HomeMy WebLinkAboutbocc.res.035.1977 :`�`� �r'` '
.,� s:
... . . .0 ... ., . ....„ �. . .... .r.. tttf:+.�.1:c_.�•"_iu�i��,.+ .,.�...:. .�tq.,, .: �����p �.
�� am�Qmuri �n m�nu�is of ��i�• 77 ,�,� �. .
. .���;�;;.
ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY CITIZENS ADVISORY BOARD FOR TRANSPORTATION
RESOLUTION N0. 77-,3,� ?
. i
PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Re: Recommendations on.Development of the Aspen i
Area Transportation System �
�
j
WE�REAS, Pitkin County and the City of Aspen received funding �
�
assistance from:'the Urban Mass Transportation Administration in July 1976 .for �
some $197,780.00 to study altemative transportation systems for �
,�
{
service in the Aspen area, and �
;
a
�
�
WtIEREAS, it was felt necessary by officials of Pitkin County �
w
and their consultant advisors to foxm a broad based Citizens Advisory y
4
Board for the purpose of providing citizen participation in the N
,:{
review of consultant and staff reports in the development of the �
;_.
alternative study, and '�
�?;
i:
i;
ty:
WHEREAS, on August 25, 1976, C3,ty Council of the City of Aspen :uu
and the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County did select 18 ;y
F:
individuals and organizations to be represented on this Board, and
t%
f.y:
i_
. WfiEREAS, on September 1, 1976, this Board was convened to 5�=
.3.
undertake a review of on- oin work and re orts, '���
g g p presentations and
reco�endations of the staff and consulting team, and i��
;::�
;,�
Wf�REAS, this Board was formed to include a broad-crosa !�°�t
.�.
S`,
section of the community interest to include the ski industry, k;
business community, United States Forest Service, Aspen Planning �'^
r.,, ,
and Zoning Commission, Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Co�ission, t
£a
• Snowmass Resort, Volunteer Environmental Protection Organizationa
;;�.
� to ]nclude the Sierra Club and Wilderness Workshop, League of Women �
''j t,
Voters,'down valley residents, the Aapen Valley Improvement Association,. x
� � t�"_
lodge owners and human and social interests, representatives from F
r"�.
�.
six key subcommittees of the Citizens Transit Design Caucus to 7�
y
�s
include: (1) Service alignmc�nt;. �2) Urban Des3gn. (3) Collector, `�
��:
(4) Local £inancing feasibility, (5) Alternatives reevaluation, and `�1
ir
(6) Patronage, and +'-�
�t:
'„
? .
,�,"-�,�:.
`.
�
+_�
'�'t;
� _ _
-��- -�- �. , . . ...a.,...:.^.'...�.'.:.:.u'y1.'.:Y�eel9'_:'L' ..� ,-. ..�wu���,. r�= �.�t f,
.. . . .. . _ . . . .. "+ �.
.�� �.41;
5�W�'
,.'.� �+��p��:;l�;�'.
Citizens Adoisory Board for Transportation "'""
Resolution No. 77-�j�
I Development of Aspen Area Transportation System i
1
�
i
�
WHEREAS, this Board did draw some i�ediate conclusions con- �
cerning the make-up and characteristics of the Pitkin County-Aspen i
�
Transportation problem, the reasons for its existence, and general t
�solutions to that problem with the proper steps to reach some problem
` solution, and �
3
a
_ �
WHEREAS, this Board finds that the transportation problem is � -
the result of an extraordinarily high auto dependency in the area as �
�
;1 a result of the historical physical development pattem wh3ch has �
a
� resulted in congestion, pollution, visual impact, noise, impact and :j
�
sprawl on highway 82. This impact is a result of both visitors and �
�
residents using the highway. This transportation problem continues F�'
.k
t�
�� to be exacerbated by: (1) increased stmm�er and winter visitors, :�
�� (2) growing residential gopulation with automobiles, (3) unbalanced �;`:
�:
7 ski slo e and lod in ca acit eneral travel �
p g g p y, (4) g patterns in the
1,{.
valley with much down-valley to Aspen travel, and
F;.
��
'�' vi
� `
� . Wf�REAS, it has been the finding of this Board that any ��.
- �'�
solutioa must include five basic components: (1) auto disincentive `
i�a
i.
i�
. � programs, (2) alternative mode incentives; (3) improved transit �'s
k. , �?:
sezvice, (4) innovat3ve funding, (5) rational land-use planning, and +•s"
.r �
� i�'
WEIEREAS, in the foxmation of this study four distinct steps
� ��
were,identified and undertaken: (1) analysis of travel chzracteristics, ¢�
.� �.t
(2) identification of disincentive options, (3) identification of E, .
( i;'t
transit options, and (4) the combination and evaluation of all of
;;i
� these elements, and F�
�
:v
�:`
fk
WHEREAS, it was the conclusion of this Board that all transit ="
,
='s
and transportation system management packagea be evaluated along the �?'
:i
�
following criteria: (1) transit ridership, (2) potential diversion ;�
_�
from automobiles posed by each of the alternatives, (3) traveler . =��-'
s�
benefits, (4) capital cost, (5) operating coat, (6) financial and
'�
political feasibility and acceptabillty, and ��
�4
W
:1
_ 2 `j
.
'j _ _ .. -�
. ....__._�._..... .._..._... ._,,. 4 r�r�rr�rirrra� � " � . . .
4 5
1�.7j', � � , . �
�'�. 1
� \�`.!,`..t�.:t...T • .
� �.. . . . . ... _.....� ..
s: '" ... . .. .
. . . _ _ " . . . . . , j .:;
.nN�'.�et.
���, '
��.Y'a:;^:
cY�p
Citizens Advlsory Soard for Transportation ,
Reaolution No, 77-,3,5 I
Development of Aspen Area Transportation System
• i
�
W�.'REAS, it was within this framework that five separate I
i
study components were undertaken with �ive aeparate consultants
responsible to Pitkin County staff and Citizens Advisory Board for:
• (1) mode altematives, (2) transportation system management, (3)
light rail refinement, (4) funding, and (5) overall study coordi- �
�
nation, and
WHEREAS, this study team did provide progressively specific
information to the Citizena Advisory Board and the general public
in the foxm of four public hearings and these hearings were used
as one way to receive comment, criticism and review by the general �
public cn the on-going progress of the study, and
WHEREAS, the proposed City/County Growth Management Plan,
serving as a measure of goals and objectives is a more concise
statement than in traditional long range community plans, was reviewed , �
by the Citizens Advisory Board, and
�
B.
WHEREAS, the study began with the identification of eleven �
�
potential transportation systems and did include: (1) null alterna- �
tive, (2) auto oriented alternative, (3) bus (mixed traffic), (4) �
bus on busway, (S) dial-a-ride or demand responsive bus systems, (6) �
�,:
trolley buses, (7) light rail transit, (8) personal rapid transit, �
(9) automated guideway transit, (10) monorails, (11) cable systems, �
ca
and �'
. Y,
5
� .
WHEREAS, it was against the Sackground of these eleven basic �
� j
altexnatives that an initial set of transportation system management �'
��
policies were'proposed and these included generally two sets of "��
� �
policies wa.th varying degrees of stringency and did include one
moderate and one strong set of transit incentive and auto disincentive
programs which focused on general areas of pre-arrival marketing, ;(
travel to recreational and wilderness areas, travel to lodging and �
enteztainment and a final area of general measures that could be �
�
taken to reduce auto dependency, and `��
_ 3 _ �
�
�1 �..
.: „�,
�,"'.
4`x.F��." ` ' . .
..�.�.ch�s^:":�.�: .
''-�'�. . ' .
.. _ . . . .' ........,.. . :,�.� . ..
_. .�. .:. ...:�. �. ......� . . ...._ .
- . .. . . . . . �.. . . -�.�`! C� �.
';Q F�Y' �yr"A!,
��f�y
•S����f':�
'riV..�.
�t.;Fy..
Citizens Advisory Board for Transportation
. �FJT�".'.�:
Resolution No. 77-� �
Development of Aspen Area Transportation Syetem ;
1
�
iWHEREAS, in addition to mode alternatives and transportation
system management, three alternative futures were cbnsidered with �
respect to land use planning and did include: (1) the city/county
f
growth management plan as currently proposecJ, (2) variations on �
location of new skiing for different degrees of balance in the Aspen �
and Snowmass areas, (3) variations on self-containment policies for �
skiing and other activities in the Aspen and Snowmass areas, and .
�
WHEREAS, in addition to the general alternatives outlined by �
the consulting team, two alternatives were suggested and studied �
by members of the Citizens Advisory Board. The first of these e
included a proposal for an electric bus system to be operated between �
�. .
.tlspen and Snowmass and powered by a hydro-electric system which vould
provide needed energy to recharge batteries on these buses and �
additional consulting help was solicited from A.T.E. Management
Company and a report was presented which generally characterized
electric bus technology as incapable of coming on line within a
reasonable time frame. A second general alternative involving i
stringent self-containment between Aspen and Snoa•mass was suggested, �
, studied and reported on by a subco�nzttee of this Board, and
�
�
73
Wf�REAS, after six months of study and rev3ew by the consulting }�
�
team and the Citizens Advisory Board, a final set of alternatives were e
identified and considered and consisted of: (1) the auto oriented �,
alternat3.ve, (2) the improved bus system alternative, (3) the busway `�
�
alternative No. 1 to include moderate automobile disincentives, (4) 't
Fi
�
a busway alternative No. 2 to include stiong automobile disincentives, �
,y
.�
(5) a light rail transit altemative No, 1 to include moderate automo-
bile disincentives, (6) a light rail transit alternative No. 2 to �
�
f
include stxong automobile disincentives, and �
ty
;�
WE�REAS, each of these six final candidate systems was analyzed . �
�
from the standpoint of capital and operat:[ng costs, ridership potential r
'r�.
and a general etatement of environmental impact, and `�
�
�
- 4 - �
,'s
:�
<:.,��,y
-,�;..,.,
;;;
T ' `
1�{ a�a .
�
. . , . . . .. . . .... .. ... . . .
M�.--. ' . - a �•. ��a
.. .. ..' �. ....� . . . . �r yyy;�
_���.�
.� �f,
�'1::-+�"i
Citizens Advisory Board for Transportation
..'ii??r, :
Resolution No. 77-.3.5
Development of Aspen Area Transportation System �
i'
. ;
WHEREAS, the week of February 21, 1977, was devoted to a series
i
of public meetings to consider these various altematives and feasi- t
9
bilities for operation in Aspen and Pitkin County, and �
�
• i
�
i
WHEREAS, each'of the six basic candidate transportation systems �
was analyzed with respect to the financing that would be required in
terms of both capital and operating costs, and �
� .
3
Wf�REAS, each was analyzed also with respect to fonal vehicle Y
. �
requirements, right-of-way requirements, total transit trips afforded a
s
both summer and winter, peak hour travel time between Aspen azid �
�
Snowmass for each system, and �
�"�'
�
WFIEREAS, it is a finding of this Board that the development �
�
of a mass public transportation'system presents an opportunity for �
�
"ll
substantial automobile travel reduction on Highway 82 with the poten- y
4�
tial for a 37X auto reduction at the peak hour at Castle Creek Bridge °�
. �;
` � with moderate disincentives and 57�L auto reduction for peak hour auto QF ,
,z
trips to Castle Creek Bridge with strong disincentives with both of '•,�,
r:
these on a bus-on-busway system for 1990 travel, and �
kr
' .�:
WfiEREAS, this Board fully recognizes that many inherent �
�'t
�
characteristics of the Aspen/Pitkin Cotmty community requires a r:�
�5
continuin trans ortation �$
g p program supported by all entities of the �'
co�nunity, and furthermore the primary problems to be contended r:
�
�
with are: ll
>s
(1) The inevita6le.amount o£growtti that.will.be real.ized as .a result �
`;;
- of the Snowmass development, (2) the high degree of auto dependence '�'�
;4
;;r which exists in the co�unity due to historical settlement patterns, h
� R
and (3) the overall pattern of activity in the valley, It is the a
conclusion of this Board that while mass transit may not present a �
�
�
panacea to the transportation problems of the Roaring Fork Valley, the �
recommendations herein are the first steps towards keeping pace with
the problem.and presents the potential for developing Aspen/Pitkin �
County as the most transit oriented co�unity in the United States. �.
_ 5 _ �
3
i� t :
..{ . . ... . . . . .. ��.. . :._�
'w�i+.�,2ib,i.�
,:
•���' -
.;' y -
'.;`�> ,``k°r,
.. �. _. . _ , _;:�....... .. . 1 ,
�� �;
�
F�J..
. � � .`5,..'
Citizens Advisory Board for Transportation .;�'�'
Resolution No. 77-,�/ }
Development of Aspen Area Transportation System �
. �
;
€
NOW, TIiEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Aspen/Pitkin County S
�
Citizens Advisory Board for Transportation does hereby recommend to �
3
the Aspen City Council and the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin �
County that the following five year program be imdertaken as a fitst �
Y
phase in what must be an on-going long term evolutionary problem �
�
solving for the area: -0
�
�
(1) Land Use �
(a) consistent with the Aspen/Pitkin County Growth Manage- - �
�.'
�
ment Policy P1an, it is recommended that Snowmass be r�
;�
developed in such a manner to provide all basic services `'�
�
g�
for a self-contained tourist and residential community, as y�,
u,
opposed to its continued reliance upon Aspen as the major �t
� � . . S`..- .
;�
commercial and service center of the Upper Roaring Fork �
�.
Valley. This self-conta3ned policy is further intended to �"
�
balance lodging capacity with skiing capacity, so that the s
�;,
visitor/skier travel demand is kept at a minimum, thus c�
J
a,
reducing the peak winter travel demand in the Aspen/Snowmass T
corridor, i;�_
t.
, (b) Implicit in a Snowmass self-containment policy is the =i
� e>
Gr:
requirement that the greater Aspen urban area develop its `
4�
own self-containment policy, c�hereby it balances its �
commercial space allowance to the size of its lodging �
i;
capacity which, in turn, is balanced with its adjacent � ''s'r.
r ,
�
ski capacity and aummer recreational activity levels. All ;�
ts
attempts should be made to e�cpand skiing capacity at both �;
ends of the Aspen/Snowmass corridor to insure a balance �
R}
- between ski capacity and adjacent beds, tt
:#
(c) To reinforce this concept, West pillage expansion and `�
�'s
East Village should be developed as auto-free villages; �
should any other development occur in the upper Roaring Fork �
�
Valley, it, too, shall be developed in a similar manner, �
�.,
(d) The current drafC of the Aspen/Pitkin County Growth �
• Management Policy Plan. prepared by the Aspen/Pitkin Planning �
�j
- 6 - �
�.
e
h
; �
,.
j . .�..__..._.._.. ....:..�.:• ., ...�.... . � . , . . .� . ....�. . . . .�.��.:��""� . , . �- '
�f.:{
, �
�;�, _
=;;:`if;:
, : .
, � ,. > _ . -
_ _, .- � ,,
y'-t�'rC��
ti �� '�1
� � r}�'�;-.
Citizens Advisory Board for Transportation "'f�`
Resolution No. 77-� �
Development of Aspen Area Transportation System !
�
Office, uses a 3,4X growth rate which appears to have an
overwhelming impact on the public's future transportation
responsibility and should be given further consideration,
(e) It is reco�ended that Pitkin Countq and the City of
Aspen analyze the cost of proposed development with regard- �
� .
to the publ3c liability incurred therein and, upon a clear I
I .
ahowing of the cost effectiveness, subsequently develop a �
1
County -Wide land acquisition/open space program, utilizing �
all possible local goverumental and private entities, plus
all available techniques, in order to reduce the future
transportation and public services impact upon the Upper
Roaring Fork palley.
_ �.
(2). _TransporCation'Management Plan �
(a) The basic objective of the Transportation Management �
L
Plan is to impzove mass transportation and discourage use �
of the automobile. �
(b) The ultimate goal is centralized management and main- �
�:
tenance for all transportation services in the valley. When p�
. . appropriate, the County appoint a transportation manager. �
(c) Zt is recommended that Pitkin County upgrade bus � '
. � . . ip�. � ,.
service as a preferred method of mass transportation �
�
- including service to down valley,
�
(d) An active p g �
pre-arrival visitor information ro ram ^f
�
shall be developed and maintained by the buc�ess "�
Y
communities at Aspen and Snowmass to encourage visitors �'
to azrive by means other than the automobile. �
(e) A series of experimental programs be developed to .`�y
�
�
`' attempt to phase-in a strong transit incentive program ��
�t
F
for purposes of reducinQ the 3mpact of the automobile of �
both residents and tourists. Each program will be evalua- �3
ted accordi.ng ta established criteria, Sample programs �
include, but are not limited to, the followi.ng; �
�, . (i). ..Sunwer bus service to Maronn Bells, Ashcroft, �
i
5
Independence Paes, and the Crystal and Fryingpan Valleys
_ �
- 7 - {�,
g
- . � .Zmandddr ���� � mtnu.l�s � ?•!l•77 a
.� ,
,� : _ ,: ,
�.. ._
: .,r�
ry¢ ,
r;. Ff� -
� - ��;r.':#.:_ . � .
.. ....,,,.
' _._
. . __. .�_. ..
. . _. . .:3� �+�:
. . . _ ... ; �4
'-:�::.
Citizens Advisory Board for Transportation �--'
Resolution No. 77-$S �
Development of Aspen Area Transportation System j
I
,
�
This Board strongly reco�ends that summer bus service i
�
to Maroon Bells be initiated in 1977, i
(ii) Phased closure of ski area parking lots. I
(iii) The development of intercept parking lots on ! ,
both the East and West sides of Aspen. �
(iv) Summer highway information system emphzsizi.ng
transit incentives.
(v) Encourage express bus service between Walker Field
and Stapieton International airports and Aspen.
(t) State Highway 82 be improved to safe standards as a
two-]rane facility, however, this improvement shall also
allow for the expansion to a four-lane facility in the
future, if necessary. The purposes are to i�ediately
improve the safety of the highway and to make the busway
the preferred method of travel. This should include
thoroughly planned improvement of Sfl 82 from Seventh Street
to, and including, Brush Creek Road. �
(3) Capital'Phasing PTan �
(a) Pitkin County develop an express two-lane busway, �`
�°
including buses and busway facility, from Aspen proper to �
the Aspen/pitkin County Airport. The alignment, to be �
refined in a preliminary engineering study, would generally
�`
parallel SH 82 along the Aspen/Airport corridor, with �
� ,
emergency access for the new Aspen Valley Hospital, as "a�
well as access to the Aspen Highlands and Buttermilk ski �
areas, and the airport, and rejoining SH 82 near the �
airport: �
,,;� (b) A maintenance facility be developed to provide for
�
adequate storage, maintenance and handling of buses for �
the immediate future, such facility being designed to �
�
accomodate future expansion, �'
(c) Also, as part of the capital phasing plan, property �
shall be immediately acquired and improved for park-and- �
ride and intercept purposes; potenCial locations are Emma
_ g ..
,�
;;
a .
:�
4
�'Y;i � - .. ' .
.. � �
_,':��` ;t ! u
_ - . ...J ,�y,:;
..T���_
� ���
Citizene Advisory Board for T.ransportation �'�'
Resolution No. 77-,� ,
Development of Aspen Area Transportation System
1
E
Road and Old Snowmass intersection with SN 82, Woody Creek �
Store, and East and West entrances to Aspen, '
�
�
Qd) Right-of-way be acquired as soon as possible for a �
;
possible second phase busway from the airport to Snowmass `g
t
,
tfirough the Ral Creek corridor. °
� .
�
(e) A further element of the Capital Phasing Plan is that '
SH 82 be 3mproved to safe standards as a two-lane facility,
�
�
� however, this improvement shall also allow for the expan- �i
C
€
sion to a four-lane facility in the future, if necessary. �
� .
�
This should include thoroughly planned improvement of �
SH 82 from Seventh Street to, and including, Brush Creek �
'.d
Road. �
_, ; (f) The Transportation Management Plan is an integral part �`
1�
of the Capital Phasing Plan. The benefits that justify �
the capital and eperating costs of a Busway Project are '� ,
�
achieved only if the Transportation Management Plan and �Y
;�
strong disincentive programs are fully implemented and ��;
�'
then maintained. �
�
;'x
e�
�4):' FixianciaY'PLan �
. . .. . f:.� .
. . . . . "�._,
(a) It is recognized that this community cannot afford more �.T
�,
z�
than a 20% share of the capital costs of the Busway Project �x '
without compromising its other public service responsibilities. �
�.
It is reco�ended that the County pursue a mix of State/Federal �
Highway Administration and UMTA funds to finance 100% of the �,
h
capital costs of the Busway Project as a demonstration af �
joint funding by the various state and iederal transportation �
4�
_ agencies. ,�
. - .. . . � �','s
(b) Furthermore, it is recommended that an i:ndependent �
� s`�.
analysis be made of the benefits derived by all local public �
�
� and private entities, and that a financial breakdown of any �
local match be developed, with local governments and industry �
part3cipating accordingly. • �
�
� � � �
�
' 9 ' �
4V
,' P
. .,._,.. ._...: .._.. . .......... ...... .... : ::
.. _ ..... .. .,.., . ....._ . . ....
� .. :.:-..,�:-.. ..,: , .:.: ,:::., .�.�,.. . ...._. . . . .. �. . . .. . .. .
a
;i
� f
17F � '
[r
�,''� �x��: � . .
. .o-.-. . .. ..._' �_. _ - ... .. . � . ..
. .'". u _ . .� �. � . . i?Af6W:�`•...-. y .� 4 t+,�
� r:';*cq�1�.
'_�r`.::�.�..
4+',.XS::..
I G4�,:.
��Pp„..
Citizens Advisory Board for Transportation
Resolution No, 77-� ;
Development of Aspen Area Transportation System � �
I
�
(5) Summer Destination Resort Plan +
(a) In order to encourage transit use by the summer visitor
and to reduce impact of the short-term auto-user, it is �
reco�nended that the Aspen and Snowmass business interests
develop a program to attract destination resort-oriented
suu�er visitors, promoting the two co�¢unities' attractions,
and that the two business comununities continue to work with -
City and County government for support and assistance in
achieving this plan, It is imperative that the government
and private intereste take an active role in developing
public facilities necessary to develop this area as a destin- �
ation resort. Examples of su�er destination resort
facilities and advance marketing would include a performing
arts/conference center. �
(6) ' Future Technologies
�
(a) The County should take advantage of changes in tech- �
nalogy that are non-polluting and energy-saving. �
(7) Comuiunity PaYC3cipation �
(a) It is recommended that representatives from the �
Citizens Advisory Board be allowed to continue their role i:
rs
as the provider of public input into the County's Trans- �:
portation efforts, particularly in the development of a �
County-W1de Transportation Development Plan and in any �
design development study likely to occur on the Busway �
�.
.
r
:Project. �'.
(b� Conceptual agreement from the skiing corporations, �
'=� Snowmass and Aspen supportive of a staged implementation
of the Transportatlon�Management Plan shall be secured.
�
� Approved this'�day of ' /f�,f/(�fj ' , 1977.
�,.i f /
`:.
Wiltoa Jaffee, r., � aixma�
_ 10 -
_ �
� .
�i .,,;, ...... .. _.
.. . :t��-��Y .
f f:� �
�t1�>F� _ �
�.
:�? �'1
- yw. .
.:;,. .., . , . . .._ __ ..
. �k A�,,
, ��-
�A'
'��r
Citizens Advisory Board for Transportation
Resolution No. 77�
Development of Aspen Area Transportation System
f:i� �3 2'�.,,�U
f��•���\ ' `'�y . ` { � ti._Y�_v„��+�
� ' ~ �:. r} � ���
�a''.;C'�•, •��'�y �� V Jim ladams, Vice-Chairman
�qr';�� p � 1 d
}'
k �a Ei � �� �
�,•:. � .. � .
�t�i,�a-,-'�'' ;'i. - . . �_
�f`�r.�l0 '��`
. _ � Q�i�`rk• C.aG�:�e..� i `
County Clerk and Recorder
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
4��/ilr�a�i �
and'"B - ra M: .Stu' 'er
County Attorney
Adopted and Accepted this 28th day of March, 1977, by the Board
of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado. ,
- � `
. .. ��
Mic ael Rihis ey, Chairman
�d,��T��/ . ���
Robert W. Child, Co�issioner
osep war , , Coimniss er
(
I
I,
i :
�_
1
_ '
; :
- 11=
.. 3
� „ _. _ ... . , ...
, �_<_�.. : .,...<,, _.:- �. , . . . .
`_�,:>
,�..-.,Yu