There is a classic academic joke about economists: A group is stranded on a desert island with canned food but no way to open it. While others suggest practical solutions, the economist humorously proposes to “assume a can opener.”
The joke highlights the often overly theoretical nature of economic modeling, where assumptions can solve problems in abstract terms without considering real-world feasibility.
Without getting into the minutia of bad economic humor, the City of Boulder — in its pursuit of actual or perceived green alternatives — has pushed an agenda of limiting parking. It should more accurately be called “creating psychological transportation stress.”
Pay to park
This has taken place in newer areas of town, specifically the Boulder Transit District near 30th and Pearl streets. Whatever the intent, the outcome is the creation of a high-stress, limited transportation district with monetized alternatives such as metered parking directly in front of apartments, expensive parking garages and limited parking space — even for residents.
My residential apartment complex has 45 units and 42 parking spots. Each unit is allowed one car, but the property manager either refuses or is incapable of dealing with their own parking lot. The city will not let up on metering the immediate perimeter. In typical bureaucratic fashion, both the city and the property manager pass the blame back and forth onto each other.
Of course, there is always the grift of the green, i.e., the art of greenwashing an “eco-friendly” transit district, complete with buses that turn 30- to 40-minute commutes to Denver or Golden into two- to three-hour one-way trips. Alternatively, residents can offer tribute by paying the meter (once every three hours)… for the environment, of course!
A cynic might think this is just a money grab. If I’ve learned anything from the American foreign policy space, it’s that you can never be too cynical.
Much of the environmental rhetoric around this policy direction is rooted in a broader idea to restrict driving overall, i.e., the state initiatives to put citizens on a “road diet.” This is the transportation analogy of using tariffs to return manufacturing to the United States. Simply slapping up tariff walls will not miraculously bring back domestic industry. If Boulder wanted people to use transportation alternatives, they clearly needed to build out that transportation infrastructure first.
Meanwhile, the human subjects the city are experimenting on must figure out how and where to park every night while the city, Element Properties and property management do absolutely nothing to manage the situation.
This makes sense since they are imposing this process on others, not living it out themselves. I’d love to see the members of city council and the political class more broadly live by taking only the bus, even for six months.
Local disconnect
The best-case argument for the alternative transportation vision can still be found by traveling back to around 2010, when national policy planners believed the U.S. and one of its junior partners (Germany) would lead the world in the green transition. However, by the mid-2020s, China has leapfrogged American technology. It was a nonexistent player in the global auto industry in 2019 but is now the global leader in EVs and hybrids, with a similar story in solar and battery tech. Simultaneously, the fracking revolution turned the U.S. into a petrostate, leading in oil and natural gas production.
This has resulted in a reversal of the national green agenda. Thus, the new bipartisan consensus is that climate change will take a back seat to “national security.” While other factors contribute to this dynamic, it represents the central pivot in U.S. federal and foreign policy.
Cars for the foreseeable future
Perhaps we can cut the Colorado ecological crowd some slack for trying to get out in front of a curve that seemed likely in the mid-2010s. But it’s now quite obvious that roads and vehicles will remain the dominant practical mode of transportation. Expecting the plebs to suck it up and turn 40-minute drives into multi-hour commutes is simple absurdity, especially in light of the national policy direction.
There is still hope for transportation alternatives in Boulder and Colorado more broadly, but they will likely need to come in the form of electric vehicles and hybrids. That will deal with the air quality problems, but the transportation alternatives must be rolled out before moving populations in.
Expecting people to flounder in high-transportation stress environments created by poor planning (or just bad forecasting) is only a solution for the people not living in the environment.
Dr. Evan W. Rowe is an adjunct professor of International Relations at the Colorado School of Mines and an adjunct professor of Journalism at CU Boulder. His past and current research includes the U.S.-China trade and technology war, eSports and American foreign policy at large.
This opinion does not necessarily represent the views of Boulder Weekly.