News, Analysis and Opinion for the Informed Boulder Resident
Tuesday August 3rd 2021

Support the Blue Line

Subscribe to the Blue Line

That's what she said

city council transportation energy municipalization xcel housing urban planning april fools bicycles climate action density election 2011 affordable housing boulder county open space election renewables agriculture CU local food climate change election 2013 development youth jefferson parkway pedestrian election 2015 preservation Rocky Flats election 2017 recreation BVSD mountain bikes immigration boards and commissions plan boulder farming fracking GMOs transit urban design decarbonization planning board fires colorado politics wildlife land use smart regs downtown architecture new era colorado transit village parking homeless journalism plutonium natural gas ghgs commuting radioactive waste rental coal height limits taxes april fools 2015 walkability historic preservation energy efficiency historic district Neighborhoods diversity zoning population growth growth students North Boulder flood arts gardens education University Hill water supply bus election 2010 solar election 2018 nutrition RTD sprawl water quality election 2012 groundwater bike lane electric utility safety library april fools 2016 renewable energy affairs of the heart organic flood plain wetlands planning reserve zero waste mayor blue line electric vehicle ballot right-sizing street design transportation master plan obama hazardous waste county commissioners politics hogan-pancost longmont colorado legislature climate smart loan diagonal plaza campaign finance flood mitigation bears Mapleton solar panels PV recycling comprehensive plan golden conservation easement epa boulder junction pesticide congestion food drought road diet oil bus rapid transit commercial development inequality election 2016 flooding planning daily camera public health community cycles BVCP ecocycle Newlands automobile PUC climate change deniers children david miller ken wilson sam weaver community league of women voters wind power public spaces boulder creek crime mlk civil rights west tsa marijuana technology arizona Orchard Grove EV green points al bartlett Whittier city attorney

Highway 93: Victories, Setbacks and Opportunities


By and

Highway 93, Melissa Gutierrez, http://flic.kr/p/5eJ1ZL

Boulder County has been opposed to the Jefferson Parkway toll road – and its many previous iterations – for more than two decades. Earlier versions called for a road alignment north of Rocky Flats, running through southern Boulder County, then west along Highway 93. Had it been built, it would have opened up vast areas for urban sprawl, both in southern Boulder County and northern Jefferson County.

Throughout the years, there have many attempts to develop the highway and its surrounding open lands:

  • An adopted plan in Jefferson County, the Jefferson Center Comprehensive Development Plan, which envisioned nearly 7 million square feet of commercial, office and industrial development north of Coal Creek Canyon and west of Rocky Flats. The overall plan covered 18,000 acres, stretching from North Table Mountain near Golden all the way to the Boulder County line. The heart of the plan was a proposed shopping mall and office park at the northwest corner of highways 93 and 72.
  • In 1989 there was a vote of the citizens along the proposed corridor for a fee increase to pay for the highway all the way from Interstate 25 to Golden. It failed by an overwhelming margin.
  • After Rocky Flats was shut down and the cleanup began, there was debate among the surrounding local governments on the future of the former nuclear weapons site. Arvada was interested in having at least a portion of the site annexed and developed. Boulder and Boulder County wanted to see the site preserved as open space.
  • Broomfield formed the Northwest Parkway Public Highway Authority to build the section of highway from I-25 to U.S. 36. Boulder and Boulder County were opposed. Boulder County had some leverage, as the parkway would need to cross some county land – probably not enough leverage to stop it – but enough to negotiate an intergovernmental agreement that designated rural preservation areas to limit the sprawl induced by the road, and mandated the use of $10 million in bond proceeds from the road for open space acquisition along the corridor. An amendment to the agreement a few years later secured an additional $10 million for open space purchases. Boulder maintained its opposition and fought the parkway at the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG), but was unable to stop the road, and did not obtain any further concessions or mitigation.

During that time, the cities of Boulder and Superior, and Boulder County have acquired almost all of the land in southern Boulder County west of Superior as open space, creating a huge protected area and removing development potential along the proposed route north of Rocky Flats. The City of Boulder acquired 1,500 acres of land north of Highway 72 and west of Highway 93 in 1999. Later, the City of Boulder and Boulder County acquired a conservation easement on most of the remaining land between Highway 72 and the Boulder County line west of Highway 93.

In 2001, Senator Wayne Allard and Representative Mark Udall helped pass a bill to preserve Rocky Flats as a wildlife refuge, which combined with the open space preservation removed most of the development potential from the proposed highway. This was a huge victory for smart development planning, for protection of wildlife habitat and scenic vistas, and for maintaining Highway 93 as a functional corridor without the tens of thousands of trips per day that would have been added by the Jefferson Center or by significant industrial uses of Rocky Flats. The bill also allowed for a right of way of land on the eastern most portion of the Refuge for the purposes of a transportation corridor, so long as documentation demonstrating that the transportation improvements for which the land is to be made available are carried out so as to minimize adverse effects on the management of Rocky Flats as a wildlife refuge;.

At that point, the parkway proponents revised their plans to focus on a route east of the Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge with no portion of the road entering Boulder County.  In 2004 Arvada and Jefferson County asked the DRCOG board of directors to place the parkway into the fiscally constrained Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) – a step required by federal law before the road can move forward. Boulder and Golden successfully argued that this was inappropriate, since there were no detailed plans and many unanswered questions, and the board rejected the request. However, the parkway proponents then worked with the Colorado Department of Transportation under Gov. Bill Owens to begin an environmental impact study on the project. When Bill Ritter was elected Governor, CDOT halted the study, but Arvada, Broomfield, and Jefferson County formed a public highway authority to build the parkway. Despite opposition from Boulder County and the cities of Boulder and Golden, as well as from Louisville, Superior and approximately 10 other communities, a majority of the DRCOG board voted in early 2010 to include the parkway in the RTP. The vote signaled the end of the formal decision-making process for local governments in the region.

Throughout the history of this project, Boulder County has had many victories, and some setbacks. The original plans for the parkway and associated development all the way up to the county line on both private land and Rocky Flats would have had significant negative impacts on wildlife, on the views of the mountain backdrop, and on the functioning of Highway 93. The only remaining significant new development outside of the existing urban area is Candelas, a project on nearly 1,500 acres that includes 7.25 million square feet of office, medical, industrial, retail and residential space, made possible by Arvada’s annexation of land south of Rocky Flats along Highway 72 all the way to Highway 93. With the preservation of the land west of 93, the preservation of Rocky Flats as a wildlife refuge, and the movement of the parkway to the east and south, the impacts on Boulder County are much smaller than the original proposals.

There are other layers of complication. From a transportation perspective, we are generally opposed to development outside of existing urbanized areas, and to transportation investments that do not include significant public transit and bicycle/pedestrian elements. The current plans call for a shorter section of tollway, terminating at a traffic light on 93 south of 72. There are no plans to toll Highway 93. The City of Golden is also seeking a resolution that would ensure that Highway 93 through Golden is not converted to a high-speed, six-lane road dividing the community, and that there be context-sensitive, intelligent improvements to 93 through Golden. The Town of Superior is attempting to negotiate an agreement with the Parkway Authority to limit access near Superior in order to avoid cut-through traffic along McCaslin Boulevard.

At this point, the City of Boulder and Boulder County have limited remaining leverage to fight against the parkway outside of the court system. The road is now planned to run entirely outside of Boulder County, so we have no direct land use authority. We do not get to decide whether or not this road gets built. And, over the years we have developed stronger regional relationships. We work very closely with the City and County of Broomfield – one of the parkway proponents – on getting bus rapid transit, bikeway improvements, and rail for U.S. 36. We work with Arvada and Jefferson County on other important regional transportation issues. Continued conflict over the parkway makes cooperation on these important issues more difficult. We are trying to reach a resolution that protects the regional values that we feel are most important, while respecting the interests of communities like Arvada, Broomfield, and Jefferson County.

Given this, we are seeking a resolution that would prevent areas of intense development from expanding north along 93, and protect the significant investments that Boulder and Boulder County have made in preserving lands surrounding the refuge. The resolution would help facilitate the acquisition of the property known as State Land Board Section 16, a 640-acre parcel east of Highway 93. The acquisition would mitigate some of the parkway’s impacts, protect Section 16 and the surrounding area from further development, and maintain an expansive open space corridor around the refuge.

Without this acquisition, the refuge will become little more than a zoo, a wildlife island in a sea of development. Preserving the land will further the already substantial progress that has been made toward a longstanding vision for the Highway 93 corridor that centers on open space preservation in southern Boulder County, preservation of the refuge, preservation of open space in northern Jefferson County west of the refuge, and connectivity between the refuge and nearby open space.

We are working with Boulder and Jefferson County to develop an intergovernmental agreement, in which all there entities would pledge to work cooperatively to preserve Section 16, and Jefferson County would contribute $5 million toward this effort. Boulder and Boulder County would also contribute financially, and we would seek additional eligible funding from sources such as Great Outdoors Colorado, Natural Resources Damages funds, and contributions from other affected local governments. We believe there is great value to the residents of Boulder County from this effort – that can be achieved by leveraging a limited investment of funds from the county and the City of Boulder in order to protect the viewshed along Highway 93, to prevent development and associated traffic creeping north along 93, to preserve the values on the adjacent lands that our residents have invested to preserve, and to resolve a longstanding regional controversy and build stronger relationships with our neighbors to the south.

This post was co-authored by Boulder County Commissioners Cindy Domenico, Ben Pearlman and Will Toor.

Rate this article: 1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (2 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading...

Reader Feedback

3 Responses to “Highway 93: Victories, Setbacks and Opportunities”

  1. […] Boulder County is slowly being invaded from the southeast and it’s not clear what we can do about it.  Sprawling development is (still) the order of the day in Broomfield, Weld, and Jefferson Counties, and it looks set to generate a lot more trips through Boulder County in the coming decades.  Personally, I’m praying for $8 gasoline. […]

  2. Eva Kosinski says:

    These are the side effects that come from falling into the trap of regional focus. While Boulder County might have thought it was capable of focusing a large group with lots of competing interests contrary to its own (DRCOG) the truth of the matter is that since its inception in the early 90’s the focus was always “as goes Denver so goes the state,” and the City of Denver’s interests would always come first.

    Instead of a situation where Boulder County could negotiate independently (before we signed the “Mile High Compact” to go along with DRCOG’s choices) we are left with a situation where we can easily be outvoted. Even getting Broomfield’s assistance is not enough to outvote the huge block of other communities that, because of our naive willingness to be “regional” can now dictate what happens — without our support.

    • Will Toor says:

      This is a misunderstanding of the process. Under federal law, major transportation projects must be included in a fiscally constrained regional transportation plan, or RTP. Prior to the transportation reforms of the 1992 ISTEA legislation, these decisions were made by state DOTs, which traditionally paid little attention to local governments.ISTEA shifted the decision making process to regional entities like DRCOG, which gave local governments much more voice in the decision making process. A local government could choose not to participate in DRCOG, but the decisions would still get made – just without their voice at the table.

What do you think? Leave a comment!

You must be logged in to post a comment.