BOULDER’S STRATEGY’S PERFORMANCE

This section provides an overview and analysis of transportation trends in the city of Boulder to assess the overall effectiveness of its sustainable transportation, TDM, and parking management strategies.

Progress Towards Objectives

The City of Boulder collects and

analyzes data relating to each of its TMP objectives to track progress. A snapshot of this data is provided online on the city’s website (https://bouldercolorado. gov/boulder-measures). In addition, a Transportation Report on Progress (TRP) is published every two years. The most recent TRP was published in 2018 and served as the major source of information to evaluate Boulder’s transportation strategies. As shown in Figure 30, a report card for TMP objectives is included in each TRP. The report card shows the TMP’s measurable objectives, its progress, and whether the objective was met or not.

Overall, Boulder met five of its nine measurable objectives. It is important

Objectives Progress Performance

Reduce vehicle miles of travel in the Boulder Valley by 20 percent by 2035

VMT was last estimated at 2.49

million in 2016 X Objective Not Met

Reduce single occupant vehicle travel to 20 percent of all trips for non- residents and 60 percent of work trips for non-residents.

Resident SOV mode share was 36% in 2015

Non resident SOV mode share was 78% in 2017

Objective Met Objective Met

Achieve a 16 percent reduction in green house gas emissions and continued reduction in mobile source emissions of other air pollutants

448,994 million metric tons of

transportation related GHG in 2016 X Objective Not Met

No more than 20 percent of roadways congested at Level of Service (LOS) F

11 percent of signalized

intersections at LOS E or F in 2017 Objective Met

Expand fiscally-viable transportation options for all Boulder residents and employees, including older adults and people with disabilities

2017: 311,00 city support to VIA 2017: 11,298 est. residents eligible for Neighborhood EcoPass

Objective Met

Increase transportation alternatives commensurate with the rate of employee growth

Boulder Employees: 18% increase Transit Service Hours: 10% Decrease

Bike System Miles: 30% Increase

Objective Met

“Toward Vision Zero” fatal and serious injury crashes: continuous improvement in safety for all modes of travel

66 serious injury and fatal crashes

in 2016 X Objective Not Met

Increase the share of residents living in complete neighborhoods to 80 percent

29 percent of residents lived in a

walkable neighborhood in 2017 X Objective Not Met

Reduce daily resident VMT to 7.3 miles per capita and non-resident one-way commute VMT to 11.4 miles per capita

12.8 miles per day for Boulder Residents in 2015

Estimated 15 miles for a nonresident one-way commute in 2017

X Objective Not Met

FIG. 30

Transportation Master Plan (2014) Objectives Report Card, 2018125

to understand that the planning horizon for the TMP was 20 year, or until 2035, so failure to meet an objective in 2018 does not necessarily mean a strategy was ineffective. Several insights can be gleaned from this assessment. First, Boulder’s unmet objectives are those that show tangible end-product results in behavior change or transportation impact change. For example, Boulder did not meet its objective of reducing vehicle miles of traveled by 20

percent. VMTs have actually increased slightly since 1990. Given this, it is not surprising that Boulder also has not yet met its greenhouse gas emission reductions. However, there are areas where significant progress has been made. One such example is the city’s ability to reduce SOV mode share for residents to 36 percent in 2015 from 44 percent in 1990. However, the same trend is not as strong for non-resident SOV mode share, where figures have decreased to 78 percent in 2017 from 81 percent in 1991. These varied and conflicting progress statistics show the myriad of complex relationships at play that determine the success or failure of Boulder’s — or any city’s — transportation system.

HIGHLIGHTS

While the big picture results are mixed, several programs and policies in Boulder show clear success. The section below provides a detailed overview of such strategies.

Eco Pass

The Eco Pass Program is one of Boulder’s most effective TDM

programs. In fact, a sensitivity analysis conducted shows it is one of the most cost-effective tools the City uses to increase transit ridership. Eco Pass holders are five to nine times more likely than non-Eco Pass holders to

ride transit. Since its introduction in 2015, it has successfully helped change travel behavior for around 80,000 people. As previously mentioned, the Eco Pass Program is a discounted annual, universal transit pass that is purchased by employers for employees, neighborhood groups, and the University of Colorado for students and staff. Overall, the Eco Pass program has been incredibly well-received by both purchasers and users. When the program began in 2015, 75,599 people used it. By 2017, the number of users had increased by 6,706 users or 8 percent to 82,305, as shown in Figure 31. Significantly, 18 percent of the growth experienced during that time period was driven by business participation. Close behind was neighborhood group participation, which grew 13 percent. The largest user group of the Eco Pass program is by far University of Colorado, Boulder — including students, faculty, and staff — which combined accounted for 52 percent of users (City of Boulder, Colorado, 2018). Given all this success, Boulder is exploring the feasibility of expanding eligibility for the program by making it community-wide.

Neighborhood Access Tool

Boulder’s Neighborhood Access Tool (NAT) is an important analytical tool that provides an objective assessment of the degree to which residents live in “15-minute walking neighborhoods.” The NAT helps Boulder assess

whether it is meeting TMP Objective 8 (Increase the share of residents living in complete, walkable neighborhoods to 80 percent). The power of this tool is its ability to synthesize the concepts of sustainable transportation, TDM, and compact/mixed development. The inherent overlap between land use mix, densities, and transportation facilities

Program 2015 2016 2017 Percent Change _{(2015 to 2017)}

College Pass Program 32,945 34,235 34,735 5.2%

CU Faculty and Staff 7,914 8,286 8,684 8.9%

CAGID Downtown Program 6,613 6,702 6,864 3.7%

UHGID University Hill 0 383 343 100.0%

Boulder Junction Business 68 96 689 90.1%

Boulder Junction NECO 303 423 417 27.3%

Business Program BECO 16,137 17,191 19,275 16.3%

Neighborhood Program 11,619 11,709 11,298 -2.8%

Total 75,599 79,025 82,305 8.1%

makes showcasing the concept of a 15-minute neighborhood incredibly useful. In Boulder, the NAT works using GIS to create “access scores” for areas that represent the ability to walk to various destinations. Access scores were created when the TMP was updated in 2014 and again in 2017. Over that time period, slight improvement was observed in areas where additional mixed-use development had occurred. In 2017, 29 percent of Boulder residents

FIG. 31

Eco Pass Estimates, 2015-2017 Source: (City of Boulder, Colorado, 2018)

lived in walkable neighborhoods.126

While this is significantly below its objective of 80 percent of residents, the ability of the tool to objectively benchmark and continuously measure this attribute is noteworthy. This type of analysis can easily be tracked over time and incorporated into other planning initiatives.