HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20130319
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
March 19, 2013
4:00 PM, City Council Chambers
MEETING AGENDA
I. Funding Request - Science Street Fair - Coal Basin Restoration - Easter Egg Hunt
II. Galena Plaza
III. Bike Trails Connectivity
IV. 20 MPH speed limit
P1
I.
P2
I.
P3
I.
P4
I.
P5
I.
P6
I.
P7
I.
P9
II.
P10
II.
P11
II.
P12
II.
P13
II.
P14II.
P15II.
P16II.
P17II.
P18II.
P19II.
P20II.
P21II.
P22II.
P23II.
P24II.
P25II.
P26II.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM : Tyler A. Christoff, P.E., Senior Project Manager
THRU: Trish Aragon, P.E., City Engineer
DATE OF MEMO: March 13, 2013
MEETING DATE: March 19, 2013
RE: Bicycle Infrastructure Implementation – Council Top Ten Goal
__________________
SUMMARY: Staff seeks Council input regarding bicyclist facility and safety design alternatives
for the City. Staff proposes an initial implementation of bicycle facilities on Aspen Street,
Durant Avenue, Galena Street, Hopkins Avenue, and Original Street.
BACKGROUND:
City Council identified bicycle and pedestrian safety as one of 2012-2013’s top ten goals.
The language of the goal states: “develop and present a conceptual pedestrian and bicycle
priority master plan including phased improvements that can be implemented over the next five
years.”
In an effort to promote alternative forms of transportation, improve bicycle safety and encourage
use of bicycles for commuting and recreation staff has developed a bicycle facility feasibility
plan. This planning effort has built upon the routes identified in the updated 1991 Aspen Bicycle
Master Plan. Using guidance from the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the
Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), staff has identified the bicycle facilities
that can be implemented on Aspen’s streets.
City Staff has presented this plan to both the Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Team and the Trails
and Open Space board for comment. Both groups encouraged staff to move forward with the
concept. At the Open Space and Trails meeting held on March 7, 2013 staff presented a plan for
an initial phase for striping city streets to better identify bicycle friendly routes. The Board
discussed the importance of the striping plan as a means to better define bicycle routes and
educate motorists on the concept of “sharing the road.” The Open Space and Trails Board made a
motion to:
“Support the 2013 striping plan, supporting a multi-phase project which also supported
recommendations identified by the League of American Bicyclist Bike Friendly
Community Program.”
The motion passed unanimously.
P27
III.
The League of American Bicyclists has designated Aspen as a Bicycle Friendly Community at
the Silver level, because Aspen exhibits a strong commitment to cycling. The reviewers felt that
Aspen should:
“Continue to expand the bike network and increase network connectivity through the use
of bike lanes, bike tracks, shared lane arrows, signed routes and bicycle cut-throughs.”
Since arterial and collector roads are the backbone of every transportation network, it is
essential to increase the number of bike lanes and bike specific signage along these roads
to allow bicyclists of all skill levels to reach their destinations quickly and safely.”
Based on strong recommendations and endorsements by these groups staff advises a phased
approach to bicycle facilities in Aspen as outlined below.
DISCUSSION:
Based on study of Aspen’s current streets, nationally accepted engineering practices, and current
bicycling corridors through the City, staff would recommend a phased implementation of bicycle
facilities. Staff recommends that an initial phase of bicycle treatments be installed in 2013.
After installation staff will evaluate usage, accident data and overall public response to these new
features. Proposed bicycle facilities are outlined in (EXHIBIT A) and discussed below.
Based on current roadway configurations staff would recommend three distinct types of Bicycle
treatments (Shown in EXHIBIT B):
1. PROPOSED SHARROW INSTALLATION:
Hopkins Avenue (Cleveland Street/River – 7th Street)
Currently multiple blocks of Hopkins Avenue serve as a “Pedestrian Bikeway”.
Although this facility is well used, the Eastern and Western segments lack connectivity
through the heavily travelled downtown core. Due to limited lane width in the core area,
staff proposes Sharrows that allow cyclists and motorists to share a lane. Sharrows
permit a less formal riding lane and allow cyclists to avoid vehicles backing from
diagonal parking area.
Durant Ave (Original Street to Aspen Street)
Durant was identified by our 1991 Bicycle Master planning process as a secondary
bikeway route. Additionally staff has found high cyclist counts at Durant’s intersections.
Due to the high usage and limited lane width staff proposes Sharrows that allow cyclists
and motorists to share a lane. Sharrows permit a less formal riding lane and allow
cyclists to avoid vehicles backing from diagonal parking area.
2. PROPOSED BIKELANE INSTALLATION:
Aspen Street (Durant to Main Street)
Aspen Street was identified as a North – South connection between the Hallam and
Hopkins Pedestrian Bikeways, and Durant Avenue’s proposed Sharrows. Aspen Street’s
current lane width is ideal for formalized bike lanes. Formal bike lanes provide a clear
pathway for cyclists while creating a visual separation from motorists. Bike lanes
provide users of all abilities a more comfortable riding experience.
P28
III.
Original Street – Rio Grande Place to Durant Avenue
Original Street was identified by our 1991 Bicycle Master planning process as a
secondary bikeway route. Connectivity between Durant Avenue and attractions on the
North side of town make Original a prime candidate to capture ridership. Original’s
current lane width is ideal for formalized bike lanes. Formal bike lanes provide a clear
pathway for cyclists while creating a visual separation from motorists. Bike lanes provide
users of all abilities a more comfortable riding experience.
3. PROPOSED CONTRAFLOW BIKELANE INSTALLTION:
Galena Street – Main Street to Cooper
Galena Street’s one-way configuration creates a barrier to northbound bicycle traffic.
Currently many users ride against the posted flow of traffic. Staff proposes a contraflow
bikelane to capture this ridership. Galena’s current lane provides adequate width for
formalized contra flow lanes. Formal lanes provide a clear pathway for cyclists while
creating a visual separation from motorists. Bike lanes provide users of all abilities a
comfortable riding experience.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Funding Allocated
Bicycle Master Plan 2013 AMP $75,000
Proposed Expenditures
Bike Sharrow Installation (approx. $200 per block)
Durant Street (7 blocks) $ 1,400
Hopkins Avenue (17 blocks) $ 3,400
Bike Lane Installation (approx $300 per block)
Aspen Street (4 blocks) $ 1,200
Original Street (5 blocks) $ 1,500
Contra Flow Lane Installation (approx. $200 per block)
Galena Street (4 blocks) $ 800
Bicycle Facility Signage (approx. $100 per block) $ 3,700
Traffic Control for Striping Installation $ 2,000
Total Proposed Expenditures $14,000
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
P29
III.
¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹
¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹
¹¹¹¹¹¹¹
¹¹¹¹¹¹¹
¹
¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹
¹
¹¹¹¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹¹¹¹
¹
¹¹¹
¹
¹
¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹
¹
¹
¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹
¹¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹¹¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹
¹¹
¹¹¹¹¹
¹
¹¹¹
¹
¹
¹
¹¹¹
X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
X
XXXX
XX
XXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X XXXXX XXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X X X X X X X
X
XX X X X X X X XXX X X X X X X X X X XXXXXX X X X X X X X X X X X
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XX
X
X
X
X
X
XXXXXXXXXX
X X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X XX
X
X
X
X X X X X X
X X X X X X XX XXXXX XXXX
E Hopkins
A j a x
W Hallam
W Hopkins
Little Cloud
Midl and Tr ail
Ri o G r a n d e
E Hallam
Post Office
Lone Pine
W Hopkins Path
Villa s
Scotties
E a st of A s p e n
Summer
Rd
C
o
u
rt
h
o
u
s
e
Oklahoma Flats
A lp s T r a il
No Problem Joe
P u p p y S m i t h
Lower Hunter Creek
U te A v e
W illia m s R a n c h
Red Brick
Snyder Park
S Seventh St
J o h n D e n v e r S a n c t u a r y
E Hopkins Ave
R
e
d
M
o
u
n
t
a
i
n
R
o
a
d
R
i
o
G
r
a
n
d
e
C
o
nn
e
c
t
o
r
R
i
o
G
r
a
n
d
e
P
a
r
k
Trueman
Su
m
mit St Cutoff
Rio G ran de
Willia m s R a n c h
R i o G r a n d e
R io G rande
T r u e m a n
W MAIN ST
S MILL ST
E HYMAN AVE
E COOPER AVE
E MAIN ST
E HOPKINS AVE
E DURANT AVE
ALLEYGIBSONAVE
W BLEEKER ST
S ASPEN ST
N 3RD ST
W HALLAM ST
W FRANCIS ST
N 4TH ST
N 5TH ST
S GALENA ST
SPRUCE ST
N MILL ST
N 6TH ST
W HOPKINS AVE
N 2ND ST
N 1ST ST
DEAN ST
N 7TH ST
S MONARCH ST
WSMUGGLERST
PARKAVE
S 1ST ST
S ORIGINAL ST
S GARMISCH ST
S HUNTER ST
L O NE PINE R D
O A K LN S WEST END ST
VINE ST
NSPRIN G S T
S 2ND ST
NEALE AVE
S 7TH ST
E BLEEKER ST
PARKCIR KIN G ST
L A KE A VE
MIDLAND A V E
RED M TN RD
W HYMAN AVE
U T E A V E
S3RDST
RIO
GRAN
D
E
PL
RACE ST
N 8TH ST
M A PLE LN
NGARMISCHST
E HALLAM ST
WNORTHST
N ASPEN ST
WATERS AVETEALCT
A
R
TP
KY
AJA X AVEBROWNLN
JUAN ST
N I C H O L A S L N
A S PE N M TN R D
QUEENST L A C E T LNCLEVELAND ST
PUPPYS MI T H S T
N MONARCH ST
SHADY
L
N
S 5TH ST
S 4TH ST
S 6TH ST
W I L L I A M S WAY WALNUTST S RIVERSIDE AVE
W COOPERAVE
CO T TON W O O D L NSILVERLODEDR
GILBERT ST
F O U
NDE R S P L
SOUTHAVE
SUMMIT ST
BAY ST
FREESILVER C TWILLIAMSRANCHDR SESAMEST
LIBRARYALLEY
LITTLECLOUD
TRL
DALE AVE
S SPRING ST
EFRANCISS
T
C O W E N H O V E N C T N RIVERSIDE AVE
E SNARK ST
SPRUCECT
MINERS
T
R
A
I
LRD
MATCHLESSDR
E JUANITA ST
MASCOTTE LN
NGALE
N
AST
JUSTICE EXWY
MIDLANDPARKPLWILLIAMSRANCHCT
T R A IN O RSLNDG
H A R O L D R O S S CT ALPINECT
REC
Y
CL E C IR
REGENT ST
OBERMEYERPLA
C
E
D
R
BRENDEN CT
ALLEY
ALLEY
S SPRING ST
ALLEY
W FRANCIS ST
ALLEY
ALLEY
E
F
R
ANCISST
DEAN ST
N SPRING ST
N8THST
ALLEY
ALLEY
ALLEY
DEAN ST
PARK CIR
ALLEY
ALLEY
ASPEN
MTN
R
D
ALLEY
ALLEY
ALLEY
ALLEY
E COOPER AVE
ALLEY
E BLEEKER ST
ALLEY
ALLEY
N
Ci
t
y
of
As
p
e
n
20
1
3
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Bi
k
e
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
y
Striping Plan
Le
g
e
n
d
XX
X
X
X
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
P
r
i
m
a
r
y
B
i
k
e
w
a
y
R
o
u
t
e
¹¹
¹
¹
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
S
e
c
o
n
d
a
r
y
B
i
k
e
w
a
y
R
o
u
t
e
Co
n
t
r
a
F
l
o
w
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
2
0
1
3
Bi
k
e
l
a
n
e
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
2
0
1
3
Sh
a
r
r
o
w
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
2
0
1
3
st
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
tr
a
i
l
s
P30III.
EXHIBIT B
1. Sharrow Installation
2. Bike Lane Installation
3. Contra flow Installation
P31
III.
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Tricia Aragon, P.E. – Engineering Department
THRU: Scott Miller, Capital Asset Director
Randy Ready, Assistant City Manager
John D. Krueger, Lynn Rumbaugh – Transportation Dept
Richard Pryor and Bill Linn – Police Department
Jerry Nye – Streets Department
Jim True – City Attorney’s Office
RE: City Wide 20 mph
DATE: March 4, 2013
MEETING DATE: March 19, 2013
________________________________________________________________
SUMMARY AND REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL
After an analysis of City wide speeds, Staff is recommending that the City wide speed
limit of 20 mph with specific exemptions for the following:
Main Street
Castle Creek Road
Maroon Creek Road
Cemetery Lane
Gibson @ Park
Neale @ No Problem Joe Bridge
Park Circle @ Brown
Mill Street
Ute Ave
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION
During the January 29th work session, Council directed staff to investigate the impacts of
reducing the city wide speed limit to 20 mph.
BACKGROUND
During the January 29th work session, residents of the West End were concerned about
the speed of traffic through their neighborhood and requested that a number of measures
be put in place to decrease vehicle speed. At the time Council directed staff to study the
impacts of implementing a City wide speed limit reduction to 20 mph.
P33
IV.
2
DISCUSSION
A speed warrant study with a focus on known speeding areas, has been performed by the
Engineering Department along with the Aspen Police Department. The purpose of a
speed warrant study is to gather actual speed data throughout the City. A speed
monitoring device was placed in several locations throughout the City. The speed
monitoring device used by the City is also known as a ‘Speed Spy’. This data was then
analyzed by the Police and Engineering Departments
The results of the study are located in Appendix A. The study showed that on average the
speeds throughout the City are below 20 mph. Additionally the study showed that the
average speeds in the commercial core are below 20 mph, however the following
locations show a 85th percentile above the 20 mph recommendation:
Gibson @ Park
Neale @ No Problem Joe Bridge
Park Circle @ Brown
Mill Street
Ute Ave
The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)
along with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) provides much of
the general guidance and policy used to design and maintain most roadways in the United
States. AASHTO and MUTCD has developed policies in order to ensure safe and
uniform roadway design and signing across the country. Staff used AASHTO’s policy on
Geometric Design of Highways and Streets 2004 ed and MUTCD (Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices 2009 ed) to evaluate a responsible speed limit.
According to AASHTO:
“Posted speed limits, as a matter of policy, are not the highest speeds that might
be used by drivers. Instead, such limits are usually set to approximate the 85th
percentile speed of traffic as determined by measuring the speeds of a sizable
sample of vehicles….Speed zones cannot be made to operate properly if the
posted speed limit is determined arbitrarily. In addition, speed zones should be
determined from traffic engineering studies, should be consistent with prevailing
conditions along the street and with the cross section of the street, and should be
capable of reasonable enforcement.” AASHTO – Geometric Design of Highways
and Streets pg 72.
According to MUTCD”
“Guidance:
12 When a speed limit within a speed zone is posted, it should be within 5
mph of the 85th percentile speed of free flowing traffic.” pg 58.
P34
IV.
3
As a result, a 20 mph speed limit posting is warranted for streets where the 85th percentile
speed does not exceed 25mph.
Speed Limit Posting Warning:
If the 85th percentile speed is in excess of 25 mph and the street is posted 20 mph the
following issues should be considered:
Police enforcement is diminished, which can play a vital role in controlling the
speed limit. Unrealistic speed limits create a difficult situation for the police and
the community.
Studies have shown that establishing a speed limit at less than the 85th percentile
generally results in an increase in accident rates.
Most motorists drive at a speed that the road alignment and traffic permits,
regardless of posted speed.
Based on the speed study performed the following options are available for the posted
speed limits within the City:
Option 1
Because the City of Aspen is a home rule city, and Council can legislatively set City wide
speed limit and adopt other limits as posted. The City could adopt the City wide speed
limit of 20 mph with the following exceptions:
P35
IV.
4
Main Street (25mph)
Castle Creek Road (30 mph)
Maroon Creek Road (30 mph)
Cemetery Lane (25 mph)
The City’s model traffic ordinance would need to be revised to implement this option.
The revised ordinance is included in Appendix B.
Note: Since some streets within the City have 85th percentile speeds greater than 20 mph,
there will be enforcement along with safety concerns on those streets. Refer to speed
limit posting warning above.
Option 2
The City can lower the City wide speed limit to 20 mph, however, the locations where the
85th percentile speed exceeds 25 mph the speed limit is posted appropriately. Below is a
list of those locations:
Main Street
Castle Creek Road
Maroon Creek Road
Cemetery Lane
P36
IV.
5
Gibson @ Park
Neale @ No Problem Joe Bridge*
Park Circle @ Brown
Mill Street*
Ute Ave
Note: Once the expectation of 20 mph is established, the neighborhoods which are kept at
25 mph will most likely want the speed lowered to 20 mph. In order to reduce the speeds
in these areas to 20 mph, Staff recommends traffic calming measures to achieve this.
Because each location will present varying opportunities for traffic calming measures, a
study will need to be performed in order to identify the appropriate measures for each
location.
The City’s model traffic ordinance would need to be revised to implement this option.
The revised ordinance is included in Appendix B.
* Neale and Mill Street are currently under design to include traffic calming measures.
Once these measures are in place, the speed limit can be reduced to 20 mph.
Option 3
The City can maintain the City wide speed limit at 25 mph however locations where the
85 percentile is less than 25 mph (such as the west end) the speed is posted at 20 mph.
Note: This option will be confusing to drivers because of the multiple speed limits. As a
result the west end will need to be peppered with speed limit signs.
P37
IV.
6
Option 4
Because most motorists drive at the speed at which road alignment and traffic conditions
permit regardless of posted speed, the City could maintain the City wide speed limit at 25
mph and not sign those locations where the 85 percentile speed is less than 25 mph.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
According to the speed analysis that was performed, speeding in the west end is not
prevalent. In reality, the actual speed of vehicles in the west end is below 20 mph.
Posting a City wide speed limit of 20 mph can be done with a few exceptions as
mentioned above, however, this option will involve additional enforcement and
additional costs associated with traffic calming measures.
Staff recommends Option 2, this option would not require an increased police presence,
however, it would require additional signage.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Option 1 = $300
Change out “unless otherwise posted” signs to 20 mph = $300
Option 2 = $3,800
Change out “unless otherwise posted” signs to 20 mph = $300
$3,500
Option 3 = $8,550 (does not include labor)
Sign West End 20mph (estimate 90 signs @ $95 per sign) = $8,550
P38
IV.
7
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
The above measures are not expected to reduce traffic.
ALTERNATIVES
Council could direct Staff to proceed with any of the four options outlined above.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Speed Study Summary
Attachment B: Model Traffic Code
P39
IV.
8
AT
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
A
05101520253035404550
Du
r
a
n
t
@
Mo
n
a
r
c
h
Gi
b
s
o
n
@
Pa
r
k
Ne
a
l
e
@
Br
i
d
g
e
Pa
r
k
Ci
r
c
l
e
@
Br
o
w
n
Mi
l
l
St
r
e
e
t
Sm
u
g
g
l
e
r
@ 7t
h
Ut
e
Av
e
W
.
Sm
u
g
g
e
r
5t
h
an
d
6t
h
60
0
W.
Sm
u
g
g
e
r
Fr
a
n
c
i
s
at
40
0
bl
o
c
k
Du
r
a
n
t
@
Ko
c
h
Pa
r
k
4 St
(P
e
a
r
l
Ct
‐
Sm
u
g
g
l
e
r
)
Speed (mph)
Sp
e
e
d
St
u
d
y
Su
m
m
a
r
y
Average Speed 85th Percentile Maximum Speed85th percentile limit for 20 mph posting P40IV.
9
ATTACHMENT B
TITLE 24
TRAFFIC AND MOTOR VEHICLES1, 2
Chapter 24.04
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 24.04.020. Model Traffic Code.
(a) Adoption. Pursuant to Parts 1 and 2 of Article 16 of Title 31 and Part 4 of Article 15
of Title 30, C.R.S., there is hereby adopted by reference Articles I and II, inclusive, of the 2003
edition of the "Model Traffic Code" promulgated and published as such by the Colorado
Department of Transportation, Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch, 4201 East Arkansas
Avenue, EP 700, Denver, Colorado 80222. The subject matter of the Model Traffic Code relates
primarily to comprehensive traffic control regulations for the City. The purpose of the Ordinance
and the Code adopted herein is to provide a system of traffic regulations consistent with state law
and generally conforming to similar regulations throughout the State and nation. Three (3) copies
of the Model Traffic Code adopted herein are now filed in the office of the City Clerk, and may
be inspected during regular business hours.
(b) Deletions. The 2003 edition of the Model Traffic Code is adopted as if set out at
length save and except the following articles and/or sections which are declared to be inapplicable
to this municipality and are therefore expressly deleted:
Please see the Section on additions and modifications immediately following.
(c) Additions or modifications. The said adopted Code is subject to the following
additions or modifications:
(1) Article I.
(D) Model Traffic Code Section 1101(2) is hereby repealed and reenacted to
read as follows:
"Twenty-five miles per hour in any residence district, as defined in Section
42-1-102(80), C.R.S."
(2) Except when a special hazard exists that requires a lower speed, the
following speeds shall be lawful:
(a.) Twenty (20) miles per hour throughout the City of Aspen unless
otherwise posted;
(b.) Any speed not in excess of a speed limit designated by an official
traffic control device.
P41
IV.