HomeMy WebLinkAboutRESPONSE - RFP - P856 (16)Transportation Modeling – Opening the Black Box Regional Connections Frequently Asked Questions What is a model and how is it used in the Transportation Planning process? Why model?
How does the model work? How accurate is it? What can the model really tell us and not tell us? How does modeling help to address the 1996 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) objectives?
1996 Transportation Master Plan No Long-Term Traffic Growth Improve Air Quality Not Addressed by TMP Objectives How is the transportation system used? How does the transportation
system work? How does the transportation system fit in the community? Safety Quality of life Integration with Other Studies Transportation Analysis What is a Model? A model is a mathematical
representation of real world behavior for testing assumptions of future land use and transportation. Types of Models Historical Growth/Trend Analysis Intuitive - Indicator Method Manual/Spreadsheets
Generate Distribute Assign Four Step Models Why Model? Play “What-if…?” Consistency Evaluation of multi-modal options Required for Federal Funding Land use, transportation, and air
quality relationships Considers all trips to, through, from, and within the Boulder Valley Typical Four-Step Models Who travels? Why do they travel? How much do they travel? Where do
they go? How do they get there? When do they travel? What route do they take? Four-Step Process Model Inputs for Estimating Travel Travel survey data Distance Roadway Capacity Travel
time/Speed Activity Household Size and Income Socioeconomic Data Socioeconomic Data Transportation System Networks Transportation System Networks Travel Surveys Regional Household
Survey (1997) On-board Transit Survey (1997) Commercial Vehicle Survey (1998/99) External Station/Cordon Survey (1998) Boulder Travel Diary Study (2000) Transportation Survey of Residents
(1999) Employee Use Survey (1999) Trip Generation Trip-making based on Household and Employment data Generally, households produce trips Generally, employment locations attract trips
Boulder Residents: about 6 trips per person per day Trip Generation Trip Types (PM Peak Period) Trip Distribution Length of Trips Mode Split Traffic Assignment Determines travel routes
by minimizing travel time Traffic Assignment Travel by time-of-day Model Validation Statistical analysis that ensures the model replicates current, observed conditions (e.g., traffic
counts). A model must first be validated to current conditions before it can be used to forecast future travel. Observations: The Good, Bad, and Ugly Some communities: Don’t invest in
modeling resources and maintenance Try to answer the wrong questions with a model Have a “good” model that is not supported with good data Don’t include enough detail in the model Have
models with unreliable forecasts Rely too much on the model’s numbers Model Accuracy Traffic counts vary 10-20% Dependent on Socioeconomic Data input We don’t model everything We don’t
know what it will really be like in 25 years Conclusion: Model can estimate general travel characteristics Model will not answer how much travel will be in front of my house in 25 years
Model requires interpretation Interpretation Travel Forecasting and Assessment Process Travel Demand Management Decision-Making Performance Vehicle Miles of Travel (VHT) Vehicle Hours
of Travel (VHT) Average Travel Speeds Congestion Delay Transit Ridership/Mode Split Transit/Auto Travel Times Vehicle Miles of Travel Travel Patterns Supply-Demand Analysis Air Quality
Air Quality Corridor Analysis Modeling Intersection Turn Movement Forecasts Synchro Sim Traffic Actual Counts Model Traffic Estimates ? Forecasts Current Future Travel Infrastructure
Finance TDM Model Output TDM Measures Adjusted Forecasts by Mode Transportation System and Services TDM Finance Travel Supply Demand What’s the balance? Vehicle Miles of Travel per Day
Level of Service Colorado Springs Alternatives Analysis Demand Supply Difference Transit Planning and Operations * * Agenda 6:00 - 6:05 Welcome by Brant Liebmann 6:05 - 6:10 Introductory
Context by Mayor Will Toor and Tracy Winfree 6:10 - 6:15 Finish Survey Form 6:15 - 7:00 Powerpoint Presentation 7:00 - 7:30 Q&A Improve Air Quality Less than 20% of roadways congested
Reduce Boulder residents’ Single Occupant Vehicle (SOV) Travel to 25% Maintain 1994 Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) From Model? Objectives no yes yes yes Goal: 2.4 Million VMT TMP Jobs/Pop
TDM Traffic Modeling Job Projections TMP Update | Jobs/Population | TDM Infrastructure Alternatives Multi-modal Corridors Regional Connections Roadway Travel Demand Model Transit
Bicycle Pedestrian Spatial Analysis/Geographic Information Systems Multi-modal Corridor Indicators TDM Analysis Tools Land Use Transportation Model Information for Decision-Making Trip
Generation Trip Distribution Mode Analysis Assignment Socioeconomic Data Roadway Network Regional Transit Network Transit Ridership Roadway Volumes Performance Report How many trips?
Where will they go? What mode? What route? Identify needs Alternatives analysis INPUT OUTPUT 4 STEPS Home Work Other aggregated into Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) with greater detail
in Boulder used to generate travel demand How is it represented in the model? U.S. Census State Employment/Tax Records Parcel/Zoning/Permit Data Future: Jobs/Population Study Where does
the data come from? Population, Households, & Employment What is it? 1998 Data 2020 Data Land Use Data Links and nodes Increased detail in Boulder How is it represented in the model?
Aerial photography City and regional plans Departmental inventories/maps Where does the data come from? Roadway and transit networks What is it? Now is a good time to update the Boulder
Model! Identifies the start and end points of each trip 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Trip Length (mi) Frequency (%) Home-Work Home-Shop Home-Recreation Home-Other
Not Home-Not Home Trip Types Boulder residents: about 27 miles/day Mode of Travel by Boulder Residents Source: Boulder Travel Diary Report, 2001
Emissions
SAV
VMT
Mob & Access Pol. (Results)
Mob. & Access Pol. (Support)
Mobility and Access Policy
Study Committee Work Needs
Audit Assessment Chart
Chart2
Additional service has been added in the corridor by RTD as demand has grown. The city actively participated in developing the corridor consensus on long-term improvements in the corridor
through the US 36 MIS process.
These actions have not occurred, although the city is working on developing a general transportation allowance program for its downtown employees.
The funding deficit identified in the 1996 TMP remains largely unaddressed as a major challenge to achieving the goals and objectives of the plan.
The pollutant of historic concern, CO2, has shown continuous reduction, largely as the result of technological improvements and through the control of increases in VMT.
The city has increased funding of the sidewalk program, resulting in an increase in the repair and retrofit of sidewalks with access ramps. Seven out of 29 sidewalk areas have been
completed and over 3,400 access ramps installed.
The 1996 TMP firmly placed the transportation system under the umbrella of and in service of broader community goals and values. However, additional work is needed in the areas of TDM,
land use and transportation connections, regional travel and finance.
The SOV mode share dropped from 44% in 1990 to 41% in 1994 and was 42% in 2000. While not maintaining the mode share shift needed to achieve the TMP objective, some mode shift gains
have been maintained in the face of increased travel into the city.
Comments
Results
>
What Should the TMP Update Address?
What Can We Conclude?
Funding
Regional Travel
TDM
Multi Modal Corridors
X
The most significant growth in travel will occur in trips from outside the Boulder Valley and this segment of travel is the biggest challenge to achieving the objectives of the TMP
Boulder Transportation Plan Update
Without the funding needed to implement the TMP, mode shift and congestion objectives of the TMP can not be achieved.
Identify ways to jump to the next level of citywide and regional TDM programs to offset traffic growth.
Assess the development review process and identify what follow up TDM monitoring should be required.
All multimodal corridors will require significant investment.
What Has/Has Not Happened Since The 1996 TMP Update?
Housing: Housing demand and housing prices have significantly increased in Boulder.
Parking Policy: The City has not implemented maximum parking requirements or parking pricing as identified in the TMP.
Federal and State Funds: Federal and State funds are currently constrained.
Implementation of TMP modal elements has been great, but the plan has not achieved the projected results partially because it has not used a comprehensive enough systems approach.
Examine the TMP with a systems approach, as to how the pieces fit to make the total.
Transportation Demand Management as implemented so far is long on wishful thinking and short on management.
Implementation of TDM: Requiring TDM mitigation for new developments has only a small effect on overall travel and its impacts.
We cannot accomplish TDM goals by just focusing on the marginal growth that results from new development.
Develop additional funding capacity at the local level.
The TMP update must consider changes since the 1996 TMP, project future travel demands and address regional travel.
We can't accomplish TDM goals by only managing demand through incentive strategies. Disincentive strategies are also required.
Review and confirm the Prioritization Project's prioritization of corridors and improvements.
Inventory the identified multimodal corridors and prepare a character and evaluation matrix of all corridors with proposed improvements that will support the corridor improvements through
development and redevelopment activities.
Growth in population and employment have exceeded levels anticipated by the 1996 Plan and requires reexamination in the TMP update.
TMP Policy Focus*
Understand the relationship of housing costs and Boulder job incomes.
Project the demographic makeup of Boulder residents and employees that travel into Boulder.
Assess various jobs/housing scenarios.
Role of the County: leadership, funding (current and potential).
Funding: Need both more information and more detail: What do if shortfalls (scenarios)? Explain barriers to new non-City funding. Look to examples in other states and countries. What’s
cheaper? Reprioritize.
Crossroads: What to expect from the 800-pound Gorilla?
Affordable Housing: What’s coming on line? New funding mechanisms? What’s the potential and what would be its impact?
Potential for Living Wage Ordinance
What can we do in the way of land use changes?
What are the particular travel characteristics of external/internal trips?
What pricing options could be used to influence mode choice?
How do land use changes east of Boulder County influence transportation in Boulder?
What is the next EcoPass promotion effort?
What are the current parking ratio requirements? Are they appropriate?
Flexibility of city-wide EcoPass
Explore citizen motivations to use alternative modes.
Taxes – increase? Sales Tax?
Expected federal/state revenues.
City policies concerning population and employment.
How other cities handle/control parking.
At what traffic level should you separate bikes and pedestrians.
Land-use/transportation: What’s potential and what’s needed (beyond “jobs/population balance”)?
EPA restrictions/local restrictions on diesel due to health impacts.
How culture change to safe and courteous travel? What benefit and cost?
Why do people not use alternative modes of transportation?
What is highest potential use of transit?
What regional/Boulder County information is available similar to Boulder County Metrics?
What employers have higher/lower Boulder resident employees (need distribution)?
How does teleworking play in the Boulder TMP update?
What is political climate on user fees and marketplace strategies and head taxes?
Demographic information and projections of the City – internal aging of the population and need for services.
Demographic information on external regional travelers (job, income, distance, home location, renter/owner).
Impact/data on school travel (K–12).
Noise data – from traffic.
Land use/build-out for eastern areas (job increase)
Expected infrastructure improvements in City, at edge, regional 5-year plan.
CU travel behavior information – where do students live?
Vote
Study Committee Needs
There is no Federal or State bailout, but we can be strategic in leveraging funds.
Develop an investment prioritization process that leverages Boulders limited funds.
Regional and local transit connections are key to our success.
Land Use/Urban Design: Transit/Pedestrian Oriented Design standards and guidelines have not been developed or implemented.
Accelerate and advance regional partnership coalitions and regional multi-modal connections.
Minimum conditions are necessary for an effective TDM program, including the importance of the bicycle system, pedestrian system, transit system, parking availability and cost, and housing
locations and demand
The TMP will need to mitigate traffic impacts from additional jobs.
Boulder can’t win this alone. Boulder needs regional and community partners (i.e. CU Boulder).
Geographics: There are widely varying differences in land use, urban design and fabric, visual interests and amenities within the City.
Determine what ingredients are necessary to promote and implement an effective TDM program.
Understand the importance of education, aesthetics, urban design and quality of experience in the transportation mode selection process.
Moderate
Major
U
Level of Achievement
What Have We Heard/Observed?
x
January 21, 2002
Little to None
Policies
Primary Area of Focus
Secondary Area of Focus
Employment Growth: Current employment is about 10,000 higher than estimated in the 1996 plan. The 2020 employment is now expected to be 30,000 greater than the 2020 plan predicted.
Mixed Use: The city is encouraging the increase of mixed use development.
Affordable Housing: The City is implementing it's policy of providing more "affordable" housing
The transportation impacts of affordable housing and mixed use development is uncertain.
Develop maximum parking standards and parking pricing.
Budget Deficit: The cost of the 1996 plan was estimated at $1.1 billion with only $700 million in funds available, resulting in a plan deficit of $400 million.
Provide an investment program that is fiscally constrained as well as unconstrained. Explore what additional funding sources and alternatives to sales tax are available.
Sales Tax: Sales tax makes up over half of the anticipated TMP revenues. Boulder sales tax revenue is impacted by increasing retail competition and the economy from year to year.
Paying for transportation facilities in a way totally separated from their use will become increasingly problematic and does not provide accurate price signals to auto users.
Refresh TMP costs and revenues. Investigate and propose new funding mechanisms that move toward a user-fee based funding system.
Competition for Funds: The current federal funding allocation system makes jurisdictions compete with each other for a "limited pie" rather that collaborating towards a common vision
(see Regional Planning below).
Securing outside funding will continue to become more difficult and protective.
Cumulative project transportation impacts will grow with additional new developments under the current code.
Development Impacts: New developments pay fees to off-set project impacts. These fees do not fully fund the project's total transportation impact.
The TMP should address new developments responsibility. Update the development fee structure and rates and explore TDM requirements to limit development impacts.
RTD: Boulder's transit service is provided by RTD. The City has been successful in getting RTD to implement new service, such as the Skip Jump, LEAP and BOUND. Quality and character
of service has not met the City's expectations.
Continued Boulder staff commitment and concerted effort is needed to achieve quality local and regional transit routes and operations expectations.
A significant number future employees will likely travel longer distances to find affordable housing.
The TMP should reflect anticipated city efforts to provide additional affordable housing and mixed use development.
Demographics: Currently the TMP is demographically blind (e.g., it doesn't consider aging or changing employment characteristics of the population and workforce).
If we do not understand the existing and future demographics of Boulder and those that travel into Boulder, it is not possible to anticipate their transportation needs and develop an
effective TDM program to serve future travel needs.
Different areas in town have different transportation needs and opportunities and will be able to support different levels of TDM effectiveness.
Enforcement: The city's current development approval process lacks procedures to assure implementation and compliance with TDM measures.
Develop clear guidelines on the key characteristics needed for achieving an effective TDM program.
Boulder has become more of an employment center and is not an island unaffected by regional trends.
The TMP should reflect a regional strategy to develop coalitions to support funding for regional improvements.
Needed Resources: Significant resources and investment will be required to implement the 28th Street corridor plan and Transportation Network Plan.
Jobs/ Population Project
Macro-Level Assessment
(What Should We Work On?)
Explore the trip making characteristics of mixed use and affordable housing and what they can contribute toward balancing jobs and population.
Regional Growth: Regional growth has accelerated and is adding travel into and out of Boulder and increasing congestion.
Regional Planning: There is no CDOT or RTD funded plans in place to implement regional solutions, especially rail along US 36 and improvements to Arapahoe and the Diagonal. Plans such
as Fastracks are being developed but are not funded.
X Primary Area of Focus
x Secondary Area of Focus
TMP Policy Focus
Study Committee Information Needs by Policy Area
(What You Asked For and Where It Fits)
Achievement of 1996 TMP Policies, Goals and Objectives
(How Are We Doing?)
Operational improvements are needed to keep the Community Transit Network functioning at a high level of service.
* Legend
January 31, 2002
a. No growth in long-term vehicle traffic
City of Boulder
Estimated VMT
Projected VMT
(compounded)
Year
VMT
Air Quality - Emissions Estimation Based on VMT
Daily
Emissions
Tons of CO
CO Emission
Tons of PM10
PM10 Emission
Rate
b. Reduction in single occupant vehicle travel to 25% of trips
c. Continuous reduction in mobile source emissions of air pollutants
d. No more than 20% of roadways contested (LOS F)
SOV Mode share
Residents
All Employees
Resident Employees
Non-resident Employees
Needed TMP Trend
I. Pedestrian Policies
a. Review and development of revised sidewalk standards.
b. Retrofit pedestrian facilities to ADA standards.
c. Identify a short list of high priority missing links and create a funding program.
d. Improve pedestrian access to public transit.
e. Adopt warrants for pedestrian crossing treatments
II. Bicycle Policies
a. Develop a continuous bicycle system.
b. Complete the corridor network
c. Work with Boulder County and DRCOG.
d. Work with RTD, Boulder County for bike lockers at transit centers
e. Work with RTD to ensure bikes on buses.
III. Transit Policies
a. Incrementally improve and increase local transit.
b. Secure funding for the HOP
c. Develop high frequency service on key corridors.
d. Increase transit service in the US 36 corridor.
e. Expand ECO Pass programs.
IV. Demand Management Policies
a. Implement parking strategies and pricing.
b. Implement land use design standards.
V. Roadway Infrastructure Policies
a. Prioritize maintenance and TSM improvements.
b. Maintain acceptable LOS to no more than 20% of Roadways.
c. Prioritize roadway improvements to system preservation and travel safety, alternative mode functional efficiency, quality of life and functional capacity
d. Prioritize functional efficiency and capacity on designated bike and transit routes.
VI. 2020 Goals
a. Develop an integrated, multimodal transportation system which emphasizes the role of the pedestrian mode as the primary mode of travel.
b. A transportation system supportive of community goals.
c. Provide sufficient, timely, and equitable financing mechanisms for transportation.
d. Encourage public participation and regional coordination in transportation planning
e. Establish a transportation system supportive of desired land use patterns and functional, attractive urban design.
VII. 2020 Objectives
a. No growth in long-term vehicle traffic
I a
I b
I c
I d
I e
II a
II b
II c
II d
II e
III a
III b
III c
III d
III e
IV a
IV b
V a
V b
V c
V d
VI a
V1 b
VI c
VI d
V! e
VII a
VII b
VII c
VII d
Sidewalk standards have not been revised since the 1996 TMP
The city has a significant bicycle system composed of 210 miles of facilities that is one of the best in the country. A number of difficult connections are in the current CIP and should
be constructed in the near future.
The city has an extensive bicycle system and has completed 72 of 340 bicycle projects identified in the TMP. However major gaps remain in the system, particularly in the BURA area.
More than 50 bicycle lockers have been added to transit centers in Boulder and the city is working with RTD to develop a bikestation at the downtown center. However, a waiting list
remains for existing bike lockers.
Bike racks are provided on all RTD buses in Boulder following a demonstration project initiated by the city.
February 1, 2002
The city has conducted two public outreach efforts to identify and prioritize missing links and increased funding in this area.
The city has experimented with a variety of pedestrian crossing treatments and established warrants for their use. Over 20 mid block crossings have been installed since 1996.
The city has negotiated an agreement with RTD where RTD is paying for half of the HOP funding for a demonstration period, with the expectation that continued positive performance by
the HOP will result in RTD fully funding the service.
Policies supporting land use design standards supportive of all modes have been included in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan Update, but these have not been implemented in the code
or the development review process.
The city's transportation budget has been restructured since 1997 to reflect these priorities. Most recently, as part of the Prioritization project, Council directed that $1 million
annual be re-directed to alternative mode capacity.
Measuring Progress: Significant improvements have been made in completing the pedestrian and bicycle system, expanding high frequency transit service, and maintaining our street system.
While progress has been made toward the TMP goals, intersections are
Continue to invest and expand the community transit network and community pass participation with RTD and neighboring communities.
The sidewalk repair program has been focused on the high frequency transit corridors and significant pedestrian access improvements were done prior to the JUMP/LEAP/BOUND implementation.
This effort has not addressed all transit routes, however, the firs
The city has been successful in securing bicycle project funding from DRCOG and has worked cooperatively with the County to develop bicycle facilities between the city and Gunbarrel,
supported the County's transportation ballot proposal which will fund bi
The 1996 TMP called for increasing transit hours of service from 240,308 to 577,870 by 2020. The city has successfully funded five high frequency services that have added 77,994 hours
of service by 2001, putting us ahead of the proportional amount needed
Five high frequency transit services are currently operating in Boulder, with two additional services in the final planning stages to start service this year. High frequency service
will exist in at least portions of six of the ten multimodal corridors i
The Eco Pass programs have continued to expand, with a total of 60,000 passes existing in the community. The student value pass has been tremendously successful, with over 2,500 passes
sold this school year. However, the Eco Pass ballot proposal designe
The city has significantly increased funding for maintenance and operational improvements of the existing road system. Starting in 1997, $500,000 annually has been added to the road
overlay budget and the city has made significant progress in moving towa
SOV mode share has decreased 3 % since 1990, while drive times along four major corridors have decreased or increased less than 2 % annually. However, the study of Levels of Service
(LOS) at signalized intersections shows that 21 % have some movements th
The Prioritization project resulted in transportation spending being directed to a prioritized list of the identified multimodal corridors with the intent that investments be made in
all modes through these corridor improvements. 28th Street is the first
While the city has constructed numerous projects adding capacity to the non automotive modes, many corridors have not been developed in an integrated way. The community is increasing
its understanding of all the factors needed to maximize the success of
The city has become more actively engaged in regional transportation planning with a focus on the US 36, Arapahoe and Diagonal corridors. Improved notification techniques have increased
public participation in the planning process, however, many citizens
While the city is increasingly examining issues related to land use and transportation, these planning efforts are still somewhat separated in that integrated transportation and land
use plans do not exist for the identified multimodal corridors and poli
The city has been relatively successful in controlling the growth of vehicle traffic with the core of the city, but traffic into and out of the city has increased significantly. The
travel behavior changes of Boulder residents can no longer overcome the
Page
1993.00
2.40
1994.00
118.00
4.92E-05
3.20
1.33E-06
1994.00
2.44
1995.00
111.57
4.57E-05
3.25
1.33E-06
1995.00
2.56
1996.00
108.18
4.23E-05
3.40
1.33E-06
1996.00
2.55
1997.00
98.74
3.88E-05
3.37
1.33E-06
1997.00
2.52
1998.00
88.99
3.54E-05
3.33
1.32E-06
1998.00
2.58
1999.00
82.13
3.19E-05
3.40
1.32E-06
1999.00
2.55
2000.00
72.57
2.84E-05
3.36
1.32E-06
2000.00
2.61
2001.00
65.16
2.50E-05
3.43
1.32E-06
2001.00
2.73
2002.00
58.84
2.15E-05
3.59
1.31E-06
Tons of CO Daily
Tons of PM10 Daily
Year
Tons of Pollutant
TMP Objective:Continuous reduction in mobile source emissions of air pollutants
Daily Pollutant Emissions
Page
1990.00
1991.00
1992.00
1993.00
1994.00
1995.00
1996.00
1997.00
1998.00
1999.00
2000.00
2001.00
0.44
0.42
0.41
0.42
0.40
0.42
0.73
0.73
0.72
0.68
0.74
0.72
0.65
0.62
0.62
0.58
0.61
0.61
0.81
0.84
0.82
0.80
0.85
0.81
0.44
0.37
0.44
0.44
0.25
30.00
11.00
Residents
All Employees
Resident Employees
Non-resident Employees
Year
SOV Mode Share
TMP Objective: Reduction in single occupant
vehicle travel to 25% of trips
SOV Employee Mode Share
Page
1990.00
1991.00
1992.00
1993.00
1994.00
1995.00
1996.00
1997.00
1998.00
1999.00
2000.00
2001.00
2.19
2.26
2.33
2.40
2.45
2.56
2.57
2.52
2.57
2.56
2.61
2.73
2.30
2.19
1.05
2.42
1.05
2.55
1.05
2.68
1.05
2.82
1.05
2.97
1.05
3.12
1.05
3.29
1.05
3.46
1.05
3.64
1.05
3.83
1.05
0.90
1.03
TMP Objective: No growth in long-term vehicle traffic
Estimated average Weekday Vehicle Miles of Travel
TMP Goal
Projected VMT
Estimated VMT
Year
Millions of Daily VMT
TMP Objective: No growth in long-term vehicle traffic
Boulder Estimated VMT Growth Compared to Potential VMT at Regional Growth Rate
Potential
VMT
Estimated VMT
Projected VMT
Year
Millions of Daily VMT
TMP Objective: No growth in long-term vehicle traffic
Boulder Estimated VMT Growth Compared to Potential VMT at Regional Growth Rate
TMP VMT Goal
Projected VMT
Estimated VMT
Millions of Daily VMT
Potential
VMT
TMP
Estimated VMT
Residents
All Employees
Resident Employees
Non-resident Employees
Year
SOV Mode Share
TMP Objective: Reduction in single occupant
vehicle travel to 25% of trips
SOV Employee Mode Share
Tons of CO Daily
Tons of PM10 Daily
Tons of Pollutant
TMP Objective:Continuous reduction in mobile source emissions of air pollutants
Daily Pollutant Emissions
9.00
8.00
8.00
7.00
7.00
7.00
6.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
3.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Projected VMT
Estimated VMT
Millions of Daily VMT
Potential
VMT
TMP
Estimated VMT
1990.00
1990.00
1991.00
1991.00
1992.00
1992.00
1993.00
1993.00
1994.00
1994.00
1995.00
1995.00
1996.00
1996.00
1997.00
1997.00
1998.00
1998.00
1999.00
1999.00
2000.00
2000.00
2001.00
2001.00
2.19
2.30
2.26
2.42
2.33
2.55
2.40
2.68
2.45
2.82
2.56
2.97
2.57
3.12
2.52
3.29
2.57
3.46
2.56
3.64
2.61
3.83
2.73
Emissions
SAV
VMT
Mob & Access Pol. (Results)
Mob. & Access Pol. (Support)
Mobility and Access Policy
Study Committee Work Needs
Audit Assessment Chart
Chart4
Additional service has been added in the corridor by RTD as demand has grown. The city actively participated in developing the corridor consensus on long-term improvements in the corridor
through the US 36 MIS process.
These actions have not occurred, although the city is working on developing a general transportation allowance program for its downtown employees.
The funding deficit identified in the 1996 TMP remains largely unaddressed as a major challenge to achieving the goals and objectives of the plan.
The pollutant of historic concern, CO2, has shown continuous reduction, largely as the result of technological improvements and through the control of increases in VMT.
The city has increased funding of the sidewalk program, resulting in an increase in the repair and retrofit of sidewalks with access ramps. Seven out of 29 sidewalk areas have been
completed and over 3,400 access ramps installed.
The 1996 TMP firmly placed the transportation system under the umbrella of and in service of broader community goals and values. However, additional work is needed in the areas of TDM,
land use and transportation connections, regional travel and finance.
The SOV mode share dropped from 44% in 1990 to 41% in 1994 and was 42% in 2000. While not maintaining the mode share shift needed to achieve the TMP objective, some mode shift gains
have been maintained in the face of increased travel into the city.
Comments
Results
>
What Should the TMP Update Address?
What Can We Conclude?
Funding
Regional Travel
TDM
Multi Modal Corridors
X
The most significant growth in travel will occur in trips from outside the Boulder Valley and this segment of travel is the biggest challenge to achieving the objectives of the TMP
Boulder Transportation Plan Update
Without the funding needed to implement the TMP, mode shift and congestion objectives of the TMP can not be achieved.
Identify ways to jump to the next level of citywide and regional TDM programs to offset traffic growth.
Assess the development review process and identify what follow up TDM monitoring should be required.
All multimodal corridors will require significant investment.
What Has/Has Not Happened Since The 1996 TMP Update?
Housing: Housing demand and housing prices have significantly increased in Boulder.
Parking Policy: The City has not implemented maximum parking requirements or parking pricing as identified in the TMP.
Federal and State Funds: Federal and State funds are currently constrained.
Implementation of TMP modal elements has been great, but the plan has not achieved the projected results partially because it has not used a comprehensive enough systems approach.
Examine the TMP with a systems approach, as to how the pieces fit to make the total.
Transportation Demand Management as implemented so far is long on wishful thinking and short on management.
Implementation of TDM: Requiring TDM mitigation for new developments has only a small effect on overall travel and its impacts.
We cannot accomplish TDM goals by just focusing on the marginal growth that results from new development.
Develop additional funding capacity at the local level.
The TMP update must consider changes since the 1996 TMP, project future travel demands and address regional travel.
We can't accomplish TDM goals by only managing demand through incentive strategies. Disincentive strategies are also required.
Review and confirm the Prioritization Project's prioritization of corridors and improvements.
Inventory the identified multimodal corridors and prepare a character and evaluation matrix of all corridors with proposed improvements that will support the corridor improvements through
development and redevelopment activities.
Growth in population and employment have exceeded levels anticipated by the 1996 Plan and requires reexamination in the TMP update.
TMP Policy Focus*
Understand the relationship of housing costs and Boulder job incomes.
Project the demographic makeup of Boulder residents and employees that travel into Boulder.
Assess various jobs/housing scenarios.
Role of the County: leadership, funding (current and potential).
Funding: Need both more information and more detail: What do if shortfalls (scenarios)? Explain barriers to new non-City funding. Look to examples in other states and countries. What’s
cheaper? Reprioritize.
Crossroads: What to expect from the 800-pound Gorilla?
Affordable Housing: What’s coming on line? New funding mechanisms? What’s the potential and what would be its impact?
Potential for Living Wage Ordinance
What can we do in the way of land use changes?
What are the particular travel characteristics of external/internal trips?
What pricing options could be used to influence mode choice?
How do land use changes east of Boulder County influence transportation in Boulder?
What is the next EcoPass promotion effort?
What are the current parking ratio requirements? Are they appropriate?
Flexibility of city-wide EcoPass
Explore citizen motivations to use alternative modes.
Taxes – increase? Sales Tax?
Expected federal/state revenues.
City policies concerning population and employment.
How other cities handle/control parking.
At what traffic level should you separate bikes and pedestrians.
Land-use/transportation: What’s potential and what’s needed (beyond “jobs/population balance”)?
EPA restrictions/local restrictions on diesel due to health impacts.
How culture change to safe and courteous travel? What benefit and cost?
Why do people not use alternative modes of transportation?
What is highest potential use of transit?
What regional/Boulder County information is available similar to Boulder County Metrics?
What employers have higher/lower Boulder resident employees (need distribution)?
How does teleworking play in the Boulder TMP update?
What is political climate on user fees and marketplace strategies and head taxes?
Demographic information and projections of the City – internal aging of the population and need for services.
Demographic information on external regional travelers (job, income, distance, home location, renter/owner).
Impact/data on school travel (K–12).
Noise data – from traffic.
Land use/build-out for eastern areas (job increase)
Expected infrastructure improvements in City, at edge, regional 5-year plan.
CU travel behavior information – where do students live?
Vote
Study Committee Needs
There is no Federal or State bailout, but we can be strategic in leveraging funds.
Develop an investment prioritization process that leverages Boulders limited funds.
Regional and local transit connections are key to our success.
Land Use/Urban Design: Transit/Pedestrian Oriented Design standards and guidelines have not been developed or implemented.
Accelerate and advance regional partnership coalitions and regional multi-modal connections.
Minimum conditions are necessary for an effective TDM program, including the importance of the bicycle system, pedestrian system, transit system, parking availability and cost, and housing
locations and demand
The TMP will need to mitigate traffic impacts from additional jobs.
Boulder can’t win this alone. Boulder needs regional and community partners (i.e. CU Boulder).
Geographics: There are widely varying differences in land use, urban design and fabric, visual interests and amenities within the City.
Determine what ingredients are necessary to promote and implement an effective TDM program.
Understand the importance of education, aesthetics, urban design and quality of experience in the transportation mode selection process.
Moderate
Major
U
Level of Achievement
What Have We Heard/Observed?
x
January 21, 2002
Little to None
Policies
Primary Area of Focus
Secondary Area of Focus
Employment Growth: Current employment is about 10,000 higher than estimated in the 1996 plan. The 2020 employment is now expected to be 30,000 greater than the 2020 plan predicted.
Mixed Use: The city is encouraging the increase of mixed use development.
Affordable Housing: The City is implementing it's policy of providing more "affordable" housing
The transportation impacts of affordable housing and mixed use development is uncertain.
Develop maximum parking standards and parking pricing.
Budget Deficit: The cost of the 1996 plan was estimated at $1.1 billion with only $700 million in funds available, resulting in a plan deficit of $400 million.
Provide an investment program that is fiscally constrained as well as unconstrained. Explore what additional funding sources and alternatives to sales tax are available.
Sales Tax: Sales tax makes up over half of the anticipated TMP revenues. Boulder sales tax revenue is impacted by increasing retail competition and the economy from year to year.
Paying for transportation facilities in a way totally separated from their use will become increasingly problematic and does not provide accurate price signals to auto users.
Refresh TMP costs and revenues. Investigate and propose new funding mechanisms that move toward a user-fee based funding system.
Competition for Funds: The current federal funding allocation system makes jurisdictions compete with each other for a "limited pie" rather that collaborating towards a common vision
(see Regional Planning below).
Securing outside funding will continue to become more difficult and protective.
Cumulative project transportation impacts will grow with additional new developments under the current code.
Development Impacts: New developments pay fees to off-set project impacts. These fees do not fully fund the project's total transportation impact.
The TMP should address new developments responsibility. Update the development fee structure and rates and explore TDM requirements to limit development impacts.
RTD: Boulder's transit service is provided by RTD. The City has been successful in getting RTD to implement new service, such as the Skip Jump, LEAP and BOUND. Quality and character
of service has not met the City's expectations.
Continued Boulder staff commitment and concerted effort is needed to achieve quality local and regional transit routes and operations expectations.
A significant number future employees will likely travel longer distances to find affordable housing.
The TMP should reflect anticipated city efforts to provide additional affordable housing and mixed use development.
Demographics: Currently the TMP is demographically blind (e.g., it doesn't consider aging or changing employment characteristics of the population and workforce).
If we do not understand the existing and future demographics of Boulder and those that travel into Boulder, it is not possible to anticipate their transportation needs and develop an
effective TDM program to serve future travel needs.
Different areas in town have different transportation needs and opportunities and will be able to support different levels of TDM effectiveness.
Enforcement: The city's current development approval process lacks procedures to assure implementation and compliance with TDM measures.
Develop clear guidelines on the key characteristics needed for achieving an effective TDM program.
Boulder has become more of an employment center and is not an island unaffected by regional trends.
The TMP should reflect a regional strategy to develop coalitions to support funding for regional improvements.
Needed Resources: Significant resources and investment will be required to implement the 28th Street corridor plan and Transportation Network Plan.
Jobs/ Population Project
Macro-Level Assessment
(What Should We Work On?)
Explore the trip making characteristics of mixed use and affordable housing and what they can contribute toward balancing jobs and population.
Regional Growth: Regional growth has accelerated and is adding travel into and out of Boulder and increasing congestion.
Regional Planning: There is no CDOT or RTD funded plans in place to implement regional solutions, especially rail along US 36 and improvements to Arapahoe and the Diagonal. Plans such
as Fastracks are being developed but are not funded.
X Primary Area of Focus
x Secondary Area of Focus
TMP Policy Focus
Study Committee Information Needs by Policy Area
(What You Asked For and Where It Fits)
Achievement of 1996 TMP Policies, Goals and Objectives
(How Are We Doing?)
Operational improvements are needed to keep the Community Transit Network functioning at a high level of service.
* Legend
January 31, 2002
a. No growth in long-term vehicle traffic
City of Boulder
Estimated VMT
Projected VMT
(compounded)
Year
VMT
Air Quality - Emissions Estimation Based on VMT
Daily
Emissions
Tons of CO
CO Emission
Tons of PM10
PM10 Emission
Rate
b. Reduction in single occupant vehicle travel to 25% of trips
c. Continuous reduction in mobile source emissions of air pollutants
d. No more than 20% of roadways contested (LOS F)
SOV Mode share
Residents
All Employees
Resident Employees
Non-resident Employees
Needed TMP Trend
I. Pedestrian Policies
a. Review and development of revised sidewalk standards.
b. Retrofit pedestrian facilities to ADA standards.
c. Identify a short list of high priority missing links and create a funding program.
d. Improve pedestrian access to public transit.
e. Adopt warrants for pedestrian crossing treatments
II. Bicycle Policies
a. Develop a continuous bicycle system.
b. Complete the corridor network
c. Work with Boulder County and DRCOG.
d. Work with RTD, Boulder County for bike lockers at transit centers
e. Work with RTD to ensure bikes on buses.
III. Transit Policies
a. Incrementally improve and increase local transit.
b. Secure funding for the HOP
c. Develop high frequency service on key corridors.
d. Increase transit service in the US 36 corridor.
e. Expand ECO Pass programs.
IV. Demand Management Policies
a. Implement parking strategies and pricing.
b. Implement land use design standards.
V. Roadway Infrastructure Policies
a. Prioritize maintenance and TSM improvements.
b. Maintain acceptable LOS to no more than 20% of Roadways.
c. Prioritize roadway improvements to system preservation and travel safety, alternative mode functional efficiency, quality of life and functional capacity
d. Prioritize functional efficiency and capacity on designated bike and transit routes.
VI. 2020 Goals
a. Develop an integrated, multimodal transportation system which emphasizes the role of the pedestrian mode as the primary mode of travel.
b. A transportation system supportive of community goals.
c. Provide sufficient, timely, and equitable financing mechanisms for transportation.
d. Encourage public participation and regional coordination in transportation planning
e. Establish a transportation system supportive of desired land use patterns and functional, attractive urban design.
VII. 2020 Objectives
a. No growth in long-term vehicle traffic
I a
I b
I c
I d
I e
II a
II b
II c
II d
II e
III a
III b
III c
III d
III e
IV a
IV b
V a
V b
V c
V d
VI a
V1 b
VI c
VI d
V! e
VII a
VII b
VII c
VII d
Sidewalk standards have not been revised since the 1996 TMP
The city has a significant bicycle system composed of 210 miles of facilities that is one of the best in the country. A number of difficult connections are in the current CIP and should
be constructed in the near future.
The city has an extensive bicycle system and has completed 72 of 340 bicycle projects identified in the TMP. However major gaps remain in the system, particularly in the BURA area.
More than 50 bicycle lockers have been added to transit centers in Boulder and the city is working with RTD to develop a bikestation at the downtown center. However, a waiting list
remains for existing bike lockers.
Bike racks are provided on all RTD buses in Boulder following a demonstration project initiated by the city.
February 1, 2002
The city has conducted two public outreach efforts to identify and prioritize missing links and increased funding in this area.
The city has experimented with a variety of pedestrian crossing treatments and established warrants for their use. Over 20 mid block crossings have been installed since 1996.
The city has negotiated an agreement with RTD where RTD is paying for half of the HOP funding for a demonstration period, with the expectation that continued positive performance by
the HOP will result in RTD fully funding the service.
Policies supporting land use design standards supportive of all modes have been included in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan Update, but these have not been implemented in the code
or the development review process.
The city's transportation budget has been restructured since 1997 to reflect these priorities. Most recently, as part of the Prioritization project, Council directed that $1 million
annual be re-directed to alternative mode capacity.
Measuring Progress: Significant improvements have been made in completing the pedestrian and bicycle system, expanding high frequency transit service, and maintaining our street system.
While progress has been made toward the TMP goals, intersections are
Continue to invest and expand the community transit network and community pass participation with RTD and neighboring communities.
The sidewalk repair program has been focused on the high frequency transit corridors and significant pedestrian access improvements were done prior to the JUMP/LEAP/BOUND implementation.
This effort has not addressed all transit routes, however, the firs
The city has been successful in securing bicycle project funding from DRCOG and has worked cooperatively with the County to develop bicycle facilities between the city and Gunbarrel,
supported the County's transportation ballot proposal which will fund bi
The 1996 TMP called for increasing transit hours of service from 240,308 to 577,870 by 2020. The city has successfully funded five high frequency services that have added 77,994 hours
of service by 2001, putting us ahead of the proportional amount needed
Five high frequency transit services are currently operating in Boulder, with two additional services in the final planning stages to start service this year. High frequency service
will exist in at least portions of six of the ten multimodal corridors i
The Eco Pass programs have continued to expand, with a total of 60,000 passes existing in the community. The student value pass has been tremendously successful, with over 2,500 passes
sold this school year. However, the Eco Pass ballot proposal designe
The city has significantly increased funding for maintenance and operational improvements of the existing road system. Starting in 1997, $500,000 annually has been added to the road
overlay budget and the city has made significant progress in moving towa
SOV mode share has decreased 3 % since 1990, while drive times along four major corridors have decreased or increased less than 2 % annually. However, the study of Levels of Service
(LOS) at signalized intersections shows that 21 % have some movements th
The Prioritization project resulted in transportation spending being directed to a prioritized list of the identified multimodal corridors with the intent that investments be made in
all modes through these corridor improvements. 28th Street is the first
While the city has constructed numerous projects adding capacity to the non automotive modes, many corridors have not been developed in an integrated way. The community is increasing
its understanding of all the factors needed to maximize the success of
The city has become more actively engaged in regional transportation planning with a focus on the US 36, Arapahoe and Diagonal corridors. Improved notification techniques have increased
public participation in the planning process, however, many citizens
While the city is increasingly examining issues related to land use and transportation, these planning efforts are still somewhat separated in that integrated transportation and land
use plans do not exist for the identified multimodal corridors and poli
The city has been relatively successful in controlling the growth of vehicle traffic with the core of the city, but traffic into and out of the city has increased significantly. The
travel behavior changes of Boulder residents can no longer overcome the
Page
1993.00
2.40
1994.00
118.00
4.92E-05
3.20
1.33E-06
1994.00
2.44
1995.00
111.57
4.57E-05
3.25
1.33E-06
1995.00
2.56
1996.00
108.18
4.23E-05
3.40
1.33E-06
1996.00
2.55
1997.00
98.74
3.88E-05
3.37
1.33E-06
1997.00
2.52
1998.00
88.99
3.54E-05
3.33
1.32E-06
1998.00
2.58
1999.00
82.13
3.19E-05
3.40
1.32E-06
1999.00
2.55
2000.00
72.57
2.84E-05
3.36
1.32E-06
2000.00
2.61
2001.00
65.16
2.50E-05
3.43
1.32E-06
2001.00
2.73
2002.00
58.84
2.15E-05
3.59
1.31E-06
Tons of CO Daily
Tons of PM10 Daily
Year
Tons of Pollutant
TMP Objective:Continuous reduction in mobile source emissions of air pollutants
Daily Pollutant Emissions
Page
1990.00
1991.00
1992.00
1993.00
1994.00
1995.00
1996.00
1997.00
1998.00
1999.00
2000.00
2001.00
0.44
0.42
0.41
0.42
0.40
0.42
0.73
0.73
0.72
0.68
0.74
0.72
0.65
0.62
0.62
0.58
0.61
0.61
0.81
0.84
0.82
0.80
0.85
0.81
0.44
0.37
0.44
0.44
0.25
30.00
11.00
Residents
All Employees
Resident Employees
Non-resident Employees
Year
SOV Mode Share
TMP Objective: Reduction in single occupant
vehicle travel to 25% of trips
SOV Employee Mode Share
Page
1990.00
1991.00
1992.00
1993.00
1994.00
1995.00
1996.00
1997.00
1998.00
1999.00
2000.00
2001.00
2.19
2.26
2.33
2.40
2.45
2.56
2.57
2.52
2.57
2.56
2.61
2.73
2.30
2.19
1.05
2.42
1.05
2.55
1.05
2.68
1.05
2.82
1.05
2.97
1.05
3.12
1.05
3.29
1.05
3.46
1.05
3.64
1.05
3.83
1.05
0.90
1.03
TMP Objective: No growth in long-term vehicle traffic
Estimated average Weekday Vehicle Miles of Travel
TMP Goal
Projected VMT
Estimated VMT
Year
Millions of Daily VMT
TMP Objective: No growth in long-term vehicle traffic
Boulder Estimated VMT Growth Compared to Potential VMT at Regional Growth Rate
Potential
VMT
Estimated VMT
Projected VMT
Year
Millions of Daily VMT
TMP Objective: No growth in long-term vehicle traffic
Boulder Estimated VMT Growth Compared to Potential VMT at Regional Growth Rate
TMP VMT Goal
Projected VMT
Estimated VMT
Millions of Daily VMT
Potential
VMT
TMP
Estimated VMT
Residents
All Employees
Resident Employees
Non-resident Employees
Year
SOV Mode Share
SOV Employee Mode Share
Tons of CO Daily
Tons of PM10 Daily
Tons of Pollutant
Daily Pollutant Emissions
9.00
8.00
8.00
7.00
7.00
7.00
6.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
3.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Tons of CO Daily
Tons of PM10 Daily
Tons of Pollutant
Daily Pollutant Emissions
1993.00
1994.00
1995.00
1996.00
1997.00
1998.00
1999.00
2000.00
2001.00
118.00
3.20
111.57
3.25
108.18
3.40
98.74
3.37
88.99
3.33
82.13
3.40
72.57
3.36
65.16
3.43
58.84
3.59
