HomeMy WebLinkAboutresolution.council.001A-97 $OINT RESOLUTION NO. 1 Series of 1997
A IOINT RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
PITI<IN COUNTY. TH~ CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, AND THE
TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE ENDORSING
WITH CERTAIN CONDITIONS ~ PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE SELECTED
BY TI-IE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, FEDERAL
HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION, AND THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION AS SUBMITTED. IN THAT CERTAIN FINAL
ENB/ll{ONMENTAL IN[PACT STATEMENT AND 4(0 EVALUATION FOR THE
STATE HIGHWAY 82 ENTRANCE TO ASPEN TRANSPORTATION
I~VIPROVEMENT PROJECT DATED AUGUST 1, 1997.
WKEREAS, the Entrance to Aspen h~ been a matter of significant debate and
discussion for over the past ~venty years; and
WHEREAS. the City Council of the City of Aspen, the Board of County
Commissioners of Pitlcin County and the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass
Village (~Elected Officials') pledged ~o work together cooperatively with CDOT to
resolve the upper Roaring Fork Valley transportation issues in a Joint Resolution' dated
October 1992; and
WI-IE. REAS, in November 1993, the PitKin County electorate approved a 1/2 cent
sales and use tax for the purposes of increasiug bus service, constructing park-and-ride
facilities, acquiring the valley rail right-of-way, and developing a fixed guideway
transportation solution to connect Aspen, Snowmass Village and downvalley locations;
WHEREAS, A Draft Environmental Impact Statement ("DEIS') and draft Section
4(f) evaluation was issued on August 14, 1995, by the U.S. Depaxttuent of
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration ("FHWA') and the Depa~m~ent of
Page I
Tran~pomtion. State of Colorado. (~CDOT') pursuant m the National Environmental
Policy Act and the Department of Transportation Act for the State Highway 82 En=ance
to Aspen Transportation Improvement Project: and
WI-IEREAS, a Draft Supplemental Envirom'nentai Impact Statement and Section
4(f) Evaluation (~DSEIS") was issued on July 18, 1996, as a supplement to the DEIS to
evaluate four additional ~ransportation alternatives for the State Highway 82 Entrance to
Aspen Transportation Improvement Project; and'
WHEREAS, on November 5. 1996. the City of Aspen electorate approved ballot
question 2A regarding the use of City owned property for a two lane parkway and a
corridor for a light rail transit system subject to cemin conditions: and
WHEREAS, the Elected Officials fully recognize and appreciate CDOT's
responsiveness in responding to the ¢ommumty's concerns, and
WHEREAS. a Final Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation
(~FEIS") was issued on August 1. 1997. as a culmination of the Entrance to Aspen
Environmental Impact Statement process; and
WHEREAS, the Elected Officials have determined at their meeting of September
11, 1997, that the Preferred Alternative as a vamtion of the ~Modified Direct
Alternative" originally brought forward in the DSEIS, and further evaluated in the FEIS,
which combines highway improvements, a rail system and ~ transportation management
(TM) program is acceptable, subject to the conditions set forth below; and
Page
WHEREAS, the Elected Officials endorse the Preferred Alternative only as an
integral part of a valley-wide transportation system for which the right-of-way has been
purchased and corridor evaluation is in progress; and
WHEREAS, the Elected Officials endorse the Preferred Alternative only if the
rail system extends to Brush Creek Road. providing direct ~ansportation links upvalley,
downvalley and to the Town of Snowmass Village; and
WHEREAS, the Elected Officials fully recogniTe and again hereby commit to the
need for timely local elections on funding and authorization to use public open space: and
WHEREAS, the Preferred Alternative, subject to the conditions set forth below.
supports and maintains the long-term Financial sustainability of yalley-wide RFTA ~ransit
service: and
WHEREAS, the Preferred Alternative, subjec~ to the conditions set forth below,
best ful£flls the project objectives and the agreed-upon project need and intent statements.
and provides the opportunity for changes in future design decisions; and
WHEREAS, the FEIS states that implementation of the Preferred Alternative "is
contingent on actiom by the City of Aspen, Pitlcin County, Snowmass Village, CDOT,
FI-IWA, and the private sector." ' _ - ~ ~ :: -.=.~ = · , S-11); and
WHEREAS, the Elected Officials have carefully reviewed the preferred
alternative in the FEIS and all supporting documentation, reports, analyses, and board
and commission comments; and
WHEREAS. the .Elected Officials desire to comm~micate to the CDOT and
FHWA their commitment to undertake the actions necessary to implement the
Page 3
transportation solutions as proposed in the FEIS, and subject to the conditions contained
herein: and
WHEREAS, the Elected Officials desire to express their opinion in the strongest
possible tenm that a Uno-build" alternative is unacceptable to the Elected Officials; and
WHEREAS. the Elected Officials recognize that the ~Phased Modified Direct"
alternative identified in the DSEIS is a more costly and more environmentally damaging
alternative which can be environmentally cleared and evaluated for 4(f) compliance: and
WHEREAS, in the evem that the Preferred Alternative is determined to be
impossible to implement, the Elected Officials (while not endorsing the "Phased Modified
Direct" alternative are willing to allow its inclusion in the Record of Decision as having
completed the enmronmental clearance and 4(f) evaluation screening process; and
WHEREA~S, public comments are due by November 5, 1997.
NOW, THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
1. IIllrg_4g.C_tJ~: The Elected Officials recognize that implementation of the
preferred alternative will require certain commitments from and phased
actions by the governmental entities represented by the Elected Officials,
as well as CDOT, FI-IWA, FTA. and the private sector. To avoid
unnecessary delays in the implementation of the preferred alternative,
particularly the highway component, which could be caused by the
inaction of any of the requisite participants, the EleCted Officials, by this
Resolution, desire m unequivocally make the requisite commitments [o
ensure the successful implementation of the preferred alternative. This
commitment is contingent on a vote of the people to fund the system, :n
the system serving Brash Creek Road, and on the assurance that the upper
valley link ~s a parr of a valley-wide system. Similarly, the Elected
Officials respectfully request that CDOT, FHWA, and FTA make similar
commiunents, described herein as condhi, ons,. to ensure an orderly and
phased progression towards implementation.
P~e4
2. Timing of Implementation: The Preferred Alternative as described in the
FEIS should be designed and constructed with all deliberate speed;
subject, however, to the conditions set forth herein.
3. Conditions: The Preferred Alternative and the commitments set forth
herein are specifically conditioned upon the following:
a. The conditions included in the September 1996 Joint Resolution No. 1
are herein incorporated by reference and attached as Exhibit A.
b. All comments, conditions and commitments should be understood in
the context of the Elected Officials' commitment to the' completion of a
valley-wide rail system as soon as the demand is demonstrated and the
funding is in place for each logical segment. The Entrance to Aspen
Preferred Alternative is one link in the valley-wide transportation system
which should run from Rubey Park to Brash Creek Road and on to
Glenwood Springs. This link should be constructed only as parr of a-
valley-wide transportanon system and only after a vote of the people.
Timely completion of the Preferred Alternative in conjunction with a
valley-wide rail system and an effective Snowmass to Aspen transportation
link fully meets the project objectives and fulfills the project need and
intent sramments.
c. The Record of Decision (ROD) should identify those highway
improvements that would be exempt from NEPA (i.e., safety
improvements) and which would be eligible for federal/state/local 'ffinding
and early construction irrespective of their ability to be classified as
elements of the Preferred Alternative. A large section of the FEIS
corridor lies within CDOT's current Highway 82 right-of-way and
improvements along this section should not require all conditions of the
Record of Decision to be met before proceeding with these early action
items as soon as possible to improve safety and capacity on the highway.
d. The ROD should identify those highway improvements that are
common elements of both the preferred alternative and. the "Phased
Modified Direct" alternative identified in the DSEIS as the preferred
alternative. This would permit CDOT and local officials to identify and
expedite construction of portions of the proposed highway improvements
that are not irreparably tied to the light mt system, and thus their
construction is not conditional upon a local fimncing scheme for the rail
component to be in place. Included in this class of common elements
would be those interim or phased portions of the project that would not
change the 4(f) analysis undertaken in the DSEIS and FEIS regardless of
the alternative ultimately constructed. Such early action highway
improvements include but are not limited to construction of bus priority
Page 5
lanes wherever feasible between Maroon Creek Road and the airport,
relocation of Owl Creek Road and West Buttermilk Road and construction
of the relocated Owl Creek Road/SH 82 intersection, construction of the
Maroon Creek Road/SH82 roundabout intersection and the Moore Transit
Center designed to accommodate bus or rail transfer activities.
e. If needed to satisfy CDOT's concerns regarding a formal commirrnent
for the local financing of the tight mil system, the ROD should identify,
elements of the Preferred Alternative that are specifically conditioned upon
a successful bonding election or proof of the availability of other local
financing for the light rail system.
f. The ROD should expand the analysis of and make recommendations
regarding mitigation measures throughout the alignment, with particular
attention to mitigation of impacts on historic resources, open space, and
the properties adjacent ro the alignment between Castle Creek and Rubey
Park. These impacts were of particular concern to the Citizens Design
Task Force. and the Elected Officials request that CDOT review and
further analyze the mitiganon measures recommended in the Task Force
report previously submitted.
g. The ROD should commit CDOT to specific consrmcnon mitigation
measures designed to mianimi?e trnpacrs on RFTA bus operations--
including, but not limited to, the following:
1. CDOT should create or construct bus slip lanes througho~at the
Highway 82 corridor, wherever and whenever necessary and
feasible, as determined by mutual agreement of RFTA. the Elected
Officials. and CDOT; thereby improving the convenience of transit
services, helping [o reduce highway congestion, and reducing
transit'operating and capital costs.
2. CDOT shall consistently and carefully coordinate construction and
routine maintenance schedules with RFTA. and give adequate
advance notice regarding these activities, so that trami.t services
can be modified accordingly, and the public can be notified and
encouraged to use transit; thereby helping to reduce highway
congestion.
3. CDOT should implement a mitigation strategy to use or create
intercept parking Iot facilities, above and below construction
bottleneck areas, in conjunction with high frequency RFTA shuule
service through construction zones; thereby helping ro reduce
highway congestion..
4. CDOT shall provide operating and capital assistance for RFTA
transit services requked ro mitigate the impacts of consmction,
similar to the financial suppor~ provided by CDOT for RFTA
shuttle service during the Frying Pan Bridge reconstruction project
Page 6
in Basalt: thereby enabling RFTA m respond m increased demand
for transit services throughout the construction pe~riod, and l~elping
te reduce highway congestion.
5. CDOT should provide adequate financial/personnel resources
throughout the construction period to maintain a consmtent public
information effort that keeps the public informed of construction
activities, and consistently promotes the use of public transit and
carpooling; thereby helping to reduce highway congestion.
h. The south-side location of the rails from the vicinity of Brush Creek
Road m the corner of Monarch and Main Street has been strongly
preferred through extensive community involvement during the Citizens
Design Task Force process, and is preferred by the Aspen City Council,
with the explicit understanding that all pedestrian and vehicular safety
concerns should be addressed during the design phase and that all
environmental and neighborhood impacts should be effectively rmtigated
through the joint efforts of federal, state and local governments. The
August tg, 1997, ,Wain Street Design Repor~ is hereby incorporated by
reference and forwarded to CDOT m summarize the results of the
extensive community participation in the conceptual design work done to
date on a potential south-side rail system.
i. The Elected Officials accept the inclusion of the 3,600 space Airport
Multimodal Facility in the FEIS for environmental clearance purposes
only: The amber of spaces at the mnltimodal facility will be phased as
the need arises. The need for spaces at that location is contingent uptn the
high ~owth assumptions for summer parking demand and the comminnent
to maintain future traffic volumes at 1994 levels. As such, the Elected
Officials seek m greatly reduce the demand for spaces at the airport
location by placing more spaces at appropmte locations throughout the
Roaring Fork Valley (e.g., Brush Creek Road, Basalt, E1 Jebel,
Carbondale, Glenwood Springs, etc.) and by capturing more raps on a
valley-wide rail system. The Elected Officials are dedicated to solutions
that will permanently avoid the nejd ro construct such a 3,600 space
parking garage. To the extent that parking and multimodal center facilities
of any size are required within the SH82 corridor, the Elected Officials
request that CDOT keep its prior promises to fully fund and construct
these facilities.
j. The Elected Officials accept the designation of the Buttermilk
Multimodal Facility as the commuter bus transfer point in the FEIS for
environmental clearance purposes only. Extension of the first link of the
Page 7
rail system to Brush Creek Road would indicate that the Brush Creek
Road facility should be the commuter bus ~ransfer point until such rime as
valley-wide rail is consumcted. CDOT and the Elected Officials should
continue to work closely with the Aspen Skiing Company and other
affected parties to fro'thor refine the conceptual development of the
Buttermilk Multimodal Center as it relates to skier movement between
Aspen and Snowmass Village. To the extent that parking and multimodal
center facilities of any size are required within the SH82 corridor, the
Elected Officials request that CDOT keep its prior promises to fully fund
and construct these facilities.
k. Because phased multimodal facilities located throughout the valley are
requisite system components in order for the Preferred Alternatives of
both the Entrance to Aspen and the Basalt to Buttermilk FEIS to meet the
project objectives and to fulfill the project need and intent statements, the
Elected Officials request that CDOT keep its previous promises to fund
and construct those facilities and ro purchase fifteen additional buses on an -
expedited schedule concurrent with SH82 improvements.
1. The Elected Officials request that CDOT commit to refurbishing and
maintaining the existing Maroon Creek Bridge for use as a single-track rail
su'ucture and to constructing a new Maroon Creek Bridge to. accommodate
two highway lanes, a raised median, an emergency shoulder and a
pedestrian/bike trail. The new bridge shall be designed with particular
attention to providing a substructure which is complementary to the
existing railroad bridge and which facilitates safe pedestrian/bicycle
movements.
m. The Elected Officials request that CDOT commit to working closely
with the commurfity during the design phase to further refine the Maroon
Creek Road intersection and the Moore Transit Station in order to
minimize the footprint and the cuts into the hillside on the Moore properay
and to shift the intersection to the north and east to the maximum extent
feasible.
n. The Elected Officials request that CDOT commit to further review of
the options for the length and placement of the' cut and cover tunnel in
order to mitigate the open space mupacts and to maximize the aesthetic and
operational features of the new alignment.
o. The Elected Officials request that CDOT cornnm to quality design and
consu'uctinn of the new Castle Creek Bridge and to careful review of the
grade of the crossing m order to minimize impacts on the crossing itself
and as pan of the mitigation for impacts on both the Marolt property and
. the neighborhood east of Castle Creek.
Page
p. The Elected Officials request that CDOT refine the Main Street traffic
operations analysis and maxnnize the level of service along Main Street
and across the modified direct alignment by providing ~smart" traffic
signals that facilitate vehicle platooning, by careful design of the merge
point of westbound traffic at 7th and Main. and by appropriate design to
allow safe vehicle acceleration between 7th Street and Maroon Creek
Road.
q. With the south gide rail alignment along Main Street, Monarch Street
is the preferred LRT connection to Durant Avenue since it provides
superior transk service to the Commercial Core and minififizes anpacts on
adjacent properties. A one-way couplet alignment in conjunction with
Aspen Street will allow retention of angle parking along the west side of
Monarch Street and will resolve potential rail-traffic conflicts.
r. The Record of Decision should explicitly spell out the individual
elements or components of the project and identify which
elements/components will become the responsibility of the local
governments to finance and wh/ch will be covered by state and/or federal
funds. In addition to cost allocations, the ROD should, ar least on a
preliminary basis, explain the relationship between the parues with respect
to procurement policies, project management and timing. This
information is critical in order for the local governmental entities to design
and develop a financing strategy that will be clearly understood by the
electorate. An election to approve public debt must be preced6d by
accurate financial inf6rmation so that the electorate understands the nature
and scope of the local cost of the light rail system component of the
project.
s. CDOT shall ensure integration of the Preferred Alternative with the
Snowmass to Aspen link, the BBFEIS preferred alternative, and valley-
wide rail. CDOT shall identify and resolve inconsistencies between this
EIS and the BBFEIS. The two EIS processes must result in an effective
integrated Basalt to Aspen u'ansportation system.
t. The Elected Officials request CDOT plarafing and technical assistance
with the formation of a valley-wide transportation district.
u. The Elected Officials request CDOT assistance with the establishment,
management and monitoring of the TDM measures that are critical to the
success of the Preferred Alternative.
v. The Elected Officials request that CDOT include trail system
improvements and relocations, including a pedestdarffbicycle underpass
P~e9
between Maroon Creek Road and Maroon Creek Bridge, and a trail along
the south side of SH82 from Buttermilk connecting to the existing trail
system at Maroon Creek Road.
w. The Elected Officials request CDOT's financial assistance by
providing the $900.000 necessary to complete the MIS/CIS on the valley
mil corridor.
4. .G_qllllllilllled~: The Elected Officials hereby commit to take the
following actions to ensure implementation of the Preferred Alternative as
conditioned herein:
a. The commitments included in the September 1996 Joint Resolution No.
1 are herein incorporated by reference, and attached as Exhibit A.
b. The Elected Officials commit to proceeding jointly with CDOT,
federal agencies and other participating valley jurisdictions on timely
completion of the Major Investment Study component of the Corridor
Investment Study no later than June 30. 1998, ro answer many of the
questions regarding a valley-wide rail system and integration of the
Entrance to Aspen Preferred Alternative with other valley ~zanspormtion
system components.
c. The Elected Officials commit conceptually to proceeding jointly with
the Aspen Skiing Company, CDOT. and the upper valley commqn~ry on
determining the most appropriate linkages between the Preferred
.Mternative and Snowmass Village and between the Preferred Alternative
and destinations up the Maroon/Castle Creek Valleys.
d. The Elected Officials commit to proceeding jointly with the other
jurisdictions in the Roaring Fork Valley on the creation of a regional
a'ansp0rtation district.
e. The Elected Officials commit to utilizing local resources (i.e., county
use mx, city funds, private development mitigation funding, and/or 1/2
cent mmsit sales and use tax) to expedite completion of the following early
action construction items, if they are not precluded by the Record of
Decision: additional bus bypass lanes. Maroon Creek Road intersection
improvements, and improvements to signalized intersections.
f. The Elected Officials cornrmt to placing before their respective electors
whatever ballot questions may be necessary to obtain approval for the use
of public open spaces and to implement the funding participation plan for
the upper valley rail system. Because the Entrance to Aspen project will
primarily affect the citizens, economy and quality of life of the City of
Page 10
Aspen, the Elected Officials recognize that no alternative may be
implemented without a concurring vote by the electors of the City of
Aspen.
g. The Elected Officials commi[ ~o continuing consultant analys~s, open
public involvement and a citizen task force approach in furthering
community consensus on appropriate rail technology selection, operating
scenarios (single vs. double track, headways, etc.), and rail system
mitigation measures in order to provide answers m the electorate's
questions about the mil component prior to any election seeking bonding
authority.
$. Environmental Clearance of "Phased Modified Direct" Alternative:
The Elected Officials, by adopting this joint resolution, recognize that they
will have committed themselves to placing before their respective electors
whatever ballot questions may be necessary to obtain approval for the use
of public open spaces and to adopt a funding scheme for the local share of
the rail component included in the Preferred Alternative. While all
indications suggest very strong support for the Preferred Alternative by
the local community, the comment to seek reqmsite voter approval
cannot be a guarantee that the local electors will authorize the use of open
space or a pamcular financing scheme in the future. Accordingly, the
Elected Officials are concerned that. if implementation of the Preferred
Alternative becomes impossible, the process for consideration of the
"Phased Modified Direct" alternative, (even though it is a more
environmentally damaging approach), not be foreclosed by a costly and
time consuming delay. To address this concern, the Elected Officials
request that the Record of Decision include the following:
a. Identification of all alternatives considered by CDOT in reaching
its decision, specifically identifying both the Preferred Alternative selected
m the FEIS and the "Phased Modified Direct" alternative identified in the
DSEIS. The Record of Decision should also contain a full discussion of
CDOT's preference of the Preferred Alternative selected in the FEIS over
the "Phased Modified Direct" alternative based on relevant factors
including economic and teclmical considerations and CDOT's statutory
mi~ston. The relevant factors identified and discussed should include any
considerations of national policy which were balanced by CDOT in
making its decision and how those considerations entered into its decision.
See 40 CFR Section 1502.2('o). This comment recogTdzes that if this
suggestion is followed, the Record of Decision would identify two
alternatives that clear the NEPA and Section 4(f) evaluation process: the
Preferred Alternative as the environmentally superior solution and the
Page 11
"Phased Modified Direct" alternative as a more environmentally damaging
approach.
b. The Record of Decision could include a clear and concise
statement of the process to be followed m any future determination
regard'rog the feasibility of proceeding with the Phased Modified Direct
alternative including any additional local, state and federal commitments
that may be necessary.
c, The Record of Decision should provid~ the environmental
clearances and 4(f) evaluation necessary to impleme, nt the "Phased
Modified Direct" alternative, should that become necessary. The platform
to receive such clearances and evaluation would be as is described in the
DSEIS as follows:
Buttermilk to the Maroon Creek Bridge: 112 feet
Maroon Creek Bridge: 73 feet
Maroon Creek Bridge to Maroon Creek Road: 101 feet
Castle Creek Bridge: 73 feet
Maroon Creek Road to 7th and Main: 93.5 feet
Cut and Cover Tunnel: 73 feet
d. If the ~Phased Modified Direct" alternative receives environmental
clearance and 4(f) evaluation, the Record of Decision must specifically
reference the requirement that any asphalt or concrete pavement.width
required to consumct the "Phased Modified Direct" alternative must be
removed if, and when. the Preferred Alternative is implemented.
e. If the "Phased Modified Direct" alternative receives environmental
clearance, the Record of Decision should clearly indicate that the outside
up and down valley lanes included in the description of the "Phased
Modified Direct" alternative must be designated for bus use only. No
modification of this restriction should ever be allowed without the consent
of the Elected Officials and the voters of the City of Aspen.
Page 12
RESOLVED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day of
of County Coram~ssioners oI Pitkin olorado.
Chair, Board~of County Commissioners
RESOLVED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day of
November, 1997, by the City Council for the City of Aspen, Colorado.
Mayor, City of Aspen
RESOLVED, APPROVED, Ai~D ,ADOPTED th~s day of
November, 1997, by the Town Council for the Town o~n ~nass Village, Colorado.
t~Ma. yT~or, Town of Snowmass. Village
f¢iscol$.do¢ ' '
P~e IS
IOINT RESOLUTION NO.
Series of 1996
A IOINT RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN
COUNTY. THE.CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN. A~'qD THE TOWN COUNCIL OF
THE TOWN OF SNOWlVlASS VILLAGE ENDORSING WITH CERTAIN CONDITIONS THE
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE SELECTED BY THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION, FEDERAL /-IIGI-tWAY ADMINISTRATION, AND THE COLORADO
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AS SUBMITTED IN THAT CERTAIN DRAFT
SUPPLEMENTAL ENXrI~ONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND 4(f) EVALUATION FOR
THE STATE HZGI-IWAY 82 ENTRANCE TO ASPEN TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT DATED IULY 18, 1996.
WHEREAS. A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (~DEIS') and draft Section 4(0
evaluation was issued on August 14, 1995, by the U.S. Depatmxenr of Transporratiom Federal
Highway Administration ("FHWA') and the Department of Transportation, State of Colorado,
("CDOT") pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act and the Department of
Transportation Act for the State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen Transportation Improvement
Project: and
WHEREAS. a Draft Supplementary Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f)
Evaluation ("DSEIS') was issued on luly I8, I996, as a supplement to the DEIS to evaluate four
additional transportation alternatives for the State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen Transportation
Improvement Project; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkiu County, and the Councils of
the City of Aspen and the Town of Snownmss Village ("Elected Officials") have carefully
.reviewed the four additional alternatives ~onsidered in the DSEIS and all supporting
documentation, reports, analysis, and board and commission comments; and
-- 1
commitments to ensure the successful implementation of the preferred alternative.
Similarly, the Elected Officials respectfully request that CDOT, FI-YvVA, and FTA
make similar commitments, described herein as conditions, to ensure an orderly
and phased progression towards implementation.
2. -- -~ -. -- ,-'v.: The "Modified Direct' alignment as described ~n the
DSEIS should be designed a~d constructed with all deliberate speed; subject,
however, to the conditions set forth below.
3. ~: The recommended preferred alternative and the commitments set
forth herein are specifically conditioned upon the following:
a. The Modified Direct.Alignment with a cut-and-cover segment is acceptable, as
long as no more than mo widely-separated traffic lanes with adequate shoulders
are constructed and a double rail platform is provided.
b. Valley-wide rail is the preferred technology. The rail construction for each
segment shall proceed when the demand is demonstrated and the funding is in
place.
c. The total platform shall be as narrow as possible, consistent with community
character and the desire for the travel lanes to be separated by a grassy median.
d. The location of the rails (south vs. center alignment) will be determined with
extensive community involvement during the fi_ual design process.
e. Impacts on open space and neighborhoods must be managed and mitigated.
f. Potential revenues can be developed to fund a valley-wide rail system if a
regional approach is taken. Project development depends on the development of
the funding plan.
g. CDOT and the impacted jurisdictions shall cooperate on project design and
implementation priorities.
h. The Entrance-to-Aspen project must be completely integrated with an
emerging valley-wide rail and bus transpomtion system.
i. State Highway 82 from Brush Creek Road to the Buttermilk Ski Area shall be
designed and constructed to provide a platform for the extension of a rail tzansit
system from the vicinity of the A~pen-Pitkin County Airport to the Brush Creek
Road intersection and beyond.
j. CDOT"shall acquire as soon as possible the property northeast of the Brush
Creek Road intersection (commonly .referred to as the 'Mills Property'), as
3
g. The Elected Officials agree to 'develop the Transportation Management
(~TM") commitments as conceptually outlined in the ~Incremenm[ Approach" of
the DSEIS for the successful implementation of the alternative designed above.
h. The Elected Officials commk to supporting and maintaining the long term
financial sustainability of RFTA.
RESOLVED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this ~:?~day of September, 1996,
by the Board of Coun~ Commissioners of Pitkin County, Color'ado.
~-.~Dmin Board of' County Commissioners
RESOLVED, APPROVED. AND ADOPTED tkis2~ day of September,
1996. by the City Council for the City of As~en. Colorado.
Mayoff, City of Aspen
RESOLVED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this ~ day of September,
i9c)6, by the Town Camcil for the Town of Snowmass V~l]kge£Cok~rado. ? ~
Ma~,'Towfl of ~nowma~ Village
Pro Tem, Douglas Mercatoris