The classic image of an “Estes Park traffic jam” shows a herd of elk crossing the road in front of a line of bemused drivers.
The reality is far less quaint and humorous: For years, the tourist town on the eastern edge of Rocky Mountain National Park has struggled with a Gordian knot of summertime traffic through its downtown core.
Business owners, residents and tourists alike have decried the gridlock at the main intersection, which gets so backed up with RVs and overloaded cars with out-of-state license plates that motorists often have to simmer through two and three cycles of the traffic signal before crawling ahead.
But now, after nearly three decades of deliberation, community collaboration and planning — and with the aid of a $13 million federal grant and another $4.2 million from the state — town officials finally are set to fix the problem.
Yet somehow, the merchants are screaming mad.
Signs posted in nearly every storefront on Elkhorn Avenue advocate “No action on the loop,” opposing the efforts of the town, the Colorado Department of Transportation and the U.S. Department of the Interior to smooth traffic flow via a one-way loop through downtown Estes.
Critics packed a recent town council meeting and have been filling the local newspaper with angry letters to the editor warning that “Estes will never be the same” and suggesting recalls of local elected officials.
Chief among the merchants’ concerns are that motorists no longer will be driving past the candy stores and souvenir shops in both directions on Elkhorn.
But truth be told, it’s not like drivers see a shop and immediately pull over anyway: There’s no parking on the street, and everyone already must walk from one of the nearby lots, making Elkhorn famed as a sugar-scented, window-shopper’s promenade.
While anti-government sentiments certainly are fashionable in some quarters, in this case it’s entirely misplaced. The original idea for a one-way loop was generated by a citizen committee 12 years ago, and in early public meetings, the plan drew general support.
But to hear critics, the loop is being “forced down the community’s throat” and would lead to the “destruction of downtown Estes Park,” even though the project would not require expanding existing roads or increase the leisurely tourist-trap speed limit.
In a flyer handed out to visitors, opponents of the project implore: “If you love the charm of Estes Park and don’t want to see it mowed over by one-way streets and four-lane highways, please let our town know how you feel!”
In the past, the town has tried employing crossing guards at the main intersection to smooth the flow of traffic and protect pedestrians. A minor bypass route was created for those wanting to head up U.S. 36, although another “secret” bypass for locals traveling west on U.S. 34 past the historic Stanley Hotel has always remained unpublicized at the demand of the merchants worried that visitors would avoid downtown altogether.
So at this point, the town is awaiting the results of a federal environmental analysis expected later this summer, but officials are wary enough of the vocal opponents that they are not absolutely committed to moving forward with the project.
It would mean rejecting the grant money.
It would require coming up with a new plan to rebuild three bridges that are inadequate to withstand floodwaters, which would have been included in the loop project.
And it would leave Estes Park with its traffic problem at a time when visitation to the national park steadily climbs.
Traffic snarls have plagued Estes Park practically since F.O. Stanley chugged his legendary steam-driven motor carriage up to the mountain valley at the turn of the 20th century, and congestion on the roads consistently is named in surveys as the town’s most pressing problem.
After all, no one wants to go on vacation and sit in traffic.
Unless it’s caused by elk.
Steve Lipsher (slipsher@comcast.net) of Silverthorne writes a monthly column for The Denver Post.
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit or check out our for how to submit by e-mail or mail.
