HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board Special Study Session 2015-03-18
Wednesday, March 18, 2015
TOWN BOARD 3:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m.
STUDY SESSION Rooms 202/203
3:00 p.m. NEPA Study – Draft Finding of the Loop Project.
5:00 p.m. Meeting Adjourn.
“Informal discussion among Trustees concerning agenda items or other Town matters may occur before this
meeting at approximately 2:45 p.m.”
AGENDA
PUBLIC WORKS Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Greg Muhonen, PE, Public Works Director
Date: March 18, 2015
RE: Downtown Estes Loop Selection of Preferred Alternative
Objective:
Provide the Board an update on the NEPA screening of route alternatives for the
Downtown Estes Loop (DEL).
Present Situation:
Traffic congestion in downtown Estes Park during the peak visitation period from
June to October produces excessive delays, noise, and air pollution. This
diminishes the experience of guests visiting Estes Park and results in increased
complaints and diminished desire for return visits during peak summer periods.
The Town of Estes Park received recommendations to modify the downtown
traffic circulation routing on Elkhorn Avenue, Moraine Avenue, and Riverside
Drive in the 2003 Estes Valley Transportation Alternatives Study and in the 2012
Transportation Visioning Committee report. This project implements those
master plan recommendations.
A Colorado Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) grant in the amount of $13M
was awarded to the Town specifically for the one-way loop in the Project
Agreement with Central Federal Lands Highway Division (CFLHD) dated
6/12/2014.
Under a devolution agreement, a $4.2 million payment was made to the Town
from the Colorado Department of Transportation in February 2015 to provide
local matching funds required per the terms of the FLAP grant. In exchange, the
Town accepted ownership and maintenance responsibility for West Elkhorn
Avenue from Moraine Drive to Fall River Road. These funds can be used only
for transportation purposes and are not restricted specifically to this project.
Page 2 of 4
CFLHD initiated the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) process with
solicitation of public comments on four route alternatives. The comments
received resulted in the evaluation of 6 additional route alternatives as further
described in the attached summary dated March 18, 2015.
On March 12, 2015 the Town learned that support of any route alternative that
proposes to expand Riverside Drive wider than 2 lanes will result in cancellation
of the FLAP grant as described in the attached letter to Town Administrator Frank
Lancaster from CFLHD dated March 9, 2015. A new application with a different scope
would have to be submitted to CFHD in the future to secure new funding for that
purpose.
Proposal:
CFLHD proposes to present to the public on March 25, 2015 Alternative 1 as the
Preferred Alternative for advancement through the balance of the NEPA evaluation in
2015, perform the engineering design in 2016, and construct the proposed road
improvements in 2017.
Advantages:
The advantages and disadvantages listed below pertain to the CFLHD recommendation
to select the one-way couplet (Alternative 1) as the Preferred Alternative for further
evaluation in the NEPA study. Additional comparative information is provided on the
attached Secondary Screening of Alternatives summary.
The FLAP and CDOT funds are estimated to be sufficient to pay all costs to
design, evaluate, and construct the proposed roadway modifications included in
Alternative 1.
Construction will result in the replacement of three bridges over the Big
Thompson River that currently contribute to downtown flooding due to insufficient
conveyance capacity for flood flows. No other replacement funding currently
exists.
Moving forward with the one-way loop shows good-faith stewardship of the grant
funding awarded for this project.
Alternative 1 is estimated to reduce the total days of downtown congestion from
140-150 days (under No Action in the year 2040) to 25-30 days. This is an active
step in the solution to reducing traffic congestion in downtown Estes Park.
Traffic flow through the key intersections is predicted to improve. The total delay
at the key intersections during the one-hour analysis period in 2040 is reduced
from 914 hours to 127 hours.
Page 3 of 4
A new and improved intersection will be designed and constructed at Moraine
Avenue and Crags Drive.
The project is predicted to be completed by 2017 and provide some relief to the
traffic congestion in downtown Estes Park on portions of Elkhorn Avenue and
Moraine Avenue.
On-street bike lanes will be provided through downtown where none currently
exist.
CDOT will assume maintenance responsibility for the reconstructed portion of
West Riverside Drive and the associated river bridges.
Disadvantages:
Construction of the project will produce detours and delays for motorists traveling
downtown during the construction period. This may diminish guest visitation and
associated retail business revenue during the construction period.
Seven private properties covering 1.1 acres along Riverside Avenue must be
acquired to accommodate the project.
Existing park land and parking spaces are displaced by the project.
The residential character of the Riverside Avenue corridor will be changed to a
state highway corridor with the associated increases in accidents, noise, and air
pollution.
The one-way traffic pattern will produce increased out-of-direction travel time and
distance for eastbound motorists approaching downtown from West Elkhorn
Avenue.
CDOT will retain jurisdictional control of Elkhorn Avenue, Moraine Avenue, and
West Riverside Drive which limits Town freedom for discretionary, temporary
road closures to accommodate events.
Thousands of cars and thousands of pedestrians will continue to co-occupy the
congested Elkhorn Avenue and Moraine Avenue corridor during the peak
visitation periods.
The project will increase the rate of traffic flow to the Beaver Meadows entry
station and compound an existing parking peak period parking problem within
Rocky Mountain National Park.
Page 4 of 4
The project does not resolve the traffic congestion problem on Elkhorn Avenue
between Hwy 34/36 and Riverside Drive.
Action Recommended:
The Public Works Department recommends the Board of Trustees consider the
advantages and disadvantages of the proposed DEL, collect additional public comment,
and prepare to take action on a route selection at a future public hearing.
Budget:
Costs to the Town’s future street maintenance budget are increased due to the
additional lanes miles added to the Town network by the West Elkhorn Avenue
devolution from CDOT. No Town funds are required for design and construction of the
project.
Level of Public Interest
The known level of public interest in this item is high.
Sample Motion:
No motion for action is required at this Study Session which is provided as a preview of
the public presentation scheduled for March 25, 2015. This item will return to the Board
on April 14, 2015 for possible action to guide the Town Administrator in his reply to the
CFLHD letter which is due April 16, 2015. The Transportation Advisory Board will
conduct a special meeting for this item on March 31, 2015 and provide a
recommendation to the Board at the April 14 meeting.
Attachments:
1. Project summary document from CFLHD/AECOM dated March 18, 2015
2. Secondary Screening of Alternatives summary spreadsheet.
3. Maps of route Alternatives 1, 2, 4, and 6
4. Letter to Town Administrator Frank Lancaster from Central Federal Lands dated
March 9, 2015 (no referenced attachments were included)
March 18, 2015 Page 1
Project Study Area
Downtown Estes Loop
Project Update
Estes Park Town Board Study Session
March 18th, 2015
Purpose of this Project
The project was initiated in September 2014 by the Federal
Highway Administration ‐ Central Federal Lands Highway Division
(CFLHD), in coordination with the Town of Estes Park and the
Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). The purpose of
the project is to improve access to Rocky Mountain National Park
by shortening travel times, reducing congestion, and improving
safety through Downtown Estes Park. The primary source of
funding for the project is $13 million in CFLHD ‐ Federal Lands
Access Program (FLAP) funding and $4.2 million in CDOT
Responsible Acceleration of Maintenance and Partnerships (RAMP)
funds (as a match to FLAP).
Activities To‐Date
Shortly after the project was initiated, public open houses were
held on October 8th 2014 to introduce the project, provide history
of options evaluated as part of previous plans, provide an overview
of the Environmental Assessment (EA) process, gather input on
transportation issues within the community, and resources of
concern in the project area. This information was then utilized to help finalize the purpose and need statement for
the project; and to identify, develop and screen alternatives. Subsequently, small group meetings, open to the
public, were held in December 2014 to discuss topics of concern in greater detail.
Alternatives Screening Process
From November 2014 to the present, the project team proceeded with data collection and screening of
alternatives, many of which were put forward by the public. A two tiered screening process was developed with
input from members of the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) which includes team members from CFLHD, the
Town of Estes and CDOT. The primary screening (Level 1) reviewed alternatives to determine if they met the
purpose and need. Level 1 screening included traffic operations, safety, community resources and cost. Second
level screening is a comparative screening of potential build alternatives, and the No Action alternative. The
secondary screening criteria included several factors such as impacts to parking and displacement of residential
and commercial property.
Level 1 – Primary Screening
The following alternatives were included in the level 1 primary screening (those in bold indicate initial alternatives
presented at the October 2014 public meetings; the ones that follow include those identified by the public at the
Oct. meetings):
No Action: Required to be advanced per NEPA requirements
Alternative 1: One‐Way Couplet Counter Clockwise (including one‐way Elkhorn)
Alternative 1A: One‐Way Couplet Counter Clockwise (with two‐way on Elkhorn)
Alternative 2: 4‐Lane Riverside, Two‐Way Elkhorn & Moraine
Alternative 2A: 4‐Lane Riverside with Pedestrian Mall on Elkhorn
Alternative 3: One‐Way Couplet, Clockwise direction
Alternative 4: 3‐Lane Riverside (2 Lanes WB/1‐lane EB) – Elkhorn and Moraine Two‐Way
Alternative 5: Reversible One‐Way on Riverside, Elkhorn/Moraine Two‐Way
Alternative 6: One‐Way Couplet Counter‐Clockwise (2‐lanes WB on Elkhorn and Moraine) and
Two‐Way 4‐Lane Riverside
Alternative 7: One‐Way Couplet Counter Clockwise Using Rockwell
March 18, 2015 Page 2
Alternative 8: Two‐Way 2‐Lane Riverside, One‐Way Elkhorn (West) and One‐Way Moraine
(South)
Alternative 9: Traffic Diversion around Downtown through Signage and Intersection
Modifications
Level 2 – Comparative Secondary Screening
Based on level 1 primary screening results the following alternatives were advanced to comparative secondary
screening:
No Action
Alternative 1: One‐Way Couplet Counter Clockwise
Alternative 1A: One‐Way Couplet Counter Clockwise (with two‐way on Elkhorn)
Alternative 2: 4‐Lane Riverside, 2‐Way Elkhorn & Moraine
Alternative 4: 3‐Lane Riverside (2‐lanes WB/1‐lane EB) – Elkhorn and Moraine Two‐Way
Alternative 6: One‐Way Couplet Counter‐Clockwise (2‐lanes WB on Elkhorn and Moraine) and
Two‐Way 4‐Lane Riverside
The attached secondary screening matrix exhibit provides quantitative and qualitative information for each
alternative in comparison to existing conditions for various screening criteria.
The following statements briefly summarize the traffic operation, environmental impacts, and costs compared
to funding of each alternative:
No Action: Analyze in EA per NEPA
Alternative 1: Good traffic operations, lowest impacts of build alternatives, within available
funding
Alternative 1A: Poor traffic operations, after further review was determined to not meet
purpose and need
Alternative 2: Improved traffic operations, high environmental impacts, requires additional
funding. High risk due to additional analysis, mitigation, and right of way acquisition
Alternative 4: Improved traffic operations, moderate/high environmental impacts, requires
additional funding. High risk due to additional analysis, mitigation, and right of way acquisition
Alternative 6: Best traffic operations, highest environmental impacts, requires additional funding.
High risk due to additional environmental, mitigation, and right of way acquisition
Based on level 2 comparative screening, it is recommended that the No Action and Alternative 1 be
advanced and documented in the draft Environmental Assessment.
Next Steps
A public meeting will be held on Wednesday, March 25 from 5:30 ‐ 8 p.m. at the Estes Park Event Center, located
at 1125 Rooftop Way. An overview presentation will begin at 6 p.m. preceded and followed by time to review
materials, make comments and ask questions of project team members at information boards in an open house
format. The focus of the March 25th public meeting is to explain the screening of alternatives and to gather public
feedback. The same information will be provided online at www.downtownestesloop.com beginning March 26th.
The project partners will be seeking public comments on the alternatives March 25th through April 8th, in
anticipation of a follow‐up presentation to the Town Board on April 14th.
Attachments
Secondary Screening Matrix
Alternative Exhibits:
o Alternative 1
o Alternative 2
o Alternative 4
o Alternative 6
Downtown Estes Loop Project ‐ Secondary Screening DRAFT ‐ FOR COMPARTIVE SCREENING PURPOSES ONLYALTERNATIVES/QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE CRITERIANo Action Alternative 1 (One‐Way Couplet)Alternative 2 (4‐Lane Riverside)Alternative 4 (3‐Lane Riverside)Alternative 1A (Variation to Alt 1; w/ Two‐Way Traffic on Elkhorn)Alternative 6 (Variation of Alt 2; One‐Way Traffic on Elkhorn, Two‐Way Traffic on Riverside (4 Lane))Congestion and Delay (2040) ‐ Measured by LOS (Seconds of Delay) Per Intersection)Elkhorn/RiversideLOS F (81 s)LOS D (43 s)LOS F (95 s)LOS F (107 s)LOS F (92 s)LOS C (23 s)Elkhorn/MoraineLOS F (299 s)LOS E (68 s)LOS F (105 s)LOS F (105 s)LOS F (221 s)LOS D (53 s)Moraine/Riverside/CragsNALOS C (34 s)LOS C (33 s)LOS D (38 s)LOS D (35 s)LOS C (30 s)DRAFT Total Days Downtown Congestion (days)140‐150 days25‐30 days40‐50 days75‐85 days120‐130 days4‐6 daysTotal Downtown Intersection Delay 1 (hrs) (Elk./Riv., Elk./Moraine, Moraine/Riv./Crags) 914 hrs 127 hrs175 hrs 2192 hrs 2300 hrs44 hrs 2Access & ParkingPropertyNo impact‐ maintain existing conditionRight In/Right Out or Left In/Left Out only along Riverside; maintain one access per property ownerFull movement with peak hour turning movement challenges along Riverside; one access per property ownerFull movement with peak hour turning movement challenges along Riverside; one access per property ownerSame as Alternative 1Same asAlternative 2Parking Impact (% of lost downtown parking spaces, 1082 existing spaces)No impact‐ maintain existing condition35 Spaces Lost (3%)55 Spaces Lost (5%)51 Spaces Lost (5%)Same as Alternative 160 Spaces Lost (6%)Potential Parking MitigationN/APotentially 22 additional spaces on Moraine if convert to diagonal parking. Additional 25 spaces if parallel parking along/within Baldwin Park. 3Potentially 21 additional spaces by removing Rockwell Bridge and reconfiguring Post Office and Riverside lotsPotentially 21 additional spaces by removing Rockwell Bridge and reconfiguring Post Office and Riverside lotsSame asAlternative 1 Potentially 22 additional spaces on Moraine if convert to Diagonal parkingAlternative Mode AccommodationCyclist No additional facilities provided. On‐street bike lane (SB Moraine, EB Riverside), Shared bike/traffic lane WB ElkhornOn‐street bike lanes along Elkhorn and Moraine, No provision for Riverside On‐street bike lane (WB Elkhorn, SB Moraine, EB Riverside)Same asAlternative 1On‐street bike lane SB Moraine, Shared Bike/traffic lane WB Elkhorn, potential for multi‐use path through Baldwin park, adjacent to Riverside (eastside) north of IvyTransit Maintains existing stop locationsRequires Variation to Gold Line; relocate EB Trading Post Stop to Rockwell or RiversideMaintains existing stop locations Maintains existing stop locationsSame asAlternative 1Same asAlternative 1Downtown Estes Loop Project ‐ Secondary Screening of AlternativesDRAFT ‐ PRELIMINARY FOR COMPARATIVE REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY SUBJECT TO CHANGE ALTERNATIVESALTERNATIVE VARIATIONSDRAFT ‐ FOR COMPARATIVE SCREENING PURPOSES ONLYTOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION ‐ MARCH 18, 2015
Downtown Estes Loop Project ‐ Secondary Screening DRAFT ‐ FOR COMPARTIVE SCREENING PURPOSES ONLYALTERNATIVES/QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE CRITERIANo Action Alternative 1 (One‐Way Couplet)Alternative 2 (4‐Lane Riverside)Alternative 4 (3‐Lane Riverside)Alternative 1A (Variation to Alt 1; w/ Two‐Way Traffic on Elkhorn)Alternative 6 (Variation of Alt 2; One‐Way Traffic on Elkhorn, Two‐Way Traffic on Riverside (4 Lane))DRAFT ‐ PRELIMINARY FOR COMPARATIVE REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY SUBJECT TO CHANGE ALTERNATIVESALTERNATIVE VARIATIONS Number of Conflict PointsPedestrian/Vehicle Conflicts656880828269Vehicle/Vehicle Conflicts93751201198897EconomicsBusiness Visibility (by through traffic)No impactElkhorn/Moraine visible inbound to Beaver Meadows entrance; Riverside visible outboundMaintains two‐way travel on Elkhorn and Moraine; shifts through traffic to Riverside (from Elkhorn and Moraine)Maintains two‐way travel on Elkhorn and Moraine; shifts through traffic to Riverside (from Elkhorn and Moraine)Same asAlternative 1Splits through traffic between Riverside and Elkhorn/ Moraine, Elkhorn/Moraine loses visibility in eastbound direction and reduced visibility westboundDowntown Visitor Vehicular Accessibility to Existing Parking (On Street and Lots)Remains As‐Is TodayRequires out of direction travel to access Moraine lots (if traveling eastbound); Requires signage to direct visitors to lotsMaintains access to parking; Requires signage to direct visitors to lotsMaintains access to parking; Requires signage to direct visitors to lotsSame asAlternative 1Requires out of direction travel to access Moraine lots (if traveling eastbound); Requires signage to direct visitors to lotsRight‐Of‐WayCommercial Property Impact (Full/Partial Acquisition)No impact 6/3 8/2 7/3Same asAlternative 18/2Commercial Property Estimated Acquisition (Acreage)No impact 0.9 Acres 3.8 Acres 1.3 AcresSame asAlternative 13.8 AcresImpact to Residential Dwellings ‐ (Full/Partial Acquisition)No impact 1/1 10/0 8/2Same asAlternative 110/0Residential Property Estimated Acquisition (Acreage)No impact 0.2 Acres 2.3 Acres 1.0 AcresSame asAlternative 12.3 AcresTotal Relocations (Commercial and Residential)No impact 7 18 15Same asAlternative 118Environmental Baldwin Park (Section 4(f))(58,080 Sq. Ft. Existing)No Impact9,860 Sq Ft Park Impact(17% decrease) 24,190 Sq Ft Park Impact(42% decrease) 19,550 Sq Ft Park Impact(34% decrease)Same asAlternative 124,190 Sq Ft Park Impact(42% decrease) Children's Park (Section 4(f)/6(f))(9,450 Sq. Ft. Existing)No Impact140 Sq Ft Park Impact, & requires reconstruction / relocation of restroom(2% decrease)1,910 Sq Ft Park Impact, & requires reconstruction / relocation of restroom(20% decrease)1,760 Sq Ft Park Impact,& requires reconstruction / relocation of restroom(19% decrease)Same asAlternative 11,910 Sq Ft Park Impact, & requires reconstruction / relocation of restroom(20% decrease)Cultural Resources No ImpactsNo Impacts to properties on or eligible for the NRHPNo Impacts to properties on or eligible for the NRHPNo Impacts to properties on or eligible for the NRHPSame asAlternative 1No Impacts to properties on or eligible for the NRHP Pedestrian Comfort (along Elkhorn) ‐ Measured by traffic volume, roadway character and pedestrian accommodationsIncreased duration of congestion in future could impact pedestrian comfortSimilar total traffic to No Action (in one way direction)Less overall traffic (shift to Riverside) Less overall traffic (shift to Riverside) More total traffic than No Action Less overall traffic (split traffic between Elkhorn and Riverside) Pedestrian Comfort (along Riverside) ‐ Measured by traffic volume, roadway character and pedestrian accommodationsNo impact Most impact in afternoon Greater impact than Alternative 1Greater impact than Alternative 1Same asAlternative 1Greater impact than Alternative 1DRAFT ‐ FOR COMPARATIVE SCREENING PURPOSES ONLYTOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION ‐ MARCH 18, 2015
Downtown Estes Loop Project ‐ Secondary Screening DRAFT ‐ FOR COMPARTIVE SCREENING PURPOSES ONLYALTERNATIVES/QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE CRITERIANo Action Alternative 1 (One‐Way Couplet)Alternative 2 (4‐Lane Riverside)Alternative 4 (3‐Lane Riverside)Alternative 1A (Variation to Alt 1; w/ Two‐Way Traffic on Elkhorn)Alternative 6 (Variation of Alt 2; One‐Way Traffic on Elkhorn, Two‐Way Traffic on Riverside (4 Lane))DRAFT ‐ PRELIMINARY FOR COMPARATIVE REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY SUBJECT TO CHANGE ALTERNATIVESALTERNATIVE VARIATIONSCostConstruction Cost $0 $11.6M to $14.0M $14.2M to $17.2M $13.0M to $15.7MSame asAlternative 1$14.6M to $17.7MRight‐Of‐Way Cost $0 $2.4M to $2.9M$5.3M to $6.3M$3.4M to $4.1MSame asAlternative 1$5.3M to $6.3MTotal Cost (including Design and CM)$0 $16.5M to $20.0M$22.5M to $27.3M$19.3M to $23.4MSame asAlternative 1$23.0M to $27.8MOVERALLResults Analyze in EA per NEPA requirementsGood traffic operations, lowest impacts of build alternatives, within available fundingImproved traffic operations, high impacts, requires additional funding; high risk due to additional analysis, mitigation, and r/w acquisition Improved traffic operations, moderate/high impacts, requires additional funding; high risk due to additional analysis, mitigation, and r/w acquisition Poor traffic operations, does not meet purpose & need 4 Best traffic operations, highest impacts of build alternatives, requires additional funding; high risk due to additional analysis, mitigation, and r/w acquisition Preliminary Recomendations (for EA)Analyze in EA per NEPA requirementsRecommended Not Recommended Not Recommended Not Recommended Not RecommendedNOTES: 1 Total Intersection Delay is the total hours of vehicle delay at each intersection in the hour of analysis 3 If parallel parking were to be installed along Riverside (adjacent to Baldwin Park) additional 6,330 Sq Ft of impact to Baldwin Park is anticipated. 2 For Alts 2, 4 and 6, Rockwell and Riverside intersection has LOS F with stop controlled intersection, signalized intersection might be warranted.4 Alt. 1A was originally advanced from Level 1 Primary Screening, however more detailed traffic analysis indicated the alternative does not meet the purpose and need to reduce congestion and shorten travel times to RMNP.LOS Control Delay per vehicle (seconds per vehicle)A ≤ 10B > 10‐20C > 20‐35D > 35‐55E > 55‐80F > 79DRAFT ‐ FOR COMPARATIVE SCREENING PURPOSES ONLYTOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION ‐ MARCH 18, 2015
Screening Results: Right-of-WayCriteriaNo ActionAlternative 1 (One‐Way Couplet)Alternative 2 (4‐Lane Riverside)Alternative 4 (3‐Lane Riverside)Alternative 6 (One‐Way Couplet with 4‐Lane Riverside)Commercial Property Impact (Full/Partial Acquisition)No Impact 6/3 8/2 7/3 8/2Impact to Residential Dwellings ‐(Full/Partial Acquisition)No Impact 1/116/014/216/0Full Acquisitions/ RelocationsNo Impact 724 21 24
Downtown Estes Loop ProjectPresentation to the Estes Park Town BoardMarch 18, 2015DRAFT-FOR TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION, SUBJECT TO CHANGE
Presentation Outline• Overview• Project Definition• Purpose of Project• Need for Project• Alternatives Screening Process• Next StepsDRAFT-FOR TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION, SUBJECT TO CHANGE
What is the “Downtown Estes Loop” Project? • Initiated in September 2014 to evaluate transportation improvement options through downtown. • Followed a funding application process submitted by the Town of Estes Park to FHWA Central Federal Lands for evaluation of a one-way couplet along three primary roadways: – Elkhorn– Moraine– Riverside Drives DRAFT-FOR TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION, SUBJECT TO CHANGE
What is the Project Area?• Elkhorn Ave (Riverside to Moraine)• Moraine Ave (Elkhorn to W. Riverside)• Riverside (Moraine to Elkhorn) DRAFT-FOR TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION, SUBJECT TO CHANGE
How is this project funded?FLAP: •New funding program in Federal Transportation Bill (MAP‐21)•Provides funding for work on public facilities that are located on, are adjacent to, or provide access to Federal lands•Projects awarded funding through a competitive ‘Call for Projects’The project was awarded $13 Million in Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) funds in September 2013West Elkhorn Avenue was awarded $4.2 Million in CDOT - RAMP funds in October 2013Total Project Funds: $17.2 Million•Neither fund source is a loanRAMP: •Town takes ownership (and maintenance) of W. Elkhorn Ave. (Moraine Ave. to Wonderview Ave.)•New CDOT approach, known as RAMP, is intended to better coordinate project expenditures and available funding•Promotes public‐public partnerships including the transfer of ownership of certain CDOT roadways to a local agency with demonstrated support to and willingness to take ownership and maintenance. •Projects selected through a competitive project application and selection processDRAFT-FOR TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION, SUBJECT TO CHANGE
What is NEPA? • Federal funding = compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). A NEPA Environmental Assessment (EA) is prepared for an action where the significance of impacts is uncertain.• EA includes: – Purpose and Need– Alternatives Analysis/Screening– Environmental Resource Impacts (Natural, Cultural, Social)•The focus of today’s meeting is on the alternatives screening process.DRAFT-FOR TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION, SUBJECT TO CHANGE
Where are we in the process?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 EADesign 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 2014DRAFT-FOR TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION, SUBJECT TO CHANGE
Project Activities To-Date• Initiated project in September 2014• Launched a project website, hotline and email address• Held Open Houses October 8th, 2014• Small Group Meetings held December 10thand 11th, 2014DRAFT-FOR TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION, SUBJECT TO CHANGE
What We’ve Heard• Concerns with lack of parking downtown• Need a solution to congestion• Bring back the barnes dance (all-walk phase)• Need to preserve Riverside natural environment• Need to improve pedestrian safety and movements/crossing opportunities• Preserve transit service and stops• Add bike lanes/bike facilitiesDRAFT-FOR TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION, SUBJECT TO CHANGE
Project Purpose and NeedDRAFT-FOR TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION, SUBJECT TO CHANGE
What is the project purpose?• Project Purpose:– Improve access to RMNP by reducing travel time and congestion, and by improving safety through Downtown Estes Park. Elkhorn/Moraine IntersectionDRAFT-FOR TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION, SUBJECT TO CHANGE
What is the need for this project?• Project Needs: – Alleviate Motor Vehicle Travel Time and Congestion– Improve Motor Vehicle and Pedestrian Safety– Improve Bicycle FacilitiesDRAFT-FOR TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION, SUBJECT TO CHANGE
Existing CongestionDaily Vehicle Volumes for Combined US 34 & US 36 (Year 2012)DRAFT-FOR TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION, SUBJECT TO CHANGE
Projected CongestionDaily Vehicle Volumes for Combined US 34 & US 36 (Year 2040)DRAFT-FOR TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION, SUBJECT TO CHANGE
Intersection Level of Service (LOS)Congestion is characterized by “Level of Service.” The higher the letter, the lower the congestion.Ranges from “A” (free flow) to “F” (highly congested)LOSAverageVehicle Delay(seconds) Motorist perceptionA0‐10 Free‐flow traffic: “Good” LOSB10‐20 Reasonable free‐flowC20‐35 Stable but unreasonable delay begins to occurD35‐55 Borderline “bad” LOSE55‐80 Unstable “Bad” LOS: long queuesF>80 Unacceptable very high delay, congestionDRAFT-FOR TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION, SUBJECT TO CHANGE
Level of Service – Existing and ProjectedSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS2014 EXISTINGLOS/Seconds of Delay2040 NO ACTIONLOS/Seconds of DelayElkhorn/RiversideE 78F81Elkhorn/MoraineF121F 299DRAFT-FOR TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION, SUBJECT TO CHANGE
Alternatives Screening ProcessDRAFT-FOR TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION, SUBJECT TO CHANGE
What is a “No Action” Alternative? • Required for evaluation under NEPA• Includes any previously funded or programmed projects• Maintains existing travel pattern and roadway configuration through Downtown EstesDRAFT-FOR TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION, SUBJECT TO CHANGE
How Are Alternatives Screened?1. Develop a range of alternatives, including alternatives identified through public input2. Develop screening criteria3. Conduct primary (“Level 1”) screening4. Conduct more detailed secondary (“Level 2”) comparative screeningDRAFT-FOR TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION, SUBJECT TO CHANGE
Level 1 Primary ScreeningDRAFT-FOR TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION, SUBJECT TO CHANGE
Level 1 Screening Criteria• Traffic Operations/Capacity• Safety• Impact to Community Resources• FundingDRAFT-FOR TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION, SUBJECT TO CHANGE
Initial AlternativesAs Presented at the October 8th2014 Open Houses: –Alternative 1: One-Way Couplet–Alternative 1A: One-Way Couplet Counter Clockwise (with two-way on Elkhorn)–Alternative 2: 4-Lane Riverside, 2-Way Elkhorn & MoraineDRAFT-FOR TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION, SUBJECT TO CHANGE
Alternative 1 • Maintains flow on Elkhorn/Moraine/Riverside• Improves capacity at intersections• Minimizes environmental footprint along Riverside• May lead to out of direction travel (due to one-way configuration)DRAFT-FOR TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION, SUBJECT TO CHANGE
Alternative 1A • Maintains flow on Elkhorn/Moraine/Riverside• Maintains 2-Way on Elkhorn• Improves capacity at intersections• Minimizes environmental footprint along Riverside• May lead to out of direction travel (due to one-way configuration)DRAFT-FOR TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION, SUBJECT TO CHANGE
Alternative 2 (4-Lane Riverside) • Maintains two-way travel on Elkhorn, Moraine, Riverside• Improves capacity at intersections • Could lead to traffic bypassing Elkhorn (by utilizing Riverside)• Potential for substantial environmental impacts along RiversideDRAFT-FOR TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION, SUBJECT TO CHANGE
Additional Roadway Alternatives Identified by the Public• Alternative 2A: Four-Lane Riverside with Pedestrian Mall on Elkhorn• Alternative 3: One-Way Couplet, Clockwise Direction• Alternative 4: Three Lane Riverside (2 Lanes WB/1 EB) –Elkhorn and Moraine 2-Way• Alternative 5: Reversible One-Way on Riverside, Elkhorn/Moraine Two-Way• Alternative 6: One-Way Couplet Counter-Clockwise and Four Lane Riverside• Alternative 7: One-Way Couplet Counter Clockwise Using Rockwell• Alternative 8: Two-Way, Two-Lane Riverside, One-Way Elkhorn (West) and One-Way Moraine (South)• Alternative 9: Traffic Diversion around Downtown through Signage and Intersection ModificationsDRAFT-FOR TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION, SUBJECT TO CHANGE
• Alternative 2A: Four-Lane Riverside with Pedestrian Mall on Elkhorn ––Poor traffic operations, difficult circulation, substantial impact to parks along Riverside• Alternative 3: One-Way Couplet, CLOCKWISE direction (Riverside = Inbound, Elkhorn/Moraine = Outbound)–Poor operations, limited capacityLevel 1 Screening RecommendationsDRAFT-FOR TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION, SUBJECT TO CHANGE
• Alternative 4: Three Lane Riverside (2 Lanes WB/1 EB) – Elkhorn and Moraine 2-Way–Carry Forward• Alternative 5: Reversible One-Way on Riverside, Elkhorn/Moraine Two-Way–Poor operations, not feasible for reversible lanes on arterial Level 1 Screening RecommendationsDRAFT-FOR TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION, SUBJECT TO CHANGE
• Alternative 6: One-Way Couplet Counter-Clockwise and Four Lane Riverside (Elkhorn/Moraine = 2 lanes WB)–Carry Forward• Alternative 7: One-Way Couplet Counter Clockwise Using Rockwell –Rockwell has physical constraints, limited capacityLevel 1 Screening RecommendationsDRAFT-FOR TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION, SUBJECT TO CHANGE
• Alternative 8: Two-Way, Two-Lane Riverside, One-Way Elkhorn (West) and One-Way Moraine (South) –Minimal capacity increase, worsens the eastbound direction• Alternative 9: Traffic Diversion around Downtown through Signage and Intersection Modifications –Existing US 34/36 intersection operates at Level of Service F. Signage improvements could divert a portion of traffic out of downtown but not enough to make substantial difference. Level 1 Screening RecommendationsDRAFT-FOR TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION, SUBJECT TO CHANGE
Level 1 Screening Summary• Carry Forward: –No Action–Alternative 1: One-Way Couplet•Alternative 1A: One-Way Couplet (with two-way on Elkhorn)–Alternative 2: 4-Lane Riverside, 2-Way Elkhorn & Moraine•Alternative 6 –Design Variation of Alternative 2: One-Way Couplet with 4-Lane Riverside–Alternative 4: 3-Lane Riverside (2 WB/1 EB), 2-Way Elkhorn & Moraine DRAFT-FOR TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION, SUBJECT TO CHANGE
Level 2 Comparative ScreeningDRAFT-FOR TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION, SUBJECT TO CHANGE
Screening Criteria• Congestion and Delay (measured by LOS)• Access and Parking• Alternative Mode Accommodation (Bike, Transit)• Number of Conflict Points (Safety)• Economics• Right-of-Way Impact• Environmental (parks, cultural resources)• Within Available FundingDRAFT-FOR TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION, SUBJECT TO CHANGE
Features Common to All Build Alternatives• Flood mitigation (3 bridge replacements)• Informational/Directional signage at US 34/36• Gateway signage into Downtown (Moraine/Riverside)• Landscaping • Improved multi-modal (wider sidewalks, bike/path accommodations)DRAFT-FOR TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION, SUBJECT TO CHANGE
Alt 1One-Way CoupletLoss of Parking: 35 Spaces (3%*)00000000v00000000v*1,082 spaces total downtownBaldwin Park Impact: 17% DecreaseChildren’s Park Impact: 2% DecreaseNumbers 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 ImpactsEnvironmental Impacts25‐30 Days of Downtown CongestionMulti‐Modal: On‐Street Bike Lane‐SB Moraine, EB Riverside, Shared Bike on WB ElkhornRight‐of‐Way:Full Commercial Acquisitions: 6 Full Residential Acquisitions: 1LegendExisting ParkCommercial AcquisitionResidential AcquisitionXXDRAFT-FOR TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION, SUBJECT TO CHANGE
Alternative Variations• Alternative 1A: – Poor Traffic operations along Elkhorn at Riverside and MoraineDRAFT-FOR TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION, SUBJECT TO CHANGE
Alt 43-Lane RiversideLoss of Parking: 51 Spaces (5%*)00000000Baldwin Park Impact: 34% DecreaseChildren’s Park Impact: 19% DecreaseLevel of Service Elkhorn/Riverside:LOS F (107 s)Elkhorn/Moraine:LOS F (105 s)Moraine/Riverside/Crags:LOS D (38 s)Traffic ImpactsEnvironmental Impacts75‐85 Days of Downtown CongestionMulti‐Modal: On‐street bike lane (WB Elkhorn, SB Moraine, EB Riverside)Right‐of‐Way:Full Commercial Acquisitions: 7 Full Residential Acquisitions: 8LegendExisting ParkCommercial AcquisitionResidential AcquisitionXXNumbers are approximate. *1,082 spaces total downtownDRAFT-FOR TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION, SUBJECT TO CHANGE
Alt 24-Lane RiversideLoss of Parking: 55 Spaces (5%*)00000000Baldwin Park Impact: 42% DecreaseChildren’s Park Impact: 20% DecreaseLevel of Service Elkhorn/Riverside:LOS F (95 s)Elkhorn/Moraine:LOS F (105 s)Moraine/Riverside/Crags:LOS C (33 s)Traffic ImpactsEnvironmental Impacts40‐50 Days of Downtown CongestionMulti‐Modal:On‐street bike lanes along Elkhorn and Moraine, No provision for Riverside Right‐of‐Way:Full Commercial Acquisitions: 8 Full Residential Acquisitions: 10LegendExisting ParkCommercial AcquisitionResidential AcquisitionXXNumbers are approximate. *1,082 spaces total downtownDRAFT-FOR TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION, SUBJECT TO CHANGE
Alt 6One-Way Couplet & 4-Lane RiversideLoss of Parking: 60 Spaces (6%*)Level of Service Elkhorn/Riverside:LOS C (23s)Elkhorn/Moraine:LOS D (53s)Moraine/Riverside/Crags:LOS C (30s)Traffic ImpactsEnvironmental Impacts4‐6 Days of Downtown CongestionMulti‐Modal:On‐street bike lane SB Moraine, Shared Bike/traffic lane WB Elkhorn, no provision for Riverside Right‐of‐Way:Full Commercial Acquisitions: 8 Full Residential Acquisitions: 10LegendExisting ParkCommercial AcquisitionResidential AcquisitionXX00000000Numbers are approximate. Baldwin Park Impact: 42% DecreaseChildren’s Park Impact: 20% Decrease*1,082 spaces total downtownDRAFT-FOR TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION, SUBJECT TO CHANGE
Riverside Drive Typical SectionsAlternative 1Alternative 4Alternative 2/6Existing travel‐way ~ 24’DRAFT-FOR TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION, SUBJECT TO CHANGE
Existing Downtown Economic ConsiderationsTraffic routes and daily traffic volumes on Elkhorn and Moraine influence business visibility and correlate directly with Downtown sales and sales tax.Traffic congestion and slow travel speeds have mixed results:• Allow motorists time to consider stopping and shopping.• May discourage some visitation/shopping.A lack of Downtown parking could limit economic growth, sales and sales tax.DRAFT-FOR TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION, SUBJECT TO CHANGE
• More visitors and more congestion is expected.• No Action congestion could limit economic growth.• Congestion could shift some peak period demand (mid-day weekends, June through October) into off-peak periods.Future (2040) Economic ConsiderationsDRAFT-FOR TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION, SUBJECT TO CHANGE
Business VisibilityAlternative 1Alternative 2Alternative 4`Maintains two‐way travel on Elkhorn and Moraine; shifts through traffic to RiversideMaintains two‐way travel on Elkhorn and Moraine; shifts through traffic to RiversideElkhorn/Moraine visible inbound to Beaver Meadows entrance; Riverside visible outboundAlternative 6Elkhorn/Moraine visible inbound to Beaver Meadows entrance; shifts through traffic to RiversideNo ActionElkhorn/Moraine visible both inbound to and outbound from Beaver Meadows entrance14,500(+40%)13,600(+35%)13,400(+30%)12,500(+25%)9,900(+40%)11,000(+50%)6,500(‐40%)5,600(‐45%)17,900(+150%)4,900(‐55%)4,000(‐60%)19,500(+170%)6,500(‐40%)5,600(‐45%)17,900(+150%)XX,XXX = 2040 projected weekday AADT(+/‐XX%) = % change compared to 2014 AADTDRAFT-FOR TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION, SUBJECT TO CHANGE
Screening Results: Traffic OperationsLocation No ActionAlternative 1 (One‐Way Couplet)Alternative 2 (4‐Lane Riverside)Alternative 4 (3‐Lane Riverside)Alternative 6 (One‐Way Couplet with 4‐Lane Riverside)Elkhorn/ RiversideLOS F (81 s)LOS D (43 s)LOS F (95 s)LOS F (107 s)LOS C (23 s)Elkhorn/ MoraineLOS F (299 s)LOS E (68 s)LOS F (105 s)LOS F (105 s)LOS D (53 s)DRAFT-FOR TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION, SUBJECT TO CHANGE
Screening Results: ParkingNo ActionAlternative 1 (One‐Way Couplet)Alternative 2 (4‐Lane Riverside)Alternative 4 (3‐Lane Riverside)Alternative 6 (One‐Way Couplet with 4‐Lane Riverside)No Impact35 Spaces Lost (3%)55 Spaces Lost (5%)51 Spaces Lost(5%)60 Spaces Lost (6%)1,082 existing spaces downtownDRAFT-FOR TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION, SUBJECT TO CHANGE
Screening Results: ParksCriteriaNo ActionAlternative 1 (One‐Way Couplet)Alternative 2 (4‐Lane Riverside)Alternative 4 (3‐Lane Riverside)Alternative 6 (One‐Way Couplet with 4‐Lane Riverside)Baldwin Park (58,080 Sq. Ft. Existing)No Impact17% decrease 42% decrease 34%decrease42% decrease Children's Park(9,450 Sq. Ft. Existing)No Impact2% decrease20% decrease19% decrease20% decreaseDRAFT-FOR TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION, SUBJECT TO CHANGE
Screening Results: Right-of-WayCriteriaNo ActionAlternative 1 (One‐Way Couplet)Alternative 2 (4‐Lane Riverside)Alternative 4 (3‐Lane Riverside)Alternative 6 (One‐Way Couplet with 4‐Lane Riverside)Commercial Property Impact (Full/Partial Acquisition)No Impact 6/3 8/2 7/3 8/2Impact to Residential Dwellings ‐(Full/Partial Acquisition)No Impact 1/110/0 8/2 10/0Full Acquisitions/ RelocationsNo Impact 718 1518DRAFT-FOR TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION, SUBJECT TO CHANGE
Screening Results: Funding AvailabilityCriteriaNo ActionAlternative 1 (One‐Way Couplet)Alternative 2 (4‐Lane Riverside)Alternative 4 (3‐Lane Riverside)Alternative 6 (One‐Way Couplet with 4‐Lane Riverside)Total Cost (Including Design)‐Within Available Funding Requires Additional Funding($4.5‐7.5M)Requires Additional Funding($2.5‐5.5M)Requires Additional Funding($5‐8M)Present funding available: $17.2 MillionDRAFT-FOR TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION, SUBJECT TO CHANGE
Preliminary Recommendations (for EA analysis)No Action: Analyze in EA per NEPA Alt. 1: Good traffic operations, lowest impacts of build alternativesAlt. 1A: Poor traffic operations, does not meet purpose and needAlt. 4: Improved traffic operations, moderate/high impacts, requires additional fundingAlt. 2: Improved traffic operations, high environmental impacts, requires additional fundingAlt. 6: Best traffic operations, highest environmental impact, requires additional funding; public feedback and detailed feasibility reviewDRAFT-FOR TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION, SUBJECT TO CHANGE
Next StepsDRAFT-FOR TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION, SUBJECT TO CHANGE
Project ScheduleInitiate Project and Conduct ScopingDevelop Purpose and Need and Initial Design OptionsCollect and Analyze DataPublish Draft EA Publish Decision DocumentRespond to public comments on Draft EADesign 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 2014DRAFT-FOR TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION, SUBJECT TO CHANGE
Next Steps• Public Meeting: March 25th, 5:30-8:00 PM (Presentation at 6 PM) at the Estes Park Event Center. • Public Comment Period on Alternatives Screening: March 25th– April 8th.• Town Board Presentation: April 14thDRAFT-FOR TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION, SUBJECT TO CHANGE
Ways to Comment• Comment Forms Available at the Public Meeting and on the Project Website• Project Website: www.downtownestesloop.com• Hotline: 970-470-7045 • Email: info@downtownestesloop.comDRAFT-FOR TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION, SUBJECT TO CHANGE