Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board Special Meeting 2016-11-29Prepared 11/16/16 TOVXN OF ESTES P The Mission of the Town of Estes Park is to provide high -quality, reliable services for the benefit of our citizens, guests, and employees, while being good stewards of public resources and our natural setting. The Town of Estes Park will make reasonable accommodations for access to Town services, programs, and activities and special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call (970) 577-4777. TDD available. SPECIAL TOWN BOARD MEETING BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK Event Center, Fairgrounds — 1125 Rooftop Way Tuesday, November 29, 2016 6:00 p.m. AGENDA PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. (Any person desiring to participate, please join the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance). 1. ACTION ITEMS: 1. DOWNTOWN ESTES LOOP CONCURRENCE TO PROCEED. • Project Team Presentation • Public Testimony — (3 Minute Limit) • Board Discussion • Motion to Approve/Deny 2. ADJOURN. NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. Memo To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa Board of Trustees From: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator Greg Muhonen, PE, Public Works Director Date: November 29, 2016 RE: Downtown Estes Loop Concurrence to Proceed Objective: Confirm the Town Board's support for, or opposition to, completing the final design, right of way acquisition, and construction of the proposed funded phase of the Downtown Estes Loop (DEL). Present Situation: • Traffic congestion in downtown Estes Park during the peak visitation period from June to October continues to produce excessive vehicular delays, noise, air pollution, driver frustration, and conflicts between motorists and pedestrians. This worsens each year as visitation increases. This diminishes the experience of guests visiting Estes Park and results in increased visitor and resident complaints. • The Town of Estes Park received recommendations to modify the downtown traffic circulation with a one-way couplet on Elkhorn Avenue, Moraine Avenue, and Riverside Drive in the 2003 Estes Valley Transportation Alternatives Study and in the 2012 report from the Transportation Visioning Committee, which was largely comprised of community members and organizations. This project would implement those recommendations. • Guided by public input received at several public meetings, the Town Board voted on March 26, 2013 to submit an application for a Colorado Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) grant in the amount of $13 million specifically for the one-way loop. The application referenced the need for a future downtown transit facility parking structure. Funding was not requested for the parking structure in this application due to concern that the great increase in project cost and additional private property acquisitions would cause the application to be denied. A phased approach to seeking the total project funding through several separate future grant applications was believed to be a more successful strategy. 2 • The 2013 application was successful, resulting in the mayor signing the Project Agreement with The Federal Highway Administration's Central Federal Lands Highway Division (CFLHD) on February 24, 2014. This agreement obligates CFLHD to pay about 75% of the project cost and Town (using CDOT funds) to pay about 25% of the project cost. Additionally, it requires the Town to repay expended funds if the Town chooses to not proceed with the project. As of August 2016 approximately $1.6 million had been spent on this project. • On December 9, 2014 the Town Board voted to enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement with the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) to accept $4.2 million from CDOT to provide local matching funds required per the terms of the FLAP grant. • On April 15, 2015 the Town Board reaffirmed its support of the project when it voted to continue forward with the CFLHD-initiated National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process for the one-way couplet (Proposed Action) and No Action alternatives. • On June 20, 2016 CFLHD sent a letter advising the Estes Park Public Works Department of CFLHD's intent to make a Section 4(f) De Minimis determination based on the environmental evaluation documented in the draft Environmental Assessment (EA) specific to Baldwin Park and Children's Park. De Minimis determinations require public opportunity to comment, review and consideration of comments received, and concurrence from the official with jurisdiction over the park land (in this case, the Town of Estes Park). During the EA and Section 4(f) public comment period we received 253 comments from 229 commenters. This included about a dozen comments regarding Baldwin and Children's Parks, including eight about the increases in traffic and noise and four about the loss of shade and green space, as well as three additional comments about the meaning of the De Minimis finding. • On July 20, 2016 CFLHD presented to the public the findings of the EA during the 30-day public comment period. A tabulation of the comments received is attached, along with project team responses to common comments. The next step in the environmental process is for CFLHD to issue a decision document. A Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is anticipated. • On August 16, 2016 the Town was informed that the Colorado Federal Lands Access Programing Decision Committee (CO FLAP PDC) denied the Town's funding application for the proposed Moraine Avenue Multimodal Improvements, citing concern that public opposition and lack of support for the DEL indicate high risk that Estes will not complete FLAP -funded projects. 3 • On August 17, 2016 the citizen Transportation Advisory Board discussed the EA at its regular meeting and provided a written recommendation for the Board to proceed with the DEL. A copy is attached. • On October 13, 2016 the Town was informed the CO FLAP PDC delayed the funding for the DEL from 2018 to 2021 so currently available funds could be directed to other projects with a higher likelihood of successful completion. • On November 15, 2016 CFLHD requested concurrence from the Town of Estes that the project will have a De Minimis impact on Baldwin and Children's Parks and that the project will not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes that qualify the property for protection under Section 4(f) of the 1966 Department of Transportation Act. Concurrence with this determination would satisfy the Section 4(f) requirements for the project. CFLHD's letter includes detailed renderings that illustrate the future condition of Riverside Drive and Baldwin Park. A copy is attached. • While the EA was performed for additional future phase of river improvements within the DEL project limits, tonight's action pertains to construction of the funded Phase 1 work only. Proposal: Provide written concurrence that the Town Board finds that impacts to Baldwin and Riverside Parks would be De Minimis after enhancements are made, and that Town Board supports Central Federal Lands Highway Division (CFLHD) moving forward with the Issuance of a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), right of way acquisition, final design, and construction of the proposed DEL. Advantages: See the EA for a lengthy listing of project benefits. The key advantages of completing the DEL include: • Traffic congestion relief in downtown Estes Park. • Reduced conflicts between turning vehicles and pedestrians at busy downtown intersections. • Inclusion of multi -modal facilities including on -street bike lanes and continuous sidewalk along the entire DEL. • Replacement of two non -conforming tee intersections with a modern roundabout at the Moraine/Crags intersection. 4 • Construction of new surfacing on Elkhorn Avenue, including West Elkhorn from Moraine to Wonderview Avenues. • Upgraded replacement of 1970's traffic signal technology and signage at the two downtown intersections. • Construction of improved river flow capacity under the Ivy Street Bridge. • Diminished future floodplain limits and enhanced river access due to channel widening on the Big Thompson River. • Purchase and removal of buildings to allow for channel improvements needed to diminish flood plain limits along the Big Thompson River. • Reduced traffic congestion and backups on East Riverside. • Installation of efficient transportation infrastructure to support a future downtown transit facility parking structure. • Improved shuttle service reliability through reduced traffic congestion during peak times when shuttle demand is greatest. • Fulfillment of our contractual obligation to complete the DEL project which is poised for environmental clearance. • Reestablishment of trust with the CO FLAP PDC needed to secure future funding from the FLAP program. Disadvantages: • The DEL project is controversial and ongoing support is viewed negatively by a segment of the community. • The Proposed Action will increase the traffic volumes on West Riverside Avenue. • The preliminary design anticipates the potential loss of 13 parking spaces downtown. Final design efforts will try to lower this loss. • The one-way couplet causes some minor out -of -direction travel for some local trips. • Purchase of private property is needed to build the DEL. • The potential relocation of two downtown businesses is disruptive. • Construction of the proposed improvements would be disruptive to the community from October 2021 through May 2022, tentatively. 5 Action Recommended: Options include supporting completion of the DEL, revoking Town support of the DEL, or continuing this item to a future meeting scheduled after a public vote is taken to quantify public sentiment (Estes Park residents only) on this decision. Staff recommends the Town Board reaffirm its past support to move forward to completion of the DEL. Budget: No Town funds are required to move forward on the DEL. A decision to discontinue work on the DEL would include an obligation for the Town to reimburse CFL for project costs incurred to date (estimated greater than $1.6 million). Level of Public Interest The known level of public interest in this item is very high. Sample Motion: I move for the approval/denial to complete the funded Phase 1 Downtown Estes Loop project and authorize the Mayor to sign the attached concurrence letter pertaining to the De Minimis finding for impacts to park resources. Attachments: 1. Transportation Advisory Board Recommendation to Proceed with Loop 2. Tabulation of public comments on the DEL Environmental Assessment 3. Responses to Frequent EA Comments from Project Team 4. CFLHD Letter Requesting Concurrence with the Section 4(f) De Minimis Finding 5. Presentation slides 6 ➢Illllllmmlllmuuuuuuum Memo To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa Board of Trustees Town Administrator Lancaster Public Works Director Muhonen TOWN of ESTES P 1I° 1III�1100�uu�uiiu From: Kimberly Campbell, Chair, Transportation Advisory Board Date: October 5, 2016 RE: TAB Recommendation to Proceed with LOOP 1111111111111111111 11111111111111 At its regularly scheduled August meeting, The Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) voted 7-0 (with 2 members absent) in favor of asking the Trustees to direct staff to write the letter accepting the findings of the Environmental Analysis (EA) and proceed with the Downtown Estes Loop. TAB has been monitoring the progression of this project since its inception. TAB members have carefully analyzed the project, participated in public sessions and listened to public sentiment, reviewed the Environmental Analysis and diligently debated the pros and cons of the project in detail. The outcome of these efforts is a belief that it is in the Town's best interest to move forward with this project. The downtown Estes Loop is an important step in addressing the decades old issue of traffic congestion during the peak tourism season. The Downtown Estes Loop is an opportunity to: • Reduce congestion • Improve pedestrian flow • Reduce pedestrian/vehicle conflict • Improve bicycle access and safety through downtown • Improve the physical condition of the roads • Upgrade one of downtown's bridges to updated flood standards By addressing these issues, the Downtown Estes Loop is expected to: 1. Improve the experience of residents and visitors while visiting downtown Estes Park 2. Reduce pollution from idling vehicles 3. Improve first responder response times during the summer season 4. Reduce flood risk to the downtown community While the TAB understands the arguments against the Loop, we feel there are strong arguments in favor of the Loop: 1. The Downtown Estes Loop was selected by the public: The project was selected by members of the community during a public process. This project had previously been recommended by engineering -based transportation studies, as well as the citizen -driven Transportation Visioning Committee's "A Roadmap to the Future." 7 2. Minimal project with maximum results: By utilizing a one-way loop rather than bi-directional traffic predominantly within existing roadway widths, the Loop allows the Town to improve vehicular capacities without significantly changing the character of downtown Estes Park. After years of study, no better alternate has been identified to reduce congestion while balancing against negative community impacts. 3. Multi -modal infrastructure enhancements: The Downtown Estes Loop improves bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure through downtown. Dedicated bike lanes that provide safe passage through downtown is vitally needed to create a safer environment for cyclists as well as the first step in developing a valley -wide network of bicycle routes. Continued expansion of these lanes will create opportunities for residents and visitors to ride bikes into town, further reducing vehicle congestion and could also result in the development of bike sharing programs. Enhanced sidewalks and the Barnes Dance will enhance the pedestrian experience and reduce conflict points between pedestrians and vehicles. 4. Fully funded grant opportunity: It is unlikely that the Town will again see an opportunity for a significant roadway upgrade that is fully funded. If the Town were to back out of the project, our community could be black -balled from future grant opportunities for years to come. 5. Expensive to halt: While the Town should never move forward with an inappropriate project, the EA did not identify any outcome worthy of halting the project. The development costs that must be reimbursed if we fail to proceed with the Loop, currently estimated at $1.6 million, are nearly prohibitive given the outlook for the Estes Park 2017 budget. In summary, the TAB asks the Town Board to proceed with the Downtown Estes Loop by asking staff to preparing the letter accepting the findings of the Environmental Analysis. 8 0 C E 0 U a' W a J 0 0 W 0 0 0 0 0 / Web EA Comment Form E , Q N E . a) 0E U Web EA Comment Form E W Q _ 7- Q N N -8 E E E U LL Web EA Comment Form Web EA Comment Form E , Q N n E E U N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 Nc, 0 0 Loop project with all 3 bridges seems the only logical path forward. This will improve traffic flow and pedestrian flow and safety; it will also minimize flooding and decrease insurance costs for downtown. We own 6 weeks in Ram's Hom Village, have visited Estes Park most years since 1970's. This project, along with a future parking structure at the post office location will be a positive development. As envisioned, the Loop will not achieve its stated objective of improving traffic flow through downtown Estes Park. To reduce traffic congestion, any one-way route would need to begin at the intersection of U.S. highways 34 and 36, but this Loop does not. All traffic will still be bottlenecked between that intersection and the intersection of W. Riverside with Elkhorn Ave., at the SW corner of Bond Park. In addition, the Loop as proposed will facilitate visitors' leaving the park and exiting the Estes Valley without stopping downtown. Many Estes Park merchants are dismayed at the prospect of losing the opportunity for the entrance of their business to encourage visitors to stop and shop as they pass through town. Rocky Mountain National Park is already at greater than ideal maximum visitor capacity, with inconvenience and traffic adversely affecting visitors and the environment inside the park, without improvements in the downtown traffic flow. No amount of improvement within Estes Park will change the overcrowding in RMNP itself. Local opposition has sensibly asked why we should adversely affect our local businesses by building the Loop, when improving traffic flow into the park will only increase overcrowding there. Even though grants are available, it's neither wise nor necessary to make this drastic change. We would like to enter a formal complaint AGAINST the proposed "Downtown Estes Loop". We feel the loop would be a distinct disadvantage to ALL Estes residents. There will be a great deal of money of the taxpayers taxes spent on this project that retired residents cannot afford. Also, the residents will have to reroute all trips to and from town and other locations that will be very inconvenient, especially during the winter months. If the town fathers are DETERMINED to RAILROAD this project the loop should only be in effect during the summer months. This is when the traffic is significant. The loop should not be in effect during the winter months. Please accept this constructive complaint from these residents OPPOSED to this project. Web EA Email (1) The purpose of the 'loop' is/was to provide better access to RMNP. However, the Park can not handle the visitation it currently has. On 7/3, the Beaver Meadows and Fall River entrance stations had to be shut down because of visitor overload. There is not adequate parking in RMNP. The signage on the arteries into the Town have vastly improved automobile throughput. With the forthcoming garage on US36, congestion in Estes will decrease as well. Conversely, I do NOT believe the EA. The Loop will cause MORE congestion AND pollution as visitors attempt to "shop" from their cars and search for parking. Why should we ruin our Town for a worthless cause? I have lived here over 30 years and built 2 homes here. If the Loop is passed, I will move. It's time to listen to the folk who live here. Money isn't everything. Web EA Comment Form (2) (1) The purpose of the Loop is purportedly to ease access to Rocky Mountain National Park (RMNP). That is ridiculous and bogus and a poor excuse to spend Federal dollars. RMNP now has more visitation than it can handle. In fact, this summer has seen 1-1/2 million more visitors than last year. On 7/3, the Park was forced to close both east -side entrances because there was no parking, and the Park was overfilled to capacity. (2) Why ruin our beautiful SMALL TOWN by instituting a pollution -causing traffic jam downtown. By the way, "downtown" means Elkhorn and Moraine NOT Riverside. I do not believe the premises put forth by the EA. That voluminous document was concocted by those who have never lived here. To destroy the wonderful ambiance of our town to put money in the Town's coffers is beyond inexcusable. The new signage, as well as the proposed parking structure at the Visitors' Center, has alleviated much of the congestion downtown. No on the loop!!! If Estes would fix the parking situation, which I know is in the works, I think a lot of the congestion would ease. I think most people are driving around looking for a parking space. I hear that a lot from out of town visitors. By addressing the parking issue first, it could then be more logically determined what are traffic flow issues are. The whole concept is insane. The majority of the people who live and work in EP do NOT want it!!! Let us have a community wide vote on the issue!!!! Don't waste tax dollars on something NOT for the National al Park. I support "No Action' on the Loop not because I think it is possible to somehow ignore Estes Park's increasing traffic congestion through nostalgia or wishful thinking, and not because I do not find the Loop proposal and the EA an admirably thorough, responsible, thoughtful and imaginative attempt to steward the future of Estes Park. Rather, I support "No Action' because I believe the best future both for Estes Park and Rocky Mountain National Park involves strategically reducing, rather than attracting and accommodating, automobile traffic downtown. I support "No Action' not in the literal sense of the words, but in the context of strategically engineering a future in which Estes Park will promote, support, and encourage having visitors and locals park in the planned future parking structure across from the Visitor's Center, and walking, biking, or using public transportation from there when the automobile traffic is so heavy as to be a deterrent to visitors (one of the main concerns I know the Loop proposal addresses). While many will, of course, continue to drive, visitors could have a strong incentive to take advantage of an affordable, convenient, and efficient parking and public transport system which promotes and preserves downtown Estes Park as a unique destination, respecting its geographical character and limitations as a valley, and embracing its unique history and 'flavor" as a small, "walkable" town. "No Action", with an emphasis on the new parking structure, and the ongoing and increasing support and promotion of the shuttle system, will also encourage visitors to reach Rocky Mountain National Park safely and conveniently, while minimizing the inevitable growth of automobile traffic to protect both the natural resources and the unique visitor experience of the Park as much as we can. In contrast, the Loop, while certainly offering significant mitigation of downtown traffic congestion, would actively encourage visitors to drive through Estes to the Park, while reducing the parking available to them and pushing the traffic "bottleneck" further west of town, where congestion is already often at its worst. I believe that the Loop is a temporary approach to Estes Park's growing traffic problem. It seeks to accommodate visitor traffic without adequately addressing the parking that goes with it, and without, in my personal view, adequately protecting downtown Estes Park as the unique destination, with unique history, that visitors are coming to see in the first place. In contrast, a truly long term outlook would, I believe, suggest that a town inevitably constrained by the small mountain valley in which it is situated, and made uniquely appealing to visitors by its small-town character and its history, should plan for a future in which driving is possible, but parking east of town and switching to public transportation is the easier, more attractive, more fully supported and encouraged option —the one that is made most convenient, affordable, efficient, and attractive to visitors during times of peak congestion. Seen in this way, the term "No Action" can also represent a proactive and prescient commitment to a carefully chosen future for this unique location. Y�J ICY Richard Horn Sarasota FL Lela L. Criswell Estes Park CO Mr. & Mrs. Guy Estes Park CO Tritico Anita Prinzmetal Estes Park CO Anita Prinzmetal Nancy Dunavan Glen Haven, CO No Name Provided Unknown 0 (n Cr c m c ? 'a' m N > a E a E roam'' . } Web EA Comment Form Web EA Comment Form E WE 3a E °E 3a Web EA Comment Form \/ Web EA Comment Form Web EA Comment Form \ \ ) I work downtown and see NO good reason to disrupt the streets, businesses and cabins along the loop route. You have done a good job of trying to direct people to the bypass if they wish to go to RMNP. The crowding of Elkhorn and Moraine occurs during only a few months. The destruction of so much of traditional Estes Park is not necessary! It seems you are just seeing the federal money for bridges as your"carrot" and not really thinking through the destruction and change proposed in the loop. Having a parking garage near the Visitor Center can relieve some of the parking pressure in the downtown area. It is simply not necessary to totally disrupt downtown by building the loop. I believe that the Loop project would destroy the small town look and feel of Estes Park and make getting in and out of downtown much harder. Sending National Park traffic up Fall River as is currently being done is the best solution to getting people into RMNP who want to bypass downtown. (1) As a summer resident/worker for 18 years it is very questionable in my mind as to what the purpose of the loop actually is. If H is to cut down the time for tourists to get to the south entrance to the park, it appears VERY redundant as the park service has had to limit cars entering the park due to overload and for next year are thinking of have people reserve a time for being in the park. (2) So that would mean that we are helping the tourists hurry up only to be told that there is a wait due to refraining from overcrowding with the purpose of safety for all. How brilliant are the planners of this loop not to even be democratic about the plan and allow all Estes Park residents to vote on the issue. Is this project really worth tearing down landmarks, and residences, motels, etc. and not even thinking of what that means to visitors and Estes Park Citizens? It is common knowledge that owners are being offered a pittance for their property and is eminent domain what should be used to offer such destruction to owners, businesses, and tourists'''''''''' It is very obvious that money is the very first thing this project gives and that is a far cry from being civil and caring and listening to those who have loved Estes Park for so long. Eve tourists that have been polled have said they like it just the way it is as they can make a choice as to which businesses they with to patronize on their return from RMNP. (3) And what about parking? The citizens have made it known that they feel parking should be addressed before thinking about anything so redundant and destructive as the loop. Are all hearts hardened to listen and think deeply re: the project'''''''''''' May God have mercy on your souls if you are doing this just for money and WILL not change the plan/project so that wildlife, landmarks, businesses, personal property can prosper and flourish without the fear of destruction and demonstration. You would be thought more highly of if you just backed away and let Estes Park be Estes Park. I attended the EA presentation and public comment meeting July 20. VERY impressed with the professionalism of the presentations, especially the AECOM guy. I have long been frustrated by the funereal rate of progress in getting the one-way loop project started so it was good to see that this study has apparently cleared the way for it to get going, at least from an environmental impact standpoint. As always, the opposing commentary was largely driven by relatively unsubstantiated and/or emotional arguments but I will say that two things stood out for me in the plethora of negative commentaries. 1. The fact that the RMNP is now turning away vehicles that make it through the town to the park entrances and/or into the park itself does seem to undermine the concept of developing a system that allows more vehicles to be funneled through the town itself. No idea what the answer to that is but it's not a bad point and one that hadn't really occurred to me until this year with its heavy crowds. 2. Perhaps more important is that a couple of folks mentioned (to strong applause) that a more fundamental approach to easing congestion in the town would be to build parking facilities just outside the town core area and incentivize people to use them by installing parking meters (with relatively high fees) in the downtown streets and parking areas. This would generate significant revenue and bring EP into line with other high traffic mountain towns where visitors are essentially obliged (either by regulation or through financial incentives) to park outside the core streets and walk to the shops etc. There are very few places anywhere these days where you don't have to pay to park - why does EP have to be different? One of the consultants told me that this would be no solution as the vast majority of the traffic in the downtown area is on its way to the RMNP and NOT simply circulating around seeking a parking spot. I asked her how this was established and she didn't have an answer. I find this very hard to believe and I wonder whether tis issue has, in fact, been examined properly. Of course, I understand that the FLAP grant is not available for the construction of parking facilities on the edge of town but I do wonder whether there might not be other grant funds available for this purpose. Bottom line, even if the one-way loop goes ahead as planned, my sense is (until someone demonstrates otherwise with some solid data) that unless and until we oblige people to park their vehicles OUTSIDE the core area and either walk or use the shuttles to get to the downtown shops, we will continue to have traffic drifting around and around in the downtown streets trying to find one of the very limited parking spots. Respectfully submitted, Graham Russell Thank you for passing on this in-depth assessment! As has been stated in the local paper, there is no one task fixes all our problems. Parking remains the main issue for sure. However, after reviewing all the details, anyone who still stands against the loop is/are not reading the facts! This is one step, a major one, in the RIGHT DIRECTION! If the loop is not implemented, things will only get worse. Please do all you can to ensure this first important step is followed through to completion! Honorable Board Members: I would like to inform you of my opposition to the LOOP Proposal for the following reasons: 1. It has been stated that this would be an ideal way to get more people into Rocky Mountain National Park. The National Park Service is not prepared or able to handle more people visiting this national site. Their parking lots are filled by 10 a.m., and the Bear Lake corridor area now gets restrictions on the number of cars that can enter it. 2. There will be a negative impact on quiet neighborhoods around the Post Office area that are well established and have been the destination of many visitors because of the ambiance that is found there. I understand the need for flood mitigation, bridge repairs, flood insurance problems, etc. But, don't let the over-all beauty and peace of this town get over -shadowed by all of this. Please do not let the quaint town of Estes Park become a "Vail" or "Aspen.' Do not lose the picture that many, many visitors have of this area, and that many of the residents have and/or had that drew them here to live. A 'freeway" through the middle of town is NOT charming or quaint!! Thank you for your attention to this matter. NO LOOP. you will ruin what is so special about our little town. My family comes up here to visit and the first thing they want to do is go DOWNTOWN. Putting a loop in will destroy our business and small mountain town atmosphere. My grandson and I walk downtown from the visitors center every Sunday. Please don't ruin that for us. An out door mall would be perfect. We just need to get the parking worked out and put in a year round shuttle, just like our summer time service. It's fantastic. I moved to Estes Park because of what it is now. If you change that I will consider leaving. Also, If you really put the message out there about the meetings more people would show up! No just a little article. Do nothing! No changes! Leave it alone. .. \ , Sally B. Van Wert Estes Park CO Kristi Humphries Estes Park CO Sharon Struve Omaha NE B \ _ Bill Chockla Estes Park CO Deborah Tyler Estes Park CO Rebecca Crawford Estes Park CO Yvonne Adrion Estes Park CO E ca 3 Web EA Comment Form Web EA Comment Form Web EA Comment Form Web EA Comment Form Web EA Comment Form Web EA Comment Form Web EA Comment Form Web EA Comment Form Web EA Email Web EA Comment Form (1) Web EA Comment Form (2) Web EA Comment Form Web EA Comment Form w iIIIIIIIIIIII Doyle Baker Estes Park CO There do not appear to be sufficient environmental benefits, even under forecasted 2040 traffic patterns, to justify action. On the other hand, there do not appear to be sufficient environmental risks - even in the short term -justify taking no action. The EA should not therefore, in my view, be a significant decision factor. Now that the EA is done, it seems time to return to substantive debate on the social and economic merits of the project. Scot Ritchie Estes Park CO I am against the loop. The donut haus and Tiki Bar played by the rules when they opened their businesses and now your changing the rules and they disappear. Is my business next? Also, the traffic will not change. It will back up again at the next light east of the Dairy Queen. Ward Brien Estes Park CO The building of a central parking structure should be the first priority. This would relieve the congestion, stress and disruption of revenue associated with gutting the town. Julie Klett Estes Park CO Something needs to be done to address the traffic congestion and related safety in EP. It is bad now, and will only get worse. Not addressing the problem is not a solution. I have seen no other viable alternatives to the loop, so I generally approve of the plan. I do not believe it will have an overall negative impact on downtown businesses. However, no plan to address the ongoing traffic issues, including the Loop, is complete without including a plan to improve and increase parking options in the downtown area. We also need an improved overall transportation system that includes and integrates RMNP (which also needs an improved transit plan). Tom (No Last Estes Park CO I like the Loop proposal as recommended. It's time to move forward. The Loop changes will also allow bridges to be rebuilt and waterways updated to meet the new flood plain guidelines. I would also Name Provided) recommend relocating the Post Office to help relieve congestion and create a Postal facility that is easier to access for local residents. Perhaps along the HWY 7 corridor. It's clear something has to be done. I believe the Federal Government will improve the traffic flow to RMNP one way or another. This is our chance to have a say in the placement and timing of changes as well as receive funding. I would hate to see the feds come in and build a route bypassing Estes completely. But frankly, if we keep whining about the Loop it wouldn't surprise me. If you think they don't have the power and authority to do so, well good luck with that. Steve Des Palmes Estes Park CO The Loop is a well thought out plan and the simulation effectively shows the overwhelming improvement in traffic flow with the Loop in place. To do nothing is simply shortsighted. Traffic is already unbearable so now is the time to act. With any large change there are bound to be some negative effects, but the big picture must be kept in mind and it seems clear the positives far, far outweigh any negatives. Kudos to those who came up with the clever and effective solution. Cory La Bianca Estes Park CO NO on the loop. I agree with the mayor's concerns: there are other things we can do, the street is too large for estes park, the environmental study DOES NOT talk much about the environment, does it? I see nothing about animals? air quality at the RMNP entrance, without a study that covers the surrounding area as well as the area that would be built, i don not see it is complete enough! Leave our town as is. The new signs in brown for Elk Horn and the bypass are helping. There are other such helps that we can do without turning this charming town upside down. You didn't see us at the presentation because you have heard from us many times before. My husband and I say NO TO THE LOOP. How many times need we say it? Heidi Tryon Estes Park CO I support the recommended alternative (one-way couplet). As a cyclist, I'd prefer a traffic signal at the Crag/Moraine/Riverside intersection, rather than a traffic circle. It has been my experience that many drivers don't know how to safely and legally navigate traffic circles. This poses a significant safety hazard for cyclists. If you have any influence on the speed limit of the new loop, please keep it at 25mph. This will help keep cyclists and pedestrians safe. Please include provisions for pedestrians and cyclists in all phases of construction. Thanks for all of your hard work and excellent communication with Estes Park residents! C (no other name Estes Park CO Don't want the loop and want a vote...there...I've commented!!! provided) ''..Arthur Blume III Estes Park CO Web EA Comment Form (1) This small mountain town has no need for this kind of project. '.. I have be opposed to it since the introduction and have not be "sucked into" its justification and plan. Please wake up and let EP be a mountain small town for the year round permanent residents. Arthur W. Blume III Web EA Comment Form (2) We don't need the Loop any funds allocated for this project could be better used for flood issues our town leadership tends to push visitor projects in lieu of town year round resident issues. Bryon Prinzmetal Estes Park CO Just make it happen. Also, make the merchants and me happy by adding a mid town parking garage by the post office. While you are add it, move the post office to highway 7. You wasted all that money paving stanley park (was supposed to reduce traffic --want a waste of my money), now do something right. While you are add it, make a nice park between the river and Riverside Dr. David Tanton Estes Park CO Despite the nimbys/naysayers etc., the loop has great merit, and should be implemented with the preferred alternative) l Fred Lindeman (Atlantic IA To whom it may concern, I would like to express my feelings concerning the Estes Loop Project as a visitor to Estes Park. My wife and family have been visiting Estes Park every year for over 30 years. We live in Iowa and we're about 650 miles from Estes. We usually take the Big Thompson route coming from Loveland. Upon reaching the top of the cannon and starting down into Estes I can't think of any where in the United States with more of a beautiful view. As we get closer to downtown and start up the main street we always have that overwhelming feeling that we have arrived. Never have we thought of the congestion as problem or a reason to not come. Just the opposite actually. As we go through town looking at all the people walking up and down the street we're thinking about how cool of place it is and how after we get checked into our place to stay we'll be back to be apart of it too. As I mentioned we go through Loveland getting to Estes. That's where we often complain about congestion and wish there was a loop or bypass. The town of Estes Park has a magical charm in the downtown shop area that needs to be protected and preserved, just like the National Park its self. The two complement each other. Sincerely, Fred Lindeman Atlantic, IA ir �. � 11 cD n of O N N N N N d Q C W E ID U 0' ro 0 N 1 m 0 N 1 N (See attached letter) Gentlemen: I am Jim Linderholm and reside at 1160 Fairway Club Cir. #1 in Estes Park, Colorado. My wife and I have owned this property since 2002 and are familiar with the various traffic and transportation systems in Estes Park and vicinity. I have read various reports regarding this Project and attended the Public Hearing in Estes on July 20, 2016. My professional background includes 48 years with a large Midwestern consulting engineering practice, and specific experience with large transportation projects. During that time, I served as Principle Planner or Planner in Charge for more than 100 projects. Two of those projects required the completion of an Environmental Impact Statement. I am commenting in support of the Estes Loop Project. As I listened carefully to the few people who made public comments on July 20th, it was obvious that most of them were opposed to the Project because it would "change the character" of the community in some way. I have heard those same sentiments many times on projects that I have planned over the years. I respect that some people do not like change, but the evidence presented in the Project studies indicates that changes will occur in Estes Park, like it or not. The most obvious change will be increased traffic in and through Estes in coming years. The Front Range communities in Colorado continue to grow significantly. They will continue to generate traffic coming to visit Rocky Mountain National Park. Estes, itself, continues to promote growth. So, the underlying assumption that the number of "congested traffic days" will increase in the future seems to be valid. The No Action alternative does nothing to solve the current problems or prepare for the future. The increased future traffic through Estes will compound parking issues. And, the most frequently heard concern about the Project is that it does not solve the local shortage of parking. The merchants would like to serve more visitors and they believe that more parking is the answer. However, the addition of parking alone would not solve the congestion problem and may actually compound the problem by preventing free flow in and out of parking structures. The answer is that the Loop Project needs to be the first step in the sequence of events and should be coordinated with new parking structures. Another change that will alter the Estes Downtown is the reoccurrence of flooding. High intensity rainfall events and resulting flooding will occur in the future, just as they have in the past. Any changes or improvements to the infrastructure that can be made between floods will be beneficial in the future. This is part of the bigger picture for a better Estes Park. While flood plain improvements are not part of the Loop Project, coordinated planning would make sense. Regarding the Motor Vehicle Safety Assessment, I was a bit surprised to read the data regarding the numbers of recorded crashes. It makes me wonder if there are more crashes that are not recorded? Since there is no description of how the data is collected, that might be a future question. That is, do law enforcement agencies report each and every crash or do some go unreported because they are minor in nature. The other question that could be asked would be the seriousness of the injuries that were recorded. Without revealing personal data, what happened to those injured people? It begs the question of what responsibility Estes has in preventing injuries on its roadways. One person at the Public Hearing commented that the Project does not have merit because on certain peak days the RMNP also has congestion and turns people away. Another commenter said that people don't use the shuttle system enough. The obvious situation is that with population growth and increased use of RMNP, the Park Service may have to resort to more shuttle transportation and more restrictions on motor vehicles. There is no logic in stopping the Loop Project for RMNP congestion reasons, unless you believe that people will stop coming to Estes Park because they will avoid congestion in the Park. Coordinated planning with RMNP officials makes sense. The intersection of Moraine/West Riverside Drive/Craigs Drive is one of the most dangerous intersections that I have ever seen. There are line of sight issues, roadway curves, and topographic challenges at that location. The Donut Haus is a very popular attraction at that intersection, but it lacks safe parking. With many visitors not being familiar with those conditions, the traffic is often chaotic. I enjoy the products of the Donut Haus, but rarely go there because the intersection looks like "an accident waiting to happen". The Town has done about all that is possible to make that intersection function, but it doesn't work well. If the Project proceeds, careful thought should be given to the roundabout design. It has the potential to solve many problems and could save the Town significant amounts of money over the years. Just eliminating the cost of traffic lights and the operation and maintenance of the lights is significant. The added safety features also reduce the costs of accidents and injuries. Having said all that, the addition of a roundabout should be planned and monitored carefully. Some roundabouts work exceptionally well, and others need to be modified after initial construction. It's the right choice, but the key is how drivers adapt to the new flow of traffic. Each roundabout is unique and should be treated that way. The Project is a tough choice for the Town of Estes Park. As with many transportation projects, there are controversies and, in general, such projects are not politically popular. It's hard for voters to love concrete, steel, and asphalt, but they are quick to complain when something doesn't work to their satisfaction. When land is taken and businesses are affected, it only adds to the dilemmas. Those who oppose the Project are very emotional, as witnessed by the Public Hearing. Those who favor the project, by and large, don't show up at the Hearing or remain silent, so as not to offend their neighbors. The future tourists who would be benefitted by the Project are not aware of what's happening, but if they could vote, the Project would be overwhelmingly popular, given the numbers involved. Since we are in an election year, we often hear that our infrastructures are failing (roads, bridges, water, sewer, etc.) and it is the fault of somebody, usually a political party or an opponent. The reality is that we often lack the political will to get these problems corrected. Estes Park is no different. The leaders can improve the conditions by moving ahead with the Project or defer it to a later date or to someone who has the will to make improvements. All of us, at one time or another, put off things that may not be fun to do. In this case, the public good is at stake. Delaying this Project will only result in higher costs. Finally, regardless of our political views of infrastructure spending, projects are going to get approved and built. In this region of Colorado, there are many communities that are growing and there is great competition for local, state, and federal dollars for infrastructure spending. Those in charge of doling out the dollars will typically look for projects that are approved locally and ready to move ahead. Estes Park is in that competition and needs to carefully consider its options. Other communities will gladly use the funds if Estes declines the opportunity. Perhaps because of my professional background, some readers may wonder if I have been asked or solicited to comment? I have not been contacted by any individual or group involved in the planning, design, or implementation of this Project. My sole intent here is to share my opinions on the merits of the Project. My only interest is the well-being of Estes citizens and our many visitors. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. After watching video simulation of the proposed loop my wife and I are all for it! What a nice change it would be from the chaos, time consuming and dangerous intersections we now have over the long summer. If people want to stop and shop they will do it even with the new loop. The rest of the people can get through town in a timely and safer manner. We now avoid down town all of the summer due to the terrible traffic congestion. What we have now takes away from any desire to shop there. Even getting our mail at the post office in the summer is no fun. We would rather see a round about used at Moccasin/Riverside/ Crags Drive intersection. With ever increasing numbers of visitors our present street system and lack of parking downtown is a joke. I have talked to many front range visitors that have bluntlytold me they want no part with the traffic and parking mess we have now and have no plans to return in the future unless the traffic/parking situation is resolved. For people who think that the shopping experience will be hurt I see the traffic/parking mess we have now takes away any pleasant experience people can have and already hurts shopping in our town. 0 i Jim Linderholm (cont) (Jim Linderholm (cont) (Richard Smith Estes Park CO 0 i , JJ Ili i N O ty it Web EA Comment Form `o LL W E w E D E U `o LL W E w E D E U Web EA Comment Form `o LL w E W E D E U Web EA Comment Form `o LL W E W E D E U Web EA Comment Form d E,E,E,E, N N N N E,E, N N N N 71 Has the town considered making Elkhorn similar to 16th street mall in Denver? Its a pedestrian street with a shuttles going up and down with drop offs. Could have parking at both ends of downtown and people either walk or talk the shuttle. For the Park entrance have it go from St Vrain. I am concerned about driving from the SW side of town to the NW side of town. I live off Marys Lake Road and currently drive Moraine Ave to West Elkhorn to visit the businesses located there. I do not add to the downtown congest on. With the one-way plan, it appears that I will be diverted from Moraine to drive along Riverside to its intersection with Elkhorn and then proceed through downtown in order to reach West Elkhorn. Since there are many of us who will have to use that route, I am wondering if the added vehicle traffic from us locals through downtown has been factored into the calculations? We would find ourselves a part of all the tourist traffic heading through downtown. Of course, this could be alleviated with some sort of connection from Moraine past the transfer station over the hill to West Elkhorn. Perhaps that should be considered for inclusion into one of the later stages of the proposed plan. I understand that property owners in that area squelched such a plan a few years ago. But, since the town is willing to exercise eminent domain over properties in the way of the one-way loop, I assume it is capable of doing the same to facilitate a connector between Moraine and West Elkhorn. Thank you for soliciting and considering my comments. It's time for our elected and paid officials to show leadership by becoming 100% students of the information and analysis and make recommendations. The average resident has attended so few meet ngs, if any, and are marginally informed and usually not 100% objective to remove personal best interests from the equation. Key Issues: There is inadequate parking regardless of the action and too many employees use the "free" parking. Consider charging as do most mountain towns during peak seasons. Pedestrians at both the Moraine crossing and the Dairy Queen parking lot crossing cause continuous interruption and backup to traffic during busy seasons. Underground passages should be a must regardless of the plan. It's time to quit the "study" and make a decision that will work for this community for the next 20 years. I have worked at the YMCA since 1977. Living in Glen Haven, my commute gets worse every year, including in the non -summer months. I am in favor of the Loop, trusting that it will improve the flow of traffic. Hello, Wow what a lot of reading. I have been a long long time visitor to Estes Park and RMNP and own property in the Estes area. I agree 100% something needs to be done to fix the traffic and to reduce the risk of floods and soon. I was in Estes the week before the 4th of July, town and RMNP were packed. Not enjoyable having so much traffic. I do like that town went back to the barn dance way of crossing the street. There really needs to be officers on the corners to keep people from crossing against the walk light. We were heading back to town from being in RMNP on a week day and traffic was backed up to Tiny Town mini golf, crazy! I do not see the loop helping as much as people think. I base this on traffic going to a football game and leaving the stadium. Traffic to the stadium is not unlike Estes traffic heading to RMNP, heavy for 3-4 hrs. Traffic leaving the stadium is like the traffic leaving RMNP taking 2-3 hrs. So back to my stadium analogy. The stadium is downtown Estes Park. Before the game you have lots of people entering the parking lots from many different entrances. RMNP needs more ways to enter the park. The best way would be more lanes of traffic heading West to the park. 4 lanes, 2 each way with a center turn lane heading to the Fall River entrance and the Beaver Meadows entrance. Better signage as well as a dedicated ramp that goes over Elk horn at 34-36 to get cars over onto the bypass with out having to stop. We have to separate the traffic and pedestrians as much as possible with elevated ramps and walkways. With the loop if you speed up traffic in downtown all that is going to do is cause backups in other parts of town. Which is what happens as people leave the stadium. You can get out but then traffic backs up in other locations. This is what will happen with the loop if the other back ups are not planed for so they do not happen. Fixing downtown will only move the traffic problem into someone else's back yard so to speak. Now lets move onto RMNP. If we get traffic moving through town faster with less delay the entrance gates will become a huge back log of people waiting to get into RMNP. We will need the government to spend major money to update the entrance stations with more lanes, more people to work the stations. So unless you can get RMNP on board to update entrance stations and parking lots we will still have huge delays during the busy summer months. Best regards, David Keeping the large busses and supply trucks off Elkhorn help decrease the traffic and noise. I'm not in favor of The Loop since businesses and people in homes would have to move. 1. Will the town be tearing down the building it owns on the river on E Riverside? Will there be beautification on that site? It should be green, please. 2. I don't like the look of the fencing along E Riverside across the river from the post office. Will there be any river access there? Any green space? We need some access to the river there. Will the riverfront trail on the post office side remain? 3. I can't tell how much of Baldwin Park will remain? I use this park every day for walking. Its lovely and I don'twantto lose it. 4. Will you help Donut Haus to relocate? 5. Will the winery still remain and have parking? Thank you. Hello, I own 4 vacation condos on 150 E Riverside in Estes Park. I have read and evaluated your studies and proposals and I urge the Town of Estes Park to take No Action on the Loop as it would have a huge negative impact on E Riverside, transforming a picturesque downtown area with cabin charm into a busy and noisy highway. Some of our guests already mention traffic, and with the proposed Loop noise will greatly increase, driving customers away from downtown, reducing business in general. Enlarging E Riverside will also eliminate parking at the condos, which is already insufficient. Please find alternatives to direct traffic directly to RMNP, and not affect E Riverside. Thanks, Adela oil I /1//4 Josiane Edy Monument CO Diane Phillips Estes Park CO Jane Schoen Estes Park CO Jim Boyd Glen Haven, CO D Patsy Nevill Estes Park CO Kathleen Baker Estes Park CO Adela Anghel Longmont CO 0 N CO V O r CO Ty 0 LL Q N Web EA Comment Form Web EA Comment Form Web EA Comment Form Web EA Comment Form Web EA Comment Form Web EA Comment Form Q _ w Q N N_ g Web EA Comment Form Web EA Comment Form i: A,,,,(O r (O N r (O N r (O N r 0 N (O N r 0 N (O N n N N 0 N N N r 0 N NN Nn n Estes Park was the first town I visited when I moved to Colorado back in 1995. I now co-own 5 luxury downtown condos and I'm happy to call this town home. I have friends here and I have worked with many contractors and service people, it is a great town and a great vacation environment and we strive to provide superior accommodations to our guests. I am for traffic solutions but I believe the proposed Loop is the wrong answer, it will increase noise, complaints from guests, will basically destroy this town's character. Please take No Action on the Loop. Please explore other solutions like enlarging E Wonderview for direct access to RMNP or creating a hwy 34 to hwy 36 link somewhere west of town. We also have a downtown parking problem which I would rather see it addressed first. Trusting you are going to make the right decisions, and please consider my input, Redacted I live on Riverside dr. I don't want to see the loop happen. We can deal with the traffic during tourist season. I really think its a bad idea for our town. We strongly oppose the loop. It will disrupt the very positive pattern of life in Estest Parrk. Elkhorn should not be turned into a major highway. The project will not improve access to the Park. The road west from the donut shop will remain only two lanes. The loop will simply cause a major traffic jam at the donut shop as traffic west has to narrow to one lane. It's unwise to undertake an undesirable projectjust because government agencies are handing out free money. The loop project should NOT be done. all the meetings I have attended there is minimal support for the loop, why are they pushing this on a Town that really doesn't want it?. Very few comments of support come thru in the meetings, it seems as if something so opposed to by the towns people would be reviewed and a new plan developed that the business people and town supports. If people were for this they would be cheering and asking when the project would be completed and pushing to move forward, this is not happening and it seems the loop has received minimal support. It has been presented and talked about numerous times and each time you see several expressions of strong concern and disagreement, but no cheering and support for the project whatsoever. As a former Architect, Community Planner, and Civil Engineer, I am very aware of the many benefits that the proposed Loop traffic improvements will bring to the Estes Park community, pedestrian visitors to Town and vehicle visitors to the Rocky Mountain National Park. While some opposing local business owners think that further slowing down of traffic will increase or maintain their business, the opposite is true. As our traffic has increased noticibly in the last two years the congestion and parking difficulties have increased such that many visitors have less interest in fighting the downtown traffic to shop, they just want to get through Town without more hassle. As a young adult wanting to start a family in Estes it is my opinion that something needs to happen in regards to the downtown roadways. If this is the best that the professionals can suggest, then I am for it. It looks like it will open downtown, provide a more bike friendly atmosphere, aid in relieving our guests of road rage and traffic jams, definitely relieve locals of road rage and traffic jams, create a safer environment at multiple intersections and crosswalks, and provide an opportunity for the decaying infrastructure to get the desperately needed help it has to get. I am a strong supporter of the Loop. Estes has become a nightmare to navigate. And with limited options for roads leading to RMNP, the Loop seems to be the best option to help manage traffic. Change is here -- in the form of over a million more visitors - whether we like it or not It's time to respond accordingly. Web EA Comment Form (1) For what gain is the huge disruption of this project? A few SECONDS travel time to "ease the access to RMNP?" The Park is already overloaded, with a steady stream of traffic on Moraine, both directions. This year's Park attendance already exceeds that of 2015. A tremendous outlay of money is described, with flood mitigation not funded or specifically planned, when the Loop was envisioned BEFORE the 2013 flood. Back up and re -think. Move traffic OUT of the downtown area (shift more to Wonderview and construct another access to the South (Peakview) making a gigantic loop while allowing access as an OPTION to those wanting to shop. How many in these streams of vehicles actually stop downtown now? Be reasonable. The Park is approaching the need to install a plan like Yosemite: no private vehicles IN the Park, or some semblance of that plan. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE: NO LOOP. Web EA Comment Form (2) It is important to consider impacts on this small community as part of a whole. One action affects many others. Consider the election which approved the construction of a community center, to include a fully functional Senior Center. NOW: "costs have escalated to the extent that some important features must be eliminated" I.e. no kitchen, which is a central function of the senior center, as it exists now. Since 2013, and the grant approval for the LOOP, a tremendous event hit the Town in Sept. of 2013, revealing a great need for flood mitigation. Is this need more important than the LOOP, given its high cost for little actual improvement in travel time? Would it make more sense to put LOOP construction on hold and tend the recommended flood mitigation (3 bridges and work on the river from E. Riverside to the East?) PRIORITIES are important. Projects can be altered, as is the current case with the voter -approved Community Center. NOTE: the Loop did not seek voter approval. What is wrong with this picture? A final observation: if the Loop is intended "to improve access to Rocky Mtn. National Park" the Park needs no improvement in access, it is full to capacity and more already. Lets let the Loop go. (No text included in comment field) The traffic during the summer in Estes Park has increased greatly in just the past few years. We live off of Moraine Avenue West of the Rock Shop and the traffic leaving the Park in the late afternoon backs up on Moraine even during weekdays. The Loop would help alleviate this even as traffic increases in the future because there would be two Eastbound lanes through town instead of the current one lane. For merchants downtown, as traffic congestion gets worse, visitors will avoid downtown or even avoid coming to Estes Park altogether. Even now, the town is encouraging people going to the Park to avoid downtown Estes Park by taking Rte. 34 to the Fall River entrance. We need the Loop, plus more downtown parking, to make it easier for visitors to shop downtown. Nobody likes to be stuck in traffic and it discourages people from staying to shop in Estes. It is also difficult for the locals to get around town even using by pass routes. For now and even more so for the future, we need the Loop for the well being of Estes Park. Narcis Anghel Longmont CO Barbara Bell Estes Park CO Martin and Sallie Estes Park CO Dickinsn Mary K. Simon Estes Park CO Rex Poggenpohl Estes Park CO Ian Taylor Estes Park CO Diane Friedman Estes Park CO Patricia Blume Estes Park CO Pat Blume (Carolyn Dietz Estes Park CO Roger and Sue Estes Park CO Levy Wry 11 7 liL W w>> O U liL W wF O Y N p a W E poEEo?` UW V2 8d 0 0 E W W a, > E W W N O N N O N N N Do it! Working for a hotel, one of the most popular questions we get asked is "how do we avoid the traffic mess downtown?" I dislike showing them the Moccassin Bypass as I like to think it's only for locals, but I feel their pain of trying to make a simple trip across town. Visitors will still know where the downtown area is as they'll drive though it on the way to RMNP. I reviewed the traffic simulation and other materials related to the "loop". After 30 yrs in City management w/Westminster, CO we saw and implemented numerous traffic changes, many unpopular ones, that later were applauded. It is clear Estes Park needs to take action and implement the changes. Change is hard for many people, but to do nothing is not in the town's best interest. The town is already choked with traffic and yes there will be construction inconveniences, but the long term gain is well worth it. It is an equally bad decision for the town board to abdicate their responsibility to make this decision and turn this to a vote. The town board members are the ones who are responsible for studying all the information, not the citizen's who have varying interests. I believe the data clearly supports taking action and does not support doing nothing. At the very least the Board members need to take a stand, give their reasons for their vote and then let the citizen's decide about each board members vote come next election. My wife and I own a home in Estes Park (since 1993) and have lived here part-t me since 2005 when we retired. We purchased property in Estes while living and working in the Denver area specifically due to the small-town "feel" of the Estes Valley and proximity to Rocky Mountain National Park. During our working years, we traveled an average amount through the US, visiting other National Parks and attractions with our sons and thought little of the traffic and congestion in the areas we visited during the busy summer months, realizing the inconvenience was just part of the experience brought about by the fact those areas were popular and we had chosen to visit the same time others had just like Estes Park in the summer. We have monitored the local effort during the last couple years here pushing the idea of modifying the traffic flows through the main business center of Estes Park to ease the congestion during the busy summer months and speed visitors along as they head into the Beaver Meadows entrance to Rocky. We have read the articles in the local paper and attended some of the meetings held to inform residents including the one last week at the Events Center, and it is abundantly apparent the majority of residents here and almost all the business owners oppose the idea of spending millions of dollars to modify the downtown section of our town to reduce congestion during the summer months. To most everyone other than the city "fathers and their administration", speeding visitors through the town only to have them stopped and backed up at the Park entrance seems like a gross waste of money. The proposed changes are going to make it harder on seasonal businesses and make it still more difficult to visit the town because the one thing that is really needed is omitted from the plan. That one thing is available of PARKING. What is needed is not one-way roadways through town but places for visitors to conveniently PARK their vehicles and get around the town during their visit. The shuttles running during the summer are a help, but would it not be nice if adequate parking were available, especially during the busy summer? Where is the long -planned, muli-deck parking garage we were told was to be built across the river from the Visitor Center? How about you stop studying the roadways and traffic flows and do something positive about PARKING? In summary, we submit our opinion that you should forget about tearing up the down -town section of our little village in an effort to ease traffic flows through it in our short summer here and avoid the major negative effects on the businesses but do something positive about PARKING which would do more to help traffic and congestion than anything else you might do. After that, as monies become available, address the stream flows of the rivers through the village and modify or change the three road bridges as necessary to help mitigate the effects of periodic flooding which naturally occurs in the mountain environment in which we live. Submitted by Robert J. Alvarez To: Ricardo Suarez Director Central Federal Lands, Highway Division James Herlyck Project Manager- Estes Park, Colorado. Re: FOIA request going to: FLAP Grant in final draft submitted to your office. Director Suarez, Would you be so kind as to make final FLAP Grant (and approval) documents available for public review as goes to thirteen million dollar award: Town of Estes Park, Colorado, Loop Project. Citizen review of all documents (not limited to but including final language) and your agency's contractual agreement with DOT if applicable (as background not available per website) is imperative at this time. Is CH2M contracted for the Estes Park project- and if so; is Saudi Arabia now the Capitol investor? In terms of ADA issues: Access to hearings and comment must be inclusive of those with disabilities. Many of Estes Park citizens (marketed as retirement community) fall into category of disabled, protected class due to age. Holding meetings at night can present issues (not limited to but including driving)! Translation issues present, as some business owners in town are Spanish speaking- as are citizens. Hearing impaired also left out of process. Legal explanations are also a translation issue for some! All the aforementioned groups are legally entitled to inclusion in Federal/ State process! Blind and hearing impaired are not factored in planning (at any observable phase. Aforementioned groups are potentially placed at risk for death should they attempt access to "Loop" as engineered in current blueprint. Surely your agency wants ALL citizens accorded access to process and discussion- as well as reasonable expectation of safety with access...? Thank you and kind regards, CG Fleischer, Estes Park, CO I feel the loop will destroy the charm of our town. Yes the traffic problem is huge, but don't sacrifice the businesses and residences who will be greatly impacted by the loop. How about if we made the three blocks from hwy 34 intersection to the west end of Elkhorn a walking mall (similar to what Boulder did on Pearl street). We could design parking on the outskirts and at the Fairgrounds with shuttles to the shopping areas. There has been talk of a parking garage near the visitors center. Additional parking could be expanded (where the thrift stores are) at the other end of Elkhorn. Why not design a loop around the outskirts of town rather than down the middle which will only have a negative affect on long time residents and businesses in and near Elkhorn. Please don't punish our residents, businesses and take away the historical charm of our little town with a loop which I don't think will solve the traffic problem anyway. Thanks, for asking for our opinion. Lynn Lykins 4111 Steve McCauley Estes Park CO Alan Miller Estes Park CO a m a m Lynn Lykins Unknown H ce r U fir 7 m O N _ N N N M N co ltW W E W 0 0 cn M (See attached letter) Please consider these comments as regards the Estes Park Downtown Loop Project Environmental Assessment (EA). In short, we are supportive of a final decision resulting in a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for all components of the Proposed Action and future phases as outlined in the EA and likely in the future. The Town of Estes Park applied for funding and committed a required match in support of the Proposed Action as well as expanded the scope of the EA to include future phases outside current funding. The purpose of the funding is to alleviate severe congestion and frustration associated with impaired access to Federal Lands, namely, Rocky Mountain National Park. As a resident, the gridlock endured during much of the heavy visitation season traveling in Town for routine life purposes, to say the least, is aggravating and long past due for improvement. The National Park is the anchor store for attracting visitors from around the world to and through Estes Park. This project and program is designed to accommodate and improve access to the Park with the benefit of improved reasonable residential and community travel for other purposes. Both visitor and resident experience is currently compromised and the Proposed Action offers the start of the solution at no significant impact to the environment and local economy. The hydraulic studies included in the EA are adequate for the conceptual design of the Proposed Action and future phases. In terms of the economy, downtown merchants account for 19% of total number Estes merchants and 23% of total retail sales (EA Page 3-50). This same downtown core area accounts for only 17% of total Town revenue. The EA further points out that the current trend of vehicle access through Town via Highways 34 and 36 has and is expected to continue to grow at 1.6% annually through the year 2040. For those to claim that the Proposed Action will decimate the Town economy is unfounded. This Proposed Action is not going to result in the collapse of the Estes Valley economy as might be represented by others. Instead, the Proposed Action along with complementary undertakings to mitigate flood hazards, to enhance parking, and improve and expand public transportation systems to and through Estes Park as well as Rocky Mountain National Park will only stabilize, sustain and enhance the overall economic foundation, including the Downtown core area, into the future. The Proposed Action is necessary, prudent, and overdue. Comments offered that fall outside the purpose and scope of the EA should be discounted as being exactly that, outside the scope and purpose of the EA. In short, a FONSI should be prepared, signed and recorded. (See attached letter) Town Board and Administrators: I would like to state that I have maintained an Estes Park residence and business in Estes Park for over 20 years. I have read all reports, propaganda, citizen and town official statements, & meeting notes, as well as attended multiple meetings on this subject. In summary my request is that I wish my town of Estes Park to take no action in accepting the FLAP gran, or move forward with current proposals. This is partially due to the idea that it has been characterized by the city as an all or nothing proposition, and in that light I propose taking no action. And more importantly our National Park has stated that they have too many cars entering the park during peak season, so why would we move forward based on the stated objective of this grant?? It appears a dishonesty to voters across our nation that we would execute on the proposed 'Loop" as a service to help them get to the RMNP faster. I would also like to articulate that I find the town irresponsible in not providing the citizens of Estes Park an opportunity to vote on such a critical change to the make-up of our town. I went into this process with an open mind toward finding an opportunity to improve EP. I have now seen firsthand how many of the town administrators only see this as an opportunity to get their hands on tax payer dollars to be spent in the way they deem best. I witnessed what could be construed as cronyism and saw the process as reckless and without focus or vision. As a participant of this process since first introduced at the museum meetings I have found I have a no -confidence vote in the current town administrator's ability to manage the town's best interests for a project of this scale and complexity. As a business executive for a large company I could never be allowed to run my business in such a manner. This is a significant reason I would vote for no action at this time. Further Reasoning: • There are numerous mapping errors on the EA report and there are potential flaws in some of the science claimed and used in the study. Brings into question the quality of the study. • Parking is still the #1 issue in town and it is not addressed adequately • This project has been a moving target, never well thought-out or presented from day one. The town has continually shifted the purpose, and goals of this project based on town sentiment. Town Administrators have not shown a sense of true vision or purpose except to get our hands on the $$, at any cost. • Why is EP pilfering Federal funds to get park visitors to a traffic jam at the RMNP entrance about 2 maybe 3 minutes sooner than now. • The EA or any assessment has not adequately assessed the potential financial damage to West End Elkhorn merchants, nor West or East Riverside merchants. • The noise study impact of West and East Riverside was at best inadequate and will end up being challenged. That whole area is an area of commerce that will be significantly impacted by the noise and traffic. That was not well addressed in the study. • The town still does not have a comprehensive master plan, and any plan done before the proposed loop takes effect would be irresponsible. • All of this for one bridge, getting the cars to RMNP 2 minutes faster, and some flood mitigation work for town?? Not really what the FLAP is for but as we all know CDOT loves these projects so they will support this in any way possible. They build, then they leave, and I doubt our town administrator will still be here by the time the loop would be completed. • Increased traffic does not always mean better business for merchants, making Riverside drive a highway does not make it a better place to do business. • Adding hi -ways through the middle of town does not improve the ambiance of a destination location like Estes Park. Elkhorn Avenue is now an island with hi -ways on both sides! • Is Estes Park really OK losing parking spaces and useable park space? Yes we gain park space but it is not useable. • The bike lane claims: as a person who rides his bike through town and up into the park on a regular basis I can say that what some have advocated as being beneficial is woefully short of being beneficial or helpful. In reality the current Riverside configuration is better for bicycling than any of the proposed measures of the Loop. A shared lane on Elkhorn, really?? I would be happy to bring forth numerous riders who are, and are not a part of the bicycle coalition. • What would happen if we spent this much effort working on the quality of our visitor over quantity of visitors!! • Real Solutions to town Problems: Build a parking structure behind the library 4 stories high, Charge a nominal fee for parking, to pay for it, reduce traffic into town that is how we really improve traffic and ambiance of town. Do that then look at creating a new hi -way through town! That seems to be the real solution after sitting in on all these meetings. • The Estes Park Kids Park on W. Riverside would now be next to a hi -way, our kids grew up playing in that park downtown, and we would not let them do that with a highway next to it. That space between bridges etc. that is proposed park is not usable! • Proposed parking along riverside now that it is a highway is ineffective if you want to maintain traffic flow. • I assume you have considered a huge rented RV with a car attached on the back going around the proposed Roundabout? • What about the hazardous materials now being directed down a residential area of Riverside, no problem because it is a hi -way? What about the residences and visitors who stay along there every year?? :Ja l�a 11JIlll W o D /AI E 2 ',...) IY m Q N Public Hearing (comment form) m E L.'0 Q N Public Hearing Verbal (1) c c 2 o v o D o E 5 q 0 N � 0 N N r 0 N co 0 N N r 0 N N r • Final Comment: If the town has such a smart idea with the FLAP grant then let the community vote, if it is that good and idea they will win and we will move forward. Respectfully, Mark Newman 50o Chapin Lane Pl ease stop the fear tactics and lets base further comments and details from the town on facts, not hyperbolic tactics etc. The traffic simulations insult my intelligence. I am trying to figure out why there is an interest in this project. if it is done, seems to me that it will hurtthe businesses in estes, which makes no sense, and it will put more cars in the park, which the park is already saying there are to many cars in the park and the park is having problems with the overload of cars. yes the town can get some funds to pay for part of the project, but the residents of estes will have a big bill to pay for the rest of the project. I assume that the residents will have the ability to vote for the extra taxes to pay for this large bill , and I hope the majority will vote no. if the park is pushing for this project, let the park pay, but I know that will not happen. the so called traffic problem is only for a few days a year, and likely does not cause problems for the residents of estes. we know how to get around town and stay away from el khom. seems to me a more logical way to solve the short term traffic problem would be to build a parking garage and provide a shuttle service to the park. both the town and the park would win, since the tourists would be in town and the cars would not be in the park causing problems. to me, I do not see any benefit to the town of estes or the merchants of estes to proceed with this project. neil ricklefs I'm against the one-way couplet. Drastic for four months out of the year. Residents must use 12 months out of year —foolish. RMNP is trying to alleviate cars in park — we should be stressing use of shuttles instead of searching for more ways of getting people out of town we should be trying to keep them in town. I think using a roundabout is a mistake. They are confusing and hard to understand. Tourists have enough distractions without dealing with roundabouts. It's too bad you can't use the improvements to Riverside without adding the one-way restrictions. One more thing — roundabouts — how do we expect tourist with motor homes pulling cars to be able to get from one side to another. Thank you for your work and time. To the Estes Park Town Board, others in Estes Park Governing Body, others who did the analysis for THE LOOP: • THE LOOP IS NOT NEEDED. I have lived in the town of Estes Park for 37 years and have seen the increase in the number of Visitors to help our economy. • The original idea to get the "free money" grant for THE LOOP was to help traffic flow through Estes Park to and from RMNP. I have a report from a person working in the EP Visitor Center that parking lots in RMNP are full, traffic gets shut off to Bear Lake in Moraine Park because no place to park. A Park Ranger commented they are overwhelmed with visitors and DO NOT SEND MORE CARS TO RMNP as we can't handle them. Encourage people to ride the FREE shuttle. • It is perceived by some local residents and those working in the EP Municipal Building that we have AN UNDESIRABLE PROBLEM WITH TRAFFIC. I am in contact with in -state and out-of-state residents 3 to 5 times a week who own EP property, inquiring to buy property or just vacationing in EP. Every time I have an opportunity I inquire of these people if the traffic in Estes Park is a problem for them and if it a discouragement for them to visit EP. The response is that a lot of traffic is expected and it is no problem for any of these people I have talked with. These visitors will return!!! • I live at 450 West Wonderview. Since the electronic directional sign directing visitors to the north entrance to RMNP has been installed at the Hwy 34/36 intersection, traffic has really increased and this traffic has been diverted from Elkhorn Ave. The traffic is not a problem to me as it is a seasonal thing.. It also took a lot of traffic off Elkhorn Avenue when 2 lanes of traffic coming in on Hwy. 36 and Hwy. 7 were not forced with a left hand turns forcing them down Elkhorn Avenue, thus relieving traffic on Elkhorn. • An electronic sign reading FREE parking and FREE shuttle to town and RMNP needs to be placed on Hwy. 34 and Hwy. 36 about a half mile before the turn offs to help direct visitors to the FREE Fairground Parking lot and FREE shuttles. • Estes Park should not be expected to keep up accommodating the huge increase in population along the Front Range with local "highways", streets, parking garages and parking lots. Public Hearing Verbal (1) I am not in favor, and I think its been a very divisive issue within the community, mainly between the old-timers and the newcomers. And I think with the improvements they've made this past year, they've improved traffic so well. The Barnes Dance and the way the lights are set. The Barnes Dance. Do you know what that is? Its where all of the lights at the intersections turn red and all the cars stop and people go anywhere they want. We used to have that 15 years ago, and they took it away. But that has improved, plus the way the lights are set according to speed and -- like they do in the cities. Public Hearing (comment form) (2) This project was initiated three —four years by a town employee who did not live in the area. To make a place for himself he applied for a multimillion dollar grant from F.L.A.P. — Federal Access Program — and the purpose was to 'funnel" traffic more easily into and out of Rocky Mountain National Park. (1) The catch was: The National Park said we don't want any more cars in the park. Visitor count was high already and they wanted visitors to ride the shuttles. The project proceeded to a few public hearings with the appropriate personnel facilitating and explaining the options of different scenarios and seemed to move pretty quickly. It was finally decided that there would be two choices: "Al" and "Do Nothing." And before we knew it, it had been decided by the Board of Trustees (vote 4- 2) that the choice Al —the Loop - would become reality. It has been said and as I see the Loop, this monster HAS become divisive element in the community —primarily between the Old Timers and Newcomers — those who have lived here less than 10-11 years. I believe the vote of the Trustees proved this out. (2) I walk the downtown streets regularly and talk with visitors. After I ask what they like about our town, I then ask what they don't like. It's not the traffic, per se, but the need for additional parking — and some even mentioned PAID parking which I have advocated for some years as it could be done very easily. They also mention the help of signage AND another grocery store might be helpful. Perhaps we can get our Economic Development look into this! (3) Our visitors like the historic charm and uniqueness of the village and the friendliness of the people. Seriously, traffic is not a concern for them. They know there will be traffic. They come for our festivals, they come to view the mountains and wildlife and they come to share with friends and relatives. I realize the agencies that do the research such as the EA have been hired to do so but I get the gut feeling this project is being forced on us by people who have never lived here or lived here for a shorttime; perhaps they never really visited here...but work for those who think they know what's best for us. (4) I don't think downsizing Baldwin Park on Riverside and taking our parking spaces, and Children's Park where one sees many visitors relaxing and enjoying, the parking spaces taken out of the Dairy Queen lot with a proposed 'gentle" curving of the one way street. I wonder if they have ever been down Elkhorn in February when one wonder is there will ever be cars and people on the street again. Basically what I am saying, we do not need the Loop. When one adds up the number of days we have congestion, it amounts to 35-40 days a year or equal to one month. With some traditional events now being held at the Event Center, and signage sending visitors/tourist to the north entrance of the park, the timing of the lights on Elkhorn and the Barnes dance, there is a difference for the better this year. I have heard there are people complaining about the traffic on Wonderview, which is amusing...there are not many people living on West Wonderview to complain. In other cases, many of us feel the elected trustees do no listen to the community. J C Estes Park CO a Estes Park CO urip Mark Newman (cont) Neil Ricklefs Susan J. Day 3 0 z Pat Newsom E 0 w z z c m 111 o r m rn co rtmE f I f Eo N C S I 4 J c N _ S N_ J Og N N I J fyyyy D rl Thanks for the opportunity to comment on the EA developed for the Downtown Estes Loop. Since this is a federal action, one of three actions is required. Either a) categorical exclusion, b) an environmental assessment, c) an environmental impact statement. Normally the decision whether to prepare an EA or an EIS is a judgement based on degree of impact, sensitivity of resources affected and degree of public controversy. (1) Given the sensitivity of the Estes Park residents, why wasn't an EIS developed? (2) The stated problem was congestion during peak summer visitor season. How does moving congestion down 3 blocks change delays and public safety? (3) P.31 says no action means nothing happens until 2040! This seems incorrect because actually it means nothing happens right now! (4) During Phase I, no mention is made of the time to completion. How long will Phase I take and how will this impact traffic congestion and public safety? (5) Purpose stated: to provide improved access to and from RMNP by reducing travel time, congestion and pedestrian/vehicle conflict through downtown Estes Park, as well as negative impact on visitors. What about the impact on local business and/or the human environment? (6) NEPA is National Environmental Policy Act — not National Environmental Protection Act, as stated in the abbreviations. (7) Does the project design include work that will be done later or will a new design be required? At what cost and time? (8) Since traffic is the issue, the project needs to begin at the entrance to RMNP with 2 lanes going in both directions. A stop light is required at the intersection of Hwy 36 and Hwy 66. Then 2 lanes are required from the corner of Mary's Lake Road back to Moraine Ave. Only until this is accomplished can congestion truly be reduced. (9) Should also consider more buses to access RMNP and stoplights on Hwy 34 beginning at Dry Gulch Rd. Public Hearing (comment form) (1) I cannot support the loop for the following reasons: 1. The proposed alternative will have vehicles on Elkhorn Ave. that will be going one way with two lanes. It is not going to be any safer or less congested when two lanes of traffic from Elkhorn Ave. are going into two lanes down Moraine Ave. and then merging into the one lane at Moraine Ave. by the Donut Haus in order to get to the National Park. This does not improve congestion and you will still have a bottleneck as you go towards the Park. 2. Once the vehicles are at the entrance to the National Park, congestion will NOT be reduced. The National Park currently restricts access up Bear Lake Road when parking at the Trailheads and Park and Ride are filled. 3. Other congestion relief has not been attempted that will help people get out of their cars before they enter the downtown area. Parking garages on the boundary of the downtown area would be helpful as would paid parking and parking meters in the downtown core as a means of generating revenue, promoting economic activity through increased parking space turnover. More shuttles and earlier shuttles going into the Park are essential to reduce congestion. 4. The Riverside corridor will be a crowded highway with negative impacts to Baldwin Park to residents and lodging establishments. There will be tree removal, increased noise and air pollution. 5. Section 4 (f) of the Department of Transportation Act states that use of land from publicly owned parks, cannot take place unless there is no feasible and prudent avoidance alternative, and that action includes planning to minimize harm to the property. I disagree; the tranquility of the area will be destroyed. 6. I hope that funds are not going to be used to foster and encourage economic development expansion in the Riverside area once those homes and businesses are bought up and are no longer there. I often wondered if grant money was used appropriately to pave over the parking lot at the fairgrounds under the guise of reducing air pollution. The fairgrounds shuttle has not been popular and has not been extensively used yet the parking lot was conveniently paved over prior to the Events Center being built there. Thank you for this opportunity on such an important issue. — Susan Wolf Public Hearing Verbal (2) I'm a year-round resident. I cannot support the loop for the following reasons: One: The proposed alternative will have vehicles on Elkhorn Avenue that will be going one way with two lanes. It's not going to be any safer or less congested when two lanes of traffic from Elkhorn Avenue are going into two lanes down Moraine Avenue and then merging into the one lane at Moraine Park by what is now the Donut Haus in order to get to the National Park. Two: Once the vehicles are at the entrance to the park, congestion will not be reduced. The National Park currently restricts access up Bear Lake Road when parking at the trailhead and Park-n-Ride are filled. Three. Other congestion relief has not been attempted that would help people get out of their cars before they enter the downtown area. Parking garages on the boundary of the downtown area would be helpful, as would paid parking and parking meters in the downtown core, as a means of generating revenue, promoting economic activity through increased parking space turnover. More shuttles and earlier shuttles going into the park are essential to reduce congestion. Four: The Riverside corridor will be a crowded highway with negative impacts to Baldwin Park to residents and to larger establishments. There will be tree removal, increased noise, and air pollution. Five: Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act states that use of land from publicly owned parks cannot take place unless there is no feasible and prudent avoidance alternative and the action includes planning to minimize harm to the property. I do not agree with a de minims impact as the tranquility of the area will be destroyed. Six: The restroom is essential on the riverside walk. That playground area, a lot of the children use the restrooms. People walking with their dogs use that restroom, joggers. To try to get across Elkhorn to go to the town hall and use the bathrooms, it's very time-consuming, plus people with dogs are not allowed into the town hall. They would have to tie their dogs outside. And in conclusion, I hope that federal funds are not going to be used to foster or encourage economic development expansion in the Riverside area once those homes and businesses are boarded up and are no longer there. I often wondered if grant money was used appropriately to pave over the parking lot of the fairgrounds under the guise of reducing air pollution. The fairgrounds shuttle has not been popular and has not been extensively used, yet the parking lot was conveniently paved over prior to the Events Center being built. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on such an important issue. CPO O s a ( 0 a ( ( 0 `m w 0 ` wm III tifi B 1iti ri lif/ f i i we ae U Web EA Comment Form Web EA Comment Form Web EA Comment Form Web EA Comment Form Web EA Comment Form Web EA Comment Form Web EA Comment Form (1) Web EA Comment Form (2) Web EA Comment Form Web EA Comment Form Web EA Comment Form Q< we ae U JJ'_ m N N I� m N RM r m N M r •• „ ( Charley Dickey Estes Park CO As a business in the center of the traffic congestion in downtown Estes Park, I have had a concern for solutions to our traffic and parking issues. I applied for and was accepted on the Transportation Visioning Citizen's Committee in 2011-2012. We discussed options to improve traffic and parking and from our 18 months of hard work we produced a comprehensive report that offered a course for the Town to take based on some time frames with some regard to the financial aspect of funding. The FLAP grant became available 10 years sooner than we had anticipated the Town would have the ability to consider the traffic solution options we proposed — one of them being the current Loop project. Although, I personally don't believe this is the best option for the community, I do believe it is a much better option than doing nothing. At this point in my support, I MUST state that I believe that parking is a larger issue than the congestion. Much of the congestion is caused due to a lack of down town parking. I was disappoint to see the UNFUNDED PHASE 2 of this FLAP grant get pushed back AGAIN due to flood mitigation issues with the bridges and roads. Grant it those are a serious concerns BUT that doesn't deal with congestion (Traffic or Parking). I am concerned that we don't have the RMNP at the table with the Town, CDOT and FLAP. It is unconscionable that we would proceed down this road without all affected parties engaged. Don Sellers Estes Park CO Kudos to the people who developed the video simulation. Before seeing the video, i was neutral on whether the loop should be built. After seeing the video, I am totally convinced that the loop will be a necessity. I'm now all for it. Steven Mitchell Estes Park CO As designed, I believe the loop to be the best solution to traffic flow problems through downtown Estes Park. It is important to realize there are serious consequences if nothing is done to solve this problem. To stick ones head in the sand and resist change can only hurt the economic future of the town in the long term. I believe the fear by shop owners that tourists won't stop to shop if the loop is put in is misplaced. Actually, I think tourists will avoid downtown in the future because of the congestion. Everyone who lives in and around Estes Park knows when not to go into town because of traffic problems. Tourists will also catch onto this eventually and avoid it themselves. Carolyn and Ken Estes Park CO After reading everything available and talking to those on both sides, we submit that building the LOOP is a terrible idea. We really do not mind the time it takes to drive through town, even in the Wills summertime. (We are full time residents and have been for over 13 years.) Actually, its fun to window shop as traffic slows down. We've been known to go back and shop after having seen something in a store window. Spending money just because it might be available is not always the wise choice. Susan Harris Estes Park CO I am still opposed to the loop plan. I do not like one way streets in a town that has very few streets to begin with. I do not think your simulator is correct. I think that there will still be a huge bottleneck in the area of the present day Donut Haus in the mornings, and of course, your simulator shows only afternoon projections. I still believe that much of the downtown congestion is due to lack of parking, and until you build an easily accessible large parking garage, you will always have traffic issues. I also think that for some reason everyone focuses on Rocky Mountain National Park as the visitors destination, but the Town of Estes Park is also a destination and the idea of just funneling everyone through to an already crowded National Park is a poor idea. My final thought is that if the loop is completed, it is the final death knell for local residents and their sense of ownership of the town. We used to have hardware stores, pharmacies, grocery stores, etc. In the downtown corridor, and now nothing. The loop just finalizes the destruction of downtown Estes Park. John Krueger Estes Park CO I believe the proposed loop should go forward, unless an alternative other than "NO Action" can be developed. The complaints that this will adversely effect downtown businesses is way out of perspective. Anyone wanting to shop downtown still has to find a parking place and the loop gives opportunity for more parking to be properly developed and positioned. Bob Ladenburger Estes Park CO Given today's volume of traffic and the projections of future growth, I support the construction of the loop project. '..Susie Ladenburger I Estes Park CO Web EA Comment Form (1) I support the construction of the loop given existing and future traffic congestion. Susie Ladenburger Web EA Comment Form (2) I support the construction of the loop given existing and future traffic congestion. Michael Sisk Estes Park CO I've been to a meeting or two. I'll never forget the comment period at the end of the first meeting. Almost everyone spoke against it. Then, at the end, one of the town fathers, said, "well, its seems like it was pretty evenly divided tonight." From that point, I realized that "the fix is in". Nothing I say will have any effect on the decision. James Mount Estes Park CO I have carefully studied the Downtown Estes Loop EA and am very impressed with its depth and comprehensive coverage of the issues. I now have a thorough understanding of the project and its impacts. Based on this, I am convinced that the loop project will definitely improve traffic flow to and from RMNP with minimal negative impact on the environment and local business. Therefore, I am very much in favor of the project and hope it will proceed. Anne Nichting Estes Park CO I do not think the Town should approve The Loop. At a minimum it should the vote to the voters. That said, I do not live within the Town's city limits. I think the Town should focus on parking, infrastructure and a comprehensive long term plan. The Town may have difficulty in the future with obtaining another grant but I think The Town would be wiser to develop a comprehensive long term plan that addresses„parking, traffic and infrastructure rather than disrupting The Town and its merchant base for what may be very limited improvement with getting traffic into the park given the park's own growth problems with traffic. Sylvia Schneider Estes Park CO I believe the loop is a very bad idea. Destroying homes,businesses and a beautiful city park is not worth the few minutes one might save by driving on a one-way loop. If the purpose of the loop is to bring visitors to the park more quickly, a better solution would be to promote the Fall River entrance more extensively than is now being done. We have had a record number of visitors to the park lately. What difference does it make if they get there a little faster? People will come here even if they encounter traffic. In fact, visitors expect traffic. If the loop is built, the residents will have to put up with loop during the off season, too, often requiring extra driving depending on where they wish to go. Estes Park has an unique character which visitors and residents love. Tearing down homes and businesses would forever change the quaint quality of the Riverside Drive area. Baldwin Park is a delightful out of the way spot for relaxation and play. The riverside walk is part of this ambiance. Losing this would make me and many others very sad. What Estes Park needs is more parking. Focusing on that should be our number one priority. We can't afford to lose a single parking space. Another idea that would be better than a on -way loop would be to create a pedestrian mall of the downtown. Other cities have done this with great results. This issue is too important to be decided by a board or committee. It should be decided by ballot by the whole Estes Valley, because it will affect us all. 3 co' co' f� /' � Web EA Comment Form Web EA Comment Form Web EA Comment Form Web EA Comment Form (1) EstesTruth.org Website (2) Web EA Comment Form Web EA Comment Form Web EA Comment Form (1) EstesTruth.org Website (2) Web EA Comment Form Web EA Comment Form 0 LL N W E o 'v Web EA Comment Form �. ,m 0 0 0 0 m 0 0 m 0 0 m 0 0 m 0 0 m 0 0 m 0 0 m 0 0 m 0 0 m 0 0 m 0 0 CA m 0 0 m This has become a very divisive issue! I am against the loop project and believe that parking garages should be built instead. I have heard the comment, 'If we don't do something about the traffic, the tourists won't come anymore." That is ridiculous! We had the biggest crowd last year and this year is turning out to be even greater! Getting rid of homes, businesses and a park are not worth getting people to the park faster. They will still go to the park no matter what.The businesses that are cut off because of the loop will suffer, too. Let's preserve our beautiful town the way it is. All the people of Estes Park should be able to vote on this issue. I believe that the mayor campaigned with this as a promise! I think it is undeniable that the summer traffic in Estes Park is horrible. As a long time local, we figure out ways to avoid downtown during the major traffic tie-ups. I have been known to drive Mays Lake Rd, Peak View and Hwy 7 to avoid downtown when going across town. I am strongly in favor of taking action to improve traffic downtown. I believe "The Loop" provides the only detailed, fully analyzed plan that can improve traffic flow through downtown. I would love to see our elected officials do what the people want instead of what they feel is best for Estes Park. They are to represent our wants, not be business people and decide what is best in their minds. No Loop The pollution build up on Riverside because of the way the mountain sits (the mist/fog hangs in there) would be a future problem. Estes Park is still quaint and the people would love to keep it that way. We do not need to be like Aspen or other mountain towns. We are unique with our RMNP and our small town feel. It would be nice to finally have elected officials that represent their people! Web EA Comment Form (1) So I just want to vote no for this project. I wish the board would listen to the people and residents of this town. We are the ones that make this town. All the tourist that come up we work 9 to 10 hrs or more to make this town what it is. I vote no for the round about. There are other things this town needs first. Take care of those things first. What happens if there is a life or death situation and because it's one way the authories have to follow the loop all the way around I vote NO EstesTruth.org Website (2) please don't allow the loop There are other things that the town needs to take care of before this. No loop. What's the point of making a quicker path through town when RMNP can't handle the flow? Please don't ruin the charm of our lovely town. If we wanted a place like Aspen or Telluride, we would have bought there. NO ACTION ON THE LOOP!!! With so many other available options (parking/shuttle), the Loop is a ridiculous solution to an easily solved problem. With comprehensive communication to visitors, you could easily park them at the fair grounds and shuttle in, and what about completing the visitor parking garage? What happened to that? The Loop will forever change the face of downtown EP, which is one of the most remarkable and memorable aspects of any visit to this charming mountain town. NO TO THE LOOP!!!! Web EA Comment Form (1) Putting a loop in Estes Park is truly the worst possible thing you could do for the town and especially for the persons it's going put out of their homes and businesses because of the route requiring them to change their living arrangements! The majority of Estes Park residents do not want the loop and I think the city and the state should respect that! We've E xpressed our wishes over and over and no one seems to want to listen to us! PLEASE do not do this!! EstesTruth.org Website (2) There is no way this should be allowed to PROCEED without a vote of the city residents. And the same goes for the stupid opera house (or whatever the heck they're going to put in there) that they want to put down town where the mall burned down... open your ears City of Estes Park and clear your heads!! THIS IS NOT WANTED! Having lived within the town limits for over 20 years and having to drive through downtown, I feel that the "Loop" will add to the traffic problem. It will I feel add to traffic confusion and for those looking for parking (witch should be a priority) I hate the thought of loosing the Dounut Haus to a roundabout which if they are likde the ones in Loveland are a death wish. Please find another solution. I'm a 30 year resident of this town and I greatly oppose The Loop. It is a terrible idea for our town and once it is realized it's a bad idea, what is done is done. Let's fix our parking problem first and see what the effect is then. I just really think we have more options to look at. The Loop is a horrible, horrible idea for our town just to 'alleviate" some traffic for 3 months out of the year. Parking first, then let's see where we are. Please. While the reality of Federal money is very alluring, I believe we are addressing the wrong problem by pursuing the Loop project. I volunteer at the Visitors Center here in EP, and more than once in recent years,the Bear Lake road has been closed to visitors because there was no more parking along that corridor. This year, for the first time in my twelve year history here, the Alpine Visitors Center and Old Fall River Road were also closed, again because there were no parking spaces, and traffic was backed up on Old Fall River Road. RMNP can't accommodate any more visitors, so why are we trying to send them to the Park more quickly? They are just going to be sent back to the Visitors Center and told to take the free shuttle. Other state and national parks have faced a similar problem and have addressed that issue by limiting the high visitation months to shuttle access only, no private vehicles. Note the Maroon Bells area here in Colorado and Zion Parkin nearby Utah. I believe it will only be a matter of time until RMNP must adopt the same procedure, possibly from June 20 until Sept. 30, thus reducing the environmental impact on the Park, as well as providing easy access to the Park visitors. What we really need here in EP is additional parking. The proposed parking structure across from the Visitors Center is a partial solution. Other options might include more parking at the Fairgrounds or spaces near the Hiways 34,36, and 7 entrances to Estes Park. Perhaps the Town and the Park could collaborate on additional parking structures at Fall River and Beaver Meadow entrances to the Park.. I understand that the Park is already considering expansion of the shuttle service, so pick-up points could include these areas. Please do not impose the Loop on our community. To make such drastic changes to address a four month per year problem is unreasonable. By the time the Loop construction could be built, the Park will likely have instituted a solution of its own. Not to collaborate with them would be irresponsible. Even though we would reject the current possibility of a FLAP grant, there are and will be other options for funding that would not split the Town, both literally and figuratively. Thank you for considering my comments. To those who think changing the traffic pattern to accommodate tourists will increase tax revenues, I say that destroying the essence of Estes Park could, in fact make it less appealing to tourists. This action should not be taken on the recommendation of a few individuals, but should be put to a vote by the citizens whose lives will be impacted. 'i) f Scott Schneider Estes Park CO Todd Plummer Estes Park CO Doreen Glorioso Estes Park CO Donna McCormick Estes Park CO '.. Donna McCormick Susie Alexander Estes Park CO Lynda Smith Boulder CO Myrna Goff Estes Park CO Myrna Goff Estes Park CO Irish Andrews Estes Park CO Shannon DeJaynes Estes Park CO Barbara Cole Estes Park CO Katherine Summers Estes Park CO d I� uw if a r , , rDm r COn r m m m m N fr. O LL Q N W E U Web EA Comment Form Web EA Comment Form Web EA Comment Form Web EA Comment Form Web EA Comment Form Web EA Comment Form LL Q N W E U Web EA Comment Form e O LL Q N W E g U Web EA Comment Form I. pzs ;A1 0 Ann Unknown I don't know the answer to the downtown congestion and confusing signage but I think we can all agree the lack of parking is a huge contributing factor. I travel between the Safeway area to Marys Lake Road at least twice daily. Having lived and worked in various areas throughout town the last 18 years, I can honestly tell you the 2-3 blocks of Moraine Avenue from Elkhorn to The Donut Haus are the most dangerous blocks in this entire town. There are multiple hard to see pedestrian crossings, street parking, a one way avenue, double turns, parking lots, and lane merges. As someone who travels via car, motorhome, motorcycle and scooter through this area, I feel I literally take my life into my hands each and every time I travel it and have had more close calls than I care to mention. I feel some overhead pedestrian crossings, well -marked bypasses & pavement markings as well as directions for trucks & motorhomes would help immensely regardless of the loop outcome. I won't even get to vote on this issue because I live (barely) outside city limits but I hope the decision makers take into account all factors including the historic nature and charm of downtown, the fact that tourists are drawn to downtown shopping but will be discouraged if they can't get there and also the safety and well-being of our citizens and visitors alike. Everyone has their own agenda but we need to be forward thinking and find a solution that will lead us Into the future, not leave us In the same predicament 20 years from now. Lynn Stepaniak Estes Park CO The need is for parking in this town- not moving people through the town quicker. RMNP is not able to handle the increased volume it currently has at the entrance gates, and certainly won't with the Loop. This is a 3 month problem at best- increased parking would solve it. Do the right thing for the town and the full time residents. Sara Maypole Estes Park CO One more utterly stupid proposition with incredible messes to be made and very little gain. A matter of a few seconds speeding people through town for "easier access to the park" which is already jammed full. I've never seen anything like the traffic this summer and how long will the park remain worth visiting at this rate?Just one bridge to be replaced while 3 need to be upgraded for reasons of flooding. UGH! Kay Rosenthal Estes Park CO I do not support the loop. We need to encourage people to park and ride into town but to divert traffic from the middle of town would hurt the local businesses. Please DO NOT PASS the LOOP it's bad for local business. Joshua Williams Estes Park CO I have lived in Estes for 30 years and do not want to see such massive changes to the cute town that we have. The research shows that towns that have done this revert within a few years. Why spend taxpayers money to do something that will only have to be paid to be undone in a few years? Candice Mohr Estes Park CO As a business owner in the affected area, I support the Loop project. Linda Langer Estes Park CO I object to the Estes Park FLAP Grant Environmental Assessment and the Loop project. I don't' like the fact that it will destroy a historic neighborhood in Estes Park and create a 4 lane street in our small town setting. Notwithstanding the 2 years of Inconvenience that construction will bring, the Loop will encourage more car traffic through town and Into the park instead of finding ways to reduce car traffic such as rerouting to Fall River Entrance, using Fairgrounds parking, more shuttles, etc. Faith A Zimmerman Estes Park CO It is clear that a number of competing interests exist for the loop project. But in my estimation the replacement of old bridges that potentate flooding and creating roads and intersections that will be able to handle current and future traffic justify the loop project. If completed over a period of time then there should be sufficient opportunity to create win/win situations for businesses and residents and preserve the local environment. Decisions by government leaders should be for the long term economic health of downtown Estes Park while preserving the unique aspects of our town. We cannot go from flood to flood to move progress forward downtown as we see tourism increasing every year. Already many irritated drivers sit in traffic and are parking anywhere and this does not enhance their visit. None of the downtown issues will improve without a bold step forward and the EA appears as a constructive step forward. Ideally it would be nice to have a residential mall on Elkhorn so local residents and tourists can leisurely and safely shop and maybe someday all traffic should turn at Riverside? But for now I believe that public funding is not something that can or should be tumed away when we have safety factors with floods and existing and increasing congestion to consider. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Raymond Roach Estes Park CO I feel the public is being railroaded into the loop which the majority doesn't want. Why are a few public officials ignoring the opinions of the majority. Douglas Klink Estes Park CO I believe that the loop project is an unnecessary waste of resources and will permanently damage our town's businesses. We finally have the brown park signage that's been so obviously missing, and if we'd include a time to the park" indication on them for the two route options it would reduce downtown traffic even further. A route out of the park using Mary's Lake Road and Peakview could relieve eastbound traffic congestion at little cost. We need to try these low cost options and see how they work. I am also concerned that we took on maintenance responsibility of west Elkhorn including two older bridges and are spending all the money we received for taking on that capital burden on the loop without budgeting capital funds to repair or replace those bridges in the future. When were they last inspected? The new stop light timing has also been helping as have the summer police officers. Waits at peak times have not been bad. The food plain study may cause raise even more issues that would be a better use of our funds than the loop. Finally, the Park is overcrowded and limiting visitors as It Is. How does getting the visitors there faster help? Friends In an ry got through downtown In July In good time only to wait over a half hour In line to get into the park. If there is a problem, there needs to be a global solution, not just a segmented approach with no master plan. It needs to include mass transit of visitors from our "transit hub" at the fairgrounds to the park as it is probable that auto traffic on at least Bear Lake Road will be restricted in the future as it has been at other parks. The buses could use Moccasin and avoid downtown completely. Let's try more creative solutions than condemning citizens private property and pouring concrete! Kim Coffey Estes Park CO I am 100% in favor of this project. I have been a resident for 16 years and I have a business on Elkhorn, so I truly have a vested interest. Please, DO NOT, put this before the public. They do not have the years of research, studies, and discussions and would simply be voting based on personal emotions vs informed decisions. We elected our town officials to manage our beloved community...please follow through with that responsibility vs passing it off to a small portion of the true residents it will affect, to make this decision. It is too important! Thank you. f////, "4, WWYAN ) y J F Nmw EstesTruth.org Website (1) EstesTruth.org Website (2) a W E" N EU LLC F y -Po IiI m 0 N W 111 m 0 N W Dear Greg, I have been a resident of Estes Park since 1987. I am amazed that the increased traffic during the past two years. I am neither in favor of or against the Loop, per se. I am however in favor of improved safety for pedestrians and bicyclist in our town. I have traditionally walked around town from my home on Davis Street. There are areas less than 1 mile from my house where it is safer to drive. Getting around town on my bicycle is plain scary. If the Loop would improve safety, I am all for it. If it only encourages more traffic through town, faster, more hazardous, and clogs the roads in the park, I am surely against it. Cynthia Sisson It's been about 51 years since I slid off a snowbank near Estes Park and was picked up by a local ambulance. But I survived to return today, for the first time today and notice the Loop issue in some store windows as we did the Extreme Tourist route of stopping at every knick knack shop and staring and every working taffy machine. I got some great photos of hummingbirds as we walking the main drag and stopped twice to soak my feet, one at the mini -park at the waterwheel and later at the park area behind Outdoor World. Got a good photo of me on the saddle. (It wasn't hot, but thanks for the warning.) Met the white rabbit at the collectors plates and coins store and opted for a huge single scoop of butter pecan, easily enough for two at $4.50. Really enjoyed the traffic folks shouting OK to cross diagonally - its about time!! Hey, sure we worked our way through three parking lots looking for a space at around noon on a Saturday at end of July and were eased to find a space right past (up the hill) the wonderful 20 acres in the middle of town with the spectacular ruins and a nature instruction and more than enough hiking trails for me right now. Was it obvious that some eager beavers were going to spend and extra five or ten minutes in traffic after driving 500 or 5000 miles to get to paradise? Yes. Were any of those tired travelers going to make a note to visit tourist trap 3,947? Yes. Did the drivers and passengers appear to enjoy the show of masses of humanity eating ice cream cones and dressed for comfort? Yes. Did any driver seem overly anxious to proceed? Did see one giant SUV poised to crush an unsuspecting pedestrian, but Mom was able to save her child. And our friend with the huge diesel pick-up towing a 45' trailer did seem to overly enjoy goosing it to roar left off the main dragand up past the Park Theater. But while waiting for the signal, he and the missus had the windows open and were enjoying their chit-chat. Is there one single location on the planet where a community was sacrificed (as in 'slaughtered") to shorten the trip of someone from hundreds or thousands of miles away by minutes where the local folks were pleased with the outcome? Not that I know of. Must downtown be destroyed in order to save it? Doesn't every visitor to Estes Park owe something to the locals? Why not have that something be the continued possession of a charming downtown that does not need to become a feeeway, just yet. How the electeds who are promoting this monstrosity can serve even one election would be a mystery to me. EstesTruth.org Website (1) NO LOOP! It gets built, we're out of here. EstesTruth.org Website (2) We're having the house at the address above built now. Expecting to move in before the end of the year. We picked Estes Park because of its SMALL TOWN APPEAL. I sure would hate to have to immediately sell the house and find a new place because the city went wack and did this big, hideous mess. Web EA Comment Form (1) As a native I find the EA report offensive. The definition of minimis is insignificant. This means homes,businesses,parks and residents of Estes are insignificant. It may not be significant to them but it is to the residents. The information it has provided is the same as previous reports with the exception of the increased cost and flood plain change information. This report is a sales pitch by salespeople who are trying to sell a product that Estes doesn't need or want. The fact is the EA is a prediction of what may happen not what will happen. As the flood plain people informed the town , the loop will not help when another flood comes. They told Estes residents it is a matter of when not if. Even with a new bridge at Ivy street the whole downtown area will be damaged . West Elkhorn bridges ,built in 1948,will allow the river to flow thru town as well as the Moraine and Crags bridge. Thus destroying the loop work if it is allowed to go forward. Also the project is only partially funded leaving the town to figure out how to fund the rest. This sales tactic does not address the real reason for the congestion. The town needs parking first . This has been ignored and put aside as not important. The loop people say parking could be done in a later phase of the project. The town can't wait till Iater.The National Park has announced on national television that they cannot handle the traffic due to limited roads or parking. They have also told the public they will have to turn visitors away due to no intention of building new widened roads or new parking areas. The loop is a 17 second method to move congestion to other problem areas. The 36/34 intersection and the narrow west Moraine turn into the backup areas, in turn backing up traffic downtown. This EA report also does not include the use of Mary's Lake road as a potential bypass of downtown. Not one word is printed about that possible route to hwy 7 alternative. Even a percentage of vehicles diverted to parking or to bypass downtown will help. Not to mention the use over the digital signs placed near or before Mall road announcing parking and shuttle services at the event center. This would give visitors on 34 or 36 the opportunity and option to avoid the congestion downtown. This project needs to be stopped before it becomes a huge irreversible mistake. EstesTruth.org Website (2) The July 20 meeting was a repeat of the famous meeting of one board member eating and another sleeping. The report itself, except for the flood plain information,is exactly the same as all the others since 2003. Only the numbers have changed. Right now at this point in time the staff from FLAP and CDOT should be getting the message. They are like sales people continuing to push the product . They get paid to do this. Also when their findings are read it has been determined by them that the town residents loss of property and businesses is insignificant. Not to mention the residents voice. It is printed in black and white. When I read that as a native I was offended thatthese salespeople are telling me that I and my voice do not matter. Only the loop matters and the money that goes with it. This madness needs to stop. Even if the project goes forward there is not enough funding to replace the west Elkhorn bridges that have a date on them of 1948. Then what happens when Elkhorn turns into a river again and destroys all the loop work. Not to mention the other bridges that do not meet the flood mitigation people standards. Then what? Hope the sales tax has a surplus to do the rest of the work. It's like they are all in denial. Will the water flow again? Probably. When , who knows, tomorrow next year next decade. I have seen it happen more than I care to. They also said they had looked at all options. Well in all the reports I could not find any study information about using Mary's lake road as a bypass. Yes even this has drawbacks. Even if it was a percentage of the traffic it would help. Besides the problem is not the congestion. It is the park. They can't handle the traffic and are turning people away now with no new roads or parking in the future. I sent my comments in and hope they don't get lost like many things at town hall sometimes does. It c Y O O . o o Estes Park CO O a m m m m n co m o CDo .c o w Betsy Zelinger Betsy Zelinger m E H 0 m E 0 0 fr,,,, m rn , rn co rn rn rn IIIHIto m 0 m 0 sv 92 w 3 En 0 sin a� w 3 Q U LL 2 92 w XW co N co 0 N M W co 0 N W co 0 N N W co 0 N W EstesTruth.org Website (3) After attending as a native, the July 20 meeting and sales pitch I was offended by the EA people who say the changes to the town as a result of the loop are insignificant. Not to mention they were like salespeople who do not care about the effects to homes, businesses and residents because they are insignificant. The report revealed with the exception of the flood plain and cost increase the same almost word for word information as it did at the first presentation. They are salespeople. They get paid to paint a nice picture and tell the residents how a bad idea is great. Like buying a car that has problems as if it is the best buy on the lot. These people will tell the residents anything because they are not from here. To them the residents are insignificant. Also another tv news report was released that the national parks are already turning people away in other areas . It is bound to happen here as well. As the flood plain people told the board members and residents, the loop work will be lost if mitigation up stream is not done first .Such s the west Elkhorn bridges built in 1948. The rivers will flow down Elkhorn and Crags bridge as it has before. The EA people say the loop is only partially funded due to the cost increase. This town needs parking which the EA people say would have to wait for a later phase. Like before put the important issues aside because the residents opinion is insignificant. Until the west apart of Moraine is widened all the way to the park the congestion will only move from one intersection to another. Also not one word was printed in the report about the use of Mary's Lake road as a bypass. It was not even looked at. When will the town board stop this project and start listening to the residents. This project needs to stop now. EstesTruth.org Website (4) After reading the new NEPA report I could not believe the residents of Estes have paid upwards of $250,000 for a copy of , with flood mitigation added, the 2003, 2008 report almost word for word. If you took all these reports and put them side by side they are almost identical. These documents also do not explore other alternatives, such as a total bypass of down town via Mary's lake road. People who know about this road already use it. It could be used by more visitors if the digital signs directed those who don't want to go thru downtown to the 36 entrance of the park. Signage from 36 / 7 intersection could redirect many vehicles which really don't want to go thru town. Why was this alternative never included in any of these reports? Even if it took only percentage of the vehicles it would help the overall congestion downtown. Yes there are some drawbacks such as noise , traffic, but it would be far more beneficial than the loop. Also what happened to the election promises of the new board members that they were not for the loop. The EA is in and it is time for the loop to stop. As a native I personally am tired of the town board ignoring the majority of residents in Estes for the sake of acquiring funds to fund projects that should have been done years ago. How many millions has this town received from flood relief which was spent on fancy sidewalks and special decorations instead of bridges and roads. As the EA points out flood mitigation needs to happen first. No amount of money spent will help down town if the next flood destroys all the work done to create the loop . I know of two bridges that are not in the project area ,and were built in 1948. And heaven forbid we have another 2013 event those bridges will wash out and send the river right down Elkhorn . According to the new flood plain map this would affect the whole town anyway. Even with the loop bridges replaced it will not stop the downtown area from flooding again. From the 90 percent of the visitors I talked to, out of 2000 asked, the most important problem downtown is parking. It seems to me that is where the board should be focusing their attention. Especially since the park will never be able to accommodate the rising number of visitors. The park right now has problems with no room for the visitors. As they have said for a while when it gets to the point of stopping traffic in until traffic leaves this whole area will see a downturn in traffic. The word of visitors travels fast . Furthermore who are these people who do these reports? I would like to know how much they are getting paid to recommend these projects? As I understand they are not even from Estes, but make these recommendations and don't even live here. Its time for the loop to be trashed for good. Send the FLAP money back. EstesTruth.org Website (5) Isn't it just amazing that the old board members are gone and the EA report is now complete? This report has been delayed several times or was it? Each time the old board members were asked when it was going to be completed , it was we don't know ,or they have heard nothing from the FLAP people. Now a magical report is ready for release. One year after it was supposed to be ready. Due to the lack of transparency by the last town board it would be interesting to me when this reportwas actually finished and why it was not ready last year when promised. Also who was calling for the delay. Yes it is a huge report but , so far as much as have read of it , it has basically the same information as the CDOT report from 2003. Only a few changes in words and numbers. So if all this is what the old board members were waiting for ,it cost the residents of Estes thousands of dollars for updated information. As a native I hope the new board will be more transparent , remember who elected them and what they promised the residents. The division of Estes is so disappointing to me. I am a native and this is the worst I have ever seen the people act. Especially outsiders who come here and tell me I don't know what is best for Estes. I know it isn't no loop signs all over town. I remember when Estes was a nice and happy little town. Yes there were issues , but they were solved ,without total division of the town. Then comes the FLAP people. They have no idea what is best for Estes. They don't live here and if they do they know what an issue this is. They also need to realize the National Park openly does not support the project. They can't handle the volume of visitors for years . The roads in Estes is not the problem. It is the higher volume of visitors each year. The National park advertising on television is responsible for much of this volume. I pray this project is stopped before it goes any further. If it continues what next? A Wal-Mart , shopping mall or other chain businesses? Web EA Comment Form (6) The impact of this project is not minimis. This is a blatant disregard of the town residents and their opposition. Furthermore until the town flood mitigation is done first the project will be in jeopardy of being destroyed should another flood occur. As explained by the food plain people, the project will not help the main downtown area. Also the loop is not completely funded, leaving the residents to figure out how to raise the remaining $17 million. As it was pointed out in the EA, it would speed up traffic 17 seconds only to be backed up at the park entrance or other points of the route. The park can't handle the traffic now and have been warning of closures and turning visitors away. Then what? Angry visitors returning to the town only to find no parking and contributing to the congestion. Then when this project doesn't work ,residents have to pay again to undue the work done . The sales team that presented this project were paid to say this was the only option. There are many other things that could help the traffic problem. A parking structure would be a big help and is needed more than the loop. It has been put off for years. There have even been designs made up only to be ignored in hopes the loop would pay for it. We need parking now. Taking just a percentage of the circling traffic would help. The EA people don't live here so how can they make predictions about what may happen. The also didn't explore all the possible bypass alternative roads in Estes. This project is an insult to the residents of Estes. It is not insignificant and very significant. I am a full-time resident and am very much opposed to the Loop. It is a terrible idea. If enacted, the Loop will ruin the character of Estes Park, particularly its charm, which is what draws people to our town. I have traveled all over the country and revisited old favorites. Those places that have wisely kept and nurtured their charming character still draw me. Others that have "improved" their towns with cement, highways and razed neighborhoods will never see my money ever again. What drew me has been destroyed. Riverside Dr. is an example of a wonderful, historic area that, if paved over, will leave a lasting void. I wonder, have the Loop planners visited Blackhawk and Central City, 40 years ago and recently? They are perfect examples of "progress" run amok. Furthermore, the argument about providing easier access to the national park is a bogus one. This summer is seeing a record number of visitors, people who are obviously not deterred by a five- or ten-minute traffic backup. The electronic signage that directs people to the park via Hwy 34 is easily understood, so the people driving through town on Elkhorn Ave. have chosen to go past shops and restaurants. Loop planners, its the character of the town that draws visitors, not just access to the national park. If you think this plan is progress, you are very much mistaken. As the new mayor suggested, let's vote on it, and then you may see the outrage this plan could unleash, not only from residents but also from a decline in visitorship. You don't eviscerate what you treasure. D O O H N U O O H N U O O H N U O L H N U w 0 o Web EA Email We a W J t I live on the North East side of 34. To be able to get to work I have to take a left at the intersection of 34 and 36. I sit through 3 and 4 lights at times during the summer. It's impossible, frustrating and makes no sense. The loop would help the flow of traffic and the speed in which it is cleared from intersections. I say yes to the loop! Thanks, Mary Bolgeo (See attached letter) Tom Streets Comments On The Estes Park Loop Project The loop project has gone through many changes since it was first introduced to the public in 2013. A critical part of the projects appeal at one point was the possibility of rebuilding three bridges and doing extensive river channel work In order to mitigate future flood damage and reduce the size of the floodplaln. In August of 2015, Frank Lancaster revealed that estimates showed that replacing all three bridges to withstand a 100-year flood as well as completing necessary channel widening downstream could cost roughly twice the total of available funding. Many of those who spoke in favor of the loop in the April 2015 public hearing emphasized the opportunity to get free federal aid to mitigate flood damage. That would have made a huge difference in the benefits of the project. Emphasizing this benefit was understandable since the Town and surrounding areas had recently experienced the trauma and destruction of the 2013 flood. Although it was not included in the original grant application, the public also provided input at an early public meeting which favored a downtown parking facility to compliment the loop. However, this desire for a facility was not included in the application. Bridges, channel widening, parking, and other amenities would be included in phase 2 although there are no known funding opportunities for those elements on the horizon. The Town also tried last year to get approval to consider a parking lot as another alternative which would allow construction of a parking facility in the Post Office area. It is not clear why this was done but it may have had something to do with the widespread opposition to the loop, especially amongst downtown business owners. This request was denied by the Central Federal Lands Highway Division. Given the history of public participation on this issue, this would have been a substitute that would have been popular with the public. Other conditions have changed since the TAB endorsed this project. This project is being funded by a grant from the Federal Lands Access Program but does not meet the required objective that it Improve access to the Park. At best, it Improves access to Crags Avenue which Is 3.4 miles from the Park entrance. If the loop Is completed, traffic will move more quickly through the Elkhorn/Moraine intersection. However, traffic headed past the Moraine/Crags intersection will enter the same two lane/two way road as it does currently. Therefore, the two lanes of traffic headed down Moraine will have to merge into one lane when they reach the Moraine/Crags intersection. The degree of congestion heading towards Beaver Meadows will be substantially the same as it is currently and will only increase with additional visitors. In addition, this will do nothing to stop the backups in traffic occurring at the Beaver Meadows entrance. Further, there is a new phenomenon that began this summer. More days than not, the parking lot at Glacier Basin Park and Ride closes early in the day and people seeking to enter the Bear Lake Area are being turned back at Moraine Park and told to go back to the visitor center to catch the Hiker Shutt e. Even if people are able to get through town more quickly, their overall experience will be negative when they are required to turn around and not be permitted to head to their destination in the Bear Lake area. While it is likely that we will experience a decrease in congestion along Elkhorn Avenue, it is not valid to argue that the FLAP grant is serving its intended purpose. There are things that could be done by both the Park and the Town to facilitate this process, but the FLAP grant is not one of them. Increasing congestion is offered as a key reason for this project. The fear is that the congestion will reach a point where people will not want to come here and will go to some other mountain destination. But that implies that success will induce more people to come to this area than otherwise would have come. However, as explained above, this so called success cannot last given the fact that the Park is at full capacity. In 2013 and 2014, there was the concern that visitor growth would be threatened because of current and future congestion. Since then, the growth in visitors to RMNP and the town has far exceeded expectations despite increasing congestion. If the loop is implemented, this will do very little to address the congestion and backup that are occurring at the 34/36/Elkhorn intersection. To address this issue, these motorists need to be provided incentives to get out of their cars before they get to the intersection. The traffic is like a flood that is better addressed closer to its source. The EA's projections are that the level of service will be better in 2040 as opposed to no action. The structure of the EA leads one to that conclusion because one must compare the action alternative to the no action alternative. In the real world, however, that Is unrealistic. Although the EA recognizes that other initiatives like more parking are proceeding, it doesn't explicitly account for those initiatives within the EA. It is unrealistic to assume there will be no additional parking, no paid parking, and other incentives to get out of ones vehicle in 2040. In addition, over time, more and more vehicles will follow pathways that avoid downtown. It has been recognized for decades that Estes Park needs more parking. The top priority for those visiting the town is parking and a significant amount of the Elkhorn traffic is because people are circling looking for parking. Studies in other towns indicate this could be as high as 40%. The loop will not help this problem and will make it more difficult for those coming from the West to find parking and will cause people to make almost a complete loop if they desire to park on either of the Moraine Avenue parking lots. Further, by the time they get there, these lots may be full which means they will have to circle back again to proceed east out of town. At this point, many people may head back home because of the frustration of looking for parking. rti I 1 J) Mary Bolgeo Unknown 8 d W Ft •� N - 1 '.. 8/1/2016 Web EA Email '.. 8/2/2016 Postal Mail Estes Park has unique geological and roadway features which limit the ability to get through town. Expanding the effective downtown area will be done at the expense of the Riverside area and especially Baldwin Park. Constructing a state highway through the Riverside area will result in negative impacts and detract from a more serene and quiet pedestrian/park oriented experience in that area. While some expansion of the downtown area may be inevitable, it should be done in a way that compliments and respects the park/river orientation of the area. Making Riverside into a mini Elkhorn Avenue will destroy the values that make it such a pleasant and serene place regardless of whatever mitigation is done to free up more park area downstream. As such, a determination that the impact will be de minimus defies common sense and the meaning of the term. To make a determination that the impact is de minimus renders the phrase meaningless. A de minimus determination by the town is required if the project is to move forward. Going forward, the Town should focus its efforts on more parking and paid parking coupled with getting as many people out of their cars before they proceed to the downtown area. The 4.2 million dollars that would have been devoted to this project should be focused on the above priorities. These are the priorities of the town, its residents, those in Estes Valley, and those who visit the area from Colorado and around the nation. Coupled with the above should be aggressive actions by RMNP to prohibit auto traffic in the peak season on Bear Lake Road, beef up the frequency and hours of the hiker shuttle and provide a direct route from the Visitor Center to Bear Lake Road destinations. It is of interest that a master plan proposed for the Park in 1972 recommended that Bear Lake Road be closed to auto traffic during the summer and all visits to that area be done by shuttle buses. Other National Parks in the country have moved to adopt some variation of this model. It is simply not possible to accommodate any more autos into the park as evidenced by the fact that the Park is turning back vehicles almost every day. I have reviewed the environmental assessment which basically concludes that a determination should be made that this project has a minimal adverse impact on the environment and the local economy. However, this determination requires a value judgment as to the potential benefits of the project versus the environmental damage that will occur in the Riverside Area and the economic impact on businesses on Elkhorn Avenue. The project will reduce the size of Baldwin Park, require the removal of several homes and businesses, and will have a negative impact on business on the portion of Elkhorn Avenue that will become a one way highway. This negative impact needs to be balanced with the potential decreases in congestion that should occur in the project area. On balance, I feel that a de minimus determination is wrong given the adverse impacts outlined above. Baldwin Park's utility as a park of serenity and solitude will be forever destroyed by this project. If it is determined to provide some development in this area, it should be done by maximizing pedestrian access minimally impacted by the pollution and noise which would result from the introduction of hundreds of auto vehicles per day. On balance, I think that the project might have made sense as described over a year ago, especially if it had ended up doing some flood control with the three bridges included in the project corridor. However, since certain critical elements have been eliminated and for the other reasons stated above, I would not recommend proceeding with the LOOP project. Going forward, I think we should seek to be transformational and attempt to implement one of the guiding principles of the TVC which focused on getting people from one point to another rather than autos from one point to another. From the TVC report: "The goal is to get people and things where they need to go, not to specifically facilitate vehicular traffic which is the goal of most transportation planning." I am opposed to the loop. You are going to wipe out the beauty of Riverside Drive. If people want that kind of entertainment, they should go to the 16th street mall in Denver or the mall in Boulder. Stop advertising Estes all of the time. Then you will have a reasonable amount of people up here. They will stay longer and spend more money. I am totally against making Estes Park a zoo. We don't need freeways or to do anything else to damage the beauty of the area. Just put a parking garage down by the post office. Route them down the one way street by the Park theater and exit on Riverside drive and be done with it. Do a survey of the tourists and see what they think about the traffic before you make this major change. If there is a place for the Flap Loop project it is NOT Estes Park. It will destroy the downtown community. The homes were the original homesteaders cabins and have housed 3 generations. The people that I know living there love and cherish them, the family park is named after one of the homesteaders. It is the only safe place downtown where children can play, people can picnic, and "seniors' can walk, in our icey winters, and "stretch" on the jungle gyms. The river is shallow and wide enough you can see Trout swimming. It is the only place left downtown that has not been compacted or hard- scaped by Urban Renewal. Rain and snow still soaks into the grass and wetland areas instead of running into rivers in large amounts, making the river rise a foot at a time from a small rain. We have lived in the Estes valley 56 years, working with tourist and Traffic and asking for better signage. The better signage now and the return of Barnes -Dance intersections has helped the traffic flow ten -fold. Turning downtown into a Federal Highway Exchange solves Nothing. It just creates more and larger backups elsewhere. The Loop is a nightmare for EMT's and fire response teams. Estes Park is built in a river bed on top of 7-8 foot boulders in a narrow canyon divided by two rivers full of earthquake faults, and a lake with 2 (or three) epicenters in its bottom. How much banging and dynamiting will it take to set off another monster earthquake like the one in 1965 that went up the Thompson River, closing Rock Cut? The condo's by the lake are required to carry earthquake insurance. When I saw the Loop Project, I took out a policy on the building and business on Elkhorn Ave. A new local from the south commented, after the 2013 flood, that "Living in the mountains really hard — everything has repercussions." Please, please, think what you are doing!! We owe it to the rest of the world to preserve this place of beauty and regeneration. There is no possible do -over!! ri',.., J '.... Tom Street (cont) Sheri Frantz Unknown Leta Nefzger Estes Park CO ;ft a� a Web EA Email Web EA Email EstesTruth.org Website EstesTruth.org Website EstesTruth.org Website O L = O wN N EstesTruth.org Website EstesTruth.org Website EstesTruth.org Website - � � o 0 N N W 0 0 N N W 0 0 M W 0 0 M W 0 0 M W �� 7' 11111i, Anne Ehret Estes Park CO I live off Mary's Lake Rd, southwest of Estes Park and was quite concerned when I read the first plans of the Loop, as I think is the case for many of us who live southwest and west of town. The problem was, it forced us to drive through downtown Estes to run errands such as getting to Safeway, the post office, banks, or to doctors for appointments, which the Riverside by-pass made much '.. easier. Using that Elkhorn route filled me with dread, especially in summertime. Now I see, Elkhorn and Moraine will be used for heading west into the Park. Using Moraine and Elkhorn as a one way road west raises another issue. I do not know how traffic patterns are assessed, but this summer, the traffic line on Moraine, trying to get into Estes Park can be tied up as far back as Dick's Rock Shop and sometimes much further. Is enlarging Riverside and sending traffic east with a stop and go stoplight at the end of Riverside an obvious way to alleviate this large amount of traffic? Because of the Loop, I would probably use Peak View and Route 7 to return from town, using more gas, as will most of the folks who live in my direction of town. If we, on the west side of Estes, or people returning from the Park, choose to dine at the Bighorn or Nicky's restaurant, or shop on West Elkhorn we will have a longertrip to get there, having lost the shorter path along Moraine. That will cause us to use more gas, and cause more fumes, to get to these destinations. Another solution to relieving some of the down town traffic during summer would be to give an alternate route to getting from west to east without going through down town. I realized that because of '.. the geography, building by-passes is not easy, but getting around east of town is easier with Routes 34, 36, and 7 and Mall Rd than it is on the west side of town. National park visitors, west side residents or the many visitors staying at the YMCA need a by-pass west of town that would connect 36 (moraine Ave) with 34 (Fall River Rd). I looked at a map and wonder if Rock Ridge Rd on the 34 side could '.. be connected to a road near Cedar Ridge Circle on the 36 side, or Old Ranger Drive on the Fall River side could be connected to Elm Rd (to the dump and beyond) on the 36 side? (A map of these '.. alternate routes is included,) This going from 36 to 34 on the west side enables by-passing down town traffic almost completely. At the moment, the only 'by-pass' of this sort is through the National Park. A west side by-pass between Moraine Ave and Fall River Road would alleviate much of the down town traffic and avoid the controversial change in directions on Elkhorn, Moraine and Riverside, as well as eliminate the difficult property relocations on Riverside. Cathy Gersztenkorn Estes Park CO To Whom it may concern: I am absolutely against the proposed loop. To reduce town congestion, why not route visitors to the National Park by building a bypass around the town? If that's not feasible, then keep it the way it is, and let visitors accept that they are coming up to a small mountain community. Chris Unknown I support the loop project. I think it would decongest traffic and would have no negative impact on businesses along those sections of Elkhorn and Moraine that would be one-way. Unfortunately, the Loop is a half -loaf solution to the pedestrian/automobile management problem. The two-way bypass would be the best solution. With ownership of the downtown sections of Elkhorn and Moraine reverting to the Town, it would allow intermittent closures for special events OR establishment of a pedestrian mall in the downtown core. The primary goal should be to remove cars from the downtown. I can't think of a town where this has been a losing strategy. Logan H. Waterloo IA I strongly worry that "allowing faster access to RMNP" will further pollute the park. Faster access leads to more people which inevitably leads to more litter and park violations. I understand that downtown '.. business owners need downtown traffic to help their businesses thrive and implementing this proposed loop would be problematic for people trying to make a living with their downtown shops. However, respectively, I visit this area for the mountains and the mountains alone. I do not care to shop when I have such a large natural playground surrounding me where I can hike, bike, swim, etc. I know the efficient ways into the park. Leave the roads as they are. Let the shoppers do their thing downtown and let me hike in peace. Claire Pierce 'Springfield IL I have loved Estes like a second home. To see the potential for this beautiful community to crumble is something I will do anything to prevent. Michael Meyer Unknown Your primary assumption is that ALL visitor want to access the park. While we have has a summer home in Estes for over 60 years, we come to Estes for the charm of Estes Not the park. People have a choice, you are effectively removing that by forcing traffic to the park. Please Don't change the look and feel of Estes! (You can contact me) Kevin Loudon Hastings NE There needs to be more end -of -the rope loops for bureaucrats! I have been visiting Estes Park annually with my family at least once a year for many years now. We come hear because we feel as if we're '.. in the Old West. We love the sights and sound of the Big Thompson winding through the center of town along with the Stanely Hotel's history and view of Long's Peak.How could anyone even think of destroying this beauty?! Its incomprehensible that anyone would annihilate this beauty for the legal tender in the guise of reduction of traffic congestion and safety. But that's what a coproate government is about! Its always about someone's safety while plundering the public through mob rule and increased taxation! Karl Marx would be proud! Did we sign something with the bureacrats to have them '.. control our lives?! Oh! That's right! Its probably one of those adhesion contracts where the details were never disclosed! A bureacrat's idea of making it safer is just an oxymoron as we are all human and '.. can never be totally secure during our travels anywhere. This especially holds true with the Old West! Part of traveling in the mountains is about romantizing and taking risks to experience this beauty! I don't know about you but I try to get away from the city corporation's concrete as much as possible and will compromise my security any day for this beauty! In all the years of visiting Estes, I've never witnessed one single accident involving autmobiles! That's right! Not ONE single accident! In fact, I've never observed road rage let alone a walker being run over by an automobile! Furthermore, I don't '.. believe I've ever heard sirens?! There's a problem?! If you want less congestion utilize the fiat currency for a place that really needs new slabs like Denver or even Omaha! Sorry but I just don't agree with '.. some bureaucrats vision of more concrete to make us feel safer. Rather I believe it's something more like the old adage of expansion and progress for someone to plunder those who live in this little Old West town! Minor traffic congestion is and has always been a part of visiting Estes Park and only is a minor inconvenience to see the beauty of the wonderful Rocky Mountains. The bottom line is Estes Park should not be another opportunity for bureacrats and their accomplice in crime crony capitalism to exercise legal plunder. Rather, Estes Park should be a place for opportunity to preserve rather than '.. compromise for profit! Victoria Jefferson IN I think that downtown Estes is great. The loop should not be constructed. I do however believe that updated and bigger signs on where to go would help immensely on traffic issues. Nadine Peters Newton KS We have visited Estes Park nearly every year since 1990, we have celebrated our wedding anniversaries with our children and grandchildren. We have organized family reunions in Estes Park. No one in our family thinks that "the Loop" would be beneficial to us as visitors. The traffic has not ever been a problem compared to what we deal with on a daily basis in nearby cities where we go. PLEASE do not mess with this historic town. Thank you for allowing us to voice our opinion. Chris Amy Unknown This is a ridiculous project that will hurt this beautiful town I love. STOP the Loop please, before its too late! O fp! 0 Web EA Email Web EA Email Web EA Email Web EA Email EstesTruth.org Website EstesTruth.org Website EstesTruth.org Website Web EA Email - 1= 1 ■ Mark !gel Estes Park CO (See attached letter) I disagree with many segments of the EA, and the overall process that has caused such consternation and local division about this project in Estes Park. I would vote for this project '.... to be stopped in its tracks and abandoned if I had the opportunity, and here's why: '.... The EA is an overly verbose, complicated document that presents a series of unsupported statements which promote the benefits of the loop construction in Estes Park. This document feels like a slick advertising brochure, and doesn't satisfy my desire to see well supported facts and research that would help make a decision about whether the loop was good for our community. Making a '.... statement doesn't make it true, and with the limited time and research that I was able to spend with this monster, I found multiple instances where the statement contained in your EA was not the truth, but '.... a statement of opinion and in fact after doing a little research on my own, in some cases appeared to be skewed to supportthe project, like the slick advertising brochure I just called it. '.... The process that this project has been mired in since it's first introduction has been an embarrassment to the organizers, or should have been. My comments were among some of the public comments '.... 'misplaced' in the early days, then my, and dozens of others, commitment of time and passionate speech at the April 2015 meeting was summarily dismissed by the Town board as they moved forward '.... with a declaration that the EA would provide the critical factual research that everyone needed to make an intelligent decision. That wish did not come true. '.... You have provided a document that even a full time paid staff reviewer would have trouble negotiating in the one month comment period, and throwing it down onto the Town Board and public for their intelligent input is another chapter of this process being weighted toward ramming this project down the throats of the dumb locals. This reminds me of the coyote being crushed by a piano that the roadrunner drops on him from the top of a cliff- he didn't have a chance. '.... I have heard many stories about Federal government doing what they wanted on the local scene- and it generally involves construction projects. This community has suffered some catastrophic losses '.... that no one but God controlled, so it amazes me that a project in the hands of men would be inflicted on a community that is screaming so loudly that we're not interested. '.... The selection of new representation at the recent municipal election should be an ominous clue to the CFL and CDOT representatives that this FLAP project is doomed. Without a cohesive plan for the '.... future of Estes Park, this scale of project will never gather the support that you need to succeed. Fortunately for the voters, there are other opportunities to change the representative government to reflect '.... the will of the majority through elections- in the current state of affairs some of our trustees have taken a position of knowing more than the voters, and have summarily dismissed a public vote on FLAP. Mark Igel (cont) What those trustees may be missing is the less informed perspective that many local residents and most visitors have of the community- which is the perspective that generates a feeling about Estes Park, that can not be measured in numbers, standards or stats that the better informed trustees claim to have which help them make better decisions. Step back folks, step back. This project would change the entire personality of Estes Park in a negative way, affecting the long term success of our community when we should be considering ways to polish and promote the hard earned character of the town, you are pressuring us to swallow the pill and accept the EA 'facts' that this will be good for us. I reject that claim and demand that you stop this process in it's tracks. Estes Park needs to get their act together and come up with a plan before we take any grant handouts to make improvements. I have skimmed the surface of my thoughts on this issue, and I've tried to stay focused on the EA in this letter. I'm happy to share my perspective on the entire process if that would be helpful, but I'm afraid it will be set aside as another irritant in the process that you're moving forward with, no matter what. Sadly, that's really how I feel public input is being handled. Please, prove me wrong. 116 Karen Anderson Unknown Hoping that we get the loop to make it easier to access the downtown area. Change is difficult but in the long run it will be better for us. Thanks 117 Dennis & Lisa 'Elmore City OK 'Visitors love the loop! We visit every year, love this little town. Chapman 118 ]Janice Hagen Unknown The loop is destined to fail. It is only a very expensive band aid for a problem of historic proportions - the Town of Estes Park clogged, strangled and impassable from the volume of vehicular traffic. Downtown could be pedestrian only ( Aspen), or build a beltway. The proposed loop is untenable as proposed. Use the money for a REAL solution. J Hagen 119 Anne Patton Unknown I support the loop completely! 120 Kathleen Pope Nederland CO I am also AGAINST the LOOP! With over 400,000 visitors this past year RMNP is certainly NOT in Need of "better access" - trying to artificially increase traffic & visitation will only decrease that for which the Park was/is established: individual relaxation and enjoyment together with the continuance of it's natural habitat for flora &fauna. I currently enjoy frequent trips to EP for both shopping and meals; to "Loop" this area would also greatly decrease the tendency of both "destination" & "accidental" excursions for your business community. Please avoid making EP another Boulder - a place to avoid!! 212 Carolyn and Bill Estes Park CO This is wrong for Estes Park , and will ruin the down town businesses, and force people out of their homes ! ! It's bad for everyone. Fairbanks 122 Carrie Mass Estes Park CO The loop will destroy the character and ambiance of downtown Estes. 123 Karen Domenico Unknown As a fairly new resident of Estes Park, I can tell you that one of the reasons I moved to this quaint resort town is because of the life Elkhorn Avenue brings to the picture. I absolutely love to see all the cars from out of state or even out of town from Colorado ... it warms my heart so see all the tourists coming into our town to shop in our wonderful shops and eat in our restaurants. To take that away would be horrible. I hope you sincerely reconsider not putting the loop into affect! This has to have an affect on all of our small shop owners trying to survive in this town. Winter months already do that to them. , , -mot [fly Web EA Email Web EA Email Web EA Email Web EA Email Web EA Emaill Web EA Email Web EA Email Web EA Email `o a w E o U Web EA Comment Form Web EA Comment Form Web EA Comment Form Web EA Comment Form Web EA Comment Form Web EA Comment Form co co 0 0 N N V V CO CO co 0 N V CO co 0 N V CO co 0 N V CO co 0 N V CO 0 N V CO CO 0 N N CO CO 0 CV N CO CO 0 N N CO CO 0 N N CO CO 0 N N CO CO 0 N N CO CO N N CO ✓of i11111111 Unknown I am writing to express my support FOR the loop, and fully support the Inclusion of bike lanes. On the video of the simulation, I prefer the option of the signal at the Moraine Ave- Riverside Dr intersection, as opposed to the roundabout, primarily because it seems more pedestrian friendly. Thank you Unknown My name is Toni Brese, I live on Davis Hill downtown Estes Park. I support The Loop, please make it happen! Feel free to contact me if you need additional information. Unknown My name is Jason Brese, I live on Davis Hill downtown Estes Park. I support The Loop, please make it happen! Feel free to contact me if you need additional information. Unknown Hi my name is Barbara Morley and I am a resident in Estes and I support and really want the loop to go through. We need it. Thanks for your time. Unknown I1"m Jason Cushner, I live in estes park and I support the loop Thanks for working on this. Unknown I Joanne Helmuth, I am in support of the loop in Estes Park. I feel it will benefit our town in many ways for a better future. I vote yes on the loop. Estes Park CO I am a resident of Estes Park, at 1620 Gray Hawk Court, and a supporter of the loop. We are in desperate need of an answer to the congestion downtown. The tourism in Estes has grown dramatically, and we need traffic solutions to address it. Estes Park CO My name is Ilah reynar, I own my home and live at 840 Ramshorn drive. I am a teacher at Estes park Elementary School. I am raising two children in Estes park and I am in favor of the Loop. Thanks for your time, Ilah Reynar Estes Park CO Our town was built on the confluence of two rivers and we have always had limited space...there are no arterial or parallel roads adjacent to Elkhorn Ave...the LOOP will not solve any issues..just move '.. the bottleneck to the Donut Haus intersects on.Please, reconsider the entire project! Several alternatives have been proposed, but the Town is not willing to give up 'FREE money.I know that if the grant is returned the chances of receiving another grant are slim and nil...however, at some point in time I feel we need to quit chasing Federal money and do what is best for our Town. We need parking...downtown parking! RMNP is full...we don't need easier access to the park that can't handle the traffic it has now. I have asked what the LOOP will improve and so far the only answer I have received is 'we need to do something about the traffic". We have traffic issues less than 60 days a year! Going back to the Barn's Dance has helped. Having the summer officers direct traffic at peak times helps. Adding a third lane to Moraine between the Donut House and NPVS would help. I can't see any benefit in going forward with the LOOP. I really hate that Baldwin Park us also on the chopping block...taking nearly 40% of that oasis in the middle of downtown is criminal. Please tell me why CDOT thinks that taking away lanes will improve traffic flow. They just approved $15 million to ADD lanes on 1 25 and this proposal actually takes away lanes. I am sick over this whole grant. 1 understand that one of the conditions of any grant is to get 'public input'. 1 know you folks have already made your decision, but 1 am so disappointed that actually listening to the input you have all received has not impacted your decision...as with the recent electric rate increase, 'public input is just part of the process... Sincerely, Ann Taylor Estes Park CO I'm for this project. Most downtown traffic patterns include one way streets for a reason- increased traffic flow with fewer turning conflicts. I believe too many people are afraid of change just like back when EPURA proposed wider pedestrian sidewalks along Elkhorn. But what a wonderful difference the change brought to the downtown ambiance all times of year. I hope the loop project will be a GO, then those of us trying to get from one side of town to the other can save time. With the growth of population of the Front Range, traffic will only get worse! Ashland OR I have been coming to Estes Park since the 1950's. I love the area and feel very connected to its history and surroundings. The proposed Downtown Estes Loop is deeply flawed from the get go and a waste of money. The Riverside area should be preserved for its charming, historic qualities. The traffic problem can be mitigated through increased parking options and public transportation. Slow traffic flow is necessary for the safety of pedestrians. Please, abandon the project. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration, Bill Street Estes Park CO I support the proposed Loop mainly because I have not seen a better idea proposed. No question we have a traffic congestion problem that will only get worse. Expected traffic flow improvement from '.. the Loop is based on solid engineering. I have been to several public hearings and have yet to hear a succinct, factual explanation of how this will harm the town. Emotions vs. facts. Let's go with the facts and build this improvement to our town. Estes Park CO The project managers have done an excellent job establishing the fact there is a need for better traffic management, but a very poor job has been done proving if The Loop is that answer. There is very little Information about the timeline and impact of this potential project on local businesses. How can the downtown businesses survive an epic flood, a 9 month state road closure and an extended '.. construction in the downtown corridor? The answer is that they cannot. This project would bankrupt many downtown businesses that have barely survived since the flood. I do not support this project. Estes Park CO I am in SUPPORT of the downtown loop. I believe that is a first step in mitigating the congestion downtown. I do not think that it will affect the business owners bottom line . It may also provide us with an opportunity to have bike lanes and a designated shuttle lane during peak hours. Estes Park CO The impact of this project on Riverside and Baldwin parks is unacceptable. Having this quiet escape available to residents is priceless! This proposed project also does NOT fix the major parking issues downtown. It is also beyond imagination that the town, state, or federal government would proceed with such a project in an unmitigated flood zone. Did we learn NOTHING after the 1976 flood when we then saw the 2013 flood take out Big Thompson Canyon route 34 AGAIN ? 4 Kelley Lewelling Toni Brese Jason Brese Barbara Morley Jason Cushner Joanne Helmuth Sarah Bertucci N CC � O N H C Q Amy L. Plummer [Bill Street Robert Black Lori Smith N it C Q Charles W. Schroeder 114 N N N CC, jrE / Lei Q N W E a U Web EA Comment Form L'i Q N W E a E U Web EA Comment Form LeE Q N W E a E U 0 rf 0 0 ch 0 0 M 0 0 ch 0 0 M 1/f//(f/f/(( (See attached letter) I oppose the construction of the Downtown Estes Loop. Clearly the current traffic situation in Estes Park and in Rocky Mountain National Park, as well as the projected figures on traffic and population put forth in the EA, call for solutions. However, the proposed benefits of only slight increase in traffic movement at designated intersections from unacceptable to unstable bad or borderline bad DO NOT JUSTIFY the expenditure and numerous detrimental effects of this project. The detrimental effects of the Loop project include the following: 1. The EA states that Estes Park's two (plus?) years of construction would disrupt traffic, business, cultural activities, parking and pedestrian enjoyment in the downtown core. In addition to this, construction traffic backups will create extreme hardships for local residents who use and work in downtown businesses, and use the Library, the Post Office and shop at Safeway. 2. The EA documents that the current downtown parking situation is quite inadequate, so it is a false conclusion that shuttling more vehicles through a different part of the downtown corridor will magically allow those drivers who want to find parking to then be able to find it. 3. Bringing new commercial development to the Riverside corridor would totally decimate the current commercial and recreational activities that are suited perfectly to its more quiet back streets. This destruction of established business and livelihood is in addition to the businesses and residences that require demolishing and relocation. 4. Increased traffic will destroy the historic neighborhood of East and West Riverside Drives with increased noise, vibration and pollution, especially in an overstressed, overpolluted world where people are seeking peace and rejuvenation. It is well documented that the above effects of increased traffic and traffic speeds, including heavy vehicles, decreases the health of individuals as well as diminishing property values. The Riverside neighborhood is currently a quiet peaceful location and should be valued as such. 5. The proposed loop puts in harms way the wildlife, bear, elk, deer, bobcats, foxes and other small mammals, as well as birds and aquatic species, who inhabit and use the Riverside area particularly because of the Big Thompson River. Although these animals may not be on the state or federal endangered species lists, they are an essential part of what draws tourists to enjoy our town. They are a valuable resource that should be valued and protected. 6. Constructing a major highway in a known and unmitigated flood plain (2013) downstream from a major burn scar in the National Park that will contribute to ongoing high water runoff is a huge waste of taxpayer money. 7. Baldwin and Riverside Parks are not being recognized for their exceptional quality as serene peaceful havens for humans and animals alike to be still and rejuvenate. Quiet places are essential for the health of our bodies and our souls, especially in our stress -filled world. The proposed isolated patches of green amongst concrete containers of flowers beside a loud and busy street will NOT replicate the expanses of cool grassy shade and access to a free flowing stream that these parks provide within steps of our bustling downtown. Please recognize the value of the intact natural and historic resources that the Riverside area offers to the community of Estes Park and our visitors, and do not build a busy traffic loop through this peaceful haven. As an avid cyclist and father of two in this town, I am for the loop project going through. We ride our bikes downtown and it is dangerous, to say the least. I realize that change isn't easy. I feel like, tragically, there will be an accident soon if things don't change. I have had several near misses. If you are interested in helping the town and not just helping yourself, you'll see that change has always happened here, and this is only another step toward a lasting and beautiful mountain town. I have expressed/submitted my feelings about the Loop before. The EA has not changed them. I encourage you, our Town Board, to continue pursuing the FLAP grant and move forward with the Loop. We have a significant traffic problem that will only be getting worse, and while many would like to argue that we're just shifting the bulk of cars to the National Park, we know that many people trying to get through town are also trying to get to lodging properties, restaurants, shops, and activities that are on the 'other side.' The National Park will need to solve their congestion issues (ones that do concern me, but ones the Town can't currently control) and I hope we as a community will be there to help them when that time comes. In this specific case of the Loop for downtown Estes Park, it is an option that will improve the guest experience and create a better environment for tourism in Estes Park. (I personally try to avoid giving anecdotal information, as I'm such a firm believer in following professionally collected data, but while working at Rock Cut Brewery this summer [located in Picadilly Square], I have had countless complaints and questions about our traffic experience from our guests/customers. When I explain the Loop -- yes, even including some of the less pleasant impacts to places like Riverside, etc. — they can't fathom why we would say no to such an opportunity.) And, as a local who lives in the heart of downtown traffic, it will positively impact work commutes, safety routes, and day-to-day quality of life. But most importantly, moving forward with the Loop demonstrates that our community is interested in improving our town, changing things to address serious issues, which is historically something we have struggled with. To say no to this grant and to this opportunity would be a short-sighted decision that would have a reverberating negative effect for decades of future guests and residents. As a 'younger' person who hopes to live here for years to come, as someone who is investing a large portion of her life in this community, I encourage you to make an educated decision that will create opportunity and a future. I support the loop project as a sensible response to our traffic overcrowding problem. To whom it may concern, I don't think that you have a real grasp on what this will do to your area. Driving out to Colorado as a child every year from Illinois with my siblings and parents, was the highlight of our lives. These are still memories we talk about to this very day. The pristine background, environment, and history that the West provides, must remain and be maintained for us and for all future Generations. There needs to be places like Estes Park where the world slows down and enjoys the beauty of Nature. Where they enjoy the beauty of a small community without any of the hubbub and hectic traffic. I don't know very many people who have been touched by places like Estes Park, that don't just yearn to be there all the time. Once they experience that type of place, it is something they never forget . The trickle of the water as it rushes past, the smell of clean fresh air and pine needles are not experiences that I would like to trade for the smell of exhaust and the rumbling noise of trucks. You will not better yourself. And once all of that is gone, it will be gone forever. You can't make better that which is already awesome. Bigger is not always better. Spend your money elsewhere, such as in restoration and preservation. You're sitting on a gold mine of history and Nature! Use it to your advantage!! Work with it!! Don't destroy it!! Thank you!!! Jody Fifer (Sullivan, Illinois) :Jo ;" .1111111i w [Vicki Schroeder (cont) Joe Pyle Estes Park CO Kirby Nelson- Estes Park CO Hazelton [Cynthia Krumme Estes Park CO Jody Fifer Sullivan IL 1 rn M �� o v v w v m v [ eFrf :, (( fa Web EA Comment Form (( fa j( fa Web EA Comment Form Web EA Comment Form Web EA Comment Form Web EA Comment Form Web EA Comment Form Web EA Comment Form MI } \ I \ \ \ \ \ , \ \ \ • \ \i Sherry Ruth Estes Park CO 1. When the government wants to give you money to solve one of your towns most critical issues, YOU TAKE IT! Especially when that money will also be used to take care of the bridges that are responsible for most of the downtown flooding. If we don't do the loop and then every business will be in the new floodplain when it is mapped, what will happen when the businesses cannot afford the '...... high rate of flood insurance and then go out of business? Bye bye Estes economy. '...... 2. For the people who resent the government providing the money to get tourists into RMNP faster, rather than specifically for the "betterment" of the town, get over it and stop being so selfish - because RMNP IS the town! We need to do our part to ensure that it continues to be an enjoyable experience for tourists, as well as the life blood for the future of Estes Park. 3. For the businesses who think that people won't see their shops if they're not stuck out front in gridlocked traffic, the fact is that if people want to stop and shop, they will- regardless of where traffic '..... patterns send them. If they don't want to shop, they're not stopping anyway, so let's expedite their trip through or out of town to provide easier access for those who DO want to stop. '...... 4. Bottom line- We're talking about basically 3 blocks being one way, with options to hit all other areas of downtown still easily available and accessible. Minimal change for multiple benefits, including '..... government money, flood mitigation, less traffic congestion, and a better shopping experience for those most likely to stop and shop. Should be a "no brainier"! Frank Theis Estes Park CO I think the section of the one-way loop on Elkhorn Avenue is a bad idea. This is the core of downtown Estes Park, which, at its best, functions as a pedestrian -friendly shopping & entertainment district. Every effort should be made to protect & enhance the character of the downtown core by eliminating any vehicular traffic which does not want to be there (local, commercial, and National Park traffic). '..... The streets in the downtown core should remain 2-way, and all non -downtown traffic should be encouraged to drive through the Riverside corridor. Lou Gorski '..Estes Park CO I have preciously voiced my opinion about "The Loop" and spoke a minute before the council last year. So, here I am again. I am adamantly opposed for all the same reasons: huge waste of money to try to correct a few weeks problem in the summertime, very shortsighted to destroy the ambiance of the precious park which '..... we call "Baldwin Park" (there is a family eating their lunch there now, after parking their car by the park and their children are playing on the play equipment), the by-passing of the shops by the people after they have been enjoying RMNP so that they can relax and see the town, taking property from people without it being an absolutely necessity, destroying trees and hurting the river and the wildlife '...... that is around it all the time. These are just the main objections. '..... But, my observation this year (besides all of the above) is this: on the fourth of July, I had to make a run to The Big Horn Restaurant at 4:30 PM (from East Riverside Drive). The cars were lined up in '...... front of my house all the way to Elkhorn (which really doesn't bother me since it a short period of time on the calendar and on the clock). I figured it could take me 30 minutes to get through town to the Big '..... Hom. WELL, It took me exactly 7 minutes to sit and wait on "all the traffic" to get there. '...... Then, I got mad to think that you all are even thinking of disrupting this town and spending all that money to "fix it" since I do not believe it will ( that would be another long comment as to the logistics of why I do not believe it, and I am not a stupid person). Almost everyone who comes to this place is coming from traffic and this is NOT traffic. I am from Houston and to take 7 minutes to get somewhere in a traffic jam is wonderful news. I think very few people coming through the two blocks on Elkhorn and the one block on Moraine are not that hot and bothered about it, in reality. '..... I think it is truly criminal to spend that money over a problem that lasts only a few weeks during the year. I understand about the bridges and am sure there is a way to get the bridges done (hire a grant writer to accomplish that) without doing that horrible Loop idea. I think there are enough things that need maintaining and done around here without taking on some other big deal that may or may '...... not be finished after it is started. Let's keep Estes quaint. That is what people love about it. My number is 281-460-0297 or 970-577-0685 if you would like to talk to me. Thank you for reading my comment. Lou Gorski David Caddell Estes Park CO To do this will ruin the character of downtown and hurt the business's, when you go to Lyons and Loveland they have similar one ways, the traffic goers so fast that you see these store fronts change hands so often are big issue is parking, make a two story park garage with one level below ground and maybe even two up in the parking lot now, leaving a street in the first next to the printing and new restaraunt, a lot of the traffic issue is people circling around waiting for a parking spot to open, it is what i do to find a spot to a destination business, now i have never stopped at one of the stores in '...... Loveland of Lyons as parking is impossible. so please take a look, to do this to just replace two bridges that have survived two floods, yes the flood plain can be mitigated another way without the loop, this is only a 4 months problem, plus all the homes and business's that will be displaced is a tragedy as they wont truly be compensated for the loss and of loss of future earnings, has a stud been done '...... on how this would impact business's? what about a bypass up Elm road back to 34? as most of the incoming traffic is when bad weather hits and the Ntl Park empties all at once. '..... Also whatever homes are left their value will do way down with higher speed traffic not to mention pedestrians not being able to cross over elkhorn as they do now. Diane Muno Estes Park CO I believe Estes needs to consider the Economic Impact for the future development of the highly traveled corridors. As a business owner and voting resident, I will support the decision of our town board. I '..... believe the board members should vote as an impartial, informed trustee to choose what is best for the long term growth of our business and community infrastructure. I do not believe the community residents are impartial or informed and should therefore not be responsible to determine the outcome of such a critical decision. The voting residents voted in the trustees and they were entrusted to do the work of assessing options and making the decisions necessary to support the greater good. Daniel Mangler Estes Park CO I don't think the traffic depicted on the Preferred Alternative is accurate. A lot more vehicles will be going to the park than the animation shows. What you have in the PA is, in effect, three lanes from '..... Elk Horn going into one lane on Moraine. Estes Park and RMNP have a capacity. Live with it. A more active police or police -like presence at the two busy intersection to prevent cars getting stuck in intersections because they enter the intersection without room to go across. !Suzanne Williams Estes Park CO I am not in favor of the loop. It will take business away from the downtown businesses. It will cause traffic back up going both east and west on Moraine. I was in favor of the "Barns Dance" at the signal lights in town but my question is....why are the lights not synchronized to allow the flow of traffic to continue through the signal lights? When I drove '...... through town last Sunday morning at 8:30am, with minimal traffic, I had to stop at every signal light starting at Brownfield's, then Riverside and finally Moraine. When I drive through Boulder the lights are '... synchronized all the way if I maintain the speed limit. It seems like the town of Estes or CDOT or both want the Barns Dance to fail. Martin Koschnitzke Estes Park CO Disappointing when a few people are using their fear to influence others to ignore data, We are very fortunate to have the opportunity to use a FLAP grant to make desperately needed changes to our downtown roads, providing a markedly improved experience for residents and visitors alike. '..Susan Mostek Boulder CO I oppose the Downtown Estes Park Loop Project Jan Francis Estes Park CO I am OPPOSED to the proposed loop! \ (1 \ �� 7 \ \ y \ 7 § R g g t. iril tiE ( \ }ja: 302 �� � � \ Estes Park CO Web EA Comment Form (1) While I believe many intentions have been pure, and I appreciate the efforts made to date, here are a few reasons I am confused by the Loop logic I have read and heard in your presentations: 1.Unless I'm mistaken: a.The FLAP funds we have been awarded can only be used to create better/faster access to, in our case, RMNP. b.The Loop is the only option that we are allowed to use the FLAP funds for. i.Even now —as "slowly" as the traffic moves through town —there is significant congestion at the entrance to RMNP. ii.Once you have paid to get in, you are often turned back at Moraine Park. RMNP is frequently at -capacity in many other areas, also. may be missing something, so please explain why RMNP needs more people getting to RMNP faster, as well as how the above add up to sound logic. 2. According to your studies and projections, any gains towards alleviating congestion in town —what everyone is stating is the real, but not FLAP -fundable, problem we need to fix —will be modest; a projected 17-second improvement was reported in one of your presentations. 3. Additionally, again according to your studies and projections, any modest gains the Loop may make appear to be short-lived; the traffic "grades" you say we're projected to receive in just 24 years (2040) include a D and an E, which doesn't seem to be a gigantic leap forward from the F we now have. (I know my parents wouldn't have thought so if I brought home a report card like that —especially if they had spent a substantial amount of money trying to help it improve.) 4. And, to the west of town, not only does RMNP not appear to need more congestion faster, to our east, your traffic engineer explained the Intersection of 34 & 36 will very likely become even more congested if the Loop is implemented —and we have all already experienced the back-ups that can snake up Pole Hill on 36 and past the Catholic church on 34 even now. 5. As a life -time visitor and long-time resident of Estes, I have seen improvement, modest though It Is, with just the Improved and additional signage, the return of the simultaneous pedestrian crossing, etc. And done at a modest cost, too. The fact Is, there ARE alternatives to reducing traffic congestion downtown, we just can't use the FLAP funds to implement them. (i.e., Improved signage, improved parking, perhaps some of the earlier alternatives that we're suggested by citizens and committee members that WEREN'T FLAP -fundable and more.) We are letting our source of funding dictate our solution to what appears to be the wrong problem (faster/better access to RMNP), as well as what we hear over and over Is our true problem —In -town traffic congestion —regardless of whether It Is a workable solution, let alone the best/wisest solution. We are choosing to let our ability to even explore what might be better solutions` be amputated by our dependency on FLAP funding, And, on top of those concerns, now we're finding out that the FLAP funding will only cover Phase One of the project, not the entire thing as originally proposed, and we have no idea how much the other phase(s) will cost OR where that money will come from. 6. Interestingly, if we have enough faith to believe that there will be non -FLAP funds available for the subsequent phase(s) that we are willing to proceed with Phase One, wouldn't those funds potentially be available for Phase One, too, which would open up our options for how we solve the congestion (and other floodplai n, bridge, etc. issues) we are facing? 7. And, also very importantly, what happens if we proceed with Phase One and then cannot find sufficient funding to complete the project? The logic, again, is not clear to me. I've yet to see how the Loop will do much to solve traffic congestion in Estes; It appears that It will merely move It around and rearrange It to our east and to our west. And at great expense to both the budget and the character of our town, and with real loss to some of our neighbors. I don't see how the logic, or the funds, are there to support moving forward with the Loop. Thankfully, we haven't gone too far to stop. "Even though a considerable amount of money, time and energy were unwisely spent earlier in this effort exploring and studying other options. PS How does it work towards the stated goal of creating better/faster access to RMNP, that, even though we spend all of that money, destroy seven properties, lose parking spaces, diminish playground space, etc., while allowing a horse-drawn carriage downtown to "set the pace" of traffic in the middle of summer? Web EA Comment Form (2) Dear Trustees, While I believe many intentions have been pure, and I appreciate the efforts made to date, here are a few reasons I am confused by the Loop logic I have read and heard in your presentations: 1.Unless I'm mistaken: a.The FLAP funds we have been awarded can only be used to create better/faster access to, in our case, RMNP. b.The Loop is the only option that we are allowed to use the FLAP funds for. i.Even now as slowly as the traffic moves through town there is significant congestion at the entrance to RMNP. ii.Once you have paid to get in, you are often turned back at Moraine Park. RMNP is frequently at -capacity in many other areas, also. I may be missing something, so please explain why RMNP needs more people getting to RMNP faster, as well as how the above add up to sound logic. 2. According to your studies and projections, any gains towards alleviating congestion in towns€"what everyone is stating is the real, but not FLAP -fundable, problem we need to fix will be modest; a projected 17-second improvement was reported in one of your presentations. 3. Additionally, again according to your studies and projections, any modest gains the Loop may make appear to be short-lived; the traffic grades you say were projected to receive in just 24 years (2040) include a D and an E, which doesn't seem to be a gigantic leap forward from the F we now have. (I know my parents wouldn't have thought so if I brought home a report card like that especially If they had spent a substantial amount of money trying to help it improve.) 4. And, to the west of town, not only does RMNP not appear to need more congestion faster, to our east, your traffic engineer explained the intersection of 34 & 36 will very likely become even more congested if the Loop is implemented and we have all already experienced the back-ups that can snake up Pole Hill on 36 and past the Catholic church on 34 even now. 5. As a life -time visitor and long-time resident of Estes, I have seen improvement, modest though It Is, with just the Improved and additional signage, the return of the simultaneous pedestrian crossing, etc. And done at a modest cost, too. The fact is, there ARE alternatives to reducing traffic congestion downtown, we just can't use the FLAP funds to implement them. (i.e., improved signage, improved parking, perhaps some of the earlier alternatives that were suggested by citizens and committee members that weren't FLAP -fundable and more.) } \ 1Y. m c `m S M- V U Web EA Comment Form Web EA Comment Form r We are letting our source of funding dictate our solution to what appears to be the wrong problem (faster/better access to RMNP), as well as what we hear over and over is our true problems€"in-town traffic congestions€"regardless of whether it is a workable solution, let alone the best/wisest solution. We are choosing to let our ability to even explore what might be better solutions` be amputated by our dependency on FLAP funding, And, on top of those concerns, now are finding out that the FLAP funding will only cover Phase One of the project, not the entire thing as originally proposed, and we have no idea how much the other phase(s) will cost OR where that money will come from. 6. Interestingly, if we have enough faith to believe that there will be non -FLAP funds available for the subsequent phase(s) that we are willing to proceed with Phase One, wouldn't those funds potentially be available for Phase One, too, which would open up our options for how we solve the congestion (and other floodplain, bridge, etc. issues) we are facing? 7. And, also very importantly, what happens if we proceed with Phase One and then cannot find sufficient funding to complete the project? The logic, again, is not clear to me. I've yet to see how the Loop will do much to solve traffic congestion in Estes; it appears that it will merely move it around and rearrange it to our east and to our west. And at great expense to both the budget and the character of our town, and with real loss to some of our neighbors. Congestion, flood plains, bridges all need to be addressed as part of maintaining this area we all love, and I respect that funding to do so is difficult to come by, but it appears that we are trying to cram too many issues into a single solution and that may be leading us down a path of rationalized and compromised thinking. I have yet to see how the logic, or the funds, are there to support moving forward with the Loop. Thankfully, we haven't gone too far to stop. John Murphy "Even though a considerable amount of money, time and energy were unwisely spent earlier in this effort exploring and studying other options. PS Lastly (for now anyway), how does it work towards the stated goal of creating better/faster access to RMNP, that, even though we were to spend all of that money, destroy seven properties, lose parking spaces, diminish playground space, etc., we still would allow a horse-drawn carriage downtown to access the of traffic in the middle of summer? Public Hearing Verbal (3) Hi. My name is John Murphy, and I didn't write a bunch of stuff. And I've got more than three minutes' worth of speaking I could do, but ... There's some flaws in the logic, it appears to me. The fact that the loop is the only option that FLAP funding can be used for is one major important element. Second is that the goal of FLAP is to get people to Rocky Mountain National Park faster. I think I'm correct in that. Last Saturday, did anybody bother to try to go to the park? I mean, the line at the gate, you know, it just goes further and further back. Also, once we were in Rocky Mountain National Park, they were turning people away -- turning them around in Moraine Park. They can't — they don't care how fast they come. They can't even accommodate the people that are there. I haven't heard anybody really address that reality. That seems to just fly completely in the face of the entire project, and I think we need to discuss it. The other darn thing, how does it work if our goal is to get people through traffic -- I mean, the traffic through more quickly, that we're going to spend all this money -- which we're finding out tonight we really don't have much of -- and we're going to tear down seven houses and get rid of a park, et cetera, and we allow a horse and buggy to go down Elkhorn? I'm sorry. There's some logic that doesn't work for me there, either. I don't know, you know if there's FLAP funding to do anything about that. I have seen improvement with the signage, with the Barnes Dance. There's improvement happening. Just saying, hey, go straight at the light if you want to go to the park, that's making a difference. There are alternatives, and we explored some of them. There are not alternatives that FLAP funding will pay for, and that's where the dichotomy comes. Now, the other thing that I think is really interesting that just happened tonight that I wasn't aware of is that we don't have the funding to do this. What happens if we don't get the funding for everything after Phase 1 that was part of the original project? Well, if -- if we have faith, we'll get that money. Let's go back and look at other alternatives for funding so we don't get stuck with this one choice, take it or leave it, and there's not a lot of people that are loving it. But I'm just not seeing logic that's following through. The other thing that someone pointed out, the -- I believe the representation over there (indicating), and I heard it iterated by somebody else, too -- you need to backup the view. It's maybe flowing better at 34 and -- I mean, at the intersection of Elkhorn and Riverside, but at 34 and 36, it's not going to be flowing any better. It's going to just move the backups further up Pole Hill, you know, and further in the line of the park. I don't think we're going to be accomplishing, really -- we will get a bridge or two, which is great, but that's a whole different thing. It's really not -- its goal of moving people through or relieving congestion is not being met, it doesn't appear to me. I haven't seen facts. It's moving the congestion other places, but it's not taking -- alleviating the congestion. Yeah. I believe all those issues, floodplains, bridges, they all need to be looked at, but it really feels and it appears that we're cramming too many projects into one. And just, we keep shoehorning it, trying to make it -- or as my dad says, beat it to fit and paint it to match. That's what it really feels like. And again, huge alarm that we don't have the money that we thought we had to do this. What happens when -- if that money doesn't show up? Again, if we believe that money is going to be here, let's use other -- other sources of funding so we have more options than just one -- one-way loop. And then the last thing that I thought was kind of funny was, in 40 years, we're going to be back to D and E traffic problems, if you noticed on the chart. That's not a huge improvement for all of this work going, from F to D, you know. So those are my comments. It doesn't seem to make a heck of a lot of sense to me in a lot of ways. Thank you for listening. As a frequent visitor to Estes Park for the past 50 years, I am absolutely against this silly loop plan. I love Estes just the way it is. Please don't disturb its charm or negatively impact the downtown businesses. I go TO Estes not through it as my destination. I am very much against this project. There is too much impact to downtown for very little benefit. Estes Park is not only here to deliver people to Rocky Mtn. Park. This loop project impacts many homes and businesses. Too many people would lose their homes and businesses just so tourists can get to the line to enter Rocky a few minutes faster. This is also not a good long term solution. As more and more people move to the front range area, Rocky will not be able to handle them all. Most likely more shuttles will be used. We have a much more severe parking problem. Visitors have to keep circling around trying to find parking adding to the congestion. The Riverside Dr. area is a peaceful oasis in the busy downtown area. It is not the place to funnel through a big highway. Downtown businesses are mostly not in favor of this project. The only benefit I see is the Ivy St. bridge, but the impact of this project far out weights the benefit. By the time the project gets started is will cost more and probably won't be completed like so many other projects in town. F f1111 Loveland CO Estes Park CO c 0 0 g John Murphy (cont) Kathleen Sigg Ann Wilcocks ITO2 2 FT Q E W E" E U LL i c N rq 2 N 2 n n d > Web EA Comment Form E E LL Q) W E E U Web EA Comment Form Web EA Comment Form 1r ro Web EA Comment Form (1) I support NO ACTION on the proposed Estes Park Loop project. This project has much more than a De Minimis impact on our Town. In fact, its outcome is hugely impactful of our Town. I own three properties on E. Elkhorn Avenue and this project will have a serious negative impact on all three. Our downtown area is too small to be made into a bypass road for the national park. It is a project that is too big for our Town in a literal sense. It is overkill and is not necessary. The national park is already looking to limit cars into the park. There is no need to pump cars into the park at a faster rate. They are already subject to 45 minute wait times at the park entrances and many are in fact already turned away on busy days! For our Town, too many structures are removed for no good reason. We have a small downtown and this is a huge amount of destruction. Most downtown businesses, downtown landowners and the Mayor are against this project. The road is too big and thus too loud for our downtown. We need more parking and shuttles to be a better neighbor with the national park. The W. Riverside area of Town that will be destroyed is now a quiet refuge in this Town. It will be ruined by this proposed road. This project is overkill in that it won't solve any traffic flow problems, it will only make it a few seconds faster to get in the line at the entrance gates of the national park. This few second gain is no solution and will barely be noticed by travelers. The loss of two-way traffic on our main downtown roads will just cause new bottlenecks and delays. This project is not a solution, it is a disaster. I'm sure there will be many legal challenges against the project if it is pushed forward. This project is not wanted in our Town. What do we need? We need more parking and a more complete, year-round transit system. This was part of the initial grant request, but has been dismissed by the CFLHD people. New parking and better transit is what the local population feels is needed. This proposed loop project will negatively affect wildlife, too. It does nothing to help with flood mitigation. There is little to no local control over construction. The overblown construction will hurt many businesses and people in this this Town. This proposed project is a waste of tax dollars as there is no pressing need that it get done. In fact, there are numerous reasons why it shouldn't get done. DO NOT MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS TERRIBLE PROJECT! Please support NO ACTION on the Estes Park Loop project. Public Hearing Verbal (2) Hi. My name is Ron Wilcocks. I think most everything has already been said, particularly what Eric Blackhurst said. !strongly agree with his analysis. I'm not -- I'm not for the loop. I'm for No Action on the loop. I'm not for no action in the town. I do think we have some issues we need to work on. I do not think this is the solution. To get a -- you know, a few second gain, 20-second gain in congestion going through this town, this is not worth it. This is, you know, using a hammer to crack an egg. You're going to wreck it. You're going to break it. There's too many structures being removed. Its too loud, what's going to happen over in the West Riverside area. There's too much noise that's going to occur with a large highway. I didn't make a prepared statement here, so I'm kind of just looking at some notes so excuse me. You know, in terms of Riverside, there probably is some ways to do different flow through there. Just like Gerald said, there's -- and some other people -- there is other alternatives that we have not moved to yet. The sign saying -- going straight to the park, the lit -up sign, you know, we should have permanent signs that say that. That has made a difference. I'm also downtown almost every single day. In the spring, I was counting the light. I don't know how -- it's working better now. In the spring, before the Barnes Dance, I was counting, on average, four cars making it through the light. Four. And you know how many cars are lined up. I don't get over to the park entrance very often, but I've heard nightmares, so -- so again, it makes this plan look ridiculous. We're going to pump traffic through our town to go into a mile -long traffic jam waiting to go through the entrance, only to go in the park and be told you can't be in here because we're full. That's the direction of the park. Think Zion, think the Grand Canyon, think the other very popular parks. They are not moving towards building new roads in the park all over the place. They are moving towards shuttle systems and moving people around in different ways. This is very shortsighted to tear up our town when, in the early '20s, perhaps 2020s, in that time frame, they're already making restrictions. They're going to make more. This is very shortsighted to be tearing our town up for this. Parking is much more of a significant issue for our town. Maybe it is nota significant issue for the National Park because this is not about Estes Park. This is about another entity. But parking, I'm -- again, I'm downtown working with the public every day, our locals, our visitors, everything, every day, all year-round. And parking is what really bothers people, and it adds to congestion. Think how many times you need to circle around looking for that parking spot, and how does that add to congestion? If people can get into parking spaces, then what do we get? Another 5 percent, 10 percent, 15 percent reduction? I don't know. I don't know how much parking we can feasibly do in a reasonable. But parking is what people complain about. They don't complain about the traffic because, quite literally, Elkhorn is the only traffic in town if you really think about it. There's no other place in town gets congested like that. So you have the Elkhorn corridor, Moraine going over to the Big Beaver Meadow. That is our congestion. Drive down to Boulder. Drive down to Fort Collins -- I don't care, anytime of the day. Now, you don't have to go on a weekend. Go during the day. Traffic is much, much worse. People are just used to it. You know, maybe its wrong that they don't complain about it, but they don't. They complain about parking, and they also complain about, "How ridiculous is it? I finally found a place, and I realize I can only be there for three hours. I don't even have time to lunch." Its crazy. Its wrong. Its too big of a road for our downtown. We have just limited land in our downtown. I think somebody else touched on that. We have to be very sensitive. This is not -- what is the word? I didn't even know what the word meant -- diminutive -- or whatever it is. This is not a little impact for our community. This is a huge percentage of our downtown being redone for very, very disputable benefits, if any at all. Again, it will affect wildlife negatively, and I'm not for doing nothing. We have to move forward and make improvements to our infrastructure for flooding, for circulation, for parking, for many, many reasons. So its not an idea of don't do anything ever. Its just this loop doesn't make sense. Its a big waste of money for our community. We have better uses for our money, and we should be using them in different ways. Thank you very much. My parents own properties and run businesses in downtown Estes Park on E. Elkhorn and I support the NO ACTION option. This is a waste of tax dollars and not the proper project for downtown Estes Park. We need new parking and better mass transit to help with the congestion of the national park. I support NO ACTION on the proposed Estes Park Loop project The community of Estes Park is in dire need of safe bike lanes, which the LOOP provides. The LOOP provides steps toward connectivity for bike access to our downtown (great for employees and locals enjoying a safe alternative for transportation). The LOOP offers the first step toward food mediation with upgrades to the Ivy Street bridge. The LOOP provides potential round a -bout at Moraine, which is badly needed for fluid slipstream traffic flow (currently its a traffic jam and serious safety hazard area). Access to RMNP is improved upon, without the current log -jam of traffic the community of Estes Park experiences. The LOOP initiates improved side -walks in our downtown, which currently is fragmented. Wider sidewalks and road dieting thru ELKHORN AVE is desperately needed, which is not exactly planned into the LOOP design (this is my only concern). I know our household of mixed ages is thrilled for the LOOP and appreciate this opportunity for grant funding. Thank you for the ongoing out reach to the community and public input. Many residents are in favor of the LOOP and appreciate the needed improvements to our transportation system. We very much support the FLAP grant. This is a huge opportunity to address an overdue issue in the community. This has been proposed in the past and for good reason. Also the tourists who filled out surveys in 2011 are telling us to fix our traffic and parking issues in overwhelming numbers. Parking and road capacity go hand in hand. They are both very expensive and this grant will greatly help the situation. A town vote would be a disaster. Most people don't even understand the grant much less have read it. Also outlying housing areas wont be able to vote. With 1200 pages of documents to be analyized this decision needs to be made by the elected and paid town board. Thank you. In favor iJ// s„ JJ)IJ.w Drew Wilcocks Estes Park CO Belle Morris Estes Park CO Jeff Sindelar Estes Park CO Kristen Glen Haven, CO �� „) c 0 auk w 0 c 0 c, Ron Wilcocks (cont) ffv in ro in m in o co co lir" W E. /pm LL T� U E Lt o E N a o _. m S Web EA Comment Form Web EA Comment Form Web EA Comment Form Web EA Comment Form Web EA Comment Form Web EA Comment Form Web EA Email MU i o N co,,, � � � 0 N co,,, � 0 N to W ,, Web EA Comment Form (1) IN SUPPORT OF THE LOOP PROJECT Public Safety: The intersection of Moraine Ave/Crags Drive poses a major accident potential. The proposed redesign will reduce the likelihood of a catastrophic collision. The Loop Project will reduce the occurrence of emergency vehicles moving against traffic that is gridlocked in BOTH directions. Economics: The present congestion at peak traffic hours adversely affects the experience of visitors who are seeking relief from similar congestion in their daily lives. This must inevitably diminish their desire for return visits. Quality of Life: The present seasonal traffic congestion makes daily activities a greater burden for area residents. This could diminish the appeal of Estes Park for attracting potential permanent residents. Maximizing Infrastructure: The central business district is located in a steep sided valley so narrow that creating more traffic corridors is impractical. This requires more efficient use of existing streets to improve traffic. Hard Copy left in Comment Box (2) (See attached Hard Copy Comments) IN SUPPORT OF THE LOOP PROJECT Public Safety: The Moraine Ave/Crags Drive intersection poses a major accident potential. The proposed redesign will reduce the likelihood of a catastrophic collision- The Loop project will reduce the occurrence of emergency vehicles moving against traffic that is gridlocked in BOTH directions- Economics: The present congestion at peak traffic hours adversely affects the experience of visitors who are seeking relief from similar congestion in their daily lives. This must inevitably diminish their desire for return visits. Quality of Life: The present seasonal traffic congestion makes daily activities a greater burden for residents. This could diminish the appeal of Estes Park for potential permanent residents. Maximizing Infrastructure: The central business district is located in a steep sided valley so narrow that creating more traffic corridors is impractical. This requires more efficient use of existing streets to improve traffic flow. Letter to the Editor Insert into Comment Form: Catcher in the Wry, Estes Park News Wednesday, October 7, 2015 (Attached to comment) To The Editor: Among the recent remembrances of the deceased baseball player, Yogi Berra, there were included a number of quotes from his collection of wry commentaries. One of these caught my attention, because it reflects my concern about the future of Estes Park. The famous catcher is credited with saying: "Nobody goes there anymore. It's too crowded" As the local controversy about the proposed traffic improvement project called 'The Loop" surges between commendation and condemnation, I am reminded of the sound and fury that echoed through our little valley around similar proposals during the decades in which I have lived here. In the 1970s the town board proposed to adopt a sign code to help reduce the neon jungle that had grown up in the central business district. The opposition to this needed ordinance invoked constitutionally protected speech and the sanctity of private property. The code eventually was adopted and did much to eliminate our town's resemblance to the Las Vegas strip. In the 1980s the newly formed Urban Renewal District proposed to improve the environment of our downtown by eliminating street side parking along Elkhorn Avenue in order to provide wider sidewalks and pedestrian-fri endly amenities such as benches and mini -gardens of trees and flowers. Downtown business owners raged that if parking spaces were removed from in front of their stores, this would prevent customers from reaching their premises and certainly destroy their enterprises. Eventually the improvements were made, most businesses survived, and our main street enjoyed a vastly more agreeable atmosphere. The nearly unprecedented traffic congestion of this past summer season has raised again the serious obligation of our tourist dependent town to provide the most pleasant possible environment for the teeming masses who visit us from other communities, where they are very likely beset by similar traffic congestion in their everyday lives. Once again I hear the self-centered objections of my fellow residents to the project that I believe provides the most reasonable improvement to the vehicle and pedestrian flow through our narrow business district. If the vocal opponents to the Loop Project prevail, our economy could continue to limp along as a congested bottleneck into and out of Colorado's major tourist attraction. But if we as a concerned community could summon the foresight to try the Loop as an attainable solution to a continuing flaw in our business environment, we might avoid a future where "Nobody goes there anymore. It's too crowded " Indeed as the ballpark philosopher has also been quoted as saying- "It's hard to make predictions, especially about the future " Steve Komito, Estes Park NO LOOP! We have witnessed the change in traffic since the "barn dance" has been re -introduced. Does not take very long to get through town. Also, the park does not want people coming in FASTER. Also, our merchants need time for potential customers to see downtown and want to visit. Gatlinburg, TN has the same problem. They have managed for years with the problem. One just deals with it for the few weeks it is a "bother". NO LOOP! It is too late, but moving the PO to the visitor center and building a parking garage in the flood zone would have really worked. Just hose it out after some high water... I am for the loop and the new bike lanes downtown Estes. Thank you I support the Loop for the community of Estes Park moving forward. We definitely need safer ways for bicyclists and pedestrians to get around and a more strategic plan for cars to move timely through the downtown area. In 5-10 years, I would think looking back the Loop and Parking Ramps would seem like a no brainer. Please move forward with the Loop Project. This town needs a manageable solution to so many of its traffic issues and progress is inevitable- Its time to invest in infrastructure and stop putting band - aides on larger issues in town. I do not support changing the traffic pattern of my town in an attempt to try to move traffic thru downtown - this will permanently destroy many historic residences along Riverside and also negatively affect the merchants' businesses west of the Elk Horn/Big Horn intersection. The traffic issues only occur for 2 to 3 months of the year. In the event that the decision is made to implement 'the loop" despite the negative impacts on our business community, I recommend that traffic cones or barriers and traffic officers be used to move traffic in 'the loop" configuration during the summer months. This measure would provide opportunity to move the traffic more swiftly thru the downtown area without destroying the historic village where we live. I strongly oppose the Downtown Estes Loop project- People go to Estes Park to get away from the city and its "conveniences"- Let the history, beauty and nature stay as it is. If someone is unhappy to wait in a line of traffic they should go to Disney wait, wait and wait some more. I just wanted to send a quick note to let the powers that be know that my husband, family and I are residents of Estes Park and are in favor of the downtown Estes loop project. Please take into consideration that there are plenty of people in town that are "pro loop". They just might not be as vocal as the naysayers are. ir fU Estes Park CO Estes Park CO Estes Park CO Allenspark CO Estes Park CO Mustang OK E 0 /Y 0 0 Y 0 Steve Komito (cont) Mr. and Mrs. Belleau Molly Patrick Kan Pyle No Name Provided Georgia Bihr Beverly Seymour Amy Mendonca 111 p" ' tii Web EA Email W Q a Q N N a E £U LL E. m Hello, We would like to express our opinion IN FAVOR of the loop In downtown Estes Park. We have lived In the Estes Valley for 12 years both In and out of the town limits. We have careers In Estes Park as the elementary school principal and a small animal veterinarian, which allow us to be very involved in the community. We also have two children that we are raising in the community, and many friends and family that visit often. We love our home here, but we feel very frustrated with the traffic congestion and we avoid spending time downtown because of it. We are also hopeful that the loop project would allow us to bike in town more safely both with and without our children. Sincerely, Angie and John Bryant Web EA Email (1) (See attached letter) To our Mayor Todd Jirsa, our Town Trustees and the Downtown Estes Loop Coalition, I know I have communicated this before and I still believe the following: MISAPPROPRIATION OF FEDERAL FUNDS - TAXPAYER'S MONEY I still believe that the Federal Grant money of $13 Million, FLAP Grant, for the Federal Lands Access Program is being misused for this Loop Project. It is my understanding that Rocky Mountain National Park does not want more cars in the Park! Getting cars through downtown a couple of minutes faster is not a benefit to the National Park. A line up of cars at the Beaver Meadows and Fall River Entrances to RMNP simply creates another problem. PARKING - I still believe that creating more parking downtown is the #1 priority. SIGNAGE - "Way Finding" - I still believe that adequate signage needs to be created to guide our visitors to their destinations. I have noticed our very first brown and white signs, (the colors used historically by all of our National Parks). These signs need to larger and spell out "Rocky Mountain National Park" not use the acronym of RMNP. We need to have additional signs way before the present sign locations to provide time for the drivers to change lanes to get to their desired destinations! TOWN PARKS - Parks are very important in downtown areas. People need a relaxing, peaceful and safe place to get away from the hustle bustle, time to rejuvenate and continue exploring the town. I strongly believe that taking away almost 15,000 square feet of one of our treasured downtown parks will be detrimental to the Town. West Riverside / Baldwin Park is a treasured park to locals and visitors alike. The character and peacefulness of this park will change when it's western border is a two lane, one way highway with all large trucks, RV's, motorcycles and local traffic flowing by it, drowning out the current sounds of it's natural water feature, the flowing river on it's eastern border! I have seen the mapped diagram of the proposed new park areas. Are these parks for people or for pretty landscaping next to a State Highway? How will pedestrians safely get to areas 12 & 13 on the Replacement Park Lands Map? WILDLIFE - I know that West Riverside Park / Baldwin Park is frequented by Elk and has been a birthing place for Cow Elk annually. The study does not seem to think that this will be affected. This is unbelievable, in my opinion. NOISE - I disagree with the noise conclusions of the Environmental Assessment. I happen to know that there is a huge difference in noise levels when a large truck travels down West Riverside Drive! I have experienced this with my own ears. West Riverside Drive is lower than Moraine Ave and the noise reverberates in this small area due to the rock mountain to the east side creating a canyon effect, resulting in noise at much higher decibel levels than are currently experienced by the traffic noise on Moraine Ave. ECONOMIC AFFECTS - There are many residential properties and seasonal vacation rentals along East and West Riverside Drives. These properties will be affected tremendously when a one way, two lane State Highway borders the property. Access to these properties will become more difficult. I truly believe that West Elkhorn Avenue merchants (and East Elkhorn merchants) will be greatly affected by the traffic flow being directed out of town when exiting Rocky Mountain National Park. This eastern flow of traffic is essentially a By -Pass of Downtown! Let's call it what it is -! I hope that you all will consider the long term effects that this decision will have on our small mountain village. I do have opinions on all other aspects of the EA Study - however; I wanted to make sure this brief communication got to you by August 5, 2016. Web EA Comment Form (2) MISAPPROPRIATION OF FEDERAL FUNDS - TAXPAYER'S MONEY I still believe that the Federal Grant money of $13 Million, FLAP Grant, designated for the Federal Lands Access Program is being misused for this Loop Project. It is my understanding that Rocky Mountain National Park does not want more cars in the Park! Getting cars through downtown a couple of minutes faster is not a benefit to the National Park. A line up of cars at the Beaver Meadows and Fall River Entrances to RMNP simply creates another problem. PARKING- I still believe that creating more parking downtown is the #1 priority. SIGNAGE - "Way Finding" - I still believe that adequate signage needs to be created to guide our visitors to their destinations. I have noticed our very first brown and white signs, (the colors used historically by all of our National Parks). These signs need to larger and spell out "Rocky Mountain National Park" not use the acronym of RMNP. We need to have additional signs way before the present sign locations to provide time for the drivers to change lanes to get to their desired destinations! SHUTTLE SERVICE TO ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK- I believe that the environmentally responsible solution is an expanded and convenient Shuttle Service to the Park. With trained guide/drivers making the journey pleasurable and informative. Proper signage to multiple shuttle stops, next to parking structures. TOWN PARKS - Parks are very important in downtown areas. People need a relaxing, peaceful and safe place to get away from the hustle bustle, time to rejuvenate and continue exploring the town. I strongly believe that taking away almost 15,000 square feet of one of our treasured downtown parks will be detrimental to the Town. West Riverside / Baldwin Park is a treasured park to locals and visitors alike. The character and peacefulness of this park will change when it's western border is a two lane, one way highway with all large trucks, RV's, motorcycles and local traffic flowing by it, drowning out the current sounds of it's natural water feature, the flowing river on it's eastern border! I have seen the mapped diagram of the proposed new park areas. Are these parks for people or for pretty landscaping next to a State Highway? How will pedestrians safely get to areas 12 & 13 on the Replacement Park Lands Map? WILDLIFE - I know that West Riverside Park / Baldwin Park is frequented by Elk and has been a birthing place for Cow Elk annually. The study does not seem to think that this will be affected. This is unbelievable, in my opinion. r ,' Angie Bryant 0 0 g m 0 c-, t0 C o 0 0 m o o 11 iIW Web EA Email EstesTruth.org Website EstesTruth.org Website EstesTruth.org Website EstesTruth.org Website Web EA Comment Form III Durango Kellie NOISE - Steele (cont) I disagree with the noise conclusions of the Environmental Assessment. I happen to know that there is a huge difference in noise levels when a large truck travels down West Riverside Drive! I have experienced this with my own ears. West Riverside Drive is lower than Moraine Ave and the noise reverberates in this small area due to the rock mountain to the east side creating a canyon effect, resulting in noise at much higher decibel levels than currently are experienced by the traffic noise on Moraine Ave. ECONOMIC AFFECTS - There are many residential properties and seasonal vacation rentals along East and West Riverside Drives. These properties will be affected tremendously when a one way, two lane State Highway borders the property. Access to these properties will become more difficult. I truly believe that West Elkhorn Avenue merchants will be greatly affected by the traffic flow being directed out of town when exiting Rocky Mountain National Park. This eastern flow of traffic is essentially a By -Pass of Downtown! Respectfully, Durango K. Steele (Alicia Rochambeau '.Unknown Hello, In your deliberations about the Downtown Estes Loop, I urge you to find solutions that make our Downtown Corridor an inviting and inclusive environment. To achieve that, some change in '.. infrastructure must take place and I reject the "No Act on" option completely. Elkhorn and Moraine Avenues are currently dangerous and unpleasant. It is unsafe on a bicycle and unpleasant on foot due '.. to noise and air pollution, long waittimes to cross at intersections, and few places to cross making the option of walking appear inefficient. Riding in a car in these areas is slow and frustrating. I think our downtown corridor would be enhanced by the loop so that healthy physical activity permeates through the experience downtown. While I don't necessarily believe in the need for adding so much more parking (did you know 12 bicycles can fit in one parking spot?), I do think encouraging the flow of traffic in one direction will improve the air and noise quality. Please, in whatever option you pursue, prioritize a multi -modal approach to transportation. Towns and cities that have, are more attractive for young families and tourists. We have an aging population '.. in Estes Park that relies heavily on their cars for short trips now, but that's not what the next generation wants or needs. We should design our downtown such that its easy to get around swiftly on foot or bike to do small trips to the store, post office, Town Hall, Library and the like; studies show countless benefits for the environment, our body's health, and the health of the community when we have a culture of activity. Plan for the future. Sincerely, Alicia (Resident, Estes Park) Thad Eggen Unknown I just wanted to voice my desire to move forward with a one-way loop to resolve our current traffic issues. Rich Salkin Omaha NE We have been coming to Estes Park as visitors for over 20 years. What brought us to the area was the town. It is a beautiful, quaint town with character and great shopping. We believe that the proposed Loop would damage the character and beauty of the town. We also agree that other options for traffic control should be reviewed before resorting to this extreme measure. Adding the Loop would be a horrible idea and would cause us to possibly reconsider where we would stay in this area. Liz Steiner Denver CO I am Colorado native. My family and I love Estes Park. We appreciate the local businesses, and try to support them as we can. If there is a one way going out of the park, eastward, that bypasses '.. downtown, it is likely that after visiting RMNP, we would not stop for supper on our home to Denver. We would miss out on the loveliness of Estes in the evening — not to mention the new beer garden! How does this impact me personally? Well, we believe that whatever impacts a local Colorado business, ultimately impacts all Coloradoans. Richard Hanna Overland Park KS My wife and I are against construction of the proposed loop as it will not allow traffic both ways through the town. It will inconvenience shoppers and drop sales in the downtown area. We are concerned that it will lower the real estate values of many properties and make Estes Park a spot on the highway instead of a destination. Furthermore, the loop will serve no purpose in the off season and will be a source of frustration for local residents. We have been coming to Estes Park every year for the past 20 years. The reason we keep coming back is the charm of this beautiful town. Please keep Estes Park the way it is. Lisa Fountain Cherry Valley IL To whom it may concern, My family has been vacationing on and off in Estes Park since around the 1920's. My grandma and grandpa went up Fall River in an old jalopy. My son is the fourth generation in '.. our family to come to your town. I have been coming since I was a small girl in the 70's and have seen a lot of changes over the years but the town of Estes Park has managed to keep it's charm. Even though the town has grown vastly, it still has a small town feel that is welcoming to visitors. I like what has been done as far as adding the flowers along the street. That did not exist when I was a girl. But that has added to the charm. It is this type of atmosphere that makes people feel at home in a town and that increases the fun of shopping as well. Having been in retail management, I can tell you '.. atmosphere has a lot to do with a customers desire to spend their hard earned money. If you proceed with the loop, not only will the town lose its old world charm, but it will feel less inviting and more '.. commercial and big town -like. I feel this will not only be inconvenient for all in going through the town, but also decrease the current buying atmosphere. These shop owners depend on the tourists. Our family loves to 'window shop" as we drive through town. I also feel other visitors enjoy doing the same and business owners will suffer from this move to change the roads. And from a pure convenience standpoint, one ways are a hassle to drivers. I detest navigating them in towns and having to continually loop all the way around to get to where I want to go. I hope you will not go through with this idea, '.. will be sad to see the current small town atmosphere of Estes Park changed forever. Kathy Park ',Falcon CO This plan would alter the rustic charm that we appreciate in Estes Park. Do not turn Estes Park into another Central City/Black Hawk travesty of what the original towns were. Cheryl Grigsby Estes Park CO I oppose the Downtown Estes Loop. This project will destroy the quaint charm of Estes Park, take away irreplaceable park areas, disrupt neighborhoods, endanger pedestrians, and still not solve any traffic flow problems in Estes Park or in Rocky Mountain National Park. Don't destroy Estes Park! o E U E P U a C m I�J 0 (See attached Hard Copy Comments) Thanks to the Estes Loop Project Team and fellow citizens who are working to preserve and protect the allure and vitality of the Estes Region for all people and all generations to come. My name is Rick. I am a resident of the Town of Estes Park. I have direct knowledge of social, economic, and environmental conditions of the Proposed Projects impacted areas. I am a stakeholder in Downtown and the well being of the whole community. My wife and I are interested parties. We are rebuilding old traveler cabins within the grips of the Loop boundaries on the south end of East Riverside park. The Town knows us as Rocky Mountain Memories, Riverbend Inn, Redemption Cabin, and This Mountain Life. But for even greater reasons, we care about the people of Downtown. The Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) acknowledges the following impacts will occur and become Downtown's reality: • The Proposed Action will take private property and going concerns from good fellow citizens. • It will also convert Town owned residential roads in the Riverside Corridor and make them into one-way reconstructed, realigned, elevated State highways. • The conversion of the Riverside Corridor from a low0voume two-lane roadway to a one-way high volume highway will impact the qualities that make the Riverside Corridor an attractive location for recreation, reflection and lodging. • The new highway segments will divide and isolate the East and West Riverside neighborhoods. • The Proposed Action will take deep cuts into the Riverside parklands including the very lovely people's Baldwin Park and the ever active and energizing Children's Park. • In addition to their loss in size, both parks will lose adjacent parking. • The public's ability to access Baldwin Park and Children's Park will be decreased. • Both Parks with face dramatically higher volumes of adjacent vehicular traffic. With the higher volumes will be increased driving speeds. • Ambient noise will rise in both Parks to levels that can drown out quiet moments, conversations, and recreational activities. Both parks will have decreased air quality with increased emissions, pollutants and odors. Both Parks will have decreased river water quality. • Both parks will suffer decreases in visual character. • Both parks will lose trees and canopy that the Project can never replace. Baldwin Park will lose its iconic old growth shade tree that has greater public value than any other tree I have encountered in the Estes Region, our Peoples's Tree. And, Baldwin Park will lose wildlife cover. • The Children's Park will lose its Public Restroom. • All will lose the ancient rock outcroppings and cliffs at the scenic heart o downtown as they are blasted away and used as fill and common riprap. Never replaced. • The Riverside Corridor will decline in livability. • Real property and going concern values will be oppressed by out of character redevelopment. • Town residents and guests will lose sublime natural scenery, healthy outdoor opportunities, and the promise of multimodal complete streets. Yet buried at the end in Section 3.16.8 of the Drat EA, it reports the Project impacts, taken individually or as a whole, 'Will not adversely affect the activities, features or attributes" of the parks, and are by Federal standards, "de minimus." I do not concur with the de minimus finding. The EA makes sweeping assumptions. The Proposed Action will reduce access to Baldwin Park and Children's Park, both Town -owned properties that function as major social and economic generators and provide vast public recreational opportunities. The Action will adversely affect their multiple uses, activities, features and attributes. The de minimus finding is arbitrary. It does not follow logically from the long tally of negative social, economic, and environmental consequences mentioned in the draft report. The finding is speculative, not supported by sufficient reason or documentation. The record does not support it and I do not concur with it. A Finding of No Significant Impact reflects detached Federal thinking and would injure many, including my Riverside friends and neighbors. Before the Loop Project is given a green light, a more involved Section 4(f) Environmental Impact Statement with analysis of avoidance alternatives is required. The proposed replacement property of Section 6(f) Parklands is of insufficient quality, usefulness and value. The EA states that the land designated to replace the losses to Baldwin and Children's Park is of "equal or greater fair marketvalue." I do not concur. The EA value statement is speculative. It is not supported by public comment, real evaluations, appraisals or studies. The details of the new parkland designs are being withheld until after the NEPA process. The Loop Project will take from Downtown's most mature, useable, un-congested, tree covered parklands that accommodate simultaneously many people and multiple group, family and individual recreational activities and trade in return barren, non-contiguous, strips with cut slopes and riprap on highway shoulders. The proposed replacement property will have very small capacity for very limited public uses. The proposed replacement property lacks in the same quality and usefulness. It is of "lesser fair market value" The EA does not adequately assess the Proposed Action impacts on East Riverside south of the Ivy Bridge. There is a heavy volume of two-way vehicular and pedestrian traffic on East Riverside Drive south of the Ivy Bridge, especially when the Aerial Tramway is open for Town visitors. This stretch of roadway is a vital link in the present Downtown transit patterns for all modes of transportation including walkers, strollers, bikers, and RMNP Hiker Shuttles. It takes a pounding by many clever locals and other RMNP visitors pursuing alternate routes through downtown. Yet, this stretch of roadway has been omitted by the EA. The Proposed Action will convert East Riverside into a 25 mph one-way two lane highway north of the Ivy Bridge. South of the Ivy Bridge, East Riverside will remain a two-way Town owned road with a 20 mph posted limit. How will the Proposed Action impact the environment, traffic volumes, out of direction travel, safety, and pedestrian/vehicle conflicts on the southern portion of East Riverside Drive? How will northbound vehicular traffic from the Crags Drive intersection to the Ivy Bridge intersection be controlled to accommodate East Riverside's neighborhood character and qualities that serve high volumes of visiting pedestrian and other modes of transportation? I also object to the notion that RMNP favors the Proposed Action. Officially, RMNP has not advocated a particular alternative because they believe the decision on whether the Loop Project moves forward rests with the Town of Estes Park, their stakeholders and DOT. In fact, so it would seem, Park officials do not support the Proposed action or they would be willing to put skin in the game to increase the National Parks' capacity for people, vehicular traffic, and parking. And, for upper Thompson and Fall River flood mitigation projects. But, they have not. Without new RMNP roadway and parking projects, the Proposed Action will have no significant positive impact on RMNP's congested entrance, crowded lots, and other traffic stopping choke points. If the Park officials see any good in the Proposed Action, let them come out into the public and speak for it. The Proposed Action must conform to a vibrant, widely supported Downtown Neighborhood Master Plan (that is in the works but does not exist). Late in the game, the Town initiated the formation of a Downtown Plan to help guide future decisions on how the Town should best allocate resources and make public improvements in downtown Estes Park. The outcome of this process should be a comprehensive step by step guide that will insure Estes Park's allure and vitality will be saved for all generations. The Proposed Action should take a back seat to the big Plan that is under development. The Proposed Action addresses only one piece of the Downtown redevelopment puzzle and only one solution. The acceptability o the Proposed Action is dependent on its inclusion in the coming Master Plan. Past Town studies recommend Downtown streets should be designed for all people and all modes of transportation not just visitors to Rocky Mountain National Park. Once the Downtown Plan steering Committee is open for public comment that policy should be open for fair consideration. :Jo .1111111 w 0 c 0 n 0, CC c 0 0 CC jo ro Y .r Hard Copy left in Comment Box Hard Copy left in Comment Box Hard Copy left in Comment Box a E OE 7,8 x S S m Q W E �- E U LL o f O E N a U S S m Hard Copy left in Comment Box 1 l'� I I� �r J co o N CZ' W co l[J co N N r co 0 N l—(J N r co l,S 0 N N r co 1! ?i.,:)) The Project's utility is dependent on interrelated projects including RMNP reducing traffic congestion at its Beaver Point entrance. The Projects usefulness is also dependent on the mitigation of traffic choke points at the US 34/36 Intersection and on river channeling, bridge projects and flood mitigation up and downstream o the Proposed Action's boundaries. The Project Partners have not committed to these interrelated projects. Those projects are currently unplanned and no funding is available. Upstream projects are necessary to protect the investment made by the Proposed Action. We need to be good stewards. The Loop Project will not include a new Rockwell Bridge, a new East Riverside Bridge, a new parking garage, or any upstream flood improvements. It will not mitigate traffic choke points at the east and west entrances into Downtown. Standing alone, the Proposed Action's benefits are dubious. It is legitimate to question whether the Proposed Action can ever meet its intended Purpose. The Project's negative impacts will fall disproportionately on Town residents, their natural recreational spaces and tranquil spaces. The spell of the Rockies will be tarnished. Avoidance alternatives should be fully explored. Rightly so, the Loop Project should be set aside without further expense incurred until a comprehensive Master Downtown Neighborhood Plan is drawn and vetted, winning wide spread community support. The interrelated projects should go together and in proper order. We need committed property partners and funding sources. I cannot see how "the Loop" will help traffic at all. On Hwy 36 it has backed up clear to Park Hill -all through town to the Park entrance for hours. Bond Park has been nibbled away -so not much park is left, and this will take away the park along the river. Why not invest in signs at parking lots that tell people where the big lot is at the fairground and that there are free shuttles back to town that run frequently. We have driven by there and there are no cars there. Also the two town businesses should make their customers park at the fairgrounds and pick them up or have them ride the shuttle back. Why should their cars take up parking spaces all day? There is a traffic problem — but the loop" will not help. I am asking you to think....Growth: vision through stewardship. Progress: Development stress on the resources. Consumption: limitation on the National Park is growing. Exhaustion: caveat -climate change, 2040 is not far off. After over 50 years at the cabin, Coyote Hill, and 13 years here in Estes Park, the pristine scenario is going away...Focus on getting the people out of their cars — shuttle. I just don't get it you don't get it. No one showed up at that meeting because it was a moot point. You (Town) don't listen. We don't want this, RMNP doesn't want this, the tourists don't want this. I can honestly say I haven't heard 1 person say they are for the loop and working with the public everyday, I get a lot of exposure! But still you keep trying to force feed it to us. We don't trust your judgements as to what is good for the town. The proof is in the pudding as in school (voted no) event center —wellness center (Stanley Fiasco), Performing Art Center (on Elkhorn sheez), community center (no more meals) and on and on. It is like your stepping on dollars to pick up dimes. No No No build a parking garage on the outskirts of Town (Not the P.O. parking lot) that will alleviate a lot more traffic! Thanks for your time! Hope you listen to the people!! I strongly support the Loop. I am a long-time visitor (my grandparents and parents lived here for many years) and now am a landowner and year-round, part-time resident. I've known Estes since the late 1940's. In that time basic road layout hasn't changed much, with the exception of Wonderview and the reconstruction of Elkhorn after the Lawn Lake Flood (1982-more than 30 years ago). Visitation to both RMNP & EP has increased dramatically. As a result, EP has both traffic and parking problems that are serious. The FLAP grant can help solve the traffic problem, but it's not allowed to address parking. EP will have to do that through other means. To say that EP should decline $17M because it doesn't solve all problems (including floodpl ain issues) is extremely short-sighted. This is essentially saying we can't fix everything so we shouldn't do anything." $17M may not ever be available again. The Loop will improve access for cars and buses (which are stuck in traffic with everyone else) so they can better get to parking, businesses and RMNP. I think the Loop will improve business prospects in downtown and the rest of the Estes Valley because Front Range residents don't come and vacationers don't return because of traffic. The eastbound portion of the Loop will not be much more o fa bypass than Rockwell is now- both provide access to the same parking lots. In summary, it would be short-sighted to not proceed with the Loop. Web EA Comment Form (1) Please find below some considerations on the negative impact of the Loop. 1. The proposed new two-lane highway will be built very close to the Lofts of Estes building and will bring increased traffic, noise and vibration, with negative impact to guest reservations. 2. There is a listed impact to the Lofts of Estes (reduced property size) that might affect parking, already very limited at the building. 3. Construction noise and building closure during construction of the two-lane highway will affect guest reservations and lead to income loss for the Lofts units. 4 Proposed sound barrier will be insufficient for noise mitigation, all street facing windows would need to be replaced with double pane windows. We are asking the Town of Estes Park to take No Action on the Loop and consider other options to direct traffic to/from RMNP (e.g. through E Wonderview Ave). Current y, there are two other issues on E Riverside that would need to be addressed, apart from the Loop project: A. The flow of traffic at that intersection of E Riverside and Rockwell needs a stop light, or at least a 3-way stop, as it is confusing right now. B. The two bridges on Rockwell and E Riverside need work to improve water flow and reduce the impact of spring melt and heavy storms. Thanks and please let me know if you have any questions and comments, Tony Gambee, 248-787-6898, tony@happyfamilyrentals.com Hard Copy left in Comment Box (2) The Lofts of Estes Condo HomeownerAssociation, composed of 13 luxury guest accommodations (highly reviewed by travelers to Estes Park) is very concerned about the proposed Loop project that will impact our building on E. Riverside Dr. Please find below some considerations on the negative impact of the Loop. 1. Proposed new two lane highway will be built very close to the Lofts of Este building and will bring increased traffic, noise and vibration, with negative impact to guest reservations. 2. There is a listed impact to the Lofts of Estes (reduced property size) that may affect parking, already very limited at the building. 3. Construction noise and building closure during construction of the two lane highway will affect guest reservations and lead to income loss for the Lofts units. 4. Proposed sound barrier will be insufficient for noise mitigation, all street facing windows would need to be replaced with double pane windows. We are asking the Town of Este Park to take No Action on the Loop and consider other options to direct traffic to/from RMNP (i.e. through E. Wonderview Ave). Currently there are two other issues on E. Riverside that would need to be addressed, apart from the Loop project: A. The flow of traffic at that intersection of E. Riverside and Rockwell needs a stop light, or at least a 3-way stop, as it is confusing right now. B. The two bridges on Rockwell and E. Riverside need work to improve water flow and reduce the impact of spring melt and heavy storms. Thanks and please let us know if you have any questions and comments. We are opposed to "the Loop"!!! I Rick Grigsby (cont) Lois Harvill Estes Park CO Ron Heinz Estes Park CO Monica Sigler Estes Park CO David Hattan Arvada CO Tony Gambee Estes Park CO Lofts of Estes Condo Owners Association (Tony Gambee, Narcis Anghel, Sharon Mahoney) Dewain & '.Estes Park CO Katharine Lockwood 'f0 fly.1111111 W W co. co. Web EA Comment Form Web EA Comment Form Web EA Comment Form a LL Q N W E U 444 -1I! 0 N c-(J W1////i I am against the Downtown Estes Loop. It is not in the best interests of the citizens, visitors, business owners, wildlife, or the National Park to run automobiles through this area as quickly as possible. Plus it does nothing to solve the parking issues. And we don't have the money. Do we really want to create all this turmoil, are we really solving any problems, or do we just want some government money that we can't afford? I am against the Downtown Estes Loop project. It is not in the best interests of this small mountain town. The Environmental Assessment seemed to cover everything but the environment. Wildlife, fresh mountain air and mountain scenery are a very big tourist draw in this town. But progress seems to outweigh the enjoyment of tourists, town members and wildlife in our city park on the river at the foot of a mountain. Lets cut down the size of the park, subtract parking places, add more traffic, and a ton of concrete -- that sounds like an environmental assessment which does not consider the environment at all! We own the Signature Square Office building at 351 Moraine Avenue housing Spencer Chiropractic, The Estes Park Trail Gazette, and Melissa Roberts Acupuncture --- directly across Moraine Avenue from the Donut Haus. When tending to this property, we frequently see the distress of citizens and visitors on foot trying to cross Moraine Avenue to visit the Donut Haus, the Big Slide, the Water Park, the Brewery, etc. We have witnessed several near disasters. I trust that we don't have to have blood in the street before traffic and pedestrian lights are installed to make this intersection safer. We are very much in favor of the LOOP project to benefit the long-termfuture of traffic flow in Estes Park, and because we believe that it will finally provide the appropriate safety features for pedestrians and vehicles alike that are so desperately needed. Joe and Mary Liz Adair I approached the Environmental Assessment for the Estes Downtown Loop with the hope that I would learn the facts and the pros and cons of changing the traffic flow through the town. I was disappointed. The Assessment is a biased sales document that is blatantly in favor of approving the project. Regardless of the merits of the loop, this Assessment should be disqualified and discounted simply because it does not provide an objective analysis of the facts and reasoning both in favor of and against the proposal. The governmental officials, including the Estes Park Town Trustees, would do a disservice to themselves and to their constituents by using this Assessment as anything other than a sales pitch. The most fundamental issue in the Assessment is how it treats the gap between the estimated cost of the project and the available funding. The Assessment notes that its a€ceopiniona€ of what it will cost is $34 million. Yet the available funding is only half of that, at $17.2 million. When one reads the Assessment as a whole, it becomes clear that the document was prepared without regard to whether money would be available to complete the project, with the assumption that everything needed to be accomplished in order to have a viable outcome. Throughout the document, the Assessment describes the project as a total picture that includes everything. By way of example, the Assessment includes all three of the critical river bridges as essential parts of the project, along with work on the flood plain to insure that high water passes below all those bridges. The report seems to have been edited later to recognize that some things were not affordable, such as all of the flood plain work and rebuilding of two of the bridges. The analysis, however, is based on the full project, with little or no assessment of the risks of not doing the things that had to be left out due to cost. This is an interesting variation on what happened with the Community Center. There, the cost figure that had gone to the voters proved to be an order of magnitude inadequate, but a reduced scope project appears to be moving forward. With the loop, the cost estimate may still be wrong, but the Assessment favors going forward at half of the projected cost, with work that will clearly be inadequate to accomplish the objectives on which the analysis is based. What could result is half a project that cannot stand on its own and that will never be fully -funded. The risk of proceeding under these conditions is not carefully addressed in the Assessment. What results is an Assessment that acknowledges that the funding is inadequate, that essential aspects will have to be postponed, and that no funding source has been identified for those later -phase needs, but that does not tackle the critical question of the risks of proceeding with half a solution. To continue with the example noted earlier, in its description of changes to Riverside Avenue, the Assessment explains in Section 2.3.2, a€ceA new two -span East Riverside Bridge will be constructed in the same location as the existing bridge, immediately downstream of the confluence of the Big Thompson and Fall Rivers. This bridge will be wider, longer and slightly higher than the existing bridge to improve flood conveyance and provide flood resiliency to the transportation and adjacent infrastructure.a€ But that bridge has been dropped due to the lack of funds. The Ivy Street Bridge will be reconstructed, but not the East Riverside Bridge. That bridge may never be built. However, the Assessment analyzes the benefits and risks of the project on the fiction that this bridge is in the project. The way the Assessment works with what can be afforded and what has to be eliminated is deceptive. The Assessment simply does not deal comprehensively with reality. To move forward on any analysis made in this Assessment seems to be the height of folly. The Assessment does show seemingly objective data to indicate that traffic flow will be improved by the downtown loop. See table 3.1-5 in volume 1 of the report. But it would be helpful to discuss this in practical terms rather than the number of fewer seconds that a vehicle will spend at the downtown intersections, and whether this really merits spending $34 million that nobody has. One thing, however, is clear. There will not be funding to address redesign of the flood plain and rebuilding all of the important bridges. One of the favorite mantras of Town officials who favored this project at its early stages was that we needed to address the flood plain, and that the FLAP grant provided the means to do so. That is no longer true. That sub-rosa rationale is not a reason to support this project. Speaking of costs, some $4.2 million of the funding comes from the Town spending all of the money it receives from the County for the future maintenance of West Elkhorn, up front, on a project that is only peripherally related to that part of Elkhorn. Perhaps a discussion of this allocation of the RAMP funds was beyond the scope of the Assessment, but it should nevertheless be a consideration in the Town's assessment of whether to go ahead. The Assessment, and the overall project, is based on an assumption that moving vehicles through Estes faster will contribute positively to access to Rocky Mountain National Park during the peak travel days and times. The Assessment fails to analyze whether this is correct. During those peak travel periods, the Park already has a problem with accepting the number of vehicles that press for access to parts of the Park. This summer, the parking lots on the Bear Lake corridor fill up well before noon on heavy visitation dates. The parking lot at the Alpine Visitor Center is similarly undersized for today's peak traffic. Cars now back up both directions on Trail Ridge Road and the old Fall River Road. The Park is experimenting with actually closing much of Bear Lake Road to private vehicles once the parking lots are full. The last thing the Park needs is for those vehicles to get to the barrier more efficiently. The Assessment does not challenge the underlying assumption that encouraging private vehicle travel into the National Park is good. Additional analysis ought to be undertaken to determine what would work best for the Park and what alternatives might be available to make bus shuttles to and from the Park more efficient instead. To proceed with this downtown loop project on a questionable assumption seems silly. . )! ( Kenny Adair Estes Park CO June Adair Estes Park CO Joe Adair and Mary Estes Park CO Liz Adair 17, I II r E W. U Web EA Comment Form i I�f III J 0 N W ,/ The Assessment sidesteps or gives inadeq uate treatment of a number of important issues. For example, the project schedule calls for at least two seasons of work. The scope of the project indicates there will be considerable disruption of traffic during these times and a general disincentive to visit Estes Park. An unspecified amount of the Towna€T"^s parking will be diverted to storage of construction materials, equipment and vehicles. The Assessment does not attempt to quantify this, instead deferring the details to the contractors who will do the work. The downtown businesses will surely be adversely impacted. One should ask how many businesses could survive two successive summers with significant loss of customers. The Assessment does not factually answer that question. Can governmental officials honestly approve this project without having better analysis of what the construction period impact will be? On a different vein, but also important, is what happens to the trees along the route? The Assessment notes that trees that have to be removed will be replaced with new ones, and therefore there is no impact. That is patently untrue. If the trees along East Riverside are removed to make way for expanded traffic flow, there will be a lasting adverse impact to the entire stretch of the Town. That impact will outlast all of us. For a town that calls itself a Tree City, this should not be a trivial issue. It is not sufficient to say, as does this Assessment, a€ceTree removal will be minimized to the extent practicable.a€ At a minimum, each and every mature tree that will have to be cut down should be clearly identified on the ground before the project is given approval, so that members of the community will know in advance, and so that the Town Trustees will be compelled to take responsibility up front. The decision -makers cannot be permitted to hide behind ignorance here. The Assessment is naive in some of its advocacy. For example, the Assessment touts the advantages of the project in the economic impact section in these words on page 3-57. The Proposed Action does however provide the necessary infrastructure for considerable future economic benefits if the following are implemented: - Increased visibility along Riverside Drive for existing and future businesses. - Increased visibility to one of the largest parking areas in downtown (post office parking lot). - Implementation of the stream channel widening would result in reduced flood plain boundary thereby benefiting residential and commercial properties. - Infrastructure to access a potential future downtown parking structure that could provide additional parking in the center of downtown, if advanced and implemented by the Town of Estes Park at a later date. Why should it be beneficial to increase the visibility along Riverside Drive for businesses? Will this increased visibility, coupled with reduced parking in this area and with increased two-lane traffic, actually lead to business expansion? Why is it helpful to increase the visibility of the Post Office parking lot, which already is chronically full, and which will have several spaces taken away for this project? Why promote the stream channel widening when the funding has already been eliminated? Does the design of the one-way loop provide the infrastructure to a new parking structure in the center of the downtown, or does it actually make it more difficult to enter and exit such a structure? The conclusions of the Assessment are similarly questionable in the way they focus on the details and totally ignore the broader impact of the changes the loop will cause. For example, the Assessment has this to say about the impact of the project on the parks in the Riverside Drive Corridor (page 3-202): Park features such as trails, benches, paths, trees and vegetation would be removed and replaced with new features, park facilities, pathways and vegetation. New connections and facilities would be added and linked to new park land areas creating new visual resources and vantages points. New urban design features would complement existing features and create gateways. Totally ignored in the mitigation conclusion is the fact that the parks will be bounded by a higher speed, dual lane, highway that will carry 100 percent of the east -bound traffic coming from the Beaver Meadows entrance to the National Park, the YMCA, and the residences and businesses on the Moraine Avenue corridor. Also ignored is the change of the feeling of the parks when the mature vegetation is replaced with new, immature trees and shrubs. This aspect is acknowledged in the discussion section of the Assessment, then totally ignored in the conclusions. The conclusions simply ignore the points raised in the discussion. Other conclusions reached in the mitigation recommendations are equally absurd. For example, in response to the impact of diverting nearly 15,000 square feet of park land along Riverside Drive to the highway, the Assessment merely states that conversion of land to park along the Riverside Corridor would offset these impacts.a€ The report fails to address where this land would be found along the corridor, and even if it existed, whether it could adequately replace the portions of the park appropriated for pavement and vehicles. To conclude that the project will have a de-minimis impact on Baldwin and Childrens Parks is simply not supported by this Assessment. Reduction in space, removal of mature vegetation, and routing of two lanes of higher speed, higher volume traffic along the edges of these parks, cannot be said to have no adverse effect on these resources. To conclude so is disingenuous. Sections like this compel one to read the Assessment critically. For all its volume, tables and illustrations, in my mind this Assessment is woefully inadequate, overly promoting of a result, and unreliable in its conclusions. The clinical and unrealistic analysis set out in the Assessment does terrible service to the decision -making process. This is a lobbying report, not a genuine assessment of whether the one-way couplet is the right thing to do. I wish it be known that I oppose the Loop project for Estes Park. The premise behind the grant for the Loop is to more efficiently get traffic into RMNP. The town also would like to alleviate the traffic congestion in town. Currently, RMNP cannot handle the volume of traffic that it receives. The parking in the park is full by late morning, including the shuttle parking. So, increasing the flow of traffic to RMNP will only move the backup of vehicles to the Park and backing up towards town. If cars are backed up in town, at least they can see shops, restaurants, etc that they may wish to visit later. Also, a Loop of traffic through a residential neighborhood and park on Riverside will destroy that neighborhood completely. The Loop will also cut off the flow to the west side of downtown. We all know most people are followers...they will follow the flow of traffic on the loop. The loss of tax revenue from West end businesses wil put a big hit on the budget for other town projects. There are better options to resolve traffic. Better parking (like the structure that is going in at the visitor center) More buses and shuttles, etc. A Loop will make Estes a generic town just like any other. No more small town feel that the tourists and residents came here to enjoy. I hope the town of Estes park will truly think this through. Once the loop is in...there will be no turning back. Will the bike lane option only be for Riverside? I hope all the entire loop would have bike lanes projected. Bike lanes should also be physically different from the rest of the road by means of different color or road surface to make it clear to motorist it is a bike lane and not a shoulder. I'd also suggest roundabouts where possible. Especially the Morraine/Riverside intersection, since it has the required space for it. Ij ri '.... lolanthe Culjak Estes Park CO [Steven Wens Estes Park CO 0 a Y N N a 0 a N N a ricri : a LL Q W / Li U Ea LL Q0,Q W a E o U Web EA Comment Form Web EA Comment Form a LL N W E a E U Web EA Comment Form Web EA Comment Form Web EA Comment Form Web EA Comment Form Web EA Comment Form Web EA Comment Form i 0 id 0 idro 0 0 ro 0 ro 0 0 ro 0 0 ro ft, ,,vtr„ i ), Sherri Valentine Loveland CO As a resident of Larimer County and a very frequent visitor to both Estes Park and RMNP, I am very concerned about the health of Estes Park, economically and environmentally. Yet, as I reviewed all the project materials, I was disappointed to find very little variation in all the discussed alternatives. Worse, every alternative (except no action) puts burdens on Riverside Drive, the wonderfully green parks along Riverside Drive, and the river. I found absolutely no mention of the potential environmental impacts to the river, river life or water quality. This is an irresponsible omission! As a former member of the citizen advisory team to CDOT and Jefferson County on the improvement of the Evergreen downtown intersection - a project that moved forward with the support of all the community and with creativity that improved not only the traffic flow, but the safety of pedestrians and cars, and the visual and environmental integrity of the area - I was surprised by the lack of creativity and "thinking outside the box" with this project. I sincerely encourage the selection of the NO ACTION alternative until more citizens are given more opportunity to be involved with this project. There are ways to achieve the goals and solve the problems stated. The alternatives identified thus far will not do so. Thank you for the opportunity to express my concerns. Jeanne Zukowski Estes Park CO I have heard so many times that one of the main reasons for the need for the Loop is to facilitate access to Rocky Mountain National Park. This is NOT a justifiable need for the Loop. People have no '.. problem getting TO the Park. Getting INTO the Park and being able to find a place to park (legally) in order to hike or sightsee is the problem. RMNP is BEYOND its carrying capacity, and there is no '.. justifiable need to make it easier to get to the Park. I work in the visitor centers and experience first hand the long lines, congestion, visitor frustration, and even the occasional irate and threatening '.. visitors . The congestion is so bad that trailhead parking lots are often full by 7:00 a.m., daily access restrictions are put on Bear Lake Road from mid -morning to mid -afternoon, the Alpine Visitor Center '.. parking lot is full by mid -morning, and with long lines of cars on both Trail Ridge Road and Old Fall River Road waiting to enter the parking lot, there is ABSOLUTE AND TOTAL GRIDLOCK. I know, '.. because I work up there and see it every day. What we need, instead of this Loop, is MORE PARKING SOMEWHERE IN OR NEAR TOWN, encouraging visitors to use the free shuttle service. Please '.. do not use access to RMNP as a lame excuse to supportthis Loop. I, FOR ONE, AM OPPOSED TO IT. Anthony Mostek Boulder CO No to the loop! It will completely ruin everything that makes downtown Estes so quaint Diana Gabriella Boulder CO I am absolutely against the loop. Gordon Dyck & Estes Park CO My husband and I bought our condo here in Estes Park nearly 11 years ago and spent about 4 months a year here until early June 2015 when we moved here full time. We support the Loop project as Judith Beechy we are concerned that if traffic continues to get backed up in town, many people who come here for vacation or to visit the park will not return here because it is so difficult to get through town. We do not '.. believe that having opportunities to see the store fronts is what causes people to stop to shop! Alternatively we think that people who are stuck in long lines of traffic will decide it is not worth trying to stop '.. in town because of time limitations and traffic congestion. We also believe it would be very beneficial, ff not crucial, for the town to take action now to address this problem while there is outside funding to '.. help pay for it!! Having lived in Indiana for many years where many "round-abouts" were built in recent years, we found them to be an easy and safe way to keep traffic moving. On a personal note, my '.. husband has ALS and was recently moved to Prospect Park Living Center. Our condo is in Mountain Gate Condos off Big Horn Drive. Every day I head to PPLC at least twice a day. Needless to say the long lines of traffic have made my tip back and forth much longer! Therefore we ask you to please move forward with the Downtown Estes Loop project! Thank you! Judy Beechy (and for Gordon Dyck) Eryn Mills Estes Park CO As a long time local, from a family of long time locals, I have seen some town improvements that we have doubted and later seen that they do work well. However, this does not seem like one of them. There are real improvements that our town needs, but this project doesn't seem to address those issues. Please do not go forward with the Loop project. While R may be a creative idea, the money and '.. the energy that would go into it should go towards maintaining our current infrastructure. On a side note, it has always been difficult to give directions in Estes Park to tourists and newcomers. Adding a caveat of "If you missed that turn, you have to loop around again, or turn down this network of confusing side streets and alleys and try to find your way back" does not seem very helpful. Kenneth L. Estes Park CO The character and charm of Estes Park are entwined with the physical layout of the town. In the 60 years that I have known Estes, there have been many changes but the overall atmosphere of the town Klocksiem has remained intact. The Loop proposal will destroy that character permanently. None of the stated reasons for the Loop justify its implementation in light of the damage that will be done to a unique '.. community. From my observations there is enormous opposition to the Loop which far outweighs any support for it. There have been numerous suggestions for improvements that can be made without '.. instituting the Loop. The "Barnes Dance" crossing pattern is being used again, and a central parking facility in conjunction with effective visitors shuttles and the Trolley would provide reasonable traffic '.. management. Please do not move forward with the Loop! Judith A. Davison Estes Park CO You can't construct the Loop without damaging the unique characteristics that make Estes Park the charming, engaging town that it is. Estes Park and its environment have changed over time, but the '.. character of the town has remained the same. The environment of Estes is entwined with its overall layout and will not be the same again if the Loop is implemented. Traffic issues can be effectively '.. managed with the free trolley system in conjunction with building a central parking facility at the Visitor Center. Don't do it! Don't continue for another minute planning on implementing the Loop! Amy Hamrick Estes Park CO I encourage this project to keep moving forward. I have lived in Estes Park since 1998, have owned a downtown business since 2002, and have also sat on numerous boards and committees, including '.. currently sitting on the Transportation Advisory Board, and have been informed on the progress of this project since it was just an idea (I actually attended the board meeting when Public Works originally '.. brought 4 ideas to the table to even apply for the FLAP funding.) I continue to see this as one small step in the bigger picture to our town's progress in dealing with both the growth of the Front Range and the increased visitation to Rocky Mountain National Park. No one project or idea will solve our traffic issues. This project takes a step towards it, including considering vehicle and pedestrian safety and '.. experience; improving traffic flows through town; improving infrastructure and replacing at least one bridge that is part of the bigger flood plain issue; and upgrading our intersections. Jerry Meyer Fort Collins CO Please NO LOOP! Sue Meyer Fort Collins CO NO LOOP! This is a bad concept on every level. 0 0 0 0 Web EA Comment Form Web EA Comment Form LL C a N WE a E U Web EA Comment Form Web EA Comment Form LL C a E w E a g U s z P. o m nmm 0 0 0 - m 0 L m 0 - m N As a resident of Estes Park since 1979 I am against the loop. I beg of you don't change the character of my beloved town. In knowing that you won't have the funding needed to complete the project, I'm dismayed by the fact that this is still on the table. You must at the very least let us voters decide this issue. The EA so obviously favors the pro loop faction that I can't give it any credence. Please stop this debacle now or face the wrath of us voters next time you pro loop trustees are up for reelection. Do the right thing for Estes Park which is no loop! I believe that the citizens of Estes Park can come up with a better resolution to combat the capacity issue. Tearing our town apart and taking out homes (which will make the housing issue even worse) is not going to solve any problems. I feel that it's a bad idea and I do not support it. I feel that we need to figure out how to get more people to park at the fairgrounds and take the shuttle. To whom it may concern: Re: The Environmental Assessment of FLAP funded 'Loop" project in Estes Park, Colorado. It would be impossible for me to address every EAtopic that I take issue with. For the time, I shall confine my comments to that which is contained in this letter. First, I must take issue with the following statement, as taken from Tech Report 4 Hazardous Materials: "Site listed in the EDR database as a closed LUST/Trust/ UST site. A release was confirmed at the site in September 2001. Four USTs were installed in 1982 and have been permanently closed. Currently, there is no building present at the address listed for Boba€T^^s Amoco at the corner of Elkhorn and Moraine. The Bobs Amoco station (172 W. Elkhorn Avenue) was located on the west end of Elkhorn, where a livery used to be. This would be, today, 230 West Elkhorn, which is located outside the study area. There was also a service shop across the street in the 1920s-1930s. There was another station at the west end of Elkhorn. Based on the distance from the proposed projecta€T""s limits of construction (more than 700 feet) and topographic position relative to Fall River, this facility is not considered a REC for the project." Much of this information is just simply incorrect. Neither Bob's Amoco, nor the address 172 W. Elkhorn has ever been located at the corner of Elkhorn and Moraine. For the past 81 years at the corner of Elkhorn and Moraine, you will find Miller's Indian Village, address 100 W. Elkhorn Ave. There is most certainly a building currently present there (since c. 1908), as there is also a building currently present on the actual former site of Bob's Amoco. The Riverspointe building was constructed in 2005 on the site where the former gas station building stood until it was demolished in 2004 to make way for that construction. The Riverspointe address is 170 W. Elkhorn for all units. To my knowledge Bob's Amoco was never located west of this location. This is just one example of inaccuracies which cause me to distrust the entirety of the research done on the EA. The number of hazardous sites combined with the gross inaccuracy of the research into these sites is of grave concern. I respectfully submit that there is likely to be significant additional cost involved with mitigating these sites. In particular, the Donut Haus site's unregistered tanks are a huge unknown and offer the potential of significant damage to the aquatic ecosystem within, and downstream from, the project area. An additional concern, the small fen within the project area is downstream from this UST site and directly adjacent to the former FerrellGas UST site does not appear to have even been identified in the Delineation Report. The project calls for lowering the grade throughout Baldwin Park on either side of this fen. I find conflicting reports on whether the Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse is or is not present within the project area. I was unable, in the time allowed in which to provide this comment, to find information within the EA to indicate whether the requisite procedures for determining the presence of this protected species had been completed, or any inquiry into the potential impact upon such species if found to be present. I find a great deal of significant negative impact to the project area. I realize that this seems to be a difference of opinion from those who prepared the EA. But it would appear to me that the EA seems to be little more than opinion. It is unfortunate that the EA was not required to investigate the impact to the very federal land that the FLAP grant purports to improve access to. The negative impact of greater access to an already damaged and overcrowded federal land will surely be immense and irreversible. From the https://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/programs/flap/ website: "The Federal Lands Access Program was established in 23 U.S.C. 204 to improve transportation facilities that provide access to, are adjacent to, or are located within Federal lands." What does it mean to "improve" access to federal lands, in our case, RMNP? One is left to assume that the project intends to afford a greater number of people the ability and ease of entering RMNP for recreational purposes. In order to improve something, one must first identify a need for improvement. Over a mere 5 years, park visitation increased by nearly one million visitors. This is an increase of over 30%. There simply is NO NEED to improve access to RMNP because it has already exceeded it's capacity. You cannot improve access to a place you cannot enter, by the implementation of the Loop project. By sending more cars, more rapidly to the park, which after waiting in line, are then turned away to return through the loop, you are simply exacerbating the situation. One CANNOT improve a situation by making it worse. Sincerely, Holly Moore I am glad that the EA demonstrates positive improvement for our town while still working to protect its character! Thank you for the hard work and continued effort towards effecting positive change. One important aspect of this project is the improvement of bicycle access in downtown Estes. Please keep up the good work. The loop has been proven completely unnecessary now that Elkhorn and Morraine intersection has had the full, all -directions pedestrian crossing plan implemented. Traffic would regardless always come to a standstill on 34 to the RMNP when any car wants to turn into a business or subdivision. The general consensus from tourists seems to be that they expect a delay when they come to EP in the summertime. There is absolutely no logical reason to speed up traffic to RMNP when it is already over -populated with visitors. As long time visitors to Beautiful Estes Park, we have serious concerns with the "Downtown Estes Loop" project. We have several friends in Estes Park and agree with them that this is the wrong approach for this historictown. There needs to be a thorough and complete environmental impact assessment of this 'downtown loop" project to see what the effects would be on the community and the Estes Park region including the communities downstream. The assessment needs ensure that federal agencies are included in this analysis, including EPA and NOAA, to address serious climate change impacts that are underway in Colorado. After the floods of September 2013, no project can proceed without assessing the potential impacts on the flow of water through Estes Park when the next big storm hits! The assessment must also ensure that every effort is made to conserve precious water resources during low flows that occur during droughts! Thanks for listening! Anthony and Susan Mostek 01))/a Robin Klein Estes Park CO Meghan 'Estes Park CO Rademacher Holly Moore (cont) Glenn Case Estes Park CO Michael Young '. Estes Park CO Anthony Mostek Boulder CO . 0 Frr.m N V ,, Public Hearing Verbal (1) Public Hearing Verbal (2) m N V ,, m N N V ,, , 0 N O 0 N O Thank you very much. I have a few prepared comments. I could speak for 30 to 40 minutes on this project and its history, but I'll try and stay within the three -minute guidelines. The environmental study, EA for short, in its draft, and I suspect nearly final, form finds there is a de minimis impact environmentally, economically, and socially to the community from the proposed $17 million loop project. De minimis. An interesting choice of words with Latin origin. Oh, I know there's a legal definition behind that. When you look up the definition of de minimis, this is what you find: Something of little importance or insignificant. So small or minimal in difference that it does not matter or the law does not take it into consideration. So minor as to not be worth regarding. So the findings of this study and its authors say that the two-year project, which is Phase 1 and Phase 2, will have little significant impact on the community. Because my time is limited to three minutes, let me say very plainly: I've read the EA, I've looked at the initial documents that have formed the basis of this proposal, and I have the following observations. In 2003, the Town Board rejected this same proposal for a one-way couplet as proposed by FHU Engineering Company. The EA considers this insignificant. In 2013, the Town Board presented options -- was presented the option of applying for the FLAP grant as part of the 2010 economic stimulus package passed by Congress. The Town Board asked administration to look at several proposals, including trails along Highway 36 and 34 into Rocky Mountain National Park and downtown, the downtown loop. The staff returned proposals for trails and also a downtown loop, which included a parking garage in the post office parking lot, for which there was no funding and no directive from the Town Board. This created great misplaced enthusiasm from the public in a program which was never a possibility under the FLAP grant and no foreseeable funding in the future. This concept continues to be on a wish list, so those concerned with downtown parking, there's still no funding. The EA considers this to be insignificant. Throughout the EA references are made to projects and details for bridges, future parks, and widening river channels that are not part of the downtown loop project, but will come in future phases. It appears the EA considers that no funding or sources of funding is insignificant. Section 3.19.4 alludes to sales tax funding for voters approved, in part, for road maintenance. The EA states that there is a ten-year plan, and money will be used to maintain and improve Rockwell Street and include the bridge. Actually, there are only eight years left in that plan as the tax expires in 2024. That section also states the Town has plans to upgrade sewer facilities. The Town has no sewer facilities. The EA considers this to be insignificant. It also appears that the EA considers economic and social impact to those in Estes Park who use, work, and live along the proposed route as insignificant. I guess no one was listening to them because their opinion was de minimis. There's $4.2 million in the bank from CDOT earmarked for transportation projects. What is more important to the community? Investing in four bridges along our streams to protect for downtown flooding or saving our visitors 17 seconds wait time at the traffic light as they travel to and from the National Park as projected by the original FLAP grant? The answer to that question is not insignificant. Thank you for your time. Public Hearing Verbal (1) I have some concerns about the roundabout. I've lived in other towns where there's been roundabouts, and they're hard for trucks, they're hard for campers, they're hard for anybody that's coming around. And if you happen to be a blind person, they're not user-friendly. And they keep putting these roundabouts in, and they don't take in consideration that there are people in this world that can't see to cross them, and I just think it's a bad plan. I'm not in favor of it. Thank you. Public Hearing Verbal (2) Leah Marshall. It's L-E-A-H, Marshall with two L's. My address is 280 North Court, Estes Park, Colorado. I have some concerns about the roundabouts. My daughter is blind. She comes to visit me, and blind people cannot walk across roundabouts. There's no signals for their dogs to alert them to go across. You've got cars coming at you all directions. They're very, very unfriendly to blind people, and the Blind Association is trying to make it where they're illegal because nobody that's blind can use them. That was one of my concerns. I don't think they took that into consideration, so I'm speaking for blind people. I'm concerned about the roundabouts for blind people. Public Hearing Verbal (1) Hello. I'm Johanna Darden. I request No Action on the loop project. Estes Park is unlike other towns where roundabouts and road changes have been made. Since you are trying to mitigate the problems, of which there are many, you will change the character of our town. How do you mitigate removing a tree or two that are over 100 years old? What we will get in return for the destruction of Baldwin Park will be a noisier, not shady place to sit with the -- but the sun will be beating down. The cabbing that has taken place in the Riverside neighborhood will no longer happen, and our general delight in nature will no longer exist. This project will not improve the environment of Rocky Mountain National Park. Since the project was proposed, there have been an increase in pollution, and bringing more people faster to the park will not improve conditions. Please do not allow this project to go forward. I attended the early meetings where input was requested. I have looked at the recent changes and have the same opinion as originally. This will not be good for my town or Rocky Mountain National Park. Estes Park is bounded by mountains and rivers, and there's just so much place -- so many places that we can expand. And to bring more people to Estes Park, to advertise Estes Park and encourage people to come faster before we're prepared to even accommodate them is, in my opinion, very foolish. Thank you. Public Hearing Verbal (2) I'm opposed to the Loop Project. The reasons for this are it will change the character of the Town of Estes Park. It will actually ruin the Riverside Drive area. There are two huge trees probably over 100 years old that will need to be taken out -- removed. I understand that a small portion of the north end of the park that is on Ivy Street -- connected to Ivy Street on Riverside Drive -- will be removed. It has old aspen trees, and it's -- it's a very lovely place with a lot of shade and places where people sit at picnic tables where they can watch the river. I don't think that the problem of traffic will be solved, because when the cars go west onto Moraine Avenue -- I mean go south onto Moraine Avenue -- from Elkhorn Avenue, they will have a bottleneck when they curve west to go to Rocky Mountain National Park. Two lanes will need to merge into one, and there is so much traffic already, even on a weekday in the summer, that I think that there will be significant problems. I don't think it will be solved. I think that there will just be a backup at Rocky Mountain National Park entrance, and I think it will be backed up from that curve where Moraine turns west all the way to Elkhorn Avenue. So I just think I'm opposed for those reasons, and I think if we look at the big picture, it will change significantly the Town of Estes Park's character and what people come here for. If somebody wants to call me on my home phone, it's (970)480-1297. So it's technically what's called the "no -option" is what I want. When I say "no loop," it's -- technically on the boards it's known as "no -option." II Leah Marshall Estes Park CO Leah Marshall Johanna Darden Unknown Johanna Darden a m e I1i_ i 0 1) 2 e I g To e g To Hi, I'm John Meissner, full name John David Meissner. Congestion has been a problem in Estes Park since the 1950s, and most downtown business people would say that's a blessing. Ault and Nunn and Carr and all these other communities would love the congestion that we get. The Denver Broncos are congested on game day. So if this was the 1890s and we were having this meeting tonight, we would be talking about how we need to increase all of our landfills both in number and size because of all the horses that were going to start turning into carcasses and because everyone was -- our population was growing; we would have to have places to bury them. If by 2014 we are not living closer to a Jetsons lifestyle, then our science and our technology has failed us. To put up these things and not point out these are guesses, these are projections that this is going to triple by 2014. We didn't get in a time machine and go there. We didn't go down in a gypsy camp and get, you know, the future predicted for us. I think that's very unfortunate to put these numbers up that have no basis. They're just predictions. I was very disappointed last year when the town administration that was leaving, at our state of the town address, said that the loop was one of our accomplishments. This just feels like its already in the bag and that this is just another box that we're checking off tonight. And I'm very disappointed, and I'm very disappointed in the turnout because I think what it means is the people who -- you're going to -- you're going to destroy this community in order to save it. And the people that have now just said, "We don't want this" have given up. They're resigned and they're saying, "We can only speak at the ballot box." And we spoke at the ballot box the last election, and I think it was very surprising. And so I feel bad for the current trustees that are planning on running again in two years. I'm just -- I feel bad for you. I don't -- I think the same thing will happen because our community is so divided, and you're not acknowledging that. And the people from the Federal and the State level are so excited about this project. I am so excited for you to move here and become stakeholders. This is going to be a major impact in Estes Park. Thanks very much. Hi. My name is Gerald Mayo. Many of you know my wife. Don't tell her I was here. Please don't tell her what I have to say. Could use a little cowboy logic tonight. When I grew up, started off with outdoor plumbing, and I think the best use of the 369 pages here, if you're regular, you could have about a year supply. We've increased our traffic downtown over 30 percent. My wife and I walk downtown every night. One night I watched the Barnes Dance at our main location by the Indian Village. Every 54 seconds cycled. There are people headed east out of the park and the light never turned green. But I have these studies from the State saying that, "Oh, we -- this is going to be better." When you're going west downtown, the light's red when this light's green and the lanes are full and you can't go anywhere. You know, they don't cycle their lights correctly, and they -- they have intentionally done this to fail the downtown traffic. So hopefully, at least somebody out there has an outhouse. Hi there. So I'm Carissa Streib, and I own Simply Christmas downtown. Born and raised here in Estes Park. Actually grew up playing in the little park that they want to take away. When my parents were at work, I would go down there and play. They're taking away a lot for something that is not a 100 percent sure fix, and I think that's the hardest part. When you start taking away businesses and land from people, you can't just say, "We can reverse this later on if it doesn't work." So we need to be 100 percent sure on a plan before we decide to dive into it. We have the 34 closures coming up, and Estes Park is going to be impacted by that already. And then to have that and run automatically into them coming into town and having to deal with the construction there, and possibly the staging areas are going to be in a parking lot, I'm guessing, probably be behind the Wheel Bar, taking away a large amount of parking. So that might be a couple years there where we don't have more parking. I feel we could use the $4.5 million that we are putting into this for better things. We could maybe do some flood mitigation with it, fix a bridge that needs to actually be fixed. You could do a lot of different things with it instead of just throwing it into this loan. Just because the money is there and the government is hanging it in front of us doesn't mean we have to take it. We can -- we can make a plan, we can actually do a downtown plan that everybody is behind and that actually makes sense for people to where everybody is included, and it's not just a shuttle system to get people through the National Park -- to the National Park where they could possibly sit for an hour at the entrance -- which I am sure that was said already this evening -- but it just -- it blows my mind. As the town, we need to work on our experience and not the experience of them in the National Park. The National Park has to do what they have to do, and we have to do what we have to do as a town. So if they get turned away, how do we make their experience good here in town? We have good parking, we have a good downtown for them. We don't have a one-way street that leads them all over the place and roundabouts where people say they're going to get used to it. But it's just hard, guys. So we just need to make sure we really, really are sure we want to do this as a town. It's a lot of money, but it doesn't mean that we have to take it. Thank you. , (,,,, /.,) B °\ [Gerald Mayo Estes Park CO 0 B ii I 11 \ /(7, } .. /c ci •\ /§ � § 3 I m n, ,, ,, Public Hearing Verbal HF i R 0 N O r oif I think I might get run out of town here, but !just signed up; nothing formal prepared, other than for Gerald. It's Gerald, not Gerald, so scolding all of you who don't know Gerald. Full-time resident here and just wanted to say something a little bit different. I've got 35 years' experience with the military and government contracting. I've run a lot of projects, as I'm sure many of you have. I've spent a great deal of time in these types of meetings, not only for this subject, but many, many subjects for this town and others. Lived in a lot of great towns, some huge towns. I would like to say something slightly off the record so far, and as the tenth speaker, the other nine will probably not let me get to my car. Of all the projects I've been involved with, some of them up to $4 billion in value -- the two gentlemen that were the primary speakers here today, I thought did a fantastic job. The individual project manager from the Central Federal Lands Highway Division, as well as the AECOM rep, they have an extremely hard job here. That's what they get paid to do. This is one of the most professional presentations I've seen in my 35 years of doing this, and it may not mean a lotto all of you who have some very interesting comments and some very well thought out problems with the project, but I believe these two gentlemen with the staffs that they represent have done exactly what they were asked to do and what they were paid to do. And I think they've given us a very objective -- which I've used the word carefully -- and not de minimis. Lets don't get wrapped around the axle on words that they have to use in their project by their rules. It should not affect what we believe for our town is the right thing to do, but we should give them credit for doing what we asked them to do. I think their presentation is very clear. It has given us a great deal to think about as a community, and I know they're going to go home tonight to their wives and the rest of their staffs and go, "Well, we hit some, we missed some, and we didn't even think about others.' This is a long process. Lets stick together as a community, work with professionals that have been brought here by both CDOT and the Federal Government to do the best for our town. But I would be remiss if I did not thank them for coming and -- and all of you also, but thank them for doing a very professional job. Hi. I'm Kimberly Campbell. I'm a local business owner. I have a daughter in the elementary school here. And I've been involved with this project since the beginning. I also hate podiums this height. I want to go back in history a little bit and remind this audience of a few things that haven't been mentioned tonight. We've known that the traffic has been a problem here for decades. I have a close friend who was telling me last weekend about how she and her family and her friends used to set up a lemonade stand out at the rock shop on Moraine Avenue to sell lemonade to the people coming out of the park in the afternoons who were stuck in traffic. This was back in the '80s. So there's no doubt this has been a problem. Our road configuration hasn't changed in decades and it can't much. There's too many buildings in the way to make the roads wider. We can't put a freeway down there. So for decades, we have been manipulating signal cycles and stop signs and crosswalks and pedestrian crossings. We've done everything we can to squeeze as much lemonade out of these little streets as we can get, and we're running out of ways to get more traffic through, but the cars keep coming. So when I got involved with this, it was as a member of the Transportation Visioning Committee. I believe it was formed in 2010. We spent a year and a half reading unbearable engineering studies on all the different traffic options through town. We sat down with maps and we drew lines and said, "Can we go over this mountain and connect Wonder -- or Fall River Road with Moraine?" And we couldn't find a route through there that was feasible without looking like San Francisco and destroying beautiful wilderness. And the outcome of our study, after a year and a half of work, was that the one-way couplet was the most reasonable reaction. It used the existing roadway widths that we have in a more efficient manner to get more cars through without widening our roads, without changing our roads, and it minimized the acquisitions necessary. We looked at four -lane routes down Riverside, and there were 20-plus acquisitions. That just wasn't acceptable to us. So this truly has come to the community, not as Big Brother trying to force a big municipal project on our small community. This was a citizen -led initiative. Now, at the time we wrote that wrote, this was in our 20-year plan. We had no idea that a funding source would come up so soon to allow this grant to happen. And we all wanted improved signage and improved parking and all these other things first in that 20-year plan. But holy cow, this is the grant that was available, and it wasn't available to build parking. And so the Town pursued it after reaching out to the community and doing public input. We've been talking for years about this project. And here we are, all the studies have verified that this is a good project for our town. It doesn't widen our roads. It takes away a little bit of some park that's being replaced in other areas. But there's not much more that we can do to keep traffic flowing. I think, as citizens, we deserve better than to live in congestion. I don't believe anybody who is a transplant to this community moved here because they wanted congestion. I don't believe any resident who grew up here and was born here believes the congestion has to be the way our town is. There are better ways and we deserve better. My greatest fear if this project doesn't go through -- and I understand every concern that's been expressed here tonight, and I absolutely respect them. My greatest concern is what happens some day and I can't speak for them -- but what happens some day when CDOT looks at their plans for Region 2, Region 5 -- whatever -- Region 4, when CDOT looks at this and says: "You know, Fort Collins is flowing and we've widened 1-25 and you know what? There's this little red dot on our map that shows congestion in Estes Park. It's time for us to go fix that." And they come up here and say, "Hey, we like the four-way on West Riverside. We're going to put four lanes. We're going to widen it. We're going to acquire 20-plus properties." This is our chance to control our destiny. This is our chance to take on a modest transportation project that is fully funded, that doesn't dramatically change the character, as some of the other proposed projects could. And my fear is, if we don't take this opportunity to take control as a community of our destiny and find our own solutions, that somebody else is going to someday find those solutions for us. Thank you. I'm a no -action guy. I am -- to save 17 seconds to put them at the -- if you're familiar with the situation, past the Donut Haus, they're going to hit a wall anyway. They going to do the 17 seconds there. Why not have them do it downtown? I like the study where it says we are going to have 170 -- 147 days' worth of congestion in 1940. I'm for that. I own two businesses right downtown on Main Street, and I've been here -- and I was born on Main Street. And I need more congestion, not less congestion. So that's my comment. Okay. Thank you. rig ( I Steve Hampton Estes Park CO o w E m U Kimberly Campbell (cont) Steve Nagl '. Estes Park CO I1'IIi lii: -a Web EA Comment Form r/J o F, N � 1 11 II Paul Brown Estes Park CO I'm a local resident. You know, one of the things that I see as an issue that I brought up March a year ago was the 34/36 intersection is not considered in this at all, and that's what I see as the bottleneck. In their own report where they rank things from A to F, you know, they rank that intersection, no matter which proposal is accepted, is an F by 2040. And I think that's where everything should start. The planning should start there and not a block away. And then again, people this evening bought up that once you get onto Moraine Avenue, nothings really being done there, and it's a bottleneck all the way into the park. You know, so it just doesn't make sense to me that we speed it up in town at the center of town and then it just is roadblocked again. For all I know, if they claim traffic is going to be as dense in the future or more dense, then its going to back up all the way into the loop area from both directions going eastbound or westbound. They should model that and not do just the little model of showing how the loop functions, but show a model that shows either side of the loop. And I do have concern. You know, my wife works downtown, my daughter lives downtown, and my son works downtown. So three people out of my family are down there every day, and, you know, my wife and my son, I know, they -- it will affect them, making it longer for them to get to and from work. And my daughter, she is a paramedic in town, and she's on call. So I see the loop as being -- making it very difficult for her to get called to an emergency because of the fact that it's one direction. '.... I guess at the moment, that's most of my comments. It's Paul Brown, and my e-mail address is paulbrownprodesign@msn.com. You know, we've lived here 33 years, so we've seen -- and I -- you know, I used to work for the county commissioners doing planning work where we are -- were from before we moved to Estes. And so when we moved here, I wanted to be active in what was happening in the community, so I read all the studies and proposals that were made after the Lawn Lake flood, so I've been aware that there was going to be a proposal for a Riverside bypass dating back to '83. What I was surprised about with this proposal is making it one-way, and I don't think that that's a good thing for the downtown merchants. I think it will have too big of an impact on sales in the area, and -- despite the fact they make this case that it costs less money with this proposal they've got now. That proposal that I reviewed years ago was for, I believe, a five -lane bypass on Riverside, and that might be more appropriate, you know. Of course, the public probably would find that more objectionable, because it's definitely --takes more properties. But again, even with that proposal, it's bottlenecked at 34, 36, and Moraine Avenue, and I don't know how you fix that. No Name Provided Unknown Traffic in downtown Estes Park has gotten so bad that we now avoid Estes Park entirely when visiting RMNP, staying instead in Allenspark, Grand Lake, or other areas south of Estes Park. The traffic problems especially reduce the attraction of lodging east of the US-34 and US-36 intersection anytime between Memorial Day and Labor Day. I see this proposed action as the minimum necessary to make patronizing any business in Estes Park viable. If several businesses insist on trying to create traffic jams in front of their display windows, I would much prefer that the federal government exercise its powers of eminent domain to bypass the troublesome intersection of Elkhorn and Morraine Avenue entirely. Widening East Riverside drive to handle all traffic or even a US-36 bypass south of the Big Thompson river would be preferable to the current arrangement if short-sighted retailers can't support this modest improvement in traffic efficiency. J N i ilN N N ////Vff r/( ly//,,/)vyr: /; ///%///0///%//////////%///0%//%%%0//////////////G/////////////// November 16, 2016 Frequent Comments Received During the EA Comment Period with Responses to each from the Project Team The comments below were received from the public during the EA comment period. These comments reflect the most frequently asked questions. These comments focus on concerns over impacts due to the Proposed Action as described in the EA. The project team, including CFL, CDOT and the Town of Estes Park staff, have worked to address these comments in the responses below. Comment A: Concern related to RMNP Visitation, visitor capacity, and congestion Response A: Rocky Mountain National Park (park) has experienced unprecedented growth in visitation since 2014. They are currently studying visitation trends and variables to determine if the increase is due largely to the respective anniversaries of the park and of the NPS over the last two years, Colorado Front Range population growth, the rebounding economy, lower gas prices, or if the growth in park visitation will be sustained in the years to come. The park will soon begin a planning process to define the desired future conditions and associated carrying capacities of popular areas in the park. As part of this effort, various management strategies may be implemented to address long term visitor management, including the use of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) to provide real time information to visitors, transit alternatives, and/or other measures to accommodate visitors while staying within carrying capacities. While this longer -term planning is underway, the Park will continue to use interim stop -gap measures to help manage congestion. The purpose of the proposed project is to improve access to and from Rocky Mountain National Park by reducing travel time, congestion and pedestrian and vehicle conflicts through Downtown Estes Park. While the Environmental Assessment (EA) did not specifically analyze visitation to the park it did analyze traffic volumes within Downtown Estes Park and assumed the same future traffic volumes under both the build and no -build alternatives. If the Proposed Action is implemented, the NPS would collaborate with federal, state, and local transportation managers to ensure that long term visitor management measures the park may put into place, and future transportation projects, including Federal Lands Access Program projects, would complement each other. The NPS coordinated with CFL leadership to prepare this response in an effort to address recent public concerns. Comment B: Concern related to need for Downtown Parking Structure as highest priority Response B: A downtown transit facility parking structure was referenced in the original 2013 Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) application as a future Town project. Funding was not requested due to concern that the great increase in project cost and required property acquisitions would cause the application to be denied. A phased approach to seeking the total project funding was believed to be a more successful strategy. Later, during the EA process, CFLHD received a request from the Town to 48 /G///////////%%//////////////%/////////////4/OG/%/////////////////////%//////////%% G////G//////////////////0%GO////%%//D% l'//a f l// / ��i r r 74 ! 1-/ %�'//a % hri study a downtown transit facility parking structure alternative in the EA. In response to the community's concerns and the Town's request, the team developed concept designs and traffic analysis to study the impacts and effectiveness of a parking/transit structure in the vicinity of the post office in context of the same criteria developed for screening previously identified project alternatives. The team's analysis showed that more parking is needed in the downtown area (as described in the EA, downtown Estes Park is undersupplied with parking by between 300 and 1,100 parking spaces), but the structure alone does not address the project's purpose of improving access to and from RMNP by reducing travel time, congestion, and pedestrian/vehicle conflicts through Downtown Estes Park as well as the associated negative impacts to visitors. While the Proposed Action will not solve all traffic and parking related issues, it was evaluated in previous Town studies and is seen as the best next -step to move vehicular traffic within and through downtown Estes Park. A future transit facility parking structure would not be precluded under the No Action Alternative or Proposed Action. The Proposed Action provides improved street infrastructure to complement a potential downtown parking structure through ease of access (left-in/left-outs) into and out of from the one-way streets, which would not require any turns across opposing traffic. Comment C: Concern related to "Out -of -Direction" Travel under One -Way Configuration Response C: Some minimal out -of -direction travel for residents accessing the post office from WB Elkhorn or exiting to WB Moraine Avenue and for residents that live along Riverside Drive and those that visit parks or destinations along Riverside Drive will occur. It should be noted that the entire loop as proposed is nine -tenths of a mile in length, and some movements would be shorter with the use of Rockwell Street. Additionally, the signal operation of the one-way loop will be more efficient than existing downtown signals, and left turns on red are allowed from one-way streets to one-way streets, similar to a right turn on red, when pedestrians are not present. This will allow residents to turn left on red when navigating the loop. Comment D: Concern for Potential Economic Impacts to Downtown Businesses Response D: The following are anticipated economic impacts of the project, as described in the EA: 0o Loss of business property due to acquisition of existing businesses. 0o Minor losses in convenience revenues during peak travel due to the ease of eastbound exiting traffic along Riverside (however, this will be overcome, in part, with additional signage in downtown showing parking options and other attractions). 0o Reduced parking capacity and temporary delays during construction. 0o Reduced visibility of businesses on Elkhorn and Moraine by potential customers due to the one- way configuration. Signage would aid in providing parking and downtown attraction information to vehicles traveling on Riverside. The Proposed Action does however provide the necessary infrastructure for considerable future economic benefits if the following are implemented: 0o Increased visibility along Riverside Drive for existing and future businesses. 49 ewe' //G//////'7///////%/////0!!/////////9////////%/0%//%/77 �„;'7N; io .r r r rV ,0aim ��/,r � 00 Increased visibility to one of the largest parking areas in downtown (post office parking lot). 00 Implementation of the stream channel widening would result in reduced flood plain boundary thereby benefiting residential and commercial properties. 00 Qualitatively, an enhanced visitor experience (for both pedestrians and motorists) is anticipated, which is expected to promote economic activity. 00 Infrastructure to access a potential future downtown parking structure that could provide additional parking in the center of downtown, if advanced and implemented by the Town of Estes Park at a later date. Comment E: Concern for impacts to parks (Baldwin and Children's) and whether impacts are considered de minimis Response E: The greatest impact to parks will occur at Baldwin Park due to the realignment of Riverside Drive and reconstruction of the Ivy Street bridge, with a total loss of about 8,450 square feet of usable park space (most of which would occur at Baldwin Park). This loss is mitigated by the implementation of the Proposed Action which increases the park size by 9,300 to 17,200 square feet, depending on final design. These parks are over twenty years of age and need to be updated to remain vibrant and safe. The proposed Park Replacement Concept Plan would replace all impacted park features, activities, and attributes, and include buffer plantings to separate Baldwin Park from the road. These enhancements will include improved access to the Big Thompson River (including the addition of steps down to the river) and updated park amenities. Additionally, implementation of the Proposed Action will offer more contiguous access along the park area. The Park Replacement Concept Plan (as shown in the EA) will be advanced during final design. Figures 1- 2 illustrate the change in tree size as the trees reach maturity. Figures 3 and 4 illustrate existing and anticipated views (through renderings) of Riverside Drive near Baldwin Park. The de minimis finding is specific to resources protected under Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act. This Act stipulates that the FHWA cannot approve the use of land from publicly owned parks, recreational areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, or historic sites unless a determination is made that: 00 There is no feasible and prudent avoidance alternative to the use of land from the property; and 00 The action includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the property resulting from such use; or 00 FHWA determines that the use of the property, including any measure(s) to minimize harm (such as any avoidance, minimization, mitigation, or enhancement measures) will have a de minimis impact on the property. A determination of de minimis impact on parks, recreation areas, and wildlife and waterfowl refuges, may be made when all three of the following criteria are satisfied: 00 The transportation use of the Section 4(f) resource, together with any impact avoidance, minimization, and mitigation or enhancement measures incorporated into the project, does not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes that qualify the resource for protection under Section 4(f); 00 The public has been afforded an opportunity to review and comment on the effects of the project on the protected activities, features, and attributes of the Section 4(f) resource; and 50 // // /1/oi/// 01,i/4 09 The official(s) with jurisdiction over the property are informed of U.S. DOT's intent to make the de minimis impact determination based on their written concurrence that the project will not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes that qualify the property for protection under Section 4(f). The Proposed Action would require impact (direct use) of Children's Park and Riverside/Baldwin Park. As stated in the EA, the CFL intends to make a de minimis finding for impacts to Children's Park and Riverside/Baldwin Park. Written concurrence that the project will not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes that qualify the property for protection under Section 4(f) was requested from the Town of Estes Park on November 15, 2016. 51 )OW \i OWN / If Figure 1: Riverside Drive at Baldwin Park Cross -Sections Estes Park Section (1) at Baldwin Park Estes Park Section (1) at Baldwin Park AE M 52 )0 v iViVi if41P)f Figure 2: Riverside Drive at Baldwin Park Cross Sections Estes Park Section (2) at Baldwin Park ATIC0"1 Estes Park Section (2) at Ba dwin Park AECO 53 r , r / °bi%/� ��% /�io�Go rod/,v( ;o/)r,,ui /'/; ro% /% ro%;, Figure 3: Riverside Drive at Baldwin Park Perspectives �Ihllliilllluuuuuliiiiiuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuliiiiii� iimuuu uuuumiui 11111111111111111111111111111111 11IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIuolooloolooloolooloollo ��°��°°°°°°iiiiiiiii� u,o°III,„ 1111111111111111111111111111 NB Riverside mid -Baldwin Park - EXISTING uuullllllllllu glare, AMP /78 NB Riverside mid -Baldwin Park - PROPOSED mil1llll ii 111°1IIIII IN V1 11,lllli. 54 /////////////%///////%%0/0///%%///0//////%!%////O//////////////////0%///////////0%,i%///%%%//////%/%///%/////%%%%/// i!�iiri/ ��G �%'�moii/riro%/�%/�% �oiii �Gi rii/%O1'/� ��°�%,�oii����/%/'x%%'r �oii/%O�r �oii/��/o%U� ///Z / 0% `% %ice/%%%/////Da/ a Figure 4: Riverside Drive at Baldwin Park Perspectives 11 mli�IV pu11 1IIII111111 11111111111111111111 NB Riverside approaching Ivy Street — EXISTING IVk�"'17 %tlilllllfr, f1/j ,/ (10 (11 ilkIttig000w NB Riverside approaching Ivy Street — PROPOSED prmlol mIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ........I I�m�w"II� l IlIi6� N V, 8u pp�I �IIVI'�4I loo I�I oolo I IIII0000000000000000�IIII°^I IIII lhl11iiil�II I10 I'YlllII�ii„1III �S ��u �Yjlll,N�„�uU I oo 0111,1111000)11 hpl� IJ�'I I , looloolooloolool000lool000lool000l000lool000lo I filloolool I U U Io II INN 111 �Itl� I I I I I II M I Il �I��lIVIIIIIlNu�ImI L�ui.lImiIl.iIiU,i,i�lIp, III��' II l4��l1lI1 I'IlIl°IPlIII� I �I a i i I�� 'l II � ))1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 1G1'tR111111111 11i � 1 11 il�llq)1l a��1I1'ry' 111,1111IV IlI4 101 lII WORKING DRAFT- Sept. 2016 °VINm1l11 lu I�V1VV VU 55 %%%%G//%%/%////////////////////////////G///%//////%%%!////////%///0/////////////%%%////G//%/////////////%G//////////////////////////////////////////%//// %% ', Comment F: Concern related to impacts to wildlife Response F: Additional information regarding wildlife species present or potentially present in the study area is included below. Species include elk, mule deer, black bear, moose, boreal toad, and the river otter. Elk: A resident elk population (part of the St. Vrain Herd) lives year round within Estes Park and the immediate surroundings. The Town is within designated summer and winter ranges for elk, and within an overall elk production area. A documented elk summer concentration area exists approximately three miles west of the project area within the undeveloped setting of Rocky Mountain National Park (CPW 2016a). Elk move throughout the urban downtown area, particularly along the banks of the Big Thompson River and within Riverside/Baldwin Park. There are documented elk highway crossings within the Town as shown in Figure 5. There are no documented migration patterns or corridors directly through the Town (CPW 2016a). Elk migration is concentrated in areas one to two miles north and south of the Town (CPW 2016a). The project will cause the loss of green space at Riverside/Baldwin Park and an increase in new park area (as described in Response E above). The portion of Baldwin Park near Ivy Street is where the majority of park land losses would occur. The proposed horizontal curve from the West Riverside alignment to the proposed alignment of the new bridge over the Big Thompson River and the resulting alignment on the other side of the river (East Riverside) cause this impact. The proposed curve radius is necessary to meet minimum safety design standards for a 25 mile per hour roadway. The proposed alignment of the curve strikes a balance between losses of valuable parking spaces and losses of park land. Avoiding impacts to this park would require the alignment to be shifted into one of the largest parking areas downtown and would result in a significant loss of parking that could not be mitigated. Although elk may forage within Riverside/Baldwin Park, the project area is surrounded by natural areas that are preferred by elk for foraging and calving. Therefore, impacts as a result of displaced animals facing increased pressure to maintain individual health and fitness would be negligible due to the availability of adjacent unaffected habitats. In addition, the displacement from Riverside/Baldwin Park will be a temporary impact, resulting in a net gain in park space through the project. The loss of park space may have a temporary effect to the local elk population, but there will be no effect to the species population as a whole and it is expected that the long-term effects to elk living within the project area will be negligible. Elk are currently impacted within the Town where they cross the roads (Figure 5) and the project is not expected to cause further impacts in terms of vehicle collisions. Big game species have demonstrated the ability to acclimate to a variety of activities as long as human harassment levels do not increase substantially (Forman et al. 2003) and it is likely the elk will continue to move through the Town as they currently do. Mule Deer: Mule deer are present and common within and near the project area. The Town is located within designated summer and winter ranges for mule deer (CPW 2016a). There is also a resident population (part of the St. Vrain herd) within the Town and immediate surroundings (CPW 2016a). There are no documented migration patterns or corridors that go directly through the project area or the 56 ////////%0%%/G%%////////%%D//,A .,%/////0.!! D//////%%////////%%% !%%///////////0//// /.////////, //////. „%//,, ///%/%///%/,////% ,Tye / ///„ : 212 rm//Airf � ,1V/ /,// , /ir/�Ii%�� /, �/, ii1 r, %///,//r /l/ /.' Town. The closest documented concentrations of mule deer migration occur approximately three miles southwest of the Town (CPW 2016a).There are documented mule deer highway crossings within Estes Park as seen on Figure 5. Impacts to mule deer would be the same as described for elk above. Black Bear: The project is located within black bear overall range and summer and fall concentration areas (CPW 2016a). They are known in Estes Park, which is located within the human/bear conflict area. Human/bear conflict areas are portions of the overall range where two or more confirmed black bear complaints per season were received which resulted in CPW investigation, damage to persons or property, and/or the removal of the problem bear(s). This does not include damage caused by bears to livestock (CPW 2016a). The project is not anticipated to have effects on black bear. Moose: Estes Park is located within moose winter range, but the closest concentration areas, where densities are 200 percent higher than the surrounding area during a specific season, are approximately 13 miles north. The closest priority habitat (associated with the food and cover requirements of moose where loss of these areas would change moose distribution) is also 13 miles north of the project area. The closest documented moose migration pattern is 15 miles southwest of the project area (CPW 2016). The project will have no effect on moose. The Proposed Action will bring a net increase in the acreage of park and open lands, which would ultimately benefit habitat for elk, mule deer, and other big game wildlife. In addition, the roadway width along East and West Riverside Drives will not change substantially (no increase in lanes near Riverside/Baldwin Parks) so wildlife that will continue to cross the roads in Estes Park are not anticipated to be negatively affected by the project. The natural topography would be restored in areas disrupted by construction. For example, slopes along the river will be cut flat enough to allow elk to continue to access the conservation easement area from the Big Thompson River bank as required. Boreal Toad: The range of the state endangered boreal toad overlaps with Estes Park. Boreal toads prefer marshes, wet meadows, streams, beaver ponds, glacial kettle ponds, and lakes interspersed in subalpine forest between 8,000 to 11,500 feet amsl (above mean sea level). Estes Park is at approximately 7,500 feet amsl and also lacks the preferred habitat for the boreal toad. No impacts are expected. River Otter: Estes Park is located within the overall range of this state threatened species. However, there are no concentration areas for the otter located within the project area and the Town is not included among the winter range for this species. No impacts are expected. Mitigation: Several mitigation measures have been added or updated to address impacts during construction and post -construction based on comments received on the EA: 09 Tree removal will take place outside of the Migratory Bird Breeding season. 09 If ground disturbance and tree removal will occur during the migratory bird breeding season, consultation with the USFWS should occur to determine when pre -construction surveys should take place by a qualified biologist. 09 If bird species protected under the MBTA are actively nesting in the project area during construction, the biologist with the USFWS will identify appropriate conservation measures to protect the species. These measures may include, but are not limited to establishing a 57 ////G///////////////%0/G/////%/////%////////%%///, 0%////O%%%/ao//0%/l/0/0/0///l: - o / . ✓v.(ii/Gig/.O' ii�1//�//r,ii/,,E���O`; ,/r, �%,�ii�,//�,. i , ,/, I? i, /1 construction -free buffer zone around the breeding site, biological monitoring of the breeding site, delaying construction activities in the vicinity of the breeding site until the young have dispersed, and/or removing vegetation that supports active nest or den sites once the sites are determined to no longer be active (typically by July 15). 09 Slopes on the conservation easement will be traversable for elk. 58 ,50\AIN OWN -1` 1 Figure 5: Big Game Wildlife Highway Crossing Areas in Estes Park =1 Study Area Elk Hejikeav Cn3ssum,35 Mule Deer Ilchway Crossings U.S II 3211way ----- — State Highway (I 11111111111 II III 0 .4° 6%14W:if 1.4 rm, 50C 1,000 2,000 Foot 1 loch = 1,000 feet Projedlorr NAD83 UTM Zone 13N Dale 9/6/2016 :::00000:151111:11 CFLHD Estes Park Big Game Wildlife AL-COM 59 /////////G///////////////////////////////////%%///////%%1////////// aj0///////////0/////////ff///////0////////%%%%/////////////////////////////////////////////////////%%/l/////////////" r��.�% ,%, % i/� �/ % / % �� % or•l,�� � /, i/ r, or�, ,��o��, r Comment G: Concern related to impacts to Riverside Drive neighborhoods Response G: The existing posted speed limit is 25 MPH (miles per hour) through downtown and on Riverside and would remain 25 MPH under the Proposed Action. The character of Riverside would change as there will be a greater volume of traffic with the implementation of the Proposed Action. Riverside Drive will have a state highway designation, which means it will be maintained by CDOT. However, the 25 MPH posted speed limit and curvilinear nature of the roadway will not encourage higher speeds, and while Riverside Drive would become a CDOT maintained highway, it will continue to act as a low -speed street. Additionally, the character along Riverside Drive will benefit from having both parallel parking along most of its length as well as an on -street bike lane, both of which are expected to aid in slowing traffic and providing pedestrians and cyclists with safer travel options. Finally, the project team is committed to ensuring that mitigation measures described in this EA are seen as minimums, and enhancements to the mitigation package will continue to be evaluated and proposed during design and construction. Comment H: Concern over preserving small town feel Response H: The Estes Loop Project will not change the small town character of the community. The project will improve quality of life by helping to alleviate congestion and facilitate safe travel for multiple modes of transportation including driving, walking, biking, and transit. While the Estes Loop Project may be seen to some as a big city fix to a small town problem, traffic congestion has long been the norm in Estes Park. With a large number of visitors to both the Town and Rocky Mountain National Park, a solution to the congestion problem is needed, and the Estes Loop Project has been seen as the best of the many alternatives that have been evaluated over the past decade. With the continued growth forecast for the Front Range, travel to Estes Park is not anticipated to decline and neither will the potential for congestion. Congestion that used to only occur on summer weekends is now prevalent daily throughout the season and has expanded into the spring and fall. The proposed Estes Loop project proposes to maintain the 25 MPH speed limit throughout the limits of the project, continuing to support the small town feel of Estes Park while reducing congestion for RMNP visitors as well as Estes Park residents and tourists. Comment I: Concern that other improvements would solve the traffic congestion downtown Response I: Over the years the Town has incrementally taken steps to relieve traffic congestion in downtown (Rockwell bypass, Riverside/Elkhorn turn lane, etc). In recent years there have been several transportation management solutions that have been implemented to help move traffic in Estes Park including temporary variable message signs, new static signs, improved striping, and the recent implementation of the Barnes Dance signalization at downtown intersections. Use of variable messages signage has helped direct visitors to parking lots and the Fall River entrance, as well as provided traveler information about Rocky Mountain National Park. Part of the Estes Loop Project would be to implement permanent signage (some of which could offer variable messaging) that directs visitors to parking and other landmarks throughout downtown and the Estes Valley. Improved striping has also helped drivers navigate downtown more easily, and the new design will add to the benefits of these striping 60 /G////////////////%G////////////////////////%G/////////G0/////!////%///////////%//////%%0////////////O%////////%/////////0/%///////%///%//////G,G///G//// /�� i�/�/�� i1 ����/%% ��,�i//�%%im' (/ono 11f% techniques. The Barnes Dance pedestrian -only signal phase has been used to provide dedicated pedestrian crossing cycles, which makes the downtown area feel more pedestrian friendly. While this is seen as a benefit for pedestrians due to improved crossing safety, it reduces the vehicle throughput at these intersections under the existing intersection configuration. These measures have provided some temporary relief and should continue to be used as a stop gap measure for as long as possible. However, these transportation management solutions are not sufficient to continually meet the demands of the traffic congestion that is becoming the norm in downtown Estes Park. Without a more aggressive congestion mitigation effort like the Proposed Action, the existing roadways are expected to see longer portions of the day and year with unacceptably high levels of congestion. Comment J: Concerns about the use of federal funding for this project Response J: The Town of Estes Park applied to CFLHD for funding of the Estes Loop Project in downtown Estes Park, based on citizen input that congestion and parking are the two most important transportation issues facing downtown Estes Park. Additionally, flood control is also of great importance, as was most recently shown with the 2013 flood event. Several previous studies illustrated these needs including the Estes Valley Transportation Alternatives Study (Parking), Town of Estes Park Implementation of Republic Parking Plan (Parking), Estes Park Downtown Circulation Study (Loop), Evaluation of an Intelligent Transportation System for RMNP and Estes Park (Congestion), Roadmap to the Future, Transportation Visioning Committee (Congestion), Estes Park Transit & Parking Study (Parking and the Loop). Because money became available to address one of the major transportation concerns of Estes Park residents, Town staff applied for the grant in an attempt to relieve downtown congestion and provide some of the needed flood control measures in a way that will not preclude the implementation of a downtown parking structure and other flood control measures if future funding becomes available. The Estes Loop Project is also seen as the best option to both keep visitors downtown (as compared to a by-pass, which was suggested in several comments), and provides improvements to the severe congestion that is experienced by locals and visitors to Estes Park. While the transportation improvements would help to address access to Rocky Mountain National Park for visitors, they would also be used regularly for local residents to improve circulation downtown. As noted in the comments to the EA, the addition of new permanent signs, variable message signs, and Community Service Officer support at the Elkhorn/Moraine intersection do provide some temporary improvement, these measures along with improved signal timing have been demonstrated to be ineffective in maintaining traffic flows in downtown Estes Park. Most complex problems that any community faces require solutions that are phased as funding becomes available and other implementation requirements are met. The Town of Estes Park leaders understand that they have a responsibility to address a variety of issues that are all related including traffic, parking, and flood control. Comment K: Concern about safety and operations of the roundabout option if selected at the Moraine/Crags/Riverside intersection Response K: Compared to other types of intersections, research has shown roundabouts to improve safety as they provide a 90% reduction in fatalities, a 76% reduction in injuries, and a 35% reduction in 61 % r% % of �/ „%�%���/ %( / �i��poi% i��, /sir �/i�%a/ the overall number of crashes. This occurs because head-on and high-speed right angle collisions are virtually eliminated. Three factors that lead to improved safety are: oo Fewer conflict points — A single lane roundabout has 50% fewer pedestrian -vehicle conflict points than a comparable stop or signal controlled intersection. Conflicts between bicycles and vehicles are reduced as well. 09 Shorter crossings set back from roundabout — Pedestrians cross a shorter distance of only one direction of traffic at a time since the entering and exiting flows are separated. Drivers are able to focus on pedestrians separately after entering, circulating and exiting the roundabout. 09 Lower speeds at the intersection —Traffic speed at any road or intersection is vitally important to the safety of everyone, and especially non -motorized users. Lower speed is associated with better yielding rates, reduced vehicle stopping distance, and lower risk of collision injury or fatality. Also, the speed of traffic through a roundabout is more consistent with comfortable bicycle riding speed. Roundabouts also reduce congestion (as they are efficient during both peak periods and during other times throughout the day) and reduce pollution and fuel use (with fewer stops and hard accelerations and less time idling). Furthermore, they allow continuous traffic flow at all hours of the day and do not needlessly stop traffic with red lights when no other traffic is at the intersection. Pedestrians and cyclists have raised safety concerns about roundabouts at some new installations throughout the country. The addition of certain treatments can enhance the experience for both pedestrians and cyclists. These can include: 09 At more complex roundabouts, such as those with multiple lanes, certain design elements and enhanced crossing treatments can improve accessibility for visually impaired pedestrians. 09 Where bicycle facilities lead to a roundabout, providing an option to bicyclists to either ride in the travel lane or use a ramp to and from a separated shared use path. The proposed roundabout at the Moraine/Crags/Riverside intersection in Estes Park would be single lane and would separate the most dominant travel movement from the intersection (southbound Moraine continuing on to the west from this intersection). Additionally, it should be noted that there is ongoing research for additional treatments and design considerations to address the needs of visually impaired pedestrians. Comment L: Concern that the project will shift traffic congestion issues outside of the project limits. Response L: While it is true that the Downtown Estes Loop project will not completely solve all of the congestion problems in the Town of Estes Park, it is seen as the best next -step to improve traffic operations in the downtown area where a variety of trips (both local and pass through) and users (vehicles and pedestrians) occur. As noted in several comments on the EA, there is concern the congestion will shift to West Moraine Avenue to the south/west and to the US 34/US 36 intersection to the east. As shown in the EA, the Proposed Action does not affect the US 34/US 36 operations, both the No Action and Proposed Action have the same delay results in 2040. The 2040 Upper Front Range Regional Transportation Plan identified the need for improvements at the US 34/US 36 intersection. The 62 j OWN 0( �s //poi//il��il1!/;!i�%,' //rr,, rt4 load/ Town and CDOT will continue to explore improvements at the US 34/US 36 intersection. The results of these endeavors would have an additive benefit to the improvements that the Loop Project is expected to produce. At the west end of the project, the loop traffic will merge to one lane in the south/west direction on West Moraine Avenue the same as the existing configuration. This merge to one lane operates adequately because the westbound lane is free flowing through the new Moraine/Crags/Riverside intersection. Future improvement to Moraine Avenue west of Crags Drive will continue to be pursued through future FLAP grant opportunities. Comment M: Comments related to the need for more public transportation in Estes Park. Response M: Currently, public shuttle service is only available seasonally. Year-round shuttle service would make transit more usable for potential riders, and the Town is exploring possible funding opportunities to implement this; however, no funding has currently been identified. Transit service could be implemented in such a way that allows potential transit patrons to park outside of downtown to reduce the number of vehicles that enter the downtown core of Estes Park. The Proposed Action would add dependability to shuttles in Estes Park by reducing delay through improved traffic operations through downtown. 63 Central Federal Lands Highway Division U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration 12300 West Dakota Avenue Suite 380 Lakewood, CO 80228-2583 November 16, 2016 In Reply Refer To: HFPM-16 Mr. Greg Muhonen Public Works Director Town of Estes Park 170 MacGregor Avenue Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Re: FHWA CLFHD, CO FLAP 34(1) & CO FLAP 36(1), Estes Park Moraine Avenue and Riverside Drive Environmental Assessment, FHWA Intent to Make a Section 4(f) de minimis determination Dear. Mr. Muhonen: This letter is in regard to Section 4(f) coordination for the Downtown Estes Loop project. Per 23 CFR 774.5, we are coordinating with you as the owner with jurisdiction responsible for Section 4(f) resources in the Town of Estes Park. We are writing to you in your position as Director of Public Works, which oversees five divisions including the Parks Division. A similar letter was previously sent to the Town and included in the Environmental Assessment (EA). This letter provides additional information and requests concurrence from the Town on a de minimis finding. The Central Federal Lands Highway Division (CFLHD) of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has prepared an EA under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for the proposed Downtown Estes Loop project. This project is intended to improve access to Rocky Mountain National Park (RMNP) by addressing capacity, safety, mobility and access constraints in the Downtown portion of the roadway network serving the Beaver Meadows entrance to RMNP. The Proposed Action involves conversion of existing roadways from two-way to one- way through downtown Estes Park. The two-lane one way couplet has a total length of 0.92 miles. The project begins at the Elkhorn Avenue/Riverside Drive intersection, continues west on Elkhorn Avenue (US 36) to the intersection of Moraine Avenue/Big Horn Drive for 0.15 miles, then turns south on Moraine Avenue (US 36) for 0.3 miles to the intersection of Moraine Avenue and Riverside Drive/Crags Drive. These two-way roadway segments would be converted into one-way roads, west and south, respectively. The two-lane one way couplet is completed in the returning northerly direction via a reconstructed Riverside Drive. This segment begins at the Moraine Avenue/West Riverside Drive/Crags Drive intersection then follows near West Riverside Drive, Ivy Street and East Riverside Drive for 0.40 miles back to the beginning of the project at the East Riverside Drive/Elkhorn Avenue intersection, completing the loop. Pavement rehabilitation (including grinding the existing pavement and adding new pavement to repair the deteriorating asphalt) would occur on Elkhorn Avenue from just west of the US 34/US 36 intersection to the Elkhorn/Moraine intersection and along Moraine from the Elkhorn/Moraine intersection to the Moraine/Crags/West Riverside intersection. Pavement rehabilitation on Rockwell would also occur from Moraine Ave to the new bridge across the Big Thompson. New signals would be added at two of the three main intersections (Elkhorn/Riverside and 64 Elkhorn/Moraine). The Moraine/Crags/West Riverside intersection would be reconstructed as a roundabout. New sidewalk, on -street bike lanes and trail connection improvements would be installed. Directional signage along the corridors would be installed, as well as landscaping. Historic Resources One historic NRHP-eligible property, a portion of SH 262 (Moraine Avenue), will be impacted by the Proposed Action. The documented segment begins at the intersection of US 34 and US 36 at the east end of Elkhorn Avenue, continues west along Elkhorn Avenue to its intersection with Moraine Avenue and south along Moraine Avenue, turns to the west-southwest near Crags Drive, and ends approximately 400 feet west of 351 Moraine Avenue. SH 262 was originally a local road used by residents of Estes Park. After the RMNP opened in 1915, it was used as an entrance road into the park. The road was designated SH 262 in 1939 and, by 1946 it had been extended into the RMNP, ending at the intersection of Fall River Road (US 34) and Deer Ridge Junction. This route was used until 1965, when the Beaver Meadows park entrance opened. At this time, the road was renamed SH 66 and, in 1977, it became part of US 36. As part of this project, SH 262 will be overlain over the original road's alignment. A new intersection configuration will be built, requiring the removal of a non -historic building (commercial property, the Donut Haus) at the current intersection. Both a signalized intersection and roundabout intersection are currently under consideration at this location. Under either configuration (signalized or roundabout), the intent is to make geometric and grade changes to improve operational efficiency and additional sight distance, thereby improving safety conditions. The historic short rock retaining wall and rock -lined curb, along the west side of the curve in front of sites 5LR13751 and 5LR13753 (the former Rocky Mountain Park headquarters), will remain in place. A new short retaining wall will be added, if necessary, in front of these older wall features in conjunction with the lower road grade. The retaining wall along the east side of Moraine Avenue that stretches from 250 Moraine to 281 Moraine Avenue will also not be directly impacted and will be located more than 100 feet north of the proposed new construction. In short, the proposed improvements to Moraine Avenue will not adversely affect the historic integrity of SH 262 or any of its associated features. Section 4(t) Historic Determination The project has been determined to have "no adverse effect" on SH 262 under Section 106. SHPO concurred in writing with the Section 106 "no adverse effect" determination for this property as stated in a letter to CFLHD dated May 19th, 2016. SH 262 and its associated facilities (retaining walls, curb) are located in the highway right-of-way. If a historic resource is within right-of-way, the Section 4(f) Policy Paper (July 2012, page 36) states the following: "when a future transportation project is advanced resulting in a Section 106 determination of no historic properties affected or no adverse effect to such resources, there would be no Section 4(f) use." Thus, Section 4(f) would not apply to SH 262. Park Resources The proposed project would require the conversion of approximately 18,611 square feet of existing park land in portions of Baldwin Park and Children's Park to transportation use: • Baldwin Park is currently 61,940 square feet in size. The proposed roadway realignment along Riverside would require partial acquisition (14,463 square feet) of the park, which represents a loss of approximately 23%. The portion of Baldwin Park near Ivy Street is where the majority of parkland losses would occur. The proposed horizontal curve from the West Riverside alignment to the proposed alignment of the new bridge over the Big Thompson and the resulting alignment on the other side of the river (East Riverside) 65 cause this impact. The proposed curve radius is necessary to meeting engineering standards. An existing asphalt pavement area currently utilized for parking will be removed. The plaza and seating area currently located at the entry to Baldwin Park (across from the Post Office) will be moved to the former asphalt parking area further south. • Children's Park is approximately 16,211 square feet in size. Approximately 4,148 square feet (26%) would be required to reconstruct the intersection at Elkhorn/Riverside including the accommodation of two right -turn lanes from northbound Riverside onto eastbound Elkhorn, sidewalks and a pedestrian crosswalk. The area to be acquired is currently used for sidewalk and landscaping. In addition, restrooms currently located adjacent to Riverside along the Big Thompson River (within Children's Park) would need to be removed to accommodate the roadway cross-section. No impacts are anticipated to the existing playground or other amenities within Children's Park. Proposed Enhancements The project team recognizes the importance of park land to the downtown environment and larger community. Thus, we have worked to reduce impacts to the extent feasible while identifying replacement properties for conversion to park land. The intent is to benefit the community by constructing new formal and informal natural spaces for recreation and river access, and connecting and improving the park and river walk experience between Baldwin Park and the Big Thompson Riverwalk. Several areas along Riverside Drive are recommended for conversion to park area as part of the implementation of the Proposed Action. The addition of these park areas would constitute acreage greater than the park lands impacted along the corridor (an acreage of 41,390 square feet/0.95 acre, which represents 22,779 square feet/0.52 acre of new park area). Proposed conversion of lands to park is shown in the attached exhibits and includes the following (from south to north along Riverside Drive): • Baldwin Park (Parcel 11): The proposed shift in the Riverside Drive alignment would create a triangular shaped parcel of space adjacent to Baldwin Park. This area is recommended to be transferred to park land (part of Baldwin Park). • Upstream River Corridor (Parcels 17-18): The relocation of commercial and residential properties along Riverside Drive (east of the River) will create an opportunity for parkland conversion, enhanced river access and floodplain mitigation area. With the wider floodplain boundaries assumed under recent flood flow data, the existing buildings are located within the floodplain. Conversion to park/open space area helps restore natural conditions. The intent of the planned design is to improve park land interconnections. An existing sidewalk located along the west edge of the river (along the Post Office lot and across from parcels 20 and 21) would be widened and a new pedestrian access point would be added to provide connectivity to the river. • Riverside Bridge (Parcels 12-13): Parcels 12 and 13 are private properties that need to be acquired to reconstruct Riverside Drive. It is recommended that these two parcels be transferred to the Town for parkland. Conversion to park would provide enhanced access to the river, as well as the opportunity to extend a future trail (shown in dashed line on Exhibit A) parallel to the river. The recommendations described above are proposed enhancements to offset impacts to parks due to the project. 66 Public Comments on the Environmental Assessment Per requirements of 23 CFR 774.5(a)(2)(ii), the public was notified and had an opportunity for public review and comment on the effects to park lands during the EA and Section 4(f) public comment period. The Downtown Estes Loop EA and proposed de minimis finding for Section 4(f) resources was released for public comment on July 5, 2016. The public comment period ended on August 5, 2016. The EA was available for viewing at six locations as well as on the project website (www.downtownestesloop.com). During the public comment period we received 253 comments from 229 commenters. This included about a dozen comments regarding Baldwin and Children's Parks, including eight about the increases in traffic and noise and four about the loss of shade and green space, as well as three additional comments about the meaning of the de minimis finding. The meaning of de minimis is clarified in detail below. Subsequent to the public comment period, and in an effort to address public comments received on the project, the project team developed detailed renderings to better illustrate the future condition of Riverside Drive and Baldwin Park. These more clearly demonstrate how the Park Replacement Concept Plan (as shown in the EA) will be implemented in the future. These renderings support the finding that the impacts to the park are considered de minimis, and that implementation of mitigation measures described in the EA will help alleviate impacts to the park from this project. De Minimis Finding As a part of the environmental review process, the FHWA has responsibilities to comply with Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (which has been later revised and recodified but still referred to as Section 4(f)). The intent of the Section 4(f) Statute, 49 U.S.C. Section 303, and the policy of the FHWA is to avoid transportation use of historic sites and publicly owned recreational areas, parks, and wildlife and waterfowl refuges. The de minimis finding is specific to resources protected under Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act. This Act stipulates that the FHWA cannot approve the use of land from publicly owned parks, recreational areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, or historic sites unless a determination is made that: • There is no feasible and prudent avoidance alternative to the use of land from the property; and • The action includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the property resulting from such use; or • FHWA determines that the use of the property, including any measure(s) to minimize harm (such as any avoidance, minimization, mitigation, or enhancement measures) will have a de minimis impact on the property. If the FHWA determines that a transportation use of these types of properties, also known as Section 4(f) properties, results in a de minimis impact on that property, an analysis of avoidance alternatives is not required, and the Section 4(f) evaluation process is complete. De minimis impacts on publicly owned parks, recreation areas, and wildlife and waterfowl refuges are defined as those that do not "adversely affect the activities, features and attributes" of the Section 4(f) resource. 67 The finding of a de minimis impact on recreational and wildlife resources can be made when: 1) The transportation use of the Section 4(f) resource, together with any impact avoidance, minimization, and mitigation or enhancement measures incorporated into the project, does not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes that qualify the resource for protection under Section 4(f); 2) The public has been afforded an opportunity to review and comment on the effects of the project on the protected activities, features, and attributes of the Section 4(f) resource; and 3) The official(s) with jurisdiction over the property are informed of FHWA's intent to make the de minimis impact finding based on their written concurrence that the project will not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes that qualify the property for protection under Section 4(f). Through the detailed screening process, the proposed project alternative was determined to be the least environmentally damaging alternative. We have found through the screening process that there is no reasonable alternative that would meet the identified transportation needs without impacting these parklands. Together as a team and with the partner agencies, we have worked to reduce impacts to parkland through the proposed design and have identified opportunities to provide replacement lands that will become long-term amenities and assets for the community. The proposed enhancements, including informal natural lands, plaza/seating areas, sidewalks, pathways, river access and restrooms will be constructed under the proposed design. A preliminary concept plan, as presented in the EA, for parkland and amenity replacements are shown in Exhibits A and B. Visual renderings of the concept plan are shown in Exhibit C. Thus, the characteristics and features that make the properties eligible for Section 4(f) protection will remain. It is FHWA's intent to make a determination that the impacts to Baldwin Park and Children's Park are de minimis. This determination will satisfy the Section 4(f) requirements for this project. During the design every effort was made to minimize the footprint of the project. The park land to be impacted, as well as proposed enhancements, was discussed with Town of Estes Park staff over the course of the project. The proposed enhancements will provide access to the various recreation opportunities and would not adversely affect the activities, features, or attributes that make the property eligible for Section 4(f) protection. The FHWA requests that Town of Estes Park, as owner of the parks, concur with the determination of a de minimis effect. This can be accomplished by signing the statement provided below and returning a copy of this letter to our office. 68 Regarding the proposed Downtown Estes Loop project, as described above, I concur that the project will have a de minimis impact on Baldwin Park and Children's Park. The project will not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes that make the properties eligible for Section 4(0 protection. Name Title Date We would like to thank the Town of Estes Park for their cooperation with this project. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this matter. Sincerely, rn„ues Hedyck Project Manager Exhibits • A: Anticipated Impacts to Park Property • B: Proposed Replacement Park Lands • C: Proposed Baldwin Park Renderings 69 Exhibit A: Anticipated Impacts to Park Property liiii 11'IINIIIIIIIII011100 emu 0111 „ , III" 1111111111111111111111111, G` IIIIIII 1111N1111111111 �� i ��w mmuulll RlO INN j /ri�� o11111100000 rr'TuuIVVIW4I�I fl,nnuuuum r� V WAN Ir mllnun lll'mllmlllllllll illli IIYlp�ll�l�ll�p uV^u1uuiiii toVu1111f iro� IIIIIII ulll I II Ill II IVVW�,, 1 iliiiii Illlllllllllpuplllum IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 4✓liIM hCA rvmtr,P Wi1�l 6NNNrEIYk L MN v W+Y,„0„,„ NITrI,„ "Arty/rVw41/I.Yw /^M„w„„, 5nRA KIIRCAi W`d.A,u"WN, fIMd16 NMMl1 EAI , OW II IA'A:KICI IV94,1/F(,AEFC) IVO/Yp MI =uux, / 4006 W;J , K.V-L T Yli uul/uK I4I4(7+ +'IWx'6i W4uf I&i'.P) ul 44''44, VI.74:19., I pu I'Tl 4Yu 4441 I.„/ :ryE 11 YII MI4, 'Kt, I, iillllllllll 1111 'I„IW I ponfi Illllllu'gJ! �� POTPNTIAL NI W PARK PROPPRTY I 11rrVl W;7N MrvW.w S+M1Ya 1,1M10411'. PROPOSED PARK AREAS POST CONSTRUCTION PARK AREAS LMIMLN ¢E.I,'•r„vn rvclsm �fWur" NICLIL NIUMWQ.�N LIIPMTIXttt4:1' AM pW # UC,NiLL'9 WpN�:CI. 81YL S.54f„I_.„Lfu„wLy dAETO1 L io rzl�xt POTENTIAL IVEW PARK AREAS 70 Exhibit B: Proposed Replacement Park Lands iniiuu1111111111111111111111111111',1111 „ III�IIIIIIIIIIIIIII„�Niy,� II I 1 iiiiiiiii111111luillllll' �M RELOCATE© „IRESTROO10 KING LOT VEGET4 0N' LA A AREA WITH' HE5AND TABL #1 w�'911PAIRK j"III1'u i0, 71 Exhibit C: Proposed Baldwin Park Renderings Figure 1: Riverside Drive at Baldwin Park Cross -Sections . 2 Estes Park Section (1) at Baedwon Park Estes Park Section (1) at Baedwun Park 72 Figure 2: Riverside Drive at Baldwin Park Cross Sections Estes Park Sect on (2) at IE3a dwin Park AmmCOM Estes Park Section (2) at Baldwin Park AECOM 73 Figure 3: Riverside Drive at Baldwin Park Perspectives NB Riverside mid -Baldwin Park - EXISTING kok F fig NB Riverside mid -Baldwin Park - PROPOSED 1111111111111111 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111 41, r/ 'i%,L if /f /1 �;9n,, I',/ °rl G o�gl°�/I1��G , �i!?�,%�, r,�) /J1// rrJ%ii.'1>h'7'o�„ WORKING DRAFT- Sept. 2016 74 Figure 4: Riverside Drive at Baldwin Park Perspectives ,:,,,he,,,,,,,,,,, PII v NB Riverside approaching Ivy Street - EXISTING Vol. 4 i0%,/10/%0, ' l(ff NB Riverside approaching Ivy Street - PROPOSED IIIIIIII';;;;;;;;;; liiiiiiiiiiiiiiilllll';;;;;;I 1111111 I I °11111111ul �� ddup IIII�I�I��� 11111111I1111 mlllllllllllllllllllllnlllllll ill 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 uulml III Im ullllmi 11111100000000000000000000000000000000001 u111111 V0,0111111111 111�IYludlllIIII111IuII111111111111111 IIII un �IV I�IN IIII'd Raul �I 11111111,11111111 75 Downtown Estes Loop Project Estes Park Town Meeting November 29th, 2016 Presentation subject to change. For verbal context see video www.este s. o Pz,(vid eo.;: after December 1, 2016 at ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, C0II„0RA0 Department of ''.... Transpmuta,rttlarwn Gi'G %G f G • Project Overview and Background • Proposed Action • Environmental Assessment Comments — Frequent Comment Responses • Section 4(f) De Minimis Finding for Impacts to Park Resouces • Next Steps & Schedule Ir Presentation subject to change. For verbal context see video www.e. es,oPz,(video.:: after December 1, 2016 at ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, IIL0RAIAD0 Dn.gau41vi. M of Transportation 76 • Elkhorn Ave (Riverside to Moraine) • Moraine Ave (Elkhorn to W. Riverside) • Riverside (Moraine to Elkhorn) Presentation subject to change. For verbal context see video after December 1, 2016 at www.estes.orgivideos 11'1'1'1'1 11.111.1l. Pub ic Meeting 41 Oct 2014 Yze IIITItill1111111111111 Small Group Meetings 11111 1111 11'111 atrrritrrritrrritrrritrrritrrritrrritrrritrrrirrrrirrrrirr&A COIL RADO Duipartmicuit ot TG-a14,µ) girl a Lir /YP:, KeMe KeMel re/Pe re/rr,ra Environmental Affect t Analysis-, 1111011 101"; Public Outreach Throughout Process Public Meeting 42 Mar 2015 Town Boa d Meet ng #2. Apr 2015 Informational Session July 14, 2016 & Public Hearing July 20, 2016 ill!1111111111111111111111111 77 Purpose and Need and Alternative Screening Presentation subject to change. For verbal context see video J 111111111111111� n"���",. WWW.e.nl:e.nAtt'' VOCIE:On after December 1, 2016 at ............................................... � ........................ • Project Purpose: - Improve access to and from RMNP by reducing travel time and congestion, and by improving safety through Downtown Estes Park. • Project Needs: ... Alleviate Motor Vehicle Travel Time and Congestion Improve Motor Vehicle and Pedestrian Safety — Improve Bicycle Facilities Presentation subject to change. For verbal context see video WWW.e. nl:e.L2Ez�UOCIE:,O n after December 1, 2016 at ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, , C0L0RAli:0 p' ep a tame na of rai6nspportR aio n I''%/ %,( o101,I o j ,000:p,� . any �` '� "'di0�"' 78 a/A Daily Vehicle Volumes for Combined US 34 & US 36 (Year 2012) 50,0004 ' 40 Days of Congestion 45 f)00 0 (2 or more hours per day) 40,000 % 35,000, In 30,0004 - I. 25,000'f 20,0004 150004 • 10,000 5,000• 0 Tdal Daily Volumes Days ol Congestion iii"pr""" 111111 . . 4.4 Peak Visitor Season t.KY ,e)6 Months , Ke/A. Ke// 11111d 171,1A KWA. KWA. KWA. KWA. KWA. Ke/, Daily Vehicle Volumes for Combined US 34 & US 36 (Year 2040) 50000 — Total Daily Volumes Ppr Days at Congestion , 147 Days of Congestion 45000 (2 or more hours per day) , rf 40,000 rff 35,000 a 30,000 a. 4:u a 25.000 ' fa (a i • k - 2 ...,..„ °Irv000 rP" 0 r' 15,000 kd' 1M .10,000 5 000 Peak Visitor Season 074 Months 79 ➢ No Action: Analyze in EA per NEPA ➢ Alt. 1 (One-way Couplet): Good traffic operations, lowest impacts of build alternatives Presentation subject to change. For verbal context see video wmv..s.!;Ya!;.OP! yjjat s, after December 1, 2016 at ............................................... ..................... • Required for evaluation under NEPA • Includes any previously funded or programmed projects • Maintains existing travel pattern and roadway configuration through Downtown Estes Saturday Peak Summer Season lino a uop uo�o pii "�� u�popu�ii u� 00 after December 1, 2016 at mo F 102.5 F 146.0 22es.9Pc;9.X.r!t s F 86.5 F 298.9 C 0 L. 0 R A ID o Aleeartxrair.nt of Transportation i/pal r/% r/ /oioaopii/ii/ Hopi////aa%'. 80 • One-way Couplet: Eastbound on Elkhorn and Moraine, Westbound on Riverside • Realignment/reconstruction of East/West Riverside Drives • Intersection Improvements • On -street bike lanes and continuous sidewalks Saturday Peak Summer Season ulll�ll uullll IIII�IIII� iYK111dI AEI I1'1II11IIIIIII1IIIIII1IIIIIIIIIIIIIII1I11' �giIVO �u glllp; li; �'iiiIIIIIIIIk B 15.7 D 44.2 C 29.3 E 68.5 Itonottel 11,1100 111'111e10y,11 Channellfloodplain improvements to be built in future (currently unfunded) phases loole LEGEND 9�ime ��nmvnw IIII 1.!t,n^ 10.0 yr«Of wv�o1N1111N111V 14�- �aii.�rHhemgr 81 • Funded Phase 1 — Construction/Implementation of the Loop, one-way configuration, intersection improvements, Ivy Street Bridge reconstruction • Future Phases - Not yet funded, but likely to be built as future phases: — Future reconstruction of the Rockwell and Riverside Bridges (and relocation of the Public Restroom) — Future channel/floodplain improvements (Downstream of Riverside Drive to US 36) Presentation subject to change. For verbal context see video �nrMY.,t8S.:1.or, YILI.os after December 1, 2016 a ............................................... ........................ Roundabout • Reduces the number of pedestrian -vehicle, and vehicle - vehicle conflict points from 15 to 10 compared to the No Action • Off peak benefits — no waiting at signal Project partners recommend moving forward into Final Design with the Roundabout Option Presentation subject to change. For verbal context see video �nrEE..L:i1ovk;,�vic 2.2j., after December 1, 2016 a ................................................ C 0 IL 0 R A Ii: ''..... Department t of ''.... Transportation Vi VI iv f OJ 0 %i4 4 O p c�fi 0 0 I Op /.%p /,�iii/ii//�%��i f//j�, pia„/%%/%% C 0 Ni R A ICE Depn;arunenu of Transp rtatiorh DTA 82 • Funded Phase 1: • Reconstruction and realignment of Riverside Drive, • Reconstruction of the Ivy Street Bridge • Associated transportation improvements along Elkhorn and Moraine • Wayfinding, parklands, bike/pedestrian improvements • Does not include: • Rockwell and Riverside Bridges • Relocation of Public Restroom • Downstream Floodplain Improvements Presentationsubject to change. For verbalcontext see video after December 1, 2016 at ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Rouneaboui Environmental Assessment Comments Presentation subject to change. For verbal context see video }nr..w1,2821;12I vida:ns after December 1, 2016 at ............................................... ........................ {'1eY�ev[W.ii44ev��l+)r;�yl' 1T�;3�ntdxlt inr:1'.2tti'at LEGEND i .Wc'drv%a.Vq�°u�r'1v 1,111111111111 C0II.0RAl0)0 Department of Transportation 83 O i p. ..' o o O r % / 10/rJ / `iiai/iiioio ioaoi iii ai/iaiim 0%/D%%('// /p0 00,,/° Oroi, p a%° oia%° /(r) %j�- • 253 comments from 229 different commenters • Common comments included: — Downtown Parking Structure — RMNP Visitation — Impacts to Riverside Drive — Will Not Help Not Needed Here — Impacts to Baldwin and Children's Parks — Downtown Traffic Impacts to Small Town Feel — Impacts to Downtown Businesses — Public Transportation — Roundabout Option — Use of Funding Impacts to Wildlife Presentation subject to change. For verbal context see video vuvuvu.a=zta^z.om vir!aet^z after December 1, 2016 at ............................................... ..................... • Common Responses provide responses to most frequent comments on project, citing information from EA • No technical changes or narrative edits to EA • Additional Renderings along Baldwin Park to provide visual portrayal of Park Concept Plan • Additional information on wildlife migration patterns Presentation subject to change. For verbal context see video Vuw w.a.... om! yjjatJ!; after December 1, 2016 at ............................................... ..................... C 0 L. 0 R A ID 0 '..... Department of ''.... TranspaaanCation O/O/O////O/O/O/%/D/O////%O/D/D//O/O/D/O%/O//O//O/O/D/O//O%/O/O/O% t:telprar't>rar.ernu of Transportation 84 Additional Visual Renderings along Baldwin Park NOTE: Existing 25 MPH Speed Limit Remains Presentation subject to change. For verbal context after December 1, 2016 at ,E2,12221;21Ljdfai.. )()4 Mx% NB Riverside mid -Baldwin Park- EXISTING , 11111s1:es Pr.111, rx,ticru 1.11 PTA, AECUM forma ff Presentation subject to change. For verbal context see video after December 1, 2016 at ,E2121/112.r..glyjdfai.. .1111sum Section 1.10 111,.14,1,1.1c Pad, AM 85 Additional Visual Renderings along Baldwin Park NOTE: Existing 25 MPH Speed Limit Remains change. For verbal context se ion ct to www.......ar r vudr:o, after December ber le2016 at...............................................�...................... )If NB Riverside approaching Ivy Street - EXISTING NB Riverside approaching Ivy Street - PROPOSED '!O O%r3 o00 /I/4%/ /�0� rL %Go • Section 4(f) -U.S. DOT Act of 1966 which established the requirement for consideration of park and recreational lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites in transportation project development. • Stipulates that FHWA and other DOT agencies cannot approve the use of land from publicly owned parks, recreational areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, or public and private historical sites unless the following conditions apply: — There is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of land. — The action includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the property resulting from use. Presentation subject to change. For verbal context see video www.e,te,.ar , vodeo, after December 1, 2016 at ............................................... � ...................... C01. uRAD0 lOotaars n,a..ra of Transpoatofdon 86 ,! ,-( • Town of Estes Park is the Owner with Jurisdiction for Town owned Park land, which are Section 4(f) resources • De Minimis finding only applies to Section 4(f) park resources, not the entire EA Presentation subject to change. For verbal context see video after December 1, 2016 at my,E,222Ljagtxjrjtr, Park Replacement Concept Pion • No Historic Property Impacts • Impacted Park and Recreation Resources — Baldwin Park — Children's Park • Minimize Impacts • Proposed Park Replacement Concepts and Enhancements developed with Town Staff 4 - L Presentation subject to change. For verbal context see video after December 1, 2016 at EEE;222L2EzLit:m C 0 L 0R A. ID 0 Department of TranspontatJon 87 r r%%,mid/limp 0%/7! ( • The finding of a de minimis impact on recreational and wildlife resources can be made when: V 1) The transportation use of the Section 4(f) resource, together with any impact avoidance, minimization, and mitigation or enhancement measures incorporated into the project, does not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes that qualify the resource for protection under Section 4(f) V 2) The public has been afforded an opportunity to review and comment on the effects of the project on the protected activities, features, and attributes of the Section 4(f) resource; and ❑ 3) The official(s) with jurisdiction over the property are informed of FHWA's intent to make the de minimis impact finding based on their written concurrence that the project will not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes that qualify the property for protection under Section 4(f). Presentation subject to change. For verbal context see video after December 1, 2016 at w,ww,.....r°^;,Egly.2:: A COLOR 1 '..... Department of Tramportadon i i�ia/il. • Town of Estes Park Concurrence on Section 4(f) De Minimis Finding and reaffirmation to complete the project • CFLHD issue a NEPA decision (Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)) on Phase 1 — Final design, right-of-way acquisition, and permitting • Construction following final design, right of way acquisition, and construction funding obligation Presentation subject to change. For verbal context see video www.e^;teL.Eg y.hk ;. after December 1, 2016 at ............................................... ........................ C'OR.ORA,DO Department of Transportation 88 m/iip�iai�aiq� �iim�(�, Gel z 1 J ) o 1' O I, „ (O ism JG � � i% • Colorado Programing Decision Committee has re- programmed Construction Funding to fiscal year 2021 — Re -programmed due to project uncertainty — No delay in Right of Way Acquisition (Funded to begin following NEPA decision document — 2017) • Project FUNDING is FULLY SECURE • Project is Funding is sufficient for Phase 1 — Project Estimates include inflation for year of expenditure Presentation subject to change. For verbal context see video �v�:.2.,2s9:cas.ors;,(,vidr: r�s after December 1, 2016 at ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, , betotistreog Cd9.ai.I@ N Id„rl; 5 Kp'e9,17 lam, kit ri�tmfwae NAPIFFWBS ;i ilk I WV4L14 lll'fi1113 C 0 L. 0 Iji A I '..... Department of '7';ranu,Mpao faGGon Orr, `/O/i pii/'la/ r i l/piioO o %J jr/r ' rl,, 0/r f /„ rf �wtt�Nf�M�dU��I�I��msmuul�ll�4'IN �I�n�llll��%�!4� � ` wk>v°'I'�flll�hliM 11011111111111111111111111111PPPPPPPPI11111111111111111111111 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111i1PPPPPI Presentation subject to change. For verbal context see video after December 1, 2016 at E2.2. free, or,(:,/vi,C4.E.aus, �olNNelpel IVIVVVVv Ik loololy!11WIIl11 aUV mI ud�U VUVUUV c0III„0'RAIi:0 Dep ofl n,.ent of "Prarspo raE.4on 89 Project Partner Comments: Johnny Olson — CDOT Curtis Scott - CFLHD WHHHHHHHHMIHR Presentation subject to change. For verbal context see video after December 1, 2016 at ,E.A.A.,22212.rzeljjatm 44 Questions and Answers Presentation subject to change. For verbal context see video after December 1, 2016 at ,mifyl.22212rzeljjatm C 0 111.. 0 R A ID 0 Department or Portirdem COLORADO Department of Transpoirlattvin 90 November 29, 2016 Special Town Board Meeting Public Comment Date: October 16, 2016 at 7:22:23 AM MDT Subject: A traffic change (the Loop) is not necessary. Dear Mayor and Board Members, There have been many good letters to the editor recently about the loop. I concur with many of the thoughts - and have the same questions. Traffic has increased in Town each year - but mostly during good economic periods such as now .... gas prices are low, there are jobs, the population of the Front Range is increasing in large numbers. But, of course, it continues to be seasonal. The season is longer if you consider weekends in the fall (fall colors, elk, festivals) but it mainly continues to be mid -June to mid -August (school vacation). Locals can go downtown during the week starting in late August/early September and find places to park and no traffic backups. A Loop is not necessary - and would be, at the least, an annoyance to locals and, at the worst, a detriment, during the rest of the year. We know from past experience that poor economic times, natural disasters, and lack of access can dramatically change the number of visitors coming here. A Loop is not necessary - and would be a permanent change with which locals would live (e.g. getting to the Post Office). We talk to visitors whenever we can, mostly on trails in the Park. Their frustration is not traffic in Town - it is traffic and lack of parking in the Park. This continues to get worse every year. Signage mid -morning on a Friday in mid -September told us that all lots were full and we should return after 3 pm. Just this Friday and Saturday two couples visiting the area said they were in long lines on Bear Lake Road and then couldn't park so found other places (ie Gem Lake) to hike. (There were very few spots to park there). A Loop is not necessary - the Park does NOT need better and more access for cars. What is needed has been and is being addressed - more parking in Town and more shuttles. The Transit Hub at the Fairgrounds should be advertised more - it is often vacant even during the peak seasonal times. The new parking garage by the Visitor Center will be very visible and should be highly promoted along with shuttles. A Loop is not necessary when more parking and shuttle transport are available. One aspect of the Loop that really puzzles me is what will happen as all cars go south on Moraine and then need to merge to one westbound lane as Moraine turns west toward the Park. It seems the lines will form over a greater distance and become even more annoying to visitors as well as locals. A Loop is not necessary through downtown. All bills get paid - the Loop will not be built with free money. There are much better uses for that money - without changing the downtown of Estes Park all year round. More parking in Town, more shuttles, and more traffic control personnel will help during peak seasonal times and keep Estes Park the place we live in year round. A Loop is not necessary in Estes Park. Please consider the thoughts and wishes of the local constituents, the wise use of funds, and that seasonal options are available. A Loop is not necessary! Thank you, Carol Hillerson Year -Round Resident Comments in Support of "The Loop" Town Board Comments/FLAP / LOOP Dave Tanton Nov 11 The town is unable to appropriately process the level of traffic that the popularity of The Town and Rocky Mountain National Park have generated. I live across the river from Moraine Avenue across from Coffee on the Rocks, and have noted that traffic on summer days has increased dramatically over the past several years. It's now a constant stream of cars moving stop and go for hours returning to Estes Park, and it doesn't clear up until 8 or 9:00 PM on busy days. How can this be acceptable to our visitors? How can this leave them with positive feelings about Estes Park and our traffic planning? In addition, the traffic downtown in the summer and shoulder season weekends is horrendous. I don't go to town to shop except very early, and very late. Otherwise the traffic is ridiculous. The Town must step up and approve this solution. It's too late to start over --something must be done NOW! I understand the concerns of downtown businessmen who fear change, but I cannot believe that steps to ameliorate the traffic problem will result in a negative impact to businesses. I also understand the concerns of homeowners on West and East Riverside Drive, but they must understand that the greater good of The Town must prevail. I encourage the Town Board to take immediate action to implement "The Loop". It's the right thing for The Town, our visitors and our residents. David Tanton Estes Parkwnelsonaestes.orq Doyle Baker I will not be here for the review meeting and so I am sending my comments now. 1. For a long time, I was against the Loop Project for the following reasons: A) There already is a very good by-pass on Wonderview to the park. Any visitor truly wanting to avoid traffic delays could and should take that by-pass. B) The additional amount of time visitors will spend in their cars without action - even in 2040 - is nothing compared to the time that nearly all spend in their cars waiting for signals every workday in the communities they come from. C) The biggest problem downtown is difficulty in parking when visitors and residents want to go to downtown stores, and yet the changes and future plans do not address. D) Negative impacts on local residents due to convoluted traffic routing all year in order to make things better for visitors who will come anyway, not to mention impacts on those who will lose their homes. 2. My opposition to the project has only recently given way to lukewarm support for the following reasons: A) More or less convincing results that by 2040 the problems we are not yet experiencing are expected to become serious. B) Hope and expectation that the Loop project will serve as a foundation for subsequent interventions that will improve downtown for residents and visitors. 3. I would like to emphasize in these comments the last point. In my view, the town needs to make a commitment to pursue complementary investments to capitalize on the Loop Project or the project should not go ahead. The argument based on traffic congestion is not sufficient to be convincing to most residents, and visitors are not going to stop coming to Estes Park and RMNP because they have to sit in their cars for an extra 5-10 minutes. The complementary investments I believe to be essential include: A) Parking structures at one or all of the following small parking areas: (1) off Moraine just behind Wiest Lane, (2) near Big Horn and Cleave, and (3) near the post office. B) Further development of the "riverwalk", including a park along Riverside as part of Riverside Drive rebuild, to make the north and west sides of town more attractive to visitors and residents and help tie the Moraine businesses into the rest of downtown. My recommendation is that dialogue sessions on the project should include discussion on the complementary investments the town will commit to establishing as priorities in an updated development plan. Following these dialogue sessions, the town should make firm planning commitments to pursue a bigger package of development investments for downtown that will address priority issues other than traffic congestion. Only this will demonstrate that the town is committed to local development that will help local residents and businesses - and not just visitors. Unless and until this happens, it seems unlikely that the town will be able to mobilize significant public support for the Loop project. Best regards, Doyle Baker Downtown Loop Project Comments Town Board Comments/FLAP / LOOP Lela Criswell <lee_criz@hotmail.com> Nov 11 Dear Town Board: The premise behind proposing this loop was decreasing traffic delays downtown heading to and from Rocky Mountain National Park, and using funding available for NP access improvements to build it. However, nobody seems to have asked a fundamental question: Does Rocky Mountain National Park NEED increased access? The answer to that question is a resounding NO! Rocky Mountain National Park already has more visitors than the park environment can accommodate. Parking lots are packed by 8 A.M.; the shuttle lot on Bear Lake Road is frequently closed because it's full during the busy summer season. Lines of cars at the Beaver Meadows entrance extended miles - back past the Hwy 66 turnoff - over Memorial Day weekend - before the busy season. Visibility and air quality have suffered because of the amount of vehicle traffic. Increased access will exacerbate the overcrowding in the Park, without helping the park to deal with it. In addition, since the proposed loop doesn't begin until the southwest corner of Bond Park, the jam of traffic that begins at the Hwy 36-Hwy 34 intersection will still be a problem. Estes Park downtown businesses that depend on traffic will lose half of those cars, adversely affecting their business, and many are opposed to it. Estes Park is presently constructing a 4-level parking garage near that intersection to reduce the parking and car traffic downtown, which should reduce the pressure for a one-way path through downtown. Yes, a significant amount of money has already been spent, but let's not waste any more. It's time to kill the loop project. Sincerely, Lela Criswell 1991 Baldpate Ct Estes Park, CO 80517 Estes Park Loop Town Board Comments/FLAP / LOOP Anastacia Galloway <anastacia@inkwellbrew.com> Nov 11 Hello, Instead of attending the meeting, I'd like to submit thoughts via written comments. I'm hoping that city officials have read this article "What's up with that: Building Bigger Roads Actually Makes Traffic Worse". Below is an excerpt from the article about "induced demand" - while I do believe that traffic conditions need to be improved in Estes Park and in support of various initiatives that will reduce the congestion - I do not believe that just creating wider roads & one way streets will be that solution. I believe that you're going to end up increasing traffic on EVERY road in Estes Park - which is going to make living in this town absolutely horrendous for the locals - because right now as a local at least I know the back roads & short cuts to get where I need to go. Why not impose a toll on those who drive through downtown instead of parking at the new parking structure? You could have a tag for locals so that we don't bear a burden & then you could use that new revenue to improve roads, bridges, parking lots, & even pay for the shuttle/trolly service downtown. Also, why not make a parking area for local business owners & their employees so that they can always find places to park - could issue tags & permits for those. Then, charge people a high rate to park downtown unless they park in the free structure by the Visitor Center. That could encourage people to park outside of town & walk - not only would they not be charged a toll to drive down main street, they wouldn't be charged a higher parking fee to park downtown. And, this could ease congestion in RMNP because people could catch a shuttle into RMNP. Finally, many cities around this country have bikes for rent for a small fee. Boulder (see link to program info) & Portland are two places that I've seen these bikes for rent. That could be an awesome way for out-of-town tourists to get around town without needing to figure out where to rent a bike for a few hours. "As a kid, I used to ask my parents why they couldn't just build more lanes on the freeway. Maybe transform them all into double-decker highways with cars zooming on the upper and lower levels. Except, as it turns out, that wouldn't work. Because if there's anything that traffic engineers have discovered in the last few decades it's that you can't build your way out of congestion. It's the roads themselves that cause traffic. The concept is called induced demand, which is economist -speak for when increasing the supply of something (like roads) makes people want that thing even more. Though some traffic engineers made note of this phenomenon at least as early as the 1960s, it is only in recent years that social scientists have collected enough data to show how this happens pretty much every time we build new roads. These findings imply that the ways we traditionally go about trying to mitigate jams are essentially fruitless, and that we'd all be spending a lot less time in traffic if we could just be a little more rational." Thanks for listening to my thoughts. Have a pleasant day. Anastacia Reed Proprietor, Inkwell & Brew Estes Park, CO "Purveyors of the finest in Writing Implements * Journals * Cards * Coffee & Tea" llllllllllllll,' llll,l !r1000000%llllllllll101111111. f'f't l' r %Irl 0 d 111111111111111111111011....1111111.1111111.....111111111111111;J�111,1I �� ujjJiuiuuiuu iiufu�u�� iiii lil )r November 21, 2016 Town Board P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Dear Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees, • II l(III� III �III(f�111� III �IIII 1 1 1 11 l 1 J 1 � 1 It is with urgency that the Estes Park Cycling Coalition (EPCC) provides this letter of support for the Town of Estes Park to pursue the Downtown Estes Loop project. Downtown Estes Park has a critical need to improve how people move around in it. The traffic is unpleasant, poor for air quality, and dangerous. From a bicyclist's standpoint, the loop project is an opportunity to create bike lanes through the downtown corridor. Currently, people are forced to bike on sidewalks or in the traffic lanes, the first of which is illegal and the second is not a safe choice for most people. Bicycles are a great equalizer. For those in our community who do not own cars, such as some in the service industry working in restaurants downtown, for our town's youth or people with disabilities that do not have a driver's license, improved roadways designed with consideration for bicyclists and pedestrians would be a great boost for quality of life in Estes Park. Many people in this cohort could bike to the Library, post office, or hold a job downtown if getting to -and -from was not such a risk for their personal safety. By improving the way people get around, adding other channels for transportation would help the Town of Estes Park meet its goal of reducing the ugly congestion downtown. In fact, 12 bicycles can fit in the size of one parking space! The Loop could also bring the town closer to becoming the destination wellness community that many of the major businesses and organizations, including the Town is working towards cultivating. It is very necessary for the Town Board to pursue the many advantages of the Loop project. This opportunity for federal and state assistance to improve the traffic problems will not likely be available for a very long time from now and if you wait, the infrastructure downtown will inevitably degrade so badly that the vital tourism revenue we rely on will no longer be as robust and dependable for our local economy. The EPCC has 86 members and reaches many more through its social media outlets and community events. As representatives of EPCC, the Board would like to go on record as being in favor of the Loop project. Please consider the bicyclists and pedestrians in the community while making your important decisions about the future of our downtown. Sincerely, The Estes Park Cycling Coalition Board of Directors Alicia Rochambeau, Board Chair Thad Eggen, Vice Chair Megan Thorburn, Secretary Todd Plummer, Treasurer Mike Lewelling, Director Con Cont.. uuu llu voy Re ult. Survey Name: 2016-11_Loop-Survey Response Status: Partial & Completed Filter: None Nov 21, 2016 1:18:38 PM 1. There are four options for the Town Board to take at their special meeting on Tuesday, Novembe option you would like to see the Mayor & Trustees select at this meeting. Number of Response(s) Affirm the current position and move forward with the Downtown Estes Loop 12 Reverse the previous position and cancel the Downtown Estes Loop project 2 Accept the EA (Environmental Assessment) and allow the vote of the 10 Refer the issue to the voters at an upcoming special election. (Note: only 3 I am undecided. 0 No Responses 0 Total 27 10 Comment(s) 2. Please share any comments you would like EVPC to present to the Town Board. 17 Response(s) r 29. Please indicate the Response Ratio 44.4% 7.4% 37.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100% u) CD _C C _c '— 7 -g O1 O C '5 O O _c O O �_ a) 7 C cu O "O U CD C E 7 "O OQ,— 0 �O Q — 7 (0 E -O c _c O O • ++ co 2 -2 a) ..c.7.1 C CD 2 i O C a) O § .03 O W U a) a) a) C O _a L- L-. 7 CO P a) E U Q C Q a) x (0 a) -a O 0 C C Q y N (0 CD Cfl E CD -0 _C L 1— O O C C a C a) N cq Q M c0 �C O) }' X C , O c\Ja) a) L O > U E > Cr2n a) E CD > CD U, V) C OHO er i a) Z 5 y C C X >:,O E a) a) _aCD C) u) z p O0 a a) H ca• a) a) cc • cu Y CO C -0 C d a) Let's not waste $1.7million O C CD L C cq — 01 C 2 C .y Q- a) O O C C _0 CCI 0 }; a) a) a) C CZN L C _ U N a) C a U y a) 0 Q L T C C Q .0 ca Q 0, O ca ca O -a ."7'a) -cL a) Q L a) a) .„, 2 (� O L u) U >§ a) L c C O C a) U O Y- E O O u) 0_ ca U E a) L C _c L _a O > C a)_a cri a)E _a 6 a) U N CD C C C) a U O N O 0 E -a U CD '= E C a) _c c E a) C L a) E ° r E 4-. Er EFT Y a) C � V (0 O C N O CD ♦L+ C L a)CE}' E a a) m "O T _C O CD > LL 2 O I don't quite understand the difference between 1 and 3, I support the Loop going forward as soon as possible. T O C L O a) O C O u) cq O U w 7 _a a) a) > C O cD — C a) E C E < O O C r W L C O N E O CC O .0 a) U Q CD O O E " L CD E Q Q 0 O u) L U 7 C a) O a) .> L CD u) _a a ca UO3 ,> "O a) cu CD U .C) N a) E QL) u) CD (0 2 a) co a) (D C _C _C L O C _C 0 CD Y o O O U CD y a) L i) u) O Z a) O N a) ac a) u) O L U ca a) E a) O a) CD a) c O u) O Q O m ei Move forward! k 0 � : E E 0 / / S \ 0 / ./ z 3) There are no other reasonable, rational answers to our congestion problems. \ a) \ E e / /\ e o E 0 Cr) /\ ± E \ 0 0 a) 5 \ o_ $ / a) 2\ o> E » 7 ± asa) ± a _ } E ° E .\ )\ § 0 = _ \\ CriCn a) ± $ o -Cif\ •- \ \ '§ 2 \ \ \ \ / E §% \2 us m 2 E 2 E / \I a) E nd be a decision We must move forward as the traffic will only increase in the coming years. O O .73 .> U C6 t Cn 0 O CD O O p) C •= a) U o a) (@ a) r• a) r• a) N _c a) E CD O UE. Cn O -0 J 7 U a)) C O W N 3 s]. O C L O a) ❑ N a) _c C2 0 C Q 0 .� a) � C �i E L O U Y _c 713 4U O 4O a; U Cn a) a) a) C a) a) -0 iT_c -0 L CO3 O .— Q1 0. U J Q. a) -8 a) u a) O W .5 C > > a) f@ O _ C § .T O ❑ '@ E a)L E 1— Q. Oo 0 E U a) 0 ion and get this U C6 a) C6 hey are. Please Cn C6 a) L Cn C, LE a) U O C6 U a) C6 a) L C6 .F3 C6 .U) 0 O. 0 a) a) L 0 z o i� 0 a) a) Cn a) O 3 O cu O U C• C2 O O O a) O L > 'Er) .5 w -;) O c a) C 2 0) a) C O U ( a) a) C6 CI U CO C — U C`6 C6 Q1 — O O O -0 C 0 C 0 L U) O > c L O C6 C IL C6 Cn a)> U U � L_ L 3 O >, u3 0.— C6 T0 L U') C COC O a) � C6 C6 O U a) U .? EO Q. Q. C C6 a) a) O L O O a) - C) C _ 3 03 L 3 a) U a) L a) CV a) 3 o H 6 C) U C) a) L U) 0 U O C a) E C6 - L U 03 O Maybe if we move on this, we will be able to go back for the grant to do Moraine to Marys Lake Rd. Please do everything possible to skew this project towards flood mitigation. >, 7 a) p a) OU a) a) .3 — C6 C E O C6 C b O ~ 0 2O C) -D a) p a) C E C 5..— _o E o E. Q03 O L O p O C _c a) +� C C D LO' 06 a) O` E 4— L 06 a) a-. zw C a) 06 T ID 'L TC a) 0 aU o> E LT L2 a) C6 -a C6 O CT T.) L U C D Ca. a) Cl- CD Ca ' 2 E Q L O D U C 7 E CC6 C U C• C CCD O OLD a) O a) _ C a) C 0 a) .— L_ O W a) U) L 7 a) a) E C E C6 a) E E u) p> 0 0 C C) p 2 •C a) p 0- E a) o o> a) C2 C6 O Q. L a 3 a) O 1 •in .c CU6 C > a) C > W L a) CD cu O a) C U p p U T -- a) a1 C6 OT a) = C L > 2 7 P' J C6 = Cn C C) a) J a) L Ca a) Ca 5 U O - 7 C a C — 03 T O a) U C6 O' a) C6 Q. '= C6 W o E O L C`6 Q-c C) (13 CO U •2 O O 3 U 7 C 3 Q. O U _ _ a) O E U a) 3 C6 a) o c -cs CL6 Q? C 03 O C0 00 d U U a) a) CD C) U 0 U O Q. C6 .O-� 0.)(3) C L CC6 a E. C6 C -c O a) a) ID O a) O U U C) 3 U .> U C _ _ C6 00 C _ E a)-c Ccti - o ca 3 a) -0 O Cn p C6 u) D C O Cn C6 2 > T 06 CC6 a) C_ O C D O L C6 a) U)-0a) E C .0 °- C6 E. _o ZT a) 3 ca D a) L -0 06 C O C O O,- L5 D" O TY U v > p 0 UO3 U C 03 Q1 Ca. 6 C6 L O 03 .(� -0 a) ca 3— CD o p E (� > Y �' X a) '3•a) C]. L O 2 O L a) Ca O O 3 3 Q C6o a) CV ' 2 C CO a)C > .> C p 3 = C 03 U a) a) C cc a) ° a) a) a) a) O C6 a) L C) 7)0 L - H � Q. L ca E O- 0 0 The Loop would address several concerns I have about the intersection of Crag's Drive and Moraine Ave, mainly: a) Creating a four way stop or round -about at this intersection will also benefit the businesses in that area providing easier access and visibility O U U a) D O a) Q O E a) a) a) a) L O E 7 L O E a) a) Q a) E a) O E a) D D 2 C (o Q C (n O = L O E (o 2 70-5 a) aa) a) Q O Q a) a) ca L a) m LE) m (n (6 (6 a) co) C < O a) a) >, Q 3 A (A O > L OU To a9 O _E Q a) (n -O (6 a) >, — 3 7 co co, = C A N > m Q E >, a) _cN co) T LE a) co) a3 >- Q co D Q O 1- O Q a) . O co) a) O U O a) Q-. a) o_l) O (n C) C O co O C 3 E Q (o co) C o E O U a) a)a) C (.0N _0) .0 > a) ._ L m a) = a) L m (6 C) a) co L o) E >, . + ,— O 0-,() C o m - N -O W Q a) a).0 m -o- (6 a) 71- 0 > 0-)a O •C co) co 'O _co _c E ) > 1) L O = L a:,id- •C (6 O O D a) > a) a) a) Q L >, C) .c7) O Q Q O >, E a) E O a) a) a) E the fearful will be glad we did. a) > -O (6 a) E Uco, o O a) Q -2 7 O C O co O a) C) O .o a) Q J Eastbound should work better but the C) a) a) O O O D O a) a) a) L E O O O Q U Q -c7) U 4- (1 a) a) a) Q D O Q 4 a) L C -O a) oCO a) a m C] • 1-0 C O E a) a) (n Y N 0 4) 0 Cr) 3 E O •Q C O o CC) C (6 C 3 m CCD a) a) a) a) O D co,a) C(Cp O Q a) a) > (6 La) C > O L A a) L �p D a) a) (6 C U a) O - C -c 7 O U o 3 E O m � C O C U a) co a) _c L C L � a) O 4— C) C .0 a) a) O N E For the Town Board not to move forward on this would be an abandonment of leadership and a devastating precedent!j To the Estes Park Board of Trustees: The loop is a good idea. This plan, however, is a bad implementation of that good idea. It is inefficient, overreaching and harmful to the parklands along the Big Thompson River. The plan does some good things — principally, it restructures the terrible intersection at Crags and Moraine and makes it possible to divert east bound traffic off Elkhorn. But it does so inefficiently. The plan provides for two lanes of west bound traffic down Elkhorn and Moraine, which is the present condition. The plan then makes the Riverside corridor two lanes east bound. This takes the current one lane of east bound traffic off Elkhorn, and puts the traffic onto Riverside. But the vacated space on Elkhorn and Moraine is unused. To get the two lanes onto Riverside, the plan calls for much larger and realigned bridge at Ivy Street, removes parking along the roadway, cuts space off Baldwin and Children's Parks, requires moving of the restroom at Children's park, and requires purchase of several private properties. The plan calls for removal of some 38 parking spaces in the downtown area (Alternative 1, Environmental Assessment, page 2-9, table to right of plan diagram). This is the equivalent of a third of the current post office parking lot, or all of the Davis Street lot. The plan also disrupts the flow of traffic, year round, for those who live here, and actually adds to the traffic along Moraine and Elkhorn. Just trace the route you would have to take from West Elkhorn to get to the Library, or from Stanley Village to the post office. And in the end, the plan merely adds one lane of east bound traffic. The plan could achieve the same result of adding one lane of traffic by simply returning one lane of east bound traffic back along Moraine and Elkhorn, and using the current footprint along Riverside, and the existing Ivy Street bridge, for the second east bound lane. The new intersection at Crags and Moraine makes this possible. No land would be needed from either Baldwin or Children's park, and the intersection of Riverside and Elkhorn could be used with only minor changes. Take a close look at the maps and you will see that this is feasible and more cost effective than the current loop plan, and achieves the same result. The plan is thus unnecessarily overreaching. Why? Look carefully at the plan and imagine what could happen several years in the future. This plan sets us up for three lanes of west bound traffic down Elkhorn and Moraine, and the same on the return route through Riverside. All it will take is minor curb adjustments, lane restriping, and conversion of the bike and walking path along one side of Riverside. This is what you will enable if you agree to this plan. Remember, if you approve the plan, you will cede jurisdiction and control of the entire loop to CDOT. If you think they would never do that, look at the history of this plan, where they have insisted all along that this alternative is the only option they will approve. This plan is just the first step to a six lane highway through downtown Estes. All of the planning has ignored the reasonable alternative of using the existing lane capacity on Moraine and Elkhorn and designing Riverside Drive for a single east bound lane, even though this would preserve the character of our town and be efficient in the use of our resources. You should insist on a revision along these lines. You should not allow the sacrifice of significant areas of Baldwin and Children's parks for highway. A one lane design for Riverside Drive solves the problem, while providing exactly what this plan requires: two lanes in both directions, with a new intersection at Crags and Moraine and more efficient traffic control at other intersections. You must also be sensible in your evaluation of the impact this plan will have on Baldwin and Children's Parks. You are being asked to concur in a finding that this project will have only a de minimis impact on Baldwin and Children's Parks. This concurrence is required under federal statutes and regulations when there is a proposal such as the loop that will impact on public parklands. Federal policy is set out in Title 23, US Code, Section 138. In pertinent part, that section says, "It is declared to be the national policy that special effort should be made to preserve the natural beauty of ... public park and recreation lands ... [and] the Secretary [of Transportation] shall not approve any ... project ... which requires the use of any publicly owned land from a public park ... unless (1) there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of such land, and (2) such program includes all possible planning to minimize harm to such park." These requirements can be satisfied if the Secretary makes a finding of de minimis impact, which can be made, in the words of the statute, "only if ... the project will not adversely affect the activities, features and attributes of the park," and only if the local officials concur. Note that this is not the same as finding that the project will have only a small adverse effect. You can make a de minimis finding only if the project will not adversely affect the activities, features and attributes of these parks. Please be sure that you understand the statutory language. Can you concur in such a finding? Look at the facts as presented in the recommendation and the Environmental Assessment: • The table that directly follows the signature page where the town board is supposed to concur in the finding of de minimis impact states that the loop will take 23.4% of Baldwin park and 25.6% of Children's park for the new roadway. Yes, that's a quarter of the land from each park. • In addition to the decrease in area of the parks, look at the overlay of the new roadway and bridge and you will see significant removal of mature vegetation and trees. • These parks are presently separated from the existing traffic flow by vegetation, parking areas and the restroom at Children's Park. Under the loop plan, the parks will be made more narrow, the traffic will be moved closer to the play areas, and the buffer strips will be removed. • Look at the traffic flow predictions in the Environmental Assessment and envision how 100% of the east bound traffic that will be diverted onto Riverside Drive will impact on the two parks in congestion, noise, air pollution and safety. • The restroom currently located at Children's Park will be moved across the river, requiring children to cross the bridge over the river, on a walkway directly adjacent to two lanes of traffic. • The Environmental Assessment claims that new trees can be planted to replace the ones that are cut down, but does not commit to any size or quantity and ignores the fact that it will take our lifetimes for new trees to reach the maturity of the ones that will be sacrificed. The statute does not say that it is OK to have an adverse impact now, but correct it 20 years in the future. Proposed "enhancements" that mature in the distant future do not change the fact that the loop will have a present and lasting adverse effect on the activities, features and attributes of the parks. The EA also claims that additional land can be found to add to the park area, but the chart that accompanies the request for your concurrence notes that less than 1% of the taken land can be replaced by adding from adjacent areas. You have to ignore these facts, as do the environmental assessment and the recommendation from the Federal Highway Administration, to reach the conclusion that the plan will not adversely affect the activities, features and attributes of these two parks. You should not be so gullible or disingenuous. You simply cannot concur in a finding that taking a quarter of the parkland, removing significant mature vegetation, placing high volume traffic closer to the play areas, and adding to the noise, congestion and air pollution will have only a de minimis impact, as defined in the statute. This plan will adversely affect the activities, features and attributes of these two parks, and the proposed enhancements and mitigation do not change this. Overall, this is a good concept, but poorly planned and irresponsible to the town, with the potential of expanding the loop to three lanes west bound on Elkhorn and Moraine and eastbound along Riverside. There are better alternatives that have been ignored. The planners now ask you to fulfill a statutory duty by declaring that Baldwin and Children's Parks will not be adversely impacted. You must not support this fiction. You must not concur in a de minimis finding, and you must demand a better plan. When fleshed out, the approach noted earlier would likely meet the de minimis test and accomplish the overall objectives of the loop idea. The present plan does not. Peter K. Plaut PO Box 2655 V 8ii'lidll'Yirig r rJdG'"t S Y 50 Nit: Riverside rttlitvet I 067 Sit Fit8v r Sttt Nitittto To: Town of Estes / CDOT Subject: Proposed Loop project, negative impact on the Lofts of Estes building and alternatives The Lofts of Estes Condo Homeowner Association, composed of 13 luxury guest accommodations (highly reviewed by travelers to Estes Park), is very concerned about the proposed Loop project that will impact our building on E Riverside Dr. Please find below some considerations on the negative impact of the Loop. 1. Proposed new two lane highway will be built very dose to the Lofts of Estes building and will bring increased traffic, noise and vibration, with negative impact to guest reservations. 2. There is a listed impact to the Lofts of Estes (reduced property size) that might affect parking, already very limited at the building. 3. Construction noise and building closure during construction of the two lane highway will affect guest reservations and lead to income loss for the Lofts units. 4. Proposed sound barrier will be insufficient for noise mitigation, all street facing windows would need to be replaced with double pane windows. We are asking the Town of Estes Park to take No Action on the Loop and consider other options to direct traffic to/from RMNP (e.g. through E Wonderview Ave). Currently there are two other issues on E Riverside that would need to be addressed, apart from the Loop project: A. The flow of traffic at that intersection of E Riverside and Rockwell needs a stop light, or at least a 3-way stop, as it is confusing right now. B. The two bridges on Rockwell and E Riverside need work to improve water flow and reduce the impact of spring melt and heavy storms. Thanks and please let us know if you have any questions and comments, Tony Gambee, President, 248-787-6898, tony@happyfamilyrentals.com Narcis Anghel, Treasurer, 720-254-0770, loftsofestes@gmail.com Sharon Mahoney, Secretary, smahoney6873@gmail.com town Biargyp% ifEsii r"s Park C a.�p%�W ml,mm,;ll m Johanna D'ari emm, 501 M..,,:',„c Gre Aven l;m Rrr',: D. r;ru iltl'+m' mC..w rp C1'wmmll,: l u r l ence t1', Pr The .pa ti 1',mmm . mmll.w n ,,.r r'r.m n mm; r'P; be De mm" I',;'V. '^ mmmmms" oill.lem lip%e ml�p%IiGt'w'lili which byre likely mmml',mmrc" fl,l ,,',mm I I I ye Drive a"cm1'w mµl',mmmm tiJi ,e Sn.wy PI;^ ks Winery >v;lll be m wv c m"s. The twl'. ] ar e ll: wmmmfers ve ,r 'wel ,,,,est bhmshe f t]i .e park wm +m' be m ,, live.;,. The sh,,;dmmmess an psar'k will be eliminate '.'dew trees pi a',mmtet1'+m' repla"c Rivers .Nov ,r011.6 5 Park, C many y °.;rs. The increase en elk an otherthis mmbwrhlwlid. The envm. Pm' 1 m nmm"ccept b]e a',n Tb M t crea Aven prsjec Bl.ar n Town I weep v mime l 1'•n mvml'wm°„01,. will mml'w not fall wt. by flHe Tr,,nsp h never m itil',n here tiJi s Access PrPak, These West t mme Aven mate m.n e, c using a 1' ny,m,`";,c gym,",'b(r r. lwpe 1',mf flll.a n fling C ve •arl,; wifU.l. a',a yway. The "]➢.. p Pr nt It 11 a li lip;, b payb ';cik at a rate fU.l „ ms p pu,r'm'" tiJi ,m mmmm";il.ike," p sib]e a a amble ,sperm be m' mi.l.l'wse remmml',mvel�u;, rive will incr u- m f the m,m,m.1',mfthe sl,mmmm :"es f',.;.nbe t a"ccl.mmmplmsh this., the m"mlmt-mmm ;`(l;..l",,!'1.. "l➢"gym, 805 n ',mmd t .ver passage n the mml',mrth unfit! smmm,�, n sm �plmmml mm, experience in p c access t c • mime Aven as n Eiikhtm rn ns. The m"emmsl.ns ioven pm,"1mcee , \>v;l lll. his LAP: N l mber five in fU mmittee states: "Expensive t inapprspm'mmmte pll,lr ell: tip . " . cc ms inappriplr*ate, yet t e TVB a t m' give back the approximately cre.iting ann mmmappm"1',mp n arm ',mmgem'mment e 1'+m'verrunent our t even if we net..' be t'axe.; m e 1',mm w'ngem a m s1'i' R.1'"'cky nal Park cannl'it hamumber 1'if visitl'w'm m m'"eceives; ring the mmmlwmmp lm eau; 1'+m' e i 1'+m' m,e p them.. The intent li]i ,e Pr j nl'itbe ning m•',r s h s been shown 1',mmm y t1'w' bring mmm. very a'mml�u; mmml',mmae ll:,mngestml'+m'n. : to Pk cxpammamount l,wns nl. rivers. e are cre in I, 71Lmme rpm"e fu1'm'" t'mIiVlll" c1;u,MmmmmmmliVmmm ent f n.x emit,. 1 rpm ,,m ,,,m se U.I. a. we n mma victimmm. p Project TOWN or ESTES nARk SPECIAL TOWN BOARD MEETING November 29, 2016 :ACTION ITEM #1— DOWNTOWN ESTES LOOP CONCURRENCE TO PROCEED. SPEAKER SIGN -IN SHEET STREET ADDRESS NAME (PLEASE PRINT yCLEARL Y) FOR AGAINST UNDECIDED N °"�" m -- ... n�,11 dlf�xi rc...' P r ���, ,�'My�'�,M�r�"CNN""'°hel m+4d 0.v<x IIIY l�rvi,ewr� p( g tl dgg 4+n bbbb }4.% � "iM1s � mib 'ft4w,anlID 4 III e ".,,�„'-, w� ,Q '� ,r ,war O�.r'" ,„�, f o,,,y�k.;r".m'>dl� ° �x,l use t $pp P✓ �1 � y . '�,„, ,�d ,iMw rw ��^Filu�;ucy ymfWi. '$p�j,"'+'/W M"Wn, uri^' S Minn.'"°" ✓Mf ^4.w," . ......... .. .. ry" , , � IDnNh'f�l�Fi: NAME STREET ADDRESS FOR ((PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY)) AGAINST UNDECIDED NAME (Please print clearly) STREET ADDRESS • ' AGAINST UNDECIDED �? � ..�w��� W" dJ ��"""'�4 � � w+' III � i"'W ,. U���"r✓""'"",., u�n�QVi„. YY ,y I 4 m.�f�IyVr�ulr :.�r✓rrnlrr aeiln. r:r/ & r,1"(;JP°R.'�'r�Z�'O v .r ., fi s" .. al"^,�*�`CP1 4�r ,, /✓%�;'"�p".��.. ,.r�/:o '.�,.r�IJJF' r„ ...... , M„ 4„d`@ jl/,fI 5 Q41 i h�i //I ��i�yir /) �d�lf tl 1Y.'ll➢dROi'»J,/rt,%��%%BI�,7<Ii61�1i�91J1 ti U�� �/� I.i✓1. li �a,,.. /�/r �*^i r, �.'"+ � r »A19� nPIID�HI"u9j 9'.Ji¢001i d �ry,7wiU �,✓, , ,.l' /�// , rmo/�j Y ,. a F p ,r� C &,.i d ✓,r r //iii/ . , nP .,.. � aP�.✓rl �,er .. ��"rww. rar, r z e ,r„�: l- re./ar rr .; reJ 6" �w �, '.w�✓'"` ",.✓d ti .. ���"df 6I/N✓�uiM fi/r" rW i 6 rn. �bxrl✓ ` �r p i si i I mri I" W lS -t" ^� QIC%L NAME (Please print clearly) STREET ADDRESS FOR AGAINST UNDECIDED NAME (Please print clearly) ... ,.,. FOR AGAINST UNDECIDED r° "Y�„� g// - / F k..N. i�^,"''Y+.;!i $.. 4, �or, (r i . �V }, ,�"„ p'" J q' gNp , n Y f Jd -H ""c^� �nx.,/ 4J° it yg W,p 0. _ M• .a' =, .N . . . b rfdoJmw hfllryI 3��/21.,%Ilr�d,y !/%%/ . .wfiip%/f /fxr/[aNf ffr.oDJri F J /bvi % like r / u / �,fr' ,• 1. �. i 11ddfw' S8 "�'� :H__• f ✓,.,1" lir..plrxiriJ UU / L ✓ifMvii i r:/Jsi. ., ',o°p , d �6pevfL A'A✓`WI I I , 6ii,?f � W Fi'f' .M'. he/ / AfJd:b „- �/f✓lf/' : fa f; w< r g✓J ' �I gam® a' NfO,r IFY r A ..pp�pµW, ,,p�.. ,ff,,/l p,�Ipl " 4 $ iU f✓rvii.... T' 4 W 'M 1 Mw'X�MMYMMMMYYMMMwMYWwww✓" �..,....,,. 1 NAME STREET ADDRESS (Please print clearly) FOR AGAINST UNDECIDED