ROARING FORK BROADCASTING COMPANY
The Aspen-Pitkin County Airport Advisory Board voted 6-1 on Thursday to recommend that county commissioners support moving the airport runway 80 feet to the west when it is rebuilt to help hold down the cost of the pricey project.
The advisory board urged commissioners to stick to previous plans that called for moving the runway west rather than following a 4-year-old goal — one of many developed during the 2019-20 community ASE Vision process — that sought to leave the runway where it is now and move the taxiway 80 feet east. The county was considering a new Airport Layout Plan that would move the taxiway to achieve the Federal Aviation Administration’s desired separation between the runway and taxiway. The ASE Vision goals also called for widening the runway.
Both the separation and widening proposals within the airport’s “airside” have been deemed necessary by county officials and many redevelopment advocates in order for the airport to accommodate the next generation of aircraft with larger wingspans — and to receive federal money to help pay for the lion’s share of the work. The ASE Vision process initially got started due to the perceived need for aircraft to replace the CRJ-700s, which have a 76-foot wingspan and are used by the three commercial airlines serving Aspen.
Some officials say the remaining lifespan of the CRJ-700s is limited to less than 10 years while redevelopment critics contend otherwise. Aspen’s airport does not allow aircraft with a wingspan greater than 95 feet. With the new projects, newer aircraft with wingspans up to 118 feet would be allowed to use ASE.
The debate has percolated for years but gained urgency in recent months for three reasons. First, a county consultant discovered the runway is deteriorating underground at a fast rate and needs extensive repairs in a project planned for May. The runway won’t be relocated this year but the deterioration of the existing pavement emphasizes the need for a grander rebuild in the near future.
Second, FAA officials have informed Pitkin County that grants for most airport projects will dry up starting in 2025 until the Airport Layout Plan is updated.
A third reason for urgency is leaving the runway where it is and moving the taxiway would cost Pitkin County millions of dollars more than moving the runway and leaving the taxiway alone. The FAA said relocating the taxiway will require moving the air traffic control tower. It also said it wouldn’t fund the relocation of the tower, which is estimated to cost in excess of $100 million and require a substantially taller replacement. The county would be forced to tap into its airport fund and likely other sources to cover the expense.
After a spirited debate Thursday, advisory board members Jacquelyn Francis, Meg Haynes, Howie Mallory, Auden Schendler, Bruce Gordon and Mike Solondz voted to support moving the runway to the west. Board member Valerie Braun opposed the move.
Gordon said he was conflicted on the issue. The FAA is “hellbent on telling us what to do” and has put the county in a corner with funding leverage, he said.
“I feel like we’re totally hogtied with this process,” Gordon said.
His concern is that a relocated runway that is widened from 100 to 150 feet will accommodate larger commercial and private aircraft, potentially spurring growth.
“This community has been swelling up to breaking point and this really does break it,” Gordon said.
Mallory shared similar concerns. The FAA’s fixation on accessibility at the airport is a recipe for growth, he said.
“There’s a real tension there that will probably continue to exist,” Mallory said.
Pitkin County’s saving grace is Boeing 737 airplanes probably won’t receive certification to fly into the local airport on behalf of commercial carriers, he noted.
Braun said she feels the FAA’s desires for the airport don’t fit in the space available. She supported the community holding firm and replacing the runway at the current location at the current width.
Schendler countered that the community couldn’t risk holding firm on the assumption that the FAA will eventually blink and provide funds.
“That’s the scariest public policy game of chicken that I can imagine,” he said.
He also was opposed to sticking to an Airport Layout Plan that would require spending $100 million or more to relocate the air traffic control tower, saying the thought “terrifies me.”
Schendler also pushed back on the idea that commercial airplanes are a driver of growth. The number of beds available to sleep in is a bigger factor, he said.
“The growth is in the hands of the community and the commissioners and the city in terms of what gets built,” Schendler said.
Haynes said she was concerned that reworking the Airport Layout Plan would create long delays for any FAA grants and airport improvements. Earlier in the meeting, county consultant Brad Jacobsen informed the board that sticking with a plan that envisions moving the runway 80 feet to the west would require roughly four months of updating, three months of FAA review and a federal environmental review process of about six months before receiving authorization. Construction on the runway could begin in about 14 months, he said.
In contrast, submitting a new Airport Layout Plan could open a 25-month process.
“You can’t just go out and build something,” Jacobsen said. “So now it’s time to make a decision. We need some direction.”
Despite voting with the majority, Gordon aired his unease with the direction. “It’s like walking to the gallows, I think,” he said.
The airport board’s vote is advisory only. The county commissioners will make the final decision in a meeting at a time yet to be determined.