Housing Cooperatives an Important Step To Provide More Housing in Boulder

As Boulder housing prices continue to rise, with the cost of an average home now over $1 million, the city council has begun evaluating a variety of options to maintain a middle class of people able to live inside city limits. One of the first steps council has taken is to update the existing, never-used cooperative housing ordinance, which is one tool to improve Boulder’s ability to house low and middle-income people. The goal of a cooperative housing ordinance is to create sustainable, communal, and affordable options for housing while placing reasonable constraints on impacts to neighborhoods.

Cooperative housing fits many of the city council’s criteria for “gentle infill” in existing neighborhoods, providing modest amounts of new housing capacity without the need to build new structures. Co-op housing is one possible type of infill the city council may pursue, and they might later permit tiny homes, accessory dwelling units (ADUs), and subdivided lots. All of the proposals try to minimize neighborhood change while allowing moderately more occupancy or compatible housing. Housing cooperatives can provide a number of benefits to Boulder by providing unsubsidized low-cost housing for communities that conserve resources and produce engaged, socially conscious people.

Boulder’s affordable housing program covers less than 10% of its housing stock and raises money from impact fees paid by new development. By allowing occupancy similar to existing Boulder cooperatives, new co-ops could enable monthly housing costs closer to one-half or one-third of other available options in a single-family home or rental unit. Combined with savings from reduced per-capita energy, water, food, and shared transportation, co-ops create real affordability through collaborative living.

Conserving resources also has positive environmental benefits. Boulder’s existing recognized cooperatives (and some of its sub-legal cooperatives) started a joint bulk food buying program, allowing them to cheaply and efficiently share group meals while reducing food waste, trips to the store, and packaging. By letting more residents occupy the same space in a typical Boulder home, co-ops consume 28% of the electricity and 31% of the water per person of the average Coloradan, according to data collected on existing co-ops in Boulder—and capital investments to reduce energy use can spread across a greater number of people.

While co-ops provide affordability to residents and help meet a range of city goals, they can also act as a stabilizing force in neighborhoods, particularly ones with large numbers of rental units. The proposed ordinance would allow for both ownership and rental cooperatives: ownership cooperatives will operate similarly to home-ownership, while rental cooperatives will provide more permanence than existing rentals. An ordinance that requires certification of co-ops in the form of written bylaws, regular democratic meetings, and resource sharing will help support careful membership processes that result in cooperative homes with less-variable turnover and strong cultural concern for community.

Furthermore, the proposed ordinance contains provisions to address neighborhood compatibility and potential nuisances like noise, trash, and parking, including a limitation on the number of vehicles associated with each cooperative. These provisions make handling potential nuisances more enforceable than with a typical rental. For example, a noise complaint will be associated with the offending property itself, rather than an individual, and multiple complaints can result in fines or revocation of the co-op’s permit.

The broader impact of cooperatives forming in Boulder will be limited in the proposed ordinance, both by an overall cap on the number of new cooperative permits issued each year and by provisions limiting the concentration of cooperatives. The new law would currently permit only five rental cooperatives, five nonprofit cooperatives, and five ownership cooperatives to form each year and would limit the concentration of cooperatives so they do not overwhelm any neighborhood.

Neighbors can find further comfort in other parts of the ordinance. Permits will be temporary and linked with the group forming the cooperative, rather than with a landlord or developer. A permit must be renewed after four years if the group continues to operate as a cooperative. Adding an overall cap on the number of residents in a cooperative may also help calm neighbors’ potential anxiety.

Boulder must acknowledge its housing crisis. While cooperative housing is a small piece of the city’s middle-income housing strategy, it can enable real affordability, sustainability, community benefit, and allow seniors to age in place without building additional housing. I support creating more co-ops, and stand with a group of people diverse in ages, incomes, and backgrounds—both homeowners and renters—who want to get a workable cooperative housing ordinance.

Eric Budd is a member of the Boulder Community Housing Association. You can tweet him at @ericmbudd.

I applied for Boulder’s Transportation Advisory Board. Here’s how I answered a few of the questions

Applications close today at 5PM for Boulder’s Boards and Commissions. If you’re interested in applying for TAB, you can fill out the form here.

1. Have you had any experiences with the Transportation Advisory Board or the services it oversees that have sparked your interest in becoming a member of the Board, and, if so, please describe the experience(s) and what insight you gained.*

I originally applied for TAB two years ago before having any involvement in The City of Boulder governance or advocacy. Since that time, I’ve decided to get involved in community organizations that focus on improving transportation and housing in Boulder. My work on the Better Boulder steering committee, Community Cycles advocacy committee, and Boulder Community Housing Association all share a common thread: if housing is currently the top issue facing Boulder, then a diversity of transportation options is the second. I want to work to help build walkable communities that offer nearby services, and developing places where one does not need a car to live daily life.

While the Transportation Advisory Board and City Council faced a lot of criticism for the project on Folsom, I fundamentally believe that their motivations were in the right direction: to help in the implementation of the Transportation Master Plan. But the challenge’s our community faces are in the implementation; I’d like to be a voice on TAB that helps improve the City’s outreach and how we use data to drive our policy and decision-making.

2. How can we best implement the Transportation Master Plan and how do we address the major challenges to doing so?*

As many transportation advocates, members of TAB and City Council realized last summer, implementation is the hardest part of having an ambitious Transportation Master Plan. The real lesson I took from the community project on Folsom Street had little to do with engineering, modeling, or data. In fact, the Folsom Street protected bike lane project was performing nearly in-line with models outlined for the project by the eighth week of implementation. But by that point, in the eyes of many people, the project had already failed. The way to successfully meet the challenges in implementing an ambitious plan lie in the definition and communication of a vision in order to get strong community buy-in.

Having a Transportation Master Plan is necessary but not sufficient to implement that plan. To speak about bicycle infrastructure in particular, our leaders need to communicate a vision for a connected bicycle network before trying to implement a challenging change on a particular street, which may look haphazard, trivial, or at worst, punishing. We need a communication strategy that works with local businesses and local residents on individual streets to have them become the strongest coalition for significant street projects. And we need inclusive processes that value a variety of voices and stakeholders in our community, some of which may not be reached by traditional means.

But speaking about Boulder transportation more broadly, success in implementation will rely on pursuing a true diversity of small improvements rather than relying on big projects that have the potential for failure. For transit improvements, many in our community want to enable a community-wide EcoPass, which could have incredibly positive impacts if achieved. But there are serious risks as well, namely that RTD simply will not provide the level of service needed to make such a program work. But what about smaller improvements, like raising money to buy up more local service, or further expand or support the neighborhood EcoPass program? While we cannot give up our lofty goals, having a real focus on what’s achievable in the short term will can make a real difference for Boulder residents in the short term.

3. What is your assessment of important transportation issues related to Boulder’s community sustainability goals (Economic, Environmental and Social)? How might the City work with the business community, neighborhoods, and interest groups to address these issues?*

Boulder needs to continue to work toward improving access to transit as a backbone to a diverse set of transportation modes, which is key to achieving its environmental goals. The current system of neighborhood EcoPasses shuts out potential users of the system if their neighborhoods do not sign up at a high enough rate, insufficiently serving some populations near transit corridors, such as Old North Boulder or along Arapahoe. While Boulder will always be at a disadvantage with RTD, the city needs to take further ownership in improving transit to help meet our transportation goals.

Continuing to develop a strong biking and walking system is one key to the area’s economy, particularly to encourage local spending on goods and services rather than auto-oriented spending, as the latter spending is more likely to leave the local economy. To gain the full set of advantages of improving transit access, the city also needs to look at land use changes as well, particularly in the case of the East Arapahoe transportation project. Moving to a land use pattern that builds more value (providing more housing and nearby services) will be key to recouping any investment the city makes in improved transit.

For social sustainability, it’s important to keep Boulder financially within reach for all classes of people, including tying in affordable transportation options together with affordable housing options. We need to continue to strive for transportation equity for all modes of transportation. I think this can be best summed up by a quote from Enrique Peñalosa, mayor of Bogotá, Columbia, that “a bus with 100 people has a right to 100 times more road space than a car with a single occupant.”

4. In your opinion, what are the most pressing transportation issues for the City of Boulder? What new approaches could Boulder take towards addressing these issues?*

Boulder’s most pressing transportation needs are highly connected to its other most difficult problem: the general availability and cost of housing. Total cost of living in Boulder will be dominated by both housing and transportation costs; as a city, we must provide strategies for lowering the cost of both. If we choose to densify urban corridors as an opportunity to provide affordable housing, transportation options will be key to reduce the need to own a car and reduce the impacts of automobile use. And by continuing to build out our biking and walking system, individuals and families can further reduce their car use for many of their trips, saving both the individual expense, and saving the city expense in maintaining car infrastructure.

Secondarily, we need to make strides to redevelop car-focused areas outside of the city center. Paying for increased transit in difficult-to-serve areas may not be the ideal return-on-investment, so other alternatives may be preferable: better bike infrastructure/protected lanes, additional car-sharing options (like a point-to-point system Car2Go) and continued support for e-bikes are all good options for under-served areas which may not benefit from additional transit access.

5. What do you think would be an effective approach for creating regional transportation solutions?*

Regional transportation is Boulder’s most difficult transportation problem as we control only part of the equation shared with RTD. The city has most control over how people get around once inside the city limits, only some control over the buses (or ride-sharing) to get to the city, and no control over the last-mile difficulties in other communities from where people commute (which are often low-density). Boulder needs to spend most of its resources on the aspects it can control—improving our connections inside of Boulder—with particular focus on how we might serve regional users and our 65,000+ in-commuters.

Outside of Boulder, we’ve had good success in connecting the 36 corridor and into Denver (a major growth area in the next decade) with bus rapid transit, which I hope continues to improve service downtown and to Boulder Junction. To be successful, we need to work with our neighboring communities to improve ridership (by using incentives and better infrastructure). and co-develop last-mile solutions that best serve their unique development patterns. This will be a long-term goal, but critical for working with the complexity of our current regional layout.

A Vision for Housing and Transit on Boulder’s East Arapahoe Corridor

Boulder’s East Arapahoe corridor, defined between Folsom and 75th streets, shows great promise to create a place where people can live and work. The City of Boulder is currently developing its East Arapahoe Transportation Plan, which presents options to extend dedicated bus lanes, provide “bus rapid transit” with improved boarding and reduced wait times, and develop separated bike routes along the length of the road. Currently, the city is not considering changes in land-use along the corridor, which would miss an opportunity to make some new “15-minute” neighborhoods that our city council desires. And while many residents have concerns about changing the character of surrounding neighborhoods, we can address those concerns by focusing the improvements to the areas directly alongside Arapahoe itself.

Transportation area defined in the study from City of Boulder

An inefficient corridor

With a current speed limit of 45 miles per hour, Arapahoe east of Foothills Parkway is neither a street nor a highway. The Strong Towns organization, an advocacy group for strengthening local communities, calls these street/road hybrids “stroads”, which have several negative effects. Stroads promote congestion and have speeds slower than a highway, making them ineffective at moving automobiles quickly and safely. But these roads also move automobiles too fast to function as a street, which is a place for people that builds value with shops, businesses, or gathering spaces. By mixing high-speed and turning automobile traffic with people who are on bikes or walking, street/road hybrids create a dangerous environment for all users. These auto-centric corridors fail to provide productive financial or economic value to the city.

East Arapahoe street view.png
Arapahoe east of Foothills Parkway in Boulder, Colorado

Several of the city’s proposed transportation options include expanded right-of-way, widening an already significantly wide road. But if you visit Arapahoe today, the avenue fails to give people a sense of place, largely due to broad building setbacks and an abundance of surface parking lots. Adopting design standards that focus on making places for people, along with making a complete street for buses, bikes, and pedestrians, could make the area into a human-scale boulevard.

How we can create a place for people

The Mason Corridor in Fort Collins provides a great example of how transit improvements can combine with new infill development, supported by the “MAX” bus rapid transit system, a bike trail, and several secure bike parking facilities. The Fort Collins project has also adapted its land use policies to allow for mixed-use redevelopment, providing buildings with retail shops on the ground floor, but also includes two to four stories of additional housing or office space. With added housing along the street, wait times for buses could be reduced from below the current 10-minute intervals for the “JUMP” during peak time, potentially matching or besting the 7-8 minute intervals for the “SKIP” on Broadway.

Mason Street street view.png
Mason Street at Mulberry St. in Fort Collins, Colorado

From the recent Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan survey update, the top two desires from Boulder residents are more affordable housing options and the ability to get around with or without a car. A vision for Arapahoe can do both. The city needs to consider land use as a part of its plan to gain the real value wanted from this corridor and to make the significant transportation investments worthwhile. Arapahoe needs a rich mix of nearby jobs, housing, restaurants, breweries, climbing gyms, coffee shops, and other amenities in order to build a broader community in this part of town. Boulder needs to take this opportunity to make places that people want to live, work, and visit.

Eric Budd is a member of the Better Boulder Steering Committee. You can find him at @ericmbudd on Twitter.

What I learned from six months of wearing a Twitter-handle nametag

For the past six months, I’ve consistently worn a nametag with my Twitter handle @ericmbudd proudly displayed next to the cerulean blue Larry Twitter bird, running a live experiment on social circles and network effects.

Screenshot 2016-01-12 00.45.58

I sent artwork to Nametag Ninja, who for $13.38 shipped me a permanent magnetic nametag that I planned to wear everywhere.

My experiment seems like a proper follow-up to my previous view that “Facebook is the suburbs while Twitter is the city,” and now gives me an opportunity to build on some of Twitter’s advantages in a dense, urban, and creative-filled environment like Boulder, ColoradoInitially I had skepticism and nervousness about changing a social norm but realized I must embrace the decision for a proper test.

Places I have worn the nametag: public events like meetups and Ignite Boulder, larger private events, public meetings (Boulder city council), job interviews, coffee shops, and even my fifteen-year high school reunion (@MattSebek was impressed, which is cool because he’s way more Twitter famous than I am). I chose not to wear the nametag at work, for political and company-policy reasons, and at smaller gatherings meant to be private or semi-private, which are more focused on intimate relationships than public dialogue, or where I might call undue attention to myself.

Breakdown of responses:

  • “What is that?” (usually followed by me asking “are you on Twitter?” with a common response of “no”)
  • “Do you work for twitter?” (“no”)
  • “Why the nametag?” (“it’s a bit of a social experiment”)
  • “Do you wear that thing everywhere?” (“yes”)
  • “Nice to meet you @ericmbudd
  • “Oh you totally follow me on Twitter”
  • “Oh we met at…”
  • “Oh I think you favorited my tweet”
  • “I think I know you from Twitter. You’re always blowing up my feed.”

After wearing the nametag a few weeks, I realized I wouldn’t see a large shift in my Twitter or in-person experiences. Since the most common response to the nametag was “do you work for Twitter?”, unfortunately people did not intuitively understand my intent. And while about 560 people followed me on Twitter during the trial period, only a single person followed me directly due to the nametag (which she did on her phone mid-conversation upon first meeting). However, five to twenty people followed me indirectly due to the nametag: either by starting or furthering a conversation, or clearly identifying that I used Twitter and could be followed.

What did I hope the nametag would accomplish?

Having people I met follow me was not itself a goal. I see Twitter as a network of people more related by interests rather than an explicit physical or geographical connection. My goal was to enhance Twitter as a tool to build networks. By wearing a nametag, I wanted to invite conversation. By wearing a Twitter nametag, I also wanted to invite online conversation, and signify that our discourse could be public, inclusive, and continuing. I wanted to connect in-person people with an online network of others talking about topics we found interesting. And on several occasions I met people in person after only having known them on Twitter. I benefited from having the nametag both online and in person.

But I also got the benefits of wearing a nametag in general (via @BrianLehman): people knowing my name, and not ever getting embarrassed if they had forgotten or couldn’t instantly recall it. During the time period I also saw people running for elected office wearing nametags to great effect, and thought how powerful it might be to instantly follow up with someone online after meeting.

Screenshot 2016-01-12 00.13.40.png
Online network effects magnify in-person networks.

So what else did I learn?

Can a Twitter nametag help replace a business card? Absolutely, if interests are aligned. A business card might be useful for connecting with a person for a specific intent, but following someone on Twitter can lead to future ideas, conversations, or projects.

It helps to be up front: “Cool, I’ll check out your profile and might give you a follow.” Some people guard their feeds closely and may resist following new people who don’t align with what they want to read regularly. But putting people on a Twitter list can be a great alternative; I suggest building lists either based around geographic location or centered on a subject matter, like my list of “urbanists.” I try to put as many people as possible on relevant lists that I read, even if I don’t have an immediate connection in mind.

Does the idea of Twitter nametags scale? Probably; I benefitted from the fame of being the only person using a Twitter nametag, in a similar way that REI did with its #OptOutside campaign rejecting Black Friday. But what would happen if every Twitter user had one? Would the effect of increased interactions scale for the typical person? I’m curious. Could Twitter make advantage of the fear of missing out‘, and drive more users to its service?

Is there a business case for Twitter mailing nametags to all of its users? (from @isaach). I’ll leave rigorous analysis of the question to another article, but I think possibly, given some caveats: the people who would benefit most would live in a dense city that has lots of engaged users, with lots of people interested in connecting and learning with others.

Downsides or concerns

A few caveats to think about if you decide to make your own Twitter nametag:

  1. The nametag may drive too much meta conversation about Twitter.
  2. Some people pick Twitter handles that are not ideal due to scarcity of name options, prompting a user to add their name or pseudonym to their nametag as well.
  3. The perception that you are trying to brand yourself. (Some people might be and others might not be)
  4. The potential to intimidate others, particularly if they know you have a large, engaged following that might bring unwanted attention.
  5. The idea that people can’t talk to you about private topics because you might be very focused on public conversations.

And perhaps most importantly, wearing a nametag requires complete comfort with a public presence anywhere and anyplace. To make public posts on the internet largely without recourse is a privilege that many (or most?) people do not have, or may not think they have. A Twitter nametag can magnify the fear of putting one’s self fully into the public eye. But hopefully more people will be willing to try an expanded digital public presence.

Continue this conversation by chatting with @ericmbudd on Twitter.

Boulder could enshrine class and race exclusion into its city charter

Two ballot measures proposed by neighborhood groups, “Neighborhood Right to Vote” and “New Development Shall Pay Its Own Way” (300 & 301, respectively) aim to give citizens more rights to control growth and development in Boulder. However, support for these measures strongly biases toward homeowners and older demographics. The proposals will greatly disadvantage people who rent, people who are younger, and people who work or start companies in Boulder. But the main effect of these amendments to the city charter will be to exclude certain types of development and certain types of people from living in Boulder.

At a recent city council candidate forum hosted by The Boulder Community Housing Association, candidates discussed how to grow an inclusive and diverse city. The reality is that Boulder is both less racially diverse than the national average and also diversifying at a slower rate. According to the 2010 census, “Eighty-eight percent of Boulder’s population is White, with a 0.3 percent decrease from 2000, while the nation saw a percentage decrease of nearly 3 percent.” In part due to America’s racial wealth gap, Boulder will continue in its lack of diversity unless the city provides options for lower-income demographics that heavily skew non-white. Measures 300 and 301 would serve to uphold Boulder as an ethnically and economically homogeneous community.  

While cities themselves cannot force diversity, they do have the power to promote healthy communities by offering housing choices for wider ranges of income and family types. Both ballot amendments would serve to restrict supply and make intrinsically affordable housing—smaller footprints designed for walking, biking, and transit—financially infeasible. At a recent meeting of Boulder’s planning board on October 1st, 2015, two speakers from the audience illustrated the gap in understanding present in ballot issues 300 and 301.

In discussion about the first project at planning board, 3303 Broadway St., a woman remarked with surprise at the cost of the proposed $1000 per month one-bedroom units, saying that her “mortgage payment is less” than that (video link). Unfortunately for typical Boulder renters, the median price for a 1-bedroom apartment is $1,420 per month, and the median price for a two-bedroom apartment recently topped $2,000 per month. She also believed that the units were a “monolith… of tiny cubicles stacked together” and they lacked “trees and lawns.” But the project’s efficiency-sized units are an attractive option to the younger generation, housing one or two people who desire to live and work near downtown, serving potential employees that might otherwise in-commute. If ballot amendment 301 passes, additional fees placed on new development will likely make smaller-footprint units uneconomical, forcing a continued upward pressure on rents in the city.

A second speaker at planning board that evening commented on a related project at 2801 Jay Road, designed to provide a significant percentage of affordable housing to complement the Broadway site. The man stated that “wherever there’s low income, affordable housing, there’s crime. I am adverse to crime” (video link). Such opinion has no factual basis. If ballot measure 300 passes, our city charter will give outsize power for neighborhood fear to block plans that would allow more affordable housing through zoning or occupancy limit changes.

One of the main arguments for 301, that “development shall pay its own way,” claims that fees collected could lead to additional affordable housing built in Boulder. However, Boulder has never lacked funding for permanently affordable housing, which will be even more true with the recent Commercial Linkage Fee phasing in next year. Rather, the problem lies in that developers can rarely build truly affordable housing due to high overhead costs and neighborhood pushback, both worsened by 300 and 301.

Cities must work to appeal to all facets of society in order to maximize their value. Boulder real estate prices already put significant pressure on teachers, police officers, firefighters, and young families trying to afford living within city limits. Ballot measures 300 and 301 will only accelerate the problem. I urge you to vote down these proposals so that we can continue our work in making Boulder a more equitable and inclusive city.


Boulder for Safe Streets Action In Support of Folsom Protected Bike Lanes

WHO: Boulder for Safe Streets
WHAT: Action in support of protected bike lanes in Boulder and the need for safe streets
WHEN: Wednesday, 30 September, 5:15PM
WHERE: Beginning at Greenleaf Park (intersection of Spruce Street and Folsom Street), Boulder, Colorado

BOULDER, COLORADO—Bicyclists and safe street advocates will gather this afternoon at 5:15 pm at the corner of Folsom and Spruce Streets in Boulder to mourn the removal of protected bike lanes on Folsom Street and support of safe streets for all users. On Tuesday night, Boulder City Council unanimously approved early termination of the trial bike lanes. The lanes were installed ten weeks ago with an intended duration of 12-18 months.

Protected bike lanes are one of several infrastructure modifications included in Boulder’s Living Labs program, which seeks innovative ways to reach the city’s long-term transportation goals, including 30% of trips in Boulder made by bicycle by 2035. Over 200 US Cities have successfully installed protected bike lane projects in the past three years. So far only three projects have been removed.

Metrics that staff and Council identified as indicators of success have all been “trending in the right direction,” according to Kathleen Bracke, Manager of GO Boulder. Yet Council member Lisa Morzel has been advocating since August that the project be scaled back. On Thursday September 29th, city staff made the same proposal, recommending early removal of the southern half of the project—in a meeting closed to public comment—and circumventing normal procedures in bypassing its own citizens’ Transportation Advisory Board.

A council election in November, the local newspaper’s interest in stoking controversy, and vehement reactions from a “green” city’s motoring public have led to a perfect storm that doomed a safer street for bikes, pedestrians, and vehicles. “Boulder used to be considered one of the most most bike friendly cities in the country,” said Alana Wilson, one of the event organizers. “Unfortunately that no longer seems to be part of the Boulder brand.”

In a letter to city council, local resident Charles Brock wrote about the need for safe streets: “I’ll never forget rushing to the hospital when my high-school-aged son was struck by a hit-and-run driver on Folsom,” Charles said. “I hope he’ll finally be fully recovered by the end of this year, five years after the crash.”

The reversal in street safety “has been a setback, for sure,” remarked Eric Budd, another organizer of the event, “But we’ve been able to mobilize a lot of people who ride bikes in Boulder. Working with national organizations and our terrific local group, Community Cycles, we will be moving strongly to bring Boulder back as a leader in creating safe streets for people. We need leadership to implement Boulder’s ambitious transportation plan.”

At an event where people were encouraged to write love letters and poems to the Folsom bike lanes, many wrote about finally feeling safe on a dangerous road. “Dear Folsom,” one wrote,” My kids want to bike now because of you. I feel finally feel safe with my family.” “Oh Folsom, how I love thee!” wrote another. “My commute is so safe and happy!”

Said Budd, “I hope Boulder can recommit and actually take steps to reverse this unfortunate path. The future of progressive cities lies in prioritizing human-scaled, calmed, safe environments.”

Point of contact:
Eric Budd
(720) 295-1122

Removing protected bike lanes on Folsom is a political move not in the best interest of Boulder

My comments to the city council and staff on the protected bike lane project on Folsom. Here’s a link to the article in the Daily Camera for context: “Boulder staff recommends scaling back much of Folsom ‘right-sizing’ project”

I’m incredibly disappointed with the staff proposal released Thursday evening recommending the removal of the southern portion of Folsom’s protected bike lanes.

The Folsom project, after eight weeks, is coming in-line toward the desired metrics—travel times have moved closely to the modeled projections, reducing speeds (but the 85th percentile speed is still 20% above the speed limit), and data so far showing reduced crashes. The staff recommendation discussed none of these improvements our community has gained through the street change.

Rather, the staff recommendation mentions no data at all. The opinion centers on fear, uncertainty, and doubt raised about the upcoming winter, which happens to be an el Niño year, even though the current NOAA forecast shows no precipitation anomaly projected for Colorado (link via Nathan Johnson, Boulder resident at @snowforecaster)

Both TAB and city council had a briefing on snow removal on the Folsom corridor, yet none of these concerns were raised as significant hurdles at the time.

Much of the criticism of the Folsom project has been on the city’s public process and evaluation of data. But the potential removal of the project will have no public process and ignores the data collected so far. I’m frankly surprised that the council will entertain this option, one that’s been discussed in a vacuum and sprung on council after the TAB meeting, only a few days before the council meeting.

I appreciate the leadership the council has shown on the Living Labs thus far. But in order to see out a vision, we can’t pull pilot projects after only two months. And we can’t end projects without using data, instead playing to fears and politics. With the latest modifications, the street is working with the intended effects. To remove half this project not only admits defeat on Folsom, but a defeat in making any change that might significantly increase bicycle mode share in Boulder.

The decision you make Tuesday will shape transportation policy for years or decades.

Eric Budd
3025 Broadway St. #38
Boulder, CO