Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 01/16/2007 - RESOLUTION 2007-005 DETERMINING THAT A MODERN ROUN ITEM NUMBER: 30 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY DATE: January 16, 2007 FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL STAFF: Eric Bracke Matt Baker SUBJECT Resolution 2007-005 Determining That a Modern Roundabout is the Appropriate Type of Intersection Improvement to be Constructed at the Intersection of Horsetooth Road and Ziegler Road. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution. The Transportation Board heard the proposal and reviewed the alternative analysis at its November 15th meeting. The Transportation Board unanimously voted to strongly endorse the construction of a roundabout at the intersection of Horsetooth and Ziegler Roads. FINANCIAL IMPACT Improvements are planned in conjunction with the Street Oversizing Program. The intersection improvement project is required to mitigate the traffic impacts of the Front Range Village Shopping Center project. Funding for Street Oversizing Program improvements are through developer participation and impact fees. Staff anticipates an appropriation ordinance to transfer funding into a capital project account for construction to follow the determination of this Resolution. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The intersection of Horsetooth and Ziegler Roads is scheduled for improvements to lessen the traffic impacts of the Front Range Village Shopping Center Project. An Intersection Alternative Study has determined a roundabout at the intersection of Horsetooth/Ziegler is the best alternative for the intersection. This Resolution authorizes construction of a modern roundabout at this intersection. If approved by Council,the City's Street Oversizing Program will construct the project during 2008 along with other improvements associated with the Bayer development along Ziegler Road. BACKGROUND On September 4,2001, Council adopted Resolution 2001-120 requiring staff to conduct alternative analyses for all arterial/arterial intersection projects. The Resolution also requires the City Council January 16, 2007 -2- Item No. 30 to make the final approval for any intersection where the modem roundabout has been determined to be the best improvement/solution. The process for the analyses includes the following: 1. Transportation staffprepares an Intersection Alternative Analysis which addresses 6 specific criteria. 2. If Transportation staff believes a modem roundabout is the most suitable intersection alternative, then they send a recommendation to the City Manager. 3. The City Manager then submits a proposal to City Council for review and final determination on arterial intersection improvements. The intersection is currently operating under an all-way stop condition. The west leg of the intersection has been improved to arterial standards. The north and south legs of the intersection have improvements(curb,gutter and sidewalk)on their west sides and unimproved on the east side. The east leg of the intersection is currently in gravel and no improvements have been made. The principal movements of the intersection are the eastbound to southbound and the northbound to westbound movements. The intersection currently is operating at Level of Service F in the PM peak hours and fails to meet the City's LOS standards. The Front Range Village Project is expected to increase the volumes at the intersection by approximately 20%when complete. An Intersection Alternative Studywas completedby the Bayer Properties consulting traffic engineers and submitted to the City for review. The results of the study determined that a roundabout at the intersection of Horsetooth/Ziegler was the best alternative for the intersection. The study was approved by the City Traffic Engineer and Transportation staff. Modern roundabouts are becoming a popular intersection control device around the country with Colorado being considered a leader in roundabout implementation. The safety and reduction in delay benefits continue to prove themselves to the public. The City constructed its first arterial/arterial roundabout this past summer at the intersection of Ziegler/Kechter. This roundabout has proven to be successful and is operating exceptionally well. The alternative analysis reported that was prepared and submitted to the City for approval compared six criteria between a traditional signalized intersection and a modem roundabout. The report recommended the construction of a modem roundabout. A review of the report is presented below. Level of Service (LOS) LOS is a measurement system based on the delay time at an intersection. The levels of service are categorized into groups "A" through "F". LOS "A" has a range of delay from 0-10 seconds per vehicle and LOS "F" has a range greater than 80 seconds per vehicle. Using 25-year forecasted traffic volumes, the roundabout will operate at LOS "A" through the long-term future and the signalized intersection will operate at LOS "C". Emissions/Air Quality Emissions and air quality are directly related to delay. The pollutants of CO,NOx, and VOC were analyzed as part of the study. It was determined that with all pollutants,the roundabout would result in an approximately 83%reduction in pollution over the traditional intersection. January 16, 2007 -3- Item No. 30 Safety The National Institute for Highway Safety has determined roundabouts are one of the safest intersections. Studies have shown major reductions(60%-701/o)in both property and injury related accidents with roundabouts. In a standard 4-way signalized intersection,there are 32 separate ways for a vehicle to have a crash. In a roundabout, there are only 8 possible crash scenarios and the injury related crashes are minimized. Spatial Requirements In either scenario,right-of-way(ROW)will need to be purchased. The roundabout takes less ROW than the traditional intersection but will also result in more utility relocations. Cost Preliminary cost estimates indicate the roundabout will cost $1.159 million to construct. A traditional intersection will cost $945,000. Although the roundabout constructions costs are approximately 22% higher than the traditional intersection, there are long term maintenance cost reductions and time savings with the roundabout that are not accounted for in the analysis. Alternative Modes Recent experience with roundabouts has indicated that alternative modes of transportation(bikes and pedestrians) do not have problems negotiating the intersection. Operating speeds in a roundabout are slow, traffic is moving in one direction, and there are sufficient gaps for alternative modes of transportation. Accident experience for alternative modes of transportation shows no difference between roundabouts and signalized intersections. For pedestrians,there are 24 vehicular conflicts in a traditional intersection and only 8 vehicular conflict points in a roundabout. In accordance with Resolution 2001-120, staff is recommending that a modern roundabout be constructed at the intersection of Horsetooth and Ziegler. The Transportation staffbelieves amodem roundabout would be an outstanding alternative for the improvement of this intersection and respectfully submits such proposal to Council for its consideration and determination. ATTACHMENTS 1. Intersection Alternative Analysis 2. Resolution 2001-120 3. Transportation Board Letter of Recommendation 4. Conflict Points in Roundabouts vs. Traditional Intersections Attachment 1 Intersection Analysis Ziegler Road & Horsetooth Road ell 11Iu • � I AWM IWa .a4WW Prepared by : Stantec Consulting, Inc . 209 S . Meldrum Street Fort Collins, CO 80521 970482 -5922 f Stantec Intersection Analysis Ziegler Road & Horsetooth Road This intersection analysis study was undertaken in conjunction with a proposed development known as Front Range Village to be located west of Ziegler Road and north of Harmony. As a part of the development, off- site improvements to area roadways may be necessary, including the intersection of Ziegler Road and Horsetooth Road in southeast Fort Collins. This intersection is currently a stop-controlled intersection, but may warrant improvements in the near future. Per City standard process, prior to intersection improvements, an intersection analysis is required to provide an evaluation of the type of intersection control best suited for the location. This report compares the conceptual layout of a traditional signalized intersection with a modern roundabout. The _ t evaluation criteria used in this analysis includes the following: • Level of Service • Emissions/Air QualityWFOWW • Safety/Accident Analysis • Public Perception/Acceptance . • Cost -a- — • Alternative Mode Mobility • Spatial Requirements ` • Emergency Services - Intersection Layout pair in r � Intersection layouts are based upon the 20-year vehicular i volumes provided in the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) dated August 2006 for the Front Range Village development, and the current Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards for the applicable roadway classifications (south and west legs Existing Intersection - Ziegler / Horsetooth are 4-lane arterials, the north leg is a 2-lane arterial, and the cast leg is a 2-lane collector) . Figure 1 shows the layout of a traditional intersection. The lane geometry is based upon the volumes and geometry shown in the TIS . Figure 2 shows the conceptual layout of a modern roundabout. This roundabout has an approximately 164 ft inscribed circle diameter (ICD). There is a somewhat uncommon issue in that the northbound vehicles need a two-lane approach - including a dedicated left turn lane, while all other movements can be accommodated with a single circulating roadway. There is also a very heavy movement from eastbound to southbound that is accommodated with a two-lane approach with the rightmost lane being a right turn only. The layout shown in Figure 2 is conceptual and can be refined in a variety of ways depending on preferences, existing roadway tie- ins, and further analysis during design. Page 1 of 9 9ranEec Figure 1 — Traditional i 4J PRDPOAD ADDITIONAL NOW PROPOSED AO IMAL i ROW I I I � IN f � I W N �I I EXISTING ROW '. tJ 4 I MORSETOOTM ROAD MSIRa NGN h h 4 YI�Y�1 • Oki I I • I I • I hh Traditional Signalized Intersection Page 2 of 9 Stantec + + i I I PROPOSED ROPOSED ADDITIONAL ADDITIONAL ROW ; ROW EXISTING ROW H RSETOOTH ROAD t' •� a •e PROPOSED ADDITIONAL 0 0 ROW PROPOSED ADDITIONAL ROW w r IV i Modern Roundabout Intersection VPage00 3 of 9 �rII Stantec Average Delay and Level of Service Calculating and comparing the level of service (LOS) and average delay for vehicles is a common way to analyze how different options will affect an intersection. For this analysis, the long-range (2025) total traffic projections were used, and the projected peak hour traffic volumes are provided in Tab 1 of this report (See the Transportation Impact Study for details) . Only comparisons of approach delays were calculated, and the peak hours used included the weekday AM and PM peak hours. The weekday PM peak is generally the time with the highest traffic volumes for residential areas. The traditional signalized intersection option was analyzed utilizing Synchro 6 software with modeling based on the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), and the output data is included in Tab I of this report. The roundabout option was analyzed utilizing Rodel capacity software with a 50% confidence level, and the output data is included in Tab 2 of this report. City of Fort Collins acceptable LOS for intersections are LOS of E for any leg and LOS of D for the overall intersection. The LOS for the intersection options was determined using information from Chapter 10 of the HCM, which bases the LOS for each approach leg on delay times. The data for the projected volumes shows that a signalized option for this intersection can maintain acceptable levels of service with approach leg HCM LOS ranging from A to D and an overall intersection LOS of C in the Weekday AM and PM, respectively. Delays are considerably shorter with the roundabout option, and the level of service is significantly increased to LOS A for the Weekday AM and PM peak respectively. Level of Service and Average Delay (in seconds) Comparison 2025 Traffic Projections Horsetooth / Ziegler Weekday AM Weekday PM EB D (37 . 0) C (26 . 8) Signalized Intersection WB A (9. 5) C (24 . 7) NB C (30 . 5) B ( 17 . 0) Alternative SB C (32 . 5) C (20 . 3) Overall C (33.6) C (2091) EB A (4.2) A (6 . 6) WB A (4.2) A (2 .4) Roundabout Alternative NB A (2.4) A (4 .2) SB A (5 .4) A (6. 6) Overall A (490) A (4. 1) Emissions/Air Quality Comparisons Three separate emissions were calculated as a part of this evaluation: carbon dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, and volatile organic compounds. The emission rates are based off delay times. The table below shows the projected 2025 peak hour emissions for the weekday AM and PM peak hours for the two alternatives. Emissions Comparisons (grams/hour) 2025 Traffic Projections Horsetooth / Ziegler CO2 NOX VOC Signalized Intersection Weekday AM 3530 690 820 Alternative Weekday PM 4370 850 1010 Weekday Roundabout AlternativeAM 420 82 98 Weekday PM 1 891 1 173 1 206 Page 4 of 9 9�a�ec The emissions are significantly lower for the roundabout alternative based on the shorter delay times. As volumes continue to increase, the roundabout alternative will provide greater benefit for emissions. Safety/Accident Analysis A number of different national studies have been completed to study comparative safety of roundabout versus signalized intersections. A 2001 study completed by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (Status Report, Volume 35) reported that converting intersections from traffic signals or stop signs to roundabouts reduced injury accidents by 80 percent and all crashes by 40 percent. The city of Loveland has compared five years of accident data at a number of their roundabout intersections against signalized intersection of similar volumes and found a 75% reduction in accident rates . A review of accident related costs was also undertaken in the alternatives analysis for the project. In 2003 , 2004, and 2005 five, six, and three accidents occurred at this intersection respectively, resulting in an accident rate of 1 . 09 accidents per million entering vehicles. Because the installation of a signal typically increases the accident rate of an intersection, it is reasonable to assume that with the completion of planned improvements for a traditional intersection, the accident rate would become average for Fort Collins ( 1 .2 accidents/million entering vehicles) . However, in an effort to present a conservative comparison, it has been assumed that 0 .4 injuries per year may occur in a single-lane roundabout. The accident rate increases to 0.6 injuries per year for a multi-lane roundabout. The above analysis of accident rates indicates a significant reduction of accidents and injuries between a signalized intersection and the multi-lane roundabout alternative. In addition, the severity of accidents in a roundabout is typically much lower due to the slow speeds (typically 20 mph), and the lack of broad side/head-on collisions. Based on the projected traffic counts, the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) through this intersection will be approximately 22,550 vehicles per day. This equates to 8 .2 million vehicles per year. At the accident rates of 1 .2 accidents per million entering vehicles for a signalized intersection, and 0. 6 accidents per million entering vehicles for a modern multi-lane roundabout, there is going to be an estimated 9 . 8 accidents for a signalized intersection and 5 .9 accidents for a multi-lane roundabout per year. It is assumed that 20 percent of the accidents will be injury accidents, therefore that equates to 2 injury accidents per year for the signalized intersection and 1 injury accident per year for the roundabout. Assigned costs for the purpose of this study were obtained from the Traffic Engineering Studies Department of the Colorado Department of Transportation. The following table compares the associated costs of accidents : ACCIDENT COST COMPARISON TOTAL PROPERTY DAMAGE INJURY FATALITY YEARLY ONLY COST PROJECTED COST PER PROJECTED COST PER PROJECTED COST PER # ACCIDENT # ACCIDENT # ACCIDENT SIGNALIZED 9. 8 $79400 2 $499700 0 $ 1 , 1309000 $ 1719920 ROUNDABOUT 5 .9 $79400 1 $499700 0 $ 191309000 $939360 In terms of accidents, safety and economics, the roundabout alternative is clearly a better choice over the signalized intersection alternative. Page 5 of 9 9�anEx Public Perception/Acceptance The public acceptance of roundabouts has been a major issue in the past several years . Based upon the experiences in other communities, it is common for the public to be solidly against the roundabout initially. The negative impression may come from a fear of the unknown, or past experience with old traffic circles in the eastern United States. Research has shown that in the months following installation and opening of a roundabout, the public opinion generally sways from moderate/strong opposition to general/strong support. Once people are familiar with the yielding concepts as they approach the roundabout, and they discover how quickly they can maneuver the traffic control device, opinions change to the more positive perspective. The traditional intersection is a known quantity and comfortable for most motorists. Therefore it may be the easiest way to proceed from both a public and political perspective. However, many communities have found that the effort needed to work through the public and political approval process is well worth it for a roundabout placed in a carefully chosen optimal location. Currently, there are approximately 2 dozen roundabouts in service in Loveland, which can be used as examples of roundabout operations, and the roundabout at the intersection of Ziegler and Kechter is working well with no accidents since it opened. Cost The cost of the project, both in capital costs and long term maintenance is always an issue when comparing alternatives. The estimated maintenance costs for the landscaping with irrigation in the roundabout center is several thousand dollars per year. The cost of maintaining a traffic signal including electrical costs is approximately $3 ,000 per year. The pavement maintenance costs are expected to be nominally different. Therefore, ongoing maintenance of the traffic control device is a neutral component in the analysis . There will be costs associated with the relocation of utilities for either alternative, and the costs of relocating utilities are assumed to be greater for the roundabout option. There are electric vaults on the northwest corner of the current intersection that will need to be relocated. Although it is difficult to access at this time, it is assumed that additional electrical relocations will be needed for the roundabout design. This additional relocation is due to the potential ability to adjust the orientation of the signalized intersection to avoid some of the electrical facilities. Qwest has fiber optic cable in the area that may need to be relocated, and at the time of this report there is no current estimate on relocation costs . These costs are not included in the following table of construction costs, but should be considered. It should be noted that the roundabout cost on the following page includes raised medians and paver- crosswalks. These amenities, which are required for the roundabout design, add to both the intersection safety and esthetics. Since raised medians and paver-crosswalks are not required for the signalized intersection they were not added to the cost of the signalized intersection. The cost of construction between the two alternatives is shown below. These construction estimates are based on the layout necessary to accommodate the 20-year traffic volumes. Page 6 of 9 91anEec Ziegler and Hersetooth - CormentionA Signalized Intersection Option PAY ITEM QTY LNIT UATOOST TOTALOOST 1Ni:3fES Asphalt gals 3307 SY $5.00 $16,535.00 200 cn east &west legs, 175 cn north leg, 210 cn sa.xh leg Ca-iaete Famds 200 SY $20.00 $4,000.00 9dendkand rarps Cther POIDrals 1 LS $15,000.00 $15,000.00 Asphalt Pave yul (9') 662 TCN $50.00 $335100.00 Affimes all newas"t Agg-egate Base ((3') 505 TCN $21 .50 $10,857.50 Gracing 7700 SY $5.00 $38,500.00 G-@dng & Exca Acn Orb and Goner 1100 LF $2D.00 $22,000.00 SdaWk 510 SY $50.00 $255500.00 9dendk Rmps 130 SY $225.00 $29,250.00 laairage 1 LS $50,000.00 $50,000.00 9ging a d glt iping 1 LS $2,500.00 $Z500.00 Traffic 90 1 LS $180,000.00 $1805000.00 La>dscapirg 1 LS $50,000.00 $50,000.00 UilityV\brk 1 LS $100,000.00 $100,000.00 Rift of V\13Y 16000 9= $10.00 $1605000.00 Traffic Contrd 1 LS $50,000.00 $505000.00 Stb Tate $787,24250 Ca tinga- y 20°/a $157,448.50 Total V44,691.00 Ziegler and Horsetooth - Uxk rn FBxxidalix t Option PAY ITEM QTY UNIT UVTOOST TOTALOOS'T N:3fES Asphalt Fbmds 4690 SY $5.00 $235450.00 lVbaqred in AUtcCad Dra✓ung Oonade Pamvds 200 SY $20.00 $45000.00 9dendk axl raTps Ctt-er PeT ds 1 LS $15,000.00 $15,000.00 Asphalt Pament (91) 2887 TCN $50.00 $144,350.00 Aggregate Base (6) 2560 TCN $21 .50 $55,040.00 Ca-iade Paving (10') 250 SY $45.00 $11 ,250.00 Tn.ick /Om 10 Me Oaring 10700SY $5.00 $53,500.000aging & ExcarAcn O.xb a-d Cutter 2980 LF $20.00 $59,600.00 Fbsed N/bdan 4200 9= $5.00 $21 ,000.00 9dendk 1280 SY $50.00 $54,000.00 9denelk Res 120 SY $225.00 $27,000.00 Pavu Creswdks 1414 9: $20.00 $255280.00 Dainage 1 LS $50,000.00 $50,000.00 9gingaxi9bripng 1 LS $75500.00 $7,500.00 Lmclscap ng 1 LS $753000.00 $75,000.00 tdilitywA 1 LS $175,000.00 $1755000.00 Rift Of Vey 9200 9= $10.00 $9,000.00 Traffic Catd 1 LS $60,000.00 $60,000.00 S1bTctal w97Q00 Ca tirgffxy 20% $1935194.00 Trial $191599164600 Page 7 of 9 The above costs are shown for full reconstruction of the intersection. The costs for the signalized intersection could be decreased if the existing pavement is widened and a mill/overlay is done instead of full-depth reconstruction. Costs for the signalized intersection may be increased if the limits for improvements are extended east on Horsetooth Road. Alternative Mode Mobility (Bicycles and Pedestrians) At a signalized intersection bicycles and pedestrians have the luxury of a signal phase to assist in crossing the road. However, the bikes and pedestrians also need to pay attention to right and left turning vehicles operating on the same phase. In the roundabout, although there is not a protected or specific signal phase, there is only one direction of travel and one lane of travel to cross prior to reaching a refuge island. Studies have shown that on average, converting a conventional intersection to a roundabout can reduce pedestrian crashes by about 75%. Additionally, vehicle/pedestrian crashes at roundabout intersections have a significantly lower average severity than for a signalized intersection due to the low travel speeds. Bicyclists have the option prior to entering the roundabout, to exit the roadway and use the sidewalks to avoid conflicting with vehicle traffic in the roundabout. However, bicyclists that choose to remain in the roadway have to follow the same rules in the roundabout as motor vehicles . Spatial Requirements The traditional intersection will require the purchase of approximately 25 ,000 square feet of additional right- of-way. The roundabout alternative will require the purchase of approximately 12,000 square feet of additional right-of-way. The spatial requirements for the traditional intersection are based upon the standard LCUASS typical sections for the given roadway classifications, and the 20-year requirement for approach geometry. Interim improvements required solely for the approval of the Front Range Village development may be less. Emergency Services There are issues that should be taken into consideration during the evaluation process. Ron Gonzalez of the Poudre Fire Authority was contacted to discuss concerns that the PFA has with intersections, and although he expressed that the PFA does approve of the use of roundabouts, they do have some concerns that need to be addressed if the roundabout option is chosen. The concerns included landscaping and the ability for the PFA drivers to be able to see all of the traffic in the roundabout, and signage that tells drivers not to stop in the roundabout if they hear sirens. Response time may be reduced 15-20 seconds with the installation of a roundabout due to slower speeds necessary to negotiate a roundabout. For a signalized intersection, an Opticom can be used to minimize delay. Capt. Don Vagge of the Fort Collins Police Department noted that the roundabout currently at Ziegler and Kechter seems to flow well most of the time, traffic does backup during peak hours near the Junior High School. He also mentioned the concern that if there were an accident in a roundabout the entire intersection would be closed versus only a partial closure of a signalized intersection. Both the Police Department and PFA agree that there needs to be a public education campaign in regards to proper roundabout operation and usage. If the roundabout option is chosen, the Police Department and the PFA should be involved during the design phase to address specific design concerns that they may have with this option. Page 8 of 9 9�anEec It should be noted that the new hospital under construction in the Centerra development at I-25 and US -34 has a number of roundabouts on the main entrance road leading to the hospital. Conclusion Based upon the above information, a summary table is shown below. It indicates that the roundabout alternative is a clear benefit for the delay, accidents and spatial requirements. The traditional signalized intersection only provides increased benefit over the roundabout in the area of initial public perception and possibly cost. Criteria Roundabout Signalized Intersection Neutral Dela ✓ Emissions ✓ Safety/Accidents ✓ Initial Public Perception ✓ Alternative Mode ✓ Cost ✓ Spatial Requirements ✓ And finally, there are a few typically accepted ` generalities ' for where roundabouts are well suited. This includes intersections where there are not signalized intersections with progression in the close proximity, and areas where there are directional high volume traffic flows. At this intersection there is a high volume of left turns northbound from Ziegler onto Horsetooth, as well as a high volume of right turns westbound from Horsetooth onto Ziegler. It is recommended that a modern roundabout be constructed at the intersection of Horsetooth Road and Ziegler Road as part of the Front Range Village Development Project. The modern roundabout will control both the short and long range traffic volumes more efficiently than a traditional signalized intersection. Page 9 of 9 91anEec APPENDIX LONG RANGE ( 2025 ) LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS - TAB 1 RODEL CAPACITY OUTPUT - TAB 2 LONG RANGE ( 2025 ) LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS TAB 1 A N 0 O ch 15/10 o � o `q �-- 10/ 10 10/5 Horsetooth 120/50 25/10 875/560 a co 0 � � N A m N AM/PM Rounded to Nearest 5 Vehicles LUNG RANGE ( 2025 ) TOTAL PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC MATTHEW J. DEUCH , P.E. 2272 GLEN HAVEN DRIVE LOVELAND, CO 505M Phone : (970) 669.2061 TABULAR SUMMARY OF VEHICLE COUNTS Date: 4,20 .06 Observer: Carl Day: Thursday Jurisdiction : Fort Collins R = right turn F Intersection : HorsetoothZiegler S = straiiht L = left tum Tirm Northbound : Ziegler Southbound . Ziegler Total Eastbound Hometooth Westbound : Horseloolh Total Total Begins L S R Total L S R Total northisouth L S R Total L S R Total wmVweet Ail 130 6C 33 93 31 1 32 125 0 0 10C 100 0 0 0 0 100 225 7 . 45 94 45 0 139 0 42 1 43 182 3 1 97 101 0 C 0 0 1 101 283 8 00 3 0 102 0 46 2 46 150 5 0 124 122 1 c 0 1 130 230 815 5 18 0 83 0 26 2 26 111 a 0 107 111 0 0 0 0 111 222 7 . 30-0 30 290 127 0 417 0 145 6 151 568 T 12 1 428 441 1 0 0 1 442 1 Q10 PHf 0 75 0 . 79 0. as 0.25 t , 4 30 99 43 1 143 0 29 2 31 174 1 Co 58 59 0 0 1 60 234 4 45 13u 42 1 173 C 25 5 30 203 0 0 61 bt 1 0 0 1 62 265 5 00 146 61 0 207 0 33 5 36 245 2 0 72 74 0 0 0 0 74 319 515 13 ' 44 0 175 3 26 3 29 204 2 C 57 59 C C o 0 59 263 4 30 . 5 30 506 190 2 696 0 113 1 15 128 826 , 5 0 246 253 1 0 1 2 255 1051 PHF 0 64 054 0 .95 0.5 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3 : Horsetooth & Ziegler Rd Long Total AM Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations + ? T# Vii T* I t rr Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3 . 0 3 . 0 3 . 0 3. 0 3 . 0 3. 0 3. 0 3 . 0 3 . 0 3 .0 Lane Util. Factor 1 . 00 1 . 00 1 . 00 1 . 00 1 . 00 0 .97 1 . 00 1 . 00 1 . 00 1 . 00 Fri: 1 . 00 1 . 00 0. 85 1 . 00 0 . 91 1 . 00 1 . 00 1 . 00 1 . 00 0 . 85 Fit Protected 0 . 95 1 . 00 1 . 00 0 . 95 1 . 00 0 . 95 1 . 00 0. 95 1 . 00 1 . 00 Satd . Flow (prot) 1770 1863 1583 1770 1697 3433 1856 1770 1863 1583 Fit Permitted 0 . 74 1 . 00 1 . 00 0 .74 1 . 00 0 . 95 1 . 00 0. 95 1 . 00 1 . 00 Satd . Flow (perm) 1378 1863 1583 1379 1697 3433 1856 1770 1863 1583 Volume (vph) 120 25 875 10 10 15 460 205 5 10 360 100 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0 . 95 0 . 95 0. 95 0 . 95 0 . 95 0 . 95 0 . 95 0 . 95 0 . 95 0 . 95 0 . 95 0 . 95 Adj. Flow (vph) 126 26 921 11 11 16 484 216 5 11 379 105 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 250 0 9 0 0 1 0 0 0 79 Lane Group Flow (vph) 126 26 671 11 18 0 484 220 0 11 379 26 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Prot Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 6 Actuated Green , G (s) 24 .4 24.4 24.4 24.4 24 .4 7. 8 19.4 1 . 2 12 . 8 12. 8 Effective Green , g (s) 26 .4 26 .4 26 .4 26 .4 26 .4 9 . 8 21 .4 3 .2 14 . 8 14. 8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0 .44 0 .44 0.44 0 .44 0.44 0 . 16 0. 36 0 . 05 0 .25 0 . 25 Clearance Time (s) 5 . 0 5. 0 5 . 0 5 . 0 5 . 0 5 . 0 5 . 0 5 . 0 5 . 0 5 . 0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3 . 0 3. 0 3 . 0 3 . 0 3 . 0 3 . 0 3 . 0 3 .0 3 . 0 3 .0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 606 820 697 607 747 561 662 94 460 390 v/s Ratio Prot 0 . 01 0 . 01 c0 . 14 0 . 12 0. 01 c0 .20 v/s Ratio Perm 0 . 09 c0.42 0 . 01 0. 02 We Ratio 0 . 21 0 . 03 0. 96 0 . 02 0. 02 0. 86 0 . 33 0 . 12 0 . 82 0 . 07 Uniform Delay, d1 10 .4 9. 5 16 . 3 9 . 5 9 . 5 24 .4 14 . 1 27 . 1 21 .4 17. 3 Progression Factor 1 . 00 1 . 00 1 . 00 1 . 00 1 . 00 1 . 00 1 . 00 1 . 00 1 . 00 1 . 00 Incremental Delay, d2 0 .2 0 . 0 25 . 1 0 .0 0 . 0 12. 9 1 . 3 0 .6 15 . 3 0. 3 Delay (s) 10. 5 9.6 41 .4 9. 5 9 . 5 37.4 15 .4 27.6 36.7 17.6 Level of Service B A D A A D B C D B Approach Delay (s) 37. 0 9 .5 30 . 5 32 . 5 Approach LOS D A C C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 33 .6 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0 . 90 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60 . 0 Sum of lost time (s) 9 . 0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 86 . 5% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Traffic Operations Department Synchro 6 Light Report U nfrho,., I rlolirh D F 11limong a- stanw Measures of Effectiveness Long Total AM 3 : Horsetooth & Ziegler Rd Direction EB WB NB SB All Volume (vph) 1020 36 670 470 2196 Total Delay (hr) 9 0 7 4 20 Stops (#) 513 18 523 341 1395 Average Speed (mph) 7 21 27 5 18 Total Travel Time (hr) 11 0 20 5 35 Distance Traveled (mi) 71 3 527 25 627 Fuel Consumed (gal) 14 0 29 7 51 Fuel Economy (mpg) 5 . 1 NA 18 . 3 3 .4 12 .4 CO Emissions (kg) 0. 99 0. 02 2 . 01 0 . 51 3 . 53 NOx Emissions (kg) 0. 19 0. 00 0 . 39 0 . 10 0.69 VOC Emissions (kg) 0. 23 0 .01 0 .47 0 . 12 0 . 82 Unserved Vehicles (#) 0 0 0 0 0 Vehicles in dilemma zone (#) 2 2 17 28 49 Traffic Operations Department Synchro 6 Light Report Matthew J . Delich , P . E . 11 /3/2006 stantec HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3 : Horsetooth & Ziegler Rd Long Total PM Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations + ?f '� T+ Vil T t i* Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3 . 0 3 . 0 3 . 0 3. 0 3 .0 3 . 0 3. 0 3 . 0 3 . 0 3. 0 Lane Util . Factor 1 . 00 1 . 00 1 . 00 1 . 00 1 . 00 0 . 97 1 . 00 1 . 00 1 . 00 1 . 00 Frt 1 . 00 1 . 00 0. 85 1 . 00 0 . 93 1 . 00 1 . 00 1 . 00 1 . 00 0 . 85 Fit Protected 0 . 95 1 . 00 1 . 00 0 . 95 1 . 00 0 . 95 1 . 00 0. 95 1 .00 1 .00 Satd . Flow (prot) 1770 1863 1583 1770 1723 3433 1856 1770 1863 1583 Fit Permitted 0.74 1 . 00 1 . 00 0 .75 1 . 00 0 . 95 1 . 00 0 . 95 1 . 00 1 . 00 Satd . Flow (perm) 1384 1863 1583 1398 1723 3433 1856 1770 1863 1583 Volume (vph) 50 10 560 5 10 10 950 425 10 5 230 50 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0 . 95 0 . 95 0. 95 0. 95 0 . 95 0 . 95 0 . 95 0. 95 0. 95 0. 95 0 . 95 0 . 95 Adj . Flow (vph) 53 11 589 5 11 11 1000 447 11 5 242 53 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 489 0 9 0 0 1 0 0 0 36 Lane Group Flow (vph) 53 11 100 5 13 0 1000 457 0 5 242 17 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Prot Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 6 Actuated Green , G (s) 10 . 1 10 . 1 10 . 1 10. 1 10 . 1 25 . 1 44.7 1 . 2 20 . 8 20. 8 Effective Green , g (s) 12 . 1 12. 1 12 . 1 12. 1 12. 1 27 . 1 46 .7 3 . 2 22 . 8 22. 8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0 . 17 0. 17 0. 17 0 . 17 0 . 17 0. 38 0 . 66 0. 05 0. 32 0. 32 Clearance Time (s) 5 . 0 5. 0 5. 0 5 .0 5 . 0 5. 0 5 . 0 5 .0 5 .0 5. 0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3 . 0 3 . 0 3 . 0 3 . 0 3 . 0 3. 0 3. 0 3. 0 3. 0 3. 0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 236 317 270 238 294 1310 1221 80 598 508 v/s Ratio Prot 0 . 01 0. 01 c0 . 29 c0.25 0. 00 0 . 13 v/s Ratio Perm 0 . 04 c0. 06 0. 00 0. 01 v/c Ratio 0 .22 0. 03 0. 37 0 . 02 0 . 04 0 .76 0. 37 0. 06 0.40 0. 03 Uniform Delay, d1 25 .4 24.6 26 . 1 24 . 5 24 . 6 19 .2 5 .5 32 . 5 18 . 8 16. 5 Progression Factor 1 . 00 1 . 00 1 . 00 1 . 00 1 . 00 1 . 00 1 . 00 1 . 00 1 . 00 1 . 00 Incremental Delay , d2 0 . 5 0. 0 0 . 9 0 . 0 0 . 1 2 .7 0.9 0 . 3 2. 0 0. 1 Delay (s) 25 . 9 24.6 26 . 9 24 .6 24 .7 21 . 8 6.4 32. 8 20. 8 16.7 Level of Service C C C C C C A C C B Approach Delay (s) 26. 8 24 .7 17 . 0 20 . 3 Approach LOS C C B C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 20 . 1 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0. 53 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 71 . 0 Sum of lost time (s) 6. 0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 60. 1 % ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Traffic Operations Department Synchro 6 Light Report Matthew J . Delich , P . E . 11 /3/2006 Stantec Measures of Effectiveness Long Total PM 3 : Horsetooth & Ziegler Rd Direction EB WB NB SB All Volume (vph) 620 26 1385 285 2316 Total Delay (hr) 2 0 7 2 11 Stops (#) 122 19 946 203 1290 Average Speed (mph) 16 13 32 11 29 Total Travel Time (hr) 3 0 34 2 40 Distance Traveled (mi) 51 2 1090 27 1170 Fuel Consumed (gal) 5 0 54 4 63 Fuel Economy (mpg) 11 .4 NA 20 .4 6. 4 18 . 7 CO Emissions (kg) 0 . 32 0 . 02 3 .74 0 . 29 4. 37 NOx Emissions (kg) 0 . 06 0 . 00 0 .73 0 . 06 0. 85 VOC Emissions (kg) 0 . 07 0.01 0 . 87 0 . 07 1 . 01 Unserved Vehicles (#) 0 0 0 0 0 Vehicles in dilemma zone (#) 1 2 31 16 50 Traffic Operations Department Synchro 6 Light Report Matthew J . Delich , P . E . 11 /3/2006 stanw RODEL CAPACITY OUTPUT TAB 2 Fort Collins Horsetooth Zeigler - 2025 AM PEAK 50 % CL E ( m ) 8 . 00 5 . 00 5 . 00 8 . 00 TIME PERIOD min 90 L ' ( m ) 30 . 00 10 . 00 10 . 00 60 . 00 TIME SLICE min 15 V ( m ) 8 . 00 4 . 00 4 . 00 4 . 00 RESULTS PERIOD min 15 75 RAD ( m ) 20 . 00 20 . 00 20 . 00 20 . 00 TIME COST $ / hr 15 . 00 PHI ( d ) 30 . 00 30 . 00 30 . 00 30 . 00 FLOW PERIOD min 15 75 DIA ( m ) 50 . 00 50 . 00 50 . 00 50 . 00 FLOW TYPE pcu / veh VEH GRAD SEP 0 0 0 0 FLOW PEAK am/ op /pm AM LEG NAME PCU VEH TURNS ( 1st exit , 2nd . . U ) FLOF CL FLOW RATIO FLOW TIME LEG1 NB 1 . 05 5 205 460 0 1 . 00 50 0 . 75 1 . 125 0 . 75 15 45 75 LEG2 EB 1 . 05 15 10 10 0 1 . 00 50 0 . 75 1 . 125 0 . 75 15 45 75 LEG3 SB 1 . 05 100 360 10 0 1 . 00 50 0 . 75 1 . 125 0 . 75 15 45 75 LEG4 WB 1 . 05 875 25 120 0 1 . 00 50 0 . 75 1 . 125 0 . 75 15 45 75 MODE 2 NB EB SB WB FLOW veh 670 35 470 1020 AVEDEL s 4 . 0 CAPACITY veh 2193 934 1104 1838 LOS SIG A AVE DELAY mins 0 . 04 0 . 07 0 . 09 0 . 07 LOS UNSIG A MAX DELAY mins 0 . 05 0 . 09 0 . 13 0 . 11 AVE QUEUE veh 0 0 1 1 VEHIC HRS 2 . 5 MAX QUEUE veh 1 0 1 2 COST $ 37 Fort Collins Horsetooth Zeigler - 2025 PM PEAK 50 o CL E ( m ) 8 . 00 5 . 00 5 . 00 8 . 00 TIME PERIOD min 90 L ' ( m ) 30 . 00 10 . 00 10 . 00 60 . 00 TIME SLICE min 15 V ( m ) 8 . 00 4 . 00 4 . 00 4 . 00 RESULTS PERIOD min 15 75 RAD ( m ) 20 . 00 20 . 00 20 . 00 20 . 00 TIME COST $ / hr 15 . 00 PHI ( d ) 30 . 00 30 . 00 30 . 00 30 . 00 FLOW PERIOD min 15 75 DIA ( m ) 50 . 00 50 . 00 50 . 00 50 . 00 FLOW TYPE pcu / veh VEH GRAD SEP 0 0 0 0 FLOW PEAK am/ op /pm PM LEG NAME PCU VEH TURNS ( 1st exit , 2nd . . U ) FLOF CL FLOW RATIO FLOW TIME LEG1 NB 1 . 05 10 425 950 0 1 . 00 50 0 . 75 1 . 125 0 . 75 15 45 75 LEG2 EB 1 . 05 10 10 5 0 1 . 00 50 0 . 75 1 . 125 0 . 75 15 45 75 LEG3 SB 1 . 05 50 230 5 0 1 . 00 50 0 . 75 1 . 125 0 . 75 15 45 75 LEG4 WB 1 . 05 560 10 50 0 1 . 00 50 0 . 75 1 . 125 0 . 75 15 45 75 MODE 2 NB EB SB WB FLOW veh 1385 25 285 620 AVEDEL s 4 . 1 CAPACITY veh 2260 576 833 1936 LOS SIG A AVE DELAY mins 0 . 07 0 . 11 0 . 11 0 . 04 LOS UNSIG A MAX DELAY mins 0 . 10 0 . 16 0 . 16 0 . 06 AVE QUEUE veh 2 0 1 0 VEHIC HRS 2 . 6 MAX QUEUE veh 2 0 1 1 COST $ 39 9fenlec Fort Collins Horsetooth Zeigler - 2025 AM PEAK 85 o CL 6 : 9 : 06 E ( m ) 8 . 00 5 . 00 5 . 00 8 . 00 TIME PERIOD min 90 L ' ( m ) 30 . 00 10 . 00 10 . 00 60 . 00 TIME SLICE min 15 V ( m ) 8 . 00 4 . 00 4 . 00 4 . 00 RESULTS PERIOD min 15 75 RAD ( m ) 20 . 00 20 . 00 20 . 00 20 . 00 TIME COST $ / hr 15 . 00 PHI ( d ) 30 . 00 30 . 00 30 . 00 30 . 00 FLOW PERIOD min 15 75 DIA ( m ) 50 . 00 50 . 00 50 . 00 50 . 00 FLOW TYPE pcu / veh VEH GRAD SEP 0 0 0 0 FLOW PEAK am/ op /pm AM LEG NAME PCU VEH TURNS ( 1st exit , 2nd . . U ) FLOF CL FLOW RATIO FLOW TIME LEG1 NB 1 . 05 5 205 460 0 1 . 00 85 0 . 75 1 . 125 0 . 75 15 45 75 LEG2 EB 1 . 05 15 10 10 0 1 . 00 85 0 . 75 1 . 125 0 . 75 15 45 75 LEG3 SB 1 . 05 100 360 10 0 1 . 00 85 0 . 75 1 . 125 0 . 75 15 45 75 LEG4 WB 1 . 05 875 25 120 0 1 . 00 85 0 . 75 1 . 125 0 . 75 15 45 75 MODE 2 NB EB SB WB FLOW veh 670 35 470 1020 AVEDEL s 5 . 4 CAPACITY veh 1996 737 907 1641 LOS SIG A AVE DELAY mins 0 . 04 0 . 08 0 . 14 0 . 10 LOS UNSIG A MAX DELAY mins 0 . 06 0 . 11 0 . 20 0 . 15 AVE QUEUE veh 1 0 1 2 VEHIC HRS 3 . 3 MAX QUEUE veh 1 0 1 2 COST $ 50 Fort Collins Horsetooth Zeigler - 2025 PM PEAK 85 o CL 27 : 10 : 06 Fort Collins Horsetooth Zeigler 30 E ( m ) 8 . 00 5 . 00 5 . 00 8 . 00 TIME PERIOD min 90 L ' ( m ) 30 . 00 10 . 00 10 . 00 60 . 00 TIME SLICE min 15 V ( m ) 8 . 00 4 . 00 4 . 00 4 . 00 RESULTS PERIOD min 15 75 RAD ( m ) 20 . 00 20 . 00 20 . 00 20 . 00 TIME COST $ / hr 15 . 00 PHI ( d ) 30 . 00 30 . 00 30 . 00 30 . 00 FLOW PERIOD min 15 75 DIA ( m ) 50 . 00 50 . 00 50 . 00 50 . 00 FLOW TYPE pcu / veh VEH GRAD SEP 0 0 0 0 FLOW PEAK am/ op /pm PM LEG NAME PCU VEH TURNS ( 1st exit , 2nd . . U ) FLOF CL FLOW RATIO FLOW TIME LEG1 NB 1 . 05 10 425 950 0 1 . 00 85 0 . 75 1 . 125 0 . 75 15 45 75 LEG2 EB 1 . 05 10 10 5 0 1 . 00 85 0 . 75 1 . 125 0 . 75 15 45 75 LEG3 SB 1 . 05 50 230 5 0 1 . 00 85 0 . 75 1 . 125 0 . 75 15 45 75 LEG4 WB 1 . 05 560 10 50 0 1 . 00 85 0 . 75 1 . 125 0 . 75 15 45 75 MODE 2 NB EB SB WB FLOW veh 1385 25 285 620 AVEDEL s 5 . 5 CAPACITY veh 2063 379 636 1739 LOS SIG A AVE DELAY mins 0 . 09 0 . 18 0 . 18 0 . 05 LOS UNSIG A MAX DELAY mins 0 . 14 0 . 27 0 . 27 0 . 07 AVE QUEUE veh 2 0 1 1 VEHIC HRS 3 . 5 MAX QUEUE veh 3 0 1 1 COST $ 53 op Vl Stantec ATTACHMENT RESOLUTION 2001-120 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS ESTABLISHING CRITERIA FOR ARTERIAL INTERSECTION ANALYSIS WHEREAS, some cities and states across the country have begun to construct roundabouts at roadway intersections in place of traffic signals and auxiliary lanes; and WHEREAS, the modem roundabout can be a safer and more efficient intersection than an intersection controlled by traffic signals; and WHEREAS, roundabout construction may have cost savings in both the short term capital costs and long term operation and maintenance costs. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby determines for any major planned roadway improvement (other than maintenance projects and improvements funded through the Pavement Management Program) which involves an arterial/arterial or an arterial/collector intersection, an Intersection Alternative Analysis will be conducted to assist the Transportation staff in determining the most appropriate improvements for the intersection in question. Section 2. That each Intersection Alternative Analysis shall include the following evaluations of standard intersection improvements and roundabout improvements: • Accident Analysis — a short-term accident analysis shall be conducted for each of the alternatives analyzed. Costs associated with accidents will be based on data provided through the National Institute for Insurance Safety. Average delay — the morning, noon, and afternoon peak hours shall be compared and analyzed through capacity analyses to determine the average vehicle delay for each leg of the intersection. The capacity analysis shall include 20-year traffic projections. • Environmental Factors—an air quality comparison between a roundabout and signalized intersection shall be included in the report. • Cost — capital costs as well as long-term maintenance and operation costs shall be included in the study. • Alternative Mode Mobility — the study shall include an evaluation of pedestrian and bicycle mobility. • Spatial Requirements — the study shall evaluate the amount of land area needed for each type of intersection and the costs associated with the acquisition of the same. Section 3. That if, after applying the foregoing criteria to a particular intersection, Transportation staff believes that a roundabout would be the most suitable alternative for the improvement of such intersection, the City Manager shall submit such proposal to the City Council for its review and for a final determination of the kind of improvements to be constructed at such intersection. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins held this 4th day of September, A.D. 2001. Mayor _ ti ATTEST: City Clerk ATTACHMENT City of Fort Collins Transportation Board gal Brent Thordarson, Chair City of Fort Collins DATE: November 22, 2006 TO: Mayor & City Council Members FROM: Brent Thordarson, Transportation Board Chairman RE: Transportation Board Recommendation to City Council for a Horsetooth-Ziegler Roundabout The Transportation Board discussed city staffs recommendation to construct a roundabout at the intersection of Horsetooth and Ziegler at its November 15n' meeting. Based on this discussion, the Board unanimously passed the following motion: The Board strongly supports the endorsement of the (consultant) report and recommends the roundabout at Horsetooth and Ziegler. In addition, efforts should be made now to acquire sufficient right-of-way for future purposes (such as an additional lane in the roundabout). Thank you for the opportunity to provide input on this important project. ATTACHMENT 4 Conflict Points in Roundabouts Vs. Tradition Intersections 2-lane road standard intersection E • 32 V*hkio to vehicleconiliktc E 24 Vehicle to pedethian conflict• • 2-way roundabout ii* • 8 Vehicle to vehicle • 8 Vehicle to pedestrian RESOLUTION 2007-005 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS DETERMINING THAT A MODERN ROUNDABOUT IS THE APPROPRIATE TYPE OF INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT TO BE CONSTRUCTED AT THE INTERSECTION OF HORSETOOTH ROAD AND ZIEGLER ROAD WHEREAS, through the adoption of Resolution 2001-120 the Council has established a policy that any time an arterial/arterial intersection in the City is planned to be improved, an alternative analysis of the intersection for the potential placement of a modern roundabout is required and, if a roundabout is recommended by City staff, a Council determination is to be made regarding the suitability of a roundabout at such location; and WHEREAS, intersection improvements are planned for the intersection of Horsetooth and Ziegler Road due to the construction of the Front Range Village project, thus triggering the analysis of the viability of a roundabout at that intersection; and WHEREAS, as a result of the analysis conducted by the consulting engineers and approved by the Traffic Engineer, the Council believes that a modern roundabout at that intersection would result in an improved level of service with respect to traffic delays, as well as a decrease in automobile emissions and would reduce the severity of accidents occurring at the intersection; and WHEREAS, the analysis further shows that a roundabout would not hinder the usefulness of the intersection for alternative modes of transportation; and WHEREAS, although initial construction costs are slightly higher for the construction of the modern roundabout over a traditional intersection, the Council believes that the benefits of the modem roundabout outweigh those additional costs. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that City staff is hereby authorized to proceed with the construction of a modern roundabout at the intersection of Horsetooth and Ziegler Roads. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 16th day of January, A.D. 2007. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk