Transportation leaders talk Aspen’s entrance

A Roaring Fork Valley transportation committee joined various leaders throughout Pitkin County on Thursday to revisit the future of the Entrance to Aspen. 

The Elected Officials Transportation Committee focused on how the March 2025 passage of Referendum 2, which permits transportation use on Aspen’s Marolt Open Space, affects long-term plans to reconfigure Colorado Highway 82.

Referendum 2, approved by Aspen voters, permits the city to utilize Marolt Open Space for transit purposes, including potential highway or bus improvements. The vote reopened public and political discussion about a long-standing plan, known as the Preferred Alternative, which was originally approved in a 1998 Record of Decision by the Federal Highway Administration. 

That plan calls for a new alignment of Highway 82 through the Marolt property, a cut-and-cover tunnel, a new Castle Creek Bridge, and, eventually, a light rail system into town. But more than two decades later, most of those components remain unbuilt.

“I am confused about what the impact of the vote is, and what was the question on the vote? Was it just about using the open space?” asked Pitkin County Commissioner Francie Jacober, raising concerns about whether voters had endorsed the full 1998 proposal or simply cleared a path for updated alternatives.

Aspen Mayor Rachel Richards responded that the March ballot measure was not meant to rubber-stamp the original plan but to allow the city to explore new or modified options. 

“A rail is not financially feasible at this time,” Richards said. “The vote was and is planning and is allowing us to reevaluate the Preferred Alternative.”

The broader conversation took place as Aspen and Jacobs Engineering presented an update on the Highway 82/West Aspen Transportation Needs Study. The study is part of a pre-NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) process aimed at addressing traffic congestion, safety issues, and limited multi-modal options at the western entrance to Aspen. 

Though the study focuses on the corridor from the Aspen Airport and Mountain Rescue campus to downtown, consultants suggested expanding the study area to include Brush Creek Road, where commuter traffic from downvalley converges with local routes.

A central piece of the study is crafting a new “purpose and need” statement — a formal document required before federal agencies can approve major transportation projects. This statement will guide the environmental review process, which could assess changes to the Castle Creek Bridge and Highway 82’s alignment.

Local officials and consultants also discussed which NEPA process to pursue — either a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or a Supplemental EIS that would build on the 1998 findings. 

A full EIS could give federal agencies more control over the process, while a supplemental review would allow Aspen more input.

“We were ready two years ago to pull the trigger and utilize some of the Biden infrastructure money, but the last city council did not feel that way,” said Richards. “It is worth noting that if we go to a new EIS, Aspen will get to weigh in, but Aspen is not the decision-maker.”

She emphasized that the final call lies with the Colorado Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration, both of which consider traffic impacts across the entire region, including areas as far downvalley as Rifle and Parachute.

Legal interpretation has also played a role in the city’s strategy. Jacobs Engineering noted that CDOT and FHWA believed a new vote wasn’t necessary to authorize interim bus lanes on the Marolt Open Space. However, former Aspen City Attorney Jim True had previously argued that voter approval was required.

Public engagement remains open through an online questionnaire and Webmap, where community members can provide feedback on transportation safety, wildlife concerns, and infrastructure priorities.