The Optimist — Framing the Entrance

As the calendar turned to a weirdly warm February, Aspen began to turn its attention to its March City Council election. Three seats are open, including the mayor. The hottest issue is the Entrance to Aspen. We have two ballot initiatives related to the Entrance and it’s the top issue for the candidates. At the core of this debate is the question of whether Aspen should have one or two bridges over Castle Creek. (Sorry Power Plant Road, you don’t count.) I thought it would be useful to assess the core issues and the arguments made by each side.

Emergency access

Proponents of a second bridge highlight the value of six lanes across two bridges. They also highlight the value of redundancy — if there is a blockage on one bridge, a second bridge would remain available. Opponents of a second bridge note that we can’t know the direction of a fire; a fire could come from downvalley. They also suggest that in a fire, residents and visitors could shelter in the City garage or a park.

Assessment: Emergencies are not just about evacuation, but about getting responders and supplies to the area. Having two operational bridges, with six total lanes, reduces the risk that residents and visitors will be trapped on the wrong side of Castle Creek and that responders will be bottlenecked on the other side. With a single bridge, an accident during an emergency would be fatal. Opponents of a second bridge make their weakest arguments on this topic, while proponents make their strongest arguments.

Daily congestion

The daily tax of traffic in our community is high. This tax hits residents and commuters in the form of wasted hours, frustration, and vehicle pollution. Owners of services firms talk about the “Aspen premium,” where they charge a 10% to 50% premium on jobs that require passing the roundabout. The daily commute also impacts workers and businesses, limiting the number of people willing to work in Aspen and driving up costs as people expect to be compensated for wasted hours in traffic.

Proponents of a second bridge highlight modest improvements to traffic flow, depending on which solution we select for vehicle flow between bridge(s) and roundabout. Opponents point out that the time savings will be relatively insignificant.

Assessment: A second bridge, by itself, is not a solution to our traffic problem, especially if two lanes are permanently reserved for inbound and outbound mass transit. We have traffic bottlenecks beginning at the airport, with multiple lights between the airport and Owl Creek Road. We have lanes reserved for buses. We have the roundabout. Even with a “Straight Shot,” we will have an intersection at Seventh Street. Congestion may marginally improve with a second bridge, but it is unlikely to improve a great deal.

However, a second bridge would be a critical element of a more comprehensive traffic solution. If we embark on building a second bridge, to realize the full value, community leaders must organize a cross-functional planning effort with Pitkin County, Snowmass Village, and CDOT to develop a comprehensive traffic solution from the airport through Main Street.

Disruption during construction

Proponents of a second bridge argue that it will be less disruptive to build a second bridge while the current bridge remains operational. Opponents suggest that it is possible to rebuild the current bridge and add a third lane, while leaving two lanes of traffic to flow during construction. Opponents also claim it will take over a decade to build a second bridge.

Assessment: We have all lived through bridge inspection days and the 2022 bridge repairs. Traffic times skyrocket during these periods. Major construction to rebuild the current bridge and to add a third lane will also require staging and access to the construction site. It is not credible that major construction would be less disruptive than these recent events. Construction traffic impacts will be lower if we build a second bridge while the current bridge remains operational. Regarding timeline, it took just under 4.5 years to build the Golden Gate Bridge. We can acknowledge that was an era when the US could get things done more efficiently, but it is dubious that it would take over a decade to build a second bridge if the community operates with urgency.

Preservation of open space

Opponents of a second bridge highlight the disruption to the Marolt Open Space. Proponents highlight that the impacted area will be relatively small and that the planned Cut-and-Cover tunnel will reduce the impact. Opponents question whether CDOT will follow through on its commitment to use a Cut-and-Cover tunnel.

Assessment: There will be significant impacts to the Marolt Open Space if we build a second bridge. At the same time, the geography of Aspen constrains the community to this location for a second bridge. This is a stark trade-off. I cannot assess the credibility of the claim that CDOT will not follow through on the tunnel element of the plan.

Eliminating two-way access from Cemetery Lane into town

Opponents of a second bridge highlight that most solutions require residents of the Cemetery Lane neighborhood to go over the bridge and through town in one direction to access this neighborhood.

Assessment: Opponents make a strong argument here. Residents who live in this area made a choice to be further from the core, but to have more direct access to Highway 82 and to the schools. At the same time, it is fair to acknowledge that the Record of Decision has been in place for nearly three decades, so the approved plans were transparent to all. Putting that aside, forcing residents of this neighborhood to go through town for one half of each vehicle trip is especially problematic if we do not substantially reduce peak hour congestion. If we proceed with a second bridge, we need a better solution for the Cemetery Lane neighborhood.

Everyone should make their own assessment of the arguments and the weight of each issue to the community. We should also be eyes open about the incomplete nature of any bridge-only solution. Without a comprehensive plan from Main Street to the airport that improves traffic flow, we will make only modest progress on this key quality of life issue. This observation should not be an excuse to dither. Our existing bridge is in bad shape and is a single-point-of-failure. Every day, there is a risk that we lose our only real conduit into Aspen. The good news is that there are only two possible locations for a bridge across Castle Creek — the current location and the proposed location through Marolt. It is time to decide if we want two bridges or one bridge as part of our community’s long-term future.

Greg Goldfarb lives in Aspen.