HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board Special Meeting 2015-04-15NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was
prepared.
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
Wednesday, April 15, 2015
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. CONSIDERATION OF CONTINUING THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY
ACT (NEPA) PROCESS FOR THE DOWNTOWN LOOP PROJECT.
Staff Report
Public Testimony
Board Discussion
Motion to Approve/Deny.
2. ADJOURN.
Prepared 4/6/15
*
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
From: Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
Date: April 15, 2015
RE: NEPA Environmental Assessment Process for the Downtown Estes Loop
Objective:
To receive board direction on whether to proceed with the NEPA Environmental
Assessment for the Downtown Estes Loop project or to cancel the project.
Present Situation:
In the fall of 2012 the Town learned of a new federal funding program aimed at
improving access to federal public lands, the Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP).
After a study session on the topic, the Town Board directed staff to proceed with
developing options for public review and comment prior to applying for the grant. The
Town held public meetings in the spring of 2013, and based on the public input
collected at these meetings, five options were ranked: Construction of a transit
hub/parking structure downtown; construction of a one-way loop traffic pattern
downtown; construction of a two-way four-lane Riverside route through downtown;
construction of a multi-use trail along the Big Thompson River connecting the River
Walk to Rocky Mountain National Park; and, “no action.”
The first choice of the public was the transit hub/parking structure. Second was the
one-way couplet option. Third was the two-way, four-lane Riverside Drive option. Third
was the multi-use trail. Last was “no action.”
Based on the criteria for the grant, it was determined that a transit/hub parking structure
project, alone, would not be competitive for the grant. The board discussed the viability
of a combined downtown parking structure and the one-way couplet, but ultimately
decided that option would impact too many properties and the cost meant it was unlikely
to be competitive. The board agreed to apply for FLAP funding for the one-way couplet
project and noted in the application that a transit hub/parking structure could be a future
phase . The Town’s application was successful and it was awarded $13 million for the
project through FLAP. An additional $4.2 million in matching funds for the project were
acquired through CDOT’s RAMP program (for the devolution of West Elkhorn Avenue)
for a total project fund of $17.2 million. These are grant funds and not loans, and thus
do not have to be repaid. No Town funds are required for the project.
Since Federal funds are involved, the project is subject to the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA). NEPA requires an analysis of the project to see if other alternative
may have fewer environmental, social and cultural impacts while providing the same
benefits outlined in the scope of the project. NEPA requires extensive public input and
technical analysis.
The NEPA process has been ongoing since fall of 2014, with various alternatives being
examined including several proposed by the participating public. Based on analysis to
date, the NEPA team has reduced the viable options to the one-way loop, as contained
in the original application, and the “no action” alternative.
On March 9 the Town received a letter from Central Federal Lands (CFL) on behalf of
the FLAP program Colorado Programming Committee notifying us that only the original
scope of work (the one-way couplet) would be considered for funding and asking for the
Town to indicate its intent to continue with the project as originally contained in the
application, by April 16. Since that time, CFL has clarified that the NEPA process won’t
be complete until later this summer and therefore they are requesting the Town indicate
its intent to continue with the NEPA process, analyzing the only viable construction
option remaining - the one-way couplet, and the “no action” alternative.
Should the Town decide to not proceed, it must terminate the contract and reimburse
CFL for all study expenditures to date, tentatively estimated by CFL to be roughly
$200,000 - $300,000.
Proposal (including budget if applicable):
That the board take action to either continue with the NEPA process with the two
remaining options (the one-way couplet and the “no action” alternatives) or terminate
the contract with CFL.
Budget Impact
Should the board decide to terminate the contract, the Town will be required to
reimburse CFL for all study costs to date, estimated at roughly $200,000 - $300,000,
and will lose the FLAP grant in the amount of $13 million dollars.
Requested Action and Sample Motion:
I move to continue forward with the NEPA process for further review of Alternative 1 --
the one-way couplet -- and the “no action” alternative.
(or)
I move to terminate the contract with Central Federal Lands and discontinue the
Downtown Estes Loop NEPA study and project.
Level of Public Interest
Very high
NEPA Process and Schedule(Complete Overview)Initiate Project and Conduct ScopingDevelop Purpose and Need and Initial Design OptionsCollect and Analyze DataPublish Draft EA Publish Decision DocumentRespond to public comments on Draft EADevelop Alternatives and Perform Alternatives ScreeningPublic Outreach Throughout ProcessPublic Meeting #2Mar 2015Public Meeting #3Summer 2015Environmental Affects Analysis of Design Alternative20142015Small Group MeetingsAdditional Small Group Meetings TBDWe Are HerePublic Meeting #1 Oct 2014See Environmental Assessment detail
NEPA Process and Schedule(Environmental Assessment Detail)Publish Draft EA (Made available to Public) Publish NEPA Decision Document30 Day (minimum) Public Review PeriodRespond to public comments on Draft EA (Received during public review period)minimum 15 daysTAC (CFLHD, Town, CDOT) Review/Address Public and Agency CommentsNote: Development of EA, public availability, review period, meetings/hearings, and preparation of decision document will be completed in accordance with 23 CFR 771.119Public Meeting (Hearing ) #3Summer 2015Responses INCLUDED inDecision DocumentEnvironmental Assessment expanded detailComments verbal and written will be recordedObtain Public and Agency Comments on Draft EAAbbreviations:NEPA = National Environmental Policy ActEA = Environmental AssessmentTAC = Technical Advisory Committee
April 9, 2015
ECONOMIC SECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EA)
DRAFT SCOPE OF WORK OUTLINE
The Economics section of the EA will describe existing economic conditions and key factors with an emphasis on
Downtown Estes Park and the potential effects of the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action (Alternative
1: One Way Couplet). The analysis will include potential impacts to those businesses that are permanently
impacted or access is impacted during construction. The analysis of potential indirect effects will be qualitative
and broad and will determine consistency with town transportation, land use, and community planning and
studies. Detailed analysis of indirect effects on individual businesses (changes in sales, sales tax generation and
other effects) involve consideration of a wide range of factors that cannot be fully quantified without speculation.
Speculative analysis is not included as it is not anticipated to result in a higher level of practical estimations of the
indirect impacts. Strategies to avoid and/or reduce economic effects and optimize Downtown economic
conditions for both alternatives will be provided.
The Affected Environment discussion will:
Provide an overview of economic conditions in the Estes Valley, the Town of Estes Park and Downtown
and the importance of Downtown Estes Park
Characterize past, present and anticipated future motor vehicle travel trends and visitation as key
indicators of economic demand and market conditions
Address fluctuations in traffic in relation to broad economic factors (recession, gas prices, etc.) and local
conditions (fires and flood)
Characterize the importance of Downtown business visibility, accessibility and mobility by vehicles,
bicycles and pedestrians
Characterize overall spending conditions (retail sales), trends and City sales tax data over time and by
business types.
Estimate market demand and supply by business type and generally identify the Downtown’s economic
strengths and weaknesses.
Analyze sales tax data compared to other resort destinations in Colorado to assess competitive markets
and market place conditions
Evaluate population and housing data to evaluate past, present and future market potential
Analyze Downtown parking needs using commercial square footage figures and typical parking demand
factors to characterize parking capacity and their economic importance
Characterize 2040 market Conditions and identify critical economic development factors
The Environmental Consequences discussion will address the beneficial and adverse effects of the No Action
Alternative and the Proposed Action (One Way Couplet Alternative) in a qualitative manner. The discussions will:
Describe short term and temporary economic effects caused by construction
Define the economic impact caused by displacement of businesses and residences
Characterize how anticipated 2040 traffic volumes will be accommodated and corresponding potential
effects on Downtown Estes Park business and parking during peak and off‐peak periods.
Clarify the parking effects caused by net reductions in available parking. Describe the direct and indirect
economic effects from traffic route changes and traffic volumes in terms of business visibility,
accessibility, mobility (out of direction travel).
The Mitigation Measures discussion will identify measures to avoid and/or minimize specific adverse impacts of
the alternatives.
April 9, 2015
Page 1
Downtown Estes Loop
March 25th Public Meeting Summary
Estes Park Town Board Meeting – April 15th, 2015
Meeting Logistics and Format
A public meeting was held on March 25th, 2015 (Estes Park Event Center, 5:30‐8:00 PM) to focus on the
alternatives screening process for the Downtown Estes Loop project. A presentation was given at 6:00
PM, followed by questions and answers from the public. An open house format then commenced for the
remainder of the public meeting. The public meeting was announced through press releases, newspaper
advertisements, the project website (www.downtownestesloop.com), the town email listserve, project
email list and social media. Per the sign‐in form, 154 persons attended the public meeting.
A series of boards were provided around the room to detail the history of the project, the purpose and
need, and alternatives under consideration. The meeting boards and presentation from the meeting are
both posted on the project website: http://downtownestesloop.com/public‐outreach/march‐25‐public‐
meeting/
Presentation Summary and Recommendations
The presentation gave an overview of the project, project history, the purpose and need statement, and
a description of the alternatives screening process. Two levels of alternatives screening were conducted‐
including an initial screening and a more detailed comparative screening. The initial screening included
the No Action, three alternatives introduced in October at the open houses and 8 additional alternatives
introduced by the public at the October open houses. All of these were screened against a set of criteria.
Five build alternatives (as well as the No Action) then proceeded through the second level of screening.
From this more detailed analysis, Alternative 1 (one‐way couplet) was determined to best meet the
project purpose and need and was found to best minimize environmental impacts and maximize
operations as compared to the other build alternatives. For those reasons, it was recommended that the
No Action and Alternative 1 proceed through the next phase of more detailed environmental analysis as
part of the Environmental Assessment (EA) process.
Public Meeting Question and Answer Session
During the question and answer session, 33 questions/comments were asked of the project team. A
summary of public questions and the answers provided by project team members is included as
appendix to this summary beginning on page 3. Attendees were encouraged to document their
comments on comment forms or via the website. This summary is intended to capture the nature and
content of what was discussed and to provide information that improves public understanding of the
project, the process and the findings presented at the meeting.
Public Comments Received (At the Public Meeting and During the Comment Period)
Seventeen comment forms were received at the public meeting, and put into the attached comment
matrix word‐for‐word. 110 additional comments were received over the alternatives screening
comment period which extended from March 25th through April 8th. Comments were received through
the project website, the project email address, project hotline, through drop‐off at Town Hall and via a
mailing list provided on the comment form. Emails were also sent directly to the Estes Park Trustees. All
comments received are included as attachments 1 and 2 to this summary. The Trustees were
April 9, 2015
Page 2
encouraged by the Town Administrator to forward comments received to the project email address.
Comments received from the Trustees are recorded on an attached spreadsheet (Attachment 3).
The comment form listed a number of values and asked the commenter to check which of the following
are most important to them with the project. A summary of these findings is as follows:
Alleviate Congestion and Delay: 35
Minimize Impact to Existing Parking: 27
Minimize Impacts to Existing Parks: 23
Minimize Downtown Economic Impact: 30
Accommodation of Bicyclists and Pedestrians: 28
Minimize Impact to Private Right‐of‐Way and Need for Relocations: 18
Other 35: Description of topics include: shuttle parking, save taxpayer money, business
opportunities, summer ozone levels, minimize adverse traffic impacts, repair bridges, improve
visitor experience, do nothing, divert traffic, minimize impact to historic cabins, clear congestion
The comment form then asked for a description of the advantages and disadvantages of the alternatives
presented. The text of each response is shown word for word in the attached spreadsheet. Each
comment was reviewed and a summary of support/do not support Alternative 1 was added by the
project team in a column at the far right of the spreadsheet. A summary is as follows:
35 persons indicated they support Alternative 1
52 persons indicated they do not support Alternative 1
21 persons did not state a preference related to the No Action or Alternative 1, but commented
on other aspects of the project, or Town issues outside of this project. Comments included:
o Include bike lanes
o Need for a Master Plan for full Town
o Improve signal timing
o Need additional parking downtown
o Consider reversible lanes
o Effects of the project on private property
o Impacts to parks
o Need for a pedestrian mall
o Baldwin Park
o Small Town Charm
Attachments
o Attachment 1 ‐ Spreadsheet of Public Comments Received to the Project Team (email,
hotline, website, mailing address)
o Attachment 2 ‐ Spreadsheet of Long Letter Public Comments (supplement to
Attachment 1)
o Attachment 3 ‐ Spreadsheet of Public Comments Received via Email to Town Trustees
and Forwarded to the Project Team
April 9, 2015
Page 3
Meeting Summary Appendix
Public Meeting Question and Answer Session
During the question and answer session, 33 questions/comments were made to the project team. The
following is a summary of public comments and questions and the answers provided by project team
members. This summary is not a word for word transcript. Attendees were encouraged to document
their comments on comment forms or via the website. This summary is intended to capture the nature
and content of what was discussed and to provide information that improves public understanding of
the project, the process and the findings presented at the meeting. Clarifications by the speakers and
meeting attendees are welcome to refine this summary.
Q 1. Did you look at parking?
A. The FLAP application and the proposed action and alternatives do not include a Downtown Parking
Structure because parking is not eligible for FLAP funding and the intent of FLAP. The team has looked
at parking conditions and potential impacts on parking in the Downtown and east of Downtown as part
of the alternative screening process. The addition of parking alone would not solve the traffic capacity
issues. The final design process will refine the requirements for parking losses and include potential
design elements that help compensate for parking space losses. The One Way Couplet alternative may
achieve no net loss of parking.
Q 2. Have you ever been to the Bear Lake parking lot in July?
A. Yes. This parking lot is packed and requires satellite parking and transit service.
Q 3. The public feedback process seems to have been designed to keep open public dialogue
contained and resembles a black hole. The Town has stated that they don’t have access to the public
comment records. Why did small group meetings occur separate from broad public forums? Why
haven’t all of the public comments been made available to the Town and community members?
A. The public process has been designed to provide a variety of opportunities for public input. The
process has included preparing meeting summaries and placing the summaries on the project website.
Small group meetings were open public forums attended by any interested community members.
FHWA CFLHD is the Federal Lead Agency for the project and thus maintains the project administrative
record. The original comment forms were not made public because they contained information about
the identity of the person who prepared them. All public comments received as part of the formal public
comment period at the release of the Draft EA will be published.
Q 4. Why are we discussing alternatives that are not feasible?
A. At this meeting, we are discussing the project’s alternative screening analysis. The discussion involves
a wide range of alternatives developed by the project team and some suggested by community
members. The findings that support the elimination of alternatives from further consideration are
substantiated by information in the presentation and the information presented on the boards around
the room. The findings reflect the idea that the No Action Alternative must be analyzed in the EA and
that the One Way Couplet meets the project need and creates the least overall effects making advancing
it forward into the EA process appropriate. Public comment is welcome on the alternative screening
process and the findings.
April 9, 2015
Page 4
Q 5. If the Town decided not to proceed with the One Way Couplet, what would the Town owe FHWA
CFLHD?
A. The contract that the Town and CFLHD have entered into would obligate the Town to pay for the
work completed to date on the project. That amount has not been defined.
Q 6. What can the Town do with the $4.2M RAMP funding?
A. The money can be used for any transportation project. The CDOT representative clarified that the
intent is to fund maintenance of the roadway (W. Elkhorn Avenue) for which the RAMP money is being
applied to.
Q 7. Will there be another opportunity for public comment in front of the public on or before the
formal meeting on April 14th?
A. No. A separate meeting focused entirely on the Estes Park Look will be scheduled. This meeting will
provide another opportunity for public input. Note a separate Town Board meeting (hosted by the Town)
was subsequently scheduled for April 15th, 6 PM, at the Estes Park Event Center).
Q 8. Does the project simply shift the traffic chokepoint to one or more new locations?
A. The purpose and need for the project is to address access to Rocky Mountain National Park by
relieving congestion in Downtown Estes Park. The project does not include US 36/US 34 intersection
improvements that would address future traffic increases at that location. The US 36/US 34 intersection
will remain a chokepoint. The merge created by the Alternatives for motorists turning from Moraine
toward the National Park entrance will flow adequately in 2040 with the One Way Couplet and the other
Build Alternatives addressed in the secondary screening process (Alternatives 2, 4 and 6).
Q 9. The One Way Couplet creates out of direction travel requirements for access to businesses on
West Elkhorn. What economic effects will out of direction travel have on these businesses? How will
emergency vehicle response times be impacted by out of direction travel created by the One Way
Couplet?
A. The One Way Couplet is anticipated to reduce emergency response times during heavy travel periods
by improving travel times. The net changes in travel times and their implications on emergency response
providers and business economics will be addressed in the EA along with measures to mitigate those
effects.
Q 10. What are the noise impacts on the park environments and when will they be addressed?
A. Noise and air quality impacts on the Downtown and on the parks were considered in the alternative
screening process. These factors present tradeoffs linked directly to the level of traffic and travel
conditions along Elkhorn, Moraine and Riverside. Detailed noise analysis addressing the parks and other
sensitive receptors will occur as part of the EA process. Noise mitigation measures will be developed for
effects that warrant reductions needed to meet exterior and/or interior standards applied by CDOT.
Q 11. How will impacts on businesses during construction be addressed?
A. Construction is planned to occur during periods that avoid the most congested periods in Downtown
Estes Park. A subsection of the EA will address the economic impacts caused by the construction
process.
April 9, 2015
Page 5
Q 12. Why is the economic impact of the alternatives going to occur after the Alternative Screening
Analysis process is completed and a decision has been made to only go with one Build Alternative
(One Way Couplet)?
A. The findings of the Alternative Screening Process involving economic effects does not conclude that
the economic effects of the different build alternatives decisively favors one alternative over the others.
There are numerous factors to be considered for the Downtown overall and for individual businesses.
An economic section will be included in the Draft EA.
Q 13. Shouldn’t there be a public vote that reflects citizen input before the Alternatives Screening
Process is complete? Why isn’t the Board here tonight?
A. Based on Colorado Law, the citizens of Estes Park have elected their public officials to make decisions
of this type. Town staff explained that the citizen initiative process does not apply to this type of
project. The Town Board heard the same presentation presented tonight a week earlier at their regular
meeting. Town Board members were invited to attend this public meeting.
Q 14. Will the economic impact on rental property along Riverside be addressed with respect to
property value decreases, rental value reductions caused by changes to the river corridor
environment that creates rental demand for properties in this location?
A. The economic effects analysis will evaluate how the project may create influences of various types
that may decrease or increase property values and rents. Detailed calculations for anticipated changes
for a specific property are not required and will not be provided. Compensation for such changes, either
positive or negative, in relation to a specific property is also not required.
Q 15. How will emergency response times be affected?
A. See previous question and response.
Q 16. There has not been enough opportunity for public comment. Why aren’t there more
opportunities?
A. See previous question and response.
Q 17. Could a temporary One Way Couplet design work?
A. No. Reversible conditions are not safe when there are no access controls within the reversible
roadway segment(s).
Q 18. Why isn’t this meeting being recorded and broadcast on television?
A. The comment is noted. Public comments are being recorded on comment sheets and the question
and answer session will be summarized and distributed as part of the meeting summary.
Q 19. The project team is not paying enough attention to public input. The team has an obligation to
let people speak. Why isn’t the team listening and letting the public input influence the decision?
A. The project alternatives, alternative screening criteria and findings have been influenced by public
input and the team’s objective analysis of the alternatives. There are supporters and opponents of
every alternative that has been addressed in the Alternative Screening process. The One Way Couplet
finding reflects the outcome of the Alternative Screening Process.
April 9, 2015
Page 6
Q 20. Will the EA address nitrogen deposition in Rocky Mountain National Park as a consequence of
providing additional motor vehicle capacity?
A. The EA process will evaluate the local and regional air quality effects of the Alternatives. Nitrogen
deposition may be one of the regional issues to be addressed, but it has not been raised by National
Park Service representatives. If the project’s contribution to this issue is substantive, the issue will be
addressed.
Q 21. How will AECOM benefit from an outcome other than the No Action Alternative?
A. AECOM is a consulting firm under contract via a Task Order with FHWA CFLHD for this project. The
existing agreement assumes completion of the project. The project findings and decisions are not made
by AECOM. The project findings and decisions are made by the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC).
The TAC is composed of representatives from the Town, CDOT and FHWA CFLHD.
Q 22. What is the Town’s current plan to provide more parking at the Visitor Center located east of
the project site?
A. The Town is in the process of scaling back the parking structure on the south side of the visitor center
so that the available funding matches the associated cost estimates.
Q 23. Will emergency vehicle access and evacuation routes be addressed as impacts of the One Way
Couplet?
A. Yes.
Q 24. Why is a reversible roadway considered unsafe and infeasible when this is occurring in two
locations in Omaha, Nebraska?
A. A fully reversible arterial roadway with all lanes changing directions is considered unsafe at this
location due to driver expectancy and associated safety concerns. Signals, pavement markings, and
signage would need to be modified on a consistent basis in order to create a reversible configuration.
The noted locations in Omaha include a single reversible center lane, not all lanes.
Q 25. How will traffic on Moraine headed for Rocky Mountain National Park merge without backups
when the three or four lanes must head into one lane?
A. Moraine will provide two lanes that merge into one lane. This is similar to the existing condition.
Backups will not be expected because the traffic signal at the Elkhorn/Moraine signal will meter traffic
toward this merge in pulses that can be accommodated.
Q 26. Will the impacts of every parking space that is lost be quantified economic terms?
A. Yes. 35 spaces will be lost with the One Way Couplet conceptual design. Final design details and
mitigation strategies could reduce this number to zero but this needs to be evaluated as part of further
design efforts. The meeting boards and presentation show the parking impacts anticipated under the
other alternative scenarios.
Q 27. Where will construction staging occur? Will the associated impact on parking be addressed?
A. Final locations have not been selected for construction staging areas. Work on Elkhorn and Moraine
doesn’t require much space for construction staging. The temporary effects of parking losses due to
staging will be addressed.
April 9, 2015
Page 7
Q 28. Why isn’t there more support for the One Way Couplet? The number of people coming to Town
supports the project. Estes Park is already too crowded so people are going elsewhere. What
happened during the flood is an indicator. We elected our Town officials to make decisions and move
the Town forward.
A. There is support for the One Way Couplet and there is opposition. Note: a public comment period was
initiated from March 25th through April 8th, including comment forms received at the public meeting, to
hear input on the project.
Q 29. Why won’t you take a straw poll?
A. A straw poll is difficult to validate without the full community present. Note: a public comment period
was initiated from March 25th through April 8th, including comment forms received at the public meeting,
to hear input on the project.
Q 30. As a Transportation Advisory Board member, I feel as though I have wasted my time and effort
exploring alternatives, but I’m conflicted as I face the difficult decision of going with the No Action
Alternative and losing the federal support for the project and the flood improvements vs. going with
the One Way Couplet when I’m not convinced that it is the best investment for the community.
A. Some complex projects require a complex solution and balancing a wide range of tradeoffs where
community values must be tested to make the right decision.
Q 31. Who in this room supports the One Way Loop?
A. See previous answer addressing a vote on the project. A show of hands was displayed in the room.
A formal count was not made.
Q 32. Why is the Town pursuing this project without a Master Plan for the Downtown? When there is
no plan, any path will do… Put this project on hold until a Master Plan is completed.
A. A Master Plan should be created.
Q 33. How can I create sales tax when my customers can’t find a parking place?
A. More parking is needed in Estes Park. Final design features and mitigation will address parking and
access changes. The Town has plans to proceed with initiatives to plan for additional parking.
Downtown Estes Loop Project
Town Board Meeting
April 15, 2015
Attention Please
1.For those who wish to comment, please use the sign-up sheets
behind the seating area.
2.Comment time will not be limited but we request that you are
succinct and not repetitive -- to allow everyone time to speak.
3.Please be civil and respectful of all opinions.
4.Discuss ideas, not people.
5.Please refrain from clapping, cheering, booing, or tomato-
throwing.
6.Being disrespectful, yelling or intimidation will force an early
conclusion to the meeting.
7.We will attempt to respond to simple public questions as they are
asked; complex questions will be answered later.
To proceed with the NEPA process with the
remaining two alternatives; One-way Couplet
and Do Nothing
Or
Terminate the Contract for the Grant and
Reimburse Central Federal Lands for costs
incurred to date and discontinue the project
Decision Requested Tonight
Project History
September
Congress
passes
FLAP
Legislation
November
Town
notified
of FLAP
Program
Town
Board
Study
Session
1-22
2012 2014 2013
Public
Meeting
w/
Businesses
/ Property
owners
3-19
General
Public
Meeting
3-21
Town
Board
Study
Session
3-21
Town
Board
Meeting
3-26
Grant
App
Due
5-15
Start of
NEPA
Process
Over 580
invitations
sent to
affected
citizens
Groups prioritized options
1.Parking Structure
2.One-way Couplet
3.Two Way Riverside
4.Big Thompson Trail
5.Do Nothing
Board directs
staff to apply for
one-way couplet
including a
phase 2 parking
structure
NEPA Process and Schedule
(Complete Overview)
Initiate
Project
and
Conduct
Scoping
Develop
Purpose
and
Need
and
Initial
Design
Options
Collect
and
Analyze
Data
Publish
Draft
EA
Publish
Decision
Document
Respond to
public
comments
on Draft EA
Develop
Alternatives
and Perform
Alternatives
Screening
Public Outreach Throughout Process
Public Meeting
#2
Mar 2015
Public
Meeting #3
Summer 2015
Environmental
Affects Analysis of
Design Alternative
•Economic
•Environmental
•Noise/Air Quality
2014 2015
Small Group
Meetings
Additional Small
Group Meetings
TBD
We Are Here
Public
Meeting #1
Oct 2014
Review of
findings and
further
consideration
by Town
Board
Summer Late
Summer
To proceed with the NEPA process with the
remaining two alternatives; One-way Couplet
and Do Nothing
Or
Terminate the Contract for the Grant and
Reimburse Central Federal Lands for costs
incurred to date and discontinue the project
Decision Requested Tonight
Presentation Outline
•What problems create the
need for this project?
•Who should take
responsibility to fix it?
•Why is the Loop preferred
over other alternatives?
•What if we choose No
Action?
•Actions in response to
residents’ ideas
•Unanticipated benefits
What are the problems?
The quality of the guest/resident
experience slips every year. This
is inextricably linked to the
economic sustainability of the
Town and RMNP.
•Traffic congestion is increasing
•Sense of safety is compromised
•Our Destination reputation is
suffering
What are the problems?
•We all want to protect the appeal of Estes Park
& RMNP as places to experience relaxation &
renewal--not stress, chaos, & frustration.
What are the problems?
•Traffic congestion elevates frustration, noise,
& air pollution.
In 2008 a westbound car
sitting at the signal at
Elkhorn & Moraine waited
an average of 2.3
minutes during the busy
weekend. This increased
to 3.3 minutes in 2014,
and is projected to be 7.1
minutes in 2040.
What are the problems?
•The sense of safety is
compromised when
–travel needs of motorists,
pedestrians, and cyclists
conflict, and
–emergency response
vehicles are delayed by
gridlock.
What are the problems?
•Our destination reputation is suffering
as guests vent complaints about how
their visits to Estes Park fall short of
their expectations.
–Colorado Association of Ski Town reports
show our sales tax growth, while positive at
14% in 2014, is lagging behind the
competition.
–Town Citizen Surveys in 2011 and 2014 cite
transportation issues as top concerns.
What are the problems?
•In the 2011 Visit Estes Park Visitor Study over 220 out
of 6500 respondents expressed frustration over traffic
congestion in Estes. Over 630 commented negatively
about parking difficulties. Examples include:
–“I had thought that it would be less touristy and more easy to
walk around in. We never ventured back into town after
driving through it on our way to the Y camp as it took us 40
minutes of sitting in traffic to get there.”
–“The traffic lights and cross walks at Moraine and Elkhorn
left you standing for a very long time. Waiting was too much
for some as we watched many people get impatient and just
run across the street.”
–“Traffic driving through town was very hectic and kept us
away from dining and shopping there.”
What are the problems?
“Traffic was terrible – couldn’t turn left at a stop light – so
many cars.”
“Never enough space (to park) in town at peak times.”
“I will not come back until off-season”
“Traffic was terrible, probably wouldn’t have gone
downtown at all without the shuttle bus.”
“In the summertime, I avoided downtown because of the
parking problems and traffic.”
Who is responsible to fix it?
Some say it is the Federal
Government
•“They have the money”
•“RMNP traffic causes the
problem”
–3,443,501 RMNP visitors in 2014
–81% enter from Estes Park
•54% via Beaver Meadows entrance
•27% via Fall River entrance
Who is responsible to fix it?
Others say it is the Colorado Department of
Transportation’s job
•CDOT owns, maintains, and controls US 34 & US 36.
They set the traffic signal timing.
•CDOT has engineering and funding resources that
greatly exceed those available at the local level.
Who is responsible to fix it?
Is it the business owners’ & the Town of Estes
Park’s job to fix the guest experience problems?
•27% of Estes Park visitors come for local
attractions and do not visit RMNP.
•The Town lives or dies on the flow of sales
tax dollars.
•Early recognition of declining trends is
essential in averting economic decay.
•Reacting too late and after the fact makes
economic recovery very difficult.
•It is irresponsible for the Town to not look at
each opportunity to address the problems.
Who is responsible to fix it?
Bottom Line—both the problem and the
solution are complex. Collaborative
partnership is necessary . None of the
impacted parties can solve this alone. We
need each other.
•Central Federal Land is willing to
allocate $13M in Federal funds toward
the solution
•CDOT has already allocated $4.2M in
State funds toward the solution
•Town owns & controls Riverside Drive
•Local businesses engage the guests
and collect the sales tax revenue that
drives the economic engine
Is there a vision for the
solution?
Yes. It has multiple complex parts as
does the root problem of sustaining
the Estes economic base of sales
tax/tourism.
•The solution will not be delivered
with one grand project.
•It will have low-cost and expensive
pieces implemented over time.
•It should communicate parking
availability in real-time to motorists.
•Consistent & strategic signage is
needed.
•Transit should play a key role.
Is there a vision for the
solution?
•Relief is needed for the conflicts,
frustration, and safety of thousands
of pedestrians and cars using the
same space.
•Emergency response time must be
protected.
•Rare, cooperative funding
opportunities must be pursued.
•The 2012 Transportation Visioning
Committee report establishes a list
of foundational items for addressing
traffic congestion & parking
problems.
Was more than one solution
considered?
•Yes. Initial proposal presented October 8, 2014
included 4 Alternatives (No Action, 1, 1A, 2).
•Public input in October and December produced 8
new Alternatives. A total of 12 Alternatives were
included in the Initial Screening.
•Six Alternatives (No Action, 1, 1A, 2, 4, & 6) advanced
to Secondary Screening for comparative analysis.
•Secondary Screening recommends No Action and Alt
1 advance for full NEPA evaluation of detailed benefits
& impacts. Alternative 1 appears to represents the
best balance of congestion relief, minimal property
impacts, minimal environmental impacts, and
constructability within the budgeted funding.
How does the Loop help?
•The one-way couplet is the
first step in a journey to solve
the user experience problem.
–Reducing downtown congestion
improves the user experience.
–Westbound Elkhorn traffic predicted
to clear signal at Moraine in one
cycle (< 1 min delay)
–Reduced delay shortens emergency
response times.
–Opticom emergency signal pre-
emption could be added to signals
for even faster response.
–One way traffic flow improves safety
by reducing directional conflict
points between cars & pedestrians.
How does the Loop help?
•Eastbound traffic flow from Moraine to
Riverside to Elkhorn is improved.
•Channels eastbound traffic from
RMNP directly to 200+ downtown
parking spaces otherwise unknown &
unseen from Moraine or Elkhorn.
•Provides guests close-up views of the
Riverwalk, parks, and the Big
Thompson river.
•New lane geometry includes bicycle
facilities for future connectivity.
•Establishes a foundational Riverside
Dr corridor for future parking &
congestion mitigation projects.
Alt 1
One-Way Couplet
Loss of Parking:
35 Spaces (3%*)
00000000v
*1,082 spaces total downtown
Baldwin Park Impact:
17% Decrease
Children’s Park Impact:
2% Decrease
Numbers are approximate.
Level of Service
Elkhorn/Riverside:
LOS D (43 s)
Elkhorn/Moraine:
LOS E (68 s)
Moraine/Riverside
/Crags:
LOS C (34 s)
Traffic Impacts Environmental
Impacts
25-30 Days of
Downtown
Congestion
Multi-Modal:
On-Street Bike
Lane- SB Moraine,
EB Riverside,
Shared Bike on WB
Elkhorn
Right-of-Way:
Full Commercial
Acquisitions: 6
Full Residential
Acquisitions: 1
Legend
Existing Park
Commercial
Acquisition
Residential
Acquisition
X
X
How does the Loop help?
SIGNALIZED
INTERSECTIONS
2014
EXISTING
Seconds of Delay
(weekend peak hr)
2040
NO ACTION
Seconds of Delay
(weekend peak hr)
2040 ALT 1
(One-Way Couplet)
Seconds of Delay
(weekend peak hr)
Elkhorn/Riverside 78 sec (1.2 min) 81 sec (1.3 min) 43 sec (0.7 min)
Change in Delay
from 2014 0% 4% increase 45% reduction
Elkhorn/Moraine 121 sec (2 min) 299 sec (5 min) 68 sec (1.1 min)
Change in Delay
from 2014 0% 147% increase 44% reduction
What is a “No Action” Alternative?
•Required for evaluation
under NEPA
•Maintains existing travel
pattern and roadway
configuration through
Downtown Estes
Consequence of No Action
Daily Vehicle Volumes for Combined US 34 & US 36 (Year 2012)
In 2012 40 days of
gridlock in 4
months—essentially
every weekend
June-September
Consequence of No Action
Daily Vehicle Volumes for Combined US 34 & US 36 (Year 2040)
In 2040 147 days of
gridlock in 6 months—
approximately 5 days per
week from May October
What happens to
Riverside Dr?
Alternative 1
`
No Action
10,000/
13,600
12,500 Weekday 2014 = 7,200 vehicles
Weekday 2040 = 9,900 vehicles
Weekday 2040 =
11,000 vehicles
Weekend peak hour increase
is large.
•2014 northbound traffic is
720 vehicles/hr
•This grows by 37% to 985
in 2040 (No Action)
•Increase is 160% to 1875
in 2040 (Alternative 1)
Weekday 2014 = 10,500 vehicles
Weekday 2040 = 14,500 vehicles Weekday = 13,400 vehicles
•2014 weekday traffic
on Riverside is 68%
of Elkhorn traffic.
•2040 weekday traffic
on Riverside for
Alternative 1 is 11%
greater than 2040 No
Action traffic.
What happens to East
Elkhorn Avenue?
Alternative 1
`
No Action
Weekday 2014 = 10,500 vehicles
Weekday 2040 = 14,500 vehicles
10,000/
13,600
Weekday = 13,400 vehicles
12,500
•Weekday average
daily traffic
predicted to
increase by 38%
under No Action,
28% under
Alternative 1.
•Weekend peak hour
traffic predicted to
increase by the
same percentages
(39% from 1670
vehicles/hr in 2014
to 2320 under No
Action, or 28% to
2145 vehicles/hr
under Alternative 1.)
What happens to W
Elkhorn Ave?
Alternative 1
`
No Action 2014 Peak Hr
Saturday Volumes
10,000/
13,600
13,400
12,500
7,200 /
9,900 11,000
2040 Peak Hr
Saturday Volumes
W Elkhorn weekend peak
hour traffic increase is
nearly same for No Action
& Alternative 1.
•2014 traffic is 630
vehicles/hr (total both
directions)
•This grows by 40% to
870 (No Action)
•Increase is similar at
880 vph (Alternative 1)
105
north-to-
west
bound
cars (5%)
redirected
to
Riverside
& Elkhorn
by Alt 1.
What We’ve Heard
Estes suffers from a lack of parking downtown.
•Staff Action: an affordable intercept parking
garage is under design for the south parking lot
at the Visitor Center. Anticipated construction in
2016.
•Citizen Transportation Advisory Board Action:
parking policy objectives are under development
for presentation to the Town Board in 2015.
What We’ve Heard
•The Town needs RMNP guide signage and
downtown wayfinding signage.
Historic Downtown
CDOT has agreed to
use white text on brown
background (common
recreational guide sign
style).
What We’ve Heard
•Staff Action: RMNP static signage changes are
currently under discussion with CDOT Region 4
engineers. These changes are an important piece.
•Estes Park citizen Transportation Advisory Board
Action: intends to craft a Wayfinding Signage
Program later in 2015.
•CFL Consultant Action: Traffic modeling show
signage and striping changes alone will not divert
sufficient traffic at US 34/36 to meaningfully relieve
downtown congestion.
What We’ve Heard
Restripe US 34/36 to
send more traffic to
RMNP via the
Wonderview Bypass.
•CDOT verbally
agreed to restripe
center NB left turn
lane to optional
left/thru lane in 2015
and revise signal
timing as required
What We’ve Heard
Bring back the Barnes dance (all-walk phase)
•CDOT has agreed to reinstate the Barnes Dance for a three-
week before-and-after study in July-August.
•All intersection delay modeling used in the screening analysis
assumes the Barnes Dance is reinstated at the two downtown
intersections.
What We’ve Heard
The Loop will simply move the bottleneck from
downtown to Moraine west of the Donut House
where 2 lanes merge to one.
•A single free-flowing lane can carry about
1200 vehicles per hour. The downtown stop-
and-go lanes are limited to about 500 vph
each.
•Today slow, two-lane traffic flow improves
substantially after merging to one lane past
the last ped crossing on Moraine.
•The “pinch” is not the single lane but rather
obstructions to flow created by signals,
crosswalks, and driveway/street accesses.
They act like a clamp pinching off the flow of
water in a tube.
•The next bottleneck is expected at the traffic
signal at US 36/Mary’s Lake Road.
What We’ve Heard
The one-way couplet will
change the economy and
character of economy of
Estes Park forever.
•The City of Loveland has
successfully flourished with
a one-way couplet for
decades.
•The Town of Lyons has
maintained a quaint,
appealing village character
for many years with a state
highway couplet in the
downtown core.
Unanticipated help for
Floodplain Mitigation
•Three new bridges
could provide some
flooding relief
downtown.
•No Town funds
required.
•Design & Project
Management
performed by CFL.
•Potentially concurrent
construction in one
season instead of
three.
Floodplain Management
by Will Birchfield
Transportation Advisory
Board Recommendation
Chair Kimberly Campbell
Attention Please
1.For those who wish to comment, please use the sign-up sheets
behind the seating area.
2.Comment time will not be limited but we request that you are
succinct and not repetitive -- to allow everyone time to speak.
3.Please be civil and respectful of all opinions.
4.Discuss ideas, not people.
5.Please refrain from clapping, cheering, booing, or tomato-
throwing.
6.Being disrespectful, yelling or intimidation will force an early
conclusion to the meeting.
7.We will attempt to respond to simple public questions as they are
asked; complex questions will be answered later.
ATTACHMENT 1 – PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED March 25th to April 8, 2016
Downtown Estes Loop Road Alignment ProjectAttachment 1 - Summary of Public Comments ReceivedPublic Comments Received March 25 - April 8, 2015Identifier #Method Comment was receivedDate ReceivedDo you live in the city limitsDo you live, work, or own property along the alignment/study area?How did you hear about meetingAttended previous meetingAlleviate Congestion and Delay Minimize Impact to Existing ParkingImportant Impact to Parks (Yes = 35)Minimize Downtown Economic Impact Accommodation of Bike and Peds Minimize Impact to private right-of-way & need for relocationsOther Important Other (describe)Describe Advantages and Disadvantages Alternatives Presented Other comments on the projectResident Neighborhood NeedsEconomicEnvironmentalFuture participation Multi-ModalQuestions about the project answeredAlternative 1: Support/Do Not Support/Indiffererent1 Web Form 3/25/2015 NA y online y NA y y y y NA NA NA I understand it is now between Option 1 (all Moraine Ave traffic to the Park to return by our Lofts of Estes building at 150 E Riverside, that will increase traffic and noise 4 times and create an unsafe environment for our guests to cross the street) and taking no action. Option 1 can potentially bring negative reviews for our condos (traffic and noise complaints) and impact all rental businesses downtown. I would prefer that you do not choose Option 1, but rather use the money to repair the bridges affected by the floods and place signs for bypassing downtown on Wonderview Ave to direct visitors to the Park.I understand it is now between Option 1 (all Moraine Ave traffic to the Park to return by our Lofts of Estes building at 150 E Riverside, that will increase traffic and noise 4 times and create an unsafe environment for our guests to cross the street) and taking no action. Option 1 can potentially bring negative reviews for our condos (traffic and noise complaints) and impact all rental businesses downtown.NA Y NA NA No, we need a vote on this proposals and not an arbitrary decision, please give the downtown business owners, that generate sales and lodging tax a bigger voice in this projectNot Support2 Comment Form Completed at Public Meeting3/25/2015 NA NA NA y y NA NA NA y NA NA NA 4 lanes on Riverside is not acceptable. The one-way loop is the best alternative. It will be painful during construction, but we've got to start somewhere to reduce traffic and save the charm of Downtown Estes Park.NANA NA NA NA NA NA3 Web Form 3/25/2015 NA NA Gazette & NewsyyyyyyyyNAWe need to do SOMETHING to make sure estes park does not become a ghost town due to decreased visitation. the flood plain corridor needs to be repaired NOW before down town is lost in the next huge flood. taking advantage of the available flap grant is a no brainer to help with keeping up with other communities. it will also help keep the cost of bridge repair, flood plain correction in downtown to a minimum. it would be irresponsible to pass up the opportunity to take advantage of these funds now! there is no guarantee the community would qualify in the future if the project is put on hold. Another advantage is the safer pedestrian and cycling traffic. The disadvantages are the impacts to businesses, personal property owners. but those i believe will be either short term impacts or as the town administrator said, there will be fair compensation for those affected. there were many valid points in the march 25 meeting, but there was also a vain of self interest. people will not be happy unless they get exactly what they want. and that will never happen. they will always be unhappy of SOMETHING. that's the conservative, "i don't like change" protection mechanism. there is no way to keep up, protect downtown without doing something. It also appeared that most do not understand the timing and nature of the available flap money. nor what i believe is the fact that "public input" means the public is asked to give input. that does not mean all that input is public information. there was a huge disconnect there. it means input FROM the public... not that the input is PUBLIC information. am i not correct? I think the town administrator is doing a fantastic job trying to do the best for the town and park. i think the town board needs to wake up and step up and create a real, viable, executable master plan NOW. at least having a plan will give the board the ability to say this is where we are headed. those who disagree will still complain, but at least they won't be able to say there is no plan, what are we doing? I was nice to hear the teams involved in the project are taking as much in consideration as possible. it may not have been clear from the majority of the comments and questions, but to me the teams are doing the best they can for the community as a whole within the guidelines and directions of the law. perhaps the conservative side believes laws only apply to everyone else?y y y y NA Support Many also did not seem to understand the only reason other alternatives were looked at was due to public input. failure to understand the process seems to be the norm. and rather than try and learn, people would rather complain. The parking issue funding seems to escape most as well. people seem to think there's money to do what ever, when ever. those are the same people who tend to vote to extend tax cuts for the rich and corporations, banks etc indefinitely. if those who can afford to pay taxes paid their fair share more communities would not be in the situation where estes is with crumbling infrastructure etc. perhaps propose a parking garage in downtown and give them the bill? see how fast they say it's a bad idea.4 Email to Board3/25/2015 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NASee Long Letter Comment - Attachment 2NA NA NA NA NA NA5 Comment Form Completed at Public Meeting3/25/2015 y NA Email, paper, TABy NA NA NA NA y NA y Make the downtown more shuttle and pedestrian focused - keep parking on the outskirts - don't overpark the downtown!Advantages of alternative 1: Keeps Riverside from being 4 lanes; least mitigation; new bridges replacementsI want to commend the town for creating another forum for input regarding the Downtown Estes Loop Road Project . This process occurred a few years ago and through that process the town heard that the one way couplet was the preferred choice. It surprises me that it is now, after it was ostensibly decided, that people decided to complain. Where were they when input was being asked for a couple of years agoNA NA y y NA Support6 Comment Form Completed at Public Meeting3/25/2015 y NA Paper y y y y NA NA y NA NA The one-way loop (Alt # 1) appears to be the only choice to make the much needed improvement in traffic in town. Parking is key; we need funding for a parking structure (s) on Elkhorn. I hope a medium-sized garage can be put in at the proposed theater site Elkhorn. The theater is a bad idea and the space could serve as parkingNANA NA NA NA Yes Support7 Comment Form Completed at Public Meeting3/25/2015 NA NA EP News NA y NA NA NA NA NA NA NA While I prefer Alt 6 (4-lane Riverside), I realize Alt 1 presents the best value w/minimal impact I hate one-way lanes, but I don’t see any other viable optionsHave we considered using roundabouts in any of the intersections? Maybe for the 34/36 intersection as well. Elkhorn/Moraine is too small, but the other intersections are biggerNA NA NA NA Yes. Thanks for crunching the numbers on the various options. I can see why the board selected Alt 1.Support*NA = No AnswerWeek of March 25-April 8, 2015Page 1 of 18
Downtown Estes Loop Road Alignment ProjectAttachment 1 - Summary of Public Comments ReceivedPublic Comments Received March 25 - April 8, 2015Identifier #Method Comment was receivedDate ReceivedDo you live in the city limitsDo you live, work, or own property along the alignment/study area?How did you hear about meetingAttended previous meetingAlleviate Congestion and Delay Minimize Impact to Existing ParkingImportant Impact to Parks (Yes = 35)Minimize Downtown Economic Impact Accommodation of Bike and Peds Minimize Impact to private right-of-way & need for relocationsOther Important Other (describe)Describe Advantages and Disadvantages Alternatives Presented Other comments on the projectResident Neighborhood NeedsEconomicEnvironmentalFuture participation Multi-ModalQuestions about the project answeredAlternative 1: Support/Do Not Support/Indiffererent8 Comment Form Completed at Public Meeting3/25/2015 y y NA y y y NA NA NA NA NA NA Traffic flow in downtown is terrible and needs to be fixed. I think Alternative 1 is a good plan NANA NA NA NA NA Support9 Comment Form Completed at Public Meeting3/25/2015 y y Letter in maily NA NA y NA y NA NA NA Thank you for all of your hard work. I am grateful for all of the well prepared presentations. I agree that option 1 is the best option and look forward to your updates. Thank you.NANA NA NA NA Yes: Everything was well prepared and presented. Thank youSupport10 Comment Form Completed at Public Meeting3/25/2015 y NA EP Newspapery NA y y NA y NA NA NA I agree with a person who commented that we need a master plan (by the town of EP) before we go on with this project. (Our town administrator agreed)NANA NA NA NA NA NA11 Comment Form Completed at Public Meeting3/25/2015 NA y EP News NA NA NA NA NA NA NA y Increase economic impact by increasing parking1 increase parking, 2 increase local economics, 3 leave traffic roads unchanged NANA y y NA NA Not Support12 Comment Form Completed at Public Meeting3/25/2015 y y Town email NA NA NA y NA NA y y Keeping the T of EP, home that I live in, intactPreserve natural area and park on Riverside NAyNANANANA NA13 Web Form 3/25/2015 y y Facebook NA NA NA NA y NA y NA NA Advantages are that this loop could reduce traffic congestion in the downtown corridor, however, in the March 25 presentation (the 2040 projections) it showed that the intersection at Moraine Av/E Elkhorn with only an "E" rating, only one step up from the current "F". I am concerned that all this money will be spent and will only minimally impact the congestion. While an alternative is definitely needed, I don't think that that alternative exists in the downtown corridor. There is just not enough space (aside from demolishing tens of houses and businesses). While seeing only 6-8 homes and businesses on a map doesn't seem like a large sacrifice for the common good, those homes and businesses belong to decent people and families. While "right of way" and eminent domain are "legal", it does not mean that it is right.You have obviously put a lot of research and planning into Alternative 1 and the other alternatives. In the presentation tonight the speaker address that you looked at doing something at the intersection of Hwy 34/36 but said that there was nothing feasible. Placing additional signs (for wb hwy 36 traffic and wb hwy 34 traffic) indicating the Wonderview access to RMNP would have a significant impact. It wouldn't be anywhere near the impact of the loop but it would substantially less expensive and destructive. Based on how much negative public opinion this project has gathered, I really hope the board moves in a different direction. Alternative routs and techniques need to be looked at.y y NA NAYes...Many of the public "comments" that came out during the QnA should have been directed at elected officials and not during this venue, your staff did very well responding to them. The one thing that was not explained clearly (and I believe fueled the discontent) was when the "point of no return" is. It was made to sound like the final decision was coming when the board meets in April, and this could have been explained better. Not SupportAgain thank you for putting this meeting on, despite all the comments I feel that this project has been communicated perfectly clear since day one, and your staff did an excellent job. Estes Park residents will always oppose progress... One thing that I do agree with...was that comments on the project could be represented in a different format...It is concerning that there is this much opposition but no Trustees were present at the meeting to hear it. Its not your responsibility to communicate that per se...the town board is being fed the "watered down" version of public opinion....14 Web Form 3/25/2015 y NA Newspaper y y y NA NA y NA NA NA I fully support the downtown loop project and see and agree with the merits of Alternative 1. There were many people at the meeting tonight who have concerns about the impact on their businesses, but if we don't do anything, I think there will be more of a negative impact. I have family and friends who no longer come here and certainly do not go downtown because of the congestion. Something needs to be done and the downtown loop is a good step. Parking will continue to be an issue and is and will need to continue to be addressed, but let's take advantage of the money that is on the table now. Move forward with the downtown loop!NANA NA NA NA Yes Support*NA = No AnswerWeek of March 25-April 8, 2015Page 2 of 18
Downtown Estes Loop Road Alignment ProjectAttachment 1 - Summary of Public Comments ReceivedPublic Comments Received March 25 - April 8, 2015Identifier #Method Comment was receivedDate ReceivedDo you live in the city limitsDo you live, work, or own property along the alignment/study area?How did you hear about meetingAttended previous meetingAlleviate Congestion and Delay Minimize Impact to Existing ParkingImportant Impact to Parks (Yes = 35)Minimize Downtown Economic Impact Accommodation of Bike and Peds Minimize Impact to private right-of-way & need for relocationsOther Important Other (describe)Describe Advantages and Disadvantages Alternatives Presented Other comments on the projectResident Neighborhood NeedsEconomicEnvironmentalFuture participation Multi-ModalQuestions about the project answeredAlternative 1: Support/Do Not Support/Indiffererent15 Comment Form Completed at Public Meeting3/25/2015 y NA Newspaper, emaily y NA NA y y NA y Save taxpayer money NAMy experience indicates that EP traffic signals could better timed and coordinated. All signals (including library pedestrian crossing) should sequenced for time of day traffic flow through downtown. Signage could improve existing bypass route utilization of 34-bypass, mary's lake road, mocassin bypass. Future traffic projections could be affected by mass transit routes from Boulder, Longmont, LovelandNA NA NA NA NA Traffic Signals16 Comment Form Completed at Public Meeting3/25/2015 y NA Newspaper NA y y NA NA NA NA NA NA NANANA NA NA NA NA NA17 Comment Form Completed at Public Meeting3/25/2015 y NA word of mouthNA NA y y y NA NA NA NA All alternatives seem to create more conflict. They create more confusion and destroy who we are - a small town. The loss of parking in each plan builds on the problems we already have.NANA NA NA NA NA Not Support18 Comment Form Completed at Public Meeting3/25/2015 y NA Letter, word of mouthNA NA y y NA NA NA NA NA Alternative 2 is the best way to route traffic, improve traffic access to all the shops on Elkhorn (East and West) especially for shop owners on Elkhorn west of Moraine. A one-way on Moraine greatly affects Elkhorn and Moraine merchants in the mid-late afternoons when visitors exit the park and come into town to shop. Late afternoon is when most sales are made and having flow away from downtown merchants will kill our late afternoon revenue opportunity. Not to mention the increase in emergency response time. Just fix parking and increase bus service into the town and park.After hearing public comment, I think we should kill this project! Increase parking and increase bus/coach service into the park to alleviate congestion in townNA NA NA NA NA Not Support19 Comment Form Completed at Public Meeting3/25/2015 y NA Media - EP NewsNA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA You demonstrated there is a serious problem. No alternative is excellent. Alt 1 seems to be the best choice. I think you did due diligence in considering alternatives that people submitted. There is no perfect answer. Don’t let perfect be enemy of improvement.NANA NA NA NA NA Support20 Comment Form Completed at Public Meeting3/25/2015 y NA Newspaper NA NA y NA y y NA NA NA 12-month solution to a 3-month problem. All alternatives simply move the choke point to where both highways narrow to two lanes. Loop is too disruptiveNANA NA NA NA NA Not Support21 Comment Form Completed at Public Meeting3/25/2015 y y Email y NA NA NA NA NA NA y Getting this project passedAlt 1 is the only plan within budget. It can be expanded in the future. It is the logical plan I own the property at the corner of E. Riverside Dr. and Ivy St. I will have to move, and I am totally in favor of this project. Estes Park needs the bypass and I am willing to make the move.NA NA NA NA Y Support22 Web Form 3/25/2015 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAWhy spend 13 million on something that isn't going to work? It is part of what makes Estes Park Estes ParkNA NA NA NA NA Not Support23 Comment Form Completed at Public Meeting3/25/2015 NA y email y y NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Option One - I support it! NANA NA NA NA NA Support*NA = No AnswerWeek of March 25-April 8, 2015Page 3 of 18
Downtown Estes Loop Road Alignment ProjectAttachment 1 - Summary of Public Comments ReceivedPublic Comments Received March 25 - April 8, 2015Identifier #Method Comment was receivedDate ReceivedDo you live in the city limitsDo you live, work, or own property along the alignment/study area?How did you hear about meetingAttended previous meetingAlleviate Congestion and Delay Minimize Impact to Existing ParkingImportant Impact to Parks (Yes = 35)Minimize Downtown Economic Impact Accommodation of Bike and Peds Minimize Impact to private right-of-way & need for relocationsOther Important Other (describe)Describe Advantages and Disadvantages Alternatives Presented Other comments on the projectResident Neighborhood NeedsEconomicEnvironmentalFuture participation Multi-ModalQuestions about the project answeredAlternative 1: Support/Do Not Support/Indiffererent24 Web Form 3/26/2015 NA y email y NA y NA y NA NA NA NA I think with all the alternatives I prefer the one that has two way traffic on moraine and Elkhorn with 3-4 lanes on rIverside, it would keep the downtown intact, enable people to make a turn to the west from moraine onto Elkhorn (not cutting west Elkhorn off) and ease traffic congestion going to the park. It would help in the summer but also help in the remaining months for local residents to get around easily. The town is quiet enough in other times of the year we need to look at that too.In addition, I believe we need to get at least two parking garages to service different areas of town such as east and west ends. Yes, I know that's probably financially impossible but still would be a good thing. It would be nice to have bike lanes where it is feasible to continue the trail system that is partially completed.NA NA NA NA I can't tell when looking at these materials if basically it's a "done deal" for a particular configuration and public feedback is just procedural to cover all bases. I'm not meaning to be disrespectful but I'm wondering how much impact public comments will actually have in the decision making process.Parking Garages and Bike Lanes25 Web Form 3/26/2015 NA NAemails from the towny y y NA NA NA NA y make sure we continue to change Estes Park for the betterI absolutely agree that something needs to be done to improve the traffic flow thru Estes Park. The one way couplet is a good option and should be done. We have to do something now, and having the advantage of being able to obtain $17M in grants is great!There are too many people at the meeting that are only looking at their own little world, and how they perceive the project will impact them. I think they are blowing things way out of proportion and just don't like change, so anything that is proposed would meet with disapproval. I commend the one downtown merchant for having the courage to speak her opinion at the meeting, when it was clear that she was a minority at the meeting. I fully believe there are many more supporters of the project, but it is human nature that only those that opposed the project came to the meeting.y y NA y Yes Support26 Web Form 3/26/2015 y NA Friends NA NA NA NA NA y NA NA NA Love to see the bicycle lanes and a design that increases safety for pedestrians and cyclists. That will be a huge upgrade to Estes Park.NANA NA NA y NA Bike Lanes27 Web Form 3/26/2015 NA yTown of Estes Park publicityy y NA y NA y NA NA NA Considering that the No Action and Alternative 1 options are being forwarded, I will address these. No Action: Although some residents of Estes Park are upset about any potential changes, our current situation here is simply untenable, especially for young people with families (many of whom could not make the meeting!). The current layout of downtown traffic is unsafe for pedestrians and cyclists, results in poor air quality with idling vehicles, and results in locals avoiding downtown at all costs during peak season, which is not good for downtown businesses. In addition, there is poor access for cyclists (including families with kids on bikes) to important town locations such as the Library, the Museum, and access between Lake Estes and the rest of town. I agree that all problems will not be solved by one project, but doing nothing is ignoring the critical, impending changes to traffic volumes projected for our area, as shown in the 20-year horizon congestion graphs, and ignoring the fact that our current infrastructure simply cannot handle it. Alternative 1: The one-way couplet, although not a silver bullet solution (i.e. parking is still an issue to many people), will alleviate major problems and will put Estes on the right track to keeping up with the times. In particular, dedicated bicycle lanes that provide additional transportation options are necessary for Estes to compete with other mountain towns like Breckenridge, Crested Butte, and Durango to get younger workers and families here, who enjoy and use those amenities. They will also bring additional tourists. In addition, Alternative 1, compared to other alternatives, was shown to have the least amount of environmental impact, which is a significant finding for this project.Thank you for your hard work on this project, please ensure that these important changes are made to keep Estes Park a wonderful place to live, work, and play. Safety and infrastructure management should be one of the highest priorities for the Town.NA NA y y Yes, I especially appreciated the data presented on Level 1 and Level 2 filters, and all of the analysis that went into decisions regarding which Alternatives to carry forward.Support28 Web Form 3/26/2015 NA NA EP News NA y NA NA y NA NA NA NA NAI own a rental property at Mary's lake lodge and hope to retire in Estes in a few years. A few considerations: 1. Is it possible to have a flex traffic pattern; meaning during certain times of day only the one way exists, at other times it reverts back to two way? 2. Is it possible to have a trial run through this summer for a proper sample time period using non permanent signage?NA Y NA NA NA Traffic Patterns/ Runs*NA = No AnswerWeek of March 25-April 8, 2015Page 4 of 18
Downtown Estes Loop Road Alignment ProjectAttachment 1 - Summary of Public Comments ReceivedPublic Comments Received March 25 - April 8, 2015Identifier #Method Comment was receivedDate ReceivedDo you live in the city limitsDo you live, work, or own property along the alignment/study area?How did you hear about meetingAttended previous meetingAlleviate Congestion and Delay Minimize Impact to Existing ParkingImportant Impact to Parks (Yes = 35)Minimize Downtown Economic Impact Accommodation of Bike and Peds Minimize Impact to private right-of-way & need for relocationsOther Important Other (describe)Describe Advantages and Disadvantages Alternatives Presented Other comments on the projectResident Neighborhood NeedsEconomicEnvironmentalFuture participation Multi-ModalQuestions about the project answeredAlternative 1: Support/Do Not Support/Indiffererent29 Web Form 3/26/2015 NA NA emailTown Facebook webnewspapery y NA y NA y NA y The congestion and noise of idling motorcycles and cars is a poor refelction on the town. gives opportunity to see some progress and future looking perception of Estes which we sorely lack today. Also offers opportunity to bring more patio like restaurants to town. Cant sit by elkhorn today due noise and exhaust due idling vehicles.Loop should move more traffic, more smoothly through town. Compare a flowing river versus a stagnant pond. Today we have a static pond during peak times. This wont impact business to any great degree and you could easily argue that making Estes a more attractive place to visit would bring additional guests. Increased parking on the "south" side of the visitors center would also help. Disadvantages. Only one if you need to remove a city landmark, the Donut Haus. That would be painful. Move the Donut Haus 25-50 feet to the south. That would be relatively inexpensive to maintain the landmark.Do this. Don't be paralyzed with indecision or fear as the town seems to be on so many other decisions. Make it happen. Have some longer term vision.NA NA NA y Between meetings and online documentation my questions have been answered.Support30 Web Form 3/26/2015 y yI've been to most all the meetingsy NA NA NA NA NA NA y All of these are moot. WHY? The whole process has been a farce! I've been a part of small group discussions, meetings, etc., and now the "only" options are (1) Do nothing or (2) The One Way Loop. The other options, according to the meeting last night, cannot even be considered. Why were we wasting all this time for NOTHING?! Do nothing...send the money back!!! The microscopic advantages are NOT WORTH ITWhy are we having all these meetings when none of the options were even an option? The powers that be are going to do what they want even though probably more than 90% of the population doesn't want this. What difference does mine or anyone else's comments make? Now the town is all of a sudden using "scare tactics" of horrendous flood insurance premiums we all have to pay if we don't have the one way loop. Why hasn't this ever been heard before?!! Why can't you see that this will force everyone in town, residents and tourists, to HAVE to go thru the "Loop" to get anywhere? Won't this negate any (if any) traffic benefit? There are peoples lives, businesses, and homes that are being taken over or destroyed on Riverside. Doesn't this mean anything to you? IT'S NOT WORTH IT!! Do you actually believe the projections of future traffic could be true? The roads couldn't handle that much traffic...they would be backed up all the way to Loveland or Lyons.NA NA NA NA No. And how dare you (the Mayor, Trustees and Town Administrator) make the two gentleman that were handling the meeting last night (Mar. 25th) take all the heat from the people there. They were doing their jobs and have no say so as to what the town does. Why weren't the Trustees and Mayor up there answering to the residents and business people? I know the Town Administrator was there but where were the rest of you?Not Support31 Web Form 3/26/2015 NA y Email y NA NA NA NA y ycomplete traffic motion study and change timing of lightsThe one-way loop will not aleviate any perceived problems This is clearly an idea born out of the necessity to spen grant money y NA NA y NA Not Support32 Web Form 3/26/2015 NA y email NA NA y NA y NA NA NA NA One way traffic is ILL-ADVISED and has a highly NEGATIVE impact on residences and motels along Riverside Drive. Furthermore, it causes great inconvenience for business owners AND customers. The biggest factor that could improve downtown traffic flow would be to build parking structures DOWNTOWN (in the lot between Weiss Drive and Moraine Avenue, and possibly another parking structure near the post office.Inadequate downtown parking is the primary cause of excessive downtown congestion, since drivers must go round and round looking for parking.NA NA NA NA NA Not Support33 Web Form 3/27/2015 NA NA Town of Estes Park Public Information NAice (on email list)y NA y y y NA y NA NA "No change" is the only alternative that truly relates to needs of fulltime residents - i.e. no reduction in parking and park space, minimal impact on Riverside, and no neeed for acquisitions (which force out residents for summer visitors). Alternatives 4 and 6 seem to be particularly hurtful for fulltime residents; plus, they start as ways of getting grant funds (for something not even wanted by many fulltime residents) and would require more grant funds or taxes to complete. Alt 1 might be the least problematic compared to no change but I cannot see how will help all that much since there would still need to be a signal at the intersection of Moraine and Elkhorn - and that is the biggest point of congestion. In any event, the longest signal wait for through traffic is at the interection near Sanley Village and that would not changeIt is a real shame that potential access to federal grant funds is driving the process - and not what is best for the town and fulltime residents. More and better parking is needed to encourage visitors to shop downtown. Congestion is a non-issue since the transit time along Elkhorn and Moraine are minimal compared to what most people living in cities face everyday. Why should Riverside be destroyed as a quiet side street and residents inconvenienced for the 8 months of downtime just to save a few minutes for visitors, most of whom already deal with much worse traffic where they live. In any event, visitors who really hate the traffic along Elkhorn and Moraine can skip it by using the Fall River by-passed and park entrance. In brief, visitors to RMNP will gain very little but full time residents will suffer - all "supply driven" by the desire to get federal grant funding. Sometimes, it is better to leave moneyy on the table and focus on the priorities the residents and local businesses wanted from the start.NA NA NA y Did not attend recent meeting; did review materials.Not Support34 Web email 3/27/2015 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NACan you point me to the results of the study on-line? I have looked but did not find them. Thank you.NA NA NA NA NA NA*NA = No AnswerWeek of March 25-April 8, 2015Page 5 of 18
Downtown Estes Loop Road Alignment ProjectAttachment 1 - Summary of Public Comments ReceivedPublic Comments Received March 25 - April 8, 2015Identifier #Method Comment was receivedDate ReceivedDo you live in the city limitsDo you live, work, or own property along the alignment/study area?How did you hear about meetingAttended previous meetingAlleviate Congestion and Delay Minimize Impact to Existing ParkingImportant Impact to Parks (Yes = 35)Minimize Downtown Economic Impact Accommodation of Bike and Peds Minimize Impact to private right-of-way & need for relocationsOther Important Other (describe)Describe Advantages and Disadvantages Alternatives Presented Other comments on the projectResident Neighborhood NeedsEconomicEnvironmentalFuture participation Multi-ModalQuestions about the project answeredAlternative 1: Support/Do Not Support/Indiffererent35 Web Form 3/27/2015 y NA email NA y y y y y y NA NA Much thought went into the one-way couplet design, and it has federal government dollars set aside to follow through with it. Just do it! To be honest, nearly every time we drive downtown, we return via Riverside, so it would seem that the couplet plan simply confirms our own MO.Yes, it's difficult to inconvenience those along the route whose properties will probably be taken. It's not as if the handwriting hasn't been on the wall to these people for several years. A few years from now the negatives of this move will likely be mostly forgotten. Estes Park needs some positive improvements downtown to move traffic along in the summer, and if this is the best solution, then so be it.NA NA NA NA I was unable to attend the March 25th meeting.Support36 Web Form 3/27/2015 y NA email y y y y y NA NA y Decrease summer ozone levelsWe voted for this alternative during town meetings of focus groups. It fits the community better than others proposed.Any one-way access though town, to RMNP, and back is going to be very difficult to complete. This alternative for now is the best of all possibilities that will meet the desires for our Town and the Feds.NA NA y NA My questions were answered at the first Focus meetings.Support37 Web Form 3/27/2015 y NA email NA NA NA NA NA NA NA y Minimize impact of citizens of the city.After hearing the proposals, and Alternaitve 1 in particular, it seemed that the disruption to the city streets, residents and businesses along Riverside, the additional stop light at Crag and Morraine, and the choke-point still on Elkhorn that all was done was to stage traffic on riverside instead of morraine. In my opinion this will have little effect and cause disrution during construction with a negative net long-term effect.I am not in favor of the build option! y NA NA y Most of the questions were answered except whether any thought was given to a route 7 option around town.Not Support38 Web Form 3/27/2015 y NA I'm on both your mailing listsNA y NA NA y y NA y Minimize new adverse traffic impacts (such as Post NAice access, etc.)Given the funding constraint, Alternative 1 would seem to be the only possibility that makes sense -- something, after all, needs to be done. I believe that parking will eventually sort itself out, separately, and that, because this approach minimizes acquisition of private property, it's preferable.I was out of state when Lyons converted to their couplet, but, comparing now to before, it sure looks as if that's working out just fine. Yet I haven't seen it held up as a model of success. Perhaps there are things I'm unaware of, but if our traffic situation could turn out to be that well fixed, that'd be cause for celebration.NA NA NA NA y Support39 Web email 3/27/2015 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAIt is my understanding that the One Way Loop is for two lanes of traffic thru Downtown towards the entrance to RMNP. Excuse me but you already have two lanes of traffic thru town, which turns into one lane at The Donut Shop to the park entrance. How in gods name can you possibly think this is going to increase the traffic flow thru town? If, as you claim, that the FLAP grant is to improve traffic flow to The National Park, you must have your blinders on. No matter what you do in town, the end result on Moraine after the donut shop will be the same. It seems as though you are hell bent on ruining Estes Park and trying to spend the money just because it's there. Step back, take a deep breath, and try applying common sense, if there is such a thing. My grandfather used to say "Sense is not common". It seems as applied to what you are trying to do, he was right! Thank You;NA NA NA NA NA Not Support40 Web Form 3/27/2015 NA NA Estes Park Cycling CoalitionNA NA NA NA NA y NA NA NA NANANA NA NA NA NA NA41 Web Form 3/27/2015 y NA Newspaper NA NA NA NA NA NA NA y The traffic problum isn't a problum. There doesn't need to beamy change to the traffic pattern. There is already a bypass that' not utilized much. Just because there is grant money available dosn't mean we must take it. The only fair way to do this is a special election.NANANA NA NA NA NA Not Support*NA = No AnswerWeek of March 25-April 8, 2015Page 6 of 18
Downtown Estes Loop Road Alignment ProjectAttachment 1 - Summary of Public Comments ReceivedPublic Comments Received March 25 - April 8, 2015Identifier #Method Comment was receivedDate ReceivedDo you live in the city limitsDo you live, work, or own property along the alignment/study area?How did you hear about meetingAttended previous meetingAlleviate Congestion and Delay Minimize Impact to Existing ParkingImportant Impact to Parks (Yes = 35)Minimize Downtown Economic Impact Accommodation of Bike and Peds Minimize Impact to private right-of-way & need for relocationsOther Important Other (describe)Describe Advantages and Disadvantages Alternatives Presented Other comments on the projectResident Neighborhood NeedsEconomicEnvironmentalFuture participation Multi-ModalQuestions about the project answeredAlternative 1: Support/Do Not Support/Indiffererent42 Web Form 3/27/2015 y NATown's emails and EPNewsy NA NA NA NA NA NA y I do not believe the one-way loop will alleviate summer congestion.Disadvantage to present businesses and home owners--unable to sell as long as project is being studied. NANA NA NA NA NA Not Support43 Web email 3/27/2015 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAGiven that it has been revealed that any option chosen other than the original "one-way couplets" aka Option 1, will result in the need to re-apply for the same grant we have already received. And given that, by doing so, we would jeopardize any possibility of receiving that grant money, as there is significant risk that reapplying for the grant would result in its denial. The only realistic option is to move forward with the original plan, option 1, and make the improvements we so desperately need, especially vis-a-vis the three bridges and flood mitigation. Once the project is complete, we can perform all the analysis and have all the public input anyone wants, in order to determine the optimal configuration, because the essential infrastructure will already be in place. CDOT can hardly dispute any changes we decide to make at some later date based on such analysis and public input, so long as they are not footing the bill (or so it would seem). So where's the problem? The public input to date is NOT wasted time and energy. It will be invaluable for later discussions. So let's get on with option 1 already, and plan for the future. And by doing so, let us focus on a more critical issue, parking NA NA NA NA NA Support Speaking of which, why are we not planning to build more parking along Riverside Drive? It only makes sense, as we will most likely be buying additional unused land, assuming you cannot leave someone with only a small percentage of their property when such remainder is unusable for its intended, or any other purpose...And while we're at it, perhaps there are those who would be willing to sell at reasonable prices to avoid having a major roadway in place right next to their properties, which might provide an opportunity to add additional parking at a reasonable price, or at least to procure land which could be converted at some later date. And finally, as for raising money to make some of these critical projects happen, beyond the grant money expected, why are we not employing a bond issue strategy? Just a few thoughts. Best regards! 44 Web Form 3/27/2015 y NA paper NA NA y y y y y NA NA Has always been congestion downtown the need is to get the visitors parked and out of the cars. Work on parking and making the downtown a pedestrian friendly place.Also make it safe for bikes to use the downtown. there is no bike lanes to get through town, using the walking paths are not a option for safety reasons.y y y y Did not attend, Just found out about it on the 27thBike Safety45 Web Form 3/27/2015 NA NA Estes Park Trail (3/27/2015 which suggested this site for input)NA NA NA y NA NA y NA NA Non-issue as of today since FLAP will only support one of the alternatives I am concerned for the homeowners along this Riverside route. They will likely lose homes and land (which may have been in the family for many decades) for the convenience of a few over a short period of time. I'm also concerned -- since I cannot tell from the drawings -- whether traffic coming over Moccasin bypass to the west will be able to access Moraine toward the Park or will it need to use W. Riverside. Which is not designed to handle large traffic flow. I fail to see how this will help Elkhorn merchants, especially those west of the Moraine intersection. We won't need this in the winter months, only 2 or 3 months in the summer. Why destroy land, homes and "feeling" of Estes Park for such a minimal use? And yes, I am one of those old fogeys who has been part of Estes for 70 years.NA NA NA NA NA Not Support46 Web Form 3/27/2015 y y email y y NA y NA NA NA NA Repair bridges to meet new FEMA requirementsThis project will fund the much needed 3 bridges to keep downtown out of the flood plain. Also we desperately need to relieve congestion in the downtown area.A no vote would be catastrophic to the town. Not only would we have to fund the 3 bridges but also would have to pay the consultants 4.2 million. This would likely result in a property tax increase. The naysayers will try to push the costs on the tourists in the form of a sales tax increase but that will not work. Please use financial common sense and vote YES for this MUCH overdue project. Thank You!y y Support*NA = No AnswerWeek of March 25-April 8, 2015Page 7 of 18
Downtown Estes Loop Road Alignment ProjectAttachment 1 - Summary of Public Comments ReceivedPublic Comments Received March 25 - April 8, 2015Identifier #Method Comment was receivedDate ReceivedDo you live in the city limitsDo you live, work, or own property along the alignment/study area?How did you hear about meetingAttended previous meetingAlleviate Congestion and Delay Minimize Impact to Existing ParkingImportant Impact to Parks (Yes = 35)Minimize Downtown Economic Impact Accommodation of Bike and Peds Minimize Impact to private right-of-way & need for relocationsOther Important Other (describe)Describe Advantages and Disadvantages Alternatives Presented Other comments on the projectResident Neighborhood NeedsEconomicEnvironmentalFuture participation Multi-ModalQuestions about the project answeredAlternative 1: Support/Do Not Support/Indiffererent47 Web email 3/27/2015 NA NA a business owner on ElkhornNA NA NA NA NA y Ensure EMS responders will be able to respond to calls without having to “Go around the world” to get to patients and risking livesand property in the process.#1 Increased EMS response times, especially if EMS is south west of town by the YMCA, or any point between the Otherside restaurant and the “Donut Haus” intersection, and the call is anywhere west of of the Moraine /Elkhorn intersection. They of course wont be able to go down Moraine to Elkhorn.....taking on 2 or more lanes of traffic on a blind hill is unreasonable, unwise, and dangerous. Soooo, they get on to Riverside and encounter traffic in front of them that can’t get over/away enough to let the EMS team through because there will be NO chance of using the NON EXISTENT “oncoming” lane to carefully go by all the folks who will be blocking the true traffic lane in the direction the EMS team needs to take.... What about FIRE? What is going to burn down while the firefighters fight the traffic to get to a call? #2 Post NAice Patrons:Those of us coming from the east side of town will have 3 HORRIBLE options to get to the Post NAice. Instead of being able to turn left on Riverside and go (relatively) directly to the P.O.....we will be REQUIRED to go to the Moraine light, hope to be in the left hand lane as we turn left, then turn left on to Rockwell and hope traffic isn’t too backed up that we can actually GET onto Rockwell and not stop our lane behind us on Elkhorn. Then proceed to the P.O....OR we will have to go all the way by the hospital, take Moccasin , join the “parade” at the Donut Haus corner, and follow Riverside to the P.O....OR Take the 34 bypass to Bighorn, cross Elkhorn to Moraine, get in the left lane to go left on Rockwell( and again hope it isn’t backed up at all) and go to the P.O.. Now that’s just GETTING to the P.O.. When you want to leave and perhaps go to the south west side of Estes you have to rejoin the “Parade” as it goes across the bridge by the Baldwin Park, (assuming you find a kind motorist who will let you in the parade) then you make your way to the west end of Moraine by the usual options....Lastly I have two personal observations. 1) From what I understand....3 of the board members live over by Highway 7. Consequently, they will never have to deal with the aforementioned issues because A) They probably get home or cluster box delivery of their mail.B). EMS will be able to get to them easily compared to the west end of Elkhorn etc.... C) Getting to town Hall will not be too difficult sincethey can do the 34 bypass to Macgregor Ave and go directly to the municipal building lot. 2. Your traffic volume projection into 2040 will also apply to Rocky Park. Rocky cant handle that...we all know it, so at some point the Nat Park Service is going to have to limit the number of private cars that can drive into Rocky.(we all know that this has been done at other Parks,it is only a matter of time before it happens here.) Bear Lake road and parking lot are loaded to bursting on a daily basis in the summer. (Ask ANYPark emp who works in that area in the summer) The Park is only so big, and your F.L.A.P initiative for Estes was OUTDATED before this all started.NA NA NA NA NA Not Support #3 The eastbound folks on Elkhorn who hit the “Road block” at the Moraine intersection. When folks reach that point, they will have two choices....A) turn right up Moraine, get into the left hand lane to go on to Rockwell to get to Riverside to get to Elkhorn to get to the east part of town (which at this point they will probably just keep driving OUT of town.) Or turn left at the Donut Haus corner to join the “parade” or, go straight up Moccasin and get out of “DODGE”....48 Web Form 3/27/2015 y y word of mouthNA NA NA NA NA NA NA y No Action This plan will change the face of Estes Park forever. We are a mountain town, which has 3 million visitors a year, for the last 30? years. Why base your facts on 25 years from now? Where did those figures come from?In my opinion, a center turn lane from the donut haus to National Park Village will alleviate a lot of the congestion. If the Loop goes thru, it will just cause more traffic problems on 66 due to any car trying to turn left into a business or residence (in both directions). If this is about replacing bridges, go get grants to replace bridges. And, what about the extra traffic going up Bighorn? Or cars leaving the post office lot on Rockwell turing left onto Riverside? And, won't adding yet another light at the Donut Haus, cause more wait time since the traffic lights are what you say is the cause of all the delays? How about hiring back summer traffic cops to direct traffic in the summer. It's not perfect, but it is Estes Park. And I think you said the barnes walk lights will be back this summer....GREAT IDEA! This will help tremendously. I am COMPLETELY against this Loop project. I have lived here 43 years (all but 6 of my life). I consider Estes "my" town and do not want it changed all because of FREE money (which it really isn't, now is it?) Drop the plan now, cut your losses, and get to work on finding other "free" money to fix the bridges and roads.NA NA NA NA NA Not Support49 Web Form 3/27/2015 y y Received letterNA NA y NA NA NA y NA NA NAI tried to find out 1. layout after project completion 2. which building(or properties) get impact or effected by the project but could not find it. Please provide detail information then I woiuld like to provide my comments after that. Thanks!NA y NA NA NA Trouble Locating Info50 Web email 3/28/2015 NA NA O NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAI have been following the alternatives and was wondering if it has been considered to turn Elkhorn into a Pedestrian Mall similar to the Denver 16th Street Mall (with only public shuttles permitted and no private vehicular traffic). I read through the study and I was wondering if Alternative 9 addresses this? Is the reason that a pedestrian mall is NOT being considered further because there are not enough roads surrounding the area that could accommodate the traffic?NA NA NA NA NA Ped Mall51 Web Form 3/28/2015 y NA EP News NA y NA NA NA NA NA y Improve the experience of the visitors to both RMNP and Estes Park.I believe the primary advantage of the Downtown Estes Loop is to reduce traffic congestion in town and improve access in and out of RMNP. The disadvantage is the impact the project will have on the people who own or occupy those properties that have to be acquired or modified to allow the project to work.First, I'd like to thank our town officials and in particular Frank Lancaster for the objective and thoughtful manner in which this issue has been presented. It is obvious that some people will be negatively affected - at least initially - should the loop project proceed. But I believe it is most important to consider what is best for the overall community and those who visit us to make it economically viable. With 3+ million visitors last year to RMNP - a number that is likely to increase in the coming years - I think it is vital that access through town be improved. As a volunteer at RMNP, I have the opportunity to talk with many visitors; most all of them really enjoy the park but find it difficult to get in and out of town. Some are very outspoken about the congestion in town. If our community believes - as I do - that RMNP is the primary reason visitors come to Estes Park, then it is essential that we improve the visitor experience by reducing traffic congestion through town. I fully support the Estes Loop project and hope that it becomes a reality. Thank you for your attentionNA NA NA NA y Support*NA = No AnswerWeek of March 25-April 8, 2015Page 8 of 18
Downtown Estes Loop Road Alignment ProjectAttachment 1 - Summary of Public Comments ReceivedPublic Comments Received March 25 - April 8, 2015Identifier #Method Comment was receivedDate ReceivedDo you live in the city limitsDo you live, work, or own property along the alignment/study area?How did you hear about meetingAttended previous meetingAlleviate Congestion and Delay Minimize Impact to Existing ParkingImportant Impact to Parks (Yes = 35)Minimize Downtown Economic Impact Accommodation of Bike and Peds Minimize Impact to private right-of-way & need for relocationsOther Important Other (describe)Describe Advantages and Disadvantages Alternatives Presented Other comments on the projectResident Neighborhood NeedsEconomicEnvironmentalFuture participation Multi-ModalQuestions about the project answeredAlternative 1: Support/Do Not Support/Indiffererent52 Web Form 3/28/2015 y NA Newspaper NA y NA NA NA y NA NA NA NAI was out of town and did not attend the March 25 meeting, but I wanted to say that I support the original proposal. Visitors will see the businesses once going towards the Park, but they will be routed along existing parking on the way back. I consider that a win.NA NA NA NA NA Support53 Web email 3/29/2015 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAAs a full time resident and long time downtown business owner, I STRONGLY SUPPORT The construction of Alternative 1. It will bring very positive changes to downtown. Please don't be unduly influenced by the very noisy naysayers.NA NA NA NA NA Support54 Web email 3/29/2015 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAI am sending this message as requested by Frank Lancaster’s article in the EP News to provide comments on the Downtown Estes Loop project. First, I want to thank all those involved with the project for keeping the residents of Estes Park well informed and presenting the various issues in an intelligent and objective manner. Please keep up the good work.As for me, I am very much IN FAVOR of the one way loop for the following reasons:1. My wife and I have lived in Estes near of the Catholic Church – about 1/2 mile east of “downtown” - for nearly 16 years. We travel into and thought the downtown area often for a variety of reasons and find the traffic congestion during the summer months to be intolerable. As a result, we go out of our way ...to avoid downtown during the hours from about 10 am to 6 pm...This certainly does not help any of the local businesses that seem to be largely opposed to the loop project. 2. I volunteer at the National Park and have the opportunity to talk with many of our visitors. Most all of them really enjoy visiting RMNP and really appreciate the amazing asset that it is. But many visitors have expressed disappointment – even anger – over the ability to get through Estes Park... But in the long run, this is a detriment to both our town and RMNP. I realize that a small percentage of the residents of Estes Park will be adversely impacted if the loop project is implemented. But I believe the approach for compensation to those affected as described in the various meetings is fair and reasonable, so the impact will be inconvenient but only temporary. I believe the most important and over-riding consideration is what is in the best interest of all the residents of our town as well as our visitors on whom we all rely to make this a viable community...I firmly believe that it is in the best interest of our town, its residents, and RMNP that the loop project be implemented.NA NA NA NA NA N/A55 Web Form 3/29/2015 NA NA Newspaper NA NA NA NA y NA NA NA This will irreparably harm the downtown merchants and thus harm us all because of loss of sales tax revenueFrom the article in this weeks paper it appears that the city is bound and determined to implement the "plan" because of the federal money, with a suggestion that maybe we can make changes later-I'm not in the least convinced about that. Obviously, it's going to happen, regardless of public input, unless someone is able to put it to the voters as happened with the town restoration funding earlier.NA NA NA NA NA Not Support56 Web Form 3/29/2015 NA NA I follow the website.NA NA NA NA y NA NA y Maximize being able to navigate downtown in any direction. No one way!!!Leaving Elkhorn and Moraine 2 way would continue to allow access from west of the Donut House (both sides of the river) to the western part of Elkhorn. Any one way plans would route you along Riverside and back through the heart of downtown traffic. Estes business district does not stop at Moraine and Elkhorn! Also, if one way is instituted, east bound traffic (nice hike, let's stay for dinner) would not route back through downtown and hurt business.Just because there is a budget available, it doesn't mean that it has to be used! It would seem to me that a parking structure in the post office lot would be a far better use of funds. Also, construction itself would hurt business and make it hard to get around town.NA NA NA NA was not able to attend meeting Not Support57 Web Form 3/29/2015 NA NA Newspaper, email noticeNA y y y y y y NA NAAlternative 1 (one-way couplet) clearly most effectively minimizes impact and reduces congestion. All other alternatives have too much impact and most don't reduce congestion enough, especially in light of projected traffic increases.Despite the uproar at the public meeting, most residents that I have spoken to think the Town is doing an excellent job. All but one support Alternative 1. The one non-supporter thinks not doing anything is best.NA NA NA NA Yes. Very thorough and clear approach to considering the various alternatives.Support58 Web Form 3/29/2015 y y EP News NA y NA NA NA NA NA NA NA It is time to stop being the ire of visitors' complaints. I hear from far and wide about the cheeziness that Estes has become; its' impossible congestion in the summers and on holidays; of the lousy bill of fare offered to the public in the downtown corridor and the element it attracts. Trying to work on various projects in the area requires transiting the downtown corridor on a daily basis. Needless waste of time. Seriously, it's time to change the equation: build the loop. NOW!NAy NA y y Yes, but too many dissenting voices against the obvious plan needed now. Build the LOOP!Support*NA = No AnswerWeek of March 25-April 8, 2015Page 9 of 18
Downtown Estes Loop Road Alignment ProjectAttachment 1 - Summary of Public Comments ReceivedPublic Comments Received March 25 - April 8, 2015Identifier #Method Comment was receivedDate ReceivedDo you live in the city limitsDo you live, work, or own property along the alignment/study area?How did you hear about meetingAttended previous meetingAlleviate Congestion and Delay Minimize Impact to Existing ParkingImportant Impact to Parks (Yes = 35)Minimize Downtown Economic Impact Accommodation of Bike and Peds Minimize Impact to private right-of-way & need for relocationsOther Important Other (describe)Describe Advantages and Disadvantages Alternatives Presented Other comments on the projectResident Neighborhood NeedsEconomicEnvironmentalFuture participation Multi-ModalQuestions about the project answeredAlternative 1: Support/Do Not Support/Indiffererent59 Web Form 3/30/2015 NA y website NA NA y NA y NA NA NA Minimize impact to lodging facilities along RiversideThe cabins and condos we have in Estes Park, along Riverside Ave, create a unique local flavor that visitors find attractive. Right now there is some traffic on W. and E. Riverside which is manageable in terms of noise and impact to the guests. Making Riverside a one way, 2 lane street, to direct back all Park traffic will have a huge impact on traffic, noise and pedestrian safety. I feel that this impact has not been fully investigated, and the effects of it determined. At the worst case, the lodging facilities along Riverside will lose customers to other motels in town, and with that an important part of the Estes Park downtown business will be affected.Please evaluate the impact of the loop on the lodging facilities along Riverside, it will be detrimental to catastrophic to them. But I am for rebuilding the bridges affected by the flood, and the town doing more to keep this area out of a flood plainNA NA NA NA NA Not Support60 Hotline 3/30/2015 NA NA O NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAYeah, I cannot seem to make the reverse email work, but I would like to voice an opinion. On the downtown. Estes loop, why would we not pursue anything that would help alleviate the traffic congestion. I do not understand why the realtors and the murchants seemed to think this is a bad idea and it will hurt their business site and I can not accept that. People walk up and down the street all day and if they can get parked, they're gonna be fine, but trying to get through town during those bad hours is absolutely ludicrous. The locals won't come down town and you just ought I talked to some of the shuttle drivers and see how they feel and how other people enjoyed sitting in that mess waiting 3 or 4 or 5 cycles of the lights to get that bus through town to maybe get to the Park. It just messes up all their schedules, you're trying to provide for the tourests and it's just wrong not to pursue this downtown Estes loop. I think I think it's a great idea. Anything that would help get those campers and big trucks and everything through town, and out of there and I promot it 100%. Thank you. Bye. NA NA NA NA NA Support61 Web email 3/30/2015 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAThe implementation of this project is vital to the lomg-term economic vitality and quality of life of the Estes Park community and it is from the confirming context of that knowledge that the decision to move ahead must be made. Once decided, planning on other vital projects have a platform and an anchor and can begin: a downtown parking garage; revitalized scene-scape, etc. The proverbial can kicked down the road for a half century or more has finally come to rest. This generation of public decision makers owes it to the next to seize the day and move ahead. A group of individuals who are convinced they know more than a half century of Town planners, a half dozen major external studies, and the more recent findings of FLAP and CDOT engineering experts must not be allowed to trump that expertise because of fears about “what may happen.” The statement that the future of the community hangs in the balance is over-used. But in this case it seems right on. In 1992, over the negative reaction of local citizens and their predictions, RMNP had the courage to close Hidden Valley. It did so, in large part, because a financially weak ski center was deemed incompatible with RMNP’s future vision of itself. Not to make a similar decision with regards to Estes Park’s long-publicized traffic problems would be equally short-sighted. To be sure “Festina Lente”: “make haste slowly.” But once the requisite meetings have been held, the views of all have been received, let us boldly seize the future and move ahead....A decision not implement this project will send a chilling message to all those who are at work each day to make Estes Park a better and more sustainable community...NA NA NA NA NA Support62 Comment From to Town3/30/2015 NA NA Newpaper NA NA NA NA NA NA NA y Keep the roads as they are! Do nothing!I will only write about alternative 1 since that is the one the town board accepted. The biggest detriment is the destuction of home and businesses. This is devastating to the people involved! Riverside Dr. is a quaint, quiet drive which would forever be changed. Preservation before destruction. anouther concern is the effect on hte businesses downtown. I think the consensus of business owners is a fear of negative economic impact. All Estes Park residents need the tourist dollars. I just don't believe that making a one-way loop with 2 lanes is going to solve the traffic problem. If the main reason to create this loop is to get visitors to the Park as quickly as possible, why not direct them to Wonderview and Fall Rive entrance? This approach should at least be tried before the drastic bulldozing of Riverside Drive. Finally, I believe crating a one-way loop with 2 landes each way will cause more accidents. Mortorist will realize they are in the wrong lane and cut in front of others causing accidents. The only benifit to this project is gett 3 free bridges. I have a suspicion that will be the reason the town board sticks with alternative one.NANA NA y NA I didn't ask any questions. I don't hink people who asked questions wee very satisfied with answers.Not Support63 Comment From to Town3/30/2015 NA NA Newspaper NA y NA NA NA NA NA y NA In my opinion the Loop is a waste of tax payer money and I question the process and depth of research conduted by FHWA.A bypass is the answer to less congestion - not an expansive showcase 4-lane downtown.The project does little to ease traffic coming into the national park. The project does not improve ease of travel between entrance stations. If you want to cutdown congestion, please link HWY 34 and 36 west of Estes . A route for an alternate HWY 36 is already established and mush less expensive.yyYes Not Support*NA = No AnswerWeek of March 25-April 8, 2015Page 10 of 18
Downtown Estes Loop Road Alignment ProjectAttachment 1 - Summary of Public Comments ReceivedPublic Comments Received March 25 - April 8, 2015Identifier #Method Comment was receivedDate ReceivedDo you live in the city limitsDo you live, work, or own property along the alignment/study area?How did you hear about meetingAttended previous meetingAlleviate Congestion and Delay Minimize Impact to Existing ParkingImportant Impact to Parks (Yes = 35)Minimize Downtown Economic Impact Accommodation of Bike and Peds Minimize Impact to private right-of-way & need for relocationsOther Important Other (describe)Describe Advantages and Disadvantages Alternatives Presented Other comments on the projectResident Neighborhood NeedsEconomicEnvironmentalFuture participation Multi-ModalQuestions about the project answeredAlternative 1: Support/Do Not Support/Indiffererent64 Hotline 3/30/2015 y NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAHi. This is K, trabucco here in Estes Park, a resident. I'm voice seeing my opinion against the loop, through downtown. We were downtown yesterday, and there was lots of nice traffic coming from all directions. I don't I don't appreciate that the businesses are already suffering, although I don't have a business downtown, but I think this will only harm it. I think we should leave it alone. Thank you very much thats my opinion.NA NA NA NA NA Not Support65 Comment From to Town3/30/2015 y y NA NA y I am extremely against this project. It is not necessary for Estes Park. It is going to ruin businesses in town which our community is known for and.1) It reroute traffic from the downtown area and make it extremely difficult to travel, especially for Estes Park residents.2) It is going to cost much more mone for the town than it can afford.3) It is going to reroute traffic away from the downtown businesses returning from the park.4) It wll be destructive to Riverside Drive residents.5) IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR ESTES PARK; AN EXTREME WASTE OF TAXPAYERS MONEY.6) All the businesses in town are against this unnecessary project.7) Most taxpaying residents are against this project as well.Why wasn't Estes Park residents and taxpapers given the opportunity to vote on this measure? Why don't you use the money to fix all the city streets and more parking areas. We all thought this last tax increase was to be used for street repair. Tha's wahat we were told anyway.y NA NA NA I was not able to attend the meeting. Not Support66 Web email 3/31/2015 NA NA O NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAIf I understand the traffic pattern proposed by the Loop project, particularly the residents on the west/southwest side of town can expect to spend more time and gasoline to retrieve their mail or get groceries. Getting to the Post NAice will involve getting into the eastbound queue to exit into the post office parking lot. To return home, they will have to go down through town, merge into the now increased traffic flow to make their way back home. The same is true if they decide to go to the grocery store. I believe a more important use of any money that is available is to repave the streets around town that are deteriorating. A few examples are Stanley Ave, East Riverside, and Avalon.NA NA NA NA NA Not Support67 Web Form 4/1/2015 NA y Email NA y NA NA y NA y NA NA As a business owner in Estes for over thirty years, this loop seems like an extreme option. I believe it will impact sales tax revenue and ultimately the health of our economyNANA NA NA NA I have been out of town on family medical emergency for past two months.Not Support68 Email to Board4/1/2015 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NASee Long Letter Comment - Attachment 2NA NA NA NA NA Not Support69 Web Form 4/1/2015 NA NA EP News NA y NA NA NA y NA NA NA The loop will improve traffic congestion in downtown. It will reduce pollution and improve traffic safety. It will improve the safety of intersections such as Crags Dr and Moraine Dr. It will improve pedestrian safety. Tourists are the lifeblood of this town and traffic congestion is a sure way to drive them away. What's not to about the loop except it is change? It will probably be a bit less convenient to visit the Post NAice.I have spent 35 years in local government administration most of which was in West minster, CO. We over the years made numerous changes to the street system and most of which were opposed, but the City Council had the wisdom and courage to make the changes which all proved to be beneficial to the City. I hope this Town Council will have the courage and wisdom to look beyond those opposed to change and look at the long term benefits the loop will have on the town.NA NA NA NA NA Support70 Web Form 4/1/2015 y y Town of Estes Parky y y y I'd prefer to respond, "Increase opportunity for downtown economic performance" rather than the current, "Minimize Downtown Economic Impacts"I'd much prefer an alternative that would allow us to make downtown more of a destination experience, both for our residents and our guests. I understand the concern about impact on parks, but so many of the parks along Riverside are underutilized as is, whereas the downtown Elkhorn corridor is overpopulated in the summer time. There's barely room for guests on the sidewalks. To take some space from the parks for traffic to RMNP, in order to free up opportunity for downtown destination (i.e., a pedestrian plaza) would be an interesting compromise.The above said, I think doing nothing is not an option if our community wants to thrive. As a newlywed "Millennial" who hopes to stay in Estes Park and perhaps have a young family here, I need investment in my community in order to be justify staying. Remaining stagnant is NOT an option. When I hear the vocal minority voice their displeasure with the facts of the study (and question the integrity and truthfulness of these facts), I want to ask them if they understand the impacts doing nothing will have on our community not just this summer, but 5, 10, 15, 20 years from now. We must solve the problem of downtown congestion and no action does not qualify as a solution. Please know that there are many supporters of the Loop and the opportunities it presents... Just because there are some downtown business owners who strongly oppose it, doesn't mean that other business owners, community members, young families feel the same way. We must move forward, even if change is uncomfortable for some.NA NA NA NA Yes. I was embarrassed by the behavior of our community, but your representatives and professionals did an excellent job.Support*NA = No AnswerWeek of March 25-April 8, 2015Page 11 of 18
Downtown Estes Loop Road Alignment ProjectAttachment 1 - Summary of Public Comments ReceivedPublic Comments Received March 25 - April 8, 2015Identifier #Method Comment was receivedDate ReceivedDo you live in the city limitsDo you live, work, or own property along the alignment/study area?How did you hear about meetingAttended previous meetingAlleviate Congestion and Delay Minimize Impact to Existing ParkingImportant Impact to Parks (Yes = 35)Minimize Downtown Economic Impact Accommodation of Bike and Peds Minimize Impact to private right-of-way & need for relocationsOther Important Other (describe)Describe Advantages and Disadvantages Alternatives Presented Other comments on the projectResident Neighborhood NeedsEconomicEnvironmentalFuture participation Multi-ModalQuestions about the project answeredAlternative 1: Support/Do Not Support/Indiffererent71 Web email 4/2/2015 y y I work for the EVRPDy y NA NA y NA NA NA NA I can't see any advantages to this loop proposal. The traffic will be worse than it currently gets. Mass confusion will reign. We would be best just to leave it as it is, or opt for the other alternative. We do not need to accommodate bicyclists, just ask anyone who lives in downtown Denver. It is a nightmare trying to get anywhere because they take up the road and slow down traffic.Having lived in an area with and outdoor mall, such as 16th Street Mall in Denver, and Pearl Street Mall in Boulder, this type of area will serve our business as well as visitors and locals alike. There is seating, places for people to sit and enjoy there food from our local business and enjoy our atmosphere. Bicyclists would not be able to ride down the main street. We already have a shuttle bus that runs the length of our downtown.yyy No. Not Support72 Comment From to Town4/2/2015 y NA Email NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Please consider 3 lane Riverside 2 to RMNP west 1 to town eastKeep Elkhorn Moraine same, but install signage at Riverside saying: Downtown ↑RMNP Bypass ← I'm concerned about the one way concepts during non peak seasons when its not needed.Consider moving traffic signage advising RNMP access by Wonderview as well. Thank you NA NA NA NA NA Traffic Signage73 Comment From to Town4/2/2015 y NA Gazette NA NA NA NA NA NA NA y How about diverting traffic to the other Park entrance (US 34 Fall River Road) or another idea would be to bring traffic to the Beaver Meadows (HWY 36) entrance expanding Elm Rd so it connects 34 to 36, so visitors who want to go straight to the Park can bypass downtown.NAConcept 2: Please don’t do this. This will take away Estes Park small town charm and will actually increase traffic. Park of what makes Estes charming is that it is not a commercialized toursity town. Estes is peaceful and focused in its natural surrounding instead of roads and cars and traffic. As soon as you increase roads to 2 lanes, more stores will pop up and I dont want to see Estes become like Pigeon Forge, TN.NA NA NA NA NA Small Town Charm74 Web Email 4/2/2015 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAI would prefer the non-loop choice. However, I believe that the town board has already decided and this is a ruse to placate the masses. I have lost all trust, in regard, to the town and the decisions being made.NA NA NA NA NA Not Support75 Comment From to Town4/2/2015 NA y HOA email NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Y Please take no action The loop would cause too much traffic down Riverside Dr. It wuold create a danger to people as they attempt to cross over to stores and lofts. The traffic noise would increase drastically for those in lofts, cabins, restuarants along Riverside Dr. Concentrate on bridge repair. NA NA NA NA Unable to attend during week due to out of town travel.Not Support76 Web Comment form4/2/2015 y NA Email NA y NA y NA NA NA y Minimize impact to historic cabins and neighborhoods along the Riverside Drives.The no impact alternative does not do anything for traffic congestion but preserves existing parks, homes, neighborhoods, and businesses. The advantages of alternative 1 are that it can reduce congestion somewhat while having the most minimal impact on the Riverside Drive neighborhoods and parks, residences and businesses.As a local resident, my husband and I have used Baldwin Park extensively for walking our small dog in a park out of the wind and away from congestion of people and traffic. There are minimal intimate parks in Estes to begin with. I would be dismayed to see this park reduced, as it is such a shaded and peaceful location along the Big Thompson. Many elderly people and families with infants and small children use this park. If the peace and quiet of this park is significantly impacted, then I think the town should create another quiet peaceful park as a replacement.NA NA NA y I was unable to attend the public meeting because of a previously scheduled vacation trip.Baldwin Park77 Web Comment form4/3/2015 y nHow could I ny y y y y y y NA NA Advantages: for the very reasons listed above.None. The congestion needs addressing and finally the community is doing suchIAM FOR continuing the process through the EA of the one-way loop. The one-way couplet sees to the best "build alternative" and the town should proceed with considering such.NA NA NA NA The presentation March 25 was excellent. The presenters were on target, and did a fine job of describing what has occurred to date, and what will occur (if the town goes forward) in the future. One of the best presentation I have ever attended.Support78 Web Comment form4/3/2015 y n Facebook Town Pagey NA NA NA NA y NA NA NA NAIt is important to make downtown pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly. Using Riverside as the primary bypass to get to/from RMNP (alts 2 or 6) will allow people who are NOT interested in shopping to avoid downtown. If I want to shop, I would prefer to park and then walk around town.NA NA NA y Yes. Ped & Bicylcle Friendly*NA = No AnswerWeek of March 25-April 8, 2015Page 12 of 18
Downtown Estes Loop Road Alignment ProjectAttachment 1 - Summary of Public Comments ReceivedPublic Comments Received March 25 - April 8, 2015Identifier #Method Comment was receivedDate ReceivedDo you live in the city limitsDo you live, work, or own property along the alignment/study area?How did you hear about meetingAttended previous meetingAlleviate Congestion and Delay Minimize Impact to Existing ParkingImportant Impact to Parks (Yes = 35)Minimize Downtown Economic Impact Accommodation of Bike and Peds Minimize Impact to private right-of-way & need for relocationsOther Important Other (describe)Describe Advantages and Disadvantages Alternatives Presented Other comments on the projectResident Neighborhood NeedsEconomicEnvironmentalFuture participation Multi-ModalQuestions about the project answeredAlternative 1: Support/Do Not Support/Indiffererent79 Web Comment form4/4/2015 n n Email n y NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Looking at the detail of Alternative 1, I have some concerns. Elkhorn goes from a 3 lane 2 way road to a one-way 2 lane road. I do not see that having much benefit with minimizing traffic congestion in the downtown area. What would happen if you make Elkhorn a 3 lane one-way. By doing this the North lane would keep going straight across Moraine. the center and left lane would turn left onto Moraine. That would help on Elkhorn but then will cause trouble at the Donut Hause corner as you have 2 lanes merging into one lane after making the turn west. Moraine would need to to be 3 lanes at a minimum, 2 west one east with the East bound ending at Rockwell st so traffic would have to turn right. Another problem I see is in the afternoon, people leaving the park. I have seen East bound traffic on 36 backed up from town to the 66 junction. What also needs to happen is 36 from at least the Beaver Point area to Crags Dr should become 4 lanes with a turn lane in the center. As it is now it's a real pain to try and turn onto 36 from any number of business located along that stretch of road. What about finding a way to use W Wonder View Ave to help with traffic. Better signage to get people heading to the park to use W Wonder View Ave. and keep Elkhorn the way it is. What about making Elkhorn Ave from Moraine to E Riverside Dr pedestrian only. Then route traffic to W Wonder View Ave and E Riverside Dr. So the real question is do we want to reduce traffic congestion or allow people to window shop while waiting in traffic. My family has been coming to Estes for 40+ years and have seen traffic get worse and worse, something needs to be dune. I don't think the current loop idea will fully fix it.NAyy y80 Web Comment form4/5/2015 y y local conectionsy NA NA NA NA NA NA y distruption of historical, business and residential propertiesI don't feel the town should be getting visitors in and out of town in the fastest possible time, it should be providing an environment to make visitors want to stop and stay longer.I am against the project. I feel it causes more problems than it would ever hope to solve. Give the money back!NA NA NA NA No, I would like to know why the Town of Estes Park has no problem taking out homes and businesses for this project, but saves the post office parking lot for their own purposes.Not Support81 Web Comment form4/5/2015 y n word of mouthnNAyyyNAyNANA NAHaving lived here most of my life I am against the loop project, There are many other ideas that could be implemented before we change our downtown. Start by going back to pedestrian crossing at lights the way it was previously. Second make a turning lane both directions out on hwy 66 as that is where traffic starts to slow down. Third redirect those vehicles that are just going to Rocky out the fall river entrance.fourth encourage the park to get cars through more quickly. We have a beautiful unique downtown and there is no reason to try and rush cars through it..P.S, the horse carriage needs to go. There is no such thing as free money. Any money the government gives is paid through taxes.This is a no brainer. NA NA NA NA NA Not Support82 Web Comment form4/5/2015 y y word of mouthn NA NA NA y NA NA NA NA NAwe need to bring back the all walk cross walks, traffic cops at the intersections, a turning lane from Donut Haus to the Country Market. Does the NP[Rocky Mountain National Park] even want more traffic? It is already hard enough to turn left out of Safeway, extra traffic on bighorn will make it nearly impossible And if traffic signals are the main bottle neck problem, why install another one! I am completely against this project for many reasons. Perhaps the biggest is that it will change the look and feel of our quaint town.NA NA NA NA NA Not Support83 Web Comment form4/5/2015 y y email from the project and from the Towny NA y y y y y Pedestrian safety crossing Moraine and access to residential neighborhoodsFor Alternative 1, the statement that it 'May' lead to out of direction travel is understated. It appears that the impact of out of direction travel is not given the significance that it will likely have for residents, visitors wanting to access areas on West Elkhorn from the many accommodations in the southwest area of town, and the economic impacts to businesses. The comparison of the LOS for intersections under Alternative 1 and No Action is not appropriate as it is based on the assumption that nothing is done to traffic lights and that actions to divert traffic through signage and information do not make any changes to the number of vehicles. None of the alternatives address the issues that feed into the congestion seen within the project area. These include pedestrian traffic, particularly on Moraine, and poor functioning of the 34/36 intersection. Additionally, the problems caused by only one lane going to RMNP don't appear to be acknowledged. The economic considerations for the build alternatives do not appear to consider impacts during the construction period. The impacts of the loss of parking spaces are not included. The fact that some peak period demand may shift to off-peak periods seems to be stated as an adverse impact but may be beneficial for many businesses. Congestion is listed as a discouragement of visitation/shopping. However, parking difficulties are much more likely to discourage shopping. The benefits of build alternative 1 do not appear to outweigh the cost and adverse impacts.Overall, there seems to be a significant amount of subjectivity to the numbers and assumptions used to evaluate the various alternatives. Of particular concern are projecting traffic numbers for the next 25 years and lack of quantification of the amount of out of direction travel that will occur as a result of the one ways. Also, the validity of the amount of improvements in traffic flow is brought into question when traffic outside the project area is not considered and some of the congestion factors such as pedestrians and slow moving vehicles are not addressedNA NA NA NA NA Not Support*NA = No AnswerWeek of March 25-April 8, 2015Page 13 of 18
Downtown Estes Loop Road Alignment ProjectAttachment 1 - Summary of Public Comments ReceivedPublic Comments Received March 25 - April 8, 2015Identifier #Method Comment was receivedDate ReceivedDo you live in the city limitsDo you live, work, or own property along the alignment/study area?How did you hear about meetingAttended previous meetingAlleviate Congestion and Delay Minimize Impact to Existing ParkingImportant Impact to Parks (Yes = 35)Minimize Downtown Economic Impact Accommodation of Bike and Peds Minimize Impact to private right-of-way & need for relocationsOther Important Other (describe)Describe Advantages and Disadvantages Alternatives Presented Other comments on the projectResident Neighborhood NeedsEconomicEnvironmentalFuture participation Multi-ModalQuestions about the project answeredAlternative 1: Support/Do Not Support/Indiffererent84 Web Comment form4/5/2015 n y Everyone in townn NA NA NA NA NA NA y The proposed plan will absolutely ruin this beautiful town's charm. We already have the north bypass which is hardly even used. The alternative route is already there. With proper signage the North bypass could be so easily be utilized as the alternative for this entire ridiculous project. Just expand the north park headquarters to be the main entrance for Estes side of the parkNANANA NA NA NA NA Not Support85 Web Comment form4/5/2015 y y a neighbor n NA NA NA NA y NA NA NA They will bottleneck at Moraine, and therefore NOT be the cure. My suggestion: Do none of the proposedI do suggest a walkway/bike path be established off the roadway along Moraine, from Mary's Lake Road to downtown area. I also suggest the phone company building be given tax incentives to move their operation to somewhere else, and that area be turned into parking or more store-front.NA NA NA NA NA Not Support86 Web Comment form4/6/2015 n n Through the newspapers and comments from those who live in Estes Parkn y y y y y y NA NA Under the PROJECT DESCRIPTION tab the link to PRESENTATION MATERIALS FROM OPEN HOUSES goes to a 404 ERROR PAGE.Note:the project team fixed on 04-06-2015.NANA NA NA NA NA N/A87 Web Comment form4/6/2015 n y Friends n NA NA NA y NA y y Inconvience to everyday life outside the 10 week peak!!!The best alternative is to not mess up what you have. There is an alternative to the downtown path to RMNP. It is an alternative route to the Park via THE LOOP past the Stanley Hotel entrance ( Highway 34). It remains a viable bypass to downtown, that is under utilized and poorly indicated. I've noticed since this issue has arisen, that the foot patrols in summer have stopped directing traffic and the street lights are poorly timed. Go back to one stop for all directions for pedestrian movement. Do not mess up what I moved back to Estes to enjoy. The small town feel of downtown!!!!!Get money from the State for the bridges behind the Post NAice and make up the difference with a special funding. Do not need a highway through down with a bottle neck just past the Donut Haus. Three lanes to one is stupid and is exactly how the out of towners will see it and use it. CONFUSION!!!!!!NA NA NA NA NO! The answer I need is. we ain't doing this!Not Support88 Web email 4/3/2015 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NASee Long Letter Comment - Attachment 2NA NA NA NA NO! The answer I need is. we ain't doing this!Not Support89 Web Email 4/4/2015 n n Through the Town of Estes Park noticesy y NA NA NA y NA NA NA This is complicated. In reading studies conducted in other communities considering one-way couplet there are pros and cons. My own personal experience has been good with one-way couplets in communities large and small. The Downtown Estes Loop study to-date appears to be thorough with metric measurements on variety of components. I was impressed with presentation during the Board Study Session in March. In my opinion there is a serious traffic issue through the downtown corridor and I think this is an opportunity for assistance (experts and funding) in addressing this challenge. While I have heard many people state that people return to Estes Park year after year because it is the same; many people I know have said that they do not come to Estes Park any longer because of traffic and there is nothing new to do and see. However, they will go to the Park avoiding the tourist season. I support the Downtown Estes Loop project alternative one-way couplets and encourage the Town Board to support this. Doing nothing and staying the same is a more risky alternative for Estes Park and its future, with the estimated increase in population along the front range. Denver's growth in population and increase in housing prices are significant and indicates a sophisticated demographic with resources that Estes Park should target. The only way to compete and be successful in attracting new visitors is with change; a progressive plan for the future. Sometimes we just need to take a risk and make bold decisions.... for the future. We know the risks now in loosing guests to other communities; let's please not continue this.NA NA NA NA NA Support*NA = No AnswerWeek of March 25-April 8, 2015Page 14 of 18
Downtown Estes Loop Road Alignment ProjectAttachment 1 - Summary of Public Comments ReceivedPublic Comments Received March 25 - April 8, 2015Identifier #Method Comment was receivedDate ReceivedDo you live in the city limitsDo you live, work, or own property along the alignment/study area?How did you hear about meetingAttended previous meetingAlleviate Congestion and Delay Minimize Impact to Existing ParkingImportant Impact to Parks (Yes = 35)Minimize Downtown Economic Impact Accommodation of Bike and Peds Minimize Impact to private right-of-way & need for relocationsOther Important Other (describe)Describe Advantages and Disadvantages Alternatives Presented Other comments on the projectResident Neighborhood NeedsEconomicEnvironmentalFuture participation Multi-ModalQuestions about the project answeredAlternative 1: Support/Do Not Support/Indiffererent90 Web Email 4/5/2015 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAWe are part-time residents of Estes Park but feel obligated to comment on the proposed one-way couplet. We are opposed. We feel that what is really needed is more parking facilities. Yes, there is a lot of traffic downtown in the summer. A lot of those people are driving around just looking for a parking spot! We talked with a friend who lives in Windsor who told us she had to park in the Safeway parking lot in order to shop downtown. She could find no other space. The site of the Rocky Mountain Performing Arts Center would have been great for an additional parking lot. And, by the way, where are those attendees going to park?NA NA NA NA NA Not Support91 Web Email 4/6/2015 n n Through the newspapers and comments from those who live in Estes ParknNANANANANANANANA NAI don't need you to include the email in public comments.....I just found what I was looking for. But, just FYI that link is broken. BTW, thanks for all the hard work you are doing on this long standing issue. The website was incredibly helpful for me to understand the issues and the proposed solutions. It seems to me that, in the long run, the traffic will only get worse and there will need to be changes. I support the plan that provides the most benefit with the least impact.NA NA NA NA NA Support92 Web Comment form4/6/2015 n n Facebook n NA NA NA y NA NA y Please don't ruin downtown Estes Park with a one-way Elkhorn. Been going to your fair city since I was a child (with my parents), and still go every summer. Planning to celebrate my 60th birthday there this summer with my children and grandchildren. Please don't accept the FLAP project!NANANA NA NA NA NA Not Support93 Web Comment form4/6/2015 y n Local Paper y y NA NA NA y NA NA NA Honestly, the do nothing option seems the most viable if coupled with some other actions: !) town should be able to control the traffic light at W. Elkhorn and Moraine which is a huge bottleneck. 2) the signage at Wonderview and Hwy 34 ( from both the Hwy 34 and Hwy 36 sides should be changed to direct visitors to the park via the Fall River entrance. That entrance should be enlarged, with additional booths to accommodate the additional traffic. Diverting traffic from the Beaver meadows entrance will result in greatly reduced traffic congestion in the downtown area.NANA NA NA NA Not really, what is the status of the CDOT ramp funding?Not Support94 Web Comment Form4/6/2015 y n Newspaper n y y NA y y NA NA NA It seems that the idea of a touristy type of town is to get the people to stop, park and spend money therefore parking should be maximized and expanded for those who want to come to eat or shop. If instead motorists just want to go to the RMNP, then add signage to direct them around the downtown area. Signage at this time is minimal! Directions should be better for entrance to the North entrance.Widening Riverside to three or four lanes seems counter productive. Losing valuable park space, rebuilding and widening bridges, widening the roadway and relocating a number of residential and business places is not necessary.y y y y No, I was out of town and unable to attend. Please add me to your mailing list.Not Support95 Hotline 4/7/2015 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAI'm opposed to the Loop plan. I think you should leave it as it is.It will be difficult for people on this on the hill course. To get out to Morain but possible. I don't think it's our responsibililty to town to new facilitate people getting into the park. Thats their responsiblility. Our responsiblilty of the Town is to the people who live there in the Town, to provide the highest levels of service. Thank you. NA NA NA NA NA Not Support96 Email to Town4/6/2015 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NASee Long Letter Comment - Attachment 2NA NA NA NA NA Not Support*NA = No AnswerWeek of March 25-April 8, 2015Page 15 of 18
Downtown Estes Loop Road Alignment ProjectAttachment 1 - Summary of Public Comments ReceivedPublic Comments Received March 25 - April 8, 2015Identifier #Method Comment was receivedDate ReceivedDo you live in the city limitsDo you live, work, or own property along the alignment/study area?How did you hear about meetingAttended previous meetingAlleviate Congestion and Delay Minimize Impact to Existing ParkingImportant Impact to Parks (Yes = 35)Minimize Downtown Economic Impact Accommodation of Bike and Peds Minimize Impact to private right-of-way & need for relocationsOther Important Other (describe)Describe Advantages and Disadvantages Alternatives Presented Other comments on the projectResident Neighborhood NeedsEconomicEnvironmentalFuture participation Multi-ModalQuestions about the project answeredAlternative 1: Support/Do Not Support/Indiffererent97 Email Comment4/6/2015 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAAfter reviewing the information on the downtown loop website, we support "no action" on the proposed downtown traffic loop. While we appreciate the intent and the effort behind on the project, we believe that the solution is equal to, or possibly worse than, the existing problem of congestion. Everything has a cost. It is our belief that the downtown loop would be most costly to residents, while of limited benefit to visitors. The current situation of traffic congestion is not going to appreciably change, even with the downtown loop. Our town is small, and peak months will inevitably involve heavy traffic all over town. We believe that tolerance of slow-moving traffic through the canyons approaching town, and in town itself, is one of the costs that visitors must pay to visit this remote and scenic area. Similarly, as full-time residents and homeowners in Estes Park, we accept that noise and traffic congestion increase for a few months every year. It is part of the cost of living in this beautiful location. NA NA NA NA NA Not Support98 Email Comment4/6/2015 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAAfter reading the information about the Downtown Loop, I am firmly in favor of the Alt. 1. It would obviously mitigate downtown congestion and pollution. Adding the bike lanes would be a major benefit.I understand the reluctance some may have to any change, but these changes seem inevitable and we should do them now while we have access to grant money. Being able to improve the bridges now is just one more benefit.NA NA NA NA NA Support99 Email Comment4/6/2015 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAI have read the information online regarding the Downtown Loop, and I am definitely in favor of Alternative 1. As a downtown resident, I would appreciate a reduction in downtown congestion and the pollution from idling cars. Adding the bike lanes would be a major benefit, as there is now no viable way to bike through town. We need to be proactive and make these changes now while we have access to funding. Utilizing grant funding to improve the bridges at the same time is also important. The "do nothing" option just puts off necessary changes - the congestion will only get worse.NA NA NA NA NA Support100 Web Comment form4/8/2015 n n Newspaper n NA NA NA NA NA NA y Keep the roads as they are! Do nothing!I will only write about alternative 1 since that is the one the town board accepted. The biggest detriment is the destuction of homes and businesses. This is devastating to the people involved! Riverside Dr. is a quaint, quiet drive which would forever be changed. Preservation before destruction. Another concern is the effect on the businesses downtown. I think the consensus of business owners is a fear of negative economic impact. All Estes Park residents need the tourist tax $. I just don't believe that making a one-way loop with 2 lanes is going to solve the traffic problem. If the main reason to create this loop is to get visitors to the park as quickly as possible, why not direct them to Wonderview and the Fall River entrance? This approach should at least be tried before the drastic bulldozing of Riverside Drive. Finally, I believe creating a one-way loop with 2 lanes each way will cause more accidents. Motorists will realize they are in the wrong lane and cut in front of others causing accidents. The only benefit to this project is getting 3 free bridges. I have a suspicion that will be the reason the town board sticks with alternative one.NA NA y NA I didn't ask any questions. I don't hink people who asked questions wee very satisfied with answers.Not Support101 4/8/2015 y n Estes Park Trail Gazetten Please don't do Concept 2. This willl take away Estes Park's small town charm and will actually increase traffic. Part of what makes Estes Park charming is that it is not a commercialized touristy town. Estes is peaceful and focused on its natural surroundings instead of roads and cars and traffic. As soon as you increase roads to 2 lanes, more stores will pop up and I don't want to see Estes become like Pigeon Forge, TN.How about diverting traffic to the other park entrance (Fall River Road Hwy 34) or another idea would be to bring traffic to the Beaver Meadows (Hwy 36) entrance. By expanding Elm Rd so it connects 34 to 36, so visitiors who want to go straight to the Park, can bypass downtown. NA NA NA NA Small Town Charm102 Email Comment4/3/2015 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NASee Long Letter Comment - Attachment 2NA NA NA NA NA Not Support103 Web email 4/8/2015 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAWe own a condo at 649 Park River Place and would like to be in the loop as to what happens. We are not full- time residents at this time so cannot attend meetings.Thanks very much for your help.NA NA NA NA NA Request104 Web email 4/8/2015 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAI have not attended any meetings, but have kept informed about the Downtown Estes Loop Project. I urge the town to move forward with the original plan or any of the alternatives.I am against "no action". Our town needs improved traffic flow and bridge improvements. We can not let this grant opportunity pass us by!Thank you for your time and hard work on this project,NA NA NA NA NA Support*NA = No AnswerWeek of March 25-April 8, 2015Page 16 of 18
Downtown Estes Loop Road Alignment ProjectAttachment 1 - Summary of Public Comments ReceivedPublic Comments Received March 25 - April 8, 2015Identifier #Method Comment was receivedDate ReceivedDo you live in the city limitsDo you live, work, or own property along the alignment/study area?How did you hear about meetingAttended previous meetingAlleviate Congestion and Delay Minimize Impact to Existing ParkingImportant Impact to Parks (Yes = 35)Minimize Downtown Economic Impact Accommodation of Bike and Peds Minimize Impact to private right-of-way & need for relocationsOther Important Other (describe)Describe Advantages and Disadvantages Alternatives Presented Other comments on the projectResident Neighborhood NeedsEconomicEnvironmentalFuture participation Multi-ModalQuestions about the project answeredAlternative 1: Support/Do Not Support/Indiffererent105 Letter 4/7/2015 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAI am a downtown Estes Park business owner. I have a business partner that wants to divert potential customers and bypass our establishment for easier access to federal lands; where more visitation causes a negative environmental impact to wildlife and habitat, according to their studies.In addition, my business partner also wants to permanently restrict my freedom of mobility and direction to resolve a 40 day problem . This could be addressed with common sense and less expense.In return, my business partner receives supposedly free money from a third party with strings attached.I would dissolve this partnership immediately if I could; but I can't.So...my recommendation to my business partner is to quit trying to chase so called 'free' money and try to earn it like the rest of us have to do.Solution......Build a VISABLE DOWNTOWN PARKING GARAGE that will generate revenue.NA NA NA NA NA Not Support106 Website Comment4/7/2015 y ndowntownestesloop.comn y y y y y y y To keep the nostalgia of downtown Estes and the traffic pattern the sameAfter looking at these proposed changes for some time now, I can not see any advantages and plenty of disadvantages... i.e. A vehicle coming into town from RMNP on 36 and wanting to get to the west end of Elkhorn Ave and then head to another destination on east Elkhorn Ave will have to actually loop counter clockwise back through town to head west on Elkhorn Ave. then drive the loop again... Result: One vehicle, two destinations, two round trips on the proposed loop.... Doubling Traffic...! there are many many more examplesA FlyOver for both 34/36 heading west to RMNP's south entrance and traffic heading east from the south entrance to the eastside of town. A raised two lane (each direction) with sidewalks between the visitor center area on the east and just past the bakery.NA NA NA NA NA Not Support107 Website Comment4/7/2015 n n Town emailNewspapery y y NA NA y NA y Use this as an opportunity to improve the downtown environment by increasing visibility and use of the rivers. These are key assets of the town that are often put low on the priority list.I agree with the assessment that Alternative 1 makes the most sense and provides the most opportunity for preserving the value of the riverfront areas, while making some improvement in traffic flow. Doing nothing deprives the town of the funds to build new bridges, which are essential to any downtown improvement.The proposal needs more attention to what the change in road design can do to improve use of the downtown area other than simply moving vehicles through it. More work should be devoted to improving the parks and walking and bicycle paths along Riverside Drive, and these improvements should offset the numerous decrements (parking, size of parks, ease of getting around town) necessitated by any change to the roads. The plan needs to create reasons for visitors to get out of their cars and spend money in the town. All that this plan does is make it easier for visitors to go through town, while reducing the opportunities for them to park. This plan also needs to be integrated into greater downtown planning, at least to the point of not precluding some other significant action - e.g., the best location for a parking structure is Piccadilly Square, which could anchor tourist access to the downtown if there were easy, safe and pleasant walking an tram paths to the Elkhorn area. Also think about moving the post office to remove the congestion caused by having this essential facility in the center of where parking is currently most needed (relocate to the new parking structure or community center if ever built), then redesigning the current Riverside and Rockwell lots to provide a strip park along the two rivers), and linking the Elkhorn area to a parking structure at Piccadilly Square. Be careful that the opportunity to obtain grant money for this immediate change in traffic flow does not prevent even better and larger plans from ever being possible.NA NA NA y Most. But the bigger picture has still not been addressedSupport108 Website Comment4/7/2015 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NASee Long Letter Comment - Attachment 2NA NA NA NA NA Support109 Website Comment4/8/2015 y n After the fact in the Estes Park Newsn NA NA NA NA NA NA y Destruction of the character of Estes ParkWe see no advantages to this project. We realize that the town needs to progress. However, progress should not be made at the expense of the very soul of the town. There is already a bypass to access the park. We feel that dollar signs are the driving force for even presenting this project. We need to maintain the essence of Estes not destr0y itIs there ever any consideration given to those of us who live here year round or are visitors the primary and only focus?Is there ever any consideration given to those of us who live here year round or are visitors the primary and only focus?NA NA NA NA NA Not Support*NA = No AnswerWeek of March 25-April 8, 2015Page 17 of 18
Downtown Estes Loop Road Alignment ProjectAttachment 1 - Summary of Public Comments ReceivedPublic Comments Received March 25 - April 8, 2015Identifier #Method Comment was receivedDate ReceivedDo you live in the city limitsDo you live, work, or own property along the alignment/study area?How did you hear about meetingAttended previous meetingAlleviate Congestion and Delay Minimize Impact to Existing ParkingImportant Impact to Parks (Yes = 35)Minimize Downtown Economic Impact Accommodation of Bike and Peds Minimize Impact to private right-of-way & need for relocationsOther Important Other (describe)Describe Advantages and Disadvantages Alternatives Presented Other comments on the projectResident Neighborhood NeedsEconomicEnvironmentalFuture participation Multi-ModalQuestions about the project answeredAlternative 1: Support/Do Not Support/Indiffererent110 Website Comment4/8/2015 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAI do not have property directly impacted by the loop but as owner of Stanley Village I am concerned about the management of our town's resources. As a second generation business person and a former town planner and public works director I have seen lots of change. One thing I am certain of is that getting people past your door faster does not increase business. Near by parking does.Trying to get people through town faster is not a new idea. It first came up in the 1950's and resulted in the building of the Wonderview Bypass in 1958. This was a very controversial project with the down town merchants fearful that it would kill down town. The town agreed to not allow commercial development to occur along it and it has functioned as designed for more than 50 years. The central idea was to provide a means for those with no interest shopping and just wanting to get to the park a means to do so and allow down town to be a slow traffic/pedestrian shopping environment. The Moccasin Circle Bypass augmented the idea on the south side.I believe that people wanting to get to the other side of town quickly have reasonable alternatives now even though spur 66 does get jammed up eastbound. This could be helped by signage inside RMNP and improvement to Moccasin Circle.I think this loop would decrease business in many locations and see no way that it will increase business. This is especially true with no increase in adjacent parking.NA NA NA NA NA Not Support*NA = No AnswerWeek of March 25-April 8, 2015Page 18 of 18
ATTACHMENT 2 – LONG LETTER PUBLIC COMMENTS (As noted in Attachment 1)
Downtown Estes Loop Road Alignment ProjectAttachment 2 - Long Letter CommentsPublic Comments Received March 25 - April 8, 2015 (Long Letters)Identifier #Method Comment was receivedDateReceivedAlternative 1:Support/Do Not Support/Indiffererent4Forward email3/25/2015Support68Forward email4/1/2015Not SupportCommentMy wife and I went to the town meeting at the event center on the proposed downtown Estes Park loop. We were glad to see the team involved in the project have made an attempt to not only include public comment, but took that input very seriously. Within the guidelines of the federal rules and regulations, they truly seem to have the towns best interest up front. There were many good, valid comments and questions raised by those who came to the meeting. Some very thoughtful concerns that the team listened to and showed honest concern for and made an attempt to ensure the speakers their concerns are taken seriously and will be included when and where possible in the planning process. What was disappointing was the number of people who were seemingly there with one purpose, to just publicly state their disapproval of the project in whole and ridicule, even what seemed at times bully the project team. Many did not seem to truly listen to or try to understand the project process, plans, limitations both logistically and financially... the timing of it all... the window of opportunity that the town is attempting to take advantage of. An example was a friend who complained about “where do they get the growth numbers from”. That person claimed to not see any growth in town in many years. That after the same person also attended the National Park presentation at the library sponsored by the League of Womens Voters. There the park showed the steady growth in visitation over the years, and their increased projections for the future. Why agree, accept the statistics from the park then dispute very similar numbers from the project team? It was fairly obvious that a large number of those who oppose the project were present at the town meeting. It appears they just don't want anything to change and will ignore the facts, the honest attempts to do something positive for the town. The fact there is no master plan does not help. But even if/when there is a master plan I am pretty sure these same people will be against that as well. The fact is, the town was not built with a plan in mind in the first place. It was not “designed” at all. It came about over time. The increasing visitation is beyond pushing the capabilities of the town as it is today. Any change that will bring the town into the future will unfortunately mean disruption for some. That is a fact that cannot be avoided. The fact that Mr Lancaster repeatedly has said there will be fair and adequate compensation seems to be falling on deaf ears. There were even a couple attempts to get a straw poll, a public “vote” as to whether the project should be continued or not. Even after Mr Lancaster explained the purpose of the meeting, more than once. I will grant they were somewhat respectful in the way they spoke, but it really just seemed to be an angry mob intimidating the project team and members of the community who disagree with them. What the people of the town need to realize is what appears to me to be a minority in this case are attempting to strong-arm their way. I may be wrong, I hope so, but I don't think I am. With that in mind I urge everyone to weigh in their opinion on the plan website at http://downtownestesloop.com/contact-us. If those who support the loop project do not express their support, there is a good chance those who oppose it, a few of which have valid concerns, will circumvent due process to get their way and stop the project all together. I believe this would be a bad choice for the future of the town. And some words of advice. Want to be heard? Learn to listen. Want others to care? Learn to care about others. Want to be treated with respect? Learn to treat others with respect. Want truth and honesty? Learn to research the facts and separate fact from opinion. Be honest and admit you don’t know what you don’t know and admit when you make mistakes. We are all human. No one knows everything and we all make mistakes. Please participate regardless of whether you support the project or not! As the owners of two downtown businesses, owners of downtown and other properties, and 30 year residents of Estes Park, we felt the duty to write and express our opinions regarding the heavily contentious “loop” project. First off, we would like to thank you for serving the community in the way you do. We realize that on nearly every matter that you decide, there are always two vastly different opinions that must be carefully weighed prior to taking a stance. In regards to the loop, the overwhelming stance taken by downtown business and property owners seems to be that the project potentially could be detrimental to the health and survival of the downtown business community. While it is also easy to see the upside of the “free money” available to our town to assist with traffic flow and bridge construction, we definitely feel that the risks of the project outweigh the benefits. It is obvious to all of us that the bridges need replaced and downtown areas are constantly in need of being revitalized to keep the town vibrant and viable, but just because there is an opportunity it does not mean that it is the right way. We definitely feel that not only the construction process, but the general idea of the downtown business loop will be negative to the one steady income that the town can rely on – sales tax. The idea that we want to get people through downtown fast so they can make it to the park and by avoiding downtown entirely on the way out of the park goes against everything we try to do every day of the year. We know that everyone is sick of hearing about the desperate need for downtown parking, but it will still remain this towns biggest downfall without something happening to fix it. We also understand the argument that we are putting the cart before the horse because we have money for a cart, but not for the horse. The problem that we see is that nobody really wants the cart at all, and if that means giving back the money for it then so be it. We ask that you take while deliberating this project, you try to see it through the eyes of the people that it truly effects- downtown business and property owners.Week of March 25-April 8, 2015Page 1 of 5
Downtown Estes Loop Road Alignment ProjectAttachment 2 - Long Letter CommentsPublic Comments Received March 25 - April 8, 2015 (Long Letters)Identifier #Method Comment was receivedDateReceivedAlternative 1:Support/Do Not Support/IndiffererentComment88Not SupportThe Downtown Estes Loop Project is required to improve access to Rocky Mountain National Park without causing environmental and other problems for the Park and the Town of Estes Park. The accumulative effects of this project must be taken into account: 1) Traffic Congestion. The main road, Elkhorn Avenue (Hwy 36), which goes straight through the middle of Town is where the biggest traffic problem exists. Moving more traffic quickly through town will encourage more people to drive to RMNP. Most will not take shuttles from outlying parking facilities. Increasing the flow of traffic on Elkhorn Avenue will increase noise and exhaust, making it unpleasant for pedestrians on the sidewalks. The distance between the shops across Elkhorn Avenue which allow for car, bus, truck, and RV traffic cannot be increased from what currently exists, unless we want to tear down the businesses. That obviously is not an option. Cyclists want to have a bike lane on Elkhorn Avenue through Town. This would add further to the traffic congestion and safety problems. They want to be able to access the shops along the Riverwalk. They would be better off asking for a path on East Riverside Drive out to Moraine Avenue to Rocky Mountain National Park. The would pass the Riverwalk and could park bikes there to shop. This would not even require FLAP grant money, but "Help Preserve Open Space" funds could be used. 2) Change of Town Character. The Downtown Estes Loop Project will make significant changes to our Town’s character. The road will not stay the same width all along West Riverside as indicated in the grant application. Very old, large trees along West Riverside Drive will be removed to allow traffic to flow. These trees shade the park at Ivy Street and West Riverside Drive. Also a significant portion of this park along Ivy Street from West Riverside Drive to East Riverside Drive will be removed to accommodate traffic. This is a beautiful area of this small park. There are a lot of Aspen trees, a picnic table, a bear proof trash container and a bridge that will be removed. The park will be ruined. Removing the trees will make the park smaller, no longer shady, and ugly. People walk their dogs, picnic, and jog through this park. The river flows all along the East side of this park. This is an area where elk calve as well. Tourists come to Estes Park to see wildlife in their natural setting. I have a picture of a cow elk nursing her newborn calf at the side of West Riverside Drive. The businesses and older homes will lose the peacefulness of this area. Misty Mountain Lodge at the corner of Ivy Street and East Riverside Drive will have car headlights glaring directly into the property. My visiting family members stayed there in August of 2013. They loved its comfort, charm, location and the owners. The Loop project will ruin the Misty Mountain Lodge business. The traffic alone will turn that area from a charming, quiet place, into a noisy ugly area of Town. I also believe the rock wall behind homes and businesses on East Riverside Drive will echo the sound caused by traffic heading East on Ivy Street. The FLAP grant is for better access to Rocky Mountain National Park and it should not be used to make Estes Park less appealing. 3) Noise, Air, and Water Pollution. Rocky Mountain National Park already has approximately 3,500,000 visitors each year. There is no way to require pollution control devices on vehicles that come to Estes Park and RMNP. Pollution control devices on vehicles do not work properly at high altitude of 7500 feet and higher. The newer shuttle buses are addressing this problem, but they are still limited in effectiveness. Cars will still be idling when they must stop at the intersections of Elkhorn and Moraine Avenues and at ElkhornAvenue and Riverside Drive to allow pedestrians to cross these streets. Air pollution and noise are a big problem along Elkhorn Avenue from July through September. Rocky Mountain National Park is mitigating the nitrogen pollution, but other emissions are affecting fish, plants, and other wildlife in and on the way to the Park. 4) Safety Issues. I am told people get out of their cars while stopped on Elkhorn Ave. to see the shops. Some shop owners like cars traveling through town, because they say attention is drawn to their businesses. That kind of behavior is a traffic hazard. Will there be a bottleneck as cars turn into one lane heading West on Moraine Avenue headed for Rocky Mountain National Park? Bikers on Elkhorn Avenue would be another distraction and hazard. Estes Park does not need millions of dollars to fix some of its problems. Wecan make small changes to keep people safe. 5) Intersection Changes. How will pedestrian and motor traffic at the intersection of Park Lane/Riverside Drive and Elkhorn Avenue be regulated? That intersection is at Bond Park, where there will be heavy traffic. Will traffic on Big Horn Drive coming from Wonderview Avenue be able to cross Elkhorn Avenue and go out Moraine Avenue as is presently the case? Residents use Bighorn Drive to get across town during tourist season without having to drive on Elkhorn Avenue. 6) Other Options. The Town of Estes Park has not considered some other options to solve our problems, because it would not receive FLAP grant money for those solutions. There is a lot of interest in closing off Elkhorn Avenue from Riverside Drive to Moraine Avenue creating a walking mall. Shuttles would bring people to the mall, and there would be less traffic congestion, and less air and noise pollution. People could still park at the Riverwalk, off Moraine Avenue, on Mac Gregor Avenue, in the library parking lot, etc. Nor have we directed two lanes of traffic from Hwys 34 and 36 out Wonderview (34 bypass) to RMNP. One lane from Hwy 36 could turn left onto Elkhorn Ave. through Town and one lane on Hwy 34 could continue straight on Elkhorn through Town. Signage could direct traffic to the North Entrance to RMNP when too much traffic was headed to the South Entrance. People come here to enjoy the mountains and especially RMNP. They would not suffer being required to drive further within the Park to exit the way they entered at the North Entrance, because it's a beautiful drive. Better yet, use shuttles to cut down significantly on air pollution. Just going to the South entrance and up to Bear Lake, visitors miss seeing other areas of the Park that they would enjoy. From the North exit visitors can come back to Town via Wonderview (34 bypass) to West Elkhorn Avenue and they can eat in the restaurants and shop in the stores in Town. Signage near the intersection of Wonderview and West Elkhorn Avenue would alert visitors that there is a Town with a Riverwalk, shops, restaurants, spas, realtors, town parks, art galleries, a library, museum and events. We should not be forced to do the Downtown Estes Loop Project because our community was not given an opportunity to understand the proposal before it was submitted by the Town. This project will make major changes to the character of the Town. It will take an entire summer to test other options. We should take time to look at all the options so we do not have regrets later on. Once the FLAP grant changes are made it will be too late to choose other options. And we shouldn't divert traffic out Wonderview in addition to having the Downtown Loop. Less is more! 7) Project Effects. The accumulative effects of this Project will impact Estes Park in a negative way. It is embarrassing, but this project will not solve our Town’s pedestrian and vehicle congestion problem or be a good, problem-free solution for access to Rocky Mountain National Park. No Downtown Loop Project should be the option. Please enter my comments into the Public Record. Web email 4/3/2015Week of March 25-April 8, 2015Page 2 of 5
Downtown Estes Loop Road Alignment ProjectAttachment 2 - Long Letter CommentsPublic Comments Received March 25 - April 8, 2015 (Long Letters)Identifier #Method Comment was receivedDateReceivedAlternative 1:Support/Do Not Support/IndiffererentComment964/6/2015Email to TownNot SupportHi Ron, Sorry to only be in touch with you on hot topics - you have been a great source of support during my own 'political ventures' and I so often appreciate knowing that you are representing me in the face of important but many times unappreciated local issues. Until about 1 1/2 weeks ago I was eager to learn more about this FLAP project, and try to make a decision for myself if it seemed right for Estes. I didn't have enough information to make that decision, but I had some real concerns about the process, and the perception that I had, was that public comment was merely a formality. I tested that theory on March 25th when I officially requested of the Town Clerk, any public comment received by the Trustees, Town Staff, or from any of the public open houses or other sessions. I was astounded when Cyd told me that the Town was not the custodian of that information, and did not have anything to provide me. This alone told me the process was either very broken, or had been engineered as I suspected, to receive public comments but not seriously consider it. I still find it difficult to believe that there was no public comment in the Towns custody as of March 25th. After meeting with Greg Muhonen (who I trust and think is a great man), and the public meeting at the fairgrounds, I came to the decision that this project is not right for Estes Park, today. I do understand the need for capital to fund infrastructure development, and I do understand that it's money in the bank, and I do hear the argument that if this money is refused, future funding may be in jeopardy. What I do not understand is the way this FLAP proposal has played out, originally a congestion solution, then I heard it was really about getting funding for 3 bridges and an intersection, and now the reason causing the most attention, alarm and potentially support for the project is the threat of flooding! Shame on the person who decided to use that tactic to try and justify this project. After repeated public concern, rising public awareness and unanswered questions, a disastrous public meeting at the fairgrounds, and now a rapidly growing group of residents and visitors that after their own due diligence are telling the Trustees to hold off and take No Action on the Loop! Ron, this is not the right timing, sequence or grant for this drastic of a change to the downtown area, which will impact the entire community in the next few years. Of course I know that the Trustees probably have other privileged information about this project- but that information does not matter if the overwhelming sentiment of the people you represent is that they do not want the character of Estes Park to change in exchange for some infrastructure and as a result of a downtown bypass. After listening to a few that are loudly advocating for the FLAP project - I find that they are largely residents of short terms who have made their way into positions that they can speak loudly to groups - and while I acknowledge that there is no seniority in democracy, I personally would rather consider the humble voice of a resident that has lived here more than half their life, or for generations- because they have a perspective of what Estes Park is behind the glossy brochure. That true perspective of Estes Park is what makes it so attractive for each of us that lives here, and carries the glossy brochure marketing that is based on a strong community and history. Another potential cost of this action is the segment of our visitors that return year after year after year through generations because Estes HAS stayed the same. That segment (and their descendants) in my estimation is more valuable than a new face passing through to RMNP. There are many strong words that describe my feelings about your upcoming decision, but I hope that you hear just this one: Unconscionable. This is the biggest decision for this community in decades. Your decision will determine the lives of hundreds of people that have their life savings and hearts on the line to make this community work. Please, step back from the Town Staff, the Town Hall, the system that you are undeniably part of and remember when you took the oath for this position, why you sacrificed yourself to this cause. Your perspective has changed from the day you started and I really hope that you take that step back so that you can see what us regular folks are trying so hard to point out, before it's too late. I would like to speak with you by phone before the end of the week. Please pick a time that's convenient for you and call me, I promise not to take up too much time- but I'd like to hear your perspective from your mouth. Anytime, day or night, I will keep my phone available. Thank you for your service. I appreciate that it's difficult and thankless many days- and even though this issue may become more difficult in the days ahead. I hope not, and I hope that our town leaders will advocate for us in the difficult position you are in. My best, Mark PS: Please take the opportunity to read just some of the comments from folks around the world that love our town, that have been cut and pasted to this page: http://www.estestruth.org/Community-Voices.php . There are some other very important pieces of information that have been collected on this site that are worthy of your attention as well, especially regarding the negative impact one-way streets have on small town businesses, and the trend to switch back to two way after many communities suffered through the one way experiment.Week of March 25-April 8, 2015Page 3 of 5
Downtown Estes Loop Road Alignment ProjectAttachment 2 - Long Letter CommentsPublic Comments Received March 25 - April 8, 2015 (Long Letters)Identifier #Method Comment was receivedDateReceivedAlternative 1:Support/Do Not Support/IndiffererentComment102Email to FHWA4/3/2015Not Supportbecause our community was not given an opportunity to understand the proposal before it was submitted by the Town of Estes Park. This project will make major changes to the character of the Town. It will take an entire summer to test other options. We should take time to look at all the options so we do not have regrets later on. Once the FLAP grant changes are made it will be too late to choose other options. 7) Project Effects. The accumulative effects of this Project will impact Estes Park in a negative way. It is embarrassing, but this project will not solve our Town’s pedestrian and vehicle congestion problem or be a good, problem-free solution for access to Rocky Mountain National Park.Re: Federal Lands Access Project Grant for Downtown Estes Loop, Town of Estes Park, Colorado There are several concerns that NEPA standards are not being followed by the Federal Lands Access Project for the Downtown Estes Loop in Estes Park, Colorado. The project is required to improve access to Rocky Mountain National Park without causing environmental and other problems for the Park and the Town of Estes Park. The accumulative effects of this project must be taken into account:1) Traffic Congestion. The main road, Elkhorn Avenue (Hwy 36), which goes straight through the middle of the Town of Estes Park is where the biggest traffic problem exists. Moving more traffic quickly through town will encourage more people to drive to RMNP. Most will not take shuttles from outlying parking facilities. Increasing the flow of traffic on Elkhorn Avenue will increase noise and exhaust, making it unpleasant for pedestrians on the sidewalks. The distance between the shops across Elkhorn Avenue which allow for car, bus, truck, and RV traffic cannot be increased from what currently exists, unless we want to tear down the businesses. That obviously is not an option. Cyclists want to have a bike lane on Elkhorn Avenue through Town. This would add further to the traffic congestion and safety problems. The bikers would be better off using a path on East Riverside Drive out to Moraine Avenue to Rocky Mountain National Park. 2) Change of Town Character. The Downtown Estes Loop Project will make significant changes to our Town’s character. The road will not stay the same width all along West Riverside as indicated in the grant application. Very old, large trees along West Riverside Drive will be removed to allow traffic to flow. These trees shade the park at Ivy Street and West Riverside Drive. The businesses and older homes will lose the peacefulness of this area. Misty Mountain Lodge at the corner of Ivy Street and East Riverside Drive will have car headlights glaring directly into the property. My visiting family members stayed there in August of 2013. They loved its comfort, charm, location and the owners. The Loop project will ruin the Misty Mountain Lodge business. The traffic alone will turn that area from a charming, quiet place, into a noisy ugly area of Town. I also believe the rock wall behind homes and businesses on East Riverside Drive will echo the sound caused by traffic heading East on Ivy Street. The FLAP grant is for better access to Rocky Mountain National Park and it should not be used to make Estes Park less appealing. 3) Noise, Air, and Water Pollution. Rocky Mountain National Park already has approximately 3,500,000 visitors each year. There is no way to require pollution control devices on vehicles that come to Estes Park and RMNP. Pollution control devices on vehicles do not work properly at high altitude of 7500 feet and higher. The newer shuttle buses are addressing this problem, but they are still limited in effectiveness. Cars will still be idling when they must stop at the intersections of Elkhorn and Moraine Avenues and at Elkhorn Avenue and RiversideDrive to allow pedestrians to cross these streets. Air pollution and noise are a big problem along Elkhorn Avenue from July through September. Rocky Mountain National Park is mitigating the nitrogen pollution, but other emissions are affecting fish, plants, and other wildlife in and on the way to the Park. 4) Safety Issues. I am told people get out of their cars while stopped on Elkhorn Ave. to see the shops. Some shop owners like cars traveling through town, because they say attention is drawn to their businesses. That kind of behavior is a traffic hazard. Will there be a bottleneck as cars turn into one lane heading West on Moraine Avenue headed for Rocky Mountain National Park? Bikers on Elkhorn Avenue would be another distraction and hazard. Estes Park does not need millions of dollars to fix some of its problems. We can make small changes to keep people safe. Will there be a bottleneck as cars turn into one lane heading West on Moraine Avenue headed for Rocky Mountain National Park? 5) Intersection Changes. How will pedestrian and motor traffic at the intersection of Park Lane/Riverside Drive and Elkhorn Avenue be regulated? That intersection is at Bond Park, where there will be heavy traffic. Will traffic on Big Horn Drive coming from Wonderview Avenue be able to cross Elkhorn Avenue and go out Moraine Avenue as is presently the case? Residents use Bighorn Drive to get across town during tourist season without having to drive on Elkhorn Avenue. 6) Other Options. The Town of Estes Park has not considered some other options to solve our problems, because it would not receive FLAP grant money for those solutions. There is an interest in closing off Elkhorn Avenue from Riverside Drive to Moraine Avenue creating a walking mall. Shuttles would bring people to the mall, and there would be less traffic congestion. People could still park at the Riverwalk, off Moraine Avenue, on Mac Gregor Avenue, in the library parking lot, etc. Nor have we tried directing two lanes of traffic from Hwys 34 and 36 out Wonderview (34 bypass) to RMNP. One lane from Hwy 36 could turn left onto Elkhorn Ave. through Town and one lane on Hwy 34 could continue straight on Elkhorn through Town. Signage could direct traffic to the North Entrance to RMNP when too much traffic was headed to the South Entrance. People come here to enjoy the mountains and especially RMNP. They would not suffer being required to drive further within the Park to exit the way they entered at the North Entrance, because it's a beautiful drive. Just going to the South entrance and up to Bear Lake, they often miss seeing other areas of the Park that they would enjoy. From the North exit visitors can come back to Town via Wonderview (34 bypass) to West Elkhorn Avenue and they can eat in the restaurants and shop in the stores in Town. Signage near the intersection of Wonderview and West Elkhorn Avenue would show them that there is a Town with a Riverwalk, shops, restaurants, spas, realtors, town parks, art galleries, a library, museum and events. We should not be forced to do the Downtown Estes Loop Project Week of March 25-April 8, 2015Page 4 of 5
Downtown Estes Loop Road Alignment ProjectAttachment 2 - Long Letter CommentsPublic Comments Received March 25 - April 8, 2015 (Long Letters)Identifier #Method Comment was receivedDateReceivedAlternative 1:Support/Do Not Support/IndiffererentComment107Website Comment4/7/2015SupportLetter to the Editor:Estes Loop - A reconfiguration of the downtown highwaysDuring the last Estes Loop Meeting held at the events center, I asked the question “How should I feel about this?” I explained, in short the decision by the Board to pursue the grant based on a route they choose to be the best, with the information available. Then the public meetings and a multitude of options came out in the following months with a final analysis of the only affordable choice is the one-way couplets. The only other choice was do nothing and pay the piper the price of no action. I have been involved in as many committees and meeting pertaining to this project as I could afford to be and still maintain my full time working life. The answer to my question came at the end of the meeting, on a one on one, and that was, “You should feel frustrated and confused”. Well I have struggled with the decision to support the only choice of one-way couplets or no action. I pride myself in being “community-minded leader” rather than a “what’s in it for me person”. A leader doesn’t take a non-committal role when dealing with issues of public concern. My dad is an old school guy and some of the best advice he ever gave me was to use a pro’s and con’s list when trying to make tough decisions. I have tried to use this method in making my own assessment of the Estes Loop project. In December 2014, I went on the record for supporting the two way couplet, as has CDOT, rather than the one-way couplet because of the available options it allows us. Below is my conclusion printed in the newspaper: Conclusion:For years visitors have told us that we have a traffic problem, and now is the time, thanks to the availability of funds and the help of CDOT, to do something about it. In my opinion, Concept 2 is the best choice for our community. It doesn’t impact the streets in front of our stores, it doesn’t divert returning traffic away from downtown, removes traffic that wasn’t going downtown anyway, improves Riverside and eliminates the dangerous intersection at Moraine and RiversideI served on the Transportation Visioning Committee, which as a citizen’s group, came up with several options to reduce downtown traffic congestion. I have listened and discussed this project with people who are in favor of the project as is, those that are in favor of no action and those that want a different option. Most decisions come with emotion and unfortunately they don’t always yield the best results.Using the old pro’s and con’s approach, I have come up with a similar conclusion. We must continue the NEPA Study and move to affirm the Town Boards original grant application.Pros:1) Traffic congestion will be reduced- Riverside/Elkhorn and Moraine/Riverside intersections improved2) Visitor experience will be enhanced and we will be more desirable to visit3) Visitor and resident safety will be increased on Elkhorn, Moraine and Riverside4) A third bridge has been included in the project helping to mitigate the flood potential.5) Completion of the Riverwalk, improving commercial properties in that area6) The roads Elkhorn, Moraine and Riverside will finally be repaved and restriped7) The (unfunded) next phase is a Transit Parking Structure-which all of the Trustee insisted on including in this grant applicationCons:1) The great unknown of how this will actually impact local businesses in the downtown area2) We do not have the option of closing East Elkhorn for a pedestrian mall 3) The left turn for people going back through downtown may be problematic causing stacking issues4) East Elkhorn has no east bound traffic in front of their storesIn my personal opinion, we have no better choice than to move forward with this project.The decision is not mine to make but as a voting informed citizen I am confidence our Town Trustees will make the best decision for the community. I will support their decision and continue to work with my fellow citizens, business associates and the Town for the betterment of the community of Estes Park.Week of March 25-April 8, 2015Page 5 of 5
ATTACHMENT 3 – PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED BY TOWN TRUSTEES (Forwarded to Project Team)
Downtown Estes Loop Road Alignment ProjectAttachment 3 - Comments sent to TrusteesComments Emailed to Trustees April 2015Identifier #Method Comment was receivedDate ReceivedDo you live in the city limitsDo you live, work, or own property along the alignment/study area?How did you hear about meetingAttended previous meetingAlleviate Congestion and DelayMinimize Impact to Existing ParkingImportant Impact to ParksMinimize Downtown Economic ImpactAccommodation of Bike and PedsMinimize Impact to private right-of-way & need for relocationsOtherImportant Other (describe)Describe Advantages and Disadvantages Alternatives PresentedOther comments on the projectResident Neighborhood NeedsEconomicEnvironmentalFuture participation Multi-ModalQuestions about the project answeredAlternative 1: Support/Do Not Support/IndiffererentT1Emailed to Trustee (John Ericson)4/7/2015 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Project related comment extracted from email:...For us, having a one-way street for most of downtown will ruin our original Estes Park Feeling forever and it will only be a memory.... and it will change the feeling for many of the visitors as well as many of the residents, too...NA NA NA NA NA Not SupportT2Emailed to Trustee (Bob Holcomb)4/1/2015 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Project related comment extracted from email: ...While it is also easy to see the upside of the “free money” available to our town to assist with traffic flow and bridge construction, we definitely feel that the risks of the project outweigh the benefits. It is obvious to all of us that the bridges need replaced and downtown areas are constantly in need of being revitalized to keep the town vibrant and viable, but just because there is an opportunity it does not mean that it is the right way. We definitely feel that not only the construction process, but the general idea of the downtown business loop will be negative to the one steady income that the town can rely on – sales tax. The idea that we want to get people through downtown fast so they can make it to the park and by avoiding downtown entirely on the way out of the park goes against everything we try to do every day of the year. ..NA NA NA NA NA Not SupportT3Emailed to Trustee (Separately to Bob Holcomb & John Ericson)4/8/2015 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Project related comment extracted from email:...Please vote “No Action” until we have developed the ideal Master Plan for the Town of Estes Park. What Estes Park needs more than anything is a visionary Master Plan to carry us forward? Let’s protect the beauty we have downtown and not destroy it. ...Unite this town with your vote, do not divide it, again please vote No-Action and bring forth a truly viable master plan. If a master plan includes a one-way Riverside then we can get the whole town to work together to get that and the bridges built. It might take more time but it would be worth doing things the right way, with process, vision and citizen support....NA NA NA NA NA Not SupportT4Emailed to Trustee(Bob Holcomb)4/7/2015 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Project related comment extracted from email :...I do not feel that an adequate amount of thought went in to the impact this project would have on our community. The lure of federal money, whether the project makes sense or not, seemed to be the driving force in the decision.I have spoken to a number of people and have not found one that supports the loop. I want to go on record and request that we DO NOT accept the federal funding for the proposed loop project. The town should include community members in the planning process before decisions are made so that we too can have input into the future of Estes Park....NA NA NA NA NA Not SupportT5Emailed to Trustee(Frank Lancaster)4/6/2015 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA No, no, no, to the loop! I'm a 35 year resident and I am very concerned that this is going to ruin Estes Park. There are many ways of dealing with the traffic without resorting to completely changing the face of our beloved downtown. Once again, NO TO THE LOOP.!NA NA NA NA NA Not SupportT6Emailed to Trustee (Bob Holcomb)4/7/2015 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Project related comment extracted from email:...Estes is not the RMNP. The people, merchants and the guests are what make this town so special. Keep it the way it is, the way it has been for a very long time, the way it was proven to work. Every town and/or city has times of year its busy and congested. People who love the town deal with it and welcome it. Change is good if it makes sense... this project does not make sense, will cost tax payers millions and will change Estes Park forever. Don't take the risk when the risk is not essential...NA NA NA NA NA Not SupportT7Emailed to Trustee (Bob Holcomb)4/7/2015 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Project related comment extracted from email:...We would encourage, no urge, the Town Trustees to SEND THE MONEY BACK. The townspeople are overwhelmingly against this proposal. You have heard the arguments against it and yet it appears you persist in doing exactly what the people of this town (and tourists, by the way) do not want. We could make all of the arguments again because we know you have heard them. What we are asking you to do now is listen. This is not good for Estes Park. It does not improve traffic. It damages people's lives and livelihood for absolutely no long-term benefit. In fact, by your own projections, the actual benefit of this destructive idea is essentially nil now and disappears completely after a short period of time (despite the attempts of Lancaster to mislead people otherwise)...NA NA NA NA NA Not SupportT8Emailed to Trustee(Bob Holcomb)4/7/2015 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Project related comment extracted from email:...We love and care about Estes very much. We feelat " home " in and around Estes. We understand there are trafficproblems but "The Loop" is not the way to solve the issues. Who caresif it takes a few minutes getting through Estes? My family certainlydoesn't! Please don't ruin this absolutely beautiful place....NA NA NA NA NA Not SupportWeek of March 25-April 8, 2015Page 1 of 2
Downtown Estes Loop Road Alignment ProjectAttachment 3 - Comments sent to TrusteesComments Emailed to Trustees April 2015Identifier #Method Comment was receivedDate ReceivedDo you live in the city limitsDo you live, work, or own property along the alignment/study area?How did you hear about meetingAttended previous meetingAlleviate Congestion and DelayMinimize Impact to Existing ParkingImportant Impact to ParksMinimize Downtown Economic ImpactAccommodation of Bike and PedsMinimize Impact to private right-of-way & need for relocationsOtherImportant Other (describe)Describe Advantages and Disadvantages Alternatives PresentedOther comments on the projectResident Neighborhood NeedsEconomicEnvironmentalFuture participation Multi-ModalQuestions about the project answeredAlternative 1: Support/Do Not Support/IndiffererentT9Emailed to Trustee (John Ericson)4/4/2015 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Project related comment extracted from email:...The accumulative effects of this Project will impact Estes Park in a negative way. It is embarrassing, but this project will not solve our Town’s pedestrian and vehicle congestion problem or be a good, problem-free solution for access to Rocky Mountain National Park.No Downtown Loop Project should be the option. Instead consider the other options stated herein. Please enter my comments into the Public Record... NA NA NA NA NA Not SupportT10Emailed to Trustee(Separately to Bob Holcomb & John Ericson)4/6/2015 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANote: Same comment emailed to both Bob Holcomb & John EricsonProject related comment extracted from email:...I came to the decision that this project is not right for Estes Park, today. I do understand the need for capital to fund infrastructure development, and I do understand that it's money in the bank, and I do hear the argument that if this money is refused, future funding may be in jeopardy....NA NA NA NA NA Not SupportT11Emailed to Trustee (Frank Lancaster)4/8/2015 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAProject related comment extracted from email:For years visitors have told us that we have a traffic problem, and now is the time, thanks to the availability of funds and the help of CDOT, to do something about it. In my opinion, Concept 2 is the best choice for our community. It doesn’t impact the streets in front of our stores, it doesn’t divert returning traffic away from downtown, removes traffic that wasn’t going downtown anyway, improves Riverside and eliminates the dangerous intersection at Moraine and RiversideNA NA NA NA NA SupportT12Emailed to Trustee (Bob Holcomb)4/7/2015 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Project related comment extracted from email:...my recommendation to my business partner is to quit trying to chase so called ‘free’ money and try to earn it like the rest of us have to do.Solution……Build a VISABLE DOWNTOWN PARKING GARAGE that will generate revenue...NA NA NA NA NA Not SupportWeek of March 25-April 8, 2015Page 2 of 2
Downtown Estes Loop Road AlignmentApril 9 to 13, 2015 Comments - Comments Sent via Project Website Comments Sent via Project Website (Comment Form or Email)April 9 to April 13, 2015Identifier #Method Comment was receivedOther comments on the projectAlternative 1: Support/Do Not Support/IndiffererentP1Web comment formJust an observation---Isn't it ironic that RMNP is looking for ways to reduce the impact of ever increasing visitation to the park and The Town seems to be hell bent in ruining the quaintness of Ep for approximately 3 months by increasing the flow of traffic to the National Park?Not SupportP2Web comment formI support no action on the downtown loop project. I believe it would be detrimental to many beloved downtown businesses, in particular the Donut Haus, and would not be in the best interests of preservation of the traditional small mountain community charm our many visitors and residents value. Change is not always good. Preservation and maintenance should be priorities.Not SupportP3Web comment formPlease do not proceed with this project. I moved here for the small town atmosphere and do not wish to see this project go forward. I have not talked to anyone who is in favor of this project. I am very concerned for the distruption of and potential closing of businesses. Why are we not repairing current streets? Why do we not review traffic flow with better timed lights. Why do we have close in parking and limited timed parking further out. Why did we change the all stop at our lights? Try to turn in the summer with the visitors crossings Lets start with smaller improvements. NO to the loop.Not SupportP4Web comment formQuestion: How many lanes would go thru Elkhorn, Moraine, Riverside?Question: If the Town does decide to continue w/ the FLAP project, would they still allow that blasted horse/cart to put the brakes on to all traffic as it does now?IndiffP5Web comment formHi, I was reading about the loop project in the paper and wanted to share a couple of thoughts that I had:1- I understand the objective is to eleviate traffic in the summer, but something to consider is that one-way roads can also increase traffic flow since drivers can be driving out of their way because that is the only way to get around- for example, let's say I live on the East side of town and need to stop by the post office, then over to the feed store on Moraine. I would have to drive down Elkhorn and Moraine (whereas today I would turn left onto Riverside drive). I am essentially adding to traffic congestion on Elkhorn and Moraine. From there I would leave the post office onto Riverside drive, then have to drive to Elkhorn and then to Moraine. Here again, I am adding to traffic congestion on Elkhorn and Moraine.2- The loop will be very increase driving time for the residents who live here year round, whereas the traffic problem only exists 3months of the year. So the negative impact is on the residents.Not SupportComment from April 9, 2015 and onPage1 of 2
Downtown Estes Loop Road AlignmentApril 9 to 13, 2015 Comments - Comments Sent via Project Website Comments Sent via Project Website (Comment Form or Email)April 9 to April 13, 2015Identifier #Method Comment was receivedOther comments on the projectAlternative 1: Support/Do Not Support/IndiffererentP6Web comment formI envision the loop different than is proposed. First, make Rockwell one way going West. Build a three story parking garage on the Post Office lot. Cars coming into town from the East would make a left turn onto Riverside. At Rockwell drivers could decide to turn right into parking (structure) or proceed to national Park. People coming out of Nat'l Park would make left turn onto Morane (stop light probably required.) Cars leaving parking structure to go to Park would exit via Rockwell going West, right turn onto Moraine, another right onto Riverside and then on to Park. The downtown merchants would not be as threatened as they seem to be now and I think it would involve more right turns. Please at least consider this option. How to fund it ---that's not mydepartment.P7Web comment formHaving read the loop plans and all the pro and con letters, I believe we need to consider several unforeseen consequences of the loop plan. I believe the one-way loop will create traffic messes far beyond the loop and our imaginations. Not only will the one-way streets risk lives by impeding emergency and firefighting vehicles. Visitor and resident frustration at not being able to get where they want to go because of the one-way roads could boil over, detering future visits and even dissuading potential residents frominvesting in Estes. If any of you have re-visited beloved small towns where similar "improvements" were made, you may remember saying, "Well, they've ruined it; remind us not to come here again." Furthermore, visitorship to Estes Park is not just about traffic. It's about those factors that can't be quantified. It's about the smalltown feel, the charm, the historic cabins and cottages, and the funkiness that draws people to Estes perhaps as much as Rocky Mountain National Park does. That quality made me a frequent visitor and buyer of property here. Had Estes become a slick, paved-over zone of efficiency, I wouldn't have ventured a second look. The proposal to use the right of eminent domain to build a new thoroughfare through the Riverside area is a horrifying prospect. The heart of Old Estes survived the flood; do we really want to destroy a one-of-a-kind neighborhood now because of our own short-sightedness? People have written letters about other ways to deal with the traffic issue. These solutions are simple, easy, and relatively inexpensive. Plus, according to park data, the solution is already available to us. In the past few years, if only 35% of visitors entered the Park on Hwy 34 versus 65% Hwy 36, then the fix is about signage, not about creating a network of one-way highways that ruin the quaintness of Estes and tie residents and visitors in aggravating traffic knots.P8Looking at the detail of Alternative 1, I have some concerns. Elkhorn goes from a 3 lane 2 way road to a one-way 2 lane road. I do not see that having much benefit with minimizing trafficcongestion in the downtown area. What would happen if you make Elkhorn a 3 lane one-way. By doing this the North lane would keep going straight across Moraine. the center and left lane would turn left onto Moraine. That would help on Elkhorn but then will cause trouble at the Donut Hause corner as you have 2 lanes merging into one lane after making the turn west. Moraine would need to to be 3 lanes at aminimum, 2 west one east with the East bound ending at Rockwell st so traffic would have to turn right. Another problem I see is in the afternoon, people leaving the park. I have seen East bound traffic on 36 backed up from town to the 66 junction. What also needs to happen is 36 from at least the Beaver Point area to Crags Dr should become 4 lanes with a turn lane in the center. As it is now it's a real pain to try and turn onto 36 from any number of business located along that stretch of road. What about finding a way to use W Wonder View Ave to help with traffic. Better signage to get people heading to the park to use W Wonder View Ave. and keep Elkhorn the way it is. What about making Elkhorn Ave from Moraine to E Riverside Dr pedestrian only. Then route traffic to W Wonder View Ave and E Riverside Dr. So the real question is do we want to reduce traffic congestion or allow people to window shop while waiting in traffic. My family has been coming to Estes for 40+ years and have seen trafficget worse and worse, something needs to be dune. I don't think the current loop idea will fully fix it.P9Web email As a native of Northern Coloardo visiting Estes since childhood, I believe this would result in far more harm than good. Considering Estes is such a valuable ‘day‐escape’ for many elderly residents including my mother, this would destroy their ability to easily navigate the town. That would be a tragic result not only for the businesses of Estes, but for the citizens of Colorado and visitors in general.P10Web email As a resident of northern Colorado I make the trip up to Estes every 4-6 weeks because it is a pleasant outing. I feel the proposed 'loop' change would be detrimental and would not be visiting as often. This seems like it will be harmful to your merchants and would urge your board to reconsider.Not SupportP11Web email I feel this would be harmful. It will surely harm local business and make the Estes experience worse. I wouldn'tvisit very often anymore.Not SupportP12Voicemail Resident Wincliff Drive. 4 votes against at this at this point in time. Keep Estes Park the way it is. Will attend the town hall meeting. Against this from the taxpayer point of view and impact to businesses. Not SupportComment from April 9, 2015 and onPage2 of 2
Downtown Estes Loop Road Alignment ProjectComments sent to Trustees - April 9th to 13th, 2015Comments Emailed to Town Officials April 2015Identifier #Method Comment was receivedDate ReceivedOther comments on the projectAlternative 1: Support/Do Not Support/IndiffererentT13Emailed to Trustee(Norris)4/10/2015 I have attached an Open Response to Jim Pickering's recent editorial “soapbox” and Letter of Appeal to Town Trustees on the FLAP project.I would appreciate it if you would take your time to read, consider, and add it to the public record before taking a vote on April 15th.Note Attachment: Our Town and Old Crossroad (8 pgs)Not SupportT14Emailed to Administrator(Lancaster)4/12/2015 Move forward with the Loop! Do not let this opportunity to improve our town pass us by. From improving traffic flow, the No. 1 complaint of tourists, to bridge repair at no cost to the Town, to flood mitigation and lower insurance rates, this is a win-win for everyone. Do NOT let the No Change Naysayers win. These same people have deprived the Town of an urban renewal authority (which we desperately need now) and a voluntary Historic Preservation Ordinance and all because of fear of change and distrust of government, even when "government" is your fellow community member. Enough! Move forward!SupportT15Emailed to Trustee(Pinkham)4/13/2015 As a resident of Estes Park, I have fallen in love with its small town charm, adorable historic buildings, andshops. I do not support the Loop project. It will hurt our downtown businesses without a doubt. And that willput my job and many other's in jeopardy as well.Not SupportT16Emailed to Trustee(Norris)4/13/2015 have worked with you in the past (Sustainable Mountain Living) and found you to be a thoughtful and reasonable person. Pleases do NOT go forward with this Loop project before a considerable amount of study and input from the community has been laid out on the table. The very life blood of Estes Park depends on it.Not SupportT17Emailed to Trustee(Ericson)4/132015 How can we proceed with the Loop project whose main objective is to facilitate access to the park, when the park is going to close areas due to over crowding before the loop even goes into effect?Do not change the face of our beautiful town by approving this loop project.Are you not hearing the shop owners and residents of the community you are supposed to be representing?Not SupportT18Emailed to Trustee(Mayor and all Trustees)4/13/2015 You, as Trustees for the Town of Estes Park are again called upon to make a decision regarding a critical crossroad for Estes Park as a Town, and as a community. As elected leaders of the most influential governmental body for our community, the decision you are being called upon to make regarding the traffic routing plans being proposed in the FLAP Loop proposal will transcend not only your time in office, but past each of your life times and more. Reviewing your options at this juncture which are 1) – Halt the NEPA process and therefore say no to looking any further at remedying to our decades old problem of traffic congestion which is growing each year; or 2) say yes to continue the NEPA process which hopefully will lead to finding a solution to this growing traffic congestion problem, there appears to be only one prudent action for the Town Trustees to take. That action is to say yes to continue the NEPA process. I give this recommendation not from only my own personal view point but from the view point of many of our community leaders/business people who I have been speaking with over the past months. Stay the course and continue the NEPA study to determine whether at the end of the day the One Way Loop solution assists in solving our traffic congestion issues as well as assisting in paying the costs of the 3 bridge replacements which will assist in mitigating some of Federally mandated changes coming to the flood plain designations in the downtown area.Although most of the vocal merchants and residents that are asking you to halt the NEPA process are well meaning, they are not looking at all of the facts, or the whole picture. I understand the whole idea that change is frightening to some. But, those who are in a leadership position have to look past those emotions, review the facts, and then make the decision as to what is best for the community. These difficult decisions have been thrust upon previous Trustees of Estes. I still remember very vividly the public hearings and newspaper articles in early 1980’s. The rhetoric of halting the process then was very similar as today. And if those Trustees at that time would have listened to the voices telling them the changes would ruin the business community, that our wonderful village would be ruined forever, none of the Elkhorn Ave planters with their 1000’s of beautiful flowers would be in place, the wide sidewalks, street lamps would not be there. The River Walk that so many 10’s of thousands enjoy every year would have never happened. I would agree those no-sayers 40 years ago were right in one sense...our community was changed, forever, after the improvements were done. And thank goodness those Trustees back then made the hard decision to move forward with the plan.I ask that each of you stand strong, and make the right decision which I feel very strongly is to proceed with the NEPA process for this highway project.SupportT19Emailed to Trustee(Ericson)4/13/2015See Long letter, T19Not SupportComments from April 9, 2015 and onPage 1 of 2
Downtown Estes Loop Road Alignment ProjectComments sent to Trustees - April 9th to 13th, 2015Comments Emailed to Town Officials April 2015Identifier #Method Comment was receivedDate ReceivedOther comments on the projectAlternative 1: Support/Do Not Support/IndiffererentT20Emailed to Trustee(Mayor and all Trustees)4/13/2015Since I am unable to attend the meeting this Wednesday, I wanted to be sure that you received an email from me as public comment on the FLAP project. I believe that the downtown loop project is a critical improvement to the Town for a variety of reasons, including: 1. The current traffic situation is untenable for locals and visitors alike. Thanks to the objective, data‐driven studies completed by the project team, the one‐way couplet is the best option for alleviating traffic issues and meeting the needs of the grant. Looking at the traffic projection graphs for the next 20 years is scary!! “No Action” would be ignoring the science and ignoring the problem, especially when the grant money is already in hand! Not only will this project improve motorist, cyclist, and pedestrian safety through downtown, it will mitigate air pollution from idling cars, an important consideration given that RMNP is a world Biosphere Reserve. 2. Improving bicycle infrastructure is a crucial component of this grant. Estes Park is way behind the times when it comes to bicycle‐friendliness, as compared to other Colorado towns. I could write a much longer email detailing the multitude of benefits of creating a more bicycle‐friendly town (here is a whole bunch of statistics regarding the benefits of bike lanes), but I’ll keep it short: better bike infrastructure improves safety for all road users, is a major draw for young people and families to live here, it improves business for downtown businesses, and creates a better quality of life and increaseswellness in the community. Frank Lancaster’s survey last year detailed that better bike infrastructure is a top priority to make Estes better!!3. It will be good for businesses. Although I understand that some business owners and residents are wary of major changes in Estes, increasing the ability of traffic to move through downtown will create higher visibility for more people, a better visitor experience, and make Estes more competitive with other mountain towns in Colorado. As a local, during high volume traffic, I AVOID DOWNTOWN at all costs (and most people I know do too), which is NOT GOOD for local businesses, which I would happily patronize if it were not for the traffic.4. Flood mitigation projects including the rebuilding of several bridges are essential for the Town, and this grant provides some funding to begin this process. It’s not a matter of if, but when another flood like this one will happen again, and the Town MUST be prepared. Building more resilient river systems and associated infrastructure should remain a top priority for the Town. I URGE YOU TO PLEASE VOTE YES ON THIS PROJECT! It is the right thing to do to keep Estes Park the wonderful place where we all love to live, work, and play. NO ACTION WOULD BE A STEP BACKWARDS FOR THE TOWN.SupportT21Emailed to Administrator(Lancaster)4/13/2015Please forward this to the appropriate person, and please consider me as one Estes Park resident in favor of the downtown loop project. I want to see our town looking forward not back. I want to see our town taking pride in itself by implementing improvements to infrastructure, etc., whenever and wherever possible. I've lived here nearly 10 yrs now and have seen nothing but a steady deterioration of our town streets, sidewalks and buildings to the point where the town has become an embarrassment, not just to me but to several others I've talked to, including residents and long‐time visitors. It's time to rebuild, time to replace, time to cleanup, and time to repaint the center lines and, more importantly, the cross walks. The newness resulting fromthe loop project will showcase the disparity and make it obvious to everyone. To put it simply, Estes Park is a tourist town, and tourist towns should place great emphasis on appearances. Those vocalizing against this project seem mostly concerned with self‐serving interests, and in no way seem community‐oriented, so please, please vote for the loop. Thanks for listening, SupportComments from April 9, 2015 and onPage 2 of 2
Downtown Estes Loop Road Alignment ProjectAttachment - Long Letter CommentsPublic Comments Received March 25 - April 8, 2015 (Long Letters)Identifier #Method Comment was receivedDateReceivedAlternative 1:Support/Do Not Support/IndiffererentCommentWe were members of the CIA together…no, not the "Central Intelligence Agency", but the "Citizens Information Academy" our local Estes Park awareness information class that I thoroughly enjoyed. Please consider the impact that your vote has on our town and understand that we are not prepared to embark on this proposed Estes Park Loop. Please remember that you fell in love with Estes Park when you took your bride to our beautiful town for your Honeymoon. You were once a visitor that decided to make this your home. I know that you understand the challenging economics of the local business owner. Together we are in the business to stay in Estes Park and your vote affects all of us! I am trusting you to act as our Trustee and vote “No Action on the Loop”.I would like to tell you a little about myself.• Who is Durango “Kellie” Steele ?~• I am passionate about Estes Park and the vision we have for our future!• I am a graduate of Estes Park High ~ Class of 1976.• Co-Creator of our Halloween Trick or Treat Street!• Business owner in Estes Park• Owner of three properties in Estes Park I embrace change, providing that the change moves towards making a situation better and if all other less expensive and less destructive options have been exhausted in order to accomplish the intent of the proposed change. I have the following questions and comments:• Have we installed proper signage (Large Brown & White Signs as representative of the standard used by our National Park’s around the USA) directing visitors to RMNP from Highway 7, Highway 34 and Highway 36, therefore; reducing the congestion in downtown?• Have we created ample parking to sustain the needs of our increased population during our high season? (I know we are moving towards some parking solutions.)• I think it is important to know that the majority public opinion at the initial March 2013 meeting on this proposed project was in favor of more Parking. NOT that we wanted a one way loop as stated by EVPC Fact sheet! This is the quote from the EVPC Fact sheet. “In 2013, the Town of Estes Park solicited public comment on the specific issue of improving traffic flow downtown, the one-way couplet option was recommended by the public during this process.” This is not a fact! The one way couplet was shown as one option linked to the construction of a multi-level parking structure and transit hub for shuttle service to RMNP. Since the FLAP money couldn’t be spent on the parking structure and transportation hub as presented as a possible option to the public during this meeting, the grant proposal was written for the one way couplet. Please make sure that you understand that more parking was the #1 option recommended by the public during this initial meeting and there was not an option to vote for the parking separate from the one way couplet ~ now it has become common opinion, (quoted as fact) that the public voted for the one way couplet. Kevin Ash will verify this statement. He was there and so was I. Were you? • Have we created visible signage and adequate traffic lanes to direct visitors to the alternative Fall River Entrance of RMNP by using the existing Wonderview Avenue bypass? This simply gives visitors a choice~ I am not suggesting eliminating the Elkhorn Avenue access to the Beaver Meadows Entrance of RMNP. Many visitors do not know that we have two entrances to RMNP!• Do we have a long range master plan for the Town of Estes Park? It is unethical to use Federal Funds, FLAP Grant, for the creation of a one way loop without trying other options first. Respect and consideration must be given to all directly affected by the proposed change. I strongly urge the Town Board Members vote "Take No Action" ! We as a community have not done our due diligence to alleviate the congestion of downtown during "four months" of our year, by implementing much less expensive and less destructive options. This must be done before spending Federal Land Access Program Grant money on a one way loop that will affect visitors and residents all year around and forever change the charm and character of our beloved mountain town. Estes Park is a tourist town ~ I know it seems like I am stating the obvious, however; it seems that some “Locals" have forgotten this when I hear them complaining about traffic and our visitors during high season. A large percentage of our year around residents were once visitors, including many of the current Town Board Trustees. It is a testament to our community, and the natural beauty of this area that influenced many visitors to invest by starting a business and / or buying a home in Estes Park. I encourage all to remember what made us fall in love with our "slice of heaven on earth" and to be grateful when our visitors return, contributing to the quality of life for residents and the qualityof experience for our visitors. Respectfully and Thoughtfully submittedEmailed to Trustee(Ericson)T19Not Support4/13/2015Week of March 25-April 8, 2015Page 1 of 1
Fred Payne Clatworthy Photo
Our Town and an Old Crossroad
Open Response to James Pickering, good friend of Estes Park
and Letter of Appeal to Town Trustees, individually and collectively
I was not the first to recognize that “everybody needs beauty as well
as bread, places to play in and pray in, where nature may heal and
give strength to body and soul.’
After discovering Estes Park and RMNP over 32 years ago, I have
been an avid fan. So much so that 17 years ago, I walked away from a
lucrative law practice, uprooted my young family, and dared to live an
adventure-filled faith-based life in what is now “our” high mountain
“park”.
We moved full-time to Estes in 1997. By 2000, I built my family a
home, co-founded and led a start-up company that now benefits
hospitals, care providers and patients from coast to coast, and looked
for ways to build community that would be best for all concerned, now
and for perpetuity. I think as an entrepreneur, though my profits are
not measured in dollars.
Soon after my professional retirement, I supported my very creative
wife, Cheryl, in the establishment of Rocky Mountain Memories, a
downtown shop on the Fall River. In October of 2009, RMM sustained
a total loss in the Park Theatre Mall fire. We rebuilt and reopened in
mid 2010. Her business boosts Estes Park as a resort destination
while providing all people creative opportunities to archive their best
memories and to express their life’s sentiments in visual arts. Last
week, we vacated the Park Theatre premises due to uncertainty over
deferred infrastructure issues.
In 2012, we searched for and invested in what may have been the
most distressed piece of downtown real estate with long forgotten
local lore. We thought we could bring it some needed renewal. And, I
needed to put my untrained hands to good use. Redemption Cabin
was the outcome. It became our private urban renewal project and
treasured mountain get-a-away. It’s on the south end of E Riverside
Drive. Circa 1914, it’s purpose and beginning coincided with Enos
Mill’s final preparations for the birth of Rocky Mountain National
Park one year later. RMNP is recognizing its 100th Anniversary this
year. To celebrate the park and what it still means to us, Cheryl and I
have taken the pledge to hike 100 miles together this summer. Then
we will work to restore Redemption’s adjoining cottages.
For me, the Riverside area of downtown is a crown jewell that ought
to be protected. Just ask Frank our dear & feisty 94 year old
neighbor. Or, young Kathy who loves and shares her garden. Both
Riversides, the east side and west, came out of John Cleave’s portion.
They are situated along the sparkling Big Thompson River just before
it converges with the Fall River, the Big T’s fraternal twin brother
from another snow-fed high mountain valley. Their coming together
explains why the downtown corridor was laid out as it is. But before
it was ever platted into a downtown, early indians made their
summer camps there. They understood Riverside’s one-of-a-kind and
valuable geography, and enjoyed the benefi ts of its perfect
environmental conditions, abundant game and healthy rest. To this
day, a portion has been set aside in 3 public treelined riverside parks.
After the Arapahoes and maybe the Utes, pioneers in the likes of
Cleave (the Park’s first postmaster), Mills (the naturalist and
“Father” of RMNP), F.O. Stanley (the industrialist and visionary), and
Fred Payne Clatworthy (one of the most notable wilderness
photographers of the era) harvested logs, hauled them to site, cut,
stacked, spiked & chinked them into walls and found their dreams
come true under the lumpy ridge of “Little Prospect Mountain”.
Despite the wear of the years and what spins all around it, Riverside
is still one of the most wild, beautiful, and charming places that I have
every experienced. Cheryl and all our out-of-town cabin guests feel
the same way. The area is heavily treed with old Blue Spruce,
Ponderosas and Balsam Poplars. In fact, Estes Park’s Grand
Champion Tree sits on the riverbank just out of Redemption’s front
door. It’s a rare opportunity to experience the full essence of 'Colorful
Colorado' from one simple, easy to get to, extraordinarily special
place.
My wife and I support the local economy, create jobs, pay local
property taxes, and collect and remit Town sales and marketing
district taxes. We lead quite lives, but we work very hard to make the
Town successful for everybody concerned.For the last decades, we
have contributed to all the Town’s budgets and building of the visitor
center, senior center & recreation district improvements, library &
museum upgrades, the Riverwalk Connection, Estes Lake Trail, the
Stanley Park grandstands, new multipurpose event center, road
maintenance, new municipal building, and other Town projects I am
too senile now to remember.
Like you and others, we are people of Estes through and through and
desire to benefit the community in everything we think, say or do.
Though we often contend against burdening restrictions and higher
taxes, we have no “history of organizing ourselves and saying no to
things”. We are not part of any advocacy group who “do not want
change”. We are independent minded folks. We do not “champion the
status quo or breezily dismiss 40 years of Town paid-for traffic
studies”. Yet if you take a walk down E Riverside straight south from
Town Hall, you will find our “stark green” signs that reads "We
Support No Action on the Loop.” Before a Town decision on FLAP (the
Federal Land Access Program), we would like Jim and you to
appreciate why.
Since investing in the downtown district, I have been actively
involved in the summer traffic congestion and parking dilemma
discussion trying to best understand the competing public and
private interests at play. I have been a participant in all the Town
large and small group meetings so far as I know.
Our friend and respected local historian James Pickering advises
from his soapbox that Estes Park is at an important “crossroads” and
asks us to “find the wisdom needed [to make a good decision] by
viewing the FLAP project in its largest possible context.”
I understand from the good book that wisdom is for doing what is
right, just & fair. It teaches me and you: 1. tostand at the crossroads,
to stop, look & listen, to ask for the right path, to ask where the good
way is, and then to move out on the fork that can supply everything
we need to well finish the race, 2. that, once we start walking, there
is a proper procedure and a proper timing for everything; and, 3.our
plans will fail for lack of counsel, but with many advisers they will
succeed.
With all due respect, after examination and assessment of the record,
wisdom shouts from my rooftops: “DO NOT WALK DOWN THE PATH
OF OPTION 1”.
So why does wisdom oppose FLAP?
Firstly, it does not meet the Town’s expressed FLAP goal of
“benefitting the residents and businesses of Estes Park”. And so, it is
clearly not in the best interests of our community as a whole, or of its'
guests. TheTown and its consultants have not come even close to
meeting their burden of demonstrating that Option 1 is a good plan
for Estes. Not one person I have found believes Option 1 will benefit
local businesses. Unless we move together in one accord, going down
the path of Option 1 will trip up the Town and cause it to stumble
more.
Secondly, Option 1 does not respect Estes Park’s long-term enduring
values. People buy and build in Estes Park because it offers an
authentic mountain village experience 24/7, 365 without
discrimination. Option 1 will have a direct and negative impact on
every residence in the Riverside area. It would unjustly move the
existing “serious” problems of vehicular congestion (emissions,
lights, sounds, highway speeds) and pedestrian/vehicular conflicts of
the commercial district into established residential neighborhoods
and public parks. Though shroud in humble streetscape, Riverside is
a historic place filled with one-of-a-kind natural retreats where senses
are reignited, bodies refreshed, hearts rejuvenated & lives reset
everyday. FLAP can never justly compensate Estes Park for that kind
of loss. If you walk down the path to save Riverside, Estes Park will
be positioned to finish the race before it and become the No. 1
Colorado mountain village destination and more.
Everyone I have spoken to from the south end of E Riverside to the
north opposes Option 1. It will cheapen 3 parks, the downtown
stretch of the Big Thompson River, the convergence with Fall River,
and all Riverside private retreats, lodging, businesses, and property
values. The cliffs of Little Prospect Mountain will magnify the
problems and amplify the sounds. “Serious” environmental problems
will invade their yards, living and bedrooms. It would be unjust to
fulfill a dubious federal purpose by sacrificing one of Estes Park’s
most charming features and causing unending problems on good &
faithful Town citizens.
Thirdly, before it leaps into FLAP, Estes Park needs a downtown
Master Plan. Proper procedure demands its. And wisdom says the
the proper time is now, before surrendering over to the State 3 highly
regulated one-way thoroughfares that encircle & restrict access to
the downtown commercial corridor, and the very best Estes has to
offer. I first asked the Town for its downtown transportation vision
when CDOT and the Town proposed to close the Moraine crosswalk at
Fall River back in 2011. Like the current downtown merchants
threatened by FLAP, Rocky Mountain Memories had to speak up to
protect customer access. Good visibility and easy access to
storefronts are vital ingredients to a prosperous downtown. In order
for the downtown corridor to thrive, the Master Plan must include
the public policy that all downtown vehicular traffic yields to
anything on bike or foot, for perpetuity, or at least until 2040. The
key to becoming Colorado’s Number 1 all time destination is to
protect and enhance it as a top place to walk, talk, ride, or simply to
escape, find a quiet place, to get still and rest.
I respect the fact that FLAP is a windfall to the community in light of
the work ahead caused by the floods. Yet that does not justify the risk
of dividing the community, more business uncertainty, and more
threats to our economic vitality.
From the beginning of the FLAP project, some have felt betrayed by
the Town by what has been described as a bait and switch strategy. I
am sure others remember the shock that reverberated through
downtown when learning their most favored FLAP project option, to
reduce congestion by building a downtown transit and parking
facility, had been taken out of the grant application by the Town
suddenly without any notice. (At a special March 19, 2013 Town
meeting, downtown stakeholders voted the FLAP grant should be
pursued for the purpose of “Rerouting some of the traffic on Elkhorn
Avenue and Moraine Avenue to increase mobility, support the
economy by providing better access to businesses, reduce traffic
congestion frustrations and improve quality and the overall safety of
our residents and quests” AND AND AND “a downtown parking
structure to increase ease of accessibility to business and support our
existing infrastructure.”) That storm of mistrust was later calmed
in me when the Town messages assured me and others, we would
have regular opportunities to insure the final project was best for all
concerned. Said the Town over and over again: “We will make sure
your comments get included in the record and considered as the team
looks at all the alternatives.”
Many FLAP meetings were held and virtually everyone who I heard
speak publicly on the topic clearly expressed their lack of support of
Option 1, preferring alternatives. Yet now at the final hour, we are
told no one near to the project can find or access our prior comments,
and no alternative other than Option 1 is on the table. We are told we
must take it or leave it and if we leave it, be burdened by a financial
penalty. Once again, those keen to the details of the FLAP plan feel
betrayed. Tell us one thing, and do another. It seems all our
contributions and comments to date were a waste of our time and in
vain. But, wisdom says if you do not listen to counsel, your plans risk
failure. Proper procedure requires the Town to do what it says with
full transparency, and say, without ambiguity or slight of hand, what
it does. Only then will it be wise for Town government to move
forward.
Option 1 will negatively impact our downtown merchants and way of
life because it will restrict travelers and businesses options, visibility
and physical access. Drip by drip, barricade by barricade,
construction delay by construction delay, hurried car by hurried car,
even the most successful businesses will start to die on a parched
vine as their customers get dizzy going around and around the FLAP
one way merry go round until dad says “forget it, we’re losing
daylight, lets go home”.
There must be a better way to improve traffic to RMNP that does not
tread so on the community's economic vitality, seasonal traditions,
and our highly valued on-foot authentic mountain village get-a-way
experiences.
Better than Option 1, Estes Park should do public education that
equips travelers with the knowledge that good alternate avenues to
RMNP exist, but should they enter our downtown, they must respect
our charming one-of-a-kind Colorado mountain village life.
Simple as it sounds, I believe the best possible plan to move traffic
through Estes Park to Rocky Mountain National Park is to:
1. Establish and build consensus for a Master 25 year Plan.
2. Repair and maintain our roads.
3. Mark and celebrate pedestrian crosswalks and bike lanes.
4. Design and implement a real time “Smart Park” system of
signals and signs that disburses congested National-Park-
destined-traffic to an optional North Smart Park By-Pass [Hwy
34] and/or to a South Smart Park By-Pass [Hwy 7/Marys Lake
Road] as road condition and congestion require.
5. Construct a downtown transit and parking hub to coordinate
with existing transportation capabilities, shuttles and
infrastructure.
By the way, designating roadways with the express purpose of
bypassing downtown Estes Park in favor of RMNP as the “Estes Loop”
is a branding mistake that will tend to devalue downtown property
and businesses even more. The word “Estes” should attach to positive
elements that highlight our community, not a fast track through
intended to bypass it. The combined words “Estes Loop” should be
reserved to describe a downtown feature like a system of walking and
riding loops that easily access the best venues, entertainment,
shopping, lodging, and restaurants, better than any other mountain
town get-away.
Finally, as a fellow citizen of our mountain village, I appeal to you.
Please vote for No Action on FLAP Option 1.
Further, please consider forming a delegation to speak with our
Congressmen. Tell them federal visitation has a substantial impact
on the life of our roads and that Federal management of the Fern Fire
likely contributed to our floods. Yet King FLAP dictates how our
reparations are to be invested? Ask them to to go to bat for us. Ask
them to represent us. Ask them to protect our national treasure and
do what it takes to get us our money with less strings attached so that
we may employ it in a way that best serves everyone’s interests.
Surely, there is help for our community that better serves the Town’s
original FLAP project goal “to find creative solutions to the ‘good
problem’ we have of accommodating the millions of visitors each
summer, while benefitting the residents and businesses of Estes
Park”.
Indeed, Estes Park is at a crossroads. I agree with Jim, we have no
choice but to move ahead. The wise move is to tell the Feds NO TO
OPTION 1, build consensus around a great Master Plan that
maintains our mountain village character and finally includes a good
downtown transit and parking solution.
Thank you,
Rick Grigsby
1950 Cherokee Drive
140 -142 Moraine Avenue
260 - 262 - 264 E Riverside Drive
Estes Park, CO 80517
Downtown Estes Loop Road Alignment ProjectComments sent to Trustees - April 9th to 15th, 2015Comments Emailed to Town Officials April 2015Identifier #Method Comment was receivedDate ReceivedOther comments on the projectAlternative 1: Support/Do Not Support/IndiffererentT13Emailed to Trustee(Norris)4/10/2015 I have attached an Open Response to Jim Pickering's recent editorial “soapbox” and Letter of Appeal to Town Trustees on the FLAP project.I would appreciate it if you would take your time to read, consider, and add it to the public record before taking a vote on April 15th.Note Attachment: Our Town and Old Crossroad (8 pgs)Not SupportT14Emailed to Administrator(Lancaster)4/12/2015 Move forward with the Loop! Do not let this opportunity to improve our town pass us by. From improving traffic flow, the No. 1 complaint of tourists, to bridge repair at no cost to the Town, to flood mitigation and lower insurance rates, this is a win-win for everyone. Do NOT let the No Change Naysayers win. These same people have deprived the Town of an urban renewal authority (which we desperately need now) and a voluntary Historic Preservation Ordinance and all because of fear of change and distrust of government, even when "government" is your fellow community member. Enough! Move forward!SupportT15Emailed to Trustee(Pinkham)4/13/2015 As a resident of Estes Park, I have fallen in love with its small town charm, adorable historic buildings, andshops. I do not support the Loop project. It will hurt our downtown businesses without a doubt. And that willput my job and many other's in jeopardy as well.Not SupportT16Emailed to Trustee(Norris)4/13/2015 I have worked with you in the past (Sustainable Mountain Living) and found you to be a thoughtful and reasonable person. Pleases do NOT go forward with this Loop project before a considerable amount of study and input from the community has been laid out on the table. The very life blood of Estes Park depends on it.Not SupportT17Emailed to Trustee(Ericson)4/132015 How can we proceed with the Loop project whose main objective is to facilitate access to the park, when the park is going to close areas due to over crowding before the loop even goes into effect?Do not change the face of our beautiful town by approving this loop project.Are you not hearing the shop owners and residents of the community you are supposed to be representing?Not SupportT18Emailed to Trustee(Mayor and all Trustees)4/13/2015 You, as Trustees for the Town of Estes Park are again called upon to make a decision regarding a critical crossroad for Estes Park as a Town, and as a community. As elected leaders of the most influential governmental body for our community, the decision you are being called upon to make regarding the traffic routing plans being proposed in the FLAP Loop proposal will transcend not only your time in office, but past each of your life times and more. Reviewing your options at this juncture which are 1) – Halt the NEPA process and therefore say no to looking any further at remedying to our decades old problem of traffic congestion which is growing each year; or 2) say yes to continue the NEPA process which hopefully will lead to finding a solution to this growing traffic congestion problem, there appears to be only one prudent action for the Town Trustees to take. That action is to say yes to continue the NEPA process. I give this recommendation not from only my own personal view point but from the view point of many of our community leaders/business people who I have been speaking with over the past months. Stay the course and continue the NEPA study to determine whether at the end of the day the One Way Loop solution assists in solving our traffic congestion issues as well as assisting in paying the costs of the 3 bridge replacements which will assist in mitigating some of Federally mandated changes coming to the flood plain designations in the downtown area.Although most of the vocal merchants and residents that are asking you to halt the NEPA process are well meaning, they are not looking at all of the facts, or the whole picture. I understand the whole idea that change is frightening to some. But, those who are in a leadership position have to look past those emotions, review the facts, and then make the decision as to what is best for the community. These difficult decisions have been thrust upon previous Trustees of Estes. I still remember very vividly the public hearings and newspaper articles in early 1980’s. The rhetoric of halting the process then was very similar as today. And if those Trustees at that time would have listened to the voices telling them the changes would ruin the business community, that our wonderful village would be ruined forever, none of the Elkhorn Ave planters with their 1000’s of beautiful flowers would be in place, the wide sidewalks, street lamps would not be there. The River Walk that so many 10’s of thousands enjoy every year would have never happened. I would agree those no-sayers 40 years ago were right in one sense...our community was changed, forever, after the improvements were done. And thank goodness those Trustees back then made the hard decision to move forward with the plan.I ask that each of you stand strong, and make the right decision which I feel very strongly is to proceed with the NEPA process for this highway project.SupportT19Emailed to Trustee(Ericson)4/13/2015See Long letter, T19Not SupportComments from April 9, 2015 and onPage 1 of 3
Downtown Estes Loop Road Alignment ProjectComments sent to Trustees - April 9th to 15th, 2015Comments Emailed to Town Officials April 2015Identifier #Method Comment was receivedDate ReceivedOther comments on the projectAlternative 1: Support/Do Not Support/IndiffererentT20Emailed to Trustee(Mayor and all Trustees)4/13/2015Since I am unable to attend the meeting this Wednesday, I wanted to be sure that you received an email from me as public comment on the FLAP project. I believe that the downtown loop project is a critical improvement to the Town for a variety of reasons, including: 1. The current traffic situation is untenable for locals and visitors alike. Thanks to the objective, data‐driven studies completed by the project team, the one‐way couplet is the best option for alleviating traffic issues and meeting the needs of the grant. Looking at the traffic projection graphs for the next 20 years is scary!! “No Action” would be ignoring the science and ignoring the problem, especially when the grant money is already in hand! Not only will this project improve motorist, cyclist, and pedestrian safety through downtown, it will mitigate air pollution from idling cars, an important consideration given that RMNP is a world Biosphere Reserve. 2. Improving bicycle infrastructure is a crucial component of this grant. Estes Park is way behind the times when it comes to bicycle‐friendliness, as compared to other Colorado towns. I could write a much longer email detailing the multitude of benefits of creating a more bicycle‐friendly town (here is a whole bunch of statistics regarding the benefits of bike lanes), but I’ll keep it short: better bike infrastructure improves safety for all road users, is a major draw for young people and families to live here, it improves business for downtown businesses, and creates a better quality of life and increaseswellness in the community. Frank Lancaster’s survey last year detailed that better bike infrastructure is a top priority to make Estes better!!3. It will be good for businesses. Although I understand that some business owners and residents are wary of major changes in Estes, increasing the ability of traffic to move through downtown will create higher visibility for more people, a better visitor experience, and make Estes more competitive with other mountain towns in Colorado. As a local, during high volume traffic, I AVOID DOWNTOWN at all costs (and most people I know do too), which is NOT GOOD for local businesses, which I would happily patronize if it were not for the traffic.4. Flood mitigation projects including the rebuilding of several bridges are essential for the Town, and this grant provides some funding to begin this process. It’s not a matter of if, but when another flood like this one will happen again, and the Town MUST be prepared. Building more resilient river systems and associated infrastructure should remain a top priority for the Town. I URGE YOU TO PLEASE VOTE YES ON THIS PROJECT! It is the right thing to do to keep Estes Park the wonderful place where we all love to live, work, and play. NO ACTION WOULD BE A STEP BACKWARDS FOR THE TOWN.SupportT21Emailed to Administrator(Lancaster)4/13/2015Please forward this to the appropriate person, and please consider me as one Estes Park resident in favor of the downtown loop project. I want to see our town looking forward not back. I want to see our town taking pride in itself by implementing improvements to infrastructure, etc., whenever and wherever possible. I've lived here nearly 10 yrs now and have seen nothing but a steady deterioration of our town streets, sidewalks and buildings to the point where the town has become an embarrassment, not just to me but to several others I've talked to, including residents and long‐time visitors. It's time to rebuild, time to replace, time to cleanup, and time to repaint the center lines and, more importantly, the cross walks. The newness resulting from the loop project will showcase the disparity and make it obvious to everyone. To put it simply, Estes Park is a tourist town, and tourist towns should place great emphasis on appearances. Those vocalizing against this project seem mostly concerned with self‐serving interests, and in no way seem community‐oriented, so please, please vote for the loop. Thanks for listening, SupportT22 Emailed to Trustee(all Trustees)4/14/2015 My good trustees, It is time to put this ill-thought out and divisive loop proposal behind us and to vote "no action" on this loop proposal.Then, start to address the issues that we have with traffic and congestion in a meaningful and realistic manner. There will be no easy solutions, but problems that can be mitigated if you involve the citizens and stop thinking that Mr. Lancaster will somehow come up with a "magic bullet".Not SupportComments from April 9, 2015 and onPage 2 of 3
Downtown Estes Loop Road Alignment ProjectComments sent to Trustees - April 9th to 15th, 2015Comments Emailed to Town Officials April 2015Identifier #Method Comment was receivedDate ReceivedOther comments on the projectAlternative 1: Support/Do Not Support/IndiffererentT23 Facebook post 4/15/2015 Tagged the Town in a Facebook video and asked that we "please insert these comments and visual aids into the FLAP environmental impact study and FLAP record.https://www.facebook.com/rick.grigsby.73/videos/10206369507736972/ MORE ENVIRONMENTAL REASONS TO REJECT FLAP OPTION 1- The cliffs of Little Prospect Mountain and Baldwin Park and the downtown leg of the Big Thompson River are seasonal Bird Habitats from raptors to swallows.- Town of Estes Park Colorado please insert these comments and visual aids into the FLAP environmental impact study and FLAP record. Thank you. — in Estes Park Down Town!- And need to ensure that flood control is analyzed to adjust for the Flooding that occurred in September 2013!-: Good to see that you brought up the flood concerns in your previous post!T24 Emailed to Trustees (all Trustees)4/15/2015 Mayor & Trustees; I am a 35 year veteran of commercial real estate brokerage and development.My wife, Teresa Maria and I also own four properties in downtown Estes Park, one of which is on Moraine, being the old Trail-Gazette Building. We are making plans to substantially add too, and improve this building.We welcome the proposed One-Way Loop. There is no evidence that the proposed loop will have any significant harm to the downtown commercial corridor, and in reality, it will enhance the overall pedestrian experience, decrease congestion, and improve overall property values. The individuals that are crying that the sky is falling are acting out of pure fear.I know this must be very difficult for you, but this is a point in time where Strong Leadership is required.Please have the courage to take the heat from this vocal minority and do what is necessary for the future of Estes Park.Your vote to continue with the One Way Loop is the correct decision, and time will reward you with the legacy of vision and foresight to prepare Estes Park for the next 25 years.SupportT25 Emailed to Trustees (all Trustees)4/15/2015Note Attachment 5-Letter to Trustees_041515Not SupportComments from April 9, 2015 and onPage 3 of 3
Downtown Estes Loop Project
Town Board Meeting
April 15, 2015
Attention Please
1.For those who wish to comment, please use the sign-up sheets
behind the seating area.
2.Comment time will not be limited but we request that you are
succinct and not repetitive -- to allow everyone time to speak.
3.Please be civil and respectful of all opinions.
4.Discuss ideas, not people.
5.Please refrain from clapping, cheering, booing, or tomato-
throwing.
6.Being disrespectful, yelling or intimidation will force an early
conclusion to the meeting.
7.We will attempt to respond to simple public questions as they are
asked; complex questions will be answered later.
To proceed with the NEPA process with the
remaining two alternatives; One-way Couplet
and Do Nothing
Or
Terminate the Contract for the Grant and
Reimburse Central Federal Lands for costs
incurred to date and discontinue the project
Decision Requested Tonight
Project History
September
Congress
passes
FLAP
Legislation
November
Town
notified
of FLAP
Program
Town
Board
Study
Session
1-22
2012 2014 2013
Public
Meeting
w/
Businesses
/ Property
owners
3-19
General
Public
Meeting
3-21
Town
Board
Study
Session
3-21
Town
Board
Meeting
3-26
Grant
App
Due
5-15
Start of
NEPA
Process
Over 580
invitations
sent to
affected
citizens
Groups prioritized options
1.Parking Structure
2.One-way Couplet
3.Two Way Riverside
4.Big Thompson Trail
5.Do Nothing
Board directs
staff to apply for
one-way couplet
including a
phase 2 parking
structure
NEPA Process and Schedule
(Complete Overview)
Initiate
Project
and
Conduct
Scoping
Develop
Purpose
and
Need
and
Initial
Design
Options
Collect
and
Analyze
Data
Publish
Draft
EA
Publish
Decision
Document
Respond to
public
comments
on Draft EA
Develop
Alternatives
and Perform
Alternatives
Screening
Public Outreach Throughout Process
Public Meeting
#2
Mar 2015
Public
Meeting #3
Summer 2015
Environmental
Affects Analysis of
Design Alternative
•Economic
•Environmental
•Noise/Air Quality
2014 2015
Small Group
Meetings
Additional Small
Group Meetings
TBD
We Are Here
Public
Meeting #1
Oct 2014
Review of
findings and
further
consideration
by Town
Board
Summer Late
Summer
To proceed with the NEPA process with the
remaining two alternatives; One-way Couplet
and Do Nothing
Or
Terminate the Contract for the Grant and
Reimburse Central Federal Lands for costs
incurred to date and discontinue the project
Decision Requested Tonight
Presentation Outline
•What problems create the
need for this project?
•Who should take
responsibility to fix it?
•Why is the Loop preferred
over other alternatives?
•What if we choose No
Action?
•Actions in response to
residents’ ideas
•Unanticipated benefits
What are the problems?
The quality of the guest/resident
experience slips every year. This
is inextricably linked to the
economic sustainability of the
Town and RMNP.
•Traffic congestion is increasing
•Sense of safety is compromised
•Our Destination reputation is
suffering
What are the problems?
•We all want to protect the appeal of Estes Park
& RMNP as places to experience relaxation &
renewal--not stress, chaos, & frustration.
What are the problems?
•Traffic congestion elevates frustration, noise,
& air pollution.
In 2008 a westbound car
sitting at the signal at
Elkhorn & Moraine waited
an average of 2.3
minutes during the busy
weekend. This increased
to 3.3 minutes in 2014,
and is projected to be 7.1
minutes in 2040.
What are the problems?
•The sense of safety is
compromised when
–travel needs of motorists,
pedestrians, and cyclists
conflict, and
–emergency response
vehicles are delayed by
gridlock.
What are the problems?
•Our destination reputation is suffering
as guests vent complaints about how
their visits to Estes Park fall short of
their expectations.
–Colorado Association of Ski Town reports
show our sales tax growth, while positive at
14% in 2014, is lagging behind the
competition.
–Town Citizen Surveys in 2011 and 2014 cite
transportation issues as top concerns.
What are the problems?
•In the 2011 Visit Estes Park Visitor Study over 220 out
of 6500 respondents expressed frustration over traffic
congestion in Estes. Over 630 commented negatively
about parking difficulties. Examples include:
–“I had thought that it would be less touristy and more easy to
walk around in. We never ventured back into town after
driving through it on our way to the Y camp as it took us 40
minutes of sitting in traffic to get there.”
–“The traffic lights and cross walks at Moraine and Elkhorn
left you standing for a very long time. Waiting was too much
for some as we watched many people get impatient and just
run across the street.”
–“Traffic driving through town was very hectic and kept us
away from dining and shopping there.”
What are the problems?
“Traffic was terrible – couldn’t turn left at a stop light – so
many cars.”
“Never enough space (to park) in town at peak times.”
“I will not come back until off-season”
“Traffic was terrible, probably wouldn’t have gone
downtown at all without the shuttle bus.”
“In the summertime, I avoided downtown because of the
parking problems and traffic.”
Who is responsible to fix it?
Some say it is the Federal
Government
•“They have the money”
•“RMNP traffic causes the
problem”
–3,443,501 RMNP visitors in 2014
–81% enter from Estes Park
•54% via Beaver Meadows entrance
•27% via Fall River entrance
Who is responsible to fix it?
Others say it is the Colorado Department of
Transportation’s job
•CDOT owns, maintains, and controls US 34 & US 36.
They set the traffic signal timing.
•CDOT has engineering and funding resources that
greatly exceed those available at the local level.
Who is responsible to fix it?
Is it the business owners’ & the Town of Estes
Park’s job to fix the guest experience problems?
•27% of Estes Park visitors come for local
attractions and do not visit RMNP.
•The Town lives or dies on the flow of sales
tax dollars.
•Early recognition of declining trends is
essential in averting economic decay.
•Reacting too late and after the fact makes
economic recovery very difficult.
•It is irresponsible for the Town to not look at
each opportunity to address the problems.
Who is responsible to fix it?
Bottom Line—both the problem and the
solution are complex. Collaborative
partnership is necessary . None of the
impacted parties can solve this alone. We
need each other.
•Central Federal Land is willing to
allocate $13M in Federal funds toward
the solution
•CDOT has already allocated $4.2M in
State funds toward the solution
•Town owns & controls Riverside Drive
•Local businesses engage the guests
and collect the sales tax revenue that
drives the economic engine
Is there a vision for the
solution?
Yes. It has multiple complex parts as
does the root problem of sustaining
the Estes economic base of sales
tax/tourism.
•The solution will not be delivered
with one grand project.
•It will have low-cost and expensive
pieces implemented over time.
•It should communicate parking
availability in real-time to motorists.
•Consistent & strategic signage is
needed.
•Transit should play a key role.
Is there a vision for the
solution?
•Relief is needed for the conflicts,
frustration, and safety of thousands
of pedestrians and cars using the
same space.
•Emergency response time must be
protected.
•Rare, cooperative funding
opportunities must be pursued.
•The 2012 Transportation Visioning
Committee report establishes a list
of foundational items for addressing
traffic congestion & parking
problems.
Was more than one solution
considered?
•Yes. Initial proposal presented October 8, 2014
included 4 Alternatives (No Action, 1, 1A, 2).
•Public input in October and December produced 8
new Alternatives. A total of 12 Alternatives were
included in the Initial Screening.
•Six Alternatives (No Action, 1, 1A, 2, 4, & 6) advanced
to Secondary Screening for comparative analysis.
•Secondary Screening recommends No Action and Alt
1 advance for full NEPA evaluation of detailed benefits
& impacts. Alternative 1 appears to represents the
best balance of congestion relief, minimal property
impacts, minimal environmental impacts, and
constructability within the budgeted funding.
How does the Loop help?
•The one-way couplet is the
first step in a journey to solve
the user experience problem.
–Reducing downtown congestion
improves the user experience.
–Westbound Elkhorn traffic predicted
to clear signal at Moraine in one
cycle (< 1 min delay)
–Reduced delay shortens emergency
response times.
–Opticom emergency signal pre-
emption could be added to signals
for even faster response.
–One way traffic flow improves safety
by reducing directional conflict
points between cars & pedestrians.
How does the Loop help?
•Eastbound traffic flow from Moraine to
Riverside to Elkhorn is improved.
•Channels eastbound traffic from
RMNP directly to 200+ downtown
parking spaces otherwise unknown &
unseen from Moraine or Elkhorn.
•Provides guests close-up views of the
Riverwalk, parks, and the Big
Thompson river.
•New lane geometry includes bicycle
facilities for future connectivity.
•Establishes a foundational Riverside
Dr corridor for future parking &
congestion mitigation projects.
Alt 1
One-Way Couplet
Loss of Parking:
35 Spaces (3%*)
00000000v
*1,082 spaces total downtown
Baldwin Park Impact:
17% Decrease
Children’s Park Impact:
2% Decrease
Numbers are approximate.
Level of Service
Elkhorn/Riverside:
LOS D (43 s)
Elkhorn/Moraine:
LOS E (68 s)
Moraine/Riverside
/Crags:
LOS C (34 s)
Traffic Impacts Environmental
Impacts
25-30 Days of
Downtown
Congestion
Multi-Modal:
On-Street Bike
Lane- SB Moraine,
EB Riverside,
Shared Bike on WB
Elkhorn
Right-of-Way:
Full Commercial
Acquisitions: 6
Full Residential
Acquisitions: 1
Legend
Existing Park
Commercial
Acquisition
Residential
Acquisition
X
X
How does the Loop help?
SIGNALIZED
INTERSECTIONS
2014
EXISTING
Seconds of Delay
(weekend peak hr)
2040
NO ACTION
Seconds of Delay
(weekend peak hr)
2040 ALT 1
(One-Way Couplet)
Seconds of Delay
(weekend peak hr)
Elkhorn/Riverside 78 sec (1.2 min) 81 sec (1.3 min) 43 sec (0.7 min)
Change in Delay
from 2014 0% 4% increase 45% reduction
Elkhorn/Moraine 121 sec (2 min) 299 sec (5 min) 68 sec (1.1 min)
Change in Delay
from 2014 0% 147% increase 44% reduction
What is a “No Action” Alternative?
•Required for evaluation
under NEPA
•Maintains existing travel
pattern and roadway
configuration through
Downtown Estes
Consequence of No Action
Daily Vehicle Volumes for Combined US 34 & US 36 (Year 2012)
In 2012 40 days of
gridlock in 4
months—essentially
every weekend
June-September
Consequence of No Action
Daily Vehicle Volumes for Combined US 34 & US 36 (Year 2040)
In 2040 147 days of
gridlock in 6 months—
approximately 5 days per
week from May October
What happens to
Riverside Dr?
Alternative 1
`
No Action
10,000/
13,600
12,500 Weekday 2014 = 7,200 vehicles
Weekday 2040 = 9,900 vehicles
Weekday 2040 =
11,000 vehicles
Weekend peak hour increase
is large.
•2014 northbound traffic is
720 vehicles/hr
•This grows by 37% to 985
in 2040 (No Action)
•Increase is 160% to 1875
in 2040 (Alternative 1)
Weekday 2014 = 10,500 vehicles
Weekday 2040 = 14,500 vehicles Weekday = 13,400 vehicles
•2014 weekday traffic
on Riverside is 68%
of Elkhorn traffic.
•2040 weekday traffic
on Riverside for
Alternative 1 is 11%
greater than 2040 No
Action traffic.
What happens to East
Elkhorn Avenue?
Alternative 1
`
No Action
Weekday 2014 = 10,500 vehicles
Weekday 2040 = 14,500 vehicles
10,000/
13,600
Weekday = 13,400 vehicles
12,500
•Weekday average
daily traffic
predicted to
increase by 38%
under No Action,
28% under
Alternative 1.
•Weekend peak hour
traffic predicted to
increase by the
same percentages
(39% from 1670
vehicles/hr in 2014
to 2320 under No
Action, or 28% to
2145 vehicles/hr
under Alternative 1.)
What happens to W
Elkhorn Ave?
Alternative 1
`
No Action 2014 Peak Hr
Saturday Volumes
10,000/
13,600
13,400
12,500
7,200 /
9,900 11,000
2040 Peak Hr
Saturday Volumes
W Elkhorn weekend peak
hour traffic increase is
nearly same for No Action
& Alternative 1.
•2014 traffic is 630
vehicles/hr (total both
directions)
•This grows by 40% to
870 (No Action)
•Increase is similar at
880 vph (Alternative 1)
105
north-to-
west
bound
cars (5%)
redirected
to
Riverside
& Elkhorn
by Alt 1.
What We’ve Heard
Estes suffers from a lack of parking downtown.
•Staff Action: an affordable intercept parking
garage is under design for the south parking lot
at the Visitor Center. Anticipated construction in
2016.
•Citizen Transportation Advisory Board Action:
parking policy objectives are under development
for presentation to the Town Board in 2015.
What We’ve Heard
•The Town needs RMNP guide signage and
downtown wayfinding signage.
Historic Downtown
CDOT has agreed to
use white text on brown
background (common
recreational guide sign
style).
What We’ve Heard
•Staff Action: RMNP static signage changes are
currently under discussion with CDOT Region 4
engineers. These changes are an important piece.
•Estes Park citizen Transportation Advisory Board
Action: intends to craft a Wayfinding Signage
Program later in 2015.
•CFL Consultant Action: Traffic modeling show
signage and striping changes alone will not divert
sufficient traffic at US 34/36 to meaningfully relieve
downtown congestion.
What We’ve Heard
Restripe US 34/36 to
send more traffic to
RMNP via the
Wonderview Bypass.
•CDOT verbally
agreed to restripe
center NB left turn
lane to optional
left/thru lane in 2015
and revise signal
timing as required
What We’ve Heard
Bring back the Barnes dance (all-walk phase)
•CDOT has agreed to reinstate the Barnes Dance for a three-
week before-and-after study in July-August.
•All intersection delay modeling used in the screening analysis
assumes the Barnes Dance is reinstated at the two downtown
intersections.
What We’ve Heard
The Loop will simply move the bottleneck from
downtown to Moraine west of the Donut House
where 2 lanes merge to one.
•A single free-flowing lane can carry about
1200 vehicles per hour. The downtown stop-
and-go lanes are limited to about 500 vph
each.
•Today slow, two-lane traffic flow improves
substantially after merging to one lane past
the last ped crossing on Moraine.
•The “pinch” is not the single lane but rather
obstructions to flow created by signals,
crosswalks, and driveway/street accesses.
They act like a clamp pinching off the flow of
water in a tube.
•The next bottleneck is expected at the traffic
signal at US 36/Mary’s Lake Road.
What We’ve Heard
The one-way couplet will
change the economy and
character of economy of
Estes Park forever.
•The City of Loveland has
successfully flourished with
a one-way couplet for
decades.
•The Town of Lyons has
maintained a quaint,
appealing village character
for many years with a state
highway couplet in the
downtown core.
Unanticipated help for
Floodplain Mitigation
•Three new bridges
could provide some
flooding relief
downtown.
•No Town funds
required.
•Design & Project
Management
performed by CFL.
•Potentially concurrent
construction in one
season instead of
three.
Floodplain Management
by Will Birchfield
Transportation Advisory
Board Recommendation
Chair Kimberly Campbell
Attention Please
1.For those who wish to comment, please use the sign-up sheets
behind the seating area.
2.Comment time will not be limited but we request that you are
succinct and not repetitive -- to allow everyone time to speak.
3.Please be civil and respectful of all opinions.
4.Discuss ideas, not people.
5.Please refrain from clapping, cheering, booing, or tomato-
throwing.
6.Being disrespectful, yelling or intimidation will force an early
conclusion to the meeting.
7.We will attempt to respond to simple public questions as they are
asked; complex questions will be answered later.