HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20180206
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
February 06, 2018
4:00 PM, City Council Chambers
MEETING AGENDA
I. Castle Creek Trail
II. Sheriff's Cup Golf Event funding request
P1
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Austin Weiss, Parks and Open Space Director
THRU: Sara Ott, Assistant City Manager
Jeff Woods, Parks and Recreation Manager,
DATE OF MEMO: February 2, 2018
MEETING DATE: February 6, 2018
RE: Castle Creek Trail
CC: Steve Barwick, City Manager
REQUEST OF COUNCIL:
Parks Department and Pitkin County Open Space and Trails staff have been working on planning
safety improvements along the Castle Creek Road corridor from the Music/Aspen Country Day
Schools to the Marolt Trail. Staff is seeking feedback from City Council as well as direction on
choosing a preferred alternative to go to final design and cost estimate. Staff will discuss the
public comments received to date on the second round of public process which requested
feedback on three alternatives for trail and road shoulder improvements. Staff will then take
Council’s recommendation to the Pitkin County BOCC on February 27 for their direction on
design and cost estimate of the recommended alternative. If approved, staff will then bring back
the final design and cost estimate to the City Council and BOCC for final project and budget
approval.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: City Council reviewed and approved the 2018 City of
Aspen budget which included a request for $100,000 for the design phase of the Castle Creek
Trail and a request for $750,000 in 2019 for the construction of the City’s portion of the Castle
Creek Trail.
BACKGROUND:
P2
I.
2
At a joint meeting between the County and City Open Space Boards in September 2016, the
Castle Creek Trail was prioritized for planning in 2017 due to numerous requests from the
community. The Castle Creek Trail planning began on July 24, 2017 with an open house to start
soliciting public feedback on opportunities and challenges of how best to improve pedestrian and
bicycle safety along Castle Creek Road. Staff also held numerous meetings with interested
parties including neighbors, the Aspen Music Festival and School and Aspen Country Day
School to discuss what data to collect in order to help the Open Space Boards and elected
officials make sound decisions in regards to a potential trail.
The public comment period was extended till September 29th to ensure all stakeholders had time
to submit comments. All public comments were included in the Open Space Boards’ packet and
are still available online. There was a community survey, Aspen Music Festival and School
survey, comment cards received at the public open house, letters and emails received, website
submissions of comments, and the insights from the kickoff meeting. This generated a large
amount of public feedback with several hundred comments submitted.
The consultants hired a firm to provide user counts along the road via video camera for two
weeks. The first week counted use from August 2-9 and the second week was from September
17-24. Neither the Music School nor Aspen Country Day School were notified that the cameras
were in use during those weeks. The data is available on the projects website.
The consulting engineers have taken all the public feedback and have analyzed the corridor for
what is feasible. A survey of the ROW was completed that included all the trees over 4 inches in
diameter, so all impacts along the alignments can be evaluated. Three alignment concepts and
estimated costs were created and presented at a joint meeting of the City and County Open Space
Boards on November 2, 2017. These three trail alternatives include a West Side alignment, an
East Side alignment, and a widened road shoulder approach that simply provided a wider
roadway platform.
At the joint meeting on November 2, both boards recommended releasing the alternatives to the
public for feedback. An open house and presentation on the alternatives was held on November
15, 2017. The public comment period was open through January 1, 2018, which included the
opportunity to participate in a survey of options and provide open comment.
DISCUSSION:
All public comments and a summary of the survey are included in this packet. After reviewing
the public comment and survey responses it became evident that a strong majority supports
pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements in this corridor.
Further analysis of the survey shows that the east side alternative came out slightly ahead in
preference for alternatives. The “no improvements” option was the least preferred. Shoulder
improvements came in with relatively little support in the survey, but there was strong support
for widening the shoulders in the corridor and providing an uphill bike lane. Improved safety
measures of increased signage, slower speeds, and speed tables also had strong support. A
physically separated trail also had strong support. There was also some support in the comments
as well as in the survey for limiting visual impacts from any of these trail alternatives.
P3
I.
3
In addition to the survey, public comment from emails, comment cards, and letters were split in
preference between the east side trail and shoulder improvements. Overall, the east side trail
alternative received the most support, but there is concern for the cost and impacts of the project.
Staff worked to combine all the comments and survey responses into a recommended preferred
alignment. The recommended preferred alignment is a modified East Side separated trail. This
modified design would include the uphill bike lane and as much separated trail from the roadway
as possible by narrowing the trail to less than 6-8 feet wide, uphill bike lane to less than 4 feet
wide, and buffer to less than 3 feet wide where necessary to limit the disturbance to vegetation,
height or need for retaining walls, and reduce cost. This design will include increased safety
signage and speed tables along the corridor. Staff will also propose lowering the speed limits in
this corridor.
A modified east side alignment will significantly reduce the current East Side cost estimate of
$3.8 million, limit the impacts to aesthetics and vegetation, and provide a much safer corridor for
pedestrians and bicyclists.
On February 1st, 2018, at a joint City and County Open Space and Trails Board meeting, both
boards unanimously recommended moving forward with the modified East Side Trail alignment
as presented by staff. They voiced strong opinions that a modified East Side alignment provided
the best safety features with a significantly reduced cost. It was also noted that combing the
elements of both the East Side alignment with the reduced impacts of the shoulder
improvements, best met the requests heard through the public comments.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: If City Council directs staff to proceed with the design of the
recommended alternative, staff will continue to utilize the $100,000 in funding for the final
engineering and design of the project. Staff will return to City Council for approvals of the final
design and budget.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends that City Council direct staff to procure,
design, and obtain any necessary land use approvals to implement a modified east side trail
alignment and bring that design and cost estimate back to City and County elected officials for
final approval.
ALTERNATIVES: City Council could choose not to support the recommended trail alternative
and direct staff to return with other alternatives. This direction could delay any proposed any
significant safety improvements for the corridor.
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A – Trail Alignment Alternatives
Exhibit B – Public Comments Summary
Exhibit C – Public Comments
P4
I.
Estimated
Cost
$3,880,000
P5I.
P6I.
P7I.
P8I.
EAST TRAIL SUMMARY
SUMMARY PROS CONS
•6' to 8' east side
trail below road
grade & at road
grade
•4' uphill bike lane
•Large shift in road
alignment (for
portion of project)
•Retaining walls
along east slope
•Retaining walls
along west slope
•Estimated Cost:
$3,880,000
•Uphill bike lane
•No need to cross
road
•Slows traffic (speed
tables)
•Right-of-way
impacts (approx.
165 SF)
•Large shift in road alignment (through main curve)
•Lengthy concrete guardrail
•Trail user safety where trail below road (trail users cannot
see vehicles, vehicles cannot see trail users, roadway
debris/snow removal hazard to trail below)
•Retaining walls (both sides of road, height, extent,
constructability)
•Constrained trail
•Vegetation impacts along both sides of road
•Trail maintenance (limits access)
•Lengthy pedestrian railing
•Multiple driveway crossings
•Traffic speeds not impacted
•Construction phasing (impacts to traffic during construction)
•Snow storage (along concrete guardrail)P9I.
At -Grade Separation Examples
Physical and Visual
separation between
motorists and
pedestrians/cyclists
P10I.
At -Grade Examples
Visual separation between motorists and pedestrians/cyclists
P11I.
TREE IMPACT SUMMARY
West Trail East Trail Shoulder
Improvements
Estimated Tree
Impact
(3” diameter and
larger)
~ 170 Trees ~ 140 Trees ~ 40 Trees
P12I.
User Counts: Bike, Pedestrian and Vehicle Trips
▪August and September 2017 –Over (2) one-week periods
▪Counts were collected on cyclists, pedestrians and vehicles south
of Marolt Trail Crossing
Bike Trips Pedestrian
Trips Vehicle Trips
August 2-9 1,936 179 17,914
Novice Experienced
815 1,121
September 17-24 801 72 15,317
Novice Experienced
240 561 P13I.
Estimated
Cost
$5,160,000
P14I.
P15I.
P16I.
P17I.
WEST TRAIL SUMMARY
SUMMARY PROS CONS
•6' to 8' west side
trail above road
grade
•4' or 5' uphill bike
lane
•New trail crossing
of road with speed
tables
•Retaining walls
along west slope
•Estimated Cost:
$5,160,000
•Uphill bike lane
•Lanes stay in existing
configuration
•Slows traffic (speed tables at new
crossing)
•Vegetation preserved along east
side of road
•Trail user safety (horizontal &
vertical separation)
•Minimizes or avoids roadway
debris/snow removal onto trail
•Cost
•Retaining walls (height, extent,
constructability)
•Adds new crossing of road
•Vegetation impacts along west side of road
•Right-of-way impacts (approx. 4,405 SF)
•Proximity of trail to existing homes (north end)
•Trail maintenance (limited access)
•Lengthy pedestrian railing
•Constrained trail
•Lengthy concrete guardrail
•Concentrated drainage along concrete
guardrail, likely need for drainage system
•Snow storage (along concrete guardrail)P18I.
Estimated
Cost
$1,110,000
P19I.
P20I.
P21I.
ALIGNMENTS SUMMARY
West Trail East Trail Shoulder
Improvements
Conceptual
Alignment
Summary
•6' to 8' west side trail
above road grade
•4' or 5' uphill bike lane
•New trail crossing of
road with speed tables
•Retaining walls along
west slope
•6' to 8' east side trail
below road grade & at
road grade
•4' uphill bike lane
•Large shift in road
alignment (for portion
of project)
•Retaining walls along
east slope
•Retaining walls along
west slope
•Shoulder widening: 4'
paved on uphill/west
side; 3' paved on
downhill/east side
•Retaining walls along
west slope
•New pedestrian
crossing of road with
speed tables
Estimated Cost $5,160,000 $3,880,000 $1,110,000
P22I.
CASTLE CREEK CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
_____________________________________________________________________________________
pitkinostprojects.com/castle-creek-corridor-improvement-project| page 1 of 4
MEMORANDUM
TO: Castle Creek Corridor Improvement Consultant Team
FROM: Kathleen Wanatowicz
RE: Castle Creek Corridor Improvement Preferred Alignment Public Input: October 1, 2017 –
January 1, 2018
DATE: January 11, 2018
_____________________________________________________________________________________
CASTLE CREEK CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PUBLIC INPUT
Overview
Public input on the conceptual alignments was collected via the project webpage, public meeting –
written comments, and a public online community survey. For a complete copy of submissions,
comments and survey results, please see Exhibit B - Public Comments and Data for Conceptual
Alignments [October 2017-January 2018].
The project webpage was published on the Pitkin Open Space and Trails projects site on July 5, 2017.
The Open House, which was the 3rd public event, where the designs where presented was held on
November 15, 2017 and allowed for feedback via: comment cards, paper survey, and post-it notes
placed on presentation boards. This meeting was also shared on Grassroots TV.
QUANTITATIVE INPUT DATA
Public Online Community Survey
The online community Castle Creek Corridor Improvement Project (CCCIP) survey opened for response on
October 1, 2017 and closed for responses on January 1, 2018. Included in the survey were images of
rendered sections from the alignment alternatives, a link to the 11/15/18 open house presentation, one
checkbox question, two level of support questions and four opportunities for additional comments. The
survey was publicized via stakeholder email lists, the project webpage, social media and the Pitkin County
OST e-newsletter.
A total of 94 respondents contributed, yielding the following results:
Overall Alignment Preference:
Public comments demonstrated a fairly close preference with East and West trail alignment designs, with
the Shoulder Improvement option in third and no improvements with the smallest percentage of votes.
Comments are categorized into four categories: West Trail, East Trail, Shoulder Improvements or None.
(see chart on next page, illustrate by percentage)
P23
I.
CASTLE CREEK CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
_____________________________________________________________________________________
pitkinostprojects.com/castle-creek-corridor-improvement-project| page 2 of 4
MEMORANDUM
West Trail Comments:
Comments from respondents indicating a preference for the West Trail alignment included the
following themes: safest option, aesthetic, user-friendly, natural extension of the existing trail
between the chapel and hospital.
East Trail Comments:
Comments from respondents indicating a preference for the East Trail alignment included the
following themes: natural feel/aesthetic, safest – no road crossing, connection to the trail
system.
P24
I.
CASTLE CREEK CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
_____________________________________________________________________________________
pitkinostprojects.com/castle-creek-corridor-improvement-project| page 3 of 4
MEMORANDUM
Level of support indicated for the following specific features:
The majority of the comments were in favor, just calling out a few specific options/features, other voiced
general support, one strongly against the project in general.
Level of Support »
Strongly
Against Against Neutral In Favor
Strongly
in Favor Unsure Other
Uphill Bike Lane 3 3 7 21 47 3 0
Widen Shoulder(s) 2 4 15 27 35 3 0
Physically Separate
Trail 8 3 9 17 47 1 0
Bollard Separated
Trail 11 8 14 20 14 8 0
Above-grade Trail 7 11 15 21 25 4 0
At-grade trail/route 3 12 20 28 9 7 0
Below-grade
trail/route 9 16 22 16 10 5 0
Pedestrian road
crossing 3 7 8 22 41 1 0
Slower traffic
speeds 3 14 23 15 28 1 0
Speed Table/Bump 3 14 16 23 27 1 1
Safety Signage 2 4 7 27 44 1 0
Rapid Flash
beacons @ Ped
crossings 6 4 14 25 34 2 0
Narrow trail to
limit impact 12 11 29 15 13 4 0
Level of Support for Rockfall Mitigation Strategies:
The majority of survey participants in the additional comments section specific to this question voiced
safety as the main concern, aesthetics secondly. There were some comments voicing concern about the
cost, necessity and whether it should be an OST project vs. a county/city funded project.
Level of Support »
Strongly
Against Against Neutral
In
Favor
Strongly in
Favor Unsure Other
Sculpted Shotcrete 6 9 16 29 24 3 0
Rockfall Fence 22 29 16 9 5 4 0
Cable Net & Wire
Mesh 4 10 6 38 28 1 1
P25
I.
CASTLE CREEK CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
_____________________________________________________________________________________
pitkinostprojects.com/castle-creek-corridor-improvement-project| page 4 of 4
MEMORANDUM
Additional Public Comment Summary: Community Survey
Again, a majority of comments indicate support for the project, many on safety, and caution on keeping
the aesthetics, and focus on commuting specific to the school communities. There were a few
comments calling for a more quantitative presentation, and another about why rockfall mitigation is an
OST project, why no cost estimates presented and why it isn’t falling under the county/city (public
works.)
Additional Public Comment Summary: E-mails, Comment Cards, Letters
The additional public comments that were gathered, approximately 19, all were in favor in some
alignment improvement or development. There was again an even split, but within this participant
group between the East Trail and Shoulder Improvements. Those who chose the East Trail, relayed
themes of: affinity for trail flow and safety (no road crossings). Those in favor of the Shoulder
Improvements, like those in the survey data set expressed the main reason for their choice as cost
saving/efficiency.
P26
I.
CASTLE CREEK CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Exhibit B - Public Comments and Data for
Conceptual Alignments
[October 2017-January 2018]
CCCIP Exhibit B
Page 1
P27
I.
CASTLE CREEK TRAIL PROJECT
Exhibit B - Public Comments and Data for Conceptual Alignments [October 2017-January 2018]
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Castle Creek Corridor Improvement Project Conceptual Alignment
Online Community Survey 3-8
Comment Cards 9-18
Letters and Emails 19-52
Project Website Submissions 53-63
CCCIP Exhibit B
Page 2
P28
I.
CCCIP
Conceptual Alignment
Community Survey
CCCIP Exhibit B
Page 3
P29
I.
*After learning about each alignment, which alignment do you prefer overall? (select one)*Please provide comments on your preferred alignment. If you selected none, please share why:*Please indicate your level of support for the following. [Uphill Bike Lane]*Please indicate your level of support for the following.[Widened Shoulder(s)]Please indicate your level of support for the following. [Physically Separated Trail]Please indicate your level of support for the following. [Bollard Separated Trail]Please indicate your level of support for the following. [Above-grade trail]Please indicate your level of support for the following. [At-grade trail/route]Please indicate your level of support for the following. [Below-grade trail]Please indicate your level of support for the following. [Pedestrian road Crossings]Please indicate your level of support for the following. [Slower traffic speeds]Please indicate your level of support for the following. [Speed Table/Speed Bump]Please indicate your level of support for the following. [Safety signage]Please indicate your level of support for the following. [Rapid Flashing Beaconsat pedestrian crossings]Please indicate your level of support for the following. [Narrowing of the trail to minimize the number of trees impacted][Level of Support] Additional CommentsPlease indicate your level of support for the following rockfall mitigation strategies. [Rockfall Mitigation: Sculpted Shotcrete]Please indicate your level of support for the following rockfall mitigation strategies. [Rockfall Mitigation: Rockfall Fence]Please indicate your level of support for the following rockfall mitigation strategies. [Rockfall Mitigation: Cable Net & Wire Mesh][Rockfall Mitigation] Additional CommentsAdditional Comments1 West TrailI like that the trail is elevated above the roadway in some sections. More likely to get sun, less likely to get sprayed with overflow snow/gravel from plowing, provides a natural extension of the trail that's on the west side of Castle Creek Road between the chapel and the hospital. It seems that this trail would be useable during more months of the year than the other two alternatives. Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Neutral Strongly In Favor In Favor Against Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor In Favor Neutralnarrowing if necessary Strongly In Favor NeutralStrongly In FavorAny of these would be fine. Just so happy that this is happening, and that the process has been so thorough and methodical. 2 East TrailThe West Trail seems too expensive, and I would worry about walking right under the loose rocks on the big cut. While the shoulder improvements clearly offer greater safety than the present state, the East Trail seems more like a trail.Strongly In Favor In Favor Strongly In Favor In Favor In Favor In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor NeutralThe rapid flashing beacons could be on demand; would not want them constant. The existing trees on the east side are mostly not very impressive, and, if removed, would open up more views of Ajax. The places where the east trail is lower than the roadway would be visually unobtrusive.In FavorAgainstIn FavorRockfall fence seems very ugly.3 West TrailShared trail appears wide enough for cyclists and foot traffic to share and in some spots there appears to be a barrier between cyclists/walkers and vehicular traffic for protection.In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Against In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor UnsureStrongly In Favor Strongly Against In FavorNot sure about frequency of maintenance needed for sculpted shotcrete, but it's much more esthetically pleasing than the fence option. The cable net and wire mesh would seem a compromise between the two.In your very careful counting of traffic along the corridor, you seem to have forgotten move-in and move-out days for the Aspen Festival. Our son has stayed at the Aspen condos along the route and walks/rides a bike (if he's missed the bus) and has found it challenging to remain out of the way of vehicular traffic (he plays the oboe, so his case is not that large). When we come out to visit him, we're on the road and find it difficult to navigate the roadway with so many cyclists and walkers. Any improvement would be better than none, but I believe ones that set walkers and cyclists farther apart from cars and buses are highly preferred!4 West TrailStrongly In Favor In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly Against Strongly In Favor Against Strongly Against In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly AgainstStrongly In Favor NeutralIn Favor5 Shoulder ImprovementsMost bang for the buck on these badly needed safety improvements. Improves all modes of transportation and addresses all ability levels.Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Against Against Against Strongly In Favor Against Against Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Against NeutralStrongly In Favor Strongly Against Strongly In FavorPrefer regrading slopes to natural angle of inclination and revegetating.6 Shoulder ImprovementsNo need to "overbuild"...keep this simple and less$In Favor In Favor Strongly Against Strongly Against Strongly Against Strongly Against Strongly Against Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Strongly In FavorNeutralStrongly Against In Favor7 East TrailStrongly In Favor In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Neutral Neutral Neutral Strongly In Favor Neutral In Favor Neutral Against AgainstIn FavorAgainstStrongly In Favor8 Shoulder Improvementsinvest savings from shoulder improvements option by expanding to blind curves further up Castle Creek Rd.Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor NeutralAgainst In Favor Against Neutral Strongly In Favor Neutral Neutral Neutral NeutralNeutralAgainstIn Favorseparate bike lanes in blind curves all the way to Ashcroft9 West TrailIn Favor Strongly In Favor Neutral Neutral In Favor Neutral Against Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor In Favor In Favor AgainstIn FavorNeutralIn FavorSafety needs to be #1. Rich white people #18. This isnot about wildlife.10 East TrailI cycle up the road weekly. Uphill cyclists on an East trail would not have to cross traffic when trail ends. If the uphill trail were on the west side, cyclist would have to cross traffic lanes to continue up Castle Creek RoadStrongly In Favor In Favor In Favor Neutral Neutral Strongly In Favor In Favor Neutral Strongly Against Strongly In Favor Against Against Strongly Against Strongly In Favor11 West TrailI like the west trail alignment as it seems more user friendly and ascetic. I think it could be used in winter also. However the 5 million $ price tag for a trail that is less than a mile seems absurd. That being said, my next choice would be the shoulder improvements. I think the east trail is a loser.In Favor In Favor In Favor In Favor In Favor In Favor Against In Favor In Favor In Favor In Favor In Favor In Favor In Favor Against AgainstI think something needs to be done for the safety of the students and I'm fine with whatever gets decided as long as it is something.12 East TrailI support the alignment that will be the safest, ie the most separated from traffic. This will be the best trail for Music School, Country Day, and recreational cyclists and pedestrians. I do not support shoulder improvements since I do not think this supports the goal of a safe trail.Strongly In Favor Against Strongly In Favor Against Strongly In Favor Against Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor In FavorIn FavorIn FavorIn Favor13 West Trailfeels safer for peds and bikersStrongly In Favor In Favor Strongly In Favor Unsure Neutral Neutral Against Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor OtherStrongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly Againstin favor of speed tables/ bumps if not in the path of cyclistsStrongly In Favor AgainstStrongly In Favor14 Shoulder Improvements Will greatly improve safety at a reasonable cost. Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Against Against Against Strongly In Favor Against Against In Favor In Favor In Favor Against NeutralNeutralStrongly Against AgainstJust grade it back a bit and secure with biodegradable mesh and revegetate.Really important that something is done here to improve a very unsafe situation. My family and I have had several near head-on collisions on this blind curve as cars, trucks and buses pass the bicyclists.15 West TrailStrongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Unsure Unsure Unsure Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor AgainstI favor maximum separation of cars and self powered people--on foot or bike.NeutralAgainstIn Favor16 East TrailAfter viewing your detailed presentation I would prefer the east alignment both for a safety and cost aspect. I would like removable plastic delineators to keep the cars away from the pedestrians.Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor In Favor In Favor Neutral Neutral Neutral Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor In FavorStrongly In Favor AgainstAgainstCCCIP Exhibit B Page 4P30I.
*After learning about each alignment, which alignment do you prefer overall? (select one)*Please provide comments on your preferred alignment. If you selected none, please share why:*Please indicate your level of support for the following. [Uphill Bike Lane]*Please indicate your level of support for the following.[Widened Shoulder(s)]Please indicate your level of support for the following. [Physically Separated Trail]Please indicate your level of support for the following. [Bollard Separated Trail]Please indicate your level of support for the following. [Above-grade trail]Please indicate your level of support for the following. [At-grade trail/route]Please indicate your level of support for the following. [Below-grade trail]Please indicate your level of support for the following. [Pedestrian road Crossings]Please indicate your level of support for the following. [Slower traffic speeds]Please indicate your level of support for the following. [Speed Table/Speed Bump]Please indicate your level of support for the following. [Safety signage]Please indicate your level of support for the following. [Rapid Flashing Beaconsat pedestrian crossings]Please indicate your level of support for the following. [Narrowing of the trail to minimize the number of trees impacted][Level of Support] Additional CommentsPlease indicate your level of support for the following rockfall mitigation strategies. [Rockfall Mitigation: Sculpted Shotcrete]Please indicate your level of support for the following rockfall mitigation strategies. [Rockfall Mitigation: Rockfall Fence]Please indicate your level of support for the following rockfall mitigation strategies. [Rockfall Mitigation: Cable Net & Wire Mesh][Rockfall Mitigation] Additional CommentsAdditional Comments17 Shoulder ImprovementsStrongly In Favor Strongly Against Strongly Against Strongly Against Strongly Against Strongly Against Strongly Against Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor In Favor AgainstI am in favor of widening the trail and making the whole road at the same level with no barriers caused by additional side trails. The numbers of bikers who use the road are far greater and will continue toincrease and it is their safety that we should be looking protect. The small numbers of school bikers and walkers can maintain on the extended shoulders.Strongly Against Strongly Against In Favor18 Shoulder ImprovementsAgainst In Favor Against Neutral Against In Favor Against Against Against Against Against Neutral NeutralAgainstStrongly Against In FavorI don't think project is needed19 East TrailIn Favor Against In Favor In Favor In Favor In Favor In Favor In Favor Neutral Neutral In Favor Neutral NeutralIn FavorAgainstIn Favor20 East TrailStrongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In FavorStrongly In FavorStrongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In FavorAgainstAgainstStrongly In Favor21 East TrailIt feels like the safest and most cost effective solution for the public.Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Neutral Neutral Neutral Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Neutral Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly AgainstNeutralNeutralStrongly In Favor22 West TrailNeutral In Favor Neutral Neutral In Favor Neutral Neutral In Favor In Favor In Favor In Favor In Favor NeutralUnsureUnsureOther23 East TrailIn Favor In Favor Strongly In Favor In Favor In Favor Against Against In Favor Against In Favor In Favor In Favor In FavorStrongly Against Strongly Against Strongly In Favor24 West TrailStrongly In Favor Neutral In Favor In Favor Strongly In Favor In Favor Neutral Strongly In Favor Against Against Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor NeutralPlease just find a way to add a trail! NeutralNeutralNeutral25 East TrailIn Favor In Favor In Favor In Favor In Favor In Favor Neutral In Favor Neutral Neutral In Favor In Favor In FavorNeutralIn FavorIn Favor26 Nonebecause you haven't demonstrated a real need for the trailIn FavorIn Favor In Favor In FavorIn Favoryou must show a need for a trail other than just the same old generalizatins27 East TrailStrongly In Favor28 East TrailIt provides the best balance of safety improvements and environmental impacts.Strongly In Favor Neutral Strongly In Favor Neutral Against In Favor In Favor Against Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor In Favor NeutralJust widening the shoulder does not provide enough space for tail users. The speeds from residents and visitors coming down that road are ridiculous and some speed tables would help to improve the safety. I don't think having multiple pedestrian crossings would make a safer solution.In FavorAgainstIn FavorRockfall mitigation costs should not be included in the trail costs because thisis needed now and has been needed. The county has neglected this risk for long enough.Please put in the trial. It is desperately needed and will not negatively affect anyone living beyond the music school campus.29 West TrailStrongly In Favor Neutral In Favor In Favor In Favor In Favor Neutral In Favor Against In Favor Neutral Neutral NeutralIn FavorAgainstAgainst30 West TrailStrongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In FavorStrongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor31 NoneFOR ME IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO EVALUATE BASED ON PRETTY PICTURES. IT WOULD TAKE HOURS TO WALK IT TO EVEN START THE EVALUATION. MY INITIAL REACTION WOULD BE SHOULDER IMPROVEMENTS IF IT KEEPS THE COST DOWN. I RIDE THE ROAD OFTEN AND NEVER FEEL THREATENED. THIS SEEMS TO BE FOR WALKING SAFETY.32 East TrailUnsure Unsure Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor In Favor Against In Favor Neutral Neutral Neutral Strongly In Favor Neutral Strongly In FavorStrongly Against NeutralStrongly In Favor33 East TrailStrongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Neutral Strongly In Favor In Favor In Favor In Favor In Favor Against Against Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In FavorStrongly In Favor AgainstIn Favor34 East TrailIn Favor Neutral Strongly In Favor Unsure Neutral Neutral Neutral In Favor Neutral Neutral Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor NeutralThe east trail seems the safest, as it also keeps pedestrians and children away from rock-fall danger. AgainstAgainstIn Favor35 West TrailWest trail seems like the safer location. In Favor Neutral Strongly In Favor Unsure Neutral In Favor In Favor Strongly In Favor Neutral Neutral Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In FavorIn FavorNeutralIn Favor36 West TrailThe west trail maintains the beauty of castle creek and the sensibility of the service needed, a way for foot and pedal traffic to be utilized. Strongly Against Strongly Against Strongly Against Strongly Against Strongly Against Neutral Neutral Against Neutral Neutral Against Neutral Strongly AgainstStrongly In Favor AgainstStrongly Against37 East Trail38 West TrailWest trail seemed to have more safety for pedestrians (possibly children if walking to school). Also, the green space buffer could help offset tree removal elsewhere.Strongly In Favor Neutral Strongly In Favor In Favor Strongly In Favor In Favor Neutral In Favor In Favor Neutral In Favor In Favor In FavorStrongly In Favor NeutralIn Favor39 West TrailRaised trail is safer for kids walking to the school. Green space between the trail and road will preserve existing trees and vegetation which is importantIn Favor Neutral In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Neutral In Favor Strongly In Favor Against Neutral Strongly In Favor Neutral In FavorStrongly In Favor AgainstIn Favor40 West TrailWest seems safer and to achieve the goals better, especially if 488 Castle Creek development goes through and during that building process. But I'm not clear where snow goes in the winter, or how on-road parking (which will be necessary with 488 Castle Creek development) is accommodated. However, this presentation/ survey hasn't taken into account financial concerns (yet?).Neutral In Favor Strongly In Favor Against Strongly In FavorIn FavorIn FavorIn Favor Strongly In FavorIn FavorAgainstIn FavorHow far up Castle Creek would an uphill bike lane extend? 41 Shoulder Improvements Seems the most logicalStrongly In Favor Strongly In FavorNeutralNeutralStrongly In Favor42 East TrailI am a teacher at ACDS. I feel this trail will provide the most safety to our students at a reasonable cost.In Favor Strongly In Favor In Favor In Favor Unsure Unsure Unsure Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor AgainstStrongly In Favor In FavorAgainstI think this rock wall is a major safety concern. Falling rocks are an accident waiting to happenand we need to be proactive in mitigating this risk.Overall, I want to see something done to improve the safety of this area. I think it is also important that we as a community support "green transportation." People in this community want to walk and bike, but sometimes choose not to because it is unsafe. The castle creek corridor is a perfect example of this.CCCIP Exhibit B Page 5P31I.
*After learning about each alignment, which alignment do you prefer overall? (select one)*Please provide comments on your preferred alignment. If you selected none, please share why:*Please indicate your level of support for the following. [Uphill Bike Lane]*Please indicate your level of support for the following. [Widened Shoulder(s)]Please indicate your level of support for the following. [Physically Separated Trail]Please indicate your level of support for the following. [Bollard Separated Trail]Please indicate your level of support for the following. [Above-grade trail]Please indicate your level of support for the following. [At-grade trail/route]Please indicate your level of support for the following. [Below-grade trail]Please indicate your level of support for the following. [Pedestrian road Crossings]Please indicate your level of support for the following. [Slower traffic speeds]Please indicate your level of support for the following. [Speed Table/Speed Bump]Please indicate your level of support for the following. [Safety signage]Please indicate your level of support for the following. [Rapid Flashing Beaconsat pedestrian crossings]Please indicate your level of support for the following. [Narrowing of the trail to minimize the number of trees impacted][Level of Support] Additional CommentsPlease indicate your level of support for the following rockfall mitigation strategies. [Rockfall Mitigation: Sculpted Shotcrete]Please indicate your level of support for the following rockfall mitigation strategies. [Rockfall Mitigation: Rockfall Fence]Please indicate your level of support for the following rockfall mitigation strategies. [Rockfall Mitigation: Cable Net & Wire Mesh][Rockfall Mitigation] Additional CommentsAdditional Comments43 East TrailEast side seems saferStrongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Neutral In Favor Neutral Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor In FavorIn FavorAgainstStrongly In FavorThis project is long overdue. Thank you for pushing it through. Safety of our pedestrians, cyclists, motorists, and other individuals is paramount. 44 East TrailThe East trail is the safest alternative for kids, pedestrians and recreational riders as there is no required road crossing.Strongly In Favor Neutral In Favor In Favor Neutral Neutral NeutralStrongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor NeutralIn FavorAgainstIn Favor45 Shoulder ImprovementsStrongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly Against Strongly Against Strongly Against Neutral Strongly Against In Favor In Favor In Favor In Favor Strongly Against In FavorStrongly In Favor Strongly Against Strongly Against46 West TrailLocation 2 vegetation in between. Strongly In Favor In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor In Favor Neutral Against Strongly In Favor Neutral Neutral In Favor In Favor NeutralAgainstStrongly In Favor In Favor47 East TrailThis looks like the safest option. We need something so the music students, school students, bike riders, runners and walkers are safe. It is a highly used corridor and would be an excellent addition to the trail system as well as safe way to travel to this area. Currently RFTA doesn't service this area most of the year and commuters are left on foot or bike on this dangerous road. Many more people would use this passageway if there was a safe alternative. The East side looks more visible to traffic.Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Neutral Against Neutral Neutral Neutral NeutralStrongly In Favor AgainstStrongly In FavorSafety signs and speed bumps have been used and with the narrow road and shadowed lighting this road will always be dangerous to pedestrians. There needs to be a separated trail for pedestrians.48 West TrailUnsure Neutral Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Neutral Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly AgainstStrongly Against NeutralStrongly In FavorThis is a much needed access for the community school and music school, this would encourage more people to walk or ride. Property owners are always a loud voice but do not represent the community and don't live here.49 East TrailKeep bikers or walkers near the river so they can enjoy it instead of being closed in by trafficStrongly In Favor Strongly In Favor In Favor In Favor Against In Favor In Favor In Favor Against Strongly Against In Favor In Favor AgainstAgainstIn FavorStrongly In Favor50 Shoulder ImprovementsIn Favor Strongly In Favor Neutral Neutral Against Neutral Against In Favor Neutral In Favor In Favor Neutral NeutralIn FavorAgainstStrongly In Favor51 East Trail52 East TrailAgainst Unsure Unsure Unsure Neutral In Favor Neutral Strongly In Favor Neutral Against Strongly In Favor In Favor Strongly In FavorStrongly In Favor Strongly Against Against53 East TrailIn Favor In Favor In FavorStrongly Against Strongly Against Strongly Against Strongly Against Strongly AgainstStrongly In Favor Strongly Against Against54 East TrailStrongly In Favor Neutral Strongly In Favor Neutral Neutral Neutral Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Neutral Against Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor AgainstStrongly In Favor NeutralNeutral55 West TrailStrongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Against In Favor In Favor In Favor In Favor In Favor In Favor In Favor In Favor In FavorIn FavorStrongly Against Strongly In Favor56 West TrailI think as kids come up from the west end, it's safer to just stay on that side of the road vs having to cross over .Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Neutral Neutral Neutral In Favor Neutral Strongly In Favor In Favor Neutral Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly AgainstI think the safety of our children is paramount. We should be able to bike or walk safely to the school. I don't think its necessary to have separate bike/ walk lanes, but I do think it's imperative it's wide enough for both ways (up and downhill).In FavorStrongly Against In FavorAs I have said before, it is imperative this pathway is done. Reflectors should be provided and the trail must be wide enough for those going up and coming down. Once completed, I think we ensure the safety of our children and also encourage the riding effort to school and back, alleviating these roads of extra, unneeded traffic, promoting environmental efforts as well. There is no downside to this improvement.57 East TrailI think the road is most dangerous for bikers and pedestrians headed down toward town on castle creek rdStrongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Unsure Unsure Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor UnsureIn FavorIn FavorIn Favor58 East TrailStrongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Unsure In Favor Unsure Unsure Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In FavorStrongly In Favor NeutralIn Favor59 West TrailStrongly In Favor Against Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor In Favor Against Against Against Against Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly AgainstIn FavorAgainstStrongly In Favor60 East TrailStrongly In FavorStrongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In FavorIn Favor61 East TrailNeutral Strongly In Favor Strongly In FavorNeutral In Favor In Favor In Favor Neutral In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor NeutralIn FavorStrongly Against Strongly In Favor62 East TrailBest and safest is the East trailNeutral In Favor In Favor In Favor In Favor In Favor In Favor In Favor In Favor Neutral In Favor In Favor Strongly AgainstNo problem with cutting trees. thin them out!!!AgainstIn FavorIn FavorNets yesMake Kochs pay for it63 East TrailStrongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor64 NonePlease find a way to keep the bicycles off of the road. A bike lane on the west side of the road will do absolutely nothing.Strongly Against Neutral Strongly In Favor Unsure Against Unsure In Favor Neutral Against Strongly Against Against Neutral NeutralIn FavorStrongly Against Against65 West TrailStrongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In FavorStrongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly AgainstNeutralNeutralStrongly In Favor66 East TrailStrongly In Favor In Favor In Favor Unsure Unsure Unsure Unsure In Favor In Favor Against In Favor In Favor NeutralIn FavorNeutralIn Favormostly concerned about safety for bikers, pedestrians,kids; and easy connection to existing trail system through Marolt, etc.67 East TrailStrongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly Against Strongly In Favor In Favor In Favor Strongly Against Strongly Against Strongly Against In Favor In Favor Strongly AgainstStrongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor68 West TrailIt is the safest and one that could continue with less maintenanceIn Favor In Favor Strongly In FavorNeutral Neutral Against Strongly In Favor Neutral In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor In FavorStrongly In Favor In FavorNeutral69 West TrailStrongly In Favor In Favor Strongly In Favor In Favor Strongly In Favor Against Neutral Strongly In Favor Against Against In Favor In Favor NeutralIn FavorAgainstIn Favor70 West TrailStrongly In FavorStrongly In FavorIn FavorStrongly In Favor In Favor In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor NeutralStrongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor71 East TrailThis seems like the best overall use of the space with the least cost.Strongly In Favor Strongly In FavorIn FavorStrongly In FavorStrongly In FavorWe would ride bikes to school on a far more regular basis if this path was in place. Without it, we do not ride to school, it is too uncomfortable.72 East TrailStrongly In Favor In Favor Neutral NeutralNeutralNeutral Neutral Strongly In Favor Neutral Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor NeutralNeutralAgainstIn Favor73 West TrailNeutral In Favor Strongly In Favor In Favor Strongly In Favor Against Neutral Strongly In Favor Neutral In Favor In Favor In Favor NeutralNeutralUnsureIn Favor74 West TrailSafer to be on the interior of the road as a cyclist. In Favor In Favor Strongly In FavorIn Favor Against Neutral Strongly In Favor Neutral In Favor In Favor Strongly In Favor NeutralNeutralAgainstIn FavorThe most cost effective solution seems to make the most sense.75 West TrailIn FavorStrongly In FavorNeutral Neutral Neutral Strongly In Favor In Favor In Favor In Favor In Favor NeutralIn FavorStrongly In Favor NeutralCCCIP Exhibit B Page 6P32I.
*After learning about each alignment, which alignment do you prefer overall? (select one)*Please provide comments on your preferred alignment. If you selected none, please share why:*Please indicate your level of support for the following. [Uphill Bike Lane]*Please indicate your level of support for the following.[Widened Shoulder(s)]Please indicate your level of support for the following. [Physically Separated Trail]Please indicate your level of support for the following. [Bollard Separated Trail]Please indicate your level of support for the following. [Above-grade trail]Please indicate your level of support for the following. [At-grade trail/route]Please indicate your level of support for the following. [Below-grade trail]Please indicate your level of support for the following. [Pedestrian road Crossings]Please indicate your level of support for the following. [Slower traffic speeds]Please indicate your level of support for the following. [Speed Table/Speed Bump]Please indicate your level of support for the following. [Safety signage]Please indicate your level of support for the following. [Rapid Flashing Beaconsat pedestrian crossings]Please indicate your level of support for the following. [Narrowing of the trail to minimize the number of trees impacted][Level of Support] Additional CommentsPlease indicate your level of support for the following rockfall mitigation strategies. [Rockfall Mitigation: Sculpted Shotcrete]Please indicate your level of support for the following rockfall mitigation strategies. [Rockfall Mitigation: Rockfall Fence]Please indicate your level of support for the following rockfall mitigation strategies. [Rockfall Mitigation: Cable Net & Wire Mesh][Rockfall Mitigation] Additional CommentsAdditional Comments76 West TrailIn Favor In Favor In Favor Unsure Strongly In Favor Unsure Against In Favor In Favor In Favor In Favor In Favor Strongly In FavorAgainstAgainstIn Favor77 East TrailIt balances out costs vs. the ability for trail users to be safe from cars. The shoulder option doesn't do enough (in my opinion) to keep children safe when commuting to/from school.Strongly In Favor Neutral Strongly In Favor In Favor Strongly In Favor Against Neutral Neutral Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Unsure Unsure AgainstIn FavorIn FavorStrongly Against78 NoneConsidering the current available bus system/schedules and the actual very limited need for pedestrians, it makes no sense to create the corridor improvement.Strongly Against Strongly Against Strongly Against Strongly Against Strongly Against Strongly Against Strongly Against Strongly Against Strongly Against Strongly Against Strongly Against Strongly Against Strongly AgainstThis proposal is a total waste of taxpayers money!Strongly Against Strongly Against Strongly In FavorSpend your time and money on more critical projects that would benefit more residents and tourists.79 West TrailStrongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In FavorStrongly In FavorStrongly In FavorStrongly In Favor Strongly In FavorIn Favor80 NoneIn Favor In Favor Strongly Against Against Against Against Against Against Against Against Against Strongly Against AgainstNeutralNeutralStrongly In FavorI feel the trail should follow a route along Castle Creek, instead of the road. Private property owners will be encouraged, in community spirit, to donate easements. The County will have enough courage to condemn the overall easement to purchase the portions not donated.81 Shoulder ImprovementsNeutral In Favor Strongly Against Strongly Against Strongly Against In Favor Strongly Against In Favor In Favor In Favor In Favor Strongly Against In FavorStrongly In Favor Strongly Against Neutral82 NoneThe shoulder improvements appear to have the least visual disruption but haven’t accomplished much. Absolutely certain the West alignment is the safestAgainst NeutralStrongly Against AgainstStrongly Against Neutral Neutral Strongly Against Neutral Neutral NeutralNeutralStrongly Against AgainstPreserve the mountain roadside as much as possible, West side far safer, East side a complete monstrosity with little or no cost justification, and huge impact on Mr Wachs83 West TrailIt seems like the best compromise between just a shoulder which I don't think is safe enough, and major costly construction.Strongly In Favor Against Strongly In Favor In Favor In Favor Neutral Neutral Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor In Favor NeutralNeutralStrongly Against Strongly In FavorI believe this bike/pedestrian path is a very necessary investment in our trail systems for the safety of ACDS and AMS students.84 East TrailStrongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Neutral Neutral Strongly In Favor Neutral NeutralIn FavorIn FavorIn Favor85 East TrailSeems to have best cost-benefit ratio; seems like it will keep car traffic flowing more smoothly than other options and car traffic is the primary use of this road.Unsure Unsure In Favor In Favor Unsure Unsure Unsure Unsure Against Against In Favor Unsure Strongly In FavorIn FavorUnsureIn Favor86 NoneThis is a false dichotomy. The choice is not between their $1.1 million, $3.9 million and $5.1 million options. The real-world choice is between making this short stretch of road as safe as any other near a school. Typically, this is done by reducing the speed limit, installing speed bumps, flashing lights and zebra stripes and should cost about $100,000. These safety improvements should be funded by the City and County, not by Open Space & Trails. Moreover, if student safety is a genuine concern, these improvements shouldbe made today!!In Favor Neutral Strongly Against Strongly Against Strongly Against In Favor Strongly Against Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor UnsureStrongly Against Strongly Against Strongly AgainstOST should not be paying for road safety projects which should be funded bythe City and County. OST may now have acquired the legal ability to spend millions of dollars on road safety problems that should be handled by the City and Country but is also has a moral obligation not to squander Pitkin County taxpayer funds.*See Attachment for Survey Response #86(Next Page)87 East TrailNeutral Strongly In Favor Neutral Neutral Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Neutral Strongly In Favor Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral NeutralNeutralNeutralNeutral88 West TrailIn Favor In Favor Strongly In Favor Against Strongly In Favor Against In Favor Neutral In Favor In Favor In Favor In Favor In FavorIn FavorAgainstIn Favor89 West Trailcutting the new trail into the uphill slope seems to be best for aesthetics and stability. moreover, it would seem more natural to the terrain.Strongly In Favor Neutral In Favor Neutral Against In Favor Neutral In Favor Against Against In Favor Strongly Against Againstthere are great hike/bike trails all over aspen that add to the quality of life, lifestyle amenities and enjoyment of the area. this castle creek trail will do the same, plus add a safety element for music and school attendees. i strongly support a beautiful and aesthetically pleasing trail.UnsureStrongly Against Unsurei'm not educated or knowledgeable enough to provide an intelligent comment here. aesthetically, sure don't want the fence, though.thanks for seeing this project through.90 West TrailI like the safety features for now and the future Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor In Favor Strongly In Favor In Favor In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Against UnsureIn FavorAgainstIn Favor91 Shoulder ImprovementsIn FavorIn FavorIn FavorUnsureUnsureIn Favor92 West TrailIn Favor In Favor Strongly In Favor Against In Favor In Favor Against Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In FavorAgainstAgainstStrongly In Favor93 East Trailbest balance of safety for pedestrians and bikers, cost, and connection to the existing trail systemIn Favor In Favor In Favor In Favor In Favor In Favor Neutral Strongly In Favor Neutral In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor In FavorThanks for keeping the ball rolling!In FavorAgainstStrongly In Favor94 West TrailThis alignment is the safer and most functional plan for all the users of Castle Creek Road because the it keeps all the vehicle traffic versus pedestrian traffic in clear areas. It is so important to not destroy the natural vegetation and maintain the beauty of this valley that has been here for hundreds of years. Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Neutral Strongly Against Strongly In Favor Against Strongly Against Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In FavorStrongly In Favor Strongly Against AgainstCCCIP Exhibit B Page 7P33I.
Attachment for Survey Response #86
On 14 December 2017, Open Space & Trails requested additional community input on the Castle Creek
Trail Project. OST offers three conceptual ‘alignments’ but this is a false dichotomy. The choice is not
between their $1.1 million, $3.9 million and $5.1 million options. The real-world choice is between
making this short stretch of road as safe as any other near a school. Typically, this is done by reducing
the speed limit, installing speed bumps, flashing lights and zebra stripes and should cost about
$100,000. These safety improvements should be funded by the City and County, not by Open Space &
Trails. Moreover, if student safety is a genuine concern, these improvements should be made today!!
Only after these basic safety precautions have been implemented and tested for a while, should the City
and County consider any additional spending on safety, like widening the road (where possible) and
building retaining walls, etc. The additional costs (in dollars and trees/shrubs destroyed) for these
improvements should be evaluated against the added student safety, they are designed to achieve.
Again, OST funds should not be spent on assuming City and County safety responsibilities to an elite and
very-well funded school.
The latest OST survey includes pretty drawings but omits any dollar amounts when asking citizens to
indicate their preferences. As a neighbor of the Music School aptly stated at the first public meeting on
this project, OST is in essence asking if we are in favor of motherhood and apple pie. Of course the
answer is ‘yes’ until we learn the pie costs $1, 3 and 5 million a slice … . and requires the felling of many
trees and shrubs and the ruining of a beautiful entrance to Aspen.
Open Space & Trails may now have acquired the legal ability to spend millions of dollars on a $100,000
safety problem that should be handled by the City and Country but is also a moral obligation not to
squander Pitkin County taxpayer funds.
CCCIP Exhibit B
Page 8
P34
I.
Comment Cards
CCCIP Exhibit B
Page 9
P35
I.
CCCIP Exhibit B
Page 10
P36
I.
CCCIP Exhibit B
Page 11
P37
I.
CCCIP Exhibit B
Page 12
P38
I.
CCCIP Exhibit B
Page 13
P39
I.
CCCIP Exhibit B
Page 14
P40
I.
CCCIP Exhibit B
Page 15
P41
I.
CCCIP Exhibit B
Page 16
P42
I.
CCCIP Exhibit B
Page 17
P43
I.
CCCIP Exhibit B
Page 18
P44
I.
Letters and Emails
CCCIP Exhibit B
Page 19
P45
I.
From:Kathleen Wanatowicz
To:Bryana Starbuck
Cc:Samantha Montgomery
Subject:FW: Music School Trail
Date:Thursday, November 16, 2017 3:12:50 PM
Attachments:2017 (11-14) Castle Creek Caucus Letter 1.pdf
2017 (11-14) Castle Creek Caucus Letter 2.pdf
Please create new folder for public comment on alternatives - thank you.
-----Original Message-----
From: joseph wells [mailto:joewells@me.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 2:39 PM
To: Gary Tennenbaum <Gary.Tennenbaum@pitkincounty.com>; Kathleen Wanatowicz
<kathleen@prstudioco.com>
Subject: Music School Trail
Attached are two letters regarding the Music School Trail.
Thanks,
Joe Wells
CCCIP Exhibit B
Page 20
P46
I.
Joseph Wells
P O Box 4259
Aspen, CO 81612
joewells@me.com
14 November, 2017
To: Gary Tennenbaum (gary.tennenbaum@pitkincounty.com)
Kathleen Wanatowicz (kathleen@prstudioco.com)
Castle Creek Caucus Membership
Re: Castle Creek Trail Project
My wife and I live about one mile further up Castle Creek Road past the Music School
Campus. Both the Aspen Music Festival & School and Aspen Country Day School are
beloved institutions at our house. Both of our children attended Aspen Country Day
from pre-school until their graduation in 8th grade. Carrie served as President of the
Board for a number of years. Carrie has also served on the Board of AMFS for many
years and is currently President of the National Council. It seems very unlikely to us
that we would be living in Aspen if either of these organizations did not exist.
I have to say, however, that the thought of putting a heavy backpack full of books on
either of my childrens’ backs while they were attending Aspen Country Day and
sending them off on bikes in the early morning hours, even if a separate bike path
existed, during those limited times of the school year when weather would have
permitted, is not a thought that would have EVER crossed my mind. First and foremost,
at that age, children don’t always make the best decisions, so we would have worried
every day about their safety.
Another reason we would not have done that is because both of our children, like many
of the students at ACDS, typically had after-school activities such as sports, ballet or
tutoring that required us to pick them up at school and immediately take them to those
activities. Their bikes would have been left behind on-campus for us to deal with later.
Personally, I think the notion that the young students of Aspen Country Day will be
flocking to ride their bikes to school from their scattered locations around town and
beyond, if conditions were improved, is just fantasy. And surely, everyone will concede
that no one will be riding their bikes once the snow flies in earnest.
Likewise, there seem to be legitimate reasons why large numbers of music school
students are not likely to walk or bike to the Campus during the nine-week period
when the school is in session. Only a limited number of students can be accommodated
at the Marolt seasonal housing. There are only 100 dormitory-style rooms, and I believe
that it was suggested at the earlier meeting that up to 300 students are accommodated
at Marolt at times during the summer season.
A significant number of the students who responded to the 2017 AMFS Student Survey
indicated that they were living in pretty remote locations---Burlingame, Snowmass
Village, Basalt, for instance. Many students play bulky instruments---cellos, double
CCCIP Exhibit B
Page 21
P47
I.
14 November, 2017
Castle Creek Trail Project
Page two of three
bass, trombones, tubas, harps---and many more play instruments that are both valuable
and fragile. It seems likely that most students would choose to carry their instruments
around rather than store them on-campus, even if they had that option, and would not
choose to carry them around on a bike.
Most students have intensive schedules requiring trips to various locations around
town, including the public school complex, the Meadows and downtown. They
experience long days, while at both the school and at other locations, often remaining
on-campus late at night.
In reviewing other responses to the student survey, the responses to that survey seems
to be quite at odds with the other solicited responses included with the packet
materials. Apparently, 608 students responded to the 2017 student survey, a very high
percentage as surveys go. Some students skipped certain questions. Of those who
responded, 554 students, or 92.49 percent, responded that they either drove or took the
bus to the Campus. Only 45 students, or 7.52 percent, responded that they walked or
biked to the campus.
When asked if a safer bike/pedestrian connection were in place to the Campus, 241
students, or 40.24 percent responded that they would still never, rarely or only
occasionally bike to the campus. In contrast, 358 students, or 59.77 percent, said they
would walk or bike frequently or daily if a safer bike/pedestrian connection were in
place. I believe this indicates what the students would like to do, but when the reality of
their schedules set in, the number who would have time to actually do so would be a
much lower percentage.
Going through the students’ individual responses to the question about their route to
the Campus, its safety and what would enhance their experience, 336 students, or 56
percent, described their transportation mode to the campus was satisfactory, using
terms like not applicable, good, safe, fine, great, easy, fabulous, no complaints and no
suggestions.
Another 123 students, or 20.5 percent, made suggestions about changes to the bus
service that would make it easier to get around. These included more frequent service,
more attention to class schedules, more care in the timing at transfer points, instrument
storage on the Campus, more we-cycle locations, park-and-ride locations and later bus
trips to and from Campus. These two above groups represent 76.5 percent of the
responses.
A total of 139 students, or 23 percent, responded that they did not feel safe walking or
biking or encouraged a safer connection or, specifically, the construction of a walkway/
bikeway. Some (a total of 8 respondents) requested lighting on the route and two
students expressed concerns about bears near the Marolt Seasonal Housing, and near
the walkway from the bus stop down to Marolt.
CCCIP Exhibit B
Page 22
P48
I.
14 November, 2017
Castle Creek Trail Project
Page three of three
I believe that the needs of the music school students would be better served, and
available public funds would be better spent, through the acquisition of a fleet of
smaller buses, suitable for carrying large instruments, and operating on a schedule
better suited for the students’ needs.
Thanks for your consideration of these points,
Joe Wells
Coordinator, Castle Creek Caucus
CCCIP Exhibit B
Page 23
P49
I.
Joseph Wells
P O Box 4259
Aspen, CO 81612
joewells@me.com
14 November, 2017
To: Gary Tennenbaum (gary.tennenbaum@pitkincounty.com)
Kathleen Wanatowicz (kathleen@prstudioco.com)
Castle Creek Caucus Membership
Re: Castle Creek Trail Project
Here are my observations regarding trail construction in the Castle Creek Valley. Castle
Creek Road is a winding twelve-mile road of standard lane widths without a paved
shoulder. Because there is limited visibility along the road, the County has deemed
Castle Creek Road unsafe for passing throughout its entire length, striping the road
with double yellow lines for its entire length. It is important that any plan for trail
construction in the Castle Creek valley consider other users, and not just those who
might be traveling to the campus.
Castle Creek Road is also one of, if not THE most popular routes for bike riders and
other forms of recreational travel in the County. As a result, safety is an issue along the
entire length of the roadway, particularly on the many blind corners that exist over the
route. This is not an issue limited to only a small segment of the roadway at the
beginning of the route, where visibility is generally as good, or better, than elsewhere
on the route.
Over the years, observing the use of trails separated from roadways where they exist, I
have come to two conclusions. The first is that many, if not most, bikers will not use
trails separated from the roadway even where they are in place, preferring to ride in the
roadway. Secondly, when bikers do use such trails, there are safety concerns for
pedestrians using the same trail.
For these two reasons, I have reluctantly concluded that the separated trail easements
should be reserved for pedestrians and that the safest solution for all concerned would
be to expand the road platform by four feet, at least along the uphill side of the
roadway, for use by bikers, where this can be done without changing the visual
character of the road corridor or unnecessarily impacting on the environment. There are
many sections of the roadway where an expansion of the pavement could be
accomplished with minimal long-term impacts on the visual character of the valley,
once new vegetation becomes established.
1. A Comment About All Three Trail Alternatives:
For all three of the alternatives, the travel lanes for vehicles is reduced from the
existing 12 foot width down to 11 feet. I do not support this reduction because of
winter safety issues.
CCCIP Exhibit B
Page 24
P50
I.
14 November 2017
Castle Creek Trail Project
Page two of three
2. My Preferred Alternative:
I do not believe that the limited number of Aspen Country Day students (grades
Pre-K through 8th Grade) who would walk or bike to the Campus during the limited
period of the school year in which it would realistically be an option justifies the
greater expenditures of public funds required to accomplish the other two more
expensive alternatives in this narrow section of the Castle Creek valley. I also believe
that it is also unrealistic to expect that Music School students with expensive and
quite often heavy instruments, an intense schedule and trips to various locations in
the area are going to be walking or biking to Campus regularly and that they would
therefore be better served by the addition of a fleet of smaller buses which are more
responsive to student’s needs, for the reasons that I have elaborated on in a separate
memo of this date.
For these reasons, I prefer a variation of the Shoulder Improvements Alternative.
Beginning at the existing eastern edge of the pavement and working west, I would
include a four-foot section of pavement dedicated for bikers and those walking to
the Campus, two twelve-foot travel lanes and a four-foot section of pavement for
uphill bike traffic. This would result in a 32 foot platform overall. Retaining would
be required along the west side to accomplish the added width. With the added
width, I would hope it would not be necessary to install ugly white plastic bollards
(which offer no protection) along the east side between the travel lane and the area
for bikers and those walking to the campus.
Up-valley of the Campus turn-off, I favor a solution as described above, except with
the elimination of the four-foot expansion of the platform in the downhill direction.
This would result in a 28 foot road platform overall, where this can be accomplished.
3. My Second Choice:
I prefer the West Trail Alternative with variations as my second choice. Beginning at
the existing eastern edge of the pavement, I would retain two twelve-foot travel
lanes and add a four-foot section of pavement for uphill bike traffic. This would
result in a 28 foot continuous road platform overall. Retaining would be required
along the west side to accomplish the added width.
I favor retaining on the uphill side of the grade-separated trail, rather than on the
downhill side, to eliminate the need for a protective railing on the downhill side
where possible. For this reason, I believe that beginning at the entry to the Campus,
the terrain on the uphill side may be flat enough for 1000 feet or so to the north to
move the trail away from the uphill bike lane. A significant portion of this property
is owned by the City. Where it is necessary to bring the grade-separated trail back
alongside the uphill bike lane in the area of the cut slopes, I favor continuing the
concrete base higher than the trail, say 24 inches, so that it is not necessary to have a
CCCIP Exhibit B
Page 25
P51
I.
14 November 2017
Castle Creek Trail Project
Page three of three
railing. I favor a consistent plane for the wall (either vertical or canted), rather than
the jersey barricade shape shown on the drawings.
Alongside the Castle Ridge Apartments property, the grade-separated trail is shown
diverting to the west, to avoid the large cottonwoods along Castle Creek Road.
However, it is shown as encroaching onto the Castle Ridge property, and this may
not be acceptable to the owners of that property.
The grade-separated trail extends 500 feet further up Castle Creek Road beyond the
entrance to the Campus. This seems unnecessary, but if, by doing that, the grades
allow a separation between the uphill bike lane and the grade-separated trail, I can
live with that. Maintaining the uphill bike lane in this area and beyond is desirable
regardless.
4. My Least Favorite Alternative:
Although the East Trail Alternative offers the advantage of avoiding having
students cross Castle Creek Road, I think the disadvantages far outweigh this
benefit. My notes of the presentation on November 2 indicate that the east side trail
was to be located within the existing northbound travel lane and the road was to be
shifted to the west. The drawings indicate, however, that that is the case for only a
portion of the alignment. Both the depressed portion of the trail and another portion
that is an extension of the existing pavement with a retaining wall on the downhill
side are located to the east of the existing road platform. As a result, all of the
existing vegetation along the top of the bank on the east side of the road in those
sections would be lost.
Further, the portion of that alternative that is depressed requires a permanent jersey
barrier type barricade of some three feet in height, blocking the view of the valley
floor from the travel lanes with a man-made barrier. Finally, the trail on the east side
conflicts with existing accesses to three homes, whereas a trail on the west side is
without any such conflicts.
Thanks for your consideration of these points,
Joe Wells
Coordinator, Castle Creek Caucus
CCCIP Exhibit B
Page 26
P52
I.
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
CCCIP Exhibit B
Page 27
P53
I.
From:Phil Overeynder
To:Bryana Starbuck
Subject:FW: Castle Creek Trail Alignment Options & Water Plant Overflow
Date:Monday, November 20, 2017 12:43:45 PM
Attachments:Reservoir overflow Castle creek rd culver.jpg
Reservoir overflow diversion box at castle matched photos.jpg
From: Phil Overeynder
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2017 12:42 PM
To: 'bryana@prsudioco.com' <bryana@prsudioco.com>
Cc: Chuck Bailey <charlie.bailey@cityofaspen.com>; Tyler Christoff
<Tyler.Christoff@cityofaspen.com>; David Hornbacher <david.hornbacher@cityofaspen.com>;
Robert Covington <robert.covington@cityofaspen.com>; Austin Weiss
<austin.weiss@cityofaspen.com>
Subject: Castle Creek Trail Alignment Options & Water Plant Overflow
Hello Bryana,
I attended your open house regarding potential trail alignments along Castle Creek Road last week
and provided some preferences from a personal perspective. I also wanted to add some comments
from the perspective of heading the water plant operations in my capacity of the former utility
director. The new trail would abut water department lands for a significant distance and like other
facilities along the road right of way, the design of your project may be impacted by operations at
the water plant. The most significant concern is the culvert crossing (shown at Station 33+00).
I am attaching some photos of conditions showing the effect of water releases from Thomas
Reservoir on the what is identified as an “existing drainageway” on the plan sets. These photos were
of a test of the capacity of the overflow system conducted during 2012. The test had to be curtailed
before the existing hydraulic capacity of the overflow system from Thomas Reservoir was reached
because damage began to occur on downstream structures. The point is that the photos show the
effect of releasing only a fraction of the potential reservoir releases under emergency conditions.
Design flows are significantly higher. Release of high volumes of water has the potential to dislodge
rocks and loose material from the steeper slopes above and to discharge that material downstream
on the roadway and potentially onto any new trail additions.
The first photo in the attachment shows conditions during the 2012 tests just downstream of the
48“ CMP crossing at Castle Creek Road, looking up towards the roadway. The second photo shows
the junction box on the Holden Ditch just below the same point.
Not shown in the photos are winter conditions at the drainageway when the 48” culvert nearly
freezes shut with a very diminished hydraulic capacity. If emergency releases from Thomas Reservoir
occur during this circumstance, high velocity water coming down the hillside can back up in the
depressed area at the toe of the slope and potentially overtop the roadway. I don’t have photos of
this circumstance, but it poses a significant potential for damage to the road and any potential trail
CCCIP Exhibit B
Page 28
P54
I.
additions.
The West Trail alignment option appears to fully utilize the existing right of way in the vicinity of the
drainageway and in fact may slightly encroach onto water department property. The cross sections
at that location are somewhat difficult to interpret in terms of whether the drainageway would be
bridged or filled in. If the trail is located as shown there is the potential for significant damage from
high velocity water coming off the steep slopes above the proposed trail.
The East Trail option as well as the Roadway Shoulder options appear to be designed to add fill over
the existing culvert while moving the extent of road/trail in an easterly direction. These options do
not appear to hold the same considerations for impacting he drainageway, since it appears that
water would continue to exit the culvert and drop to the same location beyond the edge of the
existing fill slopes. Again it’s difficult to confirm this with the level of detail in the preliminary
drawings.
If your engineer would like to further address questions related to water plant operations, please
feel free to contact me.
Phil Overeynder
Utilities Engineer—Special Projects
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611-1975
970-920-5111
phil.overeynder@cityofaspen.com
CCCIP Exhibit B
Page 29
P55
I.
CCCIP Exhibit B
Page 30
P56
I.
CCCIP Exhibit B
Page 31 P57I.
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
CCCIP Exhibit B
Page 32
P58
I.
From:Bryana Starbuck
To:Bryana Starbuck
Subject:FW: Castle Creek Trail Project
Date:Wednesday, January 10, 2018 10:02:37 AM
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Bob Rafelson <curly@aspennights.com>
Date: Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 4:58 PM
Subject: Fwd: Castle Creek Trail Project
To:
,
"To: Gary Tennenbaum" <gary.tennenbaum@pitkincounty.com>, "Cc: Joseph Wells"
<joewells@me.com>, Bob & Gaby Rafelson <curly@aspennights.com>, Carrie Wells
<carrie@carriewells.com>, "Michael (Mike) Tanguay" <mtanguay@aspenconstructors.com>, Linda
Sandrich <linda205@mac.com>, Julia Rowland <juliaarowland@gmail.com>, "Nate (Nathan)
Rowland" <nathanrowland@gmail.com>, Alice Davis <adavis@rof.net>, Glenn Horn
<ghorn@rof.net>, Chris Shearer Cooper <chris@sc3.net>, Marcella Larsen
<marcellalarsen@me.com>, George Zachar <george@greensward.com>, Cliff Weiss
<Cliffweiss49@gmail.com>, Tony Battaglia <anthonydbattaglia@gmail.com>, Michael Lipkin
<mlipkin@lipkinwarner.com>, Ed Zasacky <EdZasacky@usa.net>, Pete Stouffer
<hpstouffer@sopris.net>, Graeme Means <gdmarchitect@gmail.com>, Tom Barron
<tabarron@tabarron.com>, Joachim Diedrich <jsd@the1backoffice.com>, "Tom Kurt, MD"
<tomkurtmd@comcast.net>, Gary Wright <gaw@wrightlasalle.com>, Ron Morehead
<rmorehead@aspensnowmass.com>, Andy & Lis
a Poole <Andy@ptaspen.com>, Randy Gold <randygaspen@gmail.com>, Katie Schwoerer
<kschwoerer@aspennature.org>, Karen Ryman <kryman@msn.com>, Marisa Silverman
<marisa@silvermanmuseum.com>, John Doyle <johndoylesculpture@gmail.com>, Catherine Anne
Provine <catherineanne@aspenchapel.org>, Sue Diedrich <sued@the1backoffice.com>, Chris Lacy
<clacy@rof.net>, Sandie Eskin <sandreskin@aol.com>, Lois Teegarden <hapsmtnmama@aol.com>,
Alan Hassenflu <ahassenflu@frpltd.com>, Dennis Vaughn <vaughndennis58@gmail.com>, D Stone
Davis <dstoned@comcast.net>, Sue Smalley <Sue@suesmalley.com>, Kevin Wall
<Kwall@controlroom.com>, Trent Palmer <trent@wtp-law.com>, Steve Busky
<smbusky@gmail.com>, John Duficy <dome@sopris.net>, Elaine Pagels <epagels@princeton.edu>,
Dawn Shepard <dawn@dawnshepard.com>, Terri Sharp <tlsharp@sopris.net>, Jordan Greengrass
<jhg3787@gmail.com>, Dan Bunta <victor@sopris.net>, Christine Anderson
<likesartsupplies55@gmail.com>, Chuck Frias <chuck@friasproperties.com>, Bru
ce Gordon <Bruce@ecoflight.org>, Aspen <scotthicks@aspencountryday.net>, Hawk & Shelley
Greenway <hawkgreenway@gmail.com>, Mac Coffey <maccoffey@comcast.net>, Bruce Coffey
<bcoffey3@earthlink.net>, Annie Katz <anniekatz@me.com>, Todd & Nikola Freemen
<freemans5@sbcglobal.net>, Dick Butera <dickbutera@sopris.net>, Michael Katz
<mdk@katzbarron.com>, Gregg Lowe <gregglowe@me.com>, Sebastian Wanatowicz
<swmidnightmine@gmail.com>, Polly & Murry Bowden <pbowden@hanoverco.com>, Patti Morgan
<pattim@morgangroup.com>, John Walla <john@jwalla.com>, John Perko
CCCIP Exhibit B
Page 33
P59
I.
<johnptruenorth@gmail.com>, Marshall Hall <marshall@wildernet.com>, Alfred LaFave
<alfred.lafave@gmail.com>, Brian Boyd <boyd@btcappartners.com>, Edward Wachs
<ewachs@wachscompanies.com>, Deborah Glass <deganglass@gmail.com>, Janet Clark
<janetclark2015@gmail.com>, Brian Sharples <sharplesbrian@gmail.com>, Unidentified Resident
<dnieciag@me.com>, Brian Davies <briandavies@aspencountryday.net>, Carolyn Hines
<carolynhines@aspencou
ntryday.net>, Jason Suazo <jason.suazo@renegadellc.com>, Lawrence Butler
<larry@getawestruck.com>, John Wilcox <wilcoxashcroft@gmail.com>, Colleen Carvelli
<colleencarvelli@gmail.com>, Peter Carvelli <carvellipeter@gmail.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D11E65AB-4D6A-4B80-A527-CAE675D5653B@aspennights.com>
References: <77E27260-16B3-4929-8BF3-B4435B18346A@usagri.com>
To: "gary.tennenbaum" <gary.tennenbaum@pitkincounty.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
gary=E2=80=94there has never been an accident to a kid. stop this =
nonsense so you can put another feather in your cap of a new trail to =
complete a dream of a larger trail from here to utah, maybe california =
to be named undoubtedly Tha Tannenbaum Trail. You are making a mess with =
a pr woman to help you. It=E2=80=99s a wank job.Ive lived on this road =
46 years!!!~ bob rafelson
CCCIP Exhibit B
Page 34
P60
I.
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
CCCIP Exhibit B
Page 35
P61
I.
From:Kathleen Wanatowicz
To:Bryana Starbuck
Subject:FW: Castle Creek Trail Project
Date:Wednesday, January 10, 2018 10:00:23 AM
New entry
From: Gary Tennenbaum [mailto:gary.tennenbaum@pitkincounty.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2018 9:55 AM
To: Kathleen Wanatowicz <kathleen@prstudioco.com>; Austin Weiss
<austin.weiss@cityofaspen.com>; Gerald Fielding <gerald.fielding@pitkincounty.com>
Cc: Derek Webb <dwebb@lorisandassociates.com>; Jessie Young <jessie.young@pitkincounty.com>;
Janet Urquhart <janet.urquhart@pitkincounty.com>; Lindsey Utter
<lindsey.utter@pitkincounty.com>
Subject: Fwd: Castle Creek Trail Project
Another for the public record.
Gary Tennenbaum
Pitkin County Open Space and Trails Director
806 W. Hallam St
(the Aspen Ranger Station Forest Service building)
Aspen, CO 81611
970-920-5355
Find OST on Facebook: www.facebook.com/pages/Pitkin-County-Open-Space-and-
Trails/179446995445330
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Eddie Wachs <ewachs@wachscompanies.com>
Date: Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 7:52 PM
Subject: Re: Castle Creek Trail Project
To: Simon Pinniger <simon@usagri.com>
Cc: Gary Tennenbaum <gary.tennenbaum@pitkincounty.com>, Joseph Wells <joewells@me.com>,
Bob & Gaby Rafelson <curly@aspennights.com>, Carrie Wells <carrie@carriewells.com>, "Michael
(Mike) Tanguay" <mtanguay@aspenconstructors.com>, Linda Sandrich <linda205@mac.com>, Julia
Rowland <juliaarowland@gmail.com>, "Nate (Nathan) Rowland" <nathanrowland@gmail.com>,
Alice Davis <adavis@rof.net>, Glenn Horn <ghorn@rof.net>, Chris Shearer Cooper <chris@sc3.net>,
Marcella Larsen <marcellalarsen@me.com>, George Zachar <george@greensward.com>, Cliff Weiss
<Cliffweiss49@gmail.com>, Tony Battaglia <anthonydbattaglia@gmail.com>, Michael Lipkin
<mlipkin@lipkinwarner.com>, Ed Zasacky <EdZasacky@usa.net>, Pete Stouffer
<hpstouffer@sopris.net>, Graeme Means <gdmarchitect@gmail.com>, Tom Barron
<tabarron@tabarron.com>, Joachim Diedrich <jsd@the1backoffice.com>, "Tom Kurt, MD"
<tomkurtmd@comcast.net>, Gary Wright <gaw@wrightlasalle.com>, Ron Morehead
<rmorehead@aspensnowmass.com>, Andy & Lisa Poole <Andy@ptaspen.com>, Randy Gold
<randygaspen@gmail.com>, Katie Schwoerer <kschwoerer@aspennature.org>, Karen Ryman
CCCIP Exhibit B
Page 36
P62
I.
<kryman@msn.com>, Marisa Silverman <marisa@silvermanmuseum.com>, John Doyle
<johndoylesculpture@gmail.com>, Catherine Anne Provine <catherineanne@aspenchapel.org>, Sue
Diedrich <sued@the1backoffice.com>, Chris Lacy <clacy@rof.net>, Sandie Eskin
<sandreskin@aol.com>, Lois Teegarden <hapsmtnmama@aol.com>, Alan Hassenflu
<ahassenflu@frpltd.com>, Dennis Vaughn <vaughndennis58@gmail.com>, D Stone Davis
<dstoned@comcast.net>, Sue Smalley <Sue@suesmalley.com>, Kevin Wall
<Kwall@controlroom.com>, Trent Palmer <trent@wtp-law.com>, Steve Busky
<smbusky@gmail.com>, John Duficy <dome@sopris.net>, Elaine Pagels <epagels@princeton.edu>,
Dawn Shepard <dawn@dawnshepard.com>, Terri Sharp <tlsharp@sopris.net>, Jordan Greengrass
<jhg3787@gmail.com>, Dan Bunta <victor@sopris.net>, Christine Anderson
<likesartsupplies55@gmail.com>, Chuck Frias <chuck@friasproperties.com>, Bruce Gordon
<Bruce@ecoflight.org>, Aspen <scotthicks@aspencountryday.net>, Hawk & Shelley Greenway
<hawkgreenway@gmail.com>, Mac Coffey <maccoffey@comcast.net>, Bruce Coffey
<bcoffey3@earthlink.net>, Annie Katz <anniekatz@me.com>, Todd & Nikola Freemen
<freemans5@sbcglobal.net>, Dick Butera <dickbutera@sopris.net>, Michael Katz
<mdk@katzbarron.com>, Gregg Lowe <gregglowe@me.com>, Sebastian Wanatowicz
<swmidnightmine@gmail.com>, Polly & Murry Bowden <pbowden@hanoverco.com>, Patti Morgan
<pattim@morgangroup.com>, John Walla <john@jwalla.com>, John Perko
<johnptruenorth@gmail.com>, Marshall Hall <marshall@wildernet.com>, Alfred LaFave
<alfred.lafave@gmail.com>, Brian Boyd <boyd@btcappartners.com>, Deborah Glass
<deganglass@gmail.com>, Janet Clark <janetclark2015@gmail.com>, Brian Sharples
<sharplesbrian@gmail.com>, Unidentified Resident <dnieciag@me.com>, Brian Davies
<briandavies@aspencountryday.net>, Carolyn Hines <carolynhines@aspencountryday.net>, Jason
Suazo <jason.suazo@renegadellc.com>, Lawrence Butler <larry@getawestruck.com>, John Wilcox
<wilcoxashcroft@gmail.com>, Colleen Carvelli <colleencarvelli@gmail.com>, Peter Carvelli
<carvellipeter@gmail.com>
Simon
Well stated, I agree we should all ask for the brakes to be put on this project until safety
Is the major concern and need for the trail or student access is evaluated. Thanks for your
Comments.
Eddie Wachs
Sent from my iPhone
> On Dec 31, 2017, at 4:04 PM, Simon Pinniger <simon@usagri.com> wrote:
>
> Aspen
CCCIP Exhibit B
Page 37
P63
I.
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
CCCIP Exhibit B
Page 38
P64
I.
From:Kathleen Wanatowicz
To:Bryana Starbuck
Subject:Fw: Music School Trail
Date:Wednesday, January 10, 2018 10:49:27 AM
Attachments:2018 (01-01) Castle Creek Caucus Letter 2 .docx
From: joseph wells <joewells@me.com>
Sent: Monday, January 1, 2018 6:24 PM
To: Gary Tennenbaum; Kathleen Wanatowicz
Subject: Music School Trail
Attached are some additional thoughts about the trail alternatives.
Thanks,
Joe Wells
CCCIP Exhibit B
Page 39
P65
I.
Joseph Wells
P O Box 4259
Aspen, CO 81612
joewells@me.com
01 January, 2018
To: Gary Tennenbaum (gary.tennenbaum@pitkincounty.com)
Kathleen Wanatowicz (kathleen@prstudioco.com)
Castle Creek Caucus Membership
Re: Music School Trail Project
In my November 14 letter, I previously forwarded my thoughts about my preferred
alternative among the three identified alternatives, which is a variation of the Shoulder
Improvements Alternative, as well as my second choice, which is the trail along the
west side of the road platform. I would like to add some additional comments
regarding the alternative on the east side, as well as to comment on some additional
issues associated with the trail proposal.
1. My Third Choice Alternative:
I previously identified the East Trail Alternative as my least favorite alternative
among the three choices that we were given. However, since an alignment on the
east side offers the advantage of avoiding having students cross Castle Creek Road, I
want to make some suggestions as to how this alignment could be modified to
remove my objections to that alternative.
a.The east side trail should be located along the outside of the existing
northbound travel lane and the two lanes of the road should be shifted to the
west. This would shift the proposed retaining from the east side of the road to
the west side. Among other advantages, this would preserve the screening
vegetation on the east side of the road, and would result in the loss of trees, if
any, only on the west side of the road, where there are no residences.
b.The depressed portion of the east side trail proposal currently includes the
construction of a concrete “jersey barrier” immediately adjacent to the east
side of the north-bound travel lane. This barricade forms an immoveable
obstruction for the mixed traffic in the lane. The serious bikers would have
nowhere to bail out in the event of a problem, such as a flat tire. The
CCCIP Exhibit B
Page 40
P66
I.
depressed segment should be eliminated, and the trail should be built as an
extension of the existing pavement (with the pavement shifted to the west, as
noted above).
c.More substantial looking bollards, such as those used at the ends of the
terminated roads in the west end in the S curves of Highway 82, but
preferably in a darker finish than white, should be used to delineate the
location of the trail if desired, rather than the more flimsy white pvc pipe-like
bollards that are now in use in various locations around town.
01 January, 2018
Gary Tennenbaum (gary.tennenbaum@pitkincounty.com)
Kathleen Wanatowicz (kathleen@prstudioco.com)
Castle Creek Caucus Membership
Page two of two
d.Fixed lighting of any kind along the trail should not be considered in this
Rural-designated area within the County. Users who want to use the trail at
night need to provide their own lighting on their bikes as required by State
law or to facilitate walking.
2. Construction Issues:
As I recall, the plan during construction that was contemplated when the trail was
being pursued by the County previously was to shut down one lane of traffic on
Castle Creek Road for the duration of construction, place stop lights at both ends of
the construction which would not include sensors to monitor differing levels of
traffic throughout the day, and throughout the week. These stoplights would have
stopped traffic at each end of the construction 24 four hours a day, seven days a
week. Users would have had to wait for a green light regardless of whether there
was any opposing traffic or not. A more sophisticated solution for traffic control
needs to be proposed by the County as a part of this construction effort.
3. Retaining the Hillside:
The consultants illustrated several alternatives for retaining the unstable cutslopes
along the west side of the road. The shotcrete alternative is the far more preferable
alternative if such a technique can be used successfully to stabilize a loosely
consolidated cobble hillside.
CCCIP Exhibit B
Page 41
P67
I.
3. What Auto Disincentives are the Two Organizations Offering to Implement?:
It is clear that both of the organizations that use the Music School Campus sincerely
believe that if the Community builds this trail segment, that it will significantly
affect traffic patterns to the school. I have previously expressed my opinions as to
why I do not believe that will be the case. I do not believe that significant numbers
of trips to the Campus will be diverted to the trail unless the two organizations
implement specific measures to cause that to happen. It seems fair for the
Community to ask the two organizations what measures they plan to implement to
reduce auto trips to the Campus if the Community agrees to build one of these trail
alternatives.
Thanks for your consideration of these points,
Joe Wells
Coordinator, Castle Creek Caucus
CCCIP Exhibit B
Page 42
P68
I.
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
CCCIP Exhibit B
Page 43
P69
I.
From:Kathleen Wanatowicz
To:Bryana Starbuck
Subject:FW: FW: Castle Creek Trail Project
Date:Tuesday, January 09, 2018 12:46:57 PM
Please add to PDF exhibit
From: Gary Tennenbaum [mailto:gary.tennenbaum@pitkincounty.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2018 12:27 PM
To: BOCC <bocc@pitkincounty.com>; Howie Mallory <ihmallory@gmail.com>; McFlynn Tim
<mcflynn@public-counsel.org>; GDM <gdmarchitect@gmail.com>; Hawk Greenway
<hawkgreenway@gmail.com>; Wayne Ives <wayne.ives1@gmail.com>
Cc: Open Space & Trails <open_space_trails@pitkincounty.com>; Jon Peacock
<jon.peacock@pitkincounty.com>; Kathleen Wanatowicz <kathleen@prstudioco.com>
Subject: Fwd: FW: Castle Creek Trail Project
See below from Karen Ryman as she addressed her comments to the BOCC and Open Space Board of
Trustees. This will go into the public record.
Gary Tennenbaum
Pitkin County Open Space and Trails Director
806 W. Hallam St
(the Aspen Ranger Station Forest Service building)
Aspen, CO 81611
970-920-5355
Find OST on Facebook: www.facebook.com/pages/Pitkin-County-Open-Space-and-
Trails/179446995445330
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Karen Ryman <KRYMAN@msn.com>
Date: Mon, Jan 1, 2018 at 11:11 PM
Subject: FW: Castle Creek Trail Project
To: "gary.tennenbaum@pitkincounty.com" <gary.tennenbaum@pitkincounty.com>
Open Space and Trails Trustees and Director
Pitkin County Commissioners
The following letter has been submitted to you by Simon Pinniger requesting that only
improvements on Castle Creek be similar to the improvements done around our public schools.
I have already submitted my comments choosing to negate the two east and west plans and just
widen the current footprint along Castle Creek.
I agree with all the comments from Mr. Pinniger and need not repeat them again.
Respectfully submitted,
Karen Ryman
CCCIP Exhibit B
Page 44
P70
I.
Castle Creek Caucus
From: Simon Pinniger [mailto:simon@usagri.com]
Sent: Sunday, December 31, 2017 4:04 PM
To: Gary Tennenbaum
Cc: Joseph Wells; Bob & Gaby Rafelson; Carrie Wells; Michael (Mike) Tanguay; Linda Sandrich; Julia
Rowland; Nate (Nathan) Rowland; Alice Davis; Glenn Horn; Chris Shearer Cooper; Marcella Larsen;
George Zachar; Cliff Weiss; Tony Battaglia; Michael Lipkin; Ed Zasacky; Pete Stouffer; Graeme Means;
Tom Barron; Joachim Diedrich; Tom Kurt, MD; Gary Wright; Ron Morehead; Andy & Lisa Poole; Randy
Gold; Katie Schwoerer; Karen Ryman; Marisa Silverman; John Doyle; Catherine Anne Provine; Sue
Diedrich; Chris Lacy; Sandie Eskin; Lois Teegarden; Alan Hassenflu; Dennis Vaughn; D Stone Davis; Sue
Smalley; Kevin Wall; Trent Palmer; Steve Busky; John Duficy; Elaine Pagels; Dawn Shepard; Terri Sharp;
Jordan Greengrass; Dan Bunta; Christine Anderson; Chuck Frias; Bruce Gordon; Aspen; Hawk & Shelley
Greenway; Mac Coffey; Bruce Coffey; Annie Katz; Todd & Nikola Freemen; Dick Butera; Michael Katz;
Gregg Lowe; Sebastian Wanatowicz; Polly & Murry Bowden; Patti Morgan; John Walla; John Perko;
Marshall Hall; Alfred LaFave; Brian Boyd; Edward Wachs; Deborah Glass; Janet Clark; Brian Sharples;
Unidentified Resident; Brian Davies; Carolyn Hines; Jason Suazo; Lawrence Butler; John Wilcox; Colleen
Carvelli; Peter Carvelli
Subject: Castle Creek Trail Project
Dear Pitkin County Commissioners.
Dear Aspen City Councilors.
Dear Open Space & Trails Trustees and Director.
On 14 December 2017, Open Space & Trails requested additional community input on the Castle
Creek Trail Project. OST offers three conceptual ‘alignments’ but this is a false dichotomy. The
choice is not between their $1.1 million, $3.9 million and $5.1 million options. The real-world
choice is between making this short stretch of road as safe as any other near a school. Typically, this
is done by reducing the speed limit, installing speed bumps, flashing lights and zebra stripes and
should cost about $100,000. These safety improvements should be funded by the City and County,
not by Open Space & Trails. Moreover, if student safety is a genuine concern, these improvements
should be made today!!
Only after these basic safety precautions have been implemented and tested for a while, should the
City and County consider any additional spending on safety, like widening the road (where possible)
and building retaining walls, etc. The additional costs (in dollars and trees/shrubs destroyed) for
these improvements should be evaluated against the added student safety, they are designed
to achieve. Again, OST funds should not be spent on assuming City and County safety
responsibilities to an elite and very-well funded school.
The latest OST survey includes pretty drawings but omits any dollar amounts when asking citizens
to indicate their preferences. As a neighbor of the Music School aptly stated at the first
public meeting on this project, OST is in essence asking if we are in favor of motherhood and apple
pie. Of course the answer is ‘yes’ until we learn the pie costs $1, 3 and 5 million a slice … . and
requires the felling of many trees and shrubs and the ruining of a beautiful entrance to Aspen.
Open Space & Trails may now have acquired the legal ability to spend millions of dollars on a
$100,000 safety problem that should be handled by the City and Country but is also a moral
obligation not to squander Pitkin County taxpayer funds.
Sincerely,
CCCIP Exhibit B
Page 45
P71
I.
Simon Pinniger
Castle Creek Road
PS: Gary - Kindly forward to the various elected officials. Thanks, Simon
CCCIP Exhibit B
Page 46
P72
I.
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
CCCIP Exhibit B
Page 47
P73
I.
From:Kathleen Wanatowicz
To:Bryana Starbuck
Subject:FW: Castle Creek Trail Project
Date:Tuesday, January 09, 2018 12:46:27 PM
Please add to exhibit
From: Gary Tennenbaum [mailto:gary.tennenbaum@pitkincounty.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2018 12:24 PM
To: BOCC <bocc@pitkincounty.com>; GDM <gdmarchitect@gmail.com>; Hawk Greenway
<hawkgreenway@gmail.com>; Howie Mallory <ihmallory@gmail.com>; McFlynn Tim
<mcflynn@public-counsel.org>; Wayne Ives <wayne.ives1@gmail.com>
Cc: Kathleen Wanatowicz <kathleen@prstudioco.com>; Austin Weiss
<austin.weiss@cityofaspen.com>
Subject: Fwd: Castle Creek Trail Project
Hi all,
Simon Pinniger requested to have his comments forwarded to both the BOCC and Open Space Board
of Trustees. This will also go in the public record.
Gary Tennenbaum
Pitkin County Open Space and Trails Director
806 W. Hallam St
(the Aspen Ranger Station Forest Service building)
Aspen, CO 81611
970-920-5355
Find OST on Facebook: www.facebook.com/pages/Pitkin-County-Open-Space-and-
Trails/179446995445330
Dear Pitkin County Commissioners.
Dear Aspen City Councilors.
Dear Open Space & Trails Trustees and Director.
On 14 December 2017, Open Space & Trails requested additional community input on the
Castle Creek Trail Project. OST offers three conceptual ‘alignments’ but this is a false
dichotomy. The choice is not between their $1.1 million, $3.9 million and $5.1 million
options. The real-world choice is between making this short stretch of road as safe as any
other near a school. Typically, this is done by reducing the speed limit, installing speed
bumps, flashing lights and zebra stripes and should cost about $100,000. These safety
improvements should be funded by the City and County, not by Open Space & Trails.
Moreover, if student safety is a genuine concern, these improvements should be made today!!
Only after these basic safety precautions have been implemented and tested for a while,
CCCIP Exhibit B
Page 48
P74
I.
should the City and County consider any additional spending on safety, like widening the
road (where possible) and building retaining walls, etc. The additional costs (in dollars and
trees/shrubs destroyed) for these improvements should be evaluated against the added student
safety, they are designed to achieve. Again, OST funds should not be spent on assuming City
and County safety responsibilities to an elite and very-well funded school.
The latest OST survey includes pretty drawings but omits any dollar amounts when asking
citizens to indicate their preferences. As a neighbor of the Music School aptly stated at the
first public meeting on this project, OST is in essence asking if we are in favor of motherhood
and apple pie. Of course the answer is ‘yes’ until we learn the pie costs $1, 3 and 5 million a
slice … . and requires the felling of many trees and shrubs and the ruining of a beautiful
entrance to Aspen.
Open Space & Trails may now have acquired the legal ability to spend millions of dollars on a
$100,000 safety problem that should be handled by the City and Country but is also a moral
obligation not to squander Pitkin County taxpayer funds.
Sincerely,
Simon Pinniger
Castle Creek Road
PS: Gary - Kindly forward to the various elected officials. Thanks, Simon
CCCIP Exhibit B
Page 49
P75
I.
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
CCCIP Exhibit B
Page 50
P76
I.
TO: Pitkin County Open Space & Trails Board of Trustees, Pitkin County Board of County
Commissioners; City of Aspen Open Space & Trails Board, Aspen City Council
cc. Gary Tennenbaum, Pitkin County; Austin Weiss, City of Aspen
January 2018
Aspen Country Day School and the Aspen Music Festival & School, both located on the Bucksbaum
Campus adjacent to Castle Creek Road, wish to express our appreciation for the county’s
thorough and thoughtful approach to planning for the Castle Creek Corridor Improvement
Project. We have been pleased to participate in the public comment process to date, as well as to
witness the participation of many neighbors and constituents.
Teams from both schools have studied the three alignments presented by the project team. We
have walked the corridor with the conceptual sketches in hand and with an eye towards the
primary concern, safety. We wish to convey our enthusiastic support of the East Trail concept.
The East Trail design offers a definite separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic, which makes it
preferable to the Shoulder Improvements option. The three-foot shoulder expansion called for in
the Shoulder Improvements design is not wide enough to significantly improve safety, especially
for the “non-expert” user, whether a child biking to school in the fall or a music student carrying
an instrument in the summer. And while the Shoulder Improvements option comes in at the
lowest price, it’s not a true trail solution on a par with the rest of our area’s excellent trails.
An east-side alignment creates a direct and logical connection to the existing trail system, and this
makes it preferable to the West Trail option. We also note that a west-side alignment would
require pedestrians or bicyclists to make two road crossings – one at the Marolt campus and
another at the entrance to Music School Road. We believe these two crossings, no matter how
well marked, could raise safety concerns. They would also be a disincentive to pedestrians or
bicyclists who naturally seek the most efficient route along the corridor. We are also aware that
the West Trail, at the highest estimated cost of the three alternatives, may be more than is
necessary in this corridor.
The East Trail offers a true trail at a reasonable cost. We urge staff to review the east alignment
for areas where the buffer zone can be narrowed and walls shortened to simplify the design. We
also endorse full review of rockfall prevention at the road cut on the west side of the curve.
Usage data presented at the public meetings in the fall proves that corridor improvements are
long overdue. Our own daily use convinced us that lower Castle Creek Road sees a lot of
pedestrian and bicycle traffic, and the counts confirmed that. We believe that an improvement
such as the East Trail would quickly become a well-used and well-loved public amenity, offering a
safe and inviting entry to this spectacular valley and improving transit concerns in the
corridor. We look forward to following the progress of this proposed project as it proceeds to the
Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners and City of Aspen City Council for consideration.
Josh Wolman, Head of School, Aspen Country Day School
Alan Fletcher, President & CEO, Aspen Music Festival & School CCCIP Exhibit B
Page 51
P77
I.
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
CCCIP Exhibit B
Page 52
P78
I.
Project Website
Submissions
CCCIP Exhibit B
Page 53
P79
I.
1
Kathleen Wanatowicz
From:hamtharp@gmail.com <no-reply@weebly.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 17, 2017 4:53 PM
To:Kathleen Wanatowicz
Subject:New Form Entry: Contact Form
You've just received a new submission to your Contact Form.
Submitted Information:
Name
Hamilton Tharp
Email
hamtharp@gmail.com
Comments / questions
Without a doubt the section of Castle Creek Road from SH-82 to the Music School campus
should be enhanced with a dedicated bicycle/walking trail. That road is simply dangerous for
cyclists and pedestrians as it currently exists.
If the trail is built next to the roadway, without a physical separation, much lower speed limits
and/or traffic calming devices are imperative.
CCCIP Exhibit B
Page 54
P80
I.
1
Kathleen Wanatowicz
From:fishandmassage@aol.com <no-reply@weebly.com>
Sent:Monday, October 30, 2017 9:37 AM
To:Kathleen Wanatowicz
Subject:New Form Entry: Contact Form
You've just received a new submission to your Contact Form.
Submitted Information:
Name
Judy Norman
Email
fishandmassage@aol.com
Comments / questions
Yes we really need this trail it is long overdue! Students and public need a safe place to ride and
walk as it is very dangerous with cars etc. whizzing up and down the road! Please build the trail!!
I have lived in Aspen over 40 years and I wish this would’ve been there 40 years ago!! Thanks
for all your help!
CCCIP Exhibit B
Page 55
P81
I.
1
Kathleen Wanatowicz
From:Aaclapper8@gmail.com <no-reply@weebly.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 31, 2017 4:18 PM
To:Kathleen Wanatowicz
Subject:New Form Entry: Contact Form
You've just received a new submission to your Contact Form.
Submitted Information:
Name
Anne Clapper
Email
Aaclapper8@gmail.com
Comments / questions
I am totally in favor of a trail for bikers & hikers along Castle Creek Road. A must for the safety of
the Music School and Country Day School students. I am tired of all the NIMBY's!
CCCIP Exhibit B
Page 56
P82
I.
1
Kathleen Wanatowicz
From:brettnelson@aspencountryday.net <no-reply@weebly.com>
Sent:Friday, November 10, 2017 10:02 PM
To:Kathleen Wanatowicz
Subject:New Form Entry: Contact Form
You've just received a new submission to your Contact Form.
Submitted Information:
Name
Brett Nelson
Email
brettnelson@aspencountryday.net
Comments / questions
There is a serious need for a bike path up to the campus. I know it might anger the homeowners,
but it is so necessary for safe and efficient travel up Castle Creek Rd.
CCCIP Exhibit B
Page 57
P83
I.
1
Kathleen Wanatowicz
From:deniebur@gmail.com <no-reply@weebly.com>
Sent:Sunday, November 12, 2017 5:16 PM
To:Kathleen Wanatowicz
Subject:New Form Entry: Contact Form
You've just received a new submission to your Contact Form.
Submitted Information:
Name
Dewayne Niebur
Email
deniebur@gmail.com
Comments / questions
I do believe that something needs to be done to improve safe access to the campus (move the
campus?). You've successfully encouraged students to ride when possible, extending the
WeCycle to them at nominal cost was brilliant, but the corridor isn't going to get any less
crowded (unless those living in the Castle Creek valley move away?). How many shattered
million-dollar Stradivarii will it take to convince folks that a safer corridor is worth some changes
to their "pristine" back yard?
What about the irrigation ditch easement? Could that work as a conveniently direct access from
the Marolt housing?
I'd prefer a separated path but, considering cost, would/could compromise for better shoulders
on the roadway.
CCCIP Exhibit B
Page 58
P84
I.
From:Kathleen Wanatowicz
To:Bryana Starbuck
Subject:FW: New Form Entry: Contact Form
Date:Friday, November 17, 2017 7:54:17 AM
Please tell her we recived the message and save to new file
From: anniekatz@me.com [mailto:no-reply@weebly.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 6:57 PM
To: Kathleen Wanatowicz <kathleen@prstudioco.com>
Subject: New Form Entry: Contact Form
You've just received a new submission to your Contact Form.
Submitted Information:
Name
Annie Katz
Email
anniekatz@me.com
Comments / questions
The West Side Trail seems to me to be the better option. It appears to address the problem
with the rocks and hill while still maintaining the aesthetics of the valley. Even more trees are
impacted there are more trees TO BE impacted on the West side,...whereas the East side,
once the trees go, there are none left at all. The West Side Trail also seems to be much better
for Winter use.
Thank you for your efforts.
Annie Katz
CCCIP Exhibit B
Page 59
P85
I.
From:Bryana Starbuck
To:"marshall@wildernet.com"
Cc:Kathleen Wanatowicz
Bcc:Mavis Fitzgerald; Bryana Starbuck
Subject:RE: New Form Entry: Contact Form
Date:Wednesday, November 29, 2017 9:43:00 AM
Attachments:image001.jpg
Marshall,
With the videos, we counted the raw trip counts at the Marolt Crossing. The image from the open house is one snapshot
from two weeks’ worth of video. Motorists encroaching or crossing over into the other traffic lane due to
pedestrians/cyclists is not an isolated incident, but we do not have a specific count for driver behavior.
Thank you,
Bryana Starbuck
Castle Creek Corridor Improvement Project
email / bryana@prstudioco.com
project website / Castle Creek Trail
public relations + project resources
pr studio website / prstudioco.com | facebook / prstudioco | instagram / prstudioco
From: marshall@wildernet.com [mailto:no-reply@weebly.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 1:27 PM
To: Kathleen Wanatowicz <kathleen@prstudioco.com>
Subject: New Form Entry: Contact Form
You've just received a new submission to your Contact Form.
Submitted Information:
Name
Marshall Hall
Email
marshall@wildernet.com
Comments / questions
I attended the open house and noticed the image of a bus passing a bicycle on the blind curve.
My family and I have had several near head on collisions on this curve as we have been
heading into town while an impatient driver has been half way into our lane going around a
bike. My question is how many times did this happen over the two week data collection
period?
Thanks,
CCCIP Exhibit B
Page 60
P86
I.
Marshall Hall
CCCIP Exhibit B
Page 61
P87
I.
From:Kathleen Wanatowicz
To:Bryana Starbuck
Subject:Fwd: New Form Entry: Contact Form
Date:Monday, December 04, 2017 2:34:18 PM
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: "helencarlsencolo@gmail.com" <no-reply@weebly.com>
Date: December 4, 2017 at 4:12:18 PM EST
To: kathleen@prstudioco.com
Subject: New Form Entry: Contact Form
Reply-To: helencarlsencolo@gmail.com
You've just received a new submission to your Contact Form.
Submitted Information:
Name
Helen Carlsen
Email
helencarlsencolo@gmail.com
Comments / questions
I support a fully separated paved trail, preferably the East Trail Location. This
would provide the safest route for the hundreds of Music School and Country
Day students and staff as well as for recreational cyclists and runners. With
the increased traffic on Castle Creek Rd due to the Pine Creek Cookhouse
expansion and the number of people working in houses in the valley, safety
improvements are desperately needed. Simply widening the road shoulders
and making a bike lane is insufficient. A trail would have long-term
environmental benefits since more people would walk and bike, and fewer
people would drive to the school campus.
CCCIP Exhibit B
Page 62
P88
I.
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
CCCIP Exhibit B
Page 63
P89
I.
From: Joe DiSalvo [mailto:joe.disalvo@pitkinsheriff.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 2:58 PM
To: Steve Barwick <steve.barwick@cityofaspen.com>
Subject: Sheriffs Cup Golf Event
Steve,
2018 will be the third year I'm hosting the Sheriff's Cup benefiting a local non profit. Last year we
expanded the event to include a 5k run and community picnic all at AGC. The run was great because it
gave non golfers the chance to see the beautiful course in full bloom. The runners appreciated the
course because the route was different from other 5k the town usually hosts. After the Run we held a
community picnic where community members were treated to hamburgers a band, face painting and a
putting contest. This was truly a community event because non runners and non golfers came to enjoy
the party. At 1:30 the golf event started, after 18 holes there was an after party at the Red Mountain
Grill which included a one million dollar hole in one shoot out. The event truly showcased the Aspen
Golf Course to the entire community. At the end of the day we raised over one hundred thousand
dollars for the Aspen Hope Center. This year we will be raising money for Huts for Vets (hutsforvets.org)
a local non profit that helps visiting vets enjoy our hut system. As a member of the Golf Board and the
Mens Club Board I know the city wants to find new ways to show off golf course like St Andrews Day
and other events. I cannot stress enough the benefit this event was to non golfers and the community as
a whole. In previous years we have rented the golf course at the fee of ten thousand dollars. Im asking
the Aspen City Council to waive the fee and make a ten thousand dollar in kind donation to Huts for
Vets.
Thank You for Your Consideration,
Joe DiSalvo
Pitkin County Sheriff
P90
II.