Grand County

Grand County, Colorado — key demographics (latest U.S. Census Bureau estimates: ACS 2019–2023; population estimate 2023)

Population

• Total population: ~16,700
• Growth since 2010: roughly +12–14%

Age

• Median age: ~41 years
• Age distribution: under 18 (≈19%), 18–24 (≈8%), 25–44 (≈34%), 45–64 (≈26%), 65+ (≈13%)

Sex

• Male: ~54%
• Female: ~46%

Race and ethnicity

• White, non-Hispanic: ~85%
• Hispanic/Latino (any race): ~11%
• Two or more races, non-Hispanic: ~2%
• American Indian/Alaska Native, non-Hispanic: ~1%
• Asian, non-Hispanic: ~1%
• Black, non-Hispanic: ~0.5%
• Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander, non-Hispanic: ~0.2%

Households and housing

• Households (occupied housing units): ~7,100
• Average household size: ~2.3
• Family households: ~54% of households
• Married-couple families: ~44% of households
• Households with children under 18: ~23–24%
• Single-person households: ~33%
• Owner-occupied share: ~70–72% of occupied units
• Total housing units: ~23,000
• Occupancy and seasonality: roughly 30–35% occupied; 65–70% vacant, predominantly seasonal/recreational use

Insights

• Small but growing resort-county population skewed toward working-age adults, with a modest male majority.
• Demographics are predominantly non-Hispanic White with a meaningful Hispanic/Latino community.
• Housing stock is dominated by seasonal/recreational units, yielding a low occupancy rate and relatively small household sizes.

Grand County, CO snapshot

• Population and density: ≈16.7k residents across ~1,846 sq mi (≈9 people/sq mi), with communities concentrated along the US‑40 corridor (Winter Park–Fraser–Granby–Kremmling). Mountainous terrain creates last‑mile and backhaul challenges outside towns.
• Internet access: 85–88% of households have a broadband subscription; >90% have a computing device. Smartphone‑only internet households: ~8–12%. Fixed speeds are strong in towns; remote tracts still see sub‑25 Mbps service.
• Estimated email users: ≈11.5k–12.5k adult users. Basis: high Colorado internet adoption and near‑universal email use among connected adults.
• Age distribution of email use (share using email): 18–29 ≈97%; 30–49 ≈98%; 50–64 ≈95%; 65+ ≈85–90%. Net effect: email penetration remains high across all ages, slightly lower among seniors.
• Gender split: Email users mirror the county’s slightly male‑leaning adult population, ~52% male and ~48% female.
• Trends: Continued fiber buildouts and improved 4G/5G coverage along populated corridors; rising telework and seasonal worker demand boost reliance on email for services, schools, tourism, and remote work. Public libraries and town centers provide key Wi‑Fi access points, helping bridge gaps for smartphone‑only and outlying households.

Mobile phone usage in Grand County, Colorado — 2024 snapshot

Headline takeaways, with differences versus statewide

• Resident smartphone penetration is a few points lower than Colorado overall, mobile-only households are meaningfully higher, and usage swings seasonally more than almost anywhere in the state. Coverage and capacity are strong in the US‑40 resort corridor but drop sharply in backcountry terrain, making Wi‑Fi calling and public-safety networks unusually important compared with the state average.

User estimates and penetration

• Population and households: ~16.5–16.9k residents; ~6.6–6.9k households; a high share of housing units are seasonal/second homes (a majority of dwellings, markedly above the state average).
• Resident smartphone users: approximately 12.5–14.0k people use a smartphone locally on a typical week (inclusive of teens), reflecting:
  • Adult smartphone penetration: ~82–86% in Grand County vs ~88–91% statewide.
  • Youth (13–17) adoption near universal in town centers, lower in outlying areas due to coverage and plan cost.
• Mobile-only households (no fixed broadband, rely on cellular data) are elevated: ~18–22% in Grand County vs ~12–14% statewide, driven by rental turnover, second-home Wi‑Fi variability, and patchy wired options outside towns.
• Prepaid share is higher than the state: roughly one-fifth to one-quarter of lines vs mid‑teens statewide, reflecting seasonal and hospitality workforce churn.

Demographic patterns that shape usage

• Age: The county skews older than Colorado overall, which pulls down aggregate smartphone penetration; adoption among 65+ trails the state average by several points. Conversely, the resort/hospitality workforce (18–34) is highly mobile-centric with near-universal smartphone use and heavy app-based communications.
• Language and work patterns: Bilingual and seasonal workers lean on WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, and Wi‑Fi calling to mitigate spotty coverage and control costs more than the state average.
• Seasonal population surges: Winter and holiday peaks bring large, short-term influxes of Front Range visitors, producing weekend capacity spikes that are far more pronounced than the state norm for a county this size.

Digital infrastructure and coverage

• Where service is strong:
  • US‑40 corridor (Winter Park–Fraser–Tabernash–Granby) and Kremmling have the most consistent multi-carrier LTE/5G coverage.
  • In-town 5G: T‑Mobile’s 600 MHz “extended range” and 2.5 GHz mid‑band are present in resort towns; Verizon and AT&T 5G (including C‑band) are focused in Winter Park/Fraser and Granby. This is behind the Front Range for density but ahead of many rural Colorado peers.
• Where service drops:
  • Highway 34 toward Grand Lake and the west side of Rocky Mountain National Park, high alpine valleys, and large wilderness areas have significant dead zones; this terrain-driven gap is more acute than the statewide picture.
• Backhaul and middle‑mile:
  • The county participates in Northwest Colorado’s Project THOR middle‑mile fiber network, which added redundancy to anchor institutions and municipal networks along the corridor—materially improving resilience versus pre‑2020 conditions.
  • Outside the corridor, last‑mile fiber remains uneven, so many households fall back to cellular or satellite; this contributes to the higher mobile-only share than the state.
• Public safety and resiliency:
  • FirstNet (AT&T Band 14) sites have been added/improved in the corridor and along key highways since late‑2010s, supporting wildfire and backcountry response; public safety coverage emphasis is stronger here than average due to terrain and recreation risk.
• Performance norms:
  • In-town median mobile speeds commonly reach 80–200 Mbps on mid‑band 5G when uncongested; LTE ranges 15–50 Mbps. On peak ski weekends and holidays, capacity constraints can pull medians down markedly—seasonal congestion swings are steeper than the Colorado average.
• Carrier positioning:
  • Verizon generally offers the broadest rural footprint into canyons and passes; AT&T is strong along US‑40 and state routes with FirstNet advantages; T‑Mobile leads mid‑band 5G capacity in town cores but has more rapid drop-off outside populated areas. This urban–rural contrast is sharper than statewide.

Behavioral and market insights

• Wi‑Fi calling and offload matter more than average, especially in buildings with metal roofing and in fringe-coverage neighborhoods; homeowners commonly deploy boosters or rely on resort/municipal Wi‑Fi.
• Roaming and visitor devices from the Front Range make up an unusually large share of peak‑period network load, so local experiences vary widely by day of week and season compared with the state norm.
• Device mix skews slightly older and more budget-oriented among year‑round residents than the Colorado average; flagship-device penetration rises during tourist peaks.

Bottom line differences versus Colorado overall

• Slightly lower resident smartphone penetration, substantially higher reliance on mobile as a primary internet connection, and much greater seasonal variability in capacity and coverage.
• 5G availability is good in resort towns but drops off quickly with distance and terrain, unlike the more continuous Front Range coverage.
• Middle‑mile resiliency has improved via Project THOR, but last‑mile fiber gaps keep cellular service critical for everyday connectivity to a greater extent than statewide.

Grand County, CO social media snapshot (modeled local estimates, adults 18+)

Overall usage

• Any social media use: 76%
• Daily social media use: 64%

Most-used platforms (share of adults who use)

• YouTube: 79%
• Facebook: 69%
• Instagram: 42%
• TikTok: 30%
• Pinterest: 28%
• Snapchat: 24%
• X (Twitter): 19%
• LinkedIn: 17%
• Reddit: 14%
• Nextdoor: 11%

Age profile (weekly active by age; top platforms in each group)

• 18–29: 92% use weekly; Instagram 71%, TikTok 64%, Snapchat 61%, YouTube 90%, Facebook 53%
• 30–44: 86% use weekly; YouTube 87%, Facebook 70%, Instagram 58%, TikTok 37%, Snapchat 28%
• 45–64: 74% use weekly; Facebook 74%, YouTube 78%, Instagram 35%, TikTok 19%, Pinterest 33%
• 65+: 55% use weekly; Facebook 63%, YouTube 66%, Instagram 21%, TikTok 9%, Pinterest 24%

Gender breakdown and skews

• Weekly social media users: ~52% women, 48% men
• Platform skews: Women over-index on Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest; Men over-index on YouTube, Reddit, X

Behavioral trends

• Community coordination is Facebook-first: heavy reliance on Groups and Marketplace for local jobs, services, gear resale, events, and “lost and found”
• Real-time info: strong followership for county/sheriff, fire districts, schools, and CDOT on Facebook; X used mainly for weather, road, and incident updates
• Tourism and outdoor economy shape content: high engagement with skiing, snow, trail, lake, hunting/fishing, and wildfire/smoke updates; Instagram Reels and TikTok grow around seasonal events and dining/nightlife
• Younger cohorts favor Snapchat and TikTok for messaging and short video; Instagram DMs widely used across ages
• Nextdoor adoption is limited; neighborhoods and HOAs typically default to Facebook Groups
• Seasonality: engagement spikes during winter storms and summer recreation; posting peaks evenings (6–9 pm MT) and weekend mornings
• Paid reach: Facebook/Instagram deliver the most efficient local reach; geofenced campaigns around Winter Park, Fraser, Granby, and Hot Sulphur Springs perform best, with tourist influx boosting impressions relative to resident counts

Notes on methodology

• Figures are modeled for Grand County using 2023–2024 Pew Research US platform adoption, rural-county adjustments, and Colorado demographic patterns; they represent best-available local estimates where county-specific platform data are not published.