Consultants present five traffic scenarios for Aspen entrance; consultants say preferred alternative best for transit but won’t cure general traffic

Consultants from Jacobs briefed the Aspen City Council on Aug. 12 on a traffic model for State Highway 82 spanning Brush Creek Road to 5th Street. Peter Cozy, the consultant presenting the modeling, said the corridor’s most constraining pinch points are one‑lane merges near 5th Street, near Harmony Lane where an inbound bus lane begins, and at the Maroon Creek roundabout. He said the model focused on both transit and general traffic and tested five scenarios: S‑curve improvements, two 3‑lane bridge variants with bus treatments, the phase PA (preferred alternative), a split‑shot variant and a down‑valley conversion that would trade a short bus lane for general traffic.

"Option 3 scored the highest due to the removal of existing bottlenecks in both inbound and outbound direction," Cozy said during the presentation, while also noting that "the pinch points that the phase PA removes are not the most critical and constraining bottlenecks, so general traffic conditions do not experience drastic improvement under the phase PA as it's currently designed." The team explained Option 2b and Option 5 also scored well in reducing outbound delay and improving bus travel times; Option 4 (the split shot) performed worst in the model due to negative impacts at the Maroon Creek Roundabout but could be refined.

Councilmembers pressed the consultants on the practical implications of the modeling. In response to questions about whether Option 5 or a 3‑lane bridge would require additional NEPA work, consultants said that changing the Record of Decision (ROD) to add capacity would "require a supplemental EIS at a minimum," and that a categorical exclusion (CATEX) for a full 3‑lane replacement looked unlikely given right‑of‑way and scope changes. Estimated durations given for a SEIS ranged from roughly one to two years depending on scope and public involvement.

Why this matters: the modeling clarified where buses and cars interact and where improvements would help transit operations, but it also underscored that designs focused on transit (LRT/bus corridors) may not produce large reductions in single‑occupant vehicle congestion unless paired with added roadway capacity or other valley‑wide congestion measures. The council asked staff to return with any refined options and cost/ROW impacts as part of a follow‑up action item.

Provenance: topicintro: {"block_id_start":"SEG 099","block_id_end":"SEG 099","evidence_excerpt":"So a traffic model was built for the purpose of understanding existing roadway conditions"}, topfinish: {"block_id_start":"SEG 256","block_id_end":"SEG 256","evidence_excerpt":"If the council wishes to explore more variations, that can be done through a supplemental EIS."}