>Dear John and Jan, > >Here is another item that I had published recently that you may find >interesting. > >Al > >This is an enlarged version of the guest editorial in the Boulder Planet >(Boulder, Colorado) of May 26, 1999, Pg. 16. > >TURNPIKE SPAWNS GROWTH, TAXES, POLLUTION >Albert A. Bartlett > >The Boulder Planet’s excellent special report (May 19,1999) on US highway >36 (The Denver-Boulder Turnpike) began with a misleading headline which >said that the "Turnpike Faces an Uncertain Future." The enormous success >of the extraordinary ongoing efforts to promote, sell and develop the >Colorado Front Range area guarantees that there is no uncertainty about the >future of traffic on the Turnpike! Traffic will get worse! The >transportation experts consulted by your reporter were only partially >correct when they said "Traffic on the Turnpike is going to get worse - >maybe a lot worse - before it gets better." The experts were wrong in >imagining that, at sometime in the future, traffic would get better. It is >fiscally and physically impossible to add more lanes fast enough to >overcome the effects of the local population growth that is causing the >current increases in congestion. A fundamental law of building urban >highways is, "You don't add extra lanes to urban highways to alleviate >traffic jams, you add them to enlarge traffic jams." > >Some people still maintain that the answer to the problem of congestion on >the Turnpike is to add more lanes to the four present lanes (two each way). > But let's do some ballpark arithmetic on the cost of adding lanes to the >Turnpike. Some years ago State Highway people told me it would cost >between $5 million and $8 million a lane-mile to add lanes to the Turnpike. > An added lane each way would total about 50 lane-miles, and at the lower >figure this would cost about $250 million. If everything is operating >perfectly I believe the maximum number of vehicles that can go by on one >lane is 2000 cars an hour. That's one car every 1.8 seconds. If the rush >hour is 2.5 hours in the morning and 2.5 in the evening, then an added lane >each way gives the total added capacity of 10,000 rush hour car round trips >each day. For this, the public would pay $250 million. If you do the long >division I believe you will see that for these added lanes, the taxpayers >would be paying about $25,000 in construction costs for each added vehicle >accomodated in the rush hours. This is approximately the retail cost of the >extra accomodated vehicle! Is this the best way to spend tax dollars? > >In his famous essay, the Tragedy of the Commons, the biologist Garrett >Hardin points out how the benefits of growth accrue to a few, while the >costs of growth have to be paid by all. The Turnpike is a wonderful >demonstration of the truth of this essay. The benefits of added lanes >would accrue to the developers and investors and their politicians who are >so eager to see the Turnpike enlarged, while the taxpayers would be left to >pay the construction and maintenance costs. > >Some years ago there was a hearing in Broomfield on the subject of adding a >new interchange to serve the Interlocken Business Park and the big >manufacturer, Storage Tech. The meeting opened by having a traffic >engineer make a report of his detailed studies of the growth of traffic at >several intersections around Broomfield. It does not take much study to >realize that, if traffic continues to grow, all intersections in the area >will soon be at capacity and jammed. This engineer presented his analysis >of the obvious, from which he drew the desired conclusion: a new >interchange had to be built. In the question period that followed, I said >that there were three questions which seemed to me to be important, but >which the engineer had not addressed. > >1) What is the long-term future of petroleum as a fuel for motor vehicles? > >2) The proposed new Broomfield interchange will pour lots of new traffic >on the Turnpike. What will all of this added traffic do to the congestion >that was already being experienced on the Turnpike? > >3) What did you learn in school? Did you learn that it makes sense to >destroy the "limited-access" feature of a limited-access highway? > >The presiding officer immediately said, "Next question Please." > >The point about limited access was recognized in the Planet's thoughtful >story. "As the [Turnpike] corridor has developed it has spawned its own >local traffic, contributing to Turnpike congestion... Now it serves >multiple destinations. Most of the trips [on the Turnpike] are short ones >between interchanges," according to a planner for the Regional >Transportation District (RTD). > >The Turnpike was planned and built as a limited-access highway, with access >only at Baseline Road in Boulder, at the mid-point in Broomfield, and at >Federal Boulevard in Denver. It was designed to serve traffic between >Denver, Broomfield, and Boulder. But now about five more interchanges have >been added, and these added interchanges violate the original intent of the >Turnpike. Instead of being preserved as a useful limited-access highway, >the Turnpike has been transformed into a crowded heavy-duty city street. >The traffic congestion that is the result of this transformation is >completely predictable. But we should note that, as proponents of each new >added interchange made their cases, the proponents and their hired experts >all avoided saying anything about the long-term implications of destroying >the limited-access feature that made the Turnpike so useful in its early >decades. > >The Boulder Chamber of Commerce and the Boulder City Council were >instrumental in the initial effort to build the Turnpike. They wanted a >limited-access toll road that would serve the people of Boulder, giving us >a quick reliable route to Denver. After the Turnpike was paid for, the >tolls were removed and the pressure began to build to put new interchanges >along the Turnpike. I remember writing to both the Chamber and the Council >urging them serve the people of Boulder by opposing new interchanges on the >Turnpike because the new traffic generated by the new interchanges would >crowd Boulder people off of the Turnpike that they had paid for with their >tolls. There was no response. > >I attended public meetings in Broomfield and Westminster, asking that two >of the proposed new interchanges not be made, and I was laughed out of the >halls. After the hearing in Westminster, a high official of Westminster, >who had spoken strongly in favor of the proposed Sheridan Interchange, was >talking to a group in the lobby outside the hearing room, and, with >considerable enthusiasm he said, "With this new interchange, Westminster >could grow from its present population of xxx (a modest number) to XXX (an >enormous number) in ten years." Then he paused for a moment and added, >"And Westminster would probably not be such a nice place when it got that >big." > >Your story said it very nicely, "the Pike has become a victim of its own >success." This is a marvelous example of Eric Sevareid's Law: > >"The chief cause of problems is solutions." > >The Turnpike was a solution to the problem of getting conveniently between >Boulder and Denver. That solution has now caused all of the problems which >your story so carefully covered. > >The closing quote in the story in the Planet was interesting. "Try to >imagine life without the Turnpike." As the Planet's story made clear, the >Turnpike spawned all the growth that clogs it today. From the information >given in the Planet's story it is clear that without the Turnpike, the >growth would not be as overwhelming as it is today, taxes would be lower, >the schools would be less crowded, and the air would be cleaner, and the >old zig-zag two-lane road from Boulder to Denver would be congested with >two lanes of traffic. Now the Turnpike is congested with four lanes of >traffic. Add two more lanes, and the Turnpike will be congested with six >lanes of traffic. Add ten more lanes.... > >We are fortunate that our representative on the Regional Transportation >District Board of Directors, Judge Richard McLean, understands the problem, >probably better than many of the "planners" who were reported by the Planet >to have been "taken by surprise" by the rapid growth that is reducing the >utility of the Turnpike. > >Probably the best way to slow the increase in congestion on the Turnpike is >to develop passenger rail commuter service on the existing system of >heavy-railroads from Fort Collins, through Loveland, Longmont, Niwot, >Boulder, Broomfield and Denver. The Boulder County Commissioners set up a >Task Force a dozen years ago to study this. The Task Force presented a >plan that envisaged a network of commuter trains operating on existing >rails between Denver and many Front Range cities and the new Denver >International Airport (DIA). The Mayor of Denver, who later became >Secretary of Transportation, showed no interest in developing rail >transportation to bring large numbers of commuters and customers from the >suburbs and DIA into the heart of Denver. He was a highway man. It is >time to get serious and to develop plans to implement the one >transportation option that makes sense in the Front Range area of Colorado; >heavy rail in which commuter passenger trains operate regularly and >reliably on the existing network railroads that converge on Denver. Other >American cities are doing it. If we hurry, we can be followers. > > >Albert A. Bartlett; Professor Emeritus of Physics >University of Colorado, Boulder, 80309-0390; (303) 492 7016 >Department Office: (303) 492 6952: FAX (303) 492 3352 > >Home; 2935 19th Street, Boulder, CO, 80304-2719: (303) 443 0595 > >NEW E-MAIL ADDRESS STARTING 10/1/98: Albert.Bartlett@Colorado.EDU
|