Tag Archives: space consumption

Boulder’s Low Rates of Bicycling


By Dom Nozzi

August 3, 2019

Tragically, and despite conventional wisdom, Boulder transportation is in the Dark Ages.

The city is far behind on many transport issues and stubbornly remains stuck in the outdated thinking of the 1960s and 1970s.

Check out, for example, the “What’s Your Take?” comments by Doug Hamilton and Jeff Shultz from the Boulder Daily Camera Editorial Advisory Board in today’s paper, where they promote the tired, frequent Boulder narrative of promoting easy, unimpeded car travel. If you want to know why the number of bike trips remains stuck at about 2%-5% of all Boulder trips (compared to the huge percentages in places like Amsterdam or Utrecht or Delft), one must notice that for several decades and up to this day, Boulder has ruinously enabled high-speed, high-volume car traffic.

And assumed it could do this while at the same time promoting bicycling.

Sorry, but the fact of the matter is that car travel is zero-sum, not win-win. By pampering and catering to motorists for decades, Boulder has degraded and discouraged and endangered bicycle travel. Boulder cannot have both happy motoring and widespread (and happy) bicycling. Unless Boulder begins to take away Space, Speed, and Subsidies from motorists, bicycling rates will remain embarrassingly low and cycling will remain quite dangerous.

Again, there is no win-win on this. And that means that leadership is needed.


Leave a comment

Filed under Bicycling, Road Diet, Transportation

An Important Cause of the “No Growth” Movement

By Dom Nozzi

December 11, 2018

Cities across the US – particularly cities such as Boulder, Colorado – have seen a significant rise in citizens aggressively fighting to stop growth. Terms such as NIMBY or No-Growther describe such people.

What are the origins of this movement?

I believe an important source originates with the car-happy world we have created, which is a self-perpetuating downward spiral in which a growing number of people find themselves obligated to be so car dependent. Cars consume a huge amount of space, 40 people BWwhich leads to significant inconvenience when other motorists are in one’s vicinity. You and your neighbors are jostling for elbow room with each of you owning and trying to maneuver a very large metal box. Therefore, such a lifestyle inevitably compels most such people to fight to either stop growth or at least minimize density and building height.

Because their car consumes so much space, motorists are also compelled to demand that the human scale in their community be replaced by an unsafe, unpleasant car scale (ie, oversized roads and parking lots). In other words, a great many people in a car-oriented society become their own worst enemies. They also tend to become enemies of what makes cities wonderful (compactness, sociability, slower speeds).

My question is this: Why do people who dislike cities choose to live in a city?


Leave a comment

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

The Frustration Syndrome

By Dom Nozzi

Cars consume a huge amount of space. Since nearly all of us for the past century have driven such large metal boxes for nearly all of our trips, we lose sight of the fact that our form of transportation takes up so much space.

A person in a car, on average, takes up as much space as 17 people in chairs. When a car is moving, it takes up 100 times as much space.

Because our cars take up so much real estate and are driven so often, it is inevitable that multiple times each day, we get extremely frustrated by being stopped or slowed down in traffic. In a huge metal box that needs more space than a city can provide without destroying itself, we quickly conclude the following: “THAT MORON IS DRIVING TOO SLOW!!” “GROWTH IS OUT OF CONTROL!!” “DENSITY IS CAUSING TOO MUCH CROWDING!!” “BUILDINGS ARE TOO TALL!!”

Our blood pressure rises and our stress and rage go through the roof.

Therefore, for 100 years, there has been enormous political pressure to widen roads and intersections. And to vastly expand the sea of asphalt parking lots we have. Anything to reduce the enraging frustration!Road-Rage_1689375c

We also have developed a bi-partisan political consensus that we must stop population growth in our town. If we cannot do that, we must slow it as much as possible. Or minimize densities and building heights. Our quest, again, is to keep our roads and parking lots from being crowded by even MORE cars.

We understandably (yet ruinously) end up confusing happy car travel (“free flowing traffic”) and easy parking with quality of life. Ruinous because the quest for happy cars gives us an asphalt mess. Ugly highways. Danger for children and seniors. Unaffordability. Suburban sprawl. Noise pollution. Loss of ecosystems. Road rage.

Since it is embarrassing for the political left to point out that we want to stop growth to make it easier to drive a car, we here in Boulder instead point to more admirable reasons: “We are saving the environment” (it is an article of faith amongst environmentalists that overpopulation is our biggest global threat). “We are protecting views of the flatirons.” “We are making it more possible and affordable for low-income people who cannot afford to live in Boulder to commute to Boulder jobs.”

The right wing also benefits. Not only do they seek to protect Lexus car travel. They also are able to keep out “undesirable” people by successfully pushing for such tactics as “snob zoning.” Such zoning requires very large residential lot sizes, large home sizes, very low densities, very low occupancy limits for unrelated adults, and low building heights. Indeed, in my view, no-growth efforts in Boulder are fundamentally and ironically a right-wing effort.

The above helps explain why Boulder has had bi-partisan support for a no-growth agenda since the 1960s.

The political left and right are enraged by the frustration of constantly being slowed down in their huge metal boxes (even environmental lefties are almost all motorists).

And the political left is able to claim they are saving Bambi or helping poor people or saving views of the flatirons, rather than their real agenda of easy driving and easy parking.

The Frustration Syndrome allows us to understand why even in progressive, pro-bike, pro-environment Boulder, there was FURIOUS opposition to narrowing Folsom Street. “You are going to deliberately slow down my car travel?? Are you kidding me??” Never mind that narrowing Folsom is a powerful and affordable way to dramatically reduce car crashes, improve pedestrian and bicyclist safety, reduce noise pollution, improve affordability, reduce regional car trips, and reduce car emissions.

This also helps explain two referendums Boulder voted on in 2015: Growth Shall Pay Its Own Way, and Neighborhood Right to Vote. Both allege to “protect our quality of life.” It turns out that neither did anything to protect our quality of life.


Instead, they are no growth efforts. A way to reduce the frustration of car travel by minimizing the number of cars in Boulder.

Which, too many of us wrongly believe, is a way to improve our quality of life.

Boulder does not have too many people. Boulder has too many people in cars.


Filed under Politics, Transportation, Urban Design