Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Pitkin County reviews multimodal plan for Aspen Airport Business Center; one-way option boosts parking but raises access concerns
Summary
Consultants outlined two multimodal concepts for the Aspen Airport Business Center that both add sidewalks and traffic calming; a one-way circulation layout would increase on-street parking by about 50% but drew pushback from business owners and residents over access, enforcement and cost (est. $3.8M vs $3.2M for a two-way option).
Consultants from Alta Planning and Design and engineering partners presented two multimodal transportation concepts aimed at improving pedestrian safety and circulation in the Aspen Airport Business Center (ABC), the Pitkin County engineer told the Board of County Commissioners.
The county-led effort focuses on county-owned roadways inside the ABC and responds to community outreach showing recurring concerns about pedestrian safety, confusing wayfinding and strained parking, Andrew Knapp, the county engineer, said. Project partners include Alta (planning lead), SGM (traffic engineering) and Manifest Communications (public engagement).
The consultants described two build alternatives. The one-way circulation plan would allow parking on both sides of some streets and is estimated to increase on-street parking capacity by about 50% on targeted blocks; it also includes two raised intersections and several speed tables. The two-way alternative retains two-way vehicle travel, adds sidewalks and targeted calming, and yields only a handful of additional spaces by converting parallel stalls to angled stalls, they said.
Consultant Chloe Ward said both alternatives add a continuous sidewalk network within the county right-of-way, and that speed tables, raised crossings and tighter corner radii are intended to keep speeds at or below 25 mph. The one-way concept includes a contraflow bike lane on a one-way vehicle segment as the only bike-lane provision shown; otherwise the team did not propose dedicated bike lanes because parked cars and narrow rights-of-way reduce feasibility.
The team reported a conceptual-level construction cost estimate with a 30% contingency: roughly $3.8 million for the one-way concept (which includes raised intersections) and about $3.2 million for the two-way concept. The presenters cautioned that phasing the work would likely raise total cost due to repeated contractor mobilizations.
Commissioners and members of the business center raised operational concerns. Speakers representing ABC businesses explained that loading activity, moving vans and building-oriented driveways rely on the existing access patterns; several owners warned a one-way loop could block lots during deliveries and make access to interior parking awkward. One business representative said the planned lumberyard development will add hundreds of employee parking spaces and multiple egress points, increasing the importance of coordinated access planning.
Board members pressed staff on enforcement and long-term maintenance: who would enforce parking rules, who would clear sidewalks in winter, and whether the county has capacity to manage an expanded sidewalk network. Staff said current sidewalk clearing in the ABC is handled by a small county crew but that fully maintaining a new network would likely require additional staff or an ordinance placing responsibility on adjacent property owners.
Knapp said the project team used a technical advisory committee — including fire, EMS, Colorado Mountain College and transit providers — to vet speed-table and intersection locations; some treatments were modified to preserve emergency response routes. The team also noted that a longer-range pedestrian/bicycle underpass to bypass Highway 82 conflicts is included as an aspirational element in planning documents but would be expensive and long-term.
Public feedback to date shows no clear consensus on the one-way versus two-way choice; staff recommended returning with a business-case update that lays out funding paths, partnership options, grant opportunities and a phased implementation plan. The presenters said construction in 2026 is unlikely given funding and other valley projects; implementation would more plausibly start in 2027 or later.
The board asked staff to explore pilot options and signage/wayfinding improvements that could be implemented at low cost, and to return with cost/phase options and a recommended public-engagement next step.
