Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20160126 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION January 26, 2016 4:00 PM, City Council Chambers MEETING AGENDA I. Castle Creek Bridge Update II. Re-Think the Streets Update III. Uphill Goal Update IV. Land Use Code Revisions P1 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM : Justin Forman, P.E., Senior Project Manager, City of Aspen Matt Kuhn, Trails Manager, City of Aspen Peter Rice, P.E., Engineer II. City of Aspen THRU: Trish Aragon, P.E., City Engineer, City of Aspen Austin Weiss, Open Space Manager, City Parks DATE OF MEMO: January 22, 2016 MEETING DATE: January 26, 2016 RE: Castle Creek/Hallam Street Connectivity Study: Conceptual Design Review SUMMARY: City staff seeks input and to provide an update to Council regarding the proposed pedestrian and bicycle improvements for the Castle Creek/Hallam Street Connectivity project. The goals for the work session include the following:  Review the completed third party Traffic Analysis.  Decision Point #1: Approval to proceed in design documents for the improvements on the east and west sides of Castle Creek bridge on Hallam Street. Additionally discuss an alternative conceptual study for a standalone pedestrian bridge north of the Castle Creek Bridge.   Decision Point #2: Provide updates and receive input from Council on the bridge railing drawings and options.  Decision Point #3: Acquire input from Council on the Living Lab and gain final approval to proceed with the experiment.  Decision Point #4: Receive input from Council on duration of Living Lab. BACKGROUND HISTORY: As early as 2013, Open Space and Trails Board members along with Engineering, Parks, and Transportation staff identified the Castle Creek Bridge and Hallam Street corridor as a deficient link in Aspen’s bicycle and pedestrian network. Due to topographic, property, and geometric constraints safe travel options for cyclists and pedestrians are limited through this area. The Castle Creek/Hallam Street Connectivity Study follows the ideals of The AACP. The Plan states “Aspen’s future should be one in which the automobile plays a smaller role in people’s everyday lives… (We) should increase the percentage of trips made via alternative modes of transportation. This can be accomplished by continuing to make….. the pedestrian/bike trail system more convenient, efficient, accessible, affordable and enjoyable. ….. Our commitment to alternative modes of transportation helps reduce traffic congestion, improves air quality, reduces greenhouse gas emissions, promotes public health and reduces our dependence on non – renewable resources.” P2 I. Additionally this project follows the City’s Complete Street Principals: The following guiding principles are to ensure that transportation improvements are planned, designed and constructed to encourage walking, bicycling and transit use while promoting safe operations for all users: (a) Plan for, design and construct all new transportation improvement projects to provide appropriate accommodation for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and persons of all abilities, while promoting safe operation for all users. (b) Operate and maintain the transportation network to improve travel conditions for bicyclists, pedestrians, transit, and motorists in a manner consistent with, and supportive of, the surrounding community; (c) Improvements will include an array of facilities and amenities including: street and sidewalk lighting; pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements; intersection improvements; access improvements, including compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act; public transit facilities accommodation including, but not limited, to pedestrian access improvement to transit stops and stations; street trees and landscaping; drainage; and street amenities; (d) Implement these policies with a master plan approach recognizing that all streets are different and in each case user needs must be balanced In the spring of 2014, the City contracted with Loris and Associates in order to develop a conceptual plan that would improve the corridor. The design process included multiple public meetings to discuss the design and to solicit input on the design. The conceptual plan indicating these proposed improvements is Attachment A. Following the completion of the conceptual plan, staff identified the need to further analyze the conceptual design. Throughout 2015, staff worked with the Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group to perform a traffic analysis of the conceptual plan, and to provide baseline data for traffic and trail use in the area. The Traffic Feasibility Study is included in Attachment B. Further, staff worked with Loris and Associates and CDOT to design a trial experiment now referred to as a living lab, which would allow for real-world trial of the proposed lane configuration across the bridge. In the July 28, 2015 work session Council recommended separating the bridge railing and bridge improvement aspects of the project from the remaining Hallam Street corridor improvements. And in the October 27th, 2015 budget wrap up, Council further directed staff to proceed with the design of the corridor and to analyze the feasibility of changing the railing on the existing bridge without building the trail across the bridge. Council also directed staff to continue planning for the Living Lab, and a special use permit from CDOT is in place. P3 I. DISCUSSION: Traffic Study: FTH analyzed the traffic and the geometry for the Castle Creek/Hallam corridor. The study incorporates the existing conditions as well as the conditions that are anticipated with the implementation of the conceptual design. FTH also compared the traffic volumes of other congested 2-lane highways in Colorado with the Castle Creek/Hallam Street existing conditions. The following items were noted during the study:  The average monthly traffic in the year 2015 is lower than the 1993 levels. However, the study indicated the 2-lane roadway is considered one of the most congested in Colorado and operates at capacity.  Average speeds are below the posted 25 MPH.  The reconfigured lanes with a lane width of 11 feet and 2 foot shoulder will be able to comfortably and safely accommodate the slow moving traffic that crosses the bridge today.  The changes in the lane width will not cause traffic to slow down more than already occurs.  90 percent of bike and pedestrian users utilize the north sidewalk.  It was estimated that 50 pedestrian and bike users utilize the bridge per hour. Approximately 35 of these are bicyclists.  Left turning traffic onto 8th Street will be improved by implementing the proposed plan.  Access to transit will be improved with the relocation of the bus stop and the pedestrian signalized crossing.  The proposed plan does not anticipate an increase in the traffic that utilizes the West Smuggler Street route. The full report is be included in Attachment B. Design: Staff have worked with Loris and Associates to proceed with the design of the East and West portions of the Hallam Street connectivity project. Staff are recommending that this be considered a change order on the original concept design contract, as there are significant savings and benefits to the City to continue working with Loris and Associates. With Council approval, the design for these portions of the project will continue as options for the bridge railing and trail surface are being further analyzed. The City is committed to continuing to work with adjacent property owners and other stakeholder groups throughout the forthcoming design process to refine the final treatments of the corridor. Staff continues to feel that the preferred concept (Attachment A) best meets all stakeholder and community needs while taking a lower impact and fiscally conservative approach to enhancements to the corridor. DECISION POINT #1 P4 I. Staff requests input from the Council on two items for the East/West Hallam Street Improvements as described in the conceptual plan:  Staff is requesting input on a Change Order to proceed from a conceptual plan into full design and construction documents on the East/West Hallam Street Connectivity Improvements. The change order will total approximately $146,000 with Loris and Associates, and $30,000 is estimated for additional site investigation and design (geotechnical survey, environmental analysis, etc.).  In conjunction with proceeding on the design, the staff feels that it would be beneficial to develop a conceptual design for a separate, standalone bridge that would be located north of the Castle Creek Bridge. By developing a conceptual plan for a separate bridge, staff and council will have a greater level of information of opportunities, constraints and cost than was provided for in the Conceptual Design contract in 2014. City Staff would like to assure that all options have been properly assessed prior to selecting a final design to proceed across the Castle Creek Valley. The added cost of this concept design would be $31,000. Railing Only: City Council requested the study of a railing only option, as a way to provide changes to the bridge without altering lane widths. Staff worked with Loris and Associates to answer the question of whether or not CDOT will allow changes to the bridge railing. It has been identified that the installation of an altered bridge railing must meet current safety standards, and provide for vehicle crash impact protection. In order to install an altered railing, either a jersey barrier needs to be installed, or full development of the proposed trail needs to be constructed. DECISION POINT #2 Staff requests input on the following points for the Railing only option:  Does Council support continued design and planning for the north side trail as depicted in the proposed concept below in Figure 1? Figure 1. Alternative A  P5 I.  Shall Staff include a matching cobra style rail in the design for the south side of the bridge? Figure 2. Alternative D    Living Lab: The Living Lab experiment is to provide Council, stakeholders, and the community with information on how the conceptual plan improvements will impact traffic and bicycle movement across the bridge. The experiment utilizes water-filled jersey barriers to act as an interim separation between the roadway and the north side trail. The lane width will be reduced to 11 feet as described in the conceptual plan. This experiment will give people visual and interactive knowledge of how reducing the lanes and converting the north sidewalk to a multi- use trail will occur. The proposed schedule for the Living Lab is for three months beginning in April. CDOT has approved the implementation of the Living Lab. Referencing the Castle Creek Bridge options (Figure 3), CDOT prefers the implementation of Option D for this interim condition during the Living Lab experiment. A barrier between the southern sidewalk and roadway will not be required due to the low speeds. Fox Tuttle Hernandez will provide three separate traffic studies while the Living Lab is operational. The staff will supplement this information with public and on-line forums for public input. These data will provide the Council, public and staff valuable information for the design and implementation phases. P6 I. DECISION POINT #3  Should the living lab include the barrier only as shown below and test lane widths only? The estimated cost of this is $73,000.  Alternatively should the living lab include not only the barrier but a deck to also test the proposed bike / pedestrian trail? The additional estimated cost of the deck is $50,000. Figure 3. Living Lab Cross Section  DECISION POINT #4  The duration of the Living Lab project is currently scheduled for a three month window during the late spring and early summer of 2016. Will the duration of three months be adequate or is a longer duration preferred to gather additional information? FINANCIAL SUMMARY: Current Budget Availability $432,022 Expenditures: Design Costs Design of East and West Hallam Corridor (Loris) $146,000 Design Conceptual for Separate Pedestrian Bridge (Loris) $31,000 Additional site investigation (geotechnical survey, etc.) $30,000 $207,000 Living Lab Living Lab cost without additional decking to extend the walk $73,000 Additional decking installed $50,000 $123,000 Estimated Expenditure Subtotal $330,000 Estimated Remaining Budget $102,022 P7 I. COUNTY STAFF COMMENTS: Attachment A - Castle Creek/Hallam Street Connectivity Preferred Conceptual Design Attachment B – FTH Traffic Study Analysis   P8 I. P 9 I .   P.O. BOX 19768, BOULDER, COLORADO 80308-2768 PHONE: 303.652.3571 | WWW.FOXTUTTLE.COM             MEMORANDUM      To:  Justin Forman    From:  Bill Fox    Date:  January 21, 2016    Project: Hallam Street/Castle Creek Feasibility Study Traffic Analysis    Subject: Technical Memorandum to Summarize Findings    The Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation  Group has been retained by the City of Aspen  to complete a feasibility analysis of traffic for  the proposed improvements identified in the  2014 Castle Creek/Hallam Street Connectivity  Study prepared by Loris and Associates.  The  Loris Connectivity Study has identified a set  of near term multi‐modal improvements  along State Highway 82 between Cemetery  Lane and 7th Street along this entrance to  Aspen.  This memorandum summarizes the  information compiled and our analysis, findings, and recommendations.  Information is  summarized by topic as follows:     Summary of the proposed improvements in the Loris study   Multi‐modal traffic data collected   Comparison to historic automobile data, including the 1993 traffic access upper limit goal   Level of service analysis at key intersections for existing peak hour traffic volumes   Level of service analysis at key intersections for projected 1993 upper limit goal peak  hour traffic volumes   Comparison to other congested 2‐lane roadways in Colorado   Review of proposed project configuration and geometry and discussion of potential  issues / recommendations    P10 I. Hallam Street/Castle Creek Feasibility Study Traffic Analysis   Technical Memorandum to Summarize Findings  January 21, 2016                                                                                                                                      Page 2       Executive Summary:  This Hallam Street/Castle Creek Feasibility Study Traffic Analysis has reviewed the proposed  multi‐modal improvements contained in the 2014 Castle Creek/Hallam Street Connectivity Study  prepared by Loris and Associates.  Key findings and recommendations of this Feasibility Study  Traffic Analysis include:   The Loris Connectivity Study proposes a number of multi‐modal improvements in the  area, including an 8 foot wide multi‐use path across the existing Castle Creek Bridge, and  a new 10 foot wide multi‐use path on the east side of the bridge.  The Connectivity Study  also recommends improvements to the transit stops east of the bridge.   A detailed set of multi‐modal traffic counts were collected and compared to historic  traffic volume in the area.  The daily automobile traffic count is similar to recent average  July daily counts.  A review of the monthly counts for the past year indicates that the  traffic at this location on SH 82 is on track to meet the goal of staying below 1993 traffic  levels.   This goal was originated in the 1997 State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen Final  Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and reiterated in the 2007 System Management  Technical Report for the State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen Environmental  Reevaluation.   While July typically has the highest bicycle and pedestrian traffic in the area, the counts  taken specifically for this study appear low compared to other days in July (based on a  review of data from Aspen’s permanent bicycle count station on the Castle Creek Bridge).   This is likely due to a period of rainy weather when counts were being taken for this  study.   The intersections along SH 82 in this area (Cemetery Lane, 7th Street, and 8th Street)  currently operate reasonably well during AM and PM peak periods with levels of service  in the A through C range.  However, there are periods where the traffic traveling along  SH 82 is moving very slowly with “rolling queues” or periods where through traffic on the  bridge comes to a brief stop.  This is to be expected on this 2‐lane roadway as it operates  at its capacity with approximately 27,000 vehicles per day.   The daily traffic on this 2‐lane section of SH 82 is one of the highest volumes ever  observed by this author on 2‐lane roadways in Colorado.  This roadway has very little  capacity, if any, to accommodate additional automobile traffic across the Castle Creek  Bridge.   The existing 40 foot wide cross‐section on the Castle Creek Bridge includes two 12 foot  wide travel lanes with 3 foot wide shoulders and 5 foot wide raised sidewalks that are  attached to the edges of the automobile roadway.       The Loris Connectivity Study recommends reconfiguring the existing bridge deck to  include two 11 foot wide travel lanes with 2 foot wide shoulders.  This will allow for a  barrier protected 8 foot wide multi‐use path along the north side of the bridge.  The  existing 5 foot wide sidewalk will remain along the south edge of the bridge.   These reconfigured traffic lanes on the bridge, while narrower than existing, will still be  relatively wide with an effective width of 13 feet (11 feet plus 2 foot painted shoulder).   P11 I. Hallam Street/Castle Creek Feasibility Study Traffic Analysis   Technical Memorandum to Summarize Findings  January 21, 2016                                                                                                                                      Page 3       These lanes will be able to comfortably and safely accommodate the slow moving traffic  (25 mph speed limit) that crosses the bridge today, and will not cause traffic to slow  down.  During congested periods the traffic is already moving at speeds below the  posted speed limit, and the narrower lanes will not cause any further reduction in traffic  speeds.   This study has identified a few roadway geometric changes that should be made (relative  to the proposed geometry in the Loris study) at the Hallam/7th Street intersection to  accommodate RFTA’s largest buses.   The eastbound bus stop on the south edge of Hallam Street is adjacent to the 8th Street  intersection.  The bus stop typically serves only one RFTA bus at a time and RFTA staff  has indicated that there is no plan to require or schedule two buses to occupy this stop at  the same time.  The Loris Connectivity Study plan drawings illustrate a bus queuing area  against the south curb of Hallam Street immediately west of the 8th Street intersection  (see attached Loris plan view drawing).  This study has identified an adjustment to the  bus queuing area to minimize the potential for eastbound traffic delays in the vicinity of  the bus stop.   Overall, the recommendations of the proposed Castle Creek/Hallam Street Connectivity  Study will provide enhanced bicycle, pedestrian and transit facilities in the area.  These  multi‐modal improvements will help encourage increased mobility by pedestrians,  bicyclists, and transit riders without compromising the ability of Hallam Street to  accommodate the heavy automobile travel demand that exists.  These multi‐modal  improvements will help the automobile traffic on SH 82 remain below historic peak 1993  traffic conditions.       More specific findings, observations, and recommendations are detailed below:    Summary of Proposed Multi‐Modal Improvements  The Hallam Street/Castle Creek Connectivity Study included a number of proposed multi‐modal  improvements along SH 82 (Hallam Street) between Cemetery Lane and 7th Street in Aspen.  These improvements were designed to improve bicycle, pedestrian  and transit access in the  area while maintaining efficient automobile traffic flow on this heavily traveled entrance to  Aspen.  This plan represents a set of near term improvements that can be implemented without  compromising longer term access improvements that have been discussed historically for this  area.  Plan view and cross‐section drawings of these near term improvements from the Loris  Connectivity Study are attached to this memorandum for reference.  Features in the Connectivity  Study include:  P12 I. Hallam Street/Castle Creek Feasibility Study Traffic Analysis   Technical Memorandum to Summarize Findings  January 21, 2016                                                                                                                                      Page 4       Multi‐Use Path Changes:   Creation of a multi‐use path along the north side of Hallam Street, including across the  existing bridge deck on the Castle Creek Bridge.   The multi‐use path between the bridge and 7th Street will be 10 feet wide with a  landscaped buffer along both sides.     The addition of the path across the existing bridge is illustrated on the attached Loris  cross‐section.  It includes widening the north sidewalk from 5 feet to 8 feet to  accommodate the multi‐use path.  The plan also includes a raised barrier or railing  between the multi‐use path and the westbound travel lane.  The bridge currently has 12  foot wide travel lanes with 3 foot wide shoulders and 5 foot wide raised sidewalks that  are attached to the edge of the automobile roadway.  The reconfigured bridge would  have 11 foot wide lanes with 2 foot wide shoulders.  The 5 foot wide sidewalk will remain  along the south edge of the bridge.   Numerous adjustments and additions to the landscaping in the corridor.   Improvements west of the bridge extending to Cemetery Lane consist of off‐street path  alignment improvements, installation of way‐finding signage, and identification of a  longer term pedestrian underpass of Cemetery Lane.    Roadway Changes:   Relocation of the existing pedestrian crossing of Hallam Street at 8th Street (with the  pedestrian activated rectangular rapid flash beacons (RRFBs) from the west crosswalk to  the east crosswalk of the intersection to better serve the transit stops   Reconfiguration of Hallam Street between 7th Street and the bridge to allow for the  multi‐use path enhancements.  This results in the north edge of Hallam Street being  relocated south, farther from the existing residences along the north side of Hallam  Street.   Automobile travel lanes will range between 11 feet and 13 feet wide in this area, and the  bus lanes adjacent to the transit stops will be 10.5 feet wide.  Travel lanes of this width  will be able to easily accommodate the mix of vehicles using this corridor.  P13 I. Hallam Street/Castle Creek Feasibility Study Traffic Analysis   Technical Memorandum to Summarize Findings  January 21, 2016                                                                                                                                      Page 5        Adjustments to the 90 degree curve (from eastbound to southbound) and the median  island at the Hallam/7th Street intersection to allow for improved alignment of the multi‐ use path where it crosses 7th Street.  The eastbound to southbound lane is illustrated at  17.75 feet wide.   Corner radii at the 7th and 8th Street intersections are 25 feet in the proposed plan.   Removal of parallel on‐street parking that currently exists (approx. 6 spaces) along the  north side of Hallam Street between 8th Street and the bridge.   Improved pedestrian crossings of both 7th and 8th Streets, with specialty pavement, curb  extensions to shorten crosswalks, etc.    Transit Stop Changes:   Reconfiguration and enhancement of the transit stops on both sides of Hallam Street  between 7th and 8th Streets   Provision of a bus only lanes adjacent to the transit stops    The plan for the eastbound bus stop illustrates a bus queuing area against the south  curbline at a point just west of the 8th Street intersection (see attached plan).  This  queuing area will provide a place for a bus to wait if it arrives before the previous bus has  cleared the stop.      Existing Multi‐modal Traffic Data  Methodology:  One of the first steps in this process was to complete a detailed set of  multi‐modal traffic counts during the week after the July 4th weekend, which is typically one of  the busiest traffic weeks of the year.  To this end we completed the following on July 7th – 9th:     24‐hour automobile traffic counts with volume and speed data at the following two  locations:  ‐ on Hallam Street (SH 82) between the Castle Creek Bridge and 8th Street  ‐ on SH 82 just west of Cemetery  Lane   AM and PM peak hour counts,  including automobile, bicycle,  pedestrian and bus traffic at the  following four intersections:  ‐ Cemetery Lane/SH 82  ‐ Hallam Street/8th Street  ‐ Hallam Street/7th Street  ‐ West Smuggler Street/8th   Street    Bicycle and pedestrian counts on the  trails just southwest of the Castle  P14 I. Hallam Street/Castle Creek Feasibility Study Traffic Analysis   Technical Memorandum to Summarize Findings  January 21, 2016                                                                                                                                      Page 6       Creek bridge   Bicycle, pedestrian and bus transit counts on the Castle Creek bridge.     Automobile and bus traffic volumes are detailed on Figure 1 and Figure 4.  Significant  observations include:     Approximately 27,100 vehicles per day crossed the Castle Creek Bridge to/from  downtown Aspen during this July count period.  The posted speed limit in this area is 25  miles per hour.  The average speed was 20 miles per hour and the 85th percentile speed  was 24 to 26 miles per hour.  Again, the congested conditions on this high volume  roadway result in the relatively slow traffic speeds.   Between 15 and 22 RFTA buses travel across the Castle Creek Bridge in each direction  during the AM and PM peak hours of the day.   Approximately 25,700 vehicles (all motorized types) per day travel on SH 82 between  Cemetery Lane and the roundabout.  The posted speed limit in this vicinity is 35 miles  per hour.  The average speed of traffic was 22 to 23 miles per hour, while the 85th  percentile speed (the speed at which 85% of the traffic is traveling at or below) was 28  to 29 miles per hour.  The fact that the average and 85th percentile speeds are both  below the posted speed limit is unusual, and is due to the relatively high traffic volumes  and congested conditions that exist on this 2‐lane roadway.   Figure 4 includes a plot of the hourly directional traffic volume on Hallam Street crossing  the Castle Creek Bridge throughout the day.  This figure illustrates the higher up‐valley  traffic flow into Aspen in the morning,  and the higher down‐valley traffic flow  leaving Aspen in the afternoon.  This  data plot also illustrates the relatively  constant flow of traffic into and out of  Aspen across the bridge throughout the  day, which is why this 2‐lane bridge can  carry over 25,000 vehicles per day.   During the AM peak hour, the up‐valley  traffic flow crossing the bridge came to a  temporary stop 3 times, likely due to the  pedestrian crossing activity at the  Hallam/8th intersection.  The down‐ valley traffic flow came to a stop on the bridge 1 time.   During the PM peak hour, the high volume down‐valley traffic flow came to a temporary  stop on the bridge 7 times, likely due to congestion backing up from the Cemetery Lane  intersection and/or the roundabout intersection.    The peak hour traffic counts at all four study area intersections are illustrated on Figure  1.  P15 I. Hallam Street/Castle Creek Feasibility Study Traffic Analysis   Technical Memorandum to Summarize Findings  January 21, 2016                                                                                                                                      Page 7       Bicycle and pedestrian traffic volumes are detailed on Figure 2 and Figure 3.  Significant  observations include:     It was a rainy wet week during the period when the counts for this study were taken.   Using data from the City’s bicycle counter on the Castle Creek Bridge, it appears that the  bicycle and pedestrian counts collected for this study were approximately 40% lower  than typically occur1.  On this basis, the observed counts reported below have been  adjusted to represent better weather conditions.    Between 28 and 50 bicyclists were observed crossing the Castle Creek Bridge during the  AM and PM peak hours.  Nearly 90% of these bicyclists utilized the sidewalk on the north  side of the bridge (this is the sidewalk that is proposed to be widened and converted to a  separated path as part of the Loris plan).     During the AM peak hour, 20 pedestrians crossed the Castle Creek Bridge, with over 90%  using the north sidewalk.   Only 3 pedestrians were observed crossing the bridge during the PM peak hour.   During the AM peak hour, 10 pedestrians and 11 bicyclists were observed using the path  that is suspended beneath the west end of the Castle Creek Bridge.  During the PM peak  hour 7 pedestrians and 20 bicyclists were observed on this path.   During the AM peak hour, 18  pedestrians and 24 bicyclists  were observed on the path  that travels along the south  side of SH 82 near Cemetery  Lane (see Figure 3).  During  the PM peak hour, 11  pedestrians and 13 bicyclists  were observed on this same  path.   Approximately half of the pedestrians and bicyclists using these paths appeared to be  commuting, while the other half appeared to be traveling for recreation.  1 The City of Aspen maintains a bicycle counter on the west end of the north sidewalk on the Castle Creek  Bridge (see attached summary sheets).  On Thursday July 2nd, 372 bikes were counted.  On Saturday July  4th, 699 bikes were counted on the bridge.  On Tuesday July 7th (the day when observations on Figure 3  were recorded) only 208 bicycles were counted on the bridge.  It appears that bicycle traffic fluctuates  significantly from day to day crossing the bridge, and is likely dependent on weather conditions.  There  were approximately 40% more bicycles counted crossing the bridge during the week of June 22 (the week  before the busy July 4th week) than were counted during the wet weather week of July 6th when  observations for this study were made.  In this context, the bicycle observations reported above have been  inflated by 40% to represent a typical summer week in Aspen.  P16 I. Hallam Street/Castle Creek Feasibility Study Traffic Analysis   Technical Memorandum to Summarize Findings  January 21, 2016                                                                                                                                      Page 8        Approximately 25 to 40 pedestrians per hour use the pedestrian activated rectangular  rapid flash beacon (RRFB) to cross Hallam Street on the western leg of the 8th/Hallam  intersection.   No bicyclists were observed traveling on‐street around the curve through the Hallam/7th  intersection.   The City database indicates that approximately 30 bicycles per hour cross the bridge  during typical summertime peak hours of the day.  The daily bicycle traffic typically  ranges between 250 and 400 per day crossing the bridge.      Comparison to Historic Automobile Traffic (including 1993 upper limit goal from the FEIS)  The City of Aspen has maintained a monthly traffic count program at the entrance to Aspen in  this area, as illustrated on the attached summary sheet.  It is our understanding that there is a  goal to maintain the annual monthly average traffic volume at or below the Year 1993 traffic  level of 23,670 vehicles per month.  It is our understanding that this goal was originated in the  1997 State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and  reiterated in the 2007 System Management Technical Report for the State Highway 82 Entrance  to Aspen Environmental Reevaluation.  The goal specifically targeted maintaining Year 2015  traffic levels at or below those of 1993 (sometimes referenced as 1994)      Last year the monthly average of 22,188 vehicles per day met that goal, and it appears that  traffic in Year 2015 is on‐track to meet that goal as well.  This analysis has estimated the most  current average daily traffic to this point in 2015, using the most recent monthly traffic data  available for each month of the year, up to June of 2015.  This current annual monthly average is  estimated at 22,419 vehicles per day, which is below (approximately 94.7%) the 1993 traffic  level.       As noted above, we counted 27,100 vehicles per day on the Castle Creek Bridge, which is less  than last year’s monthly average of 27,286.  Again, it appears that the 2015 annual monthly  average will meet the community goal of staying below 1993 levels (note that the July count in  1993 was 28,540 vehicles per day.  A plot of the historic counts relative to the 1993 goal is also  attached for reference.        Level of Service Analysis at Key Intersections with Existing Traffic Volumes  This analysis has analyzed the existing AM and PM peak hour intersection level of service (LOS)  at the four study area intersections listed above. In determining the operational characteristics  of an intersection, “Levels of Service” A through F are applied, with LOS A indicating very good  operations and LOS F indicating congested operations.  The intersection LOS is represented as a  delay in seconds per vehicle for the intersection as a whole and for each turning movement.  A  P17 I. Hallam Street/Castle Creek Feasibility Study Traffic Analysis   Technical Memorandum to Summarize Findings  January 21, 2016                                                                                                                                      Page 9       more detailed discussion of LOS methodology is contained in the Appendix for reference based  on criteria contained in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)2 .    The existing peak hour intersection LOS for the four intersections is detailed in Table 1.  It can be  seen that the Hallam/7th and Hallam/8th intersections currently operate well at LOS A during the  AM and PM peak hours, although there is noticeable delay for traffic accessing the State  Highway from the side street.  The Smuggler/8th intersection also operates at LOS A in the AM  peak hour but drops to LOS D in the PM peak hour as over 500 vehicles use West Smuggler  Street to access Power Plant Road in the westbound direction as an alternative way to exit  Aspen.  Detailed LOS calculation sheets are attached for reference.    The traffic signal at Cemetery Lane and SH 82 currently operates at LOS C in the AM and LOS B in  the PM peak hour.  It should be noted that these calculated delays, and the resulting levels of  service are for the average vehicle during the peak period.  It was noted that there are currently  periods of congestion where rolling traffic queues in both directions extend across the Castle  Creek Bridge, with brief periods where the queues actually stop on the bridge.  This level of  congestion is as expected when a 2‐lane roadway carries over 25,000 vehicles per day.     As noted above, if a bus occupies the eastbound stop near 8th Street and a second bus arrives,  the current plan will allow that second bus to wait against the south curb in the bus lane just  prior the 8th Street intersection.  If this occurs while an eastbound automobile is waiting in the  through lane to turn left onto 8th Street, eastbound through traffic will be delayed.  This is a  concern because of the heavy westbound traffic flow that the left turning vehicle must cross to  clear the intersection.  The heavy westbound flow will limit the gaps in traffic and may cause the  left turning vehicle to have to wait for some time in the eastbound lane before making their  turn.  This could potentially cause eastbound traffic to back up across the bridge toward  Cemetery lane.  While this would only happen when a second bus is present at the eastbound  stop at the same time that an eastbound vehicle is waiting to turn left, it was noted as a  potential issue (a potential solution to this issue is described later in this memo).        To analyze the effect of this condition, we have modeled the Hallam/8th Street intersection with  and without a short hypothetical eastbound left turn lane.  The results are detailed in Table 1,  and it can be seen that the LOS model predicts only a marginal increase in overall delay at this  intersection when there is no left turn lane (or when there is no ability for the eastbound  through traffic to bypass a stopped left turning vehicle).  On this basis it does not appear that  this issue will create significant congestion on eastbound Hallam Street.  However, a potential  solution to consider is to shift the bus waiting area approximately 140 feet west from where it is  2 Highway Capacity Manual, Highway Research Board Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, 2010. Synchro v. 8 software utilized. P18 I. Hallam Street/Castle Creek Feasibility Study Traffic Analysis   Technical Memorandum to Summarize Findings  January 21, 2016                                                                                                                                      Page 10       currently shown on the Loris plan.  This will allow room for eastbound through traffic to bypass a  vehicle waiting to turn left onto 8th Avenue.       Level of Service Analysis at Key Intersections with Future/1993 Traffic Volumes  As noted above, the estimated current Year 2015 annual monthly average traffic is  approximately 94.7 percent of the historic 1993 traffic levels.  This analysis has calculated the  projected intersection LOS and delay at the study area intersections if traffic did increase to the  1993 level.  To complete this step, all existing peak hour traffic counts were increased by 5.6%  for the intersections along Hallam Street and the LOS was reevaluated.  The results are detailed  in Table 1.    It can be seen that the Hallam/7th and Hallam/8th unsignalized intersections would continue to  operate at LOS A with marginal increases in delay.  The Cemetery Lane signalized intersection  would also have small increases in delay, with the PM peak hour overall LOS dropping from B to  C.    Again it should be noted that the calculated congestion and delay at these intersections in this  corridor may not reflect the delay caused by conditions to the east or west of these study area  intersections on this heavily traveled roadway.      Comparison to Other Congested 2‐lane Roadways in Colorado  This project has compared the existing and historic traffic on SH 82 in this study are to other  congested 2‐lane roadways in other communities.  These comparisons help reinforce the fact  that 2‐lane roadways have an upper limit to their capacity to accommodate automobile traffic.   It also highlights the importance of implementing other multi‐modal enhancements to further  increase the mobility within a congested corridor.    This section of SH 82 where it has two through lanes crossing the Castle Creek Bridge had an  historic peak average annual daily traffic volume of 23,670 vehicles per day, with peak daily  traffic of approximately 28,500 vehicles.  Local transportation management efforts coupled with  the physical capacity limit of the roadway have resulted in the average annual daily traffic to  remain relatively constant or slightly decline over the past 23 years.  It should be noted that this  is one of the highest daily traffic volumes on a 2‐lane roadway that this author is aware of.    Another 2‐lane roadway with comparable daily traffic volume is Arapahoe Avenue in Boulder,  CO, which peaked at 28,000 vehicles per day in 2001 (see attached), and has declined to just  over 20,000 vehicles per day as a result of Boulder’s on‐going transportation demand  management efforts and related multi‐modal improvements.    P19 I. Hallam Street/Castle Creek Feasibility Study Traffic Analysis   Technical Memorandum to Summarize Findings  January 21, 2016                                                                                                                                      Page 11       A 2‐lane section of SH 7 on the east edge of Boulder currently carries 21,000 vehicles per day in  a commuting corridor (see attached).  CDOT growth projections indicate that the daily traffic  demand could increase to 28,000 vpd.  The City of Boulder and Boulder County are currently  working on the planning of bus rapid transit (BRT) improvements in this key regional corridor  that already has high frequency local transit service.  Numerous other bike, pedestrian and  transit facilities exist in this corridor and have helped mitigate the automobile demand.    A 2‐lane segment of SH 93 on the south edge of Boulder currently carries 17,000 vpd, and is  projected to increase to 19,000 vpd.  Currently there are limited multi‐modal improvements in  this area.    A 2‐lane segment of SH 9 between Frisco and Breckenridge currently carries 19,000 vehicles per  day, but most big intersections have been widened to include auxiliary through lanes resulting in  4 lanes of capacity.  CDOT predicts that the traffic on this roadway will increase to 24,000 vpd.   This corridor currently has regional transit and bicycle facilities.    In summary, SH 82 and the Castle Creek Bridge on the entrance to Aspen is one of the highest  volume 2‐lane roadways in Colorado.  It has effectively reached its functional capacity to process  automobile traffic, and future mobility enhancements will need to rely on alternative travel  modes.       Review of Proposed Project Configuration and Geometry and Discussion of Potential Issues  The proposed Castle Creek/Hallam Street Connectivity Plan (the Loris plan) has been described in  detail above and illustrated on the attached materials.  The appropriateness of the key  geometric components of the plan is discussed below by topic, and recommendations are  included as warranted:    Roadway lane widths:  The plan calls for narrowing travel lane widths to 11 feet with a 2 foot shoulder on the Castle  Creek Bridge next to the new multi‐use path.  Other travel lane widths in the corridor are  proposed in the 11 foot to 13 foot range.  These lane widths comply with current CDOT and  AASHTO standards, and are still wide enough so that they will not compromise corridor traffic  speed or capacity, particularly considering the low travel speeds that exist in the area.  The large  RFTA buses and construction vehicles in the corridor will be easily and safely accommodated by  the proposed lane widths.    Multi‐use path widths:  Adding the multi‐use path to this corridor should increase the amount of bicycle and pedestrian  traffic that crosses the bridge to/from Aspen.  In a multi‐modal context, this new path will help  maximize person trip mobility in the area.  The proposed design, with an 8 foot path on the  P20 I. Hallam Street/Castle Creek Feasibility Study Traffic Analysis   Technical Memorandum to Summarize Findings  January 21, 2016                                                                                                                                      Page 12       bridge and a 10 foot wide path north and south of the bridge, is an appropriate design given the  physical constraint of the existing bridge width.      It is difficult to project the increase in bicycle and pedestrian traffic that will utilize the new  multi‐use path, but with a summertime daily average between 250 and 400 bicycles per day and  approximately 30 in the peak hours of the day there will be room to increase the utility of the  new path by both bicyclists and pedestrians.   Pedestrian crossings:  The relocation of the pedestrian crossing on Hallam Street to the east crosswalk of the 8th Street  intersection will improve the utility of this crossing for those accessing transit at the adjacent  stop.  The relocated crossing with its RRFBs will also help provide a gap in westbound traffic for  those vehicles turning from eastbound Hallam St. onto northbound 8th Street.    The enhanced multi‐use path crossings on 7th Street and 8th Street should increase the visibility  of these crossings and improve the safety for bicyclists and pedestrians using the path.    Geometry at the curve from Hallam Street to 7th Street:  We have reviewed the proposed geometry of the Hallam/7th Street intersection and have also  modeled the turning paths in AUTOTURN through this intersection for the largest RFTA buses  (dimensions provided by RFTA staff).  The result is illustrated on Figure 5.  On this basis we  would recommend:   Remove the neckdown or curb extension on the northwest corner of the intersection to  allow the left turning northbound to westbound buses more room for maneuvering.  This  will also require realigning the multi‐use path and new enhanced crosswalk in this area.   This will result in a slightly diagonal crosswalk across 7th Street if the location of the east  end of the crosswalk remains as currently illustrated on the plan.    Increase the width of the large curve from eastbound to southbound to allow more room  for maneuvering buses.  This can be achieved by holding the existing southwest curbline  though this curve, before transitioning back to the proposed curbline to the south of the  curve.  These adjustments will allow the largest RFTA buses and any construction vehicles to continue to  move efficiently through this curving intersection.     Bus stop placement and configuration:  The eastbound bus stop on the south edge of Hallam Street is adjacent to the 8th Street  intersection.  The bus stop typically serves only one RFTA bus at a time and RFTA staff has  indicated that there is no plan to require or schedule two buses to occupy this stop at the same  time.  As noted above, the Loris Connectivity Study plan drawings illustrate a bus queuing area  against the south curb of Hallam Street immediately west of the 8th Street intersection (see  attached Loris plan view drawing).  At this location there is only a single eastbound lane on SH 82  which must serve both eastbound through and left turning vehicles.   If two buses do end up  P21 I. Hallam Street/Castle Creek Feasibility Study Traffic Analysis   Technical Memorandum to Summarize Findings  January 21, 2016                                                                                                                                      Page 13       occupying the bus stop at the same time while an eastbound automobile stops in traffic to turn  left onto northbound 8th Street, this unlikely or unusual combination has the potential to cause  eastbound traffic to back up.   If this were to become problematic the bus queuing area  illustrated on the Loris plan drawing should be shifted approximately 140 feet west.  The second  bus arriving could queue there until the first bus clears the stop.  With the second bus queued  farther west, the through automobile traffic could bypass a vehicle waiting to turn left onto 8th  street and eastbound traffic backups will be avoided.  Landscaping:  During the site inspection for this study it was observed that the existing vegetation is  overgrown in some areas and should be trimmed back to ensure visibility of traffic control  devices and to provide adequate sight lines at intersections.  Examples include the northwest  corner at Hallam/8th , the southwest corner inside the curve at Hallam/7th, and the southwest  corner at West Smuggler/8th.    The proposed plan will improve sightlines along the north side of Hallam Street where the multi‐ use path will have more room to bypass large existing trees and the roadway edge will be moved  to the south.    As always, any new vegetation should be located and maintained so as to not restrict  intersection sight lines.        I hope this technical memorandum with its analysis and recommendations is helpful to the City  of Aspen in the planning for the multi‐modal improvements along this segment of SH 82 as it  crosses Castle Creek.        WCF/  Attachments:  LOS Table 1     Multi‐modal traffic count Figures 1 – 4     Bus Turning at Hallam Street and 7th Street     Bicycle count summary     Historic automobile traffic count data     Misc. Loris plan and section views     Traffic count data from other congested roadways     LOS Definitions     LOS calculation sheets        P22 I. FT H # 1 5 0 1 9 As p e n S H 8 2 M u l t i - P a t h E v a l u a t i o n 9/22/2015 In t e r s e c t i o n a n d A M P e a k P M P e a k A M P e a k P M P e a k A M P e a k P M P ea k A M P e a k P M P e a k La n e s G r o u p s D e l a y L O S D e l a y L O S D e l a y L O S D e l a y L O S D e l a y L O S D e l a y L O S D e l a y L O S D e l a y L O S ST O P S I G N C O N T R O L Ha l l a m S t ( S H 8 2 ) a n d 8 t h S t 0 . 2 A 2. 2 A 0. 7 A 3. 1 A 0. 3 A 2. 8 A 0.8 A 3.9 A E a s t b o u n d L e f t 8. 8 A 1 2 . 7 B 9 . 0 A 1 3 . 3 B E a s t b o u n d T h r o u g h 0. 0 A 0 . 0 A 0 . 0 A 0 . 0 A E a s t b o u n d L e f t + T h r o u g h 0. 9 A 2 . 8 A 1 . 1 A 3 . 4 A W e s t b o u n d T h r o u g h + R i g h t 0. 0 A 0 . 0 A 0 . 0 A 0 . 0 A 0 . 0 A 0 . 0 A 0 . 0 A 0 . 0 A S o u t h b o u n d L e f t + R i g h t 15 . 8 C 5 0 . 1 F 15 . 9 C 5 0 . 2 F 16 . 6 C 6 4 . 6 F 16.5 C 6 4 . 8 F Ha l l a m S t ( S H 8 2 ) a n d 7 t h S t 1 . 0 A 0. 4 A 1. 2 A 0. 4 A E a s t b o u n d L e f t 8. 7 A 1 0 . 0 A 8 . 8 A 1 0 . 2 B E a s t b o u n d R i g h t 0. 0 A 0 . 0 A 0 . 0 A 0 . 0 A N o r t h b o u n d L e f t + T h r o u g h 0. 0 A 0 . 0 A 0 . 0 A 0 . 0 A S o u t h b o u n d T h r o u g h + R i g h t 43 . 4 E 24 . 1 C 5 2 . 0 F 26 . 0 D 8t h S t a n d W e s t S m u g g l e r S t 8 . 0 A 28 . 2 D E a s t b o u n d L e f t + T h r o u g h + R i g h t 8. 3 A 9 . 1 A W e s t b o u n d L e f t + T h r o u g h + R i g h t 7. 4 A 3 5 . 7 E No r t h b o u n d L e f t +Th r o u g h +Ri g h t 7. 3 A 9. 8 A Ta b l e 1 - I n t e r s e c t i o n L e v e l o f S e r v i c e S u m m a r y Ex i s t i n g w i t h o u t E B L e f t - T u r n a t 8t h S t r e e t Ex i s t i n g F u t u r e / 1 9 9 3 L e v e l Future / 1993 Level without EB Left-Turn at 8th Street No r t h b o u n d Le f t T h r o u g h R i g h t 7. 3 A 9. 8 A S o u t h b o u n d L e f t + T h r o u g h + R i g h t 7. 3 A 9 . 7 A SI G N A L C O N T R O L Ha l l a m S t ( S H 8 2 ) a n d C e m e t e r y L n 2 6 . 2 C 1 7 . 7 B 3 2 . 6 C 2 2 . 4 C E a s t b o u n d L e f t 12 . 6 B 4 4 . 7 D 1 3 . 4 B 6 6 . 3 E E a s t b o u n d T h r o u g h 30 . 3 C 5 . 6 A 4 0 . 3 D 6 . 0 A W e s t b o u n d T h r o u g h 30 . 1 C 2 4 . 6 C 3 5 . 5 D 3 2 . 9 C W e s t b o u n d R i g h t 11 . 7 B 4 . 6 A 1 1 . 8 B 4 . 6 A S o u t h b o u n d L e f t 20 . 6 C 6 9 . 6 E 21 . 0 C 7 0 . 9 E S o u t h b o u n d R i g h t 0. 1 A 0 . 3 A 0 . 1 A 0 . 3 A No t e : D e l a y r e p r e s e n t e d i n av e r a g e s e c o n d s p e r v e h i c l e . 15019-LOS_v2 P23I. FT P r o j e c t # O r i g i n a l S c a l e D a t e D r a w n b y F i g u r e # op u r Tr a n s p o r G n o i t t a SH 82 MULTI-USE PATH EVALUATION 20 1 5 E X I S T I N G V E H I C L E A N D B U S V O L U M E S 15 0 1 9 N T S 7 / 1 6 / 1 5 C R S 1 P24I. FT P r o j e c t # O r i g i n a l S c a l e D a t e D r a w n b y F i g u r e # op u r Tr a n s p o r G n o i t t a SH 82 MULTI-USE PATH EVALUATION 20 1 5 E X I S T I N G B I C Y C L I S T A N D P E D E S T R I A N V O L U M E S 15 0 1 9 N T S 7 / 1 6 / 1 5 C R S 2 P25I. FT P r o j e c t # O r i g i n a l S c a l e D a t e D r a w n b y F i g u r e # op u r Tr a n s p o r G n o i t t a SH 82 MULTI-USE PATH EVALUATION 20 1 5 E X I S T I N G B I C Y C L I S T A N D P E D E S T R I A N V O L U M E S 15 0 1 9 NT S 7/ 2 1 / 1 5 C R S 3 P26I. 0 50 0 1, 0 0 0 1, 5 0 0 2, 0 0 0 2, 5 0 0 EB  Tr a f f i c  (Up  Valley) WB  Tr a f f i c  (Down  Valley) To t a l Fi g u r e  4 Ho u r l y  Tr a f f i c  To  an d  Fr o m  As p e n  on  SH  82  Cr o s s i n g  Ca s t l e  Cr e e k  Br i d g e Ju l y  8,  20 1 5        27 , 0 5 3  ve h i c l e s p e r  da y V e h i c l e s   P e r   H o u r 0 Ti m e  of  Da y P27I. FT Project # O r i g i n a l S c a l e D a t e D r a w n b y F i g u r e 5 o p u r T r a n s p o rGnoitta15019 1 " = 3 0 ' 9 / 1 0 / 1 5 S G T 5 H A L L A M S T R E E T / C A S T L E C R E E K B R I D G E C O N N E C T I V I T Y B U S A U T O T U R N A T H A L L A M S T R E E T & 7 T H S T R E E T P 2 8 I . 21/07/2015 1 /3 COA_Black Period Analyzed:Friday 01 May 2015 to Tuesday 14 July 2015 GPS coordinates not filled-in. You can enter GPS coordinates in the counter's Eco-Visio file. No picture available. You can add a picture Key Figures • Total Traffic for the Period Analyzed: 12,525 • Daily Average : 167 • Monthly Average: 5,083 • Busiest Day of the Week : Tuesday • Busiest Days of the Period Analysed: 1. Saturday 04 July 2015 (699) 2. Tuesday 30 June 2015 (382) 3. Thursday 02 July 2015 (372) • Distribution by Direction: COA_Black_IN : 55% COA_Black_OUT : 45% P 2 9 I . 21/07/2015 3 /3 COA_Black Period Analyzed:Friday 01 May 2015 to Tuesday 14 July 2015 Weekly Traffic Weekly Profile Hourly Profile during Weekdays Hourly Profile during the Weekend P 3 0 I . Ci t y o f A s p e n T r a f f i c C o u n t s Ci t y o f A s p e n - M o n t h l y T r a f f i c C o u n t P r o g r a m - A c c e s s i n g t h e C i t y o n S H 8 2 MO N T H L Y 1 9 9 3 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 4 2 0 0 5 2 0 0 6 2 0 0 7 2 0 0 8 2 0 0 9 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 3 2 0 1 4 2 0 1 5 2 0 1 5 % 2 0 1 5 % AA D T vs 1 9 9 3 v s 1 9 9 3 v s 2 0 1 4 v s 2 0 1 4 JA N 23 , 8 0 0 2 2 , 8 2 7 2 2 , 9 4 5 2 2 , 8 3 7 2 3 , 8 1 6 2 4 , 3 9 8 2 0 , 5 8 8 2 3 , 3 8 7 2 2 , 5 8 4 2 1 , 7 4 5 2 1 , 2 5 4 2 1 , 9 9 4 2 2 , 6 0 7 2 3 , 8 5 9 2 2 , 9 5 6 n o d a t a FE B 24 , 3 0 0 2 3 , 9 3 2 2 3 , 2 0 7 2 3 , 6 9 4 2 3 , 4 0 0 2 4 , 1 6 2 2 2 , 3 5 6 2 3 , 0 0 0 2 2 , 4 4 9 2 1 , 1 3 1 2 0 , 7 3 0 2 1 , 3 7 6 2 1 , 6 8 4 2 2 , 0 7 7 2 2 , 4 0 5 2 2 , 8 0 4 - 1 , 4 9 6 - 6 . 2 % 3 9 9 1 . 8 % MA R 24 , 8 0 0 2 4 , 7 5 2 2 3 , 8 2 2 2 3 , 8 1 2 2 5 , 4 1 7 2 5 , 8 9 2 2 3 , 6 1 8 2 3 , 9 2 7 2 3 , 1 7 1 2 1 , 9 6 7 2 3 , 8 5 2 2 2 , 3 8 4 2 2 , 4 3 6 2 2 , 7 4 2 2 3 , 4 3 2 2 4 , 2 8 5 - 5 1 5 - 2 . 1 % 8 5 3 3 . 6 % AP R 18 , 8 0 0 1 9 , 4 4 3 1 9 , 9 0 0 1 9 , 7 8 9 1 8 , 9 2 1 1 9 , 4 2 0 1 8 , 2 6 4 1 8 , 9 9 3 1 8 , 8 8 2 1 9 , 1 7 7 1 8 , 4 0 5 n o d a t a 1 7 , 1 3 4 1 7 , 4 2 5 1 7 , 8 8 3 1 9 , 1 6 3 3 6 3 1 . 9 % 1 , 2 8 0 7 . 2 % MA Y 19 , 3 0 0 1 8 , 9 2 9 1 9 , 3 1 0 1 8 , 8 3 7 1 8 , 9 2 4 1 9 , 0 2 1 1 8 , 0 5 1 1 8 , 5 3 0 1 7 , 8 1 3 1 7 , 3 9 2 1 7 , 8 7 8 1 7 , 8 7 4 1 9 , 0 7 7 1 7 , 6 6 2 1 7 , 3 9 6 1 7 , 2 0 8 - 2 , 0 9 2 - 1 0 . 8 % - 1 8 8 - 1 . 1 % JU N 26 , 2 0 0 2 3 , 7 1 9 2 3 , 6 1 8 2 5 , 0 0 3 2 5 , 6 5 0 2 5 , 0 9 7 2 2 , 5 5 2 2 3 , 9 4 0 2 3 , 2 7 9 2 2 , 8 7 7 2 2 , 7 0 1 2 2 , 7 2 4 2 5 , 1 2 4 2 2 , 9 6 6 2 3 , 8 8 4 2 4 , 9 9 3 - 1 , 2 0 7 - 4 . 6 % 1 , 1 0 9 4 . 6 % JU L 28 , 5 4 0 2 7 , 3 2 5 28 , 7 7 7 29 , 2 8 5 2 9 , 2 7 8 2 9 , 5 4 4 2 6 , 1 6 5 2 7 , 1 9 3 2 6 , 1 8 7 2 5 , 9 5 0 2 6 , 5 3 8 2 5 , 8 4 9 2 6 , 2 4 5 2 6 , 7 8 5 2 7 , 2 8 6 AU G 28 , 6 0 0 2 6 , 2 3 7 2 7 , 4 9 7 2 7 , 3 9 1 2 7 , 9 5 2 2 7 , 9 9 8 2 4 , 2 3 3 2 6 , 1 7 1 2 4 , 3 7 5 2 3 , 3 7 4 2 4 , 7 6 3 2 4 , 7 5 5 2 5 , 0 7 7 2 6 , 1 4 1 2 5 , 0 8 1 SE P T 24 , 0 0 0 2 1 , 7 6 3 2 2 , 3 9 6 2 2 , 2 3 1 2 3 , 8 7 9 2 3 , 7 9 6 n o d a t a * 2 2 , 0 6 8 2 1 , 1 5 1 n o d a t a * 2 1 , 9 0 1 2 1 , 5 9 0 2 1 , 0 8 0 2 1 , 4 2 8 2 2 , 0 3 3 OC T 20 , 5 0 0 1 9 , 9 2 1 1 9 , 9 6 9 1 9 , 8 6 6 2 0 , 5 2 1 2 0 , 3 7 1 n o d a t a * 1 9 , 5 7 6 1 9 , 6 4 0 n o d a t a * 1 8 , 3 5 0 1 8 , 1 8 9 1 8 , 8 7 3 1 9 , 0 2 4 1 9 , 5 1 9 NO V 20 , 0 0 0 1 8 , 4 3 0 n o d a t a * 1 8 , 2 2 0 1 9 , 6 5 2 1 8 , 8 9 2 n o d a t a * 1 9 , 0 7 6 1 7 , 9 3 0 n o d a t a * 1 7 , 8 5 3 1 7 , 5 3 1 1 8 , 9 1 0 n o d a t a n o d a t a DE C 25 , 2 0 0 2 2 , 3 9 4 n o d a t a * 2 2 , 8 8 0 2 4 , 8 8 2 2 2 , 4 4 9 2 2 , 5 6 7 2 1 , 9 8 3 2 1 , 0 3 8 2 0 , 3 7 6 2 1 , 9 8 6 2 3 , 0 4 9 2 4 , 7 8 8 n o d a t a n o d a t a AN N U A L MO N T H L Y TO T A L 28 4 , 0 4 0 2 6 9 , 6 7 2 2 3 1 , 4 4 1 2 7 3 , 8 4 5 2 8 2 , 2 9 2 2 8 1 , 0 4 0 1 9 8 , 3 9 4 2 6 7 , 8 4 4 2 5 8 , 4 9 9 1 9 3 , 9 8 9 2 5 6 , 2 1 1 2 3 7 , 3 1 5 2 6 3 , 0 3 5 2 2 0 , 1 0 9 2 2 1 , 8 7 5 1 0 8 , 4 5 3 AN N U A L MO N T H L Y AV E R A G E 23 , 6 7 0 2 2 , 4 7 3 2 3 , 1 4 4 2 2 , 8 2 0 2 3 , 5 2 4 2 3 , 4 2 0 2 2 , 0 4 4 2 2 , 3 2 0 2 1 , 5 4 2 2 1 , 5 5 4 2 1 , 3 5 1 2 1 , 5 7 4 2 1 , 9 2 0 2 2 , 0 1 1 2 2 , 1 8 8 2 1 , 6 9 1 6 M O TO T A L 13 7 , 2 0 0 1 3 3 , 6 0 2 1 3 2 , 8 0 2 1 3 3 , 9 7 2 1 3 6 , 1 2 8 1 3 7 , 9 9 0 1 2 5 , 4 2 9 1 3 1 , 7 7 7 1 2 8 , 1 7 8 1 2 4 , 2 8 9 1 2 4 , 8 2 0 1 0 6 , 3 5 2 1 2 8 , 0 6 2 1 2 6 , 7 3 1 1 2 7 , 9 5 6 1 0 8 , 4 5 3 6 M O A V G 22 , 8 6 7 2 2 , 2 6 7 2 2 , 1 3 4 2 2 , 3 2 9 2 2 , 6 8 8 2 2 , 9 9 8 2 0 , 9 0 5 2 1 , 9 6 3 2 1 , 3 6 3 2 0 , 7 1 5 2 0 , 8 0 3 2 1 , 2 7 0 2 1 , 3 4 4 2 1 , 1 2 2 2 1 , 3 2 6 2 1 , 6 9 1 - 1 , 1 7 6 - 5 . 1 % 3 6 5 1 . 7 % T h e n u m b e r s h i g h l i g h t e d i n y e l l o w m e a n t h a t t h e y e x c e e d e d t h e 1 9 9 3 l e v e l s Th e n u m b e r s h i g h l i g h t e d i n g r e e n m e a n t h a t t h e y e x c e e d e d t h e 2 0 1 3 l e v e l s P31I. 22 , 0 0 0 22 , 5 0 0 23 , 0 0 0 23 , 5 0 0 24 , 0 0 0 24 , 5 0 0 25 , 0 0 0 Ci t y  of  As p e n Hi s t o r i c  Tr a f f i c  Co u n t s  19 9 3  ‐ 20 1 5 Ac c e s s i n g  th e  Ci t y  on  SH  82 20 , 0 0 0 20 , 5 0 0 21 , 0 0 0 21 , 5 0 0 20 0 1 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 4 2 0 0 5 2 0 0 6 2 0 0 7 2 0 0 8 2 0 0 9 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 3 2 0 1 4 2 0 1 5 20 0 1 ‐20 1 5 19 9 3  AA D T  & CO M M U N I T Y  GO A L P32I. CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ~ AUGUST 19, 2015 P 3 3 I . CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ~ AUGUST 19, 2015 P 3 4 I . CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ~ AUGUST 19, 2015 S O U T H NORTH S O U T H NO R T H S O U T H NO R T H P 3 5 I . CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ~ AUGUST 19, 2015 P 3 6 I . CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ~ AUGUST 19, 2015 P 3 7 I . P38I. P39I. P40 I. P41 I. P42 I. LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS      In rating roadway and intersection operating conditions with existing or future traffic  volumes, “Levels of Service” (LOS) A through F are used, with LOS A indicating very good  operation and LOS F indicating poor operation.  Levels of service at signalized and  unsignalized intersections are closely associated with vehicle delays experienced in  seconds per vehicle.  More complete level of service definitions and delay data for signal  and stop sign controlled intersections are contained in the following table for reference.      Level   of Service   Rating    Delay in seconds per vehicle (a)   Definition   Signalized    Unsignalized    A    0.0 to 10.0    0.0 to 10.0  Low vehicular traffic volumes; primarily free flow operations.  Density is  low and vehicles can freely maneuver within the traffic stream.  Drivers  are able to maintain their desired speeds with little or no delay.    B    10.1 to 20.0    10.1 to 15.0  Stable vehicular traffic volume flow with potential for some restriction  of operating speeds due to traffic conditions.  Vehicle maneuvering is  only slightly restricted.  The stopped delays are not bothersome and  drivers are not subject to appreciable tension.    C    20.1 to 35.0    15.1 to 25.0  Stable traffic operations, however the ability for vehicles to maneuver is  more restricted by the increase in traffic volumes.  Relatively satisfactory  operating speeds prevail, but adverse signal coordination or longer  vehicle queues cause delays along the corridor.    D    35.1 to 55.0    25.1 to 35.0  Approaching unstable vehicular traffic flow where small increases in  volume could cause substantial delays.  Most drivers are restricted in  ability to maneuver and selection of travel speeds due to congestion.   Driver comfort and convenience are low, but tolerable.    E    55.1 to 80.0    35.1 to 50.0  Traffic operations characterized by significant approach delays and  average travel speeds of one‐half to one‐third the free flow speed.   Vehicular flow is unstable and there is potential for stoppages of brief  duration.  High signal density, extensive vehicle queuing, or corridor  signal progression/timing are the typical causes of vehicle delays at  signalized corridors.    F    > 80.0    > 50.0  Forced vehicular traffic flow and operations with high approach delays  at critical intersections.  Vehicle speeds are reduced substantially and  stoppages may occur for short or long periods of time because of  downstream congestion.  (a)  Delay ranges based on 2010 Highway Capacity Manual criteria.  P43 I. HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Hallam & 8th 9/10/2015 8th and Hallam existing AM 9/3/2015 existing AM Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 25 1032 509 4 1 10 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 27 1122 553 4 1 11 Pedestrians 19 19 19 Lane Width (ft) 11.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 2 2 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 577 1770 593 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 577 1770 593 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 97 99 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 981 86 490 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 27 1122 558 12 Volume Left 27 0 0 1 Volume Right 0 0 4 11 cSH 981 1700 1700 344 Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.66 0.33 0.03 Queue Length 95th (ft)2003 Control Delay (s) 8.8 0.0 0.0 15.8 Lane LOS A C Approach Delay (s) 0.2 0.0 15.8 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.0% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 P44 I. HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Hallam & 8th 9/10/2015 8th and Hallam existing PM 9/3/2015 existing PM Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 41 821 1191 10 2 81 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 45 892 1295 11 2 88 Pedestrians 19 19 19 Lane Width (ft) 11.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 2 2 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1324 2320 1338 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1324 2320 1338 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 91 94 51 cM capacity (veh/h) 513 37 181 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 45 892 1305 90 Volume Left 45 0 0 2 Volume Right 0 0 11 88 cSH 513 1700 1700 166 Volume to Capacity 0.09 0.52 0.77 0.54 Queue Length 95th (ft) 7 0 0 69 Control Delay (s) 12.7 0.0 0.0 50.1 Lane LOS B F Approach Delay (s) 0.6 0.0 50.1 Approach LOS F Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 79.9% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 P45 I. HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Hallam & 8th 9/10/2015 8th and Hallam existing AM no left turn 9/3/2015 existing AM no left turn Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 25 1032 509 4 1 10 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 27 1122 553 4 1 11 Pedestrians 19 19 19 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 2 2 2 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 577 1770 593 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 577 1770 593 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 97 99 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 981 86 489 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 1149 558 12 Volume Left 27 0 1 Volume Right 0 4 11 cSH 981 1700 344 Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.33 0.03 Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 0 3 Control Delay (s) 0.9 0.0 15.9 Lane LOS A C Approach Delay (s) 0.9 0.0 15.9 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 89.1% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 P46 I. HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Hallam & 8th 9/3/2015 8th and Hallam existing PM no left turn lane 9/3/2015 existing PM no left turn lane Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 41 821 1191 10 2 81 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 45 892 1295 11 2 88 Pedestrians 19 19 19 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 2 2 2 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1324 2320 1338 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1324 2320 1338 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 91 94 51 cM capacity (veh/h) 513 37 181 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 937 1305 90 Volume Left 45 0 2 Volume Right 0 11 88 cSH 513 1700 165 Volume to Capacity 0.09 0.77 0.55 Queue Length 95th (ft) 7 0 69 Control Delay (s) 2.8 0.0 50.2 Lane LOS A F Approach Delay (s) 2.8 0.0 50.2 Approach LOS F Intersection Summary Average Delay 3.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 93.2% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 P47 I. HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Hallam & 8th 9/10/2015 8th and Hallam future AM 9/3/2015 future AM Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 26 1090 538 4 1 11 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 28 1185 585 4 1 12 Pedestrians 19 19 19 Lane Width (ft) 11.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 2 2 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 608 1866 625 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 608 1866 625 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 97 99 97 cM capacity (veh/h) 955 75 470 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 28 1185 589 13 Volume Left 28 0 0 1 Volume Right 0 0 4 12 cSH 955 1700 1700 327 Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.70 0.35 0.04 Queue Length 95th (ft)2003 Control Delay (s) 8.9 0.0 0.0 16.5 Lane LOS A C Approach Delay (s) 0.2 0.0 16.5 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.1% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 P48 I. HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Hallam & 8th 9/10/2015 8th and Hallam future PM 9/3/2015 future PM Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 43 867 1258 11 2 86 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 47 942 1367 12 2 93 Pedestrians 19 19 19 Lane Width (ft) 11.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 2 2 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1398 2447 1411 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1398 2447 1411 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 90 93 43 cM capacity (veh/h) 481 30 164 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 47 942 1379 96 Volume Left 47 0 0 2 Volume Right 0 0 12 93 cSH 481 1700 1700 149 Volume to Capacity 0.10 0.55 0.81 0.64 Queue Length 95th (ft) 8 0 0 88 Control Delay (s) 13.3 0.0 0.0 64.6 Lane LOS B F Approach Delay (s) 0.6 0.0 64.6 Approach LOS F Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 83.7% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 P49 I. HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Hallam & 8th 9/10/2015 8th and Hallam future AM no left turn 9/3/2015 future AM no left turn Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 26 1090 538 4 1 11 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 28 1185 585 4 1 12 Pedestrians 19 19 19 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 2 2 2 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 608 1866 625 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 608 1866 625 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 97 99 97 cM capacity (veh/h) 955 75 470 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 1213 589 13 Volume Left 28 0 1 Volume Right 0 4 12 cSH 955 1700 326 Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.35 0.04 Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 0 3 Control Delay (s) 1.1 0.0 16.5 Lane LOS A C Approach Delay (s) 1.1 0.0 16.5 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 93.0% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 P50 I. HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Hallam & 8th 9/10/2015 8th and Hallam future PM no left turn lane 9/3/2015 future PM no left turn lane Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 43 867 1258 11 2 86 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 47 942 1367 12 2 93 Pedestrians 19 19 19 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 2 2 2 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1398 2447 1411 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1398 2447 1411 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 90 93 43 cM capacity (veh/h) 481 30 164 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 989 1379 96 Volume Left 47 0 2 Volume Right 0 12 93 cSH 481 1700 149 Volume to Capacity 0.10 0.81 0.64 Queue Length 95th (ft) 8 0 88 Control Delay (s) 3.4 0.0 64.8 Lane LOS A F Approach Delay (s) 3.4 0.0 64.8 Approach LOS F Intersection Summary Average Delay 3.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 97.4% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 P51 I. HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Hallam & 7th 9/10/2015 7th and Hallam existing AM 9/3/2015 existing AM Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 22 1048 527 12 21 14 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 24 1139 573 13 23 15 Pedestrians 11 11 Lane Width (ft) 11.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 586 1777 590 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 586 1777 590 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 98 74 97 cM capacity (veh/h) 989 88 503 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 24 1139 586 38 Volume Left 24 0 0 23 Volume Right 0 0 13 15 cSH 989 1700 1700 131 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.67 0.34 0.29 Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 0 0 28 Control Delay (s) 8.7 0.0 0.0 43.4 Lane LOS A E Approach Delay (s) 0.2 0.0 43.4 Approach LOS E Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 P52 I. HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Hallam & 7th 9/10/2015 7th and Hallam existing PM 9/3/2015 existing PM Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 39 932 805 8 2 11 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 42 1013 875 9 2 12 Pedestrians 9 9 Lane Width (ft) 11.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 884 1986 888 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 884 1986 888 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 94 97 96 cM capacity (veh/h) 766 63 340 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 42 1013 884 14 Volume Left 42 0 0 2 Volume Right 0 0 9 12 cSH 766 1700 1700 203 Volume to Capacity 0.06 0.60 0.52 0.07 Queue Length 95th (ft)4006 Control Delay (s) 10.0 0.0 0.0 24.1 Lane LOS A C Approach Delay (s) 0.4 0.0 24.1 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.6% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 P53 I. HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Hallam & 7th 9/10/2015 7th and Hallam future AM 9/3/2015 future AM Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 23 1107 556 13 22 15 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 25 1203 604 14 24 16 Pedestrians 11 11 Lane Width (ft) 11.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 618 1876 622 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 618 1876 622 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 97 69 97 cM capacity (veh/h) 962 76 482 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 25 1203 618 40 Volume Left 25 0 0 24 Volume Right 0 0 14 16 cSH 962 1700 1700 115 Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.71 0.36 0.35 Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 0 0 35 Control Delay (s) 8.8 0.0 0.0 52.0 Lane LOS A F Approach Delay (s) 0.2 0.0 52.0 Approach LOS F Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.3% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 P54 I. HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Hallam & 7th 9/10/2015 7th and Hallam future PM 9/3/2015 future PM Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 41 984 850 8 2 12 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 45 1070 924 9 2 13 Pedestrians 9 9 Lane Width (ft) 11.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 933 2096 937 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 933 2096 937 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 94 96 96 cM capacity (veh/h) 734 53 319 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 45 1070 933 15 Volume Left 45 0 0 2 Volume Right 0 0 9 13 cSH 734 1700 1700 186 Volume to Capacity 0.06 0.63 0.55 0.08 Queue Length 95th (ft)5007 Control Delay (s) 10.2 0.0 0.0 26.0 Lane LOS B D Approach Delay (s) 0.4 0.0 26.0 Approach LOS D Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.4% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 P55 I. HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: 8th Street & :HVW6PXJJOHU6WUHHW 9/10/2015 15019_Aspen SH 82 Multi-Use Path Evaluation 8/31/2015 2015 Existing Synchro 8 Report Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph)6 107 3 3 13 0 1 9 14 1 3 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.50 0.50 0.50 Hourly flow rate (vph) 11 191 5 5 23 0 1 12 19 2 6 2 Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total (vph)207 29 32 10 Volume Left (vph)11 5 1 2 Volume Right (vph)5 0 19 2 Hadj (s)0.03 0.07 -0.31 -0.05 Departure Headway (s) 4.1 4.3 4.1 4.4 Degree Utilization, x 0.23 0.03 0.04 0.01 Capacity (veh/h) 875 825 820 762 Control Delay (s)8.3 7.4 7.3 7.5 Approach Delay (s)8.3 7.4 7.3 7.5 Approach LOS AAAA Intersection Summary Delay 8.0 HCM Level of Service A Intersection Capacity Utilization 17.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 P56 I. HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: 8th Street &:HVW6PXJJOHU6WUHHW 9/10/2015 15019_Aspen SH 82 Multi-Use Path Evaluation 8/31/2015 2015 Existing with Left at 8th Synchro 8 Report Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph)6 32 1 125 509 2 5 7 57 1 25 31 Peak Hour Factor 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.64 0.64 0.64 Hourly flow rate (vph) 11 60 2 137 559 2 8 12 97 2 39 48 Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total (vph)74 699 117 89 Volume Left (vph)11 137 8 2 Volume Right (vph)2 2 97 48 Hadj (s)0.05 0.07 -0.45 -0.29 Departure Headway (s) 5.5 4.7 5.5 5.8 Degree Utilization, x 0.11 0.91 0.18 0.14 Capacity (veh/h) 631 759 619 591 Control Delay (s)9.1 35.7 9.8 9.7 Approach Delay (s)9.1 35.7 9.8 9.7 Approach LOS AEAA Intersection Summary Delay 28.2 HCM Level of Service D Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 P57 I. HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Hallam Street (SH 82) & Cemetery Lane 9/10/2015 15019_Aspen SH 82 Multi-Use Path Evaluation 8/31/2015 2015 Existing Synchro 8 Report Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group Page 1 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 54 950 464 53 153 104 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1863 1863 1550 1770 1583 Flt Permitted 0.13 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 240 1863 1863 1550 1770 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 0.69 0.69 0.75 0.75 Adj. Flow (vph) 55 969 672 77 204 139 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 27 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 55 969 672 50 204 139 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 1 Turn Type pm+pt NA NA Perm NA Free Protected Phases 1 6 2 4 Permitted Phases 6 2 Free Actuated Green, G (s) 36.0 36.0 27.0 27.0 19.0 65.0 Effective Green, g (s) 36.0 36.0 27.0 27.0 19.0 65.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.55 0.55 0.42 0.42 0.29 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 251 1032 774 644 517 1583 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.52 0.36 c0.12 v/s Ratio Perm 0.10 0.03 0.09 v/c Ratio 0.22 0.94 0.87 0.08 0.39 0.09 Uniform Delay, d1 10.5 13.5 17.4 11.5 18.4 0.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.0 16.7 12.6 0.2 2.3 0.1 Delay (s) 12.5 30.2 30.0 11.7 20.6 0.1 Level of Service B C C B C A Approach Delay (s) 29.2 28.1 12.3 Approach LOS C C B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 26.1 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.75 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 65.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.8% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group P58 I. HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Hallam Street (SH 82) & Cemetery Lane 9/10/2015 15019_Aspen SH 82 Multi-Use Path Evaluation 8/31/2015 Future traffic (optimized timing) PM Synchro 8 Report Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group Page 1 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 70 781 1213 56 77 227 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1863 1863 1547 1770 1583 Flt Permitted 0.05 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 97 1863 1863 1547 1770 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.76 0.76 Adj. Flow (vph) 76 849 1277 59 101 299 RTOR Reduction (vph)000500 Lane Group Flow (vph) 76 849 1277 54 101 299 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 6 Turn Type pm+pt NA NA Perm NA Free Protected Phases 1 6 2 4 Permitted Phases 6 2 Free Actuated Green, G (s) 115.0 115.0 105.0 105.0 15.0 140.0 Effective Green, g (s) 115.0 115.0 105.0 105.0 15.0 140.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.82 0.82 0.75 0.75 0.11 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 151 1530 1397 1160 190 1583 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.46 c0.69 c0.06 v/s Ratio Perm 0.39 0.03 0.19 v/c Ratio 0.50 0.55 0.91 0.05 0.53 0.19 Uniform Delay, d1 33.3 4.1 13.9 4.5 59.2 0.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 11.5 1.5 10.7 0.1 10.3 0.3 Delay (s) 44.7 5.6 24.6 4.6 69.4 0.3 Level of Service D A C A E A Approach Delay (s) 8.8 23.8 17.7 Approach LOS A C B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 17.6 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.86 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 80.5% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group P59 I. HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Hallam Street (SH 82) & Cemetery Lane 9/10/2015 15019_Aspen SH 82 Multi-Use Path Evaluation 8/31/2015 Future Traffic Synchro 8 Report Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group Page 1 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 57 1003 490 56 162 110 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1863 1863 1550 1770 1583 Flt Permitted 0.13 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 240 1863 1863 1550 1770 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 0.69 0.69 0.75 0.75 Adj. Flow (vph) 58 1023 710 81 216 147 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 26 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 58 1023 710 55 216 147 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 1 Turn Type pm+pt NA NA Perm NA Free Protected Phases 1 6 2 4 Permitted Phases 6 2 Free Actuated Green, G (s) 36.0 36.0 27.0 27.0 19.0 65.0 Effective Green, g (s) 36.0 36.0 27.0 27.0 19.0 65.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.55 0.55 0.42 0.42 0.29 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 251 1032 774 644 517 1583 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.55 0.38 c0.12 v/s Ratio Perm 0.11 0.04 0.09 v/c Ratio 0.23 0.99 0.92 0.08 0.42 0.09 Uniform Delay, d1 11.3 14.3 17.9 11.5 18.5 0.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.1 26.0 17.5 0.3 2.5 0.1 Delay (s) 13.4 40.3 35.5 11.8 21.0 0.1 Level of Service B D D B C A Approach Delay (s) 38.9 33.1 12.6 Approach LOS D C B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 32.6 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.79 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 65.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.1% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group P60 I. HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Hallam Street (SH 82) & Cemetery Lane 9/10/2015 15019_Aspen SH 82 Multi-Use Path Evaluation 8/31/2015 Future traffic (optimized timing) PM Synchro 8 Report Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group Page 1 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 74 825 1281 59 81 240 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1863 1863 1547 1770 1583 Flt Permitted 0.04 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 68 1863 1863 1547 1770 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.76 0.76 Adj. Flow (vph) 80 897 1348 62 107 316 RTOR Reduction (vph)000500 Lane Group Flow (vph) 80 897 1348 57 107 316 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 6 Turn Type pm+pt NA NA Perm NA Free Protected Phases 1 6 2 4 Permitted Phases 6 2 Free Actuated Green, G (s) 115.0 115.0 105.0 105.0 15.0 140.0 Effective Green, g (s) 115.0 115.0 105.0 105.0 15.0 140.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.82 0.82 0.75 0.75 0.11 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 129 1530 1397 1160 190 1583 v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 c0.48 c0.72 c0.06 v/s Ratio Perm 0.48 0.04 0.20 v/c Ratio 0.62 0.59 0.96 0.05 0.56 0.20 Uniform Delay, d1 45.9 4.3 15.8 4.5 59.4 0.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 20.4 1.7 17.0 0.1 11.5 0.3 Delay (s) 66.3 6.0 32.9 4.6 70.9 0.3 Level of Service E A C A E A Approach Delay (s) 10.9 31.6 18.2 Approach LOS B C B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 22.4 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.91 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 84.1% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group P61 I. Page 1 of 40 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Justin Barker, Community Development Karen Harrington, City Manager’s Office Scott Miller, Public Works Austin Weiss, Parks DATE OF MEMO: January 22, 2016 MEETING DATE: January 26, 2016 RE: Rethink the Streets Project Update REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff requests Council provide guidance on whether to continue forward with the Rethink the Streets initiative, and if so, requests guidance on an option for doing so. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: The Council selected the following as a Top 10 Goal in 2014: “create a list of concepts by May 1, 2015 that can be used as “test projects” to illustrate what “walkable city” in the downtown area might look like. A number of these test projects were completed in 2015. BACKGROUND: The “Rethink the Street” project began in 2014 with research on potential locations, design solutions and citizen engagement options that would help increase safety and the appeal of the outdoor space in the downtown area. Research included looking at other communities including Boulder, Fort Collins, New York and Amsterdam as well as national organizations focused on making great places, such as Projects for Public Spaces (PPS). After the initial research, the team focused on engaging the community more extensively in defining what changes could make the streetscape safer and more pedestrian friendly, prior to creating any temporary installations. Intercept surveys, a Facebook page, an interactive on-line map and large outdoor chalkboards were used to gather ideas. In addition, newspaper articles and media interviews highlighted the project. In 2015, the team selected the corner of Galena and Hopkins as a spot for a temporary installation. This location was selected because it has a significant volume of traffic, bike use and pedestrian use. In addition, the location provided a place to experiment without affecting parking spaces. A pre-installation observational study generated data on the volume and type of use in the intersection, as well as interactions between pedestrians and traffic. Subsequently, a P62 II. Page 2 of 40 temporary bulb-out was installed along with two temporary “living rooms.” The bulb-outs included planters, signs and temporary seating. During the life of the installation, feedback was collected primarily via comment cards and a street-side ice cream event. The installation had to be removed prior to the Pro Challenge bicycle race. It was not reinstalled. Overarching themes from the public feedback about the Galena/Hopkins installation are provided below:  There is strong community support for Rethink the Street and for pedestrian safety initiatives in general. Pedestrian safety projects that can also be understood as aesthetic upgrades and/or pedestrian amenities are most likely to be well-received. There are several great examples of effective projects and programs on the Projects for Public Spaces website at www.pps.org  The strongest objection to the pilot installation at Galena and Hopkins was its appearance. While there is no such thing as a design that pleases everyone, it may be useful to collect information about community aesthetic preferences or take steps to create projects are more co-produced (via design charrettes or some other mechanism) and less City staff-led.  Objections to the project were often rooted in misinformation. Reinforced messaging, together with stronger communication and collaboration with stakeholders in the community (particularly business owners) may be an effective remedy for these objections.  People who disliked the pilot project are more firmly rooted in their opinions. This has implications for how the project team approaches future installations. Some community pushback is assured, but developing a strategic approach to criticism may make it easier to engage with complainants in a meaningful, constructive way. P63 II. Page 3 of 40  Responses vary significantly depending on feedback source. It is important to collect feedback from a diverse sample of respondents using a wide variety of tools. DISCUSSION: At this time, staff is seeking Council guidance on whether and how to move forward with initiatives that would increase safety, aesthetic appeal and the attractiveness of downtown for pedestrians. Several ideas are outlined below for Council consideration. They are not mutually exclusive. Each helps address challenges that were experienced during the project while providing an opportunity to develop and try out additional ideas in the future. 1. Absorb certain tasks of the Rethink the Streets initiative into other projects. In particular, staff recommends that those aspects of the project dealing primarily with safety be absorbed into the existing bike and pedestrian planning led by Engineering, due to substantial overlap. Some of the downtown improvements could be coordinated with the efforts to update the Pedestrian Malls. 2. Direct staff to reconvene a smaller core project team to continue moving forward with ideas regarding gathering spaces and enhancements such as unique crosswalk designs. This would include identifying next steps and updated goals for the project, including if the work should focus only on research, planning and design alternatives only, or if it should include temporary installations as well, and if the locational scope should be expanded to off-street spaces (such as Gondola Plaza). To move the project forward, a single department should be designated as lead and a working budget should be established. 3. Hire a consultant (for example, an architect) to lead the initiative on a temporary basis. This would provide for a higher level of dedicated resources for the project and would move it forward more quickly and effectively. 4. A final alternative is to consider the initiative complete for now, and to disband it. FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: Should Council determine to move forward with this initiative, a project budget will need to be determined and a budget supplemental requested. The size of the supplemental will be dependent on several Council decisions, including whether or not to hire a consultant to spearhead the project. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: In isolation, the project to date has not changed environmental impacts – its intention was geared toward safety and increasing the attractiveness of downtown for pedestrians and cyclists. RECOMMENDED ACTION: The Steering Committee requests Council guidance on whether and how to continue forward with this project. The Committee recommends Council approve direction provided above as points 1, 2 and 3 in the Discussion Section. However, due to current staffing constraints, the Committee recommends Council hold off on points 2 and 3 and circle back on the discussion in six months. P64 II. Page 4 of 40 ALTERNATIVES: Some alternatives for Council consideration include; 1. Completely disbanding the project 2. Moving the project forward now, including the tasks related to gathering space and aesthetic enhancements, but with consultant support 3. Moving the project forward, but focused on one or two specific pilot projects of Council choosing In all cases, the team will need to collaborate with other city capital project teams so that interactions between the projects are understood. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: P65 II. Page 5 of 40 ATTACHMENT A – SUMMARY OF PROJECT HISTORY Compiled by Alia Scanlon I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Rethink the Street is a City of Aspen initiative to assess Aspen’s commercial core against best practices for pedestrian safety and implement a series of innovative, parking-neutral, temporary projects aimed at improving pedestrian access, safety, and wellbeing. Project planning and team development took place in late 2014 and included team members’ participation in the Alliance for Innovation’s Innovation Academy. Initial public outreach and feedback began in early 2015. These efforts focused on collecting feedback data and engaging the community at an early stage to lay a strong foundation for the project. The first rounds of outreach collected ideas from the public about what kinds of pedestrian improvements they want to see made and data about most and least preferred locations around the city. Analysis of this information reveals a community that is interested in infrastructural and aesthetic improvements to the pedestrian experience such as improved surfaces, more public seating and water fountains, more art, and fewer cars on the road. The community is also interested in “rethinking the street” in a holistic, system-wide manner. While the current project approach is to identify and improve specific locations in the commercial core, there may be value in taking a “systems” approach that considers all of Downtown Aspen as a project site. City staff installed temporary curb extensions (“bulb-outs”) at the northeast and northwest corners of the intersection at Galena and Hopkins on June 15, 2015 as a pilot demonstration of the Rethink the Street initiative. The bulb-outs were upgraded on July 20 with the addition of temporary “living rooms”—benches and tables mounted on modular platforms. The purpose of installing this demo project was to model and seek public feedback on a pedestrian safety concept while encouraging people to reimagine the streetscape as a playful, social space. Before the bulb-outs were installed, the team studied the intersection to establish baseline usage and safety data. The data suggests that although the intersection of Hopkins and Galena is heavily used by pedestrians, they have little use for the public right of way at the site except as a conduit to their destination. Several potential hazards exist at the intersection. People do not linger there, possibly indicating that this is not a comfortable space for pedestrians. After the bulb-outs were installed, feedback and outreach efforts were expanded to inform the public about the concept and to collect public opinion data about the installation specifically. Feedback data suggests that there is strong community support for Rethink the P66 II. Page 6 of 40 Street and for pedestrian safety initiatives in general. Pedestrian safety projects that can also be understood as aesthetic upgrades and/or pedestrian amenities are most likely to be well- received. The community’s strongest objection to the pilot installation at Galena and Hopkins is its appearance. While there is no such thing as a design that pleases everyone, it may be worthwhile to collect more information about the community’s aesthetic preferences or take steps to truly co-produce projects with community stakeholders via design charrettes or some other mechanism. In addition, objections to the bulb-outs were often rooted in misinformation and misunderstanding. Reinforced, strategic messaging, together with stronger communication and collaboration with stakeholders in the community (particularly business owners) may be an effective remedy for these objections. Once the summer season began to wind down, team members assessed the project’s performance, the team’s performance, and their own performance. According to this self- assessment, Rethink the Street was more successful at informing and soliciting feedback from members of the community than it was at involving them. It achieved little success in making the streets safer, but was slightly more successful in making public spaces more vibrant. This is primarily due to the existence of significant barriers to success related to mission/vision/values, leadership and decision-making, emotions and energies, team structure and processes, and limited resources. However, the team feels that the project should continue with substantial changes made to the team and the project approach. Learnings from this year’s iteration of Rethink the Street can be used to shape next year’s successes. P67 II. Page 7 of 40 II. INTRODUCTION Rethink the Street is a City of Aspen initiative that arose from one of City Council’s 2014 Top Ten Goals. City staff were asked to assess Aspen’s commercial core against best practices for pedestrian safety and implement a series of innovative, temporary projects aimed at improving pedestrian access, safety, and wellbeing. Project Values The project approach is threefold: 1. Identify high priority locations and source creative ideas for pedestrian safety interventions through community outreach, best practices assessment, and benchmarking. 2. Install temporary pilot projects at locations where there are opportunities to improve pedestrian safety and/or enhance public space. Pilot projects are to be co-created to the greatest possible extent, meaning that the team strives to involve residents, P68 II. Page 8 of 40 visitors, businesses, and other stakeholders via feedback or direct involvement with installations. 3. Gauge interest and success using a variety of tools. Surveys, community events, social media, and other tools help staff measure the community’s response to the pilot projects. Observational studies of locations measure the project’s effectiveness. This data helps inform a community conversation about whether the installations should become permanent. P69 II. Page 9 of 40 III. PROJECT TIMELINE P70 II. Page 10 of 40 DEC 2014 –JAN 2015 Project kickoff. The staff team broke into three work groups to identify best practices of design, location selection, and public outreach. The team first focused on efforts to engage the community in identifying needs and solutions. FEB-MAY Staff initiated preliminary outreach efforts via Facebook, an interactive wikimap of the core, a discussion forum on Open City Hall, an online survey, and chalkboard “feedback stations” around town. The Environmental Health Department assisted in collecting comments from cyclists and City staff. These efforts were aimed at collecting information from the public about what changes they would like to see made to the city’s roadways and sidewalks and where. Staff also published a letter to the editor in the Aspen Daily News, hosted two informal info sessions in Wagner Park, and did a local TV interview with Aspen 82. A news article about the project appeared in The Aspen Times. JUN 1 The team began planning and design for the first pilot project: a temporary curb extension of the corners at Hopkins and Galena. This “bulb out” design was intended to reduce pedestrian crossing distances and improve visibility between pedestrians, motorists, and cyclists. JUN 12 Team members conducted an informal observational study of the intersection of Hopkins and Galena to establish baseline usage patterns and safety conditions. This study counted pedestrian, cyclist, and motorist movements through the intersection, counted and categorized near-misses and potential hazards, and observed “lingering” behaviors that may proximally indicate whether pedestrians feel safe and comfortable in that area. The team intended to conduct a post-installation study to determine whether the bulb-outs had any effect on the intersection’s function and safety. JUN 15 City staff installed bulb-outs at the northeast and northwest corners. Due to a limited quantity of bollards, the team decided to install the south corners at a later date. The extension was marked out with reflective road tape and bollards and “animated” (made more vibrant and welcoming) with flower-filled planters, chairs, fish wind sculptures, and a community wishing tree. A couple of small posters with information about Rethink the Street and the bulb-outs were also installed. P71 II. Page 11 of 40 P72 II. Page 12 of 40 JUN 17 SECURE MAILBOXES AND VINYL ENVELOPES CONTAINING BLANK COMMENT CARDS AND PENS WERE AFFIXED TO PLANTERS ON EACH CORNER. COMMENT CARDS WERE COLLECTED, RECORDED, AND REPLENISHED DAILY (EXCEPT WEEKENDS) THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF THE PILOT INSTALLATION. P73 II. Page 13 of 40 P74 II. Page 14 of 40 JUN 19-26 THE TEAM CONDUCTED 103 ON-SITE INTERCEPT SURVEYS TO COLLECT QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE FEEDBACK DATA REGARDING THE BULB-OUTS. JUN 22 The team hosted an ice cream social at the intersection to discuss the bulb-outs. Team members handed out ice cream, engaged passersby in discussion, and recorded feedback on large notepads. JUN 24 The team conducted an afternoon “lunch and learn” with City staff to collect their input on the bulb-outs. JUN 26 Staff gave an interview with Aspen Public Radio. JUN 30 A chalkboard inviting passersby to comment on the prompt “Where in Aspen could the pedestrian experience be improved?” was placed outside of City Hall. The team documented and recorded comments on a daily basis (except weekends). JUL 2 The team began planning to complete the bulb-out installation. The team decided to hold off on installing the southern bulb-outs and focus instead on installing “living rooms”. These consisted of benches and tables affixed to modular decking placed on Galena adjacent to the bulb-outs. The team also began planning to reach out to local organizations who might be interested in “animating” the bulb-outs as part of the project’s goal to have “co-produced” installations. JUL 21 City staff installed two living rooms on Galena. JUL 24 Team members developed and began implementation of a more robust media, social media, and outreach strategy. JUL 27 Large informational posters containing messaging about Rethink the Street, data from the intersection study, and preliminary public feedback information were installed on the north side of the chalkboard. Because it was determined that it had outlived its utility as a feedback mechanism, the other side of the chalkboard was converted into an “installation” itself, displaying questions designed to entertain passersby. JUL 28 The team presented an update to City Council on the project’s progress and public feedback. JUL 30 The team began planning and design work for completing the south corner bulb-outs and generated preliminary ideas for additional projects and locations. P75 II. Page 15 of 40 P76 II. Page 16 of 40 AUG 5-12 TEAM MEMBERS MET WITH SEVERAL POTENTIAL ANIMATORS TO DISCUSS IDEAS FOR USING THE SPACES CREATED BY THE BULB- OUTS. AUG 9 Project team leaders were contacted by the City Attorney about concerns from the City’s insurer about placing installations in the public right of way. The decision was made to hold off on new installation work until these issues could be resolved. AUG 10 The chalkboard fell or was pushed over sometime during the night, necessitating its removal and the removal of the informational posters. Smaller, 8.5x11 handouts were placed at the living rooms to replace them. AUG 18 The project was featured in a news article in The Aspen Daily News. At the team meeting, it was decided that work on the south bulb- outs at Galena and Hopkins would not proceed until Engineering completed a site plan consistent with existing regulations and codes. AUG 19 City staff removed the bulb-outs and living rooms for the Pro Cycling Challenge with the intent to reinstall them on August 21. AUG 21 Reinstallation of the bulb-outs and living rooms was delayed indefinitely due to concerns about dimensions and sight lines. AUG 27 The team decided to forego the reinstallation of the pilot project at Hopkins and Galena in order to free capacity for additional projects at other locations. These projects included creative crosswalks in front of the Wheeler and at Hopkins and Monarch and repurposing the platforms used for the living rooms as a parklet on Hopkins with a foosball table. AUG 27- PRESENT Team continues planning and design work in preparation for installing creative crosswalks and foosball table. P77 II. Page 17 of 40 IV. INITIAL OUTREACH AND FEEDBACK: IDEAS AND LOCATION DATA Initial public outreach and feedback began in early 2015. These efforts focused on not only collecting feedback data but also on engaging the community at an early stage to lay a strong foundation for the project. These first rounds of outreach, which consisted of intercept surveys, events, a Facebook page, an Open City Hall forum, an interactive wikimap, and a public chalkboard, asked two main questions: 1. What are your ideas to improve the safety, nature and overall amount of fun in our streets and sidewalks? (ideas) 2. What are your favorite and least favorite locations in the Commercial Core? (location data) IDEAS Idea were gathered and recorded on an ongoing basis throughout the duration of the project. Each idea supplied by the public was coded by theme. • Aesthetics/art – Pertaining to public art or the physical form the projects should take - “I’d like to see changing art displays in these spots” • Policy/rules/management/enforcement – Pertaining to specific municipal policies, the way streets are managed, and how rules are (or are not) enforced - “Have more car-free streets!” • Infrastructure/engineering – Pertaining to the built environment of the city’s streets and sidewalks, including street furniture, surfaces, and intersection design - “Solar paving” • Community/attitudes – Pertaining to or expressing an attitude or opinion about Aspen and/or its streets. Many of these ideas are abstract or unrelated to streets and sidewalks, but are worth examining because they may reveal social concerns, surface community attitudes about Aspen’s public spaces, or reflect the kind of playful, out-of- the-box thinking that Rethink the Street aims to encourage. - “Allow poor people”, “Don’t make us Vail” • Activities/entertainment – Pertaining to public events and activities - “Free beer & ice cream” • Environment – Pertaining to environmental sustainability, pollution, landscaping, etc. - “Native plants, consider the environment” • Economy/business – Pertaining to commerce and economic activity P78 II. Page 18 of 40 - “Have food trucks” A handful of specific ideas recurred often enough to warrant special mention: - Limit cars: “No cars allowed in commercial core”, “Have more car-free streets!”, “No cars in the core!!”, “Have more car free streets”, “Forget this crap and extend the mall all the way from Galena to the art museum” - Improve quality/coverage of pedestrian surfaces: “Complete sidewalks in neighborhoods”, “Have NO uneven cracks”, “Redo the bricks on the Mall, it is hard to walk on!”, “Please use funds to complete the sidewalk system so the sidewalks go down the entire block”, “No cracks to trip on” - More and/or free parking: “More parking!”, “Free parking”, “Free parking for locals”, “More long term/overnight parking”, “FREE parking pass for locals!”, “PARKING! Never enough, garage at Rio Grande not the answer, dangerous bikers, don't need motorcycle parking, why should motorcycles have free parking?!”, “Allow natural gas vehicles to park for free” - Unusual street surfaces: “Solar paving”, “…be paved in gold”, “Should be made of GRASS”, “Be made of chocolate doughnuts”, “Be made of celery”, “Be made of solar panels!” “Be invisible”, “Be made of solar panels!” - Dog-friendly infrastructure: “More dogs…” “…on leashes”, “Fenced doggie park”, “Provide water and food bowls for dogs”, “Should have dog beds on every corner” LOCATIONS 20% 19% 36% 7% 15% 1%2% Ideas by Theme Aesthetics/art Policy/rules/management/enforcement Infrastructure/engineering Activities/entertainment Community/attitudes Economy/business P79 II. Page 19 of 40 Location data yielded information about most and least preferred areas of town. While most respondents identified specific locations, a large number identified an entire street or even simply said ‘everywhere’ when asked about where improvements should be made. This may be interpreted as a desire to “rethink” Aspen and its roadways in a more holistic, big- picture way rather than in a targeted, intersection-by-intersection fashion. Favorite locations identified by respondents include the pedestrian malls, the Wheeler fountain corner at Hyman and Mill, and the Paradise Bakery corner. Characteristics shared by these locations include no or one-way vehicle traffic, outdoor seating areas, and other nearby public amenities like bike parking, unique features, and play areas. P80 II. Page 20 of 40 Least favored locations are areas with high levels of both motor vehicle and pedestrian traffic. Spring and Cooper (City Market intersection), Hopkins and Mill, Main St., and Durant Ave. by the Rubey Park Transit Center were all identified as being problem-areas. Main and Mill also received a high number of complaints. Most of those complaints were from motorists objecting to the removal of a turn lane when CDOT made changes to the intersection in May, but a handful of respondents argue that the new intersection design encourages pedestrians to “stand too far out in the street.” V. PILOT PROJECT 1: GALENA AND HOPKINS BULB-OUTS AND LIVING ROOMS City staff installed temporary curb extensions (“bulb-outs”) at the northeast and northwest corners of the intersection at Galena and Hopkins on June 15, 2015 as a pilot demonstration of the Rethink the Street initiative. The purpose of installing a demo project was to model and seek public feedback on a pedestrian safety concept while encouraging people to reimagine the streetscape as a playful, social space. The extension was marked out with reflective road tape and bollards and animated at various times with flower-filled planters, fish wind sculptures, and a community wishing tree. The bulb- outs maintained all existing car parking. It removed several motorcycle parking spaces and required the relocation of a bike rack to the sidewalk in front of City Hall. The bulb-outs were upgraded on July 20 with the addition of temporary “living rooms”—benches and tables mounted on modular platforms. Plans to invite other local organizations to animate the spaces were delayed and eventually canceled. Before the bulb-outs were installed, the team studied the intersection to establish baseline use data. After the installation, outreach and feedback efforts were expanded to collect public opinion data about the installation specifically. CONCLUSIONS: IDEAS AND LOCATIONS • The community is interested in infrastructural and aesthetic improvements to the pedestrian experience such as improved surfaces, more public seating and water fountains, more art, and fewer cars on the road. • The community is also interested in “rethinking the street” in a holistic way. While the current project approach is to identify and improve specific locations in the commercial core, there may be value in taking a systems approach to rethinking the street that considers all of Downtown Aspen as a project site. P81 II. Page 21 of 40 PRE-INSTALLATION INTERSECTION STUDY Prior to installing the bulb-outs, staff conducted an informal observational study of the intersection to establish baseline usage patterns and safety conditions. On June 12, staff counted pedestrian, cyclist, and motor vehicle movements through the intersection over three one-hour periods. (Please note that the unit of measure for this study was movements, not vehicles or people. One person crossing Hopkins and then Galena to get to the opposite corner was therefore counted as two movements.) The intersection study also counted the number of observed hazards. Hazards were defined as movements of pedestrians, motor vehicles, and bikes that result in or have a strong potential to result in a collision or a conflict/avoidance maneuver (a sudden change of direction or speed performed by either party in order to avoid a collision). This definition is adapted from one used in FHWA pedestrian and bicyclist intersection safety indices. The hazards counted in this intersection study were: • H1 - Any actual collision between motorists, pedestrians, and/or cyclists • H2 – Motorist/cyclist failing to yield to pedestrians at the curb or in the crosswalk, resulting in conflict, the pedestrian aborting crossing, or the pedestrian speeding up to complete the crossing • H3 – Motorist/cyclist on Hopkins failing to yield to cyclists headed south on Galena • H4 – Motorist/cyclist failing to yield to motorists headed south on Galena • H5 - Motorist failing to stop behind the stop bar on Hopkins (stopping in the crosswalk or intersection instead) • H6 - Cyclist riding on the sidewalk • H7 – Cyclist/motorist traveling the wrong direction (north) on Galena south of Hopkins • H8 – Motorist running stop sign on Hopkins (not coming to a full stop, including slowing without stopping) Staff also counted the number of “lingerers”—individuals idling at or near the crossing for at least ten second without preparing to cross. Lingering behaviors include but are not limited to: socializing, using the phone, taking photographs, checking a map, idling, or congregating. Conventional wisdom suggests that pedestrians choose to linger in spaces that they perceive as being safe, comfortable, interesting, and/or welcoming. Lingering behaviors therefore may be a proximate measure of how safe and pedestrian-friendly an intersection is perceived to be. P82 II. Page 22 of 40 It is important to note that observation-based behavioral data such as lingering and hazards can be unclear in the field. These measures should be considered semi-objective. The intersection study found that 56% of the observed movements through the intersection were non-motorized (pedestrians and cyclists). Staff counted very few lingerers. The most commonly observed hazards were eastbound and westbound motorists either running the stop signs on Hopkins (H8) or stopping in the crosswalk instead of behind the stop bar (H5). Motorists tended to only stop behind the stop bar if there was already a pedestrian in 236 429 356 182 578 402 30 72 82 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 8 AM - 9 AM 12 PM - 1 PM 4 PM - 5 PM Nu m b e r o f m o v e m e n t s t h r o u g h i n t e r s e c t i o n Time period Pre-Installation Pedestrian, Motor Vehicle, and Cyclist Movements at Galena/Hopkins, 6/12/2015 Motor vehicles Pedestrians Cyclists 3 36 7 3 36 7 0 10 20 30 40 8 AM - 9 AM 12 PM - 1 PM 4 PM - 5 PM Nu m b e r o f l i n g e r e r s Time Period Pre-Installation Lingerers at Galena/Hopkins, 6/12/2015 P83 II. Page 23 of 40 the crosswalk. Most motorists, apparently unable to see if there was oncoming southbound traffic on Galena, rolled into the intersection without making a full stop to check, often without slowing very much at all (H8). As a result, these vehicles moved through the intersection at higher speeds than may be desirable for an intersection that sees such heavy pedestrian use. The motorists who stopped in the crosswalk (H5) to wait for oncoming traffic created an impediment to pedestrians crossing the street. In addition, vehicles stopped in crosswalks blocked pedestrians from the view of oncoming traffic as they crossed behind them. 0 0 0 1 7 9 0 2 2 5 17 10 43 80 79 1 8 3 3 9 12 41 80 62 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 8 A M - 9 A M 12 P M - 1 P M 4 P M - 5 P M Incidence Pre-Installation Hazard Count at Galena/Hopkins, 6/12/2015 Type 1 - Collision (none observed) Type 2 - Failure to yeild to pedestrian (motorists/cyclists) Type 3 - Failure to yeild to cyclist (motorists) Type 4 - Failure to yeild to motorist (motorist/cyclist) Type 5 - Motorist stopping in x-walk instead of behind stop bar Type 6 - Cyclist on sidewalk Type 7 - Motorist or cyclist wrong way on Galena Type 8 - Motorist running stop sign P84 II. Page 24 of 40 All told, approximately 2/3 of motorists on Hopkins did not stop behind the stop bar. Other notable observations include: • Motorists on Hopkins did not yield to 9.5% of southbound motorists on Galena going through or turning left. • There were 16 instances of failure to yield to pedestrians (5.3 per hour). • 23 cyclists and 1 motorist travelled the wrong direction on the one-way portion of Galena. The team intended to conduct a second intersection study after all four corners had bulb-outs installed. This would have provided comparison data to help determine what, if any, effect the pilot installation had on the function of the intersection. Because the bulb-outs were never installed on all four corners, this study never took place. Stopped behind stop bar 30% Stopped in crosswalk 32% Did not stop 38% Eastbound motor vehicles Stopped behind stop bar 40% Stopped in crosswalk 36% Did not stop 24% Westbound motor vehicles CONCLUSIONS: PRE-INSTALLATION STUDY • Although the intersection of Hopkins and Galena is heavily used by pedestrians, they have little use for the public right of way at the site except as a conduit to their destination. They do not linger. It is likely that this is not a comfortable place for pedestrians. Several hazards, as defined in the pre-installation study, exist at the intersection. • It is important to study the site of a planned project. Data can be used to diagnose existing problems, identify opportunities for improvement, provide a basis for objective-building, and communicate the importance of a project to the community. • It is equally important to conduct a post-installation study of a site in order to assess the effectiveness of the intervention. In this case, no post-installation study could take place, representing a vital missed opportunity. Future projects should include both studies as a key part of the work plan. • Future site studies can be made more accurate by using pneumatic counters for counts and conducting counts and observations over the course of several days. P85 II. Page 25 of 40 COMMUNITY FEEDBACK ABOUT THE PILOT INSTALLATION After installing the north bulb-outs, the team collected qualitative and quantitative feedback from the community through intercept surveys, comment cards, public chalkboards, informal conversations with passersby during an afternoon ice cream social on June 24, and a City employee “lunch and learn” event. INTERCEPT SURVEYS 103 individuals participated in intercept surveys conducted between June 19 and 25. Q1: This question presented four negative descriptors and four positive descriptors. It limited respondents to three choices, which forced those with generally positive or negative opinions to specify why they felt that way and also allowed for mixed opinions. Respondents selected the four positive descriptors most often. “Beautiful,” “welcoming,” and “safe” were selected by a majority of respondents, but many fewer respondents saw the installation as “necessary”. Each of the four negative descriptors were selected less than a quarter of the time. (The “Other” option provided an opportunity for respondents to write in their own descriptor. These responses were incorporated into the analysis of open-ended feedback data.) 72.80% 66.99% 54.37% 26.21% 17.48% 11.65% 4.85% 4.85% 21.36% 0.00%10.00%20.00%30.00%40.00%50.00%60.00%70.00%80.00% Beautiful Welcoming Safe Necessary Unnecessary Distracting Ugly Dangerous Other % of respondents selecting D e s c r i p t o r Q1: Please choose three words from the list below (or select 'other' to write your own word) that you think best describe this installation here at Galena and Hopkins. N = 103 P86 II. Page 26 of 40 Q2: The second question asked respondents to rank in order a series of priorities that may be considered in designing and implementing street and sidewalk improvements. The ranking data reveal a community in which safety is clearly prioritized, but the importance of other elements is subject to mixed opinions. There is a highly polarized opinion spectrum regarding aesthetics, impact on parking, and impact on driving. The relatively low ranking of “fun spaces” and “creativity” is notable in the context of Rethink the Street, which works to emphasize those elements alongside safety. P87 II. Page 27 of 40 Q3 and Q4: These were open-ended questions. Q3 invited respondents to supply their own ideas of what elements should be prioritized in making changes to streets and sidewalks. Q4 asked respondents “Where else in Aspen should we rethink the street?” These open-ended responses have been incorporated into the general analysis of all open-ended feedback sources. OPEN-ENDED FEEDBACK SOURCES - COMMENT CARDS, CHALKBOARD, EVENT COMMENTS, AND INTERCEPT SURVEY Q1, Q3, & Q4 Open-ended feedback and qualitative data were collected via several methods: • Mailboxes and vinyl envelopes containing blank cards and pens were affixed to planters on each corner. When the living rooms were installed, the boxes and cards were moved to the platforms. Comment cards were collected and replenished daily, except on weekends. • The chalkboard, which invited passersby to comment on the prompt “I think our streets and sidewalks should…”, was placed outside of City Hall on June 22nd. All comments were documented and recorded on a daily basis (except weekends). Chalkboard comments containing language or drawings that were offensive, unrelated, or illegible were documented but not included in the analysis. On July 2nd, the prompt was changed to “Where in Aspen could the pedestrian experience be better?” • The Rethink the Street team recorded further public feedback on large notepads at the June 22nd ice cream event. In addition, the City’s Environmental Health and Sustainability Department conducted a three-week activity that solicited ideas from City staff and cyclists. • Open-ended responses to Q1 and responses to Q3 and Q4 from the intercept surveys have also been incorporated into the general open-ended response data set for analysis. A total of 258 open-ended comments were collected from the community. Each comment was coded by positive or negative opinions expressed on each of several “themes” such as aesthetics, effect on parking, and use of space. Comments with only positive opinions regarding one or several themes and those expressing theme-free support (e.g. “cool!”) were further coded as “generally supportive.” Those expressing negative opinions across the board were coded as “generally opposed.” Many comments expressed mixed or contingent opinions, P88 II. Page 28 of 40 offering positive opinions on some themes and negative opinions on others. These “on the fence” opinions did still exhibit an identifiable leaning towards support or opposition, and therefore were coded as such. The themes used in the analysis were: • Aesthetics – Pertaining to the physical character of the installation and its accoutrements - Positive: “We like the flowers and LOVE the fish!!!” - Negative: “Too ratty looking. Looks CHEAP” - Contingent/mixed: “I like this, even though a permanent one would look a lot better than bollards.” (coded as “generally supportive”) • Safety – Pertaining to the relative danger or safety of the intersection for pedestrians, cyclists, or motorists - Positive: “Makes me feel safer on a bike” - Negative: “Navigating around these things makes traveling through an already crowded core more dangerous” - Contingent/mixed: “This seems to be an idea which promotes the safety of pedestrians and livens up the town of Aspen. I think it is a good idea, but only if it is executed properly and safely.” (coded as “generally supportive”) • Pedestrians – Pertaining to pedestrians and pedestrian behavior - Positive: “I like that it shortens the crosswalk.” - Negative: “Totally unnecessary, encouraging pedestrians to ignore their own safety.” - Contingent/mixed: “Didn’t work for us. Makes you avoid sidewalk to cross both ways. Photo above better tho.” (referring to the image of a permanent bulb-out on the comment cards, coded as “generally opposed”) • Cyclists – Pertaining to cyclists and cyclist behavior - Positive: “Great space for bike parking!” - Negative: “No bulbouts- they are dangerous for bikes” - Contingent/mixed: “I appreciate the idea, but this idea may work somewhere else…I am on Hopkins every day (usually on a bike) and this makes it hard to see the traffic on the other street.” (coded as “generally opposed”) • Motorists: Pertaining to motorists and motorist behavior - Positive: “Cars are actually stopping now” - Negative: “I really do not like this it impedes sightlines, makes it hard to turn, harder to see pedestrians while driving.” - Contingent/mixed: “I think it’s a step in the right direction…(but) it makes the drivers pull even further into the intersection.” (coded as “generally supportive”) • Economy: Pertaining to the impact on local businesses or the cost to taxpayers - Positive: n/a P89 II. Page 29 of 40 - Negative: “This is dangerous and hurts local businesses” - Contingent/mixed: “Flowers are beautiful you did a good job – Don’t start wasting our tax money on stupid projects” (coded as “generally opposed”) • Parking: Pertaining to impact on parking - Positive: n/a - Negative: “Totally unnecessary… Too much space. More parking + enforcement (needed)” - Contingent/mixed: “All good- just do NOT eliminate any more parking!” (coded as “generally supportive”) • Traffic – Pertaining to impact on the volume and flow of pedestrians, cyclists, and/or motorists - Positive: “Like it- blocks traffic from peds” - Negative: “Are you crazy? This just adds to stressful traffic. It’s confusing and adds to congestion.” - Contingent/mixed: “It’s a great idea as long as it does not interfere with larger vehicles” (coded as “generally supportive”) • Use – Pertaining to how people use the spaces created by the bulb-outs. - Positive: “I can picture myself with friends and family enjoying some quality times in the streets of Aspen. We need more places like that where we can have some ice cream and chat w/ friends.” - Negative: “I have seen people camping out- sitting in chairs on the phone like it's their office. I think it adds to the congestion and looks horrible. It's the street not an area to congregate.” - Contingent/mixed: “I like it. My 5 year old daughter wants to know why we are sitting in the street--isn't it dangerous? Would love to see it built out more.” (coded as “generally supportive”) Each comment was also coded by source (comment card, intercept survey, chalkboard, etc.) and time period (before and after the living rooms were installed). This coding approach provides enough information to be able to answer the following questions: 1. Did people like the installation at Galena and Hopkins? Yes, generally. It is important to understand public opinion as existing along a spectrum. 58.8% of the comments about the installation expressed support for the concept, but 13.1% of those were supportive with mixed or contingent opinions. 41% of the [][][][] 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Support for and Opposition to Galena/Hopkins Pilot Project Fully supportive Generally supportive with mixed/contingent opinion Generally opposed with mixed/contingent opinion Fully opposed P90 II. Page 30 of 40 comments expressed opposition to the installation. 3.8% were opposed but had mixed or contingent opinions. These results suggest that public opinion about the bulb-outs and living rooms is cautiously positive. 2. What did supporters like and not like about it? People who support the installation but expressed misgivings were most likely to object to its aesthetics. However, the way the installation looked was also one of the most admired elements. It is possible that this pattern arises from some respondents assessing the installation’s aesthetics positively based on a comparison to the untreated south street corners rather than on the merits of the installation itself. Generally, people liked the flowers, but were sharply divided about the fish. They disliked the bollards and the bare wood “DIY” style of the planters and living rooms, but enjoyed the idea of there being new spaces to fill with art and other features. Many asked that future projects be more in line with the city’s overall “mountain town” visual appeal. Supporters expressed considerable affection for how the space was used, in this case for public seating. This aligns with idea and location data suggesting that there is community demand for more pedestrian amenities such as seating in public spaces. A small number of supporters have concerns about the bulb-outs’ effect on traffic flow and on pedestrian behavior. Several mentioned having observed pedestrians skirt the exterior of the bulb-outs in the roadway when crossing to a diagonal corner rather than completing a full crossing. While this behavior pre-dates the bulb-outs (as documented in the pre-installation intersection study), this may be an issue to examine further should be bulb-outs be considered for permanent installation. 33 22 19 17 11 10 5 2 0 18 2 1 3 2 4 1 3 00 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 Aesthetics Use Safety Pedestrians Motorists Traffic Cyclists Parking Economy Generally Supportive Comments by Theme Positive opinion Negative opinion P91 II. Page 31 of 40 3. What are the concerns of the people who expressed opposition? Aesthetics was, again, the biggest concern of respondents who did not like the pilot project. People were also unconvinced that the bulb-outs would make people safer and expressed dismay about the idea of encouraging people to “stand in the street,” reflecting a fundamental misunderstanding of the project and the space. Many believe that extending the curb as a pedestrian accommodation encourages those on foot to not pay attention to vehicle traffic. Despite reassurances that the bulb-outs and living rooms do not remove any parking spaces, several commenters expressed concern about parking in the commercial core. A handful believe that these installations would be bad for local businesses, possibly related to the mistaken belief that they take up parking spaces. Much of the negative opinion regarding the pilot installation is rooted in misinformation and confusion about the purpose and impact of the bulb-outs. The relatively low number of mixed or contingent opinions amongst the oppositional comments is noteworthy; those opposed to the installation seem to be rooted more firmly in their opinions (no "ifs, ands, or buts") than those who support the installation. 4. What did people care about most? What did people care about least? 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 38 19 18 17 17 15 15 14 7 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 Aesthetics Traffic Safety Use Pedestrians Parking Economy Motorists Cyclists Generally Opposed Comments by Theme Positive opinion Negative opinion P92 II. Page 32 of 40 Aesthetics, use of space, safety, and pedestrians were the topics of greatest concern to the community. Despite the contentious nature of driving, traffic, and parking issues in Aspen, these elements appear to be of relatively low importance when it comes to Rethink the Street. 5. Did people like the installation better after the living rooms went in? 14.3% 8.5% 1.2% 7.0% 3.9% 4.3% 0.8% 0.0% 1.9% 21.7% 7.4% 7.4% 7.8% 8.9% 6.2% 7.0% 5.8% 3.1% 64.0% 84.1% 85.3% 85.3% 87.2% 89.5% 92.2% 94.2% 95.0% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Ae s t h e t i c s U s e S a f e t y Pe d e s t r i a n s Tr a f f i c Mo t o r i s t s P a r k i n g Ec o n o m y Cy c l i s t s Opinion vs. No Opinion by Theme Positive opinion Negative opinion No opinion P93 II. Page 33 of 40 Inconclusive. The team collected nearly the same number of comments in the period before the living rooms were installed as in the period after they were installed. Opinion data shows the proportion of opposed comments rising relative to supportive ones after the living rooms were installed, suggesting less support for the concept. However, there is a significant possibility that relying heavily on comment cards in the period after installing the living rooms skewed the data. 96% of the comments collected after the living room installation came from comment cards, which are far more likely to receive negative comments than any other feedback methods (90% of the objection comments came from comment cards). This demonstrates the importance of ensuring that feedback collection takes a wide variety of forms and assesses the opinions of a diverse sample. 65.4%51.6% 34.6%48.4% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Before living rooms After living rooms General Support/Opposition Before and After Living Room Installation Generally Supportive Generally Opposed P94 II. Page 34 of 40 6. What differences exist between the feedback methods? The high proportion of positive responses collected from the intercept survey and ice cream event suggest that people are more likely to respond positively when there is someone there who can speak about its context and purpose. Comment cards, which are anonymous and submitted without the aid or observation of City staff, are the main source of negative responses. This pattern may have implications for how Rethink the Street moves forward in developing an engaged, vocal group of supporters within the community. CONCLUSIONS: PUBLIC FEEDBACK ABOUT THE GALENA INSTALLATION • There is strong community support for Rethink the Street and for pedestrian safety initiatives in general. Pedestrian safety projects that can also be understood as aesthetic upgrades and/or pedestrian amenities are most likely to be well-received. • The strongest objection to the pilot installation at Galena and Hopkins was its appearance. While there is no such thing as a design that pleases everyone, it may be useful collect information about community aesthetic preferences or take steps to create projects are more co-produced (via design charrettes or some other mechanism) and less City staff-led. • Objections to the project were often rooted in misinformation. Reinforced messaging, together with stronger communication and collaboration with stakeholders in the community (particularly business owners) may be an effective remedy for these objections. • People who disliked the pilot project are more firmly rooted in their opinions. This has implications for how the project team approaches future installations. Some community pushback is assured, but developing a strategic approach to criticism may make it easier to engage with complainants in a meaningful, constructive way. • Responses vary significantly depending on feedback source. It is important to collect 72 21 20 5 0 83 7 3 1 2 35 7 2 0 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 Comment card Intercept survey Ice cream event Chalkboard Web survey Open-ended Comments by Feedback Source Positive Negative Mixed/Contingent P95 II. Page 35 of 40 VI. KEY LEARNINGS: CONCLUSIONS AND RECCOMENDATIONS CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ABOUT THE STREETS PROJECT OVERALL Conclusion #1: The community is interested in “rethinking the street” in a holistic, big picture way. They ask for infrastructural and aesthetic improvements to the pedestrian experience. Safety is the strongest shared priority in making those improvements. Another clear (but contentious) priority for the community is the aesthetics of public spaces. Recommendation: Rethink the Street should focus on pedestrian improvements that can also be understood as aesthetic upgrades and/or include functional and infrastructural pedestrian amenities (better intersection crossings, more street furniture, greenery, shade, water, entertainment, etc.). Rather than develop a fragmented collection of improvements on a site-by-site basis, Rethink the Street might consider developing interventions that target an entire street or the whole commercial core. Rethink the Street should encourage community stakeholders to become actively involved in concept development and design to help ensure that projects are truly co- produced and responsive to community preferences and needs. Conclusion #2: The intersection at Galena and Hopkins sees very heavy pedestrian and motor vehicle use. It is not perceived as safe and welcoming for pedestrians. It hosts several types of potentially hazardous situations. It is unclear whether other intersections in the core exhibit similar conditions because they have not been studied. It is also unclear that the bulb-outs and living rooms improved conditions at Hopkins and Galena because the post-installation study did not take place. Recommendation: Rethink the Street should conduct pre-installation studies of any intersection or site targeted for a project to identify specific hazards that have the potential to make pedestrians feel unsafe, hurried, unwelcome, or distressed. Rethink the Street should also conduct post-installation studies to determine whether or not the project successfully improves pedestrian safety. Conclusion #3: There are several opportunities for improvement regarding the project approach. For example, a post-installation study was never conducted at the Hopkins and Galena pilot site. Outreach to the business community was minimal and took place long after the pilot installation went it. Feedback came mostly from comment cards, particularly during the second half of the season, possibly skewing response data. There was no coordinated information and media strategy, resulting in confusion and misinformation about the project and the bulb-outs. The co-production element of the project never really materialized, having been slowed by unclear guidelines about what was allowable in the bulb-out and living room P96 II. Page 36 of 40 spaces and eventually cancelled when it was decided that the installation would not go back in after the Pro Cycling Challenge. Recommendation: Several important but overlooked strategies and steps related to data collection, outreach, information, and community involvement should be incorporated into future plans. Conclusion #4: Rethink the Street was more successful at informing and soliciting feedback from members of the community than it was at involving them. It had very limited success at making the streets safer and more vibrant. This is primarily due to the existence of significant barriers to success. However, the team feels that the project should continue if substantial changes are made to the team, the approach, and the resources available. Recommendation: Rethink the Street should move forward next year with significant changes made to the structure and function of the project team, the project approach, and the budget. Lessons from this year’s inaugural iteration of Rethink the Street should be used to inform how the project proceeds. P97 II. Page 37 of 40 VII. PHOTOS 1. PHOTOGRAPHS Figure 1: Chalkboard at pedestrian mall Figure 2: Chalkboard with idea data Figure 3: Preliminary outreach and data collection Figure 4: Northwest corner of Galena and Hopkins pre-installation from the southeast corner P98 II. Page 38 of 40 Figure 5: Pedestrians crossing Galena pre-installation Figure 6: Project team members installing the bulb- outs and Hopkins and Galena Figure 7: Project team members and other City staff installing the bulb-outs and Hopkins and Galena Figure 8: Completed bulb-outs from northeast corner P99 II. Page 39 of 40 Figure 9: Wishing tree in northwest bulb-out Figure 10: Project team members speaking with the public during ice cream social Figure 11: Project team members and other City staff speaking with the public during ice cream social Figure 12: Chalkboard outside of City Hall as a creative installation/public space animation P100 II. Page 40 of 40 Figure 11: Chalkboard outside of City Hall to collect additional location and idea data Figure 13: People enjoying the public spaces created by the bulb-outs Figure 14: Living rooms on Galena adjacent to northeast corner bulb-out Figure 14: People enjoying the living rooms P101 II. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner Barry Crook, Assistant City Manager Don Taylor, Finance Director Pete Strecker, Assistant Finance Director Hillary Seminick, Planner MEETING DATE: January 26, 2016 RE: Uphill Economy Update and Funding Request REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff requests Council provide guidance on moving forward with work related to the Uphill Economy. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: The Council selected the following as a Top 10 Goal in August 2015: “Identify and pursue economic opportunities that diversify Aspen’s economy without relying on physical development.” This is a continuation of a previous 2014 Council goal to spur economic development without physical development. BACKGROUND: Part of this goal focuses on the “uphill economy” as a way to build on Aspen’s existing mountaineering and skiing culture. The work in 2014 involved the creation of an Uphill Festival at the base of Aspen Mountain that included a vendor village that enabled event visitors to learn about uphilling and even test equipment. While that was a successful event, staff believes the next step to move this effort forward is an economic development plan to outline how Aspen can build on our existing skiing and uphilling profile to capture additional economic activity that does not rely on physical development. Conversations with representatives from the uphill industry and the Colorado Office of Economic Development have confirmed that a short and long term vision is needed. SUMMARY: City Special Events staff is working with the Aspen Skiing Company to put on another Uphill Festival. It is scheduled for February 27th at the base of Aspen Mountain, to coincide with the end of the Power of Four Race. This event is anticipated to build off the success of the 2015 inaugural event, and will include a vendor village and demos. Staff has been working with consultant Bob Schultz to draft an RFP requesting professional services for the creation of an “Uphill Economy Economic Development and Recruitment Plan,” which is intended to identify a strategic pathway and critical actions that the City can implement, P102 III. either alone or in cooperation with other actors, to position Aspen as a home for research and development and manufacturing of uphill athletic gear and associated businesses. The deliverables for the plan include a detailed analysis of the existing uphill market, how Aspen is currently positioned relative to the overall industry, key trends in the industry, and how Aspen can improve its market position. The plan would outline a short and long term strategy for building on Aspen’s mountaineering and uphill reputation with an ultimate goal of creating a local economic engine unrelated to real estate and development. Without this plan staff does not believe any additional work beyond putting on uphill events is likely to occur. There are no economic development experts currently on city staff, so a consultant team is needed to create this plan. FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: Should the Council determine to move forward with an RFP, a project budget will need to be determined and a budget supplemental requested. The size of the supplemental will be dependent on responses to the RFPs. Staff anticipates this work will be $15,000 - $35,000. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends moving forward with an RFP in order to move this overall effort forward. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: P103 III. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner MEETING DATE: January 26, 2016 RE: Implementing the AACP into the Land Use Code SUMMARY: In August 2015 City Council adopted a set of “Top Ten Goals” to work on for the next two years. One of the goals is to “Reconcile the Land Use Code to the Aspen Area Community Plan so the Land Use Code delivers what the AACP promises.” This work session provides an update to Council about work related to this goal. Council is also asked to provide feedback on potential next steps related to some of the specific work program items. Specific questions are highlighted in bold. Council is asked to prioritize the work listed below, as current staffing levels do not enable work to be completed on all of these items even if multiple consultants are hired. Staff has provided suggestions on which items to move forward with at this time, but requests formal direction from Council. BACKGROUND: Staff hired land use consultant Bob Schultz to assist in identification of AACP implementation priorities. He met with Council members in October to discuss each member’s initial thoughts about this goal, and facilitated a November 17th work session with Council. At that meeting City Council identified a number of general code amendment and policy areas for staff work in response to the Council Top Ten goal of better aligning the Land Use Code and the Aspen Area Community Plan. The work session follow up memo is attached as Exhibit C. While the Council was interested in a number of topics, there was agreement to make the commercial core/downtown area as the first priority for action on the Land Use Code. Council members discussed seven work program areas related to the commercial core/downtown. There was recognition that many of the items will require consultant assistance, and Council supported staff beginning to work on finding appropriate consultant help. There was also support for broad community input on the efforts. The prioritized work areas are discussed in more detail below. Attached as Exhibit D is a list of AACP implementation items completed since 2012. PROPOSED WORK PROGRAM AREAS: ZONING REVIEW Council expressed interest in understanding the forms of buildings that are likely to be produced based on current zoning standards/dimensions. Council was also interested in reviewing exceptions to standards and dimensions that exist in the current code. Some Council members expressed an interest in understanding whether a cap on development could create the environment for using transferable development rights to accommodate new growth without increasing the overall development rights in the community. In general, Council indicated an interest in reducing ambiguity and uncertainty in the land use review process. Current Status: Staff is working on a white paper that details the history of planning and zoning in Aspen. It will include information on the general planning concepts of each decade as well as basic dimensional and use allowances over the years. Due to staffing levels this items is expected to be completed in February. Attached Page 1 of 4 P104 IV. as Exhibit A is a basic graphic showing the timeframe for major code changes through the 2006 moratorium. A future work session could be scheduled to discuss zoning history in more depth. Questions for Council: 1. Does Council want a separate work session to discuss zoning history, or does Council prefer a report only? COMMERCIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES & PUBLIC AMENITY SPACE Council expressed interest in updating the Commercial Design Guidelines, which have not been updated since their adoption in 2007. A number of zoning changes have been approved since the adoption of the Commercial Design Guidelines, which need to be incorporated. In addition, Council expressed an interest to examine the Public Amenity requirements. At this time, staff anticipates this work being completed as part of the update to the Commercial Design Guidelines and would include an examination of Public Amenity requirements generally, as well as specifically along the Pedestrian Malls. Current Status: Staff has issued an RFP requesting consultant assistance for a comprehensive update to the Commercial Design Standards and Public Amenity Requirements. The RFP is available on http://www.rockymountainbidsystem.com/ and will close on January 26th. Staff hopes to have a consultant selected in February, with completion of an update by the Fall of 2016. There is currently no budget for this work. The original Guidelines cost approximately $100,000 to create. Staff will have information on the range of RFP budget estimates at the work session and requests Council direction regarding funding in order to move forward, or not, with the work. Because the Commercial Design Guidelines provide the basis for what development looks like in town and because there is an RFP out for this work, staff recommends moving forward with this work. Questions for Council: 2. Should this work move forward? 3. Can Council provide general direction on a budget amount for this update? MOBILITY-PARKING Council expressed an interest in regulations that support City policies to limit traffic and reduce traffic congestion while providing good circulation and mobility alternatives. Minimum and maximum parking requirements would be examined, as well as ways to incorporate the City’s transportation mitigation requirements into parking standards. This work is on-going in conjunction with Council’s transportation-related goals. Current Status: Staff has issued an RFP requesting consultant assistance for an examination and potential update to the mobility and off-street parking requirements for development. The RFP is available on http://www.rockymountainbidsystem.com/ and will close on January 26th. Staff hopes to have a consultant selected in February, with completion of an update by the end of 2016. Council allocated a total budget of $100,000 for 2016, which would include all consultant work and public outreach. Because this has been previously identified as a priority through a 2016 regular budget allocation and ties into multiple Top Ten Goals staff recommends moving forward with this work. Questions for Council: 4. Does Council need any additional information related to this item? EMPLOYEE HOUSING MITIGATION FOR EXISTING COMMERCIAL SPACES Council members have raised questions and concerns about mitigation requirements related to existing commercial spaces. Council expressed interest in understanding the legal and practical implications of how existing commercial spaces are calculated in the determination of required housing mitigation. Page 2 of 4 P105 IV. Current Status: Planning staff is working with the City Attorney’s office to address this issue and expects to have information for Council in early February. Staff believes this work can continue at this time and recommends moving forward with the initial information collection and checking again with Council to see if any additional work should be done. Questions for Council: 5. Does Council need any additional information related to this item? REGULATE USE Council expressed a desire to understand the opportunities and constraints related to regulating use in commercial buildings. There is a general concern that the unfettered market will result in exclusionary commercial opportunities that will fail to serve locals and a diverse base of visitors. Council members expressed concern that over time it could threaten Aspen’s vitality and economy. There is also an interest in understanding the “nooks and crannies” around town and how they create opportunity for small business and vitality. Current Status: Past Councils have discussed these issues, specifically around implementing quotas for different types of businesses, providing direct subsidies to businesses, regulating chain retail, creating public-private partnerships, tax incentives, and creating incubator commercial spaces, and decided not to move forward on them. At this time, staff recommends hiring a consultant to assist in crafting potential solutions to preserve Aspen businesses as well as updating background information related to businesses entering and existing the market. Due to capacity issues and the amount of outreach and research needed, staff recommends work on this item move forward later in 2016. Questions for Council: 6. How would Council like to proceed? 7. Should this work focus on the immediate downtown, or should it focus on all commercial zones? VIEW PLANES Council indicated an interest in reviewing the existing view plane protections for effectiveness and assess the community’s priorities for view plan protection. Current Status: At this time, staff recommends moving forward with public outreach efforts around the community’s overall goals related to view planes and which views are important to preserve later in 2016. Much of this work will likely be influenced by work on the Commercial Design Guidelines and staff believes it is important to begin that work first. When work does begin, staff recommends that the public outreach take a step back from the specific protected view planes in the Land Use Code and instead ask the community to identify what views they believe are most critical to protect. Outreach methodology for this could include asking the community to nominate the views they should be protected through Open City Hall and smart phone technology. At this time there is $25,000 available for an update to the entire Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) Chapter, so a portion of that money could fund work in this area. Questions for Council: 8. How would Council like to proceed? 9. Are there any other outreach methodologies Council would like to employ for this effort? 10. Should this work focus on the immediate downtown, or should it focus on other parts of town? Page 3 of 4 P106 IV. OTHER ITEMS: Since the November 17, 2015 work session, the Historic Preservation Commission made a motion asking the City to initiate historic designations for City-owned properties that are eligible through the AspenModern program. A copy of HPC’s meeting minutes from December 2, 2015 is attached as Exhibit B. Section 6 of the AspenModern Ordinance (Ordinance 28, Series 2010) lists four (4) City-owned properties that are eligible for designation and directs the City to move forward on designations. Additional City sites, including the Pedestrian Malls are also eligible under the AspenModern program. The Ordinance specifically states: Initiating designations for City-owned buildings has been raised as a potential Community Development Department work program item with City Council in the past (most recently in July 2015) and Council has not added it to the Department’s work program. Staff is raising this issue at this time due to HPC’s motion, and because the topic is included in the AACP: AACP Historic Preservation Policy III.1 states “The public sector should set an example as a responsible steward of preservation and adaptive re-use of historic buildings.” If Council desires to move forward with historic designations of any City-owned properties, staff recommends a consultant be hired to process local and any national designations. At this time staff estimates this would cost between $1,000 and $2,000 per property for a consultant to compile the application and participate in the public hearings on the designations. Questions for Council: 11.Does Council wish to move forward with designation of any City-owned properties at this time? 12.If so, is there direction on which properties? STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends moving forward on the following items at this time: 1. History of Zoning White Paper 2. Information on Affordable Housing Mitigation Requirements for Existing Commercial Spaces 3.Commercial Design Guidelines Update 4.Off-Street Parking and Mobility Updates CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ____________________________________ ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A – Zoning changes over time Exhibit B – HPC Meeting Minutes Exhibit C – Nov 17 Work Session Follow Up Memo Exhibit D – AACP Implementation since 2012 Page 4 of 4 P107 IV. E x h i b i t A P 1 0 8 I V . ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 2, 2015 1 Chairperson, Willis Pember called the meeting to order at 12:00 Noon. Commissioners in attendance were Patrick Sagal, Nora Berko, Jim DeFrancia, Bob Blaich and Michael Brown. Absent were Sallie Golden, John Whipple and Gretchen Greenwood. Staff present: Jim True, City Attorney Amy Simon, Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk MOTION: Bob moved to approve the minutes of Nov. 11, 2015; second by Jim. All in favor, motion carried. Public: Brent Gardner-Smith introduced himself as a reporter. Nora said the work session with City Council was great. The Aspen Modern Ordinance #28 section 6 specified that there are five properties owned by the city that should be designated. In 2016 we should get those five properties protected; Red Brick, Yellow Brick, Mountain Rescue, mall and Hildur Anderson Park. We need to lead by example. Amy said there would be a hearing before HPC and City Council. MOTION: Nora made the motion that HPC recommends that staff take steps to designate the 5 properties in 2016, motion second by Bob. All in favor, motion carried. Guidelines Amy summarized the memo in the guidelines. We have tried to improve the guidelines with better clarity. This is basically a re-write of the entire document. We have dropped the glossary. In the introduction we have trimmed out anything that refers to the code because the code could change tomorrow. We tried to be more general. We want passion behind the design and a good explanation of what the proposal is. Bob suggested that there be a link to the National Register on page 20. Exhibit B P109 IV. ASPEN CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING NOTES MEETING DATE: November 17, 2015 AGENDA TOPIC: AACP, Land Use Code coordination PRESENTED BY: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner; Chris Bendon, Community Development Director, Consultant: Bob Schultz COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Skadron, Ann Mullins, Adam Frisch, Art Daily, Bert Myrin SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION: The City Council Work Session on November 17, 2015 resulted in priorities for staff work in response to the Council Top Ten goal of better aligning the Land Use Code and the Aspen Area Community Plan. While the Council was interested in a number of topics, there was agreement to make the commercial core/downtown area as the first priority for action on the Land Use Code. Council members discussed seven work areas related to the commercial core/downtown. There was discussion and interest in staff presenting a range of options for action that included “bold” steps to achieve the desired future expressed in the AACP. There was recognition that many of the items will require consultant assistance, and Council supported staff beginning to work on finding appropriate consultant help. There was also support for broad community input on the efforts. The prioritized work areas are discussed in more detail below. Commercial Design Guidelines Council expressed interest in updating the Commercial Design Guidelines, which have not been updated since 2007. This work area may best be addressed in conjunction with the zoning review (below) as the zoning standards/dimensions and design guidelines work together to influence the form and appearance of commercial buildings. Zoning Review Council expressed interest in understanding the forms of buildings that are likely to be produced based on current zoning standards/dimensions. Council was also interested in reviewing exceptions to standards and dimensions that exist in the current code. Some Council members expressed an interest in understanding whether a cap on development could create the environment for using transferable development rights to accommodate new growth without increasing the overall development rights in the community. In general, Council is interested in reducing ambiguity and uncertainty in the land use review process. View Planes Council indicated an interest in reviewing the existing view plane protections for effectiveness and assess the community’s priorities for view plan protection. 1 Exhibit C P110 IV. Public Amenities Council expressed interest to examine the Public Amenity requirements, an effort that could be combined with an examination of the Commercial Design Standards. There is a desire to promote community- shared places that promote interaction and sense of place. Regulate Use Council expressed a desire to understand the opportunities and constraints related to regulating use in commercial buildings. There is a general concern that the unfettered market will result in exclusionary commercial opportunities that will fail to serve locals and a diverse base of visitors. Over time, that could threaten Aspen’s vitality and economy. There is also an interest in understanding the “nooks and crannies” around town and how they create opportunity for small business and vitality. Mobility-Parking There is an interest in regulations that support Council policies to limit traffic and reduce traffic congestion while providing good circulation and mobility alternatives. Minimum and maximum parking requirements would be examined, as well as ways to incorporate the TIA into parking standards. This work is on-going in conjunction with Council’s transportation-related goals. Employee Housing Mitigation for existing commercial spaces There have been questions and concerns raised about mitigation requirements related to existing commercial spaces. Council expressed interest in understanding the legal and practical implications of how existing commercial spaces are calculated in the determination of required housing mitigation. Next Steps: Staff will work on an overall strategy to involve the community as broadly as possible. Staff will return at a January 26th work session to discuss next steps, funding needs, and consultant needs. 2 P111 IV. AACP WORK COMPLETED SINCE 2012 Since the adoption of the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) in 2012, there have been a number of items reviewed and implemented by City Departments and City Council. The AACP includes many policy priorities and a variety of policy direction on topics from growth to the transportation to historic preservation to the environment. Every year since the AACP adoption, City Council has prioritized various work program items from the AACP. Some items have been made into City Council goals or processed as code amendments, while others have not yet been selected by City Council for implementation. This exhibit outlines the AACP policies the City has completed worked on since 2012.1 Master Plan Process – Added a new chapter outlining the process for any master plan. (Ord 31, 2012). AACP: General implementation from the overall 2012 AACP Process. Aspen Idea Chapter: •Uphill Economy – In 2015 the City began work to support the “Uphill Economy.” The effort builds on the popularity of this outdoor movement by attracting events and businesses to Aspen and the Roaring Fork Valley that can provide economic development that is not tied to the built environment. In February 2015 the City hosted a successful uphill event and expo that coincided with the Power of Four race. AACP: Aspen Idea Policies I.3-4; Managing Growth Policy I.4. Managing Growth For Community & Economic Sustainability Chapter: •Code Amendment Process – Updated process for code amendments, allowing more Council oversight and more immediate action (Ord 11, 2012). AACP: Managing Growth Policies VIII.1-2. •Downtown heights & uses – Reduced heights to 28 feet, eliminated SFR/Duplex as allowed use in C-1, reduced allowed Free-market FAR (Ord 12, 2012), and amended heights to address south/north sides of street, eliminated Free-market residential as an allowed use in CC and C- 1 (Ord 25, 2012). AACP: Managing Growth Policies I.6 and V.3. •Mitigating Impacts of Development Report – Report analyzing the impacts of development on Parks/Open Space/Recreation/Trails, Transportation, the Environment, Affordable Housing, Construction, and Public Health/Human Services. Council chose to move forward on Housing and Transportation. (Report issued May 2012). AACP: Managing Growth Policies VII.1-2. •Lodging Charrette & Report – Provided an analysis of existing conditions in the lodging sector (Report issued August 2012). AACP: Managing Growth Policies IV.1-2. 1 While the AACP is a joint plan between the City and the County and includes potential work items for the City, County, and community non-profits, this exhibit focuses only on the work conducted by the City of Aspen. AACP Implementation Page 1 of 7 Exhibit D P112 IV. • Employee Generation and Double Dipping – Updated the City’s Employee Generation Study for commercial and lodging zones, and eliminated the so-called “double-dip provision” in Growth Management that had allowed project to only mitigate for their highest requirement (Ord 4, 2013). AACP: Managing Growth Policy VII.2. • PUD/PD – A complete re-write of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) chapter, renamed chapter to “Planned Development”, established new review criteria, Council decision on projects made sooner in process, went from 4 required review steps to 3 (Ord 36, 2013). AACP: Managing Growth Policies VIII.2-3. • Subdivision & Development Documents – A complete rewrite of Subdivision chapter, updated review criteria, established clearer requirements for development documents through creation of a new chapter, established clearer subdivision review types (Ord 37, 2013 – Subdivision; Ord 41, 2013 – Development Documents). AACP: Managing Growth Policy VIII.2. • Lodging Economics & Demand Report – Report outlining the economics and general demand around the lodging and short-term rental sector in Aspen and other resort communities (Report issued June 2013). AACP: Managing Growth Policies IV.1-2. • Double Basement – Eliminated the ability to build double basements in single-family and duplex development (Ord 31, 2014). AACP: Managing Growth Policy III.2. • Lodge Incentive Program – Created program intended to provide incentives for existing lodges and condominiums to upgrade, and to enable new lodging products to be developed (Ord 19, Series 2014 – rescinded). AACP: Managing Growth Policies IV.1-4 and VII.3. • Public Projects – Updated the COWOP Chapter to address all Public Projects and to address state law (Ord 11, 2015). AACP: Managing Growth Policy VIII.3. • Small Lodge Preservation Program – Created a 5-year program to assist existing small lodges to upgrade, refurbish, and expand, in an effort to enable them to remain a lodge. (Ord 15, Series 2015). AACP: Managing Growth Policies IV.1-2. • Downtown Residential Uses – Legalized existing free-market residential units, while prohibiting any new free-market residential units and any expansion of free-market residential space to address non-conforming status created by Ordinance 25, Series 2012 (Ord 25, Series 2015). AACP: Managing Growth Policies III.2 and VIII.2. Transportation Chapter: • Transportation Mitigation Requirements – Implemented a new system for all new development to mitigate its new trips through TDM and MMLOS measures (Ord 8, 2014). AACP: Transportation Primary Policies 1-2, and Policies III.1, III.3; Environmental Sustainability Policies I.3, II.1 and II.4; Managing Growth Policy VII.2. AACP Implementation Page 2 of 7 P113 IV. • Bus Stop Improvements – Remodel and updates of Rubey Park, and replacements and updates of stops along the Hunter Creek route. AACP: Transportation Primary Policies 1-2, and Policy I.1. • Bus Service Improvements – Includes the remodel of Rubey Park, and ongoing efforts including “shopping of routes,” ongoing discussions and coordination with RFTA regarding customer and service issues, and promotion of BRT. AACP: Transportation Policies I.4 and VI.3. • Education and Outreach Efforts – Ongoing efforts by Transportation Department to make more people aware of bus system and incentivize use. This has included contests, appreciation events, and outreach and marketing to hotels. AACP: Transportation Policies I.3 and VI.1. Housing Chapter: • Capital Reserves Policy – Policy development is currently in process, with timing associated with resolution of issues at Centennial. APCHA partly funded capital reserve studies for those HOA’s who opted in. This enabled some of the HOA’s to create capital reserves and begin to collect the funds. AACP: Housing Policies I.1 and I.3. • ADUs – Ongoing work to address the ADU option for housing mitigation. AACP: Housing Policies II.5-6. • AH Credits Conversion – Provide a system of conversion between categories (Ord 32, 2012). AACP: Housing Policy III.2. • Non-mitigation units – APCHA and City continue to work on ways to partner on housing and increase community involvement in creation on non-mitigation housing. This includes ongoing discussions with Habitat for Humanity, continued refinements to the Housing Credits Program, and RFPs for the City’s land-banked properties. AACP: Housing Policy III.2. • Housing Guidelines – Updated Housing Guidelines to make them easier to understand and to include new procedural information (anticipated effective date August 2015). AACP: Housing Policy V.1. • Community Outreach and Engagement – The Housing Office has provided a number of seminars and other educational opportunities for homeowners, including information on CCIOA. AACP: Housing Policies I.4 and V.1. • Management and Enforcement – Increased audits and inventorying of each unit as to household size, employment, etc. Increases in qualified tenants. AACP: Housing Policy V.2. • AH Credits Update – Update program to limit creation of affordable housing credits to private sector developers, to full units (no dorm units), to within city limits, to Categories with cash- in-lieu figures in the Housing Guidelines, and to address the creation of fractional credits in AACP Implementation Page 3 of 7 P114 IV. mixed-use buildings (Ord 34, 2015). AACP: Managing Growth Policy VIII.2 and Housing Policies IV.2 and V.1. Parks, Recreation, Open Space & Trails Chapter: • Park Acquisitions – Acquired a number of parcels for both active and passive parks, including the Dolinsek property, the Lindsey parcel, and Smuggler Mineral Rights. AACP: Parks Policies I.1 and III.2-3. • Park Balance – Continue to maintain a balance between active recreational parks and passive parks, this has included efforts at Ajax Park, Pioneer Park, Bugsy Bernard Park, and Garrish open space. AACP: Parks Policy I.2. • Recreation Business Plan – The Recreation Department is working on an update to their business plan. AACP: Recreation Policies II.1-2. • Protecting Open Space – Implement improved noxious weed management, enforcement of illegal camping, and clean-up efforts at Cozy Point. AACP: Parks Policy III.1, and Environmental Stewardship Policies VI.1 and VII.1. • Trail Improvements – Implemented trail enhancements and new connections, including Cozyline, Airline, Ditchline, Deer Hill trail, Burlingame connector, Hummingbird traverse, Lollipop extension, and Hunter Creek Extension. AACP: Parks Policies IV.1 and IV.3. • Regional Trail Planning – On going work on the Upper Roaring Fork trails plan (draft expected September 2015), and coordination with multiple jurisdictions on trail planning, including Pitkin County, US Forest Service, Snowmass Village, and Aspen Skiing Company. AACP: Parks Policy IV.2. • Community Outreach – Enhanced communications and outreach efforts regarding city parks, open space, trails, and recreation, including online surveys, new summer and winter trail maps, new Smuggler self-guided tour map, and a new Nordic website. AACP: Parks Policy V.1. Environmental Stewardship Chapter: • Greenhouse Gases – GHG emissions were down by 7.4% in 2014 from the baseline year. Voluntary programs exist to encourage energy reduction. AACP: Environmental Stewardship Policies I.1-4 and V.1-5. • Complete Streets – Adopted and implemented a “complete streets” policy that encourages street design for all form of transportation, including bikes and pedestrians. Implementation has included the work along the Main Street corridor. AACP: Environmental Stewardship Policy I.3 AACP Implementation Page 4 of 7 P115 IV. • Air Quality Monitoring – Participate in the Colorado State Patrol’s biannual Heavy Duty Diesel Vehicles safety checks, including performing emissions checks on all trucks to determine if they meet state air quality standards. Conduct weekly vehicle idling surveillance throughout the winter. Provide air quality trainings to all new RFTA bus drivers. AACP: Environmental Stewardship Policy II.1 • Ozone Monitoring – Implement updated air quality monitoring system to provide accurate real-time data to the public. Real-time ozone and particulate data in both a health based form as well as raw form is available at www.aspenairquality.com. AACP: Environmental Stewardship Policy II.1-2. • Stormwater Updates –Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP) requires all development sites to treat stormwater runoff with a preference for on-site treatment. Larger scale community projects have also been completed to help treat water in the rivers, including at Rio Grande Park and the John Denver Sanctuary. AACP: Environmental Stewardship Policies III.4, III.6 and III.7. • Trash & Recycling Requirements – Updated requirements for trash and recycling for all use types (Ord 13, Series 2013). In addition, the city has been working with Pitkin County and Waste Management staff to encourage use of the Rio Grande Recycling Center. AACP: Environmental Stewardship Policy IV.1. • Bag Ban – Instituted a ban on plastic bags in May 2012. The Bag Bank program continues to offer free reusable shopping bags to residents and visitors through 12 different locations. Environmental Health staff has also been training the checkout personnel at the two grocery stores to ensure they are complying with the Waste Reduction Ordinance. AACP: Environmental Stewardship Policy IV.1. • Composting – The City’s Environmental Health Department and Pitkin County Solid Waste Center were awarded a $200,000 grant from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment to expand the compost collection program (SCRAPS). Funds from this program are making a wider array of curbside collection containers available to residents and businesses at no charge. AACP: Environmental Stewardship Policy IV.1. • Deconstruction Requirements – Instituted a tracking and reporting system as part of the Construction Management Plan process to track the amount of deconstruction and to encourage reuse and recycling of materials. Approximately 60% of the total waste brought to the landfill is diverted. 63% of the waste brought to the landfill is Construction and Demolition waste. This has helped in efforts to increase the life of the landfill. AACP: Environmental Stewardship Policy IV.2 and IV.4 • Snow Storage Requirements – The Engineering Department has updated requirements to address snow storage requirements, requiring a minimum functional area of 30% of the paved area to be provided for snow storage on site. Detached sidewalk requirements also provide areas for snow storage. AACP: Environmental Stewardship Policy IV.3 AACP Implementation Page 5 of 7 P116 IV. • Aspen Electric Utility – Aspen Electric has achieved 100% renewable energy. AACP: Environmental Stewardship Policy V.1-2 Historic Preservation Chapter: • Historic Districts – Clarified that non-historic properties located within a Historic District are subject to the City’s historic preservation requirements. (Ord 33, 2012). AACP: Historic Preservation Policy II.1. • AspenModern Website – Implemented website dedicated to Aspen’s Post-WWII era properties. The website was completed in April 2014 and includes information on each style of architecture and each architect modern properties (http://www.aspenmod.com/) Staff continues to update the website as new properties are designated. AACP: Historic Preservation Policies I.1-2. • AspenVictorian Website – Implemented website dedicated to Aspen’s Victorian era properties (http://aspenvictorian.com/). The website went live in September 2014, and continues to be updated with information. AACP: Historic Preservation Policies I.1-2. • TDRs – Expanded TDR landing sites by allowing up to 3 TDRs on large lots (Ord 33, 2014). AACP: Historic Preservation Policies II.2-3; Managing Growth Policy III.3. Lifelong Aspenite Chapter: • Childcare Access – Kids First has ongoing efforts to ensure affordable child care is available to residents and workers, including offering financial aid above the Colorado Childcare Assistance Program maximum income. In 2014, 81 families received childcare financial aid, with an average award of $31.93 per day. All the families live or work in Aspen. Kids First financial aid serves approximately 15% of the total children enrolled in licensed childcare in Pitkin County. AACP: Lifelong Aspenite Policy I.1. • Early Childhood Mental Health – Kids First provides early childhood mental health consulting in the childcare programs; services include developmental screenings, behavioral challenges, emotional challenges, and family concerns. Their consultant (MA, LPC) also provides parent training and coaching sessions for childcare staff and families on social – emotional development. AACP: Lifelong Aspenite Policy III.1 and III.4. • Nurse Consulting Services – Kids First provides Nurse Consulting to the childcare programs that includes topics such as safety, nutrition, disease prevention, immunization policy and procedures, and medication administration. Their registered nurse also offers child dental, vision and hearing screenings, as well as teaching CPR and First Aid to childcare staff. AACP: Lifelong Aspenite Policy III.1, III.4, and III.5. • Continuing Education – Kids First offers scholarships and incentives to childcare staff to attend college courses to advance their learning in early childhood education. In 2014 over AACP Implementation Page 6 of 7 P117 IV. 70% of all staff working in licensed childcare programs took at least one 3-credit college course. AACP: Lifelong Aspenite Policy IV.1. AACP Implementation Page 7 of 7 P118 IV.