HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19910115
_....
',...
'--~
AGENDA
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
January 15, 1991, Tuesday
4:30 P.M.
2nd Floor Meeting Room
city Hall
VALLEY LIGHT RAIL ALIGNMENT
,
~~
I A :4 Wyle)
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Cindy Christensen, Planning Office
RE: Upcoming Meetings
DATE: January 10, 1991
This is a list of your scheduled upcoming meetings.
Regular Meeting, January 22nd
1001 Ute Avenue PUD/8040/Conditional Use (PH) (KJ)
Hamilton ADU Conditional Use (PH) (KJ)
Golf Course PUD Amendment: Nordic Council Lighted Skiing
(tabled from January 8) (PH) (KJ)
Regular Meeting, February 5th
Brew Pub (Flying Dog) Conditional Use (PH) (LL)
a. nex
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Tom Baker, Assistant City Manager
RE: Valley Light Rail Alignment
DATE: January 15, 1990
PURPOSE: The purpose of this memorandum is to inform the P&Z on
progress regarding the Valley Light Rail project. At the meeting
tonight staff will make a presentation regarding the alignment
issue and gather input from the P&Z regarding preference, if
appropriate. Staff would also like any feedback on potential
issues which have not been taken into consideration. For P&Z's
information I have attached the information packet which was sent
to the elected officials prior to there last meeting.
NOTE: Originally, we intended to have a joint meeting with
two items on tonight's agenda: highway and rail;
however, the County P&Z is meeting from 9-5 and they
felt it was more appropriate to meet jointly next week.
TO: Aspen City Council
Pitkin County Board of Commissioners
Snowmass Village Town Council
THRU: Carol O'Dowd, City Manager
Reid Haughey, County Manager
FROM: Tom Newland, Assistant County Manag poi
Tom Baker, Assistant City Manager
RE: Valley Light Rail Alignment Through Pitkin County Into
Aspen
DATE: December 7, 1990
PURPOSE: The purpose of this memorandum is to provide elected
officials in Pitkin County with information from consultants,
staff, and the public regarding potential alignments for the
Valley Light Rail (VLR) system in Pitkin County. Some of this
information may be redundant because much of it has been
distributed to the Aspen City Council over the last three (3)
months; however, staff has compiled this information into one
packet for everyones convenience.
This packet is informational and is distributed as quickly as
possible in order to provide reader with adequate time for review
prior to the meeting on December 12. In addition 'to this
memorandum, staff and the consultants will develop a
recommendation at our meeting Monday December 10. This
recommendation will be put into memo form and distributed on
Tuesday, December 11, 1990.
SUMMARY OF PACKET INFORMATION:
Attachments
Resolution by the Roaring Fork Forum endorsing a Valley
Light Rail System ' - This resolution has been signed all
entities. The resolution provides a list of goal statements
which the VLR system will attempt to achieve.
2 Memorandum dated August 30, 1990, from Bruce Abel. This
summarizes advantages and disadvantages for the alternative
alignment at this point in the process.
3. Bruce Abel's review of Kaiser Report.
4. Memorandum dated October 10, 1990, from Bruce Abel. This
memo updates attachment 2 and summarizes advantages and
disadvantages for the different alignment alternatives (some
sections of this memo have been removed because they do not
pertain to the issue at hand.)
5. Letter dated October 18, 1990, from Bruce Abel to Robert
Moston. This letter requests the CDOH to provide the
community with information regarding the cost of the Shale
Bluffs Bypass. Included in this attachment is Bob Moston's
response which addresses the issue of Shale Bluffs and the
issue of bridge loading requirements for a light rail system
on the proposed highway bridges over Maroon and Castle
creeks.
6 Memorandum dated November 5. 1990, from Bruce Abel. This
memo explains ridership forecasts for each alignment.
7. Memorandum dated November 14, 1990, from Reid Haughey with
response from Bruce Abel. These memos attempt to clarify
issues revolving around the issue of ridership forecasts.
8. Summary of December 4, 1990, meeting between staff and CDOH.
This meeting was held to discuss potential areas of
cooperation between the community and the CDOH if the
community selects the Highway Alignment for the VLR.
9. Summary of Community Meetings on the VLR Alignment
Alternatives.
10.' Summary of Advantages and Disadvantacges of each rail
alignment based upon comments from public meetings.
11. Information Sheet: Capital Costs for Basic VLR System.
12. Housinq Survey Results From Questions About Rail.
rail. info
A 1TA&W M -r
A RESOLUTION BYTHEROARINGFORK FORUM
ENDORSING A VALLEY -WIDE LIGHT -RAIL SYSTEM
WHEREAS, numerous Cities and Towns located in the Roaring Fork Valley
have created the Roaring Fork Forum ("Forum") to address issues of valley -
wide concern; and.
WHEREAS, the Forum is interested in developing a balanced, valleywide
transportation system to protect the valley's health, safety 'and economic
welfare, and to preserve the valley's social diversity, economic vitality
and environmental quality.. . 6
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Forum endorses.as 'critical,
the implementation of a valley -wide light rail system which:
will serve the primary population/activity centers in the
valley, including the City of Glenwood Springs, the Town of
Carbondale, the mid -valley communities in the El Jebel and Basalt
areas, the Town of Snow -mass Village, and the City of Aspen;
will primarily serve local valley commuter. and shopping trips w
also serving valley recreational trips;
will mitigate the negative construction impacts which will accompany
the widening of State Highway 82;
will serve the valley's long-term transportation needs in an energy
efficient manner;
will provide a reliable, realistic, and practical alternative tp
driving an automobile;
will minimize the environmental impact of valley transportation
systems; and
will significantly contribute to energy conservation and improved
•air quality.
Garfield County City of Glenwood
Springs
Eagle County Town of
Carbondale
City of Aspen
City of Rifle
Pitkin County
Town of Snowmass
Village
Town of
New Castle
Town of Basalt
M
A-a
Az it
m ~~ 4 -r z
�EMORANDUM
To: Tom Baker, AspCarl /pitkin Planning FiHat D:CA-Aspen, Rio
Grande
From: Bruce Abel, DAVE Tran tion Date: August 30, 1990
Re: Valleywide Light Rail -
I wuuld like to chance to follow up in writing
with some of my thoughts since our meetings of 8/22/90 and
8/28/90. First of all, I think that it is appropriate for us io
approach the technical aSpects of our valleywide light rail
analysis from at least two (2) different perspectives. The first
perspective would be a more generalized perspective that would be
appropriate for presentaLion to and discussion with thi�g
Fprk Valley Forum, and the second perspective would be a more
detailed perspective for presentation to and discussion with
local units of government. The first perspective, or "Valley
Forum" perspective, would serve to keep the entire forum abreast
of activities related to th v lle id li ht il t d
e a eyw e g ra Spy em an
maintain the "unity" of the project, while the second perspective
would fin greater depth on the issues facing particular
local units of government so as to enable the affected local
units of government to make informed decisions on light rajl
related issues. I believe that if we pursue such a course of
action that we will be able to keep everyone abreast of what is
going on and maintain the "unity" of the project, without unduly
burdening everyone with the detaiIs of local decision making
processes that do not directly concern or involve them. I
believe that we heard a desire for this type of approach
articulated by the Mayor of Glenwood Springs when he commented
that, while it was important for the entire valley to be part of
the process and to support the project, there were local issues
that needed to be decided by local units of government. He also
indicated that while he wanted to know what the decisions were
and how they affected valley -wide coy-icerns, he'didn't feel it
appropriate to get involved in the details of the decision-max kinq
process. His comments were offerred as a result of our rather
detailed discussion of the entrance to Aspen and the alives
under consideration.
Following this dual perspective approach I would suggest
that we utilize our �ime at the 9/13/90 Forum to try to do
� several things; 1> bring everyone up to dete regarding.the work
-�� that has gone on regarding the valley -wide light rail system. I
think this update should focus heavily on the work which SRM has
done thus far. From a technica1 perspective, I think this update
shouId be fairly specific but not overly specific in detail. For
example, I think that we shou1d discuss what the alternative
(I
aIignments
for enterinq
Aspen
are but we should not get into a
detailed
evaluation of
the alternatives.
Similarly, we should
discuss
L|'e alLernative
alignment
which has been identified a� a
possible
entry tu Glenwood
Springs
and indicate that for local
reasons
it is no longer
under
consideration; 2) secure a
resolutioo
from the Forum
in
support of a valley -wide light raiI
transit
system, and; 3)
begin
the process whereby the local units
of gpvernment
throughout
the
valley endorse resolutions in
support
of at valley-wicite
light
raiI transit sysm.
For purposes of securing a resolution S5upporting a valIey-
wide light rail transit system I would suggest tht we till fer the
Forum the fCAL lowing goal statement for conEideration and
discussion:
"To promote the health, safety, and ecoto
Roaring Fork Valley by providing a valley-wid� light ratl
transit system which:
o will primarily serve locOil valley commuters and local
valley shopping trips;
o will serve the primary population/activity centers in t/=
valIey including the City of Glenwood Bprings, the Town of
Carbondale, the emerging "mid -valley" communities in the El
JebeI/BasaIt area(s>, the Town of Snowm-:ass Village, a'`d the
City of As:,pen; and
o will mitigate the negative construction impacts which will
accompany the widening of SH B2."
I bAlieve that the precceding goal statement ref]ects our
discussions of the past sevral weeks and should serve �s a fa�rly
good starting point for discussion.
From OR "local/detaiI" perspective as opposed to in "Forum"
perspective, I think that we have several issues to address. AL
the Glenwood Springs end of the -.Alignmen� I think that we must
conclude that the alternative as proposed by Glen Lee is removed
from further consideraticm given the position of the City of
Blenwoocc' Springs. If we receive something in writing from Glen
that would cause us to reconsider the issue with the City of
Glenwood Springs in the future we can address the issue again at
that time. For now however, I think we need to consider that
aIternative as having been rejected. At the Aspen end of the
alignment we need to con±inue to move forward with our evaluation
of the alternative entrances to Aspen. Towards this end I think
that we can use the pubIic meeting on Thursday evening
opportunity to present the alternatives which have be�n
identified and to discuss pros and cons of the alernaLives wiLh
the community. I hope that we will be able to generate
additional pros and cons as OR result of the meeting and we may
��
even id�nLifv another alLEY rnact ive(s).
In order to further the discussion relative to the
alternative entrances to Aspen I would like to recap some of the
work and analysis which has been undertaken to date. The ICF
Kaiser Engineering report on the Rio Grande right-of-wav (row>
identified three (3) feasible alternative alignments between
Woody Creek and Aspen that could be utilized to bring an
alternative public transit option (including light rail) into the
City of Aspen. These three alignments can be called 1) Rio
Grande, 2) Highway/Main Street, and 3) Highway/Midland. The
three alternatives can generallly be described as follows:
o Rio Grande- follows the existing Rio Grande row from Woody
Creek into the City of Aspenm, rhe terminus of the Rio Grande
alignmenL would be at the Rio Grande park in Aspon;
o Highway/Main Street- would cross the Roarinp Fork River at some
location northwest of the intersection of Brush Creek Road and SH
82 and would then folluw the new highway row ccntering the City of
Aspen along Main Street. The terminus of the Highway/Main Street
alignment would be "generally in the vicinity of the intersection
of Main aod Galena";and
�
\'\ o Highway/Midland- would cross the Roaring Fork River at some
location northwest of the intersection of Brush Creek Road arid SH
82 and would then follow the new highway row up to tFIE! Mar~lt
property at which point it would follow the old Midland row and
Durant Street into Aspen. The terminus of the Highway/Midland
alignment would be the Rubev Park Transit Center on Durant.
For discussion purposes, I think that it would be
appropriate to attempt to highlight the pros and corm of the
alternatives identified by Kaiser and then to identify and lisL
the p'08 and cons of additional alternatives identified
subseouent to the Kaiser studv effort. AccordinuIv, I would like
to offer the following evaluation as a starting poiot for our
discussions:
o Rio Grande-
PROS-
-historically accurate row,
-existing row is weIl defined and as such may provide for easier
implimentation from a physical point of view (ie. simpler
engineering, etc.),
-scenic quality,
-little or no disruption of traffic on SH 82 during the
construction of the light rail system due to the fact that. the '
� Rio Grande row is physically located in a completly separate
corrider from SH 82,
-best able to mitigate the negative impacts that will be
associated with the widening of SH 82 due to the fact that the
Rio Grande row is physically located in a completly seperate
�
"
V. RIDERSHIP FORECASTS:
TABLE 8
FS I MATED YEAR 2010 WINTER DAY RIDERSHIP
GLENWOOD SPRINGSIASPEN RAIL TRANSIT
VISITOR TRIPS
• Low High
ONE WAY TRIPS Transit Transit
Downvalley to & from:
RESIDENT
WORK TRIPS
Low High
Transit Transit
Aspen Metro
242
403
199
Airport Business Center
27
53
158
Snowmass
193
386
94
Snowmass to & from:
Aspen Metro
358
717
36
Airport Business Center
121
241
.28
Airport Business Center
to & from: Aspen Metro
238
475
254
Carbondale to & from:
Aspen Metro
`
161
Glenwood Springs
61
Roaring Fork Valley to
& from: Aspen Metro
335
Glenwood Springs
*
15
TOTAL PASSENGERS
1,178
2,275
1,341
Dommvalley = Woody Creek to Eagle County Line.
Roaring Fork Valley = Pitkin/Eagle County Line to El Jebel.
` = No Data for Visitor Population.
465
317
187
72
66
.9 *
375
102
785
25
Z816
RESIDENT
OTHER TRIPS
Low
High
Transit
Transit
635
1,428
253
507
170
339
110
258
158
368
676
.1,352
50
75
175
260
100
150
145
215
2,472 4,952
TOTAL TRIPS
Low ' High
Transit Transit
1,076 2,296
438 877
456 912
505 1,046
306 675
1,168 2,251
'211 450
236 362
435 935
160 240
4,991• 10,043
Source: TDA Colorado Inc. based on Centennial Engineering Inc SH 82 EIS technical analysis, Carbondale Economic
Profile, and the Mid -Valley Economic Profile.
R11
/S
Winter (138 days)
Summer ( 86 days)
Fall ( 79 days)
Spring ( 62 days)
Winter (13 8 days)
Summer ( 86 days)
Fall ( 79 days)
Spring ( 62 days)
1995 Ridership Estimates
9.5 High
95 High
95 Low
95 Low
Index
Daily Est.
Yearly Est.
Daily Est.
Yearly Est.
1.00
5,340
736,920
2,670
368,460
.84
41485
385,710
21242
368,460
.50
2,670
210,930
1,335
105,465
.41
21189
135,718
11094
67,871
11469,-278 '
734 , 608
2010 Ridership Estimates
2010 High
2010 High
2010 Low
2010 Low
Index
Daily Est.
Yearly Est.
Daily Est.
Yearly Est.
1.00
10,043
.11385,934
z
4,991
688,758
.84
81436
725,506
41192
360,549
.50
51021
3961698
21495
197,144
.41
4,118
255,293
31056
126,871
21763,431
11373,322
Developed from information prepared by TDA Colorado, Inc., for ICF Kaiser
Engineers, Inc.
4
VI. TIMING ISSUES:
Preliminary / Final Design
Construction
Approximately
System Testing and Start-up
Minimum Time from
Notice to Proceed
5
16 - 18 Months
16 - 18 Months
2-1/2 - 3 Years
2 Months
3 Years
. d1rALdkSF� � �
t
MEMORANDUM
TO: Carol O'Dowd, City of Aspen
Reid Haughey, Pitkin County
Dan Blankenship, RFTA
FROM: Bruce Abel, DAVE Transportation
FILE: D:CA-Rio Grande
RE: Valleywide Light Rail Status Report
DATE: October 10, 1990
I would like to take this opportunity to provide a written update
on some of the activities which have taken place regarding the
Valley community's efforts to implement a valleywide light rail
system. In addition, I would like to offer some ideas and/or
suggestions as to how we might proceed from here.
As discussed in my August 30, 1990 memo to Tom Baker of the
Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office, we have begun to approach the
technical aspects of our valleywide light rail analysis from two
(2) different perspectives. The first perspective can be
characterized as a more generalized perspective that is appropriate
for presentation to and discussion with the entire Roaring Fork
Valley Forum. The second perspective can be characterized as a
more detailed perspective for presentation to and discussion with
local units of government. The first perspective, or "Valley
Forum" perspective, will keep the entire forum abreast of
activities related to the valleywide light rail system and maintain
the "unity" of the project, while the second perspective will focus
in greater depth on the issues facing particular units of
government to make informed decisions on light rail related issues.
I believe that by pursuing such a course of action that we will be
able to keep everyone abreast of what is going on and maintain the
"unity" of the project, without unduly burdening everyone with the
details of local decision making processes that do not directly
involve them.
Following this dual approach we utilized the 9/13/90 Forum Meeting
to present a review of the "Kaiser Study" and a valleywide overview
of the light rail issue focusing on the work which SRM had done to
that time. Following the -presentations the Forum adopted a
resolution supporting the implementation of a valleywide light rail
system. A copy of this resolution is attached herein.
From a "local/detail" perspective as opposed to a "Forum"
perspective, I think that we have several issues to address. At
the Glenwood Springs end of the system, I think that we must
conclude that the alternative alignment (the Midland) as proposed
/Y
by Glen Lee is removed from further consideration given the
position of the City of Glenwood Springs. If we receive something
in writing from Glen that would cause us to reconsider the issue
with the City of Glenwood Springs in the future we can address the
issue again at that time. For now however, I think we need to
consider that alternative as having been rejected by the City of
Glenwood Springs. We have however received a request from the City
of Glenwood Springs to analyze how we might extend the valleywide
light rail system to terminate at the West Glenwood Mall instead of
at the Amtrak terminal in downtown Glenwood Springs as originally
envisioned by the "Kaiser Study". Such an extension could
possibly be implemented in conjunction with Glenwood Springs'
construction of their "alternate route" which is scheduled to enter
the design phase very soon. This project is being undertaken to
provide an alternative route for motorists to avoid downtown
Glenwood Springs and the Grand Avenue Bridge and is to be
constructed from the West Glenwood exit of I-70, along the Colorado
River and along Midland Avenue. A sketch of the "alternate route"
is attached herein. Kaiser Engineers will provide technical
assistance with this analysis.
At the Aspen end of the alignment we need to continue to move
forward with our evaluation of the alternative entrances to Aspen.
Towards this end I think that we need to discuss advantages and
disadvantages of the alternatives with local elected officials.
In order to further the discussion relative to the alternative
entrances to Aspen, I would like to recap some of the work and
analysis which has been undertaken to date. The ICF identified
three (3) feasible alternative alignments between Woody Creek and
Aspen that could be utilized to bring an alternative public transit
option (including light rail) into the City of Aspen. These three
alignments can be called 1) Rio Grande, 2) Highway/Main Street,
and 3) Highway/Midland. The three alternatives can generally be
described as follows:
Rio Grande - following the existing Rio Grande row from
Woody Creek into the City of Aspen. The terminus of the
Rio Grande alignment would be at the Rio Grande park in
Aspen;
Highway/Main Street - would cross the Roaring Fork River
at some location northwest of the intersection of Brush
Creek Road and SH 82 and would then follow the new
highway row entering the City of Aspen along Main Street.
The terminus of the Highway/Main Street alignment would
be "generally in the vicinity of the intersection of Main
and Galena"; and
Highway/Midland - would cross the Roaring Fork River at
some location northwest of the intersection of Brush
Creek Road and SH 82 and would then follow the new
highway row up to the Marolt property at which point it
would follow the old Midland row and Durant Street into
/.1
Aspen. The terminus of the Highway/Midland alignment
would be the Rubey Park Transit Center on Durant.
For discussion purposes, I think that it would be appropriate to
attempt to highlight the advantages and. disadvantages of the
alternatives identified by Kaiser and then to identify and list the
advantages and disadvantages of additional alternatives identified
subsequent to the Kaiser study effort. Accordingly, I would like
to offer the following evaluation as a starting point for our
discussions:
Rio Grande
ADVANTAGES -
-historically accurate row,
-existing row is.well defined and as such may provide for easier
implementation from a physical point of view .(i.e.: simpler
engineering, etc.),
-scenic quality,*
-little or no disruption of traffic on SH 82 during the
construction of the light rail system due to the fact that the Rio
Grande row is physically located in a completely separate corridor
from SH 821
-best able to mitigate the negative impacts that will be associated
with the widening of SH 82 due to the fact that the Rio Grande row
is physically located ina completely separate corridor from SH 82
and thus will not be impacted by the widening,
-no bridge costs need be incurred to cross the Roaring Fork River,
-no problems need be encountered due to Shale Bluffs widening due
to the fact that the Rio Grande is physically located in a separate
corridor from SH 82 through Shale Bluffs,
-not dependent on CDOH for timing of project,
-Rio Grande Park terminus of the system is designated by City of
Aspen P&Z as suitable for transportation purposes, and
-Pitkin County supposedly has fee title to the Rio Grande row from
Woody Creek to the City of Aspen. This is presently being
researched by the City of Aspen Attorney.
DISADVANTAGES
-popular community hiking/biking/equestrian trail would need to be
relocated/rebuilt,
-"neighborhood disruption" resulting from going through/near the
residential development that has occurred along the Rio Grande row,
-costs of modifications to major sewer outfall may be necessary to
reach the Rio Grande Park terminus,
-Rio Grande Park terminus may be on the' wrong side of a
psychological barrier which exists along Main Street in Aspen,
-poor transfer opportunity to serve TOSV without costs to bridge
Roaring Fork River near the intersection of Brush Creek Road and SH
82 1987 traffic counts indicate 1,500 AADT between downvalley and
TOSV, and 4,300 AADT between the City of Aspen and TOSV. While all
of these trips may not be capturable, the inability to conveniently
serve TOSV may further impair our ability to capture these trips,
-poor service to Airport/AABC area. 1987 traffic counts indicated
W
2,300 AADT between downval ley and the A/AABC and 4,400 AADT between
the City of Aspen and A/AABC. To put these numbers into some
perspective, the 1987 traffic counts indicated 21,700 AADT crossing
the Castle Creek bridge into Aspen.
Highway/Main Street
ADVANTAGES -
-better transfer opportunity to TOSV will allow for continuation of
present local distribution system to TOSV,
-better able to serve A/AABC,
-avoids "neighborhood disruption" along the Rio Grande row or
Midland row,
-avoids popular community hiking/biking/equestrian trail, and
-good local distribution within City of Aspen.
DISADVANTAGES -
-traffic disruption along Main Street during construction of the
light rail system,
-loss of parking on Main Street in Aspen,
-costs of bridging Roaring Fork River to enter SH 82 row,,
-may be dependent on CDOH for timing of the project
-unable to mitigate major problems associated with widening of
Shale Bluffs as part of SH 82,
-may degrade the usefulness of the valley commuter function if one
assumes the utilization of the SH 82 corridor between the A/AABC
and the City of Aspen will lead to a proliferation of
stations/stops,
-question as to ability to use Marolt open space for purpose other
than SH 82 as approved by voters,
-lacks scenic quality, and
-suffers from problems with the terminus in Aspen. Will be unable
to construct any "arrival" facility in location identified. In
town terminus needs to be better defined/modified from present.
Highway/Midland
ADVANTAGES -
-better transfer opportunity to TOSV will allow for continuation of
present local distribution system to TOSV,
-better serve A/AABC,
-avoids popular community hiking/biking/equestrian trail,
-does not disrupt Main Street traffic during construction of light
rail system,
-does not require loss of Main Street parking,
-Rubey Park terminus in the City of Aspen provides "arrival
experience" and distribution via RFTA
DISADVANTAGES
-"neighborhood disruption" associated with creating a new
transportation corridor along Midland row in the City of Aspen,
-questions as to the stability of Shadow Mountain re: snow and/or
rock slides into the Midland row,
al
-unable to mitigate major problems associated with the widening of
Shale Bluffs as part of the widening of SH 82,
-costs of bridging the Roaring Fork River to enter SH 82 row,
-questions as to the ability to use the Marolt open" space for
anything other than the widening of SH 82 as approved by the
voters,
-may degrade the valley commuter function of the system if one
assumes that the use of the SH 82 row between A/AABC and the City
of Aspen will lead to a proliferation of stations/stops,
-may be dependent on CDOH for timing of the project, and
-may lack scenic quality of Rio Grande alternative.
During the recent review of the alternative alignments identified
by Kaiser, several variations of an additional alignment
alternative which we might call "Shale Bluffs By-pass" were
identified. In general the basic Shale Bluffs alignment alternative
could be described as bringing SH 82 across the Roaring Fork River
and into the old Rio Grande row for a short distance roughly in the
vicinity of Brush Creek Road to the RFTA bus maintenance facility.
This basic alternative provides a mechanism to by-pass Shale Bluffs
and makes the widening of existing SH 82 through Shale Bluffs
unnecessary. A sketch of the Shale Bluffs By-pass is attached
herein. From this basic SH 82 alignment alternative several rail
variations can be derived which basically correspond to the
alternatives already identified. These variations could be
identified as "Shale Bluffs/Rio Grande", "Shale Bluffs/Main
Streets", and "Shale Bluffs/Midland". These variations. could
basically be described as follows:
Shale Bluffs/Rio Grande - SH 82 crosses the Roaring Fork
River generally in the area immediately northwest of
Brush Creek Road and crosses back across the river to the
existing highway alignment generally in the area
immediately northwest of the RFTA maintenance facility.
The valleywide light rail system utilizes the existing
Rio Grande row from Woody Creek to a terminus in the City
of Aspen at Rio Grande Park.
The advantages and disadvantages
gas the "Rio Grande" alternative
with the exception that this new
of being unable to serve TOSV in
of this alternative are the same
identified in the Kaiser report
alternative overcomes the problem
a convenient manner.
Shale Bluffs/Main Street - SH 82 crosses the Roaring Fork
River generally in the area immediately northwest of
Brush Creek Road and crosses back across the river to the
existing highway alignment generally in the vicinity of
the RFTA maintenance facility. The valleywide light rail
system utilizes the existing Rio Grande row from Woody
Creek until it follows the relocated highway back across
the Roaring Fork River to the existing highway alignment
generally in the vicinity of the RFTA maintenance
facility. The light rail system would then follow the
"highway alignment" into Aspen and enter Aspen along Main
Pk
Street to a terminus in the vicinity of Main and Galena.
The advantages and disadvantages of this alternative are the same
as the "Highway/Main Street" alternative with the exception that
this new alternative overcomes the problem of not being able to
mitigate the major problems that will accompany the widening of SH
82 through Shale Bluffs.
Shale Bluffs/Midland - SH 82 crosses the Roaring Fork
River generally in the area immediately northwest of
Brush Creek Road and crosses back across the river to the
existing highway alignment generally in the vicinity of
the RFTA maintenance facility. The valleywide light
ght rail
system utilizes the existing Rio Grande row from Woody
Creek until it follows the relocated highway back across
the Roaring Fork River to the existing highway alignment
generally in the vicinity of the RFTA maintenance
facility. The light rail system would then follow the
"highway alignment" into Aspen and enter Aspen along
Hopkins Street, the Midland row, and Durant to a terminus
at Rubey Park.
The advantages and disadvantages of this alternative are the same
as those identified under the "Highway/Midland" alternative with
the exception that this new alternative overcomes the problem of
not -being able to mitigate the major problems that will accompany
the widening of SH 82 through Shale Bluffs.
I believe that we reached agreement at our meeting on Tuesday
8/28/90 that, for analytical purposes, we will assume that
litigation delays will affect all alternatives equally and that we
will therefor treat litigation costs and delays as equal across all
alternatives. I believe that we also agreed that it is better to
be operational sooner as I opposed to having to wait if we are able
to create an option that can be operational sooner than other
alternatives. I am not sure that we agreed or disagreed with the
assumption that, with the exception of Shale Bluffs, the delays
that will be associated with the widening of SH 82 from Brush Creek
Road to the City of Aspen may be somewhat bearable relative to the
delays that we might expect during the widening of SH 82 downvalley
of Brush Creek Road. I think that we need to better -discuss and
evaluate the nature of the trade offs that may exist in peoples
minds as it relates to this assumption.
In order to continue to move forward with the decision making
process regarding the various alternative entrances to Aspen, we
are continuing to analyze several issues. Among them are the
following:
-How are ridership projections affected by the choice of alignment
options?
The Kaiser Study does not provide information about how
the ridership forecast would be affected by the choice of
alignment, yet Table 10 on pg. 53 indicates that
approximately 30% of system boardings occur at the
Snowmass Village and ABC stations. Accordingly, we have
requested that Kaiser provide us with the appropriate
information to determine whether, if and/or how ridership
would change give the various alignments under
consideration. Very similar in nature, we have also
asked Kaiser to review, and if appropriate revise, the
revenue forecasts which were presented in the "Kaiser
Study". This will allow us to determine whether or not
farebox revenues will be affected by the choice of
alignment. At the present time the "Kaiser Study"
reflects higher farebox revenues for alignments which.
would be expected to generate lower ridership and this
does not seem -to make sense.
TABLE 10
ESTIMATED YEAR 2010 WINTER DAY RIDERSHIP
RAIL TRANSIT BOARDINGS BY LOCATION
RESIDENT
VISITOR TRIPS WORK TRIPS
Low High Low High
Transit Transit Transit Transit
BOARDING
LOCATION
Glenwood Springs
(2 stations)
Carbondale (2 stations)
El Jebel
Woody Creek**
231
421
Brush Creek/Snowmass
Village
336
672
Airport Business Center
192
385
Aspen Metro
(2 stations)
419
798
TOTAL BOARDINGS
1,178 2,275
* = No Data for Visitor
Population.
** = Reflects large distances
between stations
Source: TDA Colorado Inc.
RESIDENT
OTHER TRIPS
Low High
Transit Transit
TOTAL TRIPS
Low High
Transit Transit
38
64
160
238
198
302
111
238
115
168.
236
406
175
405
122
182
297
587
226
484
529
1,137
985
2,042
79
162
219
482
634
1,317
220
403
544
1,113
956
1,901
492
1,060
78
1,631
1,695
3,489
1,341
2,816
2,472
4,952
4,991
10,043"
Z fG
-How might ridership be affected by traffic delays resulting from
the construction of SH 82?
Kaiser has been requested to provide revised ridership
forecasts if appropriate to correspond to 15 minute and
30 minute traffic delay scenarios.
-What is an appropriate detailed cross section for inclusion of a
light rail line on a highway bridge and in a highway row?
Kaiser has been requested to provide such detailed cross
sections that will meet AASHTO standards and to provide
information of existing examples of light rail lines on
highway bridges and in highway rights -of -way.
-What is the CDOH perspective regarding the Shale Bluffs By-pass
and the likelihood of its being included in the SH 82 widening
project?
We have requested of Bob Mosten that CDOH prepare an
analysis of the Shale Bluffs By-pass so that we might
discuss its role in the choice of light rail alignment.
-What roll might the light rail system play in guiding vs reacting
to development and how might such issues affect the alignment
choice for the entrance to Aspen.
I believe that it would be appropriate for local elected
officials to discuss this.
In addition to determining the alignment for the entrance to Aspen,
several additional tasks remain and shall be undertaken beginning
very soon. These tasks include:
determination of station location, including determ-
ination of park n ride, feeder bus service etc. needs;
determination of vehicle technology. While we have
narrowed the system down to "light rail" we need to
determine whether vehicles should be self-propelled
diesel or self-propelled electric and the availability
and cost of each;
review of cost estimates;
determination of financing mechanism; and
determination of legal/institutional/organ-
izational framework.
If you have any questions please let me know. Otherwise I look
forward to further discussing these issues with you in the near
future.
SH 82 SHALE BLUFF BYPASS
r7
1 O 0 o00000 BYPASS ROUTE.
October 18, 1990
Mr. Robert Mosten,
Colorado Department
District No. 3
P.O.Box 2107
Grand Junction, CO
Dear Bob:
.4 -ffAc-4 M; -f
District Engineer
of Highways
81507
91
transportation
services, inc.
"A Standard
of Excellence
Coast to Coast"
Per our recent conversation, .I would be most interested in
receiving information on CDOH's analysis of the "Shale Bluffs By-
pass" as proposed by the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning
Commission during the community's discussions of the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the four laning of State
Highway 82 from Basalt to Aspen. In addition, any assessment which
you may be able to provide me regarding the likelihood that this
alternative alignment of State Highway 82 through the Shale Bluffs
area will be selected by CDOH for inclusion in the State Highway 82
project would be appreciated. This issue is of extreme interest to
the community as we are presently working with the community to
evaluate possible alignments for a valley -wide rail system in this
general area. It appears to many people involved in this evaluation
process that the selection of a State Highway 82 Shale Bluffs By-
pass alternative provides valuable benefits to the proposed valley -
wide rail project as well as .improves the State Highway 82 project.
I would appreciate it if in your analysis you are able to provide
a comparison of the Shale Bluffs By-pass alternative with the Shale
Bluf f s treatment as discussed in the `DEIS . It would be most helpful
if.such a comparison could address proposed treatment, estimated
costs, and appropriate traffic management/mitigation activities.
Such a comparison will allow the community to undertake an informed
decision making process regarding the community's possible desire
to fund the incremental costs of this particular alternative.
Thank you very much for your time and attention in this matter.
Your cooperation is greatly appreciated.
,Sincerely,
i
t. C
Bruce A. Abel
Rail Project
Roaring Fork
Valley Light
Attachment
Manager
Valley Forum
Rail Project.
1889 York Stre.
Denver
Colorado 80206
(303) 321-1844
FAX: (303) 333-1107
a7
SH 82 SHALE BLUFF BYPASS
er
100000000 BYPASS ROUTE.
wlwp�-�r
FC 082-1(14)
East of Basalt to Aspen
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
222 South Sixth Street, P.O. Box 2107
Grand Junction, Colorado 81502-2107
(303) 248-7208
Mr. Bruce A. Abel
Rail Project Manager
Roaring Fork Valley Forum
Valley Light Rail Project
Dave Transportation Services,
1889 York Street
Denver, Colorado 80206
Dear Bruce:
awl
November 2, 1990
Inc.
This letter is in reply to your inquiry of October 18, 1990
concerning the State Highway 82 "Shale Bluffs Bypass" proposed by
the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission in October,
1989. Centennial Engineering's cost analysis indicated an
approximate $18.5 million differential (1987 dollars) for the
Shale Bluffs Bypass, noting the long bridges with tall piers
necessary to cross the Roaring Fork River twice. Right-of-way
costs were not included in the analysis.
The Shale Bluffs Bypass alternative was not suggested by Pitkin
County in the EIS scoping process. The Colorado Department of
Highways (CDOH) believes that the Shale Bluffs Bypass would
result in significant impacts to the relatively pristine valley
of the Roaring Fork River at this location. The canyon terrain
is very steep and inaccessible, which would make bridge
construction quite difficult. Because of its adverse
environmental impacts and high cost, the Shale Bluffs Bypass is
not considered a reasonable or feasible alignment option.
It appears that the principal reason that the Shale Bluffs
highway bypass was suggested is its potential for joint use with
a valley -wide rail system. It would seem to be reasonable to
simply construct a single rail bridge at an estimated cost of $3
million to connect the Rio Grande right of way to the highway
corridor and accomplish the same result.
Enclosed is a State Highway 82 traffic management statement which
details techniques CDOH will utilize to mitigate traffic impacts
during construction. The Shale Bluffs area will present
difficult construction problems; however, we intend to resolve
them using a combination of these techniques.
a.1
FC 082-1(14)
East of Basalt to Aspen
Mr. Bruce A. Abel
November 2, 1990
Page No. Two
Based on our preliminary analysis of the Shale Bluffs area, we
believe that it is feasible to utilize retaining wall sections to
establish a two-lane detour adjacent to the work area. (The
retaining wall sections would connect the existing wide areas,
creating a detour on the "river side" of the existing highway.)
The excavation would begin at the top of the cut at each end of
the Shale Bluffs and would be loaded and hauled within the
excavation area parallel to the highway detour. We anticipate
that much of this work will be stipulated as night construction
to minimize traffic delay and impact.
We are aware of the community's desire to develop a valley -wide
rail system and are cooperating with local governments involved
in this effort. CDOH has discussed methods of accommodating
light rail technology on both the Maroon Creek and Castle Creek
Bridges. A light rail system can be accommodated by
strengthening the affected portion of the highway bridge to
accommodate the more than doubled live load requirements
(+2400). Unfortunately, conventional train sets cannot be
accommodated on highway bridges as they increase the live load
requirements by over 16 times (+1,610%) and therefore require a
separate structure. Thus, CDOH's ability to include rail within
the highway corridor is significantly affected by the bridge load
requirements of the system chosen.
RDP/rff
Enclosures
cc: Carol O'Dowd w/enc.
Reid Haughey w/enc.
Tom Baker w/enc.
File w/enc.
Very truly yours,
R. P. MOSTON
DISTRICT ENGINEER
e>
CENTENNIAL
ENGINEERING
INC
(303) 420-0221 FAX 1-303-420-2308
OFFICE LOCATION:15000 WEST 64TH AVENUE ARVADA, COLORADO
MAILING ADDRESS: R. 0. DRAWER 1307 ARVADA, COLORADO 60001
November 2, 1989
MEMORANDUM
TO: Larry Abbott
FROM: Dave Hattan'
SUBJECT: S.H. 82 Cost Comparisons for Shale Bluffs Alternatives
CEI - 736.00 FC 082-1(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have prepared comparative cost estimates for various 4-lane roadway alternatives
for the Shale Bluffs portion of S.H. 82. These cost comparisons are for the section
from Brush Creek Road through the last curve on the southeast side of Shale Bluffs,
a distance of approximately 3600 feet.
Costs for the following alternatives are included with this memo:
• straight cut with rock retaining wall; the cut is reduced at the expense of
providing a retaining wall to catch rockfall,
• benched cut through Shale Bluffs; the cut is benched to catch rockfall,
• straight cut through Shale Bluffs; the cut is straight with no benches, but
has a large rock catch area at the bottom,
• raised profile; eliminates much of the shale cut at the expense of
constructing a mechanically stabilized embankment wall,
• snow/ rock shed through Shale Bluffs; covers both directions of traffic
with a structure protecting roadway from snow slides or rockfall and,
• across the river bypass; avoids Shale Bluffs at the expense of crossing
the Roaring Fork River Gorge twice.
OFFICES IN OENVER, CASPER. PHOENIX S SALT LAKE CITY
3)
November 2, 1989
CEI - 736.00
Page 2
The preliminary cost estimates, not including right-of-way in 1987 dollars, are as
follows:
Alternative
• Rock Retaining Wall
• Benched Cut
• Straight Cut
• Raised Profile
• Snow/rock Shed
• Across the. River Bypass
Estimated Construction
Cost
$ 4,230,000
$ 41280,000
$ 4,000,000
$ 3,850,000
$13,2309000
$22,490,000
The higher costs of the last two alternatives are caused by the necessary structures.
The covered shed would be built essentially as a bridge to protect from rockfall and
snow slides. The two twin bridges crossing the Roaring Fork River would be similar
to the proposed Maroon Creek bridges, but would obviously require much taller piers.
The length of the crossings would be approximately 620 feet and 840 feet. Attached
is a blueline showing the alignments through the Shale Bluffs area on the 200' scale
topographic base map.
We have more detailed construction cost information available if you would like to
review it.
DEH:rl
c:\memo\73600.2
3Z
COLORAO4 DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
DESIGN COMPUTATIONS
. Q
Nj
U�
p
0
�0 �%0'
fl
��
� .�
•4 � O
p
g 4
qd
i;n 4
0.
0,000.0 00,00-:.. 1. �.. 0000
".....0 0 0 0
• 1�
Yl 4- ..00
X7
0*
1; , ;
OP
J ! .. , . t.. : ; 1
1
J ;
Vr.
0
0
0 0.
Z41
. _. � , : , • ► � •. • ,.1� I;�r V J1� �' �,::f. ill. �'".: �. D.Ki.�j � • � :. :: • ; ;.
o m rA-
�4
,�... - ..
JZ5'.
op
Zi
POW J-
STAFF BRIDGE DESIGN COLORADO DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS Sheet.. of
By; Date Project No.
Chk'd: Date Structure No.
3J
e'Amw t.r.m virm
ICF KAISER ENGINEERS
INTER OFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Dan Blankenship DATE: April 23, 1990
AT: RFTA, FROM: Marc K. Soronson ,
AT: ICF KE - Tempe
COPIES TO: R. Rv-pinski JOB NO. 90128
SUBJECT: Train Bridge Loadings
Y
In response to your request for bridge load ratings for both the RDC and the
diesel train sets, I have checked ch some of our structure people.
Essentially they have indicated to me that for a typical one or two car RDC
train the normal highway loading ;could probably be sufficient. For a diesel
train set an E- 7 2 rating would probably be sufficient. To maintain
flexibility, we feel you should design bridges to train set standards, -
allowing either technology operation.
As a disclaimer I must tell you that these load ratings are estimates are not
technology specific, and do not include Lhe engineering analysis normally
conducted prior to bridge design and rating.
Please let me know if you require additional information.
3y T,-jTNL r .
A�
MEMORANDUM
To: Dan Blankenship, RFTA
Reid Haughey, Pitkin County
Carol O'Dowd, City of Aspen
Gary Suiter, Town of Snowmass Village
From: Bruce Abel, DAVE Transportation
File: D:CA- Rio Grande
Re: Ridership forecasts for valley -wide light rail Aspen alignments
Date: November 5, 1990
The purpose of this memo is to review and discuss the ridership forecasting
methodology used to develop the ridership projections included in the "Kaiser study"; to
illustrate the impact that the choice of alignment for the "entry to Aspen" may be
expected to have on ridership on the valley -wide light rail system; and to discuss the
realism of the ridership projections.
Projected ridership on the proposed valley -wide light rail system (VLRS) is a function
of two basic issues. The first issue is the anticipated transportation demand, and the
second issue is the anticipated "mode split." Mode split is a jargon term used to describe
the anticipated proportion of person trips that is expected to be made via public transit as
opposed to via the auto. For example, if we make the statement that we expect a mode
split of 6%, we are saying that we anticipate that 6% of the person trips being made will
be made via public transit. Projected transit ridership estimates are derived by
estimating total transportation demand in terms of person trips and then multiplying the
total number of person trips by the estimated "mode split."
In order to develop ridership projections for a possible public transit service between
Glenwood Springs and Aspen, ICF Kaiser Engineers, Inc. secured the services of TDA
Colorado Inc. to assist with the development of ridership estimates. Given the limited
scope of the "Kaiser study", elaborate transportation modelling was beyond the scope of
the study. However it was felt that due the limitations of the travel corridors in the
Roaring Fork Valley, that existing vehicle counts and future vehicle volume projections
along SH 82 provided reasonable indicators of transportation activity in the valley. In
addition, two recent transportation studies in the Aspen area provided valuable
information on travel in the valley:
• The State Highway 82 Improvement Draft EIS by Centennial Engineering Inc., and
• The Aspen/pitkin County Transit7I ransportation Development Program, 1986-2000
by Leigh, Scott and Cleary, Inc.
35
Other sources of data included bus ridership data from RFTA, the Glenwood Springs
Chamber of Commerce, the Carbondale Economic Profile, Garfield County, and the Mid -
Valley Economic Profile.
Existing Conditions -
The transportation corridor between Glenwood Springs and Aspen is served primarily
by State Highway 82, which is a 4 lane facility between Glenwood Springs and
Carbondale and 'a 2 lane facility between Carbondale and Aspen. Average daily traffic
volumes (ADT's) vary considerably along the route by location and by season. 1988
volumes ranged from a low of 7600 vehicles per day near Carbondale to 21,400 vehicles
per day at Cemetery Lane in Aspen and 22,900 vehicles per day in downtown Glenwood
Springs. Monthly average daily traffic along SH 82 just to the south of Glenwood Springs
peaks in August with about 40% more traffic than experienced during the low month of
January. Traffic counts at the Castle Creek bridge in Aspen indicate winter and summer
daily volumes are greater than the annual averages. Summer averages exceed the annual
averages by approximately 16%, while winter averages exceed the annual average by
approximately 11%. These traffic counts serve as the primary indicators of overall
transportation demand in the Roaring Fork Valley.
In order to estimate person trips, vehicle count data are multiplied by an average auto
occupancy rate and vehicle counts are thus converted to estimated person trips. Figure 2
as prepared by TDA illustrates the estimated number of person trips between Downvalley
and upvalley locations. About one-half of the "downvalley" trips are attributable to Aspen
origins/destinations. The Air . rt/ABC is the next largest trip origin/destination for
downvalley trips, followed by Snowmass Village. Figure 3 as prepared by TDA depicts the
estimated number of person trips between and within the area from Aspen to Snpwmass
Village. These trips constitute the majority of the trips crossing the Castle Creek bridge
and account for trip volumes roughly four times greater than the volumes attributed to
"downvalley" (regional) trips. This is an important issue to keep in mind throughout our
discussions.
Existing transit ridership data from the Roaring Fork Transit Agency (RFTA) and
other transit service providers operating between Glenwood Springs and Aspen indicate
that there were approximately 1065 transit trips being made between Aspen and the
downvalley area on an average winter day during the 1988/89 season. This figure has
grown to approximately 1417 trips per average winter day based on figures compiled
during the 1989/90 season. We can thus estimate that roughly 13% of the person trips
between Aspen and downvalley on an average winter day are made via public transit.
This reflects the existing mode split and corresponds to transit ridership on an average
winter day of 1417 relative to total person trips of 10577 (1417 transit + 9160 in vehicles).
Roughly 4.5% of the person trips between Aspen and Snowmass Village on an average
winter day are made via public transit. .
Future (Year 2010) Ridership Estimates -
In order to provide a consistent frame of reference to project future ridership on the
valley -wide light rail system, TDA Inc. utilized the travel forecasts prepared by
Centennial Engineering Inc. for the State Highway 82 Draft EIS as the basis for
projecting future ridership. The Centennial forecasts were prepared in 1988 to determine
2
3J�'
0
O
Q
N
m
C'f
N
!9
%n
<'9
0
0 CD
!V
(3,000) 400lad sapiyaA
O
Cb
dea lad sapiyaA
CU
n
u
O
a
N
_
7
a
37
3,270
Snowmass
5,000
Airport/
Airport
Business
Center
FIGURE 2
ESTIMATED WINTER
DAILY
PERSON TRIPS
TO/FROMDOWN VALLEY
11,120
220---.-,..
Cemetery Lane
1
19740 9160
Buttermilk
Aspen
SOURCE: TDA Based on CDoH Traffic Volume
Counts and 1986 Aspen/Pitkin TDP
4
DAILY
S
)WMAS S
ietesy Lane
ff
Aspen
SOURCE: TDA Based on CDoH Traffic Volume TDA
Counts and 1986 Aspen/Pitkin TDP
5
3�
the future traffic impacts which would result from projected commercial, resort, and
residential growth in the greater Aspen area. Estimates for year 2010 vehicular traffic on
SH 82 were made based on commercial square footage and population growth projections
provided by Pitkin County. Vehicular trips were estimated by trip path for visitor,
resident work, and resident other purposes. This information was used as a basis for
estimating future ridership on the VLRS.
The information provided by Pitkin County indicated that a larger increase in
population was forecast for the Snowmass Village and downvalley areas than in the City
of Aspen. Commercial development is also projected to increase significantly in the areas
outside of Aspen Metro, partially to serve the increased population, but also because of
the high, and rising, cost of land and housing in the City. Settlement patterns are also
showing an out -migration as the cost of housing in Aspen is making it increasingly
difficult for employees to both work and live in Aspen. In the future, a greater percentage
of traffic on SH 82 is projected to be work trips between Aspen and downvalley locations.
In order to estimate future ridership on the VLRS, projected vehicle trips were
converted to person trips using average vehicle occupancy rates from previous studies.
Estimated VLRS ridership was determined by assigning "high" and "low" mode split
estimates based on trip purpose (visitor, resident work, and/or resident other) and trip
characteristics (trip length, transfer requirements, etc.). Values assigned for "low" transit
use ranged from a low of 3% of all person trips for workers travelling between Snowmass
Village and the Airport/ABC (short trip, transfer required) to a high of 12% for workers
travelling between downvalley and Aspen (comparable to existing RFTA/transit mode split
in the valley corridor). Mode split values assigned to the "high" transit use ridership
estimate ranged from a low of 7% of all person trips, again for workers travelling between
Snowmass Village and the Airport/ABC, to a high of 28% for workers travelling between
downvalley and Aspen. This roughly doubling of the mode split reflects actual experience
from Sacramento California where bus service was replaced by light rail service in 1987.
Other experiences around the country also indicate that transit ridership increases when
bus service is replaced by rail service. Essentially the "low" transit use ridership estimate
reflects existing mode splits applied to projected future person trips while the "high"
transit estimate reflects success in capturing a higher percentage of travellers then
presently ride the downvalley buses and applying these improved mode splits to projected_
future person trips.
Table 4 summarizes TDA's projections for future daily ridership on a high season
(winter) day. As shown, the estimated "high" daily system ridership in the year 2010 is
approximately 10,000 passengers per day. This level of ridership would require a
substantial investment in high -frequency shuttle services connecting the stations with the
outlying communities and in meaningful park-n-ride facilities at the appropriate stations.
Estimated "low" daily system ridership for a winter day in the year 2010 is
approximately 4990 passengers per day. This level of ridership represents a system that
is at least comparable to the existing bus service in the corridor if not superior to the
existing system. This system would continue to rely on time coordinated transfers to
Snowmass Village and a good secondary distribution system in Aspen in order to attain
these ridership levels.
ONE WAY TRIPS
Downvalley to & from:
Aspen Metro
Airport Business Center
Snowmass
Snowmass to & from:
Aspen Metro
Airport Business Center
Airport Business Center to & from:
Aspen Metro
Carbondale to & from:
Aspen Metro
Glenwood Springs
Roaring Fork Valley to & from:
Aspen Metro
Glenwood Springs
TOTAL PASSENGERS
TABLE 4
Estimated Year 2010 Winter Day Ridership
Glenwood Springs/Aspen Rail Transit
RESIDENT
RESIDENT
VISITOR
TRIPS
WORK
TRIPS
( OTHER
TRIPS
TOTAL TRIPS
Low
High
( Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Transit Transit
ITransit Transit
ITransit Transit
(Transit Transit
l
242
403
199
465
635
1,428
1,076
2,296
27
53
158
317
253
507
438 —
877
193
386
94
187
170
339
456 —
912
358
717
36
72
110
258
505-
1,046 '
121
241
; 28
66
( 158
368
306--
675 '
238
475
254
423
J 676
1,352
( 1,168 ,
2,251
*
*
' 161
375
50
75
I 211
450
*
*
61
102
175
260
236
362
*
*
335
785
100
150
435
935
*
*
15
25
145
215
160
240
1,178
2,275
1,341
2,816
2,472
4,952
4,991
10,043
Downvalley = Woody Creek to Eagle County Line.
Roaring Fork Valley = Pitkin/Eagle County Line to El Jebel.
* = No Data for Visitor Population.
Source: TDA Colorado Inc. based on Centennial Engineering Inc. SH 82 EIS technical analysis, Carbondale
Economic Profile, and the Mid -Valley Economic Profile.
i
ill
It may be noted that the "low" transit scenario equates to approximately 1900 vehicle
trips per day entering or leaving Aspen, while the "high" transit scenario equates to
almost 4000 vehicle trips per day entering or leaving Aspen. The "high" transit scenario
would reduce projected year 2010 traffic volumes crossing the Castle Creek bridge by
about 11% from 36,000 vehicles per day (vpd) to about 32,000 vpd. The "low" transit
scenario would have a lesser impact on vehicular traffic generating a reduction of
approximately 5.3% in vehicular traffic crossing the Castle Creek bridge on an average
winter day.in the year 2010.
Alignment Impacts -
In order to estimate how the choice of alignment to enter Aspen would affect system
ridership, VLRS passenger boardings and alightings were assigned to generalized station
locations in such a manner as to reflect intra-area/intra-regional travel patterns as
determined in previous study efforts and as reflected in the methodology utilized to
determine the overall system ridership projections. The results of this estimation process
are reflected in Table 5. As can be seen, the removal of stations serving Snowmass
Village and the Airport/ABC area in Aspen lead to significant decreases in the number of
passengers served by the VLRS. This is largely a function of two issues previously
mentioned: the extremely high trip volumes between Aspen, the ABC, and Snowmass
Village; and the growth projected to take place in Snowmass Village. As such, even using
extremely low mode split estimates (3-4%) for these trip markets results in a significant
number of trips being assigned to the Snowmass Village and ABC stations. Ridership
losses of the magnitude indicted suggest the need to develop some mechanism to serve
Snowmass Village, and if possible the ABC, with the VLRS if the Rio Grande is selected
as the preferred alignment to enter Aspen.
Reality Checks -
In order to review how realistic the ridership projections for the VLRS appear to be,
we can undertake a reality check to determine a comfort level with the projections. The
purpose of such a reality check is not to attempt to redo the ridership estimates, but
rather to determine a comfort level with the projections previously determined.
Given the reliance on the information prepared by Centennial Engineering for the SH
82 Draft EIS for projecting future traffic volumes, it seems appropriate to focus our reality
check on areas other than the estimation of future traffic volumes. The Centennial
information should be utilized as the basis for projecting future traffic volumes so that we
have a consistent basis for our transportation planning efforts. This leaves us with the
opportunity to review the auto occupancy rates which were used to translate vehicle trips
to person trips, and to review mode split estimates which were used to translate person
trips into estimated transit ridership on the VLRS.
Auto occupancy rates used to translate vehicle trips into person trips included a high
of 3.0 persons per auto for a winter season visitor trip and a low of 1.3 persons per auto
for a resident work trip during the winter season. Average auto occupancy for a resident
"other" (ie. non -work) trip was assumed to be 1.8 persons per auto during the winter
season. These estimates were developed in the Burnt Mountain EIS by Fellsburg, Holt &
Ullevig. In general the occupancy estimates for resident trips correspond to observations
obtained as part of recent transportation planning activities and while the visitor estimate
s
9.1�,
Table 5
Ridership and Revenue Forecasts by Alignment
YEAR 2010
Winter Day
Ridership
Annual Farebox Revenue
Alignment
Low transit
High Transit
Low
High
Highway
4991
10,043
$2,059,983
$4,145,146
Rio Grande
with TOSV and ABC
4991
10,043
$2,059,983
$4,145,146
with TOSV without ABC
3079
6240
$1,270,824
$2,575,495
without TOSV without ABC
2118
4282
$874,182
$1,767,351
YEAR 1995
(Factor = .53)
Winter Day
Ridership
Annual Farebox Revenue
Alignment
Low transit
High Transit
Low
High
Highway
2670
5340
$1,101,912
$2,203,917
Rio Grande
with TOSV and ABC
2670
5340
$1,101,912
$2,203,917
with TOSV without ABC
1632
3307
$673,590
$1,364,928
without TOSV without ABC
1122
2269
$463,093
$936,504
Source: Ridership per ICF Kaiser
EngrsfMA
Revenue forecasts per DAVE Transportation Svcs.
9
YJ
Table 6
Ridership and Revenue Forecasts by Alignment
YEAR 2010
Winter Day Ridership
Annual Farebox Revenue
Alignment
Likely Scenario
Likely Scenario
"Highway"
5700
$2,352,618
Rio Grande
with TOSV and ABC
5700
$2,352,618
with TOSV without ABC
3667
$1,513,516
without TOSV without ABC
2672
$1,102,840
YEAR 1995
(Factor .53)
Winter DaV Ridership
Annual Farebox Revenue
alignment
Likely Scenario
Likely Scenario
"Highway'
3021
$1,246,885
Rio Grande
with TOSV and ABC
3021
$1,246,885
with TOSV without ABC
1943
$801,952
without TOSV without ABC
1416
$584,437
Source: Ridership & Revenue Forecasts by DAVE Transportation Services
to
seems high, it does not seem unreasonably high for a winter season visitor trip. The
overall weighted average auto occupancy rate for the winter season which would result
from utilizing the above mentioned estimates would be 1.9 persons per auto. This does
not differ markedly from the rate of 1.8 persons per car observed during a recent winter
season afternoon for inbound travel to Aspen.
As previously mentioned, mode split estimates used to translate person trips into
transit trips were based on trip purpose and trip characteristics. Values assigned for
"low" transit use ranged from a low of 3% of all person trips for workers travelling
between the ABC and Snowmass Village to a high of 12% for workers travelling between
downvalley and Aspen. These mode splits are roughly equivalent to the mode splits being
realized today by the existing RFTA bus service and as such appear to be realistic
estimates. Mode split values assigned to the "high" transit use ridership estimate ranged
from a low of 7% for the work trip between the ABC and Snowmass Village to a high of
28% for the work trip between downvalley and Aspen. This roughly doubling of the mode
split reflects actual experience from Sacramento, California and other areas where bus
service was replaced by rail service. Again, there seems to be a realistic basis for the
mode split estimates utilized in projecting the "high" ridership scenario.
Likely Scenario -
In order to attempt to develop a projected ridership number that we might use to
describe a likely estimate for ridership on the VLRS under normal circumstance, the
ridership projection methodology was disaggregated to combine the "high" ridership
estimate for those market segments where it seems realistic to expect increased mode
splits in the future with the "low" ridership estimates for those market segments where it
appears less likely that the mode split will increase in the future. Such a methodology
should yield a fairly conservative ridership estimate given that national experience has
shown that transit ridership increases when bus service is replaced by rail service in most
cases. The results of utilizing such a ridership estimation approach are presented in
Table 6.
Farebox Revenue -
In order to estimate farebox revenues that would be generated by the various
alignments under consideration, previously discussed ridership forecasts were multiplied
by an average fare of $1.50 per rider. This average fare represents the weighted average
fare as determined by applying the following fare structure to ridership estimates by
station as previously discussed:
Zone 1- (Aspen)-
$ .50
Zone 2-
$1.00
Zone 3- (TOSV)
$1.50
Zone 4- (Basalt)
$2.00
Zone 5- (El Jebel)
$2.50
Zone 6- (Carbondale)
$3.00
Zone 7- (CMC)
$3.50
Zone 8- (Glenwood Spgs) $4.00
11
In addition to utilizing the above referenced fare structure, which is roughly equivalent to
the fare structure currently utilized by RFTA, the average fare calculations assume that
roughly 40% of transit riders will use a 1/2 fare pass. This again is approximately
equivalent to the percentage of RFTA revenue currently generated by pass sales. The
results of these calculations are included in Tables 5 and 6. For estimation purposes a
year was considered to consist of 138 Winter days, 86 Summer days, 79 Fall days, and 62
Spring days.
I believe that it is appropriate to conclude that the ridership estimates as prepared by
Kaiser Engrs./TDA are indeed realistic and represent the range of likely ridership that
the valley might expect to generate on a valley -wide light rail system. In addition, I also
believe that it is important to note the impact that the choice of alignment to enter Aspen
will have on both projected ridership and projected revenue. While there are certainly
other factors to consider in selecting the preferred entrance to Aspen, I hope that we will
also be cognizant of the impacts on ridership and revenue that the decision poses for the
valley -wide light rail system as a whole.
12
41
( 7
APPENDIX TABLE �
Selected Vehicle Trip Tabljj`
from Centennf&L Engineering Data
Di.rectionet Year 2010 Daily VEHICLE Trips
by Trip Maker and origin
ACo = 3.0 ACO : 1.3 ACO = 1.8
VISITOR RESIDENT RESIDENT
WORK OTHER
FROM DOWNVALLEY TO:
�
Snowmass
218"
838
1,35`
Airport/Business Center
59 f
1,428✓
1,5781:
Aspen Metro
409
1,100 ✓
3,647 ;l
FROM ASPEN METRO TOs
Airport/Susinabs Carter
1,213
1,652"
3,389 ✓
Downvat I ey
' 935✓
176 ✓
760 ,i
Snowmass
1,483 ✓
323 ✓
1,044 ✓
FROM SNM MASS T0:
365'✓
1,001'f
Aspen Metro
1,503
Airport/Business Center
$01
550✓
1,012 ✓
Downvaltey
1,389
63 ✓
505 ✓
FRCM AIRPORT/BUSINESS CENTER
TO:
Aspen Metro
767 ✓
1,603
6,002'�
Snowmass
205",
174 ✓
1,9051'
Downvaltey
162 ✓
95 ✓
1,942 `
TOTAL
9,144
........
8,367
.......................
24,637 42,10
.........................................
APPENDIX TABLE
Co
Directional Year 2010 Daily
PERSON TripW
by Trip Maker and Origin
VISITOR
U SIDEKT
RESIDENT
WORK
OTHER
FR0N DOWNVALLEY TO:
Snowmass
654
1,089
3,334
Airport/Business Center
177
1,856
2,840
Aspen Metro
1,227
1,430
6,565
FROM ASPEN METRO TO:
Airport/Business Centor
Downvattey
Snowmass
FROM SNOWMASS TO:
Aspen Metro
Airport/Business Center
Downvaltey
FROM AIRPORT/BUSINESS CENTER TO:
Aspen Metro
Snowmass
Downvaltey
,TOTAL
3,639
2,148
6,100
2,805
229
1,363
4,4,49
420
1,879
4,50q
475
1,802
2,403
715
1,822
4,167
82
909
2,301
2,084
10,804
615
226
3,429
486
124
3,496
27,432
10,877
44,347 82,656
y7
APPENDIX TABLE 1)
Directional Year 2010
Assumed Transit
Mode Wit
by Trip Maker
and Origin
VISITOR TRIPS IRESiDENT WORK
TRIP IRESIDENT
OTHER TRIPS
Low High I
Low
High !
low
High
Transit Transit I
Transit Transit
I
Transit
Transit
FROM DOWNVALLEY TOt
I
4% 8% 1
8x
I
16% 1
4%
8%
Snowmass
16% I
4%
8%Airport/Business
Center
10% !
12y
28Y. I
8%
1E3Y.
Aspen Metro
6X
t
1
FROM ASPEN METRO TO:
'•
!
Airport/Business Center
10% !
12%,
28% 1
8%
18%
Downvalley
6%
4% 8% I
4%
8% t
3%
7%
Snowmass
I
I
FROM SNOWMASS TO:
i
4% >3X I
4%
I
8% 1
3.G
Aspen Metro
4% 4X !
3%
7% I
3%
Airport/Business Center
8%
16% 1
4%
8%
Downva t l ey
4%
• I
1
FROM AIRPORT/BUSINESS CENTER TO;
I
1
10% !
4%
Aspen Metro
4% $% {
8% !
6%
3%
7: I
3%
7y
snowmass
4%
4% 8% I
9w
16% !
4%
ax
Downvaliey
FTVV W DtdcX-/
Fo(.14 a0
h
-------------------------- - -- _.---------------------------------
- ; . --- _ .--.. , ,_ vr„ , r,n nsnz GFC�EIVL FnrSRM1LE IN ruXL
ATPk4r, 4m " -r '1
NOV 2 11990
Pitkin Coun
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: 'Bruce Able
FROM: Reid Haughey
SUBJECT: Ridership Forecasts
DATE: November 14, 1990
I have three questions concerning your report. All relate to the
Airport Business Center.
1. How does one include the Airport Business Center and remain
consistent with the mandate to provide an inter -community
commuter backbone?
4
2. Will public transit be competitive with limo service to
lodges at the airport?
3. What is the marginal cost of -providing transit via rail to
Airport/Airport Business Center versus rubber tires.
Me report further confirms the need to link Snowmass, and does
pint a reasonable perspective to it.
CC. Dan Blankenship
Carol O'Dowd
-Tom Baker
-Administration County Commissioners County Attorney
530 E. Main, 3rd Floor Suite B Suite l
Aspen, CO 81611 506 E. Main Street 530 E. Main Street
(303) 920-5200 Aspen, CO 81611 Aspen, CO 81611
FAX 920-5198 (303) 920-5150 (303) 920-5190
Personnel and Finance
Suite F
530 E. Main Street
Aspen, CO 81611
(303) 920-5220
Road and Bridge
Fleet Management
20210 W. Highway 82
Aspen, CO 81611
(303) 920-5390
MEMORAND LrM
To: Reid Haughey, Pitkin County
From: Bruce Abel, DAVE Transportation
File: D:CA-Rio Grande
Re: Ridership Forecasts
Date: November 27, 1990
In regards to your memo dated November 14, 1990; I would like to offer several
responses to the questions you posed.
1. I believe that the inclusion of the Airport/Airport Business Center in the Valleywide
light rail system not only remains consistent with the mandate to provide inter -
community commuter transit service but reinforces the concept of inter -community
commuter transit. My rationale for this is the oft -overlooked fact that the Airport and
Airport Business Center are employment centers for downvalley residents and as such the
A/ABC is a trip destination for commuters from downvalley. This is represented in the
downvalley to A./ABC resident work trips reported in Appendix Tables B and C as
attached to my memo of November 5, 1990.
2. Public rail transit will not be competitive with limo service between the airport and
the lodges in Aspen. I believe that RFTA ridership figures from the airport shuttle will
bear this out. RFTA figures indicate that a relatively small percentage of passenger
boardings on the airport shuttle route actually take place at the airport terminal. This
also makes sense in that one would not expect visitors to Aspen to utilize public transit to
travel from the airport to a downtown terminal when the limo will take them directly to
their lodge without having to transfer to another means of transportation. We do not
anticipate capturing a large part of the visitor market segment at the airport. This is
reflected in the relatively low "mode split" assigned to the A/ABC to Aspen visitor trips as
described in my memo dated November 5, 1990.
3. Operating and Maintenance (O&M) cost per mile was estimated to be $2.35 per mile
for rubber tire transit, $2.85 per mile for self-propelled rail diesel cars (rdc's), and $4.80
per mile for modern electric light rail vehicles. These estimates were prepared in 1989
and reflect costs from that time. Due to the difference in seating capacity of the different
vehicles it is also appropriate to review the cost per seat mile. O & M cost per seat mile
for rubber -tired transit would equal $.0546, while cost per seat mile for rdc's would equal
$.0431 and cost per seat mile for modern electric would be $.0631.
I� I
DAVE
s6
Memorandum Page 2 November 27, 1990
I hope that this additional information will help better illustrate some of the many
issues facing the community as we move towards a decision regarding the appropriate
alignment to enter Aspen. If I may provide any additional information or thoughts please
let me know.
cc: Dan Blankenship
Carol O'Dowd
Tom Baker ✓
�"frA�r{ME�I"f 8
TO: File
FROM: Tom Baker, Assistant City Manager
Tom Newland, Assistant County Manager
RE: Summary: Meeting Between Staff and Colorado Department
of Highways Regarding Valley Light Rail System
DATE: December 4, 1990
The purpose of this meeting was to explore areas of cooperation
between the CDOH and the community regarding construction of a
VLR system in the Highway Corridor from the Airport area to
Aspen. The meeting was attended by Bob Moston and Rich Perske,
from the Department of Highways; Tom Newland and Reid Haughey,
from Pitkin County; Carol O'Dowd and Tom Baker, from the City of
Aspen; Bruce Abel and Jim Kent, consultants to the Roaring Fork
Forum; Bill Ayers, Aspen resident and transportation specialist;
Tom Brown, Eagle County Transportation Director; and Wayne
Ethridge, County Commissioner.
At this meeting staff gave the CDOH an overview of the Valley
Light Rail System effort which is being undertaken by the 10
governments the Roaring Fork Valley, as well as New Castle and
Rifle. The following is a summary of questions and answers from
that meeting.
If the community selects the Highway alignment and Rail Diesel
Cars will the proposed bridges be capable of supporting the
weight of these cars?
Rich Perske indicated that the proposed bridges would be
capable of supporting Electric Light Rail, but not Rail
Diesel Cars. Rich Perske stated that if the community
selected RDC's, then a separate rail bridge would be
required at Maroon and Castle creeks. (Please see attached
memo from Ron Rypinski, Kaiser. Staff continues to
investigate other bridge sharing options.)
If the Highway alignment is chosen, will we be allowed to
construct the rail system prior to highway construction.
Rich Perske indicated that this was not likely. The CDOH
funding sources were contingent upon timely construction.
However, we would be allowed to construct at the same
time.(If design and construction occurred jointly, then the
VLR would likely be in place prior to construction in Shale
Bluff area.)
5-Z,
Will the CDOH consider the Shale Bluffs Bypass?
Rich Perske said no. The cost differential is $18 million
in 1987 dollars, the canyon is currently free of development
and environmentally sensitive. Two bridge structures over
the Roaring Fork in this area would damage the canyon.
Is the use of Main Street as a rail alignment into town
acceptable to CDOH?
Rich Perske indicated that this would be very problematic
because of the level of traffic on Main Street, as well as
the number of street intersections with Main Street. Safety
concerns would make this alternative very problematic.. Rich
Perske recommended that the consultants contact the Public
Utilities Commission so that we understand the safety
requirement (gates, light, bells) for rail in the Highway
corridor.
Will the CDOH allow us to acquire right-of-way as part of their
right-of-way acquisition for highway improvements?
Rich Perske and Bob Moston stated that the CDOH will work
with the community to ensure that a VLR system can use the
Highway Corridor. They will reenforce proposed bridge
structures to carry electric modes and the CDOH will acquire
additional right-of-way to provide for the rail system. It
should be noted that the community will be expected to pay
for the extra right-of-way and additional bridge work.
Additionally, the CDOH indicated that they. could not
purchase any right-of-way until the Environmental Impact
Statement is final.
rail.cdoh.sum
0
Is
13
rI
ICF KAISER ENGINEERS
INTER OFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Bruce Abel
AT: Dave Transportation
DATE: November 26, 1
FROM: Ron Rypinski *_
AT: ICF KE, Los Angeles
COPIES TO: M. Soronson JOB NO. 00128
SUBJECT: Aspen -Glenwood Springs Rail Study
Bridge Weight Requirements for Rail Equipment
A review of the data being used by the Colorado Department of Highways (CDOH) for
rapid transit design loadings indicates that bridge designs will not be adequate for the
type of rail equipment which will likely be operated in the Roaring Fork corridor.
I believe that confusion may exist due to the use of the term "light rail". Light rail
actually refers to system capacity rather than equipment weight. The proposed
service for the Roaring Fork corridor is really rural commuter rail in nature. As a
result, design loadings must accommodate a variety of potential rail equipment.
While the use of trains consisting- of self-propelled rail diesel cars (RDC) is proposed
for initial service, the following types of equipment should not be precluded:
• Dinner trains consisting of a diesel-electric locomotive and trailing
passenger cars;
• Special trains consisting of a diesel-electric locomotive and private or
chartered passenger cars; and
• Self-propelled, electric powered trains (future conversion to more
traditional light rail technology).
The design loadings currently used by the CDOH can only accommodate the self-
propelled, electric powered trains. The actual weight of rail diesel cars or diesel-
electric locomotives is heavier than the weight of the electric powered equipment
being used for design loadings. The basic dimensions and weights appropriate for
diesel equipment are as follows:
1
3�/
CHARACTERISTIC RAIL DIESEL CAR DIESEL ELECTRIC
LOCOMOTIVE
Total weight
Number of axles per unit
Distance between truck centers
Distance between axles per truck
Distance between truck center
and pulling face of coupler
Overall length per unit
72 tons
4
59'6"
81611
12'9"
85'0"
130 tons
4
33'0"
9'0"
117'
56'2"
The information provided above should suffice to justify reconsideration of the criteria
being used for design loadings of rail equipment. Please contact me if you have any
questions or if you require additional information.
RN
55
All-Ac-44 M X�4 T
MEMORANDUM
TO: File
FROM: Tom Baker, Assistant City Manager
Tom Newland, Assistant County Manager
RE: Summary of Valley Light Rail Alignment Meetings
DATE: December 6, 1990
The City, County and Snowmass Village held four (4) public
meetings to hear community comments regarding the alignment
options for the Valley Light Rail System. The meetings were held
at Truscott Place, Snowmass Village, Woody Creek, and the
Community Center. The Woody Creek meeting was attended two
people. At each meeting (except Woody Creek) staff took notes on
newsprint, those notes are attached to this memorandum.
In summary, the community asked a number of technical questions
regarding the operation of the rail system and in general, either
alignment is technically capable of serving the valley.
A number of citizens voiced concern over the loss of the Rio
Grande trail as it exists today and questioned the practicability
of rebuilding the trail as staff has indicated.
A number of citizens were concerned about implementing a VLR
system which did not effectively serve the Airport. -ABC, or
Snowmass Village.
Many Snowmass residents were concerned about providing a system
between Aspen and Snowmass. They were concerned that all the
Valley's resources would be put into the VLR.
A number of citizens were concerned that if we did not implement
a VLR system as soon.as possible, then the proposed highway would
preclude the community from ever implementing the VLR system.
A number of citizens were concerned that if the rail system was
not in place prior to highway construction, then both the
employees and the resorts would be adversely effected.
A number of citizens were concerned that the Pitkin County
governments were considering alignments based upon technical
concerns and not focusing on what the people who were going to
ride it wanted. Several citizens suggested meetings in Basalt,
Eliebel, and Carbondale.
A number of citizens voiced support for the electric light rail
powered by the Valley's hydro -electric resources as a vision for
the future. Many citizens also pointed to the Middle East as a
54
signal that we were on the right "track". "The cost of driving
will never be cheap again."
In terms of further data needs, a number of citizens wanted more
detailed information about who would really use the system and
where were they going.
In staffs opinion, the community is divided between which
alignment is best. Some consider service to the Airport/ABC more
important than providing service prior to highway construction,
others feel very strongly that rail service should be in place
prior to highway construction. To some the Rio Grande trail
should not be touched, to others the rail has a higher priority
and the trail can be relocated. Throughout the public meeting
process two ideas emerged:. to terminate the VLR at the
Airport/ABC area; and to serve the Airport/ABC on the highway
alignment and then return to the Rio Grande r-o-w. Staff is
reviewing these ideas.
rail.mtg.sum
E
77
TRUSCOTT PLACE MEETING
F
Q - Information Sheet - #of stations and dwell time for
stations - is travel time accurate
- What is Main Street grade?
O & M costs/Rail vs Bus?
- Why is Main Street alignment still considered with no
terminus?
E - Cost of rebuilding trail
i
What is total cost of trail - inc. prop. acq.
Keep Rio Grande Trail unpaved below Slaughterhouse
ABC can be served from Rio Grande
Is Shale Bluffs Bypass realistic? Can train .use Bypass
bridge?
- Where is Snowmass Station for R.G. alignment
Can we put elec. power source below ground?
Do we have double track?
- Train on Shale Bluff w/Shale Bluffs Bypass
Start system next year w/terminus at Woody Creek
- Comprehensive transportation planning cost sharing with CDOH
Traffic volume - 6 lane from Brush Creek to Aspen. Train may
stop 6 lane
Shale Bluffs Bypass has a number of benefits
Highway alignments has more conflicts with autos
- What/where are grade crossings
How many crossings exist for each alignment?
What factors go into alignment?
Portland (example) has grade crossings
Rio Grande terminus is central
1
j F_�
Light rail vs heavy rail RDC = heavy what is stopping
distance
Will Midland alignment have same problem as R.G.
- Trolley is advantage for Rio Grande
Snowmass --- Downvalley trips are increasing
Must be visionary and provide system which serves AABC and
Snowmass with Aspen
Future buildout demands long term view. Short-term
construction mitigation may not give us the best system
- Rio grande trail reconstruction will be an immense problem.
Ridership # indicate highway alignment
- Midland is ideal alignment
Don't need "stations". Main Street terminus works
Auto conflicts are manageable
Back to the Future - 1972 Aspen-Snowmass
1990 we are focusing on Downvalley commuter
If serious need to service ABC, Snowmass
Both alignments have merits
- ABC and Snowmass can be served with the Rio Grande alignment
Do Rio Grande because it is doable now, but preserve highway
alignment
Midland alignment is a major recreation corridor and is more
constrained than Rio Grande
- Stop train at Marolt and distribute passengers from there
(trolley distribution)
- New Rio Grande trail will not service as many users as
existing trail
Highway alignment is best - love trail; connection with
Snowmass is vital. Shale Bluffs Bypass good.
Oa
37
Rio Grande is a natural railroad, but what is the trip
terminus (ABC/Snowmass)? Therefore, favor highway
because of ridership
Nothing is everything to all people, but we must get started
-must do what is fastest, but preserve future options
Do it now and people will use -people will suffer is rail is
not in place before Highway 82 construction
City planning identifies Rio Grande; but maintain future
options
- If we pursue all things to all people we may end up with
nothing
Is rail the right mode for Aspen-Snowmass corridor?
- Phase 1 Rio grande
Phase 2 Highway
Ridership figures to Snowmass are low
Favor Highway alignment for access to Snowmass (Midland)
Will not be able to avoid construction impacts (SH82)
If rail is in place when SH82 construction starts, then
people's habits can change
How can we coordinate with CDOH?
Highway construction is for the next 5-7 years. Need to
bring rail and highway together from Aspen to Brush
Creek
Financing would be better with higher ridership
- SH82 construction impacts are only temporary, rail is
permanent
We have a transportation corridor (SH82) rail needs to be
there
Must serve ABC/Snowmass
Aspen/Snowmass corridor is important, if we.spend $50-$100
million and not serve Snowmass, then when will we find
funds for Aspen/Snowmass link?
NEPA funding may be available if we have rail in place prior
to SH82
K3
4�5
Snowmass needs to be served - Shale Bluffs Bypass provides
connection to Snowmass. Service to Snowmass via rubber
tire for foreseeable future. Rio Grande good 1st
phase.
- Midland has geologic considerations, also
We need to get on with building the railroad
4
4%
SNOWMASS VILLAGE MEETING
- If we do rail do we need four lane Highway 82?
- ABC connection with Rio Grande?
Trail on south side of river will create snow on trail two
months longer
Rail system should serve visitor as well as residents
Intercept at Brush Creek
ABC future employee village?
- Connection from ABC to Rio Grande trail and pave trail from
ABC to town
If no past rail right-of-way then we would likely use
Highway'corridor
Community is not mining/industry based, but
recreational/environmentally based. Therefore, we need
Rio Grande trail in its present location
Rio Grande trail too valuable to lose
Rio Grande alignment does not serve Airport/ABC. AABC must
be served by rail!!!
Snowmass is the significant growth area and we need to
serve
Cut bus fare for commuters more cost effective than rail
Rio Grande trail is congested and should be enlarged. We are
not allocating resources effectively. Train costs $50
million (capital)and $5 million/yr (Oper.)
- Allocating resources to existing RFTA transit is the most
effective use of transportation $(Bus, car pool, van
pool)
In 1972 community said "no" to $ for train. Ask questions:
1. $ for preliminary design
2. $ for final design
3. $ for R-O-W acquisition
4. Capital $
Will the question of paying for train force use to create
growth nodes?
1
(o a,
- Rider and cost estimates are- misleading ---rail is not
realistic in a rural.community
Do we want to subsidize transit ridership at the rate of
$50,000/rider
We have environmental issues we must plan long-term
(ozone, air quality)
Auto is subsidized $2,500/yr. this is the most sub.form of
transportation!!
Rio Grande was the alignment of choice by engineers in
1880's
Light rail is good investment which can be built on in the
future
- Rio Grande can serve Snowmass via Woody Creek stop
Rio Grande alignment can serve ABC with mechanical
connection from Rio Grande
Roaring Fork River Greenway area is the most important
environmental in area
Relocated trail will adversely impact Greenway
There would likely be opposition to rebuilding Rio Grande in
Greenway
What bus savings will result from rail? (feeder bus)
What is impact of noise? Introduce train curfew due to
noise
1972 UMTA Alternatives Analysis. 1. How much improvement
will $50 million give to bus and housing in upper
valley
Valley residents want rail and need rail to meet future
needs
Look at Valley as one community
Extend R.G. trail on R-O-W to Glenwood
Rail and trails are compatible
Rail is sensitive to the environment
F
(1:13
ABC can access Rio Grande alignment
Light rail is a future transportation solution
Rail = safety
Rail gives commuter/visitors a choice to drive or read a
paper
Recent estimates of ridership on recently constructed system
is understated
Cost on urban systems are not the same as our system
Noise of diesel can be mitigated
- Important to keep other system cost/ridership estimates in
perspective
Optimal Bus = Train
We must focus on our ridership/cost projections
Impacts of Highway construction; therefore, Rio Grande
should be Phase 1, then cross river at Gerbazdale and
come to Aspen on Highway Phase 2
Was supportive of Rio Grande, bus now sees Highway as best
Highway alignment allows extension to Snowmass
Fact: We will have Highway construction (vacate City w/$50
million
Fact: Need alternative because we are running out of
gasoline
*- Spur from Airport/ABC from Rio Grande when needed
- Stop train outside of town with distribution by bus
Gasoline will not be cheap forever
Shaker Heights private rail. Choice between bus vs train
equals train choice
- Train does not have disadvantages of bus
Need to know # of construct, and service workers, tourist,
visitors? Traffic projections
Need more statistics about auto traveller
3
Must serve Airport, ABC, Snowmass
Must connect Aspen to Snowmass. Must be an important
evaluation tool
- This rail system will not address all transportation needs.
Aspen to Snowmass need different system
We cannot put enough $ into housing will not mitigate
traffic on SH82
If we want to deal with auto, then control growth
Must get train where people go!
CONCERNS
Loss of Community
- Loss of volunteer committees
4
COMMUNITY CENTER MEETING
Rio - 11111 2 are modified Rio
Highway - 1
A/ABC - l
Electric - especially given hydro capacity Ruedi/Maroon
4 Lane - will it be unnecessary
Limit auto access to town (limit vehicles per construction site)
Up to here with litigation regardless of alignment create
transport center at airport
Bring in transport -expert
Must serve Snowmass Village & ABC - highway better
Need to provide Aspen to Glenwood (need to go to town)
Could we tunnel Shale Bluffs
Shale By-pass would be improvement
Trolley to train?
More people ride trains than buses
vehicle size
Where fuel storage?
Cost of operating is it cheaper to run electric loop through ABC
and back to Rio Grande Trail to south of river?
Bus service too?
Coordinated System
Would trolley from Airport or Marolt ease the problems getting
into town
Are we trying to piece the system - how about pick the alignments
and solve the shortcomings
PR better on highway
1
(4
If RGRR trail is gone -this is a significant impact. Train
and trail are conflicting
Last "wilderness" in town (Rio Grande Trail)
Trail is heavily used
Trail relocation isn't worth it
Railroad up SH82 because of better access to Snowmass/AABC
Environmental too great
Pedestrian/train conflict too great
How much to re -build roadbed? (Bruce A.)
Sewer line is a concern that hasn't been addressed
Sludge site: How will train impact this area? (Shale Bluffs
Bypass)
Highway alignment: gets people where they want to go.
- Rio Grande trail is an asset to the tourist industry -it is
easy to access and use
- Highway alignment could also use up a portion of RGRR trail
(1-1 1/2 miles)
Highway corridor is and will be serviced by bus
You don't have to stop a lot on highway alignment
- Rio Grande alignment will enhance tourist ridership
Proposed rail realignment will result in a different trail
Ridership could be lower on Rio Grande alignment
Probably can't do both alignments
Railroad on Highway alignment could be used as a "showcase"
or example of alternative transit modes (i.e. self -
advertised)
NEPA funding could help bring costs down
- 1. Is railroad important regardless of alignment?
5 - Yes
3 - No
2
(7
2. Is timing important? (Railroad before highway)
5 - Yes
3 - No
3. What alignment?
Highway - 5
Rio. Grande - 3
Either/Or approach is counter productive
Construct for where can gain most.riders
Have Park N Ride at Gerbazdale if do/or not use Gerbazdale
train crossing
If highway Shale Bluffs used, then run train in Shale Bluffs
area
Highway alignment into Aspen (City politics are unknown)
Environmental impact on Rio Grande needs to be assessed and
distributed
All transportation.systems must be integrated.
- Local systems ( Aspen , S n o w m a s s
Village,Basalt,Glenwood Springs, etc.)
must be able to support and benefit from
Valley Rail System
Parking, bus, taxi's,cars, bicycle
- If construction timing not an issue, which alignment is a
better option?
Define ridership
Best terminus - parking at Rio Grande
Question use of train for short trips
Commuters will use for long trips
DATA NEEDS
- Need to identify where commuters need to go, Airport, trips
from Glenwood Springs, lodge destination
Concerned about losing employees to Vail. Vail plans to draw
from Glenwood Springs and Rifle
Use existing transportation corridors for new transportation
impacts
3
If Rio Grande or Main 'Street terminus, better use of
overnight parking for construction workers
- Stations, trains should be, accessible, fast and fun
(convenient parking at stations)
- Include trolley as part of system if terminus at Rio Grande
or Ruby Park
* Logistics of connections to Snowmass Village, Airport and
ABC and cross-town in Aspen must be defined to evaluate
alignment options
* Explain how each alignment will function for users (people)
not trains
Need to distribute ridership numbers. Accurate/recent
numbers
Concern:
Timing of highway construction from Brush Creek
turnoff through Snowmass Canyon
Keep Gerbazdale crossing if using highway
alignment. May be less costly than airport
crossing
Must by-pass highway construction so do not
construct train simultaneous to highway
construction in Canyon and Shale Bluffs
Cost of driving
Train=to cost of driving car
Construction delays
Single occupied cars
- Construction traffic 30%?
- Can we get single occ. car drivers to use rail
Private sector involvement.
for overnight parking
Buttermilk, AOSC, Airport
Moved Downvalley (afford)
SH82 Hazard
4
(� 7
Rail best long-term solution
Ridership numbers?
Train better experience than bus
Reverse Park N Ride
Don't force the impossible
40-60 mile community
Moved out of trains due to cheap gas; now we are moving the
other way
Alignment
Rio Grande because we cannot afford to wait
- Workers to Vail
- Rio Grande terminus not disadvantage
Shale Bluffs Bypass
Terminate at Airport? Transfer a problem
Construction impacts will destroy Aspen
What % of people need to go to each location
- Train must go where people go
Rio Grande heavily used recreation corridor
- 60 mile community ---what is best for community
- cost effectively
environmentally
If Highway chosen
lack of terminal/staging-
inter/intra urban system
timing traffic impact from construction
If Rio Grande
$50 million which does not serve people
AABC terminus bus waiting with bus lane on Highway 82
Workers and school kids
Trail is valuable asset
5
?6
- Lose one of the best assets in the Valley
Pitkin County 75% open space, but we spend millions on open
space
Rio Grande to save one year for 50 year system
Political decision
..
7)
ArrjAl t—#,,
I VV I Do YV Lei•.
TO: File
FROM: Tom Baker, Assistant City Manager
RE: Advantages and Disadvantages: Rail Alignments
DATE: December 6, 1990
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
The following is a revised list of advantages and disadvantages
based upon comments at the public meetings.
ALIGNMENT ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES
Rio Grande Alignment
Advantages:
* Easier physical implementation because road bed and right-
of-way are in place for a substantial portion of alignment.
* Scenic quality of alignment.
* During construction of light rail SH 82 traffic will not be
disrupted.
* Best able to mitigate impacts of SH 82 construction.
* No bridges needed across the Roaring Fork River (cost).
* .Not dependent on another entity for construction timing
( CDOH) .
* Rio'Grande property is a transportation center.
* Rio Grande right-of-way from Woody Creek to Aspen and Rio
Grande playing field are owned by Pitkin County and the City
of Aspen.
Disadvantages:
* Hiking/biking/equestrian trail needs to be relocated and
rebuilt.
* Potential neighborhood disruption.
* Service to A/ABC and Snowmass not very effective, therefore,
ridership will likely be less than highway alignment.
* Potential relocation of sewer and electric utilities in
r-o-w.
* Use of 6th penny land requires voter approval.
* Traffic disruption on Puppy Smith and Mill streets.
Highway Alignment
Advantages:
* Best serves. Snowmass Village and Airport/ABC, therefore,
ridership will likely be higher than Rio Grande.
* Avoids Rio Grande trail.
* Good local distribution in Aspen (downtown terminus).
* Rubey Park is and attractive terminus (Midland).
* Scenic quality of Midland alignment.
Disadvantages:
* Cost of right-of-way acquisition and the need for a bridge
across the Roaring Fork River and potentially across Maroon
and Castle creeks.
* Potential neighborhood disruption.
* Less well suited to mitigate impacts of SH 82 construction
(unless we can construct rail prior to SH 82 construction).
* Timing of rail construction dependent on another entity
(CDOH).
* May degrade the valley commuter function if there is a
proliferation of Aspen stations (travel time).
2
73
* Loss of Main Street parking.
* Increased auto/rail conflict and traffic disruption
(especially on Main Street, but also generally in highway
corridor.)
* Undefined terminus for (Main St.) .
rail.ad.disad.
3
?y
0-m. Fj,-4� , i
I V IN I *) . V!
TO: File
FROM: Tom Baker, Assistant City Manager
RE: VLR Information Sheet
DATE: December 6, 1990
The attached information sheet was developed by Bruce Abel. This
sheet compares updated costs for what is now considered a basic
VLR system. Please note that if the Shale Bluffs Bypass is part
of either alignment, then the cost will increase by $18 million.
7 9--
VALLEY -WIDE LIGHT RAIL SYSTEM
ENTRANCE TO ASPEN
CAPITAL
COSTS FOR NEW BASIC SYSTEM (000,000)
I RIO GRANDE I
HIGHWAY
I
I Basic (Kaiser)
I I
I I
I RDC
( $ 37.5 I
$ 50.25
I Electric
I
I 148.4 (
I I
158.9
i
I Cars
I RDC
I 8.6 I
8.6
I Electric
I 18.1 (
1 1
18.1
I
I Day Care
I
I
I RDC
( 1.2 I
1.2
I Electric
i
I 1.2 I
1 1
1.2
I
I Trail Relocation
I
( I
I RDC
( 2.1 I
0.0
I Electric
I 2.1 (
' 1 1
0.0
I Missing Station
I I
I RDC
I .08 I
.08
I Electric
I 0.0 I
I
0.0
I
I TOSV Bridge
I I
I
I RDC
( 2.4 (
2.4
( Electric
I
( 2.4 I
I I
2.4
I ABC Bridge
I I
( I
I RDC
I 1.7 I
0.0
Electric
( 1.7
1 I
i
j RR Bridge(s)
I I
RDC
I 0.0 I
13.4
I Electric
( 0.0 I
I I
I
Right -of -Way
I I
( I
RDC
I .5 (
6.5
Electric
( .5 I
I
6.5
TOTAL
I I
I
RDC
I $ 54.08 (
$ 82.4* I
j Electric
( 174.4 I
187.1 or I
*If new RR Bridges are not required for RDC then total
highway cost
is $69 million.
NOTE: If Shale Bluff Bypass is part of any alignment,
then add $18
million.
�L
law VT(*) V
TO: File
FROM: Tom Baker, Assistant City Manager
RE: Housing Survey results for Light Rail Question
DATE: December 6, 1990
Attached is a graph which is part of the Employee Housing Survey
which was conducted in September. While the results do not
indicate a preference regarding alignment, they do indicate which
projects the survey respondents are willing to pay additional
taxes to support. As you can see, the Light Rail project has
support of 60 percent of the respondents in the Aspen area.
77
� en 24 50�.j � �.S
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
COMBI.XLC
-t;�< 4Z---
Rot ev A.�r
.p4y 4cu,�ar}o.�,, t�1X,e5
J ✓
Mall Exp Rec Center Parks Trails Highway 82 Light Rail
® Yes 1 ® Uncertain ♦ Ratings
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Page 1