2013 Transportation Master Plan Update Renewed Vision for Transit State of the System ReportCity Of Boulder
Transportation Master Plan Update:
Renewed Vision For Transit
State Of The System Report
September 2013Final
i City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary
Why Transit, Why Now? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ES-1
What’s Included in
the State of The System Report? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ES-3
How is the Community Involved? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ES-3
What are the Key Findings ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ES-4
Chapter One: Renewed Vision for Transit
The Transportation Master Plan Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-1
Boulder’s Renewed Vision for Transit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-3
Why Focus on Transit? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-3
Overview: State of the System Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-4
Renewed Vision for Transit Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-5
Chapter Two: Our Challenge, Our Chance
Community Outreach Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-1
Key Issues and Opportunities from the Public . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-2
Trends that Influence Transit Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-4
Shared Vision with Boulder County Neighbors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-7
Key Issues to be Explored in the Renewed Vision for Transit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-8
Chapter Three: Land Use and Travel Demand
History of Land Use in Boulder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-1
The Relationship Between Land Use and Transit Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-2
Travel Demand in Boulder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-11
Future Development In Boulder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-28
Future Local and Regional Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-30
Housing Affordability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-30
Key Issues to be Explored in the Renewed Vision for Transit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-31
Chapter Four: Transit in Boulder
Fixed Route Transit Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-1
Key Transit Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-13
Who Rides Fixed Route Transit in Boulder? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-16
Fixed Route Transit System Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-19
Summary of Route Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-23
Fixed-Route Transit Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-25
Other Transportation Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-27
Key Issues to be Explored in the Renewed Vision for Transit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-29
Chapter Five: Peer Review
What is a “Peer Review?” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-1
Why a Peer Review for Boulder? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-1
The Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-1
Key Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-4
Key Issues to be Explored in the Renewed Vision for Transit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-7
Chapter Six: Transit innovations & Leading Practices
Transit Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6-1
Transportation and Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6-11
Access and Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6-21
Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6-31
Transit Amenities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6-39
Fares and Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6-47
Appendix A: Route Profiles
Appendix B: Community Outreach Summary
ii City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
TABLE OF FiGURES
Figure ES-1 City of Boulder Mode Split for All Trips, 1990 - 2012 ......................................ES-4
Figure ES-2 City of Boulder Average Weekday Daily Transit Ridership,
2003 - 2012 ...............................................................................................................................ES-4
Figure ES-3 Average Weekday Ridership by Route, 2003 and 2012 ................................ES-5
Figure ES-4 Cost Effectiveness (Cost per Boarding) of Local and Regional Routes ES-5
Figure ES-5 Average Weekday Ridership Compared to In-Service Hours,
2003 - 2012 ...............................................................................................................................ES-6
Figure ES-6 Route BOLT Ridership History, 2003 - 2012 ..........................................................ES-6
Figure ES-7 Bus Ridership by Eco Pass Status: Percent of Respondents Who Made at
Least One Trip per Week on the Bus, 1998-2012 ..............................................ES-7
Figure ES-8 Average Daily Ridership in Boulder and Boulder County ...........................ES-7
Figure ES-9 Growth in Boulder In-Commute, 2006 - 2012 ....................................................ES-8
Figure ES-10 Boulder In-Commute Mode Share ............................................................................ES-8
Figure ES-12 Projected RTD Service Costs vs. Hours (2001 – 2020) ....................................ES-9
Figure ES-13 City of Boulder Adopted Transportation Budget .............................................ES-9
Figure ES-11 City Transit Buy-Up History, 2001-2011 ...................................................................ES-9
Figure ES-14 Future Land Use and Key Development Areas in 2035 .............................ES-10
Figure ES-15 Intersection Density in West vs. East Boulder ..................................................ES-11
Figure ES-16 Top 10 Origin-Destination Pairs and Areas of Trip Growth, 2035.........ES-12
Figure ES-17 Transit Dependent Riders and Choice Riders for Local and
Regional Riders ...................................................................................................................ES-13
Figure ES-17 US 36 BRT Corridor ...........................................................................................................ES-14
Figure ES-18 Renewed Vision for Transit Schedule ....................................................................ES-16
Figure 1-1 Projected Local Service Hours vs. RTD Service Cost, 2001-2020 ................1-4
Figure 1-2 Renewed Vision for Transit Schedule ..........................................................................1-5
Figure 2-1 Key Issues and Opportunities ..........................................................................................2-3
Figure 2-2 Transportation Revenue and Decline in Purchasing Power .........................2-7
Figure 3-1 6Ds of Transit-Supportive Development .................................................................3-3
Figure 3-2 Summary of “6D” Factors .....................................................................................................3-3
Figure 3-3 City of Boulder Mode Split for All Trips, 1990 - 2012 ......................................3-11
Figure 3-4 City of Boulder Mode Split for Commute Trips, 1990 - 2012 .....................3-12
Figure 3-5 Comparison of Commute Mode Share in Boulder, Denver MSA,
and the U.S. .............................................................................................................................3-12
Figure 3-6 Boulder Employee Commute Patterns ...................................................................3-13
Figure 3-7 Boulder Employee In-Commute Mode Share ....................................................3-13
Figure 3-8 Existing Land Use and Key Development Areas ...............................................3-14
Figure 3-9 Population and Employment Density, 2013........................................................3-15
Figure 3-10 Projected Population and Employment Growth, 2013-2035 ...................3-16
Figure 3-11 Summary of Demographic Characteristics in Boulder .................................3-17
Figure 3-12 Transit Use Propensity Index .........................................................................................3-17
Figure 3-13 Bus Ridership by Eco Pass Status:
Percent of Respondents Who Made at Least One Trip on the Bus ........3-18
Figure 3-14 Average Daily Ridership in Downtown Boulder ...............................................3-19
Figure 3-15 Average Daily Ridership in Boulder and Boulder County ...........................3-20
Figure 3-16 Average Daily Ridership in the Region....................................................................3-21
Figure 3-17 Ridership Compared to Business Eco Pass Holders ........................................3-22
Figure 3-18 Ridership Compared to Neighborhood Eco Pass Holders ..........................3-23
Figure 3-19 Origin-Destination Pairs in Boulder (2010) ...........................................................3-24
Figure 3-20 Origin-Destination Pairs in the Region (2010) ....................................................3-25
Figure 3-21 Top 10 Origin-Destination Pairs in Boulder (Projected Change
2010-2035) ................................................................................................................................3-26
Figure 3-22 Origin-Destination Pairs in the Region
(Projected Change 2010-2035) ....................................................................................3-27
Figure 3-23 Boulder Projected Employment, Dwelling Unit, and
Population Growth, 2012 and 2035 ..........................................................................3-30
Figure 4-1 Boulder Local Transit Service ..........................................................................................4-4
Figure 4-2 Boulder Regional Transit Service....................................................................................4-5
Figure 4-3 Top 10 Local Midday Transit Frequency ...................................................................4-6
Figure 4-4 Top 10 Local Peak Hour Transit Frequency ...........................................................4-7
Figure 4-5 Regional Midday Transit Frequency .............................................................................4-8
Figure 4-6 Regional Peak Hour Transit Frequency.......................................................................4-9
Figure 4-7 Weekday Frequency ..........................................................................................................4-10
Figure 4-8 Saturday Frequency ...........................................................................................................4-11
Figure 4-9 Sunday / Holiday Frequency ........................................................................................4-12
Figure 4-10 Park-and-Ride Capacity and Utilization, 2012 .....................................................4-14
Figure 4-11 Inventory of Bus Stops in Boulder..............................................................................4-15
Figure 4-12 Age of Local and Regional Riders ...............................................................................4-16
Figure 4-13 Transit Dependent Riders and Choice Riders for Local and
Regional Riders ......................................................................................................................4-16
Figure 4-14 Vehicle Access ........................................................................................................................4-16
Figure 4-15 Ethnicity .....................................................................................................................................4-17
Figure 4-16 Reported Income .................................................................................................................4-18
Figure 4-17 Type of Employment ..........................................................................................................4-18
Figure 4-18 Average Weekday Ridership Compared to In-Service Hours,
2003-2012 .................................................................................................................................4-19
Figure 4-19 Boardings per Hour (Productivity), 2003 - 2012 ................................................4-19
Figure 4-20 Average Weekday Ridership by Route, 2003 and 2012 ................................4-20
Figure 4-21 Cost Effectiveness (Cost per Boarding) of Local & Regional Routes ....4-20
Figure 4-22 Average Weekday Ridership Compared to In-Service Hours,
2003-2012 .................................................................................................................................4-21
Figure 4-23 Detailed Analysis of Weekday Performance Measures for Local and
Regional Boulder Routes .................................................................................................4-22
Figure 4-24 Route 204 - Total Activities by Stop (Weekday) .................................................4-23
Figure 4-25 Route N BOLT Ridership History, 2003-2012 ......................................................4-24
Figure 4-26 Route N BOLT Ridership History, 2003-2012 ......................................................4-25
iii City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Figure 4-27 HOP Funding History, 2001 - 2013 ............................................................................4-26
Figure 5-1 Means of Transportation to Work ..................................................................................5-4
Figure 5-2 Annual Rides Per Capital .....................................................................................................5-4
Figure 5-3 Farebox Recovery ....................................................................................................................5-5
Figure 5-4 Cost per Passenger Trip .......................................................................................................5-5
Figure 5-5 Peer Service and Ridership Statistics ...........................................................................5-6
Figure 5-6 Peer Service and Ridership Statistics ...........................................................................5-6
Figure 6-1 TriMet Transit Tracker Estimated Capital and Operating &
Maintenance Costs ..............................................................................................................6-33
SUMMARYEXECUTIVE
IN THIS CHAPTER
• Why transit, why now?
• What’s included in the State of the System
Report
• How is the community involved?
• What are the key findings?
City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT ES-1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Why Transit, Why Now?
Boulder’s first Transportation Master Plan (TMP) was adopted in 1989, setting a
new course for a community that relies less on the single-occupant vehicle (SOV).
Over time, this vision, built on specific policies and goals to reduce SOV travel and
manage congestion and mobile source emissions, has been implemented through
a strategic program of capital projects and programs designed to change the way
Boulder residents, employees, and visitors travel. The result has been the evolution of
a complete transportation system that provides safe and healthy travel choices for the
community. The TMP remains a strong and valid policy foundation. Over the years, the
city continues to make good progress in achieving TMP goals.
However, the city is not on course to meet its TMP transportation goals. Declining
transportation revenue, decreased transit service hours, and a growing number of
workers commuting1 to Boulder have heightened the need for a renewed TMP. While
Boulder has made remarkable progress encouraging residents to walk, bike, and ride
transit, there is still work to be done to meet the City’s transportation goals:
y Continued progress toward no growth in long-term vehicle traffic
y Reduce single-occupant-vehicle travel to 25 percent of trips
y Continued reduction in mobile source emissions of air pollutants
y No more than 20 percent of roadways congested at Level of Service F
y Expand fiscally viable transportation alternatives for all Boulder residents and
employees, including the elderly and those with disabilities
y Increase transportation alternatives commensurate with the rate of employee
growth
y Improve safety
y Enhance neighborhood accessibility
y Reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per capita for residents and in-commuters
The City’s work to achieve these transportation and sustainability goals is met with
numerous challenges and opportunities. Key among those identified through
outreach to the Boulder community and stakeholders are:
y Changing Demographics: People are living longer and the Baby Boomers
want to age in place; Gen Xers and Millennials tend to want to live in connected
urban environments, yet in Boulder the high cost of housing causes many to
choose to live outside of the city. The TMP must address the transportation and
1 City of Boulder.
Why a Renewed Vision for Transit?
y The City is not on course to
meet City TMP mode share
goals.
y Transit ridership is stagnant.
y Transportation revenue and
funding for local transit
service in Boulder is declining.
y 80% of Boulder in-commuters
drive alone to work; serving
this market is essential.
y Over the last decade, RTD has
cut service hours in Boulder
by 20,500 service hours – the
equivalent of the DASH route.
y Boulder continues to see rede-
velopment; this is anticipated
to continue in areas east of
28th Street. Designing transit
service to meet the impending needs of East Boulder and improving
access and connections to transit is essential to meet community sustain-
ability, climate, and mode share goals.
The HOP bus – the first Commu-
nity Transit Network (CTN) route – is a
community-focused bus with large win-
dows, unique branding, and perimeter
seating to encourage social interaction.
A Renewed Vision for Transit will build
upon the success of the CTN.
Image from the City of Boulder
housing demands of these diverse generations and of Boulder’s most vulner-
able populations.
y Emerging Technology and the New Live-Work City: Technology such as
smart phones and high speed mobile wireless internet are enabling people to
work anywhere anytime at coffee shops and en route on transit. Providing a
transit system that responds to the need for frequent travel (frequency), con-
nectedness (on-board wi-fi), spontaneity (real-time information), and creativity
and communication (bus and facility design) are improvements desired by
Boulder’s younger, working-age residents.
y The Housing Challenge: Boulder’s high quality of life and natural beauty have
affected housing prices. Some people who work or attend school in Boulder are
living outside the city.
ES-2 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
y Emissions: With transportation contributing
over 20% of Boulder’s greenhouse gas emissions,
success in achieving the goals of the TMP are es-
sential to keeping this contribution from growing.
Given the large portion of vehicle fuel-related
emissions, the TMP is intimately tied to broader
sustainability initiatives, such as the Climate Com-
mitment.
y Declining Transportation Revenues and
Purchasing Power: Due to increasing costs,
stagnating revenue, and decreased purchasing
power, the City’s ability to operate, maintain,
and improve the community’s transportation
system is eroding. Since 2002, the City has seen a
40% decline in purchasing power, largely due to
increasing costs of materials and labor.
y Growing Public Health Concern: Obesity and
other sedentary-related diseases are plaguing
generations – young and old. The research is
clear: land use environments and roadway design
impact health. People who live in neighborhoods
with a mixture of uses within comfortable walk-
ing distance are 7% less likely to be obese, lower-
ing their relative risk of obesity by 35%.2 On the
other hand, every additional 30 minutes spent
daily in a car correlates to a 3% greater chance of
obesity.3
2 “Driving, Walking, and Where You Live: Links to Obesity.”
McCann Consulting. (accessed June 15, 2013).
3 Ibid.
The Renewed Vision for Transit will focus on developing
a complete transit system – a network of high-quality,
frequent transit routes that connect local destinations
and neighborhoods to regional destinations. More
than just a service plan, the Renewed Vision for Transit
will focus on transit supportive programs and policies,
corridor planning, service design, and improved access
and connections that make transit a first choice of travel
for more Boulder residents, workers, and visitors.
The Renewed Vision for Transit will be integrated with
the overall TMP Update, community sustainability
goals, and the Climate Commitment. The final Renewed
Vision for Transit report will provide a strategic action
plan for wise investment in transit over time within
financial constraints. Consistent with broader TMP goals
and regional climate and sustainability objectives, the
goal of the Renewed Vision for Transit is to:
y Put the passenger first: make transit easy and
comfortable to use for people of all ages and all
abilities
y Make transit a convenient choice of travel:
focus on service quality by connecting local and
regional destinations and improving bicycle and
pedestrian access to transit
y Use transit to build community: improve ac-
cess and connectivity to transit and build transit
facilities to support central community gathering
places
The Renewed Vision for Transit
is just one element of the five
TMP Update focus areas:
y Complete Streets: Renewed vision for transit
and bicycle and pedestrian innovations
y Regional Travel: Regional corridors, includ-
ing bus rapid transit on US 36
y Funding: Sustainable and local funding
sources, including a Transportation Mainte-
nance Fee
y Transportation Demand Management:
Community-wide Eco Pass and parking policy
y Integration with Sustainability Initiatives:
Integrate TMP outcomes with the Climate
Commitment , economic vitality, Sustainable
Streets and Centers, parking management,
Parks Master Plan and Boulder Civic Area Plan
The Importance of Place
In our attempts to quantify relationships between land use, transportation, and
urban design we too often lose the simple message – it’s all about the places
we create. Improved transportation infrastructure and service increase access to
land, which in turn increases travel demand. Since some amount of infill may be
desired and important to the economic health of the city and region, the TMP
Update must focus on a finer-grained integration of land use with sustainable
transport. This integration will help reduce per capita travel demand while
improving access to jobs and services, supporting housing affordability, and
advancing environmental goals.
y Improve transit service and ridership through
regional partnerships: work with neighboring
jurisdictions to improve access to transit and
increase regional transit ridership
y Reduce the environmental impacts of travel:
use transit to support the Sustainability Frame-
work and Climate Commitment goals
A renewed transit vision will help Boulder meet the
Transportation Master Plan (TMP) mode share goal
of 75% non-SOV travel by 2025.
Image from Nelson\Nygaard
Corridor
Planning
Access and
Connections
Policies and
Programs
Service
Design
Renewed
Transit Vision
ES-3 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
What’s Included in
The State of The System Report?
The State of the System report communicates key
transportation issues and trends, while also serving
as a foundational report to guide the Renewed Vision
for Transit. While this Executive Summary provides key
findings from the report, the complete report includes
the following chapters:
y Chapter 1 Renewed Vision for Transit – an
overview of the TMP Update and its focus on a
Renewed Vision for Transit.
y Chapter 2 Our Challenge, Our Chance – a
summary of community feedback and direction
on the issues and driving forces that will shape
Boulder’s transit future.
y Chapter 3 Land Use and Travel Demand – a
brief summary of land use patterns in Boulder, an
assessment of Boulder’s transit-oriented land use
patterns, and an overview of current and future
travel demand.
y Chapter 4 Transit Service – an overview of
existing transit service providers, funding, and
performance in Boulder.
y Chapter 5 Peer Review – an assessment of
transit performance in Boulder compared to a
number of peer communities in the U.S.
y Chapter 6 Transit Innovations and Leading
Practices – an overview of leading transit innova-
tions in the U.S. and internationally.
y Appendix A: Detailed Route Profiles – detailed
route profiles for Boulder’s existing local and
regional routes.
y Appendix B: Community Outreach Summary –
a detailed community outreach summary.4
4 The Community Outreach Summary includes outreach
completed to date. The final version of the Outreach Sum-
mary will be completed at the end of the planning process.
How is the Community Involved?
The Renewed Vision for Transit is guided by a robust
community outreach process, including a Technical
Advisory Committee, a Community Feedback Panel,
online and social media tools, open houses, and
storefront workshops.
y Transit Technical Advisory Committee (TAC):
The TAC is comprised primarily of technical staff
from local and regional policy, agency, and key
community stakeholders, such as transportation
staff from City of Boulder and Boulder County,
Regional Transportation District, the Director of
the Chamber of Commerce, University of Colo-
rado representatives, and local Transportation
Management Organizations.
y Stakeholder Interviews: Interviews are being
held with key stakeholders throughout Boulder
County, including the University of Colorado, the
Center for People with Disabilities, the Regional
Transit District, among others.
y Community Storefront Workshops: Storefront
workshops provide feedback on transit and other
mobility issues, especially from transit users.
The workshops are held in different geographic
locations to ensure participation from a range of
people, and on the principle that it is important
to bring outreach feedback opportunities to
people as they go about their daily lives.
y Design Your Transit System Online Tool and
Questionnaire: The project team developed a
“Design Your Transit System” online decision-mak-
ing simulation tool. This new outreach strategy
walks participants through a series of visually
oriented exercises to better understand which el-
ements of system design are most likely to attract
new riders and improve the quality of experience
for existing and new users. View the online tool at
www.bouldertransitdesign.com.
y Inspire Boulder: Questions are posted to Inspire
Boulder, the City’s online community forum, to
get feedback on key transit service issues and
The Design Your Transit System online tool allows
the community to prioritize transit investments.
Image from Nelson\Nygaard
opportunities.Visit Inspire Boulder at www.
inspireboulder.com.
y Community Feedback Panel: The Community
Feedback Panel is a group of interested members
of the public who have volunteered to be queried
on TMP-related issues. Approximately 400 people
signed up for the Panel. The panel is called upon
throughout the process to provide input on the
Design Your Transit System Tool and the long-
term transit scenarios.
y Transportation Advisory Board (TAB): The
TAB is the host of the Transportation Master Plan
Update and has been engaged throughout the
process with monthly updates.
Key findings from the community outreach process,
in addition to the technical analysis of the State of the
System Report, are summarized below.
ES-4 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
What’s our challenge?
The City has aggressive mode share goals
The 2008 TMP includes a goal of 25% single-occu-
pancy vehicle (SOV) use by the year 2025 for all trips.
As shown in Figure ES-1, Boulder is not on course to
meet this goal. Since 1990, the SOV rate has declined
from 44.2% to 35.9% in 2012 for all trips. Bicycle use
has more than doubled during this time from 9.1% to
18.7% in 2012. While transit use has more than tripled
in the 12-year period, growing from 1.6% in 1990 to
4.9% in 2012, transit has the lowest share of all modes
and has stagnated in recent years. To meet the SOV
goal by 2025, SOV trips between 2013 and 2025 would
have to be reduced at an average rate of 2.5% per year.
Average daily weekday transit ridership peaked in
Boulder in 2008 at 33,919 rides (local and regional
routes) (Figure ES-2). Between 2008 and 2010, rider-
ship declined, dropping to 30,428 total rides in 2010.
Since 2010, bus ridership is driving back toward the
City’s 10-year high at 32,636 rides in 2012. One of the
key outcomes of the renewed vision for transit will be
to:
y Increase transit ridership for both local and re-
gional trips (particularly commute trips)
y Continue to build a convenient, attractive and
effective transit network that enhances the
multimodal transportation syystem
What are the Key Findings ?
Figure ES-1 City of Boulder Mode Split for All Trips, 1990–2012
Mode Split for All Trips 1990 - 2012
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018 2021 2024 2025
SOV 44.20% 42.30% 40.50% 41.50% 40.40% 41.50% 39% 38.40% 37.10% 35.90%25%
Pedestrian 18.20% 17.10% 9.20% 20.40% 21.40% 19.80% 18.60% 18.90% 17.90% 20.30%
Multiple Occupancy Vehicle 26.30% 25.70% 25.60% 25.60% 25% 23.80% 23.50% 25.00% 23.70% 19.60%
Bicycle 9.10% 12.10% 11.30% 9.20% 8.20% 10% 14% 13.60% 15.90% 18.70%
Transit 1.60% 2.20% 2.90% 2.80% 4.10% 4.20% 4.60% 4% 5.40% 4.90%
Goal
-4.30% -4.26% 2.47% -2.65% 2.72% -6.02% -1.54% -3.39% -3.23%2.307692
-30%
2.5
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
1990 1998 2009 2021
sov
Carpool
Walk
Bike
Transit
Source: City of Boulder Modal Shift in the Boulder Valley, 1990 – 2012
Figure ES-2 City of Boulder Average Weekday Daily Transit Ridership, 2003–2012
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Local Routes Regional Routes
Source: Data is from 2012 RTD Annual Ridership Data; HOP data was provided by the City of Boulder; Climb data was pro-
vided by Via; YL data was provided by Boulder County
Current SOV mode share
is 36%
2025 SOV mode share
goal is 25%
25%
ES-5 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
What’s working well?
The CTN model works
The Community Transit Network (CTN) routes, particularly those operating largely in Boulder, are both the most cost-effective and productive routes in the transit system serving Boulder
County. On Boulder local routes, ridership is highest on the SKIP, HOP, and DASH, while the B to Denver has the highest regional boardings (Figure ES-3).
The HOP is the most cost-effective local Boulder route at only $2.07 per passenger trip carried, followed by the SKIP and BOUND (Figure ES-4). The B is the most cost-effective regional
Boulder route at $5.90. By comparison, the systemwide RTD average cost per boarding for local routes not including Boulder is $4.81; the systemwide RTD average for regional routes not
including Boulder is $12.25.
Figure ES-3 Average Weekday Ridership by Route, 2003 and 2012
2003 2012Routes
LOCAL ROUTES
2003 2012Routes
REGIONAL ROUTES
-
78
42
962
427
122
318
376
111
779
259
-
72
325
457
558
212
437
246
103
158
1,079
6,177
1,649
273
3,886
329
-
-
-
626
675
222
1,110
1,161
5,337
1,056
1,937
1,098
2,932
1,566
2,533
-
DM
201
210
LEAP (200)
F
J
N
S
Y
T
AB
DD
B
GS
HX
203
204
205
206
208
209
225
HOP
STAMPEDE
BOLT (M)SKIP (202)
JUMP (207)
DASH (227)
BOUND (209)
Climb
80
54
444
877
536528
512
478
221
754
673
1,028
4,881
3,547
1,486
1,133
2,217
Figure ES-4 Cost Effectiveness (Cost per Boarding) of Boulder Local
and Boulder Regional Routes
Local Routes
203 $4.00
209 $6.60
204 $5.54
205 $6.36
206 $6.79
208 $5.29
SKIP $2.91
225 $5.33
JUMP $6.41
STAMPEDE $3.71
BOUND $3.51
DASH $4.76
HOP $2.07
Regional Routes
DM
J
N
S
Y
T
AB
DD
Climb
B
GS
HX
BOLT
$5.90
$9.33
$9.74
$7.49
$9.28
$8.53
$22.89
$11.06
$12.41
$10.19
$10.95
$18.67
$30.71
Cost per boarding is a com-
mon metric used to measure
the efficiency of transit
service. The local CTN routes
(namely the HOP, BOUND,
SKIP) provide the most cost-
effective service (cost per
boarding).
Source: Nelson\Nygaard
While most routes have seen an
increase in transit ridership, overall
ridership has been relatively stag-
nant over the last nine years.
Source: Nelson\Nygaard
Note: RTD systemwide average is $4.43 per boarding.
ES-6 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
What’s working well?
Boulder is doing more with less
Although ridership has experienced a slight decline since 2008, the productivity of the transit system has improved. In 2012, Boulder is doing more with less. Ridership is
driving back toward a 10-year high, while service hours are 9% lower on local routes than they were in 2003. While these trends indicate a more efficient transit system, in
some cases, higher ridership with lower service hours results in very crowded buses.
Some regional routes that only have Boulder and one other community as end points, such as the BOLT (Figure ES-6), have shown great resiliency to the recession and have a
promising ridership projection.
Figure ES-5 Average Weekday Ridership Compared to In-Service Hours, 2003–2012
-
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Service HoursAverage Weekday Daily RidershipLocal Routes Regional Routes
Local Routes Regional Routes
Ridership:
Service Hours
Local Ridership
Compared to Local
Service Hours
Regional Ridership
Compared to Local
Service Hours
In 2013, Boulder is doing more with less.
Ridership is driving up toward the City’s
10 year high, while service hours are 9%
lower on local routes than they were in
Source: Data is from 2012 RTD Annual Ridership Data; HOP data was provided by the City of Boulder; Climb data was provided by Via.
Figure ES-6 BOLT Ridership History, 2003–2012
-
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Annual In-Service Hrs Avg Wkdy Boardings Ridership In-Service Hours
The BOLT provides service between the Boulder Transit Cen-
ter and Longmont. Regional routes that only have Boulder
and one other community as end points have shown great
resiliency to the recession and better ridership history than
other regional routes.
Source: Nelson\Nygaard
In 2013, Boulder is doing more with less. Ridership is driving up toward the City’s
10-year high, while service hours are 9% lower on local routes than they were in 2003
ES-7 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
What’s working well?
The City’s transportation demand management programs work
The City of Boulder has a long and successful history of managing parking and
transportation in downtown Boulder, the University of Colorado, and surrounding
neighborhoods. In 2012, $773,750 in downtown parking revenue was used to fund
Eco Passes for 6,190 downtown employees. Surveys show that people with an
Eco Pass are 4 to 7 times more likely to ride transit (Figure ES-7). Areas with paid
parking districts – downtown and the University – have also proven to have higher
transit ridership than other areas of the city (due to paid parking, among other
reasons) (Figure ES-8).
Community-wide parking management strategies and expanded parking districts
will be examined to help the City meet TMP mode split goals and reduce single
occupant commuting to new job centers in East Boulder. An expanded Eco Pass
program is also being examined to meet mode split goals, particularly in areas of
opportunity (e.g. East Boulder).
Figure ES-8 Average Daily Ridership in Boulder and Boulder County
Figure ES-7 Bus Ridership by Eco Pass Status: Percent of Respondents
Who Made at Least One Trip per Week on the Bus,
1998–2012
20%
23%
20% 19% 19% 17%
5% 4% 4% 3%
6%
4%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
1998 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012
Has Eco Pass No Eco Pass
Source: City of Boulder Modal Shift in the Boulder Valley, 1990 – 2012
ES-8 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
What are the barriers?
The in-commute is growing
High housing costs and limited availability of housing in Boulder combined with a strong and growing job base have increased
the level of in-commuting in recent years. Although still only a small percentage of overall travel in Boulder, the in-commute
is growing. Approximately 59% of Boulder workers are estimated to travel into Boulder for work. While Boulder has achieved a
remarkably low SOV mode share for local travel (48.5% for commute trips), in-commute travel remains primarily SOV at nearly
80% (Figure ES-10). Between 2006 and 2012 the number of Boulder workers commuting from outside of Boulder increased by
7,444 commuters, or 13%. This trend is expected to increase (Figure ES-9).
As Boulder adds more jobs, an increasing percentage of the population is expected to live in east Boulder County, Weld County,
and along the US 36 Corridor. In addition to making sure that more existing and future workers have the housing options to
live and work in Boulder, success in reducing SOV travel among “in-commuters” will require key partnerships between Boulder,
Boulder County, RTD, CDOT, and neighboring communities (see the Regional Partnerships are Key section on page ES-15).
Addressing the needs of long-distance commuters in the Boulder Valley will also be expensive compared to addressing local
travel needs. The TMP Update will explore the most appropriate balance of investments in local and regional service enhancements.
Figure ES-9 Growth in Boulder In-Commute, 2006 – 2012
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
2006 2008 2010 2012
In-commuters
Live & Work in Boulder
Out-commuters
Between 2006 and 2012, the percent of Boulder workers living outside of Boulder increased from 52% to
59% of total workers. It should be noted that this data includes commute trips only; it does not account for
students traveling to school. Between 1993 and 2009, the percent of University of Colorado students living
outside of Boulder also increased from 15% of undergraduates in 1993 to 41% in 2009 (not including students
living on campus.
Source: City of Boulder
Figure ES-10 Boulder In-Commute Mode Share
Drive alone
80%
Carpool
14%
Transit
5%
Bicycle
1%
Walk
0.4%
Source: Census Transportation Planning Products (CTPP).
2006 – 2008 American Community Survey “Journey to Work,”
University of Colorado.
Note: In-commute data is not available for
communities with fewer than 20,000 residents. For
example, employees from the following communities
in Boulder County traveling to Boulder for work were
not counted: Jamestown, Louisville, Lyons, Nederland,
Ward, Superior, and Erie.
Commute traffic on US 36 is already an
issue. With projected increases in popula-
tion and employment along the US 36
corridor between Boulder and Denver,
traffic volumes are projected to increase
dramatically over the next two decades
(see page ES-14 for more details).
Image from Nelson\Nygaard
Between 2006 and
2012, the number
of in-commuters
increased by 7,444,
or 13%
ES-9 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
What are the barriers?
Transportation revenue and purchase power are declining
Like many jurisdictions nationwide, Boulder is faced with the challenge of stagnant revenue, cost
escalation, and decreasing purchase power to invest in its transportation system. The City has
identified a 40% decline in purchase power since 2002 coupled with stagnant sales tax revenue
that has resulted in a growing funding gap (Figure ES-13). In 2013, the City identified a total
annual funding gap range of $3.2 million to $5.6 million for three key areas of transportation
operations and maintenance: (1) pavement maintenance, (2) routine maintenance, and (3)
transit/Eco Pass service support. Transit service and Eco Pass support are estimated to experience
a funding gap of $700,000 annually.
In addition to the City’s funding gap, RTD has not provided 10-minute frequencies on all
Community Transit Network routes; its capacity to do so continues to diminish as RTD service
costs increase (Figure ES-12). While the City has historically funded the HOP route (together with
RTD and CU) and buy-up service on the JUMP and BOUND, its capacity to continue to buy-up
service is also diminishing (Figure ES-11). City buy-ups in transit service peaked in 2008 at $1.5
million; in 2011, the City’s investment had declined to $1.1 million. This decline is expected to
continue given the funding gap noted above. To meet TMP mode split goals, increased and
sustainable funding sources are needed.
Figure ES-12 Projected RTD Service Costs vs. Hours (2001–2020)
RTD service hours are declining, while costs to maintain or increase service are in-
creasing. This trend is expected to worsen.
Source: City of Boulder
Figure ES-11 City Transit Buy-Up History, 2001–2011
$0
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
$1,200,000
$1,400,000
$1,600,000
2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011
City buy-up funding
peaked in 2008 at
$1.5 million
Source: City of Boulder
240,000
220,000
200,000
180,000
160,000
140,000
120,000
100,000Annual Service Hours$30,000,000
$28,000,000
$26,000,000
$24,000,000
$22,000,000
$20,000,000
$18,000,000
$16,000,000
$14,000,000
$12,000,000
$10,000,000
$8,000,000
$6,000,000
$4,000,000
$2,000,000
$0 Annual Operating Cost2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Local Service Hour R TD Service Cost
Figure ES-13 City of Boulder Adopted Transportation Budget
$0
$5,000,000
$10,000,000
$15,000,000
$20,000,000
$25,000,000
$30,000,000
Adopted Inflation Adjusted
The City of Boulder estimates a 40% decline in purchasing power from 2002
forward.
Source: City of Boulder
40% decline in purchasing
power since 2002
ES-10 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
What are the opportunities?
Focus on areas of opportunity
Given that west Boulder is largely built out, most planned development will
occur in Boulder Junction, Boulder Community Hospital Foothills Campus, the
University of Colorado East Campus, and in Gunbarrel. By 2035, population
is estimated to increase by only 2,000 residents west of 28th Street while it
is estimated to increase by more than 8,000 residents east of 28th Street.
Similarly, only 1,000 dwelling units are anticipated west of 28th Street by
2035, while over 4,000 new units are anticipated to the east. Employment is
also projected to increase more east of 28th Street (7,500 employees will be
added west of 28th Street compared to 8,700 employees east of 28th Street).6
The TMP Update, is focused on these transitioning areas as primary opportu-
nities to create great places that are walkable, sustainable, and economically
vital. Focus will also be given to areas where transit investment can be
maximized by supporting efficient land use.
The Renewed Vision for Transit will also explore opportunities to make cost
effective transit enhancements to the entire existing system, including
downtown, at the University of Colorado, and in other areas.
Figure ES-14 Future Land Use and Key Development Areas in 2035
The Boulder Community Hospital is in the process of consolidating the
majority of its inpatient acute care services at the Foothills campus on
the corner of Foothills Parkway and Arapahoe Avenue. This new devel-
opment will add a significant number of employee and visitor trips to
the area.
Population and employment growth is expected to be concentrat-
ed around the University, in East Boulder, and in Gunbarrel.
Source: Nelson\Nygaard
Image from Nelson\Nygaard
6 City of Boulder Population and Employment Projections.
ES-11 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
What are the opportunities?
Boulder is a ‘Tale of Two Cities’
Boulder’s evolution is often described as a “tale of two cities.”
The west side of Boulder developed in a more traditional highly
connected grid and development pattern of smaller, walkable
blocks. East Boulder is characterized more by its “super blocks,” with
an orientation towards the automobile, large blocks, and a less
walkable grid development pattern.
For all modes to succeed in East Boulder, significant investments
will be needed to develop an interconnected street network with
bicycle and pedestrian access to key transit corridors, mix of land
uses, and strong anchors with all-day transit demand. As shown
in Figure ES-15, street connectivity is much lower in East Boulder.
While downtown has a connected street system with high intersec-
tion density (number of intersections per square mile), blocks are
long and scattered in East Boulder making walking, biking, and
accessing transit more difficult.
Figure ES-15 Intersection Density in West vs. East Boulder
Intersection density is a good measure for street connectivity and walkability. In downtown,
there are 321 intersections per square mile, whereas east Arapahoe between 30th Street and
Foothills Parkway only has 51 intersections per square mile.
Image from Nelson\Nygaard
On Arapahoe Avenue in East Boulder, the sidewalk ends abruptly
in a commercial shopping area.
Image from Nelson\Nygaard
Pearl Street Mall in downtown Boulder provides a mixed-use walkable environment.
Image from Flickr beautifulcataya
ES-12 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
What are the opportunities?
Boulder Junction and East Boulder redevelopment will
affect demand
Boulder Junction will be a new complete neighborhood and destination
in Boulder and provide important regional and local transit connections.
A new regional transit center will be located underground on the site,
allowing a broad pedestrian plaza to be developed. Figure ES-16 shows
the top ten projected origin-destination pairs in the city. Trip projections
from the regional model estimate that the connection between Boulder
Junction and downtown and the University of Colorado and downtown
will be significant. Many of these projected trips will move through
Boulder Junction en route to other areas via regional transit transfers. As
a regional hub and the end of the future US 36 bus rapid transit (BRT) line
scheduled to open in 2016, Boulder Junction and additional develop-
ment in East Boulder will create significant new demand for transit.
These changes in demand will need to be considered when early action
items for transit service changes are developed, and also incorporated
into the Renewed Vision for Transit. Completing missing bicycle network
connections will be key to connecting this area to the rest of the city.
Figure ES-16 Top 10 Origin-Destination Pairs and Areas of Trip Growth, 2035
Trips between the University of Colorado and downtown are
projected to be among the highest in the city in 2035.
Source: Nelson\Nygaard
Boulder Junction will be a new transit center.
Image from Nelson\Nygaard
ES-13 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
What are the opportunities?
Changing demographics are shaping transit needs
Three generations will be most influential in shaping Boulder’s future transit demand. These include Baby Boomers (born 1946-1964),
Generation X (1961-1984), and Millennials (1977-2003). Together, these generations represent over three-quarters of Boulder’s total popu-
lation.7 There is also a continued need to design transit for people with disabilities who are living with significant mobility challenges and
are unable to use fixed route transit. As Boulder develops its Renewed Vision for Transit, it will be critical to consider the following trends:
y Nationally, it is estimated that one out of five people aged 65 and older do not drive.8 In Boulder, this translates to over 1,700 se-
niors who do not drive. Transitioning older adults to fixed route transit can reduce expensive paratransit costs.
y RTD estimates that over 40% of bus riders in Boulder are “transit dependent,” meaning they do not have access to a vehicle, have a
disability or impairment that prevents vehicle operation, or do not possess a valid driver’s license (see Figure ES-17).9
y As the older population grows, the need for paratransit service will also grow. The number of paratransit trips provided in Boulder
in 2012 represents a 16% increase over 2011. According to the 2010 Census, the population of older adults and people with
disabilities in Via’s service area is expected to grow 95% between 2010 and 2025, from 12,463 to 24,365.10 An older woman crosses
Arapahoe Avenue in east
Boulder in front of the Boulder
Community Hospital Foothills
Campus.
Image from Nelson\Nygaard
Figure ES-17 Transit Dependent Riders and Choice Riders for Local and Regional Riders
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Boulder
Local
Regional
Transit Dependent Choice Rider
Source: 2011 RTD Customer Satisfaction Survey Via Mobility Services provides accessible transportation
for seniors and people with disabilities residing in Boulder
County.
Image from Nelson\Nygaard7 U.S. Census 2010.
8 Bailey, Linda. 2004. Aging Americans: stranded without options. Washington, DC: Surface Transportation Policy Project.
9 RTD. 2011. RTD Customer Satisfaction Survey.
10 Getting There Collaborative. 2005. Analysis of Colorado’s Human Service and Public Transportation Needs.
ES-14 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
What are the opportunities?
US 36 BRT is an opportunity to improve regional mobility
According to regional forecasts, the population along US 36 is expected to
increase 28%, employment will expand 53%, and traffic volumes are projected to
increase substantially over the next 15 years. Between 2010 and 2012, traffic along
the corridor has increased 1.4%.11
As part of FasTracks – the region’s multi-billion dollar transit expansion plan – 18
miles of bus rapid transit (BRT) service will be launched between downtown
Denver and Boulder Junction along US 36 to help respond to this growing popula-
tion and the increasing numbers of employees commuting into Boulder for work.
As seen in numerous case study examples, new BRT service typically leads to
significant ridership increases due to improved amenities and faster service. To be
effective, US 36 BRT will need to provide efficient, reliable, and comfortable service
for travelers. For the service to work well for those traveling to and from Boulder,
local routes will need to be restructured to get people to and from BRT stations.
The introduction of “fully-featured” BRT service on US 36 will also be an opportu-
nity to generate momentum for extending BRT and transit lane enhancements
into the city (e.g. on Broadway) and along other important regional corridors.
Figure ES-17 US 36 BRT Corridor
US 36 BRT and commuter
bikeway will provide 18
miles of service between
downtown Denver and
Boulder Junction along
US 36.
Source: RTD
US 36 BRT could generate momentum for extending BRT and transit lane
enhancements within the city.
Image from Nelson\Nygaard
11 US 36 Mobility Report.
ES-15 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
What are the opportunities?
Regional partnerships are key
Boulder County and the City of Boulder have aligned their transportation and land use goals. The recent Boulder County
Transportation Master Plan directs the region to focus access and mobility policies on non-single occupancy vehicle
(SOV) modes of travel, with transit being a backbone to creating sustainable land use and transportation patterns
countywide. Neighboring communities like Fort Collins are leading the way in transit innovations with the implementa-
tion of a bus rapid transit system (BRT) – the first BRT system in the Front Range. The US 36 First and Final Mile Study
sponsored by US 36 Commuting Solutions also highlights opportunities to integrate regional bikeways and trails, transit
routes, and open space to address first and final mile connectivity.
Regional partnerships will be critical to address the growing regional in-commute issues as a top priority for the TMP
Update. Success in reducing SOV travel for in-commute trips will require an active stance from Boulder, new fare tools,
strong partnerships with RTD and others, and new funding sources to grow service offerings.
Setting a mode share target for in-commuters could be an important step for the Colorado Department of Transporta-
tion, the City of Boulder, and Boulder County, but will need to be set in concert with regional partners and a regional
mode share goal.
Boulder County’s Bus then Bike program
is installing covered secure bike parking
at key transit stops in Boulder County.
Image from 303 cycling
Fort Collins will launch the Front Range’s first BRT system in Spring 2014.
Image from City of Fort Collins
texttext text
2
What needs do the future conditions create?
______________________________________________________________________________________
Demand for more travel options and system capacity between (and through) county
communities, recreational destinations and the entire region, particularly Weld, Larimer
and Broomfield counties.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Increased need for more affordable, convenient and flexible travel options and choices.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Focus on cost effective operational improvements that maximize use of the existing
transportation system (roads, transit, bikes and pedestrian).
______________________________________________________________________________________
Increased focus on maintaining and reconstructing existing infrastructure and services
before considering expansion.
______________________________________________________________________________________
New methods of funding for transportation system maintenance, operations, and
expansion.
______________________________________________________________________________________
New methods to manage transportation demand and improve access by all users.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Support alternative fuel/technology infrastructure such as public electric vehicle charging stations that
facilitate a more sustainable transportation systems.
______________________________________________________________________________________
As the county continues to experience changes in demographics, travel patterns, new fiscal realities
and a greater awareness of the impacts of individual and collective actions on the global and local
environment, it is clear that roads and cars alone can no longer meet our travel needs. Boulder County
must consider new ways of providing safe, reliable, convenient and affordable travel options that take
the needs of both current and future generations into account. Boulder County has identified future
Sustainable Transportation Strategies
trends and assumptions that must be understood if we are to provide an effective transportation system
that accommodates future demand in a sustainable manner. From analysis of these future trends and
assumptions, five categories of strategies have been developed: 1. Develop a Multimodal Transportation
System, 2. Create the Complete Trip, 3. Invest in Key Transportation Corridors, 4. Increase Accessibility,
and 5. Enhance Mountain Area Connections. Within each strategy, the county lists implementation actions.
Future Trends and Assumptions
• Current land use patterns within the county will stay the same,
with growth centered in and adjacent to existing communities
separated by open spaces.
• Residential and employment growth in Larimer, Weld, Jefferson
and Broomfield counties will exceed growth in Boulder County,
resulting in an increase in average commute lengths.
• The majority of Boulder County residents and employees will
continue to live and work in different communities, with an
increasing proportion commuting in from outside of the county.
• Travel demand will increase in all existing corridors, however
the greatest growth in travel will occur between the eastern
county and Boulder communities between Weld/Larimer
counties and Longmont, and between Jefferson, Broomfield/
southern Weld and Boulder County communities.
• Regional travel to recreational destinations in and adjacent to
Boulder County will continue to increase.
• The proportion of the population that is elderly will increase.
• Climate change and reliance on fossil fuels will continue to be a
concern, resulting in new technologies that reduce reliance on
fossil fuels (and a corresponding reduction in gas tax revenues).
• Transportation revenue will not keep pace with inflation or
demand.
• Public health concerns will increase the need to reduce barriers
to active living and transportation.
Identifying Strategies
Strategy 2:
Create the Complete Trip
Strategy 4:
Increase Accessibility
Strategy 1:
Develop a Multimodal
Transportation System
Strategy 3:
Invest in Key
Transportation Corridors
Strategy 5:
Enhance Mountain
Area Connections(2)
(1 & 3)
(1, 3, 5)
(1 & 2)
(1 & 2)
(4)
(4)
The Boulder County Transportation
Master Plan prioritizes five key strategies
to improve transportation in the region.
Source: Boulder County Transportation Master
Plan (2012)
ES-16 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Report Summary
This section provides a brief overview of the conclusions and next steps from each chapter in the State of the System report.
Chapter 2 provides an overview of Boulder’s challenge to develop a Renewed
Vision for Transit, including key issues and opportunities identified by the
community outreach process and trends that influence transit design. Based on
the findings in Chapter 2, the Transit Plan will focus on the following:
y Mode split: Identify strategies to continue improvement in transit mode
share, helping Boulder reach its TMP mode share target.
y Build on the CTN model: Explore opportunities to expand the Community
Transit Network (CTN), increase the number of regional transit connections,
and integrate Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) on key corridors.
y Information and education: Explore opportunities to improve customer
information, travel training, and peer-to-peer transit use mentoring.
y Respond to changing demographics: Design transit for changing
demographics, including the elderly, the disabled, families, young
professionals, and students.
y Focus on the in-commute: Explore opportunities to decrease the drive-alone
rate of in-commuters.
y Focus on potential redevelopment and infill areas: Identify strategies to
serve areas with transit, manage parking, and ensure development is pedes-
trian, bicycle, and transit friendly.
y Focus on funding opportunities: Explore opportunities to increase local
funding for transit.
y Integrate with climate work: Integrate the Renewed Vision for Transit with
Climate Commitment and Sustainability Framework.
y Work with Partners: Identify opportunities for Boulder to work with regional
partners to enhance transit service levels and quality.
Chapter 3 provides an overview of land use and travel demand in Boulder – key
factors that will influence the future of transit use in the city and region.
Based on the findings in Chapter 3, the Renewed Vision for Transit will focus on the
following:
y Transit Supportive Land Use: Identify opportunities to create well
connected, compact urban form on blocks closest to the community core or
transit network to support high frequency transit service.
y Increase Transit Mode Share: Although Boulder has been successful
increasing walk and bicycle mode share, while transit has remained stagnant.
A key desired outcome of this plan is to increase transit mode share in the
short-term and over the plan period.
y Regional Partnerships: Explore opportunities to continue to build effective
regional partnerships to address the growing in-commute.
y Focus on Areas of Opportunity: Identify integrated transportation and land
use strategies to accommodate the growing population and employment that
is projected at Boulder Junction, CU east campus, around the Boulder
Community Hospital on Arapahoe, and in Gunbarrel.
y Anticipate Projected Demand: Population and employment are projected to
grow considerably over the next 20+ years (12% and 19% respectively). When
developing transit alternatives consider projected trip patterns resulting from
growth, and transit needs – both fixed route and demand responsive –
resulting from areas with increased concentrations of youth, elderly
populations, low-income residents, and carless households.
y Housing Affordability: In partnership with the Comprehensive Housing
Strategy, explore opportunities for transit to improve overall affordability for
Boulder residents and workers.
ES-17 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Chapter 4 provides an overview of transit service in Boulder. As the update to
the TMP moves ahead, there are areas of need that should be considered further
during the development of the Renewed Vision for Transit and short-term service
recommendations:
y Focus on land use: Land use activity in east Boulder is reaching a point that
justifies attention in how the CTN is structured and how it embraces that
activity. Some of the issues related to this are a factor of the route network,
while others address the need for access to new or growing destinations.
y Fill in missing connections: In the northwest part of Boulder, there is a lack
of east/ west connectivity. For example, to get from a location on north
Broadway to a grocery store on 28th Street, passengers have to travel down-
town first, then back north. In the northeast part of Boulder, the IBM plant and
the employment in Gunbarrel is underserved. Buses may be only part of the
solution for such campus settings, as employees likely travel from many parts
of Boulder County.
y Transit System Branding: The named routes and service buy-up has been a
successful model for Boulder. But the local network includes some numbered
routes and some routes that are “officially” part of the CTN, based on being
named (and meeting CTN service levels). The mix and match nature of the
network, how residents perceive the various routes, and how that impacts
ridership response needs further investigation.
y Focus on Boulder County: Factors for success in increasing transit ridership
between adjacent communities should be investigated further, assessing how
the same root motivators used to increase transit ridership in Boulder can
apply to regional routes. This assessment should evaluate the need to provide
expanded or new park-and-ride facilities in some of these communities. While
these facilities currently exist, the long-term potential is greater than current
park-and-ride capacity in several locations.
y Regional Service is Key: A robust regional BRT service is a great opportunity
for increased transit market share in the corridor. Presently, there are a number
of regional services that target people departing Boulder in the morning.
Some are well utilized, others, are not. The TMP update should evaluate the
possibility for routes to operate two-way service, encouraging both “in” and
“out” transit commuting in Boulder. An increasing number of commuters
to Boulder come from areas outside of RTD’s boundaries – Fort Collins, for
example. These markets should be examined for the possibility of
developing intercity commuter services. Other non-single occupant options
such as carpooling or vanpooling should be explored where the market for a
transit route does not yet exist.
Chapter 5 provides a peer evaluation of seven peer transit systems. Key findings
include:
y Focus on investments that have led to peer ridership growth: Peer cities
and agencies show the greatest bump in transit ridership where significant
investments in speed and reliability (i.e., BRT services) have been made. This is
an important consideration for Boulder moving forward.
y Efficiency: Boulder’s efficiency metrics (i.e., cost per passenger, cost per
revenue hour) don’t compare well to peer cities that are not part of broader
regional transit systems. While this is expected, it does present a key tradeoff
question for Boulder in defining a renewed vision for transit. Focus on transit
improvements and coordinated land use improvements inside City
boundaries or broaden the City’s preview to deal with regional travel pat-
terns?
y Integrate university transit services: Many peers have intercampus
transportation services integrated with local/regional transit, simplifying
system offerings and creating a more cohesive, transparent transit product.
There could be substantial cost tradeoffs associated with integration; this is
worth exploring in the next phase of the project.
y Build on fare program successes: Eco Pass programs combined with strong
ridership help Boulder transit routes to operate with less subsidy than peer
systems. The transit plan will look at opportunities to further reduce public
subsidies for transit. Coordination with the Boulder County’s Eco Pass study
will be critical.
ES-18 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Renewed Vision For Transit Schedule
Based on the findings in the State of the System Report and feedback from the community, a Renewed Vision for Transit will be developed —a vision that responds to changing needs;
capitalizes on unique local opportunities; supports housing, climate, and placemaking initiatives; strengthens regional partnerships; and stays true to Boulder’s strong local values.
Figure ES-18 Renewed Vision for Transit Schedule
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY
2013 2014
TRANSIT: COMMUNITY OUTREACH
STOREFRONT
WORKSHOPS
TRANSIT: STATE OF THE SYSTEM
RENEWED VISION FOR TRANSIT
ROUTE PROFILES • LAND USE AND TRAVEL DEMAND ASSESSMENT • TRANSIT INNOVATIONS
TRANSIT SCENARIO EVALUATION
FRAMEWORK
ONGOING MESSAGING: FACEBOOK• INSPIRE BOULDER • TWITTER • OTHER MEDIA
DESIGN YOUR TRANSIT SYSTEM TOOL &
ONLINE SURVEY
STOREFRONT
WORKSHOPSSTOREFRONT
WORKSHOPS
PUBLIC MTG
#1 PUBLIC MTG
#2
TRANSIT SCENARIOS & PREFERRED
ALTERNATIVE
TRANSIT SCENARIO ANALYSIS
SERVICE DEVELOPMENT• CAPITAL PLAN • CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT •
ACCESS & LAND USE • MARKETING & BRANDING • FINANCE
COMMUNITY
OUTREACH
SUMMARY
STATE OF THE
SYSTEM REPORT
EVALUATION
APPROACH &
ANALYSIS
PREFERRED
ALTERNATIVE
RENEWED VISION
FOR TRANSIT
TMP UPDATE
RENEWED VISION FOR TRANSITCHAPTER 1
IN THIS CHAPTER
• The Transportation Master Plan Update
• Boulder’s Renewed Vision for transit
• Why focus on transit?
• Overview of the State of the System Report
• Renewed vision for transit schedule
City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT 1-1
CHAPTER ONE
RENEWED VISION FOR TRANSIT
WHERE WE’VE BEEN . . .
The original TMP called for shifting away from single-occupant vehicle (SOV) trips and
recognized the need to reconcile two sometimes conflicting goals: “to provide mobility and
access in the Boulder Valley in a way that is safe and convenient” and “to preserve what makes
Boulder a good place to live by minimizing auto congestion, air pollution, and noise.”
Set an objective of “no long-term growth in vehicle traffic” to limit the environmental and
community impacts of auto travel. Began to pioneer concept of Complete Streets.
Identified four policy focus areas:
y Enhancing regional connections
y Expanding transportation demand management (TDM) efforts, especially via public-private
partnerships
y Completing the multimodal corridors with 28th Street as the top priority
y Identifying the funding necessary to achieve the goals of the plan
FasTracks Local Optimization (FLO) is an effort by the City of Boulder and other local
organizations to optimize the benefits of regional transit improvements that will be provided
by FasTracks.* The FLO effort worked with the community to understand how regional services
would be integrated into the community.
Developed the Complete Streets Investment Program that identified the highest priority
investments for the community through 2025.
Develop a renewed transit vision under the Complete Streets focus area to meet community
ridership goals, climate commitment, and sustainability framework goals. Added focus area
to integrate with sustainability initiatives. Added new objectives for safety, neighborhood
accessibility, and vehicle miles traveled per capita.
* The RTD FasTracks Program is a multi-billion dollar comprehensive transit expansion plan to build 122 miles of new com-
muter rail and light rail, 18 miles of bus rapid transit, 21,000 new parking spaces at light rail and bus stations, and enhance
bus service for easy, convenient bus/rail connections across the eight-county district.
1989
1996
update
2003
update
2008
update
Now
FasTracks
The Transportation Master Plan Update
Boulder’s first Transportation Master Plan (TMP) was
adopted in 1989, setting a new course for a community
that relies more on walking, biking, and taking transit to
support a more convenient and sustainable transporta-
tion system. This vision, built on specific policies and
goals, has been implemented through a progressive
program of capital projects and programs designed to
offer more choices for Boulder residents, employees,
and visitors. The result has been the evolution of a
complete transportation system that provides safe,
healthy, and fun choices for travel in the community.
The 2013 TMP Update includes five focus areas (see the
next page). Transit is a key component of the Complete
Streets focus area.
Image from Nelson\Nygaard
1-2 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
2013 TMP Update Focus Areas
MEASURABLE OBJECTIVES FOR ALL AREAS
Existing Objectives
y Continued progress toward no
growth in long-term vehicle traffic
y Reduce single occupant vehicle
travel to 25 percent of trips
y Continued reduction in mobile
source emissions of air pollutants
y No more than 20% of roadways
congested at Level of Service
(LOS) F
y Expand fiscally viable transporta-
tion alternatives for all Boulder
residents and employees, includ-
ing the elderly and those with
disabilities
y Increase transportation alterna-
tives commensurate with the rate
of employee growth
New Objectives (2013)
y Safety
y Neighborhood accessibility
y Vehicle miles traveled per capita
for residents and in-commuters
Complete Streets
A renewed vision for transit and bicycle and
pedestrian innovations are needed to reach mode
share objectives and ensure residents, in-commut-
ers, and transition areas such as East Boulder* will
have the same excellent transportation choices as
those in other parts of the community.
Projects: Renewed Vision | Bike & pedestrian innovations
* In this report, “East Boulder” refers to the area of Boulder east of
Folsom Street.
Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
Improved management of the transportation
system – such as parking policy and programs to
encourage use of travel options – is the most cost-
effective strategy to maintain the function of the
transportation system.
Projects: Community-wide Eco Pass | Access Manage-
ment and Parking Management Strategies | Sustainable
Streets and Development Review Toolkit
Funding
Since 2003, stagnating city sales tax revenue and an
unprecedented increase in the cost of construction
materials have increased the cost of operating and
maintaining the transportation system. Maintaining
our current transportation system while improving
infrastructure and programs to meet TMP goals will
be a significant challenge.
Projects: New Transportation Funding for O&M and
Capital Improvements
Integrate with Sustainability Initiatives
Transportation planning and funding support many
other city initiatives. The TMP is fully integrated
with City-wide planning initiatives to support a
broad range of community values and sustainability
goals.
Projects: Climate Commitment | Civic Area Plan | Access
Management & Parking Strategies | Parks & Recreation
Master Plan | Sustainable Streets & Centers | Comprehen-
sive Housing Strategy| East Arapahoe Corridor
Regional Travel
Significant growth in the number of employees
working in Boulder but living elsewhere highlights
the need for improved regional connections. Such
improvements will only occur where corridor plans,
funding, and collaboration with other communities
and agencies are established.
Projects: Regional multi-modal Corridors | BRT and
regional bikeway on US 36 Corridor | Boulder Junction TOD
| RTD North West Area Mobility Study
1-3 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Boulder’s Renewed Vision for Transit
The Renewed Vision for Transit will focus on continuing
to develop and enhance a complete transit system – a
network of high-quality, frequent and convenient
transit routes that connect local destinations and
neighborhoods and regional destinations. More than
just a transit operating service plan, the Renewed Vision
for Transit will focus on transit supportive programs
and policies, the cost effectiveness of transit, corridor
planning, service design, and improved access and con-
nections to increase the use of transit in the community
and make transit a first choice of travel.
The Renewed Vision for Transit will be fully integrated
with the overall TMP Update, community sustainability
goals, and the climate commitment, and will provide a
strategic action plan for wise investment in transit over
time. Consistent with broader TMP goals and the City’s
climate and sustainability objectives, the Renewed
Vision for Transit will:
y Put the passenger first: make transit easy and
comfortable to use for people of all ages and all
abilities
A renewed transit vision will help Boulder
meet the Transportation Master Plan
mode share goal of 75% non-SOV travel
by 2025.
Image from Nelson\Nygaard
Corridor
Planning
Access and
Connections
Policies and
Programs
Service
Design
Renewed
Transit Vision
The HOP bus – the first Community Transit Network
route – is a community-scaled bus with large
windows, unique branding, and perimeter seating
to encourage community interaction.
Image from the City of Boulder
y Make transit a convenient choice of travel:
focus on service quality by connecting local and
regional destinations and improving bicycle and
pedestrian access to transit
y Use transit to build community: improve ac-
cess and connectivity to transit and build transit
facilities to support central community gathering
places and neighborhoods
y Improve transit service and ridership through
regional partnerships: work with neighboring
jurisdictions, RTD, Denver Regional Council of
Governments, North Front Range Metropolitan
Planning Organization, and Colorado Depart-
ment of Transportation to improve access to
transit and increase regional transit ridership
y Reduce the environmental impacts of travel:
use transit to support the Sustainability Frame-
work and Climate Commitment goals
Why Focus on Transit?
The Renewed Vision for Transit is a key element of
the Complete Streets focus area of the TMP Update
and supports the other focus areas as well. The City
of Boulder has one of the most extensive public bus
systems of any city of its size in the nation and has a
long and successful history of investing in community
transit.
Over the last two decades Boulder has made unprec-
edented improvements to its transit system. In the
early 1990s, the City of Boulder embarked on an effort
to increase the use of transit within its city limits. At
that time, all local transit service was operated by RTD
using vehicles standardized across the regional system
and an operational model that focused on serving
regional travelers. Seeking to transform the system to
one that appealed to more local residents and offered
a viable travel choice for many types of local trips, City
staff undertook customer-focused market research. At
a community roundtable, local residents were asked
to describe transit system features that would make a
community access shuttle successful in Boulder. The
result of these conversations was the genesis of the
HOP bus in Boulder.
When the City commenced service on the HOP
route and subsequently expanded the Community
Transit Network (CTN), several key design principles
taken directly from the community roundtables were
implemented:
y Service levels so frequent no schedule is needed
(every 10 minutes)
y Community-scaled vehicles that are smaller,
lower to the ground, and have large windows
allowing passengers to connect to the street
environment
y Perimeter seating in vehicles to engender conver-
sation and community on the bus
1-4 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
y Branding to give the local system a unique look
and feel
y Direct routing to make service more transparent,
making riders more confident
y A pass program that eliminates the need to have
correct change when boarding
Why a Renewed Vision for Transit?
The City is not on course to meet the City’s 2008 TMP
mode share goals.
y Transit ridership is stagnant.
y Transportation revenue and funding for local
transit service in Boulder is declining.
y 80% of Boulder in-commuters drive alone to
work; serving this market is essential.
y Over the last decade, RTD has cut service hours
in Boulder by 20,500 service hours – the equiva-
lent of the DASH route.
y Boulder continues to see redevelopment; this is
anticipated to continue in areas east of Folsom
Street. Designing transit service to meet the
impending needs of east Boulder and improving
access and connections to transit is essential
to meet community sustainability, climate, and
mode share goals.
Overview: State of the System Report
This State of the System Report sets the stage for
Boulder and its partners to renew a local and regional
vision for transit – one that responds to changing
needs; capitalizes on unique local opportunities;
supports housing, climate, and placemaking initiatives;
creates better regional partnerships; and stays true to
Boulder’s strong local values.
The State of the System report includes:
y Chapter 1 Renewed Vision for Transit - an over-
view of the Transportation Master Plan Update
and its focus on a Renewed Vision for Transit.
y Chapter 2 Our Challenge, Our Chance – a
high-level summary of community feedback and
direction on the issues and driving forces that will
shape Boulder’s transit future.
y Chapter 3 Land Use and Travel Demand – an
assessment of Boulder’s transit-oriented land
use patterns and an overview of current and
future travel demand.
y Chapter 4 Transit Service – an overview of
transit service providers, funding, and perfor-
mance in Boulder.
y Chapter 5 Peer Review – an assessment of
transit performance in Boulder compared to a
number of peer communities in the U.S.
y Chapter 6 Transit Innovations and Leading
Practices – an overview of leading transit innova-
tions in the U.S. and abroad and suggestions for
Boulder.
y Appendix A Detailed Route Profiles – detailed
profiles for Boulder’s local and regional routes.
y Appendix B Community Outreach Summary
– a detailed summary of community outreach
conducted throughout the project.
y Transition from hub and spoke system to high frequency grid
Figure 1-1 Projected Local Service Hours vs. RTD Service Cost, 2001-2020Boulder Local Service Trend vs. 2010 Maintained Service
240,000
220,000
200,000
180,000
160,000
140,000
120,000
100,000Annual Service Hours$30,000,000
$28,000,000
$26,000,000
$24,000,000
$22,000,000
$20,000,000
$18,000,000
$16,000,000
$14,000,000
$12,000,000
$10,000,000
$8,000,000
$6,000,000
$4,000,000
$2,000,000
$0 Annual Operating Cost2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Local Service Hour Trend RTD Service Cost
The Community Transit Network constructed
around these principles has been an unqualified
success. The system is highly productive and has
become a highly-valued element of Boulder’s
transportation system and the subject of considerable
national interest as an example of “best practices in
transit.” A recent poll showed that residents valued the
maintenance of the CTN (71%) as one of the highest
priorities. Continuing the success of the CTN will be a
core strategy to meet the city’s mode share objectives.
However, in the face of RTD service cuts, stagnant
local, regional, state, and federal revenue and
ridership trends, a growing market of in-commuters,
and pending transformative land use changes in
east Boulder, continued and expanded investment
in transit is essential to meet the City’s mode share,
environmental, and housing affordability goals.
1-5 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Renewed Vision for Transit Schedule
The Renewed Vision for Transit is one aspect of the city’s long-term vision to build a high-quality transportation system. Figure 1-2 provides a high-level schedule for the City of
Boulder’s Renewed Vision for Transit and how it fits into the broader TMP update.
Figure 1-2 Renewed Vision for Transit Schedule
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY
2013 2014
TRANSIT: COMMUNITY OUTREACH
STOREFRONT
WORKSHOPS
TRANSIT: STATE OF THE SYSTEM
RENEWED VISION FOR TRANSIT
ROUTE PROFILES • LAND USE AND TRAVEL DEMAND ASSESSMENT • TRANSIT INNOVATIONS
TRANSIT SCENARIO EVALUATION
FRAMEWORK
ONGOING MESSAGING: FACEBOOK• INSPIRE BOULDER • TWITTER • OTHER MEDIA
DESIGN YOUR TRANSIT SYSTEM TOOL &
ONLINE SURVEY
STOREFRONT
WORKSHOPSSTOREFRONT
WORKSHOPS
PUBLIC MTG
#1 PUBLIC MTG
#2
TRANSIT SCENARIOS & PREFERRED
ALTERNATIVE
TRANSIT SCENARIO ANALYSIS
SERVICE DEVELOPMENT• CAPITAL PLAN • CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT •
ACCESS & LAND USE • MARKETING & BRANDING • FINANCE
COMMUNITY
OUTREACH
SUMMARY
STATE OF THE
SYSTEM REPORT
EVALUATION
APPROACH &
ANALYSIS
PREFERRED
ALTERNATIVE
RENEWED VISION
FOR TRANSIT
TMP UPDATE
OUR CHALLENGE, OUR CHANCECHAPTER 2
IN THIS CHAPTER
• Community outreach process
• Key issues and opportunities
• Trends that influence transit design
• Shared vision with Boulder County neighbors
• Key issues to be explored in the Renewed
Vision for Transit
City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT 2-1
Boulder’s land use and transportation policy decisions
have helped to make it one of the most livable cities in
the United States. Success has not come by accident.
It is a result of strong leadership, careful outreach that
listens and responds to resident input, and clear and
deliberate policy based on input and solid technical
information. The TMP Update and the Renewed Vision
for Transit presents a challenge – to advance the com-
munity toward its transportation goals – and a chance
to create a vision for transportation and transit that
will be effective, enduring, and financially sustainable;
moving the City toward a more environmentally and
economically sustainable transportation system. To do
so, the vision must be clear, measurable, and responsive
to the community’s unique and changing needs.
The success of Boulder’s Community Transit Network
(CTN) routes, dramatic results from the Eco Pass
program, and the unquestioned success of walking and
biking network investments prove that careful listening,
holistic system design, thinking outside the box, partner-
ships, and focus on quality are keys to success. These
principles guide our approach. This chapter focuses on
careful listening, describing our community engage-
ment process, and what we’ve heard to date.
Community Outreach Process
The Renewed Vision for Transit is guided by the City’s
Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) and City Council,
and a robust community outreach process, including a
Technical Advisory Committee, a Community Feedback
Panel, online and social media tools, open houses, and
storefront workshops. A more complete community
outreach summary is provided in Appendix B.
Transit Technical Advisory Committee
The Transit Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)
provides technical support and input throughout the
TMP process. The TAC convened in January 2013 and
is comprised primarily of technical staff from local and
regional policy, agency, and key community stakehold-
ers such as transportation staff from Boulder County,
Regional Transit District, Chamber of Commerce,
University of Colorado representatives, and Transporta-
tion Management Organizations such as Boulder Transit
Connections and 36 Community Solutions. The TAC
is intended to be advisory and to provide input on
the technical work and public outreach for the transit
element of the TMP update. The TAC will provide critical
input at every stage of the transit plan process.
Community Outreach Events and Activities
Activities and input opportunities conducted to date
include:
y Stakeholder Interviews: Interviews were held
with key stakeholders at the County, the City, the
CHAPTER TWO
OUR CHALLENGE, OUR CHANCE
Success by the Numbers
y Thirty local and regional bus routes provide
over 32,000 bus rides on average every day
y 159 centerline miles of bike facilities carry
thousands of cyclists every day
y More than 9% of commuters walk safely to
work
y A combined 30% of Boulder commuters bike,
bus, and walk to work, compared to only 9%
in the Denver region and 10% nationally.*
*2007-2011 American Community Survey Five-Year Average
At a workshop in March 2013, the TAC defines the
issues that drive the Renewed Vision for Transit in
Boulder.
Image from Nelson\Nygaard
The Design Your Transit System tool is an online
tool that allows the community to prioritize transit
investments.
Image from Nelson\Nygaard
2-2 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
University of Colorado, the Boulder Chamber of
Commerce, the Center for People with Disabili-
ties, Regional Transit District, among others.
y Community Storefront Workshops: Storefront
workshops gather feedback on transit and other
mobility issues, especially from transit users. To
ensure participation from a range of people, the
workshops were held in different geographic lo-
cations, such as the Boulder Community Hospital
Foothills Campus, the Cup on Pearl Street, and
the University of Colorado’s main campus. It is
important to bring workshops to the community,
instead of asking people to “come to us.”
y Design Your Transit System Online Tool and
Questionnaire: The project team developed a
“Design Your Transit System” online decision-
making simulation tool. This new outreach
strategy walked participants through a series of
visually oriented exercises to better understand
which elements of system design are most likely
to attract new riders and improve the quality of
experience for existing users. Visit www.boulder-
transitdesign.com.
y Social Media Outreach: Social media outreach
strategies such as utilizing Inspire Boulder, Twit-
ter, Facebook, and Tumblr have been deployed to
assist public outreach efforts and to expand out-
reach to a larger audience. Questions are posted
to Inspire Boulder, the City’s online community
forum, to get feedback on key transit service
issues and opportunities. Visit Inspire Boulder at
www.inspireboulder.com.
y Community Feedback Panel: The Community
Feedback Panel is a new social outreach strategy
for the TMP update and is comprised of a group
of interested members of the public who have
volunteered to be queried on TMP-related issues.
As of mid April, nearly 400 people have signed up
for the panel. The panel was called upon through-
out the process to provide input on the Design
Your Transit System Tool and the long-term transit
scenarios.
y Open Houses: The TMP update Kick off Open
House was held on March 4 at the Hotel Boul-
derado Conference Center in conjunction with
the Smart Growth America Cool Planning Pre-
sentation and Workshop. A second open house
was held on March 13 at the CU East Campus in
conjunction with CU East Campus Projects Open
House.
y Transportation Advisory Board (TAB): The
TAB is the host of the Transportation Master Plan
Update and has been engaged throughout the
process with monthly updates.
Storefront community workshops brought public outreach to the community. We asked the community for
their vision for transit at popular locations, such as the University Memorial Center (UMC), The Cup, and the
Boulder Community Hospital.
Image from Nelson\Nygaard
Key Issues
& Opportunities from the Public
Based on the community outreach process and the
technical analysis of transit in the subsequent chapters,
several key issues and opportunities have emerged.
These key issues and opportunities are shown in the
table on the following page.
2-3 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Figure 2-1 Key Issues and Opportunities
Key Issues & Opportunities
Transit Service &
Amenities
Mode Split is Stagnant – Get it Moving in the Right Direction
The TMP has an objective of reducing the number of trips made by one person driving alone in a car (called “single occupant vehicle” mode share or SOV) to 25% of all trips by Boulder residents by 2025. While Boulder has made
significant progress, it is not currently on track to reach its 2025 goal.
Expand Community Transit Network (CTN) Service
Community and stakeholder outreach conducted for the transit element of the TMP suggests that maintaining and expanding the CTN is fundamental to reaching local mode share targets. Route performance enhancements along
arterial roadways giving priority for transit, and transit service expansion along key local and regional corridors is important to advancing the CTN.
Need for Enhanced Regional Transit Connections
The community expressed a desire for new connections, improved frequency, and expanded service span at the regional level.
Introduction of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Service
The introduction of “fully-featured” US 36 BRT service will be an opportunity to generate momentum for extending BRT and transit lane enhancements into the city (e.g. on Broadway) and along other important regional corridors.
Need for Better Customer Information
The community has expressed a desire for real-time arrival information to make traveling by transit more convenient and efficient.
Demographics Changing Demographics
Boulder needs to deliver a “golden menu” of options to meet the complex housing and transportation demands of its residents and workers, including the elderly, the disabled, young professionals, students, and families.
Land Use Increase in Workers Commuting to Boulder
High housing costs in Boulder combined with a strong and growing job base have continued to increase the level of in-commuting in recent years. While Boulder has achieved a remarkably high non-SOV mode share for local travel,
in-commute travel remains primarily SOV (approx 80%). As Boulder adds more jobs, an increasing percentage is expected to live in east Boulder County, Weld County, and along the US 36 Corridor, likely causing an increase in the
“in-commute.” The number of commuters from Larimer and southwest Weld Counties is also expected to increase (Fort Collins and the tri-city area including Frederick, Firestone, and Dacono).
Land Use and Transportation Connection
Providing cost-effective, fast, efficient transit for regional commuters is part of the solution. However, working to ensure that more existing and future workers can live and work in compact, walkable neighborhoods and mixed-use
districts is an equally essential outcome. This theme is particularly relevant to the concurrent work efforts at the City on the Comprehensive Housing Strategy, Sustainable Streets and Centers, and the Neighborhood Accessibility
analysis.
Making East Boulder Pedestrian, Bicycle and Transit Friendly
Most planned land use changes will occur in East Boulder and in Gunbarrel. The TMP and parallel city efforts focus on these areas of opportunity to create great places that are walkable, sustainable, and economically vital.
Parking Parking Management is Key
Community-wide parking management strategies and expanded parking districts will help the City meet TMP mode split goals and reduce the increasing impacts of in-commuter travel. Parking management must be a key focus of
the TMP to meet mode split goals, particularly in areas of opportunity (e.g. East Boulder).
Funding Stagnant Funding and Declining Purchasing Power
The primary source of transportation funding in Boulder is a $.006 sales tax on every $1.00 of local purchases. Sales taxes are volatile and are likely to decrease in the future as Boulder’s population ages and moves into more care-
ful spending habits. Recent polling shows strong community support for new funding focused on basic operations and maintenance needs. There is also strong community support for transit and other multimodal transportation
system improvements; additional funding is needed to meet TMP mode share goals and other objectives.
Climate Climate Commitment & Sustainability Framework Drive TMP Outcomes
TMP outcomes need to align with the developing Climate Commitment goal to reach carbon neutrality through all sectors (energy, transportation, etc.) to achieve Sustainability Framework goals. At the same time, the Climate
Commitment and TMP Update activities are being integrated to help shape effective and mutually supportive outcomes. New approaches to data gathering are needed to capture information needed to support low-carbon trans-
portation options.
Partnerships Need for Regional Partnerships
Success in reducing SOV travel among “in-commuters” will require an assertive stance from Boulder and Boulder County, strong partnerships, new fare tools, continued partnerships with RTD and surrounding communities, and new
funding sources to grow service offerings.
2-4 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Trends That Influence Transit Design
Too often, transportation planning responds to current
events rather than future needs and goals. Since the
decisions people make are based on the choices that
are currently in place, this approach misses an opportu-
nity to ask the important questions: How would people
travel if conditions and options were different? What
forces will be at play in the future that will cause people
to make decisions differently? What local or global
trends will influence mobility and access to jobs, goods,
and services in 5, 10, or 20 years?
In March of 2013, the Transit Advisory Committee (TAC)
met to look ahead at trends and driving forces that
already are, or may in the future, reshape how, where,
and why we travel. This section highlights these factors
in terms of their influence on transit design, in addition
to their broader implications for transportation and
community development.
Changing Demographics
Three generations will be most influential in shaping
Boulder’s future transit demand. These include Baby
Boomers (born 1946-1964), Generation X (1961-1984),
and Millennials (1977-2003). Together, these genera-
tions represent over three-quarters of Boulder’s total
population.1 There is also a continued need to design
transit for people with disabilities who are living with
significant mobility challenges and are unable to use
fixed route transit. As Boulder develops its Renewed
Vision for Transit, it will be critical to consider the
following trends:
y Nationally, it is estimated that one out of five
people aged 65 and older do not drive.2 In Boul-
der, this translates to over 1,700 seniors who do
not drive. Transitioning older adults to fixed route
1 U.S. Census 2010.
2 Bailey, Linda. 2004. Aging Americans: stranded without
options. Washington, DC: Surface Transportation Policy
Project.
transit while they are able to ride can reduce
expensive paratransit costs.
y RTD estimates that over 40% of bus riders in
Boulder are “transit dependent,” meaning they do
not have access to a vehicle, have a disability or
impairment that prevents vehicle operation, or
do not possess a valid driver’s license.3
y Senior growth is projected to increase consider-
ably in the Denver-Boulder region. In 2000, there
were approximately 100,000 people in the region
aged 75 and older; by 2030, that number is ex-
pected to increase 150% to 250,000.4
y As the older population grows, the need for ADA
paratransit service will also grow. Although there
are disabled people of all ages who cannot use
fixed route transit due to a disability, the largest
concentration of ADA-eligible people is in the
80 to 89 age group. Just based on population
growth, the size of the ADA-eligible population is
expected to grow by 94% by 2030 in the Denver-
Boulder region.5
3 RTD. 2011. RTD Customer Satisfaction Survey.
4 Getting There Collaborative. 2005. Analysis of Colorado’s
Human Service and Public Transportation Needs.
5 Getting There Collaborative. 2005. Analysis of Colorado’s
Human Service and Public Transportation Needs.
As the Baby Boomers age, there will be a need for
transportation options for older adults who are not able
to walk or who are unable to use regular fixed route
transit. There will also be a need to design transit for
people with disabilities who are living with significant
mobility challenges.
Gen Xers are
maturing, with the
majority of them
now married with
children. These
households have
the most dispos-
able incomes but
their spending is
now focused on
household needs.
In Boulder, in-
creasing housing
prices are making
it more difficult for
middle-income
households to
live in Boulder.
An increasing number of these households are seeking
housing opportunities in more affordable communities
Transportation Master Plan 2008 Policy Framework
While Boulder has made good progress providing
travel choices for people, there is still tremendous
work to be done to meet the City’s aggressive
transportation objectives for 2025:*
y Continued progress toward no growth in
long-term vehicle traffic
y Reduce single occupant vehicle travel to 25
percent of trips
y Continued reduction in mobile source emis-
sions of air pollutants
y No more than 20 percent of roadways con-
gested (at Level of Service F)
y Expand fiscally viable transportation alterna-
tives for all Boulder residents and employees,
including the elderly and those with dis-
abilities
y Increase transportation alternatives commen-
surate with the rate of employee growth
*City of Boulder (2008) Transportation Master Plan
An older woman crosses
Arapahoe Avenue in east
Boulder in front of the
Boulder Community Hospital
Foothills Campus.
Image from Nelson\Nygaard
2-5 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
outside of Boulder, causing a growing population of
in-commuters.6
Nationwide, the Millennials outnumber the Boomers
and brim with optimism and a strong sense of social
activism. Connected to technology from the crib, Mil-
lennials are true multi-taskers and drivers of technologi-
cal innovations that include social communications and
smart phones. With a large university and many lifestyle
attractions, Boulder is an attractive place for people of
this generation. However, with less opportunity for jobs
than larger urban areas and a high local cost of living,
keeping Millenials and families around will require
efficient, affordable transportation and housing to
balance lifestyle and other income requirements. The
Millenial generation may be the first in a long time to
fully embrace Amory Lovin’s quote: “The best form of
transit is simply being there.”
The Importance of Place
In our attempts to quantify relationships between land
use, transportation, and urban design we too often lose
the simple message – it’s all about the places we create.
Improved transportation infrastructure and service
6 City of Boulder. 2013. Boulder City Council Study Session
“Developing a New Comprehensive Housing Strategy for
Boulder, May 14, 2013.”
increase access to land, which in turn increases travel
demand. Since some amount of infill may be desired
and important to the economic health of the city and
region, the TMP Update must focus on a finer-grained
integration of land use with sustainable transport. This
integration will help reduce per capita travel demand
while improving access to jobs and services, support-
ing housing affordability, and advancing environmental
goals.
While these relationships are important, Boulder
TAC members and stakeholders stress that achieving
transportation outcomes is reliant on building quality,
vibrant communities where people want to be and
move about on foot. The success of the Pearl Street
Mall is testament to the power of place. This street is at
once a gathering place, an enjoyable pedestrian way,
one of the highest grossing retail streets in the city, and
a symbol of civic life. Boulder Junction is the city’s next
opportunity to craft place with this attention to quality.
The development of the Pearl Parkway multi-way
boulevard is indicative of attention to detail that can
translate the successes of old Boulder to the new. While
transit operations are only one small detail of this street
project, the role of transit in making Boulder Junction
Boulder’s next great place is substantial. As a new
regional transit hub, many people will be able to travel
to and from the area without the impact of parking,
street congestion, or unnecessary bus transfers.
In the end, the TMP Update must ensure that Boulder’s
transportation system is designed to support the great
places that will be created at Boulder Junction, CU East
Campus, and other areas. Transit’s role in helping to
“shape” placemaking outcomes will be addressed in the
Renewed Vision for Transit.
Emerging Technology and
How it Drives Our Lives
Technology such as smart phones and high speed
mobile wireless internet are enabling people to more
fluidly mix work, pleasure, and civic life. Instant access
to information and increased use of social networks
is changing how we work and communicate. Mobile
devices are expected to continue to diminish the
importance of static office locations, allowing for
connections anywhere, anytime.
In Boulder, coffee shops buzz with people working and
flexible work spaces have become popular, providing a
“landing zone” for sole proprietors and small start-ups.
Census data illustrating the most recent commute pat-
terns suggest that many people employed in Boulder
don’t commute to a brick and mortar office. To attract
young skilled employees, employers will increasingly
look to provide dynamic work environments close to
amenities and civic life.
Along with changes following the Great Recession,
technology is assisting a shift in consumerism.
Consumers are increasingly shopping and comparing
products online prior to making purchasing decisions.
The convergence of social media and pricing promo-
tion through media such as Groupon is significant
for downtowns and transit agencies by connecting
e-commerce with place.
Pearl Street Mall is testament to the power of place,
providing a central gather place and enjoyable
pedestrian way.
Image from Nelson\Nygaard
The Laughing Goat Coffeehouse on Pearl Street
in Boulder is busy on a weekday afternoon with
people working or going about their daily business.
Image from Nelson\Nygaard
2-6 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Providing a transit system that responds to the
need for frequent travel (frequency), connectedness
(on-board wi-fi), spontaneity (real-time information),
and spontaneous creativity and communication (bus
and facility design) are challenges to be addressed in
Boulder’s Renewed Transit Vision.
The Housing Challenge
Advances in technology and the global marketplace
are creating a generation more rooted to general urban
living than one particular place. Walking, cycling, and
transit are the preferred mode of transportation. This
growing trend is reflected in people’s choice of housing
type and location. For example, nationwide, only
20% of Millennials, the emerging market of potential
homebuyers, say that owning a home is one of their
priorities in life.7 On the other hand, for those that
highly prioritize home ownership the majority (59%)
would choose a smaller house if it meant a commute
time of 20 minutes or less.8
Despite these trends, more and more people who work
or attend school in Boulder are living outside the city.9
Boulder’s high quality of life and natural beauty attracts
new residents on a national and even international
scale, a trend that has pushed housing prices outside
the realm of affordability for many. Today middle-
income people who work in Boulder and desire to own
a detached home are unlikely to find that opportunity
in the city. Increasingly, lower-income renters who
work or attend school in Boulder are challenged to
find affordable rental opportunities. Some Boulder
workers also simply want to live outside of Boulder for a
different type of lifestyle.
7 Taylor, Paul, and Scott Keeter. 2010. Millennials a portrait
of generation next : confident, connected, open to change.
Washington, D.C.: Pew Research Center.
8 “The 2011 Community Preference Survey.” National
Association of Realtors (accessed February 1, 2012).
9 Longitudinal-Employer Household Dynamics (LEHD) Data,
U.S. Census (2010).
Boulder is undertaking concurrent work to evaluate
opportunities for creating low- and middle-income
housing opportunities. Transportation can play an
important role in lowering household costs. Quality
transit options that allow a family to live with one less
car can save about $10,000 a year, effectively increasing
spending power for housing and other life needs.10
Emissions and the Cost of Energy
The City of Boulder is a national leader in addressing
local contributions to climate change. Boulder’s
Climate Commitment and the TMP update are being
coordinated to establish a long-term strategy to reach
carbon neutrality. The TMP will help to frame actions
and measurable targets for climate action.
With transportation contributing more than 20% of
Boulder’s greenhouse gas emissions, success in achiev-
ing the goals of the TMP are essential to keeping this
contribution from growing. Between 1990 and 2012,
vehicle fuel emissions have increased 49%.11 Given the
large portion of vehicle fuel-related emissions, the TMP
is intimately tied to broader sustainability initiatives.
Aside from walking and cycling, transit is the best
choice for reducing transportation related emissions.
Transit technology innovation combined with clean
energy sources can further enhance the climate protec-
tion value of transit. There are three options to reduce
10 AAA. 2013. “Your Driving Costs: How much are you really
paying to drive?”
11 City of Boulder. 2012. Greenhouse Gas Inventory.
fossil fuel based transportation: increase use of biking
and walking; increase energy efficiency; and reduce
carbon intensity of transport energy (electric vehicles,
biofuels, etc.).
The combination of sustainable local energy and transit
can also help to protect Boulder residents and workers
from potential future increases in energy costs. While
hydraulic fracturing and shale oil extraction are leading
many to predict that fossil fuel cost spikes may be
delayed, energy futures are unpredictable and affect
the most vulnerable when fuel prices rise quickly.
Growing Public Health Concern
Obesity and other sedentary-related diseases are
plaguing generations young and old. The research
is clear: land use environments and roadway design
impact health. People who live in neighborhoods with
a mixture of uses within comfortable walking distance
are 7% less likely to be obese, lowering their relative risk
of obesity by 35%.12 On the other hand, every additional
30 minutes spent daily in a car correlates to a 3%
greater chance of obesity.13
Although Boulder County is significantly less sedentary,
obese and, therefore, healthier than the rest of the
United States (15% of the Boulder County population is
obese compared to 25% nationally), the rate of obesity
has increased over the last decade from 11% of the
population in 2004 to 15% in 2013.14 In particular, the
rate of childhood obesity is increasing in Colorado.
Between 2003 and 2007, childhood obesity in Colorado
increased 23% – the second fastest rate of increase in
12 “Driving, Walking, and Where You Live: Links to Obesity.”
McCann Consulting (accessed June 15, 2013).
13 Ibid.
14 County Health Rankings and Roadmaps. www.coun-
tyhealthrankings.org Data compiled from the National
Diabetes Surveillance System, CDC Behavior Risk Factor
Surveillance System, and the U.S. Census Bureau’s Popula-
tion Estimates Program.
Boulder’s Climate Commitment
In 2002, the Boulder City Council passed the
Kyoto Resolution which set the goal of reducing
community greenhouse gas emissions to 7%
below 1990 levels by 2012, representing a 24%
decrease n emissions between 2005 and 2012.
Currently, the City is exploring a new approach to
its climate commitment.
2-7 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
the nation behind Nevada.15 In 2012, 14.2% of Colorado
children were obese (23rd highest in the nation).16 To
curb this trend and continue to have one of the lowest
obesity rates in the U.S., Boulder must continue to
prioritize pedestrian- and bicycle-supportive design to
encourage active transportation.
Stagnant Transportation Revenues and
Declining Purchasing Power
While trends point to a heightened demand for transit
service, bicycle facilities, and a safe walking environ-
ment for all ages, transportation funding is declining
and costs are increasing. Boulder is falling behind
industry standards for maintenance and operations –
similar to the shortfalls at federal and state levels. Due
to increasing costs, stagnating revenue, and decreased
purchasing power, the City’s ability to operate the
15 Healthy Policy Solutions. 2011. “Colorado No. 2 in increased
rate of childhood obesity” (accessed July 2, 2013).
16 Colorado Health Foundation. 2012. The Colorado Health
Report Card.
Figure 2-2 Transportation Revenue and Decline in Purchasing Power
The City’s purchasing power has declined 40% since 2002.
Source: City of Boulder
Shared Vision with
Boulder County Neighbors
Partnerships have been integral to the success of the
nation’s most lauded transit systems. Given Boulder’s
growing commute shed, multi-provider system, and
countywide land use and open space preservation
controls, TMP success involves partnerships with many
public and private entities.
Boulder County, the various cities of which it is
comprised, and major institutions in those communities
have aligned their transportation and land use goals.
The recent Boulder County Transportation Master
Plan directs the region to focus access and mobility
policies on non-SOV modes of travel, with transit being
the backbone to creating sustainable land use and
transportation patterns countywide. Fostering regional
partnerships will be critical to address the increasing
number of people traveling in and out of Boulder for
work, school, and services. Boulder County’s “Bus then Bike” program improves
access to transit throughout the region.
Image from 303 cycling
40% decline
in purchasing power
since 2002
community’s transportation system is eroding. Since
2002, the City’s Transportation Division has seen a 40%
decline in purchasing power, largely due to increasing
costs of materials and labor (see ).
2-8 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Boulder County Transportation Master Plan
In 2011, the County spent
nearly $1 million to improve
transit service and access to
transit. In 2012, the County
updated its Transportation
Master Plan with a focus on
improving regional multi-
modal connections. Strate-
gies specific to improving
transit include:
y Increase bike capacity
at transit stops: The
County is installing
“Bus then Bike” shelters
throughout the County
to support the “last mile.”
y Increase the
bicycle capacity on
transit vehicles.
y Improve intersections
for safe and convenient
access to transit stops
and bike and pedestrian
facilities.
y Collaborate with communities to establish a community-wide Eco
Pass program: In 2013, the County began a study to document the
feasibility of a community-wide Eco Pass.
y Invest in new transit service to expand the system.
y Promote regional bus rapid transit and/or commuter rail in regional
corridors.
y Enhance bus stop facilities (benches, concrete pads, shelters, bike
racks, and bike shelters).
texttext text
2
What needs do the future conditions create?
______________________________________________________________________________________
Demand for more travel options and system capacity between (and through) county
communities, recreational destinations and the entire region, particularly Weld, Larimer
and Broomfield counties.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Increased need for more affordable, convenient and flexible travel options and choices.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Focus on cost effective operational improvements that maximize use of the existing
transportation system (roads, transit, bikes and pedestrian).
______________________________________________________________________________________
Increased focus on maintaining and reconstructing existing infrastructure and services
before considering expansion.
______________________________________________________________________________________
New methods of funding for transportation system maintenance, operations, and
expansion.
______________________________________________________________________________________
New methods to manage transportation demand and improve access by all users.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Support alternative fuel/technology infrastructure such as public electric vehicle charging stations that
facilitate a more sustainable transportation systems.
______________________________________________________________________________________
As the county continues to experience changes in demographics, travel patterns, new fiscal realities and a greater awareness of the impacts of individual and collective actions on the global and local
environment, it is clear that roads and cars alone can no longer meet our travel needs. Boulder County
must consider new ways of providing safe, reliable, convenient and affordable travel options that take
the needs of both current and future generations into account. Boulder County has identified future
Sustainable Transportation Strategies trends and assumptions that must be understood if we are to provide an effective transportation system that accommodates future demand in a sustainable manner. From analysis of these future trends and
assumptions, five categories of strategies have been developed: 1. Develop a Multimodal Transportation
System, 2. Create the Complete Trip, 3. Invest in Key Transportation Corridors, 4. Increase Accessibility,
and 5. Enhance Mountain Area Connections. Within each strategy, the county lists implementation actions.
Future Trends and Assumptions
• Current land use patterns within the county will stay the same,
with growth centered in and adjacent to existing communities
separated by open spaces.
• Residential and employment growth in Larimer, Weld, Jefferson
and Broomfield counties will exceed growth in Boulder County,
resulting in an increase in average commute lengths.
• The majority of Boulder County residents and employees will
continue to live and work in different communities, with an
increasing proportion commuting in from outside of the county.
• Travel demand will increase in all existing corridors, however
the greatest growth in travel will occur between the eastern
county and Boulder communities between Weld/Larimer
counties and Longmont, and between Jefferson, Broomfield/
southern Weld and Boulder County communities.
• Regional travel to recreational destinations in and adjacent to
Boulder County will continue to increase.
• The proportion of the population that is elderly will increase.
• Climate change and reliance on fossil fuels will continue to be a
concern, resulting in new technologies that reduce reliance on
fossil fuels (and a corresponding reduction in gas tax revenues).
• Transportation revenue will not keep pace with inflation or
demand.
• Public health concerns will increase the need to reduce barriers
to active living and transportation.
Identifying Strategies
Strategy 2:
Create the Complete Trip
Strategy 4:
Increase Accessibility
Strategy 1:
Develop a Multimodal
Transportation System
Strategy 3:
Invest in Key
Transportation Corridors
Strategy 5:
Enhance Mountain
Area Connections(2)
(1 & 3)
(1, 3, 5)
(1 & 2)
(1 & 2)
(4)
(4)
The Boulder County Transportation
Master Plan prioritizes five key strategies
to improve transportation in the region.
Source: Boulder County Transportation
Master Plan (2012)
Key Issues to be Explored in the Renewed Vision for Transit
Chapter 2 provides an overview of Boulder’s challenge to develop a Renewed Vision
for Transit, including key issues and opportunities identified by the community
outreach process and trends that influence transit design. Based on the findings in
this chapter, the Transit Plan will focus on the following:
y Mode split: Identify strategies to continue improvement in transit mode share,
helping Boulder reach its TMP mode share target.
y Build on the CTN model: Explore opportunities to expand the Community
Transit Network (CTN), increase the number of regional transit connections,
and integrate Bus Rapid Transit on key corridors.
y Information and education: Explore opportunities to improve customer infor-
mation, travel training, and peer-to-peer transit use mentoring.
y Respond to changing demographics: Design transit for changing demo-
graphics, including the elderly, the disabled, families, young professionals, and
students.
y Focus on the in-commute: Explore opportunities to decrease the drive-alone
rate of in-commuters.
y Focus on potential redevelopment and infill areas: Identify strategies to
serve areas with transit, manage parking, and ensure development is pedes-
trian, bicycle, and transit friendly.
y Focus on funding opportunities: Explore opportunities to increase local
funding for transit.
y Integrate with climate work: Integrate the Renewed Vision for Transit with
Climate Commitment and Sustainability Framework.
y Work with Partners: Identify opportunities for Boulder to work with regional
partners to enhance transit service levels and quality.
LAND USE & TRAVEL DEMANDCHAPTER 3
IN THIS CHAPTER
• The relationship between land use and
transit demand
• Travel demand in Boulder
• Future development in Boulder
• Future local and regional growth
• Housing affordability
• Key issues to be explored in the
Renewed Vision for Transit
City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT 3-1
CHAPTER THREE
LAND USE AND TRAVEL DEMAND
History of Land Use in Boulder
Boulder has a rich history of environmental protection, growth management, and
efforts to preserve its historic past. Long before many cities in the western United
States recognized the importance of compact urban form, Boulder had established
important urban form principles and policies that would help guide development
in the region for decades to come. Boulder’s national reputation for proactive and
creative growth management has been prompted, in part, by the following policies,
ordinances, and actions:
y 1959: Blue Line adoption - Restricts extension of City water service above a
defined elevation to protect the mountain backdrop.
y 1967: City passed a tax to purchase thousands of acres of open space. Today,
the City owns and manages over 45,000 acres of public open space.
y 1972: Building height restriction ordinance was passed which limited build-
ing heights to 55 feet to ensure that all residents could enjoy the views of the
mountains and open space.
y 1977: City and County adopted the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, setting
the vision for growth, development, and preservation in the Boulder Valley, in-
cluding a defined urban growth boundary managed in cooperation with Boul-
der County. Boulder’s approach to urban growth boundaries, called the service
area concept, offers important lessons for controlling sprawl, preserving rural
land uses outside the city, and extending urban services in a rational manner.
The Historic Pearl Street mall was developed
between 1976 and 1977, bringing many businesses
back to downtown and revitalizing one of Boulder’s
key historic commercial areas.
Photo montage from Silvia Pettem’s book Positively Pearl
Street. Historic photo from the Carnegie Branch Library for
Local History. Current day photo taken by Casey A. Cass.
3-2 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
The Relationship Between
Land Use and Transit Demand
Density, land use diversity, design, regional destina-
tions, demand management, and distance to quality
transit (often called the six “Ds” or “6Ds”) are key factors
commonly cited as influencing trip making, transit use,
and the length of driving trips.1,2 Extensive research
shows that the built environment – including neighbor-
hood form, land use patterns, transportation networks,
and urban design – significantly affects travel behavior.
Demand management (pricing and incentives) and
demographics (income, household size, age, etc.) are
also considered important factors. This section provides
an assessment of the 6Ds in Boulder, recognizing
that the urban form in east and west Boulder is very
different (see “A Tale of Two Cities”).
1 Cervero, Robert and Kara Kockelman (1997), “Travel
Demand and the 3Ds: Density, Diversity, and Design,”
Transportation Research Part D, Vol. 2, pp 199-219.
2 Ewing, Reid and Robert Cervero (2001), “Travel and the Built
Environment: A Synthesis,” Transportation Research Record
1780, Washington DC: Transportation Research Board, pp
87-114.
Today, Boulder’s downtown core is vibrant, com-
pact, and walkable. The ice rink at One Boulder
Plaza just south of the Pearl Street Mall is a favorite
hangout spot for people of all ages and just a block
away from high frequency transit in all directions.
Image from Nelson\Nygaard
A Tale of Two Cities: East and West Boulder
Boulder’s evolution is often described as a “tale of two cities” – east and west. The west side of Boulder de-
veloped in a more traditional highly connected grid and development pattern of smaller, walkable blocks.
East Boulder is characterized more by its “super blocks”, with an orientation towards the automobile, large
blocks, and a less walkable grid development pattern.
For all modes to succeed in East Boulder, significant investments will be needed to develop an intercon-
nected street network with bicycle and pedestrian access to key transit corridors, mix of uses, and strong
anchors with all-day transit demand. Street connectivity is much lower in East Boulder. While downtown
has a connected street system with high intersection density (number of intersections per square mile),
blocks are long and scattered in East Boulder making walking, biking, and accessing transit more difficult.
Pearl Street Mall in downtown Boulder provides a
mixed-use walkable environment.
Image from Flickr beautifulcataya
On Arapahoe Avenue in East Boulder, the sidewalk
ends abruptly in a commercial shopping area.
Image from Nelson\Nygaard
3-3 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
To understand the connection between land use and
transportation in Boulder, the 6D principles were used.
The 6Ds are most effective when applied in concert,
although various principles apply differently at varying
scales of geography (see Figure 3-1). For example,
density and diversity must be considered at the
neighborhood scale, while design principles can apply
to a specific station, stop, or site.
The following sections provide a high-level assessment
of key local challenges and opportunities related to
the 6D factors. Key opportunities and challenges for
Boulder are summarized in Figure 3-2.
Figure 3-2 Summary of 6D Factors
6D Factor Principles Challenge Opportunities for Potential Exploration
1. Destinations Align major destinations along a reasonably direct corridor so that
they can be efficiently served by frequent transit.
It will be difficult to cost-effectively deliver high-quality,
high-frequency (CTN level) service to areas with emerging
destinations.
Prioritize transit investment in areas slated for change; incentivize infill and redevelopment
along and across key transit corridors.
2. Distance Provide an interconnected system of pedestrian routes so that
people of all ages and abilities can walk to transit service quickly
and conveniently from the places they live, work, shop, and play.
Lack of street connectivity and large surface parking lots in
East Boulder increases the distance between destinations.
Build upon the success of Boulder Junction planning and community design efforts and the
City’s new neighborhood accessibility tool as part of the current TMP Update.
3. Density Concentrate higher densities as close to frequent transit stops and
stations and multimodal nodes as possible to minimize walking
distances to more destinations for more people.
Existing height limits may limit the amount of change that
can occur near transit, which reduces land consumption
and supports use of efficient, cost-effective transportation
modes.
High demand for housing and urban lifestyles could support increased density if housing is
appropriately scaled and affordable.
Future compact neighborhoods could deliver many placemaking and public amenity ben-
efits that are needed in East Boulder and throughout the city.
4. Diversity Provide a rich mix of pedestrian-friendly uses to facilitate street-
level activity throughout the day and night, increase affordability,
and enliven the public realm.
Although there is some opportunity to develop in East
Boulder, opportunity is limited in many areas because it
is largely built out under the low density and single use
limits of current zoning.
The prioritization of mixed-use infill and new development will be important where pos-
sible. Since more jobs are coming to this area, it will be important to ensure that employees
have opportunities to live, play, and shop nearby and also have access to regional connec-
tions (bike and bus).
5. Design Design high-quality, pedestrian-friendly spaces that invite walk-
ing and bicycling and connect people to transit.
Limited connectivity and a focus on the car in East Boulder
force people to walk and bike along busy arterials with
limited buffers. Transit stops also lack a sense of place.
Improve buffers between pedestrians along major arterials, particularly when there is no
logical parallel route. Transform high-demand transit stops into community gathering
places. Provide direct ped/bike connections to building entrances and destinations.
6. Demand Management Provide attractive transportation options to driving.Paid parking districts only exist in downtown, at the
University, and in the developing Boulder Junction. Bal-
ancing economic vitality with sustainability and demand
management.
Build upon the City’s successful framework for managing travel demand and providing op-
tions by expanding paid parking districts and broadening the reach of the Eco Pass program
and bike share and car share programs.
Figure 3-1 6Ds of Transit-Supportive Development
Source: Nelson\Nygaard
3-4 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Destinations
People are more likely to choose transit if it quickly and
directly brings them to their destinations. Maximizing
transit access to the city’s major destinations is key.
Today, high-frequency transit (7-10 minute service)
at peak hours and throughout the day connects
downtown, the university’s east and west campuses,
and other major destinations such as the Twenty Ninth
Street Shopping Center. As Boulder develops a vision
for its transit system, it will be important to prioritize
direct frequent service that connects to regional
destinations and safe and inviting access to/from transit
stops to encourage those traveling in to Boulder to use
transit.
A key challenge for Boulder will be to deliver high-
quality, high-frequency (CTN level) service to areas
with emerging land uses. Although compact, diverse,
walkable destinations are required to support frequent
service, sometimes the quality transit investment is
needed to help developers justify those land uses as
well as to accept lower parking standards, paid parking,
and other key demand measures that make the CTN
service level effective.
High frequent transit service connects key destinations like the Twenty Ninth Street Shopping Center to downtown and the University.
Image from Nelson\Nygaard
3-5 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Density
The City of Boulder estimates that employment will increase by 19% between 2012
and 2035; dwelling units and population are also expected to grow by 12%, adding
nearly 6,000 dwelling units and over 14,000 new residents to the community by
2035.3 While Boulder is already seeing more infill and mixed-use development, a key
challenge for the city will be to provide walkable urban form and affordable housing
options for low- and middle-income workers so that people can continue to live and
work in Boulder. An efficient transit system will be needed to accommodate land use
and residential and employment growth while meeting the city’s transportation and
Climate Commitment goals.
Vehicle miles travelled decrease as density and a mix of uses increase. Decreasing the
number of vehicle miles traveled will play an important role in meeting the com-
munity’s Climate Commitment goals. The transportation sector currently accounts for
21.8% of the city’s greenhouse gas emissions.4 Concentrating and intensify activities
and development near high frequency transit service can help support the commu-
nity’s climate goals. Continuing to invest in transit and bicycle infrastructure will not
be enough to meet aggressive climate goals for transportation unless land use and
housing affordability issues are addressed simultaneously. The VMT reduction benefits
derived from increased land use density are eroded if average commute distances
continue to climb.
The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan Supports the 6D Framework:
Policy 2.09: Neighborhoods as building blocks
Policy 2.10: Preservation and support for residential neighborhoods
Policy 2.14: Mix of complementary uses
Policy 2.16: Mixed-use and higher density development
Policy 2.17: Variety of activity centers
Policy 2.18: Role of the central area
Policy 2.21: Commitment to a walkable and accessible city
Policy 2.22: Improve mobility grid
Policy 2.23: Trail corridors/linkages
Policy 2.36: Design excellence for public projects
Policy 6.09: Integration with land use
Policy 6.10: Managing parking supply
Policy 6.12: Neighborhood streets connectivity
Mixed-use development is in the heart of downtown Boulder.
Image from Nelson\Nygaard
3 City of Boulder Department of Community Planning and Sustainability.
4 City of Boulder. (2004). Climate Action Plan.
3-6 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Distance
A key to making transit, bicycling, and walking
more attractive is minimizing the distance between
destinations by providing direct connections at the
neighborhood scale. Distance does not just refer to the
actual distance from point A to B, but also the perceived
distance based on quality of environment. In Boulder
west of Folsom Street, the blocks are designed in a grid-
like pattern and are short, providing multiple options
for people to travel between destinations. Conversely,
the post-World War II development pattern of East
Boulder is made up of a windy street pattern with very
large blocks. Along 30th Street between Arapahoe and
Colorado avenues, there is no interconnected street
network for nearly half a mile. This pattern makes it very
difficult to cross 30th Street or walk efficiently between
the CU East Campus and neighborhoods west of 30th
Street.
Although some population and employment growth is
projected to occur in areas with high street connectivity
(downtown and the CU main and east campuses),
much of the projected development is expected to
occur in areas with lower street connectivity (see
graphic at right). The area around Boulder Junction is
projected to be one of the high-growth population
and employment areas, while areas east of 47th Street
and south of Valmont Road are expected to absorb
much of the projected employment growth. As these
areas in Boulder are redeveloped in the coming years,
a fully built-out street network should be prioritized to
facilitate safe and efficient access to transit. Boulder is a
national leader in this arena and has already prioritized
valuable new street connections in the Boulder
Junction area.
Intersection density is a good measure for street connectivity and walkability. In downtown, there are 321
intersections per square mile, whereas east Arapahoe between 30th Street and Foothills Parkway only has 51
intersections per square mile.
Image from Nelson\Nygaard
3-7 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
“Almost nobody travels willingly from sameness to sameness and
repetition to repetition, even if the physical effort required is trivial.”
-Jane Jacobs, The Death and Life of Great American Cities
Diversity
The most lively and attractive communities are those
with a rich mix of pedestrian-friendly uses that facilitate
street-level activity around the clock. Historic Pearl
Street in downtown Boulder is spotted with cafes
and shops on the street level and office space above.
Pedestrians swarm the streets even in the coldest
winter months. Pedestrian-scale buildings with lively
facades adjoin the street, engaging pedestrians as they
walk by. This diverse environment encourages walking
and supports access to the high-frequency transit
stops close by. As change occurs in areas outside of
downtown, a mix of uses and diverse building facades
along transit routes and major corridors will be critical
to support easy access to transit and a rich urban
environment.
There will never be enough retail market demand for
all street-fronting buildings to have Pearl Street style
ground floor retail. However, ensuring buildings front
the sidewalk and have an inviting “face” to the street is
essential. Street fronting townhouse entries, office, or
civic uses housed in future retail space, or set back to
provide small publicly accessible plazas are important
to create a diverse pedestrian environment that
supports transit use.A range of destinations – including retail, services,
work, and eateries – make downtown Boulder an
appealing place to walk.
Image from Flickr j stephen conn
Although there are wide sidewalks on this section
of Arapahoe Avenue at Commerce Street in East
Boulder, a lack of diversity in uses makes for a less
appealing walking environment.
Image from Nelson\Nygaard
3-8 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Design
High-quality pedestrian and bicycle facilities and transit
waiting areas are critical to a complete transporta-
tion system. Boulder already has a robust bicycle
network with 58 miles of paved multiuse pathways,
78 underpasses, 34 miles of roads with bike lanes on
both sides, four miles of roadway with a climbing bike
lane and downhill bike route, 10 miles of road with
paved shoulders, 43 miles of roads designated as bike
routes, and 10 miles of soft surface trails.5 The Missing
Sidewalk Links Program fills in missing sidewalks and
the City’s Sidewalk Repair Program repairs and installs
missing curb ramps in the highest priority pedestrian
zones. However, there are opportunities to improve
the City’s program to make the streets more pedestrian
friendly, particularly in East Boulder. Landscaped buffers
between the sidewalk and traffic lanes and improved
pedestrian lighting, particularly on high volume
arterials like Arapahoe, 30th and Colorado avenues,
will be important to improve the walking environment
and comfortably connect people to transit stops and
street crossings, destinations, multi-use paths and bike
network, etc.
In addition to the bicycle and pedestrian network,
transit stops are important community gathering places
that should be designed to attract people. Although
high-boarding RTD transit stops typically include seat-
ing, a trash can, bike parking, and an enclosed shelter,
the physical design of the space could be improved.
Moreover, many stops in Boulder only include an RTD
sign. As Boulder continues to refine the street network
and build out transit service in new areas, transit stop
design should be considered to attract more transit
riders and contribute to the urban fabric. See the
“Placemaking” section in Chapter 6: Transportation and
Land Use for more details on best practices in transit
station design (page 6-11).
The Broadway (Euclid to 18th) Transportation
Improvement Project provides a safe underpass
connection for students and residents between
the CU main campus and the CU Transit Station,
one of the busiest transit stops in the RTD system
with more 1,280 buses stopping every day -- more
than twice the number of buses that stop at
Market Street Station in downtown Denver.
Image from Nelson\Nygaard
While the standard RTD transit stop provides all
the right amenities (seating, trash receptacle, bike
parking, and cover from inclement weather), the
design could be improved to foster community
gathering places.
Image from Nelson\Nygaard:
5 City of Boulder. (2012) “Report on Progress.”
3-9 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Demand Management
Boulder has an innovative approach to managing
transportation demand. From subsidized transit passes
to managed parking in the downtown core and at the
University, Boulder has taken a bold step to manage
employee and visitor access.
Parking in Boulder
Parking plays a central role in our transportation and
planning decisions. Boulder Parking Districts are
guided by the following principles: shared, unbundled,
managed, and paid. Too much parking communicates
that driving is easy and can be a first travel choice,
while too little parking can deter access to a site or
neighborhood and harm economic vitality.
The City of Boulder currently manages two, paid
parking districts: downtown and University Hill. The
downtown district is a 35-block district between Pine
Street and Arapahoe (north to south) and 9th Street and
18th Street (east to west). The University Hill District is
a five-block district in the commercial area adjacent to
the University of Colorado. The Boulder Junction Access
General Improvement District has been established as
The Central Area General Improvement District
is a 35-block, paid parking district in downtown
Boulder.
Source: City of Boulder
The mixed-use parking garage on the corner of 15th Street and Pearl Street won an award from the Congress
for the New Urbanism for its approach to mixing parking spaces with retail and office space.
Image from flickr payton chung
6 City of Boulder. Chapter 9-9: Development Standards.
Section 9-9-6 Parking Standards.
a third district in anticipation of the Boulder Junction
development. This district includes both a Parking and
a TDM District to help manage access to the area and
meet the area’s vehicle trip generation allowance.
Boulder is a national leader in the development of well-
designed parking structures. Urban design criteria have
been codified into the local zoning code and building
standards, such as the requirement for incorporating
street-level retail in all parking structures. There are
seven parking structures downtown, all of which are
aesthetically integrated into the urban fabric because
they are wrapped with a mix of uses.
The Boulder land use code also manages the availability
of parking starting at the development review process.
In Boulder Junction, for example, the land use code
includes a parking maximum of one space per dwelling
unit for mixed-use development and high density
residential (RH-7). Bicycle parking is required through-
out the city (at least four spaces or at least one space
for every 10 dwelling units, whichever is greater, for
mixed-use development and high density residential
(RH-7 and RH-3).6
Expansion of Downtown Boulder parking management
policies and regulations to East Boulder neighbor-
hoods (in a context-sensitive fashion) will be critical to
meeting TMP goals.
3-10 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Eco Pass Program
The Eco Pass Program is an annual RTD transit pass
for unlimited regional, express, local bus, and light rail
service throughout the Denver and Boulder regions.
More than 76,000 residents in Boulder County have
access to an Eco Pass (see page 4-2 for more details).
Surveys show that residents who hold an Eco Pass are
five to nine times more likely to ride transit. In 2012,
$773,750 in downtown parking revenue was used to
fund Eco Passes for 6,190 downtown employees.
The City is partnering with Boulder County to evaluate
expansion of the Eco Pass program, which could well
be among the most cost-effective means to meet
TMP mode share goals. Other transit agencies with
similar programs have found that ridership increases
50 – 100% upon implementing a similar “ecopass”
style pre-paid fare program (see Chapter 6 “Fares and
Funding” on page 6-47).
Transportation Management Organizations
Boulder County Eco Pass Feasibility Study
In 2013, Boulder County, in partnership with the
City of Boulder, launched a study to determine
the feasibility of instituting a countywide Eco
Pass. The study will identify options for how the
program could be structured, paid for, and priced.
US 36 First and Last Mile Study
In 2013, US 36 Commuting Solutions sponsored a
First and Last Mile Study to identify opportunities to
connect RTD riders to and from the US 36 Bus Rapid
Transit stations and surrounding areas. Opportuni-
ties that were identified included electric bikes,
shuttle circulators, station cars, scooters or golf carts,
and improved signage.
This study identified suitable options to better con-
nect RTD riders to/from the US 36 Bus Rapid Transit
(BRT) stations and the surrounding activity centers
utilizing such transportation demand management
tactics as bike share, shuttle circulators, station cars,
scooters or golf carts, as well as bicycles.
View the full report here.
The First and Last Mile Study sponsored by US 36
Commuting Solutions identified opportunities,
such as BCycle, to connect RTD riders to/from the
US 36 BRT stations and surrounding areas.
Image from Nelson\Nygaard
Transportation Management Organizations (TMOs)
are membership-based organizations that work with
local businesses, residents, and city leaders to enhance
travel options in Boulder. TMOs in Boulder are
located in two important and growing areas: Boulder
Transportation Connections serves the city of Boulder
with a focus on employer outreach and Business Eco
Pass expansion; US 36 Commuting Solutions serves
the residents and businesses along the US 36 corridor.
3-11 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Travel Demand in Boulder
Assessing the market for public transportation between
Boulder neighborhoods and between Boulder and
the region is a foundational component of the transit
element of the TMP. A range of factors combine to
affect the demand for transit in Boulder and the
region. Some are quantifiable; others are more subtle.
Extensive industry research shows that the built
environment – including land use density and mix
of uses, neighborhood form, and connectivity in the
transportation network – significantly impacts travel
behavior. Compact development is also linked to
positive externalities such as reduced greenhouse gas
emissions, community health, and improved livability.
This section provides an overview of existing travel
patterns in Boulder and how existing and future land
use patterns and demographic trends may influence
the demand for transit in Boulder and the region.
How the City of Boulder Compares to the Region
Compared to the Denver region and the nation,
the city of Boulder has:
y The highest number of people who bike to
work (10.5% compared to 0.8% in Denver and
0.5% in the nation)
y The highest number of people who walk to
work (9.1% compared to 2.1% in Denver and
2.8% in the nation)
y Twice the Denver and national average for
transit use
Source: City of Boulder. (2012) “Boulder Report on
Progress”
How do people travel within Boulder?
The 2008 TMP includes an objective of 25% single-oc-
cupancy vehicle (SOV) use by the year 2025 for all trips
by Boulder residents. As shown in Figure 3-3, the City of
Boulder is not on course to meet this goal. In 2012, the
SOV mode split for all trips was 35.9%. To meet the SOV
goal by 2025, SOV trips between 2013 and 2025 would
have to shift at an average rate of 2.5% per year.
Compared to “all trips”, the SOV rate for commute trips
in Boulder is higher at 48.5% in 2012 (see Figure 3-4 on
page 3-12).
Figure 3-3 City of Boulder Mode Split for All Trips, 1990 – 2012
Mode Split for All Trips 1990 - 2012
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018 2021 2024 2025
SOV 44.20% 42.30% 40.50% 41.50% 40.40% 41.50% 39% 38.40% 37.10% 35.90%25%
Pedestrian 18.20% 17.10% 9.20% 20.40% 21.40% 19.80% 18.60% 18.90% 17.90% 20.30%
Multiple Occupancy Vehicle 26.30% 25.70% 25.60% 25.60% 25% 23.80% 23.50% 25.00% 23.70% 19.60%
Bicycle 9.10% 12.10% 11.30% 9.20% 8.20% 10% 14% 13.60% 15.90% 18.70%
Transit 1.60% 2.20% 2.90% 2.80% 4.10% 4.20% 4.60% 4% 5.40% 4.90%
Goal
-4.30% -4.26% 2.47% -2.65% 2.72% -6.02% -1.54% -3.39% -3.23%2.307692
-30%
2.5
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
1990 1998 2009 2021
sov
Carpool
Walk
Bike
Transit
Source: Mode Shift in the Boulder Valley, 1990 – 2012
Current SOV mode share
is 36%
2025 SOV mode share
goal is 25%
25%
3-12 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Compared to the Denver region and the nation, Boulder residents are twice as likely to
take transit to work, walk more than three times as often, and are more than five times
as likely to bike to work (see Figure 3-5). Boulder residents are also nearly three times
as likely to work from home.
Looking at the types of trips in the region can help inform transit service planning and
the marketing efforts that Boulder and its partners will use to encourage people to
take transit more often and for more types of trips. In 2012, most of Boulder residents’
trips were for the purpose of work (not including those identified as “home trips”)
followed by social/recreation trips. The goal of the Transportation Master Plan Update
will be to shift all types of trips to transit, biking, and walking.
Figure 3-4 City of Boulder Mode Split for Commute Trips, 1990 – 2012
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
1990 1994 1998 2003 2009
sov
Carpool
Walk
Bike
Transit
Source: Mode Shift in the Boulder Valley, 1990 – 2012
Figure 3-5 Comparison of Commute Mode Share in Boulder, Denver
Metropolitan Statistical Area, and the U.S.
53%
6%10%9%11%11%
76%
10%5%2%2%6%
76%
10%5%3%2%4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Boulder
Denver MSA
US
Boulder residents are twice as likely
to take transit to work, three times
as likely to walk, and five times as
likely to bike than the national
average.
Source: American Community Survey Five-Year Estimates (2007 – 2011)
Note: The commute mode share in this figure is different than the mode share in Figure 3-3 due
to different data sources (2012 Travel Diary compared to 2007-2011 American
Community Survey)
3-13 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Figure 3-7 Boulder Employee In-Commute Mode Share
Drive alone
79.9%
Carpool
14.0%
Transit
5%
Bicycle
0.5% Walk
0.4% Source: Census Transportation Planning Products (CTPP). 2006 – 2008
American Community Survey “Journey to Work.”
Note: In-commute data is not available for communities with fewer
than 20,000 residents. For example, employees from the following
communities in Boulder County traveling to Boulder for work were
not counted: Jamestown, Louisville, Lyons, Nederland, Ward, Superior,
or Erie.
Figure 3-6 Boulder Employee Commute Patterns
2006 2008 2010 2012
# of Jobs % of Jobs # of Jobs % of Jobs # of Jobs % of Jobs # of Jobs % of Jobs
TOTAL JOBS 98,400 100%97,753 100%96,800 100%99,400 100%
In-Commuters 51,556 52%52,852 54%52,907 55%59,000 59%
Live Here/Work Here 46,844 48%44,901 46%43,893 45%40,400 41%
Out-Commuters 13,992 11,733 10,296 13,500
Source: City of Boulder
Notes: The City of Boulder commuting estimates are a labor force driven estimate, using a mixture of federal and local data sources,
and a set of local and state assumptions and factors. The estimate begins with an estimated number of households (City and State
estimate), and develops a resident labor force (the population of workers) using a factor of 1.3 workers per household (State Depart-
ment of Labor). The total employment estimate is developed using US Bureau of Labor Statistics data, reviewed for accuracy at a local
level by the University of Colorado at Boulder LEEDS School of Business – Business Research Division, and a self employed factor (10%)
is applied to establish a total jobs estimate.
How do people travel to Boulder?
In 2012, of the 99,400 employees in Boulder, ap-
proximately 59% (or 59,000) lived outside of Boulder
(see Figure 3-6). By comparison, only 41% of employees
(40,400) both live and work in Boulder.
The number of employees commuting into Boulder has
grown (as a percent of total employees and as a total
number employees) over the last six years, from 51,556
employees in 2006 (or 52%) to 59,000 employees in
2012 (59%).
It should be noted that this data includes commute
trips only; it does not account for students traveling to
school. Between 1993 and 2009, the percent of Univer-
sity of Colorado students living outside of Boulder also
increased from 15% of undergraduates in 1993 to 41%
in 2009 (not including students who live on campus).
The majority of Boulder in-commuters drive to work
alone. Figure 3-8 shows the mode share for commuters
traveling to Boulder for work from areas outside the
city. Eighty percent drive alone, compared to 48.5% of
Boulder residents who commute within Boulder for
work.
7 University of Colorado.
3-14 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
What are the Existing Land Use Patterns?
Figure 3-8 shows the existing land use designations
and future development areas in Boulder.
y Boulder has a long history of transit-supportive
land use practices and urban design principles
that have primarily been realized in downtown
Boulder.
y Mixed-use development is located primarily in
the central core of the city.
y Higher density residential is primarily in down-
town Boulder near the Transit Center and scat-
tered throughout the city to the immediate east
and west of the University and between 30th
Street and 47th Street surrounding Diagonal
Plaza.
y Boulder has significant areas of single-family
residential developments to the north of down-
town, south of the University of Colorado, and in
Gunbarrel.
y Industrial, manufacturing, and warehousing
is concentrated east of 30th Avenue, north of
Arapahoe, and south of Independence Road.
Commute traffic on US 36 is already an issue. With
projected increases in population and employment
along the US 36 corridor between Boulder and
Denver, traffic volumes are projected to increase
dramatically over the next two decades.
Image from Nelson\Nygaard
Figure 3-8 Existing Land Use and Key Development Areas
3-15 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Where do People Live and Work in Boulder?
Figure 3-9 shows the population and employment
density in Boulder in 2013.
Population and employment density have a significant
impact on transit demand. As density increases, incen-
tives to use transit (or disincentives to driving) such
as traffic congestion, parking availability, and parking
rates tend to increase. Areas of high employment and
residential density (mixed-use areas) are primarily in
downtown, at the University, and along 28th Street from
downtown to Iris Avenue. Areas of high employment-
only density in Boulder are found in East Boulder.
Figure 3-9 Population and Employment Density, 2013
3-16 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
How will Population and Employment
Density Change by 2035?
Figure 3-10 shows the projected change in employ-
ment and residential density in Boulder between 2013
and 2035. By 2035, high employment and residential
density is expected to fill in around 30th Street and
Pearl Parkway – the future home of Boulder Junction.
Residential and employment density is also expected
to increase between 28th Street and 30th Street to
the west of the CU East Campus, east of the Boulder
Community Hospital along Arapahoe Street, and in
Gunbarrel south of Lookout Road between 63rd Street
and Spine Road.
Population and employment is also expected to in-
crease in Boulder County. Population and employment
in Larimer, Weld, Jefferson, and Broomfield counties is
expected to exceed growth in Boulder County.8
Figure 3-10 Projected Population and Employment Growth, 2013-2035
8 Boulder County. 2012. Transportation Master Plan.
3-17 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Where are People most Likely
to be Transit Dependent?
The transit use propensity (TUP) index combines the
strongest indicators of transit demand. The TUP is based
on population and employment densities, a transit
dependency index (low-income households, persons
with disabilities, and seniors aged 65+), and rates of
access to automobiles.
TUP scores are the highest in neighborhoods around
the University of Colorado, in south Boulder, and
along 28th Street in north Boulder (see Figure 3-12).
Figure 3-11 provides a summary of demographic
characteristics in Boulder that likely affect the demand
for transit. Compared to Colorado, the proportion of
seniors and youth is approximately the same, however
the proportion of college age students in Boulder
is nearly double that of the state. The percent of the
population whose income is below the poverty level is
also considerably higher in Boulder (21% compared to
13% in the state). This is likely influenced by the large
number of university students in Boulder.
Figure 3-11 Summary of Demographic Characteristics in Boulder
Demographic Category
City of Boulder Colorado
Number %Number %
Total Population 97,385 5,029,196
Senior (65+)8,704 9%533,046 11%
Youth (10-17)5,705 6%275,905 5%
College Age (18-21)19,158 20%549,625 11%
Population whose income is
below the poverty level
19,170 21%607,727 13%
No Vehicle Households 3,209 8%111,148 6%
Source: Census 2010 and 2007-2011 ACS 5YR Estimates
Figure 3-12 Transit Use Propensity Index
3-18 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Where do People Access Transit?
Figure 3-14, Figure 3-15, and Figure 3-16 provide a
summary of downtown Boulder, local/in-county, and
regional ridership by stop. In Boulder, daily boardings
are the highest in downtown, at the University of
Colorado, Fairview High School, major shopping
destinations such as the Twenty Ninth Street Mall and
Diagonal Plaza, and at major park and ride facilities in
south Boulder (the three park and rides on Table Mesa
Road). Areas with managed (paid) parking in down-
town (between 9th and 18th) and at the University
show particularly high ridership.
In the communities surrounding Boulder, high-
boarding stops are primarily located at park and ride
stations. Strong ridership is already evident along the
US 36 corridor (Figure 3-16).
Figure 3-17 and Figure 3-18 show the concentration of
Business Eco Pass and Neighborhood Eco Pass holders
(respectively) compared to average daily ridership.
While ridership can be correlated to community Eco
Pass holders in some cases, land use is the dominant
predictor of ridership. However, ridership has been
positively associated with having an Eco Pass. Since
1998, between 3% and 6% of non-Eco Pass holders
made at least one trip by bus compared to between
17% and 23% of Eco Pass holders (see Figure 3-13 at
right). Thus, Eco Pass holders have a greater propensity
to use transit.
Figure 3-13 Bus Ridership by Eco Pass Status:
Percent of Respondents Who Made at Least One Trip on the Bus
19.60%
22.90%
20.30%19.40%18.60%
16.80%
4.60%3.80%3.50%3.20%
6.00%
4.40%
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
1998 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012
Has Eco Pass No Eco Pass
Source: City of Boulder Modal Shift in the Boulder Valley, 1990 – 2012
3-19 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Figure 3-14 Average Daily Ridership in Downtown Boulder
3-20 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Figure 3-15 Average Daily Ridership in Boulder and Boulder County
3-21 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Figure 3-16 Average Daily Ridership in the Region
3-22 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Figure 3-17 Ridership Compared to Business Eco Pass Holders
3-23 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Figure 3-18 Ridership Compared to Neighborhood Eco Pass Holders
3-24 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Where are People Traveling?
A key goal of the Boulder TMP is to capture more walking, biking,
and transit trips. To plan effectively for these changes, it is important
to know where trips start and end today and how trip making might
change in the future. This analysis is based on the Denver Regional
Council of Governments (DRCOG) regional model using origin-
destination data for the year 2010 and a forecast of trips for the year
2035. In this section, this data is summarized and illustrated to describe
travel demand between Boulder neighborhoods and between Boulder
and the region. The maps in Figure 3-19 through Figure 3-22 illustrate
major point-to-point travel patterns.
Since it is not possible to analyze every individual point of travel, this
analysis uses two levels of geographic zones:
1. Local Market Analysis Areas: The DRCOG travel demand model
in Boulder evaluates travel between 156 travel analysis zones
(TAZs) in Boulder and Gunbarrel.
2. Regional Market Analysis Areas: These zones are organized
to represent areas of the region that flow into Boulder on the
relatively few major highway and transit corridors that enter the
city.
In the following maps, it is important to consider the following:
y Data is from the 2010 regional travel demand model and
is calibrated using actual travel counts where available;
however, much of the data is simply a calculation of pre-
sumed travel behavior based on model algorithms.
y Trips internal to the local and regional market analysis areas
are not illustrated.
y The point-to-point analysis does not consider assignment
of trips available to streets or transit routes. In viewing the
data, it is helpful to think about how various point-to-point
travel markets aggregate in actual travel corridors.
y Trips are not segregated by mode, trip purpose, or time of
travel (i.e. peak vs. off-peak).
Figure 3-19 Origin-Destination Pairs in Boulder (2010)
3-25 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Figure 3-20 Origin-Destination Pairs in the Region (2010)
3-26 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Figure 3-21 Top 10 Origin-Destination Pairs in Boulder (Projected Change 2010-2035)
3-27 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Figure 3-22 Origin-Destination Pairs in the Region (Projected Change 2010-2035)
3-28 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Future Development in Boulder
According to population and employment growth
projections and regional forecasting, future areas
of land use change will be primarily focused in East
Boulder and Gunbarrel. Other than opportunities for
relatively small infill developments, downtown Boulder
and the main University of Colorado campus are largely
built out. East Boulder, however, provides opportu-
nity for redevelopment. These provide an important
opportunity for Boulder to continue the walkable and
transit-supportive urban form of downtown in East
Boulder.
Boulder Junction
Boulder Junction is a transit-oriented development
located east of downtown Boulder, in the geographic
center of the community across from the Whole Foods
Market on Pearl Street and around the corner from the
Twenty Ninth Street retail district, a major shopping and
entertainment destination.
Guided by the Transit Village Area Plan, this 160-acre
site will be transformed into a lively, mixed-use,
pedestrian-oriented place where people will live, work,
and shop. Boulder Junction will become a new neigh-
borhood and an attractive destination for residents
and visitors, with regional bus transit connections at
Depot Square (see Chapter 4) and public spaces that
will benefit the entire Boulder community. The Transit
Village Area Plan envisions a community with buildings
oriented to the street, usable open space, pedestrian-
scale facades, and attractive parking structures that are
integrated into the landscape. Between 1,400 – 2,400
new residential units will be built, added 2,800 to 5,000
residents.
Similar to downtown and the University of Colorado
campus today, program incentives and managed, paid
parking will encourage area residents, employees,
and shoppers to choose transit, walking, bicycling,
ride-sharing, and telecommuting over driving. The goal
is to use parking management and design strategies for
Boulder Junction to help inform and continue this type
of development in other areas of East Boulder.
Boulder Junction will be a transit-oriented development located east of downtown in the geographic center
of the community. The image above is a rendering of the Depot Square development, one of the projects cur-
rently under construction in the area.
Image from City of Boulder
3-29 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
The CU East Campus includes 197 acres of
developable land with the potential for over 4
million square feet of new building space.
Image from University of Colorado – Boulder
University of Colorado East Campus
The University of Colorado (CU) currently has 29,278 students enrolled, with a 2030 goal of 35,000 students. The
main CU campus is almost entirely built out with classrooms already at capacity and facilities already outdated. CU
east campus will be fully integrated with the main campus with frequent bus service, biking and walking facilities,
housing, classrooms, and laboratory facilities. The CU East Campus is bound by 30th Street and Foothills Parkway
(east to west) and Arapahoe Avenue and Colorado Avenue (north to south). The East Campus includes 197 acres of
developable land, with the potential for over 4 million square feet of new building space.9
The CU East Campus Connections Project is a partnership between CU and the City to identify mutually agreed upon
projects to “move the bar forward” on important sustainable transportation connections that will be needed in the
east campus area. A primary goal of the transit element of the TMP will be seamless connections for students, faculty,
and staff to walk, bike, and use the bus between Main and East Campuses as well as to major areas in Boulder such
as downtown, Boulder Junction, Twenty Ninth Street retail, and Williams Village.
Boulder Community Hospital –
Foothills Campus
Boulder Community Hospital – Foothills Campus is
located along Arapahoe Avenue and 48th Street in East
Boulder. The hospital is in the process of consolidating
the majority of its inpatient acute care services at
Boulder Community Foothills Hospital to improve
access to critical services for most residents of Boulder
County. More than 100,000 square feet of clinical
space is expected to be added to the current Foothills
Hospital, along with additional medical office space.
The expansion is expected to be completed by 2014.
Gunbarrel
The Gunbarrel area is located northeast of Boulder.
Although currently a mix of light industrial and com-
mercial uses, the Gunbarrel Community Center Plan
envisions a denser, mixed-use retail core with improved
pedestrian and bicycling facilities and improved access
to transit.10 Population and employment projections
(see Figure 3-11 on page 3-17) show that the Gunbarrel
area will experience significant population and employ-
ment growth by 2035. The Gunbarrel town center
development is anticipated to begin construction in
2014.
10 Gunbarrel Community Center Plan.
9 University of Colorado. “East Campus Vision.”
3-30 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Future Local and Regional Growth
The City of Boulder estimates that employment will
increase by 19% between 2012 and 2035; dwelling
units and population are also expected to grow by
12%, adding nearly 6,000 dwelling units and over
14,000 new residents to the community by 2035 (see
Figure 3-23 below). The Boulder region is also expected
to grow. According to regional forecasts, the popula-
tion along US 36 is expected to rise 28%, employment
will expand 53%, and traffic volumes are projected to
increase dramatically over the next 15 years.11 Boulder
is expected to continue to be a strong employment
base for the region, which will increase the number of
people traveling to Boulder for all types of trips.
Figure 3-23 Boulder Projected Employment,
Dwelling Unit, and Population
Growth, 2012 and 2035
Growth Type 2012 2035 % Change
Employment 99,400 121,505 +22%
Dwelling Units 43,617 57,504 +32%
Population 99,069 130,248 +31%
Source: City of Boulder Department of Community Planning
and Sustainability
Uptown Broadway apartments is located on the corner of Yarmouth Ave and 14th Street.
Image from Nelson\Nygaard
Housing Affordability
The ability for Boulder to address the regional commute
issue will depend partly on the accessibility of afford-
able housing. The City is committed to preserving and
promoting affordable housing and has a goal to supply
10% affordable housing. A Comprehensive Housing
Strategy is currently underway to address housing
affordability in Boulder.
In 1999, 43% of Boulder’s households earned between
$50,000 and $150,000 per year; by 2011, the proportion
had dropped to 37%. Meanwhile, the percentage of city
households earning over $200,000 per year increased
from 7% to 9% during the same time period.12 The
median price for all housing units in 2011 was $501,800
compared to $344,600 in Boulder County.13 In 2008,
almost a third of households in Boulder with mortgages
were spending more than 35% of their monthly income
on housing costs, compared with 20% in 2000 and 17%
in 1990.13 Housing affordability will be a key factor in
achieving the city’s mode share goals.
11 US 36 Commuting Solutions.
12 City of Boulder. 2013. Boulder City Council Study Session
“Developing a New Comprehensive Housing Strategy for
Boulder” May 14, 2013.
13 City of Boulder. 2013. Boulder City Council Study Session
“Developing a New Comprehensive Housing Strategy for
Boulder” May 14, 2013.
14 City of Boulder. (2010) Summary of Key Trends: Boulder
Valley Comprehensive Plan.
3-31 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Key Issues to be Explored in the Renewed Vision for Transit
Chapter 3 provides an overview of land use and travel demand in Boulder – key factors that will
influence the future of transit use in the city and region. Based on the findings in this chapter,
the Renewed Vision for Transit will focus on the following:
y Transit Supportive Land Use: Identify opportunities to create well connected, compact
urban form on blocks closest to the community core or transit network to support high
frequency transit service.
y Increase Transit Mode Share: In recent years, Boulder has been successful increasing
walk and bicycle mode share, while transit has remained stagnant. A key desired out-
come of this plan is to increase transit mode share in the short-term and over the plan
period.
y Regional Partnerships: Explore opportunities to continue to build effective regional
partnerships to address the growing in-commute.
y Focus on Areas of Opportunity: Identify integrated transportation and land use strate-
gies to accommodate the growing population and employment that is projected at
Boulder Junction, CU east campus, around the Boulder Community Hospital on Arapa-
hoe, and in Gunbarrel.
y Anticipate Projected Demand: Population and employment are projected to grow
considerably over the next 20+ years (12% and 19% respectively). When developing
transit alternatives, consider projected trip patterns resulting from growth, and transit
needs – both fixed route and demand responsive – resulting from areas with increased
concentrations of youth, elderly populations, low-income residents, and carless house-
holds.
y Housing Affordability: In partnership with the Comprehensive Housing Strategy, ex-
plore opportunities for transit to improve overall affordability for Boulder residents and
workers.
y In-commuting and Climate Commitment: The City has recently committed to an 80
percent reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2050. As transportation GHG
emissions are correlated to vehicle miles of travel, transit and other high occupancy
modes of travel will be critical to reducing GHG emissions.
TRANSIT IN BOULDERCHAPTER 4
IN THIS CHAPTER
• Fixed route transit service
• Key transit facilities
• Who rides transit in Boulder?
• Fixed route system performance
• Summary of route performance
• Fixed route transit funding
• Other transportation service
• Key issues to be explored in the
Renewed Vision for Transit
City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT 4-1
CHAPTER FOUR
TRANSIT IN BOULDER
“The community wanted pedestrian-scale
buses with big windows so that people on
the street and on the bus could actually
make eye contact. They wanted perimeter
seating on the bus to encourage
conversation so that we were actually
creating community, not just serving the
community.”
– Tracy Winfree, Director of Public Works
Fixed Route Transit Service
Evolution of the Transit System in Boulder
A network of local and regional fixed route transit lines serves the city of Boulder and
connects the city to the surrounding region. This section provides an overview of fixed
route1 transit service providers in the region, a summary of key facilities, an overview
of the demographic profile of fixed route transit riders, a summary of transit line and
system performance, and an overview of fixed route transit funding sources and
trends. Note: detailed route profiles are provided in Appendix A.
Fixed Route Transit Service Providers
Fixed-route transit service in Boulder is operated by two primary service providers: Via
Mobility, a private non profit transit provider in Boulder that also operates paratransit
service (see “Via Mobility Services Paratransit Service” for more details on page 4-27), and
the Regional Transit District (RTD).
Local and regional transit maps are provided in Figure 4-1 and Figure 4-2. Figures 4-3
through 4-9 show fixed route transit frequency. Note: in this section and throughout this
report, “local” routes refer to routes within Boulder; “regional” routes refer to routes that
have one terminus in Boulder and serve Boulder County, the US 36 corridor, and Denver.
City of Boulder Service (Operated by Via Mobility Services)
The HOP bus was the first branded Community Transit Network route, providing
frequent service to downtown, the University, and the Twenty Ninth Street Mall.
Community Transit Network
In the early 1990s, the City of Boulder decided it needed a new and more customer-
responsive approach to transit delivery; the City went to the people to create a bus
system that met their needs and overcame the obstacles that kept people off the bus.
At the time, RTD provided service to downtown, the University, and the Crossroads
Mall using its regionally standard bus fleet.
1 Fixed route transit service is service provided on a consistent schedule and route.
Evolution of the Transit System in Boulder
In 1990, 15,100 customers rode the bus in Boulder each day. Transit service
consisted of a hub and spoke system focused on the downtown, with buses
arriving every half hour at best. Since then, transit has become a centerpiece
of the transportation system, transformed through deliberate initiatives to
attract new riders. Transit service now arrives every 10 minutes or less on
many of the city’s busiest transportation corridors. On average, more than
30,000 daily trips were made in 2012.
The HOP bus was the first branded Community Transit Network route, providing frequent
service to downtown, the University,and the Twenty Ninth Street Mall.
Image from Nelson\Nygaard
4-2 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
The inspiration for the Community Transit Network
(CTN) was driven by the following community desires:
y Quiet neighborhood-scale buses
y Low-floor pedestrian scale buses with large
windows
y Buses so frequent you didn’t need a schedule
y Perimeter seating on the bus to encourage com-
munity interaction
Based on the community’s input, the City launched
the HOP service in 1994 to connect major destinations
throughout the community. HOP service is operated
by Via Mobility Services. HOP buses arrive every 10
minutes or less from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. The vehicles have
big windows, seating that promotes conversation, on-
board music, and are branded on the exterior with bold
and distinctive graphics. The HOP’s ridership exceeded
projections within the first six weeks of service. The
success of the HOP launched the Community Transit
Network – which today includes seven high-frequency
branded bus routes including the SKIP, JUMP, BOUND,
STAMPEDE, DASH, and BOLT. The City contracts with Via
Mobility Services to operate the HOP route. The City of
Boulder has a long-standing partnership with RTD and
the University of Colorado who also contribute funding
to help pay for HOP service. The City also provides
funding for additional service on the JUMP and BOUND
(see more information in the Funding section on page
4-25). The Regional Transportation District (RTD)
operates the other CTN routes.
HOP 2 Chautauqua
Also operated by Via, the City partners with the Colo-
rado Chautauqua Association (CCA) and the Colorado
Music Festival (CMF)to operate the HOP 2 Chautauqua
route during the summer, providing transit service to
Chautauqua Park every fifteen minutes at the following
intersections on CCA and CMF concert nights:
y 11th and Pearl Street
y 13th and Pearl Street
y Spruce and Broadway Street
y Chautauqua Park
y 27th Way Park-and-Ride
y 9th Street between downtown and Chautauqua
Regional Transportation District
The Regional Transportation District is the local mass
transit operator providing service to 8 counties with 40
municipalities in the Denver region, including Boulder.
RTD operates the bus and light rail system for the
greater Denver region – a service area of 2,337 square
miles with 2.8 million residents. RTD provides regular
service on six light rail lines and 127 bus routes with
over 100 million annual boardings. Boulder service
makes up approximately 10% of RTD’s total service
hours (323,728 Boulder service hours in 2011 compared
to 3,069,882 district-wide).2
Aside from the HOP and CLIMB, fixed route transit
service operating within the City of Boulder or between
Boulder and other Boulder County communities is
operated by RTD. RTD operates 12 local and 12 regional
routes in Boulder.
RTD also operates 12 regional routes into Boulder
from Denver and the Denver International Airport,
Longmont, Golden, Nederland, and Lyons with funding
assistance from the City of Boulder (JUMP, BOUND) and
CU (STAMPEDE).
Boulder County
The CLIMB route is funded by Boulder County and
operated by Via Mobility Services. The CLIMB, recently
implemented by Boulder County, provides limited
service between Boulder and Gold Hill.
2 City of Boulder. “System and Trends.”
City of Boulder and Boulder County Eco Pass Program
In 1994, the City launched its Eco Pass program,
a discounted annual transit pass purchased by
employers, universities and neighborhoods. City
surveys have found that people with an Eco
Pass are four to seven times more likely to use
transit than those without a pass. The changes
in travel behavior associated with access to an
Eco Pass translate into significant reductions
in vehicle trips and mobile emissions, with an
estimated 40% lower emissions. For work trips,
Boulder employees with an Eco Pass travel less
than half the annual vehicle commute miles
compared to employees without a pass. The
Eco Pass program was extended to the Boulder
Valley School District in 2009 and to East Boulder
businesses in 2011. In 2012, 69,425 people who
live, work, or study in Boulder have access to
Eco Passes. The City and County are currently
conducting a study to assess the feasibility of a
countywide Eco Pass program.
Boulder County launched its Community Eco
Pass program in 2011. As of 2013, over 1,500 Eco
Passes are distributed in Lyons and over 1,300 in
Nederland, and the County is working to increase
distribution. The County also sponsors a Business
and Neighborhood Program, which currently
distributes over 800 passes. The University
BuffOne Card allows faculty and staff to ride the
Buff Bus and all RTD buses fare free. Nederland
saw a 40% increase in ridership on the N route
after the Nederland Eco Pass program began.
The Eco Pass Extra program allows Eco Pass
holders to save with discounts at restaurants
and stores at participating local businesses.
More information about the Eco Pass program is
available at: http://www.boulderecopass.com/
pricing.html.
4-3 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
US 36 Bus Rapid Transit
FasTracks is RTD’s multi-billion dollar comprehensive transit expansion plan
to build 122 miles of new commuter rail and light rail, 18 miles of bus rapid
transit, and 21,000 new parking spaces at light rail and bus stations across the
eight-county RTD service district. FastTracks is funded, in part, by a voter-
approved 0.40% sales tax increase in 2004. For Boulder, FasTracks is projected
to bring 18 miles of bus rapid transit (BRT) service between downtown Boulder
and Denver along US 36. Phase I of the project was completed in 2010 – system
improvements including the opening of the US 36 and Broomfield park-and-
ride. Phase I was estimated to cost $23.3 million. Phase 2 of the project – a
more than $200 million effort – will implement the high frequency BRT service
along the corridor and is schedule to be complete in 2015.
NW Area Mobility Study
The original FasTracks plan approved by voters in 2004 called for commuter rail
along the U.S. 36 corridor to East Boulder and along the Burlington Northern
Santa Fe tracks to Longmont by 2014. However, diminished sales-tax revenue
and higher prices triggered by an economic downturn caused RTD to scale
back the plan. RTD’s NW Area Mobility Study will develop consensus among
RTD, Colorado Department of Transportation, and corridor stakeholders, on
cost-effective mobility improvements to serve the northwest area.
The RTD study will analyze several corridor options under the FasTracks
plan, including alignments of the Northwest Rail Line from Westminster to
Longmont, the extension of the North Metro commuter-rail line to Longmont,
several potential Boulder County BRT corridors, and the design and operating
element to
implement a
complete BRT
system on US 36
(beyond what
is scoped for
January 2016
opening).
4-4 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Figure 4-1 Boulder Local Transit Service
4-5 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Figure 4-2 Boulder Regional Transit Service
4-6 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Figure 4-3 Local Midday Transit Frequency
4-7 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Figure 4-4 Local Peak Hour Transit Frequency
4-8 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Figure 4-5 Regional Midday Transit Frequency
4-9 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Figure 4-6 Regional Peak Hour Transit Frequency
4-10 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Figure 4-7 Weekday Frequency
Frequency
WKDY: 204 (Southbound)
WKDY: 204 (Northbound)30
205 (Eastbound)30
205 (Westbound)12 30
206 (Southbound)
206 (Northbound)
208 (Eastbound)
208 (Westbound)
209 (Southbound)30 17
209 (Northbound)16 22 16 40
225 (Eastbound)30
225 (Westbound)
BOUND (Southbound)20 15
BOUND (Northbound)20 15
DASH (Eastbound)30
DASH (Westbound)30
HOP (Clock-wise)
HOP (Counter Clock-wise)
JUMP (Eastbound)
JUMP (Westbound)30
SKIP (Southbound)12-17
SKIP (Northbound)
STAMPEDE (Eastbound)
STAMPEDE (Westbound)
AB (Eastbound)
AB (Westbound)
B (Eastbound)
B (Westbound)30
BOLT (Southbound)
BOLT (Northbound)
DD (Southbound)30
DD (Northbound)30
DM (Eastbound)
DM (Westbound)
GS (Southbound)
GS (Northbound)
HX (Eastbound)
HX (Westbound)36
J (Southbound)28
J (Northbound)30
N (Eastbound)60 30
N (Westbound)
S (Eastbound)
S (Westbound)
T (Southbound)
T (Northbound)
The Climb (Eastbound)
The Climb (Westbound)
Y (Southbound)
Y (Northbound)
YL (Eastbound)
YL (Westbound)
*Only operates Thursday through Saturday
25
2-30 2-10 1-9 8-30 30
60 88
208 80 74-76
62 75 217 345
30
45
23 67 60 30 67
71 100-1206070120
21-28 55
43 54 60
60 30 45 60
30 9:00 AM3:30 AM4:00 AM4:30 AM30 30 12:30 AM30
30 1:00 AM1:30 AM2:00 AM2:30 AM3:00 AM23-30 7-27 308:30 AM9-1315
30
30
20-30
30
15 30
60
30
15
10 7-10 15
15 30 10-18 30
28 25-35
30 18-25
12-19 15
30 12-18
18-2115
30 1515
30
6-24 20
60
30 14-17
15
10 15
7012660
60
15 21-24 30
18-20
25-36 60
30 15
12-40
60 45 30 28-38
80
15
7-10
60 87
30 15
30
30
1510
30 13-17 30
12-18
30
30
703060
15
30
60 30
70 36
10
14-17
60
15
307:00 AM11030-35
30
157-10
7-10
90 90
60
1 Trip5:00 AM5:30 AM6:00 AM6:30 AM7:30 AM8:00 AM9:30 AM10:00 AM10:30 AM11:00 AM11:30 AM12:00 PM6:00 PM12:30 PM1:00 PM1:30 PM2:00 PM2:30 PM3:00 PM7:00 PM7:30 PM8:00 PM8:30 PM9:00 PM3:30 PM4:00 PM4:30 PM5:00 PM5:30 PM10:00 PM10:30 PM11:00 PM6:30 PM14-23
125
60 45
30
1 Trip
1 Trip 1 Trip
60120-127
10 11:30 PM12:00 AM45
26-34
30
10
10 309:30 PM3-20 29-34 6025-30 2-23
1 Trip
1 Trip
15
15 30 60
60
30
5-10 10 5-10 15
60
35
30
4-11 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Figure 4-8 Saturday Frequency
SAT: 204 (Southbound)
SAT: 204 (Northbound)
205 (Eastbound)
205 (Westbound)
206 (Southbound)
206 (Northbound)
208 (Eastbound)
208 (Westbound)
209 (Southbound)
209 (Northbound)
225 (Eastbound)
225 (Westbound)
BOUND (Southbound)
BOUND (Northbound)
DASH (Eastbound)
DASH (Westbound)
HOP (Clock-wise)
HOP (Counter Clock-wise)
JUMP (Eastbound)40
JUMP (Westbound)
SKIP (Southbound)
SKIP (Northbound)
STAMPEDE (Eastbound)
STAMPEDE (Westbound)
AB (Eastbound)
AB (Westbound)
B (Eastbound)
B (Westbound)
BOLT (Southbound)
BOLT (Northbound)
DD (Southbound)
DD (Northbound)
DM (Eastbound)
DM (Westbound)
GS (Southbound)
GS (Northbound)
HX (Eastbound)
HX (Westbound)
J (Southbound)
J (Northbound)
N (Eastbound)
N (Westbound)
S (Eastbound)
S (Westbound)
T (Southbound)
T (Northbound)
The Climb (Eastbound)
The Climb (Westbound)
Y (Southbound)
Y (Northbound)
YL (Eastbound)
YL (Westbound)
15
15
40 30 4:00 AM4:30 AM1:00 AM1:30 AM2:00 AM2:30 AM3:00 AM3:30 AM10:00 PM10:30 PM11:00 PM11:30 PM12:00 AM12:30 AM30
30 15
30 15
60
60
605:00 AM5:30 AM306:00 AM60
601:00 PM1:30 PM88
60
60
60 306:30 AM7:00 AM7:30 AM8:00 AM8:30 AM60
30
60
10 30
30
30 10:30 AM11:00 AM30 60
60
6011:30 AM12:00 PM12:30 PM10:00 AM9:00 AM4:30 PM5:00 PM5:30 PM6:00 PM3:00 PM3:30 PM4:00 PM2:00 PM9:30 AM6:30 PM7:00 PM7:30 PM8:00 PM8:30 PM9:00 PM602:30 PM60
30 60 9:30 PM606030
Frequency
60 30 60
30 10 30
4-12 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Figure 4-9 Sunday / Holiday Frequency
204 (Southbound)
204 (Northbound)
205 (Eastbound)
205 (Westbound)
206 (Southbound)
206 (Northbound)
208 (Eastbound)
208 (Westbound)
209 (Southbound)
209 (Northbound)
225 (Eastbound)
225 (Westbound)
BOUND (Southbound)
BOUND (Northbound)
DASH (Eastbound)
DASH (Westbound)
HOP (Clock-wise)
HOP (Counter Clock-wise)
JUMP (Eastbound)
JUMP (Westbound)
SKIP (Southbound)
SKIP (Northbound)
STAMPEDE (Eastbound)
STAMPEDE (Westbound)
AB (Eastbound)
AB (Westbound)
B (Eastbound)
B (Westbound)
BOLT (Southbound)
BOLT (Northbound)
DD (Southbound)
DD (Northbound)
DM (Eastbound)
DM (Westbound)
GS (Southbound)
GS (Northbound)
HX (Eastbound)
HX (Westbound)
J (Southbound)
J (Northbound)
N (Eastbound)
N (Westbound)
S (Eastbound)
S (Westbound)
T (Southbound)
T (Northbound)
The Climb (Eastbound)
The Climb (Westbound)
Y (Southbound)
Y (Northbound)
YL (Eastbound)
YL (Westbound)4:30 AM2:30 AM3:00 AM7:00 PM7:30 PM8:00 PM8:30 PM9:00 PM9:30 PM3:30 AM4:00 AM10:30 PM11:00 PM11:30 PM12:00 AM12:30 AM1:00 AM1:30 AM2:00 AM4:00 PM4:30 PM5:00 PM5:30 PM6:00 PM6:30 PM11:00 AM11:30 AM12:00 PM12:30 PM1:00 PM1:30 PM5:00 AM5:30 AM6:00 AM6:30 AM7:00 AM7:30 AM8:00 AM8:30 AM60
30 60
60
30
30
30 15 30
30
60
15
60
60
15 30
7860
60
16
60
30
30 60
60 30 60
60
60
30
60 30 609:00 AM9:30 AM10:00 AM10:30 AM2:00 PM2:30 PM3:00 PM3:30 PM10:00 PM60 30 60
60 30 60
Frequency
4-13 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Key Transit Facilities
Downtown Boulder Transit Center
Boulder’s Downtown Transit Center is located on the
corner of Walnut and 14th streets. This facility, built in
1981, is one of the busiest in the RTD system and is the
hub for routes 204, 205, 206, 208, AB, B, BOLT, DASH, DD,
DM, GS, HOP, JUMP, N, and Y. The transit center includes
an indoor seating area, ticket vending, a staffed
information booth, extensive real-time bus displays,
and bike lockers. The Downtown Transit Center is an
aging facility in need of an upgrade to accommodate
the need for more space for buses. The City of Boulder
is planning physical improvements along 14th Street
to increase bus docking capacity, simplify boarding for
customers, and create a car-free street with pedestrian,
bike, and transit access only. Planning is also underway
to include a new bike center with enhanced and
expanded bicycle storage.
Depot Square at Boulder Junction
Boulder Junction – previously known as the Boulder
Transit Village – is a 160-acre site at Pearl Parkway and
30th Avenue in East Boulder of which, the city owns 11
acres. The site is the future home of Depot Square, a
partnership among the City, RTD, and the private sector.
Depot Square includes a transit center and mixed-use
development that will be located at the terminus of
the US 36 BRT line and will include managed parking.
The BRT line, scheduled to open in 2016, will include
18 miles of Bus Rapid Transit connecting downtown
Denver and Boulder. The transit center at Depot Square
will be in addition to the 14th and Walnut facility
noted above, providing more efficient service for some
passengers because they won’t have to transfer in
downtown Boulder. The facility is funded by $7.7 million
in CMAQ grants along with other City and private
investment and will include six bus bays, 71 units of
affordable housing, a hotel with 140 rooms, 390 parking
spaces, and a refurbished historic train station originally
built in 1890 and moved to the site.
The downtown Transit Center at 14th and Walnut Street is currently the main transit center in the city.
Image from Nelson\Nygaard
Boulder Junction will be a new complete neighborhood and destination in Boulder and provide important
regional and local transit connections. The old train station (pictured at left) will be a centerpiece of the site.
The bus transit center will be located underground, allowing a broad pedestrian plaza to be developed as the
gateway to the site.
Image at left from Nelson\Nygaard; rendering at right from City of Boulder
4-14 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Park-and-Ride Facilities
Park-and-Ride facilities offer a convenient place for
commuters and visitors to park their cars and connect
to transit, ridesharing, and bike options (see Figure 4-10
for Park-and-Ride locations, capacity, and utilization).
Twelve Park-and-Ride facilities provide parking spaces
for commuters to and from Boulder, Longmont, Denver,
and other key destinations in the Boulder region. Many
of these facilities are missing convenient and comfort-
able passenger amenities.
Table Mesa Pedestrian Bridge Opened in April 2013
The Table Mesa pedestrian bridge is an element of the US 36 Bus Rapid Transit project, an RTD
FasTracks project. The bridge connects the Table Mesa Park-and-Ride with eastbound bus service,
saving three-to-five minutes of travel time for commuters heading to Denver from Boulder. The bridge
is a collaborative partnership between RTD and CDOT.
Image from RTD
Figure 4-10 Park-and-Ride Capacity and Utilization, 2012
Boulder Park-and-Ride Location Capacity Utilization
Table Mesa South Boulder 824 62%
Table Mesa/Tantra Drive South Boulder 105 20%
Table Mesa/39th South Boulder 40 82%
27th Way/Broadway South Boulder 59 89%
Boulder Church of the Nazarene South Boulder 49 73%
Lafayette Lafayette 136 52%
Hwy 119/Niwot Longmont 28 49%
8th/Coffman Longmont 97 93%
Longmont Longmont 101 69%
Lyons Lyons 27 50%
Nederland Nederland 75 58%
US 36/McCaslin Superior 466 81%
Source: RTD “April – June 2012 Average Daily Usage”
4-15 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Bus Stops
Bus stops are a key element of the transit experience.
Bus stops with comfortable seating, shelter, and
schedules, provide a comfortable and appealing place
for people to catch the bus. In Boulder, there are almost
1,000 bus stops. Of these bus stops, nearly 300 serve
an average of 10 or more boarding passengers per day,
120 serve an average of 40 or more boarding
passengers, and 47 serve an average of 100 or more
boarding passengers per day (Figure 4-11).
Figure 4-11 Inventory of Bus Stops in Boulder
Category Number
# of bus stops in Boulder 1,000
# bus stops service average of 10+
boardings per day
300
# bus stops serving average of 40+
boardings per day
120
# bus stops serving average of 100+
boardings per day
47
# bus stops serving average of 100+
boardings per day without adequate
shelter
13
# bus stops serving average of 40+
boardings per day without adequate
shelter
66
# bus stops serving less than 40 board-
ings per day with a shelter
27
Source: City of Boulder
This bus stop on the corner of 29th and Arapahoe includes covered and uncovered seating, a trash can, and
bike parking.
Image from Nelson\Nygaard
4-16 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Who Rides
Fixed Route Transit in Boulder?
This section of the State of the System focuses on the
demographic characteristics of transit ridership in
Boulder. Data for this section is taken from the 2011
RTD Customer Satisfaction Survey, which is conducted
to provide RTD with information on who is using
RTD transit services, how often they use it, and their
satisfaction with the service. Responses used for this
assessment include those categorized as customers of
either Boulder local or the regional system. Note: “local”
in this section refers to city of Boulder riders; “regional”
refers to all RTD riders outside of Boulder.
Age and Gender
Ridership on Boulder local service tends to be slightly
more female than male, 55% to 45%, respectively.
Compared to regional service, ridership is also younger,
with nearly twice as many riders under age 24 on
Boulder local service.
Figure 4-13 Transit Dependent Riders and Choice Riders for Local and Regional Riders
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Boulder
Local
Regional
Transit Dependent Choice Rider
Source: 2011 RTD Customer Satisfaction Survey
Figure 4-14 Vehicle Access
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Boulder
Local
Regional
Yes, as a driver Yes, as a passenger No
Source: 2011 RTD Customer Satisfaction Survey
Figure 4-12 Age of Local and Regional Riders
4%
14%
20%
16%
19%
20%
7%
1%
8%
17%
14%
29%
26%
6%
Under 18
18 - 24
25 - 34
35 - 44
45 - 54
55 - 64
65 or older
Source: 2011 RTD Customer Satisfaction Survey
Transit Dependency and Vehicle Access
RTD classifies riders as either “transit dependent” or “choice riders” based on vehicle availability, disability, or impair-
ment that prevents vehicle operation, and possession of a valid driver’s license. According to the survey, local riders
are much more likely to be considered transit dependent than regional riders. As the following graphs show, local
riders are more than twice as likely as regional riders to report not having access to a car as a driver or a passenger,
likely due in part to the large CU student population.
INNER CIRCLE:
Boulder
OUTER CIRCLE:
Regional
4-17 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Ethnicity and Language
Boulder local riders are very similar to regional riders
with respect to ethnic background. Approximately
80% of riders on both types of service identify as
Caucasian/White. A slightly higher percentage of local
riders identify as Asian/Pacific Islander, and slightly
lower percentage identify as Hispanic/Latino or African
American/Black compared to regional riders. Boulder
local riders are slightly more likely to report speaking a
language other than English in the home (15% of local
Boulder riders compared to 11% of regional riders).
Figure 4-15 Ethnicity
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Boulder Local
Regional
Caucasian/White – not Hispanic origin Hispanic/Latino
Asian/Pacific Islander African American/Black
Native American/Indian Other (specify)
Source: 2011 RTD Customer Satisfaction Survey
4-18 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Income and Employment
Local riders differ considerably from regional riders in
terms of income, particularly at the lowest and highest
income levels. Local riders are twice as likely to report
earning less than $15,000 a year, while regional riders
are more than twice as likely to report earning over
$100,000 a year. Some of these differences are likely
correlated with differences in employment between
the rider groups; Boulder has a much larger student
population, in addition to other population groups that
are not part of the active workforce, such as retirees.
Figure 4-16 Reported Income
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Under
$15,000
$15,000 -
$24,999
$25,000 -
$34,999
$35,000 -
$49,999
$50,000 -
$74,999
$75,000 -
$99,999
$100,000
or more
Boulder Local Regional
Source: 2011 RTD Customer Satisfaction Survey
Source: 2011 RTD Customer Satisfaction Survey
BOULDER SOS
Demographics
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 4
EMP – LEGEND ONLY
41%
16% 6%
14%
9%
0% 6%
5% 3%
Professional/Managerial Sales/Clerical/Service
Laborer/Craftsman/Foreman Student/Employed
Student (Only) Homemaker
Retired Disabled (Unable to work)
Unemployed/Looking for work
BOULDER SOS
Demographics
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 2
Local EMP
41%
16%
6%
14%
9%
0% 6%
5% 3% Local
BOULDER SOS Demographics
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 3
Regional EMP
68%
13%
4%
7%
3% 0% 2% 1% 2% Regional
Figure 4-17 Type of Employment
4-19 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Fixed Route
Transit System Performance
This section summarizes transit performance in the city
of Boulder for RTD and Via service and RTD regional
routes that originate in Boulder, including transit rider-
ship, boardings per service hour, operating cost per
service hour, and operating cost per boarding. Detailed
profiles for each route are provided in Appendix A.
Trends in Ridership, Service Hours,
and Productivity
Figure 4-18 shows the average weekday ridership by
year between 2003 and 2012 compared to service
hours. Transit ridership on local and regional routes
peaked in Boulder in 2008 at 22,028 average rides per
day. The decline in ridership between 2008 and 2009
could potentially be due to decreased fuel prices,
economic recession and service reductions by RTD.
Between 2008 and 2011, ridership on Boulder local
routes continued to decline from 22,028 to 19,992 aver-
age weekday riders. Local ridership increased slightly in
2012 to 20,789. Ridership on regional routes to Boulder
experienced a similar decline after its peak in 2008, but
has increased slightly since 2009 from 10,590 average
weekday riders in 2009 to 11,518 in 2012. Similar to the
ridership trend, service hours peaked in 2008 for local
and regional routes. Since 2008, RTD service hours have
declined steadily from 203,575 in 2008 to 193,062 in
2012. Regional services hours have increased slightly
in the last two years from 109,980 in 2010 to 112,447 in
2012.
Productivity (which means passenger boardings per
hour that a vehicle is providing revenue service) also
peaked in 2008 at 31 boardings per service hour for
local routes and 29 boardings per service hour for
regional routes (Figure 4-19).
Figure 4-18 Average Weekday Ridership Compared to In-Service Hours, 2003-2012
-
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Service HoursAverage Weekday Daily RidershipLocal Routes Regional Routes
Local Routes Regional Routes
Ridership:
Service Hours
Local Ridership
Compared to Local
Service Hours
Regional Ridership
Compared to Local
Service Hours
In 2013, Boulder is doing more with less.
Ridership is driving up toward the City’s
10 year high, while service hours are 9%
lower on local routes than they were in
Figure 4-19 Boardings per Hour (Productivity), 2003 - 2012
[NAME OF DOCUMENT] | VOLUME
[Client Name]
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 3
10
15
20
25
30
35
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Local Routes Regional Routes SystemwideBoardings per HourBoardings per hour
peaked in 2008 at 31
(local) and 29 (regional)
Source: Data is from 2012 RTD Annual Ridership Data; HOP data was provided by the City of Boulder; Note: Climb
data is not included
Local Ridership
compared to Local
Service Hours
Regional Ridership
compared to Local
Service Hours
In 2013, Boulder is doing more with less. Ridership is driving up toward the City’s
10-year high, while service hours are 9% lower on local routes than they were in 2003
Boardings per hour peaked
in 2008 at 31 (local) and
29 (regional)
4-20 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Figure 4-20 provides an overview of the average weekday ridership by route in 2003
compared to 2012. Daily transit boardings are based on 2012 data from RTD, the City
of Boulder, Boulder County, and Via Mobility Services. In the nine-year period, the
routes with the highest ridership have remained the same: the SKIP, the HOP, and the
JUMP. Interestingly, ridership on the HOP has decreased 17% since 2003, from 3,547
average weekday riders in 2003 to 2,932 in 2012. Route B, which provides service
between Boulder and Denver, is the regional route with the highest ridership, followed
by the BOLT to Longmont and the AB (or SkyRide) to the Denver International Airport.
Ridership on Route B increased almost 60% between 2003 and 2012, from 3,886 to
6,177 average weekday riders.
Figure 4-20 Average Weekday Ridership by Route, 2003 and 2012
2003 2012Routes
LOCAL ROUTES
2003 2012Routes
REGIONAL ROUTES
-
78
42
962
427
122
318
376
111
779
259
-
72
325
457
558
212
437
246
103
158
1,079
6,177
1,649
273
3,886
329
-
-
-
626
675
222
1,110
1,161
5,337
1,056
1,937
1,098
2,932
1,566
2,533
-
DM
201
210
LEAP (200)
F
J
N
S
Y
T
AB
DD
B
GS
HX
203
204
205
206
208
209
225
HOP
STAMPEDE
BOLT (M)SKIP (202)
JUMP (207)
DASH (227)
BOUND (209)
Climb
80
54
444
877
536528
512
478
221
754
673
1,028
4,881
3,547
1,486
1,133
2,217
Figure 4-21 Cost Effectiveness (Cost per Boarding) of
Local & Regional Routes
Local Routes
203 $4.00
209 $6.60
204 $5.54
205 $6.36
206 $6.79
208 $5.29
SKIP $2.91
225 $5.33
JUMP $6.41
STAMPEDE $3.71
BOUND $3.51
DASH $4.76
HOP $2.07
Regional Routes
DM
J
N
S
Y
T
AB
DD
Climb
B
GS
HX
BOLT
$5.90
$9.33
$9.74
$7.49
$9.28
$8.53
$22.89
$11.06
$12.41
$10.19
$10.95
$18.67
$30.71
Source: Unless otherwise specified, data is from 2012 RTD Annual Ridership Data; HOP data was provided by the City of Boulder; Climb data was provided by Via.
Cost effectiveness
(cost per boarding) is a
common metric used to
measure the efficiency
of transit service. The
local CTN routes (namely
the HOP, BOUND, SKIP)
provide the most cost-
effective service (cost
per boarding).
Source: Nelson\Nygaard
4-21 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Bus Service Performance
Figure 4-22 compares performance measures for
Boulder local and regional routes. The SKIP has the
highest number of boardings per revenue hour at
46.3, while the HOP is the most cost efficient route
with an operating cost per revenue hour of $63.03. On
average, local Boulder routes operate at a lower cost
per revenue hour ($127) compared to regional Boulder
routes ($195). Not surprisingly, local routes also have
a higher number of average passengers per vehicle
revenue hour (28) compared to Boulder regional routes
(19). Figure 4-23 provides a detailed route by route
comparison.
Figure 4-22 Average Weekday Ridership Compared to In-Service Hours, 2003-2012
205 DASH
204
BOUND
JUMP
SKIP
225206
208
209
STAMPEDE
HOP
Y
BV
HX
N
CLIMB
S
J
BOLT
AB
DD
DM
GS
T
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
$300
$350
0 10 20 30 40 50
Productivity (Passengers per vehicle revenue hour)Cost Efficiency (Cost per vehicle revenue hour)Productivity (Passengers per vehicle revenue hour)Cost Efficiency (Cost per vehicle revenue hour)MOST COST EFFICIENT
AND MOST PRODUCTIVE
Local avg = $127
Local avg = 28
1 Route #
Regional Boulder Routes
Cost Per Boarding:
Smaller bubble = lower cost
Average = $9 per boarding
Local Routes
Regional Boulder
avg = $195
Regional Boulder
avg = 19
This graphic shows clearly that CTN routes, particularly those operating largely in Boulder, are both the most cost
effective and productive elements of the transit system serving Boulder County.
Source: Data is from 2012 RTD Annual Ridership Data; HOP data was provided by the City of Boulder; Note: Climb data is not included
4-22 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Route Annual Boardings In-Service Hours Operating Cost Boardings Per In-Service Hour Operating Cost Per Boarding Operating Cost Per In-Service Hour
Local
204 345,017 16,317 $1,911,083 21.1 $5.54 $117.12
205 343,161 14,099 $2,183,696 24.3 $6.36 $154.88
206 154,152 9,631 $1,046,543 16.0 $6.79 $108.66
208 161,496 6,811 $854,237 23.7 $5.29 $125.42
209 133,828 5,747 $883,887 23.3 $6.60 $153.80
225 150,251 6,962 $801,396 21.6 $5.33 $115.11
BOUND 537,604 11,872 $1,889,109 45.3 $3.51 $159.12
DASH 692,467 21,419 $3,295,103 32.3 $4.76 $153.84
HOP 830,493 27,234 $1,716,578 30.5 $2.07 $63.03
JUMP 429,614 28,212 $2,752,844 15.2 $6.41 $97.58
SKIP 1,576,417 34,052 $4,590,725 46.3 $2.91 $134.82
STAMPEDE 217,920 5,567 $808,039 39.1 $3.71 $145.15
Total 5,572,420 187,923 $22,733,240 29.7 $4.08 $120.97
Regional
AB 316,931 18,155 $2,958,444 17.5 $9.33 $162.96
BOLT 417,854 21,936 $3,877,846 19.0 $9.28 $176.78
B 1,706,586 54,474 $10,069,348 31.3 $5.90 $184.85
DD 28,713 2,822 $657,157 10.2 $22.89 $232.87
DM 83,175 3,339 $809,897 24.9 $9.74 $242.55
GS 119,702 7,027 $1,323,741 17.0 $11.06 $188.39
HX 146,836 4,366 $1,100,407 33.6 $7.49 $252.05
J 64,381 3,691 $798,790 17.4 $12.41 $216.43
N 110,766 6,418 $1,128,302 17.3 $10.19 $175.79
S 58,560 2,546 $641,417 23.0 $10.95 $251.96
T 34,425 2,899 $642,779 11.9 $18.67 $221.76
Y 23,505 1,451 $200,434 16.2 $8.53 $138.16
The Climb 4,255 1352 $130,687 3.1 $30.71 $96.66
Total 3,115,689 130,474 $ 24,339,251 23.9 $7.81 $186.54
Systemwide 97,247,226 3,069,882 $430,704,915 31.7 $4.43 $140.30
Source: RTD 2011 Service Performance Report (annual totals)
Figure 4-23 Detailed Analysis of Weekday Performance Measures for Local and Regional Boulder Routes
4-23 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Figure 4-24 Route 204 - Total Activities by Stop (Weekday)
Summary of Route Performance
Ridership growth over the past decade on local and
regional routes is, at best, lackluster, particularly given
the level of service investment. There is evidence that
ridership was growing ahead of the Great Recession.
But the downturn in the economy dramatically slowed
the accelerating growth rate. Although only one year
of data is available, it seems that ridership is again
growing, despite decreases in overall service invest-
ment. Although showing signs of recovery, growth
rates are lagging behind what would be considered
healthy given Boulder’s long-term goals to improve
transit mode share and achieve the community’s
transportation and climate commitment goals. This
section provides a high-level summary of local and
regional route performance (see detailed route profiles
in Appendix A).
Local Routes
y Within the core of Boulder, the Community
Transit Network routes are highly productive.
However, as these routes reach into
predominantly single-family neighborhoods, or
in some cases beyond the city limits, ridership
and productivity decline significantly.
y A few local RTD routes struggle to maintain good
ridership and productivity. For example, routes
205, 206, 209, and the JUMP all have productivity
that is nearly 50% of the average productivity for
local routes. Most of this is due to operation in
low density areas or on long stretches of roadway
where there is no development.
y Some CTN and RTD local routes would benefit
from having strong anchors at multiple nodes/
districts, along and at both ends of the route, not
just downtown and/or CU.
y Local routes serving the communities to the
east, Louisville, and Lafayette seem to have
ridership recovering at a rate better than other
local routes. They tend to also have the largest
Route 204 is highly productive in the core of Boulder. However as it reaches into predominantly single-family
neighborhoods, its ridership and productivity decline significantly. Detailed route profiles are provided in
Appendix A.
Source: Nelson\Nygaard
ridership increases historically. This is due to a
number of causes. In some cases introduction of
new services to areas where service has not been
offered, in cases like Nederland, the introduction
of the Eco Pass, in other cases there appears to be
a discovery about transit as a real access mode
from the immediately adjoining communities
into Boulder.
"P
"P
"P
"P
"P
å
å
å
å å
å
ÑÑ80
81
111
239
90
58
54
"P
"P
"P
"P
"P
å
å
å
å
å å
å
ÑÑBoulder Community Hospital
Boulder Community Hospital
Valmont City Park
Harlow Platts Community Park
Fairview High
New Vista High
Boulder High
University
of Colorado
University
of Colorado
September School
Tara Performing Arts High
£¤36
UV157
UV119
UV93
UV7
UV119
Table Mesa
27th Way / Broadway
39th St / Table Mesa
Tantra Dr / Table Mesa
Boulder Church Of The Nazarene
28th St
30th St
Jay Rd19th StPine
S
t
Folsom St Iris Av9th St
Broadway Pear
l
S
t
Valmont RdArapahoe AvPearl Py26th StCanyon BvBaseline RdColorado AvViolet AvDia
g
o
n
a
l
H
y
17th St
Gillaspie
Dr
Foothills Py Balsam AvTable Mesa DrYarmouth AvLee Hill DrIndependence RdEdgewood DrCollege AvS Foothills HwyLehigh StKalmia Av28th StTable Mesa Dr28th StFoothills PyArapahoe
Av
30th St
Broadway
BroadwayFoothills Py
28th StBaseline RdTable Mesa Dr78
221
107
Boulder Community Hospital
Boulder Community Hospital
Valmont City Park
Harlow Platts Community Park
Fairview High
New Vista High
Boulder High
September School
Tara Performing Arts High
£¤36
UV157
UV119
UV93
UV7
UV119
Table Mesa
27th Way / Broadway
39th St / Table Mesa
Tantra Dr / Table Mesa
Boulder Church Of The Nazarene
Universityof Colorado
University
of Colorado
28th St
30th St
Jay Rd19th StPine
S
t
9th St
Broadway Pear
l
S
t
Valmont RdArapahoe AvPearl Py26th StCanyon BvBaseline RdColorado AvViolet AvDia
g
o
n
a
l
H
y
17th St
Foothills Py Balsam AvTable Mesa DrYarmouth AvLee Hill DrIndependence RdEdgewood DrCollege AvS Foothills HwyLehigh St28th StTable Mesa Dr28th StFoothills PyArapahoe Av
30th St
Broadway
BroadwayFoothills Py
Table Mesa Dr14th St & Walnut St
Broadway & Euclid Ave
Broadway & Regent Dr
Table Mesa Dr & S Broadway
14th St & Walnut St
Front Range Ave & Broadway
19th St & Avocado Rd
Moorhead Ave & Table Mesa Dr Iris Av78
221
107 58
55
56
57
14th St & Walnut St
Broadway & 20th St
Broadway & 16th St
19th St & Avocado Rd
Baseline Rd & Broadway
Moorhead Ave & Table Mesa Dr
Front Range Ave & Broadway
Route 204 Total Activities by Stop (Weekday)
0 0.5 1
Miles
SOUTHBOUND
NORTHBOUND
High School
Park-n-Ride
Ñ Hospitaln
"P
Route 204
Other Routes
Daily Activities by Stop(Total Boarding and Alighting)
University of Colorado
Boulder City Boundary
!Boarding !Alighting
Fall 2012
Route 204 Selected Trips
50
Stop Location(Proportionally Sized)
xx
7525
xx
0
y There are overlaps between the Buff Bus and
some of the local CTN and RTD routes that could
be explored and, if resolved, have the potential to
reduce service duplication and improve produc-
tivity.
4-24 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Figure 4-25 Route N BOLT Ridership History, 2003-2012
Regional Routes
y More than three quarters of all RTD regional rid-
ership that originates in or is destined for Boulder
is accommodated on three routes. One of these
routes, the B (US 36 corridor) accounts for 55%
of ridership on the routes serving Boulder that
are classified as regional in this study. The other
two routes, the BOLT (Boulder-Longmont) and
the AB (Boulder-Airport) account for 23% of total
regional service that serves to Boulder.
y The BOLT is the second best performing regional
route based on the measure of ridership,
carrying nearly 1,700 riders per day. Although the
route connects multiple communities – Boulder,
Niwot, and Longmont – about 90% of all
passenger activity on the route starts or ends in
Boulder.
y Most notably, these three high performing routes
are also the ones that operate the most complete
span of service, seven days per week. The
exception would be route N (to Nederland),
which is in the middle tier of ridership and
performance, but has one of the most
encouraging recent ridership trajectories
y Regional routes with moderate to low daily
ridership – moderate being 425 to 600 boardings
per day (three routes, HX, GS, and N), low being
325 or fewer boardings per day (eight routes, the
larger ones being DM, S and J) – tend to be
commuter services that operate directionally in
peak periods on weekdays only.
y Some regional routes that only have Boulder
and one other community as end points, notably
places like Longmont and Nederland, have
shown great resiliency to the recession and
better ridership history than other regional
routes.
The BOLT provides service between the Boulder Transit Center and Longmont. Regional routes that only
have Boulder and one other community as end points have shown great resiliency to the recession and bet-
ter ridership history than other regional routes.
Source: Nelson\Nygaard
-
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Annual In-Service Hrs Avg Wkdy Boardings Ridership In-Service Hours
4-25 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Figure 4-26 Route N BOLT Ridership History, 2003–2012
$0
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
$1,200,000
$1,400,000
$1,600,000
2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011
City buy-up funding
peaked in 2008 at
$1.5 million
Source: City of Boulder
Fixed Route Transit Funding
City of Boulder transportation funding is provided by two primary sources: the Transportation Fund and the Transportation Excise Tax Fund. Revenue sources for the Transporta-
tion Fund include the 0.6 percent local city sales tax dedicated for transportation purposes, federal funds, Highway Users Tax, County Road and Bridge funds, and State Highway
Maintenance Funds. The Transportation Development Excise Tax Fund is supported by a transportation related excise tax, levied against new construction for development
related infrastructure needs. Of these sources of revenue, the primary contributions are from the city transportation sales tax (59%), federal funds (15%), Highway Users Tax (11%),
and Transportation Excise Tax (4%). A total of $50.3 million was spent on fixed route transit service in Boulder in 2012 from a variety of sources detailed in the following sections.3
RTD Tax Contributions
In 2011, RTD spent $47.1 million to operate Boulder local and regional service. This revenue primarily comes from the $0.06 RTD sales tax collected in Boulder.
As is the case for transit agencies across the U.S., RTD is facing financial constraints as funding is reduced and operating costs increase. In the fall of 2011, RTD suggested more
than $1 million in cuts for Boulder based routes. In the face of public concern, RTD rescinded its proposal to cut service on the SKIP route, but eliminated Route #203. Over the
last ten years, RTD has cut 20,500 service hours – the equivalent to the DASH route. This continued vulnerability to service reductions combined with planned fare increases have
heightened the need to establish more reliable funding mechanisms for Boulder’s local and regional transit system.
RTD Transit Contributions for
Boulder Local and Regional Service
Cost Category 2011 Budget
Boulder Local Service $22,900,901
Boulder Regional Service $21,250,120
AB SkyRide $2,958,444
Total $47,109,464
Source: RTD
3 Note: data for RTD is from 2011.
4-26 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Figure 4-27 HOP Funding History, 2001 – 2013
$-
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013
RTD Contribution
COB Contribution
CU Contribution
TOTAL COST
In 2013, operating
cost for the HOP will
peak at $2.4 million
Source: City of Boulder
Transportation Maintenance Fee
Slowly but steadily, the costs of maintaining the transportation system have
been consuming an ever-larger portion of the budget, reducing the City’s
ability to enhance the existing transportation system, largely due to the
growth of the infrastructure network in the last decade and exacerbated by
rising cost of materials and labor. In the near future, the cost of maintenance
and operations are estimated to exceed existing revenues. Current calcula-
tions estimate a $3.2 million annual shortfall, including a $500,000 annual
shortfall to support existing transit service levels. Moreover, an additional
$7 million per year is needed between 2010 and 2025 to fulfill the Complete
Streets Investment Plan.*
The City is currently investigating a variety of potential funding strategies
to help cover increasing costs and demand for transportation maintenance
and system improvements and could also contribute to new transportation
services and facilities, such as transit service hours or bicycle facilities.
* City of Boulder. (2013) Boulder City Council Study Session Materials, April 9, 2013.
Boulder County Operations
& Maintenance Contributions
Boulder County transportation revenue is
funded in part by a County sales tax. Boulder
County provides “buy-up” funds for the
Climb to Goldhill, the BOLT to Longmont,
and the Y to Lyons. In 2012, Boulder County
contributions amounted to $151,012. (Note
that this amount only includes the County’s
contributions to City of Boulder local and
regional routes).
Boulder County
Transit Contributions
Cost Category FY 2012 Budget
BOLT Buy-Up $46,000
Y Route to Lyons $65,000
CLIMB Route $38,000
Total $151,012
Includes cost of community Eco Passes
Source: Boulder County 2013 Update on
Countywide Transportation Sales Tax
City of Boulder Contributions
Funding for transit in Boulder
also comes from a partnership
between the City of Boulder,
RTD, and the University of
Colorado. In addition to the
regional sales tax collected
by RTD, the City partners with
RTD and the University to fund
the HOP. The City subsidizes
increased RTD services, or “buy-
ups,” on the JUMP and BOUND
to maintain high frequencies
(service every 10 minutes). City
buy-up funding peaked in 2008
at $1.5 million. In 2011, City buy-up funds had declined to $1.1 million (see Figure 4-26
on page 4-25). The table above includes the City’s contribution to fund the HOP, JUMP,
and BOUND. In addition to directly paying for operating costs for the HOP, JUMP, and
BOUND, the City currently expends approximately $350,000 per year on transit-related
expenses, including overhead expenses, advertising, and personnel, and a $230,000
contribution to Via Mobility to subsidize paratransit services.
City of Boulder Transit Contributions
Cost Category FY 2012 Budget
HOP $ 722,797
JUMP & BOUND Buy-Up $409,719
Paratransit $228,568
Overhead, Advertising,
Misc. Capital Expenses
$262,796
Personnel $96,000
Total $1,719,880
Source: City of Boulder
4-27 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Other Transportation Service
Via Mobility Services Paratransit Service
Via Mobility Services (formerly known as Special Transit)
was established in 1970 by the Boulder County Com-
missioners to coordinate an efficient, cost-effective,
and accessible transportation system for seniors and
people with disabilities residing in Boulder County.
Programs include demand response, travel training,
mobility options, and individual travel planning. In
2012, the organization provided 46,264 passenger trips
to mobility-limited citizens in Boulder, in addition to
14,289 trips to individuals served by the Boulder Shelter
for the Homeless and Boulder Outreach for Homeless
Overflow. The number of trips provided in Boulder in
2012 represents a 16% increase over 2011. According
to the 2010 Census, the population of older adults and
people with disabilities in Via’s service area is expected
to grow 95% between 2010 and 2025, from 12,463
to 24,365.4 Keeping up with increased demand for
specialized transit will be important.
Via Mobility Services is also contracted with RTD to
operate the Access-a-Ride and Call-n-Ride programs in
Boulder County:
y Access-a-Ride is an on-demand paratransit pro-
gram mandated by the Americans with Disabili-
ties Act (ADA) and is provided throughout RTD’s
fixed route service area. Riders on Access-a-Ride
must be certified as having a disability that pro-
hibits them from using the fixed route system.
y Call-n-Ride is a hybrid, demand-response service
established to serve residents living in specific
communities where fixed routes are generally
not cost effective. Designed to connect people to
the RTD Park-and-Rides during peak hours, the
service is open to anyone living or working within
the defined geographic service area for general
transportation purposes.
The cost to a rider to use these services is $2.00
one way in most communities; $1.25 one way for
smaller rural communities; and $4.00 one way between
communities. Reduced fare and non-fare options are
available based on income. In 2012, the City of Boulder
contributed $228,568 to Via Mobility to supplement
RTD’s contributions. The total cost of paratransit service
provided to Boulder amounted to $1.8 million.
University of Colorado
The University of Colorado is an important partner in
the community, investing over $6.1 million in transit
service in 2012.
University of Colorado Buff Bus Shuttle
The Buff Bus Shuttle is a University of Colorado (CU)
bus service owned and operated by CU for students
living in residence halls at the University of Colorado.
It provides transit from Williams Village/Bear Creek to
Main Campus, and from College Inn to Main Campus.
The Buff Bus shuttle is sponsored by CU-Boulder's
Housing Department, and administered by Parking
and Transportation Services. The Buff Bus also provides
chartered service for special events. In 2012, ridership
on the Buff was 811,506 for fixed route service and
131,264 for chartered service.
The Buff Bus Shuttle is available for University of
Colorado students from the Williams Village/Bear
Creek residence halls to the Main Campus and from
East Campus to the Main Campus.
Image from University of Colorado
University of Colorado
Transit Contributions
In 2012, CU invested over $6.1 million in local
transit service.
Cost Category FY 2012 Budget
RTD (Student Bus Passes)$4,358,366
HOP $274,593
Buff Bus Fixed Route $1,088,954
Buff Bus Chartered $190,930
Late Night Transit $190,191
Stampede $12,975
Ski Bus $27,300
Total $6,143,309
Source: University of Colorado CUTD Cost Summary (2012)
4 Via. (2011). Annual Report.
4-28 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
University of Colorado
Late Night Transit Service
The Late Night Transit bus route provides expanded hours
of operation on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday nights in
conjunction with the start of CU's fall semester in late August.
Buses arrive every 15 minutes from 10 p.m. to midnight on
these nights. This route connects Boulder's main nighttime
activity centers – downtown, CU, and Twenty Ninth Street. The
Late Night Transit bus service is funded by the University and
operated by Via Mobility Services using HOP and Buff buses. In
fiscal year 2012, CU spent $190,191 to operate the Late Night
Transit service.5
Rideshare
In addition to transit service, carpool and vanpool programs
help commuters traveling longer distances. In 2012, 6% of
Boulder residents shared rides to work. This number has
declined over the last 12 years, from 10% in 1990. With a
growing population of in-commuters traveling long distances
to work in Boulder, strengthening regional vanpool and carpool
programs will be crucial.
Carpool
The following carpool services are available:
y Way to GO Carpool (Denver Metro Area)
y SmarTrips (North Front Range)
y CUCommute (CU faculty, students, and staff)
y SkiCarpool
Vanpool
There are two formal vanpool organizations in the region:
y Way to GO Vanpool (Denver Metro Area)
y VanGo (North Front Range)
Third-party sponsorships are also popular throughout the
Denver Metro Area. More than 100 total vans operate from
Boulder, Denver, and Fort Collins.
Late Night Transit bus route provides expanded hours of operation on Thursday, Friday,
and Saturday nights in conjunction with the start of CU’s fall semester in late August.
Image from City of Boulder
5 University of Colorado CUTD Program Summary Fiscal Year 2012.
4-29 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Key Issues to be Explored in the Renewed Vision for Transit
As the update to the TMP moves ahead, there are areas
of need that should be considered further during the
development of a renewed long-term vision for transit
and short-term service recommendations.
Local Connections and CTN Routes
Land use activity in East Boulder is reaching a point that
justifies attention in how the CTN is structured and how
it embraces that activity. Some of the issues related
to this are a factor of the route network, while others
address the need for access to new or growing destina-
tions. Specific areas include Boulder Junction, East
Boulder Community Center, CU East Campus, Boulder
Community Hospital, housing areas in the vicinity of
Valmont and 55th as well as access to locations that
front or are close to Arapahoe Avenue in East Boulder.
Transit service is present on Arapahoe, but poor street
connectivity and pedestrian facilities can be a challenge
to its use. In areas such as Boulder Junction, strong,
direct, frequent connections to major community
attractors will be necessary to ensure access to the
area, which is heavily dependent on multimodal access
solutions.
The 28th Street corridor appears to have significant
transit potential as it has a large number of destination
type locations, e.g. grocery stores, along its length. Yet,
between Colorado and Canyon, there is no service on
the corridor, and north of Canyon, service is shared
between two routes (205 and BOLT) for a distance, then
one route (just the 205). The routes do not provide a
consistent level of service along the corridor nor a peak
versus off-peak service pattern that encourages transit
trips consistent with the land use.
In the northwest part of Boulder, there is a lack of east/
west connectivity. For example, to get from a location
on north Broadway to a grocery store on 28th Street,
passengers have to travel downtown first, then back
north.
In the northeast part of Boulder, the IBM plant and the
employment in Gunbarrel is underserved. Buses may
be only part of the solution for such campus settings,
as employees likely travel from many parts of Boulder
County.
Why two systems for route naming? The named routes
and service buy up has been a successful model
for Boulder. But the local network includes some
numbered routes and some routes that are “officially”
part of the CTN, based on being named (and meeting
CTN service levels). The mix-and-match nature of the
network, how residents perceive the various routes,
and how that impacts ridership response needs further
investigation.
Routes in Boulder County
Factors for success in increasing transit ridership
between adjacent communities should be investigated
further, assessing how the same root motivators used
to increase transit ridership in Boulder can apply to
regional routes. Commuters both to and from Lafayette
and Louisville, for example, are a considerable market
according to the most recent travel demand/commute
modeling conducted by Boulder County. This assess-
ment should evaluate the need to provide expanded or
new park-and-ride facilities in some of these
communities. While these facilities currently exist, the
long-term potential is greater than current park-and-
ride capacity in several locations.
Regional Services
US 36 Corridor bus rapid transit (BRT) service is
currently under development. A robust regional BRT
service is a great opportunity for increased transit
market share in the corridor. However, the question
of how these services will be integrated to cover the
larger activity centers in Boulder is an open one. Is it
necessary to have a one seat ride to coax people out
of their autos? For example, if someone uses the US 36
BRT from Superior can they get to their job at Boulder
Community Hospital in an expeditious manner, or will
the transfer and time required to transfer and travel
from a BRT station reduce the convenience of transit?
These same issues apply to today’s network, but will
become even more important as transit service levels
improve on US 36.
Presently, there are a number of regional services that
target people departing Boulder in the morning. Some
are well utilized; others are not. The TMP update should
evaluate the possibility for routes to operate two-way
service, encouraging both “in” and “out” transit
commuting in Boulder.
An increasing number of commuters to Boulder come
from areas outside of RTD’s boundaries – Fort Collins,
for example. These markets should be examined for the
possibility of developing intercity commuter services.
Other non-single occupant options such as carpooling
or vanpooling should be explored where the market for
a transit route does not yet exist. Boulder’s involvement
in developing these markets is a noticeable “missing
link” in today’s activities.
PEER REVIEWCHAPTER 5
IN THIS CHAPTER
• What is a peer review?
• Why a peer review for Boulder?
• The data
• Key findings
• Key issues to be explored in the
Renewed Vision for Transit
City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT 5-1
CHAPTER FIVE
PEER REVIEW
What is a “Peer Review?”
Transit systems are a reflection of the communities they serve and, much like those
communities, no two systems are identical. So much so, that there are virtually no
industry accepted standards for what makes a transit system effective or efficient.
While there are generally accepted rules of thumb, even those “rules” are regularly
violated. So, how does one judge the quality, effectiveness, and efficiency of a transit
system?
One way is to compare transit system performance to other communities that are
similar in scale, values, design, and other important attributes such as the presence of
a major university. In the transit industry, this process is called a peer review.
Why a Peer Review for Boulder?
A key to Boulder’s success in developing a world-class multimodal transportation
system is to regularly set targets that reach beyond the achievement of the “average”
American city. The Renewed Vision for Transit provides an opportunity for Boulder to
continue its leadership and meet community goals as the transit system continues
to evolve. Chapter 6 offers inspirational examples of transit innovations and leading
practices from around the nation.
This chapter focuses more directly on current conditions and comparative data
commonly used to measure operational efficiency and performance. It answers a few
simple, but important questions about how transit performs in Boulder compared to
other mid-sized cities with major universities. The table on the next page describes
the peer systems and communities and how Boulder compares in the peer review.
Of these communities, Boulder is the only one located within a major urban area and
served by a regional transit system; the others are the primary cities within their transit
systems, with some service outside the city. This makes accurate peer data compari-
sons more challenging because Boulder has more regional service than the peers and
data for Boulder routes must be extracted from the RTD system-level data.
The Data
Transit agencies that accept federal funds are required to report standard operating
information to the USDOT/Federal Transit Administration each year. This information
is compiled into a National Transit Database (NTD), a resource for transit system
comparison.
In the Denver Metropolitan area, NTD data is reported for the entire RTD system. To
attempt to develop a more accurate comparison between Boulder and the peers,
most of which are not part of larger metro areas, data was subsegmented from the
RTD system for the Boulder Area.
For this peer review the “Boulder Area” is assumed to be the portion of Boulder County
east of the mountains with an estimated population of about 287,000. This is the
primary area analyzed and reported in the following figures and tables. Some routes
serving the city of Boulder extend outside of Boulder County, so the service area is an
approximation. For some metrics, just the area in the Boulder city limits was analyzed.
5-2 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Existing Boulder ServicePeer Transit Systems and Boulder Areas Evaluated
GAINESVILLE, FL
Gainesville Regional Transit System
Population: 124,364*
Population Density (person per sq. mile): 2,028
University Population: University of FL: 49,589
Modes: Local bus, campus routes
Operates entirely within City Limits; includes 8 route
campus circulation system
Image from transformgov.org
EUGENE, OR
Lane Transit District
Population: 156,342*
Population Density (person per sq. mile): 3,572
University Population: University of OR: 24,591
Modes: Bus rapid transit (EmX), local bus, inter-
city bus
Serves Eugene and Springfield and some rural areas
Image from Nelson\Nygaard
FORT COLLINS, CO
Transfort
Population: 144,000*
Population Density (person per sq. mile): 2,653
University Population: Colorado State
University, Fort Collins: 27,500
Modes: Local bus, intercity bus, bus rapid transit
(under construction)
First Front Range bus rapid transit line planned to
open in 2014
Image from fcgove.com
BOULDER COUNTY AREA (east of mountains)
RTD, City of Boulder, Boulder County
Population: 286,996*
Population Density (person per sq. mile): 941
University Population: University of Colorado,
Boulder: 32,697
Modes: Local bus, Intercity bus
Includes 200 series routes, CTN, B series routes, and
other regional routes that serve Boulder
Image from theclimb.org
BOULDER COUNTY AREA (City of Boulder proper)
RTD, VIA
Population: 97,385*
Population Density (person per sq. mile): 3,948
University Population: University of Colorado,
Boulder: 32,697
Modes: Community Transit Network, regional
bus, university bus
Service provided by RTD (regional transit agency)
and Via (contracted by the City)
Image from flickr user rorowe8
ANN ARBOR, MI
Ann Arbor Transportation Authority
Population: 113,939*
Population Density (person per sq. mile): 4,094
University Population: University of MI: 43,426
Modes: Express bus, local bus
Serves two cities: Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti
Image from annarbor.com
*Source: 2010 U.S. Census
5-3 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Existing Boulder ServicePeer Transit Systems and Boulder Areas Evaluated (continued)
MADISON, WI
Metro Transit
Population: 233,337*
Population Density (person per sq. mile): 3,037
University Population: University of WI, Madi-
son: 42,820
Modes: Express bus, local bus, campus routes
Serves Madison and surrounding Cities
Image from Nelson\Nygaard
SANTA BARBARA, CA
Santa Barbara Mass Transit District
Population: 88,409*
Population Density (person per sq. mile): 4,541
University Population: UC Santa Barbara: 18,977
Modes: Express bus, local bus, intercity bus
Serves three cities: Santa Barbara, Carpinteria, and
Goleta
Image from noozhawk.com BOULDER COUNTY AREA (east of mountains)
RTD, City of Boulder, Boulder County
Population: 286,996*
Population Density (person per sq. mile): 941
University Population: University of Colorado,
Boulder: 32,697
Modes: Local bus, intercity bus
Includes 200 series routes, CTN, B series routes, and
other regional routes that serve Boulder
Image from theclimb.org
BOULDER COUNTY AREA (City of Boulder proper)
RTD, VIA
Population: 97,385*
Population Density (person per sq. mile): 3,948
University Population: University of Colorado,
Boulder: 32,697
Modes: Community Transit Network, regional
bus, university bus
Service provided by RTD (regional transit agency)
and Via (contracted by the City)
Image from flickr user rorowe8
SANTA CRUZ, CA
Santa Cruz METRO
Population: 59,948*
Population Density (person per sq. mile): 4,705
University Population: UC Santa Cruz: 17,903
Modes: Express bus, local bus, intercity bus
Provides service to all of Santa Cruz County
Image from triposo.com
*Source: 2010 U.S. Census
5-4 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Key Findings
Boulderites are less likely to drive, more likely to take transit. The city of Boulder
has the lowest drive-alone rate for commute trips of any of the peer cities at 52.8%,
compared to a peer average of 62.6% (see Figure 5-1). Its transit rate is also high-
est at 9.6%, compared to a peer average of 6.2%. Boulder’s non-motorized share of
travel at 20.5% is also the highest of all peers where the average is 16.2%.
Per capita transit use for the Boulder Area is lower than the peer average. Tran-
sit use in the city compares to the best performing peers. Using the service area de-
scribed on page 5-1, the number of trips taken annually per resident in the Boulder
Area is 31, which is below the peer average of 41.7 (See Figure 5-2). However, this is
largely reflective of how service area and population are calculated for the Boulder
Area. This same metric calculated as transit boardings made in the Boulder city limits
is 56 boardings per capita. The larger study area number is much lower as popula-
tions living in other portions of Boulder County use transit at a much lower rate than
residents within the city limits. This shows that Boulder residents use transit at a rate
on par with some of the best performing national peers, including Gainesville, Ann
Arbor, and Madison.
Not included in the “transit data” for Boulder are the riders served by CU’s “Buff Bus”
connecting high density student residential areas with the campus. In several of the peer
locations, comparable services are included in the transit data.
Figure 5-1 Means of Transportation to Work
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Gainesville, FL
Ann Arbor, MI
Eugene, OR
Fort Collins, CO
Madison, WI
Santa Barbara, CA
Santa Cruz, CA
Peer Average
Boulder City Limits
% Drive Alone to Work
% Transit to Work
% Walked to Work
% "Other Means" to Work
% Carpool to Work
% Work from home
Figure 5-2 Annual Rides Per Capital
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0
Ann Arbor
Madison, WI
Gainesville, FL
Santa Barbara, CA
Eugene, OR
Santa Cruz, CA
Fort Collins, CO (Transfort)
Boulder Area
Boulder City Limits
Peer Average
41.7
5-5 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Figure 5-4 Cost per Passenger Trip
$0.00 $1.00 $2.00 $3.00 $4.00 $5.00 $6.00
Gainesville, FL
Ann Arbor
Madison, WI
Santa Barbara, CA
Eugene, OR
Fort Collins, CO (Transfort)
Santa Cruz, CA
Boulder Area
Boulder Local
Boulder Only CTN
Peer Average
$2.81
Figure 5-3 Farebox Recovery
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Fort Collins, CO (Transfort)
Eugene, OR
Ann Arbor
Santa Cruz, CA
Madison, WI
Santa Barbara, CA
Gainesville, FL
Boulder Area, CO
Peer Group Average
30%
Total service offered is high. The total amount of service provided (measured in
annual revenue hours and annual revenue miles) is significantly higher than the
peer average. Selected peer cities are in smaller metropolitan areas and are served
by smaller-scale transit agencies. Significant regional transit investment by RTD
pushes Boulder’s offerings above many peers.
Investment in transit is significant compared to peers. The annual operating
cost of routes serving Boulder is $47.8 million, more than double the peer average
of $23.4 million.
Boulder riders cover more of transit’s operating costs through fares and fare
programs. Annual farebox revenue on routes serving Boulder is $20.6 million, com-
pared to the peer average of $7.6 million. Farebox revenues pay for 43% of the total
cost of transit operations in the Boulder area, higher than the peer average of 30%
(see Figure 5-3). Boulder riders are paying a higher proportion of operating costs
than riders in the peer cities. Much of this difference is attributable to the presence
of the Eco Pass.
The cost per passenger served is high. The average cost per passenger served in
the Boulder area is $5.37 compared to a peer average of $2.81 (see Figure 5-4). This
is due in part to the higher cost to operate regional services, but also indicates that
Boulder may not be getting optimal value for transit dollars invested. Cost per pas-
senger on Boulder’s most cost effective routes – the HOP ($2.07) and the SKIP ($2.91)
– compare favorably with the most efficient peer systems.
5-6 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Figure 5-5 Peer Service and Ridership Statistics
Peer Transit Provider Annual Passengers (unlinked trips)Annual Revenue Hours Annual Revenue Miles Passengers per Revenue Hour Passengers per Revenue Mile
Gainesville, FL (RTS)9,964,034 272,364 3,138,234 36.6 3.2
Ann Arbor, MI (AATA/UM)1 12,680,685 279,344 3,358,684 45.4 3.8
Eugene, OR (LTD)11,239,339 249,500 2,914,830 45.1 3.9
Fort Collins, CO (Transfort)2,156,876 77,355 995,858 27.9 2.2
Madison, WI (Metro)14,923,970 383,107 4,818,879 39.0 3.1
Santa Barbara, CA (SBMTD)7,686,388 209,234 2,559,672 36.7 3.0
Santa Cruz, CA (SCMTD)5,776,444 215,262 3,156,743 26.8 1.8
Peer Average 9,203,962 240,881 2,991,843 38.2 3.1
Boulder Area (RTD)2 8,906,534 422,2203 6,273,049 21.1 1.4
RTD Total (Bus Only)75,954,767 2,727,571 36,662,056 27.9 2.1
Notes: 1 Data for both AATA and UM service. 2 Data for routes serving City of Boulder (2011). 3 RTD does not publish revenue hour by route data, but it does publish in-service hours, and system
revenue hours are available from NTD. To estimate revenue hours for Boulder area routes, the RTD system ratio of revenue hours to in-service hours was calculated by dividing year 2011
revenue hours (from NTD) by year 2011 in-service hours (from RTD 2011 service performance report). This ratio is 1.304. Multiplying annual in-service hours (323,728) by 1.304 gives estimated
revenue hours of 422,220.
Sources: National Transit Database 2011 data, RTD
Figure 5-6 Peer Service and Ridership Statistics
Peer Transit Provider Total Operating Cost Farebox Revenue Net Subsidy Cost per Revenue Hour Cost per Passenger Subsidy per Passenger
Gainesville, FL (RTS)$18,796,130 $11,166,654 $7,629,476 $69.01 $1.89 $0.77
Ann Arbor, MI (AATA/UM)1 $26,702,900 $6,048,077 $20,654,823 $95.59 $2.11 $1.63
Eugene, OR (LTD)$33,154,593 $7,432,593 $25,722,000 $132.88 $2.95 $2.29
Fort Collins, CO (Transfort)$6,991,846 $1,060,437 $5,931,409 $90.39 $3.24 $2.75
Madison, WI (Metro)$42,090,315 $11,712,963 $30,377,352 $109.87 $2.82 $2.04
Santa Barbara, CA (SBMTD)$21,990,891 $8,022,954 $13,967,937 $105.10 $2.86 $1.82
Santa Cruz, CA (SCMTD)$31,341,694 $8,002,031 $23,339,663 $145.60 $5.43 $4.04
Peer Average $25,866,910 $7,635,101 $18,231,809 $107.38 $2.81 $1.98
Boulder Area (RTD)2 $47,832,261 $20,643,215 $27,189,046 $113.29 $5.37 $3.05
RTD Total (Bus Only)$287,598,365 $79,496,929 $208,101,436 $105.44 $3.79 $2.74
Notes: 1 Data for both AATA and UM service. 2 Data for routes serving City of Boulder (2011).
Sources: National Transit Database 2011 data, RTD
5-7 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Key Issues to be Explored in the Renewed Vision for Transit
Focus on investments that have led to peer ridership growth: Peer cities and
agencies show the greatest bump in transit ridership where significant investments in
speed and reliability (i.e., BRT services) have been made. This is an important consider-
ation for Boulder moving forward.
Efficiency: Boulder’s efficiency metrics (i.e., cost per passenger, cost per revenue
hour) don’t compare well to peer cities that are not part of broader regional transit
systems. While this is expected, it does present a key tradeoff question for Boulder in
defining a renewed vision for transit: “Focus on transit improvements and coordinated
land use improvements inside City boundaries or broaden the City’s preview to deal
with regional travel patterns?” Of course, this is not an either/or question, but it will be
a key tradeoff that must be addressed in future TMP evaluation.
Integrate university transit services: Many peers have intercampus transportation
services integrated with local/regional transit, simplifying system offerings and
creating a more cohesive, transparent transit product. There could be substantial cost
tradeoffs associated with integration; this is worth exploring in the next phase of the
project.
Build on fare program successes: Eco Pass programs combined with strong ridership
help Boulder transit routes to operate with less subsidy than peer systems. The transit
plan will look at opportunities to further reduce public subsidies for transit.
Coordination with the Boulder County’s Eco Pass study will be critical.
TRANSIT INNOVATIONS & LEADING PRACTICESCHAPTER 6
IN THIS CHAPTER
• Transit Service
• Transportation & Land Use
• Access & Connections
• Information
• Amenities
• Fares & Funding
6-1 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Transit Services
In this section:
• Bus Rapid Transit &
Corridor-Based Bus Improvements
• Transit Priority Lanes and Treatments
• Integrating Bikes and Transit
• Reallocation of Street Space
Transit Services
Many Boulderites depend on transit to get around. Some use transit because they are unable to
drive due to a disability, don’t hold a driver’s license, or can’t afford to own a car. However, many
transit riders do have access to a car; their choice to ride transit is based on its convenience,
affordability, and quality of service. To attract new transit riders and retain riders who are already
using the system transit must be:
y Frequent. Runs every 15 minutes or better all day, allowing riders to catch a bus sponta-
neously without consulting a schedule.
y Reliable. Can be counted upon to arrive at the bus stop at regular intervals and arrive at
its destination on schedule.
y Fast. Follows direct, legible routes that allow transit to bypass congestion.
y Connected. Comfortable, well-designed transfers enable an efficient transit and multi-
modal network connecting homes, workplaces, and other destinations.
This section provides additional strategies for Boulder to improve the speed and efficiency
of transit, the cost effectiveness of transit, and its integration with other modes to support a
complete transportation system.
6-2 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Bus Rapid Transit & Corridor-Based Bus Improvements
Coordinated investments in transit service and facilities along bus corridors improve transit travel speed, reliability, and passenger comfort
relative to traditional fixed-route bus service. These investments can include a broad continuum of features such as dedicated transit lanes
and priority at traffic signals, enhanced station amenities and vehicles, off-board fare collection, and distinctive marketing and branding. A
full Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system may have many or all of these enhancements and often runs in an exclusive transit right-of-way. A more
moderate level of investment is often referred to as “Rapid Bus” or “BRT Lite.” These same principles can also be applied to frequent bus
corridors. BRT systems are currently in development in Colorado: the MAX BRT system is scheduled to open in 2014 in Fort Collins; RTD is
also planning a BRT system along the US 36 corridor between Denver and Boulder, scheduled to open in 2016. Image from Nelson\Nygaard
Why is it important?
Bus corridor improvements can be implemented
cost-effectively and incrementally, enabling benefits
to be distributed across a range of corridors. A critical
aspect of a corridor-based bus strategy is the coordina-
tion between the transit agency and city. Transit agency
investments in vehicles, station amenities, and service
have the greatest ridership response when street
infrastructure under the city’s control is designed to
provide fast and reliable transit service, and when city
land use policies encourage population and employ-
ment growth along major transit corridors. Marketing
these services with a unique brand helps make them
more “legible” or easier to understand, even for more
infrequent and casual users who may not be comfort-
able navigating the fixed-route bus system. As the
Boulder region looks to implement corridor-based bus
on US 36 and other major corridors, it will be important
to implement efficient and attractive bus service to
provide a competitive transportation option for those
currently commuting into Boulder by single occupancy
vehicle.
Institute for Transportation and Development Policy BRT Standard
The Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP) BRT Standard was developed to create
a common definition of bus rapid transit and recognize high-quality BRT systems around the world. It
also functions as a technical tool to guide and encourage municipalities to consider the key features of
the best BRT systems as they move through the design process. To achieve the ITDP BRT “gold” standard,
the system must include: (1) busway alignment; (2) dedicated right-of-way; (3) off-board fare collections;
(4) intersection treatments; and (5) platform-level boardings. More information on the rating system is
available here.
Fort Collins, Colorado will open the state’s first BRT system in May 2014.
Image from City of Fort Collins
6-3 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
EmX Highlights
y Attracted a large share of choice
riders (roughly 16% previ-
ously used private automobiles for
similar trips).
y Reduced end-to-end travel time by
one minute on average compared
to previous bus service. Service
is more reliable—average passenger
travel time is six minutes faster than the
scheduled time for previous bus service.
y Within two years, daily ridership more
than doubled compared to earlier
conventional bus service, and EmX served
over 1.5 million riders per year at about a
third the cost per boarding of the overall
Lane Transit District system.
y Cost $25 million to build ($6.25 million
per mile).
Where has it been done?
Lane Transit EmX: Eugene, Oregon
The EmX (Emerald Express) Green Line Bus Rapid
Transit (BRT) service connects downtown Eugene and
downtown Springfield along the Franklin Corridor,
serving the University of Oregon and Sacred Heart
Medical Center. The goals of EmX are to increase
frequency, speed, and capacity of transit service in the
corridor, while reducing operating costs. The EmX runs
every 10 minutes, compared to every 15-30 minutes on
the bus service (Route 11) that it replaced, and 60% of
the corridor uses exclusive transit lanes.
The line was designed to support mixed-use districts
around stations and enhance the surrounding
streetscape with an attractive median busway coupled
with bicycle and pedestrian facilities. More information
is available here.
The EmX is a full BRT line with highly-
developed stations including off-board
fare payment. EmX vehicles are train-like,
with doors that can open on both sides,
fold-out ramps for accessibility, and on-
board bicycle storage.
Image from Flickr user Wolfram Burner
17
How to Use the
EmX Ticket Machine
Each EmX station has a ticket vending
machine. All passengers must have an EmX
single-ride ticket, EmX Day Pass, or valid LTD
pass prior to boarding EmX.
Three Easy Steps to Purchase Your Ticket:
Select your fare type (yellow
button).
Insert exact payment. The machine
accepts credit cards, $1 bills and change,
except pennies.
Take your ticket.
The machine does not give change.
Made a mistake? Press the red cancel
button. Coins will be returned or you will
receive a canceled transaction ticket.
Canceled transaction tickets must be
redeemed at LTD Customer Service within
three business days.
EmX single-ride tickets are valid for 30
minutes from the time of purchase.
EmX Day Pass tickets are valid on EmX for
the day they are purchased or they may be
exchanged for a standard LTD Day Pass on a
regular LTD bus on the date of purchase.
Questions? Call LTD Customer Service
at 541-687-5555 (7-1-1 TTY) for more
information.
1
2
3
2
1
2
3
1
2
3
EmX Route Map Mapa de la Ruta EmX
Emx Station
Estación de EmX
N
LTD Station
Estación de LTD
LTD Park & Ride
See page 18 and 19 for
EmX timetables.
Consulte los horarios en las
páginas 18 y 19.
Springfield Station
to Gateway/RiverBend
to Eugene Station
EugeneStation
F
GMLK Jr. PkwyRiverBend DrPkwyPioneerGateway StFranklin Blvd
International Way
1
South A
Main
Harlow
2
3
4
McVayStation
LexingtonStation
WalnutStation GlenwoodStation
Dads’ GatesStation
HilyardStation
10th/HighStation
AgateStation
11th/HighStation
International Center Station
International Way East Station
E Street Station
International Way West Station
Sacred Heart Station
Hayden BridgeStation
Q Street Station
Centennial Station
Gateway Station
Kruse Way Station
Pheasant Station
University ofOregon
F Street Station
RiverBend Station
Postal Way Station
Downtown Springfeld
Downtown Eugene
GatewayMall
Guy LeeStation
T
Sacred Heart Entrance
Cada estación del EmX tiene una máquina distribuidora de boletos. Antes de abordar
el EmX todos los pasajeros deben tener un boleto de uso único para el EmX, un pase
para todo el día del EmX o un pase válido de LTD.
3 Pasos Sencillos para comprar los boletos:
Escoja su Tipo de Boleto (Botón Amarillo)
Deposite la cantidad exacta. La máquina acepta tarjetas de crédito, billetes de $1, y moneda a excepción de un centavo
(pennies).
Tome su Boleto
La máquina no le dará cambio.
¿Cometió un error? Presione el botón rojo
para cancelar la transacción y recibirá
sus monedas de regreso o un recibo de
cancelación. Los recibos de cancelación
deben ser canjeados en el Centro de Servicio
para Pasajeros de LTD dentro de tres días
laborables.
Los boletos de uso único de EmX son válidos
por 30 minutos desde el momento en que se
los compra.
Los pases para todo el día de EmX son
válidos en EmX sólo el día en que son
comprados O pueden ser cambiados por
un pase para todo el día estándar en un
autobús de LTD la misma fecha en que son
comprados.
¿Tiene Preguntas? Llame al Centro de
Servicio para Pasajeros de LTD al 541-687-
5555 (7-1-1 TTY) para mayor información.
Cómo Utilizar la Máquina de Boletos para el EmXThe EmX was extended to the Gateway area in 2011; an
additional extension to West Eugene is being planned.
Image from Lane Transit District
Mountain Link: Flagstaff, Arizona
Flagstaff Mountain Link is Flagstaff’s branded, high-
frequency, limited-stop cross-town bus service. Route
10 (the dark purple route in the map below) currently
connects downtown Flagstaff to Northern Arizona
University (NAU), which previously lacked a transit
connection to the rest of the city, and the Woodlands
Village residential and commercial areas. The service
runs every 10 to 15 minutes and is free for students. The
route follows a dedicated transit way (open to bicycles
and pedestrians) through the NAU campus.
Mountain Link Highlights
y Served over 500,000 boardings in its first year, exceeding projections of 300,000 annual boardings
y Cost $8.2 million to build ($1.4 million per mile)
Mountain Link vehicles are not highly-stylized like the EmX, but their distinctive branding helps market
the service, clearly defining the destinations the service connects.
Image from NAIPTA
Bus Rapid Transit & Corridor-Based Bus Improvements
6-4 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Transit Priority Lanes and Treatments
Transit priority treatments are relatively inexpensive improvements that increase the speed and reliability of transit
service. Priority treatments range from reserving roadway lanes for exclusive transit use to designing intersections and
traffic signals so that buses can bypass traffic congestion. Priority treatments can be implemented as part of specific bus
corridor projects (e.g., BRT or Rapid Bus) or on streets with frequent bus service.
Image from Nelson\Nygaard
Why is it important?
Effective transit priority treatments optimize manage-
ment of major transit streets to reduce delay for transit
vehicles and passengers while minimizing impacts on
other users of the street. Enabling buses to run faster
saves time for existing riders and provides an added
incentive to attract new riders to use transit. More
efficient service saves transit providers money – fewer
buses and operators are required to serve a route –
which can then be put back into service improvements.
Where has it been done?
Transit Signal Priority (TSP) and Queue Jumps
TSP allows buses to communicate with traffic signals, requesting that a green light be extended several seconds for
an approaching bus. Queue jump lanes, together with TSP, allow buses to bypass cars queued at intersections. In
some cases, a special traffic signal phase allows buses to move ahead of traffic.
QueueJump
QueueJump
Queue jumps allow buses to bypass traffic to reach a stop at the far side of the intersection (Portland, OR).
Images from Nelson\Nygaard
6-5 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Exclusive Transit Lanes
Bus-only lanes provide transit vehicles with priority on
congested roadways. Bus-only lanes are most often
curb lanes, but may also run “contra-flow” or against the
primary travel direction or in the street median. Median
bus-only lanes typically require specialized buses that
have left-side doors (see EmX BRT) above.
This curbside bus lane on Marine Drive in
Vancouver, BC includes a priority signal and queue
jump that allows buses to bypass traffic queued
to cross the Lions Gate Bridge; buses carry about a
quarter of peak-hour traffic on the bridge.
Image from Flickr user TranBC
A raised concrete barrier provides physical
separation between the roadway and the curbside
bus lane for the EmX BRT (Eugene, OR). A grass strip
adds a natural visual element to the design and
improves natural absorption of storm water.
Image from Flickr user functoruser
A painted bicycle lane separates this bus lane in
Lucerne, Switzerland from general-purpose traffic.
Yellow pavement markings within the bus lane
provide further delineation.
Image from flickr user thisisbossi
Bus lanes that run along
the curb often allow cars
to make right turns or
access on-street parking.
Lanes may be exclusive
all-day or may be open to
all vehicles outside of peak
hours (Seattle, WA).
Image from Flickr user Oran
Viriyincy
Visual and Physical Separation
Visual and physical barriers discourage or physically
prevent autos from using transit lanes. As illustrated
in the photo and other examples provided in the next
section, visual separation is also frequently used to
clearly identify parallel transit and bicycle facilities.
Transit Priority Lanes and Treatments
6-6 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Integrating Bikes and Transit
Integrating bikes and transit is critical to ensure bikes and transit can safely share the roadspace. Cycle tracks and shared
lanes are two strategies to help these two modes integrate seamlessly.
Image from Nelson\Nygaard
Why is it important?
Given that bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit often
utilize the same travel corridors, careful consideration
must be given to integrating these modes safely and
efficiently along transit corridors. If a street is wide
enough, separate, adjacent facilities are generally
preferable; however shared bicycle and transit lanes
can work well under certain conditions. The examples
below introduce best practices for avoiding conflicts
between bicycles, pedestrians, and transit vehicles
when designing and implementing bicycle and bus
facilities.
Where has it been done?
Cycle Tracks: Vancouver, BC, Sydney, Australia, New South
Whales, Australia
Cycle tracks are a type of bike facility that provides
cyclists with physical separation from buses and other
vehicle traffic. Careful design is needed to reduce
conflicts with transit passengers who need to cross the
cycle track for access to and from bus stops. The designs
illustrated in these examples route bike lanes on the
curb side of the bus stop, forming a passenger waiting
“island.” This design allows bicyclists to continue riding
without interruption while buses pull in and out of bus
stop areas. However, passengers must cross the cycle
track to reach the sidewalk, and may not be expecting
bicyclists. Best practices strongly encourage formalizing
crossings for pedestrians between the sidewalk and
the bus stop through the use of “ladder” and/or raised
crosswalks, median islands, and signage. By formalizing
the crossing zone, the design raises the visibility of
pedestrians to bicyclists and ensures that pedestrians
understand that they are about to cross a bicycle
throughway.
The Dunsmuir Separated Bike Lane in Vancouver
BC is an example of a separated cycle track with
a sidewalk that is clearly defined from the cycle
track, and a bus stop with defined transitions to the
sidewalk for safe pedestrian movement.
Image from Flickr user pwkrueger
This neighborhood cycle track in Bourke Street
Cycleway in Sydney, Australia defines the transition
from the stop to the sidewalk to ensure pedestrian
safety.
Image from Flickr user Neal Jennings
6-7 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
This bike lane in Madison, WI is located to the left of a bus lane, allowing buses to serve curbside stops without
conflicts with bicycle traffic.
Image from Nelson\Nygaard
Shared bus and bike lanes work best when bus and bicycle volumes are low to moderate, or to bridge gaps
between dedicated bike facilities.
Image from Nelson\Nygaard
Bicycle and Bus Lanes: Madison, WI
A bicycle lane is traditionally located adjacent to the
curb. An advantage of this design is that a bus-only lane
can serve as a buffer and facility separator between the
bike and auto travel lanes.
However, buses and bicycles may “leapfrog” each other
when buses pull to the curb to pick up and drop off
passengers. Locating a bike lane to the left of the bus
lane (see photo) can help avoid such leapfrogging.
An additional two to three-foot buffer can be used to
provide added separation between the bicycle and
auto lanes.
When there is not enough right-of-way for both bus
and bike lanes, shared lanes can be used under certain
conditions. In this example from Madison, WI, curb
right-of-way is used for on-street parking and curbside
bus stops. In some situations, bicyclists may have to
move out into vehicle traffic to avoid a bus that has
stopped to load/unload passengers. Similarly, buses
may have to pass bicyclists as they accelerate away
from the stop.
Integrating Bikes and Transit
6-8 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Reallocation of Street Space
A variety of modes can successfully mix on streets with appropriate scale, design, traffic speeds, and enforcement.
In the United States and Canada, cities are increasingly reallocating street space to better balance space allotted to
automobiles with the needs and safety of more active users of the right-of-way—pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit
riders.
The cases presented in this section are examples of streetscape redesign and right-of-way reallocation that accom-
modated the needs of multiple modes and energized the streetscape without major reinvestment or expansion of
the right-of-way.
Market Street in San Francisco, a multi-
modal street utilized by a variety of users.
Source: Nelson\Nygaard
Why is it important?
On congested roadways, reallocating space for transit,
bicycle, and pedestrian movement may increase
operational speeds, efficiency, and safety for all users, as
well as foster economic vitality and improve com-
munity livability. Street space reallocation can increase
biking, walking, and transit usage because of increased
efficiency and comfort; reduce peak-hour traffic; and
improve access along transportation corridors.
Where has it been done?
Bike/Transit Integration: Portland, OR
The Rose Quarter Transit Center, served by six TriMet
bus routes and at the confluence of the Yellow, Blue,
Green, and Red MAX light rail lines, is a major trans-
portation hub on the eastside of the Willamette River
with close proximity to the Rose Garden arena and
Convention Center. It is also along a major north-south
bicycle corridor. In 2008, Portland’s Bureau of Trans-
portation opened the Transit Center to bicycle traffic
with a two-way bike lane, painted green for visibility to
both TriMet operators and bicycle riders, and large bike
boxes that place the bicycle riders well ahead of transit
vehicles. The design allows for important bicycle and
transit connections to be made with limited mixing or
safety implications.
Streetscape Design: New York City
New York has gained worldwide notoriety for recent in-
novations in streetscape redesign. These improvements
include the Broadway re-design and many buffered
bike lanes and transit priority lanes. See summary at
right for more information on the transformation of
Broadway from 14th Street to Columbus Circle.
New York City has reallocated street space in order
to better accommodate bicyclists, pedestrians, and
transit vehicles. Beginning in 2009, for example,
over 2 miles of Broadway from Union Square at
14th Street to Columbus Circle on 59th Street
midtown Manhattan have been improved with
pedestrian plazas and bike lanes. See the NYDOT
Street Design Manual here.
Image from NYDOT
Portland, Oregon’s Rose Quarter Transit Center is
an example of shared space for transit, pedestrians,
and bicyclists with limited access for single-
occupancy vehicles. The facility was utilized by
nearly 4,000 cyclists in 2011.
Image from Nelson\Nygaard
6-9 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Bollards: Delft, Netherlands
Bollards can be used to prioritize space in limited streets that carry multiple modes. Bollards allow narrower transit
and bicycle lanes to be used on streets with limited right-of-way. Mechanical, retractable bollards can also be used to
create pedestrian and transit spaces. Buses and emergency vehicles have transponders that allow them to retract the
bollard automatically. Such bollards can allow transit to operate on an otherwise pedestrian street.
Reallocation of Street Space
Electronically-activated bollards allow buses or deliveries access to the Delft, NL city center, which is otherwise a
pedestrian and bicycle-only zone.
Image from nl2011transpo
v
• Corridor Options: Explore
corridor-based bus options for key corridors
in Boulder, such as on Broadway, Arapahoe,
and other corridors
• Priority Lanes: Explore opportunities
to implement transit priority lanes in
corridors with frequent service and high
traffic volumes
• Bike Safety: Explore opportunities to
install cycle tracks and protected bicycle
facilities to avoid transit and bicycle conflict
Transit Service
KEY ISSUES TO BE
EXPLORED IN THE TRANSIT PLAN
6-11 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
TRANSPORTATION &
LAND USE
In this section:
• Applying a ‘6D’ Framework
• Placemaking: Turning Transit Streets Into Active
Community Places
• Transit Overlay
Transportation and Land Use
The best long range transit plan is a great land use plan. Study after study
shows that the compactness, form, and diversity of land uses are key factors in
determining transit’s success. Western Boulder is a national model for well-
scaled, compact, walkable urban land use form. The eastern portions of the
community have more traditional suburban patterns. East Boulder is an area
of transition with opportunities for near-term infill and redevelopment and,
therefore, where significant attention must be focused to develop in a manner
that encourages walking, biking and transit use over single-occupant driving.
This section provides a brief overview of transit-supportive land use strategies
using the “6D” framework, sample transit overlay zones, and placemaking
strategies that could be employed in Boulder to strengthen the linkage
between land use policy and transportation planning.
6-12 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Applying a 6D Framework
Key principles for designing transit supportive communities are often referred to as the 6Ds.* The 6Ds include destinations,
distance, density, diversity, design, and demand management (see Chapter 3).
We know that a high concentration of homes, workplaces, and other community activities and facilities within a short walk
of frequent transit stops and stations supports more frequent and efficient transit service. The market for transit increases in
areas with a mix of uses, an attractive walking environment, increased density, and a well-connected street network. So how
do we make principles practice?
Cities around North America are applying the 6Ds through specific code requirements, incentives, and programs. This section
describes how it is being done.
* The 6D factors are frequently written about and presented by experts in the transit-oriented development field, including Reid Ewing who has frequently lectured on
“Successful Transit Oriented Developments and the 6Ds.”
Director’s Park in Portland, OR
Image from Nelson\Nygaard
Why is it important?
Transit-supportive land use policies integrate land
use and transit via the creation of compact, walkable,
mixed-use neighborhoods within walking distance of
a transit stop or station. These policies bring together
people, jobs, and services and are designed to make
it efficient, safe, and convenient to walk, bike, or ride
transit.
Where has it been done?
Communities large and small have realized the impact of connecting land use decisions with transportation
investment priorities. The next page outlines the “6D” guidelines. TransLink’s Transit Oriented Communities Design
Guidelines provides more information on the “6D” approach here.
Santa Monica, CA, mixed use development is paired with high frequency transit service and a comfortable walking environment.
Image from Nelson\Nygaard
6-13 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
6D Framework: Characteristics of Transit-Supportive Land Use Policy
1 DESTINATIONS
Coordinate Land Use and Transportation
y 20 minute neighborhoods
y Mix of uses within walking, biking, or transit
distance to access daily needs and services
y Transit service aligned with major destinations
y Establish strong anchors along transit (major
destinations on each end of a route)
2 DIVERSITY
Include a Mix of Land Uses
y Mixed-used development; live-work units
y Medium to High Residential Density
y Mixed Employment
y Professional Office
y Light Industrial
y Central Business
y Limitations on auto-oriented uses such as
vehicle sales or repair
y Suggested Prohibited Land Uses: drive-thru
restaurants and other commercial uses,
car dealerships, industrial (manufacturing,
processing, warehousing), single family
residential
3 DISTANCE
Create a Well-connected Street Network
y ¼ to ½ mile walking distance to transit station
y Minimum block lengths no longer than 500
feet
y The number of local routes and intersections
can provide for more direct trips and shorter
distances between uses
y Minimum unobstructed sidewalk width
requirements
y Pedestrian amenities, such as well-lit facilities,
landscaping, public art, and clear pedestrian
markings (cross-walks, curb-ramps, etc.)
The Portland Plan 20-Minute Neighborhoods
objective has a goal for 90% of Portland resi-
dents to be within walking distance of basic
services by 2030. See more information here.
Tool for success: 20-Minute Neighborhood
policy and goal set in the Comprehensive
Plan.
Image from City of Portland
In Surrey, BC, the land use plan includes
guidelines for new streets and pedestrian
connections to support a fine-grained
street network and connections to transit.
See the Surrey City Center Connections
Concept plan. Tool for success: City Center
Connections Concept Plan.
Image from TransLink “Transit-Oriented
Communities Design Guidelines”
The Selkirk Waterfront Community in Victoria BC
supports a range or uses, including light industrial,
commercia/office, residential, institutional, and
services. More information available here. Tool
for success: Comprehensive Development Plan
process and form based code.
Image from Jawl Properties
Applying a ‘6D’ Framework
6-14 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
4 DESIGN
Create Places for People
y Maximum building set-backs to encourage
“active” frontages (i.e., 0-10 feet)
y Outdoor seating for restaurants
y Street buffers (i.e. landscaped buffers )
y Active frontage buildings with at least one
main entrance on the street located closest to
the transit station
y Minimum lot coverage (i.e., 65%)
y Higher allowable building heights
y Accessible design for all road users (i.e. curb
ramps, audible walk signals, etc.)
y Prohibit surface parking abutting the roadway
y Allow parklets (see sidebar on San Francisco’s
“Pavement to Parks” program)
y Minimize driveways
y Short block lengths, e.g., 400 feet
5 DENSITY
Concentrate Activities Around Transit
y Density (combined persons and jobs per acre)
typically within ¼ to ½ mile of transit is a key
predictor of mode share
y Density should be paired with urban form
principles (i.e., short block length)
y Minimum floor area ratio requirements (e.g.,
Non-residential: 0.5 to 2.0 depending on the
use or location; Residential: average density of
up to 15-25 dwelling units per acre)
6 DEMAND MANAGEMENT
Discourage Driving
y Reduced off-street parking minimums
(e.g., reduce requirements by up to 40% for
development in a Transit Overlay Zone and/or
maximums (e.g., parking shall not exceed 125%
of minimum City requirement)
y Prohibit parking between buildings and street
y Encourage shared parking
y Design requirements for ingress/egress and
landscaping of surface parking
y Minimum bicycle parking requirements (i.e., 1
bicycle parking space per 2,000 – 3,000 square
feet of leasable space and/or 1 bicycle parking
space for every 10 employees)
y On-street bicycle parking program to replace
car parking with bicycle parking (i.e. bike
corrals)
Santa Monica’s Bergamot Area Plan will transition
the Bergamot neighborhood into a “complete”
new neighborhood featuring a finely scaled net-
work of pedestrian streets and open space ameni-
ties. Tool for success: Bergamot Area Plan.
Image from City of Santa Monica
Industry experience suggests that residential
densities in the range of about 4 to 7 households
per gross acre are a minimum threshold for high-
performing transit and also represent a point at
which overall mode shift away from driving begins
to increase exponentially. In Calgary, the Garrison
Woods area built more than 12 households per
acre by implementing a network of narrow streets,
mixed uses, and diverse housing types. Tool for
success: the CFT Community Plan.
Image from Frances Dares and Associates
In Hayward, CA, the city has implemented a transit
zone parking reduction policy. This policy provides
developers with a parking credit for proximity to
transit. For development within 500 feet of transit,
a 15% reduction is given. Retail uses must provide
a bus stop and shelter adjacent to the site to
receive the credit. Tool for success: the Off Street
Parking Regulations Code.
Image from Flickr user neighborhoods.org
Applying a ‘6D’ Framework 6D Framework: Characteristics of Transit-Supportive Land Use Policy (Continued)
6-15 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Placemaking: Turning Transit Streets Into Active Community Places
Creating places for people means designing an urban environment to accommodate their needs regard-
less of their chosen mode of transportation. Streets make up our largest public space, providing the “living
room” of any neighborhood–a place to socialize, recreate, and travel on.
Streets don’t simply provide a way to travel. Beyond the traditional consideration of street geometry,
through-put, and level of service, placemaking upholds community character, form, and function at a
human scale. The street is a great asset for the community. It can
be used and repurposed in new and innovative ways
as seen here in San Francisco, CA.
Image from Søren Schaumburg Jens
Why is it important?
Integrating transit into the community fabric can help
facilitate the safe movement of all modes and the
prioritization of vulnerable road users. Places that are
pedestrian, bicycle, and transit oriented have lower
automobile traffic volumes and speeds, creating calmer
and safer environments. Transit stations and stops are
natural meeting places in the community and can be
enhanced to serve as more than just a place to wait
for the bus. These design principles will be critical for
Boulder as the east end of town develops.
Where has it been done?
TriMet’s Land Use & Transportation Planning
In Portland, Oregon the Community Building Guidebook is published by the regional transit agency,
TriMet, and provides a wealth of knowledge about TriMet’s approach to linking land use and transporta-
tion investments:
http://trimet.org/pdfs/publi-
cations/community_source-
book.pdf
The Portland Transit Mall in
downtown Portland runs for
25 city blocks, pairing high
frequency transit service with
beautiful community spaces:
http://trimet.org/portland-
mall/
http://trimet.org/publicart/
greenline/index.htm
Pioneer Courthouse Square in Portland, Oregon offers ample and flexible
seating, activity and event space, public facilities, and connection to a
variety of transportation corridors.
Image from Nelson\Nygaard
Pioneer Courthouse Square: Portland, OR
Downtown Portland’s Pioneer Courthouse Square is an example of connecting transit to placemaking. A hard-scaped
park referred to as Portland’s “Living Room,” Pioneer Courthouse Square offers a multitude of places for people to
sit including steps, street furniture, and moveable seats and tables. This park is bordered on three sides by light rail
transit corridors and the northbound transit mall with over a dozen high frequent transit routes.
6-16 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Euclid Corridor: Cleveland, OH
Once dubbed “Millionaire’s Row,” through the second
half of the twentieth century Cleveland’s Euclid Corridor
suffered disinvestment, abandonment, and decay.
Development of the Euclid Corridor bus rapid transit
line, the HealthLine, provided an opportunity for the
city to reshape and reinvest in the area. Throughout
the 7-mile extent of the HealthLine, a number of
streetscape improvements and placemaking efforts
have been made. These include small and large parks
integrated throughout the line, a public arts campaign,
and streetscape redesigns built to a human scale.
Design cues tie together the entire corridor and distinct
districts give neighborhoods character. Institutions
such as the Cleveland Clinic and Cleveland State Univer-
sity, have updated Master Plans to embrace the transit
line as a redevelopment tool. The results? An estimated
$5 billion invested in development along Euclid Avenue
and revitalized places for residents and visitors. See
more information on the Euclid Corridor here.
Small details make a big difference. Cleveland,
Ohio’s Euclid Avenue HealthLine features medians
vegetated with flowers and other landscaping
elements to create a more beautiful and vibrant
streetscape. Stops are comfortable, covered, and
allow access to service in both directions.
Image from trans4m.org
Paris, France is piloting community transit hubs
that offer much more than a seat to wait. Interac-
tive computers allow riders to see news, weather,
and route information. A lending library allows
people to exchange books and a small café serves
coffee. These amenities make for a comfortable and
engaging user experience.
Image from designboom.com
Community Transit Hubs: Paris, France
Paris has gone to great lengths to prioritize the
movement of transit throughout the city. With the
subterranean transit system above capacity, the city has
turned to retrofitting most city boulevards to include
bus-only lanes. A key component in attracting riders to
the bus system has been the development of bus stops
as places that people can use for a variety of activities
other than simply waiting for the bus. These bus stops
include tickets, coffee, mini libraries for book loans,
bikeshare, heated waiting areas, and adjacent food
service. This new type of bus stop provides an attrac-
tive community space that draws people to transit.
Pavement to Parks Program:
San Francisco, CA
Parklets re-purpose street space for people
instead of cars by providing space for the general
public to sit and enjoy the street where existing
narrow sidewalks would preclude such oc-
cupancy. In 2010, San Francisco launched its
Pavement to Parks program – a collaborative
effort between the San Francisco Planning
Department, the Department of Public Works, the
Municipal Transportation Agency, and the Mayor’s
Office.
Funding for the parklets is provided by a
combination of private donations and economic
development funds assembled by the Mayor's
Office of Workforce and Economic Development
(MOEWD). Each plaza costs approximately
$30,000 to construct and each parklet is less than
$15,000. Business owners or residents can apply
for the installation of a parklet. In just three years,
forty-two parklets have been installed under the
City’s program.
A parklet on the corner of Haight Street and
Clayton Street in San Francisco allows diners to
enjoy the street.
San Francisco Department of Public Works Parklet
guidelines can be found here.
Image from Aaron Bialick, SFStreetsblog
Placemaking: Turning Transit Streets Into Active Community Places
6-17 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Transit Overlay
Transit overlay zones ensure development patterns match transportation investments. As noted in the previous
sections, there is a strong correlation between urban design, land use policies, and the propensity to use transit. This
section provides example transit overlay zoning codes, which can be a useful tool to realize transit-supportive urban
form.
Image from Nelson\Nygaard
Why is it important?
Cities can create or update zoning through transit overlay zones to create a supportive policy environment for transit oriented development. This mechanism enables cities to
establish a vision for transit oriented development and identify priority areas where that vision can be realized. As areas in east Boulder, such as the Boulder Community Hospital
Foothills Campus and the Boulder Junction, take shape, there is an opportunity to establish transit overlay zones to aid the development of transit supportive development.
Where has it been done?
Example Transit Overlay Ordinances
Transit Oriented Development Overlay Zone: Eugene, OR
The City of Eugene’s Transit Oriented Development
Overlay Zone is designed to encourage compact
urban growth, increased choice of transportation
mode, reduced reliance on the automobile, and
a safe and pleasant pedestrian environment.
These outcomes are accomplished by insuring an
attractive streetscape, a functional mix of comple-
mentary uses, and provision of amenities that
support the use of transit, bicycles, and pedestrian
facilities. Currently, the Transit Oriented Overlay
Zone is in effect in downtown Eugene.
Specific elements of the code include:
y Building Setbacks: Maximum of 15 feet.
y Building Frontage: Buildings must provide a
main entrance on the facade of the building
that is within the 15-foot maximum street
setback facing the street.
y Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Minimum: 0.62 - 2.0
FAR minimum (distinction between inside and
outside the core transit oriented development
area zone).
y Parking between Buildings and the Street:
Automobile parking, driving, and maneuvering
areas shall not be located between the main
building(s) and a street. For sites that abut a
street, parking may be located at the rear of
the building or on 1 or both sides of a building
when at least 60 percent of the site frontage
abuts the street.
y Structured Parking: On-street structured
parking on sites that abut a street shall have
at least 50 percent of the ground floor street
frontage developed for office, retail, or other
pedestrian-oriented uses.
y Improvements Between Buildings and
Streets: The land between a building or
exterior improvement and a street must be
landscaped and/or paved with a hard surface
for use by pedestrians.
View the complete zoning code under
Section 9.4500.
The Transit Oriented Development Overlay Zone
in Eugene, OR supports the EmX Bus Rapid Transit
System
Image from Nelson\Nygaard
6-18 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Transit Overlay Zone: Sacramento, CA
The City of Sacramento transit overlay zone was
instituted in response to a plan to build a high-speed
rail line in California, which would stop in Sacra-
mento. The City also saw an opportunity to develop
the code to accommodate its growing population,
which is expected to grow as much as 65% by 2035.
The code supports a new development plan that
focuses on compact growth and transit use in an
attempt to mitigate the effects of the city’s already
existing problems of urban sprawl, transportation
congestion, and poor air quality. The transit overlay
zone can be implemented under two circumstances:
(1) within a quarter-mile radius of an existing or
proposed light rail transit (LRT) station, or (2) within
a half-mile radius of a proposed/existing LRT station
if the property is part of a transit village plan. In addition to similar building
setback, frontage, and parking requirements noted in the Eugene example
above, specific elements of the Sacramento code include:
y Height: Buildings in the TO zone shall not exceed fifty-five (55) feet in
height; however, the planning director may permit additional height up to
seventy-five (75) feet in mixed use buildings with at least twenty-five (25)
percent of the gross building square footage devoted to residential use,
or buildings that include structured parking and open space. Any portion
of a building within one hundred (100) feet of a parcel zoned or used for
single-family use shall not exceed thirty-five (35) feet in height.
y Density Requirements: Non-residential projects shall have a net FAR of not
less than 0.4 and not more than 3.0. Residential projects shall be developed
with a minimum of fifteen (15) dwelling units per net acre and shall not
exceed sixty (60) dwelling units per net acre; provided that density greater
than sixty (60) units per net acre may be allowed by approval of a planning
and design commission special permit if the higher density is consistent
with the general plan and applicable community or specific plan.
y Pedestrian Access: Projects may be required to provide public pedestrian
access through or across a development to facilitate convenient pedestrian
access to transit.
View the complete zoning code here.
Transit Oriented Development Ordinance: Austin, TX
The City of Austin began the development
of a TOD Ordinance in 2004 (Ordinance
(#20050519-008). City staff was guided
by a Community Advisory Group that
consisted of representatives from the
Design, Planning, Urban Transportation,
Zoning and Planning Commissions,
and private stakeholders. To implement
the TOD Ordinance, the City of Austin
first selected five TOD districts that the
ordinance would affect. The second phase
of the process involved development of
a Station Area Plan (SAP) for each TOD
district. The SAP process allowed the City to identify the unique characteristics
of the site. Some districts were surrounded by undeveloped land, while others
abutted established single-family neighborhoods. Developing a Station Area
Plan enabled Austin to implement the TOD Ordinance while being sensitive to
the district’s surroundings. The SAP process identified the “type” of TOD district
which aligned with the Zoning Ordinance:
y Neighborhood Center TOD - located at the commercial center of a
neighborhood; lowest density of all classifications (average density at
approximately 15-25 dwelling units per acre). Typical building height is one
to six stories. (Density, building height, and land use specifications are to
provide guidance for station area planning and are not prescriptive).
y Town Center TOD - located at a major commercial, employment or civic
center; moderate densities relative to other classifications.
y Regional Center TOD - located at the juncture of regional transportation
lines or at a major commuter or employment center; greater densities
relative to other classifications but less than in a Downtown TOD.
y Downtown TOD - located in a highly urbanized area; highest density of all
classifications; allows for high-rise development.
View the complete zoning code here.
Example Transit Overlay Ordinances (Continued)
• Neighborhood Access: Develop
a 20-Minute Neighborhood Access GIS
tool to guide policy framework (currently
underway as part of the TMP Update)
• Connectivity & Placemaking:
Develop guidelines to improve street
connectivity and place making in east
Boulder (currently underway as part of the
Sustainable Streets and Centers work)
• Transit Overlay Zones: Explore
Transit Overlay Zones for priority transit
corridors in east Boulder and along other
key transit corridors
Transportation &
Land Use
KEY ISSUES TO BE
EXPLORED IN THE TRANSIT PLAN
6-20 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
6-21 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Access & Connections
In this section:
• Pedestrian Access to Transit
• Bikes on Transit
• Bike Parking and Bike Centers
Access & Connections
Seamless and safe pedestrian and bike access to
public transit is critical for attracting new riders,
increasing ridership among existing passengers,
and improving the overall travel experience. An
attractive and safe street environment can be a
deciding factor when choosing whether or not
to take transit at all, especially for those with the
option to drive. This section provides an overview
of roadway treatments and facilities to improve
access and connections to transit service.
6-22 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Pedestrian Access to Transit
Every transit trip starts and ends with a walking trip. Safe, convenient, and comfortable access to transit stops and
stations is fundamental to effectively serve transit customers in any neighborhood and particularly important for
attracting new customers to the system. Gaps in the sidewalk network, walking to reach a stop or waiting at a stop
along high speed roads, and insufficient waiting areas all contribute to less attractive transit facilities and can deter
transit riders. Seamless, integrated pedestrian linkages support all forms of multimodal transportation including
walking, biking, carsharing, carpooling, and park and ride facilities.
Image from
San Francisco Planning Department
Why is it important?
As cities grow from their urban cores, development
often shifts from pedestrian-friendly development
to automobile-oriented urban form. We see this on
the eastern sections of Canyon Boulevard in Boulder
where four-lane traffic abuts narrow sidewalks with no
barriers for pedestrians using the sidewalk. Conversely,
the benefits of great pedestrian environments have
been demonstrated on Pearl Street in Boulder where
swarms of pedestrians enjoy the streets every day, fully
separated from vehicle traffic, but always just a few
short blocks from a transit stop. The design principles
described in the sidebar below must be emulated in
east Boulder to build an attractive environment for all
modes of travel. Accessible pedestrian access to transit
will be critical to support a transit-supportive urban
form in the developing areas of Boulder Junction, CU
East Campus, and the Boulder Community Hospital
Foothills campus.
A variety of options facilitate pedestrian access to transit (see ‘Designing Streets for Pedestrians’ on page 6-23 for
an overview).
Images from Nelson\Nygaard
6-23 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Designing Streets for Pedestrians
Wide Sidewalks: Continuous
sidewalks of at least 4 feet in
width seamlessly connected
to the sidewalk network
in the area. A wide and
accessible sidewalk network
should be complete within a
half-mile perimeter of transit.
Lighting: Well-
lit crosswalks
and sidewalks
provide
increased
safety and
security.
Land Use: The environment
beyond the street is also
important to provide a
comfortable and inviting
pedestrian environment.
Amenities include benches
and drinking fountains,
street-fronting doorways and
windows, and human scale
building design.
Well-Marked Crossings:
Transitions and street crossings
should be well-marked and
preferably include raised cross-
ings that prioritize pedestrians.
Raised crossings are better for
people walking and rolling and
also serve as a traffic calming
measure.
Universal Design: Intersections should
provide facilities that can safely move
people of all ages and capabilities across
the street. Design elements like curb
ramps, level landings and gutter seams,
visible and audile signals, smooth sur-
faces, accessible push buttons (or default
WALK phases), and signage that may help
pedestrians navigate intersections should
be integrated into intersection design.
Refuges:
Where there is
higher volume
automobile traffic
or higher speeds
present, pedestrian
refuge islands, center
medians, bollard or
planter protection,
on-demand push
button pedestrian
crossing lights, and
curb extensions and
bulb-outs should
serve as traffic
calming devices.
Curb Extensions: Curb Extensions: On
streets with on-street parking, underutilized
pavement at the intersection can be rededi-
cated to expand the pedestrian realm and
reduce crossing distance. Curb extensions also
improve pedestrian and motorist sightlines at
intersections and help manage vehicle turn
speeds.
Traffic Calming: Explicit
vertical and horizontal traffic
calming can greatly
improve the quality of the
pedestrian environment.
These features include road
diets, speed bumps, speed
tables, raised intersections,
diagonal diverters, chicanes,
traffic circles, and shared
streets such as Dutch-style
woonerfs.Honolulu, HI
San Francisco, CA
Ann Arbor, MI
Santa Monica, CA
Portland, ORCulver City, CA
Portland, OR
Huntington, NY
6-24 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Swiss Pedestrian Priority Zones
in Bern, Switzerland illustrate
that pedestrians have priority
in the 20 kilometer per hour
Pedestrian Zones.
Image from City of Bern
In Vancouver, B.C. small alleyways are used
to make pedestrian connections without
encouraging drivers to use the streets. Through
this system pedestrians can access transit via
low-stress walkways.
Image from Nelson\Nygaard
Alleyways: Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Utilizing the alleyways paralleling major streets,
Vancouver, B.C. has created pedestrian-friendly
small-scale streets. These shared spaces prioritize
pedestrians, allow services such as garbage haulers
to access the streets, and provide vegetated buffers
for rainwater management.
Pedestrian Priority Zones: Bern, Switzerland
Communities as small as the 545-person village of Bellerive to the 400,000 person city of Zurich in Switzerland
have adopted the concepts of Pedestrian Priority Zones. Many of these zones are located near transit to tame the
potentially chaotic interactions of multiple modes. By having a 20kmh (12.4 mph) zone established, it is possible
to set precedence in the areas for pedestrians. The Swiss concept holds that pedestrians should be able to cross
roads or walk anywhere in the road in Pedestrian Priority Zones, making for more accessible, controlled, and safe
environments for all users.
Where has it been done?
Safe Routes to Transit Program, New York, NY
The New York City Department of Transportation’s Safe Routes to Bus Stops program identifies locations with poor
access, especially for the most vulnerable populations: youth and older adults. The program implements pedestrian
facilities to foster safer, more comfortable access to transit. Sidewalks to bus stops and crossing treatments near
transit are prioritized for improvement to calm traffic and improve pedestrian safety. A similar program in Boulder
may be most applicable at the regional or county level, helping to repair places with poor transit access in east
Boulder and other parts of Boulder County. More information provided at http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/
pedestrians/safertstransit.shtml.
New York City Department of Transportation Safe Routes to Bus Stops. The City of New York prioritized access
by all users to bus stops while also providing great connections to work, home, and daily needs.
Image Source: New York Department of Transportation, NYC.gov
BEFORE AFTER
6-25 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Why is it important?
Using a bicycle to access transit allows the rider greater
range and flexibility. While space on transit vehicles is
often limited, having a bicycle at each end improves
transit usability.
In Boulder, the B-cycle bikeshare program allows users
greater mobility and flexibility within Boulder by pro-
viding a rentable bicycle at one or both ends of a transit
trip. However, many transit riders, especially those
traveling greater distances to transit from neighboring
communities, would prefer to ride their own bicycles
to connect to transit. Feedback from the community
has emphasized the need to expand the capacity of
bicycles on transit, particularly for regional trips. As the
region works with RTD to implement BRT service along
the US 36 corridor, efforts will be needed to increase
the carrying capacity of bikes on transit.
Bikes on Transit
Connecting bicycle riders to transit increases the catchment area of transit riders. For many, bus stops are located more than a half mile
distance from home, which is the general rule of thumb for how long people are willing to walk to a bus stop. Bike access to transit is an
effective way to extend the range of first/last mile connections to transit.
People tend to walk up to a half a mile to a transit station, while they will bike nearly two miles.
Source: Adapted from TransLink Transit-Oriented
Communities Design Guidelines, Nelson\Nygaard
Where has it been done?
Luggage Bay Carrier Racks:
AC Transit, Alameda County, CA
AC Transit operates commuter buses
equipped with bicycle storage in the
luggage bay. This system built by Sport-
Works allows three bikes to be carried
in the bay of many Van Hool and MCI
buses. Commuters use this service to
transport bikes over longer distances.
On-Board Bicycle Storage:
Swift Bus Rapid Transit, WA
Swift Bus Rapid Transit was launched
in 2009 to provide commuter
service along I-5 between Everett and
Seattle Washington. Swift vehicles are
equipped with bicycle racks on-board
for those commuters who ride to the
station by bike or use their bikes to
access their destinations. The low-floor
buses make for easy loading. Passen-
gers enter at the rear door and simply
push their bikes into the bike racks.
Standees are given priority over bikes
inside the bus.
For intercity commuter buses the inclusion of a SportWorks luggage
bay carrier racks allows for three bicycles to be stored securely and out
of inclement weather. These racks are currently available on AC Transit’s
Interbay buses in Alameda and Contra Costa counties.
Image from SportWorks, sportworks.com
Swift BRT vehicles allow bicycles
on board using custom bicycle
racks. This extends the catchment
of BRT ridership and allows multi-
modal commuting for passengers.
On-board carrying can be more
efficiently accomplished with
racks like the ones found on the
Swift BRT buses operating be-
tween Everett and Seattle.
Images from Flickr user Oran Viviyincy
6-26 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Electric Bike Pilot Project in Portland, Oregon intends to expand the reach of transit
In Portland, the regional MPO, Metro, is sponsoring
a new study connecting folding e-bikes to transit.
The pilot project will pay for more than 150 electric
bikes to be used by employees of Kaiser Permanente
to study how the bikes are used. The folding e-bike
study is particularly focused on the first and last
mile challenge faced by many bike commuters.
Electric bikes can provide an important connection
for people traveling long distances or in hilly terrain.
Public funding of this program demonstrates
commitment to increasing transit ridership and to
incorporating more bicycle connections to transit.
This project is funded through a Regional Travel
Options grant. RTO grants support projects that
reduce the number of people driving alone, improve
community health, and improve air quality. The pilot
project is scheduled to launch in 2013.
For more information on the project, see http://
bikeportland.org/2013/04/12/grant-will-push-
potential-of-e-bikes-as-commute-vehicles-85411.
Note: The City of Boulder Transportation Master Plan
Bike Innovations “Living Lab” has proposed a pilot
program in 2014 for e-bikes on multiuse paths. Conscious Commuter e-bike, produced in Portland, Oregon.
Image from Conscious Commuter
6-27 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Why is it important?
Secure, indoor bicycle parking encourages more
commuters to connect to transit by bicycle. In Boulder,
the Boulder County-led Bike-then-Bus program has
installed two bike cages at key transfer points – one
on 28th and Iris Street in North Boulder and one at the
Roosevelt Park and Ride in downtown Longmont. These
facilities are needed in more locations to facilitate the
easy transition between bike and bus trips, specifically
for regional trips.
Bike Parking and Bike Centers
Secure and covered bike parking is an essential component of linking bikes to transit because it allows transit riders to
confidently store their bikes. Covered bike parking that is key-accessed and video monitored improves confidence of
cyclists that their bicycles are securely stored. Large-scale bike centers feature bike shops, storage facilities, showers,
lockers, and bike valet parking. Bikestation and Bike and Park are two consulting/branding companies that help estab-
lish bike centers in cities around the country.
Image from Nelson\Nygaard
The Bike Station in Long Beach, California features
hundreds of secure, indoor parking spots for riders,
is located adjacent to transit, and offers commuters
a host of important services. See Bike Center
homepage here.
Image from Nelson\Nygaard
Chicago’s McDonald’s Cycle Center offers
commuters 300 parking spots, lockers, and showers
all free, sponsored by McDonald’s.
Image from streetsblog.org
Where’s it being done?
Santa Monica, CA
The largest bike center in the United States is the Santa
Monica Bike Center located at 2nd Street and Colorado.
Opened in 2011,Bike and Park retrofitted an old garage
to accommodate 360 secure bike parking spots, locker
rooms, repair, and retail services. Membership dues
help cover operating costs. Construction of the facility
was funded with a $1.6 million grant from local trans-
portation authority Metro and a $950,000 contribution
from the City. Funding is an important consideration
to implement this type of bicycle amenity. In most
communities, bike stations have been built through a
partnership between local governments, private opera-
tors, and corporate sponsorships. Federal funding has
been granted through FHWA and FTA grants focusing
on congestion and air quality mitigation.
Chicago, IL
McDonald’s Cycle Center in Chicago offers free bicycle
parking, day lockers, and showers. The Cycle Center
secured a $5 million grant from McDonald’s that
covers all operations for 50 years. This public-private
partnership that brought together the City of Chicago,
federal funds for capital expenses, operations by the
private Bike and Park company, and grant support by
McDonald’s is a great example of creative funding that
may be needed to build large facilities.
6-28 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Beaverton Transit Center Bike SPA: Beaverton, OR
Beaverton Transit Center Bike Secure Parking Area (SPA)
offers secure bike parking facility at the transit station.
The large facility is conveniently located at the transit
center and secure. There are a total of 100 bike parking
spots that are accessed using a BikeLink card. This
keycard allows a rider to pay a one-time $5 activation
fee and then pay $.03/hr. 8am-8pm weekdays; $.01/hr.
all other hours.
TriMet Beaverton Transit Center’s Bicycle Secure
Parking Area (SPA).
Image from Nelson\Nygaard
A concept for integrating art and bicycle parking, the
Bike Hanger allows for compact pedal-powered bike
parking. The concept is being developed in South Ko-
rea as seen in this video: http://vimeo.com/29399173
Image from vimeo.com
Cargo bike parking in Copenhagen allows cargo bike
users to securely park their bikes on-street, saving a
trip up narrow stairs to apartment homes.
Image from http://onourowntwowheels.files.wordpress.com
International Bike Parking Solutions
Northern European and Asian cities with high population densities utilize imaginative solutions for bicycle parking
that may be used near transit hubs and to facilitate multimodal lifestyles.
Large bicycle garages abound in northern Europe. These covered structures encourage transit users to leave bicycles
in the city to make last mile connections.
In Copenhagen, families can forego car ownership by utilizing cargo bikes and transit. The CarGo cargo bike parking
offers secure parking outside of garages and homes.
In South Korea, industrial designers are crafting novel ways to store bicycles in artistic and space efficient ways. A
concept for integrating art and bicycle parking, the Bike Hanger allows for compact pedal-powered bike parking.
Similar designs could be incorporated into transit stations and alongside parking garages.
• Bikes on Buses: Investigate
opportunities to add more bicycle storage
capacity on buses, particularly on regional
routes
• Bus Stop Facilities and
Accessibility: High-quality stops that
are accessible to all users are a basic need
throughout Boulder.
Access & Connections
KEY ISSUES TO BE
EXPLORED IN THE TRANSIT PLAN
6-30 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
6-31 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Information
In this section:
• Real-Time Arrival Information
• Public Information Campaigns
Information
We live in an age infiltrated with branding campaigns, images, and icons that aim to influ-
ence our behavior – from where we shop, to the products we buy, to the way we travel. For
decades, the automobile industry has spent billions of dollars convincing us of the speed,
ease, and sexiness of a brand new car. Further, our public investments have prioritized
mobility, storage, and wayfinding for individuals in vehicles. Our perception of the “best” way
to travel has been shaped by this ideology and these investment priorities. Much work is
needed to shift this cultural perception to level the field and make transit, biking, and walking
the “best” choices for travel. Easy access to information, such as real-time transit arrival, can
help improve the convenience and competitiveness of these other modes compared to the
automobile. This section provides an overview of different strategies used to help capture the
next wave of transit riders by providing accessible information.
6-32 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Why is it important?
Communicating when the bus will arrive in real-time
makes transit more dependable. In Boulder, although
some transit routes operate so frequently (i.e. less
than every 10 minutes) that a schedule is not needed,
many routes – particularly in the mornings, evenings,
and on weekends – run every 15 minutes or longer. By
communicating exactly when the bus is going to arrive,
people can plan their schedule accordingly. Riding
the bus becomes as dependable as hopping in the
car. Open sourcing transit agency data is a key to the
success of real-time systems, as the private sector can
often take these applications to the next level.
Real-Time Arrival Information
Communities across the U.S. and Europe are providing real-time arrival information to enhance the transit passenger experience. This
information gives passengers the comfort of knowing exactly when the next bus will arrive. Passengers can look online, on their cell
phones, or at a digital sign at the station to know exactly how long they have to wait – or they can choose to stay at home or at work a
little longer and catch the bus just in the nick of time.
TransitTimes provides real-
time arrival information.
Image from UTA
Multimodal Trip Planner, Portland, OR
In 2012, TriMet launched its online multimodal trip
planner, which allows riders to plan their trip using
multiple modes. The open source tool is the first of
its kind produced by a transit agency in the U.S., and
offers the following features:
y Combines transit, biking, and walking into a
single itinerary.
y Customizes routes based on user selection, such
as quickest, flattest, or most bike-friendly.
y Displays an elevation chart for bike routes.
y Uses OpenStreetMap to keep bike routes and
walking paths up to date.
y Provides carshare locations to easily integrate
carshare trips with other modes.
According to TriMet, the online tool cost a total of
$240,500 to launch. This figure reflects the cost of
system design and development (public phasing
interface, internal facing interface, backend develop-
ment, routing algorithm, and feature requirements);
data improvements to support multimodal routing;
testing and reporting; beta and public launch. An-
nual support for the system is estimated at $25,000
per year.
To view, the multimodal trip planner, go to: http://
rtp.trimet.org/#/
Image from TriMet
6-33 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Where has it been done?
Real-Time Arrival: TriMet, Portland, OR
In 2004, TriMet – Portland’s regional transit service
– launched its real-time arrival information system
TransitTracker.™ Using satellite tracking on buses and
sensors in the train tracks, TransitTracker estimates
when the next vehicle will arrive based on its scheduled
speed and last reported location. In 2005, it was among
the nation’s first transit agencies to open source its data.
Today, over 50 on-line applications from the private
developer community help area residents and commut-
ers plan their transit trip in real time. In addition to a
strong on-line resource, TriMet has installed over 15
real-time arrival information displays at major transit
stations. Open source data can encourage technology
companies and universities to develop innovative
products that a transit agency would not have the
expertise or capacity to develop. Figure 6-1 provides
the estimated capital, operating, and maintenance
costs for the Transit Tracker.
Multiple open-source applications in Portland, OR
allow passengers to access real-time information
from their cell phones.
Image from PDX Bus Application
In Portland, OR, real-time arrival information tells passengers exactly when the next
bus is expected to arrive on their cell phones, online, and at the transit station.
Image from Nelson\Nygaard
Figure 6-1 TriMet Transit Tracker
Estimated Capital and Operating & Maintenance Costs
Cost Type Cost Description Cost
Capital Hardware (primarily field equipment)$950,000
Servers & Software $125,000
TOTAL CAPITAL $1,075,000
Annual Operations &
Maintenance
Operations $93,750
Maintenance $558
TOTAL ANNUAL O&M $94,308
Source: 2006 “Real-time Bus Arrival Information Systems Return-on-Investment Study” U.S.
DOT Federal Transit Administration
Real-Time Arrival Information
6-34 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Real-Time Arrival Information
Open Source Data: Utah Transit Authority, UT
In 2012, the Utah Transit Authority (UTA) created an
interface to allow app developers to access the agency’s
real-time trip information. To share the information,
UTA purchased SIRI (Service Interface for Real-Time
Information), which is an XML standard that provides
the following information for public transportation:
y Vehicle Monitoring: provides real-time arrival
information about one vehicle or many vehicles
on one route.
y Stop Monitoring: provides real-time information
about vehicles serving a particular stop.
y Close Stop Monitoring: allows users to query the
nearest transit stops.
Today, seven real-time apps developed by the private
sector are available for UTA passengers. TransitTimes is one of many applications that provides real-time arrival information for UTA transit riders. The
application is possible due to the UTA’s open source data policy.
Image from UTA
6-35 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Public Information Campaigns
Public information campaigns effectively inform the public about their transportation options, communicate the benefits
of transit, and allow people to make more informed decisions. Public information campaigns for public transportation
are contending against automobile manufacturers who spend in excess of $20 billion per year. To compete, it is impera-
tive that transit providers and local jurisdictions understand the needs of the community to best tailor quality service;
customize rider and non-rider education efforts; and develop selective and focused marketing campaigns. In 2008, Los Angeles Metro launched an
aggressive public information campaign.
Image from LA Metro
Why is it important?
Public information campaigns are needed to commu-
nicate the benefits of transit to bolster overall ridership.
As demographics shift, it is likely that many older
adults and younger people will forego automobile
trips. Penetrating these disparate markets will be a
challenge for transit agencies in the coming years. In
Boulder, a public information campaign focusing on
in-commuters will be critical to attract more transit
riders at the regional level. Campaigns should focus
on the environmental, health, and economic benefits
of transit to support broader community goals such
as the City’s Sustainability Framework and the Climate
Commitment. Commuters and students are among the
most important to reach with a marketing campaign, as
these groups tend to have the most predictable travel
patterns.
Where’s it being done?
Public Information Campaign: Los Angeles, CA
In August 2008, Los Angeles Metro launched an aggres-
sive public information campaign to educate people
about the benefits of transit and the social ills resulting
from automobile dependency. The agency created an
in-house ad agency that focuses exclusively on com-
municating the benefits of public transit and improving
the passenger experience. The goal was to improve the
public’s perception of transit and increase the number
of discretionary riders.
In 2008, LA Metro launched the “Opposites” campaign,
including published online content, billboards, t-shirts,
and on-board graphics to create a consistent brand.
The brand communicated that Metro was the solution
to many of the community’s problems (congestion and
greenhouse gas emissions, for example).
LA Metro also sponsors a public art campaign in which
they contracted with over 300 artists to beautify transit
stops and stations.
LA Metro estimates that the newly branded system
and information campaign has resulted in a signifi-
cant increase in “discretionary” riders – those who
choose to ride transit.
Source: LA Metro “Promoting Mass Transit” Video
36%
22%
Old DesignNew Design
Discretionary Riders on LA Metro
6-36 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Los Angeles’ Metro overhauled their marketing and
branding to provide a unified voice. A multimedia
campaign was created around the new, modern
branding. This campaign includes the Opposites
campaign showing Metro as a solution to a range
of regional problems.
Image from: Zev Yaroslavsky
Greater Cleveland’s RTA advertises the benefits of
using transit for the economy, for community build-
ing, and for the environment.
Image from RTA
Malmö, Sweden’s “No
Ridiculous Car Trips” utilized
unique advertising, public
information, trip time
tracking for commuters,
and a number of humorous
efforts asking people about
their most ridiculous car
commute under three miles.
Image source Midtrafick You-
tube video
Billboards: HealthLine BRT, Cleveland, OH
The HealthLine BRT has brought great economic,
community, and environmental benefit to the Euclid
Corridor. Through a series of large billboards along
the corridor, Cleveland’s Regional Transit Authority
(RTA) has advertised the many social, economic, and
environmental benefits of the new BRT line. This allows
riders to understand the influence of the BRT line, but
more importantly it ties the transportation project to
the larger land use and redevelopment changes taking
place in the area. While billboards might not be an
acceptable communication tool in Boulder, the intent
of the campaign could be carried out in other media.
“No Ridiculous Car Trip” Campaign: Malmö, Sweden
Scandinavia is a world leader in developing effective
social marketing campaigns. Humorous videos and
advertising campaigns help municipalities to effectively
market walking, biking, transit, and other actions.
Malmö, Sweden addressed the preponderance of short
car trips under three miles with a unique multimedia
public information campaign. Malmö’s “No Ridiculous
Car Trips” campaign asked residents: “What is your most
ridiculous car trip?” This campaign makes the simple
point that using an automobile for short trips, especially
in the city, is ridiculous. The city invited citizens to tell
their stories of ridiculous car trips to win a prize: a new
bicycle. A robust public campaign was centered on
the competition including television advertisements
documenting people’s ridiculous car trips. After the
campaign awarded a winner, a short video was made to
document the influence and importance of encourag-
ing people to get out of their cars. The campaign
included personal stories, humorous advertisements
like live actors on billboards riding bikes, and a trip time
tracking comparison challenge. The campaign was
branded throughout with orange and white.
Cool Bus Video: Oslo, Norway
Oslo, Norway airs advertisements highlighting
the stresses of driving and the negative social and
environmental externalities, including this spot noting
that a single bus can replace one kilometer of car
queue. Oslo has used a number risqué advertisements
to reach a broad group of consumers: http://www.
advertolog.com/oslo-public-transportation/adverts/
big-bus-9518155/
Public Information Campaigns
LA Metro: Promoting Mass Transit
Watch this video on how LA Metro is working to
transform the image of the transit system:
http://vimeo.com/7984623
• Real-time information: Explore
opportunities to partner with RTD to
implement real-time information at transit
stops and online
• Public information campaign:
Explore opportunities to launch a public
information campaign to raise awareness of
travel options
Information
KEY ISSUES TO BE
EXPLORED IN THE TRANSIT PLAN
6-39 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Transit Amenities
In this section:
• Wi-Fi on Buses
• High Amenity Stations
• Vehicles: Technology and Efficiency
City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT6-40
Why is it important?
Wi-Fi can help to attract new riders, whether they turn
to transit for the opportunity to relax and browse the
internet while they travel, or to get a jump start on the
workday by logging on.
While these tasks may be
easy to do using a smart-
phone on shorter routes,
Wi-Fi might be particularly
attractive on longer-haul
routes where people are
riding for 15 minutes or
more and will have time
to watch a short video,
connect to their corporate
server, or browse an
on-line newspaper. Most
of the research in this field
so far has focused on the
use of mobile devices on
intercity buses, commuter
trains, and other long-distance trips. These studies, such
as a recent survey conducted by DePaul University,
suggest that Wi-Fi can give bus transit a competitive
edge over other modes. Their research found that over
90% of transit riders planned to use a mobile device
while on board, and more than a third said that access
to Wi-Fi is important when choosing a travel mode.
Studies show that over 90%
of riders planned to use
mobile devices en route.
Image from Singlepoint
Seattle, WA
In 2010, King County Metro launched the first of six
planned RapidRide rapid bus lines, all of which offer free
Wi-Fi for passengers via on board mobile routers. The
RapidRide system is designed to provide BRT service to
select high ridership urban and suburban corridors in King
County.
Sound Transit also offers wireless on some express bus
service and commuter rail lines.
Image from Flickr user Oran Viriyincy
Wi-Fi on Buses
In a world where customers expect wireless connections everywhere from the coffee shop to mid-flight on an airplane,
many transit providers are adding “on the bus” to the list of places people can stay connected. New technology is helping
to make on-board wireless possible for bus services ranging from commuter express service, employer-provided bus
shuttles, and private long-distance bus companies. For example, the increasing availability of 4G cellular networks means
faster speeds and wider bandwidth at lower costs. Transit agencies are also experimenting with funding models that
allow advertisers to deliver sponsored messages along with free Wi-Fi, lowering agency costs.
Where has it been done?
Transit providers from Seattle to Beijing have been
experimenting with adding wireless connections on
bus services. High-tech employers like Microsoft and
Google also include wireless connections on their
employee shuttle services.
However, some transit agencies have had mixed results
from early implementation projects. For example,
Golden Gate Transit decided to discontinue wireless
service on 120 buses because the service wasn’t
providing enough connectivity through the area’s hilly
terrain. They haven’t given up on Wi-Fi plans and are
hoping to use 4G network technology going forward.
Because the cost of implementation can be signifi-
cant—some transportation officials indicate that the
cost of implementation can range from $1,000-$2,000
per bus1—shrewd agencies might consider wireless
internet as part of broader upgrades. An evaluation
of the Chattanooga Area Transportation Authority’s
(CARTA) SmartBus project conducted by the USDOT
found that CARTA could offer Wi-Fi to the public at little
additional cost because the agency was introducing
other technologies that required network connectivity
for all vehicles. Finally, some agencies, such as the Santa
Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), have used
a sponsorship model to cover the cost of installation. A
few examples of on board Wi-Fi as part of branding or
higher-fare commuter service are highlighted at right.
1 USA Today (2008) “More Cities Offer Wifi on Buses.”
Wi-Fi is prominently advertised as an on-
board amenity on Santa Clara VTA buses.
Image from Flickr user Kei!
Salt Lake City, UT
The Utah Transit Authority (UTA) was one of the first transit
agencies to provide wireless on board buses, introducing
free wireless to the first routes in 2008. UTA now provides
a free Wi-Fi connection on all express routes.
Wi-Fi is promoted as a free amenity for passengers who
pay a premium for express bus fares.
Image from Flickr user Edgar Zuniga Jr.
6-41 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
High Amenities Stations
In addition to improvements on-board vehicles, better amenities at stop locations can go a long way towards making
waiting for the bus a more pleasant part of the transit experience. Many cities are developing innovative station designs
that are highly visible and include a range of features to improve passenger comfort. At a minimum, high-amenity
stations may include features such as comfortable seating and leaning areas, shelters, information kiosks, wayfinding,
real-time passenger information, trash receptacles, and bike parking. For high-profile and high-ridership stop locations,
enhanced amenities may be appropriate, such as landscaping and streetscape enhancements, retail services, restrooms,
bike share stations and secure bike parking, and pedestrian-scaled lighting.MTA Select Bus Service offers ticket vend-
ing machines at stop locations.
Image from Wikimedia Commons, Adam E.
Moreira
Why is it important?
Keeping passengers out of the elements and informed
about how long their wait will be can decrease the
perceived burden of waiting for the bus. Real time
arrival information has been shown to reduce perceived
wait times, and has now become a standard element
of transit stops in many places (see the Information
Section for more details). In cities like Boulder that
experience cold temperatures and extreme weather
during the winter, shelters can be especially important.
In one survey of Chicago transit riders, shelter from the
weather was cited as the most important feature of bus
stops.
In addition to attracting new riders and improving
the visibility of transit, high amenity stations can also
improve transit operations. For example, New York
City’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA)
found significant improvement in travel times after
implementing off-board fare payment as part of the
first phase of “Select Bus Service” on the Bx12 Limited
corridor. With stops equipped with ticket vending
machines, dwell times for boarding and alighting
fell from 16 minutes to 10 minutes, on average. High
amenity stations can also attract high quality transit
oriented development at stations.
This design illustrates elements of a high amenity transit stop, with features designed to help integrate modes,
accommodate the needs of different user types, and provide information and convenience to the passenger.
Source: Nelson\Nygaard
6-42 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Where’s it being done?
Cities around the world are implementing one or more
of the elements of high amenity stations, with some of
the most innovative ideas shown below.
Examples of Stop Amenities from Around the World
The city of Rochester, MN (pictured) incorporated
on-demand heat lamps and nighttime lighting into
new downtown bus shelters.
New Haven built several award-winning heated bus
shelters, activated by cold temperatures and pas-
sengers entering the station.
Image from Look Design
HEATED SHELTERS
Rochester, MN and New Haven, CT
Bogotá, famous for its extensive Transmilenio BRT
system, has developed simple station designs that
include turnstiles before entry to the station, real
time arrival information and announcements, and
station attendants.
Image from Flickr user Edgar Zuniga Jr.
COVERED STATIONS WITH OFF-BOARD PAYMENT
Bogotá, Columbia
The winning design from a competition sponsored
by San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency
can now be spotted all over San Francisco. The new
shelters are made from recycled materials and in-
clude photovoltaic panels that power the intercom,
LED lighting, and wireless routers. Additional power
generated by the solar panels is returned to the
power grid.
Image from Flickr user monster media
SOLAR-POWERED SHELTERS
San Francisco, CA
High Amenities Stations
6-43 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Why is it important?
Benefits of new vehicle technologies include better
fuel efficiency and reduced impact of high fuel costs,
lower noise and visual impacts (e.g., avoiding the
need for overhead catenary electric wires by replac-
ing traditional electric vehicles with battery electric
vehicles), and lower maintenance costs. Low or zero
tailpipe emission vehicles can fit into sustainability
efforts and marketing campaigns to promote transit as
an environmentally-friendly option. Transit agencies of
all sizes have been able to meet new federal and state
fleet requirements and take advantage of incentive
programs to start replacing diesel vehicles with cleaner
alternative fuel vehicles. Clean burning vehicles are
also important for cities working towards improving
air quality, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and
improving public health.
The benefits of clean fuel vehicles vary based on the
specific technology used. The US Department of Energy
reports that alternative fuel buses can cost 20%-40%
Vehicles: Technology and Efficiency
Transit agencies in the United States and abroad are starting to replace traditional diesel bus fleets with transit vehicles
running on alternative fuels (e.g., electric, diesel-electric hybrid, biofuel, natural gas, and hydrogen fuel cell-powered
vehicles) and incorporating new bus technologies (e.g., regenerative breaking systems). In many cases, transit provid-
ers are leading the way as early adopters of alternative fuels. According to a 2012 memo from the American Public
Transportation Association, the percentage of buses using alternative fuels climbed from only 2% in 1992 to 36% in
2011 – far outpacing the consumer market.
Transit vehicles are also becoming high-tech on the inside, featuring improved seating arrangements and interior coach design and
using GPS to provide real-time location information, automated stop announcements, and enhanced security features.
Some bus systems are adopting train-like
vehicles as part of BRT systems, such as
this rubber-tired vehicle in Nancy, France.
Image from Nelson\Nygaard
more than diesel buses to purchase, and may require
additional infrastructure investment. However, vehicle
costs may decrease as these technologies become
more common, and cost savings from fuel, mainte-
nance, and applicable grants and credits may offset the
upfront expenditure. For example a report from the
National Renewable Energy Laboratory reported that
CNG buses have accounted for nearly a quarter of all
transit bus sales over the past 10-15 years, resulting in
a reduction in petroleum consumption of more than
200 million gal/yr. However, adding CNG buses to a
fleet also requires constructing appropriate fueling
facilities, and vehicle purchase costs can be higher than
traditional diesel buses. More detailed information
on the costs and benefits associated with different
technologies is available from the Federal Transit
Administration, including a 2006 report to Congress on
alternative fuels.
The interior of this vehicle in Lyon, France offers
large windows and open interior space, allowing
passengers to feel like part of the street and urban
environment as they travel.
Image from Nelson\Nygaard
6-44 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Where’s it being done?
Clean Air Fleet: Los Angeles, CA
The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation
Authority (LACMTA) promotes its fleet as the largest
“Clean Air” fleet in the nation. LACMTA first introduced
clean fuel vehicles in 1994, purchasing 196 Compressed
Natural Gas (CNG) buses. CNG buses now make up
100% of the fleet, enabling LACMTA to retire its last
diesel bus in 2011, and in doing so becoming the first
agency in the country to operate only alternative clean
fueled buses.
According to LACMTA, the CNG buses are 97% cleaner
than the diesel buses they replaced, reducing cancer-
causing particulate matter by 98%, carbon monoxide
by over 80% and greenhouse gases by over 20%.
Ecoliner Coaches: Foothill Transit, Pomona, CA
Foothill Transit – which serves a 327 square mile area
and over 14 million annual riders – began purchasing
Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) vehicles in 2002,
with a goal of achieving a 100% clean fleet by 2013.
To meet their goal, the agency used a grant from
the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
to purchase new “Ecoliner” coaches, branded as the
world’s first heavy duty fast charging electric buses.
These buses recharge at specially-designed stations
during their normal 10-minute layover time, adding to
their convenience. The project has been so successful
that Foothill Transit received an additional $10.2 million
grant in 2011 to expand the program. Ecoliner buses
are approximately twice as expensive as regular buses
(just over $1 million) but are expected to last 18 years
instead of a typical bus that lasts only 12 years. See
more information here.
LACMTA’s CNG vehicles are used on Metro Rapid, the agency’s Bus Rapid Transit service.
Image from Wikimedia Commons, AllyUnion
Foothill Transit’s “Ecoliner” coaches run on electricity without overhead wires. Find out more about the Proterra
Ecoliner here.
Image from Wikimedia Commons, George Lumberas
Vehicles: Technology and Efficiency
6-45 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Hydrogen Buses:
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit, Alameda, CA
AC Transit became a pioneer in testing hydrogen
buses as part of the HyRoad program in 1999, and has
continued to lead demonstration projects and data
collection on the latest hydrogen fuel cell technologies.
From 2006 to 2010, the agency tested three hydrogen
vehicles, working with manufacturers to apply lessons
learned to the next generation of fuel cell buses.
The next generation of vehicles is now being tested as
part of the Zero Emissions Bay Area (ZEBA) project. AC
Transit, along with Golden Gate Transit (GGT), Santa
Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), San Mateo
County Transit District, Bay Area Transit (SamTrans), and
the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency
(SFMTA), is now testing a fleet of 12 hydrogen fuel cell
vehicles. The buses use lithium ion batteries and hybrid-
electric technology to store regenerative braking
energy, and refuel at two on-site energy stations that
are designed to demonstrate “renewable hydrogen use,”
using biogas or solar-powered electrolysis to produce
hydrogen.
Funding for the project, including the purchase of
vehicles and the construction of new fueling stations,
is provided by the California Energy Commission,
California Air Resources Board, Bay Area Quality
Management District, Metropolitan Transportation
Commission, and the FTA. The Department of Energy’s
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) will
monitor performance and public perception to inform
future guidance for transit agencies hoping to adopt
hydrogen fuel cell technologies.
Vehicles: Technology and Efficiency
AC transit’s hydrogen fuel cell buses, part of the ZEBA program with four other Bay Area transit agencies, are
branded as zero emissions.
Image from Flickr user Eric Fischer
City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT 6-46
• Wi-Fi: Explore opportunities to install
free Wi-Fi on the HOP
• Transit Stop Amenities: Explore
opportunities to improve transit stops,
particularly at high demand stops
• Vehicle Options: Explore low
emission and quiet vehicle options for the
HOP and other local and regional Boulder
routes in partnership with RTD
TRANSIT AMENITIES
KEY ISSUES TO BE EXPLORED
IN THE TRANSIT PLAN
6-47 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Fares & Funding
In this section:
• Smart Phone Ticketing
• Fare-Free Transit
• Funding
Fares & Funding
What would it take to make the bus as easy as grabbing your keys in the morn-
ing? Many communities are helping customers purchase tickets at the click of a
button on their smartphone, or, better yet, they are going cash free. This section
provides an overview of new technologies in smart ticketing and approaches
to reducing payment barriers such as free fare systems. A brief overview of
innovative local funding sources for the operations and maintenance of transit
is also provided.
6-48 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Why is it important?
Riding the bus should be as easy as jumping in your car.
A key barrier that people often site to riding the bus is
the need to purchase tickets with exact change. Smart
phone ticketing allows bus riders to purchase tickets on
the go without the hassle of exact change or carrying
a paper ticket. With more and more people with smart
phones, mobile ticketing will be critical to capturing the
bust riders of the future.
Where has it been done?
MBTA, Boston, MA
In 2012, the MBTA in Boston launched its mobile ticket-
ing app for smartphones on their commuter lines – the
first of its kind in the U.S.
y 12% of tickets are being sold on smart phones
y Mobile ticketing is estimated to save agency
money on fare collection
y System manager Masabi gets 2.8% of each trans-
action
Smart Phone Ticketing
Over half of Americans currently own a smart phone, and this number is expected to continue to increase in the near
future. Top transit agencies in the U.S. are trying to stay ahead of the curve and respond to the growing trend of making
purchases on the go. Reusable smart cards are already starting to look outdated with the rapid expansion of smart phone
use. Smart phone vending allows customers to purchase and store their bus or rail tickets on a mobile phone, instead
of having to buy, store, and carry a single, monthly, or annual pass. The benefits? Customers don’t have to keep track of
paper tickets, and transit agencies save on the cost of collecting fares since the need for physical ticketing machines and
labor required to collect cash receipts are reduced.
MBTA in Boston launched its mobile ticketing
app for smartphones on their commuter lines.
Image from MBTA
Caption: TriMet is currently beta testing a mobile
ticketing app scheduled to relase in 2013.
Image from TriMet
TriMet, Portland, OR
TriMet is currently beta testing a mobile ticketing
app scheduled to release in summer 2013. TriMet has
partnered with a local Portland software company
GlobeSherpa to develop the system. The development
of the application is free; GlobeSherpa will receive up to
11% of each transaction.
6-49 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Fare Free Transit
In the United States, fare increases have been commonplace as transit agencies and local jurisdictions struggle to main-
tain and improve service in light of decreasing federal dollars and reduced local tax revenue. In this context, the concept
of fare free transit may come as a surprise. But in Europe – and even a few cities in the U.S. – transit providers are offering
fare free transit to residents and visitors to boost ridership, reduce congestion, and save costs on expensive roadway
projects. The resulting increase in ridership is supporting community environment, economic development, and mobility
and access goals. Among the many strategies explored in this report, fare free transit is among the most promising for
getting many more people to ride transit. To be clear, fare free transit doesn’t necessarily mean that the riding public pays
less, just that other means of generating operating funds are used. Boulder has already implemented the Eco Pass and is
exploring the expansion of this program through the countywide Eco Pass Study in 2013.
Hasselt Belgium was one of the first
European cities to implement fare-
free transit
Image from flickr user Generaal Gibson
Why is it important?
If implemented properly, a fare free system communi-
cates that transit is an essential and valued mode in the
community. The hassle – if not the economic barrier
– of buying a transit pass or having exact change can
be a deterrent. People are more likely to ride the bus if
they do not have to pay to board the vehicle. Since its
inception in the early 1990s, Boulder’s Eco Pass program
has provided subsidized transit passes to downtown
employees and neighborhoods. City of Boulder surveys
have found that those with an Eco Pass are five to nine
times more likely to use transit than those without a
pass. Expanding the accessibility of transit can only
increase the number of people riding the bus, helping
communities meet their environmental and mode
share goals.
Where has it been done?
U.S. and European cities have been the pioneers of fare free transit systems over the last two decades and have seen
marked increases in ridership. In the land-constrained cities of Europe, cities large and small have committed to
providing cash free transit to help solve congestion issues, and help meet community economic development and
environmental goals. In the U.S., some small cities find that farebox recovery is so low that the cost of going fareless
does not outweigh the benefit of increased ridership; in each case, alternative local funding sources were developed.
Chapel Hill, NC
Chapel Hill Transit (CHT) provides service to the com-
munities of Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and the University
of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. In 2002, Chapel Hill
Transit (CHT) went fare free. The two towns and the
University share annual operating and capital costs
associated with the transit service. The fare free system
was first considered because its farebox recovery rate
was quite low — at approximately 10 percent. Most
of its revenue was already coming from the University
of North Carolina in the form of pre-paid passes and
fares for employees and students. The university and
taxpayers of Chapel Hill and Carrboro agreed to make
up the difference.
Since going fare free in 2002, CHT ridership has
increased from 3 million passengers per year to nearly
7 million. In addition to free transit service, over half the
bus riders note using the system due to expensive and
scarce parking downtown and at the University.
Chapel Hill Transit serves over 6.9 million riders an-
nually at a cost of $2.31 per ride fare free. Since go-
ing free in 2002, ridership has more than doubled,
from 3 million passengers per year to nearly seven
million.
Image from Wikimedia Commons
6-50 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Highlights from Europe
In the last decade, a number of European cities have implemented fare free transit in an effort to reduce road
congestion, save money on costly roadway expansion projections, and increase transit ridership.
Hasselt, Belgium – population 70,000 – led the way in Europe in 1997
when it instituted a free fare policy. The city saw a 1,200 percent increase
in ridership in just four years.
Aubagne, France – population 46,000 – launched its free transit system in
2009. The city raised the transport tax on large businesses from 0.6 to 1.8
percent to help pay for the system. Ridership has increased 170 percent
and traffic congestion is down 10 percent in four years.
Tallinn, Estonia – population 450,000 – implemented a free transit
system in January 2013. To retain the “value” of transit, Tallinn requires
residents to initially purchase a smart card for $2 Euros, much like
Boulder’s Eco Pass. This strategy provides a slight “barrier to entry” to
help shift existing drivers to transit, and not just those who want a free
ride. Once on board, passengers scan their smart card on an electronic
reader, providing the City with instant origin-destination data to improve
transit service design.
Tallinn’s Transport Authority reports that passenger numbers are up 10
percent, while the number of cars on city streets has been reduced by as
much as 15 percent in the program’s first three months of operation. To
cope with the new demand, Tallinn has invested in 70 new buses and 15
new trams. It has also instituted a series of deterrents to private car use,
including expansion of exclusive bus lanes barred for private vehicles,
increased parking charges, and expanded paid parking areas.
The Mayor of Tallinn has coined the free fare
program as the “13th monthly salary," claiming
that families will be able to save a month's sal-
ary on previously incurred transportation costs.
Image from Flickr user rallyhook
In Tallinn, Estonia, free transit has
resulted in a 10% increase in transit
ridership and a 15% decrease in
road congestion in just three
months. In April, 2013 twenty-four
new eco-friendly buses were intro-
duced to help support the new fare
free system.
Image from Revolve Magazine
Fare Free Transit
Fare Free Transit Increases
Transit Ridership
y Chapel Hill, NC: 133% increase in 10 years
y Corvallis, OR: 57% increase in one year
y Hasselt Belgium: 1,200% increase in 4 years
y Aubagne, France: 170% increase in 4 years
y Tallinn, Estonia: 10% increase in 3 months
6-51 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Funding
With federal funding in flux, many transit agencies are looking to secure local and dependable funding sources for transit.
Local funding for transit has been secured in multiple ways, including transit impact development fees and a transit
operations fee assessed to residents and businesses based on expected trip generation.
Corvallis, Oregon implemented a transit
operations fee in 2011.
Image from City of Corvallis
Why is it important?
Increased local funding for transit operations can be
used to improve service frequency, hours of operation,
and/or develop new routes. Cities served by a regional
transit provider may want to implement services that
achieve goals differing from those prioritized by a
regional transit agency. For example, a local jurisdiction
may place more value on circulation in downtown or
high frequency service. As in Boulder, many communi-
ties rely on sales tax to supplement regional service.
Reliance on sales tax revenues makes transit vulnerable
in tough economic times and requires agencies to cut
and increase service in a manner that affects people’s
use and perception of transit as a stable piece of public
infrastructure. Finding new, innovative, and steady
sources of funding for transit operations will benefit
Boulder in the near-term and long-term – both to
secure funding but also to help address climate the
community’s climate goals .
This section provides a brief overview of local funding
sources for transit operations and maintenance.
Where has it been done?
Transportation Impact Fee: Santa Monica, CA
In 2013, Santa Monica adopted a policy to achieve no net new automobile PM peak hour trips. To implement this
goal, the City set a transportation impact fee to mitigate the effects of new development on the transportation
system. The fee is based on land use type and ranges between $2,600 - $7,800 per residential dwelling unit and
$3.60 - $21.00 per square foot for commercial development. The policy has a dual benefit of supporting citywide
environmental goals and generating a sustainable transportation funding source.
Ocean Ave
4th St
Lincoln Blvd
14th St
17th St
20th St
26th St
Bundy Dr
Stanford St Colorado AveSanta Monica BlvdArizona AveWilshire BlvdCloverfiled BlvdOlympic BlvdBarrington Ave Federal Ave
Nebraska AvePico BlvdIowa AveCentinela Ave
Pa ci f i c P a l i sa des RdMontana AveIdaho AveCalifornia Ave2nd St BroadwayWashington AveBicknell Ave4th St
Main St
Legend
0 0.25 0.50.125 Miles
§¨¦
·|}þ
SANTA MONICA AREA TYPES
FIGURE X
Freeway
Streets
10
1
Area Type 1
City of
Santa Monica
Area Type 2
Figure E-2 Map of Area 1 and Area 2
The Santa Monica
Transportation Impact Fee
(TIF) mitigates the trans-
portation impact of new
development. The map
above highlights two areas
where the fee is assessed.
The TIF for Area 1 (includ-
ing downtown, the Special
Office District, and the
Bergamont Transit Village)
is lower because these
areas have lower vehicle
trip generation rates due
to transit accessibility, and
the presence of comple-
mentary land uses. Area
2 includes the remainder
of the city not included in
Area 1.
Source: City of Santa Monica
6-52 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Transit Operations Fee: Corvallis, OR
Corvallis, Oregon is located in the Willamette Valley, half
way between Portland and Eugene. The municipally-run
Corvallis Transit System (CTS) serves approximately 55,000
local residents, including the Oregon State University with
over 26,000 students.
How much is the Fee? In 2011, Corvallis implemented a
Transportation Operations Fee (TOF) as a surcharge on
customer utility bills. The TOF replaced the portion of the
City’s General Fund previously dedicated to transit, making
those funds available for other uses such as the Library,
Parks and Recreation, and the Police and Fire Departments.
The Transit Operations Fee is calculated using the Institute
of Traffic Engineers trip generation model. The model
estimates the average number of vehicle trips generated by
a property based on the property type. The fee is $2.75 per
month for single-family residential customers and $1.90 per
month for multi-family residential customers. About $0.90 of
the fee is fare box replacement; the remainder replaces the
general fund contribution. Businesses are assessed based on
the type of business and the trip generation associated with
that use.
How much money will the fee raise? The fee is expected to
generate $850,000 in the first year. Roughly $400,000 of this
replaces the property tax revenue that previously supported
the CTS. The Transportation Operations Fee comprises
approximately 30% of the CTS budget.
What is the benefit of the fee? In addition to establishing a
steady source of revenue for CTS, the utility fee enabled the
City to institute a free fare system. Making the bus fare free,
and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, were noted as co-
benefits of a solution to a revenue problem, and served to
make the utility fee more politically palatable. The free fare
system caused an immediate increase in riders. Ridership
increased 24% between February 2010 and February 2011.
March 2011 showed an even greater increase with a 43%
jump in ridership over March 2010. Ridership has increased
from 700,000 riders in 2009 to 1.1 million in 2012.
Local Funding Opportunities for Boulder
Funding Type What is it?Where has it been done?What is the impact?
Transit Impact
Development Fee
A fee charged to develop-
ers in order to fund transit
service necessary to
offset the traffic impacts
of their projects.
Santa Monica, CA
San Francisco Municipal
Transportation Agency
(SFMTA)
SFMTA has generated
more than $120 million
in revenue from the fee
since 1981
Employer or head tax A fee assessed to employ-
ers based on payroll
taxes.
TriMet, Portland, OR
Seattle, WA
Payroll tax amounts to
27% of TriMet’s 2013-
2014 budget
Transportation
Maintenance /Operations
Utility Fee
A fee charged to each
household and business
typically through a utility
bill. The fee is based on
estimated trip generation
by land use.
Corvallis, OR
Hillsboro, OR
Loveland, CO
$850,000 generated
in 2011 (30% of transit
budget)
Parking Revenue Parking revenue in
specific districts or
city-wide is used to fund
transit operations.
San Francisco, CA
Portland, OR
Parking fees and fines
account for nearly 35% of
MTA’s operating budget
Motor Vehicle Excise Tax Car owners pay a small
percent of vehicle value
to fund transportation
projects.
Washington State 0.7 percent tax on motor
vehicles amounts to $140
increase in license fees for
a $20,000 automobile
Local Transportation
Benefits District* Fees:
Car Tag Fee
Fee associated with car
licenses renewal.
Host of Washington
cities, including Seattle,
Tacoma, and Olympia
$20 per vehicle
Utility Tax Portion of utility tax is
allocated to transporta-
tion projects.
Pullman, WA**0.3% utility tax yielded
$1.1 million in revenue
for transit in 2011
* Transportation Benefit Districts are quasi-municipal corporations with independent taxing authority, including the author-
ity to impose property taxes and impact fees for transportation purposes. In Washington, RCW 36.73.020 governs formation
by counties, and RCW 35.21.225 governs formation by cities.
** The transit portion of the utility tax was enacted by Ordinance No. 78-39 adopted by the City Council on September 19,
1978, and approved by the voters of the city at a special election conducted on November 7, 1978. (Pullman Municipal
Code Sec. 6.15.055).
Funding
6-53 City of Boulder STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT
Funding
Parking Meter Revenue: San Francisco, CA and
Portland, OR
Parking meter revenue helps fund transit:
y San Francisco Metropolitan Transit Agency
(MTA): The MTA dedicates 80% of the total park-
ing tax revenues collected by the City to support
transit. The result of a 2007 ballot measure – MTA
doubled the previous 40% share allocated to
transit. As of 2012, parking and traffic fees and
fines comprise nearly 35% of the MTA’s operating
budget. An increased share of parking revenues
is expected to come from parking fees rather
than fines under SFpark, a federally-funded pilot
program that the city is implementing to test
market-based pricing of the city’s parking supply.
Although the goal of the program is not to raise
money, it may increase revenue due to increased
prices, extended time limits, and flexibility of
credit card payments.
y Portland, Oregon: In Portland, Oregon, the
City uses parking revenue to fund streetcar
operations, which is run by Portland Streetcar,
Inc., a non-profit. Revenue from parking meters
installed in the districts served by the streetcar
is used to fund about one third of the streetcar’s
operating cost ($2 million budgeted for 2011).
Boulder currently uses parking system revenue to sup-
port purchase of Eco Passes for downtown employees.
It should be recognized that parking revenue is often
prioritized for operation and upkeep of the parking
system.
The SFpark program parking meters adapt pricing based on demand.
Image from SF.Streetsbog
• Cash Free Transit: Continue to
explore opportunities to expand cash free
transit through the Countywide Eco Pass
study
• Taxes & Fees: Continue to explore
options for a transit tax or fee through the
Transportation Maintenance Fee process
Fares & Funding
KEY ISSUES TO BE
EXPLORED IN THE TRANSIT PLAN