Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.202203141 AGENDA CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION March 14, 2022 4:00 PM, City Council Chambers 427 Rio Grande Place, Aspen WEBEX MEETING INSTRUCTIONS WEBEX MEETING INSTRUCTIONS TO JOIN ONLINE: Go to www.webex.com and click on "Join a Meeting" Enter Meeting Number: 2557 564 4585 Enter Password: 81611 Click "Join Meeting" -- OR -- JOIN BY PHONE Call: 1-408-418-9388 Enter Meeting Number: 2557 564 4585 Enter Password: 81611 I.WORK SESSION I.A.Elected Officials Transportation Committee Meeting Preparation I.B.Moratorium Update - Residential and Growth Management Policy 1 Elected Officials Transportation Committee (EOTC) Thursday, March 24, 2022 - 4:00pm Location – Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners 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: This hybrid virtual / in person EOTC meeting will be broadcast on grassroots TV and available for viewing at www.pitkincounty.com. Note that seating is limited in person. Please use the login information below to participate virtually or you may participate in person at 530 E. Main Street, Aspen. TO JOIN ONLINE: Please click the link below to join the webinar: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89854655661?pwd=cCthRXA2NkhnalZNcWY3SlBOaTNNZz09 Passcode: 224097 Or Telephone: US: +1 253 215 8782 Webinar ID: 898 5465 5661 Passcode: 224097 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. 1 2 I. 4:00 – 4:05 CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL (Conducted by Meeting Host Chair, Roll Call by Jurisdiction) II. 4:05 – 4:10 APPROVAL OF OCTOBER 28, 2021 ACTION MINUTES (Motion, Second, and Roll Call Vote by Jurisdiction) III. 4:10 - 4:20 PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA (Comments limited to three minutes per person) IV. 4:20 - 4:30 EOTC COMMITTEE MEMBER UPDATES V. 4:30 – 5:30 PUBLIC HEARING: BRUSH CREEK PARK & RIDE TO AABC / ASPEN TRAIL CONNECTION REVIEW David Pesnichak, Transportation Administrator Project Partners: Pitkin County Open Space and Trails, and City of Aspen Parks and Open Space Project Consultant: SGM Decision Needed: Administrative Direction to move project to Public Process (Motion, Second, and Roll Call Vote by Jurisdiction) VI. 5:30 – 6:00 PUBLIC HEARING: REVIEW REQUESTED ACCESS THROUGH BRUSH CREEK PARK & RIDE David Pesnichak, Transportation Administrator Development: Aspen Jewish Congregation (AJC) Decision Needed: Administrative Direction to review access request utilizing Staff recommended standards (Motion, Second, and Roll Call Vote by Jurisdiction) VII. 6:00 – 6:15 PUBLIC MEETING: EOTC RETREAT UPDATE David Pesnichak, Transportation Administrator Decision Needed: None (Retreat Participation Feedback Requested) VIII. 6:15 – 6:30 INFORMATION ONLY: UPDATES (Q&A) A.Near Term Transit Improvement Program – Progress Update B.Town of Snowmass Village Transit Center – Progress Update (Provided by David Peckler, Transportation Director, Town of Snowmass Village) 2 Page 4 Page 13 Page 16 Page 26 Page 31 3 IX. ADJOURN MEETING (Motion, Second, and Roll Call Vote by Jurisdiction) * EOTC Retreat is April 28, 2022 – City of Aspen, New City Hall * Next Regular EOTC meeting is May 26, 2022 – Town of Snowmass Village to Host & Chair 3 4 ELECTED OFFICIALS TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE (EOTC) AGREEMENTS & DECISIONS REACHED REGULAR MEETING October 28, 2021 Location (In Person and Virtual) – City of Aspen City of Aspen - Host & Chair •The agenda items contained in these minutes are written in an action only format. •For a video production of this meeting, go to: https://youtu.be/Y5s39BD6lx0 •To access the Elected Officials Transportation Committee meeting packet material, go to: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1kPdv-lUJ4z8o9qM7BNVZzknWhqS73Abh (or https://www.pitkincounty.com/1322/Elected-Officials-Transportation-Committ, then ‘EOTC Archived Packets’) Elected Officials in Attendance: Aspen – 5 Pitkin County - 5 Snowmass - 5 Torre Kelly McNicholas Kury Bill Madsen Ward Hauenstein Steve Child Tom Goode Skippy Mesirow Francie Jacober Tom Fridstein John Doyle Greg Poschman Alyssa Shenk Rachael Richards Patti Clapper Bob Sirkus Absent: None ______________________________________________________________________________ Agreements & Decisions Reached CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Mayor Torre called the meeting of the Elected Officials Transportation Committee (EOTC) to order at 4.14 p.m. followed by a roll-call for attendance. APPROVAL OF THE JULY 29, 2021 ACTION MINUTES Mayor Torre called for discussion on the July 29, 2021 EOTC Agreements and Decisions Reached. Commissioners Clapper made a motion to approve the Agreements and Decisions reached from July 29, 2021. The motion was seconded by Councilor Richards. Pitkin County: The votes were: Kelly McNicholas Kury, yes; Steve Child, yes; Francie Jacober, yes; Greg Poschman, yes; Patti Clapper, yes; motion carried. 4 5 Town of Snowmass Village: The votes were: Bill Madsen, yes; Tom Goode, yes; Tom Fridstein, yes; Alyssa Shenk, yes; Bob Sirkus, yes; motion carried. City of Aspen: The votes were: Torre, yes; Ward Hauenstein, yes; Skippy Mesirow, yes; John Doyle, yes; Rachael Richards, yes; motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA Mayor Torre requested any public comment for items not on the agenda. No public comments were received. EOTC COMMITTEE MEMBER UPDATES Patti Clapper noted and commended Garfield County for contributing $500,000 toward the ongoing operation of RFTA’s Hogback service. Ward Hauenstein noted that he participated in a meeting on trackless tram technology. Mr. Hauenstein said he would provide the rest of the Committee with information on trackless tram technology for their information as it may be applicable to the Entrance to Aspen. Rachael Richards noted that for the sake of entities that rely on property tax revenue for their operations, it is important to defeat Colorado Proposition 120 this November. Steve Child noted that Stata Cruz, California has a streetcar that is run on hydrogen fuel cells, which is an up and coming technology that may be applicable to the Roaring Fork Valley. Francie Jacober noted that there is a large pooling of water on Highway 82 near the Conoco, which is a safety issue. Commissioner Jacober requested that CDOT be contacted to fix this safety problem. Mr. Pesnichak indicated he would contact the local CDOT office to make them aware of the water pooling and the related safety concerns. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2022 EOTC BUDGET David Pesnichak - Transportation Administrator Mr. Pesnichak explained that 2019 through 2021 have been financially turbulent years. In 2019, the EOTC began to see the impacts of changes in state law from HB 19-1240 that affected how sales and use tax are collected. Then in 2020, COVID-19 caused a near economic shutdown in the spring followed by a national recession. Late 2020 and 2021 have seen an unexpected spike in tourist and building activity that has resulted in higher than anticipated revenues across the nation and the region. 5 6 As a result of HB 19-1240, Mr. Pesnichak explained that there has been less collection of use taxes and increased collections in sales taxes. While this new law has resulted in an overall increase in sales tax revenues at the jurisdictional level, it has implications to the EOTC budget and use tax appropriations. Notably, EOTC revenues have declined while RFTA revenues have increased from the Pitkin County Transit Sales and Use tax as a result of HB 19-1240. Mr. Pesnichak noted that EOTC and RFTA staff have been working toward a mitigation solution to the impacts from HB 19-1240 for the past couple years. As more data has become available since the implementation of HB 19-1240, staff agreed to a mitigating measure of transferring the cost of the No-Fare Aspen-Snowmass-Woody Creek-Brush Creek Park and Ride transit service from the EOTC to RFTA. It was determined that the cost of the No-Fare service is roughly equivalent to the decreased revenues seen by the EOTC and that RFTA could absorb this cost solely through the increased revenue expected from HB 19-1240. The RFTA Board approved this mitigation measure on October 14, 2021. As a result, staff recommended adopting an EOTC budget that does not include the cost of the No-Fare service starting in 2022. As a review of overall 2022 EOTC revenues, Mr. Pesnichak noted that total overall EOTC revenues are expected to decrease from $2,725,220 in 2018, and $3,257,373 in 2019, to $2,559,694 in 2020 to $2,034,646 in 2021. In the years 2022 and beyond, sales tax revenues are projected to decrease by -4.2% in 2022 before rebounding, mostly due to inflation, at 4% annually from 2023 to 2026. Use taxes are expected to increase at an annual rate of about 2.1% annually from 2022 to 2026 to account for inflation in motor vehicle collections. Looking at future projects, Mr. Pesnichak identified that continuing to make progress on the improvements at the Brush Creek Park and Ride, development of the Snowmass Mall Transit Station, and ensuring No-Fare Aspen-Snowmass-Woody Creek bus service continues, which is expected to transfer to RFTA in 2022, are at the top of the priority list for both staff time and funding. Meanwhile, work on the Brush Creek Park and Ride to the AABC trail is recommended to continue in 2022 along with work efforts identified in the 2021 EOTC Near Term Transit Improvement Program approved in July 2021, including. -Truscott to Owl Creek Trail - Feasibility, Planning, and Initial Design; - Buttermilk Underpass and Transit Signal Bypasses - Feasibility and Initial Design; -Snowmass Direct Transit Service Improvement Analysis; - HOV Lane Enforcement Analysis (No Budget, Work Plan Only); -Permanent Automated Vehicle Counters - Planning, Design, Permitting, and Construction. 6 7 In addition, based on feedback received from the EOTC at the April 2020 meeting, Staff proposed to bring forth a recommendation to manage long-term parking at the Brush Creek Park and Ride at the May 2022 EOTC meeting. Mr. Pesnichak also provided an overview of the current ongoing and operational expenses identified for 2022 as well as an overview of 2022 budget renewals, carry forwards, and new requests including: Renewals: -We-Cycle Operational Support - X-Games Bus Subsidy 2021 Funding Forward to 2022: -BC P&R FLAP Grant Match (balance) New Requests: -Bike / Ped Connection to BC P&R Feasibility (Phase 2) -Truscott to Owl Creek Trail –Feasibility, Planning, and Design (Tier 1 Priority) - Buttermilk Underpass and Transit Signal Bypasses – Feasibility, Initial Design (Tier 1 Priority) -Snowmass Direct Transit Service Improvement Analysis (Tier 1 Priority) -Permanent Automated Vehicle Counters – Planning, Design, Permitting, and Install (Tier 1 Priority) Staff recommended that the EOTC adopt the 2022 EOTC budget as proposed with the amendment that the cost of the No-Fare Aspen-Snowmass-Woody Creek-Brush Creek Park and Ride service be removed from the proposed budget starting in 2022 as this cost is to be assumed by RFTA. Patti Clapper noted that the Truscott to Owl Creek trail connection is very important to move forward as quickly as possible. Commissioner Clapper also noted that the cost of the Buttermilk underpass is very high. Rachael Richards encouraged further discussion around the Entrance to Aspen, noting that the cost of a Buttermilk underpass is high and that even if transit is sped up through this section of Highway 82, they will still end up in the bottleneck at the S-curves. Councilor Richards also noted that she would like to see SkiCo participation in an underpass project. Francie Jacober said that she felt the cost of the vehicle counters seemed high. Mr. Pesnichak explained that a review was done through the County Engineer based on expected costs not only for the counters but also for utility work, which can be the majority of the expense. In addition, Mr. Pesnichak said that the cost estimate does not assume a specific type of technology or installation as that is to be determined at the time a contractor is on board. As a result, a higher 7 8 cost estimate per counter was assumed to try to ensure that enough money is available to install an optimum number of counters in 2022. Mr. Krueger, City of Aspen Transportation Director also noted that maintaining equipment and software of these counters is also factored in and can be a significant expense. Bill Madsen said that he would like the EOTC to send a thank you letter to the RFTA board for assuming the cost of the No-Fare service. The EOTC requested that Mr. Pesnichak draft a letter for signature by each jurisdiction. Mr. Pesnichak indicated that he would draft the letter for signature by each mayor or chairperson. Bob Sirkus questioned how the transit time savings were calculated for the Buttermilk underpass since CDOT does not collect pedestrian count data at the intersection. Mr. Pesnichak said that as a part of the Upper Valley Transit Enhancement study conducted by Mead and Hunt in 2021, Mead and Hunt utilized big data versus modelled travel times to determine an estimated cost savings to transit by eliminating the pedestrian phase of the traffic signal at Owl Creek. Steve Child also noted concerns regarding the cost of the Buttermilk underpass and expressed interest in an updated concept and cost estimate for an overpass. Commissioner Child also noted that the Entrance to Aspen issue does need to be addressed. Francie Jacober noted that she would like to see SkiCo participate in the Buttermilk underpass project. Following some discussion, it was generally agreed that the next phase of the Buttermilk underpass should consider an overpass option as well. Mr. Pesnichak explained that a preliminary cost and concept were developed in 2018 for the EOTC and as a result, wrapping an overview of an overpass versus an underpass into the next phase should be doable. As a result, Mr. Pesnichak said that he would make sure an updated cost and concept for an overpass are included in the next scope of work. David Johnson, Planning Director for RFTA noted that based on their experience the cost of an overpass vs an underpass is not much different. The vote for the 2022 EOTC budget with the amendment that the cost of the No-Fare Aspen- Snowmass-Woody Creek bus service be removed from years 2022 through 2026 was conducted by jurisdiction. The motion, second and roll call vote was as follows: Pitkin County: Patti Clapper made the motion. Francie Jacober seconded the motion. The votes were: Kelly McNicholas Kury, yes; Steve Child, yes; Francie Jacober, yes; Greg Poschman, yes; Patti Clapper, yes; motion carried. 8 9 Town of Snowmass Village: Bill Madsen made the motion. Alyssa Shenk seconded the motion. The votes were: Bill Madsen, yes; Tom Goode, yes; Tom Fridstein, yes; Alyssa Shenk,yes; Bob Sirkus, yes; motion carried. City of Aspen: Rachael Richards made the motion. John Doyle seconded the motion. The votes were: Torre, yes; Ward Hauenstein, yes; Skippy Mesirow, yes; John Doyle, yes; Rachael Richards, yes; motion carried. 2022 EOTC WORK PLAN David Pesnichak - Transportation Administrator Mr. Pesnichak explained that the Work Plan is to provide transparency in the work efforts proposed to advance the 2020 EOTC Strategic Plan and 2020 EOTC Comprehensive Valley Transportation Plan (CVTP). In addition to the work items, the Plan also recommends regular meeting and retreat / long-term planning dates for 2022 along with topical focus areas for each of the EOTC meetings. Mr. Pesnichak noted that while the Work Plan includes all proposed projects to be undertaken by the EOTC in the coming year, some projects also require a budget expenditure to proceed. Mr. Pesnichak reviewed the following Work Plan items: 2022: - Pursue EOTC Budget Mitigation (Work Plan only) -EOTC Retreat / Long-Term Planning Discussion (Work Plan and Budget) - Brush Creek Park and Ride -FLAP Improvements - Construction (Work Plan and Budget) - Develop Partnership with Holy Cross Energy for EV Charger Install (Work Plan only) - Bike / Ped Connection to Rio Grande / AABC Feasibility Study – Phase 2 (Work Plan and Budget) - Recommendation on Long-Term Parking Plan (Parking over 24 hours) (Work Plan only) - 2021 EOTC Near Term Transit Improvement Program -Truscott to Owl Creek Trail – Planning, Design, Public Input, Identification of Funding Sources (Work Plan and Budget) -Buttermilk Bike/Pedestrian Underpass and Transit Signal Bypasses - Initial Design, Public Input, Identification of Funding Sources (Work Plan and Budget) -HOV Lane Enforcement Analysis (Work Plan only) 9 10 - Analysis of Up Valley and Down Valley BRT Direct Service to Snowmass (Work Plan and Budget) - Additional Permanent Automated Vehicle Counters (Work Plan and Budget) - Participate in Snowmass Transit Center, Airport, and Regional Transportation Planning / Visioning, as appropriate 2023: - Continue Progress on Implementation of 2021 EOTC Transit Improvement Program, as appropriate - Brush Creek Park and Ride - Food Truck /Farm Stand Experiment -Participate in Snowmass Transit Center, Brush Creek P&R Development, Airport, and regional transportation planning / visioning, as appropriate Several committee members addressed the proposed retreat/long-term planning discussion. Rachael Richards and Kelly McNicholas Kury noted that they would like a longer discussion timeframe than the proposed 3-hours. Mr. Pesnichak explained that the current sketch plan for this long-term planning is to invite the Fehr and Peers team who did the Integrated Mobility Study (IMS) phase 1 and 2 to present their findings in more detail, including the options they identified for controlling congestion and supporting transit over the long run. Then, based on the outcome from this discussion, determine the next step to keep the momentum going in the desired direction. Mr. Pesnichak said that based on this feedback received, he would discuss the options with the other staff. A few committee members noted that the North West Council of Governments meetings also occur on the last Thursday of the month and that, although it is a long day, does not otherwise conflict with the proposed EOTC meeting days and times. Francie Jacober noted that she may have a conflict with EOTC meetings on the last Thursday of the month. Steve Child noted that if there is a way to combine vehicle counting with HOV lane enforcement that would be ideal. Kelly McNicholas Kury stated that she would like a report out on progress being made with EV charging and ideally the development of an EV master plan. Mr. Pesnichak explained that there is currently no room in the EOTC work plan for the development of such a plan in 2022 without removing another item. In addition, the EOTC is bound to looking at EV charging from the transit perspective, so the EOTC may not be the best forum to for the development of a comprehensive EV plan. 10 11 The vote for the 2022 EOTC Work Plan, without amendment, was conducted by jurisdiction. The motion, second and roll call vote was as follows: Pitkin County: Kelly McNicholas Kury made the motion. Greg Poschman seconded the motion. The votes were: Kelly McNicholas Kury, yes; Steve Child, yes; Francie Jacober, yes; Greg Poschman, yes; Patti Clapper, yes; motion carried. Town of Snowmass Village: Alyssa Shenk made the motion. Bob Sirkus seconded the motion. The votes were: Bill Madsen, yes; Tom Goode, yes; Tom Fridstein, yes; Alyssa Shenk, yes; Bob Sirkus, yes; motion carried. City of Aspen: Ward Hauenstein made the motion. Rachael Richards seconded the motion. The votes were: Torre, yes; Ward Hauenstein, yes; Skippy Mesirow, yes; John Doyle, yes; Rachael Richards, yes; motion carried. ADJOURN REGULAR MEETING Rachael Richards moved to adjourn the regular meeting of the Elected Officials Transportation Committee at 6:25 p.m. Patti Clapper seconded the motion. Motion passed with 15 yea votes. City of Aspen _________________ Torre, Mayor City Council _________________ Nicole Henning City Clerk Town of Snowmass Village _________________ Bill Madsen, Mayor Town Council _________________ Rhonda B. Coxon, CMC Town Clerk 11 12 Pitkin County ___________________ Kelly McNicholas Kury, Chair Board of County Commissioners ___________________ Jeanette Jones Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners ___________________ David Pesnichak Regional Transportation Administrator 12 13 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY EOTC MEETING DATE: March 24, 2022 AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Brush Creek Park and Ride to AABC / Aspen Trail Connection Review – Feasibility and Alignment STAFF RESPONSIBLE: David Pesnichak, Transportation Administrator ISSUE STATEMENT: The Pitkin County Open Space and Trails (OST) Department, the City of Aspen Parks and Open Space Department, and the Elected Officials Transportation Committee (EOTC) have jointly funded a feasibility study to connect the Brush Creek Park and Ride to the Aspen Airport Business Center (AABC) via a safe, hard surface trail. This trail connection has been has been scoped to meet the profile grade requirements in the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) for both recreationists and commuters. The project funding partners contracted with SGM to conduct this study, which is attached. The local project team consists of representatives from the City of Aspen Parks and Open Space Department, Pitkin County Open Space and Trails Department, the Town of Snowmass Village Parks and Recreation Department, and the Regional Transportation Administrator. This initial phase in 2021 and early 2022 consists of a feasibility analysis and a determination of possible alignment alternatives including estimated costs. The goal of this meeting with the EOTC is to discuss the options and determine if staff should move the project to a public process to obtain community feedback. Improving bicycle and pedestrian connections from the Brush Creek Park and Ride was identified as an Upper Valley Priority by the EOTC within the Comprehensive Valley Transportation Plan (CVTP) adopted in 2020. Filling this difficult system gap is important to the creation of a safe, seamless and attractive bicycle and pedestrian experience between Snowmass Village, the City of Aspen, the AABC, the valley wide Rio Grande Trail, and the Brush Creek Park and Ride. Making this bicycle and pedestrian connection is not only important for decreasing Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT), congestion, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, it is also needed to promote regional resiliency, quality of life, recreational access, and the economy. BACKGROUND: As the EOTC may recall from the October 2020 and 2021 budget meetings, this partnership project started in 2021 and has been led by the Pitkin County OST department. The results of this feasibility and alignment study were reported out to the Pitkin County OST Board in a joint meeting with the City of Aspen Parks and Open Space Board on February 24, 2022. The comments received from the joint Pitkin County OST Board and City of Aspen Parks and Open Space Board meeting held in February are included later in this memo. The study conducted by SGM is attached and outlines the identified trail alignments, costs, and recommendation. 13 14 Existing Conditions and Planning Overview The Pitkin County Open Space and Trails Department has created a management plan for both the Roaring Fork Gorge and the Rio Grande Trail and this connection has been identified as a potential in the final plans. A feasibility report was created in 2014 that looked at how to create a hard and soft surface connection to the City of Aspen from the W/J hill where McLain Flats Road crosses the Rio Grande Trail. There were many options that were considered. The main goals for the 2014 study included looking at a sustainable soft surface, a hard surface through Slaughter House Canyon, bike lanes on McClain Flats Road, and multiple bridge options to the AABC from the Rio Grande Trail. An add-on to this feasibility study was to look at the connection to the Brush Creek Park and Ride and how to connect to the AABC. A robust public process was undertaken at that time and the community supported a hard surface connection from down valley to Aspen, but was split on paving the section through Slaughterhouse Falls. When the Roaring Fork Gorge Management Plan was adopted the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) did not choose to pursue a crossing to the Brush Creek Park and Ride or from the Rio to the AABC at that time. The BOCC decided to provide a dual surface trail from McClain Flats Road to the pinch point on Shale Bluffs and then increase maintenance of the soft surface/crusherfines trail to Stein Park. This has been the current condition for the past five years. With discussions on how to improve the Brush Creek Park and Ride to better accommodate commuters and the County goals for a connected trail system from the Town of Snowmass Village and the communities down valley to Aspen, there is still a gap between the Brush Creek Park and Ride and the AABC and Aspen. Highway 82 has wide shoulders through shale bluffs, but with the amount of traffic and drainage and rockfall from shale bluffs, very few cyclists and pedestrians use this as a connection and the ability to better manage these conditions is very limited. There is also a trail connection from the Brush Creek Park and Ride to the bottom of Smith Hill Road at Jaffee Park, but this requires a major elevation drop and gain to get either to or from the Rio Grande Trail. Cyclists do use this as a recreational trail, but use is limited since you have to drop and climb over 240-feet and travel approximately 2 miles to get to the same point on the other side of the Brush Creek Park and Ride. To gauge the community’s interest in a connection to the Brush Creek Park and Ride, specific questions have been asked in the Pitkin County Community Survey in 2016, 2018 and 2021. These questions were to determine the community desire for a hard surface connection both from down valley and the Brush Creek Park and Ride and 75.8% thought it was very or somewhat important in 2021, 79% thought it was very or somewhat important in 2018, and 80% thought it was very or somewhat important in 2016. Overview of Comments Received from the Joint Pitkin County OST Board and City of Aspen Parks and Open Space Board held on February 24, 2022 - Recommend moving forward with the public process in 2022 of the two identified technically feasible alignments - Identified general preference for Option 1 (Twin Bridges) - Identified additional information needed as project goes to public process: - Bike commute time to Aspen and not just to AABC. 14 15 - Need for commuter study to determine: a) how many cars could be taken off the road, and b) the feasibility of this connection as a winter commute route. - Identify whether 10ft trail width will provide enough capacity if it is a commuter trail along with a recreation trail. - Look at phasing overall project and identify a list of potential issues should the project be phased. Staff Recommendation The next step is to move forward with public engagement of the technically feasible alignments. The EOTC, the City of Aspen Parks and Open Space Department, and the Pitkin County Open Space and Trails Department have each budgeted $25,000 ($75,000 total) for this next phase of the review should it move forward. Based on the outcome of the SGM study and the recommendation received from the joint Board meeting in February, staff recommends that the EOTC provide Administrative Direction to staff to initiate the public process to gauge the public’s desire for this connection based on the current design options. This direction would authorize the currently budgeted expenditure of up to $25,000 of EOTC funds in 2022 for this public input phase. This next phase will continue to be a funding partnership between the Pitkin County Open Space and Trails Department, the City of Aspen Parks and Open Space Department, and the EOTC. The results of this public input phase would be reported back out to all partners when it is complete. RECOMMENDED EOTC ACTION: - Administrative Direction authorizing the Staff Recommendation to initiate the public process to gauge the public’s desire based on the current design options to create a hard surface bicycle and pedestrian connection between Snowmass Village, Aspen, the AABC, the Brush Creek Park and Ride and communities down valley. (Motion, Second, and Roll Call Vote by Jurisdiction) Adoption of Administrative Direction by the EOTC requires the direction be affirmatively authorized by a majority vote of each jurisdiction. ATTACHMENTS: 1. SGM Feasibility and Alignment Study 15 16 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY EOTC MEETING DATE: March 24, 2022 AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Request for access through Brush Creek Park and Ride for Proposed Adjacent Development STAFF RESPONSIBLE: David Pesnichak, Transportation Administrator ISSUE STATEMENT: Attached for review and direction is a request from the Aspen Jewish Congregation (AJC) for access through the Brush Creek Park and Ride for a proposed adjacent development. BACKGROUND: The engineering firm, SGM, has contacted EOTC staff on behalf of their client, the AJC, to request access through the Brush Creek Park and Ride in order to access Highway 82 at the Brush Creek Road intersection. Please see the attached letter from Jason Schnissel, Executive Director of the AJC. Brush Creek Park and Ride Ownership and Management Structure As the EOTC may recall, the Brush Creek Park and Ride has the following ownership and management structure: - The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) is the property owner. - The City of Aspen and the Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (RFTA) hold leases with CDOT for different areas of the CDOT property. - RFTA leases the front portion of the Park and Ride property from CDOT, which is currently developed with the transit station and the access point onto Highway 82 at the Brush Creek Road intersection. RFTA is responsible for all maintenance and expenses within RFTA lease area. - The City of Aspen leases the back portion of the Park and Ride property from CDOT, which is currently developed with paved and unpaved parking, lighting, landscaping and the City’s carpool pass kiosk. The City of Aspen is responsible for maintaining the Aspen lease area while the EOTC is responsible for all expenses. -The City of Aspen, Town of Snowmass Village, Pitkin County, and RFTA are party to a 2005 “Brush Creek Park-N-Ride Management, Maintenance, and Use Plan” Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA). This IGA has the following requirement for “Change or Future Use of the Parking Lot”: Any proposed change … of the Park-and-ride Lot shall require unanimous approval of the member jurisdictions of the EOTC consistent with existing IGAs governing the EOTC, providing that the individual jurisdictions do not have the have a unanimous vote, rather a simple majority vote, and in coordination with CDOT. As background, according to the 2005 “Brush Creek Park-N-Ride Management, Maintenance, and Use Plan” IGA, the purpose of the Brush Creek Park and Ride is as follows: 16 17 The purpose of the Park-and-ride Lot is to provide parking and shuttle service for commuters, visitors, day skiers, special event attendees and others traveling to the Town of Snowmass Village, Pitkin County and/or the City of Aspen. Process for Review and Approval for access through the Park and Ride Based on the 2005 Management, Maintenance, and Use Plan IGA, it is Staff’s opinion that a request to utilize the Park and Ride as a through access for an adjacent development can reasonably be considered a “change” of the Park-and-ride Lot use. As a result, this change in use requires: 1) unanimous approval of the member jurisdictions of the EOTC, and 2) coordination with CDOT. In addition to approval from the EOTC for access through the Brush Creek Park and Ride, the developer will also need to obtain approval from Pitkin County for the land use as well as CDOT for access to Highway 82. It is understood that CDOT will request comments from the City of Aspen and RFTA as leaseholders once the developer makes an application for access to Highway 82 through the Brush Creek Park and Ride. As the City of Aspen and RFTA are parties to the 2005 “Brush Creek Park-N-Ride Management, Maintenance, and Use Plan” IGA, and the City of Aspen and RFTA are also leaseholders with CDOT, the comments and direction provided by the EOTC regarding this request for access through the Park and Ride is expected to be carried forward to CDOT when requested. It is understood that CDOT will not issue an access permit for a development that includes access through the Brush Creek Park and Ride until favorable comments are received from the City of Aspen and RFTA as leaseholder. Regarding the sequence of approvals, while it is understood that the developer has submitted a Traffic Impact Study to CDOT for initial review and has had preliminary discussions with the Pitkin County Community Development Department, the EOTC is the first step in the approval process. The EOTC is first in this process for three main reasons: 1)The feedback and decision from the EOTC on access through the Park and Ride are to be carried forward by the City of Aspen and RFTA as leaseholders of this CDOT owned property when requested as a part of CDOT’s Access Permit application review process, and; 2)The feedback and decision from the EOTC can impact the land use proposal to Pitkin County; and, 3)As the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) are members of the EOTC and the BOCC is the ultimate authority for land use approval, this request needs to come to the EOTC before submission of a land use application as it becomes a quasi-judicial process once a land use application is submitted to the County. It is worth noting that as the developer in this case is a religious institution, it is understood that Pitkin County only has the power to condition the land use proposal. CDOT, on the other hand, does not differentiate between religious and non-religious institutions in the application of their requirements for access to the State highway system. 17 18 The below simplified process overview is intended to represent the overall process of approval. Proposal Please see the attached letter from Jason Schnissel, Executive Director of the AJC (Attachment 1), and the Traffic Impact Study prepared by Dan Cokley of SGM (Attachment 2) for a full description of the proposal to date. The proposal at this point is conceptual with no established site plan. The development of a site plan for the proposed facilities is to be created before submission of the land use application to Pitkin County. The attached Traffic Impact Study does identify the below uses. The proposed AJC development is in the conceptual stage and programming is envisioned as a single building, associated parking and the following use areas. o 15,000 sf Worship / lobby / kitchen / restroom space o 3,000 sf Hebrew school / restroom space o 27,000 sf parking (75 spaces) o Potential Day Care Facility The current CDOT access permit for the Brush Creek Park and Ride allows for a Design Hourly Volume (DHV) of 212. The Traffic Impact Study identifies that the proposed development would add a DHV of 52 to this access point onto Highway 82. As this is an increase greater than 20% (CDOT’s access permit threshold) and it is a change in land use, the proposed development does require a new CDOT access permit. 18 19 Below is a parcel location map for the proposed development adjacent to the Brush Creek Park and Ride provided by the applicant. This also conceptually shows the proposed access points from Highway 82 to the development. 19 20 Below is the conceptual access plan for the development from the Traffic Impact Study, including the proposed access route through the Brush Creek Park and Ride. The Traffic Impact Study (Attachment 2) provides the following mitigation measures. • Access through Brush Creek Road traffic signal and Park and Ride leg is the safest solution for the traffic generated by the AJC. If access is possible, the AJC will continue to explore the access further into site planning and design potential. • Access through the Park and Ride area to the AJC parcel in conformance with Brush Creek Park and Ride Expansion Plans •Based on preliminary discussion with CDOT, agreement by the AJC to limit access at North access (M 34.99) to right in and right out only, will relieve the AJC to any responsibility to upgrade the existing Brush Creek Road and SH 82 intersection to resolve existing path overlap issues with left turn movements (Split Phasing). o Remove SB left turn and crossover median as directed by the Access Permit. • Provide downvalley egress at North access (right out M 34.99) through AJC parcel for park and ride customers during large events (X Games, Labor Day JAS and others) in the form of an easement and / or planned improvements within the AJC site plan. o Downvalley egress will result in > 10 vph and may warrant a WB right turn acceleration lane per the SHAC with dimensions per Table 11. •Provide the ability to access and use the AJC parking lot during large events. 20 21 Staff Recommendation It is Staff’s opinion that the proposed development and mitigation measures are too conceptual for Staff to be able to provide a recommendation on specific design elements at this time. Further, due to the conceptual nature of the proposal to date, it is Staff’s opinion that not enough information is available for the EOTC to make a determination (deny, approve, or approve with conditions) on this request at the March 24, 2022 EOTC meeting. However, in the review of this proposal, EOTC staff drafted a list of standards that any developer requesting access through the Brush Creek Park and Ride should meet in order for the EOTC to consider allowing access. These standards were drafted in collaboration with staff from the City of Aspen, Town of Snowmass Village, Pitkin County, RFTA, and the Transportation Administrator. At this point, Staff recommends that the EOTC provide Administrative Direction to follow the below standards in the review of access through the Brush Creek Park and Ride. These standards will assist Staff in the creation of a staff recommendation when this proposal comes back to the EOTC later for final approval, approval with conditions, or denial. It is worth noting that the below standards do not represent final comments for the City of Aspen or RFTA to provide to CDOT as a part of the CDOT Access Permit Review. The developer will need to come back to the EOTC later once more details are identified for a final review and determination by the EOTC. It will be this later EOTC determination on access and any associated conditions for this development that should be presented to CDOT by the City of Aspen and RFTA as a part of the CDOT Access Permit review process. It is understood that CDOT will not issue an access permit for a development that includes access through the Brush Creek Park and Ride until favorable written comments are received from the City of Aspen and RFTA as leaseholder. Proposed standards for access through the Brush Creek Park and Ride: - Demonstration of Significant Public Benefit. The developer shall demonstrate that access through the Brush Creek Park and Ride will provide a significant benefit to the public. Access to private developments through the Brush Creek Park and Ride shall not be granted unless a significant public benefit is provided. - All alternatives explored. The developer shall explore, analyze and provide justification for alternatives to access through the Brush Creek Park and Ride. This analysis is intended to provide transparency in the selection of access through the Park and Ride as the best alternative. Options that help support the function of the Park and Ride are encouraged. - Traffic operations at the Highway 82 / Brush Creek Road intersection shall not be impaired. It is understood that increases in traffic volumes can occur at this intersection when providing access to new developments. At the same time, CDOT generally considers a Level of Service (LOS) “D” as being acceptable. Any new development shall demonstrate that the proposed access: a) Will not decrease any movement within the Highway 82 / Brush Creek Road intersection below a LOS “D” either in the near term or future projections, and; 21 22 b) For any movement within the Highway 82 / Brush Creek Road intersection that is shown to have an existing or future LOS of “F”, the new development shall not further increase that overall delay, and; c) All signal queues must clear with each signal cycle regardless of LOS within both the near term and future projections, and; d) When overall transit system performance is operating at a LOS of “D” or worse, the applicant should engage the transit provider to evaluate the potential for improving transit service to offset the impacts for that particular development. - Any traffic increases through the Park and Ride shall be demonstrated to not create any degradation to transit service and access, bicycle and pedestrian access and pathways, carpool kiosk access, and internal traffic queuing or delay. The developer proposing access through the Park and Ride shall provide site circulation details with respect to safety and operations. The plan shall demonstrate that there will be no disruptions or degradation to the intended uses of the facility, which include transit and carpooling. Potential disruptions and degradations include, but are not limited to: increased facility entrance or exit queuing or congestion, disrupting transit vehicles ability to access or egress the transit station, vehicle blockage or queuing over identified transit, bicycle and pedestrian ways, disruptions for vehicles accessing the carpool kiosk, and/or high through traffic volumes that may impede customer parking. Mitigation options that promote transit service and access efficiency, bicycle and pedestrian access, carpool kiosk access, and/or reduce internal traffic queuing or delay are encouraged. - Development shall pay its own way. Any improvements necessary to accommodate access to an adjacent development shall be the responsibility of the developer. The developer shall construct all improvements. Payment in lieu of improvements will not be accepted. - No increase in facility maintenance and/or operational costs. The developer shall demonstrate that access through the Park and Ride will not increase maintenance or operating costs for the Park and Ride facility within either the City of Aspen or RFTA lease areas. Should an increase in operating and/or maintenance costs be identified, then an agreement shall be established to offset those costs to the EOTC and/or RFTA. Mitigation options that reduce the overall cost of maintenance and/or operational costs are encouraged. - No conflict with existing City of Aspen lease, RFTA lease, or the Brush Creek Park and Ride Management, Maintenance and Use Plan Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA). The developer shall demonstrate that there will be no conflict with any of the terms and agreements identified within the City of Aspen lease with CDOT, the RFTA lease with CDOT, and the Brush Creek Park and Ride Management, Maintenance and Use Plan IGA. - Development access shall not hinder or impede the use of the facility for special event parking and staging. The Brush Creek Park and Ride is regularly used for parking and staging for special events. The developer shall demonstrate that the proposed access through the Park and Ride is complementary to or at a minimum will not hinder or impede the use of the facility for this purpose. Mitigation options that support special event parking and staging is encouraged. - Any development shall comply with the parameters and requirements of any existing or new CDOT Access Permits. All improvements required by CDOT on Highway 82 must be completed before access through the Brush Creek Park and Ride can be permitted. 22 23 RECOMMENDED EOTC ACTION: - Administrative Direction authorizing the Staff Recommendation for staff to use and follow the above standards for access through the Brush Creek Park and Ride (Motion, Second, and Roll Call Vote by Jurisdiction) Adoption of Administrative Direction by the EOTC requires the direction be affirmatively authorized by a majority vote of each jurisdiction. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Letter from Jason Schnissel, Executive Director of the Aspen Jewish Congregation, dated February 9, 2022 2. Traffic Impact Study conducted by Dan Cokley of SGM, dated February 11, 2022 23 24 Attachment 1 24 25 Attachment 1 25 26 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY EOTC MEETING DATE: March 24, 2022 AGENDA ITEM TITLE: EOTC Retreat Updates STAFF RESPONSIBLE: David Pesnichak, Transportation Administrator ISSUE STATEMENT: This update is intended to provide advance information to the Committee members for the April 28, 2022 EOTC retreat. BACKGROUND: As the Committee members are aware, the 2022 EOTC Work Plan includes a retreat on April 28, 2022. Staff have been working over the past few months to develop goals and an agenda for this event. Retreat logistics: When: April 28, 2022 from 12.15 to 5pm Optional: Lunch from 12.15-1pm (In-Person Only) Retreat Sessions: 1-5pm Format: Hybrid In-Person or Virtual (Virtual Links to be Provided Prior to Retreat) In-Person Location: New Aspen City Hall, Pearl Room Facilitator: Mark Collins The goals that staff have identified for the retreat are: a)To reestablish a baseline understanding of the EOTC purpose, requirements, structure, funding, operations, and current project programming; b)Take a deep dive into the outcomes from the Integrated Mobility System (IMS) study; and, c)Identify and refine a long-term (11+ years) transit oriented conceptual direction based on the IMS study recommendations. In order to provide information and background that progresses the above goals, staff have identified the following presentation topics. 26 27 - EOTC formation and structure, legal guardrails, governance and decision-making, guiding documents, and projects and efforts that are underway and planned (Presenter – David Pesnichak, Regional Transportation Administrator) - Upper Valley Mobility Report and the Integrated Mobility System (IMS) background (Presenters – John Bennett, Maria Morrow, and Cristal Logan; members of the Community Forum Task Force on Transportation and Mobility) - Deep Dive into the Integrated Mobility System (IMS) effectiveness on greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), and congestion reduction, as well as implementation strategies, and the long-term transit oriented congestion reduction options identified by the IMS (Presenters – Chris Breiland, Ann Bowers, and Marissa Milam; Fehr and Peers) These presentations are intended to provide the groundwork for facilitated discussions on the long-term congestion reduction measures identified through the 2020 and 2021 IMS Study conducted by Fehr and Peers. These congestion reduction measures are identified as two methods for dynamic congestion pricing into and out of the Upper Valley, including a cordon toll and managed lanes. An outline of these options along with benefits and shortfalls are to be provided by the Fehr and Peers team within their presentation on April 28th and are further described in their 2021 report. This report is available on the EOTC website under “Relevant Studies” and will be attached to the pre-retreat packet, discussed below, for easy reference. Pre-Retreat Packet In advance of the EOTC retreat, Committee members and staff will received Pre-Retreat Packet that will include EOTC background, decision-making and governing documents for the EOTC, an overview of demographic and transportation related data and trends, and an appendix of relevant studies, plans, and agreements that will be relevant to the retreat. Next Steps Following Retreat Based on the discussion and feedback received at the April 28 retreat, staff will reconvene to determine logical next steps. _____________________________________________________________________________________ BUDGETARY IMPACT: None at this time. RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time. 27 28 FEEDBACK REQUESTED: - Roster of who is planning on attending. -If planning on attending, do you plan to attend In-Person or Virtual? -If planning to attend In-Person, do you plan to attend lunch from 12.15-1? ATTACHMENTS: 1.Draft Retreat Agenda 28 29 Attachment 1 EOTC RETREAT AGENDA Hybrid In-Person and Virtual Time Topic Lead Outcome  12:15‐1:00 Lunch, mingling  1:00‐1:15 Introductions, Overview of Retreat Agenda,  Ground Rules  David Pesnichak  and Mark Collins  Participants agree to process and  expected outputs of the retreat  1:15‐1:40  Presentation:  EOTC History, Governance and Decision Making  Accomplishments Environmental scan David Pesnichak  1.Participants are familiar with the purpose, requirements, structure, funding and operations of the EOTC 2.Participants are familiar with EOTC accomplishments and environmental scan to use during retreat discussions 1:40‐1:55 Break  1:55‐2:30  Presentation:   Community Forum Task Force on Transportation and Mobility  Upper Valley Mobility Report Dialogue and Discussion  John Bennett,  Maria Morrow,  Cristal Logan  1.Participants are familiar with the motivation and process that led to the formation of the Community Forum Task Force on Transportation and Mobility 2.Participants understand the components of the Integrated Mobility System (IMS) 2:30‐2:45  Presentation:  Near Term Transit Improvement Program  David Pesnichak  Participants understand how the  IMS was the foundation for the  Near Term Transit Improvement  Program adopted by the EOTC in  July 2021  2:45‐3:00 Break  29 30 3:00‐3:30  Presentation:  Integrated Mobility Study (IMS) and Future Transportation Patterns  Dialogue and Discussion  Fehr and Peers  Team: Chris  Breiland, Ann  Bowers, and  Marissa Milam  1.Participants understand the GHG and VMT impacts from each of the IMS strategies and the recommended plan for implementation both in the near term and long term 2.Participants understand the structure and long‐term identified options to Congestion Reduction Measures: 1) Cordon Tolling, and 2) Managed Lanes 3:30‐4:40  Cordon Tolling and Managed Lanes  Small group work (25 minutes): pros and cons list Small group report out and individual ranking on Effectiveness and Implementability (20 minutes) Dotocracy Discussion (25 minutes) Mark Collins  Participants produce a pros and  cons list for each alternative, rank  each option based on  effectiveness and  implementability, and conclude  with visual dotocracy  4:40‐5:00 Wrap‐Up and Next Steps Mark Collins and  David Pesnichak  Facilitator will provide a summary  of the day’s work and outline of  next steps to be executed by staff  and EOTC members  30 31 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY EOTC MEETING DATE: March 24, 2022 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)Status Update on 2021 EOTC Near Term Transit Improvement Program b)Town of Snowmass Village Transit Center – Progress Update (Provided by David Peckler, Transportation Director, Town of Snowmass Village) BACKGROUND: The following update is provided for EOTC information. a.Status Update on 2021 EOTC Near Term Transit Improvement Program As the EOTC members may recall, at the July 29, 2021 EOTC meeting, the Committee adopted the 2021 EOTC Near Term Transit Improvement Program. The purpose of this Program is to identify the near term priority projects to improve transit within the Upper Valley. As originally anticipated, starting with the 2022 budget year staff will continue to utilize this document to development the upcoming EOTC budgets and work plans. Staff is currently working through the identified Tier 1 priorities, which have been appropriately budgeted and / or identified in the 2022 Work Plan. In addition, at the retreat to be held in April the EOTC will start to dive into the identified options available for Dynamic Road Pricing (Cordon Pricing or Managed / HOT Lane). Dynamic Road Pricing s is identified as a Tier 3 Priority in the Near Term Transit Improvement Program due to its long timeframe for implementation relative to other projects that are already in progress or in queue for programming. Progress is also being made on the Sage Way Sidewalk Extension, which is also a Tier 3 Priority, as this identified sidewalk gap connection could potentially be a part of the Brush Creek Park and Ride to AABC trail. Please see Attachment 1 for an update overview of each of the projects within the Near Term Transit Improvement Program. 31 32 b.Town of Snowmass Village Transit Center – Progress Update (Provided by David Peckler, Transportation Director, Town of Snowmass Village) AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY TO: Elected Officials Transportation Committee FROM: David Peckler, Town of Snowmass Village Transportation Director MEETING DATE: March 24, 2022 SUBJECT: Snowmass Transit Station Project Update BACKGROUND: The adopted conceptual design of the Snowmass Transit Station (STS) was done by SEH and approved by Council in April of 2020. We have tweaked the project slightly to save on construction costs, but the bus platform is essentially the same. The requirements for the bus turning movements allow little change to the bus platform. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has completed their review of our project’s Environmental Assessment and has approved it. This is a requirement for any project that is looking to secure Federal funding for construction. We have also submitted an Equity Analysis to CDOT which has been approved. Our project is listed as a Priority Project for the Intermountain Transportation Planning Region (IMTPR). The IMTPR is the CDOT planning region that covers Pitkin County and the Highway 82 corridor. The project has been reviewed by the Transportation Commission and was awarded $4.5 million from the State in SB-267 funding. 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. A recent projection of the construction costs for the facility based on 90% Design Drawings puts the project cost at roughly $26.5 million. I have submitted a grant application for the project to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) for a Section 5339 Bus and Bus Facility program grant for $13.5 million. The application was due on November 19, 2021 and I hope to hear about the status of the grant in February or March of 2022. With the “local match” we have being roughly 50% of a Federal grant project, I feel that we are in a competitive position to be awarded a Federal grant. Construction will start when the grant funding is all in place. 32 33 FINANCIAL IMPACT: The last Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) cost projection for the project was $26.5 million. We have reengineered the replacement parking beneath the transit deck to reduce the amount of excavation need for the parking. We also reoriented two bus bays for stagging to have less of an impact on the West side of the station. This will help to reduce the height of a retaining wall there and the fill requirements. At present we have $6 million dedicated to the project from the Elected Officials Transportation Committee (EOTC). There is $2 million in local funding for the project and $500,000 from RFTA. A SB-267 award to the project was $4.5 million. I am waiting to hear the status of our 5339 grant application, which should be coming in late February or March of 2022. _____________________________________________________________________________________ BUDGETARY IMPACT: None at this time. RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time. ATTACHMENTS: 1.2021 EOTC Near Term Transit Improvement Program with Project Tracking 33 34 Project Name IMS Tenant Project Attribute(s) Relative  Implementation  Cost ($‐$$$)Notes Project Tracking Tier 1 Aspen Country Inn Trail  Improvements to Bike /  Ped Underpass and  Transit Stops at Truscott  and Buttermilk ** BRT  Enhancements Higher value to dollar ratio $ Important bike / ped connection to  transit for senior housing and service  destinations. Basic infrastructure  connection. Move to concept plan in  2021. PROGRAMMING: 2022 Feasibility,  Planning, Design, Stakeholder  Engagement, Construction Funding  Identification ‐ Budget $200k & Work  Plan; Cost Estimate: $200k total design,  $1,050,000 total construction = Total  $1.25M (Mead and Hunt ‐ 8‐19‐21).  Currently recruiting for consulting team  ‐ RFP developed, to be advertised  shortly. Design and Feasibility  Review of Maroon Creek  Roundabout Down Valley  Channelization and Down  Valley Queue Jump at  Cemetery Lane  ** BRT  Enhancements Higher value to dollar ratio $$ (design only) Move to design and permitting to  further evaluate feasibility. Initial  rollout anticipated as an experiment.  Requires CDOT approved design and  permitting. Potential benefit to all  motorized roadway users including  transit. Channelization likely to be  seasonal due to snow removal issues.  Move to concept plan in 2021. Fatal Flaw Identified, STOP 8‐26‐21 ‐  Radii analysis shows incompatibility  with WB‐67s and RFTA MCI Coaches;  Cost Estimates: $30k queue jump &  $25k channel design, $200k queue  jump & $21,500 channelization install =  Total $276,500 (Mead and Hunt ‐ 8‐19‐ 21).  Design and Feasibility  Review of Harmony / Owl  Creek Transit Signal  Bypass Lane and  Buttermilk Bike / Ped  Underpass ** BRT  Enhancements Higher value to dollar ratio $$ (design only) First move to design to make eligible  for funding. Superior bike / ped  protection crossing Hwy 82 and  increased transit speed and reliability.  High construction cost. Move to  concept plan in 2021. PROGRAMMING: 2022 Feasibility,  Stakeholder Engagement, and Initial  Design ‐ Budget $200k & Work Plan;  Cost Estimate: $830k underpass /  bypass lane design, $8.570M  construction = Total $9.4M (Mead and  Hunt ‐ 8‐19‐21). Currently recruiting for  consulting team ‐ RFP developed, to be  advertised shortly. HOV Lane Enforcement  Analysis HOV Lane  Enforcement Important Preliminary Effort $ (analysis only) Necessary to determine best  alternatives for HOV enforcement  options (automated vs. personnel).  Could require a phased  implementation. PROGRAMMING: 2022 Staff Analysis ‐  Budget $0 & Work Plan. In  development. Analysis of Up Valley and  Down Valley BRT Direct  Service to Snowmass  BRT  Enhancements Higher value to dollar ratio $ (analysis only) Aspen to Snowmass, and Snowmass to  down valley transit connection analysis  to evaluate transit effectiveness and  efficiency, and determine cost,  frequency, and expected utilization of  increased/enhanced service levels.   Current BRT connecting service to  remain in place. PROGRAMMING: 2022 Budget $50k &  Work Plan. Currently recruiting for  consulting team ‐ RFP advertised,  closed 2/11/22. Selection committee  currently reviewing potential consulting  teams. Additional Permanent  Automated Vehicle  Counters on Brush Creek  Road, Owl Creek Road,  Airport/AABC and  Highway 82 in Pitkin  County Congestion  Reduction  Measures Important Preliminary Effort $$ Additional vehicle counters are  necessary to monitor program success,  VMT and greenhouse gas emissions  over the long term. PROGRAMMING: 2022 Planning,  Permitting, Design, and Install Budget  $200k & Work Plan. Currently  recruiting for consulting team‐ RFP  advertised, closed 2/11/22. No  responses received ‐ selection  committee currently reviewing options. Tier 2 Pilot Ridesharing app for  Commuters Ride Sharing Dependent on Tier 1 Effort $‐$$ Effort dependent on HOV lane  enforcement implementation for  highest level of effectiveness. May be  able to use results of RFTA's 2021 First  Last Mile Mobility (FLMM) Study to  guide this effort. Ongoing cost and staff  time unknown. Pending Analysis of Regional Ride  Hailing and Car Sharing  Service Ride Sharing  and Ride Hailing Lower value to dollar ratio $ (analysis only) Potentially lower relative benefits to  transit ridership, GHG emissions, and  VMT reductions. Analysis necessary to  determine service scope, type and  ensure service supports transit. May be  able to use results of RFTA's 2021 First  Last Mile Mobility (FLMM) Study to  guide this effort. Pending Analysis of Valley Wide  Commuter Parking, EV  Charging, and Ride Hailing  / Sharing Pick Up / Drop  Off Locations Congestion  Reduction  Measures, Ride  Sharing, and  Ride Hailing Important Preliminary Effort $  (analysis only) Necessary to determine amount and  location of needed parking, appropriate  parking pricing, and incentives via EV  charging placement to encourage  transit ridership. Pending 2021 EOTC Near‐Term Transit Improvement Program ‐ Approved July 29, 2021 ‐ Administrative Direction ‐ UPDATED 02‐25‐22 First Priority ‐ Higher value* to dollar ratio and / or Important preliminary effort Second Priority ‐ Lower value* to dollar ratio and / or Dependent on Tier 1 effort Attachment 1 34 35 Tier 3 Service Center Road  Signalization and Hwy 82  Brush Creek P&R to  Airport Speed Limit  Reduction BRT  Enhancements Hold status due to dependence  on efforts outside EOTC purview  and Significant legal hurdles $$ Relatively expensive improvement.  Gains in vehicular and bike / ped safety  accessing transit. Hold due to ongoing  design of new airport terminal and  layout. Speed limit reduction to be  reviewed by CDOT and possibly  incorporated with signalization of  intersection. Would require amending  Access Control Plan with CDOT. Hold Extension of HOV Lanes  Up Valley from Airport  and / or Down Valley of  Maroon Creek  Roundabout BRT  Enhancements Significant legal hurdles and  Significant cost $$ Initial construction cost of exclusive bus  lanes must be reimbursed to EOTC if  any loss of exclusive bus lanes occurs.  Source of reimbursement funds is  unknown and amount of initial  construction cost reimbursement could  be high. Potential conflicts with ROD.  Only to be pursued if 1) no loss to bus  only lane can be achieved and 2)  effective HOV lane enforcement is in  place. Hold Dynamic Road Pricing  (Cordon Pricing or  Managed / HOT Lane) Congestion  Reduction  Measures Significant legal hurdles and  Significant cost $$$ Significant legal hurdles as State law  would need to be amended to allow for  cordon pricing. Cordon pricing or  managed lane would require significant  permitting, operational infrastructure,  and partnerships. Implementation,  public relations and maintenance costs  expected to be high for either cordon  or managed lanes. Potential legal  hurdles if bus only lanes are converted  to HOT lanes. Amendment or new Hwy  82 EIS / ROD is necessary. Additional  analysis is necessary. Could have  significant positive impacts on GHG  emissions and VMT if implementable. Presentation and Discussion of  Alternatives at April 28, 2022 EOTC  Retreat Sage Way Sidewalk  Extension BRT  Enhancements Hold status due to dependence  on efforts outside EOTC purview $ Hold pending implementation of Access  Control Plan to be triggered by Airport  redevelopment and/or large  developments within the AABC. Hold. Potential implementation as a  part of BC P&R to AABC Trail  Connection. Signal Timing for Transit  Speed and Reliability  Improvement BRT  Enhancements Not to be pursued at this time $$ Limited deployment in Pitkin County  modeling showed very little  effectiveness. Additional modeling for  entire Hwy 82 corridor may  demonstrate ability to substantively  improve transit speed and reliability. N/A Airport Terminal BRT  Routing BRT  Enhancements Not to be pursued at this time $$$ Dependent on Airport terminal  redevelopment. Very expensive  improvement as down valley BRT line  would need to be grade separated to  and from the Airport in order to  maintain current transit times. Gains in  access at airport terminal only with  possible detriment to greater BRT  system. Significant transit operational  issues to be overcome. Other options  should be analyzed first. N/A HAWK Beacon at Aspen  Country Inn BRT  Enhancements Significant cost $$ Relatively significant implementation  cost relative to number of users.  N/A * "Value" is determination based on efforts' ability to support transit through increased access, speed and reliability; reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG); and reduce vehicle  miles traveled (VMT) ** Efforts are proposed to be carried forward in the second half of 2021 for development of conceptual design by Mead and Hunt utilizing remaining UVTE study funds Third Priority ‐ Hold status due to dependence on efforts outside EOTC purview, Significant cost, and / or Significant legal hurdles Other Efforts Considered ‐ Not to be Pursued at this Time Attachment 1 35 36 BRUSH CREEK PARK AND RIDE TO ASPEN AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTER TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY PITKIN COUNTY OPEN SPACE & TRAILS DRAFT REPORT: FEBRUARY 2022 Prepared by 118 West Sixth Street, Suite 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970.945.1004 970.945.5948 fax Attachment 1 37 Pitkin County Open Space & Trails—Brush Creek P&R to Aspen ABC February 2022 Trail Feasibility Study i TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Executive Summary 1-1 2.0 Project Background and Environmental Assessment 2-3 2.1 Project Overview/Previous Study 2-3 2.2 Project Purpose 2-4 2.3 Project Partners 2-4 2.4 Project Engineering Team 2-5 2.5 Description of Existing Facilities 2-5 2.5.1 Rio Grande Trail (RGT) 2-5 2.5.2 State Highway 82 2-5 2.5.3 Aspen Airport Business Center 2-5 2.6 Environmental Assessment 2-6 2.6.1 Wetlands 2-6 2.6.2 Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species 2-6 2.6.3 Other Species of Concern 2-6 3.0 Trail Connection Options 3-6 3.1 Summary of Alignment Options 3-6 3.2 Trail Typical Sections 3-7 3.3 Option 1 – Twin Bridges Alignment 3-9 3.3.1 Structures 3-10 3.3.2 Permitting and Easements 3-12 3.3.3 Utilities 3-12 3.4 Option 2 - SH82 East Alignment 3-13 3.4.1 Structures 3-16 3.4.2 Permitting and Easements 3-18 3.4.3 Utilities 3-19 3.5 Option 3 – River Alignment 3-19 4.0 Bridge Alternatives 4-19 4.1 Steel Deck Arch 4-22 4.1.1 Constructability 4-24 4.1.2 Aesthetics 4-26 4.1.3 Feasibility 4-26 4.1.4 Maintenance 4-26 Attachment 1 38 Pitkin County Open Space & Trails—Brush Creek P&R to Aspen ABC February 2022 Trail Feasibility Study ii 4.2 Steel Deck Truss 4-27 4.2.1 Constructability 4-28 4.2.2 Aesthetics 4-28 4.2.3 Feasibility 4-29 4.2.4 Maintenance 4-29 4.3 Multi-span Prefabricated Steel Truss 4-29 4.3.1 Constructability 4-30 4.3.2 Aesthetics 4-30 4.3.3 Feasibility 4-30 4.3.4 Maintenance 4-31 4.4 Bridge Alternatives Cost Analysis 4-31 4.5 Preferred Bridge Alternative 4-32 5.0 Alignment Option Comparison 5-32 5.1 Cost Analysis 5-32 5.2 Option Evaluation 5-33 5.2.1 Evaluation Criteria 5-33 5.2.2 Evaluation Matrix 5-33 6.0 Project Delivery Methods 6-35 Attachment 1 39 Pitkin County Open Space & Trails—Brush Creek P&R to Aspen ABC February 2022 Trail Feasibility Study iii LIST OF TABLES Table 3-1: Trail Alignment Option 1 – Segment Length by Construction Difficulty Level 3-10 Table 3-2: Trail Alignment Option 2 – Segment Length by Construction Difficulty Level 3-16 Table 5-1: Trail Cost Estimate 5-32 Table 5-2: Options Evaluation Matrix 5-34 Attachment 1 40 Pitkin County Open Space & Trails—Brush Creek P&R to Aspen ABC February 2022 Trail Feasibility Study iv LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2-1: Overview of Project Area 2-3 Figure 3-1: Overall Site Map with Alignment Options 1 and 2 3-7 Figure 3-2: Overall Site Map with Alignment Difficulty Levels 3-8 Figure 3-3: Least Difficult Section Example 3-8 Figure 3-4: More Difficult Section Example 3-9 Figure 3-5: Most Difficult Section Examples 3-9 Figure 3-6: Overview of Trail Alignment Option 1 – Twin Bridges Alignment 3-10 Figure 3-7: Rendering of the Brush Creek Bridge from the RGT Looking Southwest 3-11 Figure 3-8: Rendering of the AABC Bridge from the RGT Looking Southwest 3-11 Figure 3-9: Overview of Utilities Along Alignment Option 1 3-13 Figure 3-10: Trail Alignment Option 2 – SH82 East Alignment 3-13 Figure 3-11: Aerial of Alignment Option 2 – SH82 East Alignment Looking South 3-14 Figure 3-12: Rendering of Existing and Proposed Shale Bluffs Crossing Looking South 3-14 Figure 3-13: Rendering of Proposed Shale Bluffs Crossing Looking South 3-15 Figure 3-14: Rendering of Proposed Shale Bluffs Crossing Looking West 3-15 Figure 3-15: Looking South at Existing Shale Bluffs Bridge 3-17 Figure 3-16: Looking West at Shale Bluffs and SH82 Bridge 3-17 Figure 3-17: Looking North at Existing Box Culvert under SH82 3-18 Figure 3-18: Looking South at Existing SH82 Wall and Box Culvert 3-18 Figure 3-19: Overview of Utilities Along Alignment Option 2 3-19 Figure 4-1: Bridge Location Aerial Overview 4-21 Figure 4-2: Vicinity Map – Brush Creek Bridge 4-21 Figure 4-3: Vicinity Map – AABC Bridge 4-22 Figure 4-4: Terral Wade Bridge (Tiehack Nordic Bridge) Aspen, Colorado. 4-23 Figure 4-5: AABC Bridge Rendering Looking Northwest 4-23 Figure 4-6: Brush Creek Bridge Rendering Looking Northwest from SH82 4-24 Figure 4-7: Terral Wade Bridge During Construction 4-25 Figure 4-8: Deception Pass Bridge Whidbey Island, Washington. Steel Deck Truss 4-27 Figure 4-9: Proposed Elevation of AABC Bridge (Steel Deck Truss) 4-28 Figure 4-10: Deception Pass Bridge during Construction, Whidbey Island, Washington. 4-28 Figure 4-11: Prefabricated Weathering Steel Truss Bridge, Hat Creek, CO 4-29 Figure 4-12: Proposed Elevation of AABC Bridge (Prefabricated Steel Truss) 4-30 Attachment 1 41 Pitkin County Open Space & Trails—Brush Creek P&R to Aspen ABC February 2022 Trail Feasibility Study v LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Trail Typical Sections Bridge Layout and Typical Sections Alternate Bridge Alignment Full Size Report Exhibits Appendix B Aerial View Option 1 Alignment Renderings Option 2 Alignment Renderings Appendix C Engineers Estimate of Probable Cost Appendix D Natural Resources Assessment Appendix E Cultural Resources Memorandum Attachment 1 42 Pitkin County Open Space & Trails—Brush Creek P&R to Aspen ABC February 2022 Trail Feasibility Study 1-1 1.0 Executive Summary The trail section from the Brush Creek Park and Ride to the Aspen Airport Business Center represents a significant missing link for commuters and recreational trail users. Pitkin County Open Space and Trails assembled a team of agency partners, consultant engineers, and stakeholders to review alignment alternatives to create a grade separated multi-purpose trail between the Brush Creek Park and Ride and Aspen Airport Business Center. The primary trail design criteria was to have a 10-foot minimum width hard surface trail that meets the profile grade requirements in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The following three trail alignment options were considered by the project team: • Option 1 – Twin Bridges Alignment o Exits the south end of the Brush Creek Park and Ride o Bridge crossing of the Roaring Fork River east of the Brush Creek Park and Ride o Continues east to the existing Rio Grande Trail o Follows the existing Rio Grande Trail south o Bridge crossing back over the Roaring Fork River south of Owl Creek o Continues south along the flat bench east of State Highway 82 until it connects with existing infrastructure at the Aspen Airport Business Center o Total length of connection = 2.55 miles, Total length of new trail = 1.54 miles • Option 2 – SH82 East Alignment o Exits the south end of the Brush Creek Park and Ride o Continues south roughly parallel to and east of State Highway 82 using bridges, elevated trail sections, and retaining walls along much of its length to cross the steep and rugged terrain o Continues south along the flat bench east of State Highway 82 until it connects with the existing infrastructure at the Aspen Airport Business Center o Total length of connection = 2.28 miles, Total length of new trail = 2.28 miles • Option 3 – River Alignment o Exits the south end of the Brush Creek Park and Ride o Gradually descend to a relatively flat area on the west bank of the Roaring Fork River o Follows the west bank to the south o Gradually ascends back up to the approximate elevation of State Highway 82 at the relatively flat bench east of the highway o Continues south along the flat bench east of State Highway 82 until it connects with the existing infrastructure at the Aspen Airport Business Center The project team considered and compared the three options based on the following criteria: cost, maintenance, user experience, constructability, and environmental impacts. Option 3 – River Alignment was dismissed due to the environmental impacts, the disturbance the trail would cause to one of the most remote sections of the Roaring Fork River and the significant elevation change along the alignment (approximately 175 feet). To maintain ADA grade requirements, switchbacks were required which increase the total length of trail. Since it was dismissed early on, a preliminary alignment, profile, and cost were not presented in this report. Attachment 1 43 Pitkin County Open Space & Trails—Brush Creek P&R to Aspen ABC February 2022 Trail Feasibility Study 1-2 Option 2 – SH82 East Alignment has major challenges. The Shale Bluffs area is extremely steep, rugged, and prone to landslides. This alignment alternative would require a significant length of bridge, elevated trail structure, and retaining wall. The user experience would be reduced due to its proximity to State Highway 82, it would have significant maintenance challenges due to the terrain and would require significant approval and coordination with CDOT to build. The estimated construction cost of the trail and structures, based on 2025 construction, is $22.9 million, estimated design and construction engineering cost is $4.6 million. Option 1 – Twin Bridges Alignment is the preferred alignment option. This alignment would require the construction of two major bridges over the Roaring Fork River. However, it requires the smallest length of new trail construction, best utilizes existing infrastructure, provides the best user experience, causes the least environmental impact, and requires the least agency coordination. The elevation change between the Brush Creek Park & Ride and the Aspen Airport Business Center is relatively small. We believe this option best aligns with Pitkin County Open Space & Trails mission to create purposeful multi-modal routes while preserving the region’s character. The estimated construction cost of the trail and structures, based on 2025 construction, is $17.3 million, estimated design and construction engineering cost is $3.5 million. For the chosen alignment option, three bridge types were considered for the crossings of the Roaring Fork River. The following three bridge types were considered: • Weathering Steel Deck Arch-This option was modeled off the Terral Wade Bridge (Tiehack Bridge) connecting Buttermilk to the Aspen Recreation Center. • Painted Steel Deck Truss-This option was modeled off the Deception Pass and Canoe Pass Bridges connecting Fidalgo Island and Whidbey Island in Washington State. • Multi-span Prefabricated Steel Truss-This option used typical prefabricated truss option to create three long spans at each crossing of the Roaring Fork River. The Painted Steel Deck Truss was dismissed by the project team due to its more industrial and heavy aesthetic, higher anticipated maintenance cost, high anticipated construction cost and construction duration. The Multi-span Prefabricated Steel Truss was dismissed due to the aesthetics, shorter span capability over the river resulting in piers closer to the river’s edge, challenge of utilizing an “off the shelf” option in this setting, and requirements of large cranes to pick and assemble these heavy spans. The Weathering Steel Deck Arch was the selected structure type for the crossings of the Roaring Fork River. The project team determined that this structure would provide the best aesthetic and continuity with the Terral Wade Bridge just up valley. Also, it is the most constructible bridge type, has the least environmental impact, and is cost competitive with the other bridge types considered. Based on the complexity of the structural design and constructions risks, Pitkin County should consider the Construction Manager/General Contractor project delivery method. Attachment 1 44 Pitkin County Open Space & Trails—Brush Creek P&R to Aspen ABC February 2022 Trail Feasibility Study 2-3 2.0 Project Background and Environmental Assessment 2.1 Project Overview/Previous Study Pitkin County Open Space & Trails (OST), the City of Aspen, and the Elected Officials Transportation Committee (EOTC) are partnering to study the feasibility of a trail connection from the Brush Creek Park and Ride (BCPR) to the Aspen Airport Business Center (AABC). An overview of the project area is provided in Figure 2-1. This trail connection was first evaluated as part of a trail study in 2012-2013 that considered a larger project area to create a paved trail connection to Aspen. The 2012 Rio Grande Trail Connection Engineering Feasibility Study by Loris and Associates looked at overall trail improvements from W/J Hill to Stein Park. Options using the existing Rio Grande Trail (RGT), adding climbing lanes along McLain Flats Road, and adding new trail connections that cross the Roaring Fork River were all considered. The study considered trail alignment, safety, cost, environmental impact, right-of-way requirements, geologic conditions, and utility crossings. The study divided the project into eight segments and then grouped the segments into improvement options which were evaluated against each other. The 2013 Addendum to the Study investigated three new segments, using the same evaluation criteria as the main study. One of the new segments included in the addendum was the trail connection between the BCPR and the AABC. The alignment would parallel SH82, starting at the BCPR and ending at the AABC. Other alternatives in the addendum were connections to the RGT from the BCPR via a bridge over the Roaring Fork River and then back across the river near the existing Stein Bridge at the AABC. Figure 2-1: Overview of Project Area (Imagery Courtesy of Google Earth) Attachment 1 45 Pitkin County Open Space & Trails—Brush Creek P&R to Aspen ABC February 2022 Trail Feasibility Study 2-4 2.2 Project Purpose The purpose of this project is to provide a trail connection between the BCPR and the AABC. The purpose of this study is to determine a preferred alignment that best fits the connection. Completing this missing link to the trail network will provide connectivity and community access which is a key component of Pitkin County Open Space and Trails’ mission: “The mission of the Open Space and Trails program is to acquire, preserve, maintain and manage open space properties for multiple purposes including, but not limited to, recreational, wildlife, agricultural, scenic and access purposes; and to acquire, preserve, develop, maintain and manage trails for similar purposes. The program was founded in 1990 with the passage of a Pitkin County property tax devoted to acquiring open spaces and developing trails. The program has since conserved more than 20,000 acres, either as open space or through conservation easements. In addition, it maintains some 84 miles of trails and 60 miles of Nordic trails.” The Pitkin County Strategic Plan includes a Climate Action Plan which includes initiatives to reduces emissions. The goal of this project is to reduce vehicle trips and replace them with pedestrian, bicycle and/or public transit trips. Construction of this trail will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by facilitating a more direct route to and from the Aspen Airport Business Center. This segment of trail was identified in the 2012 OST Recreation Inventory and Analysis. “GOAL 8 - Continue to plan and develop trail connections, linking desirable destinations and population centers, creating loop systems, providing opportunities for non-motorized commuting and serving multiple user groups. Rio Grande Trail dual-surface trail connection into Aspen (See Goal 6) - This missing link was one of the top five identified in the 2011 Visitor Use Survey. On this same survey over 75% of the respondents were in favor of looking at creating a safe, hard surface connection into Aspen. Planning documents as old as the 1979 Aspen/Pitkin County Trails Master Plan (an amendment to the 1966 Aspen Area General Plan) have called for a paved trail connection between Basalt and Aspen. And this connection would work towards the County’s Strategic Plan Success Factor calling for efficient multi-modal transportation systems linking municipalities. Safe, dual surface trail connection from the ABC to the Rio Grande Trail - This missing link was one of the top five identified in the 2011 Visitor Use Survey. This connection would work towards the County’s Strategic Plan Success Factor calling for efficient multi- modal transportation systems linking residential areas.” The EOTC has also identified "Bike and Pedestrian Connections to Transit Stops and Brush Creek Park and Ride" as an Upper Valley Priority within their 2020 Comprehensive Valley Transportation Plan. 2.3 Project Partners The study was led by Pitkin County Open Space and Trails with additional funding and partnership provided by the City of Aspen, the EOTC, and the Town of Snowmass Village. The project partners share many of the same goals. While Pitkin County is facilitating this Attachment 1 46 Pitkin County Open Space & Trails—Brush Creek P&R to Aspen ABC February 2022 Trail Feasibility Study 2-5 study, the project partners listed above also have a joint interest in seeing this project come to fruition. The construction of this project will better connect the communities within the Roaring Fork Valley. 2.4 Project Engineering Team SGM is leading the consultant engineering team and developed this report, trail alignments, cross sections, bridge alternatives and cost estimate. ERO Resources Corporation led the environmental review, provided the Natural Resources Assessment report, and the Cultural Resources Memorandum. Golder Associates provided an assessment of the geotechnical conditions and geologic hazards in the project vicinity. DHM provided visualizations of the trail concepts including the bridge renderings. 2.5 Description of Existing Facilities 2.5.1 Rio Grande Trail (RGT) The RGT is a rails-to-trails project built along the Aspen Branch of the historic Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad. The RGT is 42-mile-long mixed-use trail that travels from Glenwood Springs at the north end to Aspen at the south end. The north end of the trail also connects to the Glenwood Canyon Recreation Path. Except for at-grade crossings, the trail is mostly separated from vehicular traffic along its full length. This study focuses on the area of the existing RGT between Jaffee Park at the north end and the Stein Trail at the south end. The RGT through this corridor includes a 10-foot-wide asphalt hard surface trail with a parallel separated soft surface trail. The existing RGT can be utilized as part of the trail connection from the BCPR to the AABC. This segment of the RGT is owned and maintained by Pitkin County Open Space and Trails. This segment also meets the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) grade requirements. 2.5.2 State Highway 82 State Highway 82 (SH82) is an 85.3-mile-long highway connecting Interstate 70 and US Highway 6 in Glenwood Springs at the west end to US24 at Twin Lakes at the east end. The highway parallels the Roaring Fork River along most of its western half and serves as the primary transportation route through the Roaring Fork Valley. This study focuses on the area of SH82 south of Brush Creek Road and north of the Aspen Airport Business Center. This section crosses the Shale Bluffs area as well as historic landslide paths and drainages. Many of the portions are elevated on either bridges or retaining walls. 2.5.3 Aspen Airport Business Center The Aspen Airport Business Center is a residential and commercially zoned area located across SH82 from the Pitkin County Airport. The mixed-use development connects to the RGT via the Stein Trail and Stein Bridge over the Roaring Fork River. The existing Stein Trail is not paved nor is it ADA compliant and requires steep switchbacks to descend from the AABC to the west bank of the Roaring Fork River. The AABC also connects to the City of Aspen via the AABC Trail. While the AABC has paved and ADA connectivity through the SH82 corridor to Aspen, the connection to the RGT is not a paved ADA route and there is no direct connection to the BCPR to the north. Attachment 1 47 Pitkin County Open Space & Trails—Brush Creek P&R to Aspen ABC February 2022 Trail Feasibility Study 3-6 2.6 Environmental Assessment SGM has worked in conjunction with ERO Consultants to better understand the environmental impacts of all trail alignment options throughout the project corridor. ERO has provided a Natural Resources Assessment and a Cultural Resource Memo that can be found in Appendix D and E. A summary of the key findings is included below. 2.6.1 Wetlands Wetlands occur in the project area along the narrow banks of the Roaring Fork River and Owl Creek. Wetlands were also observed in the stormwater pond to the south of the Brush Creek Park and Ride. None of the proposed alignments would affect the wetlands located adjacent to the Roaring Fork River. It is recommended to avoid impacts to Owl Creek and the stormwater pond. Wetlands occurring within Owl Creek would be considered a jurisdictional (waters of the U.S) wetland whereas the stormwater pond wetlands are likely non-jurisdictional. 2.6.2 Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species The project area contains potential habitat for Monarch butterfly and Ute Ladies’ Tresses Orchid (ULTO). It is recommended to avoid wetlands in order to avoid potential impacts to the Monarch butterfly or ULTO habitat. While no habitat was present, there is potential for milkweed plants (Asclepiadoideae) and ULTO to occur within the wetlands in the project area due to the presence of commonly associated species, and alluvial soils, and due to the presence of known ULTO populations downstream near Carbondale. 2.6.3 Other Species of Concern No migratory birds’ nests were observed in the project area during the September 2021 site visit. However, because of the variability in the breeding seasons of various bird species, there could be nests present at other times of the year. It is recommended to conduct a nest survey one week before any construction take place. The project area occurs in the winter range for the bald eagle, in the osprey foraging area, in the overall range of American elk, mule deer, and mountain lion, and in the human conflict area and fall concentration area of black bear. The proposed trail alignments parallel to Highway 82 or that cross the Roaring Fork River and utilize the Rio Grande Trail would minimally impact these species. The alignment closer to the Roaring Fork River has greater potential to disturb these species. 3.0 Trail Connection Options 3.1 Summary of Alignment Options Multiple trail alignments were looked at to determine the best connection between the BCPR and the AABC. With the alignments considered, the primary goal was to propose an ADA compliant hard surface trail with a width of 10 feet that would safely and efficiently connect these two locations while reducing total elevation gain and loss. The following three alignment options were considered. Options 1 and 2 are shown in Figure 3-1: • Option 1 – Twin Bridges Alignment: This proposed alignment would bridge the Roaring Fork River at the southeast corner of the BCPR and continue east to connect with the existing RGT. It would follow the existing RGT south and then bridge back across the Roaring Fork River south of Owl Creek. The trail would Attachment 1 48 Pitkin County Open Space & Trails—Brush Creek P&R to Aspen ABC February 2022 Trail Feasibility Study 3-7 continue south along the flat bench east of SH82 until it connects with the existing infrastructure at the AABC. • Option 2 – SH82 East Alignment: This proposed alignment would exit the BCPR at the south end and follow a path generally parallel to and east of SH82. This alignment would use bridges, elevated platforms, and retaining walls along much of its length to cross the steep and rugged terrain. Eventually, it would reach the flat bench east of SH82 and follow that south until it connects with existing infrastructure at the AABC. • Option 3 – River Alignment: This proposed alignment would exit the BCPR at the south end and gradually descend to a relatively flat area on the west bank of the Roaring Fork River. The alignment would follow the bank to the south. The trail would gradually ascend back up to the approximate elevation of SH82. It would continue along the flat bench south of Owl Creek and east of SH82 until it connects with the existing infrastructure at the AABC. Figure 3-1: Overall Site Map with Alignment Options 1 and 2 3.2 Trail Typical Sections Typical sections representing each alignment option were developed to determine the feasibility and cost. More complex sections result in added cost, constructability issues, and varying degrees of land disturbance. A longer trail with less complex sections could be less expensive and easier to construct than a shorter more complex trail. Typical sections were rated based on their construction complexity using the familiar system found at mountain areas: least difficult (green), more difficult (blue), and most difficult (black). Most civil contractors should be able to construct the least difficult or green sections while specialized contractors would be required to construct the most difficult or black sections. A cost per linear foot was developed for each typical section. Costs were based on asphalt, base course, presence of railings, presence of walls, and type of retaining walls. Detailed cost information per typical section can be seen in Section 5 of this report. An overall site map with alignment difficulty levels can be seen in Figure 3-2 below. A complete set of typical sections is included in Appendix A. Attachment 1 49 Pitkin County Open Space & Trails—Brush Creek P&R to Aspen ABC February 2022 Trail Feasibility Study 3-8 Figure 3-2: Overall Site Map with Alignment Difficulty Levels “Least Difficult” segments of trail will consist of a 10-foot width with 1-foot shoulders and 3:1 or 2:1 horizontal to vertical slopes. The trail will consist of placing a weed barrier and aggregate base course under a layer of asphalt pavement. Pedestrian railing may or may not be needed in these sections depending on the slopes adjacent to the trail. These sections will be the least expensive to construct. An example of a “Least Difficult” trail segment is shown in Figure 3-3 below. Figure 3-3: Least Difficult Section Example “More Difficult” segments of trail will be defined similarly to the above sections but with the addition of retaining walls. These sections will be made up of uphill and downhill walls. Walls will likely consist of some combination of boulder, MSE (mechanically stabilized earth), large block, cast-in-place concrete, and soil nail walls. Boulder walls would be used for wall heights less than 4 feet. Gravity block, MSE walls, or cast-in-place concrete walls would be used for taller walls. Sections with especially steep slopes that require a top-down construction method would likely be soil nail walls. These sections will be more expensive than the “Least Difficult” sections to construct, but less expensive than the “Most Difficult”. These sections will require more earthwork and materials to create a workable area wide enough to construct the pavement and wall sections. An example of a “More Difficult” trail segment is shown in Figure 3-4 below. Attachment 1 50 Pitkin County Open Space & Trails—Brush Creek P&R to Aspen ABC February 2022 Trail Feasibility Study 3-9 Figure 3-4: More Difficult Section Example “Most Difficult” segments of trail will consist of elevated concrete walkways, prefabricated steel truss bridges or steel deck arch bridges. Bridges and elevated concrete walkways will be 12-feet wide with a concrete deck. These structures will be the costliest to construct. An example of the “Most Difficult” trail segments is shown in Figure 3-5 below. The bridge crossings will be explored in greater detail in the next section. Figure 3-5: Most Difficult Section Examples 3.3 Option 1 – Twin Bridges Alignment A 10-foot-wide trail would depart from the existing Brush Creek Trail at the southeast corner of SH82 and Brush Creek Road and traverse the open space to the south of the BCPR. A long span steel bridge, called the Brush Creek Bridge, would cross the Roaring Fork River and the 175-foot-deep gorge. The bridge would land on the northwest corner of Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District’s Property and then join the RGT. The alignment would use the existing paved portion of the RGT for 5,340-feet. A second long span steel bridge, called the AABC Bridge, would depart the RGT and cross back over the Roaring Fork River north of the Sardy property landing on Pitkin County property. The trail would then follow the east side of Highway 82 until its termination at the AABC. An overview of this alignment is shown in Figure 3-6 below. The trail will be located within CDOT ROW, but outside of the traveled lane clear zone so that guardrail or safety barriers are not required. This alignment provides Attachment 1 51 Pitkin County Open Space & Trails—Brush Creek P&R to Aspen ABC February 2022 Trail Feasibility Study 3-10 RGT users with a direct connection to both the BCPR and AABC. An additional benefit to this alignment option is providing the W/J Ranch neighborhood (on the east side of the Roaring Fork River) a more direct connection to the BCPR. Figure 3-6: Overview of Trail Alignment Option 1 – Twin Bridges Alignment A combination of “Least Difficult” and “Most Difficult” sections would be required to construct this alignment. Generally, the “Most Difficult” sections would be the bridge crossings of the Roaring Fork River and the rest of the alignment would be least difficult sections. The trail surface would consist of 10-foot asphalt trail and 12-foot concrete bridge deck. The total length of the alignment would be approximately 2.55 miles and the total length of new trail would be approximately 1.54 miles. Trail length by section type is summarized in Table 3-1. Table 3-1: Trail Alignment Option 1 – Segment Length by Construction Difficulty Level Trail Segment/Difficult Trail Length (LF) Least Difficult 6,806 More Difficult 70 Most Difficult 1,248 Rio Grande Trail (existing) 5,340 Total Length of Connection 13,464 Total Length of New Trail 8,124 3.3.1 Structures Multiple bridge locations were evaluated to determine the preferred alignment across the Roaring Fork River. Two bridges are needed to cross the Roaring Fork River in this alignment. Bridge locations were selected based on how they would look against the natural topography of the area, trail grade, and span length. To minimize span lengths, both bridges are placed perpendicular to the Roaring Fork River in locations that the gorge narrows. To ensure the bridges blend in with the surrounding topography they have been tucked into their launch points. Pitkin County expressed that a primary aesthetic goal was to limit visibility of the bridges from SH82. The trail grade was set such that the bridges could be tucked into their surroundings while still meeting ADA requirements. The Brush Creek Bridge and AABC Bridge would have longitudinal grade of 1.25% and 3.50% respectively. A Attachment 1 52 Pitkin County Open Space & Trails—Brush Creek P&R to Aspen ABC February 2022 Trail Feasibility Study 3-11 rendering of these two bridges is provided in Figure 3-7 and Figure 3-8 below. Bridge types, span lengths and location choices are discussed in greater detail in Section 4. Figure 3-7: Rendering of the Brush Creek Bridge from the RGT Looking Southwest Figure 3-8: Rendering of the AABC Bridge from the RGT Looking Southwest An alternative alignment in which the AABC Bridge was pushed further south on the RGT was initially considered. This alignment would have had two key benefits: it would have significantly reduced the span length and the bridge would have landed closer to the AABC. However, this crossing is located within the unpaved portion of the RGT where slopes adjacent to the trail steepen and the trail width narrows. The narrow trail and difficult terrain would make construction in this location significantly more difficult and extensive closures to this section of the RGT may be required. In the winter months, the RGT is groomed and used for Nordic skiing. This bridge location would not leave room for a Nordic skiing route. Attachment 1 53 Pitkin County Open Space & Trails—Brush Creek P&R to Aspen ABC February 2022 Trail Feasibility Study 3-12 This bridge alignment was ultimately deemed unfeasible due to all the reasons mentioned above. See Appendix A for a layout of this alignment. 3.3.2 Permitting and Easements The east abutment of the Brush Creek Bridge and the trail connection to the RGT is located within Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Property. An easement agreement will be required for the trail. The City of Aspen held preliminary discussions with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, and they are in support of the project. They have requested that the trail alignment be located as close as possible to the north property line to better accommodate any future use of the site. The bridge will also span over the southern end of the Snowmass Water and Sanitation District parcel. This would be an aerial crossing and no structures would land on that parcel. The County will be undergoing discussions with the District regarding aerial access to this parcel. The BCPR is owned by CDOT. The trail connection will require a CDOT ROW Permit and EOTC approval. The portion of trail adjacent to SH82 and south of the AABC Bridge is primarily located within CDOT right-of-way, which will also require a CDOT ROW Permit. CDOT is supportive of multi-purpose trail projects within the region that reduce vehicle trips. Preliminary discussions with CDOT Region 3 Engineer did not indicate any issues with the proposed trail alignment. The west abutment of the Brush Creek Bridge and trail in the BCPR is owned by CDOT and leased to the City of Aspen. Pursuant to a 2005 IGA (Intergovernmental Agreement) for the Park and Ride between the City, Town, County and RFTA, the landing and trail through the P&R also need to be approved by the EOTC. 3.3.3 Utilities On the west side of the Roaring Fork River there is a Black Hills Energy large regulator station with several incoming and outgoing high pressure and transmission gas mains that are 6” or 10” inches in diameter. If there is impact to this area two department representatives from Black Hills Energy will need to be involved. Holy Cross Energy also has a pair of underground electric transmission lines that are in proximity to the Black Hills Energy regulator station. On the east side of the Roaring Fork River there is a pair of Holy Cross Energy overhead electric 115-kV transmission lines that generally run parallel to the Rio Grande Trail. The lines are owned by Holy Cross Energy, however they have an Operations and Maintenance agreement with Xcel Energy, so any impacts will also require coordination with Xcel. These lines are close to the Brush Creek Bridge east abutment. It is not anticipated at this time that there will be any impacts to these lines during construction of the Brush Creek Bridge. However, the east abutment of the AABC Bridge will conflict with these electric lines and they are anticipated to need to be relocated. Figure 3-9 below shows an overview of the utilities along this alignment. This alignment may also benefit utility providers. If desired, the two bridges could carry utility lines across them for the City of Aspen, Town of Snowmass Village, or other private utility companies. Attachment 1 54 Pitkin County Open Space & Trails—Brush Creek P&R to Aspen ABC February 2022 Trail Feasibility Study 3-13 Figure 3-9: Overview of Utilities Along Alignment Option 1 3.4 Option 2 - SH82 East Alignment A 10-foot-wide trail would head south from the BCPR and parallel SH82. This alignment would cross the Shale Bluffs area with numerous bridges, elevated walkways, and extensive retaining walls. It would bridge Owl Creek and then continue south terminating at the AABC. Figure 3-10 provides an overview and Figure 3-11 provides an aerial view of this alignment. This alignment was included in the 2013 Addendum study prepared by Loris, denoted as “Segment 12”. Prior to this study, this alignment seemed to be the unofficial preferred alignment by the public. It provides the shortest connection between BCPR and AABC. Figure 3-10: Trail Alignment Option 2 – SH82 East Alignment Attachment 1 55 Pitkin County Open Space & Trails—Brush Creek P&R to Aspen ABC February 2022 Trail Feasibility Study 3-14 Figure 3-11: Aerial of Alignment Option 2 – SH82 East Alignment Looking South While it seems prudent to align the proposed trail next to existing infrastructure, the topography creates significant challenges. An extensive length of bridge, retaining wall, and elevated structure would be required to maintain ADA grades through the undulating terrain. These structures would be challenging and expensive to construct and maintain. The user experience and safety would be impacted by the trail’s proximity to a high-volume expressway and the geologic hazards in this area. Snowplow operations may require a snow fence to be installed on the SH82 side of the trail structures. The snow fence would also serve as a throw fence to prevent objects being thrown on to vehicles traveling on SH82. During the winter months, the trail will be shaded by the shale bluffs which could make the trail surface icy. To demonstrate some of the challenges associated with this alignment, DHM Design developed the renderings of the Shale Bluffs crossing shown in Figure 3-11 through Figure 3-13 below. Figure 3-12: Rendering of Existing and Proposed Shale Bluffs Crossing Looking South Attachment 1 56 Pitkin County Open Space & Trails—Brush Creek P&R to Aspen ABC February 2022 Trail Feasibility Study 3-15 Figure 3-13: Rendering of Proposed Shale Bluffs Crossing Looking South Figure 3-14: Rendering of Proposed Shale Bluffs Crossing Looking West Primarily “More Difficult” and “Most Difficult” sections will be utilized for this alignment. “Least Difficult” sections will be used south of the Owl Creek crossing. “More Difficult” segments would be constructed before and after bridge and elevated structures. “Most Difficult” segments would be constructed across the Shale Bluffs area as well as known drainages. Any bridge or opening under SH82 would be mimicked in the adjacent trail to reduce impacts. The trail surface would consist of 10-foot asphalt trail and 12-foot concrete bridge decks and elevated walkways. The total length of the alignment would be approximately 2.28 miles. Trail length by section type is summarized in Table 3-2. Attachment 1 57 Pitkin County Open Space & Trails—Brush Creek P&R to Aspen ABC February 2022 Trail Feasibility Study 3-16 Table 3-2: Trail Alignment Option 2 – Segment Length by Construction Difficulty Level Trail Segment/Difficult Trail Length (Linear Feet/LF) Least Difficult 9,249 More Difficult 418 Most Difficult 2,378 Total Length of Connection 12,045 3.4.1 Structures The main challenge would be the crossing of Shale Bluffs. However, other structures would be required throughout most of this alignment to cross drainages, terrain features, steep slopes, and to maintain ADA grades. The Shale Bluffs area represents a significant geological hazard that would make construction and maintenance of any structure built along this alignment challenging and expensive. The shale in this area is highly erodible and prone to frequent and significant rockfall. Any structure crossing this feature would have to mitigate rockfall and do so without causing a safety hazard for trail users. For these reasons, construction of this alignment would be extremely challenging. Based on preliminary conversations with the CDOT Region 3 Resident Engineer, CDOT is in support of projects within their ROW that would reduce vehicle trips. However, there are significant concerns with attaching the trail to existing CDOT structures. Primarily, CDOT would only approve this if it could be shown that it would not significantly reduce the load rating of those existing structures. It is unlikely that this could be demonstrated. Additionally, if CDOT were to widen or replace the existing structures, then the connected trail structure would have to be removed. For these reasons, an alignment adjacent to SH82 with independent structures was considered. While the trail alignment would be separate from the SH82 roadway, the highway would need to be utilized during construction of the trail. This would involve significant impacts to SH82 such as a northbound lane closure to allow for cranes and other construction equipment to build the trail platform. Nighttime closures may also be necessary for critical construction work such as erecting the bridges that have higher risks of being completed safely with adjacent traffic. Significant approvals from and coordination with CDOT would be required and may not be feasible. If SH82 were used for the construction of an independent structure, it would be beneficial to have the independent structure as close to the existing structures as possible. This would reduce the reach required for construction equipment. However, the closer the independent structure is to the existing structure, the more problematic it would become. The structure would be more impacted by a future CDOT widening or replacement. A trail structure built closer to the existing structures would have a reduced user experience due to road noise and would be harder to maintain. It is uncertain if an alternative construction access that doesn’t utilize SH82 is feasible. The terrain is extremely steep and unstable, and it is unlikely that heavy construction equipment could be safely brought in on a bench built across Shale Bluffs. If an access independent of Attachment 1 58 Pitkin County Open Space & Trails—Brush Creek P&R to Aspen ABC February 2022 Trail Feasibility Study 3-17 SH82 was feasible, it would require significant environmental impacts. To get a better understanding of the terrain along this alignment, Figure 3-15 through Figure 3-18 below provide pictures of the existing conditions. Figure 3-15: Looking South at Existing Shale Bluffs Bridge Figure 3-16: Looking West at Shale Bluffs and SH82 Bridge (Imagery Courtesy of Google Earth) Attachment 1 59 Pitkin County Open Space & Trails—Brush Creek P&R to Aspen ABC February 2022 Trail Feasibility Study 3-18 Figure 3-17: Looking North at Existing Box Culvert under SH82 Figure 3-18: Looking South at Existing SH82 Wall and Box Culvert 3.4.2 Permitting and Easements CDOT clearance will be required for any bridge or wall constructed within their ROW. This typically involves a detailed process which includes multiple reviews, documentation of structure type selection, submittal of calculations, addressing of review comments, and designing to the relevant CDOT standards. Also, CDOT environmental, utility, and ROW clearances are required. Except for the southern connection to the AABC, the entire trail alignment would be located within the CDOT ROW. The trail will require a CDOT Special Use Permit. Attachment 1 60 Pitkin County Open Space & Trails—Brush Creek P&R to Aspen ABC February 2022 Trail Feasibility Study 4-19 The trail section crossing the BCPR will require approval by the EOTC. 3.4.3 Utilities Comcast, CenturyLink/Lumen, Holy Cross Energy, and CDOT all have facilities that run through the SH82 Corridor in this area. There are two Variable Message Signs (VMS) operated by CDOT with electric lines feeding them located adjacent to SH82. Holy Cross Energy also has an underground primary electric line that crosses SH82 on the south end of the Sardy Family Holdings property. Comcast and CenturyLink/Lumen facilities are located around Service Center Drive in the AABC. It is not anticipated that any utilities would be disturbed in the construction of this alignment. Figure 3-19 below shows an overview of the utilities along this alignment. Figure 3-19: Overview of Utilities Along Alignment Option 2 3.5 Option 3 – River Alignment This alignment would follow the existing topography of the river gorge from the top of the gorge to approximately 60 feet above river level. It would maintain a maximum grade of 5.0% to keep in compliance with ADA guidelines but would lose roughly 80 vertical feet in elevation over 1600 linear feet and be built with a great deal of “more difficult” and “most difficult” sections. This alignment would not be conducive to commuter traffic due to the steep grade going down to the river level and then returning back up on either end of the project limits. While some recreational users may prefer this alignment, ultimately it does not fulfill the goals of the project to provide connectivity, nor does it meet Open Space and Trails mission to preserve open space for wildlife. This alignment ultimately was determined to be a non-viable trail location due to the difficulty of construction, the large disturbance of untouched river corridor, and extreme grade changes making the route difficult for commuters. This section of river is one of the most pristine and remote sections of the Roaring Fork. A desire to protect the sensitive natural environment within the gorge led the project stakeholders to abandon this alignment. 4.0 Bridge Alternatives Based on initial evaluation that showed Alignment Options 2 and 3 had significant challenges, Alignment Option 1-Twin Bridges was determined to be the preferred alignment. Due to the environmental impacts, not meeting project goals and costs, the structural bridge details were not fully evaluated for alignments Options 2 and 3. Discussions regarding Attachment 1 61 Pitkin County Open Space & Trails—Brush Creek P&R to Aspen ABC February 2022 Trail Feasibility Study 4-20 relevant structures for Alignments 2 and 3 are included in their respective trail alignment sections. The following bridge alternatives are presented for the preferred trail Alignment Option 1 which includes two bridges crossing the Roaring Fork River. The AABC Bridge is approximately ¾ of a mile north of the Aspen Airport Business Center. The Brush Creek Bridge is located just to the southeast of the BCPR. The two river crossings on Alignment Option 1 are relatively similar in length and height above the river. For this reason and for continuity within the corridor, a similar bridge type will be selected for both crossings. See Figure 4-1 for an aerial overview of the bridge crossings and Figure 4-2 and Figure 4-3 for a vicinity map of each bridge location. The total bridge length varies slightly for each bridge alternative. The AABC Bridge is 625- 655 feet and the Brush Creek Bridge is 565-592 feet. The bridge length varies based on the abutment location which is dependent on the structure depth. The shorter bridge lengths require longer wingwalls and/or retaining walls to support the trail at the approaches. For all alternatives considered, the bridge piers are located outside of the Roaring Fork River flood plain. Each bridge structure type is evaluated based on the following criteria: • Constructability • Aesthetics • Feasibility • Maintenance • Cost Three potential structure types were considered at each crossing, which will be described in detail in the following section. For both river crossings, the following structure types were considered: steel deck arch, steel deck truss, and prefabricated steel deck truss. Only steel structures were considered due to the long span lengths and the difficult construction access created by the steep slopes of the gorge. Other long span structure types such as a through truss, cable stay, or suspension bridge were not considered. OST’s direction was to evaluate alternatives in which the structure was below the bridge deck, to minimize visibility of the structure. Based on the evaluation criteria, the weathering steel deck arch is the preferred bridge alternative for both crossings of the Roaring Fork River on Alignment Option 1. Attachment 1 62 Pitkin County Open Space & Trails—Brush Creek P&R to Aspen ABC February 2022 Trail Feasibility Study 4-21 Figure 4-1: Bridge Location Aerial Overview (Imagery Courtesy of Google Earth) Figure 4-2: Vicinity Map – Brush Creek Bridge Attachment 1 63 Pitkin County Open Space & Trails—Brush Creek P&R to Aspen ABC February 2022 Trail Feasibility Study 4-22 Figure 4-3: Vicinity Map – AABC Bridge 4.1 Steel Deck Arch The steel deck arch alternative consists of the arch structure entirely below the bridge deck. The main span would be 453 feet (AABC) and 430 feet (Brush Creek). Longitudinal steel girders would support the bridge deck and connect to the arch with spandrel columns. Both crossings have two approach spans on each side, for five total spans with total bridge length of 655 feet (AABC) and 592 feet (Brush Creek). The approaches on either side of the arch would consists of longitudinal steel girders supported on steel piers. We propose using weathering (patina) steel for all structural steel elements. See Figure 4-4 for an example of this bridge type and Figure 4-5 and Figure 4-6 for renderings of the bridge at the proposed river crossing locations. Attachment 1 64 Pitkin County Open Space & Trails—Brush Creek P&R to Aspen ABC February 2022 Trail Feasibility Study 4-23 Figure 4-4: Terral Wade Bridge (Tiehack Nordic Bridge, 605 LF) Aspen, Colorado. Weathering Steel Deck Arch Figure 4-5: AABC Bridge Rendering Looking Northwest Steel Deck Arch Attachment 1 65 Pitkin County Open Space & Trails—Brush Creek P&R to Aspen ABC February 2022 Trail Feasibility Study 4-24 Figure 4-6: Brush Creek Bridge Rendering Looking Northwest from SH82 Steel Deck Arch 4.1.1 Constructability The constructability challenges are similar for all three bridge types and both river crossing locations and will be described in general in this section. Issues unique to each structure type will be described in their respective sections. This site is characterized by steep, rocky, and vegetated riverbanks which are approximately 170 feet (AABC) and 160 feet (Brush Creek) high. Both alignments attempt to utilize flat benches clear of vegetation where possible. However, clearing and grading will be required to provide a flat bench for the foundation elements and crane pad. The flat benches above the steep riverbanks generally provide reasonable access to the bridge locations. The west side of the Brush Creek Bridge can be accessed easily from the BCPR. The east side of the Brush Creek Bridge will require construction equipment to access the RGT at either McClain Flats Road or Stevens Street (if permitted), drive south on the RGT and west to the project site. The west side of the AABC Bridge would likely require access from the shoulder of SH82 south of the highway crossing of Owl Creek. The east side of the AABC Bridge would likely require the same access as the east side of the Brush Creek Bridge and travelling approximately 1.5 miles south along the RGT. An assessment in the field indicated that the corridor was wide enough to get most construction equipment in. Since this is an old railroad bed, the subgrade is likely adequate to support heavy equipment. The ability to move heavy equipment along this section of the RGT should be explored in detail during final design. All bridge types for each alternative will require cranes to get partially down the riverbanks to shorten the pick length. Likely a graded access road would need to be built. Ideally, shallow pier foundations could be constructed on bedrock because only excavation equipment would be needed. Rebar and lumber could be lowered from above with a crane and Attachment 1 66 Pitkin County Open Space & Trails—Brush Creek P&R to Aspen ABC February 2022 Trail Feasibility Study 4-25 concrete could be pumped from above. The rest of the work could be done by manual labor. A concrete or steel pier could be built up using the same method. If the bridge was founded on deep foundations, it would be a significant challenge to get a pile driving or drill rig down to the riverbanks. Due to the challenging site, we reviewed the feasibility of erecting these bridges with representatives from PSI Crane. Their conclusion was that erecting a bridge along each alignment was challenging but feasible. They recommended using a cantilever construction method like what was used at the Terrel Wade Bridge. The steel arch would be erected in segments equally on both sides by cranes. A tall tower would be erected at the end of each arch and cables would be anchored into the hillside on each end to support the erected segments. This would continue until the arch is completed in the middle. A photo of this method is shown in Figure 4-7. Overhead electrical lines generally run parallel to the RGT through here. We anticipate that these will need to be relocated for the construction of these bridges. See utility sections for additional details. Construction of the AABC Bridge would likely require a closure and detour of the paved surface RGT onto the parallel soft surface trail. Construction of the Brush Creek Bridge would likely only require temporary closures of the RGT when construction equipment is being moved in and out. Construction operations and staging at the west side of the Brush Creek Bridge will require some area at the BCPR for the Contractor. Figure 4-7: Terral Wade Bridge During Construction (Imagery Courtesy of Modjeski and Masters) Construction at both bridge locations will likely impact aircraft using Aspen/Pitkin County Airport. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requires a permit on construction cranes any time that they will exceed a 100:1 sloped surface from the nearest point of the nearest runway out to 20,000 feet or 200 feet above ground level and beyond. Attachment 1 67 Pitkin County Open Space & Trails—Brush Creek P&R to Aspen ABC February 2022 Trail Feasibility Study 4-26 The AABC Bridge and Brush Creek Bridge are approximately 1,200 and 6,000 feet respectively from the nearest point of the nearest runway. We anticipate that crane operations at both bridges will require a permit. A form FAA 7460-1 will need to be submitted at least 30 days before or more either before the date the proposed construction is to begin or the date an application for a construction permit is to be filed. All crane operators should be familiar with this requirement and will be responsible for obtaining it. Since the structures will both be tucked into the riverbanks, the bridges, once erected, should not have any impacts to the operations at the airport. While airport impacts were not addressed for the structures on Alignment 2, it should be noted that they will also trigger this permitting requirement. 4.1.2 Aesthetics Opinions on aesthetics are subjective. The following is our opinion and generally informed by feedback from clients and the public. The structural components of all three options are below the deck. Once the user is on the bridge, all options will provide an open structure with an unobstructed view of the river valley. While the bridges will be “tucked” into the gorge, they will still be visible along the trail and SH82 as the renderings show. A deck arch would provide an elegant structure that would blend in well with the natural environment of the gorge. This would be a signature bridge aesthetic with a slender appearance. The center of the arch would approximately match the center of the river. It has a more open appearance than the steel truss options due to fewer vertical elements. The geometry of the steep river gorge lends itself to this type of structure. This type of structure has the most industrial and generic appearance of the types considered. This is because these are off the shelf designs while the other two structure types are custom designs. Most people will have seen similar structures in other places. With that said, these structures are attractive, and the open truss provides good sight lines and natural light. Weathering steel or paint can be used to provide a finish that matches the environment and desired aesthetic. 4.1.3 Feasibility This structure type is the most feasible of the three. The Terral Wade Bridge has a 406-foot main span in a similar steep sloping gorge. The arch was built using the cantilevered construction method with temporary towers for bracing during erection. The similarities of scale provide a reasonable cost basis with adjustments for inflation and the current construction climate. The deck arch, like most long span bridge options, would require a specialty contractor to erect. 4.1.4 Maintenance Weathering steel bridges are fairly low maintenance structures. Weathering steel is a corrosion protection system in which a patina forms when exposed to the environment that protects the base metal. While these systems provide reliable corrosion protection, they do eventually fail and will require painting of the bridge. This will be the primary maintenance item and will be a significant expense. With that said, a corrosion protection system generally fails first at the connections. Connections are locations at which water and debris get trapped and can accelerate corrosion. This structure type has the fewest connections Attachment 1 68 Pitkin County Open Space & Trails—Brush Creek P&R to Aspen ABC February 2022 Trail Feasibility Study 4-27 and the least complex connections. Therefore, we would anticipate that this structure type will require the least maintenance. In addition to painting to extend the life of the structure, another significant maintenance item for this type of structure is seasonal cleaning. This will prevent the buildup of debris which can accelerate the corrosion process. Additionally, graffiti removal, deck cleaning, and snow removal will likely be other maintenance items. 4.2 Steel Deck Truss The steel deck truss alternative consists of the truss structure entirely below the bridge deck. The main span is 450 feet (AABC) and 420 feet (Brush Creek). Both crossings have one approach span on each side for three total spans with total bridge length of 650 feet (AABC) and 580 feet (Brush Creek). The approach spans (or back-spans) are continuous with the main truss span. The depth of the truss varies along the length of the bridge, the tallest section is at the interior piers and the shallowest section is at the abutments and the mid- point of the main span. The bottom chord of the truss is chorded into straight segments that will resemble an arch shape. We propose using painted steel for all structural steel elements. See Figure 4-8 for an example of a steel deck truss bridge and Figure 4-9 for the proposed bridge elevation. This alternative was dismissed due to the aesthetics and the higher maintenance cost. Figure 4-8: Deception Pass Bridge Whidbey Island, Washington. Steel Deck Truss (Imagery Courtesy of Frank Schulenburg) Attachment 1 69 Pitkin County Open Space & Trails—Brush Creek P&R to Aspen ABC February 2022 Trail Feasibility Study 4-28 Figure 4-9: Proposed Elevation of AABC Bridge (Steel Deck Truss) 4.2.1 Constructability The truss would be constructed using the balanced cantilever method. This is a similar concept to the deck arch construction except that the truss sections are built out in a balance configuration over the pier. This structure would have significantly more field connections than the arch. We anticipate that this construction would take significantly longer but may be able to use smaller cranes due to the larger number of bridge elements. See Figure 4-10 for an example of this construction method. Figure 4-10: Deception Pass Bridge during Construction, Whidbey Island, Washington. (Imagery Courtesy of WSDOT) 4.2.2 Aesthetics The steel deck truss would also provide an elegant structure that would blend in well with the natural environment of the river gorge. However, it has a more bulky and industrial appearance than the steel deck arch due to the additional vertical and diagonal truss members. Attachment 1 70 Pitkin County Open Space & Trails—Brush Creek P&R to Aspen ABC February 2022 Trail Feasibility Study 4-29 4.2.3 Feasibility This structure type is considered feasible but more challenging than the steel deck arch. This bridge type is uncommon today and would certainly require a specialty steel erector and an immense amount of labor to make all the steel connections. At least two large steel cranes would be required. 4.2.4 Maintenance This type of structure would require significantly more maintenance than the deck truss. Because of the large amount of field connections, this structure is not conducive to weathering steel. Instead, this structure would need to be painted. The paint system will typically last from 30-50 years with good maintenance and will eventually need to be repainted. The cleaning and repainting would be slightly more costly due to the additional members and connections. As mentioned above, any corrosion protection system typically fails first at the connections. Since this will have significantly more and complex connections, there are more locations for corrosion to initiate. Otherwise, the typical maintenance should be similar to the steel deck truss. 4.3 Multi-span Prefabricated Steel Truss The prefabricated steel deck truss alternative consists of the truss structure entirely below the bridge deck. The main span is 338 feet (AABC) and 325 feet (Brush Creek). Both crossings have one approach span on each side for three total spans with total bridge length of 625 feet (AABC) and 565 feet (Brush Creek). The approach spans cantilever over the interior piers to support the center truss span. The truss has a constant depth along the length of the bridge. It has the shallowest cross section of all three alternatives. We propose using weathering steel for all structural steel elements. See Figure 4-11 for an example of a prefabricated truss and Figure 4-12 for the proposed bridge elevation. Figure 4-11: Prefabricated Weathering Steel Truss Bridge, Hat Creek, CO (Imagery Courtesy of Excel Bridge) (Note this is a half through truss) Attachment 1 71 Pitkin County Open Space & Trails—Brush Creek P&R to Aspen ABC February 2022 Trail Feasibility Study 4-30 Figure 4-12: Proposed Elevation of AABC Bridge (Prefabricated Steel Truss) 4.3.1 Constructability The truss will come pre-assembled in sections to the bridge site. The length of the segments will be limited by the truck turning radius on the delivery route and the pick weight. Access to the west side of the Roaring Fork River/SH 82 abutments will be relatively straight forward, however access to the RGT abutments will be more complicated. Access to the east side of the Roaring Fork River will likely be via Smith Way and McLain Flats Road. Navigating the curves will likely require a temporary road closure or flagging. The truss segments will be assembled into four sections on the ground. The cantilever spans will be installed first and connected to the steel piers. The main span drop-in span will be installed in two sections and will require an in-air moment connection splice at mid-span. The pier locations are located closer to the river than the other two alternatives. This will require a longer temporary access road to construct the piers and foundations and greater impacts to the riverbanks. These sections will be extremely heavy and will require the largest cranes available position far down into the gorge to erect this structure. 4.3.2 Aesthetics The prefabricated steel deck truss has a constant depth, which does compliment the river gorge topography as well as the other alternatives. It has the shallowest depth of the three alternatives. This type of structure has the most industrial and generic appearance of the types considered. This is because the prefabricated truss will resemble a box while the other two structure types have a variable depth. Most people will have seen similar structures in other places. 4.3.3 Feasibility Unlike the other two options, the feasibility of the prefabricated truss option is questionable. The benefit of prefabricated truss structures are that they are “off the shelf” and are typically good applications at standard sites. This alternative is putting a square peg in a round hole because it is not a standard site. The main issues are the large pick weights, the tall pier that would need to be constructed, and this would provide the smallest opening for the river. The cranes would need to get way down into the gorge which may not be feasible. We anticipate that two 400 Ton cranes would likely be required to erect this structure. Cranes of this size may not be readily available in the area. Attachment 1 72 Pitkin County Open Space & Trails—Brush Creek P&R to Aspen ABC February 2022 Trail Feasibility Study 4-31 4.3.4 Maintenance These are typically low maintenance structures. The primary maintenance item is that the weathering steel, which provide corrosion protection, will eventually fail and require repainting. The maintenance for this structure would be similar to the steel deck arch but with significantly more connections. 4.4 Bridge Alternatives Cost Analysis The cost estimate for the bridges and alignments are presented in Section 5. The following is a summary of how the cost information was developed. Planning level cost estimates were developed for the deck arch bridge and prefabricated truss bridge alternatives. Since the steel deck truss alternative was dismissed by the project team, planning level cost information was not determined for this alternative. The following information was used in the development of the planning level cost information: • Preliminary Plans for the Maroon Creek Bridge Received from the City of Aspen • CDOT Cost Data Information from 1999 to Current • FHWA Highway Cost Inflation Database • General Square Foot Cost Data for Specific Bridge Structure Types The construction industry is going through a significant period of uncertainty. Major issues such as supply chain issues, labor shortages, and material shortages have resulted in an uncertain period for construction pricing and certainty. Further, with labor shortages, the passage of the Infrastructure Investments and Jobs Act, a significant amount of money will be flowing into the transportation industry. All this is to say, contractors will be busy over the next five years. Further, add in that a specialty Contractor will be required to do this work, large cranes from all over the state and possibly the country will be required, the construction pricing climate will be uncertain at best. To develop the cost estimate for the deck arch, a few approaches were taken. Since the deck arch option was modeled off the Maroon Creek Bridge, the summary of quantities from that bridge was used to develop a quantity tabulation for the proposed bridge. The numbers from the summary of quantities were scaled to match the differences in geometry and complexity on this project from that project. Using the assumed quantities, the CDOT cost data books from 2019, 2020, and 2021, and other local projects, a present-day cost per square foot for the construction of this bridge was determined. A 3% annual inflation factor was applied for each year after that to bring it from present day costs to costs in the assumed year of construction. The year of construction was assumed to be 2025. The present-day numbers were compared to other recent projects put out to bid in Colorado as a reality check on the numbers. The team also reached out to the AISC Steel Solutions Center and local fabricators for cost information. A 30% contingency factor was applied to this number to account for the uncertainties highlighted above. To develop the cost estimate for the prefabricated truss, recent local projects utilizing prefabricated trusses were reviewed. The costs of those projects were then inflated to present day dollars using an inflation factor computed from the CDOT cost data books. Then, a 3% annual inflation factor was applied for each year after that. The year of construction was assumed to be 2025. These projects were also scaled up to reflect the Attachment 1 73 Pitkin County Open Space & Trails—Brush Creek P&R to Aspen ABC February 2022 Trail Feasibility Study 5-32 complexity of this project. The present-day numbers were compared to other recent projects put out to bid in Colorado as a sanity check on the numbers. A 30% contingency factor and a complexity factor were applied to this number to account for the uncertainties highlighted above. 4.5 Preferred Bridge Alternative The steel deck arch is the preferred bridge alternative. This is the most aesthetic, efficient, and constructible. We believe this will be the lowest maintenance of the alternatives considered. 5.0 Alignment Option Comparison 5.1 Cost Analysis SGM generated costs estimates for alignment Options 1 and 2. Unit costs have been created from each typical section per linear foot of trail/bridge and per square foot of wall. These are items such as asphalt pavement, concrete deck, boulder walls, MSE block walls, pedestrian railing, and earthwork. Miscellaneous costs are those items that apply across the entire project and not by typical section type. These items include clearing and grubbing, traffic control, utility relocations, and erosion control. Inflation has been added to the overall cost estimate, assuming an inflation rate of 3% per year, and a construction year of 2025. Mobilization cost of 10% is assumed. The cost estimates are conceptual in nature and therefore include a 30% contingency. Table 5-1 shows a summary of each construction cost estimate. A detailed cost estimate per segment of trail can be found in Appendix C. For this type, scale, and level of complexity of project, design and construction engineering fees will likely range between 15-25% of the total construction costs. The design and construction engineering estimated cost range for both alignment options is also included in the cost estimate table. Table 5-1: Trail Cost Estimate Trail Segment/Difficulty Option 1 Twin Bridges Option 2 SH82 East Alignment Least Difficult $846,000 $1,151,000 More Difficult $203,000 $545,000 Most Difficult $16,381,000 $21,269,000 Total Construction Cost $17,430,000 $22,965,000 Design and Construction Engineering $2,615,000- $4,358,000 $3,445,000- $5,741,000 Total Project Cost $20,045,000- $21,788,000 $26,410,000- $28,706,000 Attachment 1 74 Pitkin County Open Space & Trails—Brush Creek P&R to Aspen ABC February 2022 Trail Feasibility Study 5-33 5.2 Option Evaluation 5.2.1 Evaluation Criteria Alignment Options 1 and 2 were compared in the following categories: • Cost o Total Construction Cost o ROW or Easements Needed • Maintenance o Structure Maintenance (cleaning, painting, railing, expansion joints) o Trail Maintenance (plowing, pedestrian railing, asphalt crack sealing) • User Experience o Safety o Recreation Users o Commuters o General Public/Vehicle Traffic o Aesthetics • Complexity of Construction o Construction / Equipment Access o Construction Techniques o Existing Trail Impacts o Roadway Impacts o Utility Impacts • Environmental o Wildlife Habitat Impacts o Wetland Impacts o Geological Hazards 5.2.2 Evaluation Matrix Each alternative alignment was evaluated based on the above criteria and assigned a color. Positive features are highlighted in green, neutral features are highlighted in yellow, and negative features are highlighted in red. See Table 5-2 below for evaluation matrix. Attachment 1 75 Pitkin County Open Space & Trails—Brush Creek P&R to Aspen ABC February 2022 Trail Feasibility Study 5-34 Table 5-2: Options Evaluation Matrix Comparison Item Option 1 Twin Bridges Alignment Option 2 SH82 East Alignment Total Cost (2025 Construction Only) Construction: $17.3 Million Design & Const. Engineering: $3.5 Million Construction: $22.9 Million Design & Const. Engineering: $4.6 Million ROW or Easements Needed Special Use Permit needed from CDOT and Easement needed from Aspen Consolidated Sanitation and Snowmass Water and Sanitation Special Use Permit permit needed from CDOT and extensive approvals and coordination required Structure Maintenance Moderate maintenance concerns due to preferred bridge type selected Significant due to large amount of structure, structure types required, proximity to snow plowing and traffic, and rockfall hazard Trail Maintenance Minimal maintenance concerns (large portion of trail overlaps with existing RGT) Higher maintenance concerns due to difficulty of trail access along Highway 82 corridor. Longer additional trail length. Safety No concerns Potential for debris and snow throw from Highway 82 to impact trail Recreational Users A good connection between W/J, RGT, BCPR and AABC utilizing existing trail Not an ideal location for recreational users due to proximity to Highway 82 Commuters A good connection between W/J Ranch, RGT, Park and Ride and AABC utilizing existing trail BCPR to AABC trail length = 2.55 miles A more direct route to and from AABC BCPR to AABC trail length = 2.28 miles General Public / Vehicle Traffic View of bridges would be limited since majority of structure is below deck, structure would blend into gorge. Construction would have impacts to Highway 82, Trail location proximity to highway could be distraction to drivers Aesthetics Bridges spanning Roaring Fork River provide new perspectives of valley, Bridges would blend into natural environment Trail bridges separate from existing Highway 82 bridges and different structure type. New trail piers to match existing vehicle bridge pier locations. Construction / Equipment Access Large crane operations and work platforms needed to construct long span bridges Significant crane operations needed to construct long and mid span bridges and structures, extensive coordination and approval with CDOT Existing Trail Impacts Temporary RGT closures required to deliver materials for bridge construction and detour needed at AABC Bridge east abutment No impacts Roadway Impacts Minimal impacts to Highway 82 and McLain Flats Road to reach bridge construction site Significant impacts due to closures necessary to build structures adjacent to Highway 82 Utility Impacts Potential impacts to overhead electric lines during bridge construction No impacts Wildlife Habitat Impacts Negligible impacts Negligible impacts Wetland Impacts No impacts Potential impacts at Owl Creek Geological Hazards No impacts Construction on unstable Shale Bluffs area Constructability Environmental Impacts Maintenance User Experience Cost Attachment 1 76 Pitkin County Open Space & Trails—Brush Creek P&R to Aspen ABC February 2022 Trail Feasibility Study 6-35 6.0 Project Delivery Methods Based on the complexity of the structural design and construction risks, SGM recommends that the Pitkin County Open Space and Trails considers the CM/GC (Construction Manager/General Contractor) delivery method. In this delivery method, the owner has a separate contract with the designer and with a contractor serving as the construction manager during the design phase. The owner initially selects the construction manager based on qualifications rather than lowest qualified bidder. Once the project is close to final design, the construction manager will submit a “guaranteed maximum price”. If the owner agrees, a contract for construction services is executed. At this point, the construction manager transitions to the general contractor role. This contracting method was used for the City of Aspen Terral Wade (Tiehack) steel arch pedestrian bridge. The benefit of this contracting method is that the contractor is brought on the project team prior to final design. The contractor provides input on construction methods, value engineering, schedule, and ways to minimize or mitigate risk. Having a contractor on-board will be very helpful to design the steel deck arch. The loads during construction may control the design of the arch rib, so having the contractor available during the design process will provide the bridge designers with precise construction loads. Another potential cost and time savings element is coordination between the bridge designer and the steel fabricator. The steel fabricator will be able to review member sizes and details and make recommendations for more economical details. If schedule is critical to the project delivery, the contractor could begin earthwork and foundation construction prior to all the steel details being finalized. This type of project is challenging for a design-build delivery method. Design-build projects are typically more successful on projects with a large number of standard and repeatable structures. It is less ideal for complex bridge designs. There are various project risks that would be difficult for the contractor to estimate prior to the design being substantially complete. The more traditional design-bid-build delivery method could be utilized here. However, we anticipate that it would require a significant amount of coordination during construction between the Contractor and Engineer. This is because the construction method will likely impact the ultimate loads on the structure. If this was the case, members may need to be changed or upsized during construction. The Engineer would try to assume a construction sequence during design, but if the Contractor’s sequence or methods were different, it could result in significant changes to the design during construction. This has potential to result in delays and cost overruns. Attachment 1 77 Pitkin County Open Space & Trails—Brush Creek P&R to Aspen ABC February 2022 Feasibility Study Appendix A Appendix A 01 – Trail Typical Sections 02 – Bridge Layout and Typical Sections 03 – Alternate Bridge Alignment 04 – Full Size Report Exhibits Attachment 1 78 118 West Sixth Street, Suite 200Glenwood Springs, CO 81601970.945.1004 www.sgm-inc.com Engineer: Drawn By: Sheet Subset: AMC MWM Structure Numbers BRUSH CREEK P&R TO AABC TRAIL TYPCIAL SECTIONS - LEAST DIFFICULT TYP 1 of 3 Project No./Code 1 -- -- Sheet Number No Revisions: Revised: Void: As Constructed Drawing File Name: BC2AABC-TYP2 Date Comments Init.Rev. Sheet RevisionsComputer File Information Print Date: 2/16/22 Last Modification Date: 12.10.21 AMC Autocad Ver. 2020 SGM Project No.: 2021-405.001 Scale: As Shown Quality Control:Subset Sheets: Attachment 1 79 118 West Sixth Street, Suite 200Glenwood Springs, CO 81601970.945.1004 www.sgm-inc.com Engineer: Drawn By: Sheet Subset: AMC MWM Structure Numbers BRUSH CREEK P&R TO AABC TRAIL TYPICAL SECTIONS - MORE DIFFICULT TYP 2 of 3 Project No./Code 2 -- -- Sheet Number No Revisions: Revised: Void: As Constructed Drawing File Name: BC2AABC-TYP2 Date Comments Init.Rev. Sheet RevisionsComputer File Information Print Date: 2/16/22 Last Modification Date: 12.10.21 AMC Autocad Ver. 2020 SGM Project No.: 2021-405.001 Scale: As Shown Quality Control:Subset Sheets: Attachment 1 80 118 West Sixth Street, Suite 200Glenwood Springs, CO 81601970.945.1004 www.sgm-inc.com Engineer: Drawn By: Sheet Subset: AMC MWM Structure Numbers BRUSH CREEK P&R TO AABC TRAIL TYPICAL SECTIONS - MOST DIFFICULT TYP 3 of 3 Project No./Code 3 -- -- Sheet Number No Revisions: Revised: Void: As Constructed Drawing File Name: BC2AABC-TYP2 Date Comments Init.Rev. Sheet RevisionsComputer File Information Print Date: 2/16/22 Last Modification Date: 12.10.21 AMC Autocad Ver. 2020 SGM Project No.: 2021-405.001 Scale: As Shown Quality Control:Subset Sheets: Attachment 1 81 ELEVATION 7470 7480 7500 7520 7540 7560 7580 7600 7620 7640 7470 7480 7500 7520 7540 7560 7580 7600 7620 7640 0+25 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50 3+00 3+50 4+00 4+50 5+00 5+50 6+00 6+50 7+00 7+50 Graphic Scale In Feet: 1" = 50' 0 25 50 100 118 West Sixth Street, Suite 200Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970.945.1004 www.sgm-inc.com Engineer: Drawn By: Sheet Subset: MCF CWG Structure Numbers BRUSH CREEK P&R TO ASPEN ABC TRAIL AABC Bridge - Alternative #1 Bridge B1 of B7 Project No./Code 1 -- -- Sheet Number No Revisions: Revised: Void: As Constructed Drawing File Name: OwlCreekGeo Date Comments Init.Rev. Sheet RevisionsComputer File Information Print Date: 1/31/22 Last Modification Date: 11.15.21 MLF Autocad Ver. 2018 SGM Project No.: 2021-401.001 Scale: As Shown Quality Control:Subset Sheets:PRELIMINARY DESIGN FOR FEASIBILITY STUDY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONAttachment 1 82 ELEVATION 7470 7480 7500 7520 7540 7560 7580 7600 7620 7640 7660 7470 7480 7500 7520 7540 7560 7580 7600 7620 7640 7660 0+25 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50 3+00 3+50 4+00 4+50 5+00 5+50 6+00 6+50 7+00 7+50 Graphic Scale In Feet: 1" = 50' 0 25 50 100 118 West Sixth Street, Suite 200Glenwood Springs, CO 81601970.945.1004 www.sgm-inc.com Engineer: Drawn By: Sheet Subset: MCF CWG Structure Numbers BRUSH CREEK P&R TO ASPEN ABC TRAIL AABC Bridge - Alternative #2 Bridge B2 of B7 Project No./Code 2 -- -- Sheet Number No Revisions: Revised: Void: As Constructed Drawing File Name: OwlCreekGeo Date Comments Init.Rev. Sheet RevisionsComputer File Information Print Date: 1/31/22 Last Modification Date: 11.15.21 MLF Autocad Ver. 2018 SGM Project No.: 2021-401.001 Scale: As Shown Quality Control:Subset Sheets:PRELIMINARY DESIGN FOR FEASIBILITY STUDY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONAttachment 1 83 ELEVATION 7470 7480 7500 7520 7540 7560 7580 7600 7620 7640 7660 7470 7480 7500 7520 7540 7560 7580 7600 7620 7640 7660 0+25 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50 3+00 3+50 4+00 4+50 5+00 5+50 6+00 6+50 7+00 7+50 Graphic Scale In Feet: 1" = 50' 0 25 50 100 118 West Sixth Street, Suite 200Glenwood Springs, CO 81601970.945.1004 www.sgm-inc.com Engineer: Drawn By: Sheet Subset: MCF CWG Structure Numbers BRUSH CREEK P&R TO ASPEN ABC TRAIL AABC Bridge - Alternative #3 Bridge B3 of B7 Project No./Code 3 -- -- Sheet Number No Revisions: Revised: Void: As Constructed Drawing File Name: OwlCreekGeo Date Comments Init.Rev. Sheet RevisionsComputer File Information Print Date: 1/31/22 Last Modification Date: 11.15.21 MLF Autocad Ver. 2018 SGM Project No.: 2021-401.001 Scale: As Shown Quality Control:Subset Sheets:PRELIMINARY DESIGN FOR FEASIBILITY STUDY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONAttachment 1 84 ELEVATION 7390 7400 7420 7440 7460 7480 7500 7520 7540 7560 7390 7400 7420 7440 7460 7480 7500 7520 7540 7560 4+25 4+50 5+00 5+50 6+00 6+50 7+00 7+50 8+00 8+50 9+00 9+50 10+00 10+50 11+00 Graphic Scale In Feet: 1" = 50' 0 25 50 100 118 West Sixth Street, Suite 200Glenwood Springs, CO 81601970.945.1004 www.sgm-inc.com Engineer: Drawn By: Sheet Subset: MCF CWG Structure Numbers BRUSH CREEK P&R TO ASPEN ABC TRAIL Brush Creek Bridge - Alternative #1 Bridge B4 of B7 Project No./Code 4 -- -- Sheet Number No Revisions: Revised: Void: As Constructed Drawing File Name: OwlCreekGeo Date Comments Init.Rev. Sheet RevisionsComputer File Information Print Date: 1/31/22 Last Modification Date: 11.15.21 MLF Autocad Ver. 2018 SGM Project No.: 2021-401.001 Scale: As Shown Quality Control:Subset Sheets:PRELIMINARY DESIGN FOR FEASIBILITY STUDY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONAttachment 1 85 ELEVATION 7390 7400 7420 7440 7460 7480 7500 7520 7540 7560 7390 7400 7420 7440 7460 7480 7500 7520 7540 7560 4+25 4+50 5+00 5+50 6+00 6+50 7+00 7+50 8+00 8+50 9+00 9+50 10+00 10+50 11+00 Graphic Scale In Feet: 1" = 50' 0 25 50 100 118 West Sixth Street, Suite 200Glenwood Springs, CO 81601970.945.1004 www.sgm-inc.com Engineer: Drawn By: Sheet Subset: MCF CWG Structure Numbers BRUSH CREEK P&R TO ASPEN ABC TRAIL Brush Creek Bridge - Alternative #2 Bridge B5 of B7 Project No./Code 5 -- -- Sheet Number No Revisions: Revised: Void: As Constructed Drawing File Name: OwlCreekGeo Date Comments Init.Rev. Sheet RevisionsComputer File Information Print Date: 1/31/22 Last Modification Date: 11.15.21 MLF Autocad Ver. 2018 SGM Project No.: 2021-401.001 Scale: As Shown Quality Control:Subset Sheets:PRELIMINARY DESIGN FOR FEASIBILITY STUDY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONAttachment 1 86 ELEVATION 7390 7400 7420 7440 7460 7480 7500 7520 7540 7560 7390 7400 7420 7440 7460 7480 7500 7520 7540 7560 4+25 4+50 5+00 5+50 6+00 6+50 7+00 7+50 8+00 8+50 9+00 9+50 10+00 10+50 11+00 Graphic Scale In Feet: 1" = 50' 0 25 50 100 118 West Sixth Street, Suite 200Glenwood Springs, CO 81601970.945.1004 www.sgm-inc.com Engineer: Drawn By: Sheet Subset: MCF CWG Structure Numbers BRUSH CREEK P&R TO ASPEN ABC TRAIL Brush Creek Bridge - Alternative #3 Bridge B6 of B7 Project No./Code 6 -- -- Sheet Number No Revisions: Revised: Void: As Constructed Drawing File Name: OwlCreekGeo Date Comments Init.Rev. Sheet RevisionsComputer File Information Print Date: 1/31/22 Last Modification Date: 11.15.21 MLF Autocad Ver. 2018 SGM Project No.: 2021-401.001 Scale: As Shown Quality Control:Subset Sheets:PRELIMINARY DESIGN FOR FEASIBILITY STUDY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONAttachment 1 87 118 West Sixth Street, Suite 200Glenwood Springs, CO 81601970.945.1004 www.sgm-inc.com Engineer: Drawn By: Sheet Subset: MCF CWG Structure Numbers BRUSH CREEK P&R TO ASPEN ABC TRAIL Typical Sections Bridge B7 of B7 Project No./Code 7 -- -- Sheet Number No Revisions: Revised: Void: As Constructed Drawing File Name: OwlCreekGeo Date Comments Init.Rev. Sheet RevisionsComputer File Information Print Date: 1/31/22 Last Modification Date: 11.15.21 MLF Autocad Ver. 2018 SGM Project No.: 2021-401.001 Scale: 14" = 1'-0" Quality Control:Subset Sheets:PRELIMINARY DESIGN FOR FEASIBILITY STUDY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONAttachment 1 88 Graphic Scale In Feet: 1" = 200' 0 100 200 400 118 West Sixth Street, Suite 200Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970.945.1004 www.sgm-inc.com Engineer: Drawn By: Sheet Subset: XX XX Structure Numbers BRUSH CREEK P&R TO AABC TRAIL TRAIL OPTIONS BY DIFFICULTY ---- of -- Project No./Code ---- -- -- Sheet Number No Revisions: Revised: Void: As Constructed Drawing File Name: BC2AABC-EXHIBITDISMISSED Date Comments Init.Rev. Sheet RevisionsComputer File Information Print Date: 1/31/22 Last Modification Date: 12.10.21 XX Autocad Ver. 2020 SGM Project No.: 2021-405.001 Scale: As Shown Quality Control:Subset Sheets: Attachment 1 89 Graphic Scale In Feet: 1" = 1000' 0 500 1000 2000 118 West Sixth Street, Suite 200Glenwood Springs, CO 81601970.945.1004 www.sgm-inc.com Engineer: Drawn By: Sheet Subset: AMC MWM Structure Numbers BRUSH CREEK P&R TO AABC TRAIL TRAIL OPTIONS 1&2 - OVERVIEW EXHIBIT 1 of 9 Project No./Code 1 -- -- Sheet Number No Revisions: Revised: Void: As Constructed Drawing File Name: BC2AABC-OverallTrail Date Comments Init.Rev. Sheet RevisionsComputer File Information Print Date: 2/15/22 Last Modification Date: 12.10.21 AMC Autocad Ver. 2020 SGM Project No.: 2021-405.001 Scale: As Shown Quality Control:Subset Sheets: Attachment 1 90 Graphic Scale In Feet: 1" = 1000' 0 500 1000 2000 118 West Sixth Street, Suite 200Glenwood Springs, CO 81601970.945.1004 www.sgm-inc.com Engineer: Drawn By: Sheet Subset: AMC MWM Structure Numbers BRUSH CREEK P&R TO AABC TRAIL OVERALL SITE PLAN BY DIFFICULTY EXHIBIT 2 of 9 Project No./Code 2 -- -- Sheet Number No Revisions: Revised: Void: As Constructed Drawing File Name: BC2AABC-OVERALLBYDIFFICULTY Date Comments Init.Rev. Sheet RevisionsComputer File Information Print Date: 2/15/22 Last Modification Date: 12.10.21 AMC Autocad Ver. 2020 SGM Project No.: 2021-405.001 Scale: As Shown Quality Control:Subset Sheets: Attachment 1 91 Graphic Scale In Feet: 1" = 1000' 0 500 1000 2000 118 West Sixth Street, Suite 200Glenwood Springs, CO 81601970.945.1004 www.sgm-inc.com Engineer: Drawn By: Sheet Subset: AMC MWM Structure Numbers BRUSH CREEK P&R TO AABC TRAIL TRAIL OPTION 1 EXHIBIT 3 of 9 Project No./Code 3 -- -- Sheet Number No Revisions: Revised: Void: As Constructed Drawing File Name: BC2AABC-EXHIBITOPTION1 Date Comments Init.Rev. Sheet RevisionsComputer File Information Print Date: 2/15/22 Last Modification Date: 12.10.21 AMC Autocad Ver. 2020 SGM Project No.: 2021-405.001 Scale: As Shown Quality Control:Subset Sheets: Attachment 1 92 Graphic Scale In Feet: 1" = 1000' 0 500 1000 2000 118 West Sixth Street, Suite 200Glenwood Springs, CO 81601970.945.1004 www.sgm-inc.com Engineer: Drawn By: Sheet Subset: AMC MWM Structure Numbers BRUSH CREEK P&R TO AABC TRAIL TRAIL OPTION 1 - UTILITIES EXHIBIT 4 of 9 Project No./Code 4 -- -- Sheet Number No Revisions: Revised: Void: As Constructed Drawing File Name: BC2AABC-EXHIBITOPTION1 Date Comments Init.Rev. Sheet RevisionsComputer File Information Print Date: 2/15/22 Last Modification Date: 12.10.21 AMC Autocad Ver. 2020 SGM Project No.: 2021-405.001 Scale: As Shown Quality Control:Subset Sheets: Attachment 1 93 118 West Sixth Street, Suite 200Glenwood Springs, CO 81601970.945.1004 www.sgm-inc.com Engineer: Drawn By: Sheet Subset: AMC MWM Structure Numbers BRUSH CREEK P&R TO AABC TRAIL TRAIL OPTION 1 - BRUSH CREEK BRIDGE EXHIBIT 5 of 9 Project No./Code 5 -- -- Sheet Number No Revisions: Revised: Void: As Constructed Drawing File Name: BC2AABC-EXHIBITBRIDGES Date Comments Init.Rev. Sheet RevisionsComputer File Information Print Date: 2/15/22 Last Modification Date: 12.10.21 AMC Autocad Ver. 2020 SGM Project No.: 2021-405.001 Scale: As Shown Quality Control:Subset Sheets: Attachment 1 94 118 West Sixth Street, Suite 200Glenwood Springs, CO 81601970.945.1004 www.sgm-inc.com Engineer: Drawn By: Sheet Subset: AMC MWM Structure Numbers BRUSH CREEK P&R TO AABC TRAIL TRAIL OPTION 1 - AABC BRIDGE EXHIBIT 6 of 9 Project No./Code 6 -- -- Sheet Number No Revisions: Revised: Void: As Constructed Drawing File Name: BC2AABC-EXHIBITBRIDGES Date Comments Init.Rev. Sheet RevisionsComputer File Information Print Date: 2/15/22 Last Modification Date: 12.10.21 AMC Autocad Ver. 2020 SGM Project No.: 2021-405.001 Scale: As Shown Quality Control:Subset Sheets: Attachment 1 95 Graphic Scale In Feet: 1" = 1000' 0 500 1000 2000 118 West Sixth Street, Suite 200Glenwood Springs, CO 81601970.945.1004 www.sgm-inc.com Engineer: Drawn By: Sheet Subset: AMC MWM Structure Numbers BRUSH CREEK P&R TO AABC TRAIL TRAIL OPTION 2 EXHIBIT 7 of 9 Project No./Code 7 -- -- Sheet Number No Revisions: Revised: Void: As Constructed Drawing File Name: BC2AABC-EXHIBIT1 Date Comments Init.Rev. Sheet RevisionsComputer File Information Print Date: 2/15/22 Last Modification Date: 12.10.21 AMC Autocad Ver. 2020 SGM Project No.: 2021-405.001 Scale: As Shown Quality Control:Subset Sheets: Attachment 1 96 Graphic Scale In Feet: 1" = 1000' 0 500 1000 2000 118 West Sixth Street, Suite 200Glenwood Springs, CO 81601970.945.1004 www.sgm-inc.com Engineer: Drawn By: Sheet Subset: AMC MWM Structure Numbers BRUSH CREEK P&R TO AABC TRAIL TRAIL OPTION 2 - UTILITIES EXHIBIT 8 of 9 Project No./Code 8 -- -- Sheet Number No Revisions: Revised: Void: As Constructed Drawing File Name: BC2AABC-EXHIBIT1 Date Comments Init.Rev. Sheet RevisionsComputer File Information Print Date: 2/15/22 Last Modification Date: 12.10.21 AMC Autocad Ver. 2020 SGM Project No.: 2021-405.001 Scale: As Shown Quality Control:Subset Sheets: Attachment 1 97 Pitkin County Open Space & Trails—Brush Creek P&R to Aspen ABC February 2022 Feasibility Study Appendix B Appendix B 01 –Aerial View 02 –Option 1 Alignment Renderings 03 –Option 2 Alignment Renderings Attachment 1 98 Attachment 1 99 Aspen Airport Business Center (AABC) Bridge, Looking North (towards McClain Flats) from proposed trail on west side of the Roaring Fork River Attachment 1 100 Aspen Airport Business Center (AABC) Bridge, Looking South (towards Aspen) from existing Rio Grande Trail Attachment 1 101 Brush Creek Bridge, Looking Northeast (towards Woody Creek) from SH82 Attachment 1 102 Brush Creek Bridge, Looking Southwest (towards Sky Mountain Park) from existing Rio Grande Trail Attachment 1 103 Alignment Option 2 - SH82 East Alignment, Looking Southeast (towards Aspen), near Brush Creek Attachment 1 104 Alignment Option 2 - SH82 East Alignment, Looking West (towards Sky Mountain Park), near Brush Creek Attachment 1 105 Alignment Option 2 - SH82 East Alignment, Looking Southeast (towards Aspen), near Brush Creek Left Image: Existing Condition of SH82 and Shale Bluffs Right Image: Proposed Trail Bridge Attachment 1 106 Alignment Option 2 - SH82 East Alignment, Looking Southeast (towards Aspen), Cross Section of Trail and SH82 at Shale Bluffs Attachment 1 107 Alignment Option 2 - SH82 East Alignment. Looking South (towards Aspen) Attachment 1 108 Alignment Option 2 - SH82 East Alignment. Aerial View. Looking West (towards Sky Mountain Park) Attachment 1 109 Pitkin County Open Space & Trails—Brush Creek P&R to Aspen ABC February 2022 Feasibility Study Appendix C Appendix C 01 – Engineers Estimate of Probable Cost Attachment 1 110 Brush Creek Park and Ride to Aspen Airport Business Center Trail Trail Unit Costs (per foot of trail/bridge and per squre foot of retaining wall) Unit Cost Unit Wt. (lb/ft3) TON 155.00$ 146 TON 40.00$ 136 LF 50.00$ - LF 75.00$ SF 100.00$ - SF 60.00$ - SF 0.39$ - Width Depth Volume Cost Width Depth Width Depth Volume Cost Length Cost Area Cost ft ft ft3/ft $/ft ft ft ft ft ft3/ft $/ft ft $/ft SF/ft $/ft $/ft 1A 10 0.5 5.0 56.58$ 2 1 10 0.5 7.0 19.04$ 0 -$ 10 3.89$ 80$ 1B 10 0.5 5.0 56.58$ 2 1 10 0.5 7.0 19.04$ 1 50.00$ 10 3.89$ 130$ Block Boulder Block Boulder Length Cost $/SF $/SF $/SF $/SF ft $/ft 2A -$ -$ 100$ -$ 1 50$ 2B 100$ -$ -$ -$ 0 -$ 2C 100$ -$ 100$ -$ 1 50$ 2D -$ 60$ 100$ -$ 1 50$ 2E 100$ -$ 100$ -$ 0 -$ 2F 100$ -$ 100$ -$ 1 50$ Note: Includes cost from Typical Section 1A for Trail Width Cost Cost ft $/SF $/ft 3A 12 700$ 8,400$ 3B 12 500$ 6,000$ 3C 12 350$ 4,200$ Note: Structure costs include concrete deck and railing, snow throw fence is separate line item for SH82 East Alignment Reinforced Concrete Slab Prefabricated Steel Pony Truss Steel Deck Arch Most Difficult Trail Segments Uphill Wall Downhill Wall Railing Bridge/Structure TypeTypical Section Item Typical Section Asphalt (HMA) Trail Railing More Difficult Trail Segments ABC Class 6 HMA Geotextile (weed barrier) Snow Throw Fence Total Cost per foot of Trail Typical Section Timber Railing Shoulder Base Course ABC Class 6 Combined Block Wall Boulder Wall Easy Section Trail Segments Geotextile (weed barrier) Attachment 1 111 Brush Creek Park and Ride to Aspen Airport Business Center Trail Option 1 - Twin Bridges Segment No. Begin End Cost/ft Segment Cost Cost/ft Segment Cost Area Left (SF) Area Right (SF)Cost/SF Segment Cost Area Left (SF) Area Right (SF) Cost/SF Segment Cost Cost/ft Segment Cost 1 00+00 04+36 436 Least Difficult 1 A -$ -$ 80$ 34,700$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2 04+36 04+57 21 More Difficult 2 C 50$ 2,080$ 80$ 1,654$ -$ -$ 197 197 100$ 39,400$ -$ -$ 3 04+57 10+49 592 Most Difficult 3 A -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 8,400$ 4,972,884$ 4 10+49 10+64 15 More Difficult 2 C 50$ 1,517$ 80$ 1,206$ -$ -$ 112 112 100$ 22,400$ -$ -$ 5 10+64 17+93 728 Least Difficult 1 A -$ -$ 80$ 57,913$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 6 00+00 00+47 47 Least Difficult 1 A -$ -$ 80$ 3,707$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 7 00+46 00+66 20 More Difficult 2 A 50$ 2,044$ 80$ 1,625$ -$ -$ 154 154 100$ 30,800$ -$ -$ 8 00+66 07+22 656 Most Difficult 3 A -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 8,400$ 5,510,400$ 9 07+22 07+36 14 More Difficult 2 A 50$ 1,350$ 80$ 1,073$ -$ -$ 125 125 100$ 25,000$ -$ -$ 10 07+36 63+31 5,595 Least Difficult 1 A -$ -$ 80$ 444,824$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Length 8,124 Itemized Construction Costs 2025 Adjusted EOPC Railing 6,991$ Least Difficult Trail 546,703$ More Difficult Downhill Wall 117,600$ Most Difficult Bridge 10,483,284$ Total Trail Cost Subtotal 11,154,578$ Mobilization 10%1,115,458$ Contingency 30%3,681,011$ *Construction Costs Only, Design Engineering and Construction Management not Included 2022 EOPC 15,951,046$ 2025 Adjusted EOPC 3%17,430,139$ Length (ft)Brush CreekAspen ABCSummary of Costs* Downhill WallUphill WallTrailRailingStation Difficulty Typical Section Summary of Costs* - by Difficulty 17,430,139$ 16,381,175$ 203,371$ 845,593$ Structure Attachment 1 112 Brush Creek Park and Ride to Aspen Airport Business Center Trail Option 2 - SH 82 East Alignment Segment No. Begin End Cost/ft Segment Cost Cost/ft Segment Cost Area Left (SF) Area Right (SF) Cost/SF Segment Cost Area Left (SF) Area Right (SF) Cost/SF Segment Cost Cost/ft Segment Cost 1 00+00 00+59 59 Least Difficult 1 A -$ -$ 80$ 4,653$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2 00+59 00+92 33 More Difficult 2 B -$ -$ 80$ 2,662$ 100$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 3 00+92 01+66 74 More Difficult 2 E -$ -$ 80$ 5,883$ 485 296 100$ 78,100$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 4 01+66 01+81 15 More Difficult 2 B -$ -$ 80$ 1,193$ 100$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 5 01+81 09+11 730 Least Difficult 1 A -$ -$ 80$ 58,026$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 6 09+11 09+33 22 More Difficult 2 F 50$ 2,223$ 80$ 1,767$ -$ -$ 82 82 100$ 16,400$ -$ -$ 7 09+33 13+83 450 Most Difficult 3 B -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 6,000$ 2,699,520$ 8 13+83 14+00 17 More Difficult 2 F 50$ 1,700$ 80$ 1,352$ -$ -$ 68 68 100$ 13,600$ -$ -$ 9 14+00 14+95 95 Least Difficult 1 A -$ -$ 80$ 7,553$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 10 14+95 15+06 11 More Difficult 2 F 50$ 1,100$ 80$ 875$ -$ -$ 46 46 100$ 9,200$ -$ -$ 11 15+06 25+55 1,049 Most Difficult 3 B -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 6,000$ 6,294,000$ 12 25+55 25+65 10 More Difficult 2 F 50$ 1,000$ 80$ 795$ -$ -$ 38 38 100$ 7,600$ -$ -$ 13 25+65 25+80 15 Least Difficult 1 B 50$ 1,500$ 80$ 1,193$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 14 25+80 25+95 15 More Difficult 2 F 50$ 1,500$ 80$ 1,193$ -$ -$ 48 48 100$ 9,600$ -$ -$ 15 25+95 29+50 355 Most Difficult 3 B -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 6,000$ 2,130,000$ 16 29+50 29+87 37 More Difficult 2 F 50$ 3,700$ 80$ 2,942$ -$ -$ 122 122 100$ 24,400$ -$ -$ 17 29+87 37+82 795 Least Difficult 1 A -$ -$ 80$ 63,206$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 18 37+82 38+12 30 More Difficult 2 D 50$ 1,500$ 80$ 2,385$ 17 60$ 1,020$ 140 100$ 14,000$ -$ -$ 19 38+12 40+50 238 Most Difficult 3 C -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 4,200$ 999,600$ 20 40+50 40+71 21 More Difficult 2 F 50$ 2,100$ 80$ 1,670$ -$ -$ 75 75 100$ 15,000$ -$ -$ 21 40+71 43+81 310 Least Difficult 1 A -$ -$ 80$ 24,646$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 22 43+81 44+09 28 More Difficult 2 F 50$ 2,800$ 80$ 2,226$ -$ -$ 121 67 100$ 18,800$ -$ -$ 23 44+09 46+35 226 Most Difficult 3 C -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 4,200$ 949,200$ 24 46+35 46+69 34 More Difficult 2 F 50$ 3,400$ 80$ 2,703$ -$ -$ 125 57 100$ 18,200$ -$ -$ 25 46+69 65+15 1,846 Least Difficult 1 A -$ -$ 80$ 146,764$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 26 65+15 65+60 45 More Difficult 2 F 50$ 4,500$ 80$ 3,578$ -$ -$ 262 176 100$ 43,800$ -$ -$ 27 65+60 66+20 60 Most Difficult 3 B -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 6,000$ 360,360$ 28 66+20 66+45 25 More Difficult 2 F 50$ 2,494$ 80$ 1,983$ -$ -$ 100 77 100$ 17,700$ -$ -$ 29 66+45 120+44 5,399 Least Difficult 1 A -$ -$ 80$ 429,238$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Length 12,044 Station Length (ft) Difficulty Trail Uphill Wall Downhill Wall Structure Typical Section Railing Attachment 1 113 Brush Creek Park and Ride to Aspen Airport Business Center Trail Option 2 - SH 82 East Alignment Itemized Construction Costs 2025 Adjusted EOPC Railing 29,517$ Least Difficult Trail 768,482$ More Difficult Uphill Wall 79,120$ Most Difficult Downhill Wall 208,300$ Bridge 13,432,680$ Total Trail Cost Snow Fence 178,350$ Subtotal 14,696,449$ *Construction Costs Only, Design Engineering and Construction Management not Included Mobilization 10%1,469,645$ Contingency 30%4,849,828$ 2022 EOPC 21,015,922$ 2025 Adjusted EOPC 3%22,964,666$ Summary of Costs*Summary of Costs* - by Difficulty 22,964,666$ 21,268,590$ 544,788$ Traffic Control Costs not included. Assuming the right lane of SH82 northbound used to construct bridge structures, an additional $600,000 is estimated for two construction seasons. 1,151,288$ Attachment 1 114 Pitkin County Open Space & Trails—Brush Creek P&R to Aspen ABC February 2022 Feasibility Study Appendix D Appendix D 01 – Natural Resources Assessment Attachment 1 115 Denver • Durango • Hotchkiss • Idaho www.eroresources.com Consultants in Natural Resources and the Environment Natural Resources Assessment Brush Creek to AABC Trail Study Pitkin County, Colorado Prepared for— SGM, Inc. 118 West Sixth Street, Suite 200 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Prepared by— ERO Resources Corporation 1842 Clarkson Street Denver, Colorado 80218 (303) 830-1188 ERO Project #21-230 January 2022 Attachment 1 116 Natural Resources Assessment Brush Creek to AABC Trail Study Pitkin County, Colorado ERO Project #21-230 i ERO Resources Corporation Contents Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. ii Summary of Potential Impacts ........................................................................................................ iii Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1 Project Area Description .......................................................................................................... 1 Vegetation Communities ................................................................................................................. 2 Noxious Weeds ................................................................................................................................ 8 Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. ............................................................................................. 8 Background ...................................................................................................................................... 8 Site Conditions and Regulations ...................................................................................................... 9 Recommendations ........................................................................................................................... 9 Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species ..................................................................... 9 Site Conditions and Recommendations ......................................................................................... 10 Other Species of Concern ....................................................................................................... 11 Raptors and Migratory Birds ......................................................................................................... 11 State-Listed Threatened and Endangered Species and Other Sensitive Wildlife ......................... 12 Other Wildlife ................................................................................................................................ 13 Summary of Impacts from the Proposed Project .................................................................... 13 References ............................................................................................................................. 14 Tables Table 1. Vegetation communities in the project area. .................................................................... 2 Table 2. Federally listed threatened, endangered, and candidate species potentially found in Pitkin County or potentially affected by projects in Pitkin County. ........................................ 10 Table 3. Wildlife species activity within the project area (CPW 2021). ......................................... 12 Table 4. Potential Impacts from the Proposed Alignment Options .............................................. 14 Figures Figure 1. Vicinity Map ...................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 2. Existing Conditions – Vegetation ...................................................................................... 6 Figure 3. Existing Conditions – Vegetation ...................................................................................... 7 Appendices Appendix A Photo Log Attachment 1 117 Natural Resources Assessment Brush Creek to AABC Trail Study Pitkin County, Colorado ERO Project #21-230 ii ERO Resources Corporation Executive Summary SGM, Inc., on behalf of Pitkin County, retained ERO Resources Corporation (ERO) to provide a natural resources assessment for the proposed Brush Creek to Aspen Airport Business Center (AABC) Trail Study in Pitkin County, Colorado (project area). ERO assessed the project area for potential wetlands and waters of the U.S., threatened and endangered species, and general wildlife use (2021 site visit). Below is a summary of the resources found at the project area and recommendations or future actions necessary based on the current site conditions and federal, state, and local regulations. The natural resources and associated regulations described in this report are valid as of the date of this report and may be relied upon for the specific use for which it was prepared by ERO under contract to SGM, Inc. Because of their dynamic natures, site conditions and regulations should be reconfirmed by a qualified consultant before relying on this report for a use other than that for which ERO was contracted. Noxious Weeds – No List A species were found in the project area during the 2021 site visit. Three Colorado Department of Agriculture and Pitkin County noxious weed List B species and two List C species were documented. Wetlands and Other Waters of the U.S. – ERO recommends conducting a formal wetland delineation once a final trail alignment has been determined. If any work is planned within the Roaring Fork River, Owl Creek, or their adjacent wetlands a Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permit would be required for the placement of dredged or fill material below the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) or in wetlands. If any work is planned within the stormwater pond south of the Brush Creek and Highway 82 Park and Ride, ERO recommends requesting an approved jurisdictional determination to determine if the wetlands in the stormwater pond are jurisdictional. Threatened and Endangered Species – The project area contains potential habitat for Monarch butterfly and Ute Ladies’ Tresses Orchid (ULTO). There is potential for milkweed plants (Asclepiadoideae) to occur within the wetlands in the project area. There is potential for ULTO to occur within the wetlands along the Roaring Fork River and Owl Creek in the project area due to presence of commonly associated species, alluvial soils, and due to the presence of known ULTO populations downstream near Carbondale. ERO recommends avoiding impacts to wetland areas in order to avoid impacts to potential Monarch butterfly or ULTO habitat. If impacts to wetland areas cannot be avoided consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) may be required. Migratory Birds – No bird nests were observed in the project area during the 2021 site visit. However, suitable nesting habitat is present within the project area for a variety of species. Additionally, the riparian community along the Roaring Fork River and Owl Creek provides suitable nesting habitat for raptor species. The Denver Field Office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2009) and Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT)(2011) have identified the primary nesting season for migratory birds in Colorado as occurring between April 1 and mid to late August. However, some birds, such as the red-tailed hawk and great horned owl, can nest as early as February or March. Because of variability in the breeding seasons of various bird species, ERO recommends a nest survey be conducted within one week prior to Attachment 1 118 Natural Resources Assessment Brush Creek to AABC Trail Study Pitkin County, Colorado ERO Project #21-230 iii ERO Resources Corporation construction to determine if any active nests are present in the project area so they can be avoided. If active nests are found, any work that would destroy the nests could not be conducted until the birds have vacated the nests. Other Wildlife – The project area occurs in the winter range for the bald eagle, in the osprey foraging area, in the overall range of American elk, mule deer, and mountain lion, and in the human conflict area and fall concentration area of black bear. Additionally, the Roaring Fork River in the project area is designated as a wild trout water between Holum Lake and the Woody Creek bridge due to the presence of a wild trout population. The proposed trail alignments that immediately parallel Highway 82 or that would span the Roaring Fork River and utilize the Rio Grande Trail to the east would minimally impact these species. Trail alignments closer to the Roaring Fork River have more potential to disturb these species. Summary of Potential Impacts Three options are being considered for this trail study – Option 1: Bridges over the Roaring Fork River, Option 2: Along Highway 82, and Option 3: Along Roaring Fork River. Option 1 would have the least potential resource impacts due to minimal ground disturbance and its location away from the Roaring Fork River and Owl Creek riparian corridors, and would have no impact to wetland and Threatened and Endangered Species. Option 2 would have moderate impacts due to ground disturbance and impacts to the Owl Creek riparian corridor, and has potential impacts to wetlands and Threatened and Endangered Species. Option 3 would have the greatest impact due to its location along the Roaring Fork River riparian corridor, and has potential impacts to wetlands and Threatened and Endangered Species. Attachment 1 119 ERO Project #21-230 1 ERO Resources Corporation 0BNatural Resources Assessment Brush Creek to AABC Trail Study Pitkin County, Colorado January 2022 Introduction SGM, Inc, on behalf of Pitkin County, retained ERO Resources Corporation (ERO) to provide a natural resources assessment for the proposed Brush Creek to AABC Trail Study in Pitkin County, Colorado (project area; Figure 1). On September 8, 2021, Hidde Snieder with ERO assessed the project area for natural resources (2021 site visit). During this assessment, activities included a review of potential wetlands and other waters of the U.S., identification of potential federally listed threatened and endangered species habitat, and identification of other natural resources. This report provides information on existing site conditions and resources, as well as current regulatory guidelines related to those resources. ERO assumes the landowner is responsible for obtaining all federal, state, and local permits for construction of the project. The natural resources and associated regulations described in this report are valid as of the date of this report and may be relied upon for the specific use for which it was prepared by ERO under contract to SGM, Inc. Because of their dynamic natures, site conditions and regulations should be reconfirmed by a qualified consultant before relying on this report for a use other than that for which ERO was contracted. Project Area Description The project area occurs between the Brush Creek and Highway 82 Park and Ride and the AABC along both sides of the Roaring Fork River north of Aspen. The project area is in Sections 21, 27, 28, and 34, Township 9 South, Range 85 West of the 6th Principal Meridian in Pitkin County, Colorado (Figure 1). The UTM coordinates for the approximate center of the project area are NAD 338518mE, 4344412mN, Zone 13 North. The longitude/latitude of the project area is 106.870982°W/39.234001°N. The elevation of the project area is approximately 7,500 feet above sea level. Photo points of the project area are shown on Figures 2 through 3 and the photo log is in Appendix A. The project area is generally bounded by Highway 82 to the west, the Brush Creek and Highway 82 Park and Ride to the north, the Rio Grande Trail to the east, and the AABC to the south (Figure 1). The Project area consists of two potential trail alignments on the west side of the Roaring Fork River and three potential trail alignments on the east side of the Roaring Fork River which would utilize the existing Rio Grande Trail and would require crossing the Roaring Fork River. The Roaring Fork River occurs approximately 150 feet downhill in the valley bottom below Highway 82 to the west and the Rio Grande Trail to the east. Within the project area the Roaring Fork River generally flows from the southeast to northwest. Owl Creek occurs to the east of the Roaring Fork River and flows into the Attachment 1 120 Natural Resources Assessment Brush Creek to AABC Trail Study Pitkin County, Colorado ERO Project #21-230 2 ERO Resources Corporation project area from the southwest near the Aspen-Pitkin County Airport. Owl Creek is an intermittent drainage and is a tributary to the Roaring Fork River. Vegetation Communities During the 2021 site visits, vegetation community classifications were established based primarily on the dominant species occurring in the project area. The proportion of native and nonnative species, the degree of noxious weed and aggressive species infestations, the presence of riparian vegetation, and other parameters that influence vegetation were also considered. ERO identified eight communities in the project area – conifer forest, disturbed area, montane shrublands, riparian forest, sagebrush shrublands, shale hillslope, upland herbaceous, and wetland (Figure 2 to 3). Table 1 contains a list of the vegetation communities in the project area. Table 1. Vegetation communities in the project area. Vegetation Community Abbreviation Conifer forest CF Disturbed area D Montane shrubland MS Riparian forest RF Sagebrush shrubland SBS Shale hillslope SH Upland herbaceous UH Wetland W Conifer forest The conifer forest community occurs in the project area along both sides of the Roaring Fork River on northwest to northeast facing hillslopes. The conifer forest community is dominated by an overstory of Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) with a deeply shaded canopy (Photos 1 and 2). Understory cover is sparse within the conifer forest community and prevalent species include Utah service berry (Amelanchier utahensis), Gambel oak (Quercus gambelii), common chokecherry (Prunus virginiana), western snowberry (Symphoricarpos occidentalis), smooth brome (Bromus inermis), slender wheatgrass (Elymus trachycaulus), and Virginia strawberry (Fragaria virginiana). Disturbed area The disturbed area community occurs in the project area immediately to the south of the Brush Creek and Highway 82 Park and Ride. This area consists of a mixture of natural gas facilities, a temporary homeless encampment, and gravel access roads. Upland vegetation is sparse and consists of smooth brome, and western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii), with scattered rubber rabbitbrush (Ericameria nauseosa), and mountain sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata). Due to the high level of disturbance this community provides little ecological function. Attachment 1 121 Natural Resources Assessment Brush Creek to AABC Trail Study Pitkin County, Colorado ERO Project #21-230 3 ERO Resources Corporation Montane shrubland The montane shrubland is the most prevalent vegetation community in the project area and occurs on the majority of the valley side slopes above the Roaring Fork River. The montane shrubland community is dominated by shrub species including Gambel oak, Utah service berry, mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus montanus), woods rose (Rosa woodsii), antelope bitterbursh (Purshia tridentata), wax currant (Ribes inerme), and common juniper (Juniperus communis) (Photos 3 and 4). Understory vegetation in the montane shrubland community is dominated by smooth brome, western wheatgrass, slender wheatgrass, ricegrass (Achnatherum hymenoides), hairy false goldenaster (Heterotheca villosa), and mountain muhly (Muhlenbergia montana). Riparian Forest The riparian forest occurs in the project area in a narrow corridor along the Roaring Fork River and along Owl Creek. The riparian community is dominated by an overstory of narrowleaf cottonwood (Populus angustifolia) with a shrub understory of thinleaf alder (Alnus incana), river birch (Betula occidentalis), sandbar willow (Salix exigua), western snowberry, and redosier dogwood (Cornus sericea), and common chokecherry (Photos 5 and 6). Herbaceous species within the riparian forest community consist of a mixture of mesic and upland species including smooth brome, redtop (Agrostis gigantea), meadow foxtail (Alopecurus pratensis), timothy (Phleum pratense), field horsetail (Equisetum arvense), and slender wheatgrass. Sagebrush shrubland The sagebrush shrublands occur in the project area on terraces above the valley side slopes. Vegetation in the sagebrush shrublands is dominated by mountain sagebrush, rubber rabbitbrush, common juniper, fringed sage (Artemisia frigida), crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum) smooth brome, ricegrass, and mountain muhly (Photo 7). Shale hillslope The shale hillslope community primarily occurs along Highway 82 along the western border of the project area. Due to steep topography and unstable soils, limited vegetation is present within this community (Photo 8). Where vegetation is present it consists of scattered patches of rubber rabbitbrush, mountain mahogany, antelope bitterbrush, ricegrass, smooth brome, and rocky mountain penstemon (Penstemon strictus). Upland Herbaceous The upland herbaceous community occurs in the project area along the Highway 82 and the Rio Grande Trail. The upland herbaceous community is dominated by a mixture of native and non-native pasture grasses and forbs including smooth brome, western wheatgrass, slender wheatgrass, prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), alfalfa (Medicago sativa), sweetclover (Melilotus officinalis), curly top gumweed (Grindelia squarrosa), fringed sage and crested wheatgrass (Photo 9). Attachment 1 122 Natural Resources Assessment Brush Creek to AABC Trail Study Pitkin County, Colorado ERO Project #21-230 4 ERO Resources Corporation Wetland The wetland community occurs in the project area in a stormwater pond south of the Brush Creek and Highway 82 Park and Ride and in narrow fringes along the Roaring Fork River and Owl Creek. Wetlands in the stormwater pond are dominated by narrowleaf cattail (Typha latifolia), common threesquare (Schoenoplectus pungens), and Baltic rush (Juncus arcticus). Wetlands along the Roaring Fork River and Owl Creek are dominated by sandbar willow, narrowleaf cottonwood, redtop, meadow foxtail, Baltic rush, field horsetail, northwest territory sedge (Carex utriculata), common mint (Mentha arvensis), Canada golden rod (Solidago canadensis), and sword leaf rush (Juncus ensifolius) (Photo 10). Attachment 1 123 Project Area Prepared for: SGM File: 21_230 Figure 1.mxd (GS) January 18, 2022 ± Figure 1 Vicinity Map Brush Creek to AABC Trail Study Portions of this document include intellectual property of ESRI and its licensors and are used herein under license. Copyright © 2022 ESRI and its licensors. All rights reserved. 0 2,5001,250 Feet LocationPath: P:\21_200\21_230 Pitkin Co - Brush Creek to AABC Trail Study\Maps\21_230 Figure 1.mxdSections 21, 27, 28, and 34, T9S, R85W; 6th PM UTM NAD 83: Zone 13N; 338518mE, 4344412mN Longitude 106.870982°W, Latitude 39.234001°N USGS Highland Peak and Aspen, CO Quadrangles Pitkin County, Colorado Attachment 1 124 &&&&&&&Hi ghway82Ro ari n gFork Ri ver OwlCreekBrush Creek Bridge Exi st i ngRi oGr andeTr ail P4 P5 P2 P3 P1 P8 P10 Prepared for: SGM File: 21_230_Figures 2-3.mxd (GS) February 1, 2022 ± Figure 2 Vegetation Brush Creek to AABC Trail Study 0 700350FeetPath: P:\21_200\21_230 Pitkin Co - Brush Creek to AABC Trail Study\Maps\21_230_Figures 2-3.mxdImage Source: Google Earth©, September 2020&Photo Point Potential Trail Alignment Conifer Forest Disturbed Montane Shrubland Riparian Forest Sagebrush Shrubland Shale Hillslope Upland Herbaceous Water Wetland 2 3 Attachment 1 125 &&&&Hi ghway82OwlCreekR o aring Fork River AABC Bridge South Bridge Existing Rio GrandeTrail P6 P9 P7 P4 Prepared for: SGM File: 21_230_Figures 2-3.mxd (GS) February 1, 2022 ± Figure 3 Vegetation Brush Creek to AABC Trail Study 0 700350FeetPath: P:\21_200\21_230 Pitkin Co - Brush Creek to AABC Trail Study\Maps\21_230_Figures 2-3.mxdImage Source: Google Earth©, September 2020&Photo Point Potential Trail Alignment Conifer Forest Disturbed Montane Shrubland Riparian Forest Sagebrush Shrubland Shale Hillslope Upland Herbaceous Water Wetland 2 3 Attachment 1 126 Natural Resources Assessment Brush Creek to AABC Trail Study Pitkin County, Colorado ERO Project #21-230 8 ERO Resources Corporation Noxious Weeds ERO surveyed the project area for all noxious weeds on the Colorado Department of Agriculture (CDOA) A, B, and C lists (CDOA 2021) and the and the Pitkin County Noxious Weed List (Pitkin County Noxious Weed List 2021). No List A species were found in the project area during the 2021 site visit. Three CDOA noxious weed List B species and two List C species were documented. List B Species Three list B species – Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare), and diffuse knapweed (Centaurea diffusa) – were found adjacent to Highway 82 in the project area. List C Species Two list C species – cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) and field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) – were found scattered throughout the project area during the 2021 site visit. Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. Background The Clean Water Act (CWA) protects the chemical, physical, and biological quality of waters of the U.S. (WOTUS). The U.S Army Corps of Engineers’ (Corps) Regulatory Program administers and enforces Section 404 of the CWA. Under Section 404, a Corps permit is required for the discharge of dredged or fill material into wetlands and other WOTUS (streams, ponds, and other waterbodies). On June 22, 2020, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Corps’ Navigable Waters Protection Rule (NWPR) to define “waters of the United States” became effective in 49 states and in all U.S. territories. A preliminary injunction was granted for Colorado. On March 2, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit vacated the stay on the NWPR in Colorado, thereby ruling the NWPR effective in Colorado. After April 23, 2021, jurisdiction of wetlands and other potential WOTUS in Colorado was to be determined using the NWPR. However, on August 30, 2021 the Arizona District Court remanded and vacated the NWPR. In response, the EPA and Corps have halted implementation of the NWPR and, until further notice, are interpreting WOTUS consistent with the pre-2015 regulatory regime (also referred to as the “Rapanos” guidelines). As such, the identification of WOTUS in this report follows the Rapanos guidelines. Potential rulings and guidance in the future could change the results of this report regarding the jurisdictional status of waters and wetlands in the project area. While ERO may provide its opinion on the likely jurisdictional status of wetlands and waters, the Corps will make the final determination of jurisdiction based on the current rulings. Under the Rapanos guidelines, the Corps considers traditionally navigable waters (TNWs), wetlands adjacent to a TNW, and tributaries to TNWs that are relatively permanent waters (RPWs) and their abutting wetlands jurisdictional waters. Other wetlands and waters that are not TNWs or RPWs will require a significant nexus evaluation to determine their jurisdiction. A significant nexus evaluation assesses the flow characteristics and functions of a tributary and its adjacent wetlands to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of downstream TNWs. Attachment 1 127 Natural Resources Assessment Brush Creek to AABC Trail Study Pitkin County, Colorado ERO Project #21-230 9 ERO Resources Corporation Site Conditions and Regulations During the 2021 site visit, ERO surveyed the project area for wetlands, streambeds, and open waters; however, a jurisdictional wetland delineation following Corps guidelines was not conducted during this assessment. Prior to the 2021 site visit, ERO reviewed U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle topographic maps and aerial photography to identify mapped streams and areas of open water that could indicate wetlands or waters of the U.S. ERO also reviewed the proximity and potential surface water connection of wetlands to known jurisdictional waters of the U.S. using aerial photo interpretation, landowner information, and information from the 2021 site visit. The Roaring Fork River and Owl Creek occur within the project area. The Roaring Fork River generally flows from the southeast to northwest, while Owl Creek occurs to the east of the Roaring Fork River and flows into the project area from the southwest near the Aspen-Pitkin County Airport. Owl Creek is an intermittent drainage and is a tributary to the Roaring Fork River. The Roaring Fork River is a tributary to the Colorado River, a TNW. Wetlands occur in a stormwater pond south of the Brush Creek and Highway 82 Park and Ride and in narrow fringes along the Roaring Fork River and Owl Creek. The wetlands in the stormwater pond are likely non-jurisdictional since they appear to be excavated in the uplands and do not appear to have direct surface connection to any potential waters of the U.S. The Roaring Fork River, Owl Creek, and adjacent wetlands to both drainages would be considered jurisdictional by the Corps due to their apparent surface connection to a TNW. Recommendations ERO recommends conducting a formal wetland delineation once a final trail alignment has been determined. If any work is planned within the Roaring Fork River, Owl Creek, or their adjacent wetlands a Section 404 permit would be required for the placement of dredged or fill material below the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) or wetlands. If any work is planned within the stormwater pond south of the Brush Creek and Highway 82 Park and Ride, ERO recommends requesting an approved jurisdictional determination to determine if the wetlands in the stormwater pond are jurisdictional. Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species ERO assessed the project area for potential habitat for threatened, endangered, and candidate species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Federally listed threatened and endangered species are protected under the ESA of 1973, as amended (16 United States Code 1531 et seq.). Significant adverse effects on a federally listed species or its habitat require consultation with the Service under Section 7 or 10 of the ESA. The Service lists several threatened and endangered species with potential habitat in Pitkin County, or that would be potentially affected by projects in Pitkin County (Table 2). Attachment 1 128 Natural Resources Assessment Brush Creek to AABC Trail Study Pitkin County, Colorado ERO Project #21-230 10 ERO Resources Corporation Table 2. Federally listed threatened, endangered, and candidate species potentially found in Pitkin County or potentially affected by projects in Pitkin County. Common Name Scientific Name Status* Habitat Habitat Present Mammals Canada lynx Lynx canadensis T Climax boreal forest with a dense understory of thickets and windfalls No Birds Mexican spotted owl Strix occidentalis T Closed canopy forests in steep canyons No Yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus T Wooded habitat with dense cover and nearby water No Fish Bonytail chub Gila elegans E Backwaters with rocky or muddy bottoms and flowing pools No Colorado pikeminnow Ptychocheilus Lucius E Warm rivers that have large snowmelt runoff and lower, relatively stable base flows No Humpback chub Gila cypha E Pools with substrates of silt, sand, boulder, or bedrock No Razorback sucker Xyrauchen texanus E Large river species in areas with strong current and backwaters No Monarch butterfly Danaus plexippus plexippus C Dependent on milkweeds (Asclepiadoideae) as host plants and forage on blooming flowers; a summer resident. Potential Uncompahgre fritillary butterfly Boloria acrocnema E Cool, wet areas with large patches of snow willow above 12,000 feet in elevation No Plants Ute ladies’-tresses orchid (UTLO) Spiranthes diluvialis T Moist to wet alluvial meadows, floodplains of perennial streams, and around springs and lakes below 7,800 feet in elevation Yes *T = Federally Threatened Species; E = Federally Endangered Species; Candidate Species Source: Service 2021. Site Conditions and Recommendations The proposed project would not directly affect the Canada lynx, Mexican spotted owl, yellow-billed cuckoo, Monarch butterfly, or Uncompahgre fritillary butterfly because of the lack of habitat in the project area. The proposed project is not anticipated to result in depletions to the Roaring Fork River, a tributary of the Upper Colorado River Basin; therefore, the Colorado River fish (bonytail chub, Colorado pikeminnow, humpback chub, and razorback sucker) would not be affected by the proposed project. There is potential for milkweed to occur within the wetlands in the project area. There is potential for ULTO to occur within the wetlands along the Roaring Fork River and Owl Creek in the project area due to presence of commonly associated species (Service 1992), alluvial soils, and due to the presence of known ULTO populations downstream near Carbondale. ERO recommends avoiding impacts to wetland areas in order to avoid impacts to potential Monarch butterfly or ULTO habitat. If impacts to wetland areas can’t be avoided consultation with the Service may be required. Attachment 1 129 Natural Resources Assessment Brush Creek to AABC Trail Study Pitkin County, Colorado ERO Project #21-230 11 ERO Resources Corporation Other Species of Concern Raptors and Migratory Birds Migratory birds, as well as their eggs and nests, are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). The MBTA does not contain any prohibition that applies to the destruction of a bird nest alone (without birds or eggs), provided that no possession occurs during the destruction. While destruction of a nest by itself is not prohibited under the MBTA, nest destruction that results in the unpermitted take of migratory birds or their eggs is illegal and fully prosecutable under the MBTA (Migratory Bird Permit Memorandum, Service (2003)). The regulatory definition of a take means to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or attempt to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect. Under the MBTA, the Service may issue nest depredation permits, which allow a permittee to remove an active nest. The Service, however, issues few permits and only under specific circumstances, usually related to human health and safety. Obtaining a nest depredation permit is unlikely and involves a process that takes, at a minimum, 8 to 12 weeks. The best way to avoid a violation of the MBTA is to remove vegetation outside of the active breeding season, which typically falls from April 1 through August 31, depending on the species. Public awareness of the MBTA has grown in recent years, and most MBTA enforcement actions are the result of a concerned member of the community reporting a violation. Potential Habitat and Effects ERO surveyed the project area for nests during the 2021 site visit and did not find any nests. However, ground-nesting bird nests and nests in dense stands of shrubs are difficult to detect and may be present in the uplands and shrublands in the project area. Additionally, the riparian habitat along the Roaring Fork River and Brush Creek provides suitable raptor nesting habitat. The breeding season for most birds in Colorado is March through August, with the exception of a few species that begin breeding in February, such as great-horned owls. Recommendations To avoid destruction of potential migratory bird nests, vegetation removal should be conducted outside of the April 1 through August 31 breeding season. Both the Denver Field Office of the Service (2009) and the Colorado Department of Transportation (2011) have identified the primary nesting season for migratory birds in Colorado as occurring from April 1 through August 31. However, a few species such as bald eagles, great horned owls, and red-tailed hawks can nest as early as December (eagles) or late February (owls and red-tailed hawks). Because of variability in the breeding seasons, ERO recommends that a nest survey be conducted within one week prior to construction to determine if any other active nests are present in the project area so that they can be avoided. Additional nest surveys during the nesting season may also be warranted to identify active nesting species that may present additional development timing restrictions (e.g., eagles or red-tailed hawks). Attachment 1 130 Natural Resources Assessment Brush Creek to AABC Trail Study Pitkin County, Colorado ERO Project #21-230 12 ERO Resources Corporation If active nests are identified in or near the project area, activities that would directly affect the nests should be restricted. Habitat-disturbing activities (e.g., tree removal, grading, scraping, and grubbing) should be conducted during the nonbreeding season to avoid disturbing active nests, or to avoid a “take” of the migratory bird nests in the project area. Nests can be removed during the nonbreeding season to preclude future nesting and avoid violations of the MBTA. There is no process for removing nests during the nonbreeding season; however, nests may not be collected under MBTA regulations. If the construction schedule does not allow vegetation removal outside of the breeding season, a nest survey should be conducted immediately prior to vegetation removal to determine if the nests are active and by which species. If active nests are found, any work that would destroy the nests or cause the birds to abandon young in the nest could not be conducted until the birds have vacated the nests. State-Listed Threatened and Endangered Species and Other Sensitive Wildlife Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) has mapped six wildlife species that are active in the project area as shown in Table 3. Only one species, the bald eagle, is listed in the State Special Concern category (CPW 2021a). The project area occurs in bald eagle winter range. The other mapped wildlife species are tracked by CPW because of their economic importance, potential for human conflict, or other reasons. Table 3. Wildlife species activity within the project area (CPW 2021). Common Name Scientific Name State Status* CPW Mapped Activities in Project Area Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus SC Within winter range American elk Cervus canadensis None Within overall range Black bear Ursus americanus None Within overall range, human conflict area, and fall concentration area Mountain lion Puma concolor None Within overall range Mule deer Odocoileus hemionus None Within overall range Osprey Pandion haliaetus None Within foraging area *Status Codes: SC =State Special Concern (not a statutory category). American Elk and Mule Deer – The project area occurs in the American elk and mule deer overall range. The project area does not occur in any other designated ranges for both American elk and mule deer. The proposed trail alignments that immediately parallel Highway 82 or that would span the Roaring Fork River and utilize the Rio Grande Trail to the east would minimally impact these species. Trail alignments close to the Roaring Fork River have more potential to disturb these species although impacts are anticipated to be minor due to existing recreational use along the Roaring Fork River. Black Bear and Mountain Lion – The project area occurs in the mountain lion overall range. Additionally, the entire project area occurs in the human conflict area and fall concentration area for black bear. Black bear foraging habitat, such as large stands of chokecherry (Prunus virginiana) and other fruit-bearing shrubs, occur in the montane shrublands, riparian forest, and conifer forest communities in the project area. Similar to the American elk and mule deer, the proposed trail Attachment 1 131 Natural Resources Assessment Brush Creek to AABC Trail Study Pitkin County, Colorado ERO Project #21-230 13 ERO Resources Corporation alignments that immediately parallel Highway 82 or that would span the Roaring Fork River and utilize the Rio Grande Trail to the east would minimally impact these species. Trail alignments close to the Roaring Fork River have more potential to disturb these species although impacts are anticipated to be minor due to existing recreational use along the Roaring Fork River. Osprey – The project area occurs in the foraging area of osprey. The Roaring Fork River provides a food source for osprey and the riparian trees along the Roaring Fork River provide hunting perches for osprey. ERO recommend avoiding impacts to riparian vegetation to extent practicable to minizine disturbance to the osprey foraging area. Other Wildlife Carnivores such as coyote (Canis sp.), raccoon (Procyon lotor), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), grey fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), and striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis) are likely to occur in the project area. These species are typically observed in open grasslands and close to riparian corridors. Additionally, the Roaring Fork River in the project area is designated as a wild trout water between Holum Lake and the Woody Creek bridge due to the presence of a wild trout population. If any impacts to the Roaring Fork River are proposed, ERO recommends coordinating with the CPW regarding any construction activities in the Roaring Fork River that have the potential to impact trout spawning. Summary of Impacts from the Proposed Project For this trail study, SGM and the planning team identified three trail alignment options and three potential bridge locations in the study area. The alignment options include: •Option 1: Bridges over the Roaring Fork River – Uses the proposed Brush Creek Bridge to access the existing Rio Grande Trail, before crossing back on the proposed AABC Bridge to access the Highway 82 corridor. •Option 2: Along Highway 82 – Follows the Highway 82 corridor for the entire length of the study area, using multiple short bridges and cut and fill benches to cross steep shale hillslope areas and Owl Creek. •Option 3: Along Roaring Fork River – Follows old road beds and new trail construction into the canyon and along the west bank of the Roaring Fork River. An additional option that uses a bridge further south, rather than the proposed AABC Bridge, has been removed from consideration due the poor feasibility of a bridge at that location. Potential impacts from the proposed trail project, by alignment option, are summarized in Table 4. Attachment 1 132 Natural Resources Assessment Brush Creek to AABC Trail Study Pitkin County, Colorado ERO Project #21-230 14 ERO Resources Corporation Table 4. Potential Impacts from the Proposed Alignment Options Resource Option 1 – Bridges over the Roaring Fork River Option 2 – Along Highway 82 Option 3 – Along Roaring Fork River Vegetation Lower impact due to minimal new ground disturbance Moderate impact due to extensive new ground disturbance, including riparian habitat at Owl Creek Greater impact due to extensive new ground disturbance, including wetland and riparian communities along the Roaring Fork River and Owl Creek Wetlands No impact Potential impact to Owl Creek Potential impact to Owl Creek and along the Roaring Fork River Threatened and Endangered Species No impact Potential impacts at Owl Creek Potential impacts at Owl Creek and along the Roaring Fork River Migratory Birds No known impact – bird nests may be found at bridge locations and along upland trail corridors No known impact – bird nests may be found at AABC Bridge location and along upland trail corridors No known impact – bird nests more likely to be found along Roaring Fork River and Owl Creek Other Wildlife Minimal impact Minimal impact Habitat disturbance and potential impact along Roaring Fork River Noxious Weeds Few weeds present; least impact due to least new ground disturbance Some weeds present; potential impacts due to ground disturbance Few weeds present; potential impacts due to ground disturbance References Colorado Department of Agriculture (CDOA). 2021. Noxious Weeds. https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/agconservation/noxiousweeds. Last accessed June 18, 2021. Colorado Department of Transportation. 2011. Work Sheet: 240pmbcdotb dated 02-03-11. https://www.codot.gov/programs/environmental/wildlife/guidelines/Birdspeccontractorsbio.pdf/vie w. Last accessed June 30, 2021. Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW). 2021. Colorado Threatened and Endangered Species List. http://cpw.state.co.us/learn/Pages/SOC-ThreatenedEndangeredList.aspx. Last accessed October 20, 2021. Pitkin County. 2021. Pitkin County Noxious Weed List. https://pitkincounty.com/DocumentCenter/View/854/Pitkin-County-Noxious-Weed-List-PDF. Last accessed October 20, 2021. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). 1992. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Final Rule to List the Plant Spiranthes diluvialis (Ute ladies’-tresses) as a Threatened Species. Federal Register 50 CFR Part 17, Volume 57, No. 12, pp. 2048-2054. January 17. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). 2003. Migratory Bird Permit Memorandum. April 15. Attachment 1 133 Natural Resources Assessment Brush Creek to AABC Trail Study Pitkin County, Colorado ERO Project #21-230 15 ERO Resources Corporation U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). 2009. Personal communication between Pete Plage (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) and ERO Resources Corporation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). 2021. Endangered, Threatened, Proposed and Candidate Species, Colorado Counties. http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. Last accessed October 20, 2021. Attachment 1 134 Natural Resources Assessment Brush Creek to AABC Trail Study Pitkin County, Colorado ERO Project #21-230 ERO Resources Corporation Appendix A Photo Log Attachment 1 135 Photo Log Brush Creek to AABC Trail Study September 8, 2021 Photo 1 - Overview of the conifer forest community in the project area. View is to the east. Photo 2 - Overview of the conifer forest community in the project area. View is to the southeast. Attachment 1 136 Photo Log Brush Creek to AABC Trail Study September 8, 2021 Photo 3 - Overview of the montane shrubland community in the project area. View is to the northeast. Photo 4 - Overview of the montane shrubland community in the project area. View is to the southeast. Attachment 1 137 Photo Log Brush Creek to AABC Trail Study September 8, 2021 Photo 5 - Overview of the riparian forest community in the project area. View is to the northwest. Photo 6 - Overview of the riparian forest community in the project area. View is to the south. Attachment 1 138 Photo Log Brush Creek to AABC Trail Study September 8, 2021 Photo 7 - Overview of the sagebrush shrubland community in the project area. View is to the northeast. Photo 8 - Overview of the shale hillslope community in the project area. View is to the north. Attachment 1 139 Photo Log Brush Creek to AABC Trail Study September 8, 2021 Photo 9 - Overview of the herbaceous upland community in the project area. View is to the southeast. Photo 10 - Overview of the wetland community in the project area. View is to the northwest. Attachment 1 140 Pitkin County Open Space & Trails—Brush Creek P&R to Aspen ABC February 2022 Feasibility Study Appendix E Appendix E 01 –Cultural Resources Memorandum Attachment 1 141 ERO Project #21-230 1 ERO Resources Corporation Consultants in Natural Resources and the Environment Technical Memorandum File and Literature Review Brush Creek to AABC Trail Study Pitkin County, Colorado Prepared for: SGM, Inc. January 19, 2022 SGM, Inc., on behalf of Pitkin County, retained ERO Resources Corporation (ERO) to provide a resource assessment for the proposed Brush Creek to Aspen Airport Business Center (AABC) Trail Study in Pitkin County, Colorado (project area; Figure 1). The results of the file and literature review will provide information on cultural resources in the project area to inform methodology for identifying potential historic properties if a cultural resource survey is required. If a federal nexus is identified for the project, the lead federal agency would consult with the Colorado State Historic Preservation Officer on project effects under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and per implementing regulations 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 800. Project Area The project area consists of two trail alternatives on the west side of the Roaring Fork River and three trail alternatives on the east side of the Roaring Fork River, which would use the existing Rio Grande Trail and would require crossing the Roaring Fork River (Figure 1). The Roaring Fork River occurs approximately 150 feet downhill of the project area in the valley bottom below State Highway (SH) 82 to the west and the Rio Grande Trail to the east. The project area is generally bounded by SH 82 to the west, the Brush Creek and SH 82 Park and Ride to the north, the Rio Grande Trail to the east, and the AABC to the south. The project area’s legal location is Sections 21, 27, 28, and 34, Township 9 South, Range 85 West of the 6th Principal Meridian in Pitkin County, Colorado (Figure 1). Methodology The purpose of the cultural resource file and literature review is to determine if any previously documented cultural resources listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or State Register of Historic Places (SRHP) could be impacted by the proposed project. A Attachment 1 142 Technical Memorandum File and Literature Review - Brush Creek to AABC Trail Study Pitkin County, Colorado ERO Project #21-230 2 ERO Resources Corporation “cultural resource” is defined as an archaeological site, structure, or building constructed 50 or more years ago (Little et al. 2000). A cultural resource listed in or eligible for listing in the NRHP/SRHP is a “historic property.” To assist with project planning and potential consultation obligations under Section 106 of the NHPA (36 CFR 800) and the State Register Act (Colorado Revised Statutes 34-80.1-104), ERO reviewed the previous cultural resource surveys and resource documentation completed in the project area by conducting a file review using the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP) Compass online database on January 17, 2022. The file search area included the entirety of the project area as defined above. Results The file search identified eight previous cultural resource surveys that intersect the project area (Figures 2 and 3; Table 1). The previous surveys were conducted between 1993 and 2013 and covered about 17 percent of the project area. The surveys were mostly linear surveys associated with transportation and utilities projects including transmission, electric, and pipelines. The block surveys were conducted in association with the Aspen-Pitkin County Airport and with SH 82. Table 1. Previous cultural resource surveys that intersect the project area. State Project No. Report Title (Date) Institution MC.LM.R122 Holy Cross Basalt to Aspen 115 KV Rebuild Project Eagle and Pitkin Counties, Colorado Class III Cultural Resource Inventory² Limited Testing of 5PT596 Addendum to: Holy Cross Basalt to Aspen 11KV Rebuild Project Eagle and Pitkin Counties, Colorado Class III Cultural Resource Inventory (1996) Metcalf Archaeological Consultants, Inc. for Bureau of Land Management MC.PA.R78 Class III Cultural Resources Survey for the Roaring Fork Transportation Authority Bus Rapid Transit Project Along Colorado State Highway 82, Garfield, Eagle, and Pitkin Counties, Colorado (2010) Parsons PT.CH.R2 An Archaeological Inventory of the State Highway 82 - Brush Creek Road Intersection Between Basalt and Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado (STR-FC(CX) 082-1(14)) (1993) Centennial Archaeology, Inc. for Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) PT.CH.R4 An Intensive Cultural Resources Survey of Six Parcels Associated with State Highway 82 Improvements West of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado (Project STA 082A-008) (1966) CDOT PT.CO.R1 Kinder Morgan Retail Brush Creek 6 Inch Pipeline, Pitkin County, Colorado: Results of an Intensive Cultural Resource Inventory (URS 22238253.00003) (2005) URS Corporation for the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment PT.FA.R3 Mead And Hunt, Inc. Airport Survey Project: Report of the Class III Cultural Resources Inventory, Pitkin County, Colorado (2009) Metcalf Archaeological Consultants for the Federal Aviation Administration PT.LG.R24 Class III Cultural Resources Inventory Report for the Proposed Aspen Valley 10 Inch Pipeline for SourceGas in Pitkin County, Colorado (GRI # 2013-69) (2013) Grand River Institute for Pitkin County PT.RE.R1 Holy Cross Energy Snowmass Buried Electric Line, Class III Cultural Resource Inventory, Pitkin County, Colorado (2003) Metcalf Archaeological Consultants for the Rural Electric Administration OAHP records indicate one previously documented cultural resource, the Denver & Rio Grande Western (D&RGW) Railroad grade (5PT123) intersects the project area. The resource was initially documented in Attachment 1 143 Technical Memorandum File and Literature Review - Brush Creek to AABC Trail Study Pitkin County, Colorado ERO Project #21-230 3 ERO Resources Corporation 1988 and was reevaluated in 1999 as officially eligible for listing in the NRHP. The railroad grade in the project area vicinity has been converted to the paved multiuse Rio Grande Trail. Evaluation of the segment that intersects the project area has not occurred; however, recent documentation of other similarly repurposed segments of railroad have resulted in determinations of supporting the eligibility of the entire resource as recently as 2020. In addition to the OAHP file search, ERO reviewed the Colorado Historic Highway Inventory, which evaluated SH 82 as eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criteria A and C, and as an Aesthetic Route under the Multiple Property Submission (Mead & Hunt, Inc. and Dill Historians LLC. 2016). SH 82 has been documented in Pitkin County as Independence Pass Road under the Smithsonian number 5PT505 and was determined eligible in 2008. ERO also reviewed historical maps and aerial images to determine if historical buildings or structures may have been present in the project area. ERO reviewed historical maps that date from 1893 to 1964 to identify undocumented potential historical resources such as roads, ditches, and buildings (U.S. Geological Survey 1893, 1895, 1909, 1911, 1957, 1960a, 1960b, 1964). In the project area vicinity, SH 82 is located on the former Colorado Midland (CM) Railroad grade (Mead & Hunt, Inc. and Dill Historians LLC. 2016), which predates the earliest map from 1893 (U.S. Geological Survey 1893). An unimproved road that follows Brush Creek and crosses the Roaring Fork River is first mapped in 1893 and, by 1909, is mapped as a maintained road that served to connect the community of Rathbone to the D&RGW Railroad, CM Railroad, and other roads in the Roaring Fork River valley. Buildings are mapped where the road crosses the Roaring Fork River along Brush Creek, near the project area’s northern terminus (U.S. Geological Survey 1893, 1895, 1911). Lemond Ditch and Wiese Upper Ditch parallel the north and south sides of Brush Creek, respectively, and are mapped in 1960 (U.S. Geological Survey 1960a). A review of modern aerial images suggests neither the road nor the ditches intersect the project area. Unimproved roads are mapped in 1960 as intersecting the project area east of SH 82, following the construction of the Aspen-Pitkin County Airport after its construction in 1946 (Aspen/Pitkin County Airport 2022; U.S. Geological Survey 1960b). Unnamed, unimproved two-tracks are generally not documented as historical resources. Summary The project area intersects two linear cultural resources that have been evaluated as eligible for listing in the NRHP (5PT123 and 5PT505). A review of historical maps and aerial images indicates the project area intersects the abandoned grade of the CM Railroad, which has been repurposed in the vicinity as SH 82. Although historic-period structures are present in the vicinity, given the small size of the project area, it is unlikely the project area will intersect the structures. Unknown resources may be present in unsurveyed portions of the project area. Attachment 1 144 Technical Memorandum File and Literature Review - Brush Creek to AABC Trail Study Pitkin County, Colorado ERO Project #21-230 4 ERO Resources Corporation Certification of Results ___________________________________ Shayleen Ottman, Staff Archaeologist Attachments Figure 1. Project location (USGS 1:24,000 topographic quadrangle) Figures 2-3. Previously conducted cultural resource surveys and documented cultural resources References Cited Aspen/Pitkin County Airport 2022 ASE History. Website, https://www.aspenairport.com/about-aspen- airport/history/#:~:text=ASE%20History&text=Walter%20Paepcke%20and%20John%20Spachner,gravel %20landing%20strip%20in%201946., accessed January 17, 2022. Little, Barbara, Erika M. Seibert, Jan Townsend, John H. Sprinkle Jr., and John Knoerl 2000 National Register Bulletin: Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Archaeological Properties. Prepared by the U.S. Department of the Interior. Mead & Hunt, Inc., and Dill Historians LLC. 2016 Colorado Historic Highway Inventory – Historical Summary and Evaluation of Significance, State Highway 82. Prepared for the Colorado Department of Transportation Headquarters, Denver. U.S. Geological Survey 1893 Aspen, Colorado. Topographic Map. 1:62,500. U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado. 1895 Aspen, Colorado. Topographic Map. 1:62,500. U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado. 1909 Mount Jackson, Colorado. Topographic Map. 1:125,000. U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado. 1911 Mount Jackson, Colorado. Topographic Map. 1:125,000. U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado. 1957 Leadville, Colorado. Topographic Map. 1:250,000. U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado. 1960a Highland Peak, Colorado. Topographic Map. 1:24,000. U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado. 1960b Aspen, Colorado. Topographic Map. 1:24,000. U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado. 1964 Leadville, Colorado. Topographic Map. 1:250,000. U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado. Attachment 1 145 Prepared for: SGM, Inc. File: 21-230 CR Figure 1.mxd (ME) January 19, 2022 ±Figure 1 Project Location Technical Memorandum File and Literature Review Brush Creek to AABC Trail Study Pitkin County, Colorado Portions of this document include intellectual property of ESRI and its licensors and are used herein under license. Copyright © 2022 ESRI and its licensors. All rights reserved. 0 2,0001,000 Feet COLORADO Location 1:24,000Path: P:\21_200\21_230 Pitkin Co - Brush Creek to AABC Trail Study\Maps\CR\21-230 CR Figure 1.mxdSections 21, 27, 28, and 34, T9S, R85W; 6th PM USGS Aspen and USGS Highland Peak, CO Quadrangles (1:24,000; 1964) Pitkin County, Colorado Trail Alternatives Attachment 1 146 ¬«82 Ro a r i n g F o r k R i v e r 5PT123 PT.CH.R2 PT.FA.R3 MC.LM.R122 PT.LG.R24 PT.RE.R1 PT.CO.R1 PT.FA.R3 5PT505 Prepared for: SGM, Inc. File: 21-230 CR Figure 2_3.mxd (ME) January 19, 2022 ±Figure 2 Previously Conducted Cultural Resource Surveys and Documented Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum File and Literature Review Brush Creek to AABC Trail Study Pitkin County, Colorado Portions of this document include intellectual property of ESRI and its licensors and are used herein under license. Copyright © 2022 ESRI and its licensors. All rights reserved. 0 700350Feet Figure 3 Figure 2 1:8,400Path: P:\21_200\21_230 Pitkin Co - Brush Creek to AABC Trail Study\Maps\CR\21-230 CR Figure 2_3.mxdSections 21, 27, 28, and 34, T9S, R85W; 6th PM USGS Aspen and USGS Highland Peak, CO Quadrangles (1:24,000; 1964) Pitkin County, Colorado Trail Alternatives Previously Recorded Cultural Resource Previous Cultural Resource Survey Attachment 1 147 ¬«82 PT.FA.R3 PT.FA.R3 PT.FA.R3 PT.CH.R4 MC.PA.R78 MC.LM.R122 5PT505 Prepared for: SGM, Inc. File: 21-230 CR Figure 2_3.mxd (ME) January 19, 2022 ±Figure 3 Previously Conducted Cultural Resource Surveys and Documented Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum File and Literature Review Brush Creek to AABC Trail Study Pitkin County, Colorado Portions of this document include intellectual property of ESRI and its licensors and are used herein under license. Copyright © 2022 ESRI and its licensors. All rights reserved. 0 700350Feet Figure 3 Figure 2 1:8,400Path: P:\21_200\21_230 Pitkin Co - Brush Creek to AABC Trail Study\Maps\CR\21-230 CR Figure 2_3.mxdSections 21, 27, 28, and 34, T9S, R85W; 6th PM USGS Aspen and USGS Highland Peak, CO Quadrangles (1:24,000; 1964) Pitkin County, Colorado Trail Alternatives Previously Recorded Cultural Resource Previous Cultural Resource Survey Attachment 1 148 LEVEL III TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY ASPEN JEWISH CENTER Prepared by DAN COKLEY, PE, PTOE LICENSE NO. 29799 2/11/22 SGM 01.17.2202.11.22 Attachment 2 149 Aspen Jewish Center – Level III Traffic Impact Study February 2022 Traffic Impact Study ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Aspen Jewish Center – Level III Traffic Impact Study February 2022 Traffic Impact Study iii LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1 – PROPOSED D EVELOPMENT LAND USE 4 TABLE 2 – DESIGN H OUR T RIP GENERATION RATE BY LAND U SE 6 TABLE 3 – DESIGN H OUR DISTRIBUTION BY LAND USE 6 TABLE 4 - LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) CRITERIA 7 TABLE 5 - BASELINE INTERSECTION OVERALL LOS AND MOE BY MOVEMENT SUMMARY 10 TABLE 6 - BACKGROUND INTERSECTION OVERALL LOS AND MOE BY MOVEMENT SUMMARY 11 TABLE 7 - ACCESS T RIP GENERATION 11 TABLE 8 – T RIP D ISTRIBUTION BY PERCENTAGE 12 TABLE 9 – T RIP D ISTRIBUTION BY VOLUME 12 TA BLE 10 - T OTAL INTERSECTION OVERALL LOS AND MOE BY MOVEMENT SUMMARY 13 TABLE 11 – DESIGN HOUR VOLUMES 14 TA BLE 12 - AUXILIARY LANE R EQUIREMENTS 15 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 – Project Area 3 Figure 2 – Project area map and speed limits (mph) 9 Figure 3 – SH 82 and Brush Creek Road intersection 9 Figure 4 – SH 82 and Brush Creek Trip Assignment 13 Figure 5 – Conceptual Access Plan 17 Figure 6-10 – Scenario Traffic Volumes App. B LIST OF APPENDICES A – Conceptual Access Plan B – Scenario Traffic Volume Figures 6-10 C - Methodology / Assumptions (Correspondence with CDOT) D - Synchro output E – May 2021 Traffic Counts / CDOT OTIS Traffic Data F - Access Permit 311106; Brush Creek Park and Ride IGA G - CDOT OTIS Highway Explorer Data H - Combined Scenario Results – MOE’s by Movement I - Trip Generation, Reduction, Distribution, Assignment Worksheet Attachment 2 151 Aspen Jewish Center – Level III Traffic Impact Study February 2022 1 Aspen Jewish Center – Level III Traffic Impact Study February 2022 2 Aspen Jewish Center – Level III Traffic Impact Study February 2022 3 ` Figure 1 – Project Area Roaring Fork River Brush Creek Road AJC Parcel ToSV Aspen SH 82 South Access - mile 35.29 Basalt RFTA BRT BC PnR North Access - mile 34.99 AJC Parcel South/East Access CDOT Parcel CDOT Parcel Attachment 2 154 Aspen Jewish Center – Level III Traffic Impact Study February 2022 4 2.1 Project Description The proposed AJC development is in the conceptual stage and does not currently include a Site Plan. The conceptual programming is envisioned as a single building, associated parking and the following use areas summarized in Table 1. a) 15,000 sf Worship / lobby / kitchen / restroom space b) 3,000 sf Hebrew school / restroom space c) 27,000 sf parking (75 spaces) d) Potential Day Care Facility In terms of trip generation, the following ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition categories are anticipated. TABLE 1 – PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT LAND USE Use Amount Units Synagogue / Church 15,000 SF Hebrew School 60 to 100 Students Day Care Center 0-20 Students 2.2 Location The proposed AJC parcel is located with direct and indirect access to SH 82 on the east side of the highway. The Town of Snowmass Village is approximately 4.5 miles to the west and the City of Aspen is approximately 6 miles to the south. The parcel is bordered by SH 82 to the west, a City of Aspen parcel to the north and the CDOT parcel to the south and east. The current Aspen Jewish Center is currently based at the Aspen Chapel located on Meadowood Drive just outside the City of Aspen. The facility would be relocated to the 34951 SH 82 parcel(s), a residential property with an access driveway at mile 34.99 left. The access is full movement with a median crossover of the four-lane divided highway that exists at that location. The parcel is also proposed to be accessed through the Brush Creek Park and Ride / RFTA east leg of the SH 82 and Brush Creek Road signalized intersection. The Brush Creek Park and Ride / RFTA approach is permitted by Access Permit #311106 assigned a DHV of 212. Aspen Jewish Center – Level III Traffic Impact Study February 2022 5 The traffic modeling output is contained in Appendix D. Baseline Traffic The traffic data collection consisted of counting the SH 82 and Brush Creek Road intersection. Existing traffic data for the intersection was obtained from the traffic counts by SGM on May 19-20, 2021. Peak hour factors (PHF), heavy vehicle percentages, directional distribution and other inputs are based upon the May 2021 or CDOT OTIS traffic data. The heavy vehicle percentage used in the modeling is conservatively input as 4% for the main line movements. Bus volumes are a relatively high percentage at the intersection, particularly the eastbound approach, the May 2021 percentages were used in the modeling. Since 2013, the City of Aspen has operated a Carpool Permit program at the Brush Creek Park and Ride lot. Due to COVID-19, the program was in hiatus from March 2020 until June 2021. The program provides parking permits in City residential areas for vehicles with two or more occupants. Typically, downvalley commuters enter the lot, pull up to the carpool kiosk, receive a permit and then exit the lot bound for Aspen. Three-year (2017-2019) monthly records were averaged, then adjusted to daily and hourly volumes. The carpool kiosk operates from 6 am to 11 am on weekdays. For the traffic modeling, 59 vehicles per hour were added to May 2021 traffic count volumes at the SB left in and WB left out to account for the carpool permit program traffic during the AM design hour. The traffic counts and carpool volumes were factored using seasonal and growth adjustments to July 2022 using the nearby CDOT Station 000236 calculated seasonal factor and 20-year factor. The adjusted July 2022 traffic data is used as the Baseline Design Hour Volume (DHV), or the 30th highest hourly volume in the design year for the PM design hour. May 2021 counts and CDOT OTIS traffic data are provided in Appendix E. Carpool Permit program data is provided in Appendix I. Analysis Years Operational analysis of Baseline traffic (2022), 20-year Background traffic (2042) and 20- year Total (background + project) traffic (2042) was performed. Baseline traffic volumes at study intersections are factored by CDOT’s 20-year factor provided on the OTIS website for this segment of SH 82 to calculate 2042 Background traffic volumes for all intersection movements: · Station #000236: 20-year factor of 1.13 Development Land Use Rates and Distribution The analysis of the AJC was completed using trip generation rates from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition. The land use type and units provided in Table 1 were input into the ITE web-based Trip Generation Manual in conjunction with the design hour distribution from the same source resulting in the design hour trip generation rates shown in Table 2. Attachment 2 156 Aspen Jewish Center – Level III Traffic Impact Study February 2022 6 TABLE 2 – DESIGN HOUR TRIP G ENERATION RATE BY LAND USE The design hour distributions for the corresponding land uses are as shown in Table 3. TABLE 3 – DESIGN HOUR DISTRIBUTION BY LAND U SE The trip generation time period and calculation methods are noted in Table 3. The period and calculation methods use the peak hour of adjacent street period and average rate calculation with the background and justification provided below: · Hebrew School o The Hebrew School will meet once a week during the educational school year (September to April) following a typical educational school day. The generally elementary to middle school-aged students will be both bused or shuttled from the educational school system and driven by parents. The ITE Land Use Code 520, Elementary School was used because it is anticipated the public / parental transportation mix will be similar. The higher intensity AM design hour trip rates were used in this calculation because those travels patterns best match the anticipated use that will occur during the PM design hour. · Church o The ITE Land Use Code 560, Church code is used for weekday trip generation when services are not taking place as the ITE Land Use Code 561, Synagogue does not include weekday data. · Synagogue o The ITE Land Use Code 561, Synagogue is used to provide trip generation for the 6 pm Friday service (weekly, 5:30-7:30 pm) and Saturday (~10 per year) service. Both occur outside the PM design hour (4:30 – 5:30 pm) analyzed. o Special events such as annual fundraisers and bar / bat mitzvahs will generate traffic at higher levels approximately 10 times per year. The larger events (up to 200-300 people) will occur on weekends and on the order of up to 5 times per year. This traffic is expected to consist of 60-125 vehicles and is not included in the analysis because it occurs outside the design hour. Number ITE Weekday AM AM AM PM PM PM Land Use of Units Code Rate Rate Entering Exiting Rate Entering Exiting Rate Hebrew (Elementary) School 100 520 1.00 0.67 0.32 0.17 Synagogue (weekday)12 560 6.95 0.33 0.20 0.13 0.49 0.22 0.27 2.78 0.78 0.79 Friday Synagogue Service(s)12 561 7.56 2.92 1.66 1.26 3.87 Weekday Day Care Center 20 565 4.09 0.78 0.41 0.37 0.79 0.37 0.42 (5:30 - 7:30PM) Saturday Design Hour Rates AM IN AM OUT PM IN PM OUT IN OUT Hebrew (Elementary) School 520 Average Peak Hour adjacent Street 54% 46% 48% 52% Church (Synagogue Weekday)560 Average Peak Hour adjacent Street 60% 40% 45% 55% 48% 52% Synagogue (Friday Service)561 Average Peak Hour adjacent Street 63% 37% 57% 43% 48% 52% Day Care Center 565 Ave Rate Peak Hour adjacent Street 53% 47% 47% 53% Weekday Design Hour Distribution Saturday Land Use Basis of RateITE Code Time Period Used Above Attachment 2 157 Aspen Jewish Center – Level III Traffic Impact Study February 2022 7 · Day Care Center o The ITE Land Use Code 565, Day Care Center is used to provide trip generation for the AM and PM design hours. The Day Care Center is a potential use that if implemented, its trip generation would be allocated against the total trip generation of the Hebrew School. Meaning the total trip generation of the Hebrew School plus the Day Care Center would be similar to the Hebrew School trip generation for 100 students as presented in this study. A potential mixed use would be 60 Hebrew School students and 20 Day Care Center students. Trip Reductions Multi-modal Multi-modal trips could consist of walking, biking, car-pooling and transit options. The development site near the BRT station makes transit a viable option for users. The Roaring Fork valley is known for hiking and biking, along with that comes increased percentages of valley residents who use those modes of transportation for commuting and other that trips typically would have been taken with vehicles. The typical US average walking and biking distance for a commute or other trip is 0.25 miles and 3 miles, respectively. A trail system does not currently extend from Aspen to Brush Creek Road. There is a trail from Snowmass Village to SH 82 and crosswalks to the BRT station and the east side of the highway. Given the nature of the valley and use of public transportation and other modes, it is likely some travelers may use multi-modal options. To be conservative, this study does not apply a reduction for multi-modal use. 3.1 Intersection Capacity Analysis This study will assess the operational measures of effectiveness (MOE’s) including Level of Service (LOS), Delay, and 95th percentile queue. The MOE analysis by approach and movement provides an overview of all intersection conflicting movements and provides a more realistic picture of operations as experienced and perceived by users. The MOE’s also provide a valuable reference point for comparison of LOS, Delay and Queue between scenarios. AM and PM level of service estimates were prepared in accordance with the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (Transportation Research Board, 2016). For signalized intersections, the HCM measures level of service in terms of seconds of delay per vehicle. This is also a measure of driver discomfort, fuel consumption, and lost travel time. The table below relates the LOS to seconds of delay per vehicle at a signalized intersection. TABLE 4 - LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) CRITERIA Signalized Intersections Level of Service Delay (seconds) A < 10.0 B 10.1 to 20 C 20.1 to 35 D 35.1 to 55 E 55.1 to 80 F > 80.0 Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 2016 Attachment 2 158 Aspen Jewish Center – Level III Traffic Impact Study February 2022 8 In general, CDOT considers the overall intersection operation of LOS “D” or better acceptable during the peak hours. The goal is to also provide a similar LOS for each controlled intersection movement and/or approach. Although it is common in mountain corridor commuter areas for side-street approaches along principal arterials to operate with longer delays during a portion of the design hour, when the majority of the traffic using the mainline has free-flow conditions. The MOE analysis by movement provides an overview of all intersection approach and conflicting movements and provides a more realistic picture of operations by controlled movement or approach as experienced and perceived by users. The MOE’s also provide a valuable reference point for comparison of LOS, Delay and Queue between scenarios. Aspen Jewish Center – Level III Traffic Impact Study February 2022 9 Figure 2 – Project area map and speed limits (mph) Figure 3 – SH 82 and Brush Creek Road intersection Baseline Traffic Volumes (2022) The traffic data collection consisted of counting the SH 82 and Brush Creek Road intersection. Existing traffic data for the intersection was obtained from the traffic counts by SGM on May 19-20, 2021. City of Aspen carpool permit program volumes were added to the May 2021 traffic volumes. The May 2021 traffic volumes were factored to 2022 using CDOT 20-year factor. A seasonal factor was also applied to adjust volumes from May to the peak month of July. May 2021 counts and CDOT OTIS traffic data are provided in Appendix E. Attachment 2 160 Aspen Jewish Center – Level III Traffic Impact Study February 2022 10 4.2 Baseline Intersection Capacity Analysis Using the baseline traffic volumes shown in Figure 6 and 7 in Appendix B, the capacity analysis was modeled in Synchro to estimate level of service and delay for each intersection. Table 5 shows the overall results of the capacity analysis for the existing intersections in the study area. The study intersection operates at an overall LOS C in the AM and LOS F in the PM design hour under baseline conditions. The MOE’s; LOS, delay (seconds) and 95th percentile queue lengths (feet) by approach movement are also presented in Table 5 and provide a reference point of 2022 Baseline traffic conditions to understand the effect of growth unrelated to the proposed development provided in the 2042 Background traffic volumes. Several approach movements currently operate at LOS D or lower. Queuing is reported for each approach movement at the study intersections to provide another indication of intersection performance. A queue length of 20 ft represents a single vehicle. Since the Brush Creek Road intersection are adequately spaced from the adjacent SH 82 intersections, queuing will not affect upstream mainline intersections in the baseline condition. TABLE 5 - BASELINE INTERSECTION O VERALL LOS AND MOE BY MOVEMENT SUMMARY 1 – Delay expressed as average delay per vehicle in seconds/vehicle Aspen Jewish Center – Level III Traffic Impact Study February 2022 11 MOE analysis is also presented in Table 6 and provides an overview of intersection approach movements for 2042 Background traffic conditions for comparison to 2022 Baseline traffic conditions to understand the effect of background traffic volumes. Most approach movements currently operate at LOS D or lower. The intersection operates at an overall LOS F during the AM and PM design hour. Overall, the approach movement queue lengths increase as expected. All auxiliary lanes provide adequate storage based on the queuing analysis., except for the AM hour SB and WB left, mainly due to the heavy carpool permit traffic volumes, an estimated total of 88 vph in 2042 (59 vph in 2021). Existing storage lengths are exceeded for each left turn lane. TABLE 6 - BACKGROUND I NTERSECTION OVERALL LOS AND MOE BY MOVEMENT SUMMARY 1 – Delay expressed as average delay per vehicle in seconds/vehicle Aspen Jewish Center – Level III Traffic Impact Study February 2022 12 The design hour volume used in the study consists of the combination of the Hebrew School, after-school program, coupled with “typical” weekday use of the facility. This traffic consists of a total DHV of 55. The weekly Friday 6 pm service is estimated to generate a DHV of 35, while occasional (10 per year) Saturday services are estimated to generate a DHV of 35-45. The services occur outside of the AM or PM weekday design hour and are not analyzed in this study. The Aspen Jewish Center has a membership generally travelling from Basalt to Aspen. According to membership records, the origin of travel is distributed as shown in Table 8. The resulting volumes are presented in Table 9. TABLE 8 – TRIP DISTRIBUTION BY PERCENTAGE TABLE 9 – TRIP DISTRIBUTION BY VOLUME The proposed access location of the AJC parcel at 34951 SH 82, although currently a full movement access, is proposed as a right-in / right-out access. The increase in trip generation at the parcel warrants limiting access to right-in / right-out to preserve the safety of the AJC congregation and SH 82 users. The Brush Creek park and ride leg of the signal- controlled intersection is proposed to be used to provide access for left turns into and out of the parcel. The trip assignment at the Brush Creek intersection is show below. Number ITE Weekday AM AM PM PM Land Use of Units Code Traffic IN OUT IN OUT IN OUT Hebrew (Elementary) School 100 520 100 0 0 32 17 Synagogue (weekday)12 560 83 2 2 3 3 16 17 183 2 2 35 20 Synagogue Service(s)12 561 91 0 0 20 15 22 24 (Friday 5:30 - 7:30PM) SaturdayWeekday Design Hour Traffic Aspen 60% Snowmass Village 25% Downvalley 15% Directional Distribution IN OUT 35 20 Aspen 60% 21 12 Snowmass Village 25% 9 5 Downvalley 15% 5 3 Brush Cr Rd (m35.29) 35 17 Ex. (RI/RO only) (m34.99) 0 3 PM Directional Distribution Attachment 2 163 Aspen Jewish Center – Level III Traffic Impact Study February 2022 13 Figure 4 – SH 82 and Brush Creek Trip Assignment The remaining 3 trips are assigned as WB right-outs at the mile 34.99 north access. Although some Aspen originated trips may bypass the signalized intersection and turn right in at the north access, the study assumes all Aspen originated trips turn right into the south AJC access and through the Brush Creek park and ride. A full calculation directional distribution and trip assignment is provided in the Appendix I. 6.2 Total 2042 Traffic Volumes The 2042 Total traffic volumes are the sum of the 2042 Background traffic volumes (Figure 9) plus the proposed site-generated access volumes, Figure 4. Total traffic volumes are shown in Figure 10 in Appendix B for the study intersection as shown in the Synchro output. 6.3 Total Intersection Capacity Analysis The overall results of the capacity analysis SH 82 and Brush Creek intersection and MOE analysis is presented in Table 10 and provides an overview of intersection approach movements for 2042 Total traffic conditions to understand the effect of project traffic volumes in addition to the 2042 Background traffic. The PM design hour is analyzed with the proposed project traffic. Similar to the 2042 Background results, most approach movements currently operate lower than LOS D and the overall intersection operates at LOS F during the PM design hour. The addition of the AJC traffic has no significant effect on the MOE’s, the overall operation of the Brush Creek intersection and specifically the WB park and ride approach. TABLE 10 - TOTAL INTERSECTION O VERALL LOS AND MOE BY MOVEMENT SUMMARY PM DESIGN HOUR SB SH 82 5 9 52 DHV 5 12 21 NB SH 82 BRUSH CREEK ROAD BRUSH CREEK P&R Attachment 2 164 Aspen Jewish Center – Level III Traffic Impact Study February 2022 14 1 – Delay expressed as average delay per vehicle in seconds/vehicle The WB approach continues to operate with similar delay and 95th percentile queue length. The queue length continues to be within the available storage of the existing WB approach lanes. 6.4 State Highway Access Permit Evaluation Access permits will be required for the development of the Aspen Jewish Center. One for the existing single family home access at mile 34.99 left, and another for the Brush Creek Road park and ride access at mile 35.29. The access permit DHV are calculated based upon the traffic volumes shown in the Appendix B. TABLE 11 – DESIGN HOUR VOLUMES Access / Scenario AM DHV PM DHV M 35.29 – Brush Creek PnR Permit DHV 212 2022 Baseline 274 128 2042 Background 309 152 AJC Project 6 52 2042 Total 315 204 M 34.99 - AJC Parcel AJC Project 1 3 PnR Right Out 0-19 0-64 · The existing access permit 311106 for the park and ride / RFTA land use has a permitted DHV of 212. Approach Movement Overall LOS Overall Delay LOS Delay 95th % Q (L_T_R) SH 82 / BCR / P&R EB AM PM F 178.3 F 164.9 404_3207_- WB AM PM E 64 81_86_- NB AM PM F 213.3 81_6934_- SB AM PM C 30.3 67_202_- 2042 TOTAL TRAFFIC SH 82 / BCR-P&R AJC TIS Operational Result Summary Attachment 2 165 Aspen Jewish Center – Level III Traffic Impact Study February 2022 15 · The additional AJC PM DHV of 52 results in an increase of greater than 20% (based on a DHV of 212) which will require a new success permit at this location. · The change in property land use requires a new access permit at the existing access (mile 34.99). · The PnR right out range of DHV is based on volume of 2042 right out’s using AJC egress in the future. 6.5 Total Traffic (2042) Auxiliary Turn Lane Analysis Auxiliary turn lane requirements for access to Colorado State Highways are based on the projected DHVs, the speed limit and geometry of the highway adjacent to the access, and the classification of the highway. For design purposes, the posted speed limit of the highway in the project is shown on Figure 2. Auxiliary lane analysis is based upon 2042 Total traffic volumes including the AJC trip generation for the approach movements. Based on the State Highway Access Code (Code) for a E-X Expressway; Auxiliary turn lanes, when allowed, shall be installed according to the criteria below: · A left turn deceleration lane is required for any access with a projected average daily left turn ingress volume greater than 10. The transition taper length will be included within the required deceleration length. If the projected peak hour left ingress turning volume is greater than 10 vph, a left turn lane with deceleration, storage, and transition taper lengths is required for any access. o SB left volume 34 vph PM (49 vph AM) M 35.29 o WB left volume 42 vph PM (43 vph AM) M 35.29 · A right turn lane with deceleration and taper lengths is required for any access with a projected peak hour right turn ingress turning volume greater than 10 vph. o NB right volume 72 vph PM (22 vph AM) M 35.29 o NB right volume 0-21** vph PM M 34.99 · A right turn acceleration lane and taper length is required for any access with a projected peak hour right turning volume greater than 10 vph o WB right volume 64 vph PM (23 vph AM) M 35.29 o WB right volume 3 vph PM M 34.99 - Not Warranted · A left turn acceleration lane may be required if such a design would be a benefit to the safety and operation of the roadway or as determined by subsection 3.5. Left turn acceleration lanes are generally not required where; the posted speed is less than 45 mph, or the intersection is signalized, or the acceleration lane would interfere with the left turn ingress movements to any other access. o Signalized intersection Based on the SHAC requirements, the following table presents the required lengths as compared to existing conditions based on Google Earth mapping. TABLE 12 - AUXILIARY LANE REQUIREMENTS Auxiliary Lane (12 ft width) Standard Code Design Length + Storage + Taper (ft) DHV (vph) Ex. Length (taper) (ft) Meet Code ? M 35.29 -SB Left Turn Decel 2 435 + 50 + 162 34 825 (300) Yes WB Left Turn Decel 1 250 + 50 (96) 42 130 (70) No NB Right Turn Decel2 435 + 162 72 450 (150) Yes WB Right Turn Accel2 550 + 162 64 500 No* Attachment 2 166 Aspen Jewish Center – Level III Traffic Impact Study February 2022 16 WB Right Turn Accel2 – Bus 550 + 162 64 1200 Yes* M 34.99 - NB Right Turn Decel2 435 + 162 0-21** 500 Yes* WB Right Turn Accel3 960 + 162 3*** 75 (100) No SB Left Turn Decel3 960 + 162 - 335 (185) No 1 – 30 mph Posted Speed 2 – 45 mph Posted Speed 3 – 55 mph Posted Speed * –Full width lane (PnR accel meets Bus loop exit at 500 ft; Bus accel calculated at 1200 ft requirement based on Bus acceleration; M34.99 decel is adequate w/ accel taper overlap) ** – Upvalley users could turn at Brush Creek signal *** – DHV would increase to > 10 vph from downvalley park and ride “event” egress The State Highway Access Code allows a design waiver process that could be initiated for Code deficient lanes: · The WB left turn lane is constrained by the existing RFTA BRT station and the park and ride. Recent park and ride expansion plans did not address the entry design, an indication that the RFTA BRT station is a constraint for that design parameter. The 2042 Total traffic results in a queue length that is sored within its existing length. · The WB right turn accel lane is constrained by the RFTA bus loop exit at 500 ft. Additional information on lanes with asterisk in Table 12: · The NB right turn deceleration lane at the existing residential access (M 34.99) is limited by the NB downvalley acceleration lane for exiting buses from the BRT station. The full width lane has a total length of 1700 ft from bus exit to M 34.99 access. The provides for a 1200 ft bus right turn acceleration lane and a 500 ft right turn deceleration lane. The design of pavement striping, and signage can be resolved in coordination with CDOT during the Access Permit process without additional surface construction. · The existing WB right turn acceleration lane for the residential access (M 34.99) is inadequate and appears as shoulder striping. This lane is not warranted based upon AJC DHV’s. 6.6 Access Conditions The proposed access locations have been described above in terms of operations and auxiliary warrants. The conceptual access plan is presented in Figure 5. · North Access – Right-in and Right-out only. Existing full movement access will be abandoned and or removed in coordination with CDOT. New access location to be determined in coordination with CDOT and site plan development. An access near the existing or slightly north will provide greatest length of acceleration lane for buses exiting the RFTA BRT station. · South Access – Brush Creek signalized intersection. Access through park and ride / RFTA BRT leg of intersection. Figure 5 shows access along main road to rear (east side) of lot, following main road north through developed lot to the undeveloped portion of the park and ride parcel (green solid line). The remainder of access to the Attachment 2 167 Aspen Jewish Center – Level III Traffic Impact Study February 2022 17 parcel is to be determined. The greened dashed route as an option in addition to the FLAP design right out egress is preferred by both AJC and EOTC staff. Figure 5 – Conceptual Access Plan Aspen Jewish Center – Level III Traffic Impact Study February 2022 18 o The WB left turn deceleration lane, although substandard per SHAC, provides adequate storage during the 2042 Total traffic scenario. The existing configuration is constrained by the layout of the BRT and park and ride. o The SB left turn is adequate length per SHAC · The analysis of existing auxiliary lanes at the residential access (North M34.99) o The NB right turn deceleration lane is adequate length o The WB right turn acceleration lane is substandard length o The SB left turn deceleration lane is substandard length 7.2 Proposed Mitigation Measures · Access through Brush Creek Road traffic signal and Park and Ride leg is the safest solution for the traffic generated by the AJC. If access is possible, the AJC will continue to explore the access further into site planning and design potential. · Access through the Park and Ride area to the AJC parcel in conformance with Brush Creek Park and Ride Expansion Plans · Based on preliminary discussion with CDOT, agreement by the AJC to limit access at North access (M 34.99) to right in and right out only, will relieve the AJC to any responsibility to upgrade the existing Brush Creek Road and SH 82 intersection to resolve existing path overlap issues with left turn movements (Split Phasing). o Remove SB left turn and crossover median as directed by the Access Permit. · Provide downvalley egress at North access (right out M 34.99) through AJC parcel for park and ride customers during large events (X Games, Labor Day JAS and others) in the form of an easement and / or planned improvements within the AJC site plan. o Downvalley egress will result in > 10 vph and may warrant a WB right turn acceleration lane per the SHAC with dimensions per Table 11. · Provide the ability to access and use the AJC parking lot during large events. Attachment 2 169 Aspen Jewish Center – Level III Traffic Impact Study January 2022 Traffic Impact Study Appendix A Appendix A Conceptual Access Plan Attachment 2 170 172 171 173 174 7516 UTILITYPEDESTAL UTILITYPEDESTAL UTILITYPEDESTAL UTILITYPEDESTAL VENT UTILITYPEDESTAL UTILITYPEDESTAL YIELD STOP YIELD STOP STOP SECTION 28 SECTION 21 WSTATEPROJECT12:25:39 PM \\denpw p01\d$\pw icsw orking\736616\849696_12\A03_suvBC-02.dgn CENTRAL FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISIONFEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATIONU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION6/24/2020 _User: DENPW P02$_NUMBERSHEETCO FLAP PIT 82(1)95% DESIGN SUBM ITTAL - NO T FO R CONSTRUCTION600'300'0Scale in FeetSheet 2 of 2SURVEY CONTROLRio Grande TrailRoaring Fork RiverTo Glenwood Springs 35 MilesTo As p e n 6 Mil e sBrush Creek RoadBrush Creek TrailCO Highway 821727516173174171264322303802Pitkin County264321100851Pitkin County264321103007Styslinger Jennifer O264321101801City of Aspen264321400002Sanditen Edward Stanley264321402001Sanditen Edward Stanley264322300801& Sanitation DistSnowmass Water264322303802Pitkin CountyCity of Aspen264321400852CO Dept of Transportations264321400801CO Dept of Transportations264321200851City of AspenREC. NO. 656310CDOT & Holy Cross Elec. Assoc.10' Wide common use areaREC. NO. 530962Holy Cross Elec. Assoc.transmission line esmt.150' Wide overhead electrical Brush Creek TrailA5264321400852CO Dept of Transportations172 171 173 174 UTILITYPEDESTAL UTILITYPEDESTAL VENT UTILITYPEDESTAL UTILITYPEDESTAL WBUSONLYBUSONLYTOption Y DEPAR TMEN T OF TRANSPORTATIONUNITED STATES OF A MERI CA DENVER, COLORADOCENTRAL FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISIONFEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATIONU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONFORPLANS PREPARED BYPLANS FOR PROPOSEDPITKIN COUNTY, COLORADOCO FLAP PIT 82(1)BRUSH CREEK PARKING AREAVOLUME I OF IINOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONJUNE 2020PRELIMINARY 95%PROPOSED ASPEN JEWISH CENTER PARCELSSOUTHACCESSBRUSHCREEKSIGNALNORTH ACCESSRIGHT-IN /RIGHT-OUTLOCATION T.B.DACCESS THROUGHUNDEVELOPED PARK &RIDE LOCATION T.B.D.ACCESS THROUGH "FLAP"DESIGN PARK & RIDEIMPROVEMENT PLANRFTA BRTPARK & RIDEBASE MAP IMAGE FROMPROPOSED ASPEN JEWISH CENTER ACCESS PLAN"FLAP" RIGHT OUT,DOWNVALLEY EGRESSCOACarpoolKioskACCESS THROUGH FLAPDESIGN DOWNVALLEYRIGHT OUT EGRESS T.B.D.Attachment 2171 Aspen Jewish Center – Level III Traffic Impact Study January 2022 Traffic Impact Study Appendix B Appendix B Scenario Traffic Volume Figures 6-10 Attachment 2 172 FIGURE 6 2022 BASELINE AM DHV Attachment 2 173 FIGURE 7 2022 BASELINE PM DHV Attachment 2 174 FIGURE 8 2042 BACKGROUND AM DHV Attachment 2 175 FIGURE 9 2042 BACKGROUND PM DHV Attachment 2 176 FIGURE 10 2042 TOTAL PM DHV Attachment 2 177 Aspen Jewish Center – Level III Traffic Impact Study January 2022 Traffic Impact Study Appendix C Appendix C Methodology / Assumptions (Correspondence with CDOT) Attachment 2 178 1 Dan Cokley From:Killian - CDOT, Brian <brian.killian@state.co.us> Sent:Wednesday, December 8, 2021 12:43 PM To:Dan Cokley Subject:Re: Aspen Jewish Center - Access discussion Dan, CDOT is okay with your traffic study assumptions. Thanks, Brian Killian Region 3 Access Program Manager Traffic & Safety P 970-683-6284 | C 970-210-1101 | F 970-683-6290 222 S. 6th St, Room 100 Grand Junction, CO 81501 brian.killian@state.co.us | www.codot.gov | www.cotrip.org On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 2:21 PM Dan Cokley <DanC@sgm-inc.com> wrote: Brian This email is intended to serve as the start of a discussion regarding access for the conceptual relocation of the Aspen Jewish Center to a parcel located adjacent to and east of SH 82, just down valley (north) from the Brush Creek park and ride lot. I have attached an image that shows the location of the property, (blue) and potential access locations (red). The current property contains a single family residence with direct access to SH 82 (west access). To the south is the Brush Creek Park and Ride lot, the AJC project could potentially access from the signal at SH 82 through the “entry road” and parcel as shown. The intention of the discussion is to understand each alternative and provide a conceptual level cost estimate for the client to understand in order to make an informed decision on how to proceed with the access approach to the project, and subsequent traffic impact study. Attachment 2 179 2 A brief summary of each access below… West Access - A CDOT Access Permit will be required from CDOT due to change in use. The highway contains two travel lanes in each direction, a crossover median and the following existing auxiliary turn lanes: · NB acceleration lane from PnR / right turn deceleration lane into SF residence · Short NB acceleration lane / taper from SF residence · SB left turn deceleration lane to SF residence The increased volumes from the project may warrant additional auxiliary lanes and / or length. The Access Permit process requires a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) to be approved by CDOT that would set volumes and lane warrants and used as the basis for a new Access Permit. The TIS would recommend mitigation as determined. South Access – The Brush Creek PnR parcel is shown as having ownership by CDOT. It is assumed that the upper valley Elected Officials Transportation Commission (EOTC) is also involved in the management of the parcel. Access may be granted through the parcel with agreement of the CDOT / EOTC to mitigate effects of an improved direct access to SH 82. This access could be through the “entry road” between the RFTA BRT station and parking area. The existing Brush Creek intersection is signalized and most likely contains all auxiliary lane improvements needed for the AJC traffic volume. There are additional layers to discuss in terms of AJC activities in coordination with larger events such as Labor Day music fest and X Games that receive heavy usage of the lot; approval/sign-off by RFTA? EOTC?; additional volume and pedestrian safety from PnR to BRT; to name a few. Please give me a call to talk and get your opinion on whether a group call or separate discussion with others (EOTC, RFTA) is the next step following our discussion. Hope to talk soon, thanks. Thanks, Dan Cokley, PE, PTOE Principal Attachment 2 180 1 Dan Cokley From:Dan Cokley Sent:Wednesday, November 24, 2021 11:07 AM To:Killian - CDOT, Brian Cc:Mark Bunnell - CDOT Subject:RE: Aspen Jewish Center - TripGen_10thEd_AJC Attachments:TripGen_10thEd_AJC_R1.pdf Brian / Mark Please disregard the previous Trip Gen email…Just after I sent this I was finally able to touch base with the right client representative to discuss anticipated programming. The “school” is a “Sunday” school that occurs on a weeknight other than Friday, 4-5:30pm peak hour traffic impact. Synagogue has Friday services 6-730pm, so none of little peak hour traffic. Also on the order of 10 Saturday services per year. See attached updated spreadsheet, much less impact. Not a straightforward ITE exercise. Let me know if assumptions are reasonable, need more info or would be easier to have a call to discuss. Thanks Dan From: Dan Cokley Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2021 7:45 AM To: Killian - CDOT, Brian <brian.killian@state.co.us> Cc: Mark Bunnell - CDOT <mark.bunnell@state.co.us> Subject: Aspen Jewish Center - TripGen_10thEd_AJC Brian See attached an initial draft of Trip Gen calcs using Elementary School and Synagogue. The Synagogue sample size is one, but is similar to Church volumes except for Friday use. I have used the number of students as the variable for the school use. Alternative land use and variables are shown, the highlighted are used. The Friday School and Synagogue use would coincide and result in the DHV used. I need to check in with AJC on their specific programming to confirm. If this scenario holds, there is probably some trip reduction to be applied to dual trips. This is a worst case scenario and place to start. Directional distribution is also shown. Let me know if you have any comments. Again, I am looking for review and comment to begin to finalize this TIS. Secondly, I am hoping for some direction on the “trigger” to require the AJC to improve the intersection split phasing and to what extent, side streets and main line. Thanks Dan Attachment 2 181 Trip GenerationITE Trip Generation, 10th EditionNumber ITE Weekday AM AM AM PM PM PM Weekday AM AM PM PMLand Useof Units Code Rate Rate Entering Exiting Rate Entering Exiting Traffic IN OUT IN OUT Rate IN OUT Rate IN OUTHebrew (Elementary) School (K-6)(Students)1005201.000.670.320.17100003217Church125606.950.330.200.130.490.220.278322332.7816179.995862TOTAL WEEKDAY SCHOOL AFTERNOON TRIPS: 100 0 0 32 17Synagogue Friday RateElementary School (K-6) (SF)452019.526.973.143.8378001315Synagogue125617.562.921.661.26910020153.87222400TOTAL FRIDAY POST PM PEAK (5:30 - 7:30PM) TRIPS:191002015AM IN AM OUTPM IN PM OUTIN OUTIN OUTElementary School (K-6)520Average Peak Hour adjacent Street54%46%48%52%Church560Average Peak Hour adjacent Street60%40%45%55%48%52%48%52%Elementary School (K-6)520Average Peak Hour adjacent Street55%45%45%55%Synagogue561Average Peak Hour adjacent Street63%37%Friday57%43%48%52%49%51%Design Hour RatesWeekday Design Hour DistributionWeekday Design Hour TrafficITE Ttrip Generation Manual, 10th EditionBasis of RateITE CodeTime Period Used AboveSundaySaturday SundaySaturdayINOUTINOUTINOUTINOUTINOUTINOUT003217002015005232Aspen60%00191000129003119Snowmass Village25%0084005400138Downvalley15%005300320085Brush Cr Rd003214002013005227Existing (RI/RO)000300020005PMTotalDirectional DistributionStudentsAMAM PMSynagogue - FriAM PMAttachment 2182 MEMORANDUM DATE: November 15, 2021 TO: Brian Killian, P.E., CDOT Region 3 Access Manager FROM: Dan Cokley, PE, PTOE RE: Aspen Jewish Center (AJC) - Level III TIS Methodology Proposal This memo documents the initial methodology and assumptions that SGM intends to use for what is generally scoped as a Level III TIS for a parcel being considered as a site for a proposed Aspen Jewish Center. The parcel currently contains a single-family residence with full access to SH 82 at mile 34.99 left. SH 82 corridor in the vicinity of the AABC in Pitkin County, Colorado. The study is being completed for the AJC to understand existing and future traffic conditions and the effect of proposed development at the Brush Creek Road signal. It appears the developed traffic will trigger a new access permit. The study area is shown in Figure 1. Figure 1 – Study Map SH 82 Parcel (shaded ) Single Family Residence RFTA BRT Station Brush Creek P&R Existing Access at mm 34.99 (L) SH 82 & Brush Creek Road Proposed Access thru BC P&R / RFTA Attachment 2 183 The proposed development consists of a 12,000 sf Synagogue and 125 student elementary school. The goal of this memo is to gain the CDOT’s acceptance of the data intended for use in the analysis, assumptions proposed for the analysis (directional distribution, trip reduction factors, etc.) and the overall approach to the access process for this future land use application in Pitkin County. The project is expected to be presented to the EOTC at the March 2022 meeting to begin to navigate the access easement process. RFTA will be included in those discussions. The scope of work includes the analysis of the Brush Creek intersection and examination of the existing access. Brush Creek Road Intersection Traffic Counts · Completed 3 hr. AM and PM peak hour counts on Wed and Thu May 19 and 20, 2021 · To include applying a seasonal factor May to July · To include analysis of most recent 5-year monthly traffic at nearby CDOT continuous station 000236 near Old Snowmass Road Traffic Impact and Operational Analysis · Follow CDOT Level 3 analysis guidelines Modeling required will be performed using the guidelines of the CDOT Traffic Analysis and Forecasting Guidelines_v01.072018. Analysis Years Operational analysis of the Brush Creek Road intersection using Baseline (2022), 20-year background traffic (2042) and 20-year total traffic (2042) will be completed. Baseline traffic volumes at study intersections will be factored by CDOT’s 20-year factor (1.13) provided on the OTIS website for Station 103521 on this segment of SH 82. Development Land Use Rates The study will use trip generation rates from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition. · To include a review of and use Church and Synagogue land use codes based on square footage. · To include Elementary School land use code and review Students and Square Footage data. Trip Reductions Internal Capture The internal capture rates will not be calculated. Multi-modal Multi-modal trips could consist of walking, biking and transit options. The development is adjacent to the SH 82 corridor, the RFTA BRT Station and multi-use trail system that provide a location that is convenient for all transportation modes. A multi-modal trip reduction rate on the order of 5% applied to all external trips for all proposed developments. Pass-By Pass-by trips are drawn from the passing traffic stream and are included in the site driveway movements but are not included in the through-volumes passing the site access point on SH 82. Attachment 2 184 Since there are not commercial or retail land uses anticipated, a pass-by trip reduction will not be used in this analysis. Project Traffic Distribution The directional distribution for site traffic is developed based upon AJC membership and wil use the following distribution of trips · Aspen 60% · Snowmass Village 25% · Down Valley 15% Access Permit · Brush Creek P&R / RFTA 2011 DHV = 212 (#311106) Attachment 2 185 Aspen Jewish Center – Level III Traffic Impact Study January 2022 Traffic Impact Study Appendix D Appendix D Synchro Output Attachment 2 186 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: SH 82 & Brush Cr Rd/RFTA / PnR 01/18/2022 2022 Baseline PM 8:34 am 11/17/2021 Synchro 11 Report Page 2 Lanes in Grp 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 Grp Vol (v), veh/h 27 0 24 478 0 121 0 0 Grp Sat Flow (s), veh/h/ln 1753 0 1753 1753 0 1700 0 0 Q Serve Time (g_s), s 2.1 0.0 1.8 35.0 0.0 4.8 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear Time (g_c), s 2.1 0.0 1.8 35.0 0.0 4.8 0.0 0.0 Perm LT Sat Flow (s_l), veh/h/ln 0 0 1753 1753 0 0 0 0 Shared LT Sat Flow (s_sh), veh/h/ln 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Perm LT Eff Green (g_p), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Perm LT Serve Time (g_u), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Perm LT Q Serve Time (g_ps), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Time to First Blk (g_f), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Serve Time pre Blk (g_fs), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop LT Inside Lane (P_L)1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap (c), veh/h 58 0 100 448 0 174 0 0 V/C Ratio (X)0.47 0.00 0.24 1.07 0.00 0.69 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap (c_a), veh/h 192 0 192 448 0 621 0 0 Upstream Filter (I)1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 65.0 0.0 61.7 50.9 0.0 63.8 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 5.8 0.0 1.2 61.2 0.0 4.9 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (d), s/veh 70.8 0.0 62.9 112.1 0.0 68.7 0.0 0.0 1st-Term Q (Q1), veh/ln 0.9 0.0 0.8 15.3 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2nd-Term Q (Q2), veh/ln 0.1 0.0 0.0 7.6 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 3rd-Term Q (Q3), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q Factor (f_B%) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 1.0 0.0 0.8 22.9 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 %ile Storage Ratio (RQ%)0.03 0.00 0.17 2.63 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.00 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Final (Residual) Q (Qe), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Q (Qs), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Cap (cs), veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Q Clear Time (tc), h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Middle Lane Group Data Assigned Mvmt 0 2 8 4 6 0 0 0 Lane Assignment T T T T Lanes in Grp 0 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 Grp Vol (v), veh/h 0 1913 16 23 491 0 0 0 Grp Sat Flow (s), veh/h/ln 0 1749 1307 1841 1749 0 0 0 Q Serve Time (g_s), s 0.0 61.5 1.6 1.3 12.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear Time (g_c), s 0.0 61.5 1.6 1.3 12.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane Grp Cap (c), veh/h 0 1573 75 471 1534 0 0 0 V/C Ratio (X)0.00 1.22 0.21 0.05 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap (c_a), veh/h 0 1573 143 471 1534 0 0 0 Upstream Filter (I)0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 0.0 37.7 61.6 38.4 25.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 103.5 1.4 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 141.1 63.0 38.4 25.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1st-Term Q (Q1), veh/ln 0.0 24.8 0.5 0.6 5.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 2nd-Term Q (Q2), veh/ln 0.0 22.6 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Attachment 2 189 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: SH 82 & Brush Cr Rd/RFTA / PnR 01/18/2022 2022 Baseline PM 8:34 am 11/17/2021 Synchro 11 Report Page 3 3rd-Term Q (Q3), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q Factor (f_B%) 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 0.0 47.4 0.6 0.6 5.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Storage Ratio (RQ%)0.00 2.37 0.04 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Final (Residual) Q (Qe), veh 0.0 85.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Q (Qs), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Cap (cs), veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Q Clear Time (tc), h 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Lane Group Data Assigned Mvmt 0 12 18 14 16 0 0 0 Lane Assignment R R R R Lanes in Grp 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 Grp Vol (v), veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grp Sat Flow (s), veh/h/ln 0 1560 982 1560 1560 0 0 0 Q Serve Time (g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear Time (g_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prot RT Sat Flow (s_R), veh/h/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prot RT Eff Green (g_R), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop RT Outside Lane (P_R) 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap (c), veh/h 0 701 56 399 684 0 0 0 V/C Ratio (X)0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap (c_a), veh/h 0 701 108 399 684 0 0 0 Upstream Filter (I)0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1st-Term Q (Q1), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2nd-Term Q (Q2), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3rd-Term Q (Q3), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q Factor (f_B%) 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Storage Ratio (RQ%)0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Final (Residual) Q (Qe), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Q (Qs), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Cap (cs), veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Q Clear Time (tc), h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 113.1 HCM 6th LOS F Notes * HCM 6th Edition computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Unsignalized Delay for [NBR, EBR, WBR, SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. Attachment 2 190 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: SH 82 & Brush Cr Rd/RFTA / PnR 01/18/2022 2042 Background PM 8:02 am 11/19/2021 Synchro 11 Report Page 2 Lanes in Grp 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 Grp Vol (v), veh/h 30 0 33 541 0 137 0 0 Grp Sat Flow (s), veh/h/ln 1753 0 1753 1753 0 1700 0 0 Q Serve Time (g_s), s 2.3 0.0 2.5 35.0 0.0 5.5 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear Time (g_c), s 2.3 0.0 2.5 35.0 0.0 5.5 0.0 0.0 Perm LT Sat Flow (s_l), veh/h/ln 0 0 1753 1753 0 0 0 0 Shared LT Sat Flow (s_sh), veh/h/ln 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Perm LT Eff Green (g_p), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Perm LT Serve Time (g_u), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Perm LT Q Serve Time (g_ps), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Time to First Blk (g_f), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Serve Time pre Blk (g_fs), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop LT Inside Lane (P_L)1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap (c), veh/h 61 0 111 443 0 191 0 0 V/C Ratio (X)0.49 0.00 0.30 1.22 0.00 0.72 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap (c_a), veh/h 190 0 190 443 0 614 0 0 Upstream Filter (I)1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 65.7 0.0 62.0 51.8 0.0 64.3 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 6.1 0.0 1.5 118.5 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (d), s/veh 71.8 0.0 63.4 170.3 0.0 69.2 0.0 0.0 1st-Term Q (Q1), veh/ln 1.0 0.0 1.1 15.3 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 2nd-Term Q (Q2), veh/ln 0.1 0.0 0.0 14.6 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 3rd-Term Q (Q3), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q Factor (f_B%) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 1.1 0.0 1.2 29.9 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 %ile Storage Ratio (RQ%)0.03 0.00 0.23 3.43 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Final (Residual) Q (Qe), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Q (Qs), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Cap (cs), veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Q Clear Time (tc), h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Middle Lane Group Data Assigned Mvmt 0 2 8 4 6 0 0 0 Lane Assignment T T T T Lanes in Grp 0 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 Grp Vol (v), veh/h 0 2162 21 26 555 0 0 0 Grp Sat Flow (s), veh/h/ln 0 1749 1307 1841 1749 0 0 0 Q Serve Time (g_s), s 0.0 62.0 2.1 1.5 14.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear Time (g_c), s 0.0 62.0 2.1 1.5 14.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane Grp Cap (c), veh/h 0 1565 83 465 1515 0 0 0 V/C Ratio (X)0.00 1.38 0.25 0.06 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap (c_a), veh/h 0 1565 142 465 1515 0 0 0 Upstream Filter (I)0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 0.0 38.3 61.8 39.2 26.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 175.7 1.6 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 214.0 63.4 39.3 27.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1st-Term Q (Q1), veh/ln 0.0 24.4 0.7 0.7 5.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 2nd-Term Q (Q2), veh/ln 0.0 38.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Attachment 2 193 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: SH 82 & Brush Cr Rd/RFTA / PnR 01/18/2022 2042 Background PM 8:02 am 11/19/2021 Synchro 11 Report Page 3 3rd-Term Q (Q3), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q Factor (f_B%) 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 0.0 62.6 0.7 0.7 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Storage Ratio (RQ%)0.00 3.13 0.05 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Final (Residual) Q (Qe), veh 0.0 149.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Q (Qs), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Cap (cs), veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Q Clear Time (tc), h 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Lane Group Data Assigned Mvmt 0 12 18 14 16 0 0 0 Lane Assignment R R R R Lanes in Grp 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 Grp Vol (v), veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grp Sat Flow (s), veh/h/ln 0 1560 982 1560 1560 0 0 0 Q Serve Time (g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear Time (g_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prot RT Sat Flow (s_R), veh/h/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prot RT Eff Green (g_R), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop RT Outside Lane (P_R) 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap (c), veh/h 0 698 62 394 676 0 0 0 V/C Ratio (X)0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap (c_a), veh/h 0 698 106 394 676 0 0 0 Upstream Filter (I)0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1st-Term Q (Q1), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2nd-Term Q (Q2), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3rd-Term Q (Q3), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q Factor (f_B%) 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Storage Ratio (RQ%)0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Final (Residual) Q (Qe), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Q (Qs), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Cap (cs), veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Q Clear Time (tc), h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 167.2 HCM 6th LOS F Notes * HCM 6th Edition computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Unsignalized Delay for [NBR, EBR, WBR, SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. Attachment 2 194 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: SH 82 & Brush Cr Rd/RFTA / PnR 01/18/2022 2042 TOTAL PM 1:27 pm 01/14/2022 Synchro 11 Report Page 2 Lanes in Grp 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 Grp Vol (v), veh/h 37 0 46 541 0 137 0 0 Grp Sat Flow (s), veh/h/ln 1753 0 1753 1753 0 1700 0 0 Q Serve Time (g_s), s 2.9 0.0 3.5 35.0 0.0 5.5 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear Time (g_c), s 2.9 0.0 3.5 35.0 0.0 5.5 0.0 0.0 Perm LT Sat Flow (s_l), veh/h/ln 0 0 1753 1753 0 0 0 0 Shared LT Sat Flow (s_sh), veh/h/ln 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Perm LT Eff Green (g_p), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Perm LT Serve Time (g_u), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Perm LT Q Serve Time (g_ps), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Time to First Blk (g_f), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Serve Time pre Blk (g_fs), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop LT Inside Lane (P_L)1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap (c), veh/h 67 0 118 441 0 192 0 0 V/C Ratio (X)0.55 0.00 0.39 1.23 0.00 0.71 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap (c_a), veh/h 189 0 189 441 0 611 0 0 Upstream Filter (I)1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 65.8 0.0 62.2 52.1 0.0 64.6 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 6.9 0.0 2.1 121.1 0.0 4.9 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (d), s/veh 72.7 0.0 64.3 173.2 0.0 69.5 0.0 0.0 1st-Term Q (Q1), veh/ln 1.3 0.0 1.6 15.4 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 2nd-Term Q (Q2), veh/ln 0.1 0.0 0.1 14.8 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 3rd-Term Q (Q3), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q Factor (f_B%) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 1.4 0.0 1.6 30.2 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 %ile Storage Ratio (RQ%)0.04 0.00 0.32 3.46 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Final (Residual) Q (Qe), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Q (Qs), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Cap (cs), veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Q Clear Time (tc), h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Middle Lane Group Data Assigned Mvmt 0 2 8 4 6 0 0 0 Lane Assignment T T T T Lanes in Grp 0 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 Grp Vol (v), veh/h 0 2162 26 36 555 0 0 0 Grp Sat Flow (s), veh/h/ln 0 1749 1307 1841 1749 0 0 0 Q Serve Time (g_s), s 0.0 61.5 2.6 2.1 14.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear Time (g_c), s 0.0 61.5 2.6 2.1 14.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane Grp Cap (c), veh/h 0 1545 88 463 1507 0 0 0 V/C Ratio (X)0.00 1.40 0.30 0.08 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap (c_a), veh/h 0 1545 141 463 1507 0 0 0 Upstream Filter (I)0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 0.0 38.9 61.8 39.8 26.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 183.5 1.8 0.1 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 222.4 63.6 39.9 27.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1st-Term Q (Q1), veh/ln 0.0 24.3 0.9 1.0 5.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 2nd-Term Q (Q2), veh/ln 0.0 39.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Attachment 2 196 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: SH 82 & Brush Cr Rd/RFTA / PnR 01/18/2022 2042 TOTAL PM 1:27 pm 01/14/2022 Synchro 11 Report Page 3 3rd-Term Q (Q3), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q Factor (f_B%) 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 0.0 63.7 0.9 1.0 6.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Storage Ratio (RQ%)0.00 3.18 0.06 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Final (Residual) Q (Qe), veh 0.0 154.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Q (Qs), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Cap (cs), veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Q Clear Time (tc), h 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Lane Group Data Assigned Mvmt 0 12 18 14 16 0 0 0 Lane Assignment R R R R Lanes in Grp 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 Grp Vol (v), veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grp Sat Flow (s), veh/h/ln 0 1560 982 1560 1560 0 0 0 Q Serve Time (g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear Time (g_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prot RT Sat Flow (s_R), veh/h/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prot RT Eff Green (g_R), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop RT Outside Lane (P_R) 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap (c), veh/h 0 689 66 392 672 0 0 0 V/C Ratio (X)0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap (c_a), veh/h 0 689 106 392 672 0 0 0 Upstream Filter (I)0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1st-Term Q (Q1), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2nd-Term Q (Q2), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3rd-Term Q (Q3), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q Factor (f_B%) 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Storage Ratio (RQ%)0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Final (Residual) Q (Qe), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Q (Qs), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sat Cap (cs), veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Q Clear Time (tc), h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 171.8 HCM 6th LOS F Notes * HCM 6th Edition computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Unsignalized Delay for [NBR, EBR, WBR, SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. Attachment 2 197 Queuing and Blocking Report Baseline 01/26/2022 2022 Baseline AM SimTraffic Report Page 2 Intersection: 3: SH 82 & Brush Cr Rd/RFTA / PnR Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB SB SB SB Directions Served L T L T L L T T L T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 201 45 193 233 85 70 124 130 198 773 800 540 Average Queue (ft) 96 8 108 26 29 23 55 64 94 445 456 102 95th Queue (ft)171 32 186 122 67 57 104 115 169 724 743 469 Link Distance (ft)4359 517 517 1706 1706 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 225 130 250 250 825 450 Storage Blk Time (%)0 11 0 1 12 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 3 0 1 61 Attachment 2 198 Queuing and Blocking Report 01/14/2022 2022 Baseline PM SimTraffic Report Page 2 Intersection: 3: SH 82 & Brush Cr Rd/PNR Movement EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB NB B2 B2 Directions Served L T L T R L L T T R T T Maximum Queue (ft) 375 1486 115 84 15 96 450 613 620 514 1008 1017 Average Queue (ft) 362 800 32 25 0 36 191 540 549 115 373 388 95th Queue (ft)421 1629 90 71 14 78 506 695 691 467 1128 1140 Link Distance (ft)2212 514 514 3022 3022 Upstream Blk Time (%)0 30 33 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 0 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 225 130 100 250 250 450 Storage Blk Time (%) 66 0 1 1 41 36 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 60 1 0 0 45 16 0 Intersection: 3: SH 82 & Brush Cr Rd/PNR Movement SB SB SB SB Directions Served L T T R Maximum Queue (ft)97 200 207 17 Average Queue (ft)25 101 106 1 95th Queue (ft)70 170 177 13 Link Distance (ft)1709 1709 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 825 450 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) 95thQ = 514+1140 = 1654 Attachment 2 199 Queuing and Blocking Report 01/28/2022 2042 Background AM SimTraffic Report Page 1 Intersection: 3: SH 82 & Brush Cr Rd/RFTA / PnR Movement EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L T L T R L L T T L T T Maximum Queue (ft) 203 48 198 240 30 88 84 128 142 1125 1722 1729 Average Queue (ft) 101 9 120 36 1 33 28 63 74 580 1309 1330 95th Queue (ft)174 33 205 155 21 73 67 113 124 1426 2049 2065 Link Distance (ft)4359 517 517 1706 1706 Upstream Blk Time (%)2 2 Queuing Penalty (veh)18 27 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 225 130 100 250 250 825 Storage Blk Time (%)0 17 0 34 47 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 6 0 47 276 Intersection: 3: SH 82 & Brush Cr Rd/RFTA / PnR Movement SB Directions Served R Maximum Queue (ft) 600 Average Queue (ft) 526 95th Queue (ft)851 Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 450 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Attachment 2 200 Queuing and Blocking Report 01/14/2022 2042 Background PM SimTraffic Report Page 2 Intersection: 3: SH 82 & Brush Cr Rd/PNR Movement EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB NB B2 B2 Directions Served L T L T R L L T T R T T Maximum Queue (ft) 375 3065 135 118 15 93 450 614 621 514 5822 5793 Average Queue (ft) 370 1808 41 28 0 37 210 577 581 123 2766 2785 95th Queue (ft)410 3382 99 86 15 80 538 658 659 485 5886 5889 Link Distance (ft)3228 514 514 6374 6374 Upstream Blk Time (%)11 46 50 0 1 1 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 225 130 100 250 250 450 Storage Blk Time (%) 73 1 1 49 51 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 76 1 1 61 26 0 Intersection: 3: SH 82 & Brush Cr Rd/PNR Movement SB SB SB SB Directions Served L T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 107 212 225 27 Average Queue (ft) 32 113 120 1 95th Queue (ft)84 184 196 14 Link Distance (ft)1709 1709 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 825 450 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Attachment 2 201 Queuing and Blocking Report 01/14/2022 2042 TOTAL PM SimTraffic Report Page 2 Intersection: 3: SH 82 & Brush Cr Rd/RFTA / PnR Movement EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB NB B2 B2 Directions Served L T L T R L L T T R T T Maximum Queue (ft) 375 2998 95 103 43 93 450 628 622 517 5750 5734 Average Queue (ft) 370 1643 38 33 1 37 195 585 586 251 3051 3068 95th Queue (ft)404 3207 81 86 25 81 517 659 652 677 6415 6417 Link Distance (ft)4359 517 517 6374 6374 Upstream Blk Time (%)45 48 1 6 6 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 0 0 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 225 130 100 250 250 450 Storage Blk Time (%) 73 0 1 0 49 50 Queuing Penalty (veh) 82 0 1 0 62 36 Intersection: 3: SH 82 & Brush Cr Rd/RFTA / PnR Movement SB SB SB Directions Served L T T Maximum Queue (ft)88 213 223 Average Queue (ft)26 115 128 95th Queue (ft)67 188 202 Link Distance (ft)1706 1706 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 825 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Attachment 2 202 Aspen Jewish Center – Level III Traffic Impact Study January 2022 Traffic Impact Study Appendix E Appendix E May 2021 Traffic Counts / CDOT OTIS Traffic Data Attachment 2 203 Time PeriodClass.RRoRTLUIORRoRTLUIORRoRTLUIORRoRTLUIOTotalBicycles on CrosswalkPedestriansTotalPeak 1Lights 253 119 1090 22 0 1484 278 0 7 5 16 0 28 31 6 0 194 39 0 239 1152 14 32 3 77 0 126 416 1877 N 0 0 0Specified Period% 94% 93% 95% 67% 0% 94% 90% 0% 58% 56% 64% 0% 60% 56% 67% 0% 92% 89% 0% 89% 94% 88% 89% 43% 90% 0% 87% 93% 92%0% 0%7:00 AM - 10:00 AMBuses 01 4 8 0 13 6 0 1 4 8 0 13 19 3 4 5 4 0 16 17 2 3 4 0 0 9 9 51 E 0 0 0One Hour Peak% 0% 1% 0% 24% 0% 1% 2% 0% 8% 44% 32% 0% 28% 35% 33% 67% 2% 9% 0% 6% 1% 13% 8% 57% 0% 0% 6% 2% 2%0% 0%7:15 AM - 8:15 AMTrucks 158 59 3 0 85 25 1 4 0 1 0 6 5 0 2 11 1 0 14 61 0 1 0 9 0 10 24 115 S 0 0 0% 6% 6% 5% 9% 0% 5% 8% 100% 33% 0% 4% 0% 13% 9% 0% 33% 5% 2% 0% 5% 5% 0% 3% 0% 10% 0% 7% 5% 6%0% 0%Total268 128 1153 33 0 1582 309 1 12 9 25 0 47 55 9 6 210 44 0 269 1230 16 36 7 86 0 145 449 2043W 00 0PHF 0.84 0.58 0.94 0.82 0 0.95 0.74 0.25 0.6 0.75 0.69 0 0.84 0.92 0.56 0.38 0.74 0.65 0 0.72 0.95 0.57 0.82 0.44 0.55 0 0.71 0.85 0.970% 0%Approach %77% 15%2%3%13% 60%7% 22%0 0 0Peak 2Lights 6454 337 11 0 466 1658 10 27 6 8 0 51 44 11 10 1295 83 1 1400 397 12 39 12 326 0 389 207 2306 N 0 0 0Specified Period% 98% 100% 99% 58% 0% 97% 97% 100% 100% 55% 47% 0% 78% 64% 61% 63% 97% 99% 100% 97% 96% 100% 95% 75% 98% 0% 97% 97% 96%0% 0%3:00 PM - 6:15 PMBuses 00 1 8 0 9 0 0 0 5 9 0 14 24 6 6 0 1 0 13 11 0 1 4 0 0 5 6 41 E 1 0 1One Hour Peak% 0% 0% 0% 42% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 45% 53% 0% 22% 35% 33% 38% 0% 1% 0% 1% 3% 0% 2% 25% 0% 0% 1% 3% 2%100% 0%4:30 PM - 5:30 PMTrucks 10 4 0 0 5 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 36 0 0 37 5 0 1 0 7 0 8 1 50 S 0 0 0% 2% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 6% 0% 3% 0% 0% 3% 1% 0% 2% 0% 2% 0% 2% 0% 2%0% 0%Total65 54 342 19 0 480 1701 10 27 11 17 0 65 69 18 16 1331 84 1 1450 413 12 41 16 333 0 402 214 2397W10 1PHF 0.9 0.64 0.92 0.68 0 0.9 0.96 0.5 0.61 0.92 0.71 0 0.77 0.62 0.64 0.67 0.96 0.72 0.25 0.95 0.88 0.75 0.64 0.5 0.86 0 0.91 0.88 0.96100% 0%Approach %20% 71%3%3%60% 17%17% 9%2 0 2Study NameAspen Jewish CenterStart DateWednesday, May 19, 2021 7:00 AMEnd DateThursday, May 20, 2021 6:15 PMSite CodeReport SummarySouthboundWestboundNorthboundEastboundCrosswalkAttachment 2204 Time PeriodClass.RRoRTLUIORRoRTLUIORRoRTLUIORRoRTLUIOTotalBicycles on CrosswalkPedestriansTotalPeak 1Lights 248 135 1056 26 0 1465 265 2 3 12 16 0 33 39 6 0 177 54 1 238 1118 9 36 7 83 0 135 449 1871 N 0 0 0Specified Period% 94% 98% 94% 79% 0% 94% 90% 67% 75% 75% 67% 0% 70% 67% 46% 0% 90% 84% 100% 87% 93% 82% 88% 64% 89% 0% 87% 93% 92%0% 0%7:00 AM - 10:00 AMBuses 01 5 7 0 13 5 1 1 3 8 0 13 18 6 1 3 4 0 14 18 1 4 4 0 0 9 8 49 E 0 0 0One Hour Peak% 0% 1% 0% 21% 0% 1% 2% 33% 25% 19% 33% 0% 28% 31% 46% 100% 2% 6% 0% 5% 1% 9% 10% 36% 0% 0% 6% 2% 2%0% 0%7:15 AM - 8:15 AMTrucks 152 64 0 0 81 26 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 16 6 0 23 66 1 1 0 10 0 12 24 117 S 0 0 0% 6% 1% 6% 0% 0% 5% 9% 0% 0% 6% 0% 0% 2% 2% 8% 0% 8% 9% 0% 8% 5% 9% 2% 0% 11% 0% 8% 5% 6%0% 0%Total263 138 1125 33 0 1559 296 3 4 16 24 0 47 58 13 1 196 64 1 275 1202 11 41 11 93 0 156 481 2037W 00 0PHF 0.77 0.75 0.96 0.69 0 0.91 0.8 0.38 0.5 0.57 0.5 0 0.62 0.85 0.65 0.25 0.79 0.73 0.25 0.79 0.94 0.55 0.54 0.69 0.86 0 0.78 0.81 0.920% 0%Approach %77% 15%2%3%14% 59%8% 24%0 0 0Peak 2Lights 6540 352 7 0 464 1597 6 18 8 5 0 37 46 24 8 1179 71 1 1283 415 16 41 7 394 0 458 184 2242 N 1 0 1Specified Period% 97% 100% 96% 37% 0% 95% 97% 86% 82% 62% 36% 0% 66% 61% 77% 57% 97% 96% 100% 96% 94% 89% 95% 64% 99% 0% 97% 95% 95%100% 0%3:00 PM - 6:15 PMBuses 00 3 9 0 12 3 1 0 4 9 0 14 24 6 5 2 1 0 14 14 1 1 4 0 0 6 5 46 E 0 0 0One Hour Peak% 0% 0% 1% 47% 0% 2% 0% 14% 0% 31% 64% 0% 25% 32% 19% 36% 0% 1% 0% 1% 3% 6% 2% 36% 0% 0% 1% 3% 2%0% 0%4:00 PM - 5:00 PMTrucks 20 10 3 0 15 41 0 4 1 0 0 5 5 1 1 33 2 0 37 12 1 1 0 4 0 6 5 63 S 0 1 1% 3% 0% 3% 16% 0% 3% 2% 0% 18% 8% 0% 0% 9% 7% 3% 7% 3% 3% 0% 3% 3% 6% 2% 0% 1% 0% 1% 3% 3%0% 100%Total67 40 365 19 0 491 1641 7 22 13 14 0 56 75 31 14 1214 74 1 1334 441 18 43 11 398 0 470 194 2351W00 0PHF 0.84 0.77 0.77 0.68 0 0.82 0.91 0.58 0.61 0.81 0.7 0 0.78 0.89 0.7 0.88 0.94 0.71 0.25 0.95 0.8 0.64 0.77 0.69 0.83 0 0.88 0.87 0.970% 0%Approach %21% 70%2%3%57% 19%20% 8%1 1 2Study NameAspen Jewish CenterStart DateWednesday, May 19, 2021 7:00 AMEnd DateThursday, May 20, 2021 6:15 PMSite CodeReport SummarySouthboundWestboundNorthboundEastboundCrosswalkAttachment 2205 2021 Through 10/31 6308744 2020 Through 10/31 5646792 2019 Through 10/31 6159996 CDOT Sta 000236 Monthly Traffic CDOT Sta 000236 Total Traffic COUNTSTATIONIDCALYR JANCOUNTFEBCOUNTMARCOUNTAPRCOUNTMAYCOUNTJUNCOUNTJULCOUNTAUGCOUNTSEPCOUNTOCTCOUNTNOVCOUNTDECCOUNTYEARAVG 236 2019 20116 19966 19984 18414 17804 22109 23152 22780 21201 19369 17424 20402 236 2018 19621 19180 19680 18304 17765 21602 22512 21946 20849 18397 17199 19720 236 2017 18550 18921 19443 16987 16943 21253 22324 21086 19821 18048 16873 19575 236 2016 18612 18613 18878 16828 17254 21393 22397 20902 20479 18174 16340 18813 236 2015 17908 17741 18317 16451 15838 20486 22141 20765 20084 18002 16160 18790 Average 5 yr monthly average 18961 18884 19260 17397 17121 21369 22505 21496 20487 18398 16799 19460 19345 % of average 98.0% 97.6% 99.6% 89.9% 88.5% 110.5% 116.3% 111.1% 105.9% 95.1% 86.8% 100.6% May ---> July 131.4% Attachment 2 206 Aspen Jewish Center – Level III Traffic Impact Study January 2022 Traffic Impact Study Appendix F Appendix F Access Permit 311106; Brush Creek Park and Ride IGA Attachment 2 207 Attachment 2208 Attachment 2 209 State Highway Access Permit Form 101, Page 2 The following paragraphs are excerpts of the State Highway Access Code. These are provided for your convenience but do not alleviate compliance with all sections of the Access Code. A copy of the State Highway Access Code is available from your local issuing authority (local government) or the Colorado Department of Transportation (Department). When this permit was issued, the issuing authority made its decision based in part on information submitted by the applicant, on the access category which is assigned to the highway, what alternative access to other public roads and streets is available, and safety and design standards. Changes in use or design not approved by the permit or the issuing authority may cause the revocation or suspension of the permit. APPEALS 1. Should the permittee or applicant object to the denial of a permit application by the Department or object to any of the terms or conditions of a permit placed there by the Department, the applicant and permittee (appellant) have a right to appeal the decision to the [Transportation] Commission [of Colorado]. To appeal a decision, submit a request for administrative hearing to the Transportation Commission of Colorado within 60 days of transmittal of notice of denial or transmittal of the permit for signature. Submit the request to the Transportation Commission of Colorado, 4201 East Arkansas Avenue, Denver, Colorado 80222-3400. The request shall include reasons for the appeal and may include changes, revisions, or conditions that would be acceptable to the permittee or applicant. 2. Any appeal by the applicant or permittee of action by a local issuing authority shall be filed with the local authority and be consistent with the appeal procedures of the local authority. 3. In submitting the request for administrative hearing, the appellant has the option of including within the appeal a request for a review by the Department’s internal administrative review committee pursuant to [Code] subsection 2.10. When such committee review is requested, processing of the appeal for formal administrative hearing, 2.9(5) and (6), shall be suspended until the appellant notifies the Commission to proceed with the administrative hearing, or the appellant submits a request to the Commission or the administrative law judge to withdraw the appeal. The two administrative processes, the internal administrative review committee, and the administrative hearing, may not run concurrently. 4. Regardless of any communications, meetings, administrative reviews or negotiations with the Department or the internal administrative review Committee regarding revisions or objections to the permit or a denial, if the permittee or applicant wishes to appeal the Department's decision to the Commission for a hearing, the appeal must be brought to the Commission within 60 days of transmittal of notice of denial or transmittal of the permit. PERMIT EXPIRATION 1. A permit shall be considered expired if the access is not under construction within one year of the permit issue date or before the expiration of any authorized extension. When the permittee is unable to commence construction within one year after the permit issue date, the permittee may request a one year extension from the issuing authority. No more than two one-year extensions may be granted under any circumstances. If the access is not under construction within three years from date of issue the permit will be considered expired. Any request for an extension must be in writing and submitted to the issuing authority before the permit expires. The request should state the reasons why the extension is necessary, when construction is anticipated, and include a copy of page 1 (face of permit) of the access permit. Extension approvals shall be in writing. The local issuing authority shall obtain the concurrence of the Department prior to the approval of an extension, and shall notify the Department of all denied extensions within ten days. Any person wishing to reestablish an access permit that has expired may begin again with the application procedures. An approved Notice to Proceed, automatically renews the access permit for the period of the Notice to Proceed. CONSTRUCTION 1. Construction may not begin until a Notice to Proceed is approved. (Code subsection 2.4] 2. The construction of the access and its appurtenances as required by the terms and conditions of the permit shall be completed at the expense of the permittee except as provided in subsection 2.14. All materials used in the construction of the access within the highway right-of-way or on permanent easements, become public property. Any materials removed from the highway right-of-way will be disposed of only as directed by the Department. All fencing, guard rail, traffic control devices and other equipment and materials removed in the course of access construction shall be given to the Department unless otherwise instructed by the permit or the Department inspector. 3. The permittee shall notify the individual or the office specified on the permit or Notice to Proceed at least two working days prior to any construction within state highway right-of-way. Construction of the access shall not proceed until both the access permit and the Notice to Proceed are issued. The access shall be completed in an expeditious and safe manner and shall be finished within 45 days from initiation of construction within the highway right-of-way. A construction time extension not to exceed 30 working days may be requested from the individual or office specified on the permit. 4. The issuing authority and the Department may inspect the access during construction and upon completion of the access to ensure that all terms and conditions of the permit are met. Inspectors are authorized to enforce the conditions of the permit during construction and to halt any activities within state right-of-way that do not comply with the provisions of the permit, that conflict with concurrent highway construction or maintenance work, that endanger Attachment 2 210 State Highway Access Permit Form 101, Page 3 highway property, natural or cultural resources protected by law, or the health and safety of workers or the public. 5. Prior to using the access, the permittee is required to complete the construction according to the terms and conditions of the permit. Failure by the permittee to abide by all permit terms and conditions shall be sufficient cause for the Department or issuing authority to initiate action to suspend or revoke the permit and close the access. If in the determination of the Department or issuing authority the failure to comply with or complete the construction requirements of the permit create a highway safety hazard, such shall be sufficient cause for the summary suspension of the permit. If the permittee wishes to use the access prior to completion, arrangements must be approved by the issuing authority and Department and included in the permit. The Department or issuing authority may order a halt to any unauthorized use of the access pursuant to statutory and regulatory powers. Reconstruction or improvement of the access may be required when the permittee has failed to meet required specifications of design or materials. If any construction element fails within two years due to improper construction or material specifications, the permittee shall be responsible for all repairs. Failure to make such repairs may result in suspension of the permit and closure of the access. 6. The permittee shall provide construction traffic control devices at all times during access construction, in conformance with the M.U.T.C.D. as required by section 42-4-104, C.R.S., as amended. 7. A utility permit shall be obtained for any utility work within highway right-of-way. Where necessary to remove, relocate, or repair a traffic control device or public or private utilities for the construction of a permitted access, the relocation, removal or repair shall be accomplished by the permittee without cost to the Department or issuing authority, and at the direction of the Department or utility company. Any damage to the state highway or other public right-of-way beyond that which is allowed in the permit shall be repaired immediately. The permittee is responsible for the repair of any utility damaged in the course of access construction, reconstruction or repair. 8. In the event it becomes necessary to remove any right-of- way fence, the posts on either side of the access shall be securely braced with an approved end post before the fence is cut to prevent any slacking of the remaining fence. All posts and wire removed are Department property and shall be turned over to a representative of the Department. 9. The permittee shall ensure that a copy of the permit is available for review at the construction site at all times. The permit may require the contractor to notify the individual or office specified on the permit at any specified phases in construction to allow the field inspector to inspect various aspects of construction such as concrete forms, subbase, base course compaction, and materials specifications. Minor changes and additions may be ordered by the Department or local authority field inspector to meet unanticipated site conditions. 10. Each access shall be constructed in a manner that shall not cause water to enter onto the roadway or shoulder, and shall not interfere with the existing drainage system on the right-of- way or any adopted municipal system and drainage plan. 11. The Permittee is responsible for obtaining any necessary additional Federal, State and/or City/County permits or clearances required for construction of the access. Issuance of this access permit does not constitute verification of the above required actions by the Permittee. By accepting the permit, the permittee stipulates and agrees to fully protect, save, defend, indemnify, and hold harmless, to the extent allowed by law, the issuing Authority, and each of the Authority’s directors, officers, employees, agents and representatives, from and against any and all claims, costs (including but not limited to all reasonable fees and charges of engineers, architects, attorneys, and other professionals or expert witnesses and all court or other dispute resolution costs directly incurred by reason of claims directly brought against the Authority), losses, damages, pre- or post- judgment interest, causes of action, suits, or liability of any nature whatsoever by reason of liability imposed due to Permittee’s failure to obtain, or disregard of, any applicable federal, state or local environmental permits, approvals, authorizations, or clearances, or in meeting or complying with any applicable federal, state or local environmental law, regulation, condition or requirements in connection with any activities authorized by this Access Permit. CHANGES IN ACCESS USE AND PERMIT VIOLATIONS 1. It is the responsibility of the property owner and permittee to ensure that the use of the access to the property is not in violation of the Code, permit terms and conditions or the Act. The terms and conditions of any permit are binding upon all assigns, successors-in-interest, heirs and occupants. If any significant changes are made or will be made in the use of the property which will affect access operation, traffic volume and or vehicle type, the permittee or property owner shall contact the local issuing authority or the Department to determine if a new access permit and modifications to the access are required. 2. When an access is constructed or used in violation of the Code, section 43-2-147(5)(c), C.R.S., of the Act applies. The Department or issuing authority may summarily suspend an access permit and immediately order closure of the access when its continued use presents an immediate threat to public health, welfare or safety. Summary suspension shall comply with article 4 of title 24, C.R.S. MAINTENANCE 1. The permittee, his or her heirs, successors-in-interest, assigns, and occupants of the property serviced by the access shall be responsible for meeting the terms and conditions of the permit, the repair and maintenance of the access beyond the edge of the roadway including any cattle guard and gate, and the removal or clearance of snow or ice upon the access even though deposited on the access in the course of Department snow removal operations. Within unincorporated areas the Department will keep access culverts clean as part of maintenance of the highway drainage system. However, the permittee is responsible for the repair and replacement of any access-related culverts within the right-of-way. Within incorporated areas, drainage responsibilities for municipalities are determined by statute and local ordinance. The Department will maintain the roadway including auxiliary lanes and shoulders, except in those cases where the access installation has failed due to improper access construction and/or failure to follow permit requirements and specifications in which case the permittee shall be responsible for such repair. Any significant repairs such as culvert replacement, resurfacing, or changes in design or specifications, requires authorization from the Department. Form 101, Page 3 Attachment 2 211 STATE HIGHWAY ACCESS PERMIT 311106 September 15, 2011 Located on Highway 82A near MP 35.26 Left Issued to Roaring Fork Transportation Authority TERMS AND CONDITIONS 1. This permitted access is only for the use and purpose stated in the Application and Permit. This Permit is issued in accordance with the State Highway Access Code (2 CCR 601-1), and is based in part upon the information submitted by the Permittee. Any subsequent relocation, reconstruction, or modifications to the access or changes in the traffic volume or traffic nature using the access shall be requested for by means of a new application. Any changes causing non-compliance with the Access Code may render this permit void, requiring a new permit. 2. The Permittee shall design and install a right turn deceleration lane in accordance with Section 4 of the Access Code. 3. The traffic volume shall be 212 DHV. The traffic volume includes Passenger Car Equivalents (PCE). 4. An additional bus only, left turn lane will be constructed and shall be 855 feet with a 445 foot taper. 5. The Park ‘n Ride access shall be constructed to accommodate the dual left turning movement. 6. The crosswalk will be removed from the north leg of the intersection and pedestrian movements shall be accommodated within the park ‘n ride facility. 7. This access shall be constructed 25-40 feet wide. This access shall be constructed with turning radii to accommodate an AASHTO WB-50 turning radius. The turning radius shall be measured from the white line on the Hwy to the edge of the driveway. A drawing of the design vehicle turning template for the largest vehicle entering/exiting site will be required to ensure proper radius and lane widths. 8. The access shall be constructed perpendicular to the travel lanes of the State Highway for a minimum distance of 40 feet from the edge of roadway. Side slopes shall be at a 4:1 slope on the roadway and at 6:1 to the approach. The driveway shall slope away from the highway at a -2% grade for the first 20 feet of driveway. This design shall be in conformance with section 4 of the State Highway Access Code, 2CCR 601-1. 9. The access shall be surfaced in accordance with Section 4.7 of the Access Code immediately upon completion of earthwork construction and prior to use. This access shall be hard surfaced in accordance with Section 4.7 of the Access Code a minimum distance of 50 feet from the traveled way or to the CDOT Right-of-Way. Where the hard surface is to abut existing pavement, the existing pavement shall be saw cut and removed a minimum of one foot back from the existing edge for bituminous, or until an acceptable existing cross slope is achieved. Surfacing shall meet the Department’s specifications with minimum surfacing to be equal to or greater than existing highway conditions. 10. This permit replaces permit any and all additional access permits that may be in existence for this access. 11. A pre-design meeting is required prior to construction design. Required personnel for this meeting are: Professional Engineer of Record (i.e., the person who shall sign and seal the plan set), Design Engineer, and Permittee. Please contact Devin Drayton 970-683-6286 for scheduling this pre-design meeting. Attachment 2 212 STATE HIGHWAY ACCESS PERMIT 311106 September 15, 2011 Located on Highway 82A near MP 35.26 Left Issued to Roaring Fork Transportation Authority 12. A Notice to Proceed, CDOT Form 1265 is required before beginning the construction of the access or any activity within the highway right-of-way. To receive the Notice to Proceed the applicant shall submit a complete packet to CDOT with the following items: (a) A cover letter requesting a Notice to Proceed. (b) Certificate of Insurance Liability as per Section 2.3(11)(i) of the State Highway Access Code. (c) A certified Traffic Control Plan in accordance with Section 2.4(6) of the Access Code. The Traffic Control Plan shall provide accessibility features to accommodate all pedestrians including persons with disabilities for all pathways during construction. (d) Ten copies of Construction Plans Stamped (11”x 17” with a minimum scale of 1” = 50’) by a Colorado Registered Professional Engineer in full compliance with the State Highway Access Code. (e) Signed and sealed Notice to Proceed Checklist. (f) Signed and sealed Drainage Report or narrative. (g) Prior to the issuance of any Notice to Proceed, the applicant shall schedule a pre- construction meeting including but not limited to applicant, Engineer of Record, Construction Inspector, construction personnel, Permittee (if other than applicant), CDOT representative and Traffic Control Supervisor. (h) A construction schedule will be required at the pre-construction meeting. 13. No drainage from this site shall enter onto the State Highway travel lanes. The Permittee is required to maintain all drainage in excess of historical flows and time of concentration on site. All existing drainage structures shall be extended, modified or upgraded, as applicable, to accommodate all new construction and safety standards, in accordance with the Department’s standard specifications. 14. All materials, equipment, installation and construction within the State Highway ROW shall be in accordance with the latest edition of the following standard references as applicable: A. CDOT Materials Manual B. CDOT Construction Manual C. CDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, latest edition D. CDOT Standard Special Provisions, as applicable to project E. CDOT Standard Plans (M&S Standards) FHWA Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) for Streets and Highways and the Colorado Supplement thereto F. AASHTO Roadside Design Guide 15. A new culvert may be required for this access. The drainage study will be used to size all culverts. As a minimum, an 18-inch culvert with protective end treatments will be required. The culvert shall be kept free of blockage to maintain proper flow and drainage. 16. Open cuts, which are at least 4 inches in depth, within 30 feet of the edge of the State Highway traveled way, will not be left open at night, on weekends, or on holidays, or shall be protected with a suitable barrier per State and Federal Standards. 17. The Permittee is responsible for obtaining any necessary additional Federal, State and/or City/County permits or clearances required for construction of the access. Approval of this Attachment 2 213 STATE HIGHWAY ACCESS PERMIT 311106 September 15, 2011 Located on Highway 82A near MP 35.26 Left Issued to Roaring Fork Transportation Authority access permit does not constitute verification of this action by the Permittee. Permittee is also responsible for obtaining all necessary utility permits in addition to this access permit. 18. All workers within the State Highway right of way shall comply with their employer’s safety and health policies/procedures, and all applicable U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations - including, but not limited to the applicable sections of 29 CFR Part 1910 - Occupational Safety and Health Standards and 29 CFR Part 1926 - Safety and Health Regulations for Construction. Personal protective equipment (e.g. head protection, footwear, high visibility apparel, safety glasses, hearing protection, respirators, gloves, etc.) shall be worn as appropriate for the work being performed, and as specified in regulation. 19. The Permittee is required to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) that have been adopted by the U.S. Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board), and incorporated by the U.S. Attorney General as a federal standard. These guidelines provide requirements for design and construction. The current Standards Plans and can be found on the Design and Construction Project Support web page at: http://www.dot.state.co.us/DesignSupport/, then click on Design Bulletins. 20. CDOT requires submission of SWMP plans on any projects where the area of CDOT ROW impacted exceeds one acre. 21. On all CDOT access permit projects where the developers are required to apply and obtain a CSP (Construction Storm Water Permit) from the respective regulatory agency, “The Permittee/Applicant is required to include the portion of CDOT Rights of Way to be impacted by the construction of the access within their Construction Storm Water Permit (CSP). A notice to proceed will not be issued until the Permittee/applicant provides CDOT region permit office with the proof of such inclusion on the developer’s CSP. 22. It is the responsibility of the Permittee/applicant to determine which environmental clearances and/or regulations apply to the project, and to obtain any clearances that are required directly from the appropriate agency. Please refer to or request a copy of the “CDOT Environmental Clearance Information Summary” for details. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS MAY RESULT IN SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION OF YOUR CDOT PERMIT, OR ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS BY OTHER AGENCIES. • ALL discharges are subject to the provisions of the Colorado Water Quality Control Act and the Colorado Discharge Permit Regulations. Prohibited discharges include substances such as: wash water, paint, automotive fluids, solvents, oils or soaps. • Unless otherwise identified by CDOT or the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) Water Quality Control Division (WQCD) as significant sources of pollutants to the waters of the State, the following discharges to storm water systems are allowed without a Colorado Discharge Permit System permit: landscape irrigation, diverted stream flows, uncontaminated ground water infiltration to separate storm sewers, discharges from potable water sources, foundation drains, air conditioning condensation, irrigation water, springs, footing drains; water line flushing, flows from riparian habitats and wetlands, and flow from fire fighting activities. However, construction activities may require a Construction Stormwater Permit. Contact the CDOT Water Quality Program Manager at 303-757-9343. • ANY OTHER DISCHARGES may require Colorado Discharge Permit(s) or separate permits from CDPHE or the appropriate agency before work begins. For additional information and forms, go to the CDPHE website at: http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/wq/PermitsUnits/wqcdpmt.html. Attachment 2 214 STATE HIGHWAY ACCESS PERMIT 311106 September 15, 2011 Located on Highway 82A near MP 35.26 Left Issued to Roaring Fork Transportation Authority 23. Nothing in this permit shall prohibit the chief engineer from exercising the right granted in CRS 43-3-102 Including but not limited to restricting left hand turns by construction of physical medial separations. 24. A signed and approved temporary lease agreement is required if construction trailers are to be located on CDOT ROW during construction. 25. The Permittee shall provide accessibility features to accommodate all pedestrians including persons with disabilities for all pathways during and after construction. 26. During access construction no construction personal vehicles will be permitted to park in the state highway right-of-way. 27. The access shall be completed in an expeditious and safe manner and shall be completed within 45 days from initiation of construction within State Highway right-of-way or in accordance with written concurrence of the Access Manager. All construction shall be completed in a single season. 28. All costs associated with any type of utility work will be at the sole responsibility and cost of the Permittee and at no cost to CDOT. 29. Any damage to present highway facilities including traffic control devices shall be repaired immediately at no cost to the Department and prior to continuing other work. 30. Any mud or other material tracked or otherwise deposited on the roadway shall be removed daily or as ordered by the Department inspector. If mud is obvious condition during site construction, it is recommended that the contractor build a Stabilized Construction Entrance or Scrubber Pad at the intended construction access to aid in the removal of mud and debris from vehicle tires. The details of the Stabilized Construction Entrance are found in the M & S Standards Plan No. M-208-1. 31. A fully executed complete copy of this permit and the Notice to Proceed must be on the job site with the contractor at all times during the construction. Failure to comply with this or any other construction requirement may result in the immediate suspension of work by order of the Department inspector or the issuing authority. 32. All construction and inspection work must be under the direction of a Colorado Registered Professional Engineer. The PE’s responsibilities include, but are not limited to: (a) The PE shall evaluate compliance with plans and specifications with regard to the roadway improvements within the State right-of-way. The PE shall carefully monitor the contractor’s compliance on all aspects of construction, including construction zone traffic control. (b) Engineering Certification: After inspection and before final acceptance, the Engineer shall certify to CDOT in writing that all inspections, materials, materials testing, and construction methods conform to the plans, specifications and purpose of design. Upon completion of the work, that responsible Engineer shall submit an "As Built" plans, showing in detail all approved construction changes, modification. 33. No work will be allowed at night, Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays without prior authorization from the Department. The Department may also restrict work within the State Highway right-of-way during adverse weather conditions. 34. Areas of roadway and/or right-of-way disturbed during this installation shall be restored to their original conditions to insure proper strength and stability, drainage and erosion control. Restoration shall meet the Department’s standard specifications for topsoil, fertilization, mulching, and re-seeding. Attachment 2 215 STATE HIGHWAY ACCESS PERMIT 311106 September 15, 2011 Located on Highway 82A near MP 35.26 Left Issued to Roaring Fork Transportation Authority Construction Completion & Final Acceptance 35. The Permittee shall construct all improvements stated on this permit prior to any use as allowed by this permit. The Permittee shall notify the Permit Manager by certified mail within 10 working days to request a final inspection. This request shall include signed and sealed certification that all materials and construction have been completed in accordance with all applicable Department Standards and Specifications; and that the access is constructed in conformance with the State Highway Access Code, 2 CCR 601-1, and the terms and conditions included in this permit. The engineer of record shall be present for this inspection. The access serviced by this permit may not be opened to traffic until the CDOT Access Manager provides written initial approval. 36. Following the final inspection, CDOT will prepare an Access Construction Inspection Summary Letter and send it to the applicant, Permittee, and engineer of record. If additional items are required to complete the access construction, a list of these items will be part of the access construction inspection summary letter. All required items and final as-built survey shall be completed within 30 days from receiving the Access Construction Summary Letter. The access serviced by this permit may not be opened to traffic until written approval has been given from the CDOT Access Manager. If all work appears to have been done in general close conformity with the above named permit, an initial acceptance letter will be sent to the Permittee and this access may be opened for traffic. 37. The 2 year warrantee period will begin when the initial acceptance letter is issued. In accordance with section 2.5(6) of the State Highway Access Code, if any construction element fails within two-years due to improper construction or material specifications, the Permittee shall be responsible for all repairs. Failure to make such repairs may result in suspension of the permit and closure of the access. The letter of final acceptance will be issued once the access has been inspected and is found to comply with all material and construction in accordance with all applicable Department Standards and Specifications approx. 2 years after initial acceptance. Attachment 2 216 Attachment 2217 Attachment 2218 Attachment 2219 Attachment 2220 Attachment 2221 Attachment 2222 Attachment 2223 Attachment 2224 Attachment 2225 Attachment 2226 Attachment 2227 - LEGEND -ONLYBUSONLYBUSWLease Parcel Exhibit 2020-122.001 RAH 12/30/2020 BB Brush Creek_Lease_Parcel_302-L Rev CDOT Project No. STR 0821-029 Unit 3 Pitkin County, Colorado Of Page No.Job No. Drawn by: Date: File: Approved: 1 2 118 West Sixth Street, Suite 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970.945.1004 www.sgm-inc.com Brush Creek Park-N-Ride Lease Parcel Exhibit 302-L Rev. Situated in Lots 9 and 10, of Section 21 Township 9 South, Range 85 West of the 6th P.M. Pitkin County, Colorado Graphic Scale In Feet: 1" = 300' 0 75' 150'300' 12/30/2020 Exhibit B Attachment 2 228 - LINE TABLE - LINE #BEARING DISTANCE - CURVE TABLE - CURVE #ARC LENGTH RADIUS DELTA ANGLE CHORD BEARING CHORD LENGTH Line and Curve Tables 2020-122.001 RAH 12/30/2020 BB Brush Creek_Lease_Parcel_302-L Rev Of Page No.Job No. Drawn by: Date: File: Approved: 2 2 118 West Sixth Street, Suite 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970.945.1004 www.sgm-inc.com Brush Creek Park-N-Ride Lease Parcel Exhibit 302-L Rev. Situated in Lots 9 and 10, of Section 21 Township 9 South, Range 85 West of the 6th P.M. Pitkin County, Colorado CDOT Project No. STR 0821-029 Unit 3 Pitkin County, Colorado 12/30/2020 Attachment 2 229 EXHIBIT "A" PROJECT NUMBER: STR 0821-029 UNIT 3 LEASE PARCEL NUMBER: 302-L Rev. DATE: December 30, 2020 Description of Lease Parcel No. 302-L Rev. A Lease Parcel No. 302-L Rev. of the Department of Transportation, State of Colorado, Project No. STR 0821-029 UNIT 3 containing 879,394 sq. ft. (20.188 acres), more or less, located in the Lot 9 and Lot 10 of Section 21, Township 9 South, Range 85 West, of the Sixth Principal Meridian, in the County Pitkin, State of Colorado, said Lease Parcel being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Southeast Section Corner of Section 21, a found 2 1/2” Aluminum Cap on a 3/4” Rebar, LS 27275, properly marked and dated 2002, thence N. 81°01'51" W., a distance of 1214.03 feet, to a point on the West line of that parcel of land, 302-XA, as described in the Quitclaim Deed recorded as Reception Number 471061, the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; 1. Thence N. 53°25'22" E., along the West line of said Parcel 302-XA, a distance of 282.39 feet; 2. Thence N. 28°41'46" W., along the West line of said Parcel 302-XA, a distance of 118.62 feet; 3. Thence N. 20°04'52" E., along the West line of said Parcel 302-XA, a distance of 127.06 feet; 4. Thence N. 04°32'16" E., along the West line of said Parcel 302-XA, a distance of 180.60 feet; 5. Thence N. 03°40'22" W., along the West line of said Parcel 302-XA, a distance of 949.49 feet; 6. Thence N. 11°09'44" E., along the West line of said Parcel 302-XA, a distance of 252.30 feet; 7. Thence N. 12°28'42" W., along the West line of said Parcel 302-XA, a distance of 220.29 feet; Attachment 2 230 8. Thence N. 31°19'11" W., along the West line of said Parcel 302-XA, a distance of 118.90 feet; 9. Thence S. 83°05'44" W., a distance of 411.34 feet, to the East line of the Aspen-Mass Ranch as described in the Second Amended Final Plat of Aspen-Mass Ranch, recorded in Plat Book 35 at Page 62, as Reception Number 375307; 10. Thence S. 00°56'43" W., along the East line of said Aspen-Mass Ranch, a distance of 344.12 feet; 11. Thence S. 17°34'29" E., along the East line of said Aspen-Mass Ranch, a distance of 209.58 feet; 12. Thence S. 17°40'29" E., along the East line of said Aspen-Mass Ranch, a distance of 72.98 feet; 13. Thence S. 06°06'21" E., along the East line of said Aspen-Mass Ranch, a distance of 239.71 feet; 14. Thence S. 66°50'25" W., along the East line of said Aspen-Mass Ranch, a distance of 71.92 feet; 15. Thence S. 10°34'43" E., a distance of 690.73 feet; 16. Thence S. 75°13'49" W., a distance of 161.84 feet, to the existing easterly right-of-way line of State Highway 82 (December 2020); 17. Thence S. 14°46'11" E., along said right-of-way line, a distance of 109.46 feet; 18. Thence along said right-of-way line, a distance of 349.65 feet, along a curve to the right, having a radius of 2,915.00 feet, a central angle of 6°52'21", the chord of which bears S. 11°20'00" E., a distance of 349.44 feet; 19. Thence N. 85°41'02" E., a distance of 196.54 feet, more or less, to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. The above described Lease Parcel contains 879,394 sq. ft. (20.188 acres), more or less. Attachment 2 231 Basis of Bearings: All bearings are based on a grid bearing of S. 89°22’36" W., from the Southeast Section Corner of Section 21, Township 9 South, Range 85 West, of the Sixth Principal Meridian, a found 2 1/2” Aluminum Cap on a 3/4” Rebar, LS 27275, properly marked and dated 2002, to the South Quarter Corner of Section 21, Township 9 South, Range 85 West, of the Sixth Principal Meridian, a found 3.25” Aluminum Cap on a 2.0” Iron Pipe, LS 17491, Colorado Department of Highways, properly marked and dated 1994. Richard A. Harrison, PLS 38180 For and on Behalf of SGM, Inc. 118 W. Sixth St., Suite 200 Glenwood Springs, Co 81601 12/30/2020 Attachment 2 232 Aspen Jewish Center – Level III Traffic Impact Study January 2022 Traffic Impact Study Appendix G Appendix G CDOT OTIS Highway Explorer Data Attachment 2 233 Attachment 2 235 Attachment 2 236 Aspen Jewish Center – Level III Traffic Impact Study January 2022 Traffic Impact Study Appendix H Appendix H Combined Scenario Results – MOE’s by Movement Attachment 2 238 Approach MovementOverall LOSOverall DelayLOSDelay95th % Q (L_T_R)Overall LOSOverall DelayLOSDelay95th % Q (L_T_R)Overall LOSOverall DelayLOSDelay95th % Q (L_T_R)SH 82 / BCR / P&REB AMD46.4D 40.5 171_32F87E 65 174_33_-PMF113.1F 108.7 421_1629F167.2F 164.3 411_2765_42F178.3F 164.9 404_3207_-WB AME 79.8 186_122F 88.3 205_155_21PME 62.9 90_71E 63.4 106_94_39E 64 81_86_-NB AMC 23.3 64_115_-C 25.6 73_124_-PMF 136.8 78_1654_467F 205.4 78_5733_-F 213.3 81_6934_-SB AMD 47.3 169_743_469F 101.1 1426_2065_-PMC 28 70_177_13C 29.4 84_182_-C 30.3 67_202_-SH 82 / BCR-P&R AJC TIS Operational Result Summary2022 BASELINE TRAFFIC2042 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC2042 TOTAL TRAFFIC Aspen Jewish Center – Level III Traffic Impact Study January 2022 Traffic Impact Study Appendix I Appendix I Trip Generation, Reduction, Distribution, Assignment Worksheet Attachment 2 240 Trip Generation ITE Trip Generation, 10th Edition DHV Number ITE Weekday AM AM AM PM PM PM Weekday AM AM PM PM IN OUT IN OUT Land Use of Units Code Rate Rate Entering Exiting Rate Entering Exiting Traffic IN OUT IN OUT Rate IN OUT Rate 0 0 35 20 Hebrew (Elementary) School 100 520 1.00 0.67 0.32 0.17 100 0 0 32 17 Aspen 60%0 0 21 12 Synagogue (weekday)12 560 6.95 0.33 0.20 0.13 0.49 0.22 0.27 83 2 2 3 3 2.78 16 17 9.99 Snowmass Village 25%0 0 9 5 0.78 0.79 183 2 2 35 20 Downvalley 15%0 0 5 3 Friday Brush Cr Rd (m35.29)0 0 35 17 52 Synagogue Service(s)12 561 7.56 2.92 1.66 1.26 91 0 0 20 15 3.87 22 24 Existing (RI/RO only) (m34.99)0 0 0 3 3 Weekday (Friday 5:30 - 7:30PM) Day Care Center 20 565 4.09 0.78 0.41 0.37 0.79 0.37 0.42 82 8 7 7 8 8 7 39 25 AM IN AM OUT PM IN PM OUT IN OUT Hebrew (Elementary) School 520 Average Peak Hour adjacent Street 54%46%48%52% Church (Synagogue Weekday)560 Average Peak Hour adjacent Street 60%40%45%55%48%52% Synagogue (Friday Service)561 Average Peak Hour adjacent Street 63%37%57%43%48%52% Day Care Center 565 Ave Rate Peak Hour adjacent Street 53%47%47%53% Existing Traffic Volume Weekday AM 2021 Through 10/31 6308744 Wed May 19, 7:15 - 8:15 AM Peak Hour 2020 Through 10/31 5646792 2019 Through 10/31 6159996 59 Add Carpool Permit pass estimate 396 1,153 92 86 13 7 207 220 9 52 84 59 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 44 210 15 Jan.4258 7122 6803 6819 6061 289 58 Feb.4183 6996 6797 7102 5992 285 57 March.6072 7271 7547 6963 332 66 Apil.4320 6600 8051 6324 301 60 May.5355 5758 7443 6185 295 59 June.6172 6793 7554 4206 6840 326 65 July.6385 6408 7913 6027 6902 329 66 Weekday PM Aug.6809 7020 7520 7116 339 68 Wed May 19, 4:30 - 5:30 PM Peak Hour Sept.5547 6271 6018 5945 283 57 Oct.5551 6593 7914 6686 318 64 0 Nov.6098 6726 5228 6017 287 57 119 342 19 Dec.6599 5822 6677 6366 303 61 333 37 0 AM PM 16 97 134 11 100%100%0%0% 53 17 IN OUT IN OUT 84 1,331 34 59 59 0 0 AJC DHV 2011 AP DHV 212 52 25% 2022 Baseline Traffic Volume Weekday AM New permit total 264 Seasonal and Annual Adjustment (Sta 000236) Seasonal Factor (May --> July)1.314 Factor to 2021 to 2022 opening 1.0065 Add Carpool Permit pass estimate 524 1,525 122 114 17 9 274 12 69 111 78 58 278 20 Weekday PM 157 452 25 440 49 21 128 15 70 22 111 1,760 45 2042 Background Traffic Volume Weekday AM 20-year Factor (Sta 103521)1.13 592 1,723 137 129 19 10 309 13 78 125 88 66 314 22 Weekday PM 178 511 28 498 64 24 152 19 79 30 126 1,989 51 Project Trip Generation Weekday PM PM DESIGN HOUR SB SH 82 5 9 52 5 12 21 NB SH 82 2042 Total Traffic Volume Weekday PM 178 511 34 498 64 33 204 24 79 42 126 1,989 72 COA MONTHLY CARPOOL PASSES (VEHICLES) 3-yr AVE Weekday AVE DHV (6- 11am) Existing Traffic Data collection Wed 5/19 7AM to Thu 5/20 6PM Land Use Basis of RateITE Code Time Period Used Above Directional Distribution Design Hour Rates Weekday Design Hour Traffic Hebrew School + Weekday PM Use AM PM BRUSH CREEK ROAD BRUSH CREEK P&R (5:30 - 7:30PM) Weekday Design Hour Distribution Saturday CDOT Sta 000236 Monthly Traffic CDOT Sta 000236 Total Traffic Saturday COUNTSTATIONIDCALYR JANCOUNTFEBCOUNTMARCOUNTAPRCOUNTMAYCOUNTJUNCOUNTJULCOUNTAUGCOUNTSEPCOUNTOCTCOUNTNOVCOUNTDECCOUNT 236 2019 20116 19966 19984 18414 17804 22109 23152 22780 21201 19369 17424 20402 236 2018 19621 19180 19680 18304 17765 21602 22512 21946 20849 18397 17199 19720 236 2017 18550 18921 19443 16987 16943 21253 22324 21086 19821 18048 16873 19575 236 2016 18612 18613 18878 16828 17254 21393 22397 20902 20479 18174 16340 18813 236 2015 17908 17741 18317 16451 15838 20486 22141 20765 20084 18002 16160 18790 5 yr monthly average 18961 18884 19260 17397 17121 21369 22505 21496 20487 18398 16799 19460 % of average 98.0% 97.6% 99.6% 89.9% 88.5% 110.5% 116.3% 111.1% 105.9% 95.1% 86.8% 100.6% May ---> July 131.4% Attachment 2 241 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Torre and Aspen City Council FROM: Ben Anderson, Principal Long-Range Planner Phillip Supino, Community Development Director MEMO DATE: March 10, 2022 MEETING DATE: March 14, 2022 RE: Central Questions requiring Council Direction on the Moratorium Response in the areas of: • Pace and Scale of Residential Development • Affordable Housing Opportunities REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Following previous discussions with Council related to the moratorium on overall scope, problem statements, and potential areas for policy action, and in response to input received from the public and technical stakeholders, staff requests direction from Council on a few specific topics as this work proceeds. Staff poses specific questions in the memo below and will facilitate a discussion with Council on these questions at the Work Session on March 14th. The response to these questions will provide more precise shape to staff’s work in the coming weeks. SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND: In a previous memo to Council on February 1, 2022 (Exhibit A), staff provided summaries of previous discussions with Council and staff’s thinking related to high-level policy consideration of the residential development and affordable housing aspects of Ordinance 27. Council provided support for the identified issues and the framing of possible responses. Using this previous summary as the guide, staff and our consultant team continue to evaluate this list of topics as we analyze and prioritize the responses that are necessary to be completed during the moratorium and those that are important but could instead be finalized after June 8th. As staff works through this prioritization exercise, a few policy choices have emerged as foundational and need direction at this stage in the process. STAFF DISCUSSION: In the range of topics identified in Ordinance 27 and subsequent discussions, staff requests direction in the following areas: 242 Staff Memo, Policy Direction – 3/14/22 Page 2 of 9 Pace and Scale of Single-Family and Duplex Residential Development This is an expansive topic that has been identified for several reasons: • The physical mass and scale of many of these residences are perceived to be contrary to community character and the AACP. • The frequency of demolition and the overall size and energy use of these residences are contrary to Aspen’s climate and environmental goals and commitments. • The intensity and duration of construction activity is having negative impacts to neighbors and neighborhoods. • The extent of new construction and the nature and operation of new residential properties is straining community infrastructure and undermining community climate action. • The intensity of residential development and redevelopment is not managed as intended by the current provisions in GMQS. • Residential development and redevelopment are not providing affordable housing mitigation proportionate to their employee generation impacts. Staff is evaluating the best path to respond to several of these issues. Some solutions may be found in amendments to the Land Use Code, others in adoption of new building and energy codes, or in the creation of new provisions in other areas of Aspen’s Municipal Code (example: construction waste standards). A central policy choice has emerged: 1) Do we intend to address some of these impacts by reducing the size of new or redeveloped homes by limiting floor area below existing allowable dimensions? OR 2) Do we intend to change mitigation requirements to better reflect the impacts that this type of development is having on the community? This option could be done in combination with other alternatives that do not reduce floor area. The following discussion is not intended to launch an evaluation on specific tactics, but to provide examples, some level of detail, and context for the larger policy choice. Floor Area Reducing the floor area in a home is perhaps the most direct linkage to the impacts of residential construction that have been identified in the larger conversations around employee generation, construction intensity and duration, and importantly, energy consumption. Reducing floor area would reduce the size of any new homes built in the community, thereby reducing its impacts to the community as described above. Depending on the amount of the reduction, it would also change the economics around redevelopment of existing residential properties. Existing homes larger than the revised floor area amounts are more likely to be remodeled than demolished, so as to retain the existing house size. 243 Staff Memo, Policy Direction – 3/14/22 Page 3 of 9 As staff and our consultants have talked with the development community since the moratorium came into effect, this is the topic that is causing the most concern, uncertainty, and anxiety. When a single square foot of gross floor area in a single-family home is conservatively valued at $3,000, reducing floor area by even minimal amounts will have definitive effect on the entire valuation of a project or real estate transaction. Any proposal to reduce either net or gross floor area would have significant impacts across the real estate and development economies and could potentially have unintended consequences for resident homeowners. If limiting the allowed floor area were to be pursued, there are at least three things that could be done. Any of these three options would functionally reduce the size of homes in development or redevelopment scenarios: 1) Limiting the net, allowable floor area as established in chapter 26.700 of the LUC that sets the dimensions for each Zone District. 2) Eliminating or reducing the floor area exemptions that are established by Section 26.575.020. Most impactful are the current exemptions for sub-grade areas (basements) and garages. 3) Establishing a new calculation that would create a maximum allowable gross square footage – that would include our current net allowable floor area with some addition of currently exempted area (basements, garages, etc.) that would be allowed under this threshold. At this point in the process, staff does not recommend reducing floor area – whether net or gross, for the following reasons: 1) Any discussions (both current and historic) about proposed reductions in house size in Aspen or in Pitkin County have been very contentious, and to use a cliché – is a topic that “extinguishes all of the oxygen in the room”. More directly, staff believes that this tactic would preclude the community from finding areas of agreement on other important issues under consideration during the moratorium. 2) The reduction of floor area – either net or gross, unless substantial, would not likely translate into the outcomes that Council is seeking with respect to community character, climate and environmental protection, or development regulation. 3) Calculating a reduction in floor area that is based on a defensible rationale for the specific quantity of the reduction would require a lengthy and complex study, particularly given the likelihood of litigation over such a change. 4) There are other potential strategies that could be as impactful towards the outcomes that Council is seeking and may be more likely to generate a cooperative atmosphere. 244 Staff Memo, Policy Direction – 3/14/22 Page 4 of 9 Non-Floor Area Options Staff has identified a variety of potential alternative responses that could effectively lead to outcomes envisioned by Ordinance 27. As we have had initial conversations with stakeholders, it is staff’s view that while there may be some reluctance within the real estate and development community, and property owners, these policy alternatives may be less contentious overall. It should be noted that these ideas have not been decided on but are examples of the kinds of policies that could be an alternative to directly reducing floor area. 1) AH Mitigation – Already contemplated by Ordinance 24 of 2021 (currently tabled), this would reassess how residential development mitigates for their employee generation impacts – particularly in redevelopment scenarios. Council has approved a contract to update the study on which residential mitigation is based. 2) Changes to Calculations and Measurements, 26.575.020 – While some areas of this section of the code could be changed to have the direct effect of reducing floor area (example: sub-grade exemptions), staff believes that other areas of this section could be altered to reduce the perceived mass and scale of a home without limiting floor area. Examples of this type of change could be new calculations for how the code measures height, or how grade is defined. Changes could be made to the types of development that are allowed in setbacks, or to how the code calculates decks and other outdoor areas. A positive outcome across the board that could be a result of these efforts – is bringing improved simplicity, clarity, and consistency to topics that often confound staff and the design community. 3) Changes to Growth Management rules to include residential demolition – the general idea in this area is to use the GMQS to create allotments and performance standards for residential projects that trigger demolition. This approach would likely place a governor on the volume of residential demolition/redevelopment and ensure those activities support, not undermine, community character, climate action, and environmental protection policies. 4) Identifying performance standards, and possible incentives or impact fees related to energy consumption and construction waste. This would be a direct way to ensure residential redevelopment supports climate action and environmental protection policies. It could also produce revenue to support programs in those policy areas. 5) Adoption of building code and energy code updates to bring as much efficiency as possible to Aspen’s residential development context. These efforts are already underway, and staff has initiated conversations with the building department and design community to identify changes to the Land Use Code that will be necessary in support of these efforts. 245 Staff Memo, Policy Direction – 3/14/22 Page 5 of 9 6) Working with other City departments in a very intentional way to bring consistency and clarity to city rules and requirements in support of the issues raised by Ordinance 27 and to ensure that we are not working at cross purposes. An example of this could be improvements to aspects of the required Construction Management Plan (CMP). It is important to note that in staff’s view, some aspects of these alternatives are likely necessary to implement under the moratorium, while others are not. Additionally, several of these alternatives would require coordination across City departments, beyond Community Development. In evaluating this policy choice of physically limiting house size (floor area reduction) versus mitigation for impacts and other alternatives, staff recommends impact mitigation and other alternatives. It is staff’s belief that a combination of a recalibrated mitigation calculation and other tactics (examples identified above), could be equally or more effective than reducing floor area. This approach has the significant added benefit of likely reducing community conflict over the moratorium code amendment process. Staff seeks direction from Council on the majority preference between these two approaches. Affordable Housing Opportunities At the policy level, staff and Council have identified several areas for evaluation of policies to facilitate the creation of additional affordable housing units (example: improvements to the AH Certificates Program). While staff believes that a whole suite of tools, enhancements, and incentives will be necessary to really move the needle in this area, central policy choices have emerged. It is staff’s view that the direction from Council in these specific topics are foundational to our work on the affordable housing topic during the moratorium and beyond: 1) Does Council wish to bring more certainty and predictability to the development of affordable housing projects by making the development review process more streamlined? Policies in this area would allowing qualifying projects that met certain performance standards be reviewed administratively or proceed directly to building permit. Council and staff have previously called this “by right” AH development. 2) Does Council wish to promote the opportunity for AH development across all Zone Districts – residential and commercial? 3) If Council wishes to provide the opportunity for AH development across Zone Districts: • Should all dimensions for affordable housing, other than the number of units, remain consistent with the underlying Zone District? (floor area, height, setbacks, etc.) OR 246 Staff Memo, Policy Direction – 3/14/22 Page 6 of 9 • Should projects that are 100% affordable, be granted additional dimensional flexibility beyond the limitations of the underlying Zone District? In more direct words, should 100% AH projects have different dimensions than the free-market uses in a particular Zone District? In staff’s outreach discussions, it is clear that there is general support of the idea that affordable housing is appropriate across all neighborhoods in town, but with an important caveat – that it must be of an appropriate scale and character to fit into the neighborhood fabric. Question 1, above, asks about a streamlined or “by right” process for 100% AH development. In staff’s view this would be a positive foundation on which to build other tactics and incentives in support of affordable housing. Council should note however that AH projects currently require at least a review with the P&Z or Historic Preservation Commissions in a public hearing that gives the public and neighbors a chance to weigh in. Moving this review to an administrative or “straight to building permit” process would make development projects that meet performance standards much more predictable, and certain, but would remove public involvement from the review of specific projects. With direction from Council on these topics, staff does believe that some of the potential changes in this area would be best addressed during the moratorium – and will be a subject of our work in the next several weeks. CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS: As staff and our consultant team continue to analyze the issues and data and talk with an increasing number of members of the public and experts in the development community, we are engaged in a funneling and prioritizing exercise to identify the most necessary and effective actions to pursue during the moratorium. The direction received on the questions posed above will allow staff and our consultants to fully process and integrate the ideas gathered during our initial public engagement efforts as we shape possible policy and regulatory responses to Ordinance 27. As staff work progresses, we will compile of running list of policies, code amendments, and programs which are important responses to Council’s desires for the moratorium project but are not essential to complete under the protection of the moratorium. That list will be included as an exhibit in upcoming Council packets and form the basis of the ComDev and other departments work plan discussions with Council in the coming months and years. In the coming weeks, staff will continue to explore policy choices with Council and will begin crafting code changes. In early to mid-April, staff will be re-engaging with the public and technical stakeholders to discuss any policy or regulatory proposals before finalizing any Amendments for Council’s eventual consideration. Staff anticipates first and second reading hearings to be scheduled for late April and early May, in advance of the May 7th deadline for ordinance approval, the 30-day effective period for ordinances, and the June 8th expiration of the moratorium. 247 Staff Memo, Policy Direction – 3/14/22 Page 7 of 9 FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: N/A. ALTERNATIVES: N/A RECOMMENDATIONS: Council provide direction during the Work Session discussion in response to the policy questions posed by the memo. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: EXHIBITS: A – Policy Area Summary, Excerpt from Staff Memo, 2/1/22 248 Staff Memo, Policy Direction – 3/14/22 Page 8 of 9 EXHIBIT A – Policy Area Summary; Excerpt from February 1, Work Session Memo 1) The pace and scale of free-market residential development and redevelopment  Development allotments – analyze the current system of development allotments to: a.) manage development, b.) mitigate environmental impacts, c.) support concurrency of infrastructure in accordance with the intent of GMQS, d.) address unmanaged development types, STRs, and annual allotment amounts, and e.) address residential energy and resource consumption from development and operation of structures.  Demolition - assess the effectiveness of the definition of demolition at: a.) triggering compliance with GMQS standards b.) mitigating environmental and community impacts from development, c.) restraining or eliminating non-conformities and delivering quality design outcomes.  Zoning and Calculations - analyze residential development allowances and the methods for calculating building mass and scale metrics to assess alignment with community character. 3) Promotion of Affordable Housing Opportunities  Credits Program – amend the AH credits program to support clarity in project financing, increase utilization, and realize more units from the program over time.  Residential Generation and Mitigation Study – conduct a generation and mitigation study which accounts for the current conditions of the residential development sector.  Zoning – assess opportunities to use zoning tools to reduce obstacles to and incentivize the development of more AH.  Review Procedures – assess by-right, administrative, and board review standards and procedures to ensure they support community AH policies. 4) Development Procedures within the Land Use Code  Demolition – analyze the definition of demolition & non-conformities to align regulatory standards with AACP policies and mitigate new community impacts. 249 Staff Memo, Policy Direction – 3/14/22 Page 9 of 9  Zoning Standards – assess Land Use Code regulations to ensure permitted, conditional, and prohibited uses support AACP policies.  Review Procedures – assess by-right, administrative, and board review standards and procedures to ensure they support community development and climate and environmental policies. 250