WSP06750 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Chapler 2 - The Allernalj"es Table 2.6 Cominued Discipline Impacts Alternative A Potential Mitigation A1temative B Alternative C TRANS. For No Action, existing traffic The only element that would increase Since alternatives B and C are Since the ski area expansion does not result in any PORTATION volumes and parking and transit lIaffic 81 Aspen Highlands is the expected [0 have the same delivery significant transportation-related impaclS, there would demand were adjusted to year 2000 improved access capacity of the capacity, there would be no be no need for measures to mitigate such impacts. using a growth rate of 2% for Thunderbowl Lift. h was estimated that difFerence in additional traffic traffic and 1 %for skiers. this and me other improvements would volumes, and parking and transit result in an increase in 176 skier trips per demand between these two Both the SH 82/Maroon Creek day. 84 of which would be new peak alternatives. Road and the Maroon/Cas~e Creek hour skier trips, 38 of which would Road intersections would continue likely use transitlranspon. and 46 would to opeme 81 an acceptable level of arrive in an average of 18 extra can: per service, day. This would result in very linJe change in tmfnc volume. Without developing the base area, traffIC would back up from 5H82 to Estimated backup from 5H82 10 Castle Cas~e Creek Road 5% and 35% of Creek Road would increase only during the time. while with the base area PM peak trnffic by 4% to 39% wilbou\ development, back up would occur the base area development and lo 47% t I % and 44% of the lime during with the base area development AM and PM peak lIllffie. respectively, Parking dcmand would increase by 54 vehicles to 549 vehicles on an average Maximum parking demand would weekend., which would be well wilhin be 495 in the year 2000, which is the current parking capacity but would within the current parking capacity exceed Ibe base area parking """aeity by 81 Aspen Highlands but would 22% if !he base area is developed. exceed parking capacity by t 0% if the base area is developed. Daily trnnsir demand wou ld increase by 100 riders 10 between 2,940 and 4.190 The daily ~ansit demand would be riders per day without and wilb the base 2.840 to 4.090 riders without and area development, respectively. with base "'08 development, respectivelv, AIR QUALITY PM10 emissions were detennincd lo Under Alternative B. tow PM" Under Abemative C, PM" and CO Since the ski area expansion under either alternatives be 4,780 lbs per day for 1995 and emissions due lo construction! emissions due 10 construction and and C would no, significan~y alter the PM" and CO would likely rtlICh 5.824lbs per day maintenance of the expanded ski operation of the ski area. as well as emissions and concentrations nor visibility, no by the year 2000 under the No facilities and reslaUrant would be about stationary.and mobile sources at the measures would be necessary to mitigate air quality Action Abemative. Modeled 32,640 lbs (6.528 lbs over an assumed base of Aspen Highlands, would impacts. maximum PM10 concenrrations in S-month construction period). However. not differ from Alternative B. 2000 were found 10 be 100 pg/m' compared to the No Action Alternative, (14 pg/m' more than during 1995 there was virbJally no difference in the due 10 increase in the City of daily emission rateS during the winu:r Aspen). since the expansion would require only ~ <.....::> I,' \..'.') L'..) U;; Comparison of Allernalive.J 2-29