Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation Entrance To Aspen topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Aspen council directs staff to draft cooperative letter to CDOT, seeks alternatives to preferred entrance plan
Summary
After extended public comment and a multi-hour council debate, Aspen City Council directed staff to draft a collaborative letter to CDOT saying the council does not accept the agency's preferred entrance plan and seeking guidance on pursuing a Castle Creek Bridge replacement (including a 3‑lane shifted option) and a possible alternate ('split‑shot') alignment; staff will return the letter to council for approval.
Aspen City Council voted Aug. 13 to instruct the city manager and staff to prepare a council letter to the Colorado Department of Transportation stating the preferred entrance alternative is not acceptable to Aspen and requesting CDOT’s guidance on alternative paths forward, including replacement of the Castle Creek Bridge and evaluation of an alternate alignment.
The motion followed several hours of public comment and council discussion about traffic backups at the roundabout, wildfire evacuation routes and the time and cost required for major reconstruction. The city manager summarized council priorities as replacing the Castle Creek Bridge as soon as possible while exploring options that minimize permanent disruption to community character and right‑of‑way. “We want to start the dialogue with CDOT,” the city manager said, asking staff to draft language that is “collaborative, cooperative in tone.”
Council members described two tracks they want staff to pursue: (1) technical work to determine whether a replacement in the current alignment could be delivered quickly (councilors repeatedly referenced a three‑lane, shifted deck concept that could keep two travel lanes open during construction), and (2) examination of the ‘split‑shot’ alternative that would add a second alignment and bridge in a different corridor. Staff and legal counsel advised that altering the project scope could require a supplemental environmental impact study (SEIS) or reopening the original Record of Decision; any supplemental NEPA work appears likely to be a city expense if the council requests changes beyond the 1998 project objectives.
Councilor comments reflected a range of priorities: some members emphasized speed and keeping the existing alignment (with minimal new right‑of‑way impacts), while others argued an additional bridge or alternate alignment is necessary for evacuation and long‑term transit improvements. The motion passed with unanimous roll call; council asked staff to draft the letter and return it for legal review and final council approval.
Next steps: staff will prepare proposed letter language for council review, ask CDOT to clarify whether a supplemental EIS or new Record of Decision would be required, and scope technical studies (right‑of‑way needs, timeline, and potential costs) for the replacement and alternate alignment options.
