Category Archives: Town and Transportation Planning

Making Cars Happy is a Priority for Town Planners

 

By Dom Nozzi

July 15, 1999

Yesterday was a dispiriting day for me as a town planner for a city in Florida.

It was a typical conversation amongst my town planning colleagues, who supposedly were in a job that obligated them to create a better quality of life for their city. Typical because my colleagues are thoroughly quite suburban and auto-oriented.

For the second staff meeting in a row, what was the main agenda item for these planners at the meeting?

The DESPERATE need to require businesses to provide more car parking.parking lot3

Yes. Perhaps the most effective way to undermine the quality of life of the community.

To say I was appalled was to put it very mildly. I was livid.

I cannot imagine ANYTHING that is more damaging or more likely to lock a community into a sprawling, car-dependent debacle than to widen roads or build bigger parking lots.

Why are allegedly professional planners – whose job it is to protect and promote the city quality of life – doing all they can to ruin the city?

To add insult to injury, we spent the first 45 minutes of the meeting trying to come up with rules for fences or barricades that a business with an outdoor cafe would be required to install to seal off their outdoor tables and seating.

Why, I asked?

Is it not true, I said, that seating and tables are scattered, unfenced, throughout Europe???

Coral Gables FL, in fact, had a law that says that outdoor cafes must NOT be fenced. Are people dying in Coral Gable as a result? Is my city so terrified of urban vibrancy?

Is it not true that at a coffee shop in the town center of my city, the ambience of unfenced tables is fabulous? (it is actually quite vibrant, for the record)

The response from my planner colleagues: “It looks messy if the tables area is unfenced.” (Urbanism is ugly!) “People might walk through the tables area.” (horrors!) “The tables might end up on the sidewalks and people will have to walk around them.” (run for your life!)

Typical suburban concerns. Let’s protect ourselves from a quality city by barricading, by protecting against disorder, by sealing things off, by sterilizing, by cocooning.

Sometimes I wonder why I don’t just quit this shameful suburban sprawl job and write a book or run for commission or something…

Leave a comment

Filed under Town and Transportation Planning

The Making of an Unwalkable Street Intersection

By Dom Nozzi

January 15, 2005

In community town centers, the pedestrian is the design imperative. Everything else comes second.

A grievous example of how this can (and often is) disregarded is a case that I was involved with as a town planner in Gainesville Florida.

In this case, we had a project proposed that was at the northwest gateway of the most walkable, pedestrian-friendly neighborhood in north central Florida.

But the old bugaboo raised its fearsome, tiresome head in this case. North Main Street and North 16th Avenue – where this project was located — is considered a “failed” intersection (for cars, that is). As I mention often in speeches I give, the “failed road” is a common, inflammatory term used by carbarians to have their way when they seek a bigger road or intersection.

Who could be against “fixing” a “failed road”? People are dying! Right?

So in this case, we had the spectacle of City and County “planners” and engineers (who have probably never walked to a store in their lives) DEMANDING that this proposed gas station provide the “amenity” of “fixing” this “failed” intersection by widening that stretch of North Main from 4 lanes to 5. Not only were they ignoring the endlessly stated double-left-turn-lane-intersection-bouldertruism that we cannot build our way out of congestion. They also overlooked the stunning, ironic fact that by widening this intersection from 4 lanes to 5, it would become a failed intersection FOR PEDESTRIANS.

In the most walkable neighborhood in the area.

As an aside, part of the spectacle I observed repeatedly in this community was how often we had non-pedestrians and non-bicyclists design pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Is it any wonder that so few people walk or bicycle? Or that our pedestrian and bike facilities have so many design flaws?

Above is an example of a failed intersection design (for the forgotten pedestrian) in Boulder CO.

I find it enormously illuminating that while we have precise, mathematical, well-known ways to determine when a road or intersection is to be called “failed” when it comes to cars, we have no equivalent way to know when a road or intersection is to be called “failed” when it comes to pedestrians.

Why is that? Is it perhaps that most of us are never pedestrians for significant trips and therefore always forget that there are, in fact, pedestrians in the community?

Note that, of course, this 16th and Main intersection is ALREADY a failed intersection for pedestrians. Unlike with cars — where “failure” refers to a situation where a large number of cars are delayed for a brief time — a failed intersection for pedestrians occurs, in my opinion, when (1) there are no pedestrians using the intersection; and (2) the intersection is too dangerous for anyone but the most capable and quick to cross on foot.

In this case, city and county staff were DEMANDING that this intersection become even MORE of a failure for pedestrians.

So much for the pedestrian as the design imperative. So much for this being a community with a walkable, prideful sense of place.

One of the main aspects of my outrage is that the gas station designers found that it was very costly for them to give up eight feet of their property to install a turn lane at the intersection. They agreed with my point that by far, it would be preferable to improve the intersection by taking Main Street from 8th Avenue to 16th Avenue from 4 lanes to 3 (and have turn pockets along the way).

The street would become more permeable, safer, livable, and efficient. And more likely to promote healthy retail and residential development along the corridor.

But they were stopped in their tracks when they learned, recently, that county staff OPPOSED taking this portion of Main Street from 4 lanes to 3. I had heard that the obstacle to doing this in the recent past was that Publix was foolishly objecting (incorrectly believing that such a diet would reduce car-carrying capacity).

Does county staff not understand that such a diet would not reduce capacity, or does it assume that since they’ve heard that Publix is opposed that it is therefore a non-starter to recommend it?

Why would city and county staff, who do not live near this walkable neighborhood, go against the wishes of the neighborhood? Why are they instead calling for the further degradation of the neighborhood perimeter?

Why do the “escape route” interests of outlying suburbanites outweigh the community-building, community-enhancing wishes of such a neighborhood?

Leave a comment

Filed under Town and Transportation Planning

Is Boulder Colorado Making Progress in Implementing its Transportation Plan?

 

By Dom Nozzi

June 1, 2016

I have served for over two years on Boulder Colorado’s Transportation Advisory Board (TAB). As I have noted in the past at TAB meetings, I believe Boulder’s transportation staff is extremely knowledgeable regarding transportation issues. They mostly “get it,” in my opinion.

However, I believe they have been consistently quite timid in their recommendations to Council, and a recent “progress update” issued by staff is an example of that. I believe staff is putting too much of a happy, optimistic face on the “progress” we are making on the TMP, and they are asking TAB to confirm that to Council. I, for one, do not wish to “confirm” that.

I believe staff is doing this because they are not being given PERMISSION by Council, supervisors, or citizens to offer effective, meaningful recommendations or findings.

There are four main categories in which communities can be effective in achieving transportation objectives (such as promoting transportation choices, reducing excessive SOV travel, promoting safety and quality of life, promoting environmental and financial sustainability, reducing GHG emissions, etc.). I call them the “Four ‘S’s”:

  1. Reallocate Space from motor vehicles to places for people (for example, repurposing travel lanes, reducing travel lane widths, shrinking intersection and parking lot sizes).
  2. Calm (reduce Speeding by) motor vehicles.
  3. Reduce the massive Subsidies motorists unfairly enjoy.
  4. Shorten distances to destinations.

Because of its wealth and because it is relatively easy politically, Boulder has a long history of spending money to provide infrastructure and services to achieve TMP objectives. But that approach is only able to achieve relatively trivial gains — particularly compared to the four items I mention above. As an aside, much of Boulder’s historic achievements regarding transportation are due to “self-selection,” where many people who ALREADY want to bike, walk or use transit move to Boulder because they have heard Boulder is a good place to travel in those ways. Relatively high levels of non-car travel in Boulder are much less due to the facilities and services provided by Boulder. Part of this self-selection is due to Boulder being a “college town.” College towns throughout the nation have relatively high non-car travel levels.

If we consider the above — and how little Boulder has done to implement any of the four effective items I mention above — it is clear that Boulder is either standing still or losing ground with regard to achieving TMP objectives. For example…

  1. Boulder is mostly failing to reallocate space from motor vehicles. The Folsom Street right-sizing (called a “road diet” in most of the nation) and other Living Lab projects have been rolled back. Boulder retains and in some instances continues to install arapahoe-in-boulder-codouble-left turn lanes at intersections. Boulder continues to maintain a large number of overly wide streets and travel lanes for cars. Boulder continues to require excessive amounts of parking space for motor vehicles as a condition for development approval.
  1. Boulder continues to avoid funding and implementing a traffic calming program, which means that speeding and safety remain problems on many of Boulder’s overly wide streets and overly wide intersections and overly generous turning radii at intersections. Staff recently noted that there is no evidence that there are safety problems on Boulder streets due to speeding (?), which suggests that calming is more of a “quality of life” matter than a safety matter. I believe that is misleading. First, I think that the large quality of life benefits that calming provides in and of itself is a justification for re-starting the calming program. I believe a large number of citizens continue to request calming for valid reasons (safety for their children, for example). I believe calming is an effective way to reduce aggressive opposition to development in Boulder (because much of the opposition to new development is due to the perceived danger and speed of new car trips delivered by new development). I would note that the chance of injury or death goes up exponentially as motor vehicle speeds go above 25 to 35 mph. I also believe that even if there is no data showing that calming will reduce injuries and deaths in Boulder, the PERCIEVED danger due to excessive car speeds is reducing the number of bicycling and walking and transit trips in Boulder.
  1. Boulder continues to mostly avoid imposing fair user fees for transportation. User fees for parking and roads are a powerful way to encourage non-SOV travel and induce a lot of walking, bicycling and transit use. It is also an excellent way to raise much-needed transportation revenue. User fees can introduce a lot of fairness into cost of living in Boulder, as bicyclists, transit users, and pedestrians will be subsidizing motorists less (they subsidize motorists by paying more taxes and paying more for goods and services — such costs would be substantially lower if motorists paid more of their own way).
  1. Boulder continues to do very little to promote more compact development (which shortens travel distances), and arguably is losing ground due to the amount of development which occurs in outlying “bedroom community” towns.

The result of not implementing the four items I mention above is that Boulder GHG emissions are probably stable/increasing, safety for peds and bicyclists (particularly for the canaries in a coal mine: the “interested but concerned” seniors, children and women) remains poor (which means efforts toward a “Vision Zero” for traffic fatalities is mostly lip service), the number of motor vehicle trips remains very high (well over 60-80 percent of all trips), transportation choice is not noticeably improving, quality of life in Boulder is stable or worsening when it comes to factors related to the transportation sector (such as high noise levels and lack of charming, human-scaled spaces), and financial costs for transportation remain unsustainably high and getting higher.

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics, Town and Transportation Planning

Environmental One-Upsmanship

 

By Dom Nozzi

June 20, 2002

It is disappointing but not surprising that so-called “no-growthers” and blue collars (lower income residents) in Gainesville Florida have joined forces with the “pro-sprawl” Republicans on transportation.

One outcome of this: the Gainesville city commission is preparing to completely gut the long-range transportation plan I prepared for the city.

After all, we are ALL motorists with motorist values. It matters not a whit that many no-growther people pay lip service to the idea of fighting sprawl and protecting neighborhoods. By being pro-car, they completely undermine any alleged effort to discourage sprawl and help neighborhoods.

There has been an emergence in towns like Gainesville of a hysterical, fanatic contingent of angry NIMBYs disguised as environmentalists. Within the city, such people fight to the death to save every blade of grass or small tree or possum in the hopes of stopping a nimbyproposed development project, or at least forcing the project to lower its density to suburban, cow-town density.

These “environmentalists” desperately grasp at any available straw to slow or stop a development project.

Yesterday, it struck me: A lot of these “environmentalists” seem to be engaged in a game of “one-upsmanship”. They try to outdo each other to publicly demonstrate that they are “holier than thou” with regard to protecting the environment.

“You believe we should have a 30-foot setback from wetlands in order to protect them from development. I want us to have a 60-foot setback!!!”

“Oh, yeah??? Well I think we should have a 90-foot setback, and protect ALL mud puddles in Gainesville!!! So there!!”

“Big deal!! I think we should prohibit ALL future development in the city to REALLY protect the environment!!!”

The point I’ve made in the past is that this sort of hysterical one-upmanship is not only counterproductive. It is a way in which suburbanites, who lead environmentally destructive lives by living in sprawlsville and driving their SUVs to rent a video every week, ease their guilty conscience by engaging in this sort of public environmental one-upmanship.

But there may be another explanation for this phenomenon: These hysterical, angry citizens have the same psychology that afflicts fanatical fundamentalist religious zealots. The one-upmanship of today’s environmentalist is the same psychology that we observe when a fundamentalist tries to one-up his religious friends on religious doctrine. “I am more holy than you because I am CERTAIN that every comma and semi-colon in the Bible is inerrant!!”

Likewise, many environmentalists seem to be seeking admiration for the purity and strength of THEIR beliefs — albeit pertaining to wetlands rather than scripture…

So perhaps this drive for salvation through one-upsmanship is shared by both religious fundamentalists and environmental fundamentalists…

Leave a comment

Filed under Environment, Town and Transportation Planning

Why Did the Boulder Road Diet Project Stir Up So Much Opposition?

By Dom Nozzi

January 18, 2016

I’m not sure that the City handled the road diet project on Folsom Street (called “Right Sizing” in Boulder) wrongly. A huge number of cities all over the nation handled their road diet projects much, much worse than Boulder and still made them happen.

I think an important problem in Boulder is that there are a large number of wealthy people in Boulder (who therefore have an enormous sense of entitlement – they have a RIGHT to do whatever they are doing!). Also, many in Boulder are very intelligent, which means that people are smart enough to intelligently tell local government why something won’t work. In less educated communities, the arguments tend to be dumber and therefore easier to disregard.

I think Boulder has also been making a huge mistake, through its plans and rhetoric over the past several years, to suggest that bicycle, pedestrian, and transit improvements can happily coexist with making motorists happy (the idea that it is a arapahoe-in-boulder-co“win-win” game). It is NOT a win-win. It is zero-sum. When conditions are made better for driving, conditions for walking, bicycling, and transit always worsen – largely because improving conditions for cars means oversizing streets and intersections, and
spreading origins and destinations far from each other.

Similarly, Boulder continues to make the awful mistake of stating that it will keep congestion from getting worse. That is an excellent recipe for making cars happy and making non-car travel very unlikely.

Boulder’s reputation for being friendly to bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit users comes almost entirely from having a lot of money (due to Boulder’s wealthy population), so the City fools a lot of people into thinking we are discouraging car use by building lots of paths and providing lots of buses. Politically easy to do that. But not effective in reducing car use. If we are talking about effectively getting more people to travel without a car, my mantra is that it is not about providing shiny new toys or techno-wizardry or facilities for those not traveling by car. It is about the Four S’s: Reduce Space (parking and roads) allocated to cars, reduce Speeds cars can travel, reduce the huge Subsidies allocated to those who drive cars, and Shorten the distance one must travel to get to destinations (via compact development).

Boulder does not do much of anything regarding these four tools.

There are a relatively large number in Boulder who bicycle, walk, and use transit (in terms of America, but pathetic when compared to Europe). But the higher numbers are significantly due to self-selection. People who ALREADY like to bicycle, walk, and use transit move here due to the city reputation. Many of those people would be bicycling, walking, and using transit (for utilitarian trips) even if the city provided mediocre sidewalks, buses, and bike paths.

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics, Town and Transportation Planning

Boulder is Behind the Times in Transportation

 

By Dom Nozzi

September 30, 2015

The extremely hostile, enraged 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 transportation. I had bought into this myth myself.

But the stunning opposition to the Folsom Street right-sizing (removal of tc92cc7da5077ec9ca6043d0c8c346796wo 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. Boulder 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 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.

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.

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 each of the measures above, Gainesville is much more progressive.

Boulder is also far behind the times when it comes to residential development regulations, but I will save that for a future essay.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics, Town and Transportation Planning

The Hidden Agenda in Boulder

 

By Dom Nozzi

August 31, 2015

In November 2015, the residents of Boulder are to vote on two referendums. One is a Development Shall Pay It’s Own Way measure. The other is a Neighborhood Right to Vote measure. Both are alleged to be necessary to protect quality of life in Boulder.

It turns out that neither measure, if passed, will do anything to promote quality of life in Boulder. Indeed, a very strong case can be made that they will both degrade quality of life in Boulder.

This paradox exposes a hidden agenda in Boulder.

Both referendums are irrelevant to promoting quality of life. The hidden agenda, it turns out, is to stop or substantially slow population growth and development in Boulder. This NIMBY agenda has had bi-partisan political support in Boulder for several decades.

Despite having strong support from environmentalists and other political progressives in Boulder, the no-growth agenda is fundamentally a reactionary right wing agenda that downloadundermines both the health of a city and the needs of lower-income groups.

Why?

Because the primary motivator for a no-growth agenda is to keep population and densities so low that roads will always be free-flowing and parking spaces will always be available (which to most no-growthers in Boulder, is the underlying definition of quality of life).

An important means of achieving a no-growth agenda, besides making life torturous and extremely costly for developers, is to leverage what is known as “snob zoning.” That is, to adopt residential zoning regulations that require large lots, very low densities, very large single-family home sizes, and a strict prohibition of “mixed uses” (the incorporation of neighborhood-based shops and offices).

Both the “happy car travel” agenda and the “snob zoning” agenda ensure that housing is artificially much more costly than it would otherwise be. It becomes financially impossible for middle- and lower-income groups to afford to live in Boulder when, as is the case in Boulder, extremely high levels of car dependency and the snob zoning rules are in place.

To achieve this happy car and snob zoning agenda, a sustainable political will is necessary.

How can we get the political left AND right to buy into this agenda, in other words?

The brilliant tactical achievement is that the no-growth agenda was one that both the right and left could buy into, which has made it a political juggernaut in Boulder.

How is this done?

As it turns out, it is relatively easy to have the political right and left agree to both a happy car agenda and a snob zoning agenda.

First, in a relatively car dependent society such as what we find in the US (including Boulder), nearly all of us are required to drive a car for nearly all of our trips. It doesn’t matter if you are a Republican, a left-wing environmentalist, a Feminist, a gay-rights advocate, or an evangelical Christian. Nearly all of us are obligated to be car-dependent. Which means that a highly effective tactic for candidates for elected office in the US is to be a populist for cars. “I support free-flowing traffic and easy parking!!” Again, in a car-dependent society, nearly all of us – regardless of political persuasion – strongly support that agenda. Even in Boulder, most left-wing citizens buy the argument that free-flowing traffic and easy parking is “progressive.” After all, congestion causes air pollution, and costly parking is hard on the poor. Right?

Second, the expensive and low-density snob zoning dovetails quite nicely with happy cars, as most all of us see that very low residential densities and the prohibition of shops and offices in residential neighborhoods will allow us to enjoy more free-flowing traffic and easy parking.

Another reason this two-pronged agenda has such vigor and staying power is that nearly all of us experience substantial frustration each day we drive to and from work. The cars most all of us drive take up so much space that inevitably we are slowed (and therefore frustrated) on our commute EVERY DAY. Every day, then, we are given an emotionally powerful dose of motivation to do whatever is necessary to minimize those daily delays. The best chance, many of us conclude, is to join in the fight to stop or slow development! Again, the political right AND left develop a passion to stop growth. And that bi-partisan passion is political gold that has persistent power.

To summarize, the political right wants no-growth and snob zoning to enable the high-income, luxury-car-based, elitist privatopia they desire. A nice side benefit for the right is that these things keep lower-income and minority groups from being able to afford to live in Boulder.

For the political left, no-growth and snob zoning is a way to protect air quality, and make it possible for lower-income groups to commute to Boulder from lower-income outlying areas. In addition, it is an article of faith on the environmental left that “over-population” is destructive of the environment. And let’s be honest: most all of us on the political left ALSO enjoy free-flowing traffic and easy parking.

In these ways, the political left in Boulder has been seduced into being crusaders against growth and development in Boulder. Since at least the sixties, this has created bi-partisan support for a no-growth agenda in Boulder.

Leave a comment

Filed under Environment, Town and Transportation Planning