HomeMy WebLinkAboutEOTC Agenda 6-29-23AGENDA
ELECTED OFFICIALS
TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
June 29, 2023
4:00 PM, Snowmass Village Town
Hall - Council Chambers
130 Kearns Rd.
Snowmass Village, CO 81615
I.CALL TO ORDER
II.ROLL CALL
III.Elected Officials Transportation Committee
III.A EOTC Meeting Agenda & Packet
IV.ADJOURN
Virtual Meeting Instructions
See Meeting Agenda for Instructions
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
1
1
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
2
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.
3
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
4
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
5
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
6
___________________
Julia Ely
Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners
___________________
Linda DuPriest
Regional Transportation Director
7
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:
8
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
9
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
10
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
11
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
12
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
13
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
14
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
15
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.
16
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)
17
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.
18
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)
19
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.
20
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)
21
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.
22
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
23
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
24
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
25
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.
26
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
27
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
28
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.
29
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%
30
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.
31
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
32
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.
33
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
34
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.
35
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
36
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
37
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.
38
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.
39
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
40
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.
41
EOTC – Buttermilk Crossing and Transit Signal Bypass June 2023
Evaluation of Alternatives 6-29
Figure 6-1: Public Outreach Survey Summary
42
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
43
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
44
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:----45
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" = 60'0306012046
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" = 60'0306012047
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" = 50'0255010048
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" = 60'0306012049
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" = 60'0306012050
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" = 50'0255010051
EOTC – Buttermilk Crossing and Transit Signal Bypass June 2023
Evaluation of Alternatives Appendix B
Appendix B
Underpass Renderings
Overpass Renderings
52
Underpass Crossing - Looking Upvalley
53
Underpass Crossing - Looking Downvalley from
South Approach Ramp
54
Underpass Crossing - Looking Upvalley from
North Approach Ramps
55
Underpass Crossing - Looking
toward Maroon Creek Club, from
Buttermilk Parking Lot
56
Underpass Crossing - Looking Downvalley
from North Approach Ramp
57
Overpass Crossing - Looking Upvalley
58
Overpass Crossing - Looking Downvalley
59
EOTC – Buttermilk Crossing and Transit Signal Bypass June 2023
Evaluation of Alternatives Appendix C
Appendix C
Engineers Estimate of Probable Cost
60
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
61
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 RampHandrail62
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 UtilityRemovalsSurfacing63
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
64
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
65
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 RampSurfacingWater66
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
67
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
68
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.
69
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
70
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
71
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 XXXXXX72
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 XXXXXX73
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
74
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
75
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
76
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
77
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
78
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.
79
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.
80
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.
81
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
82
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.
83
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
84
85
86
87
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 88
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
89
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
90
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
91
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
92
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
93
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
94
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
95
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:----96
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
97
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
98
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
99
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
100
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
101
102
103
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
104
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.
105
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.
106
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)
107
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)
108
EOTC – Buttermilk Crossing and Transit Signal Bypass June 2023
Evaluation of Alternatives Appendix F
Appendix F
Public Outreach Plan and Survey Results
109
BUTTERMILK
PEDESTRIAN CROSSING
DHM Design | June 2023
Outreach Plan & Outcome Summary
110
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
111
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
112
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
113
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
114
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
115
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
116
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
117
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.
118
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
119
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
120
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
121
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
122
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
123
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
124
Owl Creek to Truscott Trail Connection & Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing 16
OUTREACH 2 PLAN
125
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
126
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.
127
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
128
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.
129
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%
130
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.
131
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.
132
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.
133
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:
134
26Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
OUTREACH 2 SUMMARY
Question 1 results
324
7
Question 1b results
179 144
135
27Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
OUTREACH 2 SUMMARY
Question 2 results
282
48
Question 3 results
204
126
136
28Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
OUTREACH 2 SUMMARY
Question 4 results
120
Question 5 results
220
111
211
137
29Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
OUTREACH 2 SUMMARY
Question 5b results
138
30Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
OUTREACH 2 SUMMARY
Question 5b results continued
139
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.”
140
32Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
OUTREACH 2 SUMMARY
Question 5b results continued
141
33Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
OUTREACH 2 SUMMARY
Question 5b results continued
142
34Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
OUTREACH 2 SUMMARY
Question 5b results continued
143
35Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
OUTREACH 2 SUMMARY
Question 5b results continued
144
36Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
OUTREACH 2 SUMMARY
Question 5b results continued
145
37Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
OUTREACH 2 SUMMARY
Question 5b results continued
146
38Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
OUTREACH 2 SUMMARY
Question 5b results continued
147
39Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
OUTREACH 2 SUMMARY
Question 5b results continued
148
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?
149
41Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
OUTREACH 2 SUMMARY
Question 6 results continued
150
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?
151
43Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
OUTREACH 2 SUMMARY
Question 7 results continued
152
44Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
OUTREACH 2 SUMMARY
Question 7 results continued
Question 8 results
117 161
47
153
45Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
OUTREACH 2 SUMMARY
Question 9 results
308
19
Question 9b results
154
46Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
OUTREACH 2 SUMMARY
Question 9b results continued
155
47Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
OUTREACH 2 SUMMARY
Question 9b results continued
156
48Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
OUTREACH 2 SUMMARY
Question 9b results continued
157
49Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
OUTREACH 2 SUMMARY
Question 9b results continued
158
50Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
OUTREACH 2 SUMMARY
Question 9b results continued
159
51Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
OUTREACH 2 SUMMARY
Question 9b results continued
160
52Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
OUTREACH 2 SUMMARY
Question 9b results continued
161
53Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
OUTREACH 2 SUMMARY
Question 9b results continued
162
54Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
OUTREACH 2 SUMMARY
Question 9b results continued
163
55Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
OUTREACH 2 SUMMARY
Question 9b results continued
164
56Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
OUTREACH 2 SUMMARY
Question 9b results continued
165
57Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
OUTREACH 2 SUMMARY
Question 10 results
166
58Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
OUTREACH 2 SUMMARY
Question 10 results continued
167
59Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
OUTREACH 2 SUMMARY
Question 10 results continued
168
60Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
OUTREACH 2 SUMMARY
Question 10 results continued
169
61Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
OUTREACH 2 SUMMARY
Question 10 results continued
170
62Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
OUTREACH 2 SUMMARY
Question 10 results continued
171
63Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
OUTREACH 2 SUMMARY
Question 10 results continued
172
64Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
OUTREACH 2 SUMMARY
Question 10 results continued
173
65Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
OUTREACH 2 SUMMARY
Question 10 results continued
174
66Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
OUTREACH 2 SUMMARY
Question 10 results continued
175
67Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
OUTREACH 2 SUMMARY
Question 10 results continued
176
68Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Outreach Plan & Summary
OUTREACH 2 SUMMARY
Question 10 results continued
177
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.
178