HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20100706MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
THRU:
DATE OF MEMO:
MEETING DATE:
RE:
Mayor and City Council
John D Krueger
Randy Ready
June 24, 2010
July 6, 2010
Entrance to Aspen Non-Binding Advisory Question
REQUEST OF COUNCIL:
Staff is requesting direction from Council on the format and content of anon-binding advisory
question on the Entrance to Aspen to be provided to the voters for the November 2010 election.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:
Council adopted as one of its top 10 goals for 2010: Implement and evaluate the transportation
initiatives underway (Rubey Parr 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.
At the Apri15, 2010 Work Session on the Entrance to Aspen, Staff provided Council with an
extensive information packet on numerous Entrance to Aspen alternatives. The packet contained
history, information, and studies previously requested by Council. The packet was designed to
help Council consider and prepare for a possible ballot question in the fall of 2010.
BACKGROUND:
Many different demonstrations, experiments and studies have been conducted relating to the
Entrance to Aspen including:
2005-
• S-Curves Task Force Meetings and Studies
• No Left Turn Restriction from Cemetery Lane onto SH 82 as a demonstration
• Construction of the Main Street Bus Lane
• Closures of Bleeker, Hallam, and North 7`s Streets
Page 1 of 4
w
2006/2007-
• CDOT conducted the Reevaluation of the SH 82/Entrance to Aspen FEIS and ROD and
both were found to be valid. The results of the Reevaluation were published in 2007.
2007-
• Created a Staff ETA Team who created many documents and conducted various public
meetings on the ETA including ,
o A history of the votes on the ETA
o The ETA "Where Do we go from here"
o A CD on the History of the ETA
o A website- www.SH 82
o Put ETA info in the City's E-newsletter
o Created a Meeting in a Box for citizens who wanted to have their own meetings
• Conducted a variety of public meetings including
o Voices on the Entrance Meetings @ Aspen High School cafeteria
o Jan 31, 2007
o Feb 3, 2007
o Keypad Meeting April 12, 2007 @ Wheeler Opera House
• Voters authorized City Council to amend the ROW easement to allow the construction
and operation of the bus lanes between Buttermilk and the Maroon Creek Roundabout
2008-
• Staff conducted several Work Sessions with Council on the Entrance to Aspen
• February 19, 2008-Split Shot Feasibility, Reversible Lane Feasibility Study, SH
82 Turn Restriction Study
• June 2, 2008-Split Shot, Reversible Lane, Truscott Intersection Signal Timing,
Evaluation Process for Proposed Changes to the EIS Process
• November 18, 2008- ETA Cost Estimates, Travel Time Modeling, Evaluation
Process for Proposed Changes to the EIS
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.
2010-
• 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.
Page 2 of 4
DISCUSSION:
At Council's request, staff has provided a draft non-binding advisory question on the Entrance to
Aspen containing various alternatives. The alternatives aze categorized according to their
`alignment". The alignments include the existing alignment (S-curves), the Modified Direct
(across the Marolt-Thomas property), the Split Shot alignment, and the Aerial Connection
(Gondola). Within each alignment, there aze different variations based on laneage and mode.
This set of alternatives is silent with regard to the fourth variable: profile. Additional
alternatives would need to be added to the list if Council would like the voters to weigh in on
whether they prefer the alternatives to be at grade, below grade or above grade. The voters could
vote for as many alternatives as they like. The result of the advisory vote would be to help
Council understand citizen preference for any or none of the alternatives presented.
FINANCIALBUDGET IMPACTS:
There aze costs associated with having an advisory question as part of an election. Staff time
may be required to coordinate and provide information needed on the various alternatives
included in the ballot question, depending on council direction.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
There will be no immediate environmental impacts unless an alternative is selected and action is
taken to implement it. Only the Preferred Alternative (modified direct with bus or rail) has
environmental cleazance. Any other alternative would have to obtain state and federal
environmental cleazance and would have to receive Aspen voter approval before it could be
implemented.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff questions the timing of the proposed ballot question, but
if Council decides to proceed with the question this yeaz, staff recommends approval of the non-
binding advisory question on the Entrance to Aspen as attached.
ALTERNATIVES: Council could not approve this advisory question or direct staff to create a
different question.
Staff is concerned that with the lower traffic levels the last several yeazs and with no federal,
state or local funding available to implement any of the alternatives for the foreseeable future,
the voting public may not perceive a need to resolve the Entrance to Aspen. The vote this
November will likely mirror the keypad session results from 2007 and result in no real consensus
to move forwazd with any alternative. When traffic levels return to higher levels in the future
and potential funding sources emerge, any effort to resolve the Entrance to Aspen with an
alternative different from the existing alignment will be even more difficult, because the results
of this election will be referred to in future campaigns.
PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve non-binding advisory question on the Entrance to
Aspen as attached for a November 2010 election."
Page 3 of 4
ATTACHMENTS:
• Sample Non-Binding Advisory Question
• Apri15, 2010 Work Session Memo
• Entrance to Aspen Transportation Votes Since 1975
• Entrance to Aspen Project Objectives
• Comparison of Impacts
• What We Heazd at The Wheeler Opera House
• Questions and Results of the Entrance to Aspen from the Keypad Meeting at the Wheeler
Opera House on April 12, 2007
*Please note- Many additional attachments and studies were provided as part of the Apri15, 2010
work session memo. Staff has only attached those documents viewed as relevant for this work
session. Any of the documents included in the Apri15, 2010 meeting packet can be provided by
staff on request.
Page 4 of 4
Entrance to Aspen
Alternatives for Consideration
On the November 2010 Ballot
Vote for as many as you would like. This is anon-binding advisory question to help the
Aspen City Council better understand current citizen preferences regarding possible
alternative alignment, mode and laneage options for the Entrance to Aspen, from 7`h and
Main Street to the Roundabout.
YES NO
I. _ _ Do nothing
Existing Alignment
2. _ _ 3 Lanes, with a reversible contraflow lane
3. _ 4 Lanes, with 2 of the lanes dedicated to buses
4. _ _ 4 Lanes, with 2 of the lanes dedicated to HOVs
5. _ _ 4 Lanes, unrestricted
6. _ _ Keep the 2 existing lanes, but add rail across the Mazolt-
Thomas property
Modified Direct Alignment (across the Marolt-Thomas property)
7. _ _ 4 Lanes, with 2 of the lanes dedicated to buses (The
Preferred Alternative with bus lanes from the 1998 Record
of Decision)
8. _ _ 4 Lanes, with 2 of the lanes dedicated to HOVs
9. _ _ 4 Lanes, unrestricted
L0. _ _ 2 Lanes, with Light Rail Transit (The Preferred Alternative
with LRT from the 1998 Record of Decision)
Split Shot (Two new inbound lanes across the Marolt-Thomas
property, and the existing two lanes along the existing alignment for
outbound traffic)
11. _ _ 4 Lanes, with 2 of the lanes dedicated to buses
12. _ _ 4 Lanes with 2 of the lanes dedicated to HOVs
13. _ _ 4 Lanes, unrestricted
14. _ _ 2 lanes, with Light Rail Transit
15. _ _ Aerial Connection (Gondola)
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 aspart 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 Lefr Turn restriction from
Cemetery Lane onto Hwy 82 during peak morning and afternoon traffic periods
(7-[Oam 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 hduses were held on April 2.
• In eazly 2010, Council expressed an interest in posing an Entrance to Aspen
question on the November ballot.
BACKGROUND
One of Council's Top !0 2010 goals states: Implement and evaluate the transportation
initiatives underway (Rubey Park, AABC/Buttermilkond in-town transit) oral 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?
Armen 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
Rcevaluation, determining that the option (two lanes plus rail or two bus lanes on a
modified direct alignment across the Marolt/fhomas properly, 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 T-F.TS 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.
Dtscusslanl
A number of documents are attached to assist Council as it considers options for
November 2010 ballot question:
• All You Wanted to Know About dre Entrance to Aspen -from 2007 public process
• Transportation Votes in Aspen and Pitkin County Since 1975
• November l8, 2008 work session memo and slides
• Final Segment Cost Estinrares report -Parsons Transportation Group
• Reversible Lanes analysis memo -Parsons Transportation Group
• Cost estimate for Reversible Lanes -Schmueser• Gordon Meyer
• Evulurrtiar Process for Changes to EIS Preferred Alterative memo -David
Evans and Associates
• June 2, 2008 work session memo
• Split Shot Allerrrative Additional Studies -Parsons Transportation Group
• Feasibility Study -Reversible Lane memo and slides -Schmueser Gordon Meyer
• Reevulurrtion of the State Highway 82 / Enbrnue ro Asper: Final Environmental
Impact Sratentent and Record of Decision - HDR Engineering
• 2009 traffic counts
TRANSPORTATION VOTES SINCE 1975
ASPEN AND PtTKIN COUNTY
For mere informa8en on
the Enfwnx to Aspen go
tai www.espenpitkin.eem
www.sh82.eom
19 City of Acoen
Shall tare City endorse Pitkin County's application to the Urban Moss Trorrsporta8on Audrorfty for federal funding of the Ptkin
Coursfy Light Roil Sysfem and cooperate with PBkin Count' on implementation, which may include direct Rnondng and grants of
easements?
Yesr 739 (59%)
Noe 517 (41 %)
N ba 1982 Cifv of Aspen
Shall the Councl ba authoriud to convey ROW of 1500' X 150' across the Thomas Property for two- or four.laning of Highway 82
to 7'" and Main, as the Coundl may determines
Yez: 627 (41 %)
No: 922{59%)
mgt' 1983 Pitkin County
Shall Pitkin County increase sales razes from 2 - 3°h for public tramportation cervices and foalltres for Pitkin Countys
Yez:726(64%)
No: 405 (36%]
mg,y 1°63 Phkin CounW
Shoo Ptkin County issue o 51.8 million bond for buses and a bv: molmenonce facllNys
Yen 7l4 {66%)
No: 374 (36%]
~yy 19 Ckv of Aceen
Shall Council be authorized so implement o 4-lane highway over existing open space, connecting with 7'° and Main Street, if:
CDOT oompensoros Ctry for Open Space
Area from new allgmnent ro Cemetery Lone becomes Open Spau
Curved a8gnment to reduce speed into city
Remove Ilght at Cemetery Lane
New Ifght at Hwy 62/7'" and Main
Councl works with CDOT to satisfy condltiom through EIS
Yes: 411 (49.4%)
No•. 421 (SOb%)
Shall Coundl be outhorfred to implement a 4dane highway over existing open space and w{den the 5-Curves ro o min'onum of 4
loves, and implemem rum lanes, plumed dMden, pedesfrlan and bike movement and minlrrdze private property acquisition east of
the Castk Creek Bridges
Yes: 213 (26%]
No: 603 (74%]
9 6
Shall the Coundl be authorized ro convey ROW abng Rio Grande Trail for a tram arrd terminal, If Rio Grande Trail is relocated
and ROW revem to City H rail construction nos started by January 19926
Yes: 847 {65%)
No: 459 (45%)
February 7990 Cirv eF Asrssn
Shall CeunzB be authorized ro grant ROW over Clry land, induding open space, for 4doning of Highway 82 on two possible ~lign-
meats to fadlltafe construction of 4-lane entrance lino Aspen; EMter Option A (Direct ConnecRon so 7°idsMOin) or OpRan B (Existing
a8gnmeM)t
Yes: 1740 (689'0)
No: 816 (32%)
s.t,......., seen Gfv of Aspen
Do you prefer Option A {Direct. Connection ro 7'^6Main)?
Yes: 1475(59%)
Do you prefer Option B (t:xistMg aligmmer4, widening Scarves to 4 lanes)?
Yas 1042 (41%)
November 1994 PBkln CouoN
2C: ShoR Aspen City Council be authorized to convey ROW over Marolt and Thomas properties for a dedicated tromitway from the
Crty ro Me Airport and Snowiness Village?
Yes: 956 (49%)
No: 7011 (51%)
Nevember 1994 Pitkin Cessssbr
2D: If 2C Is approved, shall the City be audtorized to convey ROW over the Marob and Thomas properties ro realign Highway 82 If
Me Entrance to Aspen QS identifies the new a8gnmem as Me preferred ohernotNe?
Yes: 863 (45%)
No: 1065 (55%)
Shall Ory Council be authorized to convrey ROW over Marolt and Thomas properties fora 2-lane parkway and a Corridor for Rght
rail? Only if:
Finances and design are completed and approved by voters
Cut and rover Nnnel of at least 400'
Section of 82 between Cemetery lone and Maroon Geek goes ro open span
Other open space acgtined to make up for net bss
An oligmment sensitive ro historical and natural resources is defined
Yes 1656 (39%)
Na 1147(41%)
Yes: 921 (73%',
Na 337 (27%)
a'/r-penny sales tax for a pocking garage of Rio Grande Place, and hsue a
million, 20.yeor bond)
November 1998 ~ PNkln CeuMv
R a6 finoncistp is not approved Mrougfi public votes by Me City of Aspen or Pitkin Coumy before November 1999, shall Pitkin County
stop spending funds on rail studks until Me expansion of 82 between Basalt and Aspen is comple»d?
Yes 3063 (56%)
No: 2380 (44%)
Nevember 1998 Cifr of Aspen
Do you support Me concept of a valley wide rail system Raking Gkmwood to Aspen?
Yes 1196 (52%)
No: 1111 (46%)
Nov mbar 1998 Pitkin Ceutrlr
Do you support the concept of a valley wide rail system linking Glenwood to Aspen?
Yes 2610 (49%)
Na 2712 (51 %)
~ovembe 1999 CiN of Aseen
Should the Cly bond for 520 mIIIWn ro wnstruct a AqM rob system iE:
The E'3S Is approved
Rail goes from Cty ro Airport as in ROD
S36 milBon PItCo bond approved to extend roil to Brush Greek
The defem of either Gy or Count' bond will rewlt in Ms aonstruUion of a phased modified direct alignment as in draft EIS and
ROD, srortinq whh exduslve bus lanes and evettwolly ro a rail system, wrM Mis bond as a kxcl match for stab and federal
fustds.
Yes, 853 (45%)
No: 1052 (55%)
"o emb r 1999 Cifv of Asoen
Given Mot Nse valley wide population will rise from 57,000 ro 99,000 by 2D20, adding 120,000 auto trips per day, and given Mot
more Man 31,000 tars use Me Casde Creek Bridge on peak days, what Iknh on aura trips would you prefer?
Limb to today i level Yes: 710 (45%)
No: 873 (55%)
Limb to 2% annual growM Yes: 425 (28%)
No: T 060 (72°h)
Limit to 4% annual growM Yes: 204 (14%)
No: 7257 (86%)
Uniknited Yes: 587 (389'•)
No: 944 (62%)
div of Asoen
Vote yes H you agree wRh Me following:
I am concerned Mat whhout a comprehenshe volley wide tronzh system, Aspen will ba overwhelmed whh trnffit. I want the Chy Coun-
cil to work with oMer valley govemmetds ro develop a transit plan wiM design, construction and maintenance and wst estimates com-
paring bus-only with a bus-to-rail concept for a bonding vote no later Man November 2000.
Yes: 1081 (64%)
No: 61 2 (36%)
1999 City of Asoen
Shall Ciy bond for S16 million for on exdusive busway from BtrHermllk ro 7'^ and Mairy If:
h includes an expartzion of Rubey Park
It indudes rsew transh stops along 82
h indudes on expansion of bus maintenance fac8hy
h irsdudes the purchase of new alternalFve fuel buses
It indudes a new bus fueling center
The bonding is approved only if Pitkin Count' approves spending for operational wbsidy for improved services for Me dedi-
cated busway and sets aside annual revenues for an eventual upgrade ro IigM rail
This approve! albws the Ciry to wnvey ROW for the bus corridor
Defeat of this question denies Me use of a bvz corridor
Yes 805 (47°h)
No: 894 (S3°/s)
NOTE: The rotol # of voters on Mis question was 206 or 1 1 % fewer Man fa Ma baibt question above. There were 48 fewer Yes
voters, and 156 fewer No voters.
.999 Cifv of Asoen
If the Ciy chooses ro accommodate more con katead of improving transit, where do you prefer to locate o new garage?
Wapner/Paepd:e @ S30K per space (3,000 spaces=S90 million) Yes 711 (43%)
Not 929 (57%)
Increase neighborhood parking for vishon: 7es 424 (26%)
No: 1174 (74%)
Make transit work volley wide; use park n ride ~ Yes 1064 (66%)
Mrovghout valley; don't Increase in-town parking No: 553 (34%)
y°tyemfsar •2000 _ Phkin GeuMv
Establish the Regional Tramh Authorlry, whh Pitkin County comributhtg J215% of existing 1 S% tratsportotbn sale rox amuollyi
Yea 4529 (66%)
No: 2300 (34%?
November 2000 Pi In CeuMv
Shall Phkin Coumy bond $10.2 millon ro suppkmem existing debt of j8.1 million and other bcol, state and federal funds to:
Realign 82 to 7n and Moir, with 2 new bridges and a art and rover funnel '
$7 mBRon for Snowmost VlBape iramit
j I.S million for PBCo bus stops
$7.5 million for new buses, maintenance fadl'ey and affordable housing for RFTA
Yes: 4406 (64%)
Nm 2444 X36%)
Mav 2001 CIW of Aseen
Shall City Council be authorized to cmvey ROW over Moroh and Thomas for o 2-Imo parkway and ezdusive bus lanes until the com-
munhy supports rail funding, if:
h Si dons ocmrding ro the ROD
Cuf and covet tumel of at least 400'
New Castle Creek Bridge
Appropriate landscnping
Thh vote shall not be construed as superseding approvd by elacfororo In November 1996 for light roil corridor.
Yes: 913 (46%)
No: 1056 (54%)
November 2002 Cifv of Asoen
Which do you prefer;;
S•Curves: ]405(56%)
Modified Direct: 1123 (44%)
u_.._~a,_. s>,n~ - PBkin County
Whtch do yov prefer?
5-Curveu 3079(51%)
Modified Direct: 2963 (49%1
THE TEN PROJECT OBJECTIVES, NEEDS AND INTENT
In 1995 Aspen City Council, Pitkin County Commissioners and the Snowmass Village Town Councl, along with
Input from citizens and a technical advisory committee, established ten project objectives that the Entrance to
Aspen solution must be based on. In 1998, CDOT and FHWA selected the Preferred Altemative os opposed to
other solutions because it met the objectives the Community identitied. These ten objectives are the foundation
past decisions were made on. If the community pushed for an Entrance to Aspen solution other than the Pre-
ferred Alternative, these community objectives would have to be investigated and likely changed. The commu-
nity objectives are:
1. Community Based Planning. Provide a process which is responsive to local community based planning ef-
forts, including the Aspen to Snowmass Transportation Project and the Aspen Areo Community Plon, with special
attention fowsed on limiting vehicle trips into Aspen to create a less congested downtown core.
2. Transportation Capacity. Provide needed transportation capacity for the forecasted person trips in the
year 2015. 1n doing this, this ptojed will identify a combination of travel modes, alignments and transportation
management actions to seek to achieve the stated community goal of limiting the number of vehicles in the year
2015 to levels at or below those of 1994.
3. Safety. Reduce the high accident rate on Stnte Highwny 82 and the existing 5-curves at SH82/7'" Street/
Main Street, and provide safety improvements for bicyclists and pedestrians. Provide safe access for all inter-
sections for all movements.
4. Environmentally Sound Alternative. Develop an alternative which minimizes and mitigates adverse im-
pacts. A process will be used which follows the National Environmental Policy Ad (NEPA), the 1990 Clean Air
Act Amendmenh (CAAA), the 1991 lntermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), and all pertinent
legislation.
5. Community Acceptability. Develop an alternative which fits the character of the community and is aes-
thetically aaeptoble to the public.
6. Financial L'+mifations. Develop an aternative that is financially realistic with respell to current and ex-
pected funding levels and programs, while being responsive to both the community's character and prudent ex-
penditures of public funds.
7. Clean Air Ad Requirements**. Since the Aspen area is a PM10 non-attolnmens area, the Preferred Alter-
native must meet the requirements by the CAAA by demonstrating project conformity. "` Since these objectives
were written, Aspen has become an attainment area for PM10.
8. Emergency Access. Respond to the need for an alternate route for emergency response to incidents inside
and outside of Aspen.
9. Livable Communities. Provide a system which reflects the small town character and scale of The Aspen
community, and which enhances the quality of life for residents and visitors. The system shall provide more ac-
cessible transportation which increases the mobility of the community and therefore provides for a more livable
community.
10. Phasing. Provide an alternative which allows for future transit options and upgrades.
_I
5~
O
O
O
V
1
1 1
1 L
I
i a
G
I L I L N
I a I n r
1 E I E ~
L I L N I m L L
a I
n
,y I
N
a .
..
E I E 1 1 1 E H
~ r ~ ~
~ I
I
I ~ I
I .
- J
I
1
i I
I
1
I 1
m I 1
d
n'
N LL ~
as LL
an LL ~
as LL
an tL
as LL
as
E E E E E E; E E E E E E
ai
~ NnI Nn oml ra mrn ma
Q N r I N r N r I N r r r r r
1 I
I 1
I
I 1
I
O I I
~ 1 I
(n I I
C
1
C
C 1
C
C
C
C
D I O ~ I D D p
E O~'- I O r re{ 1 M~ OM m
M M 1 MM In r l f")O 00 NM
f N G~ 1 N cM CV !r I fV Q C~ M C~J ~
i
I
1 I
I
1 1
1 1
1 1
I I
I 1
I 1
I 1
I 1
I 1
I t
I
1 I
I
~ 1
m N N I N ~
N
1
~ d
U W I ~
~ 1 ~ ~ I lp ~ ~
~ I fh T I 6] O
N ~ ~'' v m E °
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
o ~
a I
I
I
~
° s
I - I o
E ~ E •E ~ E •E
I
m rn N m
I c I ° ~
1
1 I
I I
1 I
I
I I
I
I I
I ~ I m
W I (Q I I y
= I d V I
C V d
~ I ~ I ~ >_
N 1
1 ~
'C Q I
~ 1 ~ l0
J
Q 1 m 1 ~ d
C 1 ~ « I
N _
0 L
G
G C 1 C L '
O 1 ~ ; ~_
~
~
J M I
~ m r 7
W I I
~ ~ m m
` '
° ° a ~ m o
a v
TxE Crly o>+ As1~v
What we
heard at
Wheeler
Opera
House
about the EntPance to Aspen .. .
Who wns there?
• 52.1% males and 47.9% females ...which approximates the population
statistics (2000 Census) of 53.5% males/46.5% females
• 61.2% were over 51 years of age (34.7% over 61 years old). .the
medinn age bracket wns the 51-60 age bracket .this makes those
at the Wheeler older than the general population in Aspen (median age
36.7) and Pitkin County (medinn age 38.4) -only 23% of those in the
audience were under 40 years of age!
• 73% were residents of Aspen (68% registered to vote), another 17.3%
lived in Pitkin County/Snowmass Village (16.2% registered to vote), 6%
lived in Basalt/Carbondale/6lenwood Springs, with 6 participants
indicating they lived in New Castle/Rifle/Silt/6nrfield or Eagle
County/Other
Page 1 of 9
V4Yree~l~r ~uilding 1930
• Overwhe/ming/y they were /ong-time residents 26.6% hnd lived in the
Vnlley for 31-40 yenrs, 12.7% for 21-30 yenrs, 20.2% for 11-20
yenrs, 12.7% for 6-10, and only 18.5% less thnn 5 yenrs -while 9.25%
hnve lived here for more than 41 yenrs!
• 72% live inside the Roundabout ("Innies'~, 8.5% were "Duties" (outside
the Roundabout as far as the Airport/ABC, and 19.4% were "Far
Duties" - outside the Roundabout and further downvnlley than the
Airport
29.5% heard about the meetings from an nd in the newspaper .
20.1% from "word of mouth" ...15.2% from n story in the newspnper
...10.149'• from nn interest group that wanted them to be there .. .
9.4% from the rndio . .and the rest from either a website (3.3%),
6rnssRoots TV (1.8%). from n flyer (2.4%) they saw somewhere
(although we did not create or post a flyer). or they didn't know how
they got there, but "here" they were (4.6%)!
Whnt did they sny?
About their transportation hnbits .. .
• 18.6% regularly drove their car through the Roundabout as part of their
commute to/from downvalley ...17.7% to ski the various mountains . .
another 17.7% do so to get to the Airport/ABC/Burlingnme .
11.49'. to get to the Aspen schools campus .10.9% to get to the
ARC 7.5% to get to/from Snowmass (non-ski traffic) .while
16.2% do NOT regularly drive through the Roundabout
• Of those who regularly rode the bus ...29.2% rode the in-town (free)
shuttles .23.1% rode the skier (free) shuttles . . 7.6% commute
on the bus to/from downvalley 5.2% rode between Snowmass and
Aspen (on the regular service) 4.9% to get to
Airport/ABC/Burlingnme 10.6% don't ride the bus, but DO
carpool/bike/walk to Aspen ...and 19.59'• DO NOT regularly ride the
bus at all
• Of those who don't ride the bus, but drive their cnr, they do so
because they ...take their stuff in their cnr (32.8%) ...need their
car available to them nt all times (23%) just want to drive -its
their right ns an American! (10.14%) .bring their dog with them -
and they are not allowed on RFTA buses (10.14%) .. .bring their child
Page 2 of 9
to school/day core (9.12%) .bring their tools with them in their
vehicle (6.8%) ...and 8.1% don't drive eitherl
What did they say?
About the Entrance to Aspen . .
• More than half of respondents (59%) were nowhere in the ball park
regarding the number of elections on the Entrance -while 41% knew
there had been more than 20 such elections.
• 75% agreed there was a problem with the Entrnnce - 15.7% commute
through it and sit in the traffic, 11Y. ride RFTA and acknowledge the
bus is always stuck in the traffic, and 48.2% see it eroding their quality
of life, even though they live in town
25% say "No" there isn't nproblem -with just less than 5% saying that
because they live/work inside of the Roundabout, 2.4% ride RFTA, and
18% indicating that they feel it is "better than the big city and I get
to stare at the mountains every day."
What did they say?
About the nature of the problem . . .
26.2% said the group causing the problem were 9-to-5 commuters
driving alone .25.8% said it was construction traffic/workers .
17.8% felt the problem was service/maintenance workers .12.1%
indicated the problem was locals running errands while 11.1%
attributed the problem to school campus traffic
• 17.6% said the root cause of the problem was n Inck of roadway
capacity for cars . .right behind at 17.3% wns too much growth and
development a Inck of convenient/reliable transit garnered 14.2%
of the respondent's vote ...tied nt 13.2% were (1) the nature of the
resort generating too many service workers, and (2) limited geography
and unlimited demand to be here ...while 12% attributed the cause to
a Inck of affordable housing
87.4% said it WAS the City of Aspen's job to take the lead in
addressing the problem nt the Entrnnce
Page 3 of 9
What did they say?
About the Project Objectives .. .
• 73% indicated it was very important (51%) or important (21.9%) to find
a solution that limits auto trips into Aspen to create a less congested
town ...while 16.3% felt this should not even be a project objective
• 81.6% said it was very important (54.4%) or important (27.2%) to find
a solution that provides ways to get more people into Aspen without
having more cars ... 3.4% were neutral on that proposition, 5.4% said
it was unimportant/very unimportant, and 9.5% felt it didn't belong as
an objective
• 82.5% felt it was important/very important to find n solution that
preserves the small town scale and character -with 25.6% saying that
meant being pedestrian and bike-friendly .. .23.3% saying that meant
not having traffic backed up to the Airport in the morning and the
Jerome in the afternoon 169:• not being overwhelmed by
construction traffic . .and roughly the same number (11-12%) saying
no additional cars coming into town, no increases in the number of lanes
coming into town or keeping the S-curves so traffic slows before hitting
Main Street
• 86.4% said it was important/very important to have effective
bike/pedestrian routes into and out of Aspen .76.3% indicated it
was important/very important to find a solution that minimizes the
impacts on open space, recreation and historical resources .88.8%
wanted to find a solution that reduces air pollution but "only'
65.79'• felt it important/very important to find a solution that was
financially realistic
• 82.2% said it was important/very important to find a solution that was
aesthetically acceptable to the public .this was defined as "not
being overwhelmed by noise, dust and pollution (31.5%) . .any NEW
roadway at the Entrance should be a parkway or boulevard with n grassy
median (21.4%) .not being forced to crawl along in bumper-to-
bumper traffic (12.8%) or preserving all the Open Space (11.23%) . .
lesser descriptions were: (1) no tunnels on the highway (8.5%), (2)
keeping the S-curves (8.59'•), and (3) keeping things the way they are
now (5.9%)
Page 4 of 9
• A solution that allows for future transit options or upgrades wns very
important (52.5%) or important (33.3%) to 85.8% of those attending . .
only 38% were concerned about finding a solution that lowers the
accident rote in the 5-curves -with 19% neutral and 17.9% believing it
didn't even belong os n project objective .67.5% felt it wns very
important (38.95%) or important (28.5%) that a solution provide an
alternate route for emergency vehicles across Castle Creek
• Of all the project objectives, the forced ranking wns:
1. limiting auto trips into Aspen (18.7%)
2, preserving the small town character/scale (18.3%)
3. providing ways to get people into Aspen without their cars
(17.9%)
4. reducing air pollution (10.6%)
5. being aesthetically acceptable (8.5%)
6. tie -minimizing impact on open space, recreation and
historical resource (8.1%)
tie - allowing for future transit options/upgrades (8.1%)
7. financially realistic (5.1%)
8. providing an alternate route for emergency access (3.4%)
9. lowering the accident rate in the 5-curves (1.3%)
What did they say?
About the Preferred Alternative (2 Innes for cars/2 lanes for
buses or 2 lanes for cars/and a light rail line in a modified direct alignment
across a portion of the Mnrolt/Thomns Open Space) .
First about the Bus Lane alternative:
• only 37.4% felt that this solution contributed a "lot or some" to limiting
vehicle trips into Aspen, while 55.8% said it contributed "not much/not
of all (39.9%)" to that objective
• 58% felt it contributed "not much/not at oll (37.6%)" to getting more
people into Aspen without having more curs
• 43.1% said it contributed "not nt all" to preserving the small town scale
and character or was aesthetically pleasing
• 45.2% felt it contributed "a lot/some" to minimizing impacts on Open
Space, recreation and historic resources, but 29% said "not of all"
Poge 5 of 9
If the choice were with the Light Rnil alternative:
• 51.1% said it contributed "not at all" (31.9%) or "not much" (19.2%) to
preserving the small town scale and character or was aesthetically
pleasing . .while 41.2% felt it contributed "n lot" (19.2%) or "some"
(22%) to that objective
What did they say?
About 4-Innes unrestricted on the same alignment as the
preferred alternative . . .
• as you might expect a whopping 77.8% felt that this solution contributed
"not at all" to the objective of limiting vehicle trips into Aspen, with
another 10% saying "not much"
• 82.2% felt it contributed "not at all" to getting more people into Aspen
without having more cars
• 65.4% said it contributed "not at all" to preserving the small town scale
and character or was aesthetically pleasing 13.1% said it
contributed "n lot" or "some" to that objective
• 24.2% felt it contributed "a lot/some" to minimizing impacts on Open
Space, recreation and historic resources, but 51.1% said "not at all"
What did they say?
About 4-Innes: 2 Innes for curs and 2 lanes for Bus/HOV
on the same alignment ns the preferred alternative . . .
• 40.6% felt that this solution contributed "not nt all" to the objective of
limiting vehicle trips into Aspen, with another 21.7% saying "not much" .
..23.4% indicated it contributed "some", and 8% "a lot"
• 37.6% felt it contributed "not at all" to getting more people into Aspen
without having more cars ...21.4% "not much" .. .but 28.1% felt it
contributed "some"
• 49.7% said it contributed "not nt all" to preserving the small town scale
and charncter or was aesthetically pleasing .. .20.1% "not much" .. .
19% said it contributed "a lot" or "some' to that objective
• 22.55% felt it contributed "a lot/some" to minimizing impacts on Open
Space, recreation and historic resources, but 41.6% said "not at all"
and 27.8% said "not much"
Page 6 of 9
What did they say?
About the Split Shot - 2 lanes for cnrs and 2 lanes for
Bus/HOV .
• only 28.7% felt that this solution contributed a "lot or some" to limiting
vehicle trips into Aspen, while 63% said it contributed "not much/not at
all (42.5%)" to that objective
• 70.4% felt it contributed "not much/not nt all (49.7%)" to getting more
people into Aspen without having more cars
• 51.1% felt it contributed "a lot/some" to preserving the smnll town scale
and chnracter and was aesthetically plensing 26.1% said it
contributed "not nt nll" to preserving the small town scale and chnracter
or was nestheticnlly pleasing
• 56.4% felt it contributed "a lot/some" to minimizing impacts on Open
Space, recreation and historic resources, but 22.9% said "not at nll"
If the Split Shot had 2 lanes for cars and 2 lanes
dedicated for Buses .. .
• People were split on whether or not they would like it "better" -50.3%
"No" and 49.7% "Yes"
What did they say?
About the using the Existing Alignment but widen it to 3-
lanes .. .
• only 26.5% felt thnt this solution contributed n "lot or some" to limiting
vehicle trips into Aspen, while 67.4% said it contributed "not much/not
nt all (54.7%)" to that objective
• 83% felt it contributed "not much/not at nll (65.5%)" to getting more
people into Aspen without hnving more cars
• 36% felt it contributed "a lot/some" to preserving the smnll town scnle
and chnracter and was nestheticnlly pleasing 42.3% said it
contributed "not nt nll" and nnother 15.4% "not much" to preserving the
small town scale and character or wns nestheticnlly pleasing
• 68% felt it contributed "a lot/somi' to minimizing impacts on Open
Spnce, recreation and historic resources, while only 21.6% snid "not
much/not at all"
Page 7 of 9
What did they say?
About the using the Existing Alignment with 4-lanes . . .
• only 16% felt that this solution contributed n "lot or some" to limiting
vehicle trips into Aspen, while 81.1% said it contributed "not much/not
at all (61.7%)" to that objective
• 82.9% felt it contributed "not much/not at all (60.6%)" to getting more
people into Aspen without having more cars
• only 22% felt it contributed "a lot/some" to preserving the small town
scale and character and was aesthetically pleasing .57.2% said it
contributed "not at all" and another 14.5% "not much" to preserving the
small town scale and character or was aesthetically pleasing
• 46.6% felt it contributed "a lot/some" to minimizing impacts on Open
Space, recreation and historic resources, while 71.7% said "not
much/not at all (57.2%)"
What did they say?
About Short-Term Solutions - ranking their top three
choices .. .
• in a tie 25.2% each said they wanted (1) free bus service between
Snowmass and Aspen and (2) comprehensive transportation management
plan for the Aspen Schools Campus as their preferred short-term
solution
• while 21% said to further restrict growth and development
• 16.3% felt we should increase parking fees
• 12.3% said to restrict parking in Aspen neighborhoods
What did they say?
About Mid-Term Solutions . . .
• 31.96% said to build more intercept lot capacity (Airport or Brush
Creek) and increase the frequency of the shuttle service between town
and the intercept lots
28.8% wont to build a roundabout or an underpass at Cemetery Lane to
eliminate that light
• 22.8% want to build nn underpass at Truscott in order to eliminate the
light
• 16.5% want to build more affordable housing IN TOWN
Page 8 of 9
What did they say?
About the Threshold Question - do the Preferred
Alternotive or Re-open the EIS .. .
• 38% want to move forward with the Preferred Alternative
• 32.4% want to reopen the EIS and study other options
• 18.4% want to focus only on short-term and mid-term solutions
• 11.2% want to maintain the status quo
What did they say?
About the Ultimate Beauty Contest between the Most
Discussed Alternatives . . .
• 35% wanted the Split Shot (with 19.7% an HOV lane version and 15.3%
for the dedicated bus Innes version)
• 31% want the Preferred Alternative (with. 17.5% the light rail version
and 13.1% the dedicated bus lane version)
• 21% want to use the existing alignment (with 15.9% 0 3-lane reversible
option and 4.9% a 4-lane version)
14% want a 4-lane option (10.4% favoring the unrestricted 4-lane
version and 3.3% a bus/HOV version)
Page 9 of 9
Rf .
7~
i
a
B
0
~ E
7
~~ a
~£ 8
p b ~
?~
$g F
- ~ __.. __
s a:
~ Y
#a
$ C
e'!
+~ ''
~~ ~ ~ B
~~ ~
_ .. ^ L ^ ^
iiV M~d66«^ ~ L.'6MN^ NN~~R6^ ~ ~ 6 6^
i
i
w
a
8E e
~~ ~ ~~
s' ~~~a~~~~ a ~~€: a SO-FFE
S
i
fl
i
Y
a $
p
~ ~e
r ~~
V
s
:z~^~ ~ as~Ri6- .. F
a
s
s
~
a ~
~
~
~'
~ ~ ~
~
~
~ ~
~ , ~
y
~~ ~ ~
~
8
n
x ~~
~<
_~
w
d ~ ~~ f
66 g6 ~
i iki~ ~ ~~#~~~
s
~
g 33
:t
t
~~
a ~ d ~~~~ ~ s?a€€ ~ go~39i~ i ~ d w
F
__
8
~$ ~
.. ~ ~~
~ r € 6 ~ €
e 9~ ~ 1 ~ ! ~~ ~ ~ ~F
4
..54 ~ p
a:t j€ t~ • F~~ i EFBE}ETF ~ S%$$$$
~ __ -
~ ~
g
F
rob~~~~
~~~~~
~~~~~
gC`~
~~ E
=E1[g aEE$ S
~~~3(~ 5
~~~~~~
%~~
3
4
1
3
a
a
s
§1
f
s
8
Y
~ ~~
xg
t
X/
a
4
~~ ~
'~ ~~~~
E~~~~~~~
~a~.
F
t
~~
s
i
H
~~~~~
a'NeI~N_
y8 l$J
S[ F
Ej
i
g
~~~~
__
F^
le
~E
~~
i~
s
8
~~~
..~MY^
i
a
~~~_
8!x
6
a~ ~ ~ ~~~~_ ~ _ ~
J - ~
~ ~~~
~ ~ -i =~~ R
a ~ ~ ~: ~
ajg ~ ~ of - ~g -
E B
a € s ~e 3i~ ~~~ ~i ~ ~ Sa
_~h
g ~NNNn FM
Y
t
{' a
°"SR [i"^
F
8
3
6
~~
a ~~flq
~~ ~~~~C
;E
s £
at~ sr
a ~ ~~€ ~
e¢
{y1
6
F
8
~CWN~/^
~~
E
~i
npNN~N^
i
F
~~n ~nNN^
b
i
8
3
i
a
8
~~~~
~ii~mN^^
E
a
~~Si ^~M
E~
~~~~~
~:~/4~ /i<~ $
' $
Z
E
r
~p ;
S
~~~
'spa66 ~ ~ ^. n,.S
_F
i
2 ~ ep gpy
~ ~ ~~ A
7 g FMS ~
# ~~
Y ~E
p{g ~ ppg
w= -.
~~
=~==~'~
} aR~_a~
~
.
c
~ ~ ~ SY a `~ `8 F17E "' "
3 a $ j
g5
j
F,
2~
Cg {
p
0
S
~
~ ~
e
~ ~ e
Y '~
F
~
~ f p ~ ~
EE
~{
bG ipp
f
~ ny
y
S
~~ ~
i •n ~ i
~~ t~ T6
~ i
~ 1
p
Lid F
f! ~a6 A
€€ s~96
g~~~~~ 2~ a9~$:~ p
f 5~a6
X'a <$~~~~ $~s6
%~ <$t~~~
n~{s«
rIMM6rwc
fi
c
9
efB
6
gt
A
i
g~
1
g
~$
~~
~~ §w9
Si <~~~~~
~ i __
n 3
~~ s ~ a
~~
~~ Y
c~CO
0lE
!~
~~ !~
#~
~~~
7
J
!9
0
p8
S
S
S
~5
S
1
~_
~~
a
a
x
N NNrj ~'
~g
i
p 5 ag~ g§:8
~'N %~eiN j ~M~dbA~
I n ~ ~
j~
isp
l
i ~.
~~ ~6
E!
6
~ ~ ~
7da_ 6 j ~
ds~.6
' ~ ~A°AA
y@ °~fi
~ ~`
~
a~ Y
~ jx a
3
~ ~ ~t ~ ~
i
~~ ~
~
# a
# ~~ t i
1
_~
~'i
°t
~: ff6 ~' ~; E~
a~~~i
~~~~~8
~
a
~~
~~
e
G .
~Q
~ v ff6 ~_F~g gg ~: E~
g~~
g
~
R ? ~ ~~8 '~&
lf
~~g
~ ~:d-
8
i
E
F - ..
~ yyyy
~ '~ ~~ ~
L ^~15 y.:- (i .~s:R7t'' a~~ee j~ aW RY ~ aggo~.a.
! ~ 56 E ~ ~ $
~ ~ ~ ~~~~.~ ~ g
m 'psg
443
~~~
~ ~ ~~. $ #
~ E~ .
! as-~a=-
1 ~ ass
~ .~.da
~S'
1 ~~~-
# ~
~ 3 ~~
~ ~~ ~ ~ s
'p"9a ate? i' 9 ~ a.~r6rv
~ ~ 5~ ~
~~
~ ~~ 3
t ~;~ 9~
~'
~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~
t
i ~f p ~~
~ :- 1 ~j !
y~ aa ~,6 y~ ~t~jX948 xp~ t g 9:6
«_ ~ n
~ _~ ~ ~'
s zz__,, i ~ _ s ~aj a.ssRe~
xe ^. IB ~ a^.p GI' t ~ ..Nra
1: ~a
~ ~ i ~ ~~ ~
~ ~ 6~6~ ~
;F ~ ~ ~~,
a
s~ ^8°'
i
8
e
.gd~ye-
1
s
~a ~ s - ~ s
3 s
9 m « ~ _ ~- a ~ ~~
~ a; ~ ~~
i ~ € ~~
E a ~ ~ ~; ~
~ ~ ~ _~~
t ~ ~ ~~
~ ~~
-~
s6 ~ a ~~ a
sg ~w6 0 ~w6 i~ t:6 ~~ d w6
T. ~ e Sl ! - n
Y49 ~ 3
E n
j ~ ~ ie~
€ a °` ~
a{
s ,a ~~
F
e
8 €g
3
~
$
16 tr
i~
0~ 1
a p
i~
s 1~
d
w6
EYw6 rw6 i w6
"p6°s ~ ~ ~F° ~ ~ ?^.s °.A' P ~A A-
s s [
! ~ ~ ~
§
~ ~ ~ .
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~
~ ~ E
~ L ~ ~
~ ~~ ~ 5
~ ~ l~
~ ~ t
8 s $E~g
t
5y
s~ .fl+~ ~
~ }
.~s~ n~ ~~
,fjs~ ~~
~ ~E nt&2
ae~°6~
q ~ Tij. £
a ~ ~
9
S ~ ~ W ~ ~ f.
BF .~
~ ~ ~ a~ ~ 6
1~ i~ ; ~~ ; io-~~a
~~ ~,5 ~~ ~w6 ~ ~~S ~ ~ ~~~~ 6
~ ~ f ~ ~ ~
~ 1 ~ ~
~ ~.
E a ~ ~' ~ a
~ ~~
~ ~~~
i~ $~ i ~~ ~ ~~~E
~° ~ i ~~~~ ~~~'
~ ,a ~ , as ~,s ~~~~
a
_.
q ~~ e
.N fi~~ ~ w4rt~~~66~
4 ~~ r
E 6
t 8
~ i
~g
~$fi~8 ~ ~~~b~~;~
~ ~~•~~~
a
~ ~~~ ~
s
a
a
i
~
s ~
~
~ ~
~
~g ~
§
~ ~
II € ~
~ t Sp
€33
1 ~
8
! S~~
~ g~y i~5
~~~