Opinion: The Pro Cycling Challenge — a challenge indeed


On Tuesday evening at the City Council study session, the local organizing committee of the USA Pro Cycling Challenge presented their plans. On Aug. 25, Boulder will be part of the semi-final Stage 6. The stage course will pass through Boulder in the morning, and then loop through the mountains, and return via Lee Hill Road, through town, and finish at the Flagstaff amphitheater. It’s an event with great potential for excitement, but also with the opportunity for serious problems on Flagstaff because of extremely limited access and the potential for environmental damage.
Various city, county and other agencies are apparently hard at work looking at all the issues, from traffic control to fire risks to emergency access. But the fundamental constraint here is that the Flagstaff Road area is a “zero failure area;” this is not an event where “we’ll do it better next time” is acceptable. If there is significant environmental damage, if there is a fire, if there is an emergency for which evacuation doesn’t run smoothly, if residents who live above Flagstaff have access problems, if residents who live at the base have trespassing problems, etc., then this race will never happen in Boulder again. And those who pushed it will be held responsible. The good news is that, at least based on my conversations with two of the organizing committee members, they are well aware of this standard and say that they intend to live up to it.
It is unclear how many people are likely to want to go up Flagstaff to watch the finish, but if the number is too large (what that would be is still to be determined), then the organizers agree that they would have to limit access. But it is unclear whether that could really be done or how it should be attempted. However, unlike one council member who thinks that this is no different than mountain top finishes in Europe, the race organizers seem to have correctly perceived that this situation requires much more attention to be paid to not just mitigating the risks, but eliminating them.
Fire is a particular issue in August. As another council member pointed out, we just had two significant fires around this time. And dealing with a large crowd that is standing around is a lot different than dealing with hikers, who are less likely to be smoking or drinking. In addition to fire trucks, the fire agencies would do well to have people stationed at close intervals with water tanks on their backs, ready to put out anything that starts. I would not presume, as I heard one person say at the meeting, that the race watchers will be well behaved and follow “the rules.” Better safe than sorry in this case, because all it will take is one fire to create mayhem and possibly significant loss of life.
One council member brought up a good question, asking how long will the racers actually be on Flagstaff, from the leader to the last rider, because that’s how long there will be no possibility for vehicular access. Given how spread out the Tour de France has been sometimes, the race organizers might consider a cut-off, so that residents both above and along the course are not overly inconvenienced.
There were numerous comments about “marketing Boulder” and “marketing Open Space.” Personally, I dislike the idea of marketing Boulder’s Open Space. Open Space currently has many millions of visitors a year, and the budget is already stressed. Perhaps a better message could be to push for open space programs in other cities, so that the load decreases rather than increases.
I am glad that the race organizers are soliciting donations, since I am less than certain that the additional sales tax from the projected 100,000 visitors will make up for the additional costs to the city. And just so it’s clear, per Boulder’s city charter, no Open Space money can be spent on this race.
Final point — it does not work for this to be presented as a fait accompli. The city manager would do well to allow citizens, from both in and out of the city, to comment on the arrangements before they are finalized. This is Boulder, after all.


Popular Posts

Opinion: Opportunity for the new Boulder City Council

Congratulations to the four new Boulder City Council members! You have a great opportunity to make a contribution to the Boulder community, but it will take a lot of work to do it responsibly; the learning curve is pretty steep. Here are some suggestions for you (and other Council members) that may help improve the process. Read the Charter. It is the document that governs how you, city staff, and board and commission members operate, and how you relate to each other. It defines the limits of your and their power, and can only be amended by a citizen vote. You don’t have to remember every word. But just knowing what’s there makes you more self reliant and less at the mercy of others’ opinions. For example, relative to the recent meeting discussion over diversity, the council does  not  have the power to suspend the rules as to when the mayor is selected. Charter Section 14 specifies, “The mayor shall be chosen by the council from its own number, upon the convening of the new co
Read more

Opinion: Is this the end of Boulder as we know it?

Much of what has made Boulder such a great place to live has been the work of people half a century ago. These people recognized what I call the “ ratchet effect ,” that bad development decisions cannot be undone, so policies needed to be put in place to prevent, or at least limit, the damage that a growth-at-all-costs majority of the council could do. These policies include charter limits, like the Blue Line that prevents city water for development from being supplied above a certain altitude, the 55-foot height limit that has prevented high-rise development from cutting off our views, and the open space referendum process that allows a 60-day window for citizens to challenge disposals of open space. Other constraints include the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan’s requirement for Planning Board agreement for land-use changes in the area inside the city limits (Area I) and additional agreement by the county commissioners and county Planning Commission for urban development further
Read more

Policy Documents: Impact Fees and Adequate Public Facilities

I am writing this to correct some of the apparent inaccuracies put forward at the 10/14 CC/PB study session about charging growth for its costs. I do not claim to be an expert in the field, but I have studied it long enough and consulted with enough supposed experts and legal types to understand most of the basics. In addition, I have found that the experts don’t necessarily know everything and won’t necessarily put forward the most appropriate solutions. The fundamental rule, both legal and equitable, is that growth should pay to address its impacts so as to maintain existing levels of service (LOS) for existing residents and businesses. But growth cannot be required to improve levels of service. LOS is measured in all sorts of ways depending on the facility and/or service being measured. For transportation, it could be total VMT, travel time, intersection waits, access to transit, etc. For schools, it might be square footage per pupil, etc. For water, it could be water righ
Read more