100 Leaves RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS FOllM'~ C. F. HOECKEL B. B. !!< L. CO. August 31, Aspen Planning and Zoning Study Session 1971 M. with James at 5: 00 P. order by Chairman Robin Molny Manager Leon Also City Jordan. present James Breasted III and Anthos Adams, Bartel. Wurl and City/ County Planner, Herb Meeting was called FothergillCutting Zoning to Fothergill/ Cutting Annexation Zoning - Commission request and inform her the the Secretary contact Mrs. Cutting 15 Ris zoning which would Commission the of consenS~ Master Plan. If she has any require amendment to the let the Commission know as objection to this, please possible. as soon Street Street Circula tion route Circulation - Bartel Mr. from the hospital mitted to the Commission explained and Gibson Avenue an alternate area as sub- last week by Councilman Whitaker. through Alternate route would include another brige, Street. with Original Flats area and connecting Oklahoma schedule a hearing on Commission request the Secretary circulation plan as the this item as an amendment to Plan. Hearing Master included in the comphrensive also request Commission 21st. for scheduled September of this hearing. Whitaker the Secretary inform Councilman Water Capital Improvements Wurl outlined Capital Improvements - City Manager Maroon Creek which for the proposed capital improvements to a size that include enlargement of the present pond a 16 million and million 13 gallons would accommodate Water This construction is scheduled in engoiating stages with gallon per day reservoir. Presently to begin in 1974. Aspen Post and Herrick ditch people. to the Commission how importCity Manager Wurl emphasised their existing water ant it is for the City to protect water rights, especially additional rights and to obtain of the rights A River. portion large Fork on the Roaring Ditch Salvation the are owned by on the Roaring Fork people and It pointed was hand water they have received offers out for their rights. should work Discussed bringing the projected growth policy in hand with the water. from the eastern slope back to the western slope. a transmission line and resThis next for year on Red Mountain. ervoir are planned the allover City. is necessary to balance the pressure City Manager Wurl reported he, the Planner and basic probThere isn' t Uhlfelder - Chairman Molny reported all they could, Building Inspector have done lem was a mistake by the building inspector. is in the stages much that can be done once a building Mr. Uhlfelder to to Did get manage of construction. agree to put the utilities underground. Commission Bartel request the Planning and Zoning the in Hearing an zone AF for City. schedule a hearing Mr. to be held 0......-.---...... on September 21st. 100 Leaves RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS FOIIIMIO C. F. HOECKELB. B.! lL. CO. Study Session, RSA, 8/ 31/ 71 Jordan moved Breasted. All to in adjourn favor, at 7: 00 P. M., seconded by meeting adjourned. If:::: a:~ ocrotary n.,_' 1'7'5?1 STREET, DENVER, COLORADO 80218 TRANSPORTATION AND PLANNING HIHGTON DC. ll DENVER l1 ORLANDO TORONTO BUFFALO h. r. V. .. 303/321-3020 \f ;muii??! .. t/Ski {Lu?3 E\l;j v. ALAN . a: mc. September 1, 1971 Herbert Bartel Planning Director City of Pitkin County P. O. Box '_Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Mr. Bartel: The attached report briefly summarizes our preliminary conclusions and reconintendations concerning the ?Immediate Action" traffic considerations for the central area of A5pen. Specifically, our recommendations include three Subjects: traffic signals, one?way streets, and pedestrian crossings. The recommendations we have offered in the attached report represent our best thinking to date on the subject of immediate traf?c-operations These recommendations should be considered preliminary, however, until such time as the long?range factors have- been adequately explored, and there are reasonable assurances that the short?range improvements fit plans for traffic and transportation improvements in Aspen that may be considered later in the study. Ve ry truly your 5, Robert E. Leigh Regional Manager ST.LOIJIS r1 CARACAS ll ATLANTA ll LOSNIGELFS HEW II CHICAGO r1 PHILADELPHIA Preliminary Report 5. AN IMMEDIATE ACTIQEN - CENTRAL AREA or ASPEN August 31, 1.971 VBACKGROUND 1 I. During the month of August, 197-1, an extensive program of traffic counting alas initiated in order-to obtain current traffic data on all streets. in the central area of ASpen. These counts included some . twenty-four hour counts and hourly tiirning??n'iovement intersection counts at twenty?one street intersections in? the central area. ?The traffic counts verified that traffic in Aspen is concentrated on Main Street east of Hunter Street, on Mill Street between Main and Cooper Streets, and to a lesser extent, on Cooper Street between Mill and West End Streets-and on Galena Street between Cooper and, Main Streets. Because of'the concentration of traffic at Mill and Main 7 Streets and because of the large number of' turns that take place at this intersection, there is some congestion and traffic back?up ion . Mill Street south of Main Street. lnaddition, there are continuing - conflicts between peclestrians attempting to cross Main Street and east-west traffic on that street. To a lesser extent, there are other locations where pedestrian traffic conflicts with vehicular traffic Q- but the problem is not as severe as it is at Mill and Main Streets. Figure 1 shows the present traffic volumes on all streets in-the downtown area and the pedestrian volumes at major street crossings. ALTERNAT IVE SOLUTIONS A number of traffic solutions are pOSSible to improve'the traffic situation-in Aspen. Two alternative types of Solutions appear to offer the greatest possibilities for solving eXisting and future traffic problems in A3pen. These are (1) traffic signalization at major intersections, and (2) a system of oneavay streets throughout the . central 35 area. A combination of these two types is also possible. A. Traffic Sivnals IThe Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, published by the Bureau of Public Roads, U. S. Department of Transportation, lists six warrants for the signalization of street intersections. The-Se warrants are as follows: 1- Miniinum vehicular traffic volumes which would require there be. at least six hundred vehicles per hour on the major street for any eight hours Iof a day and that for the sal?ne eight hours there Inust be at least 15f) vehicles per hour on the intersecting streets. (Seventy percent of these I fee." i 3i . . - values are allowable for isolated urban areas of less than 10,000 people.) - interruption of continuous traffic which requires that for." any eight hours ofa day, there be at least 900 vehicles per hour on the major street and for the same eight hour period at least 75 vehicles per hour on the minor cress- 'street. The minimum pedestrian volume warrant is satisfied when I. for each of any eight hours of the day, there are at least as many vehicles on the main street as Warrant No. 1 and there are at least 150 or more pedestrian crossings per hour for the same eight hour period on the highest - volume crosswalk crossing the major street. (There are additional refinements of this. traffic signal warrant.) The progressive movement warrant for traffic signals, which is considered in order to maintain proper groupings of vehicles and effectively regulate'group or platoon speed, when, in an otherwise established'signal system, traffic signals are so far apart as to lose the desired degree. . Warrant No. 5, the accident experience warrant is based on accident experience record. Warrant No. 6 is a combination of all other five warrants. I . . . . Under this warrant, 1f no one single warrant IS met, but two or more are satisfied to the extent of eighty percent of the stated values, Warrant No. 6 is met. . Preliminary evaluations of the traffic volume data for Aspen, the -. ?accident experience records, pedestrian crossings and other factors indicate that only the inte1 section of Mill and Main 5121 eets meets signal installation warrants to the sufficient degree to allow signals to be installed there. ?In a signal warrant study conducted by the Colorado Department of Highways, in September, 1970, warrants for signalizati'on at the intersection of Mill and Main Streets proved sufficient to allow the ,v installation of signals at this intersections. Although a traffic signal installation at Mill and Main Streets would undoubtedly facilitate easier traffic flow on Mill Street, eSpecially the left turns from Mill Street to Main Street, we do not believe that one signal installation at the. rnost heavily used intersection will solve all. the transportation problenis of Asoen's central area. 'll?he short-terni results of a signalized intersection at Mill and Main Streets will be to impr ove the operation of Mill St leet and to slow I . traffic on Main Street. In the long run, however, the effect of this 'signal will be to increase the congestion of this intersection because of an increased concentration of traffic the re. I If the City desilres to institute a program of traffic signals, we believe such a system 'slioulcl include signals at the following intersections: Main and Garrniseh, Main and Mill, Main and Spring, and Cooper and mfg,- 1 .. . .. ~25. .. 5? Original. These four allow orderly I progression of_ traffic along U. S. 82 and wo ulhd provide at least three major intersections along Main Street where cross street traffic could operate easily. The four signalized intersections suggested could be interconnected to a master located at the intersection of Mill and Main Streets. Signal progression could be timed for a Speed of 25? 30 miles pe1 hour and signals set at la sixty?second cycle length. The signals at Mill and Main Streets could include a pedestrian phase of maximum 17 seconds to allow pedestrians to cross Main Street. - . While the cost of installing these signals probably-would be borne by the- C0101 ado Highway Department, it is well to have some approx? imation oi- their costs. A minimum installation, including signals Span wires, would probably range from $5000 to $6000 per intersection. Traffic actuation devices (loop detectors) would cost I about $1000 per inter section. Interconnection of the signals through the use ofoverhead wires would p1 obably run an additional $1000 per intersection. Ahigher type installation, including mast arms rather than Span wires, probably would cost about $12, 000 per intersection. Local c0 for the signals would include electric power and main? tenance of the signals themselves. Power costs would probably average $250 to $300 per intersection per year, and maintenance would average $500 to $600 or intersection or car. . My?; . u. u. E. One?Way Streets Oneuway streets in the central area of Aspen would have- the advantage-of simplifying intersection turns by merely cutting deWn on the number of turns possible. l'lThis would eliminate. some- 'congestion and provide a greater degree of safety for pedestrians. A second major advantage of one-way streets is that they tend to spread the traffic load over several streets, thereby reducing the concentration Elf-traffic on a small number of streets. One-way operations also I increase the capacity of streets and are relatively simple to effectuate. Several one?way Systems are possible for the central area of One suggested by the Colorado Highway Department includes a one? way-reciprocal pair system designating Hopkins Street one?way westbound and Hyman Street one?way eastbound; This pair vvould extendg?fr om Original Street on the east to Third Street on the west. . Another'oneLway system is possible utilizing the northusouth streets. A number of combinations are possible in this area but a'key street in the one?Way system must be Mill Street, the most heavily travelled ?north-s0uth "street in the city. -. RECOMMENDATIONS It is'recommended that ASpen implement the one?way system suggested in Figure 2. The basic elements of this one?way plan are the establish? ment of a ?core area" surrounded. by a peripheral System of twonway 1 Wendel,? - . .M. . a was." u- A. - streets, and an interior system of one-way streets within the core. Twoaway streets include Main Street on the north, Original on the east, Durant on" the south and Garrnisch on the west. Main Street the most heayily travelled of these four, would provide two traffic lanes in each direction with left?turn lanes on alternate blocks. Other two-way streets 'would be one lane in each direction. In the interior of the core area, one-way east?west streets include Hopkins eastbound and Hyinan westbound. 1n the north? South direction, three one?way reciprocal pair. systems - are proposed. These include Aspen and Monarch, Mill and Galena, and Hunter and Springs-Streets. The most important one- -way pair in the north?south direction would be Mill. and Galena Streets. Each of these streets is proposed to extend beyond the north and south confines of the core area of Main and Durant. On the north Mill and Galena would 5' join in the vicinity of the present Mill Street bridge (the Optimum plan). 0n the south, Mill and Galena would extend at least to Dean Street, and possibly further south. . To illustrate the traffic advantages of the one?way System, Figure 3 has been prepared. It shows the probable readjustment of 1971 traffic. to the one-way system. As indicated, traffic is reduced substantially on Main Street :and increased on Hopkins and Hyman. Traffic is also increased on Garmisch, Durant and Original-Streets, all of which have sufficient capacity to handle increased traffic loads. Heavy left turns that new take place on Mill Street into Main are distributed among "a Monarch, Galena, and Spring Streets, alternate block locations, -where they do not conflict with left turns from Main into the cross Streets. The provision of one-way cross streets also allows construction of planter median islands on alternate blocks at very appropriate locations: across from Paepcke Park, across from the Jerome Hotel, . . I and across'from the Pitkin County Courthouse. These planter medians could also serve as pedestrian refuges for pedestrian crosswalks across Main Street. In the one?way system, Cooper'Streget remains two~way and could be appropriately down-graded as a major traffic carrier. As shown, the block between Mill and Galena on Cooper could easily be closed '5 or it could be altered to discourage through traffic use (Such as a' provision of more diagonal parking on both sides of the street).