HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20130618
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
June 18, 2013
4:00 PM, City Council Chambers
MEETING AGENDA
I. Pro Cycle Challenge
II. Gondola Plaza intersection design review
III. Stop as Yield for Bicycles
IV. Aspen Core – Construction Management Discussion
Page 1 of 3
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Nancy Lesley, Director of Special Events
THRU: Jeff Woods, Manager of Parks and Recreation
DATE OF MEMO: June 14, 2013
MEETING DATE: June 14, 2013
RE: Pro Challenge Update
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: There is no request of council at this time. This memo is for
update and informational purposes only.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Staff has met with Council on numerous occasions to
discuss and update Council regarding the 2013 Pro Challenge Race. This purpose of this memo
is to continue to update Council on the progress of this upcoming special event.
DISCUSSION: Aspen/Snowmass has been awarded the Overall Start of the 2013 USA Pro
Challenge taking place this summer. There are several aspects of this event that make it so
special. First of all, we are going to parlay the overall start of the race into a full weekend of
activities leading into the first day of actual racing which begins on Monday, August 19th. Staff
is working closely with Snowmass Tourism and the Town of Snowmass Village on this weekend
of activities prior to Monday’s race start. The focus of the pre-race activities will be on
Snowmass Village from Thursday through Saturday night and Aspen starting on Sunday. Aspen
is hosting two days of racing beginning Monday, August 19th and concluding on Tuesday,
August 20th (which is when the racers leave Aspen for the start of Stage 2 of the Pro Challenge).
Monday’s race in Aspen is a three lap circuit route that will connect Aspen and Snowmass. This
is in essence a two and a half hour TV commercial for our valley with the opportunity to
showcase how wonderful summers are in our area. The course layout is extremely fan friendly
with most of it paralleled by our bike paths.
Marketing: As in past years, the marketing of the Pro Challenge Race and its Aspen/Snowmass
stage(s), will be managed by ACRA but this year Snowmass Tourism will be also be involved at
that level. The marketing plan this year will include TV commercials, print advertising in
Outside Magazine and 5820, and a web presence.
Lodging: The entire race entourage will be housed in Snowmass Village this year. The reason
for this is because this is the last weekend of the Aspen Music Festival and the Aspen lodges are
P1
I.
Page 2 of 3
approximately 80% full through Saturday night while Snowmass can easily accommodate all the
rooms needed. Staff is working diligently with both the Aspen and Snowmass lodging
associations regarding marketing this event. This marketing plan will be accomplished through
email, educating front desk staff on the event, newsletters, as well as other avenues. Last year,
staff considered the event a success as Aspen lodging was 100% sold out during the two stages
of the bike race.
Sponsorship is being managed by staff and we recently hired a consultant to help continue to
solicit more sponsors. Our financial goal is to raise at least $80,000 and to date; we are currently
under contract for $40,000 in sponsorships. Our current roster of sponsors includes Shane Aspen
Real Estate, Related Company, Marmot and The Dancing Bear and we are working hard to add
more sponsors to this list.
VIP ticket Sales: For the third year in a row, we are partnering with AVSC to assist in
fundraising and VIP ticket sales. AVSC is beginning to implement their sales plan now which is
comprised of emailing, calling and face to face sales. Tickets include access on Monday to the
Start/Finish VIP tent which will be located on Main Street (across from Paepcke Park) and which
will offer unobstructed viewing of the start and finish of the race. This is significant as the riders
will be doing “neutral” laps in the West End of Aspen and the VIP tent attendees will see the
race pass in front of this area five times which is an unprecedented amount of exposure for bike
racing. The VIP Tent area will open at 11:30am and it will include food and drinks, TV
coverage of the race plus some other special amenities. The Start VIP Tent will also be located
on Main Street but it will be placed further down across from the Courthouse, which is where it
was located last year. Breakfast will be served in the Start VIP Tent which will be open from
9am to 11am and this area will offer unobstructed views of the race and neutral laps with
attendees seeing the riders 3 times during this time. Additionally, AVSC will also be selling VIP
car rides that literally move within the peloton itself and this is exciting as this is as close to bike
racing as you can get without doing the actual pedaling yourself. Of course there will also be
AVSC managed public rides and fundraisers which will all help promote the Pro Challenge.
Festival: This year, we are hosting a two day festival, starting Sunday at 11:00 am and closing at
5:00 pm then opening back up on Monday at noon and closing at 6:00 pm. The Festival will be
based in Paepcke Park, utilizing Aspen, Garmisch and Hopkins Avenues. We have been focusing
on including local vendors in addition to the national vendors that travel town to town with the
Pro Challenge. The entertainment stage, beer garden and a prominent food tent will be located
directly in the park with other vendors (utilizing trailers) operating in the surrounding streets.
Notices to Neighbors and Business Community: We have a very comprehensive
communication plan that includes the entire Roaring Fork Valley and which will utilize all
mediums of communication in several languages which is currently being implemented. We are
working hand in hand with the Town of Snowmass Village to ensure that all communications
going out is consistent. Staring a few weeks from the date of this memo, we will have our “tent
on the mall” setup to distribute information, and offer ticket sales and awareness of this event.
This tent will be manned by Pro Challenge staff and will be set up on the mall on several
weekend days throughout the summer. Starting in late June, both Aspen and Snowmass will
P2
I.
Page 3 of 3
begin to implement a series of community meetings which will also be televised and run on
Grassroots TV.
Safety: This event as usual has the full collaboration between the City of Aspen, the Aspen
Police Department, the Pitkin County Sheriff’s office, Pitkin County, Town of Snowmass
Village, the Snowmass Village Police Department, Aspen Ambulance, Aspen Fire District, US
Forest Service, Independence Pass Foundation, Mountain Rescue, Aspen Valley Hospital, Flight
for Life, and the Colorado State Patrol. These entities will meet on a regular basis to plan for the
safety of the community during this event.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: We are currently holding at our projected expenditures of
$450,000.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: ZGreen is a strong part of our entire planning process.
Ashley Cantrell from the Environmental Health Department is heading this up, and we are
working to create, or as nearly as we can create, a zero waste event. We are looking into brining
in water buffalo’s to supplement the permanent water station that will be in town.
P3
I.
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: June 11, 2013
MEETING DATE: June 18, 2013
RE: Gondola Plaza Pedestrian Crossing Project: Preferred Alternative
SUMMARY: Staff seeks Council input regarding pedestrian, bicyclist, and traffic design, at the
Hunter and Durant Street Intersection.
BACKGROUND: Priority pedestrian and traffic safety projects were presented to City
Council during a July 28th 2009 work session meeting. This list represented various
pedestrian and traffic safety projects in locations throughout the City. Council prioritized
these projects and selected Gondola Plaza as one of the projects to be funded with the
Public Amenity Fund.
This project follows the ideals of The City of Aspen Civic Master Plan (CMPAG) adopted by
City Council in December 2006. The Plan states “Aspen’s future should be one in which the
automobile pays a smaller role in people’s everyday lives. Other modes of travel should be
made as safe and convenient as possible to facilitate that goal…the level of investment in…more
and better bikeways and walkways should increase.”
June 11, 2012 City Council approved a Professional Services Contract contract with Design
Workshop, Sopris Engineering and Felsburg, Holt & Ullevig. This project has utilized
professional engineering and landscape architecture services to develop and determine the
feasibility and implementation of pedestrian crossings, streetscape improvements, bicycle
infrastructure and traffic calming into Gondola Plaza intersection. Once base data was obtained
staff worked with the consultant team to draft alternative designs for the corridor. These
alternatives represented the ideals of the project’s initial goals. Each design provided a differing
compromise between infrastructure expense and impact to the traveling public. Staff solicited
feedback on these alternatives during public events and through a third party run website.
Staff’s public outreach has included:
2 project Open Houses, occurring November 1st, 2012 11am-1 on Gondola Plaza
and from 5-7pm in the Sister Cities Room of City Hall
Attending and presenting design alternatives at the ACRA luncheon on April 4th,
2013
P5
II.
Online feedback using Open City Hall run by a third party administrator Peak
Democracy
DISCUSSION: Within the context of this project there are opportunities for the City to:
Improve pedestrian safety through better pedestrian/traffic interactions, including
treatments for high volumes of both vehicular and pedestrian traffic.
Update and enhance the loading, pick-up and transit opportunities at the intersection.
Improve the pedestrian crossing infrastructure for skier traffic and include ADA
accessibility upgrades.
Engage the Aspen Ski Company and other stakeholders during the design process
Identify and enhance stormwater and drainage management and capacity in the area.
After significant study the design team identified three design alternatives for the intersection.
These alternatives are outlined below:
Alternative #1 – Preferred Alternative -Intersection with Transit Enhancements (Exhibit A)
Opportunities: Improved transit stop, updated crossing infrastructure, delineation of pedestrian
corridor, reduced impervious surface, stormwater treatment opportunities
Constraints: Reduction of three Parking spaces adjacent to the intersection
Design Elements:
1. Pavement Character – provide clear delineation of pedestrian zone, create a visual
pathway to Gondola Plaza
2. Expanded Edge of Gondola Plaza – create shorter crossing distances, traffic calming and
an inviting public space
3. Raised Intersection – creates visual awareness of pedestrians, allows for gentle traffic
calming, provides continuity from Gondola Plaza to City sidewalks
4. Bulb-Outs – shorten the pedestrian crossing distance, provide clear sight lines for
pedestrians, allows for gentle traffic calming
5. Rain Gardens – creates opportunities for local stormwater treatment, reduces the amount
of impervious space in the urban core
6. Bus Stop – drop off occurs on the western side of the intersection to reduce congestion,
allow pedestrians to cross behind a bus and reduce conflicts with parked vehicles
Alternative #2 – Intersection with Transit Elimination (Exhibit B)
Opportunities: Updated crossing infrastructure, delineation of pedestrian corridor, reduced
impervious surface, stormwater treatment opportunities
Constraints: Loss of a downtown transit stop important to skier traffic
Design Considerations:
1. Pavement Character – provide clear delineation of pedestrian zone, create a visual
pathway to Gondola Plaza
P6
II.
2. Expanded Edge of Gondola Plaza – create shorter crossing distances, traffic calming and
an inviting public space
3. Raised Intersection – creates visual awareness of pedestrians, allows for gentle traffic
calming, provides continuity from Gondola Plaza to City sidewalks
4. Bulb-Outs – shorten the pedestrian crossing distance, provide clear sight lines for
pedestrians, allows for gentle traffic calming
5. Rain Gardens – creates opportunities for local stormwater treatment, reduces the amount
of impervious space in the urban core
6. Bus Stop eliminated – transit stop is removed completely to reduce conflicts within the
intersection, riders will use the Rubey Park or Spring Street stops instead
Alternative #3 – Intersection remains unchanged (Exhibit C)
Opportunities: Update non-compliant ADA curb ramps.
Constraints: No safety gains for pedestrians or cyclists in the intersection, problematic transit
stop remains unchanged, little or no formal delineation of a high volume pedestrian crossing, no
stormwater improvements
Design Considerations:
1. Intersection geometry remains the same
2. ADA curb ramp infrastructure updated to meet Federal Standards
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Staff recommends proceeding to final construction drawings
for Alternative #1.
Funding Available (2013) Gondola Plaza Project (000.15.94118) $192,500.00
TABOR Funding (ADA Ramps) $100,000.00
C&G Replacement Funds $ 80,000.00
Stormwater Funding (Rain Gardens) $ 40,500.00
Total Funding $413,000.00
Proposed Expenditures
Estimated Construction of Preferred Alternative $413,000.00
P7
II.
GO
N
D
O
L
A
P
L
A
Z
A
P
E
D
E
S
T
R
I
A
N
C
R
O
S
S
I
N
G
|
CI
T
Y
O
F
A
S
P
E
N
June 12, 2013
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
I
M
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
S
-
P
R
E
F
E
R
R
E
D
A
L
T
E
R
N
A
T
I
V
E
1
2
3
4
5
5
9
P
A
R
A
L
L
E
L
PA
R
K
I
N
G
S
P
A
C
E
S
5
A
N
G
L
E
D
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
SP
A
C
E
S
(
I
N
C
L
U
D
I
N
G
2
M
E
T
E
R
E
D
S
P
A
C
E
S
-
IF
N
E
C
E
S
S
A
R
Y
)
4
P
A
R
A
L
L
E
L
PA
R
K
I
N
G
S
P
A
C
E
S
11
P
A
R
A
L
L
E
L
PA
R
K
I
N
G
S
P
A
C
E
S
Du
r
a
n
t
A
v
e
n
u
e
Hunter Street
No
r
t
h
o
f
N
e
l
l
Li
t
t
l
e
N
e
l
l
Go
n
d
o
l
a
P
l
a
z
a
Aj
a
x
M
o
u
n
t
a
i
n
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
As
p
e
n
S
q
u
a
r
e
Co
n
d
o
m
i
n
i
u
m
s
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
B
U
S
DR
O
P
O
F
F
1Delineated Colored Concrete Crosswalk 2Expanded edge of Gondola Plaza 3Raised Colored Concrete Paving Intersection 4Corner bump-out with brick paving and concrete banding to match Gondola Plaza 5Rain GardenLEGEND P8II.
GO
N
D
O
L
A
P
L
A
Z
A
P
E
D
E
S
T
R
I
A
N
C
R
O
S
S
I
N
G
|
CI
T
Y
O
F
A
S
P
E
N
June 12, 2013
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
I
M
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
S
W
I
T
H
O
U
T
B
U
S
D
R
O
P
O
F
F
12
P
A
R
A
L
L
E
L
PA
R
K
I
N
G
S
P
A
C
E
S
5
A
N
G
L
E
D
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
SP
A
C
E
S
(
I
N
C
L
U
D
I
N
G
2
M
E
T
E
R
E
D
S
P
A
C
E
S
-
IF
N
E
C
E
S
S
A
R
Y
)
3
P
A
R
A
L
L
E
L
PA
R
K
I
N
G
S
P
A
C
E
S
11
P
A
R
A
L
L
E
L
PA
R
K
I
N
G
S
P
A
C
E
S
Du
r
a
n
t
A
v
e
n
u
e
Hunter Street
No
r
t
h
o
f
N
e
l
l
Li
t
t
l
e
N
e
l
l
Go
n
d
o
l
a
P
l
a
z
a
Aj
a
x
M
o
u
n
t
a
i
n
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
As
p
e
n
S
q
u
a
r
e
Co
n
d
o
m
i
n
i
u
m
s
1
2
3
4
5
5
1Delineated Colored Concrete Crosswalk 2Expanded edge of Gondola Plaza 3Raised Colored Concrete Paving Intersection 4Corner bump-out with brick paving and concrete banding to match Gondola Plaza 5Rain GardenLEGEND P9II.
GO
N
D
O
L
A
P
L
A
Z
A
P
E
D
E
S
T
R
I
A
N
C
R
O
S
S
I
N
G
|
CI
T
Y
O
F
A
S
P
E
N
Ju
n
e
1
2
,
2
0
1
3
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
C
O
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
S
12
P
A
R
A
L
L
E
L
PA
R
K
I
N
G
S
P
A
C
E
S
6
A
N
G
L
E
D
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
SP
A
C
E
S
(
I
N
C
L
U
D
I
N
G
2
M
E
T
E
R
E
D
S
P
A
C
E
S
)
3
P
A
R
A
L
L
E
L
PA
R
K
I
N
G
S
P
A
C
E
S
11
P
A
R
A
L
L
E
L
PA
R
K
I
N
G
S
P
A
C
E
S
BU
S
D
R
O
P
-
O
F
F
ZO
N
E
Du
r
a
n
t
A
v
e
n
u
e
Hunter Street
No
r
t
h
o
f
N
e
l
l
Li
t
t
l
e
N
e
l
l
Go
n
d
o
l
a
P
l
a
z
a
Aj
a
x
M
o
u
n
t
a
i
n
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
As
p
e
n
S
q
u
a
r
e
Co
n
d
o
m
i
n
i
u
m
s
P10
II.
Yield at Stop Sign
Page 1 of 4
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Skadron and Aspen City Council
FROM: Trish Aragon, PE, City Engineer
THRU: Scott Miller, Capital Asset Director
Richard Pryor, Chief of Police
RE: Yield at Stop Sign Law for Bikes
DATE OF MEMO: June 11, 2013
MEETING DATE: June 18, 2013
____________________________________________________________________________
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff is seeking direction from Council on a proposed Yield at
Stop Sign Law for Bikes
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTIONS: During the January 29th worksession, Council directed
staff to further investigate the impacts of a Yield at Stop Sign Law this included:
Other communities (similar to Aspen) that have adopted the law
Legal impacts of implementing the law
Feedback from local bike shops
BACKGROUND: The stop sign law in effect in the City of Aspen assumes that bicycles are
just like cars, which requires a bike to make a full stop at every stop sign, even when there are no
cars or pedestrians nearby. However Idaho has amended its stop sign law to allow bikes to treat
stop signs as yield signs. This law has been in effect for 30 years. Possible benefits of the change
include:
Reduction in bicycle injury rates.
Increased predictability for motorists and bicyclists.
Encourages more bicycle use, which has health and environmental benefits for
individuals and the community as a whole.
Legalization of currently illegal cyclist behavior already observed routinely throughout
Aspen.
P11
III.
Yield at Stop Sign
Page 2 of 4
DISCUSSION:
Based on the direction received during that worksession Staff hired Fehr and Peers to research
other communities in Colorado and across the country that have adopted similar ordinances that
allow cyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs and to identify key implementation and
enforcement considerations of adopting a Yield at Stop Sign Law. The Fehr and Peers report is
included in Attachment A. In summary the report outlines the following:
Other Communities with the Yield at Stop Sign Law:
1. Breckenridge: Law was passed in 2010. Outreach included posting information on the
town’s bike web page and on social media outlets along with the various community
newspapers. Since the law took effect, the Town’s police department confirmed that
there has been no noticeable change in the crash history involving cyclists at stop signs.
2. Dillon: Law was passed in 2011, City performed initial outreach through press releases
and other media outlets to inform the public about the new law. They also coordinated
with local and county law enforcement officers to educate them about the law. The
overall reaction from cyclists, drivers, and law enforcement officers has been positive.
3. Summit County: Recently adopted the law. They also have had no issues since the
ordinance was introduced. They had support from the Colorado State Patrol prior to
introducing the ordinance.
Legal Considerations:
1. Current City Code Provision (24.04.080) requires roadway users to adhere to state laws
when traveling on state highways. Since SH 82 bisects Aspen, creating numerous two-
way stop controlled intersections, consideration should be given to how to best amend
this provision to include the proposed change. For example does the City want to exclude
these intersections from the proposed law?
P12
III.
Yield at Stop Sign
Page 3 of 4
2. Additionally research should be conducted to determine where else the City Code and the
State Traffic Code differ to assess the consequences of repealing Provision (24.04.080)
and allowing the City Code to address the traffic codes for the City.
3. Provision (24.04.090) of the City Code requires that any new regulation that would
directly impact the state highway system be submitted to CDOT for their review and
approval prior to City adoption.
4. Several roadways such as Castle Creek Road, Maroon Creek Road, and Hunter Creek
Road originate with the City limits but extend outside them prior to terminating. Most
roadway users probably are not aware of the City boundary limits and likely would be
unaware of the associated changes in the traffic laws when crossing between
jurisdictions. Consideration should be given to Pitkin County and their willingness to
include all portions of unincorporated Pitkin County within the law.
5. The proposed change to the law ensures that cyclists and vehicular drivers remain
responsible for their respective right of way obligations.
Other Considerations:
1. Additional Signage: Consideration should be given as to whether or not supplemental
signs are needed. This would include plaques below the existing stop signs noting
“EXCEPT BICYCLES” to provide cyclists and drivers with guidance of the proposed
rule change. However, this should be evaluated in light of the potential for increased sign
clutter and oversaturation of information provided to roadway users.
2. Outreach Efforts: Numerous and wide-reaching outreach efforts should be undertaken to
raise awareness of the proposed rule change for drivers and the cycling community.
3. Age and Ability restrictions: Children constitute a special risk category for bicycle safety:
younger cyclists may have more difficulty in making appropriate decisions regarding
assignment of right-of-way at intersections. This may be cause to consider their
exclusion from the proposed rule change. The National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration says that children less than 10 years of age are not mature enough to
make decisions to safely ride in the street.
Feedback from local Bike Shops: Below is a summary of the comments received from several
bike shops:
People are already rolling through stop signs
It would make it easier for everyone
Concerned about tourists who may not ride bikes very often. If they don’t yield and just
roll through a stop sign, it may not be very safe.
Concerned about heavy intersections (ie Aspen and Hopkins) where bikes should stop
and not yield.
Having bikes yield to cars is a good thing
P13
III.
Yield at Stop Sign
Page 4 of 4
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Consider changing Aspen’s municipal code to allow bicycles to
treat all stop signs as yield signs.
Attachments:
Attachment A, Fehr and Peers Report
P14
III.
621 17th Street | Suite 2301 | Denver, CO 80293 | (303) 296-4300
www.fehrandpeers.com
MEMORANDUM
Date: March 21, 2013
To: Trish Aragon, P.E., City Engineer
From: Rick Plenge P.E., PTOE, and Gideon Berger, AICP, Fehr & Peers
Subject: Summary of Bicycle Stop Law Research and Implementation Considerations
for Introducing City Ordinance Allowing Cyclists to Treat Stop Signs as Yield
Signs
DN13-0402.00
In support of the City of Aspen’s goal of improving the safety and comfort of those traveling by
bicycle, Fehr & Peers has prepared this memorandum summarizing available research and
implementation considerations associated with changing how cyclists are legally allowed to treat
stop signs. The City is considering introducing legislation that would allow cyclists the legal right
to yield at stop signs after following the general right of way rules at an intersection. This
proposed change would follow the governance of the “Idaho Stop Law”, passed by the State of
Idaho in 1982. This memo summarizes the Idaho Stop Law and available research documenting
its impacts, the experience of three Colorado communities with similar legislation, additional
considerations for policymakers beyond safety, and poses implementation and enforcement
considerations for the City of Aspen.
Idaho’s Stop Law
The Idaho law did not change the general right of way rules at intersections: cyclists approaching
a stop sign are still required to slow down and, if required for safety, stop before entering an
intersection. Under the law, after a cyclist has slowed to a reasonable speed or stopped, the
cyclist may enter the intersection after yielding the right of way to approaching vehicles or those
already in the intersection that would be in conflict with the cyclist’s projected route. As stated by
the Idaho law:
A person operating a bicycle or human-powered vehicle approaching a stop sign shall slow
down and, if required for safety, stop before entering the intersection. After slowing to a
reasonable speed or stopping, the person shall yield the right-of-way to any vehicle in the
intersection or approaching on another highway so closely as to constitute an immediate
hazard during the time the person is moving across or within the intersection or junction of
highways, except that a person after slowing to a reasonable speed and yielding the right-
of-way if required, may cautiously make a turn or proceed through the intersection without
stopping.
Only one known study has been conducted documenting the safety impacts associated with the
Idaho Stop Law, by Jason Meggs, a University of California Berkeley graduate student in city
planning and public health, in 2010. The study documents crash analysis and interviews
P15
III.
Trish Aragon, P.E., City Engineer
March 21, 2013
Page 2 of 8
performed to determine the impact of the law on cyclist safety. Meggs’s interviews with
representatives of law enforcement agencies, public officials, transportation professionals, bicycle
advocates, and the general public indicated that they “strongly supported” adoption of the law,
and that “no entity whatsoever identified any negative safety result associated with [its] passage.”
Crash Analysis
The study utilized statewide crash data summaries which distinguished crashes by severity,
location, and by travel mode from 1966 to 1992. It found “no evidence of any long-term increase
in injury or fatality rates as a result of the adoption of the original Idaho Law.” From fiscal years
1981-1984, which includes the years directly before and after the law took effect, the injury rate
for cyclists did not increase, and the study reports a 14.5% decline in injury rates the year
following its introduction. However, the study did not document which types of bicycle-related
crashes were reduced, or examine other potential reasons why injury rates could have declined.
For example, an increase in helmet usage by cyclists could have resulted in less injury crashes,
which would be unrelated to the law change.
The study did not reference non-injury related crashes, nor did it specifically report any change in
bicycle-involved crashes where a “Passed Stop Sign” or “Failure to Yield the Right of Way” was the
contributing circumstance. Since the law was directly related to these infractions, the study falls
short of providing a comprehensive evaluation of its impacts on cyclist safety.
The Colorado Experience
Three communities within Colorado recently introduced similar legislation to the Idaho Stop Law:
the Summit County towns of Breckenridge and Dillon, and the unincorporated areas of Summit
County. Based on the obvious similarities between these communities and the City of Aspen due
to their geographic location, cycling community, and tourism industry, these agencies were
contacted to understand what triggered the proposed rule change and what their general
experience has been since it became law.
Dillon
Dillon Town Manager Joe Ray said the proposed ordinance was initiated through various
conversations with public officials the local community. Since its passage in 2011, there has been
no reported increase in bicycle-involved crashes related to the ordinance. In addition to the
public hearing process for the proposed ordinance, the Town performed initial outreach through
press releases and other media outlets to inform the public about the new law. They also
coordinated with local and county law enforcement officers to educate them about the law. The
overall reaction from cyclists, drivers, and law enforcement officers has been positive. Based on
this, the Town has seen no reason to install additional regulatory signs to inform drivers or cyclists
of the proposed law.
The Town did introduce a related ordinance to address the rule change in relation to Colorado
State law, allowing the Town to modify the state law in relation to bicycle traffic. The associated
ordinances are noted below:
P16
III.
Trish Aragon, P.E., City Engineer
March 21, 2013
Page 3 of 8
Sec. 8-5-10. Application of traffic laws to bicycles.
Every person operating a bicycle or electric assisted bicycle has all of the rights and duties applicable
to the operator of any other vehicle under this Chapter and under state law as may be modified by
this Article. (Ord. 03-11 §1)
Sec. 8-5-20. Slowing or stopping at stop signs.
A person operating a bicycle or electric assisted bicycle approaching a stop sign shall slow down
and, if required for safety, stop before entering the intersection. After slowing to a reasonable speed
or stopping, the person shall yield the right-of-way to any vehicle in the intersection or approaching
on another street so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard during the time the person is
moving across or within the intersection or junction of streets, except that a person, after slowing to
a reasonable speed and yielding the right-of-way if required, may cautiously make a turn or
proceed through the intersection without stopping. (Ord. 03-11 §1)
Breckenridge
Chris Kulick, of the Breckenridge’s Community Development Department, said the 2010 law was
initially explored by the Town’s police department based on past concerns surrounding general
disobedience and the feeling that the law should reflect how most cyclists are treating stop signs.
A Town’s Bicycle Friendly Community Task Force had also discussed the proposed change and
how to integrate it into the Town code.
Prior to the law taking effect, the Town posted information on its website’s bike page and on
social media outlets along with the various community newspapers. Since the law took effect, the
Town’s police department confirmed that there has been no noticeable change in the crash
history involving cyclists at stop signs. The police department indicated that they primarily
perform the traffic law enforcement within the Town and thus did not do any outreach with
Summit County or the Colorado State Patrol to inform them of the change. Like Dillon,
Breckenridge has not seen a need to install additional regulatory signs to remind drivers or
cyclists of the law. (They also sighted visual sign clutter as a reason for not to pursue additional
signing.)
The Town of Breckenridge ordinance is noted below:
Sec. 7-1-2. (Modifying Section 1412 of the Model Traffic Code)
(12) (a) A person operating a bicycle or electrical assisted bicycle approaching a stop sign shall slow
down and, if required for safety, stop before entering the intersection. After slowing to a reasonable
speed or stopping, the person shall yield the right-of-way to any vehicle in the intersection or
approaching on another roadway so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard during the time
the person is moving across or within the intersection, except that a person after slowing to a
reasonable speed and yielding the right-of-way if required, may cautiously make a turn or proceed
through the intersection without stopping.
Summit County
Thad Noll, Assistant Summit County Manager, said the County recently adopted a similar
ordinance for all its unincorporated areas. They also have had no issues since the ordinance was
P17
III.
Trish Aragon, P.E., City Engineer
March 21, 2013
Page 4 of 8
introduced. The only concern is that all three communities have slightly different language within
their laws, which could cause some confusion for both cyclists and law enforcement officials.
Summit County had support from the Colorado State Patrol prior to introducing the ordinance.
The Summit County ordinance is noted below:
Section 5 of the Summit County Traffic Code titled Additional Provisions of the Summit
county Traffic Code is hereby amended by the addition of following sub-section:
N. Bicycles – Stopping – Turn and Stop Signals
A person operating a bicycle or electrical assisted bicycle approaching a stop sign or a steady red
traffic control signal shall slow down and, if required for safety, stop before entering the intersection.
After slowing to a reasonable speed or stopping, the person shall yield the right-of-way to any
vehicle in the intersection or approaching on another roadway so closely as to constitute an
immediate hazard during the time the person is moving across or within the intersection, except
that a person after slowing to a reasonable speed and yielding the right-of-way if required, may
cautiously make a turn or proceed through the intersection without stopping.
Considerations Beyond Safety
Meggs’s study of the Idaho Law it cites other benefits, including:
Energy use, travel time and route choice
Bicycle usage and safety
Cyclist exposure to auto-based air pollution
Motorist behavior and collision avoidance
Since we believe these considerations have additional relevance to policymakers in Aspen, each of
these is discussed below.
Energy Use, Travel Time and Route Choice
With the exception of recreational cyclists, most cyclists prefer to ride on lower-stress streets,
which have less traffic volume and lower travel speeds. These roadway characteristics are typically
found on residential streets through-streets (such as collectors) that often become attractive cut-
through routes for automobile drivers when major streets experience delay or congestion. The
attractiveness of these cut-through routes can lead to an outcry from local residents, in response
to which jurisdictions install unnecessary and unwarranted stop signs to make these streets less
attractive as potential cut-through routes.
These changes can have an undesirable impact on cyclists. One study found that, with frequent
stops, cyclists require up to five times the energy output to maintain an average speed of 12.5
mph (Fajans and Curry, 2001). Considering that cyclists generally produce about 100 watts of
power to maintain an average travel speed, the needed energy output of 500 watts (assuming 300
feet between intersections with stop signs) can be an unattainable effort for most average cyclists.
To provide a window into the cyclist’s mental calculation at stop sign: rolling through at 5 mph
requires 25 percent less energy to reestablish a speed of 10 mph compared to coming to a
complete stop.
P18
III.
Trish Aragon, P.E., City Engineer
March 21, 2013
Page 5 of 8
This often leads cyclists to disobey stop signs by rolling through or diverting to higher-
classification roadways (such as arterials) with fewer controlled stops but higher traffic volumes—
a trade-off of cyclist comfort and perception of safety. A Texas study found avoiding heavy traffic
was the first factor among cyclists’ route choice; avoiding frequent stops was the second (Sener,
et al., 2009).
Bicycle Usage and Safety
By providing routes and regulations that are less inhibiting to cyclists, the percentage of the
population who choose to travel by bike likely will increase and thus lead to improved safety
performance of roadways through the safety in numbers finding. For example, a study found that
0.3 fewer in stops per kilometer along a route resulted in nearly 5% greater mode share for
bicycling (Rietveld and Daniel, 2004), while other studies have found that safety improves as more
cyclists use a route—drivers have a greater expectancy to encounter them and drive with
heightened awareness.
Exposure to Pollutants
Automobile-caused pollution is generally at its highest concentration where vehicles have the
greatest tendency to be idling and accelerating and where traffic on multiple approaches
intersects. A study found that “any measure that increases the distance between cyclists and tail-
pipes will help to reduce exposure” (Panis et al., 2010). Providing opportunities to allow cyclists to
clear the intersection faster would reduce their exposure levels to these pollutants.
Motorist Behavior and Collision Avoidance
One of the biggest complaints amongst cyclists who comply with the existing stop laws stems
from driver confusion about the right of way. Often drivers, who technically have the right of way,
will concede the right of way after the cyclist has already come to a stop and is not prepared to
accelerate. But more aggressive drivers may disregard the cyclist’s right of way, proceeding
through the intersection and leading to a general uncertainty from both the cyclist and driver. An
FHWA study found that motorist ride-out (resume travel after a complete stop) was about 60%
more likely than cyclists to cause bicycle crashes at stop controlled intersections (Hunter et al.,
1999).
At the same time, one of the biggest complaints amongst drivers about cyclists is poor
compliance with traffic control devices. This has often resulted in requests for increased
enforcement from law enforcement staff, many of which feel this enforcement is waste of
resources. Furthermore, this behavior can lead to a general animosity towards cyclists, resulting
in some drivers acting aggressively, which discourages some cyclists from choosing to ride. This
uncertainty and modally oriented animosity would likely be minimized by encouraging more
consistent behavior from cyclists, such as under Idaho’s Stop Law.
Bicyclists generally have some advantages over motorists when it comes to avoiding collisions,
based on their:
better sight lines provided by a higher and wider viewing angle,
lower operating speeds, which provide shorter stopping distances and more reaction time
for an avoidance maneuver,
P19
III.
Trish Aragon, P.E., City Engineer
March 21, 2013
Page 6 of 8
better hearing in most cases, since they are not in an enclosed vehicle, and
overall increased agility based on a smaller operating size and turning radius.
A cyclist in motion generally has more opportunity to make an avoidance maneuver as opposed
to one that is at a complete stop.
Implementation and Enforcement Considerations
If the City of Aspen is to move forward with changing to its City Code to allow cyclists to yield at
stop signs, it should first evaluate several key implementation and enforcement considerations.
These considerations would play an important role in educating both roadway users and law
enforcement officers, as well as addresses existing City Code Provisions that deal with state
highways and CDOT’s approval process.
Addressing City Code Provision (Sec. 24.04.080) – Duty to obey state traffic laws on state
highways.
On any portion of any state highway connecting link within the City no person shall violate any of
the provisions of Chapter 13, C.R.S., 1963, nor any of the laws amending the same, nor any of the
rules or regulations issued pursuant hereto. (Code 1962, § 10-6-5; Ord. No. 37-1966; Code 1971, §
22-9)
Current City Code Provision (24.04.080) requires roadway users to adhere to state laws when
traveling on state highways. Since SH 82 bisects the majority of Aspen, creating numerous two-
way stop controlled intersections, consideration should be given to how to best amend this
provision to include the proposed change. To minimize roadway user confusion and enforcement
issues, it is strongly recommended that the proposed change include all roadways within the City
limits, including roadways under the jurisdiction of CDOT. Research should be conducted to
determine where else the City Code and the State Traffic Code differ to assess the consequences
of repealing Provision (24.04.080) and allowing the City Code to address the traffic codes for the
City.
Addressing City Code Provision (Sec. 24.04.090) – Approval of regulations which affect
state highways.
All traffic and parking regulations adopted which pertain to the streets and roadways which form a
part of the state highway system and constitute a connecting link thereof, shall be submitted to the
Department of Highways for approval in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 120, Article 13,
Section 35(8), C.R.S, 1963, before they shall become effective. (Code 1962, § 10-6-9; Ord. No. 37-
1966; Code 1971, § 22-10)
Provision (24.04.090) of the City Code requires that any new regulation that would directly impact
the state highway system be submitted to CDOT for their review and approval prior to City
adoption. According to discussions with Summit County communities with similar state highway
facilities, they did not have this provision to require CDOT approval for local regulations that
impacted the state highway system. Consideration could be given to repealing this ordinance
after conferring with CDOT staff as to its origin.
P20
III.
Trish Aragon, P.E., City Engineer
March 21, 2013
Page 7 of 8
Educating traffic code enforcement personal from the City of Aspen, Pitkin County, US
Forest Service, and Colorado State Patrol on the change in the City Code
To insure that all government personnel tasked with enforcing the traffic laws within the City are
familiar with any law change, training sessions should be provided to educate the personnel on
the correct interpretation and enforcement of the law. Prior to the developing the training course
and training materials, it is recommended that input be solicited from the local cycling community
to understand their concerns and address them within the training sessions.
Incorporating portions of the roadway network that originate within the City limits but
terminate within Pitkin County into the proposed change
Several roadways such as Castle Creek Road, Maroon Creek Road, and Hunter Creek Road
originate with the City limits but extend outside them prior to terminating. Most roadway users
probably are not aware of the City boundary limits and likely would be unaware of the associated
changes in the traffic laws when crossing between jurisdictions. It is recommended either that all
roads that originate, terminate, or require travel through the City of Aspen to access be
incorporated into the proposed change in the law, or that signage at the City limits indicate the
difference in jurisdictional law. Similar to Summit County’s approach, consideration should be
given to including all portions of unincorporated Pitkin County within the law.
Educating cyclists and drivers on the proposed change through various outreach efforts
Numerous and wide-reaching outreach efforts should be undertaken to raise awareness of the
proposed rule change for drivers and the cycling community. Examples noted below are
especially important when considering Aspen’s large tourist population and its unfamiliarity with
local traffic laws, especially those not normally found in other parts of the country:
City/County Building Postings
Municipal Websites
Newspaper/Magazine Publications/Visitor Guides/Trail Maps
Social Media
Radio
Educational Institutions
Airport (internal kiosks, taxi/limo drivers, etc.)
Drivers Education Instructors
Educations Flyers (Distributed by Law Enforcement Staff)
Community Information Boards (Tourist Centers, Ski Area Kiosks, etc.)
RFTA Park-n-Rides, Bus Stops, Internal Bus Advertising
Along Regional Multi-Use Trail System
Bicycle Education Safe Route to School Ambassadors in Local Schools
Hotel Staff/Property Managers
The Summit County communities have each utilized some of these strategies to publicize the
change in the law.
P21
III.
Trish Aragon, P.E., City Engineer
March 21, 2013
Page 8 of 8
Identifying the need for additional traffic control devices
Consideration should be given to installing supplemental plaques below the existing stop signs
noting “EXCEPT BICYCLES” to provide cyclists and drivers with guidance of the proposed rule
change. However, this should be evaluated in light of the potential for increased sign clutter and
oversaturation of information provided to roadway users. Based on the number of existing stop
signs located throughout the City, consideration should be also given to the fabrication,
installation, and maintenance costs associated with any additional signs. While none of the
Summit County communities have installed additional traffic control devices related to the law,
the context in Aspen may dictate different approaches.
Evaluating age and ability restrictions
Based on research, children constitute a special risk category for bicycle safety: younger cyclists
may have more difficulty in making appropriate decisions regarding assignment of right-of-way
at intersections. This may be cause to consider their exclusion from the proposed rule change.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says that children less than 10 years of age are
not mature enough to make decisions to safely ride in the street.
In Idaho’s experience, child cyclist safety is addressed by Safe Routes to Schools and other
programs. One Idaho study found that 90 percent of children instructed to stop at stop signs did
so (Kimmel and Nagel, 1990). Similarly, considerations should be made about the elderly and
cyclists with physical disabilities. A Denmark study found that cyclists over the age of 70 preferred
signalized crossings at arterials and were more likely to stop and look before turning left
(Bernhoft and Carstensen, 2008). However, it should be noted that none of the Summit County
communities have placed age-related restrictions within the law, and Idaho’s law allows these
choices to be made individually, without imposing them on all cyclists.
P22
III.