Letter: Fool’s errands
It’s always nice to hear from Bill Lipsey, even through the intermediary of the letters column (“An idea whose time has come,” Nov. 8, The Aspen Times).
The problem with the highway at the Entrance to Aspen is insufficient lane capacity. No form of alternative transport can substitute for sufficient lane capacity — you either have it or you don’t.
The city of Aspen has been running a ride-share program for years, with free parking privileges for people who use it. The level of congestion you see is in spite of that program.
Uberesque services are urban by nature, because you need a high concentration of vehicles to achieve any level of reliability. The idea that people scattered from Rifle to Snowmass could have a vehicle show up at their door within a reasonable period of time whenever they open an app is not realistic, and people won’t use something unless it always works.
We can spare readers the other half dozen reasons why this proposal isn’t relevant.
I don’t understand the avoidance of the obvious. Why look for an alternative to expanding the highway to four lanes that everyone can use? Especially when there isn’t one that works.
Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.