Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.EOTC.regular.20250515.amendedAGENDA ELECTED OFFICIALS TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE May 15, 2025 4:00 PM, Snowmass Village Town Hall - Council Chambers 130 Kearns Rd. Snowmass Village, CO 81615 I.CALL TO ORDER II.ROLL CALL III.Elected Officials Transportation Committee III.A EOTC IV.ADJOURN Virtual Meeting Information Link and instructions found on the first page of the main agenda Revised May 15, 2025 EOTC Agenda - LD_05_12_2025.pdf EOTC Decisions Reached October 24, 2024.pdf AIS RFTA Zero-Fare Pilot Program Funding Support.pdf RFTA Zero Fare Pilot Program Presentation.pdf AIS - Hwy 82 West Aspen Transportation Needs Update.pdf Hwy 82_West Aspen Transportation Needs Memo.pdf AIS - Spring 2025 Travel Data Report_PVAC Project.pdf Spring 2025 Travel Data Report_PAVC Project.pdf AIS - Transportation Coalition for the 21st Century.pdf 1 1 Elected Officials Transportation Committee (EOTC) Thursday, May 15, 2025 - 4:00 to 6:10 pm Snowmass Village Town Hall Council Chambers 130 Kearns Rd. Snowmass Village, CO 81615 Host and Chair – Town of Snowmass Village MEETING IS VIRTUAL AND IN PERSON You can view the livestream on Grassroots TV (Channel 11 CGTV) Microsoft Teams Meeting: https://www.google.com/url?q=https://teams.microsoft.com/l/meetup- join/19%253ameeting_OTllOTU0Y2EtMmI5Yi00YzdkLTg2ZmMtNGYyMmRiMGI0NTIw%2540thread.v2/0? context%3D%257b%2522Tid%2522%253a%2522d759049d-4ca0-42d7-9a39- 8f055adb6a27%2522%252c%2522Oid%2522%253a%25228d1ede98-3633-4ba0-a3ea- 0526526a2dbf%2522%257d&sa=D&source=calendar&ust=1746464115379957&usg=AOvVaw1cHouSdu6 G7nqyiFfzn5Y6 Meeting ID: 246 363 053 468 4 Passcode: 77BF3KF6 AGENDA I. 4:00 – 4:05 CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL II. 4:05 – 4:10 APPROVAL OF OCTOBER 24, 2024 ACTION MINUTES III. 4:10 - 4:15 PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA (Comments limited to three minutes per person) IV. 4:15 – 4:45 RFTA ZERO-FARE PILOT PROGRAM FUNDING SUPPORT Presentation and Discussion; Public Hearing V. 4:45 – 5:45 HWY 82/WEST ASPEN TRANSPORTATION NEEDS UPDATE Presentation and Discussion VI. 5:45 – 6:00 PERMANENT AUTOMATIC VEHICLE COUNTERS Presentation and Discussion VII. 6:00 – 6:10 ROARING FORK TRANSPORTATION COALITION Discussion VIII. 6:10 ADJOURN MEETING 2 * Next Regular EOTC meeting is August 14, 2025 – City of Aspen, Host & Chair EOTC Background, Documents, and Packet Materials may be found here: https://pitkincounty.com/1322/Elected-Officials-Transportation-Committ EOTC Vision: We envision the Roaring Fork Valley as the embodiment of a sustainable transportation system emphasizing mass transit and mobility that contributes to the happiness and wellbeing of residents and visitors. EOTC Mission: Work collectively to reduce and manage the volume of vehicles on the road and parking system and continue to develop and support a comprehensive multimodal, long-range strategy that will insure a convenient, equitable and efficient transportation system for the Roaring Fork Valley. Summary of State Statue and Ballot Requirements: The 0.5% County Transit Sales and Use Tax shall be used for the purpose and financing, constructing, operating and managing a public, fixed route mass transportation system within the Roaring Fork Valley. 3 ELECTED OFFICIALS TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE (EOTC) AGREEMENTS & DECISIONS REACHED REGULAR MEETING October 24, 2024 Location (In Person and Virtual) –BOCC Chambers Pitkin County - Host & Chair • For a video production of this meeting, go to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIZDdqq2D-c&list=PLYAoFMw_qLSv- q6AcF02Zi07y-aPnU3Mp&index=1 • To access the Elected Officials Transportation Committee meeting packet material: https://www.pitkincounty.com/1322/Elected-Officials-Transportation-Committ, then ‘EOTC Archived Packets’) Elected Officials in Attendance: Aspen – 4 Pitkin County - 5 Snowmass - 4 Mayor Torre Chair Greg Poschman Mayor Bill Madsen John Doyle Steve Child Alyssa Shenk Ward Hauenstein Patti Clapper Britta Gustafson Sam Rose Kelly McNicholas-Kury Susan Marolt Francie Jacober Tom Fridstein ______________________________________________________________________________ CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Greg Poschman called the meeting of the Elected Officials Transportation Committee (EOTC) to order at 4:06 p.m. followed by a roll-call for attendance. APPROVAL OF THE APRIL 6, 2023 ACTION MINUTES Chair Poschman asked for a motion to approve the Agreements and Decisions reached from October 5, 2023, and the Pitkin County BOCC minutes of September 11th and 25th. Commissioner Clapper made the motion; it was seconded by Commissioner Jacober. A group vote was called; all members voted Yes. PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA Rachel Richards gave a brief history of the EOTC, beginning in the 1990s when the transit sales tax was approved to fund public transportation projects. She asked the EOTC to reaffirm its commitment to mobility and to managing future traffic growth. She thanked the City of Aspen for initiating a pre-NEPA process for the Entrance to Aspen and encouraged the City to involve all parties affected by traffic in Aspen. 4 Toni Kronberg commented on the need for more frequent meetings of the EOTC, citing language from the Intergovernmental Agreement. She encouraged the EOTC to request an emergency order from CDOT to open up both westbound lanes of Hwy 82 starting at the roundabout, particularly during emergencies such as the swatting incident at the Aspen Schools. She supports the County’s recent efforts to mitigate safety issues at Smith Hill Way and Lazy Glen in response to fatalities in those locations. Ms. Kronberg thanked the City of Aspen for withdrawing a ballot question pertaining to the entrance to Aspen and supports the reopening of the environmental impact statement. Finally, she gave her support for an aerial tramway solution for traffic congestion, citing an October 2020 EOTC discussion encouraging future consideration of the mode. Mayor Torre asked for a discussion of aerial transportation later in the meeting. 2024 WORKPLAN UPDATES Updates were given on the following 2023 workplan items: -Brush Creek Park & Ride FLAP -Brush Creek Park & Ride Monitoring and Management Plan -Permanent Automatic Vehicle Counters -Truscott to Owl Creek Trail -Buttermilk At-Grade Pedestrian Crossing Improvements -Maroon Bells CRMP Implementation Plan -Aspen Airport Business Center Multimodal Transportation Plan -Town of Snowmass Village Transportation Projects Mayor Torre expressed frustration that the vehicle counters project was taking so long, and that he would like to see data from any temporary counters currently in place. Sam Guarino, Transportation Director for the Town of Snowmass Village gave updates on the Transit Center and the Pedestrian/Bikeway project. Commissioner McNicholas-Kury asked for more information on the Snowmass Transit Center. Mayor Madsen replied that the planning commission had denied approval for the project and now the Town was pursuing a version smaller in scale. Mayor Torre asked for a future discussion on funding set-asides or “lockboxes”, such as the $6 million dedicated for a transit center in Snowmass, and posited this might be an option for the entrance to Aspen. PUBLIC HEARING ON 2024 WORKPLAN AND BUDGET Chair Poschman opened the public hearing on the proposed 2025 workplan and budget. Regional Transportation Director Linda DuPriest presented the workplan and budget. Commissioner Jacober asked if all EOTC members needed to be present for approval, as City of Aspen Councilor Bill Guth was absent. County Manager Jon Peacock stated that the requirement that each entity have a quorum of three members present. Regarding the Brush Creek Monitoring & Management Plan, Commissioner McNicholas-Kury asked if the study would reveal usage levels. Ms. DuPriest replied that the project would utilize license plate reading technology would collect data on vehicles using the lot, and that RFTA boarding and alighting date would show how many people used transit beginning at the lot. Councilor Hauenstein asked when EV chargers would be operational; staff had joined a regional grant application for federal funding but had not yet heard if it was approved. Members had 5 various questions about bike share the lot, the lighting system, overnight parking violations and enforcement, and the question of if the lot should continue to allow unhoused individuals to live at Brush Creek. Ms. DuPriest stated that enforcement was a key element in the study, and that the issue would be explored in the planning. Commissioners Poschman, McNicholas-Kury, Clapper and Jacober all had questions about the AABC Multimodal Plan and how it fit in with other planning efforts in the area, specifically the airport multimodal plan, and expressed concerns that all of the transportation needs in the area be considered in a comprehensive manner. Ms. DuPriest explained that the AABC project was triggered by the City beginning design on the Lumberyard project, and that it would not preclude future planning for the airport. The County with EOTC member support has applied for a RAISE grant for the airport multimodal plan, and that even if we were selected work may not begin for 12 to 18 months. The safety issues in the AABC are more acute, and can be addressed without on their own. Councilor Hauenstein invited the EOTC to consider helping fund the trail underpass at the Lumberyard entrance. Commissioner Clapper and Mayor Torre had questions about how projects appear in the budget document, and Councilmember Marolt asked for additional information on a line item. Mayor Torre asked if the EOTC should fund the AABC project or if it should be a Pitkin County project. Ms. DuPriest and Brian Pettet, Pitkin County Public Works Director offered that as the AABC is a regional traffic generator it made sense as an EOTC project, as it fits the general goal of reducing vehicle trips in the region. Chair Poschman invited John Rigney from Aspen Ski Company to give a presentation on their request for the transit subside for X Games. Commissioner McNicholas-Kury and Child, Councilor Hauenstein and Councilmember Fridstein all had questions about the ownership of the event, structure of entrance such as paid vs. free as it was in past years, and if it made sense for taxpayers to subsidize an event owned by a private entity. Councilor Doyle stated that he supports the expenditure since it helps takes cars off the road. Commissioner McNicholas-Kury suggested a “thumbs up” approval of this line item. Chair Poschman opened public comment on the workplan and budget. Rachel Richards commented on the need for more detail in future budget documents, and to not have to confine the budget to one page. She also supported finding ways to fund HOV lane enforcement, that the individual member entities might consider funding it if EOTC cannot. Toni Kronberg urged funding of aerial transportation, and for the EOTC to meet more frequently. Commissioner McNicholas-Kury suggested that since EOTC cannot fund HOV lane enforcement that the three member entities separately consider funding it. Mayor Torre, Commissioner Child and Councilor Doyle all expressed support for future consideration of aerial transport. Councilor Hauenstein asked to have line items pertaining to salary, wages and benefits pulled from the budget pending further information about the increase from 2024 to 2025. County Manager Jon Peacock explained that the County had conducted a placement and range study and that they compensation and increase were the result of that. Manager Peacock suggested the item 6 plus other budget questions could be discussed further at future meetings of the individual entities if more information was needed. Chair Poschman asked for a role call vote to improve the budget. Councilmember Shenk so moved, with Mayor Madsen seconding, then called the vote which Town of Snowmass Village approved unanimously. Mayor Torre made a motion to approve the budget; Councilor Hauenstein stated he could not approve the budget at this time and asked that additional information be brought before the Aspen City Council. Councilor Doyle agreed, and also stated that the EOTC should meet more often. Councilor Rose gave his approval for the budget, then Mayor Torre withdrew his motion. Commissioner Jacober moved that the County approve the budget; Commissioner McNicholas-Kury seconded; all commissioners approved. Manager Peacock stated that County staff and Ms. DuPriest would forward additional information to the City and appear at a future Council meeting for their approval of the budget and workplan. CITY OF ASPEN TRANSPORTATION UPDATE City of Aspen staff Sara Ott and Jenn Ooton presented an update on the Castle Creek Bridge and Entrance to Aspen. Options were presented including a supplemental or new EIS, a three-lane bridge as a replacement for the preferred alternative, a modified "split shot”, plus funding questions. The City has engaged Jacobs Engineering to assist with the scoping for a new EIS, including a public engagement process and polling of Aspen citizens. Commissioner Jacober had several questions about the polling and public engagement, and if valley commuters would have input. Councilmember Fridstein asked about the rating of the bridge. Mayor Torre addressed questions, adding some recent communications with CDOT and presenting ideas for the modified split shot among other options. Commissioner McNicholas-Kury stated she hopes the conversation includes partner jurisdiction and commuters from throughout the valley and that she would support EOTC contributing funding to a process that includes the broader valley community. 2025 EOTC MEETING DATES Members discussed options for determining the EOTC meeting schedule for 2025. There was agreement that the EOTC needs to meet more often than it did in 2024. Councilmember Fridstein suggested a pre-budget/workplan meeting one month ahead of the fall meeting where the budget is approved. Councilmember Shenk concurred with that suggestion. It was decided to meet three times, schedule to be determined at a later time. ADJOURN REGULAR MEETING Chair Poschman asked for a motion to adjourn. Commissioner McNicholas-Kury so moved; Councilmember Fridstein seconded. Meeting was adjourned at 7:05 pm. CITY OF ASPEN COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 19, 2024. EOTC Director Linda DuPriest and Pitkin County Manager Jon Peacock appeared before City Council to seek approval for the 2025 workplan and budget. Additional detail had been forwarded to the City answering specific questions about line items. Manager Peacock explained the County’s management of the transit sales tax, EOTC’s work and the support the County provides including human resources functions. The Council approved the 2025 workplan and budget. 7 City of Aspen _________________ Rachel Richards, Mayor City Council _________________ Nicole Henning City Clerk Town of Snowmass Village _________________ Alyssa Shenk, Mayor Town Council _________________ Megan Boucher Town Clerk Pitkin County ___________________ Kelly McNicholas-Kury, Chair Board of County Commissioners ___________________ Sam Engen Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners ___________________ Linda DuPriest Regional Transportation Director 8 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY EOTC MEETING DATE: May 15, 2025 AGENDA ITEM TITLE: RFTA Zero-Fare Pilot Program Funding Support STAFF RESPONSIBLE: Linda DuPriest, Regional Transportation Director ISSUE STATEMENT: RFTA plans to Launch a new Zero Fare Pilot Program in the Fall 2025 season. The BRT, Valley Local and Grand Hogback transit services will operate fare-free for 62 days from Monday September 22nd through Sunday November 23rd. Program implementation will be contingent upon finding a financial partner to help offset the estimated loss in fare and pass revenues, estimated to be $550,000. BACKGROUND: During RFTA’s the Climate Action Plan planning process, staff learned that RFTA can offset regional GHG emissions by transferring vehicle trips from private automobiles to transit. Staff purposefully chose the Fall 2025 season for a zero-fare pilot program because ridership is often lower in the fall off-season and there is passenger capacity on all routes, particularly starting after September 22, when City of Aspen ends its summer transit services. Pilot program success will be measured by comparing ridership and passenger capacity to Fall 2024, and lessons learned will inform future planning decisions. RFTA has interviewed transit agency peers that have taken advantage of the State’s Zero-Fare for Clean Air Program. The State subsidized fare free service during peak summer months, when ozone is in highest concentrations. In 2023, for instance, Vail Transit observed a 38% average monthly ridership increase. If RFTA were to experience a 40% increase in ridership due to fare- free operations of VelociRFTA, Valley local and Grand Hogback service during the Fall 2025 proposed time period, the estimated ridership increase is approximately 100,000. The estimated revenue loss from fare and pass sales is approximately $550,000. Program implementation is contingent upon finding a financial partner or partners to help offset the fare/pass revenue loss. RFTA is seeking the funding from City of Aspen and the EOTC. REQUESTED ACTION: RFTA is requesting $330,000, or 60% of the estimated revenue loss, to support this pilot program. BUDGETARY IMPACT: The EOTC current estimated fund balance for 2025 is $16,747,943. Should the EOTC approve this expenditure staff will prepare a budget supplemental request. ATTACHMENTS: RFTA Zero-Fare Pilot Program Presentation 9 Zero Fare Pilot Program 10 •Why and How •Exploring Options •Next Steps •Questions/Discussion Agenda 11 •A climate action strategy to offset regional GHG emissions by boosting ridership The WHY The HOW •Launch the Zero Fare Pilot Program during the Fall 2025 Season 12 •Zero fare on all regional routes •62 days: Mon. Sep. 22nd –Sun. Nov. 23rd •Affected routes: VelociRFTA BRT, Valley/Local and Hogback •Maroon Bells is not included •2025 OKR: Implement fare reductions to increase ridership •Contingent on finding financial partners to backfill ~$550k of lost fare revenue Project Summary 13 Pros: •Ridership •Regional GHG emissions •Available existing bus capacity during off-season •Information gained Cons: •Contingent on financial partners to backfill ~$550k of lost fare revenues •“Joy-riders” •Standees during peak time/peak direction trips •Refunds for portion of Spring/Summer/Fall Seasonal Zone Passes sold Opportunities and Constraints 5 14 How to Measure Success 6 Successes •Increased Boardings •Minimal Impacts to Bus Capacity •Minimal Requirements for Additional Buses •Positive customer feedback Measurements •Compare Boardings •Fall 2024 and Fall 2025 service schedules should be nearly identical •Estimate GHG emissions offset •Compare bus volume/capacity ratios •Staff and customer feedback 15 2024 Ridership & Fare Revenue Baseline Data VelociRFTA, Local & Hogback Routes 35,910 139,153 87,542 $64,592 $250,293 $213,370 9/23/24-9/30/24 10/1/24-10/31/24 11/1/24-11/24/24 Ridership Fare Revenue 16 Vail Transit 38% Grand Valley Transit 31% Mountain Metro Transit 35% •Victoria Transportation Policy Institute (VTPI) Source: projected 20% -50% ridership increase based on elasticity models Average Monthly Ridership Increase During 3-Month Zero Fare Program (Peer Agencies) 17 3/10 Project Kickoff Meeting 4/4 Project Management Plan (PMP) complete 4/10 Present to RFTA BOD 5/9 Operations Staff Outreach 7/1 Public Outreach 8/1 Operations Staff Training 9/22 Launch pilot program 11/23 End pilot program 11/24 Begin evaluation phase Jan. 2026 Project evaluation and final report Draft Schedule 18 THANK YOU! Questions/Discussion 19 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY EOTC MEETING DATE: May 15, 2025 AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Hwy 82/West Aspen Transportation Needs Update STAFF RESPONSIBLE: Linda DuPriest, Regional Transportation Director ISSUE STATEMENT: The City of Aspen has been conducting the Hwy 82/West Aspen Transportation Needs Study as part of a pre-NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) process for the Entrance to Aspen. BACKGROUND: The purpose of the presentation is to provide information about the timeline and progress of the West Aspen Transportation Needs study. During this EOTC meeting, staff from the City of Aspen and Jacobs will: • Seek EOTC input on key transportation needs • Review community goals identified • Review public input received to date • Seek EOTC input on potential project limits. ATTACHMENTS: City of Aspen Memorandum: Hwy 82/West Aspen Transportation Needs Update 20 MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Members of the Elected Officials Transportation Committee FROM : Jenn Ooton, Senior Project Manager Carly McGowan, PE, Senior Project Manager Lynn Rumbaugh, Interim Transportation Director THROUGH: Pete Strecker, Interim City Manager Tyler Christoff, PE, Public Works Director DATE OF MEMO: April 28, 2025 MEETING DATE: May 15, 2025 RE: Highway 82/West Aspen Transportation Needs Update REQUEST OF THE EOTC: The purpose of the presentation is to provide information about the timeline and progress of the West Aspen Transportation Needs study, which is being conducted in service to a pre-National Environmental Policy Act process for the Entrance to Aspen. During this meeting, staff and Jacobs will • Seek EOTC input on key transportation needs • Review community goals identified • Review public input received to date • Seek EOTC input on potential project limits SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND: In the 1990s, Aspen was facing heavy traffic congestion issues, and deteriorating air quality. In response, the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and the City of Aspen worked together on an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that culminated in a Record of Decision (ROD). The ROD would drive the implementation of transportation improvements along the Highway 82 corridor between Brush Creek and Aspen. The EIS/ROD process followed the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act, or “NEPA”. The Record of Decision is a legal document between CDOT and FHWA that governs transportation infrastructure improvements and identifies mitigation for environmental impacts. It is still valid today. 21 1998 ROD: Preferred Alternative The set of improvements vetted through the NEPA process and approved in the ROD are referred to as the Preferred Alternative (“PA”). Over the past 25 years, CDOT, the city and other regional partners have increased transit connectivity, implemented transportation management measures including paid parking, constructed the Maroon Creek Bridge and the roundabout, and realigned Owl Creek Road. The major remaining pieces of the ROD that have not been implemented are the realignment of SH 82 and construction of a new Castle Creek Bridge. The Preferred Alternative includes the following attributes, which are also depicted in Figure 1 below: - An interim solution of one general traffic lane in each direction and one designated bus lane in each direction - A light rail corridor adjacent to the roadway to accommodate the final solution of LRT - A new alignment through a portion of Marolt Open Space using an existing transportation easement held by CDOT - A cut and cover tunnel allowing for trail and wildlife connections over the transportation alignment - Conversion of Cemetery Lane to a local road only, and removal of the traffic signal at Cemetery Lane and Highway 82 - An open space corridor connecting Marolt-Thomas Open Space to the Aspen Golf Course, created by converting the abandoned portion of the highway between Cemetery Lane and the roundabout into open space. - Installation of a new traffic signal at 7th and Main Street 22 Figure 1 Preferred Alternative, aka Modified Direct 2024 Jacobs Studies In April and August of 2024, staff from the City and Jacobs Engineering brought several studies to Council regarding the following tasks: - Feasibility of Castle Creek bridge replacement or rehabilitation, including several 3-lane options - Feasibility of softening the S-curves and widening to 4-lanes - Implications of various NEPA alternatives - Analysis of different footprints - Assessment of funding and financials - Modeling of traffic impacts - Analysis of bridge sidewalk removal to improve construction phasing of a 3-lane bridge - Analysis of construction-related economic impacts from various replacement/repair options The Jacobs reports from April and August of 2024 can be found at the following link: https://aspen.gov/DocumentCenter/Index/753. Throughout the process of studying the bridge and the options, staff corresponded with CDOT for clarification on several questions regarding the bridge. The letters from CDOT, which were prepared in coordination with FHWA, can be found here: https://aspen.gov/1424/Castle-Creek-Bridge. 23 These letters generally indicate that for the city to pursue an alternative other than the PA, the city would need to engage in a new federal NEPA process. For other alternatives that were evaluated in detail in the EIS, preparation of a Supplemental EIS could be possible. Design refinements to the PA can be handled through a process called a re- evaluation, however, more substantive changes would require a new Record of Decision. In fall of 2024, Aspen City Council directed staff to develop a scope to complete the pre- work for a whole new EIS process. The purpose of the pre-NEPA work is to take a fresh look at transportation problems and needs in the SH 82 corridor. This includes: - Pre-NEPA On-Going Work Analysis of existing conditions including safety data, infrastructure needs, existing community plan review, emergency service/redundancy study, and a Traffic Origin and Destination Study. - Public outreach targeted toward Aspen residents and people valley-wide who use the corridor, linked here: https://www.aspencommunityvoice.com/highway- 82-west-aspen-transportation-needs-study - Coordination with CDOT and FHWA on Purpose and Need elements and viability of initiating a new EIS. - Reviewing transportation needs with stakeholders, EOTC, and City Council. The pre-NEPA tasks listed above will inform a draft Purpose and Need statement, or P&N, which is the foundational starting point for the NEPA process. The Purpose and Need statement is an explanation to decision makers, the public and stakeholders about why the proposed project should be implemented. It is the problem statement that identifies what the project is intended to address. The public comment tool is open to the public and will remain open until early June. The stakeholder meeting took place on April 2nd with a successful turnout of technical representatives from organizations throughout the valley. A detailed presentation of the draft purpose and need will take place in June before the Aspen City Council. Attached with this memo are the PowerPoint slides provided to the Aspen City Council at their April 21 work session. March 2025 Ballot Referendum On March 4, 2025, Aspen voters approved Referendum 2. Voter approval of Referendum 2 authorizes the use of designated portions of Marolt and Thomas properties identified in the 1998 Record of Decision for purposes of realigning Colorado Highway 82. Further, as stated in the ballot language: “Voter Approval of this measure permits the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) to proceed with both planning and construction activities under the current Record of Decision (ROD)…” Thus, no additional vote is required under the current City Charter if the preferred alternative is constructed and 24 busways are utilized. Further, passage of Ref. 2 constitutes a vote for purposes of using these designated areas for purposes of realignment of Highway 82 under the Charter if a future preferred alternative or record of decisions were issued. DISCUSSION: If the Aspen City Council decides to pursue a new EIS at the June Council meeting, the process moving forward is outlined in Figure 2 below. Figure 2 Procedural Pathway for NEPA Project If a new EIS is pursued, a public and stakeholder engagement plan would be developed to guide the outreach process. An anticipated project team structure is shown below in Figure 3. This information is still in draft form and will require final approval from CDOT and FHWA. 25 Figure 2 Draft Project Team Structure FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The cost for a new EIS will be developed by Jacobs following development of the Purpose and Need and EIS scope. The current estimate is between $2-3 million. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: For any construction of the Entrance to Aspen project, the project must follow National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) requirements. The environmental impacts of the Preferred Alternative were heavily examined during the EIS process in the 1990s. Should the Council choose to deviate from the Preferred Alternative with an alternative solution, the environmental impacts will be required to be studied during a new or supplemental EIS process. The City of Aspen must follow this federal process that involves the greater community’s input in a similar fashion to the 1998 Record of Decision and cannot be fully decided by Aspen City Council alone. If Council chooses to pursue implementation of the Preferred Alternative, a re-evaluation of the EIS/ROD would be required by the NEPA process, which would involve reassessing the PA’s environmental impacts. 26 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY EOTC MEETING DATE: May 15, 2025 AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Spring 2025 Travel Data Report STAFF RESPONSIBLE: Linda DuPriest, Regional Transportation Director ISSUE STATEMENT: In early 2025 a staff team of EOTC member jurisdictions plus vendor Rekor Technologies completed installation of a system of eight permanent automatic vehicle counters throughout the upper valley. The Permanent Automatic Vehicle Counter Project (PVAC) was approved by the EOTC in 2022 as one element of the Near-Term Transit Improvement Program. The attached Spring 2025 Travel Data Report presents vehicle counts for two time periods: March ski season travel into Aspen and several days of travel throughout most of the system in April after the close of the ski season. This item is for information and discussion only. BACKGROUND: After EOTC approval of the PVAC in 2022, staff issued a request for proposals for a contractor to help source the technology and install the system. Receiving no bids from potential contractors, staff engaged the service of Pitkin County Telecommunications Department, who agreed to take on the project in addition to their regular workload. Research into available technology partners, a year-long Proof of Concept provided by free of charge by Rekor, siting, permitting, installation and human auditing of the system stretched the project into the three-year time frame. The technology package selected by staff utilizes AI and video to record not just numbers of vehicles, but types of vehicles by FHWA’s 13 class types, estimated emissions per class, speeds and other data. A key feature of the technology is tracking vehicle movements in 15-minute increments, 24 hours per day, providing a deeper dive into travel behavior than traditional pneumatic tubes or induction loops embedded in pavement. In addition, an advanced, user-friendly reporting dashboard allows easy access to data on a daily basis. At the time of the writing of the report, two of the counters had not yet passed the human auditing process which entails video “truthing” of how the AI interprets the footage. It is expected Telecommunications staff will complete those audits in the next few weeks, after which the system will be officially accepted from Rekor. The package includes a three-year warranty and tech support. RECOMMENDED ACTION: This is an information and discussion item only. ATTACHMENTS: Spring 2025 Travel Data Report: Permanent Automatic Vehicle Counters Project 27 1Travel Data Report | Spring 2025 Elected Officials Transportation Committee Travel Data Report Spring 2025 Permanent Automatic Vehicle Counters Project 28 2 Travel Data Report | Spring 2025 In 2021, the EOTC approved funding to deploy a system of permanent automatic vehicle counters (PAVC) throughout the upper valley. This effort was one element of the Near Term Transit Improvement Program, with the goal of gaining a more complete understanding of traffic patterns and congestion hot spots by having comprehensive data from throughout the upper valley at the ready. In addition, the project seeks to better track Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions, and monitor the impact of local Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs. Prior to the PAVC project, the City of Aspen relied on one permanent vehicle counter at the Castle Creek Bridge, which utilized an in-pavement inductive loop technology. This method was moderately reliable, and prone to glitches. In addition, CDOT has a traffic counter installed in the Old Snowmass area, but there are no other locations in the upper valley with permanent automatic counters. The goal of the PAVC project is to deploy a travel data system that includes remote access to data, real time data collection and visualization, a user-friendly data dashboard with report creation tools, redundant data storage onsite in case of power or other failure, and ability to report travel time in regular intervals. Vehicle Counting Locations When the project began in 2022, staff recommended the following six locations for data collection: • Brush Creek Road just south of Hwy 82 • Hwy 82 near Airport • Owl Creek Rd at Hwy 82 intersection • Castle Creek Bridge • Power Plant Rd • McLain Flats Rd between mile markers 3 and 4 As the project got underway, the staff team decided to expand the project while staying within original budget. At the direction of Council the City of Aspen’s engineering staff requested a collection point somewhere east of Aspen to capture both tourism and local traffic coming into town from Independence Pass. Planners from SkiCo also made a request for data collection near Highlands. Subsequently, two locations were added: • Hwy 82 east of Aspen near the North Star take-out • Maroon Creek Rd just east of High School Rd Figure 1 shows the map of the PAVC system. I. PROJECT BACKGROUND 29 3Travel Data Report | Spring 2025 >> Figure 1 In 2022 EOTC staff issued an request for proposals (RFP) for a contractor to source the counting technology and perform the installations. There were no responses to this RFP, so staff approached Pitkin County’s Telecommunications Department to gauge their interest in taking on the project. Fortunately, the department director agreed to manage the project, adding it to staff’s existing workload. Had there been a contractor to pursue the project, the timeline for the project may have been shortened. However, due to the complexity of the project, including the sourcing and deploying of cutting-edge new technology, and staff’s commitment to onboarding a superior technology, the project has stretched into the three-year duration. An interagency staff team consisting of the City of Aspen Engineering Department, Pitkin County Engineering and Telecommunications staff and the EOTC director began by conducting a nationwide search for potential technology partners. Time was invested in learning the latest technology, including sending a staff member to the Transportation Research Board’s annual conference and expo. As a result of that search, three tech firms submitted proposals through an informal process and interviewed for the contract. Two of the firms’ technology was limited to older and current methods such as inductive loops and radar, while a third, Rekor Technologies, was embracing AI technology that could tell a more complete picture of the types of vehicles traveling through the region, the greenhouse gas emissions associated with that travel, vehicle speeds, and other potential data sets. Proof of Concept, 2023 – 2024 As a way to demonstrate their technology and show investment in the project, Rekor offered to provide and install free of charge a test system, to insure their brand-new technology was viable for our needs in a high-altitude, mountainous environment. This “Proof of Concept” (POC) was installed on Hwy 82 in the airport area, on the edge of the Lumberyard property. The counter apparatus consisted of a solar panel to power the system, the infrared camera, and a computer unit housing the AI program to interpret the video. Rekor’s team recommended, and the staff team concurred, that the POC remain for an extended period of time to work out the bugs, for example, studying how the mountainous terrain may affect sunlight to both power the system and provide light for the camera. In addition, it was critical to test the system through different weather conditions at 7,800 ft elevation with snowfall, extreme cold temperatures, hot and dry summer temperatures, and other conditions. The timeline for the POC lasted longer than originally expected, nearly eight months. 30 4 Travel Data Report | Spring 2025 New AI Technology Capabilities The goal in choosing a system was to get data beyond just the raw number of motor vehicles, including the following information: • Number of vehicles, traveling in both directions and in multiple lanes, in 15-minute increments, 24 hours per day • Type of vehicles per Federal Highway Administration’s 13 Classes • Greenhouse gas emissions per vehicle class type • Vehicle speeds • Real-time traffic pattern shifts in response to crashes, weather or other roadway incidences Briefly, the Rekor technology begins with an infrared camera to take video of passing vehicles then utilizes AI to translate video images into the data points listed above. The first two categories of data are critical to addressing congestion by showing not just how many vehicles are passing by particular points but also by showing, for example, that a significant portion of traffic is pickup trucks and other large vehicles likely used in the construction and remodel trades, plus various labor functions involved in large home management and other services. Such detail can help inform TDM strategies for different types of traffic generators. The greenhouse gas data is important as Pitkin County, the City of Aspen and RFTA have all lately focused on climate action planning and programming. Figure 2 shows the 13 classes of vehicles Rekor’s camera and AI tech can detect. After the successful POC period, staff presented a sample of the data to the EOTC, then contracted with Rekor for the installation and deployment. Rekor and the staff team worked throughout 2024 to scout the locations, process the permitting for use of the right- of-way and utility access and perform the installations. Telecommunications staff then spent several months “auditing” the system, a necessary step for such new technology being deployed in locations with varying conditions of terrain, available right-of-way next to the road, sunlight exposure, and other factors. Six of the counters are solar powered, while the counters at the Castle Creek Bridge and Power Plant Rd are hard-wired into local electricity sources. The audits performed by Telecommunications staff involved watching the video for significant periods of times throughout the day, counting the vehicles visually, then comparing those counts to the data translated by the AI. FHWA Vehicle Classification 1. Motorycles 2 axles, 2 or 3 tires 2. Passenger Cars 2 axles, can have 1 or 2 axle trailers 3. Pickups, Panels, Vans 2 axles, 4-tire single units can have 1 or 2 axle trailers 4. Buses 2 or 3 axles, full length 5. Single Unit 2-Axle Trucks 2 axles, 6 tires (dual rear tires), single unit 6. Single Unit 3-Axle Trucks 3 axles, single unit 7. Single Unit 4 or More Axle Trucks 4 or more axles, single unit 8. Single Trailer 3 or 4 Axle Trucks 3 or 4 axles, single trailer 9. Single Trailer 5 Axle Trucks 5 axles, single trailer 10. Single Trailer 6 or more Axle Trucks 6 or more axles, single trailer 11. Multi-Trailer 5 or Less Axle Trucks 5 or less axles, multiple trailers 12. Multi-Trailer 6 Axle Trucks 6 axles, multiple trailers 13. Multi-Trailer 7 or More Axle Trucks 8 or more axles, multiple trailers 31 5Travel Data Report | Spring 2025 II. SAMPLE DATA COLLECTION: SINGLE DAY To demonstrate the data capabilities of the Rekor system, single days were selected, one during winter ski season, March 20th, and several days in April after ski areas closed. At the time the March 20th data was captured, staff was still in the process of auditing four of the eight cameras for accuracy, plus one counter’s solar panel had been damaged slightly from snowplow spoils. Two counters were selected for the March 20th sample data, the Castle Creek Bridge and Maroon Creek Rd counters. Vehicle data for both morning peak, 6:00 to 9:00 and evening peak, 3:00 to 6:00, for the Castle Creek Bridge location is shown below. 32 6 Travel Data Report | Spring 2025 Table 1: Castle Creek Bridge Travel by Class Type, 3/20/25 Class Description Qty % of Total 1 Motorcycle 59 <1% 2 Passenger cars, small trucks 17,306 67% 3 thru 10 Pickups, large SUV, service, freight 7,368 28% 4 Buses 1,302 4% Total 26035 <100% Table 1 lists the number of vehicles by class and total number of all vehicles. Figure 4: Vehicle Class Breakdown Travel In and Out of Aspen Cemetery Lane/Castle Creek Bridge Figure 3 and Figure 4 shows the total vehicles traveling over the bridge for the day, including both directions of travel, by Class. Figure 3: Vehicle Classifications Over Time 33 7Travel Data Report | Spring 2025 Evening Peak Traffic Comparison In addition to computing the total ADT, or Average Daily Traffic, the Rekor system provides detailed 15-minute breakdown of how many vehicles are traveling both in and out of town. The data for the evening peak of travel into and out of Aspen shows interesting results. While it is often assumed that much more traffic is traveling out of then coming into Aspen during selected hours of the evening peak, the data shows that the two values are much closer, i.e. the number of vehicles coming into Aspen over the Castle Creek Bridge between 3:00 pm and 6:00 pm are nearly equal to the number of vehicles going out. Figure 5 shows this, as the two lines indicating the two opposing lanes of travel nearly merge on the graph. Table 2 lists the total number of vehicles traveling both in and out of Aspen over the Castle Creek Bridge during the evening peak in 15-minute intervals. The periods in bold indicate time slots when more traffic is actually coming into Aspen than going out. The difference in vehicles leaving town vs. coming in is only 81 total, or less than 2.6%. While it may seem counterintuitive that traffic coming into town during the evening peak would nearly equal traffic going out, there are several possible explanations. During ski season, many local skiers who live in Aspen plus visiting skiers staying in Aspen are coming back into town after skiing Snowmass, Buttermilk and Highlands. Inbound traffic may also consist of Aspen residents returning home after jobs at the AABC, Airport, ski areas and other downvalley locations, or evening shift workers. Finally, in addition to Highlands traffic, student and parent drivers are returning back into town from the school complex during the evening peak, as are users of the Aspen Rec Center, and employees and customers of the hospital and social services complex off Castle Creek Road. Table 2: March 20 Evening Peak Travel by Direction Time Period Inbound Outbound 3:00 258 263 3:15 251 261 3:30 248 247 3:45 275 274 4:00 259 254 4:15 256 261 4:30 251 235 4:45 240 210 5:00 220 222 5:15 183 159 5:30 185 257 5:45 188 221 6:00 205 236 Total 3,019 3,100 Figure 5: Total Vehicles By Lane Inbound Outbound 34 8 Travel Data Report | Spring 2025 Data from the Maroon Creek Rd counter may shed some additional light. Figure 6 shows both directions travel for the 24-hour period. The large spike on the left end of the graph represents vehicles along Maroon Creek Rd between 7:15 and 8:00 am, likely representing travel to both the school complex and to Highlands. The darker blue line towards the right side of the graph shows two spikes, likely representing vehicles leaving the school complex after classes let out 3:15 and 3:25, then skiers and employees leaving Highlands after the lifts close and operations at the ski area wind down and close. Table 3 shows traffic in 15-minute intervals for a morning and evening peak periods. Note that “inbound” means travel to destinations along Maroon Creek Rd heading west and “outbound” refers travel east, away from those destinations back toward the roundabout. Starting times for Aspen Schools are 8:00 am for all students, while ending times are 3:15 for elementary and 3:25 for middle and high school students. Highlands resort operations begin at 8:00, with lifts opening at 9:00. Resort operations close at 4:45, with lifts closing between 3:30 and 4:00. Table 3: Maroon Creek Rd Select Counts Both Directions Morning Peak Evening Peak Time Period Inbound Outbound Time Period Outbound Inbound 6:00 28 9 2:45 105 87 6:15 31 7 3:00 114 121 6:30 25 10 3:15 156 121 6:45 36 15 3:30 167 88 7:00 47 24 3:45 101 66 7:15 90 23 4:00 81 57 7:30 181 59 4:15 140 65 7:45 268 99 4:30 175 55 8:00 155 140 4:45 105 65 8:15 78 63 5:00 119 78 8:30 88 47 5:15 90 59 8:45 98 60 5:30 99 69 9:00 108 40 5:45 99 69 6:00 85 47 Total 3,019 3,100 Total 1636 1047 Figure 6: Maroon Creek Total Vehicles By Lane East West 35 9Travel Data Report | Spring 2025 III. SYSTEM-WIDE DATA: APRIL I t is useful for planning purposes to understand how travel patterns change from the busier seasons in the upper valley, winter and summer, to the “off” seasons of spring and fall. April 22th and 24th were chosen for a spring snapshot, as ski areas are now closed and warmer weather has arrived. Aspen Vehicle Travel Data from the Castle Creek Bridge, Power Plant Rd, and East of Aspen was pulled on April 22nd. Data for McLain Flats and Maroon Creek was pulled on April 24th. Figure 7 shows vehicle volumes in and out of Aspen over the Castle Creek Bridge. Notable differences from the data shown in Figure 5, which reflected travel in the height of the ski season is there is not as much travel into Aspen during the evening peak as there was on March 20th. Total number of vehicles passing this counter for the 24 hours was 19,413, compared to 26,035 on March 20th. Figure 7: Castle Creek Total Vehicles Inbound Outbound 36 10 Travel Data Report | Spring 2025 The vehicle class breakdown for travel over the Castle Creek Bridge is also different for April 22nd compared to March 20th, as shown in Figure 8. Table 4: Castle Creek Bridge Travel by Class Type, 4/22/25 Class Description Qty % of Total 1 Motorcycle 222 1% 2 Passenger cars, small trucks 11,851 61% 3 thru 10 Pickups, large SUV, service, freight 6,848 35% 4 Buses 492 3% Total 19,413 100% Figure 8: Castle Creek Vehicle Class Breakdown A greater percentage of the total vehicles coming into Aspen over the bridge on April 22nd vs March 20th are large trucks and SUVs plus service vehicles, at 35.2% of the total on April 22nd compared to March 20th at 28%. Table 4 shows the total number of vehicles over the bridge by vehicle class type. Power Plant Rd. Travelers entering Aspen from McLain Flats and Cemetery Lane may choose to enter town along Power Plant Rd or by crossing the Castle Creek Bridge. Figure 9 shows that data, revealing 1,295 total vehicles entering and leaving Aspen via this route. Figure 10 shows the total number of vehicles traveling both in and out of town by vehicle Class type. Figure 9: Power Plant Road Total Vehicles Inbound Outbound 37 11Travel Data Report | Spring 2025 Figure 10 shows that the Class breakdown of vehicles entering and leaving Aspen via Power Plant. Note that the numbers of Class 2 passenger cars and Classes 3 thru 10 (omitting buses) are much closer percentage-wise than the traffic traveling over the Castle Creek Bridge: Class 1 and Class 2 drivers totaled 687, while Class 3 through Class 10 was 608, a difference of just 6%. This may suggest that drivers using Power Plant are taking the McLain Flats Rd “detour” from downvalley destinations and are more likely to be part of the “trade parade” from downvalley than drivers using the Castle Creek Bridge. Figure 10: Power Plant Road Vehicle Class Breakdown East of Aspen Traffic coming into Aspen from east of town is light until Independence Pass opens. Figure 11 shows traffic in both directions, with the total number of vehicles as 835, including four buses in the City of Aspen’s local transit system. Figure 11: East of Aspen Total Vehicles Inbound Outbound 38 12 Travel Data Report | Spring 2025 The vehicle class breakdown of trips into town from East of Aspen are shown in Figure 12. The difference between Class 1 and 2, passenger cars and motorcycles, and large trucks, SUVs, freight and service vehicles is 14%. Figure 12: East of Aspen - Vehicle Class Breakdown Total Aspen In-Town Vehicles Table 5 compiles all the vehicles traveling in and out of Aspen via Castle Creek Bridge, Power Plant Rd and Hwy 82 East of Aspen. The total is 21,543, and is divided into percentages by Class type. Table 5: Aspen In-Town Vehicles by Class Type, 4/22/25 Class Description Castle Creek Bridge Power Plant East of Aspen Total % of Total (est) 1 Motorcycle 222 11 46 279 >1% 2 Passenger cars, small trucks 11,851 676 430 12,957 60% 3 thru 10 Pickups, large SUV, service, freight 6,848 608 355 7,811 36% 4 Buses 492 0 4 496 >2% Total 19,413 1,295 835 21,543 100% 39 13Travel Data Report | Spring 2025 Maroon Creek Rd Travel along Maroon Creek Rd was analyzed for the March 20th data above, to see how it might affect travel in and out of Aspen during both morning and evening peaks, and to get a baseline of data during the ski season. Data collected on April 24th shows a significant reduction in vehicle travel after the closing of Highlands, shown in Figure 13. On March 20th the total number of vehicles was 8,372; on April 24th that dropped down to 6,073, an approximately 27% reduction. Figure 14 shows the total vehicles by Class. Class 1 and 2 vehicles accounted for 69% of the total, while Classes 3 through 10 minus buses comprised 28% of vehicles. Figure 13: Maroon Creek Road Total Vehicles Figure 14: Maroon Creek Road Vehicle Class Breakdown East West 40 14 Travel Data Report | Spring 2025 Snowmass Vehicle Travel - Brush Creek Rd While it would have been preferable to be able to show Snowmass data during the ski season as well as for later in April, the counters at Owl Creek Rd and Brush creek Rd had not yet passed the audit process. Figure 15 shows travel for both directions on Brush Creek Rd entering Snowmass on April 24th.Total vehicles excluding buses was 6,244. Figure 16 shows the 24 hour totals by vehicle Class type. Of the total number of non-transit vehicles, 54.7% were Class 1 and 2, while 43.5% were Class 3 through 10. The Owl Creek Rd camera has been challenging to dial in through the audit process, as explained below. Therefore, Snowmass travel data is incomplete at this time. Figure 15: Brush Creek Total Vehicles Figure 16: Brush Creek Vehicle Class Breakdown Inbound Outbound 41 15Travel Data Report | Spring 2025 Counter Audits in Progress The challenges with dialing in this cutting-edge technology underscores the need for staff diligence on the part of the Pitkin County/EOTC team and a solid working relationship with vendor Rekor. The Telecommunications staff has devoted many hours so far to the audit process, all time added to the department’s regular duties managing the County’s vast telecommunications infrastructure. The importance of providing accurate data to inform the upper valley’s transportation challenges is a strong motivator to continue the audit work. The following three counters are still in the audit process and only after staff is assured they are working properly will the Team “accept” the Rekor system and authorize payment for the tech package. Note that the package comes with a three-year warranty and tech support contract. McLain Flats Rd Of the three counters still being audited, the McLain Flats system is most likely to be near accurate at this point in time. This counter, along with the Hwy 82/Airport area counter was a lower priority for auditing as both capture vehicles before they pass by another counter before heading into Aspen or Snowmass. Many people enter Aspen via McLain Flats Rd coming from residences, as a detour of Hwy 82 when crashes or other incidences cause gridlock, or for a scenic drive. These drivers may enter town on Power Plant Rd or over the Castle Creek Bridge, or may not enter Aspen at all but head to other destinations beyond the intersection of Cemetery Lane and Hwy 82. Trips on this route are left out of total counts of vehicles eventually entering Aspen to avoid counting the same vehicles twice. As McLain Flats Rd is a rural road not intended or designed for large volumes of commuter traffic, it is wise to monitor activity for future network planning purposes. Figure 17 shows traffic volumes for both directions of travel for April 29th. This date was chosen after the Rekor team made adjustments to the cameras which appears to have solved the problem. However, the Telecommunications technical staff still needs to conduct a full audit to be sure it’s functioning properly. Total volumes for April 29th were 2,803, with 54% Class 1 and 2, while 46% of vehicles were Class 3 through 10, as shown in Figure18. The difference between the two main classes is just 9 %. It is interesting to see that a much greater number of people use McLain Flats in the morning peak than in the evening peak. As a persistent issue with this counter is that it has undercounted the outbound trips in past audits, this difference may not be so pronounced in reality. Figure 17 McLain Flats Total Vehicles Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound 42 16 Travel Data Report | Spring 2025 Figure 18: McLain Flats Vehicle Class Breakdown Owl Creek Rd The Owl Creek Rd camera is located just south of the intersection of Hwy 82, on the west side across the road from Buttermilk. While vehicles passing by this counter may be headed to other destinations on Owl Creek Rd such as the Airport Operations Center as well as vehicles turning into and out of the Buttermilk parking lot, it assumed that most of the traffic passing by this counter on April 22nd is heading into Snowmass. Figure 19 shows data collected for both lanes of travel, however, the flat line showing outbound travel between roughly 10:30 am and 5:00 pm indicates an issue with the camera, as it unlikely that there were zero vehicles passing by for such a long length of time. The data shown also brings up questions about how many vehicles headed back into Snowmass in the evening peak, as the graph shows is it far less than the traffic heading out in the a.m. peak. The Owl Creek counter and camera demonstrate the importance of having a human being audit the system and of working with a technology partner who will be available to address issues during the process of working out the bugs. Figure 19 Owl Creek Total Vehicles Outbound to Hwy 82 Inbound to Snowmass 43 17Travel Data Report | Spring 2025 Hwy 82 Near Airport This counter captures travel from a variety of downvalley destinations including the AABC, Airport, Brush Creek Park & Ride, from Snowmass via Brush Creek Rd then onto Hwy 82, and the general Hwy 82 corridor from the vast travel shed into Eagle and Garfield Counties and the I-70 corridor. This counter works harder than the others as it has four regular lanes of travel to count in addition to the airport slip lane. As the vehicles passing by this counter are headed to a number of destinations in the upper valley, the volumes are not included in the total vehicles counts traveling in and out of Aspen and Snowmass. However, the data is valuable as a stand-alone collection point for future transportation planning for the Airport Multimodal Center, the Lumberyard development and the Hwy 82 corridor between Brush Creek and Aspen. Unfortunately, the location of this counter made it susceptible to being hit by plow spoils during the winter, and the solar panel was damaged slightly. Repairs in late April will ready it for counting throughout the busy summer season. As with the Owl Creek counter addressed above, it is instructive to see how data can be skewed if the cameras and AI is malfunctioning. Figure 20 shows that traffic inbound toward Aspen is obviously being undercounted, as those volumes are known to be much higher in the AM peak. Figure 20: Airport Total Vehicles Conclusion The advent of AI plus the entry of tech innovators into the traffic data world is an exciting development, promising a detailed picture of travel patterns in the upper valley, to inform the serious challenges traffic congestion and transportation access pose to quality of life in the region. The ease of use of the Rekor reporting dashboard will make data collection and analysis more readily available to engineers, planners and officials as they work to solve these issues. Outbound Inbound 44 18 Travel Data Report | Spring 2025 pitkincounty.com/1322/Elected-Officials-Transportation-Committ 45 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY EOTC MEETING DATE: May 15, 2025 AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Transportation Coalition for the 21st Century STAFF RESPONSIBLE: Linda DuPriest, Regional Transportation Director TRANSPORTATION COALITION FOR THE 21st CENTURE STATEMENT: The 50-year-old traffic jams at the Entrance to Aspen and across Aspen’s West End are continuing and even worsening. Aspen has debated upper valley transportation issues for over half a century, while aggravation and CO2 emissions have continued unabated. Although a variety of highway infrastructure proposals have been hotly debated recently, multiple engineering studies confirm that none of them on their own would reduce either traffic congestion or pollution emissions. BACKGROUND: The Transportation Coalition for the 21st is a community coalition working to improve transportation and mobility for residents and visitors in the Roaring Fork Valley. The Coalition’s objective is Straightforward: To conduct a data-informed and values-driven, comprehensive review of workable transportation solutions to develop a set of recommendations that outline a coherent, integrated transportation plan capable of achieving five specific community goals. The plan should reflect community values and improve quality of life for residents and visitors. The Coalition has established five community goals: 1. Substantially reduce or eliminate Entrance to Aspen and Brush Creek traffic congestion and allow faster travel times for valley residents and visitors 2. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 25,000 tons per year 3. Identify solutions that work fairly for everyone, both up- and down-valley 4. Prioritize and incentivize public transit in all its forms 5. Reduce or eliminate rush hour traffic on Cemetery Lane, Smuggler Street and other city streets The Coalition’s work will focus on Key Strategic Questions, such as: 1. Can we build our way out of traffic congestion? Is infrastructure enough? 2. What additional role could congestion management play? 3. Do roles exist for new forms of transit in solving upper valley congestion? 4. Could new infrastructure ideas be blended with congestion management and transit innovations to address our changed conditions? What would an integrated plan look like? The answers to these four questions will guide the Coalition toward the integrated, comprehensive plan needed to achieve the five community goals in a way that is both fiscally responsible and in harmony with the community’s core values. REQUESTED ACTION: Discussion only. 46