Larimer County 2025 Transportation Survey

Magellan Strategies is pleased to present the topline results of an online survey of 1,629 registered voters in Larimer County. The interviews were conducted from July 8th to July 21, 2025.

Larimer County voters expressed generally positive views of the County’s stewardship of the transportation system. When asked about the County’s job of managing and maintaining the transportation system outside city limits for vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians, 61% approved, 26% disapproved, and 13% offered no opinion. Opinions on the County’s financial capacity were more divided: 50% believed the County had the financial resources needed to adequately maintain, repair, and improve roads and bridges in unincorporated Larimer County, while 30% did not, and 20% were unsure.

Voters also gave the County solid marks on fiscal stewardship. A 55% majority agreed that “Larimer County is fiscally responsible and spends taxpayer money wisely,” compared with 27% who disagreed and 18% who had no opinion. Notably, agreement was softer than firm, with 36% agreeing somewhat and 19% agreeing strongly.

Voters rated a wide range of potential transportation benefits as personally important. Improved readiness for emergency situations such as fires or floods ranked highest at 95% very or somewhat important, followed by reduced traffic congestion at 92% and improved safety for all users, including vulnerable bicyclists and pedestrians, at 85%. Increased options for how people travel around the County (79%), increased access to recreation (78%), increased access to job opportunities (77%), increased access to housing options (72%), and reduced greenhouse gas emissions and improved air quality (70%) all drew majority importance as well.

When first presented with the ballot language for a 0.15% countywide transportation sales and use tax, a projected $17,400,000 in the first fiscal year over a 15-year period, voters supported it by a 55% to 37% margin, with 8% undecided. Support was split fairly evenly between those who would definitely vote yes (25%) and those who would probably vote yes (30%). Informational statements about the transportation system and its funding needs moved voters further toward support. Every message tested left more voters more likely to vote yes than more likely to vote no. The strongest performers were that many bridges are over 50 years old and fail to meet current travel demands and safety requirements (73% more likely yes), that the 0.15% tax would cost just 15 cents per $100 purchased and would not apply to groceries (71%), that without other funding sources the County could cover only about 14% of the total need through 2040 (68%), that the tax could help obtain outside grant money (68%), and that investing now saves on replacement costs over time (67%).

Other informational statements also produced net-positive movement, though somewhat less strongly. These included that construction material and labor costs had risen 50% in the past five years (64% more likely yes), that increased demand had heightened the need for road safety and maintenance projects (63%), that specific priority roadway and intersection improvements were planned (62%), that the County maintains nearly 900 miles of roads and 421 bridges (62%), and that the County receives only about $0.75 per month per typical $600,000 home from property taxes for transportation (61%).

After reviewing the informational statements, voters were asked to reconsider the ballot measure, and support rose to 61% yes versus 29% no, with 10% undecided, a six-point gain in yes support over the initial test. Among the reasons voters gave for supporting the measure were safety improvements, infrastructure maintenance and upgrades, concerns about population growth and traffic congestion, and the view that the cost was small relative to the community value. Those opposed most often cited that taxes were already too high, distrust rooted in perceived government waste and fiscal mismanagement, a preference for reprioritizing existing funds, and personal financial hardship.

Awareness of the issue heading into the survey was limited. Just 48% of voters said they had seen, read, or heard a lot or some information about the County’s transportation system in the prior three months, including only 7% who had heard a lot, while 49% had encountered no information at all. Taken together, the results indicated a receptive electorate whose support for a dedicated transportation funding measure strengthened meaningfully once voters were given factual context about the system’s condition, funding gap, and the modest cost of the proposed tax.