4 - Transportation Master Plan Update - Phase 2
CITY OF BOULDER
TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD NON AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: July 8, 2002
SUBJECT:
TAB review and input on the Transportation Master Plan Update - Phase 2: Policy
Refinement phase completion
REQUESTING DEPARTMENT:
Public Works Department
Tracy Winfree, Director of Public Works for Transportation
Mike Gardner-Sweeney, Transportation Operations and Planning Coordinator
Randall Rutsch, Senior Transportation Planner
BOARD ACTION REQUESTED:
Review and input the policy refinement materials
PURPOSE:
Phase I- Plan Assessment and Policy Focus Direction, of the Transportation Master Plan (TMP)
Update concluded in March with TAB recommendation and Council approval of four areas for
concentrated work: funding, multimodal corridors, regional travel and transportation demand
management (TDM). The results of staff and the TMP Study Committee work on these areas in
Phase 2 of the Update, Policy Refinement are presented in this memo. The materials attached
present a high level summary of what we have learned in these areas, while more detailed
material is included in the Appendix of this memo.
The emphasis in this phase has been on what plan adjustments could be considered, and the
phase has been largely an inventory and learning effort. Consequently, TAB is not asked for a
decision or recommendation on Phase 2, but rather to respond to the following questions:
• Is the work in each policy focus area comprehensive such that we have not missed any major
technique or important area of concern?
• Do you agree with the study approach in each policy focus area and the way the information
is presented in each focus area?
• Does this information provide a strong basis to move on to the next phase of plan
development?
BACKGROUND:
The four phases approved the TAB and Council for this update of the TMP are:
• Phase I- Policy Direction and Scope: Answers the questions of how are we doing and
what needs additional work. Completed with the conclusion to "stay the course" and
AGENDA ITEM # IV Page I
established the four policy focus areas of funding, multi modal corridors, regional travel and
transportation demand management (TDM) for additional work.
• Phase 2- Policy Refinement: Explores areas of challenge or where adjustments are
needed to take the TMP to the next step in developing a transportation system supporting the
TMP's goals and objectives. This phase included white papers and research providing
background, policy options and the screening criteria for consideration by the TMP Study
Committee.
• Phase 3- Plan Development: Will develop the plan to the level of an investment program
that is fiscally constrained and optimizes progress supporting the policy directions of the
plan. This phase includes the transportation modeling needed to test the results of the
program, facility and investment alternatives proposed.
• Phase 4- Plan Adoption: Prepares and presents an integrated plan through the four board
approval process needed to support adoption of the update.
Work in this phase has largely proceeded on four separate tracks related to the focus areas, and
each area has been approached somewhat differently. The funding area clarified how the city
currently funds transportation and has been able to look comprehensively at potential funding
techniques and categorize the techniques. The multimodal corridor area has developed a detailed
inventory of facilities, land uses and design characteristics along these corridors and how they
affect their performance. The TDM effort has developed a comprehensive inventory of
techniques and has been working to assess which of these are appropriate to Boulder through
subcommittee meetings and the Peer Review Panel. In the case of regional travel, we have
developed a good understanding of the facilities, partnerships and funding on these corridors, but
need to wait on the travel model results that will be produced in Phase 3 for an understanding of
future travel on these corridors. The integration of the work in these four tracks will be a major
part of the Phase 3 work effort.
While this memo and the attached materials are directed at the work accomplished in the four
policy focus areas, significant additional work has occurred in preparation for the next phase of
Plan Development. Transportation analysis zones (TAZs) have been redefined for the Boulder
Valley and the Boulder Valley transportation model is in the process of being transferred to a
new modeling platform and of being calibrated to a 2001 base year. Staff has begun work on the
updates needed with the modal areas covered by the "stay the course" conclusion in Phase 1.
Staff is exploring the areas of demographics, special population transit needs, and energy
efficiency and clean vehicles. Finally, we are exploring avenues for the TMP to be a Web-based
plan.
PUBLIC PROCESS
Based on the TAB recommendation, 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. Two additional Transportation in Boulder sessions
were held on April 29 s and May 6`h on TDM and transportation modeling in preparation for this
and the next phase of the Update.
The TMP Study Committee also met in May to review the proposed study approach, evaluation
AGENDA ITEM # IV Page 2
criteria and inventories for each policy focus areas. Three subcommittees were established to
continue work in the areas of funding, multimodal corridors and TDM. Each of these
subcommittees has met two or three times to develop and review the attached materials. These
materials are also being sent to the Study Committee as a whole with the request that they
provide comments to staff prior to the TAB meeting, We will convey these to the Board as part
of the staff presentation.
A public Open Hour will be held in the Municipal Building from 5 to 6 p.m. prior to the TAB
meeting on July 8`"' and staff will bring a summary of comments received from the public to the
Board.
DESCRIPTION OF THE ATTACHED MATERIALS:
The following section provides a brief description of the study approach used for each policy
focus area and the resulting attachments. Work program tasks accomplished during this phase
are shown in italics, while the remaining tasks will occur during Phase 3-Plan Development.
More detailed information relating to the focus area is contained in the appendix document. In
addition to the three questions poised earlier in this memo, the work in some policy focus areas
has surfaced additional key questions about how we approach future work that we would like the
TAB to consider. These questions are highlighted in each focus area.
Funding Focus Area.
Funding was identified as one of the four policy areas for the 2002 TMP update. Within the funding
area the following work program objectives for the Update were defined:
• Identify nationallinternational best practices;
■ Explore additional funding sources, including user pay systems based on use and impact;
■ Refresh plan costs and revenue;
■ Prioritize investments to a fiscally constrained and unconstrained program; and,
■ Address the financial responsibility of new development.
Currently, the TMP is not fully funded. Adequate funding will be necessary to support the programs
and investments that are and will be identified in the other focus areas of the TMP Update. Existing
funding will significantly limit the development of programs and facilities under a fiscally
constrained Update.
As part of Phase 2-Policy Refinement, efforts have focused on developing a foundation of
information of how the city currently finances transportation and possible tools to consider
augmenting or replacing our current practice. Phase 3-Plan Development efforts will build on this
foundation, integrating planned improvements with financing strategies to develop both a
constrained and unconstrained program for the updated plan.
To assist in the development of the Phase 2 products, a subcommittee of interested Study Committee
members was formed. Through a series of meetings and E-mail correspondence the finance
subcommittee helped review and shape these products.
The objectives of the funding focus area during Phase II include:
AGENDA ITEM # IV Page 3
■ Compile a comprehensive list of potential resources to be included in the funding toolkit;
■ Understand the merits, potential and limitations of each funding tool;
■ Develop evaluation criteria to select the best funding tools;
• Sort the funding toolkit to identify more and less likely techniques for application in Boulder,
and;
• Learn how Boulder's peer cities finance transportation.
Products included in this memo (Attachment A) are a one-page summary of current transportation
finance for the city of Boulder and a sorted list of potential finance tools organized into likely, less
likely and unlikely categories.
Supporting materials included in the appendix for this policy focus area (Appendix A) include an
evaluation matrix of major considerations relative to each technique, a comprehensive descriptive
inventory of transportation financing techniques, fatal flaw and screening criteria, and the peer city
research.
Multimodal Corridors Focus Area
The 10 multimodal corridors identified within the city of Boulder in the 1996 Transportation
Master Plan do not provide much guidance on how to implement or prioritize the development of
such corridors. The work effort in this focus area is directed at understanding the components
that are part of a successful multimodal corridor, how they contribute to that success, and where
opportunities exist for strategically improving the success of the corridors.
Within the multimodal corridors area the following work program objectives for the Update
include:
■ Inventory the multimodal corridors in the areas of transportation facilities or infrastructure,
land use, and corridor design.
• Develop an understanding of how factors in the areas of transportation facilities or
infrastructure, land use, and corridor design affect travel performance on the multimodal
corridors.
• Develop corridor improvements from a system approach to ensure that all the pieces work
together to maximize the transportation capacity of the corridor and that the future adjacent
land uses complement and support these investments.
• Clarify the relationship between the multimodal corridors and regional corridors in terms of
travel demand and planned improvements.
The objectives of the funding focus area during Phase H was to:
■ Develop corridor indicators that are relevant, easy to understand, reliable, easily accessible
and available. Indicator information will be collected for each corridor to develop
appropriate indicators in the areas of transportation facilities or infrastructure, land use, and
corridor design.
■ Define travel characteristics to document the current travel performance of each corridor.
• Establish correlations by comparing the potential indicator categories with actual travel
characteristics, and identify what indicators are the most important in predicting multimodal
AGENDA ITEM # IV Page 4
trip activity.
The attached maps (Attachment B) provide the results of the Phase 2 Multimodal Corridors
work effort. These maps contain information regarding each corridor's transportation facilities,
land use and design, and provide comparisons to current transportation performance. The
mapping legend is relatively simple where high ratings were given a green color, medium rating a
yellow and a low rating a red. The following provides a brief description of each map.
Multimodal Corridor Analysis Segments: This map presents the 10 transportation corridors and
the segments used for collecting and analyzing data. It should be noted that the corridor is not
simply the roadway that defines the corridor, but includes facilities, transit service, land use and
design which extends to'/a mile on either side of the corridor.
Facility Rating: This exhibit maps the pedestrian, bicycle and transit facilities of each corridor.
Pedestrian indicators include converge and density of sidewalks, and pedestrian level of service
for pedestrian directness, continuity and street crossings. The bicycle exhibit compiles indicators
of bike trail, lanes, routes and shoulders. The transit indicator map identifies transit service by
corridor based on buses per hour along the corridor. The composite map blends the three
alternative modes of pedestrian, bicycle, and transit. As can be seen on these exhibits, the
alternative mode facilities tend to be higher in the downtown area and less in the outlying areas
Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities and Performance: This exhibit includes the pedestrian and
bicycle facilities maps as presented above but adds the actual performance resulting from
pedestrian and bicycle usage. As can be seen in the comparison, there is a relatively strong
correlation between facilities and performance, whereas corridors that have higher level of
facilities tend to experience higher usage and vice versa for corridors with lower levels of
facilities.
Land Use: This map identifies by corridor segment where higher densities of dwelling units,
total employment and retail employment exist. This exhibit also includes a map of the composite
land uses indicating whether the corridor has a mix of uses or is more homogenous.
Land Use and Performance: Land uses and transportation has been sited as being strongly
correlated. In general, the Boulder indicator data confirms this correlation, where higher density
and a mix of uses to travel between correlate to pedestrian, bicycle and transit activity. Where
higher performance than the land use would suggest occurs along some of the outlying corridors,
it tends to correlate to regional travel.
Design and Performance: Transportation planners have promoted the importance of transit and
pedestrian-oriented design to encourage multimodal travel. To test this correlation, indicators of
building setback, tree canopy, integration of public sidewalk with development, porosity, and
visual interest and amenity were developed. Corridors identified as having higher design ratings
correlated well with the multimodal pedestrian, bicycle and transit performance.
Performance: This exhibit includes the performance of multimodal (bicycle and pedestrian) and
transit as previously presented, as well as performance for automobile. Automobile performance
was based on the average levels of service for the intersections along the corridor segment.
AGENDA ITEM # IV Page 5
Local and/or Regional Emphasis: As an exercise with the Multimodal Subcommittee, we asked
each member to rate how each corridor serves local and regional travel. This exhibit begins to
identify the travel emphasis and relationship between the multimodal and regional travel
corridors for the Phase 3 work effort.
Included in the Appendix is a summary matrix of multimodal corridor segments, ranked in the
four areas of transportation facilities or infrastructure, land use, corridor design and travel
performance. This table represents the aggregation of up to 12 indicators that were collected and
evaluated and compared to three performance areas. The analysis shows that there is significant
correlation between supportive land use, design and facilities and performance in the various
modes.
The research in multimodal corridors suggests that "one size does NOT fit all." The various
multimodal corridors differ both in the role they play in the community in terms of serving
regional and local trips, and in current and future surrounding land uses. While the multimodal
subcommittee believes that each corridor needs to accommodate all modes of travel, these
differences suggest that we may need to refine the way to accommodate the modes in each
corridor segment. For example, corridors like Foothills and the Diagonal serve largely regional
trips and have little pedestrian activity along them so there is little need for sidewalks along them
but a great need for pedestrian connections from transit stops to destinations on the corridors. In
a similar way, some corridor segments have land use patterns and designs today that do not
support high levels of transit service and appear to have little opportunity for change in land uses
within the planning period of this update. Transit service improvements on these corridors may
need to be more oriented to serving the regional travel that occurs on them than local travel. The
current TMP describes the multimodal corridors from a "one size fits all" perspective, while this
work suggests that there may be a different emphasis for different corridor and corridor
segments.
Key question: Does TAB agree that there are sufficient differences between the
corridors in terms of current and future land use, design and travel emphasis?
Does TAB agree that we should allow for a different emphasis on corridors or
corridor segments as we develop plan improvements in the next phase?
Regional Travel Focus Area
Significant current employment and future increases in employment with limited housing growth
in the city suggest increased commuting by employees from outside of Boulder. Regional travel
also presents a unique set of challenges since regional corridors depend on regional partners and
will likely be funded by outside funds. Regional connections are political and dependent on
other players such as RTD or CDOT, and depend on agreements with other municipalities.
Significant plans are in place on some corridors but other corridors have had little planning.
Consequently, the work in this focus area has centered on understanding the current situation and
yidentifying gaps in funding, partnerships or vision for the regional corridors. Future travel
demand is significant piece of information related to regional corridors. The results of the Jobs
to Population Balance project scenarios are needed to do the transportation modeling required.
AGENDA ITEM # IV Page 6
Within the regional travel area the following work program objectives for the Update include:
■ Identify which regional corridors are significant to city transportation efforts;
■ Characterize current conditions on these corridors in terms of existing facilities, planned
improvements, funding and partnerships;
■ Understand the demand for regional travel by incorporating the results of the Jobs to
Population Balance project;
■ Based on projected population and employment, and demographic characteristics, project
future travel demand for each corridor, modal characteristics of these trips, and the adequacy
of the existing and planned facilities and transit service.
• Characterize the likely impacts and identify potential improvements and funding strategies.
■ Prioritize these corridors for future focus and investment; and,
• Define the vision for the regional corridors, its relationship to the city's multimodal corridors
and our approach for achieving this vision.
The objectives of the regional focus area during Phase II include:
■ Evaluate Socio-economic Base Data and Projections by collecting updated information for
regional population, employment estimates, growth forecasts and demographics;
• Describe existing corridors and facilities, travel characteristics such as volumes, level of
service, etc., including local and regional transit service;
• Identify proposed improvements to the corridors, their schedule, cost and funding; and,
• Identify the existence of partnerships and visions for the regional corridors.
The attachment for this area (Attachment C) includes a map of the identified regional
connections and summary conditions (Existing Conditions and Corridor Performance), and a
series of maps displaying the projected growth in population and employment from the DRCOG
regional data sets (Existing and Future Socioeconomic Data in Regional Travelsheds). Included
in the Appendix is a summary matrix characterizing the status of the regional corridors relative
to current and planned improvements, their funding, funding strategy and partnerships. Included
in this matrix are the data items waiting on results from transportation modeling.
The analysis of regional connections highlights the role of the political process and our
neighboring communities in developing a vision for improvements on these corridors, and the
dependence we have on other players such as RTD or CDOT to fund and construct
improvements. Some corridors have received significant attention in recent years and have plans
and funding in place, while others have well-defined plans in place but lack funding. At the
other extreme, some corridors have received little to no attention. Given recent experience,
developing a regional vision for these corridors requires coalition-building that the city can
catalyze or facilitate but cannot do on its own.
TDM Focus Area
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) has been an integral part of Boulder's
transportation services for over 15 years, but this evaluation is aimed at broadening the various
AGENDA ITEM # IV Page 7
TDM strategies that can be deployed to help achieve Boulder's transportation goals and
objectives.
Within the TDM area the following work program objectives for the Update include:
■ Identify the universe of potential TDM measures;
■ Explore how TDM measures have been applied in communities with similar characteristics
to Boulder and how their experiences might apply to techniques that could be appropriate for
the city;
■ Translate national experience with TDM measures into potential Boulder effectiveness, based
on supporting transportation facilities, land use and design characteristics;
■ Analyze TDM applications for fatal flaws using criteria developed for Boulder, including
concerns such as cost effectiveness, equity and businesses impacts;
• Develop generalized TDM packages through the transportation strategies developed for the
Jobs to Population scenarios; and,
■ Refine TDM packages to specific measures through the plan development process.
The objectives of the TDM focus area during Phase II include:
• Develop a general community understanding of what TDM is, including the TDM
presentation as part of the Transportation in Boulder series;
• Develop a comprehensive list of potential TDM measures;
• Classify TDM strategies into general areas of application and apply general evaluation
criteria, including the implementer suitability, effects upon vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and
single-occupant vehicle (SOV) reduction, generalized opportunities and limitations, and cost
implications; and,
■ Present the experiences of other communities through the Peer Review Panel sessions with
staff, decision-makers and the public.
The attachment related to TDM (Attachment D) includes a TDM Quick Primer outlining what
TDM is, how it is used, and general ideas of effectiveness in reducing single-occupant vehicle
trips nationwide.
Included in the Appendix is a comprehensive list of TDM strategies and five flowcharts of TDM
strategy packaging. The TDM Detailed Matrix ("Draft Transportation Demand Management
Strategies for Consideration") is a detailed examination of each strategy, its implementation
environment, general opportunities and limitations. The Evaluation Matrix ("Draft TDM
Screening Matrix") offers an initial screening of TDM strategies for Boulder, organized in a
"Consumer Reports"-like approach to evaluation. The various TDM strategies are organized in
the two Matrices by the following categories:
• Modal Promotion Strategies
• Efficiency Strategies
■ Financial Incentives
• Pricing Strategies
• Facility / Land Use / Transit Oriented Development Strategies
■ Implementation Options
AGENDA ITEM # IV Page 8
The five flowcharts of TDM strategy packaging provide an illustrative approach to combining the
TDM strategies in the Detailed Matrix to affect modal change.
BOARD ACTION REQUESTED:
The TAB is asked to provide their review and input to the Phase 2 materials and respond the
questions raised by this work.
Attachments:
A- Funding Policy Focus
Transportation Finance in the City of Boulder - 2002
Preliminary Selection of Financial Tools
B- Multimodal Policy Focus
Multimodal Corridor Analysis Segments
Facility Rating
Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities and Performance
Land Use
Land Use and Performance
Design and Performance
Performance
Local and/or Regional Emphasis
C- Regional Travel Policy Focus
Regional Travel and Connections- Existing Conditions and Corridor Performance
Existing and Future Socioeconomic Data in Regional Travelsheds
D- TDM Policy Focus
TDM Quick Primer Draft
TDM Screening Matrix
Appendix
Transportation Revenues and Expenditures in Boulder
Screening Criteria for Selecting Financial Tools for 2002 Boulder Transportation Plan Update
List of Potential Finance Tools to Support the 2002 Boulder Transportation Plan Update
Summary of Finance Tools to Support the 2002 Boulder Transportation Master Plan Update
Transportation Finance: Peer City Review
City of Boulder Transportation Plan Update - Multimodal Corridors
Boulder TMP Update - Regional Travel and Connections
Transportation Demand Management Strategies for Consideration
Five Flowcharts of TDM Strategy Packaging for Walking, Bicycle, Multimodal, Ridesharing and
Telework
AGENDA ITEM # IV Page 9
Attachn1ent A
Funding policy Focus
Transportation Finance in the City of Boulder- 2002 Approved
ReeNvss Thees Revenues Transportation Fund
$o.s%Sels Tax Sources of Funds: $23,860,000 Provides TFrees SSryices
S Assessment Reranus Operating Uses of Funds: $16,220,000 J Menages transportation & TDM progrems
$ CRy-Auto RegistrNicn Fees Capital Uses of Funds: $10.070.000 J Maintain roads 8 bikeways
$ HUTF; State/Federal Relmbumement. J CoaRintda made and bikeways
$ County Road& Badge Furl Total Uses of Funds: $26,290.000 J Funds the City's share of Ecopss
Transportation Development Fund
Receives TMSe rNwnuea Sources of Funds: $1,460,000 Praad" These 6arvlus
S Trengodatbn Fxdse Tax Operating Uses of Funds: $290,000 / Ctratnrds iranepoaadon inprovementa
$ Interest Income Capital Uses of Funds; $1.seo.0o0 caused by new grmAh and financed with
$ Reimbureemerfa Total Funds: am" in ravens
Pmelws Thaw Revem»a CAGID Manfred Area General Imo. Dtildd)
$ Property/Speclflc Ownership Tax Sources of Funds: $1,820,000 Provld" These Services
$ Shod -ten n, Long-term Fees Operaing Uses of Furls: $2,280,000 J Op4ets 8malntais structures and lots
$ Meterhoods & Tokens Debt & Transient out; J Maintains Melt
$ cartel Income, udast Total Uses of Funds: $4,900,000 J ~PakiAoegramure debt
S General Fund Treater
RertNVes These Revenues UHG1D University Hills General imp Dlslrw
$ Propeny/specific Ownerehlp Tex Sources of Funds: $380.000 Provides Thm Servluea
S Lm Revenues Operating Uses: $310,000 J Operates and maintains parking iota
$ Melerhoods 8 Tokens Transfers Out: $2= J Ec Jom Program
$ General Fund Transfer Total Uses of Funds: $330.000
$ Interest
Forest Glen Transit Pass General ImprolramsM
Rauives These Revenues Dletrkt Rarldes These Seryius
$ Property Taws J Dlstdbuts Ecoloasss wshin Forest Glen
$ ECO Pass Subsidy Sources of Funds: $9,000 bghppd to residents
i&ft* Operating Uses: $9,000
$Admbuslretye
Dent and Transfers Out $0
Taal Uses of Furls: $9,000
Spacial Transit
Recalws These Revenues Parstransit Operating Expenditures $1,020,038 RaII servi
It Clns and Counties HOP Operating Expenditures (1.719.000 J MS Tepadal Thesrensnes$aMs
$Federel BSt Total $2,738,035 J BoulderCOurty Aoossa-Ride
$ Boulder 8 Lorimer Title III Grails Grants ces
III J HDP
$ Contracts: ADA Medicaid, Care Link J call and Rids
$ United Way, A$ DernerB Boulder ADA Contracts
General Fund - Parking & Traffic Entlam sit
Recelws These Trenseortsdaa Traffic Enforcement $15000 Prorld"The Transoortedw Said
Flowareast J Parking whorcernent
a Specific Ownership Texas Photo Enforcernellt $672,000 J Traffic enforcement
$ On-Street Paddrg Meter Parking Enforcement $413.000
Revenues Total Enforcement $2.600.000
Replonal Transit DlstdN (M
ltaedves These Revenues Sources of Funds $13,022,231 Provides The" Services
$ Saks lax collected in Boulder Operating Uses; $rna J Regional and local bs service in Boulder
$ Farebox revenues collected In Boulder Debt & Transfers Out:
.lS
Total Uses of Funds: $na
University of Colorado -
RecakwaThese TransitRevertus Studem& FaeuitV EeoPsss (2001) Provides These Transit 11",o"
$ Faculty hom awdsm Student Passes purchased from RTD $1,007,244 J Pumhss EcoPasaee o-om RTO aatl
$ Fewlty purchases Faculty Passes purchased from the RTD Sm. dremmrtes tonudeme and iacudy.
Total purchases $1,308,244
Private Business Investment - ECOPass (20011
Receives These Resenuee Business Purchases from the RTD $898,000
$ RTD repays funds for ueeekam Note: This MIUdeS CU Facul Prurkdse Those Services
IMINdual usl Wensss ry' J dndWS EOaPesea to employes
$ Cityprovids start -rip financaal suppod (1s employers: 16.9&4 employes)
Noiyhborhood Investment - Embla - 2001
Eed Passes purchased by Neighborhoods $167,000 Provides These Services
$ Neighborhoods purchase EcoPass
from RTD J Distributes EcoPs rss to participating
S City provides area -up financial support residents In neighborhoods
Boulder Transit Village -2002
Resehres The" Revenrme RTD - For land Acquisition $2,800,000 Provides These Services
$ RTD Gram Revenue from Foothills park-n-Ride disposal 11,2{,10,
$ City Housing ng Fund J Purcha" 11 acres for de.Wopmam of
Total $3,700,000 Boulder Transit Village
PRELIMINARY SELECTION OF FINANCIAL TOOLS
Likely to Be Unlikely to be Fatal Flaw -
Transportation Finance Tool Considered T Considered Discarded
Further Further
FEDERAL, STATE & COUNTY
1. TEA-21 Surface Trans. Program
2. TEA-21 Transportation Enhancements
3. TEA-21 Congestion Mitigation
4. TEA-21 Urbanized Area Formula Grant ok RTD
5. TEA-21 New Starts 'k RTD
6. TEA-21 Value Pricing
7. TEA-21 Formula Grants -Elderly/ Disabled 0;1~ Special Transit
8. Land & Water Conservation Fund tm minimal $
9. State Highway Users Trust Fund
10. TABOR Growth Dividend
11. Dedicated Revenue Source: Transit vo
12. Colorado Conservation Trust Fund
13. State Trails Program
14. Motor Fuel Tax (wholesale)
15. Motor Vehicle Registration Fee
16. Regional Transportation District
17. County Road & Bridge Fund &1c
18. Specific Motor Vehicle Ownership Tax
19. New Wheels Motor Vehicle Reg. Fee. fa minimal $
20. Sales Tax for Mass Transit
CITY TAXES & DEBT
21. Property Tax within districts
22. Sales Tax
23. Motor Vehicle Sales & Use Tax
24. Use Tax 04
25. Accommodations Tax 5k
26. Development Excise Tax Ik
27. Project Investment Fee ~k
28. Tax Increment Financing
29. Head Tax
30. Motor Fuel Tax (retail) ~a
31. Transportation Utility Fee ?
32. Peak Period Pricing (Tolls)
33. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Fee
34. Vehicle Hours Traveled (VHT) Fee
35. Vehicle Performance Fee
DRAFT PRINTED oN 6/28/2002 - PAGE 1 of 3
PRELIMINARY SELECTION OF FINANCIAL TOOLS
Likely to Be Unlikely to be Fatal Flaw -
Transportation Finance Tool Considered Considered Discarded
Further Further
36. Off-Street Parking Space Fee
37. On-Street Parking Fee
38. Peak Period Parking Fee
39. Bicycle Fee @k minimal $
40. Toll on Roads
41. Advertising 06 minimal $
42. Cost-Effective Actions ft
REGULATORY TOOLS
43. Annexation Agreements ~a
44. Zoning Ordinance; Subdivision Regulations
45. Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance
DISTRICTS AUTHORITIES, UTILITIES & INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTS
46. Business Improvement District k
47. Special Improvement District kk
48. General Improvement District
49. Metropolitan District
50. Transportation Utility
51. Trans. Management Associations 96
52. Intergovernmental Agreement 04
53. Rural Transportation Authority 9k
54. Regional Service Authority
PUBLIC / PRIVATE VENTURES
55. City Contribution to Districts 4~
56. Joint Development 91?
57. Sale/Leaseback
58. Lease/Purchase &k
59. Subsidies & Incentives ~i
NONPROFIT VENTURES
60. Private Non-Profit Foundation
61. Homeowners Associations 4?
62. Civic Association
63. 63-20 Corporation
64. Neighborhood Investment (EcoPass)
PRIVATE & INSTITUTIONAL INVESTMENT
65. Const. of Imp.: Developer's Share
DRAFT PRINTED ON 6/28/2002 - PAGE 2 OF 3
PRELIMINARY SELECTION OF FINANCIAL TOOLS
Likely to Be Unlikely to be Fatal Flaw -
Transportation Finance Tool Considered Considered Discarded
Further Further
66. Conw. of Imp.: Cost Participation
67. Right of Way Dedication
68. Vol. Easements and Land Dedication
69. Tax-Generating Development
70. Business Investment(EcoPass)
71. University of Colorado (EcoPass)
DRAFT PRINTED ON 6/28/2002 - PAGE 3 OF 3
Attachment B
F
1Vlultimodal vo , QCUs
Multimodal Corridor Analysis Segments
I _
Iris Ave/
rI
Diagonal HWIY
1 i J 1
28th IStI
I
..a US 36 Il.r z i, RN~I,v t,llh 11 r ~/I.
i
f I
i
r,' I ~ ~j d 3 ~ I
I
Valmont I
Balsam.
Peary Pkwy
IN
LL Arapahoe Ave
r f
ey LO
al ne Rd t
~V
,
r
i
,
Mesa t $ i~~r Rd
l
NOTE: Corridors include `
the area 1/4 mile on either
side of roadway which is ~shown in gray.; ,
® 3000 0 3000 Feet C A
Facility Rating
y
Me Ave I
p
kqo DMp
r i Ones
I
11 ZlfhBH~., 2WI~• e:, 1 ~
I i:f
1 i
tT~
wIn1eY1t!
I j,.1: I 11 ~11110PYtI
:
, Pearl Pkwy 4
~TI
I
I
Mapahoe Aw
r~lrm.
I r.
I,
BwllneRd J r ~Ilnoe!
4
Rd. • 6SBoukWRd
Pedestrian ~I Bicycle
bu &W
bU Ave]
Dlopornl H Dk+pomd H
E. I. k~ i ~ R]rtr
l i
l "I ' y~ ) I,
,
2Mh!w"•` a.• ~r If `nT~\ )I;~~f `.4 4M 6t( 24
~ rlt~~i,lI
J J
Ar"
. I
I BYlsam
F
earl Pkwy PaM Pkwy
`t Iloa Ale -
BaeNne' . Sanline Rd
,
r
8 -
w Rd - " Rd
1:,S SoLO 40
i.
~i
w
`x I
Composite
Transit
Facility Rating Medium
5000 0 5000 Feet #VHigh Low Medium
® Medium High N Low L S
r
p fonnance r
and pe
and Bicycle Facilities ed ►
striae
e
DINOrml
WIS Avd N
DbpoMl H
I s ~ I. Gy
2M'Stl v
~J I ~ I
20
ValmohU
PsrrlPkwY
k~
ArgpehooAVG
I
tt line Rd
5.NIlfifRd ti t. I hS ~
I ~ I t 'i I I x
Bicycle -
Facilities
Pedestrian, v~ 0.4
Facilities
oloor~~I H~Yy
I r 4~
I r
li 2Mk!~ 5 i Il.y
us 36 HaYnordl7°W::x t
` Pyrl ft"
I ,
p,tiPaha Aw
I
I'
line Rd
I I
T ~ Wsa i S 944ldK Rd _ `
:L
tall,
Mltimodal
M performance 3
ce Rating
Facility and Perfornlan Medium A
& Low Medium L S
5ooo Feet Medium High " Low
m 5000 •
X
Land Use
~ ~
Irk AvN :a
Dkpoml H Dkponsl
cy r ~ J. ~3 H" I-.
L
4Sfh.Stl
,
I - • -r
. h I h~s i u 1 i
:3 rA
, b
{
C a ° bakam
2
ArapolwAw ~
sm ino
~S WMRd.
TAWo Maa LS Boulder Rd LW"
I
Dwelling
Unit Employmen
Dense Density
1.n ~ca
" buAmw
Dkpno Dkpond H"
I 'S9
H•
u.
Z
r... 7 f 4
7i ~ u
m d
lab a I i ~ If, , f I ~
r ~ ~ r I l Vd Flu '
r'.
t • sr
S°~
i
,
r . . Y~nOM ~ , ~ _ a r
I Vakroid
f
I,
I - ~ ~ i Bdsam
J
Purl Pkwy .
IL AnpuhwMrl,.;
~J
,f SWYn~'R r~, ,t,b r 111
BaallnrRtl
~Lr
k ns ,8 B u1Nr Rd , Tobig Mesa 18 Boulder Rd
um I
Retail 4 ~ I r `t
I,
Employment
Dense w Composite
Land Use Rating: Density and Mix
N Medium High Low ® 5000 0 5000 Feet - Medium High N Low Medium I C A
Land Use and Performance
` nit Avd
%I Dinano H"
2111n Isti
1
~Or
vannontl,
• j~.ji + ~ BYlwn -ut
+ ,d
PMrI Pb"
Bowline Rd
I.
Table Mw 18 Boulder Rd
I
composite A '
Land Use ,
4
ti
H" ` MS D onal Ave/
~
D ia) WY
ILI
l
+
28th 8tl
U8 b8 + ; - ~ Ise
I I
w
i
vaM
fq~ y )ZI', j..
,
am P"
P"A ft"
**Shoo AV* NIPOM Ave
+
pn~ Rd Baaelln► Rd ! 1
TPble Mesa 18 Boulder Rd TeWe Mesa 68 Boulder Rd
+
Multimodal Transit
,a
Performan Performance
ce'
Land Use and Performance Rating
Medium
5000 0 5000 Feet N High Low Medium
Medium L S A
® High N Low
Design and Performance
Diagonal
F
e`ai~" a'-t
Vannont/,
Salawn a_
~I
l k s .
h- A-
VlK4L
a ~ ' ~ BUNIrr Rd ' j t
Mas~ls Rd
r' la
TL
r I I.
i
Design'
i
Irls w .wr.r r
j DIWnel Haq, Dbgorm Hwy ~
Y 1, I ~
x'
2M'St.,..b
U8
36
r
I: k
; a
Vaknont l
k-
Salem
.
i t
PNrI Pkwy MN PNYry
I
hoe Aft
~~A
Ba1wIlnrRd
ellna'Rd
TaWe M"a I s Boulder Rd
7
7~b1e Irfaaa I; 8 Boulder Rd -1 ii Multimoda~ Transit
Performance Performance
Design and Performance Rating
Medium
5000 0 5000 Feet Afffigh Low Medium
=Mae Medium High N Low L S A
®
Performance
tit
c No Ave/
Diagonal Hwy
29th ISti"
us;* P.. r rl it
I `
4 14
+ Wit/,, ; n
` ~ elnq~aliw Aw
r
Tahla Mw 1.8 Boulder Rd
r°
Automobile'
Ne AvN
Irt. ears
Diagonal Hwy
Olegonal Hwy
r
nth
VY~
U34 30
s nr $ SS
LJ I I d
,
I
~ ~ r N
VaYtlOnt/1' 1/*jnaM/
9
a_
t
balsam
PAarl
~ . , May OW Pkwy
Arapahoe Ave i Arapahoe Am
.
Rd
on Bri
gllne Rd `
TaWs Mesa / S eoaldx Rd Table Mess / S Boulder Rd {
MultiMO&I, , J .
(Bicycle and t
Pedestsnan Transit
Performance Rating
N Medium
® 5000 0 5000 Feet ffigh ~ LoLOW w Medium
Medium High
Local and/or Regional Emphasis
*
I
4,y'. I i t. I i
I ~ ~ I
II ~i
a Iris Ave/
Diagonal H
3 .II
h
0
28th , ~ . . I
I I ~
I l I I 1 I I r ,
US 36
f r ~ ~
I „
M.
W,
3Imont /
Balsam
t
I
k
4earl Pkwy
do ,
O
Arapahoe Ave
W,
dMW,
G
yI~ I
1 1 li ~ I _ ~ , r,
Be" "e.Bd
i
j
1
y ,
r i _ I I r e 1 I
I\ I
,
I
Fable Mesa IS Boulder Rd
r
U
6
Il ,
G ~f p
Emphasis Location Rating Local and Regional
® 3000 0 3000 Feet Local Regional With Some Local
Local With Some Regional N Regional L S A
Attachment C
Regional Travel Policy Focus
Boulder TMP Update - Regional Travel and Connections
Existing Conditions and Corridor Performance ION
0 To Lyons,
Z Estes Park qOWy 43,300
W iWW 632
M
N Medium To Longmont,
n High North Front Range
12,700
Mi* 62
- ~ ilicdl~wa
Low
'diW# 1 No service To Frederick, Firestone,
~ No Se
j` North Front Range
Low-Medium
19 VA Lew SH52
k Lookout Rd. To Weld County
.6ijo 10,000
^s No Service
y > Law
Low
Valmont Dr.
- r _ ,0► To Erie
Y /c 411W Mo service
~ I
r
Medium
- . s
Low
.006, 91800 j✓l_ L -1 t7,SY0
ONO F
352
Y -
~ey ww -1- 1,687
GLOM -illei~iirr►- X^,YY 1 I F 1'' LOMB
High Arapahoe Rd. To Lafayette
SH 119
Oil Nk
Boulder ,Y 364
Canyon Dr. Medium
~ ~ Baseline Rd. Medium To Lafayette
V
r
To Nederland
To Lafayette,
x' T h ` S. Boulder Rd. Brighton
25,100
h oft 1,656
High
Medium
Gs,
so
LEGEND 41h
rliiib. sl,ooo
ogjj4p Average daily traMc YUM iO 6,576
Lovp4li edGpw
Average daily transit ridership
Nigh
on routes serving corridors
Bicycle mode share To Broom1'
ield
Level of formal coordination with t~ Westminster,
connecting communities 0) gam, 20,000 Denver Metro Area
JOB* 355
Low
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 b Low
Mies L C A Mies To Golden,
J " June 28, 2002 Jefferson County
Boulder TMP Update - Regional Travel and Connections
Existing and Future Socioeconomic Data in Regional Travelsheds
r r I ~ I ,
4 ,Ji.
r '
I-~ " ' ' •r~t . ' " 200 Households
I , 1 , I ' ~ti, • '„t~ I 1 r " 11 ;yf,1 j~'• h . I
U e rd i f f t I'
,y
I
14
, 1 I A ILA I ~ f i I'
I
,
'ill . t~~ .~•J4 ' S/ A
• f I a• I~~A w r t , i i f ,'K
.y t I A
2001 2025 Difference
.
+
96
• • tiw•• • ~ ' • r.• • . 200 Employees
WOW M t:•
` Legend
. AT
0
Y 1:J Regional Connection
M
E - • : ' • , s; ' . Regional Travelshed
N •f e• R.` • • ~ti js • "i •
T 0 5 10
r f Miles
a 1~
. S ~1
y e • • aw• June 24, 2002 L
Attachment D
TDM Policy Focus
CITY OF BOULDER
Transportation Demand
Management (TDM)
Transporta*n Master Plan Quick Primer
Why Transportation Demand Management (TDM)?
Travel issues in Boulder cannot be solved solely by expansions in infrastructure - be it roads,
buses, or other similar services. Simply providing options is the start of the process; developing
a desire to use the services is the logical next step to truly begin to manage traffic in Boulder.
TDM endeavors to influence travel decisions by providing a menu of travel options to all types of
travelers. A combination of financial incentives, cost savings, education, pricing, and travel
services (such as transit), presented as an integrated TDM program, gives drivers a reason to
use a different way to travel.
What is TDM?
TDM is a set of strategies for managing the demand placed on the transportation system. It is a
term that has been applied to a range of actions that are directed at encouraging the use of all
travel options. TDM is not providing actual facilities or infrastructure (such as bus stations,
roads, new bus routes, etc.), but rather, enhancing and managing the use of existing and new
infrastructure investments.
TDM supports the use of core alternative transportation modes:
• Carpooling: two or more people traveling in a car
• Vanpooling: eight to 15 people traveling in a van
• Transit: promotion of transit services through TDM
• Bicycling and Walking
• Teleworking: working from home and teleconferencing
What are TDM strategies?
TDM strategies, such as parking management, rideshare matching, marketing and promotions,
incentives and subsidies, and other services, are used to extend the effectiveness of the core
modal strategies. For example, financial incentives can be used to encourage vanpooling at a
particular worksite or area. The use of support strategies can double, triple, quadruple, and in
some cases, quintuple the effectiveness of the core TDM strategy, depending upon the exact
package of strategies.
TDM strategies include:
• Parking management and parking fees
• Employee Transportation Coordinators at area employers
• Rideshare matching
• Incentives and subsidies
• Marketing and promotions
• Guaranteed Ride Home
• Intelligent Transportation Systems
• On-site Information and Amenities
• TDM-friendly site design
TrnnsporWon D•m od Wnnpement (TDIQ
Qok:k Prlmx 1
CITY OF BOULDER TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE
TDM strategies manage the demand for transportation infrastructure and the use of modal
options by using potential positive and negative incentives:
Possible Incentives and Strategies to Manage Modal Use
Positive Incentives Negative Incentives
Bike / Transit Integration Carsharing Fuel Tax increase
Commuter Benefits Flexible Work Schedules Parking Pricing / Management
Location Efficient Mortgages New Urbanism Road Pricing
Park-n-Rides Pay-as-you-drive Insurance Vehicle Use Restrictions
Bike/ Walking Improvements Ridesharing
School Trip Management Shuttle Services
Marketing Telework Promotion
Transit Enhancements Site Design
Transit Oriented Development
I
How effective can TDM be in reducing the number of those who drive alone?
Each TDM strategy has its own inherent opportunities and limitations. In general, TDM
strategies complement each other - for example, parking management helps encourage all core
TDM options. In some situations, support strategies will only aid a few core TDM strategies.
Generally, TDM effectiveness can be summarized by the application of packages (per worksite).
These are national effectiveness averages, as estimated by a reduction in single-occupant
vehicle use per worksite in favor of the selected mode. Generally, packages are not cumulative,
as the various TDM strategies employed at different levels of implementation will be somewhat
repetitious. However, economies of scale also will enhance complementary modes.
j Mode Basic Enhanced Aggressive Mode Basic Enhanced Aggressive
Carpooling 1-5% 3-12% 15-25% Vanpooling 1-2% 2-3% 5-10%
Transit TDM 14% 4-6% 7-15% Bike I Walk 1-2% 2-6% 4-9%
Telework 5-10% 7-20% 15-25%
i
Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
Quick Primer 2
Tl T 1 LPDATE Boulder Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
Strategies and Program Options
Transportation Master Plan Evaluation of TDM Strategies (DRAFT - June 28, 2002)
Draft TDM Screening Matrix -
X Marginal Fair - " B~ O Bast
Bicycling promotion Modal Promotion Strategies Bicycling • . .
Bicycle riders guide Modal Promotion Strategies Bicycling •
Bicycle users group Modal Promotion Strategies Bicycling X • All,
`
Bike station Medial Promotion Strategies Bicycling X Ak Bike to Work Day(Week) Modal Remotion Strategies Bicycling •
Carpool promotion Modal Promotion Strategies Carpools
General marketing Modal Promotion Strategies ALL
Modal commuter orientation Modal Promotion Strategies ALL _ - • • X
Special events Modal Promotion Strategies ALL - -
Telecenter creation Modal Promotion Strategies Telemrk X _ X X
Telework promotion Modal Promotion Strategies Telemrk X AS • A& • •
Transit promotion Modal Promotion Strategies Transit • • • • •
Transit riders guide Modal Promotion Strategies Transit • • •
Vanpool promotion Modal Promotion Strategies Vanpools • • • -
Showers and Lockers Facilities Modal Promotion Strategies Bicycling - ` •
Advanced Traveler Information Efficiency Transit; Carpools; -
Systems Efficiency Strategies Vanpools: Telework
Alternative Work Arrangements Efficiency Strategies Support
X X •
Page i of 3
Boulder Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
PDATE Strategies and Program Options
Transportation Master Plan Evaluation of TDM Strategies (DRAFT - June 28, 2002)
Bikes on Buses promotion Efficiency Strategies Bicycling; Transit •
Compressed Work Weeks Efficiency Strategies Support x • • A&
Employee Transportation Efficiency Strategies ALL • •
Coordinators
Freight management Efficiency Strategies Indirect x x x
Tourist trip management Efcumey Strategies Indirect • x
Transportation Allowance Financial Incentives ALL 0 - x
Carshanng Financial Incentives Indirect •
Commuter Club Financial Incentives ALL Ak A& x
Free bus passes Financial Incentives Transit Free bicycle accessories Financial Incentives Bicycling x x t x
Guaranteed Ride Home Financial Incentives ALL •
Parking cash out Financial Incentives ALL • . x
Taxation incentives Financial Incentives Vanpools. Transit Aft Am . • i -I Aft
Vanpool empty seat subsidy Financial Incentives Vanpools Aft Am Ak • x
Vanpool subsidy Financial incentives Vanpools A Ah A& x
Bike Loan Program Financial Incentives Bicycling
Cordon pricing Pricing Strategies Indirect
• • X x
Parking fees Pricing Strategies Indirect • • • •
Pay-as-yeuyo vehicle insurance Pelting Strategies Indirect Ak • • x
Page 2 of 3
P Boulder Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
M FATE Strategies and Program Options
Transportation Master Plan Evaluation of TDM Strategies (DRAFT - June 28, 2002)
Roadway pricing Pddng Strategies Indirect r • • X X X
Access management Facility I Land Use/TOD Indirect •
Bicycle Racks and Lockers Facility I Land Use I TOD Bicycling •
Clustered parking Facility I Land Use I TOD Indirect
Commuter Store Facility I Land Use I TOD ALL '
priority Occupancy Vehicle(HOV) Facility I Land Use I TOD Transit, Carpool., •
Incidental Use Parking Facility I Land Use I TOD ALL • •
Onsiteamenities Facility Land Us. lTOD indirect X ` 0 •
Parking management Facility I Land Use I TOO Indirect -
Parking maximum rabas Facility / Land Use I TOD Indirect _ • -
Preferential parking Facility I Land Use I TOD Carpools, Vanpools • •
Protected pedestrian I bicycle Facility / Land Use I TOD Walking, Bicycling • . • -
comdors
TOM Friendly Site Design Facility/Land Use I TOD ALL - • •
Unbundled parking leases Facility I Land Use I TOD Indirect • _
Page 3 of 3
Appendix
Appendix
TRANSPORTATION REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES in BOULDER
The intent of the two graphs and spreadsheets below are to summarize total revenues generated and
total expenditures made on transportation services and improvements in Boulder in 2002 from all
sources. (Substantially more detail is available.) The revenue sources include the City, Transit
Services, businesses and CU purchases of EcoPasses and the RTD. 1
REVENUE
City Transportation and RTD
Sales & Use Tax
49%
RTD Cash Farebox
4%
Federal & State Grants
11%
Private Contributions, Earned,
& Miscellaneous
3%
Property Tax
6%
Service Contracts
8%
Fees & Fines
19%
REVENUES
SOURCE REVENUE % OF TOTAL
City Transportation and RTD Sales & Use Tax $26,064,300 49%
RTD Cash Farebox $1,953,331 4%
Federal & State Grants $5,817,501 11%
Property Tax $3,108,500 6%
Fees & Fines $10,271,744 19%
Service Contracts $4,481,231 8%
Private Contributions, Earned, & Miscellaneous $1,713,956 3%
Total $53,410,563 100%
Regarding the RTD, total RTD sales and use tax generated within the City of Boulder is assumed to equal total
services provided by RTD in Boulder. RTD farebox revenues generated in Boulder have not been received and are
assumed to be 15% of service.
Expenditures summarized below include capital, operations, maintenance, enhancements, and
services related to bicycle, roads, transit, pedestrian, TDM, intermodal and mitigation programs.
EXPENDITURFS
Bicycle
7% Interrrmodal Center-Transit
Village
7%
Transit M,tigation
1%
32%
Parking
8%
Pedestrian
11°/
TDM - &-oPess, etc.
6%
Roads
28%
EXPENDITURES
SOURCE EXPENDITURES 1% OF TOTAL
Bicycle $3,773,643 7%
Intermodal Center - Transit Village $3,700,000 7%
Mitigation $704,394 1%
Parking $4,368,200 8%
Pedestrian $5,675,765 11%
Roads $15,079,042 28%
TDM - EcoPass, etc. $3,360,801 6%
Transit - Paratransit $1,020,035 2%
Transit - All Other $15,426,337 29%
Total $53,108,217 100°%
SCREENING CRITERIA FOR SELECTING FINANCIAL TOOLS
FOR 2002 BOULDER TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE
(Criteria are in general tiority order within each category.)
CONSIDER THESE CRITERIA
Good Don't Eliminate
Criterion Considered Fatal Flaw Criterion this
Criterion but Not know at Criterion
Fatal Flaw this time
A. FINANCIAL / ADMINISTRATIVE CRITERIA
1. Raises substantial revenue. O
2. Generates a predictable revenue stream. O
3. Proven technique in Boulder. O
4. Administratively easy to implement. El
5. Net revenues are not cost effective; poor return. O
6. Can be used to leverage other funds. O
7. Easy to change rates. O
8. Proven technique in Colorado. O
9. Proven technique in US. O
B. EQUITY / INCIDENCE
1. Supports mode shift objectives of TMP. O
2. Supports City goals.
3. Avoids unintended consequences, such as O
discouraging transit ridership.
4. Environmentally just. El
5. S/he who benefits pays. El
6. Does not place Boulder businesses and institutions at 0
an undue competitive disadvantage.
7. Imposed on more than City residents, property
owners and businesses. (e.g., can be imposed on O
commuters, visitors, other cities
8. Uses incentives; is not unitive.
9. Minimizes impact on limited income households; 0
tax/fee is progressive, not regressive.
C. POLITICAL /LEGAL PROCESS
1. Potential political acceptance. 0
2. Simple; easy to understand. O
3. Does nQt require voter approval. O
4. Allowed under State statutes. O
5. Avoids opposition by signaling out some one or some O
o aniryation.
6/28/2002
SUMMARY OF FINANCE TOOLS TO SUPPORT THE 2002 BOULDER TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE T M PDATE
Transportation Master Plan
APPLICABILITY TO 2002 TRANSPo. INCIDENCE & EQUITY LEGAL & ADMINISTRATION BENEFITS & LIMITATIONS
NAME DESCRIPTION MASTER PLAN UPDATE CONSIDERATIONS CONSIDERATIONS APPLIED ELSEWHERE QUANTIFICATION
FEDERAL, STATE AND COUNTY
(hdemll.Srare) Under T EA-21, the Colorado Department of'] ransportation ((:DO 1) CDOI uses a portion of these funds for priority star, federal funding for this and nthcr'I
I,A 21 '1'1 \-21 has authonzed funding for a six-) car phis is a national prngram with a + llhcn (DO 'I sponsors a project, only In I Y 21X)2, there were two DR(XX;'I I P
1. Transportation receives formula-based funds for roads, hedges and safety highway improvements. Another Portion, "small projects is primanly from the federal motor
Period (I Y 1999 through I Y 2(X(3) Funds char f,mtuls-driven alh,cition among federal and state funds arc used When a projects in the City of Boulder on U'S 16
Equity Act for the 21" improvements match these revenues on a 80/211(federal/state) bests urban projects° funds, is distributed to mcuv(rditnn fuel its, Su 19 4 per
gallon ofgnwhnc and arc allocated to each State and metropolitan States project is funded through DRCOG, then totaling $1,39301X1 including $159,1 fit i in
Century (TEA-21) CDO'I must divide 511", of these funds (afterset -asides for safety and planning organization (MPO) for further disterbution $1.244 per gallon of diesel.
planning organizations are set by federal funding there is a small local grnvemment match that local (City) fund,_
enhancements) by population between areas of 21x1,01111 or more and by project formula. typically ranges between 7`1. and IS"t` 20113, , the
DRCOG 111' includes four
the remainder of the state For the remainder of.S1P funds, (:DO I' federal and state funds arc used to finance In rood FY 2o(0 tiro reconstruction projects
in the City
TEA-21 /CDOT establishes expenditure targets (fiscal constraints) for each For ISindder, the MPO is the Denver Regional Council these project,. The
volume of funding to the State and the Boulder that total $4,910,11111), including
transportation region. of Governments (DRCOG). Boulder competes with Denver metropolitan region is predictable
Surface Treatment $664,1X111 local ((:ity) match. 'Ihesc are SI I
other jurisdictions to get projects it wants on the No local participation is required for Pmjcu, for the duration of'I'FA-21- 93:. Broadway Baseline, US
16 (28a St) at Ins
Program Within each transportation region, project prionties are established I)RCOG Transportation Improvement Plan (IlP), sponsored by C.D0l; some local ptniopanon,
through a process that involves CIX)'I', and the Metropolitan Planning which then gross into the Srate'fnnsprrtation Plan topically less than 15",,, is often required f it
Avenue (SD 119); SI 193/S1 17 Oiroidway)
2 Limited range of chgnblr project. from University to fine and US 36 (2H'" St
)
Otgxnizanons, such as the Denser Regional Council of Governments (S'llh). Ten percent of the Surface Treatinent Program projects pnonti.ed by DRCOG if thet ire to
Arapahoe Ave. to Boulder SCTitle 49, 3eaioa Pani
(DRCOG). Projects are compiled into the Statewide Transportation funds arc earmarked for "transportation mesons approval for inclusion in the 'I I I' and -
Future federal funding is una•nain;'I'f'A-21
1108) Improvement Program (.Sri,,,), enhancements " (Sec Wow.) S1IP. ends in fiscal year 21)(13
(l-'ederull.Slule) Under']'I.A-21,111"'" of the Surface'I'reatment Program revenues must Frihancement funds may be used for bicycle and Federal and state funds are used to
finance I ands to the Stare are establmhed by federal This is a national program. that is a - 'there is significant competition for funds at In I Y 211112 in the (.try
of Boulder, there was
be set aside for transportanon enhancements, which include facilities pedestrian path improvements and street-related these projects. These revenues ate pnncipall)'
funding formula SC rthin Colorado, funds subset of the Surfice'I'ransporition the metropolitan level.. one enhancement project, R'ondedand Creek
2. TEA-21 CDOT for pedestnans and bicycles, scenic easements, landscaping, and other landscapmg, and other similar projects. from federal and state motor fuel taxes allocated
to each transportation region by the Program, de,cubed abose Underpass m St 1 119, $188 million 0o cal
/ s locals are available on a 8[I/2ll (federal no
Set Aside for improvements. Funds are distributed to the State (CDO'I), which, in (:DO'f Commission local) match share $125;1X1) In FY 21917,
one project:
.
Transportation tom, distributes funds to 1)K000 for proles[ funding selection. Punts may be particularly useful to fiance existing 'twenty percent local participation
is reyuteJ Ins Avenue 'fwn Mile creek Park is purposed
Enhancement funds are part of the Surface Trampmrtation Program.. deficiencies- future federal funding is uncertain; 'I [..n-21 $IA million (local
share $125,111X1)
Enhancements Project selections arc the same as for the Surface Transportation ends in fiscal year 21113.
Program.
(1'iArml/.Sealr/ 'l his TI: A-21 program is for state and local government projects and Boulder is one of five nonattamment areas eligible for I cderal funding is primarily
from the federal - Boulder competes for CMAQ funds it a The program is applied nationally- + I-or projects funded through the CMAQ In FY 21X13, Colorado anticipates
receiving
Programs that meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act and arc CMAQ funds. (01hm am Lolorado.Springs, Oemer• I orr fuel tax- regional level The City of Boulder
received a CMAQ program, substantial federal funds are used $23,867,(11). Approximately $19,161 ,(Mk) was
3. TEA-21 /CDOT within areas that do not meet the National Ambient Air Quality (.olb'ns and f ongmonl) grants fur community transit service apportioned
to the Denver metropolitan area
Congestion Mitigation Standards (nonattamment areas). Funds are apportioned to states on a i [his program is well established and The Stampede
formula basis that is weighted by state's share of Population in Eligible projects include transit improvements, requires no legislative action or a ore -
Furure federal funding is uncenat;'[ FA-21 In FY 2(X13, the Stampede will receive
/ Air Quality (CMAQ) nonattamment areas and the degree of pollution transportation demand management programs, and Also, The DASI I receives CMAQ ends
in fiscal year 2t X11 $4811,0(1(1 in federal funds; matched with
Funds public fleet conversion to cleaner fuels and others that . I listoncalls, Boulder has contributed funds. $120,(XX) in local funds. The DASI
I I ninsrl
Facilitate cleaner air between 21"-'" and 511",, to its CMAQ Service is receiving substantial CMAQ funds
(fl.SC7711e l9, ,fn; 1110) in FY 21113 through 2(X16.
the Stampede and the DASI I'Iranst Service hale projects
been funded with Ctv1A( funds
(Fir&ml/ Regional) This is the primary federal source of RTD funding for capital Thcsc funds are applicable to planning, operations, federal and state funds are used to
finance Funds flow from the I- f A to the RI 'D on a The RID received about $2997 million in
maintenance Projects that are not part of a new start grant. maintenance and capital costs associated with transit these projects. These revenues are principally
formulabasis. funds arc available ut transit providers a the R'ID receives substantial federal I-Y 21X12 and is scheduled to receve about
4. TEA-21/ Federal These TEA21 funds are for transit capital and preventative and Para-transit services. from federal and state motor fuel taxes throughout the
county that are located revenue through this program $319 million in I-Y 21113.
Transit Admin. (FTA) maintenance anti include I", for transit enhancements. The funds are in communities of 5(1IXNI or more.
Funds are awarded directly to the R'11), which I ocal participation of between 21",~ anti S1" t, is Future federal funding is uncertam,'ffiA-21
Urbanized Area awarded directly from the I'I'A to transit organizations on a formula ends in fiscal year 2103.
based on population, population density and transit operating data. In pnontizes its capital needs within its six year -1 ran,u typically require).
Formula Grant Program the Denver Metropolitan area, these funds arc awarded to the R'11) Development Program (I'DP) To bencft from these
(UfC7itle 49, Sec 1307) fords, the City must lobby the RTD for capital
improvements that serve (:try purposes
/I •edeml/ &gionafl) These funds are awarded at the national level to specific major, multi- This funding resource is available to the R'1'1) and not I ederal funding
is primarily from the federal RI D manages the locally generated requests for R 11) his used New Start funds for i Foe projects approved under the New Start New
Start funding Commitment was $120
year projects on a discretionary and competitive basis to the City of Boulder in a direct way. The (:try can fuel tav. funding within the Dem er Metropolitan area design
and construction of its program, federal finds are substantial and million for the Southwest Rail Line and $225
lobby for projects that might be eligible for New titan under this program- Authorization for funds is at Southwest Light Rail lane ($12o out of are committed
for a multi-year time horizon. million for the Southeast Comdor. x
5. TEA-21 /Federal Funds may be used for transit capital assistance for new fixed guideway funds. I Iowever, no such projects are currently the federal level
$178 million), the rail portion of the
Transit Administration systems and extensions to csistmg fixed guideway systems (New ,Starts) envisioned within the 21412 -1 'Nil' I alate Southeast Corridor
($225 of $981 Ivmre federal funding is uncertain, I FA 21
fiscal year 21 X 13.
(FTA) (40",. of Funds), fixed guideway modernization (44 1", of funds), and bus million), and its North CnrnJor ends in
Discretionary Capital and bus related facilities (21",. of fords). Bus/I IOV Line. Ivnding for the US
Investment Grants and 36 commuter rail/bikeway alemative
Loans Program (New would require additional New Start
Starts) funds plus voter approval for the sales
and use tax increase.
01,f(, 1rile 49, Seri 5909)
(I rdmmll.Sralell ual) This 11:'A 21 program, Value Pricing Pilot program, foerner]y called Value Pncutg and market based pricing strategic, are Federal funding is
primarily from the federal 'I his i, a program that is available on a Boulder won a discretionary giant to + the program is consistent with many Nationally, $11,11(X1IXN)
is asailable for Value
6. TEA-21 / Federal Congestion Pricing, encourages implementation and evaluation of pilot concepts that are consistent with the 2o12'I MP fire] rats discretionary
and competitive basis, nationally execute a Congestion Toeing program Boulder transportation objectives I lowever, Pricing pilot programs
Transit Admin. (FTA) projects to promote economic efficiency in the use of highways and 1!pclate I dc,.i funds are available on a 80/2(1 In 1994. A number
of inal) nca] Boulder might not consider another pilot
,uppurt congestion reduction, air T lathy, energy conservation and Federal/Local matching basis components were completed,, the project at this time, given
the results of the
Value Pricing min,it p-ductinty goal,. planned demonstration project was project in the mid 199X1,
cancelled at the City's request I inol _ Federal funding will expire in fiscal Year
I'llor programs can encompass a variety of applications including area Report: City of Boulder ( ongewon Rebel t
I Ii. I l -Irl, Sh'lros IZ1 / wide pricing, fining multiple or single facilities or comdoc,, single lane Program, 3/91, do cribcs the project Xli
pricing, and other market based strategies rich is area wide Parking and it, results
(ash ( jut demonstrations, and tolls
0 edrruf/.Slale) .Flu, 'I'I,A 21 program is for grams for trance projects that benefit the Funds arc available for transit ,crying elderly and I cdeml funding is pnmanl)
from the f decal Colorado receives funds on a formula basis and I his is a national program that - Federal funding allocated to Colorado Is In I Y 20112, (J H)1' rescued
$99]po" for
7. TEA-21 / Federal elderly anti persons with duabillties. Stares reccisc funds from the disabled patron,' furl tae dntnbutc, these funds on a mmpetmsc, function,
in each stale Spccial I ranslt relimely limited, abmm $7 million per year afar, wide dt,iributon.
Transit Admin. (FTA) I I A on a formula basis In Colorado, funds arc rea'ivcd by (.D( r1, disc,,t car) basis rccu es fund from this program on a
which, in film nx arils grant, on a comps[ tic, discretionary basis d"cret on.rv an C-ol"un't, barn. Future federal funding is uncertain, since
Formula Grants for 11.A-21 expire, to IY 21X13.
Elderly and Persons
with Disabilities
fJSC Tirle 49, Sec 5310
PAGE 1 OF 10 - 6/28/2002
SUMMARY OF FINANCE TOOLS TO SUPPORT THE 2002 BOULDER TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDA'T'E 1V ReDATE
Transportation Master Plan
APPLICABILITY TO 2002 TRANSPO. INCIDENCE & EQUITY LEGAL & ADMINISTRATION BENEFITS & LIMITATIONS
NAME DESCRIPTION MASTER PLAN UPDATE CONSIDERATIONS CONSIDERATIONS APPLIED ELSEWHERE QUANTIFICATION
(Frdeml) When funds are available, the State assists the National Park Service is Funds must be dedicated to outdoor recreation C(1 I )ir ision of Parks administers
this program this is a federal program. When funds + Under the prior state program, funds were
8. Land and Water administering grants from the Land and %X ater Conservation Act of Applicant must own the land that is bang improved when funds are a-ihable.
are a%ailable, they are distributed to all available on a 50/50 basis (federal / lord)
Conservation Fund 1965. In Colorado, C( ) Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation Funds may be made available for a three-year Fend crates
manages the administration of funds For the fast time since 1995, -These funds could be used for hicycle trail
Congress has appropnatcd funds to the state grant program. improvemcnts. - Funds are available intermittently
(Slate) CDO1"s major source of State funds is the I hghway liters 'I'ax Pond In Boulder, I IU'I'1: revenues go into the I ransponatinn Revenues are primarily from State
motor fuel This is an established stream of revenues. Most states have a statewide program + . Ibis is a current and predictable source of In 21X11, the City of Rouldcr
received about
9. Highway Users Tax P IL' I I After removing some "off the toy revenues, the 111-1 11, 1 und. razes and vehicle registration fees I berc , also to generate
transportation funds with a revenue that Boulder relies on. $2,475,INX1 I umm rcwcnucs are estimated to
Fund (HUTF) revenues are distributed as follows. 65% to CDO'I, 26"sat to counties a transfer of sales and use tax revenues on program to distribute funds locally.
increase I percent per year.
and 9% to municipalities on a formula basis. 80"'. of the municipal motor vuhidcs from the General Ivnd to 2 Revenues are already committed to
share is based on motor vehicle registration and 20", on lane miles. A CDO'I Cities and counties do not receve transportation
(mm"hile fha" to mzmkipalidier) different funding formula could direct more funds to urban areas such additional 111' 11: fund distributions from the
as the (',its of Boulder transfer.
(slide) 'I he `;toe has forecasted future State revenue surpluses, beginning in the trickle down impact on Moulder would be in Slate funds are primarily from the State
income In 21,02, the Gate legislature appravc l this This is unique to Colorado + 1C'ith the Growth Dividend, Hnulder would State staff estimate, that the TABOR
10. State Surplus 21103 With the passage of I Ili] 310/Slil79 in 21)(12, the State may increase in I IUTI funds plus additional funds to raw and sales and use tax. Without
the authorization (I IM 310/SB179). benefit directly from an increase in I IU'IT Growth Dividend might yield $885 million
(TABOR Growth retain these surpluses rather than rebate them to the citi-ns. [his cnmpete for through DRCOG. I AMR Growth Dividend, taxpayers wmdd revenues
and potentially from gating "one over twenty years.
Dividend) authorization is termed the "LABOR Growth Dividend" receive rebates to income and sales/use tax projects funded through DI
fees paid
Funds ate distributed as follows. sufficient funds to allow the General
(auupphmenlil revenues) Fund m grow it 6i"o per year, 2/3rds of remainder to transport ation;
1/3 of remainder to the capital construction fund
(Stile) This is a stream of state revenues that arc dedicated to transit se-¢e. 'Ibis could be applicable u) community transit, transit- the local incidence is on payers
of retail gi)ods, 'I he 2002 Colorado legislature passed an act Prior to 2tXS2, Colorado was one of These are not new source revenue but is a In 21X11, CDOf received $213.4
million from
11. Dedicated Source of Funds might be distributed on a formula or a competitive basis. Most related improvements along the multi modal corridors which includes residents,
businesses and requiring 111" o of the sales and use tax revenues on five states without a dedicated source mandatory allocation of more than $21) sales and use tax revenues
on motor vehicles
Revenue For Transit apical revenues used for transit are sales, property, gasoline and or funding/ drscounring the IICOPASS. visitors, statewide (Groceries are exempt from
motor vehicles that arc transferred to CI)OT be of rc,cnue lit fund transit Other million per year and related item. -1 en percent of this figure is
income tax. In 21X12, the Colorado legislature passed I IBI310/SBI79; the state sales e- spent on transit. (These revenues are sometimes states without a dedicated
source of $21.3 million.
(§43-4206 C.R.S.) t states that 10"', of the sales and use tax revenues transferred to the called the Slit revenues revenue arc Alaska, Arkansas, I Iawaii
(ol(iialion o/eiaing tax) ) It is unclear how the ,venues might now
I IUl P (.Sli )7-IMtI funds) must be spent on transit - lhn is a change and New Mcxica from (:DOT to RTU or others.
from "may" be spent on transit
(Slate) 40" o of Staic lottery revenues gat to the Conservation Trust Fund for I unds currently go into the Rouldcr limery I and Rcvcnucs arc from State lottery proceeds
The There are effectively no legal or administrative I unds arc distributed statewide by + this is reliable source of funding. In 2(X)1, Iloulder received an estimated
12. Colorado use by local govenments for park and recreation projects. Ivnds are These funds could be used for bicycle trail state lotten. is a voluntan' game of chance. costs
associated with receipt of these funds formula- S70 ),W0 from the Colorado Consernanon
Conservation Trust distributed on a per capita basis. improvements. Participants (fenders) are residents and visitors. 'Trust Fund.
Fund
(formula driven fund
(Stale) Fstableshed in 1971, this program is funded with three primary revenue Funds are available for both non-motonecel and GO(.O rcwcrI are from State lottery Ihere
is staff time and resources associated with Funds are available statewide on a + Funds are Available on a 50/51) basis (,state / Annually, approximately $1.7 milhon arc
13. State Traits sources, GOCO-lahcal Go%cmmcnt Funds, GOCO State Parks funds, moronzed rrads. (itics, counuee, districts, State and proceeds- the state lottery is
a voluntary game applying for grants from GO( O competitive base, local. available for non motonaed trails and
Program JT.A-21 Section 112 Recreatmn'frads Program and Off-] lighway nun-profit organization, are eligible for funding of chance. Participants (bmders) are revdenrs
$71N ;INNI arc a%inlalde for moturiacd trails.
vehicle (0111) registration fees. through an annual competitive process, and victors. Recent grants have averaged between - Total funding statewide is
relatively limited.
$511,trI1 and $1lNl 111111
(xnra &srrelionarygrranlr) LOCO provides local g<,vcmmcnts and nonprofit organizations IF , A-21 revenues arc primarily from the - Revenues are unpredictable
as they are based
marching grams to proven, parks, trials, and open space GOCO is federal fuel tas on competition.
funded with proceeds from Colorado 1-ottcry Rcvcnucs. I ucal
governments compete for funding
(Stale) -1 his tax is currently imposed by the State on distributors of gasoline, Users of gasolne and special fuels ultimately ( Ind) the state may impose a motor
fuel tax. - It would require a change in state enabling In 21NII,'I he State collected $531,5M,11(N) in
14. Motor Fuel Tax gasohol and diesel fuels. It is imposed at the wholesale level in lieu of a pay this. Residents, visitors and businesses A local option rate increase
that would require legislation to allow local governments to motor fuel taxes
(wholesale) State sales tar on motor fuels- would all pay the tax- a change in crate Staines collect motor fuel tax. It is unlikely that the
State would willingly relinquish its nolc rights No revenue calculations for the City have
the current rate is 5422 per gallon on gnsolme and gasohol and $0205 The tax would particularly impact busmesses in In 1997, there was in Attempt to place a 5A, HS to
a motor fuel tax been prepared
(§39-27.102 C.R,b) per gallon nn diesel the delivery business. per gallon increase in motor fuel taxes
statewide. Support was withdrawn in favor of
earmarking sales tax revenues for
transportation projects
(State / Connly / Csly) These fens are imposed by the State, based on the type and weight of the City currently directs these revenues to the Ilmh residents and huvnesses
fay motor Only the State is authonzcd to impose motor Bach Colorado county receives and - Allowing focal governments to receive In 21Nll, the City estimates that it received
1S. Motor Vehicle vehicles the fee is paid where the vehicle is registered 1'rarispurtatiun Fund vchiclc registration fees. chicle reMstranoo fees at this time.
disperses motor vchidc reMstemon motor vehicle registration revenues above abort $261,976 in motor vehicle registration
Registration Fee fees in a manner that is puscribed by the $4 per vehicle payment to counties fees
the County Division of Motor Vchlcll's collects the fees on hehalfof If fees werc imposed on all registered vchiclc, funds In 1997, there wits a proposed ballot
initiative State }tarutc. would require a change in enabling
(City term: Auto Regidralion the State and retains $41X1 per vehicle for most vehicles and $1 50 per would be most applicable for projects that correcr to unpose a
Stu per vchiclc surcharge legislation In 2tmll, a $1 surcharge would have yielded
,chide motnrcyclee, trader coaches and construction equipment. for existing deficiencies or maintain the current system. Support was withdrawn in favor of
about $65,21X1
l eer) distribution within the County on the basis of vehicle owner's earmarking sales tax revenues for
642 3-131 C_R S.) registered residence. transportation project,.
(funharg,) the State earmarks the fees for the I IU'I'I , a portion of which is
redistributed back to cities and counties.
(Regionoo Currently, the It 11) matches its local revenues, from a dedicated 0.6'6 "The incremental o T" . sales tax would hued a 105 mile -The local incidence is on
payee of ra.ul sales Ihere anti no. incremental admim+tratnc chats' + II'voters approve, this would Wricrare RTU's 11.6"S. sales and use tax gvncrated
16. Regional sales and use tan, with federal revenues and operating revenuer system of light rail over then years, including commuter and use tax, which includes residents,
associated with collecting iddiuaual revenue substantial revenues for transit in the about $202 million i Dill
Transportation District (farebox, adsertismg, etc) to fund its bus and transit let' cc,. rail crvicu along the existing railroad tracks near LS 36 busmdsses and snnnors
(Groceries arc exempt.) Voter approval is needed. Denver metropolitan area.
and a bikeway that parallel, L'S 16 A 114" .sales ias increase would we, at,
I he It 11) may now (I IISIJ1o/SI4179) to ask voters for an addimonal .Authorization n, proceed was granted b) the sufficient beds ro finance the
local share of a
04"., vales tax, alter petitions are gathered and certified Ich ddlure in May 21)02. S44 billion plan to develop a 1115 mile s)srcm
of light rail over ion year,
(Lntmly) Cg I-adn counties impose a shill levy for road and bodge Currently, these revenues arc allocated to the Imposed nn the brims of as-s(d real ,stoic Boulder
COnnc ,is the mill le,). State Statutes Bach (,olorado county tmpoaes a Road - Revenues are already commuted, as these In 21X11, Boulder received about $538,71)11,
17. County Road and im orients Cures receive an amount equal to 50 of the revenue 1 ranaportamon I and values established the distribution h, mula- the
County' and 13ndgge Fund mill Icvy. State funds go into rhe'I ramponauon fund which was about 27 percent of the Cray
Bridge Fund accruing m the find that was a Ilecud mg.un t a,wsed valuation in the could increase the mill levy with 'a popular vote Statute sets the distribution.
Road and lindge I and Rcvcnucs to the ( it
City Boulder [CCOWs I and re,enues from R,ulder County. Due to as'seacd valuation formulas, rev.Irnttal werc equivalem to a municipal mill Icww of
Ivnd, arc most applicable to finance projects than propane, pas 13" of what non residenn.ij t Ihis is a predictable and reliable stream of 1!20
(21X)1 asesced valuation is
correct existing deficiencies or maintain the current nouliu n lie the same value of r e n . funding. 51,912,198110 $S1871Xm ' $1,912.198,11H)
(mill leiy rnorase) Boulder Count) impn,us a u 443 11 1- fur m Road and Bridge sysim p P M1: P "P 1
Fund the City received ahour 27" of uaal County Road and Rndge
luod revames Vwunrs do not pa) prnpeny taxes in a direct 2 Boulder f.,unty impose, a low mill levy for (rty staff f mrcmi a "me tract in recrnurs
Note: 1Ili] 110/SR179 now allows counties wmthm the way. u, Count y Road and Bridge Fund (u 443) per year.
It I D service area "to prownde transit crnee, m relauct to other ( ,I,,rado (-unites
coopt ration with the It I I
PAGE 2 OF 10 - 6/28/2002
SUMMARY OF FINANCE TOOLS TO SUPPORT THE 2002 BOULDER TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE 1V IPI~DATE
Transportation Master Plan
NAME DESCRIPTION APPLICABILITY TO 2002 TRANSPO. INCIDENCE & EQUITY LEGAL & ADMINISTRATION APPLIED ELSEWHERE BENEFITS & LIMITATIONS QUANTIFICATION
MASTER PLAN UPDATE CONSIDERATIONS CONSIDERATIONS
((ovary) This tax is collected and distributed at the county level This is in lieu Thcse funds are distributed to the General Ivnd, Both residents and businesses pay
specific 1 Produces a prcdicrablc revenue stream + Produces a predictable revenue - Requires a change in State enabling In 21411, Boulder estimates that it received
18. Specific (Motor of a personal property tax on motor vehicles CAGID and UI IGII) since these arc the funds that ownership taxes stream legislation.
$1,516,0141 in specific nwnenhip tax
Vehicle Ownership collect property tax revenues. No funds arc allocated 'I be fee schedule and the distribution revenues
P It is levied annually by y counties on vehicle ownership and is collected to the Trans rtation Ivnd at this time. Since the tax is ba,cd on the raluc of the -
Revenues are already committed, as these
Tax Y y ' pu formula is established by Stntr Statute Since funds 8" into the'franspnna6on fund
when hceme plates are renewed Counties distribute all tax rcrenucs vehicle, it does not liar as screw an impart on the school district has the highest mill let it 423-111,,101
C_k Sy' + This is a redicrablc and reliable stream of
but $I INI per vehicle to each government (county, cries, districts) Since revenues are collected from existing and new low income households u' some other taxes receives
the largest portion of revenues. P
within the county, which receives property tax revenues, prnp)monate vehicle owners, they would be most applicable to and fees funding.
(m!r insnnar)
to expected property tax revenues received finance projects that correct evicting deficiencies or to
finance the local government share of projects partially
State Statutes establish the tax rate It is based on the value and age of funded by new development. I There am no additional administrative costs
the vehicle. 'Iax revenues average about $75 per vehicle_ associated with collecting this revenue
(Cwenly) This would be a one-time tax on "new wheels" registered in the Ciry or This would be applicable for projects that are triggered ibis tax could discourage some
transportation- • AllouIng local go%ummcnts to impose a "new In 1997, 1 x)% cland considered a ballot - The revenue generating potential of this tool If a SIIMI new wheels
tax were approved in
19. New Wheels Motor County It would include registration of any cars from out of stare and by new development_ related busiilusSCS from establishing a location vrhecLs"
tax might require a change in Staic item to place a $1141 new wheels may be relatively small Boulder and imposed on newly regdsmrcd
Vehicle Registration the purchase of rchicles innate if the purchaser does not give up in Moulder Statutes unless it is considered a specific registration fee. Support
was vehicles, this tax might generate about
Fee another vehicle registration at the same time This tool might be imposed m the County level to occupation or excise tax. withdrawn in favor of eamnzrking
sales S55,050 in revenue in 2001.
finance projects that extend beyond City boundaries, tax and the item failed (367 new residential units x 1.5 vehicles per
(net tax) • Admimstomve coats would be minimal dwelling x $IIMI)
because the (runty could be retained to Also in 1997, there was a statewide
collect the fee when itcollccts the motor initiative dove to place a $IIMI new There calculations exclude vehicles registered
vehicle registration fee wheels registration fee on the to commercial and public sector entities.
November ballot but it failed.
(Cavnly) Counties may impose a sales/use tax up to 10 Imposed countywide, this tax would be most applicable Same as sales tax. + The County already imposes a
11.55"a, sales + 1l iould produce a significant and stable Moulder County in 21411, a o 5 sales tax
20. Sales Tax for Mass to finance upgraded infra-county transit service, such as and use tax which includes (effective 7/02) a In Boulder County, 0.1" a of
the stream of revenues. would have generated about $2o.3 million in
the DASI I'I ransit Service, broader dissemination of 11.1"'" tax for trans ortation improvements. county sales tax is dedicated to sales tax revenue
annual) ; a 0.16 sales tax to impose Transit P + County does hove authorization or reachi y'
In addition, any county outside of the R'I D
' service area can impose nn the IiCOPASS, and Pararronsit service upgrades Incremental administrative costs ts would be transportation This authority extends
would Berate about 54.1 million annually
additional 0 5'', sales tax for financing, constructing, operating or from 21 X12 through 21419 an additional 0 45"1. sales tax before reaching
Y
Addinonal u.5"-'": - minimal. July g_ July its 10"it sales tax ceiling ($4,061,198,679, taxable sales x 0415
mvnraimng a mass transportation within the county. $48 4 million are anticipated over the 7 g ( )
(§29-2-103 5 CRS) vcars. 'Ihc will be used to fund $.38,11 - Counties may sales tax of up
Since the RTt7 already imposes a 0 6"',, sale tax, this legal authority is + The County could impost an additional Y w Y tinp'se a P to
(xA, rase) not available in the Denver metropolitan area 1145"',, sales tax with a popular vote million in roads, $60 million in transit I (rol,< Imposing
this tax, which is above the
(park n nde and regional bus service) I.0' o, would require a change in State
- The County's use the mass transit authority and $4.3 million in bicycle/pedestrian Statutes.
tax would require a change in State Statutes. improvements
CITY TAXES, FEES & DEBT
21. Property Tax 'Ibis is a tax on real and personal property. The city mill levy for An incremental mill levy could be earmarked for the Would be imposed on the basis
of assessed Requires a popular vote to increase the mill CAGID imposes a net mill levy of - Any increase in the mill levy would require a 'I he City's 2140 taxable assessed
value is
collections in 211(12 is 9 301 This would be an increase in the city mill transportation fund; it could be used as debt service to real estate values. That is a weak
connection levy. 6.575 mills popular vote S1,912,398,310. A one mill levy (1 X11) would
(Section 94, Article VI, levy from the current amount that would be earmarked for finance particularly large protects of citywide benefit; it between assessed values
and the need for generate annual revenues of $1;)12,398
Charter of the City of transportation projects It could be used in conjunction with the could be used within a district. roads. 1111IGID imposes a net mill levy
of
issuance of general obligation bonds. Ilie administrative staff arc in place to 3.163 mills, 1 Generates significant and predictable
Boulder phis would be most applicable u) finance projects that
) Duc to assessed valuation formulas, residential manage and disburse sales ac revenues potential revenue stream
correct existing deficiencies or finance the local
gnvrmment sham of projects partially funded by new properties pay 33"• , of what non-¢siJential The Forest Glrn'I'ransit Pass GI D
(Kale inmr4rr) Currently, property tax revenues are
ry 1-unund earmarked for the central funds properties pay, for the same value of property impose a net mill levy of 1 49 mill,
the I'ertnaneat ent parks Fund, the Library' fd and public Safety. deveopment
Visitors do not pay property taxes in a direct
way
22. Saks Tax The City currently imp»cs a sales tax of 3.26",. (excluding the 0 15" the voter-approved allocation to transprianon states I Iouseholds and businesses
that purchase retail 'the administrative staff is in place to manage . Boulder earmarks 0.6"4, of its sales + Produces a significant and predictable In 21101, the (:try's
326 sales tax generated
food scnicc supplemental tax) and earmarks revenues to 8 funds. that funds are earmarked "for projects related to goods in the county pay these taxes. and disburse sales
tax rerenues_ tax revenues for the revenue stream. $62,669,849 in revenue 'Ibis is bared on
(Rule moron) Included in this total is 116"h, which is earmarked for the transportation or for related or appurtent to Transportation fund. taxable
sales of about $192 billion
'I ransportanon fund, pursuant to a vote in 1967. (ransponaonn services, or facilities. (l3RC 3-2 39) '1 he sales tax t also imposed on nvtorv and A popular vote
is necessary to increase the tax ($62,669,849 / 0326) (Nofe: 1dnr fig-
travelers who urehxsc retail Moods and stay y in rate. • t + I lisroncally sales tax revenues have increased eccdede rem fax.
P P on Coll n Jrdicatce 1125",. )
['ht: hransprtation Ivnd also receives 375'1 of excess sales and use local lodging capital projects including without a change in the rate In the last
year,
tax revenues after debt service and administrative costs within the Sales tax revenues are the largest single source of transportation; set to expire but however,
Boulder experienced a slight decline If imposed in 2(XlI, a 0.P,. increase in
BURR area The BURA debt tastes this year, 21X2. Transportation Ivnd revenues. may be reinstated just for in sales tax revenues- Boulder's sales
tax rate would generate
Boulder offers a refund on sales taxes pax) for
transportation. revenues about $1,922,4141 iS1,922,388, 416
.
pith corer approval, the sales tax rate (excluding the u 15" , food food based on famil>~ income and family sire. (estimated taxable sales) x 101 I
service supplememal tax) could be increased another 1.74"i, to 411"" for example, a family of 4 canning between
Alternatively, sales tax rate could be increased on food and lodging or $331141 and $33,714] is eligible to receive a itBoulder s for ei (aunty has a 0.1sales
any other category, of taxable expenditure) $236 refund. improvements ments tatmn
.
leffeaon County nnpascs a sales
tax n a local im dutnct
23. Motor Vehicle Sales I [it, concept would allow cities to impose an incremental sales tax nn 'Phis and other vehicle related taxes might be If the fee were imposed
on the value of the Currently, cruel receive sales and use tax oit - I his might require a change in state enabling In 21411, the City's 3.20',6 sales and use tax
& Use Tax motor vehicles, as a local option It would be a one time fee levied appropriate m finance Ihc pojecn that facilitate a shdt vehicle, then there mould he some
c6reet vehicles registered In their junadirtiun legislation. generated $1!141,850 in revenue, bared on
either nn all %ehvlrs nyn,tered in the (sly at the time of sale or nn all to alternate modes correlation beawecn income and the fee paid. Admuus« alive procedures
arc in place motor vehicle ales of about $9112 million
(l aril raflinn rive unttd«) vehicles old in the City it a rate higher than the general sates tax (S1,941,8511 / 11326) to residents and
If imposed at the point of sale, this tae could Inc,ca"eg the lac rate on nvmor wehacles might busuessn' repsicnd in the Ciq
Ihi, cones pt wnutd allow cities to impose an incremental sales tax on place dealerships located in Boulder at a require 'a change in state enabling lcpa lation to
motor rchiclec only, a, a focal option I has is not authonecd by ;late compctime disadvantage to deademhaps in allow a local option sales tax rate increase on
A o P o increase in Boulder's sale, and Irv,
Suuucs at du, lime. other portions of the metropolitan area motor vehicles only tax rate on motor vehicles would generate
about $911,2411 in revenue. (S90,2,10,799 x
This would be or one umv fcc lured (tiller nn all vehicles mgneter(d ni If imposed where the vehicle is registered, it Ihis use- might more easily be lnapo,ed at the
1411)
the city at Ihc our of I'll or nn all vchid-sold In the arty, at a rate may discourage some Ifall port loon rrlalrJ counts level with drstobuunn back to
higher than the general sale, tax bu.,nlous from lotaun • in Boulder. mama almcs
PAGE 3 OF 10 - 6/28/2002
SUMMARY OF FINANCE TOOLS TO SUPPORT THE 2002 BOULDER TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE T M RATE
Transportation Master Plan
NAME DESCRIPTION APPLICABILITY TO 2002 TRANSPO. INCIDENCE & EQUITY LEGAL & ADMINISTRATION APPLIED ELSEWHERE BENEFITS & LIMITATIONS QUANTIFICATION
MASTER PLAN UPDATE CONSIDERATIONS CONSIDERATIONS
24. Use Tax The Gory currently imposes a use tax of 3 26 With voter approval, it Since a substantial portion of this fee is from building 'Ibis tax is imposed on
households and A popular vote is necessan to increase the Sixty percent of Colorado - Requires a vote to increase the use tax rate. In 21"tl, Boulder's use tax revenues
were
could be increased to 4.11".. A use tax is a compliment to a sales tax. materials, which are growth-related, use tax retinues businesses that purchase or use taxable
entail u,c tats, municipalities that impose a sales tax abort $16,2111,11"1, about 2u";, of sales and
(Role iumue) It is imposed on the same items as a sales tax for products purchased might be more applicable to projects that serve new items in the city and on contractors
who also impose a use tax. A few have + Use tax revenucs on automobiles are use tax collections. 1'he Ciry's use tax nn
outside of the city and "used" in the city Use tax revenues are typically growth. purchase building materials for use in me at) dedicated use tax revenues
to capital generally predictable autixs generated $2„146,("91; the use tax on
from budding materials, machinery and equipment and moor vehicle project. 1{aglc adopted a 4"'" we MX budding m. tcrals gnncrated $2,941; NNt, the
sales. for capital improvement. Louisville 2 Use tax revenues on budding materials use tax on business purchases generated
Use tax revenucs from budding materials imposed a 3.375"s, use tax on budding fluctuate with real estate construction activin. $111,913,("91
Use tax revenues are earmarked the same as sales tax revenues, 06"o is correlate with new construction. materials for schools and open space
earmarked for the fra-portatiun fund If a 01".. increase in the use tax rate (126",,
to 136!1.) had been imposed in 2!"11, it
would have generated about $4971""1.
In Colorado, municipal sales and use tax rates are Often (but not ($496,972,515 x Dtil )
always) imposed at the same rate.
25. Accommodations Ibis is an excise tax that is imposed on Indgingestablishments bared 'I his may be particularly apptopnate if there are Overnight visitors would pay
the inc-uental 'Phis woiild require a popular vote to increase the 'There are 29 Colorado municipalities - This would require a popular vote. In 211112, an estimated
$2.3 million was
Tax on their room revenue. It functions like a sales tax surcharge Moulder improvements that benefit visitors lodprig otx. lodf;,ng tax I here would be no
additional that impose a lodging tax. Within the generated by the (:it)', 2 24".
already has a 2.24"., lodging tax. Revenues go into the General Fund- administrative costs other than notice to lodging Denver metropolitan area, they include
+ 'Me stream of revenues would be generally accommodation ta.x.
(rote in.nore) opctawrs about the tax rate increase Boulder Arvada, Aurora, ]Boulder, Denver, predictable and would increase as room rates
already collects it, own sales and Indging tax Englewood, Gtecnwnnd Village increase.
revenus. Lakewood, Northglenn,T'homton,
VI, estmmster and Wheat Ridge. + It would not be imposed on residents.
26. Development This is a tax imposed on new development on a per square foot basis 'I he transportation excise tax is to pay for the Builders pay the fee it the final
inspvutnn 'I he Developmem I(xctse Tax is in place.'] here A number Of mntucipalities in + Perceived to be equitable to existing residents In 21911, City staff estimate
that the
Excise Tax for nonresidential and a per unit basis for residential In Boulder, a additional functional capacity needed for streets, stage of the building permir process.
are relatively modest lugal and administrative costs Colorado impose an impact fee for and businesses transportation excise tax generated $992,1 X41.
specified portion of the tax rate is transferred to the 'I tansportation bikeways, greenways, pedestrian facilities, grade associated wide changing the tax tale.
transportation that is similar to the forecasts for future years are ddficulr
Development Fund separations and transit. 'I he current fee is $I 1,051 to The On elopmml Gxiiv lax study (6/96) Development Fxcisc Tax on t IAcellent
supplemental revenue source if because the relate to future real estate
(Inneart in lux'rale) $1.741 for residential units and 81.53 per square foot prepared for the City shows that the current transportation. Many more are
matched with local government revenues. development acnxity
for noneesidental. residentitd fees ley for about 22 and umsidering this idea.
nonresidential fees pay for about I I" I- Of the - Produces an unpredictable revenue stream
needed growthrelated improvements. If Port Collins is considering a I
Ihe 20112 1 MP does not focus on additions to the transit were removed from the calculations, Constmnion Value Tax (excise tax) - The Dorlrrpment Exnv
1'nx Sluait reports that _
transportation infrastructure then the current residential fees pay for about imposed on improvement to real transportation portion of the development
57"i, and current nonresidential fees pay for estare. excise tax finances a small portion of the
about 30`", of the needed improvements improvements needed to support new
development
27. Project Investment Ihis fee functions like a supplemental sales tax. It is imposed on a Thix fee is particularly appropriate for improvements The project investment
fee would function like This would be a privately imposed fee that would Park Meadows Mall used a pit to + This requires no vote, since it is imposed Revenues would relate
to the scale of the
Fee voluntary basis by landlords on their tenants. It has been used by within multi-modal corridors where the improvement a sales tax on retail goods and would have
the require no vote of the people or (.try Council finance site-related infrastmcmre pnsatdy development that would tx subject to a
shopping centers to fund project-area infrastructure improvements served a retail development or generated new retail same equity consequences. It would be 'I he parties
imposing the fee would hkcIv require improvements Lakewood is project investment fee.
<a'InJ development. imposed by the landlord and concluded as a an agreement that they would recen c considering several applications of a s Funds
generated can be substantial-
condemn of the lease Revenues would be improvements or services in return for fee PII for retail deulopments to fund
prod to the landlord. revenues. sue-related improvements. r Public sector administrative costs are
minimal.
28. Tax Increment The concept of tax increment financing rs to earmark incremental sales This tool is most appropriate to finance improvements Ibis is a reallocation of property
and sales tax . If the urban renewal powers are used, then Builder has used tax Increment + Can provide additional financing (property Revenues would tic directly
to the forecasted
Financing (fll.) and property tax revenues from redevclopmait onvard public in a specific geographic area where the improvement revenucs to improvements within a specified
there arc si},mificant administrative costs in financing (f If) in the Crossroads Area tax revenues from the County and School sales and property tax revenues.
improvements within the redevelopment area It the urban renewal will generate substantial additional development area that has been declared blighted establishing
the project area If the concept and is pursuing 111 in Downtown District) for Boulder projects at no additional
pld&fionnl uprrd'rarion oian authority (BU RA) Is used, then all incremental property tax revenues activity of tax Increment is used, then cost to Boulder
taxpayers.
rxioing Inn/J (school, county, city, etc) can be earmarked for project area If the formal urban renewal authorities .ire implementation is more streamlined. Port
Collins and Santa Barbara have
improvements. invoked, then property tax revenues previously used tax increment financing to build - Must be within blighted area, if urban
flowing to the School District and the county + Authnneed under State Statutes- parking structures renewal authorities are used
would be earmarked for Improvements within
the blighted area - It may be helpful to coordnmtc with County
and School Ihernct, since property tax
rtvcnuea would be froecn at base vcar levels
29. Head Tax This would be a tax imposed on employees or employers whit work in This would be applicable to finance protects that .1 he tax could be imposed on 1191
on 'I he taxing authority is available to home rule Currently, Aurora, Denver and Requires a vote to impose a new tax. City staff estimate that there are about
the City of Boulder correct existing deficlcmelcs and projects that scrxc employees or II"I" run employers or shared cores only, such as Moulder Greenwood Village
impose a head rax- 103,0M employees in the (:try. (Ibis
(Neu, lux) commuters. benvccn the two. Denver's tax is $117 per year per + Produces a predictable stream of revenue includes public and private sector
)
The City' has substantial flexibility regarding who pays (employer versus employee, Actium', tax is $48 per year.
employee) and who is exempt (public, nonprofit, low-wage eamcrs). "[his i, one if few tool, that con target people Greenwood Village's tax is $48 pct
If imposed on all employees,
who) work in ISouldcr and reside cls-licre person per year In each case, the -
employee pays 5o",, and the employer • a $4 per month ($49 per year) tax would
If imrxised as a flu tat, it would Impart IOW pays AI",, generate $4 9 million per year,
wage employees more than highwage a $10 per month tax ($121) per year)
employees. I xcluding those carn trig Ie,s than IlOulder voter, turned down a $I1(. per would generate $124 million
wme minimum amauml scold lusscu the vcar head tax m 1994
regres-c impact.
G-crnmcnt empl.acn and non pmfil, could
1H' exempt.
PAGE 4 OF 10 - 6/28/2002
SUMMARY OF FINANCE TOOLS TO SUPPORT THE 2002 BOULDER TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE TMoarf
APPLICABILITY TO 2002 TRANSPO. INCIDENCE & EQUITY LEGAL & ADMINISTRATION Transportation Master Plan
NAME DESCRIPTION MASTER PLAN UPDATE CONSIDERATIONS CONSIDERATIONS APPLIED ELSEWHERE BENEFITS & LIMITATIONS QUANTIFICATION
30. Motor Fuel Tax A specific occupation tax is a form of excise tax. This would be applicable for projects that correct If passed through to customers in a price Only
home rule cities hace the authonty to No Colorado city has used its + (umendy authonmd under home role No revenue calculwon% have been prepared
(rt1ru.0 existingdcficiencies and for the City share of projem increase, this tax is regressive as those with 'imr' axe a specific occupation ta, lixamp' Icx excise
tax authorities to impose a authorities
partially funded by new development. lower incomes spend a larger portion I If their are lodging taxes, based on room revenues motor fuel tax. Ihis may be legmliv
This particular application would be imposed on transportannn- income on rasoline. I f absorbed as .in 6 and taxes imposed on riblc'IV cnmpnmcs, questionable.
+ Impninng an excise iris does not require
Specific Occupation generating businesses, such as gas stations. It might be based nn 'I his and other vehicle related taxes and fees tai hr also operating expense, it would
reduce the
6 based tin subscribers extensive analysis of equity implications
Tax on Gasoline Sales gallons of fuel sold, or the value of fuel sales. be appropriate to finance mmprosements that faclitare a proftabiltry of businesses sellinggmo
sofinc founn-cs in Califnmra There may ' be a question regarding uestion rr . rdinK there
• , Florida, fid
shift roalterative modes It would require a neu administrative system - feasibility of this approach
Illinois and Oregon may impose u Y o (N- a'U) the tax would be imposed directly on a major to impose this new tax. motor fuel
tax or a motor vehicle
contributor to the need for itansporranon fuel dealer license tax,
improvements- Ordinance needs to state that the pitman
purpose of this tax is to raise revenue, not Municipalities in Oregon may
Re-lenrs, visitors, and busmcsses would rill regulate land use impose a business license tax on
pay the tax motor vehicle fuel dealers.
(llugene, Pendleton, Tillamook
I he tax would particularly impact businesses Impose the fee among others)
in the dclrery busmen.
31. Transportation Cities have the authority to create, franchise or license utilities under § 'T'his may be applicable to maintenance of The utility fee would need to
be structured to .[he I ort Collins utility was tested in the Colorado Fort Collins implemented and then May be time-consuming to impose fee. As an illustration, there are
657 lane miles in
Utility Fee 31 21-Itil CRS transportation improvements rather than to share costs equitably among users for tiuprcmc Court- the Court riled than the street abandoned
the utility in favor or a Boulder that are maintained by the City A
constructing capital projects. example, the Port Collins fee schedule was maintenance fee was a firm of special services fee simpler transportation finance
maintenance fee of $u 1o per linear foot per
While this statute is typically used to franchise electric, gas and based on land use and trip generation and was and the fee schedule reasonably correlated with
program. Fort Collins is now May be perceived as an equitable technique lane would generate about S 346,9(K) per year.
(IVro•fia)
. he fort considerin a'T rans ortation to collect street maintenance costs, thereby 057 x 5,21iu x Sit 10
telephone services, it has also been used by y the City Of I ort Collins to tinred on developed on a per use and was appropriately imposed T
ty This tool could replace exmn Trans ortation Fund properties P g P ( )
create a street utility- K P from tout basis. Collins City Attorney does not believe that it was Maintenance fee", collected via the Freeing up
existing revenues currently used
revenue sources necessary to create a utility, to impose a street city's utility billing system. The fee for street maintenance.
providing favorable treatment to properties maintenance fee. would be based per residential unit and
abutting roads maintained by the State could per vehicle cop for nonresidential uses.
cause an incgwty.
There may be significant costs (technical, Eight Oregon cities impose a
administrative, and legal) to establish a utility trnnsportati on utility fee
32. Peak Period Pricing This tool regulates Use Of roads or bridges during peak periods by the (:try could use Awomanc Vehicle Identification 'I he Atmore, /mpadr Report
(6/98) prepared for There are costs associated with purchasing 4:Iectronic tolling has been applied by t Using this marker-based tool, there is a direct As pan of its Congestion
Relief Program, the
(Tolls) charging a fee or toll. The toll might be levied to enter a high- (AVI) technology to collect variable roadway fees on a the City, concluded that business impacts
are equipment and implementing a controlled many cities and toll authorities, link between those who benefit from the City tested a $1 peak / silt off-peak trip
occupancy vehicle (I IOV) lane, a corridor or an area (cone) during particular roadway, and during a particular time of day relatively low but for impacts on lower-wage
entry/exit system. including the I i 471) Authority The US transportation facility those who pay 'I he charge and determined that it could raise as
peak periods of travel. employees, manufacturing firms and retailers 36 corridor was Financed with toll tool can be used in a direct way to monitor
much as $114 million annually (See Mnt(rfng
~qnf/ar) (]try does nor f IOV lanes 'I his concept might be more with competition outside of Boulder. Stme revenues;, tolls applied in 1952 and the availability
and efficient use of Rrpof)
appropriately tied to controlled access roads such as US negative impacts could be mitigated with removed in 1967 Cordonhne pricing transportation facilities
36. 'lifeline tolls", G.CO-passes and shuttle has been applied in I roamdhcim
services (Norway) and Singapore - The tool would challenging to implement
since there are no controlled access roads or
areas in Boulder at this time
33. Vehicle Mlles This is a fee based on miles traveled The fee could he a sliding scale 'Ihs fee would favorably impact mode choice and 1 he himann.t fmpsa,r, Repod (6/99)
concluded 'Ihese fees would be assessed either at Filling t A fee on VNTY will reduce travel, significandy As part of its Congestion Relief Program, the
Traveled (VMT) Fee where the first "increment" of miles are exempt and additional miles vehicle miles traveled, which are primary that a VMI' charge may negatively
impact stations or annually, during vehicle registration if the tax is high and strongly enforced the Gry tested a ten cent VMI charge and
traveled are charged a hither per-mile fee. Other adjustments could be 'I ransportation Master flan objectives. lower-wage employees, manufacturing firms strongest
effects will be on trips of lower determined that it could generate as much as
structured to provide "credit" for emissions-sating or gasoline-sating and retailers with competition Outside of value and on trips for which a lower-priced
$75 million annually. (Sec Ma1rG'ng Reptsd)
(Nn'fe)
devices. Companies using vehicles for long hauls outside of Boulder the Congerhort Pining M1lalrling IUport (1998) fount that a Boulder. Some negative impacts could be
alternative is available
might be classified separately. Ilk VMI' charge would increase transit usage by 21N71v`v mitigated with 'lifeline tolls'", I (CO passes and
increase shared rides by 2.9" and decrease auto VM'I' shuttle services. + This fee does not require new equipment.
It is collected by monitoring vehicle odometers. Thu fee might be by 6.24"a.
assessed annually when vehicles are registered This fee would burden local residents and + The fee is a potentially significant money
businesses but not commuters. generator.
34. Vehicle Hours 'I his is a fee based on vehicle hours of use, possibly collected by If the fee is high enough, it might reduce peak our This fee would burden local residents
and 'I his may be the most expensive of the three - Requires the purchase and installation of new No estimates have been prepare
Traveled (VHT) Fee monitoring engine running time It would require installation of anew travel, thereby easing congestion without expanding businesses but not commuters.
Tlic fee would travelbased fees since it requires the purchase and equipment in vehicles
device. capacity. impact those traveling during the peak hour instalhuun of new equipment.
(Nf0'fN) the most. + By reducing peak hour congestion, this tool
could reduce pressures for capacity
improvements
35. Vehicle This is an annual fee that is imposed per vehicle nn the basis of its If the fee were high enough, it would impact vehicle This fee may be inversely correlated
with Phis may be the least expensive of the three The State requires emission testing of + Requires no new equipment No estimates have been prepare
Performance Fee effects on air quality. The fee might be assessed annually when purchasing decisions, thereby directly improving air household income, since low-income
vehicle-travel related fees gas and diesel powered vehicles when
vehicles are registered. quality, an ohjecrive of the T'MP Update. households tend to own older and less registering or selling vehicles in the t Correlates
directly with improving air quality.
(Nn /r) efficient vehicles. "enhanced area" which includes most
It could he based on emissions, 111 Us, or CMf. (Coripsrate Average front range counties. the test is done
Pucl I(conomy) standards privately This is not a revenue tool.
The [cc covers the test costs.
36. Off-Street Parking This is a one time, annual or monthly fee imposed on property owners This fee uorld be applicable to any project that reduces l his [cc would impact
all parking space users, There arc stgndicant administrative costs CAGII) and CI IGID impo,c perking + (nice established, parking space fees generate Nn resenuc estimates
have been calculated
Space Fee per off street parking space Property owners could pass this fec on to dependence on the automobile, such as funding the including residents, businesses, commmrrs
and associated with developing and maintaining a fees to Finance their parking lots and a predictable stream of revenue. for addmnnal application of this concept
users m a vanot of trays I.C )PASS and communiy transit- vuuols. database showingoff street parking.p.icc% per structures
(1Vra• appli,anon of lee) property and sending monthly or annual bill'. In 2WI, CA(;ID tailed S22 million from its
CAG ID and UI IG ID use a form of this fee in that rhes charge for use It penalizes properties that have complied with I fugenc uses parking fee revenues from
short term and long term parking fees.
of spaces in the parking gunge and parking lots within their district city parking regulations and benefits propenres municipal facilunes to finance buss
h<wndanes. that have not I ligh tax generators (retail, passes for as employees In 21X11, CI IGID raised about $114,01H) from
lodg-ij arc parucularh impacted lot revenues.
It imposes a direct charge on a Ins desirable
trascl mode, potentially impacting mode
choice.
37. On-Street Parking Thls elimept % ,uld u-11- a cbargc to use on street parking in a more -Dos tool m.y be particularly useful in managing 'I his fee might particularly
impact unisci,ty /here ld be cost, associated With Moulder imposes on street parking fees + Could be aself -financing tool to better I yptcally, perm, are used as
a tout u,
Fee unnersal way than parking meters, which ore currently in place in some parking u,thtn multi modal corndors students administering and enforcing this Ice
its some locations, revenues g" to the allocate a scarce resource, c in street parking allocate a scarce resource (parking) nrhe r
high-denuusd pOO-ri, of the 0o, for example, residents might be Gcncral fund than as a m, enor gonenn,r
f. Iddilrrsnnllrpp1maton o) rvirda,G charged for on street parking if they do not hate adequate Off street + Can be accomplished under current Stare
packing Boulder issues on-greet parking statutes.
rz)
pcrmrtc to rcvdcnu no ncighlnrhands
abc uin • downtown.
PAGE 5 of 10 - 6/28/2002
SUMMARY OF FINANCE TOOLS TO SUPPORT THE 2002 BOULDER TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE TM~'flATE
R Transportation Master Plan
APPLICABILITY TO 2002 TRANSPO. INCIDENCE & EQUITY LEGAL & ADMINISTRATION BENEFITS & LIMITATIONS QUANTIFICATION
NAME DESCRIPTION MASTER PLAN UPDATE CONSIDERATIONS CONSIDERATIONS APPLIED ELSEWHERE 38. Peak-Period this is a fee that is imposed on drivers to park
vehicles in certain This tool can help facilitate a shift to alternative modes .I here would be staff requirements to enforce the A milt) form of peak period parking
+ This tool would foster efficient use of high- 'I his could be a cast savings tool if it reduces
Parking Fee locations and/or during certain times of dav. 'Phis tool could be used peak ienod parking g fee fees is ire oseJ within CAGID and demand area'
without expanding r the parking peak demand and reduces pressure for
g for on -street or off-meet parking UI IGI D since meter usage is not supply. addinnnal parking
required throughout the day
39. Bicycle Fee This concept is o, impose a one-time or an annual fee on all bicycles in This fee is inversely correlated with the 'I MP objectives, This fee may be in,er,eh
corelmed ooh 'I here may be significant costs associated with - An annual fee would be costly relative to No revenue estimates have been calculated
the Cin- The bicycles could be tagged with a cm registration which include increasing bicycle ridership income enforcing the registration and imposing penalties revenues
generated from an administrative
(N-fre) 'this may be applicable to capital improvements for for not reh stenng perspective.
bicycle paths. Dees might be applicable to finance
bicycle security programs.
Rcvcnuo-gcncmung potential is relatively low
40. Tolls on Roads Colorado Revised Statutes authonze the collection of tolls for .Ihis is a tool that is appropriate for new roads that 'I he burden of paying the toll cormspnnds I
here ire significant legal and administrative costs The State financed US 16 with toll - A local toll may meet political resi>ta❑ce- No revenue estimates liave been prepared, as
construction of a new turnpike or for impr-crocnrs to existing provide a quick route with no easy, free substitutes- directly to the user Diners that benefit from associated
with using tolls revenues (1952 to 1767) The P.-471 no roads have been proposed for a toll,
(New feed turnpikes including the retirement on bonds a fa,ter rip pa) the toll Autbono uses tolls as its primary tool
to finance F-470. 'there is State-enabling legislation allowing
Toll roads or toll bridges are most effective when the • the creation of toll roads at the State level
improvement is the only route between places or is a '['(ill roads or toll bridge arc most efIccuic Local governments in Colorado have
substantial time or mileage improvement over the next when the improvement is the only route not attempted to apply this tool.
best alternative The tool has relatively little between places or M1 a substantial time nr
applicability to the lioulder'IMP Update mileage improvement over the next be,t Santa Cm/ is comideong implementing
.11ccr eve a I ligh Occupancy 'I'oll 0101) lane on
a portion of I li ihwn I.
41. Advertising Ilusmesses would pay a fee to place advertising on city owned facilities Revenues are generated privately and nti a This would require a charter amendment.
Boulder 'I he it 11) generates revenues from + Private sectnr vendorsgenerate revenues. As an illustration, the R I'D generated about
such as transit station strips voluntary basis by vendors who want to currently prohibits advertising. ad%crtising inside and outside of its $34
million from advertising sold on buses
(Nn, rhage) advertise. buses. (It prohibits advertising on its - May be considered visually unappcalmg (intenor and extenor)
light rail vehicles
42. Cost Effective This tool would keep costs down by focusing on cost effective ways to 'Ibis concept could be applied to all capital 'I'Nil' '[his relates to who pays the
tax or fee used to This would require administrative staff time to + This action can be implemented In 2(NII, a one percent reduction in capital
Improvements make capital impruycmcnts and perform on going operations and Update capital impravenicrrts- make the improvements- consider where and how to reduce
costs. administratively costs would have saved $95,4(M 1; a one
maintenance. percent reduction in operations and
maintenance costs would have saved
$159,2(NI (Transportation Fund &
Transportation Development fund
REGULATORY TOOLS
43. Annexation Annexation agreements can state the types and timing of infrastructure 'I'ransportanon projects which extend to or through 'Phis tool clarifies the financial
burden between 'I here is legal and planning staff time associated 'I his tool is availablc to all Colorado + Annexation agreements can establish clear This is not
a direct rcvcnuc-generating tool; it
Agreements improvements that are required as a condition for annexation currently undeveloped property and projects which are the municipality arid new development.
with negotiating individual annexation agreements municipalities Some municipalities that responsibilities for constructing specific is a cost control tool that directs financial
needed to serve new development not current existing Upfront costs can be extensive (but perhaps have had or encouraged substantial transportation projects.
'these responsibilities burden to new development and away from
(0mderaappb'aenn ofexirring deficiencies may be financed to part by placing the worth the effort) if annexation is complex or of annexations, such as Aurora
and Castle can be met using districts, intergovernmental the municipality.
1-0 burden on property to be annexed the municipality wants extensive exactions Rock, have used this tool aggressncly agreements beween distnets and the city,
up-
to control the financial burden art front construction, and binding requirements
existing residents and businesses. on future subdividers and builders.
Phis tool is less applicable to the lA1P update than
others.
44. Zoning Ordinance T'hesc regulatory tools are typically used to assure on site This tool is appropriate for projects triggered by new 'I he burden of using these
regulatory tools to Remarks in coning and subdivision regulations can this tool is available to all Colorado + A benefit of referencing transportation 'I his is not a
direct revenue generating tool; it
and Subdivision improvements are constructed in a timely manner and consistent with development. It can be used to require dedication of implement transportation improvement
~ is reference related requirements to pay the municipalities. Most use the tool to improvements in zoning and subdivision is a cost-control toll] that directs financial
Regulations local government standards. right of way, construction of portions of road, bicycle clean) on new development development excise tit, cost share in
future require on site improvements regulations is to tic the benefit of receiving burden to new development and away from
and pcdestnan paths and participation in off site specific improvements, participate to maintenance permission to develop to subsequent the municipality
(Bmadtrappbwtion ofesidiorg Ihey typically include requirements dedicate land and to build internal transportation impro-croK of public improvemcnts and the creation
of future requirements to participate financially-
wo - road, bicycle and pedestrian improvements, which are not part of the districts.
broader transportation mater plan.
45. Adequate Pubtic Ibis regulatory tool insures the timely construction of infrastructure AN Os arc appropriate for projects triggered by new An AI PO might deter desclop
nicm -thout This tool works best at the countywide level. Douglas Co Ity has an APf0 and - APFOs can cause unintended overbuilding This is not a direct rcvcnuc-generating
tool, it
Facilities Ordinance relative to development by requiring developers to cause needed development. The tool can be used to require the concum•nt transportation improvements in
I )therwi,c, development will go to where Ali[ Os detailed roncuruncv requirements where AIT0% arc not in place is a cost-control tool that directs financial
(APFO) / Concurrency improvement to be built It is typically enforced it the rezoning stag, dedication of rights of way, construction of portions of place or planned
for. It shifts the burden of are not in place, which may be the opposite of the burden to new development and away from
Requirements of land de-lopment bike and pedesmin paths and financial participation to re+Pntsibtluy away' from the local go%crnment intended effect +
An AN 0 is a negotiating tool to secure the municipality.
off site transportation impruycmcnts and towards the developer- unique negotiated agreements to help fund
'I his concept does not necessanly require developers to pay for Adopting an AN 0 requires extensive technical, some transportation improvements.
(I:ximng lentil tmprovemcnty, but only that tmprovcmcuts be available when administrative and legal work to estahbsh the
devclopmem occurs. ordinance and manage devclopmem through it, + AIP(s may prevent leapfrog development -
requirements and pace development with infrastructure
impniycmcnts-
'Ihr ronq is less widely used than other
regulatory tools and might be morn difficult
to pass.
DISTRICTS, AUTHORITIES, UTILITIES AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTS
46. Business Cities may create III Is na fund capital improvements or maintenance 'Ihe BID might be used to Finance impovemeni, within Ihe inodcnac i, out non rc,iduntinj
properucs Wilts arc established by petition A benefit study i, There arc 19 BID, in Colorado This + M D% may enter Into IGAs with other ISIUs arc self financing ti-Is
I rc, and
Improvement District within a district l'niquc atinbuto of III] D, arc (a) Only non primarily non residential portions of multi modal within the district Rc,idcotial
prof nits di, needed u, develop fees or :csscasmcros that arc i, a must statutory tool than SID,, gmvcnuncm, a,sc„mans are ,tmcmrcd to generate
(BID) roidunial p-pem owner, pay for impto,crncnt,,, 0))1'he IM) can corridors where there is a desert hrnelit to the abutting not pay based on bencfts receiied
(ilDs, and Mctro Demers. suffiaenr revenues to pay for district
fund maintenance programs. Property fawners s IiID, can fund on going mamtettamcc program, and facilities
I cc, must be to sync tt nh benefits rccm.cd A Ifl U is a go-i-nmemal entuy that may enter tutu Downtown Boulder has a fill)
31-25 12If + (:.R S) imergoyernmentil agrrcmuntc with others- Othco iii the (iumy include
( Lfpl6sdrnn a) loll) T.ongfnon( Gaicway III) and Main
Street I a wits ill, lil D
PAGE 6 OF 10 - 612812002
SUMMARY OF FINANCE TOOLS TO SUPPORT THE 2002 BOULDER TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE M PrDATE
Transportation Master Plan
APPLICABILITY TO 2002 TRANSPO. INCIDENCE & EQUITY LEGAL & ADMINISTRATION BENEFITS & LIMITATIONS QUANTIFICATION
NAME DESCRIPTION MASTER PLAN UPDATE CONSIDERATIONS CONSIDERATIONS APPLIED ELSEWHERE
47. Special Ones may create special improvement districts (SIDS). The local These districts are most applicable for localized The incidence of payment is on pmperttl's
SIDS con be established by petition from property There are 52 STD's in Colorado This + When the road requirement is built into an .SIDS are self-financing tools. Assessments
Improvement District h-conment or property owners may initiate SIDS. There is a improvements where a substantial portion of the benefit included in the Sl1). owners
or by resolunon of the city If established tool is used widely in Colorado annexation agreement, an SI D with are structured to generate sufficient revenues
(SID) hearing, which states maximum costs per property owner. 'Ibe district is attributable to properties along the improvement by resolution, more than 50"'n of
the property Boulder uses SIDS to finance payments spread over 10 years can he a more to pay for district programs and facilities.
31-25-503 C.R.S) is formed by ordinance or resolution Local governments sometimes participate to ownsss affected can Protest and halt the formation ncighbothtwd-scale
improvements, palatable way to finance a project than
When SIDS are used for protects with larger benefit finance the through traffic share of a diettict, such as Pidewalks Dcrocr uses SIDS outright cash
(Bmideruppfrrolion of eaisling T hose districts are only financing vehicles, they are not new areas, often the local government shares in costs and/or for neighborhood
alley
tooO governments and have no power to make contracts or levy taxes. finances segments of larger projects- A benefit study is necessary in develop a cost improvements
+ Piled life which corresponds to financing
Assessments must be m sync with benefits sharing formula, based on benefit. specific improvements.
The primary distinguishing feature of SIDS is that the foemula for received Aurora has made extensive use of
repaying district debt is most often some form of assessment, based SIUs in financing new roads or road
on benefit. Typically, district debt is issued and payment is spread upgrades since the I95os. • This is a financing tool only; SI Ds are not
equally over In to 15 years governmental entities and may not enter into
IGAs.
48. General All municipalities may create general improvement districts (GID) GUN may he useful in financing smaller transportation the incidence of payment is on propenics
A GID may require less up front legal or There are 35 GIDs in the State. The + GIDs may enter into an )(',A with a city or (',IDs are self-Financing tools. Taxes
and fees
Improvement District These districts may use property tax revenues to repay district costs_ protects which benefit a defined area included within the GID. administrame
costs because a benefit study might most extensive use of GI Ds for count). are structured to generate sufficient revenues
(G III) not be needed. transportation is in Boulder. CAGl D to pay for district programs and facilities
31-251614 CRS) They may he initiated by a petition signed by a majority of electors G IDs may acquire, construct and install streets, Parking ( ill )s may impose property
taxes and may (Central Area General Improvement + No benefit study is needed if only property
owning property in the district. The local government adopts an facilities and drainage improvements. Also impose fees, rates, tools or charges Since a GID is a gvovernmcm
entity, it can sign an District), U I IGID (University I fills taxes are to be used for repayment of district
(Amrderappheation o('e-rrixg ordinance or resolution creating the district. IGA with a city or county General Improvement District) and obligations.
Iwo A distinguishing feature of GI Ds is their Forest Glcn'l ransu pass 0D D are
The goycmingbody of the municipality or county where the GID is authority to impose property taxes, examples- + These districts are not new governmental
or Public Improvement located is the ex officio governing body of the district. entities. However, GI Ds may have an
District 30-20-505+ advisory board, such as CAGID and
UIIGID.
CRS)
49. Metropolitan Metropolitan districts are also called Tide 32 districts or special 'I his tool is most applicable to infrastructure he incidence of payment is on properties -
Independent metropolitan districts can create 'I here are 183 Metropolitan I )istricts + With proper review of senesce plans and Metropolitan Districts are self-financing
District districts These are separate government entities, which have a improvements that are needed to serve new growth. within the district. governance problems for
cities and counties, in Colorado- Metro districts were adoption of binding intergovemmental tools. Taxes and fees are structured to
32.1-201 et A C. R.S.) separate board of directors. Thcy may use property tax revenues, user Metropolitan districts might finance all or a substantial particularly
if the district has financial problems used extensively in Arapahoe, agreements, metro districts can be a useful in generate sufficient revenues to pay for district
fees or assessments to collect payment Often district debt is issued portion of transportation projects within their Some forms of payment, such arc propcny and cannot
deliver services to which they Douglas, )effersnn and resort financing portions of transportation programs and facilities
(Br der appkeation ofemoffA boundaries taxes, are imposed on vacant and improved committed mountain counties to finance internal improvements.
f-)) Metropolitan districts are formed by a Petition among property land Other forms of payment may be infrastructure or new large
owners within the proposed district Typically, the land is vacant and A creative use of metro districts is to rcgwre them to imposed only when construction occurs-
The local government has control or influence developments The tool is used more - District boards may subsequently reverse
the number of property owners is small. The first step is to draft a finance their share of larger regional improvements over metropolitan districts only prior to
service cautiously now as a few metropolitan their decision to finance projects included in
service plan that sets forth services to be provided and a finance plan through a binding inter governmental agreement with plan approval. Careful review of this
plan districts went bankrupt the service plan.
the local govemment. including possible requirements to sign an IGA
The city (or county) has authority to accept or teject the service plan can avoid the types of problems that have There arc a few in Boulder (',aunty + This
type of district may extend into multiple
or impose service plan requirements. Once the service plan is historically burdened cities and counties (CO Tech (.enter, Fairways, Superior, jurisdictions
approved, the local government has no further control. Developers Supenor/McCaslin)
like metropolitan districts since they provide a source of long-term tax
exempt financing.
50. Transportation (Local Go%emment Utility) Cities may create, franchise or license Boulder could create a transportation utility to manage Pea can be structured so that
the user Both types of utilities can be formed under current For Collins developed and - 'Ihe most stringent PUC requirement relates 'Phis is a self-financing tool
Utility utilities (§31-21-101+),'Ihis stature was used by the City of Pon any portion of its maintenance program (streets, benefits See discussion above on statute,
implemented a "Iransportation Utility, to insurance outside of municipal boundaries.
(§31-21-101+ and §4() -2 log Collins for stmt maintenance. bicycles, pedestrian paths, etc) Transportation Utility Fces was challenged and won in court,
and
CRS) I f a transit organization is formed and provides then abandoned the unity in favor no
(VUC-Regulated Utility) Under the Public Unlities Commission, local Boulder would be required to create a utility if it governs semce outside of Boulder, it must become
a PUC- a simpler transportation finance - There are administrative costs in establishing
(Net eerily) governments must become a transponanon utility whenever it a mass transit service that extends outside of municipal tegnstered utility- PL'C regulates rates,
schedule and program- I hcy arc reconsidering the a local government utility to replace current
provides service outside of its corporate boundaries (§40 2-1118) birders service areas and imposes insurance requirements. concept city functions
PUC staff report that its level of administrative
burden is low I iugene is currently considering the
creation of a transportation utility
Madison considered and dismissed
the concept.
51. Transportation These arc private non-profs organizations that ate established to 'Ihese entities can be organized to develop a plan, Ifgwty and incidence issues cannot be
In Colorado, transportation management US 301 ransportation Mobility + 'I he strength of private non-profit Cost estimates have not been prepared
Management implement specific public improvements, provide specific public deliver a service, ruse funds, facilitate public/private evaluated until the financial details
of the associations have been established as private non Organization is a T'MA transportation corysortattans is the ability to Public and private members typically fund
Association / services or convene multiple interest groups regarding a common partnering, receive and dispense funds. corporation are in Place profit entities sometimes
originated by a private coordinate public and prate sector activities organizations,
objective party and sometimes by one or several local In Dem cr,'I'ransporration Solutions, in a cost-effective and streamlined manner.
Organization This tool may be applicable to complex, high profile or governments. aTMA, reimbursed It ID for
muln jurisdictional projects operating the B-lime Shuttle Service.
Transportation
Corporation In I"As, transportation corporations
are established to buy rights of way
and assist in the planning and project
dcsi m.
52. Intergovernmental Inter gmemment d agreements (IGA%) may be between two or more IGAs may be useful when funding improvements that [(;As do not establish any new
equip There arc legal costs associated with drafting IGAe, CA(ill) and UI IGID share t They can be instrumental in documenting the IGA., do not generate revenue. 1 hey
Agreement (IGA) governments authorized under Colorado statutes. 'Ihcy may be traverse multiple jurisdictions, such as community transit imphntions since they do not create
Am new but in-house legal coun%cl typically drafts these responsibdows with the City cost sharing arrangements among local facilitate planning or service delivery across
between cities and the county, between a city and a metropolitan se-ce, regional bikeways and wider dissemination of form, of payment governments go%ernmennl
boundary areas-
129-I-2111 (.RS,, Cott, di trip or between a county and a metropolitan districtor bHwecn the the I:,(:( )PASS or to unplemmir car sharing programs
-
Aruclu XIV, § 18(2), 29-211 Cily and the Cnivemty of Colorado such as "Lipcar" or'Tlescar" • IGAe do not create a new form of revenue
CRS P Ili 1442)1 to finance transportation improvements
They may pnmde any function authunreJ by All participating Paine, A create use of IGAs is between gncurnmenls and
(8mider,rpp6odine of esnnitg metropolitan districts. Another use is for don.niou and
1_0 transfer of land
PAGE 7 OF 10 - 6/28/2002
SUMMARY OF FINANCE TOOLS TO SUPPORT THE 2002 BOULDER TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE TMRATE
Transportation Master Plan
NAME DESCRIPTION APPLICABILITY TO 2002 TRANSPOr INCIDENCE & EQUITY LEGAL & ADMINISTRATION APPLIED ELSEWHERE BENEFITS & LIMITATIONS QUANTIFICATION
MASTER PLAN UPDATE CONSIDERATIONS CONSIDERATIONS
53. Rural (;ovcmmcnts in any area outside of the RT7) area may use this Ibis may be applicable for improvements that extend The incidence is similar to the ('try or (aunty A
popular vote is necessary to impose the sales 'There are two R'I'As in the State: the - Using this authority in Moulder County If imposed in 2(1111, a I) 4`, sales tax in
Transportation authority. It may provide highways, roads, bikeway, bridges, railroad into Boulder County or for any major improvements for sales tae tax but not
the fees, tolls and charges. Baptm Road Rural Transportation would require a change to State Statutes Boulder County would have raised $16.2
Authority or mass transit services. Directors must be elected officials. which the City wants to increase its sales tax. Authority in Colorado Springs and
million. (54,061,199,679 x (NW)
43.4(A11+ C.R.S) Using this authority, in Boulder County requires the Roaring I ork'14ansportation - A popular vote is required
Aith permission from the local government and voters, the authority a change in State Statutes. Authority in Garfield County
(Nei enri,ry) may impose a sales or use tax of 0.4% or less which is exempt from + Can produce substantial and predictable
29-2-1og (IRS revenues if a sales and use tax is unposed.
(!niyue attributes of R'I'As are the ability to impose a Ito"'u sales tax
and impose a motor vehicle registration fee. The R'I A may also
impose fees, tolls and charges and may issue revenue bonds.
54. Regional Service The primary purpose of this authonry is to provide services and Ibis authonry would be appropriate for any large .1 he authority may impose property
ire, An or*anixatinnal commission for authorities Ihere tx one regional semce authonty - Using this authonry in Boulder County this is a self-financing tool. New services
Authority facilities that transcend local government boundaries. Boundaries must project, such as community transit scn ice of I(CO rain, fees, charge, and special assessments
may be formed by resolution of the local in Colorado. the Ouray Regional would require a change in State Statutes- and improvements would be financed with
(§32 7-101 s C.R.S) include at least all of one county and may include other counties and PASS, which benefits not only Boulder but Moulder and may issue revenue bonds_
go%emments or by petition. The Service Authority. new taxes and fees.
may not be within the Denver metropolitan area. County as well. If property taxes are used, the commission proposes services and the - A popular vote is
required.
(Nut, mXamvalion) improvement should be to correct existing deficiencies. maximum mill Icvy. There is a popular vote on
Services may include "public surface transportation" and several other formation and electron of board of directors
non-transportation services -Ibis authority is unique in its ability to
levy property taxes.
Using this au[horit}in Boulder Count), requires
a change in State Statutes.
PUBLIC I PRIVATE VENTURES
55. City Contribution to 'I 'o finance the non-district share of transportation improvements, the 'Phis tool may be applicable for any improvements that This is a straightforward
means of cost 'Ihere would be legal and administrative staff work 'f his tool is used often. For example, + 'I his can be a streamlined way to finance This is not a new revenue
source; it is a cost-
Districts City could pay fora portion of transportation improvements that will would be partially funded by districts The tool can sharing with property owners who also
I)vnefit if the City assists in the creation of a district cities typically bear administrative and some arsenals that traverse developments. sharing arrangement
be financed by a district. k6'hen using this technique, tines typically pay enhance the use of distnets by taking care of the costs from or cause the need for improvements. techn
ical costs to establish district
for their share up-front, thereby reducing the amount of district debt associated with through trips. and engineer improvements.
(Brwader dppdmrion of-sting (Neighborhood-based improvements
1-0 funded by SIDS in Moulder are an
example)-
56. Joint Development joint public / pnvate sector development occurs when there is an This tool may be applicable in the development of park From the public sector's perspective,
the 'There would be legal costs to develop and negotiate lbe bus/shuttle transfer stations at - Relying on joint development as a revenue
opportunity for complementary uses of the same facility (such as land) and ride facilities and the development of bicycle and intent of joint development is saving money
a development agreement, which states the either end of the 16'h Street Mall in tool is unwise, given the uncertainty that it
or complementary mix of public and private uses, such as public uses pedestrian paths and other improvements within multi- and/or improving the quality or usabdity of
responsibilities of the public and private party Denver are joint development will occur when and as anticipated.
(WAt.1 primly parrneffho) on the ground level and private uses above use corndors. the ultimate development projects.
+ Joint development would only occur when
The joint development may involve a sale/leaseback of land, leasing air The transaction would not occur unless all there is a benefit to the public sector over
the
rights, common ownership, and fee simple ownership. panes benefit. next best alternative.
S7. Sale/Leaseback This is a tool where one entity (public or private) purchases land or an t his tool would work best where there is a large or 'I his transaction would nor
occur unless all There would be legal and administrative costs to + The City could cam revenues from leasing 'I his tool facilitates a project or
improvement and leases it back to another entity (public or private). expensive parcel to be purchased or where the parties benefit. negotiate and execute a lase/purchase
agreement, excess land to a pnvate party improvement the potential for revenue
remainder of land that the city purchased has pnvate generation or cost savings depends on the
(Pwbdn/prinrte parrnerrb p) One application is where an authority, a private non-profit or for profit market pottcrut". could example
organization purchases property and leases it back to the City. + The City save upfront costs associated
with the purchase. This feature could be
Another application is where the City purchases property and leases useful if it is desirable to avoid the issuance
development rights back to a private-sector developer. of debt
58. Lease/Purchase 'Phis tool is the converse of the salt/leaseback It is a tool where land This tool is useful if the need is urgent or there are This transaction would
not occur unless all 'I here would be legal and administrative costs to - If the land is question is clearly escalating in
is leased with an option to purchase it some future date. It would other pressures to acquire key land and acquisition parties benefit. negotiate and execute a lease/purchase
agreement value, it may be challenging to negotiate a [his is a financing tool and maybe a cost
is
the City to control and use land for a smaller initial outlay than funds arc limited or will become available in the future future purchase price. savings
tool but not a rcvcnuc generating
(Pahb?/prorate parrneralup) an outright purchase tool.
This is a cost management tcchniquc.
+ The City could secure control over key
parcels of land for less than the full purchase
pace
59. Subsidies & There are a wide vanery of potential subsidies and incentives that can 'Thus concept may apply to bikeways, road crossings, Incidence and equity issues
will depend o-n the .Ibis requires legal and administrative costs to Municipalities use subsidies and + the Ciry may provide an in-kind incentive This could be a cost-savings
tool if
Incentives be offered by the Ctty to encourage construction or development casements, pedesnan improvements, landscaped specific subsidy or incentive intended In negotiate
agreements or to draft ordinances that incentives extensively. (such as a density bonus) to return for development constmcts desired public
activity that it desires treatments, drainage improvemenrs, etc. cscrs case, the policy maker will need w neigh facilitate incentives- construction of desired
improvements, improvements or builds tax revenue
the value of the desired (privatesector) An example is tax increment thereby saving money. generating real estate
improvement ag.mist the pubic sector Financing, where a blighted area
mcenme o, subsidy o dfcied. receives a share back of property and
sales tax in return for desnablc real
estate development .
NONPROFIT VENTURES
60. Private Non-Profit Private non profit famdanons are organiratinns dedicated to any nom Relative to transportation projects, there mar be financing Private non-profit
foundation, is kkhile there arc legal costs mociated with rho Boulder ahcadc has a Park and It may be hme comummg to establish a new I his is a cost saving, not a avenue-
Foundation profir purpose Some foundations are also charitable trusts that can foundations dedicated m unpnnang air quality, .ohmtarv There ire no equity burden
creation of pnvate nun profit foundations, these Recrcauon foundation foundation. generating i of
accept tax advantaged cnntnbutions from prisate sources. enhancing use of alternative modes, financing or imposed by using fooundations is a financng costs are not
the burden rd Ioc;J governments
(Nzvxader pPa lieon o) ,i x r. ih, maintaining bicycle and pedestrian improvements, svhicle Other Colorado based foundations - Success is unpredictable
~i
-
Undcr Colorado lay, a local government may estabhsh a supporting making or maintaining landscaped improvements -or Applying for a grant from an casting foundation that
have contributed to park and
foundation to solicit and receive gilts and grants from individuals, contributing to pilot project or implementing other with tnmsp,rtanon, air qualnv - envuonmcnial open
space projvci' include Id
corporations, (other private foundations and the federal gnvcrrmalu high image car high visibdiry projects objectives is relatively straightforward but requir-
Pomar Foundation, ( arts I amdy r ';his may be a very popular way for
Poundation -utrihutions may be exempt from federal income tax sedf re+nun-u I-mdlnon, and Recrcauon norp ratio- and affluent indniduals to
I-ouudanons may qualty. to receive funds under federal program, I.quipmcnr, Inc (R11) Poundation contribute locally
av,ulablc only to SIII(C)(3) -Kan nations
PAGF 8 OF 10 - 6/28/2002
SUMMARY OF FINANCE TOOLS TO SUPPORT THE 2002 BOULDER TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE TMEATE
n Master Plan
APPLICABILITY TO 2002 TRANSPO. INCIDENCE & EQUITY LEGAL & ADMINISTRATION Transportation
BENEFITS & LIMITATIONS UAN Master Plan
NAME DESCRIPTION MASTER PLAN UPDATE CONSIDERATIONS CONSIDERATIONS APPLIED ELSEWHERE Q
61, Homeowners 'I hest organizations are created to maintain the physical condition of I IOA% may be willing to maintain landscaping, 'I his w(ould be a voluntary activity'
there mar be some adm nistnatsc and/or legal I IOAs arc common. I Iowevvr, the Quality control could be difficult to impose his is a cost aaviog, not a revenue
Associations (HOA) commonly owned property and indirectly maintain or enhance the bikeways or pedestrian improvements that traverse or costs a,,coeiated with establishing
greements and use of I II 's to maintain generating tool.
value of their individual properties. abut their development. montonng success transportation improvements is more
(BrmderappdTalion of tailing ore + 1 IOAc may be more committed to
two maintaining bikeway, pedestrian and
landscaped improvements than any other
organization.
62. Civic Associations Ihe public pugxsse of some civic organizations can include Civic association may be willing to maintain landscaped This would be a volunaap a(tivit).
I,egd costs should be relatively minmml_ 'There tie Civc associations maintain portions - Quality control could be difficult to impose This is a cost -savings, not a
revenue
(Br derappdmlian ofexi-vling maintenance of public spaces entry treatments or other visible features that boost admiuutratise costs associated wnh establishing of
state higlimays generating tool.
1-0 civic pride standards and monitor the quality of the senice.
s There are civic pride hcncfilc and will as cost
savings.
63. 63-20 Corporations This is a non-pnsAt corporation formed under a states general non 'Ihrs could be used to make transportation No additional taxes or fees arc
incurred I,,xtemnc legal and atlministrato c work would 'I his tool has not been used in - Since this is tool has not been tested to 'I his is a self financing tool,
profs corporation law that meets the following requirements of IRS improvements, which arc needed to serve nearby Itevunues to pay felt the improvements arc probably
be necessary. Colorado to our knowledge Colorado to our knowledfm, there are likely a
Revenue Ruling 63-20.. (a) Frogaged in acrisities that arc essentially prop". which will be developed A 61-2l generated by the sale of land that (presumably)
number of currently unknown issues that will
(Nenloa1) public, (b) Income does not inure to the benefit of any private person; corporation could issue tax-exempt bonds to install bunefita from the improvements_ maten
alme
(e) State or political subdivision has a beneficial interest in the transportation improvements, lionda would be repaid
corporation and (obtains title to bondfinanced property, and; (d) State from the revenues generated by the sale of private
or political subdivision has approved the corporation and bonds to he property adjacent to the project t This tool ties the sole of developing land
issued, d any. directly to the construction of needed
improvements.
64. Neighborhood 'I he RIl) sells I'.coPaiwe to indniduals, neighborhoods, businesses 'I he existing actisity is directly consistent with the In year I of a neighborhood
program, the R11) sells Heol'asses directly to neighborhoods. Ihe neighborhood I'col'nss program + Fncourages usage of bus service in lieu of In 2011, neighborhood Fcol'ass
purchases in
Investment (EcoPass) and orgamzanon,. The fee amount is based on the number of Roukler'CNit' objectives regarding mode choice ncighborhinnl (residents) pay for SW of the
City staff provides technical assistance, particularly is used in one other neighborhood in driving and parking. 10 neighborhoods totaled V 59,168
recipients and their location relative to the availability of RTD senice_ I icol'ass and the City pays for 5n° in in year I In addition, there is an annual Cm cost,
the R 11) service area, a community in Neighborhoods paid for 65'9,,, the City of
for the last In vears, Boulder has assisted neighborhoods purchase subsequent years, the neighborhood generally as the City generally pays for 15"s, to 511". bf the
Lafayette + Builds neighborhood cohesion. Boulder paid for 2T"a and the It 11) paid for
F,coPasses by providing technical support, covering hard costs pays for 65"fi and the Ciry pays for 5(1"In a annual FcoPass purchase 8"'.,.
(printing and mailing) and subsidizing the annual purchase of few cases, there is K11) financial paruapation
1 7col aacs.
One neighborhood, Forest Glen, collects its share Ihe average cost is $61, per household per
through a general improvement district. lit the 15 year; the range is generally from 5411 and 8121,
other neighborhoods, resident volunteers collect per household depending on the level of
the resident share annually. available RTD service.
DEVELOPERS AND PROPERTY OWNERS
65. Construction of In addition to constructing interior local streets, developers could be Phis tool is appropriate for improvements that are A practice of requiring developers
to oversize There are legal and administrative costs associated Many municipalities use this tool to + If developers are required to build needed 'Ibis is a cost savings
tool from the municipal
Improvements: required to construct their share of adjacent collectors and arterials. attributable to new growth and be reimbursed transfers the financial with monitoring
an o'erstaing and reimbursement finance portions of collectors and improvements and be reimbursed by adjacent perspective since it transfers financing burden
Developers Share of Developer might. burden of construction to new development, program. arterials development or the development excise tax
to new development.
collectors and arterials build their fair share of improvements, or; -[his tool may be particularly appropriate for missing not the city fund, then Boulder
is relived from bearing
- oversize the improvements and be reimbursed when adjacent segments of ancrials or collectors. these upfront oats.
development occurs, or,
- participate through payment of the development excise tax
(discussed above)
66. Construction of This tool would require developers to sign an agreement to participate -Phis tool may incorporate extraordinary improvements The burden would be placed
on new '(here arc legal and administrative costs associated Castle Rock has made extensive use + I his tool would enable Boulder to show This is a cost savings tool from
the municipal
Improvements: Cost in their fair share of specific future improvements, such as freeway that are excluded from the improvements financed by development 'Me cost participation
formula with establishing, negotiating and monitoring cost of cost participation agreements to financial capacity to match state and federal perspective since it transfers
financing burden
Participation interchanges the development excise tax. could be matched specifically to a fair share participation agreements_ fund major transportation
projects funding for major improvements to new development
Agreements formula, based on trips generated
67. Right-o(--Way Developers and property owners of vacant or undeo-improved land Ibis tool in applicable to constmcnon of road I he incidence is on the property owner
It is a relatively standard practice to seek right-of- this is standard practice in moo - In mfll situations, where a road should be I his is a cost savings tool from the
municipal
Dedication would be required to dedicate sufficient right-of way for the eventual extensions. In some instances, the tool may be dedicating the land While the road
way, dedication of one-half of the needed right-elf- municipalities. widened, there are challenges regarding perspective since it transfers financing burden
construction of road, bicycle and pedestrian improvements appropriate for in fill road improvements. improvement may carry more traffic than the way for roadways
that abut propemex setbacks and uneven curb and lane lines_ to new development.
local development would require, the
((.onhnvrd,appGiahon of evoog In some instances, after improvements are constructed, addusinal dedication is for the system wide functioning
two right-of-way could he snld or leased for development. of road, bicycle and pedestrian impro-nicers_ + Right-of-way is dedicated prior to new
development and the roadway design is
incorporated into the development
68. Voluntary Property owner, would either dedicate land or provide an easement for Phis tool is applicable for any project where land is Since this would be voluntary,
there are oo there are legal coats associated with accepting a Voluntir) casements for open space + Ihere are no direct costs other than "f his is a coot savings tool
from the municipal
Easements and Land a transportation improvement, which traversed their property currently owned privately significant equity implications. 'I'o encourage transfer
of land or an casement and accepting and trade have been used assuming responsibility to maintain the perspective since it transfers financing burden
Dedication voluntary dedication or easements, a focal habing thereafter. property and/or relieve the current owner of to new development
government might (offer land use urdensity liability
(Brovderapplication o(nicing bo)nuses.
Iw~~
69. Construct Tax- .1 he, practice encourages the real estate devclopmcnt that generates ll'ithin muhnmodal corndnn, it may be desirable (o Phis is not a new financial
resource; it is in -Ibis may require some additional marketing work Nearly all municipalities in Colorado - Ihere arc imncatc relationships between As an illustration,
a 5,txio square font
Generating property and/or sales tax Substantial property tax generators include concentrate traffic generating and tis-paying uses such increased application of existing
fininnsl to attract tax generating devclopmcnt. engage in the process of attempting jobs, pnpulanon anti related air quality and restaurant with taxable sales of S350 per
Development lodgnog, manufacturers and buildings for rcnants with substantial as retail and lodging _ tool, to attract tax generating businesses. transportation
that are being explored by the square would annually generate 5W,51u1 for
personal property, such as bank,. Substantial sales tax generators City. the 'I ransportation I and and $49,175 for
h(gil andndmmr,rnuvr procedures'an' in place
mdude lodging anJ regnon;J retailers other City funds
(R`a tin!)
I(Sgxa) x E350 x (1}41) = E59,615, toPal At,
tax
70. Business The It 11) sr11, I-co Passes to bas-e nnses_ 'I he fee amount is based on Thu act-iN i, ducctly consistent with the lioulder IMP Ihe financial burden is
directly on bu,ines,ec It1 D sells I coPasscs directly to interested I'.col'asses are evadable throughout + s.ncourages usage of bus service in lieu of In 21as1, 126
employers (businesses) located
Investment -EcoPasses the number of employees and the bu,mcss locatims rcl'atoc to the objcctn es regarding mode choice. that purchase f cuPa„u for their emploite, businesses
The City of Boulder provides limited the It 11) service area. A number of driving and parking. in the City of Moulder purchased FroPane,
av ml.ibilns of ICI U servo and the City %Indt subsidize, 51,' , of dry sodf -filwrr but does participate finonaally for the other nans6 agencies such as those
for their 15.99) emplovees from the It 'I I ) for
(onlirtard,i !dingo Ir purchase in fear I and 25",. of the purcluse in first two icars of the busioes,' purchase of located in lierkelcy. I'.ugenc, and
5679 irw. (I'hrr rxihrdri liv Cl')a,nl(y mud dn(/
( pp (rsn nq year 2 1'.col'asses pladtcon ako soil monthly or annual I:astir"..)
!on/f
1aFFes.
PAGE 9 OF 10 - 6/28/2002
SUMMARY OF FINANCE TOOLS TO SUPPORT THE 2002 BOULDER TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE TM DATE
APPLICABILITY TO 2002 TRANSPO. INCIDENCE & EQUITY LEGAL & ADMINISTRATION Transportation Master Plan
NAME DESCRIPTION MASTER PLAN UPDATE CONSIDERATIONS CONSIDERATIONS APPLIED ELSEWHERE BENEFITS & LIMITATIONS QUANTIFICATION
71. University of Since 1991, the R11) has been selling "University Passes" to CU for its The activity is directly consistent with the Boulder 'I he financial burden for
the "Unnusin Pass" RTI) sell- Fctd'asses directly to the University IicoPasses or their equisalent are sold + Encourages usage of bus senicc in lieu of In 21N11, the RIT)
sold student passes to
ColorOdo - EeoPasses approximmely 2f,tNai>nidenis. lliis program was initi dly established 'I M11 objectives regarding mode choice. is on students as part of their student
Pecs (S27 without f it} invahernc t Between 1998 and 20il, to a number of unicersiucs, such as dnving and parking. Uniicrsity 4 Colorado for $1 le)7,244 and
with help from GO Boulder for $27 pct semester, students receive a per semester). the Cio did subsidwe the purchase of licol'asses Brigham Young (Provo), UC
Berkeley sold I lcoPasscs to the University for staff and
(Continued appbeation a_J raining pass that provides unlimited access to Rfl) see, ice, fur ('V faculty and staff. (lierkelcv), Universm of (lregnm faculty
for 5298 0(41 'I he University repom
tool) (I.ugcre), and Colorado .State that its 2002 contract for I;coliabses is
The fina tcial burden for the stiff and faculty University (fort Collins). S321,(NAI
Since 1998, the RTI) has been selling its fc"Pass to CU for its faculty IicoPass in on the Univcrsio, I .mploycvr do
and staff (6,250). the City subsidized this program for its first 4years. not pay for tlicir licul'ass. The RwPass for staff and faculty is similar to
CU pays for the Iicol'ass from several funds. parking (1n"6), general the pass sold to busmcssa. (tire above)
fund (49"..), and auxdiap department revenues (21"
PACE 10 of 10 •6/2812002
WORKING DRAFT #1:
Transportation Finance: Peer City Review
This report summarizes an analysis of innovative transportation finance ideas, programs and
initiatives in Boulder's ten peer cities. The work was compiled from interviews with finance
and public works officials in each city and supplemented with a review of budget
information. The analysis was compiled as a resource to Boulder as it looks to finance
programs proposed in the 2002 TMP Update. It is anticipated that interesting ideas that
begin to have particular relevance will be evaluated in more detail as the TMP Update
proceeds. The analysis focuses on local government contributions to finance transportation,
rather than on state or federal programs.
Observations.
1 Dedicated Local Revenue Source. A number of peer cities impose a local sales tax
dedicated to transportation (Fort Collins, Norman). Two peer cities (Ann Arbor and Tempe)
dedicate property taxes to transportation. Ann Arbor's tax is to resurface streets;
Tempe's tax is to repay general obligation bonds for transportation improvements.
Alameda County (Berkeley) imposes a '/z cent gasoline tax dedicated to transportation
improvements. Santa Barbara dedicates a specific portion of its utility users' tax for
transportation improvements.
2 Dedicated Revenues for Transit Service. Four transit agencies benefit from a
dedicated local sales tax (AC Transit (Berkeley); Utah Transit Authority (Provo), Santa
Cruz METRO, City of Tempe). The Ann Arbor Transit Authority and AC Transit
receive revenues from a local property tax. The states of Arizona (lottery), California
(sales) and Wisconsin ("Section 8521 provide dedicated taxes at the State level.
3 Local Option Gas Tax. With voter approval, Oregon municipalities may levy a gas
tax. With voter approval, California counties may levy a gas tax. In each case, a few
local governments have done so.
4 State Resources. A number of cities benefit from state revenue that is dedicated to
mass transit or alternative modes. For example, in Arizona, State lottery proceeds and
multi-state Powerball proceeds are distributed to cities and towns based on population.
For cities over 60,000, one-third of the revenues must be used for public transit.
5 Alternative Modes. Among peer cities, there seems to be a correlation between
interest/enthusiasm/commitment to alternative modes (bicycle, pedestrian, etc) and
weather. Tempe, and the peer cities in California have integrated alternative modes into
PAGE 1 OF 25
their city public works functions more comprehensively than peer cities in colder
weather environments. (Ann Arbor, Madison, Provo, Norman).
G Transit Passes. Transit agencies in nearly every peer city provide bus passes for
university students. (Ann Arbor is an exception) Ann Arbor and Santa Barbara provide
free passes for downtown workers. Berkeley provides free passes for City employees.
UC Berkeley has a particularly appealing commuter store (Berkeley Trip) and web site
that provides the broadest range of transportation services. Norman provides free bus
passes to income-eligible residents, using its Community Development Block Grant
funds.
7 Transportation Utility. Three peer cities have or are currently considering the creation
of a transportation utility and/or the initiation of a transportation maintenance fee.
(Eugene, Fort Collins and Madison) Eugene is in the process of considering a gas tax plus a
maintenance fee. Fort Collins adopted and rejected a transportation utility and fee in
the mid 1980s and is now reconsidering the concept. Madison considered the concept
and subsequently abandoned the idea.
8 Pavement Management. Two peer cites are in the process of considering a
substantial fee program to fund pavement management in a comprehensive manner
(Eugene and Fort Collins)
9 Parking. Many peer cities have parking services function as an enterprise fund. (Ann
Arbor, Berkeley, Eugene, Madison, Santa Barbara, Santa Cra,-). Eugene uses "excess parking
revenues" to fund its City employee bus pass program.
10 Corridor Studies. Three peer cities (Fort Collins, Provo and Santa Barbara) are in the
process of completing corridor studies.
11 Named Programs. Transportation programs that have been studied comprehensively,
bundled neatly and provided with a clear, clever or catchy name seem to gamer attention
and subsequently funding.
- When the need to fix sidewalks was studied and named the "Missing Links" program,
a funding plan was organized and implemented (Santa Barbara).
- When one peer city focused detailed attention on its need to repave streets in a
comprehensive and organized way, it got City Council's attention and a multi-year
funding program was adopted (Fort Collins).
- A program to increase bicycle security racks has been named the Bicycle Hitching Post
program. New retail, office and industrial development must install a calculated
number of "hitching posts" per square foot. (Santa Barbara)
PAGE 2 OF 25
- Ann Arbor has named its new bus pass for downtown "go!pass" which is consistent
with its downtown initiative, "geddowntown."
- Several California peer cities report that substantial capital funding followed about two
years behind the adoption of a comprehensive Bicycle Element to the General Plan.
12 Municipal Organization. Several municipalities have organized a special division to
focus on alternative modes (Berkely, Santa Barbara, Tempe). One municipality (Berkeley)
has recently created a new position, Assistant City Manager for Transportation, to work
on alternative modes.
13 Economic Realities. Several municipalities (Ann Arbor, Berkeley, Eugene, and Santa
Cru7J report serious financial constraints. Although they are full of creative ideas, their
budgets show substantial restraint and reductions. Ann Arbor and Berkeley are also
undergoing fundamental budget reorganization due to financial realities.
14 "Most" Innovative Finance Tools. While truly subjective, here is a short list of some
innovative ideas that other peer cities would like to bring to your attention.
Berkeley Trip. This is a web site and commuter store managed by the University of
California at Berkeley and funded jointly by the City and the University. It distributes
class passes, manages vanpool and carpool programs, provides bicycle travel
information, distributes maps and supports other alternative modes activities and web
sites.
Parking Revenues for Bus Passes. Santa Barbara recently financed a parking
structure with tax increment revenues and is using "excess" parking fee revenues that
would otherwise be used to repay bonds for "mitigation." Mitigation is in the forth of
purchasing bus passes for downtown workers. Eugene has a program where it uses
Parking Services Fund revenues to pay for City employee bus passes.
Transportation Maintenance Fee and Utility. Both Fort Collins and Eugene are
considering the imposition of a fee and the establishment of a transportation utility to
finance road maintenance. In both cases, this initiative would free up General Fund
money to finance mote capital projects.
Cost-Effective Operations. Ann Arbor determined that the most cost effective
solution to its traffic congestion problem was to invest heavily in a fiber-optic system
that interconnects traffic signals and enables existing streets to carry mote traffic.
PAGE 3 OF 25
PEER CITY ANALYSIS
Ann Arbor, Michigan ...................................................................................................................5
Berkeley, California .......................................................................................................................7
Eugene, Oregon ............................................................................................................................9
Fort Collins, Colorado ...............................................................................................................11
Madison, Wisconsin ...................................................................................................................13
Norman, Oklahoma ...................................................................................................................15
Provo, Utah .................................................................................................................................16
Santa Barbara, California ...........................................................................................................18
Santa Cruz, California ................................................................................................................21
Tempe, Arizona ..........................................................................................................................23
PAGE 4 OF 25
Jurisdiction Ann -Arbor., Michigan
2000 Population 114,024
University University of Michigan Ann Arbor campus; enrollment: 38,248, Fall 2001
Summary of Interesting Ann Arbor receives 100% State funds for street repair, maintenance and construction.
Features:
Ann Arbor is one of two peer cities to dedicate property taxes to transportation projects
(resurface streets and provide transit service through the Ann Arbor Transit Authority)__
Dedicated Local Funding Yes. There is a dedicated property tax levy (1.9822 mills) to resurface streets. This
Sources supplemental levy sunsets every five years. There is also a dedicated property tax
levy (2.1085 mills that is transferred to the transit agency, the AATA.
Roads: Operations & General Fund. The City's General Fund provides management, operations and
Routine Maintenance maintenance for its road, bikeways and pedestrian systems. Primary sources of General
Fund revenues are: property tax, 55%; state-shared sales tax, 15%; and municipal
services fees, 3%. About 16 % ($7.6 million) of the property tax revenues are from a
s cial lev eazmarked for the transit agency, the AATA.
Roads: Capital Local Streets Fund. This fund receives State-shared gasoline and weight taxes and
Improvements accounts for maintenance and minor repair on local streets. (2002 revenues: $1.5
million) On an annual basis, City staff allocates state gas and weight tax revenues
between the Local and Major Streets Funds, based on need.
Major Streets Fund. This fund also receives State-shared gasoline and weight taxes
and is used by Ann Arbor for major repairs on City major streets. (2002 revenues:
$5.1 million)
Street Repair Millage Fund. This fund receives local property tax revenues (2.0 mills),
which are reviewed by voters every five years. (2002 revenues: $7.2 million) These
funds are used primarily for resurfacing or for the local share of projects that are
funded federally.
Assessments. Ann Arbor uses assessments for most new improvements.
There are no impact fees. Developers negotiate with the City regarding off-site
improvements on a case-by-case basis.
Bicycle & Pedestrian For bikeways adjacent to roadways, the sources of funding are the same for streets,
Paths State gas and weight tax revenues. For off-road bikeways that abut private property,
assessment districts are used. For off-road bikeways not fronting private property,
there are special State Grants available.
Parking Parking System Enterprise Fund. This fund manages 11 parking lots throughout the
City. Revenues are from lot parking permits, on-street meters, parking meter covers
and residential parking permits.
Downtown Development Authority (DDA) Parking System. This "component unit"
accounts for 6 parking structures and 4 parking lots in the DDA area. Revenues are
from lot parking permits, street meters, and parking meter covers. The City is in the
process of transferring responsibilities to provide metered parking services to the
DDA.
Transit Service Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. (AATA) This agency provides service in the Ann
Arbor and Washtenaw County area. In addition to other funding, the AATA receives
$7.6 million annually from a special property tax mill levy imposed by the City of Ann
Arbor and transferred to the AATA.
The AATA is in the process of negotiating an agreement with the U of M to operate
some services currently operated by the U of M and expanding service to the
Downtown and to the Detroit Metropolitan Airport.
Transit Pass Downtown Employees. "go!pass" is an element of the "get!Downtown" program, a
partnership between the AATA, the Arbor Area Chamber of Commerce the city of
Ann Arbor and the Downtown Development Authority (DDA). It is an unlimited
PAGE 5 of 25
Jurisdiction Ann Arbor Michigan
usage bus pass that is free to employees that work within the DDA boundary except U
of M employees. The first year of funding (through 11/01) was subsidized by a
CMAQ grant and local support. The second year (12/01-10102) is funded by the DDA
and a $5 per employee annual contribution.
Students. There is no AATA transit pass available to students. The University of
Michigan provides bus service free of charge to everyone between its four Ann Arbor
area campuses, its off-campus housing area and several park-and ride sites. It also
provides several special transit services, including Nite Oil, Paratransit and Ride Home
after transit service regular hours.
Partnering w/ The The City is considering initiating an evaluation of services delivered to and revenues
Universit of Michi an received from the University,
Partnerin GAs w/ others
Innovative Transportation Signal Interconnect Project. The City has invested substantially in a system that
Finance Tool synchronizes traffic signals through fiber optics. The system is able to signal the
traffic light ahead that a car is coming; other signal programs correct themselves to
move congestion away from intersections.
Transportation Finance "Too many cars; not enough roads and bikeways. " Ann Arbor is a mid-sized town
Problem / Issue with a large-town commute traffic problem. Many people commute from the Detroit
area into Ann Arbor to work on a daily basis.
Other Remarks There is substantial growth outside of Ann Arbor, particularly to the northeast.
Transportation challenges relate to planned, unplanned, proposed and yet-to-be-
proposed development. Adding traffic lanes to solve the problem is the least desirable
solution from the residents' perspective.
Due to some unusual circumstances, Ann Arbor faces a $3 million gap between
projected expenses and available revenues. It is in the midst of a comprehensive city
transition and re-evaluation focusing on efficiencies, initiatives, program reductions,
fair share/cost recover and partnerships.
Contacts Finance Director: Brenda L. Smith
Public Works,
PAGE 6 OF 25
Jurisdiction Berkeley, California
2000 Po ulation 102,743
University University of California at Berkele ; enrollment: 32,128, Fall 2001
Summary of Interesting The City's main transportation thrust at this time in TDM. Among other activities, the
Features City established a new position, Assistant City Manager for Transportation, to oversee
transportation planning, traffic engineering, and alternative transportation programs.
Dedicated Local Funding Alameda County voters approved Measure B, a County V2 gas tax. Revenues, about
Sources $1.4 million annually, are used to fund capital projects.
Alameda County allocates a percent of property tax revenues to AC Transit for service.
This does not affect Berkeley directly.
Roads: Operations & General Fund. This fund provides for the operations and routine maintenance of
Routine Maintenance Berkeley streets, bikeways, etc. The primary revenue sources are: Property Tax, 24%,
Sales Tax, 16%, Utility User's Tax, 14% and Parkin Fines, 8%.
Roads: Capital There are three primary sources of funding for road capital projects. Most projects use
Improvements all three sources of funds.
Measure B Fund receives revenues from the County's 'h cent gas tax (about $1.4
million annually) and is used to fund capital projects.
State Gas Tax Fund receives revenues from the State gas tax on a formula basis and is
used primarily to fund major maintenance.
Capital Improvement Fund receives a transfer from the General Fund.
There are no impact fees. Berkeley is built-out from a physical perspective and, in its
o inion, from a o ulation perspective as well.
Bicycle & Pedestrian Berkeley funds bikeway capital improvements in a variety of ways.
Paths
- Measure 8 Fund. In Berkeley, a portion ($300,000 per year) of the measure B '/2
County gas tax is reserved for bikeway and pedestrian improvements.
- Housing Improvement Program (HIP). Berkeley recently received HIP funds to
construct a major bikeway along an abandoned rail line.
- CalTrans. Berkeley recently received funds to construct new bikeway along a
second abandoned rail line.
- Capital Improvement Fund, which receives a transfer from the General Fund.
On- oin o rations and maintenance are funded with General Fund revenues.
Parking Off-Street Parking Fund. This fund earns revenues from, operates and maintains the
City's downtown parking structures. The Fund is managed by the Finance
Department.
Parking Meter Fund. This fund earns revenues from parking meter fees. The Public
Works Department receives a fixed percent of meter revenues to maintain the meters.
Permanent Resident Parking Permits: There are 14 "preferential parking" permit areas
in the City. Enforcement: 8 am to 7 pm. For permanent residents, permits cost $21
per year; permit year is October 1 to September 30. Low-income individuals may
ualif fora 50%o discount.
Transit Service AC Transit. The Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit) provides bus
service to Berkeley, Western Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. Its sources of
funding are: farebox revenues, 20%;'/4 cent statewide sales tax (TDA), 26%; property
taxes from Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, 18%;'h cent BART sales tax, 13%;
and V2 cent sales tax - Alameda Count Measure B, 6%.
PAGE 7 OF 25
Jurisdiction Berkeley, California
Transit Pass Class Pass. Students at UC Berkeley can ride AC Transit and campus shuttle buses all
semester for "free." Students pick up a Class Pass sticker and place it on their Student
Photo ID. Students pay $18 per semester in their registration fees. The Berkeley TriP
advertises that this has a value of $400.
Partnering w/ Berkeley TriP. The Berkeley TRIP is funded jointly by UC Berkeley and the City of
University of California at Berkeley to promote transportation alternatives to minimize traffic congestion in the
Berkeley (UC Berkeley) community. Out of its Commuter Store, it distributes Class Passes, manages vanpool,
carpool programs, and guaranteed ride home programs, and provides information
regarding other regional travel, bicycle travel, and maps. It also supports excellent
web sites for information about alternative modes transportation.
BART Discounts. UC Berkeley students are eligible for BART tickets at a modest
discount.
Partnerin GAs w/ others None
Innovative Transportation Berkeley and University of California are jointly preparing a Transportation Demand
Finance Tool / Program Management Study (TDM Study) to develop "efficient, environmentally friendly,
economically sound transportation for the Southside/Downtown areas of Berkeley for
the next twenty years. " The study will include facilities and programs for automobiles
(e.g., parking structures), bicycles (e.g., bicycle parking), pedestrians (e.g., sidewalk
improvements) and transit (e.. expanded transit subsidy programs).
Transportation Finance Berkeley has just begun an initiative to promote Eco-Passes. It has dedicated $100,000
Problem / Issue to purchase Eco-Passes for its employees ($60 per employee) and is just beginning an
effort to encourage businesses to purchase Eco-Passes, beginning with the Downtown
Business Association.
Other Remarks Berkeley recently created a new position, Assistant City Manager for Transportation.
This person heads the newly created Office of Transportation, which consolidates
transportation planning, traffic engineering, and alternative transportation programs.
Berkeley's budget is comprised of a baseline budget that includes spending to provide
current, recurring service levels and previously approved funding commitments and
funding augmentations based on additional funding availability ($12.6 million for
2002). The City is in transition to a "Service-Based Outcomes Budget."
Contacts Public Works Director: Rene Cardinaux,
Public Works Budget, Darryl Moore
Assistant City Manager for Transportation, Peter Hillier
PAGE 8 OF 25
Jurisdiction Eu ene Ore on
2000 Population 137,893
Universities & Colleges University of Oregon; enrollment, Winter 2002, 18,472
Others: Northwest Christian College, Lane Community College; Eugene Bible College
Summary of Interesting Transportation Utility Fund. This is a new concept to be activated in 2003 with two
Features: new sources of revenue.
Bus Passes. The Parkin Services Fund gays for the City employee bus ass program.
Dedicated Local Funding Oregon is one a handful of states that allow motor fuel taxes to be imposed at the local
Sources level. Eugene is considering a tax.
Roads: Operations & Road Fund, This fund finances both the maintenance and construction of City roads.
Routine Maintenance Revenues are primarily from the City's share of State gasoline taxes (about 80%) and
Lane County Urban Transition revenues (about 13%). The partnering agreement with
Lane County regarding urban transition revenues is ending. Revenues are dropping.
The FY 2003 budget calls for a 17% expenditure drop; the FY 2004 budget calls for an
additional 57% dro .
Roads: Capital Road capital projects are financed with one of four funds: The Road Fund (see
Improvements above), the General and Road Capital Projects Fund, the Transportation System
Development Charge (SDC) Fund, or the Special Assessments Capital Projects Fund.
A new enterprise fund, the Transportation Utility Fund, is proposed to generate more
revenue and ease the burden on the Road Fund.
General and Road Capital Projects Fund (312). This fund finances roads that use
State or Federal funds and are not financed with the Road Fund. The State Highway
Fund distributes revenues from the State gas tax to cities based on the population. The
General Fund transfers monies to this account for the local match.
Transportation SDC (Systems Development Charge) Fund (333). This fund receives
fees from SDC charges and constructs related improvements.
Special Assessments Capital Projects Fund (351). This relatively small fund accounts
for costs of public improvements that primarily benefit property owners against whose
property special assessments are levied.
Transportation Utility Fund (561). A Citizen Subcommittee of the Budget Committee
proposes two techniques to pay for the $67 million pavement preservation backlog and
related funds for operations and maintenance. The two techniques are a two to five
cents per gallon gas tax and the creation of a Transportation System Maintenance Fee
(TSMF). These tools will generate $9 million annually. The program would be
managed through a new transportation utility fund, which would be an enterprise fund.
Transportation System Development Charge. Eugene is considering expanding the
allowable purposes of the transportation SDC to fund capital improvements for
existin arterial and collector streets ($700,000 per ear).
Bicycle & Pedestrian There is a Bicycle Master Plan.
Paths Bicycle system preservation and maintenance is proposed to be funded by the
Trans ortation U[ilit Fund.
Parking There are 2,770 spaces in six downtown structures and 423 spaces in downtown
surface lots and 3,832 on-street spaces and neighborhood parking permits.
Eugene manages The Parking Services Fund (525) is an enterprise fund that accounts
for operations of city-owned parking facilities and funds the City employee bus pass
program. Revenues include parking fees and fines, meter receipts and rentals. It is
full self-sustainin .
Transit Service
Transit Pass The Parkin Services Fund pays for the City employee bus ass program.
Parmerin w/ The
PAGE 9 OF 25
Jurisdiction Eu ene Ore on
University of Oregon
Partnerin GAs wJ others
Innovative Transportation
Finance Tool
Transportation Finance Prominent in the City's Manager's budget April 2002 submittal is this statement: "The
Problem / Issue tax limitation measures passed by voters in the 1990's have "seriously eroded the
ability of local governments to continue current service levels to citizens..."
Other Remarks A 2002 Eugene City Council Goal regarding transportation and land use: "Sustainable
Community Growth and Change - A community that retains a high quality of life and
a healthy economy, effectively links land use and transportation planning, and
successfully manages growth and change in an urban environment"
General Fund. Eugene's General fund is supported by two primary sources of
revenue: and property taxes (52%), user fees (14%), and a contribution-in-lieu-of-
taxes from the utility (9%). There is no local sales tax. The City does not use the
General Fund to finance road operations or maintenance.
Contacts Public Works - Transportation Division, Cindy Mumau
PAGE 10 OF 25
Jurisdiction Fort Collins Colorado
2000 Population 118,652
University Colorado State Universi[ ; enrollment: 22,782, Fall 1999
Summary of Interesting Transportation Utility. Fort Collins pioneered the concept of creating a utility out of
Features: street maintenance services.
Dedicated Local Funding In April 1997, voters approved the extension of a 0.25% sales and use tax is earmarked
Sources for street maintenance and transportation. Projects include the Pavement Management
Program (street maintenance and overlay), expansion of the annual sidewalk program, the
Mason Street Transportation Corridor and the North College Corridor improvements.
Revenues go into the Sales and Use Tax Fund and are transferred to the Capital
Improvements Fund. This tax is effective from January 1998 through December 2005.
Roads: Operations & The Transportation Services Fund provides funds for on-going operations and
Routine Maintenance maintenance. It receives revenue from the General Fund, the Highway Users Tax Fund,
the County Road and Bridge Fund and other sources.
Transportation Maintenance Fee. City Council is considering placing a transportation
maintenance fee on all residential, commercial and industrial properties. The fee would
be imposed based on traffic generated by land uses. It would generate $1.3 million and
would enable the City to redirect some General Fund money formerly spent on
maintenance (pavement management) to capital improvements.
Roads: Capital Capital projects are funded either through the Capital Improvements Fund or the Street
Improvements Oversizing Fund. In the Capital Improvements Fund, most of the local share of capital
costs comes from a dedicated 0.25% sales and use tax. In the Street Oversizing Fund,
about 75% of the revenues are from Street Oversizing Fees and 25% is from a transfer
from the General Fund.
Building Community Choices. This is a voter-approved 0.75% sales and use tax imposed
by voters to construct specific projects, including transportation. It is comprised of three
parts: 0.25% for "capital choices" including some road improvements; 0.25% for natural
areas, trails and parks and 0.25% for street maintenance and transportation. These taxes
were approved in April 1997 and are effective for 8 years, January 1, 1998 through
December 31, 2005.
Pavement Management Program (PMP). The City has adopted a multi-year full funding
plan to catch up with paving responsibilities by 2006 using a combination of Building
Community Choices (BCC) sales tax funds dedicated to this purpose and a one-time
transfer from the General Fund. The City's intent is to resurface on a 7-year cycle. In
2002, the pavement management program will total $6.6 million; the BCC will
contribute about 51% and the General Fund will contribute 49%.
Street Oversizing Capital Expansion Fee. Fort Collins requires new development to pay
for its "proportionate share" of the capital cost of additional infrastructure capacity,
including transportation. The most recent revisions to this fee call for funding the
growth-related share of transportation improvements that include bike lanes, pedestrian
ways and transit as well as vehicle travel lanes. This impact fee was enacted in 1979 with
revisions in 1988 and 1996. It is imposed per unit for residential uses and per square foot
for most nonresidential uses. The City is currently considering an increase in this fee.
Special Improvement Districts (SIDS} Historically, the City made extensive user of SIDS
to fund street improvements. More recently, the City has adopted criteria that constrain
the use of SIDS. None have been formed within the last 9 or 10 years.
Proposed 0.25% Sales and Use Tax. Council is considering putting incremental tax on
the ballot in November 2002 to fund specific capital improvements. It would generate
$5.9 million annually.
Proposed 1% Construction Value Excise Tax. Council is considering uttin on the
PAGE 11 of 25
Jurisdiction Fort Collins Colorado
November 2002 ballot, a 1 % tax on the declared value of improvements at the time a
building permit is issued; qualified affordable housing would be exempt. This would
generate $2.06 million per year. (This will be placed on the ballot to override TABOR
limitations.)
Bicycle & Pedestrian A portion of capital costs for growth-related bikeways are financed with the Street
Paths Oversizing Capital Expansion Fee. In addition, bikeways are funded through the 0.25%
Natural Areas, Trails and Parks and the Street Maintenance and Transportation sales and
use tax.
Parking The Parking Services Division of Public Works manages the City's two parking
structures: The Civic Center Parking Structure and the Old Town Parking Structure. The
Civic Center Parking Structure is financed with Certificates of Participation. Capital
financing responsibilities are shared among the City, the County and the DDA. The
County paid for its share ($4.3 million) up front. The City financed its share with
Certificates of Participation, repaid with General Fund revenues. The DDA participates
in funding a portion of the costs with its tax increment revenues. The City and County
jointly share responsibility for funding maintenance if parking fees are insufficient. To
date, fees have been sufficient to fund parking structure maintenance.
The Old Town Parking Structure is financed with tax increment bonds issued by the
Downtown Development Authority. Bonds will mature in 2006. The City receives
parking revenues and provides maintenance of the facility.
Transit Service Transit Services Fund. This is an enterprise fund that provides fixed route and
pamtransit bus services (Transfort) throughout the City and into portions of the County.
The Fund receives revenues from CSU, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA),
Medicaid, Larimer County, farebox revenues, advertising, and other miscellaneous
sources.
Transit Pass Transfort bus service is free to CSU students with a valid Student Activities Card.
Transport bus passes are available to CSU staff and faculty at $40 per year and can be
urchased from CSU.
Partnering w/ Colorado CSU contracts with the City to provide transit services for CSU students. (need contract
State University (CSU) terms)
Parmering/JGAs w/ others Fort Collins continues to be a leader in forging partnerships with other jurisdictions and
agencies to establish regional transportation networks for streets, transit, bicycle and
edestrian trails. This is one of five priority goals adopted in 2001.
Innovative Transportation Pavement Management. Fort Collins is one of very few cities that have successfully
Finance focused on and financed a comprehensive pavement management program. Revenues are
from the 0.25% Street Maintenance and Transportation sales and use tax and the General
Fund. If Council passes the transportation maintenance fee, it will replace the General
Fund transfer for avement management.
Transportation Finance The City has identified the need for four high priority transportation projects that cannot
Problem / Issue be funded with current revenue resources. These are improvements to segments of
Harmony Road, Lemay, and Timberline Road plus matching funds for the Mason Street
Corridor. Voters may be asked to approve two additional taxes: a 0.25% sales and use
tax; a 1% Construction Value Tax. City Council is also considering the imposition of a
transportation maintenance fee.
Other Remarks Transportation Utility. In the mid-1980s, Fort Collins pioneered the concept of imposing
a fee for street maintenance through the creation of a transportation utility. The City
withstood a legal challenge that went to the Colorado Supreme Court. Subsequently, in
1989 City Council withdrew the fee,
Regional Transportation Authority. Fort Collins plans to evaluate the merits of
establishing an RTA. Since the city is outside of the RTD service area, it is a legally
available tool.
Contacts Transfort, Tom Fraser
Finance Director, Alan Krcmarik
Budget and Research Director, Doug Smith
Public Works, Mark Jackson
PAGE 12 OF 25
Jurisdiction Madison Wisconsin
2000 Population 208,054
University University of Wisconsin; enrollment: 40,470, Fall 2001
Summary of Interesting Parking Utility. All on-street, off-street lots and off-street parking structures are fully
Features funded by user fees through the parking utility.
General Fund: Madison is not allowed to impose a sales tax; counties and the state are
allowed. There is no sales tax sharing.
Dedicated Local Funding None -
Sources
Roads: Operations & Local funding is primarily (65%) property tax.
Routine Maintenance
Roads: Capital The Capital Improvement Fund revenues are primarily (65%) property taxes.
Improvements
Growth related improvements are financed with impact fees
Traffic Signals. New traffic signals are financed by properties generating the need.
Typically, a property owner approaches the City with a request. City staff will
determine which properties should participate in financing the improvement, based on
trip generation. Participants pay for the capital costs and the on-going operations and
maintenance. On-going operations and maintenance may be paid for up front (15
times the estimated annual cost) or over time. If o&m is financed over time, then
owners are liable for an extraordinary maintenance that may arise.
Primary Funding Source: City. Funding is from the General Fund with grants from metropolitan organization,
Bicycle & Pedestrian State and Federal Government. Madison has converted a number of abandoned
Paths railroad beds that penetrate the central city. Commuters use some bikeways but the
winters can be quite harsh.
University. The university is very active in bikeway construction. Most often, it works
with the City on an informal, cooperative basis related to specific bikeway
improvements. There has been one formal partnering arrangement between the
University, the City and the State to finance a bikeway underpass.
Parking Parking Utility. Capital, operations and maintenance costs associated with all
municipal parking (on-street, off-street lot and off-street parking structures) are
financed by a parking utility. This is an established organization. There is a waiting
list for monthly passes. a resident pass costs $110 per month; a non-resident pass is
about $125 per month.
Transit Service The Metro Transit System, formerly Madison Metro Bus, is a city service. It is not a
utility or enterprise fund and it competes with other City projects for funding.
Operating Funds. The State provides "Section 8521" funding for operations costs to
the system. Madison and Milwaukee are in a separate tier from other, smaller cities.
They receive a fixed dollar amount per year that increases by a fixed percent. It works
out to about 47% of operating funding.
Capital funding is from TEA-21, Section 5309 - New Start matched with General
Fund, farebox and advertising revenues.
PAGE 13 OF 25
Jurisdiction Madison Wisconsin
Transit Pass The City of Madison (Metro Transit System) and the University of Wisconsin
negotiate a service agreement and an annual fee that the University pays to Metro for
service to and through campus. The intent is for Metro to break even, using fully
burdened costs minus pertinent revenues. Students receive an bus pass ("ASM Pass")
which they pay for through student fees.
Others may purchase a monthly transit pass for $32 to $36 per month; this is a large
savings for regular riders since the fare is $1.50 per ride. A few companies purchase
passes (at the full price) and provide them to employees. Employees may receive up to
$80 per month for transportation without declaring the receipt as income.
Partnering w/ The Roads & Parking. Generally, the University takes care of its own roads, streetlights,
University of Wisconsin parking, and bike paths. Madison Metro sells the University bus passes for distribution
to its students.
Transit. Since 1996, the City and the University have had a service agreement wherein
the City (Madison Metro) provides transit service to and through the University.
Park and Ride Transit Service. The University is in an urban setting and is loosing
parking to new construction. The University has one off-campus park and ride for
faculty and staff with express bus service to campus. It is building a second facility.
Metro Transit Sys tem provides the transit service.
Partnering / IGAs w/ Road. Some road improvements have been jointly funded with State, county, and one
others or more municipalities.
Transit. The City has agreements with Dane County and social services providers to
provide paratransit services. The City uses RSVP (Retired Senior Volunteer Program)
to assist in the provision of services.
New or Innovative Impact Fees: These are very new in Madison.
Transportation Finance
Tools Faculty/Staff Transit Pass. The City and the University are in negotiations regarding
an extension of the student ass to university faculty and staff.
Transportation Finance Re-Routing Transit Service. To provide more efficient service, the Metro Transit
Problem / Issue System is evaluating the feasibility of combining their circular route / transfer point
s stem with demand responsive aratransit service.
Other Remarks Street Maintenance Utility. This idea was considered and abandoned.
Contacts Transportation, Bob Knobeloch,
Comptroller's Office, Michael Weitzel
University of Wisconsin Transportation Department, Rene Callaway
PAGE 14 OF 25
Jurisdiction Norman Oklahoma
2000 Population 95,694
University University of Oklahoma; enrollment: 21,622, Fall 2001
Summary of Interesting Norman has adopted a "recoupment ordinance" wherein the City constructs missing
Features road links and related safety improvements that abut undeveloped land and is repaid in
future years when adjacent development occurs. Similarly, Norman has a "transition
reimbursement program" wherein developers are required to make additional
"transition" improvements to link its new road construction with adjacent roadways.
Develo ers are subs uentl reimbursed if adjacent development occurs.
Dedicated Local Funding None for operations. The Capital Fund (see below) receives dedicated sales tax
Sources revenue.
Roads: Operations & Funding is from the General Fund. Sales tax revenues comprise 64% of total General
Routine Maintenance Fund revenues, excluding transfers,
Roads: Capital The Capital Fund, which includes all municipal capital projects, is funded with a 0.7%
Improvements sales tax. Within this fund, 38% of the revenues are dedicated to capital and 25% are
dedicated to street maintenance.
Bicycle & Pedestrian There is no special funding for bicycle and pedestrian paths.
Paths
Parking The City does not own any off-street parking lots or structures other than those used
for municipal facilities. There is enabling authorization to create a public trust to own
and mana a facilities
Transit Services Transit Service is run by Joint Venture of the University of Oklahoma and COPTA
(Central Oklahoma Parking and Transit Authority). The City provides some funding
to the Joint Venture.
Transit Pass Students can ride for half-price when they show their student ID. Half price is $0.25
per ride. Faculty (and all other patrons) may purchase a $10 punch pass or a $20
punch pass. Income-eligible people may ride for free. Funds for this program are
available through the City's Community Development Block Grant.
Partnering w/ The
University of Oklahoma
Partnerin GAsw/others
Innovative Transportation Recoupment Ordinance: Arterials triggered by new growth are funded by adjacent
Finance Tool developers. However, this can create some safety problems due to discontinuous lanes
and roadway width. The City finances missing links and safety improvements with a
combination of city, state and Federal funds. Typically the City ends up responsible
for 30% to 50%. In these cases, the City uses its "recoupment ordinance" wherein the
City will be paid back in future years when subsequent adjacent development occurs.
Transition Reimbursement. Sometimes, developers are required to make additional
"transition" improvements to link its new road construction with the adjacent roadway.
In these cases, developers can recoup their expenditures on these "transition"
improvements from subsequent development. Subsequent developers pay the City; the
City reimburses the earl developers.
Other Remarks Norman has seriously considered changing its method of financing roads generated by
new growth to impact fees and will likely take this path in the future but it is really
hard to pursue.
Contacts Public Works Director, Jimmy D. Berry
University of Oklahoma, Theta Dem s
PAGE 15 OF 25
Jurisdiction Provo Utah
2000 Population 105,166
University Brigham Young Universit ; enrollment: 33,951, Fall 2001
Summary of Interesting Provo is participating in a countywide corridor plan for 1-15 that is considering
Features construction of collector/distributor lanes in lieu of interchanges._
Dedicated Local Funding State road taxes are used to finance new roads and major road rehabilitation projects.
Sources There are no dedicated local funding sources for transportation.
Roads: Operations & The General Fund finances Streets Maintenance, a division of the Department of
Routine Maintenance Public Services. 46% of General Fund revenues are from sales and use taxes, which,
in Utah, are distributed proportional to population. The next largest taxing source is
franchise fees, 20% of total General Fund revenues.
Roads: Capital The B&C Road Fund is used to construct new roads and complete major rehabilitation
Improvements on existing roads. Funds are from the City's share of State gas taxes that are paid at
the pump. Funds are distributed on a formula-basis. (`B" funds are for county roads
and "C" funds are for city roads. "A" funds are for State roads.)
Bicycle & Pedestrian Provo is not heavily involved in financing bikeways. Financing is generally done
Paths through federal funds that are administered by the local Council of Governments.
Intermittently, Provo receives funds directly from the State Transportation
Commission.
Parkin
Transit Service The Utah Transit Authority (UTA) provides bus, light rail and commuter rail service
and paratransit service to a multi-county area, the Wasatch Front, that comprises 80%
of the State's population. Utah County, which includes Provo, is one of six counties in
the region. Local funds are from a local option sales tax that ranges between 0.25%
and 0.5%, de ndin on the county.
Transit Pass In May 2002, the UTA received a grant to distribute free bus passes to students and
staff at Brigham Young and the Utah Valley Community college for free. The grant is
for one year. Afterwards, the schools would need to pikc up the costs. BYU might
pick up the costs by charging all students and by charging employees a parking fee to
cover the costs.
Elsewhere in the UTA system, it sells transit passes to university students for $28 per
month. The University of Utah and Weber State are also within the UTA service area.
Partnering w/ The University and Provo work closely on transportation projects to be certain that
Brigham Young their systems support each other. The University often pays for its share of
University intersection, signal and street improvements where they interface.
Recently, BYU and Provo worked to designate bike paths on public streets that
connect with BYU and then cross the campus. Students may ride their bikes on
campus walkways.
Partnerin GAs w/ others
Innovative Transportation Impact Fees. Provo is currently establishing transportation impact fees, which, in
Finance Tools Utah, need to process through a complicated state law governing all impact fees. The
City intends to have its fees adopted this fall.
Collector/Distributor Lanes. Provo is participating in a countywide corridor plan for I-
15 that serves a narrow but densely populated corridor. One plan element will be
collector/distributor lanes on each side of the freeway that eliminate the need for
conventional interchanges.
Transportation Finance Provo recently adopted a transportation master plan that addresses street volume
Problem / Issue thresholds, local trip generation rates and a comprehensive set of transportation
improvements to be incorporated into the City's capital improvements program. The
City is now challenged to implement the plan.
BYU is in an urban setting in Provo. For BYU, parking is a serious transportation
problem. Parking within the campus ring road is now available only to employees.
BYU is building a 3-level underground parking structure for faculty only.
PAGE 16 OF 25
Jurisdiction Provo Utah
Other Remarks
Contacts Engineering Division of Public Works: Nick Jones
Bri ham Youn Universit , Facilities Division, Paul Reese
PAGE 17 OF 25
Jurisdiction Santa Barbara California
2000 Population 92,325
University University of California at Santa Barbara; enrollment: 18,822
Summary of Interesting Measure D, a sales tax dedicated to transportation, generates significant funds used for
Features transportation capital improvements and maintenance. A substantial portion of the
capital component of the Circulation Element of the General Plan is being
implemented with these resources. Measure D will sunset in a few years; a
replacement initiative will need to pass by a super-majority (2/3rds) vote.
This is one of two peer cities with an alternative modes division.
Governance issues regarding transportation are one of three key priorities of the City.
Dedicated Local Funding Utility Users' Tax. A specific portion of the utility users tax is dedicated to
Sources transportation.
Transportation Sales Tax (Measure D) Fund. In November 1989, the County passed a
21-year 0.5% sales tax, the proceeds of which are restricted to use in the City's streets
and transportation programs at a level that supplements, not supplants the city's
existing base year level of expenditure. (This generates about $4.0 million per year)
The State provides Gas Tax funds ($1.65 million in 2001) and Traffic Safety funds
($375,000 in 2002). These are legally restricted to use in the City's streets program.
Roads: Operations & Gas Tax Fund. Gas Tax revenues from the State, which are distributed on a per capita
Routine Maintenance basis, are accounted for in the Gas Tax Fund and then transferred to the General Fund
for use in funding street operations and maintenance. (This is about $1.65 million in
2002)
Traffic Safety Fund. Pursuant to State law, all fines and forfeitures received from
citations issued by City officers for vehicle code violations must be deposited into a
special Traffic Safety Fund and must be used for traffic control, law enforcement,
accident prevention, etc. Once recorded in this Fund, they are transferred to the
General fund and expended by Public Works for Traffic Signals.
General Fund. The Streets and Transportation Department is funded from the
General Fund. The largest revenue sources for the General Fund are Sales Tax (37%),
Transient Occupancy Tax (20%), Utility User's Tax (18%), and Property (17%).
Roads: Capital Streets Capital Program receives a pre-determined portion of General Fund revenues
Improvements from the Utility Users' Tax, Gas Tax and Traffic Safety revenues.
Bicycle & Pedestrian Bicycling is a widely used form of transportation. UCSB reports that 14,000 people
Paths commute to UCSB each day school is on session.
Circulation Element. In 1998, the City adopted the Circulation Element of the General
Plan. As a direct result of this, there are a substantial number of alternative modes
transportation capital projects in the 2002 Budget.
Sidewalk Missing Links: Santa Barbara has identified missing sidewalks throughout
the city and methodically uses funds from Measure D (sales tax) and seeks state and
Federal grants to fund these. The missing links program builds about $1.0 million in
sidewalk improvements annually.
Transportation Development Act (TDA) Funds. Annually, the City receives about
$50,000 of TDA (Article 3) funds for restricted use in support of alternative
transportation, including sidewalks and bikeways.
State Transportation Fund Bicycle Lane Account. CalTrans awards about $5,000,000
in grants annually to eligible bicycle facility projects that are supported by a Bikeway
Master Plan.
PAGE 18 OF 25
Jurisdiction Santa Barbara California
Parking Downtown Parking Fund. This enterprise fund collects revenues and manages parking
in the Downtown. It is administered by a division of the Public Works Department,
manages downtown parking supply and "looks for innovative and practical ways to
clear congestion, air pollution and a better quality of life in the downtown district." In
addition to constructing and building parking, the Fund also supports efforts to
encourage commuters to choose alternative transportation. It plans to fund a
Crosstown Shuttle and free bus passes for qualifying downtown workers.
Downtown Parking Assessment. There is an assessment on downtown properties that
supports the 75-minute free parking policy in downtown lots, It generates about
$650,000 annually.
Parking Management Program. One Santa Barbara goal is to make "the use of the
automobile a choice and not a necessity.... the City embarked on a process to increase
the supply of downtown parking and increase options for coming downtown without a
car." Some elements include free bus passes for employees of the downtown core and
a bike station facility which allows commuters to store their. bicycles and have minor
bicycle repair.
New Parking Structure. The City is using its Redevelopment Agency and its tax
increment financing authorities to build a new downtown parking structure. With the
money that would have otherwise been applied to debt service, the Downtown Parking
Fund is purchasing 10,100 bus passes for downtown workers as mitigation for the
anticipated increase in cars in the downtown area.
Commuter Lots. The Downtown Parking Fund manages two commuter lots for
downtown employees. Parking is $30 per month (a bargain) and free to carpoolers.
The shuttle, which runs every 10 to 15 minutes, is free. The Downtown Parking Fund
subsidizes the MTA $159,000 annually to operate the shuttle service.
On-Street Carpool Parking: $20 per quarter; permits available to bona-fide
carpoolers; number of permits per block are limited; call Jay 966-9368)
On-Street Parking: City ordinance that limits all on-street parking to 72 hours.
Residential Parking Permit Program: There are nine areas. Each dwelling may have
three annual residential permits and one visitor permits. $12 per year per permit
Transit Service Santa Barbara Metropolitan Transit District (MTD) provides bus service in the
southern portion of Santa Barbara County, including Santa Barbara and five smaller
communities. Two Santa Barbara City Council members sit on the five-member board
of directors. It is recognized for several innovations: The Shopper Express, a
partnership with the Taubman Company that provides service during the holiday
season between downtown Santa Barbara and outlying shopping centers; The Field
Trip, an electric shuttle that operates during the summer to visitor destinations. Over
25% of its fleet is battery-electric vehicle; the proportion will soon be 50%.
Downtown Shuttles. City Council has chosen to apply excess reserves in the
Downtown Parking Fund to fund new shuttle service to the downtown. The Fund
purchased four shuttle busses and provides an annual operating subsidy through 2004;
the MTA provides the service. After 2004, the MTA will purchase new busses for the
service and drop the annual subsidy requirement to $260,000. The Parking Fund will
re-use its four shuttle busses to provide additional service to downtown. The City
pays the MTA for service transit actually used; the City pays $25,000 per quarter in
advance; MTA calculates actual services provided and adjusts the payment due.
Transit Pass City Employees. All City employees are given a MTD pass that the City pays for
through its General Fund.
PAGE 19 OF 25
Jurisdiction Santa Barbara California
Downtown Workers. The Downtown Parking Fund is required to purchase 10,100 bus
passes from the MTD for downtown employees as mitigation for additional vehicle
trips associated with a new parking structure to be built downtown.
UCSB Students and Employees. Riding the MTD is free for UCSB students; they
show their "Access Card" to the bus driver. UCSB employees qualify for half-priced
bus ass subsidies.
Partnering w/ The Since 1986, the Santa Barbara MTD has been providing transit service to students at
University of California at UC - Santa Barbara. To students, the service is free. Since 1996, the Santa Barbara
Santa Barbara (UCSB) MTD has also been providing transit service to students at Santa Barbara City College.
Partnering/IGAs w/ others The City partners with the MTD to provide Downtown-Waterfront electric shuttle
service. Plans are underway to expand electric shuttle service from the eastside into
downtown. This partnership has led to several other proposed projects designed to
expand the electric bus shuttle services in the community.
The City partners with Santa Barbara County and the Santa Barbara County Assn. of
Governments through the Traffic Solutions Program and Clean Air Express commuter
busses.
The City partnered with the Redevelopment Agency to build a parking structure
downtown. The Redevelopment Agency can use tax increment financing to build
capital improvements but cannot maintain improvements. The City was able to take
the money it "saved" in debt service and apply it towards mitigation (purchasing bus
asses).
Innovative Transportation Neighborhood Traffic Management Program. The Streets Capital Program includes
Finance Tool funding to develop and implement a work program to improve neighborhood livability
by reducing vehicle speeds and traffic volume and identifying streets maintenance and
improvements needs. The City is beginning within a selected pilot project area; public
meetings are being held in the neighborhood during the Summer of 2002.
Bicycle Hitching Post. The City has a requirement that every new business install
bicycle stalls; the number of racks is measured on a per square foot basis.
Transportation Finance There are two long-term term finance issues of concern. The Redevelopment Agency
Problem / Issue and Measure D both sunset in a few years. Both provide financial support for
transportation.
Green Bike Program. Santa Barbara has been trying to implement a program in the
downtown area where bicycles are available for free use. It has been hard to find a
vendor willing to take this on. The City is considering requiring the vendor at the new
bic cle station too erase the green bike program.
Other Remarks Multi-Modal Corridor. Santa Barbara has not completed any multi-modal corridor
studies. However, the South Coast 101 Implementation Study, managed by the Santa
Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG), has just begun. It will focus
on commuter rail, carpool, HOV, jobs/housing balance and a broad range of other
issues.
UCSB offers a Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) Incentive Card. By using
alternative modes, the cardholders are eligible for up to six days of free parking per
quarter.
Commuter Cost Calculator. This web page provides user-friendly calculations for
your annual drive-alone commute costs. Although it is for Bellevue Washington, it is
accessed through UCSB. (www.onelesscarbclievue.orgisub/com _costcalc.shtml
Contacts Residential Parking: Jay Hillie
Public Works, Transportation Planning & Alternative Transportation, Browning Allen
Bicycle Hitching Posts, David Nesbitt
Mobility Coordinator at the Public Works Department: Drusilla van Hen el, PhD
PAGE 20 OF 2S
Jurisdiction Santa Cruz California
2000 Population 54,593
University University of California at Santa Cruz; established: 1965; enrollment: 13,000
Summary of Interesting The Santa Cruz community is a rich resource of new and innovative ideas regarding
Transportation Finance alternative modes, TDM, and neighborhood traffic management. At the same time, the
Features City is stretched financial) and constrained from active) implementing ideas.
Dedicated Local Funding Other then parking meter revenues, there are no dedicated sources of funding for
Sources transportation.
Roads: Operations & General Fund. All planning, operations and maintenance funding is through the
Routine Maintenance General Fund. The City's primary sources of General Fund revenues are sales tax
(19%), property tax (15%) and utility users' tax (18%). None of these are dedicated to
transportation.
Roads: Capital Gas Tax/State Highway Fund. This fund accounts for the City's gasoline tax
Improvements apportionment revenues and is restricted to the maintenance and construction of certain
City Street. (2002 Gas Tax Fund revenues: $5.9 million). In Santa Cruz, nearly the
entire fund revenues are used for capital projects.
Traffic Congestion Relief Fund. This fund also accounts for State gas sales tax
revenues and is restricted for street and highway maintenance, rehab and
reconstruction. Santa Cruz uses this entire fund for pavement reconstruction,
maintenance and reconditioning. (2002 Traffic Congestion Relief Fund Revenues:
$150,000 per ear)
Bicycle & Pedestrian In 2002, Santa Cruz will spend about $1.6 million in bicycle capital improvements.
Paths About - percent of the revenues are from State resources, principally the State Gas
Tax and Transportation Development Act. Funds are also available on a competitive
basis from the BTA program. (See below.)
Bicycle Transportation Account Program (BTA). This is a state program (Streets and
Highways Code Section 2106) that provides funds to local agencies for projects that
improve the safety and convenience for bicycle commuters. A local match of at least
15% is required. For fiscal 2002/03, $7.2 million is available statewide.
Parking Parking Enterprise Fund. The City generates about $2.4 million from meter
collections and arkin rentals within Parkin District #1.
Transit Service The Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District (SCMTD or Santa Cruz METRO)
provides public transit (local bus service) within Santa Cruz County. Revenues are
from the following sources: local 1/2 sales tax (54%), passenger fares (22%),
Transportation Development Act, TDA( 18%), other local sources, 3%, FTA - Section
9(2%).
The Consolidated Transportation Services Agency (Lift Line) is a private non-profit
provider that contracts with SCMTD to provide ADA-Paratransit service. The
Volunteer Center also provides paratransit services for the elder) and disabled.
Transit Pass University Students, Faculty & Staff. SCMTD METRO provides service to UCSC.
TAPS provides free bus passes to students, faculty and staff for unlimited bus use
throughout the year throughout the County. Also, students can show their Student I.D.
Card and receive free transit service. Family members of employees and students may
purchase a discounted bus ass for $59 per academic quarter.
Partnering w/ The Since 1970, the Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District has been providing students,
University of California at faculty and staff with transit service and the campus shuttle system. Students are
Santa Cruz (UCSC) charged $55 per quarter. The faculty and staff share of the program is funded from
parking fees generated b the University.
Partnering / IGAs w/ Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission. This organization sets
others priorities for major capital improvements, pursues and allocates funding and supports
transportation planning efforts. Examples include funding for the Lift Line and The
Volunteer Center for paratransit services, funding for the Elderly and Disabled
Transportation Advisory Committee, and managing corridor transportation
improvement studies, major transportation investment studies, regional rail corridor
PAGE 21 OF 25
Jurisdiction Santa Cruz California
studies, and others.
Innovative Transportation Santa Cruz Walk and Roll Web site ( www.scwalkandroll.com) is a rich library of
Finance Tools or resources on innovative transportation solutions such as value pricing, bus rapid
Programs, or Initiatives transit, rails with trails, carpools and shared autos, telecommuting, TDM, PRT and
other ideas. It was built and is maintained by volunteers who are concerned about
"quality of life" in Santa Cruz; it was initiated over concern about a street widening
project and has evolved as a watchdog and resource network.
SSRTC HOT (High Occupancy Toll) Lanes Project. The Regional Transportation
Commission is evaluating the feasibility of a HOT lane that would extend 6.3 miles on
Highway 1, which is a four-lane divided highway with a 2 to 11 meter median width,
and seven interchanges. Phase 1, engineering feasibility and desirability, is nearing
completion. If the project proceeds, Phase 2 will focus on financial feasibility.
Neighborhood Traffic Plans (NTP). This is a priority program of the Public Works
Department. Neighborhood-initiated NTPs are intended to reduce and/or calm the
effects of traffic on local streets. NTPs may combine education and engineering to
improve neighborhood safety and livability. One component is the Neighborhood
Pace Car Program, modeled after programs in Boulder and Australia., where residents
sign a pledge to drive within the speed limit ...etc and display an office Pace Car
Sticker.
Transportation Finance Master Transportation Study (MTS)2020 is underway - a joint project of the City and
Problem / Issue the University. Problems: "ever-growing traffic congestion, incomplete bicycle lanes
and paths; missing sidewalks and curb cuts, speeding in neighborhoods; dangerous
intersections..." MTS Objectives: "expand and improve the bicycle network; increase
and broaden transit service; enhance pedestrian paths and connections; create livable
streets."
Other Remarks Santa Cruz is in a deficit financial position and has structured its budget for a
substantial reduction ($1.9 million). The State of California's budget has a projected
deficit of $24 billion that may mean reductions in state tax revenues to Santa Cruz of
$2.0 million. The proposed repeal of the utility tax would trigger an $8.4 million
reduction.
The State Transportation Development Act (TDA) provides two major sources of
funding for public transportation: the Local Transportation Fund (LTF) which is
derived from 1/4 statewide retail sales tax and the State Transit Assistance (STA) which
is derived from the statewide tax on gasoline an diesel fuel. Funds are apportioned by
formula to transportation planning agencies, transit operators, cities, counties, and
others. Funds are allocated b the regional agencies in a discretionarmanner.
Contacts Finance Department, David Culver
Public Works Department, Mark Dettle
PAGE 22 of 25
Jurisdiction Tempe, Arizona
2000 Population 158,625
University Arizona State University, main campus; enrollment: 42,000, Fall 2001
Summary of Interesting Capital Improvements. Tempe issues general obligation debt as needed to generate
Features revenues to finance its aggressive capital improvements program. As long as the debt
is consistent with its municipal debt guidelines and State statutes, it may issue debt as
needed. Debt service is repaid with property tax revenues.
Maintenance of Effort. State Statutes require cities to maintain the expenditure of local .
revenue for streets at an amount at least equal to the average of local funds expended
for any four of the fiscal years 1981-82 through 1985-96. For Tempe, this figure,
$1,850,000 over two years, is met through a transfer from the General Fund to the
HUTF Fund.
Alternative transportation modes is an activity within the Transit Section of the
Transportation Division.
Dedicated Local Funding Transit Tax. Effective in January 1997, the transit tax is 0.5% of the City's 1.8% sales
Sources tax. Revenues are for transit-related purposes such as bus acquisition and
maintenance, connecting bus routes to neighboring cities, bus stop construction and
transit planning.
Property Taxes for General Obligation Bonds. Over the next six-years, Tempe plans
to issue $72.0 million in GO Bonds to fund many capital projects including sidewalk
widening, downtown streetscape rehabilitation, new traffic signals, pedestrian
crossings and medians, streetlight upgrades, bridge rehabilitation, and similar projects.
Funds to repay bonds are from the "secondary property tax" and secondary property
tax payments-in-lieu-of-taxes. Secondary property tax rate is $0.82 per $1,000 of
secondary assessed valuation. As long as the City remains consistent with its long-
range debt plan and State mandates, it issues debt to accomplish its capital
improvements program.
Roads: Operations & General Fund. Roads are operated and maintained by the General Fund. Tempe's
Routine Maintenance local (1.2%) sales tax for the General Fund will generate $71 million, which is 51% of
the General Fund. In addition, Tempe's share of state sales tax ($13.4 million in 2002)
will comprise 10% of total General Fund Revenues. State sales tax revenues are
distributed on the basis of population. Property tax revenues comprise a small (5%)
portion of the General Fund.
Cities and towns receive 25% of the net revenues collected for vehicle licensing within
their county, based on population. For Tempe, this totals $5.9 million in 2002.
Schools, counties, and the state share the remainder (75%).
PAGE 23 of 25
Jurisdiction Tempe, Arizona
Roads: Capital Highway User Revenue Fund (HURF). This fund receives HURF revenues and State
Improvements lottery and Powerball revenues. Consistent with State Statutes, HURF monies can
only be used for street and highway purposes including acquisition, construction,
maintenance, right of pay and bond repayment. HURF funds are from the State's
motor fuel tax, motor carrier fees, vehicle license taxes, vehicle registration fees, and
other transportation-related fees. Two-thirds of the lottery revenues must be used for
street and highway projects.
Local Transportation Assistance Fund. This fund constructs street and highway
projects and helps support transit programs. Revenues are derived from the state
lottery game and the multi-state Powerball lottery game. Lottery proceeds are
distributed by the State on a formula based on annual population.
Capital Improvements Program - Transportation. This budget includes projects for
street improvements, interstate and state highways, traffic signals, sidewalks and
bikeways.
Capital Improvements Program - Transit. Funding for transit capital projects some
from the voter-app roved transit tax and outside revenues.
Bicycle & Pedestrian There are 120 miles of bike paths in the City. On-going operations and maintenance
Paths costs are funded through the General Fund.
Capital Improvements. Tempe places a significant emphasis on multi-use paths. For
example, in the 2002 Capital Improvements Program, there is funding for at least six
multi-use paths. Each project uses local transit tax (sales tax) funds. Some also use
TEA-21 federal ant revenues and development contributions.
Parking Tempe is in the process of establishing a Public Parking Participation Fund to be used
to pay for the City's participation in the development, operation and maintenance of
public parking in the downtown area. The City is transferring $250,000 from the
General Fund each year for six ears to fund the effort.
Transit Service Transit Fund. In Tempe, the City provides transit service. It is funded by the Transit
Fund, which receives revenues from a 0.5% sales tax (Transit Tax) plus lottery funds,
payment from ASU for ASU-Flash Transit, federal and state funding. Transit tax
revenues are expected to be $30.2 million in 2002, which is 84 percent of total Transit
Fund revenues. Per State Statute, one-third of the lottery proceeds that municipalities
over 60,000 receive must be spent on public transportation. So, Tempe places one-
third of its lottery proceeds into the Transit Fund.
Light Rail to Phoenix/Mesa/Tempe. Tempe's share of the proposed light rail transit
corridor is $146 million. This would be financed with Excise Tax Bonds.
Dial-a-Ride: This is a shared-ride public transportation service for seniors, persons
with disabilities. Service extends to Scottsdale, Mesa, Chandler, and Gilbert.
Transit Pass
Partnering w/ Arizona ASU Flash Transit: Arizona State University pays the City (Transit Fund) about
State University (ASU) $345,000 to provide service on the University.
Partnering/IGAs w/ others Tempe is partnering with Phoenix and Mesa to band a light rail transit system that
would link downtown Phoenix and downtown Mesa with Tempe.
Innovative Transportation Tempe uses general obligation bonds to finance a share of some key
Finance Tool
Transportation Finance
Problem / Issue
Other Remarks State Lottery Revenues. Tempe receives a formula-based share of revenues from the
State lottery game and the multi-state Powerball lottery; the distribution to cities and
towns is based on population. For municipalities over 60,000 people or within
counties with populations of 1.2 million or more, two-thirds of the proceeds must be
used only for street and highway projects and one-third of the revenues must be for
PAGE 24 OF 25
Jurisdiction Tempe, Arizona
public transit.
Contacts Public Works Manager, Glen Kephart
Public Works - Transportation Division, Mary O'Connor
Public Works, Engineering Manager, J. R. Pooler
Public Works, Transportation Division, Elizabeth Thomas
Dial-a-Ride, Sue Taaffe
PAGE 25 OF 25
City of Boulder Transportation Plan Update • Multimodal Corridors
June 27, 2002
Facilities Land Use Design Performance
Overall Retail Muitimodal Local and/or Regional
Corridor Multimodal Employment Design Automobile Transit Emphasis
Indicator Length Pedestrian Bicycle Transit Facilities Density Density Employment Composite Summary Performance Performance Performance
Rating Density Summary Composite of
Total linear Composite of S
Sidewalk Number of m
miles of Composite of Setback, c
Percent Buses Per Composite of m
Coverage, corridor bike Peek Hour Pedestrian, DU's per Total Jobs Total Retail Density and Integration, Total Bicycle and Transit
.2 $
Measurement Miles lanes and Bicycle and per square Jobs per Mix of Lend Porosity, and Average
Directness, Along square mile Pedestrian Ridership ;
paths divided Transit mile square mile Use Visual Delay
Continuity Corridor Activity g 'm w
by corridor Rating Interest and 3 A c c
and Street Segment o 0
Crossings length Amenity
o 0 0
J J J C R
Broadway to 28th 1.25 M MH M MH L M M M C LM LM X
Iris Ave/Diagonal Hwy 28th to 63rd 8.37 L L M LM LM LM L LM a' L C LM MH X
63rd to 71st 3.05 L L L L- L M L LM L E LM LM X
Broadway to Folsom 1.06 MH M L M M L LM LM MH B M L X
Valmont/Balsam Folsom to 47th 1.06 MH MH LM M M MH MH MH M E M LM X
47th to Pearl Pkwy 1.35 LM MH LM LM LM M L LM M C L LM X
Broadway to 28th 1.18 H MH H H H H H H H C MH L X
28th to Foothills Pkwy 0.74 M H H MH L H H MH M E MH L X
Pearl Pkwy Foothills Pkwy to 55th 1.18 LM H MH M L MH L LM L D M LM X
55th to Twin Lakes 2.72 L L L L L L' L L L F L L X
Twin Lakes to Diagonal Hwy 1.29 L LM M LM LM M L LM L B L M X
Pearl to Folsom 1.84 H H H H H MH MH H MH B H MH X
Arapahoe Ave/Canyon Folsom to 33rd 0.69 M H MH MH L H H MH M D MH MH X
33rd to 55th 1.31 LM H MH M LM MH L M M E M MH x
55th to 75th 2.50 LM L MH LM L M L LM L D LM M X
9th to Broadway 0.95 MH M LM M M L L LM H B MH L X
Baseline Road Broadway to 33rd 0.71 M H MH MH H MH LM M M D H MH X
33rd to 55th 1.32 M M LM M H M M MH M D LM LM X
55th to 75th 2.79 L L L LM E M L X
Vassar to Broadway 1.16 M M MH M M L M LM M D M H X
Table Mesa/S. Boulder Broadway to Moorhead 0.65 MH M M M MH L M M M C M H X
Rd
Moorhead to 76th 3.34 L L L L MH L L LM L D LM M X
N. US 36toViolet 0.79 LM MH MH M LM L L L LM B LM H X
Valet to Iris 1.26 M M MH M LM L L L M B LM H X
Ids to Balsam 0.66 MH M H H MH L L L MH B M H X
Broadway
Balsam to Baseline 2.16 H MH H H H H MH H H C H H X
Baseline to Greenbrier 2.11 MH M H H M LM M M MH C MH H X
Broadway to Table Mesa 2.49 MH L MH LM M L L LM M A LM H X
N Broadway to Jay Rd 1.58 L L L L L L L L L B M L X
Jay Rd to Iris 1.02 M M MH M MH L M M L B LM M X
28th St /US 36 Iris to Arapahoe 1.51 M M M M M H H H LM E M M X
Arapahoe to Baseline 0.99 M M L LM H MH M MH LM F M L X
Baseline to City Limits 4.61 L LM L LM M LM L LM L F H H X
Diagonal Hwy to Goose Creek 0.93 LM H L LM M MH L M L F M L X
Foothills Pkwy Goose Creek to Colorado 1.18 L M L LM LM H L M L F LM LM X
Colorado to south of Baseline 0.83 LM M L LM MH L L LM L E LM LM X
South of Baseline to US 36 0.79 LM LM L LM H LM M M L E LM LM X
Valmont to Arapahoe 1.02 LM M MH M L H L LM M E LM M X
55th St
Arapahoe to Baseline 1.01 LM NWW " L M L - L LM M F LM X
Boulder TMP Update • Regional Travel and Connections
' June 28, 2002
Phase 2: Policy Refinement - Current Conditions and Performance
Performance (2001) Travel Character Future Travel Demand
Existing Facilities and Servicas (2001)
Available Funding for Socioeconomic Growth In
Regional Connection Existing Partnerships Current and Planned Current and Planned Auto Transit Residents, Non-rents Corridor Tnwfahed Forecasted
Travel Demand
Corridor Projects Projects
Bicycle Use Daft Transit Average D
aily Level of Average Daly Average Bicycle Commute Commute Other
Auto (R roues) Bicycle Traffic (AOT) Service Riders lnr Riders per Tree Other Tree Trips Tres Households Employment Auto Transit
Bicycle
(LOS) Route Corridor Js TMO, EIS funded; improvements partial paved U898 (South) CD0T, OT,,iTDn , US 36 MIS/EIS not funded nded 4-lam
leeway Regional (7) shoulder and 81,000 E-f 8,578 970 low-medium 378k (7+%) 188k (21%)
Marshall Dr.
Dad (nor transit service); mua
Boulder County, RTD, CDOT, use, path; Intersection Impmvemede funded 4-lane paved shoulder
Diagonal Highway Lngmort improvementwi commuter except commuter rail expressway Regional (2) and partial off- 43,300 D 832 418 medium 22k
(28%) 16k(48%)
rail; Interchange at SH 52 stmt "I
Boulder County, Louisville, 44ene principal Local route
Routh Boulder Road Dash (now transit service) funded wheginal paved shoulder 25,100 C 1,858 1,650 high 1k(6%) 1k (18%)
Lafayette, ATD art e del
connection (1)
SH 93 not fonalrad nos Na 2-lane principal Regional (1) paved°houlder 20,000 D 355 355 law 63k(52%) 44k(96%)
arterial
SH 52 Weld County (not fmralaed) crone We 24ne principal none none 12,600 C We rJa low Blum 123k(314%) 49k(484%)
be available
arterial This data will be evlelable in Phase 3 from the This kilo mation will
DRCOG Travel Behavior Inventory and the Boukler gin Phase ase 9 from the
Lookout Road not foralized Will, arterial none 2•taremanor none none 10,000 C We N° low Travel D Jobs/Population Diary ndEmployee
surveys. <tk(15%) <1p(143%) moo scenario
modeling analysis.
Valmont Drive Boulder County (not formalized) shoulders on roadway for funded 2-lane minor none partial off-street 6,700 A Ma Na medium
5k 130%) <1k(65%)
bicycles arterial till
Boulder County, RTD, COOT, CDOT Arapahoe Improvements 6/512-lane dial off-street
Arapahoe Road Lafayette Jump (new transit service) Ended principal starlet Jump p1 UalI 17,540 B 1,867 1,667 medium 4k (64%) <1k(23%)
whum bays
US 98 North not formalized none We 2-tare principal Regional (1) paved shoulder 12,700 B 82 62 medium 41, (61%) 5k(242%)
arterial
SH11910oulder Canyon NederbndlRTD (not fa nsissi) new Park 'n Ride lot Mded 2-lam principal Regional (1) mud-use path, 0,900 B 352 352 low- sedum
unknown unknown
arterial
shoulders on roadway for 2-Imo minor Local route partial paved
Baseline Road Boukler County, Lafayette bicycles funded arlerisl whaplonal shoulder 8,500 8 364 364 medium 241,(97%) ilk (139%)
CerMULEon (1)
01 Average Daly Riders -the average numbers of riders per day on the mute* serving the regional corridor. Segment ridership Is not available.
Boulder Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
TM Strategies and Program Options
PPDATE Comprehensive Listing of TDM Strategies (June 28, 2002)
Transportation Master Plan
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Strategies for Consideration
Category: Modal Promotion Strategies
Strategy Description / Implementation to Date Dependencies Primary Opportunities Limitations Effectiveness Cost to
(Low / Medium / High implementation) implementer Implement
General promotion and marketing activities oriented towards
encouraging commuters to bicycle. Marketing messages can
include health and cost savings, convenience, and other Boulder has an above average number Bicycle commuting declines during the
Bicycling benefits. of bicycle commuters. Locations along winter. As such, bicycle modal share Medium (modal
promotion Stand alone Community multi-modal corridors hold the potential is not sustainable across all months. shift); Low (VMT Low
for enhanced bicycle share. Promotion Unless marketed with Bike-n-Ride, the reduction)
Medium. The City of Boulder has actively promoted bicycle will aid the use of the facilities. market for bicyclists is limited.
commuting.
Develop a specific guide for a particular worksite that includes General limitations of bicycling
bicycle routes, locker and rack locations, and other pertinent Areas of projected high growth, along
promotion apply. Furthermore,
information to the bicycle commuter. General Communit Bicycling multimodal corridors, hold the best
Y "information overload" becomes a
information can be included on a cut-and-paste basis in order promotion; potential for affecting mode share.
concern. Employees will not change Low (modal
Bicycle riders to save costs. Employee Assisting bicyclists with accessing their
Employer their behavior simply by publishing a shift); Low (VMT Low
guide Transportation specific worksites, including where/how guide at the worksite - it will require reduction)
Coordinators to park their bicycle and prepare for the word-of-mouth promotion, preferably
Low. The City has developed many bicycle guides, but they (ETC) workday has been proven to be more by an Employee Transportation
have not been tailored specifically to employers or worksites. effective than promotion alone. Coordinator.
General limitations of bicycling
Organizations of bicyclists and bicycle commuters tend to promotion apply. Those inclined
increase the sustainabilitY of bicycle commuting over time. User groups help encourage each other towards a users group are most likely
Bicycle users Bicycling to bicycle more often, especially when already bicycling on a somewhat Marginal (modal
group promotion Community combined with a social interaction (such regular basis. As such, the program shift); Low (VMT Low
as a Bike station cafe). only affects how often the users reduction)
Low. Only informal groups of bicyclists have occurred. bicycle, not typically the
encouragement of new riders.
Bike stations provide secure and covered parking for bicyclists. Bike stations have been used to Outside of Downtown Boulder and the
Most effective in dense concentrations of worksites, bike encourage the development of new Medium cost,
stations can serve as an encouragement to commute to work bicycle riders who are concerned about University of Colorado, a Bike station assuming that a
b bicycle. will have limited appeal (due to
by Bicycle users safety (from theft) and desire distance from worksite to Marginal (modal private-sector
Bike station group; Bicycling Community complementary services (such as As such dal ft is IBike station). shift); Low (VMT
partner is found to
of hif invited. reduction) provide fee-based
promotion showers, lockers, and other services Additional limitations , l modalshift
Medium. Although Boulder has not yet implemented a Bike offered by Bike stations). Downtown promotion, and, bicycle users r users group products and
Station, it has a grant to pursue a Bike Station in the short Denver bike station projected apply services onsite.
term. approximately 170 users per day.
Page 1 of 12
Comprehensive Listing of TDM Strategies (June 28, 2002)
Strategy Description / implementation to Date Dependencies Primary Opportunities Limitations Effectiveness Cost to
(Low / Medium / High implementation) implementer Implement
The Bike to Work Day promotion provides many commuters
with a "first-time" experience with bicycling to work. A small Allowing a day where commuters can be Bike to Work Day usually only occurs
of these commuters, every year, become habitual introduced to the ease of bicycle once a year, and building a sponsor
proportion ry Y Medium cost.
bicycle commuters. Bicycling commuting is a great way to change and promotions list can be taxing. Medium (mode
Bike to Work Bike to Work Day
Day (Week) promotion, Special Community commuting modes. It has been found in Furthermore, BTWD participants tend shift); Low (VMT is a high-profile
Events the Denver area that more than 25% of to fall back to using SOV aftei a reduction) event.
new BTWD participants will continue to couple of months, and, general
High. Boulder and the region actively promote Bike to Work bicycle to work after the event. limitations on bicycling apply.
Day.
General promotion and marketing activities oriented towards Carpool participation declines over
encouraging commuters to carpool. Marketing messages can Promotion and marketing is extremely time if marketing programs are not
include cost savings, stress reduction, socialization, important in introducing and educating continued. Although carpooling has
convenience, environmental reasons, and other benefits. services and R rvices and Community Low (mode
Carpool people in the benefits of carpools. When remained relatively static over time,
promotion partnered with ridematching events, family members who commute shift); Low (VMT Low
events carpooling can help provide for trips that together play an increasing role. As reduction)
Low. The City participates with RideArrangers ridematching are poorly served by transit. such, carpool promotion effor<s may
services. be limited over time.
Marketing is more effective when it
Comprehensive marketing of all modal options, and how to emphasizes the positive benefits The travel impacts of TDM programs
best make use of them, are a key component to TDM commuters will achieve from using that rely only on marketing tend to
promotion. Marketing materials can include flyers, brochures, alternative modes, including exercise decline over time as participants lose
9 Some combination Medium cost,
posters, and targeted email messages. and financial incentives - themes that interest. TDM also faces competition Medium (mode
General of alternative depending upon
Community have resonance in Boulder. Marketing from all other marketing messages. If share); Low
marketing mode services specific
that supports other TDM strategies that the marketing misses its target market (VMT reduction)
and/or incentives. campaigns
improve transportation choice or provide or carries an uninteresting or
High. The City of Boulder and regional partners have excelled tangible incentives have been proven to confusing message, it will be
at general TDM marketing materials. show significant long-term impacts on ineffective.
travel behavior.
Commuter orientation meetings provide new employees and
residents with the opportunity to learn more about travel in the Provides employees an opportunity to
Community prior to habits forming. In some communities, learn about commuting alternatives Commuter orientation programs are
employers require all new employees to attend an General available in an area, prior to the ineffective if they do not include
Modal participant Medium (mode
evening commuter orientation meeting as a condition of new marketing; carpool establishment of habits. It has been convenient services and/or incentives.
commuter 9 9 Employer share); Medium Low
orientation hire. and transit shown that establishing a transit or Thus, this program would be less (VMT reduction)
promotion carpool habit at the start of a job is more effective outside of the multi-modal
effective than trying to switch an corridors.
Unknown employee's mode of travel.
Special events are an effective means of distributing
transportation information to a large group of individuals. Special events are effective in providing
Targeted events can include: luncheons with commuters from a compelling reason for employees to Often times, it is difficult to get groups
particular neighborhood or zip code, new hires, or other Some combination use alternatives. ZIP code meetings, in of people together to listen to a
Special a of alternative particular, are effective at creating presentation - especially for a topic as Low (mode
targeted icic groups. Employer
events part mode services employer-based vanpools and carpools. "boring" as transportation. Without share); Low Low
(VMT reduction).
and/or incentives. Special events can be tailored to suit a diligent promotion of the events, they
particular geographical area or may be ineffective.
Medium. Boulder has conducted various events and fairs, demographic group.
however, they have not been targeted for rideshare purposes.
Page 2 of 12
Comprehensive Listing of TDM Strategies (June 28, 2002)
Strategy Description 1 Implementation to Date Dependencies Primary Opportunities Limitations Effectiveness Cost to
(Low I Medium I High implementation) implementer Implement
As a means of promoting telework, telecenters are collective With the advent of residential
business offices located near residential areas where Popular in the late 1980s and early broadband access, most telecenters
teleworkers can access typical business services, such as 1990s, telecenters offer a central area
have disappeared nationally. A Marginal (mode
T copiers and conference rooms. Telework Community, for employees to access resources
creation ation promotion Developer required for their job. The "needs of the detailed market assessment must be share); Medium High
office" can be handled in a location conducted to determine whether (VMT reduction)
closer to the employee's residence. Boulder commuters would be able to
None, truly support a telecenter.
General promotion and marketing activities oriented towards
encouraging teleworking. Specific activities can include Telework is the most utilized Telework may require changes in Low. This
outreach to employers, training of teleworkers and "alternative", outpacing even transit use management practices that reduce the assumes that the
Telework telemanagers, and general marketing. nationwide. Many employers have need to have employees physically None (mode Community is only
Stand alone Community together at one time. Some employers share); Medium paying for
promotion implemented telework to reduce costs, are reluctant to start up telework (VMT reduction) promotion, not the
improve morale, and to recruit 1 retain programs due to reservations of cost of telework
High. Boulder has actively promoted telework through its ETC employees. employee productivity. setup.
network and with regional partners.
General promotion and marketing activities oriented towards
encouraging commuters to use bus and rail alternatives. Boulder's Community transit network is As with general marketing programs,
Activities can include: bus route maps, brochures, posters, advanced and serves a variety of trip transit promotion faces competition
Transit how-to classes, and free-ride days. needs. With promotion of services to from all other marketing messages. If High (mode
Stand alone Community the promotion misses its target market share); Medium Medium
promotion regional travelers, commuters may better or carries an uninteresting or (VMT reduction)
connect how to use regional transit and confusing message, it will be
High. Boulder has excelled in the promotion of transit Community transit to access worksites. ineffective.
alternatives to commuters.
A riders guide oriented to new bus riders in Boulder can help Similar to a bicycle users guide, the
overcome any predispositions against riding the bus due to a transit users guide provides potential A transit riders guide will have limited
lack of information. Items can include how to read a bus users with information on how to use the appeal and effectiveness. Information
schedule, where to wait for the bus, how to use online overload becomes a concern.
bus system in Boulder and overcomes Low (modal
Transit riders information, and how to use the bikes-on-buses racks. Transit promotion Community problems and hesitancies users might Employees will not change
their shift); Low (VMT Low
guide have. Research has shown that "not behavior simply by publishing a guide reduction)
knowing what to do" is the number two at the worksite - it will require word-of-
High. Boulder has already developed materials pertaining to reason (besides convenience) why mouth promotion, preferably by an
Employee Transportation Coordinator.
how to use the Community transit system people state they do not ride the bus.
General promotion and marketing activities oriented towards Commuters in vanpools usually have
encouraging commuters to vanpool. Marketing messages can longer commutes than other modal The more people who register the Low. This
include cost savings, stress reduction, socialization, Vanpool alternatives, which dramatically reduces more effective the program is, due to assumes
Vanpool convenience, environmental reasons, and other benefits. subsidies, VMT. Vanpools also tend to have the declining costs-to-scale. If few people Low (mode
promotional only,
promotion ridematching Community lowest cost per passenger mile of any participate, promotional efforts will be share); High not including any
motorized mode of transport. For ineffective. The program should serve (VMT reduction) subsidies or
services commuters who live more than 25 miles an entire geographic region to be operational
Medium. The City participates with RideArrangers vanpool away from their place of work, successful. expenses
services and has offered GO Boulder labeled vanpools. vanpooling is a real alternative.
Page 3 of 12
Comprehensive Listing of TDM Strategies (June 28, 2002)
Strategy Description I Implementation to Date Dependencies Primary Opportunities Limitations Effectiveness Cost to
(Low / Medium / High implementation) implementer Implement
Employer provides shower and locker facilities for employees Boulder is proactive at encouraging
to use prior to beginning their workday. Showers and locker alternative modes and providing safe
facilities are provided for each ender, and are secure within In new buildings, the infrastructure can
g facilities for bicyclists, walkers, and Low (for new
Showers and the worksite's interior. be planned and built without great Low (mode
joggers. Providing shower facilities at buildings);
Lockers Stand alone. Employer cost; however with existing buildings, share); Low
Facilities worksites allows for these users to it Medium (for
'freshen up' after getting to work, thereby can be expensive to install shower (VMT reduction) facilities. retrofit)
Medium. Many employers have elected to provide shower removing one of the barriers to bicycle
facilities to their employees. commuting.
Category: Efficiency Strategies
Strategy Description / Implementation to Date Dependencies Primary Opportunities Limitations Effectiveness Cost to
(Low / Medium / High implementation) implementer Implement
ATIS implementations offer commuters advanced information
on the availability of alternatives. Specific examples of ATIS
include kiosks at bus shelters informing patrons when the next ATIS systems have had success in ATIS can be expensive to implement,
Advanced bus will arrive, real-time bus routing at shelters and stations, encouraging new transit riders by especially if monitors are provided at
General Medium mode
Traveler and online ridematching. providing up-to-date information on bus all bus shelters. ATIS will be best
Information marketing; transit Community travel times. As found in Washington, suited only for multi-modal corridors, share); Medium High cost
Systems promotion DC, ATIS helped allay transit riders fears with limited effectiveness off of high -
Low. reduction)
Low. Although DRCOG and RTD have implemented ATIS, and generated greater repeat travelers. frequency transit corridors.
Boulder has not yet significantly brought these capabilities to
the bus shelters and other high-traffic areas.
Employers offer flexible work arrangements, so as to minimize
employee commute lengths, and, maximize productivity hours. Alternative Work Arrangements are Alternative Work Arrangements are
Alternative Typical strategies include flextime and staggered work hours. popular with employees, and, can be an difficult to organize by a Community, Marginal
(mode
Work Stand alone Employer attractive tool for recruitment and and, to specify in code. At best, the share); marginal Neutral.
Arrangements retention, with little cost (if any) to the Community can provide information as (VMT reduction)
Medium. Many employers have adopted this strategy. employer. a guide.
Bicycles serve the "last mile" connection between Community
or regional bus service, and, the worksite or school. Bike storage on transit vehicles helps
Promoting this connection often satisfies the convenience encourage new riders, especially if Low cost. This
9 Although bicycling helps extend the
factor associated by many commuters with using the bus. Transit promotion; promoted with bicycle parking at the assumes only
Bikes on
bicycle lockers worksite. In Vancouver, a survey found market area for transit users, it is still Medium (mode promotion costs,
Buses and racks; riders Community that 30% of new riders were attracted limited to employers and/or residences share); Medium not the actual
promotion that are well connected and served by (VMT reduction)
guide specifically to bikes-on-buses. Boulder's multi-modal corridors. provision of
Medium. Boulder and RTD have promoted its investment in Promoting this service, especially how to bicycle storage.
bikes-on-bus, however, most commuters still do not know how use it, is key.
to use the service.
Page 4 of 12
Comprehensive Listing of TDM Strategies (June 28, 2002)
Strategy Description / Implementation to Date Dependencies Primary Opportunities Limitations Effectiveness Cost to
(Low / Medium / High implementation) implementer Implement
Employers allow employees to concentrate working hours in
fewer days per week. The two most popular alternatives to the Compressed Work Weeks are popular
"five days, eight hours per day' workweek are: 1) four days of with employees and are used as a
ten hours each, and, 2) nine days (in two weeks) of nine hours recruitment and retention tool. For days Recent research has shown that the
Compressed each. The extra "day off" often translates into commute trip off, an employee makes one less VMT reduced during the commute None (mode
Work Weeks avoidance. Stand alone Employer commute, thereby reducing VMT. An may be offset by increased personal share); Low Neutral
analysis by FHWA indicated that travel. As such, total VMT reduction (VMT reduction)
widespread adoption of the strategy can possibilities are limited.
Medium. Many employers throughout Boulder implement reduce regional VMT up to 0.6%.
Compressed Work Weeks.
Employers dedicate a representative and/or liaison to all
employees, informing them of commute alternatives and the Some A strong employee transportation
9 Low cost, to the
Employee availability of services or incentives at the worksite. (unspecified) coordinator is the difference between the Medium (mode
Y ETC's can be costly to maintain for Community. Low
Transportation combination of Community 'maximum" effectiveness of TDM and share); Medium
Coordinators employer the "minimum" effectiveness. Boulder's small or medium sized employers. (VMT reduction) a Medium cost to
strategies ETC network provides a foundation. employers..
High. Boulder has a very aggressive ETC network.
Truck traffic often deters the use of alternatives, particularly
walking and bicycling. As many of Boulder's larger employers Freight traffic only creates a
are located in industrial zones, managing peak period freight By managing the extent of freight traffic perception of safety concerns; it is
Freight traffic can help to improve the quality of commute for these on Boulder streets, not only alternative often not proven in fact. Furthermore, Marginal
(mode
management employees. Stand alone Community modes, but also drivers will notice the freight management may be opposed share); Marginal Low
difference. by a variety of employers and (VMT reduction)
businesses in Boulder.
None.
Tourists have a unique set of transportation requirements.
Recognizing the need to address trips internally while visiting, Tourist traffic is higher in Boulder than Tourists will most likely arrive in
tourist trip management emphasizes a "park once, travel often' Transit promotion; most cities. For those who are visiting Boulder via personal automobile
P Low (mode
Tourist trip concept for trips internal to the Community. Bicycle users Boulder, a "park once, travel often" (potentially from DIA). With a vehicle
Community share); Low Low
management guide; Transit approach can reduce VMT throughout at the ready, it may be difficult to (VMT reduction)
users guide the day, and, potentially enhance the convince tourists to use the City's
Unknown. visitor's opinion of Boulder. transit network.
.
Page 5 of 12
Comprehensive Listing of TDM Strategies (June 28, 2002)
Category: Financial Incentives
Strategy Description / Implementation to Date Dependencies Primary Opportunities Limitations Effectiveness Cost to
(Low / Medium / High implementation) implementer Implement
A transportation allowance is provided to commuters, for use A transportation allowance is very
on whatever modal options they choose. Typically, effective at "leveling the playing field" Spillover parking will occur unless the Low cost. This
allowances are used in conjunction with and policy is accompanied by
1 parking pricing between parking and alternatives. The assumes the
Transportation other modal strategies. Unbundled opportunity to save money and avoid neighborhood parking restrictions. High (mode Allowance parking
leases Community out-of-pocket parking costs is appealing The allowance will work best on multi- shift); High (VMT policy's
structured to be
to many travelers. Employers in modal corridors, and have limited reduction) relatively cost-
Limited. City of Boulder is considering implementation for city Washington and California have seen a readily appeal where availablealternatives are not neutral.
.
employees. shift in alternative modes by over 30%.
Carsharing involves a pooled fleet of vehicles that are
available for limited tasks by either members of a carshare Carsharing is similar to guaranteed ride Carsharing has limited application in High cost.
program (similar to a timeshare), or, fora per-use fee. home, in that it makes using alternatives the United States, and thus, it is Medium (mode However,
costs
Carsharing Stand alone. Community or easier for travelers. Carsharing can difficult to project the potential effects, share); High may be partially
Developer reduce the need for vehicle ownership, Furthermore, cost recovery over time (VMT reduction) recovered by
which in time, also reduces vehicular use becomes an issue, especially membership and
Low. Boulder CarShare is an active non-profit organization in general. administration and maintenance. user fees.
(with City grant) providing 3 cars to members in Boulder.
Similar in function to "Airline Miles", a Commuter Club A Commuter Club provides tangible Developing a Commuter Club program
provides either points or cash-based incentives to commuters Bicycling, incentives and recognition to those who
has some financial and administrative
who use alternative modes of transportation Walking, Transit, use alternative modes. Southern Medium (mode
Commuter Carpool, Vanpool, Community California and Aspen have successfully other expenses TDM associated with it. As with share); Medium Medium
Club and/or Telework implemented Commuter Clubs that promotions, a Commuter (VMT reduction)
promotion. maintain very high alternative mode convenience Club will only of be as available effective alternatives.
theatives
None. shares from month to month, .
Implemented as either ECO Passes or group Value Passes,
free bus passes are provided to commuters for the use on ECO Passes or group Value Passes ECO passes have received a more
provide travelers with a motivation to use difficult reception in recent times - Medium (mode
Free bus Community transit and/or regional (RTD) transit Transit promotion, Community transit. They have been successful in those who are inclined to provide
them share); Medium Medium
passes transit riders guide encouraging high transit ridership in already do. Residential programs are (VMT reduction)
downtown Boulder and at CU. difficult to maintain over time.
High. ECO Passes have been extensively promoted.
Providing bicycle accessories to commuters, such as Equity concerns are most apparent,
headlamps and helmets, can improve the safety of bicyclists including the specific vendors and
Free bicycle and serve to encourage greater use of bicycle commuting. Bike riders guide, Providing accessories can alleviate the outlets, so as not to compete with Marginal
(mode
bike promotion, Community safety concerns of bicyclists. Promotes Boulder's retail base. Furthermore, share); Marginal Low
accessories commuter club use of bicycling as viable alternative. free accessories may only serve to (VMT reduction)
reward those who are already
Unknown
bicycling.
A Guaranteed Ride Home program provides a free taxi ride As cited by most commuters, having a The main limitation is ensuring an
home to those who fall ill, have an emergency, or are left guaranteed way to avoid being "stuck at appropriate commute trip reduction
stranded by a carpool. the office" is a desirable incentive. program is implemented for GRH to
Guaranteed transit, Carpool, va , Guaranteed Ride Home allows for be effective. Employers may also Medium (mode
bicycling, Community share); Low Low
Ride Home employees to always have a ride home, hesitate to provide GRH due to costs
walking promotion regardless of the emergency or situation. and liability, however costs are usually (VMT reduction}
High. Guaranteed Ride Home is a standard benefit with Interestingly, GRH is rarely abused low and GRH is included in ECO pass
RideArrangers and ECO Pass participation. nationwide. and/or RideArrangers participation.
Page 6 of 12
Comprehensive Listing of TDM Strategies (June 28, 2002)
Strategy Description / Implementation to Date Dependencies Primary Opportunities Limitations Effectiveness Cost to
(Low / Medium / High implementation) implementer Implement
Similar to a transportation allowance,
Allows employees the opportunity to choose a parking space parking cash out is very effective at Potential problem is that employees
or receive cash equivalent of the space. Works best when "leveling the playing field" between may claim to commute by alternative
Parking cash parking spaces are unbundled from leases Unbundled parking and alternatives. The modes but actually drive by High (mode Neutral (if parking
out parking leases Community opportunity to save money and avoid themselves and park off-site, creating share); High is unbundled from
out-of-pocket parking costs is appealing spillover parking problems. (VMT reduction) leases)
to many travelers. Parking cash out can Overcoming various institutional and
None. reduce SOV commuting by up to 25%, if political barriers may be difficult.
alternatives are readily available.
Provide and/or promote the availability of tax benefits for the The Commuter Choice programs and
use of alternatives. Currently, federal tax law permits re-tax Commuter Choice benefits offer up to Neutral.
P regulations are sometimes difficult to
allocation of certain alternative transportation expenses. $100 per month for transit or vanpool Employers may
interpret., and require the ability to Medium (mode
Taxation expenses and up to $180 per month for actual save
Stand alone Employer declare pre-tax expenditures on share); Medium
incentives parking. Commuter Choice initiatives money on
have shown to be effective with payroll. As such, implementation by (VMT reduction) reduced payroll
Medium. Boulder has received recognition for leadership in employers nationwide. small and medium sized employers taxes.
promoting Commuter Choice benefits will be limited.
As vanpools lose riders over time, such as when someone
changes jobs, it is important to ensure other riders maintain a The empty seat subsidy ensures that the
consistent user fee. The empty seat subsidy covers the cost cost for other users will not increase for
Y To be effective, the empty seat
of the lost rider in the van until a new rider can be found to Vanpool users who continue in the vanpool. subsidy should expire, in order to Low (mode Low cost
(typically
Vanpool empty replace that individual, or at least for a minimum period of promotion; Vanpooling tends to have the lowest cost
Community provide incentive for actually finding a share); Medium $100 per month
seat subsidy time. ridematching per passenger-mile of any motorized replacement rider. This will require an (VMT reduction) per empty seat).
services mode of transportation, since it makes
use of a vehicle seat that would efficient matching system
None. otherwise be empty
.
Subsidizing the monthly cost for using a vanpool greatly Provides financial incentive to first-time
increases the cost-savings incentive for participating in a Vanpool users of vanpool to allow a'trial' period.
Vanpool vanpool. A typical subsidy is 30% to 50% the per-seat cost. promotion; The trial period allows the user to be able Requires efficient matching system to
Low (mode
subsidy ridematching Community to directly compare personal cost be effective. share); Medium Medium
services savings by not driving versus the (VMT reduction)
Unknown eventual cost for use of the van.
A bike loan program provides a set of bicycles for general
employer /Community use. These bicycles are associated
with either an individual or organization, for tracking and Greater flexibility for those who do not
maintenance Bicycle promotion, Program requires administration to Low (mode
Bike Loan purposes use SOV as their preferred commute
bicycle users Employer ensure safety and security of bicycles share); Low Medium
Program guide method and provided an alternative for is maintained. (VMT reduction)
short distance errands.
Low. Boulder implemented a Community bike program in the
mid 1990s, however, it was not associated with users directly.
Page 7 of 12
Comprehensive Listing of TDM Strategies (June 28, 2002)
Categor : Pricing Strategies
Strategy Description / Implementation to Date Dependencies Primary Opportunities Limitations Effectiveness Cost to
(Low I Medium I High implementation) implementer Implement
User fees are implemented for crossing a particular cordon
around the Community. The fee can change with the time of Cordon pricing provides an incentive to Neutral (if used in
day or severity of traffic. Often, alternatives to driving across Regional transit regional commuters to use transit, lieu of sales tax).
the cordon are provided, such as remote parking and shuttle services; vanpool carpool, or vanpool. As this is the largest Boulder Congestion Relief Study High (mode
Low to medium
Cordon pricing services. subsidies; transit, Community projected growth market for Boulder concluded this option was undesirable share); High revenue
eny erator
carpool, and employment, it would have the best for Boulder. (VMT reduction) (if used in
vanpool promotion potential success in affecting SOV and conjunction with
None. Congestion Relief Study concluded this option was VMT reduction goals. sales tax)
undesirable for Boulder.
Parking fees can be set for cost-recovery, or, variable based Spillover traffic will be a concern,
upon time of day and length of Parking fees are effective in providing a Neutral. Fees are
Y parking. unless an aggressive parking permit
Community or disincentive for traveling alone to work. program is pursued. Furthermore, the High (mode used to recover
Parking fees Stand alone If convenient alternatives are available, a share); High cost of parking
Employer a "sting" effect of parking charges wears
shift of up to 25/o to alternative modes is off over time (VMT reduction) facilities and
High. Downtown Boulder and University Hill have had possible as a result of parking pricing, time, reducing long term enforcement.
parking fees for over a decade. effectiveness.
Vehicle insurance rates are not levied as a fixed rate, but
rather as variable, based upon the total number of miles Converting part of the fixed cost of Experience in Texas has not yet been
Pay-as-you-go driven. Successfully implemented in Texas. Neutral (depends
Y owning an automobile to a variable cost documented, so it is uncertain how
vehicle Stand alone Community helps commuters justify not taking an much potential SOV and VMT Unknown upon cost-
insurance automobile to work. reduction benefit will occur. recovery formula)
None.
User fees are implemented on area roads, with higher fees Neutral (if used in
associated during peak times, and discounted or zero fees Transit services; lieu of sales tax).
Roadway As with cordon pricing, Pricing
associated with off-peak travel times. vanpool subsidies; provides a monetary incentive to use Boulder Congestion Relief Study High (mode Low to medium
transit, carpool, Community alternatives such as transit concluded this option was undesirable share); High revenue eng erator
pricing and vanpool , carpool, and vanpool. for Boulder. (VMT reduction) (if used in
None. Congestion Relief Study concluded this option was promotion conjunction with
undesirable for Boulder. sales tax)
Page 8 of 12
Comprehensive Listing of TDM Strategies (June 28, 2002)
Category: Facilitv I Land Use Elements / Transit Oriented Development
Strategy Description / Implementation to Date Dependencies Primary Opportunities Limitations Effectiveness Cost to
(Low / Medium / High implementation) Implementer Implement
Multi-modal access management, which includes
consideration of access for ALL modes, improves the Intended to improve motor vehicle flow, it
respective efficiency of each mode. Curb cuts, pedestrian can support TDM by integrating land use Low (mode
corridors, bicycle corridors, and other considerations can be planning and improving transportation Some projects simply increase arterial share); Low
Access included, options b encouraging higher density
management Stand alone Developer development and TOD more suited to traffic speeds and volumes, which can (VMT reduction) Low
increase automobile travel.
walking, bicycling and public transit.
Low. Multi-modal access management has been considered
on a case-by-case basis.
Bike racks and lockers are provided for users to secure their Even in communities that have a
bicycles in an enclosed facility. Typically, racks and lockers bicycle parking ordinance,
are laced either near front entrances or under covered As with Bike Stations, many potential
placed enforcement is problematic. Often,
Bicycle parking facilities. cyclists desire a safe and convenient bicycle racks and lockers are placed in Low (made
Racks and Stand alone Employer facility to lock up bicycles. Racks and locations that are inconvenient venient a share); Low Low
Lockers lockers, in particular, provide this cyclists. that
ill-advised to (VMT reduction) rack/locker
comfort. placement can render the facilities
Medium. Many employers have elected to provide bicycle P
racks, however, few have implemented lockers. ineffective.
Clustered parking (including parking structures) reduces
pedestrian distance between buildings and improves ambient Creates safer, more attractive pedestrian
quality for pedestrians. friendly environment behind buildings Zoning and development codes may Low (mode Low, depending
Clustered Stand alone Developer and encourages clustering of buildings. need to be rewritten to support these share); Low upon cost-
parking Safer environments have been proven to parking practices. (VMT reduction) recovery plan
Low. Clustered parking has been utilized in certain situations; attract greater numbers of pedestrians
however, zoning code has no specifications. and cyclists.
Commuter stores are primarily information centers that provide
a central location for obtaining commuter information. This
information can include maps, schedules, bus passes, Provides a one-stop shop with detailed
ridematching, vanpool sales, and more. Typically, Commuter Transit, carpool, information on alternative modes of
Stores also sell commuter-oriented products, such as coffee transportation available to the commuter.
bicycling, and Program development and continuous Low (mode
Commuter Most commuter stores include pass
mugs. In a few situations, communities require employees to vanpool Employer marking is required, as well as share); Low Medium
Store pick up their bus asses at Commuter Stores. sales or distribution, thereby requiring a
P P promotion; transit continuous training of employees. (VMT reduction)
constant "touch of customers of
passes alternative modes, which in turn helps
"keep transit in mind".
Low. Although Boulder does not operate a Commuter Store,
there are centralized locations for obtaining information.
Aside from constructing separate HOV facilities, HOV priority HOV lanes, queue jumps, and other
systems offer signal "queue jumping" for buses and vanpools. related improvements provide a travel-
High Priority systems make use of the same signal prioritization time savings to transit, carpool and HOV lanes sometimes are considered High (mode
Occupancy technology as utilized by emergency vehicles Stand alone. Community vanpool users. Experience has shown to increase total automobile travel share);
Medium High
Vehicle (HOV) that even poorly performing HOV compared to no additional road (VMT reduction)
priority facilities save more VMT and reduce capacity. Queue jumps are difficult to
Low. Although Boulder has deployed the use of similar more SOV usage than if the facilities accommodate on certain facilities.
technology, queue jumping has not been implemented were open to general purpose traffic.
Page 9 of 12
Comprehensive Listing of TDM Strategies (June 28, 2002)
Strategy Description / Implementation to Date Dependencies Primary Opportunities Limitations Effectiveness Cost to
(Low / Medium / High implementation) Implementer Implement
Incidental use parking spaces are those that are dedicated for Incidental use parking spaces are very
use by an "irregular" driver - such as transit rider or carpooler effective in managed or priced parking
who must drive to work on occasion. These spaces are used lots. One downtown Denver employer Incidental use parking has limited
Incidental Use in conjunction with parking maximums to ensure that parking is Parking maximum increased transit use by over 10% by effectiveness without a strictly
Medium (mode
not over rovided. Developer share); Low Neutral
Parking n P ratios providing a free parking space for enforced parking maximum and/or (VMT reduction)
occasional use to transit riders (as an parking pricing of some kind.
added incentive similar to Guaranteed
Low. Informal adoption only. Ride Home).
Onsite amenities provide retail services to employees, without
requiring a trip. Examples include ATMs, convenience retail,
childcare, food services, and cleaners - all located within eas Increases convenience for employees so If the employee population does not
easy Marginal (mode
Onsite walking distance, preferably onsite. that trips during the workday are reduced support an onsite amenity, it can
9 Stand alone Employer share); Low Neutral
amenities since all services are within walking create a "blight" on the development or (VMT reduction)
distance. worksite.
Low. Some large employment sites offer onsite amenities
Parking management strategies utilize a variety of factors to
balance the availability of parking with the availability of modal Limits the availability of free and
alternatives. Residential and commercial parking permits, subsidized parking. As with Parking that is difficult to find,
shared use time restrictions, and Parking maximum
parking pricing, parking, Community I transportation allowances, parking inadequate, inconvenient or expensive Medium (mode
Parking other strategies are included in general management. ratios, preferential
parking Employer I management levels the playing field, will frustrate users and can contribute share); Medium Medium
management parking, clustered Developer thereby allowing greater use of to spillover parking problems in other (VMT reduction)
parking alternatives, as they are perceived to be areas.
Low. Parking management strategies are concentrated in the more convenient.
high density areas of Boulder, including downtown and the Hill
The establishment of parking maximum ratios ensures that a
development site does not oversupply parking, thereby Easy to implement in most communities
Often times, parking maximums do not
creating an imbalance between modal options. Parkin by adjusting zoning codes and
g g development policies. If developments have immediate results. Even Neutral. Ma
Parking maximums are typically implemented in areas where modal p established sites with excellent transit Low (mode May
options areapparent to users. occur on multi-modal corridors, it is provide cost
maximum Stand alone Community service can be overrun with vehicles share); Low
easier to justify parking maximum ratios. demanding parking (such savings to
ratios Cities across the United States have as the (VMT reduction) developer.
used maximums to varying levels of Peaberrys /Einstein Bagels at
Low. Parking maximum ratios have been established success in reducing SOV traffic. Baseline and Broadway).
previously in the PUD process
Preferential parking programs provide parking spaces for Provides incentives for those in carpools
carpoolers and vanpoolers near the front entrances. These and vanpools to have the most desired
Parking that is difficult to find, Low cost reserved spaces typically require a hang-tag or other parking spaces. Preferential parking
has Low (mode (parking
Preferential identification mechanism for use. Carpool and inadequate, inconvenient or expensive signs and hang
Employer been successfully implemented at share); Low
parking vanpool promotion employers nationwide, including MCI will frustrate users and can contribute (VMT reduction) tags run less than
Worldcom, Hewlett Packard, and Agilent to spillover parking problems in other $100 per space)
Unknown Technologies in Colorado. areas.
Page 10 of 12
Comprehensive Listing of TDM Strategies (June 28, 2002)
Strategy Description I implementation to Date Dependencies Primary Opportunities Limitations Effectiveness Cost to
(Low ! Medium I High implementation) Implementer Implement
Separating pedestrian and bicycle traffic from vehicular traffic Pedestrian corridors on-site provide safe
improves safety and enhances the quality experience of the means across parking lots and general
alternative. Protected corridors include separated sidewalks campus facilities. These increase the
Protected (typically with a landscaped buffer), marked corridor in a walkability of a multi-modal corridor, Zoning and development codes may
pedestrian ! parking lot, and other similar improvements. Community I resulting in more support for pedestrian need to be rewritten to support these Low
(mode Low, depending
Stand alone share); Low upon cost-
bicycle Developer travel. A short non-motorized trip can pedestrian I bicycling on-site corridor (UMT reduction) recovery plan
corridors substitute for a longer car trip (i.e. a practices.
Medium. Boulder has been aggressive regarding bicycle and shopper might choose to walk to a small
pedestrian trails, and to a lesser extent, pedestrian local store instead of driving their car).
accessibility in site design.
General promotion of land use and site design elements that
facilitate the use of modal alternatives. Elements can include
preferential parking for carpoolers, drop off locations close to
the main entrance, bicycle improvements, and various Zoning codes and development
parking Grant programs can provide incentives Low (mode
TDM Friendly other strategies Community ! practices need to be revised to allow
Stand alone for TDM site friendly design. Supports share); Low Low
Site Design Developer TDM objectives. and encourage TDM friendly site (VMT reduction)
design.
Low. TDM friendly improvements have been incorporated at
some sites on a limited basis.
Separating parking from building leases provides an
opportunity for employers to offer a transportation allowance or Spillover parking need to be
other cost-neutral promotion of alternatives, without incurring Unbundling parking prices from building addressed on surrounding streets.
Unbundled any additional cost for "wasted" Low (mode Neutral,
Y parking. leases allows for the opportunity to Without parking cash out or
parking Stand alone Developer share); Low depending upon
leases pursue transportation allowances or transportation allowances, unbundling (VMT reduction) cost-recovery plan
parking cash-out. leases will not accomplish SOV or
Medium. Downtown and University Hill districts have VMT reduction goals.
unbundled parking.
Page 11 of 12
Comprehensive Listing of TDM Strategies (June 28, 2002)
Category: Implementation Options
Strategy Description Type of Funding Source Opportunities Limitations
organization
LIDs and BIDs are self-taxation districts, with the purpose of Since all employers part of the BID !LID
Business or providing a certain number of services or programs. TDM can BIDs are an established mechanism for will pay fees, they tend to of t less-inclined
be provided by the LID/BID as one of the core services. As financing local improvements, including
Local Self-taxation on either property taxes, mill to go above-and-beyond their payments to
Improvement implemented extensively in Georgia, and to a lesser extent Quasi-public transportation services and programs. BID !
implemented by CAGID in Boulder, TDM can be advanced as levy, parking/user fees, or sales tax. LID administration are well poised to involve the BID I LID for
TDM. As such, the
District a business or local service. A BID I LID can include a parking commuters throughout the district. BID/LID is required to provide the full
burden of TDM services.
district for maximum effectiveness.
The City of Boulder provides direct TDM services and The City of Boulder has an established and
programs to City residents and employees. These services City of Boulder funding sources, including recognizable TDM outlet - GO Boulder. The TDM is most effective
when promoted and
City TDM may be provided via employers, however, they may also be CMAQ, Transportation general fund, and general public is already knowledgeable of the implemented
at employers directly. In
Public organization and its services. A public agency order to maximize effectiveness, a city-led
Program provided direct to the public at large. This has been the revenue-specific sources (such as parking may adapt its message to suit community wide program
must ingrain itself into a variety of
principal mechanism for TDM development over the past 15 fees).
years in Boulder needs, rather than the specific needs of a employers and developments.
,
district or worksite.
Each development will be different from
Developers and tenants may be willing to implement TDM Developers and employers are the most another, thus exact regulations should be
programs onsite, if provided with a sufficient incentive to do effective at implementing TDM programs, due flexible. This may tend to dilute the
Developer such. In the development review process, development Private Self-imposed TDM program (in lieu of to their proximity to commuters. Furthermore, maximum
potential effectiveness.
Incentives incentives (including more lenient Floor Aiea Ratio or parking other development requirements) the City can have a role in how programs are Furthermore,
this strategy does not address
requirements) can be offered in exchange for the development implemented, as they would become a part of existing employers and developments that
and implementation of a viable onsite TDM program the development review process. do not have a pending application in from of
the City.
Transportation Management Associations (TMAs) are typically Studies have indicated TMAs can reduce
private, non-profit organizations that provide transportation o more than if TDM were TMAs can lose support over time, and with
Transportation services in a particular subregion. TMAs are often member- source for Membership fees are administrationthe, with principal reliance funding pursued vehicular
trips without t the e TMA. This is due to a it, financial sustainability. As such, most
Management supported, including a combination of private and public sector Non-profit upon grants and other funding sources for typically high level of interaction
and support TMAs must be flexible to pursue highway
Association members. In Colorado, TMAs are supported in part by program development. from the private sector, and, for implementing and road improvements as
much as
Federal CMAQ funds. There are currently five TMAs, with two programs at worksites directly. provide TDM services.
pending in Colorado.
Page 12 of 12
TM Draft Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
P.. Strategies for Consideration
Transportation Master Plan Illustrative Packaging for Modal Shift
Walking-oriented BASIC
• to modal (per site)
Ao
Walking guide Pedestrian corridors Walking support group Discounts at retailers
Walking promotion Wide sidewalks Walking safety seminars
Walk to work day Adequate signalization
Walking marketing
Walking maps/guides
Commuter orientation
Special Events
MEDIUM
• • e C Packaging
• to modal shift (per site)
• •
Facilities
Incentives
77V 71
Enhanced signage Special Events Commuter Club
Illuminated sidewalks Guaranteed Ride Home
Retrofit sidewalks Employee Transportation
Coordinators
Flexible Work hours
HIGH
Walking-oriented TDM Packaging
• to modal shift (per site)
• •
Facilities
Incentivesi
Enhanced marketing Shower / lockers on site Targeted Campaigns Transportation Allowances
Access Management Commuter Store Parking Cash Out
Clustered Parking Taxation Incentives
" Each successive category includes the
previous categories' strategies
TM Draft Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
PRATE Strategies for Consideration
Transportation Master Plan Illustrative Packaging for Modal Shift
BASIC
Bicycle -oriented TDM Packaging
L up to a 2 % modal shift (per site)
Information
Bicycle riders guide Bicycle rack requirement Bicycle users group Bicycle accessories
Bicycle promotion Bicycle racks at shelters Bike safety programs
Bike to work day/week
Bicycle marketing
Bicycle maps / routes
Orientation
Special Events
MEDIUM
Bicycle-oriented TDM Packaging
• to modal shift (per site)
Information Facilities Incentives
Information kiosks BikeStation Special Events Commuter Club
Online bike routing Bike lockers at shelters Guaranteed Ride Home
Enhanced bike signage Employee Transportation
Protected corridors Coordinators
Bikes on buses promotion
HIGH
• Bicycle-oriented TDM Packaging
• to modal shift (per site)
Facilities
Incentives
Informatio
Enhanced marketing Bike-friendly site design Bicycle promotions and Transportation allowances
Shower / locker onsite campaigns Taxation incentives
requirements Commuter Store Bike loan program
Access Management Parking Cash Out
Each successive category includes the
previous categories' strategies
TM Draft Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
_ pi. Strategies for Consideration
Transportation Master Plan Illustrative Packaging for Modal Shift
BASIC
Multi-Modal Oriented TDM Packaging
. to 4 % modal shift .
Information Facilities Incentives
Transit Riders Guide Employer ECO Passes Multi-trip Discounts
Transit Marketing Transit to Work Day Taxation incentives
Transit Maps/Routes Flexible Work Hours
Modal Commuter Orientation
Special Events
Transit Promotion
Multi-Modal MEDIUM
• • TDM Packaging
to modal shift (per site)
Information Facilities Incentives
Information Kiosks Bikes on Busses Promotion Special Events Commuter Club
Online transit routing Incidental Use Parking Guaranteed Ride Home Community ECO Pass
Transit promotion Employee Transportation
Coordinators
Multi-Modal HIGH
• • TDM Packaging
• to 15% modal shift (per site)
• •
Facilities
Incentives
Enhanced marketing Transit friendly site design Promotions and Transportation allowance
ATIS bus info Bus/HOV priority system Campaigns Parking Cash Out
Protected corridors Tourist trip management
Access Management On site amenities
Commuter Store
* Each successive category includes the
previous categories' strategies
TM Draft Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
PP.TEStrategies for Consideration
Transportation Master Plan Illustrative Packaging for Modal Shift
BASIC
• to modal (per site)
•
Guide to vanpooling Preferential Parking Online ridematching Empty Seat Subsidy
Marketing Zipcode meetings Taxation Incentives
Carpool/vanpool promotion Guaranteed Ride Home
Commuter orientation Registration Surveys
Special Events
NIEDWIVI
- • - • TIDU Packaging
up lo 12 `xo modal shift (per site)
Information Facilities Incentives
TDM Friendly site design Special Events 1st time Ride incentive
Incidental Use Parking Employee Transportation Prize and Promotional Events
Coordinator Vanpool subsidy
Flexible Work hours Commuter Club
HIGH
t s TDM Packaging
• to 26 % modal shift (per site)
• •
Facilities • • •
Imentives
Enhanced marketing HOV priority system Pay as you go insurance Transportation Allowances
Promotions & campaigns Parking Management Commuter Store Van and car loan program
Parking Maximum Ratios For profit vanpools
Car sharing Parking Cash Out
Each successive category includes the
previous categories' strategies
TM Draft Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
P.. Strategies for Consideration
Transportation Master Plan Illustrative Packaging for Modal Shift
BASIC
up to 10% modal shift (per site)
• •
Facilities
Incentives
Assistance program to employers Home-end teleworking
Marketing Flexible work hours
Commuter orientation
Special Events
Telework promotion
Marketing
MEDIUM
• TDM Packaging
r to 20%modal shift (per site)
Info rmation Facilities Incentives
Telecenter creation Special Events Grants for home equipment
Compressed work weeks Commuter Club
Employee Transportation
Coordinator
HIGH
•
• to 25% modal shift (per site)
Information Facilities Incentives
Parking cash out
Taxation incentives for home office
Transportation Allowances
Taxation Incentives
Each successive category includes the
previous categories' strategies