HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20250818AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
August 18, 2025
4:00 PM, City Council Chambers
427 Rio Grande Place, Aspen
I.Work Session
I.A Early Childhood Education - Kids First Financial Aid and Wage Supplement Options
I.B West End Neighborhood Congestion Memo
II.Council discussion of the items published in the most recent information update,
as needed
Zoom Meeting Instructions
Join from PC, Mac, iPad, or Android:
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/86889001572?
pwd=CaOD2XXWNG07m1LGAJGjNLOL1q27XV.1
Passcode:81611
Join via audio:
+1 346 248 7799
Webinar ID: 868 8900 1572
Passcode: 81611
International numbers available: https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kvlmbStSF
8.6.2025 MEMO Council Financial Aid and Wage options FINAL.pdf
West End Congestion Memo_Final.docx
Aspen West End AMENDED Traffic Study_062822_ATTACHMENT A.pdf
Aspen Safety Study Memo_v3_5.23.23_ATTACHMENT B.pdf
1
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Megan Monaghan and Nancy Nichols Co-Managers, Kids First
THRU: Diane Foster, Assistant City Manager
MEETING DATE: August 18th, 2025
RE: Early Childhood Education - Kids First Financial Aid and Wage Supplement Options
PURPOSE:
Where City Council has established Early Childhood Education programmatic enhancement and
optimization as a Council goal, the purpose of this memo and work session is to provide the Aspen City
Council with the requested recommendations that support increased financial assistance for families and
continued wage supplement funding to support childcare program staffing.
SUMMARY & BACKGROUND:
The mission of Kids First is to promote the availability of quality, affordable early childhood care and
education, and provide access to early childhood information and resources. Kids First achieves these
outcomes by providing direct financial and material support to:
• early childhood education programs;
• early childhood education teachers; and
• families who need early childhood education services.
In light of Aspen City Council elevating early childhood education to a council goal, staff appreciated the
opportunity to provide an overview of Kids First programs and budget on June 23. During that
presentation, Kids First staff was asked to provide additional information about these programs and to
offer Council a “menu” of choices that would support changes and increase funding for these programs.
Specifically, City Council asked the following questions:
1) What would the financial aid program look like if families were only expected to pay 7% of
their income toward childcare costs?
• How would this affect the total financial aid budget?
• Would this model ensure equitable access while remaining financially sustainable?
2) What might be the implications of removing the income ceiling for financial aid eligibility?
• How many additional families might qualify?
• What would be the projected impact on total funding needs?
2
3) Could the income and childcare cost contribution thresholds be structured more
incrementally?
• Would smaller, more frequent changes offer greater stability for families?
• How would this impact program administration and predictability of funding?
4) What would the cost be to continue wage supplement supports, and what options could be
considered?
• Are there scalable models for continuing or expanding wage support?
• What level of funding would be required to maintain the current level of impact?
DISCUSSION:
Kids First staff worked with City of Aspen Finance Department to evaluate different options being
presented to Council tonight and required various assumptions about current state and potential outcome
of program modifications. For instance, all funding projections for the financial aid program are based on
data from 39 financial aid applications received in May 2025. These 39 applications (including families
earning up to 649% of the area median income) represent only 8.7% of the total potential applicant pool,
which includes approximately 340 families currently utilizing childcare services. Additionally, it is also
important to note that projection figures carry a margin of error, particularly in light of childcare cost
increases (currently unknown) are typically scheduled to take effect in September 2025.
With the caveats above to disclose that estimates are not promoted as being exact, staff have analyzed
possible options for Council consideration:
1) What would the financial aid program look like if families were only expected to pay 7% of
their income toward childcare costs?
Measure: Cap family childcare costs at 7% of household income.
Funding Estimate:
An increase of $412,102 annually would be required to implement this measure for the existing 39
families receiving financial aid. This would roughly double the amount of financial aid provided by
Kids First today, but would be achievable and sustainable if considered in isolation.
Expanding the benefit to include all 340 families with children in care would result in an estimated
funding need of approximately $8.5 million annually and would be unattainable given current
programs and resources in the Kids First budget.
Options:
An income cap could be established to determine eligibility for this benefit. Options including setting
an income cap exceeds the Kids First budget. For reference, please see the table below:
Current Sliding Scale 10% of Income 7% of Income
Current 39 Families Receiving Aid $436,000 $696,388 $848,902
Adding 10 additional families * $602,860 $941,052 $1,132,344
Adding 50 additional families * $1,259,100 $1,919,724 $2,266,152
3
* A randomly selected group of families from the current group of financial aid families with income
levels between 300% to 600% were selected to approximate impacts.
2) What might be the implications of removing the income ceiling for financial aid eligibility?
Measure:
Allow all existing 39 families to apply for financial assistance, with the percentage of expected
childcare contribution determined on a sliding scale. Contributions would range from 7% – 8% of
income for lower-income families (e.g., a family of 3 at 300 – 350% of the federal poverty level,
approximately $84,000/year) and increase incrementally to 12% for higher-income families (e.g., a
family of 3 at 750% of poverty level, approximately $193,000/year) and above.
Funding Estimate:
An estimated $259,480 annually would be required to implement this model for the current 39
families receiving financial assistance. This again could be achieved in isolation of any other
programmatic changes given the current annual resources for the Kids First Fund.
If eligibility is expanded to include families in higher income categories, total costs could increase
substantially. It is difficult to predict the number of additional applicants and how many children
each family would have in care. Notably, each additional child supported through the financial aid
program today costs $1,950 per month (or $23,400/year), based on the current average cost of full-
time care (5 days/week).
Options:
This model could be phased in conservatively, by slightly lowering the current cost of care
percentages for a six-month pilot period. At the end of this period, the impact could be assessed to
determine the feasibility of further reductions. If successful and if funds allow, the percentages could
be adjusted downward. However, a mid-year supplemental funding request may be necessary if
enrollment and associated costs increase significantly.
3) Could the income and childcare cost contribution thresholds be structured more
incrementally?
Measure:
Adjust the increments between income levels (based on percentage of the federal poverty level) and
the corresponding expected family contribution percentages toward childcare costs.
Funding Estimate:
A funding model using 50% poverty level increments and adjusting the expected family contribution
by 1% per increment, from 7% up to 18% at 750% of poverty level, would result in an estimated
annual increase of $138,060 based on the current 39 funded families.
4
Including three additional upper-income tiers made no measurable difference in projected costs
using May 2025 applicant data. Similarly, modifying the lower-income contribution to 7% and
capping at 15% at 600% of poverty level resulted in the same estimated increase of $138,060.
Discussion:
Adjusting the increments within the financial aid calculator is operationally feasible and would allow
for more granular qualification levels. However, the overall impact may be more visual than
financial, especially with a fixed funding pool. Regardless of how the calculator is structured, a
funding ceiling will always exist, and the available funds must be divided accordingly.
The core consideration is whether families experience smaller, more frequent increments (with finer
increment levels) or larger, less frequent adjustments (with broader ranges). The current calculator is
designed to ensure that families with the greatest financial need receive the greatest level of
support.
Options:
Any revised model could be phased in conservatively, with an initial six-month pilot using the
projected increase of approximately $138,000 as a funding benchmark. After six months, funding
impact and family experiences could be evaluated to determine the feasibility of full implementation
or further adjustments. If successful and if funds allow, the percentages could be adjusted more.
However, a mid-year supplemental funding request may be necessary if enrollment and associated
costs increase significantly.
4) What would the cost be to continue educator wage supplement supports, and what options
could be considered?
Measure:
The current wage supplement program is limited to childcare programs located within the City of
Aspen, representing 3 out of 12 licensed childcare programs in Pitkin County, and supporting a total
of 68 childcare full- and part-time staff members. The current supplement is structured to decrease
in value over the remaining two years of the program’s timeline.
Current Schedule of Wage Supplement Support from City of Aspen
2025 Wage Supplement cost $300/fulltime and $150/part-time $180,000
2026 Wage Supplement cost $200/fulltime and $100/part-time $120,000
2027 Wage Supplement cost $100/fulltime and $50/part-time $60,000
Funding Estimate:
Estimated costs are based on extending the wage supplement program at a fixed level into future
years and expanding eligibility to include licensed childcare programs in Pitkin County. This expanded
model could support the existing 68 full- and part-time staff members in the 3 programs within the
City of Aspen or could also be expanded to approximately 138 full and part-time employees across
the entire County.
5
Full- and Part-Time Educators Supported 2025 Support at
$300/FT and $150/PT
Continue Support
into 2026 Budget*
Existing 68 staff in Aspen programs $180,000 $60,000
Include all 138 staff in Pitkin County programs $0 $345,000
* $120,000 was budgeted in 2026 under the current wage supplement program and was excluded
from the figures above.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FINANCIAL IMPACTS:
First staff recommend that City Council continue to prioritize the pressing challenges facing childcare
programs across Pitkin County. Fully supported childcare programs ensure that families have access to
reliable care. While support for staffing remains essential, assistance to families in managing the cost of
care must also be incorporated into a comprehensive solution.
A summary of staff recommendations includes:
a) increasing the qualifying income levels for financial aid to 750% of the federal poverty level;
b) increasing the level of financial support for qualifying families to limit childcare costs to a
maximum of 18% and as low as 7% of income for families with the greatest need;
c) adjust the increments within the financial aid award structure to be less impactful as families
transition between bands; and
d) extending the wage supplement program for early childhood educators at current 2025 levels
for all providers within Pitkin County.
These recommendations include a six-month pilot for the changes to financial aid so that staff can gauge
the effectiveness of these adjustments and how many additional families may truly benefit. The total
cost for these adjustments is expected to be between $500,000 - $600,000 annually ($345,000 for
expansion and continuation of the current wage supplement and $150,000 to $250,000 for the changes
related to the financial aid thresholds and award levels).
MANAGER’S COMMENTS:
The proposed changes are intended to respond to Council goals for accessible and affordable childcare
while still maintaining flexibility for a future Council to consider how it may wish to further capacity
(such as the Burlingame facility) and/or provide more support for early childhood educator housing.
Additionally, as there are many unknowns associated with the proposed new sales tax for the
Confluence Early Childhood Education (CECE) Coalition and how those resources are earmarked and
distributed, it may be wise for Council to move cautiously with any programmatic changes until greater
clarity is offered.
6
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: Kyla Smits, CFM, Project Manager
THROUGH: Tricia Aragon, PE, City Engineer
Kim Ferber, Police Chief
Lynn Rumbaugh, Transportation Director
Tyler Christoff, PE, Deputy City Manager
MEMO DATE: August 11, 2025
MEETING DATE: August 18, 2025
RE: West End Neighborhood Congestion
_____________________________________________________________________
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff’s request of council is to provide direction on
congestion and traffic in the West End Neighborhood.
SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND:
The west end neighborhood can be defined as the area east of 8th Street, south of
Gillespie Avenue, west of Mill Street and north of Main Street. The west end, via W
Smuggler St, is often used as an alternate route out of town during times of high traffic
congestion.
Congestion in this neighborhood has been a citizen concern for over a decade. Over the
years, staff has taken steps to address these concerns through both physical changes to
the W est End and programmatic changes to transportation. Between 2006 and 2019, 17
traffic reduction or calming measures have been implemented . Listed below are the
measures undertaken from 2006 to present.
Measures Currently in Place:
1. Bollards placed at W Bleeker St., W Hallam St., and the alley in between (2010)
2. Seasonal Road Closure of right turns from S 7th St. to W Main St.
3. Fare free bus service in Aspen; to Snowmass Village and between the City of
Aspen and Brush Creek Park & Ride.
7
4. Cross Town Shuttle and Music Festival Shuttles serving the West End Provision
of alternative transportation grants to the Aspen Meadows and Aspen Music
Festival via the Transportation Options Program
5. West End Patrol undertaken by the City of Aspen Police Department
6. Funding the Downtowner Shuttle Service
7. Frequent speed surveys undertaken by City of Aspen Police and Engineering
Departments to document speeding conditions in the neighborhood
8. N Monarch St. and E Bleeker St. intersection sightline improvements (2012)
9. Stop sign installations (2010, 2013, 2023)
10. N 4th St. Pedestrian Walkway (2017)
11. Hallam Ped Bikeway (2019)
12. Lake Ave Ped Bikeway (2021)
13. 20 mph city wide speed limit (2013), 15 mph city wide speed limit (2023)
14. WE-cycle location at the Music Tent, Aspen Meadows, Aspen Institute, 8th St. 4th
St, Garmisch St, and the Red Brick
15. Car Share vehicle at 1st Street
16. Parking enforcement throughout the W est End, especially during events
17. Yellow Center line on W Smuggler St to visibly shrink the road width (2023)
In 2021, an info memo was brought to council to detail how the Engineering Department
was applying the Traffic Calming Policy to address concerns brought up by citizens in
the West End Neighborhood. After this info memo, based on community and council
feedback, staff pursued a formal traffic study.
The traffic study was conducted by Fox Tuttle Transportation Group and was presented
to council in 2022 (ATTACHMENT A). The recommendation from the traffic study
concluded that any physical traffic measures installed in the West End neighborhood
would either be ineffective at reducing traffic volume or would significantly impact Main
Street traffic congestion; therefore, it was recommended that staff and council should
implement projects to reduce westbound Main Street congestion, including pursuing the
entrance to Aspen.
In support of one of the directives from Council, a safety study was pursued in 2023 to
guide potential safety improvements. The study was conducted by Consor Engineering
and evaluated commonly requested traffic measures such as stop signs and speed limit
reduction (ATTACHMENT B). The Consor Engineering Report recommended adding
additional speed limit signage and an educational campaign. As a result of this study and
council discussion, Council directed staff to implement a 15mph speed limit and an
additional 22 unwarranted stop signs, which was completed in late 2023. Staff also
painted the centerline on Smuggler as a result of feedback .
8
DISCUSSION:
2025 Additional Actions:
In addition to past implemented measures, staff are actively working on enforcement and
improvements to the West End. The Police Department deploys two officers from dayshift
and one officer from nightshift working overtime to patrol the West End neighborhood
depending on call volume and incident response demand. Common compliance issues
include vehicles doing a “rolling stop” rather than a full stop at stop signs and improperly
driving on the pedestrian-bikeway. The Police Department also deploys variable message
sign boards on the pedestrian-bikeways, Power Plant Rd, etc. and a speed feedback sign
as requested through community feedback. The Police Department has created an option
to, “Report a Traffic Concern” on the department website to help facilitate timely law
enforcement responses. The Police Department will also be piloting a traffic position from
mid-August through October to measure impact on staff and enforcement.
The city is working with RFTA this fall to pilot regional fare free services and will partner
with RFTA to reward riders throughout the fare free period via appreciation events in an
effort to encourage greater ridership.
This summer, the Parks and Engineering Departments have collaborated on additional
ped-bikeway vehicle barrier installations on the Hopkins ped-bikeway to encourage
vehicles to exit. The intention is to evaluate the effectiveness of this measure and look to
install these vehicle barriers on the Hallam ped-bike way assuming that conflicts with the
Cross-Town Shuttle can be resolved. Early feedback from the community and the Police
Department is that these installations are encouraging greater compliance.
Figure 1: Vehicle Barrier on W Hopkins Ave Ped-Bikeway
9
Neighbor Concerns:
This summer, the West End neighborhood has communicated with the city their continued
concerns around safety, congestion and other issues in the W est End. Below is a list of
their recently submitted concerns along with staff findings regarding the current situation
and potential action items:
1. Vehicle Speeds
Staff analysis: The 2022 Fox Tuttle Traffic Study did not identify speeding as an
issue. The 85th percentile was shown to be frequently below the posted 20mph
speed limit. Initial data analysis from Streetlight indicates the reduced speed limit
has not changed driver behavior and the average speed of vehicles has stayed
virtually the same. Streetlight is a transportation analytics tool that utilizes big data
to provide insights into traffic patterns. Streetlight data shows that the average
speed on streets in the West End during peak summer afternoons is within the
speed limit.
2. Stop signs being violated/ignored
Staff Analysis: The installation of 22 more stop signs in 2023 has increased
congestion in the West End and increased non-compliance. Congestion is
measured in vehicle hours of delay (VHD). VHD is calculated by taking the
difference between travel times at free-flow speed and travel times at average
speeds. This measure of effectiveness quantifies the extra time it takes vehicles
to travel through a network due to congestion. Streetlight shows that the VHD in
the West End during peak hours in the summer has increased 12% from 2023 to
2024. The volume of cars traveling in the West End has increased 7% during the
same time. The volume of cars leaving Aspen from any route during peak hours
has increased from 2023 to 2024.
The stop signs added in 2023 were not warranted per the Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices Section 2B.12-2B.17 (2023 Edition). The 2023 Consor
Report stated that additional unwarranted stop signs may encourage drivers to
ignore the signs or perform rolling stops. Unwarranted four-way stop signs do not
reduce speeds, compliance decreases, noise increases, and emissions increase
(ATTACHMENT B)
10
Staff does not recommend the installation of additional unwarranted stop signs.
Staff does not recommend the removal of unwarranted stop signs at this time as
placement and removal will cause confusion and less safe intersections. The
Police Department is enforcing but due to time constraints not every violation will
receive a discussion with an officer.
3. Stop signs were not placed in all locations on 3rd St. & 5th St.
Staff Analysis: Stop signs were not installed on 3rd and 5th streets as they are
utilized by the Cross Town Shuttle and Music School buses. They also leave
corridors for emergency services that have fewer potential conflicts since the
vehicles without stop signs would have the right of way. Initial data from Streetlight
does not show an increase in volume or speed on these roads vs. others roads.
Figure 2: Bus Routes Utilizing 3rd and 5th Streets
Staff does not recommend the addition of unwarranted stop signs. These corridors
should remain open to bus and emergency services.
4. Vehicles violating the noise ordinance
Staff Analysis: Residents have expressed their concerns over the noise levels of
vehicles driving throughout the West End. The West End sees many large vehicles
due to construction, maintenance, deliveries, and other uses. A typical garbage
truck will generally be around 85 dBA. The noise ordinance for the city of Aspen
11
for vehicles over 10,000lbs and under 35mph is 86dBA. The noise of large
construction or garbage collection vehicles could potentially reach above this
amount. There are additional technologies that could be explored to enforce noise
ordinance violations.
5. Vehicles utilizing alleys as through streets
Staff Analysis: The Engineering Department does not have vehicle counts but the
Police Department has reported visually seeing that some vehicles use the alleys
as a bypass route.
6. Yellow Double Line on W Smuggler St creates a sense of a “major roadway”
Staff Analysis: Following recommendations from the 2023 Consor Safety
Improvement Assessment the double yellow center line on W Smuggler St was
painted. The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) requires a
center line due to the classification of the road and the number of vehicles on the
road. The center line also creates the illusion of a narrower road, especially when
cars are parked along W Smuggler St. The narrower feel works as an effective
speed reduction technique. The Police Department has stated that they believe
that the center stipe helps calm traffic on W Smuggler St.
12
Figure 3: Center line on W Smuggler St
7. No Sidewalks and lack of other pedestrian areas
Staff Analysis: The West End neighborhood has been a sidewalk deferred zone
for many years. Removing this zone was proposed to residents in 2010 but was
not supported. The Hallam St., Lake St., and 4th St. ped bikeways and pedestrian
walkways have been added to improve the pedestrian experience in the West End.
In 2023, a pedestrian walkway on W Smuggler St was suggested by staff, but it
was not pursued due to the loss of parking and annual implementation costs. The
West End can be analyzed for an additional East – West Pedestrian walkway.
13
Figure 4: Existing Pedestrian Walkway on 4th Street (Left) and Existing W Hallam St Ped Bike Way (Right)
8. 7th Street is closed to right-hand turns at State Highway 82, pushes vehicles
further into the West End neighborhood
Staff Analysis: The seasonal 7th street barrier is a measure that is utilized during
the high point of summer to prevent queuing on 7th St. to turn right onto SH82. This
measure was instituted a number of years ago as a deterrent to driving through
the West End neighborhood. This measure provides for a safer pedestrian and
bike crossing from the Hallam ped-bikeway to the AABC Trail because there are
not cars constantly trying to turn right.
Figure 5: Road Closed Sign on 7th Street
14
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Based on community feedback, the suggestions below are items that may address
concerns raised by citizens. Any of these recommendations can be done individually.
Environmental and financial impacts are included under each recommendation when
these effects are known.
Vehicle Barriers on W Hallam St
The vehicle barriers installed on W Hopkins Ave. have shown early signs of being
successful in keeping more cars from using the ped-bikeway. These same installations
could be installed on W Hallam Ave. on 1st, 3rd, and 5th streets.
Pro: Additional vehicle barriers would allow for less enforcement needed on the
ped-bikeway and less vehicles utilizing Hallam as a through street. This would
provide for a safer experience on existing infrastructure.
Con: The Cross Town Shuttle bus uses the Hallam Corridor as a result, if the bus
cannot by-pass the vehicle barriers, it would need to be routed onto another
street; likely Bleeker Street where the Music School bus operates in summer
months. Additionally, if the Cross Town Shuttle can bypass the vehicle barriers, it
may encourage other vehicles to do the same.
15
Figure 6: Vehicle Barriers on Hopkins Ped-Bikeway
Schedule / Financial Implications: Installations could be implemented in the Summer of
2026 pending funding. The installations cost $3,000 per intersection. With engagement,
education, updated signage, and new transit materials, this recommendation would
have an estimated cost of $20,000.
Additional Pedestrian Areas
The West End currently has bike ped ways on W Hallam St, Lake Ave., and a walkway
on 4th St. Research, data collection, outreach and design can be undertaken to
determine the best place for an additional pedestrian walkway. Staff could gather
targeted feedback on creating a safe pedestrian route on one side of W Smuggler St by
eliminating parking on one side of the street. To keep from widening the asphalt
roadway, bollards would be required along the pedestrian walkway.
Pro: Providing an additional east – west pedestrian walkway would give the
community another protected area in which to navigate the West End. Installing
another pedestrian walkway with bollards would make the roadway narrower and
act as a traffic calming measure.
Con: There would be a significant loss of on-street parking. Each block of the
West End supports approximately 13 parking spaces on one side. This could
lead to increased idling and roaming during events due to the search for parking.
16
Seasonal application of an additional walkway would take additional staff time
and resources from other projects.
Figure 7: Example of a Protected Pedestrian Area
Schedule / Financial Implications: This project would take significant staff time away
from other projects that are currently planned and funded. Research, data collection,
and outreach would need to be undertaken to understand which street in the West End
would be best for this application. Additional time for design and installation would be
needed as well. This project would likely take at least a year. There is not currently
funding for this recommendation.
Alternative: The sidewalk deferred zone could be reassessed and brought to Council for
alterations.
17
Figure 8: Map of Sidewalk Locations and Sidewalk Deferred Zone
One-Way Alley Sign Installations
One-Way Alley signs could be installed to curb behavior of utilizing alleys as pass-
throughs by commuting vehicles.
Pro: Installing one-way signs could reduce the number of vehicles using the
alleys as streets to bypass congestion.
Con: Enforcement would rely on the police force that is currently already utilizing
overtime to patrol the West End. This measure will not eliminate the use of the
alleys by vehicles that do not need to access them due to business or residential
uses. Each alley would need to be investigated and ensure local businesses and
residents are not negatively impacted by the change to one-way. Additional
“One-Way” and “Do Not Enter” signs may impact the aesthetics of the
neighborhood.
Schedule / Financial Implications: Every alley needs to be analyzed to ensure that the
one-way signage will not negatively impact a residence or business. Not every alley
may receive a one-way sign once analysis is conducted by staff. The one-way would
18
likely be in the range of $10,000 - $20,000 to procure and install all the necessary signs.
Installation could occur in 2026.
Installation of additional Speed Limit Signs and Painted Stop Bars
With support from existing reports, the addition of speed limit signs and painted stop
bars would provide additional signals to drivers on the traffic regulations in the West
End. Data does not show that consistent speeding is an issue, but the police have noted
that it is possible to traverse the West End without seeing a speed limit sign.
Pro: Additional signs and painted stop bars would assist the Police Department in
enforcing any instances of traffic violations. The stop bars would assist in determining is
a car is coming to a full stop or doing a “rolling stop”.
Schedule / Financial Implications: Procuring and installing 5 additional signs could be
installed late Fall 2025. Stop bars would be able to be painted in 2026 when spring
striping projects are typically done. The estimated cost is approximately $15,000.
Bulb outs at key intersections
The last two years the Engineering Department has partnered with the Red Brick Center
of the Arts via the Public Arts Program to do intersection bulb outs and art installations
at the Wheeler and the Galena corridor. A similar installation could be pursued at target
intersection in the West End.
Pro: The community engagement and feedback has been overwhelmingly
positive from the Galena and Wheeler intersections. The Police Department has
also witnessed an improvement in driver awareness and behavior when driving in
these areas. Similar bulb outs could potentially be installed at key intersections.
Shortening the crossing distance for pedestrians at critical intersections could
greatly increase the feelings of safety when walking in the West End.
Con: These types of installations are temporary. Replacing these installations
every year would be costly and involve significant staff time. Previous test
installations have not been documented as providing meaningful change in driver
behavior.
19
Figure 9: Pedestrian Bulb Outs on Galena St
Schedule / Financial Implications: It would take time to collect data and analyze which
intersections would be the best application for this method. The murals on Galena St.
were $80,000 and it would be reasonable to expect a similar cost to do several, smaller
intersections in the West End. Costs could be decreased by only using barriers and
bollards. The Public Arts Program does not currently have any staff or funding set aside
to be able to assist with this type of project.
Figure 10: Example of Pedestrian Bulb Outs at 4-way Intersections
20
Restrictions on Power Plant Rd.
There are several approaches that could be explored for limiting noisy or heavy vehicle
traffic on the bridge: Permit systems, weight restrictions, or other methods. Staff could
do further investigation into enforcement availability and viable systems to help limit
large vehicle traffic utilizing Power Plant Rd. This method, if feasible, could potentially
be an improvement over noise levels and emissions in the West End.
Pro: Limiting certain vehicles on Power Plant Rd could reduce the amount of
large, noisy vehicles utilizing the West End to bypass traffic on Main Street.
Con: Due to construction and routine services such as waste removal, not all
heavy and noisy vehicles can be prevented from traversing the West End.
Significant research and development would be required to look at systems that
could limit heavy vehicle noise. There may not be a viable solution available.
Removing vehicles from the West End will increase traffic congestion on Main
Street.
Schedule / Financial Implications: Researching these potential methods would likely
take till 2027. Cost could very widely depending on if any viable applications are
available and what ongoing enforcement needs would be required.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
21
Date: June 28, 2022
Submitted To:
Scott Wenning
City of Aspen Project Manager
427 Rio Grande Place
Aspen, CO 81611
Submitted By:
Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC
1624 Market Street, Suite 202
Denver, CO 80202
City of Aspen
West End Neighborhood
Traffic Study
22
Table of Contents - West End Neighborhood Traffic Study
Section Page
Introduction 1
Background 2
Traffic in the West End Neighborhood 4
Speed and Safety on West End Streets 8
Analysis 8
Evaluation of Potential Mitigation on West End Streets 10
All-Way Stop Control 11
Marked Crosswalks at Intersections 12
Speed Humps or Other Traffic Calming Measures 14
Targeted Police Enforcement/Photo Enforcement 15
Conclusions and Potential Next Steps 17
Figures and Tables Page
Figure 1 – Traffic Patterns 7
Appendices Page
Figure 1 – 2015 Aspen SH 82 multi-use path evaluation 20
Figure 1 – 2019 Hallam Street NH bikeway project 21
HCM analysis worksheet of SH 82 and Cemetery Lane intersection 26
-Source: 2021 Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study
Vissim analysis summary of SH 82 and Cemetery Lane; and Main Street and 7th Street 27
-Source: 2021 Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study
Summary of speed data collected by the City of Aspen in the West End Neighborhood 28
HCM Syncro Analyses at SH 82 and Cemetery Lane (showing vehicle queue estimates)
-Estimated Existing Conditions 29
- Estimated Future Conditions with +300 vehicles per hour on W Main Street 30
-Estimated Future Conditions with +600 vehicles per hour on W Main Street 31
23
1624 Market Street | Suite 202 | Denver, CO 80202
Phone: 303.652.3571 | www.FoxTuttle.com
June 28, 2022
Scott Wenning
Project Manager
City of Aspen
427 Rio Grande Place
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: City of Aspen – West End Neighborhood Traffic Study
Dear Scott:
The Fox Tuttle Transportation Group (Fox Tuttle) has prepared this Traffic Study to provide
preliminary technical guidance concerning traffic operations within the West End Neighborhood
in Aspen. From our conversations with city staff, there is a desire to understand traffic operations
in the West End Neighborhood and to determine if there are effective ways to improve traffic
operations and the quality of life for residents on these streets. Fox Tuttle has undertaken this
work effort with this goal in mind.
The analyses and considerations in this report have been developed using existing information
from prior counts and studies provided by City staff and are limited by the availability of this data.
Fox Tuttle intends for this report to provide the following information:
•A description of how traffic operates in the West End Neighborhood, including an
estimation of the afternoon peak traffic that uses West End streets to access Power Plant
Road and Cemetery Lane to avoid congestion on W Main Street.
•An assessment of the impacts of taking successful actions to redirect traffic out of the West
End neighborhood and back onto Main Street, and what that might mean to operations on
W Main Street.
•As assessment of potential enhancements, mitigation measures and activities which have
been identified by the city and the community for potential implementation in the West
End neighborhood.
•Potential next steps the City of Aspen might consider regarding these issues.
24
Page 2
City of Aspen – West End Neighborhood Traffic Study
June 28, 2022
Background
People living on these residential streets, particularly during the summer experience a much
higher traffic volume during the afternoon peak period then at other times of the day. Residents
of the West End have contacted the City of Aspen regarding concerns about traffic and speeding.
Based on meetings with representatives of the West End Residents along with field observations,
city staff believes these concerns fall within the City’s Neighborhood Traffic Calming Policy.
Under the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Policy, City staff works closely with residents to identify
speeding issues on their streets. In general, identified issues are first tackled using non-
infrastructure solutions such as educational campaigns and community watches. If non-
infrastructure measures prove ineffective in dealing with the issue, a variety of infrastructure-
based traffic calming measures are available. As part of the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Policy,
a formal traffic study is to be conducted to evaluate the need for additional traffic calming
measures.
A number of traffic calming, and traffic reduction measures have already been implemented in
the West End neighborhood. In addition, numerous measures have been attempted and/or
vetted by various City of Aspen departments over the years. The lists below are intended to
provide the reader with a brief overview of many years’ worth of City of Aspen interdepartmental
efforts.
West End Traffic Reduction/Calming Measures Currently in Place
•Bollards placed at W Bleeker Street, W Hallam Street and the alley in between (these were
made permanent in 2010)
•Free bus service between the City of Aspen and the Brush Creek Intercept lot (which led
to free service currently in place between the City of Aspen and Snowmass Village)
•Seasonal closure of right turns from S 7th Street to W Main Street
•Funding of a portion of Aspen Music Festival shuttle service
•Funding of the Cross Town Shuttle transit route
•Funding of additional Cross Town Shuttle service hours during late-night events
•Frequent coordination with Aspen Music Festival, Jazz Aspen Snowmass and the Aspen
Institute in regard to summer events
•Provision of alternative transportation grants to the Aspen Meadows and Aspen Music
Festival via the Transportation Options Program
•Development of robust traffic reduction program related to temporary campus relocation
25
City of Aspen – West End Neighborhood Traffic Study
June 28, 2022 Page 3
•Frequent traffic patrol undertaken by the City of Aspen Police Department
•Frequent speed surveys undertaken by City of Aspen Police and Engineering Departments
to document speeding conditions in the neighborhood
•Parking enforcement presence during large events
•Driveway protection kits issued to residents upon request
•N Monarch Street and E Bleeker Street intersection sightline improvements (implemented
in 2012)
•Music School Traffic Control (begun in 2012)
•Parking charges and enforcement to limit commuter parking
•Additional West End stop signs implemented as warranted per MUTCD
•20 mph city wide speed limit (adopted in 2013)
•N 4th Street Pedestrian Walkway (implemented in 2019)
West End Traffic Reduction/Calming Measures Previously Attempted
•Free 15-minute service between the City of Aspen and the Brush Creek Park & Ride
(attempted in 2007)
•All left turn movements restricted at the Power Plant Road and Cemetery Lane intersection
(attempted in 2009)
•Left turns restricted from Power Plant Road onto Cemetery Lane (attempted in 2010 and
suspended due to safety concerns)
•Stay on Main messaging (attempted in 2010 and 2011)
•Bollards placed along W Smuggler Street (attempted in 2012)
•Additional Police presence and Parking enforcement (attempted in 2012 and 2021)
West End Traffic Reduction/Calming Measures Reviewed but Not Implemented
Temporary speed bumps on W Smuggler Street – this treatment was not implemented
due to potential damage to the roadway, insufficient neighborhood support (2013
survey) and vehicle speeds below the threshold to trigger speed reduction measures
Permanent Main Street signage – this treatment was not implemented due to an
abundance of existing signage
26
City of Aspen – West End Neighborhood Traffic Study
June 28, 2022 Page 4
Roaming road closures – this treatment was not implemented due to safety and staffing
concerns
Additional stop signs – this treatment was not implemented due to an abundance of stop
signs in the area already and additional locations not meeting MUTCD warrants
These lists show that the City of Aspen has evaluated, implemented and attempted numerous
measures to mitigate traffic concerns in the West End neighborhood.
Traffic in the West End Neighborhood
The congestion that exists on W Main Street/State Highway (SH) 82 in the afternoon peak period,
during the peak summer months, has been well documented in numerous studies (most recently
in the State Highway 82 Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study performed by Mead and Hunt
for Pitkin County in 2021).
In the afternoon, traffic departing the City of Aspen is congested due to high traffic volumes and
several roadway constraints. Traffic westbound on W Main Street is traveling in two westbound
lanes until a point just west of the intersection with N 5th Street/S 5th Street where the traffic
merges from two lanes into one. This merge condition is the first significant roadway constraint
contributing to westbound congestion on the W Main Street/SH 82 corridor. The capacity of this
single lane of traffic on the state highway is then further constrained as it makes a right angle turn
north onto N 7th Street and then another right angle turn west onto W Hallam Street. These sharp
turns significantly impact the speed that traffic can travel safely and comfortably. As a result, the
capacity to move traffic in this section is reduced and more congestion occurs.
Traffic on the state highway (W Hallam Street at this point) then passes through the Cemetery
Lane signalized intersection. The traffic signal and the portion of red-light time experienced by
westbound traffic creates some delay, but more congestion occurs at this intersection as traffic
from southbound Cemetery Lane, turning right onto the highway, merges into W Hallam Street
traffic just west of the intersection.
Further west of the signalized intersection, the single westbound lane expands to two lanes as it
enters the Maroon Creek/Castle Creek roundabout, however, it drops back down to one lane on
the west side of the roundabout and congestion from this merge backs up into the roundabout
and back along the state highway. The combination of all of these points of conflict and associated
congestion generates the long queues and delays on W Main Street/SH 82 in the PM peak as
people are leaving the City of Aspen. Photo 1 shows some of the westbound congestion on W
Main Street, approaching the intersection with N 7th Street.
27
City of Aspen – West End Neighborhood Traffic Study
June 28, 2022 Page 5
Photo 1: Westbound W Main Street traffic approaching the N 7th Street intersection during PM peak conditions
To avoid this congestion, some drivers have taken an alternative route by using streets in Aspen’s
West End Neighborhood to exit the City of Aspen. Numerous West end streets experience this
traffic including, from north to south, W North Street, W Smuggler Street, W Francis Street, W
Hallam Street, and W Bleeker Street. This traffic all travels to and passes through the intersection
of N 7th Street and W Smuggler Street, heading westbound. At this point, some of this traffic turns
left onto N 8th Street and rejoins the state highway at the intersection with W Hallam Street/SH
82.The remainder of this traffic continues west on W Smuggler Street until it turns into Power
Plant Road and then eventually forms a T-intersection with Cemetery Lane. At this intersection,
traffic either heads south and back to the highway at the SH 82 and Cemetery Lane traffic signal;
or heads north and travels along Cemetery Lane, eventually becoming McLain Flats Road (County
Road 19) to rejoin SH 82 farther down valley. Figure 1 provides a graphical detail of these travel
patterns, both on the state highway and through the West End Neighborhood.
Traffic counts taken as part of the Hallam Street Neighborhood Bikeway Study (Fox Tuttle
Hernandez, 2019) on W Smuggler Street, W Francis Street, W Hallam Street and W Bleeker Street,
show that more than 1,400 vehicles are traveling westbound on these four West End roadways
between 4pm and 6pm at the peak of summer. The traffic during these two hours accounts for
more than 50% of all the traffic that travels westbound on those streets throughout the whole
day. Photo 2 documents congestion on W Smuggler Street heading out of the city.
28
City of Aspen – West End Neighborhood Traffic Study
June 28, 2022 Page 6
Fox Tuttle has used traffic data from both the Hallam Street Neighborhood Bikeway Study (2019)
and the SH 82 Multi-Use Path Evaluation Study (2015) to estimate the amount of traffic using
these West End Neighborhood streets as alternative routes out of the city during the afternoon
peak congestion. Graphics providing the traffic counts used in this assessment can be found in
the appendices of this report.
Photo 2: Westbound Smugglers Street heading towards Power Plant Road during PM peak conditions
Fox Tuttle reviewed the peak hour turning movement counts taken at the intersections of N 8th
Street and W Hallam Street; Power Plant Road and Cemetery Lane; and SH-82 and Cemetery Lane,
which were obtained in 2015 as part of the SH 82 Multi-Use Path Evaluation Study. These counts
provide information used to estimate the volume of traffic traveling through the neighborhood
and how it disperses to the larger transportation system. PM peak hour counts at these
intersections suggest that approximately 600 to 650 vehicles depart the West End neighborhood
and approach the N 8th Street and W Smuggler Street intersection during the PM peak hour.
Approximately 100 to 150 of these vehicles turn down N 8th Street and rejoin SH 82 at the next
intersection. The remaining vehicles continue west to where W Smuggler Street becomes Power
Plant Road and travel to the intersection of Power Plant Road and Cemetery Lane where less than
half of the traffic then turns south and rejoins SH-82 at the traffic signal. The remaining traffic
heads north on Cemetery Lane and McClain Flats (County Road 19).
This evaluation provides only a rough estimate of the amount of traffic passing through the West
End neighborhood as it exits the city in the PM peak hour, during the summer peak period. Fox
Tuttle believes the value of these estimates is in providing a sense of scale for how much traffic
passes through the West End, compared to how much traffic stays on W Main Street/SH 82 during
this time period. It is approximately one third (Neighborhood) and two-thirds (State Highway).
29
ESTIMATED PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUME
TRAFFIC USING MAIN STREET
TRAFFIC USING WEST END STREETS
Width of lines are relatively proportional to the traffic volumes.
*Traffic using west end streets will ultimately join Smuggler at or
before 7th Street.
LEGEND
1,000-1,250
600-650
XXX
250-300
200-250
240
110
160
200
*See n
o
t
e
FT Project #Original Scale Date Drawn by Figure #
T r a n s p o r o puG rnoiatt
FOX TUTTLE
21074 NTS 2/28/22 MAR 1
ASPEN WEST END TRAFFIC STUDY
TRAFFIC PATTERNS ON MAIN STREET/SH 82 AND IN THE WEST END NEIGHBORHOOD
30
Page 8
City of Aspen – West End Neighborhood Traffic Study
June 28, 2022
Speed and Safety on West End Streets
The City of Aspen has collected, and Fox Tuttle has reviewed 41 pieces of speed data on West End
neighborhood streets obtained between 2014 and 2021. A summation of this data is provided in
the appendices. The data showed travel speeds having an 85th Percentile speed close to the speed
limit in many cases and in all cases having an 85th Percentile speed of 25 mph or less. This means
those streets do not qualify for additional traffic calming measures that would require physical
controls or impediments through the City of Aspen’s Neighborhood Traffic Calming Policy.
However, based on feedback from Aspen’s City Council at their 2022 budget meetings, City of
Aspen staff have decided to proceed with a traffic study for the West End neighborhood
which includes evaluation of physical controls and/or impediments.
Fox Tuttle reviewed approximately seven years of crash data for the West End neighborhood area
available on the City of Aspen’s website. Crashes were tallied on the West End neighborhood
intersections from W Bleeker Street to W North Street and from N 7th Street to N 2nd Street as
these intersections see the greatest amount of non-resident traffic during the afternoon peak.
Crashes occurring in each of these intersections over this seven-year time frame varied from 0
crashes to 5 crashes and in all cases showed a crash rate of less than one crash per year. This
review of crashes does not initially indicate a definable crash trend to target with
safety mitigation, but a more detailed analysis could be performed. Safety concerns are
often perceived by the community when traffic volumes are higher than expected, and drivers
can be seen to take undesirable actions such as rolling through stop signs or not yielding to
pedestrians at intersections. It is understandable that residents in the West End
perceive that traffic operations on their streets are unsafe despite the small number of crashes
that have occurred.
Analysis
The level of congestion on W Main Street/SH-82 during the afternoon peak hour over the peak
summer months has been well documented in prior studies. Traffic counts for W Main Street/
SH-82 were obtained from the State Highway 82 Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study
performed by Pitkin County (2021), and the SH 82 Multi-use Path Evaluation study (2015).
These counts suggest that during the PM peak hour (time period with the highest congestion),
the amount of westbound traffic on SH-82/W Main Street is between 1,000 and 1,250 vehicles
per hour at the SH-82 and Cemetery Lane traffic signal and closer to 1,000 vehicles per hour on
W Main Street between N 7th Street and N 8th Street.
If the City of Aspen closed the west end of Power Plant Road and required drivers currently using
the West End neighborhood roadways to instead use Main Street/SH 82, then the traffic volumes
during the PM peak period and the associated congestion and queuing would increase
significantly.
31
City of Aspen – West End Neighborhood Traffic Study
June 28, 2022 Page 9
As previously noted, there are several factors that influence congestion and queuing along W Main
Street/SH-82 during the PM peak. As a result of these factors, the facility is operating at capacity
and excess traffic generates the congestion and queuing. If additional traffic were added onto W
Main Street/SH-82 during this time period, each additional vehicle would compound the
congestion and queue. To illustrate this effect, Fox Tuttle has performed a high-level evaluation
using HCM Syncro software. This evaluation seeks to model existing peak hour queue impacts
and the potential for increased queuing with additional traffic. Fox Tuttle modelled two potential
future scenarios, one with approximately half of the traffic passing through the West End
Neighborhood (+300 peak hour vehicles) and another with all of the traffic on W Main Street
instead of the neighborhood (+600 peak hour vehicles). In each case these volumes were added
to the existing PM peak conditions analysis for westbound W Main Street.
In the existing conditions model, the 50th percentile queue from the Cemetery Lane signal
for the westbound direction was calculated to extend to 4th Street and the 95th percentile
queue1 was estimated to extend to Garmisch Street. This analysis is based on a snapshot of data
taken from other studies and provides estimates which are expected to vary each day or any
time during the PM peak. The value of this baseline estimate is to compare existing conditions to
potential future scenarios with increased traffic, congestion and queuing to provide a sense of
scale associated with the likely impact. The technical analysis is conservative because it
models only the congestion from the traffic signal at Cemetery Lane and doesn’t include all the
congestion caused by the S-Curve through N 7th Street and the lane drop that occurs in the 300
block of westbound W Main Street.
The HCM Syncro analyses estimate that if only half of the west end pass through traffic in the PM
peak hour were traveling on W Main Street instead, then the 50th pe rcentile queue would increase
by approximately 45%, with close to 400 additional feet of queuing just from the traffic signal
alone. Similar lengths of queue increase would occur for the 95th percentile queue as well. The
Syncro analyses estimate that if all of the pass-through traffic were to divert back to W Main
Street, then the 50th percentile queue would increase by approximately 75%, with close to 800
feet of additional queuing just from the traffic signal alone. Summaries of the analyses for existing
conditions and both alternative scenarios are provided in the Appendices of this report.
In discussions with City of Aspen staff, the PM peak hour congestion on W Main Street often backs
up past 4th Street and will sometimes back up as far as S Garmisch Street. In considering the
previous queue analysis and recognizing that it only represents one element of the capacity
constraints along W Main Street/SH-82, Fox Tuttle estimates that the impacts of significantly more
traffic on W Main Street during the PM peak hour (either scenario outlined above) would result
1 It should be noted that the 95th percentile queue length is a theoretical queue that is 1.65 standard deviations above the
average queue length. In theory, the 95th percentile queue would be exceeded 5% of the time based on the average queue
length, but it is also possible that a queue this long may not occur.
32
City of Aspen – West End Neighborhood Traffic Study
June 28, 2022 Page 10
in queues backing much deeper in the downtown for longer periods of time. This would result
in significantly increased travel delays with associated impacts to air pollution, greenhouse gas
effects, impacts to emergency response and travel time for transit service. It is reasonable to
assume that queuing would back to between Monarch Street and S Hunter Street,
depending on how much of the West End neighborhood pass-through traffic returned to W Main
Street. There would be several cascading impacts of this additional congestion and queuing. It is
likely that the impacts along W Main Street would result in corresponding queue and congestion
along the north-south numbered streets which intersect. Drivers would have a difficult time
accessing W Main Street and the downtown during this time period. The combination of main
street and side street queuing would likely result in drivers using streets parallel to W Main Street
to enter the queue as far west as possible. This could result in traffic moving back into some of
the southern West End neighborhood streets to avoid W Main Street congestion. It would also
make it very difficult for people living in the West End neighborhood to access the downtown
during this time period.
These conclusions are based on a high-level analysis of one element of the capacity constraints in
the W Main Street/SH-82 corridor. A more detailed analysis could be performed to develop more
precise queue and delay predictions for either or both of these additional traffic scenarios.
However, Fox Tuttle does not believe this more robust analysis would yield a different set of
conclusions. Moving West End neighborhood pass through traffic to the W Main Street/SH-82
corridor during the PM peak, coupled with the existing congestion and queuing on W Main Street,
would create significant and undesirable operational impacts to the City of Aspen.
Evaluation of Potential Mitigation on West End Streets
In response to the impacts of traffic on their streets, residents living in the West End neighborhood
have contacted the City of Aspen with their concerns and have requested mitigation. The website
“Make the West End Safer” details these concerns and can be found at this link:
https://www.westendpedestriansafetygroup.org/. Several mitigation ideas have been
suggested by neighbors and the following is a summary from the website:
33
City of Aspen – West End Neighborhood Traffic Study
June 28, 2022 Page 11
Fox Tuttle has been asked to provide guidance on the appropriateness and effectiveness of each
of these potential mitigation strategies to improve safety and quality of life in the West End
neighborhood.
All-Way Stop Control
A common request for traffic mitigation on residential streets is the use of stop signs to control
traffic at intersections. Stop signs are present on most of the east-west streets in the West End
neighborhood currently (either two-way or four-way stop control). A review of all intersections
on W Smuggler Street, W Francis Street, W Hallam Street and W Bleeker Street between N 2nd
Street and N 6th Street shows that only 3 of these 20 intersections do not have stop signs for east-
west traffic. The presence of these stop signs does not appear to deter drivers from utilizing the
West End Neighborhood roadways to bypass congestion on W Main Street/SH 82. Photo 3 shows
an existing all-way stop installed at the intersection of Smuggler Street and 5th Street.
Photo 3: Image of multi-way stop control at the intersection of N 5th Street and W Smuggler Street
The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) published by the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) provides a framework for evaluating different traffic control devices,
including the applicability of four-way stop control at an intersection. This section of the MUTCD
states: “Multi-way stop control can be useful as a safety measure at intersections if certain traffic
conditions exist. Safety concerns associated with multi-way stops include pedestrians, bicyclists
34
City of Aspen – West End Neighborhood Traffic Study
June 28, 2022 Page 12
and all road users expecting other road users to stop. Multi-way stop control is used where the
volume of traffic on the intersecting roads is approximately equal”.
The MUTCD states that the decision to install multi-way stop control should be based on an
engineering study for the intersection and goes on to provide several criteria which should be
considered in that engineering study. In summary, the engineering study and associated criteria
support use of multi-way stop control where traffic volumes are:
•Relatively high in all directions (200+ vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists per hour for any
8 hours of the day); and
•Relatively balanced on each of the intersecting roadways
The balanced traffic scenario encourages drivers on the higher volume street to comply with the
stop sign since there would be an expectation that conflicting traffic (bicycle, pedestrian or motor
vehicle) would be present on the side street when they approach the intersection. In addition to
these two criteria, the following characteristics or operations should be considered: high side
street delay; a significant crash history; issues with sight distance; and a high likelihood for conflict
with pedestrians.
If the intent for using all-way stop control in the West End neighborhood is to either change driver
behavior so that it is safer and/or to discourage drivers from using West End streets to exit the
city, then it is unlikely that expanded use of stop signs will yield either of these results. Stop signs
are already present in the east-west direction for most West End intersections and additional stop
signs are unlikely to provide significant benefit. Fox Tuttle’s review of crash history in the
neighborhood did not initially suggest any locations that would meet MUTCD warrants and thus
benefit from additional stop signs. Residents living in the West End would perceive improved
safety benefit only if driver behavior were significantly changed, and we would not expect this to
occur.
Recommendation: If the City of Aspen is interested in expanded use of stop signs in the West End
neighborhood, then it would be our recommendation that an engineering study be performed
according to MUTCD requirements for each location to determine if installation of stop signs is
warranted and beneficial.
Marked Crosswalks at Intersections
Signed and marked crosswalks can be an effective tool to warn drivers of the potential for conflict
with pedestrians and are typically installed where consistent pedestrian crossings are either
present or expected to occur. The MUTCD states the following about the use of crosswalks:
“Crosswalk lines should not be used indiscriminately. An engineering study should be performed
35
City of Aspen – West End Neighborhood Traffic Study
June 28, 2022 Page 13
before a marked crosswalk is installed at a location away from a traffic control signal or approach
controlled by a stop or yield sign”. The MUTCD goes on to provide factors that should be
considered in such a study, including, but not limited to, need for pedestrian crossings; traffic
volumes; pedestrian delay and motor vehicle speeds.
Much like the prior discussion on all-way stop control, there is concern about using crosswalks in
the wrong set of conditions due to non-compliance of drivers who may not comply with the
crosswalk. This situation may introduce an unsafe situation for pedestrians that would expect to
have the right-of-way in the crosswalk. Photo 4 provides an example of a crosswalk on SH 82 at
4th Street that connects pedestrians across the highway.
Photo 4: Image of a pedestrian crossing treatment at Main Street and 4th Street
Many communities in the Front Range and nation-wide have developed guidelines to determine
when to install pedestrian crossing treatments and which treatments to use for different
conditions. One of the first and most extensively used of these guidelines is the City of Boulder
Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Installation Guidelines. A link to these guidelines on the National
Association of Transportation Officials (NACTO) website can be found here:
https://nacto.org/references/city-of-boulder/. One of the key considerations for placing a
crossing treatment is the presence of a high number of pedestrians crossing at the subject location
(typically 20 or more crossings in an hour). A finding in the development of the City of Boulder
Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Installation Guidelines was that existing crossing treatments that
had fewer crossings showed significantly lower compliance of drivers yielding to the crosswalk
then locations with 20 or more crossings per hour.
36
City of Aspen – West End Neighborhood Traffic Study
June 28, 2022 Page 14
Recommendation: If the intent for placing crosswalks is to create gaps for pedestrians to cross
traffic or to create a safer experience, then our staff would recommend that each location
proposed for such installation have an engineering study performed. If the City of Aspen does not
have their own criteria for installing pedestrian crossing treatments, then consider using
guidelines from other Colorado communities such as the City of Boulder or the City and County of
Denver to provide this guidance.
If the intent for placing crosswalks is to discourage drivers from using West End streets to exit the
city or to otherwise change driver behavior, then it is unlikely that use of crosswalks on West End
streets will yield these results. Fox Tuttle is not aware of any evidence suggesting that crosswalks
are effective mitigation measure to divert traffic from a specific street or intersection.
Speed Humps or Other Traffic Calming Measures
Speed humps and other treatments such as traffic circles, speed cushions, semi-diverters and
median islands are all speed mitigation devices which can be effective at reducing speeds on
roadways. Speed is one of the key factors influencing the severity of crashes and the potential for
someone to be injured or killed. Consequently, speed mitigation can be a significant safety
improvement when used in the right circumstances. There are some negative considerations
associated with speed mitigation, such as reduced emergency response times and increased
roadway noise, potential diversion of traffic to other residential streets and such mitigation is not
always popular with all residents living in the neighborhood near where mitigation is being placed.
However, many communities in the Front Range and a few mountain communities have accepted
these negatives to achieve the benefits of lower speeds.
A side effect of using speed mitigation in some locations has been the diversion of traffic to other
streets. This can be beneficial if the diversion is to higher classification streets but potentially
detrimental if the diversion is to other residential streets. However, this is usually in response to
traffic being able to speed on the initial street before the placement of mitigation and being
unable to do so after the placement of the mitigation. It also requires a desirable street to detour
to that leads to the drivers’ destination. Given the congestion that exists on Main Street/SH 82
and the lack of excessive speeding in the neighborhood, it is unlikely that speed mitigation would
be an effective tool for moving traffic away from West End streets. Photo 5 provides an example
of a speed hump currently located on Cemetery Lane where speeding was identified as an issue.
37
City of Aspen – West End Neighborhood Traffic Study
June 28, 2022 Page 15
Photo 5: Image of Speed Hump on Cemetery Lane near Castle Creek Drive
Recommendation: As noted earlier, there does not appear to be a significant problem with
speeding on West End streets and consequently it is unlikely that speed mitigation would be
beneficial. It would be undesirable to receive the negative consequences of traffic mitigation if
greater benefit was not going to occur. City staff is already considering actions through Aspen’s
Neighborhood Traffic Calming Policy, and our recommendation would be to consider both the
negative and positive impacts of traffic calming when determining what actions to take.
Targeted Police Enforcement/Photo Enforcement
The potential to receive negative consequences for illegal behavior from law enforcement is
fundamental to reasonable behavior in a community. While it is unclear whether there is
significant speeding on West End streets, it is likely that there are other violations occurring such
as drivers rolling through or running stop signs. The presence of law enforcement on West End
streets would likely provide some benefit in the form of increased compliance with traffic laws
when officers were present. However, there are a number of factors which limit this benefit.
There are a great many responsibilities which law enforcement have in a community, and it is a
significant policy decision when and where to allocate those resources. For most communities, it
would not be possible to allocate police resources into one neighborhood at a frequency that
would yield a significant change in behavior. Even when police are present, they are only able to
make a limited number of stops, so most drivers are not going to have direct contact with the
police and experience consequences for their actions.
38
City of Aspen – West End Neighborhood Traffic Study
June 28, 2022 Page 16
Automated Vehicle Identification Systems (AVIS) or photo enforcement is a technology developed
to impact a higher number of drivers with a single enforcement vehicle. One photo radar van can
issue significantly more tickets than one traditional police officer deployed for speed
enforcement. A number of communities in the Front Range operate a photo radar program to
ticket speeding vehicles. There are significant limitations to the use of this technology which are
set by the Colorado State enabling legislation (CRS 42-4-110.5). Most impactful are the
requirement to issue a warning notice for the first violation less than 10 mph over the speed limit
(a difficult process step which results in most jurisdictions just setting the target threshold at 10
mph or greater), and the requirement to personally service tickets. Photo 6 provides an example
of a photo enforcement van that uses radar to ticket drivers in violation of the speed limit.
Photo 6: Image of Photo Radar Van deployed in Boulder, Colorado
A summary of AVIS requirements associated with the state of Colorado can be found at this link:
Speed Photo Radar and Red Light Cameras (Automated Vehicle Identification Systems) | Colorado
General Assembly.
Recommendation: In considering the limited resources and broad responsibilities of Aspen’s
Police Department and the constraints inherent in the use of AVIS for photo enforcement, as well
as the lack of a clear safety trend for police to target, it is unlikely that increased law enforcement
by traditional police or photo radar deployment in the West End is likely to achieve the
community’s goals for traffic operations in the West End Neighborhood.
39
Page 17
City of Aspen – West End Neighborhood Traffic Study
June 28, 2022
Conclusions and Potential Next Steps
Fox Tuttle has reviewed data from several different existing traffic studies and estimates that a
range of between 600 to 650 westbound vehicles currently use West End roadways to exit the
City of Aspen during the seasonal PM peak hour. During that same peak period, westbound traffic
on Main Street/SH 82 leaving the City of Aspen is estimated to be between 1,000 and 1,250
vehicles. Conditions on Main Street/SH 82 during this peak period are already at capacity and are
very congested with significant vehicle queuing. This congestion drives the use of West End
Neighborhood roadways as an alternative route for drivers traveling west to leave the city.
Changing this balance would require either making it more difficult and/or time consuming to
travel on West End roadways and/or making it less difficult and/or time consuming to exit the City
on Main Street/SH 82. Congestion on both routes would potentially be mitigated by decreasing
motor vehicle demand during the PM peak period.
The City of Aspen has taken many actions to mitigate traffic traveling on West End roadways,
many of which are outlined earlier in this report. These actions have improved but have not
completely mitigated the issues in the West End neighborhood. The actions which have been
suggested by the community and reviewed in this report are unlikely to yield anticipated or
desirable outcomes for the neighborhood or the community as a whole. If more aggressive
actions were taken which were successful in moving traffic passing through the West End
neighborhood back to W Main Street, then the impacts to traffic operations would be significant
and likely undesirable to the community. The high-level Syncro HCM queue analysis performed
by Fox Tuttle and described earlier in this report indicated the queues on W Main Street could
increase as far as S Hunter Street, depending on how much traffic was diverted. This added
congestion would have many cascading effects, impactful to the downtown, the West End
neighborhood and the entire community.
The next steps for improving the identified traffic operations issues involves some policy decisions
by the City of Aspen. Fox Tuttle believes that the best chance for improved operations on both
the state highway and in the West End neighborhood is to focus resources on identifying actions
on the state highway which would significantly decrease congestion and offer a better alternative
for drivers than using West End roadways. These actions could be capacity or efficiency
improvements to the roadway or intersections, or they could be transportation demand
management within the community which decreases demand during the peak period. Successful
actions for both types of improvement would likely be desirable to address these issues.
An example of such actions would the improvements highlighted in the “Entrance to Aspen”
project. Fox Tuttle understands that in 1998, the Colorado Department of Transportation in
conjunction with the Federal Highway Administration published a Record of Decision on the
40
City of Aspen – West End Neighborhood Traffic Study
June 28, 2022 Page 18
Entrance to Aspen project, which lays out what both organizations support as the preferred
alternative. These plans include both capacity and multimodal/TDM components.
An alternative approach would be to focus only on making it more difficult to use West End
roadways and try to force traffic back to the state highway during afternoon peak times. Fox
Tuttle would caution that only the most restrictive of actions would likely to be successful in this
case, and, as previously discussed, the impacts of doing so would create significant and
undesirable impacts for the Aspen community.
We hope that the evaluations, conclusions and recommendations provided in this report are
helpful to the City of Aspen, and we look forward to assisting you in future work efforts.
Sincerely,
Bill Cowern
Senior Associate
FOX TUTTLE TRANSPORTATION GROUP, LLC
Caleb Feaver
Transportation Engineer
FOX TUTTLE TRANSPORTATION GROUP, LLC
[Appendices attached]
41
City of Aspen – West End Neighborhood Traffic Study
June 28, 2022 Page 19
Appendices
I.Traffic Counts – Figure 1 of the 2015 Aspen SH 82 multi-use path evaluation
II.Traffic Counts – Figure 1 of the 2019 Hallam Street NH bikeway project
III.HCM analysis for SH-82 and Cemetery Lane from appendices of 2021 Upper Valley
Transit Enhancement Study Technical Appendices
IV.Vissim analysis summary for both SH-82 and Cemetery Lane; and Main Street and 7th
Street in downtown Aspen, taken from appendices of 2021 Upper Valley Transit
Enhancement Study Technical Appendices
V.Summary of speed data collected by the City of Aspen on West End Neighborhood
streets
VI.HCM Syncro analyses estimating existing and possible future queue impacts at the
signalized intersection of SH-82 and Cemetery Lane.
42
City of Aspen – West End Neighborhood Traffic Study
June 28, 2022 Page 20
Figure 1 – Aspen SH 82 Multi-Use Path Evaluation (2015) – turning movement counts at several
intersections in the West End neighborhood or on SH 82
43
Halla
m
S
t
Bleek
e
r
S
t
Franci
s
S
t
Smug
g
l
e
r
S
t
Main
S
t
6t
h
S
t
5t
h
S
t
4t
h
S
t
3r
d
S
t
2n
d
S
t
1s
t
S
t
Ga
r
m
i
s
c
h
S
t
As
p
e
n
S
t
NorthFigure 1 - Daily Traffic Before (June) and After (August) Bikeway Implementation N.T.S.October 2019
LE
G
E
N
D
Count Location
Eastbound/Westbound Daily Traffic Volume
543
708
223
539
361
449
518
820
Project 19011 - Hallam St Neighborhood Bikeway
BEFO
R
E
327
445
138
112
138
163
253
490
AFTE
R
1645
2516
856
1210
4161
2066
SUBT
O
T
A
L
TOTA
L
44
Study Date:
Unit ID:
Location:
Wednesday, 06/26/2019
Video Manual Count
Smuggler Street, Aspen
Westbound
Volume
Eastbound
Volume
Total
Volume
00:00 - 00:59 0 0 0
01:00 - 01:59 0 0 0
02:00 - 02:59 0 1 1
03:00 - 03:59 0 0 0
04:00 - 04:59 0 0 0
05:00 - 05:59 0 0 0
06:00 - 06:59 1 10 11
07:00 - 07:59 5 40 45
08:00 - 08:59 16 98 114
09:00 - 09:59 11 94 105
10:00 - 10:59 29 43 72
11:00 - 11:59 21 29 50
12:00 - 12:59 30 49 79
13:00 - 13:59 32 34 66
14:00 - 14:59 51 22 73
15:00 - 15:59 80 24 104
16:00 - 16:59 238 35 273
17:00 - 17:59 138 16 154
18:00 - 18:59 34 12 46
19:00 - 19:59 8 5 13
20:00 - 20:59 8 14 22
21:00 - 21:59 4 13 17
22:00 - 22:59 1 4 5
23:00 - 23:59 1 0 1
Totals 708 543 1251
Smuggler Street Between 3rd and 4th.tvp
Page 1
Printed: 07/01/2019 at 07:19
TrafficViewer Pro v1.6.4.124
Daily Vehicle Volume Report
Comments: Between 3rd and 4th
45
Printed: 06/27/2019 at 18:08
TrafficViewer Pro v1.6.4.124
PicoCount 2500 V2.40 (s/n# 18111656)
Daily Vehicle Volume Report
Location:
Unit ID:
Study Date:
Hallam St, Aspen, CO
RDC 41
Wednesday, 06/26/2019
Comments: Between 3rd and 4th
Westbound
Volume
Eastbound
Volume
Total
Volume
00:00 - 00:59
01:00 - 01:59
02:00 - 02:59
03:00 - 03:59
04:00 - 04:59
05:00 - 05:59
06:00 - 06:59
07:00 - 07:59
08:00 - 08:59
09:00 - 09:59
10:00 - 10:59
11:00 - 11:59
12:00 - 12:59
13:00 - 13:59
14:00 - 14:59
15:00 - 15:59
16:00 - 16:59
17:00 - 17:59
18:00 - 18:59
19:00 - 19:59
20:00 - 20:59
21:00 - 21:59
22:00 - 22:59
23:00 - 23:59
Totals
AM Peak Time
AM Peak Volume
PM Peak Time
PM Peak Volume
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
6 1 7
3 17 20
12 35 47
14 21 35
14 31 45
13 31 44
20 33 53
28 34 62
25 24 49
29 32 61
109 36 145
137 27 164
18 13 31
10 8 18
6 12 18
4 4 8
0 1 1
1 1 2
449 361 810
09:08 - 10:07 07:48 - 08:47 07:49 - 08:48
16 39 50
16:42 - 17:41 16:09 - 17:08 16:38 - 17:37
151 39 180
Page 1Hallam Street Between 3rd and 4th.tvp 46
Printed: 06/27/2019 at 18:05
TrafficViewer Pro v1.6.4.124
PicoCount 2500 V2.30 (s/n# 14042110)
Daily Vehicle Volume Report
Location:
Unit ID:
Study Date:
Francis St, Aspen, CO
RDC 1
Wednesday, 06/26/2019
Comments: Between 3rd and 4th
Westbound
Volume
Eastbound
Volume
Total
Volume
00:00 - 00:59
01:00 - 01:59
02:00 - 02:59
03:00 - 03:59
04:00 - 04:59
05:00 - 05:59
06:00 - 06:59
07:00 - 07:59
08:00 - 08:59
09:00 - 09:59
10:00 - 10:59
11:00 - 11:59
12:00 - 12:59
13:00 - 13:59
14:00 - 14:59
15:00 - 15:59
16:00 - 16:59
17:00 - 17:59
18:00 - 18:59
19:00 - 19:59
20:00 - 20:59
21:00 - 21:59
22:00 - 22:59
23:00 - 23:59
Totals
AM Peak Time
AM Peak Volume
PM Peak Time
PM Peak Volume
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
1 4 5
1 4 5
11 17 28
3 19 22
12 16 28
21 23 44
20 17 37
23 15 38
25 10 35
38 15 53
160 24 184
182 23 205
30 11 41
5 11 16
3 4 7
1 4 5
2 4 6
1 2 3
539 223 762
10:54 - 11:53 10:42 - 11:41 11:00 - 11:59
21 24 44
16:45 - 17:44 16:27 - 17:26 16:29 - 17:28
216 31 241
Page 1Francis Street Between 3rd and 4th.tvp 47
Printed: 06/27/2019 at 18:10
TrafficViewer Pro v1.6.4.124
PicoCount 2500 V2.40 (s/n# 18111655)
Daily Vehicle Volume Report
Location:
Unit ID:
Study Date:
Bleeker St, Aspen, CO
RDC 40
Wednesday, 06/26/2019
Comments: Between 3rd and 4th
Westbound
Volume
Eastbound
Volume
Total
Volume
00:00 - 00:59
01:00 - 01:59
02:00 - 02:59
03:00 - 03:59
04:00 - 04:59
05:00 - 05:59
06:00 - 06:59
07:00 - 07:59
08:00 - 08:59
09:00 - 09:59
10:00 - 10:59
11:00 - 11:59
12:00 - 12:59
13:00 - 13:59
14:00 - 14:59
15:00 - 15:59
16:00 - 16:59
17:00 - 17:59
18:00 - 18:59
19:00 - 19:59
20:00 - 20:59
21:00 - 21:59
22:00 - 22:59
23:00 - 23:59
Totals
AM Peak Time
AM Peak Volume
PM Peak Time
PM Peak Volume
1 0 1
0 1 1
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
3 5 8
6 20 26
12 49 61
26 42 68
25 39 64
29 48 77
50 41 91
54 49 103
41 60 101
68 44 112
202 34 236
238 24 262
25 23 48
21 20 41
8 9 17
5 6 11
6 3 9
0 1 1
820 518 1338
10:34 - 11:33 08:16 - 09:15 10:33 - 11:32
31 53 78
16:51 - 17:50 13:47 - 14:46 16:23 - 17:22
252 61 283
Page 1Bleeker Street Between 3rd and 4th.tvp 48
City of Aspen – West End Neighborhood Traffic Study
March 18, 2022 Page 26
HCM evaluation for SH-82 and Cemetery Lane taken from 2021 Upper Valley Transit Enhancement
Study – This shows westbound PM peak hour counts on SH-82
49
City of Aspen – West End Neighborhood Traffic Study
March 18, 2022 Page 27
Summary of VISSIM analysis for SH-82 and Cemetery Lane taken from the 2021 Upper Valley Transit
Enhancement Study – This shows westbound PM peak hour counts on SH-82
50
City of Aspen – West End Neighborhood Traffic Study
March 18, 2022 Page 28
Summary of speed data collected by the City of Aspen in the West End Neighborhood
51
Queues 7: Highway 82 & Cemetery Lane
03/10/2022 Existing - PM Peak
Aspen West End Traffic Anaysis Synchro 11 Report
Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 76 849 1318 61 84 247
v/c Ratio 0.30 0.57 1.05 0.06 0.46 0.71
Control Delay 8.3 5.6 60.2 5.5 45.3 20.8
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 8.3 5.6 60.2 5.5 45.3 20.8
Queue Length 50th (ft) 7 137 ~865 9 46 22
Queue Length 95th (ft) 33 245 #1144 24 89 96
Internal Link Dist (ft) 641 1382 1440
Turn Bay Length (ft) 60 60 20
Base Capacity (vph) 256 1482 1250 1067 236 389
Starvation Cap Reductn 000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.30 0.57 1.05 0.06 0.36 0.63
Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
52
Queues 7: Highway 82 & Cemetery Lane
03/10/2022 300 vph Added to Main - PM Peak
Aspen West End Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 76 849 1645 61 84 163
v/c Ratio 0.30 0.57 1.31 0.06 0.46 0.53
Control Delay 8.2 5.6 167.4 5.7 45.4 13.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 8.2 5.6 167.4 5.7 45.4 13.1
Queue Length 50th (ft) 7 137 ~1256 9 46 1
Queue Length 95th (ft) 33 245 #1543 25 89 56
Internal Link Dist (ft) 641 1382 1440
Turn Bay Length (ft) 60 60 20
Base Capacity (vph) 256 1483 1251 1067 236 350
Starvation Cap Reductn 000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.30 0.57 1.31 0.06 0.36 0.47
Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
53
Queues 7: Highway 82 & Cemetery Lane
03/10/2022 600 vph Added to Main - PM Peak
Aspen West End Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report
Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 76 849 1971 61 84 82
v/c Ratio 0.29 0.55 1.50 0.05 0.46 0.35
Control Delay 8.3 5.1 249.2 5.9 45.4 13.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 8.3 5.1 249.2 5.9 45.4 13.1
Queue Length 50th (ft) 7 137 ~1646 10 46 1
Queue Length 95th (ft) 34 245 #1937 26 89 41
Internal Link Dist (ft) 641 1382 1440
Turn Bay Length (ft) 60 60 20
Base Capacity (vph) 259 1545 1313 1119 236 281
Starvation Cap Reductn 000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.29 0.55 1.50 0.05 0.36 0.29
Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
54
1675 Larimer Street, Suite 400
Denver, CO 80202
303.339.0440
1 | P a g e www.consoreng.com
Aspen Safety Study Memorandum
TO: Engineering Department, City of Aspen
FROM: Consor Engineers, LLC
DATE: May 23, 2023
RE: West End Neighborhood Safety Improvement Assessment
Introduction
The City of Aspen is a world-class destination that draws local, regional, national and international visitors. It is the economic
engine of the Roaring Fork Valley. The City has about 7,000 residents, but draws workers from throughout the region, resulting in
a daily weekday influx of traffic coming into the City, with the eastbound (inbound) peak in the morning and the westbound
(outbound) peak in the afternoon and early evening. Traffic flow on SH 82 coming into and out of Aspen is limited by the Castle
Creek Bridge, which has one lane in each direction. During the peak winter and summer seasons, visitors combine with local
traffic and the demand volume significantly exceeds the capacity of State Highway (SH) 82 resulting in significant queuing and
delay. The replacement of this bridge has been the subject of studies and discussions for over 25 years, but that is a separate
process outside the scope of this study.
While SH 82 is the highway access into and out of Aspen, Power Plant Road drops into Castle Creek and bypasses the narrow
bridge over Castle Creek. It has horizontal curves with a design speed of 15 miles per hour (mph) and a total paved width of 22
feet. Primarily during the peak winter and summer seasons, outbound traffic on Main Street / SH 82 is heavily congested. This
results in hundreds of vehicles per hour filtering through the residential West End neighborhood. Persistent citizen feedback
related to safety and traffic have led to increased requests for additional traffic calming measures within the West End
neighborhood. Consor is working with the City of Aspen engineering staff to assess numerous quick build options to improve
safety for the traveling public and, especially, for vulnerable users.. Alternatives being assessed include reducing the speed limit,
additional stop signs, more marked crosswalks and several other options involving pavement markings, signing and flexible
delineators. The purpose of this memorandum is to evaluate these alternatives and make recommendations that improve public
safety in the West End neighborhood.
Past Studies
The team reviewed existing traffic studies and plans to help understand the existing conditions. Two objectives guided the review
process: 1) Understand the issues within the West End neighborhood, and 2) Search for prior recommendations relevant to the
study area. Per a traffic study commissioned in 2022 by the City of Aspen (Fox Tuttle 2022) 1, numerous traffic calming measures
have been implemented in the West End Neighborhood over the last 20 years. Between 2006 and 2019, 19 traffic reduction or
calming measures have been implemented. Another six measures were tested on a trial basis but not implemented and four more
were reviewed but not tried. The 2022 traffic study recommended against the installation of traffic calming measures that would
cause a reduction in commuter and tourist traffic in the West End neighborhood, as this would exacerbate existing traffic congestion
on Main Street to an unacceptable level. Non-infrastructure solutions such as radar speed trailers were tested but did not result in
significant improvements to traffic congestion or safety in the West End neighborhood.
West End Neighborhood Traffic Characteristics
The following section summarizes traffic patterns and volumes within the West End neighborhood. Figure 1, from the 2022 study,
shows the traffic patterns on Main Street and the West End neighborhood during congested periods. Traffic passing through the
West End Neighborhood ultimately funnels into W. Smuggler Street to connect to Power Plant Road to exit Aspen. Figure 2 reveals
that during the afternoon peak period there are approximately 600 vehicles per hour (vph) that use W. Smuggler Street to exit
Aspen, which is about one-third of the westbound peak hour total. Volumes shown are from Wednesday, August 25, 2021, which
is part of the peak summer season.
55
1675 Larimer Street, Suite 400
Denver, CO 80202
303.339.0440
2 | P a g e www.consoreng.com
Figure 1: Traffic Patterns on Main Street and West End Neighborhood during congested periods
Source: Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, 2022
Figure 2: Traffic volumes (in vehicles per hour) on W. Smuggler Street at 8th Street, Wednesday, August 25, 2021
Source: City of Aspen Engineering Department
56
1675 Larimer Street, Suite 400
Denver, CO 80202
303.339.0440
3 | P a g e www.consoreng.com
The streets in Aspen's West End neighborhood are generally flat, straight and wide, with the most common pavement width
being 40 feet. The roadway width (pavement width minus on-street parking width) has a strong correlation to the speed of
vehicles, with higher speeds on wider streets and lower speeds on narrower streets. An example block is shown below in Figure 3.
Figure 3: Typical Street Block in the West End
Location: W. Hallam Street between N. 2nd and N. 3rd Streets. Source: Google Earth Street View
The West End neighborhood is in a unique situation regarding commuter and tourist traffic within the City of Aspen. It is heavily
impacted by the lack of outbound traffic capacity on SH 82 with only one lane of traffic across Castle Creek Bridge being a
constricting element. Many commuting and local motorists are aware of the bypass route on Power Plant Road, but even if they
aren't they may still decide to travel into the West End. It is likely that the large discrepancy between AM and PM volumes on W.
Smuggler Street is a result of the ease of finding the outbound route due to queuing on Main Street in the PM. In the AM, a
driver must turn off and travel on miles of backroads to avoid the congestion, making the decision point before SH 82 congestion
has been reached. Research was conducted on locations that draw large amounts of tourist traffic and have similar geographic
restrictions to Aspen, including Monaco, on the French Riviera, Big Sky, Montana and Sun Valley, Idaho. Relevant information on
traffic calming that would be applicable to Aspen was not found because these cities did not have a comparable traffic network or
because no studies or solutions related to traffic congestion issues were found.
Overview of the City of Aspen’s Neighborhood Traffic Calming Policy
The City of Aspen has an established Neighborhood Traffic Calming Policy 2, which is detailed in an 18-page document that was
most recently updated in February 2021. It establishes a “Speeding Threshold” of above 5 miles per hour over the speed limit. If
this threshold is exceeded on a street, then the policy calls for Step 5, “Non-infrastructure Solution Testing”.
These measures include:
Radar Speed Trailer Deployment
Community Watch Program
Community Education Actions
57
1675 Larimer Street, Suite 400
Denver, CO 80202
303.339.0440
4 | P a g e www.consoreng.com
If these measures achieve acceptable results, then the issue is resolved. If not, then the process can move to Step 7,
“Infrastructure Solution Cost and Design”. These measures include:
Horizontal Deflection (Realigned intersection, traffic circle, etc)
Vertical Deflection (Speed table, raised crosswalk, etc)
Street Width Reduction (Median island, add on-street parking, etc)
Routing restriction (Full closure, half closure, etc)
There is also a “Traffic Calming Threshold”, which calculates a score that accounts for factors such as proximity to schools and
other high pedestrian areas. If the score is greater than the threshold, then the item can move to “Non-infrastructure Solution
Testing”, but not to “Infrastructure Solution Cost and Design”.
Steps 6 and 8 are “Citizen Follow-up and Outreach” and “Neighborhood Outreach”. Impacted homeowners play a key role in
shaping the direction and outcome of the process. Appendix C is the “Traffic Calming Tool Kit.” The final section is titled “What is
not a Traffic Calming Measure?” and contains the following list”.
Enforcement
Speed Limit Signs
Stop Signs
Children Signs
In 2021, City staff conducted a West End Neighborhood traffic calming evaluation. It is provided as Appendix A of the August 22,
2022 memo to Mayor Torre and City Council titled “West End Traffic Calming and Traffic Evaluation”3. It concluded that the
“Speeding Threshold” was not met, but the “Traffic Calming Threshold” was triggered. The memo describes the “Non-
infrastructure Solution Testing” efforts that were tested in 2021. These did not have long-term impacts on speeds or traffic
volumes in the West End.
Primary Alternatives to Improve Pedestrian/Bike/Vehicle Safety
Residents of the West End neighborhood have requested additional installation of traffic infrastructure that could improve safety.
The three most commonly requested elements are evaluated in this study per City Council direction, which are:
1. Decrease speed limit from 20 to 15 mph
2. Install four-way stop controls at additional intersections
3. Consider additional crosswalks.
Each element will be evaluated by analyzing current conditions, conducting research on past studies, and determining how
implementation would or would not be effective in Aspen.
A cost estimate will be provided for the potential implementation of these items. These are complete-in-place costs based on the
assumption that they will be installed by a Contractor. There are high mobilization costs that would be included for the
installation of any of the potential items. The closest pavement marking contractor is in Grand Junction, but they don’t do sign
installation. The closest signing contractor is also in Grand Junction, but they don’t do pavement marking. It is a 2.5 to 4 hour
drive each way from Grand Junction, depending on traffic. The mobilization charge would cover the cost of a typical crew of two
workers and their transport vehicle for the five to eight-hour round trip journey. Once in Aspen, the contractor has a daily limit on
the number of items they can install. As an example, the contractor may be able to install five signs in a day. If the installation of
only two signs was requested, the mobilization cost would still be the same. If the installation of 10 signs was requested, the crew
would need to stay overnight. Options would be an expensive room in Aspen or, for example, a less expensive room in Glenwood
Springs coupled with added driving time. An assumed one-day mobilization cost of $2,500 is assumed for installation of static
signs, water-based pavement markings or seasonal flexible delineators, each of which requires relatively inexpensive installation
equipment. The mobilization cost per day would decrease as the duration of construction increases. As the installed quantity
increases for any given project, the overall cost would increase, but the complete-in-place overall unit cost (mobilization plus unit
cost of individual items / quantity) would go down.
58
1675 Larimer Street, Suite 400
Denver, CO 80202
303.339.0440
5 | P a g e www.consoreng.com
1. Decreased Speed Limit Evaluation
The speed limit on all city streets within the City of Aspen is 20 mph, except on Main Street which has a speed limit of 25 mph and
on Power Plant Road which has a speed limit of 15 mph. This study will investigate the feasibility & potential impact of reducing
the speed limit in the West End neighborhood from 20 to 15 mph and, additionally, will consider general city-wide speed limits.
The discussion is broken out into seven subsections.
a) Requirements to Warrant the Implementation of Speed Limit Reductions
Many factors go into determining the appropriate speed limit for any section of roadway. Colorado traffic laws allow local
authorities to change the speed limit for any road under their jurisdiction if the local authority determines that the speed limit
established by the law is greater or lesser than what is safe for traffic conditions (Colorado Revised Statutes Title 42, 2016) 4. An
engineering study is needed to determine if a speed limit change would improve traffic safety. The engineering study would
consider the following factors: 85th percentile speed data, existing development, observed crash history, road characteristics,
environmental factors, parking practices, pedestrian and bicycle activities.
b) Safety assessment of the potential implementation of a 15-mph speed limit if directed by Council without warrants. The
assessment should consider a city-wide implementation, as well as an implementation restricted to the West End
neighborhood.
There is a strong relationship between observed speeds and the safety outcome for crashes involving pedestrians and bicycles.
This relationship is illustrated in Figure 4.
Figure 4: Pedestrian Injury versus Vehicle Impact Speed Correlation
Excerpted from the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Policy (Original source C. E. Rick Chellman)
The likelihood of fatality goes up at a higher rate with higher vehicle speed. At an impact speed of 23 mph, 10% of pedestrians
will likely die if hit by a vehicle (Tefft, 2011) 5. Twenty (20) mph is considered the survivability speed for pedestrians and bicyclists
when involved in a crash with a vehicle (NTSB, 2017) 6.
Speed data in the West End was collected between July and August 2022, with a summary shown below in Table 1.
59
1675 Larimer Street, Suite 400
Denver, CO 80202
303.339.0440
6 | P a g e www.consoreng.com
Table 1: 2022 Travel Speeds in the West End Neighborhood
Street Location ID/Site Name Direction Start Date End Date
Average
Speed
(mph)
85th
Percentile
Speed
(mph)
W. Smuggler W. Smuggler (btw 7th & 8th) Westbound 7/20/2022 7/26/2022 19.1 23
W. Hallam W. Hallam (btw 4th & 5th) Westbound 7/27/2022 8/2/2022 18 22
W. Hallam W. Hallam (btw 2nd & 3rd) Westbound 7/27/2022 8/2/2022 17.7 20
W. Smuggler W. Smuggler (btw 2nd & 3rd) Westbound 8/3/2022 8/9/2022 18.3 21
W. Smuggler W. Smuggler (btw 4th & 5th) Westbound 8/3/2022 8/9/2022 18.3 21
W. Francis W. Francis (btw 2nd & 3rd) Westbound 8/10/2022 8/16/2022 20.2 24
W. Francis W. Francis (btw 4th & 5th) Westbound 8/10/2022 8/16/2022 18.4 23
W. Bleeker W. Bleeker (btw 2nd & 3rd) Westbound 8/17/2022 8/23/2022 20 23
W. Bleeker W. Bleeker (btw 4th & 5th) Westbound 8/17/2022 8/23/2022 19.1 23
W. 2nd W. 2nd St (btw Hallam & Francis) Northbound 8/24/2022 8/30/2022 18.6 22
W. 4th N. 4th St (btw Hallam & Francis) Northbound 8/24/2022 8/30/2022 18.4 22
W. 3rd N. 3rd St (btw Hallam & Francis) Northbound 8/31/2022 9/6/2022 19.5 23
W. 5th W. 5th St (btw Hallam & Francis) Northbound 8/31/2022 9/6/2022 18.4 21
Source: City of Aspen Engineering Department
The average speed was about 19 mph. The highest 85th percentile speed was observed on W. Francis Street between N. 2nd and
N. 3rd Streets at 24 mph, which does not meet the “Speeding Threshold” in the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Policy. It is
important to note that no case studies were found that focus on the reduction of speed limits from 20 mph to 15 mph. Many
studies focused on speed reductions from 25 mph to 20 mph or from 30 mph to 25 mph.
It is important to maintain the distinction between the posted speed limit and actual or observed speed. A speed limit being
lowered does not necessarily mean that observed speeds will decrease accordingly. A relevant excerpt from the Neighborhood
Traffic Calming Policy is as follows:
Engineering studies show that speed limit signs are not the most significant factor influencing driver speeds and that changing
posted speed limits has only a minor effect on driver behavior (FHWA, 1997) 7. Research indicates that a reasonable driver will
drive at the speed suggested by roadway and traffic conditions, to the extent of disregarding the posted speed limit. A speed
limit that is unrealistic invites the majority of drivers to disregard posted speeds.
A frequently cited study titled, “Speed Variance and Its Influence on Accidents” (Garber and Gadiru, 1988)8, includes the following
conclusions:
Accident rates increase with increasing speed variance for all classes of roads.
Speed variance on highway segment tends to be a minimum when the difference between the design speed and the
posted speed limit is between 5 and 10 mph.
The difference between the design speed and the posted speed limit has a significant effect on the speed variance.
The design speed is the speed a typical vehicle could maintain on any given road if there were no intersection controls. For Power
Plant Road, the design speed is 15 mph based on the radii of its sharpest curves. In the West End, there are no horizontal or
vertical curves, so the design speed is estimated at greater than 25 mph based on the wide roadway widths. Decreasing the
speed limit by 5 mph would increase the difference between the design speed and the posted speed limit by another 5 mph.
This study concludes that the roadway and traffic conditions in the West End do not suggest to a reasonable driver that they
should be going 15 mph. If the speed limit were to be reduced to 15 mph, a negligible change in observed speeds would be
60
1675 Larimer Street, Suite 400
Denver, CO 80202
303.339.0440
7 | P a g e www.consoreng.com
expected. Some drivers would lower their speed, but many others would not. This change would result in decreased compliance
with the posted speed limits and increased speed variability. It is expected that this would have a negative impact on safety.
c) A brief assessment of the impact a 15-mph speed limit would have on West End commuter and tourist traffic volumes
A traffic calming study conducted in a residential neighborhood implemented additional speed limit signs, increased
enforcement, deployment of a radar speed trailer and installation of a double yellow centerline as traffic calming measures
(Sunnyvale 2004) 9. Follow-up studies showed a slight decrease in the volume of traffic and in the 85th percentile speed. A
second stage of traffic calming measures consisting of median islands, speed humps and a traffic circle was later implemented.
After six months, the average speed reduced to 24.1 mph from 31.3 mph and the 85th percentile speed reduced to 28.6 mph
from 35.7 mph. The observed volume decreased from 1,269 to 1,179 vehicles per day.
Since negligible change in observed speeds is expected from a reduction in speed limit to 15-mph, it is expected that this would
have a negligible impact on commuter and tourist volumes in the West End.
d) Obvious areas within the city where a 15-mph speed limit could be warranted and staff should consider a warrant study.
Power Plant Road has a speed limit of 15 mph, as shown in Figure 5. As seen in Figure 6 and Figure 7, it is a good example of a
street where a 15-mph speed limit is warranted, due to steep grades, a narrow width, minimal sight distance and sharp curves. It
is notable that 85th percentile speeds exceed 20 mph on portions of the road where geometric features that warrant the 15-mph
speed limit are not present, which support engineering studies “that a reasonable driver will drive at a speed suggested by
roadway and traffic conditions.”
Figure 5: W. Smuggler Street / Power Plant Road just west of N. 8 th Street
Source: Consor field visit on March 29, 2023
Figure 6: Power Plant Road just before major curve on east end
Source: Consor field visit on March 29, 2023
Figure 7: Power Plant Road under the SH 82 Castle Creek Bridge
Very minimal sight distance due to
horizontal curve. Mirror installed to
help mitigate this. Curve Radius of 50
feet, which has a design speed of 15
mph with 8% superelevation.
61
1675 Larimer Street, Suite 400
Denver, CO 80202
303.339.0440
8 | P a g e www.consoreng.com
Source: Consor field visit on March 29, 2023
Other areas in the City that have some or all these characteristics may be warranted for a 15 mph speed limit.
e) Are there obvious areas within the city where a 15-mph speed limit could be warranted if limited infrastructure were
installed? An example could be removing bike sharrows and adding a dedicated bike lane.
Roadway width is a key factor in a driver’s comfort level. If the pavement width where a motorist can drive is very narrow, they’ll
feel uncomfortable and slow down. Some examples from the West Washington Park neighborhood in Denver are as follows:
Pearl Street between Ellsworth Avenue and 1st Avenue is 29 feet curb-to-curb with heavily utilized on-street parking on
both sides. An average car is about 6.5 feet wide. Subtracting the on-street parking, leaves 16 feet of traveled way for
both directions. Motorists typically drive down the middle and are prepared to slow down substantially if they see an
oncoming vehicle. Whichever driver has the best access to a section of empty on-street parking pulls into that and lets
the other driver proceed. Average vehicles could pass each other in a section with cars parked on both sides, but they
generally choose not to because there’s a gap of only about one foot between the two vehicles and between each
vehicle and the parked car.
1st Avenue between Pearl Street and Pennsylvania Street is 34 feet curb-to-curb with heavily utilized on-street parking
on both sides. It has double yellow striping down the middle. Drivers hold their lane position and speeds are much
higher. The traveled way is 21 feet for both directions, leaving a gap of about three feet between vehicles.
The available travel way would have to be very narrow and very close to the bicycle and / or pedestrian facility to warrant a 15
mph speed limit. This study concludes that the people involved with such a project would consider it to be unsafe to provide a
facility that would be so tight that a 15 mph speed limit would be warranted.
f) Evaluate the impacts to the City of Aspen’s Neighborhood Traffic Calming Policy if the speed limit were reduced to 15
mph where not warranted (e.g., 85th percentile speed could be exceeded throughout the city, so the policy would
require calming infrastructure).
If the Council were to request that staff implement a 15-mph speed limit in locations where it is not warranted, it would
undermine the validity of the entire Neighborhood Traffic Calming Policy. Aspen’s policy is based on Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) publications that document best practices and years of research from around the US. Aspen’s policy has
established procedures that are to be followed for speed related concerns. If the procedures are superseded in one part of the
City, it could not be reasonably expected that the guidelines could be applied to other parts of the City. As stated previously,
lowering the speed limit to 15mph would not positively impact safety in the West End. This would result in 85th percentile speeds
that would be more than five mph above the limit.
Minimal sight distance due to vertical
curve. Steep grades. Total pavement
width of about 22 feet.
62
1675 Larimer Street, Suite 400
Denver, CO 80202
303.339.0440
9 | P a g e www.consoreng.com
To reduce 85th percentile speeds to less than 20 mph, significant traffic calming features would need to be installed. These would
decrease the commuter and tourist volumes through the West End, which would increase traffic volumes on Main Street. This
would violate a basic premise of this study effort, which is to not increase volumes on Main Street.
g) Evaluate risk in lowering speed limit below the warranted level required.
As stated previously, decreasing speed limits to below their warranted level would result in decreased compliance with the
posted speed limits and increased speed variability, which is expected to have a negative impact on safety.
Brief Summary
Pros: Actual reduction in observed speeds can lead to a reduction in the likelihood and severity of crashes.
Cons: Reducing speed limits does not guarantee driver compliance. When already low speed limits are reduced, it would
result in increased speed variability between compliant and non-compliant drivers leading to unsafe travel conditions
and decreased safety.
Cost: For replacement of the estimated eight existing speed limit sign panels at $200 each, plus a mobilization cost of
approximately $2,500 to $3,000. Estimated cost is $4,000 to $5,000 for the entire West End.
Recommendation: This study does not recommend reducing the speed limit from 20 mph to 15 mph in the West End
Neighborhood.
2. Four-Way Stop Control Evaluations
Stop signs are an integral part of the regulatory category of traffic control signs. They are one means of establishing who has the
right-of-way at intersections. There are several options for intersection control. These include:
Uncontrolled
Yield signs
Stop signs
Signalization
Roundabouts
The national reference which oversees street signs and road markings is the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD
2009) 10. While there are many local decisions to be made regarding what should be installed at various locations, the MUTCD
helps ensure national consistency in terms of colors, sizes, messages and symbols for signs. The same holds true for striping,
including standard colors, widths and patterns. It also provides guidance to help ensure that items are used in a consistent
manner. Section 2B.04, Right-of-Way at Intersections, starts with the most minimal of controls and works its way up from there.
The most basic type of operation is an uncontrolled intersection, which is typically found in residential or rural areas. An article
titled "The History behind Uncontrolled Intersections" (Sheridan (WY) Press, 2017) 11 discusses this type of traffic operation.
Uncontrolled intersections are deliberate and have been used for decades across the country. Uncontrolled intersections
generally reduce speeds in neighborhoods because drivers slow down on their approach. Essentially, motorists drive defensively
and act as though there is a yield sign when they approach an uncontrolled intersection. When cars arrive at the same time, they
are required to let vehicles on their right go first.
Section 2B.04 of the MUTCD states that engineering judgment should be used to establish intersection control. The following
factors should be considered:
A. Vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic volumes on all approaches
B. Number and angle of approaches
C. Approach speeds
D. Sight distance available on each approach
E. Reported crash experience.
63
1675 Larimer Street, Suite 400
Denver, CO 80202
303.339.0440
10 | P a g e www.consoreng.com
It also states that yield or stop signs should be considered at a minor four-way intersection if:
The average daily traffic volume exceeds 2,000. Data for W. Smuggler Street shows volumes can exceed 9,000 on peak
summer days.
If the ability to see oncoming traffic is hindered. Sight distance in the West End is below standard in many locations, due
to the presence of mature bushes and trees near intersections.
Three traffic accidents related to failure to yield occur within a two-year period or five accidents within a three-year
period.
Per the MUTCD, once the decision has been made to control an intersection, the decision regarding the appropriate roadway to
control should be based on engineering judgment. In most cases, the roadway carrying the lowest volume of traffic should be
controlled. YIELD or STOP signs should not be installed on the higher volume roadway unless justified by an engineering study.
YIELD signs at conventional intersections are rarely found. The most common applications for these signs are at slip ramps, such
as free right turn lanes, and at entrances to roundabouts. Section 2B.09 bans the placement of YIELD signs on all approaches to
an intersection.
The most common type of stop-sign controlled intersection has stop signs installed on the minor roadway, with free movement
for the major roadway.
Four-way stop sign controlled intersections are uncommon outside the US and Canada. They are banned in the United Kingdom.
The MUTCD states that four-way stop control can be useful as a safety measure at intersections if certain traffic conditions exist,
including pedestrians, bicyclists, and all road users expecting other road users to stop.
Section 2B.04.05 states that YIELD or STOP signs should not be used for speed control. Stop signs are used for traffic control at
intersections. A study reviewed over 70 technical papers covering four-way stops and their successes and failures as traffic
control devices in residential areas (Bretherton Jr, 2014) 12 found that four-way stop signs do not reduce speeds on residential
streets. Additionally, stop compliance is poor at unwarranted four-way stop signs and stop signs increase noise in the vicinity of
an intersection. The noise is created by the vehicles braking and accelerating on the approach and departure to the intersection.
Engine exhaust, braking, tire noise, and aerodynamics are the contributing noise factors noted in the research.
A relevant excerpt from the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Policy that discusses stop signs is as follows:
It seems like an obvious, inexpensive way to reduce vehicle speeds; however, what seems to be a perfect solution can
create a less desirable situation. When stop signs are used as “nuisances” or “speed breakers”, a high incidence of drivers
intentionally violating the stop. When vehicles do stop, the speed reduction is effective only in the immediate area of the
stop sign as a large percentage or motorists then increase their speed to make up for perceived lost time. This results in
increased mid-block speeds. For these reasons, we do not use stop signs for speed control solutions. Instead, they are
used to improve safety at intersections where traffic volumes or accidents require their installation.
Based on the volumes during congested periods and the lack of adequate sight distance at many intersections, stop sign
controlled intersections are the most appropriate type of control for the intersections within the West End.
The stop signs installed in the West End Neighborhood are shown below in Figure 8.
64
1675 Larimer Street, Suite 400
Denver, CO 80202
303.339.0440
11 | P a g e www.consoreng.com
Figure 8: Stop Sign Locations in the West End
Source: City of Aspen Geographical Information Systems (GIS) Unit
It depicts the two-way and all-way stop signs installed in the neighborhood. There are 13 all-way stop sign controlled
intersections and 18 two-way stop sign controlled intersections in the neighborhood.
Some observations about the existing stop sign locations are as follows:
There are four-way stop sign controlled intersections at all four corners of the Yellow Brick Building, which is a former
City of Aspen school that now houses a day care program and other children's programs.
Priority is given to the bicycle facilities along Hallam Street and Lake Avenue, with free movement or four-way stop signs
at every intersection. Under Colorado law, bikes can roll through four-way stop sign controlled intersection if no
competing traffic is approaching.
Traffic coming from or going to Main Street does not stop at Bleeker Street to prevent hazards associated with the
potential for vehicles queues to back into Main St.
The discussion of potential changes to the existing stop sign locations is broken out into three subsections.
a) Safety assessment of the potential installation of four-way stop controls in the West End neighborhood if directed by
council without warrants
Citing the uncontrolled intersection article (Sheridan (WY) Press, 2017), quotes from Lane Thompson, the City of Sheridan
Wyoming Director of Public Works, include:
If drivers don’t respect a stop or yield sign, they will brake a bit then accelerate through the intersection, making it more
dangerous.
Legend
West End Neighborhood
Stop signs
65
1675 Larimer Street, Suite 400
Denver, CO 80202
303.339.0440
12 | P a g e www.consoreng.com
We’re all traffic engineers in our heads. It doesn’t matter who you are. You drive a car, you know traffic. So what
happens is if you put a stop sign up where it’s not required, after one or two times of going through it, people disregard
it.
It’s just human nature. We disregard them. We don’t respect them, we don’t stop for them.
Drivers are more likely to roll through an intersection with an unnecessary stop or yield sign.
All of a sudden, that’s not a 5 mile per hour accident, it’s a 30 mile per hour accident.
If more stop signs are added that are not warranted, driver compliance will decrease. Even more so, drivers will accelerate rapidly
in mid-block areas and noise and pollution will increase. Consistent with the above quotes, it is expected that safety would
decrease.
b) A brief discussion of the impacts of four-way stop controls on traffic volume
The West End already has a relatively high density of stop signs, but that has not deterred the many vehicles that travel into the
West End during congested periods. Under current conditions, motorists can travel a maximum of two blocks (about 600 feet)
between stop signs. Decreasing that to 300 feet is not expected to result in an appreciable decrease in commuter and tourist
traffic. During congested periods, vehicles are heading towards a slow-moving queue. The time spent stopping at additional stop
signs would be a small fraction of the time they will spend waiting to get through the queue.
c) Evaluate of potential changes or adjustment to the stop signs in the West End that could improve safety
Placement of additional stop signs around Hillyard, Pioneer and Triangle Parks could improve safety for vulnerable users, but
these are relatively small parks. Pedestrian volumes associated with these parks may be too small to warrant the installation of
additional stop signs.
Brief Summary
Pros: Stop signs are helpful in assigning right of way at intersections which can reduce crashes.
Cons: Research shows that speeds do not decrease after installation of stop signs in residential neighborhoods. If speeds
do not reduce, then it can be understood that there is not a significant benefit in safety when stop signs are implemented
in residential neighborhoods. There is an increase in noise in the vicinity of an intersection where a stop sign is installed.
Cost: Estimated cost for a complete-in-place new stop sign with post is $450, plus a mobilization cost of approximately
$2,500 to $3,000. Estimated cost depends on the number of stop signs that would be installed as part of the project.
Recommendation: Additional stop signs in the West End Neighborhood are not recommended.
3. Crosswalk evaluations
The general function of crosswalks is to connect pedestrian, bike or bike / ped facilities across roads. Colorado statutes at section
42-1-102 (21) C.R.S., define a crosswalk as: “that portion of a roadway ordinarily included within the prolongation or connection
of the lateral lines of sidewalks at intersections or any portion of a roadway distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by lines or
other marking on the surface.” Per 3B.18 of the MUTCD, its states that crosswalks “should be installed where … needed to direct
pedestrians to the proper crossing path(s). It also states that crosswalk lines should not be used indiscriminately. The general
intent is to install them, where appropriate, at locations where a traffic signal, STOP or YIELD sign controls traffic.
For non-controlled locations, an engineering study should be performed that considers:
Number of lanes
Presence of a median
Distance from adjacent signalized intersections
Pedestrian volumes and delays
Average daily traffic (ADT)
Posted or statutory speed limit
66
1675 Larimer Street, Suite 400
Denver, CO 80202
303.339.0440
13 | P a g e www.consoreng.com
85th-percentile speed
Geometry of the location
Possible consolidation of multiple crossing points
Activity generators (school, park, health center, library, grocery store, or neighborhood-embedded commercial district)
Transit destinations
Availability of street lighting
Other appropriate factors
In terms of details for a crosswalk installation, Figure 9 shows the following detail from the MUTCD.
Figure 9: Examples of Crosswalk Markings
Source: MUTCD
Most blocks in the West End do not have sidewalks. The sidewalks that are present are primarily in the first block north of Main
Street. During Consor’s field visit on March 29, 2023, few pavement markings were visible. Pavement markings are applied
seasonally in the City of Aspen after the end of ski season in May. They are in place throughout the summer and early fall seasons
and gradually become worn off and covered up by snow in the late fall / winter / early spring seasons. A review of aerial
photography showed crosswalks at these locations:
South leg of Garmisch Street at the intersection of Garmisch and Bleeker Streets (SE corner of Yellow Brick Building)
West leg of Bleeker Street at the intersection of Garmisch and Bleeker Streets (SE corner of Yellow Brick Building)
East leg of Hallam Street at the intersection of Aspen and Hallam Streets (S side of Red Brick Building)
South leg of Aspen Street at the intersection of Aspen and Bleeker Streets (S side of Red Brick Building)
Crosswalks across the east leg of Bleeker Street, Hallam Street, Francis Street, Smuggler Street, Pearl Court and Gillespie
Street for the pedestrian facility on 4th Street.
Most commonly, crosswalk stripes are placed parallel to the street that they cross. Examples of this are seen where the north-
south streets in the West End intersect with Main Street. The other option is to place them at a 45-degree angle, as shown in
Figure 3B-19. These are often accompanied by longitudinal lines that are perpendicular to the street that the crosswalk goes
across. This type of marking may be used at locations where substantial numbers of pedestrians cross without any other traffic
control device, at locations where physical conditions are such that that added visibility of the crosswalk is desired, or at places
where a pedestrian crosswalk might not be expected.
67
1675 Larimer Street, Suite 400
Denver, CO 80202
303.339.0440
14 | P a g e www.consoreng.com
The discussion of potential changes to crosswalk locations is broken out into three subsections.
a) Description and discussion of the requirements to warrant the implementation of crosswalk installations.
The factors to consider when choosing whether to install a crosswalk at a given location are similar to those listed earlier for non-
controlled locations. When there is existing stop control, an engineering study is not needed but there should be a relatively high
concentration of pedestrians that would use the crosswalk to justify installation of a crosswalk.
b) A discussion of requirements to add crosswalks in the West End neighborhood and/or recommend locations where
crosswalks could be warranted.
Pedestrian demand is relatively constant among the various blocks within the West End. It primarily consists of residents going
out for a walk or heading to commercial locations along Main Street or in the downtown core. The origin of these trips is at
residences throughout the West End. The only focused destinations within the West End are the former school locations, the
Yellow Brick Building and the Red Brick Building, and parks. Additional crosswalks may be warranted around these destinations
where there are pedestrian facilities to connect.
c) Evaluate public safety impacts if additional crosswalks were installed in the West End neighborhood.
Crosswalks bring emphasis to locations where pedestrians may be crossing. When installed at appropriate locations, they
improve safety. A downside is that they may give pedestrians a false sense of security that all vehicles will stop to allow them to
cross. This is a particular issue at uncontrolled locations.
Brief Summary
Pros: Crosswalks provide a safe path for pedestrians to cross intersections.
Cons: Marking crosswalks alone does not significantly improve safety.
Cost: The estimated cost for a complete-in-place new crosswalk is $475, plus a mobilization cost of approximately $2,500
to $3,000. Estimated cost depends on the number of crosswalks that would be installed as part of the project.
Recommendation: Additional crosswalks are not recommended for the West End Neighborhood because there is no
pedestrian infrastructure such as sidewalks to connect them to and the West End neighborhood does not have a
significant concentration of activity generators that may increase pedestrian volumes.
Other Alternatives Considered to Improve Pedestrian/Bike/Vehicle Safety
1. Increased Speed Limit Sign Density and Community Education Actions
There are very few speed limit signs along the streets in the West End neighborhood. As part of the March 29, 2023 field visit, a
dash cam video was recorded for a 30-minute looping route that covered most of the blocks in the West End. Only three speed
limit signs were noted. This may be because 20 mph is the de facto speed limit for nearly every street in the City of Aspen, but
many of the vehicles that pass through the West End are unaware of the speed limit. The addition of more speed limit signs
would increase awareness of the posted speed limit and may lower speeds, particularly for those on the high end of the observed
speed spectrum.
Increased provision of speed limit signs can increase public awareness and lead to reduced speeds. One study conducted a before
and after evaluation of the effect of residential street speed limit reduction from 25 mph to 20 mph on local streets in 58
locations (Portland, 2020) 13. The study increased the number of residential speed limit signs from under 1,000 to 2,000 and
conducted an educational and awareness campaign. Results showed that the median and 85th percentile speeds did not change.
The average speed increased slightly by 0.04 mph. However, the percentage of vehicles travelling at speeds greater than 25 mph
decreased as compared to the before condition.
68
1675 Larimer Street, Suite 400
Denver, CO 80202
303.339.0440
15 | P a g e www.consoreng.com
A study found that lowering speed limits and increasing sign density alone, absent of marketing campaigns, additional
enforcement or engineering changes to the street geometry resulted in lower speeds and fewer crashes (Seattle 2020) 14. Speed
limits were reduced to 25 mph spaced at quarter mile intervals in each direction on streets that were previously signed for 30
mph as well as for streets that were previously unsigned. The results showed that the largest decline was in high-end speeders
(40+ mph speeders) with approximately 54% of speeders driving slower after implementation. The 50 th percentile speed reduced
from 25.6 mph to 23.1 mph while the 85th percentile speed reduced from 31.2 mph to 29 mph.
The “20 is plenty” campaign is in prevalent use around the United States and the world. It seeks to decrease speeds on residential
streets to 20 mph to make roadways safer for pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists. Public relations campaigns help inform the
community about the relationship between speed and transportation safety. The most visible elements of this campaign are lawn
signs that increase awareness of the speed limit.
The blocks in the West End are about 300 feet long. There are up to nine blocks in the east-west direction, about ½ mile, and up
to five blocks in the north-south direction, just over ¼ mile. The placement of a speed limit sign every two or three blocks in each
direction would be an appropriate level of coverage. A summary of the signs is as follows:
Two signs in each direction along the numbered north-south streets between Main Street and W. Smuggler Street. Six
streets * two locations * two directions = 24 signs.
Three signs in each direction along the southern east-west streets (Bleeker and Hallam). Two streets * three locations *
two directions = 12 signs.
Two signs in each direction along the northern east-west streets (Francis and W. Smuggler). Two streets * two locations
* two directions = 8 signs
This adds up to a total of 44 speed limit signs. Assuming a total of eight existing signs, this would be an increase of 36 signs.
Brief Summary
Pros: Higher end speeds are likely to be reduced after implementation.
Cons: The reduction in speeds may not be significant, especially if the posted speed limit is already low.
Cost: The estimated cost for a complete-in-place new speed limit sign with post is $400, plus a mobilization cost. For the
addition of 36 new sign locations, it is assumed that this would take three days. With a mobilization cost of approximately
$4,000 to $5,000, the estimated cost is approximately $20,000 for the entire West End .
Recommendation: This study recommends considering the installation of additional speed limit signs to reduce speeding
over the posted speed limit.
2. Street markings and flexible delineators
Street markings and flexible delineators can be placed on a seasonal basis at a relatively low cost, as compared to more intensive
traffic calming measures. These may be used to provide center striping, stop bars, curb extensions, delineation of on-street
parking areas and diagonal cross hatching. An example is shown below in Figure 11. The appropriate treatment for any given
block will depend on the width of the street, which varies as shown in Figure 12, Pavement Widths in the West End
Neighborhood.
69
1675 Larimer Street, Suite 400
Denver, CO 80202
303.339.0440
16 | P a g e www.consoreng.com
Figure 11: Potential Striping and Delineation Option for the West End
The facility shown above is a typical block with a 40 foot pavement width. The edge line can be reinforced with the addition of
seasonal flexible delineators. Stop bars are shown to help reinforce the stop sign. This block is 40 feet curb-to-curb with
moderately utilized on-street parking on both sides. With the additional of double yellow striping down the middle and eight foot
wide curb returns delineating the on-street parking zones, this would force vehicles to centralize themselves as they pass through
the intersections and would reduce the traveled way to 24 feet for both directions. This perceived loss of width can reduce travel
speeds, particularly on the high end, as documented in research.
An article in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Journal (RK Engineering Group, 2011) 15, titled “Roadway Striping as a
Traffic Calming Option” describes options that were tested and results that were achieved. A review of traffic calming striping as
an alternative to vertical or horizontal displacement traffic calming devices such as speed humps, speed cushions, chokers,
70
1675 Larimer Street, Suite 400
Denver, CO 80202
303.339.0440
17 | P a g e www.consoreng.com
Figure 12: Pavement Widths in the West End Neighborhood
Source: City of Aspen Geographical Information Systems (GIS) Unit
71
1675 Larimer Street, Suite 400
Denver, CO 80202
303.339.0440
18 | P a g e www.consoreng.com
medians, pavement textures, and other roadway design features was conducted. Traffic calming striping has been shown to
reduce speeds effectively as a first step of a traffic calming process. Four case studies were conducted, with a reduction of speeds
ranging from two to more than seven miles per hour. Striping is a low-cost traffic calming solution that can have major benefits to
the community compared to other vertical / horizontal displacement traffic calming devices, yet still provides substantial benefits
in terms of reducing traffic speeds on the roadways. These roadway striping techniques follow standard design practice, which
reduces future tort liability. Traffic striping is a cost-effective and efficient traffic calming method that can be implemented
quickly to reduce speeds on roadways.
Brief Summary
Pros: Higher end speeds are likely to be reduced after implementation
Cons: A certain number of flexible delineators will require maintenance
Cost: For two intersections and the block in-between, it would cost $1,200 for striping elements and $4,000 for 40
delineators plus mobilization. It is assumed that installation of striping would take one day and the delineators would
take two days. With a mobilization cost of approximately $2,500 to $3,000 for the striping contractor and $3,500 to
$4,000 for the delineator contractor, the estimated cost = approximately $11,000 to $13,000. Although the delineators
are flexible, the potential exists that some may become broken which would require replacement.
Recommendation: This option would improve safety within the West End, but the City will need to weigh the potential
benefits against the annual implementation costs.
3. Create pedestrian safe route on one side by eliminating parallel parking on the other side
This option would employ pavement markings and seasonal flexible delineators to define a pedestrian safe route. This route
would be connected from block to block by crosswalks. An example is shown below in Figure 13. It includes the stop bars, curb
extensions and center striping that are a part of Figure 11.
Figure 13: Create Pedestrian Safe Routes with the West End, while narrowing available vehicular travel width
72
1675 Larimer Street, Suite 400
Denver, CO 80202
303.339.0440
19 | P a g e www.consoreng.com
The facility shown above is a typical block with a 40 foot pavement width. The edge lines may be reinforced with the addition of
seasonal flexible delineators or not, as is currently the case for the pedestrian facility on 4 th Street. With this option, the block
would have on-street parking only on the north side. Elimination of on-street parking on the south side would increase the
utilization on the north side. With a 10 foot wide pedestrian facility on the south side and eight foot wide on-street parking on the
north side, this would reduce the traveled way to 22 feet for both directions.
Brief Summary
Pros: Protected pedestrian zone will provide a safer space for residents to walk in.
Cons: Residents on one side of the street would lose on-street parking
Cost: For two intersections and the block in-between, $2,600 for striping elements, $4,000 for 40 delineators in the curb
extensions and $1,200 for 12 delineators along the protected pedestrian zone, plus mobilization. It is assumed that
installation of striping would take one day and the delineators would take three days. With a mobilization cost of
approximately $2,500 to $3,000 for the striping contractor and $4,000 to $5,000 for the delineator contractor, the
estimated cost = approximately $15,000 to $18,000. Although the delineators are flexible, the potential exists that some
may become broken which would require replacement.
Recommendation: This option would improve safety within the West End, especially for pedestrians, but the City will
need to weigh the potential benefits against the annual implementation costs and the loss of some on-street parking.
Input from impacted residents regarding this trade-off will be critical.
Conclusion and Potential Next Steps
The primary purpose of this study is to evaluate three elements of the transportation infrastructure within the West End
neighborhood, which are: Decrease speed limit from 20 to 15 mph; Install four-way stop controls at additional intersections;
Consider additional crosswalks. Additionally, this study has created and evaluated other options that would use additional signage,
pavement marking and / or seasonal flexible delineators to help improve safety within the West End Neighborhood.
Travel speeds along streets in the West End Neighborhood do not exceed the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Policy and therefore
does not trigger the “Speeding Threshold”. Accordingly, a reduction in the speed limit from 20 to 15 mph is not warranted. If
implemented, it is expected that there would be a negligible decrease in average and 85th percentile speeds. It is expected that
decreasing speed limits to below their warranted level would result in decreased compliance with the posted speed limits, increased
speed variability and reduced safety. If implemented, the unwarranted reduction in the speed limit from 20 to 15 mph would be
expected to have a negligible impact on commuter and tourist traffic volumes that occur due to congestion on Main Street.
This study concludes that there is currently an appropriate placement of stop signs within the West End. If more stop signs are
added that are not warranted, driver compliance will likely decrease. Additionally, drivers accelerate rapidly in mid-block areas,
causing noise and air pollution to increase. With decreased compliance, it is expected that safety would decrease. The West End
already has a relatively high density of stop signs which has not deterred the high volume of commuter and tourist vehicles that
enter during congested periods. The addition of additional unwarranted stop signs would be expected to have a negligible impact
on commuter and tourist traffic volumes that occur due to congestion on Main Street.
The purpose of crosswalks is to connect pedestrian, bike / pedestrian or bike facilities across roads and streets. A review of existing
crosswalk installations found that they are appropriately placed There are a limited number of sidewalks or other pedestrian
infrastructure in the West End, so there are limited options for additional crosswalks, unless additional pedestrian infrastructure is
installed.
This study recommends considering the installation of additional speed limit signs and an educational campaign to reduce speeding
over the posted speed limit. Additionally, options involving pavement marking and seasonal flexible delineators are recommended
for further discussion.
73
1675 Larimer Street, Suite 400
Denver, CO 80202
303.339.0440
20 | P a g e www.consoreng.com
List of References
1. Fox Tuttle Transportation Group. (2022). City of Aspen -West End Neighborhood Traffic Study
2. City of Aspen. (2021). Neighborhood Traffic Calming Policy
3. City of Aspen. (2022). West End Traffic Calming and Traffic Evaluation
4. Colorado Revised Statutes. (2016). Title 42 42-4-1102
5. Tefft, B. C. (2011). Impact Speed and a Pedestrian's Risk of Severe Injury or Death. Washington DC: AAA Foundation for
Traffic Safety. Retrieved from https://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/2011PedestrianRiskVsSpeed.pdf
6. National Transportation Safety Board. (2017). Reducing Speeding-Related Crashes. Washington DC: National
Transportation Safety Board. Retrieved from https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studies/documents/ss1701.pdf
7. FHWA, Effects of Raising and Lowering Speed Limits on Selected Roadway Sections, January 1997
8. N. J. Garber and R. Gadiraju. Ravi (1988). Speed Variance and Its Influence on Accidents. AAA Foundation for Traffic
Safety, 1988.
9. City of Sunnyvale. (2004). Canary Drive Traffic Calming - Post Implementation Study. Retrieved from
https://archive.sunnyvale.ca.gov/Files/RTC/2004/20040302/04-060.pdf
10. U.S. Department of Transportation. (2009). Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways
Washington DC: Federal Highway Administration. Retrieved from
https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009/mutcd2009edition.pdf
11. The Sheridan Press. (2017, December 29). The History behind uncontrolled intersections. Retrieved from The Sheridan
Press: https://www.thesheridanpress.com/news/local/the-history-behind-uncontrolled-intersections/article_4a6a2ada-
95a5-50aa-98a0-0c12c3e11b18.html
12. Bretherton, W. M. (1999). Multi-way Stops - The Research shows the MUTCD is Correct! Transportation Research
International Documentation
13. Anderson, J. C., Monsere, C., & Kothuri, S. (2020). Effect of Residential Street Speed Limit Reduction from 25 mph to 20
mph on Driving Speeds in Portland, Oregon. Portland: Portland Bureau of Transportation. Retrieved from
https://www.portland.gov/transportation/vision-zero/documents/effect-residential-street-speed-limit-reduction-25-20-
mi-hr/download
14. Seattle Department of Transportation. (2020). Speed Limit Cases. Seattle: Seattle Department of Transportation.
Retrieved from
https://www.seattle.gov/documents/Departments/SDOT/VisionZero/SpeedLimit_CaseStudies_Report.pdf
15. Khan, R., & Goedecke, A. K. (2011). Roadway Striping as a Traffic Calming Option. ITE Journal
74