Elected Officials Transportation Committee (EOTC) August 7, 2019 Aspen Meadows Resort Pre-Retreat Packet
Table of Contents
Part A: Retreat and EOTC Summary, Goals, and Background Page 2
Part B: Background Sections 1. Retreat Agenda Page 5 2. EOTC Formation and Structure Page 7 3. Comprehensive Valley Transportation Plan Page 9 4. EOTC Funding and Budget Page 10
Part C: Background Data and Document Summaries 1. Regional Demographics Page 15 2. Traffic and Bus Ridership Trends Page 23 3. Projects in Progress within Comprehensive Valley Transportation Plan Area Page 27 4. Highway 82 Records of Decision within Pitkin County Page 30 5. Accomplishments and Milestones Page 38
Part D: 1. 1993 Intergovernmental Agreement Attachment 1 Page 41 2. EOTC Budget – Updated Through June 2019 Attachment 2 Page 55 3. 1998 Entrance to Aspen Record of Decision Attachment 3 Page 57
1 Part A: Executive Summary and Retreat Information
Summary (See Part B Section1, below, for retreat agenda) The EOTC allocated funds in 2019 for a planning retreat to bring all members of the EOTC together and discuss major themes affecting our collective communities. The purpose of the retreat is to develop strategic planning elements that will guide future EOTC efforts. The goals of the retreat are:
1) To establish a baseline understanding of the EOTC purpose, requirements, structure, funding and operations; 2) Identify the strengths, opportunities and challenges facing the EOTC today; and, 3) Create a priority list of themes, major topics, and/or projects to help guide the EOTC’s next steps and vision.
Background (See Section 2, 3, and 4, below, for more detail) The EOTC was established after the voters approved a 0.5% County Transit Sales and Use Tax in November 1993 for the purpose of Financing, Constructing, Operating and Managing Mass Transportation System within the Roaring Fork Valley. The use for these funds is outlined by both State Statute and the ballot language.
In addition to the ballot measure, Pitkin County, the Town of Snowmass Village and the City of Aspen adopted the 1993 Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) establishing the structure of the EOTC and further define the allocations of the funds (See Section 4, below). The IGA expanded upon the enabling legislation and ballot language by adopting a Comprehensive Valley Transportation Plan as a means to guide future allocations. The IGA includes:
Structure: • Establishes a Committee (i.e. Elected Officials Transportation Committee or EOTC) comprised of all jurisdictions within the Transit Sales and Use Tax administration area, including Pitkin County, Town of Snowmass Village, and the City of Aspen. • The EOTC is a recommending body only for expenditure of 0.5% Transit Sales and Use Tax. • That, for any EOTC action, all jurisdictions must have a majority vote to progress a recommendation. • That the only actions that must be approved (rather than recommended) are annual and project budgets, and that approval requires a quorum within each of the member jurisdictions.
EOTC Mission Statement (adopted 1992, updated 2014): “Work collectively to reduce and/or manage the volume of vehicles on the road system and continue to develop and support a comprehensive multi-modal, long-range strategy that will insure a convenient and efficient transportation system for the Roaring Fork Valley.”
2 Implement Comprehensive Valley Transportation Plan: • Separated, Dedicated Transit-Way between Aspen and the Airport and between Aspen and Snowmass, and; • Operation of Park-n-Ride Lots at Brush Creek, Airport, and/or Buttermilk.
Where We Are Today The EOTC has made significant progress in implementation of the Comprehensive Valley Transportation Plan in the 25+ years of the Use and Sales tax including [For example, participation in Entrance to Aspen ROD, creation and continued support of the Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (RFTA), operation of the Brush Creek Park n’ Ride, acquisition of the Denver Rio Grande right-of-way, Highway 82 bus lanes, AABC pedestrian underpass, Basalt underpass, etc. (see full timeline at end of packet)]. With successful progress made toward implementing the Comprehensive Valley Transportation Plan, the EOTC is uniquely situated to look to the next 10 to 15 years to address mobility in the Roaring Fork Valley.
The EOTC has demonstrated significant commitment to upper valley mobility with the establishment of the Regional Transportation Administrator position in 2018. The Regional Transportation Administrator position consolidates the administrative functions of the EOTC and provides additional staff resources that were not previously available. And since this position does not represent any one entity, the Administrator is able to support the Committee with a unified voice and more regional approach.
The EOTC currently has two significant projects underway that have been contemplated for many years: enhancements to the Brush Creek Park and Ride facility and the Town of Snowmass Transit Center. While these two projects are still several years from completion, at this point they are both moving forward with funds allocated in 2020 and 2022, respectively. As these projects continue to progress, the EOTC is at a critical juncture on how it would like to proceed in the coming years.
The collaborative discussions and direction amongst the EOTC members from the retreat will help create a framework to guide the Committee in future decision-making to achieve its mission and obligations established under the enabling legislation and voter approved ballot requirements.
In summary, the EOTC currently has an opportunity to reevaluate how it is functioning, where it would like to go within the bounds of the enabling legislation and ballot language, and how it would like to get there.
Key Discussion Considerations • The Committee is governed by an IGA and guided by the Comprehensive Valley Transportation Plan that were adopted in 1993 and have not been amended since. Does this governing IGA and adopted Transportation Plan still adequately advance the purpose of the EOTC?
3 • Current funding allocations are guided by the Comprehensive Valley Transportation Plan. Does the plan still represent the current vision? What could help facilitate Committee decision-making? • With some exceptions, the EOTC has been focused on upper valley infrastructure projects from Basalt to Aspen and Snowmass such as components of the Entrance to Aspen, Snowmass Transit Center, pedestrian underpasses and park and ride facilities while providing financial support to RFTA to plan valley-wide transit from Aspen to the Colorado River Valley. What type of efforts (e.g. tactical infrastructure / technology and operations, strategic planning, or combination) would you like to see the EOTC prioritize moving forward?
4 Part B: Background Sections 1. Retreat Agenda 2. EOTC Formation and Structure 3. Comprehensive Valley Transportation Plan 4. EOTC Budgeting and Funding
Part B, Section 1 EOTC RETREAT AGENDA Time Topic Lead Outcome
8:15-8:30 Gathering, coffee, mingling
Participants agree to process Introductions, Overview of Retreat 8:30-8:45 Stephanie Zaza and expected outputs of the agenda, Ground Rules day’s work
Presentation: 1. Participants are familiar with the purpose, • EOTC History, Accomplishments requirements, structure, • Current Operating Procedures David funding and operations of 8:45-10:00 and Role of New Coordinator Pesnichak the EOTC
• ETA ROD overview 2. Participants have an environmental scan to use • Environmental scan during the SOC analysis
10:00-10:15 Break
Strengths/Opportunities/Challenges (SOC) Analysis
• Individual work (10 minutes): 1. Main categories of strengths, Personal vision opportunities and challenges
10:15-12:30 • Small group work (30 minutes): SOC Stephanie Zaza 2. Specific strengths, opportunities, and • Full group (90 minutes): challenges within each category o Report out from small groups o Consolidate and prioritize within each SOC category
12:30-1:00 Lunch
5 The SOC will be well understood Review SOC and how to use it for the next as a tool for identifying a priority 1:00-1:15 Stephanie Zaza exercise goal and transportation projects to achieve that goal
Identification of Transportation Projects and Themes 1. Participants produce a • Individual work (10 minutes): Write priority list of themes/major top 5 – 8 very specific transportation topics that can be used by projects on sticky notes staff to develop a strategic vision statement 1:15-3:45 • Small groups (30 minutes): sort and Stephanie Zaza group sticky notes into themes – give 2. Participants produce a each group a theme title; post themes priority list of projects that and projects around the room; can be used as a starting consolidate across groups point for EOTC future decision-making • Full group (105 minutes): prioritize themes and projects
Facilitator will provide a summary of the day’s work and 3:45-4:00 Wrap-Up and Next Steps Stephanie Zaza outline of next steps to be executed by staff and EOTC members
6 Part B, Section 2 EOTC FORMATION AND STRUCTURE
Enabling Legislation Detail
C.R.S. 29-2-103.5 (Colorado Revised Statute) provides that the county is authorized to levy a sales and use tax "for the purpose of financing, constructing, operating, or maintaining a mass transportation system within the county." Local jurisdictions "may enter into intergovernmental agreements with any municipality or other county ... for the purpose of providing mass transportation services either within the county or in a county in which the county mass transportation system is permitted to operate."
“Mass Transportation” is defined as “any system which transports the general public by bus, rail, or any other means of conveyance moving along prescribed routes, except any railroad subject to the federal "Railway Labor Act", 45 U.S.C. sec. 151 et seq”
Ballot Detail
1993 - The sales and use tax ballot measure further defined the purpose of the tax. Most significantly it limits the purpose to “increasing and improving the public mass transportation system within the Roaring Fork Valley” and requires that such mass transportation system improvements “be approved by the City of Aspen, Pitkin County and the Town of Snowmass Village”.
2004 - Per the 2004 ballot measure, 81.04% of the 0.5% Sales Tax, is allocated to RFTA. As a result, the remaining 18.96% of the Sales Tax collections and 100% of the Use Tax collections are available to the EOTC to fulfill the purpose as outlined in the enabling legislation, ballot measure, as well as the IGA and Comprehensive Valley Transportation Plan.
1993 EOTC IGA Detail
The County, City and Town entered into an IGA on September 14, 1993. An outline of the IGA is below.
• EOTC Created - Identifies that all three entities must agree to expenditures and representatives from each jurisdiction are to meet regularly. This requirement was incorporated into the IGA as a result of the Ballot language that requires mass transportation system improvements from the transit sales and use tax “be approved by the City of Aspen, Pitkin County and the Town of Snowmass Village”.
7 • Purpose of the IGA –
1. Adopt a Comprehensive Valley Transportation Plan to establish a framework for a mass transportation strategy for “addressing mass transportation problems and issues in the Roaring Fork Valley.”
2. Set forth procedural steps to implement the Plan.
3. Set forth a mutual understanding for a process for funding the Plan and other mass transportation elements.
• The IGA identifies the following elements of the Plan to be implemented from the 0.5% Sales Tax:
1. Improvement and enhancement both of hours and frequency of down-valley bus transportation by the purchase and operation of five additional buses (2 buses for Aspen to Snowmass and 3 buses for down-valley commuter service). (Completed - Obligation replaced via EOTC spending policy with RFTA funding at 48.04% in 2000, increased to 81.04% in 2004 by election)
2. Construction and operation (including associated design, engineering and feasibility Studies) of a separate, dedicated transit-way between downtown Aspen and the airport (the A-line identified in the Plan), and between Aspen and Snowmass (the C-line identified in the Plan).
3. Acquisition and operation of park-n-ride or intercept lots in the general areas of the Brush Creek intersection with Highway 82 and of the Airport or the Buttermilk Ski Area.
4. Any additional elements of the Plan as identified by the unanimous consent of the parties.
• The IGA identifies the following elements of the Plan to be implemented from the 0.5% Use Tax:
1. Any share attributable to the City, Town or County for the purchase of the Denver & Rio Grande right-of-way for trail or other mass transportation purposes. (Completed)
2. Any additional elements of the Plan as identified by the unanimous consent of the parties.
8
Part B, Section 3
COMPREHENSIVE VALLEY TRANSPORTATION PLAN – ADOPTED BY IGA IN 1993
9 Part B, Section 4
EOTC FUNDING AND BUDGET
Funding:
The EOTC is tasked with allocating the funding collected by the countywide 0.5% sales tax and a 0.5% use tax. The expenditure of these funds is restricted to the purpose as outlined by the ballot language and IGA. The funding allocations is as follows:
* CRS – Colorado Revised Statutes
10 Comparison Overview of Use and Sales Tax Parameters
Use Tax (0.5%) Sales Tax (0.5%)
Enabling Legislation: Financing, Enabling Legislation: Financing, constructing, constructing, operating, or maintaining a operating, or maintaining a mass mass transportation system. (Colorado transportation system. (Colorado Revised Revised Statutes) Statutes)
Definition: “Mass Transportation” is “any Definition: “Mass Transportation” is “any system which transports the general public system which transports the general public by by bus, rail, or any other means of bus, rail, or any other means of conveyance conveyance moving along prescribed moving along prescribed routes.” (Colorado routes.” (Colorado Revised Statutes) Revised Statutes)
Ballot Language (1993 Election): For Ballot Language (1993 Election): For “increasing and improving the public mass “increasing and improving the public mass transportation system within the Roaring transportation system within the Roaring Fork Fork Valley.” Valley.”
Distribution of Funds: EOTC - 100% Distribution of Funds (2004 Election): EOTC - 18.96%, RFTA - 81.04%
IGA Requirement: Implement any additional IGA Requirement: Construction and operation elements of the Comprehensive Valley (including associated design, engineering and Transportation Plan as identified by the feasibility Studies) of a separate, dedicated unanimous consent of the parties. transit-way between downtown Aspen and the airport (the A-line identified in the Plan), and between Aspen and Snowmass (the C-line identified in the Plan).
IGA Requirement: Acquisition and operation of park-n-ride or intercept lots in the general areas of the Brush Creek intersection with Highway 82 and of the Airport or the Buttermilk Ski Area.
IGA Requirement: Implement any additional elements of the Comprehensive Valley Transportation Plan as identified by the unanimous consent of the parties.
11 Budget:
The EOTC budget is administered by Pitkin County and all fund balances are invested. For example, investment revenue for the fund balance in 2019 is expected to be approximately $187,000. The estimated investment annual revenue is projected by the Pitkin County Finance Department.
For 2019, the budget has the following revenues through 2020:
These revenues are then broken into “above the line” and “below the line” expenditures. “Above the line” refers to expenditures that are taken out of the annual revenue stream while “below the line” expenditures are those that are taken from revenues accrued from prior years.
For 2019, the budget has the following “Above the Line” expenditures through 2020:
12 The budget tallies the total “above the line” expenditures to determine an annual surplus or deficit. This surplus or deficit is then added or subtracted against the overall fund balance.
For 2019, the budget has the following cumulative fund balance through 2020:
All fund surpluses or deficits are considered “below the line”. For “below the line” surpluses or deficits, the EOTC utilizes a budgeting tool that divides this amount into two “savings accounts” – “Savings Fund for greater Snowmass Village Area” and “Savings Fund for greater Aspen Area”. The “savings accounts” are intended to help the EOTC budget for two projects: the Entrance to Aspen transit improvements and the Snowmass Transit Center. The “savings accounts” are intended to assist with budgeting to further the implementation of the Comprehensive Valley Transportation Plan and not intended to vest funds to a certain jurisdiction. For these reasons, a “savings account” for Pitkin County has not been established.
The following policies pertain to the “Savings Funds”: • “Savings Funds” only exist in the EOTC budget spreadsheet as budgeting tools and are adopted by policy only. No formal separate accounts have been established to hold these funds. In addition, “savings accounts” do not limit expenditures to a geographic area or vest funds to a specific jurisdiction. Funds may be used from either fund anywhere in the Roaring Fork Valley if it progresses the implementation of the Comprehensive Valley Transportation Plan. • Expenditure Authority: As with all EOTC funds, all member jurisdictions must approve an expenditure from either savings account. No jurisdiction has unilateral control of a specific “account”. • Savings Fund for greater Snowmass Village Area o Allocation of the Above the Line surplus/deficit: 25% o Purpose: To provide budgeting assistance for the Town of Snowmass Village Transit Center and to fund elements of the Comprehensive Valley Transportation Plan. o Limitations: Withdrawal of funds for the Transit Center reduces the overall fund cap (2000 - voter approved funds at $7 million). Once the funds are fully withdrawn for the Transit Center, which is anticipated in 2022, the account will no longer replenish. • Savings Fund for greater Aspen Area o Allocation of the Above the Line surplus/deficit: 75% o Purpose: To provide funding to participate with CDOT in the completion of transit-related improvements to the Entrance to Aspen between Buttermilk and 7th and Main (the A-line transit platform) and to fund elements of the Comprehensive Valley Transportation Plan.
13 Future Budget Considerations:
Aspen and Snowmass Savings Accounts: As is noted above, the Snowmass Savings Account will drop to a zero balance and no longer replenish once the full $7 million is withdrawn for the Transit Center. This is expected to occur in 2022. At that point, all surplus funds will be directed to the Aspen Savings Account since the voter approved purpose for the Snowmass Savings Account will have been fulfilled. It will be important for the EOTC to strategically readjust the EOTC budget when this occurs.
2019 State Law Changes to Sales and Use Tax Collections: HB19-1240 - Sales and Use Tax Administration - came into effect. This new State law, effective June 1, is the result of the Supreme Court South Dakota vs. Wayfair decision which requires all retailers, including out-of-state retailers that do not have a physical presence in Colorado, to collect state and local sales tax at the point of delivery.
While this new law is expected to result in an overall increase in sales tax revenues at the jurisdictional level, the law is predicted to result in a decrease in net annual revenue to the EOTC budget due to an anticipated decrease in the collection of Use Taxes. With retailers now collecting at the point of delivery, there will be less collection of Use Taxes and increased collections in Sales Taxes. EOTC retains 100% of funds generated by the Use Tax while only 18.96% is retained from Sales Tax revenue – the remaining 81.04% is allocated to RFTA per the 2004 ballot measure. As a result of this distribution, the decline in revenues from the Use Tax will be reflected in the EOTC budget while only a portion of the increase in revenues from Sales Tax generation will do the same. Since 81.04% of the Sales Tax revenues is allocated to RFTA per a voter-approved measure, any change to this allocation will require an additional vote.
As the law just went into effect June 1, 2019, the exact dollar impacts are not yet known. With the delays in tax reporting from the State, the first indicators of the impact will start to come available in mid-August 2019. Staff expects to have preliminary data as part of the 2020 budget process in October.
14 Part C: Background Data and Document Summaries 1. Regional Demographics 2. Traffic and Bus Ridership Trends 3. Projects in Progress within Comprehensive Valley Transportation Plan area 4. Highway 82 Records of Decision within Pitkin County 5. Accomplishments and Milestones
Part C, Section 1 REGIONAL DEMOGRAPHICS
Population Trends
Based on population trends between 2004 and 2013 and then from 2013 to 2017, population growth has been slowing throughout the entire Roaring Fork Valley (chart below). Similarly modest growth is anticipated in jobs and housing units. While more significant growth is expected in Garfield County, population growth has been slowing throughout Pitkin, southwest Eagle, and Garfield counties. This said, while Aspen-Snowmass population and lodging occupancy bottomed out in 2009 and again in 2013/2014, these populations have nearly recovered to pre-recession levels.
As a resort economy, Pitkin County’s population fluctuates significantly throughout the year as a result of second home ownership, tourism, commuters, and seasonal employment. Due to this fluctuation, it is estimated that Pitkin County’s population is approximately 34,000 in low season
15 and 53,000 in high season including approximately 18,000 full-time residents. For comparison, Garfield County and southwest Eagle County, which have a more stable population base and houses a portion of Pitkin County’s employees, have resident populations of about 58,000 and 8,500 respectively. In the calculation of Pitkin County’s high and low season population and as can be seen in the graph and chart below, this calculation is comprised of about 5,855 and 7,319 in-commuters primarily from Eagle and Garfield Counties who work in Pitkin County but reside down valley.
Population Age Variation
It is worth noting that the composition of the population varies between the upper and lower Roaring Fork Valley. As can be seen from the population distribution by age for Pitkin County and Garfield County, below, Pitkin County’s population is notably older than Garfield County’s, which is where a good portion of Pitkin County’s employee base lives (age distribution information for southwest Eagle County was not readily available). While the causes of this distribution can be traced to a number of items, including housing costs, this results in different mobility needs between the upper valley and lower valley. Specifically, while the upper valley has higher needs to move tourists, incoming employees, and an aging population, the lower valley has higher needs for families, children, and a resident commuting workforce.
16 Pitkin County:
Garfield County:
17 Jobs Trends
Similar to population growth, job growth within Pitkin County has also been modest. As can be seen in the chart below, jobs in Pitkin County peaked in 2008 and dipped in 2010. As of 2017, total jobs in Pitkin County were about 1,000 below the 2008 peak, at approximately 21,000.
Housing and Job Distribution
The below graphics depict the number of people who live in a community (tan), work in a community (blue) and where they overlap – people who live and work in a community (green). Based on the varying size of the circles and their overlap, general commute patterns can be identified between locations. Specifically, this graphic shows the locations that have more jobs than residents (employee draw) and those that have more residents than jobs (employee base). One very notable item is that the bed base is not evenly distributed or proportionately co-located with job base. Of all of the communities, Rifle is the most balanced community when it comes to the number of jobs and residents within the RFTA service area. On the County level, a more generalized trend can be identified between Garfield and Pitkin County’s (southwest Eagle County data was not readily available). As can be seen, the workforce / housing balance is complimentary between Pitkin and Garfield County’s and results in the commuting patterns that can be seen in the Commute Flows from the 2014 RFTA Regional Travel Patterns Study later in this section.
18 Employment and Household Location – Roaring Fork Valley – 2015 (U.S. Census Bureau)
19
Commuting Patterns
In 2014, RFTA conducted an extensive Regional Travel Patterns Study. While this study was very thorough, one of the more important takeaways from the report is that regional job centers of Rifle, Glenwood Springs and Aspen are becoming stronger. And as these job centers strengthen, Glenwood Springs and Aspen are increasingly equally weighted for number of jobs and commuter pull within the Roaring Fork Valley. Meanwhile, Carbondale and Basalt/El Jebel are increasingly the primary bedroom communities for Aspen and Snowmass while New Castle and Silt are the primary bedroom communities for Glenwood Springs. This dynamic can be seen in the Commute Flow graphic below.
2014 Regional Travel Patterns Study – RFTA System Wide
20 21 2014 Regional Travel Patterns Study – RFTA
22 Part C, Section 2 TRAFFIC AND BUS RIDERSHIP TRENDS
RFTA system-wide bus ridership has seen a steady increase from 3.7 million trips annually in 2005 to 5.2 million trips in 2018, which is just shy of a 29% increase in 13 years. When growth trends for the entire RFTA system and the valley service are compared separately, valley-wide service grew slightly quicker between 2010 and 2018 at 35% vs. 33% for RFTA’s system wide service. Some notable points in this timeline include the recession in 2008 to 2010 that resulted in a ridership dip, an increase in 2014 with in the introduction of BRT service, and a peak to 5.5 million trips in 2017 when RFTA provided mitigation services for the Grand Avenue Bridge replacement project. When RFTA system-wide and valley-wide ridership are displayed with the Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) counts (chart below), the general trend of increasing ridership compared with decreasing traffic can be visualized. Please note that while this chart can be helpful to visualize these two trends, the AADT counts are only for the entrance to aspen location while the RFTA ridership trips are system-wide (inclusive of valley and BRT service). Valley Service, which includes BRT, is also displayed on this chart for comparison purposes. In addition, the traffic dip in 2018 was influenced by the Castle Creek Bridge construction.
* 2017 included Grand Avenue Bridge mitigation services – it is estimated that RFTA provided 350,000 additional trips ** 2018 includes the Castle Creek Bridge Construction which impacted traffic counts
Why People Ride the Bus and What They Think About It
While slightly dated, RFTA conducted a thorough Regional Travel Patterns Study in 2014, just following the launch of the BRT service in September 2013. While many of the details of this
23 study have likely evolved in the last 5 years, it appears that the major themes and takeaways are relevant today even while RFTA has made notable progress in many of the areas identified from the study. Below are selected excerpts from the study depicting the diverse reasons that people ride RFTA, why people do not ride RFTA, and what can be done to encourage further utilization.
2014 Regional Travel Patterns Study
24 Vehicle Traffic at Entrance to Aspen
Leading up to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Entrance to Aspen Record of Decision (ROD) in 1998, the community established target traffic based on the Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) count in 1993. As a result, the AADT target of 23,675 vehicles was adopted and not to be exceeded. While some months have been higher or lower than the 1993 levels, on average the community has not exceeded the 1993 AADT target. This is due to the many measures and programs undertaken over the years including: expanded transit, paid parking, BRT, car share, bike share, car-pooling, employer outreach, the Downtowner, expansion of the Brush Creek and Buttermilk Park N Rides, and the SH 82 bus lanes.
The annual traffic count chart below illustrates this impact with 2004 and 2005 being the highest years. Traffic volumes dipped in 2008 – 2010 with the recession and then began trending back upward in 2011. Counts peaked in 2015 and then have leveled off. The bridge construction project in 2018 greatly impacted the counts as the detours routed traffic away from the counters. 2019 is through May and does not yet include the busy summer season. It is also worth noting that the counts are round trip (in and out of Aspen). The permanent counter that is recording this data is between Cemetery Lane and the Castle Creek Bridge on SH 82.
As is noted in the chart below, July and August are the heaviest months with the July 4th week the heaviest week of the year. The highest day ever recorded was July 5th, 2005 when counts exceeded 33,000. For reference, 2019 July 5th counts were 26,747 which was down from 2018 (28,368) and 2017 (29,016).
25 Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) counts at Castle Creek Bridge
26 Part C, Section 3
Projects in Progress within Comprehensive Valley Transportation Plan area
While there are many transportation related conversations and efforts being pursued throughout the Roaring Fork Valley at any given time that are of high value, the below identified projects are those that specifically impact the EOTC Mission Statement, IGA goals, enabling legislation and ballot initiative, and are within the Comprehensive Valley Transportation Plan area.
Active Infrastructure and Planning Projects
Aspen / Pitkin County Airport (Current Status: Visioning)
Throughout 2019, Pitkin County has been leading a comprehensive community engagement process to help establish a vision for the future of Aspen/Pitkin County Airport. This vision will define airport modernization and improvements for the next 30 years. (https://www.asevision.com/ )
In January of this year, the Board of County Commissioners appointed over 120 volunteers representing a cross-section of the community. The goal is to convene community collaboration across a diverse and inclusive cross-section of interests to provide feedback, share project information, and ultimately inform the Pitkin County’s decision-making process for the Aspen Pitkin County Airport. This process is set in an effort to allow the public to help the BOCC envision the airport improvements to ensure that these investments are sound.
Four advisory groups that have distinct focuses, all with the purpose of facilitating a two-way flow of communication between the community and the County have been formed and have been meeting since the February 21st kick off meeting.
These volunteers have been provided information both written and by subject matter experts over the past few months. Now the groups are beginning the process of evaluating Airport Capacity and Growth, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gases and Potential Noise Futures. Using continua graphics the groups will begin to walk through a decision process that will begin to make recommendations centered around eleven values they have defined as their guiding principles. One of those values includes Convenient and Easy Ground Transportation with an emphasis on multi-modal transit options and seamless connectivity to transit. The process calls for a final recommendation by November from the Airport Visioning Committee to the BOCC.
Snowmass Transit Center (Current Status: Conceptual Design)
In November 2000, County voters approved $7 million for a new Snowmass Mall Transit Center as part of bonding ballot question for the County ½ cent Sales and Use tax. Since that time, several efforts have been made to move the project forward in conjunction with redevelopment of the existing Mall. In 2018, the Town began conceptual design of a project solely focusing on
27 the RFTA and Village Shuttle needs. Combining the expenditures on past efforts and the current work to date on a conceptual design, the EOTC has a remaining balance of $5,878,787 budgeted to help bring the project to fruition. This remaining balance is expected to be invoiced by the Town for the Transit Center in 2022.
Since 2018, the Town has been working with a stakeholder group, RFTA staff and the firm Short Elliot Hendrickson Inc. (SEH) to create a preferred pre-sketch design for Council consideration. Three conceptual drafts were presented to the council, the public in meetings and at an open house on March 20, 2019 to gather general comments on a preferred layout. The constraints for the current conceptual design are to: fit on the proposed location, not to lose any parking close to the Mall, and fit within a roughly $7 million construction budget. After discussions with RFTA staff the Town is working to provide roughly four operational transit bays for RFTA, five for the Village Shuttle and an overflow bay to accommodate drop offs should the other bays be occupied. The EOTC will continue to be updated on this project as it develops.
Brush Creek Park and Ride Improvements (Current Status: Engineering Design)
Pitkin County and the U.S. Forest Service applied for a FLAP grant from the Federal Highways Administration (FHWA) to improve the Brush Creek Park-and-Ride in 2017. The grant was awarded in 2018 with design work beginning in 2019. Construction is planned for 2021. The improvements are to be funded by ~$2.2 million from the federal FLAP grant with matching funds from the EOTC for a total budget of approximately $4.2 million. Preliminary Engineer Estimates for the project are coming in at $4.2 million.
The general project description includes: ○ Permanent restroom facilities with flush toilets ○ Water and wastewater facilities (well and septic) ○ Increase paved area for parking (pave recycled asphalt area) ○ Security lighting and landscaping
The consultant, Jacobs Engineering Group, has been retained by the FHWA to proceed with the Brush Creek Park-and-Ride design and engineering as a part of the FLAP grant award. The project is currently in the early design phase at roughly 30%. The EOTC has provided design input to this project at both the March 21, 2019 and June 20, 2019 meetings. The EOTC is expected to have an opportunity to review the project again at 70% plans, which are expected in spring of 2020. The EOTC will continue to be involved in the design as it develops.
RFTA Destination 2040 and Ballot Measure 7A (Current Status: Implementation)
Over the last three years, RFTA engaged in extensive dialogue with its member jurisdictions about long-term transportation goals and priorities, which became the basis of the Destination 2040 Plan. During the funding and implementation phase of this planning effort, RFTA and its member jurisdictions determined that a property tax mill levy up to 5 mills, if approved by voters, was the most feasible method to fund and implement these projects. Through a number of polls,
28 RFTA estimated that a 2.65 mill property tax might be achievable. RFTA refined the project list, project scopes, and funding commitments to align with a 2.65 mill property tax mill levy.
Voters approved the 2.65 mill levy in November 2018. Immediately thereafter, RFTA began planning, designing and implementing the Destination 2040 projects as outlined in the graphic below.
More information can be found on the status of all Destination 2040 projects at https://www.rfta.com/2040roadmap/
Recent Studies and Reports
Upper Valley Mobility Study - Completed in 2017, the Upper Valley Mobility Study (UVMS), commissioned by the EOTC, “analyzes the viability of a fixed guideway system (either light rail transit [LRT] or bus rapid transit [BRT]) in terms of ridership, capital expenditures, and operations and maintenance costs.” The full Study can be found here: https://www.cityofaspen.com/DocumentCenter/View/453/Upper-Valley-Mobility-Study-Final- Report-PDF
Upper Valley Mobility Report - Although not specifically an infrastructure project, a notable higher level visioning effort is the Upper Valley Mobility Report (UVMR) that was completed in 2017 and lead by the Aspen Institute’s Community Form Task Force on Transportation and Mobility. The full report can be found here: (https://assets.aspeninstitute.org/content/uploads/2017/09/Community-Forum-Mobility- Report_Final.pdf).
29 Part C, Section 4
Highway 82 Records of Decision within Pitkin County
Two Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) resulting in two Records of Decision (ROD) have been issued by the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and the Federal Highways Administration (FHWA) within Pitkin County. The first ROD was issued in 1993 for the section of Highway 82 from Basalt to Buttermilk (“East of Basalt to Buttermilk Ski Area”) and the second ROD was issued in 1998 for the section of Highway 82 from Buttermilk to Aspen (“Entrance to Aspen”). To date, the East of Basalt to Buttermilk Ski Area ROD has been completed while the Entrance to Aspen ROD is complete with exception to the section between the Maroon Creek Roundabout and 7th Street in Aspen. Each of these RODs are described in more detail below.
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1970, an EIS is required for State highway projects that would result in significant impacts. As each of these highway sections required realignment and adding lanes, both were considered to have significant impacts and required an EIS. For a highway project an EIS culminates in a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and ROD approved by the FHWA. Each approved ROD contains a Preferred Alternative (PA) based on the analysis conducted within the EIS. In the case of the East of Basalt to Buttermilk Ski Area and the Entrance to Aspen RODs, these were originally contemplated as one segment for evaluation purposes, but were split in 1992 since the lower section was less controversial. As a result, each of the RODs contain a separate but interrelated Preferred Alternative. It is worth noting that RODs do not have a regulatory expiration.
Overview of FHWA EIS and ROD Amendments
The criteria to amend an existing ROD is based on the level of new impacts from the Preferred Alternative. The FHWA is the decision-making body to assess if a proposed change results in a “known significant impact”, “potential significant impact”, “less adverse impact”, “alternative that was fully evaluated in the EIS”, or if “changes are of limited design or location”. This decision then determines the process that is necessary to make changes to the Preferred Alternative that the ROD identifies. Any selection that is considered a different project from the Preferred Alternative and was not otherwise fully evaluated in the original EIS would require a new EIS. The flow chart below outlines the process from Federal Regulations for transportation projects to amend a Preferred Alternative that is not considered a new project and would require a new EIS.
Should a new EIS be required, it is estimated that the process could take several years and cost in the millions of dollars to complete (for example, the East of Basalt to Buttermilk Ski Area EIS and the Entrance to Aspen EIS took 6 years and 5 years to complete, respectively). Should the proposal only change an existing Preferred Alternative, then the length of time to conduct a modification would depend on the specific request and the anticipated impacts resulting from the change. The determination could result in the following actions:
30 1) Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS), 2) Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), 3) Memo to the EIS file, 4) Revised ROD, or 5) “changes limited in scope”. Again, this process is determined by the FHWA. FHWA will only review the proposed new project or changes to the Preferred Alternative and will not consider other options otherwise not proposed by the community.
31 East of Basalt to Buttermilk Ski Area Record of Decision
The East of Basalt to Buttermilk Ski Area ROD was prepared by the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) with community input. This process was started in 1987 and completed in 1993. The purpose of this exercise was to evaluate potential solutions that will improve safety and transportation within the SH 82 corridor.
This FEIS identifies the ROD spanning approximately 15 miles of Highway 82 from one mile east of Basalt to the Buttermilk Ski Area. This ROD and subsequent construction included widening the highway to four lanes with two of the lanes being for bus and high occupancy vehicles (HOV) during peak periods. The ROD includes providing park and ride facilities at West Glenwood Springs, Carbondale, El Jebel, Basalt, Brush Creek Road and the Buttermilk Ski Area.
This preferred alternative also includes the following regarding trails:
“A bicycle/pedestrian/recreational access trail will be provided in the corridor. In areas where a separate facility is not possible due to environmental or topographic constraints, the facility will be provided on the shoulder of the highway. In areas where the trail along the highway connects with the separated facility, a direct connection (grade separated if across the roadway) will be provided to ensure a continuous facility.”
The bus / HOV lanes through this 15 mile stretch are specified as being the “outer lanes” but do not have specified hours of operation or number of vehicle occupants within the ROD. Instead, the ROD states that the hours of operation and vehicle occupancy shall be monitored and adjusted in such a way that the bus / HOV lane remain in “free flow” conditions during congestion.
Entrance to Aspen Record of Decision
Brief History of the Entrance to Aspen EIS:
1995: - Elected Officials worked with CDOT and FHWA to develop Project Need and Intent - Elected Officials, CDOT, FHWA and citizens develop 10 Project Objectives - Draft Environmental Impact Statement 1997: - Final Environmental Impact Statement 1998: - Record of Decision (ROD) 2007: - Reevaluation of Record of Decision (ROD upheld)
32 Like the East of Basalt to Buttermilk Ski Area, the Entrance to Aspen FEIS and ROD were prepared by the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) with extensive community input. The purpose of this exercise was to evaluate potential solutions that will improve safety and transportation within the SH 82 corridor. In total, 43 alternatives considering varying alignments and transportation modes were evaluated. As a part of this process, the proposed solutions/alternatives were evaluated against the 10 Project Objectives and Project Need and Intent.
The Project Objectives are as follows:
1. Community Based Planning 2. Transportation Capacity 3. Safety 4. Environmentally Sound Alternative 5. Community Acceptability 6. Financial Limitations 7. Clean Air Act Requirements 8. Emergency Access 9. Livable Communities 10. Phasing
In addition, the ROD identifies the community goal of limiting the number of vehicles at the Entrance to Aspen to levels at or below those of 1993. As is noted previously, the Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) has not exceeded 1993 levels since this goal was established.
The process identified the following Project Need and Project Intent:
Project Need –
“The capacity of the existing transportation system is insufficient during peak periods. Safety, clean air, the visitor’s experience, and resident’s quality of life are compromised.”
Project Intent –
“To provide a balanced, integrated transportation system for residents, visitors and commuters that reduces congestion and pollution by reducing and/or managing the number of vehicles on the road system. The system should reflect the character and scale of the Aspen Community.
Through a process responsive to community-based planning, the EIS shall identify, analyze, select and implement the best transportation alternative for the short and long term goals of the community compatibility, safety, environmental
33 preservation, clean air, quality of life, and transportation capacity. The alternative chosen should be consistent with the Aspen/Snowmass/Pitkin County goal of limiting vehicles in 2015 to levels at or below those of 1993.”
The Preferred Alternative was chosen because it best met the Project Objectives and fulfilled the Purpose and Need. Specifically, compared to the other 43 alternatives that were considered the Preferred Alternative was chosen because it was deemed to:
• Provide capacity for forecasted person-trips through 2015, but limit vehicle-trips at or below 1993 levels. • Reduce above-average high accident rate on S-Curves and establish an alternate route for emergency response. • Minimize negative impacts on the environment, open space, and historic & recreational resources. • Reflect small town character and scale of Aspen, and develop an aesthetically acceptable solution. • Can be phased and funded over time.
The Preferred Alternative is a combination of highway and intersection improvements, a transit system and an incremental transportation management program. The transit system is designed to be phased, beginning with a bus only system including dedicated bus only lanes from the Aspen RFTA Maintenance Facility and ending at Rubey Park. This bus only system is designed to be converted over to Light Rail Transit (LRT) when support and funding is available.
Much of the Preferred Alternative has already been constructed and is in place today. The section that remains unbuilt includes the stretch from the Maroon Creek Roundabout to 7th Street in Aspen. In general, the Preferred Alternative continues the Highway 82 configuration that currently exists between Buttermilk Ski Area and the Maroon Creek Roundabout, consisting of two general vehicle lanes and two transit bus only lanes. This new alignment would bypass the S-curves. In order to bypass the S-curves, the Preferred Alternative anticipates crossing the Marolt-Thomas Open Space and in order to preserve bicyclist, pedestrian, and wildlife connectivity, it includes a 400 foot cut and cover tunnel. Overall acreage impacts to the 82 acre Marolt-Thomas Open Space as a result of the Preferred Alternative alignment would be a net loss of 2.9 acres (5.4 acres used for new roadway minus 2.5 acres reclaimed from current Highway 82 alignment between Cemetery Lane and Roundabout, and “land bridge” created by cut and cover tunnel).
The portions of the ETA ROD that have been completed to date are as follows: • Maroon Creek Roundabout • Re-alignment of Owl Creek Road and W. Buttermilk Road • Maroon Creek Bridge • Buttermilk to Roundabout Bus Lanes • Main Street Bus Lanes • Rubey Park Reconstruction • Pedestrian Underpasses at Maroon Creek Road, Truscott, Harmony Road and AABC • Traffic Signal Interconnection and Optimization
34 In 2007, the City of Aspen voters approved the use of the Marolt-Thomas Open Space for rail only use in addition to the two general traffic lanes. However, the vote to allow bus only service in addition to the general traffic lanes through the Open Space has not yet passed.
Also in 2007, a re-evaluation of the ETA ROD was conducted and reviewed by the FHWA. The purpose for this re-evaluation was to assess if any changes had occurred in project design, concept or scope and to assess if any regulatory or environmental changes had occurred since issuance of FEIS or ROD. As a result of this re-evaluation, no significant changes were found and the Preferred Alternative was upheld and found to be valid. It is understood that there is no general rule for the frequency of EIS ROD re-evaluations.
The State and Federal approvals are in place for the Preferred Alternative to move forward and City Voters have approved the use of the Marolt-Thomas Open Space for light rail. In addition, CDOT gave the City and County the 31-acre Mills Ranch at the intersection of the Roaring Fork River and Brush Creek in exchange for 8.6 acres of Right of Way through the Open Space between Buttermilk to the eastern bank of Castle Creek for the Preferred Alternative Alignment. The next steps in the process to complete the ETA ROD includes an affirmative vote by the City of Aspen to utilize the Open Space for dedicated bus lanes and approval to move forward by the Aspen City Council.
Funding is also not in place for the project and CDOT does not currently have the ETA ROD budgeted. The estimated cost for the project in 2005 dollars was $46 million for the bus lane option. According to the Upper Valley Mobility Study (UVMS) commissioned by the EOTC in 2017, the estimated cost for the bus option between the Roundabout and 7th Street at that time was approximately $106 million. It can be assumed that the cost is higher today. Before any alternative is pursued, funding sources would need to be identified.
35
36
37 Part C, Section 5
ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND MILESTONES • 1993 - Successful Vote for ½ Cent Countywide Transportation Sales and Use Tax “for the purpose of financing, constructing, operating, or maintaining a mass transportation system” within the Roaring Fork Valley.
- IGA signed with Pitkin County, Town of Snowmass Village, and City of Aspen to support the ½ Cent Countywide Transportation Sales and Use Tax. IGA also: - Created EOTC - Adopted Comprehensive Valley Transportation Plan • 1995 - Doubling of Bus Service between El Jebel and Snowmass Village - Entrance to Aspen EIS Agreement and endorsement of 10 project objectives - Community-based planning - Transportation Capacity Limit (limit number of vehicles to 1993 levels) - Safety - Environmentally-sound alternative - Community acceptability - Financial limitations - Clean Air Act requirements - Emergency Access - Livable Communities - Phasing - Draft Entrance to Aspen EIS Completed, additional options added leading to Supplemental EIS - Airport Park and Ride (completed in 1998) • 1996 - Draft Entrance to Aspen Supplemental EIS Completed - Aspen Voter Approval for 2-lane general traffic and rail across Marolt/Thomas property for Modified Direct Alignment (Preferred Alternative) - Final Entrance to Aspen EIS Completed - D&RGW Right of Way Acquired - Snowmass to Aspen Linkages Task Force created, recommending: - Continued study of long-term alternatives - Discontinue discussion of Owl Creek Road as Transit Corridor as identified in Comprehensive Valley Transportation Plan • 1997 - EOTC Commitment to funding Entrance to Aspen: commits unobligated funds for the valley-wide rail project and related improvements. - Roaring Fork Railroad Holding Authority formation and EOTC participation (through 2000) • 1998 - Entrance to Aspen Record of Decision: Preferred Alternative - Modified Direct - Unsuccessful County vote on rail - Corridor Investment Study (through 2004) with following conclusions: - Rail alternatives had “marginal financial feasibility” with capitol cost of $306 million in 2004 - Recommended further study of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service
38 • 2000 - Creation of Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) - EOTC commits 48.04% of the ½ cent sales tax to RTA - Voter approval for: - $7 million for Snowmass Village Transportation Improvements - $1.5 million for safety improvements to bus stops in Pitkin County - $7.5 million for buses, maintenance facility improvements, and affordable housing for RFTA - Provide funds to participate with CDOT in the completion of the transit- related improvements to the Entrance to Aspen • 2001 - Unsuccessful City of Aspen Vote on Bus Lanes through Marolt/Thomas property • 2002 - Entrance to Aspen Alignment Vote – Both City and County voters said they preferred the S-Curve alignment • 2004 - Successful Vote on Additional Funding for RFTA - 81.04% of the ½ cent sales tax committed - Contingent on an additional 0.25 RFTA sales and use tax being approved in Basalt, Eagle County, Carbondale, and Glenwood Springs • 2006 -X-Games Transit Subsidy started • 2007 - Brush Creek Park and Ride Expansion - Successful Vote on Bus Lanes from Buttermilk to Roundabout - Entrance to Aspen Reevaluation – Preferred Alternative upheld • 2008 - Maroon Creek Bridge completed - Free bus service between Snowmass Village and Aspen begins - Bus Lanes from Buttermilk to Roundabout completed • 2011 - AABC Underpass completed • 2012 - Rubey Park Transit Facility Renovation Design (Completed in 2015) • 2013 - Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service and improvements implemented • 2016 - Basalt Underpass completed • 2017 - Grand Avenue Bridge Transit Mitigation - Upper Valley Mobility Report - We-Cycle funding began (funding ended in 2019 with passage of RFTA Ballot Measure 7A) • 2018 - RFTA Ballot Measure 7A passes
39 Part D: Attachments 1. 1993 Intergovernmental Agreement Attachment 1 2. EOTC Budget – Updated Through June 2019 Attachment 2 3. 1998 Entrance to Aspen Record of Decision Attachment 3
40 Attachment 1
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT COMPREHENSIVE VALLEY TRANSPORTATION PLAN
THIS JNTERGOVERNMEN~tL AGREEMENT ("Agreement"), is made and entered into as of this /'fti day of . 0 1._eC i, . , 1993, by and among the CITY OF ASPEN, Colorado, a home~ule municipal corporation ("City"), THE TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE, Colorado, a home-rule municipal corporation ("Town"), and the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF PITKIN, Colorado, a body corporate and politic ("County").
W I T N E S S E T H:
WHEREAS, the parties to this Agreement have the authority pursuant to Article XIV, Section 18. of the Colorado Constitution and Section 29-1-201, er seq., of the Colorado Revised Statutes, to enter into intergovernmental agreements for the purpose of providing any service or performing any function which they can perform individually; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council, the Town Council or the Town of Snowmass Village, and the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners adopted Joint Resolution No. 61 (Attached hereto as Exhibit "A") which:
• Adopted a Comprehensive Valley Transportation Plan ("Plan") establishing a framework for a comprehensive mass transportation strategy for the Roaring Fork River Valley, appended hereto as Exhibit "B";
• Set forth procedural steps to be taken by the parties to implement the Plan, including the execution of this intergovernmental agreement; and ·
• Set forth the parties' mutual understanding for a specific process for funding the Plan and other mass transportation elements; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council, the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village, and the Pi I kin County Board of County Commissioners adopted Joint Resolution No. 62 (Attached hereto as Exhibit "C") which adopted specific elements to be funded from the proceeds of transportation revenue bonds as issued at such times and in such amounts as the parties may from ti me to time agree, subject to the approval by the electorate of all proposed bonds at a county-wide election(s); and
WHEREAS, in accordance with said Joint Resolution No. 61 the County has submitted to the Pitkin County electorate a proposed county-wide one-half (1/2) cent sales tax and one-half (1/2) cent use tax to fund the Plan and other mass transportation elements to be voted upon at a county-wide election to be held on November 2, 1993 (a copy of the ballot question is appended hereto as Exhibit "D" and by this reference incorporated herein); and
WHEREAS, in accordance with said Joint Resolution No. 61 the County has submitted to the Pitkin County electorate a ballot question at the November 2, 1993, election seeking authority 41 Attachment 1
to increase County debt by a principal amount of up to $13,650,000.00 by the issuance of revenue bonds for the purpose of financing improvements in the public mass transportation system within the Roaring Fork River Valley consistent with the Plan (a copy of the ballot question is appended hereto as Exhibit "E" and by this reference incorporated herein.)
WHEREAS, the City and Town have urged and will continue to urge their respective constituent electors to vote in favor of the above referenced ballot questions; and
WHEREAS, the parties hereto wish to further define and clarify the method and process by which the implementation of the Plan will be funded.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements of the parties, and other good and valuable consideration, the adequacy and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:
Purpose.
I. This Intergovernmental Agreement is designed and intended to define and clarify the method and process by which the parties have agreed to fund and implement the Plan.
Comprehensive Valley Transportation Plan.
2. The parties hereby reaffirm and incorporate herein as Exhibit "B" the Comprehensive Valley Transportation Plan for addressing mass transportation problems arrd issues in the Roaring Fork River Valley.
3. The parties hereby agree to conduct regular public meetings of ,·epresentatives of the three jurisdictions and other invited members of the public to continue to refine and agree upon proposed projects and transportation elements consistent with or complementary to the Plan, as may be amended from time to time.
4. The parties further agree that the amount of all expenditures and ell projects to be funded with revenues derived from the county-wide one half ( 1/2) cent sales anr1 one half (1/2) cent use tax as described in paragraphs 7 & 8 below shall be agreed upon by all lhree parties in advance of any such expenditure and/or project as evidenced by a resolution duly adopted by the governing bodies of each party.
5. Amendments to the Plan shall become effective only upon the adoption of a joint resolution approved by each of the governing bodies of the parties to this Agreement formally amending relevant portions of Joint Resolutions No. 61 and 62.
6. The parties hereto agree to utilize their best efforts to seek and obtain funding from local, state, federal, and private sources to finance the various elements of the Plan. These efforts shall include, when deemed necessary, seeking voter approval for increased sales and use taxes as well as bonding authority for specific projects as they are developed and agreed upon by unanimous consent of the parties hereto.
1 42 Attachment 1
Approval of One-Half Cent Sales and Use Taxes.
7. In the event that the county-wide one-half (1/2) cent sales tax and use tax increase is approved by the electors of Pitkin County at the November 2, 1993, election, the County, with the advice and consent of the City and Town, hereby agree to annually fund or finance from sales tax revenues the following elements of the Plan:
a. Improvement and enhancement both of hours and frequency of down-valley bus transportation by the purchase and operation of five (5) additional buses (2 buses for Aspen to Snowmass and 3 buses for down-valley commuter service (the B-line identified in the Plan)).
b. Construction and operation (including associated design, engineering and feasibility studies) of a separate, dedicated transit-way between downtown Aspen and the airport ( the A-line identified in the Plan), and between the Aspen and Snowmass (the C-line identified in the Plan).
c. Acquisition and operation of park-n-ride or intercept lots in the general area of the Brush Creek intersection with Highway 82 and the Airport/Buttermilk Ski area.
d. Any additional elements of the Plan as identified by the unanimous consent of the parties following a regular public meeting as contemplated by Section 3 herei nabove.
8. In the event that the above referenced county-wide one-half (1/2) cent sales tax and use tax increase is approved by the electors of Pitkin County at the November '.2, 1993, election, the County, with the advice and consent of the City and Town, hereby agrees to annually fund or finance from use tax revenues the following elements of the Plan:
a. Any share attributable to the City, the Town, and the County, for the purchase of the Denver & Rio Grande right-of-way for trails or other mass transportation purposes.
b. Any additional elements of the Plan as identified by the unanimous consent of the parties following a regular public meeting as contemplated by Section 3 hereinabove.
Annual Renewal and Termination.
9. This Intergovernmental Agreement may not be terminated unless and until such time as '1~ both the one-half ( 1/2) cent sales and use taxes referenced above have been rescinded, whereupon any party may terminate the agreement upon ninety (90) days written notice to the other parties.
3 43 Attachment 1
Miscellaneous.
10. This Intergovernmental Agreement may be modified only by written amendment approved by all parties acting separately.
11. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall mean or be construed to mean that an individual party to this Agreement may not independently fund or implement a specific element of the Plan or some other transportation related project without the consent of the other parties.
12. If any provision of this Agreement or the application thereof to any person, entity, or circumstances is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the Agreement which can be given effect without the invalid provisions or application, and to this end the provisions of this Agreement are declared to be severable.
13. This Intergovernmental Agreement is not intended to create any right in or for the public, or any n1ember of the public, including any contractor, supplier or any other third party, or to authorize anyone not a party to this Intergovernmental Agreement to maintain a suit to enforce or take advantage of its terms. The duties, obligations and responsibilities of the parties with respect to third parties shall remain as imposed by law.
14. Each party represents that it has the specific power and authority to enter into and consummate this Agreement according to law and that it has followed the proper legal procedures to authorize those persons whose names are subscribed below to execute this Agreement and obligates that party to perform this Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Intergovernmental Agreement on the day and year first above written.
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
By: ______ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
4 44 Attachment 1
BOARD OF COUN COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUN.,,-r-....-.. PITKIN:
A· ET:
TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE:
By: ______ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TAXES.IGA
5 45 OCT 12 '93 11:10 TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE P.2/8 Attachment 1
A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, THE TOWN COUNCIL OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE, COLORADO, AND. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO APPROVING A COMPREHENSIVE VALLEY TRANSPORTATION PLAN AND ENDORSING A ONE-Hu.F (1/2) CENT SALES TAX AND ONE-HALF (1/2) CENT USE TAX TO FUND ELEMENTS OF SAID TRANSPORTATION PLAN. Resolution # c;, I RECITALS
1. The Aspen City Council ("Aspen"); the Pitkin county Board of County . Coll\111issioners ("County") , •and the Town council of Snowmass Village ("TOSV"), are working together to solve common transportation problems; and
2. Aspen, TOSV and County have previously adopted a joint resolution identifying a conceptual framework for a comprehensive transportation strategy for the Roaring Fork Valley, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A"; and.
3. Aspen, TOSV arid County have continued to work coopera tively to further refine short and long-term county-wide strategies addressing transportation problems; and 4. Aspen·, TOSV and county now wish to set forth their mutual understanding for a Comprehensive Valley Transportation Plan and the process for funding and implementing the plan; and. 5. Aspen, TOSV and County have agreed to submit to Pitkin County voters a county-wide one-half (1/2) cent sales tax and one half (1/2) cent use tax measure at a November 2, 1993 county-wide election, the revenues from which would· fund implementation of the elements of the Comprehensive Valley Transportation Plan as set forth below . • . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by Aspen,. TOSV and County that • Exh.ibit "B" as attached. hereto shall be and is hereby adoptfi\d. as the comprehensive Valley Transportation Plan for addressing transportation problems and issues in the Raaring Fork Valley.
BE· 1T' FURTHER RESOLVED THAT: i. Revenues from the one-half ( 1./ 2) c.ent sales tax shall be used only for the following general elements of the comprehensive Valley Transportation Plan:
(a) To improve and enhance both hours and frequency of down-valley bus transportation by purchasing and operating five additional buses (2 buses for ~span
46 OCT 12 '93 11:11 TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE P.3/8 Attachment 1
to Snowmass and 3 buses for dawn~valley COllll!IUters (t)'le B-line); (b) For construction and operational costs (including. associated aesign, engineering and feasibility studies) of a separate, dedicated transit-way between downtown Aspen and the airport (the A-line) and between Aspen and .Snowmass (the C-line); (c) Tb fund operational and/or acquisition costs of park-and-ride/ intercept lots at both Brush Creek and the Airport/Buttermilk area; (d) To undertake such other projects which fit within the general framework of the overall comprehensive plan and which are approved by amendment to. this Resolution.
2. Revenues :from the one-half (1./2) cent use tax shall be used first for the Aspen, TOSV and County share of the purchase of the Denver & Rio Grande right-of-way for trails and/or transporta tion purposes.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the following steps shall be taken to implement the Comprehensive Valley Transportation Plan by the parties: 1.. The execution of an intergovernment.al agreement between Aspen, TOSV and county prior to the November 2, 1993 county-wide election that shall, at a minimum, mandate that all revenues derived from the one-half (1/2) cent sales/use taxes be spent only on those transportation projects or services as agreed upon by all three jurisdictions;
2. Obtain voter approval of the one-half (1/2) cent county~ wide sales/use taxes fo_r transportation; 3. conduct regular public meetings of representatives of the three· jurisdictions and other invit.ed parties so as to continue to refine and agree upon proposed projects as well as to pursue additional funding from local, private, state and federal sources to supplement the one-half (1/2) cent sales/use tax revenu~s; 4. seek and obtain, if necessary,. voter approval for bonding for specific projects as they are.developed and agreed upon; 5. In the event the one-hal! (1/2) cent sales/use taxes do not ,pass, the parties shall continue to work together to pursue alternate funding sources necessary to implement the plan and shall
2
47 OCT 12 '93 11:11 TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE P.4/8 Attachment 1
proceed· with implementation of th;se elements of the plan as can be supported from existing or other future revenue sources.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED AND DECLARED THAT Aspen, TOSV and county strongly endorse and urge passage by the . Pitkin county electorate of the proposed county-wide one-half (1/2) cent sales and use taxes to fund mass transportation as to be voted upon at a county-wide election on November 2, 1993 • •
APPROVED AND ADOPTED · AT THE REGU~u...MEETING OF ~ PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON THIS I,,·· DAY OF ~ 1 1993.
BOARD OF COUNT1 PITKIN
Deputy County Clerk
MANAGER APPROVAL:
1 Reid Haugheyt§4:- '--' 1"'3 county Manager
APPROVED AND ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETIN,~ . OF THE TOWN CO~IL OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE, COLORADO, ON THIS 1:/~ DAY OF _·c::t.,.,,o, Q J j , 1993. . ~WMAS~ VILLAGE TOW~ COUNCIL
.,. I a) d J li)½,0, ~ 0 J Trudy Werline, Town Clerk MANAGER APPROVAL: AS TO FORM:
rGarySU{¾ir,~e~· Town Manager .Steve Conner, Town Attorney I,~ •
3
48 ... OCT 12 '93 11:12 TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE P,5/8 Attachment 1
APPROVED AND ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL, COLORADO, ON THIS ___ DAY OF ______, 1993 •
Koch, City Clerk • Bennett, Mayor APPROVAL: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Edward M. Caswall City·Attorney
4
49 Attachment 1 Comprehensive Volley Transportation Pion
1-70
1-70 • • lilt Existing or soon lo be finished roads -.. Separoted/Dedicated Transit Way -r~ fast-frequent-first Class \/isu•lly & Environmentally Unobtrusive
HOV High Occupancy Vehicles Enhanced Down Volley Bus System • Park and Ride Lats 'The B-Line" • l Ominute headways at peak times Traffic Lights •Longer operoting hours (j) 4 lane hwy w/ 2 lanes restricted ta HOV at peak hours
rural road w/shuttle Snowmass Village • Enhanced Bus and Shuttle Routes· • Dial-A-Ride ~.....-- 4 lane Hwy w/ • Bike and Pedestrian Improvements 2 lanes restricted ta HOV at peak hours
Snowmass to Asoen 1/-· "The (-Line'' i \enarated/Dedirnted lronsrt Wav I Multi-Modal Transit Center • Information Paid Parking • Park & Ride Highlands 2-lane Hwy rural road w/shuttle Restricted Parking Aspen to Airport ''The A-line" Separated/Dedicated Transit Woy Restricted Parking Cross Town Shuttles Downtown Paid Parking Priority Uses for 1/2 ( Sales/Use Tax Rio Grande Paid Parking Garage • improved Down Valley Bus System • Information " Construction 'A' and 'C' lines Aspen • Public Acquisition of DRG ROW East End Paid Parking Garage 0 Park and Ride lots • Enhanced Bus & Shuttle Routes (Conceptual) • Dial-A-Ride • Bike & Pedestrian Improvements • Neighborhood Pork & Rides
GmphiG 0/ Independence Pass W•ggomcm Illustration Sept 16·93 50 OCT 12 '93 11: 12 TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE P.6/8 Attachment 1
A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, THE TOWN COUNCIL OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE, COLORADO, AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, CONFIRMING THE TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS DESIGNATED TO BE FUNDED FROM THE PROCEEDS OF TRANSPORTATION REVENUE BONDS.
· Resolution # Co 2-.,
RECITALS
l. The Aspen City Council ("Aspen"), the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners ("County"), and the Town Council of Snowmass Village ("TOSV"), have jointly agreed to work together to solve common transportation problems; and
2. Aspen, TOSV and County have previously adopted joint resolutions to: 1) identify a conceptual framework for a comprehensive transportation strategy for the Roaring Fork Valley, and 2) approve a comprehensive valley transportation plan and endorse 9ne-half ( 1/2) cent county-wide sales/use taxes to fund elements of said plan; and
3. It is the intent of.Aspen, TOSV and County to maximize other revenue sources prior to issuing public debt; and · ·
4. Local public funding will be supplemented to the greatest extent possible by additional federal, state, and private funding for transportation improvements within the . Roaring Fork Valley; and
5. The Roaring Fork Transit Agency ("RFTA") will continue to aggressively pursue federal grant revenues; and
6. RFTA fare structure, operating schedules and/or routes will continue to be evaluated and revised to maximize cost efficiency and effectiveness.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by Aspen, TOSV and County that the following project list (Exhibit A) shall be adopted as those designated projects to be funded from the proceeds of transportation revenue bonds as issµed at such times and in such amounts as the parties hereto may from time to time agree; subject to the approval by the electorate of all i;>roposed bonds at a county-wide .election(s).
51 ., OCT 12 '93 11:12 TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE Attachment 1
TRANSPORTATION REVENUE .BONDS: POTENTIAL PROJECTS
1993 Projects Estimated Cost Bond Si>.e(l) Annual Debt Repayment Service (2) Funding Source ------5 replacement buses & spare engine 1,290,000 1,498,000 170,000 (12) exis1ins l % sales tax
S replacement buses 1.235,000 1,434,000 162,000 (12) new, to be determined
S new buses for d.v &. s.v. 1.235,000 1,434,000 162,000 (12) new 1n. !1' sales tax
3 ntNI buses for lot shuttle 741,000 860,000 97,000 (12) ntNI parkin11 revenues
Rio Grande ROW 5;000,000 · 5,805,000 532,000 (20) new 1/2% IISC tax for $200,000 remndr from state & dv gov1s.
9,501,000 11,031,000 1,123,000
2 park-and-ride lots 2;250,000 2,612,000 .. 239,000 (20) state or private, attu.rwi'"' to be ------determined 11,751,000 13,643,000 1,362.000 ------__,.;.... _.. l 994 Projecls
Separate De4icate4 Transit Way (A-Line and C-Line) · Estimated Cost Bond Size Debt Source,
? ? ? -Newl/2%sales tax
- Federal Slate
- 1'&111 box
- Private
EXHIBIT A
52 OCT 12 '93 11•13 TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE P,8/8 Attachment 1
APPROVED AND ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON nus l'-V"' DAY OF 5rqif .' 1993. . ·
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PITKIN COU , COLORADO
.Jea~~fr.- Deputy County Clerk
MANAGER APPROVAL: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
tpi~ 10\ 1\"3 Reid Haugey · Coumy Manager
APPROVED AND ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETIN(t_gf THE TOWN C~NCIL OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE, COLORADO, ON THIS~ DAY OF ~ , 19-93. ·
AGE TOWN COUNCIL .
~,, e0: )I Q ,Jru o,· .. ~ Trudy Worline, Town Clerk
MANAGER APPROVAL: APPROVED AS TO FORM: ~ttxw. Gary Suiter, Town Manager Steve Conner, Town Attorney
· APPROVED AND ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL, COLORADO, ON THIS DAY OF 0 ~. 1993. 1 .,;J,)
John
53 ·. OCT 12 '93 11:13 TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE P,9/8 Attachment 1
MANAGER APPROVAL: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
~LLLl.::'.;~:::::-~~.~ Edward M. Caswall City Attorney
54
.__ ,~ 2019 EOTC BUDGET AND MULTI-YEAR PLAN - AMENDED JUNE 2019 Attachment 2 PAGE 1
EOTC Transit Project Funding Projection or Proposed Actual Budget Budget Plan Plan Plan Plan 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 FUNDING SOURCES: a) Pitkin County 1/2% sales tax ( 5,357,764) ( 5,626,000) ( 5,851,000) ( 6,041,000) ( 6,237,000) ( 6,440,000) ( 6,649,000) less RFTA contribution (81.04% of 1/2% sales tax) ( 4,341,932) ( 4,559,310) ( 4,741,650) ( 4,895,626) ( 5,054,465) ( 5,218,976) ( 5,388,350) net 1/2% sales tax funding to EOTC ( 1,015,832) ( 1,066,690) ( 1,109,350) ( 1,145,374) ( 1,182,535) ( 1,221,024) ( 1,260,650)
b) Pitkin County 1/2% use tax ( 1,623,082) ( 1,400,000) ( 1,400,000) ( 1,400,000) ( 1,400,000) ( 1,400,000) ( 1,400,000) c) Investment income & misc. ( 89,000) ( 124,000) ( 187,000) ( 225,000) ( 243,000) ( 317,000) ( 189,000) Total Funding Sources ( 2,727,914) ( 2,590,690) ( 2,696,350) ( 2,770,374) ( 2,825,535) ( 2,938,024) ( 2,849,650) FUNDING USES: Ongoing / Operational 1) Use tax collection costs ( 23,329) ( 42,614) ( 93,280) ( 96,078) ( 98,961) ( 101,930) ( 104,987) 2) Administrative cost allocation & meeting costs ( 15,104) ( 22,710) ( 24,810) ( 25,554) ( 26,321) ( 27,111) ( 27,924) 3) Country Inn taxi program in-lieu of bus stop safety improvements ( 2,494) ( 6,000) ( 4,000) ( 4,000) ( 4,000) ( 4,000) ( 4,000) 4) X-Games transit subsidy ( 115,000) ( 115,000) ( 115,000) ( 115,000) ( 115,000) ( 115,000) ( 115,000) 5) Brush Creek Park and Ride operating costs ( 29,950) ( 35,000) ( 32,000) ( 33,000) ( 34,000) ( 35,000) ( 36,000) 6) No-fare Aspen-Snowmass-Woody Creek bus service - year-round ( 615,726) ( 650,556) ( 662,158) ( 799,610) ( 838,888) ( 872,400) ( 907,300) 7) WE-cycle operational support ( 100,000) ( 100,000) ( 100,000) 8) Brush Creek BRT connecting service - spring, summer, fall (50% from Snowmass Sav) ( 294,000) ( 419,587) 9) Regional Transportation Administrator ( 160,000) ( 141,076) ( 146,700) ( 152,600) ( 158,700) ( 165,000) sub-total Ongoing / Operational ( 901,602) ( 1,425,880) ( 1,591,911) ( 1,219,943) ( 1,269,770) ( 1,314,140) ( 1,360,211) net funding available for projects ( 1,826,312) ( 1,164,810) ( 1,104,439) ( 1,550,431) ( 1,555,765) ( 1,623,884) ( 1,489,439) Projects 10) Grand Ave Bridge construction - transit mitigation funding ( 335,000) Projects funded from Savings for greater Aspen Area 11) Upper Valley Mobility Study ( 276,044) 12) Cell phone transportation data collection ( 70,000) 13) Buttermilk/SH82 Pedestrian Crossing Analysis ( 40,000) 14) Battery Electric Bus Program carry over to 2019 ( 500,000) 15) Variable message sign on Hwy 82 consolidate in 2019 ( 450,000) 16) Snowmass Mall transit station (funded from Snowmass Village Savings Fund) ( 50,000) ( 350,000) ( 5,878,787) 17) EOTC retreat ( 10,000) 18) Brush Creek Park and Ride improvements (FLAP grant) (EOTC approved 10/20/16) ( 70,000) ( 3,830,000) less Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) grant ( (1,900,000) Total Uses ( 1,582,646) ( 1,515,880) ( 2,971,911) ( 3,149,943) ( 1,269,770) ( 7,192,927) ( 1,360,211) EOTC ANNUAL SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) ( 1,145,269) ( 1,074,810) ( (275,561) ( (379,569) ( 1,555,765) ( (4,254,903) ( 1,489,439)
EOTC CUMULATIVE SURPLUS FUND BALANCE ( 8,583,356) ( 9,658,166) ( 9,382,605) ( 9,003,036) ( 10,558,801) ( 6,303,898) ( 7,793,337)
6/24/2019 55 2019 EOTC BUDGET AND MULTI-YEAR PLAN - AMENDED JUNE 2019 Attachment 2 PAGE 2
EOTC Transit Project Funding Projection or Proposed Actual Budget Budget Plan Plan Plan Plan 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Revenue projections: a) sales tax 4.9% 5.0% 4.00% 3.25% 3.25% 3.25% 3.25% b) use tax 12.8% -13.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% c) investment earnings rate 1.0% 1.5% 1.9% 2.4% 2.7% 3.0% 3.0%
Projection or Proposed Actual Budget Budget Plan Plan Plan Plan 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
DISTRIBUTION OF ANNUAL SURPLUS (excludes projects funded from savings funds) ( 1,491,312) ( 1,271,810) ( 284,233) ( (379,569) ( 1,555,765) ( 1,623,883.87) ( 1,489,439) 25% to Snowmass Village Savings until restored to maximum ( 372,828) ( 274,022) ( 71,058) ( (94,892) ( 233,628) ( - ) ( - ) remainder to Aspen Savings ( 1,118,484) ( 997,788) ( 213,174) ( (284,677) ( 1,322,138) ( 1,623,884) ( 1,489,439)
Savings Fund for greater Snowmass Village Area
Savings Fund maximum ( 6,278,787) ( 6,228,787) ( 5,878,787) ( 5,878,787) ( 5,878,787) ( - ) ( - ) share of annual surplus/deficit ( 372,828) ( 274,022) ( 71,058) ( (94,892) ( 233,628) ( - ) ( - ) less 50% of Brush Creek BRT connecting service ( (147,000) ( (209,794) less Snowmass mall transit station - reduces savings fund maximum ( (50,000) ( (350,000) ( - ) ( - ) ( (5,878,787) ( - ) Savings Fund for greater Snowmass Village Area ( 6,151,765) ( 6,228,787) ( 5,740,052) ( 5,645,159) ( 5,878,787) ( - ) ( - )
Savings Fund for greater Aspen Area
share of annual surplus/deficit ( 1,118,484) ( 997,788) ( 213,174) ( (284,677) ( 1,322,138) ( 1,623,884) ( 1,489,439) less Upper Valley Mobility Study and cell phone data funded from Aspen Savings ( (346,044) Savings Fund for greater Aspen Area ( 2,431,590) ( 3,429,379) ( 3,642,553) ( 3,357,877) ( 4,680,014) ( 6,303,898) ( 7,793,337)
6/24/2019 56 Attachment 3 Project STA 082A- 008
STATE HIGHWAY 82 ENTRANCE TO ASPEN
RECORD OF DECISION
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
AUGUST 1998
57 Attachment 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. DECISION ...... 1
II. THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ...... 3 Highway and Intersection Improvements ...... 3 Transit System ...... 3 Incremental Transportation Management Program ...... 6 Meeting Project Purpose and Need ...... 7 Meeting Project Need and Intent ...... IO
III. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ...... 11 Build Options Eliminated From Consideration ...... 13 Reality Check Screening ...... I 3 Fatal Flaw Screening ...... 13 Comparative Screening ...... 15 Alternatives Eliminated After Full Evaluation ...... 17
IV. OTHER KEY ELEMENTS ...... 24
V. SECTION 4(0 RESOURCES ...... 25 What Goes Into The Least Harm Analysis? ...... 25 Discussion Of Key Issues ...... 26 Least Harm Alternative ...... 29
VI. MEASURES TO MINIMIZE HARM ...... 31
VII. MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT ...... 36
VIII. COMMENTS ON FINAL EIS ...... 37
IX. CONCLUSION ...... 37
58 Attachment 3
APPENDIX A: Memorandum of Understanding Between CDOT and FHW A and the City of Aspen
APPENDIX B: Memorandum of Understanding Between CDOT and FHW A and Pitkin County
APPENDIX C: Responses to Comments on Final EIS and Comment Letters
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure I a: Preferred Alternative Alignment ...... 4 Figure lb: Preferred Alternative Alignment ...... 5 Figure 2: Incremental TM Program Monitoring and Implementation ...... 8 Figure 3: Screening Analysis ...... 12
LIST OF TABLES
Table I: Platform Widths ...... 2 Table 2: Alternatives Evaluated in the DEIS ...... I 8 Table 3: Alternatives Evaluated in the DSEIS ...... 19 Table 4: Maroon Creek Road Intersection Options ...... 23
II 59 Attachment 3
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERALHIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
RECORD OF DECISION Project STA 082A-008
State Highway 82 - Entrance to Aspen Pitkin County, Colorado
I.DECISION
The purpose of this Record of Decision (ROD) is to document the Federal Highway Administration's (FHW A) decision on the State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen project. This Record of Decision has been prepared in compliance with FHW A Regulation 23 CFR 771 and Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulation 40 CFR 1500-I 508. The ROD documents the FHW A decision on the State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen project based upon the requirements of The National Environmental Policy Act of 1970 (NEPA), the Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (DOT Act), the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 199 I (ISTEA), the I 990 Clean Air Act Amendments, project data, alternatives considered, public and other agency input (including comments received following publication of the Entrance to Aspen Final Environmental Impact Statement [FEIS] in August I 997), agreements with the City of Aspen and Pitkin County and outlined mitigation measures. FHW A and the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) have made the decision to construct a variation of the Modified Direct Alternative as described in the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) dated July of 1996. The Preferred Alternative is a combination of highway and intersection improvements, a transit system, and an incremental transportation management (TM) program. The highway component will consist of a two-lane parkway that generally followsthe existing alignment, except at the Maroon Creek crossing and across the Marolt-Thomas Property. The highway alignment at Maroon Creek will be north of the existing crossing with the light rail transit (LRT) alignment on the existing bridge. The Modified Direct Alignment (as described in the DSEIS) is across the Marolt-Thomas Property. A connection to Main Street occurs at 7th Street. The transit component includes an LRT system that, if local support and/or funding are not available, will be developed initially as exclusive bus lanes. The transit platform (which will follow the proposed highway alignment) is of adequate width to allow the exclusive bus lanes to continue in operation during the construction of the LRT (see Table I). The Preferred Alternativewill include multi modal facilities at the Pitkin County Airport and Buttermilk Ski Area as part of the locally funded light rail transit component, a new Maroon Creek Bridge crossing north of the existing bridge, a roundabout at Maroon Creek Road, and a cut and cover tunnel of no less than 122 meters (400 feet) in length across the Marolt-Thomas Property. A more detailed description of the Preferred Alternativeis given in Section II, Description of the Preferred Alternative.
60 Record of Decision Attachment 3 State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen
Table 1 Platform Widths Corridor Section Maximum Maximum Total Plaiform Width 1 Right-of. Way Width Buttermilk to the Maroon Creek Bridge 34 meters ( I 12 feet) 82 meters (270 feet) 2 Maroon Creek Bridge 22 meters (73 feet) 27 meters (90 feet) Maroon Creek Bridge to Maroon Creek Road 3 1 meters (IO I feet) 40 meters ( 130 feet) Castle Creek Bridge 22 meters (73 feet) 27 meters (90 feet) Maroon Creek Road to 1' and Main (excluding 28 meters (93.5 feet) 40 meters (130 feet) Cut and Cover Tunnel) Cut and Cover Tunnel 24 meters (78.5 feet) 3 61 meters (200 feet)
1 Platform width is defined ru the distance between lhe outside edges of the curb and/or barriers, The platform widths are from the Joint Resolution #1 (Series of 1997) passed h)' the City ofAspen. Pitkin CountJ, and the Town of Snowma.ss Village. ; The right• of•wa)' for the Butrermilk to Maroon Creek Bridge segment is :;ignificamly larger than other segments. This is because the LRT veers slightly south near the Buttennilk Ski Area to go into the LR.T station. This results in a larger area of right-of-way being needed. For more information on the variation ofplatform and right~ofway widths, please see the 1echnical memorandum Platform and Right-o/aWay Width . .J The platform width for the cut and cover tunnel was origi,zally 22 me1ers (73 feet) for the Phased Modified Direct Alternative in the DSEJS. The updated Phased Aiternarive requires a platform width of 24 meters (78.5 feet) for a mainJenance access adjacent to the LR.T and to provide lanes of adequa1e width for buses during phasing.
The NEPA process for the Entrance to Aspen started in January 1994 to fulfill a commitment made in the Record of Decision (ROD) for project number FC 082-1 (14 ), State Highway 82 East of Basalt to Buttermilk Ski Area, dated 12/21/93. Following initial public meetings, scoping, and public information activities, the State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was released in August of 1995. The DEIS evaluated three alternatives between the Buttermilk Ski Area and Maroon Creek Road, and seven alternatives between Maroon Creek Road and the intersection of 7th Street and Main Street. On August 24, 1995 the official DEIS Public Hearing Open House was conducted in Aspen. Following the release of the DEIS, new alternatives were presented by the City of Aspen and local citizens for improvements to State Highway 82. According to Federal Regulations, a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) is required if the FHW A determines there are changes in the proposed action or new information or circumstances relevant to environmental concerns and bearings on the proposed action (or its impacts) that could result in significant environmental impacts not evaluated in the DEIS. The DSEIS evaluated four additional alternatives between the Pitkin County Airport and Rubey Park (located in downtown Aspen). The alternatives evaluated in the DSEIS received the same comparative level of analysis as the alternatives in the DEIS. The State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen r DSEIS was released in July of 1996. The official DSEIS Public Hearing Open House was held on August C 29, I 996 in Aspen. r Following the official public comment period for the DSEIS, preparation of the State Highway 82 ( Entrance to Aspen Final Environmental Impact Statement began. In August of I 997 the FEIS was released h and the official public comment period, which was extended twice, was open until November 6, 1997. II The official Public Hearing Open House was conducted on August 20, 1997 in Aspen. There were more I\ than 950 comment letters received on the FEIS. These comment letters and responses are included as e, Appendix C. Only one copy of each form letter is included.
Page2 of37
61 Record of Decision Attachment 3 State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen
II. THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
The Preferred Alternative for the ROD is a variation of the Modified Direct Alternative evaluated in the DSEIS and of the PreferredAlternative described in the FEIS. The Preferred Alternative is a combination of highway and intersection improvements, a transit system, and an incremental transportation management (TM) program. Each of these elements are described below. Figure I a and Figure I b show a schematic of the PreferredAlternative alignment.
Highway and Intersection Improvements
The highway component alignment consists of a two-lane parkway that follows the ex1stmg State Highway 82 alignment from Buttermilk Ski Area to the vicinity of Maroon Creek Bridge, where the alignment shifts to the north. The highway crosses Maroon Creek on a new bridge, north of the existing bridge. The highway then returns to the existing alignment and continues east to a roundabout located at the Maroon Creek Road intersection. After the roundabout.. the highway shifts to the southeast across the Marolt-Thomas Property and through a cut and cover tunnel 122 meters (400 feet) in length to connect with the intersection of 7th Street and Main Street. The alignment crosses a new Castle Creek Bridge between the cut and cover tunnel and Main Street. The proposed Main Street alignment consists of two travel lanes in each direction with an LRT system on the south side. The proposed Main Street cross section is within the existing curb lines. The Preferred Alternative also includes relocating existing Owl Creek Road and West Buttermilk Road to create a new combined intersection with State Highway 82 near the Buttermilk Ski Area.
Transit System
The transit system for the Preferred Alternative includes a LRT system from a new LRT Maintenance Facility near Service Center Road to Rubey Park in downtown Aspen. However, the LRT system will be developed initially as exclusive bus lanes if local support and/or funding are not available. The platform is of adequate width to allow the exclusive bus lanes to continue in operation during the construction of the LRT.
The LRT alignment leaves the maintenance facility and crosses State Highway 82 west of Service Center Road, then turnseast toward the Aspen Airport, heading into the AirportTerminal LRT Station. The LRT at this point, is parallel to and on the south side of State Highway 82. The LRT leaves the parallel alignment from State Highway 82 near Owl Creek Road to enter the Buttermilk LRT Station and multimodal facility. The LRT alignment then returns to the south side and parallel to State Highway 82, crossing Maroon Creek on the existing bridge. As the alignment approaches the Maroon Creek Road roundabout it shifts to the south, bypassing the intersection and crossing Maroon Creek Road and Castle Creek Road. It then returns to the south side alignment. The LRT alignment parallels the proposed highway alignment across the Marolt-Thomas Property, through the cut and cover tunnel, to the intersection of 7th Street and Main Street. The LRT alignment runs along the south side of Main Street to Monarch Street, turning south onto the east side of Monarch Street. At Durant Avenue, the LRT turns east along the north side of Durant A venue and ends at Rubey Park.
Page 3 of 37 62 Record of Decision Attachment 3 State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen
Figure la State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen ROD Preferred Alternative Alignment
Legend: Aspen City Limits LRT Alignment --- LRT and Highway Alignment --- Highway Alignment
~ Preferred Alternative ~ · LRT Alignment
Pitkin County Airport
II: -=--,fl,,.-~=== Not to Scale
Page 4 of 37 63 Record of Decision Attachment 3 State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen
Figure lb State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen ROD Preferred Alternative Alignment
City of
.. -=-=1.--;.D.,11,,..._~ I .. "'If" = Not to Scale
Legend: Aspen City Limits LRT Alignment --- LRT and Highway Alignment
I --- Highway Alignment --J Preferred Alternative LRT Alignment
Cut and Cover
Preferred Alternative Highway and LRT Alignment
lig_slb.edr
Page 5 of 37
64 Record of Decision Attachment 3 State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen
For purposes of evaluation in the FEIS, the LRT line consists of double track except for the six areas of single track identified below:
• LRT Maintenance Facility to the Pitkin County Airport • Maroon Creek Bridge • Just west of the cut and cover tunnel to the intersection of 7th Street and Main Street • 7th Street LRT Station • 3rd Street LRT Station • Intersection of Monarch Street and Main Street to Rubey Park
LRT transit stations are located at the Airport Terminal, Buttermilk Ski Area, Moore Property, 7th Street, 3rd Street, Monarch Street, and Rubey Park.
Incremental Transportation Management Program
In addition to the highway and intersection improvements and the transit system, the Preferred Alternative includes an incremental TM program. This program is designed to help achieve the city and community goal of maintaining 1993 traffic volumes in the year 2015. The Preferred Alternative incremental TM program consists of incentives, disincentives, and supporting measures to encourage use of transit, carpools, bicycles, and walking. Currently, the City of Aspen is using TM measures such as increased transit service (incentive), paid parking (disincentive), and information programs (supporting).
The incremental TM program consists of monitoring the traffic volumes to verify that the goal of maintaining 1993 levels of traffic is being met. If the traffic volumes are at or below the 1993 levels then no action is taken. If the traffic volumes exceed the 1993 levels then one or more TM measures are implemented. The degree to which the traffic volumes exceed the 1993 levels determines the level of TM required to meet the zero-growth target. The three levels of TM, in addition to other supporting actions, are shown below. A more detailed list of possible TM measures is included in the FEIS technical report entitled Transportation Management (TM) Measures.
Level l - The measures in this level of TM are starter level actions that are implemented when the zero-growth level is first exceeded. If the zero-growth target is exceeded after Level 1 is implemented, then the next level of TM is added. Examples include ridematching programs, trip planning programs, transit literature, etc.
Level 2 - This level of TM is implemented when the traffic volumes exceed the zero-growth target between O and 5 percent or if Level 1 measures do not reduce traffic volume to below the zero growth target. Examples include improved transit system (shorter headways, increased subsidies), demand responsive transit, minor increases in internal parking rates, etc.
Level 3 - This level of TM is implemented when the traffic volumes exceed the zero-growth target between 5 and l O percent. Examples include limiting the number of internal parking spaces, auto free zones, major increases in internal parking rates, etc.
Page 6 of 37 65 Record of Decision Attachment 3 State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen
Supporting Actions - These refer to actions that, by themselves, are not expected to cause a mode shift, but rather enhance other actions. Examples include guaranteed ride home program, park and ride lots to meet demand, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, etc.
Figure 2 is a flow chart of how an incremental program could work.
The Preferred Alternative includes two parking facilities: the airport multimodal center and the Buttermilk multimodal center. These facilities are designed for the parking demand based on the zero growth policy and a summer high-growth transportation demand modeling scenario. To meet the projected 2015 summer high growth demand (assuming no downvalley extension of the light rail system), approximately 3,600 spaces are required at the airport multimodal center, and approximately 750 spaces are required at the Buttermilk multimodal center. Initially, the construction of these multimodal facilities would not need to provide for maximum capacity. Instead, the number of parking spaces at the multimodal facilities could be developed as the parking need arises. This is especially true at the airport where the planned facility could eventually have 3,600 parking spaces under the worst-case growth assumptions outlined above.
Meeting Project Purpose and Need
COOT and FHW A have chosen the Preferred Alternative because it best meets the local communities' needs and desires, fulfills the project objectives, and provides flexibility in future design decisions. A short description of how the Preferred Alternative meets the project objectives (shown in italics) follows.
I. Community Based Planning. Provide a process which is responsive to local community-based planning efforts, including the Aspen to Snowmass Transportation Project and the Aspen Area Community Plan, with special attention focused on limiting vehicle trips into Aspen to create a less congested downtown core.
The Preferred Alternative has been developed through an extensive and continuous public involvement process with both local citizens and elected officials. The adoption of the incremental TM program as an integrated part of the Preferred Alternative provides for the goal of e limiting future vehicle trips to existing levels while providing flexibility in the adoption of s stronger incentives and disincentives. p 2. Transportation Capacity. Provide needed transportation capacity for the forecasted person trips in the year 2015. In doing this, this project will identify a combination of travel modes, alignments and transportation management actions to seek to achieve the stated community goal )- of limiting the number of vehicles in the year 2015 to levels at or below those in 1994. ), With the incorporation of the incremental TM program, the Preferred Alternative will provide for future transportation capacity. Though the highway system will operate under congestion, this et congestion is considered part of the disincentive for single occupancy vehicle (SOY) travel and D- will increase transit usage. This objective sets the goal of limiting year 20 I 5 traffic volumes to levels at or below those in 1994. However, throughout this document the traffic volumes are referred to as levels at or below those in I 993. Levels are set at 1993 because the traffic model for
Page 7 of 37
66 Attachment 3 Record of Decision State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen Figure 2 Incremental TM Program Monitoring and Implementation
BEGIN Step 1 Traffic Monitoring (Summer• & Winter) Step@ Implement Level 1 Programi+--Yes -+No (1st time) ! ToStepQ) ! ToStepQ) after 1st time
Monitor Parking Utilization Trip Purpose Vehicle Occupancy
Step
Implement One Implement Two Implement One ( 1) Second Level (2) Second Level (1) Third Level Program Programs& Program& Supporting Actions Supporting Actions
ToStepQ) ToStepQ) ToStepQ)
• AADT - Average Annual Daily Traffic fig_2.cdr
Page 8 of 37 67 Record of Decision . Attachment 3 State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen
the Entrance to Aspen EIS was based on 1993 traffic volumes. The difference between 1993 and 1994 traffic volumes is minimal.
3. Safety. Reduce the high accident rate on State Highway 82 and the existing S-curves at State Highway 8217th Street/Main Street and provide safety improvements for bicyclists and pedestrians. Provide safe access at all intersections for all movements.
The removal of non-local traffic from the substandard S-curves and the addition of a landscaped median separating inbound and outbound traffic will reduce the high accident rate on State Highway 82.
4. Environmentally Sound Alternative. Develop an alternative which mm1m1zes and mitigates adverse impacts. A process will be used which follows the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA), the 1991 lntermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (/STEA), and all pertinent legislation.
The Preferred Alternative minimizes and mitigates adverse environmental impacts. The Preferred Alternative exceeds the requirements of the CAAA and is one of the least harmful alternatives evaluated in the EIS. The Preferred Alternative mitigates the Section 4(f) resources impacts with the cut and cover tunnel, relocates all trails that are impacted, avoids impacts to the Holden Smelting and Milling Complex, and compensates for impacts by returning some existing highway right-of-way to the City of Aspen.
5. Community Acceptability. Develop an alternative which fits the character of the community and is aesthetically acceptable to the public.
The Preferred Alternative reflects the agreements reached to date between the communities while accommodating future decisions based on local discussions and elections.
6. Financial Limitations. Develop an alternative that is financially realistic with respect to current and expected funding levels and programs, while being responsive to both the community's character and prudent expenditures of public funds.
The Preferred Alternative is financially realistic, sensible, and responsible with respect to the current and expected funding levels and programs as determined by the City of Aspen and Pitkin County.
7. Clean Air Act Requirements. Since the Aspen area is a PMw air quality non-attainment area, the Preferred Alternative must meet the requirements of the CAAA by demonstrating project conformity.
The Preferred Alternative exceeds the requirements of the CAAA.
Page 9 of 37 68 Record of Decision Attachment 3 State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen
8. Emergency Access. Respond to the need for an alternate route for emergency response to incidents inside and outside of Aspen.
The Preferred Alternative improves emergency access by providing an additional bridge across Castle Creek. The existing State Highway 82 right-of-way could be used as an emergency access route to and from the existing bridge if the new bridge becomes inaccessible.
9. Liveable Communities. Provide a system which reflects the small town character and scale of the Aspen community and which enhances the quality of life for residents and visitors. The system shall provide more accessible transportation which increases the mobility of the community and therefore provides for a more livable community.
The Preferred Alternative is consistent with the goals of maintaining a small town character and enhances the quality of life for the residences and visitors by limiting vehicle traffic to 1993 levels. The provision of an improved, efficient LRT system further enhances the livability and mobility of the community.
I 0. Phasing. Provide an alternative which allows for future transit options and upgrades.
The Aspen community has long expressed a desire for the high quality transit system that is included in the Preferred Alternative. The ultimate goal of the Roaring Fork Valley is to develop a fixed guideway system that connects Glenwood Springs to Aspen. The Entrance to Aspen LRT system may be the first step towards a realization of this goal.
Meeting Project Need and Intent
The Preferred Alternative fulfills the agreed-upon project need and intent statements in the following manner:
• In concert with the incremental TM program, the Preferred Alternative provides the needed person trip capacity for all foreseeable growth in the number of trips to and from Aspen through the year 2015. This is accomplished through highway improvements combined with a safe, high-quality, fast, and frequent transit system that will enhance the visitor's experience, expedite commuting, and preserve the residents' quality of life. • It is a balanced transportation system that integrates highway, transit, and transportation management solutions to reduce congestion and pollution. • It reflects the character and scale of the Aspen community by minimizing the number and width of the needed highway lanes while meeting person trip capacity needs with an LRT system. • It is responsive to community-based planning in fully considering community, elected official, and project team comments and concerns. The Preferred Alternative was initially conceived during the public comment period following the release of the DEIS in August 1995. The Preferred Alternative has the least impact of any build alternative on open space, historic structures, and residences. Impacts can be mitigated through a commitment to design excellence and high-quality construction materials and methods.
Page 10of37 69 Record of Decision Attachment 3 State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen
• It is a flexible system designed to meet both the short- and Jong-term goals of community compatibility, safety, environmental preservation, clean air, quality of life, and transportation capacity. • It is entirely consistent with the City of Aspen, Town of Snowmass Village, and Pitkin County goal of limiting traffic in 2015 to levels at or below 1993 levels. The Preferred Alternative's proactive approach of integrating an attractive, high quality transit system with a goal responsive package of adjustable transportation demand management measures offers an opportunity for the Aspen community to reduce the attractiveness of the personal auto while fully accommodating the mobility needs of residents, visitors, and commuters. • The Preferred Alternative is consistent with the goals of maintaining a small town character and enhancing the quality of life for the residents and visitors by limiting vehicle traffic to existing levels. The provision of an improved, efficient LRT system further enhances the livability and mobility of the community.
III. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
The FEIS discusses alignment options and modal options (see pages 11-4 through 11-23 of the FEIS) in addition to the No-Action Alternative. A screening process was used throughout the EIS process to determine alternatives that were to receive detailed evaluation (see Figure 3). The screening process used applied progressively more demanding criteria to the range of potential options through a series of three screening levels. At each screening level, options that did not meet the respective criteria for that screening level were eliminated from further evaluation. The screening levels included a reality check, a fatal flaw screening, and a comparative evaluation. The reality check was qualitative and eliminated options that were clearly unrealistic, inappropriate, or unreasonable. The fatal flaw screening eliminated options that did not meet one or more of the community-established project objectives (ten objectives were identified). The comparative evaluation eliminated alternatives that were not logical when compared to other available alternatives. The remaining alternatives were brought ahead for full evaluation. Alignment alternatives were studied to determine the environmental impacts and associated mitigation within the corridor. The modal alternatives, in addition to the environmental impacts and associated mitigation within the corridor, are critical to determining both the air quality impacts within the Aspen PM-10 non-attainment area and their ability to meet the objective of limiting year 2015 traffic volumes to levels at or below those in I 993.
The No-Action Alternative i The No-Action Alternative for the State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen project corridor includes only r minor, short-term safety and maintenance improvements. It does not significantly improve safety or substantially increase the capacity of the highway. This alternative does not satisfy the project objectives. I, It also constrains implementation of transit improvements to help control growth of Vehicle Miles d Traveled (VMT). ,e IC :n
Page 11 of 37 70 Record of Decision Attachment 3 I< State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen s
T II Figure 3 IT Screening Analysis T eJ A Option Types Reality Check Fatal Flaw Comparative th Screening Screening Screening C( Alignment • D&RGW Right-of-Way .,stop Cl cc • Other Alignments top m • Old Midland Railroad top • Existing Stop Fe • Direct Stop • Combination (Existing and Stop Direct/Modified Direct) B • Modified Direct OJ ali Laneage W( • 2 Highway Lanes top av • 3 Highway Lanes top Sc • 2 Highway Lanes, plus I Dedicated Stop Al, Vehicle and/or Transit Lanes 4 Highway Lanes Stop • R• • 2 Highway Lanes, Plus 2 Dedicated Vehicle and/or Transit Lanes Th COi Profile • • Elevate top • • Tunnel top • • Cut and Cover • • At-Grade • • Mode • Unproven Technology .,stop In l • Personal Rapid Transit .,stop pro • Commuter Rail top or c • Wire Rope Systems top • Guided Busways Stop Fa • HOV • Self-Propelled Buses Opt • Electric Trolley Buse for • Light Rail Transi obj<
Page 12 of 37 71 Record of Decision Attachment 3 State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen
The No-Action Alternative was the environmentally preferable alternative and caused the least overall impact to the physical, biological, and social environment. However, the No-Action Alternative does not meet the project's purpose and need or the project's stated need and intent statements.
The Preferred Alternative balances the need to protect the environment with the need to provide a safe and efficient means of transportation in the project corridor. The environmentally preferable solution, the No Action Alternative, requires some tradeoffs. As a result of the No-Action Alternative, the air quality in the Aspen non-attainment area would deteriorate because of the increased VMT and unmanaged congestion. Increasing traffic congestion without an alternative means of access to the Aspen area may create a loss of revenue for businesses in the project corridor. In addition, the No-Action Alternative will continue to be a cause of traffic accidents as aggressive driver behavior and frustration grow with increased travel delay.
For these reasons the No-Action Alternative was not selected for implementation.
Build Options Eliminated From Consideration Options were evaluated at each screening level (reality check, fatal flaw, comparative) for potential alignment, laneage, profile, and travel mode. The following paragraphs document the level where options were screened out and briefly describe the reasons for elimination. A complete screening evaluation is available in the technical report to the DEIS entitled State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen Alternatives Screening Analysis and the technical memorandum to the DSEIS entitled Entrance to Aspen DSEIS Alternatives Screening Report.
Reality Check Screening The following options were screened out as unrealistic and unacceptable for the Entrance to Aspen project corridor: • The Denver & Rio Grande Western (D&RGW) right-of-way alignment. • Alignments west of Maroon Creek Road other than the existing alignment. • An elevated roadway structure profile. • Tunnel profiles greater than 215 meters (700 feet) long. • Unproven transportation technologies. • • Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) systems technology.
In general, the options screened out at this level were either discontinuous to the project corridor, cost prohibitive, aesthetically obtrusive, unproven in service (no real world data on operation, cost, or impact), or disruptive to the existing development in the corridor.
Fatal Flaw Screening Options surviving the reality check screening were evaluated against the project objectives and checked for fatal flaws. An option screened out at this level indicated that it did not meet one or more of the project objectives. The following options were eliminated at the fatal flaw screening level:
Page 13 of37 72 Attachment 3 Record of Decision State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen
Old Colorado Midland Railroad Alignment Along Shadow Mountain This alignment was not within an existing transportation corridor and would have required extensive disruption to existing residential areas along Shadow Mountain and within the Aspen downtown area. The Midland alignment was eliminated because of financial constraints (excessive mitigation and property acquisition costs) and the negative impacts on the surrounding community. Additionally, as a transit alignment, the Midland corridor was not adjacent to major destinations in Aspen and would not have attracted the ridership necessary for proper function of the transit system since it would not have provided the necessary station opportunities between 7th Street and Rubey Park. The Midland alignment would not have reduced the number of buses on Main Street to the extent that a Main Street LRT alignment would, nor would it have helped to revitalize Main Street as a business corridor.
Two Highway Lanes This laneage option was screened out because, by itself, it did not meet the capacity requirements for future traffic demand. Only if TM Programs and significant transit improvements had been implemented would this option have met the capacity screening criteria. The two-lane option on the existing alignment also did not meet the emergency access objective. By itself, the two-lane highway option also would not have provided for future transit options and upgrades that are part of Aspen's Community Plan.
Three Highway Lanes Because the peak-hour distribution of the highway is approximately 50/50, a reversible lane would not have provided the needed future traffic capacity for both directions of State Highway 82. This laneage option did not meet the phasing objective.
Two Highwav Lanes and One Dedicated Vehicle and/or Transit Lane This laneage option was eliminated for the same reasons the three-lane highway option was eliminated.
Four Highway Lanes This laneage option did not provide the incentive for transit or carpool use that is essential if the traffic growth on State Highway 82 is to be controlled. Four lanes of unrestricted traffic would not be consistent with community-based planning goals. f 1 Commuter Rail Commuter rail is a mode that requires a fixed-guideway system and a separate right-of-way. A typical \ commuter rail system consists of one locomotive train car and several passenger train cars. Because of the t inability of commuter rail to operate efficiently in mixed-flow traffic conditions, this mode option did not a meet the capacity objective or the limited resources objective. Also, diesel locomotives entering the City 1 of Aspen would not be consistent with local planning objectives and community character. ti C Wire Rope Systems 0 Wire rope systems are similar to gondolas and chair-lift systems, requiring overhead cables and pole supports. The capacity and trips that can be served by this technology are limited. This mode was screened
Page 14 of 37 73 Record of Decision Attachment 3 State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen out because it was not acceptable to the Elected Officials Transportation Committee (EOTC) as an in town transit system visually, operationally, or financially.
Comparative Screening At this screening level, options that passed the fatal flaw analysis were combined to form alternatives. These alternatives were compared against each other to determine the most reasonable alternatives for full evaluation. The comparison was made using five factors that affect the options: operations, cost, safety, environmental considerations, and community acceptability. The remaining alignment options for comparison are listed below. Each option generally followed the existing alignment between Buttermilk Ski Area and Maroon Creek Road. The differences occurred between Maroon Creek Road and 7th Street and Main Street. • Existing This alignment follows the existing State Highway 82 alignment.
• Direct This alignment provided a direct connection between Maroon Creek Road and State Highway 82 across the Marolt-Thomas Property. The alignment first followed the Old Midland right-of-way, then curved across the Marolt-Thomas Property and connected with 7th Street and Main Street.
• Modified This alignment was a variation on the Direct Alignment. Instead of following the Old Direct Midland grade, this alignment continued on existing State Highway 82 to a point approximately halfway between Maroon Creek Road and Cemetery Lane. It then turned southeast to cross the Marolt-Thomas Property, and finally east to connect with 7th Street and Main Street.
• Combination This couplet alignment was a combination of the existing and either the Direct or Modified Direct options. Westbound traffic used the Existing Alignment, while eastbound traffic used either the Direct or Modified Direct Alignment.
These remaining alignment options for comparison were combined with the remaining laneage option and evaluated as either at-grade across the Marolt-Thomas Property or as a depressed cut and cover tunnel. The only remaining laneage option consisted of two general highway lanes and two dedicated vehicle and/or transit lanes. The two general highway lanes were unrestricted and available for use by any driver with any vehicle occupancy. The two dedicated vehicle and/or transit lanes were reserved strictly for use by the mode and technology options surviving the screening process. This laneage option was assumed for all alternatives in the comparative screening. The remaining profile options were the at-grade and the cut and cover tunnel. With the at-grade option, the roadway followed the vertical profile of the existing landscape to the extent possible. The cut and cover tunnel option was located on the Marolt-Thomas Property. The roadway dropped below the surface of the existing landscape and into a short tunnel approximately 122 meters (400 feet) long. The cut and cover tunnel option was combined with only the direct and modified direct alignments in the comparative evaluation.
Page 15 of 37 74 Attachment 3 Record of Decision Rec State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen Stat
The comparative screening analysis of the alignment, profile, and laneage combinations eliminated the All following options: Ade Existing solt The existing alignment between Maroon Creek Road and the intersection of 7th Street and Main Street EIS was screened out on the basis of safety and community acceptability issues as compared to other Tra1 alignment options. The safety of the existing State Highway 82 alignment would not have been full significantly improved because of the S-curves. Compared to the alignments across the Marolt-Thomas elin Property, the S-curves were expected to have a higher accident rate even with improvements to the roadway. The existing alignment also did not address the need for an alternative emergency access route in and out of Aspen. In a public survey of alignment preferences (September 1994 Public Open House), the existing alignment was chosen as the least favorable in comparison to other alignments. Direct Connection The cost and safety issues of the direct alignment were similar to those of the modified direct alignment. Both alignments would have had an impact on the Marolt Open Space Property and the Thomas Property acquired by the City of Aspen for transportation purposes. The direct alignment would have bisected the Marolt-Thomas Property and impacted several key open space areas, including the community garden and the landing field for hang-gliders. These areas would not be affected by the modified direct alignment. Additionally, the direct alignment would not have the community acceptability of the modified direct alignment. A survey conducted in fall 1994 indicated that the most desired alignment between the two was the modified direct alignment. Because of the more significant impacts to open space (as compared to the modified direct alignment) and the lack of community support, the direct alignment was not carried forward for additional evaluation in the DEIS. Combination (Existing plus Direct/Modified Direct) The couplet (one-way pair) and the split alignment (two-way pair) were both defined as a combination of the existing alignment and either the direct or modified direct alignments. Traffic flow on the couplet would have been one-way to the west on the existing alignment and in the opposite direction on the Marolt-Thomas alignment (Direct or Modified Direct). The couplet would have created significant operational problems for Cemetery Lane traffic wanting to head east on State Highway 82. This traffic would first have had to head west on State Highway 82 and U-turn where the two one-way roads merge together into a two-way road. This would have created a dangerous turning movement on the highway facility. The split alignment, or two-way pair, was similar to the geometry of the couplet, but the traffic on both the existing alignment and Marolt-Thomas alignment would have flowed two ways. This would have created significant operational problems where the direct/modified direct alignment and the existing alignment separate, and at the intersection of 7th Street and Main Street where the two alignments come back together. With the split alignment, general traffic would have been restricted to the existing alignment between Maroon Creek Road and Main Street. The dedicated vehicle and/or transit traffic would have been routed across the Marolt-Thomas Property. Operational problems could have occurred when traffic had to be separated and directed into appropriate lanes at the intersection of 7th Street and Main Street.
Page 16 of 37 75 Record of Decision Attachment 3 State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen
Alternatives Eliminated After Full Evaluation Additional analysis was conducted to determine the most appropriate and supportable transportation solution for the Aspen area. Alternatives passing the comparative screening analysis were brought into the EIS process for full evaluation. At the request of the Aspen City Council and the Elected Officials Transportation Committee (EOTC), several alternatives that were screened out were also carried into the full evaluation, including Alternative B and Alternative G. The alternatives discussed in this section were eliminated from further consideration after the full evaluation in the DEIS and the DSEIS.
Alternatives Evaluated in the DEIS Table 2 summarizes the alternatives evaluated in the DEIS. Initially, the alternatives in the DEIS were separated into two corridor sections. Alternative I (the No-Action Alternative), Alternative 2, and Alternative 3 were in the Buttermilk Ski Area to Maroon Creek Road corridor section. These alternatives generally followed the existing alignment to a point just west of the Maroon Creek Bridge. At this location, the highway would have been realigned north of the old bridge to a new bridge crossing Maroon Creek. The alignment then would tie back into the existing alignment near the Aspen Golf Course and follow the existing alignment to Maroon Creek Road. The difference between Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 was the separate transit envelope provided in Alternative 3.
Alternative A (the No-Action Alternative) and Alternatives B, C, D, E, F, and G were in the Maroon Creek Road to 7th Street and Main Street corridor section. Alternatives C, D, E, and F followed the modified direct alignment across the Marolt-Thomas Property. Additionally, Alternatives E and F consisted of a cut and cover tunnel section and Alternatives D and F included a separate transit envelope. Alternative B followed the existing alignment and Alternative G followed the couplet alignment. All alternatives in the DEIS included two general highway lanes and two dedicated vehicle and/or transit lanes. The exception was Alternative G, which would not have included the use of carpools in the dedicated vehicle and/or transit lanes. The mode options considered for the DEIS alternatives included self-propelled buses, electric trolley buses, high occupancy vehicles, and light rail transit. Community support is a major factor in the NEPA process. The alternatives in the DEIS were eliminated from further consideration because of a lack of support from the community and the EOTC. The laneage option for the DEIS alternatives provided two dedicated vehicle and/or transit lanes for any of the mode options, including light rail. Although the DEIS alternatives considered the future operations of light rail, they did not provide a detailed analysis of a light rail system. The consensus of the community and the EOTC was that further analysis of a light rail system was necessary. The absence of a detailed light rail analysis contributed to the elimination of the DEIS alternatives.
Alternatives Evaluated in the DSEIS
After the release of the DEIS, the Aspen City Council presented a new alternative (interim Alternative H) for evaluation. From the concept of this alternative, four separate alternatives were
Page 17 of37 76 Record of Decision Attachment 3 State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen
developed for full evaluation in the DSEIS. The four alternatives included light rail as the ultimate transit system in the project corridor. Because of the extent of the light rail system, the EIS project corridor was extended west to include the airport area and extended east to Rubey Park in Aspen. Table 3 summarizes the alternatives evaluated in the DSEIS. The Modified Direct and the Phased Modified Direct alternatives consisted of the modified direct alignment with a cut and cover tunnel. Alternative H and Phased Alternative H consisted of a couplet alignment. The phased DSEIS alternatives consisted of initially developing the system as phased exclusive bus lanes if local support and/or funding were not available for the LRT system. The Preferred Alternative in the DSEIS was the Phased Modified Direct alternative.
Table 2 Alternatives Evaluated in the DEIS
Corridor Section Number/Letter Alternative Buttermilk Ski Area to Maroon No-Action Creek Road *2 Existing Alignment *3 Existing Alignment with Separate Transit Envelope A No-Action Maroon Creek Road to 7th *B Existing Alignment Street and Main Street *C Modified Direct Alignment, At Grade *D Modified Direct Alignment, At Grade with Separate Transit Envelope *E Modified Direct Alignment, Cut and Cover Tunnel *F Modified Direct Alignment, Cut and Cover Tunnel, with Separate Transit Envelope **G Two Improved Lanes on the Existing Alignment and Transitway on the Modified Direct Alignment, At-Grade
* These alternatives consist of two general highway lanes and two dedicated vehicle and/or transit lanes. ** The transitway for Alternative G is for transit vehicles only and does not include carpools.
Page 18 of 37 77 Attachment 3
Table 3 Alternatives Evaluated in the DSEIS
Alternative Description Alternative H No Phasing, Couplet Alignment, At-Grade Modified Direct No Phasing, Modified Direct Alignment, Cut and Cover Tunnel Phased Alternative H First Phase Bus, Couplet Alignment, At-Grade Phased Modified Direct First Phase Bus, Modified Direct Alignment, Cut and Cover Tunnel
Other alternatives considered in the development of DSEIS alternatives included the "Highway and Underground Transitway Solution (HUTS)" and an alignment along the old Denver and Rio Grande Western (D&RGW) railroad grade. These alternatives were evaluated through the NEPA process and were found to be unrealistic and inappropriate for this project. Both the HUTS alternative and the D&RGW alignment were eliminated at the reality check screening level of the screening process. The Preferred Alternative identified in the DSEIS was the Phased Modified Direct. The alignment of Alternative H and Phased Alternative H were eliminated because of the greater Section 4(f) resource impacts (specifically the Marolt-Thomas Property). In addition, the couplet alignment (Alternative H) was originally screened out of consideration in the comparative screening evaluation.
Alternatives Evaluated in the FEIS
The phased approach to light rail (as described in the DSEIS) was originally dismissed in the FEIS because of a lack of support from the community and the Aspen City Council. This approach initially added cost and unnecessary disruption to Section 4(f) resources as compared to non phased alternatives. However, further development of the Modified Direct Alternative for the FEIS included the addition of a narrow, grassy median to create a parkway on State Highway 82. The addition of the median (at the request of the Aspen City Council) allowed room for the phased approach. Several options were evaluated in the process of creating the FEIS Preferred Alternative. The options included single-track or double-track LRT, the location of the LRT right-of-way (center running or side-running), Maroon Creek Bridge options, Maroon Creek Road intersection options, 7th Street and Main Street intersection options, LRT on Garmisch Street or Monarch Street, and lowering the vertical profile near 8th Street.
Single-track or double-track LRT Both single-track and double track were considered for the LRT alignment. The Preferred Alternative would have been double-track (except where single-track is necessary) due to greater flexibility of the system (schedule changes, etc.). The single-track scenario allowed less flexibility in scheduling headway than the double track scenario. Under the single-track scenario, if schedules fell behind, an LRT vehicle may have had to wait at a double-track section for an oncoming LRT
Page 19 of 37 78 Attachment 3 Record of Decision Re State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen St~
vehicle to pass. However, the opportunity existed for the LRT line to open under the single-track scenario and expand to double-track if necessary. The capital construction cost for the double-track scenario would have been about $35.3 million. The capital construction cost for the single-track scenario would have been about $32.7 million. Under the double-track scenario, the LRT line was double-track except in the following locations, which were single-track. • LRT Maintenance Facility to the airport • Maroon Creek Bridge • A point just west of the cut and cover tunnel to the intersection of 7th Street and Main Street • 7th Street LRT Station • 3'd Street LRT Station • Intersection of Monarch Street and Main Street to Rubey Park Under the single-track scenario, the LRT line was single-track with double-track sections only where essential to maintain proper headways between trains. These double-track locations were identified as places where LRT trains moving in opposite directions meet. The passing sections needed to be about 120 meters (400 feet) Jong. The essential double-track areas for 15 minute and 30 minute headways were: • Airport Terminal LRT Station • Just west of Maroon Creek Bridge • Just west of the cut and cover tunnel • Main Street west of the 3rd Street LRT Station • Rubey Park LRT Station
Center-running or Side-running LRT In the FEIS Preferred Alternative, the alignment of the track on Main Street was shown to be center-running. This alignment was chosen because of concerns over the contra-flow situation on Main Street and business impacts (due to possible driveway closures) with the side running alignment. Because of the community's desire to minimize the visual impact of overhead wires for the LRT, the LRT alignment on Main Street has been moved to the south-side for the ROD Preferred Alternative. The change from center-running to side running was made after extensive community input into the Main Street street-scape plan indicated the change was desired. Two options were considered for the location of the LRT alignment in the State Highway 82 cross section. The options included the LRT in the center of the State Highway 82 median (center running) or on the south side of State Highway 82 in a separate right-of-way (side-running). An alignment with the LRT on the north side of the highway was eliminated early in the process. The north-side alignment would not have served the transit-oriented destinations on the south side of the highway. The LRT envelope for the center-running option was in the center of State Highway 82. This alignment allowed unimpeded right-in/right-out access along the highway and would have required fewer LRT crossing gates than a side-running alignment. Left-turning vehicles on the highway would have been required to cross the LRT tracks at signalized intersections.
Page 20 of 37 79 Record of Decision Attachment 3 State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen
The side-running LRT alignment was in a separate right-of-way adjacent to the south side of the highway. This alignment provided better access to the LRT system for the transit destinations on the south side of State Highway 82. All accesses on the south side of the highway were either closed, or controlled with crossing gates. The Preferred Alternative in the ROD will consist of a south side-running alignment from the airport to the intersection of 7th Street and Main Street, because it will serve the transit-oriented locations on the south side of State Highway 82. The south side alignment will also be the Preferred Alternative on Main Street for the ROD. The side-running alignment may require the closure of several streets and driveways on the south side of Main Street. This will provide better access to the north side of Main Street, allowing left turns at all intersections for inbound traffic. Also, the south side alignment will place stations at the curb, which will allow users to access the LRT from the south side without having to cross Main Street, and allows cross-platform transfers to buses at 7th Street. In the center-running option, users from either side of Main Street would have to cross into the center to reach the stations. The south side alignment will cause the removal of trees that are greater than 25 centimeters ( IO inches) in diameter and within 3 meters (10 feet) of Main Street. The depth of construction for the LRT will impact the root systems of the trees on the south side of Main Street. This decision has local support, due to the age and health of these trees. The side-running alignment will require furnishings to prevent pedestrian/LRT conflicts. The furnishings may include a buffer zone with a post and chain between the LRT tracks and the sidewalk on the south side of Main Street. This type of furnishing helps to eliminate pedestrian crossings at unmarked locations.
Maroon Creek Bridge Four options were evaluated for the Maroon Creek crossing. The preferred option is the side running LRT on the existing bridge with a new highway bridge north of the existing bridge. The new bridge will be on the north side of the historic existing bridge and will not impact the private properties on the south side. In addition, a retaining wall will be constructed on the north side of the new bridge to preserve the existing Plum Tree Playing Field. The other three options evaluated for the Maroon Creek crossing were: I. Center-running LRT with new bridge south of the existing bridge - In this option, the cross section included a center-running LRT envelope. Both the highway and LRT would have crossed Maroon Creek on a new bridge south of the existing bridge. This option was eliminated because of adverse impacts to private property, a lack of public support, and because the center-running LRT option was previously eliminated. 2. Center-running LRT with a split bridge alignment - In this option, the center-running LRT tracks crossed Maroon Creek on the existing bridge, westbound State Highway 82 crossed on a new bridge north of the existing bridge, and eastbound State Highway 82 crossed on a new bridge south of the existing bridge. This option was eliminated because it would have required construction of two new bridges, impacted property on both the north and south sides of the existing bridge, and because the center-running LRT option was previously eliminated. In addition, the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) determined that constructing a new
Page 21 of37 80 Record of Decision Attachment 3 Record State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen State Hi
bridge on each side of the existing bridge would be an adverse impact on the historic Maroon Creek Bridge. 3. Side-running LRT with new bridge south of the existing bridge - In this option, the cross section included a side-running LRT envelope adjacent to the south side of State Highway 82. Both the highway and LRT crossed Maroon Creek on a new bridge south of the existing bridge. This option was eliminated because of unacceptable adverse impacts to private property and a lack of public support.
Maroon Creek Road Intersection Four options were evaluated for the Maroon Creek Road intersection: center-running LRT or side running LRT with either a signalized intersection or roundabout. The preferred option is a roundabout with side-running LRT. This roundabout will operate efficiently and experience less delay than the signalized options. It also will reduce the vehicle-LRT train conflict by moving the LRT tracks outside the roundabout. In addition, it will provide a more direct link between Castle Creek Road and State Highway 82 than would the signalized intersection. During the bus lanes phase, should this be necessary, buses will approach the roundabout in a dedicated bus lane, enter the roundabout in mixed flow conditions, and exit into a dedicated bus lane. Because the Maroon Creek Road intersection is surrounded by open space and a golf course, every effort was made to preserve as much of each property as possible. The design and placement of the roundabout minimizes the amount of right-of-way taken from each property and balances the impact. Shifting the location of the roundabout to the north or east results in a greater impact to individual properties and a greater total right-of-way take for all properties. The other three options evaluated for the Maroon Creek Road intersection were: I. Signalized with center-running LRT - This option maintained the existing signalized intersection with the addition of light rail and a second left tum lane in the westbound direction. Although this intersection would have had acceptable operation, delays would have been longer than for the roundabout options (see Table 4). In addition, this option would not have provided a direct link between Castle Creek Road and State Highway 82. Currently, the link between State Highway 82 and Castle Creek Road is via Maroon Creek Road. This indirect link creates traffic flow problems at the intersection of Maroon Creek Road and Castle Creek Road. These problems also affect the signal at Maroon Creek Road and State Highway 82. Part of the goal for this EIS was to develop solutions that will improve the operations of the State Highway 82 transportation system. This option did not fully address the problem of the Castle Creek Road, Maroon Creek Road, and State Highway 82 intersection. 2. Signalized with side-running LRT - This option maintained the existing signalized intersection, with the addition of light rail and a second left tum lane in the westbound direction. Although this intersection would have had acceptable operation, delays would have been longer than for the roundabout options. In addition, this option would not have provided a direct link between Castle Creek Road and State Highway 82. 3. Roundabout with center-running LRT - In this option, an oval-shaped roundabout served as the intersection of Maroon Creek Road, Castle Creek Road, and State Highway 82. Two different radii would have been necessary to achieve the oval shape. The smaller radii (21
Page 22 of 37 81 Record of Decision Attachment 3 State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen
meters [70 feet] inside, 30 meters [ I 00 feet] outside) would have been for the tighter curves, while the larger radii (82 meters [270 feet] inside, 91 meters [300 feet] outside) would have been for the flatter curves. Two-lane entrances would have been provided from all directions, two-lane exits would have been provided onto eastbound and westbound State Highway 82, and one-lane exits would have been provided onto Maroon Creek Road and Castle Creek Road. Traffic in the roundabout would have circulated at 25 km/h (15 mph). The LRT tracks would have crossed at-grade through the center of the roundabout. Although this roundabout would have operated well and experienced shorter delays than the signalized options, it was eliminated in comparison to the roundabout with side-running LRT option. The side-running LRT option was preferred because it will reduce the vehicle-LRT conflict by moving the LRT tracks outside of the roundabout, and also because side-running LRT was determined to be the most desirable option.
Table4 Maroon Creek Road Intersection Options
Approach Delay (Seconds)
Roundabout Signalized Entrance Leg Center- Center- Running Side-running running Side-running Eastbound State 0.7 1.5 12.8 18.8 Highway 82 Westbound State 2.0 1.7 24.6 24.7 Highway 82 Maroon Creek Road 3.6 3. I 24.8 24.7 Castle Creek Road 3.5 2.8 NIA NIA
Intersection of 7'h Street and Main Street Two options were evaluated for the intersection of 7th Street and Main Street. The two options included a signal and a roundabout. The roundabout was eliminated because placing a well designed roundabout at this intersection encroached significantly on nearby properties. The preferred option was the signalized option. This option is the most feasible and does not significantly affect the surrounding property. Intersection channelization will be included at this intersection.
LRT on Garmisch Street Two options were evaluated for the LRT alignment between Main Street and Rubey Park. The options were placing the LRT alignment on Garmisch Street or placing the LRT alignment on Monarch Street. The preferred option was placing the LRT alignment on Monarch Street. Monarch Street is centrally located in downtown Aspen, which provides LRT access to more transit destinations than Garmisch Street. The Monarch Street alignment also would impact
Page 23 of 37
82 Record of Decision Attachment 3 Reco State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen State
less property than Garmisch Street. In addition, Garmisch Street has a steeper grade than Monarch Street, and may have caused operation and maintenance problems for the LRT during The the winter season. prog1 carpc Lowering Profile near 8th Street verif: In addition to the profile that was used for the Preferred Alternative, another profile was bein! evaluated between the cut and cover tunnel and the intersection of 7th Street and Main Street. This option involved lowering the profile to reduce noise and visual impacts on surrounding structures. In this option, the profile was kept as low as possible across Castle Creek until it was required to come up to match existing ground at the intersection of 7th Street and Main Street. This option was not feasible because of the access impacts to the Berger Cabin. Under The this option, retaining wall would have been required on both sides of State Highway 82 proje th between Castle Creek Bridge and 7 Street. The retaining wall on the south side of State they Highway 82 would have closed off the only access to the Berger Cabin from the highway and by th adversely impacted the Berger Cabin Property. prop( Appe IV. Other Key Elements and 1 prope There are several other key elements to the FEIS Preferred Alternative that also apply to the ROD to ex Preferred Alternative. These items include the relocation of Owl Creek Road and West Buttermilk Road, Coun the multimodal facilities at the Aspen Airport and Buttermilk Ski Area, and the incremental transportation Secti, Management (TM) program. State Prefe Owl Creek Road descr As part of the ROD Preferred Alternative existing Owl Creek Road will be relocated along with West This· Buttermilk Road. The new Owl Creek Road intersection will be combined with access to the Buttermilk owne Ski Area and moved approximately 300 meters ( 1000 feet) east of the existing location. The new are 11 alignment will follow the base of the valley to intersect West Buttermilk Road. At this point, the new partic alignment will tum north to intersect State Highway 82 at the new signalized, channelized intersection. coord the p1 Multimodal Facilities A lea Multimodal facilities will be developed at two locations in the project corridor: the Pitkin County Airport Secti< and Buttermilk Ski Area. Each of the locations will accommodate a transit station (or stop) and parking facilities. The parking demand for each facility was determined based on the parking demand induced by the incremental TM program. The parking demand will range from 750 spaces at the Buttermilk Ski Area Wha to 3,600 spaces at the airport. The facility at the Pitkin County Airport will be used primarily by commuters with an Aspen destination. The Buttermilk Ski Area Facility will primarily be used by day The i skiers and other recreationalists. The size of the facilities may be reduced based on several factors refuge including actual population and traffic growth experience, transit service, success of TM programs, Sectic linkages to other communities, and increased downvalley parking facilities. Construction of the parking avoid spaces can be phased. for an • N • E;
Page 24 of 37
83 Record of Decision Attachment 3 State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen
Incremental Transportation Management (TM) Program The incremental TM program is designed to maintain future traffic volumes at 1993 traffic levels. The program will consist of incentives, disincentives, and supporting measures to encourage the use of transit, carpools, bicycling, and walking. The incremental TM program requires monitoring traffic volumes to verify the goal of maintaining 1993 levels. Depending on the degree to which the target traffic volume is being exceeded, varying TM measures will be utilized to reduce the volumes back to the target levels.
V. SECTION 4(0 RESOURCES
The Section 4(f) Resources Evaluation included with the FEIS identified seventeen resources in the project corridor. These resources and their owners are identified below and it is indicated whether or not they are impacted by the ROD Preferred Alternative. Nine of these resources are unavoidably impacted by the Preferred Alternative. Seven of the impacted resources are owned by the City of Aspen, one property is owned by Pitkin County, and one is a privately owned historic property. Appendix A is a Memorandum of Understanding among CDOT, FHWA and the City of Aspen to express and memorialize the understandings and agreements between these parties as related to these seven properties. Appendix B is a Memorandum of Understanding between CDOT, FHWA, and Pitkin County to express and memorialize the understandings and agreements between these parties as related to the County-owned Moore Open Space. Additional measures to minimize harm have been identified in the Section 4(1) evaluation, including review of design plans for portions of the preferred alternatives by the State Historic Preservation Office and the Aspen Historical Commission. The measures included in the Preferred Alternative are discussed in detail in the Section 4(f) evaluation and are identified below in the description of the Least Harm Alternative. This project and all alternatives under consideration have been coordinated with all Section 4(f) resource owners within the State Highway 82 study corridor. All owners of Section 4(f) resources on this project are included on the project mailing list and have received copies of newsletters and invitations to participate in formal and informal public meetings. In addition to the public meetings, several smaller coordination meetings have been held with Pitkin County and the City of Aspen representatives to explain the project's alternatives and impacts in greater detail. A least harm analysis has been performed to determine how to minimize overall harm to the affected Section 4(1) resources.
What Goes into the Least Harm Analysis?
The intent of the Section 4(f) requirement is to avoid impacts to public parks, recreation areas, wildlife refuges, and historic sites, unless there is no "feasible and prudent alternative." The first step in the Section 4(1) evaluation is to determine whether there is a feasible and prudent alternative which would avoid impacts to the Section 4(1) resources. An avoidance alternative may not be "prudent and feasible" for any of the following reasons: • Not meeting the project purpose and need. • Excessive costs of construction.
Page 25 of37 84 Attachment 3 Record of Decision Rec State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen Stat
• Severe operational or safety problems. b) • Unacceptable adverse social, economic, or environmental impacts. • Serious community disruption. • An accumulation of a lesser magnitude of the foregoing types of factors. If a Section 4(f) resource cannot be avoided, then a least harm analysis must be performed to determine c) how to minimize overall harm to the Section 4(f) resources. In performing this analysis the net harm (after mitigation) to the resources is the governing factor. The net harm should be determined in consultation with the agency (the SHPO in the case of historic sites) having jurisdiction over, or ownership of, the resource. The feasible and prudent alternative which does the least harm to the Section 4(f) resource must be selected for construction. Where there is little or no difference between alternatives in the overall harm to Section 4(f) resources, any of the alternatives may be selected. d) Discussion of Key Issues
The Section 4(f) resource analysis demonstrated that there were no feasible and prudent alternatives that completely avoided use of Section 4(f) resources that also met the purpose and need for this project. COOT and FHW A have proposed a preferred alternative that meets the project purpose and need and minimizes harm to Section 4(f) resources, after considering mitigation and the relative impacts to the affected resources. In the Section 4(f) Evaluation included with the FEIS, detailed information is provided that identifies the impacts of the various alternatives on the resources eligible for consideration under Section 4(f). The different alternatives affected the various Section 4(f) resources in different ways. As a result, the qualities and relative importance of the affected resources had to be considered in determining the alternative that met the purpose and need for the project with the least harm to Section 4(f) resources. Following are the primary issues and findings, derived from the detailed analysis described in Chapter II through Chapter VI of the FEIS, that have been balanced to comply with Section 4(f): a) An evaluation of all the build alternatives for the section of this project between the Pitkin County Airport and Maroon Creek Road revealed that the new Maroon Creek Bridge should be constructed on the north side of the existing structure thus avoiding impacts to privately owned property within this f) section of the project corridor. Placing the bridge on the north side of the existing bridge impacts approximately 0.6 hectares (1.5 acres) of the Zoline Property and 0.7 hectares (1.7 acres) of the Aspen Golf Course/Plum Tree Playing Field (including Maroon Creek Basin). An alignment on the south side of the existing bridge would have taken two homes and disrupted the site plan for a condominium I complex. s Placement of the bridge on the south side of the current Maroon Creek Bridge has proven to be ~ imprudent due to unacceptable adverse social impacts to properties on the south side of State Highway t 82. The north side alignment was developed at the request of the City of Aspen (which owns and I manages the Golf Course, Aspen Plum Tree Playing Field, and Zoline Property), Pitkin County, and in ( response to numerous public comments universally opposing the south alignment. Agreements have t been reached between the City of Aspen and COOT to permit the acquisition of a small portion of the t Zoline Property and the Aspen Plum Tree Playing Field (golf course) for the purpose of the 1 transportation corridor. With the north side alignment, the recreational qualities that qualify the Plum f Tree Playing Field for Section 4(f) protection will not be lost. 3
Page 26 of 37 85 Record of Decision Attachment 3 State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen
b) Evaluation of the alternatives in the Maroon Creek Bridge to Rubey Park section of the corridor revealed that effects to the Holden Smelting and Milling Complex would be avoided by keeping the alignment north a sufficient distance to avoid the historic district boundary. Berming will provide additional protection from any potential visual or noise impacts to this resource. c) Alternatives that include the modified direct alignment go through the Marolt-Thomas Property. A cut and cover tunnel has been designed for Alternatives E, F, Modified Direct, and the Preferred Alternative as a form of mitigation. The top of the cut and cover tunnel will be used as open space. These alternatives also convert a portion of existing State Highway 82 to open space uses; however, despite the return of some land to open space, there will likely be a residual impact to the qualities that make this property important that cannot be completely mitigated, such as residual noise impacts and visual impacts from the alignment. d) Alternative H resulted in a greater total take from Section 4(f) resources (Bugsy Barnard Park, Golf Course Property and Marolt-Thomas Open Space) than Alternatives E, F, the Modified Direct, and the Preferred Alternative after mitigation. The portion of the Golf Course impacted by Alternative H was a non-recreational portion that does not contribute to the recreational value of the property. Alternative H ran along the perimeter of the Marolt-Thomas Property which may have resulted in less of an imposition on the important qualities of the Marolt-Thomas Property and the Holden Property than the cut and cover tunnel alternatives. However, the view of the Marolt-Thomas Property and the Holden Smelting and Milling Complex from across Castle Creek may have been affected to a greater degree with this alternative than with Alternatives E, F, the Modified Direct, and the Preferred Alternative. e) The Preferred Alternative includes a parkway cross section (to the extent possible) across the Marolt Thomas property. The median section was added to the Preferred Alternative in response to a request by the City of Aspen made in May 1997. A formal comment letter on the FEIS (dated November 3, 1997 from the City of Aspen) indicated the City's desire to have "two widely-separated traffic lanes with adequate emergency shoulders ... and a double track rail platform." The median provided on the Marolt-Thomas Property varies in width from 3.6 meters (12 feet) with grass and landscaping to a textured concrete median 2.1 meters (7 feet) wide through the cut and cover tunnel to the Castle Creek Bridge.
f) The Preferred Alternative will include a roundabout and an LRT station at the intersection of Maroon Creek Road and State Highway 82. During the public comment period and discussions that occurred after the distribution of the DSEIS, the City of Aspen proposed that a roundabout be evaluated at the State Highway 82 and Maroon Creek Road intersection. COOT and FHWA have evaluated the 1 roundabout in combination with a light rail transit (LRT) station proposed for this location. An LRT station will be necessary at this intersection to service the high transit demand on Maroon Creek Road e and Castle Creek Road. The station will be located on the Moore Property for safer bus operations ancf y transfers between the LRT and buses. The LRT will bypass the roundabout as it enters the station. The d LRT station will take approximately 0.6 hectares ( 1.5 acres) of the Moore Property. This combination n (roundabout intersection and LRT station on the Moore Property) best meets the purpose and need for e the project as well as the stated community objectives. This alternative is acceptable for the exclusive e bus lane phase. This combination is included in the Preferred Alternative. e The roundabout intersection more clearly supports the following project objectives (refer to the FEIS n for more details on the objectives) when compared to the signalized intersection. Only Objectives I, 2, 3, 8, and 9, pertain to discussion on the roundabout.
Page 27 of 37 86 Record of Decision Attachment 3 Re State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen St:
Objective I Community Based Planning -The proposal for the roundabout was made by local city representatives through the community based planning effort associated with this project.
Objective 2 Transportation Capacity - The roundabout will increase the Level of Service (LOS) for this intersection over the previously proposed signalized intersection. The total delay will be decreased by approximately 90 percent versus the signalized intersection. The direct access for Castle Creek Road will reduce the congestion on Maroon Creek Road by eliminating the traffic volume added by Castle Creek Road accessing State Highway 82 via Maroon Creek Road.
Objective 3 Safety - Based on European studies, roundabouts are safer than signalized intersections. A roundabout is designed for entering vehicles to yield to g) circulating vehicles. The entering vehicles only have one direction of conflicting traffic, whereas at a signalized intersection there may be more than three directions of conflicting traffic. Upon approaching a roundabout intersection, the driver slows down and prepares to stop. At a signalized intersection, however, the driver decides whether to slow down or speed up depending upon the situation (each situation is different). The speed within a roundabout is low, the speed through a signalized intersection may be high if the driver did not have to stop. Based upon the above information, the accident rate and severity is expected to be less for a roundabout than the signalized intersection.
The Aspen Valley Hospital is located on Castle Creek Road. The roundabout will provide direct access to Castle Creek Road, whereas, a signalized intersection ( would have provided access to Castle Creek Road off Maroon Creek Road. A r direct route (one intersection) will be safer than a non-direct route (two 1 intersections). e A roundabout will serve as a better-designed intersection based on the layout of the three roads. The intersection of Castle Creek Road and Maroon Creek Road is Lea located approximately 35 meters (I JO feet) from the intersection of State The Highway 82 and Maroon Creek Road. With a signalized intersection, traffic on hOWf Maroon Creek Road may block the Castle Creek Road intersection, creating delays. The roundabout will eliminate this conflict. the ~ woul, have Access and operation of shuttle buses picking up and dropping off passengers at this : the LRT station will be safer with a roundabout intersection since the buses will objec travel through fewer traffic conflict points than a signalized intersection. One< Objective 8 Emergency Access - Emergency access to and from the Aspen Valley Hospital (1993 will be improved by the roundabout. The hospital is located on Castle Creek mana. Road. The congestion associated with a signalized intersection will slow (SOV other
Page 28 of 37
87 Record of Decision Attachment 3 State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen
emergency access to and from the hospital.
Objective 9 Livable Communities - The City of Aspen and Pitkin County would like to provide a system which reflects small town character and scale. A roundabout more closely fits this objective than a traffic signal.
The proposed roundabout will use 0.53 hectares (1.3 acres) of Section 4(f) resources. The signalized intersection will take approximately 0.13 hectares (0.3 acres) of Section 4(f) resources (Aspen Golf Course and Old Midland Property). The portion of the Aspen Golf Course property that will be affected is not an active use area and does not contribute to the characteristics that qualify this property for Section 4(f) protection. COOT and FHWA have committed to agreements with the City of Aspen (see Appendix A) to replace open space lands. g) The Preferred Alternative will include an intermodal transfer center located on the Moore Property. The center must be placed at this intersection to accommodate the high transit demand (schools, Aspen Valley Hospital, Aspen Highlands). The center must be placed on the south side of the highway for easy access for buses. The two feasible location options were either on the Moore Property or the Marolt-Thomas Property. Both are Section 4(f) resources. It would be easier to mitigate the Moore Property since currently there are natural berms/hills. Placing the station on the Marolt-Thomas Property instead of the Moore Property would impact the same amount of Section 4(f) resource, but would also create adverse social and traffic impacts. Buses and shuttles would be required to enter the roundabout and cross the LRT tracks when exiting the station. The terrain on the Marolt-Thomas Property is generally flat, which does not accommodate a berm. The operations of school buses and ski shuttles will be better with the center on the Moore Property. This is because the station access will be located on Maroon Creek Road, and the buses/shuttles will not have to enter the roundabout or cross the LRT tracks. The center will take approximately 0.6 hectares ( 1.5 acres). The Moore Property right-of-way impacts have been minimized from the previous alternatives' (1.6 hectares [3.9 acres]) layout by moving the highway and LRT alignment completely off the Moore Property, and by eliminating the parking from the intermodal transfer center.
Least Harm Alternative
The No-Action Alternative was the only alternative that avoided impacts to all Section 4(f) resources; however, this alternative would not be feasible and prudent since would not meet the purpose and need of the project. Implementing the No-Action Alternative has severe operational and safety problems, and would not be responsive to planning efforts of the community. Although the Preferred Alternative did not have the fewest quantifiable impacts of all alternatives that were evaluated in the Section 4(f) Evaluation, this alternative imposed the least harm of all alternatives that also met the purpose and need, and objectives for the Entrance to Aspen project identified in the FEIS. One of the primary objectives identified by the community was to hold future traffic volumes at existing (1993) levels. To accomplish this objective, all of the alternatives had to include transportation management (TM) measures. As a result, only those alternatives that combined single occupant vehicles (SOY), opportunities to park the vehicle and transfer to an alternative mode in an efficient fashion, and other incentives to use the alternative mode complied with the goals of the community. The Preferred
Page 29 of 37 88 Record of Decision Attachment 3 State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen
Alternative and the alternatives evaluated in the DSEIS are the only alternatives that complied with this objective and met the purpose and need of the project. Subsequent to the release of the DSEIS, the alignment of the new Maroon Creek Bridge on the south side proved to be imprudent due to unacceptable adverse social impacts. The property owners of affected Section 4(f) resources supported the north-side alignment. The south-side alignment created adverse impacts to properties located on the south side of the existing State Highway 82. Based on these impacts and lack of community support, this alignment was eliminated from consideration. The alternatives evaluated in the FEIS consisted of the Maroon Creek Bridge north-side alignment. The Preferred Alternative will use a combination of highway improvements, a transit system, and TM measures to meet the project purpose and need, and the project objectives. The Preferred Alternative balances meeting the purpose and need, and objectives of the project with the effort to minimize harm to Section 4(f) resources. The Preferred Alternative was chosen because it: a) Minimizes visual impacts to the Marolt-Thomas Property when viewed from Aspen near Castle Creek, the Aspen Golf Course, Bugsy Barnard Park, and the remaining portion of existing State Highway 82 near Cemetery Lane. b) Returns a portion of existing State Highway 82 to open space use. c) Includes a cut and cover tunnel across the Marolt-Thomas Open Space. d) Minimizes Moore Property impacts from the necessary LRT Station by eliminating parking. e) Limits future vehicle trips to existing levels while providing for future capacity. f) Eliminates the dangerous S-curves from the existing State Highway 82 alignment. g) Exceeds the requirements of the Clean Air Act Amendments. h) Improves emergency access. There are likely to be some remaining noise and visual impacts on the recreational qualities of the Marolt Thomas Property and the Holden Smelting and Milling Complex even with the proposed cut and cover tunnel and berming mitigation identified below. These remaining impacts will not interfere to a significant degree with the qualities that make the resource valuable. These noise and visual impacts that remain after mitigation are more acceptable than the noise, visual, and area impacts that would occur with the DSEIS Alternatives. The Preferred Alternative will include all possible planning to minimize harm, including the following: a) Relocation of the trail system where impacts cannot be avoided. b) Designing the Preferred Alternative with the least possible right-of-way width when impacts to Section 4(f) resources are unavoidable. c) Replacing any lost open space land or compensating the City of Aspen and Pitkin County for the reasonable cost of purchasing replacement open space land. Further details of this commitment are included in Appendices A and B. d) Incorporating a cut and cover tunnel and earthen berms to mitigate impacts to the Marolt-Thomas Open Space and the Holden Smelting and Milling Complex. e) Providing SHPO and the local Historic Preservation Committee (HPC) the opportunity to comment on the architectural compatibility and placement of the new bridge structures across Maroon Creek and Castle Creek.
Page 30 of 37 89 Record of Decision Attachment 3 State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen f) Having CDOT conduct a historic archaeological survey, excavation if necessary, and monitoring during construction in the vicinity of the Holden Smelting and Milling Complex and the Castle Creek Bridge. g) Shifting the alignment across the Marolt-Thomas Property as far north as feasible to avoid impacts to the Holden Smelting and Milling Complex. h) Providing SHPO and local HPC the opportunity to review and approve the berm design and landscaping plans in the vicinity of the Holden Smelting and Milling Complex. i) Providing SHPO and local HPC the opportunity to review and comment on street design and wiring plans in the vicinity of historic resources. j) Providing SHPO a photographic record, plans, and drawings of the Maroon Creek Bridge before and after modification. k) Minimizing LRT stations' footprints when impacts to Section 4(f) resources are unavoidable. l) Relocating the Berger Cabin back on the property and additional landscaping subject to SHPO review and approval.
VI. MEASURES TO MINIMIZE HARM
This decision to select the ROD Preferred Alternative includes all practical measures to avoid or minimize hann to the environment. The following mitigation measures will be incorporated into the project and implemented before or concurrently with construction. COOT is committed to the general mitigation measures listed below for the State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen Preferred Alternative.
A. Relocations The acquisition and relocation program for the State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen Preferred Alternative will be conducted in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended (I 989). Relocation resources will be available without discrimination to all residents and businesses that are required to relocate. No relocations are expected for the Preferred Alternative.
B. Recreational Access With respect to the multimodal approach of the EIS, a more friendly pedestrian/bicycle environment will be created in conjunction with the Preferred Alternative. CDOT will relocate, improve, and/or replace all existing trail/bike path facilities and sidewalks impacted by the Preferred Alternative.
C. Consistency with Local Plans Pitkin County's planning goal of complementing the rural character of lands currently undeveloped or developed at low density will be acknowledged wherever consistent with right-of-way requirements and local access requirements. This includes a narrow median serving as either a planting area or left-tum lane. Median design will be conducted to balance safety, aesthetics, and right-of-way width in the vicinity of open space and parklands. In keeping with Aspen's desire to slow traffic entering the city, traffic calming techniques will be incorporated into the design of the Preferred Alternative. These techniques will include a landscaped
Page 31 of37 90 Attachment 3 Record of Decision State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen narrow median, narrow Janes on Main Street, and a cut and cover tunnel section of no Jess than 122 meters (400 feet) in length across the Marolt Open Space.
D. Air Quality The air quality mitigation measures are in conformance with the PM10 State Implementation Plan (SIP) for Aspen, the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA), and subsequent regulations. The City of Aspen, Pitkin County, and COOT are committed to continuing implementation of current air quality measures that are included in the currently approved PM 10 SIP. Additional measures include use of clean sand for winter street sanding, frequent street sweeping on SH 82, minimizing construction activities during the critical winter pollution season, and pre-wetting cuts and fills, when necessary.
E. Water Quality Construction impacts to water quality will be mitigated by the following: • Adherence to the conditions described by the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Stormwater Permit. • Adherence to COOT Best Management Practices (BMPs). • The development and implementation of a water quality and stormwater management plan. • Use of water quality control and erosion control specifications. • The development and implementation of a spill prevention and emergency response plan. The water quality management plan will include erosion control measures and water quality enhancement practices. The spill prevention and emergency response plan will consist of plans for storage, handling, and use of chemicals and a detailed plan for emergency response in the event a spill occurs. Water quality impacts from the operation and maintenance of the Preferred Alternative will be mitigated primarily by the design of the drainage system. This system includes long drainage pathways with wide bottoms. In the vicinity of river crossings, drainage will be directed away from the streambed. Vegetation will be planted and maintained in the drainageways to enhance natural constituent removals. Runoff from above the project area will be intercepted and carried under the highway where it will be combined with highway runoff to promote dilution. COOT will continue using alternative de-icers on the State Highway 82 study corridor to minimize potential salt impacts.
F. Upland and Floodplain Vegetation Impacts on upland and floodplain vegetation will be minimized by mitigation measures that include revegetation of disturbed upland areas with dryland shrubs and grasses similar to the species removed during construction. In riparian zones and wetlands, special seed mixes will be used that have been developed for riparian and wetland areas. Displaced trees and shrubs, which are transplantable, will be transplanted from disturbance areas to areas where construction is nearly completed. Riprap protection at bridge piers will be buried and topsoiled to the high water elevation, then naturally revegetated to repair construction damage.
G. Wetlands Mitigation measures for wetland impacts will consist of: • Avoiding wetland systems and riparian strips to the greatest practical and feasible extent. • Minimizing loss of wetland acreage and trees.
Page 32 of 37 91 Record of Decision Attachment 3 State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen
• Using CDOT Standard Erosion Control Measures to stop sediment and pollutant influx into wetlands. • No stockpiling of material or staging of equipment or supplies in wetland or riparian areas. • Replacing wetlands on a one to one basis in suitable sites either along the highway corridor or in other locations. • Temporary fencing to protect adjacent wetlands from accidental construction equipment encroachment.
H. Fisheries Mitigation commitments for fisheries impacts include: • Avoiding damage to or removal of shoreline vegetation. • Revegetating according to CDOT Standard Erosion Control Measures. • Avoiding channel restrictions and channel destabilization. • Replacing pools and irregular bends where such existing features are lost. • Filtering runoff in settlement ponds or through check dams (hay bales) wherever practical. • Avoiding in-stream activities during fall months and early spring when resident fish are spawning. • Avoiding removal or damage to gravel substrates which are critical to the survival of fish eggs.
I. Wildlife COOT will cooperate with the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) during design of the project. The CDOW will review preliminary highway design plans and specific wildlife mitigation measures will be addressed at that time.
J. Floodplains To minimize impacts to floodplains, extensive longitudinal encroachments to channels will be avoided in the study corridor in the design of bridges and roadway embankments in accordance with 23 CFR 650A, Subchapter G, Subpart A. Buried riprap will be provided in design and construction phases to minimize eros10n.
K. Threatened and Endangered Species No threatened and endangered species have been identified in the State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen corridor. The application of standard CDOT erosion and sediment control measures will ensure that long distance impacts to federally-listed endangered fish, downstream in the Colorado River, will be avoided. No threatened and endangered species will be impacted in this project area.
L. Historic Resources Mitigation measures for impacts to historic resources will consist of:
Maroon Creek Bridge: The HPC will be given the opportunity to comment on the architectural compatibility of the design and placement of the new bridge. Design plans, drawings, and a photo record will be provided to the SHPO before the existing bridge is modified in any way to accommodate transit use.
Holden Smelting and Milling Complex: The Preferred Alternative alignment is north of the Holden Smelting and Milling Complex property. The SHPO and HPC will review and approve the
Page 33 of 37
92 Record of Decision Attachment 3 State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen
landscaping and LRT overhead wJTe design m the vicinity of the Holden Smelting and Milling Complex.
Colorado Midland Railroad: Efforts to minimize harm to this resource include designing the Preferred Alternative with the least possible right-of-way width for the new State Highway 82.
734 W Main Street: CDOT commits to a photographic recordation of this locally designated historic resource if adverse effects cannot be avoided. Efforts to minimize harm to this resource include designing the Preferred Alternative with the least possible right-of-way width where possible.
Smith/Elisha House: The SHPO and HPC will review and approve the landscaping and LRT overhead wire design in the vicinity of the Smith/Elisha House. Efforts to minimize harm to this resource include designing the Preferred Alternative with the least possible right-of-way width where possible.
Thomas Hvnes House: The SHPO and HPC will review and approve the landscaping and LRT overhead wire design in the vicinity of the Thomas Hynes House. Efforts to minimize harm to this resource include designing the Preferred Alternative with the least possible right-of-way width where possible.
Berger Cabin: Efforts will be taken to avoid the Berger Cabin in the Preferred Alternative. After consultation with the SHPO, the Berger Cabin may be moved away from the Preferred Alternative alignment, but remain on the existing property. The SHPO and HPC will review and approve the landscaping and LRT overhead wire design in the vicinity of the Berger Cabin.
M. Archaeological Resources The Preferred Alternative has been compared to alignments studied previously by the CDOT staff archaeologist. If any inconsistencies between the previous survey and the final alignment become evident, on-the-ground reconnaissance will be conducted as necessary. The reconnaissance will document that the final highway alignment has been adequately evaluated and that no archaeological resources determined to be significant by the SHPO will be adversely affected. Should any evidence of archaeological resources be discovered during construction, the work will be stopped in that vicinity until the CDOT staff archaeologist and the SHPO representative fully evaluate the importance of the resources. A historic archeological inventory will be conducted on the Holden Property and in the vicinity of the Castle Creek Bridge prior to construction.
N. Paleontological Resources If any paleontological resources are uncovered along the alignment corridor during construction, work in the immediate vicinity will cease. The CDOT staff paleontologist will be notified, and the material will be evaluated by a qualified paleontologist and coordinated with the SHPO.
0. Section 4(f) Resources A discussion of mitigation measures for impacts to Section 4(f) resources is included in the discussion on Least Harm Alternatives. These measures are adopted as part of this decision.
Page 34 of 37 93 Record of Decision Attachment 3 State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen
P. Farmlands There are no prime and unique farmlands, valued agricultural lands, or farmlands of statewide significance in the State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen study area. Existing irrigation systems impacted due to highway construction will be relocated and replaced.
Q. Noise and Vibration Residences and businesses in the downtown area will be impacted by noise when the LRT warning horn is used. This may be mitigated by using a quieter warning horn, or replacing the horn with flashing lights. A noise barrier has been modeled in the vicinity of the east landing of the Castle Creek Bridge to the intersection of 7th Street and Main Street. During final design, a noise analysis will be conducted. Any form of noise barrier will be approved by the area residents or business owners prior to construction. Residences and businesses along the project corridor may be subject to construction noise. Construction noise will vary depending on the activities involved. The noise is anticipated to exceed 90 dBA for short durations in some instances. Two measures that will be taken to minimize the construction noise impacts include restricting noisy construction to the daylight hours and requiring appropriate/good condition mufflers on all equipment. These measures will eliminate construction noise during sensitive nighttime and early morning hours, and minimize it at other times. No vibration impacts are created as a result of the Preferred Alternative and no vibration mitigation is necessary.
Visual mitigation measures will include:
• A cut and cover tunnel across the Marolt-Thomas Property. • A minimum-width landscaped median to visually separate the roadway lanes and lessen the feeling of an asphalt corridor. • Revegetation of all disturbed areas with natural species to reduce soil erosion and minimize color contrasts caused by exposed soil surfaces. • Adjusting the final roadway layout to save existing large trees and other significant groupings of vegetation. • Creating slopes which approximately match the existing slopes. • Using building materials which approximate the natural tones and textures of the area being traversed. • Adjusting the alignment to provide enhanced views and vistas for highway users to minimize the effects of unavoidable impacts elsewhere. • Using aesthetically pleasing poles, station designs, and embedded track pavement surfacing to reflect and enhance the landforms and character of the area where the LRT system is located. • Providing landscaped or grass-covered sideslopes and medians where possible within the LRT right of-way to soften the visual impact of the LRT tracks. These mitigation measures will directly benefit the design quality of the Preferred Alternative. In addition to increased design quality through enhancement of the natural setting, sensitive roadway design and etailing could also enhance project design quality. Horizontal curvature and vertical profiles can be djusted to provide visual interest for the highway user. Significant sections of retaining walls may be
Page 35 of 37 94 Record of Decision Attachment 3 State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen enhanced by the wall layout, texture, color and vertical profile; this may integrate with the landscape or accent unique natural or historic features, as well as building types and features within the project area.
S. Hazardous Waste Further evaluation of potential hazardous waste sites will continue prior to property acquisition and during final highway design, along with coordination with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), CDOT, and local agencies. The Preferred Alternative avoids potentially contaminated areas whenever practical. However, where avoidance is not feasible, a detailed site investigation (DSI) will be conducted. Necessary cleanup plans will be coordinated with appropriate agencies and landowners. The inclusion of environmental specifications in the construction bid package (such as Section 252 Fugitive Petroleum Product Management) may be necessary based on existing preliminary site investigation (PSI) data or based on any future investigative activities. Partial acquisition at the Pitkin County Airport will require underground storage tank (UST) closure, with soil and/or groundwater remediation, if necessary. Acquisition of right-of-way at the Holden Smelting and Milling Complex requires a more comprehensive study of soil lead (Pb) and arsenic values and remediation if necessary.
T. Construction During the construction of the Preferred Alternative, CDOT will utilize appropriate traffic management techniques to minimize delays and inconvenience to the traveling public. This may be done by phased construction of the transportation improvements and by restricting the timing of construction activities and limiting traffic stoppages to off-peak traffic hours. Whenever feasible, provisions will be included to minimize the effects on Roaring Fork Transit Agency (RFT A) buses. Construction delays will be limited to 20 to 25 minutes duration whenever possible.
U. Project Sequencing COOT will work cooperatively with local government to construct the following highway components of the Preferred Alternative as soon as funding, design, and right-of-way acquisition allows: • Maroon Creek Bridge • Maroon/Castle Creek Road and State Highway 82 Intersection • Airport Business Center to Buttermilk Ski Area, including realignment of Owl Creek Road and the signalized, channelized intersection at State Highway 82 and Buttermilk VII. MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT
Both FHW A and CDOT will monitor this project to ensure that mitigation measures contained in this ROD (and subsequent permits) are implemented. COOT has made a strong commitment to provide continuity of staff through a project management approach that integrates planning, design, and construction. Copies of this ROD will be provided to both responsible public agencies and CDOT project personnel. Commitments within this document will be implemented through the inclusion of these measures in the construction plans for projects in this area. COOT will maintain information on the implementation to
Page 36 of 37
95 Attachment 3 Record of Decision State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen r infonn the public or interested commenting agencies, upon request, of the progress in carrying out the adopted mitigation measures. The decision-making process will continue during preliminary and final design. In partnership with local g governments, the citizen involvement process will include a significant public outreach program, ), including the holding of Design Public Hearings where plans will be presented and comments received. .e As the design process continues, more detailed design decisions and more specific commitments will be ·e made to minimize both environmental impacts and impacts to adjacent land owners. IS VIII. COMMENTS ON FINAL EIS ;2 te A 30-day public comment period on the FEIS ended on August 31, 1997. The comment period was extended twice by 30 days. Ultimately, the end of the comment period was November 6, 1997. Over 900 letters of comment were received. th These letters, with responses to the comments, are included in this document as Appendix C. 1d Dd Substantive comments have been addressed in this Record of Decision.
IX. CONCLUSION
~nt Based on information contained in the FEIS and Section 4(f) evaluation, results of the project reevaluation :ed and this Record of Decision, I conclude that the decision reached on the State Highway 82, Entrance to 1es Aspen area project is in the best overall public interest, uses all practicable means to restore and enhance to the quality of the human environment and avoids or minimizes any possible adverse effects. Based on ted considerations identified in the Section 4(f) evaluation, I also conclude that there are no feasible and prudent alternatives to the use of Section 4(f) protected lands and that the proposed action includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the identified Section 4(f) properties resulting from such use.
; of
. ,, - .~ . and ~ 1vision Administrator, FHWA
W_\ADMIN\REPOR1\I 386.00\Rddraftl.doc this vide and noel. D the )Il to
Page 37 of37 96