HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.202107261
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
July 26, 2021
4:00 PM, City Council Chambers
130 S Galena Street, Aspen
I.WORK SESSION
I.A.Elected Official Transportation Committee Preparation
I.B.Uphill Economy Initiative
1
Elected Officials Transportation Committee (EOTC)
Thursday, July 29, 2021 - 4:00pm
Location – Pitkin County BOCC Meeting Room; Host and Chair – Pitkin County
EOTC Background, Documents, and Packet Materials may be found here:
https://pitkincounty.com/1322/Elected-Officials-Transportation-Committ
EOTC Vision: We envision the Roaring Fork Valley as the embodiment of a sustainable transportation
system emphasizing mass transit and mobility that contributes to the happiness and wellbeing of
residents and visitors.
EOTC Mission: Work collectively to reduce and manage the volume of vehicles on the road and
parking system and continue to develop and support a comprehensive multimodal, long-range strategy
that will insure a convenient, equitable and efficient transportation system for the Roaring Fork Valley.
Summary of State Statute and Ballot Requirements: The 0.5% County Transit Sales and Use Tax
shall be used for the purpose of financing, constructing, operating and managing a public, fixed route
mass transportation system within the Roaring Fork Valley.
Public Comment Instructions:
Seating is limited for in person attendance / public comment in order to continue social distancing.
Masks are highly suggested. Joining by Zoom is also available (see details below).
Please click the link below to join the webinar:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83875742929?pwd=cmY1c09zVG9PcEg2Z2N6bmhQMFNsQT09
Password: 024693
Note: Zoom does require the participant to have or create an account. Please ‘raise your hand’ prior to
Public Comment. If you would like to provide comments on one of the agenda items during the meeting
please ‘raise your hand’ and the host or chair will unmute you when the chair acknowledges public
comment for each item.
I. 4:00 - 4:10 PUBLIC COMMENT
(Comments limited to three minutes per person)
II.4:10 - 4:20 EOTC COMMITTEE MEMBER UPDATES
1 2
III. 4:20 – 5:45 REPORT OUT ON THE FOLLOWING STUDIES AND PROVIDE
ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTION ON THE STAFF PROPOSED
2021 NEAR TERM TRANSIT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM:
1)INTEGRATED MOBILITY SYSTEM (IMS) STUDY
2)UPPER VALLEY TRANSIT ENHANCEMENT (UVTE) STUDY
David Pesnichak, Transportation Administrator
Decision Needed: Administrative Direction to Proceed with Staff
Proposed 2021 EOTC Near Term Transit Improvement Program
IV. 5:45 – 6:15 MAROON CREEK ROUNDABOUT RECONSTRUCTION 2022
FUNDING REQUEST
David Pesnichak, Transportation Administrator; and,
Andrew Knapp, PE, Resident Engineer, CDOT Glenwood Springs
Residency
Decision Needed: Approval of 2022 Maroon Creek Roundabout
Reconstruction Funding Request, Approval of an Amended 2021 EOTC
Budget, and Authorization for Signature on the Resolution of Approval
for Town of Snowmass Village and City of Aspen (Pitkin County will be
authorized separately as a Supplemental Budget Request)
V.6:15 – 6.30 UPDATES-INFORMATION ONLY (Q&A)
A.Brush Creek Park and Ride to AABC Trail Connection Feasibility
Study
B.Brush Creek Park and Ride – One-Season Food Truck / Farm
Stand Experiment
C.Buttermilk Park and Ride Signage
D. No-Fare Service Cost Transfer from EOTC to RFTA
E.Town of Snowmass Village Transit Center – Progress Update
(Provided by David Peckler, Transportation Director, Town of
Snowmass Village)
*Next meeting is October 28, 2021 – City of Aspen to Host & Chair
2
Page 12
Page 43
Page 54
3
2021 WORK PLAN – FOR REFERENCE ONLY
3 4
2021 WORK PLAN – FOR REFERENCE ONLY
4 5
2021 WORK PLAN – FOR REFERENCE ONLY
5 6
2021 WORK PLAN – FOR REFERENCE ONLY
6 7
2021 WORK PLAN – FOR REFERENCE ONLY
7 8
2021 BUDGET – FOR REFERENCE ONLY
8 9
ELECTED OFFICIALS TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE (EOTC)
AGREEMENTS & DECISIONS REACHED
AT THE MARCH 25, 2021 MEETING
Location (In Person and Virtual) – Town of Snowmass Village
Town of Snowmass Village - Host & Chair
Elected Officials in Attendance:
Aspen – 5 Pitkin County - 4 Snowmass - 4
Torre Kelly McNicholas Kury Markey Butler
Ward Hauenstein Steve Child Tom Goode
Skippy Mesirow George Newman Bill Madsen
Ann Mullins Greg Poschman Alyssa Shenk
Rachael Richards
Absent: Patti Clapper, Bob Sirkus
______________________________________________________________________________
Agreements & Decisions Reached
PUBLIC COMMENT
None
COMMITTEE MEMBER UPDATES
Rachael Richard provided an update and overview of a new transportation funding bill that is
expected to be introduced in the Colorado Legislature in the spring of 2021.
Proposed 2021 EOTC IGA Update
David Pesnichak - Transportation Administrator
Mr. Pesnichak explained the background and context of the proposed EOTC IGA update. Mr.
Pesnichak explained that the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between the City of Aspen,
Town of Snowmass Village and Pitkin County that created the EOTC’s organizational structure
is still in its original form from its adoption in 1993. Following guidance from the 2019 EOTC
retreat, the EOTC adopted a Strategic Plan and updated Comprehensive Valley Transportation
Plan (CVTP) in 2020. Among the final steps to be taken from the direction obtained at the retreat
in 2019 includes clarifying the decision making structure and updating the guiding documents
for the EOTC. In accordance with the accepted 2020 and 2021 EOTC Work Plan, this is to be
accomplished through an update to the 1993 IGA and considered in the spring of 2021 following
adoption of the Strategic Plan and updated CVTP.
9 10
It was noted that although the IGA, Resolution 61 and Resolution 62 were adopted separately in
1993, they are also all interdependent. While these separate adoptions appears to have been
logical in 1993 in advance of the election for the ½ cent transit sales and use tax, maintaining
them as independent documents at his point is cumbersome. As a result, Staff recommended an
updated IGA that combines the relevant provisions from the original IGA, Resolution 61, and
Resolution 62.
Mr. Pesnichak noted that the recommended changes from the staff, managers, attorneys, and
bond counsel reviews have been incorporated into the proposed IGA draft. Further, while the
primary goal of this update is the clarify decision making and governance, Staff referred the
proposed IGA to Pitkin County bond council to ensure no inadvertent impacts to revenue
distribution, bonds or bond holders would occur with this update.
The draft proposal included four primary changes to governance and decision making for the
EOTC including: 1) Identifying the organizational structure and committee name, 2) That EOTC
meetings are to be held as noticed special meetings where voting at those meetings is to be final,
3) Identifying the decision making processes, and 4) Identifying what a quorum means to the
EOTC.
Staff recommended that the EOTC adopt the staff proposed IGA update.
The Committee discussed how the proposed IGA would impact an EOTC meeting where one
party does not have a quorum. Following some deliberation, Mr. Pesnichak explained that since
the EOTC would meet in noticed special meetings for each jurisdiction, in this situation an
EOTC meeting would need to be either: 1) rescheduled or continued to another date where a
quorum can be established or, 2) rescheduled for individual meetings within each jurisdiction.
Further, it was noted that the intent of this IGA update was to not only bring the IGA document
up to current times, but also raise the bar for the Committee and how decisions are made. Some
committee members expressed concern that should quorum not be able to be achieved, the
EOTC could end up having many meetings within individual jurisdictions and thereby missing a
shared understanding of the topic at hand. Other committee members stated that with the
presence of online participation, a quorum should be regularly achievable for each jurisdiction.
The question arose whether proxy voting could be used to help gain a quorum at EOTC
meetings. However, since neither the City of Aspen nor the Town of Snowmass Village allow
for proxy voting, that was not an option that could be considered.
It was noted that the sentence that identified a quorum for the committee was unclear,
particularly how the EOTC is to respond if a quorum cannot be achieved. As a result, it was
recommended that this sentence in Section 2.a. of the proposed IGA be amended.
10 11
The committee also discussed a desire for Administrative Direction to require agreement by all
three parties instead of just two as recommended. There was general agreement that
Administrative Direction should be agreed upon by all three jurisdictions and as a result, this
section was recommended to be amended.
The EOTC voted to adopt the staff recommended 2021 IGA Update with the following
amendments: 1) Clarify the options available to the EOTC should a quorum not be established at
an EOTC meeting in Section 2.a., and 2) Identify that Administrative Direction is to be agreed
upon by all three parties, not just two, by amending Section 2.f. and the EOTC Decision Making
Process Overview table. Staff was directed to create the exact wording for these amendments,
have the amendments reviewed by City of Aspen, Town of Snowmass Village and Pitkin County
attorneys, and present the updated IGA draft to each jurisdiction for a final vote.
The vote for the 2021 EOTC IGA update with the aforementioned amendments was conducted
by jurisdiction. The vote was as follows:
Pitkin County: 4-0
Town of Snowmass Village: 4-0
City of Aspen: 5-0
11 12
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
EOTC MEETING DATE: July 29, 2021
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Integrated Mobility System (IMS) Study and Upper
Valley Transit Enhancement (UVTE) Study Report Out
and Administrative Direction
STAFF RESPONSIBLE: David Pesnichak, Transportation Administrator
CONSULTING TEAMS: IMS: Fehr and Peers
UVTE: Mead and Hunt
ISSUE STATEMENT: In 2020 and 2021 the EOTC with support from RFTA and CDOT,
commissioned two studies: the Integrated Mobility System (IMS) study and the Upper Valley Transit
Enhancement (UVTE) study. While these two studies were conducted independently and with separate
consulting teams, the IMS can be viewed as the umbrella study. The UVTE, which focusses on
infrastructure improvements to increase access to and efficiency of transit, is a first step in progressing
BRT Enhancements, which is one of the five strategies of the IMS. Based on the results of these two
studies, Staff has developed an EOTC Near Term Transit Improvement Program that prioritizes the most
productive and feasible efforts identified in these two studies into three priority tiers. The efforts
identified in the first and second tiers are those projects that are most in need, feasible in the near term,
and/or are necessary to progress later efforts. Staff will utilize the direction provided from EOTC 2021
Near Term Transit Improvement Program as guidance to help develop the coming EOTC Budgets and
Work Plans starting with 2022. As a result, Staff is looking for Administrative Direction to proceed with
the proposed EOTC 2021 Near Term Transit Improvement Program as proposed.
BACKGROUND:
Memo Contents
-Integrated Mobility System (IMS) study
o Background
o Outcomes
-Upper Valley Transit Enhancement (UVTE) study
o Background
o Outcomes
-EOTC Near Term Transit Improvement Program
o Purpose and Legal Standing
o Components of the Program
o How the Program will be Utilized
-Staff Recommendation
12 13
Integrated Mobility System (IMS) Study – Phase 2
Background:
The Community Forum Task Force on Transportation and Mobility is a 31-citizen member
committee that was created to address the transportation issues that have plagued the upper
Roaring Fork Valley. The Task Force met in 2016 and 2017. In 2017 the Task Force released the
Upper Valley Mobility Report which outline the Integrated Mobility System (IMS). The IMS is
comprised of five key pillars or strategies that could be implemented as budgets permit over
short, mid, and long-term timeframes.
The five strategies identified within the IMS are (See graphic below): phased BRT
enhancements, ride sharing, ride hailing, HOV Lane enforcement, and congestion reduction
measures.
Five Pillars or Strategies of the IMS
This analysis of the IMS has been a 2 phase, 1.5-year study starting in 2020 and completing in
2021.
Phase 1 - In 2019, the EOTC and RFTA pooled resources to begin an initial analysis of the IMS
in 2020, which was completed by Fehr and Peers.
The Phase 1 analysis included:
a.Refinement and definition of the five strategies identified in the IMS to allow for
modeling purposes.
13 14
b. Performance of a high-level effectiveness analysis of the five strategies of the IMS to
create a general picture of the potential reduction in vehicle miles travelled (VMT),
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and reduced single occupancy vehicle (SOV) travel.
c. Identification of a draft initial implementation framework.
Phase 1 created a ranked effectiveness of the five strategies of the IMS based on anticipated
long-term congestion reduction and related greenhouse gas emissions.
Phase 1 Anticipated Long Term Effectiveness of the five IMS strategies if implemented
independently
In addition, Phase 1 highlighted two major takeaways from the analysis:
- Interdependency of strategies:
Individual measures can have limited impacts on reductions to congestion and greenhouse gas
emissions, however their effectiveness can be multiplied when implemented as a system.
- No Silver Bullet:
When moving forward with congestion mitigation and limiting greenhouse gas emissions, small
incremental steps that build on one another are expected to have the greatest overall impact.
Based on the identified effectiveness of the five strategies of the IMS along with the two noted
takeaways, the Fehr and Peers team developed the following draft implementation outline.
Short-Term Implementation (0-5 Years):
‐ HOV lane enforcement on State Highway (SH) 82
‐ Increase parking prices and expand hours of pricing in downtown Aspen
‐ Speed and reliability improvements along BRT route
14 15
‐ Implement pilot ridesharing app for commuters
Medium-Term Implementation (3-10 Years):
‐ Implement ride hailing service in Aspen/Snowmass Area
‐ Monitor performance to ensure mobility and emissions goals are being met
‐ Expand the City of Aspen’s carsharing program, and begin fleet electrification
‐ Expand the Aspen Downtowner’s service and fleet
‐ Construct new Park & Ride in the Carbondale/El Jebel/Basalt area, and enhance bus
connections between Snowmass and Aspen
Long-Term Implementation (11+ Years):
‐ Implement dynamic road pricing on SH 82
Throughout Phase 1, Fehr and Peers in conjunction with Staff developed three report out
memoranda. At the end of Phase 1, the Transportation Administrator along with the Fehr and
Peers team reported these conclusions out to the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners,
the City of Aspen City Council, the Town of Snowmass Village Town Council, and the RFTA
Board. These report out meetings all occurred in September of 2020.
Phase 2 - With direction from the EOTC and support from RFTA and CDOT, Pitkin County
procured the assistance of Fehr and Peers to execute Phase 2 of this study. The Phase 2 analysis
was completed in June 2021 and includes the follow elements:
a. Develop performance measures and an evaluation framework to ensure the IMS is
working well and achieving the desired goals.
b. More detailed travel analysis on what trips are likely to be affected by the IMS and more
detail on how to mitigate some of the impacts caused by the IMS.
c. Using the detailed travel analysis, perform a more detailed transportation GHG emissions
analysis.
d. Perform an equity impact analysis of the IMS to understand which groups might be
disproportionally impacted and develop mitigation measures to address those impacts.
e. Perform an autonomous vehicle risk and benefit assessment to understand how the IMS
will need to be adjusted to a future with AVs (includes both private AVs and autonomous
transit).
f. Analyze the potential impacts from COVID-19 on the implementation of the IMS.
A final professional written report documenting the methodology, process and findings for the
overall IMS can be found in Attachment 3 (due to the size of the report, a link is provided).
15 16
For analysis purposes, Fehr and Peers broke the travel patterns into four “travel markets”:
Residents, Workers, Local Visitors, and Non-Local Visitors. Based on the VMT and GHG
emissions research conducted by Fehr and Peers, the report made several conclusions:
- Non-local visitors contribute the most to the VMT into Aspen and Snowmass Village –
more than 50 percent in the summer and nearly as much in the peak winter season
- Commuters are the next largest share of VMT and total trip making after non-local
visitors
- Residents and local visitors represent much smaller shares of total trips and VMT into
Aspen and Snowmass Village
From this analysis, the report notes that “Based on these results, it is clear that substantial
reductions in VMT and GHG emissions into Aspen and Snowmass Village will require a focus
on non-local visitors and commuters. However, when evaluating how to manage travel from
these two groups, the implications to equity and the overall economic engine of the region must
be taken into consideration.”
When factoring in Autonomous Vehicles (AVs) and the long-term effects of the COVID-19
pandemic, Fehr and Peers forecasted the anticipated impacts to per capita VMT and per capita
transit ridership. The impacts of COVID-19 are expected mostly in the nearer term out to 2030
while widespread AV utilization is not expected until 2030 to 2050.
A couple of the more notable factors identified in the Fehr and Peers study impacting long term
per capita VMT and GHG emissions include (see report for more detail):
- Autonomous Vehicles (AVs) are expected to have both a push and pull effect on VMT
over the long term. More specifically, private and rental AVs are expected to notably
increase VMT particularly from non-local visitors while transit AVs are expected to
slightly decrease VMT among commuters and residents. Overall, AVs are expected to
have a stronger push (increase) than a pull (decrease) on VMT within the Upper Valley.
- Remote work is not available to a large portion of the Upper Valley work force. As a
result, remote work is not expected to have as large of a pull (decrease) impact on VMT
and GHG emissions in the long term in the Upper Valley as it could in other locations. In
addition, should remote work encourage other workers to move into the Upper Valley to
live and work full or part time for a remote employer, this will likely to drive up VMT
and transit trips within the resident travel market.
Below is the graph created by Fehr and Peers showing the overall expected trends in VMT per
capita and Transit Trips per capita out to 2050. This graph combines all of the travel markets
evaluated by Fehr and Peers within the Upper Valley. For a breakdown of each travel market and
an explanation of the inputs, please see the report linked as Attachment 3.
16 17
Utilizing the analysis on GHG emissions and VMT, the IMS Study report makes several
recommendations as discussed below.
Outcomes:
Based on the results from the IMS Phase 1 and Phase 2 studies, Fehr and Peers established the
below implementation packages based on levels of effectiveness to reduce VMT and GHG
emissions.
To provide some context for these packages, Fehr and Peers provided the following explanation:
Each of the packages have independent utility, but some packages, notably
packages 1, 2, and 3 would likely not be combined, whereas packages 4 and 5 could
be implemented with any combination of other packages. The packages were
developed based, in part, on the Phase 1 finding that HOV lane enforcement did
not have any direct VMT or GHG emissions benefits, but it strongly enhanced the
other IMS strategies. Similarly, given that the Aspen/Snowmass Village area
already has strong transit service, the BRT enhancements suggested in the IMS
would have less of a stand-alone benefit than we would see in most other
communities, but they provide fundamental support to increasing the cost of driving
(through parking fees, tolls, or cordon charges) that are part of packages 1-3.
17 18
As is noted in the report from Fehr and Peers, while packages 1 and 2, and particularly Managed
Lanes (High Occupancy Toll, or HOT lanes) and a Cordon Toll, can provide the greatest
reductions in VMT and GHG emissions they also present significant legal, operational, financial,
equity, and public relations hurdles. It is also worth noting that either the implementation of a
Managed Lane or a Cordon Toll is likely to require an amended or new Record of Decision
(ROD) from the Federal Highways Administration (FHWA) for that respective section of
Highway 82.
The Fehr and Peers study also reviewed equity concerns, particularly from congestion pricing. In
order to offset the increased inequity that Managed Lanes and Cordon Tolling can create, it is
recommended that revenues from tolling go back into improving and expanding public transit,
bicycling and walking options.
The Fehr and Peers report offers the following conclusion regarding equity:
… it appears that congestion pricing, in general, could have a greater impact on
lower income residents and employees since the price charged does not vary based
on income. The effects are less pronounced for priced lanes compared to an overall
cordon toll since the priced lanes include a free (although congested) option for
those who cannot or do not want to pay for that particular trip. These findings are
entirely in-line with the Aspen Institute’s Upper Valley Mobility
Report.
Implementing congestion pricing on SH 82 could add an additional cost burden for
these people, while residents who can afford to both live and work in Aspen would
not need to regularly pay this cost, which could add to the disparate impact of
tolling. Priced lanes can be seen as inequitable because rush hour travelers who
18 19
commute in the same direction as congestion (where congestion pricing would be
most effective) are largely affluent and are more capable of paying the cost (Rand
Corporation and Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, 2007). However,
there may be options to reinvest tolling revenue into transit facilities as to improve
transit performance and mobility for riders.
Finally, the IMS Phase 2 study recommended performance measures to be utilized to monitor
progress. These are outlined in the chart below.
19 20
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement (UVTE) Study
Background:
The UVTE progresses the “BRT Enhancements” strategy identified in the IMS (described
above), which is a basic component to the overall success of the IMS.
The goal of the UVTE is to identify and prioritize infrastructure projects between Service Center
Road (Aspen Airport) and the Maroon Creek Roundabout that:
1) Increase transit efficiency and speed; and,
2) Increase bicycle / pedestrian access to transit stops.
This study was set up to identify the most effective, feasible, and implementable infrastructure
improvements that will increase the efficiency and accessibility of transit while considering
existing plans and redevelopment efforts currently under review. The study also had emphasis on
projects that could and should be progressed in the near term.
The stages and elements of the study were as follows:
a. Existing conditions and needs assessment.
b. Identification of possible infrastructure improvements to achieve the stated goals.
c. Create a cost/benefit analysis and prioritized list of most impactful and cost effective
improvements to achieve the stated goals.
d. Develop a final plan for implementation.
e. Any unused budgeted funds are to be utilized to create initial concept plans for the top
2-3 identified projects. (To be completed between July 29, 2021 and December 31, 2021)
The result is a detailed analysis of the transit, vehicle and access infrastructure through the study
corridor. The proposed improvements were modeled to determine effectiveness at improving
transit efficiency and access not only at the individual project level but also as a system.
Mead and Hunt evaluated the identified improvements utilizing Measurements of Effectiveness
(MOEs). These included a rating scale of effectiveness in the following categories:
- Multimodal (Person Throughput, HOV Travel Time, Non-Auto Mode Share)
- Vehicle (Intersection Level of Service, Auto Travel Time, Crash Reduction)
20 21
- Pedestrian / Bicycle (Walkshed Size, Pedestrian Exposure/Conflicts, Bicycle Level of Traffic
Stress)
- Transit (Transit Ridership, Transit Travel Time)
- Other Impacts (Cost, Regulatory Impact, Stakeholder Preference, Emissions)
The improvements that were evaluated through the above Measurements of Effectiveness were
first identified primarily from traffic and walk shed models. As a result, it is important to keep in
mind that the identified improvements are at the idea and concept generation stage only based on
modelling results. Complete designs and thorough feasibility of each of these improvements
would be necessary if they move forward.
Staff reviewed the results of the analysis conducted by Mead and Hunt and has done further
refinement of the recommendations based on legal and other contexts. The staff recommended
list of projects is reflected in the proposed EOTC Near Term Transit Improvement Program.
Also reflected in the proposed EOTC Near Term Transit Improvement Program, based on the
contract with Mead and Hunt, are three projects to progress immediately to concept plan
development by Mead and Hunt. As a part of the contract with Mead and Hunt, any remaining
funds are to be utilized to progress the top 2-3 infrastructure projects through conceptual design.
The amount of time available from the Mead and Hunt team will be limited by the amount of
funds available from the current UVTE project budget.
The benefit to obtaining a conceptual design of these projects are: 1) it increases public
understanding of the project and enables further evaluation; and 2) it is valuable in obtaining
grants and furthering permitting with the necessary authorities. It is important to note that a
concept plan is not a full construction or permitted design and while it is an important step in that
direction, it does not enable the project to be considered “shovel ready”. Further design funding
would need to be identified by either the EOTC or other sources for the identified projects in
order to achieve full design.
Outcomes:
The analysis conducted by Mead and Hunt identified several possible improvements for
consideration. As an overview description of all the improvements considered, these
improvements are outlined below, moving geographically up valley from Service Center Road to
the Maroon Creek Roundabout.
Please note that the below outline is an overview listing of all improvements considered and each
of these projects are not necessarily recommended for further action. The projects recommended
for further action are identified in the 2021 EOTC Near Term Transit Improvement Program
(Attachment 1 - staff recommendation). Also, a more detailed staff analysis is provided in the
21 22
2021 EOTC Near Term Transit Improvement Program section of this memo along with visuals
of the improvements if applicable and available.
- HOV Lane Enforcement – Generally, the study identified that enforcement of the existing HOV
lanes is necessary to decrease overall congestion or improve transit efficiency. The traffic
modeling conducted assumed effective HOV lane enforcement.
- HOV Lane Extensions – This modification is to extend the HOV lane moving up valley at the
Airport and at the Maroon Creek Roundabout. These extensions would convert limited sections
of the existing Bus Only Lane into HOV lane in order to reduce overall congestion at those
bottlenecks.
- Traffic Signal Technology Improvement – Advanced signal technology was evaluated as a way
to improve transit efficiency through this corridor.
- Service Center Road – New traffic signal with pedestrian crossing and speed limit reduction
from 55mph to 45mph on Highway 82. This improvement is intended to: 1) provide a protected
crossing to the RFTA stop on both sides of Highway 82, and 2) increase safety for vehicles on
Highway 82 and those entering the Highway from Service Center Road.
- Sage Way Sidewalk – It was noted that Sage Way within the AABC does not have consistent
sidewalks. This improvement is intended to increase safe bicycle and pedestrian connections to
transit stops in this area.
- BRT Connection to New Airport Terminal – This evaluation was included within this study in
order to identify how to maintain existing transit times should the BRT transit stop be relocated
into a new Airport terminal. Operational issues with this approach or other alternatives to serve
the airport with transit were not evaluated. Time penalties from luggage was also not calculated
as a part of this study.
- Harmony / Owl Creek Road – New grade separated bicycle and pedestrian crossing at
Buttermilk, a bus bypass lane going up valley at the Harmony signal, and a bus bypass lane
going down valley at the Owl Creek signal. A grade separated bicycle and pedestrian crossing is
necessary to implement an Owl Creek signal transit bypass lane. These improvements are
intended to: 1) provide superior protection for bicyclists and pedestrians across Highway 82 at
Buttermilk, 2) removes the pedestrian crossing time at the Owl Creek signal thereby reducing
transit and overall vehicle congestion, and 3) increase transit efficiency by allowing transit
vehicles the ability to bypass one of the two signals at this intersection.
- HAWK Signal at Aspen Country Inn – A HAWK signal (High-Intensity Activated cross
WalK beacon) was evaluated as an infrastructure solution to facilitate pedestrians crossing
Highway 82 to access the down valley transit stop at Aspen Country Inn. HAWK beacons are
designed and intended to be used on high-speed multi-lane highways similar to Highway 82.
- Trail from Truscott to Buttermilk on south side of Highway 82. This trail connection was
evaluated as a way to create safe pedestrian and bicycle access to existing transit stops along this
corridor, including from the Aspen Country Inn.
22 23
- Maroon Creek Roundabout Down Valley Channelization – This improvement would consist of
a physical lane separation between the outside and inside lanes on the down valley side of the
Maroon Creek Roundabout. This would effectively provide a down valley bypass lane for all
traffic, including transit. Because traffic is mixed through the roundabout, in order to speed up
transit times at this congestion point it is necessary for all vehicles to move through the
roundabout and queues more efficiently.
- Cemetery Lane Bus Queue Jump – This queue jump was evaluated in the down valley direction
at Cemetery Lane and would enable transit to jump a queue of vehicles stopped at the Cemetery
Lane signal. This improvement is intended to increase transit efficiency and could work
symbiotically with the Maroon Creek Roundabout Down Valley Channelization.
The UVTE study prepared by Mead and Hunt concludes with the following recommendation:
Based on the results of the analysis, the spot bus priority improvements
(channelization/ queue jumps), in combination with the roundabout channelization
and a pedestrian underpass at Owl Creek is suggested for advancement to
engineering design. The costs are estimated to be approximately $15 to $18
million. At this time, adjusting the limits of the HOV lanes and/ or dedicated bus
lanes is not recommended until further exploration of the reimbursement
obligations and compatibility within the Entrance to Aspen Record of Decision can
be undertaken.
Mobility package phasing is suggested as follows:
Short-term Recommendations:
• Conduct a pilot channelization of the down valley roundabout outer lane.
If successful, permanently deploy (in summer season)
• Construct additional bus priority treatments (channelization at Owl Creek/
Harmony), queue jumps at Cemetery Lane
• Enforce HOV lane compliance
Mid-term Recommendations:
• Construct Owl Creek pedestrian underpass
• Construct shared use path connection from Aspen Country Inn to Owl
Creek
23 24
EOTC Near Term Transit Improvement Program
Purpose and Legal Standing
The 2021 EOTC Near Term Transit Improvement Program was developed as a method to
consolidate the outcomes of the IMS study and the UVTE into one staff recommendation.
The purpose of this document is to concisely represent the near term direction that staff feels is
appropriate for the EOTC following the conclusion of these two studies. Staff is recommending
that this document be accepted as Administrative Direction only, which does not require
memorialization in the form of a resolution. However, Administrative Direction does require
agreement of the three EOTC jurisdiction to proceed. If accepted, staff will then utilize this
document to development the upcoming EOTC budgets and work plans starting in 2022. In
addition, this document will provide the necessary direction to Mead and Hunt to proceed with
concept plan development through the remainder of 2021 on the identified infrastructure
projects.
Components of the Program
The Staff recommendation is included as the proposed 2021 EOTC Near Term Transit
Improvement Program (Attachment 1). This staff recommendation and outcome from the July 29
EOTC meeting is intended to provide staff with direction when preparing the 2022 / 2023 (and
possibly beyond) EOTC Work Plans and Budgets. This Program is a 3 tiered consolidated
priority approach to identifying which efforts should be kicked off first based on the results of
the IMS and UVTE studies. You will notice that the efforts are not individually ranked within
each tier. This was done intentionally to allow for some flexibility among the projects within a
Tier.
This consolidated recommendation is anticipated to be a "near term" work effort prioritization
with further discussion needed (likely in a retreat in 2022) to discuss the prioritization of longer
term and more intensive efforts such as congestion pricing on Highway 82 and possibly the
Entrance to Aspen.
Approval of the 2021 Near Term Transit Improvement Program does not allocate any funding for
any specific projects. Funding for prioritized projects will occur as a part of the annual EOTC
budget process.
The 3 Tiers within the Transit Improvement Program include:
- Tier 1 - "First Priority" efforts are those that have a higher value to dollar ratio or are important
preliminary efforts to Tier 2 projects. This includes three infrastructure projects that are proposed
to be moved directly to concept plan development in 2021 as an extension of the current contract
with Mead and Hunt.
24 25
- Tier 2 - "Second Priority" efforts are those that have a lower value to dollar ratio or are
dependent on an effort identified in tier one. Tier 2 projects can still be pursued sooner should
conditions change (e.g. grant opportunity and / or Tier 1 effort is completed).
- Tier 3 - "Third Priority" efforts are those that are important but require further clarification
from another project (e.g. airport terminal design or AABC Access Control Plan build out), have
a significant cost, and/or significant legal hurdles. These projects are not likely to move forward
in the near term unless conditions change (e.g. airport terminal design completed, AABC Access
Control Plan is progressing, State law is amended, etc.).
- The "Other Projects Considered" grouping are those efforts that require significantly more
study or showed very little effectiveness in assisting transit efficiency and/or bike/ped access to
transit. These projects were pulled from the priority Tiers to identify that staff is not
recommending they move forward at this time as a part of the upcoming EOTC Work Plans and
Budgets. Similar to Tier 3 projects, however, should conditions change then the prioritization of
these efforts can also change.
A total of 16 efforts have been prioritized in the 2021 EOTC Near Term Transit Improvement
Program. Below is a description of each of the 16 efforts organized by priority tier and in the
same order as they appear in the staff recommended Transit Improvement Program document
(Attachment 1).
Tier 1
- Aspen Country Inn Trail Improvements to Bike / Ped Underpass and Transit Stops at Truscott
and Buttermilk
Mead and Hunt analyzed this project within the UVTE study. This effort progresses the “BRT
Enhancement” strategy within the IMS. The goal of this improvement is to provide basic bicycle
and pedestrian infrastructure that connects the Aspen Country Inn (low-income senior priority
housing) and other residential and commercial developments along this south side stretch of
Highway 82 to transit stops at Truscott and Buttermilk. While this improvement will not bridge
the bicycle and pedestrian divide that Highway 82 creates, it will provide safe connections to
Truscott, which has a bicycle and pedestrian underpass and Buttermilk, which currently has a
signalized bicycle and pedestrian crossing.
This improvement is not intended to supplant the EOTC’s support of the Aspen Country Inn’s
Taxi in Lieu service, but is instead intended to compliment it.
Staff recommends this as a Tier 1 project as it is needed basic bicycle and pedestrian
infrastructure to safely reach existing transit services. Staff also recommends that this project
move directly to concept plan design by Mead and Hunt in 2021.
Note: Staff has received input from a property owner on Hideaway Lane that is supportive of a
trail connection along the south side of Highway 82 connecting to the transit stop at Truscott.
Please see Attachment 2 for a copy of this letter of support. While the UVTE study generally
25 26
looked at trail connections between Truscott and Buttermilk, an extension of that trail east to
Hideaway Lane in order to increase transit connections to those residences can be examined at
the time of project development and design.
Illustration from Mead and Hunt showing conceptual location of Buttermilk to Truscott trail
connection
- Design and Feasibility Review of Maroon Creek Roundabout Down Valley Channelization and
Down Valley Queue Jump at Cemetery Lane
Mead and Hunt analyzed this project within the UVTE study. This effort progresses the “BRT
Enhancement” strategy within the IMS. The goal of the Maroon Creek Roundabout down valley
channelization and Cemetery Lane down valley queue jump are to increase transit efficiency
through the congested Maroon Creek Roundabout and Cemetery Lane signal in the down valley
direction.
As traffic is mixed through the Roundabout, traffic modeling has shown that reducing conflict
points for all traffic through the Roundabout is necessary to decrease transit times. As a result,
this improvement is expected to reduce overall congestion in the down valley direction,
particularly in the afternoon rush hour, for all traffic including transit. Functionally, this would
provide a down valley channelized lane that separates the outside lane with a raised barrier. This
channelization would eliminate the need to merge into the roundabout for down valley traffic
staying on Highway 82 thereby reducing dwell times and queue lengths entering the roundabout
from Aspen. Consistent with current conditions, down valley traffic would then merge into the
left lane after the roundabout as the right lane turns into a bus only lane.
CDOT has expressed concerns with snow removal with this channelization and has offered a
possible seasonal rubber curb solution. Should this project move forward, staff would work with
CDOT to identify possible channelization options. One benefit to the removable lane separation
26 27
solution offered by CDOT for this channelization is that this improvement can then be easily
piloted for a season to test effectiveness.
The down valley queue jump at Cemetery Lane is anticipated to function symbiotically with the
Roundabout Channelization and as a result these projects have been grouped together. This fairly
simple infrastructure change for a queue jump would allow transit to bypass traffic waiting at the
Cemetery Lane signal. This queue jump would also line up transit vehicles well for the Cemetery
Lane transit stop.
The next steps for both the Maroon Creek Roundabout channelization and the Cemetery Lane
queue jump is to move into further preliminary design and feasibility review (e.g. a radii analysis
to ensure transit and large trucks can easily navigate a lane separation). Both of these projects
would require CDOT permitting and approval. As a result, staff is recommending that this
project move directly to concept plan design by Mead and Hunt in 2021. This concept plan will
provide a valuable first step toward necessary design, feasibility and permitting discussions.
It is worth noting that this effort will not affect the anticipated 2022 Roundabout reconstruction
that is being led by CDOT. Should this channelization project progress, any rollout of these
improvements would occur after the Roundabout reconstruction is complete. In addition, at this
time no changes to curb lines or other pavement improvements conducted in 2022 are expected
to be modified.
Illustration from Mead and Hunt showing conceptual outline of Maroon Creek Roundabout
channelization
27 28
Illustration from Mead and Hunt showing conceptual outline of Cemetery Lane queue jump
- Design and Feasibility Review of Harmony / Owl Creek Transit Signal Bypass Lane and
Buttermilk Bike / Ped Underpass
Mead and Hunt analyzed this project within the UVTE study. This effort progresses the “BRT
Enhancement” strategy within the IMS. The goals for these improvements are to: 1) provide
superior protection for bicyclists and pedestrians across Highway 82 at Buttermilk, 2) remove the
pedestrian crossing time at the Owl Creek signal thereby reducing transit and overall vehicle
congestion, and 3) increase transit efficiency by allowing transit vehicles the ability to bypass
one of the two signals at this intersection.
These improvements would consist of: 1) a grade separated bicycle and pedestrian crossing at
Buttermilk, 2) a bus bypass lane going up valley at the Harmony signal, and 3) a bus bypass lane
going down valley at the Owl Creek signal. A grade separated bicycle and pedestrian crossing is
necessary to implement an Owl Creek signal transit bypass lane since the at-grade bicycle and
pedestrian crossing would be eliminated.
The next steps for these improvements is to move into further preliminary design and feasibility
review. These projects would require CDOT permitting and approval. As a result, staff is
recommending that this project move directly to concept plan design by Mead and Hunt in 2021.
This concept plan will provide a valuable first step toward necessary design, feasibility and
permitting.
28 29
Illustrations from Mead and Hunt showing conceptual outline of Harmony Lane / Owl Creek
Bypass and location of new grade separated bicycle and pedestrian crossing
- HOV Lane Enforcement Analysis
Mead and Hunt, and Fehr and Peers analyzed HOV Lane Enforcement within the UVTE and
IMS studies. This effort progresses the “HOV Lane Enforcement” strategy within the IMS. Both
studies recommended that the existing HOV lanes be enforced. The UVTE study noted that
according to their traffic modeling, enforcement of the existing HOV lanes can help reduce
overall congestion. Meanwhile the IMS study noted that although enforcement of the existing
29 30
HOV lanes is not expected to affect VMT or GHG emissions, enforcement of the HOV lane is
necessary for other efforts be successful, such as ride sharing programs.
Based on discussions up to this point with the Pitkin County Sheriff’s Office, while staff
understands the Sheriff’s Office is generally supportive of HOV lane enforcement, staffing
concerns and prioritization of other needs prevent regular enforcement of the HOV lane. At this
point and looking at experience, it is staff’s opinion that it is unlikely that the Sheriff’s Office
will be able to staff up appropriately in order to prioritize HOV lane enforcement.
As the Committee members may recall, staff briefly looked into possible automated enforcement
systems for the HOV lane in 2019. At that time, the automated enforcement technology had not
been proven and was still in experimental stages.
Based on this context, a professional analysis of possible automated options vs. cost of hiring
staff to conduct HOV lane enforcement is recommended as a first step. It is possible this effort
may need to be implemented in a phased approach. Staff is recommending this as a Tier 1 effort
since HOV lane enforcement is necessary to progress with other efforts identified in the Transit
Improvement Program.
- Analysis of Up Valley and Down Valley BRT Direct Service to Snowmass Village
Fehr and Peers identified that increased / more efficient up valley and down valley BRT direct
service to Snowmass Village could affect VMT and GHG emissions. This effort progresses the
“BRT Enhancement” strategy within the IMS. The goal of this analysis is to look at current
service levels and routes servicing Snowmass Village from both up valley and down valley
directions to determine service levels that will maximize transit ridership. This analysis is not
intended to supplant the existing BRT connecting service to Snowmass Village.
Before simply increasing service levels to Snowmass Village, this analysis is to look at transit
connections to Snowmass Village to evaluate transit effectiveness and efficiency, and determine
cost, frequency, and expected utilization of increased/enhanced service levels. It is staff’s opinion
that as Snowmass Village is one of the largest transit service areas in the Roaring Fork Valley
and service levels to Snowmass Village have increased over the past several years, a
comprehensive analysis of existing service levels in collaboration with RFTA and the Town of
Snowmass Village is needed at this time.
As transit service levels can be adjusted relatively quickly and have a more immediate impact
than infrastructure improvements, this analysis is recommended as a Tier 1 effort.
30 31
Tier 2
- Pilot Ridesharing app for Commuters
Fehr and Peers analyzed this effort within the IMS study. This effort progresses the “Ride
Sharing” strategy within the IMS. This pilot and possible long-term implementation could
require contracting with a third party vendor for development and operation of the app.
Deployment of an HOV lane enforcement program is necessary for the success of a rideshare
app. As a result, staff recommends a pilot ridesharing app as Tier 2 since it is dependent on the
prior HOV lane enforcement effort listed in Tier 1.
In addition, RFTA is currently working through a First Last Mile Mobility (FLMM) study. While
this study is focused bike share, phase 2 of that study may look at ride sharing. As a result, staff
would like to build off any ridesharing information and recommendations as appropriate from
that study when it is completed.
- Analysis of Regional Ride Hailing and Car Sharing Service
Fehr and Peers analyzed this effort within the IMS study. This effort progresses the “Ride
Hailing” strategy within the IMS. Since the IMS study showed limited potential benefits to VMT
and GHG emissions from a regional ride hailing and/or car sharing program, these studies are
within the Tier 2 priorities. A regional ride hailing and car sharing program could, however, be
complementary to transit ridership if deployed appropriately.
In addition, RFTA is currently working through a First Last Mile Mobility (FLMM) study. While
this study is focused bike share, phase 2 of that study may look at ride hailing and car sharing. As
a result, staff would like to build off any ride hailing and car sharing information and
recommendations as appropriate from that study when it is completed.
The likely next step for this effort is to conduct an analysis of appropriate programs for regional
ride hailing and car sharing. As this is a constantly evolving transportation field, staff anticipates
getting the input and advice of a focused expert will be important in rolling out a program that is
effective as a compliment to transit service.
- Additional Permanent Automated Vehicle Counters on Brush Creek Road, Owl Creek Road,
Airport/AABC and Highway 82 in Pitkin County
Fehr and Peers analyzed this effort within the IMS study. This effort is important in evaluated the
impacts of all strategies within the IMS. Currently, the only permanent counter on Highway 82 in
the upper valley is at the Castle Creek bridge. While this counter has been very beneficial over
the years and should remain in place, to be able to better track VMT, GHG emissions, and
congestion over the long term, additional permanent counters are recommended.
31 32
While the specific locations of these counters are not yet identified, the general locations
identified to date are at Brush Creek Road near Highway 82, Owl Creek Road, and on Highway
82 at the AABC / Airport. Another possible location is just down valley of the Brush Creek Park
and Ride on Highway 82.
The next step for this effort is likely to put out an RFP to install these counters following
preliminary discussions with CDOT. Staff anticipates that these counters will require permitting
through CDOT for the locations on Highway 82.
- Analysis of Valley Wide Commuter Parking, EV Charging, and Ride Hailing / Sharing Pick Up /
Drop Off Locations
Fehr and Peers analyzed several of these efforts within the IMS study. This analysis progresses
the “Ride Sharing”, “Ride Hailing”, and “Congestion Reduction” strategies within the IMS. The
purpose of this analysis is to evaluate existing parking availability and pricing to transit riders
throughout the Valley, availability and pricing of EV charging, and availability of ride hailing
and ridesharing pick up and drop off locations. The goal of this study would be to create and/or
enhance parking and parking pricing, EV charging, and ride sharing / hailing at transit transfer
locations (first and last mile connections) throughout the Valley to incentivize transit ridership.
As a part of the Fehr and Peers IMS study, there are recommendations to “increase parking
prices and expand hours of pricing in downtown Aspen” and “construct new Park and Ride in the
Carbondale/El Jebel/Basalt area”. This analysis is intended to make headway on both of these
efforts by looking at parking in a more holistic fashion and further including EV
charging/pricing. Since the expansion of ride sharing and ride hailing services also affect park
and ride facilities, staff is also recommending that the available infrastructure be evaluated to
facilitate those pick up and drop off locations as appropriate.
As is noted earlier, RFTA is currently working through a First Last Mile Mobility (FLMM)
study. While this study is focused bike share, phase 2 of that study may look at other first/last
mile mobility options. As a result, staff would like to build off any first/last mile information and
recommendations as appropriate from that study when it is completed. It is also contemplated
that this analysis could and maybe should be progressed in tandem with the previously noted ride
sharing, ride hailing, and car sharing efforts. As a result, staff has prioritized this analysis as a
Tier 2 priority.
Tier 3
- Service Center Road Signalization and Hwy 82 Brush Creek P&R to Airport Speed Limit
Reduction
Mead and Hunt analyzed this project within the UVTE study. This effort progresses the “BRT
Enhancement” strategy within the IMS. The goal of this improvement is to: 1) provide a
32 33
protected crossing to the RFTA stops on both sides of Highway 82, and 2) increase safety for
vehicles on Highway 82 and those entering the Highway from Service Center Road.
While the signalization of Service Center Road and Highway 82 can achieve both of its intended
goals and the traffic models show little to no increase in congestion or travel times, this
improvement is not consistent with CDOT’s AABC Access Control Plan (ACP). In addition, the
final terminal design for the Airport is yet to be determined. It is staff’s opinion that a final
design for a new Airport terminal is necessary before pursuing this project any further.
Depending on the outcome of the Airport terminal design and Highway 82 access points,
signalization of this intersection may or may not be warranted at that point.
Should a signal be warranted and desired following final design of the Airport terminal, then the
CDOT ACP will need to be amended. Because of the cumulative costs associated with
amendment to the ACP, required permitting studies, design, and high construction costs,
signalization is relatively expensive.
As a result, staff is recommending this be in a “hold” status as a Tier 3 project pending the
outcome of the Airport terminal design.
Illustration from Mead and Hunt showing conceptual outline of signalization and at-grade
bicycle and pedestrian crossing to the RFTA transit stop
33 34
- Extension of HOV Lanes Up Valley from Airport and / or Down Valley of Maroon Creek
Roundabout
Mead and Hunt analyzed this project within the UVTE study. This effort progresses the “BRT
Enhancement” strategy within the IMS. The goal of this improvement is to improve transit times
at the congestion points moving up valley at the Airport and at the Maroon Creek Roundabout.
This project would convert limited sections of the dedicated Bus Only lanes into HOV lanes.
Models show this would move all vehicles through the congestion points, including transit, more
efficiently.
This outcome, however, is based on the assumption that the HOV lanes are effectively enforced.
As discussed earlier in this memo, a Tier 1 recommendation is to find a solution to HOV lane
enforcement for the existing lanes. Staff has significant concerns over converting bus only lanes
to HOV lanes if appropriate enforcement is not in place. Further, should the conversion not turn
out to be effective, turning the lanes back into Bus Only lanes may be difficult.
For the EOTC, since these Bus Only lanes were paid for with funds from the 0.5% Transit Sales
and Use Tax, any conversion of Bus Only lanes to HOV lanes (even for limited sections) would
require those original construction funds to be repaid back to the EOTC. The source of this
refund to the EOTC is unknown.
Further, as the Federal Highways Administration (FHWA) Record of Decision (ROD) identifies
that these lanes are to be dedicated transit only, any reduction in the lane miles of bus only lanes
and expansion of HOV lanes would require FHWA review and possibly an amendment to the
original Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and ROD.
For these notable reasons, staff has significant hesitation about this approach. As a result, it has
been listed as a Tier 3 priority because of significant legal hurdles.
- Dynamic Road Pricing (Cordon Pricing or Managed / HOT Lane)
Fehr and Peers analyzed dynamic road pricing - cordon pricing and managed / high occupancy
toll (HOT) lanes - within the IMS study. These efforts progress the “Congestion Reduction
Measures” strategy within the IMS. The goal of congestion pricing is to limit VMT and GHG
emissions.
As is noted earlier in this memo and discussed extensively in the Fehr and Peers report, while
cordon pricing and managed / HOT lanes are shown to be the most effective IMS strategy at
reducing VMT and GHG emissions, they both have significant legal, operational, infrastructure,
equity, social, and permitting hurdles. According to the Fehr and Peer’s analysis, although a
managed or HOT lane may not require a change to State law to convert the current Bus Only
lane, pursuing a cordon toll would likely require a change to State law.
Either a cordon toll or a managed / HOT lane would require a review of the appropriate FHWA
ROD for Highway 82. It is highly likely that an amendment to the ROD and possibly a new EIS
would be necessary.
34 35
Should the State law and ROD hurdles be overcome, implementation of either a managed / HOT
lane or a cordon toll will require the development of an ongoing management structure, likely
requiring additional staff, and notable infrastructure investment.
In addition, the development of a managed / HOT lane or cordon toll will likely have local
sociopolitical ramifications ranging from equity to general public acceptance and relations with
down valley populations. In general, it is difficult to start charging for a good or service that is
perceived or expected to be free.
Due to the complicated implementation process should Managed Lanes or a Cordon toll be
pursued, staff is recommending that these be programmed for longer-term consideration. In the
meantime, Staff is recommending a number of incremental steps (HOV lane enforcement and
BRT enhancements for example) to make progress in VMT and GHG reductions while
continuing to set the stage for possible implementation of Managed Lanes or a Cordon Toll
should it be desired.
For all of these reasons, it is staff’s opinion that moving in the direction of dynamic road pricing
warrants further discussion (possibly as a topic for a 2022 retreat), particularly relative to other
longer term efforts such as the completion of the entrance to Aspen. As the intent of the staff
proposed Near Term Transit Improvement Program is to prioritize those efforts that can be
progressed relatively soon, staff is recommending that dynamic road pricing be a Tier 3 priority
due to significant legal hurdles and a significant monetary cost.
- Sage Way Sidewalk Extension
Mead and Hunt analyzed this project within the UVTE study. This effort progresses the “BRT
Enhancement” strategy within the IMS. The goal of this project is to complete sidewalk gaps
along Sage Way within the AABC providing for safer connections to transit.
Following review of CDOT’s Access Control Plan (ACP) for the AABC, improvements that can
affect a possible sidewalk alignment or could result in construction of these sidewalk connections
are possible if the ACP is implemented. ACP implementation is to be triggered by either large
development(s) within the AABC and/or possibly redevelopment of the Airport. CDOT has the
authority to require the build out of the ACP. As a result, staff is recommending that the Sage
Way Sidewalk Extension be a Tier 3 priority pending implementation of the AABC ACP.
Other Efforts Considered
- Signal Timing for Transit Speed and Reliability Improvement
Mead and Hunt analyzed this project within the UVTE study. This effort progresses the “BRT
Enhancement” strategy within the IMS. The goal of modeling traffic and transit efficiency
impacts from advanced signal timing was to identify if this improvement could notably assist in
35 36
transit speed. The traffic signal modeling extended outside the limits of the study corridor and
included Highway 82 from Brush Creek Park and Ride into Aspen.
The results of the signal timing modeling did not show notable gains in transit speed or reduced
congestion. As a result, staff is not recommending that this be pursued as a part of the Transit
Improvement Program. However, there may be value in modeling advanced signal technology on
a Valley wide scale as gains may be able to be realized when it is studied over a larger area.
- Airport Terminal BRT Routing
Mead and Hunt analyzed this project within the UVTE study. This effort progresses the “BRT
Enhancement” strategy within the IMS. The goal of this evaluation was limited to identifying
what improvements would be necessary in order to route BRT service to a new Airport terminal
while maintaining existing transit speeds. Operational issues or other alternatives to serving the
Airport with transit were not evaluated as a part of this study. In addition, time penalties from
luggage, if it were accommodated, was not calculated.
The outcome showed that the down valley leg of the BRT would need to have an unimpeded
entry and exit to the terminal, likely grade separated under Highway 82, in order to avoid time
delays caused by at-grade turns across Highway 82.
The cost of grade separating a bus entrance and exit point under Highway 82 to the new Airport
terminal is significant. It is staff’s opinion that other alternatives to serving the new terminal with
transit need to be evaluated before any recommendations can be made. At this point, staff does
not recommend moving forward with BRT routing to the Airport terminal until further designs of
the terminal and a more thorough review of the alternatives, including operations issues, is
completed.
- HAWK Beacon at Aspen Country Inn
Mead and Hunt analyzed this project within the UVTE study. This effort progresses the “BRT
Enhancement” strategy within the IMS. The goal of a HAWK signal (High-Intensity Activated
cross WalK beacon) was to evaluate an infrastructure solution to facilitate pedestrians crossing
Highway 82 to access the down valley transit stop at the Aspen Country Inn. HAWK beacons are
designed and intended to be used on high-speed multi-lane highways similar to Highway 82.
In the case of the Aspen Country Inn RFTA stop, a HAWK beacon was evaluated as a less
expensive infrastructure solution to a grade-separated underpass. This infrastructure
improvement could be used to supplant the current Taxi in Lieu program. Operationally, traffic
models showed that the installation of this beacon would not cause notable traffic or transit
congestion issues.
Due to the still high design, permitting, and construction costs for this improvement relative to
both the expected level of utilization and the cost of the current Taxi in Lieu program, staff is not
36 37
recommending that this improvement be pursued at this time. Instead, it is staff’s opinion that
time, energy and funds are better spent on a trail connection from Truscott to Buttermilk that
serves Aspen Country Inn and a bicycle and pedestrian underpass at Buttermilk (see Tier 1
projects).
How the Program will be Utilized
If accepted as Administrative Direction, the 2021 EOTC Near Term Transit Improvement
Program will be used as guidance by staff when creating upcoming budgets and work plans. In
addition, the Program will provide valuable guidance to staff as grant and other opportunities
come available.
This Program is proposed to be adopted as Administrative Direction and is not proposed to be
formally adopted by resolution. The reason for this is twofold: 1) the Program is laid out in a
way that provides flexibility while still identifying priority. Adopting the Program by formal
resolution reduces the flexibility that may be necessary for staff to take action on a project should
an opportunity for funding come available. And, 2) as action is taken on the efforts identified in
the Program, that effort will be formally adopted by the EOTC as a part of the annual budget
and/or work plan. As a result, adopting this Program by resolution would be administratively
duplicative.
In addition, as a part of the annual budget and work plan development process, each of the efforts
and expenditures proposed in that given year will be scored and ranked to identify how well they
meet the EOTC’s Mission, Vision, Guiding Principles, and Key Strategies from the 2020
Strategic Plan and the Priorities within the 2020 Comprehensive Valley Transportation Plan
(CVTP). In this way, the EOTC will continue to prioritize annual efforts and expenditures by
how well they meet the expressed direction of the Committee.
BUDGETARY IMPACT:
None at this time.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Accept the proposed EOTC 2021 Near Term Transit Improvement Program as Administrative Direction
ATTACHMENTS:
1 – Proposed EOTC 2021 Near Term Transit Improvement Program
2 – Letter of Support for Hwy 82 Trail – Tim Johnson
3 – IMS Study Final Report
4 – UVTE Report
37 38
ATTACHMENT 1 - Proposed EOTC 2021 Near Term Transit Improvement Program
38 39
ATTACHMENT 1
39 40
ATTACHMENT 2 – Letter of Support for Hwy 82 Trail – Tim Johnson
40 41
ATTACHMENT 3 –IMS Phase 2 Final Report
(Included as linked file due to size)
Report also available directly at:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iMHeJ6PdkFb7EGZinkT8c6dkPRdfHGMY/view?usp=sharing
Or by going to the EOTC website (https://www.pitkincounty.com/1322/Elected-Officials-Transportation-
Committ) and going to the link labeled “Click Here for Relevant Studies”
41 42
ATTACHMENT 4 – UVTE Final Report
(Included as linked file due to size)
Report also available directly at:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gp2TB3foFCb0XsGjEOjIum_RGl5YzoIb/view?usp=sharing
Or by going to the EOTC website (https://www.pitkincounty.com/1322/Elected-Officials-Transportation-
Committ) and going to the link labeled “Click Here for Relevant Studies”
42 43
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
EOTC MEETING DATE: July 29, 2021
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Maroon Creek Roundabout Reconstruction Request
STAFF RESPONSIBLE: David Pesnichak, Transportation Administrator
ISSUE STATEMENT: The EOTC has a request for funding in 2022 for $271,000 from the Colorado
Department of Transportation (CDOT). This funding is for the planned reconstruction of the Maroon
Creek Roundabout in 2022. In order to allow CDOT to go out to bid in a timely fashion for this project in
the fall of 2021, CDOT has requested approval of these funds from the EOTC in advance of the normal
EOTC budget meeting in October. In order to obligate the funds in 2022, the EOTC will need to approve
an amended 2021 budget.
BACKGROUND:
As outlined in the attached letter from Andrew Knapp, P.E., CDOT Glenwood Springs Resident Engineer
(See exhibit 1), in 2022 CDOT will be repaving Highway 82 from the Aspen Airport Business Center to
the Castle Creek Bridge. Mr. Knapp explains, “As part of this CDOT funded project we are considering
reconstructing the Maroon Creek roundabout in concrete pavement and simultaneously making some
select safety and operation improvements to the roundabout.”
The motivation for redoing the Maroon Creek Roundabout in concrete over asphalt is to prevent the kind
of failures seen every few years that results in notable transit and traffic backups and delays. In addition,
CDOT is looking to make some safety and operational improvements that will help the Roundabout
operate more smoothly.
CDOT, as the project lead, has secured a number of internal and external funding sources for the
roundabout reconstruction project. As of the writing of this report, the cost for the roundabout
reconstruction only is estimated at $2.53 million. The funding sources secured for construction to date
include:
- City of Aspen:$980,000
- Pitkin County: $100,000
- RFTA:$300,000
- CDOT:$1,190,000
CDOT is also funding the design of the project, which is committed at $157,600. This is above CDOT’s
contribution for construction.
Pitkin County is also permitting the use of McLain Flats Road as the official detour during construction.
43 44
While the EOTC has a request from CDOT for $271,000 toward this infrastructure project, it is important
to note that the EOTC by Statute can only provide funding to projects that improve transit. As a result,
Mr. Knapp has provided the following nexus to transit (See Exhibit 1):
CDOT is requesting the EOTC participate as a funding partner for this project. Since the
EOTC is a transit focused body CDOT is requesting funding participation at the level
commensurate with the use of the roundabout by transit vehicles. A traffic study of the
Maroon Creek Roundabout dated July 1, 2020 done by Kimley Horn on behalf of the City
of Aspen counted bus traffic at 3.57% of vehicles on the day traffic data was recorded. The
State Highway Access code considers busses to have a passenger car equivalency of 3 due
to their increased length compared to passenger cars. Based on that information CDOT is
requesting the EOTC participate at a funding level of 3.57% x 3, or 10.71%. At the current
estimated cost of $2.53 million that amounts to a contribution towards the project of
$271,000.
It is staff’s opinion that this nexus to transit is rational. The benefits to transit are related to increased
reliability due to improved operation and fewer infrastructure failures that cause unexpected delays to
transit service.
In addition to funds for the project, the EOTC is also able to assist by allowing usage of the Dynamic
Message Sign (DMS) on Highway 82 located about a mile down valley of the Brush Creek Park and
Ride. This sign can provide construction and detour related messaging to motorists and encourage transit
ridership.
Further, Staff understands that CDOT is considering smart work zone technology to display travel times
on portable message boards during construction similar to those used on the Grand Avenue Bridge
Project.
This is to be a 2022 construction project and as a result, these funds are requested for EOTC’s 2022
budget year. Based on the 2021 EOTC approved budget, the EOTC is projected to have $1,739,224 in
unobligated funds in 2022, which allows for adequate funding to support this project. In addition, based
on revenue reported through 2021 to date from the Pitkin County Finance Department, it is anticipated
that the EOTC will have more funding available than is contemplated in the currently approved 2021
budget. This revenue projection will be updated at the October 28, 2021 budget meeting as a part of the
2022 budget approval process.
As a reminder, projects may be funded from the ½ cent Pitkin County Transit Sales and Use Tax that
support and have a rational nexus to public mass transportation; satisfactorily meet the Mission, Vision,
Guiding Principles, and Key Strategies within the 2020 EOTC Strategic Plan; and are in compliance with
the EOTC’s 2020 Comprehensive Valley Transportation Plan (CVTP).
EOTC staff from the City of Aspen, Town of Snowmass Village, Pitkin County, RFTA and the Regional
Transportation Administrator have considered and ranked this project in accordance to how well it meets
44 45
the EOTC’s Mission, Vision, Guiding Principles, and Key Strategies and the CVTP. This ranking is
relative to other projects approved by the EOTC for the 2021 budget year. Out of a possible 40 points,
this project scored a 27.7 (See Exhibit 4). This score is on par with other projects funded in 2021 which
ranged from a low of 17.2 (Aspen Country Inn Taxi Service in Lieu) to a high of 34.6 (Brush Creek Park
and Ride FLAP Grant Improvements).
In addition, this project is located on the Highway 82 which is a key transit corridor identified in the
CVTP. This project also advances several identified CVTP Regional and Upper Valley Priorities.
It is Staff’s recommendation that the EOTC participate as requested in the Maroon Creek Roundabout
reconstruction in 2022 as it satisfactorily meets the EOTC Mission, Vision, Guiding Principles, and Key
Strategies as well as the CVTP. Functionally, this project will help improve transit speed and reliability in
a congested area of the Highway 82 corridor. In addition, it is Staff’s opinion that the EOTC has adequate
funding available in 2022 in the amount requested.
Should the EOTC vote to approve this amended 2021 budget request, Staff has prepared a resolution of
approval for review and signature for the City of Aspen and the Town of Snowmass Village. As the
administrating entity for the EOTC budget, Pitkin County would subsequently approve this amended
budget as a part of the County’s 3rd quarter supplemental budget process.
BUDGETARY IMPACT:
$271,000 in 2022
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Approval of 2022 Maroon Creek Roundabout Reconstruction Funding Request, Approval of an Amended
2021 EOTC Budget, and Authorization for Signature on the Resolution of Approval (One for Each
Jurisdiction).
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit 1 – Letter from Andrew Knapp, P.E., CDOT Glenwood Springs Resident Engineer
Exhibit 2 – Maroon Creek Roundabout Reconstruction Plan
Exhibit 3 – Updated EOTC 2021 Budget with Requested Funding
Exhibit 4 – EOTC Staff 2021 Budget Amendment Score Sheet
Exhibit 5 – Town of Snowmass Village Resolution of Approval
Exhibit 6 – City of Aspen Resolution of Approval
45 46
EXHIBIT 1
46 47
EXHIBIT 1
47 48
EXHIBIT 2
48 49
EXHIBIT 3
49 50
EXHIBIT 4
50 51
EXHIBIT 5
TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE
RESOLUTION NO.
SERIES OF 2021
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE,
COLORADO, APPROVING THE 1st AMENDED 2021 BUDGET FOR THE PITKIN
COUNTY 1/2 CENT TRANSIT SALES AND USE TAX
WHEREAS, the Town Council of Snowmass Village, the Aspen City Council and the
Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners (the "Parties") have previously identified
general elements of their Comprehensive Valley Transportation Plan (the "Plan") which are
eligible for funding from the Pitkin County one-half cent transit sales and use tax; and
WHEREAS, the Parties entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) dated
May 3rd, 2021 which identifies the method and process by which the Parties are to implement
the Plan; and
WHEREAS, at the EOTC meeting held on July 29, 2021, the Parties considered and
approved the attached amended 2021 budget for the Pitkin County one-half cent transit
sales and use tax; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Snowmass Village Council now desires to ratify the budget
approval given at the EOTC meeting by adoption of this resolution.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of
Snowmass Village, Colorado, that the attached amended 2021 budget for the one-half cent
transit sales and use tax is hereby approved.
READ, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Town Council of the Town of
Snowmass Village, Colorado on the _____ of July, 2021, upon a motion made by Council
Member _____________________________, the second of Council Member
____________________, and upon a vote of ______ in favor and ______ opposed.
TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE
_________________________
Bill Madsen, Mayor
51 52
EXHIBIT 5
APPROVED AS TO FORM
________________________
John Dresser, Town Attorney
ATTEST:
_________________________
Rhonda Coxan, Town Clerk
52 53
EXHIBIT 6
RESOLUTION NO. ____
SERIES OF 2021
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
APPROVING THE 1st AMENDED 2021 BUDGET FOR THE PITKIN COUNTY 1/2 CENT
TRANSIT SALES AND USE TAX
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council, the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners
and the Town Council of Snowmass Village (the "Parties") have previously identified general
elements of their Comprehensive Valley Transportation Plan (the "Plan") which are eligible for
funding from the Pitkin County one-half cent transit sales and use tax; and
WHEREAS, the Parties entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) dated May
3rd, 2021 which identifies the method and process by which the Parties are to implement the Plan;
and
WHEREAS, at the EOTC meeting held on July 29, 2021, the Parties considered and
approved the attached amended 2021 budget for the Pitkin County one-half cent transit sales and
use tax; and
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen wishes to ratify the approvals given at the EOTC meeting by
adoption of this resolution.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Aspen,
Colorado, that the attached amended 2021 budget for the one-half cent transit sales and use tax is
hereby approved.
RESOLVED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day of July, 2021, by the City
Council for the City of Aspen, Colorado.
_________________________
Torre, Mayor
I, Nicole Henning, duly appointed and acting City Clerk, do certify that the foregoing is a
true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen,
Colorado, at a meeting held July , 2021.
_________________________
Nicole Henning, City Clerk
53 54
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
EOTC MEETING DATE: July 29, 2021
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Transportation Administrator Updates
STAFF RESPONSIBLE: David Pesnichak, Transportation Administrator
ISSUE STATEMENT: This memo is intended to keep the EOTC up to date on efforts that are within or
could affect areas within the EOTC’s purview. The updates included in this memo are as follows.
a)Brush Creek Park and Ride to AABC Trail Connection Feasibility Study
b) Brush Creek Park and Ride – One-Season Food Truck / Farm Stand Experiment
c)Buttermilk Park and Ride Signage
d)No-Fare Service Cost Transfer from EOTC to RFTA
e)Town of Snowmass Village Transit Center – Progress Update
(Provided by David Peckler, Transportation Director, Town of Snowmass Village)
BACKGROUND: The following updates are provided for EOTC information.
a.Brush Creek Park and Ride to AABC Trail Connection Feasibility Study
As the EOTC may recall from the October 2020 meeting, this is a new partnership project to look at the
trail connection from the Brush Creek Park and Ride to the Aspen Airport Business Center starting in
2021. The total feasibility study cost was anticipated to be $75,000 with Pitkin County Open Space and
Trails (OST), City of Aspen Parks and Open Space, and the Elected Officials Transportation Committee
each contributing $25,000. The EOTC approved $25,000 for this feasibility study in October 2020 for
2021.
The City of Aspen, Town of Snowmass Village and Pitkin County have been creating a seamless off
highway trail connection throughout the upper valley for over 25 years. The Rio Grande Trail, Owl
Creek Trail, Aspen Business Center Trail, and Brush Creek Trail connect the upper valley communities
and provide a commuting and recreational amenity.
There is one large gap in the system since the Brush Creek Trail currently ends at the Brush Creek Park
and Ride, which is a major transportation hub between Aspen and Snowmass Village. Trail users have
only one off highway trail option from this lot to connect to the Aspen Airport Business Center and
Aspen. This connection takes users down valley towards Woody Creek, down the Aspen Mass Trail to
Jaffee Park that connects to a steep soft surface trail to the Rio Grande Trail.
54 55
To fill this gap Pitkin County OST completed a feasibility study in 2012 to look at options to provide a
more direct connection that would encourage many more users to use the Brush Creek Park and Ride for
parking and commuting via bike. The goal is to update this feasibility study.
When the feasibility study was completed in 2012 the Pitkin County Open Space Board and BOCC
decided to hold off on this project until a partnership could be created. The new feasibility study will
identify the possible options and provide updated cost estimates.
To date, Pitkin County OST has advertised an RFP for the project and SGM has been selected to lead the
effort. Total project cost is now contracted at $108,000 although the EOTC contribution remains at
$25,000 for 2021. In order to keep the project moving in 2022, staff anticipates an additional funding
request to complete this study in collaboration with the City of Aspen and Pitkin County in 2022. The
exact request for 2022 will be determined prior to the October budget meeting.
The local project team consists of representatives from the City of Aspen Parks and Open Space
Department, Pitkin County Open Space and Trails, the Town of Snowmass Village Parks and Recreation
Department, and the Regional Transportation Administrator. This initial phase in 2021 and early 2022
will consist of a feasibility analysis and a determination of possible alignment alternatives including
estimated costs.
Following review and presentation to each of the trails and open space boards in February 2022, it is
anticipated that the alternatives will be presented to the EOTC at the spring 2022 meeting (tentatively
March 2022). Should an alternative or set of alternatives appear workable to each of the open space and
trails boards and the EOTC, then the next phase will be to vet those alternatives with the public.
This public input phase may be accompanied by an additional funding request from the EOTC. This
funding request will be reviewed as a part of the appropriate budget cycle when this phase is to be
undertaken.
b. Brush Creek Park and Ride – One Season Food Truck / Farm Stand Experiment Update
As the EOTC may recall, direction was provided at the April 30, 2020 meeting to move forward with a
one-season experiment at the Brush Creek Park and Ride that includes the placement of up to one food
truck and/or one farm stand. This experiment was anticipated to take place in either the summer of 2021
or 2022 depending on the schedule for the FLAP improvements construction at the Park and Ride, which
was unknown at the time.
With this direction, the Transportation Administrator moved forward with: 1) obtaining consent from
CDOT as the property owner; 2) obtaining a 1041 regulation determination from the Pitkin County
Community Development Department; and, 3) obtaining a determination on a Location and Extent
Review from the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission.
55 56
To date, CDOT has provided consent for the experiment, the Pitkin County Community Development
Department issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) in relation to the County 1041
regulations, and in November 2020 the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission approved the
Location and Extent, with conditions.
As the construction of the FLAP improvements is now set for 2022, Staff prepared for the food truck
and/or farm stand experiment to move forward in the summer of 2021. Staff worked through the
solicitation process with Pitkin County Procurement to ensure there is a transparent and equitable
selection for the food truck and farm stand vendor.
In February staff started to advertise and actively search for a food truck and/or farm stand vendor. The
closing date for the solicitation was originally March 12, 2021. This deadline was then extended to mid-
April, 2021. During this time, although some questions and interest was noted, no food truck or farm
stand vendors ultimately submitted a proposal.
In accordance with the Pitkin County permit, the timeframe for this experiment to occur is May to
September. The vendor(s) will also need to enter into a lease with CDOT as the property owner. Once an
interested vendor is identified it is estimated that the lease process with CDOT will take 6 weeks to
finalize.
The primary purpose for this experiment is to formulate data on the impacts of a vendor(s) at the Park and
Ride to support transit ridership. As the current Pitkin County permit only allows this experiment to take
place within one season to demonstrate effectiveness of the vendor(s) to encourage transit ridership, it is
important that a vendor be onsite for as much of the permitted timeframe as possible. Given these
timeframes and the lack of vendor interest between February and May, City, County and Town staff
decided at the first part of May to delay the experiment until 2023. Staff felt that with the passage of time
and the known timeframe needed to have a lease signed with CDOT before a vendor could be onsite, the
value of the experiment was being lost.
As a result of the lack of interest from food truck and farm stand vendors this year, Staff is now working
with Pitkin County Community Development to amend the Location and Extent Permit that was issued in
November 2020 to allow for the experiment to instead take place in summer 2023. Staff is currently in the
queue with Pitkin County Community Development to hold a Pre-Application conference and begin the
permit amendment process. Further, as the Park and Ride will be under construction in the summer of
2022, having a food truck and/or farm stand on site the first summer season following its redevelopment
and following COVID may be a welcome reintroduction to passengers and carpoolers to the facility.
Throughout this one-season experiment, Staff will monitor the impacts of the food truck and / or farm
stand on transit ridership, carpooling, and Park and Ride usage throughout the season. The findings will
be brought back to the EOTC following completion of the experiment. Should the findings from this one
season experiment show promising results in encouraging transit ridership then a new Location and
Extent application may be submitted to Pitkin County Community Development, with EOTC direction, to
have a vendor(s) onsite on a more permanent basis.
56 57
c.Buttermilk Park and Ride Signage
Over the course of the past year, it has come to Staff’s attention that there is no signage on Highway 82
indicating the location of the Buttermilk Park and Ride. As a result, the Transportation Administrator, the
City of Aspen Parking Director, and the Pitkin County Public Works Director have been working in
partnership to find a solution to filling this basic information gap. Adding static metal signage on
Highway 82 indicating the location of the Buttermilk Park and Ride appears to be a relatively low cost
improvement with potentially notable gains.
The anticipated signage would include one up valley and one down valley static metal sign on Highway
82. The signage on Highway 82 for the Buttermilk Park and Ride will be similar to the static metal blue
and white signs for Brush Creek Park and Ride.
As of the writing of this memo, Staff has obtained a permit from CDOT, ordered and received the signs
and is making arrangements for their installation. Based on available funding sources, the Transportation
Administrator has identified funds within the EOTC budget that is designated for ‘Professional Services’
that involves participation in regional transportation. As this is an intergovernmental effort and is
consistent with the EOTC Strategic Plan and CVTP, the Transportation Administrator worked with SGM
in Glenwood Springs to conduct the necessary design, site planning and permitting with CDOT. The cost
of permitting and site planning through SGM was $4,000 and within the identified 2021 budget line item.
The City of Aspen Parking Department has provide funding for the physical signs while the Pitkin
County Public Works Department is managing and funding the installation.
d.No Fare Service Cost Transfer from EOTC to RFTA
As was initially reviewed at the October 17, 2019 EOTC meeting and again at the October 29, 2020
EOTC meeting, staff has been pursuing discussions with RFTA to consider transferring the Aspen-
Snowmass-Woody Creek No-Fare service from the EOTC to RFTA. This transfer of the No-Fare service
cost was initiated by the financial impacts caused by HB 19-1240. It was initially hoped that these
discussions would have come to resolution in 2020, however due to COVID and the financial uncertainty
it created these discussions were postponed until spring 2021. Now with more information on the
pandemic and both the EOTC’s and RFTA’s financial situation, staff has resumed discussions to
potentially transfer the cost of this service.
At these EOTC meetings in 2019 and 2020 staff presented to the Committee the anticipated impacts of
Colorado HB 19-1240 Sales and Use Tax Administration (effective June 1, 2019). As a reminder, this
state law was the result of the U.S. Supreme Court decision, i.e. South Dakota vs. Wayfair, which requires
all retailers, including out-of-state retailers that do not have a physical presence in Colorado, to collect
state and local sales tax at the point of delivery. This tax law impacts the sales and use tax revenues that
come to the EOTC via the 0.5% Transit Sales and Use Tax. As a result of this law, the EOTC is seeing an
increase in local sales tax collections, however these increases are being more than offset by the decreases
in use tax collections.
57 58
The goal of transferring the cost of the No-Fare service from the EOTC to RFTA is simply to move this
cost from the EOTC where revenues have decreased to RFTA where revenues have increased as a result
of HB 19-1240. The purpose of the analysis being conducted by Staff to date is to ensure that any transfer
of cost to RFTA will be fully offset by increases in revenue solely from the Pitkin County 0.5% Transit
Sales Tax and will not require any additional subsidization from any other RFTA revenue source. In
addition, Staff is working so there will be no interruption of the No-Fare service noticeable to customers
within Pitkin County because of this cost transfer.
As a reminder, the EOTC derives revenue from the 0.5% Pitkin County Sales and Use Taxes. These
funding sources are then distributed as follows:
- 0.5% Pitkin County Use Tax on construction goods, motor vehicles and fabricated goods are 100%
dedicated to EOTC activities, and
- 0.5% Pitkin County Sales Tax are 18.96% dedicated to EOTC activities, and 81.04% to RFTA.
To represent these revenue sources graphically, the below chart represents actual revenues (2005-2020)
and projected revenues (2021-2025) for the EOTC compared to the 81.04% Sales Tax collections from
the 0.5% Pitkin County Transit Sales and Use Tax that goes to RFTA. As is shown in the graph, EOTC
revenue from the 0.5% Use Tax drops off notably in 2020 but the EOTC sees only a relatively small
increase in sales tax revenue. Looking into the future, it is anticipated that 0.5% Use Tax revenues will
remain relatively constant at this new lower level driven by the remaining levy on motor vehicle
registrations.
58 59
Based on staff’s initial findings of the period between 2018 through 2020, it appears that the 0.5% Pitkin
County Use Tax revenues decreased by approximately $1.04 million and the 0.5% Pitkin County Sales
Tax revenues increased by $1.1 million. However, the net impact to the EOTC over the two-year period
was a decline in its dedicated share of 0.5% Pitkin County Use Tax revenues of approximately $831,517
while the net impact to RFTA was an increase of approximately $902,093. Refer to the chart below:
The actual sales and use tax revenue trends are consistent with the initial expectations made in 2019. The
increase in revenues to RFTA appear to be sufficient for RFTA to assume all or a portion of the No-Fare
service fare offset. However, information is not available to identify the exact amount of sales tax
revenues that are attributable to the tax law change on June 2019.
Staff plans to continue to review and analyze the information. No decision is required at this time, but
staff will continue to work with RFTA staff as RFTA moves into their 2022 budgeting process.
59 60
e. Town of Snowmass Village Transit Center – Progress Update
(David Peckler, Transportation Director, Town of Snowmass Village)
AG ENDA ITEM SUMMARY
TO: Elected Officials Transportation Committee
FROM: David Peckler, Town of Snowmass Village Transportation Director
MEETING DATE: July 29,2021
SUBJECT: Mall Transit Station Project Update
BACKGROUND:
In the Spring of 2020, the Town Council formally approved the preferred design for the
proposed Mall Transit Station. Upon that approval, staff has worked with the EOTC and the
State of Colorado (specifically for a $300,000 MMOF grant) to allocate $1,250,000 of various
funding sources to undertake the design of the Station in 2021 in preparation for construction in
2022.
Following a competitive bid process, Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. (SEH) has been selected as
the lead design firm for the project. We are utilizing a construction management/general
contractor (CM/GC) design and construction approach for this project. We are working through
contract details with RA Nelson to be the CM/GC for the project.
The adopted Feasibility Study, conceptual design, of the Mall Transit Station was done by SEH
and approved by Council in April. Since the adoption staff has completed the Environmental
Assessment for the project and has submitted it to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for
their review and acceptance. This is a requirement of any project that is looking to secure
Federal funding for construction. We are responding to questions from FTA that should lead to
approve of our request for a Categorical Exclusion.
Our project is listed as a Priority Project for the Intermountain Transportation Planning Region
(IMTPR). The IMTPR is a Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) planning region that
covers Pitkin County and the Highway 82 corridor. Our project has been included in latest State
legislation for transportation capital funding in SB 260. The legislation has been passed by the
State Legislature and we have been awarded $4.5 million for the Transit Station project.
We have kept the Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (RFTA) informed on the design work
for the transit station and it has been incorporated in their Destination 2040 Plan. RFTA has
committed $500,000 to the project. We will be starting detailed design meetings with the
Architect, CM/GC, and appropriate staff from RFTA and the Town.
60 61
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Dollars were added to the original Opinion of Probable Cost in the Feasibility Study for inflation
and the addition of electric charging stations for some bus stations and car stalls. The original
projection was roughly $10 million and that has been increased to $12 million. At present we
have $6 million dedicated to the project from the Elected Officials Transportation Committee
(EOTC), $4.5 million from the State in SB 260, $500,000 from RFTA and $1 million from the
Town
BUDGETARY IMPACT:
None at this time.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
None at this time.
ATTACHMENTS: None
61 62
Aspen Institute
Integrated Mobility Study
Phase 2
MAY 2021
PREPARED FOR
63
Integrated Mobility
System (IMS) Study
Phase 2
Prepared for: Elected Officials Transportation
Committee (EOTC)
Supporters: Roaring Fork Transportation Authority
(RFTA), and Colorado Department of Transportation
(CDOT)
May 26, 2021
DN20-0650.01
64
Table of Contents
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................................... 3
Phase 2 VMT and GHG Analysis ............................................................................................................................................. 6
Upper Valley Travel Markets: VMT, GHG Emissions, and Travel Patterns ..................................................... 6
Autonomous Vehicles and COVID-19 Assessment ......................................................................................................14
Residents ...............................................................................................................................................................................15
Commuters ...........................................................................................................................................................................16
Local Visitors ........................................................................................................................................................................17
Non-Local Visitors .............................................................................................................................................................18
Combined Results ..............................................................................................................................................................19
Evaluation Results ......................................................................................................................................................................20
Final Recommendation ....................................................................................................................................................22
Equity Impact & Mitigation Analysis ..................................................................................................................................26
Performance Measures & Evaluation Framework .........................................................................................................29
65
Introduction
In partnership with the Elected Officials Transportation Committee (EOTC) and supported by the Roaring
Fork Transit Authority (RFTA) and the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), Fehr & Peers
evaluated the Integrated Mobility System (IMS) proposal outlined in the Community Forum Task Force on
Transportation and Mobility's 2017 Upper Valley Mobility Report to identify both near- and long-term
solutions that would improve mobility and reduce air pollution emissions in the upper Roaring Fork
Valley. Phase 1 of this study was completed in 2020, and included the following analysis components:
• Review and Refinement of Existing Strategies: Fehr & Peers refined the five principal strategies
outlined in the IMS and added more specific definition about the strategies (e.g., defined the type
of ride-sharing service that is most likely to be developed in the Valley, identified the nominal
fees/tolls for congestion management strategies, etc.) so that they could be modeled for how
effective the IMS could be at improving mobility and improving traffic congestion.
• Perform a High-Level Effectiveness Analysis: This task modeled the effectiveness of the IMS to
provide a general picture of the potential reduction in vehicle-miles traveled (VMT), greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions, and reduced single-occupant vehicle (SOV) travel. The results of the
modeling are shown in Table 1.
• Identify an Implementation Framework: Fehr & Peers created a phased implementation
framework for improving mobility and reducing the environmental impacts of transportation in
the Aspen/Snowmass area, shown in Figure 1. This approach recognizes that some strategies will
take more time to implement than others due to political, technical, and financial constraints.
Based on our experience in a variety of communities, the short-term strategies identified in this
framework can be implemented within a few years given community willingness to advance
transportation mobility and sustainability. Over the long run, as the region continues to grow and
mobility technologies change, more aggressive mobility management strategies may become
necessary. Further mobility management will help ensure a sustainable transportation system
from the perspective of economic vitality, quality of life, and environmental outcomes. As noted,
these more aggressive strategies will require greater levels of funding, agency/jurisdictional
cooperation, and public willingness for additional costs/restrictions on mobility. In exchange,
there will be even greater levels of GHG emissions and VMT reductions, particularly for
resort/visitor trips.
Phase 2 of this study carried the results of Phase 1 forward to create a more detailed VMT and GHG
analysis. More specifically, Phase 2: (1) completed a more detailed GHG and travel analysis identifying
which trips are most likely to be affected, (2) developed performance measures and evaluation framework
for ongoing tracking and progress reporting, (3) looked at potential travel impacts from autonomous
vehicles and COVID-19, and (4) evaluated the equity implications of the travel pricing options from the
IMS.
66
Table 1: High Level Effectiveness Summary from Phase 1
67
Figure 1: Implementation Framework
68
Phase 2 VMT and GHG Analysis
A key part of the Phase 2 work is a more detailed analysis of the different types of travelers in the Upper
Valley (e.g., commuters, local visitors, non-local visitors, residents). As will be described in this report,
these four traveler groups, or “travel markets,” have very different trip characteristics, and they are likely to
respond to and be impacted by the IMS strategies in different ways. For example, parking pricing will have
a stronger impact on commuters and day-trip local visitors than residents or multi-day visitors from
outside the Roaring Fork Valley. Similarly, ridesharing will be more effective for commuters than visitors.
By better understanding these unique travel markets, we can refine the GHG and VMT analysis results,
identify the strategies that result in the “biggest bang for the buck,” and better understand the negative
impacts and how to mitigate those impacts of some of the IMS strategies.
Upper Valley Travel Markets: VMT, GHG Emissions, and Travel Patterns
To understand and isolate the unique travel characteristics of the four different travel markets in the
Upper Valley, we reviewed the following data sources:
• City of Aspen’s 2017 VMT Model
• 2017 AirSage travel pattern data
• US Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) data
• US Census Bureau Longitudinal Employer Household Dynamics (LEHD) data
• Historical parking survey and occupancy counts provided by the City of Aspen and Snowmass
Village
• Hotel occupancy rates
• Total vehicle volumes on Castle Creek Bridge & Brush Creek Road
How Travel Markets are Defined
As noted earlier, understanding the characteristics of the people traveling into Aspen and Snowmass
Village is important to assessing the benefits and impacts of the different IMS strategies. To separate the
traveler markets, this analysis uses data from location-based cell phone application data provided by the
AirSage company. The Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (RFTA) purchased AirSage data in 2017 to
inform earlier transportation planning work. The AirSage data covered the area between the communities
of Parachute and Aspen and included both summer and winter peak season data. AirSage uses
anonymous mobile device data (e.g., location data transmitted by cell phones, tablets, smartwatches, cars,
etc.) to estimate movement patterns of the traveling public. AirSage uses a sample of mobile devices,
aggregates to a geography that cannot identify any specific individuals, and then scales the data to
represent the entire population of the County. AirSage separates visitors from residents based on the
habitual nighttime location of the mobile device (e.g., AirSage would identify that a mobile device that
was in Aspen but spends most nights in Denver as a visitor). AirSage can also identify habitual commuting
trips based on the typical day and night locations of a mobile device.
69
Using the, AirSage data, we were able to differentiate between resident trips (trips made by people who
live in Aspen or Snowmass Village), commuters (people who work but do not live in Aspen or Snowmass
Village), local visitors (people who are not regular commuters but travel to Aspen and Snowmass Village
but live in down valley communities) and non-local visitors (people visiting Aspen and Snowmass village,
but who do not live anywhere in the analysis area between Parachute and Aspen. One important note is
that AirSage does not track ‘trip tours’, so we do not see where non-local visitors are originally traveling
from, but instead see the origin for the trip that ends in Aspen or Snowmass Village. An example is that
we can identify non-local visitor trips to Aspen that start at the Brush Creek Park and Ride, but we cannot
specifically track a “tour” of two trips that starts in Glenwood Springs, stops at the Brush Creek Park and
Ride and then continues to Aspen. AirSage anonymizes the trip record when the traveler stops and parks
at the Brush Creek Park and Ride and then transfers to a bus—these are counted as two separate trips.
Vehicle Trips and VMT by Travel Market
The first step in understanding the travel markets and total VMT in the Upper Valley was to review vehicle
trip counts at Castle Creek Bridge and Brush Creek Road to quantify the total entering vehicle volumes for
Aspen and Snowmass Village. These traffic counts were based on 1993-2020 data from the City of Aspen,
and 2016 data from Pitkin County. Next, the vehicle volumes were split out by residents, employees, and
visitors. To calculate this split in travel markets, we first used American Community Survey (ACS) census
data for the number of residents in both cities, and pulled Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics
(LEHD) data for the total number of employees, and number of employees who commute from down
valley. While the City of Aspen’s VMT model breaks out external VMT (VMT for trips traveling to or leaving
Aspen, measured at the Emissions Inventory Boundary), and internal VMT (all trips that are within the
Emissions Inventory Boundary), for this analysis, we are not considering VMT of trips that stay within
Aspen or Snowmass Village, but are focused on VMT for all trips that cross the Castle Creek Bridge or
Brush Creek Road, including trips that travel between Aspen and Snowmass Village.
The City of Aspen’s VMT model breaks out VMT by resident, employee, and visitor travel market. For each
travel market, the model includes average trip rates, mode shares, average carpool occupancies, and trip
lengths. Furthermore, the average number of daily visitors by season are separated by day-trippers, those
staying in Aspen, staying in Snowmass Village, and staying down valley. We refined Aspen’s 2017 VMT
estimates by updating the ACS and LEHD data to reflect 2019 conditions for residents and employees.
To verify the results of the Aspen VMT model, we used a set of data purchased by RFTA from the AirSage
company. Specifically, AirSage data was compared to the visitor patterns in the VMT model and were
found to be consistent.
The Aspen VMT model does not cover Snowmass Village. To estimate visitor, resident, and employee trips
to Snowmass Village, a mix of data sources were used. First, Snowmass Village’s historical parking counts
and volumes on Brush Creek Road were used to understand the total vehicle trips to Snowmass on an
average winter day, and we used the average trip generation rates and carpool occupancies from Aspen’s
VMT model to refine the estimates of resident, employee, and visitor trips to the city. The 2017 AirSage
70
data and 2019 RFTA transit ridership data were also used to understand trip flows to Snowmass from
down valley, as well as travel between Aspen and Snowmass Village.
Table 2 displays the results of the travel market analysis in terms of average daily vehicle trips. VMT can
be calculated from the travel market trip data in Table 2 by multiplying the average daily trips by the
average trip length for each market. Trip length data are provided by the City of Aspen’s VMT model and
are assumed to be similar for Aspen and Snowmass Village. Figure 2 summarizes the VMT results
(presented as a total share of travel into both Aspen and Snowmass Village) for each of the four travel
markets. From VMT, vehicle-based GHG emissions were then calculated by multiplying the VMT estimates
by the CO2 emissions factor provided in the City of Aspen’s GHG Inventory 1. Since vehicle-based GHG
emissions are directly related to VMT, the share of GHG emissions from the different travel markets are
also depicted in Figure 2.
Table 2: Average Daily Vehicle Trips
Daily Vehicle Trips - Average Peak
Season
Snowmass Village (Across
Brush Creek Road)
Aspen (Across Castle Creek
Bridge)
Residents - Commute Out 80 590
Residents - Personal 420 1,660
Workers - Commute In 2,380 6,160
Local Visitors 1,480 2,460
Non-Local Visitors 3,870 10,070
Total 8,230 20,940
1 https://www.cityofaspen.com/DocumentCenter/View/4716/2017-Community-wide-Greenhouse-Gas-Inventory
71
Figure 2: Share of Daily VMT by Travel Market
In reviewing the data in Table 2 and Figure 2, some notable conclusions can be drawn. Specifically:
Non-local visitors contribute the most to the VMT into Aspen and Snowmass Village – more than
50 percent in the summer and nearly as much in the peak winter season
Commuters are the next largest share of VMT and total trip making after non-local visitors
Residents and local visitors represent much smaller shares of total trips and VMT into Aspen and
Snowmass Village
Based on these results, it is clear that substantial reductions in VMT and GHG emissions into Aspen and
Snowmass Village will require a focus on non-local visitors and commuters. However, when evaluating
how to manage travel from these two groups, the implications to equity and the overall economic engine
of the region must be taken into consideration.
Travel Patterns by Travel Market
One of the unique benefits of the AirSage data analysis is a visual depiction of some of the major travel
flows into and out of Aspen and Snowmass Village. The following figures visualize the origins of trips
destinated for Aspen and Snowmass Village for each of the unique travel markets across an average
summer weekday.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Residents Workers Local Visitors Non-Local Visitors
Aspen & Snowmass Village Peak Season Daily VMT
Summer - VMT Winter - VMT
72
Figure 3: Total Daily Person Trips to Aspen & Snowmass
While there appear to be larger trip flows from Old Snowmass and Woody Creek, these trips, especially
for non-local visitors, are likely due to people stopping for food, gas, and coffee on their way to Aspen
and Snowmass Village. Some of the trips originating in Old Snowmass may be trips between Snowmass
Village and Aspen or within Snowmass Village due to the large boundary areas of the zones.
73
Figure 4: Daily Commute Person Trips to Aspen & Snowmass
Commuter trips show a high concentration of flows from the Brush Creek Park and Ride to Aspen and
Snowmass Village. This is consistent with the high share of transit and carpool trips that begin at this park
and ride.
74
Figure 5: Daily Local Visitor Person Trips to Aspen & Snowmass
Local visitor trips are much more evenly distributed than commuter trips, or trips overall. They are also a
smaller proportion, although taken cumulatively, there is a strong flow of up valley trips to Aspen and
Snowmass Village.
75
Figure 6: Daily Non-Local Visitor Person Trips to Aspen & Snowmass
Non-local visitors show strong flows from Independence Pass and the Brush Creek Park and Ride with
more distribution from other down valley communities.
76
Autonomous Vehicles and COVID-19 Assessment
Much has been written in the last few months about how travel patterns have changed due to the COVID-
19 pandemic. Research reviewed by Fehr & Peers have shown some startling trends, including dramatic
decreases in transit usage, where some systems saw ridership decline by 95% or more as lockdowns and
sharp decreases in transit frequencies impacted ridership. There were also large decreases in the overall
amount of driving, with reductions in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) averaging about 50% or more
nationwide, though those have since started to rebound. A key question being posed by transportation
planners across the country relates to which COVID-19 related travel trends will return to pre-pandemic
conditions over the next year or two and which trends will stay (e.g., increased telecommuting and greater
e-commerce sales and home delivery of goods and services).
In addition to COVID-19 induced changes in travel trends, many transportation experts consider emerging
technologies, most notably the introduction of fully autonomous vehicles (AVs) to be a major factor in
where people live and how they travel in the future. Notably, most research has shown that privately-
owned AVs (the situation where people largely purchase their own private cars and do not share rides –
much like today) will result in substantial increases in VMT. In a region like the Upper Roaring Fork Valley,
where a large portion of VMT is attributed to visitor travel, AVs not only increase total vehicle trips and
congestion across Castle Creek Bridge and Brush Creek Road, but they could also increase vehicle trips
circulating within each city (if they are operating without any drivers to avoid parking fees), or even
increase parking demand (if AVs induce more overall travel, particularly day trips).
Fehr & Peers has developed a tool, TrendLab+, that addresses some of the questions on the impacts of
the pandemic-related travel shifts and how new technologies will impact VMT and transit trips. TrendLab+
allows users to describe different scenarios in terms of a list of different factors, such as vehicle availability,
fuel prices, land use patterns, and transit improvements, which research shows are closely related to VMT
and have been disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic. There are also several inputs related to changing
transportation technologies and AVs specifically. TrendLab+ translates the user-defined assumptions into
expected rates of return of transit ridership and VMT per capita compared pre-pandemic levels within the
short-, medium- and long-term.
To estimate the effect of COVID-19 and AVs on VMT per capita in Aspen and Snowmass Village, we ran
TrendLab+ for each of the travel markets: residents, commuters, local visitors, and non-local visitors.
77
Residents
Figure 7 and Table 3 show the results of TrendLab+ for residents of Aspen and Snowmass Village in the
immediate post-COVID (2025), medium-term (2030), and long-term (2050).
Figure 7: Resident Travel Trends
Table 3: Travel Trends for Residents
Travel Trends (compared to 2019 conditions)
Metric 2025 2030 2050
VMT per capita 103% 98% 103%
Transit Trips per capita 76% 95% 92%
In 2025, there is a bump in VMT per capita for residents of Aspen and Snowmass Village because of
lingering concerns about using shared modes, as well as inertia from a period of low transit usage, that
more than offsets the VMT decreases from telecommuting and e-commerce. In 2030, transit and VMT per
capita have both rebounded to slightly below pre-pandemic levels because transit ridership and funding
have recovered, but there is less overall travel per capita due to teleworking and e-commerce. Based on
current autonomous vehicle market data and trends, we do not expect fully autonomous vehicles to be
widely available by 2030. However, over the next few decades, fully autonomous vehicles will be a much
larger share of the privately-owned vehicle market. In a desirable area like Aspen and Snowmass Village,
where residents tend to have higher incomes than the regional average and could purchase a private AV,
we assumed the AV penetration at 50% by 2050. As AV adoption increases, research shows that VMT per
capita will increase, at the expense of transit trips per capita since AVs reduce the stress of driving and
78
induce more overall travel. This is reflected in the 2050 travel trends, as VMT per capita increases and
transit trips per capita decrease compared to 2030 conditions.
Commuters
Figure 8 and Table 4 show the results of TrendLab+ for commuters to Aspen and Snowmass Village in
the immediate post-COVID, medium-term, and long-term.
Figure 8: Commuter Travel Trends
Table 4: Travel Trends for Commuters
Travel Trends (compared to 2019 conditions)
Metric 2025 2030 2050
VMT per capita 97% 99% 105%
Transit Trips per capita 95% 108% 99%
In the immediate post-pandemic future, both VMT and transit trips per capita are near pre-pandemic
conditions for commuters, with minor decreases because of telecommuting and reduced staffing, as well
as limited capacity on RFTA buses. By 2030, telecommuting will not be a major factor for commutes into
Aspen and Snowmass Village, so VMT and transit trips per capita begin to increase. While other
employment sectors may see a long-term shift to more telecommuting, our analysis at Aspen and
Snowmass Village employment data from the US Census Bureau indicate that much of the employment in
the communities is related to recreation, retail, and services that cannot be performed remotely.
79
In the 2030 time horizon, commuter VMT per capita stays a bit below pre-pandemic levels due to
continued transit investments, limited parking supplies, and expanded transportation demand
management (TDM) strategies in Aspen and Snowmass Village. However, by 2050, VMT per capita
increases and transit trips decrease due to an increase in availability of autonomous vehicles. Transit trips
per capita in 2050 do not decrease as much when compared to residents, since we expect a lower AV
penetration rate in the commuter market.
Local Visitors
Figure 9 and Table 5 show the results of TrendLab+ for local visitors (defined as those living in or near
the Roaring Fork Valley) to Aspen and Snowmass Village in the immediate post-COVID, medium-term,
and long-term.
Figure 9: Local Visitor Travel Trends
Table 5: Travel Trends for Local Visitors
Travel Trends (compared to 2019 conditions)
Metric 2025 2030 2050
VMT per capita 104% 99% 113%
Transit Trips per capita 94% 108% 101%
In 2025, there is a bump in VMT per capita for local visitors to Aspen and Snowmass because of lingering
concerns about using shared modes, as well as inertia from a period of low transit usage. By 2030, local
visitor VMT per capita is near pre-pandemic levels and transit usage is higher due to improved transit
operations as planned transit investments are completed by RFTA. By 2050, the effect of AVs again
80
increases VMT per capita while decreasing transit trips per capita. We expect the AV adoption rate of local
visitors to be similar to that of commuters, potentially around 25% by 2050, which is lower than the
adoption rate of residents of Aspen and Snowmass Village.
Non-Local Visitors
Figure 10 and Table 6 show the results of TrendLab+ for non-local visitors to Aspen and Snowmass in
the immediate post-COVID, medium-term, and long-term. Non-local visitors are visitors who reside
outside of the Roaring Fork Valley (i.e., beyond Glenwood Springs).
Figure 10: Non-Local Visitor Travel Trends
Table 6: Travel Trends for Non-Local Visitors
Travel Trends (compared to 2019 conditions)
Metric 2025 2030 2050
VMT per room/visit 104% 114% 118%
Transit Trips per
room/visit 94% 96% 90%
In the case of non-local visitors, we found it helpful to slightly change the unit of analysis for the VMT and
transit trip analysis. Since many non-local visitors stay in a hotel room/rental property within the Roaring
Fork Valley, we evaluated the change in VMT and transit trips per room or visit rather than per capita,
81
because we anticipate that non-local visitation will increase at a rate beyond typical population growth. In
2025 and 2030 VMT increases, on a per room basis, as regional tourism is rediscovered and remains
popular. By 2050, VMT increases additionally because our research indicates that AVs will induce more
travel and make it easier to drive to Aspen and Snowmass Village. Specifically, our analysis indicates that
non-local visitors could rent an AV, if they don’t already own a private AV, to travel to Aspen/Snowmass
Village for the weekend or even a day trip, as people’s value of time is lower when traveling in a fully
autonomous vehicle. Research suggests that long distance car trips could increase about 10% with access
to fully autonomous vehicles2. Some research indicates that some of this AV visitor travel could occur
overnight, similar to how a redeye flight functions. In general, our research indicates that transit trips for
non-local visitors never recovers to pre-pandemic levels; however, transit does not play a large role in
moving these visitors overall, with the exception of the connecting route between Aspen and Snowmass
Village. This route is a good candidate for autonomous transit service, which could operate at higher
frequencies across more service hours to provide a direct replacement for driving trips between the two
resorts. Lower-cost long-distance autonomous transit services like an AV transit Bustang connection to
Denver or Grand Junction could also change the number of visitors to Aspen and Snowmass Village by
reducing overall travel costs and making long-distance transit more convenient, but there is little research
on this topic and TrendLab+ does not consider this impact.
Combined Results
Figure 11 and Table 7 show the combined results of TrendLab+ in the immediate post-COVID, medium-
term, and long-term across all travel markets, weighted by the total travel share.
Figure 11: Combined Travel Trends for all Travel Markets
2 https://www.caee.utexas.edu/prof/kockelman/public_html/TRB18AVLong-DistanceTravel.pdf
82
Table 7: Combined Travel Trends for all Travel Markets
Travel Trends (compared to 2019 conditions)
Metric 2025 2030 2050
VMT per capita 102% 107% 113%
Transit Trips per capita 93% 101% 98%
This table represents the combined travel trends for all of the unique travel markets, calculated by
weighting the trends for each travel market by their share of total VMT (see Figure 2Error! Reference
source not found.). As shown, we expect VMT per capita will continue to increase in Aspen and Snowmass
Village, reinforcing the need for the IMS strategies to mitigate against the quality of life, energy
consumption, and GHG emissions related to vehicle travel in the Upper Valley.
Evaluation Results
In Phase 1, we developed an implementation framework for the identified IMS strategies, realizing that
some strategies may take more time to implement than others due to political, technical, and financial
challenges. With the more in-depth Phase 2 analysis, we considered the synergies of the different IMS
strategies and identified five distinct packages that support the goal of VMT, congestion, and emissions
reductions. These packages are, shown in Table 8.
Table 8: Strategy Packages
Package Strategies
1 Cordon Toll on SH 82
Phased BRT Enhancements
2
Managed Lanes on SH 82
Phased BRT Enhancements
HOV Lane Enforcement
3
Parking Pricing
Phased BRT Enhancements
HOV Lane Enforcement
4 Ride Sharing
HOV Lane Enforcement
5 Ride Hailing
Each of the packages have independent utility, but some packages, notably packages 1, 2, and 3 would
likely not be combined, whereas packages 4 and 5 could be implemented with any combination of other
83
packages. The packages were developed based, in part, on the Phase 1 finding that HOV lane
enforcement did not have any direct VMT or GHG emissions benefits, but it strongly enhanced the other
IMS strategies. Similarly, given that the Aspen/Snowmass Village area already has strong transit service,
the BRT enhancements suggested in the IMS would have less of a stand-alone benefit than we would see
in most other communities, but they provide fundamental support to increasing the cost of driving
(through parking fees, tolls, or cordon charges) that are part of packages 1-3.
For each package, we refined the previous modeling and elasticity research completed in Phase 1 to
measure how the VMT for each travel market would be affected. Further refinements were made with the
understanding that each travel market has different price sensitivities; for example, local visitors and
residents may be able to shift departure times to avoid the highest tolls on SH 82 during peak hours, but
non-local visitors will likely view the added cost as a small piece of their total vacation cost and therefore
be less sensitive to pricing.
After calculating the new VMT reduction caused by each strategy implementation, the long-term GHG
emission reduction was calculated with Aspen’s standard emission factors, shown in Figure 12.
Figure 12: GHG Emission Reduction by Strategy Package for Aspen & Snowmass
Aspen’s 2017 VMT model estimates that on-road vehicles were responsible for about 69,000 metric tons
of CO2; this estimate includes the VMT from all trips to/from Aspen and Snowmass Village, as well as
within the city. The results in Figure 12 show that if Package 1 was implemented, Aspen could see an
annual reduction in GHG emissions of about 16,500 metric tons from approximately 5,000 fewer daily
vehicle trips across the Castle Creek Bridge.
84
Final Recommendation
Package 1 and 2 are the only strategies that dramatically shift the needle in reducing VMT and GHG
emissions in Aspen and Snowmass Village. These mobility management strategies will help ensure a
sustainable transportation system from the perspective of economic vitality, quality of life, and
environmental outcomes. As noted, these more aggressive strategies will require greater levels of funding,
agency/jurisdictional cooperation, and public willingness for additional costs/restrictions on mobility. In
exchange, there will be even greater levels of GHG emissions and VMT reductions, particularly for visitor
trips. Therefore, one of these two packages is therefore recommended as the long-term strategy for
managing vehicle travel in the Upper Roaring Fork Valley.
This recommendation is in alignment with The Aspen Institute’s Upper Valley Mobility Report that
strongly recommends dynamic roadway pricing on SH 82 and considers it the most reliable tool available
to reduce traffic jams and carbon emissions in the region. However, the Upper Valley Mobility Report
identified that strong social equity measures, such as enhanced and/or free alternative mobility options,
are necessary to ensure the roadway toll is not a regressive tax. From the equity research presented in this
report, implementing managed lanes on SH 82 would require less equity mitigation than a full cordon toll,
as travelers could choose to drive for free in the general-purpose lanes.
Given the long-time horizons required to implement either cordon or managed lane tolling into
Aspen/Snowmass Village, package 3 could be used as an interim measure, basically extending the parking
pricing strategy Aspen currently employs and working to bring more extensive parking pricing and
management to Snowmass Village. Additionally, we do not see any downside for the jurisdictions in the
area to encourage and perhaps provide technical or a modest financial investment in spurring dynamic
ride sharing, as that model was beginning to take off in several communities prior to the COVID-19
pandemic. Also, we feel that there can be gains from expanded ride hailing, particularly the shared-ride
model like is offered by Aspen’s Downtowner service.
Building Greater Public Acceptance or Tolling
In either tolled scenario, public knowledge and acceptance of the new fees, revenue allocation, and
economic impact is key to successful congestion pricing, as public support is necessary to overcome the
political difficulties of implementation. A key performance metric for gaining public support for tolls on
SH 82 is travel time, which can be a more tangible benefit to tolling than reduced GHG emissions or lower
energy consumption related to travel. Under normal AM peak hour conditions, travel time on SH 82 for
the segment shown in Figure 13, from just north of Woody Creek to the Castle Creek Bridge, is about 27
minutes.
85
Figure 13: AM Peak Hour Speeds on SH 82 – July 2019 Data
Under full cordon charge or for travelers in the managed lane, travel time during AM peak hour could
decrease to 15 minutes, a 45% decrease that would benefit all people traveling into Aspen.
86
Figure 14: AM Peak Hour Speeds on SH 82 Assuming Cordon Tolling or Managed Lanes
For managed lanes, the travel time benefits would only apply to the tolled lanes.
Legislative Hurdles
In addition to the challenge of convincing the public that there are enough benefits to pricing what is now
free travel between down valley communities and Aspen/Snowmass Village, there are potential legal and
political challenges to implementing congestion pricing on SH 82, whether as a managed lane or a cordon
toll. This section broadly examines the feasibility of tolling existing lanes on SH 82 approaching Aspen and
Snowmass Village. The two tolling scenarios outlined in this report are:
1) Converting the existing High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) and bus-only lane to an express lane or High-
Occupancy Toll (HOT) lane; per state law, all HOT lanes require at least three persons per vehicle to qualify
as a toll-free vehicle.
2) Converting all lanes to tolled lanes (creating a toll to enter both Aspen and Snowmass Village)
In 2020, CDOT and Colorado’s High Performance Transportation Enterprise (HPTE) released the Colorado
Express Lane Master Plan (CELMP), which identified and prioritized corridors for express lane
development, including SH 82 between Glenwood Springs and Aspen. Based on a series of scoring
factors, such as congestion reduction, transit support, public support/opinion, and planned highway
expansion, SH 82 was not selected for prioritization due to its low overall score compared to other higher-
volume facilities in the Front Range region. To date, no other regional or state plans have considered the
feasibility of constructing toll lanes on SH 82 or converting the existing HOV to HOT lanes.
87
Express lanes on state highways in Colorado are currently operated by two organizations: CDOT and
HPTE. HPTE is a government-owned business tasked with financing and delivering surface transportation
infrastructure; and, as mentioned prior, did not select SH 82 for express lane development. Unlike CDOT,
HPTE has the authority to collect revenues and often provides public-private partnership contracts.
Per Colorado state law, jurisdictions wishing to convert existing High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes to
express lanes (HOT lanes) must enter into contracts with private entities for toll operations. To convert
HOV lanes on SH 82, the leading jurisdiction (e.g. Pitkin County) would likely collaborate with CDOT and
an entity like HPTE to establish a toll system and collect revenue. While there is no Colorado law
prohibiting the conversion of HOV lanes to HOT lanes, all existing Express Lanes in the state have been a
part of a highway expansion project, due to the challenges of obtaining approval. For any potential
conversion, state law requires that CDOT get sign-off from every “affected jurisdiction.” While not clearly
defined in a statute, the CELMP references affected jurisdictions as any jurisdiction that the corridor
passes through. This would imply that jurisdictional approval required from Pitkin County, the town of
Basalt, Snowmass Village, and the City of Aspen.
Based upon publicly available documentation, administrative procedures required to introduce an express
lane (HOT lane) a state highway are complex. Per Colorado state law, the planning process of establishing
tolling facilities, via an entity like a public highway authority or enterprise, consists of several steps:
1. Review by every metropolitan planning organization or regional planning commission that is
located in whole or in part of the proposed project,
2. Environmental analysis to ensure that anticipated local and regional emissions levels will conform
to state implementation plan guidance (each involved organization or commission may condition
its approval of the project based on environmental mitigation efforts),
3. Inclusion of the project in the regional transportation plan and the comprehensive statewide
transportation plan,
4. Project information delivery to the relevant metropolitan planning organization or regional
planning commission thirty days prior to regional plan amendment (including environmental
documentation, operation plans, proposed technology, feasibility and long-term viability); and
5. Consultation with representatives from all local governments located in whole or in part of the
project to consider mitigation of negative impacts as a result of construction, operation, or
financing of the project.
While jurisdictions may designate HOV lanes and convert them to HOT/express lanes, there is no
legislation explicitly authorizing the conversion of general-purpose lanes to tolled lanes. To realize the full
VMT and GHG benefits from Package 1, Aspen, Snowmass Village, and Pitkin County should prioritize
lobbying for legislative change in Colorado. While not a focus of this study, a likely place to place a
cordon toll would be on SH 82 just east of Brush Creek Road, and on Brush Creek Road just south/west of
SH 82. Independence Pass should also have a cordon toll for travelers accessing the region from the east
during summer. An additional toll cordon may be needed on McClain Flats Road/Cemetery Lane, but
placement would need to be considered to avoid impacts to local residents along the street, who are not
the target of the toll.
88
Implementing Package 1 or 2 will require significant institutional outreach (e.g. CDOT and HPTE),
administrative research, future stakeholder engagement, and likely an environmental analysis of the
impacts of the tolling. In conclusion, based upon this analysis, conversion of HOV lanes on SH 82 to an
express lane is possible under the existing laws while a full cordon toll would need a change to State Law
to expressly allow a jurisdiction to toll an existing facility.
Equity Impact & Mitigation Analysis
As part of the Phase 2 work, we prepared an equity analysis regarding the impact and potential mitigation
options of IMS strategy implementation, with a particular emphasis on the tolling packages.
Congestion-pricing in the United States generally includes tollways and priced lanes on major corridors
that experience recurring traffic congestion. As described by the FHWA in Income-Based Equity Impacts of
Congestion Pricing (2008), when planning for these facilities there are three types of equity considerations
that relate to the distribution of benefits and impacts: income, geographic, modal. Income equity
addresses whether low-income groups are affected by congestion pricing/tolls; geographic equity
addresses the impacts of pricing such as traffic diversion; and modal equity addresses public perceptions
regarding encouragement of a multimodal transportation.
While all equity considerations are important to consider, income equity can have a direct effect on
roadway users. On the SH 82 corridor, many workers commute into Aspen and Snowmass Village from
areas where housing prices are lower, such as Carbondale and Glenwood Springs, since the housing prices
in Aspen/Snowmass Village are some of the highest in the country. Other types of roadway users such as
independent contractors (such as trucking and construction) may use the roadway differently and more
frequently and these users may value time during the workday differently, therefore benefitting from time
savings resulting from congestion pricing or managed lanes. Equity considerations concerning congestion
pricing and priced lanes are documented in multiple research and evaluation sources with varying
conclusions.
Income-Based Equity Impacts of Congestion Pricing. US Department of Transportation, FHWA. 2008.
http://media.metro.net/projects_studies/expresslanes/images/fhwahop08040.pdf
This report finds that the use of congestion-priced lanes by both low and high-income users is
selective, and regardless of income, people pay for access to the lanes when they see utility in the time
savings. The report also notes that overall, about half of the users of congestion priced lanes only do
so once a week or less. The report makes a distinction between Partial (one or more priced lanes) and
Full (full roadway tolling) pricing scenarios to identify the perception of “unfairness” of priced lanes.
While equity related data in the Full scenario is limited, the study finds that congestion pricing is not
an inequitable way of responding to traffic congestion. Approval ratings are generally high for all
income groups, in the 60-80% range because all roadway users value the “insurance” of a reliable trip
when they need it.
89
I-405 Express Toll Lanes Analysis: Usage, Benefits, and Equity. TRAC Washington State Transportation
Center. 2019. http://depts.washington.edu/trac/research-news/freeway-and-arterial-management/i-
405-express-toll-lanes-analysis-usage-benefits-and-equity/
This study examined the dynamic tolling facility on I-405 in the Seattle area and project benefits to
users, as well as how these benefits are distributed across various groups of non-commercial roadway
users. Higher income groups were found to use the facility more often compared to lower income
groups. Similar to findings in the FHWA report, the study found that lower income users used the
facility most strategically and selectively, so they were able to obtain a higher net benefit compared to
higher income users. A large number of lower income users used the facility periodically throughout
the year, showing that the lanes have value when a driver’s time is limited.
Atlanta Regional Managed Lane System Plan – Social Equity and Environmental Effects and Evaluation .
Georgia Department of Transportation. 2010.
http://www.dot.ga.gov/BuildSmart/Studies/ManagedLanesDocuments/Social%20Equity%20and%20En
vironmental%20Effect%20Evaluation.pdf
This document provides an overview of potential equity and environmental issues related to
implementing managed lanes in the Atlanta region for multiple corridors. The study notes that all
users pay the same toll regardless of income status, which is regressive considering the toll represents
a different proportion of income for various users. However, transit enhancements paid through toll
revenue is a way to redistribute transportation benefits to the corridors. They also note that cash
payments should be permitted (or a means to load cash onto a toll transponder) to avoid adverse
social impacts, as some users may not have a bank account. Regarding health and environmental
impacts, the study notes that a managed lane system offers reduced levels of congestion while also
limiting the amount of induced travel (because the faster speeds are offset by a cash toll), which leads
to lessened vehicle emissions and improved air quality.
Managed Lanes in Texas: A Review of the Application of Congestion Pricing. Texas A&M Transportation
Institute. 2016. https://static.tti.tamu.edu/tti.tamu.edu/documents/PRC-15-47-F.pdf
This report examines congestion pricing on managed lane facilities in Texas, which has used
congestion pricing systems since 1998. Texas facilities include fully dynamic pricing (price changes
continuously based on traffic levels) and fixed time of day pricing, where the prices are fixed for a
certain time period, but prices are higher during peak travel periods. One unique feature of the
managed lanes in the Dallas area is that trucks are allowed to use these lanes but pay higher prices. In
most states, trucks are not allowed in managed lanes (although they are allowed on I-25 in Colorado
with a $25 surcharge on the regular toll). Many of Texas’ managed facilities were converted from HOV
to priced lanes (where carpools are still free) as a way to increase capacity for SOV users where HOV
lane demand was lower. Raising revenues for roadway projects, increasing-peak-period congestion,
and air quality compliance were all issues intended to be addressed by managed lanes. This study did
not explicitly investigate equity issues, but the usage patterns suggest similar benefits and issues as
raised by the earlier studies.
90
Equity and Congestion Pricing- A Review of the Evidence. RAND Corporation. 2009.
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/technical_reports/2009/RAND_TR680.pdf
This study looks at congestion pricing projects and proposals in the United States that have been
rejected based on worries that congestion pricing is inequitable, and the evidence that might support
of negate these claims. Equity is defined in this report as the distribution of costs and benefits among
members of society, whether monetary or non-monetary. The report includes an assessment of
welfare-based evaluations of equity and congestion pricing, noting that the payment of congestion
pricing fees is slightly less regressive than sales or gasoline tax, but that lower income users would not
benefit as much from congestion pricing because they have less flexibility in travel behavior. The
report also discusses ways the implementation of congestion pricing systems such as Cordon Pricing
and HOT lanes affects equity. The authors note that the definition of the tolling area relative to the
spatial distribution of low-income neighborhoods can affect equity. In Edinburgh, a proposed system
would have exempted higher income users because of the city’s administrative boundaries. A British
study found that cordon pricing can be progressive, neutral, or regressive depending on how incomes
are distributed in the region. For example, if the cordon primarily effects higher income
residents/employees but distributes revenues in a way that primarily benefits lower income
residents/employees, the cordon fee could be progressive.
Conclusions on Equity Impacts of Congestion Pricing and Tolling
Based on the literature reviewed above, it appears that congestion pricing, in general, could have a
greater impact on lower income residents and employees since the price charged does not vary based on
income. The effects are less pronounced for priced lanes compared to an overall cordon toll since the
priced lanes include a free (although congested) option for those who cannot or do not want to pay for
that particular trip. These findings are entirely in-line with the Aspen Institute’s Upper Valley Mobility
Report.
Implementing congestion pricing on SH 82 could add an additional cost burden for these people, while
residents who can afford to both live and work in Aspen would not need to regularly pay this cost, which
could add to the disparate impact of tolling. Priced lanes can be seen as inequitable because rush hour
travelers who commute in the same direction as congestion (where congestion pricing would be most
effective) are largely affluent and are more capable of paying the cost (Rand Corporation and Volpe
National Transportation Systems Center, 2007). However, there may be options to reinvest tolling revenue
into transit facilities as to improve transit performance and mobility for riders.
Equitable Revenue Redistribution
Redistribution of revenue collected from managed lanes is a common equity related theme in the studies
reviewed. A 2007 study in King County, WA found that lower income people are more likely to be transit
riders and would benefit most from transit speed and reliability improvements. Cities such as Minneapolis
and Los Angeles currently dedicate a portion of their highway toll revenue to transit operations (through
greater frequency of service) and speed/reliability improvements.
91
Investing a portion of tolling revenue into transit can address all three areas of equity, as it provides an
efficient mode of transportation between cities that fundamentally reduces VMT. Given the SH 82 corridor
already contains a BUS ONLY lane west of Aspen, transit can currently operate efficiently during times of
congestion. However, strategies such as using tolling revenue to subsidize transit fares, increasing
frequencies, improving transit stops, and further improving transit speed and reliability through additional
BUS ONLY lanes and transit signal priority can be additional options. These improvements would serve
both current riders and may attract additional riders. In the context of the Upper Valley, redistributed toll
revenues could be used to reduce the cost of the RFTA BRT trip into Aspen and Snowmass Village or as a
“feebate” where people who ride transit are given funds for riding transit (subject to a monthly or annual
cap) since transit is already free to ride within these communities. Under either tolling strategy,
redistributed toll revenue should be directed towards transit improvements and reduced RFTA trip costs
to minimize the equity impact of strategy implementation and enhance the alternative mobility options
for traveling into Snowmass Village and Aspen.
In Pricing Roads Advancing Equity (2019), TRANSFORM describes that congestion pricing generally
reduces driving by 15-20% and congestion by 30% or more. While some people may see this decrease as
an opportunity to drive alone in a car, the reduced congestion can also help transit operations since it
reduces traffic making turns at intersections, allowing for better transit mobility in the curbside BUS ONLY
lane. While the economic impact to lower income people resulting from congestion pricing has validity,
there are strategies that can be explored to help efficiently and equitably move people through the
multimodal corridor.
Another consideration to mitigate equity for travelers paying the cordon toll or driving in the managed
lane is to implement a two-tiered tolling system for verified low-income travelers who live in or work in
Aspen or Snowmass Village. This system could provide transponders with lower tolls for those who are
already verified as low-income through RFTA; however, this could result in people exploiting the ability to
sell these devices. Another option would be implementing license plate tolling with the option for users to
register and verify their income for a discounted toll. This option is analogous to how transit fares and
utility payments are reduced to lessen the cost burden on low-income residents who rely on these
services.
Performance Measures & Evaluation Framework
As strategies are implemented, it is important to monitor the success of the program. Performance
monitoring will help quantify how well the IMS strategies are working to reduce SOV travel, increase
transit ridership, and reduce VMT and GHG emissions in the Upper Valley. The proposed performance
measures build off existing data collected and maintained by the City of Aspen, Snowmass Village, RFTA,
and Pitkin County. The proposed evaluation framework incorporates all performance measures and
provides guidance for when the county and cities should be collecting and evaluating the specified data
sources to ensure success of the plan.
92
Traffic Counts
The City of Aspen currently collects monthly Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes at the Castle Creek
bridge on State Highway 82, which serves as the entry point to Aspen. The City’s goal is to maintain
monthly ADT at 1993 levels. Table 9 summarizes the 1993 traffic monthly ADT.
Table 9: Monthly ADT at Castle Creek Bridge
Monthly AADT Year: 1993
January 23,800
February 24,300
March 24,800
April 18,800
May 19,300
June 26,200
July 28,600
August 28,600
September 24,000
October 20,500
November 20,000
December 25,200
In addition to the Castle Creek Bridge counts, we recommend additional count locations be added to
monitor the change in vehicle volumes entering Snowmass Village. Snowmass Village has some historical
counts on Brush Creek Road, which would be a good screenline location for the city. Based on data
collection from Pitkin County, ADT on Brush Creek Road was 10,000 in winter 2003. However, based on
discussions with Snowmass Village staff, Owl Creek Road carries an increasing amount of traffic, so both
roadways should be considered for additional vehicle counts to understand total volumes. While monthly
volumes provide solid data to track over time, they might be more than is necessary or sustainable from a
data collection standpoint. Therefore, if twice yearly data can be collected during a peak December and
July/August week, this would suffice to track VMT and traffic growth trends into and out of Snowmass
over time. We recommend collecting data on both Brush Creek Road and Owl Creek Road immediately
south/west of SH 82.
VMT
VMT data is necessary to quantify congestion reduction and measure GHG emissions from transportation.
The City of Aspen currently maintains a VMT model, last updated in 2018, that accounts for all on-road
activity occurring within Aspen and as a result of traveling to/from Aspen. This model is used to estimate
GHG emissions to evaluate the city’s progress at meeting their Climate Action Plan (CAP) goals and is
updated every few years. An update underway for 2021 will include VMT analysis for all of Pitkin County.
93
Because Snowmass Village will now be included in the model, this tool should be used to monitor VMT
across the Upper Valley.
VMT data for the Upper Valley should be calculated every 2-3 years, and occasionally calibrated using big
data VMT sources.
GHG Emissions
GHG emissions can be calculated from VMT data by multiplying VMT by standard emission factors. The
City of Aspen performs a GHG inventory using their VMT model every few years to quantify emissions and
understand the progress to meeting the GHG reduction targets set in their Climate Action Plan (CAP).
Similarly to the VMT estimation above, once Snowmass Village is included in Aspen’s VMT model, this
approach should be used to calculate GHG emissions for the Upper Valley. GHG emissions factors should
be updated every 2-3 years to reflect the changing vehicle fleet mix, fuel sources, and carbon content of
vehicle fuels/energy sources.
Transit Ridership
The IMS strategies outlined in the implementation plan rely on the availability of transit to support travel
into Aspen and Snowmass. Strategies that aim to reduce single occupancy vehicle trips only succeed
when there is a reliable alternative to driving in a private vehicle. A public transit option is also a critical
element to reduce the equity impacts of any strategy that increases the cost of driving/parking. While the
IMS encourages the use of ridesharing and ridehailing, given the robust transit services provided by RFTA
and the City of Aspen, transit will remain one the most viable alternative to driving if congestion and or
costs cause drivers to seek other ways to get to and from their destinations. Historical ridership data from
RFTA should be used to set a baseline for transit trips into Aspen and Snowmass Village during summer
and winter seasons. Trips between Aspen and Snowmass Village should be documented on a regular basis
as well to monitor the amount of travel between the two communities on transit. RFTA maintains route
and stop-level ridership data for the transit routes serving Aspen and Snowmass Village, which should
continue to be tracked every year to understand transit growth and mode shift to transit.
Travel Time
Being able to quantify travel time changes to Aspen and Snowmass Village through IMS strategy
implementation is a key performance measure to build public support. To provide a baseline travel time
along SH 82, transportation data vendors such as INRIX, HERE, or Streetlight Data could be used, which
allows for purchase of historical speed/travel time data, which would allow Pitkin County to set a baseline
of 2019 conditions. Future travel time calculations could continue to rely on big data vendors or
traditional floating car surveys. Travel time data should be collected during both summer and winter peak
seasons and during the AM and PM peak hours. Travel times for buses, carpools, and general purpose
vehicles should collected. Travel time should be collected every 2-3 years.
94
Parking Utilization
Parking utilization data for Aspen and Snowmass Village provides another perspective on vehicle trip
demand entering both cities. Aspen maintains a comprehensive database of hourly parking occupancy in
the parking garage and downtown spaces, as well as daily carpool counts in the residential parking areas.
Aspen also collects parking occupancy counts at the Brush Creek Park and Ride, which is the major transit
Park and Ride lot for employees and visitors to the Upper Valley. Snowmass Village has more limited
parking data; they collect 12 PM counts at the day skier lots and garage during the winter ski season. In
the core area of Snowmass Village, parking passes are required for the permitted lots. The parking passes
have separate designations for residents, employees, and visitors and are not available to day trippers, so
they track a separate pool of travelers. Therefore, the day skier lots and garage in Snowmass primarily
serve visitors as well as some employees. Parking data should continue to be collected daily in both Aspen
and Snowmass and analyzed every few years to track trends in people parking private vehicles. Parking
utilization should be collected for both summer and winter seasons.
Summary
Table 10 summarizes the performance measures and evaluation framework described above.
Table 10: Evaluation Framework Summary
Performance Measure Evaluation Details
Traffic Counts
Collect data during a peak December and
July/August week for:
Brush Creek Road
Owl Creek Road
Continue to collect monthly ADT vehicle counts at:
Castle Creek Bridge
VMT
VMT should be calculated every 2-3 years using the
City of Aspen VMT model, and occasionally
calibrated using Big Data
GHG Emissions GHG emissions factors and total GHG emissions
should be updated every 2-3 years
Transit Ridership
Continue to monitor RFTA’s route and stop-level
ridership data for the transit routes serving Aspen
and Snowmass Village annually
95
Travel Time Travel times for buses, carpools, and general-
purpose vehicles should collected every 2-3 years
Parking Utilization
Parking data should continue to be collected daily
during peak seasons in both Aspen and Snowmass
and analyzed every 2-3 years
96
Integrated Mobility Study
Phase 2
ASPEN INSTITUTE
MAY 2021
97
State Highway 82 Upper Valley Transit
Enhancement Study
Technical Report
June 2021
98
This page intentionally left blank.
99
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page i
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................................... i
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................... iv
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................. iv
Appendices ................................................................................................................................................. vi
1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 7
2. Corridor Overview ................................................................................................................................ 8
2.1 Study Area and Study Corridor ................................................................................................... 8
2.2 Corridor Travel Patterns .............................................................................................................. 8
3. Previous Studies ................................................................................................................................ 10
4. Existing Roadway Conditions and Traffic Operations ........................................................................ 14
4.1 Roadway Characteristics ........................................................................................................... 14
4.2 Traffic Volumes ......................................................................................................................... 17
4.3 Crash Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 18
4.4 Model Development and Calibration ......................................................................................... 20
4.5 Measures of Effectiveness ........................................................................................................ 20
4.6 Traffic Operations ...................................................................................................................... 22
5. Transit Operations ............................................................................................................................. 26
6. Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Infrastructure ................................................................................... 33
6.1 7th and Bleeker (UV) .................................................................................................................. 35
6.2 Hallam and 8th (UV and DV) ...................................................................................................... 36
6.3 Cemetery Lane (DV) ................................................................................................................. 37
6.4 Roundabout (DV) ...................................................................................................................... 38
6.5 Truscott (UV & DV).................................................................................................................... 39
6.6 Aspen Country Inn (UV & DV) ................................................................................................... 40
6.7 Buttermilk (UV and DV) ............................................................................................................. 41
6.8 AABC (UV and DV) ................................................................................................................... 42
6.9 Service Center Road (UV and DV) ............................................................................................ 43
7. Future Traffic Forecasts and Traffic Operations ................................................................................ 44
7.1 Regional Growth and Background Developments ..................................................................... 44
7.2 2025 Volume Development ....................................................................................................... 46
7.3 Analysis Methodology ............................................................................................................... 47
7.3.1 Traffic Analysis Methodology................................................................................................. 47
7.3.2 Transit Ridership Methodology .............................................................................................. 47
100
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page ii
7.3.3 Pedestrian/Bicycle Analysis Methodology ............................................................................. 49
7.4 2025 No Build Analysis ............................................................................................................. 51
7.4.1 2025 No Build Scenario ......................................................................................................... 51
7.4.2 2025 No Build Results ........................................................................................................... 51
7.4.2.1 Traffic Operations .......................................................................................................... 51
7.4.2.2 Travel Times .................................................................................................................. 53
7.4.2.3 Transit ........................................................................................................................... 56
7.4.2.4 Figure 40: 2025 No Build Mode SharePedestrian and Bicycle ...................................... 57
7.5 Alternatives Development and Evaluation ................................................................................. 58
7.6 2025 Alternative 1 – Maximized Multimodal Right-of-Way ........................................................ 58
7.6.1 2025 Alternative 1 Scenario .................................................................................................. 58
7.6.1.1 Intersection Improvements ............................................................................................ 58
7.6.1.2 Bus Priority Improvements ............................................................................................ 62
7.6.1.3 Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements .......................................................................... 64
7.6.1.4 Transportation Systems Management and Operations/ Transportation Demand
Management .................................................................................................................................. 65
7.6.2 2025 Alternative 1 Results .................................................................................................... 65
7.6.2.1 Traffic Operations .......................................................................................................... 67
7.6.2.2 Travel Times .................................................................................................................. 68
7.6.2.3 Transit ........................................................................................................................... 69
7.6.2.4 Pedestrian and Bicycle .................................................................................................. 71
7.7 2025 Alternative 2 – Spot Multimodal Improvements ................................................................ 78
7.7.1 2025 Alternative 2 Scenario .................................................................................................. 78
7.7.1.1 Intersection Improvements ............................................................................................ 78
7.7.1.2 Bus Priority Improvements ............................................................................................ 79
7.7.1.3 Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements .......................................................................... 79
7.7.1.4 Transportation Systems Management and Operations/Transportation Demand
Management .................................................................................................................................. 80
7.7.2 2025 Alternative 2 Results .................................................................................................... 80
7.7.2.1 Traffic Operations .......................................................................................................... 80
7.7.2.2 Travel Times .................................................................................................................. 81
7.7.2.3 Transit ........................................................................................................................... 83
7.7.2.4 Pedestrian and Bicycle .................................................................................................. 84
7.8 2025 Alternative 3 – Traffic Technology Application.................................................................. 87
7.8.1 2025 Alternative 3 Scenario .................................................................................................. 87
7.8.1.1 Signal Operations .......................................................................................................... 87
101
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page iii
7.8.1.2 Transportation Systems Management and Operations/Transportation Demand
Management .................................................................................................................................. 88
7.8.2 2025 Alternative 3 Results .................................................................................................... 88
7.8.2.1 Roadway Conditions and Traffic Operations ................................................................. 88
7.8.2.2 Travel Times .................................................................................................................. 90
7.8.2.3 Transit ........................................................................................................................... 91
7.8.2.4 Pedestrian and Bicycle .................................................................................................. 92
7.9 2025 Alternative 4 Evaluation .................................................................................................... 93
7.9.1 2025 Alternative 4 Scenario .................................................................................................. 93
7.9.1.1 Intersection Improvements ............................................................................................ 93
7.9.1.2 Bus Priority Improvements ............................................................................................ 93
7.9.1.3 Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements .......................................................................... 94
7.9.1.4 Transportation Systems Management and Operations/Transportation Demand
Management .................................................................................................................................. 94
7.9.2 2025 Alternative 4 Results .................................................................................................... 94
7.9.2.1 Roadway Conditions and Traffic Operations ................................................................. 94
7.9.2.2 Travel Times .................................................................................................................. 96
7.9.2.3 Transit ........................................................................................................................... 97
7.9.2.4 Pedestrian and Bicycle .................................................................................................. 97
8. Comparison of Alternatives ................................................................................................................ 99
8.1 Transit Ridership .......................................................................................................................... 105
9. Summary of Findings and Recommended Mobility Package ........................................................... 109
9.1 Summary of Findings .............................................................................................................. 109
10. Recommendations and Phasing .................................................................................................. 112
10.1 Mobility Package Phasing ........................................................................................................... 112
102
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page iv
List of Tables
Table 1: Signalized Intersection Level of Service Delay Ranges .............................................................. 22
Table 2: Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Delay Ranges .......................................................... 22
Table 3: Existing Capacity Analysis Table (HCM) ..................................................................................... 23
Table 4: Existing Capacity Analysis Table (VisSim) .................................................................................. 24
Table 5: Existing Transit Frequency .......................................................................................................... 29
Table 6: Ridership ..................................................................................................................................... 29
Table 7: Background Development Trip Generation Volumes .................................................................. 45
Table 8: 2025 No Build Capacity Analysis Table (HCM) ........................................................................... 52
Table 9: 2025 No Build Capacity Analysis Table (VisSim) ........................................................................ 52
Table 10: 2025 Alternative 1 Capacity Analysis Table (HCM)................................................................... 66
Table 11: 2025 Alternative 1 Capacity Analysis T able (VisSim)................................................................ 67
Table 12: 2025 Alternative 2 Capacity Analysis Table (HCM)................................................................... 80
Table 13: 2025 Alternative 2 Capacity Analysis Table (VisSim)................................................................ 81
Table 14: 2025 Alternative 3 Capacity Analysis Table (HCM)................................................................... 88
Table 15: 2025 Alternative 3 Capacity Analysis Table (VisSim)................................................................ 89
Table 16: 2025 Alternative 4 Capacity Analysis Table (HCM)................................................................... 94
Table 17: 2025 Alternative 4 Capacity Analysis Table (VisSim)................................................................ 95
Table 18: Capacity Analysis Comparison (HCM) .................................................................................... 102
Table 19: Capacity Analysis Comparison (VisSim) ................................................................................. 103
List of Figures
Figure 1: Seasonal Traffic Variations .......................................................................................................... 9
Figure 2: Diurnal Bi-directional Distribution ................................................................................................. 9
Figure 3: Seasonal Transit Ridership Variations ....................................................................................... 10
Figure 4: Forecasted vs. Actual Traffic Patterns ....................................................................................... 13
Figure 5: Typical Section - North of Service Center Road......................................................................... 15
Figure 6: Typical Section - South of Airport Entrance ............................................................................... 15
Figure 7: Typical Section - Between Harmony Road and Owl Creek Road .............................................. 16
Figure 8: Typical Section - South of Tiehack Road ................................................................................... 16
Figure 9: Typical Section - Maroon Creek Bridge ..................................................................................... 16
Figure 10: Typical Section - North of Roundabout .................................................................................... 17
Figure 11: Typical Section - North of Cemetery Lane ............................................................................... 17
Figure 12: Typical Section - South of Cemetery Lane ............................................................................... 17
Figure 13: Crash Types in the Study Corridor ........................................................................................... 18
Figure 14: Crash Locations in the Centra l Portion of the Study Corridor, 2015 to 2020 ............................ 19
Figure 15: Person Throughput Illustration ................................................................................................. 21
Figure 16: Existing AM Peak Hour Modeled Travel Time ......................................................................... 25
Figure 17: Existing PM Peak Hour Modeled Travel Time ......................................................................... 26
Figure 18: SH 82 Corridor Transit Services .............................................................................................. 28
Figure 19: Summer 2019 Transit Ridership .............................................................................................. 30
Figure 20: Existing Ridership .................................................................................................................... 31
Figure 21: Existing Mode Share ................................................................................................................ 31
Figure 22: Pedestrian and Bicycle Infrastructure Map: Pedestrian and Bicycle I nfrastructure Map .......... 34
Figure 23: 7th and Bleeker (UV) Walkshed ............................................................................................... 35
103
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page v
Figure 24: Hallam and 8th (UV and DV) Walkshed ................................................................................... 36
Figure 25: Cemetery Lane (DV) Walkshed ............................................................................................... 37
Figure 26: Roundabout (DV) Walkshed .................................................................................................... 38
Figure 27: Truscott (UV & DV) Walkshed.................................................................................................. 39
Figure 28: Aspen Country Inn (UV & DV) Walkshed ................................................................................. 40
Figure 29: Buttermilk (UV and DV) Walkshed ........................................................................................... 41
Figure 30: AABC (UV and DV) Walkshed ................................................................................................. 42
Figure 31: Service Center Road (UV and DV) Walkshed .......................................................................... 43
Figure 32: Background Development Locations ....................................................................................... 44
Figure 33: Background Improvements ...................................................................................................... 46
Figure 34 Elasticity Formula...................................................................................................................... 47
Figure 35: Intersection Conflict Points ...................................................................................................... 50
Figure 36: Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress .................................................................................................. 51
Figure 37: 2025 No Build AM Peak Hour Modeled Travel Time ................................................................ 54
Figure 38: 2025 No Build PM Peak Hour Modeled Travel Time ................................................................ 55
Figure 39: 2025 No Build Transit Ridership .............................................................................................. 56
Figure 40: 2025 No Build Mode Share ...................................................................................................... 57
Figure 41: Bicycle Level of Stress - No Build ............................................................................................ 57
Figure 42: SH 82 at Service Center Road – New Traffic Signal ................................................................ 58
Figure 43: SH 82 at Owl Creek Road – Pedestrian Underpass ................................................................ 59
Figure 44: SH 82 Up Valley HOV Lane Extension .................................................................................... 60
Figure 45: Down Valley Channelization at Maroon Creek Roundabout .................................................... 61
Figure 46: Additional Signal Phase for Buses Exiting Airport Guideway ................................................... 62
Figure 47: Additional Signal Phase for Buses Entering Airport Guideway ................................................ 62
Figure 48: Channelized Bus Bypass Lanes at Harmony/Owl Creek ......................................................... 63
Figure 49: Cemetery Lane Queue Jump and Lane Extension .................................................................. 64
Figure 50: Trail Connection Between Owl Creek and Truscott ................................................................. 65
Figure 51: 2025 Alt 1 AM Peak Hour Modeled Travel Time ...................................................................... 68
Figure 52: 2025 Alt 1 PM Peak Hour Modeled Travel Time ...................................................................... 69
Figure 53: Alternative 1 Transit Ridership ................................................................................................. 70
Figure 54: Alternative 1 Mode Share ........................................................................................................ 70
Figure 55: Alternative 1 Overall Walkshed ................................................................................................ 71
Figure 56: Alternative 1 - Roundabout (DV) Walkshed ............................................................................. 72
Figure 57: Alternative 1 - Truscott (UV & DV) Walkshed .......................................................................... 73
Figure 58: Alternative 1 - Aspen Country Inn (UV & DV) .......................................................................... 74
Figure 59: Alternative 1 - Buttermilk (UV & DV) Walksheds ...................................................................... 75
Figure 60: Alternative 1 - AABC (UV & DV) Walksheds ............................................................................ 76
Figure 61: Alternative 1 - Service Center Road (UV & DV) Walksheds .................................................... 77
Figure 62: Bicycle Level of Stress - Alternative 1 ...................................................................................... 78
Figure 63: Channelization and Up Valley Lane Assignment ..................................................................... 79
Figure 64: 2025 Alt 2 AM Peak Hour Modeled Travel Time ...................................................................... 82
Figure 65: 2025 Alt 2 PM Peak Hour Modeled Travel Time ...................................................................... 82
Figure 66: Alternative 2 Transit Ridership ................................................................................................. 83
Figure 67: Alternative 2 Mode Share ........................................................................................................ 83
Figure 68: Alternative 2 - Aspen Country Inn (UV & DV) Walksheds ........................................................ 84
Figure 69: Alternative 2 - AABC (UV & DV) Walksheds ............................................................................ 85
Figure 70: Alternative 2 - Service Center Road (UV & DV) Walksheds .................................................... 86
Figure 71: Traditional Ring and Barrier Signal Phasing (Top) vs. Lead-Lag Left-turn Phasing (Bottom) .. 87
Figure 72: 2025 Alt 3 AM Peak Hour Modeled Travel Time ...................................................................... 90
104
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page vi
Figure 73: 2025 Alt 3 PM Peak Hour Modeled Travel Time ...................................................................... 91
Figure 74: Alternative 2 Transit Ridership ................................................................................................. 92
Figure 75: Alternative 3 Mode Share ........................................................................................................ 92
Figure 76: 2025 Alt 4 AM Peak Hour Modeled Travel Time ...................................................................... 96
Figure 77: 2025 Alt 4 PM Peak Hour Modeled Travel Time ...................................................................... 97
Figure 78 Alternative 4 Transit Ridership .................................................................................................. 98
Figure 79 Alternative 4 Mode Share ......................................................................................................... 98
Figure 80: Person Throughput Comparison .............................................................................................. 99
Figure 81: Travel Time Comparison ........................................................................................................ 101
Figure 82: Fuel Used and Efficiency ....................................................................................................... 104
Figure 83: Emissions Comparison .......................................................................................................... 105
Figure 84: Transit Ridership Comparison................................................................................................ 106
Figure 85: Mode Share Comparison ....................................................................................................... 107
Figure 86: Cross-Product of Ped/Vehicle Conflicts ................................................................................. 108
Appendices
Apendix I: Existing Traffic Volumes
Apendix II: Capacity Analysis and Other MOE Worksheets for Existing Conditions
Apendix III: 2025 Traffic Volumes
Apendix IV: Capacity Analysis and Other MOE Worksheets for 2025 No Build
Apendix V: Capacity Analysis and Other MOE Worksheets for 2025 Alternative 1
Apendix VI: Capacity Analysis and Other MOE Worksheets for 2025 Alternative 2
Apendix VII: Capacity Analysis and Other MOE Worksheets for 2025 Alternative 3
Apendix VIII: Capacity Analysis and Other MOE Worksheets for 2025 Alternative 4
Appendix IX: Pedestrian Conflict Worksheets
Appendix X: Previous Study Recommendation Summary Matrix
105
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 7
1. Introduction
State Highway 82 (SH 82) is a vital link from Glenwood Springs to the City of Aspen and contains one of
the strongest rural transit systems in the state and nation carrying over 5 million passengers a year. The
corridor segment in the Upper Valley between the Aspen Airport and downtown Aspen has become
increasingly congested in winter and summer tourist seasons, despite significant recent investments in new
transit services, specifically the VelociRFTA Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service, eight local bus transit routes
in the Upper Valley, rush hour High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes, and a robust trail network. While long-
term plans include additional investment in high quality dedicated transitway infrastructure, this study
focuses on the development and evaluation of short-term alternatives to enhance transit operations and
improve pedestrian and bicycle safety and accessibility to existing transit stops.
The County and RFTA have recently completed and continue to plan for significant investment in transit
and multimodal infrastructure including enhanced bus shelters, fleet upgrades, and bike share expansions
to support expanded sustainable mobility options and accommodate future travel demand.
The SH 82 corridor currently does current provide a modest amount of transit priority such as dedicated
bus lanes in short segments. Despite these interventions, recurring traffic congestion along the corridor,
which carries 26,000 vehicles per day according to Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) data,
has hindered efforts to provide reliable and fast transit service . Additionally, several gaps and barriers in
pedestrian and bicycle access to bus stops remain such as safe crossings of SH 82 and connections from
side streets and commercial centers. This study will evaluate the SH 82 corridor and identify specific short-
term physical and operational strategies to increase transit efficiency and provide enhanced safety and
access for pedestrians and bicyclists. With limited ability to widen existing roads and intersections, the study
builds on previous plans and analysis, utilizes advanced traffic modeling tools , and identifies innovative bus
priority and traffic control treatments to balance bus speeds and reliability with general vehicle traffic
congestion. The recommendations will identify practical, cost -effective, multimodal mobility solutions to
prioritize transit, pedestrian, and bicycle travel and support future near- and long-term capital programming
and redevelopment efforts.
This report is organized to present existing conditions, identify alternative improvement concepts and to
present future No Build and Build conditions. The study scope includes: 1) documenting p revious studies
and recommendations; 2) discusses existing traffic, transit and walking, and biking conditions; 3)
forecasting future traffic projections; 4) developing and evaluating a menu of improvement options; and 5)
benefit/cost analysis and recommendations for a transit enhancement mobility improvement package for
the corridor.
Throughout the study, stakeholder engagement was performed to solicit input on transportation issues and
concerns, existing condition data, alternatives to be evaluated, and draft recommendations. Recurring
stakeholder coordination occurred with Pitkin County, the Roaring Fork Transportation Authority, the City
of Aspen, the CDOT, and the Town of Snowmass Village.
106
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 8
2. Corridor Overview
2.1 Study Area and Study Corridor
The study network includes SH 82 from Brusch Creek to 3rd Street in downtown Aspen (approximately 5.5
miles). VelociRFTA stops within the study corridor include:
• Brusch Creek
• Aspen Airport
• Buttermilk
• 8th Street
2.2 Corridor Travel Patterns
To establish peak period traffic volumes for baseline design, a comprehensive review of historical and
monthly traffic volume data from permanent CDOT traffic count stations (located to the north of Brush Creek
Road) was performed. The Upper Valley experiences significant tourism during the winter and summer
seasons but with seasonal differences in the travel patterns. More tourists arrive by airplane during the
winter while more tourists arrive by private auto during the summer. Both seasonal peaks experience a
traditional AM and PM commuter bell curve over a typical day, with up-valley traffic being the peak direction
in the AM and down-valley traffic, the peak direction in the PM. Overall traffic volumes peak in the summer,
leading to the selection of these volumes for analysis in this study.
Figure 1 below shows the average daily traffic volumes by month for the past three years, indicating the
highest peak of approximately 26,000 vehicles per day occurs in the summer (July). The red line
benchmarks the community maximum traffic volume goal set in 1993. Figure 2 shows the diurnal bi-
directional distribution of up-valley (southbound) and down-valley (northbound) traffic at Airport Drive over
a typical summer midweek day, with the PM peak being higher and longer than the AM.
107
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 9
Figure 1: Seasonal Traffic Variations
Figure 2: Diurnal Bi-directional Distribution
108
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 10
The corridor is served by up to 8 Roaring Fork Transportation Authority bus routes and enjoys a seasonal
mode share of up to 35 percent of all trips and accounts for a significant percentage of the 5 million annual
transit ridership for RFTA. Headways for the routes serving the study segment of SH 82 range from 10 (for
BRT) to 30 minutes for local buses, and spans of service range from 12 to 18 hours per day. Routes include
Snowmass Village and Woody Creek, VelociRFTA BRT, Roaring Fork Valley Local, Roaring Fork Valley
Express, City of Aspen Burlingame Route, Mountain Connector Buttermilk, Ci ty of Aspen Castle/Maroon
Route, and the Mountain Connector Aspen Highlands route.
The collection of monthly ridership data from 2019 helped to identify the peak transit ridership periods.
January and March exceeded 60,000 riders across all routes, while J uly and August exceed 50,000 riders
as Figure 3 shows.
Figure 3: Seasonal Transit Ridership Variations
3. Previous Studies
The State Highway 82 corridor has been the subject of numerous transportation plans and studies over the
last 30 years by CDOT, Pitkin County, Aspen, and the RFTA. A comprehensive matrix summarizing all
previous transportation recommendations within the study segmen t by type (e.g., alignment, road
configuration, mode, technology, station locations, park and ride facilities, phasing, policy, access
management, transit operations, and bicycle/pedestrian) and applicability for this study (e.g., within the
implementation timeline) and compatibility with the record of decision is included in Appendix IX.
109
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 11
The project team reviewed the following to inform the present analysis:
Entrance to Aspen FEIS (1997) and Record Of Decision (1998)
These documents were the culmination of a planning process that developed preferred alternatives for SH
82 from Service Center Drive to Aspen. The preferred alternative comprised light-rail transit from the airport
to Aspen and intercept lots at key locations along the corridor.
Corridor Investment Study (2003)
This effort considered a larger study area than the Basalt to Buttermilk and Entrance to Aspen RODs,
seeking to establish a transit vision for the full SH 82 corridor from Glenwood Springs to Aspen. The
recommendation was pursuing light rail transit as a long-term vision while recognizing that buses would
likely provide service at first.
Access Control Report (2005)
This study examined access management throughout the corridor . A key recommendation was to convert
Service Center Drive and BMC West into right-in/right-out only intersections, closing the BMC east
driveway, and eliminating left turns onto SH 82 at the Inn at Aspen.
Entrance to Aspen Reevaluation (2007)
This report documented the reevaluation of the 1997 EIS. Analysis results affirmed the findings of the EIS.
Turn Restriction Analysis (2008)
This study considered, but did not recommend, eliminating right turns onto SH 82 at Truscott Drive.
Bus Lanes Operation Study (2008)
This study considered measures to increase the efficiency of the SH 82 bus lanes such as HOV conversion
and permission for private operators. The findings determined these changes would not lead to major
improvements and were also likely precluded by the 1998 ROD.
Roundabout Improvement Plan (2008)
This plan assessed the Maroon Creek Road roundabout and contained recommendations for alterations to
add entry curvature, address spiral deficiency, and improve lane utilization.
Access Control Plan (2012)
This study considered a wide variety of access management measures . The recommendations consisted
of constructing a full movement intersection at BMC West, closing the BMC East Driveway, realigning
Harmony Place and Owl Creek Road to be a single intersection, and eliminating left turns onto SH 82 at
the Inn at Aspen.
Aspen Area Community Plan (2012)
This plan reconsidered the ROD preferred alternative but did not lead to any new recommendations.
110
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 12
Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan (2015)
This plan encompassed the corridor from Parachute to Aspen and documented three recommendations
east of Service Center Drive: an underpass at Buttermilk, a pathway on the south side of SH 82 between
Buttermilk and the Inn at Aspen, and an underpass at the Aspen Country Inn.
Community Forum Upper Valley Mobility Report (2017)
This was a comprehensive study of transportation issues in the Valley that contained recommendations for
several new policy approaches: encouraging ride sharing/hailing, better enforcem ent of HOV lanes, peak-
hour congestion pricing, and updated parking strategies.
Short Range Transit Plan (2018)
This plan recorded recommendations for adjustments to transit routes and service frequency. It also
affirmed the Upper Valley Mobility Report’s focus on policy updates while adding several transit -specific
strategies—preferential benefits for carpooling, a transit app with integrated fare payment, and formalization
of slug lining.
Roundabout In-Service Review (2020)
This study documented the critical assessment of operations of the Maroon Creek Roundabout, and
findings endorsed further geometric improvements and a restriping plan that would add a second
westbound lane from Cemetery Lane to the roundabout.
111
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 13
Figure 4 illustrates a quick comparison along the corridor of 2015 initial forecasted traffic volumes by
segment and 2015 actual observed traffic volumes by segment. The data indicates that the further up valley
any segment is, the larger the gap between predicted and observed traffic volumes . While no single factor
can explain the discrepancy in traffic volumes, some factors may include economic downturns, cost of
gasoline, improved transit and multimodal accessibility, and increased air travel to Aspen.
Figure 4: Forecasted vs. Actual Traffic Patterns
112
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 14
4. Existing Roadway Conditions and Traffic
Operations
4.1 Roadway Characteristics
The SH 82 study corridor is about 5.5 miles, with six signalized intersections (Brush Creek, Aspen Airport,
Harmony Road, Owl Creek Road, Truscott Place/Pyramid Road and Cemetery) one roundabout (Maroon
Creek Road/Castle Creek Road), five unsignalized intersections (Service Center Road, Sage Way, Stage
Road, Tiehack Road, Hideaway Lane), and three unsignalized business entrances). At the east end, there
is a transit center adjacent to the roundabout.
Speed limits along the corridor vary from 55 miles per hour (MPH) down valley to 25 MPH within downtown
Aspen. The typical cross-section along the corridor varies from multilane divided to two-lane undivided.
The study corridor has a number of existing transit, pedestrian, and bicycle infrastructure in place to
prioritize sustainable transportation modes. A shared use path runs along the down-valley side of SH 82
from 7th Street to the Airport. Six grade-separated (tunnel) pedestrian crossings are provided along with
three marked at-grade crosswalks within the study segment.
A peak hour HOV lane for vehicles with two or more occupants exists along SH 82 from north of Brush
Creek Road to the airport. An exclusive bus lane exists from the airport to the roundabout in the up va lley
direction and from the roundabout to Buttermilk in the down valley direction .
Figures 5 through 12 on the following pages summarize the typical roadway configurations for each block .
113
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 15
• Figure 5 – North of Service Center Road to Brush Creek Road
− 4 travel lanes
− 12’ lane widths, shoulder and median widths vary
− 55 MPH posted speed
− No sidewalks or paths
− Peak hour directional exclusive Bus/ HOV right lane
Figure 5: Typical Section - North of Service Center Road
• Figure 6 – South of Airport Entrance
− 4 lanes with auxiliary turn lanes
− 12’ lane widths, shoulder and median width varies
− 55 MPH posted speed
− No sidewalks or paths
− Exclusive bus lane on shoulder, peak hour/directional HOV right lane
Figure 6: Typical Section - South of Airport Entrance
• Figure 7 – Between Harmony Road and Owl Creek Road
− 4 lanes with auxiliary turn lanes
− 11’ to 12’ lane widths, shoulder and median widths vary
− 45 MPH posted speed
− Off-road shared use path
− HOV lane ends, exclusive bus lane (SB)/right-turn lane use (NB)
114
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 16
Figure 7: Typical Section - Between Harmony Road and Owl Creek Road
• Figure 8 – South of Tiehack Road
− 4 lanes
− 11’ lane widths, shoulder and median lane widths vary
− 45 MPH posted speed
− Off road shared use path
− Exclusive bus lane
Figure 8: Typical Section - South of Tiehack Road
• Figure 9 – Maroon Creek Bridge
− 4 lanes
− 10’ bus and 12’ vehicle lane widths, 6’ shoulder
− 45 MPH posted speed
− Separate shared use path
− Exclusive bus lane
Figure 9: Typical Section - Maroon Creek Bridge
• Figure 10 – North of Roundabout
− 4 lanes
− 12’ lane widths, 6’ shoulders, median varies
− 45 MPH posted speed
− Separated shared use path
− Exclusive bus lane
115
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 17
Figure 10: Typical Section - North of Roundabout
• Figure 11– North of Cemetery Lane
− 2 lanes
− 14’ lane widths, shoulder and median widths vary
− Separate shared use path
− 35 MPH posted speed
Figure 11: Typical Section - North of Cemetery Lane
• Figure 12 – South of Cemetery Lane
− 2 lanes
− 14’ lane widths
− Separate shared use path
− 35 MPH posted speed
Figure 12: Typical Section - South of Cemetery Lane
4.2 Traffic Volumes
AM and PM peak hour turning movement volumes reflecting peak summer (July) volumes were developed
using a combination of traffic count data from previous studies including the Upper Valley Mobility Study,
the Fire Place North Forty Fire District Housing – Level II Traffic Assessment, and the Aspen Airport
Business Center Interim Traffic Study Results memorandum. CDOT’s Online Transportation Information
System (OTIS) – Traffic Data Explorer was also used to access data from a Continuous Count station on
116
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 18
SH 82 to determine seasonality and growth factors. The volumes were adjusted with seasonality and growth
factors to reflect summer 2019 conditions and then balanced.
A spreadsheet of peak hour turning movement counts can be found in Appendix I.
4.3 Crash Analysis
In the Study Corridor from Brush Creek Road to
7th and Main, a total of 202 crashes occurred
between 2016 and 2020. There were 38 injuries
reported and zero fatalities. No pedestrians,
bikes, or transit vehicles were involved in any
crashes, although one invovled a school bus.
Rear-end crashes accounted for over half (57
percent), which may be attributed to recurring
traffic congestion experienced throughout the
year (Figure 13). The relatively high number of
sideswipe crashes crashes (10 percent) also
may be attributed to recurring congestion as well
as the number of difficult merge areas in the
corridor.
In the central portion of the corridor (Figure 14),
crashes are not particularly concentrated in
specific hot spots, although there is a slightly
higher concentration of crashes between Stage
Road and Truscott Place/Pyramid Road,
particularly rear-end crashes.
Figure 13: Crash Types in the Study Corridor
117
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 19
Figure 14: Crash Locations in the Central Portion of the Study Corridor, 2015 to 2020
118
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 20
4.4 Model Development and Calibration
The study intersections were coded into a Synchro network to perform capacity analysis. Synchro is
software program for deterministic and macroscopic signal analysis that models street networks and traffic
signal systems. Geometric data such as number of lanes, lane configuration, storage lengths, tapers, and
distances between intersections were input into Synchro. Additionally, existing signal timings and phasing
obtained from CDOT were coded into a Synchro traffic model along with existing traffic volumes. The model
was calibrated to match field verified conditions.
Synchro software and the methodology in the National Academy of Science’s Transportation Research
Board Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) do not account for the potential impacts of upstream or
downstream bottlenecks at intersections. Therefore, Vissim, a microsimulation tool, was utilized to evaluate
the overall operations of the corridor and the interaction between segments/roadways . The Vissim model
can account for these impacts and can also model specific multimodal and transit inputs (i.e., BRT, HOV)
that Synchro cannot. The Vissim results reflect the impact of adjacent signals, turn bay spillover, etc. on
each analysis segment/point and identify areas plagued by heavy congestion, long queues, and/or slow
speeds
A base Vissim model was developed using existing scaled aerial photography for the project Study Area.
The existing AM and PM peak hour volumes and lane configurations were then input in Vissim.
To confirm the calibration of the model, the simulated traffic volumes, speeds, and travel times along US
29 were compared to the location-based analytics data such as INRIX (July 2019) and Google predicted
travel times (July 2019). Additionally, field observations and stakeholder input were gathered to further
refine the calibration. Default parameters were changed as needed during calibration to ensure model
outputs reflected real world conditions.
4.5 Measures of Effectiveness
A robust set of performance measures were selected and utilized to evaluate the existing conditions and
alternative improvements along the study corridor.
The measures of effectiveness are described in detail within the discussion of each mode, but include the
following:
• Multimodal: Person Throughput, HOV Travel Time, Non -Auto Mode Share
• Vehicle: Intersection Level of Service, Auto Travel Time, Crash Reduction
• Pedestrian/Bicycle: Walkshed Size, Pedestrian Exposure/Conflicts, Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress
• Transit: Transit Ridership, Transit Travel Time
• Other: Cost, Regulatory Impact, Stakeholder Preference, Emission
Intersection capacity analyses were performed using the industry HCM methodology . Synchro implements
HCM methods of analysis, which were used for the intersection capacity analysis of all study intersections
during weekday AM and PM peak hours.
Performance measures of effectiveness from the Synchro model include level of service, volume -to-
capacity (v/c) ratio, and average vehicle delay, which are defined as follows:
Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative measure describing operational conditions of an intersection or any
other transportation facility. LOS measures the quality of traffic service and may be determined for
intersections, roadway segments, or arterial corridors on the basis o f delay, congested speed, v/c ratio, or
119
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 21
vehicle density by functional class. At intersections, LOS is a letter designation that corresponds to a certain
range of roadway operating conditions. The levels of service range from A to F, with A indicating the b est
operating conditions and F indicating the worst, or a failing, operating condition .
The volume-to-capacity ratio (v/c ratio) is the ratio of current flow rate to the capacity of the intersection .
This ratio is often used to determine how sufficient ca pacity is on a given roadway. Generally speaking, a
ratio of 1.0 indicates that the roadway is operating at capacity . A ratio of greater than 1.0 indicates that the
facility is operating above capacity as the number of vehicles exceeds the roadway capacity .
Delay (Control delay) is the portion of delay attributed to traffic signal operation for signalized intersections.
Control delay (overall delay) can be categorized into deceleration delay, stopped delay, and acceleration
delay.
End-to-end travel times by mode, person throughput, and vehicle emissions, defined in the following
paragraphs, were also extracted from the Vissim microsimulations:
End-to-end travel times were measured between the
SH 82 at Brush Creek Road intersection and the N.
3rd Street at Main Street intersection. The network
was extended beyond N 3rd Street so that all vehicles
were able to enter the network (i.e., no denied entry
vehicles). In any instances during the PM peak hour
where the down valley queue extended beyond N. 3rd
Street, the delay of time in queue was added to the
total travel time.
Person throughput is defined as the number of
distinct persons able to travel the system/network
during the analysis period. Vehicle throughput
(vehicles/hour) is collected and then converted to
person throughput using average vehicle occupancy.
Typical person-throughput by mode per lane per hour
is shown in Figure 15.
Vehicle fuel consumption, fuel efficiency, and emissions were also reported as a secondary measure and
are used as comparison measures between the alternatives.
Table 1 and Table 2 show each LOS and their corresponding delay values for signalized and unsignalized
intersections, respectively.
Figure 15: Person Throughput Illustration
120
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 22
Table 1: Signalized Intersection Level of Service Delay Ranges
Signalized Intersections
Level of service Delay range (sec) General Description
A <10 Free Flow
B >10 and <20 Stable Flow (slight delays)
C >20 and <35 Stable Flow (acceptable delays)
D >35 and <55
Approaching Unstable Flow (high delay, occasionally
wait through more than one signal cycle before
proceeding)
E >55 and <80 Unstable Flow (excessive delay)
F >80 Forced Flow (congested and queues fail to clear)
Table 2: Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Delay Ranges
Unsignalized Intersections
Level of service Delay range (sec)
A <10
B >10 and <15
C >15 and <25
D >25 and <35
E >35 and <50
F >50
4.6 Traffic Operations
The SH 82 corridor is characterized by seasonal and directional variations in traffic demand and recurring
congestion and queuing that hinders general vehicle as well as HOV, and transit bus mobility and results
in unpredictable travel times and unreliable transit service. The congestion is most prevalent up valley
during the morning peak period between the Maroon Creek Roundabout and the Airport and down valley
during the evening peak period between the Maroon Creek Roundabout and Downtown Aspen .
Existing traffic congestion is a result of a high level of activity and travel needs in the corridor (e.g., school
trips, commute trips, recreational trips), and the congestion is anticipated to worsen as growth and
economic development continue to expand in the corridor and the region . Several intersections operate at
a failing LOS F in one or more peak hours that leads to residual queueing, unpredictable travel times, and
impacts to buses. Table 3 summarizes the intersection operations using the HCM methodology, and Table
4 summarizes the intersection operations using the microsimulation methodology.
121
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 23
Table 3: Existing Capacity Analysis Table (HCM)
1 – At signalized intersections, up valley through movements reported in AM and down valley through movements reported in PM.
2 – At unsignalized intersections, worst side-street approach reported.
122
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 24
Table 4: Existing Capacity Analysis Table (Vissim)
The following intersections operate with LOS E or F during at least one peak hour based on at least one of
the methodologies described above:
• SH 82 at Brush Creek Road (PM)
• SH 82 at Service Center Road (AM/PM)
• SH 82 at Airport Business Center Road (AM/PM)
• SH 82 at Airport Exit/Mountain Rescue Station (AM/PM)
• SH 82 at Harmony Road (AM)
• SH 82 at Aspen Country Inn (AM)
• SH 82 at Hideaway Lane (AM/PM)
• SH 82 at Maroon Creek Road/Castle Creek Road (AM/PM)
• SH 82 at Cemetery Lane (PM)
Figure 16 and 17 illustrates existing travel time by mode and peak hour/ direction. For general traffic,
existing travel times on SH 82 between Brush Creek Road and N 3 rd Street are approximately 20 minutes
for general vehicles in the up valley direction during the AM peak hour and in the down valley direction
during the PM peak hour.
The BRT and local buses both have a travel time benefit over passenger vehicles during the AM peak hour
in the up valley direction. During the PM peak hour, the BRT experiences a smaller benefit over passenger
vehicles and the local buses experience roughly the same travel times as passenger vehicles. This is
1 – At signalized intersections, up valley through movements reported in AM and down valley through movements reported in PM.
2 – At unsignalized intersections, worst side-street approach reported.
123
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 25
because a large portion of the PM delays occur through the one lane section of the S curve where all
vehicles share a single lane. For the existing conditions analysis, single occupancy vehicles and HOV
vehicles are expected to have the same travel time as HOV lane designations are followed loosely and with
no enforcement.
The capacity analysis and other Measures Of Effectiveness worksheets for existing conditions can be found
in Appendix II.
Figure 16: Existing AM Peak Hour Modeled Travel Time
124
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 26
Figure 17: Existing PM Peak Hour Modeled Travel Time
5. Transit Operations
Transit service within the SH 82 corridor is provided by the RFTA (Figure 18). The majority of the routes
that serve the corridor extend beyond the corridor boundaries to down valley and Snowmass, and then
provide distribution within the City of Aspen. One interesting aspect of the RFTA service is that active routes
change significantly between the winter and summer tourist seasons. To align the traffic analysis, this study
focused on the pre-pandemic peak summer season (July 2019 , Figure 19). This is illustrated by Table 5,
which shows the 2019 RFTA routes along with their total mon thly ridership. The highlighted rows are the
routes that operate within the SH 82 corridor. Other routes such as Snowmass DV may connect with corridor
service at places such as Brush Creek Park and Ride but do not actually operate within the corridor. As
discussed later, Table 5 provides the foundation for the ridership analysis. Figure 19 provides a map of the
corridor and the transit routes that serve the stops within it . Again, the BRT, Valley Local, Snowmass, and
other routes extend beyond the corridor limits connecting to down valley, resorts, and the City of Aspen
business district.
As shown in Table 6, RFTA also provided other data items that proved k ey to the analysis. RFTA’s
operational protocols are often changed in response to field conditions, thus the actual number of buses on
the road every day are put into service in real time to correct existing emerging problems in the daily
operations. So, the planned schedules and stops provide d found in the Global Transit Feed Specification
may not capture fully the transit service that was actually operated on any given day . Since 2019 RFTA
also implemented a system upgrade in the AVL/CAD (now Clever Devic es), obtaining and analyzing 2019
conditions was not possible since the previous system and its custom reporting is no longer available.
125
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 27
Table 5 RFTA System 2019 Monthly Ridership By Line
Table 6 RFTA Data used in the Analysis
Data Source Use within Study
GTFS Feed from July 2019 Routes, schedules, scheduled times
Clever Stops Data for July 2019:
Stop times
Segments
Time Points
March 2021 Clever Select Stop
activity
Q/A check on times
Special SQL Report for ons/offs by line and direction
Used to develop conversion factors
IMS Ridership
2019 Line Ridership By Month
2019 APC Stop Summary - Daily
Old system reports
Total Ridership for each line by month
Daily average ons/offs by quarter (weekday, Sat, Sun)
January February March April May June July August September October November December TOTAL
Cemetery Lane CL 14,708 11,399 14,156 7,780 5,148 7,360 8,906 7,337 5,560 4,521 5,151 13,816 105,842
Hunter Creek HC 43,020 41,328 42,670 24,735 16,909 22,608 28,374 26,185 18,819 18,409 23,612 41,432 348,101
Castle-Maroon CM 71,210 63,594 66,199 38,696 25,406 34,660 55,919 51,906 36,679 30,685 27,444 64,112 566,510
Dial A Ride 7,728 7,298 8,711 3,880 2,474 4,708 5,985 4,455 3,200 2,525 2,453 8,309 61,726
Burlingame ABC BG?19,408 14,349 15,795 11,466 6,216 11,285 16,398 14,855 8,030 8,509 9,894 17,016 153,221
Galena Street 19,279 16,225 11,219 8,595 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,067 21,478 78,863
CrossTown 4,291 4,178 4,900 1,932 0 2,775 7,833 6,242 2,534 0 198 4,581 39,464
Maroon Creek Road 13,852 10,370 16,933 7,463 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,592 59,210
Intercept Lot: 5/1/18 - 6/8/18 M-F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SH 82 80,891 63,507 72,826 62,039 64,040 85,463 103,099 95,563 77,566 75,727 73,673 81,259 935,653
Carbondale Shuttle 13,786 11,752 13,448 10,730 11,140 11,394 18,510 14,231 10,208 13,846 10,499 12,366 151,910
Bus Rapid Transit BRT 108,456 86,082 91,879 68,379 59,907 86,509 112,032 105,745 64,204 78,136 74,801 98,382 1,034,512
Snowmass-DV SMV 13,979 14,390 14,794 7,090 1,026 1,906 2,490 2,227 1,011 1,662 1,125 9,422 71,122
Snowmass-Intercept SMI 7,580 6,518 7,546 3,182 1,643 36,875 61,593 56,827 17,075 2,099 3,350 13,024 217,312
Snowmass-Aspen SMA 72,651 62,099 66,640 27,417 0 603 3,061 906 1,011 0 1,406 47,269 283,063
Woody Creek WC 1,890 1,246 1,284 708 0 824 1,191 1,123 34 0 50 911 9,261
Grand Hogback HGB 8,668 7,781 8,645 8,199 7,831 8,123 12,189 8,852 7,905 7,618 6,919 9,392 102,122
Snowmass Skier SMS 88,922 91,788 97,917 34,873 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,247 91,043 410,790
Buttermilk Skier BM 26,950 20,492 25,366 6,462 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15,767 95,037
Highlands (Dec-March) HD+HYS 23,751 20,747 24,474 9,975 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12,627 91,574
Flyer 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,613 2,613
Ride Glenwood RG 13,521 12,471 13,462 13,314 13,383 15,254 15,544 14,453 12,919 13,577 11,453 11,471 160,822
MAA MAA 0 0 0 0 0 8,378 33,338 31,742 0 0 0 0 73,458
Burlingame BG 0 0 0 0 0 10,233 29,557 25,263 0 0 0 0 65,053
Maroon Bells MB 0 0 0 0 0 33,009 61,788 58,074 61,302 19,383 0 0 233,556
Specials/Charters NA 36,163 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36,163
ADA NA 87 121 81 109 79 55 47 49 40 48 59 70 845
Jazz NA 0 0 0 0 0 0 11,001 5,848 0 0 16,849
Senior Van 317 314 352 322 372 312 336 362 294 293 250 356 3,880
TOTAL 691,108 568,049 619,297 357,346 215,574 382,334 578,190 537,398 334,239 277,038 260,651 587,308 5,408,533
2019 Monthly
Route
126
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 28
Figure 18: SH 82 Corridor Transit Services
Table 7 provides a summary of the bus frequencies within the corridor between key locations. A transit
vehicle is operating within the corridor every 2 minutes in segments further out (towards Brush Creek) and
every 1.3 minutes as one approaches downtown Aspen (these are two way frequencies), but based upon
the GTFS, RFTA has very similar inbound and outbound service levels , and one can assume a vehicle
every 4 minutes and 2.6 minutes operating in each direction at the same locations.
Table 8 and Figure 20 provide the total boardings and alightings for stops/stations within the corridor. This
includes all transfers at transit hubs such as the Brush Creek Park and Ride . Therefore, the 3,207 total at
Brush Creek Park and Ride represents transfers among all of the routes that serve the park and ride lot
including the Snowmass DV, Snowmass Intercept, and their interactions with the other routes such as the
BRT and Valley Local.
127
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 29
Table 7: Existing Transit Frequency
Segment Buses per 2019 Summer Weekday
Peak Hour Both Directions
Brush Creek to Harmony 26
Harmony to Roundabout 30
Roundabout to Cemetery 40
Cemetery to Downtown 46
Table 8: Ridership
Stop Total Ridership (Boardings +
Alightings)
BRUSH CREEK PARK AND RIDE 3,207
HIGHWAY 82 ROARING FORK TRAN 25
HIGHWAY 82 AIRPORT 487
HIGHWAY 82 BUTTERMILK 316
HIGHWAY 82 ASPEN COUNTRY INN 29
HIGHWAY 82 TRUSCOTT 179
ANN MAROON CREEK ROUNDABOUT 0
HIGHWAY 82 CEMETERY LANE 12
HIGHWAY 82 MAROON CREEK ROUN 93
MAROON CREEK RD ROUNDABOUT 74
HALLAM ST 8TH ST 580
BLEEKER ST 7TH ST 11
128
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 30
Figure 19: Summer 2019 Transit Ridership
129
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 31
As discussed in the methodology section, the route peak hour by direction ridership and mode shares had
to be estimated by applying factors to the July 2019 Monthly Route Totals shown in Table 5. Based on this
methodology and factors derived from the RFTA data , the routes serving the corridor carry a total AM and
PM peak hour ridership of 413 BRT riders and 664 local bus riders for a total of 1,097 riders.
Figure 20: Existing Ridership
Figure 21: Existing Mode Share
130
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 32
The peak hour calculations were also used to estimate the mode share of all travelers at the Owl Creek
Bridge. Figure 21 shows the UV/IN and DV/OUT shares for the AM and PM peak hours. Noticeably the
transit mode share is higher the AM and PM peak directions and is higher in the PM peak. AM peak hour
transit share in the UV/IN direction. and 21%. PM peak hour transit mode share in the DV/Out direction is
24%.
131
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 33
6. Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle
Infrastructure
This section of the report documents existing walking and biking conditions including gaps and barriers,
land use, key connections, location and quality of existing bicycle facilities, and planned bicycle facilities.
The robust investment in pedestrian/bicycle infrastructure is embodied by the wide shared -use paths on
the down-valley side of SH 82, as well as on Owl Creek Road, Brush Creek Road, and elsewhere, and by
the six pedestrian underpasses between Brush Creek Road and Castle Creek (Figure 22). Combined, these
assets provide excellent overall connectivity up and down valley. The lack of paved pathways on the up -
valley side of SH 82, however, creates several “islands” lacking connectivity on that side of the highway,
particularly for Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) users and pedestrians trying to cross SH 82 between
bus stops.
Mead & Hunt captured half-mile walksheds for each bus stop on SH 82 between Service Center Road and
7th and Main Streets. This was conducted utilizing a standard ArcGIS network tool, supplemented by a
visual review of aerial and street-level imagery. The walksheds represent the industry-standard reasonable
distance that the majority of transit passengers would be willing to cover on foot to access their bus. Only
ADA-accessible, hard-surface paths were included in the walkshed analysis. The highway itself was
considered an impassible barrier west of the Castle Creek Bridge, except for the existing underpasses and
the signalized crossing at Owl Creek Road.
132
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 34
6 Pedestrian
Underpasses
Figure 22: Pedestrian and Bicycle Infrastructure Map: Pedestrian and Bicycle Infrastructure Map
133
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 35
6.1 7th and Bleeker (UV)
The downtown street grid gives this stop a very complete walkshed (Figure 23). .Many of the downtown
streets lack sidewalks, nevertheless the low speeds inherent in the downtown grid pattern with small blocks
and traffic controls makes these streets viable pedestrian routes, nevertheless.
Figure 23: 7th and Bleeker (UV) Walkshed
134
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 36
6.2 Hallam and 8th (UV and DV)
The downtown street grid gives this stop (Figure 24) a walkshed that is very similar to the 7th and Bleeker
stop, extending somewhat further down-valley.
Figure 24: Hallam and 8th (UV and DV) Walkshed
135
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 37
6.3 Cemetery Lane (DV)
The walkshed for this stop (Figure 25) represents a hybrid between the omnidirectional walkshed of the
downtown stations and the more channelized examples of stations further down valley. The first of the
isolated “islands” is evident herein the area around Maroon Creek Road on the up-valley side of SH 82.
Figure 25: Cemetery Lane (DV) Walkshed
136
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 38
6.4 Roundabout (DV)
The walkshed for the Roundabout stop (Figure 26) essentially comprises of three small walksheds in the
Cemetery Lane, Maroon Creek & Castle Creek Roads, and Truscott Place areas, connected by the shared-
use path on the down-valley side of SH 82.
Figure 26: Roundabout (DV) Walkshed
137
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 39
6.5 Truscott (UV & DV)
The walksheds of these stops (Figure 27) are largely limited to the down-valley side of SH 82 due to the
lack of ADA-accessible pathways on the up-valley side of the highway. The up-valley stop is in fact not
connected to any other destinations on that side.
Figure 27: Truscott (UV & DV) Walkshed
138
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 40
6.6 Aspen Country Inn (UV & DV)
Due to the lack of a crossing at this stop (Figure 28), the up-valley stop and down-valley stop walksheds
are wholly separate. The down-valley walkshed connects the Truscott and Maroon Creek Club areas,
whereas the area of the Aspen Country Inn itself is completely isolated from other land uses.
Figure 28: Aspen Country Inn (UV & DV) Walkshed
139
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 41
6.7 Buttermilk (UV and DV)
The Buttermilk base area, like the Aspen Country Inn, is an island (Figure 29) due to the lack of paved
pathways on that side of SH 82. Due to the signalized crosswalk at Owl Creek Road and the development
on Stage Road and Harmony Road, this walkshed overall is somewhat more expansive than the three
previous ones.
Figure 29: Buttermilk (UV and DV) Walkshed
140
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 42
6.8 AABC (UV and DV)
The pedestrian underpass results in walksheds for each stop at the airport being almost identical (Figure
30). While the land-side portion of the airport is an island, the business park and adjacent neighborhood
result in a fairly expansive walkshed on the down-valley side of the highway.
Figure 30: AABC (UV and DV) Walkshed
141
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 43
6.9 Service Center Road (UV and DV)
The walksheds for the Service Center Road stops are extremely limited (Figure 31), due to the lack of a
safe crossing at this intersection and the lack of an accessible connection to the adjacent residential
neighborhood on the down-valley side. Sage Road cannot be considered an accessible route due to its
lack of sidewalk and its hard curb-and-gutter edges. No accessible pathways exist on the up-valley side.
Figure 31: Service Center Road (UV and DV) Walkshed
Planned Facilities Improvements
The currently planned singular pedestrian/bicycle improvement is the extension of the existing shared use
path on the down-valley side of SH 82 from Airport Business Center to Brush Creek Road.
142
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 44
7. Future Traffic Forecasts and Traffic
Operations
7.1 Regional Growth and Background Developments
Future (2025) volumes were developed for the study corridor. Regional growth was applied to the existing
volumes based on CDOT’s 20-year factor (0.55 percent per year) provided on the OTIS website for Station
103522 for mainline traffic. Side streets were grown by 0.25 percent per year to account for regional growth.
There were four known background developments in the immediate vicinity (Figure 32), and vehicle trips
for each of those sites were added to the regional growth. These additional trip totals are shown in Table 9
below and were provided in the Aspen Airport Business Center (AABC) Interim Traffic Impact Study Results
memorandum.
Figure 32: Background Development Locations
143
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 45
Table 9: Background Development Trip Generation Volumes
Several improvements/modifications are recommended as part of the SH 82 Access Control Plan and
included in the Aspen Airport Business Center (AABC) Interim Traffic Impact Study Results memorandum.
These improvements are assumed to happen alongside any improvements to the SH 82 corridor and were
included in the No Build scenario for this study.
These improvements include the following, with the numbers matching the locations numbered in Figure
33 below:
• A new signal at the Mountain Rescue Aspen/Lumber Yard entrance (15).
o This signal is assumed to have concurrent side -street phasing and protected mainline
left-turns from SH 82.
• The airport ramp will be closed (17) and realigned as the fourth leg at the Mountain Rescue
Aspen/Lumber Yard signal (15).
• Sage Way access onto SH 82 will be closed (14).
• Sage Way will be extended to form a continuous connection between Mountain Rescue
Aspen/Lumber Yard and Service Center Road (12/14).
• The airport circulation pattern will be modified (13). This will create an entrance only to the Airport
at Aspen Airport Business Center (13).
o The entrance only traffic flow simplifies signal phasing at the i ntersection by eliminating a
phase for vehicles exiting the Airport.
144
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 46
7.2 2025 Volume Development
Future 2025 AM and PM peak hour volumes sets (Appendix III) were developed by applying the regional
growths and background development site trips described in the above section. Reassignment of several
intersection turning movement volumes was necessary to reflect the new circulation patterns and
connections at several intersections in the vicinity of the Airport .
Figure 33: Background Improvements
145
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 47
7.3 Analysis Methodology
7.3.1 Traffic Analysis Methodology
Each alternative was evaluated using the same measures described in Section 4.5 Measures of
Effectiveness section. Both the Synchro model and Vissim microsimulation model were updated with the
2025 volumes and any roadway improvements/modifications were coded into the models. The results were
reported in the same format and using the same methodology as was done for Section 4 Existing
Conditions.
7.3.2 Transit Ridership Methodology
Since there is no current sub area travel demand model for the Upper Valley the change in ridership from
existing conditions to the 2025 No Build, and from the 2025 No Build to each of the alternatives was based
on a pivot point sketch method using recommended auto
cross-elasticity and transit direct elasticity found through a
literature review. As shown in Figure 34, Elasticity rates are
calculated based upon the observed percent change in
demand (e.g., ridership) divided by the percent change in
price (e.g., door-to-door travel time). Elasticity estimates
must be calculated based upon the total travel time of each
full trip and not just the time spent in the corridor. All other
characteristics such as stop locations, frequency, routing, and span of service were assumed to remain the
same.
Based upon guidance from the literature and TCRP/TRB guidance (Transit Capacity and Quality of Service
Handbook, 2013; TCRP 118 BRT Practitioner’s Guide, 2007; TCRP 95 Traveler Responses to
Transportation System Changes, 2004 and 2013), the Transit Time Elasticity was assumed to be -0.4
percent, or a 10 percent decrease in transit travel time causes a 4 percent increase in transit
ridership.
A similar literature review was carried out for auto cross-elasticities (Armando Lago, 1980; TRL, 2004;
Frank, et.al, 2008). While no definitive recommendations exist, based upon the studies found the Auto Time
Cross-Elasticity was assumed to be -0.2 percent, or a 10 percent increase in auto travel time causes a
2 percent increase in transit ridership.
The analysis used as a foundation the 2019 Monthly Ridership by line provided by RFTA (July 2019). In
order to apply the elasticity formulas, the overall totals for each line had to be converted to average weekday
volumes by direction and time period (AM and PM peak periods and hours). RFTA underwent a system
upgrade since 2019, and unfortunately some of the detail that existed in the older system was n o longer
available. Therefore, factors were developed based upon the March 2021 Clever Select Stop activity by
direction, time, and line provided by RFTA. The following steps were carried out:
• Convert monthly to weekday total ridership based upon the weekdays, Saturdays, and Sundays for
July 2019, days that the line operated, and average summer weekday and weekend boardings.
Factors used were BRT = 0.42, Burlingame = 0.39, and all others 0.36.
• Convert total weekday ridership to average weekday ridership by dividing by the 22 weekdays in
July 2019.
• Convert average weekday ridership to ridership by direction based upon the March 2021 line/stop
boardings by direction. Percent UV, DV varied from 0.50 to 0.55.
Figure 34 Elasticity Formula
146
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 48
• Convert the average weekday ridership by direction to AM and PM peak period ridership by
direction (RFTA data was provided by time period) using factors based upon the March 2021
line/stop boardings by direction data.
• Convert the peak period ridership by direction to peak hour ridership using factors from the boarding
data: 0.33 was used for the BRT, Local Valley, and Snowmass Aspen routes , and 0.4 was used
for Cemetery Lane, Castle-Maroon, and Burlingame routes.
The results of the conversion are shown in Table 10.
Table 10 Route 82 Corridor Average weekday Monthly, Peak Period, and Peak Hour Weekday by direction Ridership
The next step was to calculate door-to-door travel time for transit riders and auto drivers by adding the
average travel time that they take get to or from SH 82 to complete their trip. The schedules where each
route goes before and after entering or leaving the corridor were analyzed . The additional time assumed
based on this evaluation is shown in Table 11. The BRT, Local Valley, and Snowmass routes spend
significant time travelling before they reach the corridor at Brush Cre ek Park and Ride (BRT is over an
hour).
Table 11 Before/After Times added for to/from corridor
Route
Before/After
SOV time
Before/After
Transit Time
Bus Rapid Transit BRT 20 25
Local Valley L 20 30
Snowmass-Aspen SMA 10 15
Burlingame ABC BG 5 10
Burlingame BG 5 10
Castle-Maroon CM 6 12
Cemetery Lane CL 6 12
With the ridership by line, direction, and time as well as the overall travel times estimated, the last step was
to apply the elasticity calculations as follows:
• Existing to No Build ridership
o Change in ridership due to change in auto travel times from ex isting (cross-elasticity = 0.2
percent)
o Additional change in ridership due to change in transit travel times from existing (elasticity
= -0.4 percent). This used the auto cross-elasticity results as the input.
• No Build to alternative ridership
July
Am Peak
In
Am Peak
out
PM peak
IN
PM peak
Out
Am Peak
In
Am Peak
out
PM peak
IN
PM peak
Out
Cemetery Lane CL 8,906 15.01 5.47 20.55 30.24 6.00 2.19 8.22 12.10
Castle-Maroon CM 55,919 100.40 83.74 148.02 143.19 40.16 33.50 59.21 57.27
Burlingame ABC BG?16,398 47.72 8.32 34.77 50.81 19.09 3.33 13.91 20.33
SH 82 103,099 291.20 136.40 141.71 286.09 96.10 45.01 46.77 94.41
Bus Rapid Transit BRT 112,032 451.54 122.34 165.29 573.88 149.01 40.37 54.54 189.38
Snowmass-Aspen SMA 3,061 - - 9.85 8.98 - - 3.25 2.96
Burlingame BG 29,557 86.01 15.00 62.67 91.59 34.41 6.00 25.07 36.64
TOTAL 328,972 1,240 500 670 1,392 345 130 211 413
Route
Peak Period Ridership Peak Hour Ridership
147
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 49
o Change in ridership due to change in auto travel times from No Build (cross-elasticity = 0.2
percent)
o Additional change in ridership due to change in transit travel times from No Build (elasticity
= -0.4 percent). This used the auto cross-elasticity results as the input.
The results of these calculations are provided in the alternatives sections (Section 7.5 and following).
7.3.3 Pedestrian/Bicycle Analysis Methodology
Two separate methodologies were utilized to evaluate pedestrian and bicycle safety , pedestrian exposure
(conflicts) and bicycle level of traffic stress.
7.3.3.1 Pedestrian exposure (conflicts)
As shown in Figure 35, at a typical four-leg intersection there are over 32 vehicle-vehicle conflict points,
where multiple vehicles could desire to cross the same point simultaneously . Additionally, there are 16
vehicle-pedestrian conflict points. A cross-product calculation is calculated for each vehicle-pedestrian
conflict point. The calculation multiplied the vehicle volume times the conflicting pedestrian volume to
identify intersections and crosswalks with the highest quantified number of hourly or total conflicts .
7.3.3.2 Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress
Level of traffic stress (LTS) is an approach that quantifies the amount of discomfort that people feel when
they bicycle close to traffic and is correlated to the number of vehicle travel lanes, vehicle speeds , vehicle
volumes, and physical configuration of the bicycle facility as follows and shown in Figure 36:
• LTS 1: Suitable for children cyclists. Cyclists are either physically separate from traffic or face a
limited volume of low-speed traffic in which they rarely have to deal with more than one vehicle at
a time.
• LTS 2: Limits traffic stress to what the mainstream adult population, called “interested but
concerned,” will tolerate. Either cyclists have their own defensible space (i.e., cars reliably stay
out of it), or, if in mixed traffic, they have to deal with multiple vehicles at a time only .
• LTS 3: A level of traffic stress acceptable to those Geller calls “enthused and confident.” Involves
frequent but not severe interaction with moderate speed or multilane traffic.
• LTS 4: A level of stress acceptable only to the “strong and fearless.” Involves being forced to mix
with moderate speed traffic or close proximity to high-speed traffic.
148
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 50
Figure 35: Intersection Conflict Points
149
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 51
Figure 36: Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress
7.4 2025 No Build Analysis
7.4.1 2025 No Build Scenario
The 2025 No Build Scenario uses the 2025 AM and PM peak hour volumes and includes the background
improvements described in Section 7.1 Regional Growth and Background Developments. Additionally, the
2025 scenarios assume there will be greater enforcement of the segments designated for HOV vehicles
only.
7.4.2 2025 No Build Results
7.4.2.1 Traffic Operations
Under 2025 No Build conditions, the LOS deteriorates further, and travel times increase, particularly for
single occupancy vehicles (SOV). Table 12 and Table 13show the HCM and Vissim analysis results.
Figure 37 and Figure 38 show the AM and PM travel time results by mode. Apendix IV contains detailed
capacity analysis and other MOE worksheets for 2025 No Build conditions.
150
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 52
Table 12: 2025 No Build Capacity Analysis Table (HCM)
Table 13: 2025 No Build Capacity Analysis Table (Vissim)
1 – At signalized intersections, up valley through movements reported in AM and down valley through movements reported in PM.
2 – At unsignalized intersections, worst side-street approach reported.
1 – At signalized intersections, up valley through movements reported in AM and down valley through movements reported in PM.
2 – At unsignalized intersections, worst side-street approach reported.
151
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 53
The following intersections operate with LOS E or F during at least one peak hour based on at least one of
the methodologies described above:
• SH 82 at Brush Creek Road (PM)
• SH 82 at Service Center Road (AM/PM)
• SH 82 at Airport Business Center Road (AM)
• SH 82 at Airport Exit/Mountain Rescue Station (AM)
• SH 82 at Harmony Road (AM)
• SH 82 at Owl Creek Road (AM)
• SH 82 at The Inn at Aspen (AM)
• SH 82 at Tiehack Road (AM)
• SH 82 at Aspen Country Inn (PM)
• SH 82 at Pyramid Road/Truscott Place (PM)
• SH 82 at Hideaway Lane (AM/PM)
• SH 82 at Maroon Creek Road/Castle Creek Road (AM/PM)
• SH 82 at Cemetery Lane (PM)
7.4.2.2 Travel Times
During the AM peak hour (Figure 37), up valley travel times increase to over 33 minutes for SOV vehicles
and over 23 minutes for HOV vehicles. BRT and local bus travel times remain consistent to those under
Existing Conditions during the AM peak hour because there are already bus only lanes provided in the
areas experiencing the most congestion. During the PM peak hour (Figure 38), SOV and HOV vehicles
experience travel times increases to over 23 minutes in total, while BRT and local bus travel times increase
modestly.
152
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 54
Figure 37: 2025 No Build AM Peak Hour Modeled Travel Time
153
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 55
Figure 38: 2025 No Build PM Peak Hour Modeled Travel Time
154
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 56
7.4.2.3 Transit
In the 2025 No Build Alternative the peak direction door to door travel time for those travelling the full
corridor (UV/IN in the AM) goes from 40.62 minutes to 53.32 minutes due to the increased growth in the
corridor, while the transit travel times remain roughly the same (37.52 minutes versus 37.72 minutes). This
illustrates the importance of the auto time cross-elasticity since, due to the worsening congestion, as shown
in Figure 39 the total AM and PM peak hour transit ridership increases to 1119 from the existing value of
1097. Figure 40 shows the No Build transit mode share at the Owl Creek Bridge, which is the same as the
existing conditions.
Figure 39: 2025 No Build Transit Ridership
155
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 57
7.4.2.4 Figure 40: 2025 No Build Mode SharePedestrian and Bicycle
SH 82 itself is an LTS-4 pathway, as are Owl Creek Road and Brush Creek Road . The parallel shared-use
path provides a LTS-1 connection, however, through most of the corridor. Most of the side streets feeding
into SH 82 are LTS-2 or -3 corridors as shown in Figure 41
Figure 41: Bicycle Level of Stress - No Build
156
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 58
7.5 Alternatives Development and Evaluation
The following sections describe the development and description of the alternatives defined in this study
7.6 2025 Alternative 1 – Maximized Multimodal Right-of-Way
7.6.1 2025 Alternative 1 Scenario
Alternative 1 involves intersection, bus priority, and pedestrian and bicycle improvements. This alternative
also involves transportation systems management and operations/ transportation demand management .
7.6.1.1 Intersection Improvements
SH 82 at Service Center Road (Figure 42)
At the intersection of SH 82 at Service Center Road the following improvements are included:
• New full color traffic signal
o The traffic signal will operate with protected left -turn movements for mainline SH 82 and
the side streets will operate concurrently.
o The traffic signal will provide signalized pedestrian crossings of the up valley leg of SH 82
and both legs of Service Center Road.
Figure 42: SH 82 at Service Center Road – New Traffic Signal
New At-Grade
Crosswalks
Full Color
Traffic Signal
157
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 59
SH 82 at Owl Creek Road (Figure 43 and Figure 44)
At the intersection of SH 82 at Owl Creek Road the following improvements are included:
• Construct new pedestrian underpass to replace the existing at -grade crossing of SH 82 on the up
valley leg
Figure 43: SH 82 at Owl Creek Road – Pedestrian Underpass
Remove At-
grade Crossing
158
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 60
• Extend the HOV lane up valley through the Harmony Road and Owl Creek Road intersections
(Figure 44) to reduce upstream queueing experienced during the AM peak hours . The buses can
use the HOV lane or the shoulder in this segment.
Figure 44: SH 82 Up Valley HOV Lane Extension
Extend HOV
Lane Through
Harmony Road
and Owl Creek
Road SH 82 159
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 61
SH 82 at Maroon Creek Road/Castle Creek Road Roundabout (Figure 45)
At the intersection of SH 82 at Maroon Creek Road/Castle Creek Road the following improvements are
included:
• Channelize the down valley outer approach lane entering the Maroon Creek Roundabout with a
vertical barrier to achieve better lane utilization through the roundabout and remove conflicts with
circulating/turning vehicles providing additional capacity.
o Providing channelization will make the outer lane the dominant lane in the merge
downstream of the roundabout (i.e., left-turns from Maroon Creek Road/Castle Creek
Road will “yield” to through vehicles in the outer lane).
o Special consideration of snow removal needs will be included in the selection of the
proper channelization device type.
Figure 45: Down Valley Channelization at Maroon Creek Roundabout
Provide
Channelization
of Down Valley
Approach
Through
Vehicles to Use
Outer Lane
160
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 62
7.6.1.2 Bus Priority Improvements
Run BRT Through Airport
The BRT will run through the Airport on a separate bi-directional guideway with a replacement stop at the
terminal. This use of a separate guideway will necessitate additional signal phases (Figure 46 and Figure
47) at the Mountain Rescue Station/Lumber Yard signal and at the Aspen Airport Business Center Road
signal for down valley movements.
Figure 46: Additional Signal Phase for Buses Exiting Airport Guideway
Figure 47: Additional Signal Phase for Buses Entering Airport Guideway
Exclusive Bus
Only Phase for
Exiting Airport
Guideway
Exclusive Bus
Only Phase for
Entering
Airport
Guideway
161
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 63
Harmony Road/Owl Creek Road Bypass
Improvements at these intersections will channelize a bus bypass lane at the Harmony Road signal in the
up valley direction and at the Owl Creek Road signal in the down valley direction (red arrows in Figure 48).
This will allow buses to avoid one traffic signal in both directions. Additionally, the far side curb will be pulled
back at Owl Creek Road to allow buses to use the existing right-turn lane as a queue jump and avoid having
to merge back into mainline traffic prior to stopping (orange arrow in Figure 48).
Figure 48: Channelized Bus Bypass Lanes at Harmony/Owl Creek
Channelized
Up Valley
Bypass Lane
for Buses at
Harmony Road
Channelized
Down Valley
Bypass Lane for
Buses at Owl
Creek Road
Pull curb back to
allow direct
access to far side
bus stop from
right-turn lane
162
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 64
Cemetery Lane
At Cemetery Lane, the channelization islands will be pulled back (Figure 49) to provide a queue jump at
Cemetery Lane for buses in the down valley direction. The second lane will be extended as a bus only lane
to the second approach lane of the Maroon Creek Roundabout for better lane continuity and utilization.
Figure 49: Cemetery Lane Queue Jump and Lane Extension
7.6.1.3 Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements
Speed Limit Reduction
The posted speed limit would be reduced from 55 MPH to 45 MPH from 2,500’ north of Service Center
Road to the Airport Road On-Ramp (where the speed limit currently reduces to 45 MPH).
SH 82 at Service Center Road
Signalized at-grade crossings of SH 82 and Service Center Road are provided as shown in Figure 50.
SH 82 at Owl Creek Road
A pedestrian underpass will replace the existing at-grade crossing of SH 82 on the up valley leg as shown
in Figure 43.
SH 82 Trail Connection
A trail on the Aspen Country Inn side of the road will be connected to Truscott Place in the up valley direction
and Owl Creek Road in the down valley direction. The trail will provide access to safe crossings of SH 82
from Aspen Country Inn and other areas on that side of the road.
Provide 2nd Lane for Bus Only
Connecting from Cemetery
Lane Down Valley
Acceleration Lane to Maroon
Creek Roundabout
Pull back
channelization islands Cemetery Lane 163
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 65
Figure 50: Trail Connection Between Owl Creek and Truscott
Sage Way Sidewalks
Sidewalks will be provided the full length of Sage Way.
7.6.1.4 Transportation Systems Management and Operations/ Transportation Demand Management
Enforcement of HOV Lane
Enforcement of the posted HOV lane restrictions is assumed as part of this alternative . Options for
enforcement include manual and/or automated cameras/devices.
7.6.2 2025 Alternative 1 Results
Under 2025 Alternative 1 conditions, the LOS improves at some key intersections, particularly at the
Maroon Creek Road/Castle Creek Road during the PM peak hour in the down valley direction. Table 14
and Table 15 show the HCM and Vissim analysis results. Figure 51 and Figure 52 show the AM and PM
travel time results by mode. Apendix V contains detailed capacity analysis and other MOE worksheets
for 2025 Alternative 1 conditions.
Trail Connection
from Aspen Country
Inn to Truscott
Place and Owl Creek
164
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 66
Table 14: 2025 Alternative 1 Capacity Analysis Table (HCM)
1 – At signalized intersections, up valley through movements reported in AM and down valley through movements reported in PM.
2 – At unsignalized intersections, worst side-street approach reported.
165
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 67
Table 15: 2025 Alternative 1 Capacity Analysis Table (Vissim)
7.6.2.1 Traffic Operations
The following intersections operate with LOS E or F during at least one peak hour based on at least one of
the methodologies described above:
• SH 82 at Brush Creek Road (PM)
• SH 82 at Harmony Road (AM)
• SH 82 at The Inn at Aspen (AM)
• SH 82 at Stage Road (PM)
• SH 82 at Tiehack Road (AM)
• SH 82 at Aspen Country Inn (PM)
• SH 82 at Pyramid Road/Truscott Place (AM/PM)
• SH 82 at Hideaway Lane (AM/PM)
• SH 82 at Maroon Creek Road/Castle Creek Road (AM)
1 – At signalized intersections, up valley through movements reported in AM and down valley through movements reported in PM.
2 – At unsignalized intersections, worst side-street approach reported.
166
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 68
7.6.2.2 Travel Times
During the AM peak hour, up valley travel times reduce substantially for SOV and HOV vehicles (11 and 6
minutes, respectively) but increase modestly for BRT and local buses. During the PM peak hour, SOV and
HOV vehicles experience travel time decreases of 11-12 minutes in the down valley direction, while BRT
and local bus travel times experience travel time decreases of 2 -3 minutes over No Build conditions. The
PM improvements for all modes can be attributed to quicker travel times in the down valley direction
between Aspen and the Maroon Creek Roundabout.
Figure 51: 2025 Alt 1 AM Peak Hour Modeled Travel Time
167
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 69
Figure 52: 2025 Alt 1 PM Peak Hour Modeled Travel Time
7.6.2.3 Transit
Alternative 1 has auto travel times for those traveling the full corridor in the middle of the alternatives (41.65),
but still much better than No Build (53.317). This causes ridership to drop from No Build, especially since it
also has higher transit travel times, which, at 39.13 for those traveling the full corridor on BRT, are the worst
of all of the alternatives. Figure 53 shows its total AM and PM peak hour ridership within the corridor at
1094, which is also in the middle of the different alternatives rider ship estimates. Figure 54 shows that
Alternative 1 rat the Owl Creek Bridge mode shares is very similar to Alternatives 2 and 4.
168
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 70
Figure 53: Alternative 1 Transit Ridership
Figure 54: Alternative 1 Mode Share
169
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 71
7.6.2.4 Pedestrian and Bicycle
For Alternative 1 the main improvements in pedestrian accessibility (shown on walkshed Figure 55 through
Figure 61) are around Tiehack Road, Aspen Country Inn, and the Pyramid Road neighborhood as a result
of the additional sidewalk, trail and pedestrian crossing improvements.
Figure 55: Alternative 1 Overall Walkshed
170
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 72
Figure 56: Alternative 1 - Roundabout (DV) Walkshed
171
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 73
Figure 57: Alternative 1 - Truscott (UV & DV) Walkshed
172
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 74
Figure 58: Alternative 1 - Aspen Country Inn (UV & DV)
173
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 75
Figure 59: Alternative 1 - Buttermilk (UV & DV) Walksheds
174
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 76
Figure 60: Alternative 1 - AABC (UV & DV) Walksheds
175
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 77
Figure 61: Alternative 1 - Service Center Road (UV & DV) Walksheds
176
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 78
For bicycles, the new trail on the up valley side of SH 82 (Figure 62) improves the LTS to a ‘1’ between
Truscott Place and Owl Creek Road.
Figure 62: Bicycle Level of Stress - Alternative 1
7.7 2025 Alternative 2 – Spot Multimodal Improvements
7.7.1 2025 Alternative 2 Scenario
The improvements included as part of Alternative 2 are described below.
7.7.1.1 Intersection Improvements
SH 82 at Service Center Road
This intersection will have a new full traffic signal as described in Alternative 1.
SH 82 at Owl Creek Road
The HOV lane will be extended through this intersection as described under Alternative 1 . However, the at-
grade pedestrian crossing will remain in this scenario (i.e., as it does under existing conditions).
SH 82 at Maroon Creek Road/Castle Creek Road Roundabout
In addition to the down valley bypass lane described in Alternative 1, Alternative 2 will allow up valley
through movements for HOV vehicles from the outer lane of the roundabout (in addition to buses and right -
turning vehicles) in the AM peak hours. This creates better lane utilization in the up valley direction.
177
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 79
Figure 63: Channelization and Up Valley Lane Assignment
7.7.1.2 Bus Priority Improvements
Harmony Road/Owl Creek Road
The far side curb will be pulled back (as described in Alternative 1) at Owl Creek Road to allow buses to
use the existing right-turn lane as a queue jump and avoid having to merge back into mainline traffic prior
to stopping.
Cemetery Lane
At Cemetery Lane, the channelization islands will be pulled back to provide a queue jump at Cemetery
Lane for buses in the down valley direction. The second lane will be extended to the second approach lane
of the Maroon Creek Roundabout to provide better lane continuity and utilization (as described in Alternative
1).
7.7.1.3 Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements
Speed Limit Reduction
The posted speed limit would be reduced from 55 MPH to 45 MPH from 2,500’ north of Service Center
Road to the Airport Road On-Ramp (where the speed limit currently reduces to 45 MPH).
SH 82 at Service Center Road
Signalized at-grade pedestrian crossings of SH 82 and Service Center Road are provided .
SH 82 at Aspen Country Inn
Under Alternative 2, a HAWK, High intensity Activated crossWalK, signal will be installed on SH 82 at Aspen
Country Inn to allow pedestrians to cross SH 82 at that location. It is activated by pedestrians and will hold
mainline SH 82 traffic while pedestrians are completing the crossing movement.
Provide
Channelization
of Down Valley
Approach.
Through
Vehicles to use
Outer Lane
Allow HOV Vehicles
to go Through from
Outer Approach
Lane (AM Peak
hours)
178
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 80
7.7.1.4 Transportation Systems Management and Operations/Transportation Demand Managemen t
Enforcement of HOV Lane
Enforcement of the posted HOV lane restrictions is assumed as part of this alternative . Options for
enforcement include manual and/or automated cameras/devices.
7.7.2 2025 Alternative 2 Results
7.7.2.1 Traffic Operations
Under 2025 Alternative 2 conditions, the LOS improves at some key intersections, particularly at the
Maroon Creek Road/Castle Creek Road during the AM peak hour in the up valley direction and the PM
peak hour in the down valley direction. Table 16 and Table 17Table 13 show the HCM and Vissim
analysis results. Figure 64 and Figure 65 show the AM and PM travel time results by mode. Apendix VI
contains detailed capacity analysis and other MOE worksheets for 2025 Alternative 2 conditions.
Table 16: 2025 Alternative 2 Capacity Analysis Table (HCM)
1 – At signalized intersections, up valley through movements reported in AM and down valley through movements reported in PM.
2 – At unsignalized intersections, worst side-street approach reported.
179
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 81
Table 17: 2025 Alternative 2 Capacity Analysis Table (Vissim)
The following intersections operate with LOS E or F during at least one peak hour based on at least one of
the methodologies described above:
• SH 82 at Brush Creek Road (PM)
• SH 82 at Stage Road (PM)
• SH 82 at Tie Hack Road (AM)
• SH 82 at Aspen Country Inn (PM)
• SH 82 at Pyramid Road/Truscott Place (PM)
• SH 82 at Hideaway Lane (AM/PM)
• SH 82 at Maroon Creek Road/Castle Creek Road (AM)
7.7.2.2 Travel Times
During the AM peak hour, up valley travel times reduce substantially for SOV and HOV vehicles (by 21 and
12 minutes, respectively), and travel times for BRT and local buses remain consistent to No Build
conditions. During the PM peak hour, the travel times for SOV and HOV vehicles are similar to those
experienced under Alternative 1 (11- to 12-minute benefit over No Build in the down valley direction). BRT
1 – At signalized intersections, up valley through movements reported in AM and down valley through movements reported in PM.
2 – At unsignalized intersections, worst side-street approach reported.
180
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 82
travel times improve by an additional 1-2 minutes over Alternative 1 (3-4 minutes over No Build), and local
bus travel times remain consistent with those under Alternative 1.
Figure 64: 2025 Alt 2 AM Peak Hour Modeled Travel Time
Figure 65: 2025 Alt 2 PM Peak Hour Modeled Travel Time
181
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 83
7.7.2.3 Transit
For Alternative 2, the Auto travel times improve significantly from No Build, but the transit travel times are
slightly worse. This leads to Alternative 2 having the lowest total AM and PM corridor ridership of 1085, and
also the lowest transit mode share. These are illustrated in Figure 66 and Figure 67.
Figure 66: Alternative 2 Transit Ridership
Figure 67: Alternative 2 Mode Share
182
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 84
7.7.2.4 Pedestrian and Bicycle
The improvements to pedestrian accessibility in Alternative 2 are primarily in combining the walksheds
across SH 82 where new controlled pedestrian crosswalks are provided (e.g., Service Center Road and
Aspen Country Inn) and are shown in Figure 68-70.
There are no changes to the bicycle level of traffic stress.
Figure 68: Alternative 2 - Aspen Country Inn (UV & DV) Walksheds
183
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 85
Figure 69: Alternative 2 - AABC (UV & DV) Walksheds
184
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 86
Figure 70: Alternative 2 - Service Center Road (UV & DV) Walksheds
185
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 87
7.8 2025 Alternative 3 – Traffic Technology Application
7.8.1 2025 Alternative 3 Scenario
Alternative 3 focuses on technology improvements related to traffic signal operations.
7.8.1.1 Signal Operations
For the SH 82 at Airport Business Center Road, Mountain Rescue Station /Lumber Yard, Harmony Road,
and Owl Creek Road intersections, the signal operations (cycle lengths, offset, and phasing) were modified
from the traditional "Ring barrier controller," using resequencing (e.g., lead vs. lag, Figure 71) of the mainline
left-turn phasing. By separate sequencing of the left-turn movements, along with enhanced detection,
additional green time is provided to the mainline (including buses).
Figure 71: Traditional Ring and Barrier Signal Phasing (Top) vs. Lead-Lag Left-turn Phasing (Bottom)
The flexible signal phasing and detection allows additional signal priority for the buses through green
extensions or red truncations more frequently and in better response to bus positioning . Both the signal
phasing and transit signal priority can maintain the existing cycle lengths and improve overall vehicle and
transit progression.
186
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 88
7.8.1.2 Transportation Systems Management and Operations/Transportation Demand Management
Enforcement of HOV Lane
Enforcement of the posted HOV lane restrictions is assumed as part of this alternative . Options for
enforcement include manual and/or automated cameras/devices.
7.8.2 2025 Alternative 3 Results
7.8.2.1 Roadway Conditions and Traffic Operations
Under 2025 Alternative 3 conditions, the LOS remains fairly similar to those under the No Build conditions,
with some minor improvements in the area between Airport Business Center Road and Owl Creek Road.
Table 18 and Table 19 show the HCM and Vissim analysis results. Figure 72 and Figure 73 show the AM
and PM travel time results by mode. Appendix VII contains detailed capacity analysis and other MOE
worksheets for 2025 Alternative 3 conditions.
Table 18: 2025 Alternative 3 Capacity Analysis Table (HCM)
1 – At signalized intersections, up valley through movements reported in AM and down valley through movements reported in PM.
2 – At unsignalized intersections, worst side-street approach reported.
187
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 89
Table 19: 2025 Alternative 3 Capacity Analysis Table (Vissim)
The following intersections operate with LOS E or F during at least one peak hour based on at least one of
the methodologies described above:
• SH 82 at Brush Creek Road (PM)
• SH 82 at Service Center Road (AM/PM)
• SH 82 at Airport Business Center Road (AM)
• SH 82 at Airport Exit/Mountain Rescue Station (AM)
• SH 82 at Harmony Road (AM)
• SH 82 at Stage Road (PM)
• SH 82 at Tiehack Road (AM)
• SH 82 at Aspen County Apartments (PM)
• SH 82 at Pyramid Road/Truscott Place (PM)
• SH 82 at Hideaway Lane (AM/PM)
• SH 82 at Maroon Creek Road/Castle Creek Road (AM/PM)
• SH 82 at Cemetery Lane (PM)
1 – At signalized intersections, up valley through movements reported in AM and down valley through movements reported in PM.
2 – At unsignalized intersections, worst side-street approach reported.
188
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 90
7.8.2.2 Travel Times
Alternative 3 shows some modest travel time improvements over the No Build conditions for all modes .
However, since it is primarily based on signal timing technology, it does not show the same level of
improvement as Alternative 1 and Alternative 2, which improve approaches to the Maroon Creek
Roundabout.
Figure 72: 2025 Alt 3 AM Peak Hour Modeled Travel Time
189
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 91
Figure 73: 2025 Alt 3 PM Peak Hour Modeled Travel Time
7.8.2.3 Transit
Alternative 3’s estimated door to door auto travel time for trips entering at Brush Creek P ark and Ride and
travelling the full length of the corridor and then exiting is 51.43 minutes, which is almost as congested as
the No Build (53.32). It also has the best transit travel times (BRT = 37.5 minutes UV/IN). As shown in
Figure 74, this results in the highest AM and PM Peak Hour ridership of all of the alternatives. As shown in
Figure 75, Alternative 3 also has the highest transit mode share of all the alternatives.
190
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 92
Figure 74: Alternative 2 Transit Ridership
Figure 75: Alternative 3 Mode Share
7.8.2.4 Pedestrian and Bicycle
There are no changes to pedestrian and bicycle conditions under Alternative 3.
191
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 93
7.9 2025 Alternative 4 Evaluation
7.9.1 2025 Alternative 4 Scenario
The following improvements are included in Alternative 4.
7.9.1.1 Intersection Improvements
SH 82 at Owl Creek Road
At the intersection of SH 82 at Owl Creek Road the following improvements are included:
• Construct new pedestrian underpass to replace the existing at -grade crossing of SH 82 on the up
valley leg. This is shown in Figure 43 in the Alternative 1 section.
SH 82 at Maroon Creek Road/Castle Creek Road Roundabout
At the intersection of SH 82 at Maroon Creek Road/Castle Creek Road the following improvements are
included:
• Channelize the down valley outer approach lane entering the Maroon Creek Roundabout with a
vertical barrier to achieve better lane utilization through the roundabout and remove conflicts with
circulating/turning vehicles providing additional capacity.
o Providing channelization will make the outer lane the dominant lane in the merge
downstream of the roundabout (i.e., left turns from Maroon Creek road/Castle Creek
Road will “yield” to through vehicles in the outer lane).
o Special consideration of snow removal needs will be included in the selection of the
proper channelization device type.
The improvement is the same as that proposed under Alternative 1 and shown in Figure 45.
7.9.1.2 Bus Priority Improvements
Harmony Road/Owl Creek Road Bypass
Improvements at these intersections will channelize a bus bypass lane at the Harmony Road signal in the
up valley direction and at the Owl Creek Road signal in the down valley direction (shown with red arrows in
Figure 48 under Alternative 1). This will allow buses to avoid one traffic signal in both directions.
Additionally, the far side curb will be pulled back at Owl Creek Road to allow buses to use the existing right -
turn lane as a queue jump and avoid having to merge back into mainline traffic prior to stopping (shown
with orange arrow in Figure 48 under Alternative 1).
Cemetery Lane
At Cemetery Lane, the channelization islands will be pulled back to provide a queue jump at Cemetery
Lane for buses in the down valley direction. The second lane will be extended as a bus only lane to the
second approach lane of the Maroon Creek Roundabout to provide better lane continuity and utilization .
This improvement is the same as that proposed in Alternative 1 and shown in Figure 49.
192
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 94
7.9.1.3 Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements
SH 82 at Owl Creek Road
A pedestrian underpass will replace the existing at-grade crossing of SH 82 on the up valley leg as shown
in Figure 43.
7.9.1.4 Transportation Systems Management and Operations/Transportation Demand Management
Enforcement of HOV Lane
Enforcement of the posted HOV lane restrictions is assumed as part of this alternative . Options for
enforcement include manual and/or automated cameras/devices.
7.9.2 2025 Alternative 4 Results
7.9.2.1 Roadway Conditions and Traffic Operations
Under 2025 Alternative 4 conditions, the level of service is similar to those of Alternative 1, with significant
improvements particularly for the Maroon Creek Road/Castle Creek Road during the PM peak hour in the
down valley direction. Table 20 and Table 21 show the HCM and Vissim analysis results. Figure 76 and
Figure 77 show the AM and PM travel time results by mode . Appendix VIII contains detailed capacity
analysis and other MOE worksheets for 2025 Alternative 4 conditions.
Table 20: 2025 Alternative 4 Capacity Analysis Table (HCM)
1 – At signalized intersections, up valley through movements reported in AM and down valley through movements reported in PM.
2 – At unsignalized intersections, worst side-street approach reported.
193
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 95
Table 21: 2025 Alternative 4 Capacity Analysis Table (Vissim)
The following intersections operate with LOS E or F during at least one peak hour based on at least one of
the methodologies described above:
• SH 82 at Brush Creek Road (PM)
• SH 82 at Service Center Road (AM/PM)
• SH 82 at Harmony Road (AM)
• SH 82 at Owl Creek Road (AM)
• SH 82 at The Inn At Aspen (AM)
• SH 82 at Tiehack Road (AM)
• SH 82 at Aspen County Apartments (PM)
• SH 82 at Pyramid Road/Truscott Place (AM/PM)
• SH 82 at Hideaway Lane (AM/PM)
• SH 82 at Maroon Creek Road/Castle Creek Road (AM)
1 – At signalized intersections, up valley through movements reported in AM and down valley through movements reported in PM.
2 – At unsignalized intersections, worst side-street approach reported.
194
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 96
7.9.2.2 Travel Times
Alternative 4 travel times are much like those under Alternative 1. During the AM peak hour in the up valley
direction, SOV travel times remain consistent with those under Alternative 1 (12-minute travel time savings
over No Build), while HOV travel times increase by 4 minutes (still a 3-minute travel time savings over No
Build), and BRT and local bus travel times decrease by 1 -2 minutes (consistent with No Build). PM travel
times remain consistent to those in Alternative 1 for all modes, which show substantial trav el time
improvements over No Build for all modes.
Figure 76: 2025 Alt 4 AM Peak Hour Modeled Travel Time
195
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 97
Figure 77: 2025 Alt 4 PM Peak Hour Modeled Travel Time
7.9.2.3 Transit
Alternative 4’s AM and PM peak hour total ridership of 1098 is comparable to the existing corridor ridership
of 1097 but lower than the No Build and Alternative 3 transit ridership. These auto travel times are at the
same level as existing, and transit travel times are the same as the No Build. Figure 78 shows these peak
hour totals for the BRT, other Bus and Total in the corridor.
Figure 79 shows the inbound and outbound mode share at the Owl Cre ek Bridge.
7.9.2.4 Pedestrian and Bicycle
Pedestrian accessibility and bicycle level of traffic stress for Alternative 4 would be identical to the No Build.
196
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 98
Figure 78 Alternative 4 Transit Ridership
Figure 79 Alternative 4 Mode Share
197
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 99
8. Comparison of Alternatives
Figure 80: Person Throughput Comparison
Person throughput was calculated as an MOE to compare the alternatives. The person throughput over the
Maroon Creek bridge is shown above in Figure 80. During the AM peak hour, person throughput is highest
under Alternative 2, followed closely by Alternative 1 and Alternative 4, both of which have a slight
improvement over the No Build conditions. During the PM peak hour, Alternatives 1, 2, and 4 all have similar
person throughput improvements over No Build conditions.
198
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 100
199
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 101
Figure 81: Travel Time Comparison
Travel times for each scenario are shown above in Figure 81 to allow for easy comparison of the
alternatives. Travel times for each alternative are described in each alternative section, but the following
comparisons should be noted for each peak hour:
AM Peak Hour
• Alternative 2 performs best for SOV and HOV vehicles in the up valley direction, although BRT and
local bus travel times remain pretty consistent to those under No Build conditions . This is due to the
fact that bus only lanes already exist in most locations that experience congestion during the AM
peak hour.
• Alternative 3 performs similar to the No Build scenario in the up valley direction with only modest
improvements in travel times for all modes.
• Alternatives 1 and 4 perform similarly in the up valley direction. Both show improvements for SOV
and HOV vehicles over the No Build conditions, although Alternative 4 trades off some HOV travel
time benefit for an additional 1-2 minutes of BRT and bus travel time savings.
PM Peak Hour
• Alternatives 1, 2, and 4 show similar benefits over the No Build travel times in the down valley
direction. All provide the down valley bypass lane through the Maroon Creek Roundabout, which
reduces delays and queues experienced leaving Aspen through the S curve and Cemetery Lane
segments. In this area, all modes share a single lane so all modes benefit.
• Alternative 3 operates with travel times similar to those under No Build conditions as the primary
focus is signal timing, and no modifications to the roundabout are included.
200
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 102
Table 22: Capacity Analysis Comparison (HCM)
1 – At signalized intersections, up valley through movements reported in AM and down valley through movements reported in PM.
2 – At unsignalized intersections, worst side-street approach reported.
201
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 103
Table 23: Capacity Analysis Comparison (Vissim)
Table 22 and Table 23 show a comparison of the LOS and delay for each scenario using the HCM and Vissim microsimulation methodologies.
These results and failing intersections are highlighted in more detail under the write-up for each alternative.
1 – At signalized intersections, up valley through movements reported in AM and down valley through movements reported in PM.
2 – At unsignalized intersections, worst side-street approach reported.
202
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 104
Figure 82: Fuel Used and Efficiency
203
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 105
Figure 83: Emissions Comparison
Fuel efficiency and consumption and emissions, summarized for each scenario in Figure 82 and Figure 83,
respectively, were used as a secondary performance measure.
Stopped vehicles emit and consume less per second than moving vehicles. Therefore, it is possible that by
improving traffic flow, more cars are moving and emissions increase.
8.1 Transit Ridership
Table 24,
Figure 84 and Figure 85 provide a comparison of the transit ridership results discussed in the previous
section. Again, these are derived based on the elasticity calculations for the scenario door to door auto
(cross elasticity of 0.2) and transit travel times (elasticity of -0.4). Very little variation is evident across all of
the alternatives (primarily due to the relatively small elasticity values). Given this observation, these are the
highlights of the changes that do occur:
• The increase between existing and 2025 No Build is primarily due to the significant increase in
auto travel times with only very small changes in transit times (due to bus only lanes, etc.).
204
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 106
• Alternatives 1, 2, and 4 have lower ridership due to the improvements in auto travel times and
similar or worse transit times.
• Alternative 2 has the lowest ridership (1085) due to some increases in transit times .
• Alternative 3 has the highest ridership (1120) due to both transit improvements and slight
increases in auto times.
• Alternative 4 maintains existing ridership levels.
Table 24 Transit Peak Hour Corridor Ridership
existing
Conditions
2025
Nobuild
2025
Alt1
2025
Alt 2
2025
Alt 3
2025
Alt 4
BRT 433 446 431 427 447 433
Local Bus 664 673 663 657 673 665
Total 1097 1119 1094 1085 1120 1098
Figure 84: Transit Ridership Comparison
205
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 107
Figure 85 shows all of the AM and PM Peak hour UV and DV mode shares at Maroon Creek Bridge provided
previously. Again, only slight differences can be observed . PM BRT and other Bus share (combined ~ 21
– 24 percent) is greater in the PM (combined ~ 21 – 24 percent outbound) than in the AM (combined ~ 13
– 14 percent outbound). Alternative 3 has the highest percent transit.
Figure 85: Mode Share Comparison
Figure 86illustrates the cross-product of total vehicle conflicts x pedestrian volumes for each alterantive.
Intersections lacking pedestrian movements have cross-product of zero. The results of the analysis shown
below find that the highest number of pedestrian conflicts is in Alternative 1 (13,713), followed by Al ternative
2 (10,713), followed by Alternative 3 and the No Build (2,800). The higher conflics for Alternatives 1 and 2
are primariiliy related to the at-grade pedestrian crossing improvements at Service Center Road and Aspen
Country Inn as well as the new shared use path connections at Tie Hack . For Alternative 4, those
206
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 108
improvements are not provided, but the pedestrian underpass is provided at Owl Creek, elimnating those
conflicts entirely.
Figure 86: Cross-Product of Ped/Vehicle Conflicts
207
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 109
9. Summary of Findings and Recommended
Mobility Package
9.1 Summary of Findings
The Upper Valley Transit Enhancement study documented existing corridor travel patterns, previous
studies and recommendations, transit service, walking and biking connections , and gaps and traffic
operations analysis (level of service, travel time and person throughput). A menu of multimodal mobility and
priority improvements were identified and evaluated to compliment the investment in VelociRFTA BRT as
well as enhance carpool, overall corridor travel time, and pedestrian and bicycle access to all bus stops/
stations. The improvement options included intersection traffic controls/channeliztion, new/upgraded
pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, spot bus priority geometric and operational treatments.
The findings indicate:
• Average daily traffic volumes along SH 82 average between 20,000 and 26,000 vehicles per day.
• The corridor is served by up to 8 bus routes with up to 50 buses per hour in some segments,
3,000 boardings per day at some bus stops, and 1,000 total passengers per hour in peak periods.
• Vehicle travel times in the corridor range from under 15 minutes in the off -peak direction to over
30 minutes in the peak direction in the 2025 No Build.
• Multiple intersections operate with a LOS E or LOS F during at least one peak hour under 2025
No Build conditions (Brush Creek Road, Service Center Road, Airport Business Center Road,
Mountain Rescue, Owl Creek, Harmony Aspen Inn, Tie hack Road, Pyramid Road/Truscott,
Hideaway Lane, Maroon Creek/ Castle Creek and Cemetery Lane).
• Over 30 previous studies were conducted in the corridor by the City, County, or State over the
past two decades recommending dozens of roadway, transit, pedestrian , and bicycle
improvements.
• The bus stops/stations have significant gaps and barriers in pedestrian and bicycle accessibility
particularly with crossing SH 82.
• Two corridor-wide bus priority options were evaluated, including extended dedicated bus
lanes/guideways and spot bus priority treatments (channelization and queue jumps) blended with
additional HOV facilities.
• The spot bus priority improvements along with intersection channelization performed optimally for
traffic operations, reducing overall travel time for general traffic by up to 33 percent.
The full summary of Measures of Effectiveness for each alternative including cost and scoring are show n
below:
208
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 110
Category MOE Criteria to Earn
0 1 2 3
Multimodal
Person Throughput Minor or major decrease in
person throughput
No significant change in
person throughput
Minor increase in person
throughput
Major increase in person
throughput
HOV Travel Time Major increase in travel time
Minor increase or no
significant change in travel
time
Minor decrease in travel
time
Major decrease in travel
time
Non-Auto Mode Share Minor or major decrease in
non-auto mode share
No significant change in
non-auto mode share
Minor increase in non-auto
mode share
Major increase in non-auto
mode share
Vehicle
Intersection LOS Major increase in number of
failing approaches
Minor increase or no
change in number of failing
approaches
Minor decrease in number
of failing approaches
Major decrease in number
of failing approaches
Auto Travel Time Major increase in travel time
Minor increase or no
significant change in travel
time
Minor decrease in travel
time
Major decrease in travel
time
Crash Reduction
Propensity
Increase of any degree in
crash propensity
No significant change in
crash propensity
Minor decrease in crash
propensity
Major decrease in crash
propensity
Pedestrian/Bicycle
Walkshed Walkshed reduction of any
size No chance to walkshed Minor walkshed increase Major walkshed increase
Pedestrian
Exposure/Conflicts
Major increase in number of
intersection conflicts
Minor increase in number of
intersection conflicts
No change in number of
intersection conflicts
Minor decrease in number
of intersection conflicts
Bicycle LTS
Decrease of any size in LF
of roadway/pathway at LTS
≤2
No change in LF of
roadway/pathway at LTS ≤2
Minor increase in LF of
roadway/pathway at LTS ≤2
Major increase in LF of
roadway/pathway at LTS ≤2
Transit
Ridership Minor or major decrease in
transit ridership
No significant change in
transit ridership
Minor increase in transit
ridership
Major increase in transit
ridership
Transit Travel Time Major increase in travel time
Minor increase or no
significant change in travel
time
Minor decrease in travel
time
Major decrease in travel
time
Other Impacts
Cost High-cost improvements Moderate-cost
improvements Low-cost improvements
Cost can be absorbed in
normal
maintenance/operations
Regulatory Impact High regulatory impacts Moderate regulatory
impacts Low regulatory impacts No regulatory impacts
Stakeholder Preference Non-preferred by all Preferred lightly by some;
non-preferred by some
Preferred highly by
some/lightly by all; non-
preferred by none
Highly preferred by all
stakeholders
Emissions Minor or major increase in
emissions
No significant change in
emissions
Minor decrease in
emissions
Major decrease in
emissions
209
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 111
Improvement
Package
Multimodal Vehicular Pedestrian/Bicycle Transit Other Factors Scoring
Cost
Estimate Person Throughput HOV Travel Time Non-Auto Mode Share Intersection LOS Auto Travel Time Crash Reduction Propensity Walkshed Pedestrian Exposure/ Conflicts Bicycle LTS Ridership Transit Travel Time Cost Regulatory Impact Stakeholder Preference Emissions Raw
(0-45)
Adjusted
(0-3)
Build
Alternative 1
High Transit
Priority
Improvements
26/45 1.73
$16,000,000
–
$19,000,000
5/9 6/9 6/9 4/6 5/12
Build
Alternative 2
Moderate
Transit Priority
Improvements
28/45 1.87 $3,000,000 –
$4,000,000
7/9 7/9 3/9 3/6 8/12
Build
Alternative 3
Technology
Improvements
22/45 1.47 $100,000 –
$200,000
3/9 4/9 4/9 3/6 8/12
Build
Alternative 4
Stakeholder-
Preferred
Alternative
25/45 1.67
$15,000,000
–
$19,000,000
4/9 6/9 5/9 3/6 7/12
210
Upper Valley Transit Enhancement Study Technical Report
Page 112
10. Recommendations and Phasing
Based on the results of the analysis, the spot bus priority improvements (channelization/queue jumps), in
combination with the roundabout channelization and a pedestrian underpass at Owl Creek is suggested for
advancement to engineering design. The costs are estimated to be approximately $15 to $18 million . At
this time, adjusting the limits of the HOV lanes and/or dedicated bus lanes is not recommended until further
exploration can be undertaken of the reimbursement obligations and compatibility within the Entrance to
Aspen Record of Decision.
10.1 Mobility Package Phasing
Mobility package phasing is suggested as follows:
Short-term Recommendations:
• Conduct a pilot channelization of the down valley roundabout outer lan e. If successful, deploy
permanently (in summer season).
• Construct additional bus priority treatments (channelization at Owl Creek/ Harmony) and queue
jumps at Cemetery Lane.
• Enforce HOV lane compliance.
Mid-term Recommendations: Bus priority design elements.
• Construct an Owl Creek pedestrian underpass.
• Construct a shared use path connection from Aspen Country Inn to Owl Creek .
211
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Torre and Aspen City Council
THROUGH:Phillip Supino, Director, Community Development
FROM:Kevin Rayes, Planner, Community Development; Jami McMannes,
Communications Manager, Communications; & Sophie Varga,
Zoning Officer, Community Development
MEMO DATE:July 23, 2021
MEETING DATE:July 26, 2021
RE:PowerUp (a.k.a. Uphill Economy) - an economic sustainability
initiative centered around human-powered uphill recreation
REQUEST OF COUNCIL:
Staff seeks to update Council on the PowerUp initiative to date, inform Council of the
2020 rebranding process, and state of the human-powered recreation economy. Staff
requests Council direction on the next steps for the PowerUp economic development
initiative, including:
exploration of partnerships for a 2022 symposium,
possible future action items from the Uphill Economy Plan and the Uphill
Recreation Plan.
SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND:
Since 2014, Council and staff have collaborated to envision an economic sustainability
initiative which builds on Aspen’s existing strengths, culture, and global name recognition.
The initiative has evolved dramatically since its inception. It was originally referred to as
the “Uphill Economy” and included the following three goals:
Make Aspen the epicenter of uphill fitness in North America, and
Build on Aspen’s history as a ski industry pioneer, and
Preserve mountain-town culture locally and regionally.
These goals laid the foundation for developing the Uphill Economic Development Plan
and hosting the first Uphill Summit, both of which brought together a diverse group of
government and outdoor industry leaders, athletes, and local stakeholders.
The 2017 Economic Development Plan also outlines short- and long-term strategies to
build upon Aspen’s mountaineering and uphill reputation with the goal of expanding the
regional outdoor recreation economy unrelated to real estate and development - also
known as, “economic development without the development.” The motivation behind this
plan aligns with the goal of the Aspen Area Community Plan to reduce the “boom bust”
nature of the development industry, as well as a focus on opportunities to implement
elements of the Aspen Idea. The plan provides analysis of the existing uphill market, key
212
Page | 2
trends in the industry, and discusses how Aspen can improve its market position. The
plan is attached as Exhibit A.
In 2017, the City of Aspen began funding Friday Morning Uphill Socials at Buttermilk. As
part of this program, the City worked with partners to promote the activity and subsidized
breakfasts at the Cliffhouse restaurant for anyone who participated. The City continued
funding this program from 2017 through 2020, as it delivers on a number of program
goals. The momentum generated from the Uphill Economic Plan, the Uphill Summit, and
the Uphill Socials eventually led Council to adopt a Top Ten goal to:
“Work with strategic partners to identify priority implementation items from the Uphill
Economic Plan that will balance and preserve Aspen’s unique place, traditions and
economy.”
In pursuit of this goal, Council directed staff to implement three items recommended from
the Uphill Economic Development Plan:
(1) host a second Uphill Summit.
(2) develop an Uphill Recreation Plan.
(3) continue funding and facilitating the Friday morning Uphill Socials.
The second summit was hosted in July 2019, uniting regional and national stakeholders
and further exploring the potential of human powered recreation to diversify and sustain
mountain town economies.
The Uphill Recreation Plan, completed in 2019, strikes a balance between managing
Aspen’s position as a world-wide leader and destination for outdoor recreation while
prioritizing environmental preservation and stewardship. This is in recognition of Aspen’s
commitment to environmental stewardship, and the importance of a healthy mountain
ecosystem to the success of our recreation economy.The Executive Summary is
included as Exhibit B. The full version of the Uphill Recreation Plan can be accessed
here.
It’s important to note that the types of activities included in the Recreation plan are broader
than those in the Economic Uphill Plan. Instead of focusing primarily on uphill skiing, the
Recreation Plan emphasizes the concept of “human powered recreation”, which includes
activities like mountain biking, Nordic skiing, hiking, and camping. The plan acknowledges
that quality recreational amenities such as trails, trailheads, open space, and biodiversity,
support human-powered recreation, enhance community, and boost the local economy.
It also points out that these resources need management and regulation to avoid
environmental degradation and maintain a world-class user experience. The plan
provides an inventory of existing outdoor infrastructure in the Upper Roaring Fork Valley
and recommends improvements and sustainable practices to support the Uphill
Economy.
Prior to the completion of the Recreation Plan, the terms “uphill economy” and “human
powered recreation” had been used interchangeably by City Council, staff, and
stakeholders when referring to the nexus of economic development and outdoor
recreation. This led to confusion in the minds of the public and stakeholders about the
213
Page | 3
focus and intent of the initiative. In the fall of 2019, prior to the onset of the pandemic,
Council directed staff to rebrand the initiative to create a uniform definition and shared
vision of what these concepts mean in the context of Aspen.
In response to that direction, staff worked with a marketing consultant to rename and
brand the initiative. The name, PowerUp was developed to describe the intersection of
human powered recreation, environmental preservation, and economic sustainability
which lie at the heart of the initiative. Exhibit C describes the rebranding effort in more
detail and includes the final logos and messaging around the concept.
PowerUp has not yet been released to the public, and there will be many opportunities to
promote the campaign in the future. For example, following the adoption of PowerUp,
staff coordinated with Aspen Ski Co. and Mountain Rescue to create several videos that
will be used to introduce the PowerUp brand and to relay important information related to
inbound uphill etiquette. These videos are intended to be released with our partners via
social media and the City of Aspen website during the 2021-2022 ski season.
DISCUSSION:
The Uphill Economic Plan and the Uphill Recreation Plan forecasted a continued rise in
the number of outdoor enthusiasts engaging in human powered recreation. Interestingly,
both plans were developed prior to the onset of the pandemic, so neither anticipated the
immediate cause of the sudden increase of outdoor enthusiasts that our community and
state have experienced over the past year. Staff collected a range of data that speaks to
the increase of outdoor use.
According to the Outdoor Industry Association, 7.1 million more people participated in
outdoor recreation in 2020 than in 2019 – an increase of 50.7 percent
1. The nascent spike
in outdoor enthusiasts is unprecedented. Most people living in mountain communities
have likely felt some of the impacts from this surge - specifically in the economy, the
natural environment, and quality of life.
Below is a list of articles published by The Colorado Sun over the past year that speak to
the mix of consequences brought on by such a dramatic spike in outdoor recreation use
in mountain communities.
1.Outdoor recreation continues to be a mighty economic force, accounting for $877
billion in 2019
2.Colorado’ increased use of public lands during coronavirus is taking its toll
3.As Colorado backcountry use soars, Vail Pass’ fee model could be a way to
manage the crush
4.Colorado avalanches have killed at least 11 people during the 2020-21 winter
season
5.Colorado mountain, resort communities are rebounding- and then some- from
coronavirus-scarred 2020
6.Quarantine on wheels. People are turning to RVs to save their summer travel plans
from coronavirus
Economic Impacts
214
Page | 4
Many mountain communities have financially benefited from higher visitation and
individuals enjoying the outdoors. According to the Outdoor Participation report previously
mentioned, 32 percent of outdoor enthusiasts make more than 100,000 dollars per year,
which often translates to money being spent in small mountain-town economies.
According to the City Finance Department, since the onset of COVID, sales tax revenue
from the outdoor recreation sector has increased. Between 2019-2020, sales tax from
local outdoor retailers jumped 1.5 percent– from 52,767,596 dollars to 53,554,273 dollars.
This revenue bump occurred while sales tax revenue from other sectors, such as service
and lodging decreased. Upon speaking with local gear shops Ute Mountaineer and
Cripple Creek Backcountry, staff believes that sales tax revenue from the outdoor sector
will likely be even higher from a year ago now that the economy is fully reopening.
The Ute Mountaineer saw a 60 percent increase in the sale of hardgoods1 during winter
2020-2021 when compared to sales over winter 2019-2020. Most notably, there was a
104 percent increase in sales for uphill skis and an 88 percent increase in sales for uphill
ski boots. Cripple Creek Backcountry saw a 59 percent increase in the sale of hardgoods
between online sales, its Carbondale location, and its Aspen location, during the 2019-
2020 season as compared to the 2018-2019 season. Cripple Creek experienced another
10 percent sales boost in 2020-2021 compared to the previous season.
The economic benefits are not only felt during the winter months. According to a recent
survey from the Aspen Chamber Resort Association (ACRA), most individuals who visited
Aspen to see the Maroon Bells also spent money recreating, dining, and shopping while
visiting the area.
All these industry trends were predicted in the PowerUp planning documents and policies.
The PowerUp initiative is designed to leverage the increased popularity in outdoor
recreation and the City’s existing position as a global leader in outdoor recreation to create
new and more sustainable economic opportunities. The plans reinforce the importance
of the policy objectives behind the initiative, and the resource management concepts
needed to ensure the ongoing sustainability of the recreation economy.
Environmental Impacts
According to the Colorado Department of Natural Resources Executive Director Dan
Gibbs, “we are loving our outdoors to death”. The State of Colorado recognizes the
increased popularity in accessing the outdoors and the need to protect our natural
resources. This trend has also played out in the Aspen, Snowmass area. From 2016 to
2020, Snowmass trail usage increased by 44 percent; Aspen trail usage increased by 37
percent.
215
Page | 5
In a survey conducted by ACRA in 2020, 47 percent of 3,272 of respondents visiting the
Maroon Bells had never visited the area before. BackBone Media provided staff with an
insight on various travel search terms that have been Googled over the past couple of
years. This data suggests that more people are searching terms like “Camping Near Me”
or “Trails Near Me” than any time in the past.
In response to these trends, the State signed several bills in June 2021 to expand
recreation access and to increase funds allocated to conservation and natural resources
protection. More than 25 million dollars will go to fund wildlife action and conservation
efforts, avalanche safety programs, outdoor equity, search and rescue, and other outdoor
initiatives. As the population of Colorado continues to grow, so will interest in the outdoors
and recreation opportunities. The PowerUp initiative uniquely positions Aspen to not only
protect the natural resources vital to a healthy and attractive recreation economy, but to
*Note: the search volume depicted on the Y-Axis represents normalized data
Source: Back Bone Media
“Hiking Near Me” Search Volume in
“Trails Near Me” Search Volume in Colorado
*Note: the search volume depicted on the Y-Axis represents normalized data
Source: Back Bone Media
“Backpacking Near Me” Search Volume in Colorado
*Note: the search volume depicted on the Y-Axis represents normalized data
Source: Back Bone Media
216
Page | 6
leverage the increase in use and attention paid to human powered recreation to diversify
and sustain those sectors of our economy not tied to development.
Quality of Life
Many local leaders are trying to understand if the unprecedented increase of mountain
town occupancy and recreation is simply a short-term trend that will wane after the days
of COVID-19, or if COVID-19 functioned as a catalyst that boosted visitation rates and
fulltime occupancy of mountain towns for the foreseeable future. The 2021 Mountain
Migration Report from the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments may shed some
light on this question. According to the report:
While the rapid rise in [housing] prices and buying frenzy mirrors the events prior
to the 2007/08 recession, this market is driven by a different buyer – one who
wants to move in and use their home rather than investors. The prevalent
perceptions among area real estate agents were that the high-demand, short-
supply housing market is here to stay, at least for the foreseeable future.
As part of the report, a survey asked
people about their motivations behind
moving to a mountain community. It
found that COVID-19 was not the sole
reason for people relocating, but rather
the ability to work remotely. The ability
to work remotely fulltime might not be a
perk experienced in all professions, but
it is certainly regarded as a “genie that
cannot go back in the bottle.” It is
reasonable to conclude that flexibility to
work from anywhere by many will likely
bring more long-term residents to desirable
places like Aspen.
When asked how one’s residency in the
county might change in the next three
years, most respondents do not anticipate
a change. While some individuals plan to
eventually move away at some point, the
survey suggests a net increase of fulltime
residents over the next three years.
217
Page | 7
When asked about impacts to
quality of life since the onset of
the recent migration,the
survey found an overwhelming
number of respondents feel
that “crowds in the
backcountry were worse than
before the migration began.
About 50 percent of
respondents felt that each of
traffic congestion,
environmental impacts, quality
of life and parking were worse.”
The findings from this study suggest that more people will continue enjoying the outdoors
more frequently in the future. As mentioned in the Uphill Recreation and Economic Plans,
coordination among local, state, and federal agencies, City departments, and local
businesses is essential to manage the impacts brought on by more outdoor recreation
and leverage these opportunities to sustain and diversify the economy. Recommended
policies and actions in the plans are intended to help the City achieve these
complimentary objectives.
Although the City has not participated in or sponsored any events related to PowerUp
since the onset of COVID, staff believes the efforts put forth since 2014 to develop the
Economic Uphill and Recreation Plans, to sponsor and facilitate the Uphill Symposiums,
to coordinate and subsidize the weekly Uphill Socials at Buttermilk, and to create the
PowerUp brand have put the City in a solid position to continue leading and building upon
this economic development concept.
Given that, there are several opportunities over the coming year for City Council to
consider continuing to support:
2022 Uphill Symposium
In fall of 2019, Council directed staff to explore hosting a third Uphill Symposium in 2021.
Council directed staff to find partners to cover the cost and provide logistical support to
this event. The pandemic delayed that work. However, it the delay has created an
exciting opportunity. The sixth United Nations Mountain Partnership global meeting is
coming to Aspen in September 2022. The Aspen International Mountain Foundation
(AIMF) along with the State of Colorado, will host hundreds of attendees from around the
globe. The Mountain Partnership is a United Nations voluntary alliance of 60 mountain
countries and more than 400 intergovernmental organizations and NGOs dedicated to
218
Page | 8
improving the lives of mountain people and protecting mountain environments around the
world.
The partnership is intended to address challenges facing mountain regions by tapping the
wealth and diversity of resources among its members to foster initiatives that will improve
the quality of life and environment in the world’s mountain regions. Given the
Partnership’s focus on supporting mountain communities, and the PowerUp focus on the
sustainability of our economy and ecosystems which support our community and
recreation economy, staff believes there is a strong nexus between City and Mountain
Partnership objectives.
The City of Aspen could play a lead role in supporting this conference, potentially
including PowerUp content and programing or hosting a concurrent PowerUp Symposium
attracting global participants in addition to the traditional national and regional recreation
economy stakeholders. Hosting this event could generate many community benefits
including:
Continuing to promote the PowerUp brand; and,
Developing partnerships with mountain-town municipalities and governments from
around the world; and,
Discussing overlapping interests, challenges, and opportunities to find innovative
solutions; and,
Bringing new visitors and stakeholders to Aspen; and,
Presenting Aspen on the world-stage, as an uphill epicenter, and a leader in
promoting mountain town sustainability; and,
Showcasing Aspen as a business-friendly environment that welcomes outdoor
businesses; and,
Producing a positive media presence.
As previously mentioned, the City most recently hosted the Uphill Ascent in 2019. To
provide an idea of what was discussed, several panel discussions covered the following:
Outdoor Recreation and Economic Sustainability in Mountain Communities,
Uphill Market Research Discussion,
US Forest Service Management & Uphill Interest and Huts,
State and Federal Policy and Recreation.
Uphill Socials at Buttermilk
219
Page | 9
The Uphill Socials at Buttermilk provide a controlled setting intended for a comfortable,
low stress experience for those looking to partake in uphill skiing for the first time or for
locals looking to socialize with friends over turns and a delicious breakfast. Originally
created by a cadre of passionate, local uphillers like Bob Wade, Steve Szoradi, Rich
Burkley, and Trey
Barnes, these
breakfasts have grown
in popularity each year.
Starting in Mid- March
2020, the Uphill Socials
were cancelled for the
remainder of the season
due to COVID-19. Over
the 2021 winter season,
Aspen Ski Co. continued
hosting the breakfasts
without City support.
(The attendance data for
2021 is not included in
this graph.)
The Uphill Socials also provide an outlet to promote many local nonprofits and businesses
in the Valley. Each week a different sponsor attends the Uphill Social to sign in attendees
and to pass out breakfast tickets. Sponsors also benefit from promoting their respective
organization. Previous sponsors include ACRA, ACES, the Ute Mountaineer, Aspen
Alpine Guides, Mountain Flow EcoWax, City of Aspen, and Mountain Rescue. The City
currently has a waiting list of organizations requesting to sponsor.
Data Gathering and Plan Updates
Significant data was collected and analyzed in the Uphill Recreation and Uphill Economic
Plans. This information explores the relationship between human powered recreation, the
local economy, mountain-town culture, and existing infrastructure in the Aspen area.
While the findings from each plan remain relevant, the data collected to inform the
discussion has not been renewed following the completion of each document.The Uphill
Economic Plan was written in 2017 and two years have passed since the development of
the Uphill Recreation Plan. As previously mentioned, population and demographic trends
within the Roaring Fork Valley continue to shift which will further impact outdoor recreation
in many ways, well into the future.
Partnering with other local governments and businesses to conduct additional data
collection to obtain information about other indices such as trail usage, consumer trends,
and parking availability will help further inform the conversation and manage impacts to
the surrounding natural environment.
Conclusions
Next Steps and Plan Implementation
The Uphill plans include dozens of relevant, impactful policies and action items which
could be implemented to achieve Council goals related to outdoor recreation,
environmental stewardship, and economic sustainability. Many of these items rely on
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
January February March
Buttermilk Uphill Socials
Number of Attendants Per Month by Year
2017 2018 2019 2020
220
Page | 10
partnerships and community participation for successful implementation. Should Council
desire to pursue the implementation of any of the items included in the plans, staff would
return to Council for additional discussion to identify the desired actions and develop an
implementation plan and budget, if necessary.
Should Council direct staff to pursue the items identified in this memo (PowerUp brand
roll-out, 2021-2022 Uphill Socials sponsorship, 2022 PowerUp Symposium event
planning), staff will develop implementation, staffing, and budget plans for Council review
prior to 2022 budget adoption.
QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL:
1. Is Council interested in resuming sponsorship of the Uphill Socials at Buttermilk
for the 2021-2022 winter season?
2. Is Council interested in hosting a 2022 PowerUp Symposium? Does Council
support exploring financial and event development partnerships with Aspen
International Mountains Foundation and the U.N. Mountain Partnership for a
combined event?
3. Is Council interested in allocating resources to coordinate a community-wide
communications campaign to promote the PowerUp initiative?
4. Does Council wish to pursue implementation of any of the recommended actions
in the Uphill Economic Development Plan or Uphill Recreation Plan in 2022 and
beyond?
Exhibits:
Exhibit A | Uphill Economic Development Plan
Exhibit B | Uphill Recreation Plan
Exhibit C | PowerUp Brand Guide
221
City of Aspen Uphill
Economic Development Plan
June 2017
222
Contents
Project Overview .......................... 1
Economic Analysis ........................ 3
Recommendations...................... 10
Near Term Actions ...................... 14
Appendices
A. Themes from Interviews and TAC
Discussions
B. TAC Survey and Summarized Responses
C. TAC Work Sessions Meeting Notes
D. TAC Work Session #2 Slides
E. Stakeholder Interview Overview Notes
(under separate cover)
The City of Aspen would like to say…
Thank You
This effort to understand and take action to
further develop Aspen’s Uphill economy and
that of the larger Roaring Fork Valley would not
have been possible without the contributions
and efforts of a significant number of people,
including:
City of Aspen
Mayor Steve Skadron
Aspen City Council – Adam Frisch, Ann Mullins, Art Daily, Bert Myrin
Barry Crook – Assistant City Manager
Pete Strecker – Assistant Finance Director
Nancy Lesley – Director of Special Events
Jessica Garrow – Director, Community Development Department
Hillary Seminick – Planner, Community Development Department
Phillip Supino – Principal Long Range Planner, Community Development
Department
Industry Experts
Brian Mecham – General Manager, Dynafit/Salewa
David Corbin – Aspen Skiing Company
Jamie Starr – Marketing Manager, Salewa North America
Joe Risi – Owner, COSMIC and Events Manager, SCARPA North America
Jonathan Lantz – President, La Sportiva
Julia Theisen – V.P. Sales and Marketing, Aspen Chamber Resort Assoc.
Kevin Luby – Digital Brand Strategist, SCARPA North America
Kevin Warner – Acting District Ranger, Aspen-Sopris Ranger District
Kim Miller – CEO, SCARPA North America
Luis Benitez – Director, Colorado Outdoor Recreation Industry Office
Steve Kropf – Director of Sales, Dynafit/Salewa
Consulting Team
Chris Cares, RRC – Principal and Project Manager
Paula Ninger, RRC – Lead Researcher
Chris Beck, Agnew::Beck – Principal
Ellen Campfield Nelson, Agnew::Beck – Principal
Inger Deede and Lisa Fousek, Agnew::Beck – Visual Communications
Left cover photo courtesy of Dick Jackson
223
City of Aspen Uphill Economic Development Plan 1
The City of Aspen would like to extend a special acknowledgment to the members of the
Technical Advisory Committee, without the insight of these local industry experts, this report
would not have been possible.
Bob Wade
Bob started the Ute Mountaineer in April
of 1977. His first trip uphill on Aspen
Mountain was that year. He enjoys all the
forms of skiing that Aspen offers- alpine,
tele, rando and nordic. Bob likes to share
his love of the mountains with friends and
family. He is most proud of association
with the Aspen School District’s Outdoor
Ed program.
Dick Jackson
Professional mountain guide Dick Jackson
has owned and operated Aspen
Expeditions Worldwide since 1976. Dick is
certified by the IFMGA/AMGA in rock and
ice climbing, ski mountaineering and
alpine mountaineering, Dick guides climbs
and ski trips in Colorado and around the
world, including the Himalaya, Alaska, the
Alps and Africa.
Doug Stenclick
Doug is an avid uphiller in the Roaring
Fork Valley, where he has lived for the
past 10 years. He co-founded the first ski
touring shop in the country, Cripple
Creek Backcountry, in Carbondale
Colorado. He has served as marketing
director for the COSMIC series (the
Colorado Ski Mountaineering Cup) since
2013.
John Gaston
John is a six-time ski mountaineering
National Champion and five-time Power of
Four winner, living with his wife Katherine
in Aspen. He and his twin brother Pete
founded Strafe in 2009 to meet the
increasing demands that athletes were
placing on their apparel and as an excuse
to "product test" every day in Highland
Bowl."
Mike Marolt
Mike is a CPA and owner/operator of
8,000 Meter Peak Technologies, a ski
mountaineering online retailer. Aspen is
his training basecamp for expeditions to
some 50 of the world's highest and most
remote peaks. He is married and raising
two daughters, part of the 5th generation
of the Marolt family in Aspen.
Penn Newhard
A graduate of Brown University, Penn left
his job as a Wall Street municipal
bond trader in 1989 to relocate to Aspen.
He was named advertising director at
Climbing Magazine in 1992. Penn founded
Backbone in 1997 with two employees
and one phone. His enthusiasm and
unbridled energy have helped Backbone
grow to over 45 employees and 50+
brands.
Stephen Szoradi
Stephen is the managing partner of Aspen
Alpine Guides. In the summer, he guides
14,000 ft peaks, rock climbs and
altitude training. In the winter, he is a
backcountry ski guide and ski instructor
for the Aspen Skiing Company. A
member of Mountain Rescue Aspen, he
also serves on the boards of WeCycle
and The Colorado Mountain Club.
Rich Burkley
Rich is the Vice President of Mountain
Operations for Aspen Skiing Company and
has served in several positions over the
past couple of decades. Rich is an avid
alpine, backcountry, and uphill skier,
snowboarder, bike racer and white water
kayaker. He lives in Aspen with his wife
and two children.
224
City of Aspen Uphill Economic Development Plan 2
Why “Uphill?”
Project Overview
The Aspen Uphill Economic Development
process started with a vision expressed by the
City of Aspen to pursue the growing Uphill
industry as an economic development
objective. This vision and associated goals are
consistent with one of the Aspen City Council
Top 10 Goals and the Aspen Area Community
Plan which identified the desire to “Identify
opportunities to reduce the ‘boom-bust’ nature
of the economy.”
Aspen currently has a thriving Uphill culture and
the City seeks to establish Aspen as the
epicenter of Uphill fitness in North America.
This will attract Uphill-oriented businesses,
building upon the existing businesses that
provide year-round career opportunities,
further supporting the kind of community
Aspen wants to be. Additionally, the initiative is
intended to reinforce Aspen’s mountain-town
culture, and to strengthen the region as a
magnet for people passionate about mountain
living and a unique quality of life.
Those goals were expressed:
• Making Aspen the epicenter of Uphill
fitness in North America,
• Building on Aspen’s history as a ski
industry pioneer, and
• Preserving mountain-town culture
locally and regionally.
This plan summarizes the Uphill Economic
Analysis. Together with information in the
Appendix, it presents an inspirational document
to be used by the City, the Roaring Fork Valley
and the region. The Uphill process consisted of
an evaluation of Uphill industry economic
trends, and with consultation of industry
experts and a Technical Advisory Committee
(TAC), the plan provides a range of immediate
to long-range recommended actions, intended
to support the community vision and to realize
identified opportunities.
“Identify and pursue economic
opportunities that diversify
Aspen’s economy without
relying on physical
development”
– City Council Top Ten Goal
Uphill skiing is when skis are used
to go both uphill and downhill,
forgoing lifts. Sometimes termed
ski or alpine touring, backcountry
skiing, ski mountaineering (skimo)
or skinning; Uphillers can be found
recreating within resort boundaries
or touring in the backcountry.
225
City of Aspen Uphill Economic Development Plan 3
Project Process
Ascertaining the prospects for Aspen’s Uphill
economic potential entailed three main
activities:
1. Market research on Uphill skiing
2. Interviews with Uphill industry experts
3. Work sessions with local Technical
Advisory Committee (TAC)
Information from these three sources informed
the findings and recommendations throughout
this report. Individuals engaged through
interviews and work sessions are identified in
the Acknowledgements portion of this report.
The project timeline is detailed below.
Project Timeline
Recommendations Summarized
On the following page a Summary of Recommended Actions that were identified through the
Economic Development Plan process is presented. They are interrelated and anticipate that the Uphill
economy will grow over time, in Aspen and the region. Further, it is assumed that many of the
recommended actions will occur concurrently. They build upon one another and on the successes of
the efforts during the winter of 2017.
226
Recommendations for Uphill Development: Current Efforts and in the Long-term Future
City of Aspen Uphill Economic Development Plan 4
ONGOING AND SHORT-TERM MID-TERM LONG-TERM Immediate Actions: 1-3 Years Uphill Development: 3-5 Years Long-term outcomes: 5-10+ Years
Events and
programs
HOST 2 EVENTS and INCREASE EXPOSURE to UPHILL
• Promote and host Uphill Event Series
• Promote and host Spring Uphill festival (April)
• Identify possible all-levels/all-ages Uphill
educational programing
• Initiate meeting with other resorts about future
events and coordinated event series
• Implement an uphill calendar, inclusive of all uphill-
related activities (races, speakers, etc.)
BUILD EVENT SCHEDULE and UPHILL INTRODUCTORY PROGRAMS
• Continue to host annual events and add new events
• Coordinate with other partners, operators, to promote 4-season
Uphill events schedule
• Develop “feeder” programming for new Uphillers
• Gear testing and experimentation days
EXPAND UPHILL EVENTS and PROMOTIONS into 4-SEASONS
• Robust 4-season, all-levels, all-ages Uphill event
schedule
• Established intro-to-expert programming continuum
across multiple partners and recreational activities
Branding and
messaging
IDENTIFY KEY BRAND ELEMENTS
• Identify common meaning of and message about
Uphill to be used in branding
• Identify specific message and marketing strategies
to place Aspen at the “Uphill epicenter”
• Host a facilitated Uphill branding focus group
DEVELOP, SHARE and APPLY BRANDING PACKAGE
• Develop a consistent Uphill visual identity and brand package
• Begin to integrate branding into existing and new promotions
and programming
• Develop Uphill recreation guides and collateral promotional
materials
• Publicly share brand art to encourage “guerilla” marketing and
adoption by multiple partners across marketing platforms
• Meet with business and visitor organizations to discuss brand
support for larger regional and/or statewide efforts
PROMOTE WIDELY-RECOGNIZED UPHILL BRAND for ASPEN
(and the REGION/STATE)
• Continue to build and promote “Aspen-as-Uphill-
epicenter” brand
• Support larger regional/statewide brand
Equipment
and retail
development
INCREASE EQUIPMENT and RETAIL EXPOSURE
• Organize and promote gear testing and “Intro to
Uphill” days, concurrent with events
• Provide food and beverage promotions concurrent
with gear testing and events
• Initiate meeting with other Roaring Fork
communities to discuss retail and manufacturing
job potential related to Uphill
• Capitalize on and continue to support existing
guides and retailers
INCREASE LOCAL RETAIL SALES, JOBS and GEAR DEVELOPMENT
OPPORTUNITIES
• Host “Uphill innovation forum” to bring together Uphill industry
leaders and innovators
• Discuss feasibility of establishing Uphill innovation hub
experience/experiment center in Aspen to design and test gear
and new sports, terrain and Uphill techniques
• Further evaluate potential for new manufacturing in the Roaring
Fork region
• Continue to promote on-mountain and events-related gear
testing and promotion
ESTABLISH ASPEN as “UPHILL EXPERIENCE” INNOVATION
HUB/EXPERIMENTAL CENTER
• Industry leaders have a physical retail and testing
presence in Aspen
• Develop Uphill innovation hub/experience center in
Aspen
• New manufacturing and retail jobs created throughout
Roaring Fork Valley
Recreation
planning and
infrastructure
development
BUILD ON EXISTING UPHILL OPPORTUNITIES
• Improve trail links from town to base Skimo/winter
Uphill areas
• Further market and flag Uphill routes within
boundaries of four ski mountains
• Provide Uphill destinations that offer food and
drink, views – start with existing on-mountain
cabins/lodges and explore options for future 4-
season “bistro huts”
• Discuss ways to increase on-mountain/resort
promotion of winter Uphill recreation
• Initiate baseline Uphilling data collection locally
DEVELOP UPHILL RECREATION PLAN and CAPITAL INVESTMENT PLAN
• Inventory current Uphill facilities and areas
• Continue to collect data on user trends
• Develop coordinated, 4-season recreation infrastructure and
access plan and expand to include entire Roaring Fork Valley
• Identify “special places” to preserve unique Uphill experience
• Identify City-owned lands that could be utilized for economic
development opportunities
• Begin to implement capital projects such as bistro huts and Uphill
terrain park
BUILD RENOWNED UPHILL RECREATION SYSTEM
• Continue outdoor recreation planning efforts,
incorporating updated information on use trends and
field conditions
• Continue to improve the integrated 4 season
recreation system – backcountry huts, mountain
bistros, marked and mapped Uphill routes and trails for
a range of abilities, and improved access to range of
terrain
• Actively partner with a range of entities, including the
State of Colorado and the USFS, to support regional
economic development opportunities
227
City of Aspen Uphill Economic Development Plan 5
Trends and Prospects for Uphill
Economic Analysis
As a foundation to the plan and discussions
concerning Uphill opportunities, the consultant
team gathered and analyzed available
information. Data is relatively thin concerning
Uphill metrics but efforts were made to gather
information from a variety of sources including
Snowsports Industries America (SIA) and the
National Ski Areas Association (NSAA) and the
Outdoor Industry Association (OIA).
Additionally, the team drew on information
from various surveys and data searches to
develop a data-based foundation for
discussions. Interviews with a wide variety of
industry representatives were also conducted.
The Technical Advisory Committee reviewed
that information and provided suggestions
concerning interpretation. Input from TAC
members on their experiences and local
business perspectives were factored into the
analysis. A summary of some of the key trends
on participation, equipment and other retail
trends in the space is presented below, with
additional data provided in Appendix D.
Equipment Sales
Bindings were the most commonly purchased
piece of alpine touring equipment from August
2015 through March 2016, with over 25,000
units sold. Alpine touring boots followed at
roughly 8,000, and alpine touring skis were last
with approximately 4,500 purchases. Touring
boots and bindings are a better metric of
measuring Uphill participants because any ski
can be mounted with a touring binding, while
touring boots and bindings are essential
equipment.
Online and In-Store Sales
Roughly half of alpine touring binding purchases
were made online (49 percent), while the other
51 percent were made in store. The growth in
online purchases has been a significant trend in
the industry and has influenced retailing in a
variety of ways. This trend is expected to
continue. Alpine touring boots and skis sales
also had a relatively large share of online
purchases (34 percent and 32 percent
respectively), though to a lesser degree than
bindings. However, these numbers overall
indicate robust sales for alpine touring
equipment through both channels.
Alpine Touring Equipment Purchases: Unit Sales August 2015 – March 2016
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000
Number of Units Solid
Alpine Touring Bindings
Alpine Touring Boots
Alpine Touring Skis 4,448
7,756
26,790
Source: SIA
228
City of Aspen Uphill Economic Development Plan 6
Total Snowsports Sales
The graph on the following page summarizes
equipment and apparel sales for all forms of
snowsports, including alpine touring equipment
and apparel. While outerwear sales have
grown, equipment sales are flat to down
overall. Total dollar sales of alpine touring
equipment have been growing rapidly, up from
14 million in the 2011/12 season to 17 million in
the 2013/14 season (growth of approximately
21 percent). Data for 2014 to 2016 are not
available from SIA but anecdotal input from a
variety of sources suggests that the Uphill
segment has continued to grow rapidly.
Total Amount Spent
Outerwear accounts for the largest share of
snowsports product purchases, totaling
approximately 1.8 billion dollars in sales in
2014/15. Equipment is also a relatively large
market, accounting for close to one billion.
Alpine touring equipment is a small share of
snowsports purchases in comparison,
accounting for 0.5 percent and roughly 20
million dollars of total snowsports product
purchases in 2013/14.
Alpine Touring Equipment Purchases: Location of Equipment Purchase, August 2015 – March 2016
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Percent of Units Solid
Alpine Touring Bindings
Alpine Touring Boots
Alpine Touring Skis 68%
66%
51%
32%
34%
49%
Purchased Online
Purchased In Store
“Our goal is to connect
Colorado’s outdoor recreation
industry with its manufacturing
capability”
– Mayor Steve Skadron’s
Vision Statement
229
City of Aspen Uphill Economic Development Plan 7
Equipment Sales by
Equipment Type
The graph to the right measures the share of
only snowsports equipment sales and does
not include apparel and outerwear purchases
as the prior graph does. When outerwear and
apparel sales are excluded, a breakdown of
equipment sales by equipment type reveals
that alpine touring equipment accounts for a
larger segment of the snowsports equipment
market (2 percent) than the total snowsports
product market (0.5 percent) as noted above.
Equipment sales are dominated by alpine
skiing products (64 percent) and
snowboarding products (31 percent), with
telemark and Nordic skiing making up a small
portion (3 percent).
Snowsports Products Purchased Through All Channels: Total Dollar Amount of Purchases
Alpine touring
equipment plus
skins All equipment Outerwear Apparelaccessories Equipmentaccessories
$0.0B
$0.5B
$1.0B
$1.5B
$2.0B
$2.5B
Dol Chann $17M$14M$16M$882M$865M$883M$818M$1,424M$1,501M$1,609M$1,759M$546M$590M$685M$727M$443M$464M$516M$508M0.5% of total 2013/14
snowsports purchases were
alpine touring equipment
jajkl
jakl
2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15
$14.3M
$16.2M
$17.3M
2%
Alpine touring
64%
Alpine
31%
Snowboard
3%
Telemark and Nordic
Source: SIA
2014/15 Snowsports Equipment Sales by Equipment
Type
230
City of Aspen Uphill Economic Development Plan 8
Number of Participants
The Outdoor Industry Association does not
track Uphill skiing specifically; however, the
periodic surveys conducted by the organization
do monitor participation in telemark skiing. The
OIA aggregates both telemark and alpine
touring users in the same category, which
accounts for approximately two and a half
million participants in 2015. Alpine skiing was
the most popular snowsport, with 9.4 million
participants, followed by snowboarding (7.7
million), freestyle skiing (4.5 million), cross-
country skiing (4.1 million), and snowshoeing
(3.9 million). Other endurance sports had
considerably higher numbers of participants
than snowsports, led by running/jogging (48.5
million), road biking (38.3million), and hiking
(37.2 million). These findings support the
economic opportunities identified in the plan –
Uphill skiing is a focus but there are other allied
recreational activities (for example, trail
running, mountain biking, hiking and climbing)
that are of interest to manufacturers and
retailers, as indicated by stakeholders and TAC
members.
0M 20M 40M 60M
Number of Participants
Telemarking (Downhill)
Other
Snowsports
Skiing (Alpine/Downhill)
Skiing (Cross-Country)
Skiing (Freestyle)
Snowboarding
Snowshoeing
Endurance
Sports andAerobic
Activities/
Racing
Bicycling (Mountain/Non-Paved Surface)
Bicycling (Road/Paved Surface)
Climbing (Sport/Indoor/Boulder)
Climbing (Traditional/Ice/Mountaineering)
Hiking (Day)
Running/Jogging
Trail Running
Triathlon (Non-Traditional/Off-Road)
2.6M
3.9M
7.7M
4.5M
4.1M
9.4M
2.5M
8.1M
48.5M
37.2M
2.6M
4.7M
38.3M
8.3M
Source: The Outdoor Foundation & Outdoor
Industry Association
Number of American Participants in Outdoor Activities, 2015
Photo courtesy of Dick Jackson
231
City of Aspen Uphill Economic Development Plan 9
Seasonal Revenue Split
The opportunities for Uphill extend beyond
winter when the definition is broadened to
include other forms of human-powered fitness
activities such as trail running or mountain
biking. Efforts to improve trail systems on-
mountain for summer use, and to open
restaurants for summer dining are being made
locally and at other resorts. The economic
potential of summer and shoulder seasons align
with initiatives of the Aspen Skiing Company to
expand summer on-mountain activities, and
those of many other Colorado mountain towns
to find more balance between summer and
winter revenues. As illustrated, Aspen shows
more balance between summer and winter
than some mountain towns, while Snowmass is
markedly less balanced and opportunities exist
to further develop Uphill activities throughout
the year, providing economic activity during
times of relatively lower visitation. In the long
term, these efforts will support broader
objectives of seeking improved revenues
through pursuing strategies that take advantage
of times when relative capacity exists. SnowVillageAspenGlenwoodSpringsVailBreckenridgeSteamboatSpringsTellurideCrested Butte0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%Perc
59%
48%44%
33%30%
54%
41%
19%
41%
52%56%
67%70%
46%
59%
81%
Source: RRC Associates & DestiMetrics
Winter 2014/15
Summer 2015
Summer 2014 & Winter 2014/15 Revenue Split in Colorado Mountain Communities: Taxable
Retail Sales
Photo courtesy of Aspen Alpine Guides
232
City of Aspen Uphill Economic Development Plan 10
Uphill Access at Ski Resorts
Thanks to the support of Aspen Skiing
Company, the Roaring Fork Valley has excellent
free access to in-resort Uphill opportunities,
especially when compared to other resorts
within the United States.
National surveys conducted by the NSAA show
that in winter 2015/16, 49 percent of resorts
allow Uphill access: 6 percent on an unlimited
basis, and 43 percent on a limited basis. Forty-
five percent of resorts prohibit Uphill access,
and the remaining 7 percent do not have a
formal policy addressing Uphill access. In other
words, the relatively open access at Buttermilk
and Tiehack, and the more limited access at
Aspen Mountain and Aspen Highlands is
unusual when United States resorts are
considered in total.
Once again, in support for accommodation to
Uphill, the Aspen areas are accommodating by
offering free access. Just under half of resorts
(47 percent) require a paid ticket or pass (while
53 percent do not). Ski areas are more likely to
accept or require a regular season pass or a
regular lift ticket (25 percent and 22 percent
respectively) for Uphill access than an Uphill-
only season pass (14 percent) or an Uphill-only
ticket (12 percent).
European Uphill opportunities are far greater
than in the United States. Off piste routes, full-
service huts and overall participation levels
create social opportunities that exceed those
available in the United States. Elements of the
European experience provide a model to guide
some of Aspen’s efforts going forward.
Overall
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%7%45%43%6%Overall
Northeast Southeast Midwest Rocky
Mountains
Pacific
Southwest
Pacific
Northwest
5%29%60%7%0%84%16%0%10%72%17%0%4%26%57%13%15%55%30%0%8%31%54%8%Region
Yes, Unlimited Yes, Limited Basis No No Formal Policy
U.S. Resort Uphill Access Policies, 2016
Source: NSAA & RRC Associates.
233
City of Aspen Uphill Economic Development Plan 11
Conclusions from the
Economic Analysis
• Key findings from the Economic Analysis are
summarized below. They were used by TAC
and consultants to evaluate and prioritize
opportunities and develop
recommendations as presented in the Plan.
The Alpine/downhill equipment market is
currently flat.
• The Uphill market is small, but growing.
• Support for Uphill by Aspen Skiing Company
stands out in a marketplace where other
resorts are slow to welcome this promising
sector. The outstanding access to Uphill on
multiple mountains in Aspen provides
competitive advantage and bolsters
economic opportunity.
• Winter Uphill facilities and programs (huts,
trails, etc.) lend themselves to four seasons
and a focus on fitness. These are growing
market sectors and year-round use is of
strategic value to the resort company and
the Aspen community.
• There exists strong enthusiasm among
retailers and manufacturers for Aspen’s
continuing commitment to Uphill.
• Uphill is associated with a variety of other
recreational activities that are of interest to
the sports equipment industry. For
example, footwear, outerwear and various
types of equipment were identified as
opportunities of interest to industry
representatives.
• There is limited near-term interest in
manufacturing from companies contacted,
but potential for other related corporate
activities in Aspen and the region exist, and
these opportunities will likely expand as the
market for Uphill grows and Aspen’s
preeminent positioning is more fully
realized.
• The bottom-line conclusion: Get started
with what’s possible now and build for the
future. The following Recommendations
reflect this approach.
U.S. Uphill Pass and Ticket Requirements, 2016
0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%55%
Percent of Resorts Which Require Pass for Uphill Access
No Pass or Ticket Required
Regular Season Pass
Regular Lift Ticket
Uphill Only Season Pass
Uphill Only Lift Ticket
53%
25%
22%
14%
12%
Source: NSAA & RRC Associates.
234
City of Aspen Uphill Economic Development Plan 12
Uphill Economic Development in the
Roaring Fork Valley – Long-Term
Strategies, Short-Term Actions
Study Findings-
Recommendations
Establishing Aspen as the epicenter of Uphill
fitness will require reinforcing the existing
Uphill culture, creating a foundation to achieve
long-term goals. A series of short-term
recommendations support the overall plan, and
they begin with initiatives in 2017. The idea is
that there are multiple interrelated actions that
the community has underway, or can
undertake, to build toward longer-term
outcomes. These efforts will include Immediate
and Short-Term Actions as described on page 4
and below. These recommendations are based
in part on input from the TAC and the preceding
Economic Analysis.
The short-term actions will serve to create the
momentum and build Aspen’s reputation by
increasing Aspen’s visibility in the equipment
and retail development space. Many actions can
be concurrent and will carry over from year to
year.
The ongoing and short-term actions will help
equipment manufacturers and retailers to grow
their visibility and they in turn will reinforce
Aspen’s positioning and brand. More activity
will increase demand for more Uphill
opportunities and overall economic activity in
the Uphill space, and will reinforce Aspen’s
preeminent positioning and outdoor-oriented
culture. Over time, in the mid-term, more
sustained efforts to target gear development
companies and increased cooperation and
initiatives with regional partners will become
appropriate. The City cannot implement the
plan without others. Key partners will include
Aspen Ski Co., the USFS, the County, and down-
valley municipalities.
In the long-term future, five years and beyond,
greater opportunities will emerge. Aspen, with
the region and State, will promote the Uphill
brand and associated business and recreation
opportunities to benefit all partners.
Building a stronger Uphill economy will also
require longer term planning, and a holistic look
at the systems that support and constrain
opportunities for development. The ultimate
challenge will be balancing two realities: the
continuing pressures and opportunities for
growth, and the carrying capacity of the Roaring
Fork Valley, including the backcountry.
Achieve sustainable growth
practices to ensure the long-term
viability of our community and our
diverse visitor-based economy.
– Aspen Area Community Plan
Photo courtesy of Aspen Alpine Guides
235
City of Aspen Uphill Economic Development Plan 13
This table below and subsequent discussion
summarizes Ongoing, Short, Mid-term and
Long-term implementation steps to support
Uphill in Aspen and the Roaring Fork Valley.
These steps are based on findings from the
entire economic development analysis, with
input from the Technical Advisory Committee,
the City, and interviews with industry leaders.
This process produced an initial set of possible
actions, which were then filtered through a set
of criteria (see “Implementation Criteria,”
following page), to develop a more refined set
of priorities, and the proposed implementation
schedule. Details about these recommendations
are provided in the following pages and are
identified in the “Recommendations for Uphill
Development: Ongoing and Short-term, Mid-
term, and Long-term” table on page 4.
ONGOING SHORT-TERM MID-TERM LONG-TERM Winter of 2017 and
Beyond
Immediate Actions: 1-
3 Years
Uphill Development:
3-5 Years
Long-term outcomes:
5-10+ Years
Events and
programs
Host 2 events, increase
exposure – Ascent,
Uphill Summit, Uphill
Series, the Calendar,
etc. Support and build
on existing guides/retail
Continue and expand
events, Calendar
offerings
Build event schedule
and Uphill introductory
programs
Expand Uphill events
and promotions into 4-
seasons
Branding and
messaging
Work with TAC and
other partners, industry
and public, to maintain
momentum
Identify key brand
elements. Continue to
expand relationships
with partners.
Develop, share and
apply branding package
Promote widely-
recognized Uphill
brand for Aspen (and
the region/state)
Equipment
and retail
development
Increase equipment
and retail exposure
Continue to expand
equipment and retail
exposure. Forge new
relationships.
Increase retail sales,
jobs and gear
development
opportunities at a local
and regional level
Establish Aspen as
“Uphill experience”
innovation
hub/experimental
center
Recreation
planning and
infrastructure
development
Work with Aspen Ski
Co. to support events
and cooperative
opportunities
Build on existing Uphill
opportunities.
Continue to expand
trail system through
cooperative efforts.
Develop Uphill
recreation plan and
capital investment plan
Build renowned uphill
recreation system
Uphill Economic Development Implementation Steps
Photo courtesy of Dick Jackson
236
City of Aspen Uphill Economic Development Plan 14
Starting Point: A Commitment
to Support the Uphill Industry
A variety of economic opportunities have been
identified through the Uphill economic
investigation process. While still small as an
economic component of the overall sports
industry, and when compared to other winter
sports, the Uphill sector has shown rapid
growth in equipment sales and participation
levels. There is strong optimism about future of
Uphill from Aspen area businesses, and by
manufacturers and the ski industry at large.
Before presenting recommendations for near term
actions, the following two pages outline longer
term, broader strategies needed to build Uphill as
a viable economic contributor to the area
economy, and to solidify and develop Aspen as the
North American leader for Uphill. These include
working at different scales, improving physical
infrastructure, outreach to industry, branding,
support for events, and general commitment to
continued planning.
Implementation Criteria:
Aim for Actions that will…
•Sustain, reinforce and enhance mountain
culture, and the Aspen Brand
•Contribute to development of sustainable,
decent, year-round jobs and new business
opportunities, and do so without notable
disruption of local life and mountain culture
•Take advantage of underutilized recreation
capacity: in infrastructure, in seasons, in
locations; where practical create new capacity
•Provide improvements – facilities, programs,
activities, and experiences – that directly
benefit residents, as well as appeal to
visitors
•Offer programs, education that can help
create new Uphill users (which in turn
increases demands for locally sold
gear/services)
•Offer new trails, new infrastructure that
invites in new users; focus on the entry level
and “missing middle” on the recreation
spectrum
•Respond to growing demand for recreational
activities, but direct growth to the right
times and places; aim to leave open a
spectrum of quality recreational
experiences, from busy locations to locations
with little use
237
City of Aspen Uphill Economic Development Plan 15
Strategies: Entry Level &
Advanced; Local & Regional;
Creating new “gateways” and a “funnel
approach” to encouraging participation from
the middle/entry level markets is a proposed
strategy. The funnel approach to marketing is
based on the idea of exposing large numbers of
potential participants, with a lesser number
actually adopting the activity. The middle is
where potential for growth in Uphill will be fully
realized and the largest numbers can be
encouraged to participate. Further, exposing
the Aspen destination visitor to Uphill will help
to expand the market and will grow the “buzz”
by growing the aspirational audience along with
active participants.
The Economic Analysis and discussions with a
wide variety of stakeholders suggest that while
manufacturing in Aspen will not be viable, such
activities may grow in the region. Costs of
doing business and the competitive advantages
of well-established business operations in
Europe pose challenges. However, there may be
emerging business opportunities for Aspen and
the Roaring Fork Valley in areas such as
research and development, product testing,
marketing, and communications that develop
over time.
Source: Agnew::Beck
Strategy 1:
Add near-town, inviting entry level
recreation options to expand participation
Strategy 2:
Maintain and enhance reputation and
opportunities for more advanced
adventure
Strategies to Increase Aspen’s Uphill Participation
We should be working to attract new
users – “build a bigger funnel”
— Technical Advisory Committee
member
Photo: RRC Associates
238
City of Aspen Uphill Economic Development Plan 16
There are limitations to physical development
within the City; however, it is important to
consider offering support for partners hoping to
locate or expand existing activities and
operations, both winter and year-round.
Options for City support include preserving
lands designated as industrial/business,
potentially including lands owned by the City
for future economic opportunities not fully
evident at present, but that may exist as the
Uphill segment grows.
Further, Aspen will actively partner with
regional entities and communities that can
provide complimentary economic opportunities
that will benefit from Aspen’s premier
recreation resources and brand. These
partnerships will be targeted in the mid-term
and will grow over time. The relationships
would extend to Glenwood Springs and along
the I-70 corridor from Eagle to Grand Junction.
Aspen and other area entities also anticipate
working with the State of Colorado on regional
economic development opportunities. The
State has expressed interest in furthering the
regional economy; outdoor recreation
businesses, including Uphill, represent a viable
and significant source of long-term economic
diversity and health for Colorado.
Uphill Recreation Plan
Providing the physical improvements that
supports a diverse array of Uphill opportunities –
from terrain and trails for beginners and experts,
to backcountry inns and huts, event venues and
training programs – requires the coordinated
contributions of multiple partners. This list of
partners starts with the USFS, and includes Aspen
and other cities, the County, the Skiing Company
and a wide range of user groups. As a result, a
critical next step in supporting long-term Uphill
development is a multi-partner “Uphill recreation
plan.” This plan should inventory current
infrastructure and user trends, then define
shared goals and actions that can simultaneously
satisfy residents and visitors, work within finite
budgets and protect special places.
The suggested recreation plan will help to expand
upon Aspen’s current advantages for Uphill and
will draw upon examples of success from Europe
and elsewhere. The plan is anticipated to provide
added Uphill opportunities, as well as enhancing
long-term quality of life in the Valley.
Branding and Marketing
“Brand” is part experience, part image. Critical to
building Aspen’s Uphill brand is delivering an
authentic experience of unparalleled Uphill
activities, amidst a vibrant community in a
breathtaking mountain setting. Aspen’s Uphill
brand development in large part depends on the
success of Uphill events, the quality of the Uphill
recreation options and the overall customer
experience while engaging in Uphill activities. The
most genuine and successful brand experience is
built from community and industry values about
the brand –identifying a common meaning
behind Uphill and what it stands for in Aspen is a
critical early step in building the Uphill brand.
Photo courtesy of Stephen Szoradi
239
City of Aspen Uphill Economic Development Plan 17
Coupled with this experience, Aspen Uphill
should reinforce the brand experience with a
consistent visual identity and message (images
and words). Creating a branding package allows
all Uphill partners – business, government,
programs and events – to broadly share the
brand image and perpetuate the idea of Uphill
across media and venues. This brand package
could initially include:
• unique brand mark
• style standards
• message and talking points
• captivating art and imagery
Once this package is developed, its application
is virtually limitless. The visual identity and
message can be picked up and applied on
everything from websites to newsletters to t-
shirts to trail signage. It can also eventually
build to encompass additional activities and
seasons.
The image below provides one example of how
4-season, multiple-activity brand icons can be
developed and perpetuated, and support an
overall Uphill brand.
Uphill Support Systems:
Access and Housing
Many of the pathways towards a stronger Uphill
economy run into challenges related to the
capacity, costs, locations and character of the
built environment – roads and transit, housing,
accommodations and utilities like water and
sewer. Planning for Uphill development needs
to be synchronized with ongoing planning on
those larger topics.
Source: Agnew::Beck and Flaticon
240
City of Aspen Uphill Economic Development Plan 18
Short-Term Actions
The Uphill Technical Advisory Committee,
working with staff and the RRC/Agnew::Beck
consulting team, identified three attainable, low
cost, near-term target projects, that would:
• Promote Uphill as a fun, accessible,
healthy activity.
• Invite a wide range of new and current
users to get more involved in Uphill,
including diverse audiences who may
lack necessary gear and experience with
winter outdoor recreation.
• Provide teaching to help people at all
skill levels have more fun, as well as be
safe in the mountains.
• Promote sales of goods and services of
vendors, locally and beyond.
• Take advantage of established downhill
ski terrain, and associated, existing, at
times underutilized, facilities.
• Expand the image and reality of Aspen
as the premier US location for the fun
and fitness benefits of Uphill.
• Build examples of collaboration
between the business community,
residents, the City, the USFS and other
partners to set the stage for more
ambitious future actions.
All three of the following projects are designed
to help expand the Uphill market, in particular
to bring in new users who might be interested,
but are sitting on the sidelines for lack of
knowledge, gear, or simply an easy/obvious way
to find out more why this activity is growing in
mountain towns around the world. Each of
these proposed actions have successful
precedents, but at the same time, the exact
structure and scale of these proposals is
somewhat experimental. The intent is to get
started, try different approaches, refine the
efforts based on public interest and lessons in
the field, and be open to expanding or revising
the programs.
Uphill Extravaganza
This event, modeled on the well-established
Nordic Extravaganza, is designed to provide an
easy, enjoyable way for people with an interest
in Uphill but little experience, to learn more
about what they need to get into this activity.
The event is designed to live up to the
“extravaganza” label – with access to gear,
teaching and the chance to practice techniques
on low angle terrain and the adjoining ski area,
plus food, vendors, and a general fun and
festive atmosphere. Key Recommendations:
• Partner with existing local retailers
located on City property, such as the
Aspen Recreation Center, to take
advantage of meeting spaces and easier
terrain at Tiehack/Buttermilk.
• Focus on broad full-spectrum
participation: all ages, with a focus on
people with little to no experience.
• Aim to draw residents, second
homeowners, and destination visitors.
• Partner with local institutions with an
interest in healthy outdoor activities,
such as health clubs, Aspen Mountain
Rescue, Colorado Avalanche
Information Center; to provide an
educational component.
Photo: RRC Associates, 2017 Ascent
Event at Tiehack/Buttermilk
241
City of Aspen Uphill Economic Development Plan 19
Uphill Community Meetup
Series
This initiative would offer a regularly scheduled,
approximately weekly, “Uphill meet-up”
sessions. The objective is to provide an easy
gateway into Uphill activities, using a reliable,
inviting option to meet with other people
interested in gaining Uphill skills. The events
would be non-competitive, educational, free,
social, and offered on a clear, consistent
schedule. Key Recommendations:
• City-led coordination with local guides
and retailers “sponsoring” a week.
• Focus on broad participation, full
spectrum: all ages, with a focus on
people with little to no experience.
• Aim to draw residents, second home
owners and destination visitors.
• Coordinate with a monthly speaker or
educational opportunity.
• Link Uphill events with an on-mountain
restaurant, cabin, or lodge. Options
include Gwyn’s, Cliffhouse, Bonnie’s, or
No Problem Cabin.
• Support partnerships with local
institutions with an interest in healthy
outdoor activities, e.g., schools, health
clubs, hospital, non-profits, Visit Aspen.
End of Season Uphill Festival
This two-day festival would turn Buttermilk into
a 100% Uphill-only mountain. The Aspen Ascent
weekend is planned for April 8th and 9th, 2017.
This unprecedented event would occur after
the regular downhill season is over, in early
April. The objective is to open-up groomed, in-
bounds skiing and signed Uphill routes with the
aim to attract a mix of novice and more
experienced Uphill fans. The overarching idea is
that these types of events build momentum for
Uphill, expand retail and manufacturer
relationships, and in time support the
broadening of economic activity in the manner
contemplated by this plan.
We need to look for
underutilized capacity –
“pockets of calendar, pockets
of place.”
— Advisory Committee member
Photo courtesy of Dick Jackson
242
CONTACT:
City of Aspen | 130 S Galena St |Aspen, CO 81611
970.429.2741 | www.aspenpitkin.com
243
Aspen Uphill Economy
Recreation Plan
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
August 2019
244
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ASPEN UPHILL ECONOMY RECREATION PLAN 2
INTRODUCTION
The City of Aspen aspires to be North America’s hub for outdoor recreation. This plan is a set of recommended actions and policies to plan for,
support, and advance uphill recreation in the Upper Roaring Fork Valley. The City of Aspen has identified the exploding popularity of human-
powered recreation as an opportunity for the city to achieve its cultural, environmental, and economic diversification goals.
The Storymap
The primary form of the plan is an online, interactive storymap with maps, narrative text, links, and images. The storymap is a living document that
can be updated as conditions change, data is updated, or new policies and recommendations take hold. This executive summary is a condensed
version of the storymap, with key maps, information, and the recommendations and policies.
What is Uphilling?
Uphill recreation encompasses four season, human-powered recreational activities. This plan covers uphill skiing, fat biking, backcountry touring,
Nordic skiing, and snowshoeing in the winter, along with hiking and road and mountain biking in the summer. This plan also addresses the related
topics of conservation, camping, backcountry huts, and safety, education, and ethics.
Management, Conservation, and Development
Recreational use is growing around Aspen. It is expected that this growth will continue, and the City must be prepared. Through this plan and other
efforts, the City is developing the policies and partnerships to accommodate this increased level of use and ensure the long-term health and
sustainability of recreation infrastructure and the natural environment.
To achieve this, the city will deploy a multi-pronged approach, focusing on collaboration with regional partners and good management strategies.
The strategies, as outlined in this plan, include concentrating use in appropriate existing high use or developed areas, better informing trail users
about trail safety and ethics, and providing alternative transportation options for reaching trailheads.
This plan supports a balanced, well-informed, and collaborative approach to recreational development. It offers management strategies to alleviate
the need for new trails and amenities, conservation principles to guide the process, and a thorough analysis of gaps in the existing system to ensure
that any new recreation infrastructure adheres to conservation principles and provides a quality user experience. Further, it lays out the
conservation and recreation partners and land managers to be included in future implementation processes.
245
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ASPEN UPHILL ECONOMY RECREATION PLAN 3
Plan Goals
The plan goals below establish the scope of this plan and tie it back to the Uphill Economic Development Plan. The large, mountain goals are the
goals of the Aspen Uphill Economic Development Plan. The bulleted goals below are the recreation and conservation goals of this plan. The
recreation plan goals “nest” under the goals of the Uphill Economic Development Plan, ensuring consistency and alignment between plans.
246
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ASPEN UPHILL ECONOMY RECREATION PLAN 4
PLANNING PROCESS
The planning process including the following:
The development of plan goals
An analysis of existing conditions through existing plans and surveys, recreation data, a stakeholder mapping exercise, and conservation/
wildlife habitat mapping
Terrain suitability analyses of Nordic skiing, mountain biking, and backcountry skiing
The development of plan recommendations and policies based on the analysis
Stakeholder input throughout
Stakeholders
The City assembled a working group of valley stakeholders whose organizational knowledge and individual expertise shaped every aspect of
the plan.
Stakeholders included:
Aspen Center for Environmental Studies
Aspen Valley Land Trust
Independence Pass Foundation
Wilderness Workshop
Roaring Fork Outdoor Volunteers
10th Mountain Division Hut Association
Aspen Skiing Company
Aspen/Snowmass Nordic Council
Braun Huts Association
Roaring Fork Mountain Bike Association
Aspen Chamber Resort Association
City of Aspen Parks and Open Space
Colorado Parks and Wildlife
Mountain Rescue Aspen
Pitkin County Open Space and Trails
Roaring Fork Outdoor Volunteers
United States Forest Service
247
Ashcro
Mt. Sopris
City of Aspen
Town of Marble
Town of Basalt
Basalt Mountain
Snowmass Village
Independence Pass
ASPEN UPHILL ECONOMY RECREATION PLAN 5
Legend
Outer Policy Area
Planning Area
Plan Geographic Scope
248
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ASPEN UPHILL ECONOMY RECREATION PLAN 6
The Wikimap
The stakeholders provided comments and ideas for uphill recreation in and around Aspen on an interactive map. Stakeholders commented on
crowded trailheads, potential campsite opportunities, and potential in-town improvements for mountain biking.
Connection to the Economic Development Plan
The City of Aspen Uphill Economic Development Plan outlines a set of Implementation Criteria for the city to follow as it looks to strengthen the
uphill economy. These criteria relate to how the city should create recreation infrastructure: who it should appeal to and what purpose it should
serve. This Recreation Plan sets out more detailed recommendations for that infrastructure based on further analysis, conservation considerations,
and stakeholder input. The following graphic shows the implementation criteria and how they connect to the recommendations of this plan.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
Resort uphilling: daytime off-piste uphill route,
more mapping and information, and “going all
in on uphill” at one resort.
Mountain biking: easier, in-city trails to
promote new potential trails on or near
existing trails or developed areas, trailhead
improvements, and city-to-trail connectors.
Hiking: crowding at trailheads and trails,
parallel trails, expanding summer opportunities
at Buttermilk, and signage around the city
encouraging people to walk or bike to
trailheads.
Camping: New campsites around Snowmass
Frequently crowded winter trailheads:
Midnight Mine Road, Ashcroft, Smuggler
Mountain, Hunter Creek, and Little Annie's
Road. Parking at the resorts for uphill
recreation can also be crowded at peak times
and during events.
249
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ASPEN UPHILL ECONOMY RECREATION PLAN 7 250
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ASPEN UPHILL ECONOMY RECREATION PLAN 8
DATA AND MARKET RESEARCH
Known community, recreation, and management plans for
the planning area were analyzed. Recent market research
was incorporated as well to help the city understand its
key market opportunities and how to target programs,
events, and recreational infrastructure.
Market Research
The Summer 2016 ACRA Visitor Research Executive
Summary provides information about demographics and
interests of Aspen’s summer visitors. The city’s visitors are
increasingly Millennials and senior citizens and on their
first trip to Aspen, and most participate in outdoor
recreation. The City needs to draw visitors planning their
trip around recreation and introduce sightseers to uphill
opportunities to extend their stay in the area.
The Aspen Uphill Skiing Survey received 2,000+
responses that informed the recommendations and
policies of this plan. The bulk of respondents hadn’t tried
the sport but were interested in trying for fun and fitness.
They would be attracted to Aspen for gear demos,
classes, and social events.
The 10th Mountain Division Hut Association User Survey
provided background on who hut users are and what
they’re looking for. Hut visitors typically plan trips around
availability and the quality of nearby day excursions, and
many expressed strong interest in new huts.
Plans
The Colorado State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan outlines the state’s
recreation goals: sustainable access and stewardship, funding, and conservation. The
goals align with the aims of the uphill initiative and position the city to leverage state
funding.
The Aspen Uphill Economic Development Plan (2017) provides the framework for the
economic potential of uphill recreation. The plan’s recommendations focus on events
and programming, brand and marketing campaigns, and equipment and retail
development. The plan recommends this recreation plan to explore infrastructure.
The Upper Roaring Fork Valley Trails Plan gathers public input on trails, identifies
areas for mountain biking, and provides suggested trail alignments in the area. The
plan’s recommendations are considered in this plan’s biking section.
The Snowmass POSTR Plan envisions a well-connected world-class multi-use trail
system. Supporting the implementation of the POSTR plan would strengthen the
Aspen area’s uphill recreation offering.
The City of Aspen Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan outlines the existing
conditions and potential improvements for walking and biking. The plan recommends
safe pedestrian and bicycle facilities to trailheads to encourage non-vehicular
recreational access.
The Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan offers a vision and
management recommendations for the 4,680 acres of the WRNF known as Aspen’s
backyard. The plan envisions recreation that accommodates a variety of users and
carefully considers natural resources.
The Sky Mountain Park Management Plan documents the existing conditions of the
county open space with a vision and actions for the future. The management plan
seeks to make the park a special public resource while preserving habitat and
biodiversity.
251
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ASPEN UPHILL ECONOMY RECREATION PLAN 9
CONSERVATION
Environmental conservation is a determining factor in the plan recommendations and policies. The recommendations and policies encourage
recreation in suitable areas and promote best practices for conservation, such as alternative transportation and leave no trace. The plan maps lynx,
bighorn sheep, black bears, elk, and mule deer habitats and forest management, riparian features, vegetation, and wildfire urban interface risk.
Guiding Principles
The following principles guide the plan recommendations.
Encourage and concentrate use in suitable areas.
Limit, do not encourage, or prohibit use in more sensitive areas.
Manage areas with seasonal patterns and habitat in mind.
Limit erosion through sustainable trail grades and managing use.
Route trails away from wetlands and other sensitive riparian areas.
Support management of aspen stands to promote revegetation.
Be consistent with the City and County’s Ecological Bill of Rights.
Concentration of Use
Through the planning process, concentrating use emerged as the key principle. The City is surrounded by important habitat, natural resources, and
wilderness. Therefore, the City recreation strategy focuses on concentrating use in suitable, existing high use areas. The map below shows areas
that may be appropriate for encouraging use or new management strategies. Some high use areas have biodiversity and conservation qualities that
preclude them from inclusion.
Areas of Concern
In selecting appropriate areas for concentrating use or possible recreational development, wildlife habitat to support biodiversity must be a
determining factor. Mapped habitats are aggregated based on CPW direction as “Highest Priority Habitats,” “Winter Concern Areas,” and “Summer
Concern Areas,” by seasonality, vitality of the habitat to the species, and the CPW species level of concern. These designations are not the final
authority on recreational use—further analysis is required.
252
Ashcro
City of Aspen
Snowmass Village
Snowmass
Ski Area
Hunter Creek Trails
Buttermilk
Sky Mountain Park
Aspen Highlands
Rio Grande Trail
Aspen
Mountain
Maroon Bells
Scenic Area
Sunnyside Trail
Richmond Ridge
Lincoln Creek Road
Lost Man Loop
Braille Trail
Weller Lake Grottos
American Lake
Cathedral Lake
Snowmass Club
Aspen Golf
Course
North Star
Nature Preserve
Moore & Marolt
Open Spaces
Maroon
Creek Club
Smuggler Mountain
Open Space
ASPEN UPHILL ECONOMY RECREATION PLAN 10
Concentrating Use
Legend
Recommended
Concentration of Use Areas
Trails
253
Ashcro
Mt. Sopris
City of Aspen
Town of Marble
Town of Basalt
Basalt Mountain
Snowmass Village
Independence Pass
ASPEN UPHILL ECONOMY RECREATION PLAN 11
Important Wildlife Habitat
Legend
Highest Priority Wildlife Area
Winter Concern Areas
Summer Concern Areas
254
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ASPEN UPHILL ECONOMY RECREATION PLAN 12
Conservation Policies
Support and advocate for regional or landscape scale land
conservation efforts that would preserve the natural areas around
Aspen for their ecological, scenic, and recreational values.
Develop an internal organizational structure for engaging in and
commenting on public lands and environmental conservation
matters of importance to the city or relevant to this plan.
Support and advocate for efforts to ensure that recreational use
and development preserves or enhances wildlife habitat and
connectivity. Engage with CDOT, City of Aspen Engineering,
Pitkin County, conservation organizations, and other stakeholders
to ensure future projects preserve, and when possible enhance,
connectivity. Work with stakeholders to develop policies and
programs to support wildlife crossings and other land
management actions that enhance wildlife connectivity in
conjunction with recreation improvements and projects.
Apply the concentration of use principle when planning
management strategies, promoting trails or areas, and assessing
additional trails and recreation infrastructure projects. Focus
additional use or improvements in areas that already have a high
level of use or development and are not key wildlife habitat,
support the perpetuation of areas with low recreational use and
trail densities, and support efforts by local land managers and
recreation providers to concentrate use as well.
Support impact studies for biodiversity and ecological health
when substantial increases in access and recreational use are
anticipated.
Continue to update this plan as appropriate with new or updated
ecological and conservation data. Update the recommendations
and policies of this plan accordingly.
Support land managers and other partners working to enhance
the health of the ecosystem and recreation on public and private
lands. Key areas to support this work include where biodiversity
and ecological health are impacted by recreational use, user
experience is degraded, wildfire mitigation is required, or where
federal management fails to address recreation and ecological
needs.
255
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ASPEN UPHILL ECONOMY RECREATION PLAN 13
ACCESS
The access section of the plan focuses on the public information available about uphill recreation opportunities around Aspen, multi-modal access to
uphill recreation, and the trailheads around the city.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
Underutilization of trailhead kiosks and lack of uniform signage
at trailheads and on trails.
The challenge of non-vehicular access to trailheads (lack of bike-
ped facilities, few bus stops, and limited wayfinding signage).
Increasingly heavy visitation and use of Maroon Bells shuttle.
Crowding at trailheads leading to ecological and safety issues.
Recommendations
Improve the Lone Pine Road Hunter Creek trail access point with
a trailhead kiosk with a map and trail etiquette and stewardship
information
Develop trailhead kiosks, maps, and signage that provide
information, facilitate accessing city trails via walking or biking,
and make the local trail system more user-friendly:
Official trailheads for Rio Grande trail at Stein Park and Rio
Grande Park with route finding to and from downtown
A comprehensive streets-to-trails route finding system and
supporting signage to improve connectivity, wayfinding, and
experience
Downtown trailhead kiosks as hubs for uphill recreation
information in the City, with maps showing trails suited to
higher visitor use
A map and guidebook that specifically outlines how to get to
nearby trailheads from the City without driving
Develop bicycle and pedestrian facilities providing safe access to
trailheads as outlined in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan,
with Lone Pine Hunter Creek and Smuggler Mountain trailheads
as the priorities.
Policies
Work with RFTA to facilitate use of the bus system for accessing
trailheads, recreation amenities, and infrastructure. Ensure the
bus routes stop at city trailheads, a shuttle service runs to popular
trailheads beyond the city on peak days, the buses are more bike-
friendly, and recreation access and trail system maps are available
at bus stops and on bus routes.
Seek opportunities to improve recreation access to the Hunter
Creek Valley from Lone Pine Road and Smuggler Mountain.
Work with land managers and local partners to manage existing
or develop new trailheads where necessary for user safety. Work
with partners to develop appropriately scaled trailheads at Sky
Mountain Park access points with maps, signs, and bicycle repair
stations.
Work with land managers and partners on a parking area for four-
season access to Richmond Ridge where existing parking leads to
unsafe conditions.
Continue to engage in Maroon Bells Task Force discussions about
crowding and access to Maroon Bells.
256
TH
TH
TH
TH
TH
TH
TH
TH
TH
TH
TH TH
TH
TH
TH
TH
TH
TH
Tiehack
Hunter Creek
Ute Trailhead
Lone Pine Road
Midnight Mine Road
Upper Hunter Creek
Sunnyside Trailhead
Buttermilk Parking Lot
Smuggler Mtn TrailheadCity of Aspen
Stein Park
North Star
Congo Trailhead
East Ajax Trailhead
West Ajax
TrailheadWater Plant
Trailhead
Maroon Creek
Trailhead
Little Cloud Trailhead
Rio Grande
Hunter Creek
ASPEN UPHILL ECONOMY RECREATION PLAN 14
Nearby Trailheads
Legend
Trails
Roads
TrailheadTH
257
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ASPEN UPHILL ECONOMY RECREATION PLAN 15
SAFETY, EDUCATION, AND ETHICS
While Aspen’s terrain lends itself to many outdoor recreation opportunities, the mountains present significant dangers as well. As recreational use
of the background grows, education for all types of uphill recreation users is increasingly important. This includes avalanche training, backcountry
ethics, mountaineering safety, and even basic safety practices for casual users.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
Mountain Rescue Aspen (MRA) plays a key role in backcountry
safety and education in the area.
High demand exists for affordable avalanche education.
Many incidents occur in the summer and MRA is expanding its
summer education.
Education around leave no trace, respecting wildlife, and other
trail ethics is necessary to limit environmental degradation from
heavy use.
ACRA is leading education efforts around trail ethics and basic
safety information for visitors.
Recommendations
Support the work of the Pitkin County Open Space and Trails
Board and the City Open Space and Trails Board to promote the
sustainable management and appropriate development of
recreation infrastructure.
Promote the stewardship, ethical use, and conservation of
backcountry areas and outdoor recreation amenities. Develop a
clear, trail-systemwide messaging around Leave No Trace and
other trail etiquette practices. Work with local education
providers and ACRA to develop cohesive messaging around
stewardship and safety. Collaborate with Pitkin County, ACRA,
and land managers to develop and implement social media use
guidelines.
Policies
Support the efforts of and collaborate with organizations that
provide safety and stewardship education to Aspen residents and
visitors for four-season recreation.
Support the Aspen Skiing Company’s uphill education
programming and messaging.
Work with partners and land managers to post trail preparedness
information on guides and at trailhead kiosks and support ACRA
programs.
Work with Mountain Rescue Aspen, guides, and outdoor
recreation educators to sponsor and increase availability and
affordability of avalanches courses, awareness classes, and
refresher classes.
258
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ASPEN UPHILL ECONOMY RECREATION PLAN 16
HIKING
The Aspen area has hundreds of miles of hiking trails suiting a broad range of desired experiences. This analysis looks at the existing trail network
and the experiences provided, high use trails, the market around hiking in Aspen, and winter hiking.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
The management of popular destination areas (Maroon Bells and
Independence Pass) is a challenge for land and recreation
managers.
Visitors to destination areas may be interested in easy trails with
impressive scenery in a developed environment.
Hiking trails on the ski areas help concentrate use.
Connecting hiking experiences to the City via transit options
and affordable lodging, is key for the Uphill Economy.
The Aspen area 14ers are highly dangerous. The City should not
encourage additional use and should support stewardship
efforts.
Winter hiking is an opportunity to leverage existing recreation
resources, but there is limited information or signage.
The overall portfolio of hiking experiences in the Aspen area is
diverse and serves the hiking market segments well.
There are few moderate length, steep and moderate incline
hikes. Aside from the trails on Aspen Mountain, most of the hard
trails are far from the City.
There are opportunities to concentrate or disperse trail users
around the system, based on ecological concerns and access.
R ecommendations
Explore the feasibility of promotion and expansion of winter
hiking opportunities. Work with local land managers and partners
to improve access, expand the availability of trail information, and
promote the activity.
Consult with land managers and conservation groups on the
conservation and hiking analyses conducted for this plan to
understand trail use, gaps in the system, and suitable areas. If,
based on discussions of level of use, need exists for additional
trails, participate in appropriate planning process for trail
development. New or realigned trails should not contradict this
plan’s conservation goals and policies.
Work with local land managers to enhance the trail infrastructure
and signage, adding trail etiquette and stewardship information
and creating cohesive signage.
Policies
Work with local partners and land managers to enhance the
sustainability and trail experience of the Ute and Smuggler
Mountain trails.
Support the work of the USFS and other stakeholders and
stewardship organizations to improve the sustainability, safety,
and accessibility of regional 14ers trails, trailheads, and camping
facilities.
Support Aspen Skiing Company’s efforts to expand and improve
hiking opportunities on their permit areas. Improvements to
support include hiking loops on top of Aspen Mountain,
development of additional facilities to support use of existing on-
mountain trails, exploration of a trail up Shadow mountain, and
expanding summer use at Buttermilk.
259
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ASPEN UPHILL ECONOMY RECREATION PLAN 17
BIKING
Biking in the Aspen area is a year-round activity: fat biking for snow, road biking for roads, and mountain biking for trails. The analysis looks at the
local options for road biking, mountain biking, and fat biking.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
Many options for low-stress, easy and challenging road biking.
The City should implement its Bicycle and Pedestrian Master
Plan to better align with platinum-level bicycle friendly
community standards.
The mountain biking trail network has grown and should
continue to provide an excellent experience that supports
environmental conservation.
Mountain biking options are concentrated in existing developed
areas but there are developed areas sans trails.
The area needs additional camping options, better connections,
and bike-friendly community amenities to best implement the
Uphill Economy.
Few fat biking options and confusion about where it is allowed.
The Aspen area has 150 miles of mountain bike trails with options
for all ability levels, particularly intermediates. Half of trail
mileage around Aspen is doubletrack, less exciting riding.
About 40% of trails see heavy use, but many are near lower use
trails, creating an opportunity to disperse users.
The system has little beginner singletrack immediately around
Aspen. Creating a designated learning area is an opportunity.
Most trails are within easy riding distance of the City and
Snowmass Village but there are few singletrack connectors.
Best practice for trail system development is 10 acres for every
mile of trail. Analyzed areas were well below that density.
In the terrain suitability analysis of slope and habitat, Hunter
Creek, Skyline Ridge, Buttermilk, and Smuggler scored well.
Recommendations
Improve the connectivity and ease of biking around the City by
implementing the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, seeking
opportunities to increase trail system connectivity, and
developing a separated trail from the Intercept Lot to Sky
Mountain Park.
Support efforts to achieve a higher level of city/area biking
designations (IMBA ride center, Bicycle Friendly Community) by
providing the necessary infrastructure.
Enhance the promotion, information, and mapping of bike
opportunities in the area.
Enhance the community and culture around road and mountain
biking through collaborations and programming and events.
Policies
Support and collaborate with stakeholders, including land
managers, on responsible improvement and development of
mountain bike trails.
Support any proposed expansion of mountain biking with Aspen
Skiing Company permit areas, including trails on Buttermilk.
Work with RFMBA, the Nordic Council, Aspen Skiing Company,
Pitkin County, and USFS to expand opportunities for fat biking,
particularly those that do not require NEPA review.
260
City of Aspen
Snowmass Village
Snowmass
Ski Area
Buttermilk
Sky Mountain Park
Aspen Highlands
Moore & Marolt
Open Space
Hunter Smuggler & Smuggler
Open Space
ASPEN UPHILL ECONOMY RECREATION PLAN 18
Mountain Bike Terrain Suitability Analysis
Legend
Highest Priority Wildlife Area
Easy
Intermediate
Dicult
Extreme
Not Buildable
Summer Concern Areas
Mountain Bike Terrain Suitability
261
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ASPEN UPHILL ECONOMY RECREATION PLAN 19
BACKCOUNTRY SKIING
Backcountry skiing is inherently dangerous. Only experienced skiers with proper training should consider venturing into uncontrolled backcountry
skiing terrain. This plan is not a source of backcountry safety or access information. Visit the Colorado Avalanche Information Center website for
avalanche forecast information.
High elevation, consistent snowfall, varied terrain, and an adventurous community spirit make Aspen a backcountry skiing mecca. The analysis looks
at existing backcountry skiing in the area, trends in the sport, the economic impact, and the suitability of terrain.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
Backcountry skiing is growing in popularity due to technological
advances and people’s desire for nature and untracked powder.
Backcountry skiers are enthusiastic about their experience,
support local economies, and seek affordable lodging options.
Backcountry skiing areas close to the City (Richmond Ridge,
Sugar Bowls) have avalanche exposure that can be mitigated by
experienced skiers.
Suitability Analysis
The consultant team analyzed suitability of area terrain for backcountry skiing. The analysis included slope, aspect, elevation, distance to roads,
distance to access points (huts, access gates), tree cover, and tree density. Wildlife concern areas are shown on the map.
Richmond Ridge is an opportunity to encourage and potentially facilitate backcountry skiing with local partners. Given the existing high level of use,
the skiing suitability, and limited wildlife habitat, this is a key opportunity to concentrate use in an appropriate area. Hunter Creek is an area to
encourage backcountry skiing. The valley is not a key winter wildlife habit, sees a high level of use, and has low grades appropriate for novices.
Recommendations
Install avalanche beacon checkpoints and safety and
informational signage at resort access gates and popular
backcountry skiing trailheads.
Initiate partnerships and promotional efforts that make Aspen a
place known for its backcountry skiing, safety, and educational
offerings. Classes should be well-promoted, affordable, and
accessible to a broad range of experience levels.
Policies
Work with land managers and stakeholders to developed signed-
backcountry skiing opportunities on Richmond Ridge.
Advocate for travel management regulations on Richmond Ridge
favoring non-motorized uses that do not conflict with the ecological
or recreational values of the area.
Support the work of Mountain Rescue Aspen, guides, and other
backcountry safety educators in providing education and training to
ensure backcountry skiing participants are safe, knowledgeable, and
ethical.
Work with local guide services and ski shops to provide instruction
and gear. Support guide services in providing safe experiences.
262
Highlands RidgeRichmond
R
idge
Bald Knob
Snowmass Ski Area
Haystack Mountain
Ashcro
City of Aspen
Town of Basalt
Basalt Mountain
Snowmass Village
Independence Pass
ASPEN UPHILL ECONOMY RECREATION PLAN 20
Backcountry Skiing Terrain Suitability Analysis
Legend
Highest Priority Wildlife Area
Winter Concern Areas
Backcountry Skiing Suitability
High
Low
263
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ASPEN UPHILL ECONOMY RECREATION PLAN 21
NORDIC SKIING
The Aspen Snowmass Nordic Trail System is the largest free Nordic trail system in the continental United States and a collaboration of Pitkin
County, the City of Aspen, the Town of Snowmass Village and the Aspen/Snowmass Nordic Ski Council. The analysis looks at the Pitkin County
Nordic Ski Trails Plan, terrain suitability for Nordic skiing, and associated opportunities.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
The Nordic system is a vital community resource and an
important component of the Aspen Snowmass destination.
The implementation of recommendations in the Pitkin County
Nordic Ski Trails Plan would support the uphill economy.
The Nordic system needs to be more resilient to impacts of
climate change.
Suitability Analysis
The consultant team analyzed the suitability of terrain for Nordic ski trails. The analysis was based on slope, aspect, elevation, distance to roads,
distance to existing Nordic trails, and tree density. It only included public land, excluding all wilderness, winter wildlife closure areas, or areas the
Forest Service manages for winter habitat.
The terrain suitability analysis points to Basalt Mountain, Richmond Ridge, the base of Mt. Sopris, the Lenado area, and the area between Buttermilk
and Snowmass as highly suitable for Nordic skiing. Based on the area wildlife habitat, providing access to Basalt Mountain would be challenging.
The analysis results were vetted with the plan conservation principles to arrive at the Nordic recommendations. Any terrain expansion should
concentrate use in appropriate areas.
Recommendations
Support and encourage Nordic skiing events and programs and
promote the Nordic skiing opportunities as the “fifth mountain” to
visitors.
Engage with the Nordic Council and Ashcroft Ski Touring on
providing access to alpine touring and backcountry Nordic skiing
through the Nordic trail systems. Support trail system
improvements which increase trail-based skiing connectivity
between ski area permit boundaries.
Encourage collaboration between the Nordic Council, Aspen
Valley Ski and Snowboard Club, and the uphilling community to
support events, programming, access, and youth participation.
Policies
Support the sustainability of the Nordic system through
collaboration with the Nordic Council and Pitkin County Open
Space and Trails.
Support the Nordic Council in the implementation of the Nordic
Trails Plan. Areas to support their efforts include, but are not
limited to: trailside amenities, further terrain expansion as
identified in the Nordic Trails Plan and the terrain suitability
analysis, lighting, additional hubs, improved road crossings,
snowmaking, improved access to Hunter Creek, and the
development of groomed Nordic skiing on Richmond Ridge.
264
Richmond Ridge
Snowmass Ski Area
Base of Sopris
Lenado
Ashcro
City of Aspen
Town of Marble
Town of Basalt
Basalt Mountain
Snowmass Village
ASPEN UPHILL ECONOMY RECREATION PLAN 22
Nordic Skiing Terrain Suitability Analysis
Legend
Highest Priority Wildlife Area
Winter Concern Areas
Nordic Terrain Suitability
High
Low
265
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ASPEN UPHILL ECONOMY RECREATION PLAN 23
RESORT UPHILLING OPPORTUNITIES
Skinning up the resorts is incredibly popular among Roaring Fork Valley locals, and visitors often join in the fun as well. Aspen Skiing Company (Ski
Co.) strongly supports uphill skiing opportunities on its resorts and holds many events for racers, first-timers, and locals. Ski Co.’s embrace of uphill
skiing has helped create the culture and community around uphill recreation in Aspen. This analysis looks at comparative uphill offerings, events, and
accessibility.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
The uphill offering of Ski Co.’s resorts is very unique in Colorado
and across the nation.
Events for the “missing middle,” the group with the most
potential for growth, are popular and should continue to be a
key part of the offering.
The Ski Co. uphill routes are online and well-marked on the
mountains.
Events for aspirational uphillers should be a large part of the
event offering, as demonstrated by the uphill survey data.
Recommendations
In collaboration with Ski Co., develop trailhead kiosks at the base
of each resort’s uphilling route(s).
Collaborate with Ski Co. and other local organizations to support
responsible uphill skiing that is community-oriented and
introduces people to the sport:
Support Ski Co.’s program of uphill skier certification and
partner with them on events, policies, and messaging that
ensures responsible use and introduces newcomers to uphill
recreation. Coordinate with Ski Co. on public outreach around
access, closures, etiquette, and safety.
Support uphilling events to promote the culture and
community of uphill recreation.
Partner with the Nordic Council and Aspen Valley Ski and
Snowboard Club on programming and youth participation.
Policies
Encourage Ski Co. to consider an off-piste daytime ski track at
Aspen Mountain and Aspen Highlands.
Encourage Ski Co. to increase uphill events at Snowmass and
Highlands and disperse uphill crowds to better utilize parking and
skiing acres.
Support any proposed future development of on-mountain huts
accessible to uphill users within the Ski Co. permit areas.
266
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ASPEN UPHILL ECONOMY RECREATION PLAN 24
HUTS
The backcountry huts around Aspen provide a unique, remote, self-supported, winter uphill recreation opportunity. The area huts are a part of the
10th Mountain Division Hut Association and Alfred A. Braun Hut system and are an important component of uphill recreation around Aspen. The
section analyzes the use of the hut systems and visitation patterns and trends across other hut systems.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
The approaches to the Aspen area huts vary in distance and
difficulty, however, none are considered an easy approach.
Only one hut around Aspen is open during the summer.
Both hut systems are at or near capacity for visitors at peak
times and reservations are increasingly competitive.
Visitors are typically Coloradans at one hut for multiple nights.
Huts are strong economic engines for communities and the City
has a vested interest in ensuring the long-term viability of the
Braun and 10th Mountain hut systems.
Policies
Support expanded summer operations of nearby huts.
Explore opportunities for a new hut near Aspen. Study potential
locations based on the results of the backcountry skiing and
mountain suitability analyses and the Uphill Market Research
survey findings. Consider a staffed hut with more amenities and
easier access and ski terrain that provides a more entry-level
experience.
Support the long term-economic, cultural, and environmental
sustainability of the Braun, Friends, and 10th Mountain Huts.
Support the sustainability of the Braun Hut System through
partnership with the Braun Huts Board of Directors.
Support efforts by valley partners to educate users and the public
about backcountry safety and ethics, avalanche danger and
education, and the sustainable, ethical use of the huts and public
lands.
Support the USFS travel management policies to preserve the
backcountry experience of hut users.
267
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ASPEN UPHILL ECONOMY RECREATION PLAN 25
CAMPING
Ample, proximal camping opportunities are important to improving the City’s appeal to uphill recreationists. Camping is an affordable lodging
option amidst the relatively expensive hotels and vacation rentals around Aspen. More camping spots close to Aspen’s recreation amenities would
make the City more appealing for hikers and bikers and encourage them to visit Aspen, spend tourist dollars in Aspen, or extend their stay in the
area. The section analyzes the existing camping options and camping as an affordable lodging option.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
The area has few developed camping options. Those fill up
quickly, limiting access for other visitors and locals.
The lack of proximal camping creates demand for vehicle trips
and parking, straining the roads and trailheads in the area.
More camping spots would make the City more appealing for
moderate-income hikers and bikers and families, and encourage
them to visit Aspen, spend tourist dollars, or extend their stay.
Recommendations
Seek opportunities to permit the use of RVs and vans as an
affordable lodging option for visitors in appropriate locations in
and around the City. Appropriate facilities (i.e., bathrooms and
trash receptacles) to limit the impact on the surrounding
environment.
Initiate conversations with the USFS and Colorado Parks and
Wildlife on the development or expansion of additional camping
facilities in the planning area.
Identify opportunities to partner with Pitkin County Open Space
and Trails, City Parks and Recreation, Aspen Valley Land Trust,
and other stakeholder on the development of additional camping
facilities in the planning area.
Policies
Support efforts by stakeholders to expand the available of
camping and other affordable lodging options for recreation
tourists.
Support programs and initiatives which maintain or expand the
presence of camping as an affordable lodging option from
Snowmass to Aspen.
268
Exhibit C | PowerUp Brand Guide
SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND
In 2020, in collaboration with Manifest Communication, City of Aspen developed the
Power Up brand guide, a manual for how to tell the story of Aspen’s human-powered
uphill recreation initiatives as it relates to economic sustainability. A brand is more than a
logo, it is a combination of visual elements and messaging that reflect PowerUp’s
positioning, identity, and values. This brand guide includes both graphic elements and
content messaging, and sets forth rules for official logo usage, font type, color, and tone
to aid in future promotions.
Play Hard. Be Smart. Think Big.
The tagline Play Hard. Be Smart. Think Big. is a representation of the PowerUp brand
that shall be used in conjunction with the brand name whenever possible. The simple
phrase is intended to appeal to our audience’s emotions, habits, and ambitions when
considering uphill recreation as it relates to fun and adventurous experiences, as well as
their commitment to being responsible stewards of the environment both now and into the
future. The messaging outlined in the guide sets the voice and tone for the brand.
Logo
The PowerUp logo incorporates visual brand elements, specifically colors, font type, and
the City of Aspen logo, from the City of Aspen brand to formally tie together the PowerUp
initiative and the sponsoring organization, the City of Aspen. Icons of recreation
enthusiasts participating in uphill adventures may accompany the logo when appropriate
to emphasize the diversity in uphill recreation activities. Usage parameters are also
included in the guide to ensure consistency of use to uphold the integrity of the brand.
The purpose of the PowerUp brand guide is to outline a standard visual brand language
that creates consistency, familiarity, and trust so that audiences know what to expect from
the initiative. The guide will also set a framework to successfully launch and apply the
brand in future communication and implementation efforts.
Page 1 269
P . t k .
Exhibit C | Power Up Brand Guide
Page 2 270
P . t k .
Playing outside, pushing ourselves and
loving the great outdoors is in our nature.
It’s what we do in Aspen. PowerUp is about
just that - biking, hiking, climbing, skiing...-
going uphill in whatever way makes you
smile. But that is just the beginning. We
promote good land stewardship - acting
responsibly and encouraging others to do
the same. All of which contributes to a
prosperous and healthy community to call
home. No matter the time of year, whether
you are a novice or pro...it’s time to
PowerUp!
BRAND POSITION
2
Exhibit C | Power Up Brand Guide
Page 3 271
P . t k .
TAGLINE
3
Building on Aspen’s legacy as
an outdoor recreation meca,
PowerUp is about oering an
authentic mountain sports
experience amidst a breathtak-
ing alpine setting. It’s about
getting out there and getting
aer it - winter, spring, summer
and fall. Connecting with
like-minded people, connecting
with nature and igniting, or
reigniting, passion for fitness of
mind, body and spirit - follow-
ing the iconic Aspen Idea.
Respect for Mother Nature is
the keystone to the long-term
sustainability of healthy forests
and ecosystems. PowerUp takes
a ‘leave no trace’ approach to
protecting and honoring public
lands that serve as our play-
grounds. This means taking
personal responsibility seriously,
as well as keeping yourself safe
with backcountry knowledge.
With an increase in recreational
use for the foreseeable future,
now is the time to recommit to
the ideals. Please, tread lightly.
Aspen’s storied past is filled with
innovation. Visionary people with
progressive ideas continue to flock
to our community, making it much
more than a tourist destination.
PowerUp’s goal is to keep our
beloved resort town thriving, by
continually diversifying the economy
so locals have viable jobs - all year
long. This initiative supports outdoor
brands utilizing Aspen as a business
hub - for press trips, events, product
launches, races and more. Where
renowned athletes come to train
and test the latest equipment. We
call this economic development
without “development”.
Exhibit C | Power Up Brand Guide
Page 4 272
PRIMARY LOGO
4
Exhibit C | Power Up Brand Guide
Page 5 273
SECONDARY LOGOS
5
Exhibit C | Power Up Brand Guide
Page 6 274
PRIMARY LOGO COLOR AND SPACING
6
CITY OF ASPEN GREEN
PMS: 370 C
c:56 m:0 y:100 k:27
r: 102 g:153 b:51
w: 669933
SPACING
Maintaining adequate space around the logo
ensures that the brand is prominent and stands
out amongst other elements.
It is recommended that minimum space equal
to the decender of the letter “p” in the logo be
maintained around all sides of the mark.
COLORODO SKY BLUE
PMS: 660 C
c:85 m:50 y:0 k:0
r: 27 g:117 b:187
w: 1b75bb
spacer
Exhibit C | Power Up Brand Guide
Page 7 275
P . t k .
Play Hard. Be Smart. Think Big.
w e ee
neutraface2 display bold
Play Hard. Be Smart. Think Big.
neutraface 2 text book
PRIMARY FONTS
7
Exhibit C | Power Up Brand Guide
Page 8 276
ONE COLOR BLACK AND WHITE LOGO
8
Logo Prints 100% black except for the letters
“UP” which print at 65% black.
65%
black
100%
black
Logo Prints 100% black except for the letters
“UP” which print at 65% black.
65%
white
100%
white
Exhibit C | Power Up Brand Guide
Page 9 277
WHITE LOGO OVER IMAGES
Place logo is clear space over image.
Use white transparent PNG verion
of logo to see a portion of the image
behind the logo.
9
Exhibit C | Power Up Brand Guide
Page 10 278