Tag Archives: Road Diet

The Suburban, Car-Based, Low-Density Lifestyle Has No Future

 

By Dom Nozzi

June 18, 2019

It is tiresome and painfully predictable — as was expressed in a Facebook thread I was recently involved in — that when a city adopts a brilliant, highly successful urban design tactic and a suggestion is made that we adopt the same tactic in our community, the knee-jerk response is “Yes, but they are different than us, so it won’t work here!”

I call such people members of the “Squelcher Squad,” as they use that argument over and over again to squelch an idea before it is adopted.

When bicycling in downtown Denver a few days ago, I noticed that Denver has right-sized (road dieted) streets in downtown to create protected bike lanes (among many other benefits). It strikes me that we heard a great many anti-city/pro-car folks scream that Folsom Street cannot be road dieted because there are “too many cars on that street.”

Why, then, can Denver road diet downtown streets despite those streets carrying far more cars than Folsom? Surely, Denver has members of the Squelcher Squad who were saying that a road diet won’t work in Denver because while it might work all over the US, “it won’t work in Denver because Denver is different. Downtown streets have far too many cars!” Note, BTW, that the Boulder Squelcher Squad was conveniently silent about successful Denver road diets, despite their having far more cars than Boulder.

If the “Yes, but they are different” argument fails to squelch the idea, the Squelcher Squad frequently plays another card: The “Catch-22” card.

In the Denver example above, this squelcher tactic would say that “Denver can do road diets but Boulder cannot because Denver has far better transit than Boulder!” When it is pointed out that the reason Denver has better transit than Boulder is because Denver is far more compact (has far higher density) than Boulder, the Squelcher Squad then plays its Catch-22 card. “Boulder cannot do road diets because we don’t have good enough transit! But Boulder also cannot have transit because I will not allow Boulder to be more compact!”

What drives this Catch-22 attitude on the part of the Squelcher Squad? It is the fact that squelchers are trapped in a car-dependent, suburban lifestyle. Those trapped in this lifestyle are forced to use a car for nearly every trip they make. Using transit, a bicycle, or walking is impractical. Because a car consumes 17 to 100 times more space than a person not in a car, and because the car-based lifestyle requires easy, convenient, affordable travel by car, those in the car-based lifestyle MUST oppose compact development as a way to protect the viability of their lifestyle. They must, in other words, preserve their low-density, space-consuming neighborhood design in amber.

As it turns out, then, the car-dependent lifestyle is unsustainable, largely because it is not in any sense resilient to change. It is, instead, a fragile way to live.

Because change in a healthy, sustainable city is inevitable, members of the Squelcher Squad have a lifestyle with no future. All species and lifestyles that were not adaptable to change in world history are now extinct. This is the inevitable fate of the suburban, car-based, low-density lifestyle in a world of inevitable change.

Postscript:

Members of the Squelcher Squad often inform us that our city cannot afford to provide the quality transit service found in many larger cities. While it is correct that smaller cities such as Boulder could not quickly install a high-quality transit system found in a city such as, say, Copenhagen, I don’t see why Boulder would need to do that as a way to follow the admirable lead of a city like Copenhagen.

The important lessons many of us get from cities like Copenhagen: land uses that are much more compact/dense than Boulder deliver many enormous benefits: affordability, transportation choice, quality of life, lifestyle choice, societal health/fitness, overall happiness, lower levels of traffic deaths, lower levels of air pollution and fuel consumption, etc.

How was a city like Copenhagen able to find the money and political will to build their transit system? It was almost entirely due to not making the mistakes of Boulder and many other US cities. Mistakes such as dispersed, low-density land use patterns, and putting too much into accommodating easy and affordable car travel.

In sum, if Boulder starts incrementally allowing more compact development, and reverses its many decades of promoting easy car travel and parking, it will inevitably see the incremental ability to find the dollars and political will to establish a better transit system. A viable future for Boulder requires that these land use and transit reforms be established, so we should start sooner rather than later as a way to ease the difficulty.

 

Advertisements

1 Comment

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

Improving Bicycling in Boulder, Colorado

 

By Dom Nozzi

April 30, 2019

Boulder is preparing to update its Transportation Master Plan, and part of that is to adopt new policies for improving Boulder’s bike network. Here is what I suggested…

The following are essential reforms for improving bicycling in Boulder:

  1. On roads that are more like highways than the slower-speed streets they should be in the Boulder town center (such as Canyon, Broadway, Arapahoe, and Folsom), lane-reducing road diets are very important. These high-speed roads should not be the car-only routes when they are in the town center, as healthy town centers need both slower speeds and rich transportation choice (cars, bikes, ped, transit).
  2. Lane reductions are needed for Boulder intersections that have double-left turn lanes (they need to become single-left turn lanes, or in the town center, zero-left turn lanes).
  3. Coupled with lane reductions, highways in the Boulder town center should also incorporate effective HORIZONTAL traffic calming (since the highways are also emergency response routes, calming that is compatible with emergency vehicles is necessary – including bulb-outs, circles/roundabouts, and on-street parking). Examples of “horizontal” calming includes intersection and mid-block bulb-outs, reduction in travel lane widths, and on-street parking. Examples of “vertical” calming includes speed bumps/humps, and speed tables. Vertical calming designs are almost never desirable or appropriate.
  4. One-way streets must be converted back to two-way operation.

Bicycling in Boulder will become much more common if the following non-bike network reforms are achieved:

  1. Parking is reformed (eliminate required [minimum] parking, establish more parking cash-out, unbundle the price of parking from the price of housing, price free parking spaces, and reduce the quantity of free parking spaces).
  2. Reduce travel distances for bicyclists by substantially incentivizing a much larger quantity of compact, mixed-use development in the city.

I would point out that each of the above tactics are effective ways for Boulder to achieve its climate change goals.

Shame on Boulder for being so far behind the times on the above six items – particularly given the crisis in recent years of the unacceptably high level of traffic injuries and deaths in Boulder, not to mention the affordable housing crisis.

 

Leave a comment

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

Self-Perpetuating Doom

By Dom Nozzi

A superb, must-read article describing the grim, isolating future that a great many older Americans face appeared in the fall of 2018. The article noted that the suburban lifestyle will greatly diminish the ability for most seniors in the US to be able to make trips from their homes. They will, in effect, be trapped in their homes as they will be unable to visit friends, shop for food or other household needs, visit a doctor, or visit parks and cultural events.

Self-driving cars won’t be a remedy for a long time, if ever.

I have made many of the points in this article repeatedly over the years.

It is important to catch the point in the article that town planners do NOT have the ability to rectify this important crisis, as US planners have almost no power to implement effective tools. This is largely because most Americans are NIMBYs who fight aggressively to allow no change to their suburban lifestyle. In other words, planners are met with violent, raging opposition from citizens when tactics to escape this grim future are proposed. There is, for example, extreme opposition to more compact, dense development. More narrow, slower-speed street design. Retrofitting bicycling and walking paths. And mixing homes with offices and retail.

This is ultimately quite tragic, as many will regret their diminished lack of future travel independence.

As I have noted a number of times, I’m convinced that only a severe economic, environmental, climate or resource downturn will give us the kick in the ass we need to change. Unfortunately, it has also been said by someone else that throughout history, whenever a society had to choose between extinction (maintaining its lifestyle) or sustainability (thru making substantial changes in lifestyle), the society in question has ALWAYS chosen extinction.

What makes the extinction of the American way of life so likely is that unlike past societies, ours is uniquely locked into a self-perpetuating car-centric suburban land use pattern at the local level and the military-industrial complex at the federal level.

A recipe for essential reforms at the local level, once a severe kick in the pants emerges, includes…

Removal of required car parking requirements.

Elimination of conventional zoning-based codes with transect-based and form-based codes.

The use of more human-scaled dimensions for streets, intersections and building setbacks.

Putting many roads and intersections on diets (ie, removing excessive road lanes).

Replacing surface parking with buildings.

Replacing free parking and free roads with priced parking and priced roads

Unbundling the price of parking from the price of housing.

Requiring that employers offer employees parking cash-out.

Shifting to a land value tax (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax).

Adopting low design speed street geometries and ending the forgiving street design paradigm.

Leave a comment

Filed under Bicycling, Economics, Energy, Peak Oil, Politics, Road Diet, Sprawl, Suburbia, Transportation, Urban Design, Walking

The Case Against the Colorado Transportation Sales Tax on the November 2018 Ballot

By Dom Nozzi

I have almost 40 years of academic and professional (and lifestyle) experience in the field of transportation, which is why I am without hesitation voting AGAINST the Proposition 110 sales tax increase for Colorado transportation funding, and urge all Colorado voters to also vote against this measure.

Some bicycling, walking, and transit advocates are joining with motorist and sprawl advocates in voting for this measure because a token amount of the revenue is slated to be directed towards those forms of non-car travel.

However, I think doing so is a terrible mistake. Why? Because ON BALANCE, we take a giant step backwards in promoting bicycling and walking and transit (not to mention a host of other social and municipal objectives) if we pass 110.

The positives of 110 are that a token amount of dollars will be allocated to improvements for cyclists, walkers, and transit. What will be the outcome of doing that? We will see a very modest increase in bicycling, walking and transit use. Worldwide studies show over and over that to be effective in seeing a meaningful shift from car travel to walking or bicycling or transit, we must take things away from motorists (speed, subsidies and space). It is not about providing more sidewalks or bike paths or buses.

By contrast, the negatives of 110 are enormous, because hundreds of millions of new tax dollars will now be made available to widen highways, roads and intersections. If anything, we need to be narrowing a huge percentage of our bloated, oversized roads,Carmageddon highway highways, and intersections. I will only list a few of the significant negatives of 110: a large increase in unaffordable and ruinous suburban sprawl, a large increase in per capita car trips and car travel distances, a large increase in air emissions (which destroys our ability to address climate change in the future), much larger levels of traffic congestion (because it artificially induces new car trips and more remote development that would not have occurred had we not widened), a large increase in traffic fatalities and serious injuries, an increase in the massive financial woes of state and local governments (who cannot afford to maintain our existing infrastructure, let alone the new infrastructure 110 will fund), a substantial worsening of public health, a much more ugly environment in Colorado, a loss of enormous ecologically sensitive areas that would now be replaced by new development, and a big decline in bicycling, walking and transit use.

When we compare the positives and negatives, the net result for bicycling, walking and transit — not to mention the very many social and municipal objectives — shows 110 to be far and away more of a bad deal than a good deal (unless you are with the auto or sprawl lobbies).

I don’t want one penny of my sales tax dollars to go toward ruining the Colorado I love. We’ve poured huge public dollars into making cars happy for the past century, and the outcome has been terrible. I will do everything in my power to fight against this measure. Enough is enough.

Some have responded to my opposition by stating that we should not let “perfection be the enemy of the good.” But in what sense is this measure “good,” on balance? By giving pocket change to building a few sidewalks? It is the equivalent of saying we should support giving the Pentagon another $50 billion to kill thousands more civilians with thousands of new and more powerful bombs because, after all, it is “good” in the sense that we are at the same time giving $10,000 to the UN Peacekeeping office.

Please.

In both the transportation tax and the Pentagon spending, the net result is a vastly worse world, even if we give a few pennies to bike lanes and diplomacy.

This is, quite simply, a Faustian bargain.

As an aside, some 110 supporters argue that the sales tax revenue obtained by Boulder will only be allocated for “progressive” transportation projects – or at least more progressive than how it will be used elsewhere in the state. But this “Boulder Bubble” way of thinking turns a blind eye to the great harm this money will  bring to the “less enlightened” parts of Colorado – harm that will negatively impact Boulder. It is also inaccurate to assume Boulder will not use the money in detrimental ways, as I’ve come to learn during my five years serving on the Boulder Transportation Advisory Board that Boulder is shockingly stuck in the Dark Ages with regard to transportation. To take one example, while it is true that Boulder no longer seems interested in road widenings, this community remains more than happy to widen intersections, which is a highly detrimental transportation (and land use) tactic.

Another aside is that it is far more fair and progressive to obtain new transportation funding with user fees such as road tolls or a VMT tax.  Sales taxes, by contrast, are not only regressive to lower income folks, they also have each of us pay the same amount of tax regardless if we drive an SUV 10,000 miles from a sprawl home each year or ride a bicycle from a town center condo. This is the definition of unfairness.

But even if we opted for the more equitable user fees rather than sales tax, I would still oppose even that reform, as it still means there will be a big increase in dollars available for vastly detrimental road, highway and intersection widenings. Only when our society is forced to learn that we should never again widen, and instead set about shrinking our roads and intersections to a safer, more sustainable human scale should we be finding new transportation dollars.

As of today, however, we continue to fail to learn this existential lesson even though road and intersection widening has done nothing but ruin us for the past century. We remain very far from learning such a fundamental lesson.

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Bicycling, Environment, Politics, Road Diet, Sprawl, Suburbia, Transportation

Speeding in Boulder CO

By Dom Nozzi

June 30, 2018

Yesterday on a NextDoor email list in my town of Boulder CO (a list that I can barely stand to look at given the proliferation of moronic, mean-spirited, misanthropic, selfish views expressed there – particularly when it comes to transportation or urban design), there was a comment posted about two young deer that were killed by a motorist on Iris Avenue here in town.

Some of the comments in reply talked about how we need to urge people to pay attention and not be speeders. One blamed it on people moving here from out of town.

The following is what I posted in response to such comments.

Speeding on Iris is almost entirely due to the high-speed geometrics of Iris. It has nothing to do with people moving here from elsewhere. Big intersection turning radii, clear zones, overly wide travel lanes, and most importantly, a four- and five-lane road cross section.Double-Left Turn Intersection 2 Pearl n 28th by Dom Nozzi

Iris was scheduled recently to become a three-lane instead of a 4- or 5-lane street, which would have made it a much safer street, a street with more attentive motorists, a street with less speeding, and a street much more conducive to nearby residential, but the shamefully hostile reaction to the Folsom Street road diet means that the Iris project has been shelved and Iris will remain a roadway with large numbers of dangerous, speeding and inattentive motorists.

The “Vision Zero” project Boulder has recently started (striving for zero traffic deaths or serious traffic injuries) will largely be applying the century-long, ineffective tactics to roads such as Iris: more warning signs, more warning lights, more warning education, and more warning paint.

It is time to demand the City use effective safety tactics: redesigning streets to obligate safer, slower, more attentive driving, rather than the century-long design to induce inattentive, higher-speed driving.

Leave a comment

Filed under Transportation, Walking

Elephants in the Room on “First and Last Mile”

By Dom Nozzi

July 24, 2018

A recent concept that has emerged in transportation planning is known as “First and Last Mile.” It refers to the beginning or end of an individual trip made primarily by transit (usually a bus or train). In many cases, people will walk or bicycle to transit if it is close enough. However, on either end of a transit trip (the “first or last mile”), the origin or destination may be very unsafe or unpleasant to walk to or from, or bicycle to or from.

When this “first and last mile” is unpleasant or unsafe, people are discouraged from using transit.

Therefore, the thinking goes, to meaningfully increase transit ridership, it is very important to ensure that this transition zone be safe, convenient, and pleasant for the pedestrian and cyclist seeking to use transit.

Lafayette, Colorado recently proposed modifications near its transit stops to improve this “first and last mile.” As is so often the case, the city was proposing the same old song and dance. The same old ineffective ideas. Wider sidewalks. More bike paths.

Therefore, I must again point out a few elephants in the room. Here is what Lafayette SHOULD be calling for to meaningfully improve the “first and last mile”:

The disconnected street pattern found in Lafayette needs more street connectivity. Without connectivity, pedestrians and bicyclists are often obligated to travel out of their way or travel on hostile, unpleasant roads.

Oversized roads and intersections need to be shrunk down in size to more human-scaled, slow-speed geometries. Such oversizing is extremely intimidating, dangerous, and unpleasant for pedestrians and cyclists. They destroy the human-scaled sense of place that draws walkers and bicyclists.

Buildings set back from the street by a large asphalt surface parking lot must be pulled up to the streetside transit stop. Not doing so prevents place-making, and creates a highly inconvenient and unsafe distance between buildings and the transit stop.

The study appears to disregard the zero-sum nature of this issue. Unless road design reverses the century-long effort to ease high-speed, high-volume, inattentive car travel, efforts to promote better and more common walking, cycling, and transit use will remain marginal and our low levels of per capita walking, cycling, and transit use will be perpetuated.

I’m sorry that despite our safety and non-car travel promotion crisis, Boulder and Boulder County are not being bold.

One of the primary problems caused by our century-long effort to build oversized, high-speed, high-capacity roadways is that because these roads and intersections become too dangerous to bike or walk on, too many are obligated to drive to transit stops. The large number driving to transit stops recruits even MORE to drive to the transit stops because we have been obligated to build big and dangerous asphalt parking lots to surround the transit stops (to provide motorist access to transit).

It would have been far better to have compact, higher density housing, offices, and retail abutting the transit stop. Doing so makes it substantially easier and safer to walk or bicycle to the transit stop because distances are much smaller and there is no need to cross large parking lots of bicycle on oversized roads or intersections.

Doing so is also a powerful way to engage in place-making – that small-town, human-scaled, slow-speed charm that so many of us desire and that is so increasingly rare these days.

Leave a comment

Filed under Bicycling, Road Diet, Sprawl, Suburbia, Transportation, Urban Design, Walking

The Backlash Against Road Diets

By Dom Nozzi

May 16, 2018

In May 2018, Citylab.com published an essay entitled “How to Kill a Bike Lane.” It was one of the most depressing articles I have ever read.

Road diets (usually removing 2 car travel lanes on a 4-lane road for enormous safety, retail, and neighborhood benefits) is suffering a severe backlash by frustrated, angry, heavily subsidized, entitled and pampered motorists all over the nation. Losing a few seconds or minutes of motorist travel time appears, in America, to be utterly unacceptable, even though it saves human lives, promotes small-scale retail, beautifies the street, and enhances housing quality of life.

Here in Boulder, huge numbers are still furious after an attempted road diet was crushed by motorist rage a number of years ago, as can be seen in the weekly published newspaper letters to the editor that continue to appear to this day (many of their arguments are identical to those found in this article). “Vision Zero,” which Boulder recently adopted, is a sham when one sees such hostility from the community.

Speaking as someone who has been academically and professionally involved in transportation for 38 years, I can say that I know of no transportation reform that is anywhere near as beneficial and cost-effective as a road diet. It is extremely telling, then, to consider how grim our future is when we learn how extreme the community opposition to road diets tends to be.

In my many years of academic and professional work, I have seen no term that is better or more commonly used than “road diet.” The article I refer to above, at one point, refers to a community that calls it “road toning.” That is a goofy term, in my view. I do not at all believe the problem is based on not picking a term that resonates. I think “road diet” and even Boulder’s use of “right-sizing” is fine. Road diets are brutally attacked throughout the nation regardless of the term used, or how much public education or data gathering the community engages in (Boulder did about 10 times more educating and data gathering than I have ever seen anywhere in the nation, yet huge numbers angrily attacked the City for doing a poor job on those two fronts).

The fact of the matter is that for people used to traveling in ridiculously oversized metal boxes that inevitably lead to frustrating slow-downs (even when roads are 20 lanes wide), a loss of 3 seconds in travel time is far worse than saving lives or making a community less car happy and more people-friendly.

How many hundreds or thousands of family members and friends will have to die on car-happy Boulder roads before the community says “ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!”? A huge number have died over the past few years in Boulder, but that does not seem to bother very many at all in Boulder, given the on-going crusade to keep motoring a happy way to travel.

Lots of folks in Boulder HATED the term “right-sizing.” Many said it sounded like corporations cutting jobs. But no one suggested a better term in Boulder. I think many were looking for a way to scapegoat the project by latching on to the idea that the term was offensive. It was too embarrassing to say that their 60 seconds of lost time was more important than saving lives or improving shops or neighborhoods near an oversized road.

Leave a comment

Filed under Transportation

How to Better Manage the Influx of In-Commuters to Boulder

By Dom Nozzi

April 24, 2018

Boulder needs to better address the issue of the large number of regional car commuters coming into Boulder.

That large influx into Boulder from outlying areas – estimates range from 50,000 to 3660,000 in-commuters each day – puts a heavy strain on Boulder. That strain includes:

  • higher levels of car emissions and noise pollution;
  • higher numbers of traffic crashes; and
  • a larger amount of political pressure to continue to ruinously widen roads, expand the size of intersections, and provide more parking in a city already providing excessive amounts of road capacity, intersection size, and the quantity of parking spaces.

Why is there a large number of in-commuters to Boulder?

Clearly, there is a jobs-housing imbalance in Boulder. For decades there has been a very rapid growth in jobs in the city, but due to the high cost of housing and relatively restrictive land use regulations in the city, there are far more jobs than houses in Boulder.

Unaffordable housing in Boulder

While many prefer to work in Boulder but live elsewhere, a very large and growing number of people in the Boulder region desire to live in Boulder but are unable to afford to pay the very high housing costs in Boulder. Many end up accepting a job in Boulder and finding more affordable housing in outlying areas.

However, this is a false economy.

Economist Todd Litman (http://www.vtpi.org/) has shown that “lower-cost” housing in outlying areas is a false economy. The several thousand dollars a household saves when a house is bought (or an apartment rented) in an outlying area is a savings that is outweighed by the costs associated with the household being obligated to make more trips by car (because destinations are relatively remote).

A household in an outlying area is thereby obligated to own, say, three cars instead of two, or two cars instead of one in order for household members to make a relatively large number of car trips each day. The cost of each car owned and operated by a household is now over $10,000 per year. By living closer to destinations, the household can reduce the number of cars it owns. Each car shed represents another $10,000 that can instead be directed to paying rent or mortgage in a mixed use, compact location.

Affordable housing is much more effectively provided by increasing the supply of compact, walkable, mixed-use and higher density housing. More affordability is also achieved by unbundling the price of parking from the price of housing. And by eliminating minimum parking requirements for new development.

How can Boulder reduce the number of in-commuters?

Incentivize more car-pooling

One of the most effective ways to increase the number of carpoolers is to use price signals. For carpooling, the most common signals are to increase the percentage of car spaces that are priced, to toll road lanes, and to create high-occupancy vehicle lanes (both priced parking and tolling are now used on US 36 between Denver and Boulder, but far more roads need such treatment).

Land use patterns also influence the level of car-pooling. Car-pooling is more likely in more compact, mixed-use, higher density land use patterns.

Another needed example of price signals is the use of motorist user fees.

Create More Cost Equity with User Fees

Only a small fraction of the costs imposed by motorists (roadway and parking infrastructure, as well as crash and environmental costs) are paid for by motorists. Gas taxes, for example, pay only a small fraction of those costs. The remainder of the costs motorists impose are paid by everyone, regardless of whether they own or operate a car. They are paid by such things as sales taxes and property taxes.

For more fairness, we can establish additional user fees for motorists. User fees can include (1) a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) fee; (2) a more comprehensive market-based priced parking program; (3) priced roads [https://domz60.wordpress.com/2014/03/04/is-tolling-a-good-idea-for-us-36-between-denver-and-boulder/]; (4) pay-at-the-pump car insurance; (5) weight-based vehicle fees; (6) higher gas taxes; (7) mileage-based registration fee; and (8) a mileage-based emission fee.

In order to make new user fees more politically viable, make such new taxes/fees revenue neutral by reducing or eliminating other fees/taxes when the new user fee is instituted.

Because transportation impacts are lower in central locations, town center properties should have lower transportation fees (such as impact fees) assessed by the City of Boulder.

Create conditions conducive to higher transit use

To be viable and more heavily used, affordable and high-frequency train or bus service must be coupled with compact, mixed-use, higher density land use patterns – particularly near transit routes and in town centers. Currently, the Boulder region has very low density, single-use land use patterns that are largely unsuitable for frequent, quality, affordable transit service.

How Can Boulder Create a Better Jobs to Housing Balance?

Boulder needs a lot more in the way of compact, mixed-use, higher density housing – not just for greater affordability but also for a better jobs to housing balance. The demand for such housing is far higher than the supply of such housing in Boulder, which substantially contributes to the affordable housing crisis.

I do not believe that capping or reducing the number of jobs in Boulder is a desirable way to better achieve a jobs-to-housing balance.

Road and Intersection Design

A great many roads and intersections in Boulder are over-sized, largely due to the jobs to housing imbalance, but also due to the large subsidies that motorists have long enjoyed. Such large subsidies artificially induce a large number of car trips that would not have occurred had the subsidies not been in place.

Because it is extremely difficult to institute motorist user fees to more fairly pay for motorist costs and reduce the large number of artificially induced car trips, a more feasible and subtle method is to restrict the size of roads and intersections to a more human-scaled size. Restricting the size of roads and intersections also provides the enormous benefit of effectively promoting public safety (there are a horrifying number of traffic crashes in Boulder that cause serious injuries and deaths). To do this, Boulder needs to shrink (or at least not increase) the size of roads and intersections. Also necessary is a much more thorough application of slow-speed (traffic calming) design in Boulder streets.

Better Manage Parking

Like nearly all cities, Boulder’s land development regulations over the past several decades have required a large number of car parking spaces as a condition for development approval. This has created a massive over-supply of car parking in Boulder, which induces a large number of local and regional car trips (parking guru Donald Shoup calls the abundant free parking provided by such regulations a “fertility drug” for cars).

Boulder needs to reform its parking by converting minimum parking requirements to maximum requirements, price a larger percentage of parking that is free or underpriced today, replace existing surface parking with homes, retail, jobs, civic, and unbundle the price of parking from the price of housing (a powerful affordable housing tool)

Create More Park-n-Ride Facilities in the Region

When the Boulder region more fully implements the above recommendations, there will be a larger need (a larger demand) for more park-n-ride facilities in both outlying towns in the region and in the peripheral locations of Boulder. Parking reform, in particular, is a key way to make this happen.

The Need for Regional Cooperation

Clearly, in-commuting to Boulder is a regional problem that Boulder cannot solve on its own. Boulder needs to partner with outlying cities and counties (including unincorporated Boulder County) so that such entities outside of Boulder’s jurisdiction are also reforming their transportation and land use, as described above for Boulder, or at least supporting Boulder’s efforts to use such tools outside of Boulder (ie, actions by the state or unincorporated Boulder County).

In Summation

There are no quick, easy fixes for this problem. Conventional quick fixes, such as increasing the capacity of intersections or widening roads, only worsen the problem. Mostly, the problem is best addressed more incrementally with price signals and convenience signals that arise from the land use and transportation tools described above.

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Sprawl, Suburbia, Transportation

Primary Concerns About the Boulder Colorado Draft Transportation Plan

By Dom Nozzi

August 5, 2014

Here are primary concerns I have about the Boulder Transportation Master Plan (TMP), and transportation reforms that I think are necessary in Boulder. I list below my top three, followed by several additional concerns.

Too little (or nothing) is said about GIGANTISM: Boulder has oversized several roads and intersections. Road diets (right-sizing) are needed for major town center streets: Canyon, Broadway, Folsom, Colorado. A moratorium should be established on street sizing: No future street widening should exceed five lanes. No intersection widening should exceed one turning lane. In the town center, the maximum street size should be three lanes.

A citywide traffic calming (speed reduction) program should be adopted that obligates motorists to slow down and be more attentive based on street design. Tools, again, focus on right-sizing, and include roundabouts, traffic circles, chicanes, narrowing of travel lanes, street trees, shrinking the size of the turning radius at intersections, added on-street car parking, raised medians, and “bump-outs” at intersections and mid-block.

Boulder should move away from the outdated “forgiving” street design. Within the town center, geometries and dimensions of streets shall employ “low-speed” sizing.

Each year, the total number of car parking spaces in the town center shall be reduced to a quantity lower than the number in the prior year. Over-sizing is a fertility drug forjuly-2015-2 cars.

Too little (or nothing) is said about making car parking efficient: Price more parking, share more parking, require more parking cash-out, unbundle the price of parking from housing, and convert minimum parking requirements to maximum parking requirements (probably need to start by applying this to places that are compact, transit-rich, and bicycle and walking friendly, such as the town center, Boulder Junction, etc.).

The “Congestion Objective” in the TMP (no more than 20% of road mileage shall be congested) should be either replaced with less outdated, counterproductive and less outdated measures such as a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) cap, or should be revised so that the town center is exempt from this objective. Most every change in behavior that a citizen engages in when responding to traffic congestion – such as avoiding rush hour driving, living closer to daily destinations, driving slower, traveling on non-major streets, trip chaining (combining, say, a trip to get groceries with a trip to the doctor), foregoing low-value car trips – is good for the community. By contrast, many (most?) actions a government agency takes when responding to traffic congestion – such as widening a road or intersection, downzoning in the town center, adding more free parking, synchronizing traffic signals for car speeds, converting a two-way street to one-way – is undesirable for the community. The much more progressive way to address traffic congestion is not to reduce it (which is nearly impossible given the HUGE space-hogging nature of cars, and given a healthy city), but to create ALTERNATIVES to congestion so those unwilling or unable to tolerate it can avoid it (via alternative routes, traveling at non-rush hour times, driving on routes optimized by pricing, or traveling by bicycling, walking, or transit).

Replace of the awful, unattractive, dangerous continuous left-turn lanes on east Pearl Street and North Broadway with raised medians coupled with “turn pockets.”

Restore the traditional two-way operation of the one-way loop in the Boulder town center.

Eliminate of any land development code obstacles that may exist for the replacement of asphalt surface parking lots with retail, office, or residential buildings.

Lobby the State of Colorado to pass the law used successfully in Idaho, where bicyclists are able to treat stop signs as yield signs, and traffic signals as stop signs.

Boulder should adopt a “Stylebook” for written and oral communication. “Plain English” rather than bureaucratic jargon, and “unbiased” transportation terminology instead of “biased” terminology. I succeeded in having the Gainesville FL Council of Governments (the DRCOG of that region) adopt such a stylebook, and suggested that TAB push for this more than once at our retreat.

Boulder should lobby the State to be given authorization to toll state roads within city limits.

Increase the use of motorist user fees: Parking, tolls, VMT fee, pay-at-the-pump car insurance, etc.

If signal lights are to be synchronized, they should be based on the speed of buses and bikes, rather than cars. This method is used in Portland OR.

More housing, more mixed use, and more compact land use patterns shall be attained along important transit centers and corridors.

Affordable housing shall be achieved, in part, with more mixed use development patterns (reducing the number of cars a household must own is a powerful way to make housing more affordable).

Service vehicles allowed within city limits should be restricted in size. Oversized trucks and other large vehicles often compel engineers to over-size streets and intersections (because they use the huge truck as their “design vehicle”). That is ruinous and backwards. Huge vehicles should not be determining the size of our street infrastructure. Sizing, instead, should be based on safety for pedestrians & bicyclists, human scale, and overall quality of life. Peter Swift conducted a study in Longmont CO that found car crashes (and the number of transportation injuries and deaths) increased when cities increased the size of their streets and intersections. Ironically, those increased sizes were often pushed by fire/rescue officials seeking to reduce response times for fire trucks. The Swift study found that the lives saved from reduced response times was far less than the number of lives saved by keeping street dimensions small. The focus, therefore, should be on life safety, not just fire safety (which is a subset of life safety).

The need to build extremely expensive street underpasses for bikes/peds should be a signal to us that we have failed in the design of that street (because the street has been made a “car-only” street with too much space and speed given over to cars). A much less costly and more sustainable strategy is to use road diets that make at-grade crossings more feasible (and underpasses less necessary). I acknowledge that underpasses dramatically increase bike/ped travel and are sometimes necessary.

The draft TMP says too little about road diets, slowing cars, transportation user fees, and needed land use reforms.

The creation of “bus queue lanes” (as is used on 28th Street) or “cycle tracks” should not replace on-street parking, and should only be used when replacing existing street lanes, rather than widening the street to find room for such facilities.

The “reduce congestion” phrase, and calling for additional through and turn lanes (page 5-16 of my draft of the TMP) should be stricken.

The plan should openly acknowledge the following:

Transportation tends to be a “zero-sum” game rather than a “win-win” game. That is, when we improve conditions for car travel, we almost always worsen conditions for bike, ped, and transit travel. Economists call this the “barrier effect.” “Happy car design” creates barriers for other forms of travel.

The “travel time budget,” the “triple convergence,” “induced demand,” and the “urban to rural transect” are critically important to understand.

To increase non-car travel, taking away space, speed and subsidies for cars is much more effective than providing bike lanes, sidewalks and more buses.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Transportation

Anti-City and Anti-Environment

By Dom Nozzi

March 27, 2018

Historically, anti-city and anti-environment folks were in force in places like Houston and Phoenix and Atlanta and Buffalo. They fought hard and successfully for:

  1. Easing car travel and car parking.
  2. Providing more open space and larger setbacks.
  3. Opposing parking supply restrictions and opposing parking pricing.
  4. Opposing road diets.
  5. Opposing road tolls.
  6. Supporting highway widenings and overpasses.
  7. Lowering densities and increasing fees to the point where new development is unaffordable (an indirect way to stop development and growth).
  8. Keeping buildings no taller than 1 or 2 stories.
  9. “Protecting” neighborhoods against infill, mixed use, co-ops, and backyard cottages.

All of these are anti-city (and anti-environment) efforts.315-0722092524-NSA-building-and-parking-lot

I don’t want Boulder, Colorado (the city I live in) to follow the path of Houston or Phoenix or Atlanta or Buffalo. And that is an important reason why I am so troubled that so many in Boulder have aggressively promoted (and continue to promote) the tactics I list above that were so strongly pushed in cities such as Houston and Phoenix.

Tactics that ironically made places such as Houston and Phoenix the awful places they are today.

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics, Road Diet, Sprawl, Suburbia, Transportation, Urban Design