Foster: Traffic economists call it ‘induced demand’

The traffic problem into Aspen is a result of more people wanting to get into such a small town than current people-moving methods can manage. The compact size of Aspen makes it an inherently walkable city with very little room for personally owned automobiles.

In addition to being walkable, Aspen is rather bike friendly and has a respectable public transit service dedicated entirely to getting people into and around Aspen. With such design features and a population of under 7,000 people, it is asinine that we should ever want to expand personal automobile capacity over more space and cost efficient solutions. Culturally, we assume that the answer to traffic congestion is increased traffic capacity, but this answers the wrong question as increasing traffic capacity just increases traffic until congestion becomes an issue once again. Traffic economists refer to this phenomenon as induced demand. Personal automobiles are simply the wrong tool for the job of getting people into Aspen.

If we want to solve the traffic congestion issue into Aspen, we need more efficient ways to move large numbers of people into town. So what can we do to increase human entrance capacity to the town of Aspen, for the lowest cost to taxpayers and with the least impact to the environment that we live here to enjoy? Building a new road in Aspen is going to be on the expensive side of construction costs, estimated at $5 million per lane, per mile, excluding maintenance expenses. Given the principles of induced demand, this means that Aspen will spend tens of millions of dollars without effectively addressing the issue of traffic congestion, resulting in a misallocation of taxpayer funds, particularly in light of the fact that buses to Aspen can reach standing room only.

If the new roadway section is a mile long with two lanes of traffic per direction, plus a turning lane, this would have total costs coming in at $25 million. This same financial allocation, if redirected toward public transit enhancements, could fund the acquisition of up to 20 new electric mass transit buses, each with a capacity of over 35 passengers each. By reallocating funds from road construction to public transit improvements, the BRT and L routes could operate eight buses per hour during peak times, rather than six. The HGB route could expand to four buses per hour throughout the entire day, making it far more convenient for commuters from Rifle and New Castle to take advantage of public transit, putting a substantial dent into the convenience argument of driving yourself. This congestion improvement plan would have sufficient financial resources left over to cover operational expenses, necessitating the purchase of, at most, eight new vehicles capable of facilitating the removal of 120 vehicles per peak hour from entering Aspen.

The prevalence of standing-room-only conditions during peak hours on the BRT and L lines suggests a significant demand for increased capacity, as such conditions deter potential riders from utilizing the bus service. Investing in public transit rather than constructing a new road proves to be a far more economical option. With the money that is left over, RFTA could even fund a new BRT route with a stop at the core business district of each town and the major parks in the valley such as Crown Mountain and Sayre parks. This would take strain off of the oft-overflowing park and rides and increase route capacity substantially, while providing a greater freedom of mobility for everyone. Importantly, the funding for these service improvements would derive from fare-paying customers rather than relying on tax revenue. Particularly if RFTA were to work with local hotels to provide bus passes to their guests for use within the valley.

This winter, New York City successfully implemented congestion pricing for Manhattan, yielding significant benefits. Traffic flows more freely, pollution levels have decreased, and traffic fatalities have diminished, among other positive outcomes. Congestion pricing represents the most economically prudent option, as it is cost-effective to execute, generates revenue, and facilitates a system whereby users pay for the services they utilize rather than imposing a tax burden on all citizens. Since most locals would take the bus instead of paying the congestion fee for commuting to work, this would be a fee most often paid for by tourists. The money collected from congestion pricing could be dedicated to public transit and pedestrian infrastructure. The reduction in personal vehicles in Aspen would reduce the need for parking, allowing restaurants to reclaim the parking spaces they occupied during COVID, supporting the success of small businesses. It would also make Main Street a far more pleasant place to exist as a pedestrian without the noise and danger created by automobiles.

However, both of these solutions merely treat symptoms of a much greater issue. The traffic congestion into Aspen is caused by the amount of employees who have to commute into town for work. The significant number of displaced workers, resulting from a cost of living that vastly exceeds local wages, has exacerbated this predicament. An increase of 100 employees residing within Aspen would permanently alleviate automotive traffic into town. As parking becomes less necessary, there would be opportunities to develop mixed use commercial/residential spaces where parking lots currently exist. The more employees living in town, the fewer employees there will be driving to work. Aspen is a natural 15 minute city, afterall. And if people are still willing to go to Venice Italy, a completely car free city, people will still come to Aspen as both of these locations have a magnetic draw to people for their beauty and uniqueness.

Traffic congestion is mitigated by enhancing the convenience of mass and multi-modal transit options, not by increasing traffic capacity. The Roaring Fork Valley is, by nature, limited on buildable space and private automobiles are the least efficient means of moving people by cost, and space consumed. If traffic is the problem, and especially when space is limited, mass transit and improved urban design are the solution, not greater capacity for the least efficient means of conveyance that exists.

If building more roads was ever going to solve the congestion problem, Houston wouldn’t have traffic jams on its 10 lane highways while Tokyo has two of the top ten busiest railways in the world in one city. And high efficiency people moving takes up far less space than roads and highways. If Kronplatz in Italy can have a train station built into a gondola plaza, or Drei Zinnen can have chairlift access from the train station, Aspen can have a bus to the Silver Queen. Why does Winter Park get to have the most laid back, most relaxing option to get to its lifts in all America, while getting into Aspen is a real nightmare? It doesn’t have to be this way, but building a new road will do nothing but ensure that it continues.