Aspen to re-evaluate 1996 Preferred Alternative

Aspen City Council on Monday directed staff to move ahead with a re-evaluation of the 1996 Preferred Alternative at Monday’s work session, potentially expediting the Entrance to Aspen project moving forward.

The work session was to evaluate three distinct options for advancing long-delayed transportation improvements at the Entrance to Aspen along Colorado Highway 82: initiating a new Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), pursuing a supplemental EIS, or conducting a reevaluation of the existing 1998 Record of Decision (ROD) and Preferred Alternative (PA). 

Each path carries different implications for cost, timeline, legal risk, and the scope of potential changes.

The conversation was guided by Jacobs Engineering, which presented a detailed analysis of transportation needs, corridor constraints, and the procedural requirements associated with each option.

Jacobs’ draft purpose and need statement identified persistent issues between the Maroon Creek Roundabout and the Garmisch/Seventh Street intersection — chief among them, chronic peak-hour congestion, limited multimodal options, and increasing safety concerns for pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers alike. These challenges are exacerbated by projected growth in travel demand and the physical bottleneck of the Maroon Creek corridor, which also serves as a critical evacuation route.

Jacobs first outlined the most comprehensive solution: a brand-new EIS. This approach would reset the entire planning process, beginning with a redefinition of the project’s purpose and need, full scoping and alternatives analysis, updated environmental studies, and robust public and agency engagement under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). A new EIS would take approximately three years to complete and cost an estimated $4.5 million. 

Both the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) indicated that any significant departure from the original PA — such as a three-lane shifted or split-shot alignment — would trigger the need for a full EIS.

The second option, a reevaluation of the existing PA, was presented as the most time- and cost-efficient path forward. Estimated to take 15 months at $2.5 million, a reevaluation would assess the continued validity of the 1998 environmental approvals and determine whether the original PA could be refined rather than replaced. Jacobs suggested that potential refinements might include changes to the highway alignment, new bridge structures, or upgraded transit facilities. The reevaluation could also streamline future project phases by leveraging previous federal approvals, if those approvals are still considered valid by FHWA.

However, Jacobs cautioned that a reevaluation comes with procedural risks. If federal agencies determine that the 1998 EIS no longer meets NEPA standards, the city could be forced to abandon the reevaluation midway and begin a full EIS, losing both time and investment. The current uncertainty at the federal level — amid staffing cuts and potential changes to NEPA under the Trump administration — adds another layer of unpredictability to this option.

The third path presented was a supplemental EIS, which would be required if the reevaluation process reveals changes or impacts that exceed the bounds of minor design refinements. Jacobs defined refinements as adjustments such as shortening the proposed cut-and-cover tunnel, narrowing the roadway, or eliminating a traffic light. More significant changes — like removing the tunnel entirely, which could affect wildlife corridors and trail continuity, or creating major historical impacts — would necessitate a supplemental EIS. A supplemental process would fall somewhere between a reevaluation and a full EIS in terms of cost, scope, and timeline.

Council members expressed a range of views on the tradeoffs between the three approaches. Council member Sam Rose questioned whether beginning with a re-evaluation would only delay the inevitable. 

“I do not like kicking the can down the road,” he said. “I do think a re-evaluation comes with risks that could easily lead to a supplemental EIS or new EIS. Does a reevaluation streamline the process, or delay the process when we just should have gone with a new EIS?” 

Rose noted that even under the best-case scenario, a new bridge could still be a decade away.

Mayor Rachel Richards advocated strongly for the re-evaluation path. 

“The original cost for the 1996 ROD was $146 million, which included a light rail, which would have been money well spent, looking back on it, which is unfortunate. But waiting for funding to act is kind of backwards,” Richards said. “The public chose me to move forward, even though others were running in favor of a new EIS. It is my firm belief, in my 30 years of experience, that a reevaluation of the Preferred Alternative will do the most for Aspen and our commuting public.”

Council member John Doyle agreed, pointing to the urgency of maintaining Castle Creek Bridge access as new hotel projects come online. 

“If we move forward with a reevaluation right now, we will save money and time, up to 21 months, which is almost two years,” Doyle said. “We are getting two new hotels that have received permits, and I do not want to see Aspen suffering weight restrictions on that bridge.”

Council member Bill Guth, however, voiced skepticism about the re-evaluation’s ability to address the broader goals. 

“I like to look at things and boil them down to the basic issues we are trying to solve. Those are traffic and emergency evacuation,” he said. “I agree that we need a second — or maybe a third — bridge, but I do not think a reevaluation scenario is going to meaningfully solve traffic.” 

Guth suggested that Aspen was at risk of settling for a partial fix when more transformative solutions were needed.

Public comment at the meeting emphasized the need for increased lane capacity and improved emergency evacuation routes. Many members of the public interpreted the Referendum 2 vote as a directive to move the project forward rather than revisit old decisions.

Jacobs and city staff also briefed council on how any of the three environmental review paths would intersect with Aspen’s current Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies. These include programs such as the Galena Street Shuttle, RFTA bus services, the Brush Creek Park & Ride, and the WE-cycle bikeshare system. Other efforts include pedestrian infrastructure improvements, dynamic parking pricing, and transit subsidies designed to reduce single-occupancy vehicle use and improve regional mobility without new construction.

In the end, the discussion leaned toward pursuing a reevaluation of the PA as a pragmatic step to advance the project while preserving the option for broader environmental review if needed. 

Council directed staff to begin laying the groundwork for this approach.