Boulder’s next comprehensive plan is looking strong; 7 things will finish the job for transportation
The March 2 draft of Boulder’s next comprehensive plan (BVCP) is shaping up to be a strong step forward for a Boulder that’s more livable across ages, abilities, and budgets.
Notable improvements: The draft elevates 15‑minute neighborhoods (pp. 37–38), distinguishes that different neighborhood types call for different mobility characteristics (pp. 77–107), and continues to emphasize close coordination between transportation and land use planning (p. 37; policy item #27).
These gains reflect a herculean effort by staff and community members who have spent more than two years developing the next comprehensive plan.
Here are seven things to finish the job for transportation—aligned with input to date, the draft’s vision, and community values (shared with staff):
Note: Text red/underlined is existing language that is limiting and therefore a point of focus for the recommendations .
Recommendation #1. Clarify the objective, functional purpose of transportation.
Issue: The transportation chapter needs—but currently lacks—a description of transportation’s functional purpose clear enough to ground future policymaking, including criteria-based decisions and tradeoffs. A straightforward fix is to define that purpose as “access,” consistent with the update council made to city code with Ordinance 8702 in July 2025. This would fit well as its own numbered policy item just prior to Policy 69, Joyful and Community-Centered Transportation System.
Proposed change: Create a new numbered policy to precede Policy 69 as follows: Policy #XX. Transportation for Access. The city and county will plan and develop transportation systems to provide all people efficient, affordable access to destinations and opportunities. Access offers a lens for evaluating the core utility of transportation to people and for measuring transportation performance in terms of human wellbeing. Access includes mobility while also reflects that transportation outcomes are profoundly shaped by the distances between travel points as well as the user experience.
Note: Here is language adopted in Ordinance 8702 that could also be used.
Recommendation #2. Use objective outcomes to describe multimodal transportation rather than subjective process language.
The content describing multimodal systems should assert that people must have the opportunity to fully participate in life without a car—and that policy should therefore make non-car modes fully useful, safe, and convenient. The current language of “improving” various modes is vague and provides no concrete standard for what we are trying to achieve.
Reference: Policy 70. Multimodal Transportation Strategy: The innovative planning, design, operation, and maintenance of Boulder’s transportation system focuses on improving walking, rolling, bicycling, scooting, taking transit, riding micro-mobility, and driving with a focus on moving people.
Proposed change: Add the following language to Policy 70:
The city and county provide transportation options that enable people who do not drive to fully participate in community life and access daily needs. This commitment is especially important as our community ages.
The city and county aspire to provide infrastructure and services that make walking, rolling, bicycling, scooting, taking transit, and riding micro-mobility fully useful, safe, and convenient for people of all ages and abilities—with a focus on a comprehensive, community-wide network and a great user experience, end to end, for every trip.
Recommendation #3. Replace the process language of “moving people” with outcome-based “access.”
Consistent with Recommendation #1, “moving people” is an outdated framing that presupposes vehicles for their own sake and can risk abrogating responsibility for coordinated transportation and land use. Change the reference to “access.”
Reference: Policy 70. Multimodal Transportation Strategy: …taking transit, riding micro-mobility, and driving with a focus on moving people.
Change that phrase to: ”…taking transit, riding micromobility, and driving with a focus on giving people efficient, affordable access to destinations and opportunities.”
Alternatively, delete the sentence entirely and supersede it with the language in Recommendation #2.
Recommendation #4. Describe the intended outcome of public transit in objective, measurable terms.
Public transit service is only as good as it sets out to be by those who have ultimate decision-making power. The BVCP should establish clear expectations for transit service quality. The existing language lacks a description of what good transit looks like in concrete terms. It includes the word “seamless,” which is useful, but that is one tactic among many—not a strategic standard.R
Reference: Policy 70. Multimodal Transportation Strategy: The city and county collaborate to provide seamless connections between local and regional transportation facilities, programs and services, including trails, transit, and Transportation Demand Management programs.
Proposed change: Add the following language to Policy 70 (or alternatively, use the language to create a dedicated transit policy): The city and county aspire to provide frequent transit service spanning at least early morning to late evening, within a short walk of the vast majority of homes (say, 95%), along with convenient connections to frequent intercity service to neighboring communities and key destinations—with the goal of making public transit an experience competitive with driving.
ote: The language proposed here offers a high-level principle to clarify intent. It does not commit resources or prescribe strategy; it simply states realistic aspirations.
Recommendation #5. Add high-level design concepts fundamental to achieving zero serious crashes, with guidance for making tradeoffs.
The current language lists some Vision Zero activities but does not articulate the core concepts policymakers need in order to build from them or reason through tradeoffs.
Reference: Policy 71. Transportation Safety and Vision Zero: Investments, project designs, project delivery, and programs such as Safe Routes to School prioritize safety so that no one is seriously injured or killed on Boulder’s transportation system.
Proposed change: Add the following language to Policy 71:
Reaching zero deaths and serious injuries requires significant, concrete commitments in infrastructure, services, and policy, driven by a holistic data-driven Safe System approach and grounded in recognition that kinetic energy and vehicle miles traveled are principal drivers of crash severity and frequency.
When tradeoffs arise between safety and other objectives, such as vehicle throughput or travel time, a strong preference goes to safety.
Note: The first point aligns with Resolution 1358, adopted by council in December 2024, reaffirming the city’s commitment to Vision Zero. Here is the language of that resolution.
Recommendation #6. Clarify that innovation in transportation serves established public goals, not novelty for its own sake.
The idea of “innovative transportation for all” will mean different things to different people, from speed cameras to robotaxies, with various approaches and services that could have different kinds of impacts on our community, including creating possible challenges for public transit and active transportation. Given the proliferation of technology and service providers, especially in the age of AI, an innovation policy should be clear that the purpose of trying new things is to advance established public goals, and that accountability mechanisms need to be in place.
Reference: Policy 72. Innovative Transportation for All: The city and county will ensure that its transportation system is innovative and adapts to new technologies. This includes adjusting policies, expanding investments, and adopting innovative approaches while ensuring progress supports safety and equity.
Proposed change: Update Policy 72 to read: Innovation and experimentation will be pursued for the purpose of advancing efficient, affordable access and other established public goals, with measures in place to ensure that new technologies and approaches do not undermine public transit or other critical systems.
Recommendation #7. Clarify that the growth of non-car mode use in Boulder tracks with deliberate public investment, and offer a forward-looking perspective on what comes next.
Boulder has a long history of transit leadership, and deliberate investments have tended to pay off. The “How people travel” graphic (p. 22) tells part of that story, but risks leaving the impression that mode shift has happened on its own. Looking ahead to the next BVCP period, we face a crossroads: RTD ridership has not yet recovered to pre-pandemic levels, and no serious leadership voice has emerged around expanding transit service to the level our community needs.
Reference: The “How people travel” explainer on page 22.
Proposed change: Make the page 22 explainer forward-looking. Specifically, revise the content associated with that graphic to clarify that the trend toward greater diversity of mode use over time is beneficial, that it has resulted from deliberate policy and planning, and that the work ahead is to actively support further progress—at minimum to the point where non-car modes achieve parity with car modes.
(end)