Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Entrance Polling topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Aspen voter poll ranks traffic congestion and emergency access as top concerns for entrance alternatives
Summary
A Prabalski Research survey of 300 Aspen registered voters finds traffic congestion, emergency access and environmental protection among top priorities for 'Entrance to Aspen' alternatives; 'modified direct' was the most common first choice and respondents noted potential costs (about $150 million).
A city‑commissioned survey of 300 registered Aspen voters found traffic congestion and emergency access near the top of residents’ priorities for any changes to the city’s entrance alignment, city staff and the pollster told the council on Jan. 27.
"71 percent say that's important to them," pollster Adam Prabalski said when describing how respondents rated a community‑led process. He also told the council that an alternative could "cost at this point a $150,000,000," a figure that many respondents said should be considered when evaluating options.
The statistically valid poll, conducted in November and December, used mailings, emails, texts and phone calls. Prabalski said 1% of respondents completed the survey in Spanish and the instrument took roughly 12 minutes. He described a clear majority across several values asked about: public transit and multimodal options, protection of environment and wildlife, and an emphasis on emergency egress and safety.
Prabalski said when respondents viewed visuals of four alternatives, the "modified direct" option emerged as the most common first choice. He cautioned that some respondents flagged the bridge specifically — which may have been influenced by the mailer — but that emergency access and congestion consistently ranked highest across the ten community objectives carried over from the EIS record of decision.
City staff said the survey followed council direction to sample registered voters and did not ask about individual voting history. Councilmembers used the presentation to press for context about the sample balance and margin of error; Prabalski said the statistically valid registered‑voter subsample has an approximate margin of error of 5.8% and defended the approach as representative of registered voters.
The results will inform city input to the EIS process and forthcoming intergovernmental conversations with CDOT and the county about Highway 82 improvements.
