Frequently Asked Questions
PDF of Petition FAQ:
|
![]()
|
What kind of neighborhood would replace the airport? Would it just be all mansions, or all low-income high rise buildings?
The new neighborhood would likely be a mix of residences, businesses, parks, and greenways. The residences would include units that are affordable to families with low, moderate, and middle incomes, with at least 25% of units deed-restricted to be permanently affordable.
A new neighborhood has not been planned yet, but it is certain that Boulder would not zone 179 acres for all mansions or all low-income housing. If we decide to make a new neighborhood, there will be a thoughtful planning process including community involvement. We do know that a new neighborhood would be mixed-use, mixed income, include at least 25% permanently affordable housing, have pocket parks and greenways, and buildings will not be taller than 55 feet.
We can say this with confidence because development in the city of Boulder is guided by the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP), the City Charter, the Boulder Revised Code, and City ordinances. BVCP Policy 2.34 Design of Newly Developing Areas specifically states “The city will encourage a neighborhood concept for new development that includes a variety of residential densities, housing types, sizes and prices, opportunities for shopping, nearby support services and conveniently sited public facilities, including roads and pedestrian connections, parks, libraries and schools.” The City’s Inclusionary Housing ordinance requires all new development to contribute at least 25% permanently affordable housing. Any new development could be no taller than 55 feet tall, which is the height limit in the City Charter.
The last time the City of Boulder developed a new neighborhood from the ground up on mostly undeveloped land was the Holiday neighborhood in North Boulder in the 1990s. Holiday is one of Boulder’s most beloved, most affordable, and most diverse neighborhoods, made even more beautiful by its trail system, parks, and community gardens. Holiday has 40% permanently affordable housing. Read more about the development of Holiday here.
Now 30 years later, with advancements in our understanding of sustainable and beautiful community design, Boulder could be even more visionary and creative than we were with Holiday. Our petition asks for >50% (majority) permanently affordable housing.
A new neighborhood has not been planned yet, but it is certain that Boulder would not zone 179 acres for all mansions or all low-income housing. If we decide to make a new neighborhood, there will be a thoughtful planning process including community involvement. We do know that a new neighborhood would be mixed-use, mixed income, include at least 25% permanently affordable housing, have pocket parks and greenways, and buildings will not be taller than 55 feet.
We can say this with confidence because development in the city of Boulder is guided by the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP), the City Charter, the Boulder Revised Code, and City ordinances. BVCP Policy 2.34 Design of Newly Developing Areas specifically states “The city will encourage a neighborhood concept for new development that includes a variety of residential densities, housing types, sizes and prices, opportunities for shopping, nearby support services and conveniently sited public facilities, including roads and pedestrian connections, parks, libraries and schools.” The City’s Inclusionary Housing ordinance requires all new development to contribute at least 25% permanently affordable housing. Any new development could be no taller than 55 feet tall, which is the height limit in the City Charter.
The last time the City of Boulder developed a new neighborhood from the ground up on mostly undeveloped land was the Holiday neighborhood in North Boulder in the 1990s. Holiday is one of Boulder’s most beloved, most affordable, and most diverse neighborhoods, made even more beautiful by its trail system, parks, and community gardens. Holiday has 40% permanently affordable housing. Read more about the development of Holiday here.
Now 30 years later, with advancements in our understanding of sustainable and beautiful community design, Boulder could be even more visionary and creative than we were with Holiday. Our petition asks for >50% (majority) permanently affordable housing.
We need housing, but why not build it in other places in Boulder? Why focus on closing BDU?
This is a rare and unique opportunity to make a significant improvement in housing for middle-income families. Because we own the airport land, we can sell it to developers at a workable price with the condition that they MUST build the type of affordable middle-income family housing that Boulder sorely needs.
Boulder is largely ringed by beloved public open space land, and we are committed to not sprawl. Therefore, our potential to develop new housing is mainly through infill development and redevelopment of aging buildings. There are very few large parcels of land in the city of Boulder that could be easily redeveloped. The site on Airport Road is already owned by the City, is within the city limits, is already zoned for development, is largely empty, and is the last large tract of land of this size and opportunity.
The airport site is special because the City owns the land. Because we own the land, we can sell it to developers at a workable price with the condition that they MUST build the type of affordable middle-income family housing that Boulder sorely needs.
Currently, the biggest gap in the Boulder housing market is affordable middle-income housing. Developers simply do not build this type of housing because other products, like mansions and luxury apartment buildings, are more profitable. Federal tax credits (subsidies) are available to build low-income and moderate-income housing, but there is no such federal assistance for middle-income housing.
Right now, when families are ready to move from apartments to their first houses, they are leaving Boulder because they cannot find affordable family homes. School enrollment is dropping because not enough families with children can afford to live here. Essential workers like staff of Foothills Hospital, police, teachers, firefighters, EMTs, and day care workers typically can’t find suitable affordable housing in Boulder. They often take other jobs closer to where they live when those jobs become available, leading to staffing shortages here in Boulder. These are problems we can help address with a new neighborhood that WE design to meet Boulder’s needs.
Boulder is largely ringed by beloved public open space land, and we are committed to not sprawl. Therefore, our potential to develop new housing is mainly through infill development and redevelopment of aging buildings. There are very few large parcels of land in the city of Boulder that could be easily redeveloped. The site on Airport Road is already owned by the City, is within the city limits, is already zoned for development, is largely empty, and is the last large tract of land of this size and opportunity.
The airport site is special because the City owns the land. Because we own the land, we can sell it to developers at a workable price with the condition that they MUST build the type of affordable middle-income family housing that Boulder sorely needs.
Currently, the biggest gap in the Boulder housing market is affordable middle-income housing. Developers simply do not build this type of housing because other products, like mansions and luxury apartment buildings, are more profitable. Federal tax credits (subsidies) are available to build low-income and moderate-income housing, but there is no such federal assistance for middle-income housing.
Right now, when families are ready to move from apartments to their first houses, they are leaving Boulder because they cannot find affordable family homes. School enrollment is dropping because not enough families with children can afford to live here. Essential workers like staff of Foothills Hospital, police, teachers, firefighters, EMTs, and day care workers typically can’t find suitable affordable housing in Boulder. They often take other jobs closer to where they live when those jobs become available, leading to staffing shortages here in Boulder. These are problems we can help address with a new neighborhood that WE design to meet Boulder’s needs.
Why not redevelop the City Golf Course instead?
The golf course sits in the high hazard and conveyance flood zones. New development is not allowed in the high hazard zone, and it is significantly more difficult and expensive to build in the conveyance zone. Not to mention, putting people’s homes into high-risk flood zones is not the best option for public safety. In contrast, BDU sits on high ground and is not in any flood zone.
What about building housing at the Planning Reserve instead?
We should do both. The Planning Reserve will not solve all of Boulder’s housing challenges. Boulder sorely needs the type of housing that can be developed at the Planning Reserve AND at the airport site.
We should build housing at the Planning Reserve too! We do not have to choose one or the other.
The Planning Reserve is an area of about 500 acres north of the current city limits. It is currently not within the city limits, but it has been set aside by the city and county as an area of potential future urban expansion to meet citywide goals. The majority of this land is private property. The city of Boulder owns about 200 acres of land in the Planning Reserve that was purchased with park bond money. There is an expectation that this land will be eventually annexed into the city and developed, and some of that development will be parks, and some will include housing.
Exactly how, when, and what happens at the Planning Reserve is still to be determined. The City is currently in the process of doing a baseline services study to determine what new infrastructure or infrastructure upgrades would be needed to develop this land.
The Planning Reserve is an exciting opportunity but we don’t know exactly what will happen there, and we can be sure it will not solve all of Boulder’s housing challenges. Boulder sorely needs the type of housing that can be developed at the Planning Reserve AND at the airport site.
We should build housing at the Planning Reserve too! We do not have to choose one or the other.
The Planning Reserve is an area of about 500 acres north of the current city limits. It is currently not within the city limits, but it has been set aside by the city and county as an area of potential future urban expansion to meet citywide goals. The majority of this land is private property. The city of Boulder owns about 200 acres of land in the Planning Reserve that was purchased with park bond money. There is an expectation that this land will be eventually annexed into the city and developed, and some of that development will be parks, and some will include housing.
Exactly how, when, and what happens at the Planning Reserve is still to be determined. The City is currently in the process of doing a baseline services study to determine what new infrastructure or infrastructure upgrades would be needed to develop this land.
The Planning Reserve is an exciting opportunity but we don’t know exactly what will happen there, and we can be sure it will not solve all of Boulder’s housing challenges. Boulder sorely needs the type of housing that can be developed at the Planning Reserve AND at the airport site.
How many homes and businesses would a new neighborhood have? How many users and businesses does the airport currently have?
We don’t know the design of a new neighborhood yet, but if we model upon Boulder’s Holiday neighborhood, it would have about 2000 homes and 270 businesses. In contrast, the airport has 13 businesses and primarily serves fewer than 200 local pilots.
We don’t know the design of the new neighborhood yet, but for a model we could look to the Holiday neighborhood in North Boulder, which is the last new neighborhood that Boulder built from the ground up, in the 1990s. Holiday is built on just over 27 acres and is home to 334 residences and 40 retail businesses. If we imagine a similar pattern of development at the airport’s 179 acres, the site could easily accommodate over 2000 residences and 270 businesses.
In comparison, 13 businesses (some of which are simply private hangar rentals) are currently located on the airport site. The airport manager estimated that fewer than 200 local pilots regularly use BDU.
We don’t know the design of the new neighborhood yet, but for a model we could look to the Holiday neighborhood in North Boulder, which is the last new neighborhood that Boulder built from the ground up, in the 1990s. Holiday is built on just over 27 acres and is home to 334 residences and 40 retail businesses. If we imagine a similar pattern of development at the airport’s 179 acres, the site could easily accommodate over 2000 residences and 270 businesses.
In comparison, 13 businesses (some of which are simply private hangar rentals) are currently located on the airport site. The airport manager estimated that fewer than 200 local pilots regularly use BDU.
What would it take to close the airport?
It’s impossible to know exactly. It will take negotiation with the FAA and possibly litigation. There may be some costs, but the land is worth more ($350 million) than reasonably foreseeable costs. Closure is doable and would not harm the city’s finances.
The short answer is that nobody knows yet! Many communities across the United States have worked to close their local airports. Each airport’s situation is unique, so there is no easy precedent or pathway for Boulder to follow.
To close the airport, Boulder will have to end Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) control over our airport. This will require negotiation and possibly litigation. Boulder City Council has asked city staff to research and consult with expert legal counsel to better understand what it would take to close the airport.
Rumors have been floated that it will cost the city $100 million to close the airport. This rumor stems from the fact that the FAA helped the city to purchase 49 acres of land for the airport back in the 1950s and 1960s, and some have argued that the city would need to pay the FAA back for that land at market rates, which can be estimated at approximately $2 million per acre ($98 million for 49 acres).
IF we had to pay this money, it would be paid via selling 49 acres of the airport land. Thus, the money would NOT come out of city coffers or the taxpayer pocket.
However, we don’t even know for sure that we would have to pay that amount. Some folks argue that the contracts under which that land was purchased are long expired with no expectation of any repayment, so we would owe the FAA $0 for that 49 acres. More legal research is needed to determine the truth.
However, even if the city did have to sell 49 acres of land at market rate and give the money to the FAA, the city can still zone that land for development of a neighborhood before it is sold. And there would still be 130 acres of city owned land left that can be developed according to city priorities.
The short answer is that nobody knows yet! Many communities across the United States have worked to close their local airports. Each airport’s situation is unique, so there is no easy precedent or pathway for Boulder to follow.
To close the airport, Boulder will have to end Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) control over our airport. This will require negotiation and possibly litigation. Boulder City Council has asked city staff to research and consult with expert legal counsel to better understand what it would take to close the airport.
Rumors have been floated that it will cost the city $100 million to close the airport. This rumor stems from the fact that the FAA helped the city to purchase 49 acres of land for the airport back in the 1950s and 1960s, and some have argued that the city would need to pay the FAA back for that land at market rates, which can be estimated at approximately $2 million per acre ($98 million for 49 acres).
IF we had to pay this money, it would be paid via selling 49 acres of the airport land. Thus, the money would NOT come out of city coffers or the taxpayer pocket.
However, we don’t even know for sure that we would have to pay that amount. Some folks argue that the contracts under which that land was purchased are long expired with no expectation of any repayment, so we would owe the FAA $0 for that 49 acres. More legal research is needed to determine the truth.
However, even if the city did have to sell 49 acres of land at market rate and give the money to the FAA, the city can still zone that land for development of a neighborhood before it is sold. And there would still be 130 acres of city owned land left that can be developed according to city priorities.
If we close the airport, where would the airplanes go?
In our petition, we ask the City to help current tenants transition to another location. There are 10 other public airports within about 50 miles of Boulder, including 3 airports within 15 miles, which offer the same types of services and facilities as BDU. There is also a dedicated glider airport not far from Boulder, where the Colorado Soaring Association is based.
Would there be more flight traffic over Boulder if BDU is not “protecting” our airspace?
No. In fact, if BDU is closed, the remaining flight traffic would be less intrusive and less polluting because it will just be passing over. In particular, repetitive landings and take-offs within the city limits - which cause the majority of noise and local lead pollution - would be eliminated.
Some have argued that flight traffic from BDU “protects” the airspace over Boulder, and that if BDU closes, planes from other airports will still fill in the airspace. It is true that if BDU closes, the airspace over Boulder is unlikely to stay empty, but there would be a different type of flight traffic. This traffic would be passing through the airspace higher up. Planes just passing through at higher elevations create fewer impacts, both in terms of noise and also lead pollution, than planes flying low to the ground, taking off and landing three miles from downtown Boulder.
It is vital to understand that if the airport stays, it is expected to double in flight traffic in the coming years. Airport growth is the goal of the FAA, the aviation industry, BDU-based aviation businesses, and the airport manager. Having runways attracts planes from nearby airports to practice here, often in repetitive “touch and go” patterns, circling over Boulder homes, schools, parks, and protected wildlife habitats. BDU attracts aviation impacts; it does not protect against them.
Some have argued that flight traffic from BDU “protects” the airspace over Boulder, and that if BDU closes, planes from other airports will still fill in the airspace. It is true that if BDU closes, the airspace over Boulder is unlikely to stay empty, but there would be a different type of flight traffic. This traffic would be passing through the airspace higher up. Planes just passing through at higher elevations create fewer impacts, both in terms of noise and also lead pollution, than planes flying low to the ground, taking off and landing three miles from downtown Boulder.
It is vital to understand that if the airport stays, it is expected to double in flight traffic in the coming years. Airport growth is the goal of the FAA, the aviation industry, BDU-based aviation businesses, and the airport manager. Having runways attracts planes from nearby airports to practice here, often in repetitive “touch and go” patterns, circling over Boulder homes, schools, parks, and protected wildlife habitats. BDU attracts aviation impacts; it does not protect against them.
Can’t we just ban leaded fuel and regulate the noise and all get along?
The FAA prohibits Boulder from imposing any restrictions on aviation operations, which means we can’t ban leaded fuel or regulate noise. Voluntary measures to curb noise and lead pollution are ineffective.
The FAA message to Boulder is that we are not allowed to impose any restrictions on airport operations. This includes prohibiting us from banning leaded aviation fuel or regulating noise levels.
Boulder has accepted millions of dollars in FAA grants over the years. We continue to seek and accept hundreds of thousands of dollars in FAA grants every few years for capital improvement projects such as repaving runways. These grants come with strings attached including giving up local control. The FAA demands include: airports must be open to take-offs and landings 24/7; we may not ban any type of aircraft operations; we must continue to sell leaded aviation fuel, even if unleaded fuel is also offered at the airport; and we cannot do anything to regulate aviation noise. The FAA only allows voluntary measures, and these voluntary measures have proven to be entirely ineffective.
Other airports are experimenting with defying these FAA mandates. It remains to be seen what the FAA might do in retaliation, such as legal challenges or fines.
The FAA message to Boulder is that we are not allowed to impose any restrictions on airport operations. This includes prohibiting us from banning leaded aviation fuel or regulating noise levels.
Boulder has accepted millions of dollars in FAA grants over the years. We continue to seek and accept hundreds of thousands of dollars in FAA grants every few years for capital improvement projects such as repaving runways. These grants come with strings attached including giving up local control. The FAA demands include: airports must be open to take-offs and landings 24/7; we may not ban any type of aircraft operations; we must continue to sell leaded aviation fuel, even if unleaded fuel is also offered at the airport; and we cannot do anything to regulate aviation noise. The FAA only allows voluntary measures, and these voluntary measures have proven to be entirely ineffective.
Other airports are experimenting with defying these FAA mandates. It remains to be seen what the FAA might do in retaliation, such as legal challenges or fines.
Is lead pollution from airplanes really a problem?
Yes, this is a serious problem with serious human and wildlife health impacts. Lead dust from aviation fuel is extremely harmful.
It can no longer be denied that lead pollution from planes is a public health and environmental crisis, despite attempts by aviation proponents to cast doubt and delay. Not all planes use leaded fuel, but the small piston-engine planes that use BDU and other local airports still do. A link between regional airport traffic and the blood lead levels of children living nearby was scientifically established in the 2021 study of the impacts from Reid-Hillview airport in Santa Clara County, CA. The peer-reviewed study found that children living downwind from the Reid-Hillview airport had higher blood lead levels, with increases of .40 micrograms per deciliter, over children living upwind from the airport. For context, lead levels detected during the peak of the Flint Water Crisis were between .35 and .45 micrograms per deciliter over baseline. However, Flint Michigan immediately stopped resident exposure to lead-contaminated drinking water and has since replaced the lead-lined pipes. In contrast, exposure to lead from aviation fuel continues unabated at small airports around the United States including BDU, and there is no plan or timetable for banning leaded aviation fuel.
In October of 2023, the U.S. EPA issued an endangerment finding stating that “emissions of lead from aircraft that operate on leaded fuel cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and welfare under the Clean Air Act.” According to the World Health Organization, “The neurological and behavioral effects of lead are believed to be irreversible. There is no known safe blood lead concentration.”
Lead testing has not yet been conducted around BDU. However, in the Rock Creek neighborhood at the west end of the Rocky Mountain Metropolitan Airport (RMMA) runway in Broomfield, only 13 miles from Boulder, residents, including an infant, have documented cases of elevated blood lead levels.
“When it comes to our children the science is clear, exposure to lead can cause irreversible and life-long health effects,” said EPA Administrator Michael S. Regan. “Aircraft that use leaded fuel are the dominant source of lead emissions to air in the country.”
95% of the lead in aviation fuel is emitted on burning, and the resulting nanoparticles are too small to be easily filtered by pollution control devices. The tiny size of these particles makes them particularly absorbable by and toxic to living tissue. Source: CDC Report "Exposures to Lead and Other Metals at an Aircraft Repair and Flight School Facility".
Lead is a known serious health risk to all animal and human life. Exposure to lead is particularly harmful to young children and pregnant women. Lead exposure can cause lifelong disadvantages for children and developing fetuses. It leads to lower IQ and has been linked to antisocial behavior as well as reproductive, heart, and other health problems.
For more information see lead in aviation fuel and aviation lead around Boulder County.
It can no longer be denied that lead pollution from planes is a public health and environmental crisis, despite attempts by aviation proponents to cast doubt and delay. Not all planes use leaded fuel, but the small piston-engine planes that use BDU and other local airports still do. A link between regional airport traffic and the blood lead levels of children living nearby was scientifically established in the 2021 study of the impacts from Reid-Hillview airport in Santa Clara County, CA. The peer-reviewed study found that children living downwind from the Reid-Hillview airport had higher blood lead levels, with increases of .40 micrograms per deciliter, over children living upwind from the airport. For context, lead levels detected during the peak of the Flint Water Crisis were between .35 and .45 micrograms per deciliter over baseline. However, Flint Michigan immediately stopped resident exposure to lead-contaminated drinking water and has since replaced the lead-lined pipes. In contrast, exposure to lead from aviation fuel continues unabated at small airports around the United States including BDU, and there is no plan or timetable for banning leaded aviation fuel.
In October of 2023, the U.S. EPA issued an endangerment finding stating that “emissions of lead from aircraft that operate on leaded fuel cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and welfare under the Clean Air Act.” According to the World Health Organization, “The neurological and behavioral effects of lead are believed to be irreversible. There is no known safe blood lead concentration.”
Lead testing has not yet been conducted around BDU. However, in the Rock Creek neighborhood at the west end of the Rocky Mountain Metropolitan Airport (RMMA) runway in Broomfield, only 13 miles from Boulder, residents, including an infant, have documented cases of elevated blood lead levels.
“When it comes to our children the science is clear, exposure to lead can cause irreversible and life-long health effects,” said EPA Administrator Michael S. Regan. “Aircraft that use leaded fuel are the dominant source of lead emissions to air in the country.”
95% of the lead in aviation fuel is emitted on burning, and the resulting nanoparticles are too small to be easily filtered by pollution control devices. The tiny size of these particles makes them particularly absorbable by and toxic to living tissue. Source: CDC Report "Exposures to Lead and Other Metals at an Aircraft Repair and Flight School Facility".
Lead is a known serious health risk to all animal and human life. Exposure to lead is particularly harmful to young children and pregnant women. Lead exposure can cause lifelong disadvantages for children and developing fetuses. It leads to lower IQ and has been linked to antisocial behavior as well as reproductive, heart, and other health problems.
For more information see lead in aviation fuel and aviation lead around Boulder County.
Is it true that leaded fuel is going to be phased out?
It will be a very long time before leaded aviation fuel is truly gone, if ever.
The FAA currently has no plan and no timetable for phasing out or banning leaded fuel. The recent EPA endangerment finding does not compel action by the FAA. In the 25 years since lead was banned from automotive fuel, the FAA has tried and failed to provide unleaded aviation fuel, so their record is not good. And, providing unleaded fuel is not the same as phasing out leaded fuel. The truth is that unless and until there is a nationwide ban on leaded aviation fuel, some planes flying in and out of airports like ours will be burning leaded fuel over our heads.
At the time of this writing (January 2024), use of unleaded aviation fuel is purely voluntary. Our airport may be able to obtain and sell unleaded fuel, but the FAA requires BDU to also continue to sell leaded fuel. Unleaded fuel costs about $1 to $1.50 more per gallon than leaded fuel. You can imagine pulling up to the gas pump and seeing the cheap fuel next to the fuel that costs an additional $1 or more per gallon. How many pilots will choose the more expensive unleaded fuel, when many of them still deny that lead is a problem?
At airports where unleaded fuel is currently available for small piston-engine planes, sales are low. This means nearly all planes flying in and out of small airports like ours are still buying and using leaded fuel.
What’s more, the aviation industry continues to this day to advocate for the continued use of leaded fuel because it is cheaper and available nationwide for all fleets. Any switch to unleaded fuel will be slow and incomplete for as long as leaded fuel is still an option. The aviation industry will fight fiercely against any ban. Here is more information about decades of past efforts around leaded aviation fuel.
The FAA currently has no plan and no timetable for phasing out or banning leaded fuel. The recent EPA endangerment finding does not compel action by the FAA. In the 25 years since lead was banned from automotive fuel, the FAA has tried and failed to provide unleaded aviation fuel, so their record is not good. And, providing unleaded fuel is not the same as phasing out leaded fuel. The truth is that unless and until there is a nationwide ban on leaded aviation fuel, some planes flying in and out of airports like ours will be burning leaded fuel over our heads.
At the time of this writing (January 2024), use of unleaded aviation fuel is purely voluntary. Our airport may be able to obtain and sell unleaded fuel, but the FAA requires BDU to also continue to sell leaded fuel. Unleaded fuel costs about $1 to $1.50 more per gallon than leaded fuel. You can imagine pulling up to the gas pump and seeing the cheap fuel next to the fuel that costs an additional $1 or more per gallon. How many pilots will choose the more expensive unleaded fuel, when many of them still deny that lead is a problem?
At airports where unleaded fuel is currently available for small piston-engine planes, sales are low. This means nearly all planes flying in and out of small airports like ours are still buying and using leaded fuel.
What’s more, the aviation industry continues to this day to advocate for the continued use of leaded fuel because it is cheaper and available nationwide for all fleets. Any switch to unleaded fuel will be slow and incomplete for as long as leaded fuel is still an option. The aviation industry will fight fiercely against any ban. Here is more information about decades of past efforts around leaded aviation fuel.
How bad is the noise from airplanes?
Really bad and getting worse! It’s a real and growing problem that is forcing families to move.
In otherwise quiet residential streets in Boulder, aviation noise has been measured at over 85dB, which is loud enough to cause permanent hearing loss. Planes from BDU are so loud that conversations have to stop and cars cannot be heard when crossing the street. Boulder residents have testified at City Council about wearing earplugs and noise-canceling headphones all day long in their own homes and hiding in their basements on busy airport days.
Plane traffic is at its worst when the weather is best. On beautiful days, impacted residents can’t stand to be outside in their own yards and gardens because of the extreme noise from planes constantly flying low overhead.
Our group knows of at least seven families who have left Boulder in recent years specifically due to plane traffic from BDU. More are planning to leave. The impact is real.
Prolonged exposure to disturbing noise is known to have health impacts and can be used as torture. Long-term exposure to noise can increase inflammation and cause cardiovascular disease, hypertension, heart attacks, and other adverse health effects. Children are also more sensitive to noise, which interferes with learning.
Read more about how aircraft noise is harmful to human health.
In otherwise quiet residential streets in Boulder, aviation noise has been measured at over 85dB, which is loud enough to cause permanent hearing loss. Planes from BDU are so loud that conversations have to stop and cars cannot be heard when crossing the street. Boulder residents have testified at City Council about wearing earplugs and noise-canceling headphones all day long in their own homes and hiding in their basements on busy airport days.
Plane traffic is at its worst when the weather is best. On beautiful days, impacted residents can’t stand to be outside in their own yards and gardens because of the extreme noise from planes constantly flying low overhead.
Our group knows of at least seven families who have left Boulder in recent years specifically due to plane traffic from BDU. More are planning to leave. The impact is real.
Prolonged exposure to disturbing noise is known to have health impacts and can be used as torture. Long-term exposure to noise can increase inflammation and cause cardiovascular disease, hypertension, heart attacks, and other adverse health effects. Children are also more sensitive to noise, which interferes with learning.
Read more about how aircraft noise is harmful to human health.
Don’t we need the airport for emergency uses?
BDU does not contribute to emergency support operations beyond helicopters. Fire-fighting planes do not use BDU. A helicopter staging area would be retained in the new neighborhood for emergency use only.
BDU’s runways are not long enough for safe use by modern fire-fighting planes. The runways cannot be lengthened since there is a lake at one end and a steep drop-off at the other. The only significant emergency use at the Boulder airport is as a staging area for emergency helicopters, such as those used for helicopter evacuation of stranded people and pets during the 2013 flood event. Rocky Mountain Metro Airport in Broomfield, which is 13 miles from the center of Boulder, is the hub for fire-fighting planes in our local area.
In 2023, the City of Boulder developed four potential scenarios for the future of the airport site as part of the Airport Community Conversation. Only one of these four scenarios calls for closing the airport. This scenario, Scenario 4 “Decommission the Airport and Create New Neighborhood”, specifically states that “A portion of land would be set aside for helicopter emergency services that would support resiliency of the region” and describes that a “landing area for emergency support services” will remain on the site after redevelopment as a neighborhood.
The City is committed to maintaining helicopter emergency support no matter what happens at the airport site.
BDU’s runways are not long enough for safe use by modern fire-fighting planes. The runways cannot be lengthened since there is a lake at one end and a steep drop-off at the other. The only significant emergency use at the Boulder airport is as a staging area for emergency helicopters, such as those used for helicopter evacuation of stranded people and pets during the 2013 flood event. Rocky Mountain Metro Airport in Broomfield, which is 13 miles from the center of Boulder, is the hub for fire-fighting planes in our local area.
In 2023, the City of Boulder developed four potential scenarios for the future of the airport site as part of the Airport Community Conversation. Only one of these four scenarios calls for closing the airport. This scenario, Scenario 4 “Decommission the Airport and Create New Neighborhood”, specifically states that “A portion of land would be set aside for helicopter emergency services that would support resiliency of the region” and describes that a “landing area for emergency support services” will remain on the site after redevelopment as a neighborhood.
The City is committed to maintaining helicopter emergency support no matter what happens at the airport site.
How much sales tax revenue does the airport provide?
Only approximately .1% to .2% of total city sales tax revenue
According to City of Boulder sales tax revenue reports, the Boulder airport district generates only .1-.2% of Boulder’s sales tax revenue.
Contrast that with the Table Mesa shopping center in South Boulder which has much less land (about 23.5 acres, which is about 13% of the size of the airport site). On this 23.5 acres, the shopping center has 50 tenants (about 3.5x the airport’s tenants) and generates approximately 2% of the city’s tax revenue (10-20x the tax revenue). You can see that a typical city commercial district generates much more sales tax revenue per acre than the airport!
According to City of Boulder sales tax revenue reports, the Boulder airport district generates only .1-.2% of Boulder’s sales tax revenue.
Contrast that with the Table Mesa shopping center in South Boulder which has much less land (about 23.5 acres, which is about 13% of the size of the airport site). On this 23.5 acres, the shopping center has 50 tenants (about 3.5x the airport’s tenants) and generates approximately 2% of the city’s tax revenue (10-20x the tax revenue). You can see that a typical city commercial district generates much more sales tax revenue per acre than the airport!
What would be the economic impact of decommissioning the airport and creating a neighborhood?
Revenue from the activities of thousands of residents and hundreds of businesses in a new neighborhood is bound to outweigh the revenue from 13 airport-based businesses and 200 pilots.
The City of Boulder has not yet done an economic comparison of the revenue generated by the airport’s 13 businesses and 200 pilots compared to the expected revenue that would be generated by a new 179-acre mixed use neighborhood. However, even a quick commonsense comparison indicates that the 179-acre neighborhood would be a huge net economic gain for Boulder.
A neighborhood would generate revenue for the city of Boulder not only from the one-time sale of the airport land for development, but also ongoing property tax revenue and sales tax revenue from the homes and businesses to be built there. Furthermore, the estimated thousands of residents and employees of hundreds of businesses in the new neighborhood (see FAQ “How many homes and businesses would a new neighborhood have?”) would be regular customers for Boulder’s schools, hospital, restaurants, grocery stores, and other local businesses.
The City of Boulder has not yet done an economic comparison of the revenue generated by the airport’s 13 businesses and 200 pilots compared to the expected revenue that would be generated by a new 179-acre mixed use neighborhood. However, even a quick commonsense comparison indicates that the 179-acre neighborhood would be a huge net economic gain for Boulder.
A neighborhood would generate revenue for the city of Boulder not only from the one-time sale of the airport land for development, but also ongoing property tax revenue and sales tax revenue from the homes and businesses to be built there. Furthermore, the estimated thousands of residents and employees of hundreds of businesses in the new neighborhood (see FAQ “How many homes and businesses would a new neighborhood have?”) would be regular customers for Boulder’s schools, hospital, restaurants, grocery stores, and other local businesses.
What is Boulder airport’s economic contribution?
Proponents claim a huge economic contribution that is hugely overestimated. The claim has many sources of error such as:
Airport proponents claim that BDU generates over $60 million in annual revenue. This figure, which comes from regional estimates and includes assumptions based on airports that are VERY different from ours, is too outrageous for belief. It is not backed by any analysis specific to BDU. But even if it were true, this figure would be dwarfed by the expected economic impacts of a mixed-use neighborhood at the site.
We are not economists, but we spotted these sources of bad data / error in the Colorado Economics Report, which is the source of the claim that BDU generates $60 million annual revenue:
- It is based on regional estimates that include airports much larger and busier than BDU.
- It uses “data” that is self-reported and unverified.
- It assumes “multipliers” based on activities that may rarely occur at BDU.
- It has made no attempt to do any analysis specific to BDU.
Airport proponents claim that BDU generates over $60 million in annual revenue. This figure, which comes from regional estimates and includes assumptions based on airports that are VERY different from ours, is too outrageous for belief. It is not backed by any analysis specific to BDU. But even if it were true, this figure would be dwarfed by the expected economic impacts of a mixed-use neighborhood at the site.
We are not economists, but we spotted these sources of bad data / error in the Colorado Economics Report, which is the source of the claim that BDU generates $60 million annual revenue:
- “Direct impacts are all estimated at regional levels.”
- Our data region (region 3) includes Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Broomfield, Clear Creek, Denver, Douglas, Gilpin, and Jefferson counties/airports. Other airports in our region include much larger and busier airports (such as Rocky Mountain Metro and Centennial Airports) that have commercial transport and cargo flights, which BDU does not have. This would greatly skew any regional estimates away from the reality of what happens at BDU.
- The primary data for the report was generated by self-reported surveys of airport managers, airport tenants, and out-of-state visitors. There was no verification of this self-reported data, not even spot checks.
- Low survey response rate (e.g. 105 of 720 Colorado airport tenants responded).
- No survey or data was provided that matches BDU to the reported figures.
- “Multiplier effects” are estimated assuming that people flying into airports also stayed, ate, and otherwise spent money in the local community. No such data is available for Boulder’s airport.
- BDU does not have an air traffic control tower, which makes tracking “visitors” instead of local traffic nearly impossible.
Is BDU a hotbed of science and innovation?
Only two businesses connected to scientific research have facilities at BDU. They rarely have planes at BDU. Their planes spend most of their time flying to other parts of the country to gather data. If BDU closed, these businesses would continue to operate out of other locations.
BDU has two tenants that conduct data collection, but it would be a stretch to say that scientific research or innovation takes place at BDU or because BDU is present.
The two airport tenants with connections to research / data collection are NEON and Scientific Aviation.
NEON, the National Ecological Observatory Network, has a hangar at BDU but does not have any planes based here. They rent their planes from another company. NEON performs regular ecological surveys of the same locations throughout the USA so that the data can be compared over time to see, for example, impacts of climate change. This is a worthy endeavor! But NEON has over 80 sites around the United States. They fly over Boulder twice a year to calibrate equipment. These calibration flights are particularly loud and fuel intensive, as they use dual engine Twin Otter planes that loop continuously over Boulder for an hour or more. NEON has other calibration sites, including in Greeley. If BDU closed, NEON would continue to do its research operating out of other locations.
Similarly, Scientific Aviation has a presence at BDU. It is owned by ChampionX, a chemical and oil and gas company. ChampionX uses 1-2 planes to monitor fracking wells in Colorado and in other states such as Texas and New Mexico. They are monitoring air quality and can help identify methane leaks from the wells, among other things. Again, this is a worthy endeavor! But there are no fracking wells in the city of Boulder, so all of Scientific Aviation’s monitoring occurs in other places, and the planes are not in Boulder for most of the time. If BDU closes, Scientific Aviation will continue to do its work out of other locations.
Planes from both NEON and Scientific Aviation cause considerable noise complaints when they are in Boulder.
BDU has two tenants that conduct data collection, but it would be a stretch to say that scientific research or innovation takes place at BDU or because BDU is present.
The two airport tenants with connections to research / data collection are NEON and Scientific Aviation.
NEON, the National Ecological Observatory Network, has a hangar at BDU but does not have any planes based here. They rent their planes from another company. NEON performs regular ecological surveys of the same locations throughout the USA so that the data can be compared over time to see, for example, impacts of climate change. This is a worthy endeavor! But NEON has over 80 sites around the United States. They fly over Boulder twice a year to calibrate equipment. These calibration flights are particularly loud and fuel intensive, as they use dual engine Twin Otter planes that loop continuously over Boulder for an hour or more. NEON has other calibration sites, including in Greeley. If BDU closed, NEON would continue to do its research operating out of other locations.
Similarly, Scientific Aviation has a presence at BDU. It is owned by ChampionX, a chemical and oil and gas company. ChampionX uses 1-2 planes to monitor fracking wells in Colorado and in other states such as Texas and New Mexico. They are monitoring air quality and can help identify methane leaks from the wells, among other things. Again, this is a worthy endeavor! But there are no fracking wells in the city of Boulder, so all of Scientific Aviation’s monitoring occurs in other places, and the planes are not in Boulder for most of the time. If BDU closes, Scientific Aviation will continue to do its work out of other locations.
Planes from both NEON and Scientific Aviation cause considerable noise complaints when they are in Boulder.
Have there been crashes of planes in or near Boulder?
Yes, there have crashes, fires, and deaths.
In 2022 alone, there were six crashes and ten deaths in and around Boulder County. In one disturbing incident in 2022, a pilot associated with the Boulder Airport was filmed harassing boats over Horsetooth Reservoir before crashing. The pilot survived and subsequently fled the country.
Did you know there is NO air traffic control at BDU, and no plans to get air traffic control in the future? It’s true! Pilots who fly in and out of BDU rely on personal visual verification that the runways are clear, in addition to using radio to communicate to other pilots their intent to take off or land. It is literally a disaster waiting to happen. In 2022, two small planes collided mid-air near Niwot, CO, just north of Boulder, killing all on board and littering debris that nearly struck Niwot High School students practicing in the school’s field nearby. Neither plane was in contact with an air traffic control, and neither was equipped with a collision avoidance system.
Shockingly, pilots of small planes (general aviation) are not required to carry liability insurance. If they crash into someone’s home or property, in addition to the risk to life safety, the property owner may be left footing the bill for clean-up and repairs. One Homeowner’s Association in Broomfield, CO is seeking $300,000 restitution for their costs to clean up from a plane that crashed into their property in 2022, including remediating lead from spilled aviation fuel. That plane nearly hit houses.
In 2022, a plane crash in Lefthand Canyon outside of Boulder killed four people and ignited a small wildfire. In 2014, a small plane crashed on Independence Road after taking off from Boulder Airport, killing the pilot and starting a fire.
Read more about airplane safety and crash incidents in our area.
In 2022 alone, there were six crashes and ten deaths in and around Boulder County. In one disturbing incident in 2022, a pilot associated with the Boulder Airport was filmed harassing boats over Horsetooth Reservoir before crashing. The pilot survived and subsequently fled the country.
Did you know there is NO air traffic control at BDU, and no plans to get air traffic control in the future? It’s true! Pilots who fly in and out of BDU rely on personal visual verification that the runways are clear, in addition to using radio to communicate to other pilots their intent to take off or land. It is literally a disaster waiting to happen. In 2022, two small planes collided mid-air near Niwot, CO, just north of Boulder, killing all on board and littering debris that nearly struck Niwot High School students practicing in the school’s field nearby. Neither plane was in contact with an air traffic control, and neither was equipped with a collision avoidance system.
Shockingly, pilots of small planes (general aviation) are not required to carry liability insurance. If they crash into someone’s home or property, in addition to the risk to life safety, the property owner may be left footing the bill for clean-up and repairs. One Homeowner’s Association in Broomfield, CO is seeking $300,000 restitution for their costs to clean up from a plane that crashed into their property in 2022, including remediating lead from spilled aviation fuel. That plane nearly hit houses.
In 2022, a plane crash in Lefthand Canyon outside of Boulder killed four people and ignited a small wildfire. In 2014, a small plane crashed on Independence Road after taking off from Boulder Airport, killing the pilot and starting a fire.
Read more about airplane safety and crash incidents in our area.
What subsidies does Boulder airport get?
The Boulder airport gets free land, utilities, and grounds maintenance from the city. The 179 acres of our public land that are currently locked up as an airport are a HUGE taxpayer subsidy to a very small number of aviation enthusiasts.
Besides the direct costs, there are also opportunity costs. The city is foregoing revenues from homes and businesses that would be located on the property if the airport weren’t there (e.g. property tax, sales tax).
The Boulder airport gets capital improvement grant funding from the FAA and Congress via FAA Reauthorizations (taxpayer subsidies).
Boulder airport would not function without these taxpayer subsidies. The tiny amount of users and businesses located there now do not pay their own way.
Besides the direct costs, there are also opportunity costs. The city is foregoing revenues from homes and businesses that would be located on the property if the airport weren’t there (e.g. property tax, sales tax).
The Boulder airport gets capital improvement grant funding from the FAA and Congress via FAA Reauthorizations (taxpayer subsidies).
Boulder airport would not function without these taxpayer subsidies. The tiny amount of users and businesses located there now do not pay their own way.
Why are we talking about this now? Why not wait?
The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan directs us to do so NOW. Waiting would mean further airport growth and entrenchment and would perhaps make a new neighborhood impossible in the future.
If we wait, the airport, currently in rundown condition, will be updated, modernized, and literally cemented in place.
The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan is Boulder’s planning Bible. In section 6.23, it describes the Boulder Municipal Airport and states, “At the time of the next Airport Master Plan, the city will work with the community to reassess the potential for developing a portion of the airport for housing and neighborhood-serving uses.” This is the city’s promise that opens the door to consider repurposing the airport when we update the Airport Master Plan.
Well, that time for the next Airport Master Plan is NOW. The Boulder Airport Manager and Transportation Department just completed a year-long “Community Conversation” about the future of the airport, and will be kicking off the next Airport Master Plan in the near future.
If we do not make a decision to decommission the airport now, this opportunity will not easily come around again. If, instead, we go into an Airport Master Plan update, which is funded and steered by the FAA, the goal will be to grow and modernize the airport. More FAA grant money, more obligations, more investment, construction, and growth at the airport takes us in the wrong direction, perhaps forever. And the city will continue to be disempowered regarding airport management - unable to regulate noise, lead, or other impacts - while the airport grows.
If we wait, the airport, currently in rundown condition, will be updated, modernized, and literally cemented in place.
The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan is Boulder’s planning Bible. In section 6.23, it describes the Boulder Municipal Airport and states, “At the time of the next Airport Master Plan, the city will work with the community to reassess the potential for developing a portion of the airport for housing and neighborhood-serving uses.” This is the city’s promise that opens the door to consider repurposing the airport when we update the Airport Master Plan.
Well, that time for the next Airport Master Plan is NOW. The Boulder Airport Manager and Transportation Department just completed a year-long “Community Conversation” about the future of the airport, and will be kicking off the next Airport Master Plan in the near future.
If we do not make a decision to decommission the airport now, this opportunity will not easily come around again. If, instead, we go into an Airport Master Plan update, which is funded and steered by the FAA, the goal will be to grow and modernize the airport. More FAA grant money, more obligations, more investment, construction, and growth at the airport takes us in the wrong direction, perhaps forever. And the city will continue to be disempowered regarding airport management - unable to regulate noise, lead, or other impacts - while the airport grows.
Who is leading this petition effort? Is this just a front for developers?
This is truly a grassroots effort. No one in our group has any financial stake in the airport or in development.
We are a small group of Boulder residents including airport neighbors, affordable housing advocates, and environmental and social justice advocates. We have no ties to the development community and no financial stake in the airport. In contrast, many of the pro-aviation voices you may hear have a direct financial interest in BDU.
We see an airport that benefits the few and negatively impacts the many, including direct and serious impacts to residents’ health and well-being.
We see the potential for creating a beautiful neighborhood at the site that would advance the city’s goals for equity and inclusion, affordable and diverse housing, environmental quality, public health and safety, and responsible governance.
For us, the choice is clear.
We are a small group of Boulder residents including airport neighbors, affordable housing advocates, and environmental and social justice advocates. We have no ties to the development community and no financial stake in the airport. In contrast, many of the pro-aviation voices you may hear have a direct financial interest in BDU.
We see an airport that benefits the few and negatively impacts the many, including direct and serious impacts to residents’ health and well-being.
We see the potential for creating a beautiful neighborhood at the site that would advance the city’s goals for equity and inclusion, affordable and diverse housing, environmental quality, public health and safety, and responsible governance.
For us, the choice is clear.
What have local neighbors and leaders said about the airport?
"Opportunity exists in examining the future of Boulder's airport", Guest opinion published in the Daily Camera by David Ensign, former Chair of Boulder’s Planning Board.
"A positive vision for housing at the Boulder airport," - Guest opinion published in the Boulder Beat by Philip Ogren, member of Boulder’s Housing Advisory Board.
"Once-in-a-forever opportunity: Boulder residents to weigh in on repurposing the airport for housing," Article in the Boulder Reporting Lab by John Herrick.
"Community member clash over the future of Boulder airport," Article in the Daily Camera by Amber Carlson.
"A positive vision for housing at the Boulder airport," - Guest opinion published in the Boulder Beat by Philip Ogren, member of Boulder’s Housing Advisory Board.
"Once-in-a-forever opportunity: Boulder residents to weigh in on repurposing the airport for housing," Article in the Boulder Reporting Lab by John Herrick.
"Community member clash over the future of Boulder airport," Article in the Daily Camera by Amber Carlson.