HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20100405ASPEN CITY COUNCIL
WORK SESSION
MONDAY, APRIL 5, 2010
5:00 PM
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
I. Burlingame Work Schedule
II. West End Traffic Mitigation Plan
III. Entrance to Aspen Ballot Questions
Ina Cm' ar Asrex
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Chris Everson -Affordable Housing Project Manager
THRU: Barry Crook -Assistant City Manager and
Scott Miller -Capital Asset Duector
DATE OF MEMO: April 2, 2010
MEETING DATE: April 5, 2010
RE: Schedule Update for Burlingame Phase II IPD Design Effort
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Update only
DISCUSSION: The Burlingame Phase II IPD design team has been assembled and has begun its
work on the Conceptualization Phase of the Burlingame Phase II design. City staff members
from numerous departments have already provided input to the team, and the team has already
begun to develop a substantial understanding of the goals and objectives for Burlingame Phase II
for both the City of Aspen as well as the entire Aspen / Pitkin County community.
The IPD team has worked together to establish the attached schedule and is prepazed to deliver
the detailed design and GMP by mid-August 2010, afrer a considerable amount of public
outreach and feedback regazding the design. Although Council has indicated that they may be
inclined to table a public vote on bond funding untIl May 2011, the delivery of the detailed
design and GMP by mid-August would nonetheless provide Council with additional information
with which to make that decision.
The attached exhibit illustrates the IPD team's schedule commitment as well as a description of a
number of key City Council design-related decisions that will be needed in May 2010 in order to
keep the design moving forward.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A -Schedule Update
Page t of 1
C i Q
.N
~ Q
O ~ C ~ of
= O
~ ~ H ~c~ E via
u. ~C m ~
~ ~ O O ~' ~ O
.. O ~ E CZ. L
.~ m v E N a o ~'
~ .C Q V i ~ ~ V
N ~ y ~O,, ~
~ ~
~ N O t
O V1 ,~ ++ ~
~ W ~ y o. .~~ s vs
w N V ~
V ,Q ~ t3~ d to 7
m ~ C d Q~ N
L. ~ V 3 ~ D1(/~ ~ d ~
G~ ~ N N "CCC 'v cL
~_ ~ '- ~ ~ ~ W d C ~ ~
._
t0 ~ C Q ~ ~ C d
d ~ O
Q. ~~+' ~ ~ d 0 .. "O .y N
. C U ~, ~ a~ ~ `_a ~ `~ c~a o
~ ~ ~ o ~ a c ,~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~
„~ a ~
C ~, t .~' Li. ~ t ,~,,
^- .!C C
~'~-~' ~ .C ~ ~ O v~~ dpi Q~Q ''+~- O ~
V 00 h- V1 u. tL ~ ~[ O Q O ~
c~
~ '~
v
0
n
a~
m
a.
w
^~
LL
W
J
w
U
Q
m
w
0
N
a°
d
3
'a
L
u
t
u
^m
W
L
a
c
WI
.~
0
O
a
N
f0
L
a
G!
f0
L
O
lO.1
~
~'~ {~
~+'
~
;
;~
i
~
'~+ A
ti /
T'
'~ ,k
~ 7
N
~ ~jpj
pip ,ftG'
~,;
3'
~
i( J
~ ~
4 y
i
'4$
' ~
~'Sy1 }
1~+ ~
4
. ~ y
§V~ F
O _
I ' q ~ ~ ~f. :S .~
~ i ~ ~ a! ~ Fd
~
I
N
y U
k
$
S
~ .)
v G
s ri
~-
~%
<
c
'
,3 f
k
t ao ~
N 4
yO~r 5 . ~~4 •,i( ` ~ ~ Z ~ 1 F A~ 3~ 21 R ~ ' G
'~7 ~ ~
~i
~; ~
~ ~
~ P
K
2i Q f'
~ >, 't. ~ ~ 'h
2 ~+ ~S
,~. ~ ~ ~ If ~ :~ ~ ~ N
N ~ 5~ ~ " ~ e :` ~
d ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ a l y ,
,t
~' a F Y' ~ 57 ~ ~ ~ ~;
a d4 ~ x
VI..
y.
~
hQ
~
~ (y
tits )
.>
`~
N
' (r
m 1
•
,
~
,
N
y
1~
I+
Y
s*
MV k
F'
p
V h
ry
d is
.
~~ c
::
w
~
~
{:
' ~ ~
'~
1] {
~
~ ~
?
'K '
.~.
M F
~ ~~ N' ~ z g~g 4 R~ ~ } 4 m Q Ji ~ i
Y ~ ., ti t a'~
1<
~
k r
~
~
p ' t ~ + y 6 ~ ~ ~ pp
~ : £
~ ~ ,~ ~ r ~ ~~~h
~ '. , ~~
~
~ ~~
rt~
~
~ ~
ti i ~! ~
O
'
y
g
~ 3
7
~
~'
~
~
'
i
H
t
c '
, ~~
i
~ . '
~,
3
~ ~
j~
< ~i
~ ~fr :a
~
., .
~
,wp S
a ~
~ i
~
ti ~
.'.
'
,
b
,: £
~
i.
~ i.
~_r~ ~~~ h
k.
F ~ ~ ..~.
c 4 , ~3 q ~ ., g ~ ., t ~ ) s ~ r~ s y
N ~ 6 ti ~ ~ ~
N
~ a
,
y.
HIN'
l
a
~
~
a
~
1 ~
~~' ~
~
', r
~ ~,
°
'y
a
Q /
51kx
YF~
F ~-~ ~
.!~ e;-
Y y~
i F ~;
a.
~~.
4 E
a
~ a a i
~t
~~ ~
~ '~
°.~ ~
7 g
g
j r
~ C
d
~ f
1~
C~ ~ g~~
N
N N N - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
N ti <
-1 V ~ ~ J y t, < p l
y r ~y ~p
N
C
'e~
N
~
3Y +~
~ ~
S
~ o
~
i '°
C
x ~
~
~ ~
~ .~ ~'
~ ~
c
h m
'o
~ "~
j~q
i v
?i
~ N
u r
~ 4
'~ 1
t S
~ ~
~
a G
S
3 C
? E
a -
' ~ ~ .`
o
S m
a
y
r ro
~
4 ~
~
l`F E
O
~
0. ~
1~C
,~
q
c
a >
~ m
N
a
p ?
•~
N ~
~ F
~ .'
, O
- N
~ N
~ ~
3 ~
y ~
+ 3
y ~ C
_
o ~ m
C C A 3.
~ [ u c
~ ~
~ ~~
~ ~
~ ~
C •N°
G ,~~
i w
O hit
fI
~ ~e
N .~
g5 ~ ~
~ '~ .
.~ 0
~ 1.
1, ~
~ ~ -
m o ~
•A ~
m M g a /o.
N W ~ Q
~
~ a
a Y
~w
~ m
c
s
~
(
E
a
at
E
~
m
Y
i1
~ E
E
o
1,
f m
~
LL 5'
n 4
g m
5
o .
'
~ ~ ~ a
t ~
i
1, N '7
a
p u
~
a 'N r
a
p [ p
y
>
~ o«
a 2 a
2,
y s ~
'!
.rO.
e71 }
p
~'
~
N
p
~
N
'
~
O
•~
1
!~
3
~
Y
O
~
„..
i!
~
~
N
Y
S
a m
' ,~
~ CO
{ ~
x
~
~
o
~
~
N
a 4
~
a
N
y
N N N
m~ w~ o y
N Q
d
V
y
A
v
=
C '
.'
~ 7
o
~
9
t
•3
C
a
a
C
c
•N Jg~,
R a
~
O
~ a
C
~
~
!•` N
Y
o
3 'n
~
~?
a
U
~
~ x
~ ~
o
~ d
j' C
~
d H ~
O
_
~
*~
; .~.
C
a
0 y~
Y
o
3
~
a
o
3 N N « N
Y Y ~ ~
0 0 0
3
3 3
a N
~
0
3
Q •y ~ d O ~ o
,~• ~ Y 'y w
O •Y ~ _
'U 1 ~ Y .
V ~ Y Y ~
~ Y _
p
<U U y Q Y 5
5 •U
-` E ~ 3 u° u : u E r
d g E u° E u u° u° ~ u° u F
y
d
C u
.?•'• ~
U O
= a
yam„
VI N
O
V O
U
~ O
.T.
~ t.
V
~ m
~
6
'T Z
U ,
y T+'
U
8 G
U Q
O
~ _ am,
,. H O
U ~ t
' Z
U
~ ~
V1 Z
U 2:• Z C T+<
U U LL U _Z+
U
jG
N
N
M 5
Y~
a +
Y.I
Y1 ~¢
'b,
tD
~
1~
~
W
',+~
Of E, ' O
~y N-
,y - N
, eel '. M
N
~ a
~-1 N
e9
, tp
'1 1~
r1 00 N O N
ei e9 N N N
N
V
O
M
N
O)
fiJ
EXHIBIT A -SCHEDULE UPDATE
City Council Design Decisions for Burlingame Ranch Phase II
The IPD Team will make recommendations for these items on 5/4/2010 and will ask
Council to make decisions so that the design process may continue moving forward.
1) Environmental Sustainability
The Burlingame Phase I buildings were built to Building America standards and have demonstrated approximately
s0% energy savings versus traditional construction. The City has expressed a commitment to meet the energy savings
benchmark that was established in Phase I as well as to the utilization of healthy, durable, sustainable materials that
can reduce maintenance, waste and GHGgeneration -while also being sensitive to project cost impacts.
If the IPD team finds that the marginal cost increase to obtain a LEED (or other) certification for Burlingame Phase II
can be offset by other factors or is within a reasonable range, the recommendation may include LEED certification -
otherwise the recommendation may be designed only to meet the goals stated above.
The IPD team is exploring opportunities to meet the above stated goals in the most appropriate way for Burlingame
Phase II and intends to deliver a recommendation to City Council on May 4, 2010. Aspen City Council will be asked to
make a decision based on the information provided in the recommendation.
2) Construction Methodology: Stick-framed, modular or panelized construction
In designing Burlingame Phase II, the IPD team is focusing on creating high quality, high-performing buildings while
balancing cost considerations, risk factors, schedule impacts and neighborhood impacts. In addition, the community
has expressed a concern about opportunities for the utilization of local labor.
The IPD team has begun an analysis that considers all of these factors and more, and will make a recommendation to
City Council on May 4, 2010. Aspen City Council will be asked to make a decision based on the information provided
in the recommendation.
3) ADA Visitability
The current Phase II conceptual plans provide the opportunity for approximately 60% ADA Visitability. This is a
change from Phase I which provides 100% ADA Visitability.
The IPD team is creating an analysis of the cost to reach the 60% level and what would be the impacts of attempting
to increase ADA Visitability to 100% in Phase 11. In addition, the IPD team will also provide an analysis of opportunities
to create a program that could allow buildings to be retrofitted to provide contingency access toupper-level units if
necessary in the future. The analysis will also consider what other communities are typically providing.
The IPD Team will present an analysis and recommendation to City Council on 5/4/2010 and will askfor a decision
based on the information provided.
4) Unit Categories
As the cost model for the design moves forward throughout the IPD effort, it will become important to gain an
understanding of what the unit subsidies will be.
The IPD team will utilize data on income distribution among Pitkin County workers as well as a two year history of
APCHA tottery data to make a recommendation on a distribution of unit categories for Burlingame Phase II.
Aspen City Council4/5/2010 Page 4 of 4
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John Krueger, Lynn Rumbaugh -Transportation
Richard Pryor- Police
Tricia Aragon and Tyler Christoff -Engineering
Jerry Nye -Streets
Jim True -City Attorney
Blake Fitch -Parking
RE: West End Traffic Issues
DATE: April 2, 2010
MEETING DATE: April 5, 2010
SUMMARY AND REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL
As a follow up to a February work session, staff is returning to Council with further information
on a number of measures that could be implemented with the intent of reducing cut through
traffic in the West End neighborhood. Staff is requesting final Council direction and budget
approval to proceed with these measures.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION
• In 2005 and 2006, a variety of measures were put in place to improve traffic flow and
transit competitiveness as part of the S-Curves Task Force project. These include the
construction of the Main Street bus lane, the installation of closures at Bleeker, Hallam
and the alley in between, and the seasonal closure of North 7`h Street from 3-6pm. This
process included a No Left Turn restriction from Cemetery Lane onto Hwy 82 during
peak morning and afternoon traffic periods (7-loam and 3-6pm).
1
• In June 2009, Council approved a peak summer no left turn restriction on Power Plant
Road. This experiment was cancelled prior to implementation due to traffic decreases
during the recession and construction projects planned on Power Plant.
• In Februazy 2010, Council directed staff to further develop several ideas for reducing
traffic in the West End neighborhoods for possible summer implementation. Amatrix of
these measures including their estimated costs is included as Attachment A
BACKGROUND
High traffic volumes combined with a lack of capacity through the S-Curves often result in
congestion and slow moving traffic on Main Street during afternoon peak periods. Some drivers
respond to this congestion by diverting through the West End, via Smuggler Street, to Power
Plant Road.
The following data regarding West End traffic was discussed at the February work session:
• An average of 175 cars per hour traveled on Power Plant Road in July of 2009.
• Afternoon traffic patterns in the West End mirror those of Main Street, with traffic
peaking around Spm and dropping quickly after 6pm.
• Data indicates that 52% of those on Power Plant Road turn left, while 48% turn right,
many likely continuing out of town via McClain Flats.
• Three accidents have been reported on Smuggler Street since 1996
At the February 1, 2010 work session, a number of West End residents requested that measures
be implemented to discourage drivers from diverting through the neighborhood. The remainder
of this memo outlines the measures that Council has approved, including cost estimates and
implementation plans.
DISCUSSION
1. Parking Enforcement and Driveway Protection Kits
Council directed staff to continue to distribute driveway protection kits to West End residents
upon request. Council also directed staff to continue with increased West End parking
enforcement during the summer months.
Cost: N/A, already budgeted for 2010.
Implementation: Driveway protection kits are presently available and the program will continue
in summer 2010. West End parking enforcement will continue this summer, with staff scheduled
to monitor the West End in the evenings and on weekends during identified events.
2. Music Festival TDM
At the February work session, Council requested further information about the Aspen Music
Festival and School's Transportation Demand Management program. More information about
this program is included as Attachment B.
Cost: N/A
Implementation: The Music Festival has already begun planning its summer transportation
program, including revised transit schedules and student/patron information distribution.
3. Elimination of Snow Removal Signs
At the February work session, Council directed staff to eliminate snow removal signs in the West
End as that program is no longer in place.
Cost: N/A
Implementation: This work had already been completed in February 2009.
4. Additional stop signs
Six stop signs are currently in place on Smuggler Street, between ls` and 8'h. Residents have
requested and Council has approved the installation of additional signs at 5`h and 6`h on
Smuggler.
Cost: $300.00 for two stop signs, including signs, poles and brackets.
Implementation: The Streets Department can begin the installation process upon Council
approval and supplemental budget appropriation.
5. 20-MPH Speed Limit
Council has requested that staff reduce the speed limit on Smuggler to 20mph and develop a plan
to reduce speeds within the City limits to 20mph unless otherwise posted. To this end, staff
recommends modifying section 24.04.020 (D) of the municipal code to say the following:
Model Traffic Code Section 1102(2)(c) "is hereby repealed and reenacted to read as follows:
a)Twenty (20) miles per hour in any business district unless otherwise posted
b)Twenty (20) miles per hour in any residential district unless otherwise pasted.
c) Any speed not in excess of a speed limit designated by an official traffic control device. "
Cost: $150.00
Implementation: Staff can implement a 20mph speed limit on Smuggler Street upon Council
approval, with a prospective revision to the municipal code following
6. Improved Closures at Hallam and Bleeker Streets
Council has requested that staff provide aesthetically pleasing options for replacing temporary
bollard closures at Hallam and Bleeker. Two options have been included in this memo for
Council's consideration.
a. Fencing Option (Attachment C): $17,225.00
This option, involving a fence featuring decorative plants, has met with approval from
emergency responders. The option was also presented to the Historic Preservation Commission
on March 24. The HPC agreed that the fencing option is an improvement over the current
closure. Concerns included maintenance of plants and flowers and an apprehension that the
fencing creates a "gated community" feel at the Entrance to Aspen. Other issues with this
fencing alternative include time and costs associated with maintaining flowers and/or plantings,
estimated by Parks staff at $240/week, and the addition of .30 FTE.
b. Sidewalk Option (Attachment C): $45,793.00
As an alternative, staff has provided a rendering of sidewalk option that has been previously
rejected by Council. Staff has been able to further develop this concept at a much lower price
than that which was originally quoted. Emergency responders have indicated a preference for a
sidewalk option due to improved access.
Cost: Fencing option: $17,225.00
Sidewalk option $45,793.00
Implementation: Staff can begin the process of replacing bollards as soon as Council selects an
option and allocates funding.
7. Power Plant Road Turning Restrictions
Council has requested that staff develop a plan to restrict left turns from Power Plant Road to
Cemetery Lane in summer 2010. An alternative preferred by the Aspen Police Department is to
simply close Power Plant Road to all through traffic during constmction, requiring construction
flaggers at both ends of Power Plant Road discouraging through traffic unless it is for resident or
emergency vehicle access.
Cost: $22,500.00 for left turn restriction
Implementation: Based on traffic count trends, staff suggests a June 28 implementation,
allowing for base-line traffic count and turning movement data to be collected from June 14-25,
when traffic volumes will begin to increase. Please see Attachment D for more information.
8. Stay on Main Pubtic Information
Council has requested that staff promote a Stay on Main message throughout the summer. The
message will include information about Power Plant Road construction and turning restrictions.
Cost: $5,168.00
Implementation: A Stay on Main campaign could begin in June and continue through Labor
Day, pending Council approval and supplemental funding. Please see Attachment E for a
proposed plan and budget.
9. Barriers to Through Traffic
Council has requested that staff develop and implement a plan for discouraging through traffic in
the West End neighborhood by barricading streets during afternoon peak hours on weekdays. It
was suggested that these barricades be relocated regularly in order to eliminate a predictable
"straight line flow" through the West End. Staff is not recommending this measure for a variety
of reasons.
• An unpredictable route will generate driver confusion and frustration.
• An unpredictable route will be operationally difficult for emergency responders.
• An unpredictable route will negatively impact summer events such as Jazz Aspen
Snowmass and the Aspen Music Festival.
• An unpredictable route will create operational difficulties and rider confusion for West
End transit routes.
• Street barricades will need to be manned by law enforcement, straining the police force.
An alternative to a moving system of barricades would be the installation of a diagonal traffic
diverter at the intersection of North 5`h Street and Smuggler Street (see Attachment F). This
diversion would force traffic traveling west (outbound) along Smuggler to turn south (left) at 5`h
Street, creating a more indirect path of travel through the West End. These types of treatments
have been shown to decrease traffic volumes by up to 75%. However, traffic volume will likely
be transferred to adjacent streets, and several of Che negative impacts listed above could occur,
such as:
• Driver confusion and frustration
• Slowed emergency response time, forcing alternative routes, or resulting in destruction
of diverters in an emergency
• Impact on summer events such as Jazz Aspen Snowmass and the Aspen Music Festival
• Barricades will require enforcement, straining an already understaffed Police force.
Cost: $1,200.00
Implementation: Implementation is not recommended for the above reasons. Rather, staff
recommends that Council consider this option or other traffic calming installations only if the
eight measures listed previously fail to produce the desired results.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The. Departments involved in the requested projects do not have 2010 funds available for the
following projects and will need to request supplemental fimding in the amount of $73,9110.00
6
from City Council. Council direction to proceed at the Apri15 work session will also direct staff
to include the necessary funding on the next supplemental appropriation ordinance.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
The above measures are not expected to reduce traffic or the associated environmental impacts,
but could possibly change travel patterns and/or speeds.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends that all measures above be implemented with the exception of barriers to
through traffic. Staff recommends a sidewalk option at Bleeker and Hallam.
ALTERNATIVES
Council could direct staff to move forward with measures not discussed in this memo.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Matrix of Council requested measures
Attachment B: Aspen Music Festival TDM program
Attachment C: Street Closure Options (larger renderings available at meeting)
Attachment D: Power Plant Road Implementation Plan
Attachment E: Stay on Main Campaign Budget
Attachment F: Diagonal diverter option
w
3
v
¢ d
Z m
W ~
Q
U ~
'v
c
Q U
O
x
A
0
c
W
V
A
W
W
y
O c
cyo u ~ $
V d
l L
N
000 M ~i
N M
~- M
m V
O
~ 7 Ltry~ V
m L l tip V
m~ 1 F
~~ m~
id a¢ a w a ¢
a a¢ w¢ a6
n
. , .
E
u ~ '~ '~ '2
o o ~
'
d o.
~ ,
~ a
~ $
~
a _
m
~
w
A
~
o
U
o
U
'o
U
0
0
00
a
C
G
G N N ~
a
a
u
]
~
~ C C
~ p
z
v
d
v
C
d
E
0
o $ g o
~
O o
O m
O~+ o
O ~
`O ~
a
td
N
~
~
~ O
» ~
Fn h
~» N
~ vi
ca O
ss n
»
g
d
d
v
M
o. o
~
U m
v m
~o m
~o I'
~
y
L
~
D O
O
I
~
E T
u T
v T
v 8 C O O
N p
S
'~
~
~ o
~ o
~ vi
N g
vl m
b om'
f9 a
M
W I
O
Vf I
O
EA I
O
4
f g
M
4Y ~
di
V3 N
N
fA '"
~/1
E.9
O
V3
C
~'
W
N
N
~
~ 3 ~ wo'
C n '~ p ~~ b ~
.
~
~
~~
~
P. G
o
d C ~ ~ ~ 3 E
'c v
q
~
'~
°
~
a
`°
.c
c
~
~ o x
~
o c
d ~~ ~
y ;~
U w
L
.i1
V ~ U O O 9 O ~ 4
w
U
~
A
h
G n
v
9
Y-
~ ~
O
p p ~ N O N O U
5 O N
' Q
r-
y ~ ~ .~ p ,
y ,
a ,
C
w O
a A w ¢ a ~ a ~ w ~
ao
ATTACHMENT B
Aspen Music Festival - TDM Program
1. Transit Service
The Aspen Music Festival and School contracts with RFTA to provide bus service from
the Music Festival campus on Castle Creek Road to Rubey Pazk as well as between [he
Music Festival campus and Burlingame housing. In addition, the Festival contracts for
concert service between Rubey Pazk and the Music Tent on Fridays and Sundays.
Finally, the Music Festival contracts with RFTA to operate an Airport service at the
beginning of the season, giving students an option for their initial arrival.
The City operates additional services that are heavily used by Music Festival students and
concertgoers including:
a. Burlingame route: travels between Burlingame student/staff housing and
Rubey Park with diversions to the Music Tent upon request. Note: this
service has been reduced for summer 2010 as a budget reduction.
b. Burlingame/Hwy 82 route: Travels between Burlingame Ranch and Rubey
Park, with a stop at the Burlingame student housing complex.
c. Cross Town Shuttle route: Travels between Rubey Park and the Music Tent
every 30 minutes. This service has been reduced for summer 2010 as a
budget reduction.
d. Castle Mazoon route: Travels between Rubey Park and the hospital, providing
service near the Music Festival campus and Marolt housing.
2. Bicycle Fleet
The Aspen Music Festival offers its students access to a fleet of several hundred bikes
that are loaned to students for the entirety of a season. Helmets and maintenance aze also
available. Working the City of Aspen's Transportation Department and TOP, the Festival
regularly submits and receives grants that go toward the enhancement of the bicycle fleet
in order to provide bicycles to more students as well as replace outdated equipment.
9
Additionally, the Festival employs a seasonal staff position dedicated in pazt to the
maintenance of the bicycle fleet.
3. Parking Enforcement
The Festival hires students to man its parking lot and adjacent road during events. The
students are also able to provide information about on-street parking regulations and
transit options. However, these students aze not able to provide any pazking enforcement
outside of the Music Festival property. At the same time, City of Aspen Parking Officers
are unable to enforce parking in the Music Festival pazking lot outside of fire lane and
ADA infractions. The Festival spends more than $20,000 on pazking enforcement labor
each year in addition to more than $15,000 each year in signage, parking lot
improvements, and other logistical and administrative elements of managing traffic flow
at the Benedict Music Tent and Harris Concert Hall.
4. Schedule Coordination
Each spring, Music Festival, Institute, RFTA and City staff meet to review the upcoming
summer's calendaz of events, with an eye for events that will require additional bus
service, parking enforcement, public information or other resources.
5. Public Information
The Aspen Music Festival works with the City to develop and print thousands of ticket
stuffers that are provided to concertgoers at point of purchase. Information about
transportation options is also provided on the Festival's website and numerous
advertisements and publications. The Festival has ayear-round staff member who works
with area concierges to inform about upcoming events as well as the parking challenges
involved and preferred alternatives to automobile traffic and parking.
6. Student/Staff Information
The Aspen Music Festival has a financial disincentive to AMFS students to bringing a car
to Aspen for the summer. This is detailed in various communications to AMFS students
prior to their arrival including in their student handbook. Seasonal Staff of the AMFS are
10
also strongly encouraged not to bring a car to Aspen except for the handful of staff that
need a caz to perform their job. The Aspen Music Festival also coordinates with the City
and RFTA to provide extensive transportation information to students at their orientation,
over atwo-day period.
7. Student Survey
At the end of each season, the Music Festival conducts a student survey which includes
requests for transit service feedback. This feedback has been utilized to make several bus
service improvements over the yeazs.
S. PhysicalImprovements
In the past five yeazs, [he Music Festival has worked with staff to make physical
improvements to its pazking lot, allowing improved access for buses as well as comfort
and safety for patrons. These improvements include the installation of a temporazy
shelter, movement of a hotel shuttle staging area, closure of a bus/pedestrian conflict
point and improved signage.
9.Other
The Music Festival is an active member of the City's Transportation Options Program
(TOP), keeping informed of and sharing transportation information with staff and
students. In addition, the Festiva] has developed a small vanpool program for its staff.
11
ATTACHMENT C
STREET CLOSURE OPTIONS
1. Fencing Option
12
ATTACHMENT C
STREET CLOSURE OPTIONS
2. Sidewalk Option (Hallam)
13
ATTACHMENT D
POWER PLANT ROAD TURNING RESTRICTION -IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Data Collection
Traffic counts and turning movements will be collected on Power Plant Road and
Cemetery Lane (north of Power Plant Road) both prior to and during the restriction
period. This data will be used to help gauge the effectiveness of the turn restriction.
Staff proposes that baseline data be collected from June 14-25.
Turning Restriction
Staff recommends that the turn restriction be effective from 3:OOpm-6:OOpm weekdays
from June 28-August 27.
Enforcement
Enforcement funds requested will be used to provide Police presence on Power Plant
Road during rush hour to enforce restrictions. It should be noted that this enforcement
will rely on officers volunteering for overtime shifts, meaning that there may be
occasions when there are no volunteers, and enforcement will have to rely on existing
day shift officers. It is unlikely that existing day shift officers would be able to dedicate a
full three hours to this endeavor due to typical work load, so there may be times when no
enforcement is available.
Public Information
Information about the restriction will be communicated via the Stay on Main campaign.
See Attachment E for details.
Budget
Enforcement overtime: $10,000.00
VMS rental: $ 6,000.00
Engineering analysis: $ 6,000.00
Cones/signs: $ 500.00
Total $22,500.00
14
v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
ym~v ~ ° g 2`~ a
O O L `A O i\
m ~ ~ "~ 1ry \ m
~~ Z ~ ~ ~ a
~~ ~ 'a` w ~
A ~ N
A 1 ~ ~ ~ €.
o o ~-`
~o ~ ~ ~ ~
Z `'~".~
;~~ ~
~ n 3 / // ~ 1
(~ ~ J ~ t /%n3°
u _/
O
Ulm ~~ ~~~~'1~~~.-'~~~ ~ r_I?
Q° `-~~ 1 `. ~~ n 4 ~ n
~~~ ~ ' ~~;R ~ s ~ ~'
:n /
/ _
~~\ r
_~_ ~~~~ 3
~~~ ~ t~ ~~ ~ ~~~~ .~
ee a ~ _ ~
_ h c
vr-' /J~~ / Z ~ N
~/ ~, ~,
is
ATTACHMENT E
Stay on Main
Proposed Campaign Budget
Item Cost Notes
aspenpitkin.com $0.00
commuterconnect.net $0.00
Weekly City ad $0.00
Month City e-newsletter $0.00
Utility billing (May) $0.00
Facebook $0.00
Twitter $0.00
Press releases $0.00
What's happening in Aspen $0.00
TOP employer newsletter $0.00
Commuter Club newsletter $0.00
TOP email list $0.00
Commuter Club email list $0.00
ACRA email list/newsletter $0.00 staff will request coverage
Aspen times banner ad $0.00
Aspen Times $2,046.72 16 ads
Aspen Daily News $2,221.76 16 ads
Contractor postcard $900.00 printing/postage/mailing list
TOTAL $5168.48
16
ATTACHMENT F
Diagonal Diverter Option
~pn Rasalpdona ,r
yyf-2! ~~~ ~ Smuggler Street
W1•ut
RipM Cava
R7-7 No PexkDg
J
T ~-~.
North 5`h Street
0
~ ~ 1!300(6')
R7-1 ~ paia'~~~ Por 6icyctish
L.OCa1 Street ~xao t+7 ~
R=100D {37 o R7-1 ~d~apkp anNOr bo9a~de
al 1 S00 ($y apacin~ (dP~)
O
tvt•sR h ~-
~ or~i~el aurDln,a
eonanb may Ds adamroded snd
mamta6k auD may De used to
provide aceaee ro ermaeeruy
{N1-2i. a. vefagas
Not to Scale
17
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John Krueger, Lynn Rumbaugh -Transportation
RE: Entrance to Aspen Information Packet
DATE: April 2, 2010
MEETING DATE: April 5, 2010
SUMMARY AND REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL
Attached for Council's review is a packet of documents related to the history of the
Entrance to Aspen. Staff is not making any request at this time, other than seeking
direction on any additional information that might be helpful as Council considers
November ballot measure(s).
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION
• In 2005 and 2006, a variety of measures were put in place to improve traffic flow
and transit competitiveness as part of the S-Curves Task Force project. These
include the construction of the Main Street bus lane, the installation of closures at
Bleeker, Hallam and the alley in between, and the seasonal closure of North 7cn
Street from 3-6pm. This process included a No Left Turn restriction from
Cemetery Lane onto Hwy 82 during peak morning and afternoon traffic periods
(7-loam and 3-6pm).
• In 2007, Council directed staff to undertake a major public education and
consensus building effort. The resulting Voices on the Entrance endeavor
included neighborhood gatherings, a meeting in a box effort, instant voting
meetings, and the creation of an Entrance to Aspen documentary. The split shot,
and reversible lane concepts were a result of this public process.
• In 2007, Council and the EOTC backed a ballot measure asking voters to approve
the use of open space for the purpose of creating new bus-only lanes between
Buttermilk and the Roundabout. The lanes were opened in the fall of 2008.
• In 2009, Council directed staff to stage a transportation open house to include
information on the Preferred, Split Shot and Reversible Lane alternatives. These
open houses were held on Apri12.
• In early 2010, Council expressed an interest in posing an Entrance to Aspen
question on the November ballot.
BACKGROUND
One of Council's Top 10 2010 goals states: Implement and evaluate the transportation
initiatives underway (Rubey Park, AABC/Buttermilk and in-town transit) and determine
the next steps regarding he ETA, leading to a November 2010 election that will winnow
the alternatives to those with majority support.
Of course, agreement on an Entrance solution is difficult to find. The most recent ballot
measure that sought public input on an Entrance option (not including the 2007 bus lanes
ballot measure) took place in 2002, when both Aspen and Pitkin County ballots posted
the question:
Which do you prefer?
Ashen Pitkin County
S-Curves: 56% 51%
Modified Direct: 44% 49%
In November of 2007, CDOT and the Federal Highway Administration upheld the
Preferred Alternative from the 1998 Record of Decision in an Environmental
Reevaluation, determining that the option (two lanes plus rail or two bus lanes on a
modified direct alignment across the Marolt/Thomas property, connecting with 7`" and
Main) was still valid:
The 1998 ROD states that, "CDOT and FHWA have chosen the Preferred Alternative
because it best meets the local communities' needs and desires, fulfills the project
objectives, and provides flexibility in future design decisions:" The Reevaluation finds
that this statement remains valid for the Preferred Alternative selected in the ROD.
Based on updated technical studies and consultations with resource agencies and local
jurisdictions, the decisions made in the ROD remain valid for the following reasons:
1. There have been no substantive changes to the Preferred Alternative since
publication of the ROD.
2. There have been no substantive changes to the existing environment or the
impacts of project construction and operation estimated in the FEIS and ROD,
nor have any additional types of impacts been identified that were not
previously evaluated.
3. There have been no changes in regulations or requirements that would result
in significant impacts not previously identified and evaluated in the FEIS and
ROD.
Since that time, additional alternatives known as the Split Shot and the Reversible Lanes
options have been studied and presented to the public.
DISCUSSION
A number of documents are attached to assist Council as it considers options for
November 2010 ballot question:
• All Yon Wanted to Know About the Entrance to Aspen -from 2007 public process
• Transportation Votes in Aspen and Pitkin County Since 1975
• November 18, 2008 work session memo and slides
• Final Segment Cost Estimates report -Parsons Transportation Group
• Reversible Lanes analysis memo -Parsons Transportation Group
• Cost estimate for Reversible Lanes -Schmueser Gordon Meyer
• Evaluation Process for Changes to EIS Preferred Altenuuive memo -David
Evans and Associates
• June 2, 2008 work session memo
• Split Shot Alternative Additional Studies -Parsons Transportation Group
• Fensibiliry Study -Reversible Lane memo and slides -Schmueser Gordon Meyer
• Reevaluation of the State Highway 82 /Entrance to Aspen Final Environmental
Impact Statement and Record of Decision - HDR Engineering
• 2009 traffic counts