Aspen’s forefathers are rolling over in their graves. The “Preferred Alternative” epitomizes the complete loss of Aspen’s forward thinking, innovative, visionary and decisive leadership. Walter Paepcke’s vision of a think tank for radical ideas brought The Aspen Institute. Hunter S. Thompson’s bold counter culture movement became Freak Power. Aspen is thousands of subsidized housing units ahead of comparable resort communities because early housing pioneers made it happen.

Is clinging to a 1998 transit plan really our best thinking? The smartest plan? Or is it just one more byproduct of a bloated city government and recycled mayor, hell-bent on saving an old idea because they lack the intellect, creativity, vision and innovation that once defined Aspen?

As predicted, the recent city confab to update us on the evolving plans for the Entrance to Aspen was a check-the-box exercise. (They can now say they sought and received public feedback, regardless of what they do with it.) Despite a good-sized crowd, it was a typical anemic oral presentation accompanied by storyboards and feedback forms, and a strange amount of time talking about bus lanes on Main Street. Queen of the 1998-era Preferred Alternative (1 dedicated traffic lane and 1 bus lane in each direction across the Marolt Open Space) herself, mayor Rachel Richards, was in attendance and appeared quite pleased. There was, however, lots of casual grumbling amid the storyboards about the “bastardization of Marolt,” and some well-founded snickering about renderings of large trees planted in 1.5’ of top soil atop the proposed tunnel(s). 

In short, there hasn’t been a lot of progress. The pesky problem of trying to hammer a 2026 square peg into a 1998 round hole is getting more and more complicated. Even Jacobs, the contracted engineering firm, is struggling with reconciling potential solutions with what the city (who is now paying its bills) wants the solution to be.

At issue, the city wants to utilize an outdated 1998 record of decision (ROD) for the Preferred Alternative because it would be seemingly quicker and cheaper than starting over from scratch with a new Environmental Impact Study (EIS). The problem is, there have been numerous significant developments since 1998 that are currently being ignored. We have consolidated our schools on Maroon Creek Road. We have developed new neighborhoods on West Main Street. The Lumberyard stands to increase our local population by 10%. The airport redevelopment will likely redefine transit into Aspen. Without taking these and countless other new factors into account, the 1998 ROD is likely no longer applicable because so much has changed. Today’s piecemeal process also neglects several significant “asphalt” departures from the 1998 ROD that have never been evaluated including the potential for two tunnels and “slip lanes” that connect Cemetery Lane to the roundabout. All these changes make the 1998 ROD questionably viable and likely dead on arrival.

The net result will be yet another colossal waste of time and money by the City when it is forced to start over at the beginning with a new EIS process.

Meanwhile, Jacobs has been studying this mess for nearly three years now. They put forward a series of potential improvements that would ease traffic flow – without a new bridge – at a fraction of the cost and that could be implemented TODAY. The City has chosen to ignore this advice. Jacobs has a design for a 3-lane “shifted” replacement (Castle Creek) bridge that would maintain 2 lanes of traffic during construction. The city isn’t interested. We could be two years into the Castle Creek Bridge replacement instead of still conceptualizing the Preferred Alternative and where to put bus lanes on Main Street. Jacobs is unequivocal: the Preferred Alternative will make traffic WORSE for cars and trucks. The City’s inaction reflects their indifference: “Great. That’s the intent.” 

I know, you’re exhausted by the topic, but since when did old thinking lead to a better infrastructure project? No one can even debate the facts of the Preferred Alternative anymore. Simply put, other significant Hwy 82 corridor improvements can be implemented long before any new bridge can be built. No federal funds are needed so there is no regulatory approval. CDOT could start right away. To be clear, there is no clarity on timing for the Preferred Alternative. The 5-year timespan often mentioned is 2 years for design and 3 years to build. This ignores mitigation, regulatory approval, environmental considerations and funding, which add to the timeline. Furthermore, the Preferred Alternative is not even on CDOT’s 10-year construction schedule. In contrast, replacement of the Caste Creek Bridge (which must be replaced in ANY case), would be significantly quicker since construction is over an existing right-of-way and has no mitigation issues.

Whether it’s paralysis from fear of a wildfire evacuation* (which was never supported by a comprehensive evacuation plan) or fatigue (“Just do something. Even if it’s wrong.”), it’s a tough argument that a 1998 plan is still our best option.

What we have today is the 80/20 rule at work. We can get 80% of the benefit from Hwy 82 corridor improvements for 20% of the cost. There are several simple but impactful improvements that can be immediately implemented:  

·      S-Curve widening

·      Channelize westbound lanes at the roundabout

·      Align Owl Creek Road and Harmony Road intersections with Hwy 82 to reduce a traffic light

·      Convert the bus lane to HOV + bus

·      Add slip-lanes at the roundabout

But these low-cost, traffic-easing improvements are deliberately being held hostage by the city. They want that straight shot across Marolt and a new bridge, or nothing. See, if they improve traffic without the new bridge, then there’s ZERO case for funding it!  So why won’t the city go ahead with the corridor improvements today? “It makes a more compelling funding package to present the plan together,” according to Tyler Christoff, deputy city manager, responsible for major infrastructure and development initiatives. There is so little benefit from the big ticket ($400 million in 2026 dollars) project that they have to bury it within the real traffic improvements!

In summary, the Preferred Alternative doesn’t save travel time. Other improvements to Hwy 82 immediately provide far more juice for the squeeze. The ROD needs to go away, and with it, the delusion of the Preferred Alternative. 

We absolutely do need to address our traffic and congestion issues. This just isn’t it. How about an innovative 21^st Century solution to our 2026+ problems? And in the meantime let’s replace the deteriorating Castle Creek Bridge today.

Remember - there’s no entrance to Aspen without at least one bridge!

*For those of you who fell for the canard about emergency wildfire evacuation last year, that was just a ruse to get you to vote for the Preferred Alternative. In an actual wildfire, you will not be evacuating westbound out of Aspen straight into prevailing winds, across any bridge. You won’t. You think 1000 cars at 5pm is gridlock? Consider 10-20,000. It’s not gonna happen. The City says, “A full wildfire evacuation out of town could take 12+ hours. A ‘quick’ evacuation is not a reality.” Remember Lahaina? Plans have evolved toward “property hardening” and directives to “shelter in place.”