Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Vision Zero topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Boulder reports favorable crash trends and rapid expansion of automated speed enforcement
Summary
City traffic staff told TAB that Boulder’s severe crash trend has trended down against rising state and national fatalities; city has rapidly expanded automated speed enforcement and reported thousands of citations and declining citation rates at long‑running camera sites.
City traffic staff presented the 2025 Vision Zero update to the Transportation Advisory Board on March 9, reporting that Boulder’s serious‑crash trend has moved downward while national and state fatality trends have risen.
Steven Joslin, principal traffic engineer, said Boulder’s most recent five‑year data generally fall below the 10‑year average for fatal and serious‑injury crashes and that Boulder has seen about an 8% decrease in serious injury crashes over the last decade. "While we're not yet near our Vision Zero goal, the trends are headed in the right direction," Joslin said.
Joslin explained that a large share of severe crashes occur on arterial streets and at intersections: in 2025, arterial corridors and signalized intersections accounted for the majority of severe incidents. Vulnerable road users remained heavily represented in severe‑crash counts — Joslin said people riding bicycles were involved in 37% of severe crashes and people walking in 21%.
Staff also summarized the city's expedited expansion of automated enforcement. Officials noted the photo‑radar program dates back decades and that the state law change allowing broader speed enforcement enabled rapid rollout of additional speed‑on‑green enforcement on designated arterial corridors. For the new sites activated late last year, staff reported nearly 8,000 citations and more than $165,000 in fees collected; earlier activations showed over 10,000 citations and about $264,000 in fees across several corridors.
Joslin pointed to Broadway and Pine Street as an example: after activation, citations averaged about 45 per day and later dropped to about 15 per day — roughly a 67% decrease — which staff interpret as a measurable behavior change. "This represents about a 67% decrease in citations over that one and a half year period," Joslin said, adding that staff will continue to track trends over time.
Board members raised technical and policy questions. Michael Le Desma asked whether reduced citations reflect motorists slowing only at camera points rather than corridor‑wide behavior change; Joslin said fixed cameras provide spot speeds but that mobile photo‑radar vans and traffic counts can help assess broader effects. Members also asked whether vehicle type and vehicle mass are factored into crash analysis and whether recent increases in motorcycle crashes represent specific vehicle classes; Joslin said motorcycle counts follow the reporting threshold used by traffic records and that staff are coordinating with police to improve mode distinctions (including e‑bikes and micromobility) in crash reports.
Members also questioned fee allocation. Darcy Kitching asked where enforcement fees go; staff said revenue currently flows to the city’s general fund. Valerie Watson, Deputy Director of Transportation and Mobility, noted TAB could recommend a policy to council to dedicate enforcement revenue to Vision Zero or related safety projects during the annual budget process.
Next steps: staff said they will provide annual updates on severe‑crash data and automated enforcement results and will continue implementation actions for the Vision Zero Action Plan (signal practice updates, right‑turn slip lane changes, green conflict markings on high‑risk corridors and grant work as available). TAB requested more corridor‑specific breakdowns and asked staff to explore ways to show corridor‑wide speed changes beyond spot camera data.
