4 - Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Update - Phase 3
CITY OF BOULDER
TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD NON AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: December 9, 2002
SUBJECT:
TAB work session on the transportation analysis for the Jobs/Housing Project, formerly
called the Jobs to Population Balance Project, and the Transportation Master Plan Update -
Phase 3: Plan Development
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 discussion of the attached results and materials for Phase 3
PURPOSE:
This working session presents the results of the transportation analysis performed as part of the
Impact Assessment for the Jobs/Housing Project as well as the proposed process for Phase 3,
Plan Development, of the TMP Update. The Jobs/Housing work as well as recent changes in the
role of RTD will form the basis for the Phase 3 work; this work has resulted in significantly
changing some of our assumptions about transit investment and the base scenario of
transportation investment with currently available funds. The work session provides TAB the
opportunity to explore the results and implications of the Jobs/Housing work and changes in
transit funding, and to advise staff on the Phase 3 process and work program.
BACKGROUND:
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 were presented to the TAB and Council in July. Both
agreed that the materials were comprehensive and formed a strong basis to move into the next
phase of plan development.
The next phase of the Update, Plan Development, will develop a fiscally constrained investment
program supports the policy directions of the plan with expected revenues, and an unconstrained
plan with additional initiatives in the four policy focus areas intended to achieve the plan's goals.
This phase includes the transportation modeling to test the results of the proposed program,
AGENDA ITEM # IV Page 1
facility and investment alternatives. Once these two plan scenarios are developed, Phase 4- Plan
Adoption, will proceed; an integrated plan will be prepared and presented to the public and four
boards needed to support adoption of the update.
DESCRIPTION OF THE ATTACHED MATERIALS:
The following section provides a brief description of the attached materials which provide the
background for the work session.
Jobs/Housing Transportation Analysis
The transportation impact assessment for the Jobs/Housing Project involved developing two
"transportation strategies." The strategies were then evaluated against the land use alternatives of
current trends in 2025, current trends at capacity, and the three land use scenarios developed through
the Jobs/Housing for the year 2025. The Transportation section from the Jobs/Housing Impact
analysis is included in Attachment A. This section describes methodology used in the analysis, the
investments included in the transportation strategies and reports the transportation results through
a variety of measures. The work on this analysis occupied the TMP Update project team from June
through September 2002. The Impact Assessment was presented to City Council and Planning
Board at a joint Study Session on Sept. 24, 2002.
Implications for the TMP Update
After a six-month hiatus, the TMP Update Study Committee met on November 18, 2002, to
begin its work on Phase 3 of the Update. Staff reported the findings and implications of the
Jobs/Housing work and the changing situation with RTD in terms of funding for the Community
Transit Network (CTN). The Study Committee memo included in Attachment B presents the
key conclusions from these efforts and their implications for the TMP Update process. The
challenge facing the Update has certainly increased as a result of these findings, and there is the
need for a revised current funding scenario to serve as a basis for this work.
Phase 3 Approach and Work Program
Over a number of months while working on Phase 2 and the Jobs/Housing Project, staff has
discussed how to accomplish the Phase 3 work in a way that builds on what we have learned so
far in the Update process and that concentrates on the four policy focus areas of funding,
multimodal corridors, regional travel and transportation demand management (TDM). The
concept of "pushing the bars" as an approach plan development is described and illustrated in
Attachment C. Staff will return to the Study Committee in January with both a revised current
funding scenario that reflect the funding realities for transit and with a first draft of the desired
plan.
TMP Goals and Metrics
At the November 18, 2002, TMP Update Study Committee meeting, Study Committee members
engaged in two group exercises. One focused on how to describe and measure the desired
AGENDA ITEM # W Page 2
transportation system and the other on what steps we should take in each of the four policy focus
areas as the first iteration of "pushing the bars." The Study Committee has consistently
expressed a strong desire to talk about the goals desired from the TMP. We have recognized that
the objectives contained in the current plan largely describe what we don't want to happen, are
vehicle-centered and are do not adequately describe the transportation system desired by the
community. The material presented in Attachment D is a summary of comments captured from
the Study Committee's discussion in work groups. These have been organized by themes but are
otherwise the statements as captured. Staff is composing a response that we will present at the
TAB meeting.
BOARD ACTION REQUESTED:
The TAB is asked to provide their review and comment on these materials, their implications and
the proposed work approach for Phase 3 of the TMP Update.
Attachments:
A- Jobs to Population Transportation Analysis
B- Implications for the TMP Update
C- Phase 3 Approach and Work Program
D- TMP Goals and Metrics
AGENDA ITEM # IV Page 3
Attachment A
Jobs to Population Transportation Analysis
Transportation
Contents
Executive Summary 1
Local Impacts 1
Regional Impacts 4
Land Use Impacts 6
Land Use and Facility Inputs 9
Boulder Transportation Modeling Areas 9
Boulder Jobs and Population Scenarios -
Dwelling Units and Employment 9
Boulder Jobs and Population Scenarios -
Multimodal Corridor Networks 11
Land Use Scenarios and Performance Summaries 13
Land Use and Travel Indicators 13
Employment and Households 13
Trip Productions and Attractions 14
Average Trip Length 16
Travel Impacts and Performance Summaries 17
Vehicle Miles Traveled 17
Vehicle Hours of Congestion Delay 19
Percent Roadways Congested 20
Internal Travel in the City 20
Air Quality 23
Regional Travel 25
Assessment Process 30
Attachments:
A: Detailed Assessment Process 35
Index of Figures:
Figure 1: Boulder Transportation Modeling Areas 2
Figure 2: Percent of Roadways Congested 5
Figure 3: Hours of Congestion Delay per Weekday 7
Figure 4: Boulder Jobs and Population Alternatives: 10
Dwelling Units and Employment
Figure 5: Boulder Jobs and Population Alternatives: 12
Multimodal Corridor Networks
Figure 6: Employment and Households 14
Figure 7: Trip Productions and Attractions 15
Figure 8: Average Trip Length 16
Figure 9: Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) per Weekday 18
Figure 10: Broadway Peak-Hour Travel Times 21
Figure 11: 28th St. Peak-Hour Travel Times 21
Figure 12: Arapahoe Rd. Peak-Hour Travel Times 22
Figure 13: Air Quality 24
Figure 14: Regional Travel Traffic Volume 26
Figure 15: SH 119/Diagonal Travel Times 27
Figure 16: SH 52 Travel Times 27
Figure 17: Arapahoe / Baseline Rd. Travel Times 28
Figure 18: US 36 (South) Travel Times 28
Figure 19: SH 93 Travel Times 29
Transportation
Executive Summary
The transportation impact assessment involved developing two "transportation strategies" and
evaluating each of these against the land use alternatives of Current Trends at 2025 and zoning
capacity, and the three land use scenarios at 2025. The assessment considered the level of
transportation investment in each corridor segment, the population/employment balance and
density resulting from each land use scenario, and the potential effectiveness of Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) measures for each corridor. An updated Boulder Valley
Transportation Model was developed and each land use alternative modeled for 2025 against the
"Null" case of the current transportation system to show only the effects of land use change, the
"Current Funding" case which projects transportation investment at current funding levels
through 2025, and the "Fully Funded TMP" case representing the build-out of 1996
Transportation Master Plan (TMP) investment program.
Local Impacts
This section discusses the results of this analysis for the Boulder focus area and the Boulder
impact area. To simplify the discussion, the Boulder focus area will simply be called "the city"
and the Boulder impact area will be "the Boulder Valley", although both transportation analysis
areas are approximations of these boundaries. See Figure 1 for a map comparing these
boundaries. Unless otherwise noted, this discussion refers to the modeling results for the Fully
Funded TMP strategy.
Existing Conditions
The transportation analysis for existing conditions shows the Boulder that we experience today in
terms of both land use and the transportation system. With approximately the same number of
employees as residents, about 50,000 employees commute into the city for work. Trip
productions, which generally are produced by households, are about a third less than trip
attractions, which represent activities such as employment that draw people into the community.
However, employment-related trips are less than half the total trips into Boulder as people come
into the community for a variety of reasons besides employment, including education,
entertainment and recreation. Attractions and productions are somewhat more balanced for the
Boulder Valley, as the additional housing in the valley outside the city improves the balance.
Travel characteristics show little difference between the city and the Boulder Valley. Trip
lengths are about the same for both, with work-related trips averaging about 12.5 miles and non-
work-related trips averaging just under 7 miles. About 17 percent of the roadway system in the
valley is congested and 2.65 million vehicle miles of travel (VMT) are produced daily. This
1 of 36
Boulder Transportation Modeling Areas
1 r ,
l ~ r
I
I
1
~ I I
1 Ii ~ I I, I
I a-
I
,N t t r
tt f 1 ~ ~ ~ 1 r li
L,~~1 -M f i.,. II •yrr
j. rY A h1 K F I d~ r
I F ( 1 1 ~ f~ ,
1
is
u ~ ~ 11 , 111 _ ~ . ~ r. L--
4 114 ~ FS ~ ~ % r
1. l 1
LEGEND
1
Boulder Focus Area
Boulder Valley I
® Comprehensive Plan Area
Q Boulder Transportation °t, r A
Model Impact Area°
0 1 2 Miles
( ~1
LSA
® da i
August 21, 2002
compares to the 1996 TMP objectives of no more than 20 percent of the transportation system
being congested by 2020 and maintaining 2.4 million VMT.
Current Trends
Current Trends represents the scenario anticipated under the recent Boulder Valley
Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) update. Households grow modestly while employment grows by
almost 50 percent in the Boulder Valley by 2025, increasing the imbalance between jobs and
population. This is reflected in travel behavior with a significant increase in trip attractions, a 25
percent increase in trips within the city and more than a 31 percent increase within the Boulder
Valley. The average length of the work-related trips increases 0.9 miles in the city and 0.8 miles
in the Boulder Valley, with the increase in trips and trip lengths producing a 489,000 VMT
increase in the Boulder Valley to a total VMT of 3.14. The impact of this increase in travel
increases roadway system congestion in the valley to 27 percent and increases the hours of
vehicle congestion delay by 73 percent.
Scenario 1
Scenario 1 is the least intervention scenario, adding about the same number of households to
Current Trends as Scenario 3 and the largest increase in jobs when compared to scenarios 2 and
3. When compared to Current Trends, Scenario 1 significantly improves the balance between
jobs and population by increasing the number of additional housing units relative to the increase
in jobs. While the total increase in trips for the Boulder Valley is about the same as in Current
Trends, the increase is reduced by about 6 percent within the city. The average length of work-
related trips is reduced by 0.2 miles and non-work related trips reduced by 0.4 miles from
Current Trends in both the city and the Boulder Valley. Even though this scenario increases both
population and employment relative to Current Trends, it produces slightly less VMT in the
Boulder Valley. The amount of roadway congestion in the valley remains the same while hours
of congestion delay is reduced slightly compared to Current Trends.
Scenario 2
Scenario 2 adds the largest number of households to Current Trends and the smallest number of
jobs relative to Scenario 1. By producing the largest increase in the number of additional
housing units relative to the increase in jobs, Scenario 2 improves the balance between jobs and
population, and between trip attractions and productions compared to Scenario 1. Scenario 2 has
slightly fewer total trips than Scenario 1 and about 70,000 fewer VMT.
Scenario 2 has the highest number and proportion of trips that stay within the Boulder Valley.
This scenario also reduces average work-related and non-work related trips by 0.3 miles
compared to Scenario 1. Scenario 2 also has the shortest trip lengths by 0.1 to 0.2 miles of all the
scenarios. These figures suggest that residents have the highest level of accessibility in this
scenario and, consequently, can satisfy their daily needs with less travel than in the other
scenarios. The percent of the system congested is reduced slightly while hours of congestion
delay are reduced by about 600 when compared to Scenario 1.
3 of 36
Scenario 3
Scenario 3 is the lowest growth scenario, adding the same number of housing units as Scenario I
to Current Trends and the smallest number of jobs. By reducing job growth and relocating some
growth into mixed use areas, Scenario 3 reduces both trip attractions and productions by 82,000
or more than 5 percent below Current Trends. Although its balance between productions and
attractions is similar to Scenario 2, Scenario 3 has slightly higher average trip lengths. Still the
reduction of about 50,000 daily trips from those in Scenario 2 is enough to reduce VMT in the
Boulder Valley by about 100,000 and hours of congestion by about 950.
Current Trends at Capacity
Current Trends at zoning capacity more than doubles employment from today and produces a
very large employment increase over the other scenarios. This has the expected result of
generating the greatest number of attractions, the greatest imbalance between attractions and
productions, and the greatest number of trips coming into the Boulder Valley. Compared to
existing conditions, average trip lengths increase by more than 2 miles for the Boulder Valley
and VMT increases by about 45 percent from today. This change in trips lengths increases the
vehicle hours of congestion delay more than five-fold.
While Current Trends at capacity greatly increases employment, it produces little mixed use
development and does not produce the mix of uses in some corridor segments that resulted from
the other scenarios. The increased concentration of single activity land uses will not support
multimodal activity on the corridors as well as in the other scenarios and concentrates trip-
making into the commuting rush hours.
Regional Impacts
The discussion above generally addresses the impacts throughout the Boulder Valley. One of the
most striking results of this analysis, however, is the difference in impacts within the city and
those outside the city but within the Boulder Valley. This difference is shown most clearly in the
graphs for Percent Roadways Congested and Vehicle Hours of Congestion Delay. As shown in
Figure 2, the percent of roadways congested within the city remains at or below 20 percent for all
the scenarios except Current Trends at capacity. In the entire Boulder Valley however, the
percent of roadways congested ranges from 27 to 34 percent among all the scenarios. Although
congestion within the city is increasing somewhat, the amount of congestion outside the city
must be increasing even more than the Boulder Valley numbers indicate. The impact of this
congestion is also shown in increased travel times and in regional traffic volume numbers which
on some roadways seem to reach the maximum that the roadway can handle. When traffic
volume on a roadway reaches a maximum level, the congestion forces those trips to a different
route.
4 of 36
Figure 2- Percent of Roadways Congested
eTMPObjective: 50%
No more than 20% of
roadways congested
(measured as the
percentage of arterial 45% _
and collector street
lane miles in the
Impact Area at LOS
F)
40% _
-
11%
35% _
C
O
ae 31%
30% _ _ _ _
C
O
V
25% - -
6 -e% o%
-10% -7% -10% -13% -11%
O
LEGEND W 1s%
Change from r 20%
Current Facilities:
Impact Area m
a
15% - - - -
Boulder Impact
' Area (Includes 10% -
- - - -
Focus Area)
Boulder Focus
Area 5% - - - -
TMP Objective 0% -
6cisting urrent Att. 1 All, 2 Alt. 3 CT at Current Att. 1 M,2 Att. 3 CT at Current All, 1 M,2 Al, 3 CT at
Trends Capacity Trends Capacity Trends Capacity
Current Facilities Current Fundit Fully Funded TMP
271% 27.0% 1
i. 24,5%.
Boulder Mlpacl Area;_Roedwe~Cengeseon. 162%.. __..302% _..._312%. 305% .__..28.9% .7%_. 285% .;_..281%.-..._ 27.5%
BoulderF000SAren: ?%R Co don 17.0% 23.1% 23.3% 22.8% 20.8% 43.3% 20.2% 21 .8% 20.5% 19.7% 1 84.6% 19.9% 19.9%.` 19.7%
15.4% 27.0%
The larger increase in congestion in the area outside of the city is supported by the vehicle hours
of congestion delay shown in Figure 3, with about half of the total vehicle hours of congestion
occurring in the Boulder Valley area outside of the city. Given the limited number of existing
facilities in this area and the limited planned improvements, this level of congestion will
significantly impact travel into and out of the city. While the modeling only reports congestion
within the Boulder Valley, most trips on the regional facilities are coming from the surrounding
communities and are much longer trips. These trips almost certainly experience additional
congestion on that portion of the trip outside of the Boulder Valley.
These results indicate that the investment program of the 1996 TMP, which is largely focused
within the city, is having a significant effect in limiting the increase in congestion and reducing
vehicle hours of congestion delay between 38 and 53 percent from the current facilities case. In
part, this is because trip distances within the city are shorter and are more likely to happen in areas
where a variety of transportation choices exist. Trips which occur on the regional corridors are
much longer distance and may come from areas where limited, if any, options exist to the single
occupant vehicle. Longer distance trips have proven to be more difficult to shift into other modes
than shorter distance trips.
While the city has been actively working to establish partnerships and develop improvement
strategies for the regional corridors, very little actual funding is identified to make those
improvements. Planning work and a shared vision for improvements for US 36 south have
progressed over the last 8 years, but no funds have been dedicated to construct the nearly $1
billion dollars of improvements that are needed. Even if federal money is secured to help find
these improvements, it is likely that as much as half of the total amount will be needed from state
and corridor area sources.
Land Use Impacts
The transportation impact assessment results in the following conclusions on the relationship
between transportation and land use:
• None of the land use scenarios in combination with either transportation strategy meets all of
the objectives of the 1996 TMP. All the land use scenarios have levels of jobs and population
significantly above those on which the TMP was based and result in close to a doubling of
congestion levels in the Boulder Valley and a vehicle miles of travel (VMT) increase of
300,000 or more VMT in the Boulder Valley.
• As is true of a portion of the current TMP, the Fully Funded TMP program is about a third
unfunded and would require $204 million of funding beyond expected revenues by 2025 to
implement. Lack of funding for the facilities and programs of the TMP remains the biggest
obstacle to achieving its goals.
• While the land use scenarios result in large changes in traffic impact from existing conditions,
the Fully Funded TMP (TMP build-out) program significantly reduces congestion and
improves the performance of the transportation system. For all land use scenarios, the Fully
Funded TMP investments reduce VMT by at least 11 percent and hours of congestion delay
by at least 28 percent. These reductions approximate at least a one level improvement in
6 of 36
i
i
Figure 3 Vehicle Hours Of Congestion Delay
70.000 - -
60.000-------
-25%
R
-W
Y $0,000 _
m
3
CI
a
W 40.600------- -------------------------------47%- -
0
0
in
m 30000-------
- -
c
0
LEGEND 0
0
Change from 12
Current Facilities: ~ 20,000 - - - - - - - - - - 17%17%-----------------------------
-
Impact Area = 2a 24 "s -16%
Eosins <
dt- -30% -28%
Boulder Impact 10.000 - - - - - - - -
Area (Includes
Focus Area)
Boulder Focus Area 0 J-
Existing Current Atl. 1 AIL 2 Al. 3 CT at Cmrerd Alt. 1 A1.2 Alt. 3 CT W Current AIL 1 Alt. 2 AIL 3 CT at
Trends Capacity Trends Capacity Trends Capecit)
Current Fadlkies Base Base
Boulder Im_pacl Area VH Corgestbn X_ 6 806 ! 17 405 17,039, 14 699; 12 935 68,593 14,362 14 111 12,276 10,971 51 x582 11,774 11,592
10,294 9,345 36,345
_ _.__1_
:Seconds Delay VMT 9 18 17 15 14 56 16 15 14 13 45 13 13 12 11 - 34
Moulder Focus Area. VH Congestion Delay 3,798 !w _ 8,490 _R _,8584 _ _7 437 , 6,339.... 33 _556 , „6 473 _ _ _6 560 _ 5 693__ , _ 4 932 23 515 5,012 5.084
4,484 _ _ 3,961 15,747
'Seconds Delay VMT 9 ! 15 16 14 i 12 49 13 13 - 12 10 38 11 11 10 9 27
transportation level of service (LOS). In addition, this program produces an increase in
accessibility and changes in corridor character resulting from a wider selection of
transportation choices and greater attention to design.
• TDM programs have their greatest effectiveness on work-related trips and, when they are
supported by the employer with a medium to high level of support for transit, carpooling and
vanpooling. National examples show a range of vehicle trip reduction of 21 to 47 percent,
with the parking management and financial incentives being the most effective in changing
behavior. Both of the described TDM programs lack parking management, however, with the
Current Funding case TDM program expected to reduce work related trips by 3 to 8 percent
and the Fully Funded TMP program would reduce work related trips by 7 to 15 percent.
8 of 36
Facility Assumptions, Travel Impacts
and Performance Summaries
Land Use and Facility Inputs
Boulder Transportation Modeling Areas
The map in Figure 1 shows the geographical areas used throughout the analysis process for which
data has been summarized. The smaller area, shown in a blue outline on the map, identifies the
Boulder Focus Area. This boundary closely follows the borders of the Boulder subcommunities,
as provided by the City of Boulder Planning and Development Services, and reasonably
approximates the city limits of Boulder. Certain minor adjustments were made in order to align
the Focus Area with traffic analysis zone (TAZ) boundaries used in the travel model.
The Boulder Impact Area is shown with a red outline on the map and fully includes the Boulder
Focus Area. This boundary approximates the Comprehensive Plan Area used in previous studies.
The Impact Area represents a travel shed that is impacted by land use and transportation decisions
within Bolder.
The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan Area is shown in green and is provided for reference
since it has been used in previous studies.
Boulder Jobs and Population Scenarios - Dwelling Units and
Employment
Figure 4 displays graphically the amount and geographic dispersion of existing and future land use
assumptions for each of the scenarios. The lighter colors represent 2001 Existing dwelling units
and employment. The darker colors indicate the dwelling units and employment added in each
future scenario.
As shown on the graphic, each of the future scenarios adds a modest number of dwelling units.
Employment additions are much greater for each of the scenarios, with Current Trends at capacity
increasing employment the most, especially in the non-retail category. Again, the amount and
location of future land use growth is directly related to the amount and orientation of future travel.
9 of 36
Boulder Jobs and Population Alternatives
Dwelling Units and Em to ent
Current (2001) Current Trends (2025) Alternative 1 (2025) Alternative 2 (2025) Altemative 3 (2025) Current Trends
at Capacity
- - -
,
,
r: e
s
Y+'~' - n~ ,rT: _~t .f~. ` Mtea: A , • ,t'
rAk\ 'hkAi~ ''Y~~! UYAv..TM"If.. ~ MB- • !E~~ ~ ,
Dwelling Units _
_ A
Retail Employment
4/1
i
Non-Retail Employment LEGEND
Lighter colors indicate existing units T\ 0 1 2 3 Miles I A
A 50 Retail Jobs a SO Dwelling Units or employment and dwker colors L
J V S A
A 100Non•RetailJobs --.Mul6modalcorridors rel""tdiNeremeilrnnexisting. eevv Augnr2s,2002
Boulder Jobs and Population Alternatives - Multimodal Corridor
Networks
Figure 5 shows the relative rankings of Current Facilities as well as Current Funding and Fully
Funded TMP improvements with transportation demand management (TDM) opportunities. For
the various transportation investment levels, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities are shown.
For the TDM Opportunities, one ranking is used for work-related trips and another for non-work
related trips. TDM Opportunities represent investment levels beyond Boulder's current programs
and are only applicable to the Fully Funded TMP network assumptions,
For the Current Facilities, Current Funding and Fully Funded TMP columns, the multimodal
corridors are ranked for pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. The multimodal corridors are
color-coded according to the relative rank of the current or future facilities and services as
provided by the various investment levels. They are shown in the following colors (from highest
ranked facilities to lowest ranked facilities): dark green, light green, yellow, orange, and red.
The TDM opportunities were ranked according to their potential to reduce automobile trips as an
addition to the Fully Funded TMP alternative. The ranking are shown in the following colors
(from highest potential to lowest potential): dark green, light green, yellow, orange, and red.
11 of36
Boulder Jobs and Population Alternatives
Multimodal Corridor Networks
Current Network (2001) Base Network (2025) Base++ Network (2025) Base++ Network Base++ Network
f TDM Opportunities TDM Opportunities
" Work Related Trips Non-Work Related Trips
r
4mxl Nxex~ •~;-Y-'
i i
Y, C~ 1y'i,r
Pedestrian Facilities
tlYloix Nyy/ Wentlxwl W1 Jxcf t t. y.
'7/ 4 :f 4WMM i .~P. J
uW !H ALL{ i.
n.+u C n rtn y~ tIM'PN ~yy IggM-rl 1
a5 ;
L„ it ' i Jxw ;
xv
LEGEND
High
Medium High
Medium
Low Medium
Low
Bicycle Facilities Marginal
~ MMJ IYpntlMYy pgpetl Nxy
N~xtlM L J
~A )YA- YAM
Ai,~!d1M ~ ulr ~ C ~'r
~ N f I f~ l L~YW .
maxi
W
I b"
J~ly♦f,ul/-JItlM Idi WI1MMM;
ti 0 1 2 3
Miles
Transit Services and Facilities LEGEND L S A
High Medium Low
Medium High Low Medium August 30, 2002
Land Use Scenarios and Performance Summaries
The Travel Impact and Performance summary figures demonstrate the effects of land use and
transportation system assumptions on travel in and around Boulder. Land use scenarios include
the 2001 existing condition and five 2025 alternative futures of the Jobs to Population study:
Current Trends, Scenarios 1, 2, and 3, and Current Trends at capacity.
Transportation system assumptions were made at three levels: 2001 Current Facilities, modest
improvements (Current Funding), and higher cost improvements (Fully Funded TMP). Results
are shown in the accompanying charts and tables for both the Boulder Focus Area and Boulder
Impact Areas. Again, the Impact Area includes the Focus Area.
Land Use and Travel Indicators
Several land use and transportation indicators are summarized in this section and provide basic
information to characterize the relationship between them. Land use activity is used as the basis
for trip making activity and travel behavior. Balanced land uses within a community can lead to
shorter, local trips that would likely increase alternative mode use.
The charts and tables in this section are based solely on the land use assumptions for the 2001
existing conditions and five 2025 scenarios. Transportation facility assumptions and
improvements do not affect these estimates.
Employment and Households
The number of trips produced or attracted to an area is directly proportional to the amount of
households and employment in that area. Therefore, the amount and location of these important
socioeconomic variables has a direct effect on the amount and orientation of travel to, from, and
within an area. Each future Jobs to Population Study scenario contains distinct assumptions for
households and employment, as shown in the chart and table of Figure 6 on the following page.
Referencing this information will help explain the travel and performance indicators reported in
the following sections.
13 of 36
Figure 6. Employment and Households
250.000
Employment ~
and Households
200000 -
150A00 - - - - - - - - -
LEGEND t0000o
■ Boulde Impact Area
(Intl Wes Focus Area)
BWltler FflLlla Area
50000
0
_ x x x x
Existing Current AN 1 At 2 AN 3 CT at
Trends Capacity
Boulder Impact Area: Households (HH) 50.600 61,600 64,200 61,100 63,600 61,600
- - - -Jobs 113.000 161,800 164,900 -154,300 141,800.. - 236,400
Boulder FOCUS Area: Households (HH) 44,300 50,100 52,600 55.800 _ 521300 50,100
Jobs -103,800 - 146,600 _ 144,960 138,900 126.300 . 221,300
Trip Productions and Attractions
Trip productions and attractions provide an indication of travel imbalance in and around Boulder.
Households generally produce trips. A household's income and area type (e.g. city, suburban,
rural) influence the number of trips produced. Places of employment activity generally attract
trips. The type of employment (e.g. retail, service, production/distribution) and employee income
determines the rate of trip attraction at each location. A large number of trip attractions relative to
productions in a community leads to a large number of in-commuters, or people who work, shop,
and play in the city but live elsewhere. The following graphic shows the relationship of
productions to attractions for each scenario.
14 of 36
Figure 7. Trip Productions and Attractions
1,20D.000
Trip Productions j
and Attractions
1.000.000 J
I
800.000
g s0a,oaD - -
LEGEND
■ 8oulder Impact A. 400.000
(InGudes Focus Area) ~
i
BoWOer Focus Area
200.000 - - - - - - - - -
G
Q P 4 P Q P Q P Q P Q P
Regional A/ P: 1.00
Existing Current Alt i Alt 2 Alt 3 CT at
Trends Capacity
Boulder Impact Area: Productions (P) 505,000 641,200 656.600 669.400 633.100 721,200
Attractions(A) 684,600 886,800 882,500 864,100 812,100 1,127,8901
, _ _ _ _ ..Ratio A! P 1.36 1.38 ' 1.34 1.29 128 1.58
Boulder Focus Area : Productions (P) 439,400 _ 526,500 542,100 554,300 517,800 607,100
Attractions (A) ,618.000 767,900 763,500 744,700 692,000 1,011,000
. Ratio (A / P) 1.41 1.46 1.41 1.34 1.34.. - 1.67
Findings
• Consistent with increases in households and employment, trips grow for each scenario
compared to the 2001 existing condition. In the Boulder Impact Area:
Trips for the Current Trends and scenarios 1 and 2 increase by about 30% through 2025,
or about 1.1 % per year.
- Trips for Scenario 3 increase at the lowest rate of 22% through 2025 compared to the
other 2025 scenarios. This is about 0.8% per year.
Since Current Trends at capacity reflects a longer time frame than 2025, the trips
correspondingly are the highest. They increase by 56% compared to 2001.
• Currently there are approximately 180,000 more trip attractions to the Boulder Impact Area as
compared to trip productions. This results in an influx of people traveling to activities (e.g.,
work, shop, school, and play) in Boulder.
• This difference will increase to 246,000 for Current Trends, 226,000 for Scenario 1, and
195,000 for Scenario 2.
• The difference between productions and attractions is lower with Scenario 3 (179,000) as
compared to the other 2025 scenarios.
15 of 36
• Trip attractions will significantly increase with Current Trends at capacity with a total of
407,000 more attractions than productions..
Average Trip Length
This category represents the average length in miles of all trips to, from, or within the Boulder
Focus and Impact areas. Longer trip lengths can indicate an imbalance in employment and
housing because trips that start and end within Boulder are usually shorter than those that travel
between Boulder and other communities. Results are displayed in the Figure 9 graphic.
Figure 8. Average Trip Length
s
Average
Trip Length 14
12
10
i
6 fIJ
a
LEGEND
■ Boulder Impact Area 2
(Includes Focus Area)
Bouider Focus Area 0
z°3° z°3 3¢ z°; a
U L
Existing Current AIt1 AH2 A113 CTat
Trends Capacity
Boulder Impact Area: Work Trips 126 13.4 13.2 12.9 13.0 14.7
Non-Work Trips - 7.0 - 7-1 6.7 6.4 fi.4 -8.2
ou er ocus rea: o nips 12.4 13.3 13.1 lZi W.9 14.1
- -Non-Work Trips - - - 6.8 - 6.9 -6.5-- - -6.1 - 6.2 8.2
Findings
As expected, trip lengths increase between the 2001 existing condition and the future land use
scenarios for both work and nonwork-related trips. However, as shown in Figure 4, the
variations among scenarios are small.
Among the 2025 scenarios, Scenario 3 yields the shortest trip lengths. This is consistent with
other indicators that show Scenario 3 as the most balanced in terms of future households and
16 of 36
employment. Scenario 3 also has the lowest overall growth of trips as compared to the
existing condition.
As expected, Current Trends at capacity reflects the highest overall trip lengths, consistent
with this alternative's highest socioeconomic and trip making characteristics.
Travel Impacts and Performance Summaries
In this series of comparisons, land use assumptions for each of the Jobs to Population study
scenarios are characterized by their impacts to the transportation system and environment.
Transportation assumptions vary as well, providing multi-dimensional results for the various land
use and transportation combinations. Each land use scenario is applied to the three transportation
facility and service alternatives: Current Facilities and Services, the modest investments reflected
in the Current Funding network, and the higher-cost improvements of the Fully Funded TMP
network.
The Current Funding network improvements and the more aggressive Fully Funded TMP
transportation facility and service improvements tend to provide positive travel and system
performance impacts as compared to Current Facilities. Better land use balance within the
Boulder Focus Area further increase these benefits.
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
This category represents the vehicular travel taking place within the Boulder Focus Area and
Boulder Impact areas as measured by the vehicle miles of travel on an average weekday. In
general, a ten percent shift in total vehicle miles traveled from one alternative to another can be
characterized as one level of service (LOS) change. LOS is a term used to describe the roadway
system performance using letter grades from A to F. LOS A represents unhindered, free-flow
traffic, and LOS F indicates system failure due to overwhelming traffic demand within the system.
The TMP Objective related to VMT is stated as no growth in long-term vehicle traffic and
measured as a VMT limit of 2.41 million vehicle miles per weekday, as shown in the Figure 10.
This standard applies to the Boulder Impact Area. So none of the future land use scenarios yields
VMT that meets this objective. The Current Funding and Fully Funded TMP investments provide
additional benefits, but do not allow any of the future scenarios to reach the TMP Objective.
17 of 36
Figure 9- Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT)
4,500.000
-6.6%
-13%
TMp Objective:
in long-term 4,000,000 _
vehicle No traffic (i.e. keep
Impact Area VMT below -6.0% -6.0%
2 41 million)
-----------------a,9%
3.500.000 -
3,000.000 - -
- -
W
4)4) 2,500,000 - - - - -
LEGEND 3
Change from
Current Facilities:
Impact Area d 2,000,000 - - - -
Boulder Impact 1,500,000-- - - - - _ - -
' Area (Includes _
Focus Area)
1,000,000 - - - - -
Boulder Focus _
'Area .t
-
500,000 - - - -
TMP Objective
0 L
Existing Current Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt 3 CT at Current AIL 1 Att. 2 Alt. 3 CT at Current AIL 1 All. 2 Att. 3 CT at
Trends Capacity Trends Capacity Trends Capacity
Current Facilities Current Funding Fully Funded TMP
Boulder Impact Any: VMT 2,653,000 3,546,000_ 3,528,000 3,442,000 3,319,000 4,406,000 3,334,000 3,318,000 3,238,000 3,126,000 _4,115,0001,3,142,000 3,128,000 3,054,000
2,953,000 3,839,000
Boulder Focus Area: VMT--- _ 1,546,000 1,976,000 . 1,981,000: 1,940,000 1,855,000 2,453,000 1,813,000 1,818,000 1,778,000 1,702,000. 2,244,000 1,680,000 1,684,000
1,646,000 1,578,000 2,065,000
Findings
On average, Current Funding improvements reduce vehicle miles within the Boulder Focus
Area by approximately 6% as compared to Current Facilities assumptions within the Impact
Area.
On average, Fully Funded TMP improvements with an expanded Travel Demand
Management program reduce vehicle miles within the Boulder Impact Area by approximately
11% as compared to Current Facilities.
None of the combinations of land use and transportation investment scenarios provides low
enough VMT in the future to meet the TMP Objective of 2.41 million miles per weekday in the
Impact Area. Jobs to Population Alterative 3 in combination with the Fully Funded TMP facility
and service assumptions yields the lowest VMT among all of the scenarios.
Vehicle Hours of Congestion Delay
This measure is shown in Figure 3 and indicates the amount of congestion on roadways within the
Boulder Focus Area and Boulder Impact Area, weighted by the number of vehicles experiencing
delay. Scenarios that reduce vehicular travel tend to reduce congestion delay as well. There is no
TMP Objective that applies directly to the number of congested vehicle hours, but this measure is
used to reflect a systemwide indicator of delay due to traffic congestion associated with each
scenario and transportation system assumptions.
Findings
• Total vehicle hours of congestion will approximately double when comparing 2001 Existing
conditions with the Current Trends/Current Facilities scenario within the Impact Area.
• With Current Trends at capacity, total congestion will increase by a factor of six (6) without
additional transportation system improvements.
• Scenarios 1, 2, and 3 will provide increasing benefits with regard to congestion delay
reductions, respectively. This is consistent with previously reported indicators related to
socioeconomic growth, VMT, and land use balance indicators.
• The Current Funding transportation network improvements provide significant congestion
delay benefits over the Current Facilities assumptions.
• The Fully Funded TMP transportation facility and service investments yield significantly
better congestion delay values as compared to the Current Facilities and Current Funding level
of investment.
19 of 36
Percent Roadways Congested
This measure indicates the number of roadways within the Boulder Focus and Impact Areas that
are congested at LOS F. The TMP Objective for this measure is stated as no more than 20% of
roadways congested and measured as the percentage of arterial and collector street lane-miles in
the Boulder Impact Area at LOS F. (The TMP Objective does not apply to the Boulder Focus
Area.) Under 2001 Existing conditions, that value stands at 16%, but is expected to grow in the
future as shown in Figure 2.
Findings
None of the combinations of scenarios and transportation system assumptions meets the TMP
Objective of less than 20% congested roadways for the Boulder Impact Area.
The Current Trends scenarios all yield increased percent roadways congested as compared to
the 2001 Existing conditions.
With small exceptions, scenarios 1, 2, and 3 respectively provide benefits in terms of reduced
congested roadway percentages.
The Current Funding network investments provide significant congested roadway reductions
compared to the Current Facility and Service assumptions.
The Fully Funded TMP facility and service investments provide significant benefits over the
Current Facilities and Current Funding level of transportation system investment, consistent with
several of the other indicators.
Internal Travel in the City
Internal travel within the city of Boulder is an important measure to consider as part of the Jobs to
Population study because of the congestion and mobility effects that each land use scenario will
impart.
Internal travel is characterized in this analysis as the existing and future travel times along three
major corridors in Boulder. The city regularly collects data on these corridors to support the
Annual Report of Progress towards the goals and objectives of the Transportation Master Plan.
Travel times reported on the charts equate to a composite peak period condition. The corridors
are:
• Broadway from Violet to Greenbriar,
• 28'h Street from Table Mesa to Kalmia, and
• Arapahoe from 9`h to 55`h.
These charts are shown in the Figures 10 to 12 following this page.
20 of 36
Figure 10. Broadway Peak-Hour Travel Times
fio
so
c
-
m
u
- - -
3
x
n
10_
E.Wi, C. Nt 1 Art 2 AX. 3 CT al C~ Ail. i All.2 a1.3 CIA cum, AII.1 a1.2 AI 3 CIA
TrenB Ce(adlY Tmr~s Cepa/IY TrelvE Capacity
CuneA FaGl6iae Lurtenl FUntlinq Fully FUntle4 IMP
Tmtpl ilnie mm 15 21 21 16 11 M 19 19 1) 16 - a5 1I 16 15 15 31
Figure 11- 28th St. Peak-Hour Travel Times
sc
as
ap
C 35 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
E
V
m
21
A
V
615
G
UMN Cunt AR .1 PA.2 AX.3 CT aI urrenl AX.1 A112 PI1.3 CTM Cm Ali.1 Mi.2 All.3 CTet
TnMS CurteN FMIIXIU UB.W, mtls CurtpM Fun,11 C xity Tmntls Fuu!Fun1p T MP Cw:ly
il'aael Time mm 11 17 16 19 13 q 19 is 12 11 3] 12 12 1BE ip 26
Figure 12- Arapahoe Rd. Peak-Hour Travel Times
25 - - - - - - - - - - - -
20
c
E
m
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
F
m
A
H
3
Y
a
o.
s
0
E:ISgrg Cu., M1a+ M.2 a1 J CT.1 vrent M+ Mc2 M.J crw Cvrau a++ a1.2 MI 3 cr.,
T~ CUMW FWINIn CnpedlY rBn~ Cumn[FUMeg L.yMiry TmNa FuIIYFOr 4TW CapacTy
rnel Time lm,n 10 12 11 11 1+ 20 11 +1 11 11 1T 11 1+ 11 10 11
Findings
Travel times on the internal corridors grow somewhat in the future due to increased traffic
demand and congestion. However, it is possible in some scenarios to have future travel
times on these corridors that are similar to existing conditions.
Scenarios 1, 2, and 3, respectively, provide internal travel benefits as compared to the
Current Trends scenario.
Scenario 3 under the Fully Funded (Base++) investment level provides the best travel
times and lowest traffic volumes on the internal corridors.
Current Trends at capacity yields significantly higher traffic volumes and travel times that
the other future scenarios.
Travel time results on the internal corridors are consistent with other performance
indicators (e.g., VMT, VHT, percent roadways congested) that show high levels of future
traffic demand and congestion effects outside the city and smaller increases of these
characteristics within the city.
Air Quality
The amount of carbon monoxide (CO), volatile organic compounds (VOC), and nitrogen oxides
estimated for each scenario are displayed in this category in Figure 13. Carbon monoxide is a
winter air quality concern in which concentrations can occur at intersections and other high
activity and/or congested locations. Volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides are of
primary concern in the summertime, when high temperatures and sunlight cause these pollutants
to form ground-level ozone.
Emission factors recorded in grams per mile were obtained from EPA's Mobile model.
Vehicular travel and congested speeds are also used in the air quality calculations. Emissions per
vehicle mile tend to decrease as speeds increase (up to about 50 mph). Pollution levels also
decrease as VMT is reduced.
The TMP Objective with regard to air quality is stated as a continuous reduction in mobile source
emissions of air pollutants and measured as the levels of CO, VOC, and NOX emissions in the
Boulder Impact Area for each scenario as compared to the 2001 existing condition.
Findings
• Several of the combinations of scenarios and network assumptions yield lower levels of the
various pollutants as compared to 2001 existing conditions. However, only Scenario 3
combined with the Fully Funded TMP system investments provides reductions of all three
pollutants in the Impact Area, thereby meeting the TMP Objective.
23 of 36
Figure 13- Air Quality
60 -
-10%
* TMP Objective:
Continuous reduction in 50
mobile source emissions
of air pollutants
-
40
-7.8%
T -7,5% -15% -15%
LEGEND Y a%
m
Change from
Current Facilities:
-
impact Area m -
C.
W
C
O
I-
-
20 -
Boulder Impact
' Area (Includes
Focus Area)
Boulder Focus 10 -
1 Area
TMP Objective 0--
Lo - - - - - - - - - - - - -
08= 08= °8a °86 08= 08= °86 08= °8a 08= 086 °8s 086 086 08=
E)dsting Current Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt- 3 CT at Current Aft. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 CT at Current Alt 1 Alt. 2 Aft. 3 CT at
Trends Capactiy Trends Capactiy Trends Capactiy
Sheded numbers Indicate a redirction
bom current emission kvek. Cument Facilities Current Funding Fully Funded TMP
37.I _.56,2 _ _,._37.1 37.0 35.8 34.3 _.34.4 34.3 33.3 320 45.6
Boulder Impact Area: Carbon Monoxide 40.2 38.
Volatile Organic Compou 5.9 5.8 61 5A 7.8 5.5 C4 8.3 M 7.1 M Al A g 47 6'.5____
'Mir en Oxides 6.4 7.6 7.6 7.4 7.1 9.3 7.2 7-1 7.0 6.8 8.7 6.8 6.7 6.6 6.4 8.1
BoulderFowsArea: •CarbonMonoxide 20.5 _23.9 24.0 33A___214 21.5 .__.,20.9 111.8 29.0 19.4 10.6 19.0 _ 1$1 25.8
Volatile Organic 4.5 31 3.1 3.0 211 4 0 28 28 28 26 _3.6
'Nitren Oxides 37 42 4.2 42 4.0 52 3.9 3.9 3.8 3.7 4J 38 A6 3.5 3.4 4.4
• The Current Funding investment level provides significant air quality benefits relative to the
Current Facility and Service assumptions.
• The Fully Funded TMP improvements provide significant air quality benefits as compared
the Current Facilities and Current Funding assumptions.
Regional Travel
Regional travel is of primary interest with regard to future Jobs to Population planning in
Boulder due to the existing situation in which a large number of people are traveling to activities
(e.g., work, school, shop, play) within Boulder from outside areas. Regional travel indicators are
a reflection of the impacts to those traveling to and from other areas, and they also provide
indications of the impacts to travelers in other areas that do not necessarily travel to and from
Boulder. Generally, it would be desirable to lower the regional travel to and from Boulder. This
would yield benefits in terms of air quality, congestion delay, energy consumption, and the need
for transportation investments on regional facilities.
Regional Travel has been measured in two ways for this analysis. First, the Regional Travel
traffic volume is shown in Figure 14. This graph depicts existing and forecast average weekday
traffic volumes on several corridors into and out of the Boulder Impact Area. Volumes for each
scenario and transportation system investment level have been calculated and are shown on the
graphic. The Eastern Arterials category is an aggregation of traffic volumes on SH52, Lookout,
Valmont, Arapahoe, Baseline, and South Boulder facilities.
These forecasts reflect origins and destinations outside of Boulder and competitiveness of
alternative routes. This competitiveness addresses distance and travel speed that can be impacted
by congestion and delay.
The other Regional Travel indicator is measured as the average travel time along a series of
defined corridors between Boulder and other communities. Since high levels of in-commuting
are a specific concern for Boulder and surrounding communities, the travel times were measured
as travel into Boulder during the morning peak rush hour. Figures 15 to 19 show projected travel
times for the following corridor definitions:
• SH119/Diagonal from US287 in Longmont to Iris in Boulder,
• SH52 from I-25 to SH119/Diagonal,
• Baseline/US287/Arapahoe from I-25 to Cherryvale,
• US36 from I-25 to Foothills Parkway, and
• SH93 from Golden to Table Mesa Drive.
25 of 36
Figure 14 Average Regional Weekday Traffic Volumes
Entering/Exiting Boulder impact Area
200
180 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
160
140
O
O
c: 120
to
m
E
X100
_V
t-
N
60 - i - - -
y i.
LEGEND 40 - - - -
1, i Y
. SH 93
~SH119/ 20
Diagonal
US 36 South y v~ , { l
Eastern
Arterials Current Att. 1 AIL 2 Att. 3 CT at Current Att. 1 AIL 2 Alt. 3 CT at Current AIL 1 Att. 2 AI[. 3 CT at
Arterials Trends Capacity Trends Capacity Trends Capacity
ExisUrg Current Facilities Current Funding Fully Funded TNIP
93 20
-_Hwy. 29 28 ! 27 27 41 i 29 28 27 25 39 _
___28 27 25, ~ . _ 48 47 46 44 56
Diagonal 43 51 50 Ali' if 60 ! 49 48 47 46
58
US 36 South 81 - 98 94 90
116 94 92 _ 88 87 114 83
90 i 88-
85 - _ _ 111 8-
Jig Arterials 82; 132 127 --------t
118 114 ! 185; 121 115 111 105 174 --i
119
114 107 101 164-
Figure 15- SH 119/Diagonal Hwy Travel Times
90____
80 _
C
E
m
a
r
0
m
a
m
m
zo -
to-
g_
xatirg CuneM At 1 Ad .2 AX 3 CT at Curtent Aft, I Aft 2 Aft, 3 CT at tyrant Att. I AIL 2 Ad. 3 CT at
Trends Curtent Factitious Capacity Trands Canaan Funding Capacity TraMa Fully Funded Win Capacity
travel Timelminl 20 29 29 Z] 20 _ 67 28 28 26 25 _ 72 28 26 25 24 52
5 sed m M 32 22 22 - -24 25 T 23 23 - - 25 M -9 25 - 25 - a 1T 13
Figure 16- SH 52/Mineral Rd. Travel Times
T°_ -
1111101
BO
E
E ~
m
-
-
z°
_
a'
10 _
o_
E rap, In Aftt AK,2 Aft 3 CT at I All 1 Aft,2 All 3 CTat tyrant Ad t Aft 2 Att 3 CTat
Cunneen Facilities Capacity TrtrWS Cunoum Funding Gauntly Trends Fully Funded TMP Capaply
Travel Time~mrnJ 16 29 26 22 21 TO P 25 22 21 80 25 23 21 20 58
S m a 40 23 26 29 31 9 24 27 31 32 11 Z8 29 32 33 11
Figure 17- Arapahoe / Baseline Rd. Travel Times
deg
160
gE 120
b
S
i ~
s
4 So
w
20
0 -
E.'." Canal Aa.1 Ad 2 A0.3 CT at C.ISM A0.1 Atl2 Aft 3 CTt Cunend A0.1 Ary.2 A0.3 CTA
Tre00s Current Fatigue. C "My Trends Curtin Funding Capacity Trends Fully Funded lMP Capaaly
Traval Time)-1 21 50 50 40 36 164 43 45 39 _ 3T 162 41 36 35 32 122
S ead M1 30 - 16 - 16 20 ZZ 5 19 Il 20 22 5 19 Zi 22 25
Figure 18- US 36 (South) Travel Times
180-_
160
1a0
5120__ -
E
E
1100_ _
x
- - - - - - - - - - - -
40--
20
0
En ng C M Ad,1 Ali 2 AS 3 CT el urrenl Wl Aft, Ali 3 Cl M uneM A11.1 Ali Y Ad,z CT d
T s Cu"M Fatuities Capatly rands Current Funding Capecdy Trends FuOy Funded MP Capadly
R,-'-P,7' 3' 66 64 5' 51 163 65 _ fit 54 52 lel 59 5T 52 51 i30
31 16 16 16 11 1 16 - 16 1g 20 T 16 18 20 20 8
Figure 19- SH 93 Travel Times
in
100
C
E
is
E 60
r
m
a
r
j 60
S
N
a
w 46--____
`m
Q
Ensling Cunent All. 1 Alt 2 AIL 3 CT at Cunent Alt. 1 AII. 2 ALL 3 CT M Cunent mi. 1 Alt 2 Alt, 3 CT at
Trentls Currant Facilities Capacity Trends Current FanJing Capacity Trends Fully FwdeE TMP Capacity
Travel Time lmie) 20 45 45 41 39 102 44 43 41 _ 40 g0 42 41 38 38 76
5 eetl (m Ph 50 22 23 24 25 1102 23 23 25 25 11 24 24 26 26 13
Findings
• Average traffic volumes and travel times increase significantly in future scenarios
consistent with other system performance indicators such as VMT, congestion delay, and
household/employment increases and trip imbalances.
• Scenario 3 under the Fully Funded TMP investment level consistently provides the best
travel times and lowest traffic volumes on the regional corridors.
• Scenarios 1, 2, and 3 respectively provide regional travel benefits as compared to Current
Trends.
• Current Trends at capacity yields significantly higher traffic volumes and travel times
than the other future scenarios.
• Current Funding network investment levels provide significant regional travel benefits
over the Current Facility and Service assumptions.
• Fully Funded TMP improvements provide significant regional travel benefits over the
Current Funding and Current Facilities network assumptions.
Assessment Process
Transportation activities in the city of Boulder support the overall community goals expressed in
the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan and are directed by the Transportation Master Plan
(TMP). The current TMP was adopted in 1996 and includes programs, strategies and an
investment program aimed at achieving the long term objective of "no long term growth in
vehicle traffic," reflecting the community's desire to limit the impact of vehicle traffic. Principle
objectives of the 1996 TMP are:
wNo growth in long-term vehicle traffic;
Reduction in single-occupant-vehicle travel to 25 percent of all trips;
wContinuous reduction in mobile source emissions of air pollutants; and,
g+No more than 20 percent of roadways congested (at Level of Service F or LOS F).
The TMP is currently being updated, with the results of the Jobs to Population Project being a
necessary input for the update process by establishing the expected population and employment
levels. All of the scenarios under consideration, including Current Trends, are significantly
larger than the land use basis of the 1996 TMP and will produce more travel than was anticipated
in 1996. The investment program required to meet the objectives of the 1996 TMP also remains
significantly under-funded, meaning that the investment program needed to meet its goals will
take longer to develop. Both factors suggest that the current Plan is unlikely to meet its
objectives although travel behavior in Boulder is significantly different from that of the region.
30 of 36
This analysis did not attempt to develop a transportation program that would meet the objectives
of the TMP, as assessing these objectives and developing a transportation investment program is
part of the update process. Consequently, the transportation analysis focused on evaluating the
land use scenarios relative to the TMP objectives, measuring system performance and defining
the cost of the transportation strategies.
The transportation analysis performed on the Jobs to Population land use scenarios involved a
number of significant work efforts and relied heavily on work conducted as part of the current
TMP Update and the previous transportation Prioritization Process. This work occurred in the
major areas of
• Refining the transportation investment programs for the two transportation strategies;
• creating a new Boulder Valley Transportation model for the analysis; and,
• preparing population and employment data sets for modeling.
A detailed listing of the work activities for each of these activity areas is included in Annendix A
and is summarized here.
The transportation strategies reflect two spending programs based on the 1996 TMP and the
Project Prioritization process. The "Current Funding" transportation strategy reflects current
activities and is constrained by expected revenues, with investments being made over time
according to the priority established in.1999 through the Project Prioritization process. The "Fully
Funded TMP" transportation strategy represents a spending program that fully implements the
vision of the 1996 TMP by building the transportation system defined in the 1996 TMP in a way
that reflects planning work since 1996. From work on the 28th Street Project and transportation
network plans, we now have a better understanding of the facilities and interconnections between
modes that are needed in a multimodal corridor. These improvements added about $30 million to
the $149 million cost of projects defined in the 1996 TMP and Project Prioritization process.
• The Current Funding case transportation strategy investment of $448 million by 2025 builds
out the pedestrian system, completes about 70 percent of the bicycle system, funds transit
service in the ten multimodal corridors and builds about 85 percent of transit related
improvements.
• The Fully Funded TMP transportation strategy invests $652 million by 2025 to complete all
the systems envisioned in the 1996 TMP, fully funds the Community Pass program, and
includes $30 million of additional facility spending above the Prioritization Project.
As part of developing the transportation strategies, the broad TDM programs contained in the
Transportation Prioritization Project were refined to specific techniques. This process and its
considerations are more fully described in Appendix A, but the specific items in each program are
summarized in the tables below.
31 of 36
Current Fundin Alternative TDM Prn rant
C Descri 'ion Elements
Marketing and Comprehensive marketing of all modal options, and how to Bicycling promotion
Outreach Efforts best make use of them, are a key component to TDM
promotion. Events, materials, and employer coordination
efforts comprise the majority of marketing and outreach
activities. Supporting strategies, such as Guaranteed Ride
Home, are used to augment the outreach efforts,
Bike to Work Week
Bikes on Buses
Employee Transportation
Coordinator,Vetwork
General Marketing
Guaranteed Ride Nome
Special events
Transit promotion
Transit riders guide
Transit Subsidies Implemented as either employer or residential ECO Neighborhood ECO Pass
Passes. ECO passes provide free bus use to commuters
and residents. ECO Passes should be marketed and
im lemented in concert with the strategies outlined above.
Student ECO Pass
CAGID ECO Pass
Miscellaneous ECO Pass
Average Effectiveness (Vehicular Trip Reduction)' 0 - 2 ✓ communio wide travel
3 - 8 % per employer worksite
Full Funded TMP Alternative TDM Pro rant
Cate o Description Elements ,
Marketing and Fully Funded TMP TDAI Strategies marketing strategies All marketing elements of
Outreach Efforts emphasize advanced modal support programs. These Current Funding Alternative
include focused events for target markets, greater
promotion of ridesharing than has occurred in the past,
and continuing to build the business case jar TDM by
making use of recent taxation incentives.
Carpool promotion
Enhanced ETC Network
Modal commuter orientation
Rideshare events
Taxation benefits promotion
Van pool promotion
Transit Subsidies A communirywide ECO Pass supercedes all previous ECO Community wide ECO Pass
pass programs. Essentially making transit free for
residents, employees, and students alike, this program
endeavors to provide the highest level of transit subsidies
possible. Local experience with employers with ECO
passes show a range of 2 to 15% vehicular reduction,
depending upon level of parking management and
marketin support
32 of 36
Innovative TDM Innovative Fully Funded TMP TRW Strategies attempt to Commuter Club
Strategies implement the "most important" TAW elements (as given
in the graphic above). These include financial incentives
(Commuter Club, parking cash out, vanpool subsidies) and
parking management (parking cash out and pricing in
hi h-imensifi areas .
Online ridematching
Parking cash out incentives
Parkingpricing in select areas
Vanpool subsidv
Average Effectiveness (Vehicular Trip Reduction) l - 4 % community wide travel
7-15 % per employer work site
L
Maps illustrating the resulting level of transportation improvements for each strategy and the
opportunity for TDM measures to impact work related trips and non work related trips are shown
in Figure 5.
Land use data sets of population and employment are key inputs into the transportation model
because these represent the populations and activities that generate the demand for travel. As the
transportation model is a regional model, up to date regional data sets were acquired from
DRCOG. The city's Planning Department produced detailed data sets for the Boulder valley from
the land use model used in the Jobs to Population Project. These local data sets were cut into the
regional data set for each of the land use scenarios to replace the DRCOG numbers for the
Boulder Valley and the resulting regional data set used for the transportation modeling. Figure 2
maps the distribution of housing units and employment for each of the scenarios, with the change
ftom existing levels highlighted. Because retail employment has a much larger transportation
impact than other kinds of jobs, these are mapped separately.
Creating a new Boulder Valley Transportation Model involved transporting the 1993 model to a
new modeling software package and updating it with current information. Modeling was first
conducted in the new software to ensure it was replicating modeling results from the old software.
New data was the collected and input regarding the facilities of the transportation system, current
counts of population and employment, and recent survey and vehicle count data. This updated
information was used for model calibration to produce a model that accurately reflects travel
behavior for the year 2001. The calibrated model was then used to forecast 2025 travel behavior
based on the different land use scenarios and transportation strategies, resulting in 15 final model
runs that produced the data for this analysis.
33 of 36
Assumptions
Any modeling exercise depends on both the extension of existing'trends and the inclusion of
empirical observation. The following are key assumptions involved in the transportation analysis
process:
• City revenue forecasts are assumed and extended over time period to 2025. These show the
current drop in revenues followed by a long term increase at historical rates.
• The investment priorities of the 1996 TMP and Project Prioritization process were
maintained. These priorities first fund operations and maintenance at desired levels to
preserve the existing system; and then funds enhancements to the transportation system
according to the corridor priorities established in the Project Prioritization.
• As it generally does not make sense to fund improvements for only part of a corridor, the
assumed investment program is implemented for an entire corridor.
• Transit funding continues to follow the SKIP model of transit funding which involves the city
partnering with RTD to start up the service and RTD then taking over the service after a
successful two year demonstration period.
• The investment program in the Fully Funded TMP strategy reflects the 1996 TMP
transportation system but was not structured with the intent of achieving the objectives of the
1996 TMP.
• The DRCOG Regional Transportation Model reasonably represents and forecasts regional
travel behavior for 2001 and 2025.
• This analysis does not include the potential effects of transportation improvements that are
planned but not funded in the DRCOG Regional Transportation Plan. These include the
results of the US 36 Major Investment Study (MIS) which calls for bus rapid transit service
and commuter rail service along US 36 between Boulder and Denver. While the city is
working in support of these improvements, there is currently no funding designated to
construct them.
• The general trends and conditions affecting travel at the regional and national level remain
relatively constant and continue existing trends in travel behavior. Exceptional events such as
a war, fuel shortage or significant increases in the price of fuel would significantly change
travel behavior but cannot be anticipated in a model.
34 of 36
Attachment A:
Detailed Assessment Process
The following steps outline the assessment process used in this analysis. The steps are in
sequential order under each heading, although activity within each heading may have occurred
concurrently.
Developing Transportation Strategies
• Collect current city revenue forecasts and prepare updated revenue forecasts through 2025 for
the Transportation Fund and the Transportation Development Fund.
• Review the investment scenarios developed in the Prioritization Process and update the
"Current Funding case" scenario to:
■ reflect Council direction from the Prioritization Project and actual transportation spending
from 1999 to 2002;
■ extend the investment program to 2025; and,
■ modify the program to reflect staff judgements of the best way to implement an investment
program consistent with Council direction and an investment program limited to expected
funding.
• Review the corridor segment prioritization developed in the Prioritization Project and
generalize to prioritize investment by multimodal corridor.
• Update the Prioritization Project's Fully Funded TMP investment program to reflect planning
efforts since the 1996 TMP such as the 28`h Street Project, Transportation Network Plans and
transit efficiency efforts. These planning efforts have refined the investments needed to
develop fully integrated multimodal corridors, maximize the efficiency of these corridors and
maintain their effective operation. Additional investments add about S30 million of facilities
and programs to the Fully Funded TMP program of the Prioritization Project.
• Define the Current Funding transportation strategy by making investments in priority order by
corridor to the extend allowed by the available funding.
Develop Data Sets for Modeling
Acquire the current year 2001 and 2025 regional population and employment transportation
modeling data set from the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG).
• Convert the Jobs to Population land use scenarios to the TAZ population and employment
data sets required for transportation modeling. This involved producing employment
projections for three different employment types, housing projections for three different
income levels, and re-classifying the parcel based data into the TAZs and the multimodal
corridor segments.
• Check and verify data sets through GIS analysis and mapping.
• Merge Boulder data sets into the regional DRCOG data sets for 2001 and 2025.
35 of 36
Create a New Transportation Model
Acquire the 2001 calibrated regional transportation model from DRCOG.
• Translate the previous Boulder Valley Transportation Model in MinUTP into the TransCad
modeling program. This includes translating the transportation network, network
characteristics, transportation analysis zone (TAZ) structure, area type designations and trip
characteristics.
• Review and modify the TAZ structure and area types to reflect current and future _
development patterns as the new model does not limit the number of TAZs as was the case in
the previous model.
• Collect all available traffic counts from the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT),
DRCOG and the city and develop an understanding of current transportation system
conditions within the Boulder Valley.
• Update the transportation system and travel behavior characteristics to reflect investment and
survey data collected since the previous model was developed.
• Calibrate the new model to reflect conditions on the transportation system in the 2001
calibration year. The model was calibrated within accepted modeling standards and will
likely be further refined as part of the TMP Update process. The calibrated model reflects
current travel behavior that is influenced by the existing transportation facilities and
programs. This travel behavior was correlated to level of transportation investment, land use
characteristics of density and mix of uses, and TDM.
• Identify and classify the level of future transportation investment, change in the land use
characteristics of density and mix of uses, and TDM effectiveness for commute and non-work
trips for each corridor segment. The correlations between these and travel behavior are used
to adjust future travel behavior.
• Run the calibrated model against the five Jobs to Population scenarios as the transportation
"null" scenario to show the effects resulting from only a potential land use change.
• Run the transportation model for the Current Funding and TMP build-out strategies against
the five Jobs to Population scenarios to show the effects of different levels of transportation
investment and potential land use changes. Fifteen final model runs were required for this
analysis.
The Average Range of Effectiveness is based upon a synthesis of findings related to employer
and community effects of TDM programs. A more precise range of effectiveness for employer-
based TDM programs will be conducted as a part of the TMP Phase 3 work in late 2002.
Resources used for this general synthesis include the aforementioned US DOT document, Case
Studies relating to TDM as published by the Association for Commuter Transportation, and two
TDM primer documents published by the Colorado Department of Transportation.
36 of 36
Attachment B
Implications for the TMP Update
CITY OF BOULDER TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE
Memorandum
DATE: November 8, 2002
TO: TMP Study Committee Members
Ijj t{
N t. }
FROM: TMP Update Staff and Consultant Team
~xa~
SUBJECT: Phase 3 Background
It has been a number of months since we last met as a full group, but this was very busy time for
the TMP staff team. As you know, we worked over the summer on the transportation analysis to
support the Jobs to Population Balance project and continue to support that project. There have
also been significant negotiations with RTD and changes in the likely future of the Community
Transit Network. These developments have both given us significant new information for our
work as well as increased the transportation challenges facing the community. In the next couple
of pages we will describe the highlights of these changes and what we believe are the
implications for the TMP Update process as background for your work at the Study Committee
meeting.
What has happened
The transportation impact assessment for the Jobs to Population Balance project involved
developing two "transportation strategies" and evaluating each of these against the land use
alternatives of current trends in 2025, current trends at capacity, and the three land use scenarios
developed through the Jobs to Population Project for the year 2025. The assessment considered
the level of transportation investment in each corridor segment, the population/employment
balance and density resulting from each land use scenario, and the potential effectiveness of
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures for each corridor. An updated Boulder
Valley Transportation Model was developed and each land use alternative modeled for 2025
against:
• the "Null" case of the current transportation system to show only the effects of land use
change;
• the "Current Funding" case projecting transportation investment at current funding levels
through 2025; and,
• the "Fully Funded TMP" case representing the build-out of 1996 Transportation Master Plan
(TMP) investment program. The "current funding" case used the methodology of the 1999
Prioritization process to allocate available funds and updated project information to include
current plans and thinking about the facilities needed in the multimodal corridors.
The Study Committee was provided a digital copy of the resulting report, and several of the key
graphs illustrating the results of that modeling are included in Attachment A of this packet.
In about the same timeframe, RTD notified city staff that they were facing significant funding
shortfalls, and would evaluating the performance all of their transit services looking for under-
performing routes that could be cut to save costs. Early in that process, the LEAP Community
CITY OF BOULDER TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE
Memorandum Page 2
Transit Network (CTN) service was identified as being at risk, and staff began working on
efforts to boost ridership and on alternative service possibilities with RTD. This fall when the
January service change proposals began circulating through the RTD approval process, city staff
were surprised to learn that both the JUMP and BOUND services were considered to be under-
performing on the basis of new service standards, and proposed for service cuts. A significant
political effort resulted in these cuts being delayed, but it appears that service cuts on these
routes may still be proposed by RTD for the May service changes.
What have we learned
The transportation impact assessment for the Jobs to Population Project produced these
conclusions on the relationship between transportation and land use:
• None of the land use scenarios in combination with either transportation strategy meets all of
the objectives of the 1996 TMP. All the land use scenarios have levels of jobs and
population significantly above those on which the TMP was based and result in close to a
doubling of congestion levels in the Boulder Valley based on hours of delay and result in a
vehicle miles of travel (VMT) increase of 300,000 or more VMT in the Boulder Valley.
However, all the land use scenarios have a large reduction in future employment from what
would be allowed currently at buildout and have much reduced traffic impacts.
• Congestion and travel times increase moderately in the city under the three Jobs to
Population scenarios, largely due to planned investments and limited growth in vehicle
traffic. The Fully Funded TMP (TMP build-out) program produces a significant reduction
in congestion and improves the performance of the transportation system. For all land use
scenarios, the Fully Funded TMP investments reduce VMT by at least 1 I percent and hours
of congestion delay by at least 28 percent. These reductions approximate at least a one level
improvement in transportation level of service (LOS). In addition, this program produces an
increase in accessibility and changes in corridor character resulting from a wider selection of
transportation choices and greater attention to design.
• In contrast to the situation within the city, congestion and travel times on the regional
corridors leading into the city show large increases. Most future new employees will travel
these corridors with many coming from areas where alternatives to the automobile do not
currently exist. And in contrast with the ongoing investment program in the city, little
dedicated funding currently exists to make improvements on the regional facilities.
• Based on current budget funding priorities and expected revenue by 2025, the "current
funding" investment program would build all of the pedestrian system, construct about 70
percent of the bicycle system, fund transit service for the ten multimodal corridors and build
about 85 percent of the transit related improvements. This analysis assumed the SKIP
funding model where RTD assumes the costs of operating a success transit route after a two
year demonstration period funded in part by the city, Transit service will continue to he a
major focus for addressing both internal and external travel. Several maps presenting a draft
proposal for a city, county and regional transit plan are included in Attachment B.
• TDM programs have their greatest effectiveness on work related trips and when they are
supported by the employer with a medium to high level of support for transit, carpooling and
vanpooling. National examples show a range of vehicle trip reduction of 21 to 47 percent,
with parking management and financial incentives being the most effective in changing
CITY OF BOULDER TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE
Memorandum Page 3
behavior. Both of the TDM programs used in this analysis lack parking management, so the
Current Funding case TDM program is expected to reduce work related trips by 3 to 8
percent and the Fully Funded TMP program is expected to reduce work related trips by 7 to
15 percent.
• Applying what we have learned from recent planning efforts in the multimodal corridors and
funding a community Eco Pass program in the Fully Funded TMP program would require
$204 million of funding beyond expected revenues by 2025 to implement. Lack of funding
for the facilities and programs of the TMP remains the biggest obstacle to achieving it goals.
The Jobs to Population analysis reinforces the policy focus areas of the TMP Update. Needed
transportation facilities are clearly under-funded within the city, while very little funding is
dedicated for improvements on the regional connections. Improving transit service and
particularly regional transit connections will be a significant need to accommodate projected
employment growth. And current TDM practices are producing only a portion of the potential
effects that could result from a more comprehensive TDM effort.
The ongoing negotiations with RTD as well as experience over the last several years suggest
these conclusions:
• Both current budget problems as well as apparent RTD priorities means that RTD has very
little commitment to provide service levels above their regional standard. This means that to.
maintain current service levels or to add to the CTN will require additional city and /or
county dollars to buy up or support our desired level of service.
• In the foreseeable future, city funding current dedicated to expanding the CTN will need to
be used to support the existing CTN services. The city will be challenged to support the
existing services as well as those currently, being planned that have received federal funds.
We need to work with Boulder County and neighboring municipalities to continue these
services.
• RTD has had significant problems operating high frequency services in a consistent and
dependable manner and to the standards established for the CTN. Ridership on the existing
CTN routes has suffered due to these operational issues.
Implications for the Update
Given these conclusions, it seems clear that the challenge for the TMP has gotten greater. As we
have more population and employment, no combination of acceptable land use change or
currently developed transportation investment reaches our current goals. The issues with RTD
mean that our unmet funding needs have increased and that the "Current Funding" transportation
strategy developed for the Jobs to Population analysis, which depends on the SKIP funding
model, is no longer a valid base for the TMP Update.
In the midst of these increasing challenges, we have continued to work with the TDM
subcommittee and have seen some increase in interest in TDM. One of the strategies
recommended by the Panel of Experts in June that has generated a lot of interest is the potential
of Transportation Management Organizations (TMOs). These are typically a public-private
partnership and are a way to improve the level of communication between the sectors and to
CITY OF BOULDER TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE
Memorandum Page 4
ensure that community goals are promoted in the most flexible and creative way to maximize the
benefits for businesses, residents and commuters. A graphic and support text are included in
Appendix C that outline what a TMO is and how it may work.
Where are we going and how the SC can help
The Study Committee has been anxious to discuss what our desired transportation goals should
be and how we would measure these. We now have a significant amount of new information on
the transportation system from the Jobs to Population analysis which also includes a broader
reporting of these characteristics. A set of summary graphs of these different measures is
included in Attachment A, and we would like you to consider which of these measures seem
most meaningful and what measures from these or others we should use to broaden our
description of the goals and performance of the transportation system.
This material also provides a lot of information about what the transportation future may be with
current funding and with a significant amount of additional funding. In talking about goals, we
need to consider the challenges of funding and travel trends relative to the future performance of
the transportation system and the character of the community. Staff is suggesting a Phase 3
process for plan development characterized as "pushing the bars" which is described in the
graphic and description of Attachment D. The Study Committee is asked to consider this
process and tell us if it seems like the best way to develop the framework for the Update. And if
so, the Study Committee needs to advise us on any modification of our goals, how we should
prioritize our investments, and where we should push the bars in our policy focus areas: finance,
multimodal corridors, regional connections and TDM.
Attachments
A, Summary graphs from the Jobs to Population Transportation Analysis
B, Draft 2025 city, county and regional transit plan
C. TDM and TMOs
D. Phase 3 Proposed process for "Pushing the Bars"
Attachment C
Phase 3 Approach and Work Program
Attachment C
TMP Update
Conceptual Phase 3 Process
The Transportation Master Plan (TMP) Update has been defined as a four phase process.
The first of these phases answered the questions of "how are we doing?" and "what needs
additional work?". This phase concluded with direction from City Council to "stay the
course" in terms of the overall policy direction of the plan and established four policy
focus areas of funding, multi modal corridors, regional travel and transportation demand
management (TDM) for additional work. The second phase examined what plan
adjustments could be considered in each focus area and was largely an inventory and
learning effort. Council was asked to confirm that the work of the phase was
comprehensive, had a reasonable study approach and presentation for each focus area,
and provided the basis to move into the plan development work of phase three
In the previous TMP Update, a number of land use and transportation investment
scenarios were developed, evaluated, and one scenario for both land use and
transportation programs selected as the framework of the plan. We have just completed a
similar exercise in the Jobs to Population Balance alternatives assessment by modeling
transportation strategies representing current funding levels and a fully funded TMP
against the scenarios developed by the Jobs to Population project. This effort shows that
no combination of reasonable land use alternatives and current transportation investment
strategies achieve our current transportation goals and objectives.
Rather than investing the time and expense to develop a number of additional scenarios
for transportation investment, the TMP Update team has conceptualized a process
intended to address the deficiencies of the current TMP, remain focused on the four
policy areas identified as needing additional work, and provide for a discussion of
transportation goals and objectives. Tagged as "pushing the bars," this process
recognizes that population and employment growth have exceeded the levels that the
1996 plan was based on, that the 1996 Plan remains one-third unfunded, and that the city
has not fully implemented the TDM measures called for in the 1996 Plan. To achieve
current goals, we will have to undertake measures beyond those contained in the current
plan, implying that the framework discussion for this update needs to consider the
tradeoffs between the measures needed to reach the current transportation goals and the
ability to implement measures beyond those in the current plan.
The "pushing the bars" concept is an iterative process of developing a plan framework by
specifying acceptable levels of programs and investment in the four focus areas,
evaluating the results produced and if these results are not acceptable, asking where we
should push the bar in terms of addition measures to take in each of the focus areas to
improve the end result. We expect that several iterations of this process will quickly
define an acceptable plan. The point where we are unwilling to pursue additional
measures in all the focus areas establishes the framework of the plan and defines the
resulting endpoint that should be reflected in the goals and objectives of the plan.
TMP Phase 3 Conceptual Process
"Pushing the Bars"
Phase I and 2
Initial Assessment
"What has worked or not?"
"Where are we Performance Measures
"What tools are available?"
Hours of Delay o
Policy Focus Areas
o a~
r--Finance nitial Plan Framework vMT U -a 0
et the bars for: v v
Travel Time A
w
x H
y ~-i
"Sta the -Multimodal Corridors Accessibility
Course" -Regional connections
1996
-TDM Plan Assessment a TMP
"Where do we end up?"
"Is this acceptable?" Phase 3
Plan Adjustment
o Acceptable= YES "Where are we willing to push the
bars?"
"What are the costs and benefits of
o v now woo Ok
doing this?"
_w Q 1996
TMP
Phase 4
Final TMP Update
Attachment D
TMp Goals and Metrics
Attachment D
City of Boulder Transportation Master Plan Update
Study Committee Meeting #5
November 18, 2002
Small Group Results
1. Study Committee comments on goals and measures organized by common
themes
General Comments
• Convenient, rational solutions - Level playing field between options to create
competitive environment
o Help folks make rational choices
• Make measures understandable to the public
• Congestion alone is not enough
• State it positively: Increase the number of non-SOV trips
• Frequency is cheaper than frequency
• Reduce dependence on modal shift to reach ends (travel efficiency)
• Don't make cost of living higher
• Transportation system that works
Common themes/goals
• Seamless Connection between Modes, Multimodal Choice
Availability of Facilities/Services
o # of options available, convenience of options
o # of miles or % of network completed
o % of households within "x" distance of bus stops, bike network, sidewalk
• Ex: % of households '/a mile to bus stop (measure every few years)
o TOD? Facilities/amenities improvement
o Bus frequency as a function of residential/business density
o Grading system for transit stops
• Ex: "5" = shelter, pad, signage, lighting, ped x-ings, etc.
"0" = pole and sign
Use of Multimodal Facilities/Services
o Use of different modes (modal split)
o # bus passes and ridership #'s
o # of PAX per wk./day/yr on CTN
o Measurement of use by time of day - evaluate VMT by time of day
o Re: CATS: Increase % occupancy
• Mobility enhancement for people and goods/Ease of travel /Effectiveness
Congestion
o % of roadway congested
o minimum congestion
Page I of 4
Attachment D
Travel Time
o travel times on representative trips
o Delay/mile
o Time/mode/trip
Level of Service
o Level of Service for pedestrian mobility/pedestrian crossing
o Develop a measure of LOS across modes eg safety, time, convenience,
cost
Vehicle Occupancy
Vehicle Miles Traveled
o Maintain congestion at 1994 levels measured by VMT (Keep this One!!)
• Healthy Environment
o Air quality measures - compare movement of pollutants
o C02 emissions
o Maintain congestion at 1994 levels measured by VMT (Keep this One!!)
• Safety - Accessible to all regardless of age, income, health, disability
o Decrease in injury accidents
o Develop a measure of LOS across modes eg safety
• Citizen satisfaction
o Survey (annual or bi-annual)
• Regional Connections
o Reduce need for autos into town (regional)
• Self-sufficient funding
• Cost/benefit or results
2. Study Committee comments on where to push the bars organized into four
policy focus areas and jobs/population/land use.
Funding
• Community funding - should be related to benefits received
• Parking tax
• Parking fees to support transit
• Employment (head) tax - ideal if could be applied to non-residents
o Look at CU Model (CU parking tax, etc.) Look at NOAA programs
used to fund alternative modes
• Establish (Create) a mechanism for transit advocacy
o Examples are transit union, city advocacy
Page 2 of 4
Attachment D
• What do the declining RTD $ and service cuts mean for the TMP? Address
financial impacts in first draft TMP.
• City/County partnership to educate and build support toward county
transportation tax
• Entice partnerships thru leveraged $s and grants
TDM
• Consider Community Wide Ecopass (again - learn from the past)
• TDM a good thing to push parking
• Utilizing TMO's for advocacy - land use connection
• Charge for letting SOV's use HOV's
Jobs/Population/Land Use Planning
• Increase population as part of J/P
• Plan for efficient neighborhoods (access to jobs)
o Intra-city-kitchen model
• Upzoning for residential, mixed use
• Land use planning - that provides opportunity to reduce and eliminate SOV
trips
• Decrease length of trips through land use measures
• Diffuse the concentration of business density
• TDM and Land Use aspects
o Rezoning for mix of uses
o Increase housing to decrease commute
o Push jobs to outlying cities
Multimodal Corridors
• Explore new model where city provides/owns transit system
• Incorporate special transit into first draft
• TMP and transportation network should be fully accessible and exceed federal
standards. Have City staff be knowledgeable about ADA regulations. And,
consult on-going with the disabled community on these issues (with different
groups ex: seniors, persons with visual disabilities, DD, wheelchair users)
• Fiscally Constrained
o Prioritize bus routes
o Be proactive in transit decisions
o Development by corridor
■ Focus
• Prioritize # of service, frequency of service
■ Consider resources
• Completion before moving ahead
• Incentives rather than disincentives - (bus lanes, etc.)
• Complete multimodal network: Bike and ped network nearly there
Page 3 of 4
Attachment D
• With transit, need to think through how we manage the roadway, i.e.,
dedicated lanes for transit. US36 LPA BRT extend north from Table Mesa on
to Boulder arterials
Regional Connections
• New focus for regional efforts
o How do we direct people when they come from region into Boulder
• Create excitement for alt. modes in other communities to strengthen
partnership/results
• City/County partnership to educate and build support toward county
transportation tax
• Entice partnerships thru leveraged $s and grants
• Increase transit service from outlying areas for all types of trips
• MM corridors regional
• Support regional travel at both ends of trip (origin and destination)
o Ex: pads in Louisville at bus stops
Page 4 of 4