1. Why not just buy more buses?
Buses are a good transit option. We already run the second largest (and we think the best) bus system in the state. RFTA carried almost 4 million riders last year. With that success, there are now over 900 buses a day on Main Street and that number would need to increase to 1600 in the next 15 years to meet future transit demand. A pair of rail vehicles with a single driver can carry the same number of passengers as 4 buses- with less noise, pollution, and congestion.

The success of the bus system is why rail makes sense. Our riders tell us that to increase transit ridership we must improve travel time and reliability. Rail will allow us to provide a faster, more predictable, and safer transit system. With light rail, transit users will know when they will arrive- regardless of traffic, weather, or time of day.

2. Why not stop growth instead of building the Entrance to Aspen?

Even if we stopped approving new growth today, a two lane parkway and light rail would be needed to meet the goal of reducing congestion while holding the number of vehicles coming into Aspen to 1994 levels. If we do not stop growth, then rail will be critical for maintaining our quality of life. According to a recent story in the Roaring Fork Sunday, there are currently over 12,000 homes approved or planned for the Aspen to Rifle region. Since the average home generates 10 vehicle trips per day, that's over 120,000 more trips per day over the next 20 years. Many of those trips will be to work, shop, or recreate in Aspen.

3. How can we afford the Entrance to Aspen?

A recent environmental study determined that the two lane parkway and light rail option was the best solution to meeting travel and quality of life goals. Highway improvements will be funded with state and federal funds. Light rail capital costs will be funded using existing local revenues WITHOUT raising taxes. Local officials have already begun reserving revenues as a "down payment" for the system. Bonds or a similar financing instrument (serviced by existing annual revenues) will be issued for the rest of the capital costs.

4. Will downvalley riders have to change trains at Brush Creek?

It depends on the results of a valley transit study. If rail goes all the way downvalley, there are vehicles which could travel from Aspen to Glenwood Springs without a transfer. There may also be advantages to changing vehicles at Brush Creek Road. If buses are the selected technology for the downvalley segment, a seamless transfer would be designed at Brush Creek Rd. Either way, valley service is significantly more attractive to transit riders.

5. What will happen to Main Street?

The implementation of rail represents a tremendous opportunity to improve the aesthetics, safety, and walkability of Main Street. However, constructing rail and improving pedestrian safety on Main St. will create a mess. Great care for home owner and business impacts will be required in order to insure that the project is completed swiftly and that impacts are minimized. If you are a Main Street resident or property owner and wish to learn more about plans for Main Street, please call Lysa Usher at 920-5038.

6. Won't light rail require a big subsidy?

All forms of transportation- highways, buses, and rail- require a government subsidy. Existing revenues are already in place to fund the capital and operating costs of the Entrance to Aspen. In the long run, rail will require less subsidy and actually become more efficient over time. Highways and buses, by contrast, become less efficient over time. In addition, a world-class rail system will support our visitor economy and Aspen's reputation as an environmentally-sensitive resort community.

7. Why not just build four lanes into Aspen?

Four lane advocates have argued this position for 25 years. There is no environmental or voter approval for a four lane entrance to Aspen. The four lane talk is just that. The two-lane parkway and light rail plan will make auto travel safer with less congestion. Eliminating the S-curves, avoiding the Cemetery Lane traffic light, and building a roundabout at Maroon Creek Road will reduce congestion. Creating a more attractive transit alternative to driving will help us to limit traffic into Aspen. There will always be some people who cannot or will not ride transit. Surveys of transit and non-transit riders suggest that rail will attract additional riders due to its increased quality of experience, safety, and predictable travel time. The Entrance to Aspen will improve travel for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and drivers.

8. Will skiers ride rail?

Yes, rail will clearly improve transit service for skiers at Aspen Mountain, Snowmass, and Buttermilk. Additional study will be required to determine the costs and benefits of Aspen Highlands service. We can learn much from European ski resort stops and the North Forty project will be within walking distance of the airport stop. Government owned land at Brush Creek is being studied for additional housing. Housing, transit, and environment are planned to work together rather than in competition.

9. Why haven't we voted on light rail?

In 1996, Aspen voters, by a 60% to 40% margin (winning in every part of Aspen), approved the two lane parkway and light rail plan across the Marolt open space in order to ease congestion, improve transit, and move forward after 25 years of political gridlock. Aspen voters have not approved any other use, such as additional highway lanes or a busway, across the Marolt property. In 1994, county voters approved a 1/2 cent sales and use tax to fund a "fixed guideway" transit system. In a future election, county voters will decide whether to approve construction funding for the rail system using those existing tax revenues.

10. What will the Entrance to Aspen do for those who don't ride transit?

The highway improvements in the Entrance to Aspen include: eliminating the S-curves, avoiding the Cemetery Lane traffic light, and building a roundabout at Maroon Creek Road. All of these changes will improve traffic flow between Aspen and Buttermilk. An engineering report prepared for CDOT estimated a 34% reduction in total auto travel time between Buttermilk and downtown Aspen due to Entrance to Aspen parkway improvements.

11. Do we have enough population to support a rail system?

Does Newark, New Jersey have enough population? Last year, RFTA carried as many people as Newark's light rail system. Rail works in our valley because of RFTA's 4 million existing riders. It is ridership rather than population which drives transit planning. We have a highly educated and environmentally-conscious population which supports and rides transit in much higher numbers than most areas. There is only one way in and out of Aspen and the Entrance to Aspen will provide better service for commuters, locals, and visitors using transit.

12. Why not just house everyone where they work?

In a planner's Utopia this would work. In a democratic reality people choose where to live and/or work based on numerous personal values. We clearly need to increase affordable housing opportunities in the upper valley and rail stops will provide a logical location for high density housing. The Aspen Skiing Company is already considering employee housing at the Buttermilk stop and the North Forty project will be within walking distance of the airport stop. Government owned land at Brush Creek is being studied for additional housing. Housing, transit, and environment are planned to work together rather than in competition.

13. What if the downvalley governments don't support valley rail service?

RFTA plans to run a Highway 82 trunk line system with express service from Glenwood Springs to Brush Creek Rd. A regional transportation study is comparing the costs and benefits of providing service with buses or rail. The results should be available this summer. Congress has already authorized $85 million for construction of valley rail from the Airport to Glenwood Springs.

If rail is chosen, vehicles are available which could share the tracks into downtown Aspen without a change. If buses are chosen, there will be a seamless transfer onto light rail. Either way, the service will be superior to today's system.

1. Rail is being forced on the community by politicians and top down tactics of a minority.
In 1995 and 1996, a committee of citizens working closely with elected officials and engineers designed the Entrance to Aspen. Another citizen task force is currently reviewing cost, technology, and Main Street issues. If you would like to participate, please call Lysa Usher at 920-5038.
In 1996, Aspen voters, by a 60% to 40% margin, approved the two lane parkway and light rail plan across the Marolt open space in order to ease congestion, improve transit, and move forward after 25 years of political gridlock. Aspen voters have not approved any other use, such as additional lanes or a busway, across the Marolt property. In 1994, county voters approved a 1/2 cent sales and use tax to fund a "fixed guideway" transit system. In a future election, county voters will decide whether to approve construction funding for the rail system using those existing tax revenues.

2. Rail capital costs will be way over budget and require a massive bailout.

The Entrance to Aspen light rail costs have been verified by five different engineering firms hired by five different entities. That verification gives us the option of seeking a "fixed price" contract which requires the rail construction firm to guarantee quality and price. Many rail projects have been built with a fixed price or have been completed on-time and on-budget.

3. We don't have a critical population mass to support rail.

Does Newark, New Jersey have enough population? Last year, RFTA carried as many people as Newark's light rail system. Rail works in our valley because of RFTA's 4 million existing riders. It is ridership rather than population which drives transit planning. We have a highly educated and environmentally-conscious population which supports and rides transit in much higher numbers than most areas. Unlike Newark, there is only one way in and out of Aspen and the two-lane parkway and light rail plan will provide better auto and transit service for commuters, locals, and visitors.

4. No one will ride rail.

Response: Not so long ago, people were saying the same thing about buses. Yet expansion of RFTA has been phenomenally successful -- so successful, in fact, that we're running out of equipment to accommodate additional passengers and drivers to pilot the buses. If buses are replaced by rail, these passengers could be served with shorter travel times and more reliability.

If rail goes all the way downvalley, a single rail vehicle could run from downtown Aspen to downtown Glenwood Springs. Rail will serve a market that RFTA has already proven to have substantial transit-serviceable demand: Trips up and down the Roaring Fork Corridor.

5. Rail will promote growth.
Even if we stopped approving new growth today, a two lane parkway and light rail would be needed to meet the goal of reducing congestion while holding the number of vehicles coming into Aspen to 1994 levels. If we do not stop growth, then rail will be critical for maintaining our quality of life. According to a recent story in the Roaring Fork Sunday, there are currently over 12,000 homes approved or planned for the Aspen to Rifle region. That's over 120,000 more trips per day over the next 20 years. Many of those trips will be to work, shop, or recreate in Aspen.
One of the single biggest factors associated with sprawl and suburban growth is highway expansion. Substituting rail in place of highway lanes actually provides opportunities to collect growth around rail stops to prevent sprawl.