Entrance to Aspen survey results are in. Some commuters feel left out of the conversation
Westley Crouch/The Aspen Times
It’s now been 27 years since the Entrance to Aspen project was first approved in 1998 by the Colorado Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, city of Aspen, and its voters.
This approval, known as the 1998 Record of Decision, outlined plans to address traffic congestion at Aspen’s primary entrance. Although parts of the plan, such as the S-curves and the Maroon Creek roundabout, have been completed, the project remains unfinished. The Preferred Alternative — a two-lane road connecting inbound traffic from the roundabout across the Marolt Open Space to Main Street — has yet to materialize.
The long delay in completing the project spans multiple city councils and mayors. Meanwhile, ongoing conflicting community input remains a key factor in the project’s stagnation.
To gauge current public sentiment, Aspen City Council recently hired Probolsky Research to conduct a community survey, which was carried out in November. The survey aimed to assess alignment alternatives, including the original Preferred Alternative, and to guide future decisions on this longstanding issue.
Comprising 17 primary questions and two demographic questions, the survey aimed to inform the scope of a potential new Environmental Impact Statement that would effectively restart the process from 1998. The questions drew from the original project objectives, and initial results suggest little change in community sentiment over the years.
The survey was open from Nov. 23 to Dec. 3, with 90% of responses collected online and the remaining 10% by phone. Respondents accessed alignment maps via mailed postcards or the survey website, while phone participants viewed maps at Aspen Routes.
A total of 300 scientifically-balanced responses formed the core dataset, aligning with the American Association of Public Opinion Research methodologies, making them representative of Aspen’s voter population.
An additional 349 responses were collected after extending the survey through Dec. 12, totaling 649 responses. However, Probolsky Research noted that the extended dataset was less diverse — skewing older, whiter, and more Democratic — and cautioned against viewing this portion as reliable.
Among the scientifically-balanced responses, reducing rush hour traffic emerged as the top priority, with 86% of respondents in support. Enhancing emergency evacuation options followed at 83%, while 70% supported using the Marolt Open Space for vehicle traffic.
On the issue of decision-making, 71% believed Aspen’s values should include the perspectives of all Roaring Fork Valley residents. The Modified Direct route, the original Preferred Alternative determined in the 1990s, garnered the most support, with 52% favoring this option over all others.
The extended dataset mirrored some of these findings but showed slight variations. Support for reducing rush hour traffic remained at 86%, while willingness to use the Marolt Open Space dropped to 69%. Support for emergency evacuation enhancements rose to 84%, and the percentage of respondents advocating for inclusive decision-making dipped slightly to 70%. Support for the Modified Direct route also declined to 47%.
Despite the extensive survey, some questioned why non-Aspen residents, particularly those commuting daily from downvalley, were excluded.
This concern highlighted the reliance of Aspen’s workforce on commuters from surrounding areas. Jackie Beardall, a Glenwood Springs resident who commutes to Aspen five days a week, emphasized the outsized impact the Entrance to Aspen project has on commuters.
“I know Mayor Torre has said that we are only talking about ‘a third of a mile,’ but that third of a mile adds at least 15 to 20 minutes to my commute, one way,” Beardall said. “It may not make a difference to him, but for me, that’s 30 to 40 minutes each day, and that adds up.”
Beardall acknowledged that traffic congestion extends beyond Aspen but views fixing the entrance as a necessary step. She called for regional collaboration, including Glenwood Springs and Willits, to alleviate congestion valley-wide. She also highlighted the economic toll on commuters and local businesses.
“I know plenty of people who have quit their jobs due to the commute and congestion, and business owners are facing high turnover rates because of it. It’s just not sustainable in the long run,” she said. “Public transit is great, but some people need their cars for work, and there isn’t enough parking for everyone to take the bus. We just don’t have the infrastructure to force people out of their cars. Aspen’s economy draws workers from across the valley; without them, there would be no amenities for tourists or residents. Our opinions should matter.”
Chris Boas, another Glenwood Springs resident, echoed Beardall’s concerns.
“If I leave Glenwood at 7 a.m., some days I won’t get into Aspen until 9:30 a.m. That’s 2.5 hours for a 50-mile trip,” Boas said. “From the airport to Aspen can take up to an hour.”
Boas stressed the importance of including downvalley residents in the decision-making process.
“Most of everyone who works in Aspen lives down the valley,” he said. “If residents of Aspen want people to come up and install their fire alarm systems and heaters and cook them steaks, then make it easier for us to get up there.”
He added that public transit is not a viable option for all workers.
“You can’t take tools and materials on a bus. Parking downtown is a nightmare, too,” Boas said. “The meter-maids are nuts and all over it. It costs $6.25 an hour.”
