TO

Pitkin County Board of Commissioners

FROM

John Bennett, Vision Committee Pilot; Meg Haynes, Vision Committee Copilot; and
Jackie Francis, Vision Committee Navigator

DATE

April 16, 2020

RE

Vision Committee Final Report to BOCC

As you know, in January 2019, you appointed 123 citizens to serve as part of the ASE Vision process and
offer advice on the future of the Pitkin County-Aspen Airport (ASE). Some of these citizens
represented various neighborhoods, businesses, and civic interests, while others offered general views
from around our community. Together, they (we) reflected a wide diversity of perspectives. Our ASE
Vision Kick-Off meeting was held in February 2019.
The purpose of the ASE Vision process was to advise the BOCC on how the Pitkin County-Aspen Airport
should be modernized to accommodate the community’s air service needs and reflect changes in the
air service industry, while also remaining true to the character and values of the community. As part of
the process, you created five Airport Advisory Groups:
• Airport Vision Committee
• Community Character Working Group
• Technical Working Group
• Airport Experience Working Group
• Focus Group
The four Working Groups concluded their work and presented their findings to the Vision Committee in
December 2019. (A link to each working group’s recommendation and presentation is included in
Appendix A.) The Vision Committee reviewed closely the recommendations of the Working Groups and
then conducted considerable additional work of its own to research, digest, thoroughly vet, and
formulate its final recommendations.

We are attaching the FINAL REPORT of the Airport Vision Committee.
After holding weekly three-hour meetings throughout the beginning of the year, on March 10, 2020,
the Vision Committee voted 20-1 to approve the Recommendations to Achieve our Community Goals
that form the heart of the Final Report. On behalf of the Vision Committee, we are pleased to submit it to
you today.

Additional Considerations:
As the Vision Committee’s “Pilot, Copilot and Navigator,” we offer the following additional thoughts
that were discussed by the Vision Committee but whose language was never finalized before our formal
meetings ended amid the COVID-19 crisis. While these additional thoughts contain no specific,
actionable airport recommendations, we offer them to stimulate community thinking about the
realities of uncertainty and some other important issues that were beyond the primary scope of the
Committee’s work.

 1. ACKNOWLEDGING UNCERTAINTY
A. Rapid Technological Change
In January 2020, Wired Magazine ran a story with the headline: BELL AND HUYNDAI SOAR INTO
THE AIR TAXI RACE — Helicopter maker and global manufacturing giant unveil concept for flying
urban mobility.
The article reported separate initiatives by Bell Helicopter and Hyundai to build electric, verticaltakeoff-and-landing (VTOL) air taxis that could eventually revolutionize travel for trips up to 200
miles. Both companies are partnering with Uber. These “personal air vehicles” will work with a
“new ground-based infrastructure system that will include an air taxi station called a Hub and a
network of electric PBVs—Purpose Built Vehicles—that will shuttle people to and from the air
taxis.”
While such recent announcements do not affect the Vision Committee’s current recommendations
for our future airport, they do underscore the rapid technological changes that will likely alter the
aviation landscape over the next ten to twenty years. The Committee’s Final Report stresses the
need to monitor carefully the growth and functionality of our new airport and to make nimble
course corrections as needed to achieve our four Core Community Goals. Rapid technological
change offers one more reason to remain watchful.
B. Future National Policy Changes
Current federal policy severely limits the ability of states and local communities to regulate aircraft
in order to attain important environmental goals. This limitation could possibly change in the not
distant future.
As the effects of climate change on the wellbeing of both human society and the natural world
become increasingly obvious through fires, floods, storms, disease and drought, federal law may
loosen to allow greater community control over the environmental effects of aviation. For
example, the federal Clean Air Act of 1970 strictly prohibits the regulation of harmful aircraft
pollution: “No State or political subdivision thereof may adopt or attempt to enforce any standard
respecting emissions of any air pollutant from any aircraft…”
This counterintuitive language embedded in something called the “Clean Air Act” may soon
become viewed as a harmful anachronism that our nation can no longer afford. Were this federal
policy to change over the next five to ten years, Pitkin County could find many new tools available
for achieving our community’s environmental goals.

 2. IMPORTANT ISSUES BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THIS REPORT
A. Regional Growth
Throughout this public process, overarching questions related to regional growth arose frequently.
Because such issues deserve their own focus in a community-wide forum, the Vision Committee
recommends that the BOCC initiate these discussions in order to provide a compass for future
community decisions related to infrastructure and other needs.
B. Valley Transportation
The Committee’s Final Report offers a number of recommendations aimed at creating seamless
ground connectivity for the airport. The Report also reiterates the Focus Group’s statement that
“More convenient and easy ground transport would include a mix of public and private modes of
transportation to and from the airport. Consideration should be given to a variety of mass
transport possibilities including light rail, monorail, gondola and greater utilization of RFTA, if
feasible.”
Much like regional growth, issues related to upper valley transportation — and especially airport
connections to Aspen and Snowmass — arose repeatedly during our deliberations. While ultimate
solutions to our upper valley transportation and mobility challenges have been debated for
decades and were beyond the scope of this report, we urge the BOCC to reinvigorate this
important discussion and to work with other elected bodies and RFTA to identify and implement
workable solutions.

Our Concluding Thoughts…
We thank the Board of County Commissioners for your support throughout the fifteen months of this
ASE Vision process, and we express our deep appreciation to the many dozens of citizen volunteers
who worked on this project. Rarely have so many citizens come together to work so hard for so long on
such an important community issue. Only a deep love for our valley could motivate this kind of citizen
effort.
We also thank the Pitkin County staff for all their stellar support. The Vision Committee could never
have finished our work without them. And thanks to the many aviation consultants who provided
countless spreadsheets and calculations to answer our endless questions.
We hope that the Vision Committee’s Final Report properly reflects the extraordinary qualities of the people
and landscape of this remarkable valley that we call home.
John Bennett

Meg Haynes

Jackie Francis