Hal Sundin's column on the Editorial page SCREAMS for rebuttal. Titled "Deciding which trail to take" he deals with both the Aspen Branch r-o-w and the Crystal River corridor. Here is his take on the Aspen Branch:


The Roaring Fork battle is over how to accommodate both rail and trail within the right of way. In certain sections, conditions make building the trail adjacent to the tracks very expensive, so the trail supporters would like to build the trail on the rail bed. RFTA has proposed removing the rails and ties, and using the $1 million salvage value of the rails to help pay for completion of the trail.
This has struck horror into the hearts of rail supporters, who fear that removal of the rails would destroy any chance of ever resuming rail service from Glenwood Springs to Aspen. But let's look at the realities of this concern.
The present road bed is more than 100 years old, and was designed for rail speeds of about 20 mph, so it would require major reconstruction to allow high-speed commuter service. The present trackage is in poor condition, and will require complete replacement if commuter rail service ever becomes economically feasible. Even rail enthusiasts acknowledge that this may be decades away. So the question becomes, why should the construction of a trail which could be used by thousands of people be held hostage for decades for a dream which very likely may never materialize? The rails are really nothing more than a bit of nostalgia spawning a fond dream of the future.


Go to http://gp.us.publicus.com/article/20050 ... /103170002 for the entire column,
then write a letter to <letters@postindependent.com>.


. . . Jan


.