HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19900828
v...~
~
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
AUGUST 28. 1990
JOINT MEETING WITH COUNTY P&Z
HIGHWAY DISCUSSION
Acting Chairman Roger Hunt called meeting to order at 2:30pm. and
turned meeting over to Tom Baker of the Planning Dept.
Baker:
thanked
and Rod
Welcomed the members of the Hwy Advisory Committee and
the Dept of Hwy Rich Perske the pre-construction engineer
Aiken the bridge pre-construction engineer.
The primary purpose of this meeting is for me to hear what P&z
has to say in response to what will be presented today in order
to develop in memo form a recommendation that can be submitted to
the Board of county commissioners and to the City Council.
At this point I will turn this over to Rich and Ron who will
explain the process they went through to arrive at these 2
alternatives that you see before you.
Rich: The bridge that we' are all using today is an historic
structure built by the Colorado Midland RR in 1888. As such it
is an historic resource and so long as reasonable, feasible
alternatives to tearing it down exist, it has got to remain in
place. It just can I t be modified. So we have settled on an
alignment to the north which does require some consumption of
open space.
The goal of our design effort and our review of structural types
focused on the commitments we made in EIS to minimize the
consumption of open space, to minimize the environmental effect
of our structure, to the best that we can fit the aesthetic
settings with adjacent to that rail structure.
The valley is about 100ft deep at that location. And the bridges
that we will be considering today are about 700ft long. One of
the goals of our design approach was to minimize the number of
spans so we have a minimum number of piers into the valley. Each
pier requires an area to be disturbed. What we did look at was
look at structure types that would us to span the valley with the
minimum number of piers and have no piers or any significant
disruption on the valley side slopes as a critical area.
.
Also we didn I t want to put a pier down in the middle of the
stream. So it became apparent that the 3 span structure best fit
the valley.
The steel box girder and the steel slant leg girder are the 2
style of bridges or approaches which we came up with.
PZM8.28.90
The width of the roadway that we are proposing: In our EIS we
initially reviewed a 4-lane alignment with a depressed median.
We put the 2 lanes of traffic about 36ft apart. That consumed a
lot of open space--that additional width in median.
We also considered 2 structures--2 lanes in each direction with
the bridges set at 36ft with depressed median. The disadvantages
of that is that it consumes an additional 20ft in width which
consumes more open space and likewise at the end of each bridge
it requires along the inside curb it requires a guard rail
treatment so vehicles can't go off over the edge.
So if it were 2 bridges it would be 20ft
guard rail entry and the other depicts
raised and four planters placed at
structure.
wider and
the 16ft
locations
would need a
wi th median
across the
One other point that has come up is the question of how would
this structure accommodate future alternative uses. We have done
some depiction of how were we to want to use an HOV lane bus
system, the 10ft shoulders could conceivably become dedicated HOV
lanes by narrowing that median planter. That could be done
without any structural modifications to the bridges whatsoever.
The other question was how would you accommodate rail in the
future on this structure? We can accommodate light rail on this
structure if we were to beef up the girders and beef up the deck.
We have estimated that were the rail to go on simply one side of
the structure that that add~tional cost to beef up the structure
would be as little as $100,000. Were each side to be beefed up
to accommodate light rail $200,000. So we feel that we can
accommodate light rail similar to the loadings that were
accommodated on some I-225 structures in Denver and have that
ability to accommodate light rail in the future.
Likewise if the transit system in the future is a bus system it
could be accommodated with no increased cost to the structure
with some modifications to the planters.
We are proposing that pedestrians be accommodated on the
structure we are proposing here.
?: The question is if the existing bridge is likely to become
pedestrian/Bicycle is it necessary to have pedestrian crossings
on both sides of the new structure?
Rich: I am not sure how long we can expect that existing bridge
to last. It has got a finite life. It is 100 years into it's
finite service life. It is potentially possible that 70 years
2
PZM8.28.90
down the line that some flaw in that structure we found--or some
safety standard will exist that will allow it not to be used for
that. Everything has a life expectancy and we have to recognize
that that rail structure is--
?: It could be 10 years for that matter.
Rich: Hopefully--it has lasted 102 years. That is probably a
little longer than the RR designers expected and it has got
20,000 vehicles crossing it every day. It is a structure that
has all of it's own problems. I think we are all aware of it
every time the pavement pops loose.
Graeme: There are a lot of people who are quite concerned with
bicycle traffic, foot traff.ic, ski traffic and all that across
there. Are you assuming that the other bridge is going to handle
that and you are not really dealing with that and leaving that
for us to deal with?
Rich: We are proposing that there be a sidewalk on either side
of the structure. That there be a 10ft shoulder. That shoulder
be where the bicyclists most likely are going to work. There
will be a 10ft shoulder on either side to be used for bicyclists
and a 6ft pedestrian walkway on each side.
What we are proposing for guardrails is a Glenwood Canyon style
guardrail. It has a parapet wall about 24 to 30 inches--20
inches. And then it has a steel rail on top of it with post
space something on the order of 12 to 15 feet. And the reason
that rail is utilized in Glenwood canyon is that it opens up some
views. You can see through it. It is not a continuous rail.
Likewise the railing on the closing for the sidewalk is a fairly
open-appearing rail still providing a barrier but it is an open
railing. So we will have pedestrians accommodated, bicycles on
the 10ft shoulders and the 4-lane hwy taken care of.
Graeme: But does the old bridge--do you consider that as part of
your plan? Or is that just left with us to use as we want it?
Rich: It can remain the Hwy Dept' s bridge if there is a
reluctance for the community to accept that bridge and the
responsibility for it. It can become a part of the Nordic Trail
if that fits. It is available for some alternative uses so long
as they are consistent with it's historic designation and it's
historic preservation.
Baker: On the handout you can see that we have incorporated the
historic into the trail system via underpasses.
3
PZM8.28.90
Rich: That is one of the things that we will also be providing
the bridge. Somewhere to the Castle Creek Bridge there is a
pedestrian feature to go under the roadway so you don't have to
cross at grade. We would provide that same feature at both ends.
?: The parapet is between the sidewalk and the shoulder?
Rich: That is correct.
We are considering light rail in it's light term. I believe the
rail that is being considered presently is a 4-car diesel train
that is in the range of the light rail.
Roger: Would it handle technical heavy rail?
Rich:
quoted.
probably not. At least not in the $100,000
It can still be beefed but the cost goes up.
we have
?: May I suggest that just as a design approach that the bridge
be designed for heavy rail from the very beginning.
Rich: There is a substanti~l cost differential.
?: If this community is willing to bear it, I am one member who
would be willing to bear. It is a lot better to spend the money
in the beginning.
Rich: We wouldn't propose to strengthen the whole structure--
just the elements that are necessary. This brings up another
question. which side?
?: You have talked about the long range view and everything has
it's cost in life and it has a useful life. And I think the
message I am getting from you is that RR bridge has had a useful
life. In fact it isn't really a RR bridge. I never thought of
it that way. It has always been a hwy bridge to me for some 30
years that I have been using it. It is not the original
structure. And in future years in order for it to even be safe
for pedestrians, it is going to have to be maintained by
somebody. Either the county or the state.
Additionally another cost of this bridge is the fact that by
leaving it in place you alter the logical route for the new
bridge and you take up open space which includes a soccer field
and some parking in the golf area.
And I would also like to point out that the design you have of
the new bridge--actually usurps any proposed function which I
think has to be termed a short-term consideration as far as that
old bridge is concerned.
4
PZM8.28.90
So you have obviously considered removal of the so-called
historic modified RR bridge.
Rich: We have had conversation with
Preservation Officer. That is not an
historic resource on this community's many
it can't be altered.
the state Historic
option. That is an
historic resources and
?: So what we will have to do is maintain it and put up barriers
so people can't get across it.
Rich: The Hwy Dept is proposing that it can be available for
some alternative uses in the community and we have left it up for
discussion whether the community wants to accept responsibility
for the bridge and ownership or whether it remains with the Hwy
Dept.
?: Why don't you guys keep it?
Rich: I have heard that a couple of times in the last 2 years
and that remains a distinct possibility.
?: Is there any provision in the historic designation that they
admit they made a mistake have it un-designated?
Rich: I don't think so. I am fairly certain it would be a long
drawn out process to have it removed.
.
?: I have been coming across that bridge for years wondering why
it is still there.
Baker: I will ask Roxanne to research that and report back to
both Boards.
Roger: And included in that how about researching reducing the
deck back to the original 10 foot RR deck. Maybe it wouldn't be
a RR deck.
Rich: Realizing that that was a 1929 modification it is a
historic deal. The modification is historic.
Before we widened it there were people driving their cars across
it even in 1919 and 1920. The trestles are unchanged. It is
just that very upper portion. Just a slight flair at the sides
so that 2 cars could pass.
Someone asked if the old structure would be maintained.
5
PZM8.28.90
Rich: Probably we really would be limiting the uses and we would
do some limited maintenance but it is not in our plans to do
anything other than retire that structure. It has 1 i ved it's
useful life.
?: In other words you probably wouldn't use it for pedestrian or
bicycle use.
Rich: You have to realize that it has got a limited use--a
limited life span. I don't think you can expect it to be
feasible to have life expectancy of 50-60-70 years. And that is
why we are proposing pedestrian function. It may work into the
trail system. There have been some people suggested to link to
cross country ski connection across Maroon Creek that it would
have some use there.
?: Did you say the existing bridge will not accommodate light
rail ?
Rich: The existing old bridge?
?: Yes.
Rich: Again, it has got a limited life and I think that it might
be possible to put light rail on that structure. It would take
someone doing it in analysis based on whatever they wanted to put
on it. We wouldn't accept responsibility for light rail on that
stretch. Let's put it that way.
?: Just as a judgement call--could the bridge be maintained for
that use?
Rich: I have to defer to our staff bridge engineer.
number of problems with that old bridge.
He has a
Rod Aiken: It's conceivabl~--certainly there was rail service on
that structure in the beginning--heavy rail which compared to
today's heavy rail it is not in the same ball park. And on the
surface, yes, it would appear that you could do that. However,
the key we all are aware of is that particular structure the way
it is built is a 2 girder system--just 2 beams between supports.
Who knows? I don't know an engineer in this room that could tell
you how much of that fatigue life has been used--how much is left
and so forth.
So it is really something that I would not propose to build a
whole new facility and handle that on that old structure that no
one has an idea. You could go through extensive testing I
suppose.
6
PZM8.28.90
?: Would it be conceivable, Rich that if you wanted 2-way light
rail traffic, it could be on one side?
Rich: We have always believed it is going to be on one side or
the other. It is just a question of if you really know which
side you want to be on one way to be sure you have got either
alternative covered is to beef up them both.
?: Is that 1 set of tracks either side or 2 sets of tracks
either side?
Rich: One set of tracks. If you look at the Kaiser Eng report
they depicted a rails system utilizing a 12ft wide rail corridor
for one set of tracks. That is what we have done is depicted an
alteration in the future that might accommodate that.
?: If we wanted to beef up the bridge to handle 2 sets of tracks
on one side, it is just money?
Rich: No.
configuration
sidewalk.
It is width. The width isn't
unless perhaps you were to
there and that
cannibalize the
?: Could you pull the width from the other side?
Rich: It would conceivably be possible. I have talked about
some pretty easy modifications to rail on one side and HOV on one
side--just messing around with that plan or narrowing it up. It
would be conceivable. We have got a continuous deck under the
sidewalk and through to totally reconfigure the top.
?: Has the state budgeted anything for taking that upper deck
off of there?
Rich: No.
?: So if it stays with the State, it stays exactly the same as
it is.
Rich: Yes. And if it were ever turned over to anyone we
have some sort of assurance from the party that
responsibility that whatever modification they made to
structure would only be mflde in consultation with the
Historic Preservation Office.
would
took
that
State
?: Does the state Historic Preservation Office have funds for
that type of refurbishment?
Rich: No.
7
PZM8.28.90
?: So the only way it is going to go back like a RR trestle is if
the community takes it back.
Rich: Yes.
Ron: I would address thE! existing structure purely from my
experience as a bridge construction engineer and our every-2-year
inspection of the structure at which time we find a loose bolt
here and there each time. The vibrations are getting to it and
loosening up joints. We are seeing--and as you can probably tell
by driving back and forth every 3, 4, 5 years we have got to take
the machine out there and weld that deck back down again. It is
a steel deck--weld it onto some longitudinal stringers.
vibration from the traffic--20,000 cars a day is just completely
loosening the welds and pulling the deck off.
We have not chosen to replace that deck with concrete just
because of the weight dead load and so forth. We are sticking
pretty much to what we have.
?: You are saying the support members wouldn't support the
weight.
Ron: Right.
?: One other thing, Ron, and that is if we were to replace that
deck it creates a little problem getting in and out of town.
Ron: One thing that we haven't mentioned is to do with the
comment about tearing down that old bridge. We do have to
maintain traffic in and out of town. If we replace a structure
we need a detour. We don't have a lot of al ternati ves. This
method with a new site gives us that alternative.
?: Just a timing question. If you have the existing bridge in
place while you build the other bridge and take it down after.
Ron: You could do that, yes.
we have got our impact at the
so forth.
But it doesn't alter the fact that
golf course, the soccer field and
?: I feel that proceeding with a bridge with the design and
construction of a bridge across Maroon Creek at this point is
premature. Because the actual design of the roadway entrance to
Aspen--looking at it in plan--has not been fully examined and
discussed and decided by this community.
(Showing his own drawings) It is my feeling that looking at
things in plan is what we must do before we decide on any new
bridge over the Maroon Cre~k Gorge. If this kind of solution
8
PZM8.28.90
which is a depressed solution were picked for instance it would
mean that this bridge could be built 10 to 15 feet lower than
this and it would be a completely different design.
If the community should decide to go ahead with that sort of
thing and we were in agreement about that then I would say that
now is the time for the Hwy Dept to design the bridge.
Back in the early '70s the golf course was bought as open space.
As most of you know there was a plan afoot in the early '70s to
develop all of the municipal golf course as houses. The
community rallied behind the notion that there should be an open
space plan. And the whole area all the way from Highland all the
way down to here was at that time supposed to be an open space
purchase. That was when the 6th Penny was voted in and it was
hoped the community would go ahead and purchase all of those
lands.
I see this approach as preserving the open space. What is
important for us to do in this community is to be able to
circulate back and forth across here and if we develop a bridge
like this it means that we are going to have a 4 or 6 lane
roadway. It is 99 feet wide here which somehow we are going to
have to cross with golf carts or skis. We have a major open
space purchase here. We have a major open space purchase here.
We have a major open space purchase here and we have a new golf
course going there.
We are going to have to get back and forth across these things.
And I think our investment as a community has been enormous in
terms of time, energy and money. And I would propose that we
look at things from that perspective when we address this
connection to the outside world which is a 4-land highway.
I think this has to be fu.lly, fully discussed before we talk
about any bridge.
?: My immediate response to this is I think this is a really
unimaginative approach to herding everything on a linear plain
and using the open space as an argument for being able to have
99ft wide zip-into-town. And I really concur with Jim. I think
you need to think of some imaginative new way and this bridge is
less crucial to me than the one that enters town proper. But I
think that the idea of settling it down minimizes impacts of
noise, maybe creates some different kinds of open space but gives
you the ability to separate some of the pedestrian traffic from
the vehicular traffic from the rail. And we are just not getting
any of that. We are getting all herded into one spot and I am
really concerned that this is just the start of a process that if
9
PZM8.28.90
people saw those drawings as the access into Aspen, I think you
would have caused a different impact on the vote.
Wayne: Well, in fact they did. Part of the newsletter on the
vote showed a little sketch. My problem with this whole
situation is that--and this is not an attack on the Hwy Dept--
this is symbolic of being careful of what you ask for because you
might get it. The community has asked for everything and this
bridge shows everything. It has got HOV lanes. It has got
potential for light rail. There are sidewalks on both sides. It
would require 84 feet of paving from the face of this barrier to
the face of this barrier.
Main street is about 74 feet. The bridge outside to outside is
99 feet wide. The airport runway is 100 feet wide. I don't
think people realize the scale of this. To my way of thinking
neither of these designs is appropriate because this design is
proceeding in advance of some critical decisions the community
has to make.
We need to make some very crucial decisions in the next few
months because otherwise this bridge or whichever bridge you pick
determines the future of the roadway. 84 feet of paving on
either end, the assumption is even if you eliminate the turn lane
on Castle Creek Bridge, you are going to have about a 74 foot
wide paving section coming right into Main street which means
Main street can't accommodate parking in the long term. The
question is 50, 60, 70 years from now this bridge to me indicates
that we are going to be dependent on the automobile entirely on
the private kinds of transportation. I personally don't believe
this.
I do believe that this is the safest possible design you can come
up with because it accommodates everything you can think of.
However, I am not sure that it fits. It doesn't fit my
definition of the community values of what we want the entrance
to look like. I commend the Hwy Dept for getting this much going
so quickly. Now the burden is on us to make some decision to see
whether or not this is really what the community wants.
Dwight: I think the Hwy Dept could have taken a very different
approach. And a different. approach was "We will put 4 lanes
across this and the rest is up to you. You gotta pay for the
pedestrians. You gotta pay for any additions that is required
for transit or HOVs or whatever". I think what they tried to do,
and I think they did it in good faith, was exactly what Wayne
said. They tried to put everything in there that they heard the
community asking for.
10
PZM8.28.90
20 years ago and still today my preference was basically to 4
lane Hwy 82 right where it sits. No medians, no nothing. And
then to try to take the slack up with a community program that
severely restrained auto access and diverted people onto transit.
We have an excellent bus system that could be bigger and better
and it could do that.
We are now looking at a train between Aspen and G1enwood. The
problem that I see is that I as a responsible person am required
to support the Hwy Dept's design unless something very
fundamental happens in this community. And that is that we
finally decide as a community that we are willing to give up some
of our entitlement and we are willing to put in place the kind of
restraints and restrictions that we need to have in order to
divert ourselves from an automobile-dependent community.
Anything short of that I think is the ravings of an addict who is
willing to deny everything and allow things to simply continue as
they are.
I think the Hwy Dept has probably got the best fix on what
probably is going to happen. Jim's recitation of what happened
with open space is another example of how we don't keep our act
together and we don't follow through with the programs that we
need to reduce the impact of these kind of capitol facilities.
So I think the Hwy Dept has been responsive to what is probably
going to happen here. I personally would like to be involved in
designing a different alternative. But that alternative has to
be one that says we will never require this kind of bridge. And
I frankly do not see the willingness in the community to do that.
And to me after being with the transportation problem in this
community for 20 years that requires severely constraining the
access of automobiles to Aspen and requiring the bulk of the
movement to occur on existing or new transit systems. And also
unfortunately it requires at some point saying to this community
"We are done. It's built. It's finished".
And as far as I am concerned if we could do that one thing today
we could then start to radically change how we address this kind
of issue. But until we are willing to do that, and I am willing
to do that, until we are the Hwy Dept has got the most
professional, realistic approach that we are likely to see. So
we have got to change the parameter that they deal in by changing
our own community and it will not do us any good to make them
change their design and hope the community is going to somehow
metamorphasize itself. It will not happen because it has not
happened for 20 years.
Graeme: A question--how dangerous is the Maroon Creek Bridge
right now and will it be in.a few years? How much time is there
to make some planning decisions in the Hwy Dept's opinion.
11
PZM8.28.90
Rich: #1 The 30ft wide roadway with 20,000 vehicles a
a dangerous situation every minute to be out there.
you cross it and somebody steps out alongside you
blades or riding a bicycle. It is dangerous.
As far as the structural safety? As long as we are conducting
periodic inspections every 2 years (much traffic noise) asphalt.
It has a finite life. We are uncomfortable with letting it stay
in the long haul. We want to replace it as soon as possible. It
is irresponsible to travel the public 20,000 vehicles a day on
that bridge. .
day causes
Every time
on roller
Ron: From a structural point of view I don't think it is
dangerous today. Due to the maintenance that I talked about it
would be dangerous tomorrow. If you have a pop-out of asphalt
and somebody blows a tire, it is not a good.
Graeme: But there is no reason to believe there is an immediate
safety problem?
?: I am a cross country skier. And if you ski down underneath
that bridge and when you get down underneath it, it is the
noisiest damned thing you ever heard.
Ron: It rattles a lot.
?: Those turn buckles on there--I don't know if you guys ever
tighten them but--
Dobrovolny: This morning I drove down valley to meet with a
client and as I was in the vicinity of the bridge and trying to
picture a 6 lane bridge, my only thought was that once that
happen, we have really losb the game. It is allover for this
community and I am at that point I guess ready to go somewhere
else. There is no reason to be around here anymore. So I think
we have got to keep trying to find some creative alternatives to
this thing we keep doing to ourselves.
Al Blomquist: Breasted hit the hammer on the head. To bring
this bridge in at this time without a total design for the
entrance to Aspen--#l it makes the formation of the entrance is
predetermined by the bridge. A great deal is predetermined by
the bridge.
If there is to be a Hwy Advisory Committee and we are to really
figure out the entrance to Aspen and the traffic alternatives we
should not be doing it with this thing under construction. Jim
said let's depress it. I think he is wrong to depress it all the
12
PZM8.28.90
way into Aspen. On the other hand maybe depressing some if it
might work.
They rejected the 2 parallel bridges. But suppose they built one
of those on the proposed alignment and then it was used
reciprocally with the existing bridge and then tore down the
existing bridge and then built another one where the existing
bridge is. Perhaps they are both lowered.
If the city of Aspen says "No" to the use of open space that is
the same as the Historic Preservation Officer said "No" to taking
out the historic bridge. They are both in the law as I
understand it of equal merit. open space is to be protected and
so are historic bridges.
I think it is premature to go ahead with this. Every city across
the state needs that bridge money this next year. And it
wouldn't hurt us at all to let the bridge go somewhere else and
we pick up next year aftel:' we have studied and they have the
money.
?: (lady) I agree that it is premature. We haven't decided
about the rail. We don't know where it is going. We don't know
whether it is heavy or what kind of rail. Are there going to be
buses? There is just too much unknown. We need creative
thinking. We need to bite the bullet and make some decisions
right now before this goes ahead and cast the dye for us.
If you are going for every possible thing you are wasting tax
payers money. It is overkill. A 99 foot bridge may not be used
for the most of it. Or it predicts the way we are going to go.
?: I see an interesting analogy between the old bridge which
most people seem to say is obsolete. If we build a 4 lane bridge
bringing 4 lanes of traffic into Aspen we are also going to have
to assume that some of those lanes of traffic are going to go
over Independence Pass. In the summer time we are going to get
much more traffic over Independence Pass. Now Independence Pass
is just as obsolete as that bridge is. For much more traffic we
are just about maxed out on that road considering the highway
safety that we have on that ~ass.
Jeffrey Evans: We have had 7 folks on one side of the issue
perhaps one would be willing to say that this is not only not
premature, it is about 20 years late. I have heard it suggested
that we should depress the highway at Castle Creek primarily as a
way of reducing the impacts on Aspen Villas and the noise that
that neighborhood is going to incur because of that.
13
PZM8.28.90
This is the first time I have heard it suggested that that
depression should carryall the weight of the west side of the
Maroon Creek Bridge and I can think of no rational for doing
that. In short there is nothing about building this bridge at
this level which is going to tie us into or pre-decide anything
to turn in the entrance to town. You can depress it anywhere you
like from the east side of Maroon Creek Bridge to the entrance at
the Castle Creek end. Anywhere along there you still have that
option. This will not foreclose that option.
In a similar vein the idea of having the opportunity for rail is
something the community asked for. I don't feel we are being
herded into a position. I think the Hwy Dept has done a very
good job of anticipating what we were going to ask for. They
have listened to us in previous meetings and they have come back
with something that is very close to what we will probably end up
having. I can't imagine a less visual impact than you are having
with this bridge they have proposed.
?: Are you listening to us here--our horror at what--
Jeffrey: I think you are missing the point though. The decision
to build the highway has already been made. And it has been made
by 80% of the people of the city and the County. I don't want to
sit through any more meetings discussing whether it is a good
idea to build a highway or not. It is time to get down to
designing it and that is what we are supposed to be here to do.
This is very close to what we need. About the only thing I would
suggest here is that we look at dropping the 2 pedestrian lanes
down to a lower level below the bridge. #1 that makes it more
attractive going across the bridge. You are more in touch with
the river than you are with the traffic. #2 it would reduce the
profile of the bridge. That is a design suggestion I would like
to make. In every other sense I think this is the bridge we
probably ought to have. And it will actually allow us the
flexibility to do anything we want in the future.
I would very much like to see one side of this bridge beefed up
for whatever size rail line we may want in the future. I think
it should be paid out of County Use Tax. And quite frankly the
only alignments I know of coming into town that have ever been
discussed are Main street and the Midland ROW. Both of those are
on the south side of the hwy so I don't think we have much
controversy there either.
Roger: I think it is time now to put it around the table here
and get the expression of tp~ people around the table.
14
PZM8.28.90
Roger: One thing I would like in the comments is we have 2
bridge designs here and I would like to have each of you address
the bridge design.
?: My impression at this point again I still have serious
reservations about the maintenance about the present historic
monument. I think that should first be explored to see if it
could be removed. I think that we might be looking for more than
what is feasible in life if we start being too picky about for
instance the steel slant leg bridge type in terms of a design. I
would like to see a litt1e more work done in terms of Jim
Breasted's point about if there is any real problem about access
across the roadway near the bridge entrance. Whether the
depressed type of approach or whether you would drop the
pedestrian ROW as Jeffrey mentioned.
?: I think it is premature. I think the type of design that has
been presented sets a pattern for a very simplistic approach to
something that I think can be handled with some imagination. I
think Jim's idea gives an example of feedback that they need.
And I think this is premature. I think they are starting in the
middle instead of starting at the ends.
Roger: I happen to agree with Jeffrey about whether we are going
to have a 4-lane highway or not. It is time to address the issue
that we are going to have a 4-lane highway. Now let's make it
the best possible 4-lane highway we can get.
My preferences have always been the boulevard approach out to the
Maroon Creek Bridge coming into town. And this to me is a bit
more intense than the boulevard approach but if that is basically
what the body politic wants to go for then so be it. Now
specifically about this bridge--OK--I think it must be enforced
for the heaviest rail that we can anticipate on the south side of
the bridge both directions on the south side of the bridge at
this point.
My preference of the design of the bridges--I think that the
steel box girder bridge tends to fit in if we maintain the old
Maroon Creek Bridge. Concerning the old Maroon Creek Bridge--my
real preference would be to start building the bridge to the
north of the old bridge and get that half of the bridge going and
then in effect either tearing down or moving the old bridge
farther to the south and continue building the remainder of the
new hwy bridge. The reason for this is I would prefer keeping
the hwy corridor in as close as possible in the existing hwy
corridor.
I would like to retain the old bridge but I think we can maintain
the historic character if necessary by moving it to the south.
15
PZM8.28.90
Also I would prefer if that old bridge could be converted to a
rail bridge economically why not run the rail on it and let's get
it back into it's total historic character maybe in a position
slightly south of where it is right now.
Dobrolvony: Having to make a choice between the 2 I guess it
really doesn't make a lot of difference. I would prefer the
slant leg bridge design. I think it is probably what we are
going to end up getting. I am glad to see the Hwy Dept is
listening to earlier request to consider light rail at some point
in the future. I hate to see it on a bridge that is quite so
wide. I will support what Breasted suggested of lowering the
bridge. I think that some design refinements and Jeffrey's
suggestion of putting pedestrian walkways below the bridge that
can make it a better bridge design and fit more comfortably in
the community and still retain a lot of options for the future.
Mari: I don't really have a preference between the 2 designs
that we are shown here. But I do feel that the pedestrians and
bicycles should be separated either underneath the bridge as
Jeffrey said or I don't see why the Maroon Crk Bridge as existing
now should be preserved for no use whatsoever. I don't know why
the pedestrians and bicycles couldn't go on that. And I also
believe that we have got to accommodate rail from the beginning.
Graeme: I am sure that we do need a new bridge and I am for
that. I think if the old bridge is kept then we should use it
for something. I think it would be a shame just to keep because
it is historical and not be able to use it. And so I think it
should be investigated whether the rail link.
As far as the 2 designs I don't think the aesthetics of the 2
bridges is the important matter at this point. And I don't have
a preference. Looking at the drawing of the roadway i tsel fit
seems like a very urban entryway to me. There are a couple of
planters in there which some things like that might help. But my
basic problem with the bridge is that I think Bob Lewis made a
good point that you can make this bridge carry an awful lot of
traffic but what is going to happen in town here? We already
have more traffic than we can reasonably handle. And I think the
alternative transportation has to be figured out before this
bridge can really be designed.
I think Jim's idea of depressing at least certain areas of the
roadway to create links between the 2 sides to the hwy are really
important whether it is a depressed roadway or whatever.
Sara: I think trying to put everything on one bridge may seem
fine to some people but to me it is really limited because if
there were ever a major accident, forest fire or anything
16
PZM8.28.90
everything is on that one artery in and out of this valley. It
is ridiculous. I don't like seeing the rail with the highway at
all. I would like to see it separate. It would be less--you can
have a 4 lane bridge and I also don't understand why you have to
have a 16 foot median for left hand turning when it is only 12
feet for regular travel.
Again as a driver there is too much going on on that bridge. Too
much going on on that highway--skiers, bicycles, walkers. That
shouldn't happen.
I like the steel girder. I think that is attractive. But it is
too wide. It is over designed. There is too much going on. We
asked for that, I am sure. I just think the alignment should be
different for the rail.
Bruce: If I had the choice between these options I would choose
the slant leg. I have been sitting here trying to figure out how
words such as visionary, reactionary and realist all kind of fit
together as we make these decisions about this highway. And I am
not sure who the visionary is here. One part of me says "Yea,
Jim is the visionary". Another part of me says "No, it is the
Hwy Dept. They are thinking ahead to the future and what is
likely to happen".
And I am not ready to decide philosophically how I would fall on
any of these various options. I am not too keen on 100ft wide
bridge going across Maroon Creek. But then again I am not sure
that I would want 3 or 4 30 or 40 foot bridges going across
there. Somehow we have got to get to the nub of the problem and
decide to get this bridge built. I am also a little concerned
about what you said about letting 7 million bucks go to Denver
when there is no real assurance that we might get the 7 million
bucks the next year or the year after or whenever.
The fact is that we are going to get this highway built whether
it is now to take care of our current needs. If that makes me a
realist then maybe that is, where I fall and maybe I am not a
visionary. So be it.
Welton: Apologized for being late. What I heard from Dwight
when I came in was the way I have been feeling about this since
the light rail to Snowmass 15 years ago was on everybody's mind.
My feeling is that both these bridges are too big and that the--
to quote City Council "A kinder and gentler highway" is what we
should be shooting for. And if that takes leaving the existing
highway where it is and reinforcing it, rebuilding it,
restructuring it and leaving 2 lanes of traffic on it and
building a new 2-lane bridge next to it, it is certainly a lot
17
PZM8.28.90
less disruptive for the valley floor and the land on the other
side. That is the way I would prefer going.
I think a new bridge doesn't need to be all things to all people.
But it can be planned for expansion. It can be planned to have a
rail line that is built on an extension to one side of it. The
foundations can be designed for that and the doors don't need to
be closed so that that can't be added on. What I really hate to
see is a 6 lane highway bridge built that almost says "Well we
are planning for the future. It will be 6 lanes in the year
2,010 so we have already got the 6 lanes, we will just kick out
the bicycles on one side and they never could get it together to
have any rail line coming into Aspen. We have already got that
other side of the bridge. We planned for the future". That's
visionary. Planning for 6 lanes.
From a puristthetic point of view I think the steel box girder is
a lot cleaner. It is simpler, less busy. A much simpler design
solution than the slant leg.
Roger: OK, you have it Tom.
Baker: Thank you very much.,
City P&Z then went into work session on Pedestrian Walkway and
Bikeway Plan and Aspen Meadows Master Plan.
18