HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20230515AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
May 15, 2023
4:00 PM, City Council Chambers
427 Rio Grande Place, Aspen
I.Work Session
I.A Interviews for Boards & Commissions
I.B New Castle Creek Bridge Community Questions & Investigative Study Phasing
I.C Council Board Reports & Council Updates
Zoom Meeting Instructions
Join from a PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone or Android device:
Please click this URL to join: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/84955254604?
pwd=MnBQaFRadGY0U1JIaHpEUUhuM29ndz09
Passcode: 81611
Or join by phone:
Dial:
US: +1 346 248 7799
Webinar ID: 849 5525 4604
Passcode: 81611
International numbers available: https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kow44VzgU
Board & Commission Interviews MEMO - 5.15.23.pdf
Council Memo for May 15 050823.docx
CDOT Letter Responding to Questions Regarding Entrance to Aspen
State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen Summary of EIS Alternatives Screening
Process (HNTB)
Public Safety Letter dated February 17, 2023
STATE HIGHWAY 82 ENTRANCE TO ASPEN SPLIT SHOT ALTERNATIVE
ADDITIONAL STUDIES JUNE 2008.pdf
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor and City Council
FROM:Jack Danneberg, P.E., Project Manager
Jenn Ooton, Senior Project Manager
THROUGH:Sara Ott, City Manager
Diane Foster, Assistant City Manager
Scott Miller, Director Public Works
Trish Aragon, P.E., City Engineer
Pete Rice, P.E., Deputy City Engineer
Mike Horvath, P.E., Senior Project Manager
MEMO DATE:May 8, 2023
MEETING DATE:May 15, 2023
RE:New Castle Creek Bridge Questions and Investigative Study
Phasing
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: On February 13, 2023, city staff presented the results of a two-
month long effort to share information with the public and increase understanding of the
history surrounding the Entrance to Aspen, the current condition of the Castle Creek
Bridge, the 1998 Record of Decision (ROD), and next steps. Council directed staff to seek
answers to technical and policy questions from the Federal Highway Administration and
Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and present information about what
community questions cannot be answered without a further investigative study. This work
session will review those items, and also seek Council direction regarding prioritization of
consultant work within the New Castle Creek Bridge Investigative study.
SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND:
For more than 40 years, the city of Aspen and community partners have been discussing
the best transportation options in and out of Aspen – an effort known as the Entrance to
Aspen. In 1998, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) published a Record of
Decision (ROD) laying out transportation and safety improvements within the State
Highway 82 corridor that reflected ten community objectives:
Community-Based Planning
Transportation Capacity
Safety
Environmentally Sound Alternative
Community Acceptability
Financial Limitations
66
2
Clean Air Act Requirements
Emergency Access
Livable Communities
Phasing
That ROD allows a state transportation agency to start design and initiate other necessary
steps to implement a project.
Aspen City Council at the end of 2021 and during the spring of 2022 directed staff to
update Entrance to Aspen project materials and inform the community about the Record
of Decision and the Preferred Alternative (PA), with the goal of creating a shared
understanding in the community about the status of the effort and the existing condition
of the bridge.
The last time the community had an in-depth conversation about the Entrance to Aspen
was 15 years ago. Since that time, the risk of wildfire has increased significantly, and the
aging Castle Creek Bridge now requires much more frequent and substantial repairs. The
Colorado Department of Transportation rates bridges as Good, Fair and Poor. The
existing Castle Creek Bridge was evaluated in the fall of 2022 and is currently rated 50.3
out of 100. Anything below 50 is poor. Major repairs in the future will result in significant
traffic impacts.
City Council directed staff resources to re-engage the community regarding remaining
elements of the PA, a term given to the alternative chosen through a federal evaluation
process that in this case evaluated 43 alternatives for highway and intersection
improvements. The PA defined in the Record of Decision includes completed project
elements such as the Maroon Creek Bridge, roundabout, Owl Creek Road realignment,
signals on Highway 82 at Buttermilk, the Mills Open Space land swap for the open
space within Marolt-Thomas for the roadway alignment, and congestion management
programs. Remaining uncompleted elements of the PA include two general-purpose
travel lanes, one in each direction, and a light rail (LRT) envelope that crosses the
Marolt-Thomas property, a new bridge that crosses Castle Creek, as well as additional
transportation demand management. The PA allows for the LRT system to be initially
developed as exclusive bus lanes, so there would be one general purpose lane and one
bus lane in each direction.
From November 2022 through February 2023, the project team used traditional and social
media channels to create project awareness and met with 1,293 people in the community
through small group meetings, one-on-one meetings and through site tours and open
houses and had over 4,400 YouTube views of the project video. The awareness effort
was the renamed “New Castle Creek Bridge project” because a number of the other
elements of the PA have been completed. The awareness campaign was primarily
directed at information sharing, however, numerous community and City Council
questions arose about construction costs, impacts to surrounding properties and design
details that will require additional studies and preliminary design work to answer.
67
3
DISCUSSION:
At the February 13, 2023 meeting the City Council asked staff to return to Council with
information about
which Council and community questions could be answered without going to 30%
design schematics and which could not;
potential phasing of the RFP;
what work could be done in the interim on emergency access;
answers to Council questions that were presented to CDOT and FHWA;
The rough cost and timeframe if Council wanted to explore a different one of the
43 alternatives considered in the 1997 evaluation process.
The goal of the next phase of the project is to further develop conceptual information to
help answer questions from City Council and the public. Based on the City Council’s
request to understand the process to phase work in a manner to answer Council and
community questions, the New Castle Creek Bridge Investigative Study request for
proposals (RFP) splits the next phase of the project scope into two sections. The RFP is
primarily focused on the Preferred Alternative, however, as it is structured it does provide
existing conditions analysis including S-curve analysis to see what impacts to the existing
alignment of the Castle Creek Bridge were to be maintained.
Phase I focuses on traffic analysis, existing conditions analysis, Environmental
FEIS and ROD Re-evaluation, and includes an Origin and Destination Study; and,
Phase II focuses on the development of preliminary drawings and includes a large
public participation component as well as:
o Survey and Right of Way Research
o Transportation System Management Analysis Report
o Cost and Schedule Estimates
o Open Space and Landscape Design
o Existing Castle Creek Bridge Assessment
o Community Engagement which includes a Context Sensitive Solution
approach. This is a multidisciplinary approach that includes teams of
experts that work through recommendations and potential solutions on
project details in all areas of the project including transit, historic resource
issues, open space issues and stream / wetland issues.
The following table categorizes questions received from Council and the public into
themes. It also breaks the RFP scope sequencing into the two phases and describes
which phase answers which question topic areas. For example, the project team
received the question, “Is the PA still valid?” A re-evaluation of the ROD is proposed in
the first phase of work to understand whether the ROD is still valid in today's existing
conditions and if any environmental factors have changed. The ROD document is the
final step in the Environmental Impact Statement process that explains the decision and
the alternatives that were considered.
68
4
Questions related to RFP phasing
Question
Grouping Phase I Phase II
The Full Cost
of the
Preferred
Alternative
Not included in the Phase I
scope of work. Full cost is not
available because the only
data available is based on a
2016 study that is outdated in
terms of construction pricing
and lacking information.
Present day pricing on 30% design with
schematic structural (bridge and land
bridge), utilities, open space
programming. A complete cost estimate
cannot be provided with accuracy
without this schematic level information.
Cost estimates can then be used to get
funding, create budget planning and get
on State project schedules.
Construction
Timelines
A construction timeline is not
estimated for the Preferred
Alternative during this phase.
Conceptual construction
timeline/phasing/impacts to community
would identify in this phase through the
development of schematic level
drawings.
Funding Cannot be addressed at this
stage.
In Phase II, schematic level designs are
developed. State/Federal groups view
schematics as the first step toward
identifying a project for existing funding.
The state would most likely not commit
funding without schematic documents
and would be difficult to get on the
Intermountain Transportation Planning
Region list without Council support. With
rough costs and project elements that
would be defined in Phase 2, it is easier
to approach grant funders about specific
aspects of the project.
Public Input on
Design
Public input would be
reactive. The studies
included in Phase 1 are
transit related and data
driven.
Context Sensitive Solutions process to
include intense public in design for
programming/design elements for
aspects of project
Examples: Pedestrian/cycling facilities,
land bridge specifics, new parking
locations on 7th Street, open space
programming would be done in
collaboration with public input and
groups.
Trail
Connections
Not included in scope of
work.
Context Sensitive Solutions process to
allow public input along with Parks and
69
5
Open Space boards to develop
connections/routing
Marolt Museum
Access
Not included in scope of
work.
CSS process to allow public input along
with Museum board to develop
connections/routing
Land Bridge
Programming
Not included in scope of
work.
CSS process to allow public input along
with Parks and Open Space boards to
develop programming, trail
connections, conceptual landscaping, &
other design elements
Property
Impacts
A property map will be
overlayed with a conceptual
layout to give low confidence
understanding of which
properties will be impacted by
final infrastructure.
Detailed information provided to inform
the community on visual effects or
encroachments required.
Bridge
Elements
Not included in the scope of
work
Structural elements/pedestrian
connections developed through CSS
process. Community input on visual
characteristics of the structure could
begin.
Evacuation
Information
Emergency Preparedness
Study assessing existing
conditions
Update study with PA implemented to
understand evacuation improvement,
effects on Cemetery Lane's emergency
access, provide vehicle timing.
Traffic Analysis
Origin and Destination Study
includes information about
the types of vehicles, time of
trips, where are vehicles
coming from and going to in
the project study area. Traffic
Analysis will provide
additional information on
preferred alternative travel
times and back ups.
Design elements of stop light, bus
stops, and other transportation
information will be assessed as part of
schematic design development
ROD/Process
Re-evaluation to understand
if ROD is still valid in today's
existing conditions, if there
are environmental changes
that impact ROD and assure
the ROD delivers the
community's 10 goals
developed during the ROD
process.
Modification, approval, or clarification to
the ROD would be required within this
phase. Schematic documents/CSS
process would allow the project to
obtain funding and higher chances to
get higher priority listing.
70
6
Historical
Evaluation
Re-evaluate whether
conditions have changed
related to historic resources
Design to accommodate preservation of
historical elements
Alternative
Options to the
Preferred
Alternative
Reassessment to assure PA
meets the community goals
and objectives. Overall
review of past alternatives to
assure the PA. Depiction of
the 43 alternatives studied
and summary comparison of
the ten community goals and
alternatives reviewed to
develop the Preferred
Alternative.
Not included in this phase.
The phases can be awarded separately, and each specific task within the RFP is priced
per task. The city received three proposals, and at the time of the packet submittal
deadline had not yet interviewed teams. Staff will interview all three bidders. Two of the
proposals were over the original budgeted amount for 2023 for both phases of the
project by approximately $500,000. Another bidder was significantly higher. Staff
believes the higher pricing is due to the nature of splitting the project into two phases.
Staff is seeking direction regarding the prioritization of the work within the RFP to inform
negotiations.
Phase I of the project includes information about the types of vehicles, time of trips,
where are vehicles coming from and going to in the project study area and will re-
evaluate whether conditions have changed, for example those related to historic
resources. As is summarized above, Phase II would provide additional information for
the project that would answer more community and Council questions.
If Council were to award both phases, the city would be in a lead position for initial
design work as the bridge is reinspected, potentially downgraded, and potentially placed
on a replacement schedule. The city would be able to influence the design as it is
initially developed to meet the needs of Aspen. The Context Sensitive Solutions
approach to design includes consideration of unique factors of a project area and tailors
the project to the context of the community. The process includes technical experts and
stakeholders in the development of a range of solutions for specific areas of the project
such as historic resource matters, open space matters and stream / wetland issues.
Additionally, specific answers regarding property impacts for surrounding properties
would be answered with survey information developed in Phase II.
71
7
CDOT and FHWA
In February, the city of Aspen sent a letter to the Federal Highway Administration through
the Colorado Department of Transportation containing technical and policy questions
received from City Council members and community members from the city’s outreach
effort. CDOT provided answers to the community questions in a letter dated March 20,
2023, and is attached. The CDOT and FHWA responses clarified what thresholds would
trigger a new Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and ROD.
What would trigger a new EIS and ROD?
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires an Environmental Impact
Statement if a proposed major federal action is determined to significantly affect the
quality of the human environment. The response letter from March said this, “A new EIS
would be required if an alternative was not fully analyzed (resource impacts, etc) in the
EIS.” That would include any of the 43 alternatives that was initially studied but was
screened out before resource impacts were fully analyzed. For example, the split
alignments with one-way couplets or reversable lanes were screened out before a full
evaluation of impacts. Pursuit of the “split shot” would require opening a new EIS process,
identifying a new purpose and need for the EIS, and include cooperating agencies such
as Pitkin County, the Roaring Fork Transportation Authority, the Elected Officials
Transportation Committee, CDOT and FHWA in the development of new objectives. The
original objectives likely would not be repeated in a new process and could result in
different impacts based on new environmental considerations and traffic demands. The
analysis from 2008 regarding the “split shot” is included within the packet.
72
8
The following chart was included in the HNTB analysis of the screening process for the
existing PA (attached) and further explains the process that would be required for
changes.
CDOT will initiate work to design the current PA if bridge falls below rating of 50
The CDOT letter also addresses the sufficiency rating of the existing bridge, noting that
the bridge will be re-inspected in 2024. Further deterioration of the bridge that results in
a down-grade of the bridge rating to poor would result in eligibility for the statewide Bridge
and Tunnel Enterprise program funding and would then be “selected, planned and
programmed as resources allow.”
CDOT believes a vote is not needed to move forward with the PA
The letter also broaches the topic of a vote of Aspen voters. A 1996 vote approved two
general purpose lanes and LRT across the Marolt-Thomas properties. For the PA to be
implemented with bus lanes instead of LRT, the City Attorney’s office has determined that
a vote is required to grant the use of the right of way for an exclusive bus lane across the
Marolt-Thomas properties. The CDOT letter states that a vote is not required to move
forward with the PA.
CDOT is willing to support City and partners in emergency egress planning
Emergency evacuation was a major topic of community interest during the initial public
awareness phase, with many groups urging the outreach team to focus even more on
emergency evacuation risks. This included our public safety partners who wrote a letter
to the City Council citing the need for a second bridge. If the City wants to embark on
Incident Response planning, CDOT is willing to participate as a partner.
A New EIS and ROD would require local funding
If City Council wanted to pursue a different alternative, according to CDOT, it would likely
require a new EIS and ROD. The cost and time it would take to complete that work is
unknown, however CDOT indicated in their letter " The supplemental EIS and new ROD
for the US 160/550 connection in Durango took approximately 6 years. It took several
years to figure out what needed to be studied and for the associated design
considerations. The actual EIS/ROD study work was completed in approximately 2 years.
The total cost was approximately $2M."
If City Council wanted to pursue a different alternative, there is still the potential that
CDOT could initiate work on the PA, if the current bridge fell into the “"Poor” category.
When the bridge is reinspected in 2024, the bridge will be rated under a new rating
system.
Additionally, during the time spent pursuing a new EIS / ROD, the existing bridge will
probably fall below its 50 rating and the community will experience more frequent lane
closures for maintenance and repairs on the aging bridge. The community would also be
at risk of weight restrictions on the existing bridge. The CDOT letter says this, “If defect(s)
are found that require monitoring, CDOT will increase the inspection frequency from a
73
9
biennial inspection cycle to the appropriate interval to confirm that the bridge remains in
safe operating condition. The load rating for the bridge would be revisited if defect(s) are
observed that would reduce the load carrying capacity of the bridge. The need for a load
restriction or load posting would be determined by the updated load rating.”
FINANCIAL IMPACTS:During the 2022 funding process for the 2023 budget $2 million
has been dedicated to the ETA project to be spent in 2023. An additional $6.5 million has
been allocated for out years in the same project.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
The NCCB project is a transit-oriented solution to decrease greenhouse gas emissions
from general-purpose vehicles. Replacing the Castle Creek Bridge is a critical investment
in Aspen’s future and will define public transportation for many decades to come.
The intent of the NCCB Project is to meet the local community’s needs, including:
Meeting the project need and intent, including the 10 project objectives as outlined
in the PA.
Providing capacity for forecasted person trips, but limits vehicle trips.
Reducing the accident rate on “S” Curves.
Providing an alternate route for emergency vehicles.
Minimizing the negative impacts on the environment, open space, and historic and
recreational resources.
Reflecting the character and scale of Aspen.
Being an aesthetically acceptable solution.
Allowing for future transit options and upgrades.
ALTERNATIVES:
Staff is recommending pursuing both phases within the RFP because the bridge is at the
end of its useful life, and we are concerned about the economic and safety impacts in our
future.
Alternatives could include awarding only Phase I, and pulling additional elements of
Phase II, such as survey, into the awarded work for the first phase. Phase II includes a
detailed analysis of the existing Castle Creek Bridge for reconstruction or rehabilitation.
There is also an analysis of the S Curves, including the impacts of widening of the
roadway. These components could be pulled into Phase I.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Proceeding with negotiations related to the RFP award to include both phases of the RFP.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
CDOT Letter Responding to Questions Regarding Entrance to Aspen
State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen Summary of EIS Alternatives Screening Process
74
10
Public Safety Letter dated February 17, 2023
State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen Split Shot Alternative
Additional Studies, 2008
75
76
77
78
79
08/10/2022
1
State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen
Summary of EIS Alternatives Screening Process
History of the EIS
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process for the State Highway 82 (SH 82) Entrance to
Aspen project began in January 1994. A draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) was released for
public review and comment in August of 1995. The DEIS evaluated three alternatives between
Buttermilk and Maroon Creek Road and seven alternatives between Maroon Creek Road and the
intersection of 7th and Main Street. As a result of public/agency comments on the DEIS, CDOT expanded
the analysis to include new alternatives and extend the project limits to Rubey Park. The supplemental
draft EIS (SDEIS) evaluated 3 additional alternatives between Pitkin County airport and Rubey Park. The
SDEIS was released in July of 1996. In August of 1997 the final EIS was released. The Record of Decision
and identification of the Preferred Alternative (PA) was released in August of 1998.
The Screening Process
CDOT used a screening process to develop and determine which alternatives would receive a detailed
evaluation in the DEIS. The screening process used progressively more demanding criteria through a series
of three screening levels. At each screening level, options that did not meet their respective criteria for
that screening level were eliminated from further evaluation (ROD pages 13-19). Attachment 1 is Figure
3 from the ROD, which shows the screening analysis and results.
The screening levels included a reality check, a fatal flaw screening, and a comparative evaluation. The
reality check was qualitative and eliminated options that were clearly unrealistic, inappropriate, or
unreasonable. In general, the options screened out at this level were either discontinuous to the project
corridor, cost prohibitive, aesthetically obtrusive, unproven in service (no real-world data on operation,
cost, or impact), or disruptive to the existing development in the corridor. The potential option types that
are eliminated at this level have no realistic chance of being implemented because of physical constraints,
funding, technology limitations, or impacts on private properties.
The fatal flaw screening eliminated options that did not meet one or more of the community established
project objectives (10 objectives were identified). The fatal flaw screening eliminated options that clearly
did not meet the project objectives. Although the options eliminated at this level may have seemed
conceivable, they did not solve the transportation problems and concerns identified for the Entrance to
Aspen corridor and/or they did not meet the project’s purpose and need.
The comparative evaluation eliminated alternatives that were not logical when compared to other
alternatives. This level eliminated options that, although they may have met the objectives of the project,
were not logical when compared to other available options. Transportation options evaluated at this
comparative screening level underwent analysis of key environmental parameters and issues (cost, safety,
open space/4(f) issues, and community acceptability). At this level four general option categories were
80
08/10/2022
2
combined to form potential alternatives that allowed for comparative analysis. Following the screening
process, the options that remained were combined to create the transportation alternatives evaluated in
the EIS. That is, a specific alignment was combined with a specific profile and laneage to develop cost
estimates and amount of right- of-way acquisition for comparative purposes.
CDOT then analyzed alignment and profile alternatives to determine the environmental impacts and
associated mitigation within the corridor. The modal alternatives were critical to determining both the air
quality impacts (at the time, PM10) in the Aspen area and their ability to meet the objective of limiting
2015 traffic volumes to levels at or below those in 1993. This information was also used to identify other
environmental impacts and to help develop a compensatory mitigation plan.
Components of the Preferred Alternative, as described below, are identified in bold italics.
Reality Check and Fatal Flaw Screening
CDOT developed options for alignment, laneage, profile, and travel mode and evaluated them at each
level (reality check, fatal flaw, and comparative). Options that passed the reality check and fatal flaw
screens were combined to form alternatives for comparative screening. Options were each analyzed and
screened as described below.
Alignments
Seven different alignment options were considered. A description of each option follows, along with
screening results.
• Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad (D&RGW) Right of Way: This route followed the old
D&RGW railroad ROW. The ROW segment that was evaluated follows the Rio Grande Trail to
about Rio Grande Park. It was screened out at the reality check level due to impacts to adjacent
developments.
• Alignments West of Maroon Creek Road other than the existing alignment: This refers to possible
alignment solutions up valley from Maroon Creek Road, except for existing SH 82. These
alignments were screened out at the reality check level due to impacts to adjacent developments
(open space).
• Old Midland Railroad: This alignment followed the Old Midland Railroad ROW along Shadow
Mountain. It was eliminated at the fatal flaw level, as the alignment would require extensive
disruption to existing developments along Shadow Mountain and within the Aspen downtown
area. In addition, the Midland alignment was eliminated because of financial constraints and the
impacts to adjacent developments.
• Existing alignment (see attachment 2): This alignment follows the alignment of current highway
82 between Maroon Creek Road and the intersection of 7th and Main Street including the “S
curves.” This alternative was eliminated at the comparative screening level based on community
acceptability and safety issues. As compared to other alignments, the safety of State Highway 82
81
08/10/2022
3
was not significantly improved because of the existing “S curves.” The existing alignment also does
not address the need for an alternative emergency access route in and out of Aspen.
• Direct Connection: This alignment leaves the existing SH 82 platform just above the Maroon Creek
intersection, crosses the Marolt-Thomas property, and connects directly to 7th and Main Street.
It was an alternative previously proposed by CDOT and was commonly referred to as the “straight
shot.” It allows for higher design speeds as curvature is minimized. This alignment was eliminated
at the comparative screening level due to impacts to open space and lack of community support.
• Combination (see attachment 3): This couplet alignment was a combination of the existing and
either the direct or modified direct options. Westbound traffic would use the existing alignment,
while eastbound traffic used either the direct or modified direct alignment. The combination
alignment was screened out at the comparative level as it would have created significant
operational problems for Cemetery Lane traffic wanting to head east on Hwy 82. It also created
operational problems splitting traffic at 7th and Main Street.
• Modified Direct (see attachment 4): This alignment was a variation on the direct alignment; it
followed existing SH 82 to a point approximately halfway between Maroon Creek Road and
Cemetery Lane. The alignment then turned southeast to curve across the Marolt-Thomas
property, and finally turned east to cross Castle Creek to connect with the intersection at 7th and
Main Street. This alignment passed all screens and was selected as a component of the Preferred
Alternative (PA).
Laneage
Five different options for laneage were considered. A description of each option follows, along with that
option’s screening results.
• 2 Highway Lanes: This laneage option was screened out at the fatal flaw level as it did not meet
the capacity requirements for future traffic demand. The two-lane option on the existing
alignment also did not meet the emergency access objective and did not provide for future transit
options and upgrades that are part of Aspen community plan.
• 3 Highway Lanes: Because peak hour traffic distribution of the highway is approximately 50/50, a
reversible lane would not provide the needed future traffic capacity (transit and private vehicles)
for both directions of SH 82. This laneage option also did not meet the phasing objective and was
unacceptable to the community because of the large number of signs required to safely
implement and regulate the reversible lane. It was screened out at the fatal flaw level.
• 2 Highway Lanes plus 1 dedicated vehicle and/or transit lane: This laneage option was eliminated
at the fatal flaw level for the same reasons the three-lane highway option was eliminated.
• 4 Highway Lanes: This laneage option did not provide the incentive for transit or carpool use that
is essential to control traffic growth on SH 82. Four lanes of unrestricted traffic were not
consistent with community-based planning goals. This option was screened out at the fatal flaw
level.
82
08/10/2022
4
• 2 Highway Lanes plus 2 dedicated vehicle and/or transit lanes: This option passed the fatal flaw
screen. When evaluated at the comparative level screen, it best met the project objectives. This
laneage passed all screens and is a component of the PA.
Profile
This option refers to the opportunities for developing the vertical profile of the roadway. Four options
were considered.
• Elevated: This option referred to an elevated roadway structure profile, such as a bridge viaduct.
This option was screened out at the reality check level as unrealistic due to unacceptable visual
impacts.
• Tunnel: This option referred to tunnel profiles (i.e., below natural ground elevation) greater than
700 feet long. This option was screened out at the reality check level as unrealistic due to
unacceptable cost and construction impacts (such as staging tunneling equipment, haul and
disposal of muck).
• Cut and Cover: This option referred to a shorter tunnel (less than 300 feet) and could be
considered a land bridge. It allowed for the roadway profile to drop below the existing landscape.
It would be constructed by first regrading the area (the “cut”), then constructing the concrete
tunnel box in that area (the “cover”), and finally backfilling the box to match the landform. This
feature, combined with the restoration of abandoned SH 82 below Cemetery Lane, allows a
continuously connected open space from the Aspen golf course to the Marolt-Thomas open
space. This option passed all screens and is a component of the PA.
• At-grade: This option referred to the roadway following the existing landscape to the extent
possible. This option, along with the cut and cover tunnel, passed all screens and is a component
of the PA.
Travel Mode
This option includes the various travel modes considered for the ETA. Nine travel modes were analyzed.
• Unproven Technology: This option refers to transit systems under research and development (at
the time). It was screened out at the reality check level, as one of the criteria required modal
options to be in revenue service to pass the reality check screen.
• Personal Rapid Transit: This option refers to a public transit mode using small, automated vehicles
operating on a network of dedicated guideways. This option was screened out at the reality check
level, as one of the criteria required modal options to be in revenue service to pass the reality
check screen.
• Commuter Rail: This mode refers to a heavy rail system (not LRT) and requires a fixed guideway
system and a separate right of way. Because of commuter rail’s inability to operate efficiently in
mixed flow traffic conditions this mode option did not meet the capacity objective. It was
screened out at the fatal flaw level.
• Wire Rope Systems: Wire rope propelled systems are like gondolas and chairlift systems, requiring
overhead cables and poles supports. Please note that after the ROD, wire rope systems using the
83
08/10/2022
5
drive under the passenger cabin have been developed (for example the Doppelmayr Cable Car).
The capacity and trips that can be served by this technology are limited. This mode was screened
out at the fatal flaw level because it was not acceptable as an in-town transit system visually,
operationally, or financially.
• Guided Busways: The mechanically guided bus system evaluated in the EIS operates in a U-shaped
concrete track that guides the bus without help from the driver. The driver controls the speed and
deceleration of the bus. This option was evaluated in more detail in earlier Aspen to Snowmass
transportation projects. From a comparative evaluation the mechanically guided busway was a
relatively high-cost option versus the self -propelled bus and electric trolley technologies. This
option was screened out at the comparative screening level based on the project objectives and
key issues (cost, maintenance, and community acceptability) in comparison to other options.
Since the ROD, new applications for guided buses have been developed using optical markings in
the roadway and radar guidance. The new applications for guided buses involving optical
markings will not work in winter conditions.
• HOV: This refers to a managed lane that allows high-occupancy vehicles (HOVs) either/or during
all day or peak-hour. HOVs are self-propelled vehicles having a minimum of two or more
passengers including the driver in the vehicle. This option passed the comparative screen.
• Self-propelled Buses: Two general types of self-propelled buses were considered (diesel, natural
gas, now also electric). Self-propelled buses can be run in mixed traffic or in a separate managed
lane. This option passed the comparative screen and is a component of the PA. It comprises the
initial phase transit system.
• Electric Trolley Buses: Electric trolley buses are essentially the same vehicles self-propelled buses,
but they are propelled by an electric motor and obtain power from two overhead electric wires .
Electric trolley buses are rubber tired and operate in mixed flow conditions. The major limitation
of such vehicles is a reliance on the overhead wires for propulsion. The system requires
electrification of the entire area. This option passed the comparative screen. It was not evaluated
in detail, as the visual impacts of overhead wires was not acceptable. It is not included as a
component of the PA.
• Light Rail Transit (LRT): LRT is a mode that runs on standard gauge rail. LRT can operate in a lane
next to general traffic or even in the same lane (e.g., RTD in downtown Denver). LRT operates
most efficiently in a separate, dedicated right-of-way. Power is provided by an overhead electric
system in mixed flow conditions by either overhead electrical wires or a third electrified rail when
they run in a separate right-of-way period. This option passed the comparative screen and is a
component of the PA. It comprises the final phase transit system.
Comparative Screening of Alternatives
From the four general options (alignments, laneage, profile, and travel mode), options that passed the
reality check and fatal flaw screening were selected and combined to form potential alternatives for
comparative analysis. That is, a specific alignment was combined with a specific profile and laneage to
84
08/10/2022
6
develop cost estimates, open space impacts, and amount of right- of-way acquisition for comparative
purposes in the EIS.
Alignment and profile alternatives were then studied to determine the environmental impacts and
associated mitigation within the corridor. The modal options were also evaluated, as the different modes
resulted in widely varying impacts to air quality and the project’s ability to meet the objective of limiting
2015 traffic volumes to levels at or below those in 1993.
The comparative screening analysis eliminated the following three alternatives (comprised of specific
alignment, profile, and laneage combinations):
• Existing (see attachment 2): The existing alignment between Maroon Creek Road and the
intersection of 7th and Main Street was screened out based on safety and community
acceptability issues as compared to other alignment options. Any widening on this alignment
would impact multiple adjacent properties (including historic properties identified as section 4 (f)
resources). The safety of SH 82 would not be significantly improved with this alternative because
of the existing S curves compared to alignments across the Marolt-Thomas property. The S curves
were expected to have a much higher accident rate even with improvements to the roadway. The
existing alignment also did not address the need for an alternative emergency access route in and
out of Aspen. In a public survey of alignment options (September 1994 public open house), the
existing alignment was chosen as the least favorable in comparison to other alignments.
• Direct Connection: The cost and safety issues of the direct alignment were like those of the
Modified Direct alignment. Both alignments had impacts on the Marolt-Thomas property. The
Direct Connection alignment bisected the Marolt-Thomas property and impacted several key
open space areas (at the time of the DEIS, these areas were used as a community garden and
parasailing landing site). These areas were not affected by the Modified Direct alignment
(described below). Additionally, the Direct Connection alignment did not have the community
support of the Modified Direct alignment. A survey conducted in fall 1994 indicated the most
desired alignment between the two was the Modified Direct alignment. Because of the greater
impacts to open space as compared to the Modified Direct alignment and the lack of community
support, the Direct Connection alignment was not carried ahead into a full evaluation.
• Combination (Existing plus Direct/Modified Direct, see attachment 3): The couplet, or one way
pair, and the split alignment, or two-way pair, were both defined as a combination of the existing
alignment and either of the Direct Connection or Modified Direct alignments. Traffic flow in the
couplet was one-way to the West on the existing alignment and then the opposite direction on
the alignments that cross the Marolt-Thomas property. This is also called the “split shot”. The
couplet would create significant operational problems for Cemetery Lane traffic wanting to head
east (up valley) on SH 82. This traffic must first travel west (down-valley) on SH 82 and accomplish
a U-turn were the two roadways come together (at the time of the EIS, the MCR roundabout was
not contemplated). This alignment was not carried into further evaluation. The split alignment or
two-way pair was like the geometry of the couplet but the traffic on both existing and Marolt-
85
08/10/2022
7
Thomas alignments flows in both directions, and it created significant operational problems
where the Modified Direct or Direct alignment and the existing alignment separate at the
intersection of 7th and Main Street and come back together again at the intersection of Maroon
Creek Road and SH 82. This alignment was not carried ahead.
Details of Comparative Alternatives
This section of the document is intended to explain the details of the alternatives carried ahead for
comparative screening. It describes the different alternatives based on their project area (Buttermilk Ski
area to Maroon Creek Road (area 1) and Maroon Creek Road to 7th and Main Street (area 2)). This section
also explains the nomenclature and numbering used to identify alternatives.
The alternatives evaluated in the EIS were developed from reasonable combinations of the alignment,
laneage, and the profile options that passed the screening process and/or provided a useful baseline for
comparing alternatives. Additional alternatives that did not pass the screening process were also
evaluated due to community interest and/or at the request of the Aspen City Council. Some of the
alternatives also considered a separate transit envelope within the designated right-of- way. The existing
alignment for Maroon Creek Road to 7th and Main Street was also carried into the evaluation for
comparison purposes even though it did not pass the screening analysis due to 4(f) impacts. This
alignment consisted of two highway lanes and two dedicated transit lanes at-grade.
The only alignment and laneage option to pass the screening process was the two general highway lanes
plus two dedicated vehicle / transit lanes (managed lanes) across the Marolt-Thomas property. The two
profile options carried into the EIS for evaluation were the at-grade and the cut and cover. Both options
received public support and were financially feasible. The alternatives were evaluated for two areas,
characterized by different roadway cross-sections Buttermilk Ski Area to Maroon Creek Rd and Maroon
Creek Rd to 7th and Main Street. Because the modes and technologies for the dedicated vehicle/ transit
lanes were generally not dependent upon the alignment lineage and profile options, the modes and
technologies were treated as a separate subset of the alternatives. The technology selected was assumed
to be the same for the Buttermilk Ski Area to Maroon Creek Rd section and the Maroon Creek Road to 7th
and Main Street section.
Area 1: Buttermilk Ski Area to Maroon Creek Rd
This area analyzed three alternatives (see attachment 5) as determined by the screening process.
• Alternative 1, No Action Alternative: Although the No Action alternative did not meet project
objectives, it was carried ahead through the EIS evaluation process as a comparison alternative
as required by federal guidelines. It was used as a benchmark to compare the magnitude of the
environmental effects of the various build alternatives. It could become the recommended and
preferred alternative if no other alternative is selected. That was not the case for this project.
• Alternative 2, Existing Alignment: This alternative followed the existing alignment between
Buttermilk Ski Area and Maroon Creek Rd.
86
08/10/2022
8
• Alternative 3, Existing Alignment with a separate transit envelope: This alternative was identical
to Alternative 2 except a transit envelope was provided. This option was selected as a
component of the PA.
Area 2: Maroon Creek Road to 7th and Main Street
The alternatives evaluated in this section consist of three general alignments, the existing alignment, the
Modified Direct alignment, and the Combination alignment. In addition, the modified direct alignment
was combined with two profile options, at grade and with cut and cover, and evaluated with and
without a separate transit envelope
• Alternative A, No Action Alternative (see attachment 6): This alternative consisted of minor
short-term traffic and maintenance improvements on SH 82. The existing roadway would
remain as-is.
• Alternative B, Existing Alignment (see attachment 6): The existing alignment for Maroon Creek
Rd to the intersection of 7th and Main Street did not pass the screening analysis; however, it
was carried ahead for comparative purposes. This alternative provides two general highway
lanes and two dedicated vehicle and/or transit lanes. LRT was excluded as an option because at
reasonable operating speeds, the minimum curvature required of the track created significant
right-of-way acquisition and structure takes. Beginning at Maroon Creek Road, this alternative
followed the existing alignment to Cemetery Lane. East of Cemetery Lane the new alignment
shifted south of the existing center line and crosses Castle Creek. The existing Castle Creek
bridge would be used for westbound traffic and would be widened to the south to
accommodate the eastbound traffic. This alternative continued to follow existing SH 82 around
the S curves to 7th and Main Street.
• Alternative C, Modified Direct alignment at grade (see attachment 6): The alignment followed
Hwy 82 from Maroon Creek to about milepost 39.9 where the alignment curves southeast into
the Marolt-Thomas property. A gradual S curve to the east brought the alignment just south of
the existing Castle Creek bridge. The vertical profiles of the highway began to drop just below
the existing ground level. This alternative provided two general highway lanes and two
dedicated vehicle and or transit lanes for all technologies passing the screening process. It did
not provide a separate transit envelope, as the transit envelope was included within the
highway platform, which was to avoid impacts and narrow the right-of-way.
• Alternative D, Modified Direct alignment at-grade with separate transit envelope (see
attachment 6): This alternative provided two general highway lanes and two dedicated vehicle
and/or transit lanes for all technologies passing the screening process. This alternative was
identical to Alternative C, except that a transit separate transit envelope was provided in
addition to the two dedicated vehicle and/or transit lanes.
• Alternative E, Modified Direct alignment with cut and cover tunnel (see attachment 6):
Alternative E was similar to Alternative C in laneage and alignment, but it provided a cut and
cover profile near Castle Creek. A separate transit envelope is not included in this alternative.
87
08/10/2022
9
The cut and cover tunnel was proposed to being approximately at milepost 40.1 and continue
for about 300 feet. After passing through the cut and cover tunnel (or land bridge), the
alignment angled to the north and continued across Castle Creek on a new bridge structure to
join the alignment to the intersection at 7th and Main Street.
• Alternative F, Modified Direct alignment, with a cut and cover segment, and with separate
transit envelope (see attachment 6): Alternative F was like Alternative E except that a separate
transit envelope was provided in addition to the two dedicated vehicle and or transit lanes. The
separate transit envelope required widening the cut and cover section and required additional
right-of-way. This option was selected as a component of the PA.
• Alternative G, Two Improved Lanes on Existing Alignment and Transitway on the Modified direct
alignment (see attachment 7): This alternative was a combination of two improved highway
lanes on the existing alignment and a two-lane transitway across the Marolt-Thomas property.
The transitway could be a fixed guideway or busway depending on the mode. This alternative
did not pass the screening process unless it was combined with an aggressive TM program and a
significant increase in transit use. It was included for evaluation in the EIS at the request of the
Aspen City Council. The transitway followed the Modified Direct alignment to create two
separate alignments for the SH 82 transportation corridor. The transitway alignment continued
across a new Castle Creek bridge to join the general lanes at the west leg of the intersection of
7th and Main Street. The width of the transitway was dependent on the technology used for the
dedicated lanes. Several in-city intersections would have needed to be modified to control
access to SH 82 (Main Street) in the more urban area.
• Alternative H (see attachment 8): After the release of the DEIS, the Aspen City Council presented
a new alternative, Alternative H for comparative evaluation. Alternative H and phased
Alternative H (see attachment 9) consisted of a couplet alignment (“split shot”). This resulted in
a combination of alternatives that were evaluated at the comparative level in the SDEIS. The
alignment of Alternative H and Phased Alternative H were later eliminated because of the
greater section 4(f) resource impacts (specifically on the Marolt-Thomas property). In addition,
the couplet alignment (Alternative H) was originally screened out of consideration in the
comparative screening evaluation.
Identification of the Preferred Alternative
The combination of the options that passed comparative screening and became the Preferred
Alternative included the variation of the Modified Direct Alternative (evaluated in the SDEIS) and of the
Preferred Alternative described in the FEIS (introducing a narrow median which allowed for a phased
transit approach). See Attachment 10. The PA includes a 2-lane parkway (each direction) that follows SH
82 from Buttermilk Ski Area to mile post 39.9, (see attachment 11) where it shifts to the southeast of the
SH 82 alignment and crosses the Marolt-Thomas property. It goes through a cut and cover tunnel (land
bridge), crosses Castle Creek on a new bridge and connects to 7th and Main Street. The alignment
follows Main Street (see attachment 12). The lane configuration across the Marolt-Thomas property is a
general-purpose lane and a dedicated transit lane in each direction. The dedicated transit lane is
88
08/10/2022
10
designed for an initial transit phase of self-propelled buses. A future phase of a single-track LRT system,
running in a separate dedicated, transitway to the south of SH 82 is also part of the PA. An incremental
Transportation Management (TM) program is included in the PA to help achieve the city and community
goal of keeping traffic at 1993 levels (see attachment 13).
Reference Documents
Documents used to develop this summary include the:
• State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen Draft EIS (DEIS), August 1995
• State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement/Section 4(f) Evaluation, July 1996
• State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen Record of Decision (ROD), August 1998.
All attachments come from the above 3 documents.
Other documents that included a complete screening evaluation including the technical report to the
DEIS entitled State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen Alternatives Screening Analysis and the technical
memorandum to the SDEIS entitled Entrance to Aspen DSEIS Alternative Screening Report.
Unfortunately, while these documents include more detailed information, they were not available for
the development of this summary.
89
08/10/2022
11
Attachment 1
90
08/10/2022
12
Attachment 2 (1 of 2)
91
08/10/2022
13
Attachment 2 (2 of 2)
92
08/10/2022
14
Attachment 3 (1 of 2)
93
08/10/2022
15
Attachment 3 (2 of 2)
94
08/10/2022
16
Attachment 4
95
08/10/2022
17
Attachment 5
96
08/10/2022
18
Attachment 6
97
08/10/2022
19
Attachment 7
98
08/10/2022
20
Attachment 8
99
08/10/2022
21
Attachment 9
100
08/10/2022
22
Attachment 10
101
08/10/2022
23
Attachment 11
102
08/10/2022
24
Attachment 12
103
08/10/2022
25
Attachment 13
104
August 10, 2022 1
Questions for SH 82 Entrance to Aspen Record of Decision (ROD) from City of Aspen (COA)
August 10,2022
1. Can any portions of the ROD be left out…. like LRT?
Yes, the Final EIS and ROD documented impacts of the Preferred Alternative (and other
alternatives). If the proponent chooses to implement a portion of the Proposed Action and the
impacts are fewer, there is no issue under NEPA. Additionally, the ROD is phased, so the
platform can be constructed and used with a bus transit phase, no light rail transit (LRT). The LRT
is a “future” phase. The “future” phase may also include an advanced transit system
(autonomous buses for example, see UVMS).
2. How much flexibility is there described in the ROD?
There is very little flexibility in the overall platform width, structure delineation, and the
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program. Flexibility exists with what can be done
with the managed lane (bus lane) component within the platform, and resolution of parking
issues. The uses and details of the managed lane from Buttermilk to Aspen are documented in
the State Highway 82 Bus Lanes Operation Study, October 2008.
3. Do we need any additional studies or new FEIS?
Because of the amount of time that has passed since the ROD was approved (longer than three
years), CDOT will need to consult with FHWA to determine whether the ROD remains valid. This
will likely trigger the need for a re-evaluation
(https://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/legislation/nepa/Reevaluation_guidance_08142019.as
px). CDOT Form 1399 is a six-page template for a focused re-evaluation. CDOT will review at
Environmental Programs Branch (EPB) level and FHWA review and concurrence will be required
(https://www.codot.gov/programs/environmental/nepa-program/nepa-manual/04-chapter-
4_v6_3-6-20.pdf).
4. What has changed within the corridor since the last assessment?
The existing condition has changed since the initial analysis was conducted in the FEIS, including
such items air quality, daily VMT, right-of-way ownership, and other transportation resources,
including parking demand and supply. It is possible that other physical and biological resources
have also changed, and the historic built environment has likely increased in scale (i.e.,
buildings/facilities constructed 50 years or longer ago).
5. Are there portions of the PA that are no longer relevant or no longer apply?
The Preferred Alternative has not necessarily changed, but the existing conditions and impacts
analyzed to certain resources has likely changed. For example, the airport studies and parking
studies are dated and may not be relevant. Also, the Final EIS did not contemplate the RFTA BRT,
which should have positive impacts on parking by reducing demand.
105
August 10, 2022 2
6. Is the design feasible in geometry for emergency services or is the ROD improving these
services?
The ROD design (PA) facilitates emergency response with the development of a widened 4-lane
platform, additional bridge over Castle creek, and elimination of the S curves. These attributes
of the PA provide tremendous additional capacity in case of an emergency. Emergency access is
objective # 8 in the 10 project objectives called out in the ROD.
7. What are the updated implications of doing a new EIS?
The project has been analyzed under NEPA with FHWA as the lead federal agency. As indicated
in the response to question 3, unless there are changes that warrant additional analysis, there is
no need to conduct additional analysis. If a re-evaluation determines that the changes would
result in significant new impacts that were not previously analyzed, the FHWA (and CDOT)
would require a Supplemental EIS. This would also require new analysis under Section 4(f) and a
new ROD for the SEIS. Attachment A demonstrates this relationship with graphics.
8. Has a feasibility study been done or what do you estimate this would cost?
The most recent feasibility study was done for the EOTC in 2017, called the Upper Valley
Mobility Study (UVMS). This study cost about $500k. It evaluated the feasibility of a rail system
from Brush Creek to Rubey Park, a dedicated bus lane from the Brush Creek Park and Ride to
connect at the airport, and advanced bus options.
9. Could a trackless tram be implemented as part of the PA as an alternative to LRT?
An autonomous bus was studied as part of the UVMS. From our research, a trackless tram may
not pass a screening analysis as there appear to be no systems in revenue service in similar
conditions (winter weather, steep mountain grades).
10. Can other transit modes other than bus or LRT be implemented as part of the PA?
Yes, it is possible to implement other transit modes if they can use the platform described in the
PA and can be supported with proper supporting studies, NEPA considerations, and can pass the
screening analysis.
11. How does LRT/roadway work with the Moore Open space (this feels vague in the description)?
At this time, all work has been completed in the former Moore Open Space parcel to support
the existing transit system. This includes the bus facilities at the up-valley side of the Maroon
Creek Roundabout. The UVMS includes details on a future light rail stop at Maroon Creek and at
grade and grade separated crossing options at the Roundabout. See response to question 12.
106
August 10, 2022 3
12. What does the transit connection to Maroon Creek and Castle Creek look like? How does LRT fit
into this?
For an overview of concept designs, see UVMS page 21, figure 5.2 (PDF page 209 of 488). Details
are included on PDF page 481 of 488.
13. Can bus lanes be utilized without changing the ROD?
Yes, the bus lanes are a phase of the PA. This does require COA Council approval.
14. Can the multi-modal parking facilities at Buttermilk and Airport be relocated or removed in the
PA?
It appears some of this multi-modal parking has already been constructed at Buttermilk and the
airport; however, it was not constructed to the full extent of what was analyzed in the EIS. If this
is not sufficient, and additional parking is required, the proposed parking could be relocated but
would constitute a change in the PA and would require additional site-specific analysis under
NEPA. As with the response to question 1, the parking could be constructed as part of a later
phase, but it seems likely the agencies would want to see it done in conjunction with the
remainder of the ETA project.
15. Are parking spaces at Buttermilk and the Airport still needed?
Studies at these locations are dated, but these locations still represent good opportunities for
managing supply. Due to the duration of time that has passed since the ROD, we believe that it
would be beneficial to conduct another traffic/parking study to support discussions with CDOT
and FHWA about completing this project.
16. What is the appropriate level of involvement (in your opinion) for EOTC and the other
jurisdictions?
• Investigate financing options.
• Before ETA will be considered on the State’s Transportation Improvement plan, CDOT will
want to know that there is consensus from COA Council and subsequently EOTC. This
consensus could be in the form of a resolution supporting PA and BRT.
17. What is the process for engaging CDOT or any federal entities?
The ETA is a CDOT project on state highway. CDOT is considered the owner of the project, even
though it will be constructed on a permanent easement across the Marolt property. CDOT can
be engaged both through CDOT Region 3 contacts (Glenwood Springs Program Engineer and
Resident Engineer, Grand Junction Regional Director) and the Intermountain Transportation
Planning Region (IMTPR). Generally, contacts to federal entities such as FHWA should be
through CDOT. It is not encouraged to contact federal agencies directly. As indicated previously,
CDOT will need to consult with FHWA before determining next steps and both will be involved in
the re-evaluation and subsequent NEPA, if necessary. CDOT will be responsible for monitoring
107
August 10, 2022 4
construction and ensuring that appropriate mitigation is implemented for the project (see ROD
pages 30-37).
18. How has public input been used in the past? What would you change for more success?
There have been impressive changes in public engagement over the past few years. There are
lots of opportunities to connect with the public (web-based, virtual, e-blasts, community-based
organizations, etc.). With increased focus on low-income and minority populations, including
those who live down valley but work in Aspen, it is likely that CDOT will want to reengage the
public on this project. If additional NEPA is required, then there will be multiple opportunities
for public involvement, including scoping and review of draft and final documents. If no
additional NEPA is required, CDOT may run a PR campaign to educate the public on the project.
19. What is the risk involved with opening up the ROD federally?
As mentioned previously, this is likely not required and definitely not the first next step.
However, if there is a decision to change the Preferred Alternative, there are multiple risks,
including those related to highway expansion. For example, the SH 82 corridor is currently in full
compliance with all air quality regulation as the PM-10 issues have been mitigated. Without the
PM-10 non-attainment requirement, an unrestricted 4-lane highway can become a viable
alternative at the ETA and possibly all the way to Basalt.
20. Can we institute outbound Bus/HOV lanes in the managed lane? Peak hour or 24-hour?
The SH 82 managed lane from Basalt to Buttermilk is restricted to buses and HOVs during peak
hours (6 AM-9 AM up-valley, 3 PM-6 PM down-valley) and is already in the configuration
described. This was cleared in the SH 82 Basalt to Buttermilk EIS.
The SH 82 managed lane segment (both up-valley and down-valley) from Buttermilk to 7th and
Main Street is only cleared as a 24-hour dedicated bus lane. To institute the Bus/HOV in this
segment, FHWA/CDOT would require a reevaluation, and that could open the study to other
alternatives.
21. What is the estimated life of the old Castle Creek Bridge?
Work has been done by CDOT to maintain the service life of the Castle Creek bridge. The ROD
Appendix A, MOU, page 9 of 12, includes details on the existing Castle Creek bridge and
responsibilities of each entity. CDOT has certain maintenance requirements before and after the
PA is completed. CDOT must maintain a sufficiency rating of 50 or above.
The question of remaining life can be best answered by a complete structural evaluation of the
bridge.
108
August 10, 2022 5
22. Can the old bridge be repaired or does it need to be replaced?
As mentioned above, the bridge has been repaired by CDOT many times. It is likely that at some
point in time a full replacement will be necessary if repairs can’t bring the bridge sufficiency
rating to fifty or above.
23. Knowing the finite life of the bridge when do we need to start the process for the new bridge?
Can this be broken down into steps? For example, which items need to be done and by when?
A structural evaluation of the bridge is the starting point for this effort. That evaluation will
determine if replacement is required or if repairs can be executed to increase the service life of
the bridge. It is my understanding that the existing bridge cannot be widened.
24. When were the 10 project objectives selected by the Aspen Community? Was this early in the
NEPA process (1994 or so)?
The objectives were developed early in the process in the time frame described
The Aspen community was an important participant in the development of the objectives. More
on the development of the objectives, from Page I-3 of the August 1995 Draft EIS-
“The objectives were developed based on known problems and concerns related to the State
Highway 82 transportation system and corresponding issues raised by the Aspen area
community. Consensus on the objectives was developed from the affected agencies, elected
officials and staff of area governments, concerned members of the public through a series of
individual meetings (community focus groups, open house exhibitions, community leadership
workshops) and a technical advisory committee (TAC) consisting of various local governments
and state and federal agency staff.”
Questions that came up during the April 18th, 2022 Council meeting:
• What is a land bridge vs. a cut and cover tunnel?
The difference is in the length. The cut and cover tunnel is 400” long, and would require certain
fire-life safety systems. The land bridge is less than 300’ long, does not require any extra facilities.
The construction technique is the same for either option. The Land bridge option fits the landform
very well to connect to the new open space over realigned SH82.
Go to https://www.cityofaspen.com/DocumentCenter/View/406/Preferred-Alternative-
PDF?bidId= for more info.
• How does a project get onto the State Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP)?
Starting with the Intermountain Transportation Planning Region (TPR), the project would be
included in their plan. Then the Statewide Transportation Advisory Committee (STAC) would
agree to that plan and include the project in the STIP. The STIP would then be approved by the
State Transportation Commission for budgeting and implementation.
109
August 10, 2022 6
• How is trackless tram categorized by the state?
At this time the trackless tram has not been proposed for any transit use in Colorado. This is likely
because this system requires specialized pavement markings which are not visible on a snow-
covered roadway. The system has not been categorized by the state.
• What alternatives have been screened out and why? Including the reversible 3rd lane on the
existing Castle Creek Bridge.
Please see the ROD, Pages 11-25 Section III, Alternatives Considered for a complete discussion on
this. Suggest COA review this section and develop questions about specific alternatives. The
reversible 3-lane was screened-out because peak hour distribution of traffic is about 50/50. It
does not meet traffic capacity, and it does not meet the phasing objective (see ROD page 14 of
37).
• What were the forecasts for valley growth and where are we with those factors?
As far as I can recall, the EIS did not include valley wide growth factors. There was an assumption
early on that traffic would grow at least 2% per year if unconstrained.
The potential re-evaluation would look at social and economic changes and that would be
required to develop growth projections.
• The airport is cited as a multi modal facility. What does that mean?
A multi-modal transportation facility is a location where travel modes connect. In the case of an
airport, air travel modes connect with surface transportation modes to create a multi-modal
facility. At the time of the ROD, the federal government was placing an emphasis on multi-
modal connections.
110
August 10, 2022 7
Attachment A
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124