The airport is an important part of the lives of those who operate it

I am writing to you with concern about the efforts to close the Boulder Municipal Airport. Many people are trying to get it closed based on completely unfounded and silly complaints. My biggest concern is that as a student pilot, I will not be able to continue flying without this airport. If it were to close, I would have to find a new airport, a new instructor, and a new aircraft. I would also have to re-familiarize myself with the local airspace. This would end up costing me an enormous amount of time and money. Also, my friends at the airport, the line crew and the instructors, would all be out of work. I know that some of the staff are starting college soon, and if they lost their jobs as they enter their freshman year, it would be terrible for their morale and their ability to support themselves and their livelihood.

I implore you to use your platform to show your support for the airport, which is a long-standing institution in Boulder and an important part of the lives of those who operate and use it.

Clint Elkins, Berthoud

There are more accidents on the Iris because there are more cars on the road

I read Gary Garrison’s comments on the Iris project. He appeals to emotions by saying “safety should come first.” By doing so, he implies that anyone who opposes this project does not care about safety. His argument seems to be based on the premise that many accidents happen on streets with lots of cars. I have some questions about the numbers cited in his comments. The number of accidents, 345 (about 49 per year for 7 years), sounds like a lot. He also says that the main thoroughfares in Boulder have the most accidents and that they only make up 17% of the streets. Could it be that most accidents happen there because that’s where most cars are? The main thoroughfares serve an important purpose, which is to move the most cars around town, that’s why they are bigger! Mr. Garrison also argued that this project is not the same as the Folsom project. Maybe I didn’t understand his argument, but it seems to me that he was saying that the Folsom project was not done for the same ideological reasons as the Iris project, and did not require as much community participation, and is therefore completely different. The fact is that Folsom Street was reduced to two lanes with protected bike lanes and a center turn lane. The traffic congestion was unbearable and had to be reduced. This stretch of road cannot handle nearly as many cars as Iris. The result is bound to be the same: huge traffic jams. It is true that a large number of cars standing still or crawling along at greatly reduced speeds will reduce the severity of accidents.

Susan Noble, Boulder