HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20170912
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
September 12, 2017
4:00 PM, City Council Chambers
MEETING AGENDA
I. Update on Shop Aspen Initiative
II. Aspen Ice Garden Dry Floor Events
III. ACRA Arts Festival
IV. EOTC Prep and Update on Mobility Lab
P1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Mitch Osur, City of Aspen & Brittany Zanin, Aspen Chamber Resort Association
DATE OF MEMO: September 5, 2017
MEETING DATE: September 12, 2017
RE: Shop Aspen & Luxury Retail Update
______________________________________________________________________________
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL: We’re updating Council on the Shop Aspen-Luxury Retail
Campaign: a multi-pronged initiative aimed at promoting Aspen’s brick and mortar
establishments. Upon reviewing all aspects of Shop Aspen, we ask Council to give feedback as
we move forward with this shop local initiative. ACRA also asks Council to formally address
business license fees regarding pop-ups/trunk shows and give direction on shortening the hours
of the Saturday Market.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:
At the September 12, 2016 Council Work Session, a group of luxury retailers voiced concerns
over non-traditional businesses operating in Aspen’s downtown core, and Council directed
representatives from luxury retail to connect with ACRA to collectively create suggestions and
requests of Council.
At the November 29, 2016 Council Work Session, Debbie Braun and luxury retail owners
collectively addressed Council as the retail task force, with areas for discussion and suggestions
related to non-traditional businesses (i.e. pop-up’s/trunk shows, the Saturday Market and art-
auction related events). At the end of this work session Council’s directives included: A legal re-
evaluation of business license fees and issuance parameters; a meeting between COA and ACRA
special events staff to address art related events; and a declaration that the Saturday Market
would be addressed separately.
BACKGROUND:
September 27, 2016: Paula Damaso, local business owner of Palaso, presented concerns of
luxury retailers at ACRA Board of Directors meeting. Following this meeting, a luxury retail
task was created to articulate concise concerns and areas for discussion. Task Force included
nineteen of Aspen’s local business owners and ACRA President, Debbie Braun.
October 18, 2016: Luxury Retail Task Force convened to discuss the Saturday Market, pop-up
shops, and art-auction related events. ACRA drafted official memo for Council, on behalf of the
P2
I.
task force, listing recommendations and action items for Council.
November 29, 2016: Official memo detailing above recommendations presented to City Council
at work session. See details above and attachment.
February 8, 2017: Per directive given at November 29th work session, relevant COA
departments and ACRA staff met to discuss next steps and tangible action items to address
concerns over pop-ups/trunk shows and art-auction related events.
March 2, 2017: COA and ACRA present solutions and action items to concerned luxury retail
and art gallery constituency, and request input.
DISCUSSION: ACRA developed the Shop Aspen Campaign in April 2017 to promote retailers
and restaurants in Aspen’s downtown core to visitors during art events, the Saturday Market and
peak summer occupancy. The Shop Aspen Campaign was activated June 16th and will run
through October 7th. These dates coincide with the Saturday Market’s 18-week schedule, and
encompass all summer art shows and events.
The Shop Aspen initiative included over $14,000.00 in advertising of local retailers, member-
based collateral for distribution, aspenchamber.org webpage guide, activations in conjunction
with 3 Aspen art shows, and a consistent presence throughout the summer. Please find a full
breakdown of the Shop Aspen Campaign below:
Shop Aspen Advertising
> 18 Half page advertisements in the Aspen Daily News detailing the ACRA member using the
Saturday Market booth, and highlighting member “Shop Aspen Saturday Deals” to push visitors
to ACRA member stores.
> 3 Full page advertisements in the Aspen Daily News promoting the Shop Aspen Art Walks,
including a listing of participating galleries (members and non-members).
> 3 Half page advertisements in the Aspen Daily News promoting the Shop Aspen Art Walks.
> 36 Mini advertisements in the Aspen Times, running Tuesday and Thursday, from June16 –
October 7 to drive traffic to aspenchamber.org/shopaspen.
Shop Aspen Collateral
> Professionally designed map of retailers and restaurants in the Aspen core, to be distributed at:
the Aspen Saturday Market; the visitor pavilion and Rio Grande visitor center; and the summer
art shows.
> Shop Aspen banner displayed at ACRA Saturday Market booth and art event activations.
> Professional photographer hired to capture new summer vitality images throughout Shop
Aspen campaign. Photos will be used for future marketing efforts.
Shop Aspen Website
> Designed informational landing page for Shop Aspen initiatives. Webpage provides
information on Shop Aspen Art Walks and Art Walk Guides, Shop Aspen Saturday deal listings,
Saturday market ACRA member booth details, and pdfs of Shop Aspen collateral maps.
P3
I.
Shop Aspen Activations
> Produced three art walks on Saturdays to coincide with the three art events (Aspen Antiques,
Jewelry, Automobile and Fine Arts Fair: July 8th; Aspen Arts Festival: July 22nd; Art Aspen:
August 5th).
- Collaborated with Aspen Sojourner Magazine to secure 18 galleries to participate in all
three Art Walks and plan execution
- Created posters distributed around Aspen
- Created Art Walk Guide distributed at galleries, art shows, visitors centers, and Saturday
market
- Purchased and delivered red balloons to each gallery, marketing their participation at each
Art Walk
- Created special insert for Shop Aspen map to promote each art walk
- Hosted first Art Walk from 5 – 7 p.m. At the request of participating galleries, we
expanded the following two walks to take place from 2 –7 p.m.
> Produced a Shop Aspen activation at Scott Fetzer art show at Aspen Ice Garden. ACRA staff
manned this event booth for nine days of event, and provided Shop Aspen collateral and Shop
Aspen Art Walk information. ACRA staff also provided visitor information to event guests.
> Produced Shop Aspen presence at Aspen Art Festival and Art Aspen by providing collateral
and Art Walk promotional materials (maps, posters, sandwich boards, and banner).
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS:
Budget Line Item To-Date & Actuals
ACRA Financial Commitment $20,000.00
COA Financial Sponsorship $6,000.00
TOTAL SHOP ASPEN BUDGET $26,000.00
Advertising $14,808.01
Professional Design Fees $4,525.00
Printing $1,781.01
Staging & AV $885.98
Photography $1,500.00
Staffing $2,500.00
TOTAL SPENT $26,000.00
ATTACHMENTS:
November 29, 2016 Council Work Session Memo submitted by ACRA
Shop Aspen Trifold Map of Member Businesses in the core
Shop Aspen Art Walk Map
Shop Aspen Art Walk Poster
Shop Aspen Art Walk Insert
Shop Aspen Banner Artwork
All Advertisements placed to-date
P4
I.
P5I.
P6I.
P7I.
P8I.
P9I.
P10I.
40 Club Monaco ..................................................(970) 925-2352
41 Courage B .........................................................(970) 429-8018
42 Dennis Basso .................................................(970) 925-4499
43 Ermeneglido Zenga ...................................(970) 544-4989
44 Gucci ...................................................................(970) 920-9150
45 Intermix .............................................................(970) 925-2288
46 James Perse ...................................................(970) 920-9494
47 Kali’s KCOR Aspen ........................................(970) 925-7722
48 Kemo Sabe .......................................................(970) 925-7878
49 Maison Ullens ..................................................(970) 429-4170
50 Mark Richard’s Fine Outerwear ...........(970) 544-6780
51 Moncler ...............................................................(970) 544-5558
52 Nina McLemore ............................................(970) 429-8454
53 Pitkin County Dry Goods ............................(970) 925-1681
54 Polo Ralph Lauren ........................................(970) 925-5147
55 Rag & Bone .......................................................(970) 925-2816
56 Susie’s Consignment .................................(970) 920-2376
57 Theory ...............................................................(970) 544-0079
58 Tlin’s Shoes ......................................................(970) 429-4756
59 Valentina Kova ..................................................(970) 710-7631
RESTAURANTS
American
1 Ajax Tavern .........................................................(970) 920-6334
2 Aspen Kitchen .................................................(970) 300-4525
3 Aspen Over Easy .............................................(970) 429-8693
4 bb’s kitchen ........................................................(970) 429-8284
5 CP Burger ............................................................(970) 925-3056
6 Element 47 ........................................................(970) 920-6330
7 HOPS Culture ....................................................(970) 925-4677
8 J Bar .......................................................................(970) 920-1000
9 Jimmy’s An American
Restaurant & Bar ............................................(970) 925-6020
10 Jimmy’s Bodega ..............................................(970) 710-2182
11 Justice Snow’s ...................................................(970) 429-8192
12 Living Room Bar ............................................(970) 920-1000
13 Piñons ...................................................................(970) 920-2021
14 Poppycock’s .......................................................(970) 925-1245
15 Prospect .............................................................(970) 920-1000
16 Shlomo’s Deli & Grill ......................................(970) 315-4055
17 Steakhouse No.316 ........................................(970) 920-1893
18 The Monarch ....................................................(970) 925-2838
19 The Red Onion ................................................(970) 925-9955
20 The White House Tavern ...........................(970) 925-1007
Asian
21 Asie ......................................................................(970) 920-9988
22 Kenichi .................................................................(970) 920-2212
23 Maru ....................................................................(970) 429-8640
24 Matsuhisa .........................................................(970) 544-6628
Bars & Pubs
25 Aspen Brewing Company ........................(970) 920-2739
26 Escobar ...............................................................(970) 414-0524
27 Ryno’s Pies & Pints ......................................(970) 922-7966
28 Zane’s Tavern ..................................................(970) 544-9263
Cafes & Bakeries
29 Paradise Bakery & Café..............................(970) 925-7585
30 Peach’s Corner Café ..................................(970) 544-9866
31 Victoria’s Espresso and Wine Bar ........(970) 920-3001
32 Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory......(970) 925-5112
Cooking Schools
33 Cooking School of Aspen .......................(970) 920-2002
Deli’s
34 Butcher’s Block .............................................(970) 925-7554
35 Grateful Deli .....................................................(970) 925-6647
36 Meat & Cheese .................................................(970) 710-7120
Family Friendly
37 Ajax Donut’s at the Popcorn Wagon (970) 429-8373
French
38 Cache Cache .................................................(970) 925-3835
39 Creperie du Village .......................................(970) 925-1566
40 Rustique Bistro .............................................(970) 920-2555
41 The Wild Fig ......................................................(970) 925-5160
Italian
42 Acquolina .........................................................(970) 925-8222
43 Brunelleschi’s .................................................(970) 544-4644
44 Campo de Fiori ..............................................(970) 920-7717
45 Casa Tua ............................................................(970) 920-7277
46 Ellina ....................................................................(970) 925-2976
47 L’Hostaria ..........................................................(970) 925-9022
48 Mezzaluna ........................................................(970) 925-5882
49 Trecento Quindici Decano ......................(970) 920-3300
Mexican
50 Mi Chola .............................................................(970) 710-7076
51 Su Casa ................................................................(970) 920-1488
New World
52 Bosq .....................................................................(970) 710-7299
53 Chef’s Club ......................................................(970) 920-3300
Seafood
54 The Grey Lady .................................................(970) 925-1797
RETAIL
Art & Galleries
1 Baldwin Gallery .................................................(970) 920-9797
2 Cha Cha Gallery ................................................(970) 925-1435
3 Christopher Martin Gallery .........................(970) 925-7649
4 Daniels Daniel’s & Daniel’s Antiques .....(970) 544-9282
5 Harvey Meadow’s Gallery ............................(970) 920-7721
6 Peter Lik Gallery ...............................................(970) 925-1820
7 Raven Gallery ....................................................(970) 429-4297
8 Royal Street Fine Art ......................................(970) 920-3371
Specialty Goods
9 Aspen Luggage Company .........................(970) 925-9368
10 Carl’s Pharmacy ..............................................(970) 925-3273
11 Cos Bar USA .....................................................(970) 925-6249
12 Explore Booksellers .....................................(970) 925-5336
13 Gorsuch .............................................................(970) 920-9388
14 Miner’s Building Supply .............................(970) 925-5550
15 Morgenthal Frederics ..................................(970) 925-2007
16 Mountain Flowers...........................................(970) 920-6912
17 Mystical Wonders of Aspen .....................(970) 923-7770
18 Needlepoint of Aspen.................................(970) 987-9877
Athletic Wear
19 Aspen Sports ....................................................(970) 925-6331
20 D & E Women ................................................(970) 920-2337
21 Helly Hansen ....................................................(970) 920-2337
22 Hamilton Sports .............................................(970) 925-1200
23 Incline Ski Shop ..............................................(970) 925-7748
24 Lululemon Athletica ....................................(970) 925-2033
25 Marmot ................................................................(970) 925-7719
26 Miller Sports ....................................................(970) 920-1500
27 Stapleton Sports ............................................(970) 925-9169
28 Surefoot .............................................................(970) 925-9235
29 Ute Mountaineer ...........................................(970) 925-2849
Jewelry
30 Covet Bright and Shiny Things ...........(970) 920-0000
31 Lugano Diamonds ........................................(970) 710-0794
32 Meridian Jewelers .........................................(970) 925-3833
33 Palaso .................................................................(970) 429-8529
Pet Supply
34 CB Paws ............................................................(970) 925-5848
35 Only Natural Pet ...........................................(970) 718-5060
36 Rocky Mountain Pet Shop ........................(970) 925-2010
Clothing & Accessories
37 Aspen Fur & Shearling ..............................(970) 925-3300
38 Aspen T-Shirt Company ............................(970) 925-5737
39 Bloomingbird’s Inc .........................................(970) 925-2241
CLOTHING
& ACCESSORIESART
& GALLERIES
PET SUPPLIES
JEWELRY
ATHLETIC WEAR
SPECIALTY GOODS
RESTAURANTS
& BARS
P11I.
DURANT AVE DURANT AVE
GALENA STHUNTER STMILL STMONARCH STCOOPER AVE COOPER AVE
HYMAN AVE HYMAN AVE
HOPKINS AVE HOPKINS AVE
INDEPENDENCE PASS MAIN STREET GLENWOOD SPRINGSSPRING STDEAN ST
Wagner Park
Rubey Park Transit Center
Gondola Plaza
ORIGINAL STArt & Galleries
Specialty Goods
Athletic Wear
Jewelry
Pet Supply
Clothing Accessories
Wheeler
Opera
House
RETAIL
RESTAURANTS
@AspenCo
@AspenCo
/AspenCommunity
For more information visit:
AspenChamber.org/ShopAspen
SATURDAY
MARKET
P12I.
P13I.
P14I.
P15I.
P16I.
P17I.
P18I.
P19I.
P20I.
P21I.
P22I.
P23I.
P24I.
P25I.
P26I.
P27I.
P28I.
P29I.
P30I.
P31I.
P32I.
P33I.
P34I.
P35I.
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Cory Vander Veen, Recreation Director
Nancy Lesley, Director of Special Events and Marketing
Mitch Osur, Director of Parking and Downtown Services
THRU: Jeff Woods, Manager Parks and Recreation
DATE OF MEMO: August 21, 2017
MEETING DATE: September 12, 2017
RE: Aspen Ice Garden Facility Rentals
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff is requesting Council permission to continue the leasing of
the Aspen Ice Garden (AIG) for private events. These private events provide significant revenue
to the Recreation Department which helps reduce the cost of recreational programs while
lowering the overall annual subsidy provided by the General Fund.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: At the work session held on November 29, 2016 Council
directed staff to work with the Aspen Chamber Resort Association (ACRA) and downtown
merchants to create new programs that would facilitate increased foot traffic to downtown arts
centered stores during AIG rental events and during the ACRA Art Festival. (See attached memo
from Mitch Osur which outlines the Shop Aspen Initiative in detail). At this same work session;
Council also asked staff to outline what the financial impacts would be to area businesses if these
AIG and ACRA related events continued to take place.
BACKGROUND: Over the past 8 years, the Recreation Department has rented out the AIG to
two private retail customers during its summer off-season. The AIG is closed to the general
public during this time and the ice is removed for routine maintenance purposes in order to keep
the facility in top shape. This “dry-floor condition” used by these two retail customers has helped
keep the price of ice down to our ice users. The first of these two retail events is The Aspen
Antiques, Jewelry, Automobile and Fine Arts Fair and is held within the first 10 days of July.
This year the event was held July 1 – July 10, 2017. The second event is Art Aspen and this
event is held in conjunction with a big community event called ArtCrush and this year the event
was held August 4 – 6, 2017.
DISCUSSION: Staff determined that the best way to gather unbiased information on the impact
of both events was to conduct a survey of the event attendees and vendors. The objective of the
survey was to quantify visitor knowledge of the events taking place at the AIG. Initially staff’s
goal was to survey 100 participants at each of the AIG events to make this survey statistically
P36
II.
2
valid. At the first event which was the Aspen Antiques, Jewelry, Automobile and Fine Arts
Fair taking place in July it became apparent that gathering 100 surveys was not possible because
of the small number of participants at this show who were willing to take the survey. Staff was
able to gather 35 responses at each show. Consequently, staff expanded the survey to include
visitors from the downtown mall area. Staff was able to gather the following visitor feedback
from these surveys:
· The majority of attendees at the AIG centered events were visitors to Aspen.
· The AIG events were not the driving reason they came to Aspen.
· The majority of attendees came because they had a previous and on-going relationship
with one of the AIG event vendors and they had been invited to see a specific item on
behalf of that vendor.
· Attendees have significant disposable income and are drawn to these shows because of
the museum quality merchandise.
Staff feels that it is important to note the significant amount of money the vendors spent while in
Aspen which was gleaned from the survey results. Feedback from these vendors showed that
while at these AIG centered events, vendors stayed in local hotels, ate their meals in Aspen
restaurants, shopped at local merchants, and spent money entertaining their customers in town.
The survey results showed that on average each vendor involved with these two shows spent
approximately $6000 in our community while they were in Aspen. There were a total of 80
vendors from both shows which translates into a combined taxable revenue total of
approximately $480,000 spent during these two AIG dry floor events. In regards to revenue from
the sale of wares during these shows, it is the industry standard that all wares are shipped to
customers and not taxed in Aspen.
Staff also learned that majority of visitors surveyed on the down town mall stated that they did
not know about these events ahead of time before coming to Aspen and that they would be
interested in attending events like this in the future. This provides evidence that there is
opportunity for growth for more AIG private events in the future which could help further reduce
recreation programming costs and general fund subsidy costs.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: The Recreation Department contracted with these entities
in 2017 for a daily rate of $4,400 for each day the vendor assumed control of the event space,
including set-up and tear-down time. The total revenue gained for the Recreation Department
through these two events in 2017 was $88,000. However, with projected price increases for 2018
for AIG rental space fees, the anticipated revenue (which would be part of the Recreation
Department’s 2018 budget plan) would be increased to $92,000.
If Council decides not to direct staff to continue the leasing of the AIG for retail private events,
then Council needs to choose another option that would generate the revenue needed to maintain
2018 budget levels for the Recreation Department. These options include:
1. The Recreation Department would need to submit a supplemental request of $92,000
from the General Fund in order to retain current programming and pricing.
P37
II.
3
2. The Recreation Department would need to increase ice rental fees for nonprofit and for
profit users alike by approximately $120.00 per hour. This fee increase would be
necessary to generate the $92,000.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: The Recreation Department staff recommends that Council
approves the continuation of staff management and operation of AIG dry floor retail private
events and that staff continues to explore creative uses of the AIG facility in the future. Staff
requests that a decision be made promptly so that staff can proceed with event planning and
securing vendors for the future of these two existing dry floor events.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
P38
II.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Aspen Chamber Resort Association
DATE OF MEMO: September 5, 2017
MEETING DATE: September 12, 2017
RE: Aspen Arts Festival Update
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: At the November 29, 2016 Council Work Session, Debbie
Braun and luxury retail owners collectively addressed Council as the retail task force, with areas
for discussion and suggestions related to non-traditional businesses (i.e. pop-up’s/trunk shows,
the Saturday Market and art-auction related events). At the end of this work session, Council’s
directives included: A legal re-evaluation of business license fees and issuance parameters; a
meeting between COA and ACRA special events staff to address art related events; and a
declaration that the Saturday Market would be addressed separately.
DISCUSSION: As production agreements had already been entered into for summer 2017,
ACRA and COA staff gathered information on how their respective art-auction related events
impacted the community. Furthermore, ACRA committed itself to promoting local brick and
mortar businesses prior to, during, and after each of Aspen’s major art-auction events. Please
refer to the Shop Aspen & Luxury Retail Update memo for details on the promotional strategies
implemented. Assuming Council is fine with this event moving forward, it will be held in either
Rio Grande Park or Paepcke Park in the future. Additional information on ACRA’s Aspen Arts
Festival is below.
The Aspen Chamber Resort Association (ACRA) hosts and executes five annual events in
Aspen: 12 Days of Aspen (December 20th-31st), Wintersköl (January 11-14th, 2018), FOOD &
WINE Classic in Aspen (June 15-17th, 2018), July 4th Celebration and the Aspen Arts Festival
(typically held the third weekend of July.) The ACRA has partnered with Howard Alan Events, a
Florida based art show producer, to produce the Aspen Arts Festival (AAF) for the past fifteen
years. ACRA produced the first AAF Wagner Park in 2003, where the event remained until a
request from the Parks Department moved the event to city streets in 2012. While the exact
footprint of the AAF has changed slightly over the years to encompass different streets, the event
is currently held on three full city blocks: Monarch from Durant to Hyman and Monarch from
Hyman to Hopkins. This event hosts approximately 130 juried artists from around the country, as
well as a local, Aspen artist section for approximately 10 Roaring Fork Valley residents.
Aspen is an arts and cultural destination for locals and visitors alike and hosts a variety of art-
P39
III.
related events in its summer months. However, the Aspen Arts Festival is vastly different from
other large-format art events, such as the two art shows hosted at the Aspen Ice Garden. What
makes the Aspen Arts Festival unique is that each approved, juried artist is only able to sell
items/goods that they, themselves have personally made. With each artist producing what they’re
selling on-site, the event alleviates concerns that outside vendors are in direct competition with
Aspen’s brick and mortar retail. The Aspen Arts Festival is also open to the public and free to
attend. In addition to promoting Aspen as an arts and cultural hotspot in the summer, the Aspen
Arts Festival not only brings immense vitality to town, it’s participating vendors also bring a
revenue surge for local businesses and sales tax income for the City of Aspen. To help Council
review information on the Aspen Arts Festival, we hired a third party at a cost of $6,000, RRC
Associates, to conduct an unbiased survey to both 2017 event vendors and attendees. A summary
of the survey results is below. (Please find an executive summary of the research results as an
attachment of this memo.)
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: ACRA has partnered with Howard Alan Events to
produce the Aspen Arts Festival (AAF) since 2003. As the local, managing partner, ACRA
receives a management fee of approximately $20,000.00. This management fee is an income line
item in the annual Chamber events budget that ultimately helps to offset other annual event costs.
Because of the partnership with Howard Alan Events, ACRA can produce the Aspen Arts
Festival without a direct financial contribution from COA.
In addition to being financially self-sustaining, the Aspen Arts Festival is an annual source of
revenue for the City of Aspen. First, the AAF generates approximately $3,000.00 in short-term
business licenses from participating vendors. Additionally, our third-party research data shows
that trip-related spend for attendees and vendors at the AAF totaled approximately $1.20 million.
The breakdown of this direct economic significance is as follows: attendees spent approximately
$1.07 million in Aspen and the surrounding area, while AAF vendors spent $129,000.00.
Research shows that the 2017 Aspen Arts Festival had a direct economic impact of
approximately $391,000.00. The breakdown of total has attendees accountable for $262,000.00
and vendors for $129,000.00.
ATTACHMENTS:
> 2017 Aspen Arts Festival Research Survey Executive Summary
(Full report can be made available upon request)
P40
III.
4770 Baseline Rd, Ste 360 Boulder, Colorado 80303 tel 303/449-6558 RRCAssociates.com
2017 ASPEN ARTS FESTIVAL RESEARCH
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Prepared for the Aspen Chamber Resort Association
August 31, 2017
INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY
This report summarizes the results of attendee and vendor research regarding the visitor
profile, estimated attendance, and economic impact of the Aspen Arts Festival, an event held
the weekend of July 22-23, 2017, in downtown Aspen, Colorado. The analysis updates a similar
visitor profile and economic impact study that RRC Associates conducted on the event in 2014.
RRC conducted an attendee intercept survey and crowd counts on both days of the event. A
total of 85 surveys were collected, up from 47 surveys in 2014. The 95 percent confidence
interval about a proportion for a sample of 85 is +/-10.6 percentage points. As documented in
the report, many of the survey results in 2017 and 2014 were similar (as would typically be
expected for a stable, mature event in a mature destination), adding confidence in the results.
Additionally, a survey was distributed to and collected from participating exhibitors on July 23.
A total of 95 surveys were collected from the 130 exhibitors, a response rate of 73 percent.
Both surveys included questions on demographics, selected trip characteristics, selected details
of the visit to the Festival, expenditures, and evaluation of the event.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Selected key findings from the 2017 Aspen Arts Festival research are summarized below.
Attendance and Economic Impact
• Total of 3,514 attendee-days. There were an estimated of 2,246 unique attendees on
Saturday and 1,267 unique attendees on Sunday, for a total of approximately 3,514
“attendee days” across the two-day event. (These counts include leisure attendees
only; vendors and event staff are excluded.) Based on manual counts, the average
P41
III.
2017 Aspen Arts Festival Research Executive Summary
RRC Associates 2
crowd size was approximately 370 on Saturday (peaking at 510 people at 11am), and
209 on Sunday (peaking at 290 people at 3pm). Visitors spent an average of 69 minutes
at the event, implying that the crowd turned over an average of 6.1 times each day
(across the 7-hour daily duration of the event).
• Direct economic significance (i.e. trip-related spend) of $1.20 million. Attendees of the
Festival spent a total of approximately $1.07 million in the Aspen/Roaring Fork Valley
region during their stay, and exhibiting vendors spent an additional $129,000.
• Direct economic impact estimated at $391,000. “Economic impact” refers to money
brought into or retained in Aspen/Roaring Fork Valley as a direct result of the event. It
is a narrower measure than “economic significance,” insofar as it takes into account the
importance of the event in driving the decision to visit Aspen, and excludes arts
purchases from vendors located outside the Roaring Fork Valley (as those economic
benefits largely accrue outside the Valley). The direct economic impacts include
$262,000 attributable to visitors and $129,000 attributable to vendors.
Attendee Demographics, Trip Characteristics, and Satisfaction
• Visitor demographics, trip characteristics, and satisfaction were largely similar in 2017
and 2014: As documented further below, the consistency of the findings tends to add
confidence in the survey results, given the established nature of the Festival.
• Eighty percent of attendees were from outside Aspen: Aspen residents accounted for
20 percent of respondents in 2017 and a similar 24 percent in 2014. Additionally,
comparable shares each year were from elsewhere in the Roaring Fork Valley (10
percent and 7 percent respectively); elsewhere in Colorado (17 percent and 18 percent);
out of state (51 percent and 47 percent); and foreign countries (2 percent and 4
percent).
• Skew to older age profile: The age distribution of respondents was largely similar in
2017 and 2014, with a skew to older attendees (median age 59 in 2017, 56 in 2014).
• Generally affluent attendees: This year, 22 percent of attendees had an annual
household income of less than $100,000, 49 percent earned $100,000 - $199,999, and
29 percent earned $200,000+.
• Steady share of overnight visitors: Sixty-two percent of respondents said they were
staying away from their primary residence as part of their visit, similar to the level
recorded in 2014 (66 percent).
• Most stayed in Aspen or Snowmass: Among overnight visitors, about half stayed in
Aspen (53 percent), while 31 percent stayed in Snowmass Village, 14 percent stayed
down valley, and 2 percent stayed in elsewhere.
P42
III.
2017 Aspen Arts Festival Research Executive Summary
RRC Associates 3
• Most stayed in paid lodging: Most overnight visitors stayed in paid lodging (59 percent),
including traditional paid lodging (43 percent) and rent-by-owner lodging (16 percent).
The remaining 41 percent stayed in owned vacation homes (22 percent), stayed with
friends/family living in the area (10 percent), used a tent or RV (6 percent), or stayed in
employee/student housing (2 percent).
• Even mix of first-time and repeat festival goers: Nearly half (47 percent) of respondents
were attending the Festival for the first year, while 53 percent had attended before.
Roaring Fork Valley residents were much more likely than out-of-Valley visitors to have
previously attended (87 percent vs. 39 percent).
• Most respondents were aware of the Festival before arrival (64 percent). Residents of
the Roaring Fork Valley were more likely to be aware than visitors from outside the
Valley (79 percent vs. 56 percent). Additionally, persons who had attended the event in
past years were much more likely to be aware than persons visiting the event for the
first time (89 percent vs. 33 percent).
• How would you rate your overall experience at the Aspen Arts Festival? Using a scale
where 1 = ‘Poor’ and 10 = ‘Excellent’, the average response was 8.4, similar to 8.2 in
2014. Most respondents this summer gave ratings of 8 to 10 (81 percent), indicating
moderate to high satisfaction for the majorit y of Festival-goers.
• What one thing could be done to most improve your experience at the Aspen Arts
Festival? In open-ended comments, the most common suggestions were to have more
shade/too hot, have more food and drink options, add live music, lower prices/increase
the affordability of the art, have more places for attendees to sit, and change the mix of
art (e.g. add a greater variety of art, have more art to the respondent’s taste).
Exhibitor Demographics, Trip Characteristics and Satisfaction
• Geographic origin. Thirty-five percent of responding exhibitors were from Colorado, 16
percent from Florida, 14 percent from California, 11 percent from New Mexico, 6
percent each from Texas and Arizona, and 12 percent from other states.
• Previous attendance at Aspen Arts Festival. Forty-two percent of exhibitors were
attending the Festival for the first time, while 58 percent had attended in prev ious
years.
• Art business as a source of income. Fully 79 percent of exhibitors said their art business
was their primary source of income. Another 16 percent said it was a secondary source
of income, while 4 percent said their business was a hobby or avocation and not
essential for their finances.
P43
III.
2017 Aspen Arts Festival Research Executive Summary
RRC Associates 4
• Type of lodging. Most exhibitors stayed in traditional paid lodging (59 percent), while a
significant 26 percent used an RV or tent camped/backpacked. Smaller shares used paid
rent-by-owner lodging (7 percent), stayed with family/friends who live in the area (4
percent), or stayed in a vacation home/timeshare owned by them/family/friends (1
percent).
• Location of lodging. The largest share stayed in Snowmass Village (44 percent), followed
by Aspen (31 percent, inclusive of the base of Aspen Highlands and Buttermilk), down
valley locations (24 percent), and elsewhere (1 percent).
• Nights stayed in the area this visit. Exhibitors stayed an average of 4.3 nights in the
area. Most stayed two to four nights (72 percent), while 26 percent stayed five or more
nights, and just 2 percent stayed one night.
• Aside from exhibiting, are you experiencing leisure/pleasure activities while in Aspen
(e.g. sightseeing, recreation, entertainment, etc.)? Respondents were evenly split, with
51 percent participating in leisure/pleasure activities and 49 percent not.
• Has your sales revenue/business performance at the Aspen Arts Festival met your
expectations? While 12 percent said their performance exceeded their expectations
and 27 percent said it met their expectations, a larger 54 percent said their performance
did not meet their expectations. Another eight percent were still uncertain about their
performance.
• How likely are you exhibit at next year’s Aspen Arts Festival? On a 10-point scale where
10=extremely likely and 1=not at all likely, the average response was 6.6. Thirty-seven
percent responded 9 or 10 (highly likely), 21 percent responded 7 or 8 (moderately
likely), and 42 percent responded 1 – 6 (low likelihood). Respondents who said their
sales expectations were exceeded or met were highly likely to return (average likelihood
9.3), while those who said their sales expectations were not met were much less likely
to return (average likelihood 4.6). In comments regarding their likelihood of return,
exhibitors frequently touched on their business performance and crowd volume as key
considerations.
P44
III.
Elected Officials Transportation Committee (EOTC)
Thursday, September 14, 2017- 4:00pm
Location-Aspen City Hall-Council Chambers
Aspen to Chair and Host Meeting
____________________________________________________________________________________
I. 4:00 - 4:05 REVIEW OF DECISIONS REACHED AT THE
JUNE 15, 2017 MEETING page 1
John D. Krueger-City of Aspen
II.4:05 - 4:15 PUBLIC COMMENT
(Comments limited to three minutes per person)
III.4:15 - 5:00 UPPER VALLEY MOBILITY REPORT page 7
Community Forum Task Force on Transportation and Mobility
Decision Needed: None-Information Only
IV.5:00 - 5:45 ASPEN MOBILITY LAB page 57 Ashley Perl-City of Aspen
Decision Needed: None-Information Only
V. 5:45 - 6:15 INCREASED TRANSIT SERVICE IN THE BRUSH CREEK
ROAD CORRIDOR page 59
David Peckler-Town of Snowmass Village
Decision Needed: Approval of Funding Request for $294,000
VI.6:15 -UPDATES & FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS page 63
•Basalt Underpass and the Grand Avenue Bridge Project-
Dan Blankenship-RFTA
P45
IV.
ELECTED OFFICIALS TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE (EOTC)
June 15, 2017
Snowmass Town Hall-Council Chambers
Snowmass - Host & Chair
AGREEMENTS & DECISIONS REACHED
Elected Officials in Attendance:
Aspen - 5 Pitkin County - 4 TOSV - 5
Steve Skadron George Newman Markey Butler
Adam Frisch Patti Clapper Bill Madsen
Bert Myrin Greg Poschman Alyssa Shenk
Ann Mullins Rachel Richards Bob Sirkus
Ward Hauenstein Tom Goode
Absent: Steve Child
______________________________________________________________________________
Agreements & Decisions Reached at the June 15, 2017 Meeting:
I. REVIEW OF DECISIONS REACHED AT THE MARCH 23, 2017 MEETING
John D. Krueger-City of Aspen
No comments were made
II. PUBLIC COMMENT
Toni Kronberg commented on traffic, transit, the Tree Farm development, LRT, buses in Aspen,
Base Village and an aerial gondola to Snowmass and Aspen as a transportation option.
III. CONFIRMATION OF 2017 MEETING DATES
John D. Krueger-City of Aspen
Decision Reached: Confirmation of the proposed 2017 meeting dates.
The meeting dates for the rest of 2017 were confirmed as:
• September 14, 2017 Aspen Chair and Host
• October 19, 2017 Pitkin County Chair and Host
1
P46
IV.
IV. BUDGET UPDATE
Tom Oken-Pitkin County
No decision Needed: Information only
Tom Oken provided an update on the budget. Sales and use tax revenues were better than
expected and over budget. Expenditures were slightly under budget. A few expenditures were
carried forward from 2016 to 2017. There are two major capital projects in the out years-the
Brush Creek Park N Ride Improvements and the Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing.
V. BATTERY ELECTRIC BUS PROGRAM
Dan Blankenship-RFTA & John Krueger-City of Aspen
Decision Needed: Approval of Funding Request of $500,000 for the Battery Electric Bus
Program.
The EOTC unanimously approved the funding request of $500,000 toward the Battery Electric
Bus program proposed by RFTA and the City of Aspen. This will be reflected in the FTA Low
No grant application. The estimated date of the notification of award should occur in the fall of
2017.
VOTE: YES-APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY
Aspen 5-0
Pitkin County 4-0
Snowmass 5-0
VI. UPPER VALLEY TRAVEL PATTERNS STUDY
Brian Pettet-Pitkin County
Decision Needed: Approval of Funding Request of $67,000 for the Study
The EOTC staff requested that Parsons develop a scope of work for an Upper Valley Travel
Patterns Study using the cell phone data captured by Air Sage for the UVMS and ITSP. The
total cost of the study was estimated at $184,000. The funding request for the study was
contingent on CDOT contributing $50,000, the Aspen Institute contributing $67,000 and the
EOTC contributing $67,000 for the total cost of $184,000.
The EOTC did not support the funding request for the proposed Travel Patterns Analysis study
and the study will not move forward.
VII. UPPER VALLEY MOBILITY STUDY
Ralph Trapani-Parsons
Decision Needed: Next Steps and a Funding Request for Stage 2 Proposal of $50,000
Ralph Trapani provided a wrap up presentation on the final UVMS to the EOTC. Ralph
provided a review of the BRT alternative that included a review of the phased BRT components,
costs, financing/funding, the public workshop on May 31, recommendations and the next steps.
The final UVMS report has been distributed to elected officials.
2
P47
IV.
A funding request of $50,000 was made to the EOTC as a stage 2 proposal so that Parsons could
continue to work on a time and material basis on any EOTC requests made for further
information needed for the UVMS through the end of 2017. It included assistance to staff with
EOTC meetings and requests through the end of the year (2017), continued coordination with the
RFTA ITSP process, monthly TAC meetings and attendance at EOTC meetings in 2017. It also
included “as directed” work for more benefit/cost metrics, additional financing research,
environmental clearance/impacts/permits review, public outreach and consensus building.
There was no support for the UVMS Stage 2 proposal funding request by the EOTC.
The EOTC did ask Ralph Trapani to attend the September 14 meeting in case questions were
presented. Ralph will attend the September meeting.
VIII. GRAND AVENUE BRIDGE (GAB) CLOSURE & RFTA SERVICE PLAN
Debra Figueroa-Glenwood Springs & Dan Blankenship-RFTA
Decision Needed: None-Information Only
A presentation was made on the GAB closure, detours and construction schedule by Kathleen
Wanatowicz the public information manager for the project. Dan Blankenship provided an
update on the RFTA transit mitigation plan during the bridge closure. Dan stated that RFTA is
prepared to do whatever it takes to make the mitigation plan work and warned the EOTC that the
mitigation funding from the EOTC and RFTA may not be enough. The needs of the mitigation
plan might exceed the current funding levels.
IX. ESTIMATED COST OF INCREASED SERVICE IN THE
BRUSH CREEK CORRIDOR
Dan Blankenship-RFTA & David Peckler-Snowmass
Decision Needed: None-Discussion Only
Snowmass is seeking increased bus service frequency in the Brush Creek Road Corridor for the
spring, summer and fall. The service frequency would increase from 30-minute service to
15-minute service to provide better connections to the Valley and BRT service out of the Brush
Creek Park N Ride lot. This agenda item was previously discussed at the March 23, 2017 EOTC
meeting. It will be discussed at the RFTA Board retreat on September 14 and the EOTC meeting
on September 14. The estimated cost of the additional service is $294,000.
X. UPDATES & FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
• Brian Pettet provided an update on the Basalt Underpass which is on schedule.
• Rachel Richards provided an update on Colorado Initiative 21.
• The Aspen Institute Forum will make a presentation at the September 14 meeting.
• Aspen Mobility Lab Discussion at September 14 meeting.
The next scheduled EOTC meetings are:
3
P48
IV.
2017 EOTC BUDGET AND MULTI-YEAR PLAN PAGE 1
EOTC Transit Project Funding
with preliminary 2018-19 budget requests Actual Actual Budget Plan Plan Plan Plan
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
FUNDING SOURCES:
a)Pitkin County 1/2% sales tax 4,929,637 5,106,873 5,159,000 5,288,000 5,460,000 5,637,000 5,820,000
b)Pitkin County 1/2% use tax 1,462,424 1,438,921 1,225,000 1,262,000 1,300,000 1,339,000 1,379,000
c)Investment income & misc.56,747 75,190 68,000 87,000 93,000 91,000 123,000
d)Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) grant 1,900,000
Total Funding Sources 6,448,808 6,620,983 6,452,000 6,637,000 8,753,000 7,067,000 7,322,000
FUNDING USES:
1)Use tax collection costs 63,538 41,137 56,257 57,945 59,683 61,474 63,318
2)Administrative cost allocation & meeting costs 21,383 20,334 24,394 25,126 25,880 26,656 27,456
3)Cab ride in-lieu of bus stop safety imprvs 3,561 2,389 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000
4)X-Games transit subsidy 115,000 115,000 115,000 115,000 115,000 115,000 115,000
5)Brush Creek Intercept Lot operating costs 15,046 32,213 30,000 30,900 31,800 32,800 33,800
6)RFTA contribution (81.04% of 1/2% sales tax)3,994,977 4,138,610 4,180,854 4,285,395 4,424,784 4,568,225 4,716,528
7)No-fare Aspen-Snowmass-Woody Creek bus service - year-round 621,658 621,658 615,726 640,400 666,000 692,600 720,300
8)Grand Ave Bridge construction - transit mitigation funding 335,000
9)Buttermilk lot paving 233,007
10)Valley parking study - RFP scoping 7,957
11)Basalt pedestrian underpass 750,000
12)WE-cycle operational support 100,000
Projects funded from Savings for greater Aspen Area
13)Rubey Park final design, land use & permitting 142,292 3,814 16,094
14)Rubey Park construction 4,168,777 373,181 358,891
15)Upper Valley Mobility Study 137,947 276,057
16)Cell phone transportation data collection 70,000
Budget Requests
17)Brush Creek Park and Ride improvements (FLAP grant) (approved 10/20/16)3,900,000
18)Buttermilk pedestrian crossing design & preliminary engineering (approved 10/20/16)800,000
19)Battery Electric Bus Program (approved 6/15/17)500,000
20)Brush Creek BRT connecting service - spring, summer, fall 294,000 305,800 318,000 330,700
Total Uses 9,387,196 6,236,282 6,184,273 6,754,766 9,534,947 5,820,755 6,013,101
EOTC ANNUAL SURPLUS/(DEFICIT)(2,938,388) 384,701 267,727 (117,766) (781,947) 1,246,245 1,308,899
EOTC CUMULATIVE SURPLUS FUND BALANCE 7,225,318 7,610,019 7,877,746 7,759,980 6,978,034 8,224,279 9,533,178
a)sales tax 7.9%3.6%1.0%2.5%3.25%3.25%3.25%
b)use tax 44.9%-1.6%-14.9%3.0%3.0%3.0%3.0%
c)investment earnings rate 0.49%0.85%0.9%1.1%1.2%1.3%1.5%
Revenue projections:
9/7/2017 18 EOTC prelim requests4 P49IV.
2017 EOTC BUDGET AND MULTI-YEAR PLAN PAGE 2
- -
Actual Actual Budget Plan Plan Plan Plan
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
DISTRIBUTION OF ANNUAL SURPLUS
(excludes projects funded from savings funds)1,372,681 899,643 642,712 (117,766) (781,947) 1,246,245 1,308,899
25% to Snowmass Village Savings until restored to $6,278,787 343,170 224,911 160,678 (29,441) (195,487) 311,561 209,591
remainder to Aspen Savings 1,029,511 674,732 482,034 (88,324) (586,460) 934,684 1,099,308
Savings Fund for greater Snowmass Village Area
plus reimbursement of advance to capital pool 343,170 224,911 160,678 (29,441) (195,487) 311,561 209,591
Savings Fund for greater Snowmass Village Area ($6,278,787 max)5,596,974 5,821,885 5,982,563 5,953,121 5,757,635 6,069,196 6,278,787
Savings Fund for greater Aspen Area
Annual surplus remaining after reimbursement of advances - 564,477 482,034 (88,324) (586,460) 934,684 1,099,308
plus reimbursement for $250,000 pedestrian crossing funding 114,783 -
plus reimbursement of advance to capital pool 914,728 110,255
less Rubey Park funded from Aspen Savings (4,311,069) (376,995) (374,985)
less Upper Valley Mobility Study and cell phone data funded from Aspen Savings (137,947) (346,057)
Savings Fund for greater Aspen Area 1,628,344 1,788,134 1,549,126 1,460,802 874,342 1,809,026 2,908,334
Advances from Aspen and Snowmass Village Savings Funds
remaining balance to reimburse Snowmass Savings for advance to capital pool 681,813 456,902 296,224 325,666 521,152 209,591 -
remaining balance to reimburse Aspen Savings for advance to capital pool 110,255 - - - - - -
9/7/2017 18 EOTC prelim requests5 P50IV.
Community Forum Task Force
on Transportation and Mobility
Upper Valley
Mobility Report
September 2017
6
P51
IV.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Summary and Conclusions 3
2. Introduction 6
3. Core Values 8
4. Summary of Transportation & Mobility Options 9
5. Other options not studied for this report 22
6. Addendum 23
Community Forum Task Force
on Transportation and Mobility
7
P52
IV.
3
Summary and Conclusions
Working under the auspices of the Aspen Institute, the thirty members of the Community
Forum Task Force on Transportation and Mobility met from June 2016 through August 2017. Its
goal was to create a values-based vision for transportation and mobility in the upper Roaring
Fork Valley for the year 2035 that would address traffic congestion as well as the mobility needs
of our residents, commuters and visitors. (See “What is the Problem?” on p. 6 and “Core
Values” on p. 8.) Task force members sought solutions that would meet the established goal
and be both politically achievable and financially viable.
When the Community Forum Task Force began its work in June 2016, many members expected
that it would focus on one or more large-scale, capital-intensive transportation solutions.
Instead, what emerged was a balanced “integrated mobility system” of programmatic solutions
that could be experimented with and phased in over time. To address the challenge of induced
traffic (see p. 7), this integrated system employs a balance of both carrots and sticks. Its
complementary measures could be implemented as budgets permit over short, mid, and long-
term time frames.
Recommendation:
In its final meeting, the task force recommended unanimously that work begin immediately to
plan an integrated mobility system that includes the following five elements (see below). The
individual components of this system are interdependent. Some measures specifically reduce
traffic congestion; others increase mobility for the public. Some are capital and cost intensive,
while others would contribute revenue, making the system more affordable. (To promote
social equity, the task force recommends that 100% of any revenues raised be reinvested to
reduce the cost of transit and alternative mobility measures – or even make them free – for
those who use them.) These five elements lend themselves to experimentation, they are
flexible, and they are reversible.
8
P53
IV.
4
The Integrated Mobility System (from short to long-term):
1.Ride Sharing (short-term)
2.Ride Hailing (short-term)
3.Congestion Reduction Measures (short and mid-term), which include dynamic road pricing and dynamic
parking pricing
4.HOV-Lane Enforcement (short and mid-term)
5.Phased BRT Enhancement (short, mid and long-term), which may not necessarily cross the Marolt Open
Space. Could include enhanced service to Snowmass Village.
Additional measures supported by the task force’s matrix analysis:
•Transit-Oriented Affordable Housing (mid and long-term)
•Airport/Transit Connectivity, especially low-cost options (short and mid-term)
•Snowmass Connection Enhancements (short and mid-term)
(Please see the Summary of Mobility & Transportation Options that begins on p. 9 for a discussion of all the
above measures.)
9
P54
IV.
5
A Single Planning Entity:
The task force recommends strongly that the three upper valley governments identify a single entity to coordinate
and facilitate regional mobility planning among governments, the private sector and the community. Over time,
this coordination should expand in scope to include the full region.
Observations:
•Free-flowing traffic is not a reasonable expectation unless congestion reduction measures are sufficient to
reduce current traffic and mitigate future induced traffic.
•The U.S. is undergoing a transition away from a car-centric culture. Millennials are buying fewer cars than
previous generations, and parking demand is expected to drop.
•Regional and local land use decisions profoundly affect mobility challenges and traffic congestion.
•A grassroots advocacy organization for an integrated mobility system is essential.
•The community should seek public/private partnerships to help implement it.
•The integrated mobility system adopted should leverage existing approvals and plans (e.g., the Entrance to
Aspen Record of Decision, Aspen Area Community Plan, etc.).
•We should improve mobility incrementally and continuously.
•Specific elements of the integrated mobility system will affect different people and different geographies in
varying ways. We should consider carefully which user group is affected by each element of the system and
plan accordingly.
•We should engage innovators and entrepreneurs from all sectors to help create the mobility system we
envision.
The Community Forum Task Force recommends that the package of mobility experiments now being planned by
the City of Aspen should be used by Aspen, Pitkin County and Snowmass Village to help demonstrate and explore
elements of this integrated mobility system.
What Success Will Look Like:
If we fully implement the integrated mobility system, we will make upper valley travel substantially easier while
remaining true to our most important community values. Commuters would spend more time with their families
or on the job; visitors would gain a greatly improved vacation experience; and residents would enjoy an enhanced
quality of life.
10
P55
IV.
6
Introduction
What is the Problem?
Traffic congestion is a defining problem for residents, commuters and visitors in the upper Roaring Fork Valley.
Traffic jams detract from our community’s livability and waste valuable time that could otherwise be used for
productive work, recreation, or visiting with friends and families. Commuters lose countless hours per year in
stalled traffic, and Aspen residents cite downtown auto congestion as one of their biggest concerns. Businesses
find it increasingly difficult to hire the employees needed to maintain our status as a world-class resort. Auto
congestion clogs our streets and highway, creates noise and aggravation, and adds carbon and other pollution to
our air.
Traffic congestion hurts our community in three broad ways: reducing economic productivity for local workers
and businesses; damaging the visitor experience; and lowering the quality of life for everyone. Snarled traffic
does not reflect well on our community, which prides itself on responsible urban planning and sincere concern for
the environment. RFTA, while doing an excellent job at carrying over five million passengers per year, is operating
at capacity for much of the year, and its future growth faces possible limits from both budgetary challenges as
well as the reality that about 1,000 daily bus trips already enter and leave Aspen in peak season.
Our current challenges will only grow. The state demographer’s office projects that, by 2035, Pitkin County’s
resident population will grow by 25% and the Roaring Fork Valley’s population will grow by roughly 50% to a total
of 70,000 people. Visitor growth could be comparable – and all these increases will further stress an already
challenging traffic problem.
The Community Forum Task Force recognizes that we cannot build our way out of traffic congestion by simply
adding more highway or transit capacity. A more sustainable and effective long-term solution must be found.
The Work of the Transportation & Mobility Task Force
In 2016, the Aspen Institute convened a group of 31 community leaders to develop a values-based vision for
where we, as a community, want to be in 20 years (by 2035) with respect to transportation and mobility in our
upper valley (Basalt to Aspen/Snowmass). The group met for 15 months: from June 2016 through August 2017.
Through its research and meetings with local and national transportation experts, the Community Forum Task
Force reviewed the rapid changes taking place in demographics, technology, culture, mobility preferences,
autonomous and electric vehicles, ride hailing and sharing, carpooling, transportation demand management, and
the wide array of available mobility options, both new and old.
Early on, task force members identified nine core values by which to evaluate transportation and mobility options.
These ranged from community values like environmental quality and community character to operating system
values, such as financial feasibility and effectiveness at reducing traffic congestion. The task force then identified a
dozen transportation and mobility options representing diverse approaches to solving the traffic and congestion
issues facing our community, and it then developed a matrix by which to review each option in terms of its
compatibility with the core values.
11
P56
IV.
7
The Principle of Induced Traffic
Early on, task force members identified induced traffic as a critical principle that must be addressed by any
transportation/mobility system adopted in our valley.
In growing areas, when automobile congestion is reduced by increasing mobility alternatives and/or highway
capacity, new traffic is generated and highways normally return to their previous level of automobile congestion.
This reality has been demonstrated repeatedly in growing towns and cities around the U.S. and the world, as well
as here in our valley. The phenomenon has two primary causes, both rooted in human behavior:
(A) Latent Demand. When perceived auto congestion is reduced during peak hours, many people will use a
highway more often, shift their travel back to peak hours, or switch from transit to driving, thus increasing
congestion again. This is a specific application of the economic concept of “induced demand.” That is, when the
supply of a good increases, more of the good is consumed.
(B) Land Use Effects. A perceived shorter commute to a desired work or recreation destination spurs residential
and commercial real estate development in more distant areas. In short, a new or expanded highway can turn
land previously perceived to be distant in terms of commuting time into prime real estate development property.
Since traffic engineers estimate that each new unit of housing can typically generate 10 new one-way auto trips
per day, 100 units of new housing can result in 1,000 additional daily car trips on local roads and highways. The
effects of new residential and commercial development on traffic congestion are often dramatic.
For more information on induced traffic:
Building Bigger Roads Makes Traffic Worse
Wired 2014
https://www.wired.com/2014/06/wuwt-traffic-induced-demand/
Increasing Highway Capacity Unlikely to Relieve Traffic Congestion
University of California-Davis 2015
http://www.dot.ca.gov/research/researchreports/reports/2015/10-12-2015-
NCST_Brief_InducedTravel_CS6_v3.pdf
Generated Traffic and Induced Travel
Victoria Transport Policy Institute 2017
http://www.vtpi.org/gentraf.pdf
Regional Challenges, Regional Solutions
From the start, the task force recognized that regional problems demand regional solutions and that the upper
valley neither can, nor should, solve the valley’s transportation challenges on its own. Task force members, who
themselves live in different regions of the Roaring Fork Valley, discussed this reality at length. At the same time,
the members believed that the upper valley mobility problem was a good place to start, and it hoped that its work
would spark a broader and much needed regional conversation about mobility throughout the Roaring Fork Valley
and beyond. In addition, since a significant percentage of mid-valley traffic moves to or from Aspen/Snowmass,
upper valley solutions can help with some of the issues elsewhere.
12
P57
IV.
8
Core Values Underlying
Our Upper Valley Transportation System
Essential Community Values
➤ Community Character
•Preserves livability
•Fewer cars/less traffic
• Decreases urbanization
•Reflects limits to growth
•Compatible with affordable housing and
transit oriented development
•Tranquility … community peace and
harmony
•Promotes thriving community
•Fun and cool
•Aesthetically pleasing
➤ Environmental Quality
•Reduces carbon emissions and other
pollution
Operating System Values
➤ Traffic & Congestion Reduction
•Reduces long term traffic and congestion
•Fewer single occupant vehicles
➤ Social Equity
•Affordable to users
•Valley-wide benefits
•Works for both residents and visitors
•Positive shared experience
•Builds community
➤ Convenience and Comfort
•Frequent
•Fast
•Reliable travel times
•Easier commute
•Seamless and integrated
•Multiple modes and cross-modal ease
•Connects mountains and tourist centers
➤ Adaptable to the Future
Minimum System Requirements
➤ Safety
•Human safety
•Cyber security
➤ Financial Viability
•Cost effective
•Data informed
•Cost and funding mechanisms acceptable
to community
➤ Capacity to Move People and/or Reduce Travel
Demand
•Adaptable to different travel demands
•Sufficient capacity and scale to make a
difference
Our 2035 vision for upper valley transportation is an integrated system that incorporates all
of the above values and creates a spectrum of innovative mobility options for our residents,
commuters and visitors.
13
P58
IV.
9
Summary of Transportation & Mobility Options
As presented by invited experts and discussed by the task force
Ride Sharing Systems
Ride Hailing Systems
Light Rail Transit
Enhanced Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
Snowmass Connection Enhancements
Mountain to Mountain Connection
Transit-Oriented Affordable Housing
HOV Lane Enforcement
Dynamic Road Pricing
Parking Strategies
Airport/Transit Connectivity
Increased Highway Capacity
14
P59
IV.
10
Ride Sharing Systems
An app-based ride sharing system could allow travelers to share automobile rides in two ways:
A. First and Last Mile Service: Moving riders between homes and transit stations, as well as between final
transit stations and workplaces, recreation areas or other destinations.
B. Valley Trunk Line Service: Moving riders along RFTA’s valley trunk line route between origin communities
and destinations in the Aspen/Snowmass area.
This could be (1) a peer-to-peer app-based system matching private vehicle drivers with passengers, (2) a for-hire
app-based “microtransit” service such as Chariot, Lyft Line, UberPool, etc., or (3) a “casual carpool” system
requiring minimal third-party management. In the first two cases, the cost of a ride could be paid through the app
–no cash need be exchanged. For security, drivers might be prescreened during registration (See “issues”). Both
drivers and riders could be user-rated through the app.
The system could be optimized with a wide array of mobility resources, such as bike sharing, “kiss and ride”
stations, employer incentives and pedestrian improvements. To alleviate first-mile challenges, WE-cycle, our local
bike share provider, could be expanded to reach more riders throughout the valley.
Features & Advantages:
•Could increase valley mobility without adding new cars to the highway or requiring RFTA to buy more
buses.
•Simplicity of “one click” mobility. A ride sharing app could identify and reserve seats on private vehicles
already en route up or down the valley.
•Ridesharing along the valley’s trunk line corridor could increase.
•More efficient use of thousands of existing private vehicles in our valley.
•Could build sense of community in valley.
•Could attract riders currently unwilling to ride public buses.
•Cheaper and easier than capital intensive alternatives such as LRT or enhanced BRT.
•Ride sharing concepts are now being tried in different parts of country.
•Target audiences can be reached through social media campaigns.
Issues & Challenges:
•Because of the principle of induced traffic, ride sharing is unlikely, by itself, to reduce traffic congestion on
Highway 82.
•Would enough riders use the system to significantly increase mobility?
•Is driver screening actually needed? If so, what level of screening would drivers undergo and how would
it be managed?
•An app-based system would need to use either an existing app (e.g., Transit App) or a new one created for
our valley. Building on an existing app would be preferable.
•Could riders be picked up at RFTA stations without impacting bus operations?
Cost Implications:
•Relatively low up-front capital cost compared to some other options. Would not require substantial
construction and equipment.
•A for-hire provider (Lyft Line, UberPool, etc.) might require a public subsidy for riders.
15
P60
IV.
11
Ride Hailing Systems
Ride hailing systems include app-based services like Uber, Lyft, the Aspen Downtowner, and taxis that offer on-
demand rides. They tend to be organized public or private services, rather than peer-to-peer citizen-based
systems. Like ride sharing, ride hailing could function in either of two ways:
A. First and Last Mile Service: Moving riders between homes and transit stations, as well as between final
transit stations and workplaces, recreation areas or other destinations.
B. Valley Trunk Line Service: Moving riders along RFTA’s valley trunk line route between origin communities
and destinations in the Aspen/Snowmass area.
A ride could be summoned through an app, and its cost could be bundled with that of a RFTA bus ticket so that
only a single transit purchase (or click) would be needed.
Features & Advantages:
•Simplicity of “one-click” mobility.
•Relatively low cost as an option to develop.
•First and last mile service could make it easier to use RFTA’s trunk line buses moving up and down valley.
•Concept now being tried by for-hire services in different parts of country.
•Target audiences could be reached through social media campaigns.
•Some existing transportation funding by governments, nonprofits and schools might be redirected to
more efficient uses.
Issues & Challenges:
•Because of the principle of induced traffic, ride sharing is unlikely, by itself, to reduce traffic congestion on
Highway 82.
•A for-hire system (UberPool, etc.) might require a public subsidy for riders.
•Some locations have limited cell service and GPS mapping for apps is not always reliable.
•Ride hailing companies (Uber, Lyft, etc.) would need to increase service levels in the valley.
Cost Implications:
•Relatively low up-front capital cost compared to some other options. Would not require substantial
construction and equipment.
•By potentially boosting ridership on RFTA’s trunk line buses, first and last mile service might increase
RFTA’s need to buy more buses and incur additional operating expenses.
16
P61
IV.
12
Enhanced Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
Enhanced BRT could consolidate existing BRT, express, local, and skier-shuttle riders at 10, 20, and 30-minute
frequencies, depending on time of day. Electric or Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) buses could be part of
enhanced BRT service operating between the Brush Creek BRT Station and Rubey Park. In the future, autonomous
electric buses might provide benefits similar to LRT at lower cost.
Features & Advantages:
•Could feel more like LRT: quiet and comfortable.
•Could reduce overall bus congestion in Aspen by as many as 100 bus trips per day.
•Electric buses are much quieter than CNG or diesel buses, although if the system started off with CNG
buses, this noise reduction benefit would be lost.
•Could be phased more easily than LRT: electric buses and other enhancements could be introduced as
funding becomes available. Initially, up-valley passengers might not have to transfer to electric buses at
the Brush Creek Intercept Lot.
•If the Modified Direct Alignment across the Marolt Open Space were used, this would save an average of
two minutes per trip and improve emergency access in and out of Aspen.
•City buses would remain as in-town shuttles, but in the future they might become small autonomous
transit vehicles.
•New transit stop at 7th Street. New end-of-line station might be created at Main and Galena.
•Could include Snowmass Village Connection Enhancements
•Future autonomous electric buses might safely travel within a few inches of one another, although digital
security would become extremely important.
•Over time, BRT could build ridership and eventually lead to light rail.
Issues & Challenges:
•Because of the principle of induced traffic, enhanced BRT is unlikely, by itself, to reduce traffic congestion
on Highway 82.
•While Aspen residents voted to allow light rail across the Marolt Open Space, a new vote would be
required for bus lanes there. A new highway across Marolt would be politically difficult.
•By requiring passengers to transfer to/from buses at the Brush Creek BRT Station, the BRT option may not
be as convenient as existing one-seat ride services for commuters and skiers, and it might incur a “transfer
penalty” in ridership. (A future all-electric valley bus system would resolve this issue.)
•If the Modified Direct Alignment across Marolt was not constructed with its two-minute time savings,
nothing might offset an electric bus “transfer penalty” at Brush Creek, which could result in a loss of
ridership.
•Electric buses likely require in-route charging stations and auxiliary heat in the winter.
•Electric buses have higher capital costs, and RFTA is currently challenged just to replace its diesel and CNG
buses. Initially, some buses might have to remain diesel or CNG.
Cost Implications:
•Significant capital cost ($159 million – $200 million, 2016 dollars), but lower than LRT.
•Possibly reduced operating costs compared with today’s BRT, Local, Express, and Skier Shuttle bus
services.
•Deployment of charging infrastructure could be expensive.
17
P62
IV.
13
High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lane Enforcement
The Highway 82 Basalt to Buttermilk Record of Decision (ROD) included HOV lanes as a Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) measure introduced with the Basalt/Buttermilk four-lane highway project (1996-2004). HOV
restrictions were designed to increase carpooling and allow more efficient transit operations. Also, the right lane’s
reduced congestion should decrease travel time for car pools and transit users. Vehicles carrying two or more
passengers may use the HOV lanes during rush hours.
The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) initially conducted a robust public relations campaign to
inform the traveling public about the SH 82 HOV program. Early on, the Colorado State Patrol (CSP) enforced the
HOV lanes, and motorist compliance was high. Pitkin County courts, however, were reluctant to fine motorists
who challenged tickets in court. Subsequently, enforcement dropped off, and tickets are no longer issued.
The lack of enforcement of existing HOV restrictions is negating the benefits of the HOV lanes. Efforts are needed
to secure judicial support, provide outreach, and fully enforce HOV laws.
Features & Advantages:
•Previous analyses estimate that full HOV compliance could reduce weekday traffic by over 2,500 vehicles
per day.
•Provides for safer, more efficient transit operations.
•Reduces parking demand due to decreased vehicle trips.
•Could reduce auto emissions and pollution.
•Existing technology can count the number of riders in a car and reduce enforcement costs.
•Enforcement might also be subcontracted out to reduce the load on local resources.
•Enforcement would reward and encourage carpooling/ride sharing.
•Visible enforcement of HOV restrictions would also reduce speeding on Highway 82. This could address
the perceived “advantage” of single-passenger private vehicles speeding illegally.
•Enforcement might “calm” Highway 82, shift attitudes and reduce stress and accidents.
•Could create a “rules of the road” education and communication opportunity.
Issues & Challenges:
•Because of the principle of induced traffic, existing HOV restrictions might not, by themselves, reduce
traffic congestion on Highway 82, but they might potentially, if tightened (e.g., three passengers).
•May be difficult to secure judicial support for enforcement of HOV laws.
•Additional enforcement efforts by the CSP and Pitkin County Sheriff would require additional law
enforcement resources. These might be provided by new enforcement revenues.
•Would require partnerships with CDOT, Colorado State Patrol and local governments.
•Might require a change of local law enforcement philosophy.
•Would work best if the HOV lanes came all the way into Aspen.
Cost Implications:
•Costs of additional law enforcement resources and whether new revenues would offset them.
•Costs for a robust public outreach campaign to explain the HOV restriction, and why it is in place.
18
P63
IV.
14
Dynamic Road Pricing
For Aspen, dynamic pricing might include an electronic toll on traffic entering Aspen that could vary depending on
levels of congestion and purpose of trip. To avoid the toll, motorists could park at the Brush Creek lot and take a
free bus into Aspen or qualify for an exemption to the toll (car pool, etc.).
Road pricing is one of the few options that has demonstrated its ability to actually reduce traffic congestion. Trip
pricing could depend on different factors, such as time of day, number of passengers, level of congestion, and
environmental impact. For example, travel might be free for car pools, working parents with children in Aspen
preschools, or those working in essential services. While pricing sounds like a “stick,” it could seed many “carrots”
by funding transportation options that reduce the need for a private vehicle. Dynamic pricing could make travel to
Aspen significantly quicker and easier than today, and by reducing travel time would allow for higher productivity
for those who are paid by the hour.
For Aspen, dynamic pricing might include an electronic toll on traffic entering Aspen that could vary depending on
levels of congestion and purpose of trip. To avoid the toll, motorists could park at the Brush Creek lot and take a
free bus into Aspen or qualify for an exemption to the toll (car pool, etc.).
Features & Advantages:
•May be the most reliable tool available to reduce or eliminate traffic jams both on Highway 82 and in
downtown Aspen. Roadway capacity freed up by road pricing is less likely to be filled by induced-traffic
than other mobility options.
•Aspen and Snowmass bound commuters and visitors could reduce or eliminate time lost sitting in traffic
jams.
•Professionals who charge by the hour, such as electricians and plumbers, could benefit from a significant
increase in billable hours that would greatly exceed the cost of any toll.
•Could significantly improve the visitor experience and stimulate the local economy.
•If properly designed, could enhance social equity. (Versus the current traffic jams, in which everyone
loses.)
•Toll revenues could be used to fund RFTA buses and other mobility options. Ideally, RFTA buses would
become less expensive (possibly even free), along with future driverless shuttle services, etc.
•Would reduce carbon emissions and other forms of air pollution. Would support the City of Aspen’s
Canary Initiative.
•Both automobile drivers and transit users could benefit in a potential “win/win.”
Issues & Challenges:
•Federal and state rules would control the development of this program.
•A substantial public outreach effort would be necessary to build community support.
•Without social equity measures (e.g., enhanced and/or free alternative mobility options), this might be
considered a regressive tax.
•Safeguards would be needed to mitigate traffic diversion to McLain Flats Road.
•Tolling facility should be close to Aspen to avoid charging for airport travel.
•This plan must offer travelers an excellent value proposition in exchange for road pricing.
•Implementation would require strong political will at all levels of government.
Cost Implications:
•Would generate substantial new revenue to reinvest in existing and new mobility alternatives.
•An initial investment would be required to fund the capital cost of tolling facilities (overhead detection)
and the program startup costs.
19
P64
IV.
15
Parking Strategies
Integrate parking into a larger, innovative mobility system through a combination of measures that might include
the following:
•Dynamic pricing, which varies parking prices to respond to traffic congestion, parking availability and
location, and special events.
•Centralized valet services, which could increase utilization of public and private parking spaces and
garages. (For some, this might reduce the need for circling around the block.)
•Zoning code changes to discourage car use in residential/commercial developments.
•Employer Carrot-Sticks: Employers would limit parking and offer alternative transit options to employees
instead of parking spaces. If parking were made more of a responsibility, neighborhoods might stop being
“storage lots.”
•Other City of Aspen ideas for parking innovations are currently under study.
Because individual actions taken by Aspen, Snowmass and Pitkin County often affect the other jurisdictions,
parking strategies should be considered and coordinated on a regional basis.
Features & Advantages:
•Each strategy or combination of strategies could be tested, modified, and refined over time.
•Parking strategies could be designed to park more cars outside town to reduce the number of cars
downtown.
•Roadway capacity freed up by dynamic parking pricing is less likely to be filled by induced-traffic than
other mobility options. This could complement dynamic road pricing.
•New revenues could be directed toward subsidizing transit passes and other alternative mobility modes.
Issues & Challenges:
•Unless parking strategies include significant new dynamic pricing, the principle of induced traffic would
likely prevent this option from reducing traffic congestion on Highway 82.
•User acceptability.
•To be fair, a dynamic pricing plan would need to include social equity measures for commuting workers
(e.g., enhanced and/or free alternative mobility options).
•Would not affect those with free parking spaces in downtown Aspen.
•Simply reducing parking places could adversely affect stores and restaurants.
•May prompt arguments about whether parking is a right or a privilege.
Cost Implications:
•Little capital cost.
•Modest operating costs.
•Dynamic pricing might generate new revenue to reinvest in other mobility alternatives.
20
P65
IV.
16
Snowmass Village Connection Enhancements
More direct transit links to Snowmass Village on Brush Creek of Owl Creek roads (e.g., LRT or BRT) could be part of
the larger mobility enhancement program.
The successes of the free skier shuttle and the evening direct service between Snowmass Village and Aspen
demonstrate the potential to move travelers from private automobiles to transit “trunk line” service, which could
be aligned with the existing BRT service as a first step. Future steps could include dedicated direct bus service in
the peak periods. These services, combined with the possibilities of direct, aerial Mountain-to-Mountain
connections, could integrate the ski areas of Snowmass, Buttermilk, Highlands, and Aspen within one operating
system.
Features & Advantages:
• Connects the two upper valley communities and tourist bed bases.
• Expands on highly successful winter operations.
• Uses existing infrastructure.
• Focuses on tourism and employee mobility.
• Has significant carrying capacity.
• A scenic Owl Creek transit route might enhance the visitor experience.
Issues & Challenges:
• Because of the principle of induced traffic, this option is unlikely, by itself, to reduce traffic congestion on
Highway 82.
• Labor intensive.
• Owl Creek would require costly improvements to accommodate transit.
• If transit ran on Owl Creek, the existing system using Brush Creek as a transfer station would lose some
efficiencies.
• Owl Creek is challenging, particularly in winter.
Cost Implications:
• Relatively low capital costs, depending on system chosen.
• High operating cost, which could strain existing resources.
21
P66
IV.
17
Airport/Transit Connectivity
Although the current airport bus station and Highway 82 pedestrian underpass serve the airport terminal, transit
ride-share to/from the airport is only about 3%, although a good portion of the remaining 97% doesn’t necessarily
drive a car the rest of the way. Based on current airport planning, this is not expected to change, even though
enplanements are projected to increase significantly over the next 20 years. Options for stronger transit access to
the airport:
•Using the existing BRT station on Highway 82, stopping buses at the terminal doors, or creating a
designated airport transit shuttle. Options that use the BRT station would require some type of weather-
protected connection to the terminal doors (e.g., covered and/or moving walkway).
•For a fee, hotel shuttles might be given the right to use bus lanes to and from the airport.
•More passengers might be intercepted outside the airport and transported via special transit.
•Empty hotel shuttles might “scoop up” passengers at bus stops.
•Visitors’ luggage might be transported directly to and from hotels for them (as in Switzerland).
Features & Advantages:
•Studies show that visitors would rather use transit than rent a vehicle.
•Additional transit ride-share from the airport would:
o Reduce traffic growth facilitated by an expansion of rental cars.
o Provide an opportunity for visitors to begin their Aspen experience on transit.
o Decrease rental vehicles in Aspen and Snowmass Village.
o Potentially increase visitors’ use of transit in town.
o Provide savings on lodge and hotel shuttle costs.
Issues & Challenges:
•Because of the principle of induced traffic, this option is unlikely, by itself, to reduce traffic congestion on
Highway 82.
•It’s unclear who is responsible for costs and planning for airport transit amenities.
•Bringing BRT to the terminal door would add significant travel time to the BRT system. This problem
would be eliminated if airline passengers boarded a bus at the existing BRT station.
•Some lodges and hotels prefer to capture their guests at the terminal and provide transportation to
control and enhance their Aspen experience.
•Some transit vehicles are not set up to take luggage.
•Loading luggage adds time to transit trips.
•Data on the mix of transportation modes is unavailable.
Cost Implications:
•Costs associated with developing transit access to terminal door.
•Loss of airport revenues from fewer vehicle rentals.
22
P67
IV.
18
Transit-Oriented Affordable Housing [TOAH]
The concept of transit-oriented affordable housing (TOAH) has been pursued for many years in the upper Roaring
Fork Valley. Over the decades, over 2,800 affordable housing units have been created in the upper valley to retain
our sense of community, house our local workforce, and reduce the need for commuting on Highway 82.
Fortunately, over half of Aspen’s population lives today in deed restricted affordable housing. Unfortunately, over
60% of the town’s workforce must still commute to town each day, significantly exacerbating traffic congestion.
Job generation inside Aspen’s roundabout has outpaced the creation of affordable housing, locking in the need for
many to commute.
One option for reducing travel demand is to redouble local efforts to locate affordable housing close to work or
transit — and to do so in all local jurisdictions. For example, RFTA has located park and ride lots and transit stops
close to Basalt, El Jebel and Carbondale neighborhoods. Each might offer affordable housing opportunities to help
reduce travel demand on our highway.
Features & Advantages:
•TOAH works best when people can walk directly to work, eliminating the need to drive.
•TOAH can build community while reducing peak-hour travel needs.
•City and county governments are continually evaluating potential sites. Park and ride lots themselves
could be used for affordable housing built over the parking lot, thus becoming a “live and ride.” Likewise,
organizations located on campuses could be encouraged to build housing over parking lots and other land
near their facilities.
•Many Aspen and Snowmass businesses are unable to hire sufficient employees during winter and summer
seasons.
•Non-commuting employees enjoy more family time and arrive at jobs less stressed out.
•Affordable housing near work or transit increases social equity.
Issues & Challenges:
•Because of the proven principle of induced traffic, this option is unlikely, by itself, to reduce traffic
congestion on Highway 82. Local experience bears this out.
•Even when it’s located near workplaces, new housing can still increase the number of cars on local roads,
although at a lower rate than non-transit-oriented housing.
•Finding new upper valley housing sites has been a notorious problem for many years.
•New housing projects often provoke resistance from neighbors.
•New housing inevitably increases other community costs for things like schools, early education and
daycare, hospitals, social services, police and other emergency responders, etc.
•While affordable housing and growth control have historically enjoyed support from many of the same
upper valley voters, the goals of creating new housing and retaining our small-town quality of life are now
beginning to conflict. Housing often generates significant opposition.
•Transit Oriented Affordable Housing is most effective in destination communities, but the easy sites for
housing are often outside urban growth boundaries.
Cost Implications:
•Affordable housing is expensive. Projects require significant local-government subsidy, private sector
investment, and/or compromising of local zoning requirements.
•Funding strategies include affordable housing taxes, tax incentives, land use requirements and fees,
private initiatives, public/private partnerships, and federal/state programs.
23
P68
IV.
19
Light Rail Transit (LRT)
Light Rail Transit (LRT) is contemplated as the final phase for transit in the Entrance to Aspen Record of Decision
(ROD). The Elected Officials Transportation Committee (EOTC) of Pitkin County, Aspen and Snowmass recently
commissioned a study to update the LRT alternative from Aspen to the Brush Creek parking lot/transit station. As
currently designed, LRT would run from the Brush Creek lot to either Rubey Park or a new proposed station at
Galena Street and Main Street. In the Galena and Main option, local buses would run from Rubey Park, and small
autonomous transit vehicles would connect Rubey Park to the Galena & Main station.
Features & Advantages:
•Studies show LRT to be a more enjoyable transit experience than buses. LRT might enhance the
visitor/commuter experience.
•Voters have approved LRT across the Marolt Open Space, and LRT is the preferred alternative in the
Record of Decision for the Entrance to Aspen Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
•Provides an opportunity for a future down-valley commuter rail connection.
•Has substantial passenger carrying capacity.
•Reduces more buses in downtown Aspen and across Castle Creek Bridge than BRT.
•By requiring fewer drivers than BRT, LRT would reduce RFTA’s hiring challenge.
•Onboard Charging Systems (OBS) represent a major breakthrough in LRT power technology, allowing a rail
vehicle to operate without overhead wires. Instead, rail vehicles would run off of batteries and charge at
stations using inductive charging.
Issues & Challenges:
•Because of the principle of induced traffic, LRT is unlikely, by itself, to reduce traffic congestion on
Highway 82.
•Requires construction of the Modified Direct alignment across Marolt Open Space via the existing
transportation easement with a direct connection to 7th and Main Street.
•By requiring passengers to transfer to/from buses at Brush Creek BRT Station, the BRT option may not be
as convenient as existing one-seat ride services for commuters and skiers, and it might incur a “transfer
penalty” in ridership.
•Very high capital and operating cost for which federal funding is unlikely.
•Although quiet, some might consider LRT out of scale with Aspen.
•Projected to have about the same ridership as the BRT option.
•Potential impacts to vehicle movements at at-grade intersections.
•LRT is an inflexible investment – but one with great longevity.
Cost Implications:
•Based on the recent EOTC study, LRT costs would range from $428 million to $528 million.
•High capital cost exceeds currently available budgets and revenue streams.
•LRT construction is more disruptive than BRT and complicated to phase. This could negatively impact
financing options.
•Operating and maintenance costs are double those of the BRT option.
24
P69
IV.
20
Mountain-to-Mountain Connection
Aerial intermountain gondola connections between Aspen and Snowmass have been discussed for half a century.
They offer the potential both to significantly improve the skier experience and to alleviate some winter peak-hour
roadway travel demand. Potential connections include:
A. A Highlands-Buttermilk gondola connecting the bases of Buttermilk and Highlands with a stop at the top
of Buttermilk.
B. A gondola connection from Highlands to Aspen Mountain.
C. A gondola from Buttermilk to the summit of Elk Camp at Snowmass, designed to address stringent
environmental criteria.
A system of intermountain gondolas connecting Aspen, Snowmass, Buttermilk and Highlands as a single skiable
mountain complex could improve the Aspen-Snowmass winter experience and represent a major resort
enhancement. Snowmass/Aspen visitors and valley skiers could all benefit.
Features & Advantages:
•During winter months, a mountain-to-mountain system could reduce peak-hour travel by taking skiers off
the road and potentially reducing pressure on Highway 82, Brush Creek Road, Maroon Creek Road, Owl
Creek Road and the entrance to Aspen roundabout.
•A mountain to mountain connection would likely reduce demand for upper-valley RFTA buses, possibly
freeing up resources.
•It could help parents avoid many Ski Club and other mountain drop-off trips for children.
•Enhancing the winter resort experience would help protect Aspen’s appeal and competitive position as a
world class winter resort destination. A gondola connection might also be a major attraction for non-
skiers (like Chamonix’s Aiguille du Midi cable car ride).
Issues & Challenges:
•Because of the principle of induced traffic, this option by itself is unlikely to reduce traffic congestion on
Highway 82, unless it were combined with a substantial auto-disincentive.
•Would require U.S. Forest Service approval and likely require support from all upper valley governments.
•Some neighbors might object to gondolas in their view plane.
•Environmental objections might be raised to a Buttermilk-Snowmass gondola, even if no access road were
constructed.
•A gondola interconnection is not in the County’s master plan.
•It would not directly connect areas with large bed bases.
Cost Implications:
•A mountain to mountain interconnect system might be paid for with private investment.
•Opposition could exist to a public investment that might serve only skiers, although connections and
integration with public transit might merit a public/private partnership or coordinated investment in
some form.
25
P70
IV.
21
Increased Highway Capacity for Vehicles
(unrestricted four-lane into Aspen)
[Note: Unlike the previous options, this one was not suggested by any outside experts consulted by the Community
Forum Task Force or by any task force member. It is included here simply because it has been debated for so many
decades in the upper valley.]
Traffic congestion exists on the two-lane portion on Highway 82 between Aspen’s four-lane Main Street and the
four-lane highway from down valley to Buttermilk. To increase highway capacity, this option would add lanes
without enforced restrictions (e.g., HOV or Bus). The option was rejected in the past, in part because it would
increase traffic congestion, noise, and air pollution in downtown Aspen. (Note that Aspen’s PM-10 pollution has
subsided since the 1990’s, and Aspen now meets federal air quality standards.)
Features & Advantages:
•Would reduce highway congestion in the short term.
•Would allow safer operations and reduce accidents by eliminating the S-curves.
•Could utilize the “preferred alignment” transportation easement across the Marolt Open Space.
•Would be adaptable to tolling to generate revenues and manage travel demand.
•Might improve emergency access in and out of Aspen in the short term.
•May accommodate rubber–tired transit solutions.
Issues & Challenges:
•Because of the principle of induced traffic, increased highway capacity (without dynamic road pricing)
would not reduce long term traffic congestion on Highway 82. This has been demonstrated in other
cities.
•Would immediately increase traffic congestion and noise in downtown Aspen.
•Would increase carbon emissions and other forms of air pollution in Aspen.
•Would place rubber-tired transit in mixed traffic, which would slow transit.
•Would require a City of Aspen public vote to cross the Marolt Open Space.
•Would violate the Aspen Area Community Plan and the Canary Initiative.
•Would require the Environmental Impact Statement process to be reopened because it is not currently
approved in the Aspen Record of Decision*.
Cost Implications:
•Estimated cost is over $100 million.
•In the short term, reduced travel times might provide savings to motorists and to businesses dependent
on the movement of goods and services. In the long term, traffic congestion would resume.
•Increased traffic congestion, noise and air pollution in downtown Aspen might reduce Aspen’s quality of
life and resort appeal, harming the economy.
•Environmental Impact Statement required by the National Environmental Policy Act.
26
P71
IV.
22
Other Options Not Studied for This Report
Over past decades, many mobility options have been considered for the Entrance to Aspen. Examples include a
large intercept parking facility located close to Aspen (under the Marolt open space) and the so-called “split shot”
in which traffic entering Aspen would cross the Marolt open space, while departing traffic would follow the
existing S-curves. While the Marolt intercept lot idea was advocated by one of its members, the task force did not
study either of these options, noting that both had been rejected in the environment impact review that was part
of the Aspen Record of Decision.
27
P72
IV.
ADDENDUM
1 Community Forum Task Force members
2 Expert speakers and links to their presentations
3 Options matrix and scoring system
4 Options scoring results
Community Forum Task Force
on Transportation and Mobility
28
P73
IV.
Community Task
Force Members
1
Community Forum Task Force
on Transportation and Mobility
29
P74
IV.
Rose Abello
Director, Snowmass Tourism
Rose Abello was named Tourism Director for Snowmass
Tourism in September 2014. She first moved to the Roaring
Fork Valley in 1997 and served as director of communications
for Aspen Skiing Company. She has spent more than 25 years
marketing travel and tourism.
Pam Alexander
Aspen citizen
Formerly based in San Francisco, Alexander founded a technology-
focused public relations firm which was acquired by WPP. Clients
included Hewlett Packard, WebMD, EarthLink and the TED con-
ference. She serves on the board of the Aspen Valley Ski Club, the
Aspen Valley Hospital Foundation and the Aspen Art Museum, and
is a former board member of the Aspen Community Foundation.
Markey Butler
Mayor, Town of Snowmass Village
Markey Butler is the first woman to be elected Mayor of
Snowmass Village in its 37-year history. Butler is also the exec-
utive director of Hospice of the Valley.
Ward Hauenstein
Aspen citizen, City Councilman
Ward moved to Aspen in the fall of 1976. He is an enthusias-
tic bicyclist both mountain and road. In the winter he enjoys
XC skate and classic, AT, and Alpine skiing. He is active in the
Aspen Chapel and has been politically involved in local Aspen
issues. He was elected to the Aspen City Council in May 2017.
Nina Eisenstat
Aspen Marketing and Communications
Nina Eisenstat provides marketing and strategic communica-
tions consulting services to businesses, professional services
firms, public institutions, and non-profit organizations. She
is serving her third term as an elected member of the Aspen
Chamber Resort Association’s board of directors and sits on
its marketing advisory and public affairs committees. She
was a six-year member of the board of directors of the Buddy
Program, president of its first national council, and a member
of its community relations and development committees.
Brent Gardner Smith
Executive Director, Aspen Journalism
Brent Gardner-Smith is founder, editor and executive director
of Aspen Journalism, a local nonprofit investigative journalism
organization. Brent has over 30 years of experience in jour-
nalism, broadcasting and public affairs and has worked at the
Aspen Daily News, The Aspen Times, Aspen Public Radio and
Aspen Skiing Company. He has a master’s degree in journal-
ism from the University Of Missouri School Of Journalism.
Tom Heald
Asst. Superintendent, Aspen School District
With long family ties to western Colorado (family homesteads on
American Flats near Silverton and Dallas Divide near Telluride),
Tom and his family have lived in the Roaring Fork Valley for 25
years, with equal stays in Carbondale, Silt, Glenwood and now
Aspen. As assistant superintendent for the Aspen School District,
Tom has a sphere of influence in constructing meaningful activi-
ties for students and staff to thrive as learners, while his greatest
joy is being outside with his wife, sons, and dogs to climb, raft,
ski, ride and wrestle with gravity.
Task Force Members
John Bennett, Co-Chair
Former Mayor of Aspen
As Cradle to Career Director for the Aspen Community
Foundation, John Bennett oversees the Foundation’s Aspen
to Parachute Cradle to Career Initiative, which is aimed at
dramatically increasing youth success across western Colora-
do. After more than two decades as a business CEO, Bennett
moved to the public sector, serving four terms as Aspen’s
mayor and overseeing a $40 million budget that produced
a surplus each year he was in office. He later served as vice
president of the Aspen Institute, co-founder of the Cordoba
Initiative, and president of For The Forest, an environmental
stewardship organization. He’s a graduate of Yale University.
Bill Kane, Co-Chair
Advisory Principal, Design Workshop
Bill is a 42 year resident of the Valley. He served as Plan-
ning Director for Aspen and Pitkin County from 1974-78.
He authored the Aspen/Pitkin County growth management
plan and oversaw the rezoning of Aspen and much of Pitkin
County. He also was a Principal at Design Workshop. Aspen
and served as VP in charge of Planning and Development for
Aspen Skiing Co. from 1995-2005. He currently resides in Ba-
salt and is a commissioner on the Colorado Parks and wildlife
Commission. He is also on the Board of Great Outdoors Colo-
rado and Aspen Valley Land Trust. Bill is an advisory principal
at Design Workshop.
30
P75
IV.
David Houggy
President, Aspen Science Center Board of Directors
David joined the Buddy Program team as new Executive
Director in 2012, bringing a wealth of experience in business
development and strategic planning. He is a founding member
of the Advisory Board of Mentor Colorado, an organization
founded to promote and advocate for mentoring throughout
Colorado. He is also President and a member of the Board of
Directors of the Aspen Science Center, dedicated to bringing
STEM programming to the youth of the Roaring Fork Valley.
David Hyman
Former Owner, High Mountain Taxi
David worked for many years in the transportation industry as
the owner of High Mountain Transportation, a taxi, shuttle and
delivery company. He has served on several transportation
committees and study groups over the years, and has a keen
interest in transportation issues.
Michael Kinsley
Facilitator and Strategic Planner
Michael was a county commissioner from 1975-85, the period
in which Pitkin County transitioned to progressive policies. So
he can talk about Aspen’s good ol’ days ad nauseum. Since ‘83,
he has worked for Rocky Mountain Institute on sustainable
communities and campuses, plus designing and facilitating
many RMI corporate workshops and charrettes. Now that he’s
part-time with RMI, he provides mediation, facilitation and
strategic planning services valley wide. And he’s a painter.
John Krueger
Director of Transportation, City of Aspen
John has worked for the City of Aspen for over 20 years. He
started in the Parks department as the Trails Supervisor man-
aging and building trails in the Aspen area. He worked closely
with CDOT to build the trail along Highway 82, the underpass-
es at the golf course, Truscott and Buttermilk. As Director of
Transportation, John coordinates with CDOT, RFTA, the EOTC,
Pitkin County, Snowmass, and Glenwood Springs on planning
and valley wide transportation projects and issues. He is also
responsible for the management of the local transit system,
car share program, the Downtowner, employer outreach and
various Transportation Demand Management programs.
Melony Lewis
Aspen citizen
Melony has worked with various organizations nationally and
locally, primarily focusing on the environment and education.
She currently serves on the board of Vanguard Chapter of the
Aspen Institute, Aspen Country Day School and Aspen Center
for Environmental Studies. Her employment experience has
included public relations and marketing, medical employment
recruiting and placement, guiding cycling tours throughout
Europe, and executive language coaching.
Cristal Logan
Vice President, Aspen Institute
Cristal Logan is Vice President, Aspen and Director of Commu-
nity Programs at the Aspen Institute. During her 18 year tenure
at the Institute, Cristal has expanded the number of commu-
nity events to over 70 days of programming per year including
lectures, seminars for teens, and discussion series year round.
A fourth generation resident of the Roaring Fork Valley, Cristal
served as one of the inaugural members of the Aspen Com-
munity Foundation Spring Board, and is Vice Chairman of the
Board of the Aspen Chamber Resort Association.
Mirte Mallory
Founder & Executive Director, WE-Cycle
An Aspen native, Mirte is the Co-Founder and Executive Direc-
tor of WE-cycle, the Roaring Fork Valley’s bike transit service.
WE-cycle features 190 bikes at 43 stations between Aspen,
Basalt, Willits, and El Jebel and is designed to serve as the
first/last mile connection to RFTA and for short, quick, point-
to-point trips. Mirte is the former Chair of the Pitkin County
Planning & Zoning Commission and the Curator of the BERKO
Photo Collection.
Tom Melberg
Real Estate Broker, Sotheby’s
Tom moved to Aspen, Colorado on June 1, 1975 and never looked
back. He got his real estate license in 1978 and has found the work
to be the best job one could have. Tom is envied by his fellow
colleagues by how he is consistently one of the top producing
real estate brokers in the Aspen area while balancing his joy and
commitment to skiing, golf, yoga, fly fishing, hiking, hockey, bird
hunting and meditation. Tom is forever grateful for making his move
to Aspen and living the dream with his wife, Lindy, for the past 28
years and their now three grown children, Ella, Wylie and Maggie.
Task Force Members
31
P76
IV.
Michael Miracle
Director, Community Engagement, Aspen Skiing Company
Michael Miracle is the director of community engagement
at Aspen Skiing Company. In that role, Michael is tasked with
deepening ASC’s connection to communities throughout the
Roaring Fork Valley. That work could involve digging in on spe-
cific issues such as housing and transportation, or simply listen-
ing to and responding to community members concerns. Prior
to joining ASC, Michael edited Aspen Sojourner magazine for a
decade. His previous job in publishing was at Skiing magazine,
where he worked for seven years, first as an assistant editor,
then associate editor, and finally senior editor.
Maria Morrow
Attorney and Principal, Oates, Knezevich, & Gardenschwartz,
P.C.
Maria Morrow is an 18-year Aspen resident, and has practiced
law locally with OKGKM since her move from Chicago, where
she began her legal career. After an impressive beginning as a
federal court law clerk followed by practice as a litigator at the
100-year-old firm Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Maria moved to Aspen
and joined Oates, Knezevich, & Gardenswartz, P.C. She became
a shareholder of this 34 year-old firm in 2007. Maria specializ-
es in real estate transactions, business transactions, contracts,
litigation, homeowners’ associations, and employment mat-
ters.
George Newman
Member, Board of County Commissioners, Pitkin County
George is on the Board of County Commissioners for District 5,
and has been a Pitkin County resident since 1974. He holds a
BS in Economics and an MA in Public Administration. He has a
desire to protect the natural environment while maintaining a
commitment to citizen involvement. He was a founding mem-
ber and director of both Leadership Aspen (now Roaring Fork
Leadership) and the Emma Caucus.
Steve Skadron
Mayor of Aspen
Steve Skadron is in his second term as Mayor of Aspen. Prior
to becoming mayor, Skadron served as an Aspen City Council
member for six years. Before that, he spent four years on the
city Planning and Zoning Commission.
Greg Rucks
Transportation Principal, Rocky Mountain Institute
Greg Rucks is a principal in RMI’s Transportation Practice
and is currently managing a multi-year partnership with the
Austin community to develop and implement technology and
world-class solutions for transforming mobility. With an eye on
replicability, Greg is also helping scale solutions from Austin to
other global cities, starting with Denver. Since joining RMI in
December 2010, Greg led a commercialization effort focused
on lightweight-vehicle design and development that has since
been funded by the Department of Energy.
Sheri Sanzone
Owner and Founder of Bluegreen
Landscape Architect and Urban Planner
Sheri is a landscape architect, planner and urban designer and
founder of Bluegreen, a leading edge and environmentally
responsible design studio based in Aspen. A former board
chairperson of the Aspen-Pitkin County Housing Authority and
Roaring Fork Leadership, Sheri also served on the US Green
Building Council Colorado Chapter board. Before founding and
nurturing Bluegreen, Sheri was Principal-in-Charge of Design
Workshop’s Aspen office.
Zoë Brown
Senior Associate
The Aspen Institute
Zoë served as an excellent manager of logistics for the Commu-
nity Forum. While she was not an official task force member,
she served as a key member of the team who worked tirelessly
on this project.
John Sarpa
President, Sarpa Development
John has been a major real estate figure in Aspen and the Roar-
ing Fork Valley since 1985. He co-chaired the citizens group
that master planned and re-developed the Aspen Meadows,
home of the Aspen Institute, Aspen Music Festival and School
and the Aspen Center for Physics. He is currently the Vice
Chairman of the Aspen Valley Hospital Foundation, a board
member of the Valley Health Alliance and Chairman of the
Aspen Institute Community Forum.
Task Force Members
32
P77
IV.
Ralph Trapani
Program Director, Parsons Transportation Group
Mr. Ralph J. Trapani, P.E. is an award-winning engineer with
over 40 years of transportation engineering experience. He is a
Program Director with Parsons Transportation Group. He serves
on the board of directors for CLEER (Clean Energy Economy for
The Region). He spent 28 years with the Colorado DOT, serving as
the I-70 Glenwood Canyon project manager for 12 years, and the
State Highway 82 corridor manager for 10 years. He lives in Glen-
wood Springs, Colorado with his 16 year old son Lucca. He enjoys
telemark skiing at Highlands, motorsports and cycling.
Barry Crook
Assistant City Manager
City of Aspen
Barry Crook, is one of two Assistant City Managers for Aspen.
He oversees affordable housing planning/development, the
Transportation Department, the Parking and Downtown Services
Department, the City Council’s Top Ten Goals effort and the city’s
customer service/continuous improvement efforts. Mr. Crook has
over 30 years of experience working in state and local govern-
ment in both the budget/finance and quality/customer service
areas.
Katie Viola
Partner, Kissane Viola Design
Katie Viola is partner at Kissane Viola Design in Aspen, Colorado.
She and her husband Paul have been living in Aspen for 16 years.
Katie and Paul relocated from NYC where they were design direc-
tors for a wide variety of print publications and websites. Cur-
rently Kissane Viola Design specializes in brand development, art
direction and graphic design, with many national and local clients.
Kissane Viola Design is located in downtown Aspen. Katie is on the
board of the Aspen Education Foundation and her son John is a
proud student of Aspen Middle School.
Task Force Members
33
P78
IV.
Expert Speakers
with links to presentations
2
Community Forum Task Force
on Transportation and Mobility
34
P79
IV.
EXPERT SPEAKERS
Session 1, December 13 and 14, 2016
Jim Charlier, President, Charlier Associates
Wheeler Opera House and taskforce meeting
Charlier is a well-known transportation and land-use planner based in Boulder. He’s
worked extensively in Aspen, in the Western US and in resort communities. Charlier
discussed the influence of economics, demographics, settlement patterns, and tech-
nology on transportation systems and mobility, as well as the changing behavior and
expectations in both public and private transportation.
LINK: https://www.aspeninstitute.org/events/community-forum-reimagin-
ing-mobility-roaring-fork-valley/
Session 2, March 9 and 10, 2017
Ann Bowers and Chris Breiland, Fehr & Peers
Doerr-Hosier Center and taskforce meeting
Bowers and Breiland, who have worked on transportation in the Roaring Fork Valley
for years, discussed practical new ways to reduce demand for transportation
systems, while increasing convenience; emerging technologies that affect design,
safety, and efficiency of all travel modes; how lifestyle and behavioral trends
influence transportation systems; and how big data helps us better understand
travel patterns. Bowers’ expertise includes the most advanced, state-of-the-practice
transportation analysis techniques, and Breiland is an expert in complex multimodal
corridor analysis.
LINK: https://www.aspeninstitute.org/events/community-forum-transpor-
tation-mobility-reimagining-transportation-mobility-upper-roaring-fork-val-
ley-session-2/
35
P80
IV.
EXPERT SPEAKERS
Session 3, May 24 and 25, 2017
Tony Dutzik, senior policy analyst, Frontier Group
Doerr-Hosier Center and taskforce meeting
Frontier Group is a public policy think tank focusing on the intersection of transportation,
energy, and the climate. Dutzik discussed innovative mobility technologies and services—
what they are and what they do; case studies in US cities where these technologies and
services have been applied; and the opportunities and challenges that innovative mobility
solutions present.
LINK: https://www.aspeninstitute.org/events/community-forum-transpor-
tation-mobility-reimagining-transportation-mobility-upper-roaring-fork-val-
ley-session-3/
Session 4, June 6, 2017
Greg Rucks, Rocky Mountain Institute’s transportation practice
Wheeler Opera House and taskforce meeting
Rucks addressed the technological innovations that are providing cost-effective, low-
carbon solutions to traffic and congestion issues in other cities. He also discussed the
pilot program he’s managing in Austin, Texas, and how the Roaring Fork Valley is
well-suited to implementing such a program.
LINK: https://www.aspeninstitute.org/events/community-forum-transporta-
tion-mobility-positioning-roaring-fork-valley-mobility-future-session-4/
36
P81
IV.
Options Matrix
& Scoring System
3
Community Forum Task Force
on Transportation and Mobility
37 P82IV.
Options Matrix & Scoring System
ESSENTIAL COMMUNITY VALUES OPERATING SYSTEM VALUES MINIMUM SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS
OPTIONS
Community
Character
Environmental
Quality
Traffic &
Congestion
Reduction Social Equity
Convenience &
Comfort
Adaptable to
the Future Safety
Financial
Viability
Capacity to Move
People and/or
Reduce Travel
Demand
Ride Sharing Systems 67 51 43 45 39 62 29 61 47
Ride Hailing Systems 62 43 37 34 52 65 45 52 40
Light Rail Transit (LRT)37 51 58 50 50 13 63 -29 55
Enhanced Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)53 52 51 52 42 56 61 32 56
Snowmass Connection Enhancements 49 43 31 37 44 45 53 22 35
Mountain to Mountain Connection 54 38 14 18 33 13 46 4 16
Transit-Oriented Affordable Housing 55 50 44 45 51 34 49 21 37
HOV Lane Enforcement 48 42 42 38 29 48 52 59 38
Dynamic Road Pricing (VMT fees, etc.)17 50 57 -6 20 59 46 60 53
Parking Strategies 45 47 44 6 3 47 33 49 34
Airport/Transit Connectivity 65 53 38 39 56 50 53 38 42
Increased Highway Capacity -35 -37 -25 18 5 -13 -7 -23 -23
OPTION/VALUE RATING SYSTEM
3 = Fully consistent with this value. Substantial progress
2 = Adequately consistent with this value
1 = Minimally consistent with this value
0 = Neutral or Not Applicable
-1 = Inconsistent with this value
-2 = Extremely inconsistent with this value. Detrimental impacts
38 P83IV.
Options
Scoring Results
4
Community Forum Task Force
on Transportation and Mobility
39 P84IV.
Community Forum Task Force
on Transportation and Mobility
CONTENTS
A Survey Results Option Scoring
B Value Areas Scoring
C Highest Selection Summary of Options
D Additional Evaluation, Q&A
40 P85IV.
A. SURVEY RESULTS OPTIONS SCORING
1 - Ride Sharing Systems Value
#Question -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Total
Score
1 Community Character 0 0 1 0 8 17 67
2 Environmental Quality 0 0 1 7 10 8 51
3 Traffic & Congestion Reduction 0 0 3 8 10 5 43
4 Social Equity 0 2 3 5 6 10 45
5 Convenience & Comfort 0 3 2 6 9 6 39
6 Adaptable to the Future 0 0 1 3 7 15 62
7 Safety 0 3 6 5 9 3 29
8 Financial Viability 0 0 1 1 12 12 61
9
Capacity to Move People and/or Reduce Travel
Demand 0 1 2 5 11 7 47
Total Responses 0 9 20 40 82 83 444
Community Forum Task Force on Transportation and Mobility Survey Results
41 P86IV.
-2 -1 0 1 2 3
2 - Ride Hailing Systems Value
#Question -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Total
Score
1 Community Character 0 0 0 2 12 12 62
2 Environmental Quality 0 2 1 8 8 7 43
3 Traffic & Congestion Reduction 0 2 2 9 9 4 37
4 Social Equity 0 2 6 7 4 7 34
5 Convenience & Comfort 0 1 1 4 11 9 52
6 Adaptable to the Future 0 0 0 2 9 15 65
7 Safety 0 1 4 2 13 6 45
8 Financial Viability 0 1 1 5 9 10 52
9
Capacity to Move People and/or Reduce Travel
Demand 0 1 1 12 7 5 40
Total 0 10 16 51 82 75 430
Community Forum Task Force on Transportation and Mobility Survey Results
42 P87IV.
3 - Light Rail Transit (LRT)Value
#Question -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Total
Score
1 Community Character 0 6 2 3 5 10 37
2 Environmental Quality 1 1 1 4 7 12 51
3 Traffic & Congestion Reduction 0 0 1 4 9 12 58
4 Social Equity 0 0 4 3 10 9 50
5 Convenience & Comfort 0 2 2 3 8 11 50
6 Adaptable to the Future 3 4 5 7 5 2 13
7 Safety 0 0 1 3 6 16 63
8 Financial Viability 13 7 2 4 0 0 -29
9
Capacity to Move People and/or Reduce Travel
Demand 0 2 1 3 6 14 55
Total Responses 17 22 19 34 56 86 348
4 - Enhanced Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)Value
#Question -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Total
Score
1 Community Character 0 0 0 7 11 8 53
2 Environmental Quality 0 0 0 6 14 6 52
3 Traffic & Congestion Reduction 0 0 1 7 10 8 51
4 Social Equity 0 2 1 2 11 10 52
Community Forum Task Force on Transportation and Mobility Survey Results
43 P88IV.
5 Convenience & Comfort 0 0 3 8 11 4 42
6 Adaptable to the Future 0 0 1 4 11 10 56
7 Safety 0 0 0 4 9 13 61
8 Financial Viability 1 2 4 5 11 3 32
9
Capacity to Move People and/or Reduce Travel
Demand 0 0 0 4 14 8 56
Total Responses 1 4 10 47 102 70 455
-2 -1 0 1 2
3
5 - Snowmass Connection Enhancements Value
#Question -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Total
1 Community Character 0 1 2 4 11 8 49
Community Forum Task Force on Transportation and Mobility Survey Results
44 P89IV.
2 Environmental Quality 0 2 3 4 10 7 43
3 Traffic & Congestion Reduction 0 2 4 9 9 2 31
4 Social Equity 0 1 5 7 8 5 37
5 Convenience & Comfort 0 0 1 10 11 4 44
6 Adaptable to the Future 0 0 4 7 7 8 45
7 Safety 0 0 1 6 10 9 53
8 Financial Viability 2 2 4 10 6 2 22
9
Capacity to Move People and/or Reduce Travel
Demand 1 0 3 9 11 2 35
Total 3 8 27 66 83 47 359
6 - Mountain to Mountain Connection Value
#Question -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Total
1 Community Character 1 0 2 5 3 15 54
2 Environmental Quality 2 3 3 2 5 11 38
3 Traffic & Congestion Reduction 1 4 6 10 5 0 14
4 Social Equity 2 3 6 8 4 3 18
5 Convenience & Comfort 0 3 3 6 12 2 33
6 Adaptable to the Future 5 2 4 7 6 2 13
7 Safety 0 2 3 3 9 9 46
8 Financial Viability 4 5 7 5 3 2 4
Community Forum Task Force on Transportation and Mobility Survey Results
45 P90IV.
9
Capacity to Move People and/or Reduce Travel
Demand 1 4 3 15 2 1 16
Total 16 26 37 61 49 45 236
7 - Transit Oriented Affordable Housing (TOAH)Value
#Question -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Total
1 Community Character 0 0 2 4 9 11 55
2 Environmental Quality 1 0 2 4 9 10 50
3 Traffic & Congestion Reduction 1 1 2 4 11 7 44
4 Social Equity 0 2 1 7 8 8 45
5 Convenience & Comfort 0 0 2 7 7 10 51
6 Adaptable to the Future 0 2 6 5 8 5 34
7 Safety 0 0 5 1 12 8 49
8 Financial Viability 2 2 5 10 4 3 21
9
Capacity to Move People and/or Reduce Travel
Demand 1 1 3 7 9 5 37
Total 5 8 28 49 77 67 386
8 - High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lane
Enforcement Value
#Question -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Total
Community Forum Task Force on Transportation and Mobility Survey Results
46 P91IV.
1 Community Character 0 3 3 1 7 12 48
2 Environmental Quality 0 1 4 7 6 8 42
3 Traffic & Congestion Reduction 0 2 0 9 10 5 42
4 Social Equity 0 3 3 6 7 7 38
5 Convenience & Comfort 0 3 5 8 6 4 29
6 Adaptable to the Future 0 1 2 5 10 8 48
7 Safety 0 1 3 2 9 11 52
8 Financial Viability 0 1 0 2 11 12 59
9
Capacity to Move People and/or Reduce Travel
Demand 0 2 3 7 9 5 38
Total 0 17 23 47 75 72 396
9 - Dynamic Road Pricing Value
#Question -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Total
1 Community Character 3 6 1 8 3 5 17
2 Environmental Quality 0 1 3 3 9 10 50
3 Traffic & Congestion Reduction 0 1 1 3 8 13 57
4 Social Equity 5 8 6 3 3 1 -6
5 Convenience & Comfort 2 2 9 4 5 4 20
6 Adaptable to the Future 0 0 0 5 9 12 59
7 Safety 0 0 5 5 7 9 46
8 Financial Viability 1 0 0 4 5 16 60
Community Forum Task Force on Transportation and Mobility Survey Results
47 P92IV.
9
Capacity to Move People and/or Reduce Travel
Demand 1 0 2 3 8 12 53
Total 12 18 27 38 57 82 356
10 - Parking Strategies Value
#Question -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Total
1 Community Character 0 1 4 4 9 8 45
2 Environmental Quality 0 0 2 8 9 7 47
3 Traffic & Congestion Reduction 0 1 1 9 9 6 44
4 Social Equity 4 4 7 7 1 3 6
5 Convenience & Comfort 1 8 7 7 3 0 3
6 Adaptable to the Future 0 0 2 9 7 8 47
7 Safety 0 0 10 6 3 7 33
8 Financial Viability 0 0 3 5 10 8 49
9
Capacity to Move People and/or Reduce Travel
Demand 1 0 4 10 7 4 34
Total 6 14 40 65 58 51 308
11 - Airport/Transit Connectivity 0
#Question -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Total
1 Community Character 0 0 0 1 11 14 65
Community Forum Task Force on Transportation and Mobility Survey Results
48 P93IV.
2 Environmental Quality 0 0 1 6 10 9 53
3 Traffic & Congestion Reduction 0 1 2 13 4 6 38
4 Social Equity 0 1 5 7 6 7 39
5 Convenience & Comfort 0 0 0 6 10 10 56
6 Adaptable to the Future 0 1 2 4 10 9 50
7 Safety 0 0 3 3 10 10 53
8 Financial Viability 0 2 4 6 8 6 38
9
Capacity to Move People and/or Reduce Travel
Demand 0 0 2 11 8 5 42
Total 0 5 19 57 77 76 434
12 - Increased Highway Capacity
#Question -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Total
1 Community Character 17 4 2 3 0 0 -35
2 Environmental Quality 18 5 0 2 1 0 -37
3 Traffic & Congestion Reduction 13 7 1 3 1 1 -25
4 Social Equity 3 4 5 4 6 4 18
5 Convenience & Comfort 6 5 1 7 6 1 5
6 Adaptable to the Future 8 7 4 4 3 0 -13
7 Safety 6 5 8 4 3 0 -7
8 Financial Viability 9 12 1 1 3 0 -23
Community Forum Task Force on Transportation and Mobility Survey Results
49 P94IV.
B. VALUE AREAS SCORING
Essential Community Values
(Community Character and Environmental Quality)
#1 Ride Sharing and Airport Connectivity (TIE)
#3 Ride Hailing, Enhanced BRT and Affordable Housing (TIE)
Operating System Values
(Congestion Reduction, Social Equity, Convenience/Comfort, Adaptable to Future)
#1 Enhanced BRT
#2 Ride Sharing
#3 Ride Hailing
Minimum System Requirements
(Safety, Financial Viability, Capacity to Move People and/or Reduce Travel Demand)
9
Capacity to Move People and/or Reduce Travel
Demand 13 6 2 1 4 0 -23
Total 93 55 24 29 27 6 -140
Community Forum Task Force on Transportation and Mobility Survey Results
50 P95IV.
#1 Dynamic Road Pricing
#2 Enhanced BRT and HOV Lane Enforcement (TIE)
C. HIGHEST SELECTION SUMMARY OF OPTIONS
Overall “Favorite” Options of Forum Members
#1 Enhanced BRT
#2 Ride Sharing System
Overall, what are your three
favorite options?
Enhanced Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
Ride Sharing System
Transit Oriented Affordable Housing (TOAH)
High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lane Enhancement
Dynamic Road Pricing
Ride Hailing Systems
Parking Strategies
Snowmass Connection Enhancement
Airport/Transit Connectivity
Light Rail Transit (LRT)
Mountain to Mountain Connection
Increased Highway Capacity 0
2
2
4
4
5
6
7
9
9
12
18
Community Forum Task Force on Transportation and Mobility Survey Results
51 P96IV.
Overall Top Scoring Options by Values Assessment
#1 Enhanced Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
#2 Ride Sharing System
#3 Airport/Transit Connectivity
#4 Ride Hailing Systems
Community Forum Task Force on Transportation and Mobility Survey Results
52 P97IV.
D. ADDITIONAL EVALUATION
Enhanced Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
Ride Sharing System
Airport/Transit Connectivity
Ride Hailing Systems
High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lane Enhancement
Transit Oriented Affordable Housing (TOAH)
Snowmass Connection Enhancement
Dynamic Road Pricing
Light Rail Transit (LRT)
Parking Strategies
Mountain to Mountain Connection
Increased Highway Capacity -140
236
308
348
356
359
386
396
430
434
444
455
Community Forum Task Force on Transportation and Mobility Survey Results
53 P98IV.
Participant Point Selections
Ride Sharing System
Ride Hailing Systems
Light Rail Transit (LRT)
Enhanced Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
Snowmass Connection Enhancement
Mountain to Mountain Connection
Transit Oriented Affordable Housing (TOAH)
High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lane Enhancement
Dynamic Road Pricing
Parking Strategies
Airport/Transit Connectivity
Increased Highway Capacity
-2 -1 0 1 2 3
14 - Please weigh the relative importance of each value.
(1= least valuable, 3 = most valuable)
Question 1 2 3 Mean
Capacity to Move People and/or Reduce Travel
Demand 0 4 22 2.85
Traffic & Congestion Reduction 0 5 21 2.81
Environmental Quality 0 8 18 2.69
Safety 4 5 17 2.5
Community Character 2 10 14 2.46
Adaptable to the Future 2 13 11 2.35
Convenience & Comfort 1 17 8 2.27
Financial Viability 5 12 9 2.15
Social Equity 6 10 10 2.15
Community Forum Task Force on Transportation and Mobility Survey Results
54 P99IV.
Total 20 84 130
Community Forum Task Force on Transportation and Mobility Survey Results
55 P100IV.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Elected Officials Transportation Committee (EOTC)
FROM: Ashley Perl, City of Aspen
DATE OF MEMO: September 6, 2017
MEETING DATE: September 14, 2017
RE: Aspen Mobility Lab
INTRODUCTION:
Staff from the City of Aspen will present a concept known as the Aspen Mobility Lab for the
EOTC’s consideration. Staff is requesting ideas and feedback from EOTC members as well as
discussion about partnership opportunities. The Aspen Mobility Lab is a two to three-month
experiment proposed for the summer of 2018 that will test numerous mobility technologies and
services to inform future transportation planning efforts.
HISTORY:
Providing transportation and mobility services to the community has long been a priority for
local governments in the upper Roaring Fork Valley, and much work has been done to provide
high-quality transit services to visitors, commuters and locals. The accomplishments of the
EOTC and RFTA and the services that are offered today are renowned across the country,
particularly for a rural community.
Despite these achievements and aggressive commitments to provide transportation services,
traffic congestion remains a problem in the upper valley, both for commuters and locals, and
negatively impacts the quality of life for all. The continued traffic has led experts and community
members to argue that existing transportation options, although innovative and well established,
are still not competitive enough with the personal automobile and they lack the diversity needed
to be seen and used as a ‘service’. This lack of service-based options leads people to drive their
personal vehicles instead of using an alternative mode of transport to move into, out of and
around towns and neighborhoods. These numerous single-occupant vehicles and the associated
congestion is a health and safety concern, due to accidents as well as from an air quality and
noise perspective, and has a negative impact on the community’s quality of life and the
experience for visitors.
In response to the traffic and transportation struggles in the upper valley, there has been a
renewed community conversation focused on finding alternatives and solutions to lessen the
impacts of traffic on the community. This recharged interest in finding solutions is demonstrated
by the numerous studies, plans and efforts currently underway or recently completed including:
the EOTC commissioned Upper Valley Mobility Study; the Upper Valley Mobility Report from
the Aspen Institute’s Community Forum; the Short-Range Transit Plan from the City of Aspen;
and numerous studies and planning efforts by RFTA. These efforts are all aimed at understanding
56
P101
IV.
the future of transportation and identifying what options are available and feasible for
consideration in the upper Roaring Fork Valley.
DISCUSSION:
The Aspen Mobility Lab is a project that draws from the existing planning efforts already
occurring in the upper valley and introduces an opportunity to test some of the recommendations
from those plans. The original idea for the Mobility Lab was introduced by Aspen Mayor Steve
Skadron in 2016 as a way for Aspen to better understand what new mobility technologies would
mean for a small, rural town and how Aspen could position itself as a leader in the adoption of
these technologies. Mayor Skadron’s idea has since been informed by the work and learnings of
the Community Forum on Transportation, organized by the Aspen Institute.
The Aspen Mobility Lab is an opportunity to experiment with innovative mobility services,
technologies and other strategies that address transportation needs. Running for two to three
months in the summer of 2018, the Lab will be an opportunity to test the emerging services and
technologies explored through the Short-Range Transit Plan; the Upper Valley Mobility Report;
and operational aspects of the Upper Valley Mobility Study. It will also pilot new ideas for other
modes of transportation and incentives, derived from best practices and international examples.
The Mobility Lab will provide options for ride-sharing and ride-hailing, increased bicycling,
revitalized pedestrian zones, and new commuting options. The Lab will encourage high-
occupancy vehicles and will prioritize bicycle and pedestrian services and technologies that
provide alternatives to single occupant vehicle travel. These new and expanded services will be
paired with incentives that make these modes competitive with and more desirable than driving
alone. At the same time, new approaches to parking and traffic management will be used to
accommodate these news modes of transit as well as to create opportunities for increased
community vitality in downtown Aspen. The Lab will help the City of Aspen and its partners
identify which services, technologies and strategies are most beneficial to include in future
transportation planning efforts and investments.
The City of Aspen is currently scoping the Lab to cover the Aspen downtown core; outlying
neighborhoods and arterial roads; and the Highway 82 corridor from Aspen to the Intercept Lot.
The City of Aspen welcomes the participation of EOTC communities in the Lab in any way that
could benefit the transportation landscape. The Aspen City Council hopes the Town of
Snowmass Village and the commissioners of Pitkin County will join as partners in the Lab by
sharing ideas and concepts for inclusion and experimentation.
CONCLUSION:
Mayor Skadron and the City of Aspen see the new transportation landscape as an opportunity to
solve some of the ongoing transportation challenges of the community. However, prior to
moving ahead with a commitment to any one solution or set of solutions, it is critical to first test
these new technologies and understand how these services will function with existing
transportation services. The Aspen Mobility Lab offers an exciting and unique opportunity for
local governments, mobility providers, and the entire upper valley community to understand the
future of transportation and mobility and lead the way through experimentation and adoption of
innovative new solutions.
57
P102
IV.
AGNEDA ITEM SUMMARY
EOTC MEETING DATE: September 14, 2017
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Increase Transit Service in the Brush Creek Road Corridor
STAFF RESPONSIBLE: David Peckler, Town of Snowmass Village
ISSUE STATEMENT:
Snowmass Village (SV) is requesting funding to increase regional service between SV
and Highway 82 during the spring, summer and fall beginning in 2018. The goal is to
achieve 15 minute headways that connect SV to the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service
along the Highway 82 corridor. This increase in connections to the BRT service
improves transit options for: Employees commuting to SV from down valley
communities or Aspen; SV residents commuting to jobs predominately in Aspen; SV
residents’ social and business trips up or down the valley; and Tourist trips
predominately between the two upper valley communities.
BACKGROUND:
This request has been presented to the Elected Officials Transportation Committee
(EOTC) on two previous occasions. The RFTA board will be discussing this service
increase during their planning retreat on the 14th as well. The cost of the increased
service is projected to be $294,000 annually.
SV has been supporting the BRT service since its inception in the fall of 2013. One
obstacle to SV benefitting from the regional BRT service is the limited headways (every
half hour generally) connecting Highway 82 and SV. The requested service plan is to
increase the headways between Highway 82 and SV to every fifteen minutes during the
operation of the BRT service. One targeted group is our workforce. In the Roaring Fork
Transportation Authority’s (RFTA) latest Travel Pattern Study the 2012 Worker
Population for SV was projected at 1,928: of this total 1,150 workers are commuting
predominately from Glenwood Springs/Carbondale/El Jebel/Basalt, and an additional
210 employees coming from Aspen. The service also targets SV residents commuting
to Aspen: 46% of SV residents work in Aspen representing 10% of the Commute Flow
into Aspen. There is also the potential to capture tourists moving between SV and
Aspen during the day which could help reduce congestion in Aspen during the summer
months.
SV is requesting reasonable access to the BRT service. The request is modest
compared to the BRT and Valley service levels enjoyed by other jurisdictions. SV views
58
P103
IV.
this request as reasonable given that all the communities and counties in RFTA are
funding both the BRT and Valley service plans. In our contract with RFTA, SV provides
the regional service connections between SV and Highway 82 in the spring and fall. SV
is developing our 2018 budget and we need to know if the requested service will be
included.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The cost of the increased regional service is projected to be $294,000 annually, please
see attached memo from RFTA. If the RFTA board does not financially support the
service, then SV would be requesting the funding for this service increase as an
operating expense.
RECOMMENDED EOTC ACTION:
Snowmass Village hopes the EOTC can support the increase to the regional service
plan and approves funding in the 2018 budget to support this service.
Attachment(s): RFTA Memo Estimated Cost of Providing Increased Service in the Brush
Creek Road Corridor.
59
P104
IV.
60P105IV.
61P106IV.
Memorandum
To: Elected Officials Transportation Committee
From: Dan Blankenship, CEO
Date: September 7, 2017
Subject: Updates: Grand Avenue Bridge Transit Service and Basalt Pedestrian Crossing
Grand Avenue Bridge Transit Service:
After nearly two years in planning, RFTA began operating its Grand Avenue Bridge (GAB) transit mitigation service on
August 14. In the initial days of the closure, commuters did not know what to expect, so transit ridership was relatively
light. Once commuters started experiencing long delays, however, transit ridership began to increase rapidly; nearly
doubling in the second week of the GAB service.
Passengers disembarking from RFTA Hogback commuter bus in front of Hotel Colorado
Although the ridership numbers are still being finalized, it appears that approximately 67,300 passengers were
transported on the various GAB transit services that RFTA provided from August 14 through August 31. Of that number,
approximately 55,600 were new passengers directly related to the GAB project.
62
P107
IV.
Passengers walking across pedestrian bridge to get to AMTRAK Shuttle and 27th St. Station
By day five of the service, CDOT had restriped northbound Highway 82 from Buffalo Valley to 32nd Street in Glenwood
Springs (3 miles), to create a slip lane on the shoulder for RFTA, so that transit services would not be delayed by the
lengthy afternoon traffic queues created by commuters attempting to get home through Glenwood Springs.
Just prior to the closure, CDOT created an auxiliary 50-car park and ride facility in New Castle in anticipation of high
ridership from that community. Subsequently, it added an addition 50 spaces in New Castle due to overflow that was
spilling into the City Market parking lot.
New Castle auxiliary park and ride created by CDOT (already full)
63
P108
IV.
Existing New Castle Park & Ride lot (full)
In addition to scheduled service, RFTA has been programming up to 10 backup buses in the morning and evening peak
hours, primarily to handle the demand in the I-70 corridor. On Tuesday, September 5, classes in public schools began in
Glenwood Springs. This contributed to lengthy a.m. and p.m. delays getting into and out of Glenwood Springs. As a
result, on Wednesday, RFTA experienced a ridership spike on the I-70 Grand Hogback commuter service, requiring
numerous backup vehicles to handle the demand.
So far, I am pleased to report that public response has been very positive to the GAB services RFTA is providing. I am
extremely proud of the effort that RFTA personnel are making to support the City of Glenwood Springs, CDOT,
commuters, and the region, during the closure. The following link does a better job than I can describing the
phenomenon that seems to be taking place among commuters and City residents due to the bridge closure.
http://www.postindependent.com/opinion/columns/guest-opinion-deeper-connections-of-bridge-project/
Basalt Pedestrian Underpass:
The Basalt underpass project is approximately 90% complete and was opened to the public on July 22. The Basalt BRT
stations were reopened to bus traffic on August 22, and the majority of the traffic control devices have been removed
from Highway 82. The new traffic signal has been installed and is functional, and the underpass has allowed CDOT to
remove the approximate 25-second pedestrian cycle from the signal timing and reallocate that time to traffic moving
through the intersection.
The final fit and finish activities are currently underway and by November22, the contractor should complete all the fit
and finish, landscaping and punch list times. It appears at this time the project will be completed on time and within the
project budget.
Many thanks to the EOTC, Pitkin County, and CDOT for their participation in this extremely worthwhile project (see
pictures on next page).
64
P109
IV.
Pedestrian ramp on south side of Highway 82, looking north towards Basalt
Pedestrian ramp on the north side of Highway 82, looking south towards Basalt High School
65
P110
IV.