Felder: ‘Preferred alternative’ not an option | AspenTimes.com

Felder: ‘Preferred alternative’ not an option

Letter to the editor
Letter to the editor

I have been a part-time resident of the West End for as long as the Entrance to Aspen issue has been debated. My wife and I live in Aspen from the middle of May through the middle of October, which does not qualify us to vote here. Nevertheless, I am deeply concerned with important local issues and want our tax dollars to be thoughtfully and effectively deployed.

Reviewing the city’s current website materials on the Entrance to Aspen issue, I see a serious disconnect between intelligently addressing the issue and any version of the “preferred alternative,” which was a bad idea when proposed and is even more wrong-headed today. It is clear to me, and many others, that building any version of the “preferred alternative” will not materially reduce transit times and would significantly disrupt existing neighborhoods and preserved open space.

I have not seen any evidence in the last 30 years that shows how spending tens or hundreds of millions of dollars from local, state, and federal coffers on any version of the “preferred alternative” could be considered a wise investment.

The passage of time has shown us that the “S-Curves” are not the problem. The two-lane bridge is the problem because of its size and age. With the help of state and federal experts, the city needs to concentrate on the best way to update and expand the Castle Creek Bridge.

There is no perfect answer to the Entrance to Aspen problem. Let’s not compound the problem by mistakenly focusing on building a wasteful and environmentally-destructive version of the “preferred alternative.”

Richard Felder