Opinion: Is this the future we want for Boulder?
Boulder’s latest “Community Profile” has both commercial
and residential growth continuing at exactly the same percentage rate per year
from now through 2035. Currently Boulder has almost 60,000 in-commuters. Given
these matching growth rates and the current large surplus of jobs over workers,
the number of in-commuters will continue to increase as we add at least another
60,000 jobs and 20,000 or so more residents to what the planning department
calls “reasonable build-out.”
Is adding more and more employment where we should be headed?
It increases traffic congestion and drives up the price of housing, resulting
in decreased “diversity.” The spillover effects of adding housing to try to
catch up to jobs are equally pernicious — city and school district facilities
are overcrowded, services are stretched thin, traffic is made even worse, and
finite resources like water and open space are stressed. None of this is
desirable, so why are we going there?
The excess of in-commuters cannot reasonably be
addressed by adding more housing. The Denver Metro area jobs/pop ratio was
about 2/3 pre-Recession; Boulder’s is almost exactly 1/1. Adding enough housing
just for the current in-commuters would increase Boulder’s population by
60,000, if every new resident worked here, to 90,000, at the 2/3 ratio.
Many of our major intersections are already at or beyond
capacity during rush hours, with multiple light cycle waits over an increasing
fraction of each day. Until now, the city’s “standard” has been no more than a
certain percentage of intersections with multiple light cycle waits. So once an
intersection is counted as failing, having it degrade from, say, two hours to
five hours of delays makes no difference in meeting the standard. But this
increase strongly impacts people’s ability to get around, by car or by bus.
Boulder city staff has finally proposed adding the length of intersection
delays and rush-hour travel times to the list of transportation plan standards.
These should also be measured over the whole day to paint an accurate picture of
changes as they occur and of the real experience of Boulderites who must use
the roads to actually get somewhere.
Some of the city’s housing ideas, like allowing more
accessory dwelling units in neighborhoods, may make sense on their own. But we
need to follow the first rule of holes — when you find yourself in one, stop
digging. If housing prices are rising because of increased demand from
employment growth, maybe we need to address the cause, not the effect, as does
the current proposal to increase allowable housing densities by counting adjacent
street right-of-ways as open space! Another idea floating around is to put more
services in employment areas, so that workers don’t have to drive around so
much. This also may make sense, but planners will then want to completely
redevelop these areas to meet their mental pictures of desirable “urban
streetscapes.” This raises rents and pushes out existing service businesses
that actually benefit citizens; it happened in Boulder Junction and would
happen from the oversized Baseline Zero hotel project near Martin Acres.
Added to the city’s current growth projections for
inside the city limits is the possible development of the planning reserve,
which is hundreds of acres north east of U.S. 36. Apparently some council
members are pretty hot on this – otherwise why push to eliminate the county’s
veto power in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan agreement? And then there
is the University of Colorado, which just keeps building more and more.
The council ought to review the financial analyses done
in the 2001-03 Jobs/Pop Study to see that no growth in Boulder pays its own
way. So all of this projected growth will almost certainly result in general
service levels becoming worse for everyone — an implicit tax — even if we have
some major explicit tax increases, as seem to be coming. In particular, none of
the current fees, taxes, or plans are even close to being adequate to solve the
long-term transportation issue.
Much as some council members don’t want to give up
power, it’s time to give the citizens the deciding voice. The city should
develop a full range of realistic alternative scenarios to the current path,
and analyze the costs and benefits involved. Then do a substantial public
process, as was done in the 1990’s with the Integrated Planning Project, so the
citizens of Boulder can really understand what the options are. My guess is
that the feedback will once again be overwhelmingly clear — it’s time to stop
digging!
Profile: https://www-static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/2014-boulder-colorado-community-profile-1-201404171641.pdf