Tag Archives: Road Diet

The Myth of Boulder CO Being a Top Bicycling City

 

By Dom Nozzi

January 7, 2017

In the September and October 2016 editions of Bicycling Magazine, the magazine issued a “Hall of Shame” recognition to the City of Boulder, Colorado for removing protected bicycle lanes on Folsom Street. The magazine also moved Boulder down the Top Ten Bicycling Cities list from 6 to 10. While I agree with both of these decisions, Bicycling Magazine may want to consider lowering Boulder’s status even further as a top US cycling city.

The extremely hostile opposition to the redesign of Folsom Street in Boulder has unveiled an enormous myth. Boulder has long been touted as being exceptionally progressive and forward thinking regarding bicycle (and other forms of) transportation. I had bought into this myth myself.

But the stunning opposition to the Folsom Street right-sizing (removal of two of five travel lanes) motivated me to think again about that widespread belief. The following tally shows that Boulder is behind the times on a number of transportation issues.

Traffic Calming. Slowing down and calming dangerous, speeding traffic is extremely important for neighborhood health and safety, not to mention overall quality of life. For these reasons, designing streets to obligate slower car speeds is a widespread and growing action throughout the nation. Boulder essentially ended its neighborhood traffic calming efforts in respond to a funding shortfall and furious citizen opposition in the 1990s and 2000s.

Right-Sizing. Removing travel lanes from oversized roads, like traffic calming, is an essential and cost-effective way to dramatically improve safety, reduce speeding, reduce noise pollution, reduce regional car travel, improve residential and retail health, and nudge a number of residents toward bicycling, walking and transit. Again, right-sizing is a widespread and growing reform throughout the nation. Boulder is likely to end all efforts for the foreseeable future to further right-size gigantic in-city highways due to extreme citizen opposition that emerged in 2015 regarding the Folsom Street project.

Car Parking. Excessive quantities of free off-street parking is a gigantic problem both in Boulder and nationally. It is a massive subsidy to motorists, induces an artificially high level of car travel, destroys city and residential health, and makes for extremely unsafe and inconvenient conditions for walking, bicycling and transit. By substantially dispersing the size of a town center and overall community, excessive parking found in Boulder and elsewhere is toxic to city health. Cities throughout the nation are therefore converting counterproductive “minimum” parking requirements to “maximum” requirements. Macys-at-29th-St-July-2015-smBoulder parking regulations remain antiquated, after decades of this problem being identified, by continuing to require large minimum parking requirements and doing relatively little to convert free parking to priced parking. Or to convert excessive existing parking into more community beneficial uses such as office, retail, or residential.

Synchronized traffic signals. Synchronizing traffic signals is commonly thought to “ease” car traffic flow or reduce congestion. But it has long been known that we cannot build our way out of congestion by adding new road capacity – and synchronization does this indirectly — as more capacity simply induces new latent car trips that would not have occurred had we not increased capacity. This is particularly true when considering cars, which, because of their enormous size, quickly congest roads. Many cities have therefore opted not to synchronize signals (which, by the way, is surprisingly expensive) or have made the synchronizing less counterproductive by timing the signal lights for bus and bicycle speeds rather than car speeds. Boulder continues to synchronize signals for car speeds, and there appears to be no support for revising this.

One-way streets. One-way streets induce speeding, inattentive driving, motorist impatience, regional car trips, suburban sprawl, and declining retail and residential health. They also discourage bicycle and walking trips. For these reasons, a great many cities have returned their one-way streets to two-way operation, and this trend is accelerating due to the growing awareness of problems associated with one-way streets. The Boulder town center is substantially hobbled by a toxic one-way street loop, and there appears to be no political support for returning to two-way operation.

Bicycle parking. Since at least the early 1980s, it has been well known that the “inverted U” bicycle rack parking design (and minor variations) is the only well-functioning, low-cost design for bicycle parking. Yet it was only in 2015 that Boulder opted to require such parking, and even when it did, the regulations still allow an extremely inferior alternative design.

Transportation is in a silo. For decades, we have known that transportation and land use are intimately related, and profoundly shape each other. Many community objectives cannot be achieved unless transportation and land use work together. We cannot, for example, install an enormous, high-speed highway in the middle of what is intended to be a compact, safe, walkable town center, as the highway undermines the desire for nearby walkability. Yet in Boulder, there is a surprisingly strict separation between long-range transportation plans and long-range land use plans and at public workshops pertaining to street or land use strategies for particular locations in the city. And the Boulder Transportation Advisory Board has, in at least my tenure, been extremely timid about discussing otherwise obvious land use issues when discussing transportation issues.

Slip lanes. Slip lanes allow cars to make relatively high-speed, inattentive right turns, which create dangerous turning conditions for pedestrians and bicyclists at intersections. Boulder has installed a large number of slip lanes at intersections throughout the city – including in the town center.

Double-Left Turn Lanes. Double-left turn lanes, like slip lanes, allow relatively high-speed, inattentive turns by cars, which results in dangerous conditions for bicyclists and pedestrians, not to mention motorists. Double-left turn lanes create enormous intersection sizes that induce suburban dispersal from such intersections, make crossing by bicycle or foot exceptionally dangerous, kill the important need for intersections to create a human-scaled sense of place, and promote suburban sprawl. In addition, these extremely expensive intersection treatments ignore the fact that we cannot build our way out of intersection congestion. Boulder has installed a very large number of such dual left-turn lanes.

Idaho Law. The Idaho law allows bicyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs, and red signal lights as stop signs. The law acknowledges the fact that stop sign and signal light regulations are designed for dangerous, heavy, high-speed cars, and are generally unnecessary for bicyclists. Bicyclists depend on leveraging momentum when traveling, and stops eliminate momentum. A number of cities in Colorado have now adopted the long-standing Idaho law to substantially increase bicyclist convenience and reduce inequity. Boulder continues to resist adopting such a law.

Town Center Bicycling. Healthy town centers are places that tend to be superb locations for bicyclists to live and travel, as centers contain a large number of destinations (which reduces travel distances) and the best centers emphasize low speeds. Despite its national reputation for prolific and quality bicycle facilities, however, the Boulder town center contains a large number of roads that are shockingly hostile to bicycling.

Summary

Yes, Boulder has provided an impressive system of bicycle paths and transit, which perpetuates the myth that Boulder is unusually progressive regarding transportation. But the paths and transit are much more a matter of Boulder being wealthy rather than Boulder being cutting edge, or brilliant, or progressive. Because off-street paths and transit in no way impede happy, excessive car travel, they require relatively little leadership. Driving by car in Boulder remains highly convenient and enjoyable. Paths and transit, it turns out, are in a way simply green washing lip service.

The “Four S” Strategy. Boulder has spent decades emphasizing the provision of more bike lanes, sidewalks, and transit as a way to promote more non-car travel, but as exemplified by the lack of success in increasing non-car travel for a great many years, this “supply-side” tactic is well known by both practitioners and researchers to be almost entirely ineffective – particularly if land use densities are low and car parking is underpriced and abundant.

The “Four S” strategy to effectively encourage more cycling, walking and transit use: reduce car Speeds, reduce Space allocated to cars, reduce Subsidies for motorists, and Shorten distances to destinations (via compact, mixed-use development). Given the clear effectiveness of this strategy, Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies in Boulder need to place more emphasis on nudging citizens with sticks such as user fees (which still retains the choice to travel by car, it must be noted), and less emphasis on carrots such as bike parking and sidewalks. While “supply-side” strategies and “green gizmo” technology ideas (such as self-driving cars) are seductive at first glance (largely because they are relatively easy to implement politically), they will remain ineffective.

I was a professional town and transportation planner for 20 years in Gainesville FL. That city is far more politically conservative than Boulder, yet on many of the measures above, Gainesville is much more progressive.

 

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Transportation, Urban Design

Oversizing Our Community

By Dom Nozzi

January 29, 2016

The first task of the urbanist is to control (horizontal) size. American cities have utterly failed to do that.

Either America has too few urbanists who understand that, or too rarely listen to the urbanists who do understand this.

Despite the conventional wisdom, most all of Boulder’s areas intended to be urban have WAY too much “open space.” By space, I refer to the crazy wide stroads (motor vehicle traffic routes that try and fail to be both a street and a road), the over-sized building arapahoe-ave-boulder-cosetbacks, the over-sized parking areas, and the place-killing plazas that are not human-scaled (and therefore become dead zones). Why is Boulder so allergic to creating human-scaled, lovable, charming spaces? Why are we so in love with horizontal gigantism?

Perhaps the biggest offender when it comes to oversizing our communities is parking for motor vehicles.july-2015

Parking is a fertility drug for cars. Yet Boulder – despite decades of lip service paid to reducing car use – continues to be quite far behind the times when it comes to parking. Boulder continues to use outdated, conventional, excessive parking requirements for new development.

What are the effective tools that will result in some people owning and using a car less? (and therefore reducing the ruinous demand for more parking space)

First, compact, mixed-use development to reduce travel distances and increase the financial desirability to create neighborhood-based retail.

Second, less car subsidies and other financial inducements. Tools to do this include priced parking, unbundling the price of parking from housing, tolling roads, and higher gas taxes.

Third, less space for cars. We need to shrink size of roads, parking lots, and building setbacks so motorists are obligated to drive/park more slowly and attentively.

Fourth, we need a lot more traffic calming to reduce motorist speeds.

Designing for People or for Cars?

It is highly appropriate and extremely important that space-hogging motor vehicle drivers not feel happy, that parking (and pricing) is a “bitch,” and that driving a vehicle be a huge, inconvenient pain in the ass. That is exactly the recipe for creating places people love (rather than places that only a car could love).

Nearly all environmentalists in Boulder furiously fight against even modest density increases. For the stunningly powerful PLAN Boulder County advocacy group I served on for a few years, it is nearly the be-all and end-all of “protecting” Boulder.

It would appear that the only thing Boulder environmental activists care about is fighting to stop density increases (even modest ones). Such activists are convinced that more density means more emissions, more loss of wildlife, more cars, and more loss of open space. The opposition to density is much more pronounced in Boulder than in Alachua County, where I lived and worked as a town planner for 20 years. Understandable, since many came to places such as Boulder seeking wide open spaces they assumed the West would deliver.

As my “The Frustration Syndrome” essay points out, because most environmentalists must drive a car everywhere, it is understandable that so many environmentalists are ENRAGED by more density because it seems obvious that more density means more cars, which means more driving frustration (ie, loss of quality of life, as they understand it). Many environmentalists express concern that more density will be environmentally harmful, but I have come to learn that for most environmentalists, the unspoken agenda is the fight to retain easy motoring.

Yes, there is a diverse range of environmentalists (and Feminists and LBGT advocates and Republicans and parents…), but in extremely car-dependent America, the one thing that unites nearly all advocacy groups is the nearly universal desire to find easy driving and easy parking. After all, as my essay notes, nearly all of us drive a car multiple times every day of our lives, and it is therefore very frustrating multiple times a day for both Republicans and Conservationists to FIND A DAMN PARKING SPACE or AVOID THOSE SLOW DRIVERS. The inevitable consequence for nearly all Americans (regardless of their ideology) is to confuse easy driving with quality of life. Since increased density seems like such an obvious culprit for our daily driving frustrations, nearly all of us (regardless of whether we love money or Bambi) hate more density. I’d say 95 percent of the environmentalists I know in Boulder hate more density (and they disingenuously claim it is due to environmental harm, rather than unhappy motoring).

I don’t believe that this can be explained away by referring to where a person lives in a community. I’d say nearly all residents of my very compact, walkable, mixed use Boulder neighborhood are VIOLENTLY opposed to more density. And in Boulder, since we are ringed by a 55,000-acre greenbelt, nearly all proposed increases in density are for in-town development. Yet opposition to more density is huge here. Regardless of location.

I fully agree, as an aside, that compact development is inappropriate in sensitive outlying areas.

Too many residences in the US now front hostile, high-speed, dangerous, noisy 4- to 8-lane highways (streets that were improved to “meet contemporary needs.”) Healthy cities require lower speeds and agglomeration economies and adaptability. Too often, “contemporary needs” in road design undercut those essential ingredients. In my view, in-town streets should not generally exceed three lanes. Anything more will undercut the healthy cities factors I mention above. We need to draw the line somewhere. I choose to draw it in such a way as to not go beyond street designs which induce excessive motorized speeding, excessive sprawl, and loss of transportation choice.

Very, very few traffic engineers understand the needs of a healthy city and end up being single-mindedly focused on the sole objective of moving as many cars as they can as quickly as possible through a road. By confusing that objective with quality of life or an “improvement,” they (or their elected officials) end up pushing for a design that is toxic for a city.

For the record, no one I know is seeking to “intentionally inflict pain and inconvenience” on motorists. However, many of us do seek to design cities so that we have fairness, transportation choices, a thriving city, and lifestyle choices. Designing cities in such a way has the unavoidable consequence of increasing the inconvenience of motorists (because the size required by cars is excessive).

It comes down to a few simple questions: Do we design for a financially and socially healthy town with a high quality of life for people? Or do we design our town in such a way as to enable ease of car travel? (which delivers us places like Detroit or Houston) This is not a win-win game. It is a zero-sum game. I would add that this is NOT a call for the elimination of travel by car. It IS a call for a return to designing for fairness, choices, and resilience. The century-long effort to pamper cars has reduced fairness, reduced choices, and reduced resilience. We need to restore a balance. A big way to do that is to move much more toward user fees for travel. But that is another topic…

Imagine if we had a quiet two-lane neighborhood street, and a traffic engineer wants to design it to allow convenient 18-wheel tractor trailer use of that street (they have faced this issue countless times). In my view, it is important that for a quiet neighborhood street to remain pleasant for its fronting homes, the street SHOULD feel inconvenient for an 18-wheeler. If it was convenient for such a large vehicle, wouldn’t that street therefore be unsafe and unpleasant for homes?

None of the four tools I mention above will mean that ALL people will opt to not own or use a car. It will mean that SOME people will own less cars, use their car less often, or both.

By contrast, stopping development, reducing development densities, or fighting against population growth are not effective in reducing car trips or car ownership — because it is pretty much impossible to stop development or population growth locally and especially regionally. On the contrary, Boulderites who try to stop development or population growth and force development to be less compact (lower density) actually INCREASE the per capita car ownership and use in the area — both in the short term and long term.

For too many in Boulder, compact development means more cars. More cars means less free flowing traffic and less parking spaces. The only tool such folks see to address this is to battle for lower density and slowing the rate of development. And battle they must, as they wrongly mistake free flowing cars and easy parking as equivalent to quality of life. They thereby fail to understand the transportation feedback loops that result in more cars as a result of their only tool.

Such people cynically believe that the reduction in per capita car ownership and car trips elsewhere in the nation (following the establishment of compact development patterns) will not be seen here in Boulder if we provide compact development. Of course, ALL communities have that same cynical view of their own town.

Who needs enemies when we have ourselves?

An important problem is that in the US, we have way too often designed streets (“improved them”) so that it feels convenient for a car that consumes way too much space. I have been to Europe many times, and the streets that tourists flock to from all over the world are extremely inconvenient for cars. Would those streets be “better” if they were convenient for cars? It seems clear to me that the massive size of cars is a big problem. We face a choice between conveniencing big metal boxes or designing streets for happy, safe people (which, almost inevitably, feels inconvenient when you are in a huge metal box).

Personally, I would opt for designing for happiness and safety for people. Every time.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Road Diet, 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

Quality of Life in Boulder, Colorado

By Dom Nozzi

June 16, 2015

On June 15, a friend sent me the following comments:

When you break it down to what the things that people are unhappy about [in Boulder], they are-

  1. Boulder is growing too fast and too much and it is permanently altering the character of the place,
  2. Incommuters are creating rush hour traffic jams on our arteries and they produce a large GHG footprint, and
  3. Boulder housing prices are increasing dramatically due to:
  • growth of CU
  • job growth
  • retirement mecca
  • tourism and VRBOs
  • supply and demand- population pressure exceeding the rate of housing development.

I responded to him by pointing out that another way of looking at this is to think about what gives Boulder its high quality of life. In my humble opinion, the elements include boulder-smart-grid(but are not limited to) the following. This list is NOT ranked by level of importance:

  1. Pearl Street Mall (ironically, if citizens were given the ability to vote on this when it was first proposed, I believe a large majority would have voted against pedestrianizing Pearl Street).
  2. Proximity to the Flatirons, the foothills/Rockies, skiing, and Rocky Mtn National Park.
  3. Desirable climate and air quality.
  4. Transportation choices.
  5. Interesting, healthy, and safe place for seniors and children.
  6. The Boulder Greenbelt.
  7. High quality culture and restaurants.
  8. Small town ambiance.
  9. Highly-educated and creative population.
  10. Relative lack of noise pollution.
  11. Sense of community.
  12. Low crime rate and perception of low crime rate.

I think the very loud, emotional, widespread opposition we are hearing to the proposed right-sizing in Boulder (the 2015 proposal to narrow Folsom Street) informs us that TRAFFIC CONGESTION is seen by many in Boulder as, by far, the most important degradation in quality of life. Tragically, nearly all “solutions” to reduce congestion are counterproductive to protecting/improving quality of life.

I therefore believe that equating the fight against congestion with a fight for quality of life is a ruinous, awful mistake.

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics, Road Diet, Transportation

Letter to Council on Right Sizing Folsom Street in Boulder Colorado

 

August 17, 2015

Dear Members of the Boulder City Council,

Over the past severaroad diet before and afterl weeks, there has been an avalanche of letters attacking the City proposal to right-size Folsom. Hundreds of opponents filled the Council auditorium to denounce the idea at multiple meetings. The complaints have been repetitive: There are no metrics telling us whether the projects have succeeded or not! Not enough involvement by stakeholders such as businesses and neighborhoods! Not enough public involvement! No studies showing whether they will work! It will cause terrible congestion and air pollution! No before and after studies! Pro-bike bias! Waste of a huge amount of money!

I have been working
professionally and academically in transportation for over 30 years, and I have never seen this level of enraged opposition, calls for studies, and requests for more public input. One would think that the City was proposing to bring about the end of the world.

I am disappointed by the double standard here.

The double standard is that I don’t recall ANY opposition (certainly not at TAB meetings I have attended) when the City has proposed to install a second left-turn lane at an intersection (which has been done several times in Boulder), among many other pro-car projects. No calls for studies. No demands that stakeholders be involved. No metrics telling us if the double-left had the intended benefits a year later. No before and after studies. No cries tha
t it will increase air pollution or car dependence. No demands that the double-left turn be tested first before it is made permanent. No whining that the double-left turn is a big waste of money (as you know, double-left turns cost a lot more money, generally, than right-sizing).

Few people, if any, attend meetings to oppose such an enormous expansion of an intersection.

I would think that the outcry from a proposed double-left would be furious. After all, double-left turns increase air pollution, car trips, local taxes, regional car trips, car
crashes, speeding, inattentiveness, injuries and deaths. They reduce walking trips, biking trips, and transit trips (because the intersection is now much more dangerous to walk through or bicycle through). They are toxic to businesses and homes near the intersection.

By striking contrast, national studies show that right-sizing reduces air pollution, speeding, inattentiveness, car trips, car crashes, injuries and deaths. They increase walking trips, biking trips, and transit trips. They improve the health of retail and residences (I understand that many businesses in Seattle now ask that their street be right-sized after they have seen their competitors benefit after their streets were right-sized).

Yet in Boulder, we see furious opposition to right-sizing and hardly any (or no) objection to a proposed double-left turn. And by the way, unlike right-sizing, double-left turns are NEVER tested first to see if they will work. They are just “rammed down our throats,” as many right-sizing opponents oddly tell us about right-sizing.

Making a road change that eases bicycling and walking is met with fury. Making a road change that eases driving (and discourages bicycling and walking) is met with silence.

Given this, one would think that there is a very pro-CAR bias in Boulder. One also has to ask: Who needs enemies when we have ourselves?

Dom Nozzi

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Bicycling, Politics, Road Diet, Transportation

Road Diet Opposition

Right Sizing Road Diet Opposition

By Dom Nozzi

August 22, 2015

“Road diets,” where travel lanes on a street are removed so that there are, say, three lanes rather than four, are profoundly beneficial when applied to nearly countless streets throughout the nation. See here and here and here for blogs I have written that describe some of these benefits.

An important obstacle to such a beneficial reform of a street, however, is that for over a century, Americans have been single-mindedly obsessed with pampering and subsidizing motorists.

When we combine that with the fact that on a daily basis nearly all of us travel inside an enormous metal box, we inevitably experience the frustration of slow downs from OTHER enormous metal boxes driven at the same time by our fellow citizens on a rather skimpy 40 people without blk textnumber of streets. Due to the huge size of our cars, even when there are only a handful of other drivers, we will find others “in our way.”

Due to pampering and our relative lack of being slowed down when we are walking, motorists seem to feel a larger sense of entitlement than any other group I know of.

And a frustration I’ve had to deal with in my 34 years in transportation planning is that unlike almost any other profession, nearly all people feel they are experts in “solving” transport problems, even if they have zero academic or professional credentials.

Leave a comment

Filed under Economics, Road Diet, Transportation

The Consensus on Making Cars Happy

By Dom Nozzi

For the past century, Americans have been nearly single-mindedly focused on making it easy and cheap to drive a car everywhere imaginable. An unforeseen consequence is that doing so has now made it nearly impossible to travel by transit, bicycle or foot. That has led to enormous financial strain for households and government, strongly contributed to the obesity crisis, created severe environmental problems, dispersed and “uglified” our communities to make them less strong, and made our transportation system much less resilient to change.

One would expect this to result in a massive societal uprising to reverse this catastrophe. Tragically, no such thing has happened. Instead, shockingly, we have the reverse. All walks of life are at a near consensus that we must CONTINUE to spend every available dollar to make us even MORE dependent on car travel. Democrats, Republicans, Feminists, Environmentalists, Planners, Council Members, Libertarians, Socialists, Dieticians, and Academicians almost all join hands in DEMANDING that everything imaginable be done to keep us happily driving cars everywhere.

How did we become trapped in this downwardly spiraling vicious cycle?

In my opinion, the explanation is clear. By making it almost entirely impossible to travel by transit, bicycle or foot, nearly all of us have no choice but to make most all of our trips by car – even if we are green environmentalists SCREAMING about climate change.

Combined with that trap is the toxic mix of the large size of a motor vehicle coupled with the exceptionally busy nature of our lives. The huge size of our vehicles inevitably results in frustrating slowdowns in our travel, as nearly all of our fellow citizens are ALSO trying to travel in their huge vehicles at many of the same times. Roads and parking lots quickly fill to capacity when even a relatively small number of us are competitively jostling for space in our space-hogging sedans and wagons.angry-motorist-yelling

Add to that the fact that almost every time we drive, we are “running late,” or “in a hurry,” or “out of time.” With huge numbers of us in a hurry and driving a big vehicle, the
outcome is unavoidable: We are ENRAGED because SOME INCOMPETENT SLOW POKE IS IN OUR WAY!!

With high (yet mostly hidden) transportation costs, huge vehicles, lack of time, and extreme frustration, is it any wonder that nearly all of us insist that car travel remain cheap and easy, regardless of our “green” or “libertarian” values? Even an Earth Firster! is stuck if she cannot travel by car – cheaply and at high speeds. No-brainer proposals, such as user fees such as parking charges, and efforts to slow traffic to safe speeds are met – even by the most fair-minded and humanitarian of us – by blood-curdling opposition.

Happy Cars has become our way of thinking. Our worldview. Our paradigm. No other world is imaginable. Or politically possible.

When I see so many “progressives” and “intellectuals” and “environmentalists” and “growth management advocates” opposing things like traffic calming — and instead usually being fully supportive of pampering car travel with oversized, free-to-use roads and parking lots – I am seeing this societal worldview on full display.

One highly frustrating aspect of this I’ve noticed over the years is that because America is full-speed-ahead committed to car travel, it tends to be SO EASY for someone with even the most uninformed, simplistic understanding of transportation to immediately kill an idea at a public meeting focused on transportation reform. And conversely SO DIFFICULT for someone at a public meeting to get others agree to transportation reform.

I see it all the time.

For example, let’s say we are at a public workshop where the assembled audience is divided into groups of people at individual tables in the room. The task for each table is to come up with transportation reform tactics. Occasionally at a table or two, a person might, say, mention that shrinking a road from four lanes to three might be a good idea on a street. Or narrowing a street with curb bulb-outs. The person points out that traffic volume is low enough. It would be easy to put in bulb-outs. Or remove a travel lane (because there is no meaningful loss in road capacity). Almost always, someone else at the table will then say “That is crazy. It will cause unbearable gridlock.” Everyone else at the table feels uncomfortable — even environmentalists and bike/walk/transit advocates – and will quickly nod in agreement that shrinking a road is crazy. End of the reform idea. Move on to something else — like landscaping.

Over and over again, for similar ideas, the pro-car person is seen as being level-headed and the person calling for transportation reform (in this case, to give more space to people and less to cars) is ridiculed and seen as unrealistic.

A common outcome when someone is outside of the recognized societal way of thinking.

Here in Boulder, Colorado, this phenomenon is particularly noticeable and surprising because the city is very well known (accurately or not) for progressive transportation initiatives. Despite this reputation in Boulder, the city history shows that it frequently only takes one or two Board or Council members to kill an idea for transportation reform. Such members — who are seen as “reasonable” and “level-headed” because they live in a society that assumes complete dependence on cars is normal and permanent — are quickly and easily able to squelch effective, equitable transportation reform ideas all the time. Even when a majority of the Board or Council are supportive of the reform.

As a result, over the decades, it has only taken one or two pro-car Board or Council members in “enlightened” Boulder to severely compromise or stop occasional efforts to have the City shed its numerous outdated transportation policies.

Colleagues of these Board or Council members commonly don’t stand up to this sort of squelching of transportation reform ideas — despite knowing there would be a 4-1 vote in favor of the reform.

Why?

Largely because they realize that the societal “pro car” narrative also permeates “progressive” Boulder. They therefore understandably expect that the point made by the squelcher would be supported by large majorities (or a VERY angry minority) of Boulder residents.

Even in Boulder, opponents of many transportation reform ideas are seen as level-headed realists. Supporters of reform are seen as living in “La La Land.” Over time, the “realists” grow more bold, to the point of becoming political populists for motordom. The “reformers,” on the other hand, grow increasingly timid about suggesting reform, to the point where reform proposals become rare. And require a relatively large amount of political courage.

In the end, those promoting transportation reform in a car-dependent society must rely almost exclusively on leveraging a crisis. Only when traffic crashes result in a shocking number of deaths, or the price of gasoline skyrockets – to cite two examples — can there be enough motivation to overcome the squelching by the pro-car “realists.”

Leave a comment

Filed under Bicycling, Politics, Transportation, Walking