The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.council.jointworksession.20240715AGENDA JOINT CITY COUNCIL / BOCC WORK SESSION July 15, 2024 4:00 PM, City Council Chambers 427 Rio Grande Place, Aspen I.Work Session I.A Multi-use Trail from Brush Creek to AABC Site Visit - Starting point at Stein Park Citizens interested in joining this site visit may meet at Stein Park. Stein Park is 1.2 miles north from the intersection of Cemetery Lane and Highway 82, on the right just after the crossing of the Roaring Fork at the bottom of the Cemetery Lane hill. It is also accessible from downtown Aspen via the Rio Grande Trail or via the Cemetery Lane bus route. • 4:00 Depart City hall to Stein Park promptly at 4pm – Matt Kuhn and City Staff • 4:00 Depart Brush Creek Park and Ride for Stein Park – Gary Tennenbaum and County Staff • 4:20 Leave Stein Park • 4:30 - 4:45 Stop at AABC Bridge location 1 (approximately 1.3 miles from Stein Park) • 4:50 - 5:05 Stop at AABC Bridge location 2 (approximately 1.7 miles from Stein Park • 5:15 - 5:30 Stop at Brush Creek Bridge location – around 150m off trail walking (approximately 3.6 miles from Stein Park) • 5:45 Arrive at Brush Creek Park and Ride– discuss bridge location until roughly 6 pm • 6:00 Transfer to vans to return to City Hall 240715 AABC Brush Creek Bridge Memo 240708.docx Brush Creek to ABC Bridge Complete Renderings 07082024.pdf Brush Creek to ABC Public Outreach Exec Summary.pdf 1 1 MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor, City Council and Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners FROM:Matt Kuhn, City of Aspen Parks and Open Space Director Gary Tennenbaum, Pitkin County Open Space and Trails Director THROUGH:Diane Foster, City of Aspen Assistant City Manager Rich Englehart, Pitkin County Deputy County Manager MEETING DATE:July 15, 2024 RE:Proposed multi-use trail bridges at AABC and Brush Creek Park and Ride REQUEST OF COUNCIL: The purpose of this memo, along with the upcoming joint work session and site visit, is to update City Council and the Board of County Commissioners on details of the proposed AABC to Brush Creek Bridge project, including site location updates. BACKGROUND: 2010-2020 Background Pitkin County Open Space and Trails (PCOST) conducted a Recreation Inventory and Analysis in 2012 that identified a safe, dual surface trail connection from the AABC to the Rio Grande Trail as a missing link, and was one of the top five gaps identified in the 2011 Open Space and Trails Visitor Use Survey. This connection would work towards the County’s Strategic Plan Success Factor calling for efficient multi- modal transportation systems linking residential areas. PCOST has also created management plans for both the Roaring Fork Gorge and the Rio Grande Trail, and this connection has been identified as a potential in both adopted plans. A feasibility report in 2014 looked at how to create a hard- and soft-surface connection to the City of Aspen from the W/J hill where McLain Flats Road crosses the Rio Grande Trail. There were many options that were considered including a sustainable soft surface, a hard surface through Slaughterhouse Canyon, bike lanes on McLain Flats Road, and multiple bridge options to the AABC from the Rio Grande Trail. An add-on to this feasibility study was to look at the connection between the Brush Creek Park and Ride and the AABC. At the conclusion of the study and adoption of the Rio Grande Trail Management Plan the BOCC did not choose to pursue a crossing from the Rio Grande Trail to the Brush Creek Park and Ride or to the AABC at that time, and decided to provide a dual-surface trail from McLain Flats Road to the pinch point on Shale Bluffs along with increasing the maintenance of the soft surface trail to Stein Park. This has been the current condition of the Rio Grande Trail for the past 8 years. Highway 82 has wide shoulders through Shale Bluffs, however, with the volume and speed of traffic, along with drainage and 2 rockfall issues from the shale bluffs, very few cyclists and even fewer pedestrians use the highway as a trail connection. There is also a trail connection from the Brush Creek Park and Ride to the bottom of Smith Hill Road at Jaffee Park, but this requires a major elevation drop and gain to get to or from the Rio Grande Trail as well as a soft surface trail connection from Jaffee Park to the Rio Grande Trail. Cyclists do use this as a recreational trail, but use is limited and there are many cyclists circling around the Park and Ride looking for a more direct connection to avoid the 1.6 miles route needed to get to the same point on the other side of the river from the Brush Creek Park and Ride. To gauge the public interest in a connection to the Brush Creek Park and Ride, specific questions have been asked in the Pitkin County Community Survey in 2016, 2018 and 2021 to determine the community desire for a hard-surface connection both from down valley and the Brush Creek Park and Ride; 75.8% thought it was very or somewhat important in 2021, 79% thought it was very or somewhat important in 2018, and 80% thought it was very or somewhat important in 2016. 2020-Present In 2021, funding from the County OST, City of Aspen, and the Elected Officials Transportation Committee (EOTC) was budgeted to provide a more thorough analysis of trail connection feasibility with updated costs from the preliminary alignment study completed in 2014. In 2021 and 2022, City, County, and EOTC staff worked with an engineering firm (SGM) to analyze a host of options for potential trail connections. The consultants analyzed alignments adjacent to Highway 82, shoulder improvements along the highway, as well as bridge locations and alignments. At the close of the engineering study, a twin-bridge proposal was determined to be the most feasible solution for these trail connections, and is estimated to be the lowest cost and simplest solution. Following review of the design and engineering options, the appointed and elected boards from the County and City recommended a public process to gauge community support for this project and requested additional data on the potential project’s benefits given the high costs of projects in this topographically complex terrain. In 2023 staff worked with Kimley-Horn and PR Studio to conduct a community engagement and data analysis study. The goals of the community engagement activities were to gather public input and feedback on the potential trail connection between the Brush Creek Park and Ride (BCPR) and the Aspen Airport Business Center (AABC). The engagement aimed to also educate community members about the trail alignments that were evaluated and to further understand the public’s opinions on the proposed project. Overall, there was strong community support for the twin bridges alignment and the report summarizes the methods used to gather public input and outlines next steps, as well as potential funding sources. The executive summary of the public process is attached. DISCUSSION: Over the course of public engagement efforts in 2023, several topics emerged as important considerations moving forward: 1. The focus should shift away from these trail improvements being a point to point project, and rather focus on providing many unique options to connect communities such as Woody Creek, W/J, Brush Creek Village, Aspen, Snowmass, and the ABC specifically. a. Input from the community has illustrated that each resident may use these bridges in unique ways, from commuting and running errands, to recreational connectivity. 3 2.Connections around the ABC need to be as close to the core of the community as possible to facilitate connections both down valley, and up valley as well. 3.The proposed bridges may be used more for winter recreation access to the Rio Grande for cross country skiing than originally planned. Over the last several months, staff have engaged with engineering consultants at SGM to understand the feasibility of alternative bridge locations near the Airport Business Center. SGM evaluated additional trail and bridge options to connect the AABC to the existing Rio Grande Trail (RGT). Two options were evaluated in further detail to determine estimated costs, trail layout, bridge layouts and wall layouts. These two locations will be visited on July 15th. See Figure below for an overview of the alignments. 4 AABC Connection 2, “Switchback Alignment” o West end of alignment begins at the existing Stein Trailhead at AABC 500 Road. o East end of trail connects to RGT trail approximately 350 feet from the south end of the wastewater treatment plant clarifiers. o Trail switchbacks below the Holy Cross Energy Substation. 5 AABC Connection 3, “Service Center Road Alignment” o West end of alignment begins at the existing Stein Trailhead at AABC 500 Road. o East end of trail connects to RGT trail approximately 550 feet from the north end of the wastewater treatment plant reservoir (pond). o Alignment crosses over Service Center Road. 6 FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: A summary of the estimate project costs is provided in Table 1 and 2. The costs for a single bridge and trail connection to the RGT is summarized in Table 1. The total cost to provide a complete connection (i.e. two bridges plus trail) from the Brush Creek Park and Ride to the AABC is summarized in Table 2. The City and the County Open Space programs have each allocated $250,000 in 2024 for continuation of the design and engineering for the bridges. This funding was intended to help provide refined estimates of probable cost, but more importantly, provide progress that would allow for large grant applications for infrastructure of this scale, as well as further the design and engineering through a design development level. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Improving bicycle and pedestrian amenities provides no emission options for transportation. The construction of potential bridges would be designed in ways to minimize environmental and visual impacts. Construction would result in earthmoving and grading for bridge piers and access trails. In the 2022 and 2024 feasibility reports most of the areas slated for bridge piers and access trails are in areas that have been impacted by prior projects. These include Brush Creek Park and Ride, sanitation,natural gas, and electric utility infrastructure, storm water mitigation and the Rio Grande Railroad now trail. All impacted areas would be revegetated with native plant material. ALTERNATIVES: The next step in the process is to initiate a design development effort that refines the locations, construction methodologies, geotechnical understanding and furthers the bridge designs. Staff propose that both bridges for this project enter this phase simultaneously, however alternatives exist around phasing one bridge before the other during both design and construction phases. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Parks and Open Space Staff recommends continuing the design and planning for both bridge locations for better understanding of cost, as well as in preparation for grant funding applications. 7 CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: 8 ISSUE & REVISION DATES GTAABC BC TrailRio Grande Trail, Aspen, COLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ▪ LAND PLANNING350 MARKET STREET | SUITE 307 | BASALT | CO | 81621WWW.CONNECTONEDESIGN.COM | 970.355.5457CONCEPT Drawn By:SD Checked By: Plot Date:Project # AABC BC TRAIL BRIDGE ALIGNMENT OPTION 1 - PLAN VIEW L.0.01 HIGHWAY 82EXISTING STRUCTURES AND ELEMENTS Rio Grande Trail Roaring Fork River San District Water Plant North Forty 1 PROPOSED NEW STRUCTURES AND ELEMENTS Bridge Alignment OptionA 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 Holy Cross Substation5 5 Proposed M.U. Connector TrailB San District Access Road6 Stein Trail7 6 7 A B 9 ISSUE & REVISION DATES GTAABC BC TrailRio Grande Trail, Aspen, COLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ▪ LAND PLANNING350 MARKET STREET | SUITE 307 | BASALT | CO | 81621WWW.CONNECTONEDESIGN.COM | 970.355.5457CONCEPT Drawn By:SD Checked By: Plot Date:Project # AABC BC TRAIL BRIDGE ALIGNMENT OPTION 1 - SECTION L.0.02 Bridge Alignment Option 1Proposed M.U. Trail Alignment Proposed Retaining WallHoly Cross SubstationRio Grande Trail10 ISSUE & REVISION DATES GTAABC BC TrailRio Grande Trail, Aspen, COLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ▪ LAND PLANNING350 MARKET STREET | SUITE 307 | BASALT | CO | 81621WWW.CONNECTONEDESIGN.COM | 970.355.5457CONCEPT Drawn By:SD Checked By: Plot Date:Project # AABC BC TRAIL BRIDGE ALIGNMENT OPTION 1 - RENDER L.0.03 San District BuildingBridge Alignment Option 1Typ. Retaining WallMulti Use TrailHard SurfaceRio Grande TrailGuard Rail11 ISSUE & REVISION DATES GTAABC BC TrailRio Grande Trail, Aspen, COLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ▪ LAND PLANNING350 MARKET STREET | SUITE 307 | BASALT | CO | 81621WWW.CONNECTONEDESIGN.COM | 970.355.5457CONCEPT Drawn By:SD Checked By: Plot Date:Project # AABC BC TRAIL BRIDGE ALIGNMENT OPTION 1 - RENDER L.0.04 Bridge Alignment Option 1Rio Grande TrailHoly Cross Substation12 ISSUE & REVISION DATES GTAABC BC TrailRio Grande Trail, Aspen, COLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ▪ LAND PLANNING350 MARKET STREET | SUITE 307 | BASALT | CO | 81621WWW.CONNECTONEDESIGN.COM | 970.355.5457CONCEPT Drawn By:SD Checked By: Plot Date:Project # AABC BC TRAIL BRIDGE ALIGNMENT OPTION 1 - RENDER L.0.05 Bridge Alignment Option 1Rio Grande Trail13 ISSUE & REVISION DATES GTAABC BC TrailRio Grande Trail, Aspen, COLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ▪ LAND PLANNING350 MARKET STREET | SUITE 307 | BASALT | CO | 81621WWW.CONNECTONEDESIGN.COM | 970.355.5457CONCEPT Drawn By:SD Checked By: Plot Date:Project # AABC BC TRAIL BRIDGE ALIGNMENT OPTION 2 - PLAN VIEW L.0.06 HIGHWAY 82EXISTING STRUCTURES AND ELEMENTS Rio Grande Trail Roaring Fork River San District Water Plant North Forty 1 PROPOSED NEW STRUCTURES AND ELEMENTS Bridge Alignment OptionA 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 Holy Cross Substation5 5 Proposed M.U. Connector TrailB San District Access Road6 Stein Trail7 6 7 A B 14 ISSUE & REVISION DATES GTAABC BC TrailRio Grande Trail, Aspen, COLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ▪ LAND PLANNING350 MARKET STREET | SUITE 307 | BASALT | CO | 81621WWW.CONNECTONEDESIGN.COM | 970.355.5457CONCEPT Drawn By:SD Checked By: Plot Date:Project # AABC BC TRAIL BRIDGE ALIGNMENT OPTION 2 - SECTION L.0.07 Bridge Alignment Option 2San. District Access RoadNorth FortyRio Grande TrailSan. District Water Treatment Pond15 ISSUE & REVISION DATES GTAABC BC TrailRio Grande Trail, Aspen, COLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ▪ LAND PLANNING350 MARKET STREET | SUITE 307 | BASALT | CO | 81621WWW.CONNECTONEDESIGN.COM | 970.355.5457CONCEPT Drawn By:SD Checked By: Plot Date:Project # AABC BC TRAIL BRIDGE ALIGNMENT OPTION 2 - RENDER L.0.08 Bridge Alignment Option 2Proposed M.U. TrailNorth Forty Homes Rio Grande TrailProposed Retaining Walls16 ISSUE & REVISION DATES GTAABC BC TrailRio Grande Trail, Aspen, COLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ▪ LAND PLANNING350 MARKET STREET | SUITE 307 | BASALT | CO | 81621WWW.CONNECTONEDESIGN.COM | 970.355.5457CONCEPT Drawn By:SD Checked By: Plot Date:Project # AABC BC TRAIL BRIDGE ALIGNMENT OPTION 2 - RENDER L.0.10 Bridge Alignment Option 2North Forty Homes Rio Grande TrailSan District WaterTreatment Pond17 ISSUE & REVISION DATES GTAABC BC TrailRio Grande Trail, Aspen, COLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ▪ LAND PLANNING350 MARKET STREET | SUITE 307 | BASALT | CO | 81621WWW.CONNECTONEDESIGN.COM | 970.355.5457CONCEPT Drawn By:SD Checked By: Plot Date:Project # AABC BC TRAIL BRIDGE ALIGNMENT OPTION 2 - RENDER L.0.11 Bridge Alignment Option 2North Forty Homes Holy Cross SubstationProposed Multi Use Trail18 Executive Summary 19 INTRODUCTION Since 2012 Pitkin County and the community have identified a critical gap in the non-motorized trail network between the Brush Creek Park and Ride (BCPR) and the Aspen Airport Business Center (AABC). In 2022, an engineering feasibility study was done to evaluate trail alignment options that would connect the AABC and BCPR, and provide access to the Rio Grande Trail and regional trail network. The results of that study offered information on constructibility, estimated costs, and environmental impacts of potential alignments to address the gap. In 2023, the AABC to BCPR Trail Engagement and Analysis was performed with several goals in mind, including sharing the study results with the public and gauging community sentiment on a potential trail connection between the AABC and the BCPR. The engagement and outreach aimed to educate community members about the trail alignments that were evaluated and to further develop the public’s opinions on the benefits, costs, and level of support for moving forward with a proposed trail alignment. Pitkin County Gap Analysis 2012 Rio Grande Trail Connection Study 2013 Brush Creek to AABC Trail Feasibility Study 2022 Brush Creek to AABC Trail Community Engagement Analysis 2023 2023 PUBLIC PROCESS APPROACH The public process sought specific feedback that would both guide and inform the analysis. Present conditions as well as future demand projections based on data and analysis were integral to the engagement strategy. Our team vetted concepts with a Project Interest Group representing different community perspectives and interests. The public process was a thorough effort to discover key themes and collect specific feedback that would help form recommendations to Pitkin County and the City of Aspen. Over the entire engagement process we heard large scale support for this bold, visionary and forward-thinking project. Greater than 70% of survey participants supported the Twin Bridges Alignment as the preferred option. 1 Host Focus Groups Collect Feedback Review Survey Results and Outreach Event Feedback Draft Report and Recommendations Identify Key Project Elements for Decision Making Qualitative and Quantitative Data Collection 20 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT MISSION AND FINDINGS Community engagement findings were clear and overwhelmingly consistent. Overall, we heard public support for this project, and an analysis of survey results, survey comments, and individual discussions with community members revealed the most common theme was connection with many meanings. These included connection to one another, significant destinations, multimodal transportation options, recreational opportunities, and communities. This project is a bold and ambitious vision that will result in a substantial change in connectivity to the Roaring Fork Valley at large. The feedback we heard shows support for a long-term investment to advance community values related to climate change, alternative transportation, recreational opportunities, and equity. While the Two Bridges Alignment is expensive and will require multi-agency coordination, this is an important and safe connection creating opportunities for all users. Connecting smaller neighborhoods to the larger trail system and the Rio Grande Trail will advance the County’s and the community’s values into the future. ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES Spanning the summer of 2023, the planning team used multiple methods to reach out to residents to determine the level of support and desire from the community regarding potential trail connections in the area between the BCPR and AABC. • Formed a Project Interest Group from various backgrounds to provide dialogue, questioning, discussion, and dissension of public feedback results and analysis. • Hosted six in-person outreach events and three community organization presentations. • Developed a comprehensive survey with 515 survey participants between June 1 and August 6. • Outreach was supported by a communications effort garnering local news coverage and newsletter articles, digital media, and radio announcements. Connection to Recreational Opportunities Connection to Multimodal Transportation Alternatives Connection to Community Project Goals from the Public Process SAFETY increased safety and safe connections CONNECTIVITY to community and recreation USERS inclusive of all users 2 Host Focus Groups Collect Feedback 21 WHAT WE HEARD Key themes were developed from a culmination of feedback from the survey results, outreach events, public comment, and Project Interest Group meetings. The key themes and project elements were common among participants and open-ended survey questions. Safety Creating a safe and dedicated path away from Highway 82 is a priority so users can walk and bike, an option they don’t choose now because of safety concerns on the road. Along with safety, many respondents expressed outright fear of commuting on or next to SH 82. Connection Comments around connection were broader than just one trail connecting to another trail. People were interested in how this proposed trail would connect them to places and people and different elements of their lives. For instance, respondents said this trail would connect them to friends, work, neighborhoods, and schools so some of the value was around how the trail would improve the workings of their lives from employment opportunities to social belonging. Inherent in many of the responses was an element of community building that this trail would enhance. Improved Commuting Options A large number of survey respondents said that they would commute more into AABC or Aspen from the Park and Ride if there were a dedicated and safe route that was also direct. Some didn’t commute now because there wasn’t a direct route, and some were frustrated about the need to go to Stein Bridge to turn around and go back down valley and/or complained about the steep route down to the river by Jaffe Park. WE-cycle meeting was held to understand their future plans and use. WE-cycle stated that providing a station at the Brush Creek Park and Ride would be contingent on a safe connection to the AABC. Environment Multi-use and accessibility of this trail is important to provide options for people get out of their cars and contribute to the solutions to climate change. Proactive Leadership While people recognize this is an expensive project, people in favor of the new trail connections want to see them built now before costs go up. There was concern from many that waiting will only cause the cost to balloon in the future and that this trail would be an eventuality someday. Getting it right the first time rather than building it in pieces was important to many respondents as well. Respondents top values from the survey: Access to multimodal transit Access to nature and open space Climate change and reducing emissions 3 Identify Key Project Elements for Decision Making Qualitative and Quantitative Data Collection 22 Total Trail Miles within Travelshed 10.4 9.9 13.4 15.3 43.6 82.8 1-mile Walkshed 2-mile Bikeshed 5-mile Bikeshed Network Type Paved 7.6 miles Unpaved Paved Unpaved Paved Unpaved 7.1 miles 13.4 miles 15.3 miles 43.6 miles 82.8 miles Total Trail Miles/People Living within Travelshed 1,799 People 3,233 People 12,499 people Travelshed Summary - AABC Bridge Alignment PROPOSED TRAIL ANALYSIS The project looked at several types of data, in which travelsheds were a key piece. A travel shed is a network of transportation facilities that are used to connect to key locations. This is important because not all transportation facilities connect a person from point A to point B directly. • The 1-mile walkshed distance is intended to reflect a 15-20 -minute walking distance. • The 2-mile bikeshed distance is meant to represent a typical 15-20 -minute commute time by bicycle. • The 5-mile bikeshed distance is a good representation of the potential for recreational bicycling and e-bike uses. The project used the travelsheds to understand at each of the walkshed and bikeshed thresholds how many miles of trail, and the number of people who would connect to the proposed trail. This data provides key information for the benefits of the trail versus the cost to construct. E-bike usage has increased by 2-5% year over year in the Roaring Fork Valley. As e-bike trip share continues to grow, bicycle travel sheds of 2-miles will shift to 5-miles (10-15 Minute E-Bike Ride). The Brush Creek to AABC trail is a key connection for these changing travel demands and patterns in the future. 4 23 PROPOSED TRAIL ANALYSIS The project also evaluated three different potential alignments: the Twin Bridges, AABC Bridge only, and Brush Creek Bridge only. One data point for evaluating the individual alignments was a review of each of their elevation profiles. 7700 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 2.6 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 4.9 7650 7600 7550 7500 7450 7400 7350 7700 7750 7650 7600 7550 7500 7450 7400 7350 7700 7750 7650 7600 7550 7500 7450 7400 7350 7700 7650 7600 7550 7500 7450 7400 7350 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.1 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 Brush Creek PnR AABCExceed ADA Grades Aspen Mass Trail Wilton Jaee Trail Rio Grande Trail Rio Grande TrailBrush Creek Connector AABC Trail Stein Trail Exceed ADA Grades Paved Trail Bridges Soft Surface Trail Exceed ADA Grades Exceed ADA Grades Exceed ADA Grades Brush Creek PnR AABC Brush Creek PnR AABC Brush Creek PnR AABCExceed ADA Grades Exceeds ADA Grades AABC Trail Brush Creek Connector Rio Grande Trail Aspen Mass Trail Wilton Jaee Trail Rio Grande Trail Stein Trail AABC BRIDGE 4.1 Miles Total Length 3.3% Average Slope 17% Max Slope ~457 Feet of Elevation Gain 7700 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 2.6 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 4.9 7650 7600 7550 7500 7450 7400 7350 7700 7750 7650 7600 7550 7500 7450 7400 7350 7700 7750 7650 7600 7550 7500 7450 7400 7350 7700 7650 7600 7550 7500 7450 7400 7350 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.1 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 Brush Creek PnR AABCExceed ADA Grades Aspen Mass Trail Wilton Jaee Trail Rio Grande Trail Rio Grande TrailBrush Creek Connector AABC Trail Stein Trail Exceed ADA Grades Paved Trail Bridges Soft Surface Trail Exceed ADA Grades Exceed ADA Grades Exceed ADA Grades Brush Creek PnR AABC Brush Creek PnR AABC Brush Creek PnR AABCExceed ADA Grades Exceeds ADA Grades AABC Trail Brush Creek Connector Rio Grande Trail Aspen Mass Trail Wilton Jaee Trail Rio Grande Trail Stein Trail TWIN BRIDGES 2.6 Miles Total Length 1.8% Average Slope 4.5% Max Slope ~250 Feet of Elevation Gain 7700 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 2.6 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 4.9 7650 7600 7550 7500 7450 7400 7350 7700 7750 7650 7600 7550 7500 7450 7400 7350 7700 7750 7650 7600 7550 7500 7450 7400 7350 7700 7650 7600 7550 7500 7450 7400 7350 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.1 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 Brush Creek PnR AABCExceed ADA Grades Aspen Mass Trail Wilton Jaee Trail Rio Grande Trail Rio Grande TrailBrush Creek Connector AABC Trail Stein Trail Exceed ADA Grades Paved Trail Bridges Soft Surface Trail Exceed ADA Grades Exceed ADA Grades Exceed ADA Grades Brush Creek PnR AABC Brush Creek PnR AABC Brush Creek PnR AABCExceed ADA Grades Exceeds ADA Grades AABC Trail Brush Creek Connector Rio Grande Trail Aspen Mass Trail Wilton Jaee Trail Rio Grande Trail Stein Trail 4.9 Miles Total Length 4.1% Average Slope 25% Max Slope ~700 Feet of Elevation Gain EXISTING TRAIL-NO BUILD 7700 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 2.6 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 4.9 7650 7600 7550 7500 7450 7400 7350 7700 7750 7650 7600 7550 7500 7450 7400 7350 7700 7750 7650 7600 7550 7500 7450 7400 7350 7700 7650 7600 7550 7500 7450 7400 7350 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.1 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 Brush Creek PnR AABCExceed ADA Grades Aspen Mass Trail Wilton Jaee Trail Rio Grande Trail Rio Grande TrailBrush Creek Connector AABC Trail Stein Trail Exceed ADA Grades Paved Trail Bridges Soft Surface Trail Exceed ADA Grades Exceed ADA Grades Exceed ADA Grades Brush Creek PnR AABC Brush Creek PnR AABC Brush Creek PnR AABCExceed ADA Grades Exceeds ADA Grades AABC Trail Brush Creek Connector Rio Grande Trail Aspen Mass Trail Wilton Jaee Trail Rio Grande Trail Stein Trail BRUSH CREEK BRIDGE 3.5 Miles Total Length 2.8% Average Slope 25% Max Slope ~525 Feet of Elevation Gain 7700 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 2.6 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 4.9 7650 7600 7550 7500 7450 7400 7350 7700 7750 7650 7600 7550 7500 7450 7400 7350 7700 7750 7650 7600 7550 7500 7450 7400 7350 7700 7650 7600 7550 7500 7450 7400 7350 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.1 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 Brush Creek PnR AABCExceed ADA Grades Aspen Mass Trail Wilton Jaee Trail Rio Grande Trail Rio Grande TrailBrush Creek Connector AABC Trail Stein Trail Exceed ADA Grades Paved Trail Bridges Soft Surface Trail Exceed ADA Grades Exceed ADA Grades Exceed ADA Grades Brush Creek PnR AABC Brush Creek PnR AABC Brush Creek PnR AABCExceed ADA Grades Exceeds ADA Grades AABC Trail Brush Creek Connector Rio Grande Trail Aspen Mass Trail Wilton Jaee Trail Rio Grande Trail Stein Trail Trails greater than 5% slope can preclude users with mobility devices, children riding bikes, strollers, and bikes with cargo or child carriers from using them. Unpaved trails are not comfortable for users with mobility devices, road bicycles, strollers, and bikes with cargo or child carriers. The additional distance of some alignments makes it less usable by walkers, children biking, strollers, and mobility devices. The following graphic utilizes user comfort to quantify the user types for each of the proposed alignments. Mountain Bike Road Bike Electric Bike Children Biking Walking Running Stroller Mobility DeviceBike with Cargo or Children Trail Alignments Trail Users Existing Trail Alignment Two Bridge Alignment AABC Bridge Alignment Brush Creek Bridge Alignment 1MILE 2MILE 3MILE 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4MILE 5MILE 5 24 COST AND FUNDING It is well known that the longer a project takes to implement, the more it will cost. The Brush Creek Bridge in the 2013 study totaled $3-4 million. In the 2022 study, it was estimated to cost $10-12 million. To help put this project in better perspective, the project team reviewed the construction cost indexes for the last 10+ years to see what past projects would have cost in today's dollars. was the average ranking for level of support for the $20-$25 million Twin Bridges alignment. of survey respondents supported local funding or grants for the project. 7 86% On a scale from 1-10 The project has been co-funded by the City of Aspen and Pitkin County to date, moving into further planning and design funding diversification will be explored including, grants, and local government funding. PROJECT NAME YEAR COST (IN MILLIONS) 2023 COST INDEX AVERAGE COST % INCREASE Tiehack Bridge 2002 $2.40 $5.55 $131.32% Grand Avenue Bridge 2016 $125.60 $199.13 58.54% Castle Creek Bridge/ Hallam Improvements 2018 $5 $7.04 40.89% Castle Creek Trail 2020 $4 $5.19 29.75% Paepcke Transit Hub 2022 $4 $4.26 6.40% Maroon Creek Trail 2023 $7.90 $7.90 0.00% Brush Creek Park and Ride 2023 $7.50 $7.50 0.00% Brush Creek to AABC Trail (Twin Bridges) 2025 $20-25 -- 6 25 Adopt Recommended Alternative Phasing No Further Study Funding • Grants - Could delay when to construct based on years of funding • Open space funds • General fund • Bond Further Studies • AABC Bridge location • Paving the Rio Grand Trail • Winter and nordic operations Design Phase 1 Design and engineering for the 1st bridge • This would include analysis of which bridge to build first • Full bridge and trail design • Timeline 1 year • Cost: $1-3 million • Bond Design Phase 2 Design and engineering for the 2nd bridge • Full bridge and trail design • Timeline 1 year • Cost: $1-3 million Design Phase Design and engineering for both bridges and the trail • Full bridge and trail design • Timeline 1-2 years • Cost: $2-3 million Construction Build both bridges and the full trail • Timeline 1-2 years • Cost: $18-22 million Construction Build the first bridge and the associated trail section • Timeline 1-2 years • Cost: $9-10 million Construction Build the second bridge and the remaining trail section • Timeline 1-2 years • Cost: $9-10 million NO NO YES Yes NEXT STEPS The chart below lays out the potential paths forwarded if decision makers decide to move forward with the Brush Creek to AABC trail. 7 26