4 - Recomendation on the Transportation Master Plan Update - Phase 1: Plan Assesment and Policy Focus Direction
CITY OF BOULDER
TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: March 11, 2002
SUBJECT:
Staff presentation and TAB recommendation on the Transportation Master Plan Update -
Phase 1: Plan Assessment and Policy Focus Direction
REQUESTING DEPARTMENT:
Public Works Department
Tracy Winfree, Acting Director of Public Works for Transportation
Mike Gardner-Sweeney, Transportation Operations and Planning Coordinator
Randall Rutsch, Transportation Planner
BOARD ACTION REQUESTED:
Board recommendation on the proposed assessment materials to City Council
PURPOSE:
Since the fall of 2001, staff has been working on the assessment phase of the Transportation
Master Plan (TMP) Update, identified as Policy Direction and Scope on the project timeline.
Working with the TMP Study Committee, the attached materials have been prepared to provide a
high level assessment of progress under the existing plan, and to identify the policy focus and
work areas for the following phases of the Update. The Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) is
asked to make a recommendation to City Council on the results of this phase.
BACKGROUND:
On June 16, 2001, City Council approved a public process outline and TMP management
structure reflecting the TAB's recommendations for the TMP Update. This process includes four
phases of work and a number of "Transportation in Boulder" outreach/education sessions with
the public. Based on the TAB recommendations, a series of "Transportation in Boulder"
education/outreach sessions were held in the fall 2001 to educate Study Committee members and
the public and provide background for the assessment work. In addition, the TMP Study
Committee met three times between November and February to assist staff in developing the
attached assessment materials. The TAB was briefed on the development of these materials at
their February 11, 2002 meeting.
PUBLIC PROCESS
A public forum presented the assessment materials on Monday, February 25`h from 5 p.m. to 8
p.m. The forum had an open house format with background materials, the report card and the
AGENDA ITEM # V Page 1
macro assessment displayed on presentation boards. In addition, a Power Point presentation
similar to the one presented to TAB was delivered at 5:30, 6:30 and 7:30 to provide attendees
with a context and overview of the assessment. While the weather was cold and snowy, an
estimated 40 people attended the forum with 32 signing the registration sheets. Most attendees
engaged staff in discussion and many provided comments through either the comment sheets or
sticky notes on the display boards. A transcription of these comments is provided in
Attachment A. Attendees were generally supportive of the conclusions of the assessment and
the policy focus areas proposed for the TMP Update.
At its February 11, 2002 meeting, the TAB made two requests of staff for this agenda item. The
first was that a hard copy of the Power Point presentation be included, which has been done as
Attachment B. The second was that we identify those things that were discussed but were not
raised to level of policy themes or work items actions. For each Study Committee meeting, there
were one or more group exercises that allowed participants to propose and rank ideas. These
were captured and reported back to the Study Committee through its minutes and resulted in the
Study Committee Information Needs by Policy Area matrix provided to TAB in the February 11,
2002 packet. The Study Committee also edited and added to the Macro Assessment Matrix
included in the attachments. The two major ideas coming from the Study Committee that are not
directly reflected in the policy focus areas for the TMP update are the need for a demographic
understanding of the future population and the emphasis on land use/transportation connections.
We agree that a demographic understanding is critical but see it as a data input into the process
and not a policy focus areas. The land use/transportation connection is a large part of the Jobs to
Population project and is strongly reflected in both the multimodal corridor and TDM policy
focus areas but is not proposed as a separate category.
DESCRIPTION OF THE ATTACHED MATERIALS:
Three separate items have been developed to represent the high level assessment of how we are
doing and what to go to work on. The attached items have been updated to reflect comments
from the Study Committee and staff edits. Comments received at the public forum seemed to be
captured in the existing materials or to be suggested solutions. The attached materials are:
• Achievement of 1996 TMP Policies, Goals and Objectives (How Are We Doing?) -
This is a one-page summary of the progress made on the key policies, goals and
objectives in the 1996 Plan Update. On the front page a check-mark evaluation is
provided for each line, which is then supported by a brief statement on the opposite side.
These statements are intended to be a bridge between the summary matrix and the
material contained in the Transportation Annual Report and the Transportation Report
Card presentation.
• Achievement of 1996 TMP Policies, Goals and Objectives (How Are We Doing?)
Results -This is a one-page presentation of the results achieved toward the objectives
of the 1996 TMP. Three graphs present the data collected over the last 11 years relative
to the objectives for the three where data is available.
• Macro-Level Assessment (What Should We Work On?) - This matrix answers the
question of what to work on for this Plan Update and is the transition piece between
AGENDA ITEM # V Page 2
Phase I and Phase II of the process. The first column presents observations on what has
changed in Boulder and draws upon the Study Committee's work at their second
meeting. The second column presents conclusions related to those observations. The
third column highlights areas of emphasis for this plan update and was the focus of the
Study Committee's third meeting. Five policy focus areas were identified through this
work: funding, multi-modal corridors, regional travel, and TDM for the TMP Update,
and the Jobs to Population Project.
NEXT STEPS:
Following the March 11, 2002, TAB meeting and public beaming, staff will bring the Board's
comments and recommendations on the proposed assessment to the City Council at its March
19`h, 2002 meeting.
BOARD ACTION REQUESTED:
The TAB is asked to provide a recommendation to City Council on the proposed assessment
materials relative to the plan policy direction and the focus and work areas for the update
process.
Attachments:
A.- Plan Assessment, Public Forum I Comments
B.- Printout of February 11, 2002 TMP Presentation to TAB
C.- Achievement of 1996 TMP Policies, Goals and Objectives (How Are
We Doing?)
D.- Achievement of 1996 TMP Policies, Goals and Objectives (How Are We Doing?)
Results
E.- Macro-Level Assessment (What Should We Work On?)
AGENDA ITEM 9 V Page 3
Attachment A.
City of Boulder Transportation Master Plan Update
Plan Assessment
Public Forum
iru ii
Ura
Iii Ir.( it }tii s. ttFOS c``°- a r•t ~`3 9Y+I ! 41 r {
Comments From Questionnaire:
Do you generally agree with the assessment of transportation in
Boulder presented at this forum?
Response: 5/6 agreed, 1 didn't respond.
How are we doing?
• Too much data for me to absorb
• Good goals- need to get there!
• I feel overall the assessment seems correct, may need more frequent traffic counts.
• The streets feel more congested that the measure of SOV trips seem to indicate
Do you generally agree that funding regional travel, multi-modal
corridors, and transportation demand management are the important
areas to focus on in this TMP Update?
Response: 4/6 agreed, I didn't respond, I maybe.
What Should We Work On?
• Reasonable Eco passes for all citizens & Community Eco passes
• Sidewalks on 28th and 30'h
• Systems approach to fully funded plan seems key
• Convenient transit
• Get information out to the public
General Comments
• "I really appreciate living in Boulder after attending this event. It's great to see the
city employees take time to talk about these issues and to seek input."
• "Further review of travel in and out of Boulder along with increased
understanding of area demographics will help."
AGENDA ITEM # V Page 4
Attachment A.
Comments From Presentation Boards:
TMP Assessment- TDM: Eco Pass
"We need community Eco Passes with no need to collect fares. With less administrative
cost busses would run quicker and cheaper. We would also feel more at home and could move
easily through the town."
What Should We Work On?
"Housing can be much more affordable if good transit is available and a second/or first
vehicle is not required."
TMP Policy Focus- Context for Moving Forward
"Include public art in all construction projects."
"Make bicycle, ped., and transit education mandatory in the curriculum of our schools."
"Can we have more grade separation particularly to move E-W without waiting for N-S
traffic on 28' and 47'"? Arapaho and 47'"? 28" Street and Colorado? This would allow better,
quicker, easier connection from main to E campus and better entry on 36"."
TMP Assessment- Bicycle Assessment
"Sweeping the bike lanes/areas after a snow on 28" from Iris to Broadway would be
appreciated."
"Link cottonwood trail to Four Mile Creek trail safely. Now we cross illegally railroad
tracks. Many people use this link with babies and bikes. We need a ped. Railroad crossing or a
tunnel."
"Add bike lanes on Colorado Ave, 30'h Street and the east side of Arapahoe."
TMP Assessment- Pedestrian Network
"Keep adding the ped crossing signals with the second countdowns."
"Sidewalk needed on Colorado 28" to 30th on the south side."
"Please phase pedestrian lights so they do not stop traffic arbitrarily, we are pedestrians
sometimes-but motorists at others."
AGENDA ITEM 41 V Page 5
CITY OF BOULDER
Update to the
Transportation
Plan
t 1
R q{
I g i(pdCil~iA~4~R( fa i
Policy Focus and
1e,,
1 ~i• 11a
Direction ``?''HA'~~~~^
~33
February 11, 2002
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
Agenda
P4€'IFigai 7a `
k,j1 r
• Schedule and Timeline
• Context for Moving Forward
• Assessment
• Context
• Policy Focus and Direction
• Integration with TDM and
Jobs/Pop
2 City of Boulder Update to the Transportation Master Plan
li
GP
U&:h Hj6 SIR
Updated Schedule
Phase 1: Policy Focus and
Direction
• Feb 25: Public Forum
• Mar 11: TAB Recommendation
• Mar 19: City Council Direction
3 City of Boulder Update to the Transportation Master Plan
Updated Schedule E;I{°
'~~It " ~ .:hllf~•
Phase 2: Policy Refinement
(Dates Tentative)
Apr 1: Study Committee Meeting 4
• Apr 8: TAB Briefing and Input
• May 13: TAB Briefing and Input
• May 20: Study Committee Meeting 5
• Jun 3: Public Forum
Jun 24: TAB Recommendation
Jul 2: City Council Direction
4 City of Boulder Update to the Transportation Master Plan
i Ei164.
RHI
Timeline
"P ;.p~
Boulder TMP Project TimelineI
PDATE
Uen.l lion Masser Plan
Phase l: Polity Focus and Direction Phase Z: Polity Refinement Phase 3: Plan Development Phase 4: Plan Adoption
WE NOY DEC JAN FEB MAIL APR MAY JUN JULY AUG SEP WE NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR
„ ,
Management Structure
Meetings
Study Committee
.
LIM
Modeling
ell
5 City of Boulder Update to the Transportation Master Plan
.S:Ydi9dl:Ln~3='
''i IPtII
I1
f.
Assessment
f a l" s y ~ I f
h _
- n e. w Wi Nf Ii• ~
f " r-
j - r
Ila-
3f
r
0
i
n t ~
n
f
6 City of Boulder Update to the Transportation Master Plan
tY~u fE~r9r
i Pedestrian
a
E
Y 999 , ~~a~,
• Completed 7
out of 29 areas
6 ~~nn:fly~
~ ~ fNA!viib}'3N9f P WbQ.s
E~~IdtYY,dr ' a rxm,r,. ~ 'eeT~r
p mm 3~iv
• Completed 32+
U r~ w
miles of
I
mY
sidewalk
p _ I Y t~~ Y 3~ Y I p 3
.~r Sfs:Y 7
repairs
ItM
• Installed 3,408 4~' Y M
r f x r'~uiflry'"n~ r "h
II I Fn ~ i 7t n n d$VP" 1°' ~ 6 ~
access ramps - ;;~~,YYYS Y r
r
• Installed 47
t v L t.,
transit shelters
Y
t~d@tln E 3~y Y ~
& 116 benches
G 9 F. T
t"
7 City of Boulder Update to the Transportation Master Plan
u e1 6 1! ~r ' A ~ 1 1~ i 1~ypv
L'
t I C'
E
Bicycle
f"RK
1 ~E{td:~9X~1 k 6 ~13#~
IE
A
• Added 11 7
~Ei ° ~ a _E roll P'~(~ !t ~ tilt(~ff~ 6 i
Underpasses i
31a~ 1 aI ~ a
• Completed 1 /5 of
A(
TMP Bike
i
Projects " s
E :r ai
u r r
i4
• Increased capital
DES E`GN
Ei !L ~ .9 tl ~i~i1
and maintenance
funding
E,ta
2
•
50 bike lockers
wi i 4etk 68i a
ri E6t
added
Hikin Tr°ml
R JF
Bike racks on all oseTmr
d Path -N°w Tr°Ils
~ Trails
RTD buses
8 City of Bould
er Update to the Transportation Master Plan
P4,+}7
V (j 1„li I t6f j1{.9 EE{E} f ® ~
Transit j
( • [ 4E~'l`I IEi.. ~ ~ ~fIJG'~P~, I@i~(r~lt[~ 1 I t4
I~I~~I~€€P IEB~ I ~ l?+ w, f ~ b l lsflt il,P t~jli~~~,:.
~E ,dl iv~~ll "l f' ,!k hn.4i. RIr~
• Added 5 high
~~ii°'
frequency services
III€P(I(i .`i
• RTD HOP funding
• Additional RTD
e ~ . rpm ~
service "P
P,i Rims , , t
• Expanded ECO
!W UMW{~ f~
Pass
. - ~ eaM7 xF ~d
P rP t . tr,((+ g
_ P4 r
_ € ( 9'x1,9 gb• FS t4
/ jtt W,
CTN Route
Transit Shelter ` m.
.._L_. LL.iC°N3 13~,-r
1/3 mile area
9 City of Boulder Update to the Transportation Master Plan
Roadwa
- -
y
r~3
• SYstem Preservation
- overlaid 249 lane miles
- replaced 65f900 feet of
curb & gutter
°n
- increased overlay budget
by $500,000/year in 1997 77
• Safety & Efficiency
wl ~ I _ ~9h1L6i3~" 43
t
t
- hazard elimination
~ t ~f d Grs
- traffic signal upgrade &
signal retiming
• Multimodal/balancedi~~~i~ •
k~ n2~~~r 1`iifh e~ i tvp r ~ ! e{~.'§ P f) ~ v s i~~
approach to design
construction
• Progress toward life
cycle replacement -
10 City of Boulder Update to the Transportation Master Plan
r.:
t9if ~Eli~ la
P
11 Ir
TDM: Eco Pass
q $ : fb 4 3F t 31P:~
.144 Ri~ - gg
.~5v {{XXPiy ,F-ifil t ~
~(yt
Pr RTD Eco Passes and Discount
,~•,~,*a°#' • Passes Issued as of Fall 2001
* ~2 d y „y; tvl'
-f }I 1
Irr trl`S k ~ am.
} 3 m rf
r P ~ 14F1 Y~
~ 3t
r N T.
]L ~T t
'+r'91b f t
A !lir p P•s:~~°p! ~ w~
k'Il $~9n~rVOfy ifi r r 1 ~ ~ I~GI r
• Total passes: 60,000
Business Eco Pass Critical Mass: Boulder groups
Programs compete for enrollment
11 City of Boulder Update to the Transportation Master Plan
Arterial CountLocations
Internal Traffic
3''EEI 1996 to 2001
E SEE mI
40 • +7.4°l0
=~4
Nit
a~gkt,rP° ~,g3s aqini,
tl13,~ psi yp
" ON'
* City of
E~ Boulder annual
count program
12 City of Boulder Update to the Transportation Master Plan
Cordon
Count
M
Locations
External Traffic
• Y 996 to 2001
+17.4%
Aft
- ~id(1 s "d3
3 p~y„
y t
- E.
t
a w * City of
i • Boulder annual
13 City of Boulder Update to the Transportation Oil Master plan count program
f
Arterial Counts X14P
t iii s3~ilidfAlNkr'' (T
Annual Trends
Traffic Trends on Internal Streets
Since 1996,
internal traffic
7.0%
4.9% 4.8% had not
5.0%
a increased much
0 3.0% 1.7% 2.3% 1.3%
until this year.
1.0%
I Moor
1%
-3.0%L 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Year
+7.4%
14 City of Boulder Update to the Transportation Master Plan
Cordon Counts 1
I:P ESE .E3 #EI{;P
aA:'lAl'E
Annual Trends
Traffic Trends at External Stations
...while
12% external traffic
100/0has shown
8%
significant
6% 4.4%
growth over the
° ° ° 3.0
4/° 20% 1.g°'° 2.5/o same period.
U 2% 0.5%
0% y,
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001E3M 3 fib w P
Year
9 ffi~ =.41§114 I£P~if4-mm,~F
11ly§~'~ ~1 E; s la E h`it'P.:
\~Iz
It rn
+ 17.4%
-
a; Ca
15 City of Boulder Update to the Transportation Master Plan
Trends in Resident Modea=.
Choice
1990-2000
+2.6% +2.5% +2.7%
ii 91,
SOV
Transit Walk/Bike Non-SOV
-
* City of Boulder
_2.7% biennial resident
travel diary
16 City of Boulder I Update to the Transportation Master Plan
Trends in Employee Mode
Choice
+4.3% 1991-2001
k.I16SIkjl +1.1%
Walk/Bike SOV
Ads=
Transit ~E»a~ Non-SOV
* City of Boulder
_2.7% biennial employee
travel survey
17 City of Boulder Update to the Transportation Master Plan
Trends In Commute rk
Distance
8%
d
7
61% GU8/°% 66Za/°% °
10 miles
6FRI. or less.
5S
500/
404%0/ 11 to 20
miles.
3A~
z
3~// qZe5 °
2 °
25./1 °
~p°/
20% i k,I CI
Over 20
miles.
n
~ I ~ r ~ Ei id6 s ,p
0~0
q 2pp s
7qq Iqq €
9g
1991 1 1993 3 195 5 1997 1 J49 2001 1
* City of Boulder biennial employee travel survey
18 City of Boulder Update to the Transportation Master Plan
t3
Regional Travel
, . ,
s
w .
°hlnil~Iii rEl
+i
i, t [
JV,
tm~,,
77
3~tI °)I7 ,iil f) ti
i
ICI 1~ p,i
gld
t'Itii r t t 4
,~[I{l Isttl [ ~i~ Pz ~I Iq ipi
k
l i ill
-41
19 City of Boulder Update to the Transportation Master Plan
i fliif
Conclusion
• Pedestrian
Policies
• Bicycle Policies Stay the
• Transit Policies Course
• Roadway
Policies
• TDM Eco Pass
20 City of Boulder Update to the Transportation Master Plan
n'
C
ii r8Ii8 19 .e
Context for Moving -
''~~E€~ 6I I I
Xar? (I"I , dlflli::
fIp rE
Forward
What Has/Has Not Happened Since the 1996 TMP
Update?
What Can We Conclude?
What Should the TMP Update Address?
TMP Policy Focus Jobs
Funding Multi-Modal Regional TDM Population
Corridors Travel Project
21 City of Boulder Update to the Transportation Master Plan
:ac
t
uGF3ii
fr. ~~~;E2
Context
Principal Objectives of the 1996 TMP
• Keep vehicle miles of travel in the
Boulder Valley at 1994 levels;
• Reduce single-occupant-vehicle travel
by residents to 25 percent of all trips;
• Continuous reduction in mobile source
emissions of air pollutants; and,
• No more than 20 percent of roadways
congested (at LOS F).
22 City of Boulder Update to the Transportation Master Plan
R1
£
TMP Objective:
No Long-Term Growth in VMT
4.5
~~yy 11th 1 ii Fit ti{77.{tt s t isp n.9p t s ~1 EAU t.E t
.a lli9~9 ~ t 184~Ii f ptidt~tl911~ rd{3d1131P 1 11 ` Id~lididEti61;{(it 193~ii1 P 6t£ ftSi~1}F:3t08d3lt9EitiF~ili 114~1ii~
4 rldii~ 1 a ~ 1i oI i~1 n ~ ,jf(~p , i111rii iP! sods h 13 ~ t h 11~'F ~11~ 1E1 113ti t a t I{ o
iHit ' ~s 11,111111 rl §If i 1 r - yl ai IP 1~ 3M I
it 3trSh77 ys[ di@4 .~rvk dpi'
5 ~~}~'lli r: yr3 t loa sBd~j71~Ed v tt~~~1
3
11,11,13 1 - o p `
nn3) i
2.5
0
0 2
U) 5 TMP target: 1994 VMT of 2.4 millionmiles Estimated
VMT under
2 0.5 the TMP
0
,I
23 City of Boulder Update to the Transportation Master Plan
r
TMP Objective: tl Ikip£3~ p: is
Reduction in single occupant vehicle
travel to 25% of trips
90% SOV Mode Share
80%_ X
Residents
N
R so% - -4*-All Employees
L
50%
Resident
c 40%
Employees
30%
- - -
Non---resident
Lo ° 1' 4 E (13.IS P~ 1 3yl El 9 ~Llil g
E6 tl ~t 3PI II~Ij ~Zt~y~ 2.3 C64EP[[ Employees
n ]~s8~ ii s ilrlaL 7. ~:t vat 91~t I+` . a~ 3d¢IillIB @ {,E
R-MIT
10% Senes5
T 3 . i Tp ! a r sou gy
HE'
g Ft
'UM
MINI
O N M d LO co t- 00 O O r-
O O O O O CF) O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O
r r r r r f r r N N
24 City of Boulder Update to the Transportation Master Plan
i
TMP Objective: €E I
rt3 ~B
Continuous reduction in mobile
source emissions of air pollutants
Daily Pollutant Emissions
140.00
I
bt q ~7 `vs dgishi si}~i ss:
~ tt4 fff t h!B! a s 1 s rd t tii~ i'
120.00 p
a
100.00 Tons of
' r t 1 ? It~~EeBE
t ( 1lI3 a6Ba 6s3IPsf tiIBSEeP ~ EE41LiVt
CO Daily
75 80.00 Rtdi( ~Ii
Ipl~t Bli~ SId9s~I tit i
' t o-w t ,arts t ste ~t ii_: vs
ii j C I'sEtl;t4s Z ss+a(BS,v' i d k IIj vt t 6s4 tErBEBB t € 1~B~d Bd~t~{!ss
al ns il¢;vt s~ r Div }tp i & B ~ ! °"?"1s ' my t v
60.00 yy g J ct H~,
~ i~~ d i € 1§pt~6SI i~~ (I t~p'r 3fI1~( P r tB+; s! s; ! , i !I s
0 t (!iL 'ylis!3nt '"1EtN ti Eu dtit tlBliirii at =t ~ti3
{ v d P4; 3v f d sB'lll
Tons o
20 4 0 . 0 0 € 7' , so I~ i" ~~pp77 `'f# ~~N ~~B,.sp;;3sBt tE ;t$lllffa 'mayy ygyg(~it inr'tgB9i3! iv.s t~
t t }fdts~ tT t! it3i i i}piitp it 1 s i (!B9l~~ u s p~P}~,€fgiln d. P.€sl) us9i} b PA 1 V 1 1 0
:.t 3t' ECEK€, sB3Bts9:E r . dE 71fEEU '~:3 {i~rv
20.00 s{I ! "',I u~~s~g~LPt :{(t'~I"F~ a 'tdt~B~E~Y (q}¢is ss1~14131~ tL~51
(9'ij~~y39s'>L°ss Daily
li
HBO
RT, ' ids!`' dss P BI~~~ tf I' fl 3 s~ i t
s s lli" gg . s -!'=`~-'!i ¢ M 7~8
9 ~ i . r 1 IE '_i d
0.00
2) ob R)
N JJR~
25 City of Boulder Update to the Transportation Master Plan
v I
General ConclusionsI~i;~~i
• City has made progress on a modal
basis but are missing goals
• Now need to adopt a multimodal,
systems approach to maximize benefits
• Regional travel is a bigger challenge
• Adequate financing and additional TDM
measures are needed to achieve the
plan goals
26 City of Boulder I Update to the Transportation Master Plan
u !i dl d-,~:
Policy Focus and e°
W
Direction
a w.
,
q ~
3 Ff.._. esi
fl44l, i( ii (E
tJ 6'3 d1 i~
e '~.~"~.,--=gyp ~ r ! q#13EE!!
i ~dv11r!!
yy 2
t ~ }
ll>#i=r ha~ r 'ryei'~ !!!l~~r~ih'dllpj°! ~ lin, c 1! !~'§~uGB! 'sz~' ~ ppI
d
rc~
-eMY
y,~ dy
!
GFIR
n:
27 City of Boulder Update to the Transportation Master Plan
Funding
• Refresh costs and revenues
• Prioritize investments to a fiscally
constrained and unconstrained program
• Identify national/international best practices
• Explore additional funding sources,
including user pay systems based on use
and impact.
• Address responsibility of new development
28 City of Boulder Update to the Transportation Master Plan
iapl' .
is 3fi,
d 3 allt~ l"" _
Multimodal Corridors • Develop operational improvements to
keep the Community Transit Network
functioning at a high level of service.
• Identify the key characteristics needed
to achieve an effective TDM program.
• Analyze each multimodal corridor for its
land use and transportation
characteristics and potential.
29 City of Boulder Update to the Transportation Master Plan
f Regional Travel
• Project and assess regional travel demand
and travel characteristics
• Determine effects of jobs/housing balance
• Identify, define and prioritize the vision for
regional travel corridors.
• Partner and collaborate to develop and
achieve corridor visions.
30 City of Boulder Update to the Transportation Master Plan
TDMi5{E'i ~ S R
~ ~dlN PY"
• Identify ways to dump to the next level of
citywide and regional TDM programs
• Assess the development review process
to identify what TDM monitoring and
assessment is required.
• Determine the ingredients necessary to
promote and implement a successful
TDM program by geographic area.
• Development maximum parking
standards and parking pricing
31 City of Boulder Update to the Transportation Master Plan
Integration with
i
Jobs/Population and TIDM
Efforts
Job Projections
-
I
cuu 3~+ `
; t Pia
a
TMP 1~~~si; f#~
E#I ;I
r ;'fi t MIN
n~~ ~pP ;••~I¢' It1P P
P~ u P P a; tr`t~sUj p+.'
Pl N
g H'
Traffic Modeling
32 City of Boulder Update to the Transportation Master Plan
tt +f
IEIl~P
Transportation Demand p
i~E {lll~t~d~
a :5a~~ll~p'
36i'
Management
• Conduct stakeholders outreach
• Review development review process
• Research national and international
experience
• Inventory TDM measures and estimate
results
• Develop regulatory tools and
recommendations for TDM ordinance
• Develop TDM Toolkit
33 City of Boulder Update to the Transportation Master Plan
Jobs to Population
i ,(d~iiiy3r~~p~1AlE~8l•
(r
aP[IvIIp'
Project
• Identify jobs and population forecasts under
current trends (2020)
• Develop several scenarios for future number
of jobs, population and TDM measures
• Evaluate impacts of various scenarios
• Obtain public comments on the scenarios
• Recommend scenario for implementation.
34 City of Boulder + Update to the Transportation Master Plan
T M Achievement of 1996 TMP Policies, Goals and Objectives
PPDA TE (How Are We Doing?)
Transportation Master Plan Comments
February 28, 2002
1. Pedestrian Policies
1 a Sidewalk standards have not been revised since the 1996 TMP
I b The city has increased funding of the sidewalk program, resulting in an increase in the repair and retrofit of sidewalks with access ramps. Seven
out of 29 sidewalk areas have been completed and over 3,400 access ramps installed.
I c The city has conducted two public outreach efforts to identify and prioritize missing links and increased funding in this area.
The sidewalk repair program has been focused on the high frequency transit corridors and significant pedestrian access improvements were done
I d prior to the JUMP/LEAP/BOUND implementation. This effort has not addressed all transit routes, however, the first Transportation Network Plan
has been approved for north 28th Street and a second is being launched on Arapahoe.
I e The city has experimented with a variety of pedestrian crossing treatments and established warrants for their use. Over 20 mid block crossings
have been installed since 1996.
II. Bicycle Pollcte~'F~`~ waz=
I I a The city has a significant bicycle system composed of 210 miles of facilities that is one of the best in the country. A number of difficult connections
are in the current CIP and should be constructed in the near future.
II b Bicycle corridors have been extended with 72 (21 percent) of 340 bicycle projects identified in the TMP having been completed. However major
gaps remain in the system, articular) in the BURA area.
The city has been successful in securing bicycle project funding from DRCOG and has worked cooperatively with the County to develop bicycle
II c facilities between the city and Gunbarrel, supported the County's transportation ballot proposal which will fund bike facilities on many regional
corridors and supported the bike facility along US 36. However bicycle corridors between the city and surrounding communities are not yet
complete or full funded.
11 d More than 50 bicycle lockers have been added to transit centers in Boulder and the city is working with RTD to develop a bikestation at the
downtown center. However, a waiting list remains for existing bike lockers.
II a Bike racks are provided on all RTD buses in Boulder following a demonstration project initiated b the city.
111. Transit Policies
The 1996 TMP called for increasing transit hours of service from 240,308 to 577,870 by 2020. The city has successfully funded five high frequency
III a services that have added 77,994 (23 percent) hours of service by 2001, putting us ahead of the proportional amount needed to meet the TMP
service hours.
III b The city has negotiated an agreement with RTD where RTD is paying for half of the HOP funding for a demonstration period, with the expectation
that continued positive performance b the HOP will result in RTD full funding the service.
III c Five high frequency transit services are currently operating in Boulder, with two additional services in the final planning stages to start service this
year. High frequency service will exist in portions of six of the ten multimodal corridors identified in the TMP.
III d Additional service has been added in the US 36 corridor by RTD as demand has grown. The city actively participated in developing the corridor
consensus on long-term improvements in the corridor through the US 36 MIS process.
The Eco Pass programs have continued to expand, with a total of 60,000 passes existing in the community. The student value pass has been
III a tremendously successful, with over 2,500 passes sold this school year in the Boulder Valley School District. However, the Eco Pass ballot
proposal designed to provide longer term funding through a property failed in most candidate neighborhoods.
IV. Demand Management Policies
IV a Identified actions have not occurred, although the city is working on developing a general transportation allowance program for its downtown
employees.
IV b Policies supporting land use design standards supportive of all modes have been included in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan Update, but
these have not been implemented in the code or the development review process.
V. Roadway Infrastructure Policies
V a The city has significantly increased funding for maintenance and operational improvements of the existing road system. Starting in 1997, $500,000
annually has been added to the road overlay budget and the city has made significant progress in moving toward life cycle maintenance practices.
SOV mode share has decreased 3 percent since 1990, while drive times along four major corridors have decreased or increased less than 2
V b percent annually. However, Level of Service (LOS) analysis at signalized intersections indicates that 21 percent have movements that operate at
LOS F in the P.M. peak hour.
V c The city's transportation budget has been restructured since 1997 to reflect TMP priorities. Most recently, as part of the Prioritization project,
Council directed that $1 million annual be re-directed to alternative mode capacity.
The Prioritization project resulted in transportation spending being directed to a prioritized list of the identified multimodal corridors with the intent
V d that investments be made in all modes through these corridor improvements. 28th Street is the first priority corridor with planning completed and
construction underway on the south section, and planning largely done on the north section.
VI. 2020 Goals
While the city has constructed numerous projects adding capacity to the non automotive modes, many corridors have not been developed in an
VI a integrated way. The community is increasing its understanding of all the factors needed to maximize the success of a multimodal corridor and is
including this understanding in it planning and construction projects such as 28th Street.
V1 b The 1996 TMP firmly placed the transportation system under the umbrella of and in service of broader community goals and values. However,
additional work is needed in the areas of TDM, land use and transportation connections, regional travel and finance.
V1 c The funding deficit identified in the 1996 TMP remains largely unaddressed and is a major challenge to achieving the goals and objectives of the
plan.
The city has become more actively engaged in regional transportation planning with a focus on the US 36, Arapahoe and Diagonal corridors.
VI d Improved notification techniques have increased public participation in the planning process, however, many citizens still do not have a clear
understanding of city transportation policy direction and how this relates to individual projects.
While the city is increasingly examining issues related to land use and transportation, these planning efforts are still somewhat separated.
VI a Integrated transportation and land use plans do not exist for the identified multimodal corridors and policy changes have not been reflected in city
codes and development review procedures. However, recent progress has been the adoption of the North 28th Street Transportation Network
Plan and the drafting of an Arts and Aesthetics Plan for the 28th Street Corridor which is current) in the final approval stages.
The city has been relatively successful in controlling the growth of vehicle traffic with the core of the city, but traffic into and out of the city has
VII a increased significantly. Travel behavior changes of Boulder residents can no longer overcome the increased vehicle traffic entering and leaving the
city. However, overall VMT in the Boulder Valle has increased at a much smaller rate than VMT for the region.
VII b The SOV mode share dropped from 44 percent in 1990 to 41 percent in 1994 and was 42 percent in 2000. While not maintaining the mode share
shift needed to achieve the TMP objective, some mode shift gains have been maintained in the face of increased travel into the city.
VII c The pollutant of historic concern, C02, has shown continuous reduction, largely as the result of technological improvements and through the
control of increases in VMT.
SOV mode share has decreased 3 percent since 1990, while drive times along four major corridors have decreased or increased less than 2
VII d percent annually. However, the study of Level of Service (LOS) analysis at signalized intersections indicates that 21 percent have movements that
operate at LOS F in the P.M. peak hour.
Achievement of 1996 TMP Policies, Goals and Objectives
T M (How Are We Doing?)
QATE January 21, 2002
Transportation Master Plan
Policies Level of Achievement
Little to None Moderate Major
1. Pedestrian Policies
a. Review and development of revised sidewalk standards. ✓
b. Retrofit pedestrian facilities to ADA standards. ✓
✓
c. Identify a short list of high priority missing links and create a funding program.
d. Improve pedestrian access to public transit. ✓
e. Adopt warrants for pedestrian crossing treatments ✓
II. Bicycle Policies
a. Develop a continuous bicycle system.
✓
b. Complete the corridor network ✓
c. Work with Boulder County. and DRCOG. ✓
d. Work with RTD, Boulder Count for bike lockers at transit centers ✓
e. Work with RTD to ensure bikes on buses. ✓
111. Transit Policies
a. Incremental) improve and increase local transit. ✓
b. Secure funding for the HOP ✓
c. Develop high frequency service on key corridors. ✓
d. Increase transit service in the US 36 corridor. ✓
✓
e. Expand ECO Pass programs.
IV. Demand Management Policies
a. Implement arkin strategies and pricing. V
b. implement land use design standards. ✓
V. Roadway Infrastructure Policies
✓
a. Prioritize maintenance and TSM improvements.
b. Maintain acceptable LOS to no more than 20% of Roadways. ✓
c. Prioritize roadway improvements to system preservation and travel safety, ✓
alternative mode functional efficiency, quality of life and functional capacity
d. Prioritize functional efficiency and capacity on designated bike and transit ✓
routes.
VI. 2020 Goals
a. Develop an integrated, multimodal transportation system which emphasizes ✓
the role of the pedestrian mode as the primary mode of travel.
b. A transportations stem supportive of community goals. ✓
c. Provide sufficient, timely, and equitable financing mechanisms for ✓
transportation.
d. Encourage public participation and regional coordination in transportation ✓
planning
e. Establish a transportation system supportive of desired land use patterns and ✓
functional, attractive urban design.
VII. 2020 Objectives
a. No growth in long-term vehicle traffic ✓
b. Reduction in single occupant vehicle travel to 25% of trips
✓
c. Continuous reduction in mobile source emissions of air pollutants
d. No more than 20% of roadways contested (LOS F) ✓
~ 'f _ M I
What Should We Work On.
P,,,TE
` Transportation Master Plan February 28, 2002 (Revised with Study Committee Comments)
What Has/Has Not Happened Since
TMP Policy Focus
The 1996 TMP Update? What Should the TMP Update Jobs/
What Can We Conclude? Population
Address?
What Have We Heard/Observed? Funding Multi Corridors Modal Travel Regional TDM Project
Budget Deficit: The cost of the 1996 plan was Without the funding needed to implement the TMP, Refresh TMP costs and revenues. Provide a fiscally
estimated at $1.1 billion with only $700 million in funds mode shift and congestion objectives of the TMP can not constrained and unconstrained investment program. X
available, resulting in a plan deficit of $400 million. be achieved. A
Sales Tax: Sales tax makes up over half of the Paying for transportation facilities in a way totally Explore additional funding sources. Investigate funding
anticipated TMP revenues. Boulder sales tax revenue is separated from their use will become increasingly mechanisms so users more directly pay based on use v
impacted by increasing retail competition and the problematic and does not provide accurate price signals and impact. Understand commuter's X X X X
economy from year to year. to auto users. will to pay for travel options.
Competition for Funds: The current federal funding Securing outside funding will continue to become more Develop additional funding capacity at the local level.
allocation system makes jurisdictions compete with each difficult and protective.
other for a "limited pie" rather that collaborating towards X
a common vision (see Regional Planning below).
Federal and State Funds: Federal and State funds are There is no Federal or State bailout, but we can be Develop an investment prioritization process that y
currently constrained. strategic in leveraging funds. leverages Boulders limited funds. X
Development Impacts: New developments pay fees to Cumulative project transportation impacts will grow with Address responsibility of new development. Explore
off-set project impacts. These fees do not fully fund the additional new developments under the current code. development fee structure and rates. Explore TDM X
X
project's total transportation impact. requirements to mitigate development impacts.
Consider the impacts of additional funding X
mechanisms/sources on other city goals/objectives.
Measuring Progress: Significant improvements have Implementation of TMP modal elements has been great, Examine TMP with a systems approach, to ensure that
been made in completing the pedestrian and bicycle but the plan has not achieved the projected results all the pieces in a multimodal corridor fit together to
system, expanding high frequency transit service, and partially because it has not used a comprehensive maximize the transportation capacity of the corridor for
maintaining our street system. While progress has been > enough systems approach. > all modes. Linkages between the modes, TDM and
made toward the TMP goals, intersections are more between the transportation system and surrounding land X X X X X
congested, VMT has increased and Boulder has not fully uses are critical.
achieved targeted reductions in SOV use.
Page 1 of 4
What Has/Has Not Happened Since TMP Policy Focus
The 1996 TMP Update? What Should the TMP Update Jobs/
What Can We Conclude? Population
i Address? Multi Modal Regional Project
What Have We Heard/Observed? Funding Corridors Travel TDM
RTD: Boulder's transit service is provided by RTD. The Regional and local transit connections are key to our Operational improvements are needed to keep the
City has been successful in getting RTD to implement success. Community Transit Network functioning at a high level of
new service, such as the Skip Jump, LEAP and BOUND. > service, including improving quality of service, and
Quality and character of service has not met the City's consideration of patrons with special mobility needs.
expectations. > X X X X X
Continued Boulder staff commitment and concerted Continue to invest and expand the Community Transit
effort is needed to achieve quality local and regional Network and community pass participation along E47with
transit routes and operations expectations. RTD Regional Linkages to neighboring communities.
Employment/Population Growth: Current employment The most significant growth in travel will occur in trips The TMP update must consider changes in employment
is about 10,000 higher than estimated in the 1996 plan. from outside the Boulder Valley and this segment of and population since the 1996 TMP, project future travel
The 2020 employment is now expected to be 30,000 travel is the biggest challenge to achieving the demands and address regional travel. X X X
greater than the 2020 plan predicted. Employment objectives of the TMP. We need an improved
growth has outpaced housing growth and this is understanding of the jobs/population relationship.
expected to continue. Identify regional population and employment growth that
might impact or influence internal/external Boulder travel
(i.e. Longmont, Broomfield, Erie, Broomfield). X X
Identify, prioritize and create a vision for the regional
travel corridors entering Boulder. X X X X
Understand "subcommunity to subcommunity" travel.
X X X
Better understanding of existing jobs turnover impacts X
with respect to place of residence. X
> > Evaluate the traffic impacts of various jobsthousing >
scenarios, and include location-specific analyses, not X X
just citywide.
Mixed Use: The city is encouraging the increase of Growth in population and employment have exceeded Identify ways to mitigate the traffic impacts from
mixed use development. levels anticipated by the 1996 Plan and requires additional jobs, including TDM strategies to address the X X
reexamination in the TMP update. transportation needs of in-commuters.
Housin : Housing demand and housing prices have A significant number future employees will likely travel TMP should reflect anticipated City effort to provide
significantly increased in Boulder. longer distances to find affordable housing. additional affordable (for workers at all levels) and y
accessible housing, and mixed-use development. X A
Affordable Housing: The City is implementing it's The transportation impacts of affordable housing and Study the effect of affordable (for workers at all levels)
policy of providing more "affordable" housing mixed use development are uncertain. and accessible housing, and mixed-use development on
trip making. Understand how housing choices (available X X X
mix and cost) influence trip making and in-commuting.
Page 2 of 4
What Has/Has Not Happened Since
TMP Policy Focus
The 1996 TMP Update? What Can We Conclude? What Should the TMP Update Jobs/ Population
What Have We Heard/Observed? Address? Funding " Funding Multi Modal Regional TDM Project g Corridors Travel
Demographics: Currently the TMP is demographically If we do not understand the existing and future Project transportation needs of future and existing
blind (e.g., it doesn't consider aging or changing demographics of Boulder and those that travel into residents based on demographics and accessibility
employment characteristics of the population and > Boulder, it is not possible to anticipate their > needs. > X X X
workforce). transportation needs and develop an effective TDM
i program to serve future travel needs.
Geographies: There are widely varying differences in Different areas in town have different transportation Determine what ingredients are necessary to promote
land use, urban design and fabric, visual interests and needs and opportunities and will be able to support and implement an effective TDM program. Evaluate
amenities within the City. > different levels of TDM effectiveness. > these ingredients for both market-based and incentive > X X X
based TDM strategies.
Understand how the design of an area (aesthetics, quality of experience, educational opportunities, etc.)
influences transportation mode choices. X X X
> > >
Enforcement: The city's current development approval Transportation Demand Management as implemented Assess the development review process to ensure that
process lacks procedures to assure implementation and so far is long on wishful thinking and short on required TDM measures are implemented and evaluated
compliance with TDM measures. management. as to their effectiveness and consequences. X X X
Implementation of TDM: Requiring TDM mitigation for We cannot accomplish TDM goals by just focusing on Identify ways to jump to the next level of citywide and
new developments has only a small effect on overall the marginal growth that results from new development, regional TDM programs, such as the community Eco
travel and its impacts. Pass, which would provide a transit pass to every X X X X
resident and employee. Evaluate any potential TDM
measure for its effectiveness and results.
Parking Policy: The City has not implemented We can't accomplish TDM goals by only managing Develop maximum parking standards and parking
maximum parking requirements or parking pricing as demand through incentive strategies. Disincentive pricing.
identified in the TMP. strategies are also required. X X X
Land Use/Urban Design: Transit/Pedestrian Oriented Minimum conditions are necessary for an effective TDM Develop clear guidelines on the key characteristics
Design standards and guidelines have not been program, including the importance of the bicycle system, needed for achieving an effective TDM program. Specify
developed or implemented. pedestrian system, transit system, parking availability measures of success, monitoring and feedback.
and cost, and housing locations and demand Incorporate Crossroads focus for multimodal corridor X X X X
development (28th Street and Arapahoe)
Page 3 of 4
What Has/Has Not Happened Since TMP Pony Focus
The 1996 TMP Update? What Should the TMP Update Jobs/
What Can We Conclude? Population
Address?
What Have We Heard/Observed? Funding Multi Modal Regional TDM Project
Corridors Travel
Regional Planning: There is no CDOT or RTD funded Boulder can't win this alone. Boulder needs regional Coordinate regional planning with neighboring
plans in place to implement regional solutions, and community partners (i.e. CU Boulder). communities and optimize transit for regional travel into
especially rail along US 36 and improvements to > > Boulder, including regional paratransit services. >
Arapahoe and the Diagonal. Plans such as Fastracks X x X X
are being developed but are not funded.
Regional Growth: Regional growth has accelerated and Boulder has become more of an employment center and The TMP should reflect a regional strategy to develop
is adding travel into and out of Boulder and increasing is not an island unaffected by regional trends. coalitions to support funding and multimodal solutions for
congestion. regional connections. X X
Needed Resources: Significant resources and All multimodal corridors will require significant Review and confirm the Prioritization Project's y
investment will be required to implement the 28th Street investment. prioritization of corridors and improvements. A X X X
corridor plan and Transportation Network Plan.
Inventory identified City of Boulder multimodal corridors,
identify regional corridors and prepare a character and V
evaluation matrix for each with proposed improvements. X X X
> > >
* Legend
X Primary Area of Focus
X Secondary Area of Focus
Page 4 of 4