As I discussed in my November
17 post, I am writing a series of quarterly blogs discussing
trends and key data from the 2016 Change
in Motion report. This is the second in that
series. You can find the first, on housing affordability, here.
Whether you are
a parent taking your toddler to the jungle gym, a weekend warrior playing
on a
city-league softball team, or someone who simply enjoys a nice walk by the
river, we all benefit from the Treasure Valley’s vast number of parks.
Between the two
counties, we have nearly 5,900 acres of public parks, in addition to private
parks (e.g., those owned by neighborhood associations) and vast open spaces,
such as the foothills and Morley Nelson Birds of Prey National Conservation
Area. As of 2015, those 5,900 acres of public parks equated to 9.1 acres for
every 1,000 people in the Treasure Valley.
In Communities in Motion 2040, COMPASS set
a target of more than 10 acres of public parks per 1,000 people by 2040; a
target that is consistent with national standards.
While the current ratio of 9.1 per 1,000 is close to our target of 10,
it is actually a decrease from our 2013 ratio of 9.8 per 1,000.
This
begs two questions: (1) Why does a transportation plan have a target for parks
in the first place? (2) Why did the ratio decrease? Are we losing parks?
Communities in Motion
2040
is different from COMPASS’ previous long-range transportation plans. COMPASS
recognizes that you cannot plan for the transportation future of a region in a
vacuum, so the plan not only addresses transportation, but also includes elements
that affect, and are affected by, transportation. One of these elements is open
space, which includes public parks.
To
that end, Communities in Motion 2040
includes a goal to, “[p]romote
development and transportation projects that protect and provide all of the
region’s population with access to open space, natural resources, and trails.”
While
parks and open space have many environmental and other benefits related to
their simple existence (think of the pleasure of seeing the foothills out your
window, even if you don’t ever set foot in them), most areas designated as “parks”
are designed to be “used” by people, from playing soccer or Frisbee to picnicking
or simply relaxing in the outdoors. From this standpoint, they are of limited benefit
if the users can’t get to them. A robust transportation system is needed to ensure
that people, of all walks of life, can access our public parks – by car, by
bike, on foot, or by bus.
On
the flip side, public parks and other open spaces and pathways, such as the
Boise River Greenbelt, contribute to our transportation system by providing
opportunities for active transportation. For example, during 2016, COMPASS’
automated bicycle counters recorded an average of over 550 cyclists using the
Boise River Greenbelt during the morning commute (6 am – 9 am) each weekday.
So,
if parks are so important, why we are moving away from our target? First, let
me assure you that this doesn’t mean we are losing parks. What it does mean is
that our parks aren’t keeping up with our population. It’s a simple math
equation. Our population increased rapidly, but the acreage of parks didn’t
increase proportionally, so the acres per 1,000 people decreased. To reach our
goal, our acreage of parks needs to increase at a faster rate than our
population.
We’ll
continue to monitor this trend, and hopefully can report in the future that we
have reversed direction and are moving closer to our 10 acres per 1,000 people
goal.
In
the meantime, we do have almost 5,900 wonderful acres of parks. After a long,
harsh winter let’s all get outside and enjoy them!
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for your comment. Someone will review and approve as soon as possible.