HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board Special Meeting 2016-11-29Prepared 11 /16/16 __,;,__ -® TOWN OF ESTES PARI'-._
The Mission of the Town of Estes Park is to provide high-quality, reliable
services for the benefit of our citizens, guests, and employees, while being
good stewards of public resources and our natural setting.
The Town of Estes Park will make reasonable accommodations for access to Town services,
programs, and activities and special communication arrangements for persons with
disabilities. Please call (970) 577-4777. TDD available.
SPECIAL TOWN BOARD MEETING
BOARD OF TRUSTEES -TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Event Center, Fairgrounds -1125 Rooftop Way
Tuesday, November 29, 2016
6:00 p.m.
AGENDA
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
(Any person desiring to participate, please join the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance).
1.ACTION ITEMS:
1.DOWNTOWN ESTES LOOP CONCURRENCE TO PROCEED.
•Project Team Presentation
•Public Testimony -(3 Minute Limit)
•Board Discussion
•Motion to Approve/Deny
2.ADJOURN.
NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was
prepared.
Memo
To:
From:
Date:
RE:
Objective:
Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
Greg Muhonen, PE, Public Works Director
November 29, 2016
Downtown Estes Loop Concurrence to Proceed
Confirm the Town Board's support for, or opposition to, completing the final design, right
of way acquisition, and construction of the proposed funded phase of the Downtown
Estes Loop (DEL).
Present Situation:
•Traffic congestion in downtown Estes Park during the peak visitation period from
June to October continues to produce excessive vehicular delays, noise, air
pollution, driver frustration, and conflicts between motorists and pedestrians.
This worsens each year as visitation increases. This diminishes the experience
of guests visiting Estes Park and results in increased visitor and resident
complaints.
•The Town of Estes Park received recommendations to modify the downtown
traffic circulation with a one-way couplet on Elkhorn Avenue, Moraine Avenue,
and Riverside Drive in the 2003 Estes Valley Transportation Alternatives Study
and in the 2012 report from the Transportation Visioning Committee, which was
largely comprised of community members and organizations. This project would
implement those recommendations.
•Guided by public input received at several public meetings, the Town Board
voted on March 26, 2013 to submit an application for a Colorado Federal Lands
Access Program (FLAP) grant in the amount of $13 million specifically for the
one-way loop. The application referenced the need for a future downtown transit
facility parking structure. Funding was not requested for the parking structure in
this application due to concern that the great increase in project cost and
additional private property acquisitions would cause the application to be denied.
A phased approach to seeking the total project funding through several separate
future grant applications was believed to be a more successful strategy.
2
•The 2013 application was successful, resulting in the mayor signing the Project
Agreement with The Federal Highway Administration's Central Federal Lands
Highway Division (CFLHD) on February 24, 2014. This agreement obligates
CFLHD to pay about 75% of the project cost and Town (using COOT funds) to
pay about 25% of the project cost. Additionally, it requires the Town to repay
expended funds if the Town chooses to not proceed with the project. As of
August 2016 approximately $1.6 million had been spent on this project.
•On December 9, 2014 the Town Board voted to enter into an Intergovernmental
Agreement with the Colorado Department of Transportation (COOT) to accept
$4.2 million from COOT to provide local matching funds required per the terms of
the FLAP grant.
•On April 15, 2015 the Town Board reaffirmed its support of the project when it
voted to continue forward with the CFLHD-initiated National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) process for the one-way couplet (Proposed Action) and No Action
alternatives.
•On June 20, 2016 CFLHD sent a letter advising the Estes Park Public Works
Department of CFLHD's intent to make a Section 4(f) De Minimis determination
based on the environmental evaluation documented in the draft Environmental
Assessment (EA) specific to Baldwin Park and Children's Park. De Minimis
determinations require public opportunity to comment, review and consideration
of comments received, and concurrence from the official with jurisdiction over the
park land (in this case, the Town of Estes Park). During the EA and Section 4(f)
public comment period we received 253 comments from 229 commenters. This
included about a dozen comments regarding Baldwin and Children's Parks,
including eight about the increases in traffic and noise and four about the loss of
shade and green space, as well as three additional comments about the meaning
of the De Minimis finding.
•On July 20, 2016 CFLHD presented to the public the findings of the EA during
the 30-day public comment period. A tabulation of the comments received is
attached, along with project team responses to common comments. The next
step in the environmental process is for CFLHD to issue a decision document. A
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is anticipated.
•On August 16, 2016 the Town was informed that the Colorado Federal Lands
Access Programing Decision Committee (CO FLAP PDC) denied the Town's
funding application for the proposed Moraine Avenue Multimodal Improvements,
citing concern that public opposition and lack of support for the DEL indicate high
risk that Estes will not complete FLAP-funded projects.
3
•On August 17, 2016 the citizen Transportation Advisory Board discussed the EA
at its regular meeting and provided a written recommendation for the Board to
proceed with the DEL. A copy is attached.
•On October 13, 2016 the Town was informed the CO FLAP PDC delayed the
funding for the DEL from 2018 to 2021 so currently available funds could be
directed to other projects with a higher likelihood of successful completion.
•On November 15, 2016 CFLHD requested concurrence from the Town of Estes
that the project will have a De Minimis impact on Baldwin and Children's Parks
and that the project will not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes
that qualify the property for protection under Section 4(f) of the 1966 Department
of Transportation Act. Concurrence with this determination would satisfy the
Section 4(f) requirements for the project. CFLHD's letter includes detailed
renderings that illustrate the future condition of Riverside Drive and Baldwin Park.
A copy is attached.
•While the EA was performed for additional future phase of river improvements
within the DEL project limits, tonight's action pertains to construction of the
funded Phase 1 work only.
Proposal:
Provide written concurrence that the Town Board finds that impacts to Baldwin and
Riverside Parks would be De Minimis after enhancements are made, and that Town
Board supports Central Federal Lands Highway Division (CFLHD) moving forward with
the Issuance of a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), right of way acquisition,
final design, and construction of the proposed DEL.
Advantages:
See the EA for a lengthy listing of project benefits. The key advantages of completing
the DEL include:
•Traffic congestion relief in downtown Estes Park.
•Reduced conflicts between turning vehicles and pedestrians at busy downtown
intersections.
•Inclusion of multi-modal facilities including on-street bike lanes and continuous
sidewalk along the entire DEL.
•Replacement of two non-conforming tee intersections with a modern roundabout
at the Moraine/Crags intersection.
4
•Construction of new surfacing on Elkhorn Avenue, including West Elkhorn from
Moraine to Wonderview Avenues.
•Upgraded replacement of 1970's traffic signal technology and signage at the two
downtown intersections.
•Construction of improved river flow capacity under the Ivy Street Bridge.
•Diminished future floodplain limits and enhanced river access due to channel
widening on the Big Thompson River.
•Purchase and removal of buildings to allow for channel improvements needed to
diminish flood plain limits along the Big Thompson River.
•Reduced traffic congestion and backups on East Riverside.
•Installation of efficient transportation infrastructure to support a future downtown
transit facility parking structure.
•Improved shuttle service reliability through reduced traffic congestion during peak
times when shuttle demand is greatest.
•Fulfillment of our contractual obligation to complete the DEL project which is
poised for environmental clearance.
•Reestablishment of trust with the CO FLAP PDC needed to secure future funding
from the FLAP program.
Disadvantages:
•The DEL project is controversial and ongoing support is viewed negatively by a
segment of the community.
•The Proposed Action will increase the traffic volumes on West Riverside Avenue.
•The preliminary design anticipates the potential loss of 13 parking spaces
downtown. Final design efforts will try to lower this loss.
•The one-way couplet causes some minor out-of-direction travel for some local
trips.
•Purchase of private property is needed to build the DEL.
•The potential relocation of two downtown businesses is disruptive.
•Construction of the proposed improvements would be disruptive to the
community from October 2021 through May 2022, tentatively.
5
Action Recommended:
Options include supporting completion of the DEL, revoking Town support of the DEL,
or continuing this item to a future meeting scheduled after a public vote is taken to
quantify public sentiment (Estes Park residents only) on this decision. Staff
recommends the Town Board reaffirm its past support to move forward to completion of
the DEL.
Budget:
No Town funds are required to move forward on the DEL. A decision to discontinue
work on the DEL would include an obligation for the Town to reimburse CFL for project
costs incurred to date (estimated greater than $1.6 million).
Level of Public Interest
The known level of public interest in this item is very high.
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval/denial to complete the funded Phase 1 Downtown Estes Loop
project and authorize the Mayor to sign the attached concurrence letter pertaining to the
De Minimis finding for impacts to park resources.
Attachments:
1 . Transportation Advisory Board Recommendation to Proceed with Loop
2.Tabulation of public comments on the DEL Environmental Assessment
3.Responses to Frequent EA Comments from Project Team
4.CFLHD Letter Requesting Concurrence with the Section 4(f) De Minimis Finding
5.Presentation slides
6
Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
Public Works Director Muhonen
_,g,__,, -
TOWN OF ESTES PARI
From:
Date:
Kimberly Campbell, Chair, Transportation Advisory Board
October 5, 2016
RE: TAB Recommendation to Proceed with LOOP
At its regularly scheduled August meeting, The Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) voted 7-0 (with 2
members absent) in favor of asking the Trustees to direct staff to write the letter accepting the findings
of the Environmental Analysis (EA) and proceed with the Downtown Estes Loop.
TAB has been monitoring the progression of this project since its inception. TAB members have carefully
analyzed the project, participated in public sessions and listened to public sentiment, reviewed the
Environmental Analysis and diligently debated the pros and cons of the project in detail. The outcome of
these efforts is a belief that it is in the Town's best interest to move forward with this project.
The downtown Estes Loop is an important step in addressing the decades old issue of traffic congestion
during the peak tourism season. The Downtown Estes Loop is an opportunity to:
•Reduce congestion
•Improve pedestrian flow
•Reduce pedestrian/vehicle conflict
•Improve bicycle access and safety through downtown
•Improve the physical condition of the roads
•Upgrade one of downtown's bridges to updated flood standards
By addressing these issues, the Downtown Estes Loop is expected to:
1.Improve the experience of residents and visitors while visiting downtown Estes Park
2.Reduce pollution from idling vehicles
3.Improve first responder response times during the summer season
4.Reduce flood risk to the downtown community
While the TAB understands the arguments against the Loop, we feel there are strong arguments in favor
of the Loop:
1.The Downtown Estes Loop was selected by the public: The project was selected by members of
the community during a public process. This project had previously been recommended by
engineering-based transportation studies, as well as the citizen-driven Transportation Visioning
Committee's "A Roadmap to the Future."
2.Minimal project with maximum results: By utilizing a one-way loop rather than bi-directional
traffic predominantly within existing roadway widths, the Loop allows the Town to improve
vehicular capacities without significantly changing the character of downtown Estes Park. After
years of study, no better alternate has been identified to reduce congestion while balancing
against negative community impacts.
3.Multi-modal infrastructure enhancements: The Downtown Estes Loop improves bicycle and
pedestrian infrastructure through downtown. Dedicated bike lanes that provide safe passage
through downtown is vitally needed to create a safer environment for cyclists as well as the first
step in developing a valley-wide network of bicycle routes. Continued expansion of these lanes
will create opportunities for residents and visitors to ride bikes into town, further reducing
vehicle congestion and could also result in the development of bike sharing programs. Enhanced
sidewalks and the Barnes Dance will enhance the pedestrian experience and reduce conflict
points between pedestrians and vehicles.
4.Fully funded grant opportunity: It is unlikely that the Town will again see an opportunity for a
significant roadway upgrade that is fully funded. If the Town were to back out of the project, our
community could be black-balled from future grant opportunities for years to come.
5.Expensive to halt: While the Town should never move forward with an inappropriate project,
the EA did not identify any outcome worthy of halting the project. The development costs that
must be reimbursed if we fail to proceed with the Loop, currently estimated at $1.6 million, are
nearly prohibitive given the outlook for the Estes Park 2017 budget.
In summary, the TAB asks the Town Board to proceed with the Downtown Estes Loop by asking staff to
preparing the letter accepting the findings of the Environmental Analysis.
8
Downtown Estes Loop EA Public Comments 11/14/16
Comment Date Comment Number (1 Name City, State Comment Received Submitted via: per name)
1 Richard Horn Sarasota FL Loop project with all 3 bridges seems the only logical path forward. This will improve traffic flow and pedestrian flow and safety; it will also minimize flooding and decrease insurance costs for downtown. 7/6/2016 Web EA
We own 6 weeks in Ram's Horn Village, have visited Estes Park most years since 1970's. This project, along with a future parking structure at the post office location will be a positive development. Comment Form
2 Lela L. Criswell Estes Park CO As envisioned, the Loop will not achieve its stated objective of improving traffic flow through downtown Estes Park. To reduce traffic congestion, any one-way route would need to begin at the intersection 7/6/2016 Web EA
of U.S. highways 34 and 36, but this Loop does not. All traffic will still be bottlenecked between that intersection and the intersection of W. Riverside with Elkhorn Ave., at the SW corner of Bond Park. In Comment Form
addition, the Loop as proposed will facilitate visitors' leaving the park and exiting the Estes Valley without stopping downtown. Many Estes Park merchants are dismayed at the prospect of losing the
opportunity for the entrance of their business to encourage visitors to stop and shop as they pass through town. Rocky Mountain National Park is already at greater than ideal maximum visitor capacity,
with inconvenience and traffic adversely affecting visitors and the environment inside the park, without improvements in the downtown traffic flow. No amount of improvement within Estes Park will change
the overcrowding in RMNP itself. Local opposition has sensibly asked why we should adversely affect our local businesses by building the Loop, when improving traffic flow into the park will only increase
overcrowding there. Even though grants are available, it's neither wise nor necessary to make this drastic change.
3 Mr. & Mrs. Guy Estes Park CO We would like to enter a formal complaint AGAINST the proposed "Downtown Estes Loop". We feel the loop would be a distinct disadvantage to ALL Estes residents. There will be a great deal of money 7/13/2016 Web EA
Tritico of the taxpayers taxes spent on this project that retired residents cannot afford. Also, the residents will have to reroute all trips to and from town and other locations that will be very inconvenient, Comment Form
especially during the winter months. If the town fathers are DETERMINED to RAILROAD this project the loop should only be in effect during the summer months. This is when the traffic is significant.
The loop should not be in effect during the winter months. Please accept this constructive complaint from these residents OPPOSED to this project.
4 Anita Prinzmetal Estes Park CO Web EA Email (1) 7/13/2016 Web EA Email
The purpose of the "loop" is/was to provide better access to RMNP. However, the Park can not handle the visitation it currently has. On 7/3, the Beaver Meadows and Fall River entrance stations had (1)
to be shut down because of visitor overload. There is not adequate parking in RMNP.
The signage on the arteries into the Town have vastly improved automobile throughput. With the forthcoming garage on US36, congestion in Estes will decrease as well. Conversely, I do NOT believe
the EA. The Loop will cause MORE congestion AND pollution as visitors attempt to "shop" from their cars and search for parking.
Why should we ruin our Town for a worthless cause? I have lived here over 30 years and built 2 homes here. If the Loop is passed, I will move. It's time to listen to the folk who live here. Money isn't
everything.
Anita Prinzmetal Web EA Comment Form (2) 7/25/2016 Web EA
(1)The purpose of the Loop is purportedly to ease access to Rocky Mountain National Park (RMNP). That is ridiculous and bogus and a poor excuse to spend Federal dollars. RMNP now has more Comment
visitation than it can handle. In fact, this summer has seen 1-1/2 million more visitors than last year. On 7/3, the Park was forced to close both east-side entrances because there was no parking, and the Form (2)
Park was overfilled to capacity.
(2)Why ruin our beautiful SMALL TOWN by instituting a pollution-causing traffic jam downtown. By the way, "downtown" means Elkhorn and Moraine NOT Riverside. I do not believe the premises put
forth by the EA. That voluminous document was concocted by those who have never lived here.
To destroy the wonderful ambiance of our town to put money in the Town's coffers is beyond inexcusable. The new signage, as well as the proposed parking structure at the Visitors' Center, has
alleviated much of the congestion downtown.
5 Nancy Dunavan Glen Haven, CO No on the loop!!! If Estes would fix the parking situation, which I know is in the works, I think a lot of the congestion would ease. I think most people are driving around looking for a parking space. I hear 7/14/2016 Web EA
that a lot from out of town visitors. By addressing the parking issue first, it could then be more logically determined what are traffic flow issues are. The whole concept is insane. The majority of the people Comment Form
who live and work in EP do NOT want it!!! Let us have a community wide vote on the issue!!!!
6 No Name Provided Unknown Don't waste tax dollars on something NOT for the National al Park. 7/15/2016 Web EA
Comment Form
7 Shandi Stevenson Travelers Rest, SC I support "No Action" on the Loop not because I think it is possible to somehow ignore Estes Park's increasing traffic congestion through nostalgia or wishful thinking, and not because I do not find the 7/17/2016 Web EA
(former resident Loop proposal and the EA an admirably thorough, responsible, thoughtful and imaginative attempt to steward the future of Estes Park. Rather, I support "No Action" because I believe the best future both Comment Form
and now regular for Estes Park and Rocky Mountain National Park involves strategically reducing, rather than attracting and accommodating, automobile traffic downtown.
summer visitor) I support "No Action" not in the literal sense of the words, but in the context of strategically engineering a future in which Estes Park will promote, support, and encourage having visitors and locals park
in the planned future parking structure across from the Visitor's Center, and walking, biking, or using public transportation from there when the automobile traffic is so heavy as to be a deterrent to visitors
(one of the main concerns I know the Loop proposal addresses).
While many will, of course, continue to drive, visitors could have a strong incentive to take advantage of an affordable, convenient, and efficient parking and public transport system which promotes
and preserves downtown Estes Park as a unique destination, respecting its geographical character and limitations as a valley, and embracing its unique history and "flavor" as a small, "walkable" town.
"No Action", with an emphasis on the new parking structure, and the ongoing and increasing support and promotion of the shuttle system, will also encourage visitors to reach Rocky Mountain National
Park safely and conveniently, while minimizing the inevitable growth of automobile traffic to protect both the natural resources and the unique visitor experience of the Park as much as we can.
In contrast, the Loop, while certainly offering significant mitigation of downtown traffic congestion, would actively encourage visitors to drive through Estes to the Park, while reducing the parking
available to them and pushing the traffic "bottleneck" further west of town, where congestion is already often at its worst.
I believe that the Loop is a temporary approach to Estes Park's growing traffic problem. It seeks to accommodate visitor traffic without adequately addressing the parking that goes with it, and without,
in my personal view, adequately protecting downtown Estes Park as the unique destination, with unique history, that visitors are coming to see in the first place. In contrast, a truly long term outlook would,
I believe, suggest that a town inevitably constrained by the small mountain valley in which it is situated, and made uniquely appealing to visitors by its small-town character and its history, should plan for a
future in which driving is possible, but parking east of town and switching to public transportation is the easier, more attractive, more fully supported and encouraged option-the one that is made most
convenient, affordable, efficient, and attractive to visitors during times of peak congestion.
Seen in this way, the term "No Action" can also represent a proactive and prescient commitment to a carefully chosen future for this unique location.
9
11/14/16
Comment Date Comment Number (1 Name City, State Comment Received Submitted via: per name)
8 Sally B. Van Wert Estes Park CO I work downtown and see NO good reason to disrupt the streets, businesses and cabins along the loop route. You have done a good job of trying to direct people to the bypass if they wish to go to 7/18/2016 Web EA
RMNP. The crowding of Elkhorn and Moraine occurs during only a few months. The destruction of so much of traditional Estes Park is not necessary! It seems you are just seeing the federal money for Comment Form
bridges as your "carrot" and not really thinking through the destruction and change proposed in the loop. Having a parking garage near the Visitor Center can relieve some of the parking pressure in the
downtown area. It is simply not necessary to totally disrupt downtown by building the loop.
9 Kristi Humphries Estes Park CO I believe that the Loop project would destroy the small town look and feel of Estes Park and make getting in and out of downtown much harder. Sending National Park traffic up Fall River as is currently 7/19/2016 Web EA
being done is the best solution to getting people into RMNP who want to bypass downtown. Comment Form
10 Sharon Struve Omaha NE (1)As a summer resident/worker for 18 years it is very questionable in my mind as to what the purpose of the loop actually is. If it is to cut down the time for tourists to get to the south entrance to the park,7/21/2016 Web EA
it appears VERY redundant as the park service has had to limit cars entering the park due to overload and for next year are thinking of have people reserve a time for being in the park. (2) So that would Comment Form
mean that we are helping the tourists hurry up only to be told that there is a wait due to refraining from overcrowding with the purpose of safety for all. How brilliant are the planners of this loop not to even
be democratic about the plan and allow all Estes Park residents to vote on the issue. Is this project really worth tearing down landmarks, and residences, motels, etc. and not even thinking of what that
means to visitors and Estes Park Citizens? It is common knowledge that owners are being offered a pittance for their property and is eminent domain what should be used to offer such destruction to
owners, businesses, and tourists????? It is very obvious that money is the very first thing this project gives and that is a far cry from being civil and caring and listening to those who have loved Estes
Park for so long. Eve tourists that have been polled have said they like it just the way it is as they can make a choice as to which businesses they with to patronize on their return from RMNP. (3) And
what about parking? The citizens have made it known that they feel parking should be addressed before thinking about anything so redundant and destructive as the loop. Are all hearts hardened to listen
and think deeply re: the project?????? May God have mercy on your souls if you are doing this just for money and WILL not change the plan/project so that wildlife, landmarks, businesses, personal
property can prosper and flourish without the fear of destruction and demonstration. You would be thought more highly of if you just backed away and let Estes Park be Estes Park.
11 Graham Russell Estes Park CO I attended the EA presentation and public comment meeting July 20. VERY impressed with the professionalism of the presentations, especially the AECOM guy. 7/23/2016 Web EA
I have long been frustrated by the funereal rate of progress in getting the one-way loop project started so it was good to see that this study has apparently cleared the way for it to get going, at least Comment Form
from an environmental impact standpoint. As always, the opposing commentary was largely driven by relatively unsubstantiated and/or emotional arguments but I will say that two things stood out for me
in the plethora of negative commentaries.
1.The fact that the RMNP is now turning away vehicles that make it through the town to the park entrances and/or into the park itself does seem to undermine the concept of developing a system that
allows more vehicles to be funneled through the town itself. No idea what the answer to that is but it's not a bad point and one that hadn't really occurred to me until this year with its heavy crowds.
2.Perhaps more important is that a couple of folks mentioned (to strong applause) that a more fundamental approach to easing congestion in the town would be to build parking facilities just outside
the town core area and incentivize people to use them by installing parking meters (with relatively high fees) in the downtown streets and parking areas. This would generate significant revenue and bring
EP into line with other high traffic mountain towns where visitors are essentially obliged (either by regulation or through financial incentives) to park outside the core streets and walk to the shops etc.
There are very few places anywhere these days where you don't have to pay to park -why does EP have to be different?
One of the consultants told me that this would be no solution as the vast majority of the traffic in the downtown area is on its way to the RMNP and NOT simply circulating around seeking a parking
spot. I asked her how this was established and she didn't have an answer. I find this very hard to believe and I wonder whether tis issue has, in fact, been examined properly.
Of course, I understand that the FLAP grant is not available for the construction of parking facilities on the edge of town but I do wonder whether there might not be other grant funds available for this
purpose.
Bottom line, even if the one-way loop goes ahead as planned, my sense is (until someone demonstrates otherwise with some solid data) that unless and until we oblige people to park their vehicles
OUTSIDE the core area and either walk or use the shuttles to get to the downtown shops, we will continue to have traffic drifting around and around in the downtown streets trying to find one of the very
limited parking spots.
Respectfully submitted, Graham Russell
12 Bill Chockla Estes Park CO Thank you for passing on this in-depth assessment! As has been stated in the local paper, there is no one task fixes all our problems. Parking remains the main issue for sure. However, after reviewing all 7/24/2016 Web EA
the details, anyone who still stands against the loop is/are not reading the facts! This is one step, a major one, in the RIGHT DIRECTION! If the loop is not implemented, things will only get worse. Please Comment Form
do all you can to ensure this first important step is followed through to completion!
13 Deborah Tyler Estes Park CO Honorable Board Members: 7/24/2016 Letter to
I would like to inform you of my opposition to the LOOP Proposal for the following reasons: Trustees
1.It has been stated that this would be an ideal way to get more people into Rocky Mountain National Park. The National Park Service is not prepared or able to handle more people visiting this
national site. Their parking lots are filled by 10 a.m., and the Bear Lake corridor area now gets restrictions on the number of cars that can enter it.
2.There will be a negative impact on quiet neighborhoods around the Post Office area that are well established and have been the destination of many visitors because of the ambiance that is found
there.
I understand the need for flood mitigation, bridge repairs, flood insurance problems, etc. But, don't let the over-all beauty and peace of this town get over-shadowed by all of this.
Please do not let the quaint town of Estes Park become a "Vail" or "Aspen." Do not lose the picture that many, many visitors have of this area, and that many of the residents have and/or had that drew
them here to live. A "freeway" through the middle of town is NOT charming or quaint!!
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
14 Rebecca Crawford Estes Park CO NO LOOP. you will ruin what is so special about our little town. My family comes up here to visit and the first thing they want to do is go DOWNTOWN. Putting a loop in will destroy our business and small 7/25/2016 Web EA
mountain town atmosphere. My grandson and I walk downtown from the visitors center every Sunday. Please don't ruin that for us. An out door mall would be perfect. We just need to get the parking Comment Form
worked out and put in a year round shuttle, just like our summer time service. It's fantastic. I moved to Estes Park because of what it is now. If you change that I will consider leaving.
Also, If you really put the message out there about the meetings more people would show up! No just a little article.
15 Yvonne Adrion Estes Park CO Do nothing! No changes! Leave it alone. 7/25/2016 Web EA
Comment Form
10
11/14/16
Comment Date Comment Number (1 Name City, State Comment Received Submitted via: per name)
17
Web EA Comment Form (1)
Web EA Comment Form (2)
Comment Date Comment Number (1 Name City, State Comment Received Submitted via: per name)
29 Jim Linderholm Estes Park CO (See attached letter) Gentlemen: 7/25/2016 Postal Mail
I am Jim Linderholm and reside at 1160 Fairway Club Cir. #1 in Estes Park, Colorado. My wife and I have owned this property since 2002 and are familiar with the various traffic and transportation
systems in Estes Park and vicinity.
I have read various reports regarding this Project and attended the Public Hearing in Estes on July 20, 2016. My professional background includes 48 years with a large Midwestern consulting
engineering practice, and specific experience with large transportation projects. During that time, I served as Principle Planner or Planner in Charge for more than 100 projects. Two of those projects
required the completion of an Environmental Impact Statement.
I am commenting in support of the Estes Loop Project. As I listened carefully to the few people who made public comments on July 20th, it was obvious that most of them were opposed to the Project
because it would "change the character" of the community in some way. I have heard those same sentiments many times on projects that I have planned over the years. I respect that some people do not
like change, but the evidence presented in the Project studies indicates that changes will occur in Estes Park, like it or not.
The most obvious change will be increased traffic in and through Estes in coming years. The Front Range communities in Colorado continue to grow significantly. They will continue to generate traffic
coming to visit Rocky Mountain National Park. Estes, itself, continues to promote growth. So, the underlying assumption that the number of "congested traffic days" will increase in the future seems to be
valid. The No Action alternative does nothing to solve the current problems or prepare for the future.
The increased future traffic through Estes will compound parking issues. And, the most frequently heard concern about the Project is that it does not solve the local shortage of parking. The merchants
would like to serve more visitors and they believe that more parking is the answer. However, the addition of parking alone would not solve the congestion problem and may actually compound the problem
by preventing free flow in and out of parking structures. The answer is that the Loop Project needs to be the first step in the sequence of events and should be coordinated with new parking structures.
Another change that will alter the Estes Downtown is the reoccurrence of flooding. High intensity rainfall events and resulting flooding will occur in the future, just as they have in the past. Any changes
or improvements to the infrastructure that can be made between floods will be beneficial in the future. This is part of the bigger picture for a better Estes Park. While flood plain improvements are not part
of the Loop Project, coordinated planning would make sense.
Jim Linderholm Regarding the Motor Vehicle Safety Assessment, I was a bit surprised to read the data regarding the numbers of recorded crashes. It makes me wonder if there are more crashes that are not
(cont) recorded? Since there is no description of how the data is collected, that might be a future question. That is, do law enforcement agencies report each and every crash or do some go unreported because
they are minor in nature. The other question that could be asked would be the seriousness of the injuries that were recorded. Without revealing personal data, what happened to those injured people? It
begs the question of what responsibility Estes has in preventing injuries on its roadways.
One person at the Public Hearing commented that the Project does not have merit because on certain peak days the RMNP also has congestion and turns people away. Another commenter said that
people don't use the shuttle system enough. The obvious situation is that with population growth and increased use of RMNP, the Park Service may have to resort to more shuttle transportation and more
restrictions on motor vehicles. There is no logic in stopping the Loop Project for RMNP congestion reasons, unless you believe that people will stop coming to Estes Park because they will avoid
congestion in the Park. Coordinated planning with RMNP officials makes sense.
The intersection of Moraine/West Riverside Drive/Craigs Drive is one of the most dangerous intersections that I have ever seen. There are line of sight issues, roadway curves, and topographic
challenges at that location. The Donut Haus is a very popular attraction at that intersection, but it lacks safe parking. With many visitors not being familiar with those conditions, the traffic is often chaotic. I
enjoy the products of the Donut Haus, but rarely go there because the intersection looks like "an accident waiting to happen". The Town has done about all that is possible to make that intersection
function, but it doesn't work well.
If the Project proceeds, careful thought should be given to the roundabout design. It has the potential to solve many problems and could save the Town significant amounts of money over the years.
Just eliminating the cost of traffic lights and the operation and maintenance of the lights is significant. The added safety features also reduce the costs of accidents and injuries. Having said all that, the
addition of a roundabout should be planned and monitored carefully. Some roundabouts work exceptionally well, and others need to be modified after initial construction. It's the right choice, but the key is
how drivers adapt to the new flow of traffic. Each roundabout is unique and should be treated that way.
Jim Linderholm The Project is a tough choice for the Town of Estes Park. As with many transportation projects, there are controversies and, in general, such projects are not politically popular. It's hard for voters to
(cont) love concrete, steel, and asphalt, but they are quick to complain when something doesn't work to their satisfaction. When land is taken and businesses are affected, it only adds to the dilemmas. Those
who oppose the Project are very emotional, as witnessed by the Public Hearing. Those who favor the project, by and large, don't show up at the Hearing or remain silent, so as not to offend their
neighbors. The future tourists who would be benefitted by the Project are not aware of what's happening, but if they could vote, the Project would be overwhelmingly popular, given the numbers involved.
Since we are in an election year, we often hear that our infrastructures are failing (roads, bridges, water, sewer, etc.) and it is the fault of somebody, usually a political party or an opponent. The reality
is that we often lack the political will to get these problems corrected. Estes Park is no different. The leaders can improve the conditions by moving ahead with the Project or defer it to a later date or to
someone who has the will to make improvements. All of us, at one time or another, put off things that may not be fun to do. In this case, the public good is at stake. Delaying this Project will only result in
higher costs.
Finally, regardless of our political views of infrastructure spending, projects are going to get approved and built. In this region of Colorado, there are many communities that are growing and there is
great competition for local, state, and federal dollars for infrastructure spending. Those in charge of doling out the dollars will typically look for projects that are approved locally and ready to move ahead.
Estes Park is in that competition and needs to carefully consider its options. Other communities will gladly use the funds if Estes declines the opportunity.
Perhaps because of my professional background, some readers may wonder if I have been asked or solicited to comment? I have not been contacted by any individual or group involved in the
planning, design, or implementation of this Project. My sole intent here is to share my opinions on the merits of the Project. My only interest is the well-being of Estes citizens and our many visitors.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
30 Richard Smith Estes Park CO After watching video simulation of the proposed loop my wife and I are all for it! What a nice change it would be from the chaos, time consuming and dangerous intersections we now have over the long 7/25/2016 Web EA
summer. If people want to stop and shop they will do it even with the new loop. The rest of the people can get through town in a timely and safer manner. We now avoid down town all of the summer due Comment Form
to the terrible traffic congestion. What we have now takes away from any desire to shop there. Even getting our mail at the post office in the summer is no fun. We would rather see a round about used at
Moccasin/Riverside/ Crags Drive intersection. With ever increasing numbers of visitors our present street system and lack of parking downtown is a joke. I have talked to many front range visitors that
have bluntly told me they want no part with the traffic and parking mess we have now and have no plans to return in the future unless the traffic/parking situation is resolved. For people who think that the
shopping experience will be hurt I see the traffic/parking mess we have now takes away any pleasant experience people can have and already hurts shopping in our town.
Comment
Number (1
per name)
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
11/14/16
Name
Josiane Edy
Diane Phillips
Jane Schoen
Jim Boyd
David
Patsy Nevill
Kathleen Baker
Adela Anghel
City, State
Monument CO
Estes Park CO
Estes Park CO
Glen Haven, CO
Unknown
Estes Park CO
Estes Park CO
Longmont CO
Comment
Has the town considered making Elkhorn similar to 16th street mall in Denver? It's a pedestrian street with a shuttles going up and down with drop offs. Could have parking at both ends of downtown and
people either walk or talk the shuttle. For the Park entrance have it go from St Vrain.
I am concerned about driving from the SW side of town to the NW side of town. I live off Marys Lake Road and currently drive Moraine Ave to West Elkhorn to visit the businesses located there. I do
not add to the downtown congestion.
With the one-way plan, it appears that I will be diverted from Moraine to drive along Riverside to its intersection with Elkhorn and then proceed through downtown in order to reach West Elkhorn.
Since there are many of us who will have to use that route, I am wondering if the added vehicle traffic from us locals through downtown has been factored into the calculations? We would find
ourselves a part of all the tourist traffic heading through downtown.
Of course, this could be alleviated with some sort of connection from Moraine past the transfer station over the hill to West Elkhorn. Perhaps that should be considered for inclusion into one of the
later stages of the proposed plan.
I understand that property owners in that area squelched such a plan a few years ago. But, since the town is willing to exercise eminent domain over properties in the way of the one-way loop, I
assume it is capable of doing the same to facilitate a connector between Moraine and West Elkhorn.
Thank you for soliciting and considering my comments.
It's time for our elected and paid officials to show leadership by becoming 100% students of the information and analysis and make recommendations. The average resident has attended so few
meetings, if any, and are marginally informed and usually not 100% objective to remove personal best interests from the equation.
Key Issues:
There is inadequate parking regardless of the action and too many employees use the "free" parking. Consider charging as do most mountain towns during peak seasons.
Pedestrians at both the Morraine crossing and the Dairy Queen parking lot crossing cause continuous interruption and back up to traffic during busy seasons. Underground passages should be a
must regardless of the plan.
It's time to quit the "study" and make a decision that will work for this community for the next 20 years.
I have worked at the YMCA since 1977. Living in Glen Haven, my commute gets worse every year, including in the non-summer months. I am in favor of the Loop, trusting that it will improve the flow of
traffic.
Hello,
Wow what a lot of reading. I have been a long long time visitor to Estes Park and RMNP and own property in the Estes area. I agree 100% something needs to be done to fix the traffic and to reduce
the risk of floods and soon.
I was in Estes the week before the 4th of July, town and RMNP were packed. Not enjoyable having so much traffic. I do like that town went back to the barn dance way of crossing the street. There
really needs to be officers on the corners to keep people from crossing against the walk light. We were heading back to town from being in RMNP on a week day and traffic was backed up to Tiny Town
mini golf, crazy!
I do not see the loop helping as much as people think. I base this on traffic going to a football game and leaving the stadium. Traffic to the stadium is not unlike Estes traffic heading to RMNP, heavy
for 3-4 hrs. Traffic leaving the stadium is like the traffic leaving RMNP taking 2-3 hrs.
So back to my stadium analogy. The stadium is downtown Estes Park. Before the game you have lots of people entering the parking lots from many different entrances. RMNP needs more ways to
enter the park. The best way would be more lanes of traffic heading West to the park. 4 lanes, 2 each way with a center turn lane heading to the Fall River entrance and the Beaver Meadows entrance.
Better signage as well as a dedicated ramp that goes over Elk horn at 34-36 to get cars over onto the bypass with out having to stop. We have to separate the traffic and pedestrians as much as possible
with elevated ramps and walkways.
With the loop if you speed up traffic in downtown all that is going to do is cause backups in other parts of town. Which is what happens as people leave the stadium. You can get out but then traffic
backs up in other locations. This is what will happen with the loop if the other back ups are not planed for so they do not happen.
Fixing downtown will only move the traffic problem into someone else's back yard so to speak.
Now lets move onto RMNP. If we get traffic moving through town faster with less delay the entrance gates will become a huge back log of people waiting to get into RMNP. We will need the
government to spend major money to update the entrance stations with more lanes, more people to work the stations.
So unless you can get RMNP on board to update entrance stations and parking lots we will still have huge delays during the busy summer months.
Best regards, David
Keeping the large busses and supply trucks off Elkhorn help decrease the traffic and noise.
I'm not in favor of The Loop since businesses and people in homes would have to move.
1.Will the town be tearing down the building it owns on the river on E Riverside? Will there be beautification on that site? It should be green, please.
2.I don't like the look of the fencing along E Riverside across the river from the post office. Will there be any river access there? Any green space? We need some access to the river there. Will the
riverfront trail on the post office side remain?
3.I can't tell how much of Baldwin Park will remain? I use this park every day for walking. It's lovely and I don't want to lose it.
4. Will you help Donut Haus to relocate?
5.Will the winery still remain and have parking?
Thank you.
Hello, I own 4 vacation condos on 150 E Riverside in Estes Park. I have read and evaluated your studies and proposals and I urge the Town of Estes Park to take No Action on the Loop as it would have
a huge negative impact on E Riverside, transforming a picturesque downtown area with cabin charm into a busy and noisy highway. Some of our guests already mention traffic, and with the proposed
Loop noise will greatly increase, driving customers away from downtown, reducing business in general. Enlarging E Riverside will also eliminate parking at the condos, which is already insufficient.
Please find alternatives to direct traffic directly to RMNP, and not affect E Riverside.
Thanks, Adela
Date Comment
Received Submitted via:
7/25/2016 Web EA
Comment Form
7/25/2016 Web EA
Comment Form
7/25/2016 Web EA
Comment Form
7/25/2016 Web EA
Comment Form
7/25/2016 Web EA
Comment Form
7/25/2016 Web EA
Comment Form
7/25/2016 Web EA
Comment Form
7/25/2016 Web EA
Comment Form
13
Comment Date Comment Number (1 Name City, State Comment Received Submitted via: per name)
39 Narcis Anghel Longmont CO 7/25/2016 Web EA
Comment Form
Estes Park was the first town I visited when I moved to Colorado back in 1995. I now co-own 5 luxury downtown condos and I'm happy to call this town home. I have friends here and I have worked
with many contractors and service people, it is a great town and a great vacation environment and we strive to provide superior accommodations to our guests. I am for traffic solutions but I believe the
proposed Loop is the wrong answer, it will increase noise, complaints from guests, will basically destroy this town's character.
Please take No Action on the Loop. Please explore other solutions like enlarging E Wonderview for direct access to RMNP or creating a hwy 34 to hwy 36 link somewhere west of town. We also have
a downtown parking problem which I would rather see it addressed first.
Trusting you are going to make the right decisions, and please consider my input,
Redacted
40 Barbara Bell Estes Park CO I live on Riverside dr. I don't want to see the loop happen. We can deal with the traffic during tourist season. I really think it's a bad idea for our town. 7/25/2016 Web EA
Comment Form
41 Martin and Sallie Estes Park CO We strongly oppose the loop. It will disrupt the very positive pattern of life in Estest Parrk. Elkhorn should not be turned into a major highway. 7/26/2016 Web EA
Dickinsn The project will not improve access to the Park. The road west from the donut shop will remain only two lanes. The loop will simply cause a major traffic jam at the donut shop as traffic west has to Comment Form
narrow to one lane.
It's unwise to undertake an undesirable project just because government agencies are handing out free money.
The loop project should NOT be done.
42 Mary K. Simon Estes Park CO all the meetings I have attended there is minimal support for the loop, why are they pushing this on a Town that really doesn't want it?. Very few comments of support come thru in the meetings, it seems 7/26/2016 Web EA
as if something so opposed to by the towns people would be reviewed and a new plan developed that the business people and town supports. If people were for this they would be cheering and asking Comment Form
when the project would be completed and pushing to move forward, this is not happening and it seems the loop has received minimal support. It has been presented and talked about numerous times
and each time you see several expressions of strong concern and disagreement, but no cheering and support for the project whatsoever.
43 Rex Poggenpohl Estes Park CO As a former Architect, Community Planner, and Civil Engineer, I am very aware of the many benefits that the proposed Loop traffic improvements will bring to the Estes Park community, pedestrian 7/26/2016 Web EA
visitors to Town and vehicle visitors to the Rocky Mountain National Park. While some opposing local business owners think that further slowing down of traffic will increase or maintain their business, the Comment Form
opposite is true. As our traffic has increased noticibly in the last two years the congestion and parking difficulties have increased such that many visitors have less interest in fighting the downtown traffic
to shop, they just want to get through Town without more hassle.
44 Ian Taylor Estes Park CO As a young adult wanting to start a family in Estes it is my opinion that something needs to happen in regards to the downtown roadways. If this is the best that the professionals can suggest, then I am for 7/26/2016 Web EA
it. It looks like it will open downtown, provide a more bike friendly atmosphere, aid in relieving our guests of road rage and traffic jams, definitely relieve locals of road rage and traffic jams, create a safer Comment Form
environment at multiple intersections and crosswalks, and provide an opportunity for the decaying infrastructure to get the desperately needed help it has to get.
45 Diane Friedman Estes Park CO I am a strong supporter of the Loop. Estes has become a nightmare to navigate. And with limited options for roads leading to RMNP, the Loop seems to be the best option to help manage traffic. Change 7/26/2016 Web EA
is here --in the form of over a million more visitors -whether we like it or not. It's time to respond accordingly. Comment Form
46 Patricia Blume Estes Park CO Web EA Comment Form (1) 7/26/2016 Web EA
For what gain is the huge disruption of this project? A few SECONDS travel time to "ease the access to RMNP?" The Park is already overloaded, with a steady stream of traffic on Moraine, both Comment
directions. This year's Park attendance already exceeds that of 2015. Form (1)
A tremendous outlay of money is described, with flood mitigation not funded or specifically planned, when the Loop was envisioned BEFORE the 2013 flood. Back up and re-think.
Move traffic OUT of the downtown area (shift more to Wonderview and construct another access to the South (Peakview) making a gigantic loop while allowing access as an OPTION to those wanting
to shop. How many in these streams of vehicles actually stop downtown now? Be reasonable.
The Park is approaching the need to install a plan like Yosemite: no private vehicles IN the Park, or some semblance of that plan.
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE: NO LOOP.
Pat Blume Web EA Comment Form (2) 8/2/2016 Web EA
It is important to consider impacts on this small community as part of a whole. One action affects many others. Consider the election which approved the construction of a community center, to Comment
include a fully functional Senior Center. NOW: "costs have escalated to the extent that some important features must be eliminated." I.e. no kitchen, which is a central function of the senior center, as it Form (2)
exists now.
Since 2013, and the grant approval for the LOOP, a tremendous event hit the Town in Sept. of 2013, revealing a great need for flood mitigation. Is this need more important than the LOOP, given its
high cost for little actual improvement in travel time? Would it make more sense to put LOOP construction on hold and tend the recommended flood mitigation (3 bridges and work on the river from E.
Riverside to the East?)
PRIORITIES are important. Projects can be altered, as is the current case with the voter-approved Community Center.
NOTE: the Loop did not seek voter approval.
What is wrong with this picture?
A final observation: if the Loop is intended "to improve access to Rocky Mtn. National Park" the Park needs no improvement in access, it is full to capacity and more already.
Let's let the Loop go.
47 Carolyn Dietz Estes Park CO (No text included in comment field) 7/26/2016 Web EA
Comment Form
48 Roger and Sue Estes Park CO The traffic during the summer in Estes Park has increased greatly in just the past few years. We live off of Moraine Avenue West of the Rock Shop and the traffic leaving the Park in the late afternoon 7/26/2016 Web EA
Levy backs up on Moraine even during weekdays. The Loop would help alleviate this even as traffic increases in the future because there would be two Eastbound lanes through town instead of the current Comment Form
one lane. For merchants downtown, as traffic congestion gets worse, visitors will avoid downtown or even avoid coming to Estes Park altogether. Even now, the town is encouraging people going to the
Park to avoid downtown Estes Park by taking Rte. 34 to the Fall River entrance. We need the Loop, plus more downtown parking, to make it easier for visitors to shop downtown. Nobody likes to be stuck
in traffic and it discourages people from staying to shop in Estes. It is also difficult for the locals to get around town even using by pass routes. For now and even more so for the future, we need the Loop
for the well being of Estes Park.
14
11/14/16
Comment
Number (1 Name City, State
per name)
49 Steve McCauley Estes Park CO
50 Alan Miller Estes Park CO
51 Robert Alvarez Estes Park CO
52 C.G. Fleischer Estes Park CO
53 Lynn Lykins Unknown
11/14/16
Comment
Do it! Working for a hotel, one of the most popular questions we get asked is "how do we avoid the traffic mess downtown?" I dislike showing them the Moccassin Bypass as I like to think it's only for
locals, but I feel their pain of trying to make a simple trip across town. Visitors will still know where the downtown area is as they'll drive though it on the way to RMNP.
I reviewed the traffic simulation and other materials related to the "loop". After 30 yrs in City management w/Westminster, CO we saw and implemented numerous traffic changes, many unpopular ones,
that later were applauded. It is clear Estes Park needs to take action and implement the changes. Change is hard for many people, but to do nothing is not in the town's best interest. The town is already
choked with traffic and yes there will be construction inconveniences, but the long term gain is well worth it. It is an equally bad decision for the town board to abdicate their responsibility to make this
decision and turn this to a vote. The town board members are the ones who are responsible for studying all the information, not the citizen's who have varying interests. I believe the data clearly supports
taking action and does not support doing nothing. At the very least the Board members need to take a stand, give their reasons for their vote and then let the citizen's decide about each board members
vote come next election.
My wife and I own a home in Estes Park (since 1993) and have lived here part-time since 2005 when we retired. We purchased property in Estes while living and working in the Denver area
specifically due to the small-town "feel" of the Estes Valley and proximity to Rocky Mountain National Park. During our working years, we traveled an average amount through the US, visiting other
National Parks and attractions with our sons and thought little of the traffic and congestion in the areas we visited during the busy summer months, realizing the inconvenience was just part of the
experience brought about by the fact those areas were popular and we had chosen to visit the same time others had ......... just like Estes Park in the summer.
We have monitored the local effort during the last couple years here pushing the idea of modifying the traffic flows through the main business center of Estes Park to ease the congestion during the
busy summer months and speed visitors along as they head into the Beaver Meadows entrance to Rocky. We have read the articles in the local paper and attended some of the meetings held to inform
residents including the one last week at the Events Center, and it is abundantly apparent the majority of residents here and almost all the business owners oppose the idea of spending millions of dollars
to modify the downtown section of our town to reduce congestion during the summer months. To most everyone other than the city "fathers and their administration", speeding visitors through the town
only to have them stopped and backed up at the Park entrance seems like a gross waste of money. The proposed changes are going to make it harder on seasonal businesses and make it still more
difficult to visit the town because the one thing that is really needed is omitted from the plan. That one thing is available of PARKING.
What is needed is not one-way roadways through town but places for visitors to conveniently PARK their vehicles and get around the town during their visit. The shuttles running during the summer
are a help, but would it not be nice if adequate parking were available, especially during the busy summer? Where is the long-planned, muli-deck parking garage we were told was to be built across the
river from the Visitor Center? How about you stop studying the roadways and traffic flows and do something positive about PARKING?
In summary, we submit our opinion that you should forget about tearing up the down-town section of our little village in an effort to ease traffic flows through it in our short summer here and avoid the
major negative effects on the businesses but do something positive about PARKING which would do more to help traffic and congestion than anything else you might do. After that, as monies become
available, address the stream flows of the rivers through the village and modify or change the three road bridges as necessary to help mitigate the effects of periodic flooding which naturally occurs in the
mountain environment in which we live.
Submitted by Robert J. Alvarez
To: Ricardo Suarez
Director Central Federal Lands, Highway Division
James Herlyck
Project Manager-Estes Park, Colorado.
Re: FOIA request going to: FLAP Grant in final draft submitted to your office.
Director Suarez,
Would you be so kind as to make final FLAP Grant (and approval) documents available for public review as goes to thirteen million dollar award:
Town of Estes Park, Colorado, Loop Project.
Citizen review of all documents (not limited to but including final language) and your agency's contractual agreement with DOT if applicable (as background not available per website) is imperative at
this time.
Is CH2M contracted for the Estes Park project-and if so; is Saudi Arabia now the Capitol investor?
In terms of ADA issues:
Access to hearings and comment must be inclusive of those with disabilities.
Many of Estes Park citizens (marketed as retirement community) fall into category of disabled, protected class due to age.
Holding meetings at night can present issues (not limited to but including driving)!
Translation issues present, as some business owners in town are Spanish speaking-as are citizens.
Hearing impaired also left out of process.
Legal explanations are also a translation issue for some!
All the aforementioned groups are legally entitled to inclusion in Federal/ State process!
Blind and hearing impaired are not factored in planning (at any observable phase.
Aforementioned groups are potentially placed at risk for death should they attempt access to "Loop" as engineered in current blueprint.
Surely your agency wants ALL citizens accorded access to process and discussion-as well as reasonable expectation of safety with access ... ?
Thank you and kind regards, CG Fleischer, Estes Park, CO
I feel the loop will destroy the charm of our town. Yes the traffic problem is huge, but don't sacrifice the businesses and residences who will be greatly impacted by the loop.
How about if we made the three blocks from hwy 34 intersection to the west end of Elkhorn a walking mall (similar to what Boulder did on Pearl street). We could design parking on the outskirts and at
the Fairgrounds with shuttles to the shopping areas. There has been talk of a parking garage near the visitors center. Additional parking could be expanded (where the thrift stores are) at the other end of
Elkhorn. Why not design a loop around the outskirts of town rather than down the middle which will only have a negative affect on long time residents and businesses in and near Elkhorn.
Please don't punish our residents, businesses and take away the historical charm of our little town with a loop which I don't think will solve the traffic problem anyway. Thanks, for asking for our
opinion.
Lynn Lykins
Date Comment
Received Submitted via:
7/27/2016 Web EA
Comment Form
7/27/2016 Web EA
Comment Form
7/28/2016 Web EA
Comment
Form (also
submitted
same
comment via
Postal Mail,
only included
one)
7/23/2016 Web EA Email
7/29/2016 Web EA Email
15
Comment Date Comment Number (1 Name City, State Comment Received Submitted via: per name)
54 Tony and Hattie Estes Park CO (See attached letter) Please consider these comments as regards the Estes Park Downtown Loop Project Environmental Assessment (EA). In short, we are supportive of a final decision resulting in a 7/31/2016 Web EA Email
Schetzsle Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for all components of the Proposed Action and future phases as outlined in the EA and likely in the future.
The Town of Estes Park applied for funding and committed a required match in support of the Proposed Action as well as expanded the scope of the EA to include future phases outside current funding.
The purpose of the funding is to alleviate severe congestion and frustration associated with impaired access to Federal Lands, namely, Rocky Mountain National Park. As a resident, the gridlock endured
during much of the heavy visitation season traveling in Town for routine life purposes, to say the least, is aggravating and long past due for improvement. The National Park is the anchor store for
attracting visitors from around the world to and through Estes Park. This project and program is designed to accommodate and improve access to the Park with the benefit of improved reasonable
residential and community travel for other purposes. Both visitor and resident experience is currently compromised and the Proposed Action offers the start of the solution at no significant impact to the
environment and local economy.
The hydraulic studies included in the EA are adequate for the conceptual design of the Proposed Action and future phases. In terms of the economy, downtown merchants account for 19% of total
number Estes merchants and 23% of total retail sales (EA Page 3-50). This same downtown core area accounts for only 17% of total Town revenue. The EA further points out that the current trend of
vehicle access through Town via Highways 34 and 36 has and is expected to continue to grow at 1.6% annually through the year 2040. For those to claim that the Proposed Action will decimate the
Town economy is unfounded. This Proposed Action is not going to result in the collapse of the Estes Valley economy as might be represented by others. Instead, the Proposed Action along with
complementary undertakings to mitigate flood hazards, to enhance parking, and improve and expand public transportation systems to and through Estes Park as well as Rocky Mountain National Park will
only stabilize, sustain and enhance the overall economic foundation, including the Downtown core area, into the future.
The Proposed Action is necessary, prudent, and overdue. Comments offered that fall outside the purpose and scope of the EA should be discounted as being exactly that, outside the scope and purpose
of the EA. In short, a FONSI should be prepared, signed and recorded.
55 Mark Newman Unknown (See attached letter) Town Board and Administrators: 7/31/2016 Web EA Email
I would like to state that I have maintained an Estes Park residence and business in Estes Park for over 20 years. I have read all reports, propaganda, citizen and town official statements, & meeting
notes, as well as attended multiple meetings on this subject. In summary my request is that I wish my town of Estes Park to take no action in accepting the FLAP gran, or move forward with current
proposals. This is partially due to the idea that it has been characterized by the city as an all or nothing proposition, and in that light I propose taking no action. And more importantly our National Park has
stated that they have too many cars entering the park during peak season, so why would we move forward based on the stated objective of this grant?? It appears a dishonesty to voters across our nation
that we would execute on the proposed "Loop" as a service to help them get to the RMNP faster.
I would also like to articulate that I find the town irresponsible in not providing the citizens of Estes Park an opportunity to vote on such a critical change to the make-up of our town. I went into this process
with an open mind toward finding an opportunity to improve EP. I have now seen firsthand how many of the town administrators only see this as an opportunity to get their hands on tax payer dollars to
be spent in the way they deem best. I witnessed what could be construed as cronyism and saw the process as reckless and without focus or vision. As a participant of this process since first introduced
at the museum meetings I have found I have a no-confidence vote in the current town administrator's ability to manage the town's best interests for a project of this scale and complexity. As a business
executive for a large company I could never be allowed to run my business in such a manner. This is a significant reason I would vote for no action at this time.
Further Reasoning:
•There are numerous mapping errors on the EA report and there are potential flaws in some of the science claimed and used in the study. Brings into question the quality of the study.
•Parking is still the #1 issue in town and it is not addressed adequately
•This project has been a moving target, never well thought-out or presented from day one. The town has continually shifted the purpose, and goals of this project based on town sentiment. Town
Administrators have not shown a sense of true vision or purpose except to get our hands on the $$, at any cost.
•Why is EP pilfering Federal funds to get park visitors to a traffic jam at the RMNP entrance about 2 maybe 3 minutes sooner than now.
•The EA or any assessment has not adequately assessed the potential financial damage to West End Elkhorn merchants, nor West or East Riverside merchants.
Mark Newman •The noise study impact of West and East Riverside was at best inadequate and will end up being challenged. That whole area is an area of commerce that will be significantly impacted by the noise and
(cont) traffic. That was not well addressed in the study.
•The town still does not have a comprehensive master plan, and any plan done before the proposed loop takes effect would be irresponsible.
•All of this for one bridge, getting the cars to RMNP 2 minutes faster, and some flood mitigation work for town?? Not really what the FLAP is for but as we all know COOT loves these projects so they will
support this in any way possible. They build, then they leave, and I doubt our town administrator will still be here by the time the loop would be completed.
•Increased traffic does not always mean better business for merchants, making Riverside drive a highway does not make it a better place to do business.
•Adding hi-ways through the middle of town does not improve the ambiance of a destination location like Estes Park. Elkhorn Avenue is now an island with hi-ways on both sides!
•Is Estes Park really OK losing parking spaces and useable park space? Yes we gain park space but it is not useable.
•The bike lane claims: as a person who rides his bike through town and up into the park on a regular basis I can say that what some have advocated as being beneficial is woefully short of being
beneficial or helpful. In reality the current Riverside configuration is better for bicycling than any of the proposed measures of the Loop. A shared lane on Elkhorn, really?? I would be happy to bring forth
numerous riders who are, and are not a part of the bicycle coalition.
•What would happen if we spent this much effort working on the quality of our visitor over quantity of visitors!!
•Real Solutions to town Problems: Build a parking structure behind the library 4 stories high, Charge a nominal fee for parking, to pay for it, reduce traffic into town that is how we really improve traffic and
ambiance of town. Do that then look at creating a new hi-way through town! That seems to be the real solution after sitting in on all these meetings.
•The Estes Park Kids Park on W. Riverside would now be next to a hi-way, our kids grew up playing in that park downtown, and we would not let them do that with a highway next to it. That space
between bridges etc. that is proposed park is not usable!
•Proposed parking along riverside now that it is a highway is ineffective if you want to maintain traffic flow.
• I assume you have considered a huge rented RV with a car attached on the back going around the proposed Roundabout?
•What about the hazardous materials now being directed down a residential area of Riverside, no problem because it is a hi-way? What about the residences and visitors who stay along there every
year??
16
11/14/16
Comment
Number (1
per name)
56
57
58
59
Name
Mark Newman
(cont)
Neil Ricklefs
Susan J. Day
Wayne Newsom
Pat Newsom
Pat Newsom,
Wayne Newsom
City, State
Unknown
Estes Park CO
Estes Park CO
Estes Park CO
Comment
•Final Comment: If the town has such a smart idea with the FLAP grant then let the community vote, if it is that good and idea they will win and we will move forward.
Respectfully,
Mark Newman 500 Chapin Lane
Please stop the fear tactics and lets base further comments and details from the town on facts, not hyperbolic tactics etc. The traffic simulations insult my intelligence.
I am trying to figure out why there is an interest in this project. if it is done, seems to me that it will hurt the businesses in estes, which makes no sense, and it will put more cars in the park, which the park
is already saying there are to many cars in the park and the park is having problems with the overload of cars. yes the town can get some funds to pay for part of the project, but the residents of estes will
have a big bill to pay for the rest of the project. I assume that the residents will have the ability to vote for the extra taxes to pay for this large bill , and I hope the majority will vote no. if the park is pushing
for this project, let the park pay, but I know that will not happen. the so called traffic problem is only for a few days a year, and likely does not cause problems for the residents of estes. we know how to
get around town and stay away from elkhorn. seems to me a more logical way to solve the short term traffic problem would be to build a parking garage and provide a shuttle service to the park. both the
town and the park would win, since the tourists would be in town and the cars would not be in the park causing problems. to me, I do not see any benefit to the town of estes or the merchants of estes to
proceed with this project. neil ricklefs
I'm against the one-way couplet. Drastic for four months out of the year. Residents must use 12 months out of year -foolish.
RMNP is trying to alleviate cars in park -we should be stressing use of shuttles instead of searching for more ways of getting people out of town we should be trying to keep them in town. I think using
a roundabout is a mistake. They are confusing and hard to understand. Tourists have enough distractions without dealing with roundabouts. It's too bad you can't use the improvements to Riverside
without adding the one-way restrictions.
One more thing -roundabouts -how do we expect tourist with motor homes pulling cars to be able to get from one side to another.
Thank you for your work and time.
To the Estes Park Town Board, others in Estes Park Governing Body, others who did the analysis for THE LOOP:
•THE LOOP IS NOT NEEDED.
I have lived in the town of Estes Park for 37 years and have seen the increase in the number of Visitors to help our economy.
•The original idea to get the "free money" grant for THE LOOP was to help traffic flow through Estes Park to and from RMNP. I have a report from a person working in the EP Visitor Center that
parking lots in RMNP are full, traffic gets shut off to Bear Lake in Moraine Park because no place to park. A Park Ranger commented they are overwhelmed with visitors and DO NOT SEND MORE
CARS TO RMNP as we can't handle them. Encourage people to ride the FREE shuttle.
•It is perceived by some local residents and those working in the EP Municipal Building that we have AN UNDESIRABLE PROBLEM WITH TRAFFIC.
I am in contact with in-state and out-of-state residents 3 to 5 times a week who own EP property, inquiring to buy property or just vacationing in EP. Every time I have an opportunity I inquire of these
people if the traffic in Estes Park is a problem for them and if it a discouragement for them to visit EP. The response is that a lot of traffic is expected and it is no problem for any of these people I have
talked with. These visitors will return!!!
•I live at 450 West Wonderview. Since the electronic directional sign directing visitors to the north entrance to RMNP has been installed at the Hwy 34/36 intersection, traffic has really increased and
this traffic has been diverted from Elkhorn Ave. The traffic is not a problem to me as it is a seasonal thing .. It also took a lot of traffic off Elkhorn Avenue when 2 lanes of traffic coming in on Hwy. 36 and
Hwy. 7 were not forced with a left hand turns forcing them down Elkhorn Avenue, thus relieving traffic on Elkhorn.
•An electronic sign reading FREE parking and FREE shuttle to town and RMNP needs to be placed on Hwy. 34 and Hwy. 36 about a half mile before the turn offs to help direct visitors to the FREE
Fairground Parking lot and FREE shuttles.
•Estes Park should not be expected to keep up accommodating the huge increase in population along the Front Range with local "highways", streets, parking garages and parking lots.
Public Hearing Verbal (1)
I am not in favor, and I think it's been a very divisive issue within the community, mainly between the old-timers and the newcomers. And I think with the improvements they've made this past year, they've
improved traffic so well.
The Barnes Dance and the way the lights are set. The Barnes Dance. Do you know what that is? It's where all of the lights at the intersections turn red and all the cars stop and people go anywhere they
want. We used to have that 15 years ago, and they took it away. But that has improved, plus the way the lights are set according to speed and --like they do in the cities.
Public Hearing (comment form) (2)
This project was initiated three -four years by a town employee who did not live in the area. To make a place for himself he applied for a multimillion dollar grant from F.L.A.P. -Federal Access
Program -and the purpose was to "funnel" traffic more easily into and out of Rocky Mountain National Park. (1) The catch was: The National Park said we don't want any more cars in the park. Visitor
count was high already and they wanted visitors to ride the shuttles. The project proceeded to a few public hearings with the appropriate personnel facilitating and explaining the options of different
scenarios and seemed to move pretty quickly. It was finally decided that there would be two choices: "A 1" and "Do Nothing." And before we knew it, it had been decided by the Board of Trustees (vote 4-
2)that the choice A 1 -the Loop -would become reality.
It has been said and as I see the Loop, this monster HAS become divisive element in the community-primarily between the Old Timers and Newcomers -those who have lived here less than 10-11
years. I believe the vote of the Trustees proved this out.
(2)I walk the downtown streets regularly and talk with visitors. After I ask what they like about our town, I then ask what they don't like. It's not the traffic, per se, but the need for additional parking -
and some even mentioned PAID parking which I have advocated for some years as it could be done very easily. They also mention the help of signage AND another grocery store might be helpful.
Perhaps we can get our Economic Development look into this!
(3)Our visitors like the historic charm and uniqueness of the village and the friendliness of the people. Seriously, traffic is not a concern for them. They know there will be traffic. They come for our
festivals, they come to view the mountains and wildlife and they come to share with friends and relatives.
I realize the agencies that do the research such as the EA have been hired to do so but I get the gut feeling this project is being forced on us by people who have never lived here or lived here for a
short time; perhaps they never really visited here ... but work for those who think they know what's best for us. (4) I don't think downsizing Baldwin Park on Riverside and taking our parking spaces, and
Children's Park where one sees many visitors relaxing and enjoying, the parking spaces taken out of the Dairy Queen lot with a proposed "gentle" curving of the one way street. I wonder if they have ever
been down Elkhorn in February when one wonder is there will ever be cars and people on the street again. Basically what I am saying, we do not need the Loop.
When one adds up the number of days we have congestion, it amounts to 35-40 days a year or equal to one month. With some traditional events now being held at the Event Center, and signage
sending visitors/tourist to the north entrance of the park, the timing of the lights on Elkhorn and the Barnes dance, there is a difference for the better this year. I have heard there are people complaining
about the traffic on Wonderview, which is amusing ... there are not many people living on West Wonderview to complain. In other cases, many of us feel the elected trustees do no listen to the community.
Date Comment
Received Submitted via:
8/1/2016 Web EA Email
7/20/2016 Public Hearing
(comment form)
8/2/2016 Web EA Email
7/20/2016 Public Hearing
Verbal (1)
7/20/2016 Public Hearing
(comment
form) (2)
�--�-----�-----�------------------------------------------------------�--�----�17
11/14/16
Comment Date Comment Number (1 Name City, State Comment Received Submitted via: per name)
60 Russell P. Estes Park CO Thanks for the opportunity to comment on the EA developed for the Downtown Estes Loop. Since this is a federal action, one of three actions is required. Either a) categorical exclusion, b) an 7/20/2016 Public Hearing
Schneider, Ph.D environmental assessment, c) an environmental impact statement. Normally the decision whether to prepare an EA or an EIS is a judgement based on degree of impact, sensitivity of resources affected (comment form)
and degree of public controversy. (1) Given the sensitivity of the Estes Park residents, why wasn't an EIS developed?
(2)The stated problem was congestion during peak summer visitor season. How does moving congestion down 3 blocks change delays and public safety?
(3)P.31 says no action means nothing happens until 2040! This seems incorrect because actually it means nothing happens right now!
(4)During Phase I, no mention is made of the time to completion. How long will Phase I take and how will this impact traffic congestion and public safety?
(5)Purpose stated: to provide improved access to and from RMNP by reducing travel time, congestion and pedestrian/vehicle conflict through downtown Estes Park, as well as negative impact on
visitors. What about the impact on local business and/or the human environment?
(6) NEPA is National Environmental Policy Act -not National Environmental Protection Act, as stated in the abbreviations.
(7)Does the project design include work that will be done later or will a new design be required? At what cost and time?
(8)Since traffic is the issue, the project needs to begin at the entrance to RMNP with 2 lanes going in both directions. A stop light is required at the intersection of Hwy 36 and Hwy 66. Then 2 lanes
are required from the corner of Mary's Lake Road back to Moraine Ave. Only until this is accomplished can congestion truly be reduced.
(9)Should also consider more buses to access RMNP and stoplights on Hwy 34 beginning at Dry Gulch Rd.
61 Susan Wolf Estes Park CO Public Hearing (comment form) (1) 7/20/2016 Public Hearing
I cannot support the loop for the following reasons: (comment
1.The proposed alternative will have vehicles on Elkhorn Ave. that will be going one way with two lanes. It is not going to be any safer or less congested when two lanes of traffic from Elkhorn Ave. are form) (1)
going into two lanes down Moraine Ave. and then merging into the one lane at Moraine Ave. by the Donut Haus in order to get to the National Park. This does not improve congestion and you will still
have a bottleneck as you go towards the Park.
2.Once the vehicles are at the entrance to the National Park, congestion will NOT be reduced. The National Park currently restricts access up Bear Lake Road when parking at the Trailheads and
Park and Ride are filled.
3.Other congestion relief has not been attempted that will help people get out of their cars before they enter the downtown area. Parking garages on the boundary of the downtown area would be
helpful as would paid parking and parking meters in the downtown core as a means of generating revenue, promoting economic activity through increased parking space turnover. More shuttles and
earlier shuttles going into the Park are essential to reduce congestion.
4. The Riverside corridor will be a crowded highway with negative impacts to Baldwin Park to residents and lodging establishments. There will be tree removal, increased noise and air pollution.
5.Section 4 (f) of the Department of Transportation Act states that use of land from publicly owned parks, cannot take place unless there is no feasible and prudent avoidance alternative, and that
action includes planning to minimize harm to the property. I disagree; the tranquility of the area will be destroyed.
6.I hope that funds are not going to be used to foster and encourage economic development expansion in the Riverside area once those homes and businesses are bought up and are no longer there.
I often wondered if grant money was used appropriately to pave over the parking lot at the fairgrounds under the guise of reducing air pollution. The fairgrounds shuttle has not been popular and has
not been extensively used yet the parking lot was conveniently paved over prior to the Events Center being built there.
Thank you for this opportunity on such an important issue. -Susan Wolf
Susan Wolf Public Hearing Verbal (2) 7/20/2016 Public Hearing
I'm a year-round resident. I cannot support the loop for the following reasons: Verbal (2)
One: The proposed alternative will have vehicles on Elkhorn Avenue that will be going one way with two lanes. It's not going to be any safer or less congested when two lanes of traffic from Elkhorn
Avenue are going into two lanes down Moraine Avenue and then merging into the one lane at Moraine Park by what is now the Donut Haus in order to get to the National Park.
Two: Once the vehicles are at the entrance to the park, congestion will not be reduced. The National Park currently restricts access up Bear Lake Road when parking at the trailhead and Park-n-Ride
are filled.
Three: Other congestion relief has not been attempted that would help people get out of their cars before they enter the downtown area. Parking garages on the boundary of the downtown area would
be helpful, as would paid parking and parking meters in the downtown core, as a means of generating revenue, promoting economic activity through increased parking space turnover. More shuttles and
earlier shuttles going into the park are essential to reduce congestion.
Four: The Riverside corridor will be a crowded highway with negative impacts to Baldwin Park to residents and to larger establishments. There will be tree removal, increased noise, and air pollution.
Five: Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act states that use of land from publicly owned parks cannot take place unless there is no feasible and prudent avoidance alternative and the
action includes planning to minimize harm to the property. I do not agree with a de minimis impact as the tranquility of the area will be destroyed.
Six: The restroom is essential on the riverside walk. That playground area, a lot of the children use the restrooms. People walking with their dogs use that restroom, joggers.
To try to get across Elkhorn to go to the town hall and use the bathrooms, it's very time-consuming, plus people with dogs are not allowed into the town hall. They would have to tie their dogs outside.
And in conclusion, I hope that federal funds are not going to be used to foster or encourage economic development expansion in the Riverside area once those homes and businesses are boarded up
and are no longer there.
I often wondered if grant money was used appropriately to pave over the parking lot of the fairgrounds under the guise of reducing air pollution. The fairgrounds shuttle has not been popular and has
not been extensively used, yet the parking lot was conveniently paved over prior to the Events Center being built.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on such an important issue.
18
11/14/16
Comment Date Comment Number (1 Name City, State Comment Received Submitted via: per name)
62 Charley Dickey Estes Park CO As a business in the center of the traffic congestion in downtown Estes Park, I have had a concern for solutions to our traffic and parking issues. I applied for and was accepted on the Transportation 7/28/2016 Web EA
Visioning Citizen's Committee in 2011-2012. We discussed options to improve traffic and parking and from our 18 months of hard work we produced a comprehensive report that offered a course for the Comment Form
Town to take based on some time frames with some regard to the financial aspect of funding. The FLAP grant became available 10 years sooner than we had anticipated the Town would have the ability
to consider the traffic solution options we proposed -one of them being the current Loop project. Although, I personally don't believe this is the best option for the community, I do believe it is a much
better option than doing nothing. At this point in my support, I MUST state that I believe that parking is a larger issue than the congestion. Much of the congestion is caused due to a lack of down town
parking. I was disappoint to see the UNFUNDED PHASE 2 of this FLAP grant get pushed back AGAIN due to flood mitigation issues with the bridges and roads. Grant it those are a serious concerns
BUT that doesn't deal with congestion (Traffic or Parking).
I am concerned that we don't have the RMNP at the table with the Town, COOT and FLAP. It is unconscionable that we would proceed down this road without all affected parties engaged.
63 Don Sellers Estes Park CO Kudos to the people who developed the video simulation. Before seeing the video, i was neutral on whether the loop should be built. After seeing the video, I am totally convinced that the loop will be a 7/29/2016 Web EA
necessity. I'm now all for it. Comment Form
64 Steven Mitchell Estes Park CO As designed, I believe the loop to be the best solution to traffic flow problems through downtown Estes Park. It is important to realize there are serious consequences if nothing is done to solve this 7/29/2016 Web EA
problem. To stick one's head in the sand and resist change can only hurt the economic future of the town in the long term. I believe the fear by shop owners that tourists won't stop to shop if the loop is Comment Form
put in is misplaced. Actually, I think tourists will avoid downtown in the future because of the congestion. Everyone who lives in and around Estes Park knows when not to go into town because of traffic
problems. Tourists will also catch onto this eventually and avoid it themselves.
65 Carolyn and Ken Estes Park CO After reading everything available and talking to those on both sides, we submit that building the LOOP is a terrible idea. We really do not mind the time it takes to drive through town, even in the 7/30/2016 Web EA
Wills summertime. (We are full time residents and have been for over 13 years.) Actually, it's fun to window shop as traffic slows down. We've been known to go back and shop after having seen something Comment Form
in a store window. Spending money just because it might be available is not always the wise choice.
66 Susan Harris Estes Park CO I am still opposed to the loop plan. I do not like one way streets in a town that has very few streets to begin with. I do not think your simulator is correct. I think that there will still be a huge bottleneck in 7/30/2016 Web EA
the area of the present day Donut Haus in the mornings, and of course, your simulator shows only afternoon projections. I still believe that much of the downtown congestion is due to lack of parking, and Comment Form
until you build an easily accessible large parking garage, you will always have traffic issues. I also think that for some reason everyone focuses on Rocky Mountain National Park as the visitor's
destination, but the Town of Estes Park is also a destination and the idea of just funneling everyone through to an already crowded National Park is a poor idea. My final thought is that if the loop is
completed, it is the final death knell for local residents and their sense of ownership of the town. We used to have hardware stores, pharmacies, grocery stores, etc. In the downtown corridor, and now
nothing. The loop just finalizes the destruction of downtown Estes Park.
67 John Krueger Estes Park CO I believe the proposed loop should go forward, unless an alternative other than "NO Action" can be developed. The complaints that this will adversely effect downtown businesses is way out of 7/30/2016 Web EA
perspective. Anyone wanting to shop downtown still has to find a parking place and the loop gives opportunity for more parking to be properly developed and positioned. Comment Form
68 Bob Ladenburger Estes Park CO Given today's volume of traffic and the projections of future growth, I support the construction of the loop project. 7/30/2016 Web EA
Comment Form
69 Susie Ladenburger Estes Park CO Web EA Comment Form (1) 7/30/2016 Web EA
I support the construction of the loop given existing and future traffic congestion. Comment
Form (1)
Susie Ladenburger Web EA Comment Form (2) 7/31/2016 Web EA
I support the construction of the loop given existing and future traffic congestion. Comment
Form (2)
70 Michael Sisk Estes Park CO I've been to a meeting or two. I'll never forget the comment period at the end of the first meeting. Almost everyone spoke against it. Then, at the end, one of the town fathers, said, "well, its seems like it 7/30/2016 Web EA
was pretty evenly divided tonight." From that point, I realized that "the fix is in". Nothing I say will have any effect on the decision. Comment Form
71 James Mount Estes Park CO I have carefully studied the Downtown Estes Loop EA and am very impressed with its depth and comprehensive coverage of the issues. I now have a thorough understanding of the project and its 7/31/2016 Web EA
impacts. Based on this, I am convinced that the loop project will definitely improve traffic flow to and from RMNP with minimal negative impact on the environment and local business. Therefore, I am Comment Form
very much in favor of the project and hope it will proceed.
72 Anne Nichting Estes Park CO I do not think the Town should approve The Loop. At a minimum it should the vote to the voters. That said, I do not live within the Town's city limits. I think the Town should focus on parking, infrastructure 7/31/2016 Web EA
and a comprehensive long term plan. The Town may have difficulty in the future with obtaining another grant but I think The Town would be wiser to develop a comprehensive long term plan that Comment Form
addresses,,parking, traffic and infrastructure rather than disrupting The Town and its merchant base for what may be very limited improvement with getting traffic into the park given the park's own growth
problems with traffic.
73 Sylvia Schneider Estes Park CO I believe the loop is a very bad idea. Destroying homes,businesses and a beautiful city park is not worth the few minutes one might save by driving on a one-way loop. 8/1/2016 Web EA
If the purpose of the loop is to bring visitors to the park more quickly, a better solution would be to promote the Fall River entrance more extensively than is now being done. We have had a record Comment Form
number of visitors to the park lately. What difference does it make if they get there a little faster? People will come here even if they encounter traffic. In fact, visitors expect traffic. If the loop is built, the
residents will have to put up with loop during the off season, too, often requiring extra driving depending on where they wish to go.
Estes Park has an unique character which visitors and residents love. Tearing down homes and businesses would forever change the quaint quality of the Riverside Drive area. Baldwin Park is a
delightful out of the way spot for relaxation and play. The riverside walk is part of this ambiance. Losing this would make me and many others very sad.
What Estes Park needs is more parking. Focusing on that should be our number one priority. We can't afford to lose a single parking space.
Another idea that would be better than a on-way loop would be to create a pedestrian mall of the downtown. Other cities have done this with great results.
This issue is too important to be decided by a board or committee. It should be decided by ballot by the whole Estes Valley, because it will affect us all.
19
Comment Date Comment Number (1 Name City, State Comment Received Submitted via: per name)
74 Scott Schneider Estes Park CO This has become a very divisive issue! I am against the loop project and believe that parking garages should be built instead. 8/1/2016 Web EA
I have heard the comment, "If we don't do something about the traffic, the tourists won't come anymore." That is ridiculous! We had the biggest crowd last year and this year is turning out to be even Comment Form
greater!
Getting rid of homes, businesses and a park are not worth getting people to the park faster. They will still go to the park no matter what.The businesses that are cut off because of the loop will suffer,
too. Let's preserve our beautiful town the way it is.
All the people of Estes Park should be able to vote on this issue. I believe that the mayor campaigned with this as a promise!
75 Todd Plummer Estes Park CO I think it is undeniable that the summer traffic in Estes Park is horrible. As a long time local, we figure out ways to avoid downtown during the major traffic tie-ups. I have been known to drive Mary's Lake 8/1/2016 Web EA
Rd, Peak View and Hwy 7 to avoid downtown when going across town. I am strongly in favor of taking action to improve traffic downtown. I believe "The Loop" provides the only detailed, fully analyzed Comment Form
plan that can improve traffic flow through downtown.
76 Doreen Glorioso Estes Park CO I would love to see our elected officials do what the people want instead of what they feel is best for Estes Park. They are to represent our wants, not be business people and decide what is best in their 8/1/2016 Web EA
minds. No Loop The pollution build up on Riverside because of the way the mountain sits (the misUfog hangs in there) would be a future problem. Estes Park is still quaint and the people would love to Comment Form
keep it that way. We do not need to be like Aspen or other mountain towns. We are unique with our RMNP and our small town feel. It would be nice to finally have elected officials that represent their
people!
77 Donna McCormick Estes Park CO Web EA Comment Form (1) 8/1/2016 Web EA
So I just want to vote no for this project. I wish the board would listen to the people and residents of this town. We are the ones that make this town. All the tourist that come up we work 9 to 10 hrs or Comment
more to make this town what it is. I vote no for the round about. There are other things this town needs first. Take care of those things first. What happens if there is a life or death situation and because Form (1)
it's one way the authories have to follow the loop all the way around I vote NO
Donna McCormick EstesTruth.org Website (2) 8/4/2016 EstesTruth.org
please don't allow the loop There are other things that the town needs to take care of before this. Website (2)
78 Susie Alexander Estes Park CO No loop. What's the point of making a quicker path through town when RMNP can't handle the flow? Please don't ruin the charm of our lovely town. If we wanted a place like Aspen or Telluride, we 8/1/2016 Web EA
would have bought there. NO ACTION ON THE LOOP!!! Comment Form
79 Lynda Smith Boulder CO With so many other available options (parking/shuttle), the Loop is a ridiculous solution to an easily solved problem. With comprehensive communication to visitors, you could easily park them at the fair 8/1/2016 Web EA
grounds and shuttle in, and what about completing the visitor parking garage? What happened to that? The Loop will forever change the face of downtown EP, which is one of the most remarkable and Comment Form
memorable aspects of any visit to this charming mountain town. NO TO THE LOOP!!!!
80 Myrna Goff Estes Park CO Web EA Comment Form (1) 8/1/2016 Web EA
Putting a loop in Estes Park is truly the worst possible thing you could do for the town and especially for the persons it's going put out of their homes and businesses because of the route requiring them Comment
to change their living arrangements! The majority of Estes Park residents do not want the loop and I think the city and the state should respect that! We've E xpressed our wishes over and over and no Form (1)
one seems to want to listen to us! PLEASE do not do this!!
Myrna Goff Estes Park CO EstesTruth.org Website (2) 8/4/2016 EstesTruth.org
There is no way this should be allowed to PROCEED without a vote of the city residents. And the same goes for the stupid opera house (or whatever the heck they're going to put in there) that they want Website (2)
to put down town where the mall burned down ... open your ears City of Estes Park and clear your heads!! THIS IS NOT WANTED!
81 Irish Andrews Estes Park CO Having lived within the town limits for over 20 years and having to drive through downtown, I feel that the "Loop" will add to the traffic problem. It will I feel add to traffic confusion and for those looking for 8/1/2016 Web EA
parking (witch should be a priority) I hate the thought of loosing the Dounut Haus to a roundabout which if they are likde the ones in Loveland are a death wish. Please find another solution. Comment Form
82 Shannon DeJaynes Estes Park CO I'm a 30 year resident of this town and I greatly oppose The Loop. It is a terrible idea for our town and once it is realized it's a bad idea, what is done is done. Let's fix our parking problem first and see 8/1/2016 Web EA
what the effect is then. I just really think we have more options to look at. The Loop is a horrible, horrible idea for our town just to "alleviate" some traffic for 3 months out of the year. Parking first, then let's Comment Form
see where we are. Please.
83 Barbara Cole Estes Park CO While the reality of Federal money is very alluring, I believe we are addressing the wrong problem by pursuing the Loop project. I volunteer at the Visitors Center here in EP, and more than once in 8/1/2016 Web EA
recent years,the Bear Lake road has been closed to visitors because there was no more parking along that corridor. This year, for the first time in my twelve year history here, the Alpine Visitors Center Comment Form
and Old Fall River Road were also closed, again because there were no parking spaces, and traffic was backed up on Old Fall River Road. RMNP can't accommodate any more visitors, so why are we
trying to send them to the Park more quickly? They are just going to be sent back to the Visitors Center and told to take the free shuttle.
Other state and national parks have faced a similar problem and have addressed that issue by limiting the high visitation months to shuttle access only, no private vehicles. Note the Maroon Bells area
here in Colorado and Zion Park in nearby Utah. I believe it will only be a matter of time until RMNP must adopt the same procedure, possibly from June 20 until Sept. 30, thus reducing the environmental
impact on the Park, as well as providing easy access to the Park visitors.
What we really need here in EP is additional parking. The proposed parking structure across from the Visitors Center is a partial solution. Other options might include more parking at the Fairgrounds
or spaces near the Hiways 34,36, and 7 entrances to Estes Park. Perhaps the Town and the Park could collaborate on additional parking structures at Fall River and Beaver Meadow entrances to the
Park.. I understand that the Park is already considering expansion of the shuttle service, so pick-up points could include these areas.
Please do not impose the Loop on our community. To make such drastic changes to address a four month per year problem is unreasonable. By the time the Loop construction could be built, the
Park will likely have instituted a solution of its own. Not to collaborate with them would be irresponsible. Even though we would reject the current possibility of a FLAP grant, there are and will be other
options for funding that would not split the Town, both literally and figuratively.
Thank you for considering my comments.
84 Katherine Summers Estes Park CO To those who think changing the traffic pattern to accommodate tourists will increase tax revenues, I say that destroying the essence of Estes Park could, in fact make it less appealing to tourists. 8/1/2016 Web EA
This action should not be taken on the recommendation of a few individuals, but should be put to a vote by the citizens whose lives will be impacted. Comment Form
Comment Date Comment Number (1 Name City, State Comment Received Submitted via: per name)
85 Ann Unknown I don't know the answer to the downtown congestion and confusing signage but I think we can all agree the lack of parking is a huge contributing factor. I travel between the Safeway area to Marys 8/1/2016 Web EA
Lake Road at least twice daily. Comment Form
Having lived and worked in various areas throughout town the last 18 years, I can honestly tell you the 2-3 blocks of Moraine Avenue from Elkhorn to The Donut Haus are the most dangerous blocks in
this entire town. There are multiple hard to see pedestrian crossings, street parking, a one way avenue, double turns, parking lots, and lane merges. As someone who travels via car, motorhome,
motorcycle and scooter through this area, I feel I literally take my life into my hands each and every time I travel it and have had more close calls than I care to mention. I feel some overhead pedestrian
crossings, well-marked bypasses & pavement markings as well as directions for trucks & motorhomes would help immensely regardless of the loop outcome.
I won't even get to vote on this issue because I live (barely) outside city limits but I hope the decision makers take into account all factors including the historic nature and charm of downtown, the fact
that tourists are drawn to downtown shopping but will be discouraged if they can't get there and also the safety and well-being of our citizens and visitors alike. Everyone has their own agenda but we
need to be forward thinking and find a solution that will lead us into the future, not leave us in the same predicament 20 years from now.
86 Lynn Stepaniak Estes Park CO The need is for parking in this town-not moving people through the town quicker. RMNP is not able to handle the increased volume it currently has at the entrance gates, and certainly won't with the 8/1/2016 Web EA
Loop. This is a 3 month problem at best-increased parking would solve it. Do the right thing for the town and the full time residents. Comment Form
87 Sara Maypole Estes Park CO One more utterly stupid proposition with incredible messes to be made and very little gain. A matter of a few seconds speeding people through town for "easier access to the park" which is already 8/1/2016 Web EA
jammed full. I've never seen anything like the traffic this summer and how long will the park remain worth visiting at this rate?Just one bridge to be replaced while 3 need to be upgraded for reasons of Comment Form
flooding. UGH!
88 Kay Rosenthal Estes Park CO I do not support the loop. We need to encourage people to park and ride into town but to divert traffic from the middle of town would hurt the local businesses. Please DO NOT PASS the LOOP it's bad 8/1/2016 Web EA
for local business. Comment Form
89 Joshua Williams Estes Park CO I have lived in Estes for 30 years and do not want to see such massive changes to the cute town that we have. The research shows that towns that have done this revert within a few years. Why spend 8/1/2016 Web EA
taxpayers money to do something that will only have to be paid to be undone in a few years? Comment Form
90 Candice Mohr Estes Park CO As a business owner in the affected area, I support the Loop project. 8/1/2016 Web EA
Comment Form
91 Linda Langer Estes Park CO I object to the Estes Park FLAP Grant Environmental Assessment and the Loop project. I don't' like the fact that it will destroy a historic neighborhood in Estes Park and create a 4 lane street in our small 8/1/2016 Web EA
town setting. Notwithstanding the 2 years of inconvenience that construction will bring, the Loop will encourage more car traffic through town and into the park instead of finding ways to reduce car traffic Comment Form
such as rerouting to Fall River Entrance, using Fairgrounds parking, more shuttles, etc.
92 Faith A Zimmerman Estes Park CO It is clear that a number of competing interests exist for the loop project. But in my estimation the replacement of old bridges that potentiate flooding and creating roads and intersections that will be able to 8/1/2016 Web EA
handle current and future traffic justify the loop project. If completed over a period of time then there should be sufficient opportunity to create win/win situations for businesses and residents and preserve Comment Form
the local environment. Decisions by government leaders should be for the long term economic health of downtown Estes Park while preserving the unique aspects of our town. We cannot go from flood to
flood to move progress forward downtown as we see tourism increasing every year. Already many irritated drivers sit in traffic and are parking anywhere and this does not enhance their visit. None of the
downtown issues will improve without a bold step forward and the EA appears as a constructive step forward. Ideally it would be nice to have a residential mall on Elkhorn so local residents and tourists
can leisurely and safely shop and maybe someday all traffic should turn at Riverside? But for now I believe that public funding is not something that can or should be turned away when we have safety
factors with floods and existing and increasing congestion to consider. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
93 Raymond Roach Estes Park CO I feel the public is being railroaded into the loop which the majority doesn't want. Why are a few public officials ignoring the opinions of the majority. 8/1/2016 Web EA
Comment Form
94 Douglas Klink Estes Park CO I believe that the loop project is an unnecessary waste of resources and will permanently damage our town's businesses. We finally have the brown park signage that's been so obviously missing, and 8/1/2016 Web EA
if we'd include a "time to the park" indication on them for the two route options it would reduce downtown traffic even further. A route out of the park using Mary's Lake Road and Peakview could relieve Comment Form
eastbound traffic congestion at little cost. We need to try these low cost options and see how they work.
I am also concerned that we took on maintenance responsibility of west Elkhorn including two older bridges and are spending all the money we received for taking on that capital burden on the loop
without budgeting capital funds to repair or replace those bridges in the future. When were they last inspected?
The new stop light timing has also been helping as have the summer police officers. Waits at peak times have not been bad.
The food plain study may cause raise even more issues that would be a better use of our funds than the loop.
Finally, the Park is overcrowded and limiting visitors as it is. How does getting the visitors there faster help? Friends in an rv got through downtown in July in good time only to wait over a half hour in
line to get into the park. If there is a problem, there needs to be a global solution, not just a segmented approach with no master plan. It needs to include mass transit of visitors from our "transit hub" at
the fairgrounds to the park as it is probable that auto traffic on at least Bear Lake Road will be restricted in the future as it has been at other parks. The buses could use Moccasin and avoid downtown
completely.
Let's try more creative solutions than condemning citizens private property and pouring concrete!
95 Kim Coffey Estes Park CO I am 100% in favor of this project. I have been a resident for 16 years and I have a business on Elkhorn, so I truly have a vested interest. Please, DO NOT, put this before the public. They do not have 8/2/2016 Web EA
the years of research, studies, and discussions and would simply be voting based on personal emotions vs informed decisions. We elected our town officials to manage our beloved community ... please Comment Form
follow through with that responsibility vs passing it off to a small portion of the true residents it will affect, to make this decision. It is too important! Thank you.
Comment
Number (1
per name)
Name City, State Comment
EstesTruth.org Website (1)
EstesTruth.org Website (2)
Web EA Comment Form (1)
EstesTruth.org Website (2)
Date Comment
Received Submitted via:
Comment Date Comment Number (1 Name City, State Comment Received Submitted via: per name)
Steve Thompson EstesTruth.org Website (3) 8/1/2016 EstesTruth.org
After attending as a native, the July 20 meeting and sales pitch I was offended by the EA people who say the changes to the town as a result of the loop are insignificant. Not to mention they were like Website (3)
salespeople who do not care about the effects to homes, businesses and residents because they are insignificant. The report revealed with the exception of the flood plain and cost increase the same
almost word for word information as it did at the first presentation. They are salespeople. They get paid to paint a nice picture and tell the residents how a bad idea is great. Like buying a car that has
problems as if it is the best buy on the lot. These people will tell the residents anything because they are not from here. To them the residents are insignificant. Also another tv news report was released
that the national parks are already turning people away in other areas . It is bound to happen here as well. As the flood plain people told the board members and residents, the loop work will be lost if
mitigation up stream is not done first .Such s the west Elkhorn bridges built in 1948. The rivers will flow down Elkhorn and Crags bridge as it has before. The EA people say the loop is only partially funded
due to the cost increase. This town needs parking which the EA people say would have to wait for a later phase. Like before put the important issues aside because the residents opinion is insignificant.
Until the west apart of Moraine is widened all the way to the park the congestion will only move from one intersection to another. Also not one word was printed in the report about the use of Mary's Lake
road as a bypass. It was not even looked at. When will the town board stop this project and start listening to the residents. This project needs to stop now.
Steve Thompson EstesTruth.org Website (4) 8/3/2016 EstesTruth.org
After reading the new NEPA report I could not believe the residents of Estes have paid upwards of $250,000 for a copy of , with flood mitigation added, the 2003, 2008 report almost word for word. If you Website (4)
took all these reports and put them side by side they are almost identical. These documents also do not explore other alternatives, such as a total bypass of down town via Mary's lake road. People who
know about this road already use it. It could be used by more visitors if the digital signs directed those who don't want to go thru downtown to the 36 entrance of the park. Signage from 36 / 7 intersection
could redirect many vehicles which really don't want to go thru town. Why was this alternative never included in any of these reports? Even if it took only percentage of the vehicles it would help the overall
congestion downtown. Yes there are some drawbacks such as noise , traffic, but it would be far more beneficial than the loop. Also what happened to the election promises of the new board members
that they were not for the loop. The EA is in and it is time for the loop to stop. As a native I personally am tired of the town board ignoring the majority of residents in Estes for the sake of acquiring funds to
fund projects that should have been done years ago. How many millions has this town received from flood relief which was spent on fancy sidewalks and special decorations instead of bridges and roads.
As the EA points out flood mitigation needs to happen first. No amount of money spent will help down town if the next flood destroys all the work done to create the loop . I know of two bridges that are not
in the project area ,and were built in 1948. And heaven forbid we have another 2013 event those bridges will wash out and send the river right down Elkhorn . According to the new flood plain map this
would affect the whole town anyway. Even with the loop bridges replaced it will not stop the downtown area from flooding again. From the 90 percent of the visitors I talked to, out of 2000 asked, the most
important problem downtown is parking. It seems to me that is where the board should be focusing their attention. Especially since the park will never be able to accommodate the rising number of
visitors. The park right now has problems with no room for the visitors. As they have said for a while when it gets to the point of stopping traffic in until traffic leaves this whole area will see a downturn in
traffic. The word of visitors travels fast . Furthermore who are these people who do these reports? I would like to know how much they are getting paid to recommend these projects? As I understand they
are not even from Estes, but make these recommendations and don't even live here. It's time for the loop to be trashed for good. Send the FLAP money back.
Steve Thompson EstesTruth.org Website (5) 8/3/2016 EstesTruth.org
Isn't it just amazing that the old board members are gone and the EA report is now complete? This report has been delayed several times or was it? Each time the old board members were asked when it Website (5)
was going to be completed , it was we don't know ,or they have heard nothing from the FLAP people. Now a magical report is ready for release. One year after it was supposed to be ready. Due to the
lack of transparency by the last town board it would be interesting to me when this report was actually finished and why it was not ready last year when promised. Also who was calling for the delay. Yes it
is a huge report but , so far as much as have read of it , it has basically the same information as the COOT report from 2003. Only a few changes in words and numbers. So if all this is what the old board
members were waiting for ,it cost the residents of Estes thousands of dollars for updated information. As a native I hope the new board will be more transparent , remember who elected them and what
they promised the residents. The division of Estes is so disappointing to me. I am a native and this is the worst I have ever seen the people act. Especially outsiders who come here and tell me I don't
know what is best for Estes. I know it isn't no loop signs all over town. I remember when Estes was a nice and happy little town. Yes there were issues , but they were solved ,without total division of the
town. Then comes the FLAP people. They have no idea what is best for Estes. They don't live here and if they do they know what an issue this is. They also need to realize the National Park openly does
not support the project. They can't handle the volume of visitors for years . The roads in Estes is not the problem. It is the higher volume of visitors each year. The National park advertising on television is
responsible for much of this volume. I pray this project is stopped before it goes any further. If it continues what next? A Wal-Mart , shopping mall or other chain businesses?
Steve Thompson Web EA Comment Form (6) 8/2/2016 Web EA
The impact of this project is not minimis. This is a blatant disregard of the town residents and their opposition. Furthermore until the town flood mitigation is done first the project will be in jeopardy of Comment
being destroyed should another flood occur. As explained by the food plain people, the project will not help the main downtown area. Also the loop is not completely funded, leaving the residents to figure Form (6)
out how to raise the remaining $17 million. As it was pointed out in the EA, it would speed up traffic 17 seconds only to be backed up at the park entrance or other points of the route. The park can't
handle the traffic now and have been warning of closures and turning visitors away. Then what? Angry visitors returning to the town only to find no parking and contributing to the congestion. Then when
this project doesn't work ,residents have to pay again to undue the work done . The sales team that presented this project were paid to say this was the only option. There are many other things that could
help the traffic problem. A parking structure would be a big help and is needed more than the loop. It has been put off for years. There have even been designs made up only to be ignored in hopes the
loop would pay for it. We need parking now. Taking just a percentage of the circling traffic would help. The EA people don't live here so how can they make predictions about what may happen. The also
didn't explore all the possible bypass alternative roads in Estes. This project is an insult to the residents of Estes. It is not insignificant and very significant.
100 Celeste Fraser Unknown I am a full-time resident and am very much opposed to the Loop. It is a terrible idea. If enacted, the Loop will ruin the character of Estes Park, particularly its charm, which is what draws people to our 8/1/2016 EstesTruth.org
town. I have traveled all over the country and revisited old favorites. Those places that have wisely kept and nurtured their charming character still draw me. Others that have "improved" their towns with Website
cement, highways and razed neighborhoods will never see my money ever again. What drew me has been destroyed. Riverside Dr. is an example of a wonderful, historic area that, if paved over, will
leave a lasting void. I wonder, have the Loop planners visited Blackhawk and Central City, 40 years ago and recently? They are perfect examples of "progress" run amok. Furthermore, the argument
about providing easier access to the national park is a bogus one. This summer is seeing a record number of visitors, people who are obviously not deterred by a five-or ten-minute traffic backup. The
electronic signage that directs people to the park via Hwy 34 is easily understood, so the people driving through town on Elkhorn Ave. have chosen to go past shops and restaurants. Loop planners, it's
the character of the town that draws visitors, not just access to the national park. If you think this plan is progress, you are very much mistaken. As the new mayor suggested, let's vote on it, and then you
may see the outrage this plan could unleash, not only from residents but also from a decline in visitorship. You don't eviscerate what you treasure.
Comment Date Comment Number (1 Name City, State Comment Received Submitted via: per name)
101 Mary Bolgeo Unknown I live on the North East side of 34. To be able to get to work I have to take a left at the intersection of 34 and 36. I sit through 3 and 4 lights at times during the summer. It's impossible, frustrating and 8/1/2016 Web EA Email
makes no sense. The loop would help the flow of traffic and the speed in which it is cleared from intersections.
I say yes to the loop!
Thanks, Mary Bolgeo
102 Tom Street Estes Park CO (See attached letter) Tom Street's Comments On The Estes Park Loop Project 8/1/2016 Web EA Email
The loop project has gone through many changes since it was first introduced to the public in 2013. A critical part of the project's appeal at one point was the possibility of rebuilding three bridges and
doing extensive river channel work in order to mitigate future flood damage and reduce the size of the floodplain. In August of 2015, Frank Lancaster revealed that estimates showed that replacing all
three bridges to withstand a 100-year flood as well as completing necessary channel widening downstream could cost roughly twice the total of available funding. Many of those who spoke in favor of the
loop in the April 2015 public hearing emphasized the opportunity to get free federal aid to mitigate flood damage. That would have made a huge difference in the benefits of the project. Emphasizing this
benefit was understandable since the Town and surrounding areas had recently experienced the trauma and destruction of the 2013 flood. Although it was not included in the original grant application,
the public also provided input at an early public meeting which favored a downtown parking facility to compliment the loop. However, this desire for a facility was not included in the application. Bridges,
channel widening, parking, and other amenities would be included in phase 2 although there are no known funding opportunities for those elements on the horizon.
The Town also tried last year to get approval to consider a parking lot as another alternative which would allow construction of a parking facility in the Post Office area. It is not clear why this was done
but it may have had something to do with the widespread opposition to the loop, especially amongst downtown business owners. This request was denied by the Central Federal Lands Highway Division.
Given the history of public participation on this issue, this would have been a substitute that would have been popular with the public.
Other conditions have changed since the TAB endorsed this project. This project is being funded by a grant from the Federal Lands Access Program but does not meet the required objective that it
improve access to the Park. At best, it improves access to Crags Avenue which is 3.4 miles from the Park entrance. If the loop is completed, traffic will move more quickly through the Elkhorn/Moraine
intersection. However, traffic headed past the Moraine/Crags intersection will enter the same two lane/two way road as it does currently. Therefore, the two lanes of traffic headed down Moraine will have
to merge into one lane when they reach the Moraine/Crags intersection. The degree of congestion heading towards Beaver Meadows will be substantially the same as it is currently and will only increase
with additional visitors. In addition, this will do nothing to stop the backups in traffic occurring at the Beaver Meadows entrance. Further, there is a new phenomenon that began this summer. More days
than not, the parking lot at Glacier Basin Park and Ride closes early in the day and people seeking to enter the Bear Lake Area are being turned back at Moraine Park and told to go back to the visitor
center to catch the Hiker Shuttle.
Tom Street (cont) Even if people are able to get through town more quickly, their overall experience will be negative when they are required to turn around and not be permitted to head to their destination in the Bear Lake
area. While it is likely that we will experience a decrease in congestion along Elkhorn Avenue, it is not valid to argue that the FLAP grant is serving its intended purpose. There are things that could be
done by both the Park and the Town to facilitate this process, but the FLAP grant is not one of them.
Increasing congestion is offered as a key reason for this project. The fear is that the congestion will reach a point where people will not want to come here and will go to some other mountain
destination. But that implies that success will induce more people to come to this area than otherwise would have come. However, as explained above, this so called success cannot last given the fact
that the Park is at full capacity.
In 2013 and 2014, there was the concern that visitor growth would be threatened because of current and future congestion. Since then, the growth in visitors to RMNP and the town has far exceeded
expectations despite increasing congestion.
If the loop is implemented, this will do very little to address the congestion and backup that are occurring at the 34/36/Elkhorn intersection. To address this issue, these motorists need to be provided
incentives to get out of their cars before they get to the intersection. The traffic is like a flood that is better addressed closer to its source.
The EA's projections are that the level of service will be better in 2040 as opposed to no action. The structure of the EA leads one to that conclusion because one must compare the action alternative
to the no action alternative. In the real world, however, that is unrealistic. Although the EA recognizes that other initiatives like more parking are proceeding, it doesn't explicitly account for those initiatives
within the EA. It is unrealistic to assume there will be no additional parking, no paid parking, and other incentives to get out of one's vehicle in 2040. In addition, over time, more and more vehicles will
follow pathways that avoid downtown.
It has been recognized for decades that Estes Park needs more parking. The top priority for those visiting the town is parking and a significant amount of the Elkhorn traffic is because people are
circling looking for parking. Studies in other towns indicate this could be as high as 40%. The loop will not help this problem and will make it more difficult for those coming from the West to find parking
and will cause people to make almost a complete loop if they desire to park on either of the Moraine Avenue parking lots. Further, by the time they get there, these lots may be full which means they will
have to circle back again to proceed east out of town. At this point, many people may head back home because of the frustration of looking for parking.
Comment Date Comment Number (1 Name City, State Comment Received Submitted via: per name)
Tom Street (cont) Estes Park has unique geological and roadway features which limit the ability to get through town. Expanding the effective downtown area will be done at the expense of the Riverside area and
especially Baldwin Park. Constructing a state highway through the Riverside area will result in negative impacts and detract from a more serene and quiet pedestrian/park oriented experience in that area.
While some expansion of the downtown area may be inevitable, it should be done in a way that compliments and respects the park/river orientation of the area. Making Riverside into a mini Elkhorn
Avenue will destroy the values that make it such a pleasant and serene place regardless of whatever mitigation is done to free up more park area downstream. As such, a determination that the impact
will be de minimus defies common sense and the meaning of the term. To make a determination that the impact is de minimus renders the phrase meaningless. A de minimus determination by the town is
required if the project is to move forward.
Going forward, the Town should focus its efforts on more parking and paid parking coupled with getting as many people out of their cars before they proceed to the downtown area. The 4.2 million dollars
that would have been devoted to this project should be focused on the above priorities. These are the priorities of the town, its residents, those in Estes Valley, and those who visit the area from Colorado
and around the nation.
Coupled with the above should be aggressive actions by RMNP to prohibit auto traffic in the peak season on Bear Lake Road, beef up the frequency and hours of the hiker shuttle and provide a direct
route from the Visitor Center to Bear Lake Road destinations. It is of interest that a master plan proposed for the Park in 1972 recommended that Bear Lake Road be closed to auto traffic during the
summer and all visits to that area be done by shuttle buses. Other National Parks in the country have moved to adopt some variation of this model. It is simply not possible to accommodate any more
autos into the park as evidenced by the fact that the Park is turning back vehicles almost every day.
I have reviewed the environmental assessment which basically concludes that a determination should be made that this project has a minimal adverse impact on the environment and the local
economy. However, this determination requires a value judgment as to the potential benefits of the project versus the environmental damage that will occur in the Riverside Area and the economic impact
on businesses on Elkhorn Avenue. The project will reduce the size of Baldwin Park, require the removal of several homes and businesses, and will have a negative impact on business on the portion of
Elkhorn Avenue that will become a one way highway. This negative impact needs to be balanced with the potential decreases in congestion that should occur in the project area. On balance, I feel that a
de minimus determination is wrong given the adverse impacts outlined above. Baldwin Park's utility as a park of serenity and solitude will be forever destroyed by this project. If it is determined to provide
some development in this area, it should be done by maximizing pedestrian access minimally impacted by the pollution and noise which would result from the introduction of hundreds of auto vehicles per
day.
Tom Street (cont) On balance, I think that the project might have made sense as described over a year ago, especially if it had ended up doing some flood control with the three bridges included in the project corridor.
However, since certain critical elements have been eliminated and for the other reasons stated above, I would not recommend proceeding with the LOOP project.
Going forward, I think we should seek to be transformational and attempt to implement one of the guiding principles of the TVC which focused on getting people from one point to another rather than
autos from one point to another. From the TVC report: 'The goal is to get people and things where they need to go, not to specifically facilitate vehicular traffic which is the goal of most transportation
planning."
103 Sheri Frantz Unknown I am opposed to the loop. You are going to wipe out the beauty of Riverside Drive. If people want that kind of entertainment, they should go to the 16th street mall in Denver or the mall in Boulder. 8/1/2016 Web EA Email
Stop advertising Estes all of the time. Then you will have a reasonable amount of people up here. They will stay longer and spend more money.
I am totally against making Estes Park a zoo. We don't need freeways or to do anything else to damage the beauty of the area. Just put a parking garage down by the post office. Route them down
the one way street by the Park theater and exit on Riverside drive and be done with it. Do a survey of the tourists and see what they think about the traffic before you make this major change.
104 Leta Nefzger Estes Park CO If there is a place for the Flap Loop project it is NOT Estes Park. It will destroy the downtown community. The homes were the original homesteaders cabins and have housed 3 generations. The 8/2/2016 Postal Mail
people that I know living there love and cherish them, the family park is named after one of the homesteaders. It is the only safe place downtown where children can play, people can picnic, and "seniors"
can walk, in our icey winters, and "stretch" on the jungle gyms. The river is shallow and wide enough you can see Trout swimming. It is the only place left downtown that has not been compacted or hard-
scaped by Urban Renewal. Rain and snow still soaks into the grass and wetland areas instead of running into rivers in large amounts, making the river rise a foot at a time from a small rain.
We have lived in the Estes valley 56 years, working with tourist and Traffic and asking for better signage. The better signage now and the return of Barnes-Dance intersections has helped the traffic
flow ten-fold. Turning downtown into a Federal Highway Exchange solves Nothing. It just creates more and larger backups elsewhere. The Loop is a nightmare for EMT's and fire response teams.
Estes Park is built in a river bed on top of 7-8 foot boulders in a narrow canyon divided by two rivers full of earthquake faults, and a lake with 2 (or three) epicenters in its bottom. How much banging
and dynamiting will it take to set off another monster earthquake like the one in 1965 that went up the Thompson River, closing Rock Cut? The condo's by the lake are required to carry earthquake
insurance. When I saw the Loop Project, I took out a policy on the building and business on Elkhorn Ave. A new local from the south commented, after the 2013 flood, that "Living in the mountains really
hard -everything has repercussions."
Please, please, think what you are doing!! We owe it to the rest of the world to preserve this place of beauty and regeneration.
There is no possible do-over!!
Comment Date Comment Number (1 Name City, State Comment Received Submitted via: per name)
105 Anne Ehret Estes Park CO I live off Mary's Lake Rd, southwest of Estes Park and was quite concerned when I read the first plans of the Loop, as I think is the case for many of us who live southwest and west of town. The 8/2/2016 Postal Mail
problem was, it forced us to drive through downtown Estes to run errands such as getting to Safeway, the post office, banks, or to doctors for appointments, which the Riverside by-pass made much
easier. Using that Elkhorn route filled me with dread, especially in summertime. Now I see, Elkhorn and Moraine will be used for heading west into the Park.
Using Moraine and Elkhorn as a one way road west raises another issue. I do not know how traffic patterns are assessed, but this summer, the traffic line on Moraine, trying to get into Estes Park can
be tied up as far back as Dick's Rock Shop and sometimes much further. Is enlarging Riverside and sending traffic east with a stop and go stoplight at the end of Riverside an obvious way to alleviate this
large amount of traffic?
Because of the Loop, I would probably use Peak View and Route 7 to return from town, using more gas, as will most of the folks who live in my direction of town. If we, on the west side of Estes, or
people returning from the Park, choose to dine at the Bighorn or Nicky's restaurant, or shop on West Elkhorn we will have a longer trip to get there, having lost the shorter path along Moraine. That will
cause us to use more gas, and cause more fumes, to get to these destinations.
Another solution to relieving some of the down town traffic during summer would be to give an alternate route to getting from west to east without going through down town. I realized that because of
the geography, building by-passes is not easy, but getting around east of town is easier with Routes 34, 36, and 7 and Mall Rd than it is on the west side of town. National park visitors, west side residents
or the many visitors staying at the YMCA need a by-pass west of town that would connect 36 (moraine Ave) with 34 (Fall River Rd). I looked at a map and wonder if Rock Ridge Rd on the 34 side could
be connected to a road near Cedar Ridge Circle on the 36 side, or Old Ranger Drive on the Fall River side could be connected to Elm Rd (to the dump and beyond) on the 36 side? (A map of these
alternate routes is included,) This going from 36 to 34 on the west side enables by-passing down town traffic almost completely. At the moment, the only 'by-pass' of this sort is through the National Park.
A west side by-pass between Moraine Ave and Fall River Road would alleviate much of the down town traffic and avoid the controversial change in directions on Elkhorn, Moraine and Riverside, as
well as eliminate the difficult property relocations on Riverside.
106 Cathy Gersztenkorn Estes Park CO To Whom it may concern: 8/2/2016 Web EA Email
I am absolutely against the proposed loop.
To reduce town congestion, why not route visitors to the National Park by building a bypass around the town? If that's not feasible, then keep it the way it is, and let visitors accept that they are coming up
to a small mountain community.
107 Chris Unknown I support the loop project. I think it would decongest traffic and would have no negative impact on businesses along those sections of Elkhorn and Moraine that would be one-way. Unfortunately, the 8/2/2016 Web EA Email
Loop is a half-loaf solution to the pedestrian/automobile management problem.
The two-way bypass would be the best solution. With ownership of the downtown sections of Elkhorn and Moraine reverting to the Town, it would allow intermittent closures for special events OR
establishment of a pedestrian mall in the downtown core. The primary goal should be to remove cars from the downtown. I can't think of a town where this has been a losing strategy.
108 Logan H. Waterloo IA I strongly worry that "allowing faster access to RMNP" will further pollute the park. Faster access leads to more people which inevitably leads to more litter and park violations. I understand that downtown 8/3/2016 EstesTruth.org
business owners need downtown traffic to help their businesses thrive and implementing this proposed loop would be problematic for people trying to make a living with their downtown shops. However, Website
respectively, I visit this area for the mountains and the mountains alone. I do not care to shop when I have such a large natural playground surrounding me where I can hike, bike, swim, etc. I know the
efficient ways into the park. Leave the roads as they are. Let the shoppers do their thing downtown and let me hike in peace.
109 Claire Pierce Springfield IL I have loved Estes like a second home. To see the potential for this beautiful community to crumble is something I will do anything to prevent. 8/3/2016 EstesTruth.org
Website
110 Michael Meyer Unknown Your primary assumption is that ALL visitor want to access the park. While we have has a summer home in Estes for over 60 years, we come to Estes for the charm of Estes Not the park. People have a 8/3/2016 EstesTruth.org
choice, you are effectively removing that by forcing traffic to the park. Please Don't change the look and feel of Estes! (You can contact me) Website
111 Kevin Loudon Hastings NE There needs to be more end-of-the rope loops for bureaucrats! I have been visiting Estes Park annually with my family at least once a year for many years now. We come hear because we feel as if we're 8/3/2016 EstesTruth.org
in the Old West. We love the sights and sound of the Big Thompson winding through the center of town along with the Stanely Hotel's history and view of Long's Peak.How could anyone even think of Website
destroying this beauty?! It's incomprehensible that anyone would annihilate this beauty for the legal tender in the guise of reduction of traffic congestion and safety. But that's what a coproate government
is about! It's always about someone's safety while plundering the public through mob rule and increased taxation! Karl Marx would be proud! Did we sign something with the bureacrats to have them
control our lives?! Oh! That's right! It's probably one of those adhesion contracts where the details were never disclosed! A bureacrat's idea of making it safer is just an oxymoron as we are all human and
can never be totally secure during our travels anywhere. This especially holds true with the Old West! Part of traveling in the mountains is about romantizing and taking risks to experience this beauty! I
don't know about you but I try to get away from the city corporation's concrete as much as possible and will compromise my security any day for this beauty! In all the years of visiting Estes, I've never
witnessed one single accident involving autmobiles! That's right! Not ONE single accident! In fact, I've never observed road rage let alone a walker being run over by an automobile! Furthermore, I don't
believe I've ever heard sirens?! There's a problem?! If you want less congestion utilize the fiat currency for a place that really needs new slabs like Denver or even Omaha! Sorry but I just don't agree with
some bureaucrat's vision of more concrete to make us feel safer. Rather I believe it's something more like the old adage of expansion and progress for someone to plunder those who live in this little Old
West town! Minor traffic congestion is and has always been a part of visiting Estes Park and only is a minor inconvenience to see the beauty of the wonderful Rocky Mountains. The bottom line is Estes
Park should not be another opportunity for bureacrats and their accomplice in crime crony capitalism to exercise legal plunder. Rather, Estes Park should be a place for opportunity to preserve rather than
compromise for profit!
112 Victoria Jefferson IN I think that downtown Estes is great. The loop should not be constructed. I do however believe that updated and bigger signs on where to go would help immensely on traffic issues. 8/3/2016 EstesTruth.org
Website
113 Nadine Peters Newton KS We have visited Estes Park nearly every year since 1990, we have celebrated our wedding anniversaries with our children and grandchildren. We have organized family reunions in Estes Park. No one in 8/3/2016 EstesTruth.org
our family thinks that "the Loop" would be beneficial to us as visitors. The traffic has not ever been a problem compared to what we deal with on a daily basis in nearby cities where we go. PLEASE do not Website
mess with this historic town. Thank you for allowing us to voice our opinion.
114 Chris Amy Unknown This is a ridiculous project that will hurt this beautiful town I love. STOP the Loop please, before it's too late! 8/3/2016 EstesTruth.org
Website
Comment Date Comment Number (1 Name City, State Comment Received Submitted via: per name)
27
Comment Date Comment Number (1 Name City, State Comment Received Submitted via: per name)
Comment Date Comment Number (1 Name City, State Comment Received Submitted via: per name)
139 Vicki Schroeder Estes Park CO (See attached letter) I oppose the construction of the Downtown Estes Loop. Clearly the current traffic situation in Estes Park and in Rocky Mountain National Park, as well as the projected figures on 8/2/2016 Web EA
traffic and population put forth in the EA, call for solutions. However, the proposed benefits of only slight increase in traffic movement at designated intersections from unacceptable to unstable bad or Comment Form
borderline bad DO NOT JUSTIFY the expenditure and numerous detrimental effects of this project. The detrimental effects of the Loop project include the following:
1.The EA states that Estes Park's two (plus?) years of construction would disrupt traffic, business, cultural activities, parking and pedestrian enjoyment in the downtown core. In addition to this,
construction traffic backups will create extreme hardships for local residents who use and work in downtown businesses, and use the Library, the Post Office and shop at Safeway.
2.The EA documents that the current downtown parking situation is quite inadequate, so it is a false conclusion that shuttling more vehicles through a different part of the downtown corridor will
magically allow those drivers who want to find parking to then be able to find it.
3.Bringing new commercial development to the Riverside corridor would totally decimate the current commercial and recreational activities that are suited perfectly to its more quiet back streets.
This destruction of established business and livelihood is in addition to the businesses and residences that require demolishing and relocation.
4.Increased traffic will destroy the historic neighborhood of East and West Riverside Drives with increased noise, vibration and pollution, especially in an overstressed, overpolluted world where
people are seeking peace and rejuvenation. It is well documented that the above effects of increased traffic and traffic speeds, including heavy vehicles, decreases the health of individuals as well as
diminishing property values. The Riverside neighborhood is currently a quiet peaceful location and should be valued as such.
5.The proposed loop puts in harms way the wildlife, bear, elk, deer, bobcats, foxes and other small mammals, as well as birds and aquatic species, who inhabit and use the Riverside area
particularly because of the Big Thompson River. Although these animals may not be on the state or federal endangered species lists, they are an essential part of what draws tourists to enjoy our town.
They are a valuable resource that should be valued and protected.
6.Constructing a major highway in a known and unmitigated flood plain (2013) downstream from a major burn scar in the National Park that will contribute to ongoing high water runoff is a huge
waste of taxpayer money.
Vicki Schroeder 7.Baldwin and Riverside Parks are not being recognized for their exceptional quality as serene peaceful havens for humans and animals alike to be still and rejuvenate. Quiet places are essential for
(cont) the health of our bodies and our souls, especially in our stress-filled world. The proposed isolated patches of green amongst concrete containers of flowers beside a loud and busy street will NOT
replicate the expanses of cool grassy shade and access to a free flowing stream that these parks provide within steps of our bustling downtown.
Please recognize the value of the intact natural and historic resources that the Riverside area offers to the community of Estes Park and our visitors, and do not build a busy traffic loop through this
peaceful haven.
140 Joe Pyle Estes Park CO As an avid cyclist and father of two in this town, I am for the loop project going through. We ride our bikes downtown and it is dangerous, to say the least. I realize that change isn't easy. I feel like, 8/3/2016 Web EA
tragically, there will be an accident soon if things don't change. I have had several near misses. If you are interested in helping the town and not just helping yourself, you'll see that change has always Comment Form
happened here, and this is only another step toward a lasting and beautiful mountain town.
141 Kirby Nelson-Estes Park CO I have expressed/submitted my feelings about the Loop before. The EA has not changed them. I encourage you, our Town Board, to continue pursuing the FLAP grant and move forward with the Loop. 8/3/2016 Web EA
Hazelton We have a significant traffic problem that will only be getting worse, and while many would like to argue that we're just shifting the bulk of cars to the National Park, we know that many people trying to get Comment Form
through town are also trying to get to lodging properties, restaurants, shops, and activities that are on the "other side." The National Park will need to solve their congestion issues (ones that do concern
me, but ones the Town can't currently control) and I hope we as a community will be there to help them when that time comes. In this specific case of the Loop for downtown Estes Park, it is an option that
will improve the guest experience and create a better environment for tourism in Estes Park. (I personally try to avoid giving anecdotal information, as I'm such a firm believer in following professionally
collected data, but while working at Rock Cut Brewery this summer [located in Picadilly Square], I have had countless complaints and questions about our traffic experience from our guests/customers.
When I explain the Loop --yes, even including some of the less pleasant impacts to places like Riverside, etc. --they can't fathom why we would say no to such an opportunity.) And, as a local who lives
in the heart of downtown traffic, it will positively impact work commutes, safety routes, and day-to-day quality of life. But most importantly, moving forward with the Loop demonstrates that our community is
interested in improving our town, changing things to address serious issues, which is historically something we have struggled with. To say no to this grant and to this opportunity would be a short-sighted
decision that would have a reverberating negative effect for decades of future guests and residents. As a "younger" person who hopes to live here for years to come, as someone who is investing a large
portion of her life in this community, I encourage you to make an educated decision that will create opportunity and a future.
142 Cynthia Krumme Estes Park CO I support the loop project as a sensible response to our traffic overcrowding problem. 8/3/2016 Web EA
Comment Form
143 Jody Fifer Sullivan IL To whom it may concern, 8/3/2016 Web EA
I don't think that you have a real grasp on what this will do to your area. Driving out to Colorado as a child every year from Illinois with my siblings and parents, was the highlight of our lives. These are Comment Form
still memories we talk about to this very day. The pristine background, environment, and history that the West provides, must remain and be maintained for us and for all future Generations. There needs
to be places like Estes Park where the world slows down and enjoys the beauty of Nature. Where they enjoy the beauty of a small community without any of the hubbub and hectic traffic. I don't know very
many people who have been touched by places like Estes Park, that don't just yearn to be there all the time. Once they experience that type of place, it is something they never forget . The trickle of the
water as it rushes past, the smell of clean fresh air and pine needles are not experiences that I would like to trade for the smell of exhaust and the rumbling noise of trucks. You will not better yourself. And
once all of that is gone, it will be gone forever.
You can't make better that which is already awesome. Bigger is not always better. Spend your money elsewhere, such as in restoration and preservation. You're sitting on a gold mine of history and
Nature! Use it to your advantage!! Work with it!! Don't destroy it!!
Thank you !!! Jody Fifer (Sullivan, Illinois)
29
11/14/16
Comment Date Comment Number (1 Name City, State Comment Received Submitted via: per name)
144 Sherry Ruth Estes Park CO 1.When the government wants to give you money to solve one of your towns most critical issues, YOU TAKE IT! Especially when that money will also be used to take care of the bridges that are 8/3/2016 Web EA
responsible for most of the downtown flooding. If we don't do the loop and then every business will be in the new floodplain when it is mapped, what will happen when the businesses cannot afford the Comment Form
high rate of flood insurance and then go out of business? Bye bye Estes economy.
2.For the people who resent the government providing the money to get tourists into RMNP faster, rather than specifically for the "betterment" of the town, get over it and stop being so selfish-
because RMNP IS the town! We need to do our part to ensure that it continues to be an enjoyable experience for tourists, as well as the life blood for the future of Estes Park.
3.For the businesses who think that people won't see their shops if they're not stuck out front in gridlocked traffic, the fact is that if people want to stop and shop, they will-regardless of where traffic
patterns send them. If they don't want to shop, they're not stopping anyway, so let's expedite their trip through or out of town to provide easier access for those who DO want to stop.
4.Bottom line-We're talking about basically 3 blocks being one way, with options to hit all other areas of downtown still easily available and accessible. Minimal change for multiple benefits, including
government money, flood mitigation, less traffic congestion, and a better shopping experience for those most likely to stop and shop. Should be a "no brainier"!
145 Frank Theis Estes Park CO I think the section of the one-way loop on Elkhorn Avenue is a bad idea. This is the core of downtown Estes Park, which, at its best, functions as a pedestrian-friendly shopping & entertainment district. 8/3/2016 Web EA
Every effort should be made to protect & enhance the character of the downtown core by eliminating any vehicular traffic which does not want to be there (local, commercial, and National Park traffic). Comment Form
The streets in the downtown core should remain 2-way, and all non-downtown traffic should be encouraged to drive through the Riverside corridor.
146 Lou Gorski Estes Park CO I have preciously voiced my opinion about "The Loop" and spoke a minute before the council last year. So, here I am again. 8/3/2016 Web EA
I am adamantly opposed for all the same reasons: huge waste of money to try to correct a few weeks problem in the summertime, very shortsighted to destroy the ambiance of the precious park which Comment Form
we call "Baldwin Park" (there is a family eating their lunch there now, after parking their car by the park and their children are playing on the play equipment), the by-passing of the shops by the people
after they have been enjoying RMNP so that they can relax and see the town, taking property from people without it being an absolutely necessity, destroying trees and hurting the river and the wildlife
that is around it all the time. These are just the main objections.
But, my observation this year (besides all of the above) is this: on the fourth of July, I had to make a run to The Big Horn Restaurant at 4:30 PM (from East Riverside Drive). The cars were lined up in
front of my house all the way to Elkhorn (which really doesn't bother me since it a short period of time on the calendar and on the clock). I figured it could take me 30 minutes to get through town to the Big
Horn. WELL, It took me exactly 7 minutes to sit and wait on "all the traffic" to get there.
Then, I got mad to think that you all are even thinking of disrupting this town and spending all that money to "fix it" since I do not believe it will ( that would be another long comment as to the logistics
of why I do not believe it, and I am not a stupid person). Almost everyone who comes to this place is coming from traffic and this is NOT traffic. I am from Houston and to take 7 minutes to get
somewhere in a traffic jam is wonderful news. I think very few people coming through the two blocks on Elkhorn and the one block on Moraine are not that hot and bothered about it, in reality.
I think it is truly criminal to spend that money over a problem that lasts only a few weeks during the year. I understand about the bridges and am sure there is a way to get the bridges done (hire a
grant writer to accomplish that) without doing that horrible Loop idea. I think there are enough things that need maintaining and done around here without taking on some other big deal that may or may
not be finished after it is started. Let's keep Estes quaint. That is what people love about it. My number is 281-460-0297 or 970-577-0685 if you would like to talk to me.
Thank you for reading my comment. Lou Gorski
147 David Caddell Estes Park CO To do this will ruin the character of downtown and hurt the business's, when you go to Lyons and Loveland they have similar one way's, the traffic goers so fast that you see these store fronts change 8/3/2016 Web EA
hands so often are big issue is parking, make a two story park garage with one level below ground and maybe even two up in the parking lot now, leaving a street in the first next to the printing and new Comment Form
restaraunt, a lot of the traffic issue is people circling around waiting for a parking spot to open, it is what i do to find a spot to a destination business, now i have never stopped at one of the stores in
Loveland of Lyons as parking is impossible. so please take a look, to do this to just replace two bridges that have survived two floods, yes the flood plain can be mitigated another way without the loop,
this is only a 4 months problem, plus all the homes and business's that will be displaced is a tragedy as they wont truly be compensated for the loss and of loss of future earnings, has a stud been done
on how this would impact business's? what about a bypass up Elm road back to 34? as most of the incoming traffic is when bad weather hits and the Ntl Park empties all at once.
Also whatever homes are left their value will do way down with higher speed traffic not to mention pedestrians not being able to cross over elkhorn as they do now.
148 Diane Muno Estes Park CO I believe Estes needs to consider the Economic Impact for the future development of the highly traveled corridors. As a business owner and voting resident, I will support the decision of our town board. I 8/3/2016 Web EA
believe the board members should vote as an impartial, informed trustee to choose what is best for the long term growth of our business and community infrastructure. I do not believe the community Comment Form
residents are impartial or informed and should therefore not be responsible to determine the outcome of such a critical decision. The voting residents voted in the trustees and they were entrusted to do
the work of assessing options and making the decisions necessary to support the greater good.
149 Daniel Mangler Estes Park CO I don't think the traffic depicted on the Preferred Alternative is accurate. A lot more vehicles will be going to the park than the animation shows. What you have in the PA is, in effect, three lanes from 8/3/2016 Web EA
Elk Horn going into one lane on Moraine. Estes Park and RMNP have a capacity. Live with it. Comment Form
A more active police or police-like presence at the two busy intersection to prevent cars getting stuck in intersections because they enter the intersection without room to go across.
150 Suzanne Williams Estes Park CO I am not in favor of the loop. It will take business away from the downtown businesses. It will cause traffic back up going both east and west on Moraine. 8/3/2016 Web EA
I was in favor of the "Barns Dance" at the signal lights in town but my question is .... why are the lights not synchronized to allow the flow of traffic to continue through the signal lights? When I drove Comment Form
through town last Sunday morning at 8:30am, with minimal traffic, I had to stop at every signal light starting at Brownfield's, then Riverside and finally Moraine. When I drive through Boulder the lights are
synchronized all the way if I maintain the speed limit. It seems like the town of Estes or COOT or both want the Barns Dance to fail.
151 Martin Koschnitzke Estes Park CO Disappointing when a few people are using their fear to influence others to ignore data, We are very fortunate to have the opportunity to use a FLAP grant to make desperately needed changes to our 8/4/2016 Web EA
downtown roads, providing a markedly improved experience for residents and visitors alike. Comment Form
152 Susan Mostek Boulder CO I oppose the Downtown Estes Park Loop Project 8/4/2016 Web EA
Comment Form
153 Jan Francis Estes Park CO I am OPPOSED to the proposed loop! 8/4/2016 Web EA
Comment Form
30
11/14/16
Comment Date Comment Number (1 Name City, State Comment Received Submitted via: per name)
154 John Murphy Estes Park CO Web EA Comment Form (1) 7/25/2016 Web EA
While I believe many intentions have been pure, and I appreciate the efforts made to date, here are a few reasons I am confused by the Loop logic I have read and heard in your presentations: Comment
1.Unless I'm mistaken:Form (1)
a.The FLAP funds we have been awarded can only be used to create better/faster access to, in our case, RMNP.
b.The Loop is the only option that we are allowed to use the FLAP funds for.
i.Even now-as "slowly" as the traffic moves through town-there is significant congestion at the entrance to RMNP.
ii.Once you have paid to get in, you are often turned back at Moraine Park. RMNP is frequently at-capacity in many other areas, also. may be missing something, so please explain why RMNP needs
more people getting to RMNP faster, as well as how the above add up to sound logic. 2. According to your studies and projections, any gains towards alleviating congestion in town-what everyone is
stating is the real, but not FLAP-fundable, problem we need to fix-will be modest; a projected 17-second improvement was reported in one of your presentations. 3. Additionally, again according to your
studies and projections, any modest gains the Loop may make appear to be short-lived; the traffic "grades" you say we're projected to receive in just 24 years (2040) include a D and an E, which doesn't
seem to be a gigantic leap forward from the F we now have. (I know my parents wouldn't have thought so if I brought home a report card like that-especially if they had spent a substantial amount of
money trying to help it improve.) 4. And, to the west of town, not only does RMNP not appear to need more congestion faster, to our east, your traffic engineer explained the intersection of 34 & 36 will
very likely become even more congested if the Loop is implemented-and we have all already experienced the back-ups that can snake up Pole Hill on 36 and past the Catholic church on 34 even now.
5.As a life-time visitor and long-time resident of Estes, I have seen improvement, modest though it is, with just the improved and additional signage, the return of the simultaneous pedestrian crossing,
etc. And done at a modest cost, too. The fact is, there ARE alternatives to reducing traffic congestion downtown, we just can't use the FLAP funds to implement them. (i.e., improved signage, improved
parking, perhaps some of the earlier alternatives that we're suggested by citizens and committee members that WEREN'T FLAP-fundable and more.) We are letting our source of funding dictate our
solution to what appears to be the wrong problem (faster/better access to RMNP), as well as what we hear over and over is our true problem-in-town traffic congestion-regardless of whether it is a
workable solution, let alone the best/wisest solution.
John Murphy (cont) We are choosing to let our ability to even explore what might be better solutions* be amputated by our dependency on FLAP funding, And, on top of those concerns, now we're finding out that the FLAP
funding will only cover Phase One of the project, not the entire thing as originally proposed, and we have no idea how much the other phase(s) will cost OR where that money will come from. 6.
Interestingly, if we have enough faith to believe that there will be non-FLAP funds available for the subsequent phase(s) that we are willing to proceed with Phase One, wouldn't those funds potentially be
available for Phase One, too, which would open up our options for how we solve the congestion (and other floodplain, bridge, etc. issues) we are facing?
7.And, also very importantly, what happens if we proceed with Phase One and then cannot find sufficient funding to complete the project?
The logic, again, is not clear to me.
I've yet to see how the Loop will do much to solve traffic congestion in Estes; it appears that it will merely move it around and rearrange it to our east and to our west. And at great expense to both the
budget and the character of our town, and with real loss to some of our neighbors.
I don't see how the logic, or the funds, are there to support moving forward with the Loop.
Thankfully, we haven't gone too far to stop.
*Even though a considerable amount of money, time and energy were unwisely spent earlier in this effort exploring and studying other options.
PS How does it work towards the stated goal of creating better/faster access to RMNP, that, even though we spend all of that money, destroy seven properties, lose parking spaces, diminish
playground space, etc., while allowing a horse-drawn carriage downtown to "set the pace" of traffic in the middle of summer?
John Murphy Web EA Comment Form (2) 8/4/2016 Web EA
Dear Trustees, Comment
While I believe many intentions have been pure, and I appreciate the efforts made to date, here are a few reasons I am confused by the Loop logic I have read and heard in your presentations: Form (2)
1.Unless I'm mistaken:
a.The FLAP funds we have been awarded can only be used to create better/faster access to, in our case, RMNP.
b.The Loop is the only option that we are allowed to use the FLAP funds for.
i.Even now as slowly as the traffic moves through town there is significant congestion at the entrance to RMNP.
ii.Once you have paid to get in, you are often turned back at Moraine Park. RMNP is frequently at-capacity in many other areas, also.
I may be missing something, so please explain why RMNP needs more people getting to RMNP faster, as well as how the above add up to sound logic.
2.According to your studies and projections, any gains towards alleviating congestion in towna€"what everyone is stating is the real, but not FLAP-fundable, problem we need to fix will be modest; a
projected 17-second improvement was reported in one of your presentations.
3. Additionally, again according to your studies and projections, any modest gains the Loop may make appear to be short-lived; the traffic grades you say were projected to receive in just 24 years
(2040) include a D and an E, which doesn't seem to be a gigantic leap forward from the F we now have. (I know my parents wouldn't have thought so if I brought home a report card like that especially if
they had spent a substantial amount of money trying to help it improve.)
4. And, to the west of town, not only does RMNP not appear to need more congestion faster, to our east, your traffic engineer explained the intersection of 34 & 36 will very likely become even more
congested if the Loop is implemented and we have all already experienced the back-ups that can snake up Pole Hill on 36 and past the Catholic church on 34 even now.
5.As a life-time visitor and long-time resident of Estes, I have seen improvement, modest though it is, with just the improved and additional signage, the return of the simultaneous pedestrian
crossing, etc. And done at a modest cost, too.
The fact is, there ARE alternatives to reducing traffic congestion downtown, we just can't use the FLAP funds to implement them. (i.e., improved signage, improved parking, perhaps some of the
earlier alternatives that were suggested by citizens and committee members that weren't FLAP-fundable and more.)
31
11/14/16
Comment
Number (1
per name)
155
156
11/14/16
Name City, State
John Murphy (cont)
John Murphy
John Murphy (cont)
Kathleen Sigg Loveland CO
Ann Wilcocks Estes Park CO
Comment
We are letting our source of funding dictate our solution to what appears to be the wrong problem (faster/better access to RMNP), as well as what we hear over and over is our true problema€"in-town
traffic congestiona€"regardless of whether it is a workable solution, let alone the best/wisest solution. We are choosing to let our ability to even explore what might be better solutions* be amputated by
our dependency on FLAP funding, And, on top of those concerns, now are finding out that the FLAP funding will only cover Phase One of the project, not the entire thing as originally proposed, and we
have no idea how much the other phase(s) will cost OR where that money will come from.
6.Interestingly, if we have enough faith to believe that there will be non-FLAP funds available for the subsequent phase(s) that we are willing to proceed with Phase One, wouldn't those funds
potentially be available for Phase One, too, which would open up our options for how we solve the congestion (and other floodplain, bridge, etc. issues) we are facing?
7.And, also very importantly, what happens if we proceed with Phase One and then cannot find sufficient funding to complete the project?
The logic, again, is not clear to me. I've yet to see how the Loop will do much to solve traffic congestion in Estes; it appears that it will merely move it around and rearrange it to our east and to our
west. And at great expense to both the budget and the character of our town, and with real loss to some of our neighbors. Congestion, flood plains, bridges all need to be addressed as part of maintaining
this area we all love, and I respect that funding to do so is difficult to come by, but it appears that we are trying to cram too many issues into a single solution and that may be leading us down a path of
rationalized and compromised thinking. I have yet to see how the logic, or the funds, are there to support moving forward with the Loop. Thankfully, we haven't gone too far to stop. John Murphy
*Even though a considerable amount of money, time and energy were unwisely spent earlier in this effort exploring and studying other options.
PS Lastly (for now anyway), how does it work towards the stated goal of creating better/faster access to RMNP, that, even though we were to spend all of that money, destroy seven properties, lose
parking spaces, diminish playground space, etc., we still would allow a horse-drawn carriage downtown to access the of traffic in the middle of summer?
Public Hearing Verbal (3)
Hi. My name is John Murphy, and I didn't write a bunch of stuff. And I've got more than three minutes' worth of speaking I could do, but ... There's some flaws in the logic, it appears to me. The fact that
the loop is the only option that FLAP funding can be used for is one major important element. Second is that the goal of FLAP is to get people to Rocky Mountain National Park faster. I think I'm correct in
that. Last Saturday, did anybody bother to try to go to the park? I mean, the line at the gate, you know, it just goes further and further back. Also, once we were in Rocky Mountain National Park, they were
turning people away --turning them around in Moraine Park. They can't --they don't care how fast they come. They can't even accommodate the people that are there. I haven't heard anybody really
address that reality. That seems to just fly completely in the face of the entire project, and I think we need to discuss it. The other darn thing, how does it work if our goal is to get people through traffic --I
mean, the traffic through more quickly, that we're going to spend all this money --which we're finding out tonight we really don't have much of --and we're going to tear down seven houses and get rid of a
park, et cetera, and we allow a horse and buggy to go down Elkhorn? I'm sorry. There's some logic that doesn't work for me there, either. I don't know, you know if there's FLAP funding to do anything
about that. I have seen improvement with the signage, with the Barnes Dance. There's improvement happening. Just saying, hey, go straight at the light if you want to go to the park, that's making a
difference.
There are alternatives, and we explored some of them. There are not alternatives that FLAP funding will pay for, and that's where the dichotomy comes. Now, the other thing that I think is really interesting
that just happened tonight that I wasn't aware of is that we don't have the funding to do this. What happens if we don't get the funding for everything after Phase 1 that was part of the original project?
Well, if --if we have faith, we'll get that money. Let's go back and look at other alternatives for funding so we don't get stuck with this one choice, take it or leave it, and there's not a lot of people that are
loving it. But I'm just not seeing logic that's following through. The other thing that someone pointed out, the --I believe the representation over there (indicating), and I heard it iterated by somebody else,
too --you need to back up the view. It's maybe flowing better at 34 and --I mean, at the intersection of Elkhorn and Riverside, but at 34 and 36, it's not going to be flowing any better. It's going to just
move the backups further up Pole Hill, you know, and further in the line of the park. I don't think we're going to be accomplishing, really --we will get a bridge or two, which is great, but that's a whole
different thing. It's really not --its goal of moving people through or relieving congestion is not being met, it doesn't appear to me. I haven't seen facts. It's moving the congestion other places, but it's not
taking --alleviating the congestion. Yeah. I believe all those issues, floodplains, bridges, they all need to be looked at, but it really feels and it appears that we're cramming too many projects into one. And
just, we keep shoehorning it, trying to make it --or as my dad says, beat it to fit and paint it to match. That's what it really feels like.
And again, huge alarm that we don't have the money that we thought we had to do this. What happens when --if that money doesn't show up? Again, if we believe that money is going to be here, let's
use other --other sources of funding so we have more options than just one --one-way loop. And then the last thing that I thought was kind of funny was, in 40 years, we're going to be back to D and E
traffic problems, if you noticed on the chart. That's not a huge improvement for all of this work going, from F to D, you know. So those are my comments. It doesn't seem to make a heck of a lot of sense to
me in a lot of ways. Thank you for listening.
As a frequent visitor to Estes Park for the past 50 years, I am absolutely against this silly loop plan. I love Estes just the way it is. Please don't disturb its charm or negatively impact the downtown
businesses. I go TO Estes not through it as my destination.
I am very much against this project. There is too much impact to downtown for very little benefit. Estes Park is not only here to deliver people to Rocky Mtn. Park. This loop project impacts many homes
and businesses. Too many people would lose their homes and businesses just so tourists can get to the line to enter Rocky a few minutes faster. This is also not a good long term solution. As more and
more people move to the front range area, Rocky will not be able to handle them all. Most likely more shuttles will be used. We have a much more severe parking problem. Visitors have to keep circling
around trying to find parking adding to the congestion. The Riverside Dr. area is a peaceful oasis in the busy downtown area. It is not the place to funnel through a big highway. Downtown businesses
are mostly not in favor of this project. The only benefit I see is the Ivy St. bridge, but the impact of this project far out weights the benefit. By the time the project gets started is will cost more and probably
won't be completed like so many other projects in town.
Date Comment
Received Submitted via:
7/20/2016 Public Hearing
Verbal (3)
8/4/2016 Web EA
Comment Form
8/4/2016 Web EA
Comment Form
32
Comment Date Comment Number (1 Name City, State Comment Received Submitted via: per name)
157 Ron Wilcocks Estes Park CO Web EA Comment Form (1) 8/4/2016 Web EA
I support NO ACTION on the proposed Estes Park Loop project. This project has much more than a De Minimis impact on our Town. In fact, it's outcome is hugely impactful of our Town. I own three Comment
properties on E. Elkhorn Avenue and this project will have a serious negative impact on all three. Our downtown area is too small to be made into a bypass road for the national park. It is a project that is Form (1)
too big for our Town in a literal sense. It is overkill and is not necessary. The national park is already looking to limit cars into the park. There is no need to pump cars into the park at a faster rate. They
are already subject to 45 minute wait times at the park entrances and many are in fact already turned away on busy days! For our Town, too many structures are removed for no good reason. We have a
small downtown and this is a huge amount of destruction. Most downtown businesses, downtown landowners and the Mayor are against this project. The road is too big and thus too loud for our
downtown. We need more parking and shuttles to be a better neighbor with the national park. The W. Riverside area of Town that will be destroyed is now a quiet refuge in this Town. It will be ruined by
this proposed road. This project is overkill in that it won't solve any traffic flow problems, it will only make it a few seconds faster to get in the line at the entrance gates of the national park. This few
second gain is no solution and will barely be noticed by travelers. The loss of two-way traffic on our main downtown roads will just cause new bottlenecks and delays. This project is not a solution, it is a
disaster. I'm sure there will be many legal challenges against the project if it is pushed forward. This project is not wanted in our Town. What do we need? We need more parking and a more complete,
year-round transit system. This was part of the initial grant request, but has been dismissed by the CFLHD people. New parking and better transit is what the local population feels is needed. This
proposed loop project will negatively affect wildlife, too. It does nothing to help with flood mitigation. There is little to no local control over construction. The overblown construction will hurt many
businesses and people in this this Town. This proposed project is a waste of tax dollars as there is no pressing need that it get done. In fact, there are numerous reasons why it shouldn't get done. DO
NOT MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS TERRIBLE PROJECT! Please support NO ACTION on the Estes Park Loop project.
Ron Wilcocks Public Hearing Verbal (2) 7/20/2016 Public Hearing
Hi. My name is Ron Wilcocks. I think most everything has already been said, particularly what Eric Blackhurst said. I strongly agree with his analysis. I'm not --I'm not for the loop. I'm for No Action on the Verbal (2)
loop. I'm not for no action in the town. I do think we have some issues we need to work on. I do not think this is the solution. To get a --you know, a few second gain, 20-second gain in congestion going
through this town, this is not worth it. This is, you know, using a hammer to crack an egg. You're going to wreck it. You're going to break it. There's too many structures being removed. It's too loud, what's
going to happen over in the West Riverside area. There's too much noise that's going to occur with a large highway. I didn't make a prepared statement here, so I'm kind of just looking at some notes so
excuse me. You know, in terms of Riverside, there probably is some ways to do different flow through there. Just like Gerald said, there's --and some other people --there is other alternatives that we
have not moved to yet. The sign saying --going straight to the park, the lit-up sign, you know, we should have permanent signs that say that. That has made a difference. I'm also downtown almost every
single day. In the spring, I was counting the light. I don't know how --it's working better now. In the spring, before the Barnes Dance, I was counting, on average, four cars making it through the light. Four.
And you know how many cars are lined up. I don't get over to the park entrance very often, but I've heard nightmares, so --so again, it makes this plan look ridiculous. We're going to pump traffic through
our town to go into a mile-long traffic jam waiting to go through the entrance, only to go in the park and be told you can't be in here because we're full. That's the direction of the park. Think Zion, think the
Grand Canyon, think the other very popular parks. They are not moving towards building new roads in the park all over the place. They are moving towards shuttle systems and moving people around in
different ways. This is very shortsighted to tear up our town when, in the early '20s, perhaps 2020s, in that time frame, they're already making restrictions. They're going to make more. This is very
shortsighted to be tearing our town up for this. Parking is much more of a significant issue for our town. Maybe it is not a significant issue for the National Park because this is not about Estes Park. This is
about another entity. But parking, I'm --again, I'm downtown working with the public every day, our locals, our visitors, everything, every day, all year-round. And parking is what really bothers people, and
it adds to congestion. Think how many times you need to circle around looking for that parking spot, and how does that add to congestion? If people can get into parking spaces, then what do we get?
Another 5 percent, 10 percent, 15 percent reduction? I don't know. I don't know how much parking we can feasibly do in a reasonable. But parking is what people complain about. They don't complain
about the traffic because, quite literally, Elkhorn is the only traffic in town if you really think about it. There's no other place in town gets congested like that. So you have the Elkhorn corridor, Moraine
going over to the Big Beaver Meadow. That is our congestion.
Ron Wilcocks (cont) Drive down to Boulder. Drive down to Fort Collins --I don't care, anytime of the day. Now, you don't have to go on a weekend. Go during the day. Traffic is much, much worse. People are just used to it.
You know, maybe it's wrong that they don't complain about it, but they don't. They complain about parking, and they also complain about, "How ridiculous is it? I finally found a place, and I realize I can
only be there for three hours. I don't even have time to lunch." It's crazy. It's wrong. It's too big of a road for our downtown. We have just limited land in our downtown. I think somebody else touched on
that. We have to be very sensitive. This is not --what is the word? I didn't even know what the word meant --diminutive --or whatever it is. This is not a little impact for our community. This is a huge
percentage of our downtown being redone for very, very disputable benefits, if any at all. Again, it will affect wildlife negatively, and I'm not for doing nothing. We have to move forward and make
improvements to our infrastructure for flooding, for circulation, for parking, for many, many reasons. So it's not an idea of don't do anything ever. It's just this loop doesn't make sense. It's a big waste of
money for our community. We have better uses for our money, and we should be using them in different ways. Thank you very much.
158 Drew Wilcocks Estes Park CO My parents own properties and run businesses in downtown Estes Park on E. Elkhorn and I support the NO ACTION option. This is a waste of tax dollars and not the proper project for downtown Estes 8/4/2016 Web EA
Park. We need new parking and better mass transit to help with the congestion of the national park. I support NO ACTION on the proposed Estes Park Loop project Comment Form
159 Belle Morris Estes Park CO The community of Estes Park is in dire need of safe bike lanes, which the LOOP provides. The LOOP provides steps toward connectivity for bike access to our downtown (great for employees and locals 8/4/2016 Web EA
enjoying a safe alternative for transportation). The LOOP offers the first step toward flood mediation with upgrades to the Ivy Street bridge. The LOOP provides potential round a-bout at Moraine, which is Comment Form
badly needed for fluid slipstream traffic flow (currently its a traffic jam and serious safety hazard area). Access to RMNP is improved upon, without the current log-jam of traffic the community of Estes
Park experiences. The LOOP initiates improved side-walks in our downtown, which currently is fragmented. Wider sidewalks and road dieting thru ELKHORN AVE is desperately needed, which is not
exactly planned into the LOOP design (this is my only concern). I know our household of mixed ages is thrilled for the LOOP and appreciate this opportunity for grant funding. Thank you for the ongoing
out reach to the community and public input. Many residents are in favor of the LOOP and appreciate the needed improvements to our transportation system.
160 Jeff Sindelar Estes Park CO We very much support the FLAP grant. This is a huge opportunity to address an overdue issue in the community. This has been proposed in the past and for good reason. Also the tourists who filled out 8/4/2016 Web EA
surveys in 2011 are telling us to fix our traffic and parking issues in overwhelming numbers. Parking and road capacity go hand in hand. They are both very expensive and this grant will greatly help the Comment Form
situation. A town vote would be a disaster. Most people don't even understand the grant much less have read it. Also outlying housing areas wont be able to vote. With 1200 pages of documents to be
analyized this decision needs to be made by the elected and paid town board. Thank you.
161 Kristen Glen Haven, CO In favor 8/4/2016 Web EA
Comment Form
Comment Date Comment Number (1 Name City, State Comment Received Submitted via: per name)
162 Steve Komito Estes Park CO Web EA Comment Form (1) 8/4/2016 Web EA
IN SUPPORT OF THE LOOP PROJECT Comment
Public Safety: Form (1)
The intersection of Moraine Ave/Crags Drive poses a major accident potential. The proposed redesign will reduce the likelihood of a catastrophic collision.
The Loop Project will reduce the occurrence of emergency vehicles moving against traffic that is gridlocked in BOTH directions.
Economics:
The present congestion at peak traffic hours adversely affects the experience of visitors who are seeking relief from similar congestion in their daily lives. This must inevitably diminish their desire
for return visits.
Quality of Life:
The present seasonal traffic congestion makes daily activities a greater burden for area residents. This could diminish the appeal of Estes Park for attracting potential permanent residents.
Maximizing Infrastructure:
The central business district is located in a steep sided valley so narrow that creating more traffic corridors is impractical. This requires more efficient use of existing streets to improve traffic.
Steve Komito Hard Copy left in Comment Box (2) 8/5/2016 Hard Copy left
(See attached Hard Copy Comments) IN SUPPORT OF THE LOOP PROJECT Public Safety: The Moraine Ave/Crags Drive intersection poses a major accident potential. The proposed redesign will in Comment
reduce the likelihood of a catastrophic collision. The Loop project will reduce the occurrence of emergency vehicles moving against traffic that is gridlocked in BOTH directions. Economics: The present Box (2)
congestion at peak traffic hours adversely affects the experience of visitors who are seeking relief from similar congestion in their daily lives. This must inevitably diminish their desire for return visits.
Quality of Life: The present seasonal traffic congestion makes daily activities a greater burden for residents. This could diminish the appeal of Estes Park for potential permanent residents. Maximizing
Infrastructure: The central business district is located in a steep sided valley so narrow that creating more traffic corridors is impractical. This requires more efficient use of existing streets to improve traffic
flow.
7, To The Editor: Among the recent remembrances of the
deceased baseball player, Yogi Berra, there were included a number of quotes from his collection of wry commentaries. One of these caught my attention, because it reflects my concern about the future
of Estes Park. The famous catcher is credited with saying: "Nobody goes there anymore. It's too crowded." As the local controversy about the proposed traffic improvement project called "The Loop"
surges between commendation and condemnation, I am reminded of the sound and fury that echoed through our little valley around similar proposals during the decades in which I have lived here. In the
1970s the town board proposed to adopt a sign code to help reduce the neon jungle that had grown up in the central business district. The opposition to this needed ordinance invoked constitutionally
protected speech and the sanctity of private property. The code eventually was adopted and did much to eliminate our town's resemblance to the Las Vegas strip. In the 1980s the newly formed Urban
Renewal District proposed to improve the environment of our downtown by eliminating street side parking along Elkhorn Avenue in order to provide wider sidewalks and pedestrian-friendly amenities such
as benches and mini-gardens of trees and flowers. Downtown business owners raged that if parking spaces were removed from in front of their stores, this would prevent customers from reaching their
premises and certainly destroy their enterprises. Eventually the improvements were made, most businesses survived, and our main street enjoyed a vastly more agreeable atmosphere. The nearly
unprecedented traffic congestion of this past summer season has raised again the serious obligation of our tourist dependent town to provide the most pleasant possible environment for the teeming
masses who visit us from other communities, where they are very likely beset by similar traffic congestion in their everyday lives.
Steve Komito (cont) Once again I hear the self-centered objections of my fellow residents to the project that I believe provides the most reasonable improvement to the vehicle and pedestrian flow through our narrow
business district. If the vocal opponents to the Loop Project prevail, our economy could continue to limp along as a congested bottleneck into and out of Colorado's major tourist attraction. But if we as a
concerned community could summon the foresight to try the Loop as an attainable solution to a continuing flaw in our business environment, we might avoid a future where "Nobody goes there anymore.
It's too crowded." Indeed as the ballpark philosopher has also been quoted as saying. "It's hard to make predictions, especially about the future." Steve Komito, Estes Park
163 Mr. and Mrs. Estes Park CO NO LOOP! We have witnessed the change in traffic since the "barn dance" has been re-introduced. Does not take very long to get through town. Also, the park does not want people coming in 8/4/2016 Web EA
Belleau FASTER. Also, our merchants need time for potential customers to see downtown and want to visit. Gatlinburg, TN has the same problem. They have managed for years with the problem. One just Comment Form
deals with it for the few weeks it is a "bother". NO LOOP!
It is too late; but moving the PO to the visitor center and building a parking garage in the flood zone would have really worked. Just hose it out after some high water ...
164 Molly Patrick Estes Park CO I am for the loop and the new bike lanes downtown Estes. Thank you 8/4/2016 Web EA
Comment Form
165 Kari Pyle Estes Park CO I support the Loop for the community of Estes Park moving forward. We definitely need safer ways for bicyclists and pedestrians to get around and a more strategic plan for cars to move timely through 8/4/2016 Web EA
the downtown area. In 5-10 years, I would think looking back the Loop and Parking Ramps would seem like a no brainer. Comment Form
166 No Name Provided Allenspark CO Please move forward with the Loop Project. This town needs a manageable solution to so many of its traffic issues and progress is inevitable. Its time to invest in infrastructure and stop putting band-8/4/2016 Web EA
aides on larger issues in town. Comment Form
167 Georgia Bihr Estes Park CO I do not support changing the traffic pattern of my town in an attempt to try to move traffic thru downtown -this will permanently destroy many historic residences along Riverside and also negatively affect 8/4/2016 Web EA
the merchants' businesses west of the Elk Horn/Big Horn intersection. The traffic issues only occur for 2 to 3 months of the year. In the event that the decision is made to implement "the loop" despite the Comment Form
negative impacts on our business community, I recommend that traffic cones or barriers and traffic officers be used to move traffic in "the loop" configuration during the summer months. This measure
would provide opportunity to move the traffic more swiftly thru the downtown area without destroying the historic village where we live.
168 Beverly Seymour Mustang OK I strongly oppose the Downtown Estes Loop project. People go to Estes Park to get away from the city and its "conveniences". Let the history, beauty and nature stay as it is. If someone is unhappy to 8/4/2016 Web EA
wait in a line of traffic they should go to Disney wait, wait and wait some more. Comment Form
169 Amy Mendonca Unknown I just wanted to send a quick note to let the powers that be know that my husband, family and I are residents of Estes Park and are in favor of the downtown Estes loop project. Please take into 8/5/2016 Web EA Email
consideration that there are plenty of people in town that are "pro loop". They just might not be as vocal as the naysayers are. 34
Comment
Number (1
per name)
Name City, State Comment
Web EA Email (1)
Web EA Comment Form (2)
Date Comment
Received Submitted via:
Comment Date Comment Number (1 Name City, State Comment Received Submitted via: per name)
Comment Date Comment Number (1 Name City, State Comment Received Submitted via: per name)
180 Rick Grigsby Estes Park CO (See attached Hard Copy Comments) Thanks to the Estes Loop Project Team and fellow citizens who are working to preserve and protect the allure and vitality of the Estes Region for all people and all 8/5/2016 Hard Copy left
generations to come. My name is Rick. I am a resident of the Town of Estes Park. I have direct knowledge of social, economic, and environmental conditions of the Proposed Project's impacted areas. I in Comment
am a stakeholder in Downtown and the well being of the whole community. My wife and I are interested parties. We are rebuilding old traveler cabins within the grips of the Loop boundaries on the south Box
end of East Riverside park. The Town knows us as Rocky Mountain Memories, Riverbend Inn, Redemption Cabin, and This Mountain Life. But for even greater reasons, we care about the people of
Downtown. The Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) acknowledges the following impacts will occur and become Downtown's reality:
•The Proposed Action will take private property and going concerns from good fellow citizens.
•It will also convert Town owned residential roads in the Riverside Corridor and make them into one-way reconstructed, realigned, elevated State highways.
•The conversion of the Riverside Corridor from a low0voume two-lane roadway to a one-way high volume highway will impact the qualities that make the Riverside Corridor an attractive location for
recreation, reflection and lodging.
•The new highway segments will divide and isolate the East and West Riverside neighborhoods.
•The Proposed Action will take deep cuts into the Riverside parklands including the very lovely people's Baldwin Park and the ever active and energizing Children's Park.
•In addition to their loss in size, both parks will lose adjacent parking.
•The public's ability to access Baldwin Park and Children's Park will be decreased.
•Both Parks with face dramatically higher volumes of adjacent vehicular traffic. With the higher volumes will be increased driving speeds.
•Ambient noise will rise in both Parks to levels that can drown out quiet moments, conversations, and recreational activities. Both parks will have decreased air quality with increased emissions, pollutants
and odors. Both Parks will have decreased river water quality.
•Both parks will suffer decreases in visual character.
•Both parks will lose trees and canopy that the Project can never replace. Baldwin Park will lose its iconic old growth shade tree that has greater public value than any other tree I have encountered in the
Estes Region, our Peoples's Tree. And, Baldwin Park will lose wildlife cover.
•The Children's Park will lose its Public Restroom.
Rick Grigsby (cont) •All will lose the ancient rock outcroppings and cliffs at the scenic heart o downtown as they are blasted away and used as fill and common riprap. Never replaced.
•The Riverside Corridor will decline in livability.
•Real property and going concern values will be oppressed by out of character redevelopment.
•Town residents and guests will lose sublime natural scenery, healthy outdoor opportunities, and the promise of multimodal complete streets.
Yet buried at the end in Section 3.16.8 of the Drat EA, it reports the Project impacts, taken individually or as a whole, "will not adversely affect the activities, features or attributes" of the parks, and are by
Federal standards, "de minimus."
I do not concur with the de minimus finding. The EA makes sweeping assumptions. The Proposed Action will reduce access to Baldwin Park and Children's Park, both Town-owned properties that
function as major social and economic generators and provide vast public recreational opportunities. The Action will adversely affect their multiple uses, activities, features and attributes. The de minimus
finding is arbitrary. It does not follow logically from the long tally of negative social, economic, and environmental consequences mentioned in the draft report. The finding is speculative, not supported by
sufficient reason or documentation. The record does not support it and I do not concur with it. A Finding of No Significant Impact reflects detached Federal thinking and would injure many, including my
Riverside friends and neighbors. Before the Loop Project is given a green light, a more involved Section 4(f) Environmental Impact Statement with analysis of avoidance alternatives is required.
The proposed replacement property of Section 6(f) Parklands is of insufficient quality, usefulness and value. The EA states that the land designated to replace the losses to Baldwin and Children's Park is
of "equal or greater fair market value." I do not concur. The EA value statement is speculative. It is not supported by public comment, real evaluations, appraisals or studies. The details of the new
parkland designs are being withheld until after the NEPA process. The Loop Project will take from Downtown's most mature, useable, un-congested, tree covered parklands that accommodate
simultaneously many people and multiple group, family and individual recreational activities and trade in return barren, non-contiguous, strips with cut slopes and riprap on highway shoulders. The
proposed replacement property will have very small capacity for very limited public uses. The proposed replacement property lacks in the same quality and usefulness. It is of "lesser fair market value."
Rick Grigsby (cont) The EA does not adequately assess the Proposed Action impacts on East Riverside south of the Ivy Bridge. There is a heavy volume of two-way vehicular and pedestrian traffic on East Riverside Drive
south of the Ivy Bridge, especially when the Aerial Tramway is open for Town visitors. This stretch of roadway is a vital link in the present Downtown transit patterns for all modes of transportation
including walkers, strollers, bikers, and RMNP Hiker Shuttles. It takes a pounding by many clever locals and other RMNP visitors pursuing alternate routes through downtown. Yet, this stretch of roadway
has been omitted by the EA.
The Proposed Action will convert East Riverside into a 25 mph one-way two lane highway north of the Ivy Bridge. South of the Ivy Bridge, East Riverside will remain a two-way Town owned road with a 20
mph posted limit. How will the Proposed Action impact the environment, traffic volumes, out of direction travel, safety, and pedestrian/vehicle conflicts on the southern portion of East Riverside Drive?
How will northbound vehicular traffic from the Crags Drive intersection to the Ivy Bridge intersection be controlled to accommodate East Riverside's neighborhood character and qualities that serve high
volumes of visiting pedestrian and other modes of transportation?
I also object to the notion that RMNP favors the Proposed Action. Officially, RMNP has not advocated a particular alternative because they believe the decision on whether the Loop Project moves
forward rests with the Town of Estes Park, their stakeholders and DOT. In fact, so it would seem, Park officials do not support the Proposed action or they would be willing to put skin in the game to
increase the National Parks' capacity for people, vehicular traffic, and parking. And, for upper Thompson and Fall River flood mitigation projects. But, they have not. Without new RMNP roadway and
parking projects, the Proposed Action will have no significant positive impact on RMNP's congested entrance, crowded lots, and other traffic stopping choke points. If the Park officials see any good in the
Proposed Action, let them come out into the public and speak for it.
The Proposed Action must conform to a vibrant, widely supported Downtown Neighborhood Master Plan (that is in the works but does not exist). Late in the game, the Town initiated the formation of a
Downtown Plan to help guide future decisions on how the Town should best allocate resources and make public improvements in downtown Estes Park. The outcome of this process should be a
comprehensive step by step guide that will insure Estes Park's allure and vitality will be saved for all generations. The Proposed Action should take a back seat to the big Plan that is under development.
The Proposed Action addresses only one piece of the Downtown redevelopment puzzle and only one solution. The acceptability o the Proposed Action is dependent on its inclusion in the coming Master
Plan. Past Town studies recommend Downtown streets should be designed for all people and all modes of transportation not just visitors to Rocky Mountain National Park. Once the Downtown Plan
steering Committee is open for public comment that policy should be open for fair consideration.
37
11/14/16
Comment Date Comment Number (1 Name City, State Comment Received Submitted via: per name)
Rick Grigsby (cont) The Project's utility is dependent on interrelated projects including RMNP reducing traffic congestion at its Beaver Point entrance. The Project's usefulness is also dependent on the mitigation of traffic
choke points at the US 34/36 Intersection and on river channeling, bridge projects and flood mitigation up and downstream o the Proposed Action's boundaries. The Project Partners have not committed
to these interrelated projects. Those projects are currently unplanned and no funding is available. Upstream projects are necessary to protect the investment made by the Proposed Action. We need to be
good stewards. The Loop Project will not include a new Rockwell Bridge, a new East Riverside Bridge, a new parking garage, or any upstream flood improvements. It will not mitigate traffic choke points
at the east and west entrances into Downtown. Standing alone, the Proposed Action's benefits are dubious. It is legitimate to question whether the Proposed Action can ever meet its intended Purpose.
The Project's negative impacts will fall disproportionately on Town residents, their natural recreational spaces and tranquil spaces. The spell of the Rockies will be tarnished. Avoidance alternatives
should be fully explored. Rightly so, the Loop Project should be set aside without further expense incurred until a comprehensive Master Downtown Neighborhood Plan is drawn and vetted, winning wide
spread community support. The interrelated projects should go together and in proper order. We need committed property partners and funding sources.
181 Lois Harvill Estes Park CO I cannot see how "the Loop" will help traffic at all. On Hwy 36 it has backed up clear to Park Hill-all through town to the Park entrance for hours. Bond Park has been nibbled away-so not much park is left, 8/5/2016 Hard Copy left
and this will take away the park along the river. Why not invest in signs at parking lots that tell people where the big lot is at the fairground and that there are free shuttles back to town that run frequently. in Comment
We have driven by there and there are no cars there. Also the two town businesses should make their customers park at the fairgrounds and pick them up or have them ride the shuttle back. Why should Box
their cars take up parking spaces all day? There is a traffic problem -but "the loop" will not help.
182 Ron Heinz Estes Park CO I am asking you to think .... Growth: vision through stewardship. Progress: Development stress on the resources. Consumption: limitation on the National Park is growing. Exhaustion: caveat-climate 8/5/2016 Hard Copy left
change, 2040 is not far off. After over 50 years at the cabin, Coyote Hill, and 13 years here in Estes Park, the pristine scenario is going away ... Focus on getting the people out of their cars -shuttle. in Comment
Box
183 Monica Sigler Estes Park CO I just don't get it you don't get it. No one showed up at that meeting because it was a moot point. You (Town) don't listen. We don't want this, RMNP doesn't want this, the tourists don't want this. I can 8/5/2016 Hard Copy left
honestly say I haven't heard 1 person say they are for the loop and working with the public everyday, I get a lot of exposure! But still you keep trying to force feed it to us. We don't trust your judgements in Comment
as to what is good for the town. The proof is in the pudding as in school (voted no) event center -wellness center (Stanley Fiasco), Performing Art Center (on Elkhorn sheez), community center (no more Box
meals) and on and on. It is like your stepping on dollars to pick up dimes. No No No build a parking garage on the outskirts of Town (Not the P.O. parking lot) that will alleviate a lot more traffic! Thanks for
your time! Hope you listen to the people!!
184 David Hattan Arvada CO I strongly support the Loop. I am a long-time visitor (my grandparents and parents lived here for many years) and now am a landowner and year-round, part-time resident. I've known Estes since the 7/21/2016 Hard Copy left
late 1940's. In that time basic road layout hasn't changed much, with the exception of Wonderview and the reconstruction of Elkhorn after the Lawn Lake Flood (1982-more than 30 years ago). Visitation in Comment
to both RMNP & EP has increased dramatically. As a result, EP has both traffic and parking problems that are serious. The FLAP grant can help solve the traffic problem, but it's not allowed to address Box
parking. EP will have to do that through other means. To say that EP should decline $17M because it doesn't solve all problems (including floodplain issues) is extremely short-sighted. This is essentially
saying "we can't fix everything so we shouldn't do anything." $17M may not ever be available again.
The Loop will improve access for cars and buses (which are stuck in traffic with everyone else) so they can better get to parking, businesses and RMNP. I think the Loop will improve business
prospects in downtown and the rest of the Estes Valley because Front Range residents don't come and vacationers don't return because of traffic. The eastbound portion of the Loop will not be much
more o fa bypass than Rockwell is now-both provide access to the same parking lots. In summary, it would be short-sighted to not proceed with the Loop.
185 Tony Gambee Estes Park CO Web EA Comment Form (1) 7/25/2016 Web EA
Please find below some considerations on the negative impact of the Loop. Comment
1.The proposed new two-lane highway will be built very close to the Lofts of Estes building and will bring increased traffic, noise and vibration, with negative impact to guest reservations.Form (1)
2.There is a listed impact to the Lofts of Estes (reduced property size) that might affect parking, already very limited at the building.
3.Construction noise and building closure during construction of the two-lane highway will affect guest reservations and lead to income loss for the Lofts units.
4.Proposed sound barrier will be insufficient for noise mitigation, all street facing windows would need to be replaced with double pane windows.
We are asking the Town of Estes Park to take No Action on the Loop and consider other options to direct traffic to/from RMNP (e.g. through E Wonderview Ave).
Currently, there are two other issues on E Riverside that would need to be addressed, apart from the Loop project:
A.The flow of traffic at that intersection of E Riverside and Rockwell needs a stop light, or at least a 3-way stop, as it is confusing right now.
B.The two bridges on Rockwell and E Riverside need work to improve water flow and reduce the impact of spring melt and heavy storms.
Thanks and please let me know if you have any questions and comments,
Tony Gambee, 248-787-6898, tony@happyfamilyrentals.com
Lofts of Estes Hard Copy left in Comment Box (2) 7/25/2016 Hard Copy left
Condo Owners The Lofts of Estes Condo Homeowner Association, composed of 13 luxury guest accommodations (highly reviewed by travelers to Estes Park) is very concerned about the proposed Loop project that will in Comment
Association (Tony impact our building on E. Riverside Dr. Please find below some considerations on the negative impact of the Loop. Box (2)
Gambee, Narcis 1.Proposed new two lane highway will be built very close to the Lofts of Este building and will bring increased traffic, noise and vibration, with negative impact to guest reservations.
Anghel, Sharon 2.There is a listed impact to the Lofts of Estes (reduced property size) that may affect parking, already very limited at the building.
Mahoney) 3.Construction noise and building closure during construction of the two lane highway will affect guest reservations and lead to income loss for the Lofts units.
4.Proposed sound barrier will be insufficient for noise mitigation, all street facing windows would need to be replaced with double pane windows.
We are asking the Town of Este Park to take No Action on the Loop and consider other options to direct traffic to/from RMNP (i.e. through E. Wonderview Ave).
Currently there are two other issues on E. Riverside that would need to be addressed, apart from the Loop project:
A.The flow of traffic at that intersection of E. Riverside and Rockwell needs a stop light, or at least a 3-way stop, as it is confusing right now.
B.The two bridges on Rockwell and E. Riverside need work to improve water flow and reduce the impact of spring melt and heavy storms.
Thanks and please let us know if you have any questions and comments.
186 Dewain & Estes Park CO We are opposed to "the Loop"!!! 8/5/2016 Hard Copy left
Katharine in Comment
Lockwood Box
38
11/14/16
Comment
Number (1
per name)
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
11/14/16
Name City, State
Mike & Daylene Estes Park CO
Van Brunt
Michael Estes Park CO
Richardson, Estes
Park Board of
Realators
Barbara McQuate Estes Park CO
Shirley McLaren Estes Park CO
Judy Russell Estes Park CO
Kenneth and Estes Park CO
Patricia Tayor
Czarnowski
Gail Ellis Estes Park CO
Marsha Groome Estes Park CO
Mike Lemley Estes Park CO
Comment
We support the loop: As full time residents on the west side of town my wife and I drive through downtown several times a day. The dramatic increase in traffic over the past several years has made this
difficult and frustrating. With park visitation up and a longer guest season we don't see this improving in the near future. As residents we have an obligation to share our beautiful town and that includes
making access to RMNP and downtown Estes Park as enjoyable and pleasant as possible. The $17M grant will go a long way in making some much needed improvements in traffic flow, parking and
flood control.
(See attached Hard Copy Comments) The Directors of the Estes Park Board of Realtors (EPBOR) have the following concerns about the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the one-way couplet project
(loop).
1.Section 2.4.1, page 2-39. Estimated funding of $34.0M is not available. Section 2.4.3, page 2-40. $17.2M was an estimate in 2014-2015. Construction costs have risen substantially in the last two
years. It is unlikely the project can be built for the costs estimate of $17.2M. 2. Section 3.1.2, pages 3-28&29. Construction impact is significant. A 12 month construction schedule with lane closures,
restricted business access, disruption of business activities will have significant impact on the economic health of the community and Town government which relies heavily on sales tax revenue for its
general fund. As has been noted construction at altitude is weather dependent and the schedule will likely draw out longer than 12 months. Also as noted, construction would occur for the full twelve
months of the project (Phase 1) not just the Labor Day to Memorial Day. 3. Section 3.2.2, page 3-32. Acquisition and relocation of residential and businesses is perhaps the most significant issue. The
loss of residential, both stand-alone units and those associated with businesses degrades the capability of the community to provide rental housing in the community. To state that" ... new development
(commercial or residential) may occur along East and West Riverside Drives due to increased traffic and visibility ... ", completely misses the fact that current market trends of Estes travelers seek
properties in areas where there is less traffic and noise. 4. Section 3.2.2, page 3-32. "The Proposed Action would require acquisition of lands within Baldwin Park and Children's Park, though new park
land would be provided along the Big Thompson River in the study area." Phase 1 provides no new park land. There are no funds to do anything beyond Phase 1. 5. Section 3.3.3., page 3-36. "Initial
research indicates that available properties exist within downtown Estes Park to relocate properties that require full acquisition." This statement is false. There are no downtown locations for six
commercial locations, either for lease or for sale, and eight (one address with five buildings used as housing) residential units. 6. Section 3.19.4, page 3-182; Section 3.20 pages 3-187. Relevant Projects
and project phasing. This section speaks to projects that are unfunded, not planned and depend upon funds from a tax base that expires in less than eight years. This section also refers to upgrading
"sewer facilities" of the Town of Estes Park. Estes Park does not own "sewer facilities." These remarks could continue and be much more detailed. However, the point is that while the EA advocates for
moving ahead with Phase 1 there are significant issues with the report and analysis. Those dramatically affect the project, the economics of the community and the realities of dealing with flood mitigation
rather than dealing with the miniscule problem of delay in traffic along Elkhorn Avenue. It is difficult for the Directors of the Estes Park Board of Realtors to comprehend that the authors of the EA find
there is no significant impact upon the community by recommending continuation of the loop project. It is with that in mind that the EPBOR once again objects to the continuation of this project.
I support "No Action" on the Loop but instead focus on more parking availability. What's up with the Visitor Center proposal; red tape, lost contracts and funds? How about a multi-story parking garage
over the parking spaces at the Event Center. Also spaces for buses and RV's. There should not be parking in town for them. Once the riverbed & bridges are reconstructed build that very nice
architecturally appealing multi-story garage over the P.O. lot. Included was patio area plus maintaining walking/cycling path along the river. Let's promote the preservation of downtown's unique character
and strollability and leave the "freeways" behind. As residents of Davis Hill, I would also like to share a few observations I've made this season. Making our way off the hill can be difficult at times but once
in the flow we make our way around town via W. Riverside. This entails crossing traffic in front of the Donut Haus. Traffic backs up beyond the bend. However, incoming vehicles have been very kind to
leave a gap when the flow comes to a stand still, allowing vehicles wanting to access the Pickadilly Square/Riverside area. Also, those that are waiting to turn left toward the other side. To return home
after a visit to Safeway I will take Wonderview to avoid town traffic. The message is getting out as there are now continuous streams of vehicles travelling in both directions to and from the Fall River park
entrance. At the end of the day it does no good to try to get more people more faster to and through the town that it or RMNP can accommodate. Respectfully submitted, Barbara McQuate
I realize that these comments are worthless as do most of the people in town as we know you will do just as you want-you want free bridges and it does not seem to matter how it hurts town. Having a
bottleneck at the Donut Haus corner will not help Town or the Park as cars will be backed up in both directions. You should never have been given the money as this is not going to help the Park or the
Town.
Those of us suggesting we go back to the old time traffic control were brushed off at the first meeting at the museum and now you are saying you are trying it-the officers we had were well trained and
kept traffic going. These now stand and visit with each other or wander around. I drive through twice a day and there is no real traffic control like before. Obviously they have not been trained. I laughed
when I saw in the paper you all feel the silent majority want this and in all this time, I have heard one person say they wanted it and that was for the bridges. Next thing you will be after-the houses on
East Riverside. Sincerely, Shirley McLaren. Quit advertising for more people to come-it used to be for spring and fall and now there's something going on all summer too-this town is a rich town with all
the sales tax but there should be a limit.
At this point I see going to the post office in the summer will require packing a lunch. Just more reason for locals to avoid downtown in the summer! Maybe while you are at it you could get the postal
service to move the post office.
We are opposed to the Loop project primarily because it would have a negative economic impact on local businesses along the route. The Town Board should not put this through without a vote from the
people that they represent.
To be quite honest, this is a lot of information to digest. My one comment is that I would strongly support a roundabout rather than lights at the Riverside-Moraine intersection. 1. This would be a much
safer option in terms of potential major accidents, 2. It would pace the traffic both at busy times and less busy times particularly for those of us enteromg and exiting properties from further west on
Moraine. At the moment it is almost impossible to safely cross traffic during peak periods. 3. Roundabouts keep traffic moving with far less bottlenecks. In addition, I am in favor of making Riverside a 2-
way street. I also see some problems with converting Moraine into a one way... There would be no way for locals travelling east on Moraine to get to the west side of town without going all the way
around and back through a very conjested town center when there are activities such as the Thursday market, art shows, etc going on at Bond Park. These trips would further add to the congestion in
that area.
I am definitely for the Loop Project. I believe it will benefit the town, and Rocky. Without it, the traffic will continue to be horrible with no change in sight. As visitors increase, traffic will increase so we
need the Loop.
doing nothing is not an option, if one is interested in growing and progressing for estes park. maintaining a "captive audience" is short sighted and equivalent to burying your head in the sand. at a
minimum a round about at morraine and moccasin/riverside is essential. RMNP needs to fast track the long overdue upgrade of the fall river entrance and make the cascade cabin area attractive to the
visitors to help relieve traffic downtown in light of the resistance to an obvious solution to present and future traffic.
Date Comment
Received Submitted via:
8/5/2016 Hard Copy left
in Comment
Box
8/5/2016 Hard Copy left
in Comment
Box
8/5/2016 Hard Copy left
in Comment
Box
8/5/2016 Hard Copy left
in Comment
Box
8/6/2016 Web EA
Comment Form
8/4/2016 Web EA
Comment Form
8/4/2016 Web EA
Comment Form
8/4/2016 Web EA
Comment Form
8/4/2016 Web EA
Comment Form
39
Comment Date Comment Number (1 Name City, State Comment Received Submitted via: per name)
40
Comment Date Comment Number (1 Name City, State Comment Received Submitted via: per name)
Peter K. Plaut (cont) The Assessment sidesteps or gives inadequate treatment of a number of important issues. For example, the project schedule calls for at least two seasons of work. The scope of the project indicates
there will be considerable disruption of traffic during these times and a general disincentive to visit Estes Park. An unspecified amount of the Towna€™s parking will be diverted to storage of construction
materials, equipment and vehicles. The Assessment does not attempt to quantify this, instead deferring the details to the contractors who will do the work. The downtown businesses will surely be
adversely impacted. One should ask how many businesses could survive two successive summers with significant loss of customers. The Assessment does not factually answer that question. Can
governmental officials honestly approve this project without having better analysis of what the construction period impact will be? On a different vein, but also important, is what happens to the trees
along the route? The Assessment notes that trees that have to be removed will be replaced with new ones, and therefore there is no impact. That is patently untrue. If the trees along East Riverside are
removed to make way for expanded traffic flow, there will be a lasting adverse impact to the entire stretch of the Town. That impact will outlast all of us. For a town that calls itself a Tree City, this should
not be a trivial issue. It is not sufficient to say, as does this Assessment, a€reTree removal will be minimized to the extent practicable.a€ At a minimum, each and every mature tree that will have to be cut
down should be clearly identified on the ground before the project is given approval, so that members of the community will know in advance, and so that the Town Trustees will be compelled to take
responsibility up front. The decision-makers cannot be permitted to hide behind ignorance here.
The Assessment is naive in some of its advocacy. For example, the Assessment touts the advantages of the project in the economic impact section in these words on page 3-57.
The Proposed Action does however provide the necessary infrastructure for considerable future economic benefits if the following are implemented:
-Increased visibility along Riverside Drive for existing and future businesses.
-Increased visibility to one of the largest parking areas in downtown (post office parking lot).
-Implementation of the stream channel widening would result in reduced flood plain boundary thereby benefiting residential and commercial properties.
-Infrastructure to access a potential future downtown parking structure that could provide additional parking in the center of downtown, if advanced and implemented by the Town of Estes Park at a
later date.
Peter K. Plaut (cont) Why should it be beneficial to increase the visibility along Riverside Drive for businesses? Will this increased visibility, coupled with reduced parking in this area and with increased two-lane traffic,
actually lead to business expansion? Why is it helpful to increase the visibility of the Post Office parking lot, which already is chronically full, and which will have several spaces taken away for this
project? Why promote the stream channel widening when the funding has already been eliminated? Does the design of the one-way loop provide the infrastructure to a new parking structure in the
center of the downtown, or does it actually make it more difficult to enter and exit such a structure?
The conclusions of the Assessment are similarly questionable in the way they focus on the details and totally ignore the broader impact of the changes the loop will cause. For example, the
Assessment has this to say about the impact of the project on the parks in the Riverside Drive Corridor (page 3-202): Park features such as trails, benches, paths, trees and vegetation would be removed
and replaced with new features, park facilities, pathways and vegetation. New connections and facilities would be added and linked to new park land areas creating new visual resources and vantages
points. New urban design features would complement existing features and create gateways. To tally ignored in the mitigation conclusion is the fact that the parks will be bounded by a higher speed, dual
lane, highway that will carry 100 percent of the east-bound traffic coming from the Beaver Meadows entrance to the National Park, the YMCA, and the residences and businesses on the Moraine Avenue
corridor. Also ignored is the change of the feeling of the parks when the mature vegetation is replaced with new, immature trees and shrubs. This aspect is acknowledged in the discussion section of the
Assessment, then totally ignored in the conclusions. The conclusions simply ignore the points raised in the discussion. Other conclusions reached in the mitigation recommendations are equally absurd.
For example, in response to the impact of diverting nearly 15,000 square feet of park land along Riverside Drive to the highway, the Assessment merely states that conversion of land to park along the
Riverside Corridor would offset these impacts.a€ The report fails to address where this land would be found along the corridor, and even if it existed, whether it could adequately replace the portions of
the park appropriated for pavement and vehicles. To conclude that the project will have a de-minimis impact on Baldwin and Childrens Parks is simply not supported by this Assessment. Reduction in
space, removal of mature vegetation, and routing of two lanes of higher speed, higher volume traffic along the edges of these parks, cannot be said to have no adverse effect on these resources. To
conclude so is disingenuous.
Sections like this compel one to read the Assessment critically. For all its volume, tables and illustrations, in my mind this Assessment is woefully inadequate, overly promoting of a result, and
unreliable in its conclusions. The clinical and unrealistic analysis set out in the Assessment does terrible service to the decision-making process. This is a lobbying report, not a genuine assessment of
whether the one-way couplet is the right thing to do.
200 Iolanthe Culjak Estes Park CO I wish it be known that I oppose the Loop project for Estes Park. The premise behind the grant for the Loop is to more efficiently get traffic into RMNP. The town also would like to alleviate the traffic 8/4/2016 Web EA
congestion in town. Comment Form
Currently, RMNP cannot handle the volume of traffic that it receives. The parking in the park is full by late morning, including the shuttle parking. So, increasing the flow of traffic to RMNP will only
move the backup of vehicles to the Park and backing up towards town. If cars are backed up in town, at least they can see shops, restaurants, etc that they may wish to visit later.
Also, a Loop of traffic through a residential neighborhood and park on Riverside will destroy that neighborhood completely. The Loop will also cut off the flow to the west side of downtown. We all
know most people are followers ... they will follow the flow of traffic on the loop. The loss of tax revenue from West end businesses wil put a big hit on the budget for other town projects.
There are better options to resolve traffic. Better parking (like the structure that is going in at the visitor center) More buses and shuttles, etc. A Loop will make Estes a generic town just like any
other. No more small town feel that the tourists and residents came here to enjoy. I hope the town of Estes park will truly think this through. Once the loop is in ... there will be no turning back.
201 Steven Wens Estes Park CO Will the bike lane option only be for Riverside? I hope all the entire loop would have bike lanes projected. Bike lanes should also be physically different from the rest of the road by means of different 8/5/2016 Web EA
color or road surface to make it clear to motorist it is a bike lane and not a shoulder. Comment Form
I'd also suggest roundabouts where possible. Especially the Morraine/Riverside intersection, since it has the required space for it.
41
11/14/16
Comment Date Comment Number (1 Name City, State Comment Received Submitted via: per name)
202 Sherri Valentine Loveland CO As a resident of Larimer County and a very frequent visitor to both Estes Park and RMNP, I am very concerned about the health of Estes Park, economically and environmentally. 8/5/2016 Web EA
Ye t, as I reviewed all the project materials, I was disappointed to find very little variation in all the discussed alternatives. Worse, every alternative (except no action) puts burdens on Riverside Drive, Comment Form
the wonderfully green parks along Riverside Drive, and the river.
I found absolutely no mention of the potential environmental impacts to the river, river life or water quality. This is an irresponsible omission!
As a former member of the citizen advisory team to COOT and Jefferson County on the improvement of the Evergreen downtown intersection -a project that moved forward with the support of all the
community and with creativity that improved not only the traffic flow, but the safety of pedestrians and cars, and the visual and environmental integrity of the area -I was surprised by the lack of creativity
and "thinking outside the box" with this project.
I sincerely encourage the selection of the NO ACTION alternative until more citizens are given more opportunity to be involved with this project.
There are ways to achieve the goals and solve the problems stated. The alternatives identified thus far will not do so.
Thank you for the opportunity to express my concerns.
203 Jeanne Zukowski Estes Park CO I have heard so many times that one of the main reasons for the need for the Loop is to facilitate access to Rocky Mountain National Park. This is NOT a justifiable need for the Loop. People have no 8/5/2016 Web EA
problem getting TO the Park. Getting INTO the Park and being able to find a place to park (legally) in order to hike or sightsee is the problem. RMNP is BEYOND its carrying capacity, and there is no Comment Form
justifiable need to make it easier to get to the Park. I work in the visitor centers and experience first hand the long lines, congestion, visitor frustration, and even the occasional irate and threatening
visitors . The congestion is so bad that trailhead parking lots are often full by 7:00 a.m., daily access restrictions are put on Bear Lake Road from mid-morning to mid-afternoon, the Alpine Visitor Center
parking lot is full by mid-morning, and with long lines of cars on both Trail Ridge Road and Old Fall River Road waiting to enter the parking lot, there is ABSOLUTE AND TOTAL GRIDLOCK. I know,
because I work up there and see it every day. What we need, instead of this Loop, is MORE PARKING SOMEWHERE IN OR NEAR TOWN, encouraging visitors to use the free shuttle service. Please
do not use access to RMNP as a lame excuse to support this Loop. I, FOR ONE, AM OPPOSED TO IT.
204 Anthony Mostek Boulder CO No to the loop! It will completely ruin everything that makes downtown Estes so quaint 8/5/2016 Web EA
Comment Form
205 Diana Gabriella Boulder CO I am absolutely against the loop. 8/5/2016 Web EA
Comment Form
206 Gordon Dyck & Estes Park CO My husband and I bought our condo here in Estes Park nearly 11 years ago and spent about 4 months a year here until early June 2015 when we moved here full time. We support the Loop project as 8/5/2016 Web EA
Judith Beechy we are concerned that if traffic continues to get backed up in town, many people who come here for vacation or to visit the park will not return here because it is so difficult to get through town. We do not Comment Form
believe that having opportunities to see the store fronts is what causes people to stop to shop! Alternatively we think that people who are stuck in long lines of traffic will decide it is not worth trying to stop
in town because of time limitations and traffic congestion. We also believe it would be very beneficial, if not crucial, for the town to take action now to address this problem while there is outside funding to
help pay for it!! Having lived in Indiana for many years where many "round-abouts" were built in recent years, we found them to be an easy and safe way to keep traffic moving. On a personal note, my
husband has ALS and was recently moved to Prospect Park Living Center. Our condo is in Mountain Gate Condos off Big Horn Drive. Every day I head to PPLC at least twice a day. Needless to say
the long lines of traffic have made my trip back and forth much longer! Therefore we ask you to please move forward with the Downtown Estes Loop project! Thank you! Judy Beechy (and for Gordon
Dyck)
207 Eryn Mills Estes Park CO As a long time local, from a family of long time locals, I have seen some town improvements that we have doubted and later seen that they do work well. However, this does not seem like one of them. 8/5/2016 Web EA
There are real improvements that our town needs, but this project doesn't seem to address those issues. Please do not go forward with the Loop project. While it may be a creative idea, the money and Comment Form
the energy that would go into it should go towards maintaining our current infrastructure.
On a side note, it has always been difficult to give directions in Estes Park to tourists and newcomers. Adding a caveat of "If you missed that turn, you have to loop around again, or turn down this network
of confusing side streets and alleys and try to find your way back" does not seem very helpful.
208 Kenneth L. Estes Park CO The character and charm of Estes Park are entwined with the physical layout of the town. In the 60 years that I have known Estes, there have been many changes but the overall atmosphere of the town 8/5/2016 Web EA
Klocksiem has remained intact. The Loop proposal will destroy that character permanently. None of the stated reasons for the Loop justify its implementation in light of the damage that will be done to a unique Comment Form
community. From my observations there is enormous opposition to the Loop which far outweighs any support for it. There have been numerous suggestions for improvements that can be made without
instituting the Loop. The "Barnes Dance" crossing pattern is being used again, and a central parking facility in conjunction with effective visitors shuttles and the Trolley would provide reasonable traffic
management.
Please do not move forward with the Loop!
209 Judith A. Davison Estes Park CO You can't construct the Loop without damaging the unique characteristics that make Estes Park the charming, engaging town that it is. Estes Park and its environment have changed over time, but the 8/5/2016 Web EA
character of the town has remained the same. The environment of Estes is entwined with its overall layout and will not be the same again if the Loop is implemented. Traffic issues can be effectively Comment Form
managed with the free trolley system in conjunction with building a central parking facility at the Visitor Center.
Don't do it! Don't continue for another minute planning on implementing the Loop!
210 Amy Hamrick Estes Park CO I encourage this project to keep moving forward. I have lived in Estes Park since 1998, have owned a downtown business since 2002, and have also sat on numerous boards and committees, including 8/5/2016 Web EA
currently sitting on the Transportation Advisory Board, and have been informed on the progress of this project since it was just an idea (I actually attended the board meeting when Public Works originally Comment Form
brought 4 ideas to the table to even apply for the FLAP funding.) I continue to see this as one small step in the bigger picture to our town's progress in dealing with both the growth of the Front Range and
the increased visitation to Rocky Mountain National Park. No one project or idea will solve our traffic issues. This project takes a step towards it, including considering vehicle and pedestrian safety and
experience; improving traffic flows through town; improving infrastructure and replacing at least one bridge that is part of the bigger flood plain issue; and upgrading our intersections.
211 Jerry Meyer Fort Collins CO Please NO LOOP! 8/5/2016 Web EA
Comment Form
212 Sue Meyer Fort Collins CO NO LOOP! This is a bad concept on every level. 8/5/2016 Web EA
Comment Form
Comment Date Comment Number (1 Name City, State Comment Received Submitted via: per name)
213 Robin Klein Estes Park CO As a resident of Estes Park since 1979 I am against the loop. I beg of you don't change the character of my beloved town. In knowing that you won't have the funding needed to complete the project, I'm 8/5/2016 Web EA
dismayed by the fact that this is still on the table. You must at the very least let us voters decide this issue. The EA so obviously favors the pro loop faction that I can't give it any credence. Please stop this Comment Form
debacle now or face the wrath of us voters next time you pro loop trustees are up for reelection. Do the right thing for Estes Park which is no loop!
214 Meghan Estes Park CO I believe that the citizens of Estes Park can come up with a better resolution to combat the capacity issue. Tearing our town apart and taking out homes {which will make the housing issue even worse) is 8/5/2016 Web EA
Rademacher not going to solve any problems. I feel that it's a bad idea and I do not support it. I feel that we need to figure out how to get more people to park at the fairgrounds and take the shuttle. Comment Form
215 Holly Moore Estes Park CO To whom it may concern: 8/5/2016 Web EA
Re: The Environmental Assessment of FLAP funded "Loop" project in Estes Park, Colorado. Comment Form
It would be impossible for me to address every EA topic that I take issue with. For the time, I shall confine my comments to that which is contained in this letter. First, I must take issue with the
following statement, as taken from Te ch Report 4 Hazardous Materials: "Site listed in the EDR database as a closed LUST/Trust/ UST site. A release was confirmed at the site in September 2001. Four
USTs were installed in 1982 and have been permanently closed.
Currently, there is no building present at the address listed for Boba€™s Amoco at the corner of Elkhorn and Moraine. The Bobs Amoco station (172 W. Elkhorn Avenue) was located on the west end of
Elkhorn, where a livery used to be. This would be, today, 230 West Elkhorn, which is located outside the study area.
There was also a service shop across the street in the 1920s-1930s. There was another station at the west end of Elkhorn. Based on the distance from the proposed projecta€™ s limits of construction
(more than 700 feet) and topographic position relative to Fall River, this facility is not considered a REC for the project."
Much of this information is just simply incorrect. Neither Bob's Amoco, nor the address 172 W. Elkhorn has ever been located at the corner of Elkhorn and Moraine. For the past 81 years at the
corner of Elkhorn and Moraine, you will find Miller's Indian Village, address 100 W. Elkhorn Ave. There is most certainly a building currently present there (since c. 1908), as there is also a building
currently present on the actual former site of Bob's Amoco. The Riverspointe building was constructed in 2005 on the site where the former gas station building stood until it was demolished in 2004 to
make way for that construction. The Riverspointe address is 170 W. Elkhorn for all units. To my knowledge Bob's Amoco was never located west of this location.
This is just one example of inaccuracies which cause me to distrust the entirety of the research done on the EA.
The number of hazardous sites combined with the gross inaccuracy of the research into these sites is of grave concern. I respectfully submit that there is likely to be significant additional cost
involved with mitigating these sites. In particular, the Donut Haus site's unregistered tanks are a huge unknown and offer the potential of significant damage to the aquatic ecosystem within, and
downstream from, the project area. An additional concern, the small fen within the project area is downstream from this UST site and directly adjacent to the former FerrellGas UST site does not appear
to have even been identified in the Delineation Report. The project calls for lowering the grade throughout Baldwin Park on either side of this fen.
Holly Moore (cont) I find conflicting reports on whether the Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse is or is not present within the project area. I was unable, in the time allowed in which to provide this comment, to find
information within the EA to indicate whether the requisite procedures for determining the presence of this protected species had been completed, or any inquiry into the potential impact upon such
species if found to be present.
I find a great deal of significant negative impact to the project area. I realize that this seems to be a difference of opinion from those who prepared the EA. But it would appear to me that the EA
seems to be little more than opinion. It is unfortunate that the EA was not required to investigate the impact to the very federal land that the FLAP grant purports to improve access to. The negative
impact of greater access to an already damaged and overcrowded federal land will surely be immense and irreversible.
From the https://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/programs/flap/ website: "The Federal Lands Access Program was established in 23 U.S.C. 204 to improve transportation facilities that provide access to, are
adjacent to, or are located within Federal lands." What does it mean to "improve" access to federal lands, in our case, RMNP? One is left to assume that the project intends to afford a greater number of
people the ability and ease of entering RMNP for recreational purposes. In order to improve something, one must first identify a need for improvement. Over a mere 5 years, park visitation increased by
nearly one million visitors. This is an increase of over 30%. There simply is NO NEED to improve access to RMNP because it has already exceeded it's capacity. You cannot improve access to a place
you cannot enter, by the implementation of the Loop project. By sending more cars, more rapidly to the park, which after waiting in line, are then turned away to return through the loop, you are simply
exacerbating the situation. One CANNOT improve a situation by making it worse.
Sincerely,
Holly Moore
216 Glenn Case Estes Park CO I am glad that the EA demonstrates positive improvement for our town while still working to protect its character! Thank you for the hard work and continued effort towards effecting positive change. One 8/5/2016 Web EA
important aspect of this project is the improvement of bicycle access in downtown Estes. Please keep up the good work. Comment Form
217 Michael Young Estes Park CO The loop has been proven completely unnecessary now that Elkhorn and Morraine intersection has had the full, all-directions pedestrian crossing plan implemented. Traffic would regardless always come 8/5/2016 Web EA
to a standstill on 34 to the RMNP when any car wants to turn into a business or subdivision. The general consensus from tourists seems to be that they expect a delay when they come to EP in the Comment Form
summertime. There is absolutely no logical reason to speed up traffic to RMNP when it is already over-populated with visitors.
218 Anthony Mostek Boulder CO As long time visitors to Beautiful Estes Park, we have serious concerns with the "Downtown Estes Loop" project. 8/5/2016 Web EA
We have several friends in Estes Park and agree with them that this is the wrong approach for this historic town. Comment Form
There needs to be a thorough and complete environmental impact assessment of this "downtown loop" project to see what the effects would be on the community and the Estes Park region including the
communities downstream. The assessment needs ensure that federal agencies are included in this analysis, including EPA and NOAA, to address serious climate change impacts that are underway in
Colorado.
After the floods of September 2013, no project can proceed without assessing the potential impacts on the flow of water through Estes Park when the next big storm hits! The assessment must also
ensure that every effort is made to conserve precious water resources during low flows that occur during droughts!
Thanks for listening!
Anthony and Susan Mostek
Comment Date Comment Number (1 Name City, State Comment Received Submitted via: per name)
219 Eric Blackhurst Unknown Thank you very much. I have a few prepared comments. I could speak for 30 to 40 minutes on this project and its history, but I'll try and stay within the three-minute guidelines. The environmental study, 7/20/2016 Public Hearing
EA for short, in its draft, and I suspect nearly final, form finds there is a de minimis impact environmentally, economically, and socially to the community from the proposed $17 million loop project. De Verbal
minimis. An interesting choice of words with Latin origin. Oh, I know there's a legal definition behind that. When you look up the definition of de minimis, this is what you find: Something of little importance
or insignificant. So small or minimal in difference that it does not matter or the law does not take it into consideration. So minor as to not be worth regarding. So the findings of this study and its authors
say that the two-year project, which is Phase 1 and Phase 2, will have little significant impact on the community. Because my time is limited to three minutes, let me say very plainly: I've read the EA, I've
looked at the initial documents that have formed the basis of this proposal, and I have the following observations. In 2003, the Town Board rejected this same proposal for a one-way couplet as proposed
by FHU Engineering Company. The EA considers this insignificant. In 2013, the Town Board presented options --was presented the option of applying for the FLAP grant as part of the 2010 economic
stimulus package passed by Congress. The Town Board asked administration to look at several proposals, including trails along Highway 36 and 34 into Rocky Mountain National Park and downtown,
the downtown loop. The staff returned proposals for trails and also a downtown loop, which included a parking garage in the post office parking lot, for which there was no funding and no directive from
the Town Board. This created great misplaced enthusiasm from the public in a program which was never a possibility under the FLAP grant and no foreseeable funding in the future. This concept
continues to be on a wish list, so those concerned with downtown parking, there's still no funding. The EA considers this to be insignificant. Throughout the EA references are made to projects and details
for bridges, future parks, and widening river channels that are not part of the downtown loop project, but will come in future phases. It appears the EA considers that no funding or sources of funding is
insignificant. Section 3.19.4 alludes to sales tax funding for voters approved, in part, for road maintenance. The EA states that there is a ten-year plan, and money will be used to maintain and improve
Rockwell Street and include the bridge. Actually, there are only eight years left in that plan as the tax expires in 2024. That section also states the Town has plans to upgrade sewer facilities. The Town
has no sewer facilities. The EA considers this to be insignificant. It also appears that the EA considers economic and social impact to those in Estes Park who use, work, and live along the proposed route
as insignificant. I guess no one was listening to them because their opinion was de minimis. There's $4.2 million in the bank from COOT earmarked for transportation projects. What is more important to
the community? Investing in four bridges along our streams to protect for downtown flooding or saving our visitors 17 seconds wait time at the traffic light as they travel to and from the National Park as
projected by the original FLAP grant? The answer to that question is not insignificant. Thank you for your time.
220 Leah Marshall Estes Park CO Public Hearing Verbal (1) 7/20/2016 Public Hearing
I have some concerns about the roundabout. I've lived in other towns where there's been roundabouts, and they're hard for trucks, they're hard for campers, they're hard for anybody that's coming around. Verbal (1)
And if you happen to be a blind person, they're not user-friendly. And they keep putting these roundabouts in, and they don't take in consideration that there are people in this world that can't see to cross
them, and I just think it's a bad plan. I'm not in favor of it.
Thank you.
Leah Marshall Public Hearing Verbal (2) 7/20/2016 Public Hearing
Leah Marshall. It's L-E-A-H, Marshall with two L's. My address is 280 North Court, Estes Park, Colorado. Verbal (2)
I have some concerns about the roundabouts. My daughter is blind. She comes to visit me, and blind people cannot walk across roundabouts.
There's no signals for their dogs to alert them to go across. You've got cars coming at you all directions. They're very, very unfriendly to blind people, and the Blind Association is trying to make it where
they're illegal because nobody that's blind can use them.
That was one of my concerns. I don't think they took that into consideration, so I'm speaking for blind people. I'm concerned about the roundabouts for blind people.
221 Johanna Darden Unknown Public Hearing Verbal (1) 7/20/2016 Public Hearing
Hello. I'm Johanna Darden. I request No Action on the loop project. Verbal (1)
Estes Park is unlike other towns where roundabouts and road changes have been made. Since you are trying to mitigate the problems, of which there are many, you will change the character of our town.
How do you mitigate removing a tree or two that are over 100 years old? What we will get in return for the destruction of Baldwin Park will be a noisier, not shady place to sit with the --but the sun will be
beating down. The cabbing that has taken place in the Riverside neighborhood will no longer happen, and our general delight in nature will no longer exist.
This project will not improve the environment of Rocky Mountain National Park. Since the project was proposed, there have been an increase in pollution, and bringing more people faster to the park will
not improve conditions.
Please do not allow this project to go forward. I attended the early meetings where input was requested. I have looked at the recent changes and have the same opinion as originally.
This will not be good for my town or Rocky Mountain National Park. Estes Park is bounded by mountains and rivers, and there's just so much place --so many places that we can expand. And to bring
more people to Estes Park, to advertise Estes Park and encourage people to come faster before we're prepared to even accommodate them is, in my opinion, very foolish.
Thank you.
Johanna Darden Public Hearing Verbal (2) 7/20/2016 Public Hearing
I'm opposed to the Loop Project. The reasons for this are it will change the character of the Town of Estes Park. It will actually ruin the Riverside Drive area. There are two huge trees probably over 100 Verbal (2)
years old that will need to be taken out --removed.
I understand that a small portion of the north end of the park that is on Ivy Street --connected to Ivy Street on Riverside Drive --will be removed. It has old aspen trees, and it's --it's a very lovely place
with a lot of shade and places where people sit at picnic tables where they can watch the river.
I don't think that the problem of traffic will be solved, because when the cars go west onto Moraine Avenue --I mean go south onto Moraine Avenue --from Elkhorn Avenue, they will have a bottleneck
when they curve west to go to Rocky Mountain National Park. Two lanes will need to merge into one, and there is so much traffic already, even on a weekday in the summer, that I think that there will be
significant problems. I don't think it will be solved. I think that there will just be a backup at Rocky Mountain National Park entrance, and I think it will be backed up from that curve where Moraine turns
west all the way to Elkhorn Avenue.
So I just think I'm opposed for those reasons, and I think if we look at the big picture, it will change significantly the Town of Estes Park's character and what people come here for. If somebody wants to
call me on my home phone, it's (970)480-1297.
So it's technically what's called the "no-option" is what I want. When I say "no loop," it's --technically on the boards it's known as "no-option."
Comment Date Comment Number (1 Name City, State Comment Received Submitted via: per name)
Comment Date Comment Number (1 Name City, State Comment Received Submitted via: per name)
225 Steve Hampton Estes Park CO I think I might get run out of town here, but I just signed up; nothing formal prepared, other than for Gerald. It's Gerald, not Gerald, so scolding all of you who don't know Gerald. 7/20/2016 Public Hearing
Full-time resident here and just wanted to say something a little bit different. I've got 35 years' experience with the military and government contracting. I've run a lot of projects, as I'm sure many of you Verbal
have.
I've spent a great deal of time in these types of meetings, not only for this subject, but many, many subjects for this town and others. Lived in a lot of great towns, some huge towns.
I would like to say something slightly off the record so far, and as the tenth speaker, the other nine will probably not let me get to my car.
Of all the projects I've been involved with, some of them up to $4 billion in value --the two gentlemen that were the primary speakers here today, I thought did a fantastic job.
The individual project manager from the Central Federal Lands Highway Division, as well as the AECOM rep, they have an extremely hard job here. That's what they get paid to do.
This is one of the most professional presentations I've seen in my 35 years of doing this, and it may not mean a lot to all of you who have some very interesting comments and some very well thought out
problems with the project, but I believe these two gentlemen with the staffs that they represent have done exactly what they were asked to do and what they were paid to do.
And I think they've given us a very objective --which I've used the word carefully --and not de minimis. Let's don't get wrapped around the axle on words that they have to use in their project by their rules.
It should not affect what we believe for our town is the right thing to do, but we should give them credit for doing what we asked them to do.
I think their presentation is very clear. It has given us a great deal to think about as a community, and I know they're going to go home tonight to their wives and the rest of their staffs and go, "Well, we hit
some, we missed some, and we didn't even think about others."
This is a long process. Let's stick together as a community, work with professionals that have been brought here by both COOT and the Federal Government to do the best for our town.
But I would be remiss if I did not thank them for coming and --and all of you also, but thank them for doing a very professional job.
226 Kimberly Campbell Estes Park CO Hi. I'm Kimberly Campbell. I'm a local business owner. I have a daughter in the elementary school here. And I've been involved with this project since the beginning. I also hate podiums this height. 7/20/2016 Public Hearing
I want to go back in history a little bit and remind this audience of a few things that haven't been mentioned tonight. We've known that the traffic has been a problem here for decades. Verbal
I have a close friend who was telling me last weekend about how she and her family and her friends used to set up a lemonade stand out at the rock shop on Moraine Avenue to sell lemonade to the
people coming out of the park in the afternoons who were stuck in traffic. This was back in the '80s.
So there's no doubt this has been a problem. Our road configuration hasn't changed in decades and it can't much. There's too many buildings in the way to make the roads wider. We can't put a freeway
down there.
So for decades, we have been manipulating signal cycles and stop signs and crosswalks and pedestrian crossings. We've done everything we can to squeeze as much lemonade out of these little streets
as we can get, and we're running out of ways to get more traffic through, but the cars keep coming.
So when I got involved with this, it was as a member of the Transportation Visioning Committee. I believe it was formed in 2010. We spent a year and a half reading unbearable engineering studies on all
the different traffic options through town. We sat down with maps and we drew lines and said, "Can we go over this mountain and connect Wonder --or Fall River Road with Moraine?"
And we couldn't find a route through there that was feasible without looking like San Francisco and destroying beautiful wilderness.
And the outcome of our study, after a year and a half of work, was that the one-way couplet was the most reasonable reaction. It used the existing roadway widths that we have in a more efficient manner
to get more cars through without widening our roads, without changing our roads, and it minimized the acquisitions necessary.
We looked at four-lane routes down Riverside, and there were 20-plus acquisitions. That just wasn't acceptable to us.
So this truly has come to the community, not as Big Brother trying to force a big municipal project on our small community. This was a citizen-led initiative.
Now, at the time we wrote that wrote, this was in our 20-year plan. We had no idea that a funding source would come up so soon to allow this grant to happen. And we all wanted improved signage and
improved parking and all these other things first in that 20-year plan. But holy cow, this is the grant that was available, and it wasn't available to build parking.
And so the To wn pursued it after reaching out to the community and doing public input. We've been talking for years about this project.
Kimberly Campbell And here we are, all the studies have verified that this is a good project for our town. It doesn't widen our roads. It takes away a little bit of some park that's being replaced in other areas.
(cont) But there's not much more that we can do to keep traffic flowing. I think, as citizens, we deserve better than to live in congestion. I don't believe anybody who is a transplant to this community moved here
because they wanted congestion. I don't believe any resident who grew up here and was born here believes the congestion has to be the way our town is. There are better ways and we deserve better.
My greatest fear if this project doesn't go through --and I understand every concern that's been expressed here tonight, and I absolutely respect them. My greatest concern is what happens some day
and I can't speak for them --but what happens some day when COOT looks at their plans for Region 2, Region 5 --whatever --Region 4, when COOT looks at this and says: "You know, Fort Collins is
flowing and we've widened 1-25 and you know what? There's this little red dot on our map that shows congestion in Estes Park. It's time for us to go fix that."
And they come up here and say, "Hey, we like the four-way on West Riverside. We're going to put four lanes. We're going to widen it. We're going to acquire 20-plus properties."
This is our chance to control our destiny. This is our chance to take on a modest transportation project that is fully funded, that doesn't dramatically change the character, as some of the other proposed
projects could.
And my fear is, if we don't take this opportunity to take control as a community of our destiny and find our own solutions, that somebody else is going to someday find those solutions for us.
Thank you.
227 Steve Nagl Estes Park CO I'm a no-action guy. I am --to save 17 seconds to put them at the --if you're familiar with the situation, past the Donut Haus, they're going to hit a wall anyway. They going to do the 17 seconds there. Why 7/20/2016 Public Hearing
not have them do it downtown? Verbal
I like the study where it says we are going to have 170 --147 days' worth of congestion in 1940. I'm for that. I own two businesses right downtown on Main Street, and I've been here --and I was born on
Main Street. And I need more congestion, not less congestion. So that's my comment. Okay. Thank you.
46
Comment Date Comment Number (1 Name City, State Comment Received Submitted via: per name)
November 16, 2016
Frequent Comments Received During the EA Comment Period with Responses to each from
the Project Team
The comments below were received from the public during the EA comment period. These comments
reflect the most frequently asked questions. These comments focus on concerns over impacts due to
the Proposed Action as described in the EA. The project team, including CFL, COOT and the Town of
Estes Park staff, have worked to address these comments in the responses below.
Comment A: Concern related to RMNP Visitation, visitor capacity, and congestion
Response A: Rocky Mountain National Park (park} has experienced unprecedented growth in visitation
since 2014. They are currently studying visitation trends and variables to determine if the increase is due
largely to the respective anniversaries of the park and of the NPS over the last two years, Colorado Front
Range population growth, the rebounding economy, lower gas prices, or if the growth in park visitation
will be sustained in the years to come. The park will soon begin a planning process to define the desired
future conditions and associated carrying capacities of popular areas in the park. As part of this effort,
various management strategies may be implemented to address long term visitor management,
including the use of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS} to provide real time information to visitors,
transit alternatives, and/or other measures to accommodate visitors while staying within carrying
capacities. While this longer-term planning is underway, the Park will continue to use interim stop-gap
measures to help manage congestion.
The purpose of the proposed project is to improve access to and from Rocky Mountain National Park by
reducing travel time, congestion and pedestrian and vehicle conflicts through Downtown Estes Park.
While the Environmental Assessment (EA} did not specifically analyze visitation to the park it did analyze
traffic volumes within Downtown Estes Park and assumed the same future traffic volumes under both
the build and no-build alternatives. If the Proposed Action is implemented, the NPS would collaborate
with federal, state, and local transportation managers to ensure that long term visitor management
measures the park may put into place, and future transportation projects, including Federal Lands
Access Program projects, would complement each other. The NPS coordinated with CFL leadership to
prepare this response in an effort to address recent public concerns.
Comment B: Concern related to need for Downtown Parking Structure as highest priority
Response B: A downtown transit facility parking structure was referenced in the original 2013 Federal
Lands Access Program (FLAP} application as a future Town project. Funding was not requested due to
concern that the great increase in project cost and required property acquisitions would cause the
application to be denied. A phased approach to seeking the total project funding was believed to be a
more successful strategy. Later, during the EA process, CFLHD received a request from the Town to
study a downtown transit facility parking structure alternative in the EA. In response to the community's
concerns and the Town's request, the team developed concept designs and traffic analysis to study the
impacts and effectiveness of a parking/transit structure in the vicinity of the post office in context of the
same criteria developed for screening previously identified project alternatives. The team's analysis
showed that more parking is needed in the downtown area (as described in the EA, downtown Estes
Park is undersupplied with parking by between 300 and 1,100 parking spaces), but the structure alone
does not address the project's purpose of improving access to and from RMNP by reducing travel time,
congestion, and pedestrian/vehicle conflicts through Downtown Estes Park as well as the associated
negative impacts to visitors. While the Proposed Action will not solve all traffic and parking related
issues, it was evaluated in previous Town studies and is seen as the best next-step to move vehicular
traffic within and through downtown Estes Park. A future transit facility parking structure would not be
precluded under the No Action Alternative or Proposed Action. The Proposed Action provides improved
street infrastructure to complement a potential downtown parking structure through ease of access
(left-in/left-outs) into and out of from the one-way streets, which would not require any turns across
opposing traffic.
Comment C: Concern related to "Out-of-Direction" Travel under One-Way Configuration
Response C: Some minimal out-of-direction travel for residents accessing the post office from WB
Elkhorn or exiting to WB Moraine Avenue and for residents that live along Riverside Drive and those that
visit parks or destinations along Riverside Drive will occur. It should be noted that the entire loop as
proposed is nine-tenths of a mile in length, and some movements would be shorter with the use of
Rockwell Street. Additionally, the signal operation of the one-way loop will be more efficient than
existing downtown signals, and left turns on red are allowed from one-way streets to one-way streets,
similar to a right turn on red, when pedestrians are not present. This will allow residents to turn left on
red when navigating the loop.
Comment D: Concern for Potential Economic Impacts to Downtown Businesses
Response D: The following are anticipated economic impacts of the project, as described in the EA:
oo Loss of business property due to acquisition of existing businesses.
oo Minor losses in convenience revenues during peak travel due to the ease of eastbound exiting
traffic along Riverside (however, this will be overcome, in part, with additional signage in
downtown showing parking options and other attractions).
oo Reduced parking capacity and temporary delays during construction.
oo Reduced visibility of businesses on Elkhorn and Moraine by potential customers due to the one
way configuration. Signage would aid in providing parking and downtown attraction information
to vehicles traveling on Riverside.
The Proposed Action does however provide the necessary infrastructure for considerable future
economic benefits if the following are implemented:
oo Increased visibility along Riverside Drive for existing and future businesses.
Responses to Frequent Comments
Received During the EA Comment Period
oo Increased visibility to one of the largest parking areas in downtown (post office parking lot).
oo Implementation of the stream channel widening would result in reduced floodplain boundary
thereby benefiting residential and commercial properties.
oo Qualitatively, an enhanced visitor experience (for both pedestrians and motorists) is anticipated,
which is expected to promote economic activity.
oo Infrastructure to access a potential future downtown parking structure that could provide
additional parking in the center of downtown, if advanced and implemented by the Town of
Estes Park at a later date.
Comment E: Concern for impacts to parks (Baldwin and Children's) and whether impacts are considered
de minimis
Response E: The greatest impact to parks will occur at Baldwin Park due to the realignment of Riverside
Drive and reconstruction of the Ivy Street bridge, with a total loss of about 8,450 square feet of usable
park space (most of which would occur at Baldwin Park). This loss is mitigated by the implementation of
the Proposed Action which increases the park size by 9,300 to 17,200 square feet, depending on final
design. These parks are over twenty years of age and need to be updated to remain vibrant and safe.
The proposed Park Replacement Concept Plan would replace all impacted park features, activities, and
attributes, and include buffer plantings to separate Baldwin Park from the road. These enhancements
will include improved access to the Big Thompson River (including the addition of steps down to the
river) and updated park amenities. Additionally, implementation of the Proposed Action will offer more
contiguous access along the park area.
The Park Replacement Concept Plan (as shown in the EA) will be advanced during final design. Figures 1-
2 illustrate the change in tree size as the trees reach maturity. Figures 3 and 4 illustrate existing and
anticipated views (through renderings) of Riverside Drive near Baldwin Park.
The de minimis finding is specific to resources protected under Section 4(f) of the Department of
Transportation Act. This Act stipulates that the FHWA cannot approve the use of land from publicly
owned parks, recreational areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, or historic sites unless a determination
is made that:
oo There is no feasible and prudent avoidance alternative to the use of land from the property; and
oo The action includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the property resulting from such
use; or
oo FHWA determines that the use of the property, including any measure(s) to minimize harm
(such as any avoidance, minimization, mitigation, or enhancement measures) will have a de
minimis impact on the property.
A determination of de minimis impact on parks, recreation areas, and wildlife and waterfowl refuges,
may be made when all three of the following criteria are satisfied:
oo The transportation use of the Section 4(f) resource, together with any impact avoidance,
minimization, and mitigation or enhancement measures incorporated into the project, does not
adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes that qualify the resource for protection
under Section 4(f);
oo The public has been afforded an opportunity to review and comment on the effects of the
project on the protected activities, features, and attributes of the Section 4(f) resource; and
50
oo The official(s) with jurisdiction over the property are informed of U.S. DOT's intent to make the
de minimis impact determination based on their written concurrence that the project will not
adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes that qualify the property for protection
under Section 4(f).
The Proposed Action would require impact (direct use) of Children's Park and Riverside/Baldwin Park. As
stated in the EA, the CFL intends to make a de minimis finding for impacts to Children's Park and
Riverside/Baldwin Park. Written concurrence that the project will not adversely affect the activities,
features, and attributes that qualify the property for protection under Section 4(f) was requested from
the Town of Estes Park on November 15, 2016.
51
Responses to Frequent Comm ents
Received During the EA Comment Period
Figure 1: Riverside Drive at Baldwin Park Cross-Sections
Responses to Frequent Comm ents
Received During the EA Comment Period
Figure 2: Riverside Drive at Baldwin Park Cros s Sections
A:COM
A:COM
53
Responses to Frequent Comments
Received During the EA Comment Period
Figure 3: Riverside Drive at Baldwin Park Perspectives
NB Riverside mid-Baldwin Park -PROPOSED
WORKING DRAFT -Sept. 2016
54
Responses to Frequent Comments
Received During the EA Comment Period
Figure 4: Riverside Drive at Baldwin Park Perspectives
NB Riverside approaching Ivy Street -EXISTING
NB Riverside approaching Ivy Street -PROPOSED
WORKING DRAFT -Sept. 2016
55
Comment F: Concern related to impacts to wildlife
Response F: Additional information regarding wildlife species present or potentially present in the study
area is included below. Species include elk, mule deer, black bear, moose, boreal toad, and the river
otter.
Elk: A resident elk population (part of the St. Vrain Herd) lives year round within Estes Park and the
immediate surroundings. The Town is within designated summer and winter ranges for elk, and within
an overall elk production area. A documented elk summer concentration area exists approximately
three miles west of the project area within the undeveloped setting of Rocky Mountain National Park
(CPW 2016a). Elk move throughout the urban downtown area, particularly along the banks of the Big
Thompson River and within Riverside/Baldwin Park. There are documented elk highway crossings within
the Town as shown in Figure 5. There are no documented migration patterns or corridors directly
through the Town (CPW 2016a). Elk migration is concentrated in areas one to two miles north and south
of the Town (CPW 2016a).
The project will cause the loss of green space at Riverside/Baldwin Park and an increase in new park
area (as described in Response E above). The portion of Baldwin Park near Ivy Street is where the
majority of park land losses would occur. The proposed horizontal curve from the West Riverside
alignment to the proposed alignment of the new bridge over the Big Thompson River and the resulting
alignment on the other side of the river (East Riverside) cause this impact. The proposed curve radius is
necessary to meet minimum safety design standards for a 25 mile per hour roadway. The proposed
alignment of the curve strikes a balance between losses of valuable parking spaces and losses of park
land. Avoiding impacts to this park would require the alignment to be shifted into one of the largest
parking areas downtown and would result in a significant loss of parking that could not be mitigated.
Although elk may forage within Riverside/Baldwin Park, the project area is surrounded by natural areas
that are preferred by elk for foraging and calving. Therefore, impacts as a result of displaced animals
facing increased pressure to maintain individual health and fitness would be negligible due to the
availability of adjacent unaffected habitats. In addition, the displacement from Riverside/Baldwin Park
will be a temporary impact, resulting in a net gain in park space through the project. The loss of park
space may have a temporary effect to the local elk population, but there will be no effect to the species
population as a whole and it is expected that the long-term effects to elk living within the project area
will be negligible.
Elk are currently impacted within the Town where they cross the roads (Figure 5) and the project is not
expected to cause further impacts in terms of vehicle collisions. Big game species have demonstrated
the ability to acclimate to a variety of activities as long as human harassment levels do not increase
substantially (Forman et al. 2003) and it is likely the elk will continue to move through the Town as they
currently do.
Mule Deer: Mule deer are present and common within and near the project area. The Town is located
within designated summer and winter ranges for mule deer (CPW 2016a). There is also a resident
population (part of the St. Vrain herd) within the Town and immediate surroundings (CPW 2016a). There
are no documented migration patterns or corridors that go directly through the project area or the
56
Town. The closest documented concentrations of mule deer migration occur approximately three miles
southwest of the Town (CPW 2016a).There are documented mule deer highway crossings within Estes
Park as seen on Figure 5. Impacts to mule deer would be the same as described for elk above.
Black Bear: The project is located within black bear overall range and summer and fall concentration
areas (CPW 2016a). They are known in Estes Park, which is located within the human/bear conflict area.
Human/bear conflict areas are portions of the overall range where two or more confirmed black bear
complaints per season were received which resulted in CPW investigation, damage to persons or
property, and/or the removal of the problem bear(s). This does not include damage caused by bears to
livestock (CPW 2016a). The project is not anticipated to have effects on black bear.
Moose: Estes Park is located within moose winter range, but the closest concentration areas, where
densities are 200 percent higher than the surrounding area during a specific season, are approximately
13 miles north. The closest priority habitat (associated with the food and cover requirements of moose
where loss of these areas would change moose distribution) is also 13 miles north of the project area.
The closest documented moose migration pattern is 15 miles southwest of the project area (CPW 2016).
The project will have no effect on moose.
The Proposed Action will bring a net increase in the acreage of park and open lands, which would
ultimately benefit habitat for elk, mule deer, and other big game wildlife. In addition, the roadway width
along East and West Riverside Drives will not change substantially (no increase in lanes near
Riverside/Baldwin Parks) so wildlife that will continue to cross the roads in Estes Park are not anticipated
to be negatively affected by the project. The natural topography would be restored in areas disrupted by
construction. For example, slopes along the river will be cut flat enough to allow elk to continue to
access the conservation easement area from the Big Thompson River bank as required.
Boreal Toad: The range of the state endangered boreal toad overlaps with Estes Park. Boreal toads
prefer marshes, wet meadows, streams, beaver ponds, glacial kettle ponds, and lakes interspersed in
subalpine forest between 8,000 to 11,500 feet amsl (above mean sea level). Estes Park is at
approximately 7,500 feet amsl and also lacks the preferred habitat for the boreal toad. No impacts are
expected.
River Otter: Estes Park is located within the overall range of this state threatened species. However,
there are no concentration areas for the otter located within the project area and the Town is not
included among the winter range for this species. No impacts are expected.
Mitigation: Several mitigation measures have been added or updated to address impacts during
construction and post-construction based on comments received on the EA:
oo Tree removal will take place outside of the Migratory Bird Breeding season.
oo If ground disturbance and tree removal will occur during the migratory bird breeding season,
consultation with the USFWS should occur to determine when pre-construction surveys should
take place by a qualified biologist.
oo If bird species protected under the MBTA are actively nesting in the project area during
construction, the biologist with the USFWS will identify appropriate conservation measures to
protect the species. These measures may include, but are not limited to establishing a
57
construction-free buffer zone around the breeding site, biological monitoring of the breeding
site, delaying construction activities in the vicinity of the breeding site until the young have
dispersed, and/or removing vegetation that supports active nest or den sites once the sites are
determined to no longer be active (typically by July 15).
oo Slopes on the conservation easement will be traversable for elk.
Responses to Frequent Comments
Received During the EA Comment Period
Fieure 5: lilie Game Wildlife Hiehway Crossine Areas in Estes Park
CJ StudyArea
(Z2l Elk Higtmay Crossin',ls
Mule Deer Highway
Crossings
U.S. Highway
State Htghway
� W�E
A:COM
59
Comment G: Concern related to impacts to Riverside Drive neighborhoods
Response G: The existing posted speed limit is 25 MPH (miles per hour) through downtown and on
Riverside and would remain 25 MPH under the Proposed Action. The character of Riverside would
change as there will be a greater volume of traffic with the implementation of the Proposed Action.
Riverside Drive will have a state highway designation, which means it will be maintained by COOT.
However, the 25 MPH posted speed limit and curvilinear nature of the roadway will not encourage
higher speeds, and while Riverside Drive would become a COOT maintained highway, it will continue to
act as a low-speed street. Additionally, the character along Riverside Drive will benefit from having both
parallel parking along most of its length as well as an on-street bike lane, both of which are expected to
aid in slowing traffic and providing pedestrians and cyclists with safer travel options. Finally, the project
team is committed to ensuring that mitigation measures described in this EA are seen as minimums, and
enhancements to the mitigation package will continue to be evaluated and proposed during design and
construction.
Comment H: Concern over preserving small town feel
Response H: The Estes Loop Project will not change the small town character of the community. The
project will improve quality of life by helping to alleviate congestion and facilitate safe travel for multiple
modes of transportation including driving, walking, biking, and transit. While the Estes Loop Project may
be seen to some as a big city fix to a small town problem, traffic congestion has long been the norm in
Estes Park. With a large number of visitors to both the Town and Rocky Mountain National Park, a
solution to the congestion problem is needed, and the Estes Loop Project has been seen as the best of
the many alternatives that have been evaluated over the past decade. With the continued growth
forecast for the Front Range, travel to Estes Park is not anticipated to decline and neither will the
potential for congestion. Congestion that used to only occur on summer weekends is now prevalent
daily throughout the season and has expanded into the spring and fall. The proposed Estes Loop project
proposes to maintain the 25 MPH speed limit throughout the limits of the project, continuing to support
the small town feel of Estes Park while reducing congestion for RMNP visitors as well as Estes Park
residents and tourists.
Comment I: Concern that other improvements would solve the traffic congestion downtown
Response I: Over the years the Town has incrementally taken steps to relieve traffic congestion in
downtown (Rockwell bypass, Riverside/Elkhorn turn lane, etc). In recent years there have been several
transportation management solutions that have been implemented to help move traffic in Estes Park
including temporary variable message signs, new static signs, improved striping, and the recent
implementation of the Barnes Dance signalization at downtown intersections. Use of variable messages
signage has helped direct visitors to parking lots and the Fall River entrance, as well as provided traveler
information about Rocky Mountain National Park. Part of the Estes Loop Project would be to implement
permanent signage (some of which could offer variable messaging) that directs visitors to parking and
other landmarks throughout downtown and the Estes Valley. Improved striping has also helped drivers
navigate downtown more easily, and the new design will add to the benefits of these striping
techniques. The Barnes Dance pedestrian-only signal phase has been used to provide dedicated
pedestrian crossing cycles, which makes the downtown area feel more pedestrian friendly. While this is
seen as a benefit for pedestrians due to improved crossing safety, it reduces the vehicle throughput at
these intersections under the existing intersection configuration. These measures have provided some
temporary relief and should continue to be used as a stop gap measure for as long as possible. However,
these transportation management solutions are not sufficient to continually meet the demands of the
traffic congestion that is becoming the norm in downtown Estes Park. Without a more aggressive
congestion mitigation effort like the Proposed Action, the existing roadways are expected to see longer
portions of the day and year with unacceptably high levels of congestion.
Comment J: Concerns about the use of federal funding for this project
Response J: The Town of Estes Park applied to CFLHD for funding of the Estes Loop Project in downtown
Estes Park, based on citizen input that congestion and parking are the two most important
transportation issues facing downtown Estes Park. Additionally, flood control is also of great
importance, as was most recently shown with the 2013 flood event. Several previous studies illustrated
these needs including the Estes Valley Transportation Alternatives Study (Parking), Town of Estes Park
Implementation of Republic Parking Plan (Parking), Estes Park Downtown Circulation Study (Loop),
Evaluation of an Intelligent Transportation System for RMNP and Estes Park (Congestion), Roadmap to
the Future, Transportation Visioning Committee (Congestion), Estes Park Transit & Parking Study
(Parking and the Loop). Because money became available to address one of the major transportation
concerns of Estes Park residents, Town staff applied for the grant in an attempt to relieve downtown
congestion and provide some of the needed flood control measures in a way that will not preclude the
implementation of a downtown parking structure and other flood control measures if future funding
becomes available. The Estes Loop Project is also seen as the best option to both keep visitors
downtown (as compared to a by-pass, which was suggested in several comments), and provides
improvements to the severe congestion that is experienced by locals and visitors to Estes Park. While
the transportation improvements would help to address access to Rocky Mountain National Park for
visitors, they would also be used regularly for local residents to improve circulation downtown. As noted
in the comments to the EA, the addition of new permanent signs, variable message signs, and
Community Service Officer support at the Elkhorn/Moraine intersection do provide some temporary
improvement, these measures along with improved signal timing have been demonstrated to be
ineffective in maintaining traffic flows in downtown Estes Park. Most complex problems that any
community faces require solutions that are phased as funding becomes available and other
implementation requirements are met. The Town of Estes Park leaders understand that they have a
responsibility to address a variety of issues that are all related including traffic, parking, and flood
control.
Comment K: Concern about safety and operations of the roundabout option if selected at the
Moraine/Crags/Riverside intersection
Response K: Compared to other types of intersections, research has shown roundabouts to improve
safety as they provide a 90% reduction in fatalities, a 76% reduction in injuries, and a 35% reduction in
61
the overall number of crashes. This occurs because head-on and high-speed right angle collisions are
virtually eliminated. Three factors that lead to improved safety are:
oo Fewer conflict points -A single lane roundabout has 50% fewer pedestrian-vehicle conflict
points than a comparable stop or signal controlled intersection. Conflicts between bicycles and
vehicles are reduced as well.
oo Shorter crossings set back from roundabout-Pedestrians cross a shorter distance of only one
direction of traffic at a time since the entering and exiting flows are separated. Drivers are able
to focus on pedestrians separately after entering, circulating and exiting the roundabout.
oo Lower speeds at the intersection -Traffic speed at any road or intersection is vitally important
to the safety of everyone, and especially non-motorized users. Lower speed is associated with
better yielding rates, reduced vehicle stopping distance, and lower risk of collision injury or
fatality. Also, the speed of traffic through a roundabout is more consistent with comfortable
bicycle riding speed.
Roundabouts also reduce congestion (as they are efficient during both peak periods and during other
times throughout the day) and reduce pollution and fuel use (with fewer stops and hard accelerations
and less time idling). Furthermore, they allow continuous traffic flow at all hours of the day and do not
needlessly stop traffic with red lights when no other traffic is at the intersection.
Pedestrians and cyclists have raised safety concerns about roundabouts at some new installations
throughout the country. The addition of certain treatments can enhance the experience for both
pedestrians and cyclists. These can include:
oo At more complex roundabouts, such as those with multiple lanes, certain design elements and
enhanced crossing treatments can improve accessibility for visually impaired pedestrians.
oo Where bicycle facilities lead to a roundabout, providing an option to bicyclists to either ride in
the travel lane or use a ramp to and from a separated shared use path.
The proposed roundabout at the Moraine/Crags/Riverside intersection in Estes Park would be single
lane and would separate the most dominant travel movement from the intersection (southbound
Moraine continuing on to the west from this intersection). Additionally, it should be noted that there is
ongoing research for additional treatments and design considerations to address the needs of visually
impaired pedestrians.
Comment L: Concern that the project will shift traffic congestion issues outside of the project limits.
Response L: While it is true that the Downtown Estes Loop project will not completely solve all of the
congestion problems in the Town of Estes Park, it is seen as the best next-step to improve traffic
operations in the downtown area where a variety of trips (both local and pass through) and users
(vehicles and pedestrians) occur. As noted in several comments on the EA, there is concern the
congestion will shift to West Moraine Avenue to the south/west and to the US 34/US 36 intersection to
the east. As shown in the EA, the Proposed Action does not affect the US 34/US 36 operations, both the
No Action and Proposed Action have the same delay results in 2040. The 2040 Upper Front Range
Regional Transportation Plan identified the need for improvements at the US 34/US 36 intersection. The
Town and COOT will continue to explore improvements at the US 34/US 36 intersection. The results of
these endeavors would have an additive benefit to the improvements that the Loop Project is expected
to produce. At the west end of the project, the loop traffic will merge to one lane in the south/west
direction on West Moraine Avenue the same as the existing configuration. This merge to one lane
operates adequately because the westbound lane is free flowing through the new
Moraine/Crags/Riverside intersection. Future improvement to Moraine Avenue west of Crags Drive will
continue to be pursued through future FLAP grant opportunities.
Comment M: Comments related to the need for more public transportation in Estes Park.
Response M: Currently, public shuttle service is only available seasonally. Year-round shuttle service
would make transit more usable for potential riders, and the Town is exploring possible funding
opportunities to implement this; however, no funding has currently been identified. Transit service
could be implemented in such a way that allows potential transit patrons to park outside of downtown
to reduce the number of vehicles that enter the downtown core of Estes Park. The Proposed Action
would add dependability to shuttles in Estes Park by reducing delay through improved traffic operations
through downtown.
0 us. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
Mr. Greg Muhonen
Public Works Director
Town of Estes Park
170 MacGregor Avenue
Estes Park, Colorado 80517
Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 West Dakota Avenue
November 16, 2016
Suite 380
Lakewood, CO 80228-2583
In Reply Refer To:
HFPM-16
Re: FHWA CLFHD, CO FLAP 34(1) & CO FLAP 36(1 ), Estes Park Moraine Avenue and
Riverside Drive Environmental Assessment, FHWA Intent to Make a Section 4(f) de minimis
determination
Dear. Mr. Muhonen:
This letter is in regard to Section 4(f) coordination for the Downtown Estes Loop project. Per 23
CFR 774.5, we are coordinating with you as the owner with jurisdiction responsible for Section
4(f) resources in the Town of Estes Park. We are writing to you in your position as Director of
Public Works, which oversees five divisions including the Parks Division. A similar letter was
previously sent to the Town and included in the Environmental Assessment (EA). This letter
provides additional information and requests concurrence from the Town on a de minimis
finding.
The Central Federal Lands Highway Division (CFLHD) of the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) has prepared an EA under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for the
proposed Downtown Estes Loop project. This project is intended to improve access to Rocky
Mountain National Park (RMNP) by addressing capacity, safety, mobility and access constraints
in the Downtown portion of the roadway network serving the Beaver Meadows entrance to
RMNP. The Proposed Action involves conversion of existing roadways from two-way to one
way through downtown Estes Park. The two-lane one way couplet has a total length of 0.92
miles. The project begins at the Elkhorn Avenue/Riverside Drive intersection, continues west on
Elkhorn Avenue (US 36) to the intersection of Moraine Avenue/Big Horn Drive for 0.15 miles,
then turns south on Moraine Avenue (US 36) for 0.3 miles to the intersection of Moraine Avenue
and Riverside Drive/Crags Drive. These two-way roadway segments would be converted into
one-way roads, west and south, respectively. The two-lane one way couplet is completed in the
returning northerly direction via a reconstructed Riverside Drive. This segment begins at the
Moraine Avenue/West Riverside Drive/Crags Drive intersection then follows near West
Riverside Drive, Ivy Street and East Riverside Drive for 0.40 miles back to the beginning of the
project at the East Riverside Drive/Elkhorn Avenue intersection, completing the loop.
Pavement rehabilitation (including grinding the existing pavement and adding new pavement to
repair the deteriorating asphalt) would occur on Elkhorn Avenue from just west of the US 34/US
36 intersection to the Elkhorn/Moraine intersection and along Moraine from the Elkhorn/Moraine
intersection to the Moraine/Crags/West Riverside intersection. Pavement rehabilitation on
Rockwell would also occur from Moraine Ave to the new bridge across the Big Thompson.
New signals would be added at two of the three main intersections (Elkhorn/Riverside and
64
Elkhorn/Moraine). The Moraine/Crags/West Riverside intersection would be reconstructed as a
roundabout. New sidewalk, on-street bike lanes and trail connection improvements would be
installed. Directional signage along the corridors would be installed, as well as landscaping.
Historic Resources
One historic NRHP-eligible property, a portion of SH 262 (Moraine Avenue), will be impacted by
the Proposed Action. The documented segment begins at the intersection of US 34 and US 36
at the east end of Elkhorn Avenue, continues west along Elkhorn Avenue to its intersection with
Moraine Avenue and south along Moraine Avenue, turns to the west-southwest near Crags
Drive, and ends approximately 400 feet west of 351 Moraine Avenue. SH 262 was originally a
local road used by residents of Estes Park. After the RMNP opened in 1915, it was used as an
entrance road into the park. The road was designated SH 262 in 1939 and, by 1946 it had been
extended into the RMNP, ending at the intersection of Fall River Road (US 34) and Deer Ridge
Junction. This route was used until 1965, when the Beaver Meadows park entrance opened. At
this time, the road was renamed SH 66 and, in 1977, it became part of US 36.
As part of this project, SH 262 will be overlain over the original road's alignment. A new
intersection configuration will be built, requiring the removal of a non-historic building
(commercial property, the Donut Haus) at the current intersection. Both a signalized intersection
and roundabout intersection are currently under consideration at this location. Under either
configuration (signalized or roundabout), the intent is to make geometric and grade changes to
improve operational efficiency and additional sight distance, thereby improving safety
conditions. The historic short rock retaining wall and rock-lined curb, along the west side of the
curve in front of sites 5LR13751 and 5LR13753 (the former Rocky Mountain Park
headquarters), will remain in place. A new short retaining wall will be added, if necessary, in
front of these older wall features in conjunction with the lower road grade. The retaining wall
along the east side of Moraine Avenue that stretches from 250 Moraine to 281 Moraine Avenue
will also not be directly impacted and will be located more than 100 feet north of the proposed
new construction. In short, the proposed improvements to Moraine Avenue will not adversely
affect the historic integrity of SH 262 or any of its associated features.
Section 4(f) Historic Determination
The project has been determined to have "no adverse effect" on SH 262 under Section 106.
SHPO concurred in writing with the Section 106 "no adverse effect" determination for this
property as stated in a letter to CFLHD dated May 19th, 2016. SH 262 and its associated
facilities (retaining walls, curb) are located in the highway right-of-way. If a historic resource is
within right-of-way, the Section 4(f) Policy Paper (July 2012, page 36) states the following:
"when a future transportation project is advanced resulting in a Section 106 determination of no
historic properties affected or no adverse effect to such resources, there would be no Section
4(f) use." Thus, Section 4(f) would not apply to SH 262.
Park Resources
The proposed project would require the conversion of approximately 18,611 square feet of
existing park land in portions of Baldwin Park and Children's Park to transportation use:
•Baldwin Park is currently 61,940 square feet in size. The proposed roadway realignment
along Riverside would require partial acquisition (14,463 square feet) of the park, which
represents a loss of approximately 23%. The portion of Baldwin Park near Ivy Street is
where the majority of parkland losses would occur. The proposed horizontal curve from
the West Riverside alignment to the proposed alignment of the new bridge over the Big
Thompson and the resulting alignment on the other side of the river (East Riverside)
65
cause this impact. The proposed curve radius is necessary to meeting engineering
standards. An existing asphalt pavement area currently utilized for parking will be
removed. The plaza and seating area currently located at the entry to Baldwin Park
(across from the Post Office) will be moved to the former asphalt parking area further
south.
•Children's Park is approximately 16,211 square feet in size. Approximately 4,148 square
feet (26%) would be required to reconstruct the intersection at Elkhorn/Riverside
including the accommodation of two right-turn lanes from northbound Riverside onto
eastbound Elkhorn, sidewalks and a pedestrian crosswalk. The area to be acquired is
currently used for sidewalk and landscaping. In addition, restrooms currently located
adjacent to Riverside along the Big Thompson River (within Children's Park) would need
to be removed to accommodate the roadway cross-section. No impacts are anticipated
to the existing playground or other amenities within Children's Park.
Proposed Enhancements
The project team recognizes the importance of park land to the downtown environment and
larger community. Thus, we have worked to reduce impacts to the extent feasible while
identifying replacement properties for conversion to park land. The intent is to benefit the
community by constructing new formal and informal natural spaces for recreation and river
access, and connecting and improving the park and river walk experience between Baldwin
Park and the Big Thompson Riverwalk.
Several areas along Riverside Drive are recommended for conversion to park area as part of
the implementation of the Proposed Action. The addition of these park areas would constitute
acreage greater than the park lands impacted along the corridor (an acreage of 41,390 square
feet/0.95 acre, which represents 22,779 square feet/0.52 acre of new park area). Proposed
conversion of lands to park is shown in the attached exhibits and includes the following (from
south to north along Riverside Drive):
•Baldwin Park (Parcel 11 ): The proposed shift in the Riverside Drive alignment would
create a triangular shaped parcel of space adjacent to Baldwin Park. This area is
recommended to be transferred to park land (part of Baldwin Park).
•Upstream River Corridor (Parcels 17-18): The relocation of commercial and residential
properties along Riverside Drive (east of the River) will create an opportunity for
parkland conversion, enhanced river access and floodplain mitigation area. With the
wider floodplain boundaries assumed under recent flood flow data, the existing buildings
are located within the floodplain. Conversion to park/open space area helps restore
natural conditions. The intent of the planned design is to improve park land
interconnections. An existing sidewalk located along the west edge of the river (along
the Post Office lot and across from parcels 20 and 21) would be widened and a new
pedestrian access point would be added to provide connectivity to the river.
•Riverside Bridge (Parcels 12-13): Parcels 12 and 13 are private properties that need to
be acquired to reconstruct Riverside Drive. It is recommended that these two parcels be
transferred to the Town for parkland. Conversion to park would provide enhanced
access to the river, as well as the opportunity to extend a future trail (shown in dashed
line on Exhibit A) parallel to the river.
The recommendations described above are proposed enhancements to offset impacts to parks
due to the project.
66
Public Comments on the Environmental Assessment
Per requirements of 23 CFR 774.5(a)(2)(ii), the public was notified and had an opportunity for
public review and comment on the effects to park lands during the EA and Section 4(f) public
comment period. The Downtown Estes Loop EA and proposed de minimis finding for Section
4(f) resources was released for public comment on July 5, 2016. The public comment period
ended on August 5, 2016. The EA was available for viewing at six locations as well as on the
project website (www.downtownestesloop.com). During the public comment period we received
253 comments from 229 commenters. This included about a dozen comments regarding
Baldwin and Children's Parks, including eight about the increases in traffic and noise and four
about the loss of shade and green space, as well as three additional comments about the
meaning of the de minimis finding. The meaning of de minimis is clarified in detail below.
Subsequent to the public comment period, and in an effort to address public comments received
on the project, the project team developed detailed renderings to better illustrate the future
condition of Riverside Drive and Baldwin Park. These more clearly demonstrate how the Park
Replacement Concept Plan (as shown in the EA) will be implemented in the future. These
renderings support the finding that the impacts to the park are considered de minimis, and that
implementation of mitigation measures described in the EA will help alleviate impacts to the
park from this project.
De Minimis Finding
As a part of the environmental review process, the FHWA has responsibilities to comply with
Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (which has been later revised and
recodified but still referred to as Section 4(f)). The intent of the Section 4(f) Statute, 49 U.S.C.
Section 303, and the policy of the FHWA is to avoid transportation use of historic sites and publicly
owned recreational areas, parks, and wildlife and waterfowl refuges.
The de minimis finding is specific to resources protected under Section 4(f) of the Department of
Transportation Act. This Act stipulates that the FHWA cannot approve the use of land from
publicly owned parks, recreational areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, or historic sites unless
a determination is made that:
•There is no feasible and prudent avoidance alternative to the use of land from the
property; and
•The action includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the property resulting from
such use; or
•FHWA determines that the use of the property, including any measure(s) to minimize
harm (such as any avoidance, minimization, mitigation, or enhancement measures) will
have a de minimis impact on the property.
If the FHWA determines that a transportation use of these types of properties, also known as
Section 4(f) properties, results in a de minimis impact on that property, an analysis of avoidance
alternatives is not required, and the Section 4(f) evaluation process is complete. De minimis
impacts on publicly owned parks, recreation areas, and wildlife and waterfowl refuges are defined
as those that do not "adversely affect the activities, features and attributes" of the Section 4(f)
resource.
67
The finding of a de minimis impact on recreational and wildlife resources can be made when:
1)The transportation use of the Section 4(f) resource, together with any impact avoidance,
minimization, and mitigation or enhancement measures incorporated into the project, does
not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes that qualify the resource for
protection under Section 4(f);
2)The public has been afforded an opportunity to review and comment on the effects of the
project on the protected activities, features, and attributes of the Section 4(f) resource;
and
3)The official(s) with jurisdiction over the property are informed of FHWA's intent to make
the de minimis impact finding based on their written concurrence that the project will not
adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes that qualify the property for
protection under Section 4(f).
Through the detailed screening process, the proposed project alternative was determined to be
the least environmentally damaging alternative. We have found through the screening process
that there is no reasonable alternative that would meet the identified transportation needs without
impacting these parklands. Together as a team and with the partner agencies, we have worked
to reduce impacts to parkland through the proposed design and have identified opportunities to
provide replacement lands that will become long-term amenities and assets for the community.
The proposed enhancements, including informal natural lands, plaza/seating areas, sidewalks,
pathways, river access and restrooms will be constructed under the proposed design. A
preliminary concept plan, as presented in the EA, for parkland and amenity replacements are
shown in Exhibits A and B. Visual renderings of the concept plan are shown in Exhibit C. Thus,
the characteristics and features that make the properties eligible for Section 4(f) protection will
remain.
It is FHWA's intent to make a determination that the impacts to Baldwin Park and Children's Park
are de minimis. This determination will satisfy the Section 4(f) requirements for this project. During
the design every effort was made to minimize the footprint of the project. The park land to be
impacted, as well as proposed enhancements, was discussed with Town of Estes Park staff over
the course of the project. The proposed enhancements will provide access to the various
recreation opportunities and would not adversely affect the activities, features, or attributes that
make the property eligible for Section 4(f) protection.
The FHWA requests that Town of Estes Park, as owner of the parks, concur with the
determination of a de minimis effect. This can be accomplished by signing the statement provided
below and returning a copy of this letter to our office.
68
Regarding the proposed Downtown Estes Loop project, as described above, I concur that
the project will have a de minimis impact on Baldwin Park and Children's Park. The
project will not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes that make the
properties eligible for Section 4(f) protection.
Date
Name Title
We would like to thank the Town of Estes Park for their cooperation with this project. Please
contact me if you have any questions regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
�ye�
Exhibits
•A: Anticipated Impacts to Park Property
•B: Proposed Replacement Park Lands
•C: Proposed Baldwin Park Renderings
Project Manager
69
Exhibit A: Anticipated Impacts to Park Property
3!25121058
!UIITOTll.
353121967
PROPOSED PARK AREAS
POST CONSTRUCTION PARK AREAS
POTENTIAL NEW PARK AREAS 70
Exhibit B: Proposed Replacement Park Lands
71
Exhibit C: Proposed Baldwin Park Renderings
Figure 1: Riverside Drive at Baldwin Park Cross-Sections
72
Figure 2: Riverside Drive at Baldwin Park Cross Sections
73
Figure 3: Riverside Drive at Baldwin Park Perspectives
NB Riverside mid-Baldwin Park -PROPOSED
WORKING DRAFT -Sept. 2016
74
Figure 4: Riverside Drive at Baldwin Park Perspectives
NB Riverside approaching Ivy Street -EXISTING
NB Riverside approaching Ivy Street-PROPOSED
WORKING DRAFT -Sept. 2016
75
Downtown Estes Loop Project
Estes Park Town Meeting
November 29th, 2016
D ;'0 ........ ,. ��-1 COLORADO�-----------t. _! • Department of Presentation subject to change. For verbal context see video • � ••... ,.., •• � _ Transportation after December 1, 2016 at www.estes.org/videos
•Project Overview and
Background
•Proposed Action
Today's Agenda
•Environmental Assessment
Comments
-Frequent Comment Responses
•Section 4(f) De Minimis
Finding for Impacts to Park
Resouces
•Next Steps & Schedule
�-----------" {�) 4vw I ;.�a!m�n�ot DO
Presentation subject to change. For verbal context see video llL ·��-�v Transportation after December 1, 2016 at www.estes.org/videos 76
DOwN/ml) Project Area
•Elkhorn Ave
(Riverside to
Moraine)
•Moraine Ave
(Elkhorn to W.
Riverside)
•Riverside (Moraine
to Elkhorn)
�--------�n !�'! 4vw1;.�a!m�n�ot DO
Presentation subject to change. For verbal context see video llL ·-�· �'VJ';' Transportation after December 1, 2016 at www.estes.org/videos
Schedule
2014 2015 2016 2017
Initiate Develop Review
Project Purpose Collect and NEPA and Need and Alternatives Environmental Publish and and Initial Analyze Screening Affects Analysis Draft EA Respond Decision
Conduct Design Data to Public Document
Scoping Options Comments
Public Outreach Throughout Process •w •·•· ■-•-•· .. . --. . ... . . . ....
• I ._. • ' I•: ·.· : . . · ..� t I I I .-• I •
77
Purpose and Need
and
Alternative Screening
D ;'0 ........ ,. ��-1 COLORADO-------------------t. _! • Department of Presentation subject to change. For verbal context see video • � ••... ,.., �•� _ Transportation after December 1, 2016 at www.estes.org/videos
•Project Purpose:
Improve access to and from
RMNP by reducing travel time
and congestion, and by
improving safety through
Downtown Estes Park.
•Project Needs:
Alleviate Motor Vehicle Travel
Time and Congestion
Improve Motor Vehicle and
Pedestrian Safety
Improve Bicycle Facilities
Presentation subject to change. For verbal context see video
after December 1, 2016 at www.estes.org/videos
Purpose and Need
78
Existing Congestion
Daily Vehicle Volumes for Combined US 34 & US 36 (Year 2012}
SO,OOQ..------------=--=--To_la_l D_al---'-ly_Vo_lu_m_es_ ...... __ o_ay'---s_ol_Co_n�ge _st_lon __________ _
40 Days o! Congestion
4S,OOO-t--�(_2 _or_m_o_re_h _o_ur_s '---pe_r _da---'-y'---) _______________________ _
40,000+------------------------------
35,000+------------------------------
a 30,000,+---------------------------------.. QI
: 2s,000 1-------------�n1r.;1;1i���:iP.�Ct ______ _
3! 20,000+--------------0fff-H-ll'�li.1'111-WU=-tHl�IIHl---=-----
15,QQQ-t------------t--tll-ft
5,000 Peak Visitor Season
Months
Projected Congestion
Daily Vehicle Volumes for Combined US 34 & US 36 (Year 2040}
SO,OOO�---------��-To_ta_l D_a _ily_V_ol _um_e _s _____ Da_ys_o_l C_o_ng_es_ti_on ___________
147 Days o! Conge stion
4S,000+--�(_2_or_m_o_re_h_o _u_rs---'-p_er_d_a�y) ________________ �----------
a 3Q,QQQ+----------------tHlilHalllHi.
i +----------------!��"11•TI-Tl-'fl'lli.a ,,, 25,000
� 20,000+--------..---1;:l..,l'I--IW=-l----_JO!J�rR
15,000 I
10,000
Months
-··-· ----···--· -, -----· ...... ·--·--·-·01 . 79
DOwN/ml) Alternative Screening Results
►No Action: Analyze in EA per NEPA
►Alt. 1 (One-way Couplet): Good traffic operations, lowest impacts of
build alternatives
►A. •. 1A. Poor .. ·aff c operations, does not meet
purpose and need
►Alt. 4: Improved traffic operations, moderate/high impacts, requires
additional funding
►Alt. 2: Improved traffic operations, high environmental
impacts, requires additional funding
►Alt. 6: Best traffic operations, highest environmental impact,
requires additional funding; public feedback and detailed feasibility
review
►Alt 10 (Parking/Transit Structure): Does not meet purpose and need
of reducing congestion and improving access to RMNP. Requires
additional funding.D ;'0 ........ ,. ��-1 COLORADO�----------------t. _! • Department of Presentation subject to change. For verbal context see video • � ••... ,.., �•� _ Transportation after December 1, 2016 at www.estes.org/videos
No Action Alternative
•Required for evaluation under NEPA
•Includes any previously funded or
programmed projects
•Maintains existing travel pattern and
roadway configuration through
Downtown Estes
Saturday Peak Summer Season
SIGNALIZED
INTERSECTION
Elkhorn/ Riverside
Elkhorn/ Moraine
2018
LOS/Seconds of
Delay
2040
LOS/Seconds of
Delay
F 102.5 F 86.5
F 146.o
after December 1, 2016 at www.estes.org/videos
F 298.9 � I
80
Proposed Action
•One-way Couplet: Eastbound
on Elkhorn and Moraine,
Westbound on Riverside
•Realignment/reconstruction
of East/West Riverside Drives
•Intersection Improvements
•On-street bike lanes and
continuous sidewalks
Saturday Peak Summer Season
SIGNALIZED
INTERSECTION
Elkhorn/ Riverside
Elkhorn/ Moraine
2018
LOS/Seconds
of Delay
B 15.7
C 29.3
2040
LOS/Seconds
of Delay
D 44.2
E 68.5
Proposed Action
Channel/floodplain
improvements to be built in
future (currently unfunded)
phases
LEGEND
-��Sl�lnl ..,...,o.-.,.,
-fi,I�� ----�,Aral
-�Cl"lli"niffff� -���*---a '""'""" -�
n 81
Phasing
•Funded Phase 1 -Construction/Implementation of
the Loop, one-way configuration, intersection
improvements, Ivy Street Bridge reconstruction
•Future Phases -Not yet funded, but likely to
be built as future phases:
-Future reconstruction of the Rockwell and Riverside
Bridges (and relocation of the Public Restroom)
-Future channel/floodplain improvements
(Downstream of Riverside Drive to US 36)
D /0 ........ 'i ��-1 COLORADO
�--------------:. � Department of Presentation subject to change. For verbal context see video • ·� ••... ,.., �•�· _ Transportation after Dec ember 1, 2016 at www.estes.org/videos
Roundabout
•Reduces the number of
pedestrian-vehicle, and vehicle
vehicle conflict points from 15 to
1 0 compared to the No Action•Off peak benefits -no waiting at
signal
Project partners
recommend moving forward
into Final Design with the
Roundabout Option
Moraine/Riverside/Crags
Intersection Configuration
-P-res-ent-atio-n s-ubj-ect -to c-ha -nge -. Fo -rve-rba-1 co-nte-xt -se e -vid-eo ______ u {�!
after December 1, 2016 at www.estes.org/videos l�L ·•••· .. ,. • ·••·82
•Funded Phase 1:
•Reconstruction and realignment
of Riverside Drive,
•Reconstruction of the Ivy Street
Bridge
•Associated transportation
improvements along Elkhorn
and Moraine
•Wayfinding, parklands,
bike/pedestrian improvements
•Does not include:
•Rockwell and Riverside Bridges
•Relocation of Public Restroom
•Downstream Floodplain
Improvements
Presentation subject to change. For verbal context see video
after December 1, 2016 at www.estes.org/videos
Environmental Assessment
Comments
--------------------" {�) 4vw I ;.�a!m�n�ot D 0
Presentation subject to change. For verbal context see video llL ·��-�v Transportation after December 1, 2016 at www.estes.org/videos 83
Comments Received on EA
•253 comments from 229 different commenters
•Common comments included:
-Downtown Parking Structure
-RMNP Visitation
-Impacts to Riverside Drive
-Will Not Help
-Not Needed Here
-Impacts to Baldwin and Children's Parks
-Downtown Traffic
-Impacts to Small Town Feel
-Impacts to Downtown Businesses
-Public Transportation
-Roundabout Option
-Use of Funding
-Impacts to Wildlife
D ;'0 ........ ,. ��-1 COLORADO�----------------t. _! • Department of Presentation subject to change. For verbal context see video • � ••... ,.., •• � _ Transportation after December 1, 2016 at www.estes.org/videos
Frequent Comments and
Planned Responses
•Common Responses provide
responses to most frequent
comments on project, citing
information from EA
•No technical ch anges or narrative
edits to EA
•Additional Renderings along
Baldwin Park to provide visual
portrayal of Park Concept Plan
•Additional information on wildlife
migration patterns
�----------------" {�) 4vw I ;.�a!m�n�ot D 0
Presentation subject to change. For verbal context see video llL ·��-�v Transportation after December 1, 2016 at www.estes.org/videos 84
DOwN/li?__Additional Visual
Renderings
along Baldwin
Park
NOTE: Existing 25 MPH
Speed Limit Remains
Presentation subject to change. For verbal context se
after December 1, 2016 at www.estes.org/videos
1 r fl··,;�: Estos ParkSectlon(11 at Baldwin Pa,k A:-coNI
Presentation subject to change. For verbal context see video
after December 1, 2016 at www.estes.org/videos
Renderings along
Baldwin Park
2 1 ir Estes Paik Section 111 at Baldwin Palk A..� 85
Additional Visual
Renderings
along Baldwin
Park
NOTE: Existing 25 MPH
Speed Limit Remains
Presentation subject to change. For verbal context se
after December 1, 2016 at www.estes.org/videos
NB Riverside approaching Ivy Street -EXISTING
NB Riverside approaching Ivy Street -PROPOSED
Section 4(f) Regulations
•Section 4(f) -U.S. DOT Act of 1966 which established the
requirement for consideration of park and recreational
lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites in
transportation project development.
•Stipulates that FHWA and other DOT agencies cannot
approve the use of land from publicly owned parks,
recreational areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, or
public and private historical sites unless the following
conditions apply:
-There is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of land.
-The action includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the
property resulting from use.
�---------------" {�) 4vw I ;.�a!m�n�ot DO
Presentation subject to change. For verbal context see video llL ·��-�v Transportation after December 1, 2016 at www.estes.org/videos 86
Section 4(f) Application to
Loop Project
•Town of Estes Park is the Owner with Jurisdiction for
Town owned Park land, which are Section 4(f)
resources
•De Minimis finding only applies to Section 4(f) park
resources, not the entire EA
D ;'0 ........ ,. ��-1 COLORADO-------------t. _! • Department of Presentation subject to change. For verbal context see video • � ••... ,.., �•� _ Transportation after December 1, 2016 at www.estes.org/videos
Section 4(f) Resources, Impacts
and Enhancements
•No Historic Property Impacts
•Impacted Park and
Recreation Resources
-Baldwin Park
-Children's Park
•Minimize Impacts
•Proposed Park Replacement
Concepts and
Enhancements developed
with Town Staff
Presentation subject to change. For verbal context see video
after December 1, 2016 at www.estes.org/videos 87
DOwN/ml) Section 4(f) De Minimis Finding
•The finding of a de minimis impact onrecreational and wildlife resources can bemade when:✓1) The transportation use of the Section 4(f) resource, together with anyimpact avoidance, minimization, and mitigation or enhancementmeasures incorporated into the project, does not adversely affect theactivities, features, and attributes that qualify the resource for protectionunder Section 4(f)✓2) The public has been afforded an opportunity to review and commenton the effects of the project on the protected activities, features, andattributes of the Section 4(f) resource; and□3) The official(s) with jurisdiction over the property are informed ofFHWA's intent to make the de minimis impact finding based on theirwritten concurrence that the project will not adversely affect theactivities, features, and attributes that qualify the property for protectionunder Section 4(f).
D ;'0 ........ ,. ��-1 COLORADO�----------------t. _! • Department of Presentation subject to change. For verbal context see video • � ••.•. ,. .... � _ Transportation after December 1, 2016 at www.estes.org/videos
Next Steps
•Town of Estes Park Concurrence on Section 4(f) De
Minimis Finding and reaffirmation to complete the project
•CFLHD issue a NEPA decision (Finding of No Significant
Impact (FONSI)) on Phase 1
-Final design, right-of-way acquisition, and permitting
•Construction following final design, right of way
acquisition, and construction funding obligation
�----------------" {�) 4vw I ;.�a!m�n�ot D 0
Presentation subject to change. For verbal context see video llL ·��-�v Transportation after December 1, 2016 at www.estes.org/videos 88
Construction Funding
•Colorado Programing Decision Committee has re
programmed Construction Funding to fiscal year 2021
-Re-programmed due to project uncertainty
-No delay in Right of Way Acquisition (Funded to begin following
NEPA decision document - 2017)
•Project FUNDING is FULLY SECURE
•Project is Funding is sufficient for Phase 1
-Project Estimates include inflation for year of expenditure
D ;'0 ........ ,. ��-1 COLORADO�----------------t. _! • Department of Presentation subject to change. For verbal context see video • � ••... ,.., •• � _ Transportation after December 1, 2016 at www.estes.org/videos
Project Schedule
SCHtDUlt ED ' ,. ., ,I; ,. ''
.,,., F,L -� j!.i'£ ;m_; fl... 00 'jl)G iJflj fie. lilh:'E �i, ;m_; ;1,_ •; � f 'i ; � ; i ; ] '. '1 � f
OOllAllillllEllill I I I aN!.tlmJII:
l!ll'A'l'li.lli!i\11\fS/IIIOl!S filiJMw.flm
llll'Al INllllll1NII( ISm!llT�J
lllllii EA RR MK� • IIIUSH!MlllllNTli. IWS!ll!tro/1NT
llll'A'l' l1SIQI
llOJlll:mllfl'IW
lENIATIIHOOilJ:lllllf!Wl'Q I RIIIR:IIJIIIST!ll ► .
llllliOINIOID ►ro • =•
lllllillllmAlfJSlll'lHlll!! OOPtlflm
lllllE!l&lll'\Rl\lFS
�----------------" {�) 4vw I ;.�a!m�n�ot D 0
Presentation subject to change. For verbal context see video llL ·��-�v Transportation after December 1, 2016 at www.estes.org/videos 89
Project Partner Comments:
Johnny Olson -COOT
Curtis Scott -CFLHD
---------�n !�'! 4vw1;.��n�ot DO
Presentation subject to change. For verbal context see video llJ. ·��· �'VJ';' Transportation after December 1, 2016 at www.estes.org/videos
Questions and
Answers
---------�D {�! �.,� I ;.�a!m�n�ot DO
Presentation subject to change. For verbal context see video •� �'VJ';' after December 1, 2016 at www.estes.org/videos • '•, . .,,. • ·••· • Transportation 90
November 29, 2016
Special Town Board Meeting
Public Comment
Date: October 16, 2016 at 7:22:23 AM MDT
Subject: A traffic change (the Loop) is not necessary.
Dear Mayor and Board Members,
There have been many good letters to the editor recently about the loop. I concur with
many of the thoughts -and have the same questions.
Traffic has increased in Town each year -but mostly during good economic periods
such as now .... gas prices are low, there are jobs, the population of the Front Range is
increasing in large numbers. But, of course, it continues to be seasonal. The season is
longer if you consider weekends in the fall (fall colors, elk, festivals) but it mainly
continues to be mid-June to mid-August (school vacation). Locals can go downtown
during the week starting in late August/early September and find places to park and no
traffic backups. A Loop is not necessary -and would be, at the least, an annoyance to
locals and, at the worst, a detriment, during the rest of the year.
We know from past experience that poor economic times, natural disasters, and lack of
access can dramatically change the number of visitors coming here. A Loop is not
necessary -and would be a permanent change with which locals would live (e.g. getting
to the Post Office).
We talk to visitors whenever we can, mostly on trails in the Park. Their frustration is not
traffic in Town -it is traffic and lack of parking in the Park. This continues to get worse
every year. Signage mid-morning on a Friday in mid-September told us that all lots
were full and we should return after 3 pm. Just this Friday and Saturday two couples
visiting the area said they were in long lines on Bear Lake Road and then couldn't park
so found other places (ie Gem Lake) to hike. (There were very few spots to park there).
A Loop is not necessary -the Park does NOT need better and more access for cars.
What is needed has been and is being addressed -more parking in Town and more
shuttles. The Transit Hub at the Fairgrounds should be advertised more -it is often
vacant even during the peak seasonal times. The new parking garage by the Visitor
Center will be very visible and should be highly promoted along with shuttles. A Loop is
not necessary when more parking and shuttle transport are available.
One aspect of the Loop that really puzzles me is what will happen as all cars go south
on Moraine and then need to merge to one westbound lane as Moraine turns west
toward the Park. It seems the lines will form over a greater distance and become even
more annoying to visitors as well as locals. A Loop is not necessary through downtown.
All bills get paid -the Loop will not be built with free money. There are much better
uses for that money -without changing the downtown of Estes Park all year round.
More parking in Town, more shuttles, and more traffic control personnel will help during
peak seasonal times and keep Estes Park the place we live in year round. A Loop is
not necessary in Estes Park.
Please consider the thoughts and wishes of the local constituents, the wise use of
funds, and that seasonal options are available. A Loop is not necessary!
Thank you,
Carol Hillerson
Year-Round Resident
Comments in Support of "The Loop"
Town Board Comments/FLAP / LOOP
Dave Tanton
Nov 11
The town is unable to appropriately process the level of traffic that the popularity of The
Town and Rocky Mountain National Park have generated.
I live across the river from Moraine Avenue across from Coffee on the Rocks, and have
noted that traffic on summer days has increased dramatically over the past several
years. It's now a constant stream of cars moving stop and go for hours returning to
Estes Park, and it doesn't clear up until 8 or 9:00 PM on busy days. How can this be
acceptable to our visitors? How can this leave them with positive feelings about Estes
Park and our traffic planning?
In addition, the traffic downtown in the summer and shoulder season weekends is
horrendous. I don't go to town to shop except very early, and very late. Otherwise the
traffic is ridiculous.
The Town must step up and approve this solution. It's too late to start over--something
must be done NOW!
I understand the concerns of downtown businessmen who fear change, but I cannot
believe that steps to ameliorate the traffic problem will result in a negative impact to
businesses.
I also understand the concerns of homeowners on West and East Riverside Drive, but
they must understand that the greater good of The Town must prevail.
I encourage the Town Board to take immediate action to implement "The Loop". It's the
right thing for The Town, our visitors and our residents.
David Tanton
Estes Parkwnelson@estes.org
Doyle Baker
I will not be here for the review meeting and so I am sending my comments now.
1.For a long time, I was against the Loop Project for the following reasons:
A)There already is a very good by-pass on Wonderview to the park. Any visitor truly
wanting to avoid traffic delays could and should take that by-pass.
B)The additional amount of time visitors will spend in their cars without action -even in
2040 -is nothing compared to the time that nearly all spend in their cars waiting for
signals every workday in the communities they come from.
C)The biggest problem downtown is difficulty in parking when visitors and residents
want to go to downtown stores, and yet the changes and future plans do not address.
D)Negative impacts on local residents due to convoluted traffic routing all year in order
to make things better for visitors who will come anyway, not to mention impacts on
those who will lose their homes.
2.My opposition to the project has only recently given way to lukewarm support for the
following reasons:
A)More or less convincing results that by 2040 the problems we are not yet
experiencing are expected to become serious.
B)Hope and expectation that the Loop project will serve as a foundation for subsequent
interventions that will improve downtown for residents and visitors.
3.I would like to emphasize in these comments the last point. In my view, the town
needs to make a commitment to pursue complementary investments to capitalize on the
Loop Project or the project should not go ahead. The argument based on traffic
congestion is not sufficient to be convincing to most residents, and visitors are not going
to stop coming to Estes Park and RMNP because they have to sit in their cars for an
extra 5-10 minutes.
The complementary investments I believe to be essential include:
A)Parking structures at one or all of the following small parking areas: (1) off Moraine
just behind Wiest Lane, (2) near Big Horn and Cleave, and (3) near the post office.
B)Further development of the "riverwalk", including a park along Riverside as part of
Riverside Drive rebuild, to make the north and west sides of town more attractive to
visitors and residents and help tie the Moraine businesses into the rest of downtown.
My recommendation is that dialogue sessions on the project should include discussion
on the complementary investments the town will commit to establishing as priorities in
an updated development plan. Following these dialogue sessions, the town should
make firm planning commitments to pursue a bigger package of development
investments for downtown that will address priority issues other than traffic congestion.
Only this will demonstrate that the town is committed to local development that will help
local residents and businesses -and not just visitors. Unless and until this happens, it
seems unlikely that the town will be able to mobilize significant public support for the
Loop project.
Best regards, Doyle Baker
Downtown Loop Project Comments
Town Board Comments/FLAP / LOOP
Lela Criswell <lee_criz@hotmail.com>
Nov 11
Dear Town Board:
The premise behind proposing this loop was decreasing traffic delays downtown heading to and from
Rocky Mountain National Park, and using funding available for NP access improvements to build it.
However, nobody seems to have asked a fundamental question: Does Rocky Mountain National Park
NEED increased access? The answer to that question is a resounding NO!
Rocky Mountain National Park already has more visitors than the park environment can accommodate.
Parking lots are packed by 8 A.M.; the shuttle lot on Bear Lake Road is frequently closed because it's full
during the busy summer season. Lines of cars at the Beaver Meadows entrance extended miles -back
past the Hwy 66 turnoff -over Memorial Day weekend -before the busy season. Visibility and air quality
have suffered because of the amount of vehicle traffic. Increased access will exacerbate the
overcrowding in the Park, without helping the park to deal with it.
In addition, since the proposed loop doesn't begin until the southwest corner of Bond Park, the jam of
traffic that begins at the Hwy 36-Hwy 34 intersection will still be a problem. Estes Park downtown
businesses that depend on traffic will lose half of those cars, adversely affecting their business, and
many are opposed to it. Estes Park is presently constructing a 4-level parking garage near that
intersection to reduce the parking and car traffic downtown, which should reduce the pressure for a
one-way path through downtown.
Yes, a significant amount of money has already been spent, but let's not waste any more. It's time to kill
the loop project.
Sincerely,
Lela Criswell
1991 Baldpate Ct
Estes Park, CO 80517
Estes Park Loop
Town Board Comments/FLAP / LOOP
Anastacia Galloway <anastacia@inkwellbrew.com>
Nov 11
Hello,
Instead of attending the meeting, I'd like to submit thoughts via written comments.
I'm hoping that city officials have read this article "What's up with that: Building Bigger Roads Actually
Makes Traffic Worse". Below is an excerpt from the article about "induced demand" -while I do believe
that traffic conditions need to be improved in Estes Park and in support of various initiatives that will
reduce the congestion -I do not believe that just creating wider roads & one way streets will be that
solution. I believe that you're going to end up increasing traffic on EVERY road in Estes Park -which is
going to make living in this town absolutely horrendous for the locals -because right now as a local at
least I know the back roads & short cuts to get where I need to go.
Why not impose a toll on those who drive through downtown instead of parking at the new parking
structure? You could have a tag for locals so that we don't bear a burden & then you could use that new
revenue to improve roads, bridges, parking lots, & even pay for the shuttle/trolly service downtown.
Also, why not make a parking area for local business owners & their employees so that they can always
find places to park -could issue tags & permits for those. Then, charge people a high rate to park
downtown unless they park in the free structure by the Visitor Center. That could encourage people to
park outside of town & walk -not only would they not be charged a toll to drive down main street, they
wouldn't be charged a higher parking fee to park downtown. And, this could ease congestion in RMNP
because people could catch a shuttle into RMNP.
Finally, many cities around this country have bikes for rent for a small fee. Boulder (see link to program
info) & Portland are two places that I've seen these bikes for rent. That could be an awesome way for
out-of-town tourists to get around town without needing to figure out where to rent a bike for a few
hours.
"As a kid, I used to ask my parents why they couldn't just build more lanes on the freeway. Maybe
transform them all into double-decker highways with cars zooming on the upper and lower levels.
Except, as it turns out, that wouldn't work. Because if there's anything that traffic engineers have
discovered in the last few decades it's that you can't build your way out of congestion. It's the roads
themselves that cause traffic. The concept is called induced demand, which is economist-speak for
when increasing the supply of something (like roads) makes people want that thing even more. Though
some traffic engineers made note of this phenomenon at least as early as the 1960s, it is only in recent
years that social scientists have collected enough data to show how this happens pretty much every
time we build new roads. These findings imply that the ways we traditionally go about trying to mitigate
jams are essentially fruitless, and that we'd all be spending a lot less time in traffic if we could just be a
little more rational."
Thanks for listening to my thoughts. Have a pleasant day.
Anastacia Reed
Proprietor, Inkwell & Brew
Estes Park, CO
"Purveyors of the finest in Writing Implements* Journals* Cards* Coffee & Tea"
��1;� J,� � � � � bik,�stes COALITION .org
November 21, 2016
Town Board
P.O. Box 1200
Estes Park, CO 80517
Dear Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees,
It is with urgency that the Estes Park Cycling Coalition (EPCC) provides this letter of support for the Town
of Estes Park to pursue the Downtown Estes Loop project. Downtown Estes Park has a critical need to improve
how people move around in it. The traffic is unpleasant, poor for air quality, and dangerous. From a bicyclist's
standpoint, the loop project is an opportunity to create bike lanes through the downtown corridor. Currently,
people are forced to bike on sidewalks or in the traffic lanes, the first of which is illegal and the second is not a safe
choice for most people.
Bicycles are a great equalizer. For those in our community who do not own cars, such as some in the service
industry working in restaurants downtown, for our town's youth or people with disabilities that do not have a
driver's license, improved roadways designed with consideration for bicyclists and pedestrians would be a great
boost for quality of life in Estes Park. Many people in this cohort could bike to the Library, post office, or hold a job
downtown if getting to-and-from was not such a risk for their personal safety.
By improving the way people get around, adding other channels for transportation would help the Town of Estes
Park meet its goal of reducing the ugly congestion downtown. In fact, 12 bicycles can fit in the size of one parking
space! The Loop could also bring the town closer to becoming the destination wellness community that many of
the major businesses and organizations, including the Town is working towards cultivating. It is very necessary for
the Town Board to pursue the many advantages of the Loop project. This opportunity for federal and state
assistance to improve the traffic problems will not likely be available for a very long time from now and if you wait,
the infrastructure downtown will inevitably degrade so badly that the vital tourism revenue we rely on will no
longer be as robust and dependable for our local economy.
The EPCC has 86 members and reaches many more through its social media outlets and community events. As
representatives of EPCC, the Board would like to go on record as being in favor of the Loop project. Please
consider the bicyclists and pedestrians in the community while making your important decisions about the future
of our downtown.
Sincerely,
The Estes Park Cycling Coalition Board of Directors
Alicia Rochambeau, Board Chair
Thad Eggen, Vice Chair
Megan Thorburn, Secretary
Todd Plummer, Treasurer
Mike Lewelling, Director
Constant Contact Survey Results
Survey Name: 2016-11_Loop-Survey
Response Status: Partial & Completed
Filter: None
Nov 21, 2016 1:18:38 PM
1.There are four options for the Town Board to take at their special meeting on Tuesday, Novembe
option you would like to see the Mayor & Trustees select at this meeting.
Affirm the current position and move forward with the Downtown Estes Loop
Reverse the previous position and cancel the Downtown Estes Loop project
Accept the EA (Environmental Assessment) and allow the vote of the
Refer the issue to the voters at an upcoming special election. (Note: only
I am undecided.
No Responses
Total
10 Comment(s)
Number of Response(s)
12
2
10
3
0
0
27
2.Please share any comments you would like EVPC to present to the Town Board.
17 Response( s)
37.0%
11.1%
0.0%
0.0%
100%
Constant Contact Survey Results
Survey Name: 2016-11_Loop-Surve,
Response Status: Partial & Completed
Filter: None
Nov 21, 2016 1 :18:38 PM
1.There are four options for the Town Board to take at their special meeting on Tuesday, November 29. Please indicate the option you would like to see
Answer Responden1
While I would be happy with option one or three, I think it would be helpful for the community to see that this current board took an approving v,
on the project (rather than leave the "blame" on the past board).
A bit confusing as the 1st & 3rd both seem proLoop .... which represents my position on the subject. Let's get on w/ it.
On Tuesday, November 29, 2016, at 6:00 pm the Town Board will decide the future of the Downtown Estes Loop. This controversial issue has
been going on for years. It is now time to decide if we are going to manage our future and the growth we will experience in the coming years or
not. The Front Range is expanding at an exponential rate. That population growth will do just like we did and look to the mountains for escape,
relaxation, exercise, adventure, the beauty and of course the wild life
I'd like to see this move forward. If the "Accept the EA" option would move it along faster, my vote would be for that one. {I'm just not familiar
enough with the nuances to know what the difference in outcome would be with option 1 vs. 3.)
Let's not waste $1.?million
Flood mitigation benefit has been minimized it seems, which was my strongest "pro" for the loop. And without adequate downtown parking, I
really don't think it will make much of a difference when the hassle of construction is weighed against any possible benefit. But I see no reason to
give the money back ($1.?m) when if it does not equate to an improvement, with a little political wrangling, we can change it back to its original
form. Better to enact the improvements so long as we have the $$$.
I don't quite understand the difference between 1 and 3, I support the Loop going forward as soon as possible.
I know there are legitimate concerns about how the Loop might impact businesses on Elkhorn Avenue, but I believe the business owners of
Downtown are smart, creative and resilient, and with support and cooperation from our Town government I am confident they could not only
weather the changes, but adapt and thrive.
I'm a bit behind on this due to the time expired since last discussed. I still had reservations about the Moraine One way system. There were 3
options on the table at one time and I chose the 2nd one. Not sure where that is up to now.
I was originally in favor of this project but a
after further consideration I have become opposed.
1.Westbound I believe traffic will still back up into town where the road narrows to one lane again.
2.In the river side area which will be cleared for this road, I have concluded that even with landscaping, it will look like one big wide road with a
feeling of suburbia, not a mountain town. We already have vast expanses of pavement entering town from the 3 eastern arteries.
Move forward!
2.Please share any comments you would like EVPC to present to the Town Board. -Responses
Answer Responden1
Our community needs to move forward, whether residents and business owners like it or not. We have a traffic issue in Estes and this is the st
(not necessarily the end all, be all answer) of a fix. It is progress and that is more than we have accomplished in the past. Please look forward
and create an opportunity for our future families and residents to have a vibrant home! The Loop is no one's favorite solution but again, it is a
beginning. Thank you for your service to the community!
Three major reason's for my answer
1)Not accept the EA would result in the Town of Estes having to write a check to the Feds for more than $1,700,000. Such an action is fiscally
irresponsible.
2)I voted for the Trustees to look at all the information on all the issues that come before them. The Trustees have taken the time to review
information that forms their decisions. If I wanted to take that same kind of time I would have run for the office. The Trustees should be the
decision makers on such complex issues.
3)There are no other reasonable, rational answers to our congestion problems.
When a vote/decision is cast, we need to accept the vote and move forward. We elect officials to make the right choices for the residents of
Estes Park. If the residents don't like the decision, maybe they should step up and be a decision maker, not just complain all the time.
Something needs to
Be done sooner rather than later. Please stay calm & carry on.
We must move forward as the traffic will only increase in the coming years.
The Loop would address several concerns I have about the intersection of Crag's Drive and Moraine Ave, mainly:
1-The intersection is dangerous for vehicle traffic. Cars driving too fast for the curve often come close to pedestrians and parked cars. Cars
suddenly changing lanes cause near accidents almost daily.
2-The lack of a sidewalk or road shoulder from Snowy Peaks Winery to Piccadilly Square causes pedestrians to have to walk in the street to
visit businesses on Crag's Dr. These pedestrians are often families with small children visiting Fun City.
Creating a four way stop or round-about at this intersection will also benefit the businesses in that area providing easier access and visibility
The consequences of an accident at the corner of Craga and Moraine are unimaginable and the benefits to changing that intersection are
immense. The Loop project is our best opportunity to do something soon and with minimal cost to the Town.
As always, there have been rumors floating around and the more time that passes the more rumors there seem to be. I would like clarification
on exactly where the project stands at this point.
This is the time to move forward on the loop with courage. I know there are few citizens opposing the loop. Yes, there will always be those that
have no vision and are afraid of change. Since I arrived in Estes 1965, there have been many projects proposed and many that were completed
that had those opposing.
This should be pointed out to the board.
Prior to my arrival in early 1965, there was the Hwy 34 Bypass, from what I understand this was opposed heavily, this By pass was to allow the
Fall River entrance to be the main entrance to the Park, reducing, you guessed it, traffic on main street. Today this by pass is used heavily by
locals and tourists, happily! And the downtown still thrives. No One is scared!
Also the downtown improvements, were also met with many opposing, yet it has been a life saver for the downtown.
Those should be discussed.
Lets go forward with courage, the fearful will be glad we did.
I was originally in favor of this project but a
after further consideration I have become opposed.
1.Westbound I believe traffic will still back up into town from where the road narrows to one lane again. Eastbound should work better but the
turn from Riverside to Elkhorn is likely to still be a bottleneck, as turns generally are and with all the pedestrians crossing.
2.In the river side area which will be cleared for this road, I have concluded that even with landscaping, it will look like one big wide road with a
feeling of suburbia, not a mountain town. We already have vast expanses of pavement entering town from the 3 eastern arteries. Please not
more of this in the center of town.
For the Town Board not to move forward on this would be an abandonment of leadership and a devastating precedent!j
To the Estes Park Board of Trustees:
The loop is a good idea. This plan, however, is a bad implementation of that good idea. It is
inefficient, overreaching and harmful to the parklands along the Big Thompson River.
The plan does some good things -principally, it restructures the terrible intersection at Crags
and Moraine and makes it possible to divert east bound traffic off Elkhorn. But it does so
inefficiently. The plan provides for two lanes of west bound traffic down Elkhorn and Moraine,
which is the present condition. The plan then makes the Riverside corridor two lanes east
bound. This takes the current one lane of east bound traffic off Elkhorn, and puts the traffic
onto Riverside. But the vacated space on Elkhorn and Moraine is unused. To get the two lanes
onto Riverside, the plan calls for much larger and realigned bridge at Ivy Street, removes
parking along the roadway, cuts space off Baldwin and Children's Parks, requires moving of the
restroom at Children's park, and requires purchase of several private properties. The plan calls
for removal of some 38 parking spaces in the downtown area (Alternative 1, Environmental
Assessment, page 2-9, table to right of plan diagram). This is the equivalent of a third of the
current post office parking lot, or all of the Davis Street lot. The plan also disrupts the flow of
traffic, year round, for those who live here, and actually adds to the traffic along Moraine and
Elkhorn. Just trace the route you would have to take from West Elkhorn to get to the Library,
or from Stanley Village to the post office. And in the end, the plan merely adds one lane of east
bound traffic.
The plan could achieve the same result of adding one lane of traffic by simply returning one
lane of east bound traffic back along Moraine and Elkhorn, and using the current footprint
along Riverside, and the existing Ivy Street bridge, for the second east bound lane. The new
intersection at Crags and Moraine makes this possible. No land would be needed from either
Baldwin or Children's park, and the intersection of Riverside and Elkhorn could be used with
only minor changes. Take a close look at the maps and you will see that this is feasible and
more cost effective than the current loop plan, and achieves the same result.
The plan is thus unnecessarily overreaching. Why? Look carefully at the plan and imagine what
could happen several years in the future. This plan sets us up for three lanes of west bound
traffic down Elkhorn and Moraine, and the same on the return route through Riverside. All it
will take is minor curb adjustments, lane restriping, and conversion of the bike and walking path
along one side of Riverside. This is what you will enable if you agree to this plan. Remember, if
you approve the plan, you will cede jurisdiction and control of the entire loop to COOT. If you
think they would never do that, look at the history of this plan, where they have insisted all
along that this alternative is the only option they will approve. This plan is just the first step to
a six lane highway through downtown Estes.
All of the planning has ignored the reasonable alternative of using the existing lane capacity on
Moraine and Elkhorn and designing Riverside Drive for a single east bound lane, even though
this would preserve the character of our town and be efficient in the use of our resources. You
should insist on a revision along these lines. You should not allow the sacrifice of significant
areas of Baldwin and Children's parks for highway. A one lane design for Riverside Drive solves
the problem, while providing exactly what this plan requires: two lanes in both directions, with
a new intersection at Crags and Moraine and more efficient traffic control at other
intersections.
You must also be sensible in your evaluation of the impact this plan will have on Baldwin and
Children's Parks. You are being asked to concur in a finding that this project will have only a de
minim is impact on Baldwin and Children's Parks. This concurrence is required under federal
statutes and regulations when there is a proposal such as the loop that will impact on public
parklands. Federal policy is set out in Title 23, US Code, Section 138. In pertinent part, that
section says, "It is declared to be the national policy that special effort should be made to
preserve the natural beauty of ... public park and recreation lands ... [and] the Secretary [of
Transportation] shall not approve any ... project ... which requires the use of any publicly owned
land from a public park ... unless (1) there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of
such land, and (2) such program includes all possible planning to minimize harm to such park."
These requirements can be satisfied if the Secretary makes a finding of de minimis impact,
which can be made, in the words of the statute, "only if ... the project will not adversely affect
the activities, features and attributes of the park," and only if the local officials concur. Note
that this is not the same as finding that the project will have only a small adverse effect. You
can make a de minimis finding only if the project will not adversely affect the activities, features
and attributes of these parks. Please be sure that you understand the statutory language.
Can you concur in such a finding? Look at the facts as presented in the recommendation and
the Environmental Assessment:
•The table that directly follows the signature page where the town board is supposed to
concur in the finding of de minim is impact states that the loop will take 23.4% of
Baldwin park and 25.6% of Children's park for the new roadway. Yes, that's a quarter of
the land from each park.
•In addition to the decrease in area of the parks, look at the overlay of the new roadway
and bridge and you will see significant removal of mature vegetation and trees.
•These parks are presently separated from the existing traffic flow by vegetation, parking
areas and the restroom at Children's Park. Under the loop plan, the parks will be made
more narrow, the traffic will be moved closer to the play areas, and the buffer strips will
be removed.
•Look at the traffic flow predictions in the Environmental Assessment and envision how
100% of the east bound traffic that will be diverted onto Riverside Drive will impact on
the two parks in congestion, noise, air pollution and safety.
•The restroom currently located at Children's Park will be moved across the river,
requiring children to cross the bridge over the river, on a walkway directly adjacent to
two lanes of traffic.
•The Environmental Assessment claims that new trees can be planted to replace the ones
that are cut down, but does not commit to any size or quantity and ignores the fact that
it will take our lifetimes for new trees to reach the maturity of the ones that will be
sacrificed. The statute does not say that it is OK to have an adverse impact now, but
correct it 20 years in the future. Proposed "enhancements" that mature in the distant
future do not change the fact that the loop will have a present and lasting adverse effect
on the activities, features and attributes of the parks. The EA also claims that additional
land can be found to add to the park area, but the chart that accompanies the request
for your concurrence notes that less than 1% of the taken land can be replaced by
adding from adjacent areas.
You have to ignore these facts, as do the environmental assessment and the recommendation
from the Federal Highway Administration, to reach the conclusion that the plan will not
adversely affect the activities, features and attributes of these two parks. You should not be so
gullible or disingenuous. You simply cannot concur in a finding that taking a quarter of the
parkland, removing significant mature vegetation, placing high volume traffic closer to the play
areas, and adding to the noise, congestion and air pollution will have only a de minim is impact,
as defined in the statute. This plan will adversely affect the activities, features and attributes of
these two parks, and the proposed enhancements and mitigation do not change this.
Overall, this is a good concept, but poorly planned and irresponsible to the town, with the
potential of expanding the loop to three lanes west bound on Elkhorn and Moraine and
eastbound along Riverside. There are better alternatives that have been ignored. The planners
now ask you to fulfill a statutory duty by declaring that Baldwin and Children's Parks will not be
adversely impacted. You must not support this fiction. You must not concur in a de minimis
finding, and you must demand a better plan. When fleshed out, the approach noted earlier
would likely meet the de minimis test and accomplish the overall objectives of the loop idea.
The present plan does not.
Peter K. Plaut
PO Box 2655
To: To wn of Estes/ CDOT
Lotts of Estes Condo Owners
Assodatlon Inc.
Building address:
1 50 E Riverside Drive
Mailing address:
1067 S Hover St E-188,
Longmont CO 80501
Subject: Proposed Loop project, negative impact on the Lofts of Estes building and alternatives
The Lofts of Estes Condo Homeowner Association, composed of 13 luxury guest
accommodations (highly reviewed by travelers to Estes Park), is very concerned about the
proposed Loop project that will impact our building on E Riverside Dr.
Please find below some considerations on the negative impact of the Loop.
1.Proposed new two lane highway will be built very close to the Lofts of Estes building and will
bring increased traffic, noise and vibration, with negative impact to guest reservations.
2.There is a listed impact to the Lofts of Estes (reduced property size) that might affect
parking, already very limited at the building.
3.Construction noise and building closure during construction of the two lane highway will
affect guest reservations and lead to income loss for the Lofts units.
4.Proposed sound barrier will be insufficient for noise mitigation, all street facing windows
would need to be replaced with double pane windows.
We are asking the Town of Estes Park to take No Action on the Loop and consider other
options to direct traffic to/from RMNP (e.g. through E Wonderview Ave).
Curr1::1ntly there are two other issues on E Riverside that would need to be addressed, apart from
the Loop project:
A.The flow of traffic at that intersection of E Riverside and Rockwell needs a stop light, or at
least a 3-way stop, as it is confusing right now.
8.The two bridges on Rockwell and E Riverside need work to improve water flow and reduce
the impact of spring melt and heavy storms.
Thanks and please let us know if you have any questions and comments,
To ny Gambee, President, 248-787-6898, tony@happyfamilyrentals.com
Narcis Anghel, Tr easurer, 720-254-0770, loftsofestes@gmail.com
Sharon Mahoney, Secretary, smahoney6873@gmail.com
To Town Board of Estes Park Colorado
November 29, 2016
From: Johanna Darden, 501 Mac Gregor Avenue, Estes Park, Colorado, 80517 :f :J:>
In Re: Downtown Estes Loop Concurrence to Proceed
The impact on Baldwin Parle. will not be De Minimis. Two trees, one evergreen and the
other deciduous, which are likely more than 100 years old and located on West Riverside
Drive across from the Snowy Peaks Winery will be removed to allow for the passage of
cars. The two large conifers and grove of well-established large Aspen trees on the north
side of the park will also be removed. The shadiness and quiet of this beautiful small
parlc. will be eliminated. New trees planted to replace those removed will remain small for
many years. The increase of traffic on West Riverside Drive will increase the pollution,
endanger the elk and other wildlife, and remove the quality of the outdoor experience in
this neighborhood. The environmental mitigation for this area of the Downtown Loop
Project is unacceptable and is one of the reasons the Project should not proceed.
The Federal Lands Access Program grant requires funds to be used for access to Rocky
Mountain National Parle. These funds will not accomplish this. Traffic will constrict as
two lanes, one from a round about and one from the right-most lane of Moraine Avenue,
as they merge to go West to the South entrance of RMNP. The congestion and pollution
created on Moraine Avenue, causing a slowdown just after the tum South from Elkhorn
A venue will not alleviate any traffic problems. The reasons given to proceed with this
project do not fall within the scope of the FLAP. Number five in the letter to the Town
Board by the Transportation Visioning Committee states: "Expensive to halt: While the
Town should never move forward with an inappropriate project, ... ". There is
recognition here that the use of this money is inappropriate, yet the TVB advises the
Town to proceed anyway. The Town will need to give back the approximately $L,5M if
we pull out of the Loop Project. Not to pull out is discrediting and an inappropriate use
of government funds. It would be wiser to work out an arrangement with the government
to allow payback at a rate that is possible for our town to do, even if we need to be taxed
to make up for this mistake.
Rocky Mountain National Park cannot handle the number of visitors it receives during
the months this project is supposed to exist to help them. The intent of the Project will
not be fulfilled. Widening roads and building roads has been shown only to bring more
drivers and more congestion. Estes Park cannot expand outward due to our mountains
and rivers. We are creating future problems for our community.
I believe our greed for government funds to fix our Town problems has made us a victim
of economic development. I propose that we not move forward with the Loop Project
and not concur to proceed.
D. TOWN OF .ESTES P�
SPECIAL TOWN BOARD MEETING
November 29, 2016
·ACTION ITEM #1 -DOWNTOWN ESTES LOOP CONCURRENCE TO PROCEED.
SPEAKER SIGN-IN SHEET
NAME
PLEASE PRINT CLEARL
j.Juµn) l'-'lt /�AkZ,
JC� v-\e.Jk---J ,:-)f / a:, c) _1>j_WM/'IEA
::) ........... =,--.___ff.'-�-P/8 lC. t-VSEJ.,.__c -�-
rerc;Q_ ?LAo,
z;;::
�-ltfJQleL
STREET ADDRESS FOR
7s) +Ir I YJ/ /2✓krv?-
vl e_ ,-C6>ov--f-><
.S-S6 ti->, ,€,rv /7v.€ \
CJ re �:t,,.vvt1/l · R1 .� .. -
f (.
"(JL,7 ', LN I '/L
2<;"6o ?VAIIA )/R)vE
(So £ f:,; veruh>£
,, >< .. rz p' Cc.., 4,rz � � C,, . -.. , .. , ...
AGAINST UNDECIDED
-x
Y--
y
x
I
NAME
((PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY)) -r C -_L �T;z..,I p1,n YI V
STREET ADDRESS
"'-_,.,-AA n /J -J' /(t)·1Atl.tr> l r ., ·q :, < I,
<-._) 6he.
FOR AGAINST UNDECIDED
1.6<.�Jl 1A ,0 a �.•1t"l � >
e-J-'•J
NAME
(Please print clearly)
STREET ADDRESS FOR AGAINST UNDECIDED
NAME STREET ADDRESS FOR AGAINST UNDECIDED
(Please print clearly)
-
NAME
(Please print clearly)
r�:9v�--
..-::-tonv � C.Hi:: r;:; <; I-�
• .µ;.,-t.t.�,\ V''7'\�l If 't
F"/PctJ
q' --,,:1 ' ) /LA...t l l-...
---�-es>J�
13�frx MTI:::
�-fl n ;e_·-t· /�✓,{\IS
�dnck-�td / (1 • ri ,
1 ; .Ih=---- 0 -
;,
�
Al..• J, --=-x.--:---
-
-
:
;
-
-
·
_
,__,.._,. -~
/_/'"--/ �· ' :""J'�-1�· �-._ � G./ I / .
·, �\. i L�A �''n a., II A 1• :11.., I I A �"1 T•f.•·01 ·., ,/. ·// l') .T{p� .. :/�•,,·t:.-, L�.
�; (
STREET ADDRESS
� I I ..,. � • ,,b <C"---� y � ··-•
:l.O�o (1,.. h I Al c.:... e .,..
IG¢1 b/4,(..k· <l4,0 ;i rt l i)' i. I ;;
�1.G7 �-,ra fi"k' . &-�-�-; {� rl a r.t(i tit( { t flti
(l/4u Cotv / fvvf'.¼-b 1\c .I L_.,.,;;;;;,__,, /' -' .7\ -·---<J(:JL Ul' .. I
.l("' _ .. -,_,,,,,y ....,,y r -·-
�, I / I
/I,,:/ ·-
{ ,/i,J!-r / -rl" ''!' ,, ....---., '"- , ...
-s'-2cOS� ad?o �?
!?� -), �� -·· .. ._.)J)t/17ltrrr·f:-#;· .,4/. -, --
FOR AGAINST UNDECIDED
,,.--...,,;:,..
re '" :>I
Y<
ot
/p v
V
@
�-· J
:.·-=-·
.,V
NAME STREET ADDRESS FOR AGAINST UNDECIDED
(Please print clearly)