Category Archives: Politics

Is Boulder, Colorado in Danger of Becoming Too Dense?

By Dom Nozzi

March 9, 2017

I hear it all the time as a resident of Boulder, Colorado: “Boulder is too dense!”

I beg to differ.

I support Boulder’s long-standing objectives, such as reducing the city carbon footprint (to ease global warming), reducing noise pollution, improving affordability, increasing the number of trips made by foot or bike or transit, slowing tax increases, ensuring the City has the fiscal capacity to engage in needed/ongoing maintenance of our infrastructure, protecting environmentally sensitive outlying areas from suburban development, reducing traffic injuries and deaths (in part by designing streets to be slower speed and obligate motorists to be more attentive), promoting small retail shops and discouraging large retail shops, encouraging diversity and creativity, improving public health, and retaining a lovable character rather than an Anywhere USA character.

Each of these worthy objectives are furthered by more compact (dense) development.

Unfortunately, despite the conventional wisdom, Boulder is actually quite dispersed. Shockingly so.

Indeed, Boulder is so extremely low-density suburban that if we don’t become more compact and add a lot more housing, we will continue to undermine each of the objectives I list here.

Besides the low density and short-statured nature of development I have observed in Boulder, there is another element that strongly signals that Boulder is suburban in character. sprawl
Christopher Leinberger has pointed out that in compact, walkable neighborhoods, “more is better.” That is, new, more compact development tends to be welcomed because it typically improves the quality of life of those living a walkable lifestyle (more things to walk to, for example). By contrast, says Leinberger, in a drivable suburban neighborhood, “more is less.” In such a setting, new and more compact development tends to be detrimental to the drivable quality of life of residents (roads are more congested and parking is more scarce, for example).

For decades, Boulder has had a near consensus that “more is less,” which is a strong signal that Boulder is a drivable suburban community. Indeed, stopping development – or, if not possible, at least minimizing the density of new development — tends to be the be all and end all of protecting or improving quality of life in Boulder.

Our very low-density, dispersed suburban character means that Boulder’s per capita environmental impact is, ironically, very large (being “green” means far more than engaging in curbside recycling or driving a Prius). Dispersed land use patterns found in Boulder are unsustainable, very environmentally destructive, and ensure that nearly all trips in Boulder will be made by motor vehicle.

There is a growing desire for compact, walkable, town center housing — particularly with the Millennial generation — yet Boulder provides very little if any of that sort of housing. Demand for such housing is substantially higher than the supply of it. Which severely amplifies the affordable housing crisis in Boulder.

Sustainability is far out of reach for Boulder unless we provide a lot more compact, walkable housing.

In sum, I think Boulder is quite far from being “too dense.” So far that a “too dense” Boulder will not happen in our lifetimes — if ever. Indeed, it seems to me that Boulder’s biggest concern should be that we are too dispersed.

I previously wrote about why I believe so many people in Boulder (like in so many other American communities) believe their community is “too dense,” despite the obvious signs I cite above.

It is enormously ironic that a great many Boulder residents — not to mention the millions worldwide — love the great historic cities and towns of Europe so much that they happily spend huge sums of money to visit such towns on a regular basis. Nearly all of us love Copenhagen. We adore Amsterdam. We are charmed by Perugia. We are delighted by Dubrovnik. We cannot get enough of Granada.

Yet each of these celebrated cities are far more compact – far more dense – than Boulder.

Why this disconnect?

I believe there are three important reasons. First, the contemporary modernist architectural paradigm we have been saddled with for several decades has thrown the inherently lovable 315-0722092524-NSA-building-and-parking-lotand timeless traditional building design into the waste can in favor of repellent, “innovative,” look-at-me design. Citizens are thereby conditioned to equate new compact development with hideous buildings. Second, local zoning regulations in cities such as Boulder have made lovable, human-scaled design illegal by requiring excessive setbacks, excessive car parking, and excessive private open space. Third, nearly all citizens live car-dependent lifestyles. And because their cars consume such an enormous amount of space, motorists are compelled to fear and oppose town design that they otherwise love as tourists. They have, in essence, become their own enemies by striving to improve their life as motorists (equating quality of life with easy parking and free-flowing traffic), not realizing that doing so is ruinous to a healthy city and a lovable quality of life.

For much of our history up until the 20th Century, citizens welcomed and celebrated new development in their communities because they knew that almost invariably, the new development would improve the quality of life in their community.  Steve Belmont has informed us that a densifying city is a sign of city health. But that welcoming of new development has been understandably inverted into a widespread opposition to new modern-architecture-Ronchamp-Chapeldevelopment, largely due to the modernist architectural paradigm, local car-friendly development regulations, and car-dependent citizens who have become cheerleaders for their cars rather than for themselves, their family, and their neighbors.

Boulder can comfortably house a great many more newcomers, and if our land development regulations are properly crafted to insist that new development be walkable, our community will be greatly improved in each of the ways I list above.

For the record, I generally dislike buildings taller than 5 stories (the limit set by city charter), but know that the city can be much better and provide a lot more housing by allowing buildings to be 3-5 stories in appropriate locations.

Note, too, that I do not believe that EVERYONE should be obligated to live in more compact, walkable housing. A community should always provide sufficient housing for the full range of lifestyle choices: walkable town center, drivable suburban, and rural.

Unfortunately, drivable suburban is about the only lifestyle option offered in Boulder. Because we have made the cities we love impossible to build.

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics, Sprawl, Suburbia, Transportation, Urban Design, Walking

Nudging Not Commanding

 

By Dom Nozzi

January 14, 2017

I recently participated in a Facebook discussion regarding the huge environmental impact of air travel.

Many people rightly have serious concerns about the enormous environmental impacts of flying. Many are so concerned that they advocate a strict prohibition on such travel.

Since reading the book Nudge, by Richard Thaler (2009), however, I have become a much stronger advocate of “nudging” people towards socially desirable objectives. Nudging retains choice for those who must have that choice, but makes it more difficult or costly to opt for socially undesirable options (such as less obligatory behavior including recreational travel).

Thaler cites the example of elevator and stairs location: the elevator should be lesopen-silver-elevators visible and hidden away when you walk into a front door. The stairs, which are more socially desirable than an elevator, should be right at the front door.

Command economies (think prohibition laws in the Soviet Union) ignore the fact that it is necessary to give some people the choice to do certain things, and the Soviet example shows that commanding instead of nudging is not particularly sustainable or compatible with human nature and human needs.

I say these things as someone with an environmental science degree, and as someone who has lived life with a very, very small ecological footprint (never owned a car, no kids, low-meat diet, etc.).

It HAS been very tempting to me to outlaw things that are environmentally harmful. But I have come to learn that as painful as it might be, we must allow for choices.

We just need to make less desirable choices less easy.

Leave a comment

Filed under Economics, Environment, Politics, Transportation

A Quality Future for Boulder CO Means Something Vastly Different from What No-Growthers Seek

 

By Dom Nozzi

January 8, 2017

The great irony of those in Boulder, Colorado who seek to protect the low-density character of neighborhoods (and to allegedly protect the “small town charm” of Boulder) is that by following the tactics recommended by too many “no-growthers,” Boulder will continue to take the Anywhere USA path that so many other American cities have taken (and continue to take).

Fighting against compact development is a recipe for keeping this city from becoming more walkable, charming, and human scaled. Such a fight will make it more likely that our future will be more car-dependent, more isolated, less walkable, more filled with surface parking lots, and less affordable (due to a growing lack of travel choices). Much of Boulder was built in an era of failed community design ideas that are unsustainable. Many of those who seek to “protect” neighborhoods are those who like the privatopia of suburbs and don’t like cities, and therefore don’t understand or appreciate those elements that make for healthy cities: slow speeds, human scale, compact development, agglomeration economies, diversity, conviviality, and choices.

Such advocates, instead, ruinously seem to believe that free-flowing and high speed traffic and easy car parking are the keys to quality of life. Actually, such objectives are toxic to a 51df393d218c6-imagehealthy city because they undermine the elements I list above.

The lifestyle of those who live in low-density Boulder neighborhoods compels them to fight for a halt to population growth, fight to minimize density and building heights, fight to oppose traffic calming and modest street and parking allocations, and fight to oppose mixed use.

Why?

Because fighting for those things helps protect their ability to travel easily by car. Because their neighborhood design obligates them to make most or all trips by car, they must fight for these things to protect their suburban lifestyle. Car travel becomes highly inconvenient when a community is more compact and slow speed. Densities over 2 or 3 units per acre make car travel much more inconvenient.

Conversely, densities below 3 or 4 units per acre make walking, bicycling, and transit nearly impossible.

It is therefore easy to understand why so many in suburban Boulder have concluded that easy driving and parking are equivalent to quality of life. Tragically, easy driving and parking are enemies of a quality city.

It is important to note, despite the unfair, inflammatory falsehoods we often have thrown at us urbanists, that this is NOT a call to make all neighborhoods in Boulder more compact. It IS a plea to recognize that for too much of Boulder’s history, the only acceptable form of development is high speed, car-happy suburban.

And that it is NEVER acceptable for there to be slow speed, compact walkable development.

Anywhere.

The result is a vast oversupply of drivable suburban development — which has no future, by the way — and a substantial undersupply of compact walkable development. Indeed, I would be hard-pressed to point to ANY compact development in Boulder. Because there is a big and growing demand for a walkable lifestyle — particularly among the younger generations — the price of such housing is skyrocketing (there are other reasons, but this one is substantial).

Boulder must do what it can to provide a larger supply of walkable housing — in appropriate locations.

Not doing so will lead to a grim, more costly future for Boulder.

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics, Transportation, Urban Design

The Growth Ponzi Scheme

 

By Dom Nozzi

October 15, 2016

In Charles Marohn’s 2012 book, Thoughts on Building Strong Towns, we find a five-part essay about how suburban growth is an unsustainable Ponzi Scheme.

New suburban development initially costs little for local government, infrastructure like roads is built by the developer then handed over to local government for free, and tax revenue starts flowing in quickly. Looks like a great deal.

Initially.

But what is not well understood is that the long term maintenance and repair cost is huge. And the tax revenue from the low-density development comes nowhere near paying for the ongoing costs for those roads and sewers. The “solution” has been to try to endlessly promote even MORE suburban growth. The revenue from the new growth is used to pay for the old growth. But endless new suburban growth is impossible. Particularly in Boulder and Boulder County.

The result of having new growth pay for old growth is a classic Ponzi Scheme.

Could the road funding controversy in Boulder County be at least partly explained by Marohn’s Growth Ponzi Scheme?

Compact, slower speed, human-scaled urban development creates wealth. Lower density, higher speed, car-scaled suburban development destroys wealth.

How can suburban development pay for itself? We can start, implies Marohn, by nearly doubling property (and other) taxes in new suburban neighborhoods.

Since this is not politically feasible, the future will be, shall we say, challenging.

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics, Sprawl, Suburbia, Urban Design

Is “Restricting” Traffic Unfairly Forcing People to Live in a Town Center?

 

By Dom Nozzi

September 4, 2012

By re-introducing equity into our transportation system, we should provide a balance in the public tax revenue and public space so that the War on Bicyclists, Pedestrians, and Transit Users comes to an end.

For nearly 100 years the US government has powerfully encouraged an artificially high percentage of Americans to live in suburbia and be car-dependent. This artificially high demand for car-dependent suburban living would be much lower if we did not allocate 95 Carmageddon highwaypercent of our public transportation dollars to cars. In the name of restoring fairness and discouraging artificially excessive car-dependent sprawl, the US would need to allocate a lot more public dollars to bicycling, walking, and transit and a lot less to motorists. That would mean, in part, that cars would be allocated less road and parking lot space.

Would that mean “restricting traffic flow”? (a common criticism of some of the transportation reforms I call for)

Yes, if by “restricting flow” one means slowing down car travel and making car parking more scarce and more expensive.

In other words, having motorists fairly pay their own way, rather than to continue to enjoy government welfare handouts.

Would that mean we would “force people to live in cities and take the bus”? No, unless we take hysteria-mongering liberties with the definition of “force.” A much more accurate and fair word than “force” in this case is that some people — in the more fair, sustainable and balanced transportation system I recommend – would start to re-evaluate the costs and benefits of their choice of housing and travel (in both the short term and long term).

Rather than being artificially influenced to live in suburbia and be car-dependent, some will opt to live closer to town, and consider travel options such as car-pooling, car-sharing, transit, bicycling and walking. Others will opt to pay the higher (yet fair and balanced) costs of suburban, car-dependent living.

In sum, this scenario in no way “forces” anyone to live in cities or take the bus. I call for no laws that would obligate people to live in cities or take the bus.

Consider a hypothetical example of a community where a high percentage of residents opt to send their children to a private school, in part because large government vouchers are provided to parents who decide to send their kids to the private school. If the government voucher for private schools is ended, some parents will opt to send their children to public instead of private schools due to the more fair, balanced system where there are no government vouchers offered for private schools. Other parents will continue to send their kids to private school despite the loss of vouchers.

This is in no sense a way to “force” people to send their kids to public school. It IS a way to end a government practice that artificially encourages more parents to send their kids to private school than would be the case had the voucher subsidy not existed. And it IS a way to end the unfair practice of having parents who send their kids to public school to pay higher taxes in order to subsidize other parents who send their kids to private school.

Similarly, if the government ends its century-long practice of allocating “free” multi-million dollar multi-lane (and free-to-use) roads, artificially low-cost gasoline and gas taxes, and “free” seas of asphalt parking (each of which are transportation versions of school vouchers), some would opt to live in less remote, far-flung housing, and would opt to bicycle, walk or use transit more. And again, others would opt to continue to live in sprawl and be car-dependent.

Choice therefore remains in place. Fairness in government allocation of public dollars and resources is increased when we put less than 95 percent of the public dollars and resources into car travel (i.e., when we don’t only offer government “vouchers” to those who opt to drive).

I stand for fairness in government allocations for travel choices. To call my approach an example of “force” is absurd.

Not to mention unsustainable and ruinous.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Bicycling, Politics, Sprawl, Suburbia, Transportation, Walking

Is It a Good Idea to Build Walkable Developments in Greenfields?

And Will a Strong Plan and Strong Elected Officials Be Sufficient?

By Dom Nozzi

August 2, 2000

I think as a culture, we need to make sprawling, poorly-located projects and happy cars the Great Satan, the Number One Moral Evil.

And we need to figure out what conditions will result in such a change.

Frankly, I think one of them is building traditional, walkable neighborhood developments (TNDs) in greenfields. Admittedly a compromise, but it is one of the few market-based leverage points we have. I think that once most of us become convinced that our future development can ONLY be TND, contiguous, properly located development rules will inherently follow. As it stands now, only a few pointy-headed intellectuals understand seasideaerialthat important need, because we’ve poured trillions into building big highways and thereby locking ourselves in to having a huge majority that wants to flee the city for the cabin in the woods.

It seems to me that broadly speaking, we have two realistic tools for reversing unsustainable sprawl:

 

  1. Use TNDs as a leverage and educational tool in greenfields; or
  2. Stop widening roads and starting road dieting a great many roadways.

In the near term, I think #1 is much more likely. The outrage is that #1 means the loss of important natural areas (not to mention fragmentation), but it is almost certainly the price we must pay in the near term for committing the sin of pouring trillions into highways. I do not think it is feasible for us to find the political will and cultural values shift in the near term to fight for:

  1. TNDs, and only contiguous to an existing town.

Yes, polls encouragingly show that the majority across the US oppose sprawl. But we know that there have been huge majorities that support environmental conservation for DECADES. Of course, this has merely been lip service. It is so easy to tell a pollster what you think is best, based on what our culture says is moral, but then not walk the walk in our own lives.

It is a concept known as “Social Desirability Bias,” where people dishonestly tell pollsters how they think or behave not because they actually think or behave in such a way, but because they do not want to admit to the pollster that their thoughts or behaviors are unethical.

We need to be careful and not kid ourselves about how successful we can be in the near term to discourage development in undesirably remote places. Boulder CO, for example, typically elects Council members who are strongly in favor of tightly controlled growth and development. And history shows that south Florida somewhat similarly fought hard for environmental conservation and against sprawl.

The results are not pretty.

Reaction to such elected officials in Boulder sometimes results in the election of folks relatively supportive of unrestrained development, and even with a majority of Council members supporting strong growth management, such an aggressive stance tends to result in poorly designed sprawl occurring in towns around Boulder that are not affected by Boulder’s regulations. Most of that sprawl houses people who commute into Boulder. And we know what has been done in south Florida.

I wish we could successfully manage new development with nothing more than political will and well-crafted plans. But if the market, HEAVILY DISTORTED BY GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES, calls for the opposite, we will get what the market wants, regardless of having even the most impressive elected officials and plans.

I often get into a shouting match with my Gainesville, Florida planning department supervisors, who still fail to realize that the long-range comprehensive plan merely records what has already been decided or what is already on the ground. This is the case despite Gainesville currently having a majority of “liberal” (albeit spineless) commissioners for a number of years. I’m hoping to have a minor effect with the transportation plan, but my early call to have “no net increase in road capacity” has already been chopped out by my supervisors.

The comprehensive plan is nearly irrelevant with regard to development that occurs, even if it calls strongly for no sprawl and is backed by five no-growthers on the city commission. What matters is the market. We must change that, with the few tools we have, if we want to have an impact. End public subsidies that fuel sprawl, stop widening roads, stop requiring a huge amount of parking, stop making mixed use and slow and narrow streets and granny flats illegal, encourage admirable model TNDs, etc.

More Thoughts on the Above Topics

We are nowhere near putting a halt to sprawling, remote, car dependent development. Given that political reality, I’m much happier with a TND in remote locations than a conventional sprawl project in such a location.

We certainly need to determine what it will take to muster the political will to effectively stop sprawl. Mostly, we need to stop widening roads, start putting a huge number of roads on a diet, start requiring pedestrian-friendly and auto-inconvenient mixed use projects via development regulations, and modify market preferences for cabins in the woods. How can we do that? I’m hoping that part of the solution will be to get some of the sprawl subdivisions (which is 99.9% of what is built) to be TNDs instead, so they can stand as visible INDICTMENTS of auto-dependent shlock. We need more envy on the part of the upper classes (who tend to be opinion-leaders and power-brokers) for new urbanism, and an excellent way to do that is with greenfield TNDs.

We need greens to stop fighting like mad — and burning themselves out in the process — to stop an infill project in order to save a few trees. They will win a few battles, but lose the war as they turn a blind eye – comparatively speaking — to the eco-rape happening at a much larger, more environmentally costly scale, in our greenfields. Too often, it seems like greens fight hard against TNDs, yet barely raise a peep when it is an auto-friendly project in a remote location.

It is fortunate that Sierra Club is finally starting to realize that a key lynchpin on saving our remaining, important natural areas is to address transportation. Transportation drives what happens with our land use (and, indirectly, our conservation). If we fail to stop our single-minded efforts to make cars happy, our natural areas are doomed to the sprawl steamroller even if every single elected official in the US supports strong growth management.

I agree that time is of the essence. We must therefore work quickly to reverse our car dependency trends, since, more than anything else, such trends are wiping out our greenfields with a HUGE number of new  subdivisions every week. I don’t think it is healthy or sustainable for us to keep fighting against greenfield developments. There are too many battles, and not enough of us. And the market forces — mainly due to the huge roads we’ve built — are too overwhelming.

As for concerns about such things as habitat fragmentation, it is a clear threat. And the number one cause? Not greenfield TNDs. The big culprit is roads and auto dependence.

I agree that requiring only contiguous development will buy us time. But our car culture makes that rather unlikely, since the market pressure to leapfrog is huge.

I like the jujitsu concept here. I’m often trying to figure out a way to use the power of the enemy against it. We need to get the market to help us. Remove subsidies. Build admirable models. Tax what we dislike…

I guess our ultimate dilemma is that stopping the road-builders remains a MONSTROUS undertaking. Perhaps as difficult as finding the will to simply stop sprawl development through, say, an urban growth boundary. I’m convinced one of our best hopes is that it soon becomes unaffordable for us to continue widening.

Then we need traffic congestion to do its many positive things.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Economics, Environment, Politics, Sprawl, Suburbia, Transportation, Urban Design

Improving Traffic Safety in Boulder Colorado

 

By Dom Nozzi

July 12, 2016

In recent weeks, I have been alarmed and saddened by the uptick in vehicle crashes in the Boulder area that have led to serious injuries and deaths. I was touched and encouraged last night by the strong showing of support for a big improvement in traffic safety for Boulder at my Boulder Transportation Advisory Board meeting (of which I am a member).

I have been a bicycle commuter since I was a young boy. I have spent the past 35 years both academically and professionally in the field of transportation – particularly in the area of transportation safety for bicyclists, pedestrians, and motorists.

That background has made traffic safety one of my most important objectives of advocacy, and a primary reason why I was interested in serving on Boulder’s Transportation Advisory Board.

I think it is very important that our Board respond to the heightened community concerns about the state of traffic safety in Boulder with support for an agenda we as a Board recommend to City Council.

Indicators of Traffic Safety

If we are to make any meaningful progress in reducing the number of serious crashes in Boulder, we must be able to measure trends to know whether our safety measures are succeeding. In my view, there are three primary measures:

(1) Annual Number of Serious Crashes. This measure is readily available and has not shown any substantial downward trend for a long time.

(2) Average Speed of Motor Vehicles. This measure is difficult to quantify, but given long-term trends in conventional street design, average speeds are likely to have plateaued at a high level or has increased over time. We know that average motor vehicle speeds are strongly correlated to the number of severe crashes.

(3) Level of Motorist Inattentiveness. At least one study I have seen reports that approximately 80 percent of all motor vehicle crashes are due to inattentiveness. Unfortunately, it is nearly impossible to measure the level of inattentiveness. Nevertheless, it is extremely likely that motorist inattentiveness has skyrocketed in recent decades due, again, to long-term trends in conventional street design, as well as an American lifestyle that has grown increasingly busy and exhausting.

Street engineering and Safety in Numbers are head and shoulders above other common safety efforts, in terms of effectiveness. Indeed, Boulder’s laudable goal of achieving Vision Zero will not be meaningfully approached without street engineering reform.

As has been said many times, good street design produces desirable and safe travel behavior.

By far, the most effective way to increase road safety is to engineer Boulder streets to reduce average car speeds and increase motorist attentiveness. Traffic engineers are well-versed in how to do this.

In particular, minimizing the curb to curb distance on streets and intersections is essential.

The Same Old Song and Dance

For the past century, the status quo for Boulder and the State of Colorado has been to employ warnings, and the “forgiving street” paradigm for road safety.

Conventional warning methods (the “Five Warnings”) long used in Boulder (and other cities) include Warning Paint, Warning Lights, Warning Signs, Warning Education, and Warning Law Enforcement. These warnings are almost entirely ineffective when roads and intersections are oversized, and after a century of employing these warnings, they now suffer from severely diminished returns.

Street design is “forgiving” when street design “forgives” the motorist for driving too fast or too inattentively.  This design paradigm strives to minimize the likelihood of motor vehicle crashes by seeking to minimize the consequences of driving too fast or too inattentively. Forgiving design has converted a large number of Boulder streets into high-speed highways rather than the local and slower streets they should be. The following are design examples:

  • Travel lanes that are extremely wide;
  • Roads that contain an a large number of travel lanes or turn lanes;
  • A large vision triangle at intersections;
  • A large clear zone on the sides of roads (removing trees or other stationary objects);
  • Super-elevating road curves;
  • Intersections with a large turning radius.

The following links describe this strategy.

http://www.pps.org/blog/what-can-we-learn-from-the-dutch-self-explaining-roads/

https://www.cnu.org/publicsquare/new-science-street-design

http://nacto.org/docs/usdg/design_safe_urban_roadsides_dumbaugh.pdf

Today, following several decades of forgiving street design, average car speeds are higher and motorist inattentiveness is a far worse public safety problem. In many ways, forgiving street design is the reason for these higher speeds and increased inattentiveness.

Fortunately, Boulder is beginning to move toward a new street design paradigm. But relatively narrow, attentive streets such as those found in Boulder’s Holiday neighborhood are the rare exception rather than the rule.

Nearly all of the recent, significant car crashes in Boulder have occurred on major roads. Our dilemma is that a large number of Boulder residents seem unwilling to humanize such roads to make them safer (reducing dimensions to reduce car speeds, for example). And there remains a strong desire to maintain relatively high speed, free-flowing traffic on such roads, which is in direct conflict with safety objectives. One commonly heard strategy for those who oppose the safety redesign of major roads is to recommend that bicyclists avoid such roads. But this is naïve, in conflict with healthy city objectives, and discriminatory.

It is also naïve to think that Boulder can ever comprehensively provide such things as protected bike lanes, off-street paths, and safe pedestrian crossings for the enormous number of destinations that bicyclists and pedestrians need to access. While protected lanes and safe pedestrian crossings have a role to play, it is incumbent on us as a city to recognize that over-sized, high-speed highways are inappropriate in cities and must be reformed to be compatible with safety objectives and healthy city objectives. Many other cities have done this. There is no reason that Boulder cannot follow that path.

Cities thrive when streets induce slower, more attentive travel speeds, and when streets safely allow travel by pedestrians and bicyclists. In part, such design advances city health by promoting “agglomeration economies,” where people and businesses are induced to be compactly drawn to each other (or co-located near each other).

Ruinously, nearly all Americans have aggressively worked for several decades to ensure that communities enable higher car speeds.

Cities are degraded and unsafe when large, high-speed highways intrude into them. Such design has a repelling influence on people and businesses that induce them to disperse and separate from each other. Social capital and a sense of community thereby decline as well.

Toward a New Vision for Traffic Safety

For Boulder to make meaningful progress in reducing serious motor vehicle crashes, new methods must be employed in the future.

It has become increasingly clear after decades of use that the “Five Warnings” are not working well.

Nor are the forgiving street tactics.

Instead, there is a growing recognition of the need for street design that obligates slower motor vehicle speeds and more attentive driving. This design is by far the most effective way to increase road safety in Boulder. Traffic engineers are well-versed in how to do this.

Given the above, I have proposed that the Boulder Transportation Advisory Board support the following. Admittedly, they are largely long-term tactics, but after 100 years of using counterproductive approaches, it should not surprise us that there are few if any quick fixes.

  1. The City should ramp up its program to redesign streets. Lane repurposing should remain in the city toolbox for roads that contain a large number of travel lanes. Major roads should be Complete Streets. Local and collector neighborhood streets – which today are excessively wide and unsafe on a large percentage of streets — should be incrementally redesigned to be slow streets, shared streets, and give-way streets. road diet before and afterOn-street parking should be employed much more often (and retained where it already exists), and existing one-way streets should be converted back to two-way operation (one-way streets are exceptionally dangerous and inconvenient for bicyclists – not to mention their toxicity to retail and residences). Lane widths and turning radii at intersections need to be incrementally reduced as well.
  1. The City should restore funding or find new funding to finance a ramped up street redesign program to create low-design-speed streets.
  1. The City should ratchet down the use of the “Five Warnings”: warning signage, warning lights, warning paint, warning education, and warning law enforcement. These tools have been over-used to the point of being a distracting, counterproductive tactic that reduces safety.
  1. To take advantage of the powerful safety benefits of Safety in Numbers, the City should redouble efforts to significantly grow the number of bicyclists and pedestrians and transit users. Tactics can include pricing, Eco-Pass provision, compact development, and parking reform, for example.
  1. The City should incrementally strive to increase street connectivity. By having more connected streets, bicyclists and pedestrians can better avoid using more dangerous major streets.
  1. The City should put a moratorium on the creation of new double-left turn lane intersections, and incrementally convert double-left turns to single-left turns (removal of left- and right-turn lanes is particularly important in the Boulder town center). City data shows that major intersections are the location of an enormous number of crashes. Double-left turn lanes create huge intersection sizes and high-speed, inattentive driving. Such intersections are far too scary/dangerous for all but the most skilled, courageous bicyclist, and the crossing distance for pedestrians makes these intersections very undesirable – particularly for seniors, the disabled, and children. Double-left turn intersections are in direct conflict with safety objectives and efforts to leverage Safety in Numbers.
  2. The City should strive to minimize the size of service vehicles and buses so that larger vehicles do not become an excessively large design vehicle. When emergency, service and delivery vehicles are relatively large, the excessive size becomes the “design vehicle” that road engineers use, which ends up driving the dimensions of city streets. Huge vehicles should not be determining the size of our street infrastructure. Street sizing in a town center should instead be based on safety for pedestrians and bicyclists, human scale, and overall quality of life.

The time for Boulder to start using effective tactics for improved traffic safety is way overdue.

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Bicycling, Politics, Road Diet, Transportation, Urban Design, Walking