Gateways and gridlock

Perhaps the only position that hasn’t been seriously explored in the six-decade entrance to Aspen debate is the one that’s against it altogether: If no one could arrive or leave town ever again, at least it would solve the traffic.

It started around the 1960s, when a four-lane Highway 82 expansion started to creep up the Roaring Fork Valley town by town and gave angst to Aspenites who liked their entrance just the way it was — a narrow two lanes across Castle Creek, followed by two sharp 90-degree turns onto Main Street. A wider highway would require a wider entrance, and possibly a “straight shot” across an open field to a new bridge. Bruce Berger, the late writer and “half-Aspenite” whose home stood in the way of a direct route, once noted that the plans “aroused instant fury.” It was just the kind of thing people had moved to Aspen to avoid. 

In 1969, the state highway department said it would stop the four-laning just west of town, at the junction of Castle Creek and Maroon Creek Road, and put a pin in the entrance to Aspen until the community could figure out what it wanted. 

By 1970, one city council had voiced support for a four-lane into Aspen and the next one had already rescinded it. More than 250 people jammed into the county courthouse that June for a state highway presentation and turned it into a 5.5-hour public hearing. According to Berger, one pro-highway former mayor tried to smoke out the meeting by honking and idling his car outside the window. People cursed. Epithets escalated. The meeting ended at 1:10 a.m. 

Then there was the name-calling. A contingent of highway expansion opponents were pegged as “a pretty much totally obstructionist, non-representative group” with a “pseudo-intellectual” bent, in one Aspen councilman’s letter to a highway official. The councilman was in turn compared to Sen. Joseph McCarthy in multiple newspaper opinions; Peggy Clifford, the legendary Aspen journalist and author, suggested he suffered from “apparent paranoia” and proceeded to make fun of his grammar. 

And in 1975, the voting began, spurring 26 ballot questions related to transportation and the entrance to Aspen in a stretch of 27 years. Voters in Aspen and Pitkin County could change their mind and change it again: People liked the idea of light rail but later vetoed a bond to fund it; they supported a direct route through Marolt Open Space, then later said they preferred the S-curves. They wanted transit improvements, but couldn’t agree to bus lanes as an interim solution to light rail. Some ballot measures led to tangible results, like money for public transportation facilities, but many others (including the highway through Marolt) have languished in planning and funding purgatory for decades after their approval. 

At least the people could agree about traffic (for the most part): They didn’t like it, and they didn’t want it to get worse. An Aspen Area Community Plan set a limit on car counts over the Castle Creek Bridge not to exceed the levels set in 1993; downtown paid parking and public transportation improvements followed, incentivizing people to take the bus instead of their own car. Vehicle counts have remained below 1993 levels overall — but don’t try telling that to a commuter stuck in gridlock on the way to work.  

And the four-lane highway was getting closer to Aspen. By the early 1990s, plans were in the works for the stretch from Basalt to Buttermilk, with the entrance to Aspen slated to follow. State and federal officials looked at more than 40 possible components to get people from one side of Castle Creek and Maroon Creek and fielded hundreds of public comments on their environmental impact statement — all part of the National Environmental Policy Act review process. They also got a lot of flak from the still-vocal opponents of the “straight shot.” 

Ralph Trapani worked for the Colorado Department of Transportation at the time, serving as an engineer and manager for projects like I-70 through Glenwood Canyon and the four-lane expansion of Highway 82 from Basalt to Buttermilk. 

Glenwood Canyon, to him, was a “labor of love” — even with protests from the likes of John Denver. But farther upvalley, with an eye on the entrance to Aspen, Trapani said it was more like a “political nightmare,” even with local leaders who were trying to build consensus in a testy community. 

Still, the state and the feds made progress on an environmental impact statement for the entrance, factoring in community objectives like maintaining small-town character and minimizing environmental impacts. They reached their conclusion in 1998, based on a yearslong process of reality checks and fatal flaw screenings and comparative analysis and full evaluations, and in turn released a record of decision — the “ROD,” like a bolt of lightning — that would finally spell the fate for the entrance to Aspen. 

The document identified a so-called “preferred alternative” that included two lanes of general traffic, plus a light rail corridor through a portion of Marolt Open Space — not a “straight shot” across the center of the field but a curvier “modified direct” alignment. The park was originally purchased in the 1980s with a mix of open space and transportation dollars, and Aspen voters had already approved a right-of-way for cars and light rail through Marolt in 1996. A land swap got the city and Pitkin County a larger swath of open space down by the Brush Creek Park and Ride in exchange for the right-of-way for the highway. 

There was a provision for exclusive bus lanes as an interim option if funding or local support was not available for light rail, for a total of four lanes. Other elements would be implemented farther down the road, including a new Maroon Creek bridge, a roundabout at the Castle-Maroon junction, and intersection improvements near Buttermilk.  

There was also a memorandum of understanding acknowledging prior commitments from CDOT “that no solution for State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen shall proceed which is not acceptable to the City.” 

Trapani said the provision was “unique,” but it was also “the right thing to do” — “an exhibition of trust and credibility between the DOT, the Federal Highway Administration and the city of Aspen,” even if it led to hassles down the line. 

‘Preferred’ alternative, but by whom?

This “preferred alternative” was selected by CDOT and the FHWA because their analysis determined it minimized impacts to humans and the environment, and it was affirmed as a valid selection in a 2007 reevaluation.

But it wasn’t preferred by everyone. While some elements would be implemented in the subsequent years, the Castle Creek Bridge stayed the same. The city conducted several public education campaigns and several more studies of all their potential options over the following two decades, and people continued to ask: What if they wanted a different alternative? 

“Some new guy would show up and ask them and say, ‘Hey, what about a split shot?’ You know? ‘Wow, what a great idea,’” said Trapani, who retired from CDOT in 2002 and became a transportation consultant. “Yeah, we studied that. We studied everything as part of the process. But then we restudied it and restudied it again.” 

Meanwhile, the existing Castle Creek Bridge from 1961 continues to operate past its designed 50-year lifespan and is now approaching the end of its actual usable life. There are signs of cracking and crumbling on parts of the structure; it’s rated “fair” by CDOT, which means it’s safe but showing its age, and there will be consequences if the score drops down to “poor” in the future. One contingent of locals made stickers to express their  “fix the damn bridge” sentiments. 

In 2023, the city of Aspen considered putting out a request for proposals to investigate a new Castle Creek Bridge with a focus on the preferred alternative. It would include an analysis of existing conditions and reevaluation of the ROD, plus preliminary drawings and community engagement. 

But that city council slate wasn’t entirely on board with the idea. Several members wanted to study different options for the existing Castle Creek Bridge alignment instead, and the city hired Jacobs Engineering to do it. 

Which brings us to the Jacobs report.

The Jacobs Report 

It’s the darling of letter-to-the-editor writers on both sides of the bridge debate: Hundreds of pages and charts and photos and renderings — coupled with hours of city council presentations — that evaluated highway variations between the roundabout and Main Street. It’s been cited by some in favor of a route through Marolt and by others in opposition to the very same thing; it’s been used in critique of a three-lane bridge and in critique of a split shot and in critique of the preferred alternative, and to make various points on various matters related to the NEPA review process. 

But the team of consultants at Jacobs Engineering didn’t take a position on one option over another. They analyzed those options, within a limited scope, and presented the numbers to the city council in April and August just last year. 

Here’s the gist: The existing Castle Creek Bridge is considered “functionally obsolete,” based on factors like capacity that no longer meet current standards. If the bridge rating drops from “fair” to “poor,” it could be subject to weight restrictions and other impacts, but it would also be eligible for funding from a competitive Colorado Bridge and Tunnel Enterprise pool. 

The state highway department owns the bridge, and it’s on the hook for maintenance. In a December email to Aspen Daily News, a CDOT spokesperson said that because the existing bridge is in “fair” condition, “CDOT is not planning any further actions other than to continue to monitor it, make any repairs necessary, and continue to inspect the bridge … on a two-year inspection cycle.” When the time does come to build a new bridge, CDOT has told the city that it plans to build the preferred alternative through Marolt Open Space. 

Another reevaluation of the ROD would be required to make sure the preferred alternative is still a valid choice. That process takes a year. Then, after more time for design, construction would begin. Since the new bridge could be built “offline” — without any cars trying to drive over it — the build could take a couple of years; cars could take the existing route into town in the meantime. 

When all is said and done, it would be four and a half to five and a half years before cars are driving through Marolt onto Main Street, without the construction of a light rail corridor. It would cost more than $147.6 million, not including future costs to repair or replace the current bridge for Cemetery Lane traffic or future costs to implement light rail in place of the bus lanes. 

CDOT and the Jacobs Engineering team have confirmed that it is possible to examine other alternatives through a new NEPA process, but those options might get eliminated for the same reasons they were nixed in the 1990s. Or they might not. As the Jacobs consultants reminded the city council last year, there is no predetermined outcome to the screening; the city can’t ask for one result over another if it doesn’t pass muster. 

Many other alternatives would require a supplemental EIS at a minimum, and it can take a while to conduct that process. The city would have to pay for it, to the tune of millions of dollars, and it could increase the risk of litigation. The longer it takes, the more the current bridge deteriorates — and CDOT could take charge on the preferred alternative in the meantime. 

But, what if? 

The Jacobs analysis didn’t assess different alternatives to the same extent as a NEPA process, but it did consider some key factors on the most talked-about options of the day. 

Rehabilitating the existing bridge would extend its service life, but it wouldn’t really change maintenance demands and it wouldn’t change the bridge’s capacity. It would cost about $43.6 million in 2024 dollars, and it would not benefit traffic or transit times. Making adjustments to the S-curves to improve traffic flow would cost many millions more for some slight changes in travel times. 

CDOT also told the city that rehabbing the existing bridge would be an “interim solution,” and it would at some point be converted to a local road as described in the preferred alternative. 

Replacing the bridge with another two- or three-lane option would take at least three years of construction — and in most cases four — plus the time required for NEPA review and design. A two-lane replacement is the least expensive, at about $68.58 million; an expedited three-lane bridge (with a three-year construction instead of four) would be the most expensive, coming in at $81.85 million, without accounting for other potential modifications on either side of the bridge.

All of those replacements could impact utility connections, causing short outages in internet and communication services. All but one of the replacement options would require some single-lane closures on the bridge, with traffic detours either on Power Plant Road or a temporary one-way road and bridge in the alignment of the preferred alternative. Again, all of the three-lane options would require, at a minimum, a supplemental EIS, according to the Jacobs team. 

A “three-lane shifted” option was the only replacement in the current layout that maintained two lanes of traffic over the bridge during construction. 

The “shift” has to do with bridge alignment — not the direction of the third lane. There would always be one lane for inbound traffic, as there is now, and there would always be two lanes for outbound traffic: one for general vehicles and one for buses. Additional modifications between the bridge and the roundabout could create a bus “slip lane,” enabling public transportation to zip past some evening commuter traffic on the way past the roundabout. And in the future, that third lane could be used for light rail. 

Detours and dollars

It would take 8.5 to 10.5 years to complete, including the NEPA process, design and a four-year construction period. The bridge alone would cost more than $69.2 million, according to a Jacobs memo from April — and with the bus bypass and other modifications like S-curve softening, it would cost nearly $145.9 million, according to a Jacobs presentation to council in August. Three-lane highway options were eliminated in the original screening from the 1990s at the “fatal flaw” level, in part because they didn’t provide the needed capacity for both directions of the highway. 

The Jacobs team also examined the “split shot,” or “couplet” alignment, which would bring inbound traffic through Marolt Open Space but still direct outbound traffic on the existing alignment. There would be two lanes in — one for buses and one for cars, with the potential to convert that bus lane to light rail later on — and two lanes out, same deal. 

As with the three-lane bridge, they incorporated some “design refinements” like softening the S-curves to improve traffic flow; those modifications aren’t part of the preferred alternative estimates because the highway would follow a different alignment and skip the S-curves altogether.  

Cemetery Lane traffic would maintain the current access to downvalley destinations as well as the hospital and school district, but drivers could not make a left turn into Aspen; they would be required to head west to the roundabout and go all the way around it to get back in the upvalley lanes, which could gum up traffic during the morning commute.

It would take six to eight years from the NEPA review to the ribbon-cutting, and it would cost more than $134.5 million. It was eliminated in the original screening at the comparative level because of the problems it caused for Cemetery Lane drivers trying to get to Aspen and for splitting traffic at 7th and Main streets.  

None of these numbers account for the future implementation of light rail. That could take several more years and cost more than half a billion bucks — for a route that goes from the Aspen Airport to Rubey Park. There could be legal challenges to certain proposals, which would add time and expense to the project. 

And none of it will actually solve Aspen traffic congestion, which is affected by pinch points west of the Castle Creek Bridge as well as the bridge itself. Consider morning backup between the Aspen-Pitkin County Airport and Buttermilk: Drivers still have to merge there whether they’re going all the way into town or not.

According to the Jacobs traffic models, drivers can expect the morning commute from Brush Creek to Fifth Street to be about twice as long in 2050 as it is now under almost every option. Passenger vehicles will face a journey of more than an hour in the “no build,” preferred alternative and three-lane bridge scenarios; the “split shot” will take even longer. It’s a lot better for bus passengers, though still longer than current estimates — in those projected future traffic jams, public transit saves commuters more than half an hour. 

On the outbound commute, a couple of options show an improvement from the current conditions by several minutes, but it comes with a big caveat: The study area from Fifth Street to Brush Creek doesn’t account for backups further into town, and therefore doesn’t reflect any potential idle time between Paepcke Park and Fifth Street. 

When Jacobs gave a traffic score to each option, benefits to transit were weighed more heavily than congestion or overall corridor travel times. The preferred alternative scored best overall — a 4.5 out of 5 — while the split shot scored lowest with a 2.3 out of 5. A “no build” scenario got a score of 3; so did a selection of S-curve modifications to improve traffic flow. 

A combination of S-curve tweaks and a three-lane bridge with a bus bypass got a score of 4; S-curve adjustments and some highway modifications west of the roundabout got a score of 4.3 by smoothing out traffic on either side of the bridge. 

City council and local public safety officials have discussed evacuation times based on the current bridge and highway layout (it could take upward of 15 hours on a peak summer day), and Jacobs Engineering consultants have noted the benefit of a second bridge for emergency egress. However, the Jacobs analysis presented last spring and summer did not take an in-depth look at how different alternatives might affect an evacuation. That information could still be assessed — it just wasn’t in the scope of the main Jacobs study in 2024.

The city council reviewed all these numbers and more, as well as correspondence from CDOT last year. And then, councilors decided the next steps should include a renewed look at the 1998 record of decision. 

Now, Jacobs is aiding the city in its efforts to ask CDOT and the Federal Highway Administration to reopen the nearly 30-year old document — and potentially start all over again. 

A bridge too far?

Last August, the Aspen City Council flip-flopped on whether to ask voters to allow bridge lanes over the Marolt Open Space, a move that could have finally jumpstarted the implementation of the preferred alternative.

Council voted 3-2 on Aug. 19 against placing the question on the November ballot. It would have been the same question posed to voters in May 2001, seeking right-of-way approval for two general traffic lanes in a “parkway,” plus two exclusive bus lanes through Marolt as an interim option until light rail comes around. (Remember that 1996 vote approving a two-lane parkway and light rail corridor? It didn’t mention bus lanes — which is why City Attorney Jim True believes another vote will be required to implement the preferred alternative.) A new bridge would connect those lanes to Main Street. 

Approval of this plan would not supersede the “yes” on light rail from 1996. It would also come with stipulations for a cut-and-cover tunnel and other landscaping. Aspen voters rejected the  measure when they saw it in 2001, 54% to 46%.

But the councilmen changed their tune at their following meeting on Aug. 27. They appeared to support the idea of asking voters to approve or reject a two-lane parkway plus two designated bus lanes across Marolt. Councilman John Doyle flipped his vote at the time, joining Councilmen Ward Hauenstein and Sam Rose in moving forward with the ballot question.

The council then called a special meeting on Sept. 3 to verify the ballot language, just days before the county was to finalize the November ballots. But instead of approving the language, the councilmen voted 4-1 against putting a question on the ballot. Hauenstein was the only council member who voted in favor. 

Those who opposed it cited an already-stacked November ballot: a contentious presidential election, three seats on the Pitkin County board of commissioners and two competing ballot questions about the Aspen-Pitkin County Airport, among a number of statewide questions. They also said a November vote felt rushed and wanted more information about alternatives before possibly posing the question to voters on the March municipal ballot.

But the city’s question didn’t end up on the March ballot, either. 

The city council has spent its time since pursuing a new environmental impact statement for the entrance to Aspen, which would require reopening the 1998 ROD. 

To do so, the city must make its case to CDOT and the Federal Highway Administration about why the 1998 document is no longer valid. It will require significant stakeholder engagement, traffic and safety analyses, public outreach and more, which will culminate in a new “purpose and need” statement that drives the creation of the ROD. It is the same process the city engaged in that informed the 1998 ROD. 

Spokespeople from both CDOT and the FHWA confirmed they had not encountered a community in Colorado that wished to vacate the state- and federally-approved document. Though it has occurred elsewhere in the United States, the FHWA said it is uncommon for a community to do so.

The city must submit an intent to reopen the ROD to both agencies once it has crafted a new purpose and need statement. Both CDOT and FHWA will have the final say in whether the city can reopen the ROD, both agencies confirmed. FHWA issues records of decision for highway projects that are federally funded or require federal approval. The agency’s spokesperson said a previous ROD can be vacated or rescinded “if it is based on previous analysis that is no longer valid, especially if the new Environmental Impact Statement addresses significant new conditions or a different set of alternatives.” 

The mere fact that the document is nearly 30 years old could make for a compelling reason to reopen the ROD. The city is planning to hold a stakeholder meeting and engage in significant public outreach.

The stakeholder group will likely be much larger than in the 90s. A CDOT spokesperson said the agency considers adequate stakeholders for the entrance to Aspen as “commuters utilizing this (roadway) to transit into and out of Aspen.”

But the city paused its plans for a stakeholder meeting and public engagement until after the March 4 election — when two citizen-initiated referendums about the entrance to Aspen will appear on the ballot — so as not to appear as though it is interfering with the referendums.

Battle at the ballot box

The questions come from issues committees with competing priorities on how to solve the entrance to Aspen debate.

Referendum 1 asks voters to increase the threshold of votes required to change the use of city-owned parks and open space from a simple majority to 60%. The issues committee supporting the referendum, Our Parks Our Open Space, wants to ensure any future votes — like the one the city council debated in the fall — would pass by more than 50% plus one vote.

The referendum would also require any such vote to take place during a general election, not a special election.

Our Parks Our Open Space argues that any entrance-to-Aspen solution should focus on easing traffic congestion. Its members have thrown their support behind the three-lane shifted replacement option.

The group began circulating petitions for the referendum in November. It spurred another citizen’s group to gather signatures for a referendum of their own.

Referendum 2 would allow CDOT to use portions of the Marolt and Thomas open spaces identified in the 1998 ROD, or any portions of the open spaces identified in future RODs, for new highway alignments. It is essentially the vote that the city council decided against putting on the ballot in November.

That referendum is supported by the issues committee Aspenites for Action. The group, which includes Councilman Hauenstein and mayoral candidate Rachel Richards, was motivated to put the question on the ballot after the city council’s decision in the fall to do the opposite, and in response to Referendum 1. 

It is unclear how passage of either referendum might impact the new EIS process. CDOT spokesperson Charles Marsh told Aspen Daily News that the Region 3 northwest Colorado leadership team is aware of the referendums and will “continue to work with the City of Aspen however the outcome.” CDOT advised the city that if they provide sufficient reasoning to FHWA and CDOT, then a new EIS process could be approved, but the agency did not want to speculate on whether either referendum would inhibit the city from starting a new EIS process.

“If there is valid reasoning to enter into a new EIS, the existing Record of Decision would be vacated and a new one would be drafted based on the findings of that EIS,” Marsh said in an email. “For now however, we will not speculate on outcomes of decisions that have not been made at this time.”

In the meantime, Aspenites will have to make up their mind. If history is any indication, it won’t be easy. 

“We love our Aspen, and yet … it’s one of the most contentious places in the world,” said Bennett Bramson, who hosted a 2006 special on the Entrance to Aspen for Grassroots TV and the city of Aspen. “We can pick a topic, and we can find anything to fight over.”