The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.HWY 82.HPC3-95Maroon Cr.Brdg/Ped.Bike Conc.Revw .4 (* ------I.* 7/'i --1~L . 1/ 1 \ 4*0 14 fl (4-f- 40 0 ~ 4 U A; u R./. k . lfÂ· - -7 Â· tiÂ· . 3Â» L. k. t. CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen Historic Preservation- Committee DATE RECEIVED: 2/10/95 CASE NUMBER: HPC3-95 DATE COMPLETE: PARCEL ID#: 2735-111 PROJECT NAME: MAROON CRK.BRIDGE PEDESTRN/BIKE PATH CONCPTL.REVW. Project Address: Maroon Creek Bridge,Highway 82 APPLICANT: City of Aspen & Pitkin County, Colorado Applicant Address: 130 S. Galena; 530 E. Main Aspen, Colorado REPRESENTATIVE: Representative Address/Phone: TYPE OF APPLICATION: 1 STEP: 2 STEP: 3 STEP: HPO Insubstantial Amendment or Exemption: HPC Meeting Dates: - P&Z Meeting Date: CC Meeting Dates: 1st 2nd REFERRALS: Planning Building Zoning City Engineer Parks Dept. City Attorney DATE REFERRED: INITIALS: DUE: FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: INITIAL: City Atty City Clerks Office Other: FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: COMMENTS: MESSAGE DISPLAY TO Amy Amidon CC Bud CC Diane Moore From: Bud Eylar Postmark: Sep 09,93 9:04 AM Status: Previously read Subject: Reply to: Maroon Creek Bridge Reply text: From Bud Eylar: Amy, I would suggest that you ask for a decision on our proposal by December. This should give us time to answer any questions, handle any conditions that may be placed on the approval and to rearrange budgets to allow for a 1994 project. The short answer on Federal/CDOT funding is "maybe". The state seems to be willing to ammend thier 5 year funding plan to provide money for the project, however this has not been done as of yet and probably wont be done until Jan. '94.Also on guarantee money will be available in '94. Bud Preceding message: From Amy Amidon: I talked to the Colorado Historical Society. I am to send them a letter explaining the proposal along with the drawings and specs. They will review it and determine whether there is an adverse affect, and will either approve it, approve it with conditions or deny approval. I can state in the letter the date we need there reply by. What would be a good "deadline"? Also, is there Federal or State money involved? From what department? ------- /1 /1 - 11,41 .1 . JU ...,7 MEMO IU liu- -- 1 TO: Amy Amidon, George Robinson, City of Aspen FROM: Bud Eylar ~~ DATE: December 29, 1993 SUBJ: Maroon Creek Bridge Proposals Attached are copies of the preliminary proposals for the two (2) alternatives for the Maroon Creek Bridge Pedestrian Crossing. As we discussed one proposal is for a crossing on the existing bridge at a point approximately 24 feet below the existing highway surface. With some realignment of the bike path at each end, the access ramping can be minimized. However, the sharp curves accessing each end of the bridge are still required. The estimated total cost of construction is $380,000. The other alternative is for a separate bicycle/pedestrian structure. It has been proposed and sized just downstream from the existing bridge, however, the design is generic enough that the location could move up or downstream. The cost of the structure is estimated at $420,000. This proposal would eliminate the access problems relating to alignment and grade. Mr. Meheen has shipped these plans to both the Regional office in Grand Junction and to Staff Bridge in Denver. Further he has spoken to Mr. Sicarrdi of Staff Bridge and they find either proposal acceptable. We should try to get both the City Council and the Board of County Commissioners to select an alternative so that we can proceed with the final design this winter and construction this summer and fall. XC: Diane Moore Stan Berryman d -1 Cl U 4 X 4 X 3/16 STRUTS @ 15'-0' -<6 X 6 X 1/4 TYP, lo O r. 8 1 0 0 -5 X 5 X 1/4 TYP, m E 12'-0' i.* 4 - 1. 5 R 2 Id R 2 9-1 1/ /2/92 i i-- 5' CONCRETE SLAB A , A<% 5 r m - Ut. M 1 1 i f <Icil <Er li / 1 1 0-1 10X19 FLR, BMS, @ 15' \ 11 1 0 7875 ' --I-X 1 11 1 0 93Â» J A 4 - 6 X 6 X 1/4 LEGS 4/. . Atilb -#- 4 - .- .th 1 .1 -44 l'\ S S -L (1\,4 \-- Q BRIDGE - TO ASPEN / 5X5X 1/46 1 A- 1 1 \JI U 1\ fÂ» ijitÂ» Lf _ 3~ 1\ \ z 0\ 1 t I 12'-10' 17\3) 4 34 1 1 \\ . 19/-0. O \ \ I SECTION' O - 648'-80 SCALE i 1/4' = 1' ........ PLAN SCALE i 1' = 50' ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST f - - 9 - $420,000 15' X 12'-0' ~ -*J V v v v V v V V vt - A - VÂ¥VyyvÂ¥VVVWVVWVVVyvyyVWVWVVWVWVVV~- . TOWER ~ ~ 75'-0'w 165'-0' / - f 202'-6' 240'-0' 202'-6' --- -- D- 4 4 Â©4~~ CAISSONS 15'-0' JOB NO, ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION 92016 SCALE i 1' = 50' SCALE i 1/4' = 1' SHEET NO, P3 ' It*. NOII,VHOcIHOO ONIHGIE[NIONG[ NJIGIHOIM 11NROO NI>IlId saaauiSu3 GUIllnsuoo 33AN3G 39GIMH 13330 NOONVW NAOHS SV : 31VJS , AU a3NDIS]U HlVd 3>IIE NVI31S3G3d â‚¬66I 'LI &13HW333(I I 31VCI 39(IIhIE 31VMVd]S - 1, 31VNM311V E66I 'LI 33EW333G ' 3176 ('9 1 16 63>103HJ 008Â£ 7850 ~7825 CREEK G3nSSI SN0ISIA33 1VOIdll MC-ALT4,DWG - 12/17/93 ~ d-,w,2, ~ 1~ 7 e F PipeD FYI 23 -93 STATE OF COLORAD O DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION i Region 3 222 South Sixth Street, Rm. 317 -- Grand Junction, Colorado 81501-2769 ,-i'- 0 (303) 248-7208 Fax (303) 248-7254 ./i. January 5, 1994 STA 082A-008 Mr. H. Joe Meheen, P.E. lj; 1 11 -7 ' J 1-iff>./73-60 Meheen Engineering Corp 825 E. Speer Blvd., Suite 312 Iii Denver, CO 80218 JAN - 7 1984 iii 1 /1 j A Re: Highway 82 Bridge over Maroon Creek , Pedestrian and Bicycle Path Dear Joe: I have reviewed the two preliminary drawings submitted with your letter Of December 21, 1993 showing two alternatives for a pedestrian/bicycle bridge across Maroon Creek. I would recommend the separate pedestrian/bicycle bridge as the best alternative from the standpoint of constructibility and maintenance. Certainly the separate bridge would afford the users a much more pleasant experience. The desirability of a separate bridge from the users point of view would be worth the relatively slight additional estimated cost. I would suggest that you review with Ralph Trapani, Project Manager for CDOT's Environmental Impact Statement from Buttermilk to Aspen, the proposed location of the separate bridge. If this bridge were located approximately 135 feet further downstream from the location shown, it could provide adequate space for a future highway bridge adjacent to the existing bridge. Very truly yours, R. P. Moston Director, Transportation Region 3 RPM:cdh c: Bud Eylar, Pitkin County Engineer Trapani file (w/attach) " 73 2-, 1,716-9 TO: Bud Eylar, County Engineer 1 1 1 1/ CC: Diane Moore, City Planning Director Â· JAN 1 2 1994 1 1 4 CC: \Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer :'.. FROM: George Robinson 1~ d.----- - DATE: January 10,1994 r RE: Maroon Creek Bridge Proposals Considering the alignment of the existing historical bridge and the safety of pedestrians and cyclists, the alternative that seems to be most logical would be a separate bicycle/pedestrian bridge. The total cost might be reduced if the approaches are within the highway's R.O.W. since easements could be a costly aspect of this project. The pedestrian alignments need to be separated by at least 20 ft. to be clear of debris thrown by snow plow trucks in the winter. The Army Corps of Engineers will need to be involved if we are to construct anything in the river or wetlands. Let us know what the next step is to expedite the process. 1 MESSAGE DISPLAY TO Amy Margerum CC amy amidon CC stan berryman From: Reid Haughey Postmark: Jan 17,94 11:12 AM Status: Previously read Subject: Reply to: Forwarded: Reply to a reply: Maroon Creek -----------------------------------------0-----0----0--------------- -------- -- Reply text: From Reid Haughey: i agree and think that it should be run through the decision makers Preceding message: From Amy Margerum: Seems like we are at the point of taking it to the elected officials. If Bud is putting something together for the BOCC we could probably usethe same packet for the Council...let me know. Thanks. Previous comments: From Amy Amidon: I talked to the SHPO's office. I think that we should have council and BOCC make their selection whenever you're ready. If they choose the separate structure, then I write to the SHPO and ask them to make a finding of "no adverse affect" on the historic bridge. It seems pretty certain that they would approve that. If the path beneath the bridge is chosen, then I write and ask them to evaluate and comment on whether there is an adverse affect. I can't really predict what their finding will be, but a "denial" is certainly possible. From Bud Eylar: Amy, I sent you a copy of a letter of Jan. 5th from Bob Moston recommending that we proceed with the separate structure. We should probably have the SHPO give us their opinion as to whether we need any formal approval since it is a separate bridge. I do believe that we could get approval from CDOT for the other alternative if that is the desire of the elected officials. Bud From Amy Amidon: Bud- Can you let me know when you've gotten the final o.k. from CDOT ------0 . 1 1 1*d * MEMORANDUM * TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Amy Margerum, City Managernf AL ~ DATE: February 10, 1994 RE: Maroon Creek Pedestrian Bridge SUMMARY Please find attached a memo from Bud Eylar regarding the Maroon Creek Pedestrian Bridge. Bud presented this information to the County Commissioners and the Snowmass to Aspen Transportation Executive Committee. The above groups would like to proceed as quickly as possible with the proposal to place a pedestrian structure underneath the Maroon Creek Bridge. Once the City receives final design from the County Amy Amidon will submit the project to the State Historic Preservation Office for their approval. Although Amy has discussed this with SHPO, we cannot officially apply until we have plans from the COUnty. The option for a separate bridge was preferred by some staff members because it allowed for better bicycle access, handicapped access, would be easier to plow and use in the winter (including nordic use) and would not require historic review, it does not appear feasible at this time because we anticipate there will be a new transit bridge built wi~in the next five years and the location for the transit bridge should not be precluded by this pedestrian bridge. When a new transit bridge is designed, we should ensure it has provisions for bicycles as well as transit. It is my understanding that the cost for the pedestrian bridge will be paid with County Use Tax and CDOT "safety" funding. The City has not budgeted any money for this project. The City has agreed to cooperate with the easements necessary to access the bridge on either side. George Robinson has informed Bud Eylar that the City does not own the property on the west side of the bridge, it is owned by Zoline. The City or the County will need to negotiate an easement with the private property owners. Once a final design is approved by the County we will return to Council for your approval of access easements. . MEMORANDUM TO: Executive Committee - Decision Makers FROM: B.W. Bylar 4,3.*-7&:Â£0 DATE: February 9, 1994 SUBJ: Maroon Creek Pedestrian Crossing Ladies and Gentlemen, A) Background: Attached for your information and review is a packet of information providing some background and historical perspective to the steps leading up to the alternatives analysis to provide a safe, economical pedestrian crossing of Maroon Creek. The community has been requesting that CDOT (Highway Department) provide same sort of crossing since at least 1977 (see attached letter April 26, 1979). Over the ensuing years, additional discussions have taken place, most cf which centered around making modifications to the existing structure to accommodate additional width to accommodate pedestrians. However this raised concerns because of the historical designation of the bridge and the firm belief by most of those involved that the deck could not be modified. Consequently, nothing much took place until 1989. In 1989 CDOT proposed replacing the existing Marcon Creek bridge with a new four lane structure. Part of that proposal would have been to give the old bridge to the local governments far trail purposes. For a variety of reasons, the four lane bridge project did not come to pass and as a consequence CDCT made a commitment to upgrade the structural capacity of the old bridge in 1992 with subsequent construction in the spring of 1993. When it became apparent that CDOT Was going to commit to .keeping the old bridge as the #rimary highway bridge for the foreseeable future, the County undartook a feasibility analysis to look at a pedestrian crossing on the existing bridge. In the spring of 1992, the County hired Meheen Engineering to do an analysis of the structure to see if some mort of pedestrian walk could be placed or attached tc the bridge. We did not ask him to consider the historical consequences of any possibilitias at this time. His analysis was that it was possible to place a lightweight decking material on the bent struts of the support towers or to locate two one way paths on the structural bracing for the bridge deck. Subsequently, this project along with many others, was endorsed by a joint resolution of the Decision Makers group. Since it was the desire of this group te proceed with this project, and since neither the Basalt to Buttermilk nor the Entrance to Aspen EIS had been completed, CDOT was not able to fund either design or construction. Therefore Pitkin County , * Accessibility/Usability Pedestrian/Bicyclist Winter Use Age of structure â€¢ Governmental Approvals CDOT Historic - SHPO P & 2'8 * Future Transportation Uses/Corridors Highway Transit/Trains etc. Trails I.3-24,AL Separate Structure * Location * Access Grade Approach Length Right of way * Usage * Approval Process P & 7'6 * Future Transportation Uses/Corridor C) Alternatives and Recommendations: Alternatives: 1) Do nothing - atop process 2) Select existing bridge proposal 3) Select separate bridge proposal Recommendation: Direct staff to proceed with the finalization of contracts for the design of and to have consultant proceed with the completion of plans, specifications and contract documents within 60 - 90 days. Further, staff shall prepare a joint resolution endorsing the selected alternative and requesting that Colorado Department of Transportation immediately prepare an amendment to the STIP, for approval by the Transportation Commission to provide funding for this project for construction in 1994. Â¢ committed Use Tax Funds to undertake an alternatives analysis in the summer of 1993. The initial alternatives (3) looked at some crossing using - the existing Marcon Creek Bridge (see attached Alt's 1,2,3). Discussion and review of thesâ€¢ alternatives by City and County .taff in the fall of 1993 raised some concerns about using the existing structure. Meheen was then asked to look at the possibility of a separate structure. His conclusion Was that it was feasible and could be constructed within the same cost range as the crossings utilizing the existing bridge. B) Issues and Financial Impacts The following issues and cost implications need to be considered in making a decision cn proceeding with the project. Finances; 1) If the project is to be complete in any reasonable time frame, design and construction documents need to be completed in the next 60 to 90 days. To do this local funding is a must. Pitkin County is prepared to have Meheen Engineering proceed immediately with the final design and pay for the work frcm Use Tax Funds. 2) If we are successful in having CDOT fund the construction in a timely fashion, right of way and easement agreements may be necessary between the City and State. Also it may be necessary (depending upon alternative] for local agencies to acquire private right of way. 3) If local funding is used to construct the project, it is our understanding that the County would be responsible for design and construction of walkway on bridge and that the City would be responsible for construction of approaches (existing bridge alternatives). No funding split decision has been made on the separate bridge propcsal. Estimated Cost: Existing Structure Alternative Pitkin County: $40,000 Design $325,000 Construction - Walk City of Aspen: $125,000 Construction - Access 7 Row/easements Estimated Cost: Separate Structure Alternative Bridge Design: $40,000 Construction: $425,000 Issues: Existing Structure * Approach Walk/Trail Grades Curvation Length , 2 STATE OF COLORADO DEPARâ„¢ENT OF TRANSPORTATION - A-gion 3 222 Scuel 63Â¢th Striet An= St 7 A--07_1 Grand Juncoon. Colorsac 81 S01-2'Tee ,=7-= (30% 246-7208 Fu (004 24&7254 January 5, 1994 STA 082A-008 Mr. H. Joe Meheen, P.E. Meheen Engineering Corp 825 E. Speer Blvd., Suite 312 Denver, CO 80218 Re: Highway 82 Bridge over Maroon Creek Pedestrian and Bicycle Path Dear Joe: I have reviewed the two preliminary drawings submitted with your latter of December 21, 1993 showing two alternatives for a pedestrian/bicycle bridge across Maroon Creek. I would recommend the separate pedestrian/bicycle bridge as the best alternative from the standpoint of constructibility and maintenance. Certainly the separate bridge would afford the users a much more pleasant experience. The desirability of a separate bridge frcm the users point of view would be worth the relatively slight additional estimated cast. I would suggest that you review with Ralph Trapani, Project Manager for CDOT' s Environmental Impact Statement from Buttermilk to Aspen, the proposed location of the separate bridge. If this bridge were located approximately 135 feet further downstream from the location shown, it could provide adequate space for a future highway bridge adjacent to the existing bridge. Very truly yours, -2-4- A-4-- R. P. Moston Director, Transportation Region 3 RPM:cdh c: Bud Eylar, Pitkin County Engineer Trapani file (w/attach) STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 0 souo, 8111# sliml, P. O. Bcx 2107 MInd Junallen, Color- 81502Â·2107 6302>248Â·nos PAX 0 003)24*7254 August 6, 1992 Mr. Bud Eylar City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen. CO 81611 Dear Bud: The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) Region 3 office has reviewed the feasibility study prepared by Maheen Engineering Corporation evaluating the engineering feasibility of adding a pedestrian walkway to the historic Maroon Creek bridge. We understand that this study was initiated by the Pitkin County Board of Commissioners in response to widespread concern for pedestrian safety on the existing narrow bridge. The final design, historic approval, and construction of a walkway cannot be accemplished this year. CDOT has not budgeted funds for this project and could not contract directly with Meheen in a timely manner without violating State consultant selection procedures. For these reasona I would encourage Pitkin County to locally develop the construction project using local funding sources. The historic designation of this bridge will nacâ€¢ssitate coordination with the State Miscoric Preservation officer <SHPO) and approval of any modificationa. The architectural design and trail conÂ¤truction should â€¢180 be coordinated with the City of Aspon as it will involve city owned openspace land. The City and County planning and zoning committees provided design recommendations for the CDOT four lane bridge. They would provide a logical local public review process to select the preferred path option prior to SNPO coordination. We would recommend that final design and construction plan preparation begin only after thisâ€¢ ipprovals have been secured. It would expedite CDOT review and comments en the Meheen study if you could provide our Staff Bridge Branch and Office of Envi:cnmental Review and Analysis copies of the document. They will participate in design review and hiatoric resource lasums associated with modifying the bridge to accommodate pedestrians. Mr. Bud Eylar August 6, 1992 Page 2 The Pitkin County Commissicners' interest in pedestrian and bicycle safety in regard te the Maroon Creek Bridge iâ€¢ sincerely appreciated. Very truly yours, 2-6- 1- R. P. Moston Director, Transportation Region 3 CC: City cf Aspen, Mayor Staf. Bridge OERA Pitkin BOCC, Chairman Abbott file MEHEEN ENGINEERING CORPORATION July 21. 1992 Mr. Bud Eylar. County Engineer Pitkin County 306 E. Main Streer Aspen. CO 81611 Subject: Highway 82 Bridge over Maroon Creek Pedestrian and Bicycle Path Dear Bud: Inrespouse to your inquiryof yesterday as to: Why the pedestrian/bikepoth cannot be at the roadway level? We have the following comments. As you reeaC we had discussed this option and decided it was not feasible for the reasons scated below, 1. This bridge has a historic designation. Widening the deck further with the need for additional structural members would have changed the character and appearance of it. 2. In order to widen the bridge by at least 12 feet. substantial revision to the deck strucral system and supports wcuid have been necessary. 3. Unless substandal barricade type curbs are used, the safety of pedestrines and etlists would have been compromised. Splashing of slush. water and snow from the car wbeels cnlo the path would be unpleasant for the Users. 5. Traffic noise would be annoying. 6. Snow removal from the pa:h would require additioqal equipmencor would have to be done by hand. 7. The cost of adding rke deck level parb while traffic is =intaiaed is :ubstantiall> higher than o:bc: altemativas written in the report. Having said oIl of the above: if the bridge deck is to be removed and replaced. tbe addition of a pedestrian/bike path simultanecu* 15 a viable op:ion. If I can be of further service please let me know. Sincerely, MEHEEN ENGBEERING CORPORAnON W H,Jee Meheen. P.E. President HIM.tU 1860 LINCOLN 37Â·. SUrrr 1025. DENVER. COLORAOO 80295 (303) 801-1850 1 , / >.44. .1 1 I. I SCIC E. MAIN STREET ASPEN, CCLOAADO 87611 p April 26, 1979 I T Z Mr. Jack Kinstlinger I state Department of lighways Executive Director 4401 E. Arkansas Denver, co 80222 Dear Jack: My County Engineer has recently attended a pre-con- struction conference â‚¬cr the redecking and resurfacing cf the kareen Creek Bridge (SE 82, 2 miles west of Aspen}. Apparently a contract of scme $283,000 has been signed with work to commence this May 7th. I am certainly pleased to hear of the improvement. but I've got some questions. Since the bridge is about 100 years old, and in a pretty pcor structural conditicr., Itd like to know why so much money is being reinvested in the bridge, rather than putting those funds towards total replacement. The existing bridge will never be able to be expanded to support a busway or a widened highway, whereas if a new bridge were built, it could be designed Ecr eventual expansicn. Also r why no consideration of a pidestrianway/bike- way as part of this project. The exist_i-ng bike path connecting Aspen with the Airport Business Canter (4 miles) has only one constraining poinc-the Maroon Creek Bridge. The bicycle path was a huge investment by the County, and we'have requested for the past twe Years, at the annual Highway Commission hearings, that CDOH provide additional width on the bridge to be reserved for bicyclists and pedestrians. Given the few number of road cuts and the straight sections of highway approaching the bridge tends to cause auto traffic to travel in the 50 MPH ranger which is an extremely dangerous situation for those on foot or bike. I would like to kncw if a change order couldn' t be added to the projec= to provide fcr a pedestrianway/ bikeway as part of this projec=7 I . -1- â€¢48-3 "621 <1 CL, Cl Â·. 14 It would seem to be an incredible waste to not handle both problems at the same time. Sincerely, 0(jo Geoffge L. Ochs County Manager GLO:st cc: Mr. R.A. Prosence Board of County Cammissioners -2- . tI 648'-8* 70.-8. 1 20 Spa / 30 - 600'-ry' 19Â·- tr TO ASPEN 1 1 11_-.1, -EEIEE-ZICE Eeâ‚¬F?Ca ESEECEEke:ECE .-JEE Ee-.Eq jal,SCE Eate[â‚¬2123*=11 ZIA A -4 flAN 1- -60- 1 0-4 177371 2/7/ 1 /\ 6504 ,L,1 n I in Yl /& /1 11 . ' 1 1--11-- r 7 r-1 . -r SECnON A-A ELEVATION 1. 02[r PmoN COUNrf MARJON CRFEK BRIDGE PEDESTRIAN/BÂ»(E CROSSINC ALTERNATE 2 WEIFEN ENGINEERING com - tJ 648.-r , ~ - 20 Spo â€¢ JO' = 600'-d' 19â€¢- 0. 29.Tr J TO ASPEN . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ; 11 1 1 1 1 â‚¬ i I 2181 1 1 1 n'111 SECTION A-A 1.- 20. 9 1 1_ -r, r, 1-1 1 11 ' r -T-1 Â¥ -r 1 ,-7 - r PmaN COUNTY MAROON CREEK BRIDGE PEDESTRIAN/BIKE CROSSI ELEVATION ALTERNATE 1 UfliFEN ENAN-ERING Cot -- , ,66,762 9 Grâ€¢41 1 1 19;7 9, Ii.1 - -- ...1 . - -Thij u TME bETEL oF Â· 7#2 1 &00'01#Li LETS Go , 0,21 1hil 11*10&100 * 60â‚¬LL 427 16 MEMEEN ENGINEERING CO., CONSULTING ENGINEERS C 230 .2,75 26-7/2 4102Â£ JOI. NO. 990/G 0.7. /6/ 14/ 09~ - w A d M 100 E tic,4 c t CL/ENT â€¢â€¢ejEcT Mar, 00 rÂ·h 4 /6 1> /1,Â·- . I guaJECT 1~G J- â€¢8' ' p tA ~'-6 r-A.esq,<f . 1 .,2 - 1 7(Ii- - . 7- 1 - . k .~ . - -2 1. . 1 1 I jv~jt - --r / 1 - 11 - .--1 <~A/\AA-kiv<Â»\AN: r - . -/rjo ' A 1~ ill i FL. 1 3 rk li ' / 'r V Y V Â¥1 1. rm, Y 9 4 1 ,3 9 1 1 -1 I e .! .1- â€¢ \ A 1 M .: 4 1 .,. . 1/ A I , VE _2:.16. : . .. -'ll - . 1 â‚¬ ' i - .f i. : 01 1 i ! il ' I . '9 ' 1 ... 1 1 1 4 i . . 1 /: i i . -t 0 ' .i: , .. .t li i : A Â· t . 20% , 1 . 1 i ~ 313 1 . . / I 1 1 j . . 1. I Iii ..i . i 44 1 i 1 . I , 1 j * AndÂ·>ov4/0/JA6/9<KNK,Â¥W >4.-7Â©UX,â€¢~C YZ 1 N ,\ el.: 11 /, E / '' X / 1 1.,l /1 --~I C;YU â€¢ t"Câ€¢ZIN LAL.3 â€¢WU =4 1-f Â· MEHEEN ENG]NEERING CO.. CONSULTING INGINEIRS 12 Joi. Ne. 019016 (AlÂ»* /4 4/44/ 9.Rf . A \] M CUE.Â·r P.: t IL , a r. ty ..mJECÂ¥ Ma f 6.M O,1.4 1%/uÂ· RUOJECT P= A. 6 98' 1'<-t- L/1.-f,(f 1 1. 2 9 1 7 1 , 9 1 ..1 -. 4 7, E I*<><X><X>(':. . d ; /1/xbt<* xxX><*90< )<i 0 / 7 1/ '5 0 - ,1 6 8- ~ 614 i 101 1 1 N Â· 1 I 4- , 6 1 tk F: C $ 4 1 4 4-1 - c . 1. . . ~<j-& I . 4 f 1 , li V .,1 32 . i . f , , 1 . . . 1 ..1 : . J ' 1. t. 1,1 ; 6 K /1 1 . 24: tj / :/:1: , 0./. 1 \ Â·i . 1 :! h \ 0 1 . 1 . f 1/2 /0 .. yA,3, ' 1141 I i: TAE Â¢04EA ADPOLA L 01 TA .*,We -644 â€¢LIE St 02 80 Dal . I /hink- C=r An:i apfuv'Aa ujiu 56 824819#1 MEHEIN INGINEIRING C O., CONSULTING ENGINEERS JQ.. .13. 92 0/.4 . OArt 14/14/9'% ., M.orn CLIENT - Pitk,4.__C.ti â€¢â€¢C.1997 Mdfoor 0,,Â·'.4- P) A- SUEJECÂ¥ Fe J - 4 ~ 9.. 16.- 64, SG ',<f 1 -- , r A r.. C ta ' Â·i 1 1 U /-Vvy-VV VY_Â¥,VY\V\\ Tj 11.1- e "5 - \ / tor 1 i 1.// - i U 7=71 . + 4 ' .,1. , , . .: 1 ./ . . I I - . * 1 K~-1/ 04 *YX,CAJhrâ€¢/At, AI XE=&26Â£i ' . 1. I i , ;. , 1.-1 1:i 07' Â· 1 i t r...0 , i / 12 . 11 1 , i . 1 1 1 0/' . 1 . 1 i 4 1, 1 1 .. i !~i % I I , 94 {i . 1 . 1 i : 1 1. 1. . 1. 1 1 1 i - d & ,â€¢ 1 ., If i . . .. .4. 1 I. ... .1 4. ... 1 . 1. 0 .1 /l 1 I . 2 I --4 l ) -4 i 100: /0 1 \\i IAN lili /2-'395 . Cd-#c. 0 . 44.eet 6,2... ~~/7 ttle*1 0 4Ls 2 . A gl~ Â· f~742 May 2, 1994 &4230 Karen Patterson ASPEN.PITKIN Colorado Historical Society PL.\NNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT 1300 Broadway Denver, CO 80203 Dear Karen, . I am writing to request a formal comment from the Colorado Historical Society on a local project which involves a National Register resource, the Maroon Creek Bridge. This structure was built for the Colorado Midland Railroad in the 1880's and was converted to a vehicular bridge in 1929. It is listed on the National Register of Historic Places as part of a Thematic Resource nomination, which includes similar bridges throughout the State. The Maroon Creek Bridge is part of State Highway 82 and is the only crossing point along the creek for over one quarter of a mile. Bicycle and pedestrian paths exist on both sides of the bridge, but to this point there is no safe and convenient way for this traffic to cross Maroon Creek. Bicyclists routinely traverse the bridge along with vehicular traffic, creating a very dangerous situation. A fter considering several options, including constructing a totally separate bridge dedicated to bicycle and foot traffic and attempting to route bike paths to an existing bridge further upstream, the City of Aspen and Pitkin County have come to a joint decision to suspend a pedestrian/bicycle path beneath the Maroon Creek Bridge. The path will sit approximately 24 feet below the roadbed and will require construction of ramps which will gradually descend from grade to the new path. Estimated cost for the project is $380,000. This alternative became the preferred solution because other proposals were more costly and had greater impacts on open space and 4(f) lands. At this time, it is uncertain whether any State or Federal dollars will be involved in the Maroon Creek Bridge project. However, we do request that the Society evaluate the proposal on the assumption that such funding may be awarded in the future. If possible, the County would like to begin construction of the pedestrian/bike path this summer. It would be very much appreciated if we could receive your comments by May 31, 1994. Please call me at 920-5096 if you need any clarifications or additional information. Thank you. Sinc=â‚¬Di, ,/0-1 j Amy *fâ‚¬ 1 Hist*tyPreservation Officer V XC: Reid Haughey, County Manager Amy Margerum, City Manager Bud Eylar, County Engineer 130 SouTH GALEN.A STREET â€¢ ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 Â· PHOKE 303.920.3000 . F.~r 303.920.5197 94 1.K COIDRADO HISTORICAL SOCIETY The Colorado History Museum 1300 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80203-2137 June 2, 1994 Ms. Amy Amidon Town of Aspen JUN 131994 11* Planning and Zoning Department 130 South Galena Street i Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Maroon Creek Bridge, Aspen, 5PT. 136 Dear Ms. Amidon: Thank you for your correspondence dated May 2, 1994 concerning the above property to be modified to accommodate a pedestrian and bike bridge. We have reviewed the presented documentation. It is our opinion that the project as it stands would be an adverse impact on this listed National Register of Historic Places property. The addition of a pedestrian and bike bridge suspended under the existing roadway deck alters the character of this open trestle bridge. It is changed not only in its profile but in cross section with the addition of cross supports on each individual trestle support. This bridge is a significant resource. The Maroon Creek Bridge is one of the last remaining iron/steel multiple-span high trestles erected in the 19th century for Colorado' s narrow gauge mountain railroads which was later modified in the early 20th century for motor access. Care must be taken to maintain its character defining features . An accepted approach to the addition of pedestrian and bike access would be to cantilever the right-of-way on one or both sides of the existing roadway deck. This maintains the open truss design and horizontal profile of the bridge while providing the additional space for safe access to pedestrians and bikes. Though there are no federal or state funds involved at this point, the project will need to be reviewed due to its location on State Highway 82. Please coordinate this project with the Colorado Department of Transportation. page 2 June 2, 1994 Amy Amidon If you have any questions or need clarification, please contact Joseph Bell, our Historic Preservation Specialist, at (303) 866-3035. Sincerely blt ~-7 James E. Hartmann State Historic Preservation Officer MESSAGE DISPLAY TO Amy Amidon CC Reid Haughey From: Stan Berryman Postmark: Jun 10,94 11:39 AM Status: Previously read Subject: Forwarded: Reply to a reply: Forwarded: Reply to: maroon creek brid Comments: From Stan Berryman: Amy, please fill us in. Thanks. Previous comments: From Reid Haughey: DID AMY HAVE THOSE DISCUSSIONS? Message: From Stan Berryman: We were working under the assumption that Amy A. had verbally discussed the conceptual designs with SHPO and that they were verbally supportive. Someone in SHPO changed their mind. Anyway, CDOT won't approve a deck add-on. After meeting with Amy and staff next week, we need to convene a mtg in Denver with CDOT and SHPO. Ralph and cdot will support our position and we will have Meheen do some sketches to show how ugly a deck addition is and how pretty our underpass is. From Reid Haughey: WHAT HAPPENED WITH THIS? Previous comments: From Amy Amidon: let's set up a meeting today or tomorrow. i am available almost anytime in the next couple days...how about 2 today or sometime tomorrow morning? Previous comments: From Amy Margerum: This is REAL bad news and LATE news. Can you schedule a meeting with all involvedso we can brainstorm as to what to do. From Amy Amidon: I'm afraid I have some not so great news. I just got a copy of the State Historical Society's evaluation of the bike path and they found that the proposed design has an adverse affect on the historic bridge. They indicated that a preferred solution would be to have the path cantilevered off of the road deck (not from the trusses as we discussed at one time.) They are also concerned about the future of ---V------------------ ------- I k MESSAGE DISPLAY TO Amy Amidon From: Reid Haughey Postmark: Jun 10,94 2:29 PM Subject: Reply to a reply: Forwarded: Reply to a reply: Forwarded: Reply to: Reply text: From Reid Haughey: I WOULD APPRICIATE IT IF YOU CAN TALK TO THESE FOLKS. I AM VERY CONCERNED THAT WE WILL GET HUNG UP IN THE SHPO PROCESS. MY EXPERIENCE HAS BEEN THAT THEYARE VERY REASONABLE IF INVOLVED EARLY AND MADE AWARE OF ALL THE INFO. THANKS FOR FOLLOWING UP. Preceding message: From Amy Amidon: P.S. i have to be at shpo's office in denver on monday for some other topics. i could try to set up a meeting with the person who reviewed our project and see how we can work this out. good idea or should i wait for a discussion between cdot and shpo? From Stan Berryman: Amy, please fill us in. Thanks. Previous comments: From Reid Haughey: DID AMY HAVE THOSE DISCUSSIONS? From Stan Berryman: We were working under the assumption that Amy A. had verbally discussed the conceptual designs with SHPO and that they were verbally supportive. Someone in SHPO changed their mind. Anyway, CDOT won't approve a deck add-on. After meeting with Amy and staff next week, we need to convene a mtg in Denver with CDOT and SHPO. Ralph and cdot will support our position and we will have Meheen do some sketches to show how ugly a deck addition is and how pretty our underpass is. From Reid Haughey: WHAT HAPPENED WITH THIS? Previous comments: From Amy Amidon: let's set up a meeting today or tomorrow. i am available almost anytime in the next couple days...how about 2 today or sometime ------- ------- I/ MESSAGE DISPLAY TO Amy Amidon CC susanm CC stan berryman From: Reid Haughey Postmark: Jun 14,94 2:46 PM Status: Previously read Subject: Reply to: maroon creek bridge Reply text: From Reid Haughey: i would like to go. thanks for following up Preceding message: From Amy Amidon: i was at the shpo's office yesterday and talked to them about maroon creek bridge. they do want to set up a meeting with us, so i need to know who will be going (i guess it will be in denver) . my impression is that we may be able to do the suspended path if we can come up with some way to make it have even less of an impact and if the "damage" to the bridge could be totally reversible if the path were removed in the future. they are very concerned that the path might become obsolete if m.c.b. is eventually ped. only. CDOT must give their total blessing to project, so Ralph Trippani is key to meeting. ------- I. MESSAGE DISPLAY TO bud eylar TO reid haughey 1 TO amy margerum / TO suzanne konchan BC Amy Amidon / f 2-20 v - Â£ 22.2 From: Amy Amidon Postmark: Jun 24,94 10:48 AM -3 Status: Previously read ..7 r/Â»Â«\ Subject: maroon creek bridge Message: i have talked to shpo's office and they have told me that we are to provide all available information on the different alternatives considered for this bike path and reasons why we selected the suspended path to the CDOT historian. (drawings, minutes from meetings, etc.) CDOT is then to add their evaluation to our comments and that will be forwarded to the SHPO. SHPO will then re-evalute and determine which alternatives would have "no adverse impact. " Meheen' s slightly revised proposal should of course be included in our alternatives.If SHPO still uncertain about impacts, they may come up. -------========X========------- JUL 06 '94 03:01PM PITKIN P. 2 ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives were examined and/or developed and presented to the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners: 1. Adding a structure to one side or both sides of the existing bridge to accommodate bicyclists and pedestrian traffic. Discussions with CDOT staff bridge engineers eliminated this alternative as it would require significant modification of the existing bridge under- structure which they would not approve. 2. Adding a structure under the existing Maroon Creek Bridge the accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians. Depending upon which level of trestle spans the structure was set upon, either a separated or single configuration of lanes were possible. The separated or two lane alternative was rejected because of the low height clearance it would present to users. The cost of the one lane, 13 feet wide structure under the bridge including ADA accessible access ramps is estimated to be $450,000. 3. A completely separate bridge structure to accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists independent of the existing Maroon Creek Bridge. The cost of this structure is in the $500,000 to $550,000 range. The structure could be accessed by ramps at grade, making for easier maintenance and user desirability. Although the cost Of this alternative is not Substantially higher than alternative two, and does offer positive benefits, the elected officials of the City of Aspen, Pitkin County, and the Town of Snowmass Village have rejected this alternative. Their rejection is based upon two significant factors: a. Until the EIS for the entrance to Aspen has been completed, no one i s certain as to the location and types of transportation corridors which will be recommended into Aspen. It would be premature to select an alignment for a pedestrian and bicyclist bridge now which may preclude alternatives yet to be considered in the EIS. b. Aesthetically, the elected officials do not want to see a proliferation of bridge structures across the Maroon Creek valley. Again, until the EIS for the entrance to Aspen le complete, a good probability exists that we may be constructing another bridge structure that may nat be required in the future. 2 JIJL 06 ' 94 03:02PM PITKIN P. 3 RECOMMENDATION: The elected officials of the City of Aspen, Pitkin County, and the Town of Snowmass Village endorse the construction of a bicycle and pedestrian structure and path under the existing Maroon Creek Bridge. Even though a significant expenditure of public funds will be required to construct the project, the officials believe the expenditure is warranted to correct the extremely hazardous condition that currently exists for pedestrians and bicyclists on the bridge. This unsafe condition is expected to last for at least three to five more years. Pitkin County staff presented the underpass proposal to CDOT Staff Bridge section on May 5, 1994. Staff Bridge conceptually approved the designs at that meeting. PUBLIC PROCESS: This project has been discussed at several public meetings of the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners, the Aspen City Council, and meetings of the Aspen to Snowmass Transportation Plan (comprised of all the elected officials of Pitkin County, the City of Aspen, and the Town of Snowmass Village). The Aspen to Snowmass Transportation Plan elected officials unanimously endorsed the project and requested funds from CDOT in a Joint Resolution confirming a framework for an upper valley transportation study (attached) on October 26, 1992. Recently, the project was again endorsed by the Aspen to Snowmass Transportation Executive Committee (composed of the mayor of Aspen, the mayor of the Town of Snowmass Village, and the chairman of the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners) on February 9, 1994. The Aspen City Council endorsed the project on February 14, 1994. TEMPORARY NATURE OF IMPROVEMENTS: The elected officials and staff have sensitivity for historic preservation. To that end, the underpass structure is designed to have the least visual impact on the existing bridge trestles. Also, the underpass could be removed from the bridge in the future if and when intermodal transportation solutions are implemented with no negative effects. XC: Reid Haughey Amy Margerum Amy Amidon Bud Eylar George Robinson 3 .BJL 06 ' 94 03:02PM PITKIN P. 4 A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, THE TOWN COUNCIL OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE, COLORADO, AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF ASPEN, COLORADO, CONFIRMING A FRAMEWORK FOR AN UPPER VALLEY TRANSPORTATION STRATEGY AND FORWARDING INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION C Resolution # 90, AECITALS 1. The Pitkin County Board of Commissioners (hereinafter the "Board-), the Town Council of Snowmass Village, Colorado (hereinafter the *TOSV CouncilD, and the Aspen City Council have been meeting to develop a transportation strategy for what is known as the Snowmâ€¢ss to Aspen Trnnkportation Plan. 2, The Board, TOSV Council and the Aspen City Council have discussed at length and have reached agreement on several transportation issues through this proceS,1. 3. The Colorado Department of Transportation solicits, on an annual basis, requeste for transportation improvements from Colorado counties. 4. The Intennodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (hereinafter "ISTRAD includes funding categories for varying modes of transportation improvements and allows flexibility in the use of funds for other modes. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado. the Town Council of Snawmass Village, Colomdo. and the City Coundt of Aâ€¢pen. Colorado, to agree to the following concerning the development of a transportation striltegy for the Upper Roaring Fork valley: 1. The capacity of the tran,ortation system has been exceeded m unacceptable number of times during peak periods. It is therefore determined to continue to work collectively (the Bogrd. TOSV Council. Alq,en City Council. the Aspen Ski Company, the Rearing Fork Transit Agency (RFTA), ind the Colorado Depattment of Transportation (CDOT)) to reduce and/or manage the volume of vehicles on the road system for next winter (September, 1993) and develop a comprehensive, long range strategy that will insure a convenient and efficient transportation system for the Roaring Fork Valley. 2. In developing this transportation strategy, the following factors are acknowledged: * In the pallt, improvements to the transportation xystem have not kept up with increases in traffic: * CDOT and Federal Highways funding has changed with the new ISTEA lagistation; * Current and previous studies accomplished locally have recognized that strategies other than those that are capital intensive must be employed to realize substantial reduction or management of traffic conge*tion: Although saveral studies have been conducted in the past fegarding transportation in the upper Rearing Fork valley, the community has never determined an underlying stnuegy that everyone could agree upon; * Aspen. and the areas of unincorporated Pitkin County surrounding Aspen, have been cited with a PM-10 problem by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the eommunity must iddres,1 the problem. 1 JUL 06 '94 03:03PM PITKIN P.5 3. In developing alternative solutions to Ae transportati~_problem, the Decision Makers (Board, TOSV, Aspen City Council, Aspen Ski Company, RFTA, and CDOO, after considering the overall vision of the community, developed the following criteria that said alternative solutions must lend themselves to: * Improvements to State Highway 82 (SH 82) should be considered in the context of an overall, comprehensive transportation plan and fit into wy future, upper-valley or vaUey-wide transportation improvements contemplated within the Snowmass to Aspen Transportation Plan or the Mt. Sopris Trâ€¢mportation Study; * Each alternative must be measured as to the degree in which it encourages, discourages. or has no impact on the uss of mass transit. Alternatives which encourage the use of mass transit shall have preference over otbers; All transportation alternatives or strttegies developed muk be sensitive to seasonal changes, thersby recognizing the influxos of congegtion that occur as a part of resort community dynamics; * Alternative solutions that provide a balanced program of incentives to individuals to reducs their use of the private automobile should be utilized initially; The concept of a fixed guideway system or systems between Snowmass and Aspen as an integral part of the overall transportation strategy shall be pursued; * The alternative solutions selected must combine to form a transportation strategy thut is enduring and one that the community can be proud of. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado, the Town Council of Snowmass Village, Colorado, and the City Council of Aspen, Cotorado, to agree to the following transportation improvements. which have been developed as an initial part of a comprehensive transportation pian that consists of three main element&: 1. TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT, 2. TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENTS. and 3. FIXED GUIDEWAY SYSTEMIS) Said improvements are further quatified on Exhibit 'AL Eftimated Costs of Proiect GITTEianti 1. TRAVELDEMANDMANAGEMENT. Implement and extensive,comprehenâ€¢ive Travel Demand Management CIDM) system in the upper Rearing Fork Valley, including: a) A parking and congestion roanagement systam in Aspen as contemplated within the Draft Aspen Area Community Plan, This system will be developed ind implemented by the City of A,pen over the next 2 years (Sertemher, 1994); b) Continuation and enhancerment ofthe exiating parking management system in Snowmasm Village; c) Improvement of the existing bus system provided by RETA by expanding the fleet. adding new routes, and increasing the trequency of â€¢ervice; d) The pmvision of permanent Intercept and Park-and-Ride Lots along SH 82 between Butte,milk und Carbondale. 2. TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENTS. Develop and place Transportation Enhancements that benefit both the local resident and the tourist, attempt to address the upper valley's PM.10 problem, and puts into place strategies that benefit down-valley communities. These enhancements inejude: al High Occurancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes within the SH 82 corridor. It is recognized that improvenicalt to or replawme it of the Maroon Croek and Castle Creek bridgts may be required. However, these potential bridge improvements must be done in the context of furthering the utilization of mass transit and not as a means of increasing the accessibility of private automobiles to the Aspen area. b) Maintain Brush Creek Road % a two-lane, rural facility. Make ne-ry safety improvements such as pas$ing lanes, pull outs and related implrovements that do not significantly irnpact environmentally Renlitive areas. JUL 06 '94 03:04PM PITKIN P.6 c) It has been determined by tbe community that a signalized intersection at Brnsh Creek Roâ€¢Â£1 and SH 82 is not acceptabla. It is therefore recommended that a crtative solution which entails the construction of a grade separated. non-signalized intersection be purzued Rs soon as reasonably possible. The design process lor this intersection will take into account the rural nature of the highway corridor by following agreed upon guidelines: Variance from perceived design star,d.rds is powible; - The inter*tien should be built in a cost-effective manneri - The intersection should be inÂ«ale with the existing romd mystem and should result in a beautiful, appropriate and u.eful impmvement. d) It has been further determined that placement of a welidÂ©6igned, landscaped â€¢nd signalized intersection at the Airport Busine=; Center/Airpoft/SH 82 is appropriate und should be pursued in cooperation with CDOT; e) The Ow: Creek RoadyStage Road/SH 82 inters,ction needs to be evaluated for improvement and/or re-design, expecially ifths Owl Creek corridor is to be utilized for the conveyance of mass transit between Snowmass and Aspen; f) Work cooperatively with CDOT to place a PedestriaWBike path along the Maroon Creek bridge. g) Work cooperatively with CDOT and other governmental entities in the Roaring Fork Valley to purchase, the Rio Grande Railroad Right.of.way from Glenwood Springs to Woody Creek for intermodal transportation purposes. b) Work cooperatively with CDOT to place a pedestrian/bike path in the State Highway 82 corridor from Snowmass (Old Snowmass) to Basalt. i) Pursue improving Owl Creek Road as a dedicated mass transit corridor for use during peak congestion periods. Any improvements of Owl Creek road for this purpose must strive to maintain the rural nature of the valley and can only be implem,nted in conjunction with the imposition of mass transit incentives in the Town of Snowmass Village and the City of Aspen. 3. FIXED GUIDEWAY SYSTEM(S). Make every reasonable attempt to develop a fixed guideway systcm(s) between Snowmass and AApen within the next two years. Dcvelopment of this system(@) shall be initiated as follows: Imrnediately form a Technical Resource Group (TRG) as a first step in developing the system: - Retain tochniÂ¢81, objective, non-vendor oriented transportation engineering expertise to perfcrm preliminary scoping and feasibility of alternative alignments and technologies: - Set preliminary technigal performance criteria to identify potential alignments and technologies that benefit all entities and 11@M groups; - Require funding participation from all jurisdictions that will benefit; - Pursue and secure federal and state grants to subsidize engineering and construction of the system(s); - Conduct a "design competition' where potential fixed guid,way system(s) Can be described and judged against the established performance critana. 4. To further pmmote the development of a comprehensive, long range transport&lion plan for the entire Roaring Fork Valley, Pitkin County, The Town of SnowmaM Village, and the City of Aspen ombrace and endorse the improvements proposed to the western end of SH 82 corridor by the City of Glenwood Springs. The endorsement of these improvements, which Â»re more fully described within Exhibit 'B', are conditioned upon the following: 3 JUL 06 '94 03:04PM PITKIN P. 7 a) Monetarr resources for these improvements should come from budgeted CDOT funding which can not 6 Epent on SH 82 between Bagalt and Aspen in a timtly manner and therefore would be moved ic other areas of the state; b) Any future placement of a 'hy-pass' or alternative vehicular route through Gtopwood Springs will not preclude the placement of a passenger nit systsm in the Rearing Fork valley wh,ch connects directly to the main rail tine existing within the 1-70 corridor. APPROVED AND ADOFTED AT THE REGULAR MEETIVG OF THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON THIS 29 DAY OF _fkl__, 1992. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO f 1 2 \ 1/ Jea*tte Jones, r / â€žEmes R. Trw, Chairman ~tuty County (1** C MANAGER APPROVAL: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Red Haughey, Tibd Whits:~t. // 41, J Pitkin County Manager Pill* Cougy Attorney APPROVED AND ADOFTED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE, COLORADO ON THIS 4 -DAY OF Januagy >INg[K 1993. SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COPrCIL i f 41.-a u ca-u-. $4~BA,ur Â· VKTZY- Trudy Werline, Town Clerk .73hies H. Hobter, Maytr MA GER APPROVAL: APPRbVED AS TO FORM: â‚¬ Le==C~eL.22-2.Uddey AIR r -6*-suiter, Steve Cohner, Manager, Snowmass Village Town kttorney 4 JUL 06 '94 03:05PM PITI<IN P.8 APPROVED AND ADOFrED AT TUE REGULAR,MEETING OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL, COLORADO, ON THISS&_ DAY OFC#,746%Â£'41992. ASPEN CITY COUNCIL Katherine Ipth, City Clark John Reartett. Mayor MANAGER APPROVAL: APPROVED AS TO FORM: tr/44 - ~ZX>1 . avill_ 465 Margerumt\ Jed Caswati, â‚¬,611 City M,4*r Aspen City Attorney \J RÂ¥~MMENDED FOR APPROVAL: /Mob Maynard, President, bwigiti-Shel[2814-Cbdirman, F Aspen Ski Company Roaring Fort, Tr=nat Agency Â»JÂ»OUL ge,â€¢at Ardâ€¢/ -Diane Moore, Co-Director, fuz*Ae Konchan / Co-Director, Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office Aspki/Pitltin Planhing Office fl,J /1.A 067\ fLn- u ~' 1 18 1 1.V i 96ug *0244/Di'rectoÂ¢ Stan Renyman, Pirector, Loov~ass Village Ple~ing Pitkin County PUblic Works iritzÂ¥ 15/4148@LÂ»tO / 'Bill StdigfelloN Colorado Dep#ment of Transportation ... 5 JUL 06 ' 94 03:05PM PITKIN P. 9 gUWM "A" Estimated Costs of Project Recommendations Listed below am a scries of project, rocommended for action in the upper Rearing Fork valley. This document should be considered a working "draft* that will Â©ertainly cbmoge and be modified over time = more information is obtained. The object of this listing im to present obvious or specific noedg that can be utilized immediately in our efforts to implement , tra,nsportation framework in the Roaring Fork valley. It is recognized that this is exhibit, although incomplete, is a useful tool with which tbe commun:ty can further define the priority, magnitude of cost. and cost sharing rusponsibilitieg of the various projecu. 1. Travel Demand Management System a) Parking and Congestion Managemact System - City of Aspen. Development and implumentation of a TDM and congestion management system by the City of Aspen. May include t}18 developmpt of a naw management orgulization (Parking Department) hiring of additional staff (parking management and maintenance), and development of funding Bourne for the required capital improvements, repair and replacement, and operations. Schedule: Party Responsible: City of Aspen b) Continue and Enhance Pa,king Management System - Town of Snowmass Village. Continue to fund and begin to improve the eximing parking m~agement System within the Town of Snowmass Village. May include Additional decisions by the Town to implement further parking management strategies that comply with developed performance criteria. Schedule: In place and onloing. Party Responsible: Town of Soowinass Village. c) Improvement of Existing Bus Syâ€¢tcm. Purchgge 15 new busee $3,788,500 Schedule: Parties Responsible: Federal Orant $2,651,950 .-- RETA: $1,136,550 Implement improved Gatena Street shuttle, increase frequency on down-valley rodites, implement upper-valley routa and Ski Co. programi .................................................................... $1,000,000 Schedule: Parties Responsible: RETA, Aspen, Pitkin County and Ski Company 6 JUL 06 ' 94 03:05PM PITKIN P. 10 d) Park-and-Ride and Intercept Lot. . Detormine location of and place parking lots in area betwi:en Buttâ€¢rmilk and Carbondale. Include, purchase of one inmreept lot Ind placomant of 3 to 5 park-and-rides capable of parking 300 cars ..................................................................... to be determined Schedule: Partiem Responsible: RFrA, Pitkin County, CDOT 2- Transportation Enhancements 0) High Oeoupancy Vehicle Lanes. East-Bound and/or West-Bound Lanes from Shala Bluffs to Castle Creek Bridge. Cost will be lowered if intersection in*rovementg below am $4,000,000 Schedule: Parties R09'onsible: CDOT b) Maintain Rural Character and improve image of Brush Creek Road. Design and place entrance signs and 'photo pull-off' along Brush Creek Road ......................................................................... 5 20,000 Schedule: In piace by Summer, 1993 Parties Respondble: Snowmass Village. Pitkin County e) Investigate gmde-*parated improvemants to the Brush Creck Road/SH 82 interseetion: Eogineering and design of grade separated intersection at Brlnh Ck. Rd./SH 82 based upon above listed criteria ....................................................... $ 35,000 Schedule: Party R#ponsible: d) Purgue placement of signalized intersection at AirpuWAABC/SH 82: Place well designed, landscaped and lili signalized intersection that reto,ates Airport entance to align with AABC. ................................ $ 400,000 Schedule: Complete by Sutnmer, 1993 Parties Responsible; CDOT: $200.000 Pitkin County: $100,000 7 JUL 06 ' 94 03:06PM PITKIN P. 11 Propose design alternatives for Owl Creek Rd./Stage Rd./SH 82 interâ€¢ection: Acal/deceleration and Wt hand turn lanes at intersection ................................................. . to be detumined Party Reeponsible: Pindn County O Maroon Crack Bridge Pedestrian/Bike Path Utilize ISTBA Enhancement Funds to construct underpass..., Â· $ 300,000 Schedule: Parties Responsible: CDC)T, Pitkin County g) Rio Grande Railmad Right-of,way Utilize ISTEA Enhancement FiNds for purchase of railroad right- of-way from Glenwood Springs to Woody Creek for intermodal trarisportation purposes ................................................... to be determined Schedule: Party Responsible: CDOT h) Scowmass to Basalt Pedestrian/Bike Path Utili= ISTEA Enhancement Funds to conâ€¢truct pedestrian/bike pâ€¢th from Snowmake Cold Snowmass) to Basalt .................................. $ 300,000 Schedule: Parties Responsible: CDOT. Pitkin County i) Investigate feasibility of Owl Creek Road Transit Way. Hire a technical consultant to investiglate and develop alternatives for an exclugive tranmit w, y . to be determined Schedule: Party Respousible: Pitkin County, RFTA, CDOT, Snowmass Village, Ski Company 3 Proceed with Degign and Develop of Fixed Guideway System. Implement a Technical Resource Cominittee and hire a technical consultant to develop w alternatives analyâ€¢is S 250,000 for a fixed guideway mystem ....... Schedule: Parties Responsible: Pitkin County, Aspen, Snowmass Village, RFTA, Ski Cbmpany. CDOT, Federal Gr,mt 8 JUL 06 '94 03:06PM PITKIN P. 12 EXHIBIT "B" Endorsed Improvements Proposed by Glenwood Springs To further promote the development of a comprehensive, long range tru,portation plan for the entire Keating FOIk Valley. Pitkin County, The Town of Snowmass Village. and the City of Aspen embrace and endorse Ehe- improvements proposed to the western end of SH 82 corider by the City of Glenwood Springs. The endorsement of these improvements are conditioned upon the following: - Monetary resources for these improvaments *hould come from budgele,1 CDOT funding which can not be spent on SH 82 between Basalt and Ampen in a timely manner and therefore would bo moved to other areas of the Guito-, - Any future placement of a 'by-pase' or alternative vehicular route through Glenwood Springs will not preclude the placement of apâ€¢,enger rail system in the Rosring Fork valiey which connects directly to the main mil line exlsang within the I-70 corridor. 1. Placemant of a new (second) bridge over the Colordo River reduce traffic load on the existing Slate Highway 82 bridge. Thi, bridge could also be utilized as a part of a proposed Glenw{,od St,rings -By- p:Iss~ that would connect I-70 to State Highway 82 as deacribed below. 2. Development of a Glenwood Springs "by-pasâ€¢* along what is known as the Southern Pacific right-of- way. This by-pass would connect the n=w bridge described above with Highway 82 at 23rd Street. The by-pass would help to alleviate congestion in Glenwood Springs by provide and alternate route for through traffic. 3. Placement of additional Park-and-Ride facilities along the Highway 82 corndor inthe lower ROBring Fork Valley and the Colorado River valley between Rifle and Glenwood Springs. These Park-and-Ride facilitits could be helpful in redÂ®ing commuter traffic before it reached the Grand Avenue/Highway 82 bridge. 9 ~Â¢94_96*9-660- //1,3/3 -1 ----------------- ----6 7-04Â« - _ ---- - - . A Ju-Â£2 -1-1 3/ 2-1â‚¬9'42Â«11--2-- - 0 -/1 - n ~4~,4 -*U- 0--0 SUPO 60. 266" 3290 - --9-"- U.â‚¬ZU 37% /6Â« te>14/Â£5/r/Â£L (fitm- QU 0/ ED.0 Je,0779- c- 17 69 - 995 <? 44% Atgr 63/74. 722-03/2- t..CER.NOT Appecr- 43 UÂ© (Ex La R... 777-40 920 - 520,6 (~-___3-7-4 Â«_ GeÂ«ev *14 1J ~D~ T /6 f - <6 - 0 4 92-0 *-33 70 -- ---11,1<Â» CÂ»LA_e v~ ~Zks rofRA o %*Jah o l/1 l Ef -- -0[-mi-1-- -re - 0,1-7 of Asen 41 0 Flm (Ap,467 - - Fn-12) N ~D\,AS n diDÂ¢:> Sazo La%t _911 -_ _ __ 00 41+Po -- - 960 %74 - 04Â£40 *Z) - 8%6-50256- --... /9/34 297Â«la / Colo. balc-- b,lAtÂ·SE>pris ~foY (~p-2.-7 - 79 5--12 -- -- Ad,Ul,4 7 /4-194-4-- 0-0 07- 664-4-1 2 + 1 -7-2 2 3 -_ -- 46 512â‚¬ra//1 u - CDOT .STAFF 13,jUDGE 757-9307 -- So --7 9â‚¬arce__â€ž -- - _ (lboT Ek,alfer\C'f~g422.3 757-97 26 - 4 - 111 Pitkin County Public Works 76 Service Center Road Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 920-5390 Fax: (303) 920-5374 MEMORANDUM 5 1111 lilli TO: Sally Pierce, CDOT i 1 FROM: Stan Berryman, Pitkin County/'7|023 JUL 2 5 19'94 0 ~4 9 1 1 DATE: July 22, 1994 1 SUBJ: Maroon Creek Bridge Bike Path and Pedestrian Underpass Thank you for meeting with the representatives from Pitkin County and the City of Aspen last week regarding the proposed Maroon Creek Bridge bike path and pedestrian crossing. This memo is intended to provide you with the information requested at the meeting. As it is the intention of all elected officials that a project be started in 1994, we request that a determination of historical impacts be completed as soon as possible. Please contact me if you have questions or desire any additional information. We appreciate your consideration of our request. BACKGROUND: The existing 30 foot wide Maroon Creek Bridge on SH82 has created hazardous situations for pedestrians and bicycle traffic for a number of years. The significant increases in vehicle traffic (over 30,000 on peak days) as well as bicyclist and pedestrian traffic has exacerbated the dangerous condition on the bridge. In early 1991, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) conducted by CDOT was underway. This EIS process envisioned a new alignment for SH82 across the Marolt open space property as the entrance to Aspen. Parts of the existing SH82 alignment (including the Maroon Creek Bridge) were to be utilized exclusively for pedestrians and bicycles. As CDOT and the City of Aspen could not agree to several terms relating to the EIS, the eastern terminus of the EIS was changed to a point near the Buttermilk ski area in April, 1992. The EIS from Buttermilk to Aspen is just now underway and may require as much as two years to complete. In light of current CDOT funding scenarios, providing a comprehensive, implemented solution for pedestrians and f'~1 4 PRlNTED ON . 1 ' RECYCLED PAPER bicyclists to travel safely into Aspen is a minimum of three years away. Given that the public would be faced with existing unsafe conditions at the Maroon Creek Bridge for at least several additional years, the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners in 1992, directed staff to investigate alternatives to carry pedestrians and bicycle traffic at the bridge. The County retained Meheen Engineering to develop five alternatives. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives were examined and/or developed and presented to the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners: 1. TWO WAY CROSSING. This alternative consisted of placing two, one-way platforms directly under the bridge deck resting on the struts that were installed when the automobile decking was installed. This alternative was rejected because of pedestrian and bridge safety considerations. Although east and west bound lanes could be signed one-way only, it was felt that many bikers and pedestrians would ignore the signage, creating the probability of head-on collisions on the narrow six foot lanes. Also, this configuration causes low height clearance for users. The two way crossing is attached as Exhibit A. 2. SINGLE CROSSING AT THIRD STREET. This alternative consisted of placing a single platform on the third existing strut under the bridge. This configuration would result in a single, 13 feet wide platform for bicyclists and pedestrians. Access ramps were designed to connect to the underpass. Unfortunately, the access ramps could not be designed to meet ADA standards, eliminating this alternative. This single crossing at Third Street is attached as Exhibit B. 3. SINGLE CROSSING AT NEW STRUT. This alternative was developed as a variation of #2 above in order to conform to ADA requirements. It consists of placing new bracing and struts on the existing bridge to accommodate a single 13 feet wide platform. The access ramps conform to ADA standards. Our consulting engineer has designed this underpass to have minimal visual impact on the existing bridge structure. The cost of this 2 alternative (including access ramps) is $450,000. It is the preferred alternative of the elected officials from Pitkin County, the City of Aspen and the Town of Snowmass Village. Implementation of Alternative #3 allows a safe pedestrian and bicycle crossing during the time in which a new highway bridge is being designed and constructed in the future. The blueprint for this preferred alternative is attached as Exhibit 6. 4. COMPLETELY SEPARATE BRIDGE STRUCTURE. A completely separate bridge structure to accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists independent of the existing Maroon Creek Bridge was also developed. The cost of this structure is in the $500,000 to $550,000 range. The structure could be accessed by ramps at grade, making for easier maintenance and user desirability. Although the cost of this alternative is not substantially higher than the preferred alternative, and does offer positive benefits, the elected officials of the City of Aspen, Pitkin County, and the Town of Snowmass Village have rejected this alternative. Their rejection is based upon two (?) significant factors: a. Until the EIS for the entrance to Aspen has been completed, no one is certain as to the location and types of transportation corridors which will be recommended into Aspen. It would be premature to select an alignment for a pedestrian and bicyclist bridge now which may preclude alternatives yet to be considered in the EIS. b. Aesthetically, the elected officials do not want to see a proliferation of bridge structures across the Maroon Creek valley. Again, until the EIS for the entrance to Aspen is complete, a good probability exists that we may be constructing another bridge structure that may not be required in the future. The blueprint for Alternative #4 is attached as Exhibit D. 5. ADDING A STRUCTURE TO THE SIDE OF THE EXISTING DECK. This alternative consists of adding a structure to one 3 side or both sides of the existing bridge to accommodate bicyclists and pedestrian traffic. Discussions with CDOT staff bridge engineers eliminated this alternative as it would require significant modification of the existing bridge under-structure which they would not approve. PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE: The elected officials of the City of Aspen, Pitkin County, and the Town of Snowmass Village endorse Alternative #3, the construction of a bicycle and pedestrian structure and path under the existing Maroon Creek Bridge. Even though a significant expenditure of public funds will be required to construct the project, the officials believe the expenditure is warranted to correct the extremely hazardous condition that currently exists for pedestrians and bicyclists on the bridge. This unsafe condition is expected to last for at least three to five more years. Pitkin County staff presented the underpass proposal, Alternative #3, to CDOT Staff Bridge section on May 5, 1994. Staff Bridge conceptually approved the designs at that meeting, and has conceptually approved Alternatives #1, #2, and #4. PUBLIC PROCESS: This project has been discussed at several public meetings of the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners, the Aspen City Council, and meetings of the Aspen to Snowmass Transportation Plan (comprised of all the elected officials of Pitkin County, the City of Aspen, and the Town of Snowmass Village). The Aspen to Snowmass Transportation Plan elected officials unanimously endorsed the project and requested funds from CDOT in a Joint Resolution confirming a framework for an upper valley transportation study (attached) on October 26, 1992. Recently, the project was again endorsed by the Aspen to Snowmass Transportation Executive Committee (composed of the mayor of Aspen, the mayor of the Town of Snowmass Village, and the chairman of the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners) on February 9, 1994. The Aspen City Council endorsed the project on February 14, 1994. TEMPORARY NATURE OF IMPROVEMENTS: The elected officials and staff have sensitivity for historic preservation. To that end, the underpass structure is designed to have the least visual impact on the existing bridge trestles. Also, Pitkin County will commit to remove the underpass from the bridge in the future if and when intermodal transportation solutions are implemented, and return the bridge to its existing condition. 4 LOCAL HISTORICAL REVIEW: In order to expedite the processing of our request, Pitkin County is prepared to utilize local funds to retain a consultant, acceptable to CDOT, to conduct the required Section 106 Review. Is this proposal acceptable to CDOT if current staff is unable to conduct the review? XC: Reid Haughey Amy Margerum Amy Amidon Bud Eylar George Robinson Ralph Trapani 5 JUL 29 '94 03:00PM PITKIN P.2 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, REQUESTING APPROVAL FRQM THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO CONTRACT A BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN PATH UNDER THE MAROON CREEK BRIDGE Resolution # 94 - 23_1/ RECITALS 1. The existing, narrow Maroon Creek Bridge on Highway 82 creates extremely unsafe conditions for pedestriang and bicycle traffic. 2. Bicycle, pedestrian, and vehicular traffic on Highway 82 has increased significantly over the last several years. 3. Although the CDOT entrance to Aspen EIS will address intermodal access into Aspen, the implementations of recommended solutions will take several years. A delay of this length of time to provide sare access across the Maroon Creek Valley for pedestrians and bicyclists is unacceptable to the community. 4. The elected officials of Pitkin County, the city of Aspen and the Town of Snowmass Village have unanimously endorsed the implementation of a pedestrian and bicycle underpass below the Maroon Creek Bridge as a part of the Aspen to Snowmass Transportation Plan. 5. Pitkin County will commit local revenues to construct the underpass. 6. Pitkin County will commit to removing the pedestrian and bicycle underpass after a safe alternative crossing im implemented, thereby restoring the historic bridge to it's present condition. 7. Pitkin County will commit funds to retain consultants to perform the CDOT required historic review (Section 106) of the proposed project, in the event CDOT staff is unable to perform the review. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado, that CDOT grant the request to construct a bicycle and pedestrian path under the Maroon Creek Bridge, in order to allow construction to begin in 1994, to provide safe access across the Maroon Creek Valley for pedestrians and bicyclists. JIJL 29 ' 94 03:01PM PITKIN P.3 APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON THE ~~ , DAY OF ~i2~- , 1994. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO By:,,4ACrE/. MUF> Jeanette Jones Robert W. Child, Chairman Deputy Clerk/Recorder Date: APPROVED AS TO FORM: MANAG~ APPROVAL: - Â¢701(,L lb"4â‚¬4 Tid<othy Â§,Â»4â‚¬sitt Reid Haug*ey /'Counttorney County Manager APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: seah Berrym,1~' Director off,*ublic Works 5 19 '94 12:22PM PITKIN P.2 91*TE OF COLORADO ... DEPARTMENT Of Â¥UNSPORTATION . Region 3 k_--Ul Mount Sopris Transportation Project 0020 Sunfel Drive, Unil#9 Bault,Colofado81621 003~927-98St Fax#(3031927-9280 Mr. Stan Berryman, Director of Publio Works August 19,1994 Pitkin County 0076 Service Center Rd.. Aspen, CO. 81611 SUBJECT: Maroon Creek Bridge Historical Clearance Dear Stan: The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) has reviewed the material you sent regarding the Maroon Creek Bridge bike path and pedestrlan underpass. Before CDOT can send the request for an Effecti Determination to the State Historic Presavation Office (SHPO). we will need the following additional information from Pitkin County: 1. What are the costs for each of the proposals? Tlte design plang ir,3icate a cost of $420,000 for the new alignment; but your memo indicates a cost ofbetween SSOO,000 and $550,000. For the underpass, the plans Indicate a cost of $380,000 and the memo says $450,000. What Is the correct cost for each alternative? These cost estimates must include che access ramps, but these costs should be separated hm the cosa of the structures. 2. CDOT will need a more detailed discussion of the access ramps, as they will be altering the setting of - the historic bridge and the SHPO will want to comment on the changes to the setting. How will they be built and will they meet the ADA requirements? Are retaining walls necessary? If so, what will they look like ? (this is information that the SHIN) will also want to comment on and maybe offer suggestions for the design since k will be next to the historic structure). If a 4(f) Evaluation is necessary. this detailed discussion needs to include a description ofall open space or public park land which will be affected by the construction ofthe structures and rampa. Temporazy impacta such as consUuction easements must be included as well. 3. Is there any potential for finding archaeological resources during the construction ofthe ramps? Someone will have to provide a clearance for archaeology (prehistoric and historic) because the project would be disturbing the ground during the construction of the ramps. Both the SHPO and the Advisory Council will ask for this clearance. 4. What about the costs for the other alternatives "within" the structure?Â· Since these have been eliminated from consideration, the specific details are not necessary, but a rough estimate would be helpful to document comparison of alternatives, particularly for the 4(f) statement, 5. CDOT wlll need a letter of comment from the Certified Local Government (CLG). In this case. we believe it is the Aspen Preservation Commission. The Advisory Council's regulatlont require that the public be informed of the project and allowed to comment, and the SHPO usually requests a letter from the local CLO with their comments. Thir is important as the approach will be on Aspen City property. 1 AUG 19 '94 12:23PM PITKIN P.3 PAGE2 6. CDOT will also need more specific details about the structural modifications to the bridge. At our recent meeting, PITCO discussed removing old struts and gtoring them. We will need to know more about how they will be removed, where they will be stored, etc. Did any of the other proposals require removing structural members from the bridge? How will the new bracIng and struts be attached? 7. During the meeting, we also discussed the temporary nature of the improvements and the County's commitment to either remove the underpass when the new highway bridge is built or build a new pedestrian bridge if it appears that the highway bridge will not be built for a long time. The SHPO will ask for this commitment to be included in the Memorandum of Agreement (MC)A) and will probably ask for a time frame. How long will PITCO wait before you decide that a new pedestrian bridge should be built ifchoir preferred alternative i. soleÂ©ted? . 8. Since the underpass is meant to be temporary, CDOT neadz a few more details about how the bridge will be restored. This can be included in the discussion under the previous question, as you can discuss what will be added to build the underpass and also describe how it will be removed. 9. There was a discussion about a cage-like fence/railingthatwillbe necessary for the underpass. CDOT will need more detal! about ifs appearance, including materials and colors. ThÂ© design plans ahow the railing, but a little more detail will help the SHPO and the Advisory Council and will alto be helpful for the 4(f) discussion. 10. How docs each alternative satisfy bike/pad facility standards and safety concerns? I suggest that you use A Policy on Geometric Design of Highway, and Streets. AASHTO, 1990 (the "green book") to evaluate this issue.. Concerning the schedule, once CDOT receives the requested information, we can complete the letter to the SHPO asking for their concurrence of the determination of effect By law, they have 30 days to respond, although Lane ]ttelson (deputy SHPO) indicated that they might be able to get their letter out sooner iftheir rime and work load pennits. Getting the MOA ready for signature should take about a month, because CDOT will need to hold several meetings with the consulting parties (Pitkin County, SHPO, CDOT, FHWA, Advisozy Council, and anyone interested in the process). One meeting will be necessary to come up with the proper language. A second meeting will be held to go over the draft ofthc document. Once the MOA is developed, it is circulated for signature. Likely signatories will include Pitkin County and CDOT as concurring parties, and also the SHPO, FHWA and Advisory Council. Sending the document to all rhese people will take at least a month, provided all parties have participated in the consultation meetings mentioned above. Again, by law, the Advisory Council has 30 days to respond (in this case to sign the MOA). They usually take the full 30 days as they have to prepare a summary report and send it and the agreement to Washington for signature. Once the MOA is signed by Washington, the Section 106 process is completed. AUG 19 '94 12:23PM PITKIN P.4 PAOE 3 AS for Section 40, much of the written material can be prepared while the Section 106 process Is underway. However, a final Section 4(f) Evaluation cannot be issued for review until the MOA has been signed and ts included in the document Also, the party responsible for preparing the 40) must coordinate very closely with FHWA during the preparation of the document to avoid lengthy delays and rewriting. FHWA and CDOT staff can provide early adv.ice or assistance on the 4(f) process. CDOT does not have resources available to conduct a programmatic Â«f) process for this project. If a decision is made to pursue a programmatic 4(f) evaluation, Pitkin County will need to retain an outside consultant to prepare tho documentation. CDOT staff will sorve in a review, approve, and transmit role. This memo was prepared with the assistance of Ms. Sally Pearce of our Environmental Services Branch. Please contact either Sally or myself with any questiong Sincerely, R. P. Moston Regional Transportation Director B*. 1,1/ l-1~ 74,1Â«6 Ralph J. fapanl, Mt. Soprif-Project Manager cc: FHWA-Speral CambritUPearce Moston/Abbott . 1 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE DECEMBER 14, 1994 MAROON CREEK BRIDGE PEDESTRIAN PATH - WORKSESSION Amy: With some of the annexations that took place recently into the city related to the golf course development outside of town Maroon Creek Bridge has been brought into the City of Aspen and it is on the National Register of historic places. It was the railroad bridge that the Colo. Midland came into town on and was converted to a vehicular bridge in 1929. In past discussion we have talked about a pedestrian path. We all went to a meeting with the Colo. Historical Society down in Denver who has review over this and they gave us a long list to look at and were not entirely happy with some of the ideas. Bud Eylar, County Engineer: This bridge was built in the late 1880's and it became an historic resource of the State of Colo. in the mid 80's. It is not an historic resource as a railroad bridge it is a resource as a conversion from a railroad bridge to a highway use. The original configuration was 14 feet in width and when they converted to a highway with braces that were added in 1929 to allow them to widen the bridge and make it acceptable for highway traffic. Pj_tkin County asked the highway dept. and the Dept. of Transportation to do something about a pedestrian crossing on that structure in 1977 and 1978. In 1989 there was discussion of a new four lane bridge and converting this bridge to a pedestrian bridge. When that bridge project fell through then the county started looking at getting some kind of pedestrian crossing of the Maroon Creek Valley. We hired a consulting engineer to look at a variety of options to see what could be done. The first thing we looked at was putting a crossing 20 ft. below the bridge and that was the most feasible. When we took this proposal to the state they state they wanted comments from the local authority. We also looked at an alternative structure downstream. Some of the cyclist raised issues that the ramps don't work for bicyclists as the turns were tight and they would just go across the bridge. Things you should know if we go in on the existing structure there are some brace pieces and they run all throughout the trestle and we would have to remove those and install new ones where we build the bicycle crossing. We committed to the preservationists that if there was a new bridge we would save the old material and we can take it out and save it and bring the bridge back. Donnelley: Did you address lighting for the evenings. Bud Eylar, County Engineer: The proposal will be to light it and the downside is if you don't light it that will preclude nighttime use. I would not want to walk 60 feet of bridge with no way to get out of their during the evening. I also feel the lighting would be a controversy. 12 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE DECEMBER 14, 1994 Martha: You could put the lights down at the bottom on either side. Bud Eylar: We thought we would put them right under the deck. Martha: What about strips underneath. Roger: A What is the least expensive, probably building on the existing bridge. Bud: Actually it isn't. The separate structure is less costly and that is because you have virtually no cost in the ramps. Roger: Which would be the easiest accessibility for the bike with a trailer behind it? Bud Eyler: The separate structure. Roger: If you went under the bridge you would have to do a series of turns. I would recommend the new structure which is less money, easily accessible and better usage. Les: What s the life span of the Maroon Creek Bridge? Bud: It is 100 years old and possibly could last another 100 years. I feel the biggest issues are the foundation issues. Possibly in very high flooding you could loose the foundation. Roger: As a taxpayer you want to do it the most economical way. Bud Eylar: The second bridge can be designed similar to an erector set and can be taken down and moved. Roger: If you built the system under the historic bridge could you get a cat in there to pack for xcing. Tom: I happen to like crossing under the historic structure and like the idea that there will not be another piece of garbage going across the valley and it all is sort of consumed by one structure. The lighting could be handled very easily and it could be an interesting low light glow under the bridge which would make the bridge seem like it was floating. You could do something like a spiral, a nice gentle spiral and I feel it would be fun to ride down there on a bike. Martha: I belong to the Maroon Creek Club and I feel it would be wonderful to have a bike path under the bridge. Tom: You could also cantilever from the bridge to the existing 13 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE DECEMBER 14, 1994 bike path. Bud Eylar: The Highway Dept. is opposed to that. They feel structurally we have enough on there. If either one gets built design features will be brought out. Les: I like the bridge visually. Tom: As a committee with everything we review we are going to have to start looking at the aesthetic part of it instead of the functional part of it. This town is just going in the functional direction no matter what happens and we should consider more visual exciting sollations . The crossing under the bridge visually would need a design professional to make it work. I would recommend an architectural consultant for the design. Roger: What is the possibility of a new highway bridge being built in the next 20 years? Don't mess with the historical structure. Put the little one next to it and it could come out quickly and is reversible in the interim. Joe: I agree with Roger and understand Tom's concern but I do not know if that would be an aesthetically great experience being under the bridge with it shaking over you and debris falling overhead. Tom: I feel the visual impact of that under the bridge is a whole lot less than an additional object out there. Donnelley: I agree with Tom and a second bridge would detract from the old wooden structure. Roger: The majority of people do not ride that bridge and there is a bridge already underneath and could we use that in some way. Bud Eylar: To make it ADA accessible is almost impossible and that is our concern on this job. Martha: I like the idea of a covered bridge. Joe: The majority of members recommend under the bridge structure. NOVEMBER 23RD AGENDA APPROVAL MOTION: Les made the motion to approve the Nov. 23rd agenda; second by Roger. All in favor, motion carries. 303 E. MAIN STREET - DISCUSSION Amy: Unfortunately when the Kuhn' s sent to P&Z their discovered that the tower was in the Main Street View Plane. At present P&Z 14 STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STA 082A-008 Region 3 12~OTI 222 South Sixth Street, Rm. 317 ENTRANCE TO ASPEN Grand Junction, Colorado 81501-2769 (303) 248-7208 Fax (303) 248-7254 10394 January 31, 1995 ,/Â«/4\ 0 + \ Ms. Amy Amition ,* O Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street FEB 2 1995 COMMUNITY Aspen, Colorado 81611 DEVELOPMENT Dear Amy: 1%* N/p fit This letter is in response to your public notice concerning the Maroon Creek Bridge Pedestrian/Bike Path Conceptual Review and Public Hearing to be held on February 8, 1995. The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) would like to go on record with the following and attached comments. The Maroon Creek Bridge is owned by CDOT and listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Discussions ofthe past year or so have shown there appears to be a viable and feasible alternative to modifying the Maroon Creek Bridge and adversely affecting its historical values. Therefore, CDOT cannot reasonably support efforts to modify the Maroon Creek Bridge. In reference to "delisting" this structure, the structure can only be "delisted" by the owner ofthe national historic resource and CDOT has no plans to request delisting ofthe Maroon Creek Bridge from the National Register. As a matter of record and information, attached are copies ofletters from me and Mr. TrapÂ£mi of CDOT which specifically address the alternative and impact issues. Ifthere are any questions concerning this information, please give me a call here in Grand Junction at 248-7208. Very truly yours, -7Â·00- ~'rve Â·LIIÂ«>-- R. P. MOSTON DIRECTOR, TRANSPORTATION REGION 3 LR.Afrff Enclosures Ce: A. Margerum, City ofAspen w/copies B. Eylar, Pitkin County 11 J. Krabacher, Aspen Historic Preservation Committee " 11 Perske Trapani 11 Gambrill 11 Abbott " File " /5-TA\.34 , , HABS/HAER U.S. Department of tb, Inlerlor - Witlonal Pa,k Sorvic. 1. SITE I.D. NO 5-PT:1 3& INVENTORY Washington, DC 20240 4 1 NAME[8) OF STRUCTURE 5. ORIGINAL USE 7. CLASSIFICATION Â· 1 RATING \ Maroon Creek Bridge; Bridge No. 201A PI07 railroad bridge BT;A: BEAM: STEEL 7584 local CDH: H-09-E 1888 3. SITE ADCAESS ISTREET & NOJ : 9 PRESENT USE State Highway 82 over Maroon Creek roadway bridge 1.2 miles west of Aspen 8. ~ UTIA ZONE EASTrNG NORTâ€¢ING 11. AEOION NW4 S 12, T 10S, R85W , 0Â§ 1 3|*0 3 4 1 6 4 0 4 3 3 9 8 5 0* RMRO 4Â· CITY/VICINITY COUHTY STATE SC AL E 1:2â€¢ 1.12, - OUAD ' v Aspen vicinity Pitkin Colorado OTHERÂ· . NAMF Aspen 11. OWNER/ADMIÂ» ADDRESM Colorado Department of Highways 4201 East Arkansas Avenue Denver Colorado 80222 13. OESCAIPTION AND BACKOFIDUND MISi ORY INCLUDINO CONSTRUCTION OATE[SI. PHYSICAL DIMENSIONS. MATERIALS. MAJOR ALTER ATTIONS. EXTANY EQUIPMENT. AND IMPORTANT DUILOERS. AACHITECT 6. ENGINEERS. ETC Multi-span trestle with built-up steel deck girder span number: 20 fl r./decking: concreteover corrugated steel deck w/ steel floor beams span length: 30' 0" substructure: stone/concrete spread footings and retaining abutments overall length: 651' 0" trestles : 9 riveted steel towers w/ laced channel horizontals roadway width : 40' 0" and verticals and round eyebar tension rod diagonals tallest tower : 91'10" In 1887 the Colorado Midland Railroad raced with the Denver and Rio Grande to be the first to extend rail lines into the mining town of Aspen. The latter reached the town in mid-October, and the for~ner reached the Maroon Creek cros- sing just to the west of town in December. There the Midland hit a snag, as steel for the superstructure of the im- mense Maroon Creek trestle was delayed from the fabricator in the east. When it did arrive later that month, the railroad bridge crew began construction, completing:.it early in February 18882 The bridge remained in use by the railroad until it quit operations in In 1929, after ten years of improvised use by motorists, the State Highway Department contracted with the Phelps Brothers and the Morrison-Knutsen Company to widen and pave the roa dway. The Maroon Creek Bridge has functioned in place as a vehicular bridge since, unaltered and in good condition. 14. CONDITION Â¤ EXCELLÂ·ENT ~ GOOD O 1. C]OETERIORATED C]MuiN. 15 DANd EM Of OEMOLITION* C]YES []NO . UNKNO~ (SPECIFY THREAT) AREA Vd 6.LGN.LD.LLAAIUM EnglueeL ing 46. SIONIFICANCE Of the five original steel bridges built by the Midland Railroad,in Manitou Springs and near Buena Vista and Aspen, only the Maroon Creek Bridge remains. The older and longer of the two railroad trestles converted in-place to roadway use (the other: Bridge No. 10 of the Florence and Cripple Creek Railroad, FR48) in the survey, it is a significant resource - one of the last remaining iron/steel multiple-span high trestles erected in the'l9th century for Colorado's narrow gauge mountain railroads. 2/02 ' GPO ::1902 0 - 113-3)1 JAN-31-1995 11:02 COLO HIST SOCIETY P.02 JAN-31-1995 11:03 COLO HIST SOCIETY P. 03 R 0 Â£ Ny; â€¢,PI-1 j" --~~~~~~~ 7 Â·Â·-0 1 1 1 r .... 2:Â£ C \ 4 1\ (Attach Photographs) Frame Number 22 Roll Number 10 Facade Orientation 0 7. SIGNIFICANCE: Assess whether or not the resource has any historical or architectural ~ merit by checking appropriate categories and justifying below. Include iny relevant historical data. )) Architectural Significance: 21) Historical Significance: Represents work of a master - Associated with significant persons i Possess'es high artistic values _Associated with significant evencs or Represents a type, period, or patterns Â· method of construction -_ Contributes to the significance of an historic district aroon Creek Bridge 49/03/0046 mile west of Aspen on Maroon Creek at Highway 82 ; TlOS R85W S12 NI44 I 1 1888 the Colorado Midland Railroad built this 651 foot span across Maroon Oreek. It is altered in 1930 to include a concrete and steel super-structure. -. List Any Associated Cultural Group: none REFERENCES: ORDER V.G. Kirkpatrick DATE October 30. 1980 TOTAL P.03 1 4 04 1 RE (~31â€¢Â» 6,~ 24( A.Â£64 16 1046 62 0 48*. t, &14/1 3*, 130 - -74 461 4 27,PE Y /;5 ge hmN 743- M 199â‚¬c *MeQ Â·Â»14~ wko i. 0 Llub Â«rfÂ°,t- UM VAK ib elan a Vie r~410 6,6 366Wn~ 6kheya rp?*08-M 1 32 h *2 fty' un #ix re,2- ln,AE ) ry*'06 'FeÂ° ew *6,< *to toÂ» Aol- 6 'A have -to 8-> 06-4 7- 45Â« t t - c.1-k k 84)c40 6~- rn M ./~ 21*f- 6 44 6 4 0 64 4 er)1 4 ai~>99~~ , 60*n '7~ 7 *-**7 gdoo m p L y;J bak + l~-74 4940 ASPEN AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTER Â· 303 E - AABC Â· ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 Â· 303-925-2102 74 46/ba Â£ 64#, 74 tdA thâ‚¬ WAL~ Â· 4.h# >Mbr 1 k &40 k &/41*a 11 WrÂ·n 4,~~3 , <41 172 4 46 0 wak m *4 *4 . 4/* g >74</ / (ti 64:jp /9 Uditu r~ , tle wi I 1 -6~ â‚¬Â»~ 6 4 { <ON,~k ~ *\ e~k'g . U * 64Â£1 6M di t WG~. \ I PUBLIC NOTICE RE: MAROON CREEK BRIDGE PEDESTRIAN/BIKE PATH CONCEPTUAL REVIEW . . NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on _ . 2 Wednesday, February 8, 1995, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 pm before the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee in the second floor meeting room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado, to consider a proposal submitted by the City of Aspen and Pitkin County requesting to construct a pedestrian/bike path which will be suspended beneath the road deck on the Maroon Creek Bridge, as well as an alternate proposal for the construction of a separate bridge dedicated to pedestrian/bike use. The property is owned by the Colorado Department of Transportation and is located on the State Highway 82 right-of-way in the NE i of Section 11, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6th P.M. For further information, contact Amy Amidon at the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO. 920-5096. s/Joseph Krabacher, Chairman Aspen Historic Preservation Committee Published in the Aspen Times on January 20, 1995. City of Aspen Account 11 . L CERTIFICATE OF MAILING RE: MAROON CREEK BRIDGE PEDESTRIAN/BIKE PATH CONCEPTUAL REVIEW I hereby certify that on this 24th day of January, 1995, a true and correct copy of the attached Notice of Public Hearing was deposited in the United States mail, first-class postage prepaid, to the adjacent property owners as indicated on the attached list of adjacent property owners which was supplied to the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office by the applicant in regard to the case named on the Public Notice. By: Suzanne Wolff Administrative Assistant frm.mailing 215541~ MAROON CREEK BRIDGE PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300' Maroon Creek Limited Liability Co. 620 E. Hyman Aspen, CO 81611 Joseph Zoline 624 N. Canon Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Aspen Tennis Club Subdivision c/o Terry Hale 104 W. Cooper Aspen, CO 81611 City of Aspen City Manager 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 CDOT Attn: Bob Moston 222 S. 6th St. Grand Junction, CO 81501 -r 1 fat tc~, V PUBLIC NOTICE RE: MAROON CREEK BRIDGE PEDESTRIAN/ BIKE PATH CONCEPTUAL REVIEW NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hear- ing will be held on Wednesday, February 8, 1995, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 pm before the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee in the second floor meeting room, City Hall, 130 S. i Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado, to consider a i n proposal submitted by the City of Aspen and I 1 Pitkin County requesting to construct a pedes- f trian/bike path which will be suspended - i beneath the road deck on the Maroon Creek 1 Bridge, as well as an alternate proposal for the 3 construction of a separate bridge dedicated to f ~ pedestrian/bike use. The property is owned by ~ - the Colorado Department of Transportation and is located on the State Highway 82 right-of- y 41* way in the NE 1/4 of Section 11, Township 10 - t i South, Range 85 West of the 6th P.M. For fur- i ther information, contact Amy Amidon at the f Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO. 920-5096. s/Joseph Krabacher, Chairman Aspen Historic Preservation Committee Published in the Aspen Times on Jan. 20, 1995. /,t. t'' h J #30 GEORGE HART Vi To: Aspen Historical Preservation Commission *FEB 9 1995 ~ 0' : 15'/ /14'.Â·r re: Maroon Creek Bridge-Pedestrian/bike path The path should be built on or adjacent to the brid G,LulmediA&*fy. In my opinion it is criminal the path was not built y -84Â£&Â·err. We are fortunate people have not been hurt or killed on the bridge. When I ride my bicycle across the bridge. I take a deep breath and proceed with the thought that if I am hit that death is quick. If the path looks a little out of place, ungainly or just plain ugly. it will be better than not having it. Thank you for your time and efforts. 1*Â·r . - ***=.5Â° -11 - 1- -1 Public Input Needed on Maroon Creek Bridge 1 Pedestrian/Bike Path Â£ 95--1 C I' flu,fQi 1 On February 8th, the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission is reviewing a proposal to construct a pedestrian/bike path on or adjacent to the Maroon Creek Bridge. 9 8,=9. 1 1 20.1 + - - - Wednesday, F;bruary 8,5 p.m. City Hall, 2nd Floor Meeting Room - 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Amy Amidon, Planning Office FROM: Tom Newland, Pitkin County Public Works RE: Maroon Creek Pedestrian Bridge DATE: July 25,1995 ---------- This is to review our progress on development of the Maroon Creek Pedestrian Bridge project since review of this issue by the Historic Preservation Commission: February, 1995: Maroon Creek Pedestrian Bridge Task Force formed. The Task Force, named "Missing Link", was formed to develop the project. Missing Link consisted of Tom Newland, Bud Eylar and Stan Berryman of Pitkin County; Amy Amidon, Bill Efting, Mary Lackner, Stan Clauson, George Robinson, Rebecca Baker, and John Kruger of the City of Aspen. At the initial meeting, held February 28th, the task force developed a project schedule that will have the bridge open to public use by November 1,1995. Tom Newland was assigned the task of getting the project through land use approval; Bud Eylar was charged with developing the design, bidding and managing the project; and Stan Berryman was assigned with the task of securing funding. The rest of the task force would assist the three principals in their work to get the bridge approved. Assumptions developed by task force concerning the project: - The bridge will be temporary in nature and will be replaced by the existing Maroon Creek vehicle bridge once CDoT build a new vehicle bridge as a part of the Highway 82 improvements. - Bridge should be made to disassemble easily and to be re-used at other site(s) in the county; The bridge will be completely separate from the existing Maroon Creek Bridge and therefore does not impact the historical integrity of the existing structure. The bridge will be for primarily for "commuter" use and secondarily for recreational use; - the bridge will not accommodate nordic skiing; the entrances to the bridge will be lit to improve safety. The bridge will be designed so that additional lighting along the deck can be added if necessary in the future. March, 1995: Meheen Engineering was hired to design the bridge. Meheen was selected because of their close working relationship with the Colorado Department of Transportation. This relationship was necessary to get all approvals in time for construction this year. Bill Johnson, hydrologist, was hired to obtain 404 Army Corps permits for the project. Tom Newland submitted a land use application for the project on April 15th. The application proposed a temporary girder bridge on two posts or pylons spanning the Maroon Creek canyon immediately adjacent to and downstream from the existing Maroon Creek vehicle bridge. Placement of the new bridge adjacent to the old bridge was required because both bridges had to be contained within the Highway 82 right-of-way, as the adjacent property owner refused to sell property to the county for placement of the bridge. May, 1995: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission approves bridge proposal with minor conditions. P&Z asks that HPC and P&Z be included when a color for the bridge is selected. June, 1995: Final Design completed by Meheen Engineering. County staff obtains commitment for $500,000 funding from Pitkin County Use Tax. Other sources of funding researched. July, 1995: The Elected Officials Transportation Committee (EOTC) approved a funding strategy for the bridge that includes $500,000 from county use tax, $250,000 from county open space and trails fund, and $250,000 from the City of Aspen and the Town of Snowmass Village. Bud Eylar publishes and distributes final drawings and specifications for bidding by contractors. With the help of the task force, the project is still on schedule for completion by November 1 st. All land use approvals are in place, and CDoT, U.S. Army Corps, and SHPO approvals are pending and should be forthcoming in the near future. A funding strategy has been developed and is in place. Attached for your review are computer-generated renderings of the structure as it will look when constructed. Thank you for your interest in this project. Please contact me at #5209 if you have any questions. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer DATE: July 26, 1995 RE: Maroon Creek Bridge Pedestrian/Bike Path On February 8, 1995, HPC reviewed proposed alternatives for a pedestrian/bike path at Maroon Creek. The existing Maroon Creek Bridge is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and is listed on the local inventory of historic sites and structures. HPC unanimously supported the concept of a bridge which is totally separate from the historic bridge. (All members of the public who attended the meeting seemed to agree as well.) Their support was based on a finding that the separate bridge is the most appropriate solution from the standpoint of accessibility, safety, cost, and preservation concerns. Subsequent to the HPC meeting, the County proceeded with the design phase of the project, calling frequent meetings with representatives of City/County Engineering, Parks Department, Community Development/Historic Preservation, and Manager's Office. These individuals gave input on important features dealing with the design of the safety rails, lighting, and measures to make snow removal on the bridge easier. The project then stalled briefly as the County's intended financing source for the project was found not to be available. A few weeks ago, local officials agreed on the funding mechanism. The officials, with pressure from area residents, directed County Staff to have the bridge constructed this Fall. An RFP for the project is out and it is hoped that the project could start by October 1. The final design will be brought before the Historic Preservation Commission tonight, during which meeting you will be asked to select the color for the bridge (possibly on another date, at the site) and to offer comments on other aspects of the new bridge in preparation for contracting the project. INI I 1 1 1-2 911111 1'1 11'llx W W 24 \1 \ 1/ Â»71 Lf 4 1,/ //f NEW 7 'A < <4 NEW STRUT r# - BRACING - N A \ /61 0 - 10'-0' 1 11 7875 -1 / 0 i it /2 / - 1 - 03 0 0 \ \ 0, w-- [ 1 \ 14&=144154 4- 4- 44 1 4. -4- /4- '1Â« TO ASPEN er- 1 -4-Â« 4=-Â»F=-1 -=F /21=-Â« ' ~ 1 .~ <.9 0 BRIDGE 0- 13'-0' 1 1 ' \Xr L fittÂ« 1 - \ O 1 | NEW ~STRUT -~ t/Â£ 3\~44%F / P 1 Z 0,1Â« - -*R . \\ 1 0 1 x 41) X \\ A \\ 19'-0'~ 20 spc @ 30' = 600'J&. \\.... BRACING 648'-8' NEW - . . . . . . 1 . . PLAN 81212,Â£ ljECL jECTIOA SCALE 9 1' = 50' -- LY,AL L lizeGE DUE- A\An_ 12EIN2OÂ£268 2.0,18. 14866 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST IAJEAR/AI6 Sok.FNLE EXISTING BRACING $ 380,000 ilin,Ii[,111011101111,111011,ni]Inili 1-1 ilirlilinliÂ·Illilirlilinilirlilinlillill-1111. t1L % 222 1 rÂ·Â·Â·1 n r -1 Â·:a_-r--1 n n n n 1-70' ELEVATION SECTION JOB NO, SCALE i 1/4' = 1' 92016 SCALE i 1' = 50' SHEET NO, P4 - ' Iqu#****3347 3#9 ,- NOI,LVHOdHOO ONIHEIGINIONG[ NJIGIHICK 11NnO0 NI>IlId sjaau!6u Guil-lnsuoo '0103 213A~13([ 39UI3EI 133310 NOONVW 8661 'LI h13EW303G ' , AE[ NAVMCI 331N3J 9N01V - 2 31VN 8661 'LI 33EW3O3[I ' 'V'('9 1 16 63>133HJ 7825 0Â£8Â£ NAOHS SV ' 31VJS HlVd 3>IIE[ / NVIhllS3([3dl-lv < 7850 7825 7800 7775 7800 7780 CREEK U3nSSI SNDISIA331 MC-ALT2.DWG - 12/17/93 FED. ROAD SHEET AS CONSTRUCTED REGION DIVISION PROJ. NO. NO. NO REVISIONS REVISED VOI D PHI COLO. 10 1 1 9 /--1 30' 29'-8" Oi -1- /1 1 Â¤0 3 I | / /~ ~4~'-10 7 /E,~ ~ 1 1 \ 1 1 1 FRI - --11 t- - (l CURB BEAM 1 ill (ABOVE) /2 / - rl ~- 14' Ill 1 1 / 1 1 i l.ID .g /1 O 1 . 3 2 1 1 1111 A 11 m ' , 1 Â© 1 0 A I 1 '1 1 1 1 A /11 mIl 1 lili . 9 .11 1 L _ _ _~_ lili - -1 -EL- 1-_ 1 Â»-- ~ CURB BEAM ' (ABOVE) If) a .+1 lili k lili f) 1 111 1 -1 \ 1- 0. ' 25'- 5'-L~ 0 - -- 1-1 ...... &/I-Ip/ 97% - ........ 023:3] 1Â£10- U 1 5-1 . 14 + L.JI> Z Al[33 7 18 E ELI 7880'-0" ..Ix U in v ID Â® j hi(O 0-1 / 0 0 1 1 11 1 El 1-1 0 111 lili 1 1 1 La L _ 2 Ill IMI - I f.1 1 144 1 , 1 4 . 1 lili I IT ... 14. 111 lili 1 1 ~ CU ~ 1% â‚¬ F 1.1 1 lili f | 7855'-5"(+/-) . l. 111 / 1 7854'-8 1/2" L _ 1.J ____ t- _3 _L 1 1 i COLORADO 0 CU Hi DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION F1~17 21% PITKIN COUNTY 1 L_~_J MAROON CREEK PED./BIKE BRIDGE APPROACH DETAILS - EAST STRUCTURE DESIGNER : GI El APPEL T DETAILER : C. R. HESS: N'.MBER E DRAWING NUMPEK TF DRAWINGS - .:t .r.. . . I SEPAR ATE CONTRA T RAMP UNDER OT. CHORD ,/BIKE 1/2" MCF-APPE.DWG - 09/26/94 FED. ROAD SHEET AS CONSTRUCTED REGION DIVISION PROJ. NO. NO. NO REVISIONS REVISED VOID YMI coLo. 7 h Jl /// /// //U m 1 1 lili 111 fl I Ill 111 11 1 11# 111 Il lill \ \\ 111 Ill 11 'f lili 4 1% I 3 5 u-- - ~' 11141-- %-1 I 11' m I I lillit 'lll 1 -0 1 al l 1 11 11 1 ill Il lill 111 111 mililill L BENT 0 .DETAIL ~ O 0 0 0 0 0 r L-~16 1 .~1 :40 .:i-" . . . . . . . . 1 - REMOVE 4 CLOSEST RIVETS OR DRILL - -\---4 1 TO BOLT STRUT TE COLUMN. L / COPE TOP & BUT, FLANGES OF -%--- NEW CBX13.75 STRUTS AND EXTEND WEB THROUGH EXIST. COLUMN, 0 0 REMOVE EXIST, LATTICE PLATES FROM TS 3X3 TS 3X3 C f COLUMN AS NEEDED FOR STRUT CONNECTION ~ ~ 1/4" 1/4" 2 3/4' 2 3/4" #iii / iii// 1 11 11 1 .,0 , 03 ~ / 6' CONCRETE [IN STEEL 111 11 1 ~ 11~f1/ 2" ///j ~ \ f 1 r/ f/ (VULCRAFT 3ULI-16) I DECKING m 1 1 111 1 1 1 lilli f 4 0 4 4 4 4 4Â·20 |< Fu %2 -v*. ii< id 4 < 4 -077?44= ==7 == 9- 3/8"X6 1/2" CONT, --~ - --1------~-- 5 5 3 6 -6 Â· A Wl-1 - -4-K_1~ 4.1~ ~ ~~<I--------- E- 3/8' X9 1/2"Xe" @ BRG. /1-i~31.-4 I //u -- - ELASTOMERIC PAD 1/2"X 4'X4Â° ~Lio*-- _ _ ___* A COLORADO 1 - It. 5/8"X 9*X12" -------- 1 11 -~- 411 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION % 4\\ /1 , j 11 1 1 W // /FÂ© 11 r.1 f L PROVIDE LATTICE PLATES BETWEEN PITKIN COUNTY ~t--1-1 WITH SLOTTED HE]LE IN SE]LE E- ) MAROON CREEK PED,/BIKE BRIDGE 1" 0 BOLT EA, BRG, 08'S TOP AND BET, SIMILAR ILI 1 1111 TO EXISTING STRUTS 1 1/2" 0 PIN FOR X-BRACINGS MODIFICATION OF EXISTING BENTS m 11 1 1 il 111 i I 1 L 11 DESIGNER :G. D, APPELT STRUCTURE 1'-7" DETAIL /Th NUMBER S DETAILER C.R. HESSEL I. DRAWING NUMBER OF DRAWINGS r 1-1. MCF-TSDT DWG - 09/26/94 FED. ROAD SHEET AS CONSTRUCTED REGION DIVISION PROJ. NO, NO. NO REVISIONS REVISED VOID -VTTT coLo. 9 \ 1 \ 4/ \ 1 \ \ \ (2) \ \ 19'-0, 30\ 1 \ \ -1 1 \ \ 1 1\ \ Fll I l 111 / OCURB BEAM Â»x-- -- -44--- --1- -al-- -1---- -- P (ABOVE) 111 i i 14' 1 1 2, 1 3_ '- 1 ' Lk__i 1111 1 r - --71 lf) 1 11 -4-liT -1 - --O- tu 11 01 - CONCRETE lili J 1 1 APPROACH 0 A 1 1 M PLATFORM | I lili 41 11 9 0 lip 1 V Crl 4 Q CURB BEAM --+11 ---1- ---1~1- -LI- Â¥ 03 --------------- 1-6 1 1 CD - (ABOVE) ~ - --u I lili 1 !41+21 1 1 1:1 11 1 J -U 14'-0 1 /\ - - - 01- ~90 21'-0" LI .. 43 -4- - g . I e t ' . .1. . .. .. ELI 7880'-0~ 1 Â¥ N 4- 1 11 123 1 1 :1 CO 1./1 111111 1 7 I lilli I 7860'-5'<+/-) 1 11~11 1 L._-i _i -11 ~ s~ 7854'-8 1/2'(+/-) \ 1 7 ! 4 I. TA " 11 11_- =- EXIST, STRUT COLORADO \ 9 I -1 I . 1 4 1 L--- b 11 0.-+L. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1 IL 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 r\ L lili'I I L_L, 1 1 L___1 1 PITKIN COUNTY Clj 1 1 3 MAROON CREEK PED,/BIKE BRIDGE APPROACH DETAILS - WEST DESIGNER : G. D. APPELT STRUCTURE DETAIL_ER : CiRI HESSEL NUMBER S DRAWING NUMBER OF DRAWINGS BOT, CHORD OF PED./BIKE TRUSSES SEPARATE CONTRACT RAMP UNDER 77+/-) DECK & ASSUMED OVERLAY CROWN I| 2,-5 1/2" MCF-APPW.DWG - 09/26/94 /r FED. ROAD SHEET AS CONSTRUCTED REGION DIVISION PROJ. NO. NO. NO REVISIONS REVISED VOID SDII COLO. 8 0 9 Z P zq 2 7Â»q P 3 -, 15'-0" 15'-0' z 15'-0" 0 - 1-163 11 - - 1-J 11 - - 1 ~- EL 7880,00 -al 3 m i m ' E- EL 7880,00 ..11 ------ 1------ -1- 1 91 / <r <E In 14--=-(-1-(-1-.C _L_ I-I-_12-2512IZ~ i vi td~-~n~-U_-1111-1111 1 27_JIUJ[JI--CU-Ir-B~ 10 -1 -=20=1111 1 222-III-3-bL~ 1 1 1 --...-----1<7-771--pr-------~ 2% V 1 \/ ./ 1 N \\\ 1 \/ 1 1/ 1 1/ ~ \\ \ 1/\ /\ 1 REME]VE EXISTING 1 /\ /\ 1 REMOVE EXISTING ~/~ fl (7) 1 \\/ .\/ 1 CD ~' " ~ REMOVE EXISTING /f / 11 -1,1 _ e BRACING ANID ~ Â¥ ~ ~-- 3~ --bl BRACING AND >4 BRACING AND ~~ - -1 ti=--~ Of- INSTALL NEW 8 1 INSTALL NEW ~,j - - - -0/ , 9 -4,3-9196 1\ - I F ----- ---- a A INSTALL NEW 1/_r # --~ 4-Qt~~>~ 1~ STRUTS AND STRUTS AND ~~ 1' 6 ' 1' 6 BRACING 4/ kw \\~ ~ Â·\1.-10.<+/-1 \ L / 5.-6,\ ~~BrcING \{\ 4/f /1/ BRACING N 0 O \\ 6 \j 1'-10' ~ ~ 5'_-~ /j~BR*ING ~1~ 0/ /~ BR'CING ~ --ON 0 <~~~ 1' 10"â€ž=~ -7~~ ~ 5,-6\ /- \ /1 / \L _ /// 1 I \ 9 5 4'-11 /~ \ -,kL ==- -1// 1 111,1 1-,6 1 Ob -\0 /> ~ / x li fo \F-- = = Irr,1011 t\ 4 0 * /~* '~)<(~3'~ 4 .04 7 CLI (11 --- /1 ~NIEW STRUT - -- 4 4 -0 1 ; , NEW STRUT YE - -739'---~ 4034 \ NEW STR - < 1 1 1----/ I. * F 4 -W-- p--- /4/- \ 1 \-- - li ~ T S 4 X 3 X 02 - 41 N * i T S 4 X 3 X 0,3~ 1 W -- A 7 1 /---f---\--6-----1\ 1--L-- 1 --- 1 ' ; TOP CHORD / DETNL 7~ ~ ~ TS 4X3X0 23 V ./7 dly 11 ~ ~AIL~~ \ 1 TOP CHORI~- k TOP CHObD -1*9--9-EVE \ / DETA~ Â© /1// 1\Al\\ A I 0 n M / // / N 4 % 4 \\ j \\ // 0 6 0 co *1 + I 1 1 l i DET~IL g?h ~~~ ~~ \ I IN \ 1-- ~4 I F ' ' 1 (13 - \ -~/ \\ /1 U * rit 1 5 9 CO m v < ~1~-~ ~ <~ 4~TAIL Â© 1 1 < 1 4 * (JIN 6 ~ /DETAIL ~ \4\ i Co TS 6X4XO.25~~2 - =~~/ ~ , ~' ~~ ~-~ ~~ ~ 4 / ~ ON STEEL 4 1 ~ ~ 4 lE 6Â° CONC, ELI 7854'-8 1/2'(+/-) ~~ ~~~ 1 ~ 6, cpNIC ~ .-1 Cn 6' CONC f- ON STEEL TS 6X4X0,25 1 IS 6X4X025 ON STEEL BOT, CHORD ~~ B [] T ~ 1â€¢P - \-4 Y A. iw..LI; . ; .2, :.0,â€¢.974*<444384 DECKING ' J .. Â¥ . BOT. CHORD DECKING . 11 / 1 99>t 1.11 p , - 1 :/ ' p . CU 4 NE\,/ tr R{27 -' ELI --- - - -- + \ A //7 - .-1 ~ <~in-3'~ ~ ~ 5'-9"~ BRACIÂ® 1, EXI*I~JO STRUT -a + If) 1'-7" , 5'-9" - r. \ + 6 1' 8" ~ ~/~ / 7, 1 \14 4 \1\ V 7' 4" -9 11 - 1 1 k CU â€¢1- -il.- nf f /\\ 0 0 Ngw __j' EXISTING STRUT BRAPNG 1 1 - iRi= 3 ---2-r ~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ SECTION / I \\\ 4 1 1 1 i / 1 U 1 ~ ~ XISTING ST~ UT Â» \\\ lll \ / \\\ 4/ \ / \3 AT BENT 20 \|/ -UL , 1 / _0* SCALE : 1/4' = 1' SECTION SECTION AT BENTS 4 THRU 17 AT BENTS 2, 3, 18 & 19 DETAIL /63 NOTES 1 U/// SCALE : 1/4' = 1' SCALE i 1/4' = 1' 1, THESE MODIFICATIONS HAVE TO BE PERFORMED BENT BY BENT. DO NOT START ANOTHER BENT BEFORE THE PREVIOUS ONE IS FULLY COMPLETED, PROVIDE SAFETY BRACINGS AS NEEDED. COLORADO 2. PED/BIKE BRIDGE ERECTION SHALL NOT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BE PERFORMED UNTIL ALL BENTS ARE MODIFIED, PITKIN COUNTY 3, EXISTING BRACINGS SHALL BE RE-USED AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, MAROON CREEK PED,/BIKE BRIDGE 4. NEW BRACINGS SHALL BE FABRICATED IN THE SAME MANNER AS EXISTING WITH MODIFICATION OF EXISTING BENTS LOOPS AND TURNBUCKLES AND SHALL BE PAIRS OF 1 INCH SQUARE RODS IN EA, DIRECTION. DESIGNER i G. D. APE>E L T STRUCTURE ~ DETAILER : C. R. HERSEL NUMBER S DRAWING NUMBER JF DRAWINGS 1N)H UNV JAU33 lV i-< MCF-MODF.DWG - 07/13/94 MC-ALT4.DWG - 12/17/93 .. < ant - Z -2 1 0 -9788Â©1 0 -1 //,--7 7850 .. /,-Â« j /,1825 4 4-1 - Fr-J Â«j I / '4 7800 1 775 rio . r'o C. C. 7 A-T .. -0 n I -- fi) (D 0 3 - co 11 I al 00 0 O 1-U 0 0 tiffÂ»Â»/---J 0 - 3 ) < MAROON Cxlf-- ~ CREEK 0 14 0 1 > \ 1 fÂ«-44:-14-2 7780 ro ro 30>-kclaan~222--1 03 53-21- 7825 I 1 1 0Â«=124~ 7850 0 E L i 46_ - -t , rT 1 El pw a 1 1 ~Â¤~| --=-41 12'-0' O <A Â«Â« b v, F- [Tl ro ru cn I - 0 CD \ E-4 to H HZ /U {1- -- - f / \ 1 0 15'-0' ID - TYPICAL .. ---I- '.-*I -/- -zzz Â°f - \~ - / 1 0 . D 0 C] Z REVISIONS ISSUED PITKIN COUNTY MEHEEN ENGINEERING CORPORATION CD O le/ Consulting Engineers 73 EL) tII DENVER COLO. 0 MAROON CREEK BRIDGE LJ CL) p Z SCALE i AS SHOWN Ob p PEDESTRIAN / BIKE PATH DESIGNED BY , H.J,M. ALTERNATE 4 - SEPARATE BRIDGE DRAWN BY i C.R.H. DATE i DECEMBER 17, 1993 CHECKED BY i G.D.A. DATE i DECEMBER 17, 1993 A 3031SNOO G31VWI1S3 000'024$ i ftÂ« o BRIDGE 33~ ~0 t .#/I ' 31VOS = .I ' 31VOS NÂ¤I1VA333 HlAOS N0I1VA333 = .I I 31VOS NVnd ,0-,59I 7875 ' 213A01 .0-,2I X ,GI 4 X 4 X 3/16 STRUTS @ 15'-0' 4 - 6 X 6 X 1/4 LEGS 1 1 FLR. BMS. @ 15' i - 5' CONCRETE SLAB 5 X 5 X 1/4 TYP, 6 X 6 X 1/4 TYP, 'ON 133HS 1 1 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 I 5 I 6 I 7 I 8 I 9 I 10 I 11 I 12 I 13 I 14 I 15 I 16 SHEET AS CONSTRUCTED PROJECT NUMBER NUMBER GENERAL NOTES NO REVISIONS REVISED VOID ALL WORK SHALL BE DONE ACCORDING TO THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS, A SPECIAL PROVISIONS AND STAN DARD PLANS OF THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT A OF TRANSPORTATION APPLICABLE TO THE PROJECT REVISIONS STRUCTURE EXCAVATION AND BACKFILL SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH M-206-2 FOR ABUTMENTS AND PIERS. < ) EXPANSIONI JOINT MATERIAL SHALL MEET AASHTO SPECIFICATION M-213. < ~ - ALL CONCRETE FOR DECK SHALL BE CLASS D (BRIDGE). ALL CONCRETE FOR ABUTMENTS AND PIER FOUNDATION SHALL BE CLASS A (BRIDGE). INDEX OF DRAWINGS ALL REINFORCING STEEL SHALL BE GRADE 60. EPOXY COATING IS NOT REQUIRED. SUMMARY OF QUANTITIES B DRAWING NO. VISIBLE ABUTMENT AND PIER FOUNDATION CONCRETE SHALL BE GIVEN A CLASS 5, ITEM SUPER- MASONRY COATING FINISH. THE DECK SHALL BE GIVEN A FLOAT FINISH. DESCRIPTION UNIT ABUT. 1 PIER 2 PIER 3 ABUT. 4 TOTAL B-1 GENERAL INFORM. & SUMMARY OF QUANTITIES. NO. STRUCTURE B-2 GENERAL LAYOUT. THE FOLLOWING TABLE GIVES THE MINIMUM LAP SPLICE LENGTH FOR REINFORCING BARS: B-3 ENGINEERING GEOLOGY, AND FOUNDATION DETAILS. 206 STRUCTURE EXCAVATION CY 37 187 187 37 438 - B-4 INTERIOR TRUSS PLANS & ELEVATION. BAR SIZE #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 #11 206 STRUCTURE BACKFILL (CLASS 2) CY 22 90 90 22 274 B-5 PIER TRUSS PLANS & ELEVATION. B-6 TRUSS DETAILS. SPLICE LENGTH FOR 1'-3" 1'-6" 2'-0" 2'-8" 3'-6" 4'-5" 5'-7" 6'-10" 0 509 STRUCTURAL STEEL IR 245300 27800 27800 300900 B-7 END TRUSS PLANS, ELEVATION & DETAILS. CLASS A CONCRETE B-8 PIER TOWER ELEVATIONS & DETAILS. 509 CORRUGATED STEEL PANEL SF 9308 C C SPLICE LENGTH FOR 1' -3" 1'-6" 1'-10" 2'-2" 2'-10" 3'-7" 4'-7" 5'-7" 517 Fl ASTOMFRTC BEARING PAD EACH 4 - 4 i CLASS D CONCRETE 601 CONCRFTF CI ASS A (RRT DGF) CY 17 100 99 12 223 ALL STRUCTURAL STEEL SHALL BE ASTM A36 AND A501. 601 CONCRETE CLASS D (BRIDGE) CY go 90 ALL STRUCTURAL STEEL SHALL BE PAINTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 509 OF THE 602 REINFORCING STEEL LB 350 6370 6050 350 1.3170 - STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS. THE COLOR SHALL BE SELECTED BY THE ENGINEER. 613 1 1/2 INCH ELECTRICAL CONDUIT LF 700 700 ALL BOLTS SHALL BE 7/8" DIAMETER, HIGH STRENGTH, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 613 6 INCH Fl FCTRTCAI CONDl,JIT LF 1400 1400 THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE STABILTTY OF THE STRUCTURE DURING 620 SANITARY FACILITY FACH 1 D D CONSTRUCTION. 626 MOBILIZATION IS 1 THE CONTRACTOR MUST VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS IN THE FIELD PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION AND FABRICATION. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING HIS OWN DETERMINATION AS TO THE TYPE AND LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND UTILITTIES AS MAY BE NECESSARY TO AVIOD DAMAGE THERETO. E. F.= EACH FACE T. F.= TOP FACE ~.F.== FAR FACE B.F.= BOT. FACE \I.F.= NEAR FACE Â© THIS QUANTITY INCLUDES ALL PLATES, PINS, BOLTS AND ANCHOR BOLTS FOR THE BEARINGS, AS WELL AS E E EXPANSION PLATES AND PIPES FOR THE RAILING. . . . . . . . 0 CROSS REFERENCE DRAWING NUMBER - 1 - - (IF BLANK, REFERENCE IS TO SAME SHEET) .81 . e . e . e . ~~Â·~0'~ SECTION OR DETAIL IDENTIFICATION 2 4 w BRIDGE DESCRIPTION F 00 DESIGN DATA AASHTO, 15TH EDITION. G DESIGN METHOD: SERVICE LOAD DESIGN. G LIVE LOAD: 85 PSF FOR PED/BIKE BRIDGE. REINFORCED CONCRETE: CLASS A CONCRETE: f ' c = 3,000 psi fc = 1,200 psi CLASS D CONCRETE: f'c = 4,500 psi fc = 1,800 psi REINFORCING STEEL: fy = 60,000 psi fs = 24,000 psi STRUCTURAL STEEL: H H ASTM A572 GRADE 50 (AASHTO M270 GRADE 50) AND ASTM A501 fy = 50,000 psi, fs = 27,000 psi BOLTS: ASTM A490 (AASHTO M253) SLIP CRITICAL CLASS A - MEHEEN ENGINEERING CORPORATION - I PITKIN COUNTY I MAROON CREEK PED/BIKE BRIDGE GENERAL INFORMATION SUMMARY OF QUANTITIES J Designer H. JOE MEHEEN ~Structure~ 1 Detailer E. KHANI [Numbers 1 ~ Drawing Nurnber B -1 of Drawings 1 ---- 1 1 2 I 3 I 4 I 5 I 6 I 7 I 8 I 9 110 I 11 I 12 I 13 Revision Dates (Preliminary Stage Only) 1 INITIAL DATE INITIAL DATE INITIAL DATE Design Detail Quantities Designed By Quantities By MC-FGINF 05/23/1995 Checked By Checked By 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 I 5 I 6 I 7 I 8 I 9 I 10 I 11 I 12 I 13 I 14 I 15 I 16 SHEET AS CONSTRUCTED PROJECT NUMBER NUMBER NO REVISIONS REVISED VOID A M Q BRIDGE â‚¬ TRUSS & â‚¬ TRUSS & REVISIONS A PIER LEGS 0O PIER LEGS ~ 2 1 1 - 1 1 < -0 lij 0 4 > - 0 0 ME m- B B ml a. a w ' _i 9 GUARDRAILS - 1 w 0 ' 1 -, -7.-I ~ HANDRAIL- 1 , CONC.SLAB ' c\Il DOWN<| - 7 , 2 1,-efâ€¢ M~'.Â·W~,2*4*â‚¬Â·.4*640. c I *-t,y- 1 Ji TSI~2 1/2X 2 1/2X1/4(TYP.)~'43 id 21 1 00 1 -/ILAZZL \ 1 ~~.) .AX I /591\<0- 00 5 11 \ \\\\ r J# \ 1 1 1 - C-lk ' 01 Â» 00 U) i \ \ \1 < J JLill )1 51),i> 1 *1#t s oo # < D -&&--- ~ 1 12)YWJ~#p Mt' 1 1 2>~j 1~ i //j~ ~11~~ ~1< r BRIDGE 1 IN , X D _1 TO ASP~N 2 3/84 / 13' -8A 7.-0, 2 3/8.--) -1 1 Ittl_ 1 1 24\ 1 9-4\ 1 1 \]1 1 1 1 1 11 1/ ///Wl . i 41 1 1 Ct\\ 9 \.\ / 1 i A- I j\ 01-1 4 0 1 F C 06 \ .X 0 I lili m. 1 o n 1 2 9 1 41) illi I 4 0 L 1 + A 05 E \j rÂ»_~__1.14 1 - LU < 1 1 4 2 0 \ ti, 4 4 . . i l . 1 M 1 0 . 0 00 -1 e lili i - .6 HAN O 19' -0" - 20 sp~~ 30' = 600' -0" ./ 1 0. 9..1 2 In 648' -8" EXIST. ROADWAY BRIDGE o 672' -0" NEW PED./BIKE BRIDGE 14 00 F 4/ \44% id/ ,4 1%- --..-Ii L 4 k 00 0 f 7875 ~ '~~ F) C Ill -Â« X l E M W - 1 F - PLAN A - SCALE : 1 " = 50 ' _ ., A-kÂ« 1 G m Q SYM. 0, 0 0 0 END TRUSS i INTER. TRUSS PIER TRUSS i INTER. TRUSS INTER. TRUSS i PIER TRUSS i INTER. TRUSS , END TRUSS 1 iÂ« 11 d 6 - -F - - -= -I 7 7 -~ ~ ~32' 13'!-8" ~ l - _ \\NA\\N/////I//Fl/I/X~J\\NIE\\\~'/I///I//1///X\I\N\NN\NINV/////4--EL. 7880.00 AT Q BRIDGE 1 0/4 6 ABUTM. #'IL<\~ F ~-12'-0" F X--- 12'-0" 3/~ ABUTM. #4 H f 168' -0" , 36' -05< 36' -Ji< 168' -0" , 36'-0-~ 36'-07 168' -0" -- I . fil * ~ 14 PANELS @ 12'-0" <0 Q X, if, 14 PANELS @ 12' -0" 14 PANELS @ 12' 39/ 1 I Â» 3@ 12'-0.~ 3 @ 12'-0" 3 @ 12'-0~ 3 @ 12'-0" MEHEEN ENGINEERING CORPORATION - illl t T.0. CONC. PEDESTALS EL. 7779.00 206 - - L Z -1 I PIER #2 PIER #3 71 PITKIN COUNTY I 210' -0" 252' -0" 210'-0" 1- - 4 .. - 1 "4 1'0 14 1%. 1 .1 A - . 1 NA. 1- V MAROON CREEK PED/BIKE BRIDGE 0) 0 VI. ELEVATION 7 4 I GENERAL LAYOUT 5 SCALE : 1" = 50 ' o J Designer H. JOE MEHEEN ~Structure~ 5 E. KHANI ~Numbers| 2 CROSS SECTION Detailer Drawing Number B-2 of Drawings 0 % 1 1 2 1 3 | 4 ] 5 I 6 I 7 I 8 I 9 110 Ill I 12 113 Revision Dates (Preliminary Stage Only) ~ 7850 Luff 7775 7800 3 1Â¥ 0 098L 7780 CREEK Detailed Quantities By Checked y ~T]AL DATE WA.44*% -. I---tnk<=- 1 I 2 1 3 I 4 I 5 I 6 I 7 I 8 I 9 I 10 I 11 I 12 I 13 I 14 I 15 I 16 SHEET AS CONSTRUCTED PROJECT NUMBER NUMBER -1 919"1- No REVISIONS REVISED VOID C BRIDGE REVISIONS - (TYP) <> 00Â£ 1 <> A 1.-b > 5 \\\\\ 2 0 ne â€¢ CD - I..il.- lill - I-Il-------- ..il - 6Â«f- 2 b di KN Il -4-1/2" 0 A.BOLTS X1'-6" FOR 114 H 12' HIGH GLOW TOP LIGHT POLE C BRIDGE â€¢ 1 ~~ I. 2 i-- \ 4 - 0 15'-6" 15' -6" , \4 < j rffÂ¢fit: - - I 1. . 1 -1 0 O A _1 _4-1 1/4" 0 ANCHOR BOLTS ~i LU Z < (TYP) -CM CL TH-5 TH-6 TP-4 TH-3 TH-2 TE-1 TH-7 (5" THR~ADED PROJ) [7-71 1. .1 7880- 7~7 49 7%11 --- - 7880 . 1 1 4 1 LIC-1 LIZ] co b, 0 Â¢ 0- 0 0 - - - -â€¢ 0 6' -10 6'-10" 7870- 334 0 .- - 1 ?F 02'C 44 z LJ M -7870 03 Q, 2 5/8~04 tz D m 1 4 (TYP) - 01 /2 1 I 1,e= 1 7860- 29 -7860 - 8 1 9" . 6'-10" 6' -10" - 9".8" - 0 1 ' - Q> ; 1 1 -0'~ 41 -- 1 0 St m A . ED to O LO | f. 1 1 9 34% - '10.1 0 C\1 Sy, -7850 7850- 2 4411 3# 1 k.j N W 784~ 5. .a ~ EL 7879'-11" EL 7880 ~" EL 787~ 11" . 51.1/- 0 -7840 9 0 , 03 - - 2 m 0 E 2% iÂ¢ od' I ' 2-7/8" 0 A. BOLTS V (TYP) *9 EA. iIi: I % I. . ~5" THR~ED PROJ.) 6 .. i '1 + 7830- ~ -7830 bo 1 1 1 + 0 - _ _ _ EL. 7779.00 3 .Ct 3 toy h l MD 7820- -7820 9 - #4 TIES @6"(TYP) bb - 11 - Inin #4 @6" of 21 a #4 @ 18"- 7810 -7810 - ELEVATION Li 9 - - - - - . - - - -"- - - . . . - - 4 - b ,r-8-#8(TYP) ~ i O - 7800 - 7800 f - 0 , . C BRG = PANEL POINT #7 @6" #4 @ 6" 672' -0" BETWEEN ABUTMENTS - 7790- -7790 .. 2' -6" 4.8/ EA. SIDEWALL { 2-#4 +~ - SECTION /'-NI L 6"X4"Xl/2"X13'-6" WITH 3/8" 0 ANCHOR STUDS @ 12" 4-#4 X 2'-3"-7 - 4 -'9â€ž g",- - AND El/2"Xl"X13'-6" WELD TOANGLE PIER #2 & #3 7779 %0 Q\ EL 7880.00 7779 \ 05 7780- -7780 n . 0,\~!i i_ -1A-,x XXX 0-1./16 'LON;g 66-6X6 W.W.FABRIC f AT Q BRIDGE 7775 -0 ~ n :47Â· 9- ~ 9 ~wri=/co~ - , 1 ' -6" 1- le* MEHEEN ENGINEERING CORPORATION 7771 ?4 -11 4.11 #4 1 @ 1 ' -0" 11 LIJ 0 U 7770- 6* 6 At M 9 * 11-#4X16'-2" -7770 \ AO. 7760- PITKIN COUNTY 2' -6" 22 Rg 11 #4 10-/7 0 1'-0" -7760 9 1'-8" 4 MAROON CREEK PED/BIKE BRIDGE 3" CL . .1. , -" j-2' -0-,~ -t= . 6'-0" 6" , 1'-6" ENGINEERING GEOLOGY AND .'.. 7750- -7750 FOUNDATION DETAILS. SECTION Ch Designer H. JOE MEHEEN I Structurel Detailer E. KHANI |Numbers ~ 7740- -7740 ABUTMENT ~1 & ~4 of Drawings Drawing Number B-3 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 I 5 I 6 I 7 I 8 I 9 I 10 I 11 I 12 I 13 Revision Dates (Preliminary Stage Only) E# 83Id 09-,OL Â£# M3Id 1... 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 5 I 6 I 7 I 8 I 9 10 11 I 12 13 I 14 I 15 I 16 SHEET AS CONSTRUCTED PROJECT NUMBER NUMBER NO REVISIONS REVISED VOID A A REVISIONS > 1 - _ _ _7_1 / \ / \ /\- - /\ 1 1 - V V V V V V n ./ A A n A I - .I. - - - - - 1 1 AT SPLICE, WEL-[) 1 ~ l l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ - 2~ - - <~ < > -- *vAGUSSET IE. 1/2X6)(18" ' ~ \ TO TOP CHORD ~ / 1 1 .0 41 /11 / 1 . 1 . ><11 4 r \\34 i f f 1 4 1 ly 01 01 X X X X ,- \ \ / 8 -/N 1 / cy 1 / j / \ / cv \ / C\I \ / \ ~ L2><2><5/16 e .I V- l 01 \\ \ \ 01 01 B - X X 1/ N 1 1 04 1 N 1 N 1 N 1 01 \>e X X f f x x x x 'A, 11 N 40/ / \ "- 't- A \\ 4/ // N N v 1 \+ 142 4 1 42 9% 5 -9/ \ 1 \ AMP ,<49 ) .6/ 1 <4_ IN 1 42 --02 1 pr 1 J + X J N (N N \/e W . r~/ \ 7 ,- 1 7 'n 1 ,-1 9 , 6, U I Â»/ fe 0 iff ~f- iÂ« ~ 3/4 -1-1 3/4~ GUSSET 1/1 2 + 4 41, 9 H. 1 V \ e Kil Â»/ \/6, P 1 ,-1 E 5/16X5X8" /Â» \ \ / \ / \ \ / \ i \\E// i i 1 C l ~17-f 1/ .1 ./ 1/ 1/ 1/ c " - 1 / - - 21 'I - i. 7L - 1 I - - .- A ./. - - /1 ,L - - ./ V V \/ V O \ A A /\ /1 A A DETAIL /-3 - PLAN TOP K WT 9X38 DETAI L B-6 DETAIL B-6 D ETA I L 8-6 A C E 0 0 0 U) D D -<WT 9â„¢ 3 J :J - WT 9X32.5 / 1 / 1 1 C / 1 1 , /1 /1 /1 \-11 j / C./1 3 / / / \4-3 /\ //l/ 3 1 0 (D 8 25 30 / te / 1 E w w f~' st A ' \% ' I , 1 , 1 1 E 42/ 0 3 41 1 1 W r m W --03 5~0/ 4 \\ r- 00 00 Lo lf) 1 1 \ 17 \ \ b 00 00 X X 10 -0/rn 19 ti f/ X X 4 9 X X X R 4 4 4 9/ 4- Lo / g nil 1 95 x X A / 1 1 047 Ovy N i a 9/ 2 %/ 2 1 ij 1 f - 01 N Â£ CO e i -1 _1 N i 11 Â» 1.r 0 1 21 1 1 11 1 1 - N 0 / Al l CNI I \ . f."44 .N 0 % CNI 1 (N' 1 j 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 {t--Â«---------_-74___________C___7.4_____-_______iL______________+ _____________-7. --------------Â«-----------4-1-------4- ZE Â¥ F 4) 1-OffÂ« 24/0Â£ F Vt F F .C / 0 - - WT 10.5X31 - WT 10.5X41.5 _ 1 '-2" 1 ' -2" ~ 9"- 8 -. 1 '-3" (TYP.) -0-- 1 DETAIL ~ ELEVATION ~ ~ ~ WT 10.5X31 1 DETAIL B-6 DETAIL B-6 1'-3" 1 '-8" ~ B - O Â·- F 0 0 G G -A___ _ _____ _____ -1 - -1 - 111-11 81 1-1 1 - - - 11-- f 1 1 1 1 /7 W5X 1 6 LONG. -LOOR BEAM (CONT.) ON TOP OF \V5X1 6 TRANSV. 10 H H (ID 1 1 1 h 1 00 11 1 MEHEEN ENGINEERING CORPORATION -1 4 lili 1 1 0 1 1 111 1 -1 1 1 [ CD PITKIN COUNTY I I 15 - -1 -- - I - - - - <11 1 1 -- i - -- 1- - - 1- - - ~ - - - " f MAROON CREEK PED./BIKE BRIDGE _ 1'-2' 1 0 1- 1'-2" 9" - | 0 ~.1 '-3" (TYp.) 1 '-3'2~ 0 ~41'-8" (TYP.) INTERIOR TRUSS - 7 PANELS @ 12'-0" = 84'-0" - PLANS & ELEVATION J ~ Designer H. JOE MEHEEN IStructure~ PLAN BOTTOM , Detailer E. KHANI ~Numbers ~ 1 Drawing Number B-4 of Drawings 2 I 3 I 4 I 5 I 6 I 7 | 8 | 9 I 10 Ill I 12 | 13 Revision Dates (Preliminary Stage Only) x 2 ~ 2 2 ~ 54 112<2 X 2 1/2 X 1 INITIAL DATE INITIAL INITIAL DATE Designed By Detailed antities By Design Detail 05/21/1995 MC-F-TRIN Checked By C TRUSS C BRIDGE â‚¬ TRUSS SLAB |SPAN 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 I 5 I 6 I 7 I 8 I 9 I 10 I 11 I 12 I 13 I 14 I 15 I 16 SHEET AS CONSTRUCTED PROJECT NUMBER NUMBER NO REVISIONS REVISED VOID A A REVISIONS > V V V V V \/ V _ \.1/ - a. - _ 1 i_ _ - - 1-1 - ~~_ /Â·F-\ -2 n A A n .4\ l - -.. - /\ / \ \ - / 1 :- -/!\- 1 < > ~~ - L.,~GUSSET E 1 /2X6X 18" ~ ~ AT SPLICE, WELD 1 i \ 1 1 / 1 1 \ / \ At- 1 *\ \ |\ \TO TOP CHORD / Â·11 1 \<4 r- r- 21' 21' 21' 11 1.1 31 'r' r. ri =4 r. 01 01 B x X X x x x x x 1/ B 1 e MN N \/ m \/ \ \ \ N N \ \ N \ / N \ / N \ / 0,1 \ / N tv Nxi X-X-X- r kr fâ€žm X X 04 1 N 1 MI N 1 041 01 1 N XX X X X X X \\ f N 01 \ 40 / , â‚¬ .04% ell: I \ 43-- tt .9,/ \ 41% \ ke / \ cv (N / Chi \\ r -102 r. bl~~ \00 Oil CN - /731 - 4&1:'. Ne - .0/ A-*2 \ 1 \ .0/ 01 N '92/ \ Â» N 127 \L N Â»N Â» (4 1- E \ 2 0.92/ \4 0 -0/ 3 2 -L \ 96, 21 â‚¬ i (f) -ty 11 Jl 4 -. Â» 3/14~ 1 E-V \'/ lu # 1 V. V U E- 1 V/ i v K E V/ \ 6, N I 1-~1,1 C \ / \ i \ / \ / \ / \ / \ i \\1// 1 C L XI, / \ - - -\ 1 - - , 1 - - 4/ 1/ 7 -/ / -\ \ 21\L // / v v v v v v v A /\ /1 /\ - PLAN TOP. D ETAI L /4 D ETAI L 0 DETAIL / B-6 1 DETAIL /B-6 j DETAIL <B-6 ~ DETAIL <B-6 1 DETAIL B-8 /SIMILAR ~g,j /(OPPC)S.)43-.7 .(OPPOS.) ~3 / (OPPOS.) ~E~ 9-4 SIMILAR D l .WT 9X32.5 - l fij ( 41 4 C 4 + j /1 439 vi _ 41/ 1-A A-A (-A C/1/ \/ C / \ i \ \\ -- WT 9X38 f / 4 4 1 0 O CD J.C 00 1 E WT 9X38 00 , 00 / 00 | / 00 i / 00 \ / 00 00 1 \21, 00 1 4, E 00 00 \1\ i \ \.-I. \ - \4- \ \ \54 .,4 ro rl Â® / L,,L 93 v#K YE* O 4 \0 / A A ro x x X XXX 1' 1 (0 4 9/ 4 1- 4 4- rt * X X A . 0 1- t- 19 44 x be/. M le co to 8 0 2<'/ 7 2<~~ 7 j~> /4, i NOct_ to X \ 0 0 16 X X -1 -1 O 0 -1 . i 2 _1 -\ 0 ct w V N~ N N ~ A i . 1 1 1 , Cll -1- 1 1 1-\ 0111 N X (D 0 0/ 0 If 0 0 0 0 Â¥/ Nl 1 / \ \ \ 03% Â«11 4 1 K-E--3 #*NX / F 00 1'-4 (r ) C 1 ) f N (SPACING SEE PLAN) ~~~ \ILA 1 - k \CAW / WT 10.5X41.5 < WT 10.5X31 1 1 \ 1'-3" 1'-8" \UL/\\ 1// \\\ C-0- Wl- 10.5X31 DETAIL ~ 1 DETAIL B-6 DETAIL B-6 \ DETAIL gB-63 DETAILgB-6%t 1 DETAIL /B-Al 1 1 SIMILARKE-,Â·j (OPPOS.)41.7 (OPPOS.)43...f (OPPOS.)43-0/7 SIMILAR G ELEVATION G L' 1 1 1 1 1 1 , G.1 4 -- A 9 ---------------- - 11 -- 1 - - B -4 .1 -9 a -- 1 1 1 010 010 1 - (1 1 - W 5X16 LONG. -LOOR BEAM (CONT.) ON TOP OF 95X16 (TRANSV.) | 9 11 11 " 7 7 (D H H (D 1 1 ~A l 1 1 1 1 1 1 , 11 1 1 9 4 .1 - CO b MEHEEN ENGINEERING CORPORATION 1 ' i ' 13-' - 1 44 " 1, PITKIN COUNTY D I I 1 1 -- U - - - I - J - - - - - - - -1 -- 22 1~ ~14 9. 1 1 f i i I MAROON CREEK PED./BIKE BRIDGE 1'-3" | 1'-8" 9"~ ~ ~ 1'-4" 9"- 1'-4" 9"~~ 1' ~" 1'-4" .~ 0 ~. . = 1'-4" ==~ ~ -w, 9" 1 '-8" 0 ~1 '-3 111 1 - PIER TRUSS - 7 PANELS @ 12'-0" = 84'-0" - PLANS & ELEVATION J . PLAN BOTTOM Designer H. JOE MEHEEN ~Structurel Detailer E. KHANI |Numbers| Drawing Number B-5 of Drawings 2 I 3 I 4 I 5 I 6 I 7 I 8 I 9 I 10 I 11 I 12 I 13 Revision Dates (Preliminary Stage Only) INITIAL DATE INITIAL DATE INITIAL DATE Design Quantities Designed By etailed ntities By 05/21/1995 MC-FTRPR Checked Q. BRIDGE TRUSS 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 I 5 I 6 I 7 I 8 I 9 I 10 I 11 I 12 I 13 I 14 I 15 I 16 SHEET AS CONSTRUCTED PROJECT NUMBER NUMBER NO REVISIONS REVISED VOID â‚¬ SPLICE A to i A REVISIONS > -=h .....*..... 1-4~ > - 2'4 ,02" SPLICE E 1"X10"X5'-2" ~ - 10 SPA. @ 2 3/~)c(.10 SPA.@2 3/2 = 2'-3 1/2 = 2'-3 1/2 5/16 I\ 8 8 5/16 F 6 ~ 5/16 F 5 B â‚¬ BEARING 9 TRUSS 1/4 A 6 Q EXPANSION JOINT 5/16 I\ 9 1/4 010 ~ Q PANEL POINT 5/16 k 8 ~ 5/16 |/ 11 \ \\< 1/4~ I Ce 1/2 5/16 2 11 5/16 I\ 8 \ 5/16 6 OTHER SIDE OR 5. 5/16 / 6 '11111111111jlllIJ'111111' -12- 5/16 1/ 11 \ 5/169 6 ~ 5/16 10 <OF STEM 9 = 4 4- 1 V 1 C * . i. : WT 9X38 WT 9X32.5 ~ WT 9X32.5 ~ C ..... dib 3-- WT 9X38 - ~ WT 9X38 ,. i WT 9X38 4 1 ~ 7~ 1 //1 1 1/4 A 7 1/ 2-L4X4X3/8 \ 9\ . - L4X4X3/8 I \\07- 1/4~ 7 1/2 ~ 0 ~/4 F 5 \ 4\ 1/4/ 7 1/2 < OR 2-L3XJ)<3/8 \ 5/16 h 8 5/16/ 8 1 0 + 2-L.2 1/2)(2 1/2)<5/16 x4 1-Ulat-1/8- // ~ 5/16 N 8 <TYp, 0- w 0 0 OR \\\\ 1- 0, 5/16 F 6 // 1 7 1 \ f // 1 2-L6X4X3/8 1 0 ~\tx | ~0- 2-L4X3X5/16 ~\ 57.., 5/16 h 8 0 1 D , 4<12" 1 OR 2-L5XJ)<3/8 7â€ž PI~ 2-L5XJX3/8 - \42 5/160 8 -2-L6X4)<3/8 ~- Ed . CH- . 0 OP 0 = Al / 1.L-- Ne -1- / tc \J 2-L 5X3X5/16 2-L 5X3X5/16 -7 NLP/ 74 Z 2"-| | 4" mf" 1 1/4-;>0 ~92 3/4" 3 1/4"-i \ f<4 - 1 CO OR 1 3/42b <23 1/4" 1 1/2"~2,1-1 1/2" 1 DETAIL <B-5~ DETAIL Â© G DETAIL ~ DETAIL ~ I [1[4 0 0 0 0 0 0 -* SPACER E 7/1 6X2"X4" I -J- AT MID-HEIGHT (TYP.) 1 Q. PANEL POINT F ~ 3 1/4'~ o<Q3 1/2" e . 4, 1 2 2 1 1 .7.. 1<2 7 /- 1/4 4 6 ' 2" /2~Â° cQ4" 9.94 ~F @ l 1/4 ~10 \ 75<2 le 2-L5X3X3/8----'- '| ~-2-L6X4X3/8 4# -4 3L F 6 i yk ~ 5/16 ~ 8 1 1 - 1 ORI 5/16~ 8 ,15 -1 4.- I - 2-L6X4)<3/8 ~t ~21. 2-L2 1/2X2 1/2X5/16 &4 ~~ 1/4 A 5 ~5/16 |/ 11 ~2-L2 1/2X2 1/2X5/16 />/\ 1/4 /7 ~ 1 5/16~_ _ OR 2-L3X3X3/8" / 742-L2 1/2X2 1/2X5/16 .I* 2-L4X4X3/8 5/16 N 9 \_4~(4)(3/8 ill I 5/16 ~ A TYP.J 5/16 ~ 8 1 I 5/16 |~ 9 1 *81 5# 00/ OR 5/16 28 1 , lill / 5/16 9 6 1 ~/ ~ 1 TYÂ¢44> 1. 04 ~ 1 ~ ~ // 1 0 /0/ G 4-__-- h ck 2 ---------- -7-F-&--1&7-i- --T- 1 il_ Ij/7 ~-~10,5><31 N WT 105X41 G f--%- --1----Lit 1 -0 N 9-0 , d I I Ill i.l jr~2-fl 271 4 1112\ 1 \ 1 1 V I fi \ I "I '31 2 CD 1 2 al) Â£ 1/4.h7 1/2"~ / WT 10.5X31 -U- W 10X49 /' ~ 1 1 / 00 - WT 10.5X31 ~ ~ 1/4/7 1/2"1 1'-2" 4 5" 3- I / 1 1- 1 - ..r 1 /121. 1'-2" 9" WT 10.5X31 N 5/16 I//4 .,,~ 1 -4' _ ~ 1'-3 , <-42 3/41...~~ 5/1 6 A 6 -- . " 1 \ 1 " - 4"8" I 1'-0" ~~ /,- , \ 5/16 |/' 10 WbX16 TRANSV. (TYP.) W5X16 LONG(TYP.) - 1 12'-0" == < 12'-0" ~~. H SPLICE E 1"X10"X5'-6 1/2 - ~~1/2 h12 / H | (AT SPLICE PROVIDE HOLES ~<1'-3,1,2 i 1'-8" ~~ 5/16 |/ 5 MADE FROM E 2"X5 1/2"X5 5/8" FOR SPLICE BOLTS) W10 TO CHORD - - 12'-0" ~. , 12'-0 - .... */2 0 12 ~ DETAIL ~ DETAIL ~ 2 1/8" 2 1/8" 1 SPA. @ 2 3/4 5"~I< 5" 9 SPA. @ 2 3/2 5/16 V 6 DETAIL Â© DETAIL Â© _ 000 ~ = 2'-0 3/4 = 2'-0 3/4 MEHEEN ENGINEERING CORPORATION TYPICAL PANEL POINTS (AS SHOWN OR OPPOSITE) . â‚¬ 11" PITKIN COUNTY 1-612]j A 2 1/2"Xg"X 13'-6" WITH 3/8" 0 J_=-tz=333*fâ‚¬92233*ittee_____1> <c' E 1/2"XE"X13'-6" WITH 3/8" 0 ANCHOR STUDS @ 12' -2""12"| ANCHOR STUDS @ 12' 71 IT 7 / MAROON CREEK PED/BIKE BRIDGE Â¢ AND le 1/2"Xl"X13'-6" WELD TO TOP - f 1 I 1 W 5X 16 05 TRUSS DETAILS 12'-0" 12'-0" ' 1 1 03 -- -- -- W 5X 16 --'- el J 4 Designer H. JOE MEHEEN ~Structure~ SECTION AT DETAIL F AND Q BRIDGE C Detailer E. KHANI jhumbers L Drawing Number B-6 of Drawings 2 I 3 I 4 I 5 I 6 I 7 I 8 I 9 I 10 I 11 I 12 I 13 Revision Dates (Preliminary Stage Only) 8-94 * TRUSS Q TRUSS 05/21/1995 MC-FTRDE Checked By GDA 4-95 Detailed Quantities By EK L DATE INITIAL DATE Detail 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 I 5 I 6 I 7 I 8 l g I 10 I 11 I 12 I 13 I 14 I 15 I 16 FEDERAL ROAD SHEET AS CONSTRUCTED DIVISION PROJECT NUMBER REGION NO. NUMBER NO REVISIONS REVISED VOID = COLORADO A A REVISIONS > 4/ 11 > - ~ tri ~ ef/*1 1 <1 1 4- 1 B Q Y>e <f- 3 ' 1- f >' 1 Q BEARING & PANEL POINT B 1 70 x 1 3/4 " 3 1/4" N - N \ 1" : 1 - it- f -1"=,- 11-- 5/16 AB 01 N 5/16 h 6 X N 5/16 0 8~ ~5/16 El 1 OIl C\11 N - WT-9X38 <3 CN C\11 04 :\ = 2 1 / 1 2-L3X3X3/8 C r| ~ ~DETAIL 0 41/ 4 2-L5X3)<3/8 - C l \/ -1 1 - / ~ /j .v ,, PLAN TOP / 102 DETAIL ~ -Â»- D 43//// D D ETAI L rÂ« DETAIL ~~ - /(oppos.) ~ -WT 9X38 01 - \ 1 Â£ \ 1 <C LU Efl 16 .I6"- E <C 00 1 3/~*2 1/f' M 1 0 0 0 XI X A l Po P 0 XI LO I to 0 1 21 - 4 1 L 1 9 1 W Z W~m ~ ~~<4~ Cy 1 0 . ----3 . 0 1 . . z E F - -Ill- 51 ELASTOMERIC F~Ef _9,~_9,~ 1 "X8X8 LWT'I 0.5X31 Â£\ 1 + 1 1 -:43 8" (OPPOS.) Z 0 0 1 "X12X12 ~ F/l -WT 10.5X31 MASONRY PAd ~WS<16 (LONA) - 1 \\ FLOOR BEAMS ~W5X 1 6 (TRANSV) -1 ~ DETAIL rÂ« \ DETAIL ~ (oppos.) ~j ELEVATION G F / DETAIL r--3 11- . - : 1- - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 W5X16 LONG FLOOR BEAM (CONT) L6X4X1/2 WITH 3/8" 0 ANCHOR STUDS @ 12" H ~//AND E 1/2"Xl"X15'-0" WELD TO NGLE. H 11 -- 1- 1 <-C ON TOP OF W5X16 TRANSV. 0 r- 1 61 1/2"X9"X13'-6" WITH 3/8" 0 ANCHOR STUDS @ 12" 1 - CIO - 9/ - 01 11 - - 9 - 1 ~~~*,3~' f MEHEEN ENGINEERING CORPORATION - A 4 O . d. 1 . 51 to O 1 1 Â¥ - 4 4 Â· I ' 1 44 W5X1 6 TBANSV. FLOOR 0 Â· 4 -4 d 4 - BEAM (TYP) 1 PITKIN COUNTY I 4 -4 - .4 4 4. 4 a 4 . 4 4 .. .1 6 , , 4 44 8 1 ' -2/71 9.-- 1 ' 619 09,1 -fIYP) MAROON CREEK PED/BIKE BRIDGE END TRUSS 7 PANELS @ 12' -0" = 84' -0" PLANS, ELEVATION & DETAILS - Ir J SECTION r--3 Designer H. JOE MEHEEN ~Structurel PLAN BOTTO M Detailer E. KHANI L Numbers I Drawing Number B-7 of Drawings 1 | 2 I 3 I 4 I 5 I 6 I 7 I 8 I 9 I 10 I 11 I 12 I 13 Revision Dates (Preliminary Stage Only) INITIAL DATE INITIAL DATE INITIAL DATE Detail Quantities INTERIOR TRUSS Checked By Checked y Chec ed By Design Designed By Quan~i ies By Det led C TRUSS Q TRUSS MC-FTREN 07/09/1995 A 1 1 2 1 3 I 4 I 5 I 6 I 7 1 8 I 9 I 10 I 11 I 12 I 13 1 14 I 15 1 16 SHEET AS CONSTRUCTED PROJECT NUMBER NUMBER Q TRUSS & C BRIDGE 9 TRUSS & NO REVISIONS REVISED VOID PIER LEGS PIER LEGS _~~ 1 ~ WT 9X32.5 A A .1 - 1 1 lii ' REVISIONS 1- L -OR ./. 1 , <> 1 - 1 / 8/ < > / 0 - -,- GUA~GRAILS & HANERAILS | ~ ,2 6-1 1/2"\0 STD. PrPE (CONT.) 1 J - WELD Tb\VEF}T.' BRACES ~ . 4 4 .'I 7 .~ 1 l.1 - C| ,1 18 B a. 4- 2 3 GUARDRAILS- . 1 + I Or - 1 W (/0 C \ 1 k ~ HANDRAIL---6 i / '~ i DETAIL ~~ 7 . -4- -- 2-L6X4X3/8 ' 69 1 , 4 9-1 . /\/ TRUSS MEMBERS - CONCI SLAB , \ J (11 , Â¥ 1 1 / m ' 4 Â· 1. - . ?. co 1 / < ~ Â» 12-9.F-4-Â·34;Â·11#1:Â·r=.1;rÂ«.9--*4.-1.:t f-9- 1,4.17''Pâ€¢-9 7*v +4 twiVE+Â·t--hNâ‚¬-mÂ·9--4 Pf h h /\ 1 \ (~3sd- --i-aa i-ya -2 -1-2-2- i-,ity-*pjuGÂ» 3 -- 1 1 1~:Ill 1 â€ž â€¢ co 4 - 10 . *... 1 \ ' c C Wj j WT 10.5X41.5 ~#7-1- 1 :2\1 44\- 1 N - / i 2-LGX4)(3/8' - 6 0 \~I ~DETAIL ~ 61 1 1 1 Ni /0 3 0 1 TRUSS MEMBERS 11 ELI 4 21 F- 6 1 Â»* Ni W d 1 00 1\ 1 33 lu ki . A E- -- NOMINAL 4' COMPOSITE CONCRETE STEEL DECK _ 1 r. USING VULCRAFT 2,0 VL1-22 WITH i i <N&*0/ 9 ig ~' ~ ~~Fi ~, 6X6-Wl,Â·4XW1.4 W.W. FABRIC N. /.1 N. E MAg e - ,/1 - X hi (11 33 1 /97 '13* U 1 1 I 48â€¢lf 2 3/831 2 3/8- 1 2 3/8' | 2 3/8' FLOOR BEAMS ,0012'-0, 1 m k \ 1 1/\ -1 - . 4 f .&41.-42 . 1--4,-h f D -1-3Â·Â·21. .11,- 12-Â·. 34+49.~ 4. -Â·2424 1.1- 09 -=t-,>i:_,~ IiI 2134 -24 1 -4 41 W5X16 LONG, -â€¢ .1 u,A' 436 X\\\ 4 . i-\\ WT 10.5X41.5 1 )_ELSLAB TO REST = W5X16 TRANSV, '9 ON WT STEM q i ~ l AS . i/A 14 0 9 11 -\ fil - 1%4. y 1 /0 1 - /0 1 1 px 4 i -__u-._.__..=- m I. \ 2 2')<5 1/2X5 5/80-----~+ 7--- 4-1 1 WT10,5X41,5 \ 2-P IX5 1/2X5 5/8' --it'-1.--0 1 ~ -/ 1 F. 11 20' 1 U) ' 1. 1 1 2 1/8' 0 PIN -12J- 1---:1 ~ 1/ w E E 1X9 1/2X9 1/2' - - --- - - - - - - -- - - - ) - -----2--~--~~64_ 4; Ill 1"X9 1/2X9 1/2 7 1: 4 d i 1 20 (9 1 y/ E < 7 1 ' HOR I 2-TRUT TS 2 1/X2 1/2X1/4' - \3\ ~~L ,/- L 2 1/2X2 1/2X~ 6 L 2 1/2X2 *X5/16-~34 â€¢ â€¢ lit , - 2 3/8% 1 \OL Â£ 2 1/2X2 1/2X1/4 O (U ,/41 Di 3/4' ~L 0 - //0 1 (3 - \34~ o ~~3/4~ :, 3/4' (111 o c BXBX ~3 L -~i 03 0 2 N*x 501- - - - . Mth 1 . 4--- 5 5/8' Nx â€¢ 1 e C 5 5/8" - - ->N -2 1/2X2 t/2X5/16 F F -2 DETAIL rh 0, 1 L8X8X7/8' '0<5, ON OPPOSIT SIDES /* COLUMNS '4 4 R OF TUB I NG /y -2-_ -j- DETAIL rh ill 01 4,7 - 2 1/2 X 2 1/2' X 1/4 lll m . M 1 71 3: y 1 2 3,/82 ~~~ .5 5/8' 31 /1 - HORIZ, STRUT (TYP,) ' /1 ,%%>~ .5/ r~~i ..4. C 1 1 3 1 /yip, 1 , L2 1/2X2 1/2X5/16 A4\ ~| --5 5/8' 1 '.:4. m -1/ U 1 1/ Itil /1 .-2 3/8# G G 6 94,Â¢00, 1 M i:I I 2 178 X 2 1/2'Xl/4 A 1* 14\ f 'i , 1' 47 1 I 11 1 01 f /7 /1 1- 71 ,-' -3*k. /7 13'- CU ~~ ~~ 4% T =2 E. 1 1 X 10 X 10 ~ //// HORIZ. STRUT (TYP,) 1 M 2/ 8' ~~~~U/12_w Il-2 2 1 X 10 X 10 -d -7 - - - -- - --- - -- f _-_.j-IT __1- 1 - M - i 49 -' 7 r . 1 I 1 1 xi-/ 1 4 -1---- I .....j...zi~~~ 2-27/8 X 6 X 61/8 _ 0 -fc t- 2 5/8' f PIN 1 1 \% 1 A kry' A W V V.-1 r-4 wl IZE--Tala- TOWER PLAN 41 2 1 X 14 X 14 , I 2 2 1 1/2 X6 X6 1/8 BASE PLATE , | J /1 AT BASE, TOP & MIDHEIGHT ; FF-----------71 Ntt i ~' 0 2 1 X 14 X 14 H y 1 1 /~~ ~ BASE PLATE H ~0' MASONRY PAD 16X16 - ~ 1 1/4' ANCH BOLTS -~--1 - 1 ~ 9;' 6-5' ~ 5' Â£ 1 1 1/4' ANCH BOLTS MEHEEN ENGINEERING CORPORATION 'A LEEEB fli 1 / m 1 1 8 1/ 1 1 2 5,~ 1 1 PITKIN COUNTY 1 b 6 1/ 1 T, O, CONC. PEDESTAL ~ -0-----------I~-9 J/- ELI 7779,00 J&' MAROON CREEK PED/BIKE BRIDGE Ln DETAIL rh DETAIL rh PER TOWERS ~2 & ~3 - \ DETAIL (<<--'j U// U// -4 1 01 ELEVATIONS & DETAIS S & N ELEVATION ~ Designer H. JOE MEHEEN ~Structure~ W & E SECTIONAL ELEVATION ~ Detailer E. KHANI ~Numbers ~ ~ Drawing Number 8-8 of Drawin gs r 1 | 2 I 3 I 4 I 5 I 6 I 7 I 8 I 9 I 10 I 11 I 12 I 13 Revision Dates (Preliminary Stage Only) -- 7880.0 E BRIDGE 12'-8 3/4' SUMOHO 1AO 01 lnE] .0-,#I 1/8 8 L8X8X7/8 (TYP,) 39GIME 3 INITIAL DATE DAT INITIAL DATE Quantities Designed By Detailed Quantities By MC-FPRTW 01/06/199 Checked By Checked Checked By