Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Local critic says Aspen 'preferred alternative' may preserve congestion; offers to underwrite independent analysis
Summary
A public commenter urged the city to revisit the preferred 'Entrance to Aspen' alternative, saying it appears designed to maintain congestion to drive transit use, warned of safety impacts for resident corridors, and said he offered to fund a new traffic analysis that the city declined.
Gary Lauder, a local resident, told council the preferred design for the Entrance to Aspen project was originally created to "maintain the traffic congestion in order to get more people to take public transit," and he argued that maintaining congestion should not be an objective of the plan.
Lauder said the Transportation Coalition and Jacobs Engineering did not evaluate some alternatives he believes would solve traffic and safety problems for neighborhoods such as Cemetery Lane and McLean Flats. He told council the public survey materials were "inaccurate and misleading" and that, after the city declined his offer to pay for additional analysis, he is considering hiring traffic engineers privately. "This is not the way things ought to be," Lauder said, urging the city to pursue expertise-driven alternatives rather than relying on the public survey alone.
Councilors did not adopt a new direction at the meeting; staff acknowledged the concerns and the speaker said he had offered to pay Jacobs to do additional analysis and to donate funds to the city for proper evaluation.
Provenance: Topic introduced in SEG 135 and substantive critique continues through SEG 179.
