HomeMy WebLinkAboutEntrance to Aspen5 1Hl
r,
til(itl
WAY
2i
ENTRANCE
2ECORD
OF
DECISIC
OT COLORADO DE F
DF TRANSPORTATIC
I. DECISION • • • . • . • • . . . . . . • . • . . • . . . • • . . • • . • • • . . . . . e . . . . . . • . . . • . . . . . • . • . 1
II. THE PREFERItEDALTERNATIVE .•.•••.•••............•..•••..••.....3
Highway and Intersection Improvements ............................. 3
Transit System .................................................. 3
Incremental Transportation Management Program ...................... 6
Meeting Project Purpose and Need .................................
Meeting Project Need and Intent .................................. 10
III. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED .................................. . .... 11
Build Options Eliminated From Consideration ........................ 13
Reality Check Screening ......................................... 13
Fatal Flaw Screening ............................................ 13
Comparative Screening .......................................... 15
Alternatives Eliminated After Full Evaluation ........................ 17
IV. OTHER KEY ELEMENTS . e • e • . . , e . • • • . . . • • • . • . . . • . e . • . . e . . • . . • e . • . . . . 24
V. SECTION 4(f) RESOURCES ............................. . ... . .... • .... 25
What Goes Into The Least Harm Analysis? .......................... 25
Discussion Of Key Issues ........................................ 26
Least Harm Alternative .......................................... 29
VI. MEASURES TO MINIMIZE HARM .. . ........... • ........ • ... • • .. • .. • . 31
VII. MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT....e.o.••.••....•oe•..•.e••oo•o•36
VIII. COMMENTS ON FINAL EIS ............................. . ..... . . • 37
IX. CONCLUSION...............................••.•....................3?
1
APPENDIX A: Memorandum of Understanding Between CDOT and FHWA and the City of
Aspen
APPENDIX B: Memorandum of Understanding Between CDOT and FHWA and Pitkin
County
APPENDIX C: Responses to Comments on Final EIS and Comment Letters
Figure I a: Preferred Alternative Alignment ......................................... 4
Figure I b: Preferred Alternative Alignment ......................................... 5
Figure 2: Incremental TM Program Monitoring and Implementation ...................... 8
Figure 3:'Screening Analysis .................................................... 12
Table 1: Platform Widths 2
Table 2: Alternatives Evaluated in the DEIS ........................................ 18
Table 3: Alternatives Evaluated in the DSEIS ....................................... 19
Table 4: Maroon Creek Road Intersection Options ................................... 23
it
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
RECORD OF DECISION
Project STA 082A-008
State Highway 82 - Entrance to Aspen
Pitkin County, Colorado
L DECISION
The purpose of this Record of Decision (ROD) is to document the Federal Highway Administration's
(FHWA) decision on the ' State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen project. This Record of Decision has been
prepared in compliance with FHWA Regulation, 23 CFR 771 and Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ) Regulation 40 CFR 1500-1508. The ROD documents the FHWA decision on the State Highway
82 Entrance to Aspen project based upon the requirements of The National Environmental Policy Act of
1970 (NEPA), the Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (DOT Act), the Intermodal
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, project
data, alternatives considered, public and other agency input (including comments received following
publication of the Entrance to Aspen Final Environmental Impact Statement [FEIS] in August 1997),
agreements with the City of Aspen and Pitkin County and outlined mitigation measures. FHWA and the
Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) have made the decision to construct a variation of the
Modified Direct Alternative as described in the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
(DSEIS) dated July of 1996.
The Preferred Alternative is a combination of highway and intersection improvements, a transit system,
and an incremental transportation management (TM) program. The highway component will consist of a
two-lane parkway that generally follows the existing alignment, except at the Maroon Creek crossing and
across the Marolt-Thomas Property. The highway alignment at Maroon Creek will be north of the existing
crossing with the light rail transit (LRT) alignment on the existing bridge. The Modified Direct Alignment
(as described in the DSEIS) is across the Marolt-Thomas Property. A connection to Main Street occurs at
7 th Street. The transit component includes an LRT system that, if local support and/or funding are not
available, will be developed initially as exclusive bus lanes. The transit platform (which will follow the
proposed highway alignment) is of adequate width to allow the exclusive bus lanes to continue in
operation during the construction of the LRT (see Table 1). The Preferred Alternative will include multi -
modal facilities at the Pitkin County Airport and Buttermilk Ski Area as part of the locally funded light
rail transit component, a new Maroon Creek Bridge crossing north of the existing bridge, a roundabout at
Maroon Creek Road, and a cut and cover tunnel of no less than 122 meters (400 feet) in length across the
Marolt-Thomas Property. Amore detailed description of the Preferred Alternative is given in Section 11,
Description of the Preferred Alternative.
Record of Decision
State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen
Table I
Platform Widths
Corridor Section
Maximum
Maximum Total
Platform Width'
Right -of -Way Width
Buttermilk to the Maroon Creek Bridge
34 meters (112 feet)
82 meters (270 feet)'`
Maroon Creek Bridge
22 meters (73 feet)
27 meters (90 feet)
Maroon Creek Bridge to Maroon Creek Road
31 meters (101 feet)
40 meters (130 feet)
Castle Creek Bridge
22 meters (73 feet)
27 meters (90 feet)
Maroon Creek Road to 7`h and Main (excluding
28 meters (93.5 feet)
40 meters (130 feet)
Cut and Cover Tunnel)
Cut and Cover Tunnel
24 meters (78.5 feet)3
61 meters (200 feet)
'Platform width is defined as the distance between the outside edges of the curb andlor barriers. The platform widths are from the Joint
Resolution #1 (Series of 1997) passed by the City of Aspen, Pitkin County, and the Town of Snowmass Village.
2 The right- of -way for the Buttermilk to Maroon Creek Bridge segment is significantly larger than other segments. This is because the LRT
veers slightly south near the Buttermilk Ski Area to go into the LRT station. This results in a larger area of right-of-way being needed. For
snore information on the variation of platform and right-of-way widths, please see the technical memorandum Platform and Right -of -Way
Width.
3 The platform width for the cut and cover tunnel was originally 22 meters (73 feet) for the Phased Modified Direct Alternative in the DSEIS.
The updated Phased Alternative requires a platform width of 24 meters (78.5 feet) for a maintenance access adjacent to the LRT and to
provide lanes of adequate width for buses during phasing.
The NEPA process for the Entrance to Aspen started in January 1994 to fulfill a commitment made in the
Record of Decision (ROD) for project number FC 082-1 (14), State Highway 82 East of Basalt to
Buttermilk Ski Area, dated 12/21/93. Following initial public meetings, scoping, and public information
activities, the State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was
released in August of 1995. The DEIS evaluated three alternatives between the Buttermilk Ski Area and
Maroon Creek Road, and seven alternatives between Maroon Creek Road and the intersection of 71h Street
and Main Street. On August 24, 1995 the official DEIS Public Hearing Open House was conducted in
Aspen.
Following the release of the DEIS, new alternatives were presented by the City of Aspen and local citizens
for improvements to State Highway 82. According to Federal Regulations, a Draft Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) is required if the FHWA determines there are changes in the
proposed action or new information or circumstances relevant to environmental concerns and bearings on
the proposed action (or its impacts) that could result in significant environmental impacts not evaluated in
the DEIS. The DSEIS evaluated four additional alternatives between the Pitkin County Airport and Rubey
Park (located in downtown Aspen). The alternatives evaluated in the DSEIS received the same
comparative level of analysis as the alternatives in the DEIS. The State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen
DSEIS was released in July of 1996. The official DSEIS Public Hearing Open House was held on August
29, 1996 in Aspen.
Following the official public comment period for the DSEIS, preparation of the State Highway 82
Entrance to Aspen Final Environmental Impact Statement began. In August of 1997 the FEIS was released
and the official public comment period, which was extended twice, was open until November 6, 1997.
The official Public Hearing Open House was conducted on August 20, 1997 in Aspen. There were more
than 950 comment letters received on the FEIS. These comment letters and responses are included as
Appendix C. Only one copy of each form letter is included.
Page 2 of 37
Record of Decision
State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen
The Preferred Alternative for the ROD is a variation of the Modified Direct Alternative evaluated in the
DSEIS and of the Preferred Alternative described in the FEIS. The Preferred Alternative is a combination
of highway and intersection improvements, a transit system, and an incremental 9 transportation
management (TM) program. Each of these elements are described below. Figure la and Figure lb show
a schematic of the Preferred Alternative alignment.
Highway and Intersection Improvements
The highway component alignment consists of a two-lane parkway that follows the existing State
Highway 82 alignment from Buttermilk Ski Area to the vicinity of Maroon Creek Bridge, where the
alignment shifts to the north. The highway crosses Maroon Creek on a new bridge, north of the existing
bridge. The highway then returns to the existing alignment and continues east to a roundabout located at
the Maroon Creek Road intersection. After the roundabout, the highway shifts to the southeast across the
Marolt-Thomas Property and through a cut and cover tunnel 122 meters (400 feet) in length to connect
with the intersection of 7th Street and Main Street. The alignment crosses a new Castle Creek Bridge
between the cut and cover tunnel and Main Street. The proposed Main Street alignment consists of two
travel lanes in each direction with an LRT system on the south side. The proposed Main Street cross
section is within the existing curb lines. The Preferred Alternative also includes relocating existing Owl
Creek Road and West Buttermilk Road to create a new combined intersection with State Highway 82 near
the Buttermilk Ski Area.
Transit System
The transit system for the Preferred Alternative includes a LRT system from a new LRT Maintenance
Facility near Service Center Road to Rubey Park in downtown Aspen. However, the LRT system will be
developed initially as exclusive bus lanes if local support and/or funding are not available. The platform
is of adequate width to allow the exclusive bus lanes to continue in operation during the construction of
the LRT.
The LRT alignment leaves the maintenance facility and crosses State Highway 82 west of Service Center
Road., then turns east toward the Aspen Airport, heading into the Airport Terminal LRT Station. The LRT
at this point, is parallel to and on the south side of State Highway 82. The LRT leaves the parallel
alignment from State Highway 82 near Owl Creek Road to enter the Buttermilk LRT Station and
multimodal facility. The LRT alignment then returns to the south side and parallel to State Highway 82,
crossing Maroon Creek on the existing bridge. As the alignment approaches the Maroon Creek Road
roundabout it shifts to the south, bypassing the intersection and crossing Maroon Creek Road and Castle
Creek Road. It then returns to the south side alignment. The LRT alignment parallels the proposed
highway alignment across the Marolt-Thomas Property, through the cut and cover tunnel, to the
intersection of 7th Street and Main Street. The LRT alignment runs along the south side of Main Street to
Monarch Street, turning south onto the east side of Monarch Street. At Durant Avenue, the LRT turns
east along the north side of Durant Avenue and ends at Rubey Park.
Page 3 of 37
Record of Decision
State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen
Figure I a
State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen ROD
Preferred Alternative Alignment
Legend:
Aspen City Limits
.......................... LRT Alignment
LRT and Highway Alignment
OWNERS" Highway Alignment
Preferred Alternative
"I've
LRT Alignment
LRT Maintenance
Facility
0010
$01�� -00
fig_ I a.cdr
Ile'
Preferred Alternative
�.e:
Highway....Mignment
8-01wil
n`l ���j
�O
Pitkin
County Airport
C\I
!P
KP4
I /// �; %
Preferred Alternative
Highway and LRT Alignment
Owl Creek Road
Z ------ JL
IV
Not to Scale
Page 4 of 37
Record of Decision
State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen
Figure lb
State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen ROD
Preferred Alternative Alignment
z a -JnL
Not to Scale
Legend:
Aspen City Limits
.......................... LRT Alignment
LRT and Highway Alignment
Highway Alignment
City of
V.
Aspen
le; LI ........... v l
.� D
Q � Rube Park
LJ
�� ;� DD
oD
l a oo010o o� O 11ch
st
00 oD � � rcet
D o_ �
o __
D oD
J
7ta C� _ ,
oD D
Preferred Alternative
h Strc
et DD LRT Alignment
Q� Cut and Cover
�in��, ete�y Lam
o
ar.- Cem
i_____
Maroon
-Creek
Y -11
Pr ferred Alternative
Highway and LRT Alignment- —
00
Kl�
Buttermilk
Ski Area
01.
fig_slb.cdr
CaTlz
e
ipek
--
�C
Preferred Alternative
,� o Highway and LRT Alignment
Page 5 of 37
Record of Decision
State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen
For purposes of evaluation in the FEIS, the LRT line consists of double track except for the six areas of
single track identified below:
• LRT Maintenance Facility to the Pitkin County Airport
• Maroon Creek Bridge
• Just west of the cut and cover tunnel to the intersection of 7th Street and Main Street
• 7th Street LRT Station
• 3rd Street LRT Station
• Intersection of Monarch Street and Main Street to Rubey Park
LRT transit stations are located at the Airport Terminal, Buttermilk Ski Area, Moore Property, 7th Street,
3rd Street, Monarch Street, and Rubey Park.
Incremental Transportation Management Program
In addition to the highway and intersection improvements and the transit system, the Preferred Alternative
includes an incremental TM program. This program is designed to help achieve the city and community
goal of maintaining 1993 traffic volumes in the year 2015. The Preferred Alternative incremental TM
program consists of incentives, disincentives, and supporting measures to encourage use of transit,
carpools, bicycles, and walking. Currently, the City of Aspen is using TM measures such as increased
transit service (incentive), paid parking (disincentive), and information programs (supporting).
The incremental TM program consists of monitoring the traffic volumes to verify that the goal of
maintaining 1993 levels of traffic is being met. If the traffic volumes are at or below the 1993 levels then
no action is taken. If the traffic volumes exceed the 1993 levels then one or more TM measures are
implemented. The degree to which the traffic volumes exceed the 1993 levels determines the level of TM
required to meet the zero -growth target. The three levels of TM, in addition to other supporting actions,
are shown below. A more detailed list of possible TM measures is included in the FEIS technical report
entitled Transportation Management (TM) Measures.
Level I - The measures in this level of TM are starter level actions that are implemented when the
zero -growth level is first exceeded. If the zero -growth target is exceeded after Level I is
implemented, then the next level of TM is added. Examples include ridematching programs, trip
planning programs, transit literature, etc.
Level 2 - This level of TM is implemented when the traffic volumes exceed the zero -growth target
between 0 and 5 percent or if Level I measures do not reduce traffic volume to below the zero -
growth target. Examples include improved transit system (shorter headways, increased subsidies),
demand responsive transit, minor increases in internal parking rates, etc.
Level 3 - This level of TM is implemented when the traffic volumes exceed the zero -growth target
between 5 and 10 percent. Examples include limiting the number of internal parking spaces,, auto -
free zones, major increases in internal parking rates,, etc.
Page 6 of 37
Record of Decision
State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen
Supporting Actions - These refer to actions that, by themselves, are not expected to cause a mode
shift, but rather enhance other actions. Examples include guaranteed ride home program, park and
ride lots to meet demand, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, etc.
Figure 2 is a flow chart of how an incremental program could work.
The Preferred Alternative includes two parking facilities: the airport multimodal center and the
Buttermilk multimodal center. These facilities are designed for the parking demand based on the zero -
growth policy and a summer high -growth transportation demand modeling scenario. To meet the
projected 2015 summer high growth demand (assuming no downvalley extension of the light rail system),
approximately 3,600 spaces are required at the airport multimodal center, and approximately 750 spaces
are required at .the Buttermilk multimodal center. Initially, the construction of these multimodal facilities
would not need to provide for maximum capacity. Instead, the number of parking spaces at the
multimodal facilities could be developed as the parking need arises. This is especially true at the airport
where the planned facility could eventually have 3,600 parking spaces under the worst -case growth
assumptions outlined above.
Meeting Project Purpose and Need
CDOT and FHWA have chosen the Preferred Alternative because it best meets the local communities'
needs and desires, fulfills the project objectives, and provides flexibility in future design decisions. A
short description of how the Preferred Alternative meets the project objectives (shown in italics) follows.
1. Community Based Planning. Provide a process which is responsive to local community -based
planning efforts, including the Aspen to Snowmass Transportation Project and the Aspen Area
Community Plan, with special attention focused on limiting vehicle trips into Aspen to create a
less congested downtown core.
The Preferred Alternative has been developed through an extensive and continuous public
involvement process with both local citizens and elected officials. The adoption of the
incremental TM program as an integrated part of the Preferred Alternative provides for the goal of
limiting future vehicle trips to existing levels while providing flexibility in the adoption of
stronger incentives and disincentives.
2. Transportation Capacity. Provide needed transportation capacity for the forecasted person trips
in the year 2015. In doing this, this project will identify a combination of travel modes,
alignments and transportation management actions to seek to achieve the stated community goal
of limiting the number of vehicles in the year 2015 to levels at or below those in 1994.
With the incorporation of the incremental TM program, the Preferred Alternative will provide for
future transportation capacity. Though the highway system will operate under congestion, this
congestion is considered part of the disincentive for single occupancy vehicle (SOV) travel and
will increase transit usage. This objective sets the goal of limiting year 2015 traffic volumes to
levels at or below those in 1994. However, throughout this document the traffic volumes are
referred to as levels at or below those in 1993. Levels are set at 1993 because the traffic model for
Page 7 of 37
Record of Decision
State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen
F g_2.cdr
Figure 2
Incremental TM Program
Monitoring and Implementation
StepQ
Implement
Level 1 Program Yes *--
(1 st time)
To Step 1Q I
after 1st
time
To Step 1Q
* AADT - Average Annual Daily Traffic
BEGIN
Step 1
Traffic Monitoring
(Summer &Winter)
Above Zero Growth
Target?
To Step IQ
—► No
1
To Step QI
To Step O
Page 8 of 37
Record of Decision
State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen
- the Entrance to Aspen EIS was based on 1993 traffic volumes. The difference between 1993 and
1994 traffic volumes is minimal.
3. Safety. Reduce the high accident rate on State Highway 82 and the existing S-curves at State
Highway 8217th Street/Main Street and provide safety improvements for bicyclists and
pedestrians. Provide safe access at all intersections for all movements.
The removal of non -local traffic from the substandard S-curves and the addition of a landscaped
median separating inbound and outbound traffic will reduce the high accident rate on State
Highway 82.
4. Environmentally Sound Alternative. Develop an alternative which minimizes and mitigates
adverse impacts. A process will be used which follows the National Environmental Policy Act
A
(NEPA), the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA), the 1991 Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), and all pertinent legislation.
The Preferred Alternative minimizes and mitigates adverse environmental impacts. The Preferred
Alternative exceeds the requirements of the CAAA and is one of the least harmful alternatives
evaluated in the EIS. The Preferred Alternative mitigates the Section 4(f) resources impacts with
the cut and cover tunnel, relocates all trails that are impacted, avoids impacts to the Holden
Smelting and Milling Complex, and compensates for impacts by returning some existing highway
right-of-way to the City of Aspen.
5. Community Acceptability. Develop an alternative which fits the character of the community and
is aesthetically acceptable to the public.
The Preferred Alternative reflects the agreements reached to date between the communities while
accommodating future decisions based on local discussions and elections.
6. Financial Limitations. Develop an alternative that is financially realistic with respect to current
and expected funding levels and programs, while being responsive to both the community's
character and prudent expenditures ofpublic funds.
The Preferred Alternative is financially realistic, sensible, and responsible with respect to the
current and expected funding levels and programs as determined by the City of Aspen and Pitkin
County.
7. Clean Air Act Requirements. Since the Aspen area is a PMIO air quality non -attainment area, the
Preferred Alternative must meet the requirements of the CAAA by demonstrating project
conformity.
The Preferred Alternative exceeds the requirements of the CAAA.
Page 9 of 37
Record of Decision
State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen
8. Emergency Access. Respond to the need for an alternate route for emergency response to
incidents inside and outside of Aspen.
The Preferred Alternative improves emergency access by providing an additional bridge across
Castle Creek. The existing State Highway 82 right-of-way could be used as an emergency access
route to and from the existing bridge if the new bridge becomes inaccessible.
9. Liveable Communities. Provide a system which reflects the small town character and scale of the
Aspen community and which enhances the quality of life for residents and visitors. The system
shall provide more accessible transportation which increases the mobility of the community and
therefore provides for a more livable community.
The Preferred Alternative is consistent with the goals of maintaining a small town character and
enhances the quality of life for the residences and visitors by limiting vehicle traffic to 1993 levels.
The provision of an improved, efficient LRT system further enhances the livability and mobility of
the community.
10. Phasing. Provide an alternative which allows for future transit options and upgrades.
The Aspen community has long expressed a desire for the high quality transit system that is
included in the Preferred Alternative. The ultimate goal of the Roaring Fork Valley is to develop a
fixed guideway system that connects Glenwood Springs to Aspen. The Entrance to Aspen LRT
system may be the first step towards a realization of this goal.
Meeting Project Need and Intent
The Preferred Alternative fulfills the agreed -upon project need and intent statements in the following
manner:
• In concert with the incremental TM program, the Preferred Alternative provides the needed
person trip capacity for all foreseeable growth in the number of trips to and from Aspen
through the year 2015. This is accomplished through highway improvements combined with a
safe, high -quality, fast, and frequent transit system that will enhance the visitor's experience,
expedite commuting, and preserve the residents' quality of life.
• It is a balanced transportation system that integrates highway, transit, and transportation
management solutions to reduce congestion and pollution.
• It reflects the character and scale of the Aspen community by minimizing the number and
width of the needed highway lanes while meeting person trip capacity needs with an LRT
system.
• it is responsive to community -based planning in fully considering community, elected official,
and project team comments and concerns. The Preferred Alternative was initially conceived
during the public comment period following the release of the DEIS in August 1995. The
Preferred Alternative has the least impact of any build alternative on open space, historic
structures, and residences. Impacts can be mitigated through a commitment to design
excellence and high -quality construction materials and methods.
Page 10 of 37
Record of Decision
State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen
• It is a flexible system designed to meet both the short- and long-term goals of community
compatibility, safety, environmental preservation, clean air, quality of life, and transportation
capacity.
• It is entirely consistent with the City of Aspen, Town of Snowmass Village, and Pitkin County
goal of limiting traffic in 2015 to levels at or below 1993 levels. The Preferred Alternative's
proactive approach of integrating an attractive, high quality transit system with a goal -
responsive package of adjustable transportation demand management measures offers an
opportunity for the Aspen community to reduce the attractiveness of the personal auto while
fully accommodating the mobility needs of residents, visitors, and commuters.
• The Preferred Alternative is consistent with the goals of maintaining a small town character
and enhancing the quality of life for the residents and visitors by limiting vehicle traffic to
existing levels. The provision of an improved, efficient LRT system further enhances the
livability and mobility of the community.
III. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
The FEIS discusses alignment options and modal options (see pages 111-4 through H-23 of the FEIS) in
addition to the No -Action Alternative. A screening process was used throughout the EIS process to
determine alternatives that were to receive detailed evaluation (see Figure 3).
The screening process used applied progressively more demanding criteria to the range of potential
options through a series of three screening levels. At each screening level, options that did not meet the
respective criteria for that screening level were eliminated from further evaluation. The screening levels
included a reality check, a fatal flaw screening, and a comparative evaluation. The reality check was
qualitative and eliminated options that were clearly unrealistic, inappropriate, or unreasonable. The fatal
flaw screening eliminated options that did not meet one or more of the community -established project
objectives (ten objectives were identified). The comparative evaluation eliminated alternatives that were
not logical when compared to other available alternatives. The remaining alternatives were brought ahead
for full evaluation.
Alignment alternatives were studied to determine the environmental impacts and associated mitigation
within the corridor. The modal alternatives, in addition to the environmental impacts and associated
mitigation within the corridor, are critical to determining both the air quality impacts within the Aspen
PM-10 non -attainment area and their ability to meet the objective of limiting year 2015 traffic volumes to
levels at or below those in 1993.
The No -Action Alternative
The No -Action Alternative for the State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen project corridor includes only
minor, short-term safety and maintenance improvements. It does not significantly improve safety or
substantially increase the capacity of the highway. This alternative does not satisfy the project objectives.
It also constrains implementation of transit improvements to help control growth of Vehicle Miles
Traveled (VMT).
Page 11 of 37
Record of Decision
State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen
Alignment
Laneage
Profile
Mode
0
Figure 3
Screening Analysis
Option Types Reality Check Fatal Flaw Comparative
Screening Screening Screening
D&RGW Right -of -Way Stop
VI
Other Alignments oStop
Old Midland Railroad h..-,Stop
Existing Stop
Direct Stop
Combination (Existing and Stop
Direct/Modified Direct)
Modified Direct 10
■ hh- f-I
2 Highway Lanes W-63top
■ 3 Highway Lanes P-0top
■ 2 Highway Lanes, plus/ Dedicated 1010-stop
Vehicle and/or Transit Lanes
■ 4 Highway Lanes P-Stop
■ 2 Highway Lanes, Plus 2 Dedicated
Vehicle and/or Transit Lanes
• Elevated top
• Tunnel po-stop
• Cut and Cover loo-
• At -Grade No
• Unproven Technology —Atop
W�
• Personal Rapid Transit —stop
PPI_
• Commuter Rail ___j0.Stop
• Wire Rope Systems —stop
• Guided Busways Stop
• HOV
• Self -Propelled Buses
• Electric Trolley Buses
• Light Rail Transit
Page 12 of 37
Record of Decision
State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen
The No -Action Alternative was the environmentally preferable alternative and caused the least overall
impact to the physical, biological, and social environment. However, the No -Action Alternative does not
meet the project's purpose and need or the project's stated need and intent statements.
The Preferred Alternative balances the need to protect the environment with the need to provide a safe and
efficient means of transportation in the project corridor. The environmentally preferable solution, the No -
Action Alternative, requires some tradeoffs. As a result of the No -Action Alternative, the air quality in
the Aspen non -attainment area would deteriorate because of the increased VMT and unmanaged
congestion. Increasing traffic congestion without an alternative means of access to the Aspen area may
create a loss of revenue for businesses in the project corridor. In addition, the No -Action Alternative will
continue to be a cause of traffic accidents as aggressive driver behavior and frustration grow with
increased travel delay.
For these reasons the No -Action Alternative was not selected for implementation.
Build Options Eliminated From Consideration
Options were evaluated at each screening level (reality check, fatal flaw, comparative) for potential
alignment, laneage, profile, and travel mode. The following paragraphs document the level where options
were screened out and briefly describe the reasons for elimination. A complete screening evaluation is
available in the technical report to the DEIS entitled State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen Alternatives
Screening Analysis and the technical memorandum to the DSEIS entitled Entrance to Aspen DSEIS
Alternatives Screening Report.
Reality Check Screening
The following options were screened out as unrealistic and unacceptable for the Entrance to Aspen project
corridor:
■ The Denver & Rio Grande Western (D&RGW) right-of-way alignment.
■ Alignments west of Maroon Creek Road other than the existing alignment.
■ An elevated roadway structure profile.
■ Tunnel profiles greater than 215 meters (700 feet) long.
■ Unproven transportation technologies. '
■ Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) systems technology.
In general, the options screened out at this level were either discontinuous to the project corridor, cost
prohibitive, aesthetically obtrusive, unproven in service (no real world data on operation, cost, or impact),
or disruptive to the existing development in the corridor.
Fatal Flaw Screening
Options surviving the reality check screening were evaluated against the project objectives and checked
for fatal flaws. An option screened out at this level indicated that it did not meet one or more of the project
objectives. The following options were eliminated at the fatal flaw screening level:
Page 13 of 37
Record of Decision
State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen
Old Colorado Midland Railroad Alignment Along Shadow Mountain
This alignment was not within an existing transportation corridor and would have required extensive
disruption to existing residential areas along Shadow Mountain and within the Aspen downtown area. The
Midland alignment was eliminated because of financial constraints (excessive mitigation and property
acquisition costs) and the negative impacts on the surrounding community. Additionally, as a transit
alignment, the Midland corridor was not adjacent to major destinations in Aspen and would not have
attracted the ridership necessary for proper function of the transit system since it would not have provided
the necessary station opportunities between 7 Ih Street and Rubey Park. The Midland alignment would not
have reduced the number of buses on Main Street to the extent that a Main Street LRT alignment would,
nor would it have helped to revitalize Main Street as a business corridor.
Two Highway Lanes
This laneage option was screened out because, by itself, it did not meet the capacity requirements for
future traffic demand. Only if TM Programs and significant transit improvements had been implemented
would this option have met the capacity screening criteria. The two-lane option on the existing alignment
also did not meet the emergency access objective. By itself, the two-lane highway option also would not
have provided for future transit options and upgrades that are part of Aspen's Community Plan.
Three Highway Lanes
Because the peak -hour distribution of the highway is approximately 50/50, a reversible lane would not
have provided the needed future traffic capacity for both directions of State Highway 82. This laneage
option did not meet the phasing objective.
Two Highway Lanes and One Dedicated Vehicle and/or Transit Lane
This laneage option was eliminated for the same reasons the three -lane highway option was eliminated.
Four Highwal Lanes
This laneage option did not provide the incentive for transit or carpool use that is essential if the traffic
growth on State Highway 82 is to be controlled. Four lanes of unrestricted traffic would not be consistent
with community -based planning goals.
Commuter Rail
Commuter rail is a mode that requires a fixed -guideway system and a separate right-of-way. A typical
commuter rail system consists of one locomotive train car and several passenger train cars. Because of the
inability of commuter rail to operate efficiently in mixed -flow traffic conditions, this mode option did not
meet the capacity objective or the limited resources objective. Also, diesel locomotives entering the City
of Aspen would not be consistent with local planning objectives and community character.
Wire Rope Systems
Wire rope systems are similar to gondolas and chair -lift systems, requiring overhead cables and pole
supports. The capacity and trips that can be served by this technology are limited. This mode was screened
Page 14 of 37
Record of Decision
State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen
out because it was not acceptable to the Elected Officials Transportation Committee (EOTC) as an in -
town transit system visually, operationally, or financially.
Comparative Screening
At this screening level, options that passed the fatal flaw analysis were combined to form alternatives.
These alternatives were compared against each other to determine the most reasonable alternatives for full
evaluation. The comparison was made using five factors that affect the options: operations, cost, safety,
environmental considerations, and community acceptability.
The remaining alignment options for comparison are listed below. Each option generally followed the
existing alignment between Buttermilk Ski Area and Maroon Creek Road. The differences occurred
between Maroon Creek Road and 7 th Street and Main Street.
■ Existing This alignment follows the existing State Highway 82 alignment.
■ Direct This alignment provided a direct connection between Maroon Creek Road and State
Highway 82 across the Marolt-Thomas Property. The alignment first followed the
Old Midland right-of-way, then curved across the Marolt-Thomas Property and
connected with 7 th Street and Main Street.
■ Modified This alignment was a variation on the Direct Alignment. Instead of following the Old
Direct Midland grade, this alignment continued on existing State Highway 82 to a point
approximately halfway between Maroon Creek Road and Cemetery Lane. It then
turned southeast to cross the Marolt-Thomas Property, and finally east to connect
with 7th Street and Main Street.
■ Combination This couplet alignment was a combination of the existing and either the Direct or
Modified Direct options. Westbound traffic used the Existing Alignment, while
eastbound traffic used either the Direct or Modified Direct Alignment.
These remaining alignment options for comparison were combined with the remaining laneage option and
evaluated as either at -grade across the Marolt-Thomas Property or as a depressed cut and cover tunnel.
The only remaining laneage option consisted of two general highway lanes and two dedicated vehicle
and/or transit lanes. The two general highway lanes were unrestricted and available for use by any driver
with any vehicle occupancy. The two dedicated vehicle and/or transit lanes were reserved strictly for use
by the mode and technology options surviving the screening process. This laneage option was assumed for
all alternatives in the comparative screening.
The remaining profile options were the at -grade and the cut and cover tunnel. With the at -grade option,
the roadway followed the vertical profile of the existing landscape to the extent possible. The cut and
cover tunnel option was located on the Marolt-Thomas Property. The roadway dropped below the surface
of the existing landscape and into a short tunnel approximately 122 meters (400 feet) long. The cut and
cover tunnel option was combined with only the direct and modified direct alignments in the comparative
evaluation.
Page 15 of 37
Record of Decision
State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen
The comparative screening analysis of the alignment, profile, and laneage combinations eliminated the
following options:
Existing
The existing alignment between Maroon Creek Road and the intersection of 7 1h Street and Main Street
was screened out on the basis of safety and community acceptability issues as compared to other
alignment options. The safety of the existing State Highway 82 alignment would not have been
significantly improved because of the S-curves. Compared to the alignments across the Marolt-Thomas
Property, the S-curves were expected to have a higher accident rate even with improvements to the
roadway. The existing alignment also did not address the need for an alternative emergency access route
in and out of Aspen. In a public survey of alignment preferences (September 1994 Public Open House),
the existing alignment was chosen as the least favorable in comparison to other alignments.
Direct Connection
The cost and safety issues of the direct alignment were similar to those of the modified direct alignment.
Both alignments would have had an impact on the Marolt Open Space Property and the Thomas Property
acquired by the City of Aspen for transportation purposes. The direct alignment would have bisected the
Marolt-Thomas Property and impacted several key open space areas, including the community garden and
the landing field for hang-gliders. These areas would not be affected by the modified direct alignment.
Additionally, the direct alignment would not have the community acceptability of the modified direct
alignment. A survey conducted in fall 1994 indicated that the most desired alignment between the two was
the modified direct alignment.
Because of the more significant impacts to open space (as compared to the modified direct alignment) and
the lack of community support, the direct alignment was not carried forward for additional evaluation in
the DEIS.
Combination (Existing plus Direct/Modified Direct)
The couplet (one-way pair) and the split alignment (two-way pair) were both defined as a combination of
the existing alignment and either the direct or modified direct alignments. Traffic flow on the couplet
would have been one-way to the west on the existing alignment and in the opposite direction on the
Marolt-Thomas alignment (Direct or Modified Direct). The couplet would have created significant
operational problems for Cemetery Lane traffic wanting to head east on State Highway 82. This traffic
would first have had to head west on State Highway 82 and U-turn where the two one-way roads merge
together into a two-way road. This would have created a dangerous turning movement on the highway
facility.
The split alignment, or two-way pair, was similar to the geometry of the couplet, but the traffic on both the
existing alignment and Marolt-Thomas alignment would have flowed two ways. This would have created
significant operational problems where the direct/modified direct alignment and the existing alignment
separate, and at the intersection of 7 1h Street and Main Street where the two alignments come back
together. With the split alignment, general traffic would have been restricted to the existing alignment
between Maroon Creek Road and Main Street. The dedicated vehicle and/or transit traffic would have
been routed across the Marolt-Thomas Property. Operational problems could have occurred when traffic
had to be separated and directed into appropriate lanes at the intersection of 7 1h Street and Main Street.
Page 16 of 37
Record of Decision
State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen
Alternatives Eliminated After Full Evaluation
Additional analysis was conducted to determine the most appropriate and supportable transportation
solution for the Aspen area. Alternatives passing the comparative screening analysis were brought into the
EIS process for full evaluation. At the request of the Aspen City Council and the Elected Officials
Transportation Committee (EOTC), several alternatives that were screened out were also carried into the
full evaluation, including Alternative B and Alternative G. The alternatives discussed in this section were
eliminated from further consideration after the full evaluation in the DEIS and the DSEIS.
Alternatives Evaluated in the DEIS
Table 2 summarizes the alternatives evaluated in the DEIS. Initially, the alternatives in the DEIS
were separated into two corridor sections. Alternative I (the No -Action Alternative), Alternative 2,
and Alternative 3 were in the Buttermilk Ski Area to Maroon Creek Road corridor section. These
alternatives generally followed the existing alignment to a point just west of the Maroon Creek
Bridge. At this location, the highway would have been realigned north of the old bridge to a new
bridge crossing Maroon Creek. The alignment then would tie back into the existing alignment near
the Aspen Golf Course and follow the existing alignment to Maroon Creek Road. The difference
between Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 was the separate transit envelope provided in Alternative
3.
Alternative A (the No -Action Alternative) and Alternatives B, C, D, E, F, and G were in the
Maroon Creek Road to 7 th Street and Main Street corridor section. Alternatives C, D, E, and F
followed the modified direct alignment across the Marolt-Thomas Property. Additionally,
Alternatives E and F consisted of a cut and cover tunnel section and Alternatives D and F included
a separate transit envelope. Alternative B followed the existing alignment and Alternative G
followed the couplet alignment.
All alternatives in the DEIS included two general highway lanes and two dedicated vehicle and/or
transit lanes. The exception was Alternative G, which would not have included the use of carpools
in the dedicated vehicle and/or transit lanes. The mode options considered for the DEIS
alternatives included self-propelled buses, electric trolley buses, high occupancy vehicles, and light
rail transit.
Community support is a major factor in the NEPA process. The alternatives in the DEIS were
eliminated from further consideration because of a lack of support from the community and the
EOTC. The laneage option for the DEIS alternatives provided two dedicated vehicle and/or transit
lanes for any of the mode options, including light rail. Although the DEIS alternatives considered
the future operations of light rail, they did not provide a detailed analysis of a light rail system. The
consensus of the community and the EOTC was that further analysis of a light rail system was
necessary. The absence of a detailed light rail analysis contributed to the elimination of the DEIS
alternatives.
Alternatives Evaluated in the DSEIS
After the release of the DEIS, the Aspen City Council presented a new alternative (interim
Alternative H) for evaluation. From the concept of this alternative, four separate alternatives were
Page 17 of 37
Record of Decision
State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen
developed for full evaluation in the DSEIS. The four alternatives included light rail as the ultimate
transit system in the project corridor. Because of the extent of the light rail system, the EIS project
corridor was extended west to include the airport area and extended east to Rubey Park in Aspen.
Table 3 summarizes the alternatives evaluated in the DSEIS.
The Modified Direct and the Phased Modified Direct alternatives consisted of the modified direct
alignment with a cut and cover tunnel. Alternative H and Phased Alternative H consisted of a
couplet alignment. The phased DSEIS alternatives consisted of initially developing the system as
phased exclusive bus lanes if local support and/or funding were not available for the LRT system.
The Preferred Alternative in the DSEIS was the Phased Modified Direct alternative.
Table 2
Alternatives Evaluated in the DEIS
Corridor Section Number/Letter Alternative
Buttermilk Ski Area to Maroon I No -Action
Creek Road
2 Existing Alignment
3 Existing Alignment with Separate
Transit Envelope
A No -Action
Maroon Creek Road to 7 1h B Existing Alignment
Street and Main Street
C
Modified Direct Alignment, At -
Grade
D
Modified Direct Alignment, At -
Grade with Separate Transit
Envelope
E
Modified Direct Alignment, Cut
and Cover Tunnel
F
Modified Direct Alignment, Cut
and Cover Tunnel, with Separate
Transit Envelope
**G
Two Improved Lanes on the
Existing Alignment and
Transitway on the Modified
Direct Alignment, At -Grade
These alternatives consist of two general highway lanes and two dedicated vehicle and/or transit lanes.
The transitway for Alternative G is for transit vehicles only and does not include carpools.
Page 18 of 37
Record of Decision
State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen
Table 3
Alternatives Evaluated in the DSEIS
Alternative Description
Alternative H No Phasing, Couplet Alignment, At -Grade
Modified Direct No Phasing, Modified Direct Alignment, Cut and Cover Tunnel
Phased Alternative H First Phase Bus, Couplet Alignment, At -Grade
Phased Modified Direct First Phase Bus, Modified Direct Alignment, Cut and Cover Tunnel
Other alternatives considered in the development of DSEIS alternatives included the "Highway
and Underground Transitway Solution (HUTS)" and an alignment along the old Denver and Rio
Grande Western (D&RGW) railroad grade. These alternatives were evaluated through the NEPA
process and were found to be unrealistic and inappropriate for this project. Both the HUTS
alternative and the D&RGW alignment were eliminated at the reality check screening level of the
screening process.
The Preferred Alternative identified in the DSEIS was the Phased Modified Direct. The alignment
of Alternative H and Phased Alternative H were eliminated because of the greater Section 4(f)
resource impacts (specifically the Marolt-Thomas Property). In addition, the couplet alignment
(Alternative H) was originally screened out of consideration in the comparative screening
evaluation.
Alternatives Evaluated in the FEIS
The phased approach to light rail (as described in the DSEIS) was originally dismissed in the FEIS
because of a lack of support from the community and the Aspen City Council. This approach
initially added cost and unnecessary disruption to Section 4(f) resources as compared to non -
phased alternatives. However, further development of the Modified Direct Alternative for the FEIS
included the addition of a narrow, grassy median to create a parkway on State Highway 82. The
addition of the median (at the request of the Aspen City Council) allowed room for the phased
approach.
Several options were evaluated in the process of creating the FEIS Preferred Alternative. The
options included single-track or double -track LRT, the location of the LRT right-of-way (center -
running or side -running), Maroon Creek Bridge options, Maroon Creek Road intersection options,
7 th Street and Main Street intersection options, LRT on Garmisch Street or Monarch Street, and
lowering the vertical profile near 8th Street.
Single-track or double -track LRT
Both single-track and double track were considered for the LRT alignment. The Preferred
Alternative would have been double -track (except where single-track is necessary) due to greater
flexibility of the system (schedule changes, etc.). The single-track scenario allowed less flexibility
in scheduling headway than the double track scenario. Under the single-track scenario, if schedules
%-I,
fell behind, an LRT vehicle may have had to wait at a double -track section for an oncoming LRT
Page 19 of 37
Record of Decision
State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen
vehicle to pass. However, the opportunity existed for the LRT line to open under the single-track
scenario and expand to double -track if necessary. The capital construction cost for the double -track
scenario would have been about $35.3 million. The capital construction cost for the single-track
scenario would have been about $32.7 million.
Under the double -track scenario, the LRT line was double -track except in the following locations,
which were single-track.
■ LRT Maintenance Facility to the airport
■ Maroon Creek Bridge
■ A point just west of the cut and cover tunnel to the intersection of 7 th Street and Main Street
■ 7 th Street LRT Station
■ 3 rd Street LRT Station
■ Intersection of Monarch Street and Main Street to Rubey Park
Under the single-track scenario, the LRT line was single-track with double -track sections only
where essential to maintain proper headways between trains. These double -track locations were
identified as places where LRT trains moving in opposite directions meet. The passing sections
needed to be about 120 meters (400 feet) long. The essential double -track areas for 15 minute and
30 minute headways were:
■ Airport Terminal LRT Station
• Just west of Maroon Creek Bridge
■ Just west of the cut and cover tunnel
■ Main Street west of the 3rd Street LRT Station
■ Rubey Park LRT Station
Center -running or Side -running LRT
In the FEIS Preferred Alternative,, the alignment of the track on Main Street was shown to be
center -running. This alignment was chosen because of concerns over the contra -flow situation on
Main Street and business impacts (due to possible driveway closures) with the side running
alignment. Because of the community's desire to minimize the visual impact of overhead wires for
the LRT, the LRT alignment on Main Street has been moved to the south -side for the ROD
Preferred Alternative. The change from center -running to side running was made after extensive
community input into the Main Street street-scape plan indicated the change was desired.
Two options were considered for the location of the LRT alignment in the State Highway 82 cross
section. The options included the LRT in the center of the State Highway 82 median (center -
running) or on the south side of State Highway 82 in a separate right-of-way (side -running). An
alignment with the LRT on the north side of the highway was eliminated early in the process. The
north -side alignment would not have served the transit -oriented destinations on the south side of
the highway.
The LRT envelope for the center -running option was in the center of State Highway 82. This
alignment allowed unimpeded right-in/right-out access along the highway and would have
required fewer LRT crossing gates than a side -running alignment. Left -turning vehicles on the
highway would have been required to cross the LRT tracks at signalized intersections.
Page 20 of 37
Record of Decision
State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen
The side -running LRT alignment was in a separate right-of-way adjacent to the south side of the
highway. This alignment provided better access to the LRT system for the transit destinations on
the south side of State Highway 82. All accesses on the south side of the highway were either
closed, or controlled with crossing gates.
The Preferred Alternative in the ROD will consist of a south side -running alignment from the
airport to the intersection of 7th Street and Main Street, because it will serve the transit -oriented
locations on the south side of State Highway 82. The south side alignment will also be the
Preferred Alternative on Main Street for the ROD. The side -running alignment may require the
closure of several streets and driveways on the south side of Main Street. This will provide better
access to the north side of Main Street, allowing left turns at all intersections for inbound traffic.
Also, the south side alignment will place stations at the curb, which will allow users to access the
LRT from the south side without having to cross Main Street, and allows cross -platform transfers
to buses at 7th Street. In the center -running option, users from either side of Main Street would
have to cross into the center to reach the stations.
The south side alignment will cause the removal of trees that are greater than 25 centimeters (10
inches) in diameter and within 3 meters (10 feet) of Main Street. The depth of construction for the
LRT will impact the root systems of the trees on the south side of Main Street. This decision has
local support, due to the age and health of these trees.
The side -running alignment will require furnishings to prevent pedestrian/LRT conflicts. The
furnishings may include a buffer zone with a post and chain between the LRT tracks and the
sidewalk on the south side of Main Street. This type of furnishing helps to eliminate pedestrian
crossings at unmarked locations.
Maroon Creek Bridge
Four options were evaluated for the Maroon Creek crossing. The preferred option is the side -
running LRT on the existing bridge with a new highway bridge north of the existing bridge. The
new bridge will be on the north side of the historic existing bridge and will not impact the private
properties on the south side. In addition, a retaining wall will be constructed on the north side of
the new bridge to preserve the existing Plum Tree Playing Field.
The other three options evaluated for the Maroon Creek crossing were:
1. Center -running LRT with new bridge south of the existing bridge — In this option,, the cross
section included a center -running LRT envelope. Both the highway and LRT would have
crossed Maroon Creek on a new bridge south of the existing bridge. This option was
eliminated because of adverse impacts to private property, a lack of public support, and
because the center -running LRT option was previously eliminated.
2. Center -running LRT with a split bridge alignment — In this option, the center -running; LRT
4:)
tracks crossed Maroon Creek on the existing bridge, westbound State Highway 82 crossed on a
new bridge north of the existing bridge, and eastbound State Highway 82 crossed on a new
bridge south of the existing bridge. This option was eliminated because it would have required
construction of two new bridges, impacted property on both the north and south sides of the
existing bridge, and because the center -running LRT option was previously eliminated. In
addition, the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) determined that constructing a new
Page 21 of 37
Record of Decision
State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen
bridge on each side of the existing bridge would be an adverse impact on the historic Maroon
Creek Bridge.
3. Side -running LRT with new bridge south of the existing bridge — In this option, the cross
section included aside -running LRT envelope adjacent to the south side of State Highway 82.
Both the highway and LRT crossed Maroon Creek on a new bridge south of the existing
bridge. This option was eliminated because of unacceptable adverse impacts to private
property and a lack of public support.
Maroon Creek Road Intersection
Four options were evaluated for the Maroon Creek Road intersection: center -running LRT or side -
running LRT with either a signalized intersection or roundabout. The preferred option is a
roundabout with side -running LRT. This roundabout will operate efficiently and experience less
delay than the signalized options. It also will reduce the vehicle-LRT train conflict by moving the
LRT tracks outside the roundabout. In addition, it will provide a more direct link between Castle
Creek Road and State Highway 82 than would the signalized intersection. During the bus lanes
phase, should this be necessary, buses will approach the roundabout in a dedicated bus lane, enter
the roundabout in mixed flow conditions, and exit into a dedicated bus lane.
Because the Maroon Creek Road intersection is surrounded by open space and a golf course, every
effort was made to preserve as much of each property as possible. The design and placement of
the roundabout minimizes the amount of right-of-way taken from each property and balances the
impact.. Shifting the location of the roundabout to the north or east results in a greater impact to
individual properties and a greater total right-of-way take for all properties.
The other three options evaluated for the Maroon Creek Road intersection were:
I Signalized with center -running LRT — This option maintained the existing signalized
intersection with the addition of light rail and a second left turn lane in the westbound
direction. Although this intersection would have had acceptable operation, delays would have
been longer than for the roundabout options (see Table 4). In addition, this option would not
have provided a direct link between Castle Creek Road and State -Highway 82. Currently, the
link between State Highway 82 and Castle Creek Road is via Maroon Creek Road. This
indirect link creates traffic flow problems. at the intersection of Maroon Creek Road and Castle
Creek Road. These problems also affect the signal at Maroon Creek Road and State Highway
82. Part of the goal for this EIS was to develop solutions that will improve the operations of
the State Highway 82 transportation system. This option did not fully address the problem of
the Castle Creek Road, Maroon Creek Road, and State Highway 82 intersection.
2. Signalized with side -running LRT — This option maintained the existing signalized
intersection, with the addition of light rail and a second left turn lane in the westbound
direction. Although this intersection would have had acceptable operation, delays would have
been longer than for the roundabout options. In addition, this option would not have provided a
direct link between Castle Creek Road and State Highway 82.
3. Roundabout with center -running LRT — In this option, an oval -shaped roundabout served as
the intersection of Maroon Creek Road, Castle Creek Road, and State Highway 82. Two
different radii would have been necessary to achieve the oval shape. The smaller radii (21
Page 22 of 37
C:1
Record of Decision
State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen
meters [70 feet] inside, 30 meters [100 feet] outside) would have been for the tighter curves,
while the larger radii (82 meters [270 feet] inside, 91 meters [300 feet] outside) would have
been for the flatter curves. Two-lane entrances would have been provided from all directions,
two-lane exits would have been provided onto eastbound and westbound State Highway 82,
and one -lane exits would have been provided onto Maroon Creek Road and Castle Creek
Road. Traffic in the roundabout would have circulated at 25 km/h (15 mph). The LRT tracks
would have crossed at -grade through the center of the roundabout.
Although this roundabout would have operated well and experienced shorter delays than the
signalized. options, it was eliminated in comparison to the roundabout with side -running LRT
option. The side -running LRT option was preferred because it will reduce the vehicle-LRT
conflict by moving the LRT tracks outside of the roundabout, and also because side -running
LRT was determined to be the most desirable option.
Table 4
Maroon Creek Road Intersection Options
Approach Delay (Seconds)
Roundabout
Signalized
Entrance Leg
Center-
Center -
Running
Side -running
running Side -running
Eastbound State
0.7
1.5
12.8
18.8
Highway 82
Westbound State
2.0
1.7
24.6
24.7
Highway 82
Maroon Creek Road
3.6
3.1
24.8
24.7
Castle Creek Road
3.5
2.8
N/A
N/A
Intersection of 71h Street and Main Street
Two options were evaluated for the intersection of 7 th Street and Main Street. The two options
included a signal and a roundabout. The roundabout was eliminated because placing a well -
designed roundabout at this intersection encroached significantly on nearby properties.
The preferred option was the signalized option. This option is the most feasible and does not
significantly affect the surrounding property. Intersection channelization will be included at.
this intersection.
LRT on Garmisch Street
Two options were evaluated for the LRT alignment between Main Street and Rubey Park. The
options were placing the. LRT alignment on Garmisch Street or placing the LRT alignment on
Monarch Street. The preferred option was placing the LRT alignment on Monarch Street.
Monarch Street is centrally located in downtown Aspen, which provides LRT access to more
transit destinations than Garmisch Street. The Monarch Street alignment also would impact
Page 23 of 37
Record of Decision
State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen
less property than Garmisch Street. In addition, Garmisch Street has a steeper grade than
Monarch Street, and may have caused operation and maintenance problems for the LRT during
the winter season.
Lowering Profile near 8 1h Street
In addition to the profile that was used for the Preferred Alternative, another profile was
evaluated between the cut and cover tunnel and the intersection of 7th Street and Main Street.
This option involved lowering the profile to reduce noise and visual impacts on surrounding
structures. In this option, the profile was kept as low as possible across Castle Creek until it
was required to come up to match existing ground at the intersection of 71h Street and Main
Street. This option was not feasible because of the access impacts to the Berger Cabin. Under
this option, retaining wall would have been required on both sides of State Highway 82
between Castle Creek Bridge and 7th Street. The retaining wall on the south side of State
Highway 82 would have closed off the only access to the Berger Cabin from the highway and
adversely impacted the Berger Cabin Property.
IV, Other Key Elements
There are several other key elements to the FEIS Preferred Alternative that also apply to the ROD
Preferred Alternative. These items include the relocation of Owl Creek Road and West Buttermilk Road,
the multimodal facilities at the Aspen Airport and Buttermilk Ski Area, and the incremental transportation
Management (TM) program.
Owl Creek Road
As part of the ROD Preferred Alternative existing Owl Creek Road will be relocated along with West
Buttermilk Road. The new Owl Creek Road intersection will be combined with access to the Buttermilk
Ski Area and moved approximately 300 meters (1000 feet) east of the existing location. The new
alignment will follow the base of the valley to intersect West Buttermilk Road. At this point, the new
alignment will turn north to intersect State Highway 82 at the new signalized, channelized intersection.
Multimodal Facilities
Multimodal facilities will be developed at two locations in the project corridor: the Pitkin County Airport
and Buttermilk Ski Area. Each of the locations will accommodate a transit station (or stop) and parking
facilities. The parking demand for each facility was determined based on the parking demand induced by
the incremental TM program. The parking demand will range from 750 spaces at the Buttermilk Ski Area
to 3,600 spaces at the airport. The facility at the Pitkin County Airport will be used primarily by
commuters with an Aspen destination. The Buttermilk Ski Area Facility will primarily be used by day -
skiers and other recreationalists. The size of the facilities may be reduced based on several factors
including actual population and traffic growth experience, transit service, success of TM programs,
linkages to other communities, and increased downvalley parking facilities. Construction of the parking
spaces can be phased.
Page 24 of 37
L-1
Record of Decision
State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen
Incremental Transportation Management (TM) Program
The incremental TM program is designed to maintain future traffic volumes at 1993 traffic levels. The
program will consist of incentives, disincentives, and supporting measures to encourage the use of transit,
carpools, bicycling, and walking. The incremental TM program requires monitoring traffic volumes to
verify the goal of maintaining 1993 levels. Depending on the degree to which the target traffic volume is
being exceeded, varying TM measures will be utilized to reduce the volumes back to the target levels.
V. SECTION 4(f) RESOURCES
The Section 4(f) Resources Evaluation included with the FEIS identified seventeen resources in the
project corridor. These resources and their owners are identified below and it is indicated whether or not
they are impacted by the ROD Preferred Alternative. Nine of these resources are unavoidably impacted
by the Preferred Alternative. Seven of the impacted resources are owned by the City of Aspen, one
property is owned by Pitkin County, and one is a privately owned historic property.
Appendix A is a Memorandum of Understanding among CDOT, FHWA and the City of Aspen to express
and memorialize the understandings and agreements between these parties as related to these seven
properties. Appendix B is a Memorandum of Understanding between CDOT, FHWA, and Pitkin County
to express and memorialize the understandings and agreements between these parties as related to the
County -owned Moore Open Space. Additional measures to minimize harm have been identified in the
Section 4(f) evaluation, including review of design plans for portions of the preferred alternatives by the
State Historic Preservation Office and the Aspen Historical Commission. The measures included in the
Preferred Alternative are discussed in detail in the Section 4(f) evaluation and are identified below in the
description of the Least Harm Alternative.
This project and all alternatives under consideration have been coordinated with all Section 4(f) resource
owners within the State Highway 82 study corridor. All owners of Section 4(f) resources on this project
are included on the project mailing list and have received copies of newsletters and invitations to
participate in formal and informal public meetings. In addition to the public meetings, several smaller
coordination meetings have been held with Pitkin County and the City of Aspen representatives to explain
the project's alternatives and impacts in greater detail.
A least harm analysis has been performed to determine how to minimize overall harm to the affected
Section 4(f) resources.
What Goes into the Least Harm Analysis?
The intent of the Section 4(f) requirement is to avoid impacts to public parks, recreation areas, wildlife
refuges, and historic sites, unless there is no "feasible and prudent alternative." The first step in the
Section 4(f) evaluation is to determine whether there is a feasible and prudent alternative which would
avoid impacts to the Section 4(f) resources. An avoidance alternative may not be "prudent and feasible"
for any of the following reasons:
• Not meeting the project purpose and need.
• Excessive costs of construction.
Page 25 of 37
Z__
Record of Decision
State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen
• Severe operational or safety problems.
• Unacceptable adverse social, economic, or environmental impacts.
• Serious community disruption.
• An accumulation of a lesser magnitude of the foregoing types of factors.
If a Section 4(f) resource cannot be avoided, then a least harm analysis must be performed to determine
how to minimize overall harm to the Section 4(f) resources. In performing this analysis the net harm (after
mitigation) to the resources is the governing factor. The net harm should be determined in consultation
with the agency (the SHPO in the case of historic sites) having jurisdiction over, or ownership of, the
resource. The feasible and prudent alternative which does the least harm to the Section 4(f) resource must
be selected for construction. Where there is little or no difference between alternatives in the overall harm
to Section 4(f) resources, any of the alternatives may be selected.
Discussion of Key Issues
The Section 4(f) resource analysis demonstrated that there were no feasible and prudent alternatives that
completely avoided use of Section 4(f) resources that also met the purpose and need for this project.
CDOT and FHWA have proposed a preferred alternative that meets the project purpose and need and
minimizes harm to Section 4(f) resources, after considering mitigation and the relative impacts to the
affected resources.
In the Section 4(f) Evaluation included with the FEIS, detailed information is provided that identifies the
impacts of the various alternatives on the resources eligible for consideration under Section 4(f). The
different alternatives affected the various Section 4(f) resources in different ways. As a result, the qualities
and relative importance of the affected resources had to be considered in determining the alternative that
met the purpose and need for the project with the least harm to Section 4(f) resources. Following are the
primary issues and findings, derived from the detailed analysis described in Chapter H through Chapter VI
of the FEIS, that have been balanced to comply with Section 4(f):
a) An evaluation of all the build alternatives for the section of this project between the Pitkin County
Airport and Maroon Creek Road revealed that the new Maroon Creek Bridge should be constructed on
the north side of the existing structure thus avoiding impacts to privately owned property within this
section of the project corridor. Placing the bridge on the north side of the existing bridge impacts
approximately 0.6 hectares (1.5 acres) of the Zoline Property and 0.7 hectares (1.7 acres) of the Aspen
Golf Course/Plum Tree Playing Field (including Maroon Creek Basin). An alignment on the south
side of the existing bridge would have taken two homes and disrupted the site plan for a condominium
complex.
Placement of the bridge on the south side of the current Maroon Creek Bridge has proven to be
imprudent due to unacceptable adverse social impacts to properties on the south side of State Highway
82. The north side alignment was developed at the request of the City of Aspen (which owns and
manages the Golf Course, Aspen Plum Tree Playing Field, and Zoline Property), Pitkin County, and in
response to numerous public comments universally opposing the south alignment. Agreements have
been reached between the City of Aspen and CDOT to permit the acquisition of a small portion of the
Zoline Property and the Aspen Plum Tree Playing Field (golf course) for the purpose of the
transportation corridor. With the north side alignment, the recreational qualities that qualify the Plum
Tree Playing Field for Section 4(f) protection will not be lost.
Page 26 of 37
C�
Record of Decision
State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen
b) Evaluation of the alternatives in the Maroon Creek Bridge to Rubey Park section of the corridor
revealed that effects to the Holden Smelting and Milling Complex would be avoided by keeping the
q'
alignment north a sufficient distance to avoid the historic district boundary. Berming will provide
additional protection from any potential visual or noise impacts to this resource.
c) Alternatives that include the modified direct alignment go through the Marolt-Thomas Property. A cut
and cover tunnel has been designed for Alternatives E, F., Modified Direct, and the Preferred
Alternative as a form of mitigation. The top of the cut and cover tunnel will be used as open space.
These alternatives also convert a portion of existing State Highway 82 to open space uses; however,
despite the return of some land to open space, there will likely be a residual impact to the qualities that
make this property important that cannot be completely mitigated, such as residual noise impacts and
visual impacts from the alignment.
d) Alternative H resulted in a greater total take from Section 4(f) resources (Bugsy Barnard Park, Golf
Course Property and Marolt-Thomas Open Space) than Alternatives E, F, the Modified Direct, and the
Preferred Alternative after mitigation. The portion of the Golf Course impacted by Alternative H was a
non -recreational portion that does not contribute to the recreational value of the property. Alternative
H ran along the perimeter of the Marolt-Thomas Property which may have resulted in less of an
imposition on the important qualities of the Marolt-Thomas Property and the Holden Property than the
cut and cover tunnel alternatives. However, the view of the Marolt-Thomas Property and the Holden
Smelting and Milling Complex from across Castle Creek may have been affected to a greater degree
with this alternative than with Alternatives E, F, the Modified Direct, and the Preferred Alternative.
e) The Preferred Alternative includes a parkway cross section (to the extent possible) across the Marolt-
Thomas property. The median section was added to the Preferred Alternative in response to a request
by the City of Aspen made in May 1997. A formal comment letter on the FEIS (dated November 3,
1997 from the City of Aspen) indicated the City's desire to have "two widely -separated traffic lanes
with adequate emergency shoulders... and a double track rail platform." The median provided on the
Marolt-Thomas Property varies in width from 3.6 meters (12 feet) with grass and landscaping to a
textured concrete median 2.1 meters (7 feet) wide through the cut and cover tunnel to the Castle Creek
Bridge.
f) The Preferred Alternative will include a roundabout and an LRT station at the intersection of Maroon
Creek Road and State Highway 82. During the public comment period and discussions that occurred
after the distribution of the DSEIS, the City of Aspen proposed that a roundabout be evaluated at the
State Highway 82 and Maroon Creek Road intersection. CDOT and FHWA have evaluated the
roundabout in combination with a light rail transit (LRT) station proposed for this location. An LRT
station will be necessary at this intersection to service the high transit demand on Maroon Creek Road
and Castle Creek Road. The station will be located on the Moore Property for safer bus operations and
transfers between the LRT and buses. The LRT will bypass the roundabout as it enters the station. The
LRT station will take approximately 0.6 hectares (1.5 acres) of the Moore Property. This combination
(roundabout intersection and LRT station on the Moore Property) best meets the purpose and need for
the project as well as the stated community objectives. This alternative is acceptable for the exclusive
bus lane phase. This combination is included in the Preferred Alternative.
The roundabout intersection more clearly. supports the following project objectives (refer to the FEIS
for more details on the objectives) when compared to the signalized intersection. Only Objectives 1, 29
3, 8, and 9, pertain to discussion on the roundabout.
Page 27 of 37
Record of Decision
State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen
Objective I Community Based Planning -The proposal for the roundabout was made by local
city representatives through the community based planning effort associated with
this project.
Objective 2 Transportation Capacity —The roundabout will increase the Level of Service
(LOS) for this intersection over the previously proposed signalized intersection.
The total delay will be decreased by approximately 90 percent versus the
signalized intersection. The direct access for Castle Creek Road will reduce the
congestion on Maroon Creek Road by eliminating the traffic volume added by
Castle Creek Road accessing State Highway 82 via Maroon Creek Road.
Objective 3 Safety — Based on European studies, roundabouts are safer than signalized
intersections. A roundabout is designed for entering vehicles to yield to
circulating vehicles. The entering vehicles only have one direction of conflicting
traffic, whereas at a signalized intersection there may be more than three
directions of conflicting traffic. Upon approaching a roundabout intersection, the
driver slows down and prepares to stop. At a signalized intersection, however, the
driver decides whether to slow down or speed up depending upon the situation
(each situation is different). The speed within a roundabout is low, the speed
through a signalized intersection may be high if the driver did not have to stop.
Based upon the above information, the accident rate and severity is expected to be
less for a roundabout than the signalized intersection.
The Aspen Valley Hospital is located on Castle Creek Road. The roundabout will
provide direct access to Castle Creek Road, whereas, a signalized intersection
would have provided access to Castle Creek Road off Maroon Creek Road. A
direct route (one intersection) will be safer than a non -direct route (two
intersections).
A roundabout will serve as abetter -designed intersection based on the layout of
the three roads. The intersection of Castle Creek Road and Maroon Creek Road is
located approximately 35 meters (110 feet) from the intersection of State
Highway 82 and Maroon Creek Road. With a signalized intersection, traffic on
Maroon Creek Road may block the Castle Creek Road intersection, creating
delays. The roundabout will eliminate this conflict.
Access and operation of shuttle buses picking up and dropping off passengers at
the LRT station will be safer with a roundabout intersection since the buses will
travel through fewer traffic conflict points than a signalized intersection.
Objective 8 Emergency Access - Emergency access to and from the Aspen Valley Hospital
will be improved by the roundabout. The hospital is located on Castle Creek
Road. The congestion associated with a signalized intersection will slow
Page 28 of 37
Record of Decision
State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen
emergency access to and from the hospital.
Objective 9 Livable Communities - The City of Aspen and Pitkin County would like to
provide a system which reflects small town character and scale. A roundabout
more closely fits this objective than a traffic signal.
The proposed roundabout will use 0.53 hectares (1.3 acres) of Section 4(f) resources. The signalized
intersection will take approximately 0.13 hectares (0.3 acres) of Section 4(f) resources (Aspen Golf
Course and Old Midland Property). The portion of the Aspen Golf Course property that will be
affected is not an active use area and does not contribute to the characteristics that qualify this
property for Section 4(f) protection. CDOT and FHWA have committed to agreements with the City
of Aspen (see Appendix A) to replace open space lands.
g) The Preferred Alternative will include an intermodal transfer center located on the Moore Property.
The center must be placed at this intersection to accommodate the high transit demand (schools,
Aspen Valley Hospital, Aspen Highlands). The center must be placed on the south side of the highway
for easy access for buses. The two feasible location options were either on the Moore Property or the
Marolt-Thomas Property. Both are Section 4(f) resources. It would be easier to mitigate the Moore
Property since currently there are natural berms hills. Placing the station on the Marolt-Thomas
Property instead of the Moore Property would impact the same amount of Section 4(f) resource, but
would also create adverse social and traffic impacts. Buses and shuttles would be required to enter the
roundabout and cross the LRT tracks when exiting the station. The terrain on the Marolt-Thomas
Property is generally flat, which does not accommodate a berm. The operations of school buses and
ski shuttles will be better with the center on the Moore Property. This is because the station access will
be located on Maroon Creek Road, and the buses/shuttles will not have to enter the roundabout or
cross the LRT tracks. The center will take approximately 0.6 hectares (1.5 acres). The Moore Property
right-of-way impacts have been minimized from the previous alternatives' (1.6 hectares [3.9 acres])
layout by moving the highway and LRT alignment completely off the Moore Property, and by
eliminating the parking from the intermodal transfer center.
Least Harm Alternative
The No -Action Alternative was the only alternative that avoided impacts to all Section 4(f) resources;
however, this alternative would not be feasible and prudent since would not meet the purpose and need of
the project. Implementing the No -Action Alternative has severe operational and safety problems, and
would not be responsive to planning efforts of the community. Although the Preferred Alternative did not
have the fewest quantifiable impacts of all alternatives that were evaluated in the Section 4(f) Evaluation,
this alternative imposed the least harm of all alternatives that also met the purpose and need, and
objectives for the Entrance to Aspen project identified in the FEIS.
One of the primary objectives identified by the community was to hold future traffic volumes at existing
(1993) levels. To accomplish this objective, all of the alternatives had to include transportation
management (TM) measures. As a result, only those alternatives that combined single occupant vehicles
(SOV), opportunities to park the vehicle and transfer to an alternative mode in an efficient fashion, and
other incentives to use the alternative mode complied with the goals of the community. The Preferred
Page 29 of 37
Record of Decision
State Highway 82 Entrance- to Aspen
Alternative and the alternatives evaluated in the DSEIS are the only alternatives that complied with this
objective and met the purpose and need of the project.
Subsequent to the release of the DSEIS, the alignment of the new Maroon Creek Bridge on the south side
proved to be imprudent due to unacceptable adverse social impacts. The property owners of affected
Section 4(f) resources supported the north -side alignment. The south -side alignment created adverse
impacts to properties located on the south side of the existing State Highway 82. Based on these impacts and lack of community support, this alignment was eliminated from consideration. The alternatives
evaluated in the FEIS consisted of the Maroon Creek Bridge north -side alignment.
The Preferred Alternative will use a combination of highway improvements, a transit system, and TM
measures to meet the project purpose and need, and the project objectives. The Preferred Alternative
balances meeting the purpose and need, and objectives of the project with the effort to minimize harm to
Section 4(f) resources. The Preferred Alternative was chosen because it:
a) Minimizes visual impacts to the Marolt-Thomas Property when viewed from Aspen near Castle Creek,
the Aspen Golf Course, Bugsy Barnard Park, and the remaining portion of existing State Highway 82
near Cemetery Lane.
b) Returns a portion of existing State Highway 82 to open space use.
c) Includes a cut and cover tunnel across the Marolt-Thomas Open Space.
d) Minimizes Moore Property impacts from the necessary LRT Station by eliminating parking.
e) Limits future vehicle trips to existing levels while providing for future capacity.
fl Eliminates the dangerous S-curves from the existing State Highway 82 alignment.
g) Exceeds the requirements of the Clean Air Act Amendments.
h) Improves emergency access.
There are likely to be some remaining noise and visual impacts on the recreational qualities of the Marolt-
Thomas Property and the Holden Smelting and Milling Complex even with the proposed cut and cover
tunnel and berming mitigation identified below. These remaining impacts will not interfere to a significant
degree with the qualities that make the resource valuable. These noise and visual impacts that remain after
mitigation are more acceptable than the noise, visual, and area impacts that would occur with the DSEIS
Alternatives.
The Preferred Alternative will include all possible planning to minimize harm, including the following:
a) Relocation of the trail system where impacts cannot be avoided.
b) Designing the Preferred Alternative with the least possible right-of-way width when impacts to
Section 4(f) resources are unavoidable.
c) Replacing any lost open space land or compensating the City of Aspen and Pitkin County for the
reasonable cost of purchasing replacement open space land. Further details of this commitment are
included in Appendices A and B.
d) Incorporating a cut and cover tunnel and earthen berms to mitigate impacts to the Marolt-Thomas
Open Space and the Holden Smelting and Milling Complex.
e) Providing SHPO and the local Historic Preservation Committee (HPC) the opportunity to comment on
the architectural compatibility and placement of the new bridge structures across Maroon Creek and
Castle Creek.
Page 30 of 37
Record of Decision
State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen
fl Having CDOT conduct a historic archaeological survey, excavation if necessary, and monitoring
during construction in the vicinity of the Holden Smelting and Milling Complex and the Castle Creek
Bridge.
g) Shifting the alignment across the Marolt-Thomas Property as far north as feasible to avoid impacts to
the Holden Smelting and Milling Complex.
h) Providing SHPO and local HPC the opportunity to review and approve the berm design and
landscaping plans in the vicinity of the Holden Smelting and Milling Complex.
i) Providing SHPO and local HPC the opportunity to review and comment on street design and wiring
plans in the vicinity of historic resources.
j) Providing SHPO a photographic record, plans, and drawings of the Maroon Creek Bridge before and
after modification.
k) Minimizing LRT stations' footprints when impacts to Section 4(f) resources are unavoidable.
1) Relocating the Berger Cabin back on the property and additional landscaping subject to SHPO review
and approval.
VI. MEASURES TO MINIMIZE HARM
This decision to select the ROD Preferred Alternative includes all practical measures to avoid or minimize
harm to the environment. The following mitigation measures will be incorporated into the project and
implemented before or concurrently with construction.
CDOT is committed to the general mitigation measures listed below for the State Highway 82 Entrance to
Aspen Preferred Alternative.
A. Relocations
The acquisition and relocation program for the State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen Preferred Alternative
will be conducted in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition
Policies Act of 1970, as amended (1989). Relocation resources will. be available without discrimination to
all residents and businesses that are required to relocate. No relocations are expected for the Preferred
Alternative.
B. Recreational Access
With respect to the multimodal approach of the EIS, a more friendly pedestrian/bicycle environment will
be created in conjunction with the Preferred Alternative. CDOT will relocate, improve, -and/or replace all
existing trailibike path facilities and sidewalks impacted by the Preferred Alternative.
C. Consistency with Local Plans
Pitkin County's planning goal of complementing the rural character of lands currently undeveloped or
developed at low density will be acknowledged wherever consistent with right-of-way requirements and
local access requirements. This includes a narrow median serving as either a planting area or left -turn
lane. Median design will be conducted to balance safety, aesthetics, and right-of-way width in the vicinity
of open space and parklands.
In keeping with Aspen's desire to slow traffic entering the city, traffic calming techniques will be
incorporated into the design of the Preferred Alternative. These techniques will include a landscaped
Page 31 of 37
Z--
Record of Decision
State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen
narrow median, narrow lanes on Main Street, and a cut and cover tunnel section of no less than 122
meters (400 feet) in length across the Marolt Open Space.
D. Air Quality
The air quality mitigation measures are in conformance with the PM10 State Implementation Plan (SIP) for
Aspen, the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA), and subsequent regulations. The City of Aspen, Pitkin
County, and CDOT are committed to continuing implementation of current air quality measures that are
included in the currently approved PM10 SIP. Additional measures include use of clean sand for winter
street sanding, frequent street sweeping on SH 82, minimizing construction activities during the critical
winter pollution season, and pre -wetting cuts and fills, when necessary.
E. Water Quality
Construction impacts to water quality will be mitigated by the following:
• Adherence to the conditions described by the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Stormwater Permit.
• Adherence to CDOT Best Management Practices (BMPs).
• The development and implementation of a water quality and stormwater management plan.
® Use of water quality control and erosion control specifications.
• The development and implementation of a spill prevention and emergency response plan.
The water quality management plan will include erosion control measures and water quality enhancement
practices. The spill prevention and emergency response plan will consist of plans for storage, handling,
and use of chemicals and a detailed plan for emergency response in the event a spill occurs.
Water quality impacts from the operation and maintenance of the Preferred Alternative will be mitigated
primarily by the design of the drainage system. This system includes long drainage pathways with wide
bottoms. In the vicinity of river crossings, drainage will be directed away from the streambed. Vegetation
will be planted and maintained in the drainageways to enhance natural constituent removals. Runoff from
above the project area will be intercepted and carried under the highway where it will be combined with
highway runoff to promote dilution. CDOT will continue using alternative de-icers on the State Highway
82 study corridor to minimize potential salt impacts.
F. Upland and Floodplain Vegetation
Impacts on upland and floodplain vegetation will be minimized by mitigation measures that include
revegetation of disturbed upland areas with dryland shrubs and grasses similar to the species removed
during construction. In riparian zones and wetlands, special seed mixes will be used that have been
developed for riparian and wetland areas. Displaced trees and shrubs, which are transplantable, will be
transplanted from disturbance areas to areas where construction is nearly completed. Riprap protection at
bridge piers will be buried and topsolled to the high water elevation, then naturally revegetated to repair
construction damage.
G. Wetlands
Mitigation measures for wetland impacts will consist of:
• Avoiding wetland systems and riparian strips to the greatest practical and feasible extent.
• Minimizing loss of wetland acreage and trees.
Page 32 of 37
Record of Decision
State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen
• Using CDOT Standard Erosion Control Measures to stop sediment and pollutant influx into wetlands.
• No stockpiling of material or staging of equipment or supplies in wetland or riparian areas.
• Replacing wetlands on a one to one basis in suitable sites either along the highway corridor or in other
locations.
® Temporary fencing to protect adjacent wetlands from accidental construction equipment
encroachment.
H. Fisheries
Mitigation commitments for fisheries impacts include:
• Avoiding damage to or removal of shoreline vegetation.
• Revegetating according to CDOT Standard Erosion Control Measures.
• Avoiding channel restrictions and channel destabilization.
• Replacing pools and irregular bends where such existing features are lost.
• Filtering runoff in settlement ponds or through check dams (hay bales) wherever practical.
• Avoiding in -stream activities during fall months and early spring when resident fish are spawning.
• Avoiding removal or damage to gravel substrates which are critical to the survival of fish eggs.
I. Wildlife
CDOT will cooperate with the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) during design of the project. The
CDOW will review preliminary highway design plans and specific wildlife mitigation measures will be
addressed at that time.
I Floodplains
To minimize impacts to floodplains, extensive longitudinal encroachments to channels will be avoided in
the study corridor in the design of bridges and roadway embankments in accordance with 23 CFR 650A,
Subchapter G, Subpart A. Buried riprap will be provided in design and construction phases to minimize
erosion.
K. Threatened and Endangered Species
No threatened and endangered species have been identified in the State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen
corridor. The application of standard CDOT erosion and sediment control measures will ensure that long-
distance impacts to federally -listed endangered fish, downstream in the Colorado River, will be avoided.
No threatened and endangered species will be impacted in this project area.
L. Historic Resources
Mitigation measures for impacts to historic resources will consist of:
Maroon Creek Bridg
e: The HPC will be given the opportunity to comment on the architectural
compatibility of the design and placement of the new bridge. Design plans, drawings, and a photo
record will be provided to the SHPO before the existing bridge is modified in any way to
accommodate transit use.
Holden Smelting and Millinq Complex: The Preferred Alternative alignment is north of the Holden
Smelting and Milling Complex property. The SHPO and - HPC will review and approve the
Page 33 of 37
L-1
Record of Decision
State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen
landscaping and LRT overhead wire design in the vicinity of the Holden Smelting and Milling
Complex.
Colorado Midland Railroad: Efforts to minimize harm to this resource include designing the Preferred
Alternative with the least possible right-of-way width for the new State Highway 82.
734 W Main Street: CDOT commits to a photographic recordation of this locally designated historic
resource if adverse effects cannot be avoided. Efforts to minimize harm to this resource include
designing the Preferred Alternative with the least possible right-of-way width where possible.
SmithlElisha House: The SHPO and HPC will review and approve the landscaping and LRT overhead
wire design in the vicinity of the Smith/Elisha House. Efforts to minimize harm to this resource
include designing the Preferred Alternative with the least possible right-of-way width where possible.
Thomas Hynes House: The SHPO and HPC will review and approve the landscaping and LRT
overhead wire design in the vicinity of the Thomas Hynes House. Efforts to minimize harm to this
resource include designing the Preferred Alternative with the least possible right-of-way width where
possible.
Berger -Cabin: Efforts will be taken to avoid the Berger Cabin in the Preferred Alternative. After
consultation with the SHPO, the Berger Cabin may be moved away from the Preferred Alternative
alignment, but remain on the existing property. The SHPO and HPC will review and approve the
landscaping and LRT overhead wire design in the vicinity of the Berger Cabin.
M. Archaeological Resources
The Preferred Alternative has been compared to alignments studied previously by the CDOT staff
archaeologist. If any inconsistencies between the previous survey and the final alignment become evident,
on -the -ground reconnaissance will be conducted as necessary. The reconnaissance will document that the
final highway alignment has been adequately evaluated and that no archaeological resources determined to
be significant by the SHPO will be adversely affected. Should any evidence of archaeological resources be
discovered during construction, the work will be stopped in that vicinity until the CDOT staff
archaeologist and the SHPO representative fully evaluate the importance of the resources. A historic
archeological inventory will be conducted on the Holden Property and in the vicinity of the Castle Creek
Bridge prior to construction.
N. Paleontological Resources
If any paleontological resources are uncovered along the alignment corridor during construction, work in
the immediate vicinity will cease. The CDOT staff paleontologist will be notified, and the material will be
evaluated by a qualified paleontologist and coordinated with the SHPO.
O. Section 4(f) Resources
A discussion of mitigation measures for impacts to Section 4(f) resources is included in the discussion on
Least Harm Alternatives. These measures are adopted as part of this decision.
Page 34 of 37
C:)
Record of Decision
State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen
P. Farmlands
There are no prime and unique farmlands, valued agricultural lands, or farmlands of statewide significance
in the State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen study area. Existing irrigation systems impacted due to
highway construction will be relocated and replaced.
Q. Noise and Vibration
Residences and businesses in the downtown area will be impacted by noise when the LRT warning horn is
used. This may be mitigated by using a quieter warning horn, or replacing the horn with flashing lights. A
noise barrier has been modeled in the vicinity of the east landing of the Castle Creek Bridge to the
intersection of 7th Street and Main Street. During final design, a noise analysis will be conducted. Any
form of noise barrier will be approved by the area residents or business owners prior to construction.
Residences and businesses along the project corridor may be subject to construction noise. Construction
noise will vary depending on the activities involved. The noise is anticipated to exceed 90 dBA for short
durations -in some instances. Two measures that will be taken to minimize the construction noise impacts
include restricting noisy construction to the daylight hours and requiring appropriate/good condition
mufflers on all equipment. These measures will eliminate construction noise during sensitive nighttime
and early morning hours, and minimize it at other times.
No vibration impacts are created as a result of the Preferred Alternative and no vibration mitigation is
necessary.
R. Visual
Visual mitigation measures will include:
• A cut and cover tunnel across the Marolt-Thomas Property.
• A minimum -width landscaped median to visually separate the roadway lanes and lessen the feeling of
an asphalt corridor.
• Revegetation of all disturbed areas with natural species to reduce soil erosion and minimize color
contrasts caused by exposed soil surfaces.
• Adjusting the final roadway layout to save existing large trees and other significant groupings of
vegetation.
• Creating slopes which approximately match the existing slopes.
• Using building materials which approximate the natural tones and textures of the area being traversed.
• Adjusting the alignment to provide enhanced views and vistas for highway users to minimize the
effects of unavoidable impacts elsewhere.
• Using aesthetically pleasing poles, station designs, and embedded track pavement surfacing to reflect
and enhance the landforms and character of the area where the LRT system is located.
• Providing landscaped or grass -covered sideslopes and medians where possible within the LRT right-
of-way to softenthe visual impact of the LRT tracks.
These mitigation measures will directly benefit the design quality of the Preferred Alternative. In addition
to increased design quality through enhancement of the natural setting, sensitive roadway design and
detailing could also enhance project design quality. Horizontal curvature and vertical profiles can be
adjusted to provide visual interest for the highway user. Significant sections of retaining walls may be
Page 35 of 37
Record of Decision
State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen
enhanced by the wall layout, texture, color and vertical profile; this may integrate with the landscape or
accent unique natural or historic features, as well as building types and features within the project area.
S. Hazardous Waste
Further evaluation of potential hazardous waste sites will continue prior to property acquisition and during
final highway design, along with coordination with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), CDOT, and local agencies. The
Preferred Alternative avoids potentially contaminated areas whenever practical. However, where
avoidance is not feasible, a detailed site investigation (DSI) will be conducted. Necessary cleanup plans
will be coordinated with appropriate agencies and landowners.
The inclusion of environmental specifications in the construction bid package (such as Section 252
Fugitive Petroleum Product Management) may be necessary based on existing preliminary site
investigation (PSI) data or based on any future investigative activities.
Partial acquisition at the Pitkin County Airport will require underground storage tank (UST) closure, with
soil and/or groundwater remediation, if necessary. Acquisition of right-of-way at the Holden Smelting and
Milling Complex requires a more comprehensive study of soil lead (Pb) and arsenic values and
remediation if necessary.
T. Construction
During the construction of the Preferred Alternative, CDOT will utilize appropriate traffic management
techniques to minimize delays and inconvenience to the traveling public. This may be done by phased
construction of the transportation improvements and by restricting the timing of construction activities
and limiting traffic stoppages to off-peak traffic hours. Whenever feasible, provisions will be included to
minimize the effects on Roaring Fork Transit Agency (RFTA) buses. Construction delays will be limited
to 20 to 25 minutes duration whenever possible.
U. Project Sequencing
CDOT will work cooperatively with local government to construct the following highway components of
the Preferred Alternative as soon as funding, design, and right-of-way acquisition allows:
■ Maroon Creek Bridge
■ Maroon/Castle Creek Road and State Highway 82 Intersection
■ Airport Business Center to Buttermilk Ski Area, including realignment of Owl Creek Road and
the signalized, channelized intersection at State Highway 82 and Buttermilk
V11. MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT
Both FHWA and CDOT will monitor this project to ensure that mitigation measures contained in this
ROD (and subsequent permits) are implemented. CDOT has made a strong commitment to provide
continuity of staff through a project management approach that integrates planning, design, and
construction.
Copies of this ROD will be provided to both responsible public agencies and CDOT project personnel.
Commitments within this document will be implemented through the inclusion of these measures in the
construction plans for projects in this area. CDOT will maintain information on the implementation to
Page 36 of 37
Record of Decision
State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen
inform the public or interested commenting agencies, upon request, of the progress in carrying out the
adopted mitigation measures.
The decision -making process will continue during preliminary and final design. In partnership with local
governments, the citizen involvement process will include a significant public outreach program,
including the holding of Design Public Hearings where plans will be presented and comments received.
As the design process continues, more detailed design decisions and more specific commitments will be
made to minimize both environmental impacts and impacts to adjacent land owners.
VIII. COMMENTS ON FINAL EIS
A 30-day public comment period on the FEIS ended on August 31, 1997. The comment period was
extended twice by 30 days. Ultimately, the end of the comment period was November 6, 1997. Over 900
letters of comment were received.
These letters, with responses to the comments, are included in this document as Appendix C.
Substantive comments have been addressed in this Record of Decision.
IX. CONCLUSION
Based on information contained in the FEIS and Section 4(f) evaluation, results of the project reevaluation
and this Record of Decision, I conclude that the decision reached on the State Highway 82, Entrance to
Aspen area project is in the best overall public interest, uses all practicable means to restore and enhance
the quality of the human environment and avoids or minimizes any possible adverse effects. Based on
considerations identified in the -Section 4(f) evaluation, I also conclude that there are no feasible and
prudent alternatives to the use of Section 4(f) protected lands and that the proposed action includes all
possible planning to minimize harm to the identified Section 4(f) properties resulting from such use.
Date pJaples Daves
vision ivision Administrator, FHWA
WAADMIMREPORn I 386.00\Rddraft1doc
Page 37 of 37
APPENDIX A
CITY OF ASPEN
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
JULY 27, 1998
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
BETWEEN THE
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
THE CITY OF ASPEN
FOR
THE ENTRANCE TO ASPEN
Page 1 of 12
1=21130411
The purpose of this Memorandum of Understanding is to express and memorialize the
understandings and agreements of the parties regarding the matters set forth herein and to
advance the planning and construction of the State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen. The
parties desire to clear the way for early design, Right -of -Way acquisition, and construction
on certain components of the project as soon as the Record of Decision is signed, including
those components listed in the section entitled Project Sequencing. The parties further
desire to recite and memorialize their mutual understandings concerning the projects and
associated mitigation proposals in order to address requirements of Section 4(0 of the
Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended, and the Federal Aid Highway Act
of 1968, and to preserve and protect municipally -owned parklands, open space, recreation
areas, wetlands, and designated historic sites and structures. The parties, without intending
to waive any powers of eminent domain which either may possess under the laws and
Constitution of the State of Colorado, acknowledge prior commitments made by the
Colorado Department of Transportation to the City of Aspen that no solution for State
Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen shall proceed which is not acceptable to the City, and the
parties understand and hereby recognize that the City of Aspen is precluded by the terms
of its Home Rule Charter from conveying or changing the use of real property acquired for
open space purposes without first obtaining the approval of a majority of the electors of the
City of Aspen voting thereon. Accordingly, no term, condition, or provision of this
Memorandum of Understanding shall be interpreted or construed so as to be in conflict
with the language of ballot question 2A approved by the electorate of the City of Aspen at
its November 5, 1996, election which authorized the City Council "to use or convey to the
State of Colorado Department of Transportation, necessary rights of way across City
owned property for a two lane parkway and a corridor for a light rail transit system."
11. PARTIES
The parties to this Memorandum are:
The City of Aspen, Colorado ("City");
The Colorado Department of Transportation ("CDOT"); and
The Federal Highway Administration ("FHWA") .
Although not a party to this agreement, Pitkin County, Colorado, ("County") will be
involved in this project. A separate memorandum of agreement addresses specific issues
associated with Pitkin County.
III. MITIGATION PLAN
Mitigation measures fall into three categories: 1) Section 4(0 Resources; 2) Historic
Properties; and 3) Other Impacted Resources. Prior to commencement of construction of
the two-lane parkway with a corridor for a light rail transit system, and subject to the
Page 2 of 12
provisions of III.A.4.1, below, CDOT shall replace the open space and public recreation
land taken with CDOT owned property at the former Mills Ranch located at the
intersection of State Highway 82 and Brush Creek Road and with vacated Right -of -Way
from existing State Highway 82 between Maroon Creek intersection and 7th and Main
Streets. CDOT shall convey the vacated State Highway 82 Right -of -Way by quitclaim deed
to the City. CDOT shall convey the replacement property from Mills Ranch as public open
space by quitclaim deed to the City and County, each to hold an undivided interest in the
property.
Prior to conveying the portion of the Mills Ranch as replacement land to the City and
County, CDOT shall create a transportation easement over the Mills Ranch for a future
bridge across the Roaring Fork River. Such future bridge use shall be agreed to by the City,
County, and CDOT. In the event that such a bridge is determinedbyCDOT.,, the City and
the County, not to be necessary, CDOT shall remove the easement. Appended hereto as
Exhibit "A" are a map and legal description that depict the area of the Mills Ranch to be
conveyed to the City and County. Except as provided hereinafter, the portion of the Mills
Ranch to be conveyed by CDOT shall be subject to restrictions on the sale or change in
use provided in City of Aspen Municipal Charter, Article XIIIJ, Section 13.4, or Pitkin
County Home Rule Charter Article XIII, Section 13.5.3, as applicable. The
aforementioned restriction shall neither be applicable to exchanges between the City and
County nor to any portion of the Mills Ranch, identified by the City and County prior to
the transfer of title to the Mills Ranch, that is to be used for an affordable housing project;
provided that the City or County dedicate and restrict as open space an equivalent amount
and value of land in the vicinity of the Mills Ranch which shall be subject to such charter
restrictions.
The parties acknowledge that the value of the replacement property is equal to or greater
than the value of the property taken. The parties further acknowledge that the actual
amount of land to be taken can not be determined until after final design and engineering is
completed for the projecL Prior to the conveyance of any property to the City, CDOT
shall cause to be prepared a title commitment for the property. The City shall not
unreasonably object to exceptions in the title commitment.
A. Section 4(f) Resources
There are four City -owned parcels of Section 4(0 resources impacted by the transportation
project and construction of the new Maroon Creek Bridge and Castle Creek Bridge. These
are:
The Aspen Trail System
The Zoline Ranch Open Space.
The Aspen City Golf Course /Plum Tree Playing Field,
The Marolt-Thomas Open Space.
The City agrees to provide permanent and temporary easements, as described herein, at no
cost to CDOT for completion of the transportation improvements. CDOT agrees to
Page 3 of 12
mitigate all impacts to the Section 0 resources listed above in the following manner.
1. Aspen Trail System
a. CDOT shall relocate, re -grade and re -pave all trails that are disturbed or impacted
by the widening and/or realignment of State Highway 82. New trail segments shall be
relocated at or near their present locations and the connections shall be constructed in
accordance with the Aspen/Pitkin County Trail System. The relocation and re -paving of all
trails shall be made in accordance to standards adopted by the City for its trail system.
b. CDOT shall relocate the existing paved trail adjacent to the Plum Tree Playing
Field to provide a continuous trail.
C. CDOT shall reconstruct impacted portions of the paved trail on the north side of
the new State Highway 82 alignment extending from the new Maroon Creek Bridge to the
Maroon Creek/Castle Creek Road intersection. The new trail shall be constructed prior to
the construction of State Highway 82 so as to facilitate uninterrupted pedestrian bicycle
travel along the transportation corridor. During the period of construction of the new
Maroon Creek Bridge, trail users shall be routed around the construction site on existing
trails.
d. CDOT shall construct an additional paved pedestrian underpass under State
Highway 82 at or near the roundabout at the Maroon Creek intersection and shall prepare
design and engineering reports for the construction of a paved pedestrian underpass under
State Highway 82 at or near the driveway entrance to the Aspen Golf Course/Truscott,
Place.
e. Appended hereto as Exhibit B is a map indicating the location of all trails that will
require relocation. The exact location of all trails to be relocated shall be approved by the
City's Parks Department before any construction commences that requires a trail or
portion of a trail to be relocated.
2. Zoline Ranch Open Space
a. CDOT shall not utilize more than 1.5 acres of the Zolm"e Ranch Open Space.
b. CDOT shall constrain all construction activities to the temporary and permanent
easements as provided by the City.
C. CDOT shall limit roadway shoulder widths to 10 feet.
3. Aspen City Golf Course /Plum Tree Playing Field (excluding Maroon Creek
Basin)
a. CDOT shall not utilize more that 1.2 acres from the Aspen City Golf Course /
Plum Tree Playing Field (excluding the Maroon Creek Basin). The part of the properties
Page 4 of 12
that are impacted are underdeveloped and are not used for any recreational purposes at
this time. An additional 0.5 acres is needed from the Maroon Creek Basin, which was
considered part of the Golf Course in the FEIS. This results in a total impact to the Golf
Course of 1.7 acres. The 0.5 acres is reported separately in the Maroon Creek Basin
section of this Memorandum.
b. CDOT shall construct the new Maroon Creek Bridge to include a suspended
pedestrian / bike access. CDOT shall work with the City's Parks Department to design the
best method for mitigating the need for an east -side abutment to avoid impacts to the
playing field. Tide to the suspended walkway shall be conveyed to the City by a bill of sale.
The suspended walkway shall be maintained in perpetuity by the City of Aspen.
4. Marolt-Thomas Open Space (excluding Castle Creek Drainage Area)
a. CDOT shall utilize no more than 4.6 acres for the realignment and widening of the
State Highway 82 transportation corridor through the Marolt-Thomas parcel (excluding the
Castle Creek Drainage Area). An additional 0.8 acres is needed from the Castle Creek
Drainage Area, which was considered part of the Marolt-Thomas Property in the FEIS.
This results in a total impact to the Marolt-Thomas Property of 5.4 acres. The 0.8 acres is
reported in the Castle Creek Drainage Area section later in this memorandum.
b. CDOT shall convey by quitclaim deed to the City all its right, title and interest in
the existing State Highway 82 Right -of -Way between the Maroon Creek and Cemetery
Lane intersections consisting of approximately I acre once State Highway 82 is relocated to
the new corridor alignment across the Marolt-Thomas open space parcel. Appended
hereto as Exhibit. C is a map depicting the land area to be conveyed to the City.
I
C. CDOT shall be allowed to cross existing trails on the Marolt-Thomas Open Space
to access Castle Creek Bridge in the case of an emergency.
d. CDOT shall provide grading and landscaping to continue the open space over the
cut and cover tunnel, thereby returning 1.5 acres of open space.
e. CDOT shall remove all pavement for those sections of the existing State Highway
82 conveyed to the City and shall re -grade and re -vegetate such areas.
f CDOT shall reconfigure and reconstruct the Cemetery Lane/ State Highway 82
intersection so as to realign Cemetery Lane for direct access to Hallam Street.
9- CDOT shall provide adequate vegetative screening between State Highway 82 and
pedestrian paths.
h. The City shall grant to CDOT the temporary and permanent easements described
below for construction upon and use of the Marolt-Thomas open space for a two lane
parkway and corridor for a light rail transit system. CDOT shall constrain all construction
activities and uses to the temporary and permanent easements as provided by the City.
Page 5 of 12
(1). A temporary construction easement not to exceed 200 feet in width.
(2). A permanent easement for a platform width for a two-lane parkway, median
strips, and corridor for a light rail transit system which shall not exceed 93.5 feet in
width from Maroon Creek Road to 7th and Main Street, excluding the Cut and
Cover tunnel which shall not exceed 78.5 feet in width and the Castle Creek Bridge
which shall not exceed 73 feet in width.
(3). A permanent Right -of -Way width to accommodate the platform, construction
slopes, utilities, drainage, structures, pedestrian needs, and maintenance needs as
determined necessary by CDOT provided the maximum Right -of -Way width not
exceed 130 feet from Maroon Creek Road to 7th and Main Street, excluding the
Cut and Cover tunnel which shall not exceed 200 feet in width, and the Castle
Creek Bridge which shall not exceed 90 feet in width.
L CDOT shall provide for uninterrupted temporary and permanent access to the
Marolt residence, the Marolt Historic Barn., and the Marolt storage shed during and after
construction of the new transportation system. Access routes shall be approved by the City
prior to, during, and after construction.
I CDOT shall avoid the existing hang-gliding and para-sailing landing zone during
construction.
k. CDOT shall work cooperatively with the City and RFTA to design an interim
solution to the 8th Street transfers prior to the construction of the Maroon Creek
intersection roundabout or the abandonment of the existing SH82 roadway between
Cemetery Lane to the Maroon Creek Intersection.
B. Historic Properties
There are two historic properties within the City limits that are impacted by the
transportation project and construction of the new Maroon Creek Bridge and Castle Creek
Bridge. These are:
Existing Maroon Creek Bridge
Holden Smelting and Milling Complex
The City agrees to provide permanent and temporary easements at no cost to CDOT for
completion of the transportation improvements. CDOT agrees to mitigate all impacts to
the historic properties listed above in the following manner.
1. Existing Maroon Creek Bridge
a. CDOT shall retain tide, ownership and maintenance responsibility for the existing
Maroon Creek Bridge until the Light Rail Transit component is completed.
Page 6 of 12
b. CDOT shall convert the existing Maroon Creek Bridge to a light rail structure
corridor as part of the light rail construction. At the completion of this construction, title to
this bridge shall be conveyed by a bill of sale to the City. The maintenance of the light rail
bridge shall be the responsibility of the entity operating the light rail system and be
maintained as a historic resource in perpetuity. Prior to conveying the bridge to the City,
CDOT shall certify that the bridge load ratings are in accordance with the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Manual for
Condition Evaluation of Bridges, current edition, and the CDOT Bridge Rating Manual,
current edition, and that the sufficiency rating is in accordance with FHWA Recording and
Coding Guide for Structure Inventory and Appraisal of the Nation's Bridges, 1998. CDOT
shall inspect,, appraise and rate the bridge as part of the regular CDOT bridge inspection
schedule for a period of twenty-five years. In the event the bridge requires load posting or
the sufficiency rating is below fifty in any given year within the twenty-five year period,
CDOT shall make whatever corrective repairs are necessary to remove the load posting
and/or bring the sufficiency rating to fifty or above.
C. CDOT shall at all times prior to the completion and placement into regular use of
the new Maroon Creek Bridge, maintain the existing Maroon Creek Bridge in
conformance with all safety, structural and maintenance standards so that it can remain in
full unrestricted use for vehicle traffic and then converted to a light rail structure.
2. Holden Smelting and Milling Complex
a. CDOT shall avoid the boundary of the Holden Smelting and Milling Complex.
The boundary shall be staked in the field prior to the commencement of construction
activities and the location of the stakes shall be verified by the City.
C. Other Impacted Areas
1. Maroon Creek Basin
a. Including the area under the bridge, the new Right -of -Way required for the new
bridge shall not exceed 0.5 acres. Within this 0.5 acres, no more than. I acres shall be
used for the placement of the piers for the new Maroon Creek Bridge.
b. The temporary easement needed from the Maroon Creek Basin for construction
of the bridge piers will be no more than 1.1 acres.
C. The temporary impact to wetlands within the Maroon Creek Basin for construction
of the bridge piers will be no more than .2 acres.
d. The permanent highway easement width across the drainage area shall not exceed
90 feet.
e. CDOT shall only utilize those temporary and permanent easements as granted by
the City to access the construction site, construct the new bridge and rehabilitate the
Page 7 of 12
existing bridge.
f. CDOT shall only utilize those temporary and permanent easements as granted by
the City for inspection and repair of the bridges subsequent to their construction and
rehabilitation.
9- All trails and/or trail easements utilized for construction or construction access to
the new bridge shall be fully restored, and currently paved trails shall be re -paved upon
completion of the project.
h. CDOT shall provide, to the extent possible, wetland mitigation onsite for all the
wetlands impacted by the construction placement and rehabilitation of the bridge piers, and
such wetlands mitigation shall be provided either within existing CDOT Right -of -Way or
permanent easements granted by the City. All mitigation measures must be reviewed and
agreed to by the City, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the Colorado Division of
Wildlife.
2. Castle Creek Drainage Area
a. Including the area under the bridge, the Right -of -Way required for the new bridge
that is also part of the Marolt-Thomas property shall not exceed 0.8 acres. Within this 0.8
acres, no more than A acres shall be used for the placement of the piers for the new Castle
Creek Bridge.
b. The temporary easement needed from the Castle Creek Basin for construction of
the bridge piers will be no more than 0.8 acres.
C. The temporary impact to wetlands within the Castle Creek drainage area for
construction activity shall be no more than 0 acres.
d. The permanent transportation corridor easement width across the drainage area
shall not exceed 90 feet.
e. CDOT shall only utilize those temporary and permanent easements as granted by
the City to access the construction site and construct the new bridge.
f. CDOT shall only utilize those temporary and permanent easements as granted by
the City for inspection and repair of the new bridge subsequent to its construction.
9. All trails and/or trail easements utilized for construction or construction access to
the new bridge shall be fully restored, and currently paved trails shall be repaved upon
completion of the new bridge.
h. CDOT shall provide wetland mitigation onsite for all the wetlands impacted by the
construction and placement of the bridge, piers, and such wetlands mitigation shall be
provided either within existing CDOT Right -of -Way or permanent easements granted by
Page 8 of 12
the City. All mitigation measures must be reviewed and agreed to by the City, the Army
Corps of Engineers, and the Colorado Division of Wildlife.
IV. Summary of Open Space and Public Recreation Land Replacement
Parcel
Permanent Easement
Returned Acrea a
Replacement Acre
Zoline
1.5 acres
1.5 acres
Aspen Golf / Plum Tree Field
1.2 acres
1.2 acres
Maroon Creek Basin
0.5 acres
0.5 acres
Marolt-Thomas Open Space
4.6 acres
2.5 acres
2.1 acres
Castle Creek Basin
0.8 acres
0.8 acres
Totals:
8.6 acres
2.5 acres
6.1 acres
V. Existing Roadway from Cemetery Lane to 7th and Main Streets
After construction of the project segment from the Maroon/Castle Creek intersection to
7th and Main, CDOT shall grant to the City by quitclaim deed the Right -of -Way from
Cemetery Lane to 7th and Main Street. Prior to conveying the Castle Creek Bridge to the
City, CDOT shall certify that the bridge load ratings are in accordance with the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Manual for
Condition Evaluation of Bridges, current edition, and the CDOT Bridge Rating Manual,
current edition, and that the sufficiency rating is in accordance with FHWA Recording and
Coding Guide for Structure Inventory and Appraisal of the Nation's Bridges, 1998. CDOT
shall inspect, appraise and rate the bridge as part of the regular CDOT bridge inspection
schedule for a period of twenty-five years. In the event the bridge requires load posting or
the sufficiency rating is below fifty in any given year within the twenty-five year period,
CDOT shall make whatever corrective repairs are necessary to remove the load posting
and/or bring the sufficiency rating to fifty or above. Following this twenty-five year period,
the City shall maintain the existing Castle Creek Bridge and roadway from Cemetery Lane
to 7th and Main in conformance with all safety, structural and maintenance standards
applicable to the bridge and roadway so that it shall remain in full and unrestricted use for
vehicular and pedestrian traffic.
VI. Median Widths
1. CDOT shall install landscaped medians in the new transportation corridor
extending from the east end of the Maroon Creek Bridge to the west end of the new cut
and cover tunnel. The typical width of the median will be 12 feet from back of curb to back
of curb. However, the width of the median varies along this stretch of the corridor. Such
median shall allow for raised planters, and shall be equipped with underground irrigation.
Both the design of the raised planters and the underground irrigation system shall be
subject to the City's review and approval, such approval not to be unreasonably withheld.
The City shall be responsible for planting the median, and maintenance of the plantings
within the City limits.
Page 9 of 12
2. CDOT shall install wide medians where feasible, which may include raised
planters., along the balance of the new transportation corridor situated within the City. The
typical width of the median will be 16 feet from the inside edge of shoulder to inside edge
of shoulder. However, the width of the median varies along this stretch of the corridor.
Planter details shall be determined at the final design stage in consultation with the City.
The City shall be responsible for planting the median area and maintenance of the
plantings within the City limits.
VIL Easements
1. The parties having made every effort to identify and agree upon the maximum
acreage for permanent easements recognize that adjustments may become necessary as a
result of final design and engineering. Therefore, the City agrees to grant and convey to
CDOT permanent easements exceeding the acreage reflected in paragraph IV, if
reasonably required by the final design and engineering.
2. The City shall also grant and convey to CDOT an additional 20 foot wide
temporary construction easements adjacent to the permanent easements which shall expire
upon completion of that component of construction for which it is needed. The City also
agrees to grant and convey CDOT additional temporary construction easements adjacent
to the permanent easements shown reasonably necessary for project construction. All
temporary construction easements shall expire upon completion of that component of
construction for which it is needed.
3. CDOT shall re -vegetate and landscape all temporary easement premises upon
completion of the highway project.
4. CDOT shall not undertake any construction activity on City -owned land outside the
temporary and permanent easements as provided for herein absent written authorization
from the City.
5. CDOT shall confirm all parcel descriptions for impacted and/or exchanged land,
and all as -built highway, transit, bridge and easement dimensions as generally described
above by current survey prepared by a licensed surveyor.
VIII. Miscellaneous
1. CDOT shall minimize to the maximum extent practicable disturbance and/or
destruction of existing vegetation.
2. CDOT shall repair all damage or disturbance caused by construction activities to all
City -owned land and/or structures upon completion of the highway project. This shall
oJ
include landscaping, berming and re -seeding all disturbed land pursuant to the agreed upon
Page 10 of 12
X. Amendments
This Memorandum of Understanding may only be amended upon written agreement of all
of the parties.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have placed their signatures by and through their
duly authorized representatives on the date(s) as indicated.
Colorado Department of Transportation
By: CAJ 7 AVVoExecutive Directoil ID3��
ate
C
of Aspen
B y: a_j I Z 71Z 9/-
Amy Mar9( M, City Mana Date 9d
Federal Highway Administration
By: -- � Sf�
James Da S, Division Administrator bate
Page 12 of 12
O
Q
a. O
zdm
� Z
0 2
zw
ow
J
-L
LA-
cr_ w }-
H
ZO0
H z
Q O
0-
� V =
00�-
O-J3
OOU-
VCL-iI
=
\
II
!
w -mo
a:
m a.
'
!0
z
3
z
0
X
d
I
o
! �
CLW
J
!
it
�� N
! - 40
I
N
� O
r
r rr
r�
rr
rr
!I
II
1
r
I
r
r
r rr
r
,r
r
rr r
I
1
r
3v
o Zd
o`
1
m
`
F- V)
O J
`
t
z
H
Z�
a
• _•,.w� Rp pip
BRUSN CREE
V _
z
cr a
H
z_
O L-
0.0
N H
O U
U ..
Nel
z
O
0
w
0
LLJa
V
W
in
z
~
w
CL
O
O
p
V Z
w
~2
W
�
O
a.
ULLJ
-
Fm
j
EXHIBIT "Aft
PROJECT NUMBER: STR 0821-029 UNIT 3
PARENT PARCEL NUMBER: 302
Project Code: 10211
Date: June 17, 1998
DESCRIPTION
rt e
A tract or parcel of land being a part of parcel No. 302 of the Department of Transportation State
of
Colorado, Project No. STR 0821-029 Unit 3 containing 31.382 acres more or less, in Lots 9 and 10., Section
21 , Township 9 South, Range 85 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, in Pitkin County, Colorado, said tract
being more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the Southeast comer of Section 2 1, Township 9 South, Range 85 West of the Sixth
Principal Meridian; Thence South 89' 22' 36" West, a distance of 479.20 feet to a point where the center of
the main channel of the Roaring Fork River as located in 1996 intersects the South line of said Section 21, said
point being the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
1. Thence continuing South 89" 22' 36" West along the South line of said Section 21, a distance
of 412.98 feet;
2. Thence North 18' 39'54" East, a distance of 99.30 feet;
3. Thence North 35* 22'54" East, a distance of 134.30 feet;
4. Thence North 53* 25'22" East, a distance of 282.39 feet;
5. Thence North 28 0 42' 04" West, a distance of 118.61 feet-,
6. Thence North 20' 04' 47" East, a distance of 127.08 feet;
7. Thence North 04' 32' 16" East, a distance of 180.60 feet;
8. Thence North 03® 40'22" West, a distance of 949.49 feet;
9. Thence North I I " 09'44" East,, a distance of 252.30 feet;
10. Thence North 120 28'42" West, a distance of 220.29 feet;
11. Thence North 31 * 19' 11 West, a distance of 314-28 feet;
12. Thence North 190 451 23@1 West, a distance of 322.57 feet;
13. Thence North 510 40'03" West, a distance of 148.69 feet;
SALE-3412 WP
June 17. 1"R
14. Thence North 300 45' 31" West, a distance of 136.47 feet to the Northerly line of that certain
parcel of land described in deed recorded in Book 736 on Page 296 of the Pitkin County
records;
15. Thence North 650 23'O 1 " East along said Northerly I ine, a distance of 557.09 feet to the center
of the main channel of the Roaring Fork River as located in 1996;
16. Thence South 310 581 34" East along said channel center, a distance of 111.09 feet
17. Thence South 40* 12'02" East continuing along said channel center, a distance of 58.21 feet;
Z:p C�
18. Thence South 29' 5754" East continuing along said channel center, a distance of 91.35 feet;
19. Thence South 120 23' 31 "East continuing along said channel center, a distance of 30.55 feet;
20. Thence South 270 25145'0 East continuing along said channel center, a distance of 61.85 feet;
21. Thence South 330 09'08" East continuing along said channel center, a distance of 51.13 feet;
22. Thence South 170 1 F31 " East continuing along said channel center, a distance of 83.60 feet;
23. Thence South 090 39'36" East continuing along said channel center, a distance of 50.71 feet;
24. Thence.South 170 31' 59' East continuing along said channel center, a distance of 96.33 feet;
25. Thence South 130 48'57" East continuing along said channel center, a distance of 74.86 feet;
26. Thence South 12* 55'53" East continuing along said channel center, a distance of 77.49 feet;
27. Thence South 090 05' 11 " East continuing along said channel center, a distance of 64.24 feet;
28. Thence South 19' 12' 15" East continuing along said channel center, a distance of 81.69 feet;
29. Thence South 25* 25'08" East continuing along said channel center, a distance of 42.20 feet;
30. Thence South 220 41' 11 " East continuing along said channel center, a distance of 30.50 feet;
31. Thence South 19* 58' 11 " East continuing along said channel center, a distance of 39.79 feet;
32. Thence South 800 041- 51 11 East continuing along said channel center, a distance of 31.14 feet;
33. Thence South 17*08 43" East continuing along said channel center, a distance of 58.87 feet;
34. Thence South 01 0 17' 16" West continuing along said channel center, a distance of 33.29 feet;
SALE - MC WP
Ju#w 17 IYW
35. Thence South 03* 48' 16" East continuing along said channel center, a distance of 50.02 feet;
36. Thence South 10" 05' 31 " East continuing along said channel center, a distance of 26.55 feet;
37. Thence South 03" 46'48East continuing along said channel center, a distance of 122.2.4 feet;
38. Thence South 03* 18'02" West continuing along said channel center, a distance of 219.04 feet;
39. Thence South 00* 16' 17'West continuing along said channel center, a distance of 122.89 feet;
40. Thence South 11 * 58' 12'West continuing along said channel center, a distance of 47.38 feet;
41. Thence South 26* 23'36" West continuing along said channel center, a distance of 69.74 feet;
42. Thence South 32' 43'21 " West continuing along said channel center, a distance of 104.98 feet;
43. Thence South 29* 04'26" West continuing along said channel center, a distance of 72.04 feet;
44. Thence South 15'* 4621 " West continuing along said channel center, a distance of 59.50 feet;
45. Thence South 05* 14' 16" West continuing along said channel center, a distance of 63.97 feet;_
46. Thence South I I * 3 F 00" East continuing along said channel center, a distance of 77.34 feet;
47. Thence South 09* 3552" East continuing along said channel center, a distance of 64.82 feet;
48. Thence South 26* 37' 15" East continuing along said channel center, a distance of 128.01 feet;
49. Thence South 29* 33'35" East continuing along said channel center, a distance of 133.20 feet;
50. Thence South 11 " 47' 21 " East continuing along said channel center, a distance of 107.68 feet;
51. Thence South 03' 03'50" West continuing along said channel center, a distance of 119.45 feet;
52. Thence South 11 * 14'44" West continuing along said channel center, a distance of 194.31 feet;
53. Thence South 16' 49'30" West continuing along said channel center, a distance of 89.35 feet;
54. Thence South 18' 25'08" West continuing along said channel center, a distance of 87.88 feet;
55. Thence South 47* 30'46" West continuing along said channel center, a distance of 121.02 feet;
56. Thence South 53" 30' 15" West continuing along said channel center, a distance of 59.88 feet;
SALE-302.WP
luny 17.1999
57. Thence South 470 04' 21 " West continuina, along said channel center, a distance of 65.11 feet;
58. Thence South 39' 15'33" West continuing; along said channel center, a distance of 46.07 feet;
4 C�
59. Thence South 290 14' 53 " West continuing along said channel center, a distance of 48.65 feet
to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
The above described parcel contains 1,366,989 square feet or 31.382 acres more or less.
BASIS OF BEARINGS: South 89* 22'36" West along the Section line common to the Southeast
Quarter of Section 21 and the Northeast Quarter of Section 28, T. 9 S., R. 85 W., 6' P.M.. The Section comer
common to Sections 21, 22, 27 and 28 of said Township being a 1992 3-1/2 inch brass cap marked P.L.S.
16129 and the Quarter comer common to Section 21 and 22, being a 1994 3-1/4 inch C.D.O.H. aluminum cap
marked P.L.S. 17491.
WRMEN BY:
Gary D. Gable, PLS 24662
MK Centennial
P.
O. .0. Drawer 1307
Arvada, CO 80001
4
SALE--N)2.WP
Jurw 17. 19YR
O % •
�`�f0d�7e
V*" " i 9,
I'V4� L A ��.•>.
f►,
Q
A
0 e
0
m �
Ad a %M
a
q
00
f. q
c
o;
0• /
I „
„
Y,
8 f
of
/ of
„ ♦,
l it o p.
# so L)
to s a
�. aQt a
? Q-71ON
� Ow
00
s
P
o
oc'
a
n
.�
v
0. c
•'
o
CA
Id
.^ 000
a
,o
Q
c
o
-a
m
F' ao
a
o
400
'-
..a
16
�
a —
Q
Go
C.).
.160
:b
f
of
of
1
0o
f
ofIt
a
I
II
Vetch Line 'C'
o
0
FAD
0 0
IJP 39.0
01
4b
11 4"
It 40
4
9-61n
o
it
rl
0 raw
w 0
11
it A
ON
W3
.4WD
dea 0., Of
:3 C4
093
All
-PAN.
ry
C6
Z J Q z
00
W Z
F—
<
m (—)
z Cr 0
F— L.Lj j
.� F—
M V) cr UJ
M X W
X LLJ
Li
• ce
in
93
OG
cr
ctess
Ito
A_
-doe
C6
04
Ima
02
*a
6—
-Pe -00
14 an
m
-----'iiatch Line T
10,
CTI
Celse'-
Match Line 'Ir
6th Street
44
ds
Z
o< Z
00
Z
<
M 0
z CY 0
F— LLJ J
F—
M L,) IX LLJ
x
x
O
IN
0
0
L-4
b46
RI;R
230
0.do
a
a
bq
ow
we
pty
0
0
-00
a
FAD 16
to
Cb
Am
Go
.0.9
do
0
wl
gi
"D
16*
00
.."
a
.0"
0
.41
04
"
of
11
tao
APPENDIX B
PITKIN COUNTY
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
JULY 27, 1998
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
between
the
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMIlVISTRATION
and
PITKIN COUNTY
for
THE ENTRANCE TO ASPEN
Page 1 of 5
Memorandum of Understanding
Entrance to Aspen
PURPOSE
The purpose of this Memorandum of Understanding is to express and memorialize the understandings and
agreements of the parties regarding the matters set forth herein and to advance the planning and construction of
the State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen Project. The parties desire to clear the way for early design, right-of-
way acquisition,, and construction on certain components of the project as soon as the Record of Decision is
signed, including those components listed in the section entitled Project Sequencing. The parties further desire
to recite and memorialize their mutual understandings concerning the projects and associated mitigation
proposals in order to address requirements of Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as
amended, and the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1968, and to preserve and protect municipally -owned parklands,
open space, recreation areas, wetlands, and designated historic sites and structures.
PARTIES
The parties to this Memorandum are:
Pitkin County, Colorado ("County");
The Colorado Department of Transportation ("CDOT"); and
The Federal Highway Administration ("FHWA").
Although not party to this agreement, The City of Aspen ("City") will be involved in this project. A separate
agreement exists with the City.
MITIGATION PLAN
There is a County -owned parcel of Section 4(f) resources impacted by the transportation project and construction
of the Moore Intermodal Transfer Center. This is the Moore Open Space. CDOT has determined to acquire a
portion of this property through eminent domain proceedings.
CDOT agrees to mitigate all impacts to the Section 4(f) resource listed above in the following manner.
Moore Open Space
• Based on studies to date,, CDOT does not anticipate using more than 1.5 acres of the Moore Open Space.
• CDOT shall contain all construction activities to the temporary and permanent easements as provided by the
County.
• CDOT, prior to commencement of construction, shall replace the open space taken with CDOT owned
property at the former Mills Ranch located at the intersection of State Highway 82 and Brush Creek Road.
CDOT shall convey the replacement property from Mills Ranch as public open space by quitclaim deed to
the City and County, each to hold an undivided interest in the property. Prior to conveying the replacement
land to the City and County, CDOT shall create a transportation easement over the Mills Ranch for a future
bridge across the Roaring Fork River. Such future bridge use shall be agreed to by the City, County, and
CDOT. In the event that such a bridge is determined by CDOT, the City and the County not to be necessary,
CDOT shall remove the easement. Appended hereto as Exhibit "A" are a map and legal description that
depict the area of the Mills Ranch to be conveyed to the City and County. The portion of the Mills Ranch to
Page 2 of 5
Memorandum of Understanding
Entrance to Aspen
be conveyed by CDOT shall be subject to restrictions on the sale or change in use provided in City of Aspen
Municipal Charter, Article XIIII, Section 13.4, or Pitkin County Home Rule Charter Article XIII, section
13.5.3, as applicable. The parties acknowledge that the value of the replacement property is equal to or
greater than the value of the property taken. The parties further acknowledge that the actual amount of land
to be taken cannot be determined until after final design and engineering is completed for the project. The
parties agree that the replacement property, formerly part of the Mills Ranch, constitutes just compensation
for the land taken from and any damages to the remainder of the Moore Open Space through the CDOT
initiated eminent domain proceedings.
EXISTING MAROON CREEK PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
• CDOT shall remove the pedestrian bridge, and relocate the segments of the bridge to the Pitkin County
Public Works yard. The bridge shall remain the property of Pitkin County.
MEDIAN WIDTHS
• CDOT shall install medians in the new transportation corridor extending from the east end of Maroon Creek
to the west end of the cut and cover tunnel. Such median shall allow raised planters, and shall be equipped
with underground irrigation. CDOT is responsible for obtaining water for all irrigation and will be solely
responsible for any associated costs including tap fees. The typical width of the median will be 12 feet from
back of curb to back of curb. The width of the median, however, varies along this stretch of the corridor. The
landscaping and maintenance of the medians outside the City limits and within the project limits shall be
borne by the County in perpetuity. The details of the County's responsibility for maintenance of the medians
outside the city limits and within the project limits shall be specified in a maintenance agreement to be
executed between CDOT and the County.
RIGHT-OF-WAY ISSUES
• The County shall also grant and convey CDOT additional 20 foot wide temporary construction easements
adjacent to the permanent easements which shall expire upon completion of that component of construction
for which it is needed. The permit, easements and temporary construction easements are more completely
described in Exhibit "B".
• CDOT shall revegetate and landscape all temporary easements to the satisfaction of the County upon
completion of the transportation project.
• CDOT shall confirm all parcel descriptions for impacted and/or exchanged land, and all as -built highway,
transit, bridge, and easement. dimensions as generally described above by current survey prepared by a
licensed surveyor.
Page 3 of 5
Memorandum of Understanding
Entrance to Aspen
PROJECT SEQUENCING
• CDOT shall work cooperatively with the County to construct the following highway components of the
preferred alternative as soon as possible:
-Maroon/Castle Creek State Highway 82 intersection
-Owl Creek Road/Highway 82 Pedestrian Underpass
-Maroon Creek Bridge
-Bus Priority Lane from Shale Bluffs to Buttermilk
-Airport Business Center to Buttermilk, including the realignment of Owl Creek Road and the signalized,
channelized intersection at State Highway 82 and Buttermilk.
• It is understood that these projects will require both privately owned, City owned, and County owned right-
of-way. These projects will proceed into construction only after all right-of-way transactions are complete.
• Concerning the realignment of Owl Creek Road and the future construction of the Buttermilk intercept lot,
the right-of-way acquisition of property for the construction of those features shall be done in partnership
between CDOT and the County.
MISCELLANEOUS
• CDOT shall minirnize* to the maximum extent practicable disturbance and/or destruction of existing
vegetation.
• CDOT shall repair all damage or disturbance caused by construction activities to all County -owned land
and/or structures upon completion of the transportation corridor project. This shall include landscaping,
berming and re -seeding all disturbed land pursuant to the agreed upon landscape plan. Native plant species of
grass, shrubs and trees indigenous to the Aspen area shall be used for landscaping, unless the same is
unavailable. The County shall approve all final landscaping.
• CDOT shall provide the County access to and input into final highway and bridge design for that portion of
the project to be constructed within the County or on County -owned land and the County must review and
agree to all final bid packages applicable thereto. The County's Director of Public Works shall act as the
County's contact person for all design and construction activities.
• The County and the City of Aspen shall implement, maintain, and fund the Incremental Transportation
Management Program in accordance with the program requirements defined in the Final Environmental
Impact Statement to maintain the overall goal of the program.
Page 4 of 5
Memorandum of Understanding
Entrance to Aspen
AMENDMENTS
This Memorandum of Understanding may only be amended upon written agreement of all of the parties.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have placed their signatures by and through their duly authorized
representatives on the date(s) as indicated.
Colorado Department of Transportation
B :-- IA�)
7
y L W-3O $
-
cutive Director Date
Pitkin County
By: dvt1-- -7[1-9/0(gr
Suzanne rnchan, qounty Manager I Dak
Federal Highw y Administration
Federal
gnw y
By:
James /aves, Division Administrator 'Date
Page 5 of 5
0
0
r-�
O
o
N
11
w
0
0
Q
v
O
Z
LLJ
Q
W
zo
O W
cr cr
O W
a.F-
in Li
O
W }
~m%
Z � Z
aOOm
Q Z
oc
O O !-
OJ3
0,
I '
1
<z
U }-
Z F—
I
Q
a:
J
m
�
W
(� Z
=
V)0
p
i<
—J
a
W
I }
N
'
U
_
-"NkN
BRASH EE
RO
1
Z
O
H
Z
wFa-•
W
J
Q
V)
CL
cr
Z
wCL
~
O
p
r-
O Z
Z
F-•• 2
HQ
w
O
O
JT
a
LA- w
1. -
EXHIBIT "All
PROJECT NUMBER: STR 0821-029 UNIT 3
PARENT PARCEL NUMBER: 302
Project Code: 10211
Date: June 17, 1998
DESCRIPTION
A tract or parcel of land being a part of parcel No. 302 of the Department of Transportation State of
Colorado, Project No. STR 0821-029 Unit 3 containing 31.392 acres more or less, in Lots 9 and 10, Section
21, Township 9 South, Range 85 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, in Pitkin County, Colorado, said tract
being more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the Southeast comer of Section 2 1, Township 9 South, Range 85 West of the Sixth
Principal Meridian; Thence South 89' 22'36" West, a distance of 479.20 feet to a point where the center of
the main channel of the Roaring Fork River as located in 1996 intersects the South line of said Section 21, said
point being the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
I Thence continuing South 89* 2236" West along the South line of said Section 21, a distance
of 412.98 feet;
2. Thence North 18' 3954" East, a distance of 99.30 feet;
3. Thence North 35" 22'54" East, a distance of 134.30 feet;
4. Thence North 53® 25'22" East, a distance of 282.39 feet;
5. Thence North 28" 42'04" West, a distance of 118.61 feet;
6. Thence North 20* 04' 47" East, a distance of 127.08 feet;
7. Thence North 04* 32' 16" East, a distance of 180.60 feet;
8. Thence North 03* 40'22" West, a distance of 949.49 feet;
9. Thence North 11 " 09'44" East,, a distance of 252.30 feet;
10. Thence North 120 28'42" West, a distance of 220.29 feet;
11. Thence North 310 19' 11 West, a distance of 314.28 feet;
12. Thence North 190 45'23" West, a distance of 322.57 feet;
13. Thence North 510 40'03" West, a distance of 148.69 feet;
SALE-3412 WP
June 17. 1"K
14. Thence North 300 45' 31 " West, a distance of 136.47 feet to the Northerly line of that certain
parcel of land described in deed recorded in Book 736 on Page 296 of the Pitkin County
records;
15. Thence North 65' 23' 01 " East along said Northerly I ine, a distance of 557.09 feet to the center
of the main channel of the Roaring Fork River as located in 1996;
16. Thence South 31 " 58' 34" East along said channel center, a distance of 111.09 feet
17. Thence South 40' 12'02" East continuing along said channel center, a distance of 58.21 feet;
18. Thence South 29* 5754" East continuing along said channel center, a distance of 91.35 feet;
19. Thence South 12' 23'31 " East continuing along said channel center, a distance of 30.55 feet;
20. Thence South 270 25145" East continuing along said channel center, a distance of 61.85 feet;
21. Thence South 330 09108" East continuing along said channel center, a distance of 51.13 feet;
22. Thence South 17' 1 F3 1 " East continuing along said channel center, a distance of 83.60 feet;
23. Thence South 090 39'36" East continuing along said channel center, a distance of 50.71 feet;
24. Thence South 170 3 1' 59' East continuing along said channel center, a distance of 96.33 feet;
25. Thence South 130 48'57" East continuing along said channel center, a distance of 74.86 feet;
26. Thence South 120 55'53" East continuing along said channel center, a distance of 77.49 feet;
27. Thence South 09* 05' 11 " East continuing along said channel center, a distance of 64.24 feet;
28. Thence South 19' 12' 15" East continuing along said channel center, a distance of 81.69 feet;
29. Thence South 250 25'08" East continuing along said channel center, a distance of 42.20 feet;
30. Thence South 220 411 11 East continuing along said channel center,, a distance of 30.50 feet;
31. Thence South 190 58' 11 East continuing along said channel center, a distance of 39.79 feet;
32. Thence South 800 04' 51 East continuing along said channel center, a distance of 31.14 feet;
33. Thence South 17' 08 43" East continuing along said channel center, a distance of 58.87 feet;
34. Thence South 010 17' 16" West continuing along said channel center, a distance of 33.29 feet-,
SALE -MQ WP
JL"w 11 IWX
I
35. Thence South 030 48' 16" East continuing along said channel center, a distance of 50.02 feet;
36. Thence South 100 05' 3 1 " East continuing along; said channel center, a distance of 26.55 feet;
37. Thence South 03* 46'48East continuing along said channel center, a distance of 122.24 feet;
38. Thence South 030 18'02" West continuing along said channel center, a distance of 219.04 feet;
39. Thence South 000 16' 17'West continuing along said channel center, a distance of 122.89 feet;
40. Thence South 11 58' 12'West continuing along said channel center, a distance of 47.38 feet;
41. Thence South 26* 23'36" West continuing along said channel center, a distance of 69.74 feet;
42. Thence South 32' 43'21 " West continuing along said channel center, a distance of 104.98 feet;
43. Thence South 290 04'26" West continuing along said channel center, a distance of 72.04 feet;
44. Thence South 15* 46' 21 " West continuing along said channel center, a distance of 59.50 feet-,
45. Thence South 05® 14' 16" West continuing along said channel center, a distance of 63.97 feet;
46. Thence South 11 3 F 00" East continuing along said channel center, a distance of 77.34 feet;
47. Thence South 09* 3552" East continuing along said channel center, a distance of 64.82 feet;
48. Thence South 26* 37' 15" East continuing along said channel center, a distance of 128.01 feet;
49. Thence South 29' 33' 35 " East continuing along said channel center, a distance of 133.20 feet;
50. Thence South 11 47' 21 " East continuing along said channel center, a distance of 107.68 feet;
51. Thence South 03" 03'50" West continuing along said channel center, a distance of 119.45 feet;
52. Thence South I I * 14'44" West continuing along said channel center, a distance of 194.31 feet;
53. Thence South 16* 4930" West continuing along said channel center, a distance of 89.35 feet;
54. Thence South 18' 25'08" West continuing along said channel center, a distance of 87.88 feet;
55. Thence South 471 30'46" West continuing along said channel center, a distance of 121-02 feet;
56. Thence South 53* 30' 15" West continuing along said channel center, a distance of 59.88 feet;
SALE-3(P2.WP
lurk 17. 14PM
57. Thence South 471 04' 21 " West continuing along said channel center, a distance of 65.11 feet;
8. continuing 1
Thence South 39' 15' 33" West continuing along said channel center, a distance of 46.07 feet;
0 Co
59. Thence South 29' 14' 53 " West continuing along said channel center, a distance of 48.65 feet
to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
The above described parcel contains 1,366,989 square feet or 31.382 acres more or less.
BASIS OF BEARINGS: South 89* 22'36" West along the Section line common to the Southeast
Quarter of Section 21 and the Northeast Quarter of Section 28, T. 9 S.9 R. 85 W., 6hP.M.. The Section comer
common to Sections 21, 22, 27 and 28 of said Township being a 1992 3-1/2 inch brass cap marked P.L.S.
16129 and 'the Quarter comer common to Section 21 and 22, being a 1994 3-1/4 inch C.D.O.H. aluminum cap
marked P.L.S. 17491.
WRITTEN BY:
Gary D. Gable, PLS 24662
MK Centennial
P.O. Drawer 1307
Arvada, CO 80001
16
SALE-302VP
Juw 17.1999
�1
W-
APPENDIX C
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON FEIS
COMMENT LETTERS
INTRODUCTION AND APPROACH
This section of the State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen Record of Decision (ROD) contains all of
the comment letters and responses received during the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)
comment period. The State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen FEIS Volume 2 contains summarized
comments and responses from the letters received in response to the Entrance to Aspen Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
(DSEIS).
The original FEIS 30 day comment period ended August 31, 1997. As a result of continued
discussion, the comment period was extended twice and ultimately ended November 5, 1997. This
provided a total of 96 days in which the public was allowed to comment.
Over 960 letters were received during the comment period. Each letter contained one or more
comments on various issues. The issues were sorted into categories and subcategories (see Table
1: Categories and Subcategories). Each comment (within each letter) was assigned to one or more
subcategories (Comment Identifier in Table 1). Each subcategory was responded to in this
document.
In response to each individual letter, Table 2B was put together to help the reader identify the
response category/subcategory each comment is assigned. Table 2B is summarized as follows:
Column I Letter Classification: The Letter Classification refers to the type of letter received.
The different types include agency/committee, individual letter, or legal
representative, and whether it was a written letter, form letter, or oral comment from
a public hearing.
Column 2 Letter Number: Each letter is given a number for identification. This letter number
is displayed in the upper right hand comer of each letter.
Column 3 Name of Commentor: The author of the letter.
Column 4 City: The city the commentor is from.
Column 5 Date: The date the letter was received.
Column 6 Subcategory.- The subcategory column shows the subcategory which the comment
is referenced and a response is given. Once the reader notes the subcategory he/she
may use Table I to look up the subcategory page number. An example: B(4)
represents Category B (Preferred Altnerative), Subcategory 4 (alignment).
Entrance to Aspen ROD 1
HOW TO USE THE TABLE OF CONTENTS
This section has been designed for people to easily locate letters and/or responses they are interested
in. The reader may look up a particular subject or a particular letter.
Subject If the reader wants to read the responses made on a particular subject he/she may use
Table 1: Categories and Subcategories. This table lists all the categories/
subcategories that comments were made on, the Comment Identifier, and their
corresponding page number(s) for the response.
Letter If the reader wants to read a response to a particular letter, he/she may use the
following steps.
Step 1: Table 2A: Letter Classification. This table outlines how the letters have been
classified. If you know your Letter Classification, the reader looks up the respective
letter classification in Table 2A. The page number (on the right) refers to Table 2B.
Step 2: Table 2B: Letter Index. This table lists all of the letters and comments
received during the FEIS comment period, by classification. After getting the letter
classification and page number from Table 2A, the reader then looks on Table 2B for
the correct page number and classification (first column). The reader then locates the
particular letter/comment by searching for the author alphabetically within each
Letter Classification on Table 2B. The last column shows the category/subcategory
of each comment made within the letter.
Step 3: Table 1: Categories and Subcategories. The reader uses Table I to look up
the page number of their response based on the category/subcategory referenced in
Table 2B.
2 Entrance to Aspen ROD
Table 1
Categories and Subcategories
Category (Subcategory)
Comment Identifier
Page No.
A General
(1) Appreciation
1 a, 1 i, 2a, 9a, 12a, 4a, 19b, 38a, 53g,
54a, 61 a, 79e, 84a, 87a, 89a, 11 4a,
C-1
116a, 125a, 126a, 127a, 159a, 170b,
172b, 173b, 178b, 186a
(2) Cooperation
1 aaa, 1 d, 1 s, 1 y, 1 bb, 1 yy, 3a, 9b,
C-1
10i, 33c, 145a
(3) Valley -Wide System
1 t, 1 cc, 1 rr, 1 vv, 1 Oc, 33b, 40a, 46e,
63a, 81 c, 87a, 92c, 93c, 96d, 98c,
C-1
119a, 132a, 139c, 143e, 198b, 230bp
251b
(4) History
13a, 193c,
C-2
(5) Progress
13b,171b
C-2
(6) General
179b, 180b, 207b, 222b, 233b, 247b,
C-2
249b, 254b, 256b, 257b, 259b
(7) Transportation
Government Entity
10h,85b
C-2
B Preferred Alternative Characteristics
(1) LRT
.1bbb, 15a, 16a, 17a, 18c, 20e, 24a,
26d, 32b, 36a, 39b, 39d, 41 a, 44a, 45a,
49a, 49c, 51 b, 60a, 65a, 67a, 68a, 69a,
71 b, 76a, 77a, 78a, 83a, 88a, 96b, 99a,
103a, 113a, 117a, 118a, 119a, 120a,
121a,124a, 128a, 130a, 131a, 135a,
C-3
136a, 137a, 138a, 140a, 142a, 143c,
144a, 147a, 147c, 156a, 157a, 160a,
161 a, 162b, 163a, 164a, 258b, 181 b,
184b, 185b, 186b, 195b, 201 b, 203b,
209b, 215b, 224b, 235f, 238c, 243c,
253b
(2) LRT Track
39t, 143c
C-5
(3) LRT Location
1gg, lbbb, 6a, 6b, 39r, 108c, 116a,
C-6
126a, 133a, 143c, 196b
(4) Alignment
25a, 39c, 63a, 100b, 108a, 108g, 108j,
117a, 118a, 121a, 124a, 127a, 135a,
C-6
137a, 142a, 143c, 144a, 148a, 163a
(5) Terminus
1u, 10c, 10d, 13c, 39c, 39n, 39x, 39z,
54c, 98c, 116a, 133b, 138a
C-7
(6) Airport Multi -Modal
Facility
1 hh, 129b, 139c, 217c
C-8
(7) Buttermilk Ski Area Multi -
Modal Facility
1 iiq 54g, 58b, 62a, 86a, 104a
C-9
(8) Moore Transit Station
le, 111, 7a, 7g, 108o, 133c
C-9
(9) Cut and Cover
1f, 1mm, 10b, 108d, 108m, 108q, 108ee,
C-9
134a
0 0)
TM Program
1ss,32b,37b
C-1 0
(11)
Divided Highway
61 b
C-1 1
ROW
109a
C-1 1
_(12)
Access/intersections
39g7 39i, 39s, 58c, 108k, 160c
C-1 1
_(13)
Cemetery Lane
39i, 108n, 108y, 108ff, 166b
C-12
_(14)
Emergency Access
108h, 148b
C-1 2
_(15)
Collector Bus
54e
C-1 3
_(16)
(17) West Buttermilk
Road/Owl Creek Road
31 a, 54d, 54h, 73a, 86a, 95a, 104a
C-1 3
No Phasing
1c,30b,
C-1 3
_(18)
(19)
Recreational Resources
1j, 1r, 1tt, 10f, 129a, 134a
C-1 3
Table 1 - 1
Table
Categories and Subcategories
Category (Subcategmy)
Comment Identifier
Page No.
C Corridor
(2) Buttermilk to Maroon
Creek
(4) Maroon Creek Bridge to
Castle Creek
(5) Castle Creek to Main
Street
1
182b'163a.163b.227c.1h.1oo.89q.
C-18
77d 78d
(7) Maroon Creek Road
Intersection
1e10 11139h 1081108r,155a,158a
C 18
W Alternatives
55a.55c.64a.79a.84a.85a.125a.
C'21
174a 187b 194b 211b
(3) Modified Direct
Alternative
1aa
C-21
49b.49e.51a.52a.53a.42b.42d.53d.
e0b'70a.80b. e1b.90b.91a.82b.98b.
96a.97c.88u.100b.101a.102u.103a.
C-23
122c.130e.131a.146a.161b167b.
189b'183c.193d.212b.204b.218b.
229n 231b.231e.2OGh.238b,242b
245b252b 2s5b
"E
Finances
51b.54g.67a.68a.77b.78b. 81e.81d.
84a. 92d.83d.97e.102o.139a.
C-20
153b 162c 1e3b.191b.189b.200c
217b 258e
183b 1g3e 221b o27b 23gb 241b 243d
F Transportation Mode
42¢50b.50d.51d.57b.81b.89e.90b.
91a.92b.93b.97b'08a.98e.113e.
C-28
v18a,119u.12Oa.128n.130a.131a.
135a.136e.141a.146a. 100a.161a.
Table 1_2
Table 1
Categories and Subcategories
Category (Subcategory) Comment Identifier Page No.
G LRT Characteristics
I
(1) Ridership
17a, 17e, 18b, 20bg 20d, 21 a, 21c, 23a,
23c, 26c, 32b, 34a, 34c, 35a, 35c, 37b,
42a, 42c, 43b, 49g, 50a, 50c, 53c, 57a,
57c, 59a, 65b, 77a, 77e, 78a, 78e, 81c C-30
90a, 90c, 92a, 92c, 93c, 97e, 122b,
138a, 82a, 85c, 143a, 147b, 153c, 156a,
157a, 160a, 161b, 162b9 185b, 197c,
212b, 213by 235d, 258c
(2) Capacity
17c, 74c, 77c, 78c, 79c, 84a, 93b, 235c C-32
(3) Phasing
20c, 34d, 54b, 54fq 139b, 141a, 258d C-33
Environmental Impacts'
(1) General 79b, 156c C-34
(2) Section 4(f) 7m, 100a, 101d, 108i, 108hhf 108ii, 148c C-34
(3) Community Living 25b, 37a, 55b, 65a, 66a, 66c, 67a, 68a, C-36
74b, 80b, 136a, 153c
(4) Neighborhood
89b, 109b, 109e, 109k
C-37
(5)
Air Quality
11 a, 53e, 108t, 109i
C-38
(6)
Visual
17d, 76a, 91 a, 143d
C-39
(7)
Noise
108b,109d
C-40
(8)
Parking
6a, 82b, 97a, 129b, 160a
C-41
(9)
Access
6b,87b,129a
C-41
(10)
Wildlife
108v
C-41
(11)
Owl Creek Road
8a
C-41
(12)
Environmental Justice
13d
C-41
(13)
Historic
108bb, 115a, 134b, 148c
C-42
(14)
Land Use
39f
C-42
(15)
Wetland
58d,108u
C-43
(16)
Farmland
108w
C-43
(17)
Hazardous
108x, 108gg
C-43
(18)
Water Quality
1108z
C-43
(19)
Vibration
109d,109h
C-44
(20)
Construction
7k, 9b, 89d
C-44
Mitigation Measures
(1) General 1ee,104b,109a C-44
(2) Section 4(f) 2b, 7b, 7c, 7f, 7h, 89c, 108aa, 108cc, C-44
108hh,108ii
(3)
Neighborhoods
109c, 109f, 154a
C-46
(4)
Visual
12b, 143d
C-46
(5)
Noise
12b, 108b, 108dd, 109g
C-46
(6)
Wildlife
7e
C-47
(7)
Cub and Cover.
89c
C-47
(8)
Trail System
7d
C-47
(9)
Construction
iff, 3a, 9c, 89b, 89c
C-47
i
Documents
(1) ROD 1zz, 10a, 58e, 87d, 89f, 108jjl 1091, C-48
(2) FEIS 58a, 71 a, 71 c, 72b, C-49
(3) BBROD 1 Oe, 89f C-49
(4) CIS 33b, 108f, C-50
Table 1 - 3
Table 1
Categories and Subcategories
Category (Subcategory)
Comment Identifier
Page No.
K Process
(1) EIS
47b,48b,235e,236b,-240b
C-50
(2) Project Objectives
1x, 49d, 49f, 53b, 53f, 109jy 229d, 231c,
C-50
242c
(3) Screening
39e, 39w, 39y,
C-52
(4) Elections
1v, 1xx, 10g, 16a, 20a, 20f, 22a, 23e,
26b, 29a, 30c, 32a, 34b, 34e, 35d, 40b2
42e, 43a, 46b, 46f, 47a, 47c, 50e, 55e,
57d, 69b, 74d, 75a, 80a, 81 d, 92d, 93d,
95a, 96a, 101c, 103a, 123a, 139a, 147c,
C-53
153a, 158a, 190b, 192b, 208b, 219b,
223bo 224by 225bv 226b, 229b, 229e,
231d, 235b, 237b, 258f, 232b, 234bv
238b, 240c, 241 b, 242bg 243b, 245b,
247c, 250b, 255b
(5) Public
162a, 162c, 197c, 202b, 205b, 243e,
C-54
244b,246b9248b
(6) Comment Period
107a
C-56
(7) Early Construction
ldd, 1ww, 30d, 137a
C-56
L Form Letters
(1) Number 1
166a,167a
C-56
(2) Number 2
170a - 174a
C-56
(3) Number 3
178a - 259a
C-56
(4) Number 4
183a - 186
C-58
Document Edits
(1) Document Edits
7j, 71
C-61
Table 1 - 4
Table 2A
Letter Classification
Page Number
I. Agency/Group ..................................................
Table 213-1
11. Individual Letters ................................................
Table 213-1
111. Legal Reps ....................................................
Table 213-3
IV. Open House ..................................................
Table 213-3
V. Oral Comments ................................................
Table 213-4
VI. Form Letter 1 w/ No Additional Comments ...........................
Table 213-4
VII. Form Letter 1 w/ Additional Comments ..............................
' Table 213-4
Vill. Form Letter 2 w/ No Additional Comments ..........................
Table 213-5
IX Form Letter 2 w/ Additional Comments ..............................
Table 213-5
X. Form Letter 3 w/ No Additional Comments ............. a a . . a . 0 .... 0 a a .
Table 213-5
X1. Form Letter 3 w/ Additional Comments ............. 0 .........
Table2B-5
X11. Form Letter 4 w/ No Additional Comments ...........................
Table 213-7
X111. Form Letter 4 w/ Additional Comments .............................
Table 213-7
Table 213
Letter Index
Letter
Classification
Letter No.
Name
city
Date
Subcategory
I. Agency/ Group
1
Aspen
City of
Aspen
11/5/97
A(1)-A(3), 13(1), B(3),
B(5)-B(10), 13(18)-
B(19), c(l)-c(q),
D(1)-D(3), E(1),
E(4), F(1), 19(1),1(9),
J(1), K(2), K(4), K(7)
2
Aspen
City of
Aspen
7/18/97
A(l), 1(2)
3
Aspen Chamber
Resort Association
Aspen
9/10/97
A(2),1(9)
4
Aspen Square
Aspen
8/12/97
D(1)
5
Eagle Pines
Homeowners
Association
Aspen
10/24/97 C(2)
6
Innsbruck Inn
Aspen
8/20/97
B(3), H(8)-H(9)
7
Open Space and
Trails
Aspen
10/6/97
B(8), E(3), H(2),
H(7), 1(2), 1(6), 1(8),
M(1)
8
Owl Creek Road
Caucus
Aspen
11/4/97
H(l 1)
9
RFTA
Aspen
9/25/97
A(1)-A(2), H(20),1(9)
10
Snowmass Village Town of
Snowmass
11/5/97
A(2)-A(3), A(7), B(5),
B(9), B(19), C(3),
C(9), D(1), J(1), J(3),
K(4)
11
U.S. EPA
Denver
9/8/97
H(5)
12
Villa of Aspen
Townhouse
Association, Inc.
Aspen
10/3/97
A(l), 1(4)-1(5)
13
W/J Ranch, Inc.
Aspen
9/29/97
A(4)-A(5), B(5),
H(12)
14
11. Individual
Letters
15
Judy
Aspen
9/8/97
B(1)
16
?
Mary
8/26/97
B(1), E(2), F(1), K(4)
17
Albert
Gary
Aspen
9/17/97
B(1), D(7), E(2),
G(1)-G(2), H(6)
18
Alciatore
Gaston
Aspen
8/24/97
B(1), D(6), G(1)
19
Blaich
Robert and Janet
Aspen
9/22/97
A(1)
20
Boyd
T.
El Jebel
9/7/97
B(1), G(1), G(3),
K(4)
21
Brafman
Stuart
Aspen
9/24/97
F(1), G(1)
22
Bryant
Nancy
Aspen
9/16/97
D(6), K(4)
23
Cahn
Elaine
Aspen
9/16/97
F(1), G(1), K(4)
24
Costantini
Joseph G., M.D.
Snowmass
9/4/97
B(1)
25
Dietrich
John C.
Aspen
10/21/97 B(4), H(3)
26
Durrance
Dick
Snowmass
10/30/97 B(1), D(6), G(1),
K(4)
27
Edlis
Stefan
Aspen
8/20/97
D(6)
28
Esty
Jon and Rosemary
Denver
9/24/97
D(1)
29
Evans
Jeffrey
Redstone
9/2/97
K(4)
30
Evans
Jeffrey
Redstone
10/23/97 B(18), K(4), K(7)
31
Farley
Jacqueline M.
Aspen
11/13/97 B(17), C(10)
32
Feldman
Gary
Aspen
9/5/97
B(1), B(10), D(6),
G(1), K(4)
33
Fox -Rubin, Reed
Jonathan, David
El Jebel, Basalt
9/22/97
A(2)-A(3), D(1), J(4)
34
Friedberg
Marc S.
Aspen
9/17/97
G(1), G(3), K(4)
35
Friedstein
Sheldon
Aspen
9/29/97
D(6), F(i), G(1), K(4)
Table 2B - 1
Table 213
Letter Index
Letter
Classification
Letter No.
Name
city
Date Subcategory
11. Individual
Letters
36
Fritsch
Robert D. & Frank V.
Wright
Glenwood Springs
10/5/97 13(1), F(2)
37
Gardenir
Made
Aspen
9/8/97 13(10), G(1), H(3)
38
Garland
Catherine
Aspen
9/26/97 A(1)
39
Gramiger
Hans R.
Aspen
11/10/97 B(1)-B(5), B(13)-
13(14), C(l), C(4)-
G
D(6), H(14), K(3)
40
Guion
Robert S.
Snowmass
9/8/97 A(3), D(6), K(4)
41
Gurrentz
Morton E.
Aspen
9/12/97 13(1), E(1)
42
Gutner
Kenneth H.
Aspen
9/22/97 E(1), D(6), F(1),
G(1), K(4)
43
Hanson
Howard
Aspen
9/6/97 E(1), G(1), K(4)
44
Hanson
Mitzi
Aspen
9/6/97 B(1)
45
Harris
Donald
Aspen
11/6/97 B(1)
46
Heywood
James
Snowmass
9/2/97 A(3), D(1), D(5),
E(1), K(4)
47
Hillman
Roberta
Aspen
9/28/97 K(1), K(4)
48
Hineline
Susan
Aspen
9/2/97 D(1), E(1), K(1)
49
Hochfield
Ronald
Aspen
9/22/97 B(l), D(6), G(1),
K(2)
50
Hosier
Gerald D.
Las Vegas, NV
9/22/97 F(1), G(1), K(4)
51
Hunter
Patrick J.
Carbondale
8/4/97 13(1), D(6), E(1), F(1)
52
Huser
Gail
Aspen
9/2/97 D(6)
53
Johnson
Paula
Snowmass
9/15/97 A(l), D(6), G(1),
H(5), K(2)
54
Kane
John B.
Aspen
11/5/97 A(l), 13(5), B(7),
B(16)-B(17), E(1),
G(3)
55
Kappeli
Jeanette
Aspen
9/12/97 D(1), H(3), K(4)
56
Keller
Marty
Aspen
4/10/97 C(6), D(4)
57
Kroeger
Hal A.
Aspen
8/22/97 F(i), G(1), K(4)
58
Kroeger
Hal A.
Aspen
11/4/97 B (7), B (13), H (15),
J(1)-J(2)
59
Lipsey
Bill
Aspen
10/3/97 G(1)
60
Long
Ian
Aspen
9/8/97 13(1), D(6)
61
Macdonald
Mabel
Aspen
10/27/97 A(l), B(l 1)
62
Marcus
Alan
Aspen
9/28/97 13(7)
63
Markalunas
Lisa
Aspen
10/5/97 B(4)
64
Markalunas
Ramona
Aspen
9/29/97 D(1)
65
Marks
Louis H.
Aspen
9/15/97 13(1), G(1), H(3)
66
Marolt
Mike
Aspen
9/8/97 H(3)
67
Marolt
Steven M.
Aspen
10/8/97 13(1), E(1), H(3)
68
Mazza
Anthony
Aspen
9/8/97 13(1), E(1), H(3)
69
McCollum
Mike
Aspen
9/6/97 B(l), K(4)
70
Modell
Harry
Aspen
8/25/97 D(6)
71
Moore
Kenneth NCB
Aspen
11/4/97 13(1), J(2)
72
Moore
KNCB
Aspen
9/8/97 J(2)
73
Obermeyer
Wally
Aspen
10/30/97 B(17)
74
Osur
Richard D. & Joan N.
Aspen
9/5/97 E(2), G(2), H(3),
K(4)
75
Pardee
Lee
Glenwood Springs
10/21/97 H(4), K(4)
76
Parmelee
Steve
Snowmass
8/22/97 13(1), E(3), H(6)
77
Payne
Marybelle R.
Aspen
8/23/97 13(1), C(6), E(1),
G(l)-G(2)
78
Payne
Thomas W.
Aspen
8/23/97 13(1), C(6), E(1),
G(2)
79
Pearson
Mark
Aspen
9/8/97 A(l), D(1), F(5),
G(2), H(1)
80
Peterson
Stephanie
Snowmass
9/2/97 D(4), H(3), K(4)
81
Pfister
Arthur
Aspen
9/22/97 A(3), D(6), E(1),
F(1), G(1), K(4)
Table 2B - 2
Table 213
Letter Index
Letter
Classification
Letter No.
Name
city
Date
Subcategory
11. Individual
Letters
82
Pitcher
Kingsbury
Aspen
-
10/30/97 G(1), H(8)
83
Portnoy
Jerry
Aspen
9/15/97
B(1)
84
Roth
Chuck
Aspen
10/24/97 A(l), D(1), E(1),
G(2)
85
Roth
Chuck
Aspen
10/24/97 A(7), D(1), G(1)
86
Santucci
Vincent G.
West Buttermilk
11/6/97
B(7), B(17)
87
Saunders -White
Carol
Aspen
11/4/97
A(l), A(3), C(5),
G109, D(4), E(3),
H(9), J(1)
88
Schiller
Carl F.
Aspen
9/5/97
B(1)
89
Schultz
Robert
Carbondale
9/23/97
A(l), F(1), H(20),
1(2), 1(7), 1(9), J(1),
J(3)
90
Seiersen
D.P.
Aspen
10/3/97
D(6), F(1), G(1)
91
Sens
William H.
Aspen
9/8/97
D(6), F(1), H(6)
92
Sharp
Bill and Pat
Aspen
9/16/97
A(3), D(6), E(1),
F(1), G(1), K(4)
93
Sharp
Bob and Carol
Aspen
9/16/97
A(3), D(6), E(1),
F(1), G(1)-G(2), K(4)
94
Simecheck
Maryann & Don
Aspen
9/8/97
D(4), E(3)
95
Snook
Garry
Aspen
9/26/97
B(17), K(4)
96
Spofford
Frank
Aspen
9/8/97
A(3), B(i), C(6),
D(6), K(4)
97
Steinmetz
Marta
Aspen
9/19/97
C(6), D(6), D(7),
E(1), F(1), G(1), H(8)
98
Stouffer
Marty
Aspen
35677
A(3), B(5), C(6), F(1)'
99
Taylor
Richard E.
Aspen
9/5/97
B(1), D(6)
100
Tomkins
Doug
Aspen
9/6/97
B(4), D(6)-D(7),
E(4), H(2)
101
Whitaker
Francis
Carbondale
6/28/97
D(6), H(2), K(4)
102
Winnerman
Lorrie B.
Aspen
9/10/97
D(6), E(1)
103
Woods
Frank J.
Aspen
9/8/97
B(1), D(6), K(4)
104
Woodward
Ralph
Aspen
10/2/97
B(7), B(17), D(7),
1(1)
105
Yusem
Jeff
Aspen
10/30/97
106
Ill. Legal Reps
107
Marolt
Park Association &
Sierra Club
8/21/97
K(6)
108
Marolt
Park Association &
Sierra Club
11/6/97
B(3)-B(4), B(8)-B(9),
B(13)-B(15), C(3),
C(7), C(9), D(4),
E(3), H(2), H(5),
H(7), H(10), H(13),
H(15)-H(18),1(2),
1(5), J(1), J(4)
109
Neighborhood
Alliance for
Reponsible Action,
Inc.
10/5/97
B(12), H(4)-H(5),
H(7), H(19), 1(1),
1(3),1(5), J(1), K(2)
110
ill
112
IV. Open House
113
Allen
Judy
Aspen
8/25/97
B(1), F(1)
114
Bendon
Chris
Aspen
8/20/97
A(1)
115
Berger
Bruce
Aspen
8/25/97
H(13)
116
Cole
Alan
Basalt
8/20/97
A(l), B(3), B(5)
117
Crain
Brenda
Aspen
8/20/97
B(1), B(4)
118
Crain
J.L., Jr.
Aspen
8/25/97
B(1), B(4), F(1)
119
Daks
Calvin
Aspen
9/16/97
A(3), B(1), F(1)
Table 2B - 3
F
Table 213
Letter Index
Letter
Classification
Letter No.
Name
City
Date
Subcategory
IV. Open House
120
De Costa
Maureen
Aspen
10/2/97
B(1), F(1) -
E
121
Deflin
Ashley
Aspen
9/20/97
B(1), 13(4)
122
Dial
Susan
Snowmass
8/20/97
D(6), E(2), G(1)
123
Easterday
Mike
Snowmass
9/2/97
K(4)
124
Evans
William L.
Aspen
8/25/97
B(1), B(4)
125
Feld
Ann &Alan
Aspen
8/26/97
A(1), D(1)
126
Fesus
George & Susan
Aspen
8/20/97
A(1), B(3)
127
Figgs
Thomas & Jennifer
Aspen
8/25/97
A(1), B(4)
128
Ford
Merrill
Aspen
8/25/97
B(1), F(1)
129
Fredrick
L.
Aspen
8/20/97
B(6), B(19), H(9)
130
Goldberg
Buton
Aspen
10/2/97
B(1), D(6), F(1)
131
Goldenberg
Stephen
Aspen
8/20/97
13(1), D(6), F(1)
132
Hanson
Andrew
Aspen
9/8/97
A(3), F(4)
133
Hanson
Georgia
Aspen
9/8/97
13(3), 13(5), 13(8)
134
Hoffmann
Heidi H.
Aspen
8/20/97
13(9), B(19), H(13)
135
Hufty
Page Lee
Aspen
8/25/97
B(1), 13(4), F(1)
136
Klar
Joanie
Aspen
8/20/97
B(1), F(1), H(2)
137
McIntosh
Henry
Aspen
8/25/97
B(1), B(4), K(7)
138
McIntyre
Ruth E.
Aspen
8/20/97
A(3), B(1), B(5), G(1)
139
Murry
Bonnie
Aspen
9/5/97
13(6), D(5), E(1),
G(3), K(4)
140
Murry
Paul
Aspen
9/4/97
13(1), D(5)
141
Padden
Kevin
Aspen
8/20/97
F(3), G(3)
142
Randall
Ellen & Ed
Aspen
8/20/97
B(1), B(4), E(2)
143
Sauners-White
Carol
Aspen
9/8/97
B(2)-B(4), C(5),
D(4), G(1), H(6), 1(4)
144
Sax
Joel
Aspen
8/20/97
B(1), B(4)
145
Stuhr
Will
Aspen
8/20/97
A(2)
146
Uhler
Frances M.
Aspen
8/20/97
D(6), F1)
147
Vroom
Sally
Aspen
8/26/97
13(1), G(1), K(4)
148
Whitaker
Francis
Carbondale
8/28/97
13(4), B(15), D(5)
149
150
151
V. Oral Comments
153
Burden
W. Douglas
8/20/97
E(1), G(1), H(3),
K(4)
154
Carson
Bobbi
8/20/97
C(5), 1(3)
155
Corbin
Marcia
8/20/97
C(7)
156
Costley
Jeff
8/20/97
B(1), E(3), G(1),
H(1)
157
Farr
Charlotte
8/20/97
B(1), G(1)
158
Gantzel
Steen
8/20/97
K(4)
159
Heywood
Jim
8/20/97
A(1), C(7)
160
Honig
Dan
8/20/97
13(1), E(4), F(1),
G(1), H(8)
161
Honig
Diane
8/20/97
B(1), D(6), E(2),
F(1), G(1)
162
Kaspar
Theresa
8/20/97
B(1), C(6), E(1),
G(1), K(5)
163
Keller
Marty
8/20/97
B(1), 13(4), C(6),
D(6), F(1)
164
Padden
Kevin
8/20/97
B(1), F(3)
165
VI. Form Letter 1
8 Total
w/ No Additional
Comments
Table 2B - 4
Table 213
Letter Index
Letter
Classification
Letter No.
Name
city
Date
Subcategory
V11. Form Letter 1
w/ Additional
Comments
166
Stouffer
Diane and Marty
Aspen
11/4/97
L(1)
167
Swales
Don
Aspen
10/23/97 D(6), L(1)
169
V111. Form Letter 2
w/ No Additional
Comments
17 Total
IX. Form Letter 2
w/ Additional
Comments
170
Adams
Howard S.
Aspen
9/22/97
A(l), L(2)
171
Busch
Jon
Aspen
9/17/97
A(5), L(2)
172
Detko
George
Aspen
9/17/97
A(l), L(2)
173
Markalunas
Jim
Aspen
10/1/97
A(l), L(2)
174
Tripp
Jonathan W.
Carbondale
9/16/97
D(1), L(2)
176
177
X. Form Letter 3 w/
No Additional
Comments
677 Total
X1. Form Letter 3
w/ Additional
Comments
178
Alderfer
Daniel B.
Aspen
9/5/97
A(l), L(2)
179
Anderson
Earl V.
Aspen
9/5/97
A(6), L(2)
180
Bacsany
Karla
Aspen
8/1/97
A(6), L(2)
181
Bain
Jim & Joan
Basalt
8/1/97
B(1), L(2)
182
Bradford
A.M.
Carbondale
9/5/97
E(2), L(2)
183
Boggs
MaryKay
Aspen
9/5/97
D(6), E(1)-E(2), L(2),
L(4)
184
Buchauau
John
Basalt
8/1/97
B(1), L(2), L(4)
185
Carpenter
Win S.
Aspen
9/5/97
B(1), G(1), L(2), L(4)
186
Carmichael
Lisa
Carbondale
9/5/97
A(l), B(1), L(2), L(4)
187
Cassin
Lee
Aspen
8/14/97
D(1), L(2)
188
Chacos
Chris & Terry
Carbondale
9/5/97
L(2)
189
Christensen, DDS Robert M.
Aspen
8/1/97
D(6), L(2)
190
Clapper
Tom
Aspen
8/1/97
K(4), L(2)
191
Cumnode
Robert
Aspen
8/1/97
E(1), L(2)
192
Dirks
Richard S.
Aspen
8/25/97
K(4), L(2)
193
Duvernay
Ramon J.
Aspen
9/5/97
A(4), D(4), D(6), E(2)
E(3), L(2)
194
Evans
Randy
Aspen
9/5/97
D(1), L(2)
195
Feldman,
Spaccarelli
Selma, Ernest
Aspen
8/1/97
B(1), L(2)
196
Foster
Anne
Aspen
8/1/97
B(3), L(2)
197
Fry
Kim
Aspen
8/1/97
G(1), K(5), L(2)
198
Gamblin
Taylor
Aspen
8/1/97
A(3), L(2)
199
Gerbaz
Larry
Carbondale
8/1/97
E(1), L(2)
200
Goldstein
Barbara
Basalt
8/1/97
E(1), F(1), L(2)
201
Goldstein
Gary L.
Basalt
8/1/97
B(l), L(2)
202
Goldstein
Gary L.
Basalt
8/1/97
K(5), L(2)
203
Graber
Jess
Woody Creek
9/5/97
B(1), L(2)
204
Griffith
Angeline
Aspen
8/1/97
D(6), L(2)
Table 2B - 5
Table 213
Letter Index
Letter
Classification
Letter No.
Name
city
Date
Subcategory
X1. Form Letter 3
w/ Additional
Comments
205
Grossblatt
Sonia B.
Aspen
8/1/97
K(5), L(2)
206
Grosse
Ed
Aspen
9/5/97
L(2)
207
Hampel
Walter
Aspen
9/5/97
A(6), L(2)
208
Haynes Jr.
B. Morgan
Aspen
8/1/97
K(4), L(2)
209
Henry
Kendall
Basalt
9/5/97
13(1), F(i), L(2)
210
Holmes
Sandra J.
Snowmass
9/5/97
L(2)
211
Hoist
Leslie
Aspen
8/1/97
D(1), L(2)
212
Homeyer
Eve
Aspen
8/1/97
D(6), G(1), L(2)
213
Hopkins
Patricia F.
El Jebel
9/5/97
G(1), L(2)
214
Hoppe
Sue
Carbondale
9/5/97
F(i), L(2)
215
Hunter
Patrick
Carbondale
8/1/97
B(1), L(2)
216
Jenkins
Jane
Aspen
9/5/97
L(2)
217
Jones
Kent
Carbondale
9/5/97
13(6), E(1), L(2)
218
Kastner
Al
Carbondale
8/1/97
D(6), L(2)
219
Kay
Patti C.
Aspen
8/1/97
K(4), L(2)
220
Kentz
Su
Carbondale
9/5/97
F(1), L(2)
221
Koules
Sam & Evelyn
Basalt
9/5/97
E(2), L(2)
222
Larrowe
Peter
El Jebel
9/5/97
A(6), L(2)
223
Lewis
Reed
Aspen
9/5/97
K(4), L(2)
224
Long
Jennifer
Snowmass
8/1/97
B(i), K(4), L(2)
225
Losinski
Nancy K.
Aspen
9/5/97
K(4), L(2)
226
Madsen
Cornelia
Aspen
8/1/97
K(4), L(2)
227
Madsen
George
Aspen
8/1/97
C(6), E(2), L(2)
228
Magill
R.N.
Aspen
8/1/97
L(2)
229
Mason
Mark P.
Basalt
9/5/97
D(6), K(2), K(4), L(2)
230
McGrath
J. Nicholas
Basalt
8/1/97
A(3), L(2)
231
McKinney
Susan S.
Carbondale
9/5/97
D(6), K(2), K(4), L(2)'
232
Meister
Jerome
Aspen
8/1/97
K(4), L(2)
233
Meister
Linda H.
Aspen
9/5/97
A(6), L(2)
234
Mohrman
Janet D.
Aspen
8/1/97
K(4), L(2)
235
Moore
John and Caroline
Aspen
9/4/97
B(1), D(6), G(1)-
G(2), K(1), K(4), L(2)
236
Moore
Keneth CB
Aspen
8/15/97
K(1), L(2)
237
Murry
Bonita and Paul
Aspen
8/1/97
K(4), L(2)
238
Nelson
Arlene
Aspen
9/5/97
13(1), D(6), E(1),
K(4), L(2)
239
Oberembt
Bi
Aspen
9/5/97
E(2), L(2)
240
O'Neill
Jack O.
Carbondale
9/1/97
K(1), K(4), L(2)
241
Pfister
Arthur O.
Aspen
9/5/97
E(2), K(4), L(2)
242
Phillips
Arthur
Aspen
8/1/97
1)(6), K(4), L(2)
243
Pinney
Joe
El Jebel
9/5/97
13(1), E(2), K(4)-K(5),
L(2)
244
Roberts
Hugh A.
Snowmass
8/1/97
K(5), L(2)
245
Ryan
Ryan
Carbondale
8/1/97
D(6), K(4), L(2)
246
Schott
David
Aspen
9/5/97
K(5), L(2)
247
Sebesta
Jack
Carbondale
8/26/97
A(6), K(4), L(2)
248
Shelton
Mary E.
Snowmass
9/5/97
K(5), L(2)
249
Stanford
John J.
Aspen
9/5/97
A(6), L(2)
250
Straka
Virginia C.
Aspen
8/1/97
K(4), L(2)
251
Strand
Curt R.
Snowmass
9/5/97
A(3), E(1), L(2)
252
Sydoryk
Kathleen L.
Caarbondale
9/5/97
1)(6), L(2)
253
Tibma
Joanne g.
Aspen
9/5/97
13(1), L(2)
Table 2B - 6
Table 213
Letter Index
Letter
Classification
Letter No.
Name
city
Date
Subcategory
X1. Form Letter 3
w/ Additional
Comments
254
Wheeler
Brenda
Snowmass
9/5/97
A(6), L(2)
255
Wilcox
Michael
Basalt
9/5/97
D(6), K(4), L(2)
256
Williams
Sandra
Aspen
9/5/97
A(6), L(2)
257
Winn
RA
Carbondale
9/5/97
A(6), L(2)
258
Wombwell
George B.
Aspen
9/1/97
B(l), E(1), F(1),
G(1), G(3), K(4), L(2)
259
Young
Bernard
Snowmass
A(6), L(2)
260
261
X11. Form Letter 4
w/ No Additional
Comments
17 total
X111. Form Letter 4
w/ Additional
Comments
262
Hardino
Bryan
Snowmass
9/18/97
263
Homeyer
Eve
Aspen
9/4/97
264
McGratt
Nicholas
Aspen
9/4/97
265
Stouffer
Marty
Aspen
9/4/97
Table 2B - 7
RESPONSES
A. General
A(]) Appreciation
Thank -you for supporting the Entrance to Aspen project/ process. CDOT has worked hard to
develop an acceptable alternative that fulfills the project objectives, need and intent statements, and
commitment to design excellence. One of the most important part of this project is the extensive
public involvement process, including open houses, focus group meetings, press conferences,
elections, etc.
A(2) Cooperation
Thank -you for supporting the Entrance to Aspen project. CDOT, the City of Aspen, Pi tkin County,
and surrounding communities have been working collaboratively to balance transportation needs
related to growth with an increased concern for the character and environment of this mountain area.
CDOT has attempted to incorporate all these concerns into its transportation improvement project.
It has been one of the most extensive environmental impact statement (EIS) processes ever
conducted by CDOT. Thank -you for your cooperation.
A(3) Valley -Wide System
The FEIS recognizes the need to plan for a valley -wide system, but focuses on the Aspen area which
is the first link. A separate project -- Roaring Fork Valley Transportation Corridor CIS/DEIS/CP --
is currently evaluating a valley -wide transit corridor. This consists of extending the transit system
from Aspen to West Glenwood Springs. An extensive public involvement process is included to
determine each community's needs and their role in the project. As soon as the planning phase is
completed, then the design phase begins, and finally construction.
The LRT system ending at the Pitkin County airport operates effectively. However, the East of
Basalt to Buttermilk Ski Area Record of Decision clears a transit envelope between Basalt and
Buttermilk for future transit. LRT is flexible, and if funding and local support is available, the
system may be extended where needed.
CDOT is committed to determine the most appropriate linkages between the Preferred Alternative
and Snowmass Village. An intermountain gondola connection(s) is a separate project that is
evaluating connections between mountains.
Until the entire transit system is built (from West Glenwood Springs to Aspen), the RFTA bus
system will be used as a collector system from down -valley. A collector system will also be used
to pick-up people within Aspen that are not within walking distance to an LRT station.
As shown on Chart 12 in the Mount Sopris Transportation Project, Final Report: 1993 Origin and
Destination Winter Survey and Selected Traffic Count Information technical report, 19 percent
of the residents surveyed were driving a commercial truck. Residents make up approximately 75
C-1
percent of the total surveyed. Therefore, only 14 percent of the total surveyed were driving a
commercial truck. Although there are some jobs that require a personal vehicle (service men, real-
estate), there is a large percentage of drivers who can convert to public transportation. Please refer
to the above report and the other Origin and Destination Survey reports for characteristics of the
drivers using State Highway 82, near Aspen.
A(4) History
Thank -you for your interest in the Entrance to Aspen transportation improvement project. CDOT
appreciates the recorded history.
A(5) Progress
Thank -you for noting the progress of the State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen project. The EIS
process is designed to develop the best solution with the least amount of environmental impacts.
CDOT has worked hard to develop the Entrance to Aspen solution while maintaining the character
of the valley. The city and county have gone through an extensive public involvement process,
including two transit tax elections and an open space election. The Preferred Alternative was chosen
because it best meets the local community needs, while minimizing environmental impacts.
A(6) General
CDOT appreciates your comments.
Although CDOT does not disagree, a governmental entity to implement a regional transportation
plan is not part of this project.
The Preferred Alternative was not developed to make a profit. All types of transportation systems
require money to maintain its serviceability. A four -lane highway system needs money to stripe,
patch, plow, sand, distribute magnesium chloride, and eventually reconstruct. Highways are
maintained through various taxes not by the system itself.
The funding of the LRT system has not yet been determined; however, there are various options.
Using the existing I percent transportation sales tax and the one-half percent Transit Tax sales tax,
both of which have been approved by a large majority of the Pitkin County electorate may be an
option. An election will be needed for bonding the rail system and to form a Rural Transportation
District, but it is premature to rush into an election at this time.
A(7) Transportation Government Entity
CDOT appreciates your comments. Although CDOT does not disagree., a transportation
governmental entity is not part of this project but will be considered.
C-2
B. Preferred Alternative Characteristics
B(l) LRT
As part of the Transportation Capacity Objective (FEIS pg. 1-3), the Preferred Alternative is to
provide needed transportation capacity for the forecasted person trips in the year 2015, and achieve
the stated community goal of limiting traffic volumes at or below 1993 levels. The Preferred
Alternative achieves this goal by providing an alternative mode of transportation in addition to the
TM measures. The goal of maintaining traffic volumes is throughout the corridor and not just
downtown; therefore, a large parking garage downtown will not accomplish the goal.
The Entrance to Aspen LRT system is the first link of a valley -wide transit system. A separate
project -- Roaring Fork Valley Transportation Corridor CIS/DEIS/CP -- is currently evaluating the
valley -wide transit system. This consists of extending the transit system from Aspen to Glenwood
Springs. The LRT system for Aspen works well with the terminus at the Pitkin County Airport. A
transit envelope has been cleared from Basalt to the Buttermilk Ski Area as part of the State
Highway 82 East of Basalt to Buttermilk Ski Area Record of Decision. If local support and
funding is available, the LRT may be extended where necessary.
There are no guarantees that any type of improvement to State Highway 82 will solve the Aspen's
transportation problem. What has been proven is that by adding capacity to an existing highway
system (widen to 4 lanes). will increase vehicle use as drivers respond to the new capacity.
Eventually the traffic on the 4 lane highway will exceed its capacity and a new system will need to
be developed (perhaps a 6 lane highway). By developing an alternative mode of transportation
(LRT) the same number of people may be serviced as a 4 lane highway, while maintaining the
existing traffic volumes.
Since the LRT runs on its own tracks it is not affected by traffic congestion, making the LRT a
%_-1
reliable source of transportation. The reliability of the LRT was proven in Denver during the winter
storm in October of 1997, although many vehicles were stuck in snow the LRT system maintained
its schedule. Commuters, visitors, skiers, residents, or any type of rider can enjoy the beauty of the
environment without worrying about driving.
CDOT has worked hard to provide an acceptable solution for Aspen. The LRT is a convenient way
to get around in such a pedestrian friendly city. It is a reliable system since it runs on its own track
and is not affected by traffic congestion or weather. This is a major improvement over the existing
bus system, since the buses are currently using the same highway and sitting in the same traffic as
the automobiles. Also, buses must reduce its speed during icy/ snowy conditions.
The actual design (type) of LRT system which will be used for Aspen has not been finalized.
Electric LRT with overhead wires has been recommended for the City of Aspen and assumed in the
planning analysis. The capacity of a two car system is estimated at 1700 people per hour with 10
minute headways. This requires two trains (4 LRVs) operating at the same time. Additional LRVs
C-3
may also be added to the system or the headways decreased in order to service more people along
the route. The LRT system can service as many people as a four lane highway. The LRT system has
been developed to be flexible. The tracks may easily be extended to expand its service.
The LRT system may serve as a multi -modal model for other resort areas. Guests and tourists may
find riding the LRT more relaxing and enjoyable than driving. During a train ride, the visitors have
the opportunity to view Aspen's beautiful scenery. Skiers should have no trouble traveling on the
LRT since the LRT will be similar to the shuttles used successfully at numerous mountain resorts.
Visitors will experience the convenience of 'hopping' on the LRT to go downtown.
CDOT has worked hard to reduce impacts to the valley which would result from the improvements.
The character of Aspen, however, is already being changed by a number of factors not attributed to
State Highway 82. All the features of Aspen that make it a destination resort and create public
demand to visit or live in Aspen are creating the changing character of the valley' .
In order to service the most people, the LRr has been developed to run down Main Street
(downtown core). The existing downtown bus system will expand to collect LRT users who are too
far from a station to walk. The stations have been strategically placed so a rider only needs to walk
a short distance to reach their destination or a bus stop.
The LRT alignment is located on the south -side of State Highway 82. The only location the LRT
crosses the highway is northwest of Service Center Road. This crossing is only used for LRVs going
to or coming from the maintenance facility. The LRT crosses Maroon Creek Road and Castle Creek
Road, minor collector routes, and driveways.. These access have relatively minor traffic volumes.
Overall, delays are created but they are only minor since gates will only be down less than 45
seconds at a time (similar to a traffic signal.
The FEIS evaluates center -running LRT along Main Street because it has less of an impact on Main
Street than the south -side alignment. Due to lack of community support for the center -running LRT,
the alignment has been changed in the ROD to south side -running. Please refer to Table 11-3 in the
FEIS for a comparison of center -running versus side -running.
With the implementation of Transportation Management (TM) measures (incentives to ride the LRT,
disincentives to drive own vehicle, and supporting factors), citizens will chose the more convenient
transportation system -- LRT. TM is a necessary step to achieve the goal of zero vehicle growth
(1993 traffic volumes).
The State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen EIS study has been ongoing for years. During this time,
numerous alignments, laneages, profiles, and modes have been evaluated (please refer to the
screening analysis in the FEIS).. The Preferred Alternative was developed as a result of the numerous
studies.
C-4
The majority of Aspen residents want an alternative mode of transportation. The DSEIS alternatives
(LRT based) were developed as a result of the DEIS public comment period. The Preferred
Alternative was developed from the City of Aspen's proposed interim Alternative H and the
numerous other comments recommending an alternative mode of transportation. The city and county
has gone through an extensive public involvement process, including two transit tax elections and
an open space election, to arrive at the Preferred Alternative.
CDOT is very concerned about the environmental quality of the surrounding area, and considerable
steps have been taken to avoid, reduce, or mitigate the impacts associated with upgrading State
Highway 82. As par of the Community Acceptability Objective and Livable Communities
Objective (FEIS pg. 1-4) the solution to the Entrance to Aspen needs to preserve Aspen's character.
The Preferred Alternative preserves Aspen's character by reducing the number of vehicles within
the City of Aspen and providing an alternative mode of transportation, thus promoting bicycle and
pedestrian use rather than vehicle use. The LRT is more environmentally friendly than the existing
bus system or ant future extended highway system.
The construction of the Preferred Alternative will depend upon the funding. If sufficient local
support and/or funding is not available, the LRT system can be developed initially as phased
exclusive bus lanes. Upon construction of the Preferred Alternative, early action items will be
constructed first where feasible (please refer to the ROD for details).
The City of Aspen is an attractive resort destination with resulting high prices for housing. Many
of the jobs are filled by employees who cannot afford to live in Aspen or Snowmass. Although the
population of the City of Aspen is approximately 6,000 there are numerous employees and visitors
using the transportation system. The future transportation system must take the employees and
visitors into consideration as well as the residents.
The people who cannot take public transportation (for whatever reason) will benefit greatly from the
Preferred Alternative. With more people riding transit, the highway will not be as congested as it
would if transit was not available. As one commentor noted "the benefitees of public transportation
are the people who are enjoying themselves (or not) riding up and down the highways in their private
cars and trucks" (Comment Letter 84).
There is not a transportation system that pays for itself (with the exception of a toll road). The
Preferred Alternative was not developed to make a profit. All types of transportation systems require
money to maintain its serviceability. A four -lane highway system needs money to stripe, patch,
plow, sand, distribute magnesium chloride, and eventually reconstruct. Highways are maintained
through various taxes not by the system itself. The current paid parking program is a disincentive
to drive downtown. It is used to encourage people to carpool, walk, or use bicycles, and use the
revenue for transportation improvements.
C-5
B(2) LRT Tracks
The Preferred Alternative consist of the LRT line double -track except in the following locations,
which are single-track:
• LRT Maintenance Facility to the Pitkin County Airport
• Maroon Creek Bridge
• A point just west of the cut and cover tunnel to the intersection of 7' Street and Main
Street
• 7 1h Street LRT Station
• 3 rd Street LRT Station
0 Intersection of Monarch Street and Main Street to Rubey Park
qr two T
These locations are single-track because at no time will there be 1_..RT trains passing at these
locations. CDOT has worked hard to minimize impacts to the environment. Less right-of-way is
needed for single-track trains. By determining the locations that single -tracks may be used will
minimize the impacts.
B(3) LRT Location
The FEIS evaluates center -running LRT along Main Street because it has less of an impact on Main
4-11
Street than the south -side alignment. Due to lack of community support for the center -running LRT,
the alignment has been changed in the ROD to south side -running (recommended by the Citizen's
A
Task Force). Please refer to Table 111-3 in the FEIS for a impacts on the south side -running
alignment. The Entrance to Aspen Main Street Design Report, Nov. 3, 1997, prepared by OTAK
discusses the conceptual design of the south side -running system.
Where there is a south side -running single track alignment along Main Street, north side parking can
be preserved. A variety of parking layouts can be created in the south side cul-de-sacs of Seventh,,,
Sixth, Fourth, Second, and First Streets. Diagonal parking can be expanded on the west side of
Monarch Street if the street becomes one-way southbound as proposed. Parking removed on Durant
Avenue may need to be provided on nearby streets.
Businesses along Main Street will attract many visitors. Patrons are more likely to go to a restaurant
or shop if they don't have to fight traffic or look for a parking space. Hotels or Inns will benefit
since their visitors will have the convenience of a stop close to where they are staying. They can get
to the airport, Buttermilk Ski Area, downtown, or many other destinations without going through the
hassle of driving and parking.
The Innsbruck Inn is not anticipated to lose business as a result of the south side -running LRT.
Access to the Inn will be off of 3" Street or 2 nd Street with the south -side alignment. There are a
variety of parking layouts which may be created on the Second Street cul-de-sac. The Inns' patrons
will have the convenience of getting to a variety of locations in Aspen by catching the LRT in front
of the hotel. CDOT would like to apologize for any inconvenience the project may have caused.
CDOT will be working with the Innsbruck Inn and other business along Main Street during final
design.
C-6
B(4) Alignment
The Preferred Alternative consists of the modified direct alignment across the Marolt-Thomas
Property. The modified direct alignment provides a safe entrance to Aspen and is the community's
preferred alignment. The existing alignment was screened out during the Comparative Screening
Analysis. It was eliminated based on safety and community acceptability issues. Compared to the
modified direct alignment, the S-curves are expected to have a higher accident rate even with
improvements to the roadway. The existing alignment also does not address the Emergency Access
Objective that states the need for an alternate route in and out of Aspen. In a public survey of
alignments preferences (September 1994 Public Open House), the existing alignment was chosen
as the least favorable in comparison to other alignments.
The couplet alignment (one-way pair) was eliminated during the Comparative Screening Analysis.
This was eliminated because of operational problems for Cemetery Lane traffic wanting to head east
(into town) on State Highway 82. This traffic must first head west on the highway and U-turn where
the two one-way roads merge together into a two-way road. This creates a dangerous turning
movement on a highway facility.
The Denver & Rio Grande Western. (D&RGW) alignment for the entrance to Aspen was eliminated
during the Reality Check Screening Analysis. This alignment would not service as many people as
the Main Street LRT alignment (downtown core) where more people can walk to conveniently. The
LRT alignment into Aspen does not affect the alignment used downvalley. The downvalley
alignment is under evaluation on a different project.
Traffic calming is a system of devices used to control traffic. The S-curves slow traffic coming into
Aspen; however, it is not an appropriate calming device. Drivers are not prepared for such sharp
curves on a highway. The curves are dangerous. As previously stated, there are better traffic
calming devices that are more effective and less dangerous. The cut and cover tunnel, included in
the Preferred Alternative, will act as a traffic calming device. Drivers automatically slow down upon
approaching a tunnel. The drivers can see the tunnel ahead, giving them time to respond
appropriately.
The LRT cannot operate around the S-curves, even with smoothing the curves out. A lot of private
property and residents would be impacted by smoothing the curve enough to run LRT along them.
%1
This would not be accepted by the community and would not meet the project objectives. Monarch
Street- and Durant Street have different widths and right-of-ways than the S-curves; therefore, the
LRT may run down them.
To minimize environmental impacts, the LRT is developed to be on the same platform as the
highway. This reduces the amount of right-of-way needed and eliminates fragmentation of the
transportation system.
C-7
Main Street is zoned as a transportation corridor. The EIS process is to develop the best alternative
that meets transportation needs but minimizes adverse environmental, social, and economic impacts.
By redirecting traffic all over downtown Aspen (creating numerous one-way streets) and forcing
traffic off Main Street and on side streets will disrupt the neighborhoods and create social impacts.
B(5) Terminus
The Entrance to Aspen LRT system is the first link of a valley -wide transit system. A separate
project -- Roaring Fork Valley Transportation Corridor CIS/DEIS/CP -- is currently evaluating the
valley -wide transit system. This consists of extending the transit system from Aspen to Glenwood
Springs. The LRT system for Aspen works well with the terminus at the Pitkin County Airport. A
transit envelope has been cleared from Basalt to the Buttermilk Ski Area as part of the State
Highway 82 East of Basalt to Buttermilk Ski Area Record of Decision. If local support and
funding is available, the LRT may be extended where necessary.
The Airport Multimodal Facility is developed to transfer users to the LRT system or to the airport
system. The airport facility could have the capacity to house approximately 3,600 parking spaces
in a six level parking garage. Four of these levels are proposed to be below grade. The garage will
likely be built in stages, depending upon the demand. There are opportunities to eliminate much of
the airport parking demand by placing more spaces further downvalley (perhaps at Brush Creek
Road).
A separate project -- Aspen to Snowmass linkage is currently in progress. This project is
determining the best linkage from Snowmass to State Highway 82.
The LRT line has been developed to service the most people by running down Main Street to Rubey
Park. If a station is not close enough for a person to walk, they may either take a bus, a shuttle, or
ride their bike. There is a designated area to transport a bike on the LRT.
Rubey Park was determined as the best eastern terminus. Rubey Park is a central location
downtown. The LRT interfaces with the in -town RFI'A bus operations for a modal transfer facility
in downtown Aspen. The station at Rubey Park may be upgraded if capacity is reached.
The LRT Maintenance Facility has been placed next to the existing RFTA Bus Maintenance Facility.
The land dedicated for the maintenance facility is owned by the City of Aspen.
B(6) Airport Multimodal Facility
The Airport Multimodal Facility is developed to transfer users to the LRT system or to the airport
system. The airport facility could have the capacity to house approximately 3,600 parking spaces
in a six level parking garage. Four of these levels are proposed to be below grade. The garage will
likely be phased, depending upon the demand. There are opportunities to eliminate much of the
airport parking demand by placing more spaces further downvalley (e.g. Brush Creek Road, El Jebel,
Carbondale, etc.).
The Entrance to Aspen LRT system is the first link of a valley -wide transit system. A separate
project -- Roaring Fork Valley Transportation Corridor CIS/DEIS/CP -- is currently evaluating a
valley -wide transit system. This consists of extending the transit system from Aspen to Glenwood
Springs. Once the valley -wide system is in place, the downvalley commuters will not have to drive
to the airport. Before the completion of the valley -wide system, commuters may find it more
convenient to ride the LRT than to fight traffic and look for a parking space.
The LRT system cannot be compared to the existing bus system. The LRT system will run on its
own tracks, whereas the current bus system must use the same highway as the automobiles and sit
in the same traffic. Time conservation is one of the best incentives for the LRT.
B(7) Buttermilk Multimodal Facility
The Buttermilk Multimodal Facility is a two -level parking structure with a capacity of 750 spaces.
This facility would be the transfer point for skier trips and commuter bus trips into the Aspen area.
Aspen skiers traveling to Snowmass would ride the LRT to Buttermilk and make a transfer to a bus
or gondola (possible future connection).
CDOT appreciates your comments and suggestions. Intersection analysis for the West
Buttermilk/Owl Creek Road and State Highway 82 intersection (using projected year 2015 traffic
volumes) shows that a signalized intersection operates at a LOS B. The left turn traffic volumes do
not require a double left turn lane, nor is a grade- separation necessary. Please refer to the FEIS pg.
111-50 for more details on this intersection. A second left turn lane from State Highway 82 onto Owl
Creek Road for residents and Snowmass bound vehicles will be determined during final design.
6_�
SkiCO proposed a pedestrian mall located at the Buttermilk Multimodal Facility. The mall may be
built in conjunction with the facility; however, it is not part of CDOT's project.
The entrance to Buttermilk Ski Area has been developed with a traffic signal. With the projected
traffic volumes, the signal operates efficiently. If a grade -separated intersection becomes necessary
in the future then it will be evaluated.
B(8) Moore Transit Station (Kiss-n-Ride)
CDOT appreciates your concerns about the Moore Open Space. CDOT is currently researching the
Moore Open Space Use and Management Agreement between Pitkin County and the Moore family.
CDOT is working with Pitkin County to resolve this issue. Please refer to the Memorandum of
Understanding between CDOT, FHWA, and Pitkin County.
The Moore Transit station (kiss-n-ride) operates as a passenger drop-off and pick-up for the transit
station. To minimize impacts to the Moore Open Space, parking is not provided. The Preferred
Alternative shows the station set back into the hillside and placed partially beneath a cover. The
cover is graded and landscaped to match the existing land form. The covered station provides some
C-9
visual relief as viewed from the open space of the Moore Property. The FEIS cleared the footprint
of the station, a different design may be constructed as long as it fits within the cleared footprint.
CDOT will continue to work with the public and interested agencies during final design of the
Moore kiss-n-ride station.
B(9) Cut & Cover
As part of the mitigation for Section 4(f) properties impacts, the Preferred Alternative includes a cut
and cover tunnel that begins at approximately MP 40.1 (along the new alignment) and continues for
122 meters (400 feet). The cut and cover tunnel could be shifted approximately 15 meters (50 feet)
to the east, if necessary, during preliminary and final design.
CDOT apologizes for any confusions they may have created. A 215 meter (700 feet) cut and cover
tunnel was evaluated during the FEIS analysis. A tunnel this length is not recommended in the FEIS
because as the tunnel length increases, the depression of the alignment begins earlier. This will
require additional open space take. If desired, this length could be extended up to as much as 213
meters (700 feet) during the design phases to mitigate impacts to the Marolt-Thomas Property.
A 'slight hump' described in the FEIS pg. V-53 is necessary to reduce the amount of highway
depression. This slight hump is approximately 1.5 meters (5 feet) above grade, and will imitate the
existing character of the Marolt-Thomas Property.
The cut and cover tunnel is wide enough for a transit lane and two highway lanes. The LRT system
is a flexible system, which can easily be expanded to service more people. As person trips into and
out of Aspen increase, the frequency of the LRT may also increase, or additional cars may be added.
It is too dangerous for cyclists to ride through a tunnel with highway traffic and an LRT. A bike path
will be provided on top of the cut and cover tunnel for cyclists, pedestrians, and other non -vehicular
traffic.
The area above the tunnel will be revegetated to provide continuity of the open space and will be
used for recreational activities. The tunnel will not be designed to have natural lighting since it will
be used for recreational activities.
The cut and cover tunnel mitigates impacts to the Holden Smelting and Milling Complex. Please
refer to the FEIS on details.
B(10) TM Program
The FEIS recommends the Incremental TM Program to meet the zero growth target. TM is a key
element in the project; however, the measures need to be implemented by local jurisdictions without
state or federal financial assistance. CDOT will support the local jurisdictions as appropriate with
the development and monitoring of the TM Program.
As part of the Transportation Capacity Objective (FEIS pg. 1-3), the Preferred Alternative is to
C-10
provide needed transportation capacity for the forecasted person trips in the year 2015, and achieve
the stated community goal of limiting traffic volumes at or below levels in 1993. A key element in
reaching this goal is the TM Program. The program includes a combination of incentives,
disincentives, and supporting measures to encourage the use of transit, carpools, bicycles, and
walking. Examples of incentives are improving the transit service or reducing parking rates for
HOV. Examples of disincentives are paid parking or congestion pricing. The local jurisdiction is
committed to using a TM Program to achieve the Transportation Capacity Objective.
There are no transportation systems that pays for itself (with the exception of a toll road). A four -
lane highway must use tax money to be maintained. The current paid parking program is a
disincentive to drive downtown. It is used to encourage people to carpool, walk, or use bicycles, and
use the revenue for transportation improvement.
B(I 1) Divided Highway
CDOT appreciates your comment. The Preferred Alternative includes a grass median from the
airport to just before the cut and cover tunnel. The median was developed for safety and aesthetic
reasons. Please refer to the ROD for additional details.
8(12) Right -of -Way
CDOT apologizes for any confusion. The right-of-way (not traffic lane) comes within 6 meters (20
feet) of the Villas. The center line of the outbound highway lane comes within 12 meters (40 feet)
of the Villas. The center of the LRT track comes within 25 meters (85 feet) of the Villas. CDOT
apologizes for any inconvenient the project may create to the Villas. CDOT will continue to work
with the Villas through final design. It is impossible to avoid any impacts if the highway is to be
improved.
B(13) Access/Intersections
CDOT appreciates your comments and ideas. The Preferred Alternative includes a Multimodal
Facility at Buttermilk Ski Area. West Buttermilk Road and Owl Creek Road have been rerouted to
the Multimodal Facility. The other intersections along State Highway 82 have been analyzed and
work well as they appear in the Preferred Alternative. Although State Highway 82 operates best with
the least amount of intersections, it is not necessary to combine the existing roads and disturb open
space.
To minimize environmental impacts, the Preferred Alternative does not include a direct connection
between State Highway 82 and Cemetery Lane. This allows the existing portion of State Highway
82 west of Cemetery Lane to be converted to open space.
The Preferred Alternative includes improved access to the Pitkin County Golf Course and the
Truscott Place Housing. Please refer to the FEIS for more details.
C-1 I
The LRT will have priority over all side -road traffic. The LRT gates are developed to descend as
the LRT approaches. These gates are sufficient for safety and operation of the LRT. Grade -
separated intersections are not necessary due to the frequency of the LRT and the side -road traffic
volumes.
Traffic signals placed on Main Street were developed to improve traffic operations and provide safe
pedestrian crossings. Due to right -in and right -out (cul-de-sacs if south -side LRT alignment) located
on ThStreet, 6' Street, 4' Street, 2 nd Street, and I" Street; more traffic will use 51h Street, 3 d Street,
Garmisch Street, and Aspen Street to access Main Street. Signals are required at these intersections
to handle the additional traffic. As stated in Volume 2, pg. 70 the 7 1h Street and Main Street
intersection operates below capacity and minimal delays are anticipate. Please refer to the February
4, 1997 Technical Memorandum, listed as a technical report, for more details on the intersection
analysis.
Improvements to State Highway 82 is necessary for the people who use the highway everyday, not
just tourists. The people who live or work in Aspen are impacted greatly by the current system. The
LRT and improved highway lanes will mostly benefit the residents and employees of Aspen.
B(14) Cemetery Lane Connection
CDOT appreciates your comments. The Entrance to Aspen project is challenging in developing the
best solution while juggling the different environmental impacts and mitigation measures. It is true
that by eliminating the Cemetery Lane connection to State Highway 82 additional traffic will travel
through town. The Preferred Alternative, however, eliminates the direct connection to mitigate the
impacts to open space. The Preferred Alternative, including System Management (please refer to
FEIS, Chapter H: System Management) meets the PM 10 non -attainment requirements, even with
the additional traffic from Cemetery Lane. Also, the intersection of 7 th Street and Main Street
operates under capacity with the additional traffic.
CDOT apologizes for any confusion, the portion of the existing road west of Cemetery Lane will be
returned to open space. As for Alternative G, a cut and cover tunnel can not be placed along the
existing alignment due to the small distance between the Cemetery Lane intersection and where the
transitway merges with the highway. This distance is below 120 meters (400 feet) which does not
leave room to depress the alignment before entering the tunnel or raise the alignment to match the
transitway grade.
An overpass or underpass for Cemetery Lane will require additional right-of-way taken from open
space, which is not necessary.
B(15) Emergency Access
CDOT apologizes for any confusion, the portion of the existing road west of Cemetery Lane will be
returned to open space; however, this may also be used as an emergency access. Since the existing
C- 12
Castle Creek Bridge is still in place, if there is an emergency situation and if the new Castle Creek
Bridge is blocked, emergency vehicles can drive through the open space to connect with State
Highway 82.
Using Power Plant Road as an emergency route was discussed in the FEIS document. This option
was eliminated due to weight restrictions on the bridge.
B(16) Collector Bus
CDOT apologizes for any confusion. The collector bus routes have not yet been determined;
however, the Airport Multimodal Facility has been identified as the intercept point for commuter
"W'V
travel into the Aspen area (please refer to FEIS, pg.u-3 I). The Buttermilk Multimodal Facility is
primarily a transfer point for skiers; however, it may also serve as an intercept point for commuters.
B(I 7) West Buttermilk Road/Owl Creek Road Relocation
CDOT appreciates your comments and suggestions. Intersection analysis for the West
Buttermilk/Owl Creek Road and State Highway 82 intersection (using projected year 2015 traffic
volumes) shows that a signalized intersection operates at a LOS B. The left turn traffic volumes do
not require a double left turn lane, nor is a grade- separation necessary. Please refer to the FEIS pg.
111-50 for more details on this intersection. A second left turn Jane from State Highway 82 onto Owl
Creek Road for residents and Snowmass bound vehicles will be determined during final design.
People traveling out of Aspen and onto West Buttermilk Road/Owl Creek Road has a protected left
turn phase at the signalized intersection. Please refer to the FEIS pg. 11-50 for more details on this
intersection.
It is true that there will be added traffic at the West Buttermilk Road/Owl Creek Road intersection
due to commuters (Snowmass, Owl Creek Road, and West Buttermilk Road) and skiers; however
the peak hours for each group is different. The commuter peak traffic volumes occur between 6:00
and 8:00 a.m., whereas the skier peak traffic volumes occur between 8:00 and 9:00 a.m. Please refer
to the FEIS, pg. 1- 14 for additional information.
Public involvement has been a key issue throughout the EIS process. Numerous public meetings
have been held, including six public open houses and various focus group meetings. The fist focus
group meeting for the Owl Creek area was held on August 26, 1994 and the last meeting on April
15, 1997. The Owl Creek Caucus, Homeowner Associations, and residents of Owl Creek Road have
had plenty of opportunity to voice their concerns and opinions on the relocation of Owl Creek Road.
B(18) No -Phasing
The proposed action is a 'condition alternative', that is the Preferred Alternative includes an LRT
system; however, if sufficient local support and/or funding is not available it can be developed
initially as phased exclusive bus lanes. The phased option is described in detail in this document.
C-13
B(19) Recreational Resources
CDOT has developed a safe and modem State Highway 82 which replaces, repairs, and enhances
all local trails impacted by the proposed highway improvements. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities
are considered throughout the FEIS. The relocated trails will be designed during the design phase.
They will meet ADA and City/County standards where feasible.
It is too dangerous for cyclists to ride through a tunnel with highway traffic and an LRT. A bike path
will be provided on top of the cut and cover tunnel for cyclists, pedestrians, and other non -vehicular
traffic.
CDOT is committed to mitigate impacted parks to its current quality where feasible.
C. Corridor
C(l) Airport to Buttermilk Ski Area
Preserving Aspen's trail system is an important issue in the Entrance to Aspen EIS project. CDOT
is committed to relocate, repair, and enhance any impacted trails. The design of the relocated trails
will be developed during the design phase. One trail that requires modification is the AABC trail.
In some areas, realignment and/or improvement of the highway requires relocating the AABC trail.
These areas include between the Tiehack Bridge and Truscott Place, and between Maroon Creek
Road and the cut and cover tunnel. The Preferred Alternative may include grade -separated trails at
the Airport Multimodal Facility and Buttermilk Multimodal Facility. CDOT is not responsible for
the Ski Company's plans but CDOT will cooperate.
The Aspen Airport Business Center intersection operates well as a signalized intersection. A grade -
separated intersection is not warranted because tourists may prefer that type of intersection, the cost
is too great.
C(2) Buttermilk Ski Area to Maroon Creek Bridge
CDOT is committed to relocate, repair, and enhance any impacted trails. The design of the relocated
trails will be developed during the design phase. The Preferred Alternative may include grade -
separated trails at the Buttermilk Multimodal Facility.
CDOT appreciates your comments and suggestions. Intersection analysis for the West
Buttermilk/Owl Creek Road and State Highway 82 intersection (using projected year 2015 traffic
volumes) shows that a signalized intersection operates at a LOS B. The left turn traffic volumes do
not require a double left turn lane, nor is a grade -separation necessary. Please refer to the FEIS pg.
111-50 for more details on this intersection. A second left turn lane from State Highway 82 onto Owl
Creek Road for residents and Snowmass bound vehicles will be determined during final design.
C- 14
Creating dedicated lanes on Owl Creek Road/West Buttermilk Road for the Buttermilk and Owl
Creek residents have been considered. Currently, there are no plans to do this since it would create
conflict between the vehicles of the residents and the skier. Conflict occurs when a resident wants
to turn right onto State Highway 82 or a skier wants to turn left.
The removal of the Buttermilk Maintenance Facility is not part of CDOT's project.
C(3) Maroon Creek Bridge
CDOT is committed to relocate, repair, and enhance any impacted trails. The design of the relocated
trails will be developed during the design phase. The Preferred Alternative includes a grade -
separated trail at the Maroon Creek Bridge. For more details, please refer to the Memorandum of
Understanding between CDOT, FHWA, and the City of Aspen for the Entrance to Aspen.
The Maroon Creek Bridges accompany a transit lane and two highway lanes. The LRT system is
a flexible system, which can easily be expanded to service more people. As person trips into and out
of Aspen increase, the frequency of the LRT may also increase, or additional cars may be added.
The current Maroon Creek Pedestrian Bridge is a temporary bridge constructed for use until the
Preferred Alternative is constructed. There will be a new pedestrian/bike bridge over Maroon Creek
which will complement the highway bridge.
The new highway bridge is placed on the north side of the existing bridge to avoid unacceptable
adverse social impacts to private properties located on the south side of the existing bridge. A
retaining wall will be constructed on the north side to preserve the existing Plum Tree playing field.
C(4) Maroon Creek Bridge to Castle Creek Bridge
CDOT is committed to relocate, repair, and enhance any impacted trails. The design of the relocated
trails will be developed during the design phase. One trail that requires relocation is the High School
Bike Path. This trail is relocated to parallel the Modified Direct alignment across the Marolt-
Thomas Property. The trails impacted by the Modified Direct alignment are relocated on top of the
cut and cover tunnel.
Impacts to the Marolt-Thomas Property is discussed in the FEIS document. The cut and cover tunnel
is a mitigation measured used to minimize impacts to open space. Native vegetation will be used,
if this is not possible then a similar vegetation will be used. The cut and cover tunnel will act as a
traffic calming device and slow traffic down as they enter the town.
The impacts to the Plum Tree Playing Field will be mitigated as appropriate.
An underground alignment under the present Castle Creek Bridge and the Hallam Street right-of-way
emerging near Monarch Street will not work for the Entrance to Aspen project. Placing the transit
C-15
underground will not service the people in downtown Aspen. The only place riders would be able
to get on or off the transit is at Rubey Park (or in the HUTS Alternative -- Rio Grande Transportation
Center). Developing) the LRT down Main Street, at -grade, will permit people to get on and off at
numerous locations. People from all over downtown will also be able to walk to the stations. The
LRT alignment is critical in obtaining the desired transit ridership
The Hopkins Street Pedestrian/Bikeway is not included in the Entrance to Aspen EIS project.
C(5) Castle Creek to Main Street
Impacts to the residents between Castle Creek and Main Street are discussed in the FEIS document.
The exact type, height, and length of a noise barrier will be determine during the design phase.
There are no vibration impacts as a result of this project. The cut and cover tunnel is a mitigation
measure for the visual and noise impacts.
An underground alignment under the present Castle Creek Bridge and the Hallam Street right-of-way
emerging near Monarch Street will not work for the Entrance to Aspen project. Placing the transit
underground will not service the people in downtown Aspen. The only place riders would be able
to get on or off the transit is at Rubey Park (or in the HUTS Alternative -- Rio Grande Transportation
Center). Developing the LRT down Main Street, at -grade, will permit people to get on and off at
numerous locations. People from all over downtown will also be able to walk to the stations. The
LRT alignment is critical in obtaining the desired transit ridership.
The intersection of 7" Street and Main Street consists of a left turn lane and a through lane for
eastbound State Highway 82. Westbound Main Street has a right turn lane and a through lane.
Southbound 7 th Street has one through/right line and one left turn lane. The south leg of the
intersection is closed to through traffic and converted into a cul-de-sac. The LRT crosses on the
south side of the intersection. The operations of this intersection has been analyzed (Please refer to
the Seventh and Main Technical Memorandum dated February, 1997), and the results show that it
is operating under capacity.
CDOT apologizes for any confusion. The right-of-way (not traffic lane) comes within 6 meters (20
feet) of the Villas. The center line of the outbound highway lane comes within 12 meters (40 feet)
of the Villas. The center of the LRT track comes within 25 meters (85) feet of the Villas. CDOT
apologizes for any inconvenient the project may create to the Villas. It is impossible to avoid any
impacts if the highway is to be improved.
In addition to the profile that is used for the Preferred Alternative, another profile that lowered the
alignment between the cut and cover tunnel and the intersection of 7 1h Street and Main Street was
evaluated. This profile was developed to reduce noise and visual impacts on the surrounding
structures. This option is not feasible because a retaining wall on both sides of State Highway 82
would be required. The retaining wall on the south side would close off the only access to the Berger
Cabin from the highway and adversely impact the Berger Cabin Property.
C-16
C(6) Main Street
The FEIS evaluates center -running LRT along Main Street because it has less of an impact on Main
Street than the south -side alignment. Due to lack of community support for the center -running LRT,
the alignment has been changed in the ROD to south -side running (recommended by the Citizen's
Task Force). Please refer to Table 11-3 in the FEIS for a impacts on the south side -running
alignment. The Entrance to Aspen Main Street Design Report, Nov. 3, 1997, prepared by OTAK
discusses the conceptual design of the south side -running system.
In order to place the LRT tracks on the south -side of Main Street, some of the cottonwood trees will
be removed. Mitigation includes replacing the trees or minimizing the width of the sidewalk. If the
existing sidewalks are impacted during construction then they will also be replaced.
Traffic signals along Main Street are placed at the intersections of 7' Street, 511 Street,, 3r1 Street, and
Garmisch Street; and existing signals are located on Aspen Street and Monarch Street. Pedestrians
and bicyclists may cross Main Street at any of these intersections. The traffic signals along Main
Street will be coordinated accordingly to facilitate vehicle platooning. Please refer to the FEIS for
a discussion of the operations along Main Street.
The intersection of 7 1h Street and Main Street consists of a left turn lane and a through lane for
eastbound State Highway 82. Westbound Main Street has a right turn lane and a through lane.
Southbound 7 th Street has one through/right line and one left turn lane. The south leg of the
intersection is closed to through traffic and converted into a cul-de-sac. The LRT crosses on the
south side of the intersection. The operations of this intersection has been analyzed (Please refer to
the Seventh and Main Technical Memorandum dated February, 1997), and the results show that it
is operating under capacity.
As part of the Transportation Capacity Objective (FEIS pg. 1-3), the Preferred Alternative is to
provide needed transportation capacity for the forecasted person trips in the year 2015, and achieve
the stated community goal of limiting traffic volumes at or below levels in 1993. The Preferred
Alternative accomplishes this objective by providing an alternative to driving -- the LRT -- and
implementing TM measures. The LRT line has been developed to service the most people by
running down Main Street to Rubey Park.
The actual design (type) of LRT system which will be used for Aspen has not been finalized.
Electric LRT with overhead wires has been recommended for the City of Aspen and assumed in the
planning analysis. If this type of LRT is chosen, the overhead wires will be camouflage as much as
possible to minimize visual impacts.
CDOT has worked hard to provide an acceptable alternative. The LRT is a convenient way to get
around in such a pedestrian friendly city. It is a reliable system since it runs on its own track and is
not affected by traffic congestion.
Additional traffic is not expected on Hopkins Street as a result of the Preferred Alternative (LRT and
traffic signals on Main Street). Main Street currently consist. of four travel lanes which is also
C-17
0
included in the Preferred Alternative. The traffic signals are developed to move the flow of traffic
through Main Street. The current bottleneck is eliminated at the intersection of 7' Street and Main
Street with the removal of S-curves.
With the south -side LRT alignment, the current practice of snow removal down Main Street will
continue.
Main Street is and has always been a transportation corridor. Directing traffic to various side streets
(Hopkins and Mill), or converting two-way streets into one-way streets will disrupt the city. The
existing neighborhoods do not want their street to become the highway corridor. This option will
not be accepted by the community.
Impacts to any park will be mitigated as appropriate.
C(7) Maroon Creek Road Intersection
In developing the Preferred Alternative, a signalized intersection and a roundabout intersection were
evaluated at the Maroon Creek Road and State Highway 82 intersection. The preferred option is the
roundabout. While the signalized intersection has acceptable operation, vehicle delays are
approximately ten times greater than for the roundabout intersection. This delay may also have a
detrimental effect on the environment. Vehicles use extra fuel and generate more emissions while
delayed, which decreases air quality in the area. Delays are costly to the commuter. While this is
not a severe operational problem, proposing an intersection that promotes better traffic flow and
increases the safety is in the best interest of the community. Please refer to the FEIS Section 4(f)
Resources Evaluation with a complete discussion of the advantages of a roundabout intersection over
a signalized intersection.
The Preferred Alternative includes a roundabout at the Maroon Creek Road intersection. This
roundabout has been developed to improve the operations of this intersection and the Castle Creek
Road connection, while minimizing impacts to the surrounding Section 4(f) resources. The
roundabout is completely off of the Moore Property. It impacts a total of 0.53 hectares (1.30 acres)
of Section 4(f) resources. Shifting the roundabout north and east has been analyzed. This shift,
however, will not lower the total impacts, it will decrease the impacts to the Thomas Property and
increase the impacts to the Aspen Golf Course.
A roundabout is pedestrian/bicyclist friendly. A pedestrian underpass is currently being designed
outside of the roundabout. This allows the pedestrians/bicycles to cross without disrupting the flow
of traffic through the roundabout.
The roundabout cannot be compared to the existing S-curves. The geometry of the roundabout holds
traffic to a speed of 25 km/h (15 mph). As drivers approach the roundabout they automatically slow
down and are prepared to stop. Along the current S-curves, many drivers (especially visitors) take
the curves too fast. The S-curves are dangerous because drivers are not prepared for such tight
curves along a highway. There are better traffic calming devices that are not dangerous.
C-18
The roundabout developed in the Preferred Alternative gives the right-of-way to the traffic inside
of the roundabout. Those wishing to enter the roundabout yields to those inside.
The Moore LRT Station, as proposed in the FEIS, has been developed for pedestrians, bicyclists, bus
riders, and car drop-offs. Sawtooth bus bays are provided adjacent to the LRT station platform to
allow easy transfers between the buses and the LRT. Other vehicles are also allowed to access the
LRT station at a pick-up/drop-off area, also adjacent to the LRT station platform. Pedestrians may
use the side walks attached to the station platforms. Bicyclists may lock their bicycles on the bike
racks or load their bicycles onto the LRT. The location of the trails will be determined during the
design phase; however, a grade -separated trail may be considered at this location.
The Moore Transit station (kiss-n-ride) operates as a passenger drop-off and pick-up for the transit
station. To minimize impacts to the Moore Open Space, parking is not provided. The Preferred
Alternative shows the station set back into the hillside and placed partially beneath a cover. The
cover is graded and landscaped to match the existing land form. The covered station provides some
visual relief as viewed from the open space of the Moore Property. The FEIS cleared the footprint
of the station, a different design may be constructed as long as it fits within the cleared footprint.
CDOTwill continue to work with the public and interested agencies during final design of the
Moore kiss-n-ride station.
The Castle Creek Road/Maroon Creek Road intersection currently does not operate efficiently.
Traffic on Maroon Creek Road heading to State Highway 82 backs -up and blocks the entrance to
Castle Creek Road. In an emergency situation, emergency vehicles may have trouble accessing
Castle Creek Road on their way to the hospital. Providing a direct connection between Castle Creek
Road and State Highway 82 will solve many of the current problems. Castle Creek Road traffic will
be eliminated from Maroon Creek Road.
The roundabout operates well under capacity. The additional traffic as a result from the new bridge
at Rotary Park, and other developments in the area is not expected to impact the roundabout
operations.
C(8) Monarch Street
CDOT appreciates your comment.
C(9) Castle Creek Bridge
CDOT commits to quality design and construction on the proposed Castle Creek Bridge. CDOT will
minimize impacts to the Marolt Property and the neighborhood east of Castle Creek where feasible.
The Castle Creek Bridge accompanies a transit lane and two highway lanes. The LRT system is a
flexible system, which can easily be expanded to service more people. As person trips into and out
of Aspen increase, the frequency of the LRT may also increase, or additional cars may be added.
C-19
The Preferred Alternative consists of the modified direct alignment t across the Marolt-Thomas
Property. The modified direct alignment provides a safe entrance to Aspen and is the community's
preferred alignment. The existing alignment was screened out during the Comparative Screening
Analysis. It was eliminated based on safety and community acceptability issues. Compared to the
modified direct alignment, the S-curves are expected to have a higher accident rate even with
improvements to the roadway. The existing alignment also does not address the Emergency Access
Objective that states the need for an alternative emergency access route in and out of Aspen. In a
public survey of alignments preferences (September 1994 Public Open House), the existing
alignment was chosen as the least favorable in comparison to other alignments.
The final design of the Castle Creek Bridge will be determined during the design phase. The EIS
is a planning document which does not require the design of bridges. A conceptual design is shown
in the FEIS document, with a 2 meter (7 foot) concrete median. During the design phase, CDOT will
follow the conditions of the November 1996 referendum which requires that the "design of the
proposed bridge shall be sensitive to the environment and community character."
A riparian wetland (Wetland 3) is located near the proposed Castle Creek Bridge. This is discussed
in detail in the FEIS document. As explained on page V-32 of the document, the Castle Creek
Bridge does not impact Wetland 3. Non -wetland riparian communities are not protected under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. CDOT, however, acknowledges the importance of riparian
communities and will avoid them where feasible.
The FEIS discusses all impacts and mitigation measures as a result of the Preferred Alternative
(including the Castle Creek Bridge). Please refer to Chapter V: Environmental Consequences and
Chapter VI: Mitigation Summary.
Q10) Buttermilk Ski Area
Intersection analysis for the West Buttermilk/Owl Creek Road and State Highway 82 intersection
(using projected year 2015 traffic volumes) shows that a signalized intersection operates at a LOS
B. A grade- sep arati on is not necessary. The intersection will be designed following design
standards.
D. Alternative
D(1) Preferred Alternative
CDOT appreciates the local support and the City of Aspen support of the Preferred Alternative and
the EIS process, thank -you for your comments.
The proposed action is a 'condition alternative'; that is, the Preferred Alternative includes an LRT
system that if sufficient local support and/or funding is not available it can be developed initially as
phased exclusive bus lanes. The phased option is described in detail in this document.
C-20
CDOT apologizes for any confusion the description of the Preferred Alternative in the FEIS
document may have created. CDOT tried to describe the Preferred Alternative as clear as possible,
including figures. Please refer to the ROD for more details. If you still have questions
understanding the Preferred Alternative please contact Mr. Ralph Trapani at the Glenwood Springs
CDOT office (970-945-7629) or Mr. Ron Speral at the Lakewood FHWA office (303-969-6737, ext
368).
In developing the Preferred Alternative for the Entrance to Aspen, an extensive screening process
was completed. A full documentation of the screening process is available in the technical report
entitled State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen Alternatives Screening Analysis (DEIS), and the
technical memorandum to the DSEIS entitled Entrance to Aspen DSEIS Alternatives Screening
Report. The developing of the Preferred Alternative took over 3 years, it was not prematurely
selected. Chapter H: Alternatives in the FEIS describes in detail why the DEIS alternatives were
eliminated.
The Entrance to Aspen LRT system is the first link of a valley -wide transit system. A separate
project -- Roaring Fork Valley Transportation Corridor CIS/DEIS/CP -- is currently evaluating a
valley -wide transit system. This consists of extending the transit system from Aspen to Glenwood
Springs. Once the valley -wide system is in place, the downvalley commuters will not have to drive
to the airport.
As part of the Transportation Capacity Objective (FEIS pg. 1-3), the Preferred Alternative is to
provide needed transportation capacity for the forecasted person trips in the year 2015, and achieve
the stated community goal of limiting traffic volumes at or below levels in 1993. The Preferred
Alternative accomplishes this objective by providing an alternative to driving -- the LRT -- and
implementing TM measures. A strict TM Program (congestion pricing) would be necessary if the
Preferred Alternative included four traffic lanes.
The Preferred Alternative platform (traffic lanes, transit stations, etc.) down Main Street fits between
the existing curb lines.
D(2) No -Action Alternative
The No -Action Alternative does not fulfill the project objectives and need and intent statements, and
also does not meet safety or community acceptability issues. The No -Action Alternative does not
significantly improve safety or substantially increase capacity of the highway. It also constrains
implementation of transit improvements. For these reasons, it was not selected for implementation.
D(3) Modified Direct Alternative
FHWA and CDOT have made the decision to construct a variation of the modified direct alignment
as described in the DSEIS. This alignment is similar to, but not identical to, the alignment in the
Phased Modified Direct Alternative. Along with this alignment, the Preferred Alternative includes
a transit component in the form of a LRT system that, if sufficient local support and/or funding is
not available, will be developed initially as phased exclusive bus lanes.
C-21
D(4) Couplet
The couplet alignment creates significant operational problems for Cemetery Lane traffic wanting
to head east on State Highway 82. The traffic would have to first head west on State Highway 82
and then u-turn where the roads merge into one. This is a dangerous turning movement on a
highway facility.
Main Street is and has always been a transportation corridor. Directing traffic to various side streets
(Hopkins and Mill), or converting two-way streets into one-way streets will disrupt the city. The
existing neighborhoods do not want their street to become the highway corridor. This option will
not be accepted by the community.
Placing various combinations of the highway lanes and the LRT on the existing alignment and on
the Marolt-Thomas alignment were addressed in Alternatives G and H. These alternatives were
screened out during the evaluation process.
The existing alignment was screened out during the Comparative Screening Analysis. It was
eliminated based on safety and community acceptability issues. Compared to the modified direct
alignment, the S-curves are expected to have a higher accident rate even with improvements to the
roadway. The existing alignment also does not address the need for an alternative emergency access
rout in and out of Aspen. In a public survey of alignments preferences (September 1994 Public Open
House), the existing alignment was chosen as the least favorable in comparison to other alignments.
D(5) DEIS Alternatives
Some of the alternatives in the DEIS, namely Alternatives D, F, and G, provided a transit envelope
as part of their alignments. However, they also included four lanes of traffic along with the transit
envelope. The idea behind LRT is that it will help reduce traffic volumes. This can only be
accomplished by restricting vehicle traffic to two lanes, essentially creating a disincentive to travel
by vehicle. New alternatives that accomplished this were developed from the DEIS alternatives.
Since the DEIS alternatives did not meet this project criteria, they were eliminated from the
screening process.
The ROD will clear an envelope for a particular alignment. If sufficient local support ancUor funding
for the LRT system is not available, the alignment will be developed initially as phased exclusive
bus lanes.
The S-curves may produce a calming effect on traffic entering Aspen, however, they are dangerous --
especially to visitors and guests who are not aware of their existence. As described in the FEIS (pg.
1-19) the S-curves have an accident rate higher than the State's average. There are better traffic
calming devices that are more effective and less dangerous. Widening the S-curves creates impacts
to numerous residents and an historic property.
C-22
D(6) 4 Lane Highway
As part of the Transportation Capacity Objective (FEIS pg. 1-3), the Preferred Alternative is to
provide needed transportation capacity for the forecasted person trips in the year 2015, and achieve
the stated community goal of limiting traffic volumes at or below levels in 1993. The Preferred
Alternative accomplishes this objective by providing an alternative to driving -- the LRT -- and
9ective 9
implementing TM measures.
If a four lane highway was constructed, a strict TM Program (congestion pricing) would be necessary
to achieve the Capacity Objective. People would not be able to drive the highway as they please.
They would be limited to making the same number of trips as they do today (if not less due to the
increase in people traveling to Aspen). People would be frustrated in seeing four lanes and not being
allowed to use them freely. If two of the lanes were HOV lanes, the drivers would have to change
their current driving patterns, similar to the LRT.
Expanding State Highway 82 to a four -lane highway does not provide the incentive for transit use
or carpool use that is essential if traffic growth on State Highway 82 is to be controlled. Traffic
volumes will increase by adding capacity to the existing highway, it will be more convenient to drive
so more people will drive more trips. Four lanes of unrestricted traffic is not consistent with
community -based planning goals. As one commentor noted "it is intuitively obvious that we cannot
continue providing ever increasing lanes and parking spaces for automobiles" (Comment Utter 84).
The Entrance to Aspen ROD does not environmentally clear four highway lanes into Aspen.
In addition, the State Highway 82 East of Basalt to Buttermilk Ski Area Final Environmental
Impact Statement (BBFEIS) established a bus/HOV lane up through the Buttermilk Ski Area.
Discontinuing this lane by creating four general traffic lanes (without providing transit) would
disrupt the efficient movement of traffic into Aspen. The benefits of the bus/HOV lane and the
integrity of the transportation system would be lost at this location without LRT. The four -lane
option was screened out because of the above reasons, and because it did not satisfy the project
objectives. Please refer to the DSEIS for additional information on the screening analysis.
The Entrance to Aspen LRT system is the first link of a valley -wide transit system. A separate
project -- Roaring fork Valley Transportation Corridor CIS/DEIS/CP -- is currently evaluating a
valley -wide transit system. This consists of extending the transit system from Aspen to Glenwood
Springs. Once the valley -wide system is in place, the downvalley commuters will not have to ride
the buses or drive to the airport. Before the valley wide rail system is constructed, the bus riders can
transfer onto the LRT system (at Buttermilk Ski Area) that has its own track and will not be affected
by the congestion on the highway. The LRT system will coordinate with the bus system to minimize
any waiting.
CDOT, the City of Aspen, Pitkin County, and surrounding communities have been working
collaboratively to balance transportation needs related to growth with an increased concern for the
character and environment of this mountain area. CDOT has attempted to incorporate all these
concerns into its transportation improvement project. It has been one of the most extensive
C-23
environmental impact statement (EIS) processes ever conducted by CDOT. The project also
included an extensive public involvement process, including open houses, focus group meetings,
press conferences, elections, etc.
CDOT is very concerned about the environmental quality of the surrounding area, and considerable
steps have been taken to avoid, reduce, or mitigate the impacts associated with upgrading State
Highway 82. This includes limiting the highway to two lanes across the Marolt-Thomas Property.
The existing alignment was screened out during the Comparative Screening Analysis. It was
eliminated based on safety and community acceptability issues. Compared to the modified direct
alignment, the S-curves are expected to have a higher accident rate even with improvements to the
roadway. The existing alignment also does not address the need for an alternative emergency access
rout in and out of Aspen. In a public survey of alignments preferences (September 1994 Public Open
House), the existing alignment was chosen as the least favorable in comparison to other alignments.
The traffic congestion in Aspen will not dissipate by only removing the S-curves. Additional
improvements must be made to provide transportation for the increasing population throughout the
valley.
The LRT system is developed for local citizens as well as commuters and tourists. With the
Preferred Alternative, the local citizens may use the LRT to go skiing, to the airport, to restaurants,
shops downtown, etc. Once the valley -wide system is constructed local citizens may go all the way
to Glenwood Springs.
As shown on Chart 12 in the Mount Sopris Transportation Project, Final Report: 1993 Origin and
Destination Winter Survey and Selected Traffic Count Information technical report, 19 percent
of the residents surveyed were driving a commercial truck. Residents make up approximately 75
percent of the total surveyed. Therefore, only 14 percent of the total surveyed were driving a
commercial truck. Although there are some jobs that require a personal vehicle (service men,, real-
estate), there is a large percentage of drivers who can convert to public transportation. Please refer
to this report and the other Origin and Destination Survey reports for characteristics of the drivers
using State Highway 82, near Aspen.
The LRT system is convenient for the tourists. Driving in an unfamiliar city can be stressful and
frustrating. Riding the LRT will give the tourists the opportunity to view the beauty .of the valley,
without worrying about traffic and directions. There are many destinations close to the LRT stations
that the tourists may go to without having to rent a car. These include the airport, hotels, shops,
restaurants, ski mountains, etc. The LRT will drop tourists off downtown Aspen, where the mall is
designed for pedestrians. Tourists will not have to worry about finding a parking space close to their
destination.
The LRT system is developed for skiers (among other groups). Numerous ski resorts use shuttles
to transport skiers from parking lots to the mountain. The LRT system will work similar to these
shuttles. The skiers may ride the train directly to Buttermilk Ski Area. There are other planning
C-24
projects in process that are analyzing various connections between mountains (Aspen Highlands to
Buttermilk to Snowmass), and linkages between Aspen and Snowmass. These projects will make
it even more convenient for skiers.
The actual design (type) of LRT system which will be used for Aspen has not been finalized.
Electric LRT with overhead wires has been recommended for the City of Aspen and assumed in the
planning analysis. If this type of LRT is chosen, the overhead wires will be camouflage as much as
possible to minimize visual impacts.
CDOT appreciates your concerns about the expense of an LRT system. The Preferred Alternative
includes an LRT system that, if sufficient local support and/or funding is not available, can be
developed initially as phased exclusive bus lanes. Although the cost may seem large it's important
to put it into perspective. To build a new parking garage in Aspen to provide the necessary capacity
for 'a four lane highway would cost an estimated $75 million. The new Basalt to Buttermilk four -
lane will cost approximately $135 million.
Increasing the number of buses is only a short term solution. Currently, approximately 900 buses
enter and leave Aspen on a typical winter day. Increasing the number of buses will add to the current
congestion, air pollution, and noise pollution in Aspen. The LRT system could serve the same route
with approximately one-fourth as many trips.
A different planning project is currently in process that is analyzing various linkages between
Snowmass and Aspen.
D(7) Additional Alternatives
The Preferred Alternative is the culmination of a three-year effort that included an extensive
screening process with numerous alternatives considered. For more information on the other
alternatives that were considered, please refer to the technical report entitled Alternative Screening
Analysis, July 1995.
The existing alignment was screened out during the Comparative Screening Analysis. It was
eliminated based on safety and community acceptability issues. Compared to the modified direct
alignment, the S-curves are expected to have a higher accident rate even with improvements to the
roadway. The existing alignment also does not address the need for an alternative emergency access
rout in and out of Aspen. In a public survey of alignments preferences (September 1994 Public Open
House), the existing alignment was chosen as the least favorable in comparison to other alignments.
The traffic volumes at Owl Creek Road do not justify a grade -separated interchange, especially in
light of the large amount of right-of-way and significant cost that would be incurred as a result of
such an interchange.
C-25
Placing various combinations of the highway lanes and the LRT on the existing alignment and on
the Marolt-Thomas alignment were addressed in Alternatives G and H. These alternatives were
screened out during the evaluation process. Please refer to the DEIS and DSEIS for additional
information.
Main Street is and has always been a transportation corridor. Directing traffic to various side streets
(Hopkins and Mill), or converting two-way streets into one-way streets will disrupt the city. The
existing neighborhoods do not want their street to become the highway corridor. This option will
not be accepted by the community.
E. Finances
E(1) Responsibilities
The CDOT appreciates your concerns regarding the cost of the Entrance to Aspen project. CDOT
is funding the State Highway 82 improvements. The LRT system will be paid for by the City of
Aspen and local funds. The cost to maintain the system includes operations, propulsion energy,
vehicle maintenance, way maintenance, general, and administrative. The cost to maintain the system
is the responsibility of the servicing company, whether that is RFIFA or a separate company.
The Preferred Alternative i * ncludes an LRT system that, if sufficient local support and/or funding is
not available, can be developed initially as phased exclusive bus lanes. Although the cost may seem
large it's important to put it into perspective. To build a new parking garage in Aspen to provide the
necessary capacity for a four lane highway would cost an estimated $75 million. The new Basalt to
Buttermilk four -lane will cost approximately $135 million.
CDOT appreciates the Elected Officials commitment to utilize local resources to expedite
completion of some early action items.
The Preferred Alternative was developed as a result of many studies, not just a cost analysis. A few
of the studies included safety, environmental impacts, and project objectives. Please refer to the
FEIS and the technical reports for details on such analyses.
The Preferred Alternative was not developed to make a profit. All types of transportation systems
require money to maintain its serviceability. A four -lane highway system needs money to stripe,
patch, plow, sand, distribute magnesium chloride, and eventually reconstruct. Highways are
maintained through various taxes, the system does not pay for itself.
The financing for maintaining the LRT has not yet been decided. However, CDOT appreciates
comment letter 84 views on financing the LRT system. This letter stated that automobile owners,
truck companies, taxis, etc. should pay taxes to support public transportation since they are the ones
benefitting from others riding the LRT (less congestion on the highway).
Aws
Numerous studies have been completed to determine the best solution for the Entrance to Aspen
transportation problems. OTAK has a lot of experience in planning and designing LRT systems.
The City of Aspen originally hired OTAK to determine whether an LRT system is appropriate for
Aspen. Once the LRT became a viable solution, numerous social, economic, and environmental
impacts were analyzed.
E(2) LRT Cost
Although cost was considered in developing the Preferred Alternative, many other factors were taken
into consideration. A few of the studies included safety, environmental impacts, and project
objectives. Please refer to the FEIS and the respective technical reports for details on the analyses.
The Preferred Alternative includes an LRT system that, if sufficient local support and/or funding is
not available, can be developed initially as phased exclusive bus lanes. Although the cost may seem
large it's important to put it into perspective. To build a new parking garage in Aspen to provide the
necessary capacity for a four lane highway would cost an estimated $75 million. The new Basalt to
Buttermilk four -lane will cost approximately $135 million.
The financing for the operations and maintenance of the LRT system has not yet been determined.
The cost to ride the LRT will be similar to the cost to ride the existing buses.
The Preferred Alternative was not developed to make a profit. All types of transportation systems
require money to maintain its serviceability. A four -lane highway system needs money to stripe,
patch, plow, sand, distribute magnesium chloride, and eventually reconstruct. Highways are
maintained through various taxes, the system does not pay for itself.
E(3) Construction Cost
The Preferred Alternative capital cost shown in the FEIS does not include replacement cost. The
cost has been estimated based on the most current resources.
The Preferred Alternative includes an LRT system that, if sufficient local support and/or funding is
not available, can be developed initially as phased exclusive bus lanes. Although the cost may seem
large it's important to put it into perspective. The cost to build a four lane highway is estimated at
$43.8 million. To build a new parking garage in Aspen to provide the necessary capacity for a four
lane highway would cost an estimated $75 million. The new Basalt to Buttermilk four -lane will cost
approximately $135 million.
The Entrance to Aspen LRT system is the first link of a valley -wide transit system. A separate
project -- Roaring Fork Valley Transportation Corridor CIS/DEIS/CP -- is currently evaluating a
valley -wide transit system. This consists of extending the transit system from Aspen to Glenwood
Springs.
C-27
E(4) CISIDEISICP
The Entrance to Aspen LRT system is the first link of a valley -wide transit system. A separate
project -- Roaring Fork Valley Transportation Corridor CIS/DEIS/CP -- is currently evaluating a
valley -wide transit system. This consists of extending the transit system from Aspen to Glenwood
Springs. The funding of this project will be discussed in the CIS/DEIS/CP report.
F Transportation Mode
FM Bus
CDOT appreciates your comments. It is very important that you are aware of the numerous issues
involved in developing the Preferred Alternative. One of the main issues that is supporting the LRT
system (over a bus/HOV system) is the Transportation Capacity Objective developed from the
affected agencies, elected officials and staff of area governments, concerned members of the public
through a series of individual meetings, and a technical advisory committee consisting of the various
local governments and state and federal agency staff.
As part of the Transportation Capacity Objective (FEIS pg. 1-3), the Preferred Alternative is to
provide needed transportation capacity for the forecasted person trips in the year 2015, and achieve
the stated community goal of limiting traffic volumes at or below levels in 1993. The Preferred
Alternative accomplishes this objective by providing an alternative to driving -- the LRT -- and
implementing TM measures. A strict TM Program (congestion pricing) would be necessary if the
Preferred Alternative included four traffic lanes.
Until/if the entire transit system is built (from Glenwood Springs to Aspen), the RFfA bus system
will be used as a collector system from downvalley. A collector system will also be used to pick-up
people within Aspen that are not within walking distance to an LRT station.
Increasing the number of buses is only a short term solution. Currently, approximately 900 buses
enter and leave Aspen on a typical winter day. Increasing the number of buses will add to the current
congestion, air pollution, and noise pollution in Aspen. The LRT system could serve the same route
with approximately one-fourth as many trips.
The LRT system is a flexible system, which can easily be expanded to service more people. As
person trips into and out of Aspen increase, the frequency of the LRT may also increase, or
additional cars may be added. A four lane highway system is not very flexible, once capacity is
reached then the problem starts all over.
The Entrance to Aspen LRT system is the first link of a valley -wide transit system. A separate
project -- Roaring Fork Valley Transportation Corridor CIS/DEIS/CP -- is currently evaluating a
valley -wide transit system. This consists of extending the transit system from Aspen to Glenwood
Springs. There are also a Snowmass to Aspen linkage project and an intermountain linkage project
currently in the planning stages.
C-28
The LRT has been developed to run down Main Street to serve the most people (downtown
core).The existing downtown bus system will expand to collect LRT users who are too far from a
station to walk. The bus system will also be developed to collect people from nearby towns. The
stations have been strategically placed so a rider only needs to walk a short distance to reach their
destination or a bus stop. The bus and LRT systems will be developed such that the wait for a
transfer is minimal.
CDOT has worked hard to balance the impacts and mitigation measures with all impacts and
environmental concerns to achieve an acceptable alternative. An LRT system provides
transportation for the projected 2015 person -trips, yet maintains existing traffic levels. It is more
pleasing to ride and more environmentally friendly than the existing bus system.
The LRT system is developed for skiers (among other groups). Numerous ski resorts use shuttles
to transport skiers from parking lots to the mountain. The LRT system will work similar to these
shuttles. The skiers may ride the train directly to Buttermilk Ski Area. There are other planning
projects in process that are analyzing various connections between mountains (Aspen Highlands to
Buttermilk to Snowmass), and linkages between Aspen and Snowmass. These projects will make
it even more convenient for skiers.
The existing and projected bus trips are addressed in detail in the FEIS. Adding more buses to State
Highway 82, without improving the roadway would create more congestion. People will not choose
to ride a bus that is stuck in traffic jams, even if it's free. The LRT system has it's own tracks,
therefore, it will not be affected by the surrounding congestion.
The solution to the Entrance to Aspen transportation problem must solve the current problem and
be flexible to solve future problems. Constructing bus lanes now and worry about a train later is not
a feasible solution. It would be a waste of time, energy, and money.
The Preferred Alternative includes an LRT system that, if sufficient local support and/or funding is
not available, can be developed initially as phased exclusive bus lanes.
CDOT apologizes for any confusion, the Entrance to Aspen LRT system will not be on the old
D&RGW right-of-way.
F(2) Monorail
CDOT appreciates your comments. Monorail has been screened out because it provides the same
benefits as LRT but it costs a lot more to construct (between $15 million to $30 million per mile for
just the platform) and maintain. Also the stations will cost more since they need to be elevated.
LRT is a better solution for the Entrance to Aspen since the right-of-way is available.
F(3) Personal Rapid Transit (PRT)
CDOT appreciates your comments. As described in the FEIS, PRTs were screened out in the reality
check screening as being unrealistic and unacceptable for the Entrance to Aspen.
C-29
F(4) Gondola
CDOT appreciates your comments. As described in the FEIS, wire rope systems (similar to
gondolas) were screened out in the Fatal Flaw screening because it is not acceptable to the EOTC
as an in -town transit system visually, operationally, or financially.
F(5) Other Transportation Modes
The actual design (type) of LRT system which will be used for Aspen has not been finalized.
Electric LRT with head wires has been recommended for the City of Aspen and assumed in the
planning analysis. A separate project -- Roaring Fork Valley Transportation Corridor CIS/DEIS/CP
is currently evaluating a valley -wide transit system. This consists of extending the transit system
from Aspen to Glenwood Springs. The technology used for this corridor will be determined during
the evaluation (it does not need to be LRT since the Entrance to Aspen is using LRT).
LRT Characteristics
G(1) Ridership
The majority of residents want an alternative mode of transportation. The DSEIS alternatives (LRT
based) were developed as a result of the DEIS public comment period. The Preferred Alternative
was developed from the City of Aspen's proposed interim Alternative H and the numerous other
comments recommending an alternative mode of transportation. The city and county has gone
through an extensive public involvement process, including two transit tax elections and an open
space election, to arrive at the Preferred Alternative.
The City of Aspen is an attractive resort destination with resulting high prices for housing. Many
of the jobs are filled by employees who cannot afford to live in Aspen or Snowmass. Although the
population of the City of Aspen is approximately 6,000 there are numerous employees and visitors
using the transportation system.
As part of the Transportation Capacity Objective (FEIS pg. 1-3), the Preferred Alternative is to
provide needed transportation capacity for the forecasted person trips in the year 2015, and achieve
the stated community goal of limiting traffic volumes at or below levels in 1993. The Preferred
Alternative accomplishes this objective by providing an alternative to driving -- the LRT -- and
9ective rn
implementing TM measures. If providing the LRT is not enough to maintain existing traffic volumes
then TM measures will be implemented. An effective TM program includes a combination of
incentives to use the LRT, disincentives to drive by oneself, and supporting measure. An example
of an incentive is to improve the transfer between the bus and LRT (minimize wait time), a
disincentive is to raise parking prices, and a supporting measure is a guarantee ride home program.
The LRT system is developed for local citizens as well as commuters and tourists. Although not
every trip can be made on the LRT (grocery shopping, excessive baggage), there are many trips that
can. With the Preferred Alternative,, the local citizens may use the LRT to go skiing, to the airport,,
C-30
to restaurants, shops, etc. Once the valley -wide system is constructed local citizens may go all the
way to Glenwood Springs.
The LRT has been developed to run down Main Street to serve the most people (downtown core).
The existing downtown bus system will expand to collect LRT users who are too far from a station
to walk. The bus system will also be developed to collect people from nearby towns. The stations
have been strategically placed so a rider only needs to walk a short distance to reach their destination
or a bus stop. The bus and LRT systems will be developed such that the wait for a transfer is
minimal. Some employers will provide shuttles to and from the LRT stations.
The LRT system is convenient for the tourists. Driving in an unfamiliar city can be stressful and
frustrating. Riding the LRT will give the tourists the opportunity to view the beauty of the valley,
without worrying about traffic and directions. There are many destinations close to the LRT stations
that the tourists may go to without having to rent a car. These include the airport, hotels, shops,
restaurants, ski mountains, etc. The LRT will drop tourists off downtown Aspen, where the mall is
designed for pedestrians. Tourists will not have to worry about finding a parking space and then
walk to the pedestrian mall.
The LRT system is developed for skiers. Numerous ski resorts use shuttles to transport skiers from
parking lots to the mountain. The LRT system will work similar to these shuttles. The skiers may
ride the train directly to Buttermilk Ski Area. There are other planning projects in process that are
analyzing various connections between mountains (Aspen Highlands to Buttermilk to Snowmass),
and linkages between Aspen and Snowmass. These projects will make it even more convenient for
skiers.
The LRT system is developed for students. Instead of taking the bus to school or having a parent
drop them off, the students will be able to take the LRT from downtown to the Moore transit station
where a school bus will be waiting to take them to school.
As shown on Chart 12 in the Mount Sopris Transportation Project, Final Report: 1993 Origin and
Destination Winter Survey and Selected Traffic Count Information technical report, only 19
percent of the residents surveyed were driving a commercial truck. Residents make up
approximately 75 percent of the total surveyed. Therefore, only 14 percent of the total surveyed were
driving a commercial truck. Although there are some jobs that require a personal vehicle (service
men, real-estate brokers), there is a large percentage of drivers who can convert to public
transportation. Please refer to this report and the other Origin and Destination Survey reports for
characteristics of the drivers using State Highway 82, near Aspen.
The ridership model was based on both vehicle mode and trip purpose. For example., "truck work
trips" were only reduced by approximately 10 percent from predicted levels. Many trips were
reduced assuming the combination of trips or elimination of discretionary trips. The increase in the
number of people who will move within "transit distance" due to mass transit have been considered
within the model.
C-31
The LRT system is developed to service as many people as possible. It operates 20 hours per day
so the early commuters, as well as the late "partyers" are serviced.
By seeing how convenient the LRT system is and how non -convenient driving a car can be
(congestion, minimal parking spaces, etc.), people will begin to ride the LRT. While riding the LRT,
people can read the paper, work on a computer, or enjoy the scenery.
The projected ridership for the LRT system cannot be compared to the existing ridership of the bus
system. The LRT system will run on its own tracks, whereas the current bus system must use the
same highway lanes as the automobiles and sit in the same traffic. Time conservation is one of the
best incentives for the LRT.
The Preferred Alternative was not developed to make a profit. All types of transportation systems
require money to maintain its serviceability. A four -lane highway system needs money to stripe,
patch, plow, sand, distribute magnesium chloride, and eventually reconstruct. Highways are
maintained through various taxes, the system does not pay for itself.
CDOT appreciates the letters of support. The challenge of the Entrance to Aspen transportation
problem extends from providing capacity for drivers. The real challenge is providing capacity
without impacting Aspen's beauty. This includes maintaining traffic volumes to conserve air quality,
noise quality, and all experience in Aspen.
G(2) Capacity
CDOT appreciates the support for the LRT system.
The Entrance to Aspen LRT system is the first link of a valley -wide transit system. A separate
project -- Roaring Fork Valley Transportation Corridor CIS/DEIS/CP -- is currently evaluating a
valley -wide transit system. This consists of extending the transit system from Aspen to Glenwood
Springs. Once the valley -wide system is in place, the downvalley commuters will not have to ride
the buses or drive to the airport. Before the valley wide rail system is constructed, the bus riders can
transfer onto the LRT system (at Buttermilk Ski Area) that has its own track and will not be affected
by the congestion on the highway. The LRT system will coordinate with the bus system to minimize
any waiting.
With only the Entrance to Aspen LRT link in place, the downvalley commuters may transfer onto
the LRT at the Pitkin County Airport, prior to Buttermilk Ski Area where the four lanes tapers down
to two lanes.
Increasing the number of buses is only a short term solution. Currently, approximately 900 buses
enter and leave Aspen on a typical winter day. Increasing the number of buses will add to the current
congestion, air pollution, and noise pollution in Aspen. The LRT system could serve the same route
with approximately one-fourth as many trips.
C-32
The actual design (type) of LRT system which will be used for Aspen has not been finalized.
Electric LRT with head wires has been recommended for the City of Aspen and assumed in the
planning analysis. The capacity of a two car system is estimated at 1700 people per hour with a 10
minute headway. This requires two trains (4 LRVs) operating at the same time. The transportation
system proposed (LRT and two highway lanes) will provide the capacity needed for the Entrance to
Aspen. The LRT system is a flexible system, which can easily be expanded to service more people.
As person trips into and out of Aspen increase, the frequency of the LRT may also increase, or
additional LRVs may be added. A four lane highway system is not very flexible, once capacity is
reached then the problem starts all.
Additional LRVs may also be added to the system, or the headways decreased, thus servicing more
people along the route. The LRT system can service as many people as a four lane highway. The
LRT system has been developed to be flexible. The tracks may easily be extended to expand its
service.
G(3) Phasing
The Preferred Alternative includes an LRT system that, if sufficient local support and/or funding is
not available, can be developed initially as phased exclusive bus lanes. Please refer to the ROD for
additional information on the phased Preferred Alternative.
The Preferred Alternative includes multimodal facilities to provide a direct connection between
parking, transit, ski area access, and airport access. These facilities are an important part of the
Entrance to Aspen solution and long-term transportation solution. The TM programs required to
meet the goal of maintaining future traffic volumes at existing levels create the need for
approximately 4,350 parking spaces in the Aspen area by the year 2015 (assuming no down -valley
extension of light rail). This includes 750 spaces at the Buttermilk location and 3,600 at the airport
location. Initially, the construction of these multimodal facilities would not need to provide the
required capacity. Instead, the number of paring spaces could be developed as the need arises. This
is especially true at he airport since this facility was developed assuming the airport is where the
down -valley riders will transfer. If/when the valley -wide transit system is constructed the need
parking capacity need decreases at the airport (more spaces will be located down -valley).
CDOT apologizes for any confusion the document may have created. As explained in Chapter 3 of
the FEIS, the number of parking spaces needed for opening day is less than what is ultimately needed
for year 2015. For opening day, 1,600 spaces are required and are proposed to be built for the
Airport Multimodal Facility. In addition, 750 spaces are planned for the Buttermilk Multimodal
Center.
C-33
H. EnvironmentalImpacts
H(1) General
CDOT appreciates your environmental/ social concerns. CDOT has worked very hard to balance
the impacts and mitigation measures with all impacts and environmental concerns to achieve an
acceptable alternative. These efforts will continue during the design and construction of the highway
improvements. The people of Aspen and surrounding towns/cities must cooperate to maintain the
beauty of Aspen.
Constructing any highway improvements will create some traffic delays. These delays are
minimized through construction phasing. Also, traffic delays are avoided during construction of the
modified direct alternative since the traffic can drive along the existing alignment.
H(2) Section 4(f) Resources
Section 4(f) applies to publicly owned lands which are managed as parks and recreation areas,
wildlife or waterfowl refuges, and to all historic sites, regardless of ownership, that is eligible for or
is on the federal register. Impacts to Section 4(f) resources resulting from the need to improve State
Highway 82 must be avoided if possible. If avoidance is not feasible and prudent, then all possible
planning to minimize hai—in to these resources must be included in the project.
CDOT has made every effort possible to minimize impacts to Section 4(f) resources. The existing
alignment between Maroon Creek Road and the intersection of 7thStreet and Main Street is screened
out on the basis of safety and community acceptability issues as compared to other alignment
options. As described in the FEIS (pg. 1-19) the S-curves have an accident rate higher than the
State's average. Widening the S-curves create impacts to numerous residents and an historic
property. The modified direct alignment was developed from the direct alignment. The direct
alignment (please refer to the DEIS) bisects the Marolt-Thomas Property and impacts several key
open space areas, including the community garden and the landing field for hang-gliders. These
areas are not affected by the modified direct alignment.
The Preferred Alternative also includes a cut and cover tunnel as part of the mitigation for Section
4(f) resources impacts. The area above the tunnel will be revegetated to provide continuity of the
open space and will be used for recreational activities.
To serve major transit demand, it is necessary to place an LRT station located at the intersection of
Maroon Creek Road and State Highway 82. This station serves three schools, the Aspen Valley
Hospital, and the Aspen Highlands Ski Area. The transit station best operates on the Moore
Property. At this location, the school buses and ski shuttles do not have to cross the LRT tracks.
Also, they have direct access to the station without going through the intersection. The footprint of
the station has been minimized (no parking) at 0.6 hectares (1.5 acres). The roundabout has been
shifted north to avoid additional take.
C-34
The Aspen City Council, Pitkin County Commissioners, and Snowmass Village Town Council
("Elected Officials") commit to placing before their electors whatever ballot questions are necessary
before moving forward with implementation of the Preferred Alternative. These ballot questions
may include approval to use any public open space for transportation purposes, and approval for
funding of the rail component of the Preferred Alternative. Any further votes on other issues in the
future, the means by which these votes are conducted, and when these votes will occur are local
government issues, and will provide the area electorate an opportunity to voice their opinions on
these matters.
As explained in the FEIS - Section 4(f) Resources Evaluation (pg. A-42) The intent of the Section
4(f) requirement is to avoid, whenever "feasible and prudent" , impacts to Section 4(f) resources. The
first step in the Section 4(f) evaluation is to determine whether there is a feasible and prudent
alternative which would avoid impacts to the Section 4(f) resources. Avoidance may not be "prudent
and feasible" if the alternative does not meet the project purpose and need. Remaining on the
existing alignment does not meet the Safety Objective or the Community Acceptability Objective.
The existing alignment is not prudent.
The Denver Rio Grande Railroad (D&RGW) alignment is primarily on the north-east side of the
Roaring Fork Valley between Aspen and Basalt. Within the project area, the alignment runs directly
north and adjacent to the Roaring Fork River and terminates in Aspen at Rio Grande park, two
blocks north of Main Street on Mill Street. The old railroad grade between Woody Creek and Aspen
is currently a pedestrian/bike trail called the Rio Grande Trail. The recent purchase of the D&RGW
(downvalley) does not effect the Entrance to Aspen preferred alignment. The D&RGW alignment
does not connect to State Highway 82 on either end of the project. Extensive new construction
would be required to connect existing State Highway 82 to the D&RGW grade. This option does
not provide a realistic connection within the EIS study corridor for State Highway 82 improvements.
This alignment would not service as many people than the modified direct alignment. Please refer
to the Alternatives Screening Analysis Technical Report, July 1995.
A riparian wetland (Wetland 3) is located near the proposed Castle Creek Bridge. This is discussed
in detail in the FEIS document. As explained on page V-32 of the document, the Castle Creek
Bridge does not impact Wetland 3. Non -wetland riparian communities are not protected under
Section 404 of the Clean Water .Act. CDOT, however, acknowledges the importance of riparian
communities and will avoid them where feasible.
The section of the golf course that is impacted by the Preferred Alternative is currently undeveloped
golf course property and is not used for any recreational purposes at this time.
The SHPO has determine that there would be no adverse impact to the Holden Smelting and Milling
Complex under the Preferred Alternative because the alignment was already shifted to the north from
the previous alignments to entirely miss the boundary of the property. A 215 meter (700 feet) cut
and cover tunnel was evaluated during the FEIS analysis. A tunnel this length is not recommended
in the FEIS because as the tunnel length increases, the depression of the alignment begins earlier.
This will require additional open space take. If desired, this length could be extended up to as much
C-35
as 213 meters (700 feet) during the design phases.
The wording of both the Berger Cabin mitigation (FEIS pg. VI-5) and the Holden Smelting and
Milling Complex (FEIS pg. A-41) explains that if during final design it is determined that avoidance
is not possible then... This type of wording was used because the EIS process is still in the planning
stages, something may come up during final design that may not allow for the proposed mitigation.
As the Preferred Alternative is described in the FEIS, the Berger Cabin will not be relocated and the
alignment will be shifted off of the NHD property.
CDOT apologizes for any confusion this document may have created. Regarding the Moore Property
take required for the Moore Transit Station inconsistencies, the total Moore Property needed for the
footprint is 0.6 hectares (1.4) acres. The total footprint of the Moore Transit Station is 0.6 hectares
(1.5 acres) where less than 0.1 hectares (0.1 acres) are located in the transportation easement. This
area is the area taken from the section the Moore family reserved for transportation improvements.
The inconsistencies are a result of this calculation.
The least harm alternative states that the impacts to the Moore Open Space have been minimized by
eliminating parking from the Moore Transit Station. This statement is true since parking is not
proposed on the Moore Open Space. Instead parking has been limited to the Buttermilk Multimodal
Center and the Airport Multimodal Center. Ideally every LRT station should have a parking lot to
make it more convenient for the riders; however, to minimize environmental impacts the total
number of parking spaces needed have been distributed to only two facilities.
CDOT appreciates your concerns about the Moore Open Space. CDOT is currently researching the
Moore Open Space Use and Management Agreement between Pitkin County and the Moore family.
CDOT is working with Pitkin County to resolve this issue. For more information, please refer to the
Memorandum of Understanding between CDOT, FHWA, and Pitkin County for the Entrance to
Aspen.
A vote for the use of the Marolt-Thomas Open space for a transportation corridor occurred in
November of 1996.
H(3) Community Living
CDOT is very concerned about the environmental quality of the surrounding area, and considerable
steps have been taken to avoid, reduce, or mitigate the impacts associated with upgrading State
Highway 82. The Preferred Alternative is consistent with the goals of maintaining a small town
character and enhances the quality of life for the residences and visitors by limiting vehicle traffic
to existing levels. The provision of an improved, efficient LRT system further enhances the
livability and mobility of the community thus promoting bicycle and pedestrian use rather than
vehicle use. The LRT is more environmentally friendly than the existing bus system.
Expanding the highway to four lanes and building a large parking garage in downtown Aspen will
create more of an interstate environment, promoting vehicle use.
C-36
The modified direct alignment will not encourage increased speeds. The cut and cover tunnel will
act as a calming device. People tend to slow down upon approaching the tunnel.
CDOT has made every effort possible to minimize impacts to Section 4(f) resources. The existing
alignment between Maroon Creek Road and the intersection of 7 1h Street and Main Street is screened
out on the basis of safety and community acceptability issues as compared to other alignment
options. As described in the FEIS (pg. 1-19) the S-curves have an accident rate higher than the
State's average. Widening the S-curves create impacts to numerous residents and an historic
property. The modified direct alignment was developed from the direct alignment. The direct
alignment bisects the Marolt-Thomas Property and impacts several key open space areas, including
the community garden and the landing field for hang-gliders. These areas are not affected by the
modified direct alignment.
The LRT has been developed to run down Main Street to serve the most people (downtown core).
The existing downtown bus system will expand to collect LRT users who are too far from a station
to walk. The stations have been strategically placed so a rider only needs to walk a short distance
to reach their destination or a bus stop. The LRT system will contribute to a pedestrian friendly
environment.
CDOT, the City of Aspen, Pitkin County, and surrounding communities have been working
collaboratively to balance transportation needs related to growth with an increased concern for the
character and environment of this mountain area. CDOT has attempted to incorporate all these
concerns into its transportation improvement project. It has been one of the most extensive
environmental impact statement (EIS) processes ever conducted by CDOT. The project also
included an extensive public involvement process, including open houses, focus group meetings,
press conferences, elections, etc.
The character of Aspen, however, is already being changed by a number of factors not attributed to
State Highway 82. All the features of Aspen that make it a destination resort and create public
demand to visit or live in Aspen are creating the "changing character of the valley".
As discussed on page V-59 of the FEIS, based on conceptual modeling of train performance for the
Preferred Alternative, power consumed ranges from 8 to 10 kilowatt hours (KWH) per car mile. Car
miles per year has been estimated at 526,695 (two -car train). The LRT power use would comprise
a small amount of the total consumption for the region.
H(4) Neighborhood Impacts
Thank -you for your concerns regarding the Long residence. The Preferred Alternative does not
include the lowered profile OTAK showed. As discussed on page H-23 of the FEIS, this profile is
not feasible because of the mitigation required. Under this option, a retaining wall is required on
both sides of State Highway 82 between Castle Creek Bridge and 7' Street. The retaining wall on
the south side of State Highway 82 closes off the only access to the Berger Cabin from the highway
and adversely impacts the Berger Cabin Property, which is not a feasible option.
C-37
H(5) Air Quality
The Aspen area has been designated as anon -attainment area for PM 10 by the federal government.
An area is designated as non -attainment when air pollution in excess of a federally regulated air
quality standard is monitored. In the Fall of 1994, the United States EPA approved the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Aspen non -attainment area. The SIP is an air quality plan to
ensure that the federal air quality standards are not violated in the future. The Preferred Alternative
conforms with the SIP for Aspen. The Air Quality Report (DSEIS), July 1996 discusses the results
of the air quality evaluation performed for the Entrance to Aspen EIS. The evaluation covers the
entire project corridor and it's surrounding area (which includes the Villas).
The air quality analysis (please refer to Air Quality Report [DSEIS], July 1996) has been reviewed
and approved by the EPA. EPA does not require hot -spot analysis for PM 10. Currently there is not
an EPA model for PM 10 hot -spot analysis.
Aspen has not been designated as a non -attainment PM2.5 area, and there is no evidence that they
would be designated in the near future. Currently, the State Health Department is determining the
designated areas.
It is true that increasing transportation highway capacity will increase vehicle miles traveled. This
is a result of making it easier (more convenient) for people to drive so they make more trips. This
is not the case if an LRT system is providing the additional capacity. Since the highway is not
expanding it does note make it easier for people to drive; therefore, they will not make additional
vehicle trips.
The LRT is part of a transportation system that includes an incremental TM program. The LRT is
not identified as a TCM.. If the LRT system cannot be funded, exclusive bus lanes will be used in
combination with a strict TM Program.
CDOT is very concerned about the environmental quality of the surrounding area, and are taking
considerable steps to avoid, reduce, or mitigate the impacts associated with upgrading State Highway
82. As part of the Clean Air Act Requirements Objective (FEIS pg. 1-5) the Preferred Alternative
must meet the requirements of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments by demonstrating project
conformity. An LRT system better meets the requirements and improves air quality when compared
to the No -Action Alternative or the four lane highway alternatives. The LRT tracks do not need to
be sanded in the winter, which generates 80 percent of the PM 10.
As part of the Transportation Capacity Objective (FEIS pg. 1-3), the Preferred Alternative is to
provide needed transportation capacity for the forecasted person trips in the year 2015, and to seek
to achieve the stated community goal of limiting the number of vehicles in 2015 to levels at or below
those in 1993. By maintaining traffic levels and reducing the number of buses, air pollution will
decrease.
C-38
H(6) Visual
CDOT is very concerned about the environmental quality of the surrounding area, and considerable
steps have been taken to avoid, reduce, or mitigate the impacts associated with upgrading State
Highway 82. The Preferred Alternative is consistent with the goals of maintaining a small town
character and enhances the quality of life for the residences and visitors by limiting vehicle traffic
to existing levels. The provision of an improved, efficient LRT system further enhances the
livability and mobility of the community thus promoting bicycle and pedestrian use rather than
vehicle use. The LRT is more environmentally friendly than the existing bus system.
The character of Aspen, however, is already being changed by a number of factors not attributed to
State Highway 82. All the features of Aspen that make it a destination resort and create public
demand to visit or live in Aspen are creating the "changing character of the valley".
One of the many challenges of this project is to enhance the surroundings with the chosen alternative.
Any visual impacts will be mitigated where feasible. This may be done by landscaping, cut and
cover tunnel, and using earth tones and textures (trolley poles).
A cut and cover tunnel has been developed to help mitigate impacts to the Marolt-Thomas Open
Space and the surrounding residents/ historic properties.
The proposed LRT system should not be compared to Chicago's elevated train. The LRT is a
modem system that is not noisy, dirty, or ugly. The actual design (type) of LRT system which will
be used for Aspen has not been finalized. Electric LRT with head wires has been recommended for
the City of Aspen and assumed in the planning analysis. The system will be designed to fit in with
Aspen's character. The riders will have a pleasant experience.
Visual impacts to the Moore Open Space were taken into consideration. Refer to the Section 4(f)
Resources Evaluation pg. A-37.
H(7) Noise
The LRT warning horn that was modeled in the noise analysis is a loud horn located on the front of
the train. The warning horn may be replaced with perhaps a bell and lights (after the people get use
to the LRT); however, many towns require such a horn since the LRT is so quiet. Noise barriers
have also been modeled where there are noise impacts. With an adjusted warning horn and a noise
barrier, all residences and businesses noise levels are below the noise abatement criteria. Types of
mitigation used will be determined during final design.
The procedure for the noise analysis completed for the Entrance to Aspen EIS was 1). take existing
noise measurements during peak hour traffic, 2). model existing noise levels using STAMINA 2.0
(this checks the accuracy of the model), 3). model future peak hour automobile traffic noise levels
with the proposed alternatives constructed, 4). model future peak hour transit noise levels (stations,
LRT, horn), 5). logrithmatically add the various noise levels, 6). determine noise impacts, 7). model
C-39
noise barriers. Please refer to details on the procedure and the results of the analysis in the State
Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Noise and Vibration Report,
June 1997.
The distance between a receiver and the right-of-way does not effect the noise. The distance
between the receiver and the traffic is what is important.
The geographic receiver information for the future roadway and locations is based on a preliminary
tn
alignment for State Highway 82, which is the best information available at this time. Since noise
levels are sensitive to distances from roadways and relative elevations, further noise assessment will
be done during final design to determine locations and heights for noise barriers.
Construction impacts/mitigation are discussed on page V-61 of the FEIS.
H(8) Parking
As part of the Transportation Capacity Objective (DEIS pg. 1-3), the Preferred Alternative is to
provide needed transportation capacity for the forecasted person trips in the year 2015, and to seek
to achieve the stated community goal of limiting the number of vehicles in 2015 to levels at or below
those in 1993. The traffic volumes are to remain at existing levels, therefore, additional parking
facilities are not necessary. The limited facilities are a disincentive to drive into Aspen.
The LRT system may be beneficial to all businesses located along the LRT alignment. People will
want to stay at hotels along the alignment just so they can avoid driving. One is able to get to and
from the airport, Buttermilk Ski Area, pedestrian mall, restaurants, etc. without the hassle of renting
a car or trying to find a parking space.
The LRT stations have strategically been placed throughout the corridor to service the most people.
The Rubey Park transit station does not include parking. Riders have the option to walk, ride their
bike, take a taxi or a bus, or park elsewhere and take a shuttle to the station. The Airport Multimodal
Facility in addition to the Buttermilk Multimodal Facility have the parking capacity for the down -
valley riders.
Even though "America is totally oriented to the automobile" (comment letter #97), it does not mean
that CDOT should ignore environmental problems the automobile creates and construct as many
highway lanes as needed. CDOT needs to solve the problem before it gets any worse. If people want
their children's children to enjoy the environment they live in then people need to adjust to the
changes.
The LRT system is a flexible system, which can easily be expanded to service more people. As
person trips into and out of Aspen increase, the frequency of the LRT may also increase, or
additional cars may be added. A four lane highway system is not very flexible, once capacity is
reached then the problem starts all over.
C-40
The projected ridership for the LRT system cannot be compared to the existing ridership of the bus
system. The LRT system will run on its own tracks, whereas the current bus system must use the
same highway lanes as the automobiles and sit in the same traffic. Time conservation is one of the
best incentives for the LRT. The TM Program will also help the LRT ridership.
H(9) Access
CDOT appreciates your comments. It is very important that you are aware of the numerous issues
involved in developing the Preferred Alternative. One of the main issues that is supporting the LRT
system (over a bus/HOV system) is the Transportation Capacity Objective developed from the
affected agencies, elected officials and staff of area governments, concerned members of the public
through a series of individual meetings, and a technical advisory committee consisting of the various
local governments and state and federal agency staff.
The operation analysis for the proposed traffic signal at the intersection of 7hStreet and Main Street
shows traffic flowing smoothly. Please refer to the Technical Memorandums, State Highway 82
Entrance to Aspen Final Environmental Impact Statement, June 1997.
CDOT apologizes for any inconvenience or impact the project may create. Improvements cannot
be made to State Highway 82 without impacts. Access to a few of the side -streets had to be closed
for safety reasons.
CDOT will replace any trails that are impacted by the transportation project. The designs of the
trails will be completed during final design of the project.
H(I 0) Wildlife
As discussed on page V-35 of the FEIS, Due to the already disturbed nature of the project area,
impacts from the Preferred Alternative would be minimal. This includes the porcupine and skunk
(the fox was included in the list of mammals in Chapter IV). Additional mitigation (over what is
discussed in Chapter VI) is not required.
H(I 1) Owl Creek Road
The relocation of Owl Creek Road will not significantly improve Owl Creek Road as a whole. The
improvements are not expected to significantly increase the traffic volumes along this road.
Additional studies are not necessary.
H(12) Environmental Justice
The Entrance to Aspen Preferred Alternative does not discriminate towards any minority groups.
The cost to ride the LRT will be similar as the existing bus system. By proposing an LRT system,
people do not need a car. Once the valley -wide system is completed, everybody can get anywhere
from Glenwood Springs to Aspen by riding the LRT.
C-41
"12) Historic Properties
Based on SHPO's review, after mitigation there are no effects to the Holden Smelting and Milling
Complex. Because CDOT is mitigating noise impacts and visual impacts and because there are no
access impacts, vibration impacts, nor ecological intrusions it has been determined that there are no
constructive use impacts.
As per the release of the FEIS and the preliminary proposed alignment, the Berger Cabin will not
have to be relocated. During final design it may be determined that the Berger Cabin should be
relocated. If this is determined then CDOT will cooperate with concerned parties during design and
construction of the project to ensure that mitigation measures are appropriate.
All historic properties along the project corridor will be avoided where feasible.
Section 4(f) (49 USC 303, 23 USC 138) permits the use of protected land, such as park and
recreation land, for transportation projects, only where there is "no prudent and feasible alternative"
to using such land. The U.S. Supreme Court construed this statutory phrase in it's decision in
Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 (1971), holding that rejection of an
alternative which avoided use of such protected land required the existence of "unique problems'.
However, the Court's decision provided no examples or amplification of what constituted "unique
problems". The U.S. Courts of Appeals, including the U.S. Court of Appeals for the I 01h Circuit,
in the intervening quarter century since the Overton Park decision, have provided the needed
examples and amplification of what constitutes '.unique problems". The matters listed in the least
harm analysis in the appendix of the FEIS, pg. A-42, such as not meeting the project purpose and
need, have been found by the Appeals Courts as being "unique problems,", justifying a finding that
avoidance of Section 4(f) resources was not '.'prudent and feasible", (see Committee to Preserve
Boomer Lake Park v. U.S. DOT, 4 F.3d 15435 1550 (10`h Cir. 1993) and cases there cited). The
Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad (D&RGW) Alignment, was eliminated as a potential
alignment alternative on the basis of being "clearly unrealistic, inappropriate, or unreasonable by
applying common knowledge" (See Alternatives Screening Analysis, July, 1995). However, even
if the D&RGW had survived the screening process it may not have qualified as an avoidance
alternative under Section 4(f) because it is being used for recreational purposes as a pedestrianibike
trail (Rio Grande Trail). On the other hand, the existing route, "No -Action Alternative", contains
no Section 4(f) resources and constituted an avoidance alternative. However, this alternative was
found not to meet the purpose and need of the project, among other reasons, and is being properly
rejected as not "prudent and feasible" in accordance with the prevailing case law.
H(14) Land Use
Land Use decisions are not CDOT responsibility. CDOT has taken into consideration the City's
current land use proposal in identifying traffic impacts. Throughout the EIS process, CDOT has
coordinated all alternatives for planning at the airport with the Pitkin County Board of
Commissioners.
C-42
H(15) Wetlands
Mitigation is a principal concern when evaluating impacts to wetlands within the project area. The
principal goal of wetland mitigation is to avoid impacts wherever feasible. If avoidance is not
feasible, mitigation would be employed to compensate for the loss of or damage to wetlands or the
hydrologic systems on which they depend. Two wetlands sites will be impacted by the Preferred
Alternative. These will be replaced on a one to one basis in suitable sites.
As discussed in the FEIS and in more detail the Alternatives Screening Analysis, July 15, 1995, the
D&RGW railroad grade and the existing alignment are not prudent for the State Highway 82
alignment. If the alignment is not feasible or prudent then an environmental analysis (wetland or any
other) is not necessary. If an analysis had to be performed for every option someone proposes then
a lot of time and money would be wasted. Table V-7 summarizes the impacts to wetlands of all
feasible and prudent alternatives.
The original 30-day comment period on the FEIS ended August 31, 1997. The comment period was
twice extended by thirty days, ultimately ending on November 5, 1997. This provided a total of 96
days during which people were allowed to comment on wetlands.
H(16) Farmland
Although the Marolt-Thomas Property may be mowed for hay each year, it is not considered Unique
and Prime Farmland. According to the Soil Conservation Service (now the National Resources
Conservation Service) inventory, no soils in Pitkin County are identified as Prime Farmland because
of cold temperatures and the short growing season. Irrigated hay meadows within these counties are
int he category "Irrigated Lands Not Prime" and have been identified as being Farmlands of
Statewide Importance. See the FEIS, pg. IV-69.
H(17) Hazardous Waste
Results of the surface samples taken from the Holden Smelting and Milling Complex showed
elevated total concentrations of arsenic, cadmium, and lead, which could expose the public to heavy
metal laden dust and soil if they were not removed. The FEIS states that further evaluation will
continue during highway design. This evaluation will determine if there is a need to clean up the
site, prior to acquisition.
H(18) Water Quality
The water quality discussion on page V-26 discusses Castle Creek Bridge. The traffic volumes
across the new Castle Creek Bridge is not expected to increase from the existing bridge. Please refer
to the Transportation Capacity Objective. In general, the Preferred Alternative will have less of an
impact on the area's water quality than the DEIS alternatives and less or equal to the DSEIS
alternatives. Please refer to the FEIS for a discussion of the water quality impact.
C-43
H(19) Vibration
Please refer to the State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen, Final Environmental Impact Statement,
Noise and Vibration Report, June 1997 for a discussion of the vibration analysis. The vibration
report is accurate in using 100 feet and 85 feet as the distances from the LRT track to the Villas.
Trucks and automobiles traveling on a new road create little to no vibrations. The vibrations are so
minimal it is unnecessary to include in the vibration analysis. As discussed in the FEIS and the
vibration report the LRT does not even approach a vibration impact to the Villas.
H(20) Construction
The construction impacts/mitigation discussed in the FEIS includes construction of the highway,
LRT, and LRT stations.
There will be no long-term economic impacts from construction. Businesses may be impacted to
some degree during construction, all efforts will be made to minimize these impacts.
I. Mitigation Measures
IM General
The ROD describes mitigation measures that will be implemented for the Entrance to Aspen
Preferred Alternative. CDOT will cooperate with concerned parties during design and construction
of the' project to ensure that mitigation measures are appropriate.
1(2) Section 4(f) Resources
Thank -you for your support of the Entrance to Aspen process. The Preferred Alternative was
developed to avoid or minimize impacts to Section 4(f) resources wherever feasible. When this is
not feasible, CDOT will furnish replacement land or compensate the concerned parties for the
reasonable cost of the land.
The Preferred Alternative was developed to minimize impacts to the Moore Property as best as
possible. The highway portion of the Preferred Alternative remains completely off the property. The
LRT station does impact the property. During the design stages of the project, CDOT will continue
to attempt to minimize impact to the Moore Property without compromising the design standards
of the Preferred Alternative. CDOT will furnish replacement land or compensate the concerned
parties for the reasonable cost of the land that is impacted.
A cut and cover tunnel in the Preferred Alternative is 122 meters (400 feet) in length. The tunnel
is a mitigation measure used to minimize impacts to the Holden Smelting and Milling Complex and
residents. A 215 meter (700 feet) cut and cover tunnel was evaluated during the FEIS analysis. A
tunnel this length is not recommended in the FEIS because as the tunnel length increases, the
depression of the alignment begins earlier. This will require additional open space take. If desired,
MW
this length could be extended up to as much as 213 meters (700 feet) during the design phases to
mitigate impacts to the Marolt-Thomas Property.
A riparian wetland (Wetland 3) is located near the proposed Castle Creek Bridge. This is discussed
in detail in the FEIS document. As explained on page V-32 of the document, the Castle Creek
Bridge does not impact Wetland 3. Non -wetland riparian communities are not protected under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. CDOT, however, acknowledges the importance of riparian
communities and will avoid them where feasible.
The Preferred Alternative alignment avoids the NHD.
As discussed in the Section 4(f) resources evaluation, only alternatives that are feasible and prudent
are evaluated for Section 4(f) resources impacts. The alternatives that pass this screening requires
all possible planning to minimize harm.
Section 4(f) (49 USC 303, 23 USC 138) permits the use of protected land, such as park and
recreation land, for transportation projects, only where there is "no prudent and feasible alternative"
to using such land. The U.S. Supreme Court construed this statutory phrase in it's decision in
Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 (1971), holding that rejection of an
alternative which avoided use of such protected land required the existence of "unique problems".
However, the Court's decision provided no examples or amplification of what constituted "unique
problems". The U.S. Courts of Appeals, including the U.S. Court of Appeals for the I oth Circuit,
in the intervening quarter century since the Overton Park decision, have provided the needed
examples and amplification of what constitutes "unique problems". The matters listed in the least
harm analysis in the appendix of the FEIS, pg. A-42, such as not meeting the project purpose and
need, have been found by the Appeals Courts as being "unique problems", justifying a finding that
avoidance of Section 4(f) resources was not ".prudent and feasible", (see Committee to Preserve
Boomer Lake Park v. U.S. DOT, 4 F.3d 1543.) 1550 (10`h Cir. 1993) and cases there cited). The
Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad (D&RGW) Alignment, was eliminated as a potential
alignment alternative on the basis of being "clearly unrealistic, inappropriate, or unreasonable by
applying common knowledge" (See Alternatives Screening Analysis, July, 1995). However, even
if the D&RGW had survived the screening process it may not have qualified as an avoidance
alternative under Section 4(f) because it is being used for recreational purposes as a pedestrianibike
trail (Rio Grande Trail). On the other hand, the existing route, "No -Action Alternative", contains
no Section 4(f) resources and constituted an avoidance alternative. However, this alternative was
found not to meet the purpose and need of the project, among other reasons, and is being properly
rejected as not "prudent and feasible" in accordance with the prevailing case law.
1(3) Neighborhood
CDOT is very concerned about the environmental quality of the surrounding area, and considerable
steps have been taken to avoid, reduce, or mitigate the impacts associated with upgrading State
Highway 82. A cut and cover tunnel is developed across the Marolt-Thomas Property for mitigation.
As discussed in the FEIS, pg. H-22, an alignment depressed more than what is proposed was
AM -Ili
evaluated. This option is not feasible because a retaining wall would be required on each side of
State Highway 82 between Castle Creek and 7' Street. The retaining wall on the south side of State
Highway 82 closes off the only access to the Berger Cabin from the highway and adversely impacts
the Berger Cabin Property.
The Preferred Alternative includes a landscaped median where feasible. The type of landscaping that
will be used will be determined during the design phase. The commitments made by CDOT are in
Chapter VI: Mitigation Summary of the FEIS.
New developments in the platform width near the Berger Cabin in the ROD eliminates the possibility
of an access road south of the LRT alignment. An access road will be considered if feasible. The
Berger Cabin access cannot be moved to the south due to adjacent property impacts.
1(4) Visual
CDOT is very concerned about the environmental quality of the surrounding area, and considerable
steps have been taken to avoid, reduce, or mitigate the impacts associated with upgrading State
Highway 82. A cut and cover tunnel is developed across the Marolt-Thomas Property for mitigation
of visual impacts. Earthen berms are recommended for noise mitigation if there is enough right-of-
way. If not, a noise wall may be constructed (with approval from the property owners) which is
designed to blend in with it's surroundings. As discussed in the FEIS, pg. H-22, an alignment
depressed more than what is proposed was evaluated. This option is not feasible because a retaining
wall would be required on each side of State Highway 82 between Castle Creek and 7" Street. The
retaining wall on the south side of State Highway 82 closes off the only access to the Berger Cabin
from the highway and adversely impacts the Berger Cabin Property.
The actual design (type) of LRT system which will be used for Aspen has not been finalized.
Electric LRT with head wires has been recommended for the City of Aspen and assumed in the
planning analysis. The system will be designed to fit in with Aspen's character. The riders will have
a pleasant experience.
1(5) Noise
The geographic information for the future roadway and receiver locations is based on a preliminary
alignment for State Highway 82, which is the best information available at this time. Since noise
levels are sensitive to distances from roadways and relative elevations, further noise assessment will
be done during final design to determine locations and heights for noise barriers. The FEIS simply
states that with the preliminary alignment, noise impacts may be mitigated whether using a noise
wall or earthen berm. The design of the noise barrier will be determined during final design.
The LRT warning horn that was modeled is located on the LRT, and is used as it approaches the
station. The LRT noise was modeled using the F17A Transit Noise and Vibration Impact
Assessment, April 1995 procedure.
C-46
As discussed in the FEIS, a noise barrier will be constructed where necessary (with approval from
property owners). An earthen berm is recommended, if there is not enough right-of-way to construct
a berm then a noise wall may be constructed. The wall will be designed to fit Aspen's character.
CDOT apologizes for any confusion the document may have caused. There will be adverse noise
impacts in the vicinity of the 7' Street LRT station without mitigation. These impacts, however, will
be mitigated (examples: alternative to the warning horn, earthen berm, noise wall, etc.).
1(6) Wildlife
As discussed on page V-35 of the FEIS, due to the already disturbed nature of the project area,
impacts from the Preferred Alternative would be minimal. This includes the construction of the
transit facilities/stations. Additional mitigation (over what is discussed in Chapter VI) is not
required.
1(7) Cut and Cover Tunnel
A cut and cover tunnel in the Preferred Alternative is 122 meters (400 feet) in length. The tunnel
is a mitigation measure used to minimize impacts to the Holden Smelting and Milling Complex and
residents. A 215 meter (700 feet) cut and cover tunnel was evaluated during the FEIS analysis. A
tunnel this length is not recommended in the FEIS because as the tunnel length increases, the
depression of the alignment begins earlier. This will require additional open space take. If desired,
this length could be extended up to as much as 213 meters (700 feet) during the design phases to
mitigate impacts to the Marolt-Thomas Property.
1(8) Trail System
As explained in the FEIS Volume 2, pg 122, the specific location of the Moore Open Space Nordic
Trail will be determined during final design and in cooperation with the County Open Space and
Trails Board of Trustees.
1(9) Construction
During construction of the Preferred Alternative, CDOT will utilize appropriate traffic management
techniques to minimize delays and inconvenience to the traveling public. This may be accomplished
by phasing construction and/or restricting it to off-peak hours. Whenever possible, provisions will
be included to minimize the effects on RFTA buses.
CDOT is working with RFTA during construction of the various segments of State Highway 82 to
mitigate some of the impacts. Some improvements are already in place, such as bus bypass lanes
and exclusive bus/HOV lanes. CDOT will continue to work with RFTA concerning this matter.
The Preferred Alternative for the Entrance to Aspen EIS was created at a planning level. As this
C-47
project moves into the design stages, many areas will be examined in more detail. Examples are the
area near the Villas and the cut and cover tunnel.
J. Documents
J(I) ROD
The Entrance to Aspen Record of Decision (ROD) identifies a preferred route or corridor. The
environmental clearance within this corridor allows sufficient room to either implement the Preferred
Alternative or, if sufficient local support and/or funding is not available, implement the phased
exclusive bus lanes.
The Entrance to Aspen EIS process has followed all federal requirements under the NEPA act for
conducting environmental and Section 4(f) analysis.
The Buttermilk Ski Area has been identified as a key location for a transit center as part of the
Preferred Alternative. The facility would be the transfer point for skier trips and commuter bus trips
into the Aspen area. The Buttermilk multimodal facility is an important aspect of the Preferred
Alternative.
The Entrance to Aspen project represents one of the most extensive EIS processes ever undertaken
by CDOT. The Preferred Alternative is the result of three years of planning. However, since it is
still in the planning process, some minor changes could be made during the design phase.
The possibility of lowering the profile near the Villas may be re-examined during the design phase.
At that time, CDOT will cooperate with other concerned parties in that area to ensure that the best
solution is achieved for everyone.
A 215 meter (700 feet) cut and cover tunnel was evaluated during the FEIS analysis. A tunnel this
length is not recommended in the FEIS because as the tunnel length increases, the depression of the
alignment begins earlier. This will require additional open space take. If desired, this length could
be extended up to as much as 213 meters (700 feet) during the design phases to mitigate impacts to
the Marolt-Thomas Property.
CDOT commits in the ROD to working with RFI'A during construction to minimize impacts to bus
routes and schedules.
The ROD will clear an envelope for a particular route that the Preferred Alternative should follow.
This envelope will allow room for phasing to occur if necessary. The proposed action is a 'condition
alternative;' that is, the Preferred Alternative includes an LRT system that, if sufficient local support
and/or funding is not available, can be developed initially as phased exclusive bus lanes. The phased
option is described in detail in this document.
The Entrance to Aspen process has followed all NEPA requirements regarding environmental
impacts and Section 4(f) analysis. During the process, all attempts have been taken to investigate
every feasible alternative. Special attention has been paid to the area between Castle Creek and 7 th
Street. During preliminary and final design, CDOT will work with interested parties in this area to
ensure that the best solution is reached.
J(2) FEIS
CDOT will coordinate with neighborhood groups and agencies all along the Entrance to Aspen
corridor during design and construction to ensure that the best possible solution to issues is achieved.
Vehicle registrations may have decreased, but traffic volumes continue to increase. The Preferred
Alternative uses a LRT system and TM programs to limit traffic volumes to existing levels. This
is an important aspect of the Preferred Alternative.
Ridership studies were conducted for the Entrance to Aspen EIS project. The studies show that
transit ridership has increased and will continue to increase, especially with the implementation of
TM programs. These programs will aid the effort to keep traffic volumes at existing levels.
The information provided in the FEIS on origin and destination studies, traffic volumes, and
ridership is summarized from technical reports on these subjects. For more detailed information on
these subjects, please refer to Chapter V111: Availability of Technical Reports in the FEIS, which
will direct you to the appropriate reports.
J(3) BBROD
The Corridor Investment Study (CIS) and Aspen-Snowmass linkage projects are currently ongoing.
These projects will investigate in more detail how rail may fit in with areas further downvalley from
Aspen.
CDOT is working with RFIA during construction of the various segments of State Highway 82 to
mitigate some of the impacts. Some improvements are already in place, such as bus bypass lanes
and exclusive bus/HOV lanes.
J(4) CIS
Thank you for you support of the Entrance to Aspen EIS process, and for your enthusiasm for the
CIS. The solutions that are being developed for the Roaring Fork Valley are innovative methods of
solving the transportation problems that exist in the area.
For the Entrance to Aspen, the corridor along which the LRT system will be placed has been
presented as part of the Preferred Alternative. This is the culmination of three years of analysis. A
Corridor Investment Study (CIS) is currently underway to determine the best alternative between
Glenwood Springs and- Aspen.
K. Process
K(1) EIS
Thank you for supporting the Entrance to Aspen EIS project. CDOT, the City of Aspen, Pitkin
County, and surrounding communities have been working collaboratively to balance transportation
needs related to growth with an increased concern for the character and environment of this
mountain area. CDOT has attempted to incorporate all these concerns into its transportation
improvement project. It has been one of the most extensive environmental impact statement (EIS)
processes ever conducted by CDOT.
The Preferred Alternative is the culmination of a three-year effort that included an extensive
screening process with numerous alternatives considered. An extensive origin and destination study
was conducted early in the process. Ridership studies have also been conducted
Expanding State Highway 82 to a four -lane highway does not provide the incentive for transit use
or carpool use that is essential if traffic growth on State Highway 82 is to be controlled. Traffic
volumes will increase by adding capacity to the existing highway, it will be more convenient to drive
so more people will drive more trips. Four lanes of unrestricted traffic is not consistent with
community -based planning goals. As one commentor noted "it is intuitively obvious that we cannot
continue providing ever increasing lanes and parking spaces for automobiles" (Comment Letter 84).
The Entrance to Aspen ROD does not environmentally clear four highway lanes into Aspen.
Volume 2 of the FEIS is the comments and coordination completed throughout the EIS process.
K(2) Project Objectives
Thank you for your support of the Entrance to Aspen process. The Preferred Alternative was
developed to avoid or minimize impacts to Section 4(f) resources wherever feasible. When this is
not possible, CDOT will furnish replacement land or compensate the concerned parties for the
reasonable cost of the land.
The Preferred Alternative was developed to minimize impacts to the Moore Property as best as
possible. The highway portion of the Preferred Alternative remains completely off the property. The
LRT station does impact the property. During the design stages of the project, CDOT will continue
to attempt to minimize impact to the Moore Property without compromising the design standards
of the Preferred Alternative. CDOT will furnish replacement land or compensate the concerned
parties for the reasonable cost of the land that is impacted.
C-50
CDOT and FHWA have chosen the Preferred Alternative because it best meets the local
communities' needs and desires, fulfills the project objectives, and provides flexibility in future
design decisions.
Community acceptability and community -based planning are two of the objectives met by the
Preferred Alternative. Local governments and citizens throughout the entire valley have been
involved with the Entrance to Aspen process from the beginning.
Improving the safety of State Highway 82 is one of the project objectives. The Preferred Alternative
fulfills this objective by removing non -local traffic from the substandard S-curves, and by adding
a landscaped median that separates inbound and outbound traffic. These measures will help reduce
the current accident rate on State Highway 82.
The new Maroon Creek Bridge will have a median separating inbound and outbound traffic, which
will improve safety in this area.
The roundabout at Maroon Creek Road significantly increases the capacity of this intersection, and
therefore, meets the objective of providing for future transportation capacity.
The existing alignment was screened out during the Comparative Screening Analysis. It was
eliminated based on safety and community acceptability issues. Compared to the modified direct
alignment, the S-curves are expected to have a higher accident rate even with improvements to the
roadway. The Preferred Alternative removes a large portion of traffic from the S-curves by using
the modified direct alignment. In addition, the existing alignment does not address the need for an
alternative emergency access route in and out of Aspen. In a public survey of alignments preferences
(September 1994 Public Open House), the existing alignment was chosen as the least favorable in
comparison to other alignments.
A roundabout at Cemetery Lane was analyzed during the EIS process as part of Alternative H. This
alternative was screened out because it did not best meet the project objectives.
In previous cases where roundabouts were introduced into a system, increased accidents are seen for
a short period immediately after implementation of the roundabout. This is attributable to people
becoming acclimated to this different type of intersection. Once people have used the roundabout,
accident rates often decrease significantly from the previous signalized intersection.
The possibility of upgrading existing Power Plant Road across Castle Creek to create a second
emergency access route would be feasible only if the existing alignment option was used for State
Highway 82. Since the existing alignment option was screened out (see above), upgrading Power
Plant Road is not necessary because the Preferred Alternative includes a second access across Castle
Creek.
C-51
Placing the highway lanes on the existing alignment and the transit envelope on the Marolt-Thomas
alignment was addressed as Alternative G in the DEIS. This alternative was screened out during the
evaluation process due to the absence of a detailed light rail analysis.
The cross section across the Marolt-Thomas Property is minimized to the extent possible. The LRT
tapers from two tracks to one track as the alignment begins to cross the property. In addition, the
Preferred Alternative cut and cover tunnel does not have a median, which allows the narrowest cross
section possible without compromising design standards. If phasing occurs, the final phase will have
a median through the tunnel. This median was necessary to allow room for four lanes during the
initial phase.
The existing alignment option (Alternatives 2 and B in the DEIS) did undergo a Section 4(f) analysis
in the DEIS. This evaluation can be found in the Section 4(f) chapter of the FEIS.
In the FEIS, the length used for analysis of the cut and cover tunnel was 122 meters (400 feet). If
desired, this length could be extended up to as much as 213 meters (700 feet) during the design
phases to mitigate impacts to the Marolt-Thomas Property.
Using the Denver & Rio Grande Western (D&RGW) alignment for the Entrance to Aspen was
eliminated during the Reality Check Screening Analysis. One of the keys to an effective transit
system is to provide the areas with the most destinations the best access to the system. The D&RGW
alignment would not service as many people as the Main Street LRT alignment (downtown core)
where more people can walk to conveniently.
K(3) Screening
Numerous options were presented as solutions to the transportation problems in the Entrance to
Aspen project. To study all the reasonable alternatives while also maximizing the resources
available, a screening process was used. The screening process used three criteria levels: reality
check, fatal flaw, and comparative. In addition, the screening process took into account comments
and concerns regarding similar options from previous transportation studies, as well as public input
from public meetings.
The Highway and Underground Transitway Solution (HUTS) was evaluated and eliminated at the
reality check level of the screening process. It was considered to be aesthetically inappropriate and
exceedingly expensive for the Entrance to Aspen project corridor.
The Entrance to Aspen LRT system is the first link of a valley -wide transit system. A separate
project -- Roaring Fork Valley Transportation Corridor CIS/DEIS/CP -- is currently evaluating the
valley -wide transit system. This consists of extending the transit system from Aspen to Glenwood
Springs. One of the options for this corridor is commuter rail. Commuter rail was screened out for
the Entrance to Aspen project because diesel locomotives entering the City of Aspen are not
consistent with local planning objectives and community character.
C-52
The LRT system for Aspen works well with the terminus at the Pitkin County Airport. A transit
envelope has been cleared from Basalt to the Buttermilk Ski Area as part of the State Highway 82
East of Basalt to Buttermilk Ski Area Record of Decision. If local support and funding is available,
the LRT may be extended where necessary.
K(4) Elections
Thank you for your support of the Entrance to Aspen process. When and where to conduct votes,
and on what issues, are decisions to be made by the local governments involved in the process.
I
The Aspen City. Council, Pitkin County Commissioners, and Snowmass Village Town Council
("Elected Officials") commit to placing before their electors whatever ballot questions are necessary
before moving forward with implementation of the Preferred Alternative. These ballot questions
may include approval for funding of the rail component of the Preferred Alternative. Any further
votes on other issues in the future, the means by which these votes are conducted, and when these
votes will occur are local government issues, and will provide the area electorate an opportunity to
voice their opinions on these matters.
The ROD will clear an envelope for a particular route that the Preferred Alternative should follow.
This envelope will allow room for phasing to occur if necessary. The proposed action is a 'condition
alternative;' that is, the Preferred Alternative includes an LRT system that, if sufficient local support
and/or funding is not available, can be developed initially as phased exclusive bus lanes. The phased
option is described in detail in this document.
The majority of residents want an alternative mode of transportation. The DSEIS alternatives (LRT
based) were developed as a result of the DEIS public comment period. The Preferred Alternative
was developed from the City of Aspen's proposed interim Alternative H and the numerous other
comments recommending an alternative mode of transportation. The city and county has gone
through an extensive public involvement process, including two transit tax elections and an open
space election, to arrive at the Preferred Alternative.
The survey conducted in January 1996 was not flawed. It presented the public with defined options
to choose from. The citizens in the Aspen area have been involved with this project for many years
and have the knowledge to interpret and answer questions about the project with their own opinions.
CDOT has worked collaboratively with area agencies and citizens on the Entrance to Aspen project,
and has attempted to incorporate all these concerns into the transportation improvement project.
This project included one of the most extensive public involvement processes ever undertaken by
CDOT. Citizens from all around the area have had numerous opportunities to contribute to the
process during public meetings and public comment periods, and by becoming members of the
various Citizens' Task Forces that have been involved in the Entrance to Aspen process.
C-53
The Entrance to Aspen transportation project impacts everyone that resides in the valley. However,
the specific issues that have required a vote up to this point have been within the Aspen city limits.
In the future,, all Pitkin County residents will likely have the opportunity to vote on important aspects
of this project.
The Entrance to Aspen transportation project impacts everyone that resides in the valley. However,
the specific issues that have required a vote up to this point have been within the Aspen city limits.
Any further votes on other issues in the future, the means by which these votes are conducted, and
when these votes will occur are local government issues.
Public involvement has been a key issue throughout the EIS process. Numerous public meetings
have been held, including six public open houses and various focus group meetings. The first focus
group meeting for the Owl Creek area was held on August 26, 1994 and the last meeting on April
15, 1997. The Owl Creek Caucus, Homeowner Associations, and residents of Owl Creek Road have
had plenty of opportunity to voice their concerns and opinions on the relocation of Owl Creek Road.
Since the 1990 vote by Aspen citizens for a 4-lane roadway, subsequent votes and issues have
occurred that resulted in the examination of new alternatives, which eventually led to the Preferred
Alternative.
Improving the safety of State Highway 82 is one of the project objectives. The Preferred Alternative
fulfills this objective by removing non -local traffic from the substandard S-curves, and by adding
a landscaped median that separates inbound and outbound traffic. These measures will help reduce
the current accident rate on State Highway 82.
K(5) Public
CDOT appreciates your support of the Entrance to Aspen EIS process. CDOT has worked hard to
develop an acceptable alternative that fulfills the project objectives, need and intent statements, and
commitment to design excellence. One of the most import -ant part of this project is the extensive
public involvement process, including open houses, focus group meetings, press conferences,
elections, etc.
The majority of residents want an alternative mode of transportation. The DSEIS alternatives (LRT
based) were developed as a result of the DEIS public comment period. The Preferred Alternative
was developed from the City of Aspen's proposed interim Alternative H and the numerous other
comments recommending an alternative mode of transportation. The city and county has gone
through an extensive public involvement process, including two transit tax elections and an open
space election, to arrive at the Preferred Alternative.
CDOT has worked hard to provide an acceptable alternative. The LRT is a convenient way to get
around in such a pedestrian friendly city. It is a reliable system since it runs on its own track and is
not affected by traffic congestion. This is a major improvement over the existing bus system, since
C-54
the buses are currently using the same highway and sitting in the same traffic as the automobiles.
CDOT has worked collaboratively with area agencies and citizens on the Entrance to Aspen project,
and has attempted to incorporate all these concerns into the transportation improvement project.
This project included one of the most extensive public involvement processes ever undertaken by
CDOT. Citizens from all around the area have had numerous opportunities to contribute to the
process during public meetings and public comment periods, and by becoming members of the
various Citizens' Task Forces that have been involved in the Entrance to Aspen process.
The public meetings and other presentations that involved the public were structured to a format that
best presented the information. Question and answer periods were conducted at some of the
meetings, but it was determined that a. comment sheet provided the opportunity to comment on the
process to a larger group of people.
OTAK was brought into the process when it became apparent that light rail needed a more detailed
analysis. OTAK has had significant experience working with LRT systems, and they aided during
analysis of the system.
CDOT, the City of Aspen, Pitkin County, and surrounding communities have been working
collaboratively to balance transportation needs related to growth with an increased concern for the
character and environment of this mountain area. CDOT has attempted to incorporate all these
concerns into its transportation improvement project. It has been one of the most extensive
environmental impact statement (EIS) processes ever conducted by CDOT, encompassing the
evaluation of numerous alternatives to arrive at the Preferred Alternative, which best meets the
project objectives.
The Entrance to Aspen transportation project impacts everyone that resides in the valley. However,
the specific issues that have required a vote up to this point have been within the Aspen city limits.
In the future, all Pitkin County residents will likely have the opportunity to vote on important aspects
of this project.
The Entrance to Aspen transportation project impacts everyone that resides in the valley. However,
the specific issues that have required a vote up to this point have been within the Aspen city limits.
Any further votes on other issues in the future, the means by which these votes are conducted, and
when these votes will occur are local government issues.
K(6) Comment Period
The original 30-day comment period on the FEIS ended August 31, 1997. The comment period was
twice extended by thirty days, ultimately ending on November 5, 1997. This provided a total of 96
days during which people were allowed to comment on the FEIS.
C-55
K(7) Early Construction
Certain improvements proposed as part of the Preferred Alternative remain the same irregardless of
LRT or phasing being implemented. Therefore, design and construction of these portions of the
project could be expedited without being irreparably tied to the LRT system. Examples of these
improvements include relocation of Owl Creek Road and West Buttermilk Road, and the Maroon
Creek Road roundabout and Moore Transit Center. The use of local funding approved by the Elected
Officials will help to expedite these early -action items.
L. Form Letters
LM Form Letter #1 - dated October, 1997
CDOT appreciates your support for the Preferred Alternative included in the Entrance to Aspen
FEIS. The EIS process is designed to determine the best transportation solution without decimating
the wildlife, destroying the Roaring Fork River, the Snowmass Canyon, and the natural beauty of
the area.
L(2) Form Letter #2 - dated September 15, 1997
CDOT appreciates aL tes your support for the Preferred Alternative included in the Entrance to Aspen
FEIS. The EIS process is designed to determine the best transportation solution without decimating
the wildlife, destroying the Roaring Fork River, the Snowmass Canyon, and the natural beauty of
the area.
CDOT has worked collaboratively with area agencies and citizens on the Entrance to Aspen project,
and has attempted to incorporate all these concerns into the transportation improvement project.
This project included one of the most extensive public involvement processes ever undertaken by
CDOT. Citizens from all around the area have had numerous opportunities to contribute to the
process during public meetings and public comment periods, and by becoming members of the
various Citizens' Task Forces that have been involved in the Entrance to Aspen process.
L(3) Form Letter #3 -dated September 5, 1997
The majority of residents want an alternative mode of transportation. The DSEIS alternatives (LRT
based) were developed as a result of the DEIS public comment period. The Preferred Alternative
was developed from the City of Aspen's proposed interim Alternative H and the numerous other
comments recommending an alternative mode of transportation. The city and county has gone
through an extensive public involvement process, including two transit tax elections and an open
space election, to arrive at the Preferred Alternative.
The Entrance to Aspen project is independent on the Valley -Wide Rail project. A valley -wide
system will support the Entrance to Aspen LRT system; however, the Aspen LRT system is a
dependent system that can run on it's own.
C-56
As part of the Transportation Capacity Objective (DEIS pg. 1-3), the Preferred Alternative is to
provide needed transportation capacity for the forecasted person trips in the year 2015, and to seek
to achieve the stated community goal of limiting the number of vehicles in 2015 to levels at or below
those in 1993. A four lane highway will not accomplish this goal without a strict TM Program.
CDOT is looking out for the people by giving them an alternative to driving.
CDOT has worked hard to provide an acceptable alternative. The LRT is a convenient way to get
around in such a pedestrian friendly city. It is a reliable system since it runs on its own track and is
not affected by traffic congestion. This is a major improvement over the existing bus system, since
the buses are currently using the same highway and sitting in the same traffic as the automobiles.
CDOT is very concerned about the environmental quality of the surrounding area, and considerable
steps have been taken to avoid, reduce, or mitigate the impacts associated with upgrading State
Highway 82. As part of the Community Acceptability Objective and Livable Communities
Objective (FEIS pg. 1-4) the solution to the Entrance to Aspen needs to preserve Aspen's character.
The Preferred Alternative preserves Aspen's character by reducing the number of vehicles within
the City of Aspen and providing an. alternative mode of transportation, thus promoting bicycle and
pedestrian use rather than vehicle use. The LRT is more environmentally friendly than the existing
bus system.
The ROD will clear an envelope for a particular route that the Preferred Alternative should follow.
This envelope will allow room for phasing to occur if necessary. The proposed action is a 'condition
alternative;' that is, the Preferred Alternative includes an LRT system that, if sufficient local support
and/or funding is not available, can be developed initially as phased exclusive bus lanes. The phased
option is described in detail in this document.
The Aspen City Council, Pitkin County Commissioners, and Snowmass Village Town Council
("Elected Officials") commit to placing before their electors whatever ballot questions are necessary
before moving forward with implementation of the Preferred Alternative. These ballot questions
may include approval to use any public open space for transportation purposes, and approval for
funding of the rail component of the Preferred Alternative. Any further votes on other issues in the
future, the means by which these votes are conducted, and when these votes will occur are local
government issues, and will provide the area electorate an opportunity to voice their opinions on
these matters.
The funding of the LRT system has not yet been determined; however, there are various options.
Using the existing I percent transportation sales tax and the one-half percent Transit Tax sales tax,
both of which have been passed by a large majority of the Pitkin County electorate. An election will
be needed for bonding the rail system and an election to form a Rural Transportation District, but
it is premature to rush into an election at this time.
C-57
L(4) Form Letter #4 -Are We Being Railroaded?
1. How many cars will be replaced by the railroad to Aspen?
As part of the Transportation Capacity Objective (FEIS pg. 1-3), the Preferred Alternative is
to provide needed transportation capacity for the forecasted person trips in the year 2015 and
achieve the stated community goal of limiting traffic volumes at or below levels in 1993.
The Preferred Alternative accomplishes this objective by providing an alternative to driving
-- the LRT and implementing TM measures.
Under the high -growth scenario, today's winter average daily demand of 44
t--) 000 person -trips
(24,800 vehicle trips) is projected to increase to 71,000 person -trips (36,400 vehicle -trips)
in year 2015 (DEIS pg. II-10). To achieve the community goal of maintaining 1993 traffic
volumes, 46,200 person -trips (11,600 vehicle -trips) must be eliminated. The Preferred
Alternative gives these extra person -trips an alternative mode of transportation. Without the
LRT, 46,200 person -trips (11,600 vehicle -trips) will need to be taken off of the road by
another means. Other modes would need to be provided to eliminate vehicle trips. A train
is not the only solution; however, in this instance it is the most reasonable.
2. When the new 4-lane highway from Glenwood to Aspen is finished it will turn into 2 lanes
as it enters Aspen. Will this create the same back up in traffic we have today?
The Preferred Alternative is developed so that the down -valley commuters may transfer onto
the LRT system at the Pitkin County Airport, prior to the merging of four lanes to two lanes.
This will avoid a bottleneck. Also, once the valley -wide transit system is developed/
constructed the down -valley commuters may take the LRT from Glenwood Springs to Aspen.
Vehicle congestion will likely continue as long as there is a highway; however, vehicle
congestion is part of the incentive to use the LRT.
3. What happens to the new highway as it crosses Castle Creek and enters Aspen?
Between Castle Creek Bridge and 7" Street, the roadway cross-section varies as the roadway
tapers out slightly to match existing at 7 1h Street. Main Street will remain four lanes.
Currently, both local traffic and highway traffic use the S-curves to get to their destination.
The heavy traffic on the tight curves and the traffic signal at Cemetery Lane and Maroon
Creek Road create the traffic congestion. With the Preferred Alternative, outbound State
Highway 82 traffic will travel across the Marolt-Thomas Property and the local traffic will
use the S-curves. The traffic will be divided and the signalized intersections will be
eliminated at Cemetery Lane and Maroon Creek Road. The result is a decrease in
congestion.
4. Are there any new red lights on Main Street as a result of the train?
Traffic signals are placed on Main Street to improve traffic operations and provide safe
pedestrian crossings. Due to right -in and right -out (cul-de-sacs if south -side LRT alignment)
located on 7 1h Street, 6 th Street, 4 1h Street, 2 nd Street, and I't Street; more traffic will use 5 th
Street, 3 d Street, Garmisch Street, and Aspen Street to access Main Street. Signals are
required at these intersections to handle the additional traffic. As stated in Volume 2, pg. 70
C-58
the 7th Street and Main Street intersection operates below capacity and minimal delays are
anticipated. Please refer to the February 4, 1997 Technical Memorandum, listed as a
technical report, for more details on the intersection analysis.
S. Are there any train stations on Main Street?
There are two train stations along Main Street, and one on Monarch Street. The LRT stations
have strategically been placed throughout the corridor to service the most people, creating
a pedestrian friendly environment. The LRT system is a flexible system that can easily be
expanded to service more people. As person -trips into and out of Aspen increase, the
frequency of the LRT may also increase, or additional light rail vehicles may be added.
6. How will I get to Snowmass to Ski?
To get to Snowmass to Ski, you can take the LRT to the Buttermilk Ski Area and transfer to
a bus/shuttle that is available (the LRT and bus will coordinate their times to minimize
waiting). There are other planning projects in process that are analyzing various connections
between mountains (Aspen Highlands to Buttermilk to Snowmass)', and linkages between
Aspen and Snowmass. These projects will make it even more convenient for skiers.
7. What is being built at Buttermilk and at the airport?
The airport multimodal site has been identified as the intercept point of commuter travel into
the Aspen area. Downvalley commuter buses and other commuter traffic would use this
facility to transfer users to the LRT system or to the airport system. The airport facility could
have the capacity to house approximately 3,600 parking spaces in a six -level parking garage.
Four of the parking levels are proposed to be below grade. There are opportunities to
eliminate much of the airport parking demand by placing more spaces further downvalley
(perhaps at Brush Creek Road) and by capturing more trips on the valley -wide transit system.
With this in consideration, the airport parking garage will likely be built in stages, beginning
with the underground levels first.
The Buttermilk location will have 750 parking spaces. The Preferred Alternative
recommends a two -level parking structure to minimize the footprint.
8. Is the airport -to -Aspen link of the train being built before the Glenwood -to -Aspen section?
Yes, the Entrance to Aspen LRT system is the first link of a valley -wide transit system. A
separate project -- Roaring Fork Valley Transportation Corridor CIS/DEIS/CP -- is currently
evaluating the valley -wide transit system. This consists of extending the transit system from
Aspen to Glenwood Springs. The Entrance to Aspen LRT system is a stand-alone project,
not dependent upon the valley -wide system.
9. What if the Glenwood link is never built? Who will ride the airport -to -Aspen link?
The LRT system is developed for local citizens as well as commuters and tourists. Although
not every trip can be converted to riding the LRT (grocery shopping, excessive baggage),
there are many trips that can. With the Preferred Alternative, the local citizens may use the
C-59
LRT to go skiing, to the airport, to restaurants, shops, etc. Once the valley -wide system is
constructed local citizens may go all the way to Glenwood Springs.
The LRT system is convenient for the tourists. Driving in an unfamiliar city can be stressful
and frustrating. Riding the LRT will give the tourists the opportunity to view the beauty of
the valley, without -worrying about traffic and directions. There are many destinations close
to the LRT stations that the tourists may go to without having to rent a car. These include
the airport, hotels, shops, restaurants, ski mountains, etc. The LRT will drop tourists off in
downtown Aspen, where the mall is designed for pedestrians. Tourists will not have to
worry about finding a parking space and then walk to the pedestrian mall.
The LRT system is developed for skiers. Numerous ski resorts use shuttles to transport
skiers from parking lots to the mountain. The LRT system will work similar to these
shuttles. The skiers may ride the train directly to Buttermilk Ski Area. There are other
planning projects in process that are analyzing various connections between mountains
(Aspen Highlands to Buttermilk to Snowmass), and linkages between Aspen and Snowmass.
These projects will make it even more convenient for skiers.
The LRT system is also developed for students. Instead of taking the bus to school or having
a parent drop them off, the students will be able to take the LRT from downtown to the
Moore transit station where a school bus will be waiting to take them to school.
10. How much of the train's cost will the airport -to -Aspen link be?
The construction cost of the LRT is estimated at $35.3 million. The LRT vehicles are
estimated at $13.9 million. The LRT stations and multimodal facilities cost are estimated
at a total of $70.7 million. The Preferred Alternative includes an LRT system that, if
sufficient local support and/or funding is not available, can be developed initially as phased
exclusive bus lanes.
The cost to build a four lane highway is estimated at $43.8 million. To build a new parking
garage in Aspen to provide the necessary capacity for a four lane highway would cost an
estimated $75 million. The new Basalt to Buttermilk four -lane will cost approximately $135
million.
Where have light rail systems been built?
The population of the city is not what determines the success of a light rail system, it's the
number of vehicles using the existing system that is important. The 1993 summer average
daily traffic between Cemetery Lane and the intersection of 7 1h Street and Main Street was
28,600 vehicles per day. The transportation model used for projecting future traffic volumes
at Cemetery Lane in 2015 forecasted traffic volumes to be 42,000 vehicles per day.
C-60
12. Have any light rail systems in the U.S. ever operated at a profit or broken even.?
The Preferred Alternative was not developed to make a profit. All types of transportation
systems require money to maintain its serviceability. A four -lane highway system needs
money to stripe, patch, plow, sand, distribute magnesium chloride, and eventually
reconstruct. Highways are maintained through various taxes, the system does not pay for
itself. The LRT will actually generate some money, whereas the highway will not.
13. Who will be responsible for the operating losses year -in and year -out?
The local entities will be responsible for the operating costs/losses each year. The funding
of the LRT system has not yet been determined; however, there are various options. Using
the existing I percent transportation sales tax and the one-half percent Transit Tax sales tax,
both of which have been passed by a large majority of the Pitkin County electorate. An
election will be needed for bonding the rail system and an election to form a Rural
Transportation District, but it is premature to rush into an election at this time.
14. What will Main Street look like after a train is built?
The LRT has been developed to run down Main Street to serve the most people (downtown
core). The LRT system will contribute to a pedestrian friendly environment and will be
designed to fit in with Aspen's character. Please refer to the Entrance to Aspen FEIS and
technical reports.
M. Document Edits
CDOT apologizes for any confusion the document may have caused. The Moore Nordic Trail
should have been included in the list of trails and paths surrounding State Highway 82 and the fact
that nordic trails already exist on the Moore Open Space should not have been made apparent.
WAADM DAAS PEN\RES PONS EkRES PONS2. WPD
C-61
COMMENT LETTERS
The following pages are not available online as they
include handwritten and scanned pictures. The City is
committed to meeting digital accessibility standards.
If you would like to view the following pages, please
reach out to Jenn Ooton at jenn.ooton@aspen.gov.