
2.6.2 Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species 2-10
2.6.3 Other Species of Concern 2-10
2.6.4 Other Natural Resource Concerns 2-10
2.7 Geotechnical Assessment 2-10
3.0 Grade Separated Crossing Alignment Options 3-11
3.1 Summary of Alignment Options 3-11
3.2 Trail Design Criteria 3-12
3.3 Option 1 – Underpass Alignment 3-12
3.3.1 Underpass Alignment Structures 3-13
3.3.2 Underpass Alignment Permitting and Easements 3-14
3.3.3 Underpass Alignment Utilities 3-14
3.3.4 Underpass Maintenance 3-16
3.4 Option 2 - Overpass Alignment 3-16
3.4.1 Overpass Alignment Structures 3-17
3.4.2 Overpass Alignment Permitting and Easements 3-19
3.4.3 Overpass Alignment Utilities 3-20
3.4.4 Overpass Maintenance 3-21
3.4.5 Overpass Alignment Elevator Alternative 3-21
4.0 Transit Bypass Alternatives Assessment 4-22
11
EOTC – Buttermilk Crossing and Transit Signal Bypass June 2023
Evaluation of Concept Alternatives ii
5.0 Estimated Costs and Funding Sources 5-22
5.1 Cost Analysis 5-22
5.2 Potential Funding Sources 5-25
5.3 Option Evaluation 5-25
5.3.1 Evaluation Criteria 5-25
6.0 Public Process and Stakeholder Feedback 6-27
6.1.1 In Person Events 6-27
6.1.2 Project Website and Public Survey 6-27
6.1.3 Public Process - Summary of Feedback 6-28
6.1.4 Unstaffed Project Information Boards 6-30
6.1.5 Direct Stakeholder Feedback 6-30
12
EOTC – Buttermilk Crossing and Transit Signal Bypass June 2023
Evaluation of Concept Alternatives iii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1: Project Vicinity Parcel Information 2-9
Table 5-1: Estimated Total Project Cost Estimate 5-23
Table 5-2: Option 1 – Underpass Estimated Project Costs 5-23
Table 5-3: Option 2A – Overpass with Steel Truss Estimated Project Costs 5-24
Table 5-4: Option 2B – Overpass with Steel Arch Estimated Project Costs 5-24
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1: Overview of Project Area 2-3
Figure 2-2: RFTA Bus Stop Locations 2-4
Figure 2-3: Existing at Grade Crossing (looking towards Buttermilk) 2-5
Figure 2-4: SH-82 East of Owl Creek Road Existing Cross Section 2-6
Figure 2-5: Traffic Signal Locations (Imagery Courtesy of Google Earth) 2-6
Figure 2-6: SH-82 and Owl Creek Traffic Signals (Looking Down Valley) 2-7
Figure 2-7: Existing and Proposed Mixed-Use Trails 2-8
Figure 2-8: Parcels in Project Vicinity 2-8
Figure 3-1: Overview of Alignment Option 1 – Underpass 3-11
Figure 3-2: Overview of Alignment Option 2 – Overpass 3-12
Figure 3-3: Overview of Option 1 – Underpass Alignment 3-13
Figure 3-3: Rendering of the Underpass 3-14
Figure 3-4: Existing Utilities and Relocates for Underpass Alignment 3-15
Figure 3-5: Overview of Option 2 – Overpass Alignment 3-17
Figure 3-6: Rendering of the Overpass Alignment 3-17
Figure 3-7: SH-82 Overpass Steel Truss Rendering 3-19
Figure 3-8: Tied Arch (Imagery Courtesy of Excel Bridge Manufacturing Co.) 3-19
Figure 3-9: Existing Utilities and Relocates for Overpass Alignment 3-21
Figure 6-1: Public Outreach Survey Summary 6-29
13
EOTC – Buttermilk Crossing and Transit Signal Bypass June 2023
Evaluation of Concept Alternatives iv
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A
Underpass and Overpass Layouts
Underpass Alignment Plan and Profile
Underpass Utility Relocation Plan
Overpass Alignment Plan and Profile
Overpass Utility Relocation Plan
Appendix B
Overpass Renderings
Underpass Renderings
Appendix C
Engineers Estimate of Probable Cost
Appendix D
Transit Bypass Alternatives Assessment
Geotechnical Report
Elevator Memo
Site Distance Exhibit
Design Criteria Matrix
Appendix E
SGM 2018 Buttermilk Pedestrian Grade Separation Feasibility and Warrant Study
Appendix F
Public Outreach Plan and Survey Results
14
EOTC – Buttermilk Crossing and Transit Signal Bypass June 2023
Evaluation of Alternatives 2-1
1.0 Executive Summary
A grade separated pedestrian and bicycle crossing adjacent to the intersection of State
Highway 82 (SH-82) and Owl Creek Road was identified by the Elected Officials
Transportation Committee (EOTC) as a Tier 1 (highest) Priority project. The crossing would
connect the RFTA down valley bus stop on the north side of SH-82 and the RFTA up valley
bus stop, Buttermilk Ski Resort, and parking lot on the south side of SH-82. The crossing
would also provide additional trail connectivity between the future Owl Creek Road to
Truscott Trail and the AABC Trail. The hard surface crossing would meet the profile grade
requirements in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
This report evaluates concept designs of both an underpass and overpass crossing
alignment. The project team considered and compared the alignments based on the
following criteria: cost, maintenance, user experience, constructability, utility relocation, right
of way/easement impacts and environmental impacts. Feedback was solicited from the
public through multiple outreach avenues including an online survey.
The proposed Underpass Crossing has an estimated construction cost, based on 2025
construction, of $17.9 million. The estimated final design and construction engineering cost
is $2.7 million. The underpass option would have less visual impact, require less change in
vertical grade, and would have shorter ADA ramp connections between the two BRT bus
stops. The disadvantages for the underpass option are higher construction costs, extensive
underground utility relocation, significant impacts to traffic during construction, and the need
for an extensive snowmelt system.
The proposed Overpass Crossing has an estimated construction cost, based on 2025
construction, of $10.5 to $11.6 million depending on the structure type chosen. The
estimated final design and construction engineering cost is $1.7 to $1.9 million. The
overpass option would be less expensive, impact fewer utilities, and have fewer traffic
impacts during construction. The disadvantages for the overpass option are the impacts to
the viewscape and it has a greater elevation change and a longer ADA ramp connection
between the two BRT bus stops.
This project also included the review of two transit signal bypass lane concepts on SH-82 to
increase transit speed and reliability recommended in the Upper Valley Transit
Enhancement Study conducted by Mead and Hunt in 2021. In the down-valley direction
(westbound SH-82), a signal bypass lane was evaluated at the Owl Creek Road
intersection. In the up-valley direction (eastbound SH-82), a signal bypass lane was
evaluated at the Harmony Road intersection, approximately 500 feet north of the Owl Creek
Road intersection. Due to safety concerns and limited times savings to transit, the proposed
transit signal bypass lanes configurations were determined to be “non-viable”. More detailed
evaluation is included in the memorandum in Appendix D.
2.0 Project Background
2.1 Project Overview/Previous Study
The Pitkin County Elected Officials Transportation Committee (EOTC) identified the
Buttermilk Crossing as a Tier 1 priority project in the 2021 EOTC Near-Term Transit
15
EOTC – Buttermilk Crossing and Transit Signal Bypass June 2023
Evaluation of Alternatives 2-2
Improvement Program. The goal of the project is to provide a grade-seperated crossing of
SH-82 for pedestrian and bicyclists and to improve transit speed, reliability, and efficiency.
The project would eliminate an 88-foot-long crosswalk on SH-82, and eliminating vehicle,
bus, and pedestrian conflicts. A grade separated crossing would be beneficial during high
pedestrian traffic events such as the X-games, which currently requires Colorado State
Patrol to maintain a safe crossing. The project may encourage transit use by providing a
safer crossing for transit users. This project may reduce the traffic signal cycle time at this
intersection by eliminating the at grade crossing. This project could improve air quality by
reducing vehicle idling time.
The crossing was previously evaluated in a 2018 study prepared by SGM. The findings were
summarized in the memorandum “Buttermilk Pedestrian Grade Separation Feasibility and
Warrant Study”, which is included in Appendix E. The study included alignments for both an
underpass and overpass structure. Both proposed alignments would utilize the existing
AABC trail alignment as ramps to tie into the structure crossing SH-82. The study evaluated
geometric and operational factors to inform the decision process. These factors included
vehicle volume, pedestrian volume, posted speed limit, sight distance, crossing width, lane
configuration, distance to nearest existing grade separated crossings, vehicle delay, crash
incidents, land use, and special event use. The need for the grade separated crossing is
supported by similar pedestrian volumes at other SH-82 underpass crossings.
Mead and Hunt provided two alternatives for the transit signal bypass lane as a supplement
to their 2021 study. The SH-82 lane configurations are summarized below for the two signal
bypass options. A review of the feasibility of these alternatives is provided in a separate
memorandum, included in Appendix D which was prepared by SGM’s subconsultant ACL
Engineering, Inc.
· Option 1A
o Harmony Road Intersection (up valley signal bypass)
Eastbound right lane bus only
Addition of 4’ buffer with raised curb and flexpost
Eastbound one general purpose through lane
Eastbound one left turn lane to Harmony Road
Eastbound, left shoulder is reduced
At Owl Creek intersection, bus lane and right turn lane are separate
No change to westbound travel lanes
No change in total roadway width
o East side of Owl Creek Road Intersection (down valley signal bypass)
No changes to eastbound travel lanes
No changes to westbound left turn and through lanes
Addition of 4’ buffer with raised curb and flexpost
Westbound bus lane shifts over
Existing shoulder is reduced
No change in total roadway width
· Option 1B
o Harmony Road Intersection (up valley signal bypass)
Eastbound right lane bus only
Addition of 3’ buffer with raised curb and flexpost
Eastbound one general purpose through lane
Eastbound one general purpose through lane or left turn lane
Eastbound one left turn lane to Harmony Road
Eastbound, left shoulder is reduced
16
EOTC – Buttermilk Crossing and Transit Signal Bypass June 2023
Evaluation of Alternatives 2-3
At Owl Creek intersection, bus lane and right turn lane are combined
No changes to westbound travel lanes
o Owl Creek Road Intersection (down valley signal bypass)
Eastbound, right shoulder is reduced
Eastbound bus only lane shifts to the south
Addition of eastbound general purpose through lane
No changes to westbound left turn and through lanes
Addition of 4’ buffer with raised curb and flexpost
Westbound bus lane shifts to the north
Westbound, existing right shoulder width is reduced
Increase in total roadway width by 7’
Figure 2-1: Overview of Project Area
(Imagery Courtesy of Google Earth)
2.2 Project Purpose
The purpose of this project is to provide a conceptual level design of a pedestrian and
bicycle grade separated crossing of SH-82 east of the Owl Creek Road intersection and to
evaluate two transit signal bypass lanes on SH-82. There are two primary goals for this
study: 1) determine if the EOTC wants to advance this project to a preliminary (30%) design
and if so, 2) determine if the EOTC wants to proceed with the underpass alternative or the
overpass alternative. A review of the transit signal bypass lane alternatives is prepared in a
separate memorandum. It is included in Appendix D and summarized in Section 4.0 of this
report.
This project provides the following EOTC Strategic Plan and Comprehensive Valley
Transportation Plan regional priorities: Bike and Pedestrian Connections to Transit Stops;
Multi-Modal Solution to Entrance to Aspen; and Multi-Modal Network that Encourages Mode
Shift.
17
EOTC – Buttermilk Crossing and Transit Signal Bypass June 2023
Evaluation of Alternatives 2-4
2.3 Project Partners
This project is funded by the EOTC which is comprised of the City of Aspen City Council,
Town of Snowmass Village Town Council, and the Pitkin County Board of County
Commissioners. The alternatives evaluation included feedback from a technical advisory
committee which includes Pitkin County, City of Aspen, Town of Snowmass Village, RFTA,
CDOT, and the consultant engineering team. The construction of this project will serve the
communities within the Roaring Fork Valley including business and housing in the vicinity as
well as visitors to the Buttermilk ski area and other upper valley destinations.
2.4 Consultant Engineering Team
SGM is leading the consultant engineering team and developed this report, crossing
alignments, utility investigation, and cost estimate. ACL Engineering, Inc. provided traffic
engineering and construction phasing review. RJ Engineering provided the geotechnical
investigation report. DHM led the public outreach process and provided visualizations of the
crossing alternatives.
2.5 Description of Existing Facilities
2.5.1 RFTA – BRT Transit Stations
The up valley (towards Aspen) bus stop is located on the south side of SH-82,
approximately 250 feet east of the existing at grade crossing at the Owl Creek Road
Intersection. The down valley (towards Glenwood Springs) bus stop is located on the north
side of SH-82, approximately 350 feet west of the existing at grade crossing at the Owl
Creek Road Intersection. See Figure 2-2.
Both the up valley and down valley bus stops service the BRT (Bus Rapid Transit), Local,
and Burlingame transit lines. On weekends during ski season, the stops also service the
Aspen Highlands Flyer. Pitkin County owns the west portion of the parking lot which is
frequently used by transit users.
Figure 2-2: RFTA Bus Stop Locations
(Imagery Courtesy of Google Earth)
18
EOTC – Buttermilk Crossing and Transit Signal Bypass June 2023
Evaluation of Alternatives 2-5
2.5.2 Existing At Grade Crossing
The existing at grade crossing is 88 feet long and crosses six lanes of traffic (eastbound bus
lane, eastbound thru lanes, two eastbound left turn lanes, westbound thru lane and
westbound bus lane), see Figure 2-3 and Figure 2-4. The crossing signal length is 35
seconds. The cycle length varies based on pedestrian demand. During peak morning use,
the cycle length is 6 to 8.5 minutes. During peak afternoon use, the cycle length is 2.4 to 4
minutes. The cycle length is the time from the beginning of a yellow signal, through the red
signal and to the end of the green signal.
Figure 2-3: Existing at Grade Crossing (looking towards Buttermilk)
2.5.3 State Highway 82
State Highway 82 (SH-82) is an 85.3-mile-long highway connecting Interstate 70 and US
Highway 6 in Glenwood Springs at the west end to US-24 at Twin Lakes at the east end.
The highway parallels the Roaring Fork River along most of its western half and serves as
the primary transportation route through the Roaring Fork Valley. CDOT designates the
route as eastbound and westbound. However, at the project site SH-82 runs along a
northwest to southeast alignment. For simplicity, this report will use the CDOT route
directions and refer to four cardinal directions to refer to locations within the project site. This
assumes SH-82 is in the east-west direction, eastbound is towards Aspen (up valley) and
westbound (down valley) is towards Glenwood Springs.
The proposed grade separated pedestrian and bicycle crossing would cross SH-82 east of
the Owl Creek Road intersection. The existing SH-82 roadway cross section on the east
side of the Owl Creek Road intersection is 89 feet wide, curb to curb. The existing shoulder,
bus lane, turn lane, and thru lane configurations and widths are shown in Figure 2-4.
19
EOTC – Buttermilk Crossing and Transit Signal Bypass June 2023
Evaluation of Alternatives 2-6
Figure 2-4: SH-82 East of Owl Creek Road Existing Cross Section
(Imagery from Mead & Hunt 2021 Study)
2.5.4 Buttermilk Parking Lot
The parking lot is located on the southeast corner of the intersection of SH-82 and Owl
Creek Road, adjacent to the Buttermilk Ski area. Pitkin County owns the west portion of the
parking lot, see Figure 2-2 (above). In the spring, summer, and fall (April 15 to November
15) there are 350 parking spaces available for commuter parking, medium term parking (up
to 4 days), commercial and oversized storage and equipment staging and special event
parking.
2.5.5 SH-82 and Owl Creek Road Traffic Signals
SH-82 and Owl Creek Road is a signalized intersection. There are three single mast arm
traffic signals with luminaires. There is one signal pole for the down valley left turn signal.
See Figure 2-5 and Figure 2-6 for signal locations. Construction of the underpass alternative
may require temporary relocation of one or two traffic signals on the east side of the
intersection. The proposed overpass location on the east side of the intersection provides
sufficient sight distance for vehicles for speeds up to 55 mph. However, for truck at a higher
eye level, there is only sufficient site distance up to 45 mph. The design criteria will need to
be coordinated with CDOT if the overpass option is selected for final design. At a minimum
we recommend installing an advanced warning sign and east of the overpass to provide
additional warning to down valley drivers. An exhibit of the site distance is included in
Appendix D.
Figure 2-5: Traffic Signal Locations (Imagery Courtesy of Google Earth)
20
EOTC – Buttermilk Crossing and Transit Signal Bypass June 2023
Evaluation of Alternatives 2-7
Figure 2-6: SH-82 and Owl Creek Traffic Signals (Looking Down Valley)
2.5.6 Multi-use Trails and Existing Underpass Locations
The AABC trail is a paved pedestrian/bicycle trail that runs parallel to the north side of SH-
82. See Figure 2-7. It connects the Aspen Airport Business Center to the Golf Course trail.
This trail is plowed in the winter and is maintained by the City of Aspen.
The Butterline trail is a dirt single track mountain bike trail that begins at the Buttermilk
parking lot and is one access point to the Sky Mountain Park trail system. The trail runs
parallel to and on the west side of Owl Creek Road for 1.2 miles and then crosses the road
and intersects with the Owl Creek Trail. See Figure 2-7.
The proposed Truscott Trail will connect two transit stops along the south side SH-82: the
Buttermilk BRT station on the west end and the Truscott Place/Maroon Drive stop on the
east. See Figure 2-7. SGM is designing this project, which is currently in the preliminary
design phase. Construction is anticipated to begin in Spring of 2024. The project team will
coordinate the Truscott trail connection with the Buttermilk crossing structure and ramp
alignment.
The Owl Creek Trail underpass is 900 feet to the west. The Stage Road underpass is 1,600
feet to the east. There is currently no sidewalk or trail connection to either of these crossings
on the south side of SH-82. The future Truscott trail will provide access to the Stage Road
underpass to the east.
Along the SH-82 corridor there are grade separated underpass crossings at the El Jebel,
Willits, and Basalt BRT Stations. At the 27th Street BRT Station in Glenwood Springs,
construction of an underpass began in this spring.
21
EOTC – Buttermilk Crossing and Transit Signal Bypass June 2023
Evaluation of Alternatives 2-8
Figure 2-7: Existing and Proposed Mixed-Use Trails
(Imagery Courtesy of Google Earth)
2.5.7 Parcel Owners
The parcels and owners within the project limits are shown in Figure 2-8: Parcels in Project
Vicinity. A summary table of impacts and recommendations is listed in Table 2-1.
Figure 2-8: Parcels in Project Vicinity
(Courtesy of Pitkin County GIS)
22
EOTC – Buttermilk Crossing and Transit Signal Bypass June 2023
Evaluation of Alternatives 2-9
Table 2-1: Project Vicinity Parcel Information
Parcel ID Owner Impact Recommendation/Action
273503400840 Pitkin County
-Reduced parking during
construction
-Portion of approach trail
within parcel
-Relocate ADA parking to
CDOT or Skico parcels
during construction
SH-82 ROW CDOT -Permanent crossing and
approach trails in ROW
-Require CDOT special use
permit and CDOT design
reviews
273503400850 CDOT -Potential construction
staging area
-Coordinate with CDOT
during design review
273503401001 Aspen Skiing
Co
-No permanent impacts
-Potential construction
staging area
-Coordinate during final
design
273511209056 Maroon Creek
LLC
-North approach ramps
within trail easement
-Review easement contract
documents for intended use
273511209051 Maroon Creek
LLC -No impacts - -
273511209052 Maroon Creek
APT LP -No impacts - -
2.6 Environmental Assessment and Environmental Permit Review
SGM's Environmental Team has reviewed the available datasets for the project location to better
understand the environmental impacts of the underpass and overpass concepts. The key findings
are included below. In summary, there is no substantial difference in the environmental impacts and
permitting requirements between the two concepts. The underpass concept involves substantially
more excavation, and therefore has a higher likelihood of encountering previously unknown cultural
or paleontological resources. However, the underlying substrate is not likely to contain such
resources, and the risk of discovery is estimated to be low. Environmental considerations should
not be a critical factor in determining a preferred alternative. The underpass option may require
significantly more tree removal.
2.6.1 Wetlands
There are no wetlands or natural hydrologic features within the area of potential
construction. This determination is based on the National Wetlands Inventory, Pitkin
County's hydrologic mapping, and on SGM's familiarity with the site. No federal Section 404
permitting, or wetland mitigation measures are expected to be required for either the
underpass or overpass concepts. The Stapleton Brothers Ditch is recorded as passing
underneath the project site on the south side of SH-82. The ditch is fully buried throughout
this area and would be a consideration in construction planning for the underpass concept
but would not require federal Section 404 permitting unless unforeseen drastic realignment
and/or alteration is required.
23
EOTC – Buttermilk Crossing and Transit Signal Bypass June 2023
Evaluation of Alternatives 2-10
2.6.2 Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species
The project site itself contains no potential habitat for any federally listed species. This
determination is based on U.S. Fish & Wildlife species range and habitat mapping and
SGM's knowledge of specific habitat conditions within the project site. The surrounding
project vicinity contains potential habitat for two listed species, the Threatened Ute ladies'-
tresses orchid and the Candidate monarch butterfly. Both these species rely on mesic-to-
hydric herbaceous habitats; since both concepts avoid impacts to these habitat types, there
is no likelihood of Fish & Wildlife consultation requirements associated with the selection of
either alternative.
2.6.3 Other Species of Concern
Migratory birds may nest in the woody vegetation on the north side of SH-82. A nest survey
should be conducted one week before any construction takes place. Alternatively, a nest
survey could be conducted and then the necessary vegetation could be removed in
preparation for future construction work. Given that the vegetation suitable for nesting is
located at the northern edge of the project where either an underpass or overpass would
need to tie into the existing trail infrastructure, impacts would be similar between the two
concepts. The project site is not within highly sensitive wildlife habitat, such as ungulate
winter range, based on currently available CPW species activity mapping. There is a
resident population of mule deer to the north of the project area, but the highly modified
habitats in the project area are not attractive to other than incidental or transitory use by
wildlife species of concern. Similarly, neither concept is likely to provide notable benefits for
wildlife movement. Although there is evidence to suggest that ungulates prefer overpasses
to underpasses, these studies relate to purpose-built wildlife crossing structures. Elk and
mule deer would not be expected to utilize either an underpass or overpass structure at this
location, given the narrow width and artificial surfaces.
2.6.4 Other Natural Resource Concerns
Given the project's location within the highway right-of-way, a Special Use Permit will be
required from CDOT to approve permanent occupation of their facility. The environmental
review process for such permits includes a robust consideration of a variety of
environmental concerns, including hazardous waste, cultural resources, paleontological
resources, and stormwater/erosion control. In consideration of these resources, the primary
difference between the concepts is the extensive excavation that would be required for the
underpass concept. The potential for impact to previously unknown cultural or
paleontological resources is therefore greater with the underpass concept. However, the
underlying substrate is mapped as undifferentiated sand gravel deposits associated with
glacial drift (USGS Map 1-785-H). This type of substrate is highly unlikely to contain
paleontological resources or buried cultural resources, and it is unlikely that a construction
monitor would be mandated during excavation.
2.7 Geotechnical Assessment
Geotechnical exploratory borings were taken at the project site to determine suitable
foundation types for the underpass, overpass, and retaining wall structure alternatives. The
24
EOTC – Buttermilk Crossing and Transit Signal Bypass June 2023
Evaluation of Alternatives 3-11
geotechnical report is included in Appendix D. Two borings were drilled, B-1 on the south
side of SH-82 between the existing cross walk and BRT bus stop, and B-2 on the north side
of SH-82 approximately 100 feet to the east of the existing cross walk. Boring B-1 consists
of fill and silt above gravel at 10 feet below the ground surface. Boring B-2 consists of 1 foot
of silt over a mix of gravel and boulders. At the time of drilling the groundwater was 22 feet
and 29 feet below the ground surface at B-1 and B-2 respectively.
For both the underpass and overpass alternatives, the recommended foundation type is
spread footings. Foundations should be built on 8-12 inches of compacted backfill to prevent
point loading on cobbles and boulders. The foundations should be located 3.5 feet below
finished grade to provide frost protection.
3.0 Grade Separated Crossing Alignment Options
3.1 Summary of Alignment Options
The primary criterion for the alignment is that the SH-82 crossing is to be located on the east
side of the intersection of Owl Creek Road, and the trail needs to connect to the existing
BRT Stations. The following two alignment options were considered. Options 1 and 2 are
shown in Figure 3-2 and Figure 3-2:
• Option 1 – Underpass Alignment: This proposed alignment would cross below
existing SH-82, 30 feet to the east of the existing at grade cross walk. The crossing
requires approach ramps on both sides to tie into existing grades.
• Option 2 – Overpass Alignment: This proposed alignment would cross above
existing SH-82, 150 feet to the east of the existing at grade cross walk. The crossing
requires approach ramps on both sides to tie into existing grades.
Both alignment options are equally compatible with the Future Truscott Trail connection. The
Truscott Trail terminus ties into the up-valley BRT bus stop, and it will end to the east of the
existing connector sidewalk. The approach ramps for the Buttermilk crossing will begin on
the west side of the existing connector sidewalk. Additional details and coordination will be
required for final design to layout the intersection of the trails and connection to the BRT bus
stop.
Figure 3-1: Overview of Alignment Option 1 – Underpass
25
EOTC – Buttermilk Crossing and Transit Signal Bypass June 2023
Evaluation of Alternatives 3-12
Figure 3-2: Overview of Alignment Option 2 – Overpass
3.2 Trail Design Criteria
The design criteria is summarized in Appendix D. The trail grades shall meet ADA criteria.
The maximum ADA compliant trail grade is 5% without landings. The grade can be
increased up to 8.33% if landings are provided at every 30” change in vertical grade.
Handrails must be provided where the grade exceeds 5%. A maximum grade of 8.2% was
used to allow for construction tolerance. The trail width varies dependent on the cross
section location (i.e. north ramp, south ramp, SH-82 crossing). Per CDOT Roadway Design
Guide, a two directional shared use paved path shall be a minimum of 10 feet.
3.3 Option 1 – Underpass Alignment
The Underpass Alignment option is shown in Figure 3-3. The design criteria of the
Underpass include a 16 feet horizontal clear width, a minimum of 8 feet of vertical clearance
at the walls and 9 feet of vertical clearance at the center (with arch shaped top slab). If this
option is selected, during final design we recommend evaluating an 8’-4” vertical clearance
with a flat top slab to reduce construction costs. The CDOT Bridge Design Manual requires
a minimum 8’-4” vertical clearance on pedestrian underpass structures.
The north ramp connects to the down valley BRT station and the existing AABC trail. The
proposed ramps follow the existing AABC trail alignment and are parallel to SH-82. The
vertical profile of the AABC trail is regraded to connect to the underpass crossing. The trail
profile results in an additional 10’ vertical elevation drop and rise for through users of the
AABC trail. This alignment impacts approximately 800 feet of the existing AABC trail. The
north ramp requires retaining walls on both sides to bring the trail below existing grades.
The south ramp connects to the sidewalk for the up-valley BRT station. A stair structure is
also included to provide a direct connection to the west side of the Buttermilk parking lot.
The south ramp requires retaining walls on both sides to bring the trail below existing grade.
The open cut area for the trail is significantly larger than the trail width to provide a better
user experience and more natural light and sun exposure.
The advantages of the Underpass are that it is mostly hidden from view, it is similar to other
grade separated crossings in the valley, switchbacks are not required, there is less change
in grade/elevation, and snow removal is not required over live traffic.
The disadvantages of the Underpass are the higher construction costs, impacts to multiple
utilities, greater impact to traffic during construction, construction may take two seasons to
26
EOTC – Buttermilk Crossing and Transit Signal Bypass June 2023
Evaluation of Alternatives 3-13
complete, and the reduced user experience of crossing in an underground structure. Other
concerns that should be considered in preliminary and final design are the challenges with
removing nuisance water without a pump system because there is no natural low point near
the project and deicing and snow removal in these structures can be challenging. We have
made every attempt to allow sunlight to come in, but a snowmelt system will likely be
required.
Figure 3-3: Overview of Option 1 – Underpass Alignment
3.3.1 Underpass Alignment Structures
The proposed underpass structure would likely be a cast-in-place concrete box, with an
arched or flat top slab. A precast lid is a potential alternative which has the benefit of
reducing construction schedule.
The underpass is 130 feet in length. The limits of the underpass were determined based on
the required clear distance for SH-82. The headwalls were placed approximately 20 feet
from the back of existing curb. This configuration was chosen for the feasibility study since it
would not require any guardrail to be installed on SH-82. However, for final design we
recommend evaluating moving the headwalls closer to SH-82 and installing guardrail. This
will reduce the length of the enclosed underpass section and could reduce the length of the
north ramps. The trail profile was set by providing a minimum of 2 feet of cover over the top
slab. However, for final design we recommend evaluating using 6”-9” cover of the box. This
will slightly increase the required strength of the underpass top slab, but it will shorten the
approach ramps and reduce the length and height of the retaining walls. The underpass
has 3.04% longitudinal grade below SH-82. A rendering of the proposed underpass is
provided in Figure 3-4. Additional renderings are included in Appendix B.
27
EOTC – Buttermilk Crossing and Transit Signal Bypass June 2023
Evaluation of Alternatives 3-14
Figure 3-4: Rendering of the Underpass
3.3.2 Underpass Alignment Permitting and Easements
The underpass is located within the CDOT Right-of-Way (ROW) and will require a special
use permit from CDOT. The south approach ramps are within the CDOT SH-82 ROW and
the Pitkin County owned parcel. The north approach ramps are within a CDOT permanent
easement from the Maroon Creek Club. However, those easements may be too narrow for
the proposed construction. The underpass ramps on the south side have been laid out to
avoid permanent impacts with the Aspen Skiing Company parcel. However, construction is
likely to impact that parcel. If this alternative is selected, we recommend an early meeting
with parcel and utility owners to coordinate acquisition requirements for final design. The
parcel information can be seen in the layouts in Appendix A.
Relocating the Stapleton Brothers Ditch around the project site may require a USACE
permit. It will likely depend on whether or not this project has an associated Federal Action.
We also recommend that this is reviewed early in the final design phase.
3.3.3 Underpass Alignment Utilities
The north side of SH-82 includes the following utility type, utility owner, and anticipated
actions:
• Traffic Signals (TR) – CDOT, verify which wiring is still required, traffic loops may not
require replacement since there are traffic cameras installed on the signal arm
• Cable TV (C) – Comcast, protect in place, provide temporary support during
construction, verify existing depth and adjust cables if they have enough slack to
move above structure or will require splicing
• Sanitary (S) - Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, 12” diameter PVC, verify if the
pipe segment feeding into the manhole under the proposed underpass is in use, per
the ACSD records this may be the service line connecting to the Maroon Creek Club
28
EOTC – Buttermilk Crossing and Transit Signal Bypass June 2023
Evaluation of Alternatives 3-15
• Water (W) – City of Aspen, 8” diameter ductile iron pipe, relocate, place in retaining
wall backfill with 7’ of cover above top of pipe
• Fiber Optic (F) - CDOT, CenturyLink/Lumen, City of Aspen Fiber Optic, and
Comcast, provide temporary support during construction, verify existing depth and
adjust cables if they have enough slack to move above structure or will require
splicing
• Storm Drainage (DR) – CDOT, proposed to remove pipe and replace with open ditch
similar to section to the east of the existing storm pipe inlet
The south side of SH-82 includes following utility type, utility owner, and anticipated actions:
• Sanitary (S) - Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, 12” diameter PVC, requires
relocation south of the approach ramp structures
• Gas (G), Black Hills Energy – 6” diameter high pressure, relocate south of the
approach ramp structures
• Electric (E) – Private Service Provided by Holy Cross Energy = relocate RFTA
service line south of the approach ramp structures
• Irrigation (IRR) – Stapleton Brothers Ditch, 30” diameter reinforced concrete pipe,
relocate south of the approach ramp structures
• Water (W) - City of Aspen, 18” diameter ductile iron pipe, relocate south of the
approach ramp structures, requires 10’ of horizontal clearance to sanitary, storm and
irrigation lines
• Storm Drainage (DR) – CDOT, 24” diameter, relocate pipe south of the approach
ramp structures, assumes area drain can be eliminated or relocated based on
revised grading, existing inlet adjacent to the underpass will require temporary
relocation during construction
Figure 3-5 shows an overview of the utilities with proposed relocations along this alignment.
The underpass alignment will impact many utility providers. Utility relocation plans are
included in Appendix A.
Figure 3-5: Existing Utilities and Relocates for Underpass Alignment
29
EOTC – Buttermilk Crossing and Transit Signal Bypass June 2023
Evaluation of Alternatives 3-16
3.3.4 Underpass Maintenance
Typically, underpass structures are relatively low maintenance. The underpass will be
constructed of concrete which is durable. Maintenance may include patching of concrete
spalls. A waterproofing system will be provided on the soil side of the concrete, however it is
possible for water to leak through the joints. Routine maintenance will be required to remove
dirt and trash. There is also the potential for people to sleep in the underpass.
The crossing will require snow removal, however some portion of the approach structure
surfacing is anticipated to include a snowmelt system. The north approach ramps would use
the existing AABC Trail alignment. This paved trail is currently maintained by the City of
Aspen.
The north entrance of the underpass is the low point of the crossing and is lower in elevation
than nearby grades. If the low point is below the invert of the stormwater manholes, water
will need to be pumped out. The pumps will require routine maintenance and replacement at
some point.
During final design, a maintenance agreement will need to be developed to determine which
agency or agencies will be responsible for routine and structural maintenance.
3.4 Option 2 - Overpass Alignment
The Overpass Alignment option is shown in Figure 3-6. The design criteria of the overpass
includes a 14 feet horizontal clear width, and a minimum of 17.5 feet of vertical clearance
above SH-82 top of pavement at the high point between the outside of the shoulders. For
final design, a 12 foot clear width for the bridge crossing SH-82 should be evaluated to
determine if it has sufficient user capacity. If so, the narrower structure will reduce
construction costs.
The north ramp connects to the down valley BRT station utilizing the horizontal alignment of
the existing AABC trail. The vertical profile of the trail is regraded to meet ADA
requirements. The trail profile results in approximately 15 feet of change in vertical grade.
This alignment impacts approximately 615 linear feet of the existing AABC trail. The north
ramp requires a retaining wall between the south side of the approach ramps and the north
side of SH-82. The north side of the approach ramps can be graded to tie into existing
grades.
The south ramp connects to the sidewalk for the up-valley BRT station. The ramp includes a
switchback to match into the existing grades at the sidewalk connection. The majority of the
ramp is proposed to be an elevated cast-in-place reinforced concrete slab. A stair structure
is also included to provide a direct connection to the Buttermilk Ski Resort and the parking
lot.
The advantages of the Overpass are fewer impacts to utilities, reduced impact during
construction to the traveling public, it can be built in one construction season, and improved
user experience of an above grade crossing.
The disadvantages of the Overpass are the impacts to the viewscape, the south ramp
requires a switchback, there is a greater change in grade/elevation, and snow removal
required over live traffic.
30
EOTC – Buttermilk Crossing and Transit Signal Bypass June 2023
Evaluation of Alternatives 3-17
Figure 3-6: Overview of Option 2 – Overpass Alignment
Figure 3-7: Rendering of the Overpass Alignment
3.4.1 Overpass Alignment Structures
The proposed overpass structure would likely be a through truss or through arch, with most
of the structure above the deck surface. The benefit of this type of structure is that the
longitudinal structural members are primarily above the deck, which reduces the amount of
vertical grade trail users need to ascend and descend to cross over SH-82.
The overpass is approximately 160 feet in length. The limits of the overpass for this study
were determined based on placing the bridge piers approximately 20 feet from the back of
the curb. However, for final design we recommend evaluating moving the bridge piers closer
to SH-82 and installing guardrail. This will reduce the length of the bridge and reduce
construction costs. The profile grade was set assuming the top of the deck (trail surface) is
3.0 feet above the bottom of the bridge structure (i.e., low chord). The overpass has 2.5%
31
EOTC – Buttermilk Crossing and Transit Signal Bypass June 2023
Evaluation of Alternatives 3-18
longitudinal grade above SH-82, which is approximately equal to the superelevation of the
roadway. A rendering of the proposed overpass is provided in Figure 3-7. Additional
renderings are included in Appendix B.
Bridge structure type alternatives are presented for the SH-82 roadway crossing of the
Overpass Alignment. The total bridge length for each bridge type will be between 130 to 160
feet. The structure length is controlled by the location of the front face of the bridge piers.
The higher end of the bridge span is based on placing the bridge piers outside of the SH-82
clear zone. The lower end of the bridge span would place the bridge piers approximately 10’
beyond the back of curb. Placing the piers within the clear zone would require installing
guardrail to protect vehicles from crashing into the bridge piers.
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the feasibility of an overpass and underpass
crossing. Selecting a preferred overpass bridge type is beyond the scope of this study. For
this phase of the study there are two main criteria to consider for feasible bridge types: (1)
the ability to span up to 160 feet and (2) have 3 feet or less of structure below the bridge
deck. Minimizing the amount of structure below the deck is advantageous because it
reduces the amount of vertical grade to get to the overpass, which reduces the height and
length of the approach ramps. Two bridge types were considered to determine estimated
construction costs: a prefabricated weathering steel truss and a weathering steel tied arch
bridge. Estimated project costs for the Overpass alignment are presented as Option 2A and
2B, respectively in Section 5.1.
For any bridge type selected for the Overpass, CDOT will require a throw fence to be
installed on the structure crossing SH-82. This is to prevent objects from being thrown on
the roadway below. Per Section 2.4.2 of the CDOT Bridge Design Manual, the fence height
should be 8 feet.
3.4.1.1 Prefabricated Weathering Steel Truss
A prefabricated weathering steel truss is the most economical solution to span over SH-82.
These types of bridges are commonly found throughout Colorado for pedestrian and bicycle
trails. One example is the pedestrian bridge parallel to Cemetery Lane/McLain Flats Road
over the Roaring Fork River. The total truss depth for this span is around 10’, since about 3’
of structure depth is required below the deck for transverse supports, the top of the truss
would most likely be in line with the top of the 8-foot-tall throw fence.
This bridge type is relatively simple to install. The truss would be delivered to the site in two
to four sections. It would be spliced together in a staging area (e.g., Buttermilk parking lot).
Then, it would be erected as one piece with one or two cranes. This would require a full
closure of SH-82, but it could be completed overnight or on the weekend. This bridge type is
used for the visualizations for the main span over SH-82 for the Overpass alignment. See
Figure 3-8 for the truss bridge rendering. Full page renderings are included in Appendix B.
32
EOTC – Buttermilk Crossing and Transit Signal Bypass June 2023
Evaluation of Alternatives 3-19
Figure 3-8: SH-82 Overpass Steel Truss Rendering
3.4.1.2 Weathering Steel Tied Arch
A tied arch is another feasible alternative for the bridge span over SH-82. This structure will
be significantly more expensive than the prefabricated steel truss. In general, tied arches
are a more slender option, however for this configuration the arch may have more of an
impact on the viewscape than the truss. The vertical rise at the centerline arch will be
around 20’ compared to the total truss depth of around 11’. See Figure 3-9 for an example
of this bridge type.
The tied arch would be constructed similarly to the truss, however the total weight of steel
for the arch could be significantly more than the truss, which will require larger cranes to
install.
Figure 3-9: Tied Arch (Imagery Courtesy of Excel Bridge Manufacturing Co.)
3.4.2 Overpass Alignment Permitting and Easements
The overpass is located within the CDOT Right-of-Way (ROW) and will require a special use
permit from CDOT. The south approach ramps are within the CDOT SH-82 ROW and the
33
EOTC – Buttermilk Crossing and Transit Signal Bypass June 2023
Evaluation of Alternatives 3-20
Pitkin County owned parcel. The north approach ramps are within a CDOT permanent
easement from the Maroon Creek Club. However, those easements may be too narrow for
the proposed construction. The overpass ramps on the south side have been laid out to
avoid permanent impacts with the Aspen Skiing Company parcel. However, construction
may impact that parcel. If this alternative is selected, we recommend an early meeting with
parcel and utility owners to coordinate acquisition requirements for final design. The parcel
information can be seen in the layouts in Appendix A.
Relocating the Stapleton Brothers Ditch around the project site may require a USACE
permit. It will likely depend on whether or not this project has an associated Federal Action.
We also recommend that this is reviewed early in the final design phase.
3.4.3 Overpass Alignment Utilities
The north side of SH-82 includes the following utility type, utility owner, and anticipated
actions:
• Traffic Signals (TR) – CDOT, no anticipated impacts
• Cable TV (C) – Comcast, no anticipated impacts
• Sanitary (S) - Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, 12” diameter PVC, no
anticipated impacts
• Water (W) – City of Aspen, 8” diameter ductile iron pipe, relocate north of proposed
trail, install top of pipe 7’ below finished grade
• Fiber Optic (F) - CDOT, CenturyLink/Lumen, City of Aspen Fiber Optic, and
Comcast, no anticipated impacts
• Storm Drainage (DR) – CDOT, temporary impacts during bridge foundation
construction, also potential to remove pipe and replace with open ditch similar to
section to the east of the existing storm pipe inlet
The south side of SH-82 includes following utility type, utility owner, and anticipated actions:
• Sanitary (S) - Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, 12” diameter PVC, requires
relocation south of the approach ramp structures
• Gas (G), Black Hills Energy – 6” diameter high pressure, relocate north of bridge
foundation
• Electric (E) – Private Service Provided by Holy Cross Energy, relocation dependent
on extents of bridge foundation
• Irrigation (IRR) – Stapleton Brothers Ditch, 30” diameter reinforced concrete pipe,
relocate south of the approach ramp structures
• Water (W) - City of Aspen, 18” diameter ductile iron pipe, relocate south of the
approach ramp structures, requires 10’ of horizontal clearance to sanitary, storm and
irrigation lines
• Storm Drainage (DR) – CDOT, 24” diameter, potential impacts to area drain can be
eliminated or relocated based on revised grading, existing inlet adjacent to the
underpass will require temporary relocation during construction
Figure 3-10 shows an overview of the utilities with proposed relocations along the overpass
alignment. Utility relocation plans are included in Appendix A.
34
EOTC – Buttermilk Crossing and Transit Signal Bypass June 2023
Evaluation of Alternatives 3-21
Figure 3-10: Existing Utilities and Relocates for Overpass Alignment
3.4.4 Overpass Maintenance
The proposed structure for the span crossing SH-82 is made of weathering steel.
Weathering steel bridges are fairly low maintenance structures. Weathering steel is a
corrosion protection system in which a patina forms when exposed to the environment that
protects the base metal. During the design life of the bridge, this system may fail and require
painting. Steel protective systems typically fail at locations where water and debris collect,
which is at the connection points and expansion joints. Ensuring proper drainage and
routine cleaning will extend the life of the protection system.
The crossing will require snow removal, however the main span is anticipated to include a
snowmelt system so that snow removal will not be required over SH-82. The north approach
ramps would use the existing AABC Trail alignment. This paved trail is currently maintained
by the City of Aspen.
During final design, a maintenance agreement will need to be developed to determine which
agency or agencies will be responsible for routine and structural maintenance.
3.4.5 Overpass Alignment Elevator Alternative
Elevators were evaluated as part of the Overpass alignment concept to provide ADA access
as an alternative to ramps. The evaluation was prepared as a separate memorandum
included in Appendix D. In summary, elevators were not selected as the preferred option to
provide ADA access to the overpass because of operation and maintenance requirements,
increased risks to public health and safety, and potential exposure of legal action stemming
35
EOTC – Buttermilk Crossing and Transit Signal Bypass June 2023
Evaluation of Alternatives 5-22
from ADA noncompliance. Additionally, the ramp systems will likely cost less to build and
much less to maintain.
4.0 Transit Bypass Alternatives Assessment
In conjunction with the grade seperated crossing, the EOTC requested an evaluation of the
transit signal bypass lanes propsed in the Mead & Hunt 2021 “State Highway 82 Upper
Valley Transit Enhancement Study”. The two alternatives are included in the previous study
portion of the report (Section 2.1). In the down-valley direction (westbound SH-82), a signal
bypass lane was evaluated at the Owl Creek Road intersection. In the up-valley direction
(eastbound SH-82), a signal bypass lane was evaluated at the Harmony Road intersection,
approximately 500 feet north of the Owl Creek Road intersection.
ACL Engineering, Inc. led the review of the two alternatives. Both the design team and
technical advisory committee concluded that due to safety concerns and limited times
savings to transit, the proposed transit signal bypass lanes configurations were determined
to be “non-viable”. The primary safety concern is the “weave” maneuver that drivers need to
complete to turn right on Owl Creek Road. In Concept 1A, vehicles need to cross the bus
lane and in Concept 1B, vehicles need to merge into the bus lane. The concern is that
buses would be moving at a much higher speed if vehicles are stopped at the red light at
Harmony Road. More detailed evaluation is included in the memorandum in Appendix D.
5.0 Estimated Costs and Funding Sources
5.1 Cost Analysis
SGM generated costs estimates for alignment Options 1, Option 2A and Option 2B. Estimated
construction costs and total project costs are provided. Construction costs are based on recent bid
prices and adjusted for inflation based on assumed construction in 2025. Since this study only
includes a conceptual level design, a 30% design contingency is applied to the construction costs.
Engineering and Design costs include final design fees, construction engineering fees, permits and
right-of-way, property valuation and easements. Total project costs for the three alternatives are in
Table 5-1.
The primary structural and civil quantities were estimated based on the proposed design
concept for each alternative. The primary structural work includes shoring, structural
excavation, backfill, concrete, steel reinforcement, retaining walls and railings. The primary
civil work includes excavation, basecourse and surfacing. The utility relocation costs were
estimated based on a high-level review of known utilities that conflict with the proposed
design. The Snow Melt System was based on construction bids for the RFTA 27th Street
Underpass in Glenwood Springs. The costs related to all utilities are included in the
estimate, however depending on the utility easement agreements, some of these costs will
be borne by the respective utility owners. Other construction costs including traffic control,
construction staking, erosion control, lighting, aesthetic treatments, landscaping, and
mobilization were based on percentages of the total known components. These values were
determined based on similar construction projects.
36
EOTC – Buttermilk Crossing and Transit Signal Bypass June 2023
Evaluation of Alternatives 5-23
Table 5-1: Estimated Total Project Cost Estimate
Project Component Option 1
Underpass
Option 2A
Overpass
with Steel Truss
Option 2B
Overpass
with Steel Arch
Total Project Cost
(2025 Construction) $20,700,000 $12,200,00 $13,500,00
The construction and design cost breakdowns for each alternative are provided in Table 5-2,
Table 5-3, and Table 5-4. The structural and civil primary component and utility relocation
quantities and unit costs are provided in Appendix C.
Table 5-2: Option 1 – Underpass Estimated Project Costs
Construction Item Cost
Structural Work (Shoring, Excavation, Backfill, Concrete, Rebar, Railing)6,332,000$
Civil Work (Removals, Unclass. Excavation, Basecourse, Surfacing)893,000$
Misc Civil (Signing, Striping, Signals)100,000$
Utility Relocation (Water, Sanitary, Storm, Electric, Gas, Fiber)*1,094,350$
Snow Melt System 600,000$
Subtotal (a)9,019,350$
% of (a)
Traffic Control 20.0%1,803,870$
Construction Surveying 1.5%135,290$
Temporary Erosion Control 1.0%90,194$
Lighting 4.0%360,774$
Aesthetic Treatments 3.0%270,581$
Landscaping 2.0%180,387$
Subtotal (b)11,860,445$
% of (b)
Mobilization and Force Accounts 10.0%1,186,045$
Design Contigency 30.0%3,558,134$
Construction Cost Total (2023 Pricing) (c)16,604,623$
% of (c)
Inflation/Escalation Estimate 8.0%1,328,370$
Construction Cost Total (2025 Pricing) (d)17,932,993$
Engineering and Design Costs
% of (d)
Final Design Fees 5.0%896,650$
Construction Engineering 10.0%1,793,299$
Permitting 0.2%35,866$
ROW/Property Valuation/Easements 0.4%75,000$
Engineering and Design Subtotal 2,725,815$
Underpass - Project Total 20,659,000$ Option 1 -Underpass
37
EOTC – Buttermilk Crossing and Transit Signal Bypass June 2023
Evaluation of Alternatives 5-24
Table 5-3: Option 2A – Overpass with Steel Truss Estimated Project Costs
Construction Item Cost
Structural Work (Earthwork, Concrete, MSE Wall, Rebar, Railing, Stairs)4,093,000$
Civil Work (Removals, Basecourse, Surfacing)253,000$
Misc Civil (Signing, Striping, Signals)75,000$
Utility Relocation (Water, Sanitary, Irrigation)*565,000$
Snow Melt System 600,000$
Subtotal (a)5,333,000$
% of (a)
Traffic Control 20.0%1,066,600$
Construction Surveying 1.5%79,995$
Temporary Erosion Control 1.0%53,330$
Lighting 2.0%106,660$
Aesthetic Treatments 3.0%159,990$
Landscaping 3.0%159,990$
Subtotal (b)6,959,565$
% of (b)
Mobilization and Force Accounts 10.0%695,957$
Design Contigency 30.0%2,087,870$
Estimated Construction Cost Total (2023 Pricing) (c)9,743,391$
% of (c)
Inflation/Escalation Estimate 8.0%779,471$
Construction Cost Total (2025 Pricing) (d)10,522,862$
Engineering and Design Costs
% of (d)
Final Design Fees 5.0%526,143$
Construction Engineering 10.0%1,052,286$
Permitting/ROW/Property Valuation/Easements 0.7%75,000$
Engineering and Design Subtotal 1,653,429$
Overpass (Truss) - Project Total 12,177,000$ Option 2A - Overpass - Prefabricated Truss
Table 5-4: Option 2B – Overpass with Steel Arch Estimated Project Costs
Construction Item Cost
Structural Work (Earthwork, Concrete, MSE Wall, Rebar, Railing, Stairs)4,479,000$
Civil Work (Removals, Basecourse, Surfacing)253,000$
Misc Civil (Signing, Striping, Signals)75,000$
Utility Relocation (Water, Sanitary, Irrigation)*564,713$
Snow Melt System 600,000$
Subtotal (a)5,971,713$
% of (a)
Traffic Control 18.0%1,074,908$
Construction Surveying 1.5%89,576$
Temporary Erosion Control 1.0%59,717$
Lighting 2.0%119,434$
Aesthetic Treatments 2.8%164,222$
Landscaping 2.8%164,222$
Subtotal (b)7,643,792$
% of (b)
Mobilization and Force Accounts 10.0%764,379$
Design Contigency 30.0%2,293,138$
Estimated Construction Cost Total (2023 Pricing) (c)10,701,309$
% of (c)
Inflation/Escalation Estimate 8.0%856,105$
Construction Cost Total (2025 Pricing) (d)11,557,414$
Engineering and Design Costs
% of (d)
Final Design Fees 6.0%693,445$
Construction Engineering 10.0%1,155,741$
Permitting/ROW/Property Valuation/Easements 0.6%75,000$
Engineering and Design Subtotal 1,924,186$
Overpass (Arch) - Project Total 13,482,000$ Option 2B - Overpass - Arch
38
EOTC – Buttermilk Crossing and Transit Signal Bypass June 2023
Evaluation of Alternatives 5-25
5.2 Potential Funding Sources
There are multiple federal and state programs that may be considered to supplement local
funds which are geared towards projects that improve safety, connectivity to transit, and
bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Two examples are the Multimodal Transportation and
Mitigation Options Fund (MMOF) program and the Transportation Alternatives Program
(TAP). The MMOF program provides funding for projects that improve multimodal
accessibility and safety improvements. The TAP program is a federal program which
provides funding for enhancement of non-motorized forms of transportation such as biking
and walking. We recommend that after this study is completed and the EOTC has chosen a
direction forward, we review the proposed project, determine the programs which best fit the
project objectives, and determine the priority programs for which we want to submit a grant
application.
5.3 Option Evaluation
5.3.1 Evaluation Criteria
There are multiple categories that can be used to evaluate the two potential alternatives for
the Buttermilk Crossing. A summary of the advantages and disadvantages of each
alignment is presented below.
• Cost
o The Option 1 (Underpass) has a more expensive project cost. It 70% more
expensive than Option 2A (Overpass/Truss) and 50% more expensive as
Option 2B (Overpass/Arch)
• ROW or Easements Needed
o ROW and easement impacts are similar for both options
▪ SH-82 crossing structure is in CDOT ROW
▪ South approach ramps are in CDOT ROW and Pitkin County parcel
▪ North approach ramps are in a permanent trail easement from the
Maroon Creek Club (MCC)
o Option 1 (Underpass) Excavation limits for the north walls may extend past
the MCC easement. Shoring or temporary construction easement may be
required. Easement may need to be revised to accommodate the proposed
construction.
• Maintenance
o Structures: Option 1 (Underpass) has a slight advantage in that concrete
generally has less maintenance than steel. Option 2 (Overpass) will require
routine inspection, cleaning, and painting.
o Railing: Option 1 (Underpass) has fewer quantity of railings, so it should
require less maintenance over time.
o Trail: Option 1 (Underpass) has an advantage for winter snow removal.
Plowing the approach trails will be slightly easier.
o Snow Melt System: For conceptual design, assume that both Options will
require a snow melt system.
o Drainage: Option 2 (Overpass) has the advantage since the elevated
structure will be much easier to drain water. Option 1 (Underpass) may
require pumps to remove water from the low point if a gravity option is not
feasible.
39
EOTC – Buttermilk Crossing and Transit Signal Bypass June 2023
Evaluation of Alternatives 5-26
• Trail User Experience
o Pedestrian/Bicycle Conflicts
▪ Option 1 (Underpass) – The northeast approach ramp has 8.2%
grade coming down to the underpass crossing. Bicyclist may be
moving at higher speeds which has a greater potential for conflicts.
▪ Option 2 (Overpass) – The northwest approach ramp has 8.2% grade
coming down to the underpass crossing. Bicyclist may be moving at
higher speeds which has a greater potential for conflicts. The south
ramp also has 8.2% grades and includes a switchback with potential
for conflicts.
▪ Option 1 (Underpass) has an advantage since there are fewer conflict
areas.
o Safety: Option 2 (Overpass) has the advantage since users are visible to the
travelling public.
o Recreation Users (AABC trail): This has mixed impacts. Option 1
(Underpass) is advantageous because overall change in elevation is less.
However, Option 2 (Overpass) is advantageous in that the trail is above the
surrounding grade which will have better views.
o Commuters (Transit): Option 1 (Underpass) is preferred because it has a
more direct connection for both ramp and stair users and the overall change
in elevation is less.
• General Public/Vehicle Traffic
o Viewscape: Option 1 (Underpass) will be located below grade, so will have
very minimal impacts to the viewscape. However, this is a subjective issue
and some users may like the bridge within the viewscape.
o Traffic (during construction): Option 2 (Overpass) will have significantly fewer
impacts to the traveling public during construction.
o Traffic (after construction): Option 2 (Overpass) will reduce the site distance
for drivers.
• Complexity of Construction
o Construction Duration: Option 2 (Overpass) has the advantage since the
work should be completed in one season and the SH-82 crossing will be
fabricated off site. Since Option 1 (Underpass) has more utility relocates and
the SH-82 crossing will be construction in two phases, construction is
anticipated to take much longer.
o Construction Techniques/Equipment: Both options require fairly similar
construction methods. Option 2 (Overpass) will require a crane for installation
but of a size that is readily available.
o Existing Trail Impacts: Both options will require a detour of the AABC trail.
However, the construction of the fill walls for Option 2 (Overpass) should be
much faster.
o Phasing/Closures: Option 2 (Overpass) has the advantage since there will be
no phasing required to install the crossing over SH-82. A short term closure
will be require to install the bridge superstructure, but can be schedule to
minimally disrupt traffic.
o Construction/Schedule Risks: The procurement process for long span steel
bridges can be lengthy, which puts Option 2 (Overpass) at a disadvantage.
Option 1 (Underpass) requires a significant amount of excavation, there is the
potential for unknown utilities or other below grade conflicts.
40
EOTC – Buttermilk Crossing and Transit Signal Bypass June 2023
Evaluation of Alternatives 6-27
• Utility Impacts: Option 2 (Overpass) has the advantage since there are significantly
fewer utility impacts that will require relocation.
6.0 Public Process and Stakeholder Feedback
The project team engaged in a public outreach process to inform the public about the project
and solicit feedback from the community. This process included both in-person outreach
events and a project website. Stakeholder feedback was also solicited through direct
outreach with neighboring property owners and businesses.
6.1.1 In Person Events
The first phase of project communication with the public was kicked-off with an Open House
Meeting. The Open House was held October 13th, 2022 at the Pitkin County Administration
Building. The event was advertised online and in print newspapers as well as social media
posts. The focus of the Open House was to create initial visibility about the project and
solicit broad feedback about the project goals and opportunities. The meeting was poorly
attended with just 3 members of the public.
Due to the lack of attendance at the Open House, the team focused on alternative outreach
methods for the second phase of the public process. This second phase was focused on the
Buttermilk Crossing project alternatives, asking the public about their experience with the
intersection, the need for improvements, and preferences for type of crossing improvement.
For this second phase, the in-person outreach involved multiple “pop-up” style intercept
events, strategically timed and placed for high exposure and engagement. The team held
five intercept events, during which project context and illustrations of the alternatives were
displayed on boards and flyers were handed out to passers-by to direct them to the project
website and survey. Pop up events were staffed with members of the design team and the
technical advisory committee and included:
• March 31st, Buttermilk Up-Hill Cliff House Breakfast
• April 2nd, Buttermilk Down valley Bus Stop
• April 7th, Rubey Park Transit Center (afternoon commute)
• April 11th, Basalt Park and Ride (morning commute)
• April 14th, Carbondale and 27th Street Park and Ride (morning commute)
6.1.2 Project Website and Public Survey
The website for the Buttermilk Crossing outreach was combined with the Truscott Trail
project. The website provided an overview of the project and described the project goals.
Photographs were included to show the existing at-grade crossing of SH-82 at the Owl
Creek intersection. The materials from the October 2022 outreach event were also posted to
the website. The website included a form to submit feedback on the project.
During the spring “pop-up” outreach events, a survey was posted on the website to solicit
feedback. The online survey which ran from March 29-May 15, 2023. The online survey was
a qualitative survey, not statistically valid, and did not require a code or login to participate.
The survey asked context questions to understand basic demographics of the survey takers
related to place of work, where they live, and frequency of transit use, followed by questions
41
EOTC – Buttermilk Crossing and Transit Signal Bypass June 2023
Evaluation of Alternatives 6-28
about the user’s current experience at the SH-82 and Owl Creek intersection, and their
opinions about two crossing options related to cost, aesthetics, and safety. A number of the
questions were open ended to allow survey takers to explain their thoughts in detail. To
reach a wider audience, the website, including the survey, could be accessed in both
English and Spanish.
The survey questions are included in Appendix F.
6.1.3 Public Process - Summary of Feedback
Phase 1 Open House meeting feedback
Attendees noted general positive feedback to the Buttermilk Crossing improvement project
idea. Residents of the Pomegranate Inn noted that the Truscott Trail Connection should take
care to avoid removing trees at the edge of their property as the trees provide a visual and
noise buffer from the highway. They also noted that the Aspen Country Inn downvalley bus
stop is very dangerous for pedestrians trying to cross the highway with no pedestrian
crossing at all. A crossing at this location was not part of the scope for these two projects,
and the residents’ comments were forwarded to the project team.
Phase 2 Pop-up event feedback
Most in person feedback was supportive of some kind of change to the pedestrian crossing.
Frequent and daily crossing users reported having multiple dangerous interactions with
vehicles turning right out of Owl Creek Rd onto SH-82 during pedestrian signal times. Many
users reported long wait times for the pedestrian signal, causing risky pedestrian behavior to
make it onto buses across the highway. Pedestrians feel that there is poor visibility for
motorists of pedestrians in the crosswalk and/or waiting to cross. They feel that this is
compounded during winter months with snow piles and at night. Many reported that cars are
speeding, running red lights, or not looking at the crosswalk when trying to turn right out of
Owl Creek Rd. Commuters reported that a separated crossing would make their commute
more efficient and safer feeling. Infrequent crossing users and visitors reported feeling safe
at the crossing, but that the down valley bus stop was further away from the Buttermilk
parking lot than is ideal.
Feedback about preference on an underpass or overpass was mixed. Some respondents
felt that the underpass fits more with the pattern of other SH-82 crossings throughout the
valley and is important for protecting the viewshed while driving toward Aspen. Others felt
that the cost savings for an overpass option would be better, and that the overpass design
was not an eye sore. Many responded individually with alternative intervention ideas, such
as having “no turn on red” mandated at that intersection, painting the crosswalk in a more
pronounced color, installing a pedestrian-led signal, and making the entire intersection a
roundabout to improve the flow of traffic.
Survey feedback
The graphics in Figure 6-1 provide a summary of the survey results. See Appendix F for a
full report on survey results and responses.
42
EOTC – Buttermilk Crossing and Transit Signal Bypass June 2023
Evaluation of Alternatives 6-29
Figure 6-1: Public Outreach Survey Summary
43
EOTC – Buttermilk Crossing and Transit Signal Bypass June 2023
Evaluation of Alternatives 6-30
6.1.4 Unstaffed Project Information Boards
Project information was posted on boards that were displayed in public locations throughout
the valley. These locations included:
• Libraries (Glenwood, Carbondale, Basalt and Aspen)
• RFTA Bus Stops
• City Hall, Aspen
• Pitkin County Administration Building
6.1.5 Direct Stakeholder Feedback
Direct contact with neighboring property owners and businesses was conducted to solicit
feedback. These key stakeholders included:
• Aspen SkiCo
• Maroon Creek Club
• Inn at Aspen
• Aspen Country Inn
• Pomegranate
44
EOTC – Buttermilk Crossing and Transit Signal Bypass June 2023
Evaluation of Alternatives Appendix A
Appendix A
Underpass and Overpass Layouts
Underpass Alignment Plan and Profile
Underpass Utility Relocation Plan
Overpass Alignment Plan and Profile
Overpass Utility Relocation Plan
45
Drawing File Name: Buttermilk-Combined site plan118 West Sixth Street, Suite 200Glenwood Springs, CO 81601970.945.1004 www.sgm-inc.com Project No./Code1----Sheet NumberNo Revisions:Revised:Void:DateCommentsInit.Rev.Sheet RevisionsComputer File InformationPrint Date: 6/5/23Last Modification Date: 6/5/23 MLFAutocad Ver. 2022SGM Project No.: 2022-282.001As ConstructedScale: 1"=70'Quality Control:Engineer:Drawn By:Sheet Subset:MLFMWMStructureNumbersBUTTERMILK CROSSINGCOMBINED OVERALL SITE PLANSITE PLAN1 of 1Subset Sheets:----46
GVTTF UFSGT EMTREMEE TRTRETETF
FT
F
FTRTR
SSSSSSSSSSE TRTRDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDF FF
F
T
R
F
F
T
R
F
F
T
R
G
UIC
VDE
IC
V
IC
V
IC
V
EIREMICBS SETETEMDDSTRTREE
IC
V
F
FTHYD
F
FTGGVGVSSSGTIC
V
IC
B
ICB
ICB ICBICBICBICB
UUUIC
V
IC
V
IC
V
IC
V
IC
V
IC
V
IC
VIC
V
IC
V
IC
V
IC
V
IC
V
IC
V
IC
V
IC
V
DSETSSSDrawing File Name: Buttermilk-Underpass118 West Sixth Street, Suite 200Glenwood Springs, CO 81601970.945.1004 www.sgm-inc.com Project No./Code2----Sheet NumberNo Revisions:Revised:Void:DateCommentsInit.Rev.Sheet RevisionsComputer File InformationPrint Date: 6/5/23Last Modification Date: 6/5/23 XXAutocad Ver. 2022SGM Project No.: 2022-282.001As ConstructedScale: As ShownQuality Control:Engineer:Drawn By:Sheet Subset:MLFMWMStructureNumbersBUTTERMILK CROSSINGUNDERPASS & SOUTH RAMP PLAN & PROFILEEXHIBIT1 of 2Subset Sheets:----Graphic ScaleIn Feet: 1" = 60'0306012047
F
FT STCE
FTRTR SSSSTRDDDDFFF
F
F
T
R
ET
T
R
ICVSTR
IC
VICBICB ICBICBICBUU
IC
VIC
V
IC
V
IC
V
IC
V
IC
V
IC
V
IC
V
ICV
SSSDrawing File Name: Buttermilk-Underpass118 West Sixth Street, Suite 200Glenwood Springs, CO 81601970.945.1004 www.sgm-inc.com Project No./Code3----Sheet NumberNo Revisions:Revised:Void:DateCommentsInit.Rev.Sheet RevisionsComputer File InformationPrint Date: 6/5/23Last Modification Date: 6/5/23 MLFAutocad Ver. 2022SGM Project No.: 2022-282.001As ConstructedScale: As ShownQuality Control:Engineer:Drawn By:Sheet Subset:MLFMWMStructureNumbersBUTTERMILK CROSSINGNORTH UNDERPASS RAMP PLAN & PROFILEEXHIBIT2 of 2Subset Sheets:----Graphic ScaleIn Feet: 1" = 60'0306012048
UIC
V
E
IC
V
IC
V
IC
V
EIREMICBS SETETEMTRTRICV
F
F THY D
F
FTGGVGVSSSGTIC
V
IC
B
ICB
ICB ICBICBICBICB
UUUIC
V
IC
V
IC
V
IC
V
IC
V
IC
V
IC
V
IC
V
IC
V
IC
V
IC
V
IC
V
IC
V
IC
VICVSET
SSSGVTTF UFSGT EMTREMEE TRTRETETF
FT
F STCE
FTRTR
SSSSSSSSSE TRTRDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDF FFF
T
R
F
F
T
R
ET
F
T
R
GDrawing File Name: Buttermilk-UtilityRelocation118 West Sixth Street, Suite 200Glenwood Springs, CO 81601970.945.1004 www.sgm-inc.com Project No./Code4----Sheet NumberNo Revisions:Revised:Void:DateCommentsInit.Rev.Sheet RevisionsComputer File InformationPrint Date: 6/5/23Last Modification Date: 6/5/23 MLFAutocad Ver. 2022SGM Project No.: 2022-282.001As ConstructedScale: As ShownQuality Control:Engineer:Drawn By:Sheet Subset:MLFMWMStructureNumbersBUTTERMILK CROSSINGUNDERPASS UTILITY RELOCATION PLANUTILITY1 of 2Subset Sheets:----Graphic ScaleIn Feet: 1" = 50'0255010049
GVTTF UFGT EMTREMEE TRTRETETF
FT
F
FTRTR
SSSSSSSSSSE TRTRDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDF FF
F
T
R
F
F
T
R
F
F
T
R
G
UIC
V
E
IC
V
IC
V
IC
V
EIREMICBS SETETEMSTRTREE
IC
V
F
FTHYD
F
FTGGVGVSSSGTIC
V
IC
B
ICB
ICB ICBICBICBICB
UUUIC
V
IC
V
IC
V
IC
V
IC
V
IC
V
IC
VIC
V
IC
V
IC
V
IC
V
IC
V
IC
V
IC
V
IC
V
SETSSSDrawing File Name: Buttermilk-Overpass118 West Sixth Street, Suite 200Glenwood Springs, CO 81601970.945.1004 www.sgm-inc.com Project No./Code5----Sheet NumberNo Revisions:Revised:Void:DateCommentsInit.Rev.Sheet RevisionsComputer File InformationPrint Date: 6/5/23Last Modification Date: 6/5/23 MLFAutocad Ver. 2022SGM Project No.: 2022-282.001As ConstructedScale: As ShownQuality Control:Engineer:Drawn By:Sheet Subset:MLFMWMStructureNumbersBUTTERMILK CROSSINGSOUTH RAMP & OVERPASS PLAN & PROFILEOVERPASS1 of 2Subset Sheets:----Graphic ScaleIn Feet: 1" = 60'0306012050
F
FT STCE
FTRTR SSSSSTRDDDDFF
F
F
F
T
R
ET
T
R DDICVSTREE ICVEM
IC
VICBICB ICBICBICBICBICBUU UIC
V
IC
V
IC
V
IC
V
IC
V
IC
V
IC
V
IC
V
IC
V
SSSDrawing File Name: Buttermilk-Overpass118 West Sixth Street, Suite 200Glenwood Springs, CO 81601970.945.1004 www.sgm-inc.com Project No./Code6----Sheet NumberNo Revisions:Revised:Void:DateCommentsInit.Rev.Sheet RevisionsComputer File InformationPrint Date: 6/5/23Last Modification Date: 6/5/23 MLFAutocad Ver. 2022SGM Project No.: 2022-282.001As ConstructedScale: As ShownQuality Control:Engineer:Drawn By:Sheet Subset:MLFMWMStructureNumbersBUTTERMILK CROSSINGNORTH OVERPASS RAMP PLAN & PROFILEOVERPASS2 of 2Subset Sheets:----Graphic ScaleIn Feet: 1" = 60'0306012051
UIC
V
E
IC
V
IC
V
IC
V
EIREMICBS SETETEMTRTRICV
F
F THY D
F
FTGGVGVSSSGTIC
V
IC
B
ICB
ICB ICBICB
UUUICVICVICVICV
IC
V
IC
V
IC
V
IC
V
IC
V
IC
V
IC
V
IC
V
ICVICVICVSET
SSSGVTTF UFSGT EMTREMEE TRTRETETF
FT
F STCE
FTRTR
SSSSSSSSSE TRTRDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDF FFFTR
F
F
T
R
ET
F
TR
GDrawing File Name: Buttermilk-OverpassUtilityRelocation118 West Sixth Street, Suite 200Glenwood Springs, CO 81601970.945.1004 www.sgm-inc.com Project No./Code7----Sheet NumberNo Revisions:Revised:Void:DateCommentsInit.Rev.Sheet RevisionsComputer File InformationPrint Date: 6/5/23Last Modification Date: 6/5/23 MLFAutocad Ver. 2022SGM Project No.: 2022-282.001As ConstructedScale: As ShownQuality Control:Engineer:Drawn By:Sheet Subset:MLFMWMStructureNumbersBUTTERMILK CROSSINGOVERPASS UTILITY RELOCATION PLANUTILITY2 of 2Subset Sheets:----Graphic ScaleIn Feet: 1" = 50'0255010052
EOTC – Buttermilk Crossing and Transit Signal Bypass June 2023
Evaluation of Alternatives Appendix B
Appendix B
Underpass Renderings
Overpass Renderings
53
Underpass Crossing - Looking Upvalley
54
Underpass Crossing - Looking Downvalley from
South Approach Ramp
55
Underpass Crossing - Looking Upvalley from
North Approach Ramps
56
Underpass Crossing - Looking
toward Maroon Creek Club, from
Buttermilk Parking Lot
57
Underpass Crossing - Looking Downvalley
from North Approach Ramp
58
Overpass Crossing - Looking Upvalley
59
Overpass Crossing - Looking Downvalley
60
EOTC – Buttermilk Crossing and Transit Signal Bypass June 2023
Evaluation of Alternatives Appendix C
Appendix C
Engineers Estimate of Probable Cost
61
Construction Item Cost
Structural Work (Shoring, Excavation, Backfill, Concrete, Rebar, Railing)
Underpass Structure 1,563,000$
South Approach Structure (Buttermilk)704,000$
North Approach Structure (Maroon Creek Club)3,518,000$
Railings/Fencing 547,000$
Civil Work (Removals, Unclass. Excavation, Basecourse, Surfacing)893,000$
Misc Civil (Signing, Striping, Signals)100,000$
Utility Relocation (Water, Sanitary, Storm, Electric, Gas, Fiber)*1,094,350$
Snow Melt System 600,000$
Subtotal (a)9,019,350$
% of (a)
Traffic Control 20.0%1,803,870$
Construction Surveying 1.5%135,290$
Temporary Erosion Control 1.0%90,194$
Lighting 4.0%360,774$
Aesthetic Treatments 3.0%270,581$
Landscaping 2.0%180,387$
Subtotal (b)11,860,445$
% of (b)
Mobilization and Force Accounts 10.0%1,186,045$
Design Contigency 30.0%3,558,134$
Construction Cost Total (2023 Pricing) (c)16,604,623$
% of (c)
Inflation/Escalation Estimate 8.0%1,328,370$
Construction Cost Total (2025 Pricing) (d)17,932,993$
Engineering and Design Costs
% of (d)
Final Design Fees 5.0%896,650$
Construction Engineering 10.0%1,793,299$
Permitting 0.2%35,866$
ROW/Property Valuation/Easements 0.4%75,000$
Engineering and Design Subtotal 2,725,815$
Underpass - Project Total 20,659,000$ Option 1 -Underpass *All utility relocation costs are included in the construction cost. It is possible that some of these
relocation costs will be borne by the respective utility owners.
Buttermilk Crossing Estimate of Probable Cost - Option 1
62
Buttermilk Crossing Estimate of Probable Cost - Option 1Structural, Civil, and Utility Line ItemsSTRUCTURALITEMQTYUNITUNIT COSTCOSTSUBTOTALUnderpass 1 Structure 130 LF 12,000$ 1,562,280$ 1 North Wall (MCC)10,500 SF 225$ 2,362,500$ 2 SH-82 West Wall2,742 SF 200$ 548,400$ 3 SH-82 East Wall3,032 SF 200$ 606,400$ 1 South Wall - Concrete 1,812 SF 215$ 389,580$ 2 South Wall - Boulder362 SF 175$ 63,350$ 3 North Wall - Concrete 363 SF 215$ 78,045$ 4 North Wall - Boulder506 SF 175$ 88,550$ -$ 1 North Ramp (north side of trail) 526 LF 150$ 78,900$ 2 North Ramp (south side of trail) 526 LF 150$ 78,900$ 3 South Ramp (north side of trail) 175 LF 150$ 26,250$ 4 South Ramp (south side of trail) 175 LF 150$ 26,250$ -$ Pedestrian Rail 1 South Walls155 LF 450$ 69,750$ 2 North Walls40 LF 450$ 18,000$ -$ Safety Rail 1 North Wall (MCC)618 LF 225$ 139,050$ 2 SH-82 West Wall150 LF 225$ 33,750$ 3 SH-82 East Wall175 LF 225$ 39,375$ -$ Snowfence 1 SH-82 West Wall27 LF 400$ 10,800$ 2 SH-82 East Wall26 LF 400$ 10,400$ 3 Underpass 38 LF 400$ 15,200$ -$ Stairs 1 South Ramp240 SF 350$ 84,000$ 6,329,730$ North RampSouth RampHandrail63
CIVILITEMQTYUNITUNIT COSTCOSTSUBTOTAL1 REMOVAL OF ASPHALT MAT 733 SY 15$ 10,995$ 2 REMOVAL OF SIDEWALK 1,459 SY 55$ 80,269$ 3 REMOVAL OF CURB & GUTTER 318 LF 25$ 7,950$ Excavation 1 UNCLASSIFIED EXCAVATION 7,409 CY 50$ 370,450$ 1 AGGREGATE BASE COURSE (CLASS 6) 685 TON 100$ 68,500$ 2 HOT MIX ASPHALT (GRADING SX (75)(PG 58-28) 247 TON 250$ 61,750$ 3 CONCRETE PAVEMENT (6 INCH) 1,789 SY 150$ 268,333$ 4 CURB TYPE 2 (SECTION B) 318 LF 75$ 23,850$ 892,098$ UTILITIESITEMQTYUNITUNIT COSTCOSTSUBTOTALSanitary 1 12 INCH PLASTIC PIPE 324 LF 350$ 113,400$ Irrigation Ditch 1 30 INCH PLASTIC PIPE 361 LF 363$ 130,863$ 1 8 INCH DUCTILE IRON PIPE 602 LF 363$ 218,225$ 2 18 INCH DUCTILE IRON PIPE 327 LF 525$ 171,675$ 1 3 INCH ELECTRICAL CONDUIT 249 LF 63$ 15,563$ 2 6 INCH HIGH PRESSURE GAS LINE 352 LF 500$ 176,000$ 1 24 INCH PLASTIC PIPE 365 LF 325$ 118,625$ 2 PUMP STATION1 EACH 150,000$ 150,000$ 1,094,350$ Notes:-Underpass costs includes earthwork, concrete, reinforcement, waterproofing, shoring, structural coating-Wall costs includes earthwork, concrete, reinforcement, waterproofing, drainage, structural coatingWaterStormPrivate UtilityRemovalsSurfacing64
Construction Item Cost
Structural Work (Earthwork, Concrete, MSE Wall, Rebar, Railing, Stairs)
Overpass Structure 953,000$
South Approach Structure (Buttermilk)1,147,000$
North Approach Structure (Maroon Creek Club)826,000$
Railings/Fencing 914,000$
Civil Work (Removals, Basecourse, Surfacing)253,000$
Misc Civil (Signing, Striping, Signals)75,000$
Utility Relocation (Water, Sanitary, Irrigation)*565,000$
Snow Melt System 600,000$
Subtotal (a)5,333,000$
% of (a)
Traffic Control 20.0%1,066,600$
Construction Surveying 1.5%79,995$
Temporary Erosion Control 1.0%53,330$
Lighting 2.0%106,660$
Aesthetic Treatments 3.0%159,990$
Landscaping 3.0%159,990$
Subtotal (b)6,959,565$
% of (b)
Mobilization and Force Accounts 10.0%695,957$
Design Contigency 30.0%2,087,870$
Estimated Construction Cost Total (2023 Pricing) (c)9,743,391$
% of (c)
Inflation/Escalation Estimate 8.0%779,471$
Construction Cost Total (2025 Pricing) (d)10,522,862$
Engineering and Design Costs
% of (d)
Final Design Fees 5.0%526,143$
Construction Engineering 10.0%1,052,286$
Permitting/ROW/Property Valuation/Easements 0.7%75,000$
Engineering and Design Subtotal 1,653,429$
Overpass (Truss) - Project Total 12,177,000$ Option 2A - Overpass - Prefabricated Truss*All antipated utility relocation costs are included in the construction cost. It is possible that some
of these relocation costs will be borne by the respective utility owners.
Buttermilk Crossing Estimate of Probable Cost - Option 2A
65
Construction Item Cost
Structural Work (Earthwork, Concrete, MSE Wall, Rebar, Railing, Stairs)
Overpass Structure 1,592,000$
South Approach Structure (Buttermilk)1,147,000$
North Approach Structure (Maroon Creek Club)826,000$
Railings/Fencing 914,000$
Civil Work (Removals, Basecourse, Surfacing)253,000$
Misc Civil (Signing, Striping, Signals)75,000$
Utility Relocation (Water, Sanitary, Irrigation)*564,713$
Snow Melt System 600,000$
Subtotal (a)5,971,713$
% of (a)
Traffic Control 18.0%1,074,908$
Construction Surveying 1.5%89,576$
Temporary Erosion Control 1.0%59,717$
Lighting 2.0%119,434$
Aesthetic Treatments 2.8%164,222$
Landscaping 2.8%164,222$
Subtotal (b)7,643,792$
% of (b)
Mobilization and Force Accounts 10.0%764,379$
Design Contigency 30.0%2,293,138$
Estimated Construction Cost Total (2023 Pricing) (c)10,701,309$
% of (c)
Inflation/Escalation Estimate 8.0%856,105$
Construction Cost Total (2025 Pricing) (d)11,557,414$
Engineering and Design Costs
% of (d)
Final Design Fees 6.0%693,445$
Construction Engineering 10.0%1,155,741$
Permitting/ROW/Property Valuation/Easements 0.6%75,000$
Engineering and Design Subtotal 1,924,186$
Overpass (Arch) - Project Total 13,482,000$ Option 2B - Overpass - Arch*All antipated utility relocation costs are included in the construction cost. It is possible that some of
these relocation costs will be borne by the respective utility owners.
Buttermilk Crossing Estimate of Probable Cost - Option 2B
66
Buttermilk Crossing Estimate of Probable Cost - Option 2Structural, Civil, and Utility Line ItemsTRUSSARCHSTRUCTURALITEMQTYUNITUNIT COSTCOSTSUBTOTALSUBTOTALOverpass 1A Structure (Truss)2560 SF 372$ 952,359$ 1B Structure (Truss)2560 SF 622$ 1,592,000$ 1 SH-82 West Wall (MSE) 2,062 SF 205$ 422,608$ 2 SH-82 East Wall (MSE) 1,971 SF 205$ 404,055$ 1 Wall (MSE)690 SF 220$ 151,800$ 2 Elevated Concrete Slab 3,360 SF 225$ 756,000$ Handrail & Slope Protection1 North Ramp (north side of trail) 614 LF 300$ 184,200$ 1 North Walls (without handrail) 165 LF 450$ 74,250$ 2 North Walls (with handrail) 360 LF 500$ 180,000$ 3 South Ramp (with handrail) 551 LF 500$ 275,500$ -$ Throw Fence 1 Overpass320 LF 625$ 200,000$ -$ Stairs 1 South Ramp1,030 SF 250$ 257,500$ 3,858,272$ 4,497,913$ CIVILITEMQTYUNITUNIT COSTCOSTSUBTOTAL1 REMOVAL OF SIDEWALK 700 SY 55$ 38,500$ 2 REMOVAL OF CURB & GUTTER 200 LF 25$ 5,000$ 1 AGGREGATE BASE COURSE (CLASS 6) 337 TON 100$ 33,672$ 2 CONCRETE PAVEMENT (6 INCH) 1,069 SY 150$ 160,343$ 3 CURB TYPE 2 (SECTION B) 200 LF 75$ 15,000$ 252,515$ UTILITIESITEMQTYUNITUNIT COSTCOSTSUBTOTALSanitary 1 12 INCH PLASTIC PIPE 141 LF 350$ 49,350$ Irrigation Ditch 1 30 INCH PLASTIC PIPE 305 LF 363$ 110,563$ 1 8 INCH DUCTILE IRON PIPE 400 LF 363$ 145,000$ 2 18 INCH DUCTILE IRON PIPE 352 LF 525$ 184,800$ Misc.1 MINOR RELOCATES AT BRIDGE ABUTMENTS 1 LS 75,000$ 75,000$ 564,713$ Notes:-Overpass Truss includes prefabricated weathering steel truss, concrete deck, earthwork, foundations-South Ramp Elevated Concrete Slab includes earthwork, foundations, concrete, reinforcement-Wall costs includes earthwork, soil reinforcement, footer, precast panel facing, copingPedestrian RailNorth RampSouth RampSurfacingWater67
EOTC – Buttermilk Crossing and Transit Signal Bypass June 2023
Evaluation of Alternatives Appendix D
Appendix D
Transit Bypass Alternatives Assessment
Geotechnical Report
Elevator Memo
Site Distance Exhibit
Design Criteria Matrix
68
1
January 24, 2023
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
To: File #16038.000
From: Steve Sabinash
Re: SH-82 at Buttermilk
High-Level Transit Bypass Alternatives Assessment
Executive Summary
Pitkin County is proposing to construct a grade-separated pedestrian crossing along SH-82 near the Buttermilk Ski Area. SGM,
the County’s design consultant, requested ACL complete a high -level review to identify issues of concern pertaining to two
potential bypass alternatives, Concepts 1A and 1B, which introduce alternative transit bypass lane options in both directions of
SH-82 through the offset signalized “T” intersections at Harmony Road and Owl Creek Road. Exhibits depicting proposed
Concepts 1A and 1B are attached.
Following an informal, high-level review focusing on safety and operational factors, we identified areas of potential concern
and consequently cannot recommend either Concept.
Mead & Hunt Previous Study
Pitkin County conducted a recent technical study for an extended portion of SH-82 near the entrance to Aspen, which included
the Harmony/Owl Creek highway segment. The study process and findings are documented in the June 2021 “State Highway
82 Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study” by Mead & Hunt (M&H). The M&H project started with data collection, and
progressed through modeling, analysis, public outreach and documentation and is deemed a sound technical resource. Several
multimodal alternatives including pedestrian, bicycle and transit improvements were identified in the M&H report, but the dis-
cussion herein is constrained to preferred Concepts 1A and 1B, and is limited to the segment of SH -82 through the Harmony
and Owl Creek intersections. Concepts 1A and 1B are not explicitly identified in the report, although both were developed by
M&H at the conclusion of the study.
The study identifies and compares travel times along SH -82 through the Harmony/Owl Creek segment for the existing condi-
tion, no-build condition, and four study alternatives. Because Alternatives 1 and 4 provide a grade separation for pedestrians at
Owl Creek, these two options best align with the current SGM effort. Alternative 1 specifically includes bus bypass lanes at
Harmony and Owl Creek with the grade separation; Alternative 4 provides the grade separation without the bypass lanes. Pro-
jected travel times are briefly summarized below but are also listed in detail as an attachment to this memo.
Summary Table—Travel Times through Project Area by Mode and Alternative (Source: Mead & Hunt)
Note that projected travel time savings values across the identified travel modes generally do not show significant decreases
through the project area and in some cases, a degradation in service can be expected.
Travel Times at Harmony/Owl Ck (Minutes) Existing No Build Alternative 1 Alternative 4
AM Down-Valley (WB) Truscott to Airport Slip Ramp 2:20 SOV
3:06 BRT
4:18 Bus
2:20 SOV
3:04 BRT
4:17 Bus
2:13 SOV
2:52 BRT
4:05 Bus
2:12 SOV
2:49 BRT
4:05 Bus
PM Down-Valley (WB) Truscott to Airport Slip Ramp 2:32 SOV
3:09 BRT
4:25 Bus
2:32 SOV
3:19 BRT
4:27 Bus
2:21 SOV
3:01 BRT
4:13 Bus
2:22 SOV
3:03 BRT
4:10 Bus
AM Up-Valley (EB) Airport Slip Ramp to Truscott 7:14 SOV
3:38 BRT
5:07 Bus
7:05 SOV
2:51 BRT
4:17 Bus
9:10 SOV
3:44 BRT
5:57 Bus
8:46 SOV
3:22 BRT
4:39 Bus
PM Up-Valley (EB) Airport Slip Ramp to Truscott 2:45 SOV
2:58 BRT
4:10 Bus
2:44 SOV
2:58 BRT
4:09 Bus
3:33 SOV
3:02 BRT
4:06 Bus
3:38 SOV
3:05 BRT
4:19 Bus
69
2
January 24, 2023
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SH-82 at Buttermilk,
High-Level Transit Bypass Alternatives Assessment
Page 2
Down-Valley (WB) Discussion
Down-Valley (WB) Existing Conditions. Heading out of Aspen and approaching Owl Creek Road, SH-82 has two lanes: a left
general purpose lane and a right bus-dedicated lane. About 250’ before reaching Owl Creek, both lanes are striped to allow
general purpose use, yielding an additional lane of capacity through the signal. Immediately thereafter, a right turn lane i s add-
ed, which serves two purposes—as a right turn lane to Harmony Road, and as a transit pull-off for down-valley traffic. When
the bus departs the transit stop, it may use the right turn lane to progress through the Harmony signal, as buses are excepte d
from the right turn requirement at that point. Beyond Harmony, down -valley buses continue in the right acceleration lane prior
to merging into SH-82 further downstream.
Concept 1A Down-Valley (WB) Transit Bypass Lane. Concept 1A depicts a single (left side) general purpose lane plus one a
single (right side) dedicated bus lane through the Owl Creek intersection. This differs from the existing condition in which the
right lane is converted to general use 250’ upstream of the stop line. The bus lane becomes physically separated from the gen-
eral purpose lane using curb and/or barrier to allow transit vehicles to pass through the Owl Creek signal without stopping. Past
the signal, the dedicated bus lane is brought immediately into the transit pull-off area and bus stop to the right of the right turn
lane approaching Harmony. Upon leaving the bus stop, all buses would enter the down -valley right turn lane via a conventional
merge prior to Harmony and use the acceleration lane past the signal to merge with down -valley traffic further downstream.
Note that Concepts 1A and 1B in the down-valley direction are the same.
Concept 1A Down-Valley (WB) Concerns. One potential shortcoming of proposed Concept 1A down-valley might be that only
a single general purpose lane is provided on SH-82 through Owl Creek. The existing striping down-valley appears to allow an
additional lane of capacity through the last 250’ of the approach for extra throughput and may be needed to maintain acceptable
operations through the Owl Creek intersection. If the County feels two general purpose lanes should be provided through Owl
Creek, it appears a down-valley configuration here including two left-turn lanes, two general purpose lanes, the bus bypass lane
and a minimal shoulder could be provided on the immediate approach with only minor impact to the proposed roadway cross -
section. Should this option be considered, minor realignment of the sidewalk and physical separation between the bus lane an d
a short segment of the proposed sidewalk, is likely needed. The down -valley concept as shown sends all buses from the dedi-
cated bus lane directly into the bus stop area including an alignment shift. RFTA has indicated that all down -valley buses must
stop at this location, therefore buses will generally not be moving through the bypass at highway speeds.
Buses departing the stop would be required to execute a conventional merge into the right turn lane before progressing throug h
the Harmony signal. Because all buses are required to stop between the intersections, and only a low -speed merge is required,
the down-valley direction does not appear to present unusual safety or operational concerns. If the preferred concept were mod-
ified to allow buses to pass through without stopping and at highway speeds, a potentially hazardous merge/weave condition is
introduced similar to that described below for the up-valley direction
Concept 1B Down-Valley (WB) Transit Bypass Lane. The proposed down-valley layout depicted for Concept 1B is the same
as the Concept 1A configuration.
Concept 1B Down-Valley (WB) Concerns. The discussion for the down-valley direction pertaining to Concept 1A also applies
to Concept 1B.
Up-Valley Discussion
Up-Valley (EB) Existing Conditions. Similar to the opposing direction, two lanes, a single (left side) general purpose lane
and a single (right side) bus-dedicated lane are provided approaching Harmony going toward Aspen. Past Harmony, a right turn
lane is added and right turning vehicles must weave across the bus lane to reach the right turn lane prior to Owl Creek. The
concept for the right turn movement crossing the bus lane is similar to how a bike lane and added right turn lane are convent ion-
ally addressed in the MUTCD. At the downstream intersection, buses cross Owl Creek in the dedicated transit lane, which con-
tinues up-valley into Aspen.
Concept 1A Up-Valley (EB) Transit Bypass Lane. Like the existing condition, one up-valley general purpose lane and one bus
lane are provided through Harmony. Upstream, the right bus-dedicated lane is physically separated with curb and/or barrier
from the up-valley left general purpose lane to allow up-valley buses to pass through Harmony at speed without stopping. Just
past the signal, an up-valley right turn lane is added, and right turning vehicles must weave across the bus lane to reach the r ight
turn lane prior to Owl Creek Road.
Concept 1A Up-Valley (EB) Concerns. Because the concept for the bus lane past Harmony combined with the added right turn
lane is similar to how a bike lane and right turn are typically handled per MUTCD, this would not ordinarily seem to be a mat ter
of concern—however, it becomes an issue in this instance because up-valley buses may be passing through Harmony at cruising
speeds prior to slowing at Owl Creek, and many of the weaving vehicles trying to access the right turn lane may be coming
from a stop condition, be they some of the up-valley through vehicles or all of the left turns from Harmony.
70
3
January 24, 2023
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SH-82 at Buttermilk,
High-Level Transit Bypass Alternatives Assessment
Page 3
Speed discrepancies in a weaving section are always a safety concern, particularly if the faster of the two vehicles is much
larger than a conventional automobile; and the weave occurs immediately following a left turn.
Driver expectancy is also a paramount concern, because a vehicle turning left from Harmony would ordinarily expect a “free”
movement into any lane of the driver’s choice on up-valley SH-82 after turning at the signal, and in this case, the Concept
inserts an unexpected weave with a potentially fast-moving and much larger transit vehicle. Furthermore, due to high tourism
levels in the vicinity, there are many drivers in the vehicle population who will be unfamiliar with the area, do not know th e
local roadway system, and will not be anticipating an unusual and unexpected roadway configuration.
On one hand, there are only a few buses per hour, even during peak periods so the conflicts are not many, but on the other
hand, any weaving crashes here could be severe, with property damage, and the potential for serious injuries, given the likel y
discrepancies between vehicle speeds and vehicle sizes.
Concept 1B Up-Valley (EB) Bypass Lane. The Concept 1A layout is modified in Concept 1B to allow two up-valley general
purpose lanes through Harmony and Owl Creek plus a physically separated bus lane. The bus lane is combined with the right
turn lane approaching Owl Creek and buses and general purpose vehicles will mix in this lane. At a point beyond Owl Creek,
the second general purpose lane is dropped, with a single general purpose lane plus a bus lane then proceeding toward Aspen.
Concept IB Up-Valley (EB) Concerns. The weaving issue identified for Concept 1A becomes a merge condition prior to Owl
Creek in Concept 1B, but many of the contributing factors are similar as there issues remain with regard to: 1] speed discrep-
ancies; 2] vehicle size discrepancies; and 3] driver expectancy. While still problematic, the merge is deemed a less difficu lt
maneuver than the weave, due to: 1] the need to reposition a single lane to the right, rather than two lanes to the right —not
quite as significant an issue as Concept 1A; and 2] the likelihood of right turning vehicles slowing or stopped in the combin ed
bus/right turn lane at OC will tend to reduce bus speeds on the up-valley approach as buses pass through Harmony.
A second concern is presented by introducing two up-valley general purpose lanes—one lane has been added from the exist-
ing condition, with the existing up-valley merge moved toward Aspen from the airport vicinity. We surmise the second up -
valley lane may have been added for capacity through the two signals. Concept 1B takes the two general purpose lanes
through Owl Creek, then shows an abrupt merge to a single lane just past the bus stop, then adds the dedicated bus lane imme-
diately back into the up-valley lanes. Moving the merge to the Concept 1B location will tend to create slowing and back -ups
through the project area, and may physically fill the area between the two intersections up -valley. Also, we expect these back-
ups may create a condition in which bus access to the bus lane past Owl Creek may be blocked by queued general purpose
vehicles. To preclude this, it appears the second general purpose lane would need to be closed after Owl Creek using curb,
barrier or other physical means, but this introduces a crash hazard. A suggested solution would be to have the up -valley
merge remain upstream of Harmony to match the existing condition at the expense of additional capacity through the signals.
Up-Valley (EB) Summary. In both cases, the up-valley concepts appear to introduce an admittedly small probability of a
significant crash, which in our opinion is unacceptable. We therefore cannot support either option.
Conclusions
Down-valley, we feel both concepts require minor modification, but could be more easily be modified into a successful con-
cept than the other direction, due in part to the bus stop location between the intersections and slower bus speeds as a cons e-
quence of all buses being required to stop. Additional capacity in the form of a second general purpose lane on WB SH -82
could and probably should be added to both down-valley concepts through Owl Creek because they do not appear to present
significant design or construction impacts.
In the up-valley direction, we feel both concepts require significant modification to address potential safety and operational
concerns and we can recommend neither at this time. The layout of the two up -valley general purpose lanes in Concept 1B
move the existing merge toward Aspen and may be a significant political issue. Otherwise, the weave/merge conflicts in this
direction prior to Owl Creek appear significant (more so for Concept 1A) and are in our opinion, not acceptable.
END TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Attachments
71
SH-82 Segment Level Travel Time Comparison (by Mead Hunt)
Existing No Build Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Existing No Build Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Existing No Build Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4
1 EB Brush Creek Rd Service Center Rd 2.0 02:37 07:28 02:50 02:43 07:28 02:29 02:16 02:52 02:34 02:30 02:52 02:20 02:16 02:48 02:30 02:29 02:48 02:23
2 EB Service Center Rd Airport Business Center Rd 0.3 01:37 05:43 01:06 00:39 05:43 01:01 00:31 00:29 00:32 00:31 00:29 00:31 01:16 01:15 01:15 01:16 01:15 01:16
3 EB Airport Business Center Rd Airport Rd Slip Ramp 0.5 04:34 08:04 02:27 00:47 06:55 02:33 01:20 01:42 01:28 01:32 01:31 01:37 01:21 01:40 01:31 01:31 01:30 01:35
4 EB Airport Rd Slip Ramp Harmony Rd 0.4 04:43 04:35 02:22 00:59 03:57 03:12 01:08 00:27 00:31 00:36 00:26 00:32 01:15 00:27 00:31 00:32 00:26 00:32
5 EB Harmony Rd Owl Creek Rd 0.1 00:45 00:46 01:03 00:38 00:40 00:45 00:23 00:17 00:17 00:27 00:16 00:36 00:24 00:22 00:25 00:29 00:20 00:36
6 EB Owl Creek Rd Trusctott Pl 1.0 01:36 01:44 05:45 01:42 01:44 04:49 02:07 02:07 03:56 02:16 02:07 02:14 03:28 03:25 05:01 03:33 03:25 03:31
7 EB Trusctott Pl Maroon Creek RndAbt 0.5 02:05 02:17 03:17 01:56 02:17 03:16 01:28 01:30 01:27 01:37 01:30 01:24 03:01 03:05 03:24 03:23 03:05 03:16
8 EB Maroon Creek RndAbt Cemetary Ln 0.3 00:37 00:37 00:43 00:32 00:37 00:44 00:38 00:38 00:43 00:33 00:38 00:46 00:37 00:38 00:45 00:32 00:38 00:46
9 EB Cemetary Ln 7th St 0.3 00:56 00:56 00:57 01:03 00:56 00:57 01:32 01:31 01:31 01:36 01:31 01:33 01:30 01:29 01:30 01:33 01:29 01:31
10 EB 7th St 3rd St 0.4 01:08 01:08 01:08 01:08 01:08 01:08 01:09 01:09 01:09 01:09 01:09 01:09 01:42 01:43 01:42 01:43 01:43 01:43
Brush Creek Rd 3rd St 5.9 20:37 33:19 21:39 12:07 31:26 20:55 12:31 12:43 14:08 12:46 12:30 12:43 16:50 16:52 18:34 17:02 16:39 17:09
11 WB 3rd St 7th St 0.4 01:16 01:16 01:16 01:16 01:16 01:16 01:14 01:14 01:14 01:14 01:14 01:14 01:15 01:15 01:15 01:15 01:15 01:15
12 WB 7th St Cemetary Ln 0.3 00:49 00:50 00:50 00:46 00:50 00:51 01:23 01:27 01:24 01:21 01:27 01:24 01:20 01:20 01:18 01:16 01:20 01:19
13 WB Cemetary Ln Maroon Creek RndAbt 0.3 00:49 00:50 00:40 00:40 00:50 00:40 00:49 00:48 00:38 00:38 00:48 00:38 02:30 02:26 02:22 02:19 02:26 02:18
14 WB Maroon Creek RndAbt Trusctott Pl 0.5 00:48 00:48 00:48 00:48 00:48 00:48 00:47 00:49 00:47 00:47 00:49 00:46 01:29 01:30 01:28 01:29 01:30 01:29
15 WB Trusctott Pl Owl Creek Rd 1.0 01:37 01:37 01:32 01:37 01:37 01:31 01:37 01:36 01:26 01:37 01:36 01:26 02:48 02:47 02:38 02:50 02:47 02:37
16 WB Owl Creek Rd Harmony Rd 0.1 00:13 00:13 00:11 00:12 00:11 00:11 00:58 00:57 00:55 01:01 00:42 00:53 00:59 00:59 00:56 01:02 00:44 00:57
17 WB Harmony Rd Airport Rd Slip Ramp 0.4 00:30 00:30 00:30 00:30 00:27 00:30 00:31 00:31 00:31 00:31 00:28 00:30 00:31 00:31 00:31 00:31 00:28 00:31
18 WB Airport Rd Slip Ramp Airport Business Center Rd 0.5 00:55 01:02 01:07 01:05 00:53 01:04 01:41 01:55 01:44 01:34 01:31 01:44 01:44 01:56 01:40 01:35 01:31 01:52
19 WB Airport Business Center Rd Service Center Rd 0.3 00:27 00:27 00:31 00:31 00:27 00:27 00:31 00:31 01:14 00:39 00:31 00:31 00:34 00:34 00:49 00:52 00:34 00:34
20 WB Service Center Rd Brush Creek Rd 2.0 02:47 02:13 02:21 02:20 02:13 02:19 02:48 02:15 02:20 02:23 02:15 02:21 03:35 03:02 03:07 03:08 03:02 03:07
3rd St Brush Creek Rd 5.9 10:11 09:44 09:45 09:44 09:31 09:35 12:20 12:02 12:12 11:47 11:21 11:28 16:43 16:19 16:03 16:18 15:36 15:59
Existing No Build Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Existing No Build Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Existing No Build Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4
1 EB Brush Creek Rd Service Center Rd 2.0 02:11 02:12 02:24 02:24 02:12 02:19 02:14 02:16 02:22 02:20 02:14 02:14 02:14 02:12 02:25 02:26 02:14 02:20
2 EB Service Center Rd Airport Business Center Rd 0.3 00:33 00:30 00:34 00:39 00:31 00:37 00:29 00:23 00:27 00:31 00:26 00:28 01:16 01:16 01:14 01:14 01:12 01:19
3 EB Airport Business Center Rd Airport Rd Slip Ramp 0.5 00:33 00:35 00:48 00:43 00:34 00:42 01:19 01:22 01:26 01:21 01:18 01:22 01:21 01:21 01:36 01:34 01:18 01:30
4 EB Airport Rd Slip Ramp Harmony Rd 0.4 00:34 00:33 00:38 00:37 00:38 00:33 00:29 00:27 00:33 00:30 00:33 00:30 00:29 00:27 00:33 00:35 00:33 00:33
5 EB Harmony Rd Owl Creek Rd 0.1 00:36 00:38 00:22 00:21 00:34 00:30 00:18 00:15 00:18 00:20 00:19 00:21 00:18 00:23 00:32 00:19 00:20 00:20
6 EB Owl Creek Rd Trusctott Pl 1.0 01:35 01:33 02:33 02:18 01:50 02:35 02:11 02:16 02:11 02:12 02:12 02:14 03:23 03:19 03:31 03:27 03:25 03:26
7 EB Trusctott Pl Maroon Creek RndAbt 0.5 02:12 02:02 03:18 03:15 02:28 03:18 01:25 01:32 01:25 01:23 01:25 01:28 05:09 05:02 05:47 05:36 05:39 05:46
8 EB Maroon Creek RndAbt Cemetary Ln 0.3 00:37 00:36 00:31 00:31 00:37 00:31 00:40 00:37 00:31 00:31 00:38 00:31 00:37 00:37 00:31 00:32 00:39 00:33
9 EB Cemetary Ln 7th St 0.3 00:55 00:55 00:55 00:55 00:56 00:55 01:27 01:29 01:27 01:27 01:30 01:29 01:29 01:28 01:28 01:28 01:29 01:28
10 EB 7th St 3rd St 0.4 01:08 01:08 01:08 01:08 01:08 01:08 01:09 01:09 01:08 01:09 01:07 01:09 01:43 01:42 01:42 01:43 01:43 01:43
Brush Creek Rd 3rd St 5.9 10:55 10:42 13:10 12:52 11:27 13:07 11:41 11:45 11:48 11:43 11:41 11:45 18:00 17:47 19:19 18:54 18:31 18:59
11 WB 3rd St 7th St 0.4 04:59 05:38 01:28 01:28 05:20 01:28 02:26 02:33 01:23 01:22 02:09 01:22 02:16 02:22 01:21 01:21 02:15 01:21
12 WB 7th St Cemetary Ln 0.3 02:07 02:11 00:49 00:49 02:02 00:49 02:48 03:02 01:30 01:28 02:49 01:30 02:37 02:43 01:23 01:23 02:29 01:23
13 WB Cemetary Ln Maroon Creek RndAbt 0.3 01:35 01:42 00:43 00:44 01:31 00:44 01:28 01:26 00:43 00:43 01:26 00:43 03:40 03:50 03:10 03:09 03:44 03:11
14 WB Maroon Creek RndAbt Trusctott Pl 0.5 00:52 00:51 00:56 00:56 00:52 00:55 00:47 00:51 00:47 00:54 00:47 00:47 01:30 01:30 01:29 01:30 01:30 01:29
15 WB Trusctott Pl Owl Creek Rd 1.0 01:39 01:38 01:34 01:35 01:39 01:34 01:38 01:45 01:28 01:33 01:35 01:29 02:51 02:48 02:40 02:45 02:52 02:40
16 WB Owl Creek Rd Harmony Rd 0.1 00:19 00:18 00:13 00:13 00:32 00:15 01:00 01:03 01:00 01:02 01:03 01:03 01:03 01:08 01:02 01:06 01:04 00:59
17 WB Harmony Rd Airport Rd Slip Ramp 0.4 00:34 00:36 00:34 00:34 00:35 00:33 00:31 00:31 00:33 00:31 00:31 00:31 00:31 00:31 00:31 00:31 00:32 00:31
18 WB Airport Rd Slip Ramp Airport Business Center Rd 0.5 01:11 01:32 01:09 01:27 01:12 01:35 01:36 01:39 02:26 01:42 01:14 01:40 01:36 01:39 01:43 01:42 01:15 01:40
19 WB Airport Business Center Rd Service Center Rd 0.3 00:29 00:29 00:36 00:34 00:29 00:29 00:33 00:32 01:52 00:34 00:33 00:32 00:34 00:35 00:35 00:36 00:34 00:34
20 WB Service Center Rd Brush Creek Rd 2.0 05:47 09:41 03:42 03:33 10:15 03:43 02:20 02:26 02:26 02:31 02:20 02:31 03:13 03:21 03:30 03:27 03:18 03:30
3rd St Brush Creek Rd 5.9 19:31 24:38 11:44 11:53 24:28 12:05 15:06 15:49 14:08 12:22 14:27 12:08 19:51 20:26 17:24 17:31 19:32 17:17
AM Peak Hour
Eastbound
Westbound
Segment Dir Start End Segment
Length (mi)
PM Peak Hour
Segment
Westbound
BusBRTSOV
SOV BRT Bus
Dir Start End Segment
Length (mi)
Eastbound
72
1RIGHTRFTA BUSESANDONLYVEHICLESEMERGENCYOPERATOR:FILE NAME:PLOTTED:02430 - X:\4191200\210345.01\PLNG\CAD\drawings\SH82_BusBypass_Concept_updated 9.27.21.dgn9/28/2021Sheet No. __
Harmony Road and Owl Creek Road: Concept 1A
SH-82 Bus By-PassSTOPPINGEMERGENCYONLYUTTERMILKBPANDASPOWERONLYONLYONLY ROADOWL CREEKEXCEPTEDBUSESDO NOTBLOCKINTERSECTIONONLYONLY
30'30'0 60'
SCALE: 1"=30'OWL CREEK ROAD.DR YNOMRAHNEXISTING TYPICAL SECTION: SH-82 AT HARMONY ROAD (WEST LEG)
RASSG
TURN LANE
EB LEFT
12'
TRAVEL LANE
EASTBOUND
12'
BUS LANE
EASTBOUND
12'
LANE
BUS
GRASS
LDER
SHOU-
VARIES
LDER
SHOU-
8.5'
APPROX. 47'
TRAVEL LANE
WESTBOUND
12'
TRAVEL LANE
WESTBOUND
12'
SHOULDER
13.5'
LDER
SHOU-
5'
MEDIAN
GRASS
15'
42.5'
PROPOSED TYPICAL SECTION: SH-82 AT HARMONY ROAD (WEST LEG)
RASSGGRASS
LDER
SHOU-
VARIES
APPROX. 47'
TRAVEL LANE
WESTBOUND
12'
TRAVEL LANE
WESTBOUND
12'
SHOULDER
13.5'
LDER
SHOU-
5'
MEDIAN
GRASS
15'
42.5'
TURN LANE
EB LEFT
11'
TRAVEL LANE
EASTBOUND
12'
BUS LANE
EASTBOUND
12'
FER
BUF-
'4
LANE
BUS
'W RAISED CURB & FLEXPOST3
TRAVEL LANE
WESTBOUND
12'
EXISTING TYPICAL SECTION: SH-82 AT OWL CREEK ROAD (EAST LEG)
89'
LANE
BUS
TRAVEL LANE
EASTBOUND
14'
BUS LANE
EASTBOUND
12'
LANE
BUS
LANE
LEFT TURN
13'
SHOULDER
10''3
BUS LANE
WESTBOUND
12.5'
SIDEWALKSIDEWALK
LANE
LEFT TURN
12.5'
TRAVEL LANE
WESTBOUND
12'
PROPOSED TYPICAL SECTION: SH-82 AT OWL CREEK ROAD (EAST LEG)
89'
TRAVEL LANE
EASTBOUND
14'
BUS LANE
EASTBOUND
12'
LANE
LEFT TURN
13'
'3 SIDEWALKSIDEWALK
LANE
BUS
LANE
BUS
LANE
LEFT TURN
12.5'
FER
BUF-
'4
'W RAISED CURB & FLEXPOST3
BUS LANE
WESTBOUND
12'
SHOULDER
6.5'
PROPOSED TYPICAL SECTION: SH-82 AT OWL CREEK ROAD (WEST LEG)
BUS LANE
EASTBOUND
12'
GRASS
TRAVEL LANE
WESTBOUND
12'
TRAVEL LANE
WESTBOUND
12'
LDER
SHOU-
5'
MEDIAN
GRASS
20'
TRAVEL LANE
EASTBOUND
12'
LANE
IGHT TURNR
12'
LDER
SHOU-
4'
42'
STOP
BUS
60'
TURN LANE
WB RIGHT
11'
BUS LANE
20'
LANE
BUS
2'
BUS LANE
EASTBOUND
12'
LANE
BUS
GRASS
TRAVEL LANE
WESTBOUND
12'
TRAVEL LANE
WESTBOUND
12'
LDER
SHOU-
5'
MEDIAN
GRASS
20'
EXISTING TYPICAL SECTION: SH-82 AT OWL CREEK ROAD (WEST LEG)
TRAVEL LANE
EASTBOUND
11'
LANE
RIGHT TURN
11'
LDER
SHOU-
6'
42'
STOP
BUS
60'
TURN LANE
WB RIGHT
11'
BUS LANE
20'
2'
UNDERPASS
PEDESTRIAN
PROPOSED
CROSSWALK
EXISTING
REMOVE STATE LAWMOVEACCIDENTSFROMTRAFFICAREASKIONLYONLYBUSESONLYONLYBUSESPEDESTRIANSYIELD TO
MUST
TRAFFIC
TURNING
ONLYARROWGREENLEFT ONXXX XXXXXXXXX XXXXXX73
Harmony Road and Owl Creek Road: Concept 1B
SH-82 Bus By-Pass
2RIGHTRFTA BUSESANDONLYVEHICLESEMERGENCYOPERATOR:FILE NAME:PLOTTED:02430 - X:\4191200\210345.01\PLNG\CAD\drawings\SH82_BusBypass_Concept_updated 9.27.21.dgn9/28/2021Sheet No. __STOPPINGEMERGENCYONLYUTTERMILKBPANDASPOWERONLYONLYONLYROADOWL CREEKEXCEPTEDBUSESDO NOTBLOCKINTERSECTIONONLYONLY
30'30'0 60'
SCALE: 1"=30'OWL CREEK ROAD.DR YNOMRAHNNEW PAVEMENT
INLET
RELOCATED
EXISTING TYPICAL SECTION: SH-82 AT HARMONY ROAD (WEST LEG)
RASSG
TURN LANE
EB LEFT
12'
TRAVEL LANE
EASTBOUND
12'
BUS LANE
EASTBOUND
12'
LANE
BUS
GRASS
LDER
SHOU-
VARIES
LDER
SHOU-
8.5'
APPROX. 47'
TRAVEL LANE
WESTBOUND
12'
TRAVEL LANE
WESTBOUND
12'
SHOULDER
13.5'
LDER
SHOU-
5'
MEDIAN
GRASS
15'
42.5'
TRAVEL LANE
WESTBOUND
12'
EXISTING TYPICAL SECTION: SH-82 AT OWL CREEK ROAD (EAST LEG)
89'
LANE
BUS
TRAVEL LANE
EASTBOUND
14'
BUS LANE
EASTBOUND
12'
LANE
BUS
LANE
LEFT TURN
13'
SHOULDER
10''3
BUS LANE
WESTBOUND
12.5'
SIDEWALKSIDEWALK
LANE
LEFT TURN
12.5'
TRAVEL LANE
WESTBOUND
12'
PROPOSED TYPICAL SECTION: SH-82 AT OWL CREEK ROAD (EAST LEG)
LANE
LEFT TURN
13'
SIDEWALK
LANE
BUS
LANE
LEFT TURN
12.5'
FER
BUF-
'4
'W RAISED CURB & FLEXPOST3
BUS LANE
WESTBOUND
12'
SHOULDER
6.5'
LANE
BUS
PROPOSED TYPICAL SECTION: SH-82 AT HARMONY ROAD (WEST LEG)
RASSGGRASS
TRAVEL LANE
WESTBOUND
12'
TRAVEL LANE
WESTBOUND
12'
SHOULDER
13.5'
LDER
SHOU-
5'
MEDIAN
GRASS
15'
42.5'
TRAVEL LANE
EASTBOUND
11'
BUS LANE
EASTBOUND
12'
LANE
BUS
TURN LANE
EB LEFT
10'
TRAVEL LANE
EASTBOUND
11'
FER
BUF-
3'
2'W RAISED CURB & FLEXPOST
APPROX. 47'
SIDEWALK
8'
BUS LANE
EASTBOUND
12'
96'
TRAVEL LANE
EASTBOUND
12'
TRAVEL LANE
EASTBOUND
12'
BUS LANE
EASTBOUND
12'
LANE
BUS
GRASS
TRAVEL LANE
WESTBOUND
12'
TRAVEL LANE
WESTBOUND
12'
LDER
SHOU-
5'
MEDIAN
GRASS
20'
EXISTING TYPICAL SECTION: SH-82 AT OWL CREEK ROAD (WEST LEG)
TRAVEL LANE
EASTBOUND
11'
LANE
RIGHT TURN
11'
LDER
SHOU-
6'
42'
STOP
BUS
60'
TURN LANE
WB RIGHT
11'
BUS LANE
20'2'
GRASS
TRAVEL LANE
WESTBOUND
12'
TRAVEL LANE
WESTBOUND
12'
LDER
SHOU-
5'
MEDIAN
GRASS
20'
PROPOSED TYPICAL SECTION: SH-82 AT OWL CREEK ROAD (WEST LEG)
TRAVEL LANE
EASTBOUND
12'
LDER
SHOU-
4'
42'
STOP
BUS
60'
TURN LANE
WB RIGHT
11'
BUS LANE
20'
TRAVEL LANE
EASTBOUND
12'
LANE / BUS LANE
RIGHT TURN
12'
BUS
LANE
2'
UNDERPASS
PEDESTRIAN
PROPOSED
CROSSWALK
EXISTING
REMOVE STATE LAWMOVEACCIDENTSFROMTRAFFICAREASKIONLYONLYBUSESONLYONLYBUSESPEDESTRIANSYIELD TO
MUST
TRAFFIC
TURNING
ONLYARROWGREENLEFT ONXXX XXXXXXXXX XXXXXX74
STOP
BUS
OPERATOR:FILE NAME:PLOTTED:2152krd - \\corp.meadhunt.com\sharedfolders\entp\4191200\210345.01\PLNG\CAD\drawings\UnderpassPrintSheet.dgn9/20/2021SH-82: Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Underpass Concept 20'20'0 40'
SCALE: 1"=20'
N
75
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT
BUTTERMILK PEDESTRIAN CROSSING
OWL CREEK ROAD AND CO HIGHWAY 82
PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
February 16, 2023
Prepared By:
PO Box 1080
Silt, CO 81652 (970) 230-9208
Prepared For:
Mr. Mark Frymoyer, P.E.
SGM, Inc.
118 West 6th Street, Suite 200
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Project No. 22-042R-G1
76
Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Project No. 22-042R-G1
Pitkin County, Colorado
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION .................................................................................. 1
1.1 Purpose and Scope .................................................................................. 1
1.2 Proposed Construction ............................................................................. 1
1.3 Site Conditions ......................................................................................... 1
1.4 Site Geology ............................................................................................ 1
2.0 SITE INVESTIGATION ........................................................................................ 2
2.1 Subsurface Investigation .......................................................................... 2
2.2 Subsurface Conditions ............................................................................. 2
2.2.1 Groundwater ........................................................................................ 3
3.0 SITE GRADING ................................................................................................... 3
4.0 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................... 4
4.1 Footing Foundations ................................................................................ 5
4.2 Micropiles ................................................................................................. 6
4.3 Lateral Earth Pressure ............................................................................. 6
5.0 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................................. 7
6.0 CONCRETE ........................................................................................................ 7
7.0 LIMITATIONS ...................................................................................................... 8
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 – Structural Fill Specifications ............................................................................ 4
Table 2 – LPILE Program Lateral Loading Parameters .................................................. 6
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 – Approximate Site Location
Figure 2 – Approximate Test Hole Locations
Figure 3 – Test Hole Logs and Legend
Summary of Laboratory Test Results
77
Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Project No. 22-042R-G1
Pitkin County, Colorado
1
1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
1.1 Purpose and Scope
This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation and recommendations for
design and construction of the Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing project across Colorado Highway
82 in Pitkin County, Colorado. The project location is presented on Figure 1. The investigation
was performed to provide foundation and construction recommendations for design of the
crossing foundations at the referenced site. Test hole locations were staked by the client.
The site investigation consisted of geologic reconnaissance and exploratory test hole drilling to
investigate subsurface conditions. Test hole drilling was observed by a representative of RJ
Engineering. Samples obtained during the field exploration were examined by the project
personnel and representative samples were subjected to laboratory testing to determine the
engineering characteristics of materials encountered. This report summarizes our field
investigation, the results of our analyses, and our conclusions and recommendations based on
the proposed construction, site reconnaissance, subsurface investigation, and results of the
laboratory testing.
1.2 Proposed Construction
Based on information provided by SGM, the crossing is planned as a below grade crossing or
possibly a bridge over Highway 82. The approximate structure location is presented on Figure
1. The south side is planned adjacent to the Buttermilk Park-n-Ride. The north side is planned
adjacent to the existing trail.
1.3 Site Conditions
The south side is relatively flat and is adjacent to the Buttermilk parking area. The north end
has a relatively small slope leading up to the main pedestrian path. The area is landscaped with
trees, brush and grasses.
1.4 Site Geology
We reviewed the Map Showing Types of Bedrock and Surficial Deposits in the Aspen
Quadrangle, Pitkin County, Colorado by Bruce Bryant: US Geological Survey, Geologic
Quadrangle Map I-785-H, scale 1:24,000. The entire site is mapped as alluvial deposits that are
78
Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Project No. 22-042R-G1
Pitkin County, Colorado
2
glacial in origin and form terraces (map symbols sgbc). The mapping appears consistent with
our site observations.
2.0 SITE INVESTIGATION
2.1 Subsurface Investigation
Two test holes were drilled on November 7 and 8, 2022. Test hole B-1 was drilled at the south
side, and test hole B-2 was drilled at the north side. The test holes were drilled at the locations
staked by the client. The approximate test hole locations are presented on Figure 2. All test
holes were advanced with a Dietrich D90 rubber track rig using ODEX downhole percussive
hammer system to depth where split spoon samplers were used to record blow counts and
obtain samples.
To perform the modified California penetration resistance tests, a 2.0-inch inside diameter
sampler was seated at the bottom of the test hole, then driven up to 12 inches with blows of a
standard hammer weighing 140 pounds and falling a distance of 30 inches utilizing an “auto”
hammer (ASTM D1586). The number of blows (Blow Count) required to drive the sampler 12
inches or a fraction thereof, constitutes the N-value. The N-value, when properly evaluated, is
an index of the consistency or relative density of the material tested. Split spoon samples are
obtained in the same manner, but with a 1.5-inch inside diameter sampler. Test hole logs and
legend are presented on Figure 3.
2.2 Subsurface Conditions
Subsurface conditions encountered on the B-2 side consisted of 1 feet of silty sand underlain by
silty to sandy gravel containing abundant cobbles and boulders up to 3 feet in diameter.
Subsurface conditions encountered on the B-1 side consisted of 5 feet of sandy fill, 5 feet of
clayey sand underlain by silty to sandy gravel containing abundant cobbles and boulders up to 3
feet in diameter. The fill and sand were dense. The sands, gravels, cobbles and boulders were
very dense.
The very dense gravels made it difficult to drive and obtain samples. Two fill and sand samples
had 39 and 22 percent fines, respectively. Atterberg limit testing indicated liquid limits of 35 and
30 percent with plasticity indices of 15 and 11 percent, respectively. One gravel sample
79
Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Project No. 22-042R-G1
Pitkin County, Colorado
3
obtained had 11 percent fines (material passing the No. 200 sieve). Atterberg limit testing
indicated the samples had liquid limits of no value and plasticity indices of non-plastic. The fill
and sand samples classified as clayey sand (SC). The gravel sample classified as slightly silty
to sandy (GM) according to the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). Results of the
laboratory testing are summarized in the Summary of Laboratory Test Results.
2.2.1 Groundwater
Groundwater was encountered at depths of 22.5 feet on the south side (B-1) and 29 feet on the
north side (B-2) at the time of drilling. Because of the close proximity to pedestrian traffic, the
test holes were backfilled due to safety reasons. Based on our experience, we anticipate
groundwater would not be encountered at anticipated excavation depths. However,
groundwater will likely be encountered during installation of deep foundations. The magnitude
of the variation will be largely dependent upon the amount of spring snowmelt, duration and
intensity of precipitation events, site grading changes, and the surface and subsurface drainage
characteristics of the surrounding area.
3.0 SITE GRADING
Minor cuts and fills are likely planned for the project. Based on drilling and our observations, we
believe that material can be excavated by conventional construction equipment. We
recommend cut and fill slopes be constructed at 2H:1V or flatter. Temporary excavations
should be sloped no steeper than 1H:1V. If groundwater or seeps are encountered, flatter
slopes will likely be necessary for stability. We should be contacted if soft layers or significant
discontinuities are encountered during the excavation process.
Due to the abundant cobbles and boulders encountered in the planned structure location,
footing foundations should be constructed on 8 to 12 inches of properly compacted structural
backfill. The structural backfill will reduce the likelihood of point loading foundations. The
structural backfill should meet CDOT Class 6 or Structure Backfill Class 1 specifications as
presented in Table 1 below.
80
Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Project No. 22-042R-G1
Pitkin County, Colorado
4
Table 1 – Structural Fill Specifications
Sieve
Size
CDOT
Class 6*
CDOT Structure
Class 1*
Percent Passing Mesh Size
2” 100
3/4” 100
No. 4 30-65 30-100
No. 8 25-55
No. 50 10-60
No. 200 3-12 5-20
* Liquid limit not greater than 35 and
plasticity index not greater than 6
The on-site (cut) soils can be used in site grading fills provided the material is substantially free
of organic material, debris and particles are no larger than 6 inches. Areas to receive fill should
be stripped of vegetation, organic soils and debris. Topsoil is not recommended for fill material.
Fill should be placed in thin, loose lifts of 8 inches thick or less. We recommend fill materials be
moisture conditioned to within 2 percent of optimum moisture content and compacted to at least
95 percent of maximum standard Proctor dry density (ASTM D 698). Placement and
compaction of fill should be observed and tested by a geotechnical engineer.
4.0 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS
The overburden soils encountered at the anticipated foundation depths consisted of sand,
gravel, cobbles and boulders. We believe a shallow footing foundation constructed on the
gravel subsoils could be utilized at this site. As an alternative, a micropile foundation could also
be used at either abutment location. We do not recommend a driven H-pile foundation. The
large cobbles and boulders are extremely hard and would likely result in refusal at a relatively
shallow depth and would subsequently require predrilling to achieve adequate depths. The
foundation recommendations contained herein, generally comply with AASHTO for either ASD 1
(Allowable Stress Design) or LRFD2 (Load Resistance Factor Design).
1 AASHTO, (2002). Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 17th Edition, American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C.
2 AASHTO, (2020). AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 9th Edition, American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C.
81
Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Project No. 22-042R-G1
Pitkin County, Colorado
5
4.1 Footing Foundations
Footing foundations should be constructed on properly placed structural fill as recommended
below and in Section 3.0. Loose, disturbed soils encountered at foundation level should be
removed and replaced with compacted fill as recommended in Section 3.0 above. The
allowable soil pressures provided below are based on anticipated settlement of 1-inch or less.
1. Foundations should be constructed on the natural sand or gravel soils encountered
at a depth of 5 feet on the south side and 1 foot on the north side. Due to the
abundant cobbles and boulders encountered, the structural backfill will reduce the
possibility of point loading foundations. Foundations should be constructed on 8 to
12 inches of properly compacted structural backfill meeting specifications in Table 1
above.
2. For Allowable Stress Design (ASD) criteria, spread footing foundations can be
designed for a maximum allowable soil pressure of 4,000 psf.
3. Using Load Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) criteria, an unfactored nominal
bearing capacity of 13,900 psf can be used for footing foundations placed on
properly compacted structural fill over natural soils.
4. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 may be used for the calculation of sliding resistance
when performing an external stability check.
5. Passive pressure against the sides of the structure can be used for sliding resistance
and can be calculated using an equivalent fluid unit weight of 350 pcf if granular
backfill is used.
6. Shallow spread footing foundations should be protected from frost action. Footings
should be placed a minimum of 3.5 feet below finished grade to provide adequate
frost protection.
7. All foundation and retaining structures should be designed for appropriate hydrostatic
and surcharge pressures resulting from adjacent roadways, traffic construction
materials, and equipment.
82
Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Project No. 22-042R-G1
Pitkin County, Colorado
6
4.2 Micropiles
As an alternative, the overpass abutments could also be supported on micropile foundations.
The micropiles should be founded in the gravel and cobble subsoils. Recommendations for
micropiles are presented below.
1. The micropiles should be founded in the dense gravels. Based on test hole drilling, we
estimate the gravel surface at approximately 1 to 5 feet below existing grade at north
and south locations, respectively.
2. Typically, micropiles for pedestrian structures are designed for factored working loads on
the order of 30 to 50 kips. If necessary, loads of up to 100 kips or more can be attained
but will increase installation costs.
3. The grout to ground bond strength for use in design of micropiles should be determined
by the micropile designer based on the type of installation equipment and technique
anticipated. We estimate ultimate bond strengths in the range of 28 to 40 psi.
4. Micropiles should have a minimum length of 20 feet with a minimum diameter of 4
inches.
5. Micropiles should be spaced at least 3 times the micropile diameter or 30 inches apart to
avoid group effects, whichever is greater.
6. The upper 3 feet of pile penetration from the ground surface should be neglected for
lateral load resistance calculation. For lateral loading analysis using LPILE program, the
following parameters may be used:
Table 2 – LPILE Program Lateral Loading Parameters
Material Soil
Model
Friction
Angle, φ
(deg)
Cohesion, c
(psf)
Horizontal
Modulus of
Subgrade
Reaction, kh
(pci)
ε50
Effective
Unit Weight,
γ (pcf)
Saturated
Unit Weight,
γ (pcf)
Structural Fill Reese
Sand 34 -- 200 -- 135 --
Gravel below
groundwater
Reese
Sand 32 -- 125 -- 80 140
Gravel above
groundwater
Reese
Sand 36 -- 250 -- 135 --
7. Micropile installation should be observed by a geotechnical engineer or representative
thereof.
4.3 Lateral Earth Pressure
Based on our investigation, we believe site conditions are favorable for any type of retaining.
For fill wall areas, mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) or conventional cast-in-place walls would
83
Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Project No. 22-042R-G1
Pitkin County, Colorado
7
be appropriate. For cut wall areas, soil nail walls are typically utilized and would be appropriate
at this site. Retaining walls should be designed to resist lateral earth pressure. We recommend
all retaining walls (fill walls) are backfilled with CDOT Class 1 Structure Backfill. CDOT Class 1
Structure Backfill typically has an angle of internal friction of 34 degrees and a total unit weight
of 130 pcf. Walls can be designed using an equivalent fluid density of 35 pcf for active or 55 pcf
for at rest conditions for Class 1 Structure Backfill. This equivalent fluid density assumes a
horizontal slope above the wall. This value also assumes that the backfill materials are not
saturated. Wall designs should consider the influence of surcharge loading such as traffic,
construction equipment and/or sloping backfill.
Retaining walls should be constructed with a drainage system to drain away any excess water
immediately behind the wall. Drainage systems such as free-draining gravel, pipes, drain board
and/or weep holes are commonly used for the wall drainage.
5.0 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS
The seismic hazard in Colorado is considered low to moderate. There are several online
evaluation tools to determine seismic design values. Based on our drilling, the site classified as
Site Class C in accordance with Table 3.10.3.1-1 of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
Specifications. The seismic design values should be selected by the engineer based on the site
class above.
6.0 CONCRETE
One sample was submitted for water-soluble sulfate testing from test hole B-1 at a depth of 9
feet. Laboratory testing indicated the sample had a water-soluble sulfate concentration of 0.001
percent. This concentration of water-soluble sulfate is considered negligible/low (Class 0
exposure) degree of sulfate attack for concrete exposed to these materials. The degree of
attack is based on a range of 0.00 to less than 0.10 percent water-soluble sulfates as presented
in the American Concrete Institute Guide to Durable Concrete. Due to the negligible/low
degree, no special requirements for concrete are necessary for this site.
84
Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Project No. 22-042R-G1
Pitkin County, Colorado
8
7.0 LIMITATIONS
This study was conducted in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering
practices in this area for use by the client for design purposes. The conclusions and
recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from exploratory
test holes, field reconnaissance and anticipated construction. The nature and extent of
subsurface variations across the site may not become evident until excavation is performed. If
during construction, conditions appear to be different from those described herein; this office
should be advised at once so reevaluation of the recommendations may be made. We
recommend on-site observation of excavations by a representative of the geotechnical
engineer.
The scope of services for this project did not include, specifically or by implication, any
environmental or biological (e.g., mold, fungi, and bacteria) assessment of the site or
identification or prevention of pollutants, hazardous materials or conditions or biological
conditions. If the owner is concerned about the potential for such contamination, conditions or
pollution, other studies should be undertaken.
The report was prepared in substantial accordance with the generally accepted standards of
practice for geotechnical engineering as exist in the site area at the time of our investigation.
No warranties, express or implied, are intended or made.
Respectfully Submitted:
RJ Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
Richard D. Johnson, P.E.
Project Manager
85
86
87
88
Project No:
Grain Size Analysis Atterberg Limits
B-1 4 SS 10.7 39 35 20 15 FILL, SAND, clayey with gravel (SC)
9 CA 9.0 106 22 30 19 11 0.001 SAND, clayey with gravel (SC)
29 SS 9.2 11 NL NP NP GRAVEL, silty with sand (GM)
RJ Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
Sample
Type
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Gravel
> #4
(%)
Moisture
Content
(%)
PL
(%)
Sample Location
Test
Hole Depth (ft)
Summary of Laboratory Test Results
Sand
(%)
22-042R-G1 Project Name:
Fines
< #200
(%)
LL
(%)
Buttermilk Crossing, Pitkin County, CO
PI
(%)
Description
Water
Soluble
Sulfate
(%)
*Lab testing by others.
CA-Indicates modified California sampler
SS-Indicates standard split spoon sampler
Bulk-Indicates bulk sample from auger cuttings or ground surface
NL-Indicates non-liquid
NP-Indicates non-plastic Page 1 of 1 89
1
TO: Linda DuPriest, AICP
Regional Transportation Director, Pitkin County - EOTC
linda.dupriest@pitkincounty.com/ (970)-920-5202
FROM: Mark Frymoyer, PE
Project Manager (SGM)
markf@sgm-inc.com / (970)-384-9003
DATE: December 7, 2022
SUBJECT: Overcrossing ADA Approach Structure Type Memorandum
Buttermilk Crossing and Transit Signal Bypass Project
Pitkin County, Colorado
SGM has been scoped to complete the conceptual level design of a grade separated crossing of
Colorado State Highway 82 (SH-82) at the intersection with Owl Creek Road in the City of Aspen and
Pitkin County. SGM has been asked to consider both an overcrossing (bridge) and an undercrossing
(tunnel). The findings of this conceptual level design completion effort will be summarized in a
subsequent report.
This memorandum is a supporting document reviewing whether an elevator or ramp should be used for
the approach to an overcrossing. Public facilities must be accessible to all members of the public through
accommodations mandated by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). The goal of this
memorandum is to help the project team decide if the ADA access should be provided by a ramp or an
elevator in the overcrossing concept.
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY & ACCOMMODATION RECOMMENDATION
1.1. Project Description
This memorandum will serve as a supporting document for the subsequent report finalizing the
concept design of a grade separated pedestrian crossing at SH-82 and Owl Creek Road and
connections to existing and proposed trail facilities. The purpose of this pedestrian crossing is to
provide a designated and protected crossing for users to access Buttermilk Ski Resort and connect
the up-valley and down-valley transit stops. This pedestrian crossing was most recently studied by
SGM in the 2018 Buttermilk Pedestrian Grade Separation Feasibility and Warrant Study, which
determined that a grade-separated pedestrian crossing (GSPC) was warranted and feasible at this
location.
www .s gm-in c .co m
GLENWOOD SPRINGS 118 West Sixth St, Suite 200 | Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 | 970.945.1004
90
2
SH-82 generally runs from northwest to southeast through the project site. To simplify the orientation,
the state highway convention will be used in which SH-82 travels from west to east. The down valley
direction (towards Basalt) of SH-82 is described as west and the up valley direction (towards Aspen)
is described as east. Buttermilk Ski Resort is south of SH-82 and the Maroon Creek Club is north of
SH-82. See Figure 2-1 below for the True North and Project North orientations. All directions in this
memorandum will use the Project North orientation.
1.2. Memo Purpose
The purpose of this memorandum is to determine which mode of access to the overpass best meets
the selection criteria and to provide our recommendation to Pitkin County for consideration and
approval.
1.3. Access Recommendation
For ADA access to the pedestrian overpass, we recommend the use of ramps. This choice fulfills all
ADA criteria within the geometric constraints of the site, while minimizing operation and maintenance
requirements, decreasing risks to public health and safety, and limiting exposure of legal action
stemming from ADA noncompliance. Additionally, the ramp systems will likely cost less to build and
much less to maintain.
2. SITE DESCRIPTION AND ADA REQUIREMENTS
2.1. Existing Site Description
The proposed crossing is located at the tee-intersection of SH-82 and Owl Creek Road. Currently,
pedestrians use a 94 foot long at-grade crossing as shown in Figure 2-1. The terrain on the southeast
side of the intersection is relatively flat and is mainly occupied by a large parking lot serving the
Buttermilk Ski Resort. The quadrant has a transit stop with a designated bus pull-off served by
sidewalks connecting to the at-grade crossing, the parking lot, and the ski resort. The distance from
the transit stop to the at-grade intersection crossing is approximately 200-feet. A green space
separates SH-82 from the parking lot.
North of the highway, the topography climbs uphill until plateauing, where residential homes and the
Maroon Creek Club are located. The Aspen Airport Business Center (AABC) trail parallels SH-82
along the hill, connecting the City of Aspen with the Aspen Airport Business Center. There are two
sidewalk connections to the down valley bus stop and the at grade SH-82 crossing. The existing
crossing is located approximately 325-feet from the transit stop.
www .s gm-in c .co m
GLENWOOD SPRINGS 118 West Sixth St, Suite 200 | Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 | 970.945.1004
91
3
Figure 2-1: Project Overall Site
2.2. Proposed Overpass Alternative Description
The proposed overpass will cross SH-82 at a near perpendicular angle east of the intersection. The
vertical clearance between the roadway surface and controlling low-chord bridge soffit is set at 17.5-
feet. The bridge profile will approximate the superelevation grade of SH-82 to minimize the vertical
differences between the existing ground and the proposed surface of the bridge. Minimizing the
heights will reduce the travel burden of users. The proposed vertical difference between the existing
surface and the walking surface of the overpass is approximately 25.5-feet on the southeast corner,
and 18.4-feet on the northeast corner. The clear width of the proposed bridge is currently 16-feet.
2.3. Americans with Disability Act of 1990
2.3.1. Background
The ADA is a federal civil rights law prohibiting discrimination based on physical ability. In the
context of this project, the law ensures the rights of all people, regardless of ability, to freely
and with minimum burden access and use all public facilities and travel ways. Furthermore,
access must be equitable, meaning that if access is granted to able-bodied users, it must be
granted to all users. Where there is a significant height difference between critical facilities,
either an elevator or ramp system must be employed to create the reasonable access
required by law.
www .s gm-in c .co m
GLENWOOD SPRINGS 118 West Sixth St, Suite 200 | Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 | 970.945.1004
92
4
2.3.2. Ramps
There are several ADA provisions which directly affect ramp access to the overpass, as
visualized in Figure 2-2.
Provision 405.5 stipulates a minimum clear width of 36-inches, or 3-feet. Provisions 405.2
and 405.6 require ramps have a slope not greater than 1:12 (8.33%) and that the maximum
vertical height any ramp can be is 30-inches (2.5-feet). Landings must be provided at the top
and bottom of each ramp per Provision 405.7, which must extend at least 60-inches (5-feet)
in the direction of travel and be as wide as the ramp. If ramps change direction the landing
separating the two ramps must be at least 60-inches, 5-feet, wide in all directions. The
landings may have a maximum slope of 1:48 (2.08%). Note, landings have additional
requirements detailed in Provision 302, which have limited applicability for this facility, but
would be addressed and met if they become significant.
Figure 2-2: ADA Ramp Requirements
www .s gm-in c .co m
GLENWOOD SPRINGS 118 West Sixth St, Suite 200 | Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 | 970.945.1004
93
5
2.3.3. Elevators
An entire section of ADA is devoted to elevators. The primary concerns of those provisions
as they relate to project are stipulated in 407.4.1, visualized below in Figure 2-3. There are
several geometric configurations based on door location. Regardless, the door must be a
minimum of 36-inches (3-feet) wide.
Figure 2-3: ADA Elevator Requirements
2.4. SGM Design Directives
As a general practice, the maximum grade that SGM prefers to use on ADA facilities is 8.00%. This
lower grade limit provides for construction tolerances and creates a facility with a more pleasant user
experience.
www .s gm-in c .co m
GLENWOOD SPRINGS 118 West Sixth St, Suite 200 | Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 | 970.945.1004
94
6
3. DESIGN CRITERIA AND SOLUTIONS
Currently, overpass designs with either elevator or ramp systems may likely incorporate a series of
stairs at each end of the overpass to provide the more direct non-ADA access. The proposed width of
the stairs is 8-ft and meets all the geometric requirements of the International Building Code (IBC).
3.1. Elevator System
An elevator universally creates access for all users and provides several benefits:
· Elevators have a smaller footprint then ramps reducing site disturbances and limiting the visual
impacts.
· Elevators are enclosed and provide protection from the elements.
· Elevators provide a shorter total traveled distance for users and would be most similar to the
existing condition. Studies show the closer a new traveled way is to the one it is replacing, the
more likely the new path will be used.
However, elevators pose drawbacks. We reached out to CDOT and City of Glenwood Springs staff to
understand their experiences installing and maintaining the elevators for the Grand Avenue
Pedestrian Bridge in Glenwood Springs. The following are potential disadvantages of an elevator:
· Elevators may be more expensive to construct than ramps.
· Depending on the type of elevator and the associated foundation system, there may be
underground utility conflicts.
· Elevators may have a shorter lifespan than the overcrossing they are connecting to. The
bridge and ramp systems are anticipated to have a 75 year design life. It is possible that an
elevator will need to be replaced well before that.
· Elevators frequently have unintended uses and may attract drug use, vagrancy, and
cleanliness issues.
· Operation and maintenance (O&M) costs. Costs of services contracts are expected to be on
the order of $13,000 to $20,000 per elevator per year in 2022 dollars.
· Lack of qualified technicians to maintain the elevators in the Roaring Fork Valley which can
result in long delays of service. Delays in service are a violation of the ADA which must be
mitigated.
· One mitigation strategy is to provide two elevators, which increases the likelihood access will
be available. This solution doubles all the associated costs and does not eliminate the
possibility of ADA associated legal action, since it is possible that both elevators could be
simultaneously inoperable. Alternative means such as a taxi service (free of charge) would be
required in this case.
· If none of the above accommodations can be provided, the stairs must also be closed to
prevent unequal access.
www .s gm-in c .co m
GLENWOOD SPRINGS 118 West Sixth St, Suite 200 | Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 | 970.945.1004
95
7
3.2. Ramp System
A ramp system similarly creates universal access for all users to access the proposed overpass. The
proposed clear width of the ramps is 8-feet. The following is a list of benefits of ramps:
· Ramps are simpler than an elevator to construct. Their simplicity results in a greater available
pool of qualified contractors, which can reduce construction duration and costs.
· Ramps require minimal maintenance over the entire 75-year design life of the structure.
· Ramps have a smaller probability of being closed because they do not rely on mechanical
systems which may reduce exposure to ADA related legal action.
The main disadvantages of a ramp are the significant footprint, increased distance of travel (especially
when compared to the existing condition), and visual impact. Given the proposed vertical difference
on the southeast corner, the length of ramp is approximately 360-feet at a minimum, given the above
criteria. Similarly, the northeast corner ramp length is approximately 260-feet at a minimum.
4. CONCLUSION
Based on the expected reduced construction and maintenance cost, less potential for misuse, longer
life span, and potential reduced exposure to legal action, we recommend proceed with ramps for the
overcrossing concept design.
www .s gm-in c .co m
GLENWOOD SPRINGS 118 West Sixth St, Suite 200 | Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 | 970.945.1004
96
Drawing File Name: Buttermilk-SightDistanceExhibit118 West Sixth Street, Suite 200Glenwood Springs, CO 81601970.945.1004 www.sgm-inc.com Project No./Code1XXXXSheet NumberNo Revisions:Revised:Void:DateCommentsInit.Rev.Sheet RevisionsComputer File InformationPrint Date: 2/9/23Last Modification Date: 2/9/23 DJCAutocad Ver. 2020SGM Project No.: 2022-282.001As ConstructedScale: As ShownQuality Control:Engineer:Drawn By:Sheet Subset:MLFMWMStructureNumbersBUTTERMILK CROSSINGPURE SIGHT DISTANCE EXHIBITEXHIBIT1 of 1Subset Sheets:----97
DESIGN CRITERIA:
BUTTERMILK CROSSING AND TRANSIT SIGNAL BYPASS
Design Element Value Reference
Design and Construction Specifications
Construction Specifications
Structural (Bridge, Underpass, Wall) Design
Trail Design
Roadway (SH82) Design
General (Trail)
Width (ft)12'CDOT RDG 14.2.4, min. pavement for two-directional shared use path is 10 feet
RFTA Rio Grande Trail Corridor Standards (TCS)(July 2019) Fig. 1.1
Shoulder Widths (ft)2' (gravel)RFTA TCS Fig. 1.1 9" Class 6 ABC for asphalt; 12" Class 6 ABC for concrete
Clear Zone Width (ft)3' from EOP RFTA TCS Fig. 1.1 Note 1
Horizontal Alignment Criteria (Trail)
Posted Maximum Speed (mph) 20 RFTA TCS 1.3
Design speed (mph) (grades less than 2%) 18 RFTA TCS 1.3 excerpted from AASHTO GBF 5.2.4
Maximum Design speed (mph) 30 AASHTO GBF- 6% or greater
Minimum Curve Radius (ft) 18 mph/30 mph 60'/166'AASHTO GBF Table 5-2
Minimum Tangent between Curves (ft) N/A
Cross Slope (asphalt/concrete) 2%/1.5%RFTA TCS Fig. 1.1
Curve widening (less than 50' Radius)
Vertical Alignment Criteria (Trail)
Maximum grade (with landings @ 30" vertical grade )8.33%
AASHTO GBF 5.2.7, limit to 8.2% in design to allow for construction tolerance
Landings can have max of 2% slope
Maximum grade (without landings) 5%AASHTO GBF 5.2.7
Minimum grade 0.50%AASHTO GBF 5.2.7
Minimum length of vertical Curve (feet) 20.00 use AASHTO GBF Fig. 5-8
Maximum Grade Break (w/o using VC) 1.0%
Note, if grades are >5%, handrails must be provided to meet ADA Standards
Side Slopes
Shoulder Slope 6:1 RFTA TCS Fig. 1.1
Side slopes off of shoulder (cut) 2:1 RFTA TCS Fig. 1.1 foreslope; 1 foot deep ditch minimum
2:1 backslope
Side slopes off of shoulder (fill) 4:1 RFTA TCS Fig. 1.1
3:1 max. less than 6' drop- no barrier required
Trail Pavement type/thickness (in)
Concrete - CDOT Class D 6"RFTA TCS Fig. 1.1 use in areas of heavy loading or crossing ex concrete surface
Aggregate Base Course - CDOT Class 6 6"RFTA TCS Fig. 1.1
Subgrade Prep Per Geotechnical Report
SH82 Clear Zone
Posted /Design Speed (mph) SH-82 45/55?confirm Design Speed with CDOT
Posted/Design Speed (mph) Owl Creek 30/40?confirm Design Speed with Pitkin County
Design ADT >6000
Clear zone - flat foreslope (up to 1:6) 20-22 ft AASHTO RDG Table 3-1, confirm with CDOT for roadway section with curb
Clear zone - backslope up 1:3 14-16 ft AASHTO RDG Table 3-1, confirm with CDOT for roadway section with curb
SH82 Pavement type/thickness (in) - outside of Underpass Limits
Asphalt - HMA (GR SX)(75)(58-28) 5.5"confirm with CDOT for design / match existing
Concrete - CDOT Class D 10"confirm with CDOT for design / match existing
CDOT Roadway Design Guide (2018)
AASHTO Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (2018) "The Green Book"
CDOT Roadway Design Guide (2018)-Chapter 14
RFTA Rio Grande Trail Corridor Standards (July 2019)
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 9th Edition, 2020
AASHTO LRFD Guide Specifications for the Design of Pedestrian Bridges, 2009
CDOT Bridge Design Manual, 2022
CDOT Std. Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction 2022
98
Design Element Value Reference
Aggregate Base Course - CDOT Class 6 (Under Conc.)4"confirm with CDOT for design / match existing
Aggregate Base Course - CDOT Class 6 (with HMA) 10"confirm with CDOT for design / match existing
Subgrade Prep 6"confirm with CDOT for design
SH82 Pavement type/thickness (in) - above Underpass Top Slab
Asphalt - HMA (GR SX)(75)(58-28) 5.5"confirm with CDOT for design / match existing
Concrete - CDOT Class D 10"confirm with CDOT for design / match existing
Aggregate Base Course - CDOT Class 6 (Under Conc.)4"confirm with CDOT for design / match existing
Aggregate Base Course - CDOT Class 6 10"confirm with CDOT for design / match existing
Subgrade Prep 6"confirm with CDOT for design
Underpass (Tunnel)*
*Parameters match similar grade seperated crossings on SH-82
(Aspen Airport, Basalt, 27th ST GWS)
Clear Width (ft)16'10' trail width + 2 x 3' Clear Zones, CDOT RDG 14.2.10.1 min. of trail width + 2 x 2'
Vertical Clearance (ft) (edge/center) 8'/9'
AASHTO GBF 5.2.1
CDOT RDG 14.2.10.1-> 8' under constrained conditions, 8.3' for cyclists
Note, with arch roof, 8.33' clearance provided within 10' trail width
Roof Shape Arch confirm in final design
Vehicle Design Truck / Impact
HL-93
33(1.0-0.125DE)
AASHTO Bridge 3.6.1.2 (Truck/Tandem + Lane)
AASHTO Bridge 3.6.2.2 (Impact for buried components)
Vehicle Railing TBD AASHTO Bridge 13.7.2 TL-4 Test Level
Pedestrain Railing Height 42" min
CDOT BDM 2.4.1.2, openings < 4"
On approach walls, railing required where drop off is >2.5'
Pedestrian Railing Loads
50 plf (rail)
200 lb + 50 plf
(posts)AASHTO Bridge 13.8.2
Snow Fence Height (Headwalls/Retaining Walls)TBD Coordinate with CDOT Region Engineer for requirements, see CDOT BDM 2.4.2.2
Aesthetics TBD i.e. concrete color, finish,TBD, but estimate should account for additional costs
Lighting TBD account for lighting in cost estimate
Location Between crosswalk at Owl Creek and RFTA BRT bus stop
Seismic Design Per Geotechnical Report
Overpass (Bridge)
Clear Width (ft)12' to 14'
Vertical Clearance (ft) (to SH82 roadway) 17.5'CDOT BDM 2.2.2/31.4.2 (entire roadway width including shoulders)
Vertical Clearance (ft) (above trail) 8.33' min CDOT BDM 31.4.2
Structure Type TBD
Live Load (Pedestrian)90 PSF AASHTO Ped 3.1
Live Load (Vehicle)
H10 or Colorado
Type 3
AASHTO Ped 3.2 (>10' clear width)
CDOT BDM 31.5.5.2
Vehicle Collision 54 kip at support
CDOT BDM 31.5.2 - not applied to superstructure, requirement to prevent
superstructure from falling off supports
Railing Height 42" min
CDOT BDM 2.4.1.2, openings < 4"
On approach walls, railing required where drop off is >2.5'
Throw Fence 8'CDOT BDM 2.4.2.1
Aesthetics TBD i.e. concrete color, finish,TBD, but estimate should account for additional costs
Lighting TBD account for lighting in cost estimate
Alignment Location Between crosswalk at Owl Creek and RFTA BRT bus stop
Abutment Location
Outside of clear zone (20' for flat slope from edge of through lane), can be reduced
with backslope. Could also consider urban arterials with curbs typically have
reduced clear zone, or with 3' from back of guardrail (if added).
Seismic Design Per Geotechnical Report
References:
AASHTO GBF = AASHTO Guide to Bicycle Facilities (4th Ed.)
AASHTO RDG = AASHTO Roadside Design Guide
RFTA TCS = RFTA Rio Grande Trail Corridor Standards (July 2019)
CDOT RDG = Colorado Dept. of Transportation Roadway Design Guide
CDOT BDM = Colorado Dept. of Transportation Bridge Design Manual
AASHTO Bridge = AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 9th Edition, 2020
AASHTO Ped = AASHTO LRFD Guide Specifications for the Design of Pedestrian Bridges
99
EOTC – Buttermilk Crossing and Transit Signal Bypass June 2023
Evaluation of Alternatives Appendix E
Appendix E
SGM 2018 Buttermilk Pedestrian Grade Separation Feasibility and Warrant Study
100
118 W. 6th St, Ste 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: 970-945-1004 Fax: 970-945-5948
MEMORANDUM
TO: Brian Pettet, Gerald Fielding, Pitkin County
FROM: Ron Nies, PE - SGM Roadway Engineer
DATE: May 31, 2018
RE: Buttermilk Pedestrian Grade Separation
Feasibility and Warrant Study
Purpose
The purpose of this memorandum is to discuss whether a grade-separated pedestrian
crossing (GSPC) is warranted and feasible at the SH82 and Owl Creek Road intersection,
and to present possible crossing alternatives and costs.
Project Background
Existing Condition
The study site (Figure 1) is the signalized, three-leg intersection of SH82 and Owl Creek
Road, approximately 2 miles north of Aspen, Colorado. Owl Creek Road is the primary
access to the Buttermilk Ski area main parking lot, located in the southwest quadrant of the
intersection. Bus stops along SH82 are to the north (down valley buses) and south (up valley
buses) of the intersection .
Figure 1 - Existing Intersection
SH82
101
2
118 W. 6th St, Ste 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: 970-945-1004 Fax: 970-945-5948
Access across SH82 is via a push button activated pedestrian signal and cross walk south of
the intersection. The length of this crossing is 88′ (6 lanes plus one shoulder). The cross
walk provides a connection between the ski area and bus stop on the up-valley side of SH82
and the bus stop, bike path, and residential/commercial development (Burlingame Housing,
Maroon Creek Club) on the down valley side. The nearest grade separated crossings of
SH82 are 900 feet down-valley, and 1,500 feet up-valley.
Those crossings are, on average, over a 3¼ minute walk down-valley and 5½ minute walk
up-valley. The current cycle length at the existing signalized intersection is 1 ½ to 2 minutes.
It is not realistic to expect users, especially those in the winter typically carrying ski
equipment, to use existing underpasses, out of direction by 6 to 10 minutes. There are not
existing pedestrian facilities from the Airport to Owl Creek Road adjacent to the up-valley
lanes.
SGM conducted pedestrian crossing counts at the intersection on March 22-24, 2018.
Previous pedestrian count data was also compiled for the same location in 2010, and at
other SH82 crossings (Basalt Avenue in 2010 and 2015, and Aspen Airport Business Center
in 2010). The results of the pedestrian count are summarized in the Warrants section of this
memorandum.
Proposed improvement
The intent of the proposed improvement project is to construct a pedestrian underpass or
overpass at, or near, the same location as the existing at-grade cross walk, and connect to
the existing sidewalks or trails with ADA compliant sidewalk grades. For the purpose of this
Feasibility Level Study, SGM laid one underpass (Figure 2) and one overpass (Figure 3)
configuration for the purpose of impact discussion and conceptual cost estimates.
Grade Separation Warrants
In determining the need for a GSPC at this location, it should be noted that most literature on
GSPC warrants are for non-controlled locations, that is, locations where vehicle traffic is not
controlled by signal or stop signs yet where pedestrians do attempt to cross. For such a
location, vehicle and pedestrian volume warrants do exist. For a controlled intersection such
as at SH82/Owl Creek Road, the need for a GSPC is determined more by vehicle delay and
cost factors. Instead of “warrants”, which are defined thresholds that are either met or not
met, the Buttermilk crossing site should be viewed in terms of geometric and operational
“factors” which will aid in the determination of whether a GSPC should be constructed at this
location.
Twelve factors are generally looked at for determining the need for a GSPC at non-controlled
intersections. Below is a summary of these factors, which provide a basis when considering
a potential GSPC site:
Vehicular volume- non-controlled intersection
o Recommended threshold: Arterial: ADT > 25,000 and 4-hour volume > 7,500
o SH82: ADT from 2016 is 19,000 and 4-hour volume is approximately 8,000
Pedestrian Volume
o Recommended threshold: Arterial: 300 (4 hour)
o March 2018 Counts: 121 (peak 3 hour), 177 (11 hour volume)
Gap time (uncontrolled intersections): N/A
Speed:
o Recommended threshold: posted speed of 55 mph or more
o SH82: posted speed is 45 mph
102
103
104
3
118 W. 6th St, Ste 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: 970-945-1004 Fax: 970-945-5948
Sight distance- usually correlates to the geometric conditions of the roadway for an
uncontrolled intersection. Sight distances at this location meet acceptable minimum
standards.
Effective crossing width: SH82 88 feet- no maximum crossing length warrant is
given.
Lane configuration: SH 82 6 lanes, 1 shoulder. Most agencies only consider GSPC of
facilities of six lanes or more.
Median type: none
Distance to nearest grade separated crossing:
Recommended threshold: greater than 600’
Actual: 900’ north, 1,500’ south
Effectiveness of at-grade crossing (delay study):
o Current pedestrian cycle length = 35 seconds
o Based on current pedestrian counts, 7-10 pedestrian crossing cycles per
morning (AM) peak hour; 15-25 pedestrian cycles per afternoon (PM) peak
hour
o Summary:
Elimination of the 35 second pedestrian cycle is equivalent to 4-6
minutes per hour (AM) and 8-15 minutes per hour (PM) of
additional green time for vehicles.
“Delay” is spread and averaged across all vehicles when looking
at an overall intersection. Therefore, the elimination of 6 minutes
for peak AM hour for 1,500 vehicles, and 15 minutes for peak PM
hour for 2,200 vehicles means a reduced delay of 0.24 seconds
AM and 0.40 seconds PM per vehicle. This reduction in delay,
although an improvement, has negligible impact to the overall
intersection level of service.
Crash data/incidents: pedestrian/vehicle incidents have not been noted at this
location.
Land use and activity centers: No projected changes that would increase pedestrian
crossings significantly
Special Event usage: Yes, events such as the X-Games generate a significant
increase in pedestrian crossings and traffic delays, plus the need for Uniform Traffic
Control by CSP.
Special needs pedestrians: No
Other GSPC’s of SH82
The following locations have had underpasses constructed under SH82:
Aspen Airport Business Center Underpass
o Vehicle and pedestrian counts: Vehicles:
CDOT ADT 19,000
Pedestrians: 40 peak 3-hour period
o Project Cost: $5.4M (2013)
Basalt Avenue Underpass
o Vehicle and pedestrian counts:
Vehicles: CDOT ADT 19,000
Pedestrians: 125 peak 3-hour period
o Project Cost: $6.2M (2016)
Willits Underpass
o Vehicle and pedestrian counts:
Vehicles: CDOT ADT 21,000
Pedestrians: unknown
105
4
118 W. 6th St, Ste 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: 970-945-1004 Fax: 970-945-5948
o Project Cost: $2.5M (2011 EOPC)
Structure Requirements
Underpass
Location- Approximately 30′ up-valley of the existing crosswalk (aligned with the
existing sidewalk to the Buttermilk Parking lot)(Figure 2).
Locating the underpass away from the existing crosswalk location appears to have
less site impacts.
Structure Minimum Dimensions- 14′ wide x 8′ tall walls with 12″ arch, 115′ long
Approach Ramps-
o From the affordable housing side- approach would use a lowered portion of
the existing Aspen ABC bike path to access the underpass with a sidewalk
connection to the down valley bus stop. The sidewalk along SH82 accessing
the existing at-grade crossing would be removed to deter at-grade crossing
of SH82.
o Buttermilk approach would be a connection from the underpass to the
existing sidewalk along the east edge of the Buttermilk parking lot, and a
connection to the sidewalk leading to the up valley bus stop. Some sidewalk
removal required along SH82 with fencing or landscape barrier to deter at-
grade crossings.
Site impacts- Underpass construction would impact the sidewalk and trees between
SH82 and the bike path on the bike path side. A retaining wall would be needed for
the lowered section of the bike path. The existing Owl Creek traffic signal may be
able to stay in-place if protected with a retaining wall. The SH82 traffic signal pole
and controller may be able to stay in place.
Lighting/safety- Lighting would be required within the underpass. Existing street
lighting can remain. At least one pedestrian light along the bike path would need to
be reset. Railing would be needed on most of the proposed retaining walls to prevent
falls. Security cameras would likely be desired and could potentially be tied in to the
existing RFTA BRT system.
Drainage- New storm and underdrain systems would be required to drain the low
points at each end of the underpass. It is uncertain where the drainage can day
lighted, but it may be possible to outlet the drainage onto the airport property if there
is an adequate drop in grade. An existing curb inlet along the west SH82 curb would
need to be replaced if the underpass is constructed south of the crosswalk.
Significant impacts to utilities running parallel to and crossing SH82. These utilities
include: sanitary sewer, potable and irrigation water, fiber optic, natural gas, and
electric. These would need to be lowered and/or relocated.
Traffic control considerations- Traffic control during construction would be extensive
and complex. SH82 traffic would have to be shifted multiple times and traffic lanes
would have to be reduced to single through and single turn lanes.
Cost- $7,500,000 to $9,500,000 (final cost mostly dependent on utility relocations
and construction phasing/traffic control costs)
Similar underpass structures exist near the project site- Basalt Avenue and Aspen
Airport Business Center (AABC) and are shown in the figures below.
106
5
118 W. 6th St, Ste 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: 970-945-1004 Fax: 970-945-5948
Figure 4 - Basalt Avenue Underpass (16’x8’ + 12” arch)
Figure 5 - AABC Underpass (16’x8’ + 12” arch)
Overpass
Location- approximately 60 feet south of the existing cross walk (Figure 3). This
location was selected to minimize impacts to the sight distance to the existing
northbound SH82 traffic signals.
Structure Dimensions- 14′ wide, 100′ clear span (abutment face to abutment face)
Vertical clearance over SH82- 17.5′ minimum per CDOT.
Approach Ramps-
Because of the need to keep approach grades 8.33% or less, significant
reconstruction for the approach sidewalks will be needed for the overpass options.
Reconstruction is needed for all approaches on both sides of the bridge.
The affordable housing side approach would realign and raise the profile of the
existing bike path, while leaving the existing sidewalk along SH82 in place for an
alternate connection to the overpass (via stairs) and bike path from the down valley
bus stop.
107
6
118 W. 6th St, Ste 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: 970-945-1004 Fax: 970-945-5948
Buttermilk approach would be from the south east corner of the Buttermilk parking lot
to the overpass. Sidewalk along SH82 would be removed to deter at–grade
crossings, but the west bridge abutment would be set back from SH82 to allow a
future sidewalk to be constructed north to if sidewalk in the northwest quadrant of the
intersection is constructed.
Site impacts- Overpass construction would impact the sidewalk and trees between
SH82 and the bike path on the east side to a lesser extent than the underpass
alternative. A retaining wall would be needed for the raised section of the east side
sidewalk. The existing Owl Creek traffic signal would be able to stay in-place without
retaining wall protection. The SH82 traffic signal pole and controller would not be
impacted.
Lighting/safety- Lighting would be required on the overpass and at the approaches.
Existing street lighting can remain. Railing would be needed on all of the proposed
retaining walls.
Drainage/ Utilities- Impacts to existing utilities would be confined only to the bridge
abutment/foundation locations. The existing inlet along the west SH82 curb would
remain in place.
Construction phasing and traffic control- Most overpass and retaining wall
construction will be confined outside of the traffic lanes so traffic disruption can be
minimized. Placement of the bridge structure can be done as a nighttime operation.
Visual impacts- The overpass structure and approach walls will create a significant
visual impact to the adjacent properties. The deck of the bridge structure at its
highest point may be approximately 22 feet above the surface of SH82.
Cost- $4,500,000 to $5,500,000
Two existing overpass structures in Colorado- at Platte Canyon High School over
US285 and Wadsworth Boulevard at Bowles Avenue in Denver are shown in the
figures below.
Figure 6 – Platte Canyon High School overpass (130’ span)
108
7
118 W. 6th St, Ste 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: 970-945-1004 Fax: 970-945-5948
Figure 7– Over S. Wadsworth Boulevard (150’ span)
109
EOTC – Buttermilk Crossing and Transit Signal Bypass June 2023
Evaluation of Alternatives Appendix F
Appendix F
Public Outreach Plan and Survey Results
110
BUTTERMILK
PEDESTRIAN CROSSING
DHM Design | June 2023
Outreach Plan & Outcome Summary
111
2Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
CONTENTS
Outreach Plan Introduction........................3
Project Purpose and Need...........................3
Project Goals.........................................................4
Strategic Purpose of Outreach................4
Stakeholders & Key Audiences................5
Public Engagement Methodology.........6
Project and Engagement Timeline........8
Outreach Series 1 Plan....................................9
Outreach Series 2 Plan.................................10
Outreach Series 1 & 2 Summary.............1117 2 Summary..........
2 Summary.....
15
10
9
112
3Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
Outreach Plan Introduction
This document has been developed as to guide
for the overall project team in planning and
executing the public engagement process for
the Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing project. It is
also intended to be a ready reference for the
goals of the project and the strategic approach
to outreach, supporting alignment across
the project team for content, timing, specific
activities, and efficient leveraging of project
resources.
The outreach plan outlines the purpose and
need of the project, project goals, strategic
purpose of the outreach, the various tools to
be employed, and the timeline of outreach
tied to the overall project schedule. Additional
details are identified for the first outreach series,
with an outline for the second outreach series.
This document will be updated prior to each
outreach series.
Project Purpose and Need
The overarching purpose and need for the
pedestrian crossing project is to address
several planning priorities including safety,
traffic flow, and multi-modal transportation.
Per the RFP for the Buttermilk Pedestrian
Crossing, the purpose of this project is to
facilitate bicycle and pedestrian connections
to transit stops, the Buttermilk Park and Ride,
and increase transit speed, reliability, and
efficiency. There is currently an at grade
signalized pedestrian crossing of Highway 82 at
the Owl Creek intersection. By grade separating
the bicycle and pedestrian crossing at the
Highway 82/Owl Creek Road intersection, traffic
signal phases may be shortened, improving
throughput for both buses and other vehicles.
This project is a part of the interconnected,
multi-modal transit system of the Roaring
Fork Valley and the region. Creating a safer,
more efficient, and more accessible system
for travel as an alternative to the dominant
single occupancy auto vehicular means of
travel (Upper Vally Transit Enhancement Study
Technical Report, 2021)contributes to a more
affordable, community oriented, climate resilent,
and safe place to live.
INTRODUCTION
113
4Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
GOALS & PURPOSE
Project Goals
The RFPs for these projects outline the following
goals:
• Evaluation of a grade separated bicycle and
pedestrian crossing at Owl Creek Rd and
Highway 82 (Buttermilk)
• Incorporating previous efforts to design of
preferred overpass or underpass connection
at Owl Creek Rd
• Coordination of multi-use trail design with
potential grade separated crossing
• Grade-separated crossing would
accomodate heavy influxes of pedestrians
during winter ski season or X Games
• Design of grade-separated crossing should
consider connection between new land
developments and expansions that may
occur in coming years
Strategic Purpose of Outreach
For the Buttermilk Crossing project, there will be
two phases of public outreach.
For the first phase of public outreach, the
strategic purposes are:
1. To inform
2. To build awareness
3. To listen
4. To communicate the need for the project
5. To engage stakeholders
The second phase of public outreach will be
strategized more specifically closer to the time
of its initiation (Spring 2023), but will focus on
getting feedback from stakeholders and the
public about any proposed design alternatives
for the Buttermilk Crossing project.
Public open house event
114
5Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
WHO TO REACH
Key Audiences
There are two key audiences for the outreach
process: project stakeholders and the public-
at-large. The project stakeholders are directly
identified and invited to participate in virtual
project progress meetings. Engagement of the
public-at-large largely relies on successfully
building awareness through advertising and
open house meetings
Stakeholders
The use of the term ‘stakeholder’ can be
misleading and it is important to define
it clearly. The stakeholder group is to be
comprised of a variety of local, regional,
and state entities/agencies; this group will
include the project sponsors and may include
representation of local elected/appointed
boards (this group of stakeholders are directly
engaged in regular project meetings with
the project team). The stakeholder group
also includes neighbors and landowners
close to the site of the project (this cohort
of stakeholders will be contacted directly for
individual or small-group meetings)
Stakeholders for this project will be met with
individually, in some cases, where more
personal conversations are expected to be
productive. Some larger entities/agencies
will meet in groups to gain more technical
feedback.
The decision making group for both of the
projects is the Elected Officials Transportation
Committee (EOTC), which is comprised of the
CIty of Aspen City Council, Town of Snowmass
Village Town Council, and the Pitkin County
Board of County Commissioners. Routine
project engagement by the EOTC is via
departmental staff representatives.
The impacted agencies defined by the RFP
include the following:
• CDOT (Engineering, Utilities, Traffic)
• City of Aspen (Engineering, Parking,
Transportation, and Parks and Open Space)
• Pitkin County (Engineering, Transportation,
and Open Space and Trails)
• Town of Snowmass Village (Transportation
and Open Space and Trails)
• RFTA (Transit, Trails and Parking)
Additional stakeholder groups that have been
identified by the project team include:
• SkiCo
• Maroon Creek Club
• APCHA
• Private Landowners (Adjoiners)
Existing conditions at Buttermilk pedestrian crossing
115
6Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
METHODOLOGY
All stakeholder groups and contacts will be
assembled and organized to track information
and attendence throughout the outreach
process.
Public-at-Large
For the purposes of this project, the public
can be defined as residents of and individuals
employed in Aspen/Snowmass, commuters
traveling through the project area via
any mode of transportation, and visitors.
Connecting with a broad cross-section of the
public is important to understand the user
experience, identify key issues and challenges
of transportation and safety in the project area,
seek out potential solutions, and to test the
various alternatives against community needs
and desires.
It is well understood that the public is broadly
interested and vested in transportation in the
Roaring Fork Valley, whether they are local
residents, employees, commuters, or visitors.
We also know that it can be challenging
to expect the public to be activated and
engaged; busy schedules and the reality of
limited dates/times for open houses make
creative outreach necessary.
To achieve widespread awareness of the
project, and substantive quality and quantity
of feedback, the plan needs to allow for
numerous modes of engagement. This section
describes the various tools and methods for
building awareness of the project.
Awareness/Advertising
The foundation of the public engagement
process is building awareness. For each
outreach series, awareness is to be built by
leveraging social media, print/web media,
posters/flyers, radio advertising, and direct
emails.
Social Media - This tool has a significantly
short shelf-life, given the constant turnover
of information on individual social media
accounts. However, it is effective in quickly
reaching large audiences and the project
sponsors each have active social media
accounts. The schedule of the posts varies
depending on the type of outreach. The
consultant team will provide formatted social
media posts to the project team for posting to
their individual channels.
Existing conditions at Buttermilk pedestrian crossing
116
7Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
Stakeholders with social media channels
should be tagged with each post; that list will
be developed by the project team with the
first post and used as a template for each
subsequent post. Social media will be used to
advertise both web-based outreach and in
person outreach.
Print/Web - Utilizing The Aspen Daily News, print
advertisements will be placed starting two
weeks before open house events, and will run
every other day for a total of six 1/3-page ads.
Each 1/3-page ad, with priority placement, will
cost approximately $370. The consultant team
will provide ad layout and supply content to
The Aspen Times for placement. Additionally,
a banner ad will be placed on The Aspen
Times web site to capture web-only viewers.
Each outreach event will also be submitted to
various publications’ community briefs to raise
awareness throughout the valley.
Poster/Flyer/Newsletter - For each event, the
consultant team will develop a printable
and email-able flyer. This will be shared with
the project team for email distribution. Flyer
contents will include a call to attend a specific
open house event and an invitation to view
the project information at the web site. This will
also include links or QR codes directing users
to the project website or a survey. Working
with the project team, the consultant team will
develop a list of organizations who may also
be motivated to share the outreach flyer with
their email databases. This list will include but
may not be limited to the project stakeholders.
Radio - ‘Drive time’ radio ads will be placed on
KSPN, KMTS, and La Nueva Mixta. The number of
placements and schedule vary depending on
if the outreach is in-person or digital.
Existing conditions at proposed trail connectionExisting conditions at proposed trail connection
METHODOLOGY
117
8Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
Project Web Site - A custom, project-specific
web site will be established. This web site will
include a project summary, timeline, goals,
updates, and a general feedback form
that will allow visitors to submit comments.
Additionally, outreach collateral will be posted
and available for public download and viewing.
The site will be updated ahead of key outreach
series and with pertinent updates as the
project progresses.
Spanish Outreach - The majority of the
advertisment and outreach materials will be
translated into Spanish. Where possible, a
Spanish speaker will be present at in-person
events. This will require collaboration with the
city or county outreach team.
Open House Meetings
The project schedule has identified two key
public open houses. The open houses will be
held at local Aspen/Snowmass venues. ideally
in close proximity to the project site. For each
open house, the project team will develop
display boards with information, prompts
for feedback, and interactive activities. The
format of the meetings may include a short
presentation mid-way through the session,
with printed display boards staffed by the
project team in an open forum. Participants
will be encouraged to interact with the display
materials in a variety of ways, including adding
sticky notes to maps, filling out questionnaires,
and/or writing open comments. The team will
also take notes of conversations with individual
members of the public, and will keep a general
head-count of number of attendees.
Following each open house or web-based
outreach “event” the team will summarize
the feedback received in an outreach
memorandum.
The first open house is to be held in October
2022. The intent of this phase of outreach
is to inform the public of the goals and
parameters of the project, describe the need
for the project, share the previous work done
on the project, and seek feedback on basic
preferences and concerns (specifically with the
Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing).
The second open house, which is focused on
the Buttermilk intersection, will be held after
the alternatives have been developed and
screened by the project team and EOTC. The
intent of this meeting is to test the alternatives
for alignment with community needs and
desires. This meeting is anticipated to be held
in spring/summer 2023.
Event Series Scheduling
For each event series, the consultant team will
develop a schedule of tasks in preparation
for the outreach activities. This schedule will
include critical-path items, deadlines and
responsible parties. Additionally, a budget for
advertising and each event will be prepared
for approval. The schedule will be finalized
approximately three weeks ahead of the event
series.
METHODOLOGY
Existing conditions at proposed trail connection
118
Owl Creek to Truscott Trail Connection & Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing 9
PROJECT & ENGAGEMENT TIMELINE
Evaluation of Success of Outreach
Following each outreach series and
concurrent with the public outreach summary
memorandum, the team will evaluate the
efficacy of the outreach. As most of the
feedback from the public outreach will be
qualitative in nature, the summary memo will
identify themes and trends heard from the
public; ‘outlier’ comments will be recorded and
identified. Totals for participation will be tallied,
including outreach interactions (approximate
head count), quantity and quality of feedback,
number of survey responses and web site
comments, and approximate number of email
communications.
PROJECT AND ENGAGEMENT TIMELINE
Following advertising, the open house meeting
will be held to create awareness around the
project and its history. Feedback collected
from this open house will inform the design
alternatives creating in the following months.
After the public open house, stakeholder
meetings will take place to have more
intentional and individualized conversations
with impacted agencies, organizations, and
neighbors.
Based on the evaluation of the outreach,
the team will identify adjustments to the
approach for the following outreach event. This
information will be reflected in the outreach
report.
Outreach Series 1 Plan
The first iteration of outreach will utilize
advertising for the open house meeting to be
scheduled in October 2022. The advertising will
include digital, print, and radio advertisements
as well as the website launch to inform the
public about the project.
119
Owl Creek to Truscott Trail Connection & Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing 10OUTREACH 1 PROCESSOUTREACH
RECIPIENTS EOTC THE PUBLIC STAKEHOLDERS
OUTREACH
METHODS
MEETINGS
EMAILS
PHONE
CALLS
ADVERTISING
WEBSITE
OPEN HOUSE
MEETINGS
EMAILS
PHONE
CALLS
OUTREACH 1 PLAN
120
Owl Creek to Truscott Trail Connection & Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing 11
OUTREACH 1 STORYBOARDING
CONTEXT MAP
EXISTING
REGIONAL
MULTI-USE
TRAILS PROJECT SITE
LOCATION AND
LIMIT OF WORK
SITE CONTEXT
MAP
BOARD 1: CONTEXT & SITE LOCATION
BUTTERMILK
CROSSING EXISTING
CONDITIONS
LOCATION MAP
AND NOTES
SITE PHOTOS
SITE PHOTOS
SITE PHOTOS
SITE PHOTOS
BOARD 3: PEDESTRIAN CROSSING EXISTING
CONDITIONS
TRANSIT
ENHANCEMENT
STUDY FINDINGS
FEASIBILITY
STUDY
FINDINGS
UNDERPASS
CONCEPT
ALIGNMENT
OVERPASS
CONCEPT
ALIGNMENT
PROS AND
CONS
OF EACH
CONCEPT
BOARD 5: PREVIOUS STUDIES & CONCEPTS
PROJECT
GOALS PROJECT NEED
BASALT
UNDERPASS
IMAGERY
BOARD 2: PROJECT GOALS & NEED
TRUSCOTT
TRAIL EXISTING
CONDITIONS
LOCATION MAP
AND NOTES
SITE PHOTOS
SITE PHOTOS
SITE PHOTOS
SITE PHOTOS
BOARD 4: TRAIL CONNECTION EXISTING
CONDITIONS
BASALT
UNDERPASS WILLITS
UNDERPASS
AABC
UNDERPASS
SITE
PHOTOS
SITE
PHOTOS
SITE
PHOTOS
PROMPTING
QUESTIONS
PROMPTING
QUESTIONS
PROMPTING
QUESTIONS
BOARD 6: RELATED PROJECT EXAMPLES
WINGO
BRIDGE MAROON
CREEK RD
BRIDGE
TABLE MESA
BRIDGE
(BOULDER)
SITE
PHOTOS
SITE
PHOTOS
SITE
PHOTOS
PROMPTING
QUESTIONS
PROMPTING
QUESTIONS
PROMPTING
QUESTIONS
BOARD 7: RELATED PROJECT EXAMPLES
APPROX.
BUILD YEAR
NEXT PROJECT
STEPS
PROJECT SCHEDULE
BOARD 8: PROJECT SCHEDULE & NEXT STEPS
121
Owl Creek to Truscott Trail Connection & Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing 12
OUTREACH 1 CONTENT
Truscott to Owl Creek Trail Connection & Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing
Aspen
Airport
Maroon Creek
Roundabout
Buttermilk
Ski Area
Project Location
HARMONY R
D
OWL
CREEK RD
H
W
Y
8
2
MAROON
CREEK CLUB
BUTTERMILK
SKI AREA
TRUSCOTT PLMA
R
O
O
N
C
R
E
E
K
BRI
D
G
E
*
Existing Bike and
Pedestrian Trails
Existing
Pedestrian
Underpass
Locations
1CONTEXT & PROJECT SITE LOCATION
AABC
HWY 82McClain
Flats Rd
Roaring
Fork River
AIRPORT
MAROON CREEKASPEN GOLF
COURSE
RIO GRANDE
TRAIL
BRUSH CREEK
TRAIL
WOODY CREEK
EXISTING REGIONAL MULTI-USE TRAILS
PROJECT
LOCATION
SNOWMASS
CANYON
OWL CREEK
NORDIC TRAILS
ASPEN
NORDIC
TRAILS
Existing Pedestrian
Underpass Locations
*Proposed Pedestrian
Crossing Site
Proposed Trail
Connection
Limit of Work
HWY 82
Existing Nordic
Trails
AABC
UNDERPASS
HARMONY RD
UNDERPASS
TRUSCOTT
UNDERPASS
BRUSH CREEK RD
UNDERPASS
GERBAZ WAY
UNDERPASS
MAROON
CREEK
UNDERPASS
OWL CREEK
MULTI-USE TRAIL
WHY?
To provide safe and efficient opportunities for pedestrians and bicyclists to
travel across and along Highway 82, and to improve bus transit efficiency.
WHAT?
Trail Improvements
• Multi-use, paved trail (12’ wide minimum) from Owl Creek Rd to Truscott Pl.
• Connection to existing multi-use and Nordic trail systems
Owl Creek/SH82 Crossing
• Grade-separated (over or under pass) bicycle and pedestrian crossing at
Owl Creek Rd (Buttermilk)
• Improve existing Truscott underpass to better manage snow
accumulation
Transit Infrastructure
• Transit Signal Bypass lane for buses at Owl Creek intersection and
Harmony Rd intersection
• Improved signal times
MULTI-MODAL
TRANSPORTATION
Truscott to Owl Creek Trail Connection & Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing 2PROJECT GOALS & NEED
PROJECT GOALS PROJECT NEED
• Incentivize bus transit use by improving system
efficiency (transit signal bypass), and elimination
of pedestrian crossing signal phase
• Prioritize investment in multi-modal systems (bus,
pedestrians/trail use)
SAFETY
• Eliminate very wide (~95’) crosswalk
• Eliminate car, bus, and pedestrian conflicts via
grade separation of pedestrians
• Increase safety of pedestrians and system
efficiency during events
TRAFFIC FLOW
• Reduce daily traffic congestion
• Reduce heavy congestion during large events (i.e.
X Games)
AIR QUALITY
• Encourage alternative transit (bicyle, pedestrian,
bus) in lieu of single occupancy vehicles
• Increase convenience and desirability of trail use
• Reduce vehicle idling at traffic signal
USERS AT BASALT UNDERPASS
Truscott to Owl Creek Trail Connection & Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing 3EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS: PEDESTRIAN
CROSSING
EXISTING CONDITIONS NOTES:
• exposed, wide (95’ ±) pedestrian crossing
• dangerous bicycle and pedestrian crossing
• highway-speed auto traffic has long delay (35
second pedestrian cycle)
PEDESTRIAN CROSSING
NE VIEW FROM BUTTERMILK SIDE
UPVALLEY VIEW
BUTTERMILK SKI AREA
UPVALLEY VIEW
DOWNVALLEY BUS STOP
HWY 82
OWL CREEK RD
HW
Y
8
2
MAROON
CREEK CLUB
BUTTERMILK
SKI AREA MAROON CREEKASPEN GOLF
COURSE
AIRPORT
CROSSING
LOCATION
HWY 82
DOWNVALLEY VIEW
EXISTING CONDITIONS NOTES:
• sidewalk abruptly ends, no pedestrians allowed in
UV direction
• connection to other trails requires crossing
highway to north
• isolated bus stop
EXISTING CONDITIONS NOTES:
• isolated bus stop (no connection on south side of
highway in the DV direction)
• social trails show need to travel in DV direction,
need for more formal trail
UPVALLEY BUTTERMILK BUS STOP
UPVALLEY TRUSCOTT BUS STOP
UPVALLEY VIEW
BUTTERMILK SKI AREAUPVALLEY VIEW
UPVALLEY VIEW
DOWNVALLEY VIEW
DOWNVALLEY VIEW
UPVALLEY VIEW
TRUSCOTT UNDERPASSHWY 82HWY 82
Truscott to Owl Creek Trail Connection & Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing 4EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS: TRAIL
CONNECTION
HW
Y
8
2
MAROON
CREEK CLUB
BUTTERMILK
SKI AREA
MAROON CREEKASPEN GOLF
COURSE
AIRPORT
TRAIL CONNECTION
LOCATION
UPVALLEY
BUTTERMILK STOP
UPVALLEY
TRUSCOTT
STOP
122
Owl Creek to Truscott Trail Connection & Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing 13
OUTREACH 1 CONTENT
Truscott to Owl Creek Trail Connection & Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing 5PREVIOUS STUDIES AND CONCEPTS
2018 FEASIBILITY STUDY FINDINGS
1. Pedestrian/bicycle crossing structure is feasible at the Buttermilk location
2. Need for crossing structure is supported by similar pedestrian volumes at
other SH82 crossings
3. The crossing would provide reduction in vehicle delay (signal timing)
4. An underpass configuration would be more compatible with previous
grade separated crossings than an overpass structure
SHWY 82OWL CREEK RD
DV BUTTERMILK
STOP
UV BUTTERMILK
STOP
UNDERPASS CONCEPT OVERPASS CONCEPT
SHWY 82OWL CREEK RD
DV BUTTERMILK
STOP
UV BUTTERMILK
STOP
• ADA compliant grades
• structure lighting
• minor visual impacts
• requires retaining walls
• significant utility impacts
• extensive construction traffic control required
MINIMUM DIMENSIONS: 14’ wide X 8’-4” tall
• ADA compliant grades
• structure lighting
• minor drainage improvements
• reduced utility impacts
• moderate construction traffic control required
• requires retaining walls
• significant visual impacts
MINIMUM DIMENSIONS: 14’ wide X 17.5’ vertical
clearance X 100’ long
2021 UPPER VALLEY TRANSIT ENHANCEMENT STUDY TECHINICAL REPORT
• Lack of paved pathways on up-valley side of SH 82 create islands lacking connectivity on that side of the highway
(particularly for Americans with Disabilities Act users and pedestrians trying to cross the highway between bus
stops)
• The up-valley stop at Truscott is not connected to any other destinations on that side of the highway
• Aspen Country Inn is completely isolated from other land uses
• Buttermilk base area is also an island due to the lack of paved pathways on that side of the highway
BUS TRANSIT
SIGNAL BYPASS
LANE
BUS TRANSIT
SIGNAL BYPASS
LANE
±12’ from highway surface to underpass trail surface
±20’ from highway surface to overpass deck
Truscott to Owl Creek Trail Connection & Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing 6RELATED PROJECT EXAMPLES
BASALT UNDERPASS AABC UNDERPASSWILLITS UNDERPASS
How does it feel to move through these
underpasses? Is it comfortable? Do you feel safe?
Are the entrances/exits easy to
navigate?Do the materials and plantings look good and
fit with the surrounding character?
FLAT CEILING ARCHED CEILING
LIGHTING
WOODED
PLANTING
LOW PERENNIAL
PLANTING
MATERIALS
Truscott to Owl Creek Trail Connection & Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing 7RELATED PROJECT EXAMPLES
WINGO BRIDGE TABLE MESA BRIDGE (BOULDER)MAROON CREEK ROAD BRIDGE
What do you like about these bridges? What do
you dislike about them?
What would you rather see or experience in a
pedestrian overpass bridge?
Are your opinions of these bridges different as a
pedestrian vs. an automobile driver/passenger?
Truscott to Owl Creek Trail Connection & Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing 8PROJECT SCHEDULE & NEXT STEPS
PROJECT NEXT STEPS:
• Compiling and reporting on public and stakeholder feedback
• Identifying funding sources
• Updating project feasibility with current cost estimations
• Designing concepts for alternative options (Buttermilk crossing)
PROJECT SCHEDULE
APPROXIMATE BUILD YEAR:
TRUSCOTT TRAIL CONNECTION = 2024
BUTTERMILK CROSSING = 2025-26
123
14Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
Open House Meeting
The project team held an open house meeting
on October 13th, 2022 at the Pitkin County
Admin Building in Aspen (530 E Main St). The
meeting was advertised via community
calendars, Aspen Daily News, the Sopris Sun,
social media (Instagram ad), and an email
blast to identified stakeholders.
The meeting was held in the BOCC meeting
room and featured boards displaying
information about the project background and
context materials, as well as existing site photos
and a high quality aerial photo of the site for
the public to orient around. Refreshments were
also provided.
Attendance at the meeting was low, with 3
members of the public coming to the event
in total. Two of the attendees were residents
of Pomegranate Condos, a condominium
residence building on Hwy 82 along the route
of the proposed Truscott trail connection.
Feedback from the attendees was generally in
favor of the pedestrian crossing at Buttermilk
(no preferences were expressed strongly about
an underpass vs. an overpass option), the
main concern here was what the impact to
traffic would be during construction. Attendees
also pointed out the difficulty of crossing the
highway at the Aspen Country Inn bus stop,
stating that to get to a pedestrian crossing is
an additional 10-15 minute walk from the DV bus
stop, so most people try to cross the highway
at the stop where there is no pedestrian
infrastructure since the Pomegranate
residence is just across the highway. They
stated that this is dangerous and asked if there
are any plans to include crossing infrastructure
for this bus stop as well as the Buttermilk stop.
OUTREACH 1 SUMMARY
124
15Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
OUTREACH 2 PLAN
Outreach Series 2 Plan
The second iteration of outreach will utilize
pop-up intercept events to collect in-person
feedback. Due to the lack of interest in the
open house style, this pop-up approach
will attempt to meet people where they are
rather than asking them to show up at specific
locations and times.
Advertising during this outreach series will utilize
social media outlets and newspaper print ads
to direct the public to take the online survey.
They will also inform the public of specific pop-
up event locations.
Posted flyers around the valley will direct the
public to the online survey. Flyers will also be
distributed during pop-up events.
Email blast campaigns will be sent to
stakeholder and affiliated contact lists. These
email blasts will inform these contacts of the
project status and will ask for feedback via the
online survey.
Any further stakeholder concerns will be
addressed individually as they arise.OUTREACH 2 PROCESSOUTREACH
RECIPIENTS THE PUBLIC STAKEHOLDERS
OUTREACH
METHODS
ADVERTISING
WEBSITE
SURVEY
POP-UP
EVENTS
EMAIL BLAST
SURVEY
PRINTED
FLYERS
125
Owl Creek to Truscott Trail Connection & Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing 16
OUTREACH 2 PLAN
126
17Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
OUTREACH 2 SUMMARY
Introduction
The primary source of feedback for this phase
of outreach was through the online survey.
Observations and notes from pop-up intercept
events also gleaned some valuable feedback.
Results from these two avenues of outreach
are outlined in this summary, with a full report
of the survey results as an appendix.
ADVERTISING
Outreach Dates MARCH-MAY 2023
SURVEY RESPONSES
PRINT ADS PRINT FLYERS SOCIAL MEDIA POSTS EBLASTS SENT
PEOPLE TALKED TO AT POP UP EVENTS WEBSITE VISITS
331
16 150 4 2
115 1362
127
18Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
OUTREACH 2 SUMMARY
Pop-Up Intercept Events
The pop-up intercept events were
organized to get the most feedback
we could from users of the pedestrian
crosswalk at Buttermilk and the surrounding
transit infrastructure. These events varied in
location and target audience in an effort
to get a wider understanding of public
opinion.
CLIFFHOUSE RESTAURANT EVENT
Talked to ~20 people, general feeling is that some
kind of change should be made to the intersection,
and an underpass is more favorable than an
overpass.
BUTTERMILK BUS STOP EVENT
Talked to ~40 people. Mixed feelings about necessity
of changing crosswalk. SkiCo employees and those
who use the crosswalk every day have strong
feelings about it being dangerous and needing a
change. Many feel the least expensive option would
be better.
PARK & RIDE EVENTS
4 events, talked to ~50 people total. Some interest in
the project and making a change to the intersection.
Many were unfamiliar with the specific crosswalk
but were supportive of other underpass pedestrian
crossings in the valley.
128
19Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
OUTREACH 2 SUMMARY
THEMES COMMENTS EVENT
Comfort/
Safety
Efficiency
Bigger
picture
Alternative
interventions
Employees/users of crosswalk often feel it is unsafe and
have had close calls with cars turning right out of Owl
Creek Rd. Particularly there have been issues at night
time. Infrequent users of the crosswalk mostly felt safe
using it.
Buttermilk
Bus Stop
4/2
Frequent crosswalk users feel an underpass or overpass
would make commuting to/from Buttermilk easier and
more efficient as a pedestrian/cyclist. Complaints that
the pedestrian signal takes a long time to turn on and is
relatively short makes getting across highway a chore.
Bus users often miss buses or try to cross highway at
non-signaled times to make one.
Buttermilk
Bus Stop
4/2
If any intervention is made, will it consider future
development in the area and the entrance to Aspen
changes? What if the highway is widened? Should look at
the West Maroon Creek Plan and think about long term
impacts.
Other than an underpass or overpass, there could be
other solutions to address this area. Suggestion to
implement a roundabout at this intersection, changing
the paving or making the crosswalk more obvious.
Could implement “No turn on red” at Owl Creek Rd, a
pedestrian-led light interval, more frequent pedestrian
signals, or blinking red/yellow lights for turning signals.
Cliffhouse
Uphill
Breakfast
3/31
Buttermilk
Bus Stop
4/2
Buttermilk
Bus Stop
4/2
129
20Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
OUTREACH 2 SUMMARY
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
WEBSITE VISITSFEB 20WEEKFEB 27MAR 06MAR 13MAR 20MAR 27APR 03APR 10APR 17APR 24MAY 01MAY 08MAY 15MAY 22OUTREACH
SERIES 2
BEGINS
POP-UP
EVENT
POP-UP
EVENT
EBLAST
PRINT
FLYERS
POSTED
POP-UP
EVENTS
SOCIAL
MEDIA
POST
NEWSPAPER
ADS RUN
EBLAST
SOCIAL
MEDIA
POST
NEWSPAPER
ADS RUN SURVEY
CLOSES
WEBSITE
The website displays project background
information with explanations about the
need and goals of the project. It also
contains PDF versions of the Outreach
1 open house boards, Outreach 2 pop-
up boards, and the previously studied
feasiblity report. There are also site photos,
pedestrian crossing renderings, and an
open comment submission box. The survey
was integrated into the main page of
the website and all was available in both
English and Spanish. See below for website
usage data during the second outreach
phase.
130
21Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
OUTREACH 2 SUMMARY
Survey
The online survey was developed as a
short list of questions to collect contextual
demographic information and solicit
opinions about the pedestrian crossing
at Buttermilk. The questions and open
comment boxes were designed to learn if
members of the public think there should
be any intervention at this intersection
at all, and if so whether they’d prefer an
underpass or an overpass concept. We
also wanted to collect general information
about people’s experiences using the
crosswalk as it is.
SURVEY DATES OPEN MARCH 29TH - MAY 15TH DAYS
48
331
SURVEYS
TAKEN
USE RFTA
EVERY WEEK
WORK IN ASPEN
OR SNOWMASS
85%204
LIVE UPVALLEYLIVE DOWNVALLEY45%55%
131
22Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
OUTREACH 2 SUMMARY
Survey Questions Summaries
QUESTION 1: Do you live in the valley (between Aspen and Glenwood
Springs/Rifle)?
• The vast majority of respondents are residents of the valley.
QUESTION 1b: Do you live upvalley or downvalley of the Brush Creek Park &
Ride?
• Respondents were split relatively evenly between upvalley and downvalley. A slight
majority of upvalley residents responded to this survey.
QUESTION 2: Do you work in Aspen or Snowmass?
• Most of the respondents work in Aspen or Snowmass.
QUESTION 3: Are you a regular RFTA rider (once a week or more)?
• 2/3 of respondents ride RFTA transportation once a week or more.
QUESTION 4: Do you cross Highway 82 at Owl Creek Rd/Buttermilk RFTA stop
regularly (once a week or more)?
• 1/3 of respondents cross the highway at this intersection often.
QUESTION 5: Do you feel safe using this crosswalk?
• Over 2/3 of respondents do not feel safe at this crosswalk.
• Respondents mention concern over cars turning right onto Hwy 82 from Owl Creek
Rd, visibility at night, cars speeding and running red lights, number of lanes to
cross as a pedestrian, and confusion with bus traffic configuration. Many mention
concern specifcally for volume of children using crossing during ski season.
132
23Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
OUTREACH 2 SUMMARY
Survey Questions Summaries
QUESTION 6: Here’s a picture of a pedestrian overpass. The construction
cost is expected to be $8-$11 Million. For reference, the Basalt Underpass in
today’s dollars would cost $12 Million. What do you think?
• Scale of 1 (Dislike)-10 (Like): respondents were split on whether they
liked the overpass option or not. Skewed slightly more towards “like”, but
the overpass is polarizing.
• Scale of 1 (Looks Unsafe)-10 (Looks Safe): majority of respondents say
the overpass option looks very safe.
• Scale of 1 (Too Costly) - 10 (Worth the Cost): respondents were split on
whether the overpass option is worth the cost. The average is skewed
more towards it being worth the cost, but there is lots of variation in
answers as respondents weigh impacts to viewshed in terms of cost as
well.
QUESTION 7: Here are pictures of a pedestrian underpass. The construction
cost is expected to be $14-$17 Million. For reference, the Basalt Underpass
in today’s dollars would cost $12 Million. What do you think?
• Scale of 1 (Dislike)-10 (Like): most respondents reported that they liked
the underpass option.
• Scale of 1 (Looks Unsafe)-10 (Looks Safe): majority of respondents say
the underpass option looks very safe.
• Scale of 1 (Too Costly) - 10 (Worth the Cost): respondents were
somewhat split on whether the underpass is worth the cost. More
respondents say the underpass is worth the cost than those that say
the overpass is worth the cost. A higher proportion of respondents
would rather spend the money to have an underpass than to install a
bridge.
133
24Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
OUTREACH 2 SUMMARY
Survey Questions Summaries
QUESTION 8: Do you have a preference?
• About half of respondents said they prefer the underpass, where a little
more than a third reported prefering the overpass. The remainder of the
respondents said they prefer neither, indicating that they don’t see a
need for a change.
QUESTION 9: Do you have experience using other over/underpasses in the
valley?
• The vast majority of respondents said yes, they have used other such
infrastrcuture in the valley.
• Respondents identify underpasses at Basalt, AABC, El Jebel, Grand Ave
in Glenwood, and Willits as being frequently used and well liked.
• Respondents mentioned underpasses feeling “creepy” at night,
concerns with maintenance during winter months, and needing better
lighting. Many mentioned ease of use for bikes.
134
25Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
OUTREACH 2 SUMMARY
QUESTION 10: What is most important to you when evaluating these new
crossing options? Please explain.
• Respondents frequently mentioned safety, cost, preserving views,
efficiency, aethetics, traffic impacts during construction, and longevity.
• A few respondents mentioned longer term goals of how any change
to this crosswalk will connect to development through the entrance to
Aspen in the future.
Survey Questions Summaries
Question 10 Responses Word Cloud:
135
26Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
OUTREACH 2 SUMMARY
Question 1 results
324
7
Question 1b results
179 144
136
27Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
OUTREACH 2 SUMMARY
Question 2 results
282
48
Question 3 results
204
126
137
28Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
OUTREACH 2 SUMMARY
Question 4 results
120
Question 5 results
220
111
211
138
29Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
OUTREACH 2 SUMMARY
Question 5b results
139
30Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
OUTREACH 2 SUMMARY
Question 5b results continued
140
31Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
OUTREACH 2 SUMMARY
Question 5b results continued
Translated from Spanish: “When I leave ski lessons with my kids at Buttermilk it is very safe for us.”
141
32Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
OUTREACH 2 SUMMARY
Question 5b results continued
142
33Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
OUTREACH 2 SUMMARY
Question 5b results continued
143
34Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
OUTREACH 2 SUMMARY
Question 5b results continued
144
35Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
OUTREACH 2 SUMMARY
Question 5b results continued
145
36Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
OUTREACH 2 SUMMARY
Question 5b results continued
146
37Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
OUTREACH 2 SUMMARY
Question 5b results continued
147
38Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
OUTREACH 2 SUMMARY
Question 5b results continued
148
39Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
OUTREACH 2 SUMMARY
Question 5b results continued
149
40Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
OUTREACH 2 SUMMARY
Question 6 results
6. Here’s a picture of a pedestrian overpass. The construction cost is expected to be $8-$11
Million. For referece, the Basalt Underpass in today’s dollars would cost $12 Million. What do
you think?
150
41Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
OUTREACH 2 SUMMARY
Question 6 results continued
151
42Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
OUTREACH 2 SUMMARY
Question 7 results
7. Here are pictures of a pedestrian underpass. The construction cost is expected to be $14-$17
Million. For reference, the Basalt Underpass in today’s dollars would cost $12 Million. What do
you think?
152
43Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
OUTREACH 2 SUMMARY
Question 7 results continued
153
44Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
OUTREACH 2 SUMMARY
Question 7 results continued
Question 8 results
117 161
47
154
45Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
OUTREACH 2 SUMMARY
Question 9 results
308
19
Question 9b results
155
46Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
OUTREACH 2 SUMMARY
Question 9b results continued
156
47Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
OUTREACH 2 SUMMARY
Question 9b results continued
157
48Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
OUTREACH 2 SUMMARY
Question 9b results continued
158
49Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
OUTREACH 2 SUMMARY
Question 9b results continued
159
50Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
OUTREACH 2 SUMMARY
Question 9b results continued
160
51Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
OUTREACH 2 SUMMARY
Question 9b results continued
161
52Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
OUTREACH 2 SUMMARY
Question 9b results continued
162
53Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
OUTREACH 2 SUMMARY
Question 9b results continued
163
54Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
OUTREACH 2 SUMMARY
Question 9b results continued
164
55Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
OUTREACH 2 SUMMARY
Question 9b results continued
165
56Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
OUTREACH 2 SUMMARY
Question 9b results continued
166
57Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
OUTREACH 2 SUMMARY
Question 10 results
167
58Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
OUTREACH 2 SUMMARY
Question 10 results continued
168
59Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
OUTREACH 2 SUMMARY
Question 10 results continued
169
60Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
OUTREACH 2 SUMMARY
Question 10 results continued
170
61Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
OUTREACH 2 SUMMARY
Question 10 results continued
171
62Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
OUTREACH 2 SUMMARY
Question 10 results continued
172
63Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
OUTREACH 2 SUMMARY
Question 10 results continued
173
64Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
OUTREACH 2 SUMMARY
Question 10 results continued
174
65Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
OUTREACH 2 SUMMARY
Question 10 results continued
175
66Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
OUTREACH 2 SUMMARY
Question 10 results continued
176
67Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
OUTREACH 2 SUMMARY
Question 10 results continued
177
68Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
OUTREACH 2 SUMMARY
Question 10 results continued
178
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
EOTC MEETING DATE: June 29, 2023
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: 2023 Work Plan Updates
STAFF RESPONSIBLE: Linda DuPriest, Regional Transportation Director
ISSUE STATEMENT: This memo includes key updates on projects from the 2023 Work Plan.
A. Snowmass Regional Transit Analysis
At the April 6, 2023 EOTC meeting, Mark Warner of Warner Transportation Consulting and
Sam Guarino, Transportation Director for the Town of Snowmass Village presented the findings
from the Snowmass Regional Transit Analysis. The next step was to work with RFTA on a cost
estimate and feasibility analysis of increasing direct summer service between Aspen and
Snowmass. Sam Guarino will present the results of the cost/feasibility analysis.
B. Snowmass Transit Center
Sam Guarino will update the EOTC on the status of the Snowmass Transit Center project. EOTC
has set aside $6,000,000 towards a transit center project.
C. Brush Creek Park & Ride
An update will be given on the status of the construction project, which began May 8, 2023,
including public outreach efforts.
D. New Castle Creek Bridge
City of Aspen Deputy City Engineer Pete Rice will provide an update on the New Castle Creek
Bridge study.
E. HOV Lane Enforcement
The Hwy 82 HOV Lane was discussed at the April 6, 2023 EOTC meeting, where it was agreed
that following the Pitkin County legal determination that EOTC funds cannot be spent to enforce
motor vehicle laws, staff would not pursue HOV lane enforcement at this time. Staff was
directed to conduct additional research on best practices for HOV lanes, including optimum lane
configuration, the state’s regulations for # of passengers in a vehicle, right lane vs. left lane, and
other details. Staff will report back at the August 31, 2023 EOTC meeting.
F. Permanent Automatic Vehicle Counters
Staff will give a status update on the project to install permanent vehicle counters at six locations
throughout the upper valley. Pitkin County Public Works and Telecommunications staff are
beginning a trial with three technology providers. The trial will begin later in June, with results
and recommendations presented to the EOTC at the August 31, 2023 meeting.
179
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM : Pete Rice, PE, Deputy City Engineer
Carly McGowan, Project Manager II
THRU: Tricia Aragon, PE, City Engineer
DATE OF MEMO: June 12th, 2023
MEETING DATE: June 19th, 2023
RE: Park Avenue Improvement Project
BACKGROUND:
The City has considered ways to improve pedestrian safety in the Park and Midland neighborhood
due to the high number of pedestrians sharing space with vehicles on a narrow roadway.
Residents and other stakeholders have participated in a public process, starting in 2008, related
to safety and connectivity in the neighborhood. Council decided in 2008 to not pursue
modifications to traffic patterns and the conversation was paused. The Park and Midland safety
conversation is two-fold and includes elements of pedestrian safety and of stormwater
management.
Pedestrian Safety
Approximately 10 years after the initial Park Avenue work sessions with Council, in 2019, the
engineering department listened to the community about safety concerns along Park Avenue and
reintroduced the project to Council.
The Park Avenue corridor sees heavy pedestrian, bike, bus, and vehicular traffic throughout the
year and these numbers are anticipated to be on the rise. The northern block of Park Ave
functions as a key connection between the downtown core via East Hopkins Trail and one of the
most popular hiking trails in town – Smuggler Road. The people who walk, roll, and move through
this corridor is represent the Aspen community at large. The lack of pedestrian space affects
residents, visitors, and the workforce, alike.
Since late 2019, city staff has been working closely with the community and with Council to find
a solution to the unsafe and uncomfortable transportation condition along Park Avenue.
180
Stormwater Management
The Park and Midland neighborhood has no functioning stormwater infrastructure. There are
historic drainage patterns that cause a variety of drainage issues in the area. In large storm
events, runoff in the area floods private property. During the freeze thaw cycle in the springtime,
ponding and freezing occurs in the streets, causing unsafe travel conditions across the board.
The historic drainage conditions have been a concern of the City for years. This concern led the
engineering department to study the area in depth and create the Smuggler Hunter Surface
Drainage Master Plan in 2015. The masterplan recognizes existing drainage patterns and presents
solutions for the basin.
PROJECT HISTORY:
Pedestrian safety and connectivity in the Park and Midland neighborhood have been discussed
with Council since the late 2000’s. In 2019, staff heard concerns from the community about safety
in the Park and Midland vicinity. City staff, Council, and the community have been engaged in
conversations about safety in the Park and Midland neighborhood since late 2019. The following
timeline gives an overview of Council and community history.
Fall 2019 – Neighbor Meetings
Staff sent nearly 400 invitations to residents in the neighborhood to meet for an interview with
staff about safety in the neighborhood. Staff met one-on-one with 25 neighbors in personal
settings including in their homes and on walks through the neighborhood.
July 2020 – Council Work Session
Staff presented the engagement that had taken place to date. Council directed staff to initiate
additional outreach on previous projects in the area and provide additional information on
potential impacts of an improvement project. The initial engagement report that was presented
to Council during the July 2020 work session is included as Attachment A.
August 2020 – Council Info Memo
Staff provided Council with a plan to move forward in the area that included the following:
1. Implementation of short-term solutions such as installation of a variable message board
to ease speeding concerns
2. Data collection
3. Development of preliminary concepts
4. Neighborhood Outreach
Fall 2020 – Community Survey and Third Party Traffic Report
Staff worked with a communications consultant to implement a community survey to better
understand the perception of safety in the neighborhood and the appetite among residents for
various solution options.
181
Staff hired a traffic engineering consultant to develop a traffic report for the Park and Midland
neighborhood. The traffic report evaluated speeds, volumes, and traffic flow in the neighborhood
and presented recommendations to improve safety.
The traffic report concluded that:
• Speeding is not present on Park Ave. between Hopkins and Midland Avenue,
• The one-way configuration could likely result in increased speeds in the neighborhood
without additional traffic calming measures,
• The enhancement of pedestrian crossing of Park Avenue at Hopkins Avenue is
recommended, and
• The sidewalk connection on the east side of Park Avenue between Hopkins Avenue and
Midland Avenue is recommended.
• The traffic engineering consultant did not recommend the one-way configuration due to
the issues of safety in vehicle traffic.
The community survey respondents were primarily residents of the Park and Midland
neighborhood. Of the 56 responses, the results are summarized as follows:
• When asked whether they support completing the sidewalk connection on Park Ave and
maintaining the two-way traffic pattern, 68% responded that they would support it, 23%
responded that they wouldn’t support it, and 9% were neutral and/or undecided.
• When asked whether they support one-way streets in the neighborhood, 24%
responded they would be supportive, 69% responded that they would not be
supportive, and 7% were neutral or undecided.
January 2021 – Council Work Session
Staff presented the following items to Council:
1. Results from the community survey
2. Results from the traffic report
3. Implemented improvements to the Park and Hopkins intersection
4. Four conceptual improvement options for the neighborhood and anticipated impacts of
each option
Council directed staff to proceed with conceptual design of the completed sidewalk connection
along the eastern side of Park Ave and the associated road re-alignment of Park Avenue to the
west. Council directed staff to conduct additional outreach with residents along the northern
block of Park Avenue to keep them engaged in design. The results of the community survey and
the traffic study are included as Attachments B and C, respectively.
182
Summer 2021 – Conceptual Design
Staff used in-house resources to draft a preliminary design for a sidewalk installation along the
east side of Park Ave. The preliminary design included stormwater infrastructure improvements
including a reinforced concrete pipe through the northern block of Park Avenue, water quality
treatment, and an improved river outfall.
September 2021 – Council Work Session
Staff presented the preliminary Park Avenue design. The design included a sidewalk installation
along the eastern side of Park Avenue and a re-alignment of the roadway, as discussed in January
of 2021. Staff presented the preliminary design using a video.
Council directed staff to undertake an additional round of one-on-one outreach prior to
developing detailed plans.
Fall 2021 – Neighborhood Outreach
Staff met individually with residents and homeowners along the northern block of Park Avenue.
Staff reached out to the 12 property owners adjacent to the proposed pedestrian improvements
and road re-alignment. Of those 12, staff was able to reach and meet with ten of the property
owners independently to discuss the proposed design. Specific topics in meetings included the
following:
- Staff provided a background of the project up until this point, including previous council
direction,
- Staff showed the proposed conceptual plan and talked through the anticipated impacts
that the property owner could expect to experience,
- Property owner(s) was given an opportunity to ask any questions and share any concerns
relating to design or otherwise.
During the meetings, many neighbors expressed that pedestrians are unsafe and that a serious
accident could be looming. Most neighbors agreed that something needs to be done, but there
were differing opinions on what should be done. Comments from neighbors could be classified
into three different categories: construction impacts, design considerations, and property
impacts.
Regarding construction impacts, many of the neighbors expressed concerns about how their lives
will be disrupted during construction, whether it be due to noise or property access. Staff assured
neighbors that there will be significant communication with the neighborhood leading up to and
during construction. Once design is complete and a contractor is selected through the bidding
process, a phasing plan will be developed that will outline property access and other construction
impacts.
The comments regarding design considerations we’re not comments made in a spirit of
opposition, but rather regarding elements of the design that neighbors would like to see
183
incorporated. These include comments about snow storage for snow plows, curb cuts to access
property, and relocation of mailboxes, boulders, trees, etc. Staff incorporated these comments
into the design when feasible.
The third category of comments received is regarding property impacts that can’t be mitigated
through design. Staff has been working with homeowners and their representatives (their
gardener, in one case) to find solutions that are as least impactful as possible.
February 2022 – Council Info Memo
Staff shared with Council results of one-on-one neighbor meetings that were held during Fall of
2021. Each neighbor that staff met with was asked to complete a Design Acknowledgement Form
to provide feedback in a trackable way. The Design Acknowledgement Forms are included as
Attachment D.
Spring 2022 – Spring 2023 – Detailed Design Process and Continued Outreach
Over the course of the previous year, staff has been working to design the Park Avenue
Improvement Project in-house. The design includes the following elements:
- Stormwater main
- Water quality treatment and outfall
- Sidewalk connection
- Roadway re-alignment
- Landscaping plans for impacted areas
In May of 2023, Staff again met with neighbors adjacent the project site to inform them of
anticipated impacts and coordinate mitigation of impacts. Staff met with 15 homeowners
between February and May of 2023. In mid-May, adjacent neighbors were invited to send any
comments regarding the project to ParkandMidland@aspen.gov to be included in this council
packet. Subscribers to the Aspen Community Voice project page were invited to do the same.
One comment was received and is included in Attachment E.
Staff, the community, and Council have worked closely on this project for nearly four years to
find a safety solution. The following is a summary of recent Council work sessions and info
memos:
- July 13th, 2020
- August 11th, 2020
- January 25th, 2021
- September 20th, 2021
- February 15th, 2022
Staff has met one-on-one with individual neighbors as many as three or more times to obtain
input, understand concerns, and provide information on timeline and plans.
184
DISCUSSION:
Staff has developed 90% design documents completed in-house by staff. Finalization of the plan
set will not occur until council direction is received. The proposed design elements fall into two
main components: pedestrian improvements and stormwater improvements.
Pedestrian Improvements
The proposed sidewalk will span the frontage of five properties along the east side of Park Ave.
It will tie into existing sidewalk on the north and south ends of the block that have been placed
during the development process of the adjacent private properties. The sidewalk will be ADA
compliant and entirely in the public right-of-way.
The roadway will be shifted to the west by approximately a maximum of 5.5 ft along the frontage
of a duplex property with the addresses 315 and 317 Park Ave. The roadway will shift to the west
by less than 6” in front of two other properties: 311 Park Ave and 325 Park Ave. Staff has worked
with the property owner at 325 Park Avenue to agree upon a right-of-way easement for five
square feet of roadway to be placed on private property.
Staff worked closely with a consulting landscape architecture firm and the adjacent property
owners or their gardening staff to develop landscaping plans for the two areas where landscaping
in the right-of-way near private property will be affected.
The proposed landscaping renderings are shown in Figure 1. The 90% plan set can be found in
Attachment F.
Figure 1 Rendering of Park Avenue Landscaping
185
Stormwater Improvements
The existing stormwater system in the Park and Midland neighborhood does not include
underground piping for conveyance. All drainage relies on surface drainage or smaller drywells
that act as a filtration system during smaller rain events. At the intersection of Park Ave and
Midland Ave, there is a failing drywell that causes ponding throughout the intersection. During
both large and small storm events, stormwater drains from Park Avenue onto private property.
On Midland, there are similar, more severe issues of both ponding and uncaptured stormwater
draining towards properties.
The proposed design in the Park Avenue Improvement Project includes approximately 300 linear
feet of stormwater pipe, inlets, water quality treatment, and surface re-grading, including a
crown in the roadway and curb and gutter on the east side of the roadway, to direct runoff into
the storm system. The design decreases the ponding on Park Ave and decreases the runoff onto
private properties along the river by collecting and conveying the runoff to a designed outfall into
the river.
The stormwater component of the design is guided by the Smuggler Hunter Surface Drainage
Master Plan. This segment of stormwater infrastructure is the first necessary step to solve the
larger drainage issues in the Park and Midland neighborhood. The next phase of stormwater work
will occur on Midland Avenue in 2029, with design starting in 2027. The Midland portion of
stormwater infrastructure will tie into the storm infrastructure that is proposed in the Park
Avenue Improvement Project. The conveyance and water quality infrastructure is sized for the
entire basin that includes the future Midland infrastructure.
Currently, all of the stormwater in the basin, which includes part of Smuggler Mountain and a
large portion of the east end neighborhood, is running off to the river without being treated. The
proposed design includes a proprietary piece of sub-surface infrastructure to treat runoff before
in reaches the river.
Drainage on the E Hopkins Trail has been a conversation point for many neighbors during the
multiple rounds of outreach. The proposed plan set includes re-grading of the trail to remove a
low spot in the trail and to introduce a cross slope to move water off of the trail and into a small
swale during freeze thaw cycles and runoff events. Staff intends to bid the E Hopkins Trail portion
of the project as an ad-alt to the bid. Re-grading would be completed based on budget availability
and Council direction at the time of construction contract award.
186
ALTERNATIVES:
Alternatives include the previously presented alternatives as presented in the January 2021 work
session including the following:
- Revisit the one-way option and plan budgeting around a new design.
- Keep the current conditions with a shared roadway for vehicles, pedestrians and
bicyclists.
If no improvements are made to the Park Ave corridor, the travelling public will continue to share
a constricted roadway and uncomfortable travel. Pedestrians will not have a separate space from
bikers, vehicles, and buses, therefore putting them at risk in the street. Additionally, the drainage
concerns on Park Ave and Midland Ave will continue to be unresolved, creating both an
environmental hazard and a public safety hazard.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
The City of Aspen is continuously working towards a more sustainable, environmentally-friendly
city, and the Park Ave Improvement Project supports that vision. By installing infrastructure for
community members and visitors to comfortably and safely walk and bike around town, vehicle
trips are reduced. The environmental impact of the sidewalk and intersection improvements will
be positive.
The positive environmental impact from the stormwater infrastructure improvements is two
fold. Firstly, the improvements will incorporate water quality treatment. Currently, stormwater
from Park Circle, Park Ave, and Midland Ave runs off from roadways and other impervious areas
with no treatment. The Roaring Fork River adjacent to these roadways is in critical condition and
water quality treatment is an important step for river health. Secondly, the neighborhood
currently lacks stormwater conveyance capacity. In the event of an environmental disaster such
as a flood, the proposed infrastructure will help protect the east end of Aspen from catastrophe.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS:
Design has been completed in-house and does not require additional funding if moving forward
with construction. Funding for construction in 2024 is included in the Proposed Capital Asset
Plan and is budgeted for $1.6 million.
If a re-design is required, funding will be requested for the drafting of revised plans. This
funding will total approximately $18,000.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends moving forward with plans for 2024 construction.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
187
ATTACHMENT A – Initial Engagement Report – July 2020
ATTACHMENT B – Community Survey and Public Engagement Report – Fall 2020
ATTACHMENT C – Park and Midland Traffic Study – January 2021
ATTACHMENT D – Design Acknowledgement Forms – February 2022
ATTACHMENT E – Community Input via ParkandMidland@aspen.gov – May 2023
ATTACHMENT F – 90% Construction Plans
188
Park + Midland
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
In the fall of 2019, Aspen City Council directed the Engineering department to look into the safety
and connectivity of the Park and Midland Avenue neighborhood. To understand the situation better
and hear directly from the residents in the neighborhood, the Engineering and Communications
teams created an engagement plan to involve the stakeholders. This plan began with one-on-one
interviews to gauge the community values and perception of safety and connectivity in the area.
Initial Report
Expanded
digital reach
393
Door-to-door
invitations
20
One-on-one
interviews
Neighborhood
meetings on
improvements
Engagement Done Recommended Engagement To Come
Project table at City
Feedback Forum
Themes from the Neighborhood
The questions that the Park and Midland team asked residents were designed to give insight into
first, what the neighborhood values when it comes to safety and connectivity. The second piece the
team inquired about was the ideas for improvements in safety and connectivity that residents have
thought of and prefer.
Neighborhood Values
Quiet Proximity to
Town & Trails Walkability Easy Bus Routes
Traffic & Street
Safety Great As Is Family-Friendly
189
Park + Midland
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Initial Report
Feasible Options to Move Forward
While different residents had varying opinions, the consistent message was to consider making
smaller, incremental improvements to certain parts of the neighborhood to improve safety and
connectivity. In the interest of listening to the community and responding to this request, the
Engineering team would like to bring the following feasible improvements back to the neighborhood
for several group meetings to get more input and move forward with the most effective options.
Proposed Options
Ideas for Improvement
Do Not Make
Major Changes
Improved Line of
Sight on Hopkins
Improve
Drainage SidewalksDifferent Snow
Plowing Methods
More Speed &
Parking Enforcement
Rumble Strips
190
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT REPORT
September 2020 - January 2021
Date: 1/21/20
Prepared by: Project Resource Studio
CONTENTS:
Outreach Log…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 2
Virtual Community Huddle Q&A and Chat Comments…………………………….……………………………………………………….. 3
Fall 2020 Email Comments…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….10
Aspen Community Voice Report & Community Survey Results…………………..……………………………………………….. 50
Page 1 of 77 191
OUTREACH LOG
Date Activity
Ongoing Dedicated Email, Phone Line and Aspen Community Voice Page
8.10.20 Email from Pete Rice to Stakeholders with Informational Memo
8.17.20 Aspen Daily News, City of Aspen will wait until spring for Park and Midland living lab
9.11.20 Aspen Community Voice Email – Park + Midland Neighborhood Update
9.30.20 Aspen Community Voice Email – Park + Midland Neighborhood Update
10.6.20 City Council Budget Work Session
10.15.20 Aspen Community Voice Email – Park + Midland Neighborhood Update
10.27.20 Aspen Community Voice Email – Park + Midland Neighborhood Huddle Reminder
10.28.20 Park + Midland Neighborhood Virtual Huddle
10.29.20 Park + Midland Neighborhood Virtual Huddle Recording Posted
11.3.20 Every Door Direct Mailer Ordered (665 Pieces)
11.9.20 Aspen Community Voice Email – Park + Midland Neighborhood Update
11.9.20 Virtual Huddle Memo Posted
11.9-11.24.20 Community Survey
11.20.20 Aspen Community Voice Email – Park + Midland Neighborhood Update
12.16.20 Community Survey Results Posted
12.18.20 Aspen Community Voice Email – Park + Midland Neighborhood Update
1.15.20 Aspen Community Voice Email – Park + Midland Neighborhood Update
Page 2Page 2 of 77 192
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
Page 3 of 77 193
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
Page 4 of 77 194
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
Page 5 of 77 195
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
Page 6 of 77 196
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
Page 7 of 77 197
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
Page 8 of 77 198
Page 9 of 77 199
Page 10 of 77 200
From:Sasha Semple
To:"ParkandMidland@cityofaspen.com"; "torre@cityofaspen.com"; "ann.mullins@cityofaspen.com"; "ward.hauenstein@cityofaspen.com";
"rachael.richards@cityofaspen.com"; "skippy.mesirow@cityofaspen.com"
Cc:"Anne Marie McPhee (amm@okglaw.com)"; "304 Kathryn Koch"
Subject:Park + Midland Neighborhood - STOP SIGNS
Date:Saturday, December 5, 2020 11:51:31 AMHi – Pete and City Council – I wanted to follow up on my email below and include City Council since I did not hearback on my email from last Saturday as I feel that we have a potentially dangerous situation over on Park Avenuewhere the new stop signs were installed. I walk to town at least twice a day and am watching cars blow throughthe newly installed stop signs almost every time. A couple days ago a Ford F150 almost ran me over when I wascrossing the street. Many folks in the East End neighborhood have lived here for years and have no idea thatthere are even stops signs there. I appreciate your attention to this. Thanks, Sasha
From: Sasha Semple
Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2020 12:27 PM
To: 'ParkandMidland@cityofaspen.com' <ParkandMidland@cityofaspen.com>
Cc: Anne Marie McPhee (amm@okglaw.com) <amm@okglaw.com>; 304 Kathryn Koch <kathrynkoch@comcast.net>
Subject: FW: Park + Midland Neighborhood
Hi Pete – I live at Midland Park Place (for about 11 years now) and I wanted to give you some feedback
regarding the new stop signs by the Hopkins bridge. First of all I want to say thank you for installing them. I
think it’s a great first step to getting cars and the bus to slow down, especially during the winter. But I just want
to point out an issue. Yesterday I was walking down Park to town to go skiing and went to cross the street at the
stop sign to go across the Hopkins bridge and there was a car coming. I was hoping the car would stop but was
not confident it would so I hesitated and good thing I did because the car went right through the stop sign (going
south). It was actually someone I knew from the neighborhood so I yelled at him so he would stop and pointed
to the sign and he responded that he had absolutely no idea it had been installed. That was the third car I’ve seen
just blow right through the stop sign, without even slowing. I would really love it, so that a pedestrian is not hit
by these folks who have lived here for years and have no idea that the stop signs have been installed, is that one
of those flashing stop signs be installed. Is that a possibility? I had thought maybe we could put one in the
middle of the road but obviously we can’t because of the plows. . . Also, the northbound stop sign is behind a
branch so that tree should probably be trimmed. Just wanted to give you guys some feedback. Call me if you
have any questions. I have been on our HOA board for over five years and I’m thinking of sending an email out
to our 42 units to give everyone a heads up but let me know if you think there’s anything else I can do to help.
Thanks! Sasha
_______________________________________________
Sasha Hartman Semple, Secretary
Midland Park Condominium AssociationMPCA P.O. Box: 10609, Aspen, CO 81612Cell: (970) 948-6720Email: ssemple@garfieldhecht.com
From: Aspen Community Voice [mailto:notifications@engagementhq.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2020 2:08 PM
To: evangull@sopris.net
Subject: Park + Midland Neighborhood Reminder - 10/27/20
Page 11 of 77 201
REMINDER: VIRTUAL NEIGHBORHOOD HUDDLE
Hello all,
As a reminder, tomorrow, October 28 is the virtual Neighborhood Huddle at 11:30 a.m via Zoom.
We look forward to reviewing the findings of the traffic study and touching base on next steps. This
meeting will be recorded and posted to the project webpage for those who are unable to attend.
When: Oct 28, 2020 11:30 AM Mountain Time
Topic: Park + Midland Neighborhood Huddle
Please click the link below to join the webinar:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84837732433?pwd=YTdIOTNQUFY3VHloMWprNmNPZDljQT09
Webinar ID: 848 3773 2433
Passcode: 81611
Or iPhone one-tap :
US: +16699006833,,84837732433#,,,,,,0#,,81611
Or Telephone:
Dial (for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location):
US: +1 669 900 6833
International numbers available: https://us02web.zoom.us/u/kpfgv30S
For questions or call-in information, contact Bryana Starbuck at parkandmidland@cityofaspen.com
or at (970) 340-4334.
Thank you,
Park and Midland Project Team
Phone: 970-340-4334
Page 12 of 77 202
Email: ParkandMidland@cityofaspen.com
Webpage: aspencommunityvoice.com/parkandmidland
You're receiving this email because you are a registered participant on Aspen Community Voice.
Powered by EngagementHQ
Unsubscribe
Page 13 of 77 203
From:Gregg Hemming
To:parkandmidland@cityofaspen.com
Subject:MidlandAve
Date:Tuesday, November 24, 2020 2:38:39 PM
Hello,
This project is a terrible idea. I’ve lived on Midland Ave for 35 years and our street works fine.
Stop wasting and money on this crap!!
Gregg Hemming
311 Midland Ave
Aspen, CO
Page 14 of 77 204
From:Barbara Lee
To:parkandmidland@cityofaspen.com
Cc:Meg; Dana Laughren; Sam & Mark Terkun; Mark Terkun; Jon; Suzanna Lee
Subject:Bryana Starbuck re: Park and Midland
Date:Tuesday, October 27, 2020 11:44:12 AM
Please include me into Neighborhood Huddle regarding the one way proposal.
It would be a disaster for Midland Avenue:
1. Just as Park Avenue has no sidewalks, neither does Midland.
2. There are people walking in all directions and the folks walking toward 82 or back from
Smuggler would not see cars coming.
3. Midland is a narrow street as it is. Park is also but cars have been navigating it fine.
Everyone just slows down to let other cars pass. Why fix it if it’s not broken?
4. The turn coming from Park onto Midland is now dangerous. The Stop sign says one does
not have to stop if turning right onto Midland. Cars come too fast now. There are parked cars
very close that restrict seeing cars coming around that turn. There are dogs and children and
bikes who are often on the street! It will not be safe.
5. The traffic would be double or triple given that everyone from Park, Midland, and Park
Circle and Smuggler Park wanting to get on to 82 East would have to come through Midland
Ave. Also those going 82 West would also have to use the same dysfunctional traffic pattern.
6. It is not fair to the residents on Midland (or Park) to have such an increase in traffic.
Midland and Park are a walkway through to get to Smuggler, which is a highly used hiking
trail. It would make it much more dangerous for walkers on both streets.
7. When the new development at Park Circle is completed (if ever) we have already shown
that there will be a significant increase in traffic.
8. In order to go north, cars will take a shortcut onto E. Hopkins Ave which is a very
small residential street, which is hilly and icy in the winter.
9. Bicyclists going both ways would also be in danger on both Park and Midland
giving one way vehicle traffic.
10. Garbage trucks and other large vehicles would block Midland residents driving
down Park if cars cannot pass them or turn around.
So many more issues to discuss, but as a long time Midland Ave ( and Park Ave)
resident my vote is NO!
Barbara and Jon Lee
327/325 Midland Avenue
330 Park Avenue
c.617.974.2008
___________
Page 15 of 77 205
From:Pete Rice
To:Bryana Starbuck; Raquel Flinker; Chloe Ward
Subject:FW: Park and Midland Avenues One-Way Project
Date:Friday, September 18, 2020 11:29:56 AM
Attachments:image001.png
To Aspen Mayor and Council re One-Way Streets Proposal for Park and Midland Avenues.msg
Peter Rice
Division Manager
Engineering Department
201 North Mill Street Suite 203.
Aspen, CO 81611
c: 970.319.3710
From: Evan Gull <evangull@sopris.net>
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2020 3:39 PM
To: Torre <torre@cityofaspen.com>; Ward Hauenstein <ward.hauenstein@cityofaspen.com>; Skippy Mesirow <skippy.mesirow@cityofaspen.com>; Ann Mullins
<Ann.Mullins@cityofaspen.com>; Rachael Richards <rachael.richards@cityofaspen.com>
Cc: Trish Aragon <Trish.Aragon@cityofaspen.com>; Pete Rice <pete.rice@cityofaspen.com>; Raquel Flinker <raquel.flinker@cityofaspen.com>
Subject: Park and Midland Avenues One-Way Project
Honorable Mayor and Council Members,
This is a follow-up to my email of Tuesday July 14 which expressed my disappointment at missing the opportunity to comment at Monday’s Park and
Midland Work Session.
I have had a very constructive discussion with Pete Rice of the Engineering Department, which I greatly appreciated and I am encouraged by that
Department’s approach to their projects.
I spent two hours yesterday listening to the presentation and discussion. I was very impressed with the professionalism of the City Engineering Staff, and
by the thoughtful analysis and discussion amongst the city staff, Council, and residents.
I am left with a few impressions from the meeting, which knowing how busy everyone is I will attempt to keep brief.
1. The great majority of concerns (Concern Matrix presented at the meeting) relate primarily to Park Ave, the most critical of which are Pedestrian
Safety and Speeding.
2. Traffic Engineering principles as presented at the beginning of the meeting suggest that it is extremely difficult to reduce the speed given the set of
conditions on Park Ave.
3. Significant resident outreach was done during the winter, with the noticeable exception of those us who live in Ardmore and are in the county.
Even with my email of December 1, 2019 to the Mayor and Council and the response I received indicating we would be included in the process, we
have had no contact from the time of my email until the day after this meeting.
4. The only person who called in to comment at this meeting whose residential access is primarily via Midland Ave was Judy Kolberg, a long-time
strong proponent (and long-time friend of mine) of making both streets one way. No one else from Midland provided input on Monday.
5. I do not believe there was insufficient outreach for this meeting, which I conclude from the number of call-ins from Midland. i.e. specifically NO
opposition calls from Midland despite the major neighborhood concern noted on the matrix of “Modifications to traffic pattern (one-way).” This
neighborhood is not an apathetic group on community issues, but were not heard in this case.
6. Related to outreach, the published agenda for the July 13, 2020 Special Meeting posted online at this link shows only the EOTC Meeting Preparation
as the only agenda item. https://docs.google.com/gview?
url=https%3A%2F%2Fgranicus_production_attachments.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fcityofaspen%2F239c7946a1b6004955139925fad49d8b0.pdf&embedded=true
7. After public input, most all of which was from the 200 and 300 blocks of Midland, then council discussion, the predominant motivation seemed to be that it
was necessary to do something even without analysis. There was some discussion of leaving Midland Ave alone (still two-way) but in the absence of direct
feedback from the residents, this was not examined in any detail.
8. When asked what Engineering’s plans were, Trish Aragon responded that she proposed that work on this would compete with all the other projects in the
capital budget process for next year.
9. Torri indicated that he would be interested in hearing back from Trish about how we can get this done (which I think means do the Living Lab) sooner rather
than later. There was no vote, just “nodding heads” on this per Torri.
From this I make the following observations:
1. This project is being pushed ahead without complying with the Pedestrian and Traffic Calming Policy for the City of Aspen dated March, 2018, at
https://www.cityofaspen.com/DocumentCenter/View/3024/Neighborhood-Traffic-Calming-Policy. The espoused goal of the Policy is “The City’s goal is to
give the people who live in the project area the opportunity to become actively involved in the planning and decision-making process.”
a. It appears that Step 1 and Step 2 (maybe without a formal petition as required) have been completed
b. For Step 3a, some speed data was presented (for Park, not for Midland). No data has been presented for traffic counts. I am not aware of any real
Page 16 of 77 206
analysis as required by the policy. I did a personal analysis of how the resident traffic patterns would be impacted in my December 1, 2019 email
(attached) which is mostly boring and complex but shows significant increases overall distances traveled and intersections traversed for the residents
on Park and Midland. There will be a lot of looping going on if these streets both become one way.
c.Step 3b requires further analysis. There is a scoring system tied to this process.
d.Step 6 requires a formal Implementation Study
e.Step 7 Council Approval requires a formal Public Hearing
f.No neighborhood consensus has been achieved because of a complete lack of process
2.Engineering is being asked to fast-track the Living Lab and do it with no specifically budgeted money, materials, or staff, and outside the normal project
prioritization process.
3.No data has been provided to suggests that traffic on Park will be slowed down by a one-way street, or that other concerns of residents have been addressed.
4.As an engineer myself, I believe that these processes are best driven by accurate and timely information.
5.My count of dwelling units on Park between Cooper and Midland, from the GIS, is 25 units mostly single family with some duplexes.
6.My count of dwelling units accessed from Midland is 115 units.
7.There are about 4.5 times as many residents (therefore vehicle trips in and out of those neighborhoods) for Midland residents as for Park residents.
8.Park has significant thru traffic, Midland has little thru traffic.
9.From observations, Midland residents rarely use Park Ave between Midland and Cooper for residential access
10. Midland will become a thru street if one way - all the northbound thru traffic from Park will move to Midland
11.Park will have an increase of one-half of the resident traffic from Midland (half leaving home, half returning home, depending on access to town via Gibson or
Cooper) because most residents must loop or shortcut through Hopkins to leave or return home, so Park may end with a higher traffic count than before,
even if all one way.
12.The US Postal Service guidelines require that mailboxes on one-way streets be on the right side of the street. This is challenging for the Living Lab.
13.Bikes will inevitably go both ways on the one-way streets. A reduced street width to allow a striped sidewalk will make that challenging.
14.Striped pedestrian paths work well before we have snow and ice on the roads. After the snows start, they would be problematic.
15.Midland is greatly constrained but significantly self-regulating due to narrow street, parked vehicles, and mix of vehicular with foot and bike traffic. Residents
are predominantly very respectful and watchful, pulling over in the wide spots when there is approaching traffic and regulating their speed based on traffic
and road conditions. This synergy will be very negatively impacted by non-resident thru traffic on a previously residential access only street.
Well, I tried to be brief, not so successfully.
I believe that the proposed decision to proceed without adequate and required analysis is a short-sighted one and would request that you reconsider that action.
None of the negatives for Midland Ave were voiced at this meeting, and they are significant. And there was no serious factual presentation of the expected benefits
for Park or Midland.
Good governance and policy takes time, money, and resources. I am aware of and greatly appreciate everyone’s efforts to cope with contemporary events which
are of much greater importance that this issue. I simply ask that this project be given the time that it will take to reach a consensus and do the best for everyone
involved.
Thank you for your consideration.
Evan
Evan Gull
President, Ardmore Homeowners’ Association
25 Ardmore Ct
Aspen, CO 81611
evangull@sopris.net
Cell 970-948-6834
Page 17 of 77 207
From:Pete Rice
To:Bryana Starbuck; Chloe Ward; Raquel Flinker
Subject:FW: Park and Midland Council Update
Date:Friday, September 18, 2020 11:31:56 AM
Attachments:image001.png
Peter Rice
Division Manager
Engineering Department
201 North Mill Street Suite 203.
Aspen, CO 81611
c: 970.319.3710
From: Evan Gull <evangull@sopris.net>
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2020 12:17 PM
To: Pete Rice <pete.rice@cityofaspen.com>; Scott Miller <scott.miller@cityofaspen.com>; Trish
Aragon <Trish.Aragon@cityofaspen.com>; Aaron Reed <Aaron.Reed@cityofaspen.com>
Cc: Shannon Buckner <shannon.buckner@cityofaspen.com>
Subject: RE: Park and Midland Council Update
Hi Pete,
Hope things are going well up in Montana.
I have read your memo and most of it sounds pretty good.
I do, however, have a couple of concerns and suggestions.
1.The memo and schedule seem to treat the Living Lab as a foregone conclusion. I do of
course recognize that this is consistent with the direction that Engineering received
from the council. A milestone to evaluate the effectiveness and efficacy of doing a
Living Lab would seem appropriate early in the process after data has been gathered
and evaluated and alternatives considered.
2.Additional neighborhood outreach is shown in the schedule post-implementation of the
Living Lab, but no additional outreach to the neighborhoods is shown in Phase 2. City of
Aspen Pedestrian and Traffic Calming Policy at
Page 18 of 77 208
https://www.cityofaspen.com/DocumentCenter/View/3024/Neighborhood-Traffic-Calming-
Policy specifically requires neighborhood involvement per Steps 5 and 6 BEFORE substantive
changes are made. There should be neighborhood outreach and consensus-building in Phase
2 to comply with this policy. As was evident at the July 13th , 2020 Work Session, there was
essentially zero input presented from Midland Avenue residents.
3.According to the Wikipedia definition of Living Lab at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_lab,
“Such use cases involve user communities, not only as observed subjects but also as a
source of creation. This approach allows all involved stakeholders to concurrently consider
both the global performance of a product or service and its potential adoption by users. This
consideration may be made at the earlier stage of research and development and through
all elements of the product life-cycle, from design up to recycling.” Those steps have not yet
been taken and should be included in Phase 2 before proceeding to Phase 3.
I am sending this to you for your thoughts before it goes to a broader audience.
Thanks,
Evan
Evan Gull
25 Ardmore Ct
Aspen, CO 81611
evangull@sopris.net
970-948-6834 Cell
From: Pete Rice [mailto:pete.rice@cityofaspen.com]
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2020 1:20 PM
To: Scott Miller <scott.miller@cityofaspen.com>; Trish Aragon <Trish.Aragon@cityofaspen.com>;
Aaron Reed <Aaron.Reed@cityofaspen.com>
Cc: Shannon Buckner <shannon.buckner@cityofaspen.com>
Subject: Park and Midland Council Update
All residents,
Attached is the informational memo that is being given to Council tomorrow afternoon at 5 pm. This
memo is an update to Council and the public, but is not an agenda item or consent for approval.
The memo includes a schedule with tasks for Council to review. I have received a great amount of
feedback from the community for this neighborhood which is fantastic. Many of items that have
been discussed during Council and our interviews can be evaluated in this timeframe. This will
include additional outreach.
I’m working from Montana this week and won’t be available for the most part, but I will be back in
the office next week for any questions you may have.
Page 19 of 77 209
Thanks,
Pete
Peter Rice
Division Manager
Engineering Department
201 North Mill Street Suite 203.
Aspen, CO 81611
c: 970.319.3710
Page 20 of 77 210
From:Pete Rice
To:Raquel Flinker; Chloe Ward; Bryana Starbuck
Subject:FW: Park/Midland Safety Issues - PROCESS BROKEN
Date:Friday, September 18, 2020 11:31:39 AM
Attachments:image005.png
image001.png
image002.png
2020 08-11 Park and Midland Informational Memo.pdf
Peter Rice
Division Manager
Engineering Department
201 North Mill Street Suite 203.
Aspen, CO 81611
c: 970.319.3710
From: Evan Gull <evangull@sopris.net>
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2020 5:53 PM
To: Skippy Mesirow <skippy.mesirow@cityofaspen.com>; Pete Rice <pete.rice@cityofaspen.com>;
Torre <torre@cityofaspen.com>; Sara Ott <sara.ott@cityofaspen.com>; Trish Aragon
<Trish.Aragon@cityofaspen.com>; Scott Miller <scott.miller@cityofaspen.com>; Aaron Reed
<Aaron.Reed@cityofaspen.com>; Mitzi Rapkin <mitzi.rapkin@cityofaspen.com>; Carly McGowan
<carly.mcgowan@cityofaspen.com>
Cc: 'nina zale' <zalere@aol.com>; 'David H. Eisenstat' <davidheisenstat@gmail.com>; 'Richard
Fullerton' <richard@fullertonlp.com>; 'Neil Bennett' <njb@sopris.net>; 'Michael & Veronica Curran'
<mike@curranholdings.com>; 'David Chazen' <davechazen@chazen.com>;
nina@aspenmarketer.com; padunigan@dunigancos.com; 'Quincy Lee' <qlee@tetoncapital.net>;
aspenmoguls@aol.com; rodneylaw@aol.com; 'C. Taylor Chalmers' <ctchalmers@gmail.com>; 'Diana
Lowe' <lowediana@me.com>; gregglowe@me.com; 'Michael Seidenberg'
<m_seidenberg@yahoo.com>; 'Doug Brown' <doug@brownfamilyoffice.com>
Subject: RE: Park/Midland Safety Issues - PROCESS BROKEN
Hi Skippy,
Thanks for the response.
I would like to think that what you suggest will happen in the Phase 2 described in Pete Rice’s
Info Memo to the Mayor and Council (attached, since I don’t see it online anymore.) Of
course, this is not consistent with the direction from the Mayor and Council on during the July
Page 21 of 77 211
13th Council Meeting, as you can clearly hear by going back to the video of that session at
https://cityofaspen.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=3&clip_id=337 and listening again to
the portion between about 3:00:00 and 3:14:15 where the direction given to Trish Aragon
(despite pushback from her) was to try to get the one way living lab done this year without
asking for any additional funding for it. You yourself indicated specific support for the one-
way option at about 3:00:30.
It’s already obvious that this is not going to happen this year, per Pete’s memo.
However, it concerns me that Phase 3 of the memo clearly states that the plan is to present a
Living Lab Option for inclusion in next year’s budget in October, with no mention whatsoever
of studying alternatives. Yes, it includes “develop a technical analysis of the impact” in Phase
2, but the whole plan focuses on the Living Lab when we have in no way determined that a
one way plan is optimal much less even desirable. It’s not even vaguely possible to do a
comprehensive analysis of these neighborhood options with neighborhood outreach and
subsequent consensus before the budget meetings.
Then note that a Phase 4 November 2020-January 2021 bullet point states “Develop the final
design of a Living Lab” and a Phase 5 May 2021 bullet point states “Implementation of the
Living Lab.” That sounds like a conclusion before there has been a determination that a Living
Lab is appropriate for an undetermined optimal solution.
From this memo, I perceive that the Engineering Department is proceeding in compliance with
the Mayor and Council direction given in the July 13 meeting and not proceeding with the
proper process of a comprehensive plan. And note that the neighborhood outreach (Phase 4)
does not occur until AFTER the council has approved the budget for the Living Lab.
So I don’t agree that we are yet on the right track. I hope this helps you understand why I feel
that way. That is why I am requesting the Mayor and Council to revise their direction to be
consistent with the City’s own defined process as I noted in my prior email.
Regards,
Evan
From: Skippy Mesirow [mailto:skippy.mesirow@cityofaspen.com]
Sent: Friday, August 21, 2020 2:58 PM
To: Evan Gull <evangull@sopris.net>; Pete Rice <pete.rice@cityofaspen.com>; Torre
<torre@cityofaspen.com>; Sara Ott <sara.ott@cityofaspen.com>; Trish Aragon
<Trish.Aragon@cityofaspen.com>; Scott Miller <scott.miller@cityofaspen.com>; Aaron Reed
Page 22 of 77 212
<Aaron.Reed@cityofaspen.com>; Mitzi Rapkin <mitzi.rapkin@cityofaspen.com>; Carly McGowan
<carly.mcgowan@cityofaspen.com>
Cc: 'nina zale' <zalere@aol.com>; 'David H. Eisenstat' <davidheisenstat@gmail.com>; 'Richard
Fullerton' <richard@fullertonlp.com>; 'Neil Bennett' <njb@sopris.net>; 'Michael & Veronica Curran'
<mike@curranholdings.com>; 'David Chazen' <davechazen@chazen.com>;
nina@aspenmarketer.com; padunigan@dunigancos.com; 'Quincy Lee' <qlee@tetoncapital.net>;
aspenmoguls@aol.com; rodneylaw@aol.com; 'C. Taylor Chalmers' <ctchalmers@gmail.com>; 'Diana
Lowe' <lowediana@me.com>; gregglowe@me.com; 'Michael Seidenberg'
<m_seidenberg@yahoo.com>; 'Doug Brown' <doug@brownfamilyoffice.com>
Subject: Re: Park/Midland Safety Issues - PROCESS BROKEN
Hi Evan,
In your letter you point out that “There has been no serious analysis of the
traffic and safety issues in this neighborhood, no development of specific
recommendations for the prioritized pain points, no alternatives considered, no
cohesive plan created in conjunction with neighborhood residents, and no
systematic process put in place to arrive at an optimal plan.” Fair enough, and
that is what the plan laid our by staff, including the living lab, aims to
accomplish.
The goal is to hone in on objective fact and base our tests and interventions,
then an eventual concrete solution, based on those finding.
Skippy Mesirow
Aspen City Council
Stay Happy...SM
Cell: 847.530.0811
@skippymesirow IG / Twitter
Skippy Leigh Upton Mesirow FB
Page 23 of 77 213
I apologize for any typos...
I honestly just can't spell :- (
From: Evan Gull <evangull@sopris.net>
Date: Friday, August 21, 2020 at 10:12 AM
To: Pete Rice <pete.rice@cityofaspen.com>, Skippy Mesirow
<skippy.mesirow@cityofaspen.com>, Torre <torre@cityofaspen.com>, Ann Mullins
<Ann.Mullins@cityofaspen.com>, Ward Hauenstein <ward.hauenstein@cityofaspen.com>,
Rachael Richards <rachael.richards@cityofaspen.com>, Sara Ott <sara.ott@cityofaspen.com>,
Trish Aragon <Trish.Aragon@cityofaspen.com>, Scott Miller <scott.miller@cityofaspen.com>,
Aaron Reed <Aaron.Reed@cityofaspen.com>, Mitzi Rapkin <mitzi.rapkin@cityofaspen.com>,
Carly McGowan <carly.mcgowan@cityofaspen.com>
Cc: 'nina zale' <zalere@aol.com>, "'David H. Eisenstat'" <davidheisenstat@gmail.com>,
'Richard Fullerton' <richard@fullertonlp.com>, 'Neil Bennett' <njb@sopris.net>, 'Michael &
Veronica Curran' <mike@curranholdings.com>, 'David Chazen' <davechazen@chazen.com>,
"nina@aspenmarketer.com" <nina@aspenmarketer.com>, "padunigan@dunigancos.com"
<padunigan@dunigancos.com>, 'Quincy Lee' <qlee@tetoncapital.net>,
"aspenmoguls@aol.com" <aspenmoguls@aol.com>, "rodneylaw@aol.com"
<rodneylaw@aol.com>, "'C. Taylor Chalmers'" <ctchalmers@gmail.com>, 'Diana Lowe'
<lowediana@me.com>, "gregglowe@me.com" <gregglowe@me.com>, 'Michael Seidenberg'
<m_seidenberg@yahoo.com>, 'Doug Brown' <doug@brownfamilyoffice.com>
Subject: RE: Park/Midland Safety Issues - PROCESS BROKEN
Hi Pete, Mayor and Council, and City Engineering Department,
Pete, thanks for this update.
The update does, however, still leave me with a significant level of discomfort about how
things are proceeding, and I have been struggling to figure out why I feel that way.
I think I finally understand why…
We are approaching this issue in the wrong way.
First, I think that it is very clear that nearly everyone involved agrees that something needs to
be done about traffic flow and safety in the Park/Midland neighborhood.
Second, at the July 13th meeting, the Mayor and Council, under pressure from a small group of
Midland/Park neighborhood residents, and feeling a little guilty that nothing had been
accomplished since last fall’s meetings on this topic (well since 2008 really), directed the
Engineering Department to create a plan to proceed with a Living Lab soon and to do it
Page 24 of 77 214
without being provided with any additional resources or funding (my paraphrasing from
listening to the meeting video.) There was initial pushback from the Engineering Department,
asking if this should be added to the October budget process, but this was overridden by the
Mayor and Council.
I can understand why the Mayor and Council took this step, but this is completely the wrong
approach for this project. There has been no serious analysis of the traffic and safety issues in
this neighborhood, no development of specific recommendations for the prioritized pain
points, no alternatives considered, no cohesive plan created in conjunction with neighborhood
residents, and no systematic process put in place to arrive at an optimal plan. In short, the
process is broken.
Things got a little better with the Information Memo of August 11, 2020 and Pete’s email
below, which indicate that some data will be collected and outreach will be considered
However, the memo and email still show the Engineering Department complying with the
Mayor and Council direction to provide a plan to do a one-way street Living Lab to present in
October during the budget process. We are still proceeding toward doing a Living Lab
without, it appears, any serious consideration of whether this might be the best, or even an
effective, option. I myself, as an engineer trained in systematic analysis (albeit with electrons
and data flow rather than cars and people) firmly believe that there are very significant
negative consequences converting Park and Midland to one way.
My Conclusions
I believe that the appropriate direction for the Mayor and Council to provide to the
Engineering Department would be for the Department to initiate a plan for a comprehensive
analysis of the neighborhood traffic, safety, parking, drainage, right-of-way utilization, and any
other pertinent issues, either internally or via external resources. Estimates of the resources
required to create such a plan should be developed and presented to the Mayor and Council
during the October budget process. Then it becomes the Mayor and Council’s job to evaluate
the development of a project plan in the context of the competing projects and financial
resources. If and when the analysis and plan is completed, it will then again be the Mayor and
Council’s responsibility to consider the resulting recommendations and options and again
make decisions about what can be done in the context of financial and other resources.
I expect that the City spent good money developing the process “City of Aspen Pedestrian and
Traffic Calming Policy” at
https://www.cityofaspen.com/DocumentCenter/View/3024/Neighborhood-Traffic-Calming-Policy.
Why are the Mayor and Council not directing the Engineering Department to follow this policy?
Why are the Mayor and Council not insisting on a professionally developed plan with alternatives,
showing pros and cons? That, I would premise, is the appropriate role of the Mayor and Council.
Page 25 of 77 215
I believe that it is in the best interest of everyone to get this process back on track, and therefore
request that the council re-evaluate their direction to the Engineering Department and allow them
to handle this project in the proper manner. I expect that they would be more than happy to
proceed in a systematic and professional manner that will provide the optimal results for our
community.
Thanks for your consideration,
Evan
Evan Gull
25 Ardmore Ct
Aspen, CO 81611
evangull@sopris.net
Cell 970-948-6834
President of Ardmore Homeowners Association
Note: I have bcc’d all the resident emails that I have collected myself, and suggested to those
persons that they contact Pete to get on his email list if they have not already done so.
Additional Note, related to Michael Seidenberg’s comment in his email “we were basically told by
Trish nothing works besides making streets one way.“ I think you are misquoting Trish. I understood
her say that studies and engineering practice have indicated that certain options (signage and speed
bumps) have been demonstrated to have little effectiveness in similar situations. I don’t think I
heard her say anything at all indicating that one-way streets would reduce speeds.
From: Pete Rice [mailto:pete.rice@cityofaspen.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 5:37 PM
To: Michael Seidenberg <m_seidenberg@yahoo.com>; Doug Brown
<doug@brownfamilyoffice.com>
Cc: Skippy Mesirow <skippy.mesirow@cityofaspen.com>; Torre <torre@cityofaspen.com>; Ann
Mullins <Ann.Mullins@cityofaspen.com>; Ward Hauenstein <ward.hauenstein@cityofaspen.com>;
Rachael Richards <rachael.richards@cityofaspen.com>; Sara Ott <sara.ott@cityofaspen.com>; nina
zale <zalere@aol.com>; David H. Eisenstat <davidheisenstat@gmail.com>; Richard Fullerton
<richard@fullertonlp.com>; Neil Bennett <njb@sopris.net>; Michael & Veronica Curran
<mike@curranholdings.com>; David Chazen <davechazen@chazen.com>;
nina@aspenmarketer.com; padunigan@dunigancos.com; Quincy Lee <qlee@tetoncapital.net>;
aspenmoguls@aol.com; rodneylaw@aol.com; C. Taylor Chalmers <ctchalmers@gmail.com>; Diana
Lowe <lowediana@me.com>; gregglowe@me.com; Trish Aragon <Trish.Aragon@cityofaspen.com>;
Page 26 of 77 216
Scott Miller <scott.miller@cityofaspen.com>; Evan Gull <evangull@sopris.net>; Aaron Reed
<Aaron.Reed@cityofaspen.com>; Mitzi Rapkin <mitzi.rapkin@cityofaspen.com>; Carly McGowan
<carly.mcgowan@cityofaspen.com>
Subject: RE: Park/Midland Safety Issues
All,
We presented an informational update recently for Council. I’m receiving many emails every day on
this which is good, but I can’t respond to each one individually right now.
As we updated Council, staff is reviewing the options for the signage currently. We are reviewing the
speed limit signage similar to the one we put near Castle Creek Bridge’s entry. There is additional
signage we are reviewing. We will utilize the police message board once the mask notification
messaging can end.
We have a traffic consultant that will be taking speeds in four locations (and vehicle counts) in the
neighborhood starting next week. This will remove any doubt on the data that seems to be the
blocker between several groups. We do have dates, vehicle counts and speeds where we have used
the city machine on the Park Avenue side (north of Hopkins). We didn’t get a chance to do them this
year for reasons stated in Council, but they should be done for the first trial next week and will be
used as the baseline. This will be very comprehensive so that I can respond specifically to each leg
because Nina has questioned the south of Hopkins segment. I will share all the data or make it
readable for you all.
There are several statements alluding to speed signs and Trish’s comments below. I won’t get into
each one now, but to be clear, it’s important to understand that the data did not show speeding at
the rates that would trigger traffic calming measures. Speed signs are important for enforcement
and notification. It’s not useful for speed reduction for streets at 20 MPH if we lower it to 15 MPH
for this neighborhood. I thought she did a good job explaining this in Council, so I won’t go into the
nuisances now, but we can discuss any specifics as the outreach continues this year. Like I stated in
the information memo, we are reviewing additional signage currently. So the study next week will
help us fully evaluate the speeds and locations specifically. At that time, it will be easier to get into
any specifics about my recommendations for the best traffic calming measures. The speeds will be
dialed in.
Speed tables can be useful and her statement was “they are useful at speeds greater than 25 MPH.”
The one item Trish and I have been clear on is that the Park Ave (north of Hopkins) safety issue
between pedestrian and bicyclists will not be solved with any speed reduction measures. This is
really important to a lot of people in the neighborhood. This is really the crux of the major problem
that started this last year, but as we have discovered through interviews and your emails, speeds are
a great concern to the most people so that is being evaluated next week.
Hopkins is not lost on me and that will be fully evaluated. The points mentioned are not being
ignored and will be incorporated.
Page 27 of 77 217
We are in a very early stage of planning. As stated, we are putting together several items requested
by Council during the work session and getting the data. I won’t develop a living lab concept until the
data is completed and I have accounted for Council comments. As noted, we would present a living
lap option to council during the October session.
I’m working on the plan for outreach. Covid has made meeting together difficult and doing it
virtually has been challenging with other neighborhoods in similar scenarios. I have emails from 65
people who have corresponded with me and I did do 26 interviews last winter. I have talked to many
more in the past two months. I will probably continue to send out informational emails to the whole
group for now, but it’s not going to be something I neglect.
Doug, I thought we had a very good discussion and we didn’t infer that residents were delusional. I
have been open to discussions or emails. I appreciate the feedback and Aspen residents are
educated about their neighborhoods. As I have stated to several people with similar opinions to you,
there may not be speeding in the segment we studied (Park Ave, north of Hopkins), but it feels fast. I
have always agreed to that. It feels fast and unsafe. This is the case in a few other neighborhoods in
Aspen where the cars may not be speeding, but it does not feel comfortable to be a pedestrian or
bicyclist. We’ll work through this with the right solution incorporate the neighborhood.
We are progressing, but I will keep you updated and we can continue discussions. You are always
free to email me.
Thanks,
Pete
Peter Rice
Division Manager
Engineering Department
201 North Mill Street Suite 203.
Aspen, CO 81611
c: 970.319.3710
From: Michael Seidenberg <m_seidenberg@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 1:43 PM
To: Doug Brown <doug@brownfamilyoffice.com>
Cc: Skippy Mesirow <skippy.mesirow@cityofaspen.com>; Torre <torre@cityofaspen.com>; Ann
Mullins <Ann.Mullins@cityofaspen.com>; Ward Hauenstein <ward.hauenstein@cityofaspen.com>;
Rachael Richards <rachael.richards@cityofaspen.com>; Sara Ott <sara.ott@cityofaspen.com>; nina
zale <zalere@aol.com>; David H. Eisenstat <davidheisenstat@gmail.com>; Richard Fullerton
Page 28 of 77 218
<richard@fullertonlp.com>; Neil Bennett <njb@sopris.net>; Michael & Veronica Curran
<mike@curranholdings.com>; David Chazen <davechazen@chazen.com>;
nina@aspenmarketer.com; padunigan@dunigancos.com; Pete Rice <pete.rice@cityofaspen.com>;
Quincy Lee <qlee@tetoncapital.net>; aspenmoguls@aol.com; rodneylaw@aol.com; C. Taylor
Chalmers <ctchalmers@gmail.com>; Diana Lowe <lowediana@me.com>; gregglowe@me.com
Subject: Re: Park/Midland Safety Issues
Thanks Doug and concur 100% with you. To say the meeting was a disappointment is an
understatement; we were basically told by Trish nothing works besides making streets one way. This
really begs the question why we have speed limit signs, speed bumps, and any type of mitigation
effort anywhere in town and why they won’t work in the East End. I basically listened at a loss for
words and immediately thought this was decided by the City this is the way it shall be. No
consideration for the excess speeds associated with one way streets, the ingress/egress issues on
Hopkins Avenue bridge and Snyder Park plus the poorly designed narrow Hopkins Avenue which will
become a major cut through for drivers pitting pedestrians and bicycles vs. cars/trucks on a
sidewalk-less street. The other white elephant in the room is the inside deal which was cut by an ex
council member on the East side of Park Avenue allowing a non permitted setback in combination
with a lot split making a logical East Side sidewalk much more controversial. I hope the traffic
studied again and we start with simple less costly alternatives and lastly you all think about the
unintended consequences of making streets one way.
Best,
Mike and Beatie Seidenberg
1207 E Hopkins Avenue
On Aug 19, 2020, at 1:01 PM, Doug Brown <doug@brownfamilyoffice.com> wrote:
Dear Aspen City Council,
This letter is in response to the most recent report in the Aspen Daily News regarding
staff’s position concerning the Park/Midland/Hopkins Safety Issues being discussed.
Generally speaking, staff indicates that based upon some unspecified study there is no
vehicular excess speed issue in this part of town. If you inquire to the police in the area
and virtually all of the neighbors, everyone is clear there is an issue regarding vehicles
traveling at excess speed in the area. Additionally, staff denigrates virtually all speed
abatement measures that works elsewhere in town and outside of town. It seems staff is
ignoring less costly measures because, for some reason, it is pre-disposed toward
installing sidewalks as soon as possible. As you are aware, sidewalks are significantly
more expensive, more disruptive and hurt the character of the neighborhood much more
than alternative, easier to put in place and less costly measures. In light of the current
and not-so-current stresses to our budget brought upon by the current pandemic and the
clear neighborhood opposition to starting the harder route first without trying the
“lower hanging fruit”, we are at a loss regarding staff’s position. Now is a time to unite
our community, not divide it.
Specifically,
Page 29 of 77 219
NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH.
During the recent city Council meeting where the public was invited to attend virtually
(after most neighbors discovered the subject to be discussed a few days before), it was
stated by staff that there has been significant neighborhood outreach over the past
decade. Despite this statement, our outreach has shown that more than half of the
households in our community (many of which are full-time) have not been contacted at
all by the city. Democracy and community outreach requires public participation.
ALL SPEED LIMIT AND STOP SIGNS DON’T WORK.
During the city council meeting, the community was basically told, which was
reiterated Monday in print, that virtually all speed limit and stop signs do not work
anywhere whatsoever in the entire city of Aspen. Firstly, if that is the case, why do we
bother to pay for their installation? Why not take down all existing signs? This position
seems absurd on the face of it.
When the community brought up the proven efficacy of interactive speed measuring
signs (The cool blinking digital signs that measure vehicles’ speeds) as shown by
virtually every study, there was absolute silence from the staff and no acknowledgment
of exploring this. You could have heard a pin drop on the virtual call when this was
mentioned by members of the community.
SPEED BUMPS NEVER WORK.
Same thing on speed bumps. First we were told that bicyclist don’t like them and
secondly we were told that they do not work. Again, when we pushed on the
effectiveness in other parts of town, we heard silence.
In summation, according to staff, residents in the area are delusional regarding their
perception of vehicles traveling at excess speeds in our community, all stop and speed
limit signs do not work, as don’t speed bumps. Further, the outreach correspondence
over the last 12 years must have gotten lost in the mail.
WHAT ARE WE MISSING?
Speed limit signs (both interactive and traditional), speed bumps, more police presence,
a pedestrian cross-walk on Hopkins crossing Park and other less costly measures will
be less costly, less disruptive and unite the community.
Further, we need meaningful, effective community outreach to give the members of our
community the ability to have their opinions heard.
Thank you for hearing this,
Abby and Doug Brown
303 Park Ave.
Page 30 of 77 220
From:Pete Rice
To:Chloe Ward; Raquel Flinker; Bryana Starbuck
Subject:FW: Park/Midland Safety Issues - PROCESS BROKEN
Date:Friday, September 18, 2020 11:31:06 AM
Attachments:image001.png
Peter Rice
Division Manager
Engineering Department
201 North Mill Street Suite 203.
Aspen, CO 81611
c: 970.319.3710
From: Evan Gull <evangull@sopris.net>
Sent: Friday, August 21, 2020 10:11 AM
To: Pete Rice <pete.rice@cityofaspen.com>; Skippy Mesirow <skippy.mesirow@cityofaspen.com>;
Torre <torre@cityofaspen.com>; Ann Mullins <Ann.Mullins@cityofaspen.com>; Ward Hauenstein
<ward.hauenstein@cityofaspen.com>; Rachael Richards <rachael.richards@cityofaspen.com>; Sara
Ott <sara.ott@cityofaspen.com>; Trish Aragon <Trish.Aragon@cityofaspen.com>; Scott Miller
<scott.miller@cityofaspen.com>; Aaron Reed <Aaron.Reed@cityofaspen.com>; Mitzi Rapkin
<mitzi.rapkin@cityofaspen.com>; Carly McGowan <carly.mcgowan@cityofaspen.com>
Cc: 'nina zale' <zalere@aol.com>; 'David H. Eisenstat' <davidheisenstat@gmail.com>; 'Richard
Fullerton' <richard@fullertonlp.com>; 'Neil Bennett' <njb@sopris.net>; 'Michael & Veronica Curran'
<mike@curranholdings.com>; 'David Chazen' <davechazen@chazen.com>;
nina@aspenmarketer.com; padunigan@dunigancos.com; 'Quincy Lee' <qlee@tetoncapital.net>;
aspenmoguls@aol.com; rodneylaw@aol.com; 'C. Taylor Chalmers' <ctchalmers@gmail.com>; 'Diana
Lowe' <lowediana@me.com>; gregglowe@me.com; 'Michael Seidenberg'
<m_seidenberg@yahoo.com>; 'Doug Brown' <doug@brownfamilyoffice.com>
Subject: RE: Park/Midland Safety Issues - PROCESS BROKEN
Hi Pete, Mayor and Council, and City Engineering Department,
Pete, thanks for this update.
The update does, however, still leave me with a significant level of discomfort about how
things are proceeding, and I have been struggling to figure out why I feel that way.
I think I finally understand why…
Page 31 of 77 221
We are approaching this issue in the wrong way.
First, I think that it is very clear that nearly everyone involved agrees that something needs to
be done about traffic flow and safety in the Park/Midland neighborhood.
Second, at the July 13th meeting, the Mayor and Council, under pressure from a small group of
Midland/Park neighborhood residents, and feeling a little guilty that nothing had been
accomplished since last fall’s meetings on this topic (well since 2008 really), directed the
Engineering Department to create a plan to proceed with a Living Lab soon and to do it
without being provided with any additional resources or funding (my paraphrasing from
listening to the meeting video.) There was initial pushback from the Engineering Department,
asking if this should be added to the October budget process, but this was overridden by the
Mayor and Council.
I can understand why the Mayor and Council took this step, but this is completely the wrong
approach for this project. There has been no serious analysis of the traffic and safety issues in
this neighborhood, no development of specific recommendations for the prioritized pain
points, no alternatives considered, no cohesive plan created in conjunction with neighborhood
residents, and no systematic process put in place to arrive at an optimal plan. In short, the
process is broken.
Things got a little better with the Information Memo of August 11, 2020 and Pete’s email
below, which indicate that some data will be collected and outreach will be considered
However, the memo and email still show the Engineering Department complying with the
Mayor and Council direction to provide a plan to do a one-way street Living Lab to present in
October during the budget process. We are still proceeding toward doing a Living Lab
without, it appears, any serious consideration of whether this might be the best, or even an
effective, option. I myself, as an engineer trained in systematic analysis (albeit with electrons
and data flow rather than cars and people) firmly believe that there are very significant
negative consequences converting Park and Midland to one way.
My Conclusions
I believe that the appropriate direction for the Mayor and Council to provide to the
Engineering Department would be for the Department to initiate a plan for a comprehensive
analysis of the neighborhood traffic, safety, parking, drainage, right-of-way utilization, and any
other pertinent issues, either internally or via external resources. Estimates of the resources
required to create such a plan should be developed and presented to the Mayor and Council
during the October budget process. Then it becomes the Mayor and Council’s job to evaluate
the development of a project plan in the context of the competing projects and financial
Page 32 of 77 222
resources. If and when the analysis and plan is completed, it will then again be the Mayor and
Council’s responsibility to consider the resulting recommendations and options and again
make decisions about what can be done in the context of financial and other resources.
I expect that the City spent good money developing the process “City of Aspen Pedestrian and
Traffic Calming Policy” at
https://www.cityofaspen.com/DocumentCenter/View/3024/Neighborhood-Traffic-Calming-Policy.
Why are the Mayor and Council not directing the Engineering Department to follow this policy?
Why are the Mayor and Council not insisting on a professionally developed plan with alternatives,
showing pros and cons? That, I would premise, is the appropriate role of the Mayor and Council.
I believe that it is in the best interest of everyone to get this process back on track, and therefore
request that the council re-evaluate their direction to the Engineering Department and allow them
to handle this project in the proper manner. I expect that they would be more than happy to
proceed in a systematic and professional manner that will provide the optimal results for our
community.
Thanks for your consideration,
Evan
Evan Gull
25 Ardmore Ct
Aspen, CO 81611
evangull@sopris.net
Cell 970-948-6834
President of Ardmore Homeowners Association
Note: I have bcc’d all the resident emails that I have collected myself, and suggested to those
persons that they contact Pete to get on his email list if they have not already done so.
Additional Note, related to Michael Seidenberg’s comment in his email “we were basically told by
Trish nothing works besides making streets one way.“ I think you are misquoting Trish. I understood
her say that studies and engineering practice have indicated that certain options (signage and speed
bumps) have been demonstrated to have little effectiveness in similar situations. I don’t think I
heard her say anything at all indicating that one-way streets would reduce speeds.
From: Pete Rice [mailto:pete.rice@cityofaspen.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 5:37 PM
Page 33 of 77 223
To: Michael Seidenberg <m_seidenberg@yahoo.com>; Doug Brown
<doug@brownfamilyoffice.com>
Cc: Skippy Mesirow <skippy.mesirow@cityofaspen.com>; Torre <torre@cityofaspen.com>; Ann
Mullins <Ann.Mullins@cityofaspen.com>; Ward Hauenstein <ward.hauenstein@cityofaspen.com>;
Rachael Richards <rachael.richards@cityofaspen.com>; Sara Ott <sara.ott@cityofaspen.com>; nina
zale <zalere@aol.com>; David H. Eisenstat <davidheisenstat@gmail.com>; Richard Fullerton
<richard@fullertonlp.com>; Neil Bennett <njb@sopris.net>; Michael & Veronica Curran
<mike@curranholdings.com>; David Chazen <davechazen@chazen.com>;
nina@aspenmarketer.com; padunigan@dunigancos.com; Quincy Lee <qlee@tetoncapital.net>;
aspenmoguls@aol.com; rodneylaw@aol.com; C. Taylor Chalmers <ctchalmers@gmail.com>; Diana
Lowe <lowediana@me.com>; gregglowe@me.com; Trish Aragon <Trish.Aragon@cityofaspen.com>;
Scott Miller <scott.miller@cityofaspen.com>; Evan Gull <evangull@sopris.net>; Aaron Reed
<Aaron.Reed@cityofaspen.com>; Mitzi Rapkin <mitzi.rapkin@cityofaspen.com>; Carly McGowan
<carly.mcgowan@cityofaspen.com>
Subject: RE: Park/Midland Safety Issues
All,
We presented an informational update recently for Council. I’m receiving many emails every day on
this which is good, but I can’t respond to each one individually right now.
As we updated Council, staff is reviewing the options for the signage currently. We are reviewing the
speed limit signage similar to the one we put near Castle Creek Bridge’s entry. There is additional
signage we are reviewing. We will utilize the police message board once the mask notification
messaging can end.
We have a traffic consultant that will be taking speeds in four locations (and vehicle counts) in the
neighborhood starting next week. This will remove any doubt on the data that seems to be the
blocker between several groups. We do have dates, vehicle counts and speeds where we have used
the city machine on the Park Avenue side (north of Hopkins). We didn’t get a chance to do them this
year for reasons stated in Council, but they should be done for the first trial next week and will be
used as the baseline. This will be very comprehensive so that I can respond specifically to each leg
because Nina has questioned the south of Hopkins segment. I will share all the data or make it
readable for you all.
There are several statements alluding to speed signs and Trish’s comments below. I won’t get into
each one now, but to be clear, it’s important to understand that the data did not show speeding at
the rates that would trigger traffic calming measures. Speed signs are important for enforcement
and notification. It’s not useful for speed reduction for streets at 20 MPH if we lower it to 15 MPH
for this neighborhood. I thought she did a good job explaining this in Council, so I won’t go into the
nuisances now, but we can discuss any specifics as the outreach continues this year. Like I stated in
the information memo, we are reviewing additional signage currently. So the study next week will
help us fully evaluate the speeds and locations specifically. At that time, it will be easier to get into
any specifics about my recommendations for the best traffic calming measures. The speeds will be
dialed in.
Page 34 of 77 224
Speed tables can be useful and her statement was “they are useful at speeds greater than 25 MPH.”
The one item Trish and I have been clear on is that the Park Ave (north of Hopkins) safety issue
between pedestrian and bicyclists will not be solved with any speed reduction measures. This is
really important to a lot of people in the neighborhood. This is really the crux of the major problem
that started this last year, but as we have discovered through interviews and your emails, speeds are
a great concern to the most people so that is being evaluated next week.
Hopkins is not lost on me and that will be fully evaluated. The points mentioned are not being
ignored and will be incorporated.
We are in a very early stage of planning. As stated, we are putting together several items requested
by Council during the work session and getting the data. I won’t develop a living lab concept until the
data is completed and I have accounted for Council comments. As noted, we would present a living
lap option to council during the October session.
I’m working on the plan for outreach. Covid has made meeting together difficult and doing it
virtually has been challenging with other neighborhoods in similar scenarios. I have emails from 65
people who have corresponded with me and I did do 26 interviews last winter. I have talked to many
more in the past two months. I will probably continue to send out informational emails to the whole
group for now, but it’s not going to be something I neglect.
Doug, I thought we had a very good discussion and we didn’t infer that residents were delusional. I
have been open to discussions or emails. I appreciate the feedback and Aspen residents are
educated about their neighborhoods. As I have stated to several people with similar opinions to you,
there may not be speeding in the segment we studied (Park Ave, north of Hopkins), but it feels fast. I
have always agreed to that. It feels fast and unsafe. This is the case in a few other neighborhoods in
Aspen where the cars may not be speeding, but it does not feel comfortable to be a pedestrian or
bicyclist. We’ll work through this with the right solution incorporate the neighborhood.
We are progressing, but I will keep you updated and we can continue discussions. You are always
free to email me.
Thanks,
Pete
Peter Rice
Division Manager
Engineering Department
201 North Mill Street Suite 203.
Page 35 of 77 225
Aspen, CO 81611
c: 970.319.3710
From: Michael Seidenberg <m_seidenberg@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 1:43 PM
To: Doug Brown <doug@brownfamilyoffice.com>
Cc: Skippy Mesirow <skippy.mesirow@cityofaspen.com>; Torre <torre@cityofaspen.com>; Ann
Mullins <Ann.Mullins@cityofaspen.com>; Ward Hauenstein <ward.hauenstein@cityofaspen.com>;
Rachael Richards <rachael.richards@cityofaspen.com>; Sara Ott <sara.ott@cityofaspen.com>; nina
zale <zalere@aol.com>; David H. Eisenstat <davidheisenstat@gmail.com>; Richard Fullerton
<richard@fullertonlp.com>; Neil Bennett <njb@sopris.net>; Michael & Veronica Curran
<mike@curranholdings.com>; David Chazen <davechazen@chazen.com>;
nina@aspenmarketer.com; padunigan@dunigancos.com; Pete Rice <pete.rice@cityofaspen.com>;
Quincy Lee <qlee@tetoncapital.net>; aspenmoguls@aol.com; rodneylaw@aol.com; C. Taylor
Chalmers <ctchalmers@gmail.com>; Diana Lowe <lowediana@me.com>; gregglowe@me.com
Subject: Re: Park/Midland Safety Issues
Thanks Doug and concur 100% with you. To say the meeting was a disappointment is an
understatement; we were basically told by Trish nothing works besides making streets one way. This
really begs the question why we have speed limit signs, speed bumps, and any type of mitigation
effort anywhere in town and why they won’t work in the East End. I basically listened at a loss for
words and immediately thought this was decided by the City this is the way it shall be. No
consideration for the excess speeds associated with one way streets, the ingress/egress issues on
Hopkins Avenue bridge and Snyder Park plus the poorly designed narrow Hopkins Avenue which will
become a major cut through for drivers pitting pedestrians and bicycles vs. cars/trucks on a
sidewalk-less street. The other white elephant in the room is the inside deal which was cut by an ex
council member on the East side of Park Avenue allowing a non permitted setback in combination
with a lot split making a logical East Side sidewalk much more controversial. I hope the traffic
studied again and we start with simple less costly alternatives and lastly you all think about the
unintended consequences of making streets one way.
Best,
Mike and Beatie Seidenberg
1207 E Hopkins Avenue
On Aug 19, 2020, at 1:01 PM, Doug Brown <doug@brownfamilyoffice.com> wrote:
Dear Aspen City Council,
This letter is in response to the most recent report in the Aspen Daily News regarding
staff’s position concerning the Park/Midland/Hopkins Safety Issues being discussed.
Generally speaking, staff indicates that based upon some unspecified study there is no
vehicular excess speed issue in this part of town. If you inquire to the police in the area
and virtually all of the neighbors, everyone is clear there is an issue regarding vehicles
Page 36 of 77 226
traveling at excess speed in the area. Additionally, staff denigrates virtually all speed
abatement measures that works elsewhere in town and outside of town. It seems staff is
ignoring less costly measures because, for some reason, it is pre-disposed toward
installing sidewalks as soon as possible. As you are aware, sidewalks are significantly
more expensive, more disruptive and hurt the character of the neighborhood much more
than alternative, easier to put in place and less costly measures. In light of the current
and not-so-current stresses to our budget brought upon by the current pandemic and the
clear neighborhood opposition to starting the harder route first without trying the
“lower hanging fruit”, we are at a loss regarding staff’s position. Now is a time to unite
our community, not divide it.
Specifically,
NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH.
During the recent city Council meeting where the public was invited to attend virtually
(after most neighbors discovered the subject to be discussed a few days before), it was
stated by staff that there has been significant neighborhood outreach over the past
decade. Despite this statement, our outreach has shown that more than half of the
households in our community (many of which are full-time) have not been contacted at
all by the city. Democracy and community outreach requires public participation.
ALL SPEED LIMIT AND STOP SIGNS DON’T WORK.
During the city council meeting, the community was basically told, which was
reiterated Monday in print, that virtually all speed limit and stop signs do not work
anywhere whatsoever in the entire city of Aspen. Firstly, if that is the case, why do we
bother to pay for their installation? Why not take down all existing signs? This position
seems absurd on the face of it.
When the community brought up the proven efficacy of interactive speed measuring
signs (The cool blinking digital signs that measure vehicles’ speeds) as shown by
virtually every study, there was absolute silence from the staff and no acknowledgment
of exploring this. You could have heard a pin drop on the virtual call when this was
mentioned by members of the community.
SPEED BUMPS NEVER WORK.
Same thing on speed bumps. First we were told that bicyclist don’t like them and
secondly we were told that they do not work. Again, when we pushed on the
effectiveness in other parts of town, we heard silence.
In summation, according to staff, residents in the area are delusional regarding their
perception of vehicles traveling at excess speeds in our community, all stop and speed
limit signs do not work, as don’t speed bumps. Further, the outreach correspondence
over the last 12 years must have gotten lost in the mail.
WHAT ARE WE MISSING?
Speed limit signs (both interactive and traditional), speed bumps, more police presence,
a pedestrian cross-walk on Hopkins crossing Park and other less costly measures will
Page 37 of 77 227
be less costly, less disruptive and unite the community.
Further, we need meaningful, effective community outreach to give the members of our
community the ability to have their opinions heard.
Thank you for hearing this,
Abby and Doug Brown
303 Park Ave.
Page 38 of 77 228
From:Elsa Mitchell
To:parkandmidland@cityofaspen.com
Subject:Fwd: NO one way Sts!
Date:Thursday, November 19, 2020 10:39:06 AM
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Elsa Mitchell <elsamit@aol.com>
Date: November 19, 2020 at 10:32:35 AM MST
To: parkmidlandoneway@comcast.net
Subject: NO one way Sts!
Hello! I’ve lived (full time)off Park Ave. on E.Hopkins since 1972, so I’ve been
through many many community changes, to say the least. I am totally against
making Park &/or Midland one-way streets. We have managed to work
successfully all these years without any insurmountable problems. Now that most
of the new residents seem to be part timers, they seem to be the majority
complainers-& mostly those that have homes on Park Ave. If this is not a correct
viewpoint, please inform me! I only see many problems with the one-way streets,
& very few with Park Ave as it is now. During heavy home constructions is the
only time that we are aware of discord or delays. Thank you for your time &
consideration! Elsa Mitchell. 379-0245, elsamit@aol.com
Sent from my iPhone
Page 39 of 77 229
From:nina zale
To:parkandmidland@cityofaspen.com; pete.rice@cityofaspen.com; skippy.mesirow@cityofaspen.com;
rachel.richards@cityofaspen.com; ward.hauerstein@cityofaspen.com; torre@cityofaspen.com;
ann.mullins@cityofaspen.com
Subject:Park and Midland
Date:Tuesday, October 27, 2020 2:13:34 PM
Bryana
I just want to reiterate that any study done now before all the employee housing on Park Circle is built and
occupied, is a waste of time and money because it will not show the true amount and speed of traffic that
will exist in the near future.
Thank you
Nina Zale
Page 40 of 77 230
From:Meg
To:Barbara Lee
Cc:Bryana Starbuck; Dana Laughren; Jon
Subject:Re: Bryana Starbuck re: Park and Midland
Date:Wednesday, October 28, 2020 1:13:55 PM
Our house is in both streets as well - and for sure making Midland and park one way streets
will be to the detriment of Midland and given the speed of the bus not help park at all - really a
bad plan - thanks
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 28, 2020, at 12:55 PM, Barbara Lee <barbaracolelee@gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you so much for the time you all took to get the neighborhood’s concerns
and questions. I will sign up to receive notices as we were not notified previously,
I don’t think, and our house is both on Midland and Park.
After hearing that if the one way is implemented, the traffic on Midland will
double (!), please tell all decision makers to consider that the construction at
the end of Midland, which is supposed to start at some point, will increase
traffic by an extra 160+ cars (please check these numbers with the city )
using that underground garage. This will mean substantial increase in traffic
on Midland. This small street will not be handle all of this traffic and it will
become unsafe for pedestrians and bikers as well.
So even though Park residents are trying to create a safer road where they live, we
at Midland want to keep ours safe as well.
Thank you for your consideration,
barbara
___________
barbara lee
c.617.974.2008
On Oct 27, 2020, at 7:27 PM, Bryana Starbuck <bryana@prstudioco.com> wrote:
Hi Barbara and all,
Thank you for these comments. We hope you will be able to join us for tomorrow’s
virtual Neighborhood Huddle at 11:30 a.m via Zoom. We look forward to reviewing the
findings of the traffic study and touching base on next steps. This meeting will be
recorded and posted to the project webpage for those who are unable to attend.
Page 41 of 77 231
Regarding the one-way proposal, no final decision has been made on if or what
additional changes might be to the neighborhood. We will discuss this in greater detail
tomorrow, but before City council makes a decision, we will have a community survey
that asks for input on four options. We will review this tomorrow and will be following
up with additional information via the project email update. To subscribe to those
updates, visit https://www.aspencommunityvoice.com/parkandmidland.
Park + Midland Neighborhood Huddle Information
When: Oct 28, 2020 11:30 AM Mountain Time
Please click the link below to join the webinar:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84837732433?
pwd=YTdIOTNQUFY3VHloMWprNmNPZDljQT09
Webinar ID: 848 3773 2433
Passcode: 81611
Or iPhone one-tap :
US: +16699006833,,84837732433#,,,,,,0#,,81611
Or Telephone:
Dial (for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location):
US: +1 669 900 6833
International numbers available: https://us02web.zoom.us/u/kpfgv30S
Please reach out with any other questions.
Thank you,
Bryana Starbuck
Park and Midland Project Team
Phone: 970-340-4334
Email: ParkandMidland@cityofaspen.com
Webpage: aspencommunityvoice.com/parkandmidland
From: Barbara Lee <barbaracolelee@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2020 11:44 AM
To: parkandmidland@cityofaspen.com
Cc: Meg <meg.sunier@gmail.com>; Dana Laughren
<dana@pitkincountydrygoods.com>; Sam & Mark Terkun
<sam@thewoodsfinejewelry.com>; Mark Terkun <mark@terkun.net>; Jon
<jonleeaspen@gmail.com>; Suzanna Lee <suzannacolelee@gmail.com>
Page 42 of 77 232
Subject: Bryana Starbuck re: Park and Midland
Please include me into Neighborhood Huddle regarding the one way proposal.
It would be a disaster for Midland Avenue:
1. Just as Park Avenue has no sidewalks, neither does Midland.
2. There are people walking in all directions and the folks walking toward 82 or back
from Smuggler would not see cars coming.
3. Midland is a narrow street as it is. Park is also but cars have been navigating it fine.
Everyone just slows down to let other cars pass. Why fix it if it’s not broken?
4. The turn coming from Park onto Midland is now dangerous. The Stop sign says one
does not have to stop if turning right onto Midland. Cars come too fast now. There are
parked cars very close that restrict seeing cars coming around that turn. There are
dogs and children and bikes who are often on the street! It will not be safe.
5. The traffic would be double or triple given that everyone from Park, Midland, and
Park Circle and Smuggler Park wanting to get on to 82 East would have to come
through Midland Ave. Also those going 82 West would also have to use the same
dysfunctional traffic pattern.
6. It is not fair to the residents on Midland (or Park) to have such an increase in
traffic. Midland and Park are a walkway through to get to Smuggler, which is a highly
used hiking trail. It would make it much more dangerous for walkers on both streets.
7. When the new development at Park Circle is completed (if ever) we have already
shown that there will be a significant increase in traffic.
8. In order to go north, cars will take a shortcut onto E. Hopkins Ave which is a
very small residential street, which is hilly and icy in the winter.
9. Bicyclists going both ways would also be in danger on both Park and
Midland giving one way vehicle traffic.
10. Garbage trucks and other large vehicles would block Midland residents
driving down Park if cars cannot pass them or turn around.
So many more issues to discuss, but as a long time Midland Ave ( and Park
Ave) resident my vote is NO!
Barbara and Jon Lee
327/325 Midland Avenue
330 Park Avenue
c.617.974.2008
___________
Page 43 of 77 233
From:Barbara Lee
To:Bryana Starbuck
Cc:Suzanna Lee; Meg
Subject:Re: Bryana Starbuck re: Park and Midland
Date:Wednesday, October 28, 2020 1:16:49 AM
One more issue: the bus. It now travels down Park towards 82. Does the new plan change it to
traveling down Midland- make 2 extra narrow turns and causing increased noise? The narrow
aspect of making these turns would be dangerous.
barbara
Sent from my iPhone. Please excuse brevity, typos, and everything else.
On Oct 27, 2020, at 7:27 PM, Bryana Starbuck <bryana@prstudioco.com> wrote:
Hi Barbara and all,
Thank you for these comments. We hope you will be able to join us for tomorrow’s
virtual Neighborhood Huddle at 11:30 a.m via Zoom. We look forward to reviewing the
findings of the traffic study and touching base on next steps. This meeting will be
recorded and posted to the project webpage for those who are unable to attend.
Regarding the one-way proposal, no final decision has been made on if or what
additional changes might be to the neighborhood. We will discuss this in greater detail
tomorrow, but before City council makes a decision, we will have a community survey
that asks for input on four options. We will review this tomorrow and will be following
up with additional information via the project email update. To subscribe to those
updates, visit https://www.aspencommunityvoice.com/parkandmidland.
Park + Midland Neighborhood Huddle Information
When: Oct 28, 2020 11:30 AM Mountain Time
Please click the link below to join the webinar:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84837732433?
pwd=YTdIOTNQUFY3VHloMWprNmNPZDljQT09
Webinar ID: 848 3773 2433
Passcode: 81611
Or iPhone one-tap :
US: +16699006833,,84837732433#,,,,,,0#,,81611
Or Telephone:
Dial (for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location):
US: +1 669 900 6833
Page 44 of 77 234
International numbers available: https://us02web.zoom.us/u/kpfgv30S
Please reach out with any other questions.
Thank you,
Bryana Starbuck
Park and Midland Project Team
Phone: 970-340-4334
Email: ParkandMidland@cityofaspen.com
Webpage: aspencommunityvoice.com/parkandmidland
From: Barbara Lee <barbaracolelee@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2020 11:44 AM
To: parkandmidland@cityofaspen.com
Cc: Meg <meg.sunier@gmail.com>; Dana Laughren
<dana@pitkincountydrygoods.com>; Sam & Mark Terkun
<sam@thewoodsfinejewelry.com>; Mark Terkun <mark@terkun.net>; Jon
<jonleeaspen@gmail.com>; Suzanna Lee <suzannacolelee@gmail.com>
Subject: Bryana Starbuck re: Park and Midland
Please include me into Neighborhood Huddle regarding the one way proposal.
It would be a disaster for Midland Avenue:
1. Just as Park Avenue has no sidewalks, neither does Midland.
2. There are people walking in all directions and the folks walking toward 82 or back
from Smuggler would not see cars coming.
3. Midland is a narrow street as it is. Park is also but cars have been navigating it fine.
Everyone just slows down to let other cars pass. Why fix it if it’s not broken?
4. The turn coming from Park onto Midland is now dangerous. The Stop sign says one
does not have to stop if turning right onto Midland. Cars come too fast now. There are
parked cars very close that restrict seeing cars coming around that turn. There are
dogs and children and bikes who are often on the street! It will not be safe.
5. The traffic would be double or triple given that everyone from Park, Midland, and
Park Circle and Smuggler Park wanting to get on to 82 East would have to come
through Midland Ave. Also those going 82 West would also have to use the same
dysfunctional traffic pattern.
6. It is not fair to the residents on Midland (or Park) to have such an increase in
traffic. Midland and Park are a walkway through to get to Smuggler, which is a highly
used hiking trail. It would make it much more dangerous for walkers on both streets.
7. When the new development at Park Circle is completed (if ever) we have already
shown that there will be a significant increase in traffic.
Page 45 of 77 235
8. In order to go north, cars will take a shortcut onto E. Hopkins Ave which is a
very small residential street, which is hilly and icy in the winter.
9. Bicyclists going both ways would also be in danger on both Park and
Midland giving one way vehicle traffic.
10. Garbage trucks and other large vehicles would block Midland residents
driving down Park if cars cannot pass them or turn around.
So many more issues to discuss, but as a long time Midland Ave ( and Park
Ave) resident my vote is NO!
Barbara and Jon Lee
327/325 Midland Avenue
330 Park Avenue
c.617.974.2008
___________
Page 46 of 77 236
From:NINA ZALE
To:Pete Rice
Cc:Trish Aragon; Scott Miller; Raquel Flinker; Bryana Starbuck; Aaron Reed
Subject:Re: Park + Midland Email Update
Date:Wednesday, September 30, 2020 10:06:32 PM
Your efforts are appreciated. However there will be more residents/vehicles added to the
equation once the new park circle proper is occupied and then after 404 park circle is built.
Therefore it seems these efforts are premature and do not reflect the impact of a lot more
future density.
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 30, 2020, at 16:00, Pete Rice <pete.rice@cityofaspen.com> wrote:
Hello all,
Please see below for the latest on the Park and Midland neighborhood project.
As a reminder, we are moving all project updates to be sent through Aspen Community
Voice. If you haven’t already, you must activate your subscription to receive future
updates. Please subscribe at aspencommunityvoice.com/parkandmidland. For
questions or assistance with this, please contact Bryana Starbuck at
parkandmidland@cityofaspen.com or at (970) 340-4334.
PARK + MIDLAND UPDATES: 9/30/20
City engineering is evaluating locations for driver feedback signs between HWY 82 and
Hopkins along Park Avenue. These are the signs that use radar to give drivers real-time
feedback on their travel speed. In our considerations, we are reviewing locations that
can accommodate both the space of the sign and have good visibility for vehicles.
Additionally, the traffic engineering consultant is wrapping up collection of
neighborhood traffic data. This information will include traffic counts, speed data and
technical analysis of existing conditions. The consultant will assemble all the data into a
report which we will review during a virtual neighborhood huddle on October 28 (see
below), share with this group, and post to the project webpage.
BUDGET WORKSESSION
City Engineering is scheduled to present their department budget requests in a work
session with City Council on Tuesday, October 6. Included in this will be a line item
request for the design and implementation of the spring 2021 Park & Midland living lab
experiment as requested by council. City engineering will base the budget line request
on an estimated cost to design the living lab. We are asking the living lab designers to
consider neighborhood input, council direction, traffic data, and engineering best
practices.
Page 47 of 77 237
Please note that this line item will likely be reviewed very briefly as one part of the
overall budget discussion. Council is not expected to take public comments, but we
encourage you to continue to submit your comments and questions through the Aspen
Community Voice page. Timing and outreach will increase starting in November.
SAVE THE DATE - VIRTUAL NEIGHBORHOOD HUDDLE
Please join us for a virtual Neighborhood Huddle on Wednesday, October 28 at 11:30
a.m. At this meeting we will review neighborhood input to date, technical
considerations, and next steps for this project. This meeting will be recorded for those
who are unable to attend. Please RSVP to Bryana Starbuck at
parkandmidland@cityofaspen.com or at (970) 340-4334.
Thank you for your continued engagement and please reach out with any questions or
concerns.
Thanks,
Pete
<image001.png>
Peter Rice
Division Manager
Engineering Department
201 North Mill Street Suite 203.
Aspen, CO 81611
c: 970.319.3710
Page 48 of 77 238
From:Sara Garton
To:Bryana Starbuck
Cc:Pete Rice; Raquel Flinker; Aaron Reed; Carly McGowan; parkandmidland@cityofaspen.com
Subject:Re: Park + Midland Virtual Neighborhood Huddle
Date:Wednesday, October 28, 2020 1:28:20 PM
Hi Bryana,
Thanks for organizing the Park/Midland Virtual Neighborhood Huddle this morning.
I suggest for future Zoom meetings that thank-yous, welcoming remarks, introductions be dispensed with. Simply
say hello and here we go!
Everyone is in attendance because they have a personal stake, know the situation, have done their homework, have
read your good preliminary emails and read the charts. The attendees want to hear from the team and have their
questions answered!
People are busy, even with sheltering at home! We’re at work or in other activities on Zoom and have Zoom
fatigue.
Thanks to the team for the good maps and charts.
Stay in touch with us on Zoom or email, but stay on point!
Sincerely,
Sara Garton
Page 49 of 77 239
From:Bryana Starbuck
To:Ronnie Ibara
Cc:ParkandMidland@cityofaspen.com
Subject:RE: UPDATE
Date:Tuesday, October 20, 2020 2:47:13 PM
Hi Ronnie,
In response to renewed resident and citizen concerns shared with City Council and City Engineering,
the City of Aspen is exploring potential safety measures and improvements. In fall 2019, City Council
directed staff to begin working towards safety solutions for this neighborhood.
Based on Council direction and neighborhood feedback during a City Council work session on July 13,
staff is developing the best approach for implementing pedestrian and roadway safety measures.
The approach includes phases that can implement immediate measures, data collection, and
outreach.
Since July, staff has been working with a traffic expert to collect additional traffic data and has taken
steps to implement immediate measures including signage that is to be installed soon.
If you are able, we invite you to join the project team for a virtual neighborhood huddle on
Wednesday, October 28 at 11:30 a.m. The focus of this meeting will be to review the findings of the
traffic study and to touch base on next steps. This meeting will be recorded for those who are
unable to attend. Please RSVP to Bryana Starbuck at parkandmidland@cityofaspen.com or at (970)
340-4334.
Additionally, the project team has begun bi-monthly email updates and established a hub on Aspen
Community Voice. This webpage serves as our group hub for project information, updates and
serves as the designated forum for collecting input.
LATEST UPDATE
The latest on this project is that City staff connected with City Council on next steps during the
October 6 engineering budget discussion. City Council approved funds to implement safety
improvements in this neighborhood which will be further discussed in a council work session this
winter. City engineering will prepare traffic data and options for council to review. Ultimately,
Council will have final decision on any additional measures. Stay tuned for more information on this.
Meanwhile, the project team is using updated data from the traffic study to move forward with a
couple immediate modifications. City engineering will soon be installing stop signs on Park Ave. at
the intersection of Park and Hopkins. Additionally, City Engineering plans to place a temporary,
driver feedback device to measure real-time speeds and alert motorists heading north on Park Ave.
This device will be placed between Hwy 82 and Hopkins Ave. in relation to the traffic study’s
findings. City Engineering will assess the impact of both the stop signs and driver feedback signs, and
we also encourage neighbors to share any insights on the project webpage.
Full project updates are posted on the project webpage, and we encourage you to subscribe to the
Page 50 of 77 240
bi-monthly project update email at aspencommunityvoice.com/parkandmidland.
Please reach out with any further questions.
Regards,
Bryana Starbuck
Park and Midland Project Team
Phone: 970-340-4334
Email: ParkandMidland@cityofaspen.com
Webpage: aspencommunityvoice.com/parkandmidland
From: Ronnie Ibara <roninaspen@hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2020 10:27 PM
To: ParkandMidland@cityofaspen.com
Subject: UPDATE
Please update me on the proposal to make Park and Midland one way streets. I thought we shut
down that conversation years ago.
RONNIE IBARA
JD CANDIDATE CLASS OF 2016
STANFORD LAW SCHOOL
roninaspen@hotmail.com
ronnie.ibara@stanford.edu
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHICH IT IS
ADDRESSED AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL AND EXEMPT
FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, forwarding, copying of or
taking action in reliance of the contents of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you receive
this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail or telephone, and
delete the original message immediately. Thank You.
Page 51 of 77 241
Page 52 of 77 242
Page 53 of 77 243
Project Report
14 June 2016 - 02 December 2020
Aspen Community Voice
Park and Midland
Highlights
TOTAL
VISITS
528
MAX VISITORS PER
DAY
30
NEW
REGISTRATI
ONS
35
ENGAGED
VISITORS
63
INFORMED
VISITORS
163
AWARE
VISITORS
283
Aware Participants 283
Aware Actions Performed Participants
Visited a Project or Tool Page 283
Informed Participants 163
Informed Actions Performed Participants
Viewed a video 0
Viewed a photo 0
Downloaded a document 70
Visited the Key Dates page 6
Visited an FAQ list Page 0
Visited Instagram Page 0
Visited Multiple Project Pages 83
Contributed to a tool (engaged)63
Engaged Participants 63
Engaged Actions Performed
Registered Unverified Anonymous
Contributed on Forums 0 0 0
Participated in Surveys 56 0 0
Contributed to Newsfeeds 0 0 0
Participated in Quick Polls 0 0 0
Posted on Guestbooks 16 0 0
Contributed to Stories 0 0 0
Asked Questions 1 0 0
Placed Pins on Places 4 0 0
Contributed to Ideas 1 0 0
Visitors Summary
Pageviews Visitors Visits
New Registrations
1 Jan '20 1 Jul '20
250
500
750
Page 54 of 77 244
Tool Type
Engagement Tool Name Tool Status Visitors
Registered Unverified Anonymous
Contributors
Newsfeed PARK + MIDLAND UPDATES - 10/15/20 Published 3 0 0 0
Newsfeed PARK + MIDLAND OUTREACH UPDATE -
9/11/20
Published 1 0 0 0
Newsfeed PARK + MIDLAND UPDATES - 11/20/20 Published 0 0 0 0
Newsfeed PARK + MIDLAND UPDATES - 9/30/20 Published 0 0 0 0
Newsfeed PARK + MIDLAND UPDATES - 11/9/20 Published 0 0 0 0
Qanda Q&A Published 24 1 0 0
Guest Book Comments Published 73 16 0 0
Place Park & Midland Neighborhood Published 8 4 0 0
Survey Tool Survey Archived 93 56 0 0
Ideas What physical improvements do you envision to
improve saf...
Archived 4 1 0 0
Aspen Community Voice : Summary Report for 14 June 2016 to 02 December 2020
ENGAGEMENT TOOLS SUMMARY
0
FORUM TOPICS
1
SURVEYS
5
NEWS FEEDS
0
QUICK POLLS
1
GUEST BOOKS
0
STORIES
1
Q&A S
1
PLACES
1
IDEAS
Page 2 of 23 Page 55 of 77 245
Widget Type Engagement Tool Name Visitors Views/Downloads
Document Virtual Neighborhood Huddle Memo - 11/9/20 37 66
Document Community Input Summary Infographic -10-15-20 24 43
Document Park and Midland Information Sheet 17 19
Document Park and Midland Project History 13 13
Document AspenTrafficStudy_Option_1_10 11
Document Neighborhood Huddle Presentation - 10/28/20 9 11
Key Dates Key Date 6 8
Video Park + Midland Virtual Neighborhood Huddle, October 28, 2020 0 0
Aspen Community Voice : Summary Report for 14 June 2016 to 02 December 2020
INFORMATION WIDGET SUMMARY
6
DOCUMENTS
0
PHOTOS
1
VIDEOS
0
FAQS
0
KEY DATES
Page 3 of 23 Page 56 of 77 246
Visitors 24 Contributors 1 CONTRIBUTIONS 2
Q marjo
When will you be sending out the presentation, traffic study data and other documents discussed at the Oct 28 hu
ddle (or placing online)?
A Publicly Answered
Hi Marjo,The meeting video and presentation are now posted on the project webpage. For everything else, we wil
l send out an email when they are up in the next week or so. The community survey will open on November 9.
Q marjo
Did the traffic study count pedestrian traffic as well as auto and bike traffic?
A Privately Answered
Hi Marjo,Yes, the traffic study also collected pedestrian traffic counts. We plan on posting the traffic study findings
in the coming weeks.
Aspen Community Voice : Summary Report for 14 June 2016 to 02 December 2020
QANDA
Q&A
29 October 20
29 October 20
Page 4 of 23 Page 57 of 77 247
Visitors 73 Contributors 16 CONTRIBUTIONS 19
12 September 20
davidhou
AGREES
0
DISAGRE
ES
0
REPLIES
0
12 September 20
davidhou
AGREES
0
DISAGRE
ES
0
REPLIES
0
Aspen Community Voice : Summary Report for 14 June 2016 to 02 December 2020
GUEST BOOK
Comments
I am a new resident at 269 Park Ave. One of the reasons that I like the neighborhood i
s because of the open feel of the streets. I believe we should not mandate side walks.
The charm of the street and neighborhood would change. I think we just need a way t
o slow down traffic. Maybe speed bumps or warning lights at intersection of Hopkins a
nd Park. Thank you.
I am a new resident at 269 Park Ave. One of the reasons that I like the neighborhood i
s because of the open feel of the streets. I believe we should not mandate side walks.
The charm of the street and neighborhood would change. I think we just need a way t
o slow down traffic. Maybe speed bumps or warning lights at intersection of Hopkins a
nd Park. Thank you.
Page 5 of 23 Page 58 of 77 248
12 September 20
solitsky
AGREES
0
DISAGRE
ES
0
REPLIES
0
17 September 20
jpom
AGREES
0
DISAGRE
ES
0
REPLIES
0
Aspen Community Voice : Summary Report for 14 June 2016 to 02 December 2020
GUEST BOOK
Comments
We live at the 257 Park Ave (NW corner of Park Ave and Dale Ave)... Tamar and Ste
phen Olitsky. We see no need to widen the existing roadway, or to utilize any curbing/
sidewalks which would “urbanize” our charming neighborhood lined with trees and flo
wers. A safer pedestrian/vehicle shared roadway can be accomplished utilizing one w
ay streets and a pedestrian/bike lane (much like we see on the two way 4th Street on
the West End). As I discussed during the last Council Discussion with our neighborho
od, we have a serious problem with snow “removal” vs “plowing”. This plowing without
snow removal (like we see in the center core and west end) creates narrowing of road
ways forcing pedestrians and bikes into the often one lane roadway. I mention this ag
ain, because curbing and sidewalks will only create a more difficult and frankly expens
ive situation for snow removal. Do not widen the existing road!! Do not “urbanize” our
neighborhood! These measures are absolutely unnecessary and costly for which ther
e is no existing budget. I believe that the “living lab” will prove to be a success and the
re will be no need to go beyond a pedestrian/bike lane and one way streets to satisfy
ALL needs and retain the charm of the neighborhood we all selected to live in and ma
ny of us chose to invest in. Please with the Living Lab also provide snow removal as
part of the equation. If you’re not going to remove the snow... don’t bother wasting the
time or money by plowing the street closed down to one lane. The one way road conc
ept will provide the additional safety as well as better defined on street parking. And a
pedestrian/bike “lane” will avoid additional curbing and sidewalks which will result in a
dditional snow removal efforts at a great expense, while “urbanizing” our charming nei
ghborhood. Our city engineers tell us speed bumps/tables and additional signs will N
OT result in less speeding (15% speed according to city engineers). But will these me
asures result in lower speeds between the deterrents? Neighbors hear the engineers
as I do, but keep requesting additional signage and obstacles on these streets. I
believe “flashing” signage would be a shame as crossing over Park Ave on Hopkins is
the highest impact intersection being discussed right now and I sure wouldn’t want a fl
ashing light outside my home (some of us consider our neighbors). Cyclists are not g
oing to stop to push a button at this intersection that usually doesn’t require stopping b
ecause of an oncoming vehicle. Ponding/Icing needs to be addressed here more than
we need a flashing light... again this would be largely achieved by appropriate snow “r
emoval” allowing for proper water run off to the Roaring Fork and Storm Water Drains.
The same problem exists at our corner of Dale and Park. The drainage in front of our
home (beautifully planted and maintained) has a large dry river rock bed and culvert th
at handles ALL of the water sheet draining down Park Ave from 82. Snow is piled at t
his intersection obstructing views, eliminating parking, creating single lanes of (2) two
way roads and obstructs the drainage in front of our home resulting in dangerous pon
ding/icing conditions where I have seen many pedestrians slip and fall. Thank you for
involving the neighborhood in hearing involving your decisions regarding our propertie
s and homes... our charming neighborhood. Stephen Olitsky 257 Park Ave
I live in the neighborhood and often walk home utilizing the bridge at east Hopkins. I a
gree with much of the plan being submitted - especially the one way streets. I also agr
ee with many folks that a simple bike/pedestrian lane may be sufficient. A few caveats
to that - 1) the City may need to take back portions of the ROW that has been taken o
ver by homeowners, especially along the N end of Park, in order to provide enough wi
dth for a proper walkways, and 2) the only exception to the no sidewalks would be nea
r the intersection of Parka and Park Circle, where the new housing will eventually get
built. This is a very congested intersection, and the combination of density, pedestrian
s, bikes and buses makes it a very challenging spot. The challenge will only increase
when 404 Park is actually built, and the developer can pay into any plan to build ROW
infrastructure. Jim Pomeroy
Page 6 of 23 Page 59 of 77 249
25 September 20
sbernstein
AGREES
0
DISAGRE
ES
0
REPLIES
0
01 October 20
FGGull
AGREES
0
DISAGRE
ES
0
REPLIES
0
02 October 20
mia aspen
AGREES
0
DISAGRE
ES
0
REPLIES
0
12 October 20
EvanGull
AGREES
0
DISAGRE
ES
0
REPLIES
0
Aspen Community Voice : Summary Report for 14 June 2016 to 02 December 2020
GUEST BOOK
Comments
I support my neighbors who believe the bus stop should be on Main Street rather than
on Garmisch were most of the riders would prefer to get off and be closer to their
distinations.
I have fears that I will be forced to make u turns from Park onto STATE HWY 82 to go
back home on Midland Ave if it is one way also. That causes a dangerous situation wi
th the STATE HWY 82 downhill bike and car traffic. Doesn’t make sense to me. I unde
rstand that sometimes I might be able to use Hopkins but that’s not always the case.
Midland Avenue is a kind of quiet and charming street which would be destroyed with
directing ALL the traffic from highway on it. Also, safety on Midland would decrease a
lot specially on the corner of Park and Midland. The easiest solution is to add the the
speed bump at Hopkins and Park( great idea by the new neighbor- Welcome davidho
u).
I am the President of the Ardmore Homeowners Association and represent 13 homes
(17 residential units) who use Midland Avenue for access to our neighborhood via Ma
scotte Lane. During our annual meeting in December, 2019, we unanimously voted to
OPPOSE making Midland Avenue a one-way street. We agreed that there are signific
ant safety issues with the mix of pedestrian, bike, and vehicle traffic, especially on the
narrower portions of Park. However, we are greatly concerned that making Park one-
way will dramatically decrease the safety of Midland. Midland already serves as the pr
imary access for over four times as many residences than Park (approximately 115 un
its vs 25) and is not presently a through street. Making Midland one-way will: * Route
northbound through traffic to Park Circle and Smuggler Mountain on a street that now
has only local traffic * Require Midland residents to loop around on Park leaving or ret
urning home, increasing southbound traffic on Park * Create a safety issue by Routin
g many Midland residents through Hopkins Ave (a dangerous, hilly street, icy in the w
inter) leaving or returning home * Create a safety issue by requiring some Midland res
idents to U-turn at Park onto Highway 82 (into fast downhill traffic) to return home via
Midland * Mix wrong-way bicycle traffic into one-way vehicle traffic on both Park and
Midland * Close off access to Midland residents any time that either Park or Midland
are blocked by trash trucks, delivery trucks, construction impacts or roadwork. This is
a regular occurrence in our neighborhood but vehicles can presently go around the bl
ockage, which they could not do with one-way streets. I encourage all neighborhood r
esidents to subscribe to the project updates at
https://www.aspencommunityvoice.com/parkandmidland and share their thoughts in t
he comments area on that page. There has been little awareness or participation by
Midland Avenue residents so it is vital that everyone get involved so that a plan is dev
eloped that is appropriate for all of the residents of our neighborhood.
Page 7 of 23 Page 60 of 77 250
12 October 20
EvanGull
AGREES
0
DISAGRE
ES
0
REPLIES
0
15 October 20
Zalere
AGREES
0
DISAGRE
ES
0
REPLIES
0
Aspen Community Voice : Summary Report for 14 June 2016 to 02 December 2020
GUEST BOOK
Comments
Added by Evan Gull From Pete Rice (City Engineering Department) in his email upda
te for this project) SAVE THE DATE - VIRTUAL NEIGHBORHOOD HUDDLE Please j
oin us for a virtual Neighborhood Huddle on Wednesday, October 28 at 11:30 a.m. At
this meeting we will review neighborhood input to date, technical considerations, and
next steps for this project. This meeting will be recorded for those who are unable to a
ttend. Please RSVP to Bryana Starbuck at parkandmidland@cityofaspen.com or at (9
70) 340-4334. Thank you for your continued engagement and please reach out with a
ny questions or concerns. Thanks, Pete pete.rice@cityofaspen.com
We definitely do not need more lighting at night- I live here so that I can see the stars.
Also any study you do now will be negated once all employee housing is built and inh
abited in Park Circle. You can not predict how the traffic will change once those prope
rties are occupied. Another concern is RFTA indicating they are increasing buses on r
outes which will create more traffic congestion, speeding and air pollution. What happ
ened to the Clean Air Initiative? Those buses speed down Park Ave empty every 20
minutes. I would find it abhorrent to consider installing sidewalks in our
neighborhood. It would totally change the character and affect our property values. W
ould the city consider putting sidewalks in the West End, where there is constant traffi
c all summer for so many events in that part of town? Perhaps the stop sign at Park a
nd Hopkins will provide a new perspective as to what is effective in reducing speeding
and increasing safety on Park Ave. perhaps the answer is making Park Ave a one wa
y street going south. Midland could stay two way. Nzale
Page 8 of 23 Page 61 of 77 251
27 October 20
Benny
AGREES
0
DISAGRE
ES
0
REPLIES
0
Aspen Community Voice : Summary Report for 14 June 2016 to 02 December 2020
GUEST BOOK
Comments
As some of you may be aware there recently was a mailer sent to the Park and Midla
nd residents, a slick advocacy piece, from the Ardmore Homeowners' Association who
se agenda is seemingly about the potential inconvenience of their own commuting pat
terns rather than the safety of the neighborhood. This piece is a "call to action" regardi
ng their opposition to the proposed (May 2021) living lab along with some of their reas
ons why. Firstly, let me say that I have issues with the living lab as well, but my
objection is that the process has not moved along fast enough. The Ardmore Homeo
wners' Association objection would seem to be that the process should not proceed at
all. If I may, I would like to address the objections enumerated in the mailer. 1. Having
Midland residents loop around onto Park leaving and returning home. I drove this
loop recently and barely moved my odometer or clock in the process. The amount of t
ime from Mascotte south onto Midland to Highway 82 was one minute. The difference
from Mascotte to Highway 82 via the Midland connector and then south on Park was
1.5 minutes and again, no change in my odometer. (I do not have tenths of miles on
my odometer so for the sake of clarity the second route may have been a bit longer).
I will admit, however, that there is a three-way intersection at the Midland connector,
Park Avenue and Park Circle that needs to be reworked with either yield or stop signs
to make this a safer and less confusing intersection. But note, there is also the option
for traffic to turn onto Gibson from the Midland connector to Neale Avenue and then ri
ght onto Original if the destination is not to go east to Hwy 82 at the end of Park Avenu
e, thus reducing the projected increase in traffic on Park. 2. The safety issue of routin
g Midland residents via Hopkins connector. Yes, there are valid safety issues mention
ed, especially in the winter, but perhaps avoiding this route completely is the answer a
nd returning to Midland from Hwy 82 by traveling along Original to Highway 82, turnin
g east and then turning north onto Midland Avenue to Mascotte and Ardmore - a more
direct route than taking the back roads. 3. Mix wrong way bicycle traffic into one way
vehicle traffic on both Park and Midland. I would venture that there is not a street in A
spen that does not have bicyclists traveling in the wrong direction and against traffic. I
t is a fact of life most everywhere as well as the obligation of the bicyclist to be aware
of the correct direction of traffic and their role in it. 4. Close off access to Midland resid
ents any time that either Park or Midland are blocked by commercial vehicles, etc. (a
frequent occurrence). Again, this is a fact of life in our or any part of town. I am not sur
e keeping the roadways as two-way makes this any more safe or tolerable. Would it n
ot be safer to turn onto these roadways with the traffic than to cross two lanes of traffic
, each going in opposite directions? Earlier in this process, I mentioned that the
potential outcome of the living lab will force all using these roadways to change their d
riving habits. A re-education, if you will, similar to what we all have done on South Mill
street and Hyman Avenue in front of the Crystal Palace. It would seem that thus far, w
e have adapted and survived. I am hopeful that there will be other measures
implemented in addition to the living lab to insure the safety of both these roadways. T
he neighborhood has repeatedly voiced concern over excessive speeding on Park Av
enue and asked that speed abatement measures i.e. signage, speed tables and traffic
enforcement be included. Therefore, I would urge City Council and Engineering to un
dertake the lab next spring (an experiment worth undertaking regardless of Ardmore’s
single-minded effort to derail it, even on a trial basis) and in the interim provide us
with whatever data is currently being collected so we can all comment intelligently duri
ng the virtual neighborhood huddle scheduled for October 28 at 11:30. I am sorry that
the Ardmore homeowners, who incidentally, do not live within the city limits, felt it nec
essary to submit their mailer as it is viewed as a provocation and obstacle to independ
ent data collection which could be used to assist with the living lab. It would have bee
n wiser for them to wait for more data before taking such action. Thank you. J Kolberg
, Midland Park
Page 9 of 23 Page 62 of 77 252
27 October 20
ruthiebrown@comcast.net
AGREES
0
DISAGRE
ES
0
REPLIES
0
27 October 20
Mseidenberg
AGREES
0
DISAGRE
ES
0
REPLIES
0
28 October 20
Eric Johnson
AGREES
0
DISAGRE
ES
0
REPLIES
0
28 October 20
20-year local
AGREES
0
DISAGRE
ES
0
REPLIES
0
Aspen Community Voice : Summary Report for 14 June 2016 to 02 December 2020
GUEST BOOK
Comments
As a 25 year residents of the neighborhood, our family of four feels strongly that to ma
ke Park and Midland one way would make our neighborhood less safe. In addition to i
ncreasing the traffic from the larger housing complexes with people having to travel fu
rther either coming or going to get to Hwy 82, it increases the danger of more traffic o
n icy intersections. There are other solutions to improving the traffic flow, but to make
the streets one way is not one of them!
As a resident of Hopkins Avenue (1207) which is a main year around thoroughfare for
bikes and pedestrians, I am very concerned about traffic using Hopkins Avenue as
cut through. Hopkins Avenue is very narrow, has terrible drainage as evidenced by th
e huge amounts of snow on it, and lacks sidewalks. We are an intended consequence
of this effort and this will become a safety issue for anyone using this ingress/egress a
venue from the Hopkins Street bridge plus the residents who live on the small
congested street.. This is a primary street for many residents East of Midland who wo
rk year around in the Aspen going into the core. I am concerned about the increased
speed on Midland Avenue and the numerous people including children of all ages wh
o use the Snyder Park blind pedestrian entrance to Hopkins Avenue across Midland. I
would go so far as recommending Hopkins Ave become a bike/pedestrian street by
installing those plastic poles at either the East or West end of the street mitigating traff
ic from using Hopkins as a cut through. The entire plan feels like solution looking for a
problem. Maybe we start with a stop sign at Park and Hopkins to see how this work. B
TW, doing the traffic lab in May seems like bad timing given the respective flows
maybe you should start in July which is the busiest month to see true impact to
everyone. May is a shoulder season month and not representative of the real traffic. I
hope you take a step and think about all of the intended consequences before making
any decisions.
The safety issues (poor site lines, vehicle speed) at the Park / Hopkins intersection ca
n be solved immediately with a couple of stop signs. Do this first, no study necessary.
Address drainage issues, etc. later.
Less is more: - Stop signs or Yield signs at Hopkins crossing - Modest speed limit or
warning signs (the non-flashing kind) - Small temporary speed bumps might be tried
as well - Speed enforcement through random police presence and ticketing as neede
d - RFTA discipline regarding bus speeds These simple and inexpensive measures a
re widely embraced by the neighborhood and can be implemented immediately. Side
walks are vehemently opposed, as stated in multiple comments. A one-way loop has
mixed support and should only be tried out if the more modest approaches prove ineff
ective.
Page 10 of 23 Page 63 of 77 253
28 October 20
Bob Wade
AGREES
0
DISAGRE
ES
0
REPLIES
0
28 October 20
AspenViewOwner
AGREES
0
DISAGRE
ES
0
REPLIES
0
18 November 20
gemaspen
AGREES
0
DISAGRE
ES
0
REPLIES
0
20 November 20
Zalere
AGREES
0
DISAGRE
ES
0
REPLIES
0
Aspen Community Voice : Summary Report for 14 June 2016 to 02 December 2020
GUEST BOOK
Comments
I am a resident of the Ardmore subdivision. I am primarily concerned with the safety
aspects of the proposed changes. My major concerns follow: 1) E. Hopkins now is pri
marily used by pedestrians and bikes as they approach the E. Hopkins bridge and pe
destrian corridor along with the few residents of that street. The one-ways would caus
e many car trips on this section of road as folks try to shorten the approach to their ho
mes on Park and Midland. An unsafe combination in my view especially in winter whe
n the steep road is coated with rutted ice. 2) For folks returning from the Post Office to
homes on Midland Ave. (south of Hopkins) will have to do a U-turn on Hwy 82 to get h
ome. Unsafe in my opinion. If they choose to come back through town then they will b
e adding traffic to the 4 way adjacent to city market which is already a busy intersectio
n during "on season" 3) I commute on my bike frequently and the two way traffic on th
ose narrow streets is naturally slowed. People are very respectful in pulling to the
side for other cars, trucks and bikes. I fear that one way traffic will be a license for use
rs to speed up. And bike riders tend to ignore one-ways if it makes their route longer (
yes, me too) and this inevitably will lead to conflicts and accidents. I suggest that the c
ity look at the record of collisions on Park and Midland. I doubt there have been enou
gh (any?) to justify the proposed changes.
I'm a homeowner in AspenView and am totally against the one way traffic proposals.
Please do not ruin our lovely charming neighborhood with expensive and
unnecessary urbanization plans. The problem exists on Park Avenue, so fix it there a
nd don't make changes that will expand and create problems in other areas. Simply p
ut a set of traffic lights, a stop sign or speed bumps on Park avenue. I'm vehemently a
gainst the one way plans, and the sidewalks.
Taking a perceived problem on Park Ave, and shifting it to Midland Ave, is no solution
at all. Traffic studies indicate that making Midland Ave a one-way street would
increase traffic and traffic speeds there. Midland Ave is where the majority of families
live (Midland Park, Aspen Hills, Aspen View, Ardmore Court, Snyder Park, etc). This i
s not preferable. We can support improving the Hopkins/Park intersection. We can su
pport putting in sidewalks on Park Ave. We cannot support any "Living Lab" that woul
d make Midland Ave a one-way through street. This was studied 10+ years ago and t
he conclusion was to do nothing. The Aspen Police have said that speeds on Park Av
e are not out of the range of acceptable (per the Park/Midland neighborhood huddle).
There is no indication that conditions are different now than when this was originally d
ecided upon. Thank you to the Council and Planners for their work and consideration.
Stop signs are great-except when nobody stops! Just like the rest of the stop signs in
town, most people are now just slowing down and doing a rolling stop at Park &
Hopkins. I live here and see this. The signs are a waste if there is no enforcement.
Page 11 of 23 Page 64 of 77 254
Visitors 8 Contributors 4 CONTRIBUTIONS 8
2020-09-17 09:33:58 -0600
jpom
CATEGO
RY
Pin
2020-09-17 09:34:40 -0600
jpom
CATEGO
RY
Pin
2020-10-22 10:40:07 -0600
Benny
CATEGO
RY
Pin
2020-11-20 16:31:28 -0700
local
CATEGO
RY
Pin
2020-11-23 20:33:42 -0700
local
CATEGO
RY
Pin
2020-11-23 20:35:43 -0700
local
CATEGO
RY
Pin
2020-11-24 20:09:02 -0700
20-year local
CATEGO
RY
Pin
Aspen Community Voice : Summary Report for 14 June 2016 to 02 December 2020
ENGAGEMENT TOOL: PLACE
Park & Midland Neighborhood
Very challenging for pedestrians
Address: 1203 East Hopkins Avenue, Aspen, Colorado 81611, United States
http://www.aspencommunityvoice.com/parkandmidland/maps/park-midland-neighborh
ood?reporting=true#marker-27930
Near new developement
Address: 404 Park Circle, Aspen, Colorado 81611, United States
http://www.aspencommunityvoice.com/parkandmidland/maps/park-midland-neighborh
ood?reporting=true#marker-27931
There is no shoulder from Masotte to Smuggler Grove and Snyder Park yet cars are a
llowed to park on the east side of the roadway and into the roadway making Midland a
very, very tight two lane road. Eliminate parking along this part of Midland Avenue.
Address: 312 Midland Avenue, Aspen, Colorado 81611, United States
http://www.aspencommunityvoice.com/parkandmidland/maps/park-midland-neighborh
ood?reporting=true#marker-28851
Cars and buses speed excessively here because the road widens.
Address: 125 Park Avenue, Aspen, Colorado 81611, United States
http://www.aspencommunityvoice.com/parkandmidland/maps/park-midland-neighborh
ood?reporting=true#marker-30145
Cars and buses speed up considerably before the approach to 82.
Address: 107 Park Avenue, Aspen, Colorado 81611, United States
http://www.aspencommunityvoice.com/parkandmidland/maps/park-midland-neighborh
ood?reporting=true#marker-30221
This part of Park Avenue is very treacherous as cars turning north onto Park don't swi
ng widely enough to the east.
Address: 101 Park Avenue, Aspen, Colorado 81611, United States
http://www.aspencommunityvoice.com/parkandmidland/maps/park-midland-neighborh
ood?reporting=true#marker-30222
Speeding vehicles make egress from my driveway treacherous.
Address: 125 Park Avenue, Aspen, Colorado 81611, United States
http://www.aspencommunityvoice.com/parkandmidland/maps/park-midland-neighborh
ood?reporting=true#marker-30242
Page 12 of 23 Page 65 of 77 255
2020-11-25 17:57:07 -0700
local
CATEGO
RY
Pin
Aspen Community Voice : Summary Report for 14 June 2016 to 02 December 2020
ENGAGEMENT TOOL: PLACE
Park & Midland Neighborhood
Dangerous spot for speeding.
Address: 125 Park Avenue, Aspen, Colorado 81611, United States
http://www.aspencommunityvoice.com/parkandmidland/maps/park-midland-neighborh
ood?reporting=true#marker-30252
Page 13 of 23 Page 66 of 77 256
Visitors 93 Contributors 56 CONTRIBUTIONS 56
Aspen Community Voice : Summary Report for 14 June 2016 to 02 December 2020
ENGAGEMENT TOOL: SURVEY TOOL
Survey
As a pedestrian or bike rider…
21 (37.5%)
21 (37.5%)
13 (23.2%)
13 (23.2%)
21 (37.5%)
21 (37.5%)
1 (1.8%)
1 (1.8%)
I am concerned about safety on this roadway.I feel neutral about safety on this roadway.
I am not concerned about safety on this roadway.N/A - Not applicable
Question options
Page 14 of 23
Optional question (56 response(s), 0 skipped)
Question type: Radio Button Question
Page 67 of 77 257
Aspen Community Voice : Summary Report for 14 June 2016 to 02 December 2020
As a driver…
18 (32.1%)
18 (32.1%)
10 (17.9%)
10 (17.9%)
25 (44.6%)
25 (44.6%)
3 (5.4%)
3 (5.4%)
I am concerned about safety on this roadway.I feel neutral about safety on this roadway.
I am not concerned about safety on this roadway.N/A - Not applicable
Question options
Page 15 of 23
Optional question (56 response(s), 0 skipped)
Question type: Radio Button Question
Page 68 of 77 258
Aspen Community Voice : Summary Report for 14 June 2016 to 02 December 2020
Completing sidewalk connections on Park Ave with two-way traffic
38 (67.9%)
38 (67.9%)
13 (23.2%)
13 (23.2%)
5 (8.9%)
5 (8.9%)
I would support pursuing the design of a sidewalk connection where two-way traffic is maintained on Park Avenue.
I would NOT support pursuing the design of a sidewalk connection where two-way traffic is maintained on Park Avenue.
I am neutral or undecided on pursuing the design of a sidewalk connection where two-way traffic is maintained on Park Avenue.
Question options
Page 16 of 23
Optional question (56 response(s), 0 skipped)
Question type: Radio Button Question
Page 69 of 77 259
Aspen Community Voice : Summary Report for 14 June 2016 to 02 December 2020
One-way streets living lab
18 (32.1%)
18 (32.1%)
37 (66.1%)
37 (66.1%)
1 (1.8%)
1 (1.8%)
I would support testing the one-way streets configuration as a temporary living lab.
I DO NOT support testing the one-way streets configuration as a temporary living lab.
I am neutral or undecided on testing the one-way streets configuration as a temporary living lab.
Question options
Page 17 of 23
Optional question (56 response(s), 0 skipped)
Question type: Radio Button Question
Page 70 of 77 260
Aspen Community Voice : Summary Report for 14 June 2016 to 02 December 2020
One-way streets
13 (23.6%)
13 (23.6%)
38 (69.1%)
38 (69.1%)
4 (7.3%)
4 (7.3%)
I would support the permanent implementation of one-way street configuration.
I would NOT support the permanent implementation of one-way street configuration.
I am neutral or undecided on the permanent implementation of one-way street configuration.
Question options
Page 18 of 23
Optional question (55 response(s), 1 skipped)
Question type: Radio Button Question
Page 71 of 77 261
Aspen Community Voice : Summary Report for 14 June 2016 to 02 December 2020
Improve intersection of Hopkins and Park and improve drainage on trail
45 (80.4%)
45 (80.4%)
8 (14.3%)
8 (14.3%)
3 (5.4%)
3 (5.4%)
I would support improving the intersection of Hopkins and Park and improving drainage on trail.
I would NOT support improving the intersection of Hopkins and Park and improving drainage on trail.
I am neutral or undecided on improving the intersection of Hopkins and Park and improving drainage on trail.
Question options
Page 19 of 23
Optional question (56 response(s), 0 skipped)
Question type: Radio Button Question
Page 72 of 77 262
Aspen Community Voice : Summary Report for 14 June 2016 to 02 December 2020
Do nothing – take no further action
28 (50.0%)
28 (50.0%)
16 (28.6%)
16 (28.6%)
12 (21.4%)
12 (21.4%)
I would support no further action be taken at this time regarding safety improvements in the Park and Midland neighborhood.
I DO NOT support no further action being taken at this time regarding safety improvements in the Park and Midland neighborhood.
I am neutral or undecided on no further action being taken at this time regarding safety improvements in the Park and Midland
neighborhood.
Question options
Page 20 of 23
Optional question (56 response(s), 0 skipped)
Question type: Radio Button Question
Page 73 of 77 263
Aspen Community Voice : Summary Report for 14 June 2016 to 02 December 2020
Please select one.
47 (88.7%)
47 (88.7%)
6 (11.3%)
6 (11.3%)
I am a resident of the Park & Midland neighborhood.I am not a resident of the Park & Midland neighborhood.
Question options
Page 21 of 23
Optional question (53 response(s), 3 skipped)
Question type: Radio Button Question
Page 74 of 77 264
Aspen Community Voice : Summary Report for 14 June 2016 to 02 December 2020
Please select the description(s) that best fit you.
16
16
20
20
2
2
22
22
29
29
28
28
31
31
13
13
I live on Park Ave.I live on Midland Ave.I live on Hopkins Ave. (in the project area)I drive on Park.
I walk and or bike on Park.I drive on Midland.I walk and/or bike on Midland.Other (please specify)
Question options
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
Page 22 of 23
Optional question (56 response(s), 0 skipped)
Question type: Checkbox Question
Page 75 of 77 265
Visitors 4 Contributors 1 CONTRIBUTIONS 1
08 January 20
soarski
VOTES
0
UNVOTES
0
Aspen Community Voice : Summary Report for 14 June 2016 to 02 December 2020
IDEAS
What physical improvements do you envision to improve safety and
function in this area?
After sending an email to you, that you blocked, I di
d jump through the hoops to register on this site.Loo
king at it, seems to me that your
After sending an email to you, that you blocked, I did jump through the hoops to regist
er on this site.Looking at it, seems to me that your Map here is incorrect! Park Ave. to
my knowledge runs right into Park Circle. King street is the one going West bound?
Page 23 of 23 Page 76 of 77 266
Page 77 of 77 267
1624 Market Street | Suite 202 | Denver, CO 80202
Phone: 303.652.3571 | www.FoxTuttle.com
MEMORANDUM
To: Pete Rice – City of Aspen
From: Bill Fox
Wesley Dismore
Date: October 26, 2020
Project: Park Avenue and Midland Avenue Traffic Calming Analysis
Subject: Summary and Recommendations
At your request we have completed an analysis of existing traffic conditions on Park Avenue and
Midland Avenue between SH 82 and King Street in the residential neighborhood east of downtown
Aspen. As context for this study, it is our understanding that:
The roadways in this neighborhood are narrow, with paved widths typically between 20
and 24 feet, little to no shoulder area, landscaping that extends to the edge of the
pavement, and small setbacks to houses in some areas. No parking is allowed on‐street
on the west side of both Midland and Park Avenue in this area. When parking does occur
along the east side of these streets, the traveled way is further narrowed.
The useable roadway width is further narrowed in the winter due to snow storage.
There are no sidewalks along Midland Avenue, and in most cases, there are no sidewalks
along Park Avenue. The exception is that there are two disconnected segments of walk on
the east side of Park Avenue between Hopkins Avenue and the intersection where Midland
curves and connects to Park Avenue.
There is a well‐used pedestrian trail that connects to Park Avenue from the west at the
Hopkins Street alignment. There is a marked crosswalk at this location, and it is our
understanding that most path users then walk to/from the north (Smuggler Mountain
area) in the street along Park Avenue.
Neighborhood residents are concerned about safety and the speed of traffic driving along
these roadways and they are particularly concerned about the section of Park Avenue
north of Hopkins Avenue where pedestrian traffic is highest.
The construction of sidewalks along these roadways will in many places require the
removal of landscaping that exists along the edges of the roadway (within the right‐of‐
way).
268
Park Avenue and Midland Avenue Traffic Calming Analysis October 26, 2020
Page 2
City Council had previously directed staff to considered an alternative that would convert
Midland Avenue and Park Avenue to one‐way streets in this area (effectively creating a
one‐way couplet) to then allow room for the construction of sidewalks along both
roadways.
It is our understanding that there is no neighborhood consensus on the one‐way concept
as it would alter the traffic flow patterns and character of these roadways.
With this background, Fox Tuttle was asked to study traffic volumes and speeds and to
recommend potential solutions to improve safety along these neighborhood roadways. The
traffic data collected for this study is illustrated on Figure 1 and includes:
AM and PM peak hour counts at the four intersections that feed traffic to/from this
neighborhood.
Daily traffic counts along Midland Avenue and Park Avenue (both sides of Hopkins
Avenue).
Directional traffic speeds (average and 85th percentile speeds) at the four locations in the
neighborhood where the daily counts were taken. [The 85th percentile speed is simply the
speed that 15% of the vehicles are traveling faster than. It is often used by traffic engineers
to indicate the approximate appropriate speed limit for a roadway.]
Significant observations include:
Daily traffic volumes in this neighborhood are relatively low, with less than 500 vehicles
per day (vpd) on Midland Avenue, and less than 900 vpd on Park Avenue.
Per City policy, there are no posted speed limits in the area.
There was no widespread speeding problem observed in the neighborhood. The speeds
along specific segments were typically low (85th percentile speed at or below 25 mph) as
illustrated on Figure 1 and summarized as follows:
‐ The speeds along Midland Avenue between SH 82 and Hopkins Avenue were low
(85th percentile speeds 20 mph southbound and 23 mph northbound). It should be
noted that there is a speed hump on Midland Avenue between SH 82 and Hopkins
Avenue.
‐ The speeds along Midland Avenue between Hopkins Avenue and Park Avenue were
also low with an 85th percentile speed of 20 mph in both directions.
269
Park Avenue and Midland Avenue Traffic Calming Analysis October 26, 2020
Page 3
‐ The speeds in the block of Park Avenue between Hopkins Avenue and Midland
Avenue were also low, with 85th percentile speeds of 21 or 22 mph in each
direction. This is the block where pedestrian traffic is highest due to the trail
connection.
‐ The southbound speed of traffic on Park Avenue between Hopkins Avenue and SH
82 was low (85th percentile speed of 25 mph). However, the northbound speed of
traffic from SH 82 toward Hopkins Avenue was noticeably higher with an 85th
percentile speed of 30 miles per hour headed toward the pedestrian crossing at
Hopkins Avenue.
Conclusions and Recommendations:
Based on our understanding of the existing neighborhood and City concerns, our observations of
existing neighborhood and streetscape character, the traffic data collected, and our professional
judgement we offer the following:
There does not appear to be a significant speeding problem in the neighborhood.
Converting these blocks of Park Avenue and Midland Avenue to a one‐way couplet will
allow room to construct a sidewalk. However, the wider one‐way lane without the
presence of on‐coming traffic would allow for faster automobile travel and speeds in the
neighborhood will likely increase. In the winter, given snow storage issues, shading and
icing, etc., some pedestrians may still walk in the street and would have to do so with faster
traffic than currently exists. The one‐way couplet would also result in higher daily traffic
the currently exists on Midland Avenue and lower traffic on Park Avenue.
The City may want to consider enhancing the pedestrian crossing of Park Avenue at
Hopkins Avenue to call attention to the presence of pedestrians and control the interaction
of vehicles and pedestrians in this intersection area.
‐ One option is to install all‐way stop control at the Park Avenue/Hopkins Avenue
intersection. This would increase safety for pedestrians by requiring motorists to stop
at the pedestrian crossing. Although stop signs are not used specifically for speed
control, installing one will result in lower speeds near the intersection where
pedestrians are present in the roadway. There will need to be some vegetation
trimming to make sure that the stop sign for northbound traffic approaching the
intersection is visible.
‐ A second option is to install a raised pedestrian crossing at the existing marked
crosswalk where the trail crosses Park Avenue. This raised crossing would call
attention to the crossing pedestrian traffic. A raised crossing would need to be
270
Park Avenue and Midland Avenue Traffic Calming Analysis October 26, 2020
Page 4
carefully designed to mitigate impacts on storm water flow without allowing motorists
to drive around the raised feature.
‐ Either of these two options should include advanced pedestrian crossing signs (W11‐
2) posted in advance of the pedestrian crossing in each approach direction to alert
motorists to the presence of the pedestrian crossing.
The City may also want to consider completing the missing sidewalk link on the east side
of Park Avenue between Hopkins and Midland (north of the pedestrian crossing). This is
the area where the pedestrian traffic is highest and would allow pedestrians to get out of
the street for at least part of their journey. The completion of this section of sidewalk will
be challenging and will need to be carefully designed given existing utilities near the
northern existing sidewalk terminus, and the house with its front porch built near the
street in the center of the block.
As noted above, we do not believe there is an overall speeding problem in this area, but
the block of Park Avenue between SH 82 and Hopkins Street had the highest speeds in the
neighborhood with an 85th percentile speed of 30 mph for northbound traffic entering the
neighborhood from SH 82. If the speed of traffic in this block continues to be a concern to
residents and/or non‐motorized travelers in the area, one option is to install a driver
feedback sign mid‐block on Park Avenue between SH 82 and Hopkins Avenue facing
northbound traffic. These signs read the speeds of passing vehicles with radar and display
the speed as feedback for the driver. They have been shown to be effective at reducing
vehicle speeds in the vicinity of installation.
In summary we would recommend that the city choose one of the two options outlined above for
controlling traffic and enhancing the safety of the pedestrian crossing of Park Avenue at the
Hopkins intersection. We also recommend that the City complete the sidewalk on the east side
of Park Avenue between Hopkins Avenue and Midland Avenue (since the two ends of this sidewalk
are already constructed in this block of Midland Avenue). Installing a driver feedback sign on Park
Avenue mid‐block between SH 82 and Hopkins Avenue could be added if speeds continue to be a
concern to residents and or non‐motorized travelers in this block.
We hope this information is helpful. Please let us know if you have any questions.
BF and WD/
271
272
273
Park Avenue Improvement Project || Design Acknowledgement
NAME
ADDRESS
DATE OF MEETING
_____ The City of Aspen launched the Park and Midland safety improvement project in 2020 to
address issues including snow storage, rising foot, bike and vehicular traffic levels, and
pedestrian and intersection safety.
_____ In response to neighborhood concerns about pedestrian safety and vehicle interaction, Aspen
City Council directed the Engineering Department in January 2021 to produce a schematic
design of Park Ave. as a two-way street with an attached sidewalk, and intersection and
drainage improvements.
_____ On Sept. 20, 2021, Engineering presented a design to Council that includes bus stop upgrades, a
realignment and regrade of the bike and pedestrian trail terminus at the Park Ave. and East
Hopkins intersection, stormwater improvements, and a raised sidewalk along the east side of
Park Ave. between Midland and Hopkins. The design shifts the travel width of the road to a
maximum of 5 feet to the west, which narrows the total travel lanes to 10-feet-wide each to
accommodate the new sidewalk measuring between 3 and 5 feet wide.
_____ I acknowledge City of Aspen Engineering explained the design presented to Aspen City Council
on Sept. 20, 2021, and I am aware that the next step in the Park and Midland safety
improvement process is final design and budget for the project in 2023.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
Signed,
Resident Date For City of Aspen Engineering Date
274
275
Park Avenue Improvement Project || Design Acknowledgement
NAME
ADDRESS
DATE OF MEETING
_____ The City of Aspen launched the Park and Midland safety improvement project in 2020 to
address issues including snow storage, rising foot, bike and vehicular traffic levels, and
pedestrian and intersection safety.
_____ In response to neighborhood concerns about pedestrian safety and vehicle interaction, Aspen
City Council directed the Engineering Department in January 2021 to produce a schematic
design of Park Ave. as a two-way street with an attached sidewalk, and intersection and
drainage improvements.
_____ On Sept. 20, 2021, Engineering presented a design to Council that includes bus stop upgrades, a
realignment and regrade of the bike and pedestrian trail terminus at the Park Ave. and East
Hopkins intersection, stormwater improvements, and a raised sidewalk along the east side of
Park Ave. between Midland and Hopkins. The design shifts the travel width of the road to a
maximum of 5 feet to the west, which narrows the total travel lanes to 10-feet-wide each to
accommodate the new sidewalk measuring between 3 and 5 feet wide.
_____ I acknowledge City of Aspen Engineering explained the design presented to Aspen City Council
on Sept. 20, 2021, and I am aware that the next step in the Park and Midland safety
improvement process is final design and budget for the project in 2023.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
Signed,
Resident Date For City of Aspen Engineering Date
Brad & Ginny Epsten
310 Park Ave; Aspen, CO; 81611
12/6/2021
12/6/2021
276
Park Avenue Improvement Project || Design Acknowledgement
NAME
ADDRESS
DATE OF MEETING
_____ The City of Aspen launched the Park and Midland safety improvement project in 2020 to
address issues including snow storage, rising foot, bike and vehicular traffic levels, and
pedestrian and intersection safety.
_____ In response to neighborhood concerns about pedestrian safety and vehicle interaction, Aspen
City Council directed the Engineering Department in January 2021 to produce a schematic
design of Park Ave. as a two-way street with an attached sidewalk, and intersection and
drainage improvements.
_____ On Sept. 20, 2021, Engineering presented a design to Council that includes bus stop upgrades, a
realignment and regrade of the bike and pedestrian trail terminus at the Park Ave. and East
Hopkins intersection, stormwater improvements, and a raised sidewa lk along the east side of
Park Ave. between Midland and Hopkins. The design shifts the travel width of the road to a
maximum of 5 feet to the west, which narrows the total travel lanes to 10-feet-wide each to
accommodate the new sidewalk measuring between 3 and 5 feet wide.
_____ I acknowledge City of Aspen Engineering explained the design presented to Aspen City Council
on Sept. 20, 2021, and I am aware that the next step in the Park and Midland safety
improvement process is final design and budget for th e project in 2023.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
Signed,
Resident Date For City of Aspen Engineering Date
David Chazen
317 Park Ave
12/6/2021
x
x
x
x
I feel that the sidewalk project imposes too far onto the west side of
the street. In my case, 6.5 feet will completely destroy my mature flower garden that I
have worked on for 22 years, under the careful stewardship of Diane Garzoli Madsen, who
studied under Elizabeth Paepke. Many people stop and take pictures here. In addition,
we will lose 3 mature Aspen Trees, depriving the area of shade and beauty. Finally, there
is a historical fence, dating back to the mining days, that will also be destroyed.
12/6/2021
277
278
279
From:jvp
To:Aspentorre@gmail.com; Ward Hauenstein
Cc:Public Comment; ParkandMidland; davechazen@chazen.com
Subject:Re: Park Avenue project shortcomings and definitive suggestions
Date:Wednesday, May 3, 2023 10:12:51 AM
Dear Mayor Torre, Mayor Pro Tem Hauenstein and Aspen city council members,
I received an email today outlining a proposal for plans for the Park Avenue
project.
This project, in the opinion of myself and others, has not been well thought out.
If the aim is “public safety”,
despite the fact that there has not been one motor vehicle/pedestrian accident, is
the goal, Park Ave. should be made one way going southbound.
There have been, however, motor vehicle accidents involving two motor vehicles
due to backing out of the residential driveways due to the significant blindspots
that are on Park Avenue. That’s why the stop sign is needed I Midland.
Park Ave. should not be widened.
A sidewalk can be put in on the east side and a stop sign be put in at Midland and
make it one way southbound.
That’s the end of the work.
This saves significant amounts of money, neighborhood disruption and headache
and potential residentiak flooding of due to water run off.
The proposed plans have significant unresolved water drainage issues.
The project as proposed most recently is opposed by owners living on West side
of Park Ave.
In conclusion, all that’s needed is an extension of the sidewalk on the east side of
Park Avenue, putting a stop sign on Midland and making Park Avenue one-way
southbound.
Respectfully,
John Prunskis
280
970-920-5080
ASPEN, COLORADO, 81611
427 RIO GRANDE PLACE
CITY OF ASPEN
SHEETCITY OF ASPEN ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
Park Ave and Midland Ave - Sidewalk and Roadway Improvements
COVER SHEET
C100811“”PARK AVE & MIDLAND AVESIDEWALK AND ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTSCONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTSASPEN, COLORADOPROJECTLOCATION281
E Hopkins Avenue
Midland AvenueDedicated Righ-of-WayBook 6, Page 138Park Avenue970-920-5080
ASPEN, COLORADO, 81611
427 RIO GRANDE PLACE
CITY OF ASPEN
SHEETCITY OF ASPEN ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
Park Ave and Midland Ave - Sidewalk and Roadway Improvements
SURVEY CONTROL SHEET
C110282
E. HOPKINS AVE.PARK AVE.PARK AVE.MIDLAND AVE.970-920-5080
ASPEN, COLORADO, 81611
427 RIO GRANDE PLACE
CITY OF ASPEN
SHEETCITY OF ASPEN ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
Park Ave and Midland Ave - Sidewalk and Roadway Improvements
EXISTING CONDITIONS AND DEMOLITION PLAN
C111MATCHLINE: SEE ABOVE
MATCHLINE: SEE BELOW
283
E. HOPKINS AVE.PARK AVE.INSTALL PRECAST INLET A3COMBINATION NEENAH 3280-BINSTALL PRECAST INLET A4COMBINATION NEENAH 3280-B6'Ø STRM MH A5AC200BC200CC2008'Ø CDS VAULTPARK AVE.MIDLAND AVE.INSTALL PRECAST INLET A1COMBINATION NEENAH 3280-B4'Ø STRM MH A2SECTION ASECTION BSECTION C970-920-5080
ASPEN, COLORADO, 81611
427 RIO GRANDE PLACE
CITY OF ASPEN
SHEETCITY OF ASPEN ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
Park Ave and Midland Ave - Sidewalk and Roadway Improvements
OVERALL GRADING AND UTILITY PLAN
C200MATCHLINE: SEE ABOVE
MATCHLINE: SEE BELOW
284
PARK AVE.Park Ave CenterlineEast Edge of Sidewalk - 0.5' offset from PLPARK AVE CENTERLINE ALIGNMENTEAST EDGE OF SIDEWALK ALIGNMENT970-920-5080
ASPEN, COLORADO, 81611
427 RIO GRANDE PLACE
CITY OF ASPEN
SHEETCITY OF ASPEN ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
Park Ave and Midland Ave - Sidewalk and Roadway Improvements
PARK AVE. PLAN & PROFILE
C201285
970-920-5080
ASPEN, COLORADO, 81611
427 RIO GRANDE PLACE
CITY OF ASPEN
SHEETCITY OF ASPEN ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
Park Ave and Midland Ave - Sidewalk and Roadway Improvements
PARK AVE & MIDLAND AVE IMPROVEMENTS
C202DETAILED GRADINGDETAILED LAYOUT286
PA
R
K
A
V
E
.E. HOPKINS AVE.AC203BC203HOPKINS TRAILSTORM OUTFALLTRAIL ALIGNMENT TABLENORTH TRANSITION FROM 10.0' - 11.9'STORM RIPRAP OUTFALL CENTERLINE970-920-5080
ASPEN, COLORADO, 81611
427 RIO GRANDE PLACE
CITY OF ASPEN
SHEETCITY OF ASPEN ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
Park Ave and Midland Ave - Sidewalk and Roadway Improvements
E. HOPKINS AVE. TRAIL & STORM OUTFALL
C203SECTION ASECTION B287
E. HOPKINS AVE.PARK AVE.MIDLAND AVE.24"x38" HERCP FES6'Ø STRM MH A5INSTALL PRECAST INLET A4COMBINATION NEENAH 3280-BINSTALL PRECAST INLET A3COMBINATION NEENAH 3280-B4'Ø STRM MH A2INSTALL (2) PRECAST INLET A1COMBINATION NEENAH 3280-B8'Ø CDS VAULTSTORM MAININSTALL (2) PRECAST INLET A1
COMBINATION NEENAH 3280-B
4'Ø STRM MH A2
INSTALL PRECAST INLET A3
COMBINATION NEENAH 3280-B
INSTALL PRECAST INLET A4
COMBINATION NEENAH 3280-B
6'Ø STRM MH A5
24"x38" HERCP FESW/ 18" CUTOFF WALL 8'Ø CDS VAULT
970-920-5080
ASPEN, COLORADO, 81611
427 RIO GRANDE PLACE
CITY OF ASPEN
SHEETCITY OF ASPEN ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
Park Ave and Midland Ave - Sidewalk and Roadway Improvements
STORM SEWER PLAN & PROFILE
C300PLAN VIEW288
970-920-5080
ASPEN, COLORADO, 81611
427 RIO GRANDE PLACE
CITY OF ASPEN
SHEETCITY OF ASPEN ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
Park Ave and Midland Ave - Sidewalk and Roadway Improvements
SITE DETAILS
C40018"0.8"24"10"12"2"MODIFIED18"289
970-920-5080
ASPEN, COLORADO, 81611
427 RIO GRANDE PLACE
CITY OF ASPEN
SHEETCITY OF ASPEN ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
Park Ave and Midland Ave - Sidewalk and Roadway Improvements
STORM DETAILS
C401TYPICAL SECTION -SOIL RIPRAP WITH EROSION CONTROL FABRICSLOPE VARIES(SEE PLANS)EROSION CONTROLBLANKET ON SLOPES 4HORIZ. TO 1 VERT ORSTEEPER (SEE PLANS)DESIGNRIPRAPGRADEFINISH GRADESOIL RIPRAPMIX SOIL AND RIPRAPCOMPLETELY (SEENOTES)COMPACT SUBGRADE TO95% STANDARDPROCTOR (ASTM D698)FILL RIPRAP VOIDS COMPLETELYWITH APPROVED FILL MATERIALVOID-FILLED RIPRAP PLACEMENT AND GRADATIONRIRAPDESIGNATION% SMALLER THANGIVEN SIZE BY WEIGHTINTERMEDIATE ROCKDIMENSION (INCHES)D50* (INCHES)TYPE VL70 - 10012650 - 70935 - 5062 - 102TYPE L70 - 10015950 - 701235 - 5092 - 103TYPE M70 - 100211250 - 701835 - 50122 - 104TYPE H70 - 100301850 - 702435 - 50182 - 106*D50 = MEAN ROCK SIZEMIX REQUIREMENTS FOR UDFCD TYPE-M AND TYPE-H VOID-FILLED RIPRAP (D50 = 12 TO 18 INCH)APPROPRIATEPROPORTIONS(BY VOLUME)MATERIALTYPEMATERIAL DESCRIPTION6 PARTSRIPRAPD50 = 12-INCH (UDFCD TYPE-M) OR D50 = 18-INCH (UDFCDTYPE-H)2 PARTSVOID-FILLMATERIAL7-INCH MINUS CRUSHED ROCK SURGE (100% PASSING 7-INCHSIEVE, 80-100% PASSING 6-INCH SIEVE, 35-50% PASSING3-INCH SIEVE, 10-20% PASSING 1½-INCH SIEVE)1 PARTVOID-FILLMATERIALVTC (VEHICLE TRACKING CONTROL) ROCK (CRUSHED ROCKWITH 100% PASSING 4-INCH SIEVE, 50-70% PASSING 3-INCHSIEVE, 0-10% PASSING 2-INCH SIEVE)1 PARTVOID-FILLMATERIAL4-INCH MINUS PIT RUN SURGE (ROUND RIVER ROCK ANDSAND, WELL GRADED, 90-100% PASSING 4-INCH SIEVE, 70-80%PASSING 1½-INCH SIEVE, 40-60% PASSING ⅜-INCH SIEVE,10-30% PASSING #16 SIEVE)1 PARTVOID-FILLMATERIALTYPE II BEDDING (CRUSHED ROCK WITH 100% PASSING 3-INCHSIEVE, 20-90% PASSING ¾-INCH SIEVE, 0-20% PASSING #4SIEVE, 0-3% PASSING #200 SIEVE)1/2 TO 1 PARTVOID-FILLMATERIALNATIVE TOPSOIL·······STORM DRAIN INLET DETAIL290
MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor Torre and City Council
FROM:Trish Aragon, P.E., City Engineer
Pete Rice, P.E., Deputy City Engineer
Mike Horvath, P.E. Senior Project Engineer
Scott Wenning, P.E. Project Manager
THROUGH:Scott Miller, Public Works Director
MEMO DATE:June 12, 2023
DATE:June 19, 2022
RE:West End Neighborhood Safety Improvement Assessment
REQUEST OF COUNCIL:
Staff requests of Council to provide direction on the following three options:
1. Does Council wish to direct staff to implement a 15-mph speed limit?
2. Does Council wish to direct staff to implement four-way stop controls?
3. Should staff develop additional pedestrian routes connected with crosswalks,
similar to the 4th street ped-way, that eliminates parking on one side of the street
to improve pedestrian safety?
4. Should staff install additional 20-mph speed limit signs and/or implement a “20-
mph is Plenty” outreach campaign?
5. Should staff develop and install a seasonal street marking and intersection
delineation plan for the West End?
SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND:
In response to concerns about vehicle traffic safety and volume in the West End
neighborhood, Council and engineering staff initiated a project in 2021 that began with a
traffic evaluation in accordance with the City’s Neighborhood Traffic Calming Policy.
Council also directed staff to develop a third-party traffic study for outreach and decision-
making support. The outcomes of both the traffic calming policy evaluation and the traffic
study were presented to Council during an August 22, 2023 work session.
The recommendation from the traffic study concluded that any physical traffic measures
installed in the West End neighborhood would either be ineffective at reducing traffic
volume or would significantly impact Main Street traffic congestion; therefore, staff and
Council should implement projects to reduce westbound Main Street congestion.
City Council members supported the following next steps:
291
1. The recommendations of the traffic calming policy and traffic study, which do not
recommend the installation of infrastructure measures.
2. The review of potential traffic devices such as four-way stop signs, crosswalks,
and speed limit reduction.
3. Increased support of existing projects to manage traffic and mobility in Aspen, such
as the CDOT approved Highway 82 re-alignment (known as the New Castle Creek
Bridge Project or Entrance to Aspen), parking management, transportation
demand management, and pedestrian and bicycle masterplan projects.
4. The development of Main Street capacity or efficiency concepts, specifically
focusing on Cemetery Lane traffic light efficiency.
In support of step number two above, engineering staff commissioned a safety study
during Spring 2023 by Consor Engineering to guide potential safety improvements. The
West End Neighborhood Safety Improvement Assessment (the Memo) included as
Attachment A, specifically evaluated commonly requested traffic measures and is
summarized herein.
Staff have also moved items forward in support for step 3 above; parking improvements,
RFTA support, and ped/bike masterplan projects have all continued. However, Council
has not supported further action on the New Castle Creek Bridge, which would likely
significantly reduce traffic volume in the West End by realigning Highway 82 away from
Cemetery Lane and making Power Plant Road less attractive as an alternate route.
To move step four forward, staff will develop a request for proposals (RFP) to for Main St
capacity to focus on maximizing outbound traffic flow on Highway 82 from the S curves
through the roundabout. Improvement of the outbound flow of vehicles on Main St should
be able to directly reduce the volume of vehicles using Power Plant Road. This portion of
work is scheduled in the 2024 workplan with the associated funding to be discussed as
part of the 2024 budget process.
DISCUSSION:
The Memo provides a summary of the challenging traffic characteristics previously
identified, the previous traffic control measures implemented or tested, and reviewed
analog communities that may provide insights on solutions. The Memo evaluated three
commonly requested elements that residents perceive as solutions to improved
pedestrian/bike/vehicle safety, which are:
1. Decrease speed limit from 20 to 15 mph.
2. Install four-way stop controls at additional intersections.
3. Consider additional crosswalks.
Additionally, other alternatives were considered that could be expected to improve safety
based on current studies, which include:
1. Increased speed limit sign density and community education actions
2. Street markings and flexible delineators
3. Create pedestrian safe route on one side by eliminating parking
292
Brief summaries of the commonly requested elements are quoted from the Memo below:
Decreased Speed Limit Evaluation: “Decreasing speed limits to below their warranted
level would result in decreased compliance with the posted speed limits and increased
speed variability, which is expected to have a negative impact on safety.”
Brief Summary
•Pros: Actual reduction in observed speeds can lead to a reduction in the likelihood
and severity of crashes.
•Cons: Reducing speed limits does not guarantee driver compliance. When already
low speed limits are reduced, it would result in increased speed variability between
compliant and non-compliant drivers leading to unsafe travel conditions and
decreased safety.
•Cost: For replacement of the estimated eight existing speed limit sign panels at
$200 each, plus a mobilization cost of approximately $2,500 to $3,000. Estimated
cost is $4,000 to $5,000 for the entire West End.
•Recommendation: This study does not recommend reducing the speed limit from
20 mph to 15 mph in the West End Neighborhood.
Four-Way Stop Control Evaluation: “If more stop signs are added that are not warranted,
driver compliance will decrease. Even more so, drivers will accelerate rapidly in mid-block
areas and noise and pollution will increase…it is expected that safety would decrease.”
Brief Summary
•Pros: Stop signs are helpful in assigning right of way at intersections which can
reduce crashes.
•Cons: Research shows that speeds do not decrease after installation of stop signs
in residential neighborhoods. If speeds do not reduce, then it can be understood
that there is not a significant benefit in safety when stop signs are implemented in
residential neighborhoods. There is an increase in noise in the vicinity of an
intersection where a stop sign is installed.
•Cost: Estimated cost for a complete-in-place new stop sign with post is $450, plus
a mobilization cost of approximately $2,500 to $3,000. Estimated cost depends on
the number of stop signs that would be installed as part of the project.
•Recommendation: Additional stop signs in the West End Neighborhood are not
recommended.
Crosswalk Evaluation: “Crosswalks bring emphasis to locations where pedestrians may
be crossing. When installed at appropriate locations, they improve safety,” but most
blocks in the West End do not have sidewalks or other pedestrian infrastructure to connect
across the roadway.
Brief Summary
•Pros: Crosswalks provide a safe path for pedestrians to cross intersections.
•Cons: Marking crosswalks alone does not significantly improve safety.
293
•Cost: The estimated cost for a complete-in-place new crosswalk is $475, plus a
mobilization cost of approximately $2,500 to $3,000. Estimated cost depends on
the number of crosswalks that would be installed as part of the project.
•Recommendation: Additional crosswalks are not recommended for the West End
Neighborhood because there is no pedestrian infrastructure such as sidewalks to
connect them to and the West End neighborhood does not have a significant
concentration of activity generators that may increase pedestrian volumes.
Increased speed limit sign density and community education actions: “The addition of
more speed limit signs would increase awareness of the posted speed limit and may lower
speeds, particularly for those on the high end of the observed speed spectrum.” Additional
signage could be coupled with a “20 is plenty” campaign, which “seeks to decrease
speeds on residential streets to 20 mph to make roadways safer for pedestrians,
bicyclists, and motorists. Public relations campaigns help inform the community about the
relationship between speed and transportation safety. The most visible elements of this
campaign are lawn signs that increase awareness of the speed limit.”
Brief Summary
•Pros: Higher end speeds are likely to be reduced after implementation.
•Cons: The reduction in speeds may not be significant, especially if the posted
speed limit is already low.
•Cost: The estimated cost for a complete-in-place new speed limit sign with post is
$400, plus a mobilization cost. For the addition of 36 new sign locations, it is
assumed that this would take three days. With a mobilization cost of approximately
$4,000 to $5,000, the estimated cost is approximately $20,000 for the entire West
End.
•Recommendation: This study recommends considering the installation of
additional speed limit signs to reduce speeding over the posted speed limit.
Street markings and flexible delineators: Traffic striping is a cost-effective and efficient
traffic calming method that can be implemented quickly to reduce speeds on roadways.
“Flexible delineators can be placed on a seasonal basis at a relatively low cost, as
compared to more intensive traffic calming measures. These may be used to provide
center striping, stop bars, curb extensions, delineation of on-street parking areas and
diagonal cross hatching.” Example below.
294
Brief Summary
•Pros: Higher end speeds are likely to be reduced after implementation
•Cons: A certain number of flexible delineators will require maintenance
•Cost: For two intersections and the block in-between, it would cost $1,200 for
striping elements and $4,000 for 40 delineators plus mobilization. It is assumed
that installation of striping would take one day and the delineators would take two
days. With a mobilization cost of approximately $2,500 to $3,000 for the striping
contractor and $3,500 to $4,000 for the delineator contractor, the estimated cost =
approximately $11,000 to $13,000. Although the delineators are flexible, the
potential exists that some may become broken which would require replacement.
•Recommendation: This option would improve safety within the West End, but the
City will need to weigh the potential benefits against the annual implementation
costs.
Create pedestrian safe route on one side by eliminating parking: “This option would
employ pavement markings and seasonal flexible delineators to define a pedestrian safe
route. This route would be connected from block to block by crosswalks.” This is a similar
recommendation to the 4th Street ped-way previously installed by staff.
295
Brief Summary
•Pros: Protected pedestrian zone will provide a safer space for residents to walk in.
•Cons: Residents on one side of the street would lose on-street parking
•Cost: For two intersections and the block in-between, $2,600 for striping elements,
$4,000 for 40 delineators in the curb extensions and $1,200 for 12 delineators
along the protected pedestrian zone, plus mobilization. It is assumed that
installation of striping would take one day and the delineators would take three
days. With a mobilization cost of approximately $2,500 to $3,000 for the striping
contractor and $4,000 to $5,000 for the delineator contractor, the estimated cost =
approximately $15,000 to $18,000. Although the delineators are flexible, the
potential exists that some may become broken which would require replacement.
•Recommendation: This option would improve safety within the West End,
especially for pedestrians, but the City will need to weigh the potential benefits
against the annual implementation costs and the loss of some on-street parking.
Input from impacted residents regarding this trade-off will be critical.
CONCLUSION
The Memo concludes the following:
•“a reduction in the speed limit from 20 to 15 mph is not warranted. If implemented…
it is expected that decreasing speed limits to below their warranted level would
result in decreased compliance with the posted speed limits, increased speed
variability and reduced safety.”
•“there is currently an appropriate placement of stop signs within the West End. If
more stop signs are added that are not warranted, driver compliance will likely
296
decrease.” Mid-block speeds to increase, noise and air pollution to increase and
“it is expected that safety would decrease.”
•“The purpose of crosswalks is to connect pedestrian, bike / pedestrian or bike
facilities across roads and streets…There are a limited number of sidewalks or
other pedestrian infrastructure in the West End, so there are limited options for
additional crosswalks, unless additional pedestrian infrastructure is installed.”
-Consider “the installation of additional speed limit signs and an educational
campaign to reduce speeding over the posted speed limit. Additionally,
options involving pavement marking and seasonal flexible delineators are
recommended.”
ALTERNATIVES:
Council may direct staff to do any of the following:
1. Direct staff to implement a 15-mph speed limit without a warrant study and against
the recommendation of the safety study.
2. Direct staff to implement four-way stop controls without warrant studies and
against the recommendation of the safety study.
3. Crosswalks are not recommended where pedestrian infrastructure (sidewalks etc.)
is not present; have staff develop additional pedestrian routes connected with
crosswalks, similar to the 4th street ped-way, that eliminates parking on one side
of the street to improve pedestrian safety.
4. Direct staff to install additional 20-mph speed limit signs and/or implement a “20-
mph is Plenty” outreach campaign.
5. Have staff develop and install a seasonal street marking and intersection
delineation plan for the West End. Alternatively, direct staff to trial a seasonal plan
on one or two intersections as a “living lab,” This would include at minimum center
double yellow lines and travel lane narrowing at select intersections with painted
lines and flexible delineators.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adherence to the traffic consultant’s conclusion and next steps,
summarized as follows:
-Consider additional crosswalks only if additional pedestrian infrastructure is
installed, such as sidewalks or ped-ways that remove parking from one side of the
street.
-Install additional 20 mph speed limit signs in the West and consider an educational
campaign.
-Complete a seasonal trial of pavement markings and intersection narrowing with
flexible delineators at up to three streets and intersections.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
297
APPENDIX A – Consor Engineering – Aspen Safety Study Memorandum. West End
Neighborhood Safety Improvement Assessment
298
1675 Larimer Street, Suite 400
Denver, CO 80202
303.339.0440
1 | P a g e www.consoreng.com
Aspen Safety Study Memorandum
TO: Engineering Department, City of Aspen
FROM: Consor Engineers, LLC
DATE: May 23, 2023
RE: West End Neighborhood Safety Improvement Assessment
Introduction
The City of Aspen is a world-class destination that draws local, regional, national and international visitors. It is the economic
engine of the Roaring Fork Valley. The City has about 7,000 residents, but draws workers from throughout the region, resulting in
a daily weekday influx of traffic coming into the City, with the eastbound (inbound) peak in the morning and the westbound
(outbound) peak in the afternoon and early evening. Traffic flow on SH 82 coming into and out of Aspen is limited by the Castle
Creek Bridge, which has one lane in each direction. During the peak winter and summer seasons, visitors combine with local
traffic and the demand volume significantly exceeds the capacity of State Highway (SH) 82 resulting in significant queuing and
delay. The replacement of this bridge has been the subject of studies and discussions for over 25 years, but that is a separate
process outside the scope of this study.
While SH 82 is the highway access into and out of Aspen, Power Plant Road drops into Castle Creek and bypasses the narrow
bridge over Castle Creek. It has horizontal curves with a design speed of 15 miles per hour (mph) and a total paved width of 22
feet. Primarily during the peak winter and summer seasons, outbound traffic on Main Street / SH 82 is heavily congested. This
results in hundreds of vehicles per hour filtering through the residential West End neighborhood. Persistent citizen feedback
related to safety and traffic have led to increased requests for additional traffic calming measures within the West End
neighborhood. Consor is working with the City of Aspen engineering staff to assess numerous quick build options to improve
safety for the traveling public and, especially, for vulnerable users.. Alternatives being assessed include reducing the speed limit,
additional stop signs, more marked crosswalks and several other options involving pavement markings, signing and flexible
delineators. The purpose of this memorandum is to evaluate these alternatives and make recommendations that improve public
safety in the West End neighborhood.
Past Studies
The team reviewed existing traffic studies and plans to help understand the existing conditions. Two objectives guided the review
process: 1) Understand the issues within the West End neighborhood, and 2) Search for prior recommendations relevant to the
study area. Per a traffic study commissioned in 2022 by the City of Aspen (Fox Tuttle 2022) 1, numerous traffic calming measures
have been implemented in the West End Neighborhood over the last 20 years. Between 2006 and 2019, 19 traffic reduction or
calming measures have been implemented. Another six measures were tested on a trial basis but not implemented and four more
were reviewed but not tried. The 2022 traffic study recommended against the installation of traffic calming measures that would
cause a reduction in commuter and tourist traffic in the West End neighborhood, as this would exacerbate existing traffic congestion
on Main Street to an unacceptable level. Non-infrastructure solutions such as radar speed trailers were tested but did not result in
significant improvements to traffic congestion or safety in the West End neighborhood.
West End Neighborhood Traffic Characteristics
The following section summarizes traffic patterns and volumes within the West End neighborhood. Figure 1, from the 2022 study,
shows the traffic patterns on Main Street and the West End neighborhood during congested periods. Traffic passing through the
West End Neighborhood ultimately funnels into W. Smuggler Street to connect to Power Plant Road to exit Aspen. Figure 2 reveals
that during the afternoon peak period there are approximately 600 vehicles per hour (vph) that use W. Smuggler Street to exit
Aspen, which is about one-third of the westbound peak hour total. Volumes shown are from Wednesday, August 25, 2021, which
is part of the peak summer season.
299
1675 Larimer Street, Suite 400
Denver, CO 80202
303.339.0440
2 | P a g e www.consoreng.com
Figure 1: Traffic Patterns on Main Street and West End Neighborhood during congested periods
Source: Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, 2022
Figure 2: Traffic volumes (in vehicles per hour) on W. Smuggler Street at 8th Street, Wednesday, August 25, 2021
Source: City of Aspen Engineering Department
300
1675 Larimer Street, Suite 400
Denver, CO 80202
303.339.0440
3 | P a g e www.consoreng.com
The streets in Aspen's West End neighborhood are generally flat, straight and wide, with the most common pavement width
being 40 feet. The roadway width (pavement width minus on-street parking width) has a strong correlation to the speed of
vehicles, with higher speeds on wider streets and lower speeds on narrower streets. An example block is shown below in Figure 3.
Figure 3: Typical Street Block in the West End
Location: W. Hallam Street between N. 2nd and N. 3rd Streets. Source: Google Earth Street View
The West End neighborhood is in a unique situation regarding commuter and tourist traffic within the City of Aspen. It is heavily
impacted by the lack of outbound traffic capacity on SH 82 with only one lane of traffic across Castle Creek Bridge being a
constricting element. Many commuting and local motorists are aware of the bypass route on Power Plant Road, but even if they
aren't they may still decide to travel into the West End. It is likely that the large discrepancy between AM and PM volumes on W.
Smuggler Street is a result of the ease of finding the outbound route due to queuing on Main Street in the PM. In the AM, a
driver must turn off and travel on miles of backroads to avoid the congestion, making the decision point before SH 82 congestion
has been reached. Research was conducted on locations that draw large amounts of tourist traffic and have similar geographic
restrictions to Aspen, including Monaco, on the French Riviera, Big Sky, Montana and Sun Valley, Idaho. Relevant information on
traffic calming that would be applicable to Aspen was not found because these cities did not have a comparable traffic network or
because no studies or solutions related to traffic congestion issues were found.
Overview of the City of Aspen’s Neighborhood Traffic Calming Policy
The City of Aspen has an established Neighborhood Traffic Calming Policy 2, which is detailed in an 18-page document that was
most recently updated in February 2021. It establishes a “Speeding Threshold” of above 5 miles per hour over the speed limit. If
this threshold is exceeded on a street, then the policy calls for Step 5, “Non-infrastructure Solution Testing”.
These measures include:
Radar Speed Trailer Deployment
Community Watch Program
Community Education Actions
301
1675 Larimer Street, Suite 400
Denver, CO 80202
303.339.0440
4 | P a g e www.consoreng.com
If these measures achieve acceptable results, then the issue is resolved. If not, then the process can move to Step 7,
“Infrastructure Solution Cost and Design”. These measures include:
Horizontal Deflection (Realigned intersection, traffic circle, etc)
Vertical Deflection (Speed table, raised crosswalk, etc)
Street Width Reduction (Median island, add on-street parking, etc)
Routing restriction (Full closure, half closure, etc)
There is also a “Traffic Calming Threshold”, which calculates a score that accounts for factors such as proximity to schools and
other high pedestrian areas. If the score is greater than the threshold, then the item can move to “Non-infrastructure Solution
Testing”, but not to “Infrastructure Solution Cost and Design”.
Steps 6 and 8 are “Citizen Follow-up and Outreach” and “Neighborhood Outreach”. Impacted homeowners play a key role in
shaping the direction and outcome of the process. Appendix C is the “Traffic Calming Tool Kit.” The final section is titled “What is
not a Traffic Calming Measure?” and contains the following list”.
Enforcement
Speed Limit Signs
Stop Signs
Children Signs
In 2021, City staff conducted a West End Neighborhood traffic calming evaluation. It is provided as Appendix A of the August 22,
2022 memo to Mayor Torre and City Council titled “West End Traffic Calming and Traffic Evaluation”3. It concluded that the
“Speeding Threshold” was not met, but the “Traffic Calming Threshold” was triggered. The memo describes the “Non-
infrastructure Solution Testing” efforts that were tested in 2021. These did not have long-term impacts on speeds or traffic
volumes in the West End.
Primary Alternatives to Improve Pedestrian/Bike/Vehicle Safety
Residents of the West End neighborhood have requested additional installation of traffic infrastructure that could improve safety.
The three most commonly requested elements are evaluated in this study per City Council direction, which are:
1. Decrease speed limit from 20 to 15 mph
2. Install four-way stop controls at additional intersections
3. Consider additional crosswalks.
Each element will be evaluated by analyzing current conditions, conducting research on past studies, and determining how
implementation would or would not be effective in Aspen.
A cost estimate will be provided for the potential implementation of these items. These are complete-in-place costs based on the
assumption that they will be installed by a Contractor. There are high mobilization costs that would be included for the
installation of any of the potential items. The closest pavement marking contractor is in Grand Junction, but they don’t do sign
installation. The closest signing contractor is also in Grand Junction, but they don’t do pavement marking. It is a 2.5 to 4 hour
drive each way from Grand Junction, depending on traffic. The mobilization charge would cover the cost of a typical crew of two
workers and their transport vehicle for the five to eight-hour round trip journey. Once in Aspen, the contractor has a daily limit on
the number of items they can install. As an example, the contractor may be able to install five signs in a day. If the installation of
only two signs was requested, the mobilization cost would still be the same. If the installation of 10 signs was requested, the crew
would need to stay overnight. Options would be an expensive room in Aspen or, for example, a less expensive room in Glenwood
Springs coupled with added driving time. An assumed one-day mobilization cost of $2,500 is assumed for installation of static
signs, water-based pavement markings or seasonal flexible delineators, each of which requires relatively inexpensive installation
equipment. The mobilization cost per day would decrease as the duration of construction increases. As the installed quantity
increases for any given project, the overall cost would increase, but the complete-in-place overall unit cost (mobilization plus unit
cost of individual items / quantity) would go down.
302
1675 Larimer Street, Suite 400
Denver, CO 80202
303.339.0440
5 | P a g e www.consoreng.com
1. Decreased Speed Limit Evaluation
The speed limit on all city streets within the City of Aspen is 20 mph, except on Main Street which has a speed limit of 25 mph and
on Power Plant Road which has a speed limit of 15 mph. This study will investigate the feasibility & potential impact of reducing
the speed limit in the West End neighborhood from 20 to 15 mph and, additionally, will consider general city-wide speed limits.
The discussion is broken out into seven subsections.
a) Requirements to Warrant the Implementation of Speed Limit Reductions
Many factors go into determining the appropriate speed limit for any section of roadway. Colorado traffic laws allow local
authorities to change the speed limit for any road under their jurisdiction if the local authority determines that the speed limit
established by the law is greater or lesser than what is safe for traffic conditions (Colorado Revised Statutes Title 42, 2016) 4. An
engineering study is needed to determine if a speed limit change would improve traffic safety. The engineering study would
consider the following factors: 85th percentile speed data, existing development, observed crash history, road characteristics,
environmental factors, parking practices, pedestrian and bicycle activities.
b) Safety assessment of the potential implementation of a 15-mph speed limit if directed by Council without warrants. The
assessment should consider a city-wide implementation, as well as an implementation restricted to the West End
neighborhood.
There is a strong relationship between observed speeds and the safety outcome for crashes involving pedestrians and bicycles.
This relationship is illustrated in Figure 4.
Figure 4: Pedestrian Injury versus Vehicle Impact Speed Correlation
Excerpted from the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Policy (Original source C. E. Rick Chellman)
The likelihood of fatality goes up at a higher rate with higher vehicle speed. At an impact speed of 23 mph, 10% of pedestrians
will likely die if hit by a vehicle (Tefft, 2011) 5. Twenty (20) mph is considered the survivability speed for pedestrians and bicyclists
when involved in a crash with a vehicle (NTSB, 2017) 6.
Speed data in the West End was collected between July and August 2022, with a summary shown below in Table 1.
303
1675 Larimer Street, Suite 400
Denver, CO 80202
303.339.0440
6 | P a g e www.consoreng.com
Table 1: 2022 Travel Speeds in the West End Neighborhood
Street Location ID/Site Name Direction Start Date End Date
Average
Speed
(mph)
85th
Percentile
Speed
(mph)
W. Smuggler W. Smuggler (btw 7th & 8th) Westbound 7/20/2022 7/26/2022 19.1 23
W. Hallam W. Hallam (btw 4th & 5th) Westbound 7/27/2022 8/2/2022 18 22
W. Hallam W. Hallam (btw 2nd & 3rd) Westbound 7/27/2022 8/2/2022 17.7 20
W. Smuggler W. Smuggler (btw 2nd & 3rd) Westbound 8/3/2022 8/9/2022 18.3 21
W. Smuggler W. Smuggler (btw 4th & 5th) Westbound 8/3/2022 8/9/2022 18.3 21
W. Francis W. Francis (btw 2nd & 3rd) Westbound 8/10/2022 8/16/2022 20.2 24
W. Francis W. Francis (btw 4th & 5th) Westbound 8/10/2022 8/16/2022 18.4 23
W. Bleeker W. Bleeker (btw 2nd & 3rd) Westbound 8/17/2022 8/23/2022 20 23
W. Bleeker W. Bleeker (btw 4th & 5th) Westbound 8/17/2022 8/23/2022 19.1 23
W. 2nd W. 2nd St (btw Hallam & Francis) Northbound 8/24/2022 8/30/2022 18.6 22
W. 4th N. 4th St (btw Hallam & Francis) Northbound 8/24/2022 8/30/2022 18.4 22
W. 3rd N. 3rd St (btw Hallam & Francis) Northbound 8/31/2022 9/6/2022 19.5 23
W. 5th W. 5th St (btw Hallam & Francis) Northbound 8/31/2022 9/6/2022 18.4 21
Source: City of Aspen Engineering Department
The average speed was about 19 mph. The highest 85th percentile speed was observed on W. Francis Street between N. 2nd and
N. 3rd Streets at 24 mph, which does not meet the “Speeding Threshold” in the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Policy. It is
important to note that no case studies were found that focus on the reduction of speed limits from 20 mph to 15 mph. Many
studies focused on speed reductions from 25 mph to 20 mph or from 30 mph to 25 mph.
It is important to maintain the distinction between the posted speed limit and actual or observed speed. A speed limit being
lowered does not necessarily mean that observed speeds will decrease accordingly. A relevant excerpt from the Neighborhood
Traffic Calming Policy is as follows:
Engineering studies show that speed limit signs are not the most significant factor influencing driver speeds and that changing
posted speed limits has only a minor effect on driver behavior (FHWA, 1997) 7. Research indicates that a reasonable driver will
drive at the speed suggested by roadway and traffic conditions, to the extent of disregarding the posted speed limit. A speed
limit that is unrealistic invites the majority of drivers to disregard posted speeds.
A frequently cited study titled, “Speed Variance and Its Influence on Accidents” (Garber and Gadiru, 1988)8, includes the following
conclusions:
Accident rates increase with increasing speed variance for all classes of roads.
Speed variance on highway segment tends to be a minimum when the difference between the design speed and the
posted speed limit is between 5 and 10 mph.
The difference between the design speed and the posted speed limit has a significant effect on the speed variance.
The design speed is the speed a typical vehicle could maintain on any given road if there were no intersection controls. For Power
Plant Road, the design speed is 15 mph based on the radii of its sharpest curves. In the West End, there are no horizontal or
vertical curves, so the design speed is estimated at greater than 25 mph based on the wide roadway widths. Decreasing the
speed limit by 5 mph would increase the difference between the design speed and the posted speed limit by another 5 mph.
This study concludes that the roadway and traffic conditions in the West End do not suggest to a reasonable driver that they
should be going 15 mph. If the speed limit were to be reduced to 15 mph, a negligible change in observed speeds would be
304
1675 Larimer Street, Suite 400
Denver, CO 80202
303.339.0440
7 | P a g e www.consoreng.com
expected. Some drivers would lower their speed, but many others would not. This change would result in decreased compliance
with the posted speed limits and increased speed variability. It is expected that this would have a negative impact on safety.
c) A brief assessment of the impact a 15-mph speed limit would have on West End commuter and tourist traffic volumes
A traffic calming study conducted in a residential neighborhood implemented additional speed limit signs, increased
enforcement, deployment of a radar speed trailer and installation of a double yellow centerline as traffic calming measures
(Sunnyvale 2004) 9. Follow-up studies showed a slight decrease in the volume of traffic and in the 85th percentile speed. A
second stage of traffic calming measures consisting of median islands, speed humps and a traffic circle was later implemented.
After six months, the average speed reduced to 24.1 mph from 31.3 mph and the 85th percentile speed reduced to 28.6 mph
from 35.7 mph. The observed volume decreased from 1,269 to 1,179 vehicles per day.
Since negligible change in observed speeds is expected from a reduction in speed limit to 15-mph, it is expected that this would
have a negligible impact on commuter and tourist volumes in the West End.
d) Obvious areas within the city where a 15-mph speed limit could be warranted and staff should consider a warrant study.
Power Plant Road has a speed limit of 15 mph, as shown in Figure 5. As seen in Figure 6 and Figure 7, it is a good example of a
street where a 15-mph speed limit is warranted, due to steep grades, a narrow width, minimal sight distance and sharp curves. It
is notable that 85th percentile speeds exceed 20 mph on portions of the road where geometric features that warrant the 15-mph
speed limit are not present, which support engineering studies “that a reasonable driver will drive at a speed suggested by
roadway and traffic conditions.”
Figure 5: W. Smuggler Street / Power Plant Road just west of N. 8 th Street
Source: Consor field visit on March 29, 2023
Figure 6: Power Plant Road just before major curve on east end
Source: Consor field visit on March 29, 2023
Figure 7: Power Plant Road under the SH 82 Castle Creek Bridge
Very minimal sight distance due to
horizontal curve. Mirror installed to
help mitigate this. Curve Radius of 50
feet, which has a design speed of 15
mph with 8% superelevation.
305
1675 Larimer Street, Suite 400
Denver, CO 80202
303.339.0440
8 | P a g e www.consoreng.com
Source: Consor field visit on March 29, 2023
Other areas in the City that have some or all these characteristics may be warranted for a 15 mph speed limit.
e) Are there obvious areas within the city where a 15-mph speed limit could be warranted if limited infrastructure were
installed? An example could be removing bike sharrows and adding a dedicated bike lane.
Roadway width is a key factor in a driver’s comfort level. If the pavement width where a motorist can drive is very narrow, they’ll
feel uncomfortable and slow down. Some examples from the West Washington Park neighborhood in Denver are as follows:
Pearl Street between Ellsworth Avenue and 1st Avenue is 29 feet curb-to-curb with heavily utilized on-street parking on
both sides. An average car is about 6.5 feet wide. Subtracting the on-street parking, leaves 16 feet of traveled way for
both directions. Motorists typically drive down the middle and are prepared to slow down substantially if they see an
oncoming vehicle. Whichever driver has the best access to a section of empty on-street parking pulls into that and lets
the other driver proceed. Average vehicles could pass each other in a section with cars parked on both sides, but they
generally choose not to because there’s a gap of only about one foot between the two vehicles and between each
vehicle and the parked car.
1st Avenue between Pearl Street and Pennsylvania Street is 34 feet curb-to-curb with heavily utilized on-street parking
on both sides. It has double yellow striping down the middle. Drivers hold their lane position and speeds are much
higher. The traveled way is 21 feet for both directions, leaving a gap of about three feet between vehicles.
The available travel way would have to be very narrow and very close to the bicycle and / or pedestrian facility to warrant a 15
mph speed limit. This study concludes that the people involved with such a project would consider it to be unsafe to provide a
facility that would be so tight that a 15 mph speed limit would be warranted.
f) Evaluate the impacts to the City of Aspen’s Neighborhood Traffic Calming Policy if the speed limit were reduced to 15
mph where not warranted (e.g., 85th percentile speed could be exceeded throughout the city, so the policy would
require calming infrastructure).
If the Council were to request that staff implement a 15-mph speed limit in locations where it is not warranted, it would
undermine the validity of the entire Neighborhood Traffic Calming Policy. Aspen’s policy is based on Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) publications that document best practices and years of research from around the US. Aspen’s policy has
established procedures that are to be followed for speed related concerns. If the procedures are superseded in one part of the
City, it could not be reasonably expected that the guidelines could be applied to other parts of the City. As stated previously,
lowering the speed limit to 15mph would not positively impact safety in the West End. This would result in 85th percentile speeds
that would be more than five mph above the limit.
Minimal sight distance due to vertical
curve. Steep grades. Total pavement
width of about 22 feet.
306
1675 Larimer Street, Suite 400
Denver, CO 80202
303.339.0440
9 | P a g e www.consoreng.com
To reduce 85th percentile speeds to less than 20 mph, significant traffic calming features would need to be installed. These would
decrease the commuter and tourist volumes through the West End, which would increase traffic volumes on Main Street. This
would violate a basic premise of this study effort, which is to not increase volumes on Main Street.
g) Evaluate risk in lowering speed limit below the warranted level required.
As stated previously, decreasing speed limits to below their warranted level would result in decreased compliance with the
posted speed limits and increased speed variability, which is expected to have a negative impact on safety.
Brief Summary
Pros: Actual reduction in observed speeds can lead to a reduction in the likelihood and severity of crashes.
Cons: Reducing speed limits does not guarantee driver compliance. When already low speed limits are reduced, it would
result in increased speed variability between compliant and non-compliant drivers leading to unsafe travel conditions
and decreased safety.
Cost: For replacement of the estimated eight existing speed limit sign panels at $200 each, plus a mobilization cost of
approximately $2,500 to $3,000. Estimated cost is $4,000 to $5,000 for the entire West End.
Recommendation: This study does not recommend reducing the speed limit from 20 mph to 15 mph in the West End
Neighborhood.
2. Four-Way Stop Control Evaluations
Stop signs are an integral part of the regulatory category of traffic control signs. They are one means of establishing who has the
right-of-way at intersections. There are several options for intersection control. These include:
Uncontrolled
Yield signs
Stop signs
Signalization
Roundabouts
The national reference which oversees street signs and road markings is the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD
2009) 10. While there are many local decisions to be made regarding what should be installed at various locations, the MUTCD
helps ensure national consistency in terms of colors, sizes, messages and symbols for signs. The same holds true for striping,
including standard colors, widths and patterns. It also provides guidance to help ensure that items are used in a consistent
manner. Section 2B.04, Right-of-Way at Intersections, starts with the most minimal of controls and works its way up from there.
The most basic type of operation is an uncontrolled intersection, which is typically found in residential or rural areas. An article
titled "The History behind Uncontrolled Intersections" (Sheridan (WY) Press, 2017) 11 discusses this type of traffic operation.
Uncontrolled intersections are deliberate and have been used for decades across the country. Uncontrolled intersections
generally reduce speeds in neighborhoods because drivers slow down on their approach. Essentially, motorists drive defensively
and act as though there is a yield sign when they approach an uncontrolled intersection. When cars arrive at the same time, they
are required to let vehicles on their right go first.
Section 2B.04 of the MUTCD states that engineering judgment should be used to establish intersection control. The following
factors should be considered:
A. Vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic volumes on all approaches
B. Number and angle of approaches
C. Approach speeds
D. Sight distance available on each approach
E. Reported crash experience.
307
1675 Larimer Street, Suite 400
Denver, CO 80202
303.339.0440
10 | P a g e www.consoreng.com
It also states that yield or stop signs should be considered at a minor four-way intersection if:
The average daily traffic volume exceeds 2,000. Data for W. Smuggler Street shows volumes can exceed 9,000 on peak
summer days.
If the ability to see oncoming traffic is hindered. Sight distance in the West End is below standard in many locations, due
to the presence of mature bushes and trees near intersections.
Three traffic accidents related to failure to yield occur within a two-year period or five accidents within a three-year
period.
Per the MUTCD, once the decision has been made to control an intersection, the decision regarding the appropriate roadway to
control should be based on engineering judgment. In most cases, the roadway carrying the lowest volume of traffic should be
controlled. YIELD or STOP signs should not be installed on the higher volume roadway unless justified by an engineering study.
YIELD signs at conventional intersections are rarely found. The most common applications for these signs are at slip ramps, such
as free right turn lanes, and at entrances to roundabouts. Section 2B.09 bans the placement of YIELD signs on all approaches to
an intersection.
The most common type of stop-sign controlled intersection has stop signs installed on the minor roadway, with free movement
for the major roadway.
Four-way stop sign controlled intersections are uncommon outside the US and Canada. They are banned in the United Kingdom.
The MUTCD states that four-way stop control can be useful as a safety measure at intersections if certain traffic conditions exist,
including pedestrians, bicyclists, and all road users expecting other road users to stop.
Section 2B.04.05 states that YIELD or STOP signs should not be used for speed control. Stop signs are used for traffic control at
intersections. A study reviewed over 70 technical papers covering four-way stops and their successes and failures as traffic
control devices in residential areas (Bretherton Jr, 2014) 12 found that four-way stop signs do not reduce speeds on residential
streets. Additionally, stop compliance is poor at unwarranted four-way stop signs and stop signs increase noise in the vicinity of
an intersection. The noise is created by the vehicles braking and accelerating on the approach and departure to the intersection.
Engine exhaust, braking, tire noise, and aerodynamics are the contributing noise factors noted in the research.
A relevant excerpt from the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Policy that discusses stop signs is as follows:
It seems like an obvious, inexpensive way to reduce vehicle speeds; however, what seems to be a perfect solution can
create a less desirable situation. When stop signs are used as “nuisances” or “speed breakers”, a high incidence of drivers
intentionally violating the stop. When vehicles do stop, the speed reduction is effective only in the immediate area of the
stop sign as a large percentage or motorists then increase their speed to make up for perceived lost time. This results in
increased mid-block speeds. For these reasons, we do not use stop signs for speed control solutions. Instead, they are
used to improve safety at intersections where traffic volumes or accidents require their installation.
Based on the volumes during congested periods and the lack of adequate sight distance at many intersections, stop sign
controlled intersections are the most appropriate type of control for the intersections within the West End.
The stop signs installed in the West End Neighborhood are shown below in Figure 8.
308
1675 Larimer Street, Suite 400
Denver, CO 80202
303.339.0440
11 | P a g e www.consoreng.com
Figure 8: Stop Sign Locations in the West End
Source: City of Aspen Geographical Information Systems (GIS) Unit
It depicts the two-way and all-way stop signs installed in the neighborhood. There are 13 all-way stop sign controlled
intersections and 18 two-way stop sign controlled intersections in the neighborhood.
Some observations about the existing stop sign locations are as follows:
There are four-way stop sign controlled intersections at all four corners of the Yellow Brick Building, which is a former
City of Aspen school that now houses a day care program and other children's programs.
Priority is given to the bicycle facilities along Hallam Street and Lake Avenue, with free movement or four-way stop signs
at every intersection. Under Colorado law, bikes can roll through four-way stop sign controlled intersection if no
competing traffic is approaching.
Traffic coming from or going to Main Street does not stop at Bleeker Street to prevent hazards associated with the
potential for vehicles queues to back into Main St.
The discussion of potential changes to the existing stop sign locations is broken out into three subsections.
a) Safety assessment of the potential installation of four-way stop controls in the West End neighborhood if directed by
council without warrants
Citing the uncontrolled intersection article (Sheridan (WY) Press, 2017), quotes from Lane Thompson, the City of Sheridan
Wyoming Director of Public Works, include:
If drivers don’t respect a stop or yield sign, they will brake a bit then accelerate through the intersection, making it more
dangerous.
Legend
West End Neighborhood
Stop signs
309
1675 Larimer Street, Suite 400
Denver, CO 80202
303.339.0440
12 | P a g e www.consoreng.com
We’re all traffic engineers in our heads. It doesn’t matter who you are. You drive a car, you know traffic. So what
happens is if you put a stop sign up where it’s not required, after one or two times of going through it, people disregard
it.
It’s just human nature. We disregard them. We don’t respect them, we don’t stop for them.
Drivers are more likely to roll through an intersection with an unnecessary stop or yield sign.
All of a sudden, that’s not a 5 mile per hour accident, it’s a 30 mile per hour accident.
If more stop signs are added that are not warranted, driver compliance will decrease. Even more so, drivers will accelerate rapidly
in mid-block areas and noise and pollution will increase. Consistent with the above quotes, it is expected that safety would
decrease.
b) A brief discussion of the impacts of four-way stop controls on traffic volume
The West End already has a relatively high density of stop signs, but that has not deterred the many vehicles that travel into the
West End during congested periods. Under current conditions, motorists can travel a maximum of two blocks (about 600 feet)
between stop signs. Decreasing that to 300 feet is not expected to result in an appreciable decrease in commuter and tourist
traffic. During congested periods, vehicles are heading towards a slow-moving queue. The time spent stopping at additional stop
signs would be a small fraction of the time they will spend waiting to get through the queue.
c) Evaluate of potential changes or adjustment to the stop signs in the West End that could improve safety
Placement of additional stop signs around Hillyard, Pioneer and Triangle Parks could improve safety for vulnerable users, but
these are relatively small parks. Pedestrian volumes associated with these parks may be too small to warrant the installation of
additional stop signs.
Brief Summary
Pros: Stop signs are helpful in assigning right of way at intersections which can reduce crashes.
Cons: Research shows that speeds do not decrease after installation of stop signs in residential neighborhoods. If speeds
do not reduce, then it can be understood that there is not a significant benefit in safety when stop signs are implemented
in residential neighborhoods. There is an increase in noise in the vicinity of an intersection where a stop sign is installed.
Cost: Estimated cost for a complete-in-place new stop sign with post is $450, plus a mobilization cost of approximately
$2,500 to $3,000. Estimated cost depends on the number of stop signs that would be installed as part of the project.
Recommendation: Additional stop signs in the West End Neighborhood are not recommended.
3. Crosswalk evaluations
The general function of crosswalks is to connect pedestrian, bike or bike / ped facilities across roads. Colorado statutes at section
42-1-102 (21) C.R.S., define a crosswalk as: “that portion of a roadway ordinarily included within the prolongation or connection
of the lateral lines of sidewalks at intersections or any portion of a roadway distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by lines or
other marking on the surface.” Per 3B.18 of the MUTCD, its states that crosswalks “should be installed where … needed to direct
pedestrians to the proper crossing path(s). It also states that crosswalk lines should not be used indiscriminately. The general
intent is to install them, where appropriate, at locations where a traffic signal, STOP or YIELD sign controls traffic.
For non-controlled locations, an engineering study should be performed that considers:
Number of lanes
Presence of a median
Distance from adjacent signalized intersections
Pedestrian volumes and delays
Average daily traffic (ADT)
Posted or statutory speed limit
310
1675 Larimer Street, Suite 400
Denver, CO 80202
303.339.0440
13 | P a g e www.consoreng.com
85th-percentile speed
Geometry of the location
Possible consolidation of multiple crossing points
Activity generators (school, park, health center, library, grocery store, or neighborhood-embedded commercial district)
Transit destinations
Availability of street lighting
Other appropriate factors
In terms of details for a crosswalk installation, Figure 9 shows the following detail from the MUTCD.
Figure 9: Examples of Crosswalk Markings
Source: MUTCD
Most blocks in the West End do not have sidewalks. The sidewalks that are present are primarily in the first block north of Main
Street. During Consor’s field visit on March 29, 2023, few pavement markings were visible. Pavement markings are applied
seasonally in the City of Aspen after the end of ski season in May. They are in place throughout the summer and early fall seasons
and gradually become worn off and covered up by snow in the late fall / winter / early spring seasons. A review of aerial
photography showed crosswalks at these locations:
South leg of Garmisch Street at the intersection of Garmisch and Bleeker Streets (SE corner of Yellow Brick Building)
West leg of Bleeker Street at the intersection of Garmisch and Bleeker Streets (SE corner of Yellow Brick Building)
East leg of Hallam Street at the intersection of Aspen and Hallam Streets (S side of Red Brick Building)
South leg of Aspen Street at the intersection of Aspen and Bleeker Streets (S side of Red Brick Building)
Crosswalks across the east leg of Bleeker Street, Hallam Street, Francis Street, Smuggler Street, Pearl Court and Gillespie
Street for the pedestrian facility on 4th Street.
Most commonly, crosswalk stripes are placed parallel to the street that they cross. Examples of this are seen where the north-
south streets in the West End intersect with Main Street. The other option is to place them at a 45-degree angle, as shown in
Figure 3B-19. These are often accompanied by longitudinal lines that are perpendicular to the street that the crosswalk goes
across. This type of marking may be used at locations where substantial numbers of pedestrians cross without any other traffic
control device, at locations where physical conditions are such that that added visibility of the crosswalk is desired, or at places
where a pedestrian crosswalk might not be expected.
311
1675 Larimer Street, Suite 400
Denver, CO 80202
303.339.0440
14 | P a g e www.consoreng.com
The discussion of potential changes to crosswalk locations is broken out into three subsections.
a) Description and discussion of the requirements to warrant the implementation of crosswalk installations.
The factors to consider when choosing whether to install a crosswalk at a given location are similar to those listed earlier for non-
controlled locations. When there is existing stop control, an engineering study is not needed but there should be a relatively high
concentration of pedestrians that would use the crosswalk to justify installation of a crosswalk.
b) A discussion of requirements to add crosswalks in the West End neighborhood and/or recommend locations where
crosswalks could be warranted.
Pedestrian demand is relatively constant among the various blocks within the West End. It primarily consists of residents going
out for a walk or heading to commercial locations along Main Street or in the downtown core. The origin of these trips is at
residences throughout the West End. The only focused destinations within the West End are the former school locations, the
Yellow Brick Building and the Red Brick Building, and parks. Additional crosswalks may be warranted around these destinations
where there are pedestrian facilities to connect.
c) Evaluate public safety impacts if additional crosswalks were installed in the West End neighborhood.
Crosswalks bring emphasis to locations where pedestrians may be crossing. When installed at appropriate locations, they
improve safety. A downside is that they may give pedestrians a false sense of security that all vehicles will stop to allow them to
cross. This is a particular issue at uncontrolled locations.
Brief Summary
Pros: Crosswalks provide a safe path for pedestrians to cross intersections.
Cons: Marking crosswalks alone does not significantly improve safety.
Cost: The estimated cost for a complete-in-place new crosswalk is $475, plus a mobilization cost of approximately $2,500
to $3,000. Estimated cost depends on the number of crosswalks that would be installed as part of the project.
Recommendation: Additional crosswalks are not recommended for the West End Neighborhood because there is no
pedestrian infrastructure such as sidewalks to connect them to and the West End neighborhood does not have a
significant concentration of activity generators that may increase pedestrian volumes.
Other Alternatives Considered to Improve Pedestrian/Bike/Vehicle Safety
1. Increased Speed Limit Sign Density and Community Education Actions
There are very few speed limit signs along the streets in the West End neighborhood. As part of the March 29, 2023 field visit, a
dash cam video was recorded for a 30-minute looping route that covered most of the blocks in the West End. Only three speed
limit signs were noted. This may be because 20 mph is the de facto speed limit for nearly every street in the City of Aspen, but
many of the vehicles that pass through the West End are unaware of the speed limit. The addition of more speed limit signs
would increase awareness of the posted speed limit and may lower speeds, particularly for those on the high end of the observed
speed spectrum.
Increased provision of speed limit signs can increase public awareness and lead to reduced speeds. One study conducted a before
and after evaluation of the effect of residential street speed limit reduction from 25 mph to 20 mph on local streets in 58
locations (Portland, 2020) 13. The study increased the number of residential speed limit signs from under 1,000 to 2,000 and
conducted an educational and awareness campaign. Results showed that the median and 85th percentile speeds did not change.
The average speed increased slightly by 0.04 mph. However, the percentage of vehicles travelling at speeds greater than 25 mph
decreased as compared to the before condition.
312
1675 Larimer Street, Suite 400
Denver, CO 80202
303.339.0440
15 | P a g e www.consoreng.com
A study found that lowering speed limits and increasing sign density alone, absent of marketing campaigns, additional
enforcement or engineering changes to the street geometry resulted in lower speeds and fewer crashes (Seattle 2020) 14. Speed
limits were reduced to 25 mph spaced at quarter mile intervals in each direction on streets that were previously signed for 30
mph as well as for streets that were previously unsigned. The results showed that the largest decline was in high-end speeders
(40+ mph speeders) with approximately 54% of speeders driving slower after implementation. The 50 th percentile speed reduced
from 25.6 mph to 23.1 mph while the 85th percentile speed reduced from 31.2 mph to 29 mph.
The “20 is plenty” campaign is in prevalent use around the United States and the world. It seeks to decrease speeds on residential
streets to 20 mph to make roadways safer for pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists. Public relations campaigns help inform the
community about the relationship between speed and transportation safety. The most visible elements of this campaign are lawn
signs that increase awareness of the speed limit.
The blocks in the West End are about 300 feet long. There are up to nine blocks in the east-west direction, about ½ mile, and up
to five blocks in the north-south direction, just over ¼ mile. The placement of a speed limit sign every two or three blocks in each
direction would be an appropriate level of coverage. A summary of the signs is as follows:
Two signs in each direction along the numbered north-south streets between Main Street and W. Smuggler Street. Six
streets * two locations * two directions = 24 signs.
Three signs in each direction along the southern east-west streets (Bleeker and Hallam). Two streets * three locations *
two directions = 12 signs.
Two signs in each direction along the northern east-west streets (Francis and W. Smuggler). Two streets * two locations
* two directions = 8 signs
This adds up to a total of 44 speed limit signs. Assuming a total of eight existing signs, this would be an increase of 36 signs.
Brief Summary
Pros: Higher end speeds are likely to be reduced after implementation.
Cons: The reduction in speeds may not be significant, especially if the posted speed limit is already low.
Cost: The estimated cost for a complete-in-place new speed limit sign with post is $400, plus a mobilization cost. For the
addition of 36 new sign locations, it is assumed that this would take three days. With a mobilization cost of approximately
$4,000 to $5,000, the estimated cost is approximately $20,000 for the entire West End .
Recommendation: This study recommends considering the installation of additional speed limit signs to reduce speeding
over the posted speed limit.
2. Street markings and flexible delineators
Street markings and flexible delineators can be placed on a seasonal basis at a relatively low cost, as compared to more intensive
traffic calming measures. These may be used to provide center striping, stop bars, curb extensions, delineation of on-street
parking areas and diagonal cross hatching. An example is shown below in Figure 11. The appropriate treatment for any given
block will depend on the width of the street, which varies as shown in Figure 12, Pavement Widths in the West End
Neighborhood.
313
1675 Larimer Street, Suite 400
Denver, CO 80202
303.339.0440
16 | P a g e www.consoreng.com
Figure 11: Potential Striping and Delineation Option for the West End
The facility shown above is a typical block with a 40 foot pavement width. The edge line can be reinforced with the addition of
seasonal flexible delineators. Stop bars are shown to help reinforce the stop sign. This block is 40 feet curb-to-curb with
moderately utilized on-street parking on both sides. With the additional of double yellow striping down the middle and eight foot
wide curb returns delineating the on-street parking zones, this would force vehicles to centralize themselves as they pass through
the intersections and would reduce the traveled way to 24 feet for both directions. This perceived loss of width can reduce travel
speeds, particularly on the high end, as documented in research.
An article in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Journal (RK Engineering Group, 2011) 15, titled “Roadway Striping as a
Traffic Calming Option” describes options that were tested and results that were achieved. A review of traffic calming striping as
an alternative to vertical or horizontal displacement traffic calming devices such as speed humps, speed cushions, chokers,
314
1675 Larimer Street, Suite 400
Denver, CO 80202
303.339.0440
17 | P a g e www.consoreng.com
Figure 12: Pavement Widths in the West End Neighborhood
Source: City of Aspen Geographical Information Systems (GIS) Unit
315
1675 Larimer Street, Suite 400
Denver, CO 80202
303.339.0440
18 | P a g e www.consoreng.com
medians, pavement textures, and other roadway design features was conducted. Traffic calming striping has been shown to
reduce speeds effectively as a first step of a traffic calming process. Four case studies were conducted, with a reduction of speeds
ranging from two to more than seven miles per hour. Striping is a low-cost traffic calming solution that can have major benefits to
the community compared to other vertical / horizontal displacement traffic calming devices, yet still provides substantial benefits
in terms of reducing traffic speeds on the roadways. These roadway striping techniques follow standard design practice, which
reduces future tort liability. Traffic striping is a cost-effective and efficient traffic calming method that can be implemented
quickly to reduce speeds on roadways.
Brief Summary
Pros: Higher end speeds are likely to be reduced after implementation
Cons: A certain number of flexible delineators will require maintenance
Cost: For two intersections and the block in-between, it would cost $1,200 for striping elements and $4,000 for 40
delineators plus mobilization. It is assumed that installation of striping would take one day and the delineators would
take two days. With a mobilization cost of approximately $2,500 to $3,000 for the striping contractor and $3,500 to
$4,000 for the delineator contractor, the estimated cost = approximately $11,000 to $13,000. Although the delineators
are flexible, the potential exists that some may become broken which would require replacement.
Recommendation: This option would improve safety within the West End, but the City will need to weigh the potential
benefits against the annual implementation costs.
3. Create pedestrian safe route on one side by eliminating parallel parking on the other side
This option would employ pavement markings and seasonal flexible delineators to define a pedestrian safe route. This route
would be connected from block to block by crosswalks. An example is shown below in Figure 13. It includes the stop bars, curb
extensions and center striping that are a part of Figure 11.
Figure 13: Create Pedestrian Safe Routes with the West End, while narrowing available vehicular travel width
316
1675 Larimer Street, Suite 400
Denver, CO 80202
303.339.0440
19 | P a g e www.consoreng.com
The facility shown above is a typical block with a 40 foot pavement width. The edge lines may be reinforced with the addition of
seasonal flexible delineators or not, as is currently the case for the pedestrian facility on 4 th Street. With this option, the block
would have on-street parking only on the north side. Elimination of on-street parking on the south side would increase the
utilization on the north side. With a 10 foot wide pedestrian facility on the south side and eight foot wide on-street parking on the
north side, this would reduce the traveled way to 22 feet for both directions.
Brief Summary
Pros: Protected pedestrian zone will provide a safer space for residents to walk in.
Cons: Residents on one side of the street would lose on-street parking
Cost: For two intersections and the block in-between, $2,600 for striping elements, $4,000 for 40 delineators in the curb
extensions and $1,200 for 12 delineators along the protected pedestrian zone, plus mobilization. It is assumed that
installation of striping would take one day and the delineators would take three days. With a mobilization cost of
approximately $2,500 to $3,000 for the striping contractor and $4,000 to $5,000 for the delineator contractor, the
estimated cost = approximately $15,000 to $18,000. Although the delineators are flexible, the potential exists that some
may become broken which would require replacement.
Recommendation: This option would improve safety within the West End, especially for pedestrians, but the City will
need to weigh the potential benefits against the annual implementation costs and the loss of some on-street parking.
Input from impacted residents regarding this trade-off will be critical.
Conclusion and Potential Next Steps
The primary purpose of this study is to evaluate three elements of the transportation infrastructure within the West End
neighborhood, which are: Decrease speed limit from 20 to 15 mph; Install four-way stop controls at additional intersections;
Consider additional crosswalks. Additionally, this study has created and evaluated other options that would use additional signage,
pavement marking and / or seasonal flexible delineators to help improve safety within the West End Neighborhood.
Travel speeds along streets in the West End Neighborhood do not exceed the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Policy and therefore
does not trigger the “Speeding Threshold”. Accordingly, a reduction in the speed limit from 20 to 15 mph is not warranted. If
implemented, it is expected that there would be a negligible decrease in average and 85th percentile speeds. It is expected that
decreasing speed limits to below their warranted level would result in decreased compliance with the posted speed limits, increased
speed variability and reduced safety. If implemented, the unwarranted reduction in the speed limit from 20 to 15 mph would be
expected to have a negligible impact on commuter and tourist traffic volumes that occur due to congestion on Main Street.
This study concludes that there is currently an appropriate placement of stop signs within the West End. If more stop signs are
added that are not warranted, driver compliance will likely decrease. Additionally, drivers accelerate rapidly in mid-block areas,
causing noise and air pollution to increase. With decreased compliance, it is expected that safety would decrease. The West End
already has a relatively high density of stop signs which has not deterred the high volume of commuter and tourist vehicles that
enter during congested periods. The addition of additional unwarranted stop signs would be expected to have a negligible impact
on commuter and tourist traffic volumes that occur due to congestion on Main Street.
The purpose of crosswalks is to connect pedestrian, bike / pedestrian or bike facilities across roads and streets. A review of existing
crosswalk installations found that they are appropriately placed There are a limited number of sidewalks or other pedestrian
infrastructure in the West End, so there are limited options for additional crosswalks, unless additional pedestrian infrastructure is
installed.
This study recommends considering the installation of additional speed limit signs and an educational campaign to reduce speeding
over the posted speed limit. Additionally, options involving pavement marking and seasonal flexible delineators are recommended
for further discussion.
317
1675 Larimer Street, Suite 400
Denver, CO 80202
303.339.0440
20 | P a g e www.consoreng.com
List of References
1. Fox Tuttle Transportation Group. (2022). City of Aspen -West End Neighborhood Traffic Study
2. City of Aspen. (2021). Neighborhood Traffic Calming Policy
3. City of Aspen. (2022). West End Traffic Calming and Traffic Evaluation
4. Colorado Revised Statutes. (2016). Title 42 42-4-1102
5. Tefft, B. C. (2011). Impact Speed and a Pedestrian's Risk of Severe Injury or Death. Washington DC: AAA Foundation for
Traffic Safety. Retrieved from https://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/2011PedestrianRiskVsSpeed.pdf
6. National Transportation Safety Board. (2017). Reducing Speeding-Related Crashes. Washington DC: National
Transportation Safety Board. Retrieved from https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studies/documents/ss1701.pdf
7. FHWA, Effects of Raising and Lowering Speed Limits on Selected Roadway Sections, January 1997
8. N. J. Garber and R. Gadiraju. Ravi (1988). Speed Variance and Its Influence on Accidents. AAA Foundation for Traffic
Safety, 1988.
9. City of Sunnyvale. (2004). Canary Drive Traffic Calming - Post Implementation Study. Retrieved from
https://archive.sunnyvale.ca.gov/Files/RTC/2004/20040302/04-060.pdf
10. U.S. Department of Transportation. (2009). Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways
Washington DC: Federal Highway Administration. Retrieved from
https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009/mutcd2009edition.pdf
11. The Sheridan Press. (2017, December 29). The History behind uncontrolled intersections. Retrieved from The Sheridan
Press: https://www.thesheridanpress.com/news/local/the-history-behind-uncontrolled-intersections/article_4a6a2ada-
95a5-50aa-98a0-0c12c3e11b18.html
12. Bretherton, W. M. (1999). Multi-way Stops - The Research shows the MUTCD is Correct! Transportation Research
International Documentation
13. Anderson, J. C., Monsere, C., & Kothuri, S. (2020). Effect of Residential Street Speed Limit Reduction from 25 mph to 20
mph on Driving Speeds in Portland, Oregon. Portland: Portland Bureau of Transportation. Retrieved from
https://www.portland.gov/transportation/vision-zero/documents/effect-residential-street-speed-limit-reduction-25-20-
mi-hr/download
14. Seattle Department of Transportation. (2020). Speed Limit Cases. Seattle: Seattle Department of Transportation.
Retrieved from
https://www.seattle.gov/documents/Departments/SDOT/VisionZero/SpeedLimit_CaseStudies_Report.pdf
15. Khan, R., & Goedecke, A. K. (2011). Roadway Striping as a Traffic Calming Option. ITE Journal
318