Matthews: More options than that

The article, “What to know about the Entrance to Aspen” (The Aspen Times, Feb. 7) was a stunning regurgitation of the city’s outreach campaign that lacked important details. Some examples:

— While presented as having only two options (as the city frames the issue), I believe there is another viable solution. That is, rebuild the existing bridge now, and contrary to the article, I think it can be more than two lanes. The city has studied this option, but it is not a part of the outreach.

— History is also ignored. Like the city, the article fails to mention that in 2001, the voters expressly rejected giving authority for bus lanes across Marolt. Those lanes would now be permanent, given the death of light rail. Going to the voters on this issue would not be the first time, as the article implies, but just as futile.

---

---

The article is plainly inaccurate. It links the supposed “land bridge” to additional Marolt acreage. More properly, this faux burial mound is the alternative to Record of Decision requirement of an “at least 400-foot cut and cover tunnel.” The city admits that it will not fulfill this requirement but does not acknowledge that the Record of Decision must be reopened for such a change.

In short, if The Aspen Times wants to engage in journalism, then at a minimum, it should do its own fact checking and not leave it to the readers.

---

---

Dee Matthews

Aspen