Castle Creek Bridge: Ballot vote unnecessary to build anew over Marolt Open Space, according to transportation department

Amid the ongoing saga over what to do with Aspen’s aging Castle Creek Bridge, the Colorado Department of Transportation maintains that a public vote is not required to pursue a construction option that many believe would alleviate current traffic and safety conditions encountered at the Entrance to Aspen.

On Monday, Aspen City Council voted not to include a ballot question asking whether the city should construct a tunnel and build a new bridge over the Marolt Open Space. The option is known as the Preferred Alternative, which City Council member Ward Hauenstein proposed to have as a ballot question.

The second option to mitigate Castle Creek Bridge would be to simply replace the two-lane overpass with three lanes — otherwise known as the three-lane shifted option. This includes one lane going into town and two lanes coming out.

---

---

The third option, called the “split shot,” also includes building a tunnel and additional bridge (cut and cover) over Marolt Open Space. This option, however, differs from the Preferred Alternative in that it cuts off Colorado Highway 82 traffic from Cemetary Lane and directs all traffic through the roundabout. 

According to a 2023 letter to City Council, the Colorado Department of Transportation states, “A vote is not required to move forward with the Preferred Alternative (PA). When the existing Castle Creek Bridge needs to be replaced, the Record of Decision (ROD) PA will be constructed.”

---

---

According to CDOT, City Council may proceed with replacing the Castle Creek Bridge at any time. Once City Council moves forward on replacing the existing Castle Creek Bridge, as it stands in the original record of decision, CDOT would begin work on the Preferred Alternative.

The Preferred Alternative showed that traffic times would improve, according to a report submitted by Jacobs Engineering.

Preferred Alternative criteria were approved by voters, Aspen City Council, Pitkin County commissioners, and Snowmass Town Council in 1996, which the Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration then implemented into the 1998 record of decision. 

This option is still valid and would not require any further votes from community members.

Neither the split-shot or three-lane-shifted options showed no significant improvements in traffic and bus travel times, according to the Jacobs Engineering report. 

For and against 

Many have been opposed to the Preferred Alternative due to the infringement that the second bridge would create over the Marolt Open Space.

In 1996, a land transfer provided an easement through Marolt Open Space that was approved along with the conditions of the Preferred Alternative, which are still valid as the record of decision was originally intended.

Open Space is an important part of what makes Aspen unique and is representative of its character, many argue. Despite this, division remains in the community over what to do about preserving open space, managing commuter traffic, and having appropriate emergency evacuation routes in place. 

The original record of decision laid plans for a light rail to run alongside the two-lane road. Light rails are expensive to build, and according to Hauenstein, and can cost upwards of $200 million per mile to construct. He did say that other alternatives could be put in place, such as a rubber-tired train.

In 2001, a ballot measure was put forward that asked voters about the decision to run bus lanes in the interim until funding for a light rail could be obtained. This measure failed to pass. 

During Monday’s work session, a bill similar to what was offered in 2001 was reintroduced, but it was denied by City Council members Bill Guth, John Doyle, and Mayor Torre. 

“What I have been saying all along is that we need a second bridge,” Doyle said. “Not just for emergency evacuations but for commuter traffic and public transit.” 

He also emphasized that the short notice for the ballot discussion did not give him much time to get any questions he had about the vote answered before Monday’s work session. 

Torre agreed that the ballot discussion came with short notice — being introduced on a Friday afternoon.

“As I pointed out during the meeting, there is already community approval for a bus lane, car lane, and light rail corridor, but council did not think we were ready to place a ballot measure on the subject,” he said. 

According to him, there is more to the story, and that this issue has been ongoing for decades. 

“I think that times have changed and that the 10-point criteria in the original ROD may be reflected differently in a new supplemental EIS,” he said. 

He added that this decision comes down to two things: community agreement and preparations.

“Hopefully, we’ll get some direction on behalf of the community soon,” he said. “What I am trying to do is to get something that is really reflective of the community character, and advances the goals that were stated.”

He said there are more discussions to have but is looking forward to working with CDOT in the future.

“Any and all open space is highly-regarded. We are cognizant and weary of setting any precedent about allocating any lands that were dedicated to open space for any other uses,” he said. “It has a lot to do with Aspen values. Our environment and open space are top of the list for Aspen values.”

What’s legally doable?

Assistant City Attorney Kate Johnson said that Aspen’s Open Space initiatives prevent any changes to open space areas without a vote from community members. She did say, however, it is possible to implement the 1998 record of decision Preferred Alternative, as is, without a vote, assuming the construction follows the original ROD.

However, referring to bus lanes being in place of the rail way, she said, “We believe that under the city’s charter, a vote is required before council can grant an easement on open space.”

She also said that the bus lanes were not mentioned when the voters last approved the easement for the Preferred Alternative.

“The ROD is a federal document, by a federal agency, and I cannot speak to what they interpret for the PA, but our advice to council is, to grant an easement for purposes of building the PA, you would have to go to a vote,” she said.

Johnson speculated that it may be true that CDOT and the Federal Highway Administration can obtain legal rights to use the easement through Marolt Open Space for bus lanes, but cannot speak to that.

She said the two organizations may have other legal means available but was very clear that she cannot speak for the Department of Transportation or the Highway Administration. 

The Department of Transportation has stated in letters to City Council that bus lanes may be used in the interim of the light rail, not requiring any additional votes. But City Attorney Jim True has disagreed and said that Aspen requires a vote due to the Open Space municipal code; something that appears to differ from Department of Transportation’s assessments.

Urgent matters

City Council members Sam Rose and Hauenstein both urged City Council on Monday that measures need to be put forward to speed up the process, so Castle Creek Bridge may be replaced before it is too late. 

“I wanted the ballot measure to be on the November ballot, so that we have clarity on how the community is feeling, so we could move forward with conviction on a solution,” said Rose. “I find this process incredibly frustrating. I do not believe that much of this process is up to City Council, besides potentially putting the PA up to vote, having that approved or denied, and then funding and moving forward with a supplemental EIS.” 

Castle Creek Bridge is about 12 years past its design life span, but its service life span is still current and may be extended through inspections and maintenance. The bridge is set to be inspected in September. 

Past ratings on the bridge have scored above the definition of a poor bridge — but not by much. In 2022, According to CDOT, on a scale of 0-10 the bridge deck scored a 6, the bridge superstructure scored a 5, and the bridge substructure scored a 6. 

If the bridge falls to a poor rating, it becomes eligible for the Statewide Bridge and Tunnel Enterprise. This would allow for federal replacement funds. If replaced with another two-lane bridge, the Department of Transportation and Highway Administration would begin construction on the Preferred Alternative. 

Highway 82 and Castle Creek Bridge are assets of the Department of Transportation and, along with the Highway Administration, are the majority stakeholders in this project. Aspen remains a stakeholder, but even if it were to self-fund the bridge replacement — an effort designed to avoid building the Preferred Alternative —  both the Department of Transportation and Highway Administration would have to agree with Aspen to cancel the Preferred Alternative. In addition, a new record of decision would have to be established, which would be a time-consuming and costly project. 

Department of Transportation letters show that there is no easy way to back out the current record of decision. 

Torre has mentioned that he would like a supplemental environmental impact study completed before making any further decision to obtain more information — a process which is shorter than a regular environmental impact study, but the supplemental can still be costly and take up to two years. Even after that review — and if the main criteria points do not change — Aspen may still be left with Preferred Alternative as its only option. 

Pitkin County’s thoughts

The city of Aspen presented an Entrance to Aspen update to the Pitkin County Commissioners (BOCC) on Tuesday, and commissioners had questions about the entire process. 

Pitkin County Commissioner Francie Jacober said, “When I read the Jacobs report, it was so clear to me that the PA is the most reasonable way to go.” 

She said that if construction on the Preferred Alternative started right away, it could be constructed, then work on the existing Castle Creek Bridge could begin after, allowing commuter traffic to continue flowing unimpeded. 

“The traffic delays that would be created by the three-lane shifted construction would have an incredibly negative impact on commuters,” Jacober said.

According to a 2000 poll, which The Aspen Times has not been able to independently verify, Pitkin County-wide voters overwhelmingly approved the Preferred Alternative 4,408 to 2,444 votes. Aspen-only voters did not approve the preferred alternative, 1,056 votes to 913.

Jacober did mention that the easement has been in place since the record of decision, but more open space is not a bad thing. She said that she supports City Council and the decisions that lie ahead of them.

“I think the cut and cover (tunnel) helps protect open space,” Jacober said.