HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 01/26/2011 - PLAN FORT COLLINS: PHASE 3-DRAFT CITY PLAN DOCUME DATE: January 26, 2011
STAFF: Joe Frank WORK SESSION ITEM
Kathleen Bracke FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
Pre-taped staff presentation: available
at fcgov.com/clerk/agendas.php
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Plan Fort Collins: Phase 3 — Draft City Plan Document - Review of the Economic Health;
Community and Neighborhood Livability; and Transportation Section; Appendix B — Finance
Philosophy and Funding Capital Improvements, of City Plan; and Review of the Transportation
Master Plan, including the Master Street Plan, Capital Improvement Plan, and Pedestrian Plan.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Phase 3 is the final phase of the three-part Plan Fort Collins planning process. Phase 3 consists of
the following three major tasks:
1. Preparation of draft Plan documents for review and adoption. The draft Plans include
updates to City Plan and Transportation Master Plan, including the Master Street Plan,
Capital Improvement Plan, and Pedestrian Plan.
2. Preparation of the priority implementation actions and strategies plan.
3. Preparation of select implementation items to be adopted concurrent with adoption of the
Plans.
The purpose of this work session is to:
• Review the Economic Health;Community and Neighborhood Livability;and Transportation
sections of the update to City Plan, and Appendix B - Finance Philosophy and Funding
Capital Improvements.
• Review the Transportation Master Plan, including the Master Street Plan, Capital
Improvement Plan, and the Pedestrian Plan.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Do the Principles and Policies of the Economic Health; Community and Neighborhood
Livability; and Transportation sections of the draft City Plan set the direction the City
Council wants to establish for the community?
2. Does Council have any questions or comments on Appendix B —Finance Philosophy and
Funding Capital Improvements?
i
3. Does Council have any questions or comments on the Transportation Master Plan, including
the Master Street Plan, Capital Improvement Plan, and/or the Pedestrian Plan?
January 26, 2011 Page 2
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The Draft City Plan document has been restructured into seven theme areas that closely align with
the results areas of the BFO process. The theme areas are:
• Economic Health
• Environmental Resources
• Community and Neighborhood Livability
• Safety and Wellness
• Culture, Parks, and Recreation
• High Performing Community
• Transportation
During the December 14, 2010 work session, Council reviewed and commented upon the High
Performing Community section of the Draft City Plan;and the Master Street Plan,in particular,the
Corbett Drive collector street. The January 11, 2011 work session provided Council with the
opportunity to discuss three more theme areas:Environmental Resources; Safety and Wellness;and
Culture, Parks, and Recreation. In addition, the Sustainability and Monitoring Plan sections were
also reviewed. The January 26 work session provides Council an opportunity to review the
remaining three theme areas (Economic Health; Community and Neighborhood Livability; and
Transportation).
DRAFT CITY PLAN SECTIONS — ECONOMIC HEALTH; COMMUNITY AND
NEIGHBORHOOD LIVABILITY; and TRANSPORTATION
Presented below is a summary of the vision and"new"ideas for the Economic Health; Community
and Neighborhood Livability; and Transportation sections of the draft City Plan.
Economic Health Section (pages 17-22 of the Draft City Plan)
Vision: A healthy and resilient economy
• Diverse jobs that provide competitive wages
• An innovative, creative, and entrepreneurial atmosphere
• strong partnerships and collaboration with Colorado State University and other organizations
• Fiscal sustainability and transparency
The number of principles and policies dealing with Economic Health have increased in the update
to City Plan, and most new statements find their origins in the Council adopted Economic Action
Plan (2005). The major sub-sections of Economic Health are: Economy, and Fiscal Stability.
New topics addressed in each sub-section are as follows:
January 26, 2011 Page 3
Economy
A balanced and targeted approach to business retention, expansion, incubation and attraction.
• A proactive role of the City in supporting the economic health of the community.
• Partnership building with local and regional organizations and the private sector to further
enhance economic health.
• Diversifying the local economy by focusing on new job creation, leveraging the unique Fort
Collins brand, and evaluating opportunities for diversifying the City's revenue sources.
• Supporting the retention and recruitment of businesses that have a high impact on sales tax
generation, and programs that encourage residents to spend locally first.
Fiscal Stability
• The principles and policies around Fiscal Stability largely reflect the policies of the
Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO) approach.
• Developing fee schedules for redevelopment that are fair and equitable and account for
differences between redevelopment and greenfield development.
Community and Neighborhood Livability Section (pages 43-94 of the Draft City Plan)
Vision: A high quality built environment
• A compact pattern of development within a well-defined community boundary
• Adequate public facilities, services, and infrastructure to serve existing development and
new growth
• Opportunities for redevelopment, revitalization, and growth in targeted areas
• Cohesive, distinct, vibrant, safe, and attractive neighborhoods
• Vital and appealing activity centers and destinations throughout the city
• Quality and accessible housing options for all household types and income levels
• Preservation and enhancement of historic resources
• Distinctive and attractive community image, design, and identity
• Nature visible and accessible in the city
The Community and Neighborhood Livability section contains the most extensive list of principles
and policies in the draft document,and continues the shift of policy emphasis that began in the 2004
update of City Plan from managing the outward expansion of the edges of the community to
managing appropriate infill and redevelopment of strategic areas. This emphasis highlights the
critical importance of the "spine" of the community (College Avenue and the parallel Mason
Corridor) and the other major activity centers. The major sub-sections of Community and
Neighborhood Livability are: Growth Management; Infill and Redevelopment; Housing;
Community Appearance and Design; Historic Preservation; Noise Pollution Mitigation; City
Structure Plan Map; Neighborhoods; Districts; Edges; and Corridors. The principles and policies
generally reflect those in the adopted City Plan or in other adopted Plans. New topics addressed in
each sub-section are as follows:
January 26, 2011 Page 4
Housing
• Maintain current funding and programs for affordable housing.
• Increase the water and energy efficiency of new housing and upgrade existing ones.
Gateways
• Gateways have been a topic in City Plan and for several subarea Plans,but the updated Plan
provides more specific new ideas and policies about locations and the kinds of elements that
should be considered in the design of gateways.
Landscape Design
Based upon community feedback, the Landscape Design section includes new ideas and
policies for integrating natural features, landscapes, and settings into the design of new
development and capital projects, and low maintenance landscapes.
Districts
• Heightened emphasis on commercial districts having a mix of uses(vertical and-horizontal)
and features that encourages pedestrian, bicycle, and transit activity, and reinforces the
identity of the District.
• Neighborhood compatibility was a continuing theme for all of the city's commercial and
industrial districts during the public dialogue, and so there are new policies for building
scale,buffering, design and placement of uses in relation to adjacent neighborhoods,as well
as creating inviting destinations for surrounding neighborhoods.
City Structure Plan Map
The City Structure Plan Map provides direction about where the city will change over time—how
to grow,where to develop, and how to shape growth so that it benefits overall quality of life. Key
changes to the City Structure Plan Map include:
• Revisions to the City of Fort Collins' eastern Growth Management Area(GMA) boundary
to reflect an updated Intergovernmental Agreement(IGA)with the Town of Timnath. This
updated GMA also results. in a larger Planning Area for the Town of Timnath, and.
elimination of the Fort Collins-Timnath Community Separator area.
• Revised and additional Enhanced Travel Corridors(ETCs)—see Transportation Master Plan .
for greater details on ETCs.
• Consolidation of the former "Open Lands, Parks, Stream Corridors" and "Poudre River"
designations into one category, "Open Lands, Parks, and Water Corridors."
• Updated land use designations in the area near the northwest corner of Interstate 25 and State
Highway 392 (Carpenter Road) to reflect the framework plan contained in the 1-251SH392
Interchange Improvement Plan.
J
January 26, 2011 Page 5
Infill and Redevelopment Map
• The Infll and Redevelopment Map shows areas where infill and redevelopment is expected
to occur in the future. The map identifies existing and future activity centers, and also
denotes targeted activity centers and redevelopment areas — places where infill and
redevelopment will be encouraged and targeted for public and private investment. Major
updates to this map are proposed in order to align with community feedback and requests
for a map that emphasizes infill and redevelopment activities along the City's "spine" and
in key activity centers.
• Addition of the existing Transit-Overlay District (TOD) along the Mason ETC.
Transportation Section (pages 113-126 of the Draft City Plan) (Also see "THE
TRANSPORTATIONMASTER PLAN DOCUMENTS"of this Agenda Item Summary for more
information on this theme area)
Vision: A connected community
• Land use and transportation will be fully integrated, both locally and regionally, to create
an affordable, accessible, low energy, low impact, and efficient transportation system.
• Multiple modes of safe, affordable, easy, and convenient travel will ensure mobility for
people of all ages and abilities.
• Multiple travel modes will make it easy to choose transportation options that support a
healthy lifestyle.
• Innovative travel modes will be accommodated through flexibility in the transportation
system.
• The transportation system will provide safe, reliable, convenient, and effective vehicular
mobility and access.
• Travel infrastructure will be high quality and recognized as world class by residents,visitors,
and peers.
• People will be aware of the impact that their travel choices have on the transportation
system,the environment,and the community. They will have travel option choices that help
Fort Collins achieve its overall vision of being a world class community. Please note that
this last sentence has been changed from the November version based upon input received
from the Transportation Board.
Appendix B—Finance Philosophy and Funding Capital Improvements
This is a new, informational Appendix in City Plan. While previous versions of City Plan
addressed, in a very limited way, topics related to capital improvement funding, the original intent
of the Plan Fort Collins update was to go further to quantify future capital improvement needs
associated with the 2035 City Plan, and identify near-term and long-term funding opportunities.
Last fall, staff discussed the intended depth of this analysis with City Council. Council provided
general direction that Plan Fort Collins stay at a broad,general level regarding capital improvements
and funding thereof. The Council believed that this subject required a much more intensive level
of analysis and discussion than could reasonably be accommodated in the Plan Fort Collins
schedule. City Council and staff believed it would be more appropriate to address this subject in
its own process as a follow-up action item to the adoption of City Plan.
January 26, 2011 Page 6
The purpose of Appendix B is two-fold: first, to summarize the City's finance philosophy that is
incorporated in its policy and planning documents, procedural manuals and budget practices. This
philosophy is further supported by the Principles and Policies articulated in City Plan, particularly
in the sections on Economic Health, Community and Neighborhood Livability, and Environmental
Resources. The second purpose of this Appendix is to summarize how the City currently funds and
intends to fund future capital improvements,and identify long-range implications that relate to Plan
Fort Collins recommendations.
THE TRANSPOR TA TION MA STER PLAN DOCUMENTS
The City's Transportation Master Plan (TMP) serves as a vision document that defines the long-
term multimodal transportation system for Fort Collins' future. The Plan provides policy direction
for decisions regarding the implementation of the transportation system to achieve the City's Vision,
Mission, and Values as a World Class Community. 1
The TMP is an important element of City Plan, and the innovative, collaborative approach taken to
develop the TMP in concert with the update of City Plan, is designed to ensure an integrated
transportation system that supports the community's land use,economic health,and environmental
stewardship objectives.
The TMP document, includes the highlights of the Master Street Plan(MSP), Capital Improvement
Plan (CIP), and Pedestrian Plan. More detailed information about these elements of the TMP,
including the technical analysis for the MSP and CIP updates,is provided as appendices to the TMP
document.
The TMP vision, principles, and policies are organized to align with the City's Transportation
Budgeting for Outcome areas:
• Integrated Land Use and Transportation Planning
• Travel Mode Options/Mobility
• Traffic Flow
• Quality Travel Surfaces and Infrastructure
• Increase Awareness
The TMP includes a new focus on sustainability, including interdepartmental collaboration, triple
bottom line analysis to address economic,environmental,and human factors, as well as continuous
improvement through new/enhanced performance measures.
Several areas of the TMP document received suggestions for edits/changes based on public input
as well as feedback from boards,commissions,and City Council since the November version of the
draft document. These include:
• Updating the last sentence of the TMP vision statement to be less directive/demanding and
more positive. Wording has been changed from: "They will choose travel options that help
Fort Collins achieve its overall vision of being a world class community"to"They will have
travel options to choose that help Fort Collins achieve its overall vision of being a world
class community"
January 26, 2011 Page 7
• Green Streets Demonstration Project —considering options for moving this proposed"long-
term" action item up to the "short-term" action list and specify the need to include pursuit
of funding opportunities (local, state, federal and public/private partnerships) for
implementation.
• Additional language in Vision,Principles,and Policies section of the TMP regarding context
sensitive solutions for infill and redevelopment areas(Principle T4)and expanded definition
of transit to include rail technologies,not just rubber-tire bus transit(examples could include
the existing local trolley operation, future passenger rail service, etc.)
• Master Street Plan section updated per additional analysis and public input for Corbett Drive
and new Laurel Street location:
o Corbett Drive—staff recommendation is to remove the Corbett Drive extension from
the MSP
o Laurel Street between Lesser and Pennock—staff recommendation is to remove the
connection from east the end of Laurel Street to Lemay Avenue via Pennock street.
• Expand Bicycle Plan section to reflect accomplishments since 2008 and new proposed action
items per Bicycle Advisory Committee input(suggestions include additional performance
measures and goal setting ideas)
• Updating sections of the Pedestrian Plan and TMP to reflect new methodology for evaluating
unsignalized crossings
• Implementation section of the TMP document and Appendix I being updated based on
additional work-to-date on the CIP project lists, evaluation method, funding strategies,
performance measures, and action strategies. This work includes a new deliverable,
"Appendix J — Transportation Funding Strategies" which is an informational reference
document.
THE MSP AMENDMENT DOCUMENTATION (APPENDIX E)
Master Street Plan Purpose and Use
The Master Street Plan(MSP)is an important element of the TMP and serves as a map of the City's
long-range vision for its major street network. This includes existing and future vehicle, bicycle,
and pedestrian connections throughout the City's growth management area. The MSP also reflects
the type of street (i.e., collector, arterial, etc.) and the general location for planning transportation
connections. The MSP is used in a variety of ways by the City, including the Development Review
process to provide for street system connectivity, determining development impact fees for streets,
and planning the community's long-term vision for our street network.
Process for 2010-11 Master Street Plan Update
There are several proposed amendments to the MSP that reflect built alignments, approved
development plans,and Colorado Department of Transportation studies. Other locations have been
selected for additional evaluation during the update to the MSP. Each of these locations has been
evaluated to understand the impact of changing the functional classification(i.e.,two-lane arterial,
collector) of the street. The evaluation process includes using the Triple Bottom Line indicators,
the regional travel demand model,and input from City staff,the public,the transportation subteam,
the Bicycle Advisory Committee, Planning and Zoning Board, Transportation Board, and City
Council.
January 26, 2011 Page 8
There are now 14 locations that have been evaluated as part of the update process to understand the
impact of right sizing the street classification and designations on the MSP map. Staff shared the
details of the original 13 MSP amendment locations with City Council at the December work
session.
The staff recommendations shared for these 13 locations on the MSP remain in place, including the
staff recommendation to remove the Corbett Drive extension from the MSP.
Additional wording is being added to the Prospect Road analysis section of Appendix E to
emphasize that future street designs need to take into account the importance of respecting the
sensitive natural areas and unique character of this corridor as well as considering future City and
Colorado State University gateway opportunities at Prospect and I-25.
Since December,an additional MSP location was requested for analysis based on public input. This
request was regarding the future connection shown on the MSP that would link the existing east end
of Laurel Street at Lesser Street to Lemay Avenue via Pennock Street (behind the Albertson's
grocery store). This future extension of Laurel Street has been on the MSP since the early 1980s,
but was not built, and the surrounding area has since developed with the grocery store, school
improvements, and adjacent park site. Staff is recommending that this Laurel Street connection
shown on the MSP between Lesser and Pennock streets be removed from the Master Street Plan as
part of the 2010-11 update as the existing built conditions make this future street connection
unrealistic to achieve. In addition, there are other options for street, bicycle, and pedestrian
connections within the area to ensure multimodal connectivity.
One of the major outcomes of the 2010-11 update process is that no MSP street classifications are
proposed to be expanded beyond their current street classifications. For example, no street
classifications are proposed to increase from a four-lane arterial classification to a six-lane arterial
classification.
In some cases, the update process is proposing to reduce the classification for specific street
segments on the MSP. An example is Lincoln Avenue between Jefferson Street and Lemay Avenue.
The project team is proposing that this segment of Lincoln Avenue be downgraded from a four lane
arterial street classification to a two lane arterial street classification. It is important to note that the
proposed amendments to the MSP network will continue to provide adequate transportation capacity
for the City's short term and long-range travel needs.
New Overlay Map for MSP
The 2010-11 update to the Master Street Plan also includes a new "Overlay Map" to help
proactively designate locations where the current Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards
(LCUASS) may require revisions or flexibility to achieve the vision of special districts, Enhanced
Travel Corridors, and the overall TMP vision.
Please see TMP Appendix E — Master Street Plan Amendment Documentation for more details
regarding the MSP street classifications analyzed as part of this update process as well as the
Overlay Map.
January 26, 2011 Page 9
The CIP Documentation (Appendix I) - Multimodal Transportation Capital
Improvement Plan Update Note: the attached version of the Appendix 1 - CIP
Documentation is a new version from the November 2010 document due to the
significant amount of progress that has been made to-date by the project team.
Please review this new document (Attachment 2).
Like the overall TMP update, the multimodal transportation Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is
being updated using an interdisciplinary team and"triple bottom line"approach that aligns with the
TMP vision,principles,and policies. The project team has developed updated project lists for each
of the project categories within the CIP. As a new element of the CIP update, the project team is
also recommending a short-term CIP which includes the highest ranking projects from all of the
transportation categories.
Recognizing that this is a"living document", the intent is for the multimodal transportation CIP to
be updated every two years as well as with the next updated to the TMP. It will be important to
schedule the updates to these documents in coordination with future budgeting cycles and other City
strategic planning efforts.
A longer term goal is to have a citywide capital improvement plan that integrates transportation,
utilities,parks,recreation, trails, facilities, and operations needs from throughout the organization.
Transportation Finance(Appendix Note: AppendixJ-Transportation Finance
is a new document and was not included with the draft TMP documents in the
November 2010 materials. Please review this new document (Attachment 3).
Appendix J is intended to serve as a resource to provide information regarding how the City
currently finances transportation services and improvements as well as introduces some
supplemental sources of finance that might be considered as potential strategies for long term
implementation of the Transportation Master Plan recommendations.
Pedestrian Plan Update Note: the attached version ofthe Pedestrian Plan is a new
version from the November 2010 document due to the sijznihcant amount ofprogres.s
that has been made to-date by the project team. Please review this new document.
The new areas are highlighted in yellow for reference (Attachment 4).
As part of the TMP update,the project team is updating the City's 1996 Pedestrian Plan document
in a collaborative approach with sustainability in mind. The Pedestrian Plan element of the TMP
has received public input from many diverse members of the community from groups such as the
Senior Advisory Board, Youth Advisory Board, Commission on Disability, Transportation Board,
and Bicycle Advisory Board as well as general public input as part of the Plan Fort Collins and
Transportation Master Plan public engagement process.
Key themes emerging for the Pedestrian Plan update include:
• Need to improve infrastructure and safety programs to enhance pedestrian safety for people
of all ages and abilities.
• Need for improved maintenance of pedestrian facilities,including repair/replacement, snow
removal, and sweeping.
January 26, 2011 Page 10
• Important linkages between pedestrian walkways and transit routes/stops.
• Promoting a mix of land uses and activity centers that can maximize walkability.
The Pedestrian Plan update includes a revised map of priority pedestrian areas/districts throughout
the community to reflect the structure plan land-use map as well as other key areas (schools,parks,
neighborhood destinations).
In summary, the Transportation Master Plan, including the updates to the Master Street Plan,
Capital Improvement Plan, and Pedestrian Plan, provides a renewed framework for the
community's long-term transportation vision. Development'of the key policies, implementation
strategies, actions steps, and performance measures are very important to ensure progress toward
these goals is achieved over time with an increased emphasis on a collaborative, triple bottom line
decision making.
The TMP is also envisioned to be a"living document" to be updated as needed to reflect changing
conditions, challenges, and opportunities. At a minimum, the TMP should be updated every five
years in conjunction with City Plan and in coordination with future Budgeting for Outcomes
schedules and other strategic planning opportunities.
NEXT STEPS
City Boards and Commissions Comments
During the month of December, City boards and commissions were asked to set aside time during
their regular monthly meeting agendas to discuss and review the entire Public Review Draft Plan
documents (if desired). This allowed boards and commissions to review all sections of the Draft
Plans, not just those sections that were aligned with their primary focus.
The Planning and Zoning Board conducted additional special work sessions in November and
December to review the Draft Plan documents. Board and commission comments on the Draft Plan
documents needed to be completed by the end of December or early January, in order for the
comments to be forwarded to the City Council in time for the Council's January 11 and January 26,
2011 Work Sessions.
Board and Commission comments are presented in Attachment 1.
Key Council Meeting Dates
February 8 City Council Work Session
• Immediate Implementation Actions—these Ordinances are scheduled for First Reading on
March 1, 2011.
February 15 Regular City Council Meeting
City Plan Adoption.
• Transportation Master Plan Adoption, including the Master Street Plan (First Reading),
Capital Improvement Plan, and Pedestrian Plan.
January 26, 2011 Page 11
March 1 City Council Regular Meeting
• Adoption of Immediate Implementation Actions— First Reading of Ordinances —including
Land Use Code amendments, Green Building Code amendments; and Second Reading of
Ordinance adopting the Master Street Plan.
March 22 City Council Adjourned Meeting
• Immediate Implementation Actions—Second Reading of Ordinances.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Board and Commission Comments on Public Review Draft Plans (November 19, 2010.)
2. Revised Capital Improvement Plan Documentation (TMP appendix I) — January 2011
version
3. Transportation Finance (TMP appendix J)—new document
4. Revised Pedestrian Plan Document—January 2011 version
5. Enlarged maps from the Master Street Plan Appendix E:
- City Structure Plan
- Existing Master Street Plan
- Master Street Plan Draft
- Master Street Plan Overlay Master
6. Powerpoint presentation
Attachment 1
Comments are included from the following City Boards and Commissions on the Public
Review Draft documents (November 19, 2011 ) .
1 . Affordable Housing Board
2 . Air Quality Advisory Board
3 . Art in Public Places Board
4. Electric Board
5 . Landmark Preservation Commission
6 . Senior Advisory Board
7 . Water Board
Other boards and commissions (e .g. , the Natural Resources Advisory Board, Parks and
Recreation Board) previously sent comments to the Council and had no further comments
on the Public Review Draft documents .
1
Affordable Housing Board Comments or Concerns
Public Review Draft Plan -Update of City Plan
Principles and Policies
PAGE PRINCIPLE - POLICY COMMENTS or CONCERNS
Economic Health
20 Policy EH 1 . 1 - Primary/basic jobs create spin-off
Support Job Creation secondary/non-basic jobs many of which are in
the service and retail sectors. Service and retail
jobs are typically lower paying jobs and, thus,
put pressure on the need for affordable housing.
The City should have a program to deal with the
spin-off effects of primary/basic job creation.
Firms/companies that create primary/basic jobs,
especially those that receive any incentives from
the City, should help mitigate the impacts on the
need for additional affordable housing.
20 Policy EH 1 .2 - Retail jobs are typically lower paying jobs and,
Maximize Retail Sales Tax thus, put pressure on the need for affordable
Revenue. housing. The City should have a program to deal
with the impacts on the need for affordable
housing with the encouragement of sale tax
generating businesses . Businesses that create
lower paying jobs , especially those that receive
any incentives from the City, should help
mitigate the impacts on the need for additional
affordable housing.
22 Policy EH 4 .2 — Overtime, less undeveloped "greenfields" will be
Reduce Barriers to available for developing affordable housing
Redevelopment which means infill and redevelopment sites will
be prime locations for affordable housing. The
City needs to reduce barriers to redevelopment
also for the sake of affordable housing.
22 Policy EH 6 .2 Reduced City Development Impact Fees for
Develop Fee Schedules for redevelopment projects will lower the costs of
Redevelopment and doing such projects and help compensate for
Development other higher costs (e .g. , land values) . Lower fees
will help with the development of affordable
housing on redevelopment sites .
2
Environmental Resources
27 Policy ENV 1 . 1 Policy states to use regulatory powers to direct
Protect and Enhance development away from sensitive natural areas.
Natural features However, the policy also recognizes that if
directing development away from these areas is
not possible, make development minimize
impacts . This means affordable housing could be
built adjacent to sensitive natural areas provided
appropriate mitigation is accomplished.
27 Policy ENV 1 .2 Policy says, "to the extent feasible," development
Continue Conservation in regulations should be used to conserve 100-year
Floodplains . floodplains . Affordable housing should not be
allowed to be built in flood lain areas.
30 Policy ENV 5 . 3 Policy state to remove "unnecessary" barriers
Remove Barriers to Net caused by enforcement of City Codes . This
Energy Use Reduction should help make new construction of affordable
housing more energy efficient without adding
increased costs. If costs increase, the City should
have a program to mitigate the cost increase on
affordable housing construction. .
30 Policy 5 . 7 Commits the City to offer incentives to new
Offer Incentives construction that go above minimum standards for
energy efficiency. The unknown is if the
incentives save more than the costs of going
above the standards . If costs increase, the City
should have a program to mitigate the cost
increase on affordable housing construction. .
31 Policy ENV 6 .2 Remove The same as Policy ENV 5 . 3 above except for
Barriers to Net Energy Use existing buildings .
Reductions
31 Policy ENV 6 . 5 The same as Policy ENV 5 . 7 except for existing
Offer Incentives buildings .
32 Principle 8 . 1 Continually Need to recognize affordable housing as a
improve Fort Collins ' air component of air quality. Affordable housing
quality as the city grows. allows lower income people to live in the
community instead of outside the community
forcing them to travel into the city for jobs,
shopping, etc . , increasing traffic congestion, and
reducing air quality .
36 Policy ENV 18 . 1 A floodplain policy related to Policy ENV 1 .2
Balance Environmental, above. Policy recognizes the City must balance
Human and Economic all concerns (environmental, human, economic)
Concerns with the management of flood plains .
3
Community and
Neighborhood Livability
47 Policy 1 . 1 Eventually, a "fixed" GMA boundary will cause
Utilize a Growth an increase in the value of undeveloped land, as
Management Area growth consumes such land, making it more
Boundary costly to develop affordable housing units . The
Land Bank Program was designed to help mitigate
this known impact of continued growth in the
GMA. More funding is needed in the LBP to
acquire additional vacant properties and preserve
them for affordable housing development.
49 Principle LIV 4 : This "development will pay its own way"
Development will provide philosophy is the basis for the City ' s
and pay its share of the cost Development Impact Fees . Impact fees add to
of providing needed public the cost of housing. Currently, there are City
facilities and services incentive programs (e. g. , the Fee Collection Delay
concurrent with Program) to help lessen the effect of fees and
development. financial assistance through CDBG and HOME
Programs to pay impact fee costs for affordable
housing projects .
49 Policy LIV 4 .2 Policy commits the City to have a "fair system of
Utilize Fees and fees ." The AHB strongly supports this policy.
Development Requirements
49 Policy LIV 5 . 1 Policy indicates the City will encourage
Encourage Targeted redevelopment and infill in designated areas of the
Redevelopment and Infill community. Higher density housing will be
encouraged in areas that are served by transit and
adjacent to higher levels of development. Higher
density housing often means less costly housing.
Incentives could include reduced parking, density
bonuses, etc . This policy relates to Economic
Health ' s policies on infill and redevelopment.
51 Policy LIV 6 .2 Policy lists various types of dwellings, some of
Types of Infill and which may be considered additions to the
Redevelopment in affordable housing inventory.
Residential Areas
55 Principle LIV 7 : A variety Basic principle states housing for all income
of housing types and levels should be available throughout the GMA.
densities for all income Can be used to counter NIMBYism when an
levels shall be available affordable housing project comes under fire from
throughout the Growth neighborhood residents .
Management Area
4
55 Policy LIV 7 . 2 Policy encourages both public and private sectors to
Develop an Adequate provide an adequate supply of housing and includes
Supply of Housing mobile homes/manufactured housing (typically
more affordable) types of housing. Mobile homes
may not be "affordable housing" as many people
may believe they are . The factors that contribute to
mobile homes not being affordable housing include
high lot rents, high interest rates, and low or no
appreciation in value. Add the problem of the
home-owner not controlling the land they sit on
thus the lack of long-term stability of location.
55 Policy LIV 7 . 3 Policy recognizes that accessory housing is a
Encourage Accessory possible contribution to the affordable housing
Housing Unit inventory.
Development
55 Policy LIV 7 .4 Policy recognizes that the availability of land
Maximize Land for influences housing affordability.
Residential Development
55 LIV 7 . 5 Policy states two things, first it recognizes the need
Address Special Needs for housing for special populations (seniors,
Housing homeless, etc .) and states that such housing should
be dispersed throughout the GMA. Can be used to
counter NIMBYism when a special needs housing
project (e. g. , for the homeless comes) under fire
from neighborhood residents .
55 Policy LIV 7 . 6 Policy recognizes the need for handicapped
Basic Access housing.
56 Principle LIV 8 : The City The basic principle for affordable housing in the
will encourage the community. The AHB strongly supports this
creation and expansion of principle .
affordable housing
opportunities and the
preservation of existing
affordable housing
supply.
56 Policy LIV 8 . 1 The policy basis for the City' s development
Maintain Affordable incentives and funding support programs . The AHB
Housing Programs strongly supports this policy.
56 Policy LIV 8 .2 Indicates the City will maintain data on affordable
Monitor Affordable housing.
Housing
56 Policy LIV 8 . 3 Policy basis for the City' s affordable housing
Offer Incentives development incentives programs . The AHB
strongly supports this policy.
56 Policy LIV 8 .4 City policy to preserve existing affordable housing.
5
Retain Existing The AHB strongly supports this policy.
Affordable Housing
6
56 Policy LIV 8 . 5 Basically a policy that encourages the
Integrate and Distribute disbursement of affordable housing throughout the
Affordable Housing community instead of concentrating units in
isolated areas . Again, can be used to counter
NIMBYism when an affordable housing project
comes under fire from neighborhood residents .
56 Policy LIV 8 . 6 This policy commits the City to explore ways to
Mitigate Displacement mitigate the impact of the displacement of
Impacts residents in affordable housing units from
redevelopment activities. This is the Relocation
Policy staff will be working on next year.
56 Policy LIV 8 . 7 This is the policy basis for the Land Bank
Maintain a Supply of Land Program. The AHB strongly supports this policy.
73 Policy LIV 26 .4 Another policy that could be used to combat
Balance Resident NIMBYism when an affordable housing project
Preferences with comes under fire from neighborhood residents .
Community-wide Interests The AHB strongly supports this policy.
75 Policy LIV 28 . 1 This is the policy that sets the minimum density of
Density Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhoods at 5
dwelling units per acre . Regarding affordable
housing, the concept is that in order to achieve 5
du/ac minimum some type of attached housing
product would be necessary and attached housing
is usually lower cost housing that detached
housing. There has been a lot of discussion about
the "loss" of certain larger lot single-family
development to surrounding communities because
of this 5 du/ac density minimum. The AHB
strongly supports a density bonus in the LMN
Zone for affordable housing projects. .
78 Policy LIV 30 . 6 Policy provides for a reduction of parking
Reduce Parking Standard standards for developments in commercial
districts, including housing, that are within 1/4 mile
of high frequency transit services . This could help
with the development of affordable housing as it
may not have to provide as many parking spaces
as currently required, thus reducing costs .
80 Policy LIV 31 . 7 This policy encourages either vertical or
Housing horizontal housing in commercial districts as infill
and redevelopment activities . Upper level housing
could be affordable housing in certain projects .
82 Policy LIV 33 . 3 & Policy Similar policies as Policy LIV 31 . 7 , expect for the
LIV 33 . 7 Downtown.
Housing
86 Policy 37 .3 This polic encourages student housing in
7
Supporting Uses and "Campus Districts" which would provide housing
Housing opportunities for students instead of having
student compete with lower income people for
lower cost housing in older neighborhoods .
Safety and Wellness
99 Policy SW 2 . 5 A policy basis for the City ' s Human Services
Coordinate with Health Program which includes providing funding to
and Human Service social service agencies, many of whom provide
Providers assistance related to affordable housing occupied
by lower income people . The AHB strongly
supports this policy.
High Performing
Community
110 Policy HI 1 .4 Policy promotes diversity and discourages
Promote Inclusion and discrimination. Could help affordable housing
Diversity projects counter neighborhoods who don' t want
"those people" living near them. The AHB
strongly supports this policy.
8
MEMORANDUM
TO : Mayor Hutchinson and Councilmembers
FROM : Eric Levine, Chair, Air Quality Advisory Board
CC : Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Lucinda Smith, AQAB Staff Liaison
DATE : December 29 , 2010
SUBJECT : AQAB Recommendations on City Plan
The Air Quality Advisory Board has been involved in the Plan Fort Collins process and
discussed it at several meetings in 2010 . We previously sent a memo to City Council on
November 10 stating that we had reviewed the air quality policy language in the Plan
Fort Collins draft and that we recommend that the Council adopt the principles and
policies as stated. The Board appreciates the efforts that have been made to coherently
integrate transportation, environment, energy, health and air quality challenges into the
updated proposed City Plan.
At our December 20 meeting, the AQAB developed the following two recommendations
on City Plan for your consideration.
1 . Add an action to "Implement a Comprehensive Environmental Assessment of
Major Development Projects" to the list of Immediate Actions in the City Plan
Action Plan table.
After reviewing the draft City Plan as well as briefly discussing "The Grove", a
residential development proposal that proposes to use electric resistive heating for over
600 residential units, the Board recommends that an item be added to the Immediate
Action list of actions to initiate a process to "Implement a Comprehensive Environmental
Assessment of Major Development Projects . " This action is in support of Policy ENV
11 . 1 that says the City will consider scenarios for lowering climate impacts in all major
planning efforts that impact greenhouse gas emissions .
Comment to Immediate Action section of Plan Fort Collins
Comprehensive Environmental Assessment of Maior Development Proiects
The AQAB recommends that Council find a way to ensure that an integrated, comprehensive,
cross-departmental environmental review be performed by the City prior to approving any
major development action to verify all City plans (i. e. Climate Action Plan, Air Quality Plan,
Green Building, etc.) are fully accommodated. This review would also identify existing
policy gaps and lead to improvement and internal consistency in City plans and codes .
Motion passed unanimously 8 -0-0 .
9
2 . Modify street over-sizing fee to support transit and develop a more sustainable
way to fund street maintenance.
When discussing critical needs for transportation funding and recognizing that a new
transportation paradigm is needed to address critical issues such as climate change, peak
oil and an aging population, the board recommends that the street over-sizing fee be
made available to transit as well, not just road capacity building and that a tax or fee be
used to cover all the cost of long-term street maintenance.
Recognizing that the City cannot build its way out of transportation issues, or even properly
maintain our current system, transportation policy should include :
o Street oversizing funds should be modified to include public transit as the means
to meet capacity demand for development and to
o Develop a sustainable tax/fee strategy to cover the long-term costs of street
maintenance and operations .
Motion passed unanimously 8-0-0 .
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions . Thank you for the opportunity
to provide input into City Plan.
10
MEMORANDUM
December 28 , 2010
To : Mayor and City Council
From : Jane Nevrivy , Chair
Art in Public Place Board
Re : City Plan
The Art in Public Places Board (APP ) discussed the City Plan at our regular
meeting on December 15 , 2010 . The APP Board would like to point out that the
APP Pickle Plant Project proposed for the Lincoln Triangle area promotes many
of the Plan Fort Collins themes and objectives .
The Pickle Plant Project will reclaim this abandoned site , which is otherwise
inaccessible for public use , as a visual gateway at the intersection of Mulberry
Street and Riverside Road . The intended message for the artistic aspects of the
project include historic interpretation and community commitment to technology
and green power .
The Pickle Plant solar farm would be a functional , environmental sculpture that
serves as a gateway to downtown Fort Collins . Located along Riverside Road
northwest of Mulberry Street , it would transform the six-acre site of a former
pickle plant that was a local landmark for many decades . In its new use , rows of
photovoltaic panels would convert solar energy to electricity , which would power
the nearby water reclamation facility or be fed into the city ' s power grid . In
cooperation with city engineers and planners , sculptor Robert Tully would help
design the layout of the solar farm so that the project is part art , utility , and
historic marker. It would also support FortZED as an innovative clean energy
project . The site could be used for educational tours as well as potential testing
of new types of solar panels .
The Pickle Plant Project would be a great catalyst for change in the Lincoln
Triangle area . Art is often used to initiate transformation . This unique gateway
project will introduce Fort Collins as a world class cultural destination that is also
dedicated to clean energy technology .
11
Date: December 20, 2010
To : Ken Waido
From: John P . Morris
Chair, Fort Collins Electric Board
Re : Electric Board Inputs to the 19 November 2010 Draft City Plan
Ken,
The Electric Board is pleased to provide feedback and inputs to the Draft City Plan.
On the whole, the Board supports the Plan, which substantially captures critical elements the
Board believes are needed to enable the 2009 Energy Policy, as well as the 2008 Climate Action
Plan.
Board members would also like to offer specific feedback on several items:
• Recognizing substantial challenges facing the Utility and the City in meeting Goal #2 of
the Energy Policy, " Support the community 's carbon emissions goal of reducing the
City 's carbon footprint 20% below 2005 levels by 2020 and 80% by 2050, " the Electric
Board believes that details related to actions and funding mechanisms used to meet this
goal may be a critical element in securing the support of our citizens.
• The Board also recommends that related indicators shown on page 24, Carbon Emissions
and Energy Consumption, both be described and tracked on a per capita basis .
• Regarding ENV 5 . 1 the Board would like to suggest that the verbiage be adjusted to read,
" . . .where technically and economically practical, " instead of " . . .wherever feasible. "
• Three members of the Board expressed an opinion that incentives mentioned in ENV 5 .7
Offer Incentives should include a variety of incentive and should not always be
monetary incentives.
• Board members disagreed on whether Principle ENV 11 puts the city at an economic
disadvantage due to increased energy costs. Some members of the Board believe that
Principle ENV 11 puts the city at an economic disadvantage due to increased energy
costs, especially if nearby municipalities do not adopt similar goals and thus offer lower
electric rates. Other Board members believe the Principle actually creates an economic
advantage for the City
• Recognizing that Electric Vehicle adoption may not reach expectations, the Board
suggests that Action 31 of Administrative Items (page 145) be written, "Develop public
electric vehicle charging stations as needed. "
Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on the Draft City Plan.
Cc : Brian Janonis, Utilities Executive Director
Steve Catanach, Light & Power Operations Manager
12
Plan Fort Collins
Landmark Preservation Commission Comments
1/3/2011
December 8 , 2010
• Shouldn' t policies include language on "embodied energy" (yes, Policy LIV 17 .2
does) .
• Should the LPC adopt the Historic Preservation Program Assessment Report
actions?
• Is there another word for the word "enhanced" in Principle LIV 17? (Some LPC
members think word needs changing, others do not) .
• Page 50 — change caption or replace photo : don 't think the residence shown in the
photo complements the surrounding neighborhood (too large, out of scale) .
• Would like staff to come back to LPC on January 12 with any word changes
13
Senior Advisory Board Comments
Dear Mayor Hutchinson and Members of Council :
On behalf of the Senior Advisory Board, I am writing to share our views of the Public
Review Draft of Plan Fort Collins .
We recognize the enormous size and scope of the project and appreciate the time, effort
and energy that have gone into the Plan. We are grateful, too, for your efforts to make the
Plan Fort Collins process transparent and inclusive . Throughout the process, the Senior
Advisory Board (SAB) has received briefings from staff regarding the Plan and our
Members have participated in many events hosted in the community.
The SAB is pleased that many of the issues of concern to us and to our constituents—
articulated in letters and at events received favorable consideration. Those policies that
we sought and which are included in the Draft Plan are listed on the attachment. Thanks
to the Plan Fort Collins team for addressing these matters .
We also appreciate that the forthcoming change in demographics—growth of the city ' s
65 -plus population from 8% in 2010 to 19% in 2030—is so clearly articulated and
accounted for within the Plan. In particular, the Pedestrian Plan focuses on
accommodating our growing population of seniors .
That said, there are three topics that we believe deserve additional consideration:
First is the opportunity to Promote Fort Collins as a Retirement Destination. Sections of
the Plan covering Economic Health Initiatives could be enhanced if policies were
expanded to recognize that Fort Collins is a highly desirable place to retire and that the
influx of mid-life and older adults brings considerable value to the community. Newly-
retired individuals attracted to Fort Collins are a boon to the economy—not only do they
bring money to spend, but they are resources for part/full-time employment, as well as
volunteerism. In addition, their needs stimulate the services sector of the economy
(including many businesses that cater specifically to seniors) .
Second, the Fort Collins Senior Center is already recognized as a world class facili . , and
it should be widely_promoted as such. Policy CPR 4 . 1 speaks generally to world-class
facilities . Why not include the Senior Center as a tangible example in this section? The
Fort Collins Senior Center has been accredited by the National Council on Aging and the
National Institute of Senior Centers. It is one of only two accredited senior centers in
Colorado . Voters recently approved Building on Basics, which will fund expansion of the
Center beginning in 2014 . Private fundraising efforts to supplement public monies are
underway, and these are critical to making the Senior Center Expansion even more
successful. The Senior Center is a centerpiece of the city' s efforts to continue to meet the
needs of changing population (CPR 5 . 1 ), and Council ' s support of this facility is
welcome .
14
Third, the SAB strongly encourages that the area around the Senior Center be demarcated
as an "Activity Center" when it considers Immediate Actions, Targeted Infill and
Redevelopment Map Update (page 129) . This would mean it would be, "well supported
by transit service and provide a high quality of a pedestrian-oriented environment". This
seems appropriate with the presence of the Senior Center, surrounding senior residences,
the proposed near-by student housing and the existing commercial establishments . The
Pedestrian Plan does include this area on the "Draft Pedestrian Facilities Map" as an
"Updated Pedestrian District" .
The Senior Advisory Board appreciates this opportunity to provide additional feedback
on Plan Fort Collins . We look forward to continuing to share input and to be involved in
future discussions .
Very truly yours,
Cherrie Thornton
Secretary, Senior Advisory Board
15
Senior Community Issues in Plan Fort Collins supported by the Senior Advisory Board
Community Livability-Principle 7 Housing Policies
LIV 7 . 3 Encourage Accessory Housing Unit Development
LIV 7 . 5 Address Special Needs Housing
LIV 7 . 6 Basic Access
Community Livability-Principle 8 Affordable Housing
LIV 8 . 1 Maintain Affordable Housing Programs
LIV 8 .4 Retain Existing Affordable Housing Programs
LIV 8 . 5 Integrate and Distribute Affordable Housing
Community Livability-Principle 10 Streetscapes
LIV 10 . 1 Design Safe, Functional, and Visually Appealing Streets
LIV 10 . 3 Tailor Street Lighting
Community Livability-Public Areas
LIV 11 .2 Incorporate Public Spaces
LIV 12 . 1 Design for Crime Prevention and Security
Community Livability-Principle 21 Neighborhoods
LIV 2 1 . 1 Interconnected Streets and Pedestrian Network
LIV 21 .2 DesignWalkable Blocks
LIV 21 . 3 Calm traffic
LIV 21 .4 Provide Access to Transit
Community Livability-Principle 31 Commercial District Design and Character
LIV 31 .4 Design for Pedestrian Activity
Safety and Wellness-Principle 2 Healthy & Active Lifestyles
SW 2 . 6 Consider Location of and Transportation to Health and Human Services
Culture, Parks, Recreation-Principle 2 Promote Downtown
CPR 2 . 1 Promote Visibility of the Arts and Culture
Culture, Parks, Recreation-Principle 3 Cultural Education and Participation
16
CPR 3 .2 Support Educational Programming and Participation
Culture, Parks, Recreation-Principle 4 Recreation
CPR 4 . 1 , Provide World Class Facilities
Culture, Parks, Recreation-Principle 5 Adapt to Changing Community
CPR 5 . 1 Address Changing Needs
Transportation-Principle 3 Planning Decision-making
T 3 . 1 Pedestrian Mobility
Transportation-Principle 8 Healthy Lifestyles
T 8 . 1 Support Active Transportation
T 8 .2 Design for Active Living
Transportation-Principle 10 Transit: Safe, Affordable, Easy, Convenient
T 10 . 1 Transit Stops
T 10 . 7 Access to Health and Human Services
T 10 . 10 Regional Connections
Transportation-Principle 11 Bicycling
T 11 . 5 Enforcement
Transportation-Principle 12 Pedestrian Network
T 12 . 1 Conections
T 12 .4 ADA Compliance
T 12 . 5 Safe and Secure
T 12 . 6 Street Crossings
Transportation-Principle 29 Programs that Establish Awareness of Transportation Safety
will be Promoted
T 29 . 1 Bicycle Safety
T 29 .2 Pedestrian Safety
17
Water Board Comments
18
ATTACHMENT 2
Appendix I
Capital Improvement Plan Documentation
Plan %NFort Collins
Capital Improvement Plan Documentation
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN ( CIP ) UPDATE PROCESS
What is the CIP ?
The Transportation Capital Improvement Plan presents the list of transportation projects that are needed to
achieve the visions of the TMP . The projects represent all modes of transportation , and range from projects that
address existing basic deficiencies to those necessary in the future to achieve the high standards of world class
city. The CIP is also a tool that facilitates the allocation resources based on project prioritization reflecting the
TMP visions and community needs .
How to Use the CIP
The CIP list and spreadsheet tool are dynamic , and should reflect changes in city vision , transportation needs ,
and resource availability. The CIP update process includes the following steps :
• Update the projects list
• Reassess project cost and benefits
• Reassess the relative weight of each scoring category to reflect changes in city priorities
• Re-sort project lists based on revised input
• Identify high priority projects within each category
• Identify funding resource needs and gaps
What are the " New " Ideas in the CIP ?
The transportation Capital Improvement Plan (CIP ) has been updated to include environmental , economic , and
social factors as project prioritization criteria in conjunction with the traditional transportation criteria . The TMP
update organizes the Vision , Principles , and Policies in a logical , concise manner. The CIP identifies pertinent
criteria reflecting the Vision , Principles , and Policies to assess and evaluate each projects' potential to enable the
visions . Through this process a number of " new" ideas emerged , including :
• Developing new criteria to reflect the Triple Bottom Line approach
• Establishing a direct connection between the CIP criteria and the TMP Vision , Principles , and Policies
• Developing a short-term , high priority CIP project list (5-6yr)
• Implementing a 2-year update cycle to more regularly update the project list
• Developing an improved CIP project evaluation tool
• Inclusion of operations and maintenance cost considerations
• Developing a City-wide Capital Improvement Plan to integrate transportation , utilities , parks , cultural and
recreational facilities , City facilities , and other capital needs as appropriate
How Are The CIP Criteria Linked to the TMP ?
A new matrix format illustrates the linkages between the TMP Vision , Principles , and Policies , and the CIP Criteria
and Measures that inform project decisions and reporting on progress .
Vision , Principle , Policy , and Measure Matrix
The TMP Vision , Principle , Policy, and Measure (VPPM ) Matrix represents a significant effort to reorganize and
consolidate the previous planning direction statements , without changing their intent. The information has been
Capital Improvement Plan Documentation 1
Plan %NFort Collins
reorganized to better convey the intent of the vision by directly relating it to the relevant principles and policies
and show the alignment among the vision , principles , policies , and measures .
The TMP VPPM matrix conveys ideas succinctly. Vision statements can be concise since the related principles
help clarify and further define the vision . Likewise , principle statements can be concise since the subsequent
policies help clarify and further define the principles . The policies do not contain language outlining all of the
strategies that might be used to enact the policies , principles and visions ; rather, separate action plans do that.
And finally, the measures that assess performance relative to the policies , principles , and ultimately the vision are
identified separately and in alignment with the desired outcomes .
Note that two basic types of measures are needed . One type is needed to assess how well individual projects ,
strategies , or programs would help the City achieve its visions . These are termed CIP Criteria and may be used
to determine individual project's priority in the CIP list. Another type of measure would be used to assess how
well the City has achieved its visions and what level of progress is being made through implementation . These
are termed Progress Measures , and they are defined and incorporated into the measuring progress section of
the TMP .
Policies
Vision Principles
Categories
se and
Transportation
Measures
Mobility
Options
QualityTravel
Infrastructure
Increase
Awareness Oil
How Will The Matrix Be Used ?
The matrix helps illustrate how the Vision is connected to the Principles , the Principles to the Policies , and the
Policies to Measures and Criteria . The nearly direct connection from measures to visions is easy to observe and
facilitates a better understanding of how the measures will be applied . The matrix was used to consolidate the
information in the TMP , making the TMP easier to comprehend .
It also forms the basis for the revised CIP tool . The CIP will now have a much more direct connection to the
overall TMP . Project prioritization will be based largely on maximizing the overall attainment of the transportation
vision as determined by each individual projects' ability to address the vision , principles and policies .
Capital Improvement Plan Documentation 2
Plan Fort Collins
I
The matrix also provides a convenient tool to identify and track action items . Some principles and policies do not
have any associated measures , but they instead present direction or strategy to achieve the vision . Regardless
of whether the principles and policies have measures , many of them have particular tasks that need to be carried
out by City staff. These can be documented and tracked in an additional column in the matrix.
CIP Ranking Process
The figure below illustrates the process being used to prioritize projects . It includes an initial assessment of the
immediacy of need based on three categories :
1 . Existing or immediate need
2 . Midterm future need or necessary only in conjunction with significant land development
3 . Long term planning or forecasted need
Next, projects are evaluated at the Vision level for an initial sorting . That is , projects are assessed on how well
they help the city achieve each of its five vision areas . They are scored qualitatively, taking into account the
general vision statement and the underlying principals of the vision . Scores were generally arrived at in a group
setting with input from key participants of the staff sub team . Based on the initial scores projects are sorted into
high , medium , and low priority.
In addition , project costs including operations and maintenance were assessed on an order magnitude basis to
categorize projects into one of the following six cost categories .
1 . < $250 , 000
2 . $250 , 000 - $ 1 , 000 , 000
3 . $ 170007000 - $510001000
4 . $570007000 - $ 107000 , 000
5 . $ 1070007000 - $207000 , 000
6 . > $20 , 000 , 000
A combination of cost and vision level scoring was used in the prioritization process which resulted in a cost
adjusted vision score . This adjustment allowed for large projects with a high impact on the cities visions to be
compared with smaller projects which do not have as much of an impact on the City' s visions .
Capital Improvement Project Prioritization Process
Immediate Projects Immediate Projects P Prioritized Immediate Projects
V r
I
i n
04W s C
i {
o P
n
Medium Term Projects C Medium Term Projects a Prioritized Medium Term Projects
nign „eo
r C
i r
e t
r e
i _ r
Long Term Projects a Long Term Projer tc, a Prinrit17ed LongTerm Projects
high med C
$ C
S o
s
t
Capital Improvement Plan Documentation 3
Man J Fort Collins
Project Consolidation
A very large undertaking , the list of projects exceeded 700 at one point. To facilitate a more efficient review
process many projects were consolidated into ` programs ' which were then evaluated on their aggregated ability to
achieve the City' s visions . For instance , railroad grade crossing improvements were consolidated in this list into
several upgrade ` programs' , rather than list each individual grade crossing that is planned for upgrades . This was
done for:
• Intersection Improvements
• ATMS projects
• Bicycle projects
• Bridge projects
• Pedestrian projects
• Railroad grade crossing upgrades
• Transit projects .
Roadway and parking projects were all scored individually.
Capital Improvement Plan Documentation 4
Plan %NFort Collins
Project Costs and Revenue Summary
The following table lists the six year and 25 year plan funding for project categories where available . Short term
cost consists of total costs of all immediate tier one project type , and long term cost consists of total cost of all
projects . Some project cost estimates were not available to date and are not included in these calculations .
The six year funding shortfall is expected to be in excess of $ 193 million . The short term project funding needs
are clearly and dramatically in excess of the anticipated available revenue . Short term project costs are the sum
of costs for all those projects identified as have Tier 1 needs , i . e . , immediate or existing needs . Short term
funding sources are based on funding that has been allocated specifically to Bicycle , Pedestrian , and Intersection
improvements , along with the anticipated six year revenue stream from the capital project portion of 2B and the
Street Oversizing Fund .
The long term funding shortfall is expected to be in excess of $853 million , inclusive of the short term funding
gap . The long term project funding needs are also dramatically in excess of the anticipated available revenue .
Long term project costs are the sum of costs for all those projects identified in the CIP list, and encompass
existing needs , midterm needs , and long term or planned project needs . Long term funding sources are based on
funding that has been allocated specifically to Bicycle , Pedestrian , and Intersection improvements , along with the
anticipated 25 year revenue stream from the capital project portion of 2B and the Street Oversizing Fund .
While the City is appreciative of local support for existing and new transportation funding initiatives , the short term
and long term funding gaps represent an annual gap of $32 to $34 million per year from now through 2035 . It
also signifies that less than 12 to 15 percent of the needed capital project funding revenue has been secured .
Allocated revenue in the table shows known funding for each category in each term and also shows known capital
funding from other sources such as 2B and the Street Oversizing Fund .
CIP Summary Table (2011 - 2035) (All Values are 000 000
Short Term (2011 -2016) Long Term (through 2035)
Category* am MhEM Cost 6;AJ;1;cQMff Gap
ATMS $ 1 . 5 $ - $ 11 . 5 $ -
Bike $ 18. 5 $ 0 . 5 $ 18 . 0 $ 98 . 5 $ 0 . 5 $ 98. 0
Bride $ 20. 0 $ - $ 20 . 0 $ -
Intersections $ 27. 5 $ 6 . 5 $ 21 . 0 $ 27 . 5 $ 6 . 5 $ 21 . 0
Parking $ 8 . 5 $ - $ 52 . 0 $ -
Pedestrian TBD $ 1 . 2 TBD $ 1 . 2
Railroad $ 21 . 5 $ - $ 62 . 0 $ -
Roadway $ 129. 5 $ - $ 705 . 0 $ -
OEM 'WRevenue
CIP Revenue Sources
213 - Resourcing Our
Future tax revenue" $ 2 . 3 $ 4 . 1
Street Oversizing Fund -
291 $ 23 . 3 $ 110 . 5
MIL.A. Total Cost Total Revenue
Total $ 227.0 $ 33 .7 $ ( 193.3) $ 976.5 $ 122 .9 $ (853.6)
* Transit costs are excluded due a large percentage of costs associated with Operation & Maintenance (O&M ). Five year capital and O&M
costs for transit projects are $ 128 million.
** Assumes $375,000 per year until 2022 towards capital projects based on 2010/2011 funding . This could vary in future years .
Capital Improvement Plan Documentation 5
Pjan J Fort Collins
Next Steps
The process of ranking projects on vision level scoring has created high level classifications of projects , but there
are still further steps which could be taken to refine the ranking , better identify a fiscally constrained list, and
assist with the project selection process :
• Evaluate the highest need , highest priority projects in greater detail , involving the assessment of projects
at the more detailed principle and policy level .
• Refine cost estimates for the highest need , highest priority projects
• Revise several of the programs containing multiple projects :
o Limit the number of projects in each program group to maintain manageable size and budgets
o Group closely related projects that complement each other
• Implement a more refined method for prioritizing projects among different project types
• Adjust category weighting to reflect outcomes measured over time
• Develop a City-wide Capital Improvement Plan to integrate transportation , utilities , parks , cultural and
recreational facilities , City facilities , and other capital needs as appropriate
Capital Improvement Plan Documentation 6
Pjan J Fort Collins
CIP List Legend
Using the newly developed CIP tool , all individual projects and grouped projects (programs) were ranked against
other projects of the same category. The CIP tables show a prioritized list for each of the project categories with
summary attributes of the scoring process . The CIP tool is flexible in this process and could be used to rank all
project types against each other, but this will require careful calibration .
The first four columns of each table have descriptor attributes of the project including Location/Program , From ,
To , and Description . For some project types , the Location/Program field describes the program of projects , and
for other project types it describes the street or intersection of the project. The From and To fields are used as
descriptors for the start and end of some projects . The Description field gives additional information for many of
the projects .
The Tier column of each table is an initial assessment of the immediacy of need base on three categories :
1 . Existing or immediate need
2 . Midterm future need or necessary only in conjunction with significant land development
3 . Long term planning or forecasted need
In the Cost Magnitude column , project costs including operations and maintenance were assessed on an order
magnitude basis to categorize projects into one of the following six cost categories .
1 . < $2507000
2 . $250 , 000 - $ 1 , 000 , 000
3 . $ 1 , 000 , 000 - $510001000
4 . $5 , 000 ) 000 - $ 101000 ) 000
5 . $ 10 , 000 , 000 - $20 , 000 , 000
6 . > $20 , 000 , 000
The Cost Adjusted Vision Score column was calculated based on how well the project scored in each of the five
vision areas , and the score was adjusted by a factor that reflects the cost magnitude of the project.
The Cost Adjusted Category column indicates a priority level of High , Medium , or Low, based on the Cost
Adjusted Vision Score . The break point for this classification is different for each project category to allow for
differences in the ranking process between categories .
The Cumulative Cost column displays a running total of projects in the category rounded to the nearest $500 , 000 .
This column is limited by the accuracy of cost estimation of some projects , but it provides an indication of which
projects can be funded as well as the total funding needs for each category.
Each of the nine project categories are sorted in separate tables based on type and then sorted by tier and cost
adjusted vision score . Only projects of the same tier were ranked against each other. These high level scores do
not imply the level of granularity that they may suggest, and a more detailed cost analysis as well as finer leveled
principle level scoring on projects near the top of the list could result in a more precise ranking .
Capital Improvement Plan Documentation 7
Pla ns
Traffic Signal System (ATMS) CIP List
Traffic signal system projects , otherwise known as Automated Traffic Management Systems (ATMS ) , were
divided into a combination of grouped intersections and other specific individual projects . Grouped projects , or
programs , were ranked on their cumulative impact and cost magnitude , and a specific ranking process was used
to prioritize the projects within each program . Tier one programs are considered immediate needs and tier three
programs are longer term projects . An individual project listing for each program is located in this appendix.
17 High Priority Install video
Video Detection detection to 2 16.0 High $ 0 .5
Intersections replace inductive
loops
23 Serial Radio Replacement of
Intersections Serial Radios with 1 12. 0 Medium $ 0 .5
Ethernet Radios
Convert from
3 Signalized NEMA to 2070 1 12.0 Medium $ 0 .5
Intersections Signal
Controller/Cabinet
Install Countdown
Countdown Ped Pedestrian Signal
Heads Heads at 131 2 12. 0 Medium $ 1 .0
signalized
intersections
Minor Concrete
Work to provide
Pushbutton access to
Accessibility pedestrian 2 8 .0 Low $ 1 .0
Project pushbuttons on
100 signalized
intersection
corners
Convert from
32 Pedestrian NEMA to 2070 2 8 .0 Low $ 1 .5
Signal Locations Signal
Controller/Cabinet
Traffic Replace Video
Operations Wall 3 1 16. 8 High $ 1 .5
Center
50 Medium Install video
Priority Video detection to 3 3 12. 0 Medium $ 2 .5
Detection replace inductive
Intersections loops
63 Low Priority Install video
Video Detection detection to 3 3 10. 3 Low $ 4 .0
Intersections replace inductive
loops
Traffic
Operations Traffic Operations
Management Management 3 4 6.0 Low $ 11 .5
Center Center Expansion
Expansion
Capital Improvement Plan Documentation 8
Plan %NFort Collins
Bicycle CIP List
Bicycle projects were grouped into Bicycle Improvements Program Tier 1 (funded ) , Bicycle Improvements
Program Tier 1 (unfunded ) , Bicycle Improvements Program Tier 2 , and Bicycle Improvements Program Tier 3 .
The Tier 1 improvements program was split to allow for known funding of $500 , 000 to be assigned to a separate
program . Projects contained within the tiers will be further prioritized in a separate process using more detailed
criteria . A table containing the individual bicycle projects within each tier is located in this appendix .
Bicycle Funded projects
Improvements from the 12 tier 1 1 2 24.3 High
Program Tier 1 $ 0 . 5
(funded ) Projects
Funded
Bicycle Unfunded projects
Improvements from the 12 tier 1 1 5 16.2 Medium $ 18 . 5
Program Tier 1 Projects
unfunded
Bicycle
Improvements 7 Projects 3 6 12 .6 Medium $ 58 . 5
Program Tier 2
Bicycle Projects included
in 2004 CIP that
Improvements are not included in 3 6 11 .2 Low $ 98 .5
Program Tier 3 2011 hot list
Capital Improvement Plan Documentation 9
Plan %NFort Collins
Bridge CIP List
A bridge project list was created which consists of bringing all deficient bridges located throughout the City up to
acceptable standards . Individual cost estimates were not available for all projects , but the collective cost of all
bridge projects are in the top cost magnitude category of more than $20 , 000 , 000 . The calculated score reflects
the cumulative benefit of building all bridges in the category. A table containing the individual bridge projects is
located in this appendix .
This project
consists of
Deficient bridge bringing all
list located deficient bridges
throughout the located 6 15.2 High $ 20 . 0
City throughout the
City up to
acceptable
standards
Capital Improvement Plan Documentation 10
Pjan j Fort Collins
Intersections CIP List
Intersections were grouped into three tiers containing various arterial intersection improvements prioritized
through the Intersection Priority Study. Cost and vision scores were calculated considering the cumulative benefit
of all intersection improvements contained within the program tier. A few individual intersections were also scored
as part of the process . A table containing individual intersections within the intersection improvement tiers is
located in this appendix .
Group of various 'F
arterial
Intersection intersection
Improvements improvements 4 15.5 High $ 6 . 5
Program , Tier 1 prioritized
through
Intersection Funded
Priorit Stud
Group of various
arterial
Intersection intersection
Improvements improvements 4 12 .3 Medium $ 13 . 0
Program , Tier 2 prioritized
through
Intersection
Priority Stud
Group of various
arterial
Intersection intersection
Improvements improvements 4 11 .5 Low $ 19 . 5
Program , Tier 3 prioritized
through
Intersection
Priority Stud
College and intersection 3 9.7 Low $ 23 . 5
Drake improvements
College and intersection 3 9. 7 Low $ 27 . 5
Horsetooth improvements
Capital Improvement Plan Documentation 11
Pjan J Fort Collins
Parking CIP List
Parking projects were prioritized using parking improvements categories consisting of individual projects grouped
according to project need .
Parking CIP List
%
7
• . . ostd Cost (in
Category
Vision Score
Downtown parking 1 4 15.0 Medium $ 8 .5
improvements
Downtown parking 4 15.0 $ 17 .0
improvements
additional
Harmony/1 -25 park and ride 3 3 15.7 High $ 18 .0
parking
spaces
Downtown parking 3 4 15.0 Medium $ 25 .5
improvements
Downtown parking 3 4 15.0 Medium $ 34 .0
improvements
Downtown parking 3 4 15.0 Medium $ 42 .5
improvements
Downtown parking 3 4 15.0 Medium $ 51 .0
improvements
Mulberry/1 -25 new park and 3 3 14.6 Medium $ 52 .0
ride facility
Capital Improvement Plan Documentation 12
Pjan J Fort Collins
Pedestrian CIP List
Pedestrian projects were grouped in six programs . Immediate needs projects were categorized as sidewalk ,
path/trail , or pedestrian crossing programs , while longer term needs were categorized into the same three types
of programs . Programs were scored according to the cumulative impacts towards the City' s visions . Detailed
cost estimates for each project were not available but will be incorporated . A table containing a listing of
individual projects within each program is located in this appendix .
pExistingNeed Existing
Sidewalk needs of 38 TBD TBD Not Calculated $ -
Projects Sidewalk
projects
Existing Need Existing
Path/Trail needs of TBD TBD Not Calculated $ -
Projects Path/trail
projects
Existing Need Existing
Ped X-ing needs of 3 TBD TBD Not Calculated $Projects ped X-in
Forecasted Forecasted
Need needs of 1 3 TBD TBD Not Calculated $ -
Path/Trail Path/trail
Projects projects
Forecasted Forecasted
Need needs of 31 3 TBD TBD Not Calculated $ -
Sidewalk Sidewalk
Projects projects
Forecasted Forecasted
Need Ped X- needs of 1 3 TBD TBD Not Calculated $ -
ing Projects ped X-in
Capital Improvement Plan Documentation 13
Plan %NFort Collins
Railroad CIP List
Railroad projects were categorized into three programs which each contain several projects . Additionally, a few
other crossings and grade separation projects were also scored individually. A breakdown of the projects within
each program is located in this appendix .
Railroad CIP List
Location I Adjusted Cost Cumulative
Program From To Descript'olnlo Cloastnitudel VC iossi to n Adjusted Cost ( in
Score Category millions)
Tier 1 Annual RR
crossing
improvement
program : BNSF -
Trilby, Prospect, At Grade
Cherry, Laurel ; Crossing 3 8 .6 High $ 1 . 5
UPRR - Lincoln , Upgrades
Prospect,
Horsetooth ,
Cherry, Mulberry,
Drake
UPRR Railroad railroad quiet
Crossings Lincoln Linden zone crossing 2 6.3 Medium $ 2 . 5
improvements
BNSF Railroad railroad quiet
Crossings Trilby Laurel zone crossing 3 5.4 Low $ 6 . 5
improvements
BNSF Railroad railroad quiet
Crossings Laurel Vine zone crossing 1 5 4.2 Low $ 21 . 5
improvements
Drake UPRR RR bike/ped 5 8 .2
grade separation $ 36 . 5
Tier 2 Annual RR
crossing
improvement
program : BNSF -
Timberline ,
Cherry, Laporte, At Grade
W Drake , W Crossing 3 7 .7 . $ 38 . 0
Horsetooth , Upgrades
Willow, Mountain ,
Maple , Lemay,
Lincoln , Vine ,
UPRR: Lemay,
Carpenter, Maple
Tier 3 Annual RR
crossing
improvement
program : BNSF -
Swallow, At Grade
Mountain Vista , Crossing 3 3 6.9 Medium $ 39 . 5
North Mason , Upgrades
CR52 , Linden ,
UPRR: Willox,
Hemlock,
Hickory, Trilby
Mountain Vista BNSF RR grade 3 4 3 .8 Low $ 47 . 0
separation
Sharpe Point GNRR RR crossing 3 4 3 .8 Low $ 54 . 5
Drive
Greenfield Ct. RR
RR
g atdi e 3 4 3 .8 Low $ 62 . 0
Capital Improvement Plan Documentation 14
Pjan J Fort Collins
Roadway CIP List
Roadway projects were scored individually on how well they contribute to the City' s visions and on cost
magnitude estimates . Projects were prioritized with other projects in the same tier.
Roadway '
Location . .
. .
Realigned College Lemay build new 4L 1 4 18. 3 Hig $ 8 . 0
Vine arterial
upgrade to
College Conifer Willox 4L arterial 1 4 15. 3 High $ 16 . 0
standards
upgrade to
Lincoln Riverside Lemay 2L arterial 1 4 15. 3 High $ 22 . 0
standards
upgrade to
Harmony College Boardwalk 6L Arterial 1 4 14. 3 High $ 30. 5
standards
upgrade to
LaPorte Impala Taft Hill 2L arterial 1 3 12.9 High $ 31 . 5
standards
upgrade from
LaPorte GMA Impala CR to 2L 1 3 12.9 High $ 35.0
arterial
upgrade from
2L to 4L
arterial - with
Trilby Lemay Timberline grade- 1 4 12. 5 High $ 42 . 0
separated
RR crossing
(see Railroad
CIP List
upgrade to
Linden Jefferson Redwood collector 1 3 12. 3 High $ 43 . 5
standards
upgrade to
collector
Willow College Lincoln (Downtown 1 3 12. 3 High $ 44 . 5
River District)
standards
Lemay and build grade-
BNSF separated
Railroad RR crossing 1 6 11 .2 Medium $ 64 . 5
Tracks (see Railroad
CIP)
upgrade to
Elizabeth Overland Taft Hill 2L arterial 1 4 10. 5 Medium $ 72 . 0
standards
upgrade to
LaPorte Taft Hill Shields 2L arterial 1 5 9 .8 Medium $ 87. 0
standards
upgrade to
Buckingham Linden Lemay collector 1 3 9 .4 Medium $ 89. 0
standards
upgrade to
Prospect College Lemay 4L arterial 1 4 9 .3 Medium $ 97. 0
standards
upgrade to
Vine Taft Hill Shields 21. arterial 3 8 .9 Medium $ 101 .0
standards
Capital Improvement Plan Documentation 15
Plan Fort Collins
NIP! eF7 F
upgrade from
Trilby College Lemay 21. to 41. 1 3 7 .7 Low $ 105 . 0
arterial
upgrade to
Shields LaPorte Vine 2L arterial 1 3 6.6 Low $ 108 . 0
standards
upgrade to
Taft Hill LaPorte Vine 21. arterial 1 1 3 6.0 Low $ 110 . 0
standards
State upgrade to
Country Club Highway 1 Lemay collector 1 3 5.4 Low $ 113 .0
standards
upgrade to
Country Club Lemay Turnberry collector 1 4 4.8 Low $ 118 .0
standards
upgrade to
Drake Harvard Stover 41. arterial 1 3 2 .3 Low $ 120 .0
standards
upgrade from
Timberline Carpenter Trilby 2L to 4L 1 4 1 .5 Low $ 127 .5
arterial
upgrade to
LaPorte Shields Wood 21. arterial 1 3 -0. 6 Low $ 129 .5
standards
Realigned Lemay Timberline build new 4L 4 21 .5 $ 135 .5
Vine arterial
Timberline Realigned build 4L
Realignment Vine Giddings arterial 4 18.0 . $ 142 .5
realignment
Summit upgrade from
Prospect View 1 -25 2L arterial to 4 16.5 $ 150 .0
4L arterial
Avondale Triangle College build new 2 16.0 $ 150 .5
collector
Troutman Seneca Shields build new 3 15.7
collector $ 152 .0
Battle upgrade from
Timberline Kechter Creek Dr 2L to 4L 3 15.4 . $ 154 .0
arterial
Trilby Westchase Ziegler build new 3 15.4 $ 156 .0
collector
upgrade from
21. collector
to 41. arterial
Realigned with
Lemay Lincoln intersection 6 15.2 . $ 179 .0
Vine re-alignment
and RR
grade
separation
Mountain Bar Harbor upgrade to
Vista Turnberry Extended 21. arterial 3 13.7 • $ 182 .0
standards
Sharp Point Midpoint Mileshouse build new 3 13.7 . $ 184 .0
collector
Capital Improvement Plan Documentation 16
Plan Fort Collins
b7p . •
upgrade from
21. to 41.
arterial -
includes
Mountain Giddings 1 -25 realignment 5 13.3 $ 194 .0
Vista and grade-
separated
RR crossing
(see Railroad
CIP List
Mountain Douglas upgrade from
Turnberry Vista Road CR to 21. 3 12.9 . $ 196 .0
arterial
upgrade to
Aran Skyway Saturn collector 1 12.8 . $ 196 .0
standards
Strauss upgrade from
Cabin Harmony Horsetooth CR to 21. 3 12. 6 $ 198 . 5
arterial
Strauss upgrade from
Horsetooth Ziegler Cabin Rd CR to 2L 3 12. 3 . $ 201 .5
arterial
Strauss upgrade to
Cabin Kechter Harmony 21. arterial 3 12. 0 Medium $ 204 .0
standards
upgrade from
Timberline Trilby Kechter 2L to 4L 5 12. 0 Medium $ 219 .0
arterial
Conifer Lemay Timberline build new 2L 5 11 . 6 Medium $ 234 .0
Extension arterial
Snow Mesa Timberwood Ridge build new 2 11 . 0 Medium $ 234 .5
Creek collector
upgrade to
International Bannock Timberline 21- arterial 3 10.9 Medium $ 237 .5
standards
International Timberline Greenfields build new 2L 3 10.9 Medium $ 238 .5
arterial
upgrade from
Prospect 1 -25 GMA 2L to 4L 3 10.9 Medium $ 241 .5
arterial
Timberline build grade-
and BNSF separated
Railroad RR crossing 6 10.2 Medium $ 261 .5
Tracks (see Railroad
CIP
upgrade from
College Carpenter Trilby 4L to 6L 5 9 .8 Medium $ 272 .5
arterial
Fossil upgrade from
College Trilby Creek 41. to 6L 5 9 .8 Medium $ 283 .0
arterial
Nancy Gray Bucking Mileshouse build new 2 9 .7 Medi $ 283 .5
Horse collector
Capital Improvement Plan Documentation 17
Plan Fort Collins
mF7
Mountain build grade-
Vista and separated
BNSF RR crossing 6 9 .6 Medium $ 303 . 5
Railroad (see Railroad
Tracks CIP)
Realigned upgrade from
Lemay Vine Conifer 2L to 4L 4 9 . 5 Medium $ 311 . 0
arterial
upgrade to
Kechter Timberline Ziegler 2L arterial 3 9 .4 Medium $ 314 .0
standards
New Vine Conifer build new 3 9 .4 Medium $ 318 .0
Roadway collector
William Neal Chase Ziegler build new 3 9 .4 Medium $ 319 .0
collector
Bar Harbor Mountain Conifer build new 3 9 .4 Medium $ 322 .0
Vista collector
Mileshouse Nancy Gray Drake build new 3 9 .4 Medium $ 325 .0
collector
New Trilby Skyway build new 3 9 .4 Medium $ 327 .0
Roadway collector
Technology Harmony Rock build new 3 9 .4 Medium $ 329 .0
Creek collector
Aran Trilby Skyway build new 3 9 . 1 Medium $ 331 .0
collector
Richards upgrade from
Lake Turnberry Giddings CR to 2L 3 8 .3 Medium $ 334 .0
arterial
International Lincoln Bannock build new 2L 6 7 .6 Low $ 354 .0
arterial
Strauss upgrade to
Kechter Cabin Rd 1 -25 2L arterial 3 7 . 1 Low $ 356 .0
standards
County upgrade from
Douglas Road 13 Turnberry CR to 2L 3 6.6 Low $ 358 .5
arterial 41
Soft Gold upgrade to
Hickory College Park collector 3 6.6 Low $ 361 .5
Trailhead standards
Timberwood Timberline Snow build new 3 6.6 L $ 363 .0
Dr Extension Mesa collector
Redwood? Wilox State build new 3 5.4 Low $ 367 .0
Highway 1 collector
Redwood Willox Country build new Club collector 3 5.4 Low $ 369 .0
Richards upgrade from
Lake Giddings 1-25 CR to 2L 3 5.4 Lo $ 371 .5
arterial
Swallow Taft Hill Bassick build new 3 5.4 Lo $ 373 .0
collector
Capital Improvement Plan Documentation 18
Plan Fort Collins
Roadway ' List
Programr Cost Cost Cumulativ
Location k From To jDe Co Adjusted Adjusted Cost ( in
L Score
M==1a
W- MMM"M
includes
Timberline Sykes Realigned realignment 3 5 14. 0 High $ 383 .5
Vine and grade-
separated
RR crossing
(see Railroad
CIP List
upgrade from
Timberline Harmony Horsetooth 41. to 61. 3 4 13.5 High $ 390 .5
arterial
Summit upgrade from
Mulberry Timberline View 4L to 6L 3 3 12.6 High $ 392 .0
arterial
Fossil upgrade from
College Creek Harmony 41. arterial to 3 4 12. 5 High $ 400 . 5
61. arterial
upgrade from
Timberline Drake Prospect 4L to 6L 3 5 12. 0 Medium $ 411 .5
arterial
upgrade from
Timberline Mulberry Sykes 2L to 4L 3 5 12. 0 Medium $ 426 .5
arterial
upgrade to
Trilby Shields College 2L arterial 3 3 11 . 7 Medium $ 430 .5
standards
upgrade from
Carpenter Lemay Timberline 21. to 4L 3 3 11 .4 Medium $ 434 .5
arterial
County upgrade from
Carpenter Road 9 1 -25 2L to 4L 3 3 11 .4 Medium $ 438 .5
arterial
County upgrade from
Carpenter Timberline Road 9 2L to 4L 3 3 11 .4 Medium $ 442 .5
arterial
upgrade to
Willox Shields College 2L arterial 3 3 11 . 1 Medium $ 445 .5
standards
Country upgrade from
Lemay Conifer Club 2L to 4L 3 4 11 . 0 Medium $ 451 .5
arterial
upgrade to
Riverside Mulberry Lincoln 41. arterial 3 4 11 . 0 Medium $ 457 .5
standards
upgrade from
Horsetooth Taft Hill Shields 2L to 4L 3 3 10. 0 Medium $ 461 .5
arterial
upgrade from
Shields Carpenter Trilby 21. to 41. 3 3 10. 0 Medium $ 465 .5
arterial
Fossil upgrade from
Shields Trilby Creek 2L to 4L 3 3 10. 0 Medium $ 469 .5
arterial
upgrade from
Carpenter College Lemay 2L to 4L 3 4 10. 0 Medium $ 475.5
arterial
Capital Improvement Plan Documentation 19
Plan Fort Collins
Roadway ' List
Programr Cost Cost Cumulativ
Location k From To iDescriptio Co Adjusted Adjusted Cost ( in
L Score
upgrade from
Mulberry Riverside Timberline 41. to 6L 3 5 9 .8 Medium $ 491 . 5
arterial
Summit upgrade from
Mulberry View 1 -25 4L to 6L 3 5 9 .8 Medium $ 501 . 5
arterial
upgrade from
Taft Hill Harmony Horsetooth 21. to 41. 3 3 9 .7 Medium $ 505 . 5
arterial
upgrade from
Taft Hill Vine GMA CR to 2L 3 3 9 .7 Medium $ 509 . 5
arterial
Drake and build grade-
BNSF separated
Railroad RR crossing 3 6 9 .2 Medium $ 529 .5
Tracks (see Railroad
CIP
Fossil upgrade from
Shields Creek Harmony 2L to 4L 3 4 8 .8 Medium $ 536 .0
arterial
upgrade from
Taft Hill GMA Harmony 21. to 4L 3 4 8 .5 Medium $ 544 .0
arterial
Overland upgrade to
Vine Trail Taft Hill 2L arterial 3 3 8 .3 Medium $ 547 .0
standards
upgrade to
2L arterial
standards ,
Vine 1 -25 GMA includes 3 3 8 .3 Medium $ 548 .0
realignment
for potential
interchange
Overland upgrade from
Prospect Trail Taft Hill 2L to 4L 3 4 8 .0 Medium $ 554 .0
arterial
Trilby and build grade-
UPRR separated
Railroad RR crossing 3 6 7 .4 Low $ 574 .0
Tracks (see Railroad
CIP
upgrade to
2L arterial
Realigned standards
Vine Timberline Vine with 3 4 7 .3 Low $ 582 .0
connection to
realigned
Vine
Overland upgrade to
Trail Elizabeth Vine 2L arterial 3 3 7 . 1 Low $ 584 .0
standards
Overland upgrade to
Trail Vine Michaud 21. arterial 3 3 7 . 1 Low $ 588 .0
standards
Overland Cottonwood upgrade from
Trail Glen Pk Drake 21. to 4L 3 3 7 . 1 Low $ 590 .0
arterial
Capital Improvement Plan Documentation 20
Plan Fort Collins
oF7
Overland upgrade to
Trail Mulberry LaPorte 4L arterial 3 3 7 . 1 Low $ 594 . 0
standards
State upgrade from
US 287 Highway 1 GMA 2L to 4L 3 5 6.9 Low $ 609 . 0
arterial
upgrade to
Trilby Taft Hill Shields 21. arterial 3 3 6.6 Low $ 612 . 0
standards
Carpenter build grade-
and UPRR separated
Railroad RR crossing 3 6 6.0 Low $ 632 .0
Tracks (see Railroad
CIP
Overland upgrade to
Mulberry Trail Tyler 21. arterial 3 3 6.0 Low $ 636 .0
standards
upgrade from
Timberline Prospect Mulberry 2L arterial to 3 5 5.8 Low $ 652 .0
4L arterial
Douglas upgrade from
Shields Vine Road CR to 2L 3 5 5.6 Low $ 662 .0
arterial
Gregory Country State upgrade from
Road Club Highway 1 CR to 2L 3 3 5.4 Low $ 666 . 0
arterial
Soft Gold build new
Hickory Park Shields collector 3 3 5.4 Low $ 669 .0
Trailhead
Overland upgrade to
Horsetooth Trail Taft Hill 21. arterial 3 3 5.4 Low $ 673 .0
standards
Overland upgrade to
Michaud Trail GMA collector 3 3 5.4 Low $ 674 .0
standards
upgrade to
Vine College Redwood 2L arterial 3 3 5.4 Low $ 677 .0
standards
Trilby and build grade-
BNSF separated
Railroad RR crossing 3 6 5.0 Low $ 697 .0
Tracks (see Railroad
CIP
roadway
Mulberry Taft Hill Shields realignment, 3 4 -2.0 Low $ 705 .0
bridge
extension
Capital Improvement Plan Documentation 21
Plan %NFort Collins
Transit CIP List
Transit is different than other items on the CIP list as a large portion of the cost consists of operation and
maintenance (O&M ) . Four program phases consisting of existing service , TSP Phase I , TSP Phase 11 , and TSP
Phase I I I were scored on how well they contribute towards the City's visions . The incremental cost magnitude
estimates for capital costs , O&M costs , and combined capital and O&M costs include the additional capital costs
and O&M costs incurred beyond the baseline of the previous phase or service . The TSP phases are planned to
start in future years , so only O & M costs starting after the completion of each phase are included .
O& M , Vehicle
Replacement,
Existing Bus Stop
Service Improvements ,
(through Bus Stop 1 6 6 16.9 High $ 45 .5
2015 ) Signage ,
Service
Vehicles/ Pool Funded
Vehicles
Vehicles , Local
TSP Service O& M ,
Phase I South Transit
(through Center 4 5 6 15. 6 Medium $ 66 .5
2015 ) ( Includes
Mason BRT and
other benefits
Vehicles, Local
Service O&M ,
Regional
Service
TSP Vehicles,
Phase II Regional
(through Service O&M ,
2015 ) Maintenance 3 6 6 6 8 .4 Low $ 113 . 0
Facility
Expansion ,
Proposed PVH
Harmony
Campus Transit
Center, Mason
Corridor
TSP Vehicles, Local
Phase III Service O&M ,
(through Regional
2015 ) Service 3 5 3 6 5.4 Low $ 128 . 0
Vehicles,
Regional
Service O& M
Capital Improvement Plan Documentation 22
Ran
Consolidated Projects Detail
The following tables grouped by type show the detail of consolidated and tiered projects from the CIP list .
Bicycle Projects
Three tiers of bicycle projects based on priority and need were scored on the ` program level ' . The following list of
individual bicycle projects compiled from the 2004 CIP list and a hot list from 2008 make up these three
categories .
ProjectsBicycle
Fro To EDescription/Facility Type
1 Citywide Actuation at signals
1 Horsetooth College Stover Add bicycle lanes
1 Laporte Overland Trail College Bicycle Lanes
1 Laurel Howes Remington Add bicycle lanes
1 Mason Trail Grade separation at Harmony
1 Mason Trail Grade separation at Horsetooth
Grade separation at
1 Mason Trail Troutman/BNSF
1 Mason Trail Spring Creek Trail Lake St
1 Mountain Meldrun Riverside Shared lane restriping
1 Poudre Trail Access to Timnath under I -25
1 Trilby Lemay Timberline bike lanes
2 Conifer College Lemay Resurface Lanes
2 Mason Trail Grade separation at Drake
Off Street Trail Spring Canyon
2 Parallel Overland Trail Lions Park Park (inc ROW)
2 Poudre River Trail Connection to ELC and Drake Road
2 Prospect Shields Centre/Mason Trail Add bicycle lanes
2 Riverside Prospect College Add bicycle lanes
2 Shields Laurel Poudre River Trail
3 Bikestation North Transit Center bike parking and commuter facilities
3 Bikestation South Transit Center bike parking and commuter facilities
3 Canal #2 CSU Vet Hospital Centre bike path along canal
3 Carpenter College Timberline bike lanes
3 Castlerock Dr Prospect Springfield Dr bike lanes
3 College Poudre River State Highway 1 bike lanes
3 College Laurel street crossing improvements
3 College Woodlawn Dr bike/ped grade sep crossings
bike/ped underpass, connection to
3 College Canal #2 Foothills Mall
3 College Cherry bike/ped over/underpass
3 Constitution Ave Prospect Elizabeth bike lanes
3 Cooper Slough Mulberry underpass
3 Country Club Rd County Road 11 State Highway 1 bike lanes
3 County Road 11 Vine Drive Douglas Road bike lanes
3 Drake College Stover bike lanes
north-south grade separated
3 Drake UPRR crossing @ Power Trail
3 Elizabeth Stover Lemay bike lanes
3 Gregory Rd Country Club Rd State Highway 1 bike lanes
north-south grade separated
3 Harmony UPRR crossing @ Power Trail
Capital Improvement Plan Documentation 23
Plan Fort Collins
ProjectsBicycle
north-south grade separated
3 Horsetooth UPRR crossing @ Power Trail
3 Horsetooth Ziegler Strause Cabin bike lanes
3 Horsetooth College Stanford bike lanes
3 1 -25 Frontage Carpenter Harmony bike lanes west side of 1 -25
3 1 -25 Frontage Carpenter Harmony bike lanes east side of 1 -25
3 1 -25 Frontage Mulberry Vine bike lanes west side of 1 -25
3 1 -25 Frontage Mulberry Vine bike lanes east side of 1 -25
3 Jefferson Street Mountain College bike lanes
3 Kechter Strauss Cabin 1 -25 bike lanes
north-south grade separated
3 Keenland UPRR crossing @ Power Trail
3 Lemay Horsetooth Riverside widen bike lanes
3 Lincoln 12th Street Summit View Dr bike lanes
3 Lynnwood Dr Prospect Springfield Dr bike lanes
3 Magnolia City Park Ave Riverside east-west bike connection
NRRC Employment/
3 Mason CSU Vet Campus grade separated crossing
3 Mason Harmony grade separated crossing
3 Mason Horsetooth grade separated crossing
grade separation at NRRC
3 Mason Employment/CSU Vet Campus
3 Mountain Meldrum Riverside bike lanes
3 Mountain Vista Dr 1 -25 frontage road GMA bike lanes
3 Mulberry Jackson Mason bike lanes
3 Mulberry Mason Riverside bike lanes
Mulberry frontage bike lanes/off street path south side
3 roads Lemay 1 -25 of street
Mulberry frontage bike lanes/off street path north side
3 roads Lemay 1 -25 of street
3 Oak Sherwood Mason Street improve/add bike lanes
3 Prospect Shields Timberline bike lanes
3 Prospect Poudre River Trail GMA bike lanes
3 Prospect Whitcomb intersection improvement
3 Riverside Path Prospect Mulberry bike path
3 Riverside Path Mulberry Lincoln bike path
3 Shields Laurel Poudre River bikes lanes
3 Shields Poudre River Douglas Road bikes lanes
3 Strauss Cabin Kechter Harmony bike lanes
3 Summit View Prospect Lincoln bike lanes
3 Taft Hill Prospect Mulberry widen on-street bike lanes
3 Timberline Mountain Vista CR 52 bike lanes
Timberline north-south grade separated
3 Road/Power Trail Fossil Creek Trail Spring Creek Trail crossings @ Power Trail
bike path and underpass at RR
3 Trail Connection BNSF RR Taft Hill crossing
3 Trilby Lynn Dr Constellation bike lanes
3 Vine Overland Trail Taft Hill bike lanes
3 Zeigler Trilby Kechter bike lanes
Capital Improvement Plan Documentation 24
Pla
Bridge Projects
Bridges were consolidated into one program consisting of all structurally deficient , functionally obsolete , and scour
vulnerable bridges . This program was scored on the ;ision ; evel based on the following projects .
Brid
jects
• • rBridgeCrossFr
Structurally Deficient FCWHTM -0 . 0- LAPT Whitcomb Laporte
Structurally Deficient FCSHLD-0.4-DRK Shields Drake
Structurally Deficient MOUNTAN-WHTCOM Mountain Whitcomb
Structurally Deficient CANYON- MULBERR Canyon Mulberry
Structurally Deficient OLIVE-LOOMIS Olive Loomis
Structurally Deficient MYRTLE-SHERWOD Myrtle Sherwood
Structurally Deficient FCBRYN-0 .2-MULB Bryan Mulberry
Structurally Deficient OAKST-WHTCOM Oak Whitcomb
Structurally Deficient FCRVSDE-S. 2PRST Riverside Prospect
Functionally Obsolete FCLINC-0 . 0-WLLW Lincoln Willow
Functionally Obsolete LAPORTE-GRANDVW Laporte Grandview
Functionally Obsolete FCVINE-W . 5-SUMV Vine Summit View
Functionally Obsolete FCMULB-0 . 1 -OVLD Mulberry Overland
Functionally Obsolete FCLAPT-0 . 1 -TFTH Laporte Taft Hill
Functionally Obsolete LEMAY-VINE Lemay Vine
Functionally Obsolete FCELIZ-0 . 1 - BRYN Elizabeth Bryan
Functionally Obsolete FCCRST-0 . 1 -BRYN Crestmore Bryan
Functionally Obsolete FCMNR-0 . 0-CLGE Monroe College
Functionally Obsolete MULBERR-CRSTMRE Mulberry Crestmore
Functionally Obsolete FCPLM -W0 . I -CTYP Plum City Park
Functionally Obsolete FCLMY- 1 . 2-VINE Lemay Vine
Functionally Obsolete PROSPCT-CNTRAVE Prospect Centre
Functionally Obsolete FCSHLD-0 . 1 - HLPD Shields Hill Pond
Functionally Obsolete CEMETRD- PARKSPS Cemetery Park Shop Maintenance
Functionally Obsolete FCLMY-0 . 1 -STUT Lemay Stuart
Functionally Obsolete CEMETRD- MOUNTAN Cemetery Mountain
Scour Vulnerable FCLINC-0 . 0-WLLW Lincoln Willow
Scour Vulnerable FCELIZ-0 . 1 -BRYN Elizabeth Bryan
Scour Vulnerable FCHTH-W0. 1 -CLGE Horsetooth College
Scour Vulnerable FCLMY-0 .2-SRGB Lemay Southridge Greens
Scour Vulnerable FCLMY-0 .2-TRILB Lemay Trilby
Scour Vulnerable FCLIND-0 . 1 -WLLW Linden Willow
Scour Vulnerable FCMRSN-0 . 0-RYMT Morseman Rocky Mountain
Scour Vulnerable FCTMB-0. 1 -MULB Timberline Mulberry
Capital Improvement Plan Documentation 25
P
Intersection Improvements
Funding for intersection improvements were categorized into three program . A separate and more detailed
intersection prioritization process is in process to ensure that individual intersections are prioritized into the
appropriate program .
ImprovementsIntersection
Location Description
College an Monroe intersection improvements
College and Boardwalk intersection improvements
College and Carpenter intersection improvements
College and Harmony intersection improvements
College and Mulberry intersection improvements
College and Prosepect intersection improvements
College and Skyway intersection improvements
College and Swallow intersection improvements
College and Willox intersection improvements
Elizabeth and McHugh Street intersection improvements
Harmony and Mason intersection improvements
Harmony and Ziegler intersection improvements
Horsetooth and McClelland intersection improvements
Jefferson and Chestnut intersection improvements
Jefferson and Linden intersection improvements
Jefferson and Pine intersection improvements
JFK and Troutman intersection improvements
LaPorte and College intersection improvements
Laurel and College intersection improvements
Lemay and Carpenter intersection improvements
Lemay and Drake intersection improvements
Lemay and Harmony intersection improvements
Lemay and Horsetooth intersection improvements
Lemay and Riverside intersection improvements
Lemay and Trilby intersection improvements
Mulberry and Canyon intersection improvements
Mulberry and Summit View intersection improvements
Overland Trail and Country Road 42C intersection improvements
Overland Trail and Drake intersection improvements
Overland Trail and Elizabeth intersection improvements
Overland Trail and LaPorte intersection improvements
Overland Trail and Mulberry intersection improvements
Overland Trail and Vine intersection improvements
Prospect and Lemay intersection improvements
Prospect and Overland Trail intersection improvements
Shields and Elizabeth intersection improvements
Shields and LaPorte intersection improvements
Shields and Mulberry intersection improvements
Capital Improvement Plan Documentation 26
Plan Fort Collins
ImprovementsIntersection
ocation
Shields and Tilby intersection improvements
Shields and US 287 intersection improvements
Shields and Vine intersection improvements
Shields and Willox intersection improvements
Taft Hill and Elizabeth intersection improvements
Taft Hill and Horsetooth intersection improvements
Taft Hill and Mulberry intersection improvements
Taft Hille and LaPorte intersection improvements
Tilby and College intersection improvements
Timberline and Carpenter intersection improvements
Timberline and Horsetooth intersection improvements
Timberline and Kechter intersection improvements
Timberline and Trilby intersection improvements
S§ N
Capital Improvement Plan Documentation 27
P
Pedestrian Projects
Pedestrian projects were categorized as existing sidewalk projects , existing pedestrian crossings , existing
path/trails , forecasted sidewalk projects , forecasted pedestrian crossings , and forecasted path/trails . Projects
with N/A in the CIP Tier column are funded through other types such as transit or ATMS .
Pedestrian Projects
CIP
CIP
IM
IT
Tier • • "From • •
High Priority Ped Crossing -
1 Ped X-ing Citywide Installations/Enhancements
Grade Separated trail Crossing
Mason (GSC) of BNSF and Troutman
1 Ped X-ing Trail/Troutman Pkwy Pkwy.
Grade separated trail crossing of
1 Ped X-ing MasonTrail/NRRC BNSF and Whole Foods
Buckingham
1 Sidewalk 1st St St Lincoln Ave discontinuous sidewalk
Alta Vista Needs sidewalk connections to
1 Sidewalk Neighborhood Vine Drive Lemay Ave transit stops
1 Sidewalk Buckingham St Linden St Lemay Ave Discontinuous/Non-Existent
Needs Sidewalk , 1 Side
1 Sidewalk Cherry St Howes St College Ave Continuous
1 Sidewalk College Ave Hickory St Willox St Discontinuous/Non Existent
1 Sidewalk College Ave Conifer St Hickory St Discontinuous/Non Existent
Foothills
1 Sidewalk College Ave Parkway Monroe Dr Discontinuous sidewalk
1 Sidewalk College Ave Vine Drive Conifer St discontinuous sidewalk
1 Sidewalk College Ave Carpenter Rd Trilby Rd Non- Existent
1 Sidewalk College Ave Trilby Rd Skyway Dr Non- Existent
no pedestrian facilities between
Fossil Creek transit stop and Foothills Gateway
1 Sidewalk College Ave Skyway Dr Parkway Center
Install sidewalk along East
College Ave Frontage Frontage Rd along S . College ,
1 Sidewalk Road Drake Ave Harvard St. between Harvard/1 block north .
Annual Ped Plan/ADA Ramps &
1 Sidewalk Fort Collins (citywide) Crossing Improvements
Needs Sidewalk , Apartments
catering to persons with head
1 Sidewalk Harmony Rd JFK Parkway College Ave injuries nearby
1 Sidewalk Horsetooth Rd Taft Hill Rd Shields Rd Discontinuous sidewalks
Horsetooth
1 Sidewalk JFK Parkway Bockman Dr Rd Needs Sidewalk , Discontinuous
1 Sidewalk JFK Parkway Boardwalk Dr Bockman Dr discontinuous sidewalk
1 Sidewalk Laporte Ave Shields St Bryan Ave Non- Existent/Narrow
1 Sidewalk Lemay Ave Lincoln Ave Vine Drive Discontinuous sidewalk
1 Sidewalk Lemay Ave Vine Drive Willox St Non- Existent
Buckingham Needs Sidewalks on both sides of
1 Sidewalk Lemay Ave St Vine Drive Lemay Ave
Connection needed between
sidewalks in back of Walmart and
Buffalo Run Apartments to the
Lemay Ave/Lincoln North . Currently barricaded and
1 Sidewalk Ave prohibits travel .
Riverside
1 Sidewalk Lincoln Ave Ave Lemay Ave Discontinuous/Non Existent
Capital Improvement Plan Documentation 28
Plan Fort Collins
Pedestrian •
Tier Tyn3 On Street Mmimlescriptioam
Poudre River
1 Sidewalk Linden St Jefferson St Trail discontinuous sidewalk
Poudre River Linden
1 Sidewalk Linden St Trail Center Dr Needs Sidewalks both sides
Riverside discontinuous sidewalks and
1 Sidewalk Mulberry St Peterson St Ave missing intersection ramps
1 Sidewalk Mulberry St Lemay Ave 1 -25 discontinuous sidewalk
missing sidewalks , and increase
1 Sidewalk Mulberry Street Shields St. City Park width of attached walks
needs sidewalk , discontinuous
Washington sidewalks , Peds Must Walk in
1 Sidewalk Myrtle St Howes St Ave Street/Lawns
Install new sidewalk missing links ,
and widen existing walks both
1 Sidewalk Prospect Road Stover Street Lemay Ave sides .
1 Sidewalk Riverside Ave EPIC Center Erin Ct discontinuous sidewalk
1 Sidewalk Timberline Rd Kechter Rd Zephyr Rd Non-Existent
Timberline
1 Sidewalk Trilby Rd College Ave Rd Discontinuous sidewalks
1 Sidewalk Vine Drive Linden St Lemay Ave Non-Existent
1 Sidewalk Vine Drive Linden St College Ave Non-Existent
Timberline
1 Sidewalk Vine Drive Lemay Ave Rd Non-Existent
1 Sidewalk Vine Drive Elgin Ct Waterglen Dr Non-Existent
1 Sidewalk Willow St Lincoln Ave College Ave Discontinuous/Non Existent
Long-Term Priority Ped Crossing -
3 Ped X-ing Citywide Installations/Enhancements
SH1 Terry
3 Sidewalk College Ave Willox St Lake Rd Non-Existent
Fossil Creek
3 Sidewalk College Ave Harmony Rd Pkwy discontinuous sidewalk
Harmony & Taft Hill
3 Sidewalk Rd Missing sidewalk
3 Sidewalk Harmony Rd JFK Parkway Boardwalk Dr Needs Sidewalk, Discontinuous
Needs Sidewalk , missing
Timberline sidewalk on one side/Future
3 Sidewalk Harmony Rd Rd McMurry Ave Power Trail
Soft Gold Hickory Spur Needs path connection to link trail
3 Sidewalk Hickory St Park Trail to park along Hickory St.
Big Bend
Dr/CrescentD
3 Sidewalk Horsetooth Rd Seneca St r No Continuous Sidewalk on street
3 Sidewalk Horsetooth Rd Landings Dr Stover St discontinuous sidewalk
CSU
Ped/Bike Needs Sidewalk and widen
3 Sidewalk Lake Street Shields Ave Path sidewalk
3 Sidewalk Laporte Ave Sunset St Taft Hill Rd Non-Existent
3 Sidewalk Laporte Ave Taft Hill Rd Bryan Ave Narrow to Non-Existent
3 Sidewalk Laurel St Stover St Endicott St discontinuous
Needs sidewalk on west side of
Lemay Ave, and connection to
3 Sidewalk Lemay Ave Lincoln Ave Mulberry St Transit Sto . across from Walmart.
Linden Lake Country Club
3 Sidewalk Lemay Ave Rd Rd Non-Existent
Capital Improvement Plan Documentation 29
Plan %NFort Collins
Pedestrian Projects
CIP
CIP Facility
Tier Type On Street From • •
Comanche
3 Sidewalk Lemay Ave Stuart St Dr Widen Sidewalk , Narrow Sidewalk
Rosewood Needs Sidewalk ,
3 Sidewalk Lemay Ave Kirkwood Dr Ln Discontinuous/Limited Markings
Horsetooth Troutman discontinuous sidewalk/narrow
3 Sidewalk Manhattan Ave Rd Pkwy sidewalk
Needs Sidewalk , Needs
Riverside pedestrian connection on North
3 Sidewalk Mulberry St Ave Lemay Ave Side of Mulberry
3 Sidewalk Prospect Rd Shields St College Ave Narrow/missing sidewalk
Widen & Grade Sidewalk , Narrow
3 Sidewalk Prospect Rd Stover St College Ave Sidewalk
narrow sidewalks near
intersection of Prospect and
Prospect Rd & Whitcomb . Whitcomb is a main
3 Sidewalk Whitcomb St route to CSU
3 Sidewalk Riverside Ave Rivendal Dr. Mulberry St Discontinuous sidewalk
missing and discontinuous
3 Sidewalk Riverside Ave Mulberry St Mountain Ave sidewalks
3 Sidewalk Rutgers Ave Mathews St College Ave narrow attached sidewalks
Widen & Improve Sidewalk ,
3 Sidewalk Shields St Laurel Ave Mulberry St Narrow attached sidewalks
Poudre River
3 Sidewalk Shields St Vine Drive Trail Non- Existent
Gateway
3 Sidewalk Skyway Drive Center Dr College Ave Non- Existent
3 Sidewalk Taft Hill Rd Mulberry St Laporte Ave discontinuous sidewalk
Tavelli Elementary Missing sidewalks connecting to
3 Sidewalk Path Belmont Dr Treemont Dr school
need pedestrian facilities under
Trilby Rd & UPRR RR bridge to access park , Non-
3 Sidewalk bridge Existent/No Shoulder
3 Sidewalk Vine Drive Taft Hill Rd Lyons St Non- Existent
Spring Creek Poudre River Multi-use path adjacent to and on
3 Trail Overland Trail Trail Trail west side of Overland Tr.
Grade separated Spring Creek
N/A Ped X-ing CO RD 38E trail crossing of CORD 38E
Grade separated power trail
N/A Ped X-ing Drake Rd ./UPRR crossing of UPRR and Drake Rd .
Timberline Power Grade separated trail crossing
N/A Ped X-ing Fairway Seven Ct. Rd Trail/UPRR and connection to Timberline Rd .
Grade separated power trail
crossing of UPRR and Harmony
N/A Ped X-ing Harmony Rd ./UPRR Rd .
Grade separated power trail
Horsetooth crossing of UPRR and Horsetooth
N/A Ped X-ing Rd ./UPRR Rd .
Grade separated power trail
crossing of UPRR and keenland
N/A Ped X-ing Keenland Dr./UPRR Dr.
Grade separated trail crossing
and connection from Community
Timberline Moutain Vista park to Community Commercial
N/A Ped X-ing Mountain Vista Drive Rd Dr. District
Capital Improvement Plan Documentation 30
Plan Fort Collins
Pedestrian Projects
CIP
CIP Facility
Tier Type On Street From • Descripti
Grade Separated trial crossing at
Power Trail/Caribou and
Connection to Timberline Road on
N/A Ped X-ing UPRR/Caribou Dr. east side.
Transit stop improvements
including ramp , pads , shelters ,
and sidewalk access covered by
Transit Capital Improvement
N/A Citywide Program
Provide and Improve Intersection
N/A Citywide Signal Pushbutton Accessibility
Capital Improvement Plan Documentation 31
Pla ns
Railroad Projects
The following railroad projects were categorized into three programs of annual railroad crossings , UPRR railroad
crossings , BNSF railroad crossings , while other individual projects were listed separately.
Railroad Projects
Type • M� Description
Railroad Carpenter UPRR RR overpass
Railroad CSU Vet Campus BNSF RR bike/ped grade separation
Railroad Downtown BNSF crossings
Railroad Drake BNSF RR grade separation
Railroad Fairway Lane BNSF RR bike/ped grade separation
Railroad Harmony UPRR RR bike/ped grade separation
Railroad Horsetooth UPRR RR bike/ped grade separation
Railroad Keenland Drive UPRR RR bike/ped grade separation
Railroad Lake BNSF RR crossing
Railroad Lemay BNSF at Vine RR grade separation
Railroad Timberline BNSF at Vine RR grade separation
Railroad Trilby BNSF RR grade separation
Railroad Trilby UPRR RR overpass
Is
Capital Improvement Plan Documentation 32
Pla ns
Traffic Signal System Projects (ATMS)
Automated Traffic Management System (ATMS ) projects were categorized into high priority video detection
intersections , serial radio intersections , signalized intersections , countdown pedestrian heads , pushbutton
accessibility, pedestrian signal locations , traffic operations center , medium priority video detection , low priority
video detection intersections , and traffic operations . The following is a list of the individual ATMS projects . .
• •
NW
Citywide Streets Facility Expansion - de-icing improvements
Citywide Traffic Operations Management Center Expansion
College Mulberry signal improvements
College/Boardwalk signal improvements
College/Bockman signal improvements
College/Carpenter signal improvements
College/Cherry signal improvements
College/Columbia signal improvements
College/Conifer/Hickory signal improvements
College/Drake signal improvements
College/Elizabeth signal improvements
College/Foothills signal improvements
College/Fossil Creek signal improvements
College/Harmony signal improvements
College/Harvard signal improvements
College/Horsetooth signal improvements
College/Kensington signal improvements
College/LaPorte signal improvements
College/Laurel signal improvements
College/Magnolia signal improvements
College/Maple signal improvements
College/Monroe signal improvements
College/Mountain signal improvements
College/Olive signal improvements
College/Pitkin signal improvements
College/Prospect signal improvements
College/Rutgers signal improvements
College/SH 1 signal improvements
College/Skyway signal improvements
College/Spring Park signal improvements
College/Stuart signal improvements
College/Swallow signal improvements
College/Trilby signal improvements
College/Troutman signal improvements
College/Vine signal improvements
College/Willox signal improvements
Drake/Constitution signal improvements
Drake/Dunbar signal improvements
Capital Improvement Plan Documentation 33
Plan Fort Collins
Traffic Signal System Projects (ATIVIS)
ocation Description
Drake/Meadowlark signal improvements
Drake/Stover signal improvements
DrakeMorthington signal improvements
DrakeNorkshire signal improvements
Elizabeth/City Park signal improvements
Elizabeth/Constitution signal improvements
Foothills Mall/Foothills signal improvements
Greenfields/Mulberry signal improvements
Harmony/Boardwalk signal improvements
Harmony/Corbett signal improvements
Harmony/JFK signal improvements
Harmony/Mason signal improvements
Harmony/McMurry signal improvements
Harmony/Ziegler signal improvements
Horsetooth/Dunbar signal improvements
Horsetooth/JFK signal improvements
Horsetooth/Manhattan signal improvements
Horsetooth/McClelland signal improvements
Horsetooth/Stanford signal improvements
Horsetooth/Stover signal improvements
Horsetooth/Tradition signal improvements
Howes/LaPorte signal improvements
Howes/Laurel signal improvements
Howes/Magnolia signal improvements
Howes/Mountain signal improvements
Howes/Mulberry signal improvements
Howes/Oak signal improvements
Howes/Olive signal improvements
JFK/Boardwalk signal improvements
Laurel/Loomis signal improvements
Laurel/Meldrum signal improvements
Lemay/Boardwalk signal improvements
Lemay/Doctors Ln signal improvements
Lemay/Drake signal improvements
Lemay/Elizabeth signal improvements
Lemay/Fossil Creek signal improvements
Lemay/Harmony signal improvements
Lemay/Horsetooth (east) signal improvements
Lemay/Horsetooth (west) signal improvements
Lemay/Lincoln signal improvements
Lemay/Magnolia signal improvements
Lemay/Mulberry signal improvements
Capital Improvement Plan Documentation 34
Plan Fort Collins
Traffic Signal System Projects (ATMS)
ocation Description
Lemay/Pennock signal improvements
Lemay/Prospect signal improvements
Lemay/Riverside signal improvements
Lemay/Robertson signal improvements
Lemay/Stuart signal improvements
Lemay/Swallow signal improvements
Lemay/Trilby signal improvements
Lemay/Vine signal improvements
Linden/Jefferson signal improvements
Mason/Horsetooth signal improvements
Mason/LaPorte signal improvements
Mason/Mountain signal improvements
Mason/Mulberry signal improvements
Mason/Oak signal improvements
Mason/Olive signal improvements
Mathews/Mountain signal improvements
McClelland/Redwing/Drake signal improvements
McClelland/Swallow signal improvements
Meadowlark/Swallow signal improvements
Mulberry/Link Lane signal improvements
Mulberry/Loomis signal improvements
Mulberry/Meldrum signal improvements
Mulberry/Summit View signal improvements
Overland Trail/CR 54G signal improvements
Overland Trail/Prospect signal improvements
Prospect Pkwy/Prospect signal improvements
Prospect/Centre signal improvements
Prospect/Riverside signal improvements
Prospect/Whitcomb signal improvements
Remington/Elizabeth signal improvements
Remington/Laurel signal improvements
Remington/Mulberry signal improvements
Remington/Pitkin signal improvements
Remington/Prospect signal improvements
Riverside/Lincoln/Mountain signal improvements
Riverside/Mulberry signal improvements
SH 1 /Country Club signal improvements
Shields/Casa Grande signal improvements
Shields/Drake signal improvements
Shields/Elizabeth signal improvements
Shields/Harmony signal improvements
Shields/Horsetooth signal improvements
Capital Improvement Plan Documentation 35
Plan Fort Collins
Traffic Signal System Projects (ATMS)
Location Description
Shields/Lake signal improvements
Shields/LaPorte signal improvements
Shields/Laurel signal improvements
Shields/Mountain signal improvements
Shields/Mulberry signal improvements
Shields/Plum signal improvements
Shields/Prospect signal improvements
Shields/Raintree/Centre signal improvements
Shields/Rocky Mountain signal improvements
Shields/Rolland Moore signal improvements
Shields/Stuart signal improvements
Shields/Swallow signal improvements
Shields/Trilby signal improvements
Shields/US 287 signal improvements
Starflower/Harmony signal improvements
Stover/Swallow signal improvements
Summit View/Prospect signal improvements
Taft Hill/CR 54G signal improvements
Taft Hill/Drake signal improvements
Taft Hill/Elizabeth signal improvements
Taft Hill/Harmony/CR 38E signal improvements
Taft Hill/Horsetooth signal improvements
Taft Hill/LaPorte signal improvements
Taft Hill/Mulberry signal improvements
Taft Hill/Prospect signal improvements
Taft Hill/Valley Forge signal improvements
Timberline/Caribou signal improvements
Timberline/Carpenter signal improvements
Timberline/Drake signal improvements
Timberline/Harmony signal improvements
Timberline/Horsetooth signal improvements
Timberline/Kechter/Willow signal improvements
Timberline/Mulberry signal improvements
Timberline/Prospect signal improvements
Timberline/Timberwood signal improvements
Timberline/Trilby signal improvements
Timberline/Vermont signal improvements
Whedbee/Mulberry signal improvements
Capital Improvement Plan Documentation 36
ATTACHMENT 3
APPENDIX J
TO THE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN
TRANSPORTATION FINANCING RESOURCES
ATTACHMENT 3
SOURCES OF TRANSPORTATION FINANCE - CITY OF FORT COLLINS
INTRODUCTION
This report is intended to provide a general overview and serve as a resource document for further study of
transportation finance strategies . There are not any financial recommendations included in the TMP .
The City strives to be effective stewards of the public funds provided through various local , state, and federal
sources . However, all of the existing funding sources will not be able to provide sustainable, long-term
financial resources needed to support the capital and on -going operations/maintenance costs for the
multimodal transportation system envisioned in the TMP . The City and community partners should continue
work together to identify opportunities for supplemental financing strategies to achieve our long-term
transportation vision .
The following information describes how the City currently finances transportation services and
improvements . It introduces some supplemental sources of finance that might be considered by the City of
Fort Collins in the future to address the goal of securing more sustainable funding source ( s ) over the long-term
in order to achieve the vision of the Transportation Master Plan . It is presented in four sections .
1 : Summary : Finance Practices, Perspective and New Tools
2 : Transportation Financing by Fund
3 : Transportation Financing by Budgeting for Outcome ( BFO ) Results Categories
4 : Financing Multi - BFO Results Projects
SECTION 1 : SUMMARY : FINANCE PRACTICES , PERSPECTIVE AND NEW TOOLS
1 . 1 Key Characteristics of Current Transportation Finance Sources of Funding
This section summarizes key characteristics of the City' s current transportation finance practices . A more
detailed description is presented in Section 2, Transportation Financing by Fund, and Section 3, Transportation
Finance by Budgeting for Outcomes Results categories .
Capital Improvements. Street, bicycle and pedestrian capital improvements for projects that correct existing
deficiencies or enhance livability are financed primarily by a series of voter-approved sales and use tax
initiatives on a cash or pay-as-you -go basis and supplemented with federal and State formula and competitive
matching grants . The sales and use tax initiatives include :
The 0 . 25% Building-on - Basics ( BOB ) sales and use tax revenues, which extend from January 2006 through
December 2015 . This source is a continuation of the Building Community Choices tax that extended from 1997
through 2005 to fund a variety of city-wide capital improvements and provide matching funds to leverage
federal grants .
A new, voter approved sales tax measure was approved by the Fort Collins voters in 2010 — " Measure 2B" . A
portion of the funds generated from Measure 2B is intended to address transportation needs such as street
maintenance as well as other improvements and services needed to maintain the quality of the community' s
transportation system .
1
ATTACHMENT 3
Capital improvements that are required to serve new development are constructed by the developer
generating demand or financed with Street Oversizing Fees which are paid by new development . There is also
a General Fund contribution to the SOS fund that covers non-development related background traffic capital
improvement needs .
Transit capital improvements for fixed route service are financed with substantial support from Federal Transit
Authority grants and some 0 . 25 % BOB revenues . Demand- responsive services ( Dial -A- Ride ) are largely funded
locally and supported through partnerships with Larimer County and participating state and federal agencies .
Operations and Maintenance ( O& M ) Improvements. O & M expenditures for roads, bicycle and pedestrian
services are funded with Transportation Fund revenues; primary sources of revenue are the State Highway
User Tax Fund, County Road and Bridge Fund , motor vehicle registration, and transfers from the General Fund .
Specific sources include :
The 0 . 25% Streets and Transportation sales and use tax revenues, specifically for street maintenance,
which extend from January 2006 through December 2015 .
A portion of the new 2B funds will add an estimated $ 6 . 1 M each year for maintenance .
General Fund Support . The General Fund provides a substantial subsidy to transportation . Using 2009 as an
illustration , the General Fund comprised 18% of the Transportation Fund revenues, 57% of the Transit Services
Fund revenues and 32% of the Street Oversizing Fund revenues .
Federal Grant Support. Fort Collins has successfully and consistently applied for and received federal grants
for projects that address roadway, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit needs .
Debt. The City has been conservative with respect to transportation- related debt. Currently, there is one
outstanding issuance of debt for the street maintenance building and one transportation project lease
obligation for the Civic Center and parking structure .
1 . 2 Transportation Finance Considerations Moving Forward
Leadership. Fort Collins has pioneered several successful transportation finance initiatives . For example, the
City was among the first to develop intergovernmental agreements to plan streets outside of its municipal
boundaries . In 1979, it was among the first Colorado municipality to impose a transportation impact fee
( Street Oversizing Impact Fee ) . In the mid - 1980s, the City pioneered the concept of a transportation utility for
street maintenance . However, the City decided not to move forward with that funding mechanism . In
addition , since the mid 1990s, Fort Collins voters have repeatedly approved sales and use tax increases for
capital projects and street maintenance . These successful experiences bode well as a supplemental set of
transportation finance revenue sources might be helpful on a moving forward basis .
Dependence on Sales and Use Tax Revenues. Transportation is heavily dependent on sales and use tax
revenues in a direct way, through the voter-approved initiatives, and in an indirect way, as a major portion of
General Fund revenues . This is a challenging situation because these tax revenues are dependent on local
economic spending patterns and inflation ; these are factors that do not directly correlate with transportation
needs . While the 2 . 25 % sales and use tax revenues that flow to the General Fund do not sunset, two voter-
approved sales and use tax initiatives sunset in the next five years .
2
ATTACHMENT 3
Dependence on Sales and Use Tax Initiatives that Sunset. The City relies upon two voter- initiated sales and
use tax programs ( 0 . 25% BOB for capital projects plus related planning costs and as a source for some federal
grants that require local matching funds and 0 . 25% for street maintenance ) . That said, Fort Collins is one of
very few cities that have an earmarked source of local government revenue to finance street, bicycle and
pedestrian projects .
Dedicated Sources of Transportation Revenue . While the passing of the voter approved Measure 2B funds
are very helpful , particularly to address the maintenance of existing facilities, these sources of revenue alone
are insufficient to fully fund the City' s capital and long term operations and maintenance needs . Consistent
reliance on General Fund transfers is not ideal as these funds are vulnerable to competition from other core
city services . On -going operations and maintenance services have been underfunded in recent years; the
cumulative effects of underfunding are increasingly obvious and troublesome, since there is City support to
sustain and increase its commitment to efficient transportation services .
Transit does have a few dedicated sources of funding, such as farebox revenues, advertising, and a contract
with CSU . However, these dedicated sources comprise about 14% of operations revenues .
Dependence on Federal Grants . For the last 30 years, federal funding authorization for transportation has
been approved by Congress in 6-year increments . The multi -year authorization enables states and local
governments to plan ahead for projects that take more than a single year to implement.
Reauthorization for federal transportation funding expired in September 30, 2009 . The proposed Surface
Transportation Authorization Act of 2009 has not been approved by Congress; reauthorization is not imminent .
Congress has passed a series of short-term emergency funding measures; the latest will expire February 28,
2011 . One reason the multi -year reauthorization is held up is that motor fuel tax revenues, the underlying
source of federal funding, may be insufficient without an increase in the rate . It is likely that the federal
reauthorization process will continued to be delayed due to the challenging national political climate and
significant difficulties associated with addressing the magnitude of the federal funding gap .
What's New? In addition to providing transportation services at current levels, the City may initiate additional
transportation services that increase livability and enhance sustainability. These include :
1 . Renewed focus on infill development that achieves triple- bottom objectives .
2 . Initiatives to reshape streets and enhance transportation corridors ( Context Sensitive Design ) .
What's Needed ?
1 . A sustainable, reliable source of local revenue to continue to fund transportation capital projects when the
voter-approved sales and use tax initiatives sunset in 2015 .
2 . A dedicated source of local revenue to fund annual operations and maintenance of streets, transit,
bikeways and pedestrian improvements .
3 . Continued state and federal funding support for infrastructure improvements ( bicycle, pedestrian, transit,
and street) such as enhanced corridors and other travel services
3
ATTACHMENT 3
1 . 3 Supplemental Finance Tools
For each targeted BFO results area , this section lists current finance tools and practices that Fort Collins uses .
The context in which these tools are applied is described in Sections 2 and 3 . The tables also list supplemental
sources of finance for consideration . Each supplemental tool is then presented in further detail .
TRAFFIC FLOW
(Traffic Operations, Snowplowing, Street Sweeping, Traffic Signal Maintenance, Intersections, Signs and Pavement Markings)
CURRENT PRIMARY SOURCES OF FINANCE SUPPLEMENTAL SOURCES OF FINANCE FOR CONSIDERATION
Capital : Capital :
0 . 25% BOB funds Voter-approved sales and use tax revenues ( 2016 +)
0 . 25% Streets and Transportation funds
State & Federal Grants Operations & Maintenance :
Transportation Utility Fee
Operations & Maintenance :
Transportation Services Fund
QUALITY TRAVEL SURFACES AND INFRASTRUCTURE
....................................._...._......•..-.................................................. ... .....4..................... ............
(Street Maintenance, Pavement Management, Local, Collector and Arterial Streets, Bridge and Railroad Replacement Projects,
Safety and Efficiency Improvements, Communication Infrastructure)
CURRENT PRIMARY SOURCES OF FINANCE SUPPLEMENTAL SOURCES OF FINANCE FOR CONSIDERATION
Capital : Capital :
Developers — through exaction process State FASTER Grants
Street Oversizing Fee Restructured Street Oversizing Fee
Capital Projects Fund , via General Fund Transfer Restructured developer exactions
State & Federal Grants Regional Improvements Property Tax
0 & M : Special and General Improvement Districts
Transportation Services Fund
Operations & Maintenance :
Transportation Utility Fee
INTEGRATED TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE PLANNING
(Transportation Master Plan, Partnerships and Collaboration, Participation with MPO, )
CURRENT PRIMARY SOURCES OF FINANCE SUPPLEMENTAL SOURCES OF FINANCE FOR CONSIDERATION
Federal & State Grants ( Federal ) Transportation, Community and System
• Transportation Services Fund Preservation Program (TCSP ) Grants
General Fund Federal - Livable Communities Act Grants ( proposed )
0. 25% BOB revenues Transportation Management Association
0. 25% Streets and Transportation revenues
4
ATTACHMENT 3
TRAVEL MODE OPTIONS
(Transit, Bicycle, Pedestrian, Travel Demand Management, Parking)
CURRENT PRIMARY SOURCES OF FINANCE SUPPLEMENTAL SOURCES OF FINANCE FOR CONSIDERATION
Capital : Capital :
Federal & State Grants Federal - Livable Communities Act Grants ( proposed )
Street Oversizing Fund Federal TE Grants — Recovery Act Supplement
0 . 25% BOB funds State — FASTER Grants
0 . 25% Streets and Transportation funds State — Transit and Rail Division Grants
General Improvement District
Operations & Maintenance : Special Improvement District
Funding from Larimer County, Loveland, Berthoud for Tax Increment Financing
demand - responsive transit
Farebox revenues and advertising on busses Capital and Operations and Maintenance :
General Fund Dedicated ( Permanent) Sales Tax for Alternative Modes
Transportation Services Fund Continuation of Voter Approved Sales Tax Initiatives
Transit Services Fund with Sunset Provisions
Parking fees Regional Service Authority
Regional Transportation Authority
Operations & Maintenance :
Business Improvement District
Motor Vehicle Fine Surcharge
Transportation Management Association
Increase Awareness
(Outreach and Education related to reduction in vehicle miles traveled and mobile source emissions)
CURRENT PRIMARY SOURCES OF FINANCE SUPPLEMENTAL SOURCES OF FINANCE FOR CONSIDERATION
Partnerships with Poudre Valley School District
State & Federal Grants Federal - Transportation, Community and System
Preservation (TCSP ) Grants
Transportation Management Association
5
ATTACHMENT 3
Description of Supplemental Transportation Finance Tools for Consideration
The following supplemental finance tools include only those that have not been used in Fort Collins, have been
used infrequently, could be expanded or have expired .
Federal Districts, Authorities, Utilities
Transportation Enhancement Grants — Recovery Act Transportation Utility
Supplemental Allocation Business Improvement District
Transportation, Community and System Preservation General Improvement District
(TCSP) Grants Special Improvement District
Transportation Investments Generating Economic Regional Service Authority
Recovery (TIGER) Regional Transportation Authority
Livable Communities Act Grants ( proposed ) Regional Overlay District
Urban Renewal Authority /TIF
State Regional Transit District
Funding Advancements for Surface Transportation and
Economic Recovery ( FASTER ) Grants Private Nonprofit Organizations
Transit and Rail Division Grants ( FASTER Funds) 63-20 Corporations
Private Non- Profit Foundation
Local Taxes & Fees Transportation Corporation
Sales Tax Dedicated to Transportation Homeowners Associations
Transportation Utility Fee Transportation Management Association
Regional Improvements Tax
Public Improvement Fee — Add-On Developers and Property Owners
Public Improvement Fee — Credit and City Waiver Amendments to Street Oversizing Fee
Specific Occupation Tax Expansion of Development Exactions
Moving Violation Surcharge
Fixed Fee Pass for Transit Service
FEDERAL GRANTS. These grants are primarily from the Surface Transportation Act the American Reinvestment
and Recovery Act of 2009, and proposed programs .
Tool : TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT (TE ) GRANTS - AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT
(ARRA) SUPPLEMENTAL ALLOCATION
Description Ten percent of federal FHWA Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds must be used for
Transportation Enhancements (TE) Grants . Eligible TE activities are community-based projects
that expand travel choices and enhance the transportation experience by improving the cultural,
historic, aesthetic and environmental aspects of our transportation infrastructure .
Recently, the US DOT added a requirement that states spend 3% of their Recovery Act funding
allocation through the Transportation Enhancement program .
Funds are apportioned to States, which determine the selection procedures, policies regarding
matching funds, etc . In FY 2009, $ 12 million was apportioned to Colorado. CDOT allocates its TE
grant revenues among its six geographic regions . Each region conducts its own competitive
process .
6
ATTACHMENT 3
Tool : TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT (TE ) GRANTS — AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT
(ARRA) SUPPLEMENTAL ALLOCATION
Applicability TE projects must be one of 12 eligible activities and must relate to surface transportation .
For example, projects can include creation of bicycle and pedestrian facilities, streetscape
improvements, refurbishment of historic transportation facilities, and other investments that
enhance communities and access .
Benefits and + — The Federal local match of 80/20 is a minimum requirement . .
Limitations
Legal and CDOT manages its Transportation Enhancement apportionment through coordinators in its six
Administrative CDOT regions . Funds are sub-allocated to the six geographical regions; a competitive process
Considerations occurs within each region .
Applied Fort Collins has received three Transportation Enhancement Grants in the last five years : 2009 —
Elsewhere Linden Street sidewalk landscape; 2007 for improvements to the Fort Collins historic Trolley track.
Tool : TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNITY AND SYSTEM PRESERVATION (TCSP) PROGRAM GRANTS
SECTION 1117 OF THE FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION ACT (SAFETEA-LU, PUBLIC LAW 109-203 )
Description This is a Federal Highway Administration managed program with support from the FTA, EPA and
other federal agencies . The TCSP program provides funding for comprehensive planning grants,
implementation grants, and research to investigate and address the relationships between
transportation, community, and system preservation plans and practices.
Applicability This grant might be most appropriate for a future catalytic project that embraces the City's
commitment achieving triple bottom line objectives. Projects that include land use, transit-
oriented development, multiple modes and environmental efficiencies rank high .
Benefits and + This grant program funds complex multi-disciplinary research and planning programs .
Limitations — It is highly competitive at the national level .
Legal and Competitive grants are awarded at the national level . In FY 2010, only $ 60 . 7 million was
Administrative appropriated and awarded to 106 projects in 34 states .
Considerations
Applied Since 2000, nine communities in Colorado have received TCSP grants for projects in Arapahoe
Elsewhere County, Arvada , Denver, Estes Park, Frisco, and Littleton . The federal funding amount ranged from
$ 175,000 to $ 1 . 98 million . Fort Collins has not received a grant award .
Tool : SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL (SRTS)
Description This is a federal program was created by Section 1401 of the federal transportation bill . Funds are
available to make school routes safe for children walking and bicycling. Funds are apportioned to
each state; Colorado received $2 . 6 million in FY 2009 .
States structure their programs to meet their needs. Colorado makes funds available for K-8
grades . Grants are awarded through a competitive process and in proportion to the geographic
distribution of students in grades K-8 .
Applicability Cities, schools, school districts may apply. There is no local match requirement.
Infrastructure funds may be for installing bicycle parking, street striping, off-street bicycle and
pedestrian facilities, installing or improving sidewalks, and installing signs.
7
ATTACHMENT 3
Tool : SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL (SRTS)
Non -infrastructure grants may be for teaching pedestrian and bicycle education, implementing a
public awareness campaign, completing a bicycle or pedestrian audit, teaching traffic safety, etc .
Benefits and — Between 70% and 90% of infrastructure grants must relate directly to a specific school .
Limitations + No matching funds are required .
Legal and Applications are due December 4, 2010 for infrastructure and non -infrastructure (education )
Administrative grants . Non-infrastructure grants have a minimum of $3, 500; 10% to 30% of funds are for these
Considerations purposes; the remainder is Infrastructure grants range between $50,000 and $ 250, 000 .
Applied A number of cities have won STRS grants in prior years. Fort Collins has received a small
Elsewhere infrastructure grant in 2006 for sidewalk improvements ( $33, 123 ) and a small non -infrastructure
grant in 2007 for SRTS Education and Encouragement ( $22, 208 ) .
Tool : TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENTS GENERATING ECONOMIC RECOVERY (TIGER) GRANTS
Description TIGER grants are offered pursuant to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 . They
are competitive discretionary grants for capital improvements or planning projects that are
awarded directly by the US Department of Transportation .
Applicability The emphasis for TIGER II projects is long-term economic development; other primary criteria
included livability, environmental sustainability and safety . ; TIGER I focused on short-term job
creation .
Benefits and — Two rounds of grants have been made available . It is unclear whether a third ground of grants
Limitations will become available .
— The local match amount is flexible; up to 100% federal share is acceptable.
— Competition is national and strong.
Legal and $ 600 million was available in the TIGER II discretionary grant program ; $ 1 . 5 billion was awarded in
Administrative the first round (TIGER 1 ) .
Considerations
Applied 51 grants were awarded in the first round of grants; funding amounts ranged from $ 3 . 1 million to
Elsewhere $ 105 million . One grant was awarded in Colorado, US 36 Bus Rapid Transit ( $ 10 million ) .
Tool : THE LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ACT OF 2009 ( Proposed — 51619; HR 3734)
Description If passed by Congress, this act would fund planning and implementation grants that demonstrate a
"commitment to integrated planning and sustainable development" and incorporate
transportation, housing, community, economic development and environmental needs.
Applicability Grant requirements have not been developed . However, topics to be funded include transit-
oriented development, pedestrian and bicycle thoroughfares, affordable housing, and economic
development.
Benefits and + If funded, $400 million in planning grants would be available over four years and $ 3 . 75 billion in
Limitations implementation grants would be available over three years .
— This act and related funding has not been approved by Congress .
— Competition would be at the national level .
Legal and The US Departments of Housing and Urban development and Transportation and the
Administrative Environmental Protection agency are involved through an " Interagency Council on Sustainable
Considerations Communities" which will be housed in the executive branch .
Applied This is a new proposed program .
Elsewhere
8
ATTACHMENT 3
STATE : These two grant programs are from supplemental revenues made available through the 2009 voter-
approved FASTER grant program .
Tool : FUNDING ADVANCEMENTS FOR SURFACE TRANSPORTATION AND ECONOMIC RECOVERY (FASTER)
Description In 2009, the Colorado legislature passed the FASTER Bill (SB 09-108) which imposed a motor
vehicle registration fee surcharge and imposes a daily car rental fee and established how these
additional revenues must be spent .
The legislation credits revenues to the highway users tax fund and allocates 18% to municipalities
using an existing motor fuel tax allocation formula ; these funds are for road safety projects .
Applicability
Benefits and
Limitations
Legal and
Administrative
Considerations
Applied This is unique to Colorado .
Elsewhere
Tool : STATE TRANSIT AND BRIDGE FUND (THROUGH FASTER REVENUES)
Description Approximately $5 million in FASTER revenues will be allocated to the State Transit and Bridge Fund
for grants to local transit projects . These funds will be made available through a competitive grant
process in each CDOT region .
Applicability Eligibility requirements should be announced shortly.
Benefits and
Limitations
Legal and The CDOT Commission approved the guidance for the Statewide FASTER funds in mid -September
Administrative 2010 and is responsible for administering the project selection process . .
Considerations
Applied Funds will be available for the first time in fall 2010.
Elsewhere
LOCAL TAXES & FEES : This section describes taxes and fees that are available to the city, districts or private
developers . Generally, any increase in a "tax" or a multi -year commitment of a tax resource requires voter
approval ; the imposition of a fee that is based on benefits received does not require voter approval .
Tool : SALES AND USE TAX DEDICATED TO TRANSPORTATION
Description To be updated based on passage of 213
Applicability To be updated based on passage of 213
Benefits and To be updated based on passage of 2B
Limitations
Legal and To be updated based on passage of 213
Administrative
9
ATTACHMENT 3
Tool : SALES AND USE TAX DEDICATED TO TRANSPORTATION
Considerations
Applied To be updated based on passage of 213
Elsewhere
Tool : TRANSPORTATION UTILITY FEE
(Also known as a road user fee, street utility fee and street maintenance fee)
Description Transportation utility fees are a financing mechanism that treats the street network as a utility and
bills properties in proportion to their use, similar to the manner in which the City bills for water,
sewer and electric service . In communities with a transportation utility fee, developed properties
are charged a user fee for road maintenance as a service in the same way that they are charged for
water, sewer, and trash collection .
Applicability This fee is applicable to maintenance of transportation improvements rather than to constructing
capital projects . This type of fee could cover costs associated with street, sidewalk, and bicycle
maintenance, snowplowing, street sweeping, signal and lighting maintenance . Revenues
generated by this fee could free up other existing revenues currently used for street maintenance,
snow plowing, street sweeping, and related activities .
Most cities with street maintenance fees impose the fee on the basis of trips, converted into
square feet of building, students/members, or screens . Some communities have made
adjustments to trip generation figures including downward adjustments for "by- pass trips,"
capping traffic generation factors for commercial uses, local, arterial and collector roads, truck
traffic volume, and trip length .
Benefits and + May an equitable technique to pay for street maintenance costs .
Limitations + Fees can be structured to recognize the shorter trip lengths in infill locations relative to
suburban locations, thereby encouraging infill .
+ Some communities use the fee as a tool to include tax-exempt properties , since all built
properties generate traffic .
+ Would not require a popular vote, since it is a fee and not a tax.
— May be time-consuming to impose fee . The fee would need to be structured to share costs
equitably among land uses . The 1984 Fort Collins fee schedule was based on land use and trip
generation and was imposed on developed properties on a per front foot basis .
Legal and Cities have the authority to create, franchise or license utilities under § 31-21- 101 CRS. While this
Administrative statute is typically used to franchise electric, gas and telephone services, it was used by the City of
Considerations Fort Collins to create a street utility for street maintenance.
The Fort Collins utility was tested in the Colorado Supreme Court. The Court ruled that the fee was
a form of special services fee and the fee schedule reasonably correlated with use and was
appropriately imposed . The Fort Collins City Attorney did not believe that it was necessary to
create a transportation utility to impose this fee .
10
ATTACHMENT 3
Tool : TRANSPORTATION UTILITY FEE
(Also known as a road user fee, street utility fee and street maintenance fee)
Applied In Colorado, Loveland imposed a transportation utility fee in 2001 . Boulder and Aurora have
Elsewhere considered imposing a transportation utility fee but neither elected to move forward .
Fort Collins is recognized as the first city to impose a transportation utility fee. The fee was
imposed in 1984 and was based on trips generated by land use and imposed on developed
properties on a front foot basis . The fee was subsequently rescinded in 1992 because it was
replaced by the voter approved 0. 25% sales and use tax in November 1991 .
Cities in other states with transportation utility fees include Austin and Beaumont (Texas) and
multiple cities in Oregon . Fees have also been imposed in Florida and Idaho, but were overturned
in court challenges.
Tool : REGIONAL IMPROVEMENTS PROPERTY TAX ( NEW DEVELOPMENT)
Description This is a property tax imposed on new development by metropolitan districts. The requirement to
impose this tax is typically determined during annexation negotiations . Revenues would be
available for regional transportation improvements . P
Applicability This is most applicable to larger proposed developments that seek to annex and form a
metropolitan district.
Benefits and + / —While revenues might be quite small in the early years of development, they can be
Limitations substantial and development transpires .
Legal and + Typically, these requirements are imposed during the annexation negotiation process . The terms
Administrative become part of an IGA between the City and the metropolitan district .
Considerations + No votes are required .
— Revenues are limited in the early years of development.
Applied Aurora has maintained a practice of imposing graduated regional mill levy on new development
Elsewhere with metropolitan districts for decades; revenues will be substantial over the new few decades.
Lone Tree required a 1 mill levy be imposed on metropolitan districts associated with a a single
annexed property, which, at build-out, will be substantially larger than the existing City .
Tools PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT FEE - ADD-ON (Add-on PIF)
Description An Add-On PIF is a private fee imposed by developers and building owners on tenants who lease
commercial property. The fee functions like an additional sales tax in that it is most often a small
percentage of a sales transaction . It is imposed by the tenant (typically a retailer) on the customer
at the time of the sales transaction . The requirement to charge a PIF is in the landlord/tenant
lease .
Applicability This is most applicable to improvements triggered by new retail development.
Benefits and + Requires no vote .
Limitations — Imposed privately.
— The fee may hamper retail sales among price-sensitive customers if it is perceived to be too high .
— Some anchor retailers limit the amount of add -on public improvements fees allowed .
Legal and This is a private transaction between the developer, the owner of leased property and commercial
Administrative tenants . No voter approval is required .
Considerations
11
ATTACHMENT 3
Tool : PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT FEE - ADD-ON (Add-on PIF)
Applied Some examples are Park Meadows ( Lone Tree ), Flatirons Shopping Center, Prairie Center
Elsewhere ( Brighton), Firestone, Aspen Grove ( Littleton ), Colorado Mills and Belmar ( Lakewood ) .
Tool : PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT FEE — CREDIT - (Credit PIF with City Sales Tax Waiver)
Description A Credit PIF and a City Sales Tax Waiver are counterbalancing finance tools.
The Credit PIF functions just like an Add-on PIF . The City Sales Tax Waiver is an equal downward
adjustment in the sales tax rate so the net impact of the Credit PIF and the Sales Tax Waiver
counterbalance each other, with a minor exception .
These tools are most typically applied to a particular retail development; revenues are used to
finance project- related improvements .
The most typical application is in conjunction with sales tax but credit PIFs have also been used in
conjunction with use tax, real estate transfer tax and lodging tax.
Applicability A credit PIF can be the public sector's share of a needed improvement.
Benefits and + There are equity benefits in that fee revenues are tied directly to the need for the improvement .
Limitations
+ / — The City may see this as revenues that the City would relinquish . The counter argument is
that the retail development and sales tax revenue might not occur without the incentive provided
by the Credit PIF .
Legal and This may be enactedby ordinance or IGA. If this were an annual City appropriation, then there
Administrative would be no vote . �
Considerations
Although the flow of revenue is identical, there are legal benefits to the City and metropolitan
district to a sales tax credit in lieu of a waiver of tax revenues .
If a sales tax credit were a multiple year commitment, then voter approval may be needed .
Applied Some examples are Village at Avon (Avon ) , Park Meadows Mall ( Lone Tree), Prairie Center
Elsewhere ( Brighton) , Belmar ( Lakewood ) and Larkridge (Thornton ) .
Tool : SPECIFIC OCCUPATION TAX (Excise Tax) for Gas Stations
Description This would be a specific occupation tax ( excise tax) imposed on transportation -generating
businesses, such as gas stations . It might be based on gallons of fuel sold, or the value of fuel
sales .
Applicability This tool might be applicable for road improvements rather than alternative modes.
Benefits and + The tax would be imposed directly on major contributors to the need for road improvements.
Limitations + Residents, visitors, and businesses would all pay the tax.
+ The tax may particularly impact businesses in the delivery business
Legal and + Home rule cities have the authority to impose a specific occupation tax .
Administrative
Considerations — Requires voter approval since it would be a tax increase .
Applied This tax has been considered by several municipalities in Colorado but has not been applied .
Elsewhere
12
ATTACHMENT 3
Tool : MOVING VEHICLE FINE SURCHARGE
Description This is a surcharge imposed by the City on moving vehicle violations . Using the Portland example,
additional funds could be used to increase awareness of pedestrian and bicycle safety and safe
routes to school .
Applicability
Benefits and + Programs that increase pedestrian and bicycle safety can engage rribny segments of the
Limitations community including neighborhood organizations, major employers, CSU , the DDA and Poudre
Valley Schools. _Jk
Legal and The City can adjust is schedule of fines by ordinance .
Administrative
Considerations
Applied In Oregon, traffic fines are imposed at the state level and transferred to each jurisdiction . Portland
Elsewhere receives $ 1 million in traffic fine revenues annually and dedicates a portion of funds to bicycle and
safety campaigns .
Tool : FIXED FEE MONTHLY PASSES FOR TRANSIT SERVICE
Description This is a fixed monthly fee for transit service for eligible users .
Applicability This fee arrangement could be used in lieu of the current negotiated agreement with the
Associated Students of CSU . It could also be offered to students of Front Range Community
College, Poudre Valley School District, local government and major private-sector employers,
businesses with targeted areas such as the DDA.
Benefits and + This is a simple tool that might general additional revenue for Transfort.
Limitations + This tool fosters use of transit service in lieu of single-occupancy vehicles.
Legal and This fee could be introduced by Transfort. No vote of the electorate is required .
Administrative
Considerations
Applied Many transit providers offer a fixed -fee monthly pass . For example, The Regional Transportation
Elsewhere District offers an "eco- pass" to major governments and companies . Monthly pass fee
arrangements are negotiated on the basis of size of organization, etc .
DISTRICTS, AUTHORITIES, UTILITIES AND PROGRAMS : There are several types of districts, authorities or
utilities that can be formed to finance transportation improvements . The discussion below describes each
type and highlights the differences . The discussion above, Taxes and Fees, outlines some revenue tools that
can be used by these organizations .
Tool : TRANSPORTATION UTILITY CRS § 31-21-101+ and §40-2-108
Description ( Local Government Utility) Cities may create, franchise or license utilities ( §31-21- 101 + CRS) . This
statute was used by the City of Fort Collins for street maintenance .
( PUC Regulated Utility) Under the Public Utilities Commission, local governments must become a
"transportation utility" when it provides service outside of its corporate boundaries and does not
have an IGA with the jurisdiction receiving service. (§40-2-108 CRS)
13
ATTACHMENT 3
Tool : TRANSPORTATION UTILITY CRS § 31-21-101+ and §40-2-108
Applicability This could fund street, bikeway, sidewalk, signage and signal maintenance, plus snow plowing,
street sweeping and related services through a transportation utility.
It is not necessary to form a transportation utility to impose a transportation utility fee .
Benefits and If the City established a transportation utility and fee structure to provide road maintenance
Limitations services, then this could relieve the General Fund, making its revenues more available for other
purposes.
Legal and There are upfront legal and administrative costs associated with establishing fees that are
Administrative consistent with user benefits .
Considerations
Applied Fort Collins formed a transportation utility in 1984 . ( See earlier discussion under Transportation
Elsewhere Utility Fee . ) The only PUC-regulated utility providing transportation services at this time is Avon .
Tool : BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (BID) (CRS § 31-25-1201 +)
Description Cities may create business improvement districts to build, maintain, own and operate
improvements and issue debt . BIDs may also plan and manage economic development activities
such as promotion, marketing, and events .
Sources of revenue may be property taxes, fees, charges and assessments.
Applicability A BID is most applicable when the commercial properties generate the need for building or
maintaining an improvement .
In Fort Collins, this tool could be used to maintain enhanced improvements along selected
corridors, such as Mason Street . Another application might be for enhancements associated with
the micro- brewery initiative .
Benefits and + This is a good tool in commercial areas because residential properties are exempt from fees .
Limitations + It is a good tool for on-going maintenance and operations of a facility.
Legal and BIDS are organized by petition of property owners owning 50% of the assessed value and 50% of the
Administrative acreage . Only commercial properties are charged the relevant fee, tax or assessment; residential
Considerations properties may voluntarily elect to participate .
Tenants are given a vote in decisions .
Applied There are about 40 BIDs in Colorado. Two of larger BIDs that provide transportation services are in
Elsewhere Denver. The Downtown Denver's BID provides enhanced maintenance of its 16th Street Pedestrian
and Transit corridor. In additional to management and promotional services, the Cherry Creek
North BID provides streetscape, sidewalk and signage amenities plus bicycle improvements.
Tool : SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS (SID) (CRS § 31-25-501+ )
Description Cities may create special improvement districts (SIDS) . These districts are financing tools only;
they are not new governments and have no power to make contracts or levy taxes .
Most often, SIDS use a per property assessment based on benefit to finance improvements.
14
ATTACHMENT 3
Tool : SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS (SID) (CRS § 31-25-501+ )
Applicability These districts are most applicable for localized improvements where a substantial portion of the
benefit is attributable to properties physically near the improvement . Districts have also been used
for projects with larger benefit areas if local government shares in costs .
These districts might be applicable for improvements along enhanced travel corridors like Mason,
North College, Harmony and others .
Benefits and +/— Since SIDS are not separate governments, they may not enter into IGAs.
Limitations + A SID has a fixed life which corresponds to financing specific improvements .
Legal and SIDS may be established by petition from property owners or by ordinance or resolution of the
Administrative city. If established by resolution, more than 50% of the property owners affected may halt the
Considerations formation .
A benefit study may be necessary to develop a cost sharing formula, based on benefit .
City councils govern SIDs.
Applied There is one active SID in Fort Collins . In 2003, the City formed a special improvement district to
Elsewhere finance intersection improvements at Timberline and Prospect .
Historically, SIDS were used on a more regular basis but problems collecting assessments in the
1980s slowed their usage .
Since the mid - 1950s, Aurora has consistently used SIDS to finance road improvements . Often, the
City funds a portion of costs associated with through traffic.
The Portland Office of Transportation has used their version of SIDs ( local improvement districts )
to fund numerous pedestrian - related streetscape improvements . Most often these LIDS are
formed in business districts .
Tool : GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (GID ) (CRS § 31-25-601+)
Description Cities may create general improvement districts (GIDs) which may impose a property tax as well as
fees, fines, tolls and charges and may also issue debt to pay for district costs . GIDs may provide
any service that the governing body may provide and may also operate and maintain
improvements.
Applicability GIDs may be useful in financing smaller transportation projects that benefit a defined area .
GIDs may acquire, construct and install streets, parking facilities and drainage improvements.
A GID has been considered to finance a portion of the Mason Corridor Improvements.
Benefits and + No benefit study is needed if only property taxes are to be used for repayment of district
Limitations obligations .
+ These districts are not new governmental entities, since the city governs the GID with the City
Council as the ex-officio board .
+ GID may enter into an IGA with a city or county .
+ In addition to property taxes, GIDs may impose fees, rates, tolls and charges and issue debt.
Legal and GIDs can be created by the City in response to a petition signed by a majority of electors owning
Administrative property in the district . The local government adopts an ordinance or resolution creating the
Considerations district .
A GID requires some upfront legal and administrative costs .
Since a GID is a governmental entity, it may enter into contracts such as an IGA.
15
ATTACHMENT 3
Tool : GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (GID ) (CRS § 31-25-601+)
City councils govern GIDs.
Applied In Fort Collins, there are two active GIDs in the City . One was formed in 1976 to fund parking,
Elsewhere streetscape and sidewalk improvements in the downtown area . The other is Skyview South which
was assumed by the City in the southwest annexation area .
The City of Boulder has used GIDs to finance and manage parking improvements in the downtown
and University Hills areas for many years . Aurora considered a GID overlay in newly developing
areas to finance regional scale improvements .
Tool : REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY ( HB 97-1273; HB 09-1034; CRS § 43-4-601+)
Description A regional transportation authority may be formed by 2 or more cities, 2+ counties or a city and a
county. .
RTAs may finance, construct and operate highways, roads, bikeways, bridges or mass transit;
impose a sales and use tax up to 1 . 0%, a property tax of up to 5 mills, a motor vehicle registration
fee, other fees, rates and charges and; enter into IGAs with other entities.
Applicability An RTA might be useful to fund regional transportation improvements.
Benefits and + Pending voter approval, RTAs have access to some substantial revenue tools such as a sales tax
Limitations up to 1%, property tax mill levy up to 5 mills, motor vehicle registration fee and accommodations
tax.
+ RTAs may be used to fund not only roads, but transit, bike, and pedestrian improvements .
— Requires voter approval of residents in the proposed RTA area to form the authority and to
authorize specific funding applications .
+ Revenues can be used to leverage state or federal funding .
+ RTA boundaries can be expanded over time to include additional jurisdictions .
Legal and Voters in the proposed area must approve the formation and the taxing tools .
Administrative Directors must be elected officials .
Considerations An IGA with participating local governments would be appropriate, since an RTA might assume
services currently provided by local governments .
Applied There are five RTAs in Colorado that impose a sales/use tax : Roaring Fork Valley ( Eagle, Garfield,
Elsewhere Pitkin ), Pikes Peak ( El Paso County), Gunnison Valley ( Gunnison County), Baptist Road ( El Paso
County), and the South Platte Valley ( Logan County) . Sales and use tax rates range from 0 . 1% to
1 . 0% .
The feasibility of a geographically large RTA was explored through the North Front Range
Transportation and Air Quality Planning Council in 2001 .
Tool : REGIONAL SERVICE AUTHORITY (CRS § 32-7-101+ )
Description The primary purpose of this authority is to provide services that extend beyond local government
boundaries. Boundaries must include at least all of one county and may include other counties as
long as they are outside of the Denver metro area .
Services may include "public surface" transportation and several other non-transportation
services . The authority may levy property taxes, rates, fees, fines and assessments and issue debt.
Applicability This authority could be helpful for road improvements at the edge of the City's boundaries along I-
25 or for transit service that extends to other jurisdictions.
16
ATTACHMENT 3
Tool : REGIONAL SERVICE AUTHORITY (CRS § 32-7-101+ )
Benefits and + / - With voter approval, this tool can levy property taxes above 5 mills but cannot levy a sales
Limitations tax .
Legal and An organizational commission may be formed by resolution of the local governments . The
Administrative commission proposes services and the maximum mill levy.
Considerations
A popular vote is required for formation and election of the board of directors.
Applied There is one regional service authority in Colorado; it provides health care services .
Elsewhere The 2009 Transfort Strategic Plan suggested consideration of this tool . The concept was also
suggested for transit service between Fort Collins and Loveland .
Tool : REGIONAL OVERLAY DISTRICT ( Using a GID or Metropolitan District)
Description This is a concept, not a new organization . It could be applied using a metropolitan district or a
general improvement district . It typically covers a large area that may contain other districts and
exists to finance the community's share of regional improvements .
Applicability Regional districts or district overlays are most helpful in financing large-scale regional
improvements. A regional mill levy could be imposed to fund the new community's share .
Benefits and + This tool can spread the financial burden of infrastructure among developing properties .
Limitations + A overlay district would not create a new government; revenues would increase with growth .
— An election would be required in the overlay district within participating metropolitan districts .
This may be challenging in situations where there is existing development.
Legal and An overlay district may be imposed on property that also have a metropolitan district as long as
Administrative the services provided are different .
Considerations
Intergovernmental agreements between the regional overlay district, other districts and the city
would be needed
Applied The Denver / Gateway ( DIA) area created a regional overlay among its metropolitan districts to
Elsewhere help pay for the developer' s share of arterial road improvements in this large developing area .
The property owner/ developers initiated the formation .
Tool : URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY (TAX INCREMENT FINANCING) (CRS § 31-25-10+)
Description Though the creation of an urban renewal authority and after the finding of blight, the City can
establish a project area and pledge " incremental" sales and property tax revenues for a 25 -year
pledged revenue period . Incremental revenues may include local sales and use tax, and property
tax collected by any source .
Applicability The City has established an urban renewal authority; City Council functions as its board .
Benefits and + URAs do not impose additional taxes. Tax increment financing is a reallocation of tax revenues
Limitations for improvements within a defined project area .
+ Establishing a new URA project area does not require a popular vote; it does require City Council
to declare a finding of "blight."
— Other governments that collect property taxes within TIF project areas are impacted during the
pledged revenue period . Project-specific negotiations can mitigate potential impacts where
needed .
17
ATTACHMENT 3
Tool : URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY (TAX INCREMENT FINANCING ) (CRS § 31-25- 10+)
Legal and The City has created an urban renewal authority, designating City Council as its governing board .
Administrative Additional project areas can be established by developing project-area blight analyses and a plan
Considerations to remove blight, and holding a public hearing. No election is required .
Applied The Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority also has tax increment financing authorities
Elsewhere and has used its authorities and revenues to finance parking, sidewalk and streetscape
improvements.
A number of other municipalities such as Westminster, Broomfield, Boulder, Loveland and Wheat
Ridge use URAs to finance transportation improvements .
PRIVATE NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS : There are several types of nonprofit organizations that have been
successful in providing transportation services . These entities are typically formed to used to organize private
resources, seek private or tax-exempt funding and partner with local governments .
Tool : Transportation Management Organization (TMA)
Description TMAs are public private partnerships designed to address traffic congestion, mobility and air
quality problems in specific geographic areas . The idea emerged in the early 1980s . No two TMAs
are exactly alike . They are typically private nonprofit, member-controlled organizations that
function within a particular area such as a commercial district, medical center or enhanced
transportation corridor.
Applicability Broadly, TMAs function to help existing resources work better together. They advocate,
coordinate, educate and facilitate. For example, TMAs might facilitate education or awareness of
alternative modes, advocate for enhanced transportation investments, manage parking resources
and shuttle bus services.
Benefits and — It' s important to avoid duplicating services provided by existing organizations .
Limitations + TMAs can leverage City initiatives by focusing private and non - profit sector energy on commonly
desired outcomes .
Legal and Typically, TMAs are independent, non-profit organizations funded by key stakeholders, such as
Administrative employers, developers, educational institutions, and government entities. Often governments
Considerations provide seed funding and then reduce their support as other stakeholder revenues kick in .
Applied Some examples in Colorado include the Fitzsimons Transportation Management Association
Elsewhere (www .fitzsimonstma . org), 36 Commuting Solutions (www. 36commutingsolutions . org), the Boulder
East Community Transportation Options ( http ://boundereast .typepad . com ), and the Stapleton
TMA (www. sntma . org) and Transportation Solutions in the Cherry Creek and Glendale areas of
Denver ( http ://transolutions . org) .
The City completed a TMA Feasibility Study in 2006 . At that time, the conclusion was forming a
TMA was premature but a number of ideas emerged that could be incorporated into existing
organizations such as the Downtown Development Authority.
Tool : 63-20 CORPORATION ( IRS Ruling 63-20)
18
ATTACHMENT 3
Tool : 63-20 CORPORATION (IRS Ruling 63-20)
Description This is a non-profit corporation that meets the following requirements of IRS Ruling 63-20. (a )
Engaged in activities that are essentially public. ( b) Income does not inure to the benefit of any
private person . (c) State or political subdivision has a beneficial interest in the corporation and
obtains title to bond-financed property; ( d ) State or political subdivision has approved the
corporation and bonds to be issued, if any.
Applicability The use of 63-20 Corporations ( nonprofit corporations) can be a way to preserve the ability to use
tax-exempt bond financing while maintaining benefits for both public and private participants .
Benefits and + These corporations may have public and private sector board representation .
Limitations + They transfer risk to the private sector while using tax exempt financing.
+ They can receive and use government grants or loan proceeds.
+ They can combine strengths of the public sector with the private sector' s efficiencies .
Legal and Extensive legal and administrative work would probably be needed .
Administrative
Considerations
Applied A 63-20 Corporation has been under consideration in the Central Platte Valley. The Commons PUD
Elsewhere is required to adopt a comprehensive Transportation Demand Management Plan . The 6302-
corporation would finance the acquisition, construction, equipping and improving of parking
facilities in The Commons PUD area .
On a larger scale, to finance toll roads, 63-20 corporations have been used in South Carolina and
Virginia and for the Northwest Parkway in Denver metro area . These projects enabled the private
sector to build transportation improvements using tax-exempt financing. Each met financing
challenges; no single entity was responsible for curing the financial challenge .
Tool : PRIVATE NON- PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS AND FOUNDATIONS
Description Private non- profit organizations and foundations are approved by the IRS under 501 ( c) ( 3 )
regulations . They may be dedicated to any charitable purpose approved by the IRS . There is no
legal differentiation between a foundation and a nonprofit charitable organization . However,
those that use the word "foundation " in their title are often grant-giving entities .
A TMA can be a type of private non -profit organization .
Applicability Relative to transportation projects, these entities might be dedicated to constructing and/or
maintaining gateway monuments, high -image landscaping, bike and pedestrian paths, or
enhancing use of alternative modes
Benefits and + There are successful examples of foundations supporting high-image improvements that
Limitations generate civic pride . The tool is not attractive for utilitarian transportation improvements .
— Success is typically dependent on the interest and support of key individuals and is unpredictable
in advance .
Legal and While there are private legal costs associated with the creation of private-non- profit organizations
Administrative and foundations, these costs are not the burden of local governments .
Considerations
Examples Denver B-cycle is a bike sharing program that was organized and is managed by Denver B-cycle,
LLC and Denver Bike Sharing, a private 501 (c) 3 . Funding is from several family foundations, the
University of Denver, the Downtown Denver Partnership, LiveWell, several corporate station
sponsors, and a number of "community partners" including six City and County of Denver
departments . Inaugural year funds were provided from the Energy Efficiency and Conservation
19
ATTACHMENT 3
Tool : PRIVATE NON- PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS AND FOUNDATIONS
Block Grant . It was initiated "at the behest" of the Denver mayor.
Tool : TRANSPORTATION CORPORATION
Description These are private non -profit organizations that are established to implement specific public
improvements . This is a relatively new concept in Colorado.
Applicability This tool may be useful if components of a transportation project become highly complex, or
multi-jurisdictional .
Benefits and The strength of a private nonprofit transportation corporation is its ability to coordinate public and
Limitations private sector activities in a cost-effective and streamlined manner.
Legal and In some cases, transportation corporations are originated by private parties; in other cases they
Administrative are originated by one or several local governments.
Considerations
Applied One example is in Denver, where a private non - profit corporation was established to facilitate
Elsewhere construction of the proposed multi- modal facility at Denver Union Station . These tools are more
common in Texas than elsewhere in the country.
Tool : HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS
Description HOAs are created to maintain the physical condition of commonly owned property within a
community.
Applicability HOAs most typically maintain landscaping, bikeways or pedestrian improvements that traverse or
abut their development .
Benefits and + This is most applicable where the improvements or services add value to the houses in the
Limitations community.
Legal and There are some administrative and/or legal costs associated with establishing agreements and
Administrative monitoring success
Considerations
Applied Homeowners associations in larger seniors' development have provided transit services for their
Elsewhere residents.
Tool : ADJUSTMENTS TO STREET OVERSIZING FEE
Description Currently, the City imposes a street oversizing fee on new development to pay the new
development' s share of capacity improvements that it creates .
Infill development does not generate the same amount of demand for street capacity
improvements that greenfield development generates . Potential adjustments in the fee schedule
to align street oversizing requirements for infill projects may be appropriate .
Applicability This would apply to all new development in infill locations .
Benefits and + Adjusting the street oversizing fee for infill development will foster other city sustainability
Limitations objectives .
20
ATTACHMENT 3
Tool : ADJUSTMENTS TO STREET OVERSIZING FEE
Legal and A benefits analysis would be necessary to insure that the adjusted fee schedule for development
Administrative on infill sites is consistent with benefits received .
Considerations
Applied The City of Atlanta reduces its impact fees for properties within one-quarter mile of a mass transit
Elsewhere station, based on assumed higher transit usage .
Jefferson County imposed higher fees on single-family units with 3 + car garages .
Loveland reduces impact fees by 25% for mixed use projects that meet certain criteria .
21
ATTACHMENT 3
SECTION 2 : TRANSPORTATION FINANCING BY FUND
The City uses six funds to provide transportation improvements and services .
■ Four funds deliver transportation improvements or services directly . These are the Transportation
Services Fund , the Transit Services Fund, the Capital Projects Fund and the Street Oversizing Fund .
■ Three funds are intermediary conduits in that they collect and transfer revenues to other funds that
provide projects and services . These are the General Fund , the Sales and Use Tax Fund and the Urban
Renewal Authority Fund .
The illustrations below summarize the primary revenues that each fund receives and the types of
transportation improvements or programs that it funds .
FORT COLLINS - PRIMARY TRANSPORTATION FUNDS
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES FUND
Receives These Revenues : Provides These Services :
County Road & Bridge Property Tax This fund manages and maintains all Transportation Administration
State Highway Users Tax Fund transportation services ( roads, bikeways, Pavement Management
Auto Specific Ownership pedestrian paths) but transit and provides Street Maintenance
Motor Vehicle Registration Fees engineering and planning services. Engineering, Planning
Charges for Services Parking
Federal CMAQ Grant Traffic, Signals
Transfer from General Fund Bicycles and Pedestrian
Transfer from Capital Projects Fund Transfers to Debt Service Fund
Transfer from Sales & Use Tax Fund
TRANSIT SERVICES FUND
Receives These Revenues : This fund provides fixed route bus and Provides These Transit Services :
Bus Fares demand responsive ( Dial-A-Ride) services in • Delivers bus and para-transit services
Advertising Fees the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area • Encourages use of alternative modes
Contract - Assoc. Students of CSU •Transfer to Capital Projects
FTA Operating and Capital Grants
Federal Support for Medicaid Clients
Transfer from General Fund
Transfer from Sales and Use Tax Fund
CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND
Receives These Revenues : This fund accounts for major capital Provides These Transportation Services :
Transfer from Sales & Use Tax Fund projects and related planning. Revenues Street Improvements
Transfer from General Fund are either from fund transfers or proceeds Traffic Signal Improvements
Transfer from Capital Expansion Fund from the issuance of debt. Street Oversizing Projects
Transfer from Transit Services Fund Bicycle Plan improvements
Transfer from Street Oversizing Fund Pedestrian Accessibility Improvements
STREET OVERSIZING FUND
Receives These Revenues : This fund collects street oversizing fees from Provides These Services :
Street Oversizing Fees new development to finance new growth's • Funds growth-related portion of streets
Other Operating Revenues share of arterials and collectors, plus some and related pedestrian and bicycle
Transfers from General Fund capacity improvements and traffic signals. improvements
22
ATTACHMENT 3
The table below summarizes the near term ( 2011-2016 ) revenue projection by fund .
Sales Tax Revenue Projections as of 7/9/2010
2011-2016
Building On Basics ( BOB) tax revenue' $ 19, 115, 889
Pavement Mgmt tax revenue $ 29, 615, 287
2B - Resourcing Our Future tax revenue $59,418, 851
Transportation Services Fund - 2924 $93, 271, 859
Transit Services Fund - 2905 $58, 821, 621
Street Oversizing Fund - 2916 $ 23, 269, 393
Total $ 283, 512, 900
Sources :
Finance Staff, Street OS Program Manager, PDT Financial Coordination Team, Transfort Management
Notes :
' This tax expires December 31, 2015. The revenue through 2016 includes the tax collected in December 2015 and received by the City in January
2016; Amounts reflect only BOB funds allocated to transportation & transit projects;
z This tax expires December 31, 2015. The revenue through 2016 includes the tax collected in December 2015 and received by the City in January
2016.
3 This tax expires December 31, 2021; Amounts reflect only the percent dedicated to street maintenance and transportation (50%); Fund
Projections as of 12/31/2011
° Includes an assumed ongoing General Fund support of Pavement Management Program of approx. $ 1.87M per year through 2015; There is no
guarantee of continued General Fund support; There is no way to accurately forecast changes in federal and state revenue sources and mechanisms
for a long term planning horizon . These numbers are for contextual comparison and planning purposes only.
5 Assumes current service levels; No additional funding has been identified although Council has adopted a Transfort (transit) Strategic Plan;
Assumes no increase in General Fund except for one-time increase of $714, 268 when MAX service begins in 2014; Federal Capital funding is based
on uncertain Section 5309 earmarks; Other Federal Grant Programs - 2011 & 2012 CMAQ funding for FLEX; Unknown funding source after 2012;
Assumes an 11 . 5% one-time increase in fares & fees with the start-up of MAX service; an 1. 5% annual increase in fares and fees beyond; Since
Transfort projects operational expenditures to increase each year, we anticipate that the projected flat revenues will not support continuing service
at current levels.
6 Based on linear regression trend analysis from 1993 through 2030.
OTHER FUNDS : CONDUITS THAT SUPPORT TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
GENERAL FUND
Receives These Primary Revenues : This is the City's primary operating fund . It Provides These Transportation Services :
Property Tax Revenues includes all revenues not restricted to a Local match for some federal grants,
Lodging Tax Revenues specific use and provides general median improvements, some bridge and
Franchise Fees government services. road replacements plus some planning
Charges for Services services through :
Building and Development Fees • Transfer to Capital Projects Fund
Fines and Forfeitures • Transfer to Street Oversizing Fund
Transfer from Sales & Use Tax Fund • Transfer to Transit Services Fund
• Transfer to Transportation Services
Fund
23
ATTACHMENT 3
Receives These Tax Revenues : SALES AND USE TAX FUND Provides These Transportation Services :
2 .25% General Sales and Use Taxes This fund is a conduit; it receives all City Capital improvements and street
0. 25% BCC : Streets and Transportation sales and use tax revenues and transfers to maintenance through :
0. 25% BOB - Building on Basics the General Fund, Special Revenue Funds, • Transfer to Transportation Services
0. 25% BCC: Natural Areas Debt Service Fund and the Capital Projects Fund
Funds. • Transfer to General Fund
• Transfer to Capital Projects Funds
Receives These Revenues : URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY Provides These Transportation Services:
Property Tax Increment ADMINISTRATION & DEBT SERVICE FUNDS • Potential funding of improvements in
Sales Tax Increment urban renewal project areas
24
ATTACHMENT 3
SECTION 3 : TRANSPORTATION FINANCING RESOURCES BY BFO OUTCOME
For each Budgeting For Outcome Target, this section summarizes the types of transportation services and
improvements that support the outcome, how these services and improvements are currently financed, some
financial issues and funding outlook considerations as well as triple- bottom line considerations, and lists some
supplemental sources of finance that might be considered in the Master Transportation Plan . The
supplemental sources of finance are discussed in Section 2 .
BFO Outcome : TRAFFIC FLOW
Illustrative Traffic Operations Intersection Improvements
Examples Snowplowing & Street Sweeping Signs and Pavement Markings
Traffic Signal Maintenance Routes and Zones
Current Finance Capital : Capital projects related to traffic flow are funded through the Capital Projects Fund,
Methods which receives revenues from 0. 25% for Transportation and Streets and 0. 25 % ( BOB ) . Some
signal timing projects, including FCTrip, have been funded with Federal Congestion Mitigation
and Air Quality ( CMAQ) funds .
Operations & Maintenance : All traffic flow O& M services are funded through the Transportation
Services Fund .
Finance Issues Capital : The primary source of traffic flow capital improvements are two voter-approved sales
and Funding tax revenues that will sunset in December 2015 without a reauthorization by voters .
Outlook
Operations & Maintenance : The Transportation Services Fund, which provides O& M traffic flow
services, receives direct revenues from the State Highway Users Tax, motor vehicle registration
fees, and County Road and Bridge Fund; these sources have been declining due to general
economic downturn . Other Transportation Services Fund revenue sources are transfers from the
General Fund, which are primarily property and sales tax revenues.
Triple- Bottom As the City continues to introduce environmentally sustainable objectives to improve traffic flow
Line not only for vehicles but also for pedestrians, bicyclists, wheelchair-bound residents, and storm
Considerations water.
Supplemental Transportation Utility Fee
Finance Sources Reauthorization of Sales and Use Tax Revenues for Transportation Purposes
BFO Outcome : QUALITY TRAVEL SURFACES & INFRASTRUCTURE
Illustrative Capital : Operations & Maintenance :
Examples Local, Collector and Arterial Streets Street Maintenance
Bridge and Railroad Replacement Projects Pavement Management
Safety and Efficiency Improvements
Communication Infrastructure
Current Finance Capital Protects :
Methods New Local Streets : To serve new growth, developers are required to construct all local streets
within their development .
25
ATTACHMENT 3
BFO Outcome : QUALITY TRAVEL SURFACES & INFRASTRUCTURE
Collector and Arterial Streets to Serve New Growth :
- Developers dedicate one- half of a local street right of way ( 25 . 5' ) that abuts their property,
regardless of any existing right of way. When a property abuts a collector or arterial, then the
Street Oversizing Fund pays for any additional right of way needed over 25 .5" .
The first two travel lanes are financed by abutting property owners, including a 13' travel lane,
curb, gutter, 4 . 5' sidewalk, and parkway landscaping;
- Additional travel lanes are financed by the Street Oversizing Fee .
- The General Fund pays for median improvements through a transfer to the Street Oversizing
Fund;
- Street improvements needed due to "leapfrogging" are constructed by the "leapfrogging"
developer who builds two travel lanes and two bike lanes in the existing right of way without
reimbursement.
- When developers are asked to construct more than their exaction requirement, the Street
Oversizing Fund reimburses the developer upon completion .
Bridge and Street Major Maintenance and Replacement Projects_ Bridge and street replacement
projects that correct existing deficiencies are financed from a General Fund transfer to the Capital
Projects Fund .
Capacity and Safety Improvements in Existing Areas. The Capital Projects fund finances these
improvements . When available, some improvements have been partially funded with Federal
grants and matched with local revenues from a General Fund transfer to the Capital Projects Fund .
Operations & Maintenance :
Street Maintenance and Pavement Management_ The Pavement Management Program and
street maintenance are funded through the Transportation Services Fund . Revenue sources for
this fund are described above .
Finance Issues Pavement Management. Due to competing pressures for General Fund revenues, the City has
and Funding underfunded pavement management for a number of years . At the same time, demand for
Outlook additional pavement management services has increased with annexations and new
development .
Street Oversizing Fee. Fee revenues vary with the amount of new construction improvements.
Revenues also vary year over year depending on general fund allocations . These have been
reduced significantly in the last five years and may be supplemented with 2B funds . However the
use of Street Oversizing funds need to correlate with the impacts associated with new
development and are not intended to cover general transportation expenditures .
Bridge and Street Major Maintenance and Replacement Projects and Capacity and Safety
Improvements. Funding for these improvements is provided by a General Fund transfer of dollars
to the Capital Projects Fund . Primary General Fund revenues, sales and property taxes, have
slowed in recent years due to the economic downtown . Consistent repairs have been scaled back
in recent years making the need for replacement more likely in the future . Funding for
replacement of bridges on state highway routes is becoming available through FASTER revenues, a
supplemental source of revenues approved in 2009 .
Capital Equipment Replacement. In recent years, the City has underfunded its capital equipment
replacement program for street sweepers, snow plows, trucks and related equipment .
Triple- Bottom Infill development may achieve more triple bottom line objectives than greenfield development.
Line Also, infill might not generate the same need for street oversizing that greenfield development
Considerations generates. As the city refines its development practices relative to infill, it may be appropriate to
26
ATTACHMENT 3
BFO Outcome : QUALITY TRAVEL SURFACES & INFRASTRUCTURE
align its exaction and fee requirements more closely to incremental need .
Supplemental Capital: Operations & Maintenance:
Finance Sources State FASTER Funds Transportation Utility Fee
Regional Improvements Property Tax
General and Special Improvement Districts
Restructured Street Oversizing Fee
Amended Developer Exactions
BFO Outcome : INTEGRATED LAND USE & TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
Illustrative Transportation Master Plan
Examples Partnerships and Collaboration
Partnership with the MPO
Engineering and capital improvement management
Current Finance These activities are of citywide benefit and have been funded through a variety of sources . Some
Methods planning activities, like working with the MPO, are continuing costs; other activities, such as
updates to the Transportation Master Plan, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plans are occasional costs .
Still others, such as the Mason Transportation Corridor, are one-time costs.
- Generally, transportation planning is funded through the Transportation Services Fund .
- Some planning functions, such as services provided by Advanced Planning, are funded by the
General Fund .
- Some planning costs that directly relate to future projects, such as the Mason Transportation
Corridor, have been funded with 0 . 25% Street and Transportation revenues . Other planning
tasks, such as the Bicycle Plan coordination, have been funded with 0 . 25% BOB revenues .
Finance Issues The City has a particularly strong history of developing master plans for major multi - modal
And Financial transportation initiatives that integrate land use considerations . A number of these major planning
Funding Outlook initiatives have been funded with voter-ap
proved sales tax revenues which will sunset in December
2015 .
On-going implementation management and integration of the Transportation Master Plan,
Pedestrian Plan, Major Streets Plan , Bicycle Plan and Pedestrian Plan are funded with
Transportation Services and General Fund revenues, both of which have experienced recent
revenue declines . Also, these planning functions complete with other core city services such as
police, planning, and parks.
Triple-Bottom It is the integration among plans that brings forth benefits to the triple bottom line .
Line
Considerations
Supplemental Federal Transportation, Community and System Preservation Program (TCSP) Grants
Finance Sources - Federal Livable Communities Act Grants (A proposed program)
Nearly all of the recently-prepared major transportation master plans, the concept of partnerships and
collaborations with the private sector are mentioned .
27
ATTACHMENT 3
BFO Outcome TRAVEL MODE OPTIONS
Illustrative Transit (fixed- route and Dial-A- Ride ) Transportation Demand Management
Examples Bicycling Parking Lots and Parking Structures
Pedestrian and ADA Improvements
Current Finance Transit - Fixed-Route Service. Transfort, a transit service provided by the City, operates the fixed
Methods route service in the city plus one regional route ( FLEX) connecting to Loveland, Berthoud, and
Longmont, where it connects to RTD.
(Capital and Planning) Through Transfort, capital improvements such as new buses and transit
centers have historically been financed with two Federal Transit Authority ( FTA) grants : Urbanized
Area Formula (Section 5307 ) grants, which have been used for smaller capital investments and O& M
and competitive Capital Investment Program (Section 5309 ) grants for major, multi -year projects and
bus replacements . Section 5307 grants require a local match .
Transit bus replacement is one of fifteen 0. 25% BOB projects . Transfort also seeks federal grant
funding to leverage local funds for bus replacement purposes.
In FY 2009, the City received a Small Starts (Section 5309 ) grant allocation for initial Mason Corridor
bus rapid transit ( BRT) improvements; this 80% grant was matched with local General Fund revenues.
It is anticipated that the City will continue to receive Section 5309 funding as it moves into
preliminary engineering, design and construction . It also received an ARRA Grant.
The Street Oversizing Fund pays for minor costs such as bus shelters, turnouts on collectors and
arterials needed for new growth . A two-year pilot program to provide service between Fort Collins
and Longmont is fully funded with CMAQ grant, fares, and partnership contributions from Berthoud,
Longmont, Loveland, Larimer and Boulder Counties .
Planning costs have been funded with 0 . 25% Streets and Transportation revenues.
(Operations & Maintenance) Transfort operations and maintenance costs are funded from farebox
revenue, a contract with the Associated Students of CSU, advertising, formula -based FTA (Section
5307) funding, and a General Fund Transfer. Loveland and Larimer County help fund the Fox Trot
service between Fort Collins and Loveland . The operating budget is funded with Transfort revenues
( 37%) and a transfer from the General Fund (63%) . O& M costs will increase with service along the
Mason Corridor BRT route .
Transit - Demand-Responsive (Dial-A-Ride) Services. Transfort administers this federally-mandated
demand - responsive door-to-door ( Dial -A- Ride ) service on behalf of a number of agencies for their
pre-qualified clients within a service area adjacent to Transfort fixed route service . The Office on
Aging, Larimer County and the Medicaid contribute funds to the program . In addition, Transfort
collects $2 . 50 per one-way trip ? In 2011, the City plans to assume rural transit service within Larimer
County (the Larimer Lift) and coordination with Berthoud and Loveland . This addition is cost- neutral .
Bicycling and Bikeways. Bikeway additions and improvements are proposed in the 2008 Bikeway
Plan " Hot Lists ." These lists help prioritize capital projects. Bikeways along existing corridors are
funded primarily through the Capital Projects Fund, and, historically, occasionally funded with
Federal CMAQ and Transportation Enhancement grants . Local matching funds have been provided
from the General Fund, 0 . 25% Streets and Transportation or the 0. 25% Natural Areas revenues .
Bikeways that are part of new collectors or arterial street extensions are funded by the Street
Oversizing Fee and a transfer from the General Fund . Some bikeway improvements that are part of a
larger project, such as North College, might be funded with tax increment financing in future years .
28
ATTACHMENT 3
BFO Outcome TRAVEL MODE OPTIONS
Portions of the bikeway along the Mason Street Corridor were funded with 0 . 25% BCC-Community
Enhancement funding, which expired in 2005 . Additional improvements might be funded as part of
the FTA Section 5309 New Starts funding package .
One of the fifteen 0 . 25% BOB projects is funding Bicycle Plan improvements; these funds have been
used consistently since 2006 . Federal CMAQ funding, funded a substantial portion of the FC Bike
Library, a 2-year pilot bike lending program and administration of FC Bikes, which implements the
Bicycle Plan . The General Fund provided local match revenues that leveraged CMAQ funds and
helped fund the City Bicycle Coordinator position . The Transportation Services Fund provides
revenue for on -going operations and maintenance costs related to bikeways .
Pedestrian Plan and ADA Improvements. Pedestrian Plan improvements are one of the fifteen 0. 25%
BOB projects; about $300,000 in BOB revenues have been allocated each year since 2006. Some
improvements have also been funded with 0. 25 % Streets and Transportation revenues; one recent
grant was received from the Federal Transportation Enhancement program . Pedestrian
improvements associated with local streets and arterial and collector street extensions are primarily
funded by abutting developers .
0. 25% BOB revenues also fund between $ 15,000 and $35,000 annually in operations and
maintenance . Other O& M costs are funded by the Transportation Services Fund .
Parking Structures. The Parking Services Division of Public Works manages the City's two parking
structures : Civic Center and Old Town .
The Civic Center structure is financed with certificates of participation (COPS); the City, County
and DDA share financial responsibilities . COP debt expires in 2018 . Operations and maintenance
services are provided by the DDA and financed with parking fees . The City and County will
backstop O& M costs, if needed .
The Old Town structure was financed with tax increment bonds issued by the DDA; these bonds
matured in 2005 . The City receives parking revenues and provides O& M services . The City
General Fund subsidizes 0& M costs not covered with parking fees.
On-Street Parking and Off-Street Parking Lots. The Transportation Services Fund finances on-going
operations and maintenance costs . Revenues from parking permits and hourly charges help fund
these services; these revenues are supplemented with other Transportation Services Fund revenues .
Travel Demand Management program activities are limited to FC Bikes, the City' s bicycle program .
Finance Issues With the exception of farebox revenues, there are no dedicated sources of funding for alternative
and Funding travel modes capital projects that will extend beyond 2015 .
Outlook
- The 0 . 25% BOB revenues will expire in December 2015 . Three of the fifteen projects are for
alternative mode transportation projects. Over the last ten years, these revenues have funded
a substantial portion of bikeway and pedestrian improvements plus a sustained bus
replacement program .
The 0 . 25% Streets and Transportation revenues have funded matching revenues for
competitive CMAQ and Section 5309 grants from the federal government. These revenues will
also expire in 2015 .
The General Fund has also provided some matching funds for competitive federal grant programs.
All core city services compete for General Fund revenues .
29
ATTACHMENT 3
BFO Outcome TRAVEL MODE OPTIONS
Funding for FTA formula grants (Section 5307), and competitive FTA (Section 5309 ) and CMAQ grants
is primarily from national motor fuel taxes; these revenues may decline in future years if national
economic conditions do not improve . In addition, Section 5309 funds are awarded on a competitive
basis; success is not guaranteed and a 20% local match is required .
The CDOT Transit and Rail Division Grants will be available starting in fall 2010. These grants will use
revenues from the 2009 voter-approved FASTER initiative .
Triple- Bottom The City has an increasingly pervasive commitment to alternative modes since these improvements
Line reduce greenhouse gas emissions and facilitate the type of mixed use infill development that the City
Considerations encourages .
Supplemental Capital: Operations & Maintenance:
Finance Sources Federal TIGER Grants - Business Improvement District
Federal — TE Grants - Recovery Allocation - Motor Vehicle Fine Surcharge
State — FASTER Grants - Transportation Management Association
State — Transit and Rail Division Grants - Transportation Utility Fee
Special and General Improvement Districts
Dedicated Sales Tax for Alternative Modes Capital and Operations and Maintenance:
Continuation of Voter-Approved Sales Tax Regional Transportation Authority
Initiatives for Transportation Regional Service Authority
Tax Increment Financing - URA Private, nonprofit organization
BFO Outcome INCREASE AWARENESS
Illustrative Outreach and education related to reduction in vehicle miles traveled and reduction in mobile
Examples source emissions .
Current Finance The City has outreach and education components into its Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Transit plans as
Methods well as Air Quality Plan . Staff seeks State and Federal grant funding to support these
encouragement and education programs.
Finance Issues Difficulty in securing on -going programmatic funding from State and Federal grants to support
and Funding initiatives over time.
Outlook
Triple- Bottom Promoting an increased awareness of the availability of alternative transportation choices and
Line providing safety education programs to support the use of bicycling and walking are important
Considerations elements to reach people of all ages, physical abilities, and socio-economic levels as well as to
support our local economy and reach our environmental stewardship goals .
Supplemental Federal — Transportation, Community and System Preservation (TSCP) Grants
Finance Sources Transportation Management Associations
30
ATTACHMENT 3
SECTION 4 : FINANCING MAJOR, MULTIPLE BFO OUTCOME INITIATIVES
Fort Collins has a strong and successful history of pursuing large-scale transportation initiatives that cross cut
BFO Outcomes and modes, and correlate in complex ways with adjacent land uses . This section discusses
current and new financing tools around three types of initiatives : Reshaping Streets, Enhanced Travel
Corridors, and Multi- Purpose Trails .
Multiple BFO RESHAPE STREETS
Outcomes :
Reshape streets is a concept where the travel corridor is improved through one or a combination
projects that broaden its usage . Projects might include roadway and intersection upgrades,
and/or pedestrian and bicycle pathways, landscaping and lighting, utility upgrades, stormwater
management„ etc .
Illustrative Proposed Project to Reshape Streets : LaPorte Avenue " Road Diet" between Wood street and
Examples Howes streets . .
Other locations for future consideration could include wide collector streets, streets within the
Downtown area such as Magnolia, Canyon, Willow, Lincoln, and others within neighborhoods
and/or activity centers throughout the community
Current Finance LaPorte Road Diet project is funded through Traffic Operations Neighborhood Traffic Calming
Methods funds.
Continuing and - New funding from Measure 2B State and Federal Grant opportunities through the MPO,
Proposed CDOT, the Colorado Department of Local Affairs are also possible but unpredictable because
Finance Methods the magnitude of funds available is trending down and competition is trending up .
for
Transportation
Components
Additional "Complete Streets" is a national moniker applied to the set of improvements similar to the Fort
Finance and Collins " Reshape Streets" initiative . In addition to Fort Collins, Boulder, Charlotte, Chicago, Dallas,
Implementation Seattle, Sacramento, San Francisco, and Washington, DC are other national leaders in the
Options and "Complete Streets" initiative .
Innovations
Federal funding through Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality ( CMAQ), Safe Routes to School ,
and Transportation Enhancement (TE ) have been applied successfully to these initiatives that
reshape streets.
Multiple BFO ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDORS ( ETC)
Outcomes :
Description Enhanced Travel Corridors provide multi-modal connections between two or more major activity
centers . In addition to the roadway, these corridors include high frequency transit service, bicycle
and pedestrian facilities .
Illustrative Featured Current Example : Mason Corridor. This is a 5 . 5 mile corridor which includes the
Examples roadway and the Burlington Northern rail line . It will contain a Bus Rapid Transit ( BRT) line and an
off-street pedestrian/bike trail system . The initiative was first envisioned in 1996 and became one
of 14 projects that comprised the 1997-2005 Building Community Choices, funded with sales and
use tax revenues . The project was further described in the 2000 Mason Street Transportation
31
ATTACHMENT 3
Multiple BFO ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDORS ( ETC)
Outcomes :
Corridor Master Plan.
Other Proposed ETCs : Harmony Road Corridor, Mountain Vista/North College Corridor,
Timberline / Power Trail Corridor, Prospect Road Corridor
Current Finance Total capital costs are estimated to be $80 million, with up to 80% of the revenues coming from
Methods matching grants from the Federal Transit Authority.
Mason Corridor - Bus Rapid Transit. In 2009, the City was awarded an $ 11 . 2 million FTA Section
5309 Small Starts Grant to begin right of way acquisition, design/engineering, and other technical
work. Subsequent federal funding is anticipated as the City moves through preliminary
engineering and final design and construction . The 20% match for FTA grants will come from
local sources and the Colorado Department of Transportation has pledged $8 . 5 million in SB-1
funds and the Fort Collins DDA has pledged $600, 000 .
Mason Trail - Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements. The City committed about $7 million from
the 1997-2005 0 . 25% BCC revenues for corridor master planning as well as the construction of the
bike and pedestrian trail improvements from Prospect to south of Harmony; this local funding was
used to leverage state and federal grant funding received through the NRFMPO and Great
Outdoors Colorado.
Mason Corridor - Operations and Maintenance. The BRT will be managed by Transfort; bicycle
and pedestrian O& M will be managed by the Streets department. Funding to provide these
services are or will be incorporated through the annual budgeting process . .
Finance Issues - The O& M costs are challenging to fund since grant funding is typically only available for capital
and Funding costs and not for on -going O& M .
Outlook
Additional Tax-Increment Financing. Based on an additional 3 million square feet in new construction, the
Finance and City estimates that growth in the corridor might generate up to $ 12 million per year in property
Implementation and sales tax increment . A portion of these revenues could be used for Mason Corridor
Options and enhancements such as grade-separated bikeways, landscaping, and lighting and become a local
Innovations match for federal funds.
General Improvement District. The Master Plan suggests consideration of a GID which would levy
a property tax on corridor properties . Projected development in the corridor ( 3 million square
feet) could generate $500,000 to $ 1 million in property tax revenues .
Business Improvement District (BID) . A BID might be suitable to help fund management,
maintenance and marketing activities . Typically BIDs are funding with assessments on
commercial property based on land area or frontage .
Local Maintenance District. Similar to a BID, a local maintenance district could be formed to fund
maintenance only. It could levy an assessment on both commercial and residential property.
32
ATTACHMENT 3
SUMMARY
This report provides a general overview and serves as a resource document for further study of transportation
finance strategies . Recommendations are not included in the TMP . The City strives to be effective stewards of
the public funds provided through various local , state, and federal sources . However, all of the existing
funding sources will not be able to provide sustainable, long-term financial resources needed to support the
capital and on -going operations/maintenance costs for the multimodal transportation system envisioned in
the TMP . The City and community partners should continue work together to identify opportunities for
supplemental financing strategies to achieve our long-term transportation vision .
33
1 41
� i • �� � lilt d � . Ill I�(K' � � • � Cit�y .of
At Ow
tw
pp
Pedestrian Plan Fort Collmins
$ January 201 1
JL
�� ' � Fort Collins
d •�
J
; j vt
r
i
Draft Final Pedestrian Plan
Table of Contents
Note: Sections with major updates since the November Draft are highlighted in yellow.
CREDITS . , , ' , , , ' , , , ' , , , ' , , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
PURPOSE OF PLAN AND THE NEED FOR AN UPDATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
PROGRESS SINCE THE 1996 PEDESTRIAN PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLANS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
PUBLIC OUTREACH PROCESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
BENEFITS OF A WALKABLE FORT COLLINS , ' , , , ' , , , ' , , , ' , , I ' ll 10
HEALTHAND SAFETY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
SUSTAINABILITY AND WALKABILITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
HUMANCONSIDERATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
FACTORS INFLUENCING WALKABILITY IN FORT COLLINS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
PEDESTRIAN INFRASTRUCTURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
MAINTENANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
PEDESTRIAN/VEHICLE TRAFFIC INTERACTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
CHANGING TIMES AND DEMOGRAPHICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
ACCIDENTDATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
PEDESTRIANDEMAND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
VISION, PRINCIPLES, POLICIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
PLANFORT COLLINS VISION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN VISION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
PEDESTRIANPLAN VISION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
PEDESTRIAN PRIORITY AREAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
LEVEL OF SERVICE ( LOS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
DIRECTNESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
CONTINUITY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
STREETCROSSINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
VISUAL INTEREST AND AMENITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
SECURITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
PEDESTRIAN LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
LEVEL OF SERVICE THRESHOLDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
APPLICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
CROSSING POLICY " , , ' , , , ' , , , ' , , I ' ll " , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1142
FUNCTION OF CROSSWALKS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
DETERMINING WHERE AND HOW TO MARK CROSSWALKS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
TREATMENTS AT UNCONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
CANDIDATE TREATMENT DESCRIPTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
January 2011 1
Draft Final Pedestrian Plan
IMPLEMENTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
2010- 11 PEDESTRIAN PROJECT LIST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
NEEDSASSESSMENT STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
FUNDING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
ACTIONPLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
MEASURING PROGRESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
January 2011 2
Draft Final Pedestrian Plan
Credits
The 2010- 11 Pedestrian Plan Update involved a significant effort of staff, consultants , and
public participation process including continuous feedback from Boards and Commissions ,
Non - Profit Organizations , City Council and citizens of the community .
City of Fort Collins Staff Team
David Averill
Kathleen Bracke
Michael Devereaux
Nicole Hahn
Fred Jones
Sheri Langenberger
Clark Mapes
Gail Neben
Joe Olson
Jennifer Petrik
Ted Shepard
Susan Singley
Brian Woodruff
Pete Wray
Consultant
Jeremy Klop , Fehr & Peers
Molly Veldkamp , Fehr & Peers
Maria Vyas , Fehr & Peers
Chris Sheffer , Fehr & Peers
Ben Herman , Clarion Associates
Shelby Sommer , Clarion Associates
City Boards and Commissions
Air Quality Advisory Board
Bicycle Advisory Board
Commission on Disability
Natural Resources Advisory Board
Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
Planning and Zoning Board
Senior Advisory Board
Transportation Board
Women ' s Commission
Youth Advisory Board
Non = Profit Organizations
Brain Benders/ People Advocating Change
Elderhaus
January 2011 3
Draft Final Pedestrian Plan
January 2011 4
Draft Final Pedestrian Plan
Introduction and Background
PURPOSE OF PLAN AND THE NEED FOR AN UPDATE
First developed in 1996 , the Pedestrian Plan addresses citywide pedestrian needs like gaps in
the sidewalk , safer ways to cross the street , and better ramps at street corners . The
Pedestrian Plan outlines issues and proposes solutions to problems for pedestrians ; the
ultimate goal being safe , easy , and convenient pedestrian travel for all members of the
community . The Pedestrian Plan summarizes these findings and acts as a guide as the Fort
Collins community grows and changes . This effort also updates and prioritizes the City' s list of
pedestrian improvement projects and explores potential funding options .
The purpose of the Pedestrian Plan is to promote a pedestrian -friendly environment that will
encourage the choice to walk for visitors , students , and residents . The plan is for a wide range
of pedestrians including longboarders , skateboarders , stroller walkers , disabled and abled ,
commuters and recreational users . In addition , the Pedestrian Plan will promote a pedestrian -
friendly environment where public spaces , including streets and off-street paths , offer a level of
comfort , convenience , efficiency , quality of experience , and safety within the City .
This update to the Pedestrian Plan is part of
the Plan Fort Collins process that also
includes updates to City Plan and the
Transportation Master Plan in 2010 - 11 . It
has been almost 15 years since the 1996
plan was developed , and new thinking and
techniques have evolved . Community needs
and values have changed since the Fort
Pedestrian Plan was adopted in 1996 .
Examples include a stronger emphasis on I
environmental sustainability , global
awareness of fossil fuel use and possible Collins
alternatives , and a new emphasis on the Innovate , sustain , con nect
needs of an aging population .
PROGRESS SINCE THE 1996 PEDESTRIAN PLAN
Several big accomplishments have been made since the 1996 Pedestrian Plan . Fort Collins
was one of the first cities to create a pedestrian level of service ( LOS ) . In preparing the
Pedestrian LOS standards and methodology , it became evident that pedestrian measures
such as pedestrian density and flow rate as defined by the Highway Capacity Manual were
inappropriate for Fort Collins , a medium size urban area . Therefore , a planning LOS set of
procedures was developed to evaluate existing conditions and proposed public and private
projects . In addition to the LOS analysis procedure , LOS targets or standards were defined for
different areas within the City .
The City also updated its traffic ordinances to give right-of-way to the pedestrian over the
automobile at crosswalks , intersections , and driveways . City ordinances used to give the
January 2011 5
Draft Final Pedestrian Plan
vehicle the right-of-way over pedestrians at a crosswalk or at an intersection without a
crosswalk unless the pedestrian was already in the street . Even then , the vehicle was only
required to yield to the pedestrian in the lane of traffic occupied by the pedestrian . To promote
the pedestrian as a mode of transportation and promote access to transit , a pedestrian right-of-
way ordinance was adopted to require a vehicle to yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian
crossing a roadway within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an
intersection . The provision does not relieve a pedestrian from the duty of using care for his or
her safety .
Another change was the requirement to conduct a multi - modal Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA ) to
address pedestrian needs and mitigation .
The street standards were also updated to provide for an improved pedestrian environment .
Standards were updated to reflect more pedestrian friendly design for intersections , sidewalks ,
corner ramps , and stop bars .
Finally , since 1996 the City has continued to implement pedestrian infrastructure improvement
projects . In comparison the street infrastructure improvements , the number and magnitude of
pedestrian projects is significantly less . Using available funding from the Capital Improvement
Program sales tax , selected pedestrian projects are completed each year. The 2010 - 11
update to this Plan reevaluates the list of pedestrian priority projects , funding sources and
partnerships , and identifies an implementation schedule .
RELATIONSHIP TONER PL S
Plan Fort Collins represents the process to prepare major updates to two key plans — City Plan
Plan .,, Fort Collins and the Transportation Master Plan . City Plan
illustrates the vision for Fort Collins over the next 20
years and provides an action plan for how to achieve
that vision . The Fort Collins Transportation Master
City Plan Transportation Plan serves a variety of purposes . It is a vision
Master Plan document that defines the long -term multimodal
transportation system for Fort Collins ' future . The plan
also provides policy direction for decisions regarding
the implementation of the transportation system . It is a
framework document that serves as a comprehensive
Adopted Plans Pedestrian Plan- subarea Master Street Plan
reference guide regarding transportation issues in Fort
-
- environmental Capital Improvement Plan Collins . Additionally , the plan provides priorities for
• many more implementing projects to meet short-term deficiencies
while working towards the ultimate transportation
system the City is trying to achieve . Finally , the plan
identifies transportation action strategies and
57 performance measures that need to be taken as next
steps toward implementation .
The Fort Collins Transportation Master Plan (TMP ) reaffirms the City' s commitment to
providing a multi - modal transportation system including vehicle , transit , bicycle and pedestrian
means of travel . Fort Collins remains committed to providing a more balanced transportation
system , giving citizens transportation choices that will continue to maintain a high quality of life .
January 2011 6
Draft Final Pedestrian Plan
The TMP includes updates to three key elements — the Master Street Plan , Capital
Improvement Plan , and Pedestrian Plan . Other related Plans referenced in the TMP include
the Bicycle Plan and Transfort Strategic Plan .
PUBLIC OUTREACH PROCESS
As part of the update to the Pedestrian Plan initiated in early 2010 , a continuous and extensive
public outreach process was conducted in conjunction with Plan Fort Collins . This community
outreach process extended into 2011 . Key sources of the public outreach and input are
summarized below .
Website
A project website was created to provide a portal of information for the public , including
important information on draft sections of the Plans , the schedule for public meetings , and
opportunities for input .
Website : www . fcgov . com/pedestrianplan
A ul 'lllu
fv5 -.JIr•s
e estrian
I
i
f
January 2011 7
Draft Final Pedestrian Plan
Plan Fort Collins
In 2010 , Plan Fort Collins was initiated to update both City Plan and the Transportation Master
Plan . The Pedestrian Plan update process coincided with Plan Fort Collins , utilizing the same
public outreach opportunities throughout the year. A summary of public comments received
through the Plan Fort Collins process is included in Appendix A .
' a
\ `s
Boards and Commissions
As part of the outreach process , information about the Pedestrian Plan was shared with
Boards and Commissions including the Transportation Board , Planning and Zoning Board ,
Parks and Recreation Advisory Board , Air Quality Advisory Board , Natural Resources Advisory
Board , Bicycle Advisory Board , Senior Advisory Board , Commission on Disability , Women ' s
Commission , and the Youth Advisory Board . Input and feedback from the Boards and
Commissions was incorporated into the Pedestrian Plan .
Social Media
Social media such as Facebook and Twitter were also used as part of the Plan Fort Collins
outreach process . Feedback for the Pedestrian Plan included comments related to potential
pedestrian improvements in the community . Individual comments ranged from adding new
bike/pedestrian off-street trails , expanding pedestrian only blocks in the downtown area , and
maximizing safety measures to improve street crossings and the connectivity of the pedestrian
environment .
January 2011 8
Draft Final Pedestrian Plan
Pedestrian Plan Survey
Approximately 200 people participated in an informal survey during the summer of 2010 .
Survey questions focused on people ' s most and least favorite pedestrian areas , identifying
trouble spots , and suggestions for improvements . The survey input provided the basis for a list
of pedestrian projects that will be used to implement the Pedestrian Plan . A copy of the survey
and results can be found in Appendix B .
January 2011 9
Draft Final Pedestrian Plan
Benefits of a Walkable Fort Collins
Walkability can be defined as a measure of how friendly an area is to walking , according to the
Wikepedia Encyclopedia . Walkable communities are desirable places to live , work , learn , and
play . Their desirability comes from two factors . First , walkable communities locate goods (such
as housing , offices , and retail ) and services ( such as transportation , schools , and libraries ) so
that they are easily and safely accessible by foot . Second , by definition , walkable communities
make pedestrian activity possible , thus expanding transportation options , and creating a
streetscape that better serves a range of users -- pedestrians , bicyclists , transit riders , and
automobiles . To foster walkability , communities can mix land uses , build compactly , and
ensure safe and inviting pedestrian corridors .
Walkable communities are nothing new . Outside of the last half-century , communities
worldwide have created neighborhoods , communities , towns , and cities premised on
pedestrian access . Within the last fifty years , however , public and private actions often
created obstacles to walkable communities . Conventional land use regulation often prohibits
the mixing of land uses , thus lengthening trips and making walking a less viable alternative to
other forms of travel . This regulatory bias against mixed - use development is reinforced by
private financing policies that view mixed - use development as riskier than single- use
development . Many communities — particularly those that are dispersed and largely auto-
dependent — employ street and development design practices that reduce pedestrian activity .
Fort Collins is continually working to ensure that new development creates places that
encourage pedestrian activity . Design standards have been updated and a pedestrian level of
service ( LOS ) provides guidance for improving pedestrian accommodation . As the personal
and societal benefits of a pedestrian friendly Fort Collins are realized — benefits which include
lower transportation costs , greater social interaction , improved personal and environmental
health , and expanded consumer choice — many are calling on the City to facilitate the
development of more walkable places . Land use and community design play a pivotal role in
encouraging pedestrian environments . By building more places with multiple destinations
within close proximity , where the streets and sidewalks balance all forms of transportation , Fort
Collins will have the basic framework for continuing to encourage walkability .
January 2011 10
Draft Final Pedestrian Plan
trl�
T
T `
HEALTH AND S FFTY
"Transportation impacts health directly: it affects air quality, injury risk, physical activity levels,
and access to necessities such as grocery stores. Transportation is also one of the largest
drivers of land use patterns. . . it thus determines whether communities have sidewalks and
areas to play and be physically active, as well as whether communities are connected to or
isolated from economic and social opportunities. "
- The Transportation Rx , a report prepared in 2009 by the Convergence Partnership
The health benefits of regular physical activity are far- reaching - reduced risk of coronary heart
disease , stroke , and other chronic diseases ; lower health care costs ; and improved wellness
for people of all ages . Walkable cities promote healthy citizens . Health professionals
recommend walking as a form of physical activity to help prevent a host of diseases including
obesity , heart disease , and some forms of cancer .
The transportation system , including facilities for motorized and non - motorized transportation
users , land use patterns , and design elements in the built environment , is strongly tied to
human health . Health trends in Colorado related to the transportation system include -
• Eight of the ten leading causes of death in Colorado are associated with land use and
transportation systems ( including obesity- related chronic diseases such as stroke ,
cardiovascular disease and diabetes ; mental health and respiratory diseases ) . '
1 Kaiser Permanente , Health and Built Environment Fact Sheet. 2009
January 2011 11
Draft Final Pedestrian Plan
• While our senior population is increasing , research shows that one in three seniors
would prefer to walk to their destination but do not feel supported by the environment . '
• Walking as little as 1 . 5 miles per day leads to a 30 % decrease in the risk for heart
disease , stroke , and diabetes . '
• Yet , 75 % of trips 1 mile or less are made by car . '
• Nationally , only 15 % of children currently walk or bike to school , compared to nearly
50 % of children in 1969 . 112
• Obesity rates have doubled in our community in the past decade . If Colorado ' s current
obesity trends continue , it is estimated that 76 % of Coloradans will be obese within the
next decade ( by 2020 ) . Locally , one in five youth in our community are overweight or
obese . 3
• The consequences of obesity , poor nutrition and lack of activity can include - poor self-
esteem , depression , high blood pressure , high cholesterol , diabetes , asthma ,
osteoarthritis , cancer , sleep apnea , joint problems , renal complications , gallstones , liver
fibrosis , polycystic ovarian syndrome , and psychological consequences including fewer
years of education , lower family income , higher poverty rates , and lower marriage
rates . 3
M
R
r '
1 c
e/!4"
r IL
s- 11 I 1
2 National Safe Routes to School Task Force. Safe Routes to School: A Transportation Legacy. July 2008 .
3 Coalition for Activity and Nutrition to Defeat Obesity. www. CanDoOnline.orq . Accessed 2010.
January 2011 12
Draft Final Pedestrian Plan
Pedestrian friendly environments help people move more . A growing body of research
supports the importance of high quality pedestrian facilities for improving individual and
population health . Studies show :
Access makes the difference :
• People who have access to natural and built facilities ( including trails , paths , and other
types of pedestrian accommodations ) are 43 % more likely to exercise 30 minutes each
day . 4
Perception of safety in the pedestrian environment influences activity.
• 43 % of residents meet the recommended activity levels when they perceive the
environment within ten minutes of their home as being safe , compared to 27 % of
residents who meet the recommended activity level when they do not view their
environment to be safe . 5
• Motor vehicle speed also influences the perception of safety for pedestrians , and for
good reason . Pedestrians are less likely to be injured in the event of a collision with a
motor vehicle traveling at slower speeds . 6
Providing high quality pedestrian environments around transit hubs facilitates activity.
• US citizens who use public transit spend an average of 19 minutes per day walking . '
• 29 % of transit users achieve the recommended amount of physical activity per day
simply by walking at the beginning and end of a transit trip . '
Pairing infrastructure improvements with other encouragement and education opportunities
improves safety.-
Studies of safe routes to school programs demonstrate a 50 % decrease in child
pedestrian and cyclist accidents . $
Providing compact design and destinations for pedestrians provides incentives:
• Compact design is associated with less weight gain " OT11 and more walking . "
• A mix of land uses has been associated with a 12 . 2 % reduction in the likelihood of
obesity due almost entirely to an increase in physical activity because residents have
destinations to walk to . 12
4 Active Living Research . www. acMdWesearch .org. Accessed 2010.
5 Powell KE, Martin LM, Chowdhury P . aces to walk: convenience and regular physical activity. Am J Public Health. 2003 .
6LIS Green Building Council . Understanding the Relationship Between Public Health and the Built Environment.
May 2006 .
7 Besser, LM and Dannenberg , AL. Walking to Public Transit. Steps to Help Meet Physical Activity Recommendations. Am J
Preventive Medicine . 2005 .
8 Safe Routes to School National Partnership . Safe Routes to School 2009 Policy Report, Moving to the Future:
Building on Early Achievements. 2009.
9 Ewing R, Schmid T, Killingsworth R, Zlot A, Raudenbush S. Relationship Between Urban Sprawl and Physical Activity,
Obesity, and Morbidity. Am J Health Promotion , Sep/Oct 2003, V18 , 11 , 47 .
10 McCann , B and R. Ewing . Measuring the Health Effects of Sprawl: A National Analysis of Physical Activity, Obesity and
Chronic Disease. Smart Growth America. 2003
11 Saelens B, Sallis J , Frank L. Environmental correlates of walking and cycling: Findings from the transportation,
urban design, and planning literatures. Annals of Behavioral Medicine. 2003.
12 Frank L, Andersen M , Schmid T. Obesity Relationships with Community Design, Physical Activity, and Time Spent in Cars.
Am J Preventive Medicine . 2004.
January 2011 13
Draft
Final Pedestrian w
Finally, the quality of the pedestrian environment is important to influencing health .-
• • w have been
identified aswalkable "
ww • w residents w wke ice as many
walking tripswalkable neighborhoods .
t 1
r
. - fo + �k
13 Active
• Research . www. activelivingresearch . org . Accessed 2010 .
Draft Final Pedestrian Plan
Sustainabi lity and Walkabi lity
The City of Fort Collins is committed to sustainability as a core value , and operating in a
manner that lowers its ecological impacts , while strengthening its economical and societal
leadership . The central premise of a sustainable operation is that it balances social , economic ,
and environmental factors in decision making and management .
The basic tenets of sustainability serve as the guiding principles for the vision and as a
foundation underpinning all components of the Pedestrian Plan . These tenets are :
• A focus on the future with a long -term perspective ( an outlook for the generations to
come )
• An understanding that the community is bounded by the limits of the natural world and
its resources
• A systems perspective that recognizes the economic , human , and environmental
implications of policies , decisions , and outcomes
Plan Fort Collins incorporates a new sustainability model
within City Plan and the Transportation Master Plan . New
plans , programs and projects beginning in 2011 will address Environmental
the core value of sustainability , assess impacts , and identify
ways to monitor progress over time . The Pedestrian Plan
also incorporates sustainability . While it does not include
the same rigorous sustainability analysis process as City r Sustainable
Plan and the Transportation Master Plan , the Pedestrian0 City
Plan still subscribes to the same guiding principles . A brief
summary of the pedestrian related economic ,
environmental , and social considerations are identified in the _
following sections .
ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS
Sustainability as it relates to the transportation system is a broad topic . It involves the
movement of people and goods in a manner that most effectively uses existing infrastructure
that doesn ' t exacerbate environmental and social impacts , according to the Netbalance
Foundation . Sustainable transportation broadly achieves positive environmental , social and
economic benefits by making better transport choices .
Walkable cities make for vital and active streets by promoting commercial and social
exchange . With approximately 40 % of the land area of U . S . cities dedicated to transportation ,
streets and sidewalks are the city' s most expansive public spaces . Sidewalks ideally function
as positive places to meet , play , live , work , and shop . Current Fort Collins street standards
support walkability , reflecting high quality pedestrian infrastructure , positive visual appearance
and safety .
The 2010- 11 update to the Pedestrian Plan reevaluates the list of future pedestrian
improvement projects . Projects are given a higher priority if they contributed to the viability of
January 2011 15
Draft Final Pedestrian Plan
the nearby commercial activity centers by providing new or improved pedestrian infrastructure .
These types of infrastructure improvements also support infill and redevelopment . While an
indirect impact , well designed sidewalks , street crossings , signage , urban design and safety
measures collectively support active pedestrian destinations .
The list of proposed future pedestrian improvement projects primarily focuses on addressing
existing pedestrian infrastructure deficiencies . And while funding is limited , each year funded
improvements help reduce this gap by bringing existing facilities in compliance with current
standards . The ultimate goal is to have a complete citywide system of sidewalks , ramps , trails ,
street crossings and supporting pedestrian facilities that meet current standards . Measured
progress towards this end will continue to support overall walkability , and economic
development opportunities in Fort Collins .
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
Walking is the most sustainable mode of transportation . Transportation is responsible for
nearly 80 percent of carbon monoxide and 50 percent of nitrogen oxide emissions in the U . S .
Although individual cars are much cleaner today than they were in earlier years , if total vehicle
travel continues to grow , overall air quality will deteriorate . Moreover , cars and trucks burn
millions of barrels of oil , a non - renewable energy source , every day . Fewer trips made by this
mode also mean fewer " cold starts " by vehicles , when some of the most toxic emissions occur .
Walkable cities reduce environmental impacts by promoting walking as a zero emissions form
of transportation . Good walking routes to transit complement the role of public transit in
providing an environmentally sustainable alternative to the private automobile . Although
typically not counted in transportation surveys , every trip on transit is sandwiched between two
pedestrian trips . Especially in conjunction with cycling and transit riding , walking provides a
promising non - polluting transportation alternative .
HUMAN CONSIDERATIONS
Nearly one-third of the population is unable to drive , including children , many disabled people ,
seniors , and those unable to afford the cost of owning and operating a vehicle . Pedestrian
travel is more equitable than other forms of transportation . Walking is the most inexpensive
and broadly accessible form of transportation and recreation . Walking requires no fare , fuel , or
license . For those who cannot afford other modes of transportation , the ability to walk safely is
essential . For young people , walking affords a sense of independence that is not possible with
other modes . For older people , walking is an effective means to stay active , both physically
and socially .
Better conditions for walking have intangible benefits to the quality of life . Walking is an
indicator of a community' s livability — a factor that has a profound impact on attracting
businesses and workers as well as tourism . In areas where people walk , there is a palpable
sense that these are safe and friendly places to live and visit .
Downtown Fort Collins is a great example of a successful , attractive , efficient and safe
pedestrian environment . The long -term challenge is to ensure other commercial and
employment areas , including surrounding neighborhoods , also incorporate best walkability
practices .
January 2011 16
Draft Final Pedestrian Plan
Factors Influencing Walkability in Fort Collins
There are some consistent challenges for pedestrians in Fort Collins that were identified
through field observations as well as talking with citizens and City staff. In order to plan for
walkability , it is important to consider what factors contribute to travelers ' decisions to walk to
local destinations . Some decisions involve physical impediments , such as an incomplete
sidewalk network , that prevent pedestrians from being able to complete their trips . Other
decisions involve perceptions , such as personal safety while walking at night .
Many factors influence the decisions people make about how they will move through the City .
Barriers to pedestrian activities can occur in a variety of situations . Barriers can arise from
oversight , budget constraints , natural physical conditions , location , or layout of an area .
In general , factors influencing walkability in Fort Collins can be described by pedestrian
infrastructure conditions , maintenance of pedestrian infrastructure , and pedestrian /vehicle
traffic interactions . Other factors include changing times and demographics , accident data ,
and pedestrian demand .
PEDESTRIAN INFRASTRUCTURE
Sidewalk Conditions
The character of the sidewalk to be used by people affects their decision to walk . Sidewalks
that are not properly planned , designed , constructed , or maintained are less likely to
encourage pedestrian activity . Most sidewalk-specific issues can be corrected with planning ,
construction , or maintenance . Poor sidewalk conditions can be experienced in several ways
such as :
• Gaps in sidewalks or discontinuous sidewalks
• Sidewalks that are too narrow ( precludes two or more persons walking together , or
prevents wheelchair access )
• Uneven sidewalk surfaces ( examples include : pavement segments that are not level ,
heave from frost or tree roots , poorly designed driveway cuts , tree grates not level with
the walking surface , and substandard or unmatched paving materials )
• Poor sidewalks pavement condition
• Security concerns such as lack of pedestrian scale lighting and transit stop lighting
City staff conducted a walking survey in the spring of 2010 to assess areas of Fort Collins '
pedestrian infrastructure that need improvement . The survey collecting input from citizens
about where they would like to see pedestrian investments ; pedestrian projects throughout the
community were identified ( see Appendix G ) .
The majority of projects identified relate to sidewalk and ramp improvements . Many of these
projects address existing infrastructure deficiencies in older parts of the City . However ,
projects are distributed in all four quadrants of the City ( see Project map in Appendix F ) . Other
projects identified included new grade separated trail crossings , and improvements to
pedestrian intersections and transit stops .
January 2011 17
Draft Final Pedestrian Plan
Physical Environment
The landscape through which pedestrians travel can affect their decision to walk . Routes that
are designed poorly may preclude pedestrian use . Some physical obstacles are unavoidable ,
while others can be addressed with planning or maintenance . Physical obstacles can be
comprised of elements such as :
• Landscape topography (too steep , river crossings )
• Transportation features ( highways or arterials without signalized intersections , railroads )
• Obstacles on sidewalks ( phone poles , fire hydrants , cafe seating )
• Objects encroaching the sidewalk (vegetation overgrowth )
• Features that shield or block pedestrians from drivers view ( objects such as signs ,
bushes , or large planters )
• Misuse of sidewalks ( parked cars blocking pedestrians )
Routes that are well designed for pedestrian activity can create more comfortable places that
encourage walking . Design features that can help limit physical obstacles to walking include
pedestrian scale lighting , pedestrian oriented design ( buildings built up to the sidewalk ,
windows , active ground level uses ) , and sidewalk enhancements ( benches , wayfinding , cafe
seating ) . For a more complete list of pedestrian design guidance , refer to the 1996 Pedestrian
Master Plan . The design recommendations from that plan still apply to the City of Fort Collins .
Separation of Uses
Over the last 50 years , zoning , land use codes , and ordinances have lead to land use patterns
that separate where people live from employment , shopping , and recreation . Locations built
more recently throughout the City have been designed with curvilinear street networks and cul -
de-sacs rather than traditions grid street networks . The new style of development can
lengthen the distance between destinations ; direct connections that make walking easy and
efficient have been lost . Walls and fences can further exacerbate the problem in separating
activities and uses .
To minimize the separation of uses , City Plan encourages mixed use and infill development in
key activity centers and corridors throughout the City . The Transportation Master Plan
encourages connections to make walking through the City accessible for all ages and abilities .
Temporary Barriers and Obstacles
Some pedestrian barriers disappear with time . Temporary barriers include seasonal factors
that are weather- related , or could be related to construction activities . Some temporary barriers
can be avoided with detours or improved planning , while others require more patience .
Temporary barriers may be comprised of the following :
• Weather impacts ( sidewalk or curb flooding , poor drainage , low or encroaching
branches on trees , drifts of tree leaves or snow , cold temperatures , wind exposure )
• Construction ( equipment/signs in sidewalks , eliminated sidewalks )
• Temporary Barrier Signs ( Installed at terminus of sidewalk and development adjacent to
existing gap )
January 2011 18
Draft Final Pedestrian Plan
Funding
While new development includes installation of pedestrian facilities , funding for improvements
to existing deficiencies is a challenge . Funding is scarce , and the City is required to dedicate a
significant portion of pedestrian funds toward the installation of curb ramps and the removal of
access barriers . This can limit funds for other pedestrian projects such as fixing gaps in
infrastructure and upgrading ADA infrastructure .
MAINTENANCE
The City of Fort Collins , as most cities , has several general maintenance issues - snow
removal , sidewalk maintenance , sign maintenance , pavement marking maintenance and
pedestrian signal maintenance . Current policies designate sidewalk maintenance
responsibility to the adjacent land owner for local streets . Often , this responsibility is neglected
or delayed , resulting in a challenge for pedestrians to negotiate these sections of walkways .
Long term maintenance within the public right of way is the City' s responsibility , including
repair and clearance of larger arterial street sidewalks , signs , pavement markings , and signals .
While some of these maintenance items are conducted on a seasonal basis such as pavement
markings , other identified problems are addressed on a case- by-case basis depending on
available funding . Other recognized gaps in pedestrian facilities such as sidewalk repairs fall
into long -term implementation , again dependent on available funding . A limited transportation
budget has an impact on maintenance citywide .
LL
lot
ri
' 9
M
r
January 2011 19
Draft Final Pedestrian Plan
PEDESTRIAN /VEHICLE TRAFFIC INTERACTIONS
Intersections and Crosswalks
Lack of street crossings , or difficult street crossings affect pedestrian activity . The most
common setting for pedestrian -vehicle interaction is at intersections , particularly signalized
intersections . Challenges at intersections include :
• No crosswalk signals , or insufficient time to cross the street
• Long crossing distances on wide streets with multiple lanes that increase pedestrian
exposure to traffic
• Uneven curbs or no curb ramps
• Pavement treatments (decorative treatments may confuse drivers , or may deter visually
impaired pedestrians )
• Heavy turning volume that deters pedestrian crossing (especially heavy right-turn
movements , that can occur on red lights )
• Discontinuous walking route through intersection ( curb cuts that occur at different
locations within an intersection )
Many of the people interviewed through the Pedestrian Plan update process believe that there
is a growing disregard for pedestrian rights and safety on the part of motorists . Some believe
this to be part of a growing disregard for traffic laws in general .
CHANGING TIMES AND DEMOa&A
Demographics Ilk L
Demographics play a role in transportation and pedestrian planning . Children and seniors are
more likely to walk for many trip purposes . In many cases if adequate provisions for walking
are not made , these individuals can become transportation - dependent on the automobile or
demand responsive transit such as Dial -a- ride .
Nationally , the number of students ages 5 to 18 who walk or bike to school has decreased
from 42 % in 1969 to only 13 % in 2001 . 14 Several factors create barriers for walking to school
in Fort Collins . One barrier stems neighborhoods lacking a direct connection to these schools
and parks . As a result , school aged children rely more on busing and car pooling . This
contributes to a lack of physical activity , additional congestion on roadways , increased cost for
school transportation services , and increased environmental impacts . Another barrier to
walking to school in Fort Collins is the " School of Choice " program used by the school district .
It encourages trips by automobile which increases congestion at schools and discourages the
concept of neighborhood schools that are walkable . Also , many " School of Choice " students
who do walk end up having to cross major arterials as the traditional school boundaries
designed to avoid this have been lost .
The United States is an aging nation . The " baby boom " epoch from 1946 to 1964 saw the
greatest number of births the nation has ever seen over a comparable period of time .
Boomers turn 65 between 2011 and 2029 , leading to substantial change in the nation ' s
14 Active Living Research , May 2009 Research Brief. Walking and Biking to School , Physical Activity and Health Outcomes,
activelivingreserach .org
January 2011 20
Draft Final Pedestrian Plan
demographic profile . In Fort Collins , the share of the population that is 65 + is estimated to
increase from about 8 % in 2010 to about 19 % by 2030 , and then drop between 2030 and 2060
to about 11 % . Such change will affect housing , transportation , and other service needs .
+ F- h 17 • fY. P
y � •, _ * + y 1 ,J f
1� JS � •�_+ F . l Yr
r � Fall .' { ' , � s .
_ J i� • _
ri Y i
•�'�.
ir
r ° y 6 4Ph 0
• y ~
-
R
r
_ -. - - - ids.
f} ( Fy
V•�L 4J
T
. w . .
Y
5
r - iel L 4iJ� '� i, Y
The City' s ethnic diversity will also change . Overall , like much of the U . S . , Fort Collins will
likely become a more diverse community . It is also projected that the composition of Fort
Collins households will change dramatically between 2010 and 2040 . Family households
( married couples with and without children ) could fall to about half of all households by 2040 ,
but family households with children may comprise less than a quarter of all households by
2040 . Single- person households may increase to about 37 % of all households by 2040 .
Persons with disabilities are especially challenged when the basic pedestrian infrastructure is
lacking or not maintained in a quality manner. While current city standards for sidewalk and
street crossing facilities are required for new development , many of the existing older areas of
the city either lack complete facilities or sections of sidewalks , or are poorly maintained ,
making travel difficult . In addition , safety at pedestrian street crossings is a concern in certain
locations including the timing of signalized crossings and wide arterial street crossings with no
pedestrian refuge at median points . Citizen comments during this update process have
confirmed these concerns .
January 2011 21
Draft Final Pedestrian Plan
ACCIDENT DATA
City staff from the Traffic Operations Department compiled pedestrian accident data between
the years 2000 through 2009 . A more detailed summary can be found in Appendix C of this
Plan . The total number of pedestrian accidents remained relatively consistent over this
timeframe , with 27 in 2000 and 32 in 2009 , resulting in an overall average of 33 accidents per
year .
In reviewing the number of accidents compared to the population , taking into account the
population increase that has occurred , there has been a slight downward trend in the number
of pedestrian accidents over time . Age is another interesting measure related to pedestrian
accidents in the city . For several years age was not reported . From 2007 -2009 , the highest
percentage of accidents reported involved pedestrians between 15and 34 years of age .
Pedestrian accidents can be further broken down into various types of accidents based on the
circumstances . Common types of pedestrian accidents are as follows :
• Dart Out — Accidents where pedestrians enter the street in front of an approaching
driver who is too close to avoid the collision .
• Mid - block Crossing Accident — Accidents where a pedestrian crosses mid - block ( not in
a crosswalk ) , fails to yield to motorists , and is struck by a vehicle . These accidents tend
to happen at night when pedestrians are less visible .
• Pedestrian Crosses Against Signal — Accidents at signalized intersections resulting from
a pedestrian crossing against the signal indication .
• Pedestrian in the Roadway — Pedestrian walking , standing , playing or working in the
road and is struck by a motorist .
• Car Fails to Yield at Signalized Intersections — Accidents at a signalized intersection
where a pedestrian legally crossing the street is hit by a (typically turning ) motorist .
• Car Fails to Yield at Un -signalized Intersections — Accidents where a pedestrian is
legally in the crosswalk and is hit by a driver who does not yield the right of way .
• Backing Accidents — A car backing up strikes a pedestrian behind the car .
Dart out accidents and accidents at intersections involving turning vehicles are the most
common type of pedestrian accidents in Fort Collins .
January 2011 22
Draft Final Pedestrian Plan
PEDESTRIAN DEMAND
As part of the 2010 - 11 update to the Pedestrian Plan , a demand analysis tool was created and
used to estimate the demand for walking in different parts of the City . The analysis is based
on the relationship between the built environment and travel patterns . The tool can provide
forecasting analysis to understand walking demand . These forecasts can be used to evaluate
future pedestrian improvements .
Citywide application for the pedestrian demand analysis includes prioritizing improvements in
areas where they will have the biggest benefit , evaluating changes in pedestrian mode shares
over time , and in quantifying emissions due to increased investment in pedestrian facilities .
Site specific applications include evaluating land use development proposals against expected
changes in walking activity , accounting for exposure in evaluating pedestrian collisions and in
developing future intersection designs based not only on traffic demand but also pedestrian
bike demand .
The walking demand analysis tool was developed from a variety of factors including :
• Population Density
• Employment Density
• Land Use Mix
• Parks
• Schools & Colleges
• Bus Stops
• Neighborhood Shopping District
• Age '
• Vehicle Ownership
• Block Size
• Intersection Density
• Bicycle Network
The methodology for developing the tool is comprised of the following steps :
1 . Compile data that will be used to create the pedestrian demand model
2 . Perform GIS analysis and processing
3 . Join attributes for each variable to the City' s GIS street centerline file and trails file
4 . Summarize walking scores
Adaptations were made to the model to better reflect the walking conditions in Fort Collins and
the observed pedestrian counts . Indexed scores were then normalized to establish a range of
scores from 0 — 100 , representing the least to most walkable of Fort Collins streets and trails .
The following map shows the pedestrian demand index for Fort Collins . Indexing scores range
from 0 — 100 , with higher scores representing better walkability . A detailed summary of the
demand analysis is in Appendix D .
January 2011 23
Draft Final Pedestrian Plan
Pedestrian Demand Index
Forte tJlins PI , FortColUns
�74
Le.�i
OHO, cR 54G =---�i •reEdv�J
"oumry Club
( F; m79 dlo. 1_ c - It - MDuntan Visi:
My1 i1
1 lye !aa
Me
�L 1
JI"I 14
- -
G
- L
rz s0 VJV4 r m r E o
ake i-
� I�
T
jvk
pp
r
Triby
.r
1 cR 3s
Index Score CSU
0 - 20 do Growth Management Area
20 - 40 JV City Limits a _
i t i t l
40 - 60
TIIr< mm po0uc� alKl at u^]v I)nq ttm art xVcavea b r< vi' x CD' of Fan ral n:b C ro+ral cwor. mY. sn .ee rct Y.p�[C v r2n]c] •> �Ca ue [, ^'rtt^
. aJ e. v •l9ClIGb]n nl.i `I aG fa !S ma , 7 . CrTYaa.. tF Frr CO
aM n NO AAF OR AAMW FOR
60 - 80 -ME 1 Cv JS e:. a F�mt °I Pt)R of E .'n0 tomes R Um ED rTH OF FORT G O L E VA* cb .V�Fdi.WTY HE k,ECE LYING D T' OF 'ANit4VlT1' FCq
o =R/E 59 CF .)SE FOR PMTIC'.,�AR gJRPD9E. EI�REBSED OR 4PU®. W RM 5£SPECT�O I�ESE M1P PRDO,l:'9 (Ki THE I,lOE1VING DAT1
@vatmmm Kat01E. > ffia. l vela AS 1 nr' g N my
unof
mtl azamcalnCr JYaCto CIOgz IF N• M- r r— aM voalI brcl] Tr :%D'
80 - 1 00 ,]ImC- tron ana apanR a ]w-wf. bai a uaw ans+V fan sIr vu arttvz nac mo.e Y ar xz°on ame G7: ,a,vla max m: rKv—am a.atade n]ece•Ixnt
R•1 vI Y al ]ia Cfnbx] IC•M SMItl lC aCNnil'tl Cy and 16lfa On1Caa a1vOKt. cr a• yt g a The Cry ]: Ols aw :nf
rct x rrtl mle tr any sn a va-tlpe. ima. v waitD. '��dtea. nuect ar mrealc°a. an°t a•:r > ^.v r< iron x< Drafted - January 10 , 2011
-m q°all� P ve ue tleea/try am pe•san ar entD
January 2011 24
Draft Final Pedestrian Plan
Vision , Principles , Policies
PLAN FORT COLLINS VISION
Through innovation , sustainability , and connections , the City of Fort Collins aspires to create a
vibrant , world -class community . The City of Fort Collins is committed to providing leadership
and exceptional service to citizens , but recognizes that the entire community must be involved
to achieve the vision .
TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN VISION
A connected community :
• Land use and transportation will be fully integrated , both locally and regionally , to create
an affordable , accessible , low energy , low impact , and efficient transportation system .
• Multiple modes of safe , affordable , easy , and convenient travel will ensure mobility for
people of all ages and abilities .
• Multiple travel modes will make it easy to choose transportation options that support a
healthy lifestyle .
• Innovative travel modes will be accommodated through flexibility in the transportation
system .
• The transportation system will provide safe , reliable , convenient , and effective vehicular
mobility and access .
• Travel infrastructure will be high quality and recognized as world class by residents ,
visitors , and peers .
• People will be aware of the impact that their travel choices have on the transportation
system , the environment , and the community . They will have travel options to choose
that help Fort Collins achieve its overall vision of being a world class community .
PEDESTRIAN PLAN VISION
The City' s high quality pedestrian network will provide for a safe , easy , and convenient mobility
option for people of all ages and abilities .
PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES
To achieve the vision and acting as a foundation for implementation , seven policy directives
are identified including directness , continuity , street crossings , visual interest and amenity ,
security , education and enforcement , and maintenance .
Principle P1 : Provide and encourage direct pedestrian connections .
Policy P1 . 1 - Direct and Visible Connections
Provide direct and visible pedestrian connections between cul -de-sacs , transit stops ,
schools , activity areas , public facilities , and other key pedestrian destinations .
January 2011 25
Draft Final Pedestrian Plan
Policy P1 I - Avoid Barriers
Minimize and remove barriers that impede direct pedestrian access .
, a
Z. t
Ierr
s e
�. I mil . •.
Y
i
.1
1
f
Principle P2 : Link schools , neighborhoods , parks , activity centers , and other destinations with a
continuous pedestrian network .
Policy P2 . 1 - Continuous and Understandable
Provide a continuous and understandable pedestrian network .
Policy P2 .2 - Enhanced Travel Corridors and Activity Centers
Develop a complete pedestrian network in Enhanced Travel Corridors and Activity Centers .
Policy P2 . 3 - Sidewalk Cafes
Ensure that sidewalk cafes and other uses/features of the sidewalk area support rather
than obstruct a continuous pedestrian network .
Policy P2 .4 - Bridges and Crossings
Provide bridges and crossings over railroads , rivers , drainages , and other features that are
major barriers to a continuous pedestrian network and minimize out of direction travel .
These crossings will be designed according to the City' s " Design Guidelines for Grade
Separated Pedestrian , Cyclist , and Equestrian Structures " .
January 2011 26
• • . . • • . • • . w• • . • • . � .
t4 r' . ,,, • �,1 . ,y '
.' • :.
..r �Y {� �y, �• . t .•;ate J ,.
VA
0 too IS
AW it r ' 'f'
%
VOL
ftp
fo
iL
- ILI16
�.
a
_ � 1
1
Draft Final Pedestrian Plan
Policy P4 .2 - Attractive Improvements 14 'j
Develop attractive improvements including
landscaping , vertical treatments , sidewalk [ _
widening , and furnishing that improves the
character and pedestrian scale of the urban _
environment . WO
Policy P4 . 3 - Special Design Features
Incorporate special design features , public • ;:
art , and site details that can enhance the Y
pedestrian scale of streets and become
urban amenities . &y -n
Policy P4 .4 - ADA Standards
Comply with Americans with Disabilities Act _
(ADA) standards so that pedestrian facilities ;
can be used by children , the mobility ey s- j d r
impaired , and seniors .
Principle P5 : Develop secure pedestrian settings . -
Policy 5 . 1 - Lines of Sight
Provide clear and direct lines of sight in
pedestrian settings to increase feelings of
security .
Policy 5 . 2 - Illumination
Provide general illumination for security and visual safety of pedestrian areas and corridors .
Policy 5 . 3 - Physical Buffers
Develop physical buffers or edges between sidewalks and streets and parking lots .
Principle P6 : Education , encouragement , and enforcement programs that establish awareness of
transportation safety will be promoted .
Policy P6 . 1 - Safe Routes to School
The community will have a Safe Routes to School program focused on providing a
sustainable method to educate children , teachers , parents , and Poudre School District
about safe walking and bicycling .
Policy P6 .2 - Education , Encouragement, and Enforcement
Develop educational , encouragement , and enforcement programs that promote safety and
encourage respect for pedestrians and by pedestrians for traffic laws .
Policy 6 . 3 - Targeted Enforcement
Work with the police department to target enforcement of laws that promote pedestrian
safety .
Policy 6 .4 - Targeted Education
Educate society , the public , and professionals to effectively address pedestrian matters .
January 2011 28
Draft Final Pedestrian Plan
Principle P7 : Maintenance of pedestrian infrastructure will ensure safe operation and long term
preservation of the asset .
• Maintenance Program
Protect investment in pedestrian facilities , systems , and services through a proactive , high -
quality
Policy P7 .2Quality Material • 1 •
maintenanceUse quality materials and designs that minimize needs .
. - . : \ ',•,� � + Jam, w�' '''ice! \(��a ' � L .� "�:�;.
• • • .• � !mil\ FW� � A\ .T'
, t
r '
Draft Final Pedestrian Plan
Pedestrian Priority Areas
As part of the 2010 - 11 update to the Pedestrian Plan , the Pedestrian Priority Areas ( PPA) map
was updated . The updated PPA map incorporates information from the 1996 Plan map , the
Plan Fort Collins Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas map , City Plan Structure Plan map ,
Master Street Plan Overlay map , and the Pedestrian Demand Index map . The PPA map is
shown on the following page .
The PPA map represents a key element of the Pedestrian Plan and is used for applying the
level of service ( LOS ) standards to pedestrian priority areas . These priority areas reflect
different amounts of pedestrian use or activity throughout the City . There is one set of LOS
measurements for all pedestrian activity areas . However , acceptable LOS thresholds vary by
type of activity area . It would not be logical to require the same LOS standards everywhere .
As an example , the needs and standards for the downtown and Colorado State University
campus areas , which are highly pedestrian -dependent , are significantly different in character
and need than an outlying industrial area . Therefore the Pedestrian Priority Areas map has
been developed to identify the existing and anticipated pedestrian activity areas from which to
assign LOS Standards . There are five pedestrian activity areas defined here .
Jill
c
I
t
J ,.
1
January 2011 30
Draft Final Pedestrian Plan
Pedestrian Districts
This area reflects the highest pedestrian environment desired , a location where all LOS
standards are A or B . This area would be appropriate for downtown and university areas ,
which typically have the highest pedestrian activity in a city . This pedestrian district would also
reflect future high - use pedestrian activity areas , such as the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan
Community Commercial District .
Activity Centers/Commercial Corridors
This category combines two high use pedestrian areas . Activity Centers represent primary
commercial shopping centers throughout the community as depicted on the City Structure Plan
map . These areas include neighborhood and community commercial centers , typically served
by transit and within walking distance to higher density residential . The second area is defined
by the primarily commercial corridors such as College Avenue , East Mulberry Street , and
Harmony Road . Other areas have a very high automobile dependency . By providing
pedestrians linear connections between retail uses and the adjacent residential areas ,
pedestrian activity along these corridors could be significantly improved . Pedestrians are more
likely to walk to areas within one-quarter mile of neighborhoods and retail areas with higher
pedestrian LOS .
School Walking Areas
These areas include all routes within one- mile radius of an existing public school and around
sites designated for future public schools . The PPA map does not show the one- mile radius
buffer around each school site in order to not complicate the graphic presentation of the overall
map layers .
Transit Corridors
Areas within one -quarter mile of existing transit and future routes identified in the Transfort
Strategic Plan , including Enhanced Travel Corridors .
Other
This category includes all locations not falling within one of the four previous areas .
January 2011 31
Draft Final Pedestrian Plan
"°` Pedestrian Priority Areas
Fortlolllns P FortColUns
u7
apt •— .
@r wunry-ilu
i man
ri de
-_ � • I `�� tti �u7 1 _• I • _
n _. • J1
3VA
l0e
Ali
Mult �,,,�• - > SH 14
L jkq
rake ��..••
e
at
r - _ - =IoFsetoo• '
1 1 % •
n 4, '►
14 fti
11. t-armory_ - - - Liam
OC
ii�go
..I 1
Id N
Pedestrian District Transit Corridors Schools ( 1 mile zone )'
dp Downtownr'CSU Bus Routes ( 1 /4 mile zone )' Growth Management Area
dp Future District ii ai Enhanced Travel Corridor City Limits 0 0.5 1 2nni
1 r 1 t I
Activity Centers /Corridors 1 /4 Mile around ETC
IV Activity Centers T ese nap woeucC aw unxnlnq sacs a e r emea b r< D x CO Fw Odns o is .pat ai wm r wY. an* seat of *esv c* v nen*e* o penes use Dy mt-aec
w tnc plalK. Te C+y —ates ro •epresernba w aaray s a e xoFxl a-eats; w mnpetre•: wr* n D ra ,, a actlnq in apanp w *zpgrp 0mecua, mrb,l:,
wwu•b Dae'tlwk•, w wxr'au w ocssw of any - •eali threw,. TE CrTY OF FORT CALM'_. IM¢3 NO W aRRANTY OF MERCW WTAi OR WARRANTY I i
=R/ESS OF ,.SE FOR PARTIGJIM PURPOSE EItPRE89ED OR Iii WRH RESPECT TO -YES VAP PRUOUGTS OR TIE LND6I. I%G Doi MI use% wee*e mz
Commercial Corridors wmua nc appkaswtl. wmm xmpa me A618, 'h TIN1 FAurS, sn avcal tsaysD JwAe � neepr, wavuarm eats aw apeezbna* xGty
vrm r horn an* apan7 d lbrai ims. or Iodry ar'aIV tr D,Y u< wtna +ap wpOKi n lvrs;*saoon wtro Oe/'s haMlO nu*e tn: rM—atw aAlmlat N*apatn*era
--.eTc w w al *as ca not tatnw, al,Rutl m mtanea q' artl um dploe prRwlrs. w un�nAq m 71e Cq O!C!Y•¢. •rI* Lal.
' Note: some buffer areas not shown rct x Ietl uw¢tr art) aM a *rape. ow,, w uwth. wearrae*C nett w cproeausaa, Pri *roes w rw saetro aw., Drafted: January 10, 2011
—in: w LA= w that sat r~by SAY pl'awi w Ii
January 2011 32
Draft Final Pedestrian Plan
Level of Service ( LOS )
Level of Service ( LOS ) is a measure that is used to determine the effectiveness of elements of
transportation infrastructure . The LOS measurement is most commonly used to analyze
traffic delay on roadways . However, the City of Fort Collins has level of service ( LOS )
standards for each travel mode including motor vehicle , public transit , bicycle , and pedestrian .
These LOS standards guide public and private planning for mobility and accessibility in all
transportation modes .
When the City of Fort Collins prepared the Pedestrian LOS standards and methodology in
19963 it became evident that pedestrian measures such as pedestrian density and flow rate as
defined by the Highway Capacity Manual were inappropriate for Fort Collins . As a result , a set
of planning LOS procedures were developed to evaluate existing conditions and proposed
public and private projects . In addition to the methodologies of the LOS procedure , LOS
targets or standards were also defined for different areas of the City .
As part of the 2010 - 11 update to the Pedestrian Plan , the Pedestrian Level of Service was
evaluated to ensure that it still meets the needs of the City of Fort Collins . After evaluating the
Pedestrian LOS against several other Pedestrian LOS methodologies , City Staff determined
that the majority of the existing Pedestrian LOS is still relevant and will continue to be used .
The sections of the Pedestrian LOS related to unsignalized and mid - block crossings are being
updated to more accurately reflect the City' s strategies for implementing these types of
crossings . A new tool has been developed to determine the type and location of crossings .
The new tool is described in the next section of the Pedestrian Plan .
The Pedestrian LOS will retain the five areas of evaluation that were previously developed .
These areas are -
1 . Directness
2 . Continuity
3 . Street Crossings ( Signalized only )
4 . Visual Interest and Amenity
5 . Security
The areas of evaluation are described below .
DIRECTNESS
Directness is a measurement of the walking trip length . The measure of directness is simply
how well an environment provides direct pedestrian connections to destinations such as transit
stops , schools , parks , commercial areas , or activity areas . The grid pattern typifies the ideal
system where a person can go north or south , or east or west to easily get to their destination .
The common curvilinear residential subdivision which may have cul -de-sacs that back onto a
commercial center, transit stop , school , or park might be physically proximate to a potential
pedestrian destination , however , often require a circuitous route which deters pedestrian trips .
January 2011 33
Draft Final Pedestrian Plan
The directness LOS measure is based on a ratio of the actual
distance from a triporigin to tri destination divided b the ® 0 Excellent
p Y ■ M = = = = = =
minimum distance ( as the crow flies ) between those two points . 1111010101101111
Actual destination is further defined by either existing condition or IN m � � � �
the proposed public/private development . I MEME
zmqTo measure the directness LOS requires selecting one or two trip C ■ a " ' � "�
q g p O Lr05 Minimum
origin locations in a smaller development and up to five or six
representative trip origin locations in a larger development . Trip
destinations are then identified .
Trip destinations are those locations to which pedestrians may ■
walk , such as transit stops , schools , parks , trails , and commercial C cos Poor
areas . These destinations should be within approximately one-
quarter mile , but could be greater ( e . g . , junior high schools and
high schools have a one- mile and one and one- half mile walking
distance , respectively ) . If no pedestrian destinations are within the
immediate study area , the directness LOS is not applicable . a = ndual distance tcwalk
Connections to arterials that could eventually support transit M = Measured minimum distance
should be evaluated . x = Destination
If the directness LOS is defined by the grid system , the minimum distance is the measurement
from a representative trip origin to destination by the north/south axis . The actual distance is
either the existing distance to walk from an origin to destination , or the distance if the
development was constructed .
The actual/minimum ratio and level of service table is as follows :
Level of Service Actual Distance/ Measured
Distance Ratio
A < 1 . 2
B 1 . 2 - 1 . 4
C 1 . 4 - 1 . 6
D 1 . 6 - 1 . 8
E 1 . 8-2 . 0
F > 2 . 0
An actual/minimum (A/ M ) ratio of less than 1 . 2 is considered an A , whereas an A/ M ratio of
2 . 0 + would be considered an F . An A/M ratio of below 1 . 0 could be achieved with the
introduction of a diagonal street . Ideally , development proposals should be self- mitigated to
achieve acceptable LOS standards prior to submittal to the City .
January 2011 34
Draft Final Pedestrian Plan
CONTINUITY
Continuity is the measurement of the completeness of the sidewalk system . A continuous
pedestrian system from origin to destination is critical for pedestrian mobility . Continuity is a
measure of both the physical consistency and type of pedestrian sidewalk , and the visual
connection from one bloc to the next .
LOS A is achieved when the pedestrian (A)
sidewalk appears as a single entity within a
majority of activity area or public open space .
LOS B provides a quality continuous stretch B) • oy I
of pedestrian networks which are physically
separated with landscaped parkways .
LOS C provides for a continuous pedestrian
network on both sides of the street ; however ,
these sidewalks may not be built to current p)
standards .
LOS D reflects areas where there may not be E j
sidewalks on both sides of the street or there
FT
are breaches in the system . W,
LOS E reflects areas where there are F'
significant breaks in the system . _ F1
LOS F is a complete breakdown in the pedestrian flow where each pedestrian selects a
different route because no pedestrian network exists .
STREET CROSSINGS
If pedestrians cannot safely cross a street to get to their destination , there is little likelihood that
they will be inclined to walk . Because street crossings place the pedestrian in the middle of
the street involving both the pedestrian and automobile driver , the measurement of a street
crossing becomes very complex . Achieving a high LOS for street crossing can require
significant investment .
Street Crossing Types
There are four main types of street crossings — signalized intersection , unsignalized
intersection crossing the major street , unsignalized intersection crossing the minor street , and
mid - block crossing . Each has inherent differences . The pedestrian LOS will be used for
evaluating and upgrading signalized intersections . The Crosswalk Treatment Identification
Tool that is described in the next section will be used to identify appropriate improvements for
unsignalized intersections and mid - block crossing locations .
January 2011 35
Draft Final Pedestrian Plan
A roundabout is becoming more prominent street crossing type . In terms of pedestrian safety ,
single lane roundabouts typically increase pedestrian safety . This is due to decreased
crossing distances and only having to cross one direction of travel a time . Additionally , traffic
is typically moving much slower at a roundabout than at a signalized intersection .
Street crossing LOS was correlated to the pedestrian exposure to the automobile and design
elements which positively reflect the pedestrian presence . The following are key street
crossing elements that need to be examined when measuring street crossing LOS at
signalized locations .
Number of Lanes
Wider intersections create exposure of
pedestrians to motorists . In addition
Wider streets tend to carry higher
her _ ML
+
volumes of traffic with higher speeds .
Crosswalks
Crosswalks are present and well c'°ss, fks
marked . - �� Clear
f /
Sight j
Refuge
Signal Indication mane
Signal heads are easily visible to the ' — � _
ppedestrian and the motorist . oirectiona�
Corner Ramps L + ' • . '
i
Lighting Levels I Numtlero�
Trave! lanes
Intersection and crosswalks are well lit
so that the pedestrian is visible at night .
Pedestrian Signal Indication
Some signals have the walk phase automatically set for each cycle . This is desirable for all
activity areas , as it states the importance of the pedestrian . An alternative is the pedestrian
button , where the pedestrian presses the button , waits for the cycle to repeat , and gets the
walk phase . The third type of signal does not have any walk phase . For an actuated signal
this type of pedestrian indication is unacceptable , since the only way a pedestrian gets a green
light is when an automobile on the side street activates the cycle .
Pedestrian Character
Signing , striping , and roadway character strongly suggest the presence of a pedestrian
crossing .
Sight Distance
Unobstructed views between motorists and pedestrians are important for ensuring safe
crossings .
Corner Ramps
Directional corner ramps are preferred because they notify drivers of intended pedestrian
walking direction .
January 2011 36
Draft Final Pedestrian Plan
VISUAL INTEREST AND AMENITY
Visual interest and amenity considers the pedestrian system ' s attractiveness and features .
The attractiveness of the pedestrian network can range from visually appealing to appalling .
Compatibility with local architecture and site enhancements , such as fountains , benches ,
pavement materials , and lighting improve visual interest .
SECURITY
Security is the measure of a pedestrian ' s sense of security . Pedestrians require a sense of
security , both through visual line of sight with vehicles drivers and separation from vehicles .
Major portions of the City' s sidewalks along arterials are narrow and adjacent to high -volume ,
high -speed travel lanes . Other sidewalks are intimidating because they are not visible to the
motorist and surrounding activities . Pedestrian sidewalks and corridors should also be
examined based on lighting levels and sight distance .
PEDESTRIAN LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS
Directness A B C D E F
Excellent and Excellent and Minimum Increasing Poor No
direct direct acceptable lack of directness directness or
connectivity connectivity directness directness , and connectivity .
through full with clear and connectivity connectivity. Total
utilization of linear and connectivity and linearity Pedestrian pedestrian
urban space , visual standard . with perception of disorientation
streets , connection to Perceptions incoherent a linear no linearity
transit, and transit and urban and connection and
activity facilities , space confusing to desired confusing .
centers with streets and become less direction and destination
clear linear activities . coherent with visual falters and
visual the connection to serves only
statements . beginnings of pedestrian the person
discomfort destinations . with no other
with visual choice .
clarity and
lack of
linearity .
(A/M Ratio < (AM Ratio 1 . 2 (A/M Ratio (A/M Ratio (A/M Ratio (A/M Ratio >
1 . 2 )* to 1 .4 )* 1 .4 to 1 . 6 )* 1 . 6 to 1 . 8 )* 1 . 8 to 2 . 0 )* 2 . 0)*
January 2011 37
Draft Final Pedestrian Plan
Continuity A B C D E F
Pedestrian Continuous Continuous Pedestrian Significant Complete
sidewalk stretches of stretches of corridors are breaks in breakdown in
appears as a sidewalks sidewalks not well continuity. pedestrian
single entity which are which may connected traffic flow.
with a major physically have variable with several All people
activity area separated by widths , with breaches in select
or public open a landscaped and without pedestrian different
space . parkway . landscaped network. routes . No
parkways . network
exists .
Signalized - A B C D E F
Crossings**
3 or fewer 4 or 5 lanes 6 or more Missing 5 Missing 6 Missing 7
lanes to cross to cross lanes to cross elements of A elements of elements of
and/or and/or A A
signal has
clear Missing 2 Missing 4
vehicular elements of A elements of A
pedestrian
indications
well marked
crosswalks
good lighting
levels
standard curb
ramps
automatic
pedestrian
signal phase
amenities ,
signing ,
sidewalk , and
roadway
character
strongly
suggest the
presence of a
pedestrian
crossing
drivers and
pedestrians
have
unobstructed
views of each
other
January 2011 38
Draft Final Pedestrian Plan
Unsignalized
Crossing the A B C D E ' F
major
street***
Use Crosswalk Treatment Identification Tool
Unsignalized
Crossing the A B C D E = F
minor =
street***
Use Crosswalk Treatment Identification Tool
Mid -block
major street A B D E F
crossing ***
Use Crosswalk Treatment Identification Tool
Visual
Interest and A D E F
Amenity
Visually Generous Functionality Design Comfort and Total
appealing and sidewalks , operational ignores convenience discomfort
compatible visual clarity, with less pedestrian nonexistent, and
with local some street importance to with negative design has intimidation .
architecture . furniture and visual interest mental overlooked
Generous landscaping , or amenity. image . needs of
sidewalk no blank users .
width , active street walls .
building
frontages ,
pedestrian
lighting , street
trees and
quality street
furniture .
January 2011 39
Draft Final Pedestrian Plan
Security A B C D E F
Sense of Good lighting Unobstructed Sidewalk Major Streetscape
security levels and lines of sight. configuration breaches in is pedestrian
enhanced by unobstructed and parked pedestrian intolerant.
presence of lines of sight. cars may visibility from
other people inhibit street,
using vigilance from adjacent
sidewalks and the street. land uses
overlooking and
them from activities .
adjacent
buildings .
Good lighting
and clear
sight lines .
A/M Ratio : Actual distance between pedestrian origin/destination divided by minimum
distance defined by a firth angled grid street system .
** A signalized intersection LOS will go up one level of service with a dedicated pedestrian
signal phase and/or a colored or textured crosswalk .
*** Unsignalized crossing at intersection of major street ( minor arterial to major arterial ) and
minor street ( local , connector and collector) .
January 2011 40
Draft Final Pedestrian Plan
LEVEL OF SERVICE THRESHOLDS
The following defines the minimum acceptable standards by Pedestrian Facilities Plan Area . It
should be noted that numerous locations within the City will not achieve the minimum LOS .
Because of limited funding , improvements should be prioritized toward activity areas , routes to
schools , parks , and transit . To cap the current problem , new development , both public and
private , as well as major street improvements and redevelopment , should adhere to the
pedestrian LOS standards .
Target Levels of Service by Pedestrian Facilities Plan Area
Street Visual
Directness Continuity = Crossing Interest and Security
mm Amenity
Pedestrian A = A B A A
Districts
f
Activity
Centers and B C B B
Corridors
School
Walking = B = C B
Areas
..
Transit
Corridors C C B
Other Areas C C C C C
within City
APPLICATION
Vehicle , transit , bicycle , and pedestrian LOS analysis is required for all proposed public and
private development and arterial improvements . Street improvements may require pedestrian
improvements to facilitate acceptable pedestrian street crossings . Street improvements are
unacceptable if they reduce pedestrian LOS below acceptable levels . Private developments
may be required to construct off-site pedestrian improvements to achieve acceptable
pedestrian LOS , similar to the request to provide off-site mitigations to achieve acceptable
automobile LOS .
January 2011 41
Draft Final Pedestrian Plan
Crossing Policy
A comprehensive pedestrian safety strategy contains a three- pronged approach including
engineering , enforcement , and education programs . This section of the Pedestrian Plan
focuses on physical elements , such as pedestrian crossing treatments and intersection design .
The pedestrian safety strategy described in this section will guide the City of Fort Collins in
making decisions about where crosswalks may be marked ; where crosswalks with special
treatments , such as flashing beacons , and other special features , should be employed ; and
where crosswalks will not be marked due to safety concerns resulting from volume , speed , or
sight distance issues .
This section contains a variety of treatments to improve pedestrian mobility , visibility , and
safety . In addition to standard tools , the toolbox includes devices such as the Pedestrian
Hybrid Beacon ( approved under the 2009 Federal Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices ,
( MUTCD ) ) and the Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon ( approved at the federal level for
experimental use ) .
An Excel - based treatment identification tool will accompany the Pedestrian Plan . Based on
research from the National Cooperative Highway Research Program and Federal Highway
Administration , among other best practice documents , the tool provides guidance about the
type of treatments appropriate on various streets and under various conditions . Preferred and
enhanced options are provided for signalized locations , stop-controlled locations , and
uncontrolled locations . While the strategies reflect best practices and local priorities , the
guidance is not meant to replace engineering judgment . Each situation is unique and
pedestrian safety improvements must be selected on a case- by-case basis . Potential
education and enforcement strategies are also included to complement the engineering
strategies and provide a comprehensive approach to improving pedestrian safety in Fort
Collins .
Caution must be used to avoid overuse of crosswalks and crossing treatments . Overuse can
lead to reduced compliance , reduced effectiveness and reduced safety . The crossing
treatment identification tool uses simple inputs from a field survey (a field visit checklist is
included in Appendix E ) , such as number of lanes , posted speed , and average daily traffic , to
provide a candidate crosswalk treatment at mid - block and uncontrolled locations . As noted
previously , the tool is not meant to replace engineering judgment .
FUNCTION OF CROSSWALKS
The Traffic Code in Fort Collins requires vehicles to yield the right-of-way to crossing
pedestrians at any intersection where crossing is not prohibited ( regardless of marked
crosswalks ) . At the same time , the code requires pedestrians to wait until it is safe before
attempting to cross . Thus motorists and pedestrians share responsibility for safe street
crossings . The main function of a marked crosswalk is to channelize pedestrians . Crosswalks
also prepare drivers for the likelihood of encountering a pedestrian , and they create an
atmosphere of walkability and accessibility for pedestrians . Marked crossings reinforce the
location and legitimacy of a crossing .
January 2011 42
Draft Final Pedestrian Plan
In many instances marked crosswalks alone do not provide adequate protection to
pedestrians . The Crosswalk Treatment Identification tool was prepared to assist the City of
Fort Collins in selecting crosswalk treatments that will improve pedestrian safety and , in doing
so , enhance pedestrian accessibility and mobility .
DETERMINING WHERE AND HOW TO MARK CROSSWALKS
The first step in identifying candidate crosswalk locations is to identify the places where people
would like to walk ( pedestrian desire lines ) , which are affected by local land uses ( homes ,
schools , parks , commercial establishments , etc . ) and the location of transit stops . This
information forms a basis for identifying pedestrian crossing improvement areas and prioritizing
such improvements , thereby creating a convenient , connected , and continuous walking
environment .
The second step is identifying the locations safest for people to cross . Of all road users ,
pedestrians have the highest risk because they are the least protected . National statistics
indicate that pedestrians represent 14 percent of all traffic incident fatalities , while walking
accounts for only three percent of total trips . Pedestrian collisions occur most often when a
pedestrian is attempting to cross the street at an intersection or mid - block crossing . 15
Several major studies of pedestrian collision rates at marked and unmarked crosswalks have
been conducted . In 2002 , the Federal Highway Administration ( FHWA ) published a
comprehensive report on the relative safety of marked and unmarked crossing16 . In 2006 ,
another study was completed that further assists engineers and planners in selecting the right
treatment for marked crosswalks based on studies of treatment effectiveness " . With these
studies as the backdrop , this section of the Pedestrian Plan presents a variety of treatment
options to mitigate safety , visibility , or operational concerns at specific locations .
TREATMENTS AT UNCONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS
Marked crosswalks will always be installed at signalized locations where pedestrian signals are
present . Marked crosswalks will not normally be installed on intersection approaches that are
controlled by STOP signs ; however , exceptions may be made at school crossings or other
locations where there is an overriding need . This section of the Pedestrian Plan and the
Crosswalk Treatment Identification tool focus on best practices for the installation of
crosswalks at uncontrolled intersection and mid - block locations .
15 Pedestrian Crash Types, A 1990's Information Guide, FHWA; This paper analyzed 5, 076 pedestrian crashes that occurred
during the early 1990's. Crashes were evenly selected from small , medium , and large communities within six states: California ,
Florida , Maryland , Minnesota , North Carolina , and Utah .
16 Zegeer, C.V. , J . R. Stewart, H . H . Huang and RA. Lagerwey. "Safety Effects of Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks at
Uncontrolled Locations: Executive Summary and Recommended Guidelines. " Report No. FHWA-RD-01 -075. Washington , DC,
USA: Federal Highway Administration , March 2002 . http ://www.walkinginfo. org/pdf/r&d/crosswalk_021302 . pdf.
17 Fitzpatrick, Kay, et al. . . Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossings. TCRP Report 112/NCHRP Report 562 .
2006 . http ://onlinepubs.trb. org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_562 . pdf.
January 2011 43
Draft Final Pedestrian Plan
When to Install Crosswalks
The following is the recommended or best practice for pedestrian treatments at uncontrolled
intersection and mid - block locations .
Crossings should be marked where all of the following occur :
• Sufficient demand exists to justify the installation of a crosswalk (see Demand
Considerations below)
• The location has sufficient sight distance (sight distance in feet should be greater than
10 times the speed limit ) and/or sight distance will be improved prior to crosswalk
marking
• Safety considerations do not preclude a crosswalk
Demand Considerations : Uncontrolled and mid - block crossing locations should be identified
as a candidate for marking if there is a demonstrated need for the crosswalk . Need may be
demonstrated by any of the following :
• Location near existing or proposed pedestrian generators (such as a school or park )
• Existing pedestrian volumes
• Pedestrian -vehicle collisions at this location (over several years )
• Location of nearest (adequately ) marked or controlled crosswalk
• Citizen surveys , requests , walking audits , etc .
Charts 1 and 2 on the following pages provide a visual summary of the demand
considerations , including suggested threshold values in some cases . Engineering judgment
will ultimately be used to select locations appropriate for marked , uncontrolled crossings .
1W
Considerations for High Volume and /or High Speed Locations
For candidate crosswalk locations on streets with daily traffic volumes (ADT ) greater than
9 , 000 or with a posted speed limit exceeding 40 miles per hour , enhanced treatments beyond
striping and signing may be needed . Candidate locations that require enhanced treatments
will be prioritized based on crossing activity , conflicting vehicle activity , accident history and
construction cost . Implementation of enhanced treatments will occur based on prioritized
ranking as funding resources become available .
Crosswalk Location and Tool Feasibility Analysis
Charts 1 and 2 on the following pages describe the overall procedures for the Fort Collins
crosswalk policy from the moment City staff received a request for a new marked crosswalk (or
considers removing an existing marked crosswalk ) to the installation of the treatment . As
described earlier, the first steps to determine the appropriate location and treatment for the
crosswalk include a staff field visit ( a recommended form for this field visit is included in
Appendix E ) .
January 2011 44
Draft Final Pedestrian Plan
Chart 1 . Selection Process for Uncontrolled and Mid - Block Crosswalk Locations
City Staff receives Citizen walkability ` ` Citizen surveys Collision analysis
request for a audits identify a identify a key location dentifies one or more
crosswalk location for crosswalk for crosswalk pedestrian fatalities or
installation or installation or installation or injuries at a location
improvement ' improvement improvement within 5 years
Begin Traffic
Investigation
process, including
staff field visit"
This is not a good
<jYES
> NOlocation for a
marked crossing .
Use Fort Collins Tool and
Engineering Judgment to
determine treatment options
Optional steps
* A field visit checklist is provided in Appendix E
January 2011 45
Draft Final Pedestrian Plan
Chart 2 . Feasibility Analysis for Treatments at Uncontrolled Locations
Location is 20 pedestrians per 7needfor
Citizen surveys
adjacent to an hour ( 15 elderly ! or walkability
existing or and/or children) or
proposed park, audits No action
school , hospital , or NO 60 in 4 hours cross NO No overwhelmingly NO recommended
at location and ADT
other major >_ 1500 vpd crossing suggest need for
pedestrian proactive
generator/attractor treatment
YES YES YES
Nearest appropriately 40 pedestrians per Direct pedestrians
YES marked or protected hour (30 elderly NO to the nearest
crosswalk is at least 300 feet NO and/or children) or marked or
away [600 feet outside of 120 in 4 hours protected
Pedestrian Districts] cross at location* crosswalk
YES
YES
Is it feasibly to Direct pedestrians
Pedestrians can be easily remove sight to the nearest
seen from a distance 10x NO distance infeasible marked crosswalk
the speed limit obstruction or or consider
I speed alternate location
limit? for crossing
YES
feasible
Use Crosswalk
Treatment
Identification Tool
and Engineering
Judgment to
determine
treatment options
optional
Note: Where no engineering action is recommended in Chart 2, consider applicable
education and enforcement efforts.
January 2011 46
Draft Final Pedestrian Plan
Treatment Identification for Crosswalk Locations
Based on the results of Charts 1 and 2 , the Treatment Identification Tool may be used at a
candidate crosswalk location . The Treatment Identification Tool follows a two-step process to
determine a " match " for the study location characteristics . The first step is to determine if the
pedestrian and vehicle volumes meet the signal warrant requirements to install a pedestrian
signal . If this warrant is met , the tool will recommend a signal . If the warrant is not met , the
tool recommends one or more less " intense" treatments , as described below .
A calculation of Pedestrian Level of Service forms the basis for the Treatment Identification
Tool . ' $ Pedestrian Level of Service is the average delay experienced by pedestrians as they
are waiting to cross the street . The Treatment Identification Tool calculates the average
crossing speed based on curb-to-curb width and gaps in traffic .
Pedestrian Level of Traffic Volume and Speed Limit
Service ( LOS ) Speed Limit < 40 mph Speed Limit <40 mph Speed Limit > 40 mph
and ADT < 9 , 000 and ADT > 9 , 000
-........... ..........
LOS A D
( average delay up to LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 2
30 seconds )
-- - 7or
------ ---
- - --- _LOS E- F
(average delay
greater than 30LEVEL k LEVEL 2 or 3 _ LEVEL 3
seconds )
Note: A Road Diet19 is recommended for consideration in all scenarios with four or more lanes of traffic
and a daily traffic volume of less than 15, 000 vehicles.
The treatment matrix , which is embedded within the Tool , assigns treatment by level of
enhancement needed (with the most significant enhancement required with the worst LOS ) .
Level 1 Treatment Options :
Marked Crosswalk with pedestrian ( or school ) crossing warning signage , Advanced Yield
Lines , Advance Signage
Level 2 Treatment Options :
Curb Extensions , Bus Bulb , Reduced Curb Radii , Pedestrian Refuge Island , Reduced
Speed Limit School Zones , Pedestrian activated flashing beacons ( including rectangular
rapid flash beacons ) .
Level 3 Treatment Options :
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon , School Crossing Guard , Traffic Signal , Grade Separated
Crossing or Direct Pedestrians to Nearest Safe Crossing .
ivote : the tool requires aata inputs from the rieia view unecKiist (see Appendix A). The pedestrian level of service
calculation is set forth in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM ), published by the Transportation Research Board .
19 With a road diet, the number of lanes of travel is reduced by widening sidewalks, adding bicycle and parking lanes, and
converting parallel parking to angled or perpendicular parking . An ADT of 15, 000 or less is a general guideline for identifying
eligible multi-lane roadways where lanes could be removed and vehicle level of service would remain the same or improve .
January 2011 47
Draft Final Pedestrian Plan
CANDIDATE TREATMENT DESCRIPTIONS
The following table provides a summary of the treatments included in the Treatment
Identification Tool . Additional fact sheets and case studies for many of these treatments are
included in the NHCRP 562 Report at http - //trb/org/publications/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_562 . pdf or the
Pedestrian Bicycle Information Center at http - //www .walkinginfo . org .
Level 1 Crosswalk Treatments
Measure Description Benefits Application
Marked Crosswalk Marked crosswalks
should be installed to
�id Standard C�tlnental bashed Zebra Ladder provide designated Marked crosswalks Marked crosswalks
pedestrian crossings at should not be installed
` major pedestrian provide a designated on multi-lane roads
` generators crossings crossing , which may with more than 9 , 000
improve walkability
\ with significant by signaling a clear vehicles/day.
pedestrian volumes (at "channel" for Enhanced crosswalk
least 15 per hour) , treatments (as
Image source: www. waIkinginfo. org/pedsafe/ crossing with high pedestrian pathways presented in this table)
vehicle-pedestrian to both pedestrians and vehicles should supplement the
collisions, and other . marked crosswalk.
areas based on
engineering judgment.
........
High -Visibility Signs and Markings
High-visibility markings
include a family of
• crosswalk striping FHWY recently
styles such as the ended its approval Beneficial in areas with
" ladder" and process for the high pedestrian
"continental" . High- experimental use of activity, as near
visibility fluorescent fluorescent yellow schools, and in areas
yellow green signs are crosswalk markings where travel speeds
made of the approved and found that they are high and/or
fluorescent yellow had no discernable motorist visibility is low.
SCHOOL green color and posted benefit of white
X I N G at crossings to markings .
increase the visibility of
a pedestrian crossing .
Image source: exoduinnovations. com
-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Advanced Yield or Stop Lines
.�'. Standard white stop or This measure Useful in areas where
yield limit lines are increases the pedestrian visibility is
placed in advance of pedestrians visibility low and in areas with
marked , uncontrolled to motorists, reduces the numbers of aggressive drivers , as
crosswalks. Stop or advance limit lines will
yield lines are vehicles encroaching help present drivers
determined based on on the crosswalk, from encroaching on
state vehicle codes and improves general the crosswalk.
(requiring the driver to pedestrian conditions Addresses the
either stop or yield to on multi-lane multiple-threat collision
the pedestrians . roadways . It is also on multi-lane roads .
an affordable option .
Image source: www.saferoutesinfo. org
January 2011 48
Draft Final Pedestrian Plan
Level 1 Crosswalk Treatments , continued
Measure Description Benefits Application
In -Street Pedestrian Crossing Signs This measure involved
posting regulatory
STATE pedestrian signage on
lane edge lines and Mid-block crosswalks,
LAW road centerlines . The unsignalized
In-Street Pedestrian intersections , low-
Crossing sign may be speed areas, and two-
used to remind road This measure is lane roadways are
users of laws regarding highly visible to ideal for this pedestrian
FOR right-of-way at an motorists and has a treatment. The STOP
unsignalized positive impact on FOR legend shall only
pedestrian crossing . pedestrian safety at be used in states
L k] The legend STATE crosswalks . where the state law
LAW may be shown at specifically requires
WITHIN the top of the sign . that a driver must stop
CROSSWALK The legends STOP for a pedestrian in a
FOR or YIELD FOR crosswalk.
may also be used in
Image source: www. seton. com conjunction with the
appropriate symbol
Level 2 Crosswalk Treatments
Measure Description Benefits Application
......................................................................................... ....................................................................... ............................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................
Curb Extension/Bulb Outs
Curb extensions Due to the high cost of
Also known as a narrow the distance installation , this tool
pedestrian bulb-out,
that a pedestrian has would only be suitable
p Y
this traffic-calming to cross and on streets with high
measure is meant to increases the pedestrian activity, on-
slow traffic and
increase driver sidewalk space on street parking , and
the corners. They infrequent (or no) curb
of It consists also improve edge transit service . It
of extension of the emergency vehicle is often used in
currbb into the street, access and make it combination with
making the pedestrian difficult for drivers to crosswalks or other
space (sidewalk) wider. turn illegally. markings .
Image source: Dan Burden
........ ......... ......... _ .... .... ..... ....................................
Reduced Curb Radii
Tight Curb Radius Shorter radii narrow This measure would be
the distance that beneficial on streets
pedestrians have to with high pedestrian
q � The radius of a curb cross; they also activity, on-street
~� can be reduced to reduce traffic speeds parking , and no curb-
require motorists to and increase driver edge transit service . It
make a tighter turn . awareness (like curb is more suitable for
extensions), but are wider roadways and
i less difficult and roadways with low
p expensive to volumes of heavy truck
Wide Curb Radius implement. traffic .
Image source: www. ci. austin. tx. us
January 2011 49
Draft Final Pedestrian Plan
Level 2 Crosswalk Treatments , continued
Measure Description Benefits Application
Staggered Median Pedestrian Island This measure is similar
to traditional median
refuge islands -, the only Benefits of this
difference is that the tool include an
�► crosswalks in the increase in the
roadway are staggered concentration of
such that a pedestrian pedestrians at a Best used on
crosses half the street crossing and the multilane roads
and then must walk provision of better with
towards traffic to reach traffic views for Obstructed
` the second half of the pedestrians. pedestrian
crosswalk. This Additionally, visibility
Image source: www. tfhrc.gov/ measure must be motorists are or with off-set
designed for better able to see intersections.
accessibility by pedestrians as
including rails and they walk through
truncated domes to the staggered
direct sight-impaired refuge .
pedestrians along the
path of travel .
Level 3 Crosswalk Treatments
Measure Description Benefits Application
Overhead Flashing Beacons
The blinking lights
during pedestrian
Flashing amber lights crossing times
are installed on increase the number Best used in places
of drivers
overhead signs , in yielding for
where motorists cannot
pedestrians and
advance of the reduce pedestrian see a traditional sign
crosswalk or at the vehicle conflicts . due to topography or
entrance to the other barriers.
This measure can
crosswalk. also improve
conditions on
multilane roadways.
Image source: tti. tamu. edu/ _
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................'
Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacon
^ � The Overhead
Flashing Beacon is Initial studies
suggest the stutter
enhanced by replacing flash is very effective
the traditional slow as measured by
r . flashing incandescent
lamps with rapid increased driver Appropriate for multi-
lamps behavior. lane roadways .
flashing LED lamps .
Solar panels reduce
The beacons may be energy costs
pushbutton activated
-j associated with the
W or activated with device .
pedestrian detection .
Image source: www. ci. austin. tx. us
January 2011 50
Draft Final Pedestrian Plan
Level 3 Crosswalk Treatments , continued
Measure Description Benefits Application
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon Pedestrian Hybrid
Beacons are
pedestrian-actuated
signals that are a
combination of a
- beacon flasher and a Useful in areas where
traffic control signal . it is difficult for
When actuated , pedestrians to find
Pedestrian Hybrid gaps in automobile
Reduces pedestrian-
Beacons display a traffic to cross safely,
r 11 tj yellow (warning ) slows traffic speeds vehicle conflicts and. but where normal
- indication followed by a signal warrants are not
solid red light. During satisfied . Appropriate
pedestrian clearance , for multi-lane
the driver sees a roadways .
flashing red "wigwag "
Image source: www.tfhrc.gov/ pattern until the
clearance interval has
ended and the signal
. goes dark.
................................................................................................................................... _
Traffic Signal
Must meet warrants
ventional traffic based on traffic and
tontrol devices with Reduces pedestrian- ' pedestrian volumes ;
warrants for use based vehicle conflicts and
however, exceptions
on the Manual on slows vehicle traffic are possible based on
Uniform Control speeds demonstrated
Devices ( MUTCD ) pedestrian safety
concerns (collision
history)
Image source: www. livablestreets. com
116,
Pedestrian Overpass/Underpa
Grade separation via
this measure is most
feasible and
This measure consists appropriate in extreme
of a pedestrian-only Pedestrian cases where
overpass or underpass overpasses and pedestrians must cross
over a roadway. It roadways such as
underpasses allow
h -„ provides complete freeways and
separation of for the uninterrupted highspeed , high-
pedestrians of pedestrian
_ pedestrians from motor movement separate volume arterials . Use
` - vehicle traffic , normally from the vehicle of either type of facility
where no other traffic However, for falls off rapidly when
. ,
pedestrian facility is the additional time
available , and underpasses , required for such use
security is known to 0
Image source: omahamidcenturymodern. blogsome. com connects off-road be a major issue . amounts to 20 /o or
trails and paths across more of the time
major barriers . required to cross at
grade . This measure
should be considered
only with further study.
January 2011 51
Draft Final Pedestrian Plan
Crosswalk Treatments to Consider for All Multi - Lane Roads
Measure Description Benefits Application
............... ... .........
Road Diet (aka Lane Reduction )
This is a good Roadways with
traffic calming and surplus roadway
_ pedestrian safety capacity (typically
BEFORE
0 o The number of lanes of tool , particularly in multi-lane
o e travel is reduced by areas that would roadways with
widening sidewalks benefit from curb less than 15 000
3 .6 m 3.6 m 3.6 m extensions but
(12 ft) ( 12 ft) (12 ft) (12 ft) adding bicycle and have infrastructure to 17 , 000 ADT)
parking lanes, and and high bicycle
AFTER o o converting parallel in the way. This measure also volumes, and
parking to angled or roadways that
perpendicular parking . improves would benefit
1 .8 m 3.6 m 3.6 m 3.6 m 1 .e m pedestrian from traffic
(6 ft) ( 12 ft) ( 12 ft) ( 12 ft) (6 ft) conditions on calming
multilane
Image source: www. tfhrc.gov/ roadways . measures .
:...................................................................—
Median Pedestrian Island
This measure
allows pedestrians
a to focus on each
direction of traffic
separately, and
the refuge
Raised islands are provides _ Recommended
placed in the center of a pedestrians with a for multi-lane
roadway , separating better view of roads wide
opposing lanes of traffic oncoming traffic enough to
with cutouts for as well as allowing = accommodate an
accessibility along the drivers to see ADA-accessible
pedestrian path . pedestrians more median .
easily. It can also
split up a multi-
lane road and act
as a supplement
Image source: to additional
http://thegoodcity. wordpress. com/category/transportation pedestrian tools.
January 2011 52
Draft Final Pedestrian Plan
Implementation
The principles and policies identified in this document provide a foundation for implementation .
This section outlines where to go from here in achieving the vision of this Pedestrian Plan .
There are a number of implementation issues that must be pursued to make Fort Collins a
more "Walkable City A primary implementation issue is identifying needed pedestrian
improvements and securing a more sustainable long -term funding source for pedestrian
improvements and ongoing maintenance needs . Enhancement and implementation of a traffic
education and enforcement program is also critical to the success of the Pedestrian Plan .
2010 - 11 PEDESTRIAN PROJECT LIST
Introduction
A major focus of the 1996 Pedestrian Plan included a series of case studies within the city to
conduct field reviews to identify pedestrian problem areas , leading to potential future
improvement projects . These field studies were conducted by a combination of City staff and
consultants . In 2004 , a list of pedestrian projects was identified in the Capital Improvement
Plan as part of the update to the Transportation Master Plan . Several of these previous
projects have been implemented , with the remaining projects carried forward and included in
this 2010 - 11 update process .
The 2010- 11 update to the Pedestrian Plan provides the opportunity to identify additional
future pedestrian improvement projects in the city . While in the past , potential projects were
primarily identified by City staff with some input from the public , the proposed list of pedestrian
improvement projects were identified primarily by citizens as part of the Pedestrian Survey
administered in June 2010 .
Previous City Pedestrian Improvement Projects
Since 1996 , the City has identified existing areas in older neighborhoods and along major
streets that lack continuous sidewalks , facilities that fail Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
standards , unsafe routes to schools , and provide safety/educational programs . The projects
identified by City staff for sidewalk and ramp improvements to be implemented were derived
from several sources . These sources include the following :
• The City of Fort Collins Pedestrian Plan , ( 1996 )
• Combined projects from within the City' s Transportation Departments , ( i . e . Pavement
Management Program )
• Input from other City Department plans and efforts , ( i . e . The Campus West Community
Commercial District Planning Study Report , North College Plan , and the Harmony
Corridor Plan )
• Individual staff input
• Opportunities identified through possible joint ventures with outside agencies , such as
Poudre School District , Colorado State University , Colorado Department of
Transportation , and the North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization .
January 2011 53
Draft Final Pedestrian Plan
New Citizen Initiated Pedestrian Priority Projects
The 2010- 11 update to the Pedestrian Plan includes a proposed pedestrian priority project list
identified by citizens through a pedestrian survey , public comments , and remaining Capital
Improvement Program projects identified in 2004 . This updated list includes approximately 80
projects , which can be found in Appendix G . The first part of the pedestrian priority project list
includes individual projects representing proposed improvements to existing or future
sidewalks throughout the City . These sidewalk improvements have been classified as an
existing deficiency/immediate need , or a future long -term need . The priority project list also
includes two grade-separated trail crossings along the Mason Corridor , a multi - use path , and
eight grade-separated trail crossing projects (see Project map - Appendix F ) .
The second part of the pedestrian priority improvement project list includes the following
citywide ( grouped ) projects :
■ High priority pedestrian crossing installation /enhancements — Immediate need
( Implemented by Traffic Operations , $250 , 000 )
■ Long -term priority pedestrian crossing installation /enhancements — Future need
( Implemented by Traffic Operations , $250 , 000 )
■ Intersection Signal Pushbutton Accessibility ( Implemented by Traffic Operations as part
of the ATMS Program , $400 , 000 )
■ ADA Ramp and Crossings Improvements , $ 200 , 000 ( Updated in 2012 based on Future
Needs Assessment Study Recommendations )
■ Transit Stop Improvements ( Implemented by Transfort Operations )
Methodology for Determining Project Ranking
As potential projects are identified , they are evaluated and scored using the following criteria or
questions :
• Pedestrian demand volumes
• Number of pedestrian accidents
• Does the project serve a pedestrian district , school , or park facility?
• Is project located in a pedestrian corridor , or activity center?
• Does it serve as a multi - modal connection ?
• Is right-of-way needed for improvements ?
• Does project have ADA concerns ?
• Street classification
• Pedestrian level of service
• Does project support economic development opportunity?
• Are there joint construction opportunities with other departments or agencies ?
The next step in the process included ranking each individual project based on the score
value . After projects have been prioritized they are then coordinated with other department
projects or evaluated for their ability to be implemented . For example , some projects are too
large in scope , such as the North College sidewalks from Vine to Highway 1 , to be
implemented solely through the Pedestrian Plan . They need to be coupled with other capital
improvement projects , or federal/state grant funded projects .
January 2011 54
Draft Final Pedestrian Plan
The top priority projects are used to determine the fiscally constrained project list , funded by
the next round of Building on Basics sales tax between 2012 and 2015 . This source of
pedestrian funding will generate $ 300 , 000 per year during the four year period with a total of
$ 1 . 2 million . This list of priority pedestrian improvement projects is coordinated with the
updated Capital Improvement Program , as part of the Transportation Master Plan .
The list of priority pedestrian projects identified through this update process represents a
significant inventory of proposed pedestrian improvements , directed towards resolving existing
deficiencies , and new improvements throughout the community . However , it does not
represent a complete list of citywide pedestrian needs . This refined list reflects an important
priority for proposed pedestrian improvements targeted for implementation over the next
several years . This list is responsive to the public concerns identified as part of this update
process .
NEEDS ASSESSMENT STUDY
The Transportation Master Plan has identified a future implementation action item to update
the Capital Improvement Program ( CIP ) every two years . As part of the CIP , a Pedestrian
Needs Assessment Study is identified as a future action step to be conducted in 2012 . The
study will develop a more thorough inventory of missing pedestrian facility links and ADA
improvements throughout the city .
FUNDING
Identifying potential future pedestrian improvement projects and prioritizing these projects is an
important first step for implementation . Securing viable funding for construction of these
projects is a more challenging exercise , especially with the current economic environment and
limited financial resources . The 1996 Pedestrian Plan stated that the City should provide
funding for pedestrian improvements proportionate with funding for all other transportation
modes based on usage and pedestrian demand .
Historically , pedestrian improvements for fixing existing deficiencies have been funded by
limited on -going Capital Improvement Program revenues (e . g . Building on Basics , Building
Community Choices ) , along with a few other local funding sources for smaller projects . In
order to implement larger projects and maximize money spent , a combination of funding
mechanisms is recommended to better leverage outside revenue sources such as state and
federal grants . The following list summarizes potential funding sources and applications .
Potential Pedestrian Improvement Funding
Developers ( development improvements , street oversizing program )
The first source , development contributions , is the primary source for funding new City
infrastructure related to development . Potential funding from existing development and
redevelopment is more difficult to achieve . Deficiencies with existing infrastructure , which was
not constructed to urban standards , may require other funding tools , along with development
contributions .
January 2011 55
Draft Final Pedestrian Plan
Urban Renewal Authority ( URA) Tax Increment Financing (TIF )
The Urban Renewal Authority ( URA) Tax Increment Financing (TIF ) revenue stream is a good
tool to fund a variety of projects within a designated URA District . However , this revenue
source is not projected to generate tax increment revenues adequate to solely cover costs of
larger capital improvement projects . While this revenue source is a good funding tool , other
funding partnerships and sources need to be considered in combination , in order to feasibly
finance larger, high cost projects .
State and Federal Transportation Grants
This funding source represents various grants from the Metropolitan Planning Organization ,
Colorado Department of Transportation , Colorado Department of Local Affairs , Great Outdoors
Colorado , and others . City Transportation staff already collaborates actively and continuously
to pursue appropriate grant funding under these programs . Projects from across the state
compete for this funding .
Capital Improvement Program — Dedicated City Sales Tax
The current 2005 Capital Improvement Program and Building on Basics ( BOB ) provide
revenue from a '/4 cent sales tax for projects throughout the city . The next round of potential
future revenue funding from BOB is scheduled for 2015 .
To fund deficiencies in the pedestrian system , the Pedestrian Plan implementation is allocated
$ 300 , 000 yearly from the 1997 BOB tax initiative . The BOB Pedestrian Plan implementation
focuses on major improvement needs such as installation of missing or incomplete facilities ,
grade separated crossings ( underpasses and bridges ) and widening of sidewalks to bring them
up to standard . The Pedestrian Plan often works in concert with other City programs , such as
the Pavement Management Program . For example , the Pavement Management Program will
install access ramps with street rehabilitation projects . Previously the city had annual funding
of approximately 250 , 000 for the Pedestrian Access program to also install pedestrian access
ramps , repair damaged or heaved sidewalk , and make minor connections where no walk
currently exists . However , this funding has been eliminated over the last five years due to
budget constraints .
Property Tax Mil Levy ( General Improvement District)
A General Improvement District ( GID ) establishes an additional property tax mil levy on
properties within a designated district boundary . The GID would require a petition of owners , a
minimum of thirty percent of those owners in the District , resulting in about 200 owners . This
type of funding is appropriate for projects with general , area-wide benefits .
Special Assessment of Benefiting Properties ( SID )
A Special Assessment District ( SID ) represents an assessment for improvements tailored to a
specific benefit for the affected properties . For example , the property assessment could be per
acre , per square foot of existing building space , per cubic foot of storm water runoff, or per
linear foot of street or utility pipe , as appropriate . This revenue tool allows for coordination of
multiple owners and funding sources to build facilities that enable later development . The SID
requires a petition of a minimum of 50 % of the affected owners in the District . It enhances the
City' s ability to provide public improvements by assessing all or part of the cost of the
improvements against the properties that specifically benefit from them .
January 2011 56
Draft Final Pedestrian Plan
Property Owner Dedications
This form of "funding " is actually a mechanism to eliminate costs of purchasing right-of-way for
infrastructure , with affected property owners voluntarily contributing street right-of-way or utility
and access easements to a given package of funding for needed improvements . This would
allow infrastructure funding dollars to maximize construction of improvements that benefit the
property owners .
January 2011 57
Draft Final Pedestrian Plan
ACTION PLAN
Based on the implementation strategies identified above , the following actions are summarized
in the Action Plan Table , as recommendations to achieve the vision of the Pedestrian Plan .
The actions and strategies are organized into three key time frames :
• Immediate Action — Concurrent with plan adoption (early 2011 )
• Near Term Action — Following plan adoption , before the next City Budgeting for
Outcomes cycle ( mid 2011 through 2012 )
• Longer Term Action — Several years following plan adoption with the next Budgeting
for Outcomes cycle until the next Plan Fort Collins update (2013 and beyond )
ACTIONS :IMMEDIATE • - - PLAN ADOPTION
Action • • • Chapters Responsibility
Plan Fort CollinsAdoption
1 . Pedestrian Update the Pedestrian Plan to include a T Advance
Plan Map map that shows new Pedestrian Priority LIV Planning
( PRIORITY ) Areas . SW (Transportation )
and GIS staff.
2 . Pedestrian Update the Pedestrian level of service T Advance
LOS ( LOS ) unsignalized crossing policy as LIV Planning
part of the Pedestrian Plan update SW (Transportation )
and Traffic
Operations staff.
January 2011 58
Draft Final Pedestrian Plan
�7
• Will E1
1 . Pedestrian Conduct a city-wide pedestrian needs • T Advance
Needs assessment , which will include Planning
Assessment inventory of pedestrian missing links & (Transportation )
ADA ramps . and Engineering
staff
2 . Trail Design Update bicycle/pedestrian trail T Advance
Standards design standards to address use of SW Planning
Amendments trails for commuting/transportation CPR (Transportation )
purposes without impacting the LIV and Parks
recreational value of the trail ENV Planning staff
system . HI
• Designate which trails these new
standards would apply to and avoid
impacts environmentally sensitive
areas .
OWIMMI"MOM - • - •
3 . Trail Network Staff will review the current and future T Advanced
Assessment proposed trail network and identify • ENV Planning
trails and /or trial segments that are LIV (Transportation
more suited for transportation purposes HI Planning ) ,
vs . those that should be designed as Natural
recreational trails and /or go through Resources ,
sensitive natural areas . Staff will also Parks and
review changes that need to be made Recreation staff.
in design standards ,
regulations/policies , and
education/awareness effort for the
different types of trail classifications
and locations .
4 . Pedestrian Implement additional bicycle and T Advance
and Bicycle pedestrian safety education programs SW Planning
Safety for people of all ages . Include • HI (Transportation )
Education educational efforts to increase safe use and Police
of on -street facilities and off-street , Services staff
multipurpose trails .
January 2011 59
Draft Final Pedestrian Plan
Measuring Progress
The updated Transportation Master Plan (TMP ) includes recommendations for action steps
and strategies to evaluate , monitor, and report progress on plan implementation over time .
The intent of these performance measurement strategies is to help guide the City' s progress
toward the TMP vision and serve as useful tools for future plan updates . These actions steps ,
strategies , and evaluation measures are integrated with the overall Plan Fort Collins process to
ensure alignment with City Plan and city-wide goals . The measurement strategies in the TMP
can also be used to evaluate the progress of the Pedestrian Plan .
The TMP has several measures to evaluate the City ' s project toward creating a "Walkable
City" . They include :
• 20 Minute Accessibility — An index which measures the level of destination access
within a 20 minute transportation shed (this is a new measure )
• Perceived Comfort/Safety of Pedestrian Facilities — The Citizen Survey currently asks
Fort Collins residents about their perception of Fort Collins as a "Walkable City"
• Adherence to the Pedestrian Plan — Percentage of projects that adhere to the
Pedestrian Plan as measured by City Planning .
• Number of Crashes Involving Pedestrians — Annual number of crashes in the City
involving pedestrians as measured by Traffic Engineering .
• Sidewalk Condition — Sidewalk condition on a 100 point LOS rating (this is a new
measure ) .
• Awareness of Pedestrian Educational and Enforcement Programs — Citizen awareness
of pedestrian educational and enforcement programs (this is a new measure that could
be added to the Citizen Survey ) .
• Safe Routes To School Participation — Annual number of children who participate in the
safe routes to school program as measured by Transportation Planning
For more detail about measuring progress see the Transportation Master Plan .
January 2011 60
Draft Final Pedestrian Plan
Appendix
A . Summary of Public Comments
B . Pedestrian Plan Survey
C . Summary of Pedestrian Accident Data
D . Bicycle and Pedestrian Demand Model
E . Field Visit Checklist
F . Pedestrian Projects Map
G . 2010 - 11 Pedestrian Plan - Priority Projects List
January 2011 61
Appendix A
Summary of Public Comments
City of
Fort Collins
2010 Pedestrian Plan Update
Summary of Public Comments
January 2011
The 2010 update to the Pedestrian Plan included an extensive public outreach process .
Combined with the Plan Fort Collins public process that includes updating the
Transportation Master Plan, pedestrian related comments were compiled from public
meetings, special focus group meetings, Boards and Commissions, and survey. The
following list represents a summary of public comments received by staff throughout the
planning process .
Kick-off Plan Fort Collins Public Meeting (3/3/2010)
• Maintain street infrastructure, including bicycle and pedestrian facilities .
• Stop blockage of Downtown sidewalks (like the Monkey Bar) so people can walk
without annoying barricades .
• Wider, safer sidewalks — some of the areas have very low sidewalks right beside
heavy and fast traffic .
• Connect Mason Street corridor to Trilby, Loveland, Longmont, etc. using what
Fort Collins is doing as a model for transit, bikes and pedestrians.
• Sustainability — A walkable city.
• Feel of Old Town including pedestrian access and density of shops and
restaurants .
• Old Town walkability.
• Walkable Downtown with free parking.
• Pedestrians and bikes .
• Walkability.
• Walkable community (more of it throughout town) .
• Increased density to improve walkability and maintain open space.
• Jefferson Street to be a pedestrian mall like Old Town Square.
• Stronger urban planning: infill and walking/bike paths connecting Downtown,
CSU, and music/performing arts complex to open space .
• A better walking flow between Old Town, CSU, and North College .
• Better public transportation — walking options/walkways, safer biking .
• Walking Downtown only.
Plan Fort Collins - Community Workshop Summary of Ideas (3/4/2010)
• The plan needs to address bicycle and pedestrian education policies .
• The plan needs to address capital project and operations and maintenance funding
shift to non-single occupancy vehicles (no four-six-lane road widening, shift
funds to transit, sidewalk and pedestrian improvements) .
• The plan needs to address better metrics (bicycle, transportation, air quality,
walking, VMT) .
Boards and Commissions Snapshot Report Feedback (5/20/2010)
Air Quality Advisory Board
• Provide robust alternatives to current generation single occupant vehicle
transportation (i. e . biking, walking, transit, next generation vehicles) .
• Transportation alternatives must be implemented (i. e. enhanced walking,
bicycling, public transportation, and a direct bypass route from I-25 to College
Avenue) . If the alternatives are effectively provided they will be used, but they
will not directly pay for themselves . All of this takes progressive investment.
• The City should work on developing bicycle/pedestrian routes that are direct and
shorter than traditional motor vehicle routes to get between locations to encourage
people to use non-motorized methods of transport.
• The city should work on developing bicycle/pedestrian routes that are direct and
shorter than traditional motor vehicle routes to get between locations to encourage
people to use non-motorized methods of transport. For example, a direct/straight-
line bike path/sidewalk between the intersection of Horsetooth and Timberline to
the west entrance of HP would promote more people working at the HP site to use
alternative transportation. Those have to be built into plans ahead of time to make
them cost effective .
Natural Resources Board
• Consider developing a portion of the river as a "riverwalk" with mixed use
buildings and a whitewater park. The river is underutilized as an attraction. Scores
of towns in Colorado have built whitewater parks and have seen increases in
visitation. The stretch between Linden and Lincoln is ideal.
Women ' s Commission
• Develop the community in ways that are not personal vehicle or public
transportations dependent — provide community/neighborhood centers that are
walkable and include employment, shopping, housing, etc.
Plan Fort Collins Focus Groups - Phase I (4/12/2010)
• Streetscape (trees, shrubs) and urban design is important.
• Changing youth attitudes/perceptions of transit and bikes/walking as
transportation.
• Transportation : Modes and Connections — Pedestrian spaces and links .
• General Discussion Issues — Issue of capital vs . maintenance — also relevant in
parks — we have a wonderful open space program, but we may have overbought
without ability to maintain — we should look at redirecting to parks and medians
— politically sensitive issue, but I voted for those and I think its time to revisit that
— redistribute to fund maintenance, parks, flowerbeds, etc .
• Transportation needs of youth and seniors. Connections/getting around (bikes,
pedestrians) .
• Enhance programs that are already going on, for instance the Art Walk.
Sustainability Scorecard (3/16/2010)
• Lower the speed limits in the entire City and you will increase safety of cyclists
and pedestrians .
• Streetscape (trees, shrubs) and urban design in important.
• Address bike, pedestrian, and auto safety.
• Need more connectivity to more routes for bikes/pedestrians .
• Green spaces and trees on streets . We need to consider different types of planting,
French drains and deeper roots . Create public spaces such as using parkways for
gardens and periscope with less irrigation. This encourages people to walk and
interact with neighbors.
• Street crossings for pedestrians — there is not enough time for seniors. They need
more time to cross.
• Topic that should be integrated with Sustainability.
• New urbanism/TOD/walkable communities and built environment.
• Better integrated topics — Senior living downtown — able to walk to grocery,
library, theater, medical services, and pharmacies can locate here too .
• We need more safe bicycling and walking throughout town.
• Modes and Connections .
• Pedestrian spaces and links .
• Pedestrian districts — Mason Corridor link to other districts — safe, well-lit, (ped
zones), connect people from transit, facilities separated from street. Ex:
Mason/Horsetooth/Midtown Theater.
• Walkability midtown concern — parking lot vs. walkability.
• Pedestrian overpasses .
• What topics are related or should be better integrated with this one?
• Update to pedestrian plan — connections over ditches .
• Pedestrian Plan — develop strategy — use existing resources or identify new to
connection/accessibility to bus stops .
• Mid-town not well articulated pedestrian plan which minimized use of attached
sidewalk. Not meandering.
Senior Advisory Board (6/9/10)
• People want to age in place well. Independent elders spend money and safe walking
helps people live independently.
• Include Senior Housing in Level of Service analysis.
• Intersections and cross walks are not designed for the older population. Senior
housing is then built in an existing facilities area and they don 't match well.
• Bikes and skateboards on trails are an issue. They don 't share the road well .
Education to let them know they should say "passing on the left".
• Trails (i. e . spring creek) should be widened to accommodate pedestrians and bikers .
• Assigned lanes like Denver.
• Post signs at beginning of trail so users know the rules .
• Crossing time not long enough for seniors.
• Problems with branches overgrowing sidewalk and garbage cans on sidewalk.
• DMA and Northern Hotel senior housing. Residents are afraid of bicycles on
sidewalk.
• Raintree and Shields - Crossing time not long enough for seniors .
• North College and Willow
• Need midblock crossing at North College and Burger King, seniors live in mobile
home park and need to cross street.
• Change to count down timer. Flashing hand is confusing for some .
• West Elizabeth Woodridge apartments can 't cross midblock. Need to go to west to
cross .
• North College and Conifer very difficult to cross . People from Conifer heading south
on College don' t yield to pedestrians .
• Should concentrate on sidewalks being in good repair around senior housing.
• Sidewalk missing on south of Horsetooth between Kunz Ct. and Richmond Dr. Senior
housing at Kunz Ct.
• Sidewalk between DMA and Library not in good condition. On Olive across from
library someone fell.
• ADA ramps at Hampshire Rd between Drake and Prospect become filled with ice in
winter and ramps can' t be used. Particularly behind Safeway.
Planning and Zoning Board (6/11 /10)
• Are there some places in the community where people don 't want sidewalks like
Lake Sherwood and Warren Shores?
• Support for pedestrian district in Midtown.
• Aging population. People need more restrooms in pedestrian districts .
• Lighting is important in the pedestrian districts .
• How can Planning and Zoning Board use pedestrian district idea to accomplish a real
change in an area like Midtown?
• Could look at projects differently if in pedestrian districts .
• More pedestrians = less pollution. Where are the parking areas for people before they
begin their walk?
• Planning and Zoning Board could think about pedestrian linkages during their review
and consideration of projects that come through them.
• Power trail at Drake is dangerous. Flashing yellow and cars don 't pay attention or
speed up . Needs to flash red.
Elderhaus/Mindset - disabled focus (6/14/10)
• Sidewalks — need widening or trimming landscaping.
• Bus stop conflicts .
• Public building doors out of adjustment.
• Too easy to get handicapped parking permits . Need to educate the community.
regarding handicapped parking spaces.
• Traffic lights — timing too short for safe crossing:
o Harmony & Lemay
o Harmony & Timberline
o Drake & Shields
o Drake & Timberline
o Crossing 287
o Prospect & Lemay
• Actuators in relief/refuge areas .
• Handicapped accessible is not wheelchair accessible .
• Internal facilities .
• Reach actuators :
o Lemay, south of Harmony (Oakridge)
o Shields & Mulberry (NWC)
o Lemay @ PVH — steep angle to access bus (west side)
o Mason — location where 15 turns — angle
o Why only two wheelchair spaces on bus?
o 287 & Skyway — steep
• Closer bus stops to major locations .
o Hospital facilities
o Shopping centers
• Hourly buses difficult.
• Stops in dangerous locations/force crossings .
• Handicapped spaces not wide enough. (lift wider than loading zone)
• Bathroom facilities - not adequate space. (Spring Canyon Park is good)
• Lack of public restrooms — forced to go through businesses .
• Connectivity to Loveland.
• More ped focus = more ped items/options?
• Potholes — maintenance.
• Stronger bicycle laws/crosswalks .
o Shields crossing
Elderhaus — Senior Focus (6/15/10)
■ Increase in senior population in Fort Collins.
• Support Aging in Place .
• How will Plan account for and consider the aging population in all aspects?
• More resting places with benches .
• Accessible buildings — how does the City deal with this topic?
• Lack of continuous sidewalks.
• Parks — lack of lighting, especially in older parks.
• Need benches more frequently along park paths.
• How does the City get info about broken sidewalks, uneven sidewalks, etc .
• How to get mid-block crosswalks . (ex. Elderhaus)
• Assistance program for sidewalk improvements .
• Former 50150 program for sidewalk improvements .
• Pedestrian crossing signs instead of a "light"?
• Tree on S . Shields blocks a pedestrian crossing sign.
• Time allowed for ped crossing.
• Support for peds being the # 1 mode priority.
• Raised crossing.
• With the increase in the aging population, changes will be necessary to the way
the City has operated in the past.
Bicycle Advisory Committee (6/14/10)
• Brief presentation. No comments .
Plan Fort Collins — Public Workshops (6/29, 6/30, 2010)
• Whitcomb and Prospect — detector loop for a bicycle at Whitcomb, right now you
have to push the x-walk button which is out of the way in order for bicyclist to
cross.
• Bus stops east of Taft Hill could use upgrading along Mulberry.
• Don 't put grass between bus bench and bus stop.
• It would be nice to see some specific shuttles to and from the Senior Center — the
bus trips from many senior communities (even the close ones) are very lengthy.
This could increase the usage & promote better quality of living ! !
• Need concrete pads at Lemay and Mulberry stop .
• Seniors are hit by economy not much change on hand for bus fare .
• Shuttle Busses E+W to connect to Mason BRT. Hassle for seniors to transfer
busses and routes aren 't user friendly.
• Avoid Hollywood curbs — they ' re ankle turners !
• Develop separate scooter/segway/electric bike pathways vis-a-vis Amsterdam .
Auto/motor scooter/pedestrian all have a dedicated causeway.
• Limit roundabouts, they are very user (pedestrian) unfriendly.
• High speed bikes on trails yell and are rude to people walking. Need Enforcement
of Rules of the Road ! (Trail)
• Old town when there are festivals and such, people with dogs on leashes that can
trip you, bikes on sidewalks, rude behavior when you say something to them,
remedy — more patrols by officers during festivals .
• A key element is enforcing pedestrian right of way at all intersections. I have
found that drivers do not stop for peds in most intersections . This is a significant
barrier to walking in FTC . One way to do this is to have more crossings with
lights etc .
• Ask the public if grade separated x-ings are worth higher development costs? Ped
grade separated x-ings would not be expensive if incorporated in the initial
planning and design. These should be all over the city in my perfect world.
• Have a scramble ped x-ing in high ped areas .
• All over-stupid 1 -person sidewalks attached to curbs — dangerous, unsocial
• College Avenue downtown sidewalks and transitions very bumpy for someone in
wheelchair.
• Horsetooth and Timberline area, private snow removal company ' s pile up snow
and block sidewalk ramps .
• Reading other comments requires me to speak out in support of sidewalks along
the curbs . Much better than a strip of grass having to be watered.
• Widen sidewalks in residential areas .
• Designated crosswalks need better signage to convey proper expectations to
drivers; i. e. STOP when crosswalk is occupied or about to be.
• Areas of town ok for walking but most of town not. Too far to walk from
residence to shopping .
• City was designed for cars . Difficult to walk around town. Ped bridges are good
option like at Cemetery and Laporte.
• Develop an amnesty program that if you get a parking ticket you can walk/ride or
perform some walking function that reduces/eliminates your fine .
• How about putting on South College City Office Building for folks out south in
the newly annexed area.
• Make key areas (i. e . Downtown) car free — no motorized vehicles allowed.
• Slower speed limit in town. Vehicles drive too fast for a Walkable city.
• The lack of streetlights in Old Town Neighborhoods makes walking at night a bit
of a challenge . (uneven sidewalks due to the beautiful old trees & their ever
expanding root systems) . What about a "rebate" program for citizens that add
"street lamps" to their properties to aid in this?
• To facilitate walking to/from schools make drop-off areas away from school so
that students who walk can do so w/o worrying about cars.
• Use Irrigation Canals For Walkways (Highline Canal in Denver) .
New Belgium Brewery — Employee Meeting (7/19/10)
• Very much in support of pedestrians being the primary mode in high pedestrian
use areas.
Plan Fort Collins — Public Open Houses (10/12, 10/14, 2010)
• Ensure commercial and neighborhood areas are built and designed to shorten auto
trips, and to enable walkability, biking, and transit use.
• Pedestrian travel will be acknowledged as a viable transportation mode and
elevated in importance to be in balance with all other modes .
• Increase pedestrian safety by identifying and correcting potentially dangerous
locations with physical improvements.
• Ensure that all pedestrian facilities are designed and built so they can be used by
children, mobility impaired, and elderly.
• Provide regular maintenance of all pedestrian facilities, including repair and
replacement, snow removal, and sweeping.
• Heighten awareness of professionals (planners, engineers, police, architects,
developers, policy makers, and the judicial system) to effectively address
pedestrian matters.
• Change local ordinances and codes that will enhance pedestrian safety, develop
educational programs, and increase enforcement.
• Promote the mix of land uses and activities that will maximize the potential for
pedestrianization.
• Develop pedestrian standards that promote and direct safe pedestrian linkages to
activities and transit.
• Prioritize pedestrian improvements that serve children, mobility impaired, and
elderly. Prioritize pedestrian improvements to schools, parks, transit, and activity
areas .
• Provide funding for pedestrian improvements at a level balanced withal other
transportation modes .
• Implementation of the pedestrian Plan shall include continuing outreach to tailor
policies and facilities to the pedestrian community.
• Revise the Pedestrian Priority Map to reflect new land-use patterns and traffic
analysis recommendations.
• Review and potentially revise the Pedestrian Level of Service methodology.
• Incorporate the current crossing policy used by Traffic Engineering into the
Pedestrian Plan and promote new and innovative crossing treatments .
• Revise street classifications throughout the community to reflect new land-use
patterns and traffic analysis recommendations.
• Designate corridors/street segments on a new MSP overlay map to reflect areas
needing future " Context Sensitive Solutions " approach rather than application of
current street design standards based on LCUASS .
• Implement additional bicycle and pedestrian safety education programs for people
of all ages . Include educational efforts to increase safe use of on-street facilities
and off-street, multipurpose trails .
• Please keep in mind for pedestrian traffic that many seniors move SLOWLY.
• Hooray for supporting pedestrians ! Often don ' t have sensible pedestrian connects
so good to see your planning for them.
• Prioritize & emphasize active travel, i .e. walking & biking, and maintenance of
facilities used for those purposes .
• Please increase time length setting on cross walk lights on College area in Old
Town. Need at least 5 seconds more time.
• Please don 't pit bicyclists and pedestrians against each other.
• Include (more) bicycle plan.
9 Promote biking and walking for health !
Plan Fort Collins — "The Big Reveal" (12/13/2010)
• Why don' t you cover the basics before you go to big plans?? Like, how about
completing the sidewalks on Mulberry Street? In all my life, I have never seen so
many discontinuous sidewalks, in any city of any state . You say there's not
enough money for sidewalks (that has been the mantra do date) so now that you're
going to bigger and better ideas can you finish the sidewalks that have been
standing incomplete for 40 years???
• Increased connectivity is highly valuable and should be coordinated with
scheduled transportation projects rather than stand along expenditures .
• Would like to see some more specific designs targeted locations . The
priorities/LDS criteria look good. Please incentivize retail/commercial/office
development that emphasizes pedestrian connections to community (no strip
malls or office parks please ! ) ! Mixed use whenever possible so the pedestrian is
built right into the design/concept. Encourage lots of infill to connect peds to the
places that already have great ped infrastructure. There are still too many parking
lots around old town. Why is key bank a towering island? It looks lonely, needs
some friendly buildings nearby bringing more business and residents nearby so
they can deposit their $ there . Win-win ! Elizabeth east of Shields/CSU — re-
imagine as a ped-friendly commercial district. Keep the businesses but front on
the street, lose the strip malls .
• Would like to see the 50150 grant/assistance sidewalk assistance program
reinstated. Not all citizens are financially able to meet city improvement
standards . Please expand on alternate modes pathways . Does this include
wheelchairs that are motorized? Maintenance $$$ for sidewalks should be a city
responsibility.
• A comment I have provided earlier: pedestrian crosswalks that are expected to
have high use should have consistent signaling. For example, it's clear that autos
must stop at Mulberry crosswalk that connects City Park Ave with the park.
Pedestrian/bicyclist presses button, light turns red, cars stop . Conversely,
crosswalk at campus West (between Shields and City Park Ave) that crosses
Elizabeth St. : pedestrian/bicyclist presses button, light flashes yellow, cars
sometimes stop, sometimes continue through, Dangerous !
• Pedestrian friendly leads to transit friendly leads to less vehicle traffic. No vehicle
options are not practical today or 25 years from today. But the more accessible
pedestrian features that are built into future development the less vehicle
dependant we can be . If the pedestrian has easy access to mass transit the more
likely the car will become 2nd or 3rd choice of transportation.
• Two gap areas - Mulberry between Peterson and Riverside (two or three blocks
with sidewalk gaps and ramps)
• Lemay and Lincoln on the southeast corner Buffalo Run apts - sidewalk gap
between those two projects .
Appendix 6
Pedestrian Plan Survey
Fort Collins
Your Opinions on Walking in Fort Collins /00��
This survey is also available online at www . fcgov . com / pedestrianplan
The City of Fort Collins is evaluating how pedestrians move in our community . Is it easy? Difficult?
Please take this survey and let us know how you walk in Fort Collins .
DEFINITIONS - by " pedestrian " and "walking " we mean the following :
. Parent pushing a stroller . Shopper getting from their car to the store , work,
. Person in a wheel chair etc...
. Person moving with the assistance of a walker, . Family walking the dog after dinner
crutches or cane . Person walking to the bus stop to get to work
Runner training for a race . Person rollerblading or skate boarding
Child getting to school by taking the sidewalk . And many others.. .
1 . Where are your top three favorite places to be 6 . If you chose ` Other' in question #5 , please
a pedestrian in Fort Collins? describe .
2 . Where are your top three least favorite places 7 . What makes you walk?
to walk Fort Collins? (Please rank with 1 being not important and 5 being very
important. )
Journey over destination . It is important to me I
enjoy the walk to my destination . I pick routes that
are fun for me .
3 . Do you have a problem spot that you ' d like us 1 2 3 4 5
to know about? Destination over journey . I mostly walk to get from
one place to the next ; I don ' t really pay attention
to what the route looks like .
1 2 3 4 5
1 walk because I don ' t have many other choices .
4 . How much does weather impact your decision 1 2 3 4 5
to walk or travel as a pedestrian ? 8 . How long are you willing to walk to your
❑ I walk in all types of weather destination ?
❑ I sometimes walk in bad weather , but mostly ❑ 1 - 10 min . ❑ 10 - 20 min . ❑ 20 - 30 min . ❑ 30+ min .
when it ' s nice
❑ I only am a pedestrian when it ' s nice out 9 . Do you have children/grandchildren who walk
to school , the park, the store or a friend ' s
5 . As a pedestrian , how much of your pedestrian home? If so , do you have any thoughts or
travel is spent in the following categories ? concerns about them walking in Fort Collins?
Please rank with 1 as the least amount of your travel and 5 as ❑ Crossing busy streets ❑ Strangers
the most amount of your travel . ❑ Complicated routes ❑ Long distances
For fun or exercise , for example to walk the dog
with chance of getting ❑ Other
1 2 3 4 5
To and from my car or bus disoriented ❑ Not applicable
1 2 3 4 5
To get to work , library , parks , 10 . Would you support pedestrians being the
downtown , shopping , school , etc. .. priority mode of travel in high pedestrian
1 2 3 4 5 areas ?
Other ❑ Yes ❑ No
1 2 3 4 5
11 . If so, where? E . g CSU , downtown . 17 . Anything else , pedestrian related , you want
to tell us?
12 . How important to you are the following?
( Please rank with 1 being not important and 5 being very
important . )
Directness : Routes between locations , even dead
end roads , cut - de - sacs and looped neighborhoods
are uncomplicated . 18 . Where do you live? ( nearest cross streets )
1 2 3 4 5
Continuity : Sidewalks connected between schools ,
neighborhoods , parks , activity 19 . How old are you ?
centers and other destinations , no gaps . ❑ Under 15 ❑ 15 - 29 ❑ 30 -49 ❑ 50 - 69
1 2 3 4 5
Street Crossings : Safe , comfortable and attractive ❑ Over 70
street crossings .
1 2 3 4 5 20 . Would you like to receive project updates and
Visual Interest and Amenity: Comfortable and invitations for the Pedestrian Plan ?
attractive pedestrian areas and settings to make an ❑ Yes , here is my email address
interesting pedestrian experience .
12 3 4 5
Security: Routes are well lit , inhabited by ❑ No thanks .
pedestrians and reduce the impacts of vehicles .
Places that promote a general feeling of security . 21 . Where did you hear about this questionnaire?
1 2 3 4 5 ❑ email ❑ newspaper
❑ Library ❑ City website
13 . Where do you think are the best three street ❑ Facebook ❑ Friend / Family
crossings in town ? ❑ Board / Commission ❑ Northside Aztlan Center
❑ Plan Fort Collins event on June 29 - 30
❑ Other
14 . Where do you think are the worst three 22 . Where did you hear about this questionnaire?
street crossings in town ?
Thank you again for your interest ! In conjunction
with Plan Fort Collins , the City is updating the
existing Pedestrian Plan , developed in 1996 . Your
15 . What three things would you have the City do answers will help us find out how you walk, what
to improve the pedestrian experience in Fort your concerns are , and what ' s important to you .
Collins?
Stay involved with Plan Fort Collins and this
Pedestrian Plan update , by visiting
fcgov. com / planfortcollins for the latest
16 . How would you rate your neighborhood for information . Please direct your Pedestrian Plan
walking? questions or comments to Jennifer Petrik,
❑ Great ❑ Needs some work ❑ Not very nice at all Transportation Planner, 970 -416 - 2471 or
jpetrik@fcgov . com . You can also drop off this
survey at the city offices at 281 North College .
City of
�F6rt Collins
Walking Survey Results , 2010
1 . Where are your top three favorite places to be a pedestrian in Fort Collins?
Generally where Specifically Where count
Oldtown 186
Downtown 51
Mountian Avenue 6
Oak Street Plaza 2
Oldtown 99
Oldtown Neighborhood 17
Oldtown Square 10
Shields and Laurel 1
Trail 102
Mason 2
Mason Trail 1
Natural Areas 10
Poudre Trail 35
Power Trail 4
Spring Creek 28
Trail 22
Park 62
Aztlan Center 1
City Park 27
Fossil Park 3
Gardens at Spring Creek 1
Lee Martinez Park 3
Library Park 5
Lions Park 1
Parks 12
Rolland Moore 2
Spring Canyon 4
Spring Creek 1
Troutman Park 1
Warren Lake 1
Local Neighborhood 36
Local Neighborhood 36
CSU 30
CSU 30
Miscellaneous 15
Accessible locations 2
Council Tree 3
Drake and Shields 1
Drake and Timeberline 1
FC Club 1
Golf Course 1
Northeast 1
Northwest 1
Poudre Valley Hospital 1
South Transit Center 1
(blank) 2
Front Range Village 6
1
Front Range Village 6
Mall 6
Mall 6
College Avenue 5
College and Drake I
College Avenue 4
Harmony 5
Harmony and JFK 1
Harmony and Timberline 2
Harmony and Ziegler 2
Campus West 3
Campus West 3
City 3
Entire City 3
Overland 3
Elizabeth and Overland 1
Overland 2
Epic 2
Epic 2
Lemay 2
Lemay 2
Midtown 2
Midtown 2
Senior Center 1
Senior Center 1
Grand Total 469
2
2 . Where are your top three least favorite places to walk Fort Collins?
General Area Count
College South 44
Miscellaneous 46
College North 38
College Avenue 28
Harmony 27
Intersections 22
Lemay 19
Mulberry 15
Shields 12
Mall 9
Riverside 9
Oldtown 8
Prospect 8
South Fort Collins 8
Near CSU 7
Parking Lots 7
Arterials 6
Downtown 5
Sidewalks too narrow/uneven/missing 5
Campus West 4
College (not Oldtown) 4
Horsetooth 4
Midtown 4
School area 4
South of Prospect 4
Linden and the Poudre 3
Rolland Moore 3
Taft 3
Vine Drive 3
Anywhere but oldtown 2
Busy Streets 2
Front Range Village 2
Lincoln 2
narrow sidewalks 2
Old neighborhoods 2
Overland 2
Spring Creek Trail 2
Streets 2
Trilby 2
Grand Total 379
3
Question 2 - Miscellaneous
Any street north of vine
Anyplace the sidewalk is on top of the road
Anywhere east of riverside
Anywhere near college and harmony
Behind the safeway, really!
Bike trail
By bars
By catholic charities
By crazy teens
By csu parties
By hwy 1
Certain areas of springcreek - full of bikers
City park
College and prospect
College and rutgers north bound
Conifer st. (college/lemay)
Curb cuts
Drake
East poudre trail
English park and trail
Entire city
Everywhere after the buses stop running
Fort collins
Highway
Horsetooth lake
Icy sidewalks
Lake sherwood area
Laurel
Mason corridor
My neighborhood
My neighborhood (north of laporte and west of shields)
No north-south trails
Not many picnic areas there too , few tables
On trilby between lemay & timberline (we need a trail head connected in south
ftc. )
Power trail
Side walks
Sidewalks
South mason
The back trails alone
The 'burbs with endless cul-de-sacs
The honey place out on route 8
The square
Timberline road
Wal mart
West ft collins by stadium area
4
3 . Do you have a problem spot that you ' d like us to know about?
Across from the bank wells fargo
additionally, there are no wheelchair ramps on most corners affecting kids on bikes , parents with
strollers , and disabled pedestrians.
all handicap parking spots not big enough for parking & getting wheelchairs out & people off.
All north south traffic signals on college ave . have a short walk time cycle. disabled , elderly,
children , sick and injured can't make it across in the time allowed .
All public bathrooms, no changing tables for adults or room for wheelchairs + 2 people .
Any where in the city where sidewalks or bike lanes don 't exist . here are a few places that come
to mind .
Anything in the south end of town removed from the mason st. trail is virtually innaccessible to
pedestrians (wether or not you consider bicycles as pedestrian traffic) .
Anywhere in the downtown area . the sidewalks are in horrible shape for persons who use a
wheelchair.
Anywhere near college and harmony
Around downtown at vine & the mission
As development moves north it is likely my problems will be solved
Behind the safeway just stinks and sometimes there is something on the sidewalk that is
slippery , not sure what that is but it's there now and then . i avoid that block .
Bike trails are full of bicyclists that think they own the trails . bicyclists are very unfriendly to
walkers .
Bikes vs . pedestrians - overall
Bus stop @ lemay, cross walk columbia road
hwy 287 & skyway
bus stop logistics-please make sure is clear of snow, ice , folliage for wheelchair users .
By catholic charities
By the 7- 11 on shields
Campus area , students have no respect for anyone
cars stop at ped . crossing on mountain east of college .
City drug , transfort sdiewalks
City park curb cut by tennis courts at street car pick-up
college & horsetooth
College & maple
College and laurel
College avenue from laporte to olive
College avenue from prospect south to harmony - uncomfortable , lack of sidewalks
Crossing at mulberry and college-no place for me to go halfway across like laport and college
Crossing college anywhere between drake and harmony
Crossing college ave .
Crossing harmony & timberline or corbett is dangerous . the pedestrian walk indication is very
short and turning drivers are inattentive to peds , or assume peds have to be across the street in
the few seconds the walk indication is present .
Crossing jfk to/from home depot. people are reluctant to stop .
Crossing prospect to/from sheely dr . very difficult area to cross to get to sidewalk on n side of
prospect.
Crosswalk at ziegler & paddington . traffic seldom stops for pedestrians .
Crosswalks need better and more consistent signage to alert drivers to stop .
Curbs
Don't walk much except my dog .
E . mulberry between college & lemay
East prospect, west vine , need more transit service
Enforce dismount/no skateboards in old town .
front range village- i think this was designed very poorly . too many cars drive too fast through
there and it is very tight pulling into the target parking lot area from the south side . too much
traffic in a very congested area . plus there are no bike lanes through the main village area . so it
was designed sort of to encourage biking but then you have the cyclests running over the
walkers .
5
Hard to cross laurel ave north of csu
hard to figure out what happens to poudre trail & lemay.
Harmony & lemay
Harmony & shields needs a no right on red when pedestrians are present""
Harmony road and boardwalk
Horsetooth dunbar to senneca
Horsetooth east of landings dr on north side . lemay on east side , north of parkwood
horsetooth rd . there is a small portion on the noth side of the road before you hit college that
does not have a bike path or much of a shoulder to ride in or side walk . a bike lane and side
walk would be helpful there .
Horsetooth road between seneca and taft - horribly disjointed , extremely difficult to cross
horsetooth to get to schools , pool and parks.
how about a pedestrian bridge (or underpass like there is for college) for getting across shields
near csu close to elizabeth ? also , now that many who formerly went to moore will be going to
bauder, the crossing could be better than just a light and school guards (also the sidewalks on
the north side of prospaect) .
i should also mention that i rarely visit anything south of prospect because it is so unfriendly to
bicyclists and walking pedestrians.
I 'd like to see walkability (and bikeability) improved on north college corridor north of old town up
to hwy 1 - it seems like an area that is developing as far as business and residential , and the
need for better transport on the corridor is apparent . also , lemay/lindenmeir from vine st north is
seriously lacking in sidewalk (although the bike lane rules) .
In southern fort collins, right on vantange view place there is no turn lane (to turn into the
neighborhood ) so it is hard to turn or walk by without causing all the traffic to slow down and
potentially causing a wreck if drivers don't notice the cars slowing down .
in the miller neighborhood , is there any way along that we might ever get walking paths along
the irrigation ditches which back to people's properties? between shields and taft hill on the n
side of prospect there is some widened sidewalk . how about doing the same on elizabeth ?
it would be neat if college and mountain had both lights red at once for diagonal crossing
dedicated to pedestrians . this would eliminate competition with cars turning .
Just as mentioned in prior question . wish the greenstone neighborhood in south ftc would
connect to the other nearby trails so we can stay off the streets . we walk in areas w/o bike lanes
along trilby, and have areas along lemay w/o sidewalks so we have to walk in the street , and
share the bike lane .
lake and shields intersection . no pedestrian crossing option on s side of intersection (crossing
shields at lake . you have to cross shields then lake to get to the s side of lake .
1porte ave near psd support services center and poudre hs
Laporte ave west. . . needs big time bike lane improvements. . . as well as parts of west vine.
Laurel avenue by csu . crosswalks are hazardous - just a matter of time before someone gets
killed . flashing lights might help . i should have listed this on least favorite places to walk .
Laurel street @ csu .
Lemay & stuart intersection
lemay and horsetooth
lemay and mulberry street very skinny attached sidewalks .
lemay ave between mulberry and drake
Lemay avenue from doctors lane to riverside has poor sidewalks
lemay between pvh & prospect.
Lincoln ave is really bad . riverside is bad .
Lincoln st. is not pedestrian friendly. the railroad tracks are very bad and the bridge over the
poudre river needs repair for pedestrians .
Linden street north of downtown
Lots of glass and gravel in bike lanes
Major arteries with higher speed traffic (40 to 45 mph plus) with limited or no sidewalks set back.
Many sidewalks are cracked and uneven .
Many sidewalks in downtown areas are buckled and dangerous
missing sidewalk links along myrtle between howes and washington . difficult to walk the dog .
More attention to n college
6
more parking for avery park and the fox meadows areas? an historical sign in avery park
suggesting visiting the avery house and its location? all parks in town should have multiple
accessible swings (the landscape structure's swings which look like banana boats) on
playground equipment and safety belts could be sold to the public at cost for parents to take with
and bring home (some of this wish list stuff could be put out to csu landscape management,
sororities/fraternities , charities)
Mulberry intersection . scary to cross from neighborhood to safeway. can there be resting places
half way across the intersection?
Mulberry st . at west edge of city park . also the pizza advertising person distracts drivers at this
busy intersection .
N . college
Need a bike lane the length of overland at least between lyons park and spring canyon
Need cross walk signals that bikers can access or allow us to run the red lights we can't trigger
No sidewalk parkwood road to the northwest side of parkwood lake .
No-but it would be nice if some property owners trimmed their shrubs .
None
North college
North college
North college - no sidewalks .
North college avenue from the river up to about willox.
North college is pedestrian intolerant.
North college is really dangerous . i like going to the mexican food markets , jax and poudre ped
and feed . dangerous
North college is scary to walk or ride gravel sprays up in my face and the streets are dirty
North college is very difficult to walk/bike.
North college, between the river and willox lane
north lemay ave . -no bike lanes/sidewalks up to green briar village .
North lemay very challenging to walk
Not particularly
Not really. although there are places in neighborhoods where there are low hanging branches
over the sidewalk or the hedges and bushes cause you to go into the road . it would be nice if
residents would be aware of the inconvenience this causes .
Not that i can think of.
Obvious difference in quality of sidewalks between adjacent neighborhoods north and south of
laporte
Old town neighborhoods - uneven sidewalks
Old town-dogs and skateboards, bicyclists.
Pedestrian crossings at lights at major intersection . . . lights for peds are not long enough - drake
and timberline for example
Pedestrian path between shawnee ct. and dartmouth dr. needs an improved bridge , weed
control and repaving
Places without sidewalks . places without sidewalks on one side of the street.
poudre trail access under lemay
Prefer to have automatically activated ped signals at laporte and mason
Riverside - build sidewalk
Riverside (no bike lanes/narrow travel lanes, missing or narrow sidewalks )
riverside ave. -no bike lanes! ! ! this is my route to work.
rock creek-no parking in front of a school? bike land is completely unavailable to bikers, have to
use sidewalk, dangerous .
rutgers - right too short
Shields north of myrtle on the west side the sidewalk is too close to the traffic and the sidewalk
is very uneven . a huge safety issue .
Shields st crosswalk (needs a flashing light headings and sign in middle of road to crosswalk.
shields street crossings @ csu
Sidewalk along college is dicey from oldtown to whole foods . can't ride my bike well on it either
and no great alternatve route
Skyway & 287
7
skyway & college
Snow mesa & harmony shopping complex.
some areas adjacent to bus stops where little or no sidewalks exist.
south and north of bridge, yuk!
spray for mosquitoes in parks/open ares , especially those north of old town .
Spring creek trail at lemay--low clearance height
Streets immediately east of college ave the sidewalks are extremely uneven (ex: garfield st
between college and remington ) . also crossing college ave near csu campus is extremely
difficult without traffic signal . infrastructure is already in place in the medians but no crosswalk
markings or signs (ex garfield and college)
Taft hill & elizabeth-walking to city park pool .
Take your pick, any of the busy intersections such as drake/college, horsetooth/college ,
harmony/college are horrible for pedestians
The area around epic pool is not available for public transportation
The bicycle on ramp to the spring creek bike trail near the foot bridge" on drake . close to rolland
moore park--no stop sign or caution sign for bicyclists"
The bus doesn't run late .
The entire south side of town . harmony and college intersection really sucks .
The issue with the major streets is that there are no buffers between the sidewalks and cars and
cyclists zipping by at 40+ mph .
The lack of sidewalks around the west side of city park nine is a safety issue .
The lemay strip of andersonville is so busy that it's destroying this barrio . it would be helpful to
have a protective buffer for the neighborhood , maybe entrance for those properties facing lemay
through the alley or??? the romero house could use parking . it would be a long-term dream for
a pedestrian bridge across for the neighbors and to connect in people's mind the barrios (also
buckingham and alta vista) with the re-purposed former sugar beet factory.
The lights on college are still a little short for anyone who walks slowly
The powerline trail crossing at drake is scary. people still don't understand what to do . cars try
to slip between pedestrians/bikers, or don't look for additional crossers while light is still flashing
and one has crossed .
The riverbottom trails are full of bums .
The sidewalk from college ave to the hilton hotel is horrible all the time - narrow and close to
traffic and with sand and gravel on the surface . in winter it's worse with packed snow that stays
and stays.
The sidewalk on prospect and college feel so exposed and narrow with the traffic flying by. i
love the springcreek trail , but at night its very dark.
The sidewalks in my west oak/old town neighborhood and particularly the ones in front of and on
the side of my house are failing apart. they are being pushed up by tree roots from the street
trees and are broken in spots from large tree limbs falling during now storms . as i live at the
corner of oak and grant, i have pretty long sidewalks and can't afford the cost of replacing them .
The sidewalks in old town . they need to be smooth .
The sidewalks on prospect between college and lemay become restricted in some parts such
that you have to get onto prospect to get by. horrible with a stroller.
The smokers at the square not moving out where they are allowed . even when i asked some of
them don 't move .
There are several quiet areas in and around fort collins .
There don't seem to be any north-south west-end bike trails, only east west and circular and
mason in the middle . it would be nice to connect from the poudre river trail to the drake area
trails and parks via a north-south west-end route , completing the circle .
timberline rd . around bacon elm . -no sidewalks , this was a main reason why i decided against
purchasing a home further south on timberline.
To the west of the sanctuary apartments the trail that starts on horsetooth and heads south ,
there is a sopt where there is a pretty significant dip that is a trip harzard . also , downtown
residential west of college the sidewalks are extremely dangerous .
Too many bikes on the roads
trails that cross harmony- you have to go around harmony rd . there is no easy connection
between the trails running north/south .
Transit access on harmony-detached walk with drainage ditch
8
Trilby between college and timberline either does not have a sidewalk or it is very narrow and
broken up so it makes it difficult to walk a stroller. especially between lemay and timberline there
is not a sidewalk on either side that is the entire length so people walk on the road or in the very
narrow bike lane .
Vermont & timberline
Vine & lemay
Vine & timberline rr crossing
w . laporte (no shoulder/fast traffic)
Walking is very enjoyable , but few refuges exist where one can escape a blast of exhaust in
their face or the constant noise pollution of revving engines .
We live in the waterglen neighborhood and have a decent walkway through our neighborhood ,
but getting to old town is difficult. the streets are busy and some areas are too narrow to be safe
for bikes or pedestrians . the 4 way stop at timberline and vine is a nightmare . if we had a bike
trail that was safe , we might have more people bike into town .
Wee need a cross walk or yield for pedestrians across over on myrtle & shields
Yes , those of us paying taxes on the northside of town get nothing ! i live inside the city limits in
the richards lake area . we have nothing , no trails no way to get to town . yet we pay more in
taxes than a average home in old town ! we would like to ride a bike or walk to town too ! ! !
4 . 1-low much does weather impact your decision to walk or travel as a pedestrian ?
I walk in all types of weather 62 35%
I sometimes walk in bad weather, but mostly when it' s nice 90 51 %
1 only am a pedestrian when it' s nice out 23 13%
How much does weather impact your decision to walk
or travel as a pedestrian ?
I only am a
pedestrian I walk in all types
when --,...-
i of weather
it' s nice out
I sometimes
walk in bad
weather, but ---
mostly when it ' s
nice
5 . As a pedestrian , how much of your pedestrian travel is spent in the following categories?
9
As a pedestrian , how much of your pedestrian
travel is spent in the following categories ?
100 %
T To get to work,
80 % library, parks ,
60 % downtown and
shopping . . .
40 % —z�-- To and from my car
20 % i - or bus
0 %
Not very Less About More Most of —+— For fun or exercise ,
often than half half the than half the time for example to walk
the time time the time the dog
ranking 1 2 3 4 5
For fun or exercise , for
example to walk the dog 14 10 28 44 78
To and from my car or bus 46 30 25 38 31
To get to work, library , parks ,
downtown and shopping . . . 21 27 42 42 43
Other 21 16 19 8 10
6 . If you chose 'Other in question #5 , please describe .
Guilty pleasure : we love to drive in and take family & friends or walk our dogs around the old
town neighborhood area - we live too far away to make it to of walking , but we still walk that
area a lot for fun & recreation . we do bike to downtown a lot (then park & walk) , and the
commute would be improved by a safer north college corridor.
Hiking
I enjoy walking around my neighborhood and visiting with my neighbors.
I like to walk around pastures & see animals like horses and check fences.
I walk a lot in the neighborhood for exercise .
Just out for a strool in old town with the mrs .
Recreation only. i walk along the ditch & around my neighnborhood for exercize . i use my car &
scooter for transportation .
Sightseeing
Walking aout and about looking for treasures
Walking around old town while out on the weekends .
Walking on bike trail along river
Wildlife viewing
To and from the streetcar
Walking if my car has broken down
Doctor appointments
Doing my job
During work
Get the mail .
Going to the grocery store .
I go tto school at csu spend a lot of time walking to class
I walk and/or ride my bike to work, to school , and to go shopping everywhere except the south
10
end of town . i just had a conversation this morning about how ridiculous traffic is on college ,
harmony, and prospect. the areas in town that are pedestrian friendly are pretty good , and i
greatly appreciate your efforts.
I walk to get to my community garden
I walk to visit my friends .
Lunch
Lunch
Medical appointments
Medical appts .
Other errands
Run errands
Running errands around town
To children's sporting events
To get to and from scheduled events or appts .
To get to restaurant, library, grocery store
Walk to get to midtown shopping , theaters, etc.
Walk to gym
Walk to lunch
Walk to work
Walking to a business i may want to frequent from a downtown location .
Walking to non-downtown restaurants , video store , liquor store , etc.
Walking with participants from elderhaus
We centralize our car stop & walk to include multiple errands
7 .What makes you walk?
1 2 3 4 5
Journey over destination . It is important to me I enjoy the walk
to my destination . I pick routes that are fun for me . 15 10 32 43 73
Destination over journey. I mostly walk to get from one place
to the next; I don 't really pay attention to what the route looks
like . 35 38 42 26 31
1 walk because I don't have many other choices . 106 14 7 10 15
Note: 1 =low score, 5=high score
■ Journey over
What makes you walk ? destination . It is
important to me I enjoy
100% the walk to my
80% destination . I pick
60% ■ Destination over
journey . I mostly walk to
40% get from one place to
20% the next ; I don ' t really
0% pay attention to what
1 2 3 4 5 ❑ I walk because I don 't
have many other
Relevence choices .
8 . How long are you willing to walk to your destination ?
11
How long are you willing to walk to your
destination ?
■ 1 - 10 min.
■ 10-20 min .
❑ 20-30 min .
❑ 30+ min .
1 - 10 min . 24
10-20 min . 73
20-30 min . 41
30+ min . 39
177
9 . Do you have children/grandchildren who walk to school , the park , the store or a friend 's home?
If so, do you have any thoughts or concerns about them walking in Fort Collins?
Crossing busy streets 84
Long distances 25
Complicated routes with chance of getting 24
Strangers 46
179
10 .Would you support pedestrians being the priority mode of travel in high pedestrian areas?
Yes 93% 165
No 7% 13
100% 178
Would you support Pedestrians
being the priority mode of travel
in high pedestrian areas?
Yes
93%
'No
7 %
11 . If so , where? E . g CSU , downtown .
2
Downtown 4
Old town 5
12
Csu , old town 4
Csu , downtown 2
Old town , csu 2
Across college to whole foods market, stuart crossing lemay,
all crosings of lemay and drake 1
All of old town should be turned into walking/biking mall 1
All over 1
Any main intersection 1
Anywhere needed 1
At each main street intersection . i . e . lemay, horsetooth , drake , laporte , taft hill , shields ,
college , etc. . . . 1
At the intersection of each of our main streets on the mile grid . make these nice places to
walk to and enjoy community spaces not only in oldtown . 1
Both and campus west 1
Both csu and downtown 1
Both of the above .
csu & downtown 1
Both of these . 1
Both , parks 1
Certainly emphasize the importance of pedestrians on laurel and downtown . i have had
way too many close calls crossing in the crosswalks on laurel with drivers on phones not
paying attention , or generally just in a bad mood and in a hurry . i emphasize the need to
follow the rules when walking with the kids , but even so , most drivers are not paying
attention . it gets scary sometimes . 1
College avenue at key destinations , campus west, foothills mall area , harmony road at key
destinations , all activity centers , near parks and schools 1
Csu 1
Csu & downtown 1
Csu and downtown and evrywhere . we should always encourage people to be active and
making safe pedestrian access is a step in this direction . 1
Csu and downtown/old town . i can't think of any other place in fort collins with large
volumes of pedestrians present. 1
Csu center of campus , downtown 1
Csu needs better separation of bike and walkers . in south fort collins the sidewalks need to
be better maintained so that people will walk. downtown is fine how it is . 1
Csu
downtown 1
Csu
downtown
maybe some shopping developments 1
Csu
old town 1
Csu , city park , old town 1
Csu , downtown , around schools , around churches at high peak times , during parades etc . 1
Csu , downtown , around the mall area 1
Csu , downtown , bus stop areas 1
Csu , downtown , but in both these places they really are the major mode already 1
Csu , downtown , campus west 1
Csu , downtown , city park 1
Csu , downtown , city park, brewery areas , old town neighborhoods such as mountain street,
areas where natural areas and the city meet. 1
Csu , downtown , everywhere ! 1
Csu , downtown , flower gardens @ csu , city park 1
Csu , downtown , front range 1
13
Csu , downtown , oldtown , city park 1
Csu , downtown , on the sidewalk! 1
Csu , downtown , trails 1
Csu , downtown . that is probably all that is practical . 1
Csu , maybe core downtown like old town square 1
Csu , old town (downtown ) , residential streets 1
Csu , old town area 1
Csu , old town , any place with a high density of shopping 1
Csu , old town , shopping along the harmony corridor. 1
Downtown 1
Down town , campus west, technogogy center, south college, parks and trails 1
Downtown and csu (csu is scary because bikes and cars are everywhere 1
Downtown and laurel street 1
Downtown and near parks ! ! i support it near campus also , but feel as though sometimes
there is a sense of pedestrian entitlement that can become unsafe around campus , and i
don 't want the city to further foster that behavior. 1
Downtown for sure ! 1
Downtown intersections (especially right turns on red ) 1
Downtown not csu ! or anywhere but csu ! 1
Downtown
around main library 1
Downtown
csu 1
Downtown
laurel along csu 1
Downtown
laurel and college
csu
shields & elizabeth
w. elizabeth 1
Downtown
schools
parks
rec centers 1
Downtown , although i think that old town square is enough of a pedestrian zone for now. 1
Downtown , around areas of retail - like the stores on either side of college between
horsetooth and harmony 1
Downtown , campus area , west elizabeth , mason corridor, trail corridors, 1
Downtown , city park to csu , downtown to river. 1
Downtown , csu 1
Downtown , csu , (get parking off campus - park out and bus in . 1
Downtown , csu , main intersections on harmony. 1
Downtown , csu , northern fort collins near housing developments 1
Downtown , csu , south college/mall/midtown area 1
Downtown , csu . 1
Downtown , mason corridor. 1
Downtown , near senior and disabled housing complexes, near areas with a high volume of
shopping 1
Downtown , schools (grade schools in addition to csu ), parks . 1
Downtown , some csu 1
Downtown , some of the parks 1
Downtown . 1
14
Downtown . well , actually, i take that back. downtown is already pedestrian friendly . the
square is already pedestrian only. on street parking and biking in all other areas of
downtown is fine . 1
Downtown . . . by schools ! 1
Downtown/ cherry / south to & through csu south from between college and shields . one
continous street : mason . 1
Every where lights in crosswalks esp not on major intersection should respond to ped . if it
were as fast to walk somewhere more people would do it. 1
Everywhere that it is possible . 1
Everywhere ! 1
Everywhere ! and bikes , too . 1
Everywhere .
downtown certainly . 1
Fort collins in general ; we are too auto-centric and need more emphasis on other modes for
a variety of reasons , such as health and environment. of course , anywhere where we have
high pedestrian traffic should have emphasis , and as clearly demostrated by the trails use ,
we need more safe ped travel with less risk of motor vehicle exposure . 1
Hard to say . i would support over or under passes or walking trails across main streets like
shields , elizabeth , college etc . i would not support pedestrian walkways replacing any main
arterials .
perhaps would support closing off more of the campus , but for someone mobility impaired ,
the distances could be long without an internal shuttle . some of the side-streets in the old
town area could be turned into another pedestrial mall like old town square , but this should
be done carefully, so that the area remains somehow unified . . . 1
1 do not want to see pedestrians have more clout over automobiles . peds need to be held
accountable and careful in traffic.
pedestrians need to wear white at night and be forced to use crosswalks . 1
In districts , not the entire city. csu . downtown 1
Isn 't this already happening? or, what would we do different? 1
Need shopping center near panera , 5 guys , qdoba off harmony 1
Need to somehow bring wheelchairs & people who can't walk far distances to a specific
place . 1
No where ! 1
North fort collins 1
Old town - campass - old mall site(foothills fashion mall ) 1
Old town and other activity centers 1
Old town from Iaporte to olive and mason to remington 1
Old town
bike trail along river 1
Old town !
downtown 1
Old town , bike trails 1
Old town , csu , residential areas , higher density development areas 1
Old town , csu , the brewery district, along poudre river 1
Old town , in parking lots , all neighborhood streets 1
Old town , near foothills mall & the new shopping areas on east harmony. 1
Old town . 1
Parks , shopping , libraries 1
Parts of old town and csu campus . buses should be allowed , but the majority of traffic
should be on foot or bike . for a good reference point, consider madison , wi's handling of the
capitol square/state street area and parts of campus . they do a fantastic job and are very
bike/pedestrian friendly. 1
S . college , csu , downtown 1
15
South & north college 1
Wherever possible . pedestrian friendly places are more sustainable and improve quality of
life . 1
Yes 1
Yes , both csu and downtown . but i think we need to consider many of the senior
communities as well , where walking is often the olny way of travel , nut promotes healthy
living as well . 1
Yes , down town , cars are clueless to peds . at corners & who has the right of way 1
Yes , more enforcement of no bike riding on sidewalks downtown . 1
12 . How important to you are the following ?
5 .00
4 .00
3 .00
2 .00
1 .00
Directness : Continuity: Street Visual Interest Security: Routes
Routes between Sidewalks Crossings : and Amenity: are well lit,
locations , even connected Safe , Comfortable inhabited by
dead end roads , between comfortable and and attractive pedestrians and
cul-de-sacs and schools , attractive street pedestrian reduce the
looped neighborhoods , crossings . areas and impacts of
neighborhoods parks , activity settings to make vehicles . Places
are an interesting that promote a
Semi- Semi-
Unimportant unimportant Neutral Important Important
Directness : Routes between
locations , even dead end
roads , cul -de-sacs and looped
neighborhoods are
uncomplicated . 6 15 44 39 34
Continuity : Sidewalks
connected between schools ,
neighborhoods , parks , activity 2 3 12 40 85
Street Crossings : Safe ,
comfortable and attractive
street crossings . 1 4 11 35 88
Visual Interest and Amenity:
Comfortable and attractive
pedestrian areas and settings
to make an interesting
pedestrian experience . 8 13 40 45 35
Security: Routes are well lit ,
inhabited by pedestrians and
reduce the impacts of vehicles .
Places that promote a general
feeling of security . 3 3 28 34 74
13 . Where do you think are the best three street crossings in town? And why?
College/Mountain 31
College/Oak 19
16
College/Olive I12
Survey Question # 13
Where do you think are the best three street crossings in town? And why?
All of the crossings on Hampshire between Prospect and Drake - traffic calming is
instituted in the form of raised crosswalks .
All of the crossings on the Poudre and Spring Creek Trail that allow you to go over or
under the roads . This is extremely important for safety and continuity in travel.
All Oldtown intersections are good (the ones with pedestrian assist. )
An 4-way stop in neighborhoods - slowspeeds, pedestrian right-of-way.
Any place were you can cross without having to wait for a light.
Anywhere where the walking signal is heard and favors the walker over the traffic.
City Park Avenue at Mulberry - responsive pedestrian signal.
College & Laporte; the traffic is forced to slow down .
College & Mountain , I believe there are signs that don't allow right turn on red when
pedestrians are present.
College & Mountain .
College and Laurel.
College and Mountain because the crosswalks are well marked, the signal gives you
enough time and there are medians in case you do get stuck.
College and Mountain, College and Oak, College and Olive . All of these intersections
allow adequate time to cross . They are wide and you don't have to wait too long for the
light to change .
College and Mountain.
College and Olive - shaded, slow traffic speed, smooth street.
College and Walnut - attractive area, colored sidewalk, resting lace in the middle.
College Avenue in downtown - medians provide safe harbor.
College crossing at Olive St. in old town : it's purely for pedestrians and not an intersection
where one has to watch for turning cars!
Crossing College on Laurel -- lights are timed well for pedestrians and drivers
generally obey turn arrows, etc.
Crossing Mountain Avenue by Coopersmith ' s because drivers are very considerate of
pedestrians .
Crossing the street between Luciles and the post office because of the protective and
beautiful tree canopy,
Crossing under College Avenue on the Poudre River Trail because it is next to the river
and I don't have to hassle with cars .
Crosswalk on Mountain and Remington-because again, the cars are well aware of the
possible pedestrians .
Downtown - slower trafficspeeds .
Downtown streets that accommodate pedestrians .
Downtown, feeling of security, and areas to wait if you can't make it across in one
signal.
Drake & Horsetooth roads @ Powerline Trail because the flashing light easily stops the busy
traffic.
Fossil Creek Park- scenic and safe.
Good lighting , good signage .
17
Harmony & Corbett - long walk signal.
Howes and Olive--beautiful street with big trees, slow vehicle speeds and good
visibility.
I like being able to cross the streets where I want such as in Oldtown--to me that is one
of the things that makes a place pedestrian friendly. It usually means traffic is slower at
that location.
I like this intersection, and others, which have a countdown crossing signal. It allows
the pedestrian and motorist to see when the light is about to change.
I love the downtown crossings of College. There is pedestrian refuge in the center and
visual interest such as fountains and landscaping. They are heavily used by pedestrians
which makes me as a pedestrian feel safer.
In Oldtown from the parking garage to Coopersmith' s .
Kechter and Zeigler, the roundabout is extremely easy to cross .
Laporte and College--you have enough time to cross ifyou're in a wheelchair.
Laporte and Mason - smooth railroad track crossing, crossing lights with buttons .
Laurel & College , well marked .
Laurel and College .
Linden and Laporte - drivers are very respectful of the crossing.
Linden and Walnut-brick street.
Long lights for pedestrians.
Loomis and Mulberry - fast pedestrian button.
Lots of things to see.
Many areas could still use more trees (individuals or groups could help with this),
parking, rest areas, and seating.
Maple Street between Howes and Mason - most random place for a crosswalk but I use
it almost daily. Has extended curbs, brick crosswalk and signs .
Mason Trail and Drake . Good clear signal for bike/pedestrians .
Most are very difficult. Either timed too slow, steep ramps or cracked ramps, or
inaccessible buttons .
Most of Oldtown, mostly due to reduced speed.
Most of the downtown corners allow adequate time for people to cross .
Most people stop at the cross walks .
Mountain & College intersection; no right turns when light is red. Well marked. Island
in middle of road. Frequent light changes .
Mountain & College , because there is no right on red and it's well marked .
Mountain and College - cars are aware there are many pedestrians and traffic is slow.
Mountain and College because of no right turn on red.
Mountain and College because vehicles are well-controlled regarding speed and turning
ability.
Mountain and College.
Mountain and College ; as many pedestrians as cars !
Mountain and College-because cars are well aware of the pedestrians .
Mountain and Olive : clear crossing, pedestrian refuge, predictability, long enough light
to get across, trees to shade .
Mountain and Remington - pedestrian signal is instant with the resting lace in the
18
middle.
Mountain and shields , there's a median you can stand on if you only get 1 /2 way across
Mountain .
Mountain and the roads where there are pedestrian buttons and blinking lights when
you want to cross . I believe there are two of these right in the middle of Mountain
Avenue.
Oak & College - because it's pedestrian crossing only and the light lasts long enough
for everyone to get across.
Oak and College - attractive resting area in the middle, visually interesting area.
Oak and College , light is activated by walkers .
Oak and College, pedestrian signal, well marked crosswalks.
Oak and College, simply because it is just a pedestrian crossing (which is arguably just
as close to a traffic signal as some of our other problem areas which have been deemed
too close to a traffic signal to put in a pedestrian crossing ! ! )
Oak and College : safe and fun.
Oak and College-halfway resting place for pedestrians.
Oak street because it feels safe .
Oak/College - traffic signal, visual and sound.
Oldtown on College the signals are long enough for people to cross .
Oldtown-frequent signals .
Oldtown-- edestrian lights .
Olive & College , well marked .
Olive and College because vehicles are well-controlled regarding speed and turning
ability .
Olive and College- good timing, I never have to wait too long, and I like the countdown
so I know how long I have to cross.
Olive and College--activated pedestrian crossing with median refuge.
Olive and College--love the feel.
On West Prospect between Shields and Taft, a pedestrian crossing with a trigger light
that stops traffic .
One of the crossings from west of Shields to the CSU campus has a very long walk
light, so that gets my vote since most are not very long.
Pedestrian activated signal by elementary school on South Shields just south of Oak Street.
Signal is in mid-block and takes affect almost immediately making it very safe.
Power Trail crossings at Horsetooth & Drake. Drivers are generally courteous and
respect the flashing pedestrian lights .
Prospect and Welch - the button stops traffic immediately.
Speed limit of less than 30 MPH .
Spring Creek Trail at Lemay, College, Shields, and Taft Hill (4), because the underpass
and walk up ramps allow pedestrians to avoid vehicle traffic entirely.
The crossing on Drake and Powerline Trail because drivers actually stop and it is very
responsive.
The intersections of City Park Place and Mulberry, of Shields and Maple, of Shields
and Oak, because in all three situations, the lights change to favor the pedestrian as
soon as the cross-walk button is pushed,
The one from the parking garage by Coopersmith ' s to the square because drivers
actually stop and wait for you.
19
The one near Oak crossing College, and any others that give the pedestrian priority.
The ones that have a pedestrian overpass or underpass (e . g . Spring Creek Trail at
College, Spring Creek Trail at Drake, Poudre Trail at College) .
Those with sounds and seconds warnings and blinking.
Under bridges on bike trails at College, Lions , etc.
Vine-Taft roundabout - it is easy and smooth.
W. Elizabeth and Shields- -long enough crossing time .
Walnut and Linden : clearly delineated crossing, low volume , drivers trained to look and
give pedestrians priority. Pretty plantings on the corners . Feels safe and pleasant.
Walnut and Linden--attractive street with low vehiclespeeds and good visibility.
Well observed pedestrian and train crossings .
West campus area (between Shields and City Park) . It has signs, lights, brick crosswalk
and island/median for pedestrians .
14 .Where do you think are the worst three street crossings in town ? And why?
1 14 . Where do you think are the worst three street crossings in town? And why?
2 1 . anything on harmony! ! ! 150ft of nothing but pavement with cars wizzing by 3in from you at
60mph is not fun !
2 . taft hill 's crossings could be improved a bit
3 . college ave same as harmony comment.
3 1 . country club & turnberry
2 . country club at the country club itself. kids everywhere going to the lake . cars everywhere ,
most running the stop sign .
3 . country club drive at lemay, four way stop with cars everywhere . runners , walkers and cars all
mixing it up . very dangerous !
4 1 . crossing lemay eastbound at boardwalk requires walking over the sod (or snowpile ) to reach
around to the far side of the light pole to trigger the pedestrian signal .
2 . harmony crossings have very short pedistrian walk indications , especially for crossing a 6-lane
autobahn . se fort collins is very pedestrian unfriendly outside of the neighborhoods .
the power trail crossing at horsetooth . for whatever reason drivers there are frequently
inconsiderate and will ignore the pedestrian signal .
5 1 . mulberry crossing near coopersmith 's - despite the crosswalk flashers , cars rarely actually
stop because there's not a traffic signal - i 've almost been hit there on several occasions
2 . riverside-mulberry intersection when there's a train around - cars get antsy, and the angle of
the intersection makes seeing pedestrians (and bikes ) difficult.
6 All college bu at downtown
7 All harmony crossings east of college to kechter.
8 All of them .
9 Any college crossing south of prospect.
10 Any crossing of harmony or timberline = traffic speeds are very high
laporte @ college avenue - very short light & cars don 't yield to peds
harmony & zeigler - if on bike , can 't go from peleton to northbound (difficult for peds too )
11 Any of the crossings for csu students across laurel (washington , mason , whitcomb? ) - drivers
don 't stop for peds to cross and police don 't enforce the law
12 Any on harmony
old town
college
13 Any on s . college
powertrail lights
e . stuart at rollingwood when cars are parked on it.
14 Any street that crosses harmony, horsetooth , and college
20
15 Any where on college ave .
16 Anything and harmony
17 Anything crossing college out of downtown - very wide , cars aren't looking for peds . ; harmony
and jfk - very , very wide with disabled housing in the area ; crosswalks throughout town only
marked by a yellow sign - completely ignored by cars
18 Anything on college
19 Anywhere along harmony-too fast, too wide and more like a freeway than a road in a town
20
Anywhere on south college - south of propsect , drivers dont' seem to expect pedestrians there .
anywhere north -south on prospect
corner of shields & vine pretty squirrley !
21
Anywhere on taft hillanywhere on harmonyanywhere on shields
22 Anywhere south of prospect.
23 Busy intersections w/o ped asst. prospect/riverside
24 By all railroad crossings
25 By the mission
26
Canyon/mulberry/whitcomb 5 way intersection . it can be trecherous to even bike across .
university ave and mason streets between rxr - intersection is hard for motorists to see
pedestrians and pedestrians end up impeeding traffic to motorists for long periods of time .
taft hill and elizabeth - sidewalks are narrow, and crossing surface is not flat ( many ruts in the
road )
27 College & drake
college & harmony
harmony & lemay
28 College & mountain
(too many large trucks , semis , autos)
29 College & olive
college & drake
college &
30 College and cherry. long distance across street. doesn't feel safe . limite pedestrian island
31 College and harmony - what is good about it?
mason trail at both drake and horsetooth - trail users are completely treated as second class
32
College and harmony
college and horsetooth
college and drake
too much traffic turning in all directions make them risky.
33 College and harmony, harmony and ziggler, prospect and i-25
34 College and laurel , dangerous ! the drivers seem so distracted at that corner. crosswalks are not
well marked . light (signal ) pattern is unpredictable .
remington and mountain , there's ped cross lights there but the crosswalks are not well marked or
lined up .
35
College and prospect
college and drake
college and horsetooth etc .
there are no good pedestrian refuges and it's a long distance in a short time .
21
36
College and prospect: lots of traffic, crosswalks are faded , lights aren 't very long and cars aren't
accustomed to seeing peds . feels unsafe and it's not pretty or inviting either--a shame for a
corner so prominent to the university. . .
Jefferson and linden : trucks are scary so close to curb , light takes forever to change after ped
light is triggered , often scuzzy people crossing with you .
even though it has many amenities , the mid-block crossing on mountain east of college is scary
because even after triggering the ped lights, many cars go whizzing through at top speed : gives
a false sense of security.
37
College and troutmanharmony and boardwalk
38 College at mountain
college at oak
39 College avenue almost any where .
drake
taft
40 College/harmony
41 College/harmony
timberline/harmony
lemay/horsetooth jog .
42 College-anywhere s of prospect
mason stree due to train college and vine
43
Crossing college to king soopers on columbia . the queue areas don't give me a good sense of
safety. i always worry that my kids and i will get hit by a car.
the crossing by edora park where spring creek trail surfaces and you have to cross a road at an
angle . pedestrians and drivers and cyclists are always confused there . plus most other
crossings on this trail are completely protected (under/over road ) , so this one is an anomaly.
stop sign at remington and stuart. drivers and cyclists always want to rush this intersection and it
doesn't seem safe .
44
Crossing shields at mountain is the safest for bikes and peds but so slow for cars .
crossing shields at mulberry is dangerous .
crossing maple downtown
45 Crossing shields on harmony. timing isn't long enough for even a 30 year old fast walker to get
across all those lanes of shields near front range . plus , most drivers blow through the left turn
arrow leaving a pedestrian even less time to try and cross that wide street.
46 Crossing west college
prospect east of college & north of lemay (not enough lights)
47 Don't know .
48 Downtown college a-w. you don't have enough time to cross if you're in a wheelchair.
49 Drake & timberline - cars in righthand turn lanes do not look for pedestrians and they roll through
red lights
drake & lemay - same problem
roundabouts (vine & taft, ziegler & horsetooth , etc . . . ) - cars are not looking or paying attention to
pedestrians .
50
Drake and shields - turners are impatient and cut off pedestrians .
college and mountain - again , impatient or inattentive turners .
22
51 Drake
harmony
horsetooth
52 Everywhere else in fort collins
53
From andersonville across lemay lacks sidewalks and way too busy (see also earlier
comments ) . across college from the college heights residential area to shopping on the w . side .
also , from the mall to businesses on w . college . traffic , traffic , traffic .from accessible apartments
on s . harmony across to grocery store and other shopping on n harmony . trafficnot exactly a
street crossing issue but more of access to services . between taft hill and overland (e and w)
and between prospect and drake , there is a large pocket of low- income housing and rentals .
also , mercy housing on taft hill near the habitat store . bus transportation is needed for these
residents to get to the safeway , walgreen 's , and urgent care on taft and drake and also to the
senior center on shields .
54 Harmony & college
timberline & drake
college & prospect
55
Harmony and college - too much traffic , distance too far to cross comfortably . need visual cues to
drivers to make it a more pedestrian friendly crossing , narrower crossing points
shields and harmony - huge intersection with no visual interest . the turn lanes seem like they
were designed for the largest trucks not for the majority of the traffic that goes through the
intersection . could have made this more like boulder intersections , narrower with attractive
elements to provide slower cars and more pedestrian users .
cherry and college , the attempt was there to make this a better crossing , but just not enough
visual cues to make it more pedestrian oriented . still feels like you have to stay very alert to
cross .
56
Harmony and college - traffic is heavy and not very aware of pedestrians .
horsetooth and college
any intersection like these really .
57 Harmony and timberline--enormous intersectection with high vehicle speeds and motorists
running the light .
college and harmony--big intersection , high vehicle speeds .
college and prospect--big intersection , high vehicle speeds and volume , crazy college student
drivers , poor visibility .
58 Harmony road - all too long and light doesn 't protect enough
59 Harmony road
drake road
60 Harmony/college
mulberry/lemay
61 Harmony/timberline
62 Harmony/timberline
harmony/lemay
riverside/lemay
23
63 Horsetooth and college- too busy , ugly
harmony and college- ditto
prospect and college- ditto
64 Howes and laurel- takes forever for the light to turn and most people just jaywalk
65 In shopping areas like best buy/taco bell area , target/johnny carinos area , those types of places .
a lot of cars and a lot of shops with no routes for walkers .
66 In the older part of town . the more north you go the worse it gets .
67 Lake and shields , prospect and shields and prospect and whitcomb . poor sidewalks , not enough
time to cross street , long wait for light to change , no shoulder/bike lane on prospect , heavy traffic
volume , fast driving speeds .
68
Laporte and college : confusing intersection for drivers - i see near accidents almost every time i
cross
harmony and shields : huge intersection is scary to cross as a runner or biker
69 Laurel and college
laurel and shields
college and olive
70
Laurel and college ; too much car traffic with too much angst and too many cell phones .
college and harmony; see above .
college and prospect; ditto .
71
Laurel and mason , columbia and college , trilby and college
large intersections , busy intersections , poor pedestrian signals , high speeds
72 Laurel street & csu
shields street crossings & csu
73 Laurel street because there are crosswalks in the middle of the street , students walk , but the cars
don 't always stop .
74 Lemay & drake-light needs to be longer
75 Lemay & horsetooth-uncomfortable
sidewalk also ends by tennis courts @ that park. cut across grass or take street.
76 Lemay and riverside - no concern for anything but automobiles .
harmony and college - being revised , change may improve it . mulberry and vine - vast distance
to cross in a short time span .
77 Maple & college - too many right turn angles to watch out for, and trucks turning onto 287 don 't
stop for peds
78 Mason and mulberry - terrible train tracks , high speed and short crossing lights .
mulberry and lemay - poor light schedule , high speeds , low reconigtion of pedestrians .
harmony and college - too many lanes of traffic, not enough time to cross , killer speeds.
79
Mason at oak st . - hazardous crossing at railroad tracks ( most crossings along the rr tracks )
north college - wide street and heavy traffic
80 Mason/laurel
laurel/college
81 Most any street crossing along mason because the railroad tracks are extremely dangers , it
doesn 't matter if you are walking , running , in a car, on a bike , with a stroller, or on a skateboard .
82 Most in south by harmony
83 Most of the harmony crossings , with little safe refuge for peds , and the drivers generally focus
more on other traffic then peds . the noise along the route is also intimidating , especially with loud
vehicles .
84 Most of them !
85 Most places on college and a lot of major streets .
lake and shields comes to mind .
24
86 Mountain & college because for what i stated afew ? ago . . . drivers are clueless
87
Mountain and remington , drivers ignore the flashing lights
college and willow, too many turning cars , cars stop in the crosswalks , merge from jefferson
takes driver attention away from pedestrians
shields and elizabeth ,turning movements , lots of pedestrians who ignore wait lights .
88 Mountain/college
89 Mulberry & college
laurel & college
90 Mulberry and college is not fun to cross either- possibly because it is such a busy vehicle
intersection . i have almost been hit there by a car turning right while the pedestrian signal was
on .
91 Mulberry and college- no resting place in the middle
92 N/a
93 North college across willox
north overland trail anywhere north of drake
trilby & college
94
On college at:
willox , mulberry , and harmony
95 On mason - laurel st . to laporte ave .
96
Overland at drake no crosswalk badly marked traffic heading north onto overland from drake
should have to stop not yield
banyan and golden current needs a stop sign and crosswalk
97 Power line trail & harmony road
harmony & boardwalk
98 Power trail and streets . the flashing yellow lights are to different for the average person . make a
standard red yellow green light and people will follow the rules . right now many don't
99 Pretty much anywhere in north fort collins . obvious reasons .
100 Prospect & college ; high density traffic, right turns on red light.
101
Prospect & lemay
riverside & lemay
timberline & harmony
traffic and bicycles are unaware of walkers
102 Prospect & riverside
riverside and power lights
rutgers & lemay ave .
103 Prospect and center the light is not long enough to get all of the cars , bikes and people across
so people run red lights and that is dangerous of all .
104 Prospect and college
elizabeth and lemay
vine and taft
105
Prospect and college , i don't think the signal light is long enough and i don 't think that motorist
pay attention , i see near misses way too often .
prospect and sheilds (for the same reason ) .
the other than white strips on the street, unmarked cross walks on laurel ave . , students think its a
game to see if cars will stop by walking slow or jumping out on a close vehicle . the cross walks
are difficult to see and even though you are only traveling 30mph i find it still very dangerous !
106 Prospect and lemay, timberline and prospect---too much traffic not paying attention
107 Prospect at lesher. eastbound traffic doesn 't have an arrow to turn north to get to the school .
25
that backsup eastbound prospect and turning traffic is more concerned about finding an opening
in west bound traffic then bikes and peds. crossing . i've seen it happen .
108 Prospect/college
harmony/college
109 Prospect/college
prospect/lemay
110 Remington and mulberry and also wedbee and mulberry, they are incredibly fast light change in
the north/south direction and eternally long int he east/west direction , so it makes it hard to have
time to cross as a pedestrian or biker. i also dislike the intersection of mulberry and riverside ,
because it is just plain confusing and I'm not a fan of the trucks! !
111 Right now harmony & college/mason . anywhere the asphalt is worn away at train tracks! all along
old town !
112 Riverside/lemay
college/harvard
riverside/mountain
113 Riverside/lemay
stover/prospect
114 Roundabouts , horsetooth & college , harmony & college
115 See answer #2 above , also on the n side of shields crossing to the csu campus (shields and eliz)
drivers often turn without heeding you .
116 Shields and harmony-really big and not many flowers and beauty like it could be
117 Shields street near raintree .
118 Shields street
laurel street by csu
119
So many! and i mean no offense by that. i just believe there is a lot of opportunity for
improvement in cities like ours that were built around and for the automobile, as I'm sure you
would agree .
crossing laurel and mulberry almost anywhere is a hassle . cars are traveling fast and the lights
take a long time to change .
crossing anywhere south of prospect just seems unsafe (and unenjoyable) in so many ways.
crossing riverside .
120 South college
121 South college - harmony, horsetooth , drake - due to the very wide streets to cross
122 South college and skyway
123 South of drake, going north on lemay, near parkwood neighborhood . I'd like to see a flashing
light for when pedestrians and bicyclist want to cross and have the right away. that's a scary
crossing area at peak driving times between 5-6pm .
124 Supermarket liquors, blind spot
125 Taft & elizabeth may be in running .
126 Taft/bronson
mulberry/loomis
college/troutman
127
The power trail crossing at drake--a lot of people don 't pay attention to it .
timberline rd . just north of fchs--very short light for kids on school mornings .
drake rd just south of odea elementary
26
128
The roads and entrances around the shopping center on the south west corner of drake and
shields - drivers don 't pay attention and often make left hand turns onto these streets/into the
shopping center without looking , i 've had multiple close calls with cars here
elizabeth and shields - light gets run alot , especially by bikes , makes it dangerous
most places along college - drivers not paying attention , lights being run
129 The weird streets near the lincoln center cars go every direction and the intersections are
confusing because of all the angles
130 The worst ones are probaably ones which i would never even atempt such as crossing harmony .
131 There are too many to choose from
132 Those with several lanes . often a middle lane or side lane vehicle moves forward and doesn 't
see a walker/pedestrian or a biker that is in a pedestrian crossing .
133
Timberline & horsetooth - traffic seems congested and not big lanes for bikes
bike crossing at drake & timberline - love the light signal to stop traffic , but since the railroad
tracks are there , psd buses stop for the rr track crossing and are then under the bike crossing
lights , so they can 't see if the lights are on .
harmony & college/jfk area - sidewalks end ; big road to cross ; heavy traffic .
134 Timberline and vine is horrible for pedestrian traffic due to the high volume of traffic and the 4
way stop that people consistently do not obey (or don 't know how to use ) . the train tracks are
also very bad here and are hard to ride over with a bike (cars too ) .
135
Timberline/harmony-- people speed and run lights through here all the time . not very pedestrian
friendly yet many people cross through there . prospect/riverside--again , cars traveling too fast, i
don 't feel very safe there biking or walking through the intersection . the cars that are turning east
from riverside tend to keep going even when the pedestrian light is lite . harmony/corbett--the
lights are timed poorly . as a car driver only 1 -3 cars at most get through the light heading south
on corbett and then when you are walking or biking you have to go fast in order to get across the
street before the light changes . also , cars never yeild when turning west on to harmony when
there are pedestrians there . the zoom through .
136 Too many to choose
137 Vermont and horsetooth -the light takes forever to change and cars turn regardless of the dont
turn right on red when peds are present sign .
crosswalk on drake near timberline-because some cars dont even stop when the light is flashing
crosswalk on horsetooth near timberline-because cars don 't even stop when the lights are
flashing
138 Whitcomb & mulberry (convoluted intersection ) , stuart & lemay ( light takes too long ; because of
hill , visibility not the best) , mulberry & riverside
139 Ziegler - paddington
timberline - drake
140 Overland at drake no crosswalk badly marked traffic heading north onto overland from drake
should have to stop not yield
141 Power trail and streets . the flashing yellow lights are to different for the average person . make a
standard red yellow green light and people will follow the rules . right now many don 't
142 powertrail lights
143 Pretty much anywhere in north fort collins . obvious reasons .
144 Prospect & college ; high density traffic, right turns on red light.
145 Prospect & lemay
27
146 Prospect and center the light is not long enough to get all of the cars , bikes and people across
so people run red lights and that is dangerous of all .
147 prospect and college- ditto
148 Prospect and college, i don't think the signal light is long enough and i don't think that motorist
pay attention , i see near misses way too often .
149 Prospect and lemay, timberline and prospect---too much traffic not paying attention
150 prospect and sheilds i don't think the signal light is long enough and i don't think that motorist pay
attention , i see near misses way too often . .
151 Prospect at lesher. eastbound traffic doesn't have an arrow to turn north to get to the school .
that backsup eastbound prospect and turning traffic is more concerned about finding an opening
in west bound traffic then bikes and peds. crossing . i've seen it happen .
152 Prospect/college
153 prospect/lemay
154 prospect/riverside--again , cars traveling too fast, i don't feel very safe there biking or walking
through the intersection . the cars that are turning east from riverside tend to keep going even
when the pedestrian light is lite .
155 remington and mountain , there's ped cross lights there but the crosswalks are not well marked or
lined up .
156 Remington and mulberry and also wedbee and mulberry, they are incredibly fast light change in
the north/south direction and eternally long int he east/west direction , so it makes it hard to have
time to cross as a pedestrian or biker. i also dislike the intersection of mulberry and riverside ,
because it is just plain confusing and I'm not a fan of the trucks! !
157 riverside & lemay
158 riverside/lemay
159 Riverside/lemay
160 Riverside/lemay
161 riverside/mountain
162 Roundabouts , horsetooth & college , harmony & college
163 See answer #2 above , also on the n side of shields crossing to the csu campus (shields and eliz)
drivers often turn without heeding you .
164 shields and elizabeth ,turning movements, lots of pedestrians who ignore wait lights .
165 Shields and harmony-really big and not many flowers and beauty like it could be
166 Shields street
167 shields street crossings & csu
168 Shields street near raintree .
169 sidewalk also ends by tennis courts @ that park. cut across grass or take street.
170 South college
171 South college - harmony, horsetooth , drake - due to the very wide streets to cross
172 South college and skyway
173 South of drake , going north on lemay, near parkwood neighborhood . I 'd like to see a flashing
light for when pedestrians and bicyclist want to cross and have the right away . that's a scary
crossing area at peak driving times between 5-6pm .
174 stop sign at remington and stuart. drivers and cyclists always want to rush this intersection and it
doesn't seem safe.
175 stover/prospect
176 Supermarket liquors, blind spot
177 Taft & elizabeth may be in running .
178 tart hill and elizabeth - sidewalks are narrow , and crossing surface is not flat ( many ruts in the
road )
179 taft hill's crossings could be improved a bit
180 Taft/bronson
28
181 the crossing by edora park where spring creek trail surfaces and you have to cross a road at an
angle . pedestrians and drivers and cyclists are always confused there . plus most other
crossings on this trail are completely protected (under/over road ) , so this one is an anomaly.
182 the other than white strips on the street, unmarked cross walks on laurel ave . , students think its a
game to see if cars will stop by walking slow or jumping out on a close vehicle . the cross walks
are difficult to see and even though you are only traveling 30mph i find it still very dangerous !
183 The power trail crossing at drake--a lot of people don't pay attention to it.
184 the power trail crossing at horsetooth . for whatever reason drivers there are frequently
inconsiderate and will ignore the pedestrian signal .
185 The roads and entrances around the shopping center on the south west corner of drake and
shields - drivers don't pay attention and often make left hand turns onto these streets/into the
shopping center without looking , i've had multiple close calls with cars here
186 The weird streets near the lincoln center cars go every direction and the intersections are
confusing because of all the angles
187 The worst ones are probaably ones which i would never even atempt such as crossing harmony.
188 There are too many to choose from
189 Those with several lanes. often a middle lane or side lane vehicle moves forward and doesn't
see a walker/pedestrian or a biker that is in a pedestrian crossing .
190 timberline - drake
191 timberline & drake
192 timberline & harmony
193 Timberline & horsetooth - traffic seems congested and not big lanes for bikes
194 Timberline and vine is horrible for pedestrian traffic due to the high volume of traffic and the 4
way stop that people consistently do not obey (or don 't know how to use ) . the train tracks are
also very bad here and are hard to ride over with a bike (cars too) .
195 timberline rd . just north of fchs--very short light for kids on school mornings .
196 timberline/harmony
197 Timberline/harmony--people speed and run lights through here all the time . not very pedestrian
friendly yet many people cross through there .
198 Too many to choose
199 too much traffic turning in all directions make them risky.
200 traffic and bicycles are unaware of walkers
201 university ave and mason streets between rxr - intersection is hard for motorists to see
pedestrians and pedestrians end up impeeding traffic to motorists for long periods of time .
202 Whitcomb & mulberry (convoluted intersection ) , stuart & lemay (light takes too long ; because of
hill , visibility not the best) , mulberry & riverside
203 Ziegler - paddington
204 Trilby and college , forgot to mention . . .this is not the safest crossing intersection .
15 .What three things would you have the City do to improve the pedestrian experience in Fort
Collins?
1 15 . What three things would you have the City do to improve the pedestrian experience in Fort
Collins?
2 Continuous sidewalks
3 Continuous sidewalks
4 Continuous sidewalks
5 Better sidewalks
6 Better sidewalks
7 Lighting
8 Lighting
9 More crosswalks
29
10 More crosswalks
11 Wider sidewalks
12 Wider sidewalks
13 A few more stop lights
14 A lot of work has been done around raising awareness of bikers , similar efforts regarding runners
and walkers would be nice
15 Accessibility for disabled
16 Add better waiting areas at busy intersections near basic services ( like near king
soopers/columbia)
17 Adequate close-in parking , safe walk way to city park.
18 Allow for more time to cross
19 Allow more crossing time
20 Allow more time for peds to get across
21 Avoid creating any more narrow, attached sidewalks in neighborhoods
22 Ban smoking on trails & parks
23 Ban talking and texting on c-phones while driving
24 Bathrooms
25 Benches at all bus stops
26 Better crossing lights at intersections
27 Better educational efforts to let drivers know pedestrians count!
28 Better lighting
29 Better markings/lights flash
30 Better night lighting
31 Better signage/lighting for yeild to pedestrian areas
32 Better street lights
33 Better transit
34 Bigger shoulders on roads or more sidewalks
35 Build better parking
36 Build new buildings with the active community environment in mind
37 Build trails on the northside of town .
38 Bulb outs at all intersections where possible
39 Campaign to encourage walking
40 Can you fix steep grades?
41 Clean off the sidewalks
42 Clean streets
43 Clear guidelines on bike paths
44 Clear snow and ice as if you were someone with compromised eyesight , and using a wheelchair
or cane
45 Clearly id crossing areas
46 College ave! make it more friendly beyond old town
47 Complete mason street corridor project
48 Complete sidewalks
49 Complete sidewalks on harmony
50 Complete sidewalks on lemay
51 Connect neighborhoods
52 Connect some more of the trails
53 Connected sidewalks
54 Connectivity to mason trail from the west side
55 Consider walking paths adjacent to irrigation ditches in nw residential area
56 Continual sidewalks on both sides of the street
57 Continue to add pedestiran controlled light crossings
30
58 Continue to beautify streets
59 Continue to expand trails to connect.
60 Continue to promote street trails
61 Continue to raise awareness .
62 Continue with the crossing treatments currently used as development moves north
63 Control right on red turners
64 Create more trails/paths along harmony
65 Cross signals
66 Crosswalk light lengths too short at harmony & ziegler
67 Design & implement more trails away from traffic
68 Detach sidewalks from curb for more comfortable walking .
69 Diagnol crossings like de4nver
70 Diagonal crossing at college and mountain
71 Discourage auto-dependent development like se fort collins
72 Discourage car traffic from congested areas (perhaps like system in copenhagen to tax frequent
users
73 Don't know.
74 Drop speed limit by 5 mph
75 Easier access to routes
76 Educate community
77 Educate motorist
78 Emergency phones
79 Emphasis on stopping when pedestrians are in a crosswalk
80 Encourage reduction of single occupant cars (encourqage hov's) to reduce number of cars on the
road
81 Encourage show removal across intersections, alleys and bus access . .
82 Enforce crosswalk infractions
83 Enforce crosswalk laws
84 Enforce currant laws against bikes !
85 Enforce ped crossing mandatory stop by drivers - the police will pull over speeders there , but not
people who don 't stop for pedestrians
86 Enforce pedestrian right of way at all street crossings
87 Enforce snow removal
88 Enforce traffic rules on bicyclists
89 Enforce vehicular laws , noise, ordinances
90 Enforcement of the current laws in regards to cars turning on red
91 Enhanced crosswalks
92 Ensure all streets have nice sidewalks
93 Ensure safet of children and people with disabilities (especially blind and visually impaired )
94 Expand transfort to harmony/taft area because no one who lives there can take the bus to
campus for work easily . right now, i walk over a mile to get to a bus stop at front range . if there
were a stop closer to harmony/taft hill , more people would use transfort and fewer would drive .
everyone is safer!
95 Extended corners like in the a elizabeth st. area
96 Facilitate walking by making sure street crossing favor pedestrians , not cars
97 Fewer cars
98 Fewer cars (more public transport)
99 Finish sidewalks in town
100 Fix and put in more sidewalks
101 Fix discontinuities
102 Fix hard to find/reach buttons for crosswalks
31
103 Fix infrastructure
104 Fix old sidewalks
105 Fix sidewalks
106 Fix the bike/walk lights on power trail
107 Fix the railroad crossings
108 Fix the sidewalks
109 Flashing lights at crosswalks not located at intersection
110 Free long term parking somewhere downtown so you can park and walk somewhere and not have
to be back in 2 hrs or pay to be there all day
111 Get an encouragement program for local neighborhoods that don't have sidewalks to be able to
afford to build them .
112 Give ped priorty when button pushed
113 Grade separation
114 Greenbelt trails !
115 Grouping destinations closer
116 Have good signage
117 Have more protected crosswalks to csu with pedestrian activated lights
118 Have people shovel their sidewalks ! it becomes quite an adventure trying to walk after the snow.
119 Have wheelchair accessible sidewwalks
120 1 think the city does an excellent job
121 If the bus system was more commuter friendly (aka more frequent than hourly) people would
communte downtown and thereby walk more once getting to downtown
122 Implement more flashing lights at main road crossings .
123 Improve access to transit stops
124 Improve beautification of area
125 Improve crosswalks (add stop signs or signals to major walks)
126 Improve enlarge sidewalks
127 Improve trails
128 Improved maintenance of cut-through paths in neighborhoods without hoas
129 Improved pedestrian lighting
130 Improved sidewalks in lower-scale neighborhoods
131 Include grade separations in the street planning process
132 Include newly annexed south fort collins in your plans
133 Incorporate walkways in more locations
134 Increased safety (light, etc. )
135 Infrastructure improvements .
136 Install visual ped countdown timers
137 Just having it be less bumpy for persons in wheelchairs
138 Keep doint what you 're doing !
139 Keep graphitti painted over in the tunnels
140 Keep sidewalks in good repair
141 Keep soapstone prairie and bobcat ridge
142 Keep up with the off street trail connections!
143 Larger shoulders on busy streets
144 Legthen crossing times
145 Less concrete
146 Less cracks
147 License bicyclists
148 Light dark areas
149 Lights - so many of the neighborhood streets are so dark
150 Like boulder, make pedestrians the primary use throught the entire town .
32
151 Limit city street width to 4 lanes .
152 Longer cross lights
153 Longer crossing lights
154 Longer crossing time in some areas
155 Longer crosswalk indicators
156 Longer crosswalk times at street lights
157 Longer pedestrian street crossing times-for ease of making it across larger intersections
158 Longer seconds to get across big intersections
159 Longer times to cross streets
160 Longer walk signals
161 Look at the traffic flow at intersections
162 Low branches over sidewalks are difficult to deal with
163 Lower speed limits and less car travel lanes
164 Maintain bike lanes
165 Maintain trail system
166 Make all bus stops wheelchair accessible
167 Make all major intersections beautiful public places and emphasis the pedestrian like in boulder
with raised pretty cross walks to a mid point
168 Make good sidewalk connections in popular places like linden , lincoln and college at prospect
169 Make homeowners , especially when houses turn off, put in sidewalks where there are none !
170 Make more pedestrian-only" roads"
171 Make ped lights turn on auto rather than only w/pushing the button
172 Make public spaces and roads into attractive public spaces people want to walk around in
173 Make refuges in cross walks if possible
174 Make security high priority
175 Make sidewalks wheelchair safe
176 Make signals long enough so you don't have to rush
177 Make sure sidewalks connect
178 Make sure walk lights work
179 Make traffic aware of us .
180 Make wider bike lanes
181 Mark the crosswalks better
182 Marked crosswalks
183 Minimum 3 foot widths for sidewalks , preferably with parkway dividing sidewalks and streets
184 Mitigate uneven sidewalks
185 More access to bus routes
186 More art in public spaces
187 More art like on mason trail
188 More bike lanes
189 More bike lanes .
190 More bike-only routes to areas w/ bike racks
191 More bikes
192 More bus routes
193 More commuter lanes for bikes (separate from sidewalks ) to encourage both biking and walking -
esp in old town area
194 More connected bike trails in the north part of ftc
195 More cross connections (e .g . taft s of prospect)q
196 More crossing signals
197 More detached sidewalks
198 More dirt paths for runners - especially south end of city.
199 More education on pedestrian awareness for drivers
33
200 More enforcement of speed limits
201 More mid-block pedestrian cross walks on arterials
202 More neighborhoods that don't go through
203 More overpass/underpasses
204 More painted crosswalks
205 More parking at walmart
206 More patrols
207 More ped activated crossings
208 More pedestrian activated crosswalks
209 More pedestrian walk opportunities on busy roads
210 More pedestrian-only areas
211 More people willing to get out of their cars
212 More pet friendly items (trash cans & plastic bags) along trails
213 More safe crossways of busy streets
214 More shade trees on the south end of town . it's awful to walk out in the blazing sun in a concrete
jungle .
215 More sidewalks
216 More sidewalks on north end
217 More sidewalks/bike lanes--complete sections !
218 More signage that tells cars to watch for pedestrians
219 More signs with flashing yellow lights that cars must yeild to pedestrians in crosswalk
220 More street lights
221 More street lights in main areas to improve feelings of safety
222 More strictly enforce sidewalk cleaning after snow
223 More traffic calming
224 More traffic calming bends on some streets
225 More trees and vegetation
226 More walkways near water
227 More wheel chair friendly
228 Motsre curb cu
229 Move green arrow rt. turns on major intersections (like @ college/laurel )
230 Move the sidewalks back from the street.
231 N/a
232 Neckdown intersections
233 Neighborhood connections , especially at cul-de-sacs, and dead end streets
234 Never use hollywood curbs again
235 No right turn on reds @ several intersections in old town
236 No semis on college !
237 North-south west-end trail
238 Nothing
239 Off-avenue , north/south routes particularly off of busy streets
240 On-street parkign to buffer high speeds
241 Option to extend walk light times
242 Outlaw cell phone use whiel driving
243 Parking
244 Patch street hole
245 Pedestrian bridges or tunnels over/under busy roads
246 Pedestrian connectors in parking lots
247 Pedestrian zones
248 Pedistrian islands
249 Peds first, bikes second , transit third , cars last
34
250 Permanent changes for pedestrian crossing , traffic calming
251 Pest control along trails
252 Plant more trees
253 Pleasant visual attractions
254 Police ticketing drivers who don't wait for pedestrians
255 Potholes
256 Prioritize pedestrians
257 Priority for pedestrians @ key crossings
258 Promote smart growth hubs with mixed retail , office and residential linked by convenient
pedestrian walkways
259 Proper care of bus stops
260 Provide a better transit system to encourage people not to drive
261 Provide and shade sidewalks
262 Provide continuity of walks
263 Put a barn dance ligth at shields & w. elizabeth
264 Put pedestrian buttons on more traffic lights
265 Put public spaces at each of the mile intersections to encourage local community
266 Raised cross walks
267 Raised crossings
268 Red light cameras at more corners
269 Reduced speed limit
270 Remove graded driveway on sidewalks--the slant causes people with balance and vision
problems to walk in the street
271 Renovate the mall and connect a and w college
272 Repair/add sidewalks
273 Retrofit existing neighborhoods with sidewalk connections eg . punch through at cul-de-sac
streets, for continutiy & to make more destinations fall in the walkable category
274 Scenery
275 School safety zones
276 Separate streets from sidewalks along high traffic areas
277 Set back sidewalks
278 Set sidewalks away from streets
279 Several new crossings on prospect
280 Shorter crossings
281 Sidewalk continuity
282 Sidewalks
283 Sidewalks are too bumpy
284 Sidewalks further from street
285 Sidewlaks in general
286 Signaled crossings
287 Slope and curbs .
288 Slow auto speeds thru street design
289 Slow cars
290 Slow down car traffic
291 Slow traffic on arterials
292 Smooth well marked sdiewalks
293 Smoother bike lanes
294 Smoothks sidewal
295 Some walk lights need to last longer.
296 Special signage for the handicapped and elderly (like children crossing" as an example)"
297 Speed & noise ordinance enforcement
35
298 Standardize sidewalks & intersections
299 Stop promoting walking or bike riding
300 Stop worrying about old town & start paying attention to the northeast side of town !
301 Streetcars downtown
302 There should be a pedestrian bridge over the train tracks in a couple of intesection in old town
303 This survey is slanted to only those who like walking
304 Ticket vehicles w/smoking exhaust
305 Time intersection lights better
306 Trail and sidewalk connectivity to the south side of fort collins
307 Trail underpasses or overpasses across major streets
308 Transportation
309 Trees
310 Unsure
311 Use a more visible crosswalk hatch
312 Use more traffic calming techniques like speed tables , mid-block ped signals , more attractive
cross walks like fake brick street designs etc. . . instand pedestrian actuated lights , use color and
bollards and urban design to make places feel more pedestrian oriented
313 Walkes should be treated with respect not like 2nd class citizens who can't afford a car.
314 Walking areas along trilby
315 Water fountains for drinking
316 Verify that amount of time given for crossing is actually reasonable
317 Wide sidewalks
318 Widen sidewalks on busy streets (especially elizabeth and taft hill ) in campus west
319 Wider sidewalk
320 Wider sidewalks where there is no street or less than ideal biking conditions .
321 Wider walkways
322 Width of sidewalks increased
16 . How would you rate your neighborhood for walking ?
Great 69% 112
Needs some work 29% 47
Not very nice at all 2% 4
100% 163
How would you rate your neighborhood for
walking ?
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Great Needs some work Not very nice at all
17 .Anything else , pedestrian related , you want to tell us?
1 1 . much neighborhood sidewalk repair needed (ie clearview and ash dr.
2 . replace old narrow angles sidewalt-these must be a terror for disabled people ! !
36
2 An efficient bus system would increase folks walking .
3 As a frequent bike rider to downtown destinations , the pedestrian bulges at intersections
that narrow the intersection down are very dangerous to bikes because cars are trying to
pass & the bikes have to move into the traffic lane . the southeast corner of w. mountain
and mason is a good example . traveling east, we stop our bikes by the courthouse at the
traffic light but when we get to the otherside , just as the cars behind us are getting ready to
pass , the sidewalk bulges out into the street. these my be good for pedestrians but they are
really unsafe for bike riders .
4 At the beginning of this survey , i forgot to mention that i am a heavy user of the pouder and
spring creek trails for recreation , commmuting and exercise . i also think that midtown
(college/prospect/drake/ lemay) is overlooked as a pedestrian heavy area . i can walk to
three major grocery stores , my kids school , my huusbands work , by community pool , my
csa , by preschool , friends houses , bike shop , coffee , dq , resturants . . . . . we just need a
bookstore back.
5 Bikes are rude and dangerous on the trails . we don't walk there to avoid being yelled at.
need no-bike trails or alternative arrangements.
6 Cars just need to watch .
7 Dogs and bicycles out of old town
8 Downtown sidewalks are a wreck. dda or the city should spend some of their dollars
replacing those sidewalks .
9 Downtown sidewalks are unsafe , many raised joints , cracked walks , etc.
keep bikes , skateboards out of downtown
10 Drivers don't yield for pedestrians , skateboarders , cyclists - right hook a problem
11 Educate drivers to stop at pedestrian crosswalks
better crossing lights on power trial
traffic speeding in parks
traffic calming on neighborhood streets
12 Educating people on walking curtesy would help .
13 Education helps - a media blitz about pedestrian safety for those in cars
14 Fc is miles ahead of cities back east. we're on the right track.
15 Fix uneven and major cracks on sidewalks around town
16 For daily activities there is not anough need to walk yet-too easy to move car closer to
where you want to go , so faster to drive and park vs walk.
17 Fort collins has done a great job at improving ada ramps at intersections, however there is
still a lot of work to be done. keep up the good work.
18 Fort collins is better than the best the east could offer. keep up the good work.
19 Fort collins is still a great place to live ! !
20 Fort collins needs a downtown pedestrian mall-other than old town plaza .
cities in europe have them for a reason , they work for the walking public.
21 Generally a good place to walk. keep up the good work!
22 Get the cyclists off the sidewalks . issue tickets if necessary.
23 Grade separation will improve transportation efficiency & pedestrian safety.
24 Have concerns about kids walking in poor lighting
25 Help walkers feel more welcome on trails.
26 How about having some random pedestrians report on intersections and streets and
sponsor a contest drawing for those that give feedback.
businesses could sponsor a discount for walkers/bikers on a special day. make it fort collins
walks" or something .
27 help people get used to walking , i . e . get seniors to walk certain school "routes" like "walk
grands" so parents would feel safer with kids walking to school - also fosters community. "
28 1 appreciate the attention to pedestrian travel . and it will be more and more important as the
city increases in density and infill progresses .
37
29
1 forgot to mention the intersection of mulberry and shields in my least favorite list. the
good intersections have staging areas where pedestrians can wait for the light and drivers
can see them . there is clear intent that someone is crossing the road , and which direction
they are going . as for kids crossing the road , i almost wish they had a sign to hold up and
stop traffic ( i guess i have just become a little paranoid after too many close calls of my
own . )i think that there also needs to be a great deal of effort on the part of csu to impose on
incoming freshmen as well as returning students the importance of being aware of
pedestrians and keeping their neighborhoods safe and pedestrian friendly. lastly, i have
found everywhere i live , that the best way to be aware of pedestrians , and aware of how
fast you are driving on city streets , is to get out and walk on the streets . most people are
unaware of what it is like to be out of their cars and walking . of the places i have lived fort
collins is the most pedestrian friendly, and i am glad to see this effort.thanks
30 1 just notice that walking bike trails can be hazardous if you aren 't alert to bikers .
be nice to have more dirt roads for runners along the bike paths or added in other areas of
city.
31 1 love my neighborhood (campus west/miller brothers ) for walking , but i walk in the streets
due to narrow sidewalks and family member who uses a wheelchair. I'd love to be able to
walk along paths adjacent to the irrigation ditches , as well and next to the busy streets .
even an accessible paved (or other fairly accessible surfaced ) loop going around avery
park and including the open space drainage area across castlerock would be really sweet
(think seniors , mobility impaired and parents or daycare providers with strollers) .
with the economy in a bit of a slump , i think univercity should grab the opportunity to give
some press to residential mid-century ( 1950's and 1960's) areas close to campus as
affordable" (under $200 , 000 ) , walkable , and accessible (access "with imagination" . . . but
there are some sweet if ordinary ranch homes easily modified )"
32 1 love to walk in the area . i used to live somewhere i could do most of my errands for foot or
bike , not now as i live more rural but with a new north-south west-end route i could prob . do
more of that again .
33 1 love walking in old town , the trees , the cool old houses , one of which is mine , but the
sidewalks are so uneven in spots that i have fallen and i am young and walk for exercise ,
not an old person . i can imagine that for the elderly or for young mothers with strollers or
toddlers , these sidewalks are an impediment to walking . they seem to be old flagstone ,
maybe they could be replaced and the flagstone used to make crosswalks?
34 1 normally don 't understand why people walk in the road/bike path when there is a sidewalk .
i wish every place in town was required to have sidewalks installed ( mall areas as well as
residental . )
i also wish some of the very narrow sidewalks that are on the street would be replaced .
35 1 was drawn to live in fort collins because it is more bicycle and pedestrian friendly than the
average american city. thanks for working to make it even better.
36 1 would like to spend more time in old town . i can tolerate tourist well , it is their dogs i can
not stand .
37 If you want to improve the pedestrian environment, quit widening roads--it's
counterproductive !
38 I ' m excited about the mason corridor project. i appreciate pedestrian crossings .
39 In regard to the intersections on e . drake and e . hosetooth where the trail crosses the road
and there are pedestrian friendly buttons to alert cars to stop- there should be photovans at
these places ticketing those that do not yeild to the pedestrians .
40 Incentives should be given . walking more makes the city healthier as a whole more
exercise less pollutants less spent on health care better bottom line .
41 Iron y vine
42 It has been my experience that most cars to not stop for pedestrians in the road .
43 It is my understanding that the areas where there are no continuous sidewalks are left up to
the property owner. eminent domain is enforced to widen intersections for a better flow of
traffic, i think it should also be enforeced for a better safer flow of foot traffic!
44 Keep perspective & try not to change on area to a high priority pedestrian are when its not
38
appropriate .
45 Lack of wide flat sidewalks for wheelchairs .
46 Lemay & rule
47 Less concrete trails , wood chip/cinders would be nicer, places that have softer trails next to
paved/concrete trails are nice .
more signs at intersections to keep cars from turning right when pedestrians are present.
48 Looking forward to the mason corridor! it seems like plans are very pedestrian focused .
49 Many crossing buttons are hard to get to in wheelchair.
50 More flashing pedestrian signs for cars , encourage pedestrians to use the cross walks
versus middle of blocks-especially around the csu campus , encourage not driving
downtown during high pedestrian times
51 More routes ! easier access - transfers .
52 My neighborhood has great sidewalks and trails , but no connectivity to anything . it is like
an isolated island . it seems as though all of the focus is on the norhtern part of town with
no mention of improvements on the south side of town .
53 Need a left turn land for cars at mountain & college. was too many almost accidents &
pedestrians constantly jaywalk.
54 Needs the landscaping in front of houses between the sidewalk and road in some places
needs the sidewalks to be repaired
connect the missing sidewalk sections in front of some houses .
get rid of the crazy intersection at canyon and mulberry . canyon doesn 't need to go through
or make it a round about . very dangerous for pedestrians
55 Neighborhood area has uneven sidewalks and no street lights .
56 No enforcement exists for walk lights traffic
57 Not at this time
58 Old town area is great for pedestrians but few other shopping areas in fort collins are
conveniently-accessible for bikers and pedestrians . there are few other places in town
where i feel that i can walk around without having to schlep across walker- unfriendly
avenues ( like college ) . individual shopping/entertainment venues are so spread out, i feel
that i have to drive everywhere to get the 2 or 3 things done that i want to do . i hate driving
in this town with all the traffic , but my options (again , with the exception of old town ) are
very limited .
59 On a scale of 1 - 101 i would give fc a 10 for trying , and an 8 for acheivement . there is still
things that can be improved , but wow! what a wonderful place to bike and walk .
great job ! thanks for all you do, i appreciate it.
60 Pedestrian crossings need high visibility and alerting mechanisms .
61 Please integrate walking to schools as a key feature of pedestrian plan . our children
should be able to walk to our schools easily. a key element of success will be making
drivers aware of the rights of pedestrians with strict enforcement of laws . currently, there
seems to be little effort to make sure pedestrians can cross any intersection . the plan
should encompass both design and promotion of walking as well as restrictions on
motorized vehicles . one easy way to encourage walking to downtown would be to charge
for parking .
62 Please put a yield sign across from my work. elderhaus shields to myrtle. we cross to the
church constantly for activities in our program .
63 Please review pedestrian flow at railroad crossings
drake/mason
drake/timberline
64 Proximity to heavy, fast traffic is where walking is the worst and especially trying to cross
college at the busy intersections . i will usually drive even if it's only two blocks because the
intersections are so unpleasnt
65 Remington & olive
66 Shopping center parking lots-with sidewalk through them are helpful . roundabouts are
somewhat confusing/intimidating-are cars supposed to yield?
39
67 Sidewalk crossing ramps that allow for wheelchairs , etc and that are the ones that have
bumpy, elevated design are difficutly for people walking with canes and some elders .
68 Sit in a wheelchair for a day & navigate thru the city as if you had unique needs , or employ
someone with these needs & insight and shaddow with them for many days thru the city
Oust a thought)
69 Slow the cars down
70 Stop trying to push modes of transportation down the throats of most of us who prefer to
drive . time is a limited resource and the fastest way between most places is to drive .
a small amount of the population is driving this walking biking agenda . most do not want it.
71 Streets are too wide in many cases for comfortable ped crossings and lead to high vehicle
speeds .
72 Thank you for looking into improvements for pedestrians . since i moved to old town Oust a
mile from down town ) , my life has improved drastically just by walking and biking more ! it is
subtle differences like these that can drastically improve one's health , one's happiness and
feeling of connecting/belonging in one's community and of course the many environmental
benefits . inspiring people (with beautiful , accessible walking/biking trails) to get out of their
cars will make for a healthier fort collins .
i also encourage you to avoid laying more concrete for trails . so often is is rejuvenating to
walk under the canopy of trees on a gravel path rather than on concrete . i have walked
these paths in other communities and the gravel can be fine enough to allow smooth
transport of strollers , bikes , etc.
i also loved your idea to create lanes of vegetation in the middle of our ridiculously wide
streets that would filter storm water and provide habitat.
thank you !
73 Thank you !
74 Thanks for asking - i love walking for fun & purpose in fort collins !
75 Thanks for prioritizing this !
76 That was an interesting survey!
77 The city has spent many dollars on old town . those of us who live inside of ftc city limits are
paying for trails and not getting our moneys worth .
it's hard to support anything the city does , when they treat the richards lake/country club
area like a red-headed step child . we pay taxes & we vote !
to go a step further, i bet we pay more property tax than average . we don 't even get city
water! the very least you could do is give us a trail to town !
78 The handicap ramps at the corners always fill with a pool of ice in the winter, making the
ramp much more dangerous than stepping off the curb .
79 This is another topic, but the left turns ( photo enforced ) at college onto drake is very
difficult . some cycles allow only 1 -2 cars to turn onto drake .
80 Too many pedestrians not only jaywalk (which will always occur) , but also amble cluelessly
across the street as if no hazards were present.
81 Train tracks could have better concrete transitions and crosswalks such as on harmony just
west of mason . this would hlep everyone , pedestrians , bikers and drivers . locations to cross
tracks when train is passing through town would be ideal . never forget bikes though ,
otherwise they may be encouraged to just drive .
82 Walking & biking are where its at
83 We live at vine and overland . . . . which is technically outside of city limits . . . but really needs
some pedestrian friendly areas . please help !
84 Very good . : )
85 What about bikes?
86 Wheelchair accessible bathrooms , handicapped accessible does not always mean
wheelchair accessible . some are very difficult to use .
87 When I ' m running and walking in my neighborhood the number one danger i face is
distracted drivers . too many drivers are talking on phones , not looking before turning , and
all around in a rush and its left me pretty close to being hit several times , and drivers just
wave to me or flip me off for the experience , I'd like to see stronger enforcement of the
rights of walkers and runners .
40
88 Would like to see electric/gas scooters legal for kids to get around on .
89 Would love to see focus on north fort collins area where low- income residents live. more
trails and safe , connected sidewalks .
90 Yorkshire and dixon creek (quail hollow)
91 You just asked if my neighborhood is good , yet you didn't ask where that neighborhood is
or why it is good or bad .
pedestrian travel needs emphasis to promote benefits of walking , and improving the
walking environment with both safety and astetics to entice walking . shelters , water, or way
faring signs to direct walkers to items of interest would be good . separation from motor
vehicle traffic would be very helpful !
18 . Where do you live? ( nearest cross streets )
Tim Varone of G/S is working on this graphic.
19 . How old are you ?
Under
15 1 1 %
15-29 26 15%
30-49 74 43%
50-69 65 38%
Over 70 6 3%
172 100%
How old are you ?
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Under 15 15-29 30-49 50-69 Over 70
21 .Where did you hear about this survey?
Epic 1
Misc-Lady wearing a pin 1
cando 2
Focus Group 2
Library 2
Twitter 2
Newspaper 3
Northside Aztlan Center 4
Senior Center 4
Bus 5
Elderhaus 7
non City meeting 7
Friend/Family/Col leg ue 11
41
Plan Fort Collins event on June 29-30 16
Facebook 20
E-mail 21
City website 32
Board/Commission 36
40 Where did you hear about this survey?
30
v
c
°a 20
N
N
O
�t 10
0
Q.o Q.c cao oJQ � mac e� , ac sec Jy o5 00' Je go � a. \e c
Gee `Gee 0 aa�a aeO °��eA eryA °ep°o �cc _S ��hO
40ao e<000 �a Py�ac loco �� GAF ���\G oc�o° Qa GNA \GoF
e6 .aaoa
0
o�
�G
�o
\ac
Q
42
Appendix C
Summary of Pedestrian Accident Data
Preliminary Pedestrian Accident Summary
Table 1 shows the number of pedestrian accidents in Fort Collins from 2000 - 2009 . As can be
seen, the number of pedestrian accidents has stayed fairly consistent.
TABLE 1 — PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENTS BY YEAR
2009 %A
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 vs . prev,
3 av
Non- Injury 6 1 6 6 7 8 9 6 4 6 0%
Accidents
Injury Accidents 20 ? 36 21 33 21 26 1 - 10%
Fatal Accidents 1 l i 1 2 0 0 0 0 ? n a
Total Accidents 27 29 42F34 45 29 42 ? 7 30 � ? IF
- 3 . 0%
Table 1
Table 2 shows the pedestrian accident rate ( in accidents per 1 ,000 population) in Fort Collins .
Taking into account the population increase that has occurred, there is a slight downward trend in
the number of pedestrian accidents . The average accident rate for the 10 year period from 2000
— 2009 is 0. 27 accidents/ 1 ,000 population.
TABLE 2 — PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENTS/ 1 ,000 POPULATION
2000 1001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2009 %A vs.
prev. 3 yr. avg.
Population
( In 118 . 6 112 . 5 124.4 125A 126.9 127 . 6 129 . 5 134. 1 116 . 4 137 . 2
Thousands)
.-accident 1121 0 . 26 0.34 0.27 0. 35 0.23 0.32 0 .20 0.22 0.23 -6 . 8%
Rate
Table 2
Table 3 shows the age of pedestrians involved in accidents in Fort Collins from 2007 - 2009 .
Note that there were six pedestrian accidents during this time period where the age of the
pedestrian was not reported . Also, there were three accidents where more than one pedestrian
was involved .
TABLE 3 — PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENTS
BY PEDESTRIAN AGE, 2007 — 2009
Age 2007 2008 2009 To % of
Accidents
0-4 0 0 1 1 1 . 1 %
5 -9 0 1 0 1 1 . 1 %
10- 14 4 2 3 9 9 . 8 %
15 - 19 5 6 6 17 18 . 5 %
20-24 4 8 9 21 22 . 8%
25 -34 2 9 6 17 18 . 5 %
35 -44 3 2 2 7 7 . 6%
45 - 54 1 0 0 1 1 . 1 %
55 -64 7 0 2 9 9 . 8 %
65 - 74 1 0 0 1 1 . 1 %
75 - 84 0 1 0 1 1 . 1 %
85 + 0 1 0 1 1 . 1 %
Unknown 1 1 4 6 6 . 5 %
Total 28 31 33 92 100%
Pedestrians
Table 3
The graph to the right shows the gender of Gender
the pedestrians involved in accidents from
2007 - 2009 60 — - - -- --- - — - - - ---
40
20
0
Male Female Unknown
■ Count 56 1 35 1 1
The charts to the right and below show pedestrian accidents by quarter and by time of day. As
shown, pedestrian accidents tend to be fairly random throughout the year although when added
together, the first quarter of the year appears to have the most accidents .
The time of day when accidents tend to occur is fairly consistent with variations in traffic volume
throughout the day with a noticeable spike in accidents during the a. m . , midday and p . m . peak .
The exception would be accidents in the evening and very early in the morning when traffic
volumes tend to be lower.
Collisions By Date - 2007 =2009
12
10
8
s
4 7
s
5
2
1 /2007 7/2007 1 /2008 7/2008 1 /2009 7/2009
4/2007 10/2007 4/2008 10/2008 412009 10/2009
Month Quarter Beginning
Collisions By Time For 2007-2009
10
T 8
l0
O
E 6
i-
0 4 8
c 7
6
0 5 ;
U 2 - 4
3 3
- A
1
0 L 'I
« ' M1 Y b Y b 9 \O � \M1 ♦ T )- a 9 b' \- b 9 O �
Hour Beginning
Pedestrian accidents can be further broken down into various types of accidents based on the
circumstances . Common types of pedestrian accidents are as follows :
Dart Out — Accidents where pedestrians enters the street in front of an approaching driver who is
to close to avoid the collision. An example of this type of accident is a child chasing a ball into
the street running out in front of a car.
Mid-block Crossing Accident- Accidents where a pedestrian crosses mid-block not in a
crosswalk, fails to yield to motorists and is struck by a vehicle. These accidents tend to happen
at night when pedestrians are less visible.
Pedestrian Crosses Against Signal — Accidents at signalized intersections resulting from a
pedestrian crossing against the signal indication.
Pedestrian in the roadway — Pedestrian walking, standing, playing or working in the road and is
struck by a motorist.
Car Fails to Yield at Signalized Intersection — Accidents at a signalized intersection where a
pedestrian legally crossing the street is hit by a motorist. These accidents typically involve a
turning driver whose attention is diverted and who does not see the pedestrian in time.
Car Fails to Yield at Unsignalized Intersection — Accidents where a pedestrian is legally in the
crosswalk and is hit by a driver who does not yield the right of way.
Backing Accidents — A car backing up strikes a pedestrian behind the car
Table 4 below shows the types of pedestrian accidents and the number of each type in Fort
Collins from 2007 - 2009 .
Table 4 - Pedestrian Accidents B Type and Age 2007- 2009
0-9 10- 19 20-74 75+
Years Years Years Years % of
Accident Type Old Old Old Old Unknown Total Accidents
Pedestrian
Dart-out 10 12 2 24 27 . 0 %
Mid-block Crossing 1 2 0 3 3 . 4%
Cross Against Signal 1 1 2 2 . 2%
In Roadway 0 3 3 3 . 4 %
Entering/Exiting Entering/Exiting Vehicle 2 2 2 . 2%
Total Pedestrian 0 12 20 0 2 34 38. 2%
Driver
Failure to Yield ROW at
Signalized Intersection 1 5 19 2 2 29 32 . 6%
Failure to Yield ROW at-Stop 1 6 14 21 23 . 6%
Backing 1 1 1 . 1 %
Other I 1 3 4 4 . 5%
Total Driver 2 12 37 1 21 2 55 61 . 8%
Grand Total 2 24 57 21 41 89 100 . 0%
Table 4
Appendix D
Bicycle and Pedestrian Demand Model
fp
FEHR & PEERS
TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS
Fort Collins Transportation Plan
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
To : Fort Collins Transportation Plan Project Team
Date : August 30 , 2010
From : Fehr & Peers
Subject : Bicycle and Pedestrian Demand Model DN10-0265
This memorandum describes the walking and bicycling demand forecasting approach and
results for the Fort Collins Transportation Plan . The purpose of the forecasting analysis is to
develop citywide " indices" of bicycling and walking demand . These forecasts can be used to
evaluate future bicycle and pedestrian improvements as part of the comprehensive plan update .
Approach Methodology
This analysis produced estimates of bicycling and pedestrian activity in Fort Collins , based
largely on research Fehr & Peers conducted for the US Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA)
on the relationship between the built environmental and travel patterns . Some adaptations were
made to the model to better reflect bicycling and walking conditions in Fort Collins ; the
adaptations are noted later in this memorandum . The methodology for developing bicycling and
walking indices is comprised of the following steps :
1 . Compile data that will be used to create the bicycle and pedestrian demand model
2 . Perform GIS analysis and processing
3 . Join attributes for each variable to the City' s GIS street centerline file and trails file
4 . Summarize walking and bicycling scores
Data Sources and GIS Analysis
Fort Collins provided a GIS geodatabase which was the foundation of the GIS analysis . Table 1
summarizes the data used to conduct the analysis . Fort Collins also has an extensive existing
trail network , which also contributes to bicycle and pedestrian mobility in the City. Therefore ,
trails were also included in the bicycle and pedestrian demand indices , using criteria similar to
those applied on street centerlines . Differences are noted in the table .
2180 South, 1300 East, Suite 220 Salt Lake City, Utah 84106 (801 ) 463-7600 Fax (801 ) 486-4638
www.fehrandpeers.com
Fort Collins Transportation Plan
August 30 , 2010
Table 1 : Data Sources
Factor Streets? Trails? Variable Used
Population Density Yes Yes Persons per acre
Employment Density Yes Yes Jobs per acre
Land Use Mix Yes Yes Index score based on mix of land
uses
Parks Yes Yes Proximity to parks
Schools Yes Yes Proximity to schools
Bus Stops Yes Yes Proximity to stops
Neighborhood Shopping Districts Yes Yes Containment within a shopping
center/district
Age Yes Yes Percent of population under 16 or
over 65
Vehicle Ownership Yes Yes Percent of population with zero
vehicles
Block Size Yes No Block length
Intersection Density Yes Yes Intersections per square mile
Bicycle Network Yes Yes Presence of bicycle facilities
Colleges Yes Yes Proximity to college campuses
Joining Attributes and Summarizing Scores
After GIS processing , the database was used to create the bicycle and pedestrian demand
model . Scores and ratings were assigned to each street centerline segment or trail segment
based on the factors identified in Table 1 , and the ratings for each factor were summarized for
each segment and weighted for importance to create the index . Indexed scores were then
normalized to establish a range of scores from 0 — 100 , representing the least to most walkable
and bikeable of Fort Collins streets and trails . Table 2 outlines the scores and ratings used for
the Fort Collins bicycle and pedestrian demand model .
Table 2 : Scores and Ratings
Variable Used Score Rating
Persons per acre 0 - 5 0
5 — 10 20
10 — 15 40
15 — 20 60
20 — 25 80
25+ 100
Jobs per acre 0 - 5 0
5 — 10 20
10 — 15 40
15 — 20 60
20 — 25 80
25+ 100
Land use mix 0 — 0 . 1 0
0 . 1 — 0 .2 25
f 2 of 4 DN10-0265
FEHR & PEERS
iaeasraffuaaa CsawLuars
Fort Collins Transportation Plan
August 30 , 2010
Land use mix continued 0 . 2 - 0 . 3 50
0 . 3 - 0 .4 75
0 .4 + 100
Proximity to parks (distance in feet) 0 - 330 100
330 - 660 75
660 - 1320 50
1320 - 2640 25
2640 + 0
Proximity to schools (distance in 0 - 330 100
feet) 330 - 660 75
660 - 1320 50
1320 - 2640 25
2640 + 0
Proximity to bus stops 0 - 330 100
330 - 660 60
660 - 1320 30
1320 + 0
Containment within a shopping In a district 100
center/district Not in a district 0
Percent of population under 16 or 0 - 30% 0
over 65 30 - 35% 25
35 - 40% 50
40 - 43% 75
43% + 100
Percent of population with zero 0 - 3% 0
vehicles 3 - 6% 20
6 - 9% 40
9 - 12% 60
12 - 15% 80
15% + 100
Block length (in feet) 0 - 300 100
300 - 400 75
400 - 500 50
500 - 900 25
900 + 0
Intersections per square mile 800 + 100
600 - 800 75
400 - 600 50
200 - 400 25
< 200 0
Presence of bicycle facilities Paths 100
Lanes 66
Routes 33
None 0
Proximity to college campuses 0 - 1 100
(distance in miles) 1 - 2 50
2 - 4 25
4 + 0
f 3 of 4 DN10-0265
FEHR. & PEERS
iaftlisraffuaex wwLuars
Fort Collins Transportation Plan
August 30 , 2010
Validation and Adaptation
Following the GIS analysis and summary of scores , the project team looked at draft indexing
results to determine whether they reflected local knowledge of conditions in Fort Collins . This
consisted of two steps : validation based on existing bicycle and pedestrian counts , and a
reasonableness check . Fort Collins staff members provided a database of bicycle and
pedestrian counts at intersections throughout the City , stored in the City's Synchro traffic
simulation network . The counts were disaggregated to represent AM and PM peak hours , and
converted to a GIS file to overlay onto the draft indices . As expected , the counts reflected higher
levels of bicycle and pedestrian activity in locations such as downtown and surrounding the
CSU campus , which matched higher indices scores in those areas . This indicated that the
model was working as intended .
Fort Collins staff members reviewed the draft results and provided comment on the indices ,
including concerns that the roads on the CSU were showing a lower index score than expected .
Review into the specific scores for the CSU campus revealed that the population and
employment data for the campus was incorrect; the data came from the local travel demand
model , which had zero population and employment for the campus . While it may technically be
true that there is no permanent residential population on the campus , the student housing
population is very relevant for this analysis . We conducted research using the CSU website to
determine how much student housing has been constructed at CSU , and used this to estimate
the number of people per acre living on campus . The CSU website also provided information on
the number of faculty and staff employed at the campus , which we used to adapt the model to
better reflect employment conditions on campus .
Bicycle and Pedestrian Index Scores
The following maps show the bicycle and pedestrian demand index for Fort Collins , using the
methodology outlined in this memorandum . Indexing scores range from 0 — 100 , with higher
scores representing better bikeability or walkability .
f 4 of 4 DN10-0265
FEHR & PEERS
iaftlisraffuaex wwLuars
Appendix E
Field Visit Checklist
Crosswalk Treatment Identification Tool User's Guide
APPENDIX E . FIELD VISIT CHECKLIST
Major Road : X Minor Road or Location :
Date of Review :
Reviewer :
Peak Hour Observed :
CRITICAL ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS
Site Distance Issues (circle driver or pedestrian as applicable ) :
1 . Parked cars (driver/ ped )
2 . Moving traffic obscures vision during crossing (driver/ ped )
3 . Roadway curvature (driver/ ped )
4 . Terrain (driver/ ped )
5 . Vegetation (driver/ ped )
6 . Significant sun glare (driver/ ped )
7 . Insufficient building setback ( driver/ ped )
8 . Moveable roadside items , e . g . , street furniture (driver/ ped )
9 . Fixed roadside items , e . g . , signal control boxes , signs (driver/ ped )
10 . Inadequate roadway lighting (driver/ ped )
11 . Poor signal visibility (driver/ ped )
Sight distance is generally acceptable if the pedestrian can easily be seen from a
distance of 10x the speed limit or 250 feet.
If any of the above issues are circled for the driver or pedestrian, can these issues be
mitigated ? If no, direct pedestrians to the nearest marked crosswalk (stop field view
here) or consider installing a pedestrian signal or grade separation (continue below to
collect data for warrant analysis) . If ves, make note of mitigation options and continue
below.
ii4W fYU¢ i6.i WIC 1V11'AII APIi
Crosswalk Treatment Identification Tool User's Guide
Mitigation options :
GENERAL PEDESTRIAN CHARACTERISTICS
1 . Is the crossing along a direct route to a major pedestrian attractor/ generator?
Circle : yes/no
2 . Peak Hour Pedestrian Volume (total crossing major road ) :
pedestrians/hour
3 . Pedestrian Crossing Distance , curb to curb : feet
4 . Distance to nearest marked crosswalk : feet . Is the crossing
signalized ? Circle : yes/ no
5 . Pedestrian Walking Speed (average ) : ft/sec
6 . Pedestrian Start- up and End Clearance Time : sec
7 . Existing Pedestrian Signal Timing ( crossing major road ) : sec
8 . Existing Pedestrian Signal Provisions ( count down/ push button/ scramble/ other/
none — circle all that apply )
9 . Other Existing Pedestrian Accommodations (e . g . , signage , crosswalk striping ) —
list here and include on diagram :
a .
b .
GENERAL VEHICLE/ ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS
1 . Major Road Traffic Speed ( posted/ statutory/ 85t" Percentile — circle one ) :
MPH
2 . Major Road Traffic Volume (total of both approaches during peak hour) :
vehicles/ hour
f
1 ¢)p KL1I416.IWIC tu"Wt IAPIi
Crosswalk Treatment Identification Tool User's Guide
moo
3 . Number of Lanes on Major Road : and on Minor Road :
4 . Typical Motorist Compliance at Pedestrian Crossings in Region : low/ medium/
high ( circle one )
BEHAVIORAL INDICATORS
Check all that apply :
1 . Inadequate ped search ( peds enter roadway without searching ) :
2 . Inadequate driver search (drivers proceed without searching ) :
3 . Aborted crossing ( return to curb after both feet in roadway ) :
4 . Crossing against light (entry and exit from roadway against signal ) :
5 . Small gaps (accepting gaps which require rapid crossings ) .
6 . Leaving crosswalk ( crossing starts or ends outside of an available crosswalk) :
7 . Crossing in front of a bus :
8 . Vehicle overtaking ( ped crosses in front of stopped traffic — Multiple Threat)
9 . Running (entry or crossing while running or moving fast ) :
10 . Short time exposure (e . g . , appearance from behind parked car) :
11 . Retreat ( momentary reversal in pedestrian direction of travel ) :
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Community Characteristics :
1 . Population : people
2 . Distance to major transit hub : feet or miles ( circle one )
f
1 � i , r; & 3
iuAl ruiun.iwn u11YulFn .
Crosswalk Treatment Identification Tool User's Guide
moo
3 . Average age in Census Block : years versus City-wide average
of: years
Potential Risk Factors :
1 . Have pedestrian collisions occurred at this location in the past 5 years ? Circle :
yes/ no
a . Number of injuries : people
b . Number of fatalities : people
2 . Potential or Observed Conflicts (circle observed or potential as applicable ) :
a . Pedestrian walks too close to a vehicle — NEAR SIDE OF CROSSING
( observed / potential )
b . Pedestrian walks too close to a vehicle — FAR SIDE (observed / potential )
c . RIGHT TURN vehicle (on green ) too close to pedestrian (observed/
potential )
d . LEFT TURN vehicle too close to pedestrian (observed / potential )
e . RIGHT TURN ON RED vehicle too close to pedestrian (observed/
potential )
3 . Other Risk Factors ( check all that apply) :
a . Poor crossing surface :
b . Faded roadway striping (e . g . crosswalk striping ) :
c . High crime area/ personal safety concerns :
d . Bars or package stores near study location :
e . School near study location :
f. Senior facility near study location :
Observations or suggestions for appropriate education or enforcement measures based
on this field view :
f
1 I 1 1 1; & 4
iuAl ruiun.iwn u11YulFn .
Crosswalk Treatment Identification Tool User's Guide
INTERSECTION DIAGRAM
(ATTACH PHOTOGRAPHS TO CHECKLIST )
N
Adapted from Pedestrian Safety Zone Guide , NHTSA ,
http ://www. nhtsa . dot. pov/people/iniury/pedbimotloed/ZoneGuide Web/pages/usingZones
. htm
f
FFIIR & PFrIZs 5
11 nr Maiwi WN tw LInnis
Appendix F
Pedestrian Project Map
Fort Collins Pedestrian Projects Plan ,,, FortCollins
Cobb
Douglas Lake
<, 1
ow me,
GR-54G CR H
Long
Pond
Geuritry CI-ub
SEEN
Willox ` ndenmel@ � Mountain Vista :
Lake
DEREER
MEEMENE
7
�J -O • J
� �, � 0
..
o f
40
gyp.' Vine r
M NEWER
too Ilk � Mulberry----
+♦ ^• 04
1AL
�.006 Prespect�
F
- Drake ;OME•{••• 09
� Timnath
Reservoir
Ir Merset.-6
•
N� `•i
E
� �.. Harmony
1 �
IMME
..r• .ter
.•NEN
•.� ��.. Tirilby ••1
1 1 Ire
` r .• E Fossil Creek1
L••J MEN Rene ioir
• ••`.• f_•�^••lf
�:•1 r.�.. .. . Carp`enter ' SH 392
�
• ••
1
GR 38I
Pedestrian Projects CSU
Grade - Separated Crossings @W Growth Management Area
Sidewalks �• r• •1 0 0 . 5 1 2Miles
9 IF City Limits i f
These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members
of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours,
property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR
FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map
products, map applications, or data, accepts them AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City
harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent
verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall Drafted . January 10, 2011
not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these y
map products or the use thereof by any person or entity.
Appendix G
Priority Project List
2010= 11 Pedestrian Plan - Priority Project List
Project Description
Priority Facility 2011 Cost
Rank On Street From To Type Description Estimate Comments
1 Lincoln Ave Riverside Ave Lemay Ave Sidewalk Discontinuous/Non Existent $500 , 000
Some sidewalks/dirt paths ; No
2 Linden St Jefferson St Poudre River Trail Sidewalk discontinuous sidewalk 60 - 80K crosswalks @ int.
3 College Ave Hickory St Willox St Sidewalk Discontinuous/Non Existent 2 . 1 M ($930 , 000 ROW)
Immediate need/Ex.
Deficiency ( Implemented by
High Priority Ped Crossing - Traffic Operations ) Heavy use
4 Citywide Ped X-ing Installations/Enhancements $250 , 000 areas
Non-Existent except near
5 Willow St Lincoln Ave College Ave Sidewalk Discontinuous/Non Existent $2 , 5507000 US287 & Jeff Intersect.
6 College Ave Conifer St Hickory St Sidewalk Discontinuous/Non Existent 50 - 100K Asphalt Walk ( Motel ROW)
7 Prospect Rd Shields St College Ave Sidewalk Narrow/missing sidewalk $420K - 500K (+ $380 , 000 for ROW)
Mason Grade Separated trail
Trail/Troutman Crossing (GSC) of BNSF
8 Pkwy GSC and Troutman Pkwy. $7003000
9 Vine Drive Linden St Lemay Ave Sidewalk Non- Existent $500 , 000
10 Linden St Poudre River Trail Linden Center Dr Sidewalk Needs Sidewalks both sides $60K - 80K
11 College Ave Foothills Parkway Monroe Dr Sidewalk Discontinuous sidewalk $ 1505000
Grade separated trail
MasonTrail/NRR crossing of BNSF and Whole
12 C GSC Foods $700 , 000
Annual Ped Plan/ADA
ADA Ramp Ramps & Crossing Updated in 2012 Needs
13 Fort Collins (citywide ) Improvements Improvements $200 , 000 Assessment
14 Laporte Ave Shields St Bryan Ave Sidewalk Non- Existent/Narrow 1 . 5M - 1 . 9M
Being completed as part of
15 College Ave Vine Drive Conifer St Sidewalk discontinuous sidewalk NA Phase II Roadway Project
16 IVine Drive Linden St College Ave Sidewalk Non- Existent $2503000
G_Priority Project List ( 1 - 18- 11 ) . xls Page 1 of 6
Project Description
Priority Facility 2011 Cost
Rank On Street From To Type Description Estimate Comments
Needs sidewalk on west side
of Lemay Ave , and X-ing at Lemay and Magnolia
connection to Transit Leads to Grass - No Access
17 Lemay Ave Lincoln Ave Mulberry St Sidewalk Stop . across from Walmart. $90K - 100K to Bus Stop
needs sidewalk,
discontinuous sidewalks ,
Peds Must Walk in
18 Myrtle St Loomis Street Washington Ave Sidewalk Street/Lawns $40K - 60K
Widen & Improve Sidewalk,
19 Shields St Laurel Ave Mulberry St Sidewalk Narrow attached sidewalks $ 140K - 160K (+$ 187 , 000 for ROW)
Transit stop improvements
including ramp , pads ,
shelters , and sidewalk Transit Stop
access covered by Transit Improvements/ Installation
Transit Stop Capital Improvement Implemented and funded by
20 Citywide Improvements Program NA Transfort CIP
21 College Ave Willox St SH1 Terry Lake Rd Sidewalk Non- Existent 900K - 1 . 3M
narrow sidewalks near
intersection of Prospect and
Prospect Rd & Whitcomb . Whitcomb is a
22 Whitcomb St Sidewalk main route to CSU $50K - 60K (+ 56 , 000 for ROW)
Implemented by Traffic
Intersection Provide and Improve Operations as part of
Pushbutton Intersection Signal Advanced Traffic
23 Citywide Access Pushbutton Accessibility $400 , 000 Management System (ATMS )
24 College Ave Carpenter Rd Trilby Rd Sidewalk Non- Existent $350K - 400K (+2 . 5M - 3M for ROW)
Alta Vista Needs sidewalk connections
25 Neighborhood Vine Drive Lemay Ave Sidewalk to transit stops 1 . 21M
26 Lemay Ave Lincoln Ave Vine Drive Sidewalk Discontinuous sidewalk $ 170K- 190K (+340 , 000 for ROW)
Needs Sidewalk, 1 Side
27 Cherry St Howes St College Ave Sidewalk Continuous $45K-55K
Needs Sidewalk and widen
28 Lake Street Shields Ave CSU Ped/Bike Path I Sidewalk sidewalk 1 $40 - 50K 1 (+30 , 000 for ROW)
G_Priority Project List ( 1 - 18- 11 ) . xls Page 2 of 6
Project Description
Priority Facility 2011 Cost
Rank On Street From To Type Description Estimate Comments
discontinuous sidewalks and
29 Mulberry St Peterson St Riverside Ave Sidewalk missing intersection ramps 220K - 250K
Needs Sidewalk ,
30 Prospect Road Stover Street Lemay Ave Sidewalks Discontinuous $215-220K (+335 , 000 for ROW)
31 Horsetooth Rd Taft Hill Rd Shields Rd Sidewalk Discontinuous sidewalks $ 177K- 190K (+411 , 000 for ROW)
Needs Sidewalk, missing Future Power Trail Access at
32 Harmony Rd Timberline Rd McMurry Ave Sidewalk sidewalk on north side $30K - 40K UPRR
33 College Ave Trilby Rd Skyway Dr Sidewalk Non- Existent 500 - 600K
Needs Sidewalk,
34 JFK Parkway Bockman Dr Horsetooth Rd Sidewalk Discontinuous $40 - 50K (+ 108 , 000 for ROW)
Install sidewalk along East
Frontage Rd along S .
College Ave College , between Harvard/1
35 Frontage Road Drake Ave Harvard St. Sidewalks block north . $25K - 30K
36 Laporte Ave Sunset St Taft Hill Rd Sidewalk Non- Existent $250K-270K (+398 , 000 for ROW)
37 1st St Buckingham St Lincoln Ave Sidewalk discontinuous sidewalk $60K - 70K (+ 1001000 for ROW)
38 JFK Parkway Boardwalk Dr Bockman Dr Sidewalk discontinuous sidewalk $ 17K - 20K (+30 , 000 for ROW)
missing sidewalks , and
increase width of attached
39 Mulberry Street Shields St. City Park Sidewalks walks $45K - 55K (+ 24 , 000 for ROW)
40 Buckingham St Linden St Lemay Ave Sidewalk Discontinuous/Non- Existent $ 110K - 130K (+ $ 100 , 000 for ROW)
Long-Term Priority Ped Future Need ( Implemented by
Crossing - Traffic Operations )
41 Citywide Ped X-ing Installations/Enhancements TBD Moderate use areas
Connection needed between
sidewalks in back of Walmart
and Buffalo Run Apartments
to the North . Currently
Lemay barricaded and prohibits
42 Ave/Lincoln Ave Sidewalks travel . $ 12K - 15K
43 Lemay Ave Vine Drive Willox St Sidewalk Non- Existent 320K - 350K
44 Mulberry St Lemay Ave 1 -25 Sidewalk discontinuous sidewalk 1 M - 1 . 5M
45 Laporte Ave Taft Hill Rd Bryan Ave Sidewalk Narrow to Non- Existent $ 120K - 150K (+$76 , 500 for ROW)
G_Priority Project List ( 1 - 18- 11 ) . xls Page 3 of 6
Project Description
Priority Facility 2011 Cost
Rank On Street From To Type Description Estimate Comments
no pedestrian facilities
Fossil Creek between transit stop and
46 College Ave Skyway Dr Parkway Sidewalk Foothills Gateway Center $ 180K - 200K (+ $477 , 000 for ROW)
Widen & Grade Sidewalk , Les her Jr FrS rom 7oege +
47 Prospect Rd Stover St College Ave Sidewalk Narrow Sidewalk $200K-220K 300 , 000 for ROW)
48 College Ave Harmony Rd Fossil Creek Pkwy Sidewalk discontinuous sidewalk $500 , 000
East side only (+$220 , 000 for
49 Timberline Rd Kechter Rd Zephyr Rd Sidewalk Non- Existent $85K - 95K ROW)
50 Riverside Ave EPIC Center Erin Ct Sidewalk discontinuous sidewalk $ 18K - 20K No Sidewalk on E . Side
51 Vine Drive Lemay Ave Timberline Rd Sidewalk Non- Existent $500 , 000
52 Skyway Drive Gateway Center Dr College Ave Sidewalk Non- Existent $35K - 45K
53 Rutgers Ave Mathews St College Ave Sidewalk narrow attached sidewalks $36K - 40K (+ $50 , 000 for ROW)
54 Taft Hill Rd Mulberry St Laporte Ave Sidewalk discontinuous sidewalk $980K- 1 . 2M (+ $860 , 000 for ROW)
Needs Sidewalks on both
55 Lemay Ave Buckingham St Vine Drive Sidewalk sides of Lemay Ave $90K- 100K (+ $ 150 , 000 for ROW)
56 Shields St Vine Drive Poudre River Trail Sidewalk Non- Existent 200K - 220K (+367 , 000 for ROW)
Multi -use path adjacent to
and on west side of Overland
57 Overland Trail Spring Creek Trail Poudre River Trail Multi-use Path Tr. $ 1 . 5M - 2M (+ Additional ROW needed )
58 Riverside Ave Rivendal Dr. Mulberry St Sidewalk Discontinuous sidewalk $ 180K-200K (+ $ 165 , 000 for ROW)
59 Vine Drive Elgin Ct Waterglen Dr Sidewalk Non- Existent $30K - 40K
Big Bend No Continuous Sidewalk on
60 Horsetooth Rd Seneca St Dr/CrescentDr Sidewalk street $60K - 80K (+ $ 180 , 000 for ROW)
Needs path connection to
link trail to park along
61 Hickory St Soft Gold Park Hickory Spur Trail Sidewalk Hickory St. $55K - 65K No ROW
62 Trilby Rd College Ave Timberline Rd Sidewalk Discontinuous sidewalks $ 1M
63 Lemay Ave Linden Lake Rd Country Club Rd Sidewalk Non- Existent $ 150K - 170K (+ $340 , 000 for ROW)
Needs Sidewalk, Needs
pedestrian connection on
64 Mulberry St Riverside Ave Lemay Ave Sidewalk North Side of Mulberry $280K-300K No ROW
Widen Sidewalk, Narrow
65 Lemay Ave Stuart St Comanche Dr Sidewalk Sidewalk $30K - 50K No ROW
66 Horsetooth Rd Landings Dr Stover St Sidewalk Idiscontinuous sidewalk $35K - 40K No ROW
67 Vine Drive Taft Hill Rd Lyons St Sidewalk I Non- Existent $300 , 000
G_Priority Project List ( 1 - 18- 11 ) . xls Page 4 of 6
Project Description
Priority Facility 2011 Cost
Rank On Street From To Type Description Estimate Comments
Tavelli Missing sidewalks
68 Elementary Path Belmont Dr Treemont Dr Sidewalk connecting to school $20K - 30K No ROW
Needs Sidewalk,
Discontinuous/Limited
69 Lemay Ave Kirkwood Dr Rosewood Ln Sidewalk Markings $ 160K- 180K (+ $220 , 000 for ROW)
need pedestrian facilities
under RR bridge to access
Trilby Rd & park, Non- Existent/No
70 UPRR bridge Sidewalk Shoulder $2 . 5M -3M Replace RR Bridge
71 Laurel St Stover St Endicott St Sidewalk discontinuous $60K - 65K No ROW
discontinuous Missing sidewalk segment, No
72 Manhattan Ave Horsetooth Rd Troutman Pkwy Sidewalk sidewalk/narrow sidewalk $50K - 70K ROW
missing and discontinuous
73 Riverside Ave Mulberry St Mountain Ave Sidewalk sidewalks $80K- 11 OK No ROW
Harmony & Taft
74 Hill Rd Sidewalk Missing sidewalk $45K - 60K No ROW
Grade separated trail
crossing and connection
from Community park to Implemented by Park
Mountain Vista Community Commercial Planning as part of Parks and
75 Drive Timberline Rd Moutain Vista Dr. GSC District NA Recreation Master Plan - CIP
Grade Separated trial
crossing at Power
Trail/Caribou and Connection Implemented by Park
UPRR/Caribou to Timberline Road on east Planning as part of Parks and
76 Dr. GSC side . NA Recreation Master Plan - CIP
Grade separated power trail Implemented by Park
Keenland crossing of UPRR and Planning as part of Parks and
77 Dr./UPRR GSC keenland Dr. NA Recreation Master Plan - CIP
Grade separated power trail Implemented by Park
Horsetooth crossing of UPRR and Planning as part of Parks and
78 Rd ./UPRR GSC Horsetooth Rd . NA Recreation Master Plan - CIP
G_Priority Project List ( 1 - 18- 11 ) . xls Page 5 of 6
Project Description
Priority Facility 2011 Cost
Rank On Street From To Type Description Estimate Comments
Grade separated power trail Implemented by Park
Harmony crossing of UPRR and Planning as part of Parks and
79 Rd ./UPRR GSC Harmony Rd . NA Recreation Master Plan - CIP
Grade separated power trail Implemented by Park
Drake crossing of UPRR and Drake Planning as part of Parks and
80 Rd ./UPRR GSC Rd . NA Recreation Master Plan - CIP
Grade separated Spring Implemented by Park
Creek trail crossing of CORD Planning as part of Parks and
81 CO RD 38E GSC 38E NA Recreation Master Plan - CIP
Grade separated trail Implemented by Park
Fairway Seven crossing and connection to Planning as part of Parks and
82 Ct. Timberline Rd Power Trail/UPRR GSC Timberline Rd . NA Recreation Master Plan - CIP
G_Priority Project List ( 1 - 18- 11 ) . xls Page 6 of 6
ATTACHMENT 5
ENLARGED 11 Y2 X•17 MAPS FOR MASTER STREET PLAN APPENDIX E
A. MAP 1-CITY STRUCTURE PLAN
B. MAP 2- EXISTING MASTER STREET PLAN
C. MAP 3-MASTER STREET PLAN DRAFT
D. MAP 4-MASTER STREET PLAN OVERLAY MASTER
i
Fort Collins City Structure Plan
Plan Fort Collins
�•�
Wellin ton
CR158
I
87 Ira r m
F1 rt Coll Its -
I telling au.. CR-56
epar for
x
Cobb
La orte
Douglas Lane
_
Ovule
�.
all
Lake � •�
C-R-54G - CRt52
mry
intro
ountry-Club
t ono c
\Vvillo mdenmeier MOUntaln-Vista M c
,• Cake , U O
!�p U, I Iral,
all
CSU all K1 I�• ti..
Foothills F ^Vine _
Campus 10 `.1 y an ` ` ',� •�
GMA f .yam
Expansion 'S.
"�•'�"�
Area n 1 ..as _
as
• r SH 14
f Mulb�y
State \ Immam
�l
Park t
. . ��•1 I all
-Prospect"
3 CSU = a m
tado LO
' U lob
Drake ` .ti ��•
Through
:'f'•. Resermir
Horsetooth
Mountain r Horsetooth
Park
m
_ i m
N y . _ i nath
RCC CO
M
UQ
s h Tr sI y
c Me -13
�
1 \
Fort ollins - 9-
.. '�' Wi dsor -P,
Se arator 2
lid f •r• Trilby- am babal •_
1_.i �_•! _ Pea
1 Carp_enter SH 392
1 i.. _
Fort Collin -
....... 87 Loveland
Separator W i nd so
L E: j
CRt38
Lov land
Boundaries Districts Neighborhoods Edges Corridors
Fort Collins GMA Downtown District Urban Estate Community Separator Open Lands, Parks and Water Corridors
Potential GMA Expansion Community Commercial District Low Density Mixed-Use Foothills Poudre River Corridor
Other City GMA General Commercial District Medium Density Mixed-Use Rural Lands mmm r Enhanced Travel Corridor (Transit)
Liat
ma Planning Area Neighborhood Commercial District
Adjacent Planning Areas Campus District
1'r'1
;E%j•• City Limits Employment District
Industrial District I"I__IZr1Mlhss
a oz oa os 12 16
N
These map products add all underlying data are developed for use by the City of FOR Collins for its Internal purposes only, and were rot designed or Intended for general use by members
W E of the public The Clly makes no representation axa my a W Rs anvracy, timeliness, or mmpkteness, and In paNcuNr, Rs av mcy In labeling ordlsplaying dimensions, contours,
properly Warrants, or plaBment of loon many maprtnturesthereoa THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MANES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR
FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA Any users of these map
5 products, nap apoicafions, or data, accepts same AS IS, WRH ALL FAULTS, and assumes al responsibility OftW use thereof, and NMer covenants and agrees to Wq the City harmless
!ram and against all damage, loss, or liability ansing horn any use of thin map product, In consideration of the Gty s having made NIs Information available. Independent venfirafion W all data
Proposed: 1111 8/2 01 0 contained herein should be obtained by am users Ofthese products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be Wld liable for any aW all damage, loss, or lability, whether tired,
Indirect, or cons g uendal,Mich arises or may arse from those map produc6 orthe use thereof by any person or ent"
City of Fort Collins Master Street Plan
` W DOUGLAS RD E DOUGLAS RD =DOUGLAS RD
' <�1 OgSFORD S'fl I of
— al
0 I pl d
z G i h a of
A R G $1
O_UN——RO_AD'54_G _ GUIGH ? FDyR . z
_ E 52
J F CO 0
OUNTRV CLUB RD A'� am a
2� v 9
W o
b
z
Clay ore ake z ` 10 ._� z
MICHA D L O r '
WILLOX�LN O MOUN AIN I T D
meie ke
a m l >
J
x Cw RrOKO
e ke RYST CONIFERST `�.irlP7 ( e) Ca
I a r -
� '4 Q --v i Q��� A I r .,1, Ta z
L �i v j �i ?, E VINE DR v Il P �, U
\t WV' EDR � I - O - — EGODN ROAD48z
L
O Ca 111 r' n J CHERRY Yyj ABUCKINGNAMS 4pr LF�__—_ I '6- l r_ r A_
1
v Oh, yid �` _ _ r
��l�� -- �LAPOR'E AVE F W9CN< 3p, ` �.� INTER TIONALB VD
G z O
4 g I W MOUNTAIN AVE i-No OF
wy ? I T
\1 O WMULBERRY ST r iy w m Y? EML'BERRY
SIC ge ake ;I " o ac ve J
C W LAUREL ST O� I_
z RZ G� W
t W.ELIZABETH ST v I9 - FRy.YF �'. $� Q
D [; X
rc 3 -r �T E PITKIN ST EPITKIN ST F OO v Fh `LLL
? —
W LAKE ST ra ` W LAKE ST
( O �i W PROSPECT RD W PROSPECT RD E PROSPECT RD
' Z .O— W S A. MIDq r
`CL 1 w .NpRT-ST E STUART ST W OO o Oiy, ' 1
a ppT BT WS 3 O w OR EI\ a
O h W5\J P 3 ?
COLUMBIA RD O 1
O Jam. ROp 42C, ° �S > y0. M oI¢ m 1
= O o W DRANE RD a E DRAKE RD Park O keal
;1
to t O W GLISTER OR L �I
m Ir x -O < > DI
p ' Q WSWALLOW RD 'A N�\Q Lake he 00 O.N'T RIGDEN PKWu1' v wl
Z PAW HORBETOOTH RD �N F E HORSE
TOOTH RD K 1
Z I r WABgS w 0 w z 1
�._ _1 i NST w
g r arren La w
CT 1
P 1
3SE --IF y WTROUTMAN PI(Wy Y H CJ
_ n � T
?.\N RO
r e w
w 1
N WHARMONY RD GED p EHARMONY, D EC NTY ROA 38
R
/ r pOA'V0 up C� y
z aY -
ROCKCREEKDR r m
FOSSf W9yR0 KEEN<AND DR y O O
UNTY ROAD 36 KOECHTER RD I 1
O _
Port eeS Olr L-- ZEPHYR ROLAO' 4 -
1 aN
- p .Q t_yI'
TRILBY RD • rf E TRI IBY RD E'-TRILBY RO I o
A
LL TRU%UN OR p
` � oir 3 4:
. r 1 Creek peWv W F
4 ob n La re Foss' w H01
I
k \. ' �: 1
Mill M�ik
OI
I-----J 1 1 jn 1 O
1 Its 1 1° 1
Note: Other collector and local streets not shown will be developed
in accordance with adopted sub-area, corridor, and neighborhood plans of the city. Legend
Streets and Arterials outside of GMA are shown for contextual purposes only — Collector 2 Lanes _— Collector 2 Lanes - Outside GMA
and are not part of the Master Street Plan. — Arterial 2 Lanes — Arterial 2 Lanes - Outside GMA
Arterial 4 Lanes Arterial 4 Lanes - Outside GMA
The City of Fort Collins is not fiscally responsible for these improvements. �Ma'or Arterial 6 Lanes EN ' Major Arterial 6 Lanes - Outside GMA
Interstate City Limits
Railroad Lines ®Streets Potential Grade Separated Rail Crossing
OGrowth Management Area QO Potential Interchange
These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for it internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members N
of the public The City makes no representation or warranty as to it accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in articular, it accuracy in labelin or displayingdimensions, contours, City OI
P ty P ty Y P P Y 9 r_ ry Collins
property bountlanes, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR w, E /��rVl`,�' 1` (V 1`I`
FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map
product, map applications, or data, accepts same AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless Ci 19
from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising mom any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's hating made this information available. Independent verification of all data s
contained herein should be obtained by any users of these product, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liabilM, whether direct, Miles Adopted : 02/ 18/1997
indirect, or consequential, which apses or may arise mom these map product or the use thereof by any person or entity. 0 0.25 0.5 1 1 .5 2 Amended : 09/ 15/2009
City of Fort Collins Master Street Plan
` riNNODOUGLASOnsim
287
k1%
��` 4 __ 1
\ ;
� 1 1
14
1 1 j 1 � 1
14%N4%* 1 J 1
WILLOX NonniTAINIVISTA
1
F N
J
VINE NE �L ' VINE
NONNI
LAP.ORTE
1 LINCOLN \
1 1
\\ ON
1 MULBERRY
•�• f
o `
a o�
w 287 r \.
tt
w = l p m ' Q -1
PROSPECT 'J
i
J
e � I
I
J e$ I
i DRAKE D' .
I ;
J_
= Z
Q W 1
2HO]SETOOTH
—I w
N
r-
__ HARMONY
CpGNry l �,--1
C 1 1
1
-r
J J 1
TRILBY / _'J J0 1
1 J w W
O J z 1
1 r— C) af 1
1 i 1UJ
CA392
R PE Sol.
1LON
Note: Other collector and local streets not shown will be developed — Collector 2 Lanes ——— Collector 2 Lanes - Outside GMA
in accordance with adopted sub-area, corridor, and neighborhood plans of the city. — Arterial 2 Lanes --- Arterial 2 Lanes - Outside GMA
Streets and Arterials outside of GMA are shown for contextual purposes only Arterial 4 Lanes m m No Arterial 4 Lanes - Outside GMA
and are not part of the Master Street Plan. Major Arterial 6 Lanes ... Major Arterial 6 Lanes - Outside GMA
The City of Fort Collins is not fiscally responsible for these improvements. ® Potential Grade Separated Rail Crossing Interstate
Streets
DRAFT O Potential Interchange t Railroad Lines
City Limits Unincorporated Land in GMA
_ Outside Growth Management Area
These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for it internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members N Cit� �/1oe
of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, it accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, FOI^ ` Collins
I„IS
properly boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR yp E
FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users ofthese map GIS
products, map applications, or data, accepts same AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless Adopted : March 17, 1981
from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from an use of this ma product, in consideration of the C s having made this information available. Independent verification of all data s
9 9 ty 9 Y P P M' 9 P
contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The CM disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, MIIes Amended : December 31 , 2009
indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity_ 0 0.25 0.5 1 1 .5 2 Printed : January 111 2011
Master Street Plan - Overlay Map
` MMMM, _. DOUGLAs. _ r______
287
1
AUNTMIROAD`54Ghm
1a^�_.0
1 14
1 1 1
' 1
WILLOX '
_I MOUNTAIN IS
_ 1
J
VINE , VINE i , `L' -- VINE NO 1
-
L
" I
���_ i LAP.ORTE INCOLN
1 , %
\ 1 MULBERRY
l 1
o ,
a o top
II 'o w � !
`:1 V
1
- -, PROSPECT
so J 1
I � 1
r ei
DRAKE DRAKE. �•\ 1
H J 1
S \.� LL w 1
g � 1
\ HORSETOOTH ~ ;
�wt 7 � d 1
1 \
/ 1
HARMONY ram__
' Ly
a
ryR° Ir-- I
em1
ey "C 1
_r "— --- 1
_� — yTRILBY Mai 1 J
\ I J w w
r J zi ^ 1
1 J 1
1 1 i UJ
392
M CARPENTER
1 1 1
r
1
Collector 2 Lanes ——— Collector 2 Lanes - Outside GMA
Arterial 2 Lanes ___ Arterial 2 Lanes - Outside GMA
Arterial 4 Lanes ___ Arterial 4 Lanes - Outside GMA
is MajorArterial 6 Lanes MajorArterial 6 Lanes - Outside GMA
® Potential Grade Separated Rail Crossing Interstate
+ Railroad Lines
DRAFT O Potential Interchange Unincorporated Land in GMA
—__i City Limits Outside Growth Management Area
_ Context Sensitive Corridors /-
These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for it internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members N City of
of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, it accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, Fort Collins
I„
s
property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR yp E
FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users ofthese map GI$
product, map applications, or data, accepts same AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless Adopted : March 17, 1981
from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from an use of this ma product, in consideration of the C s having made this information available. Independent verification of all data s
9 9 ty 9 Y P P M' 9 P
contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The CM disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, Mlles Amended : December 31 , 2009
indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity_ 0 0.25 0.5 1 1 .5 2 Printed : January 111 2011
ATTACHMENT 6
Pl
in novate,sustain,connect
City Council Work Session
January 26, 2011
113 0 2 a 0
Plan Fort Collins — Phase 3
1
Plan ,,, Fort Collins
OMPlan Fort Collins Process
Plan Fort Collins
Public Input Opportunities
e
t
0 afte
PHASE 1
> N 1 "
PHASE J, • • FALL WINTER
ADOPTION & t J
- r 1 IMPLEMENTATION
a
CAPTUREDIN: ICAPTURLD L'P. CAPTUREDIN: CAIRTMED IN:
Phase 1 Key Choices Draft Plan City Plan, Trans.
SummaryModel and Packet Master Plan ,
Policies and Codes
Reports
of
Fit Collins
2 qD
Plan
General Direction Sought
• Draft City Plan — review three theme areas
— Economic Health
— Community and Neighborhood Livability
— Transportation
• Draft City Plan — Appendix B — Finance Philosophy
and Funding Capital Improvements
• Draft Transportation Master Plan and Pedestrian
Plan
a rt_<<
3
Plan ,, Fort Collins
Economic Health
a [a P"A Mix
at
r
Pt
Economic Health Overview
• Vision : "A Healthy and Resilient Economy".
• Designed to integrate and support City Council's
"Economic Health" BFO category
5
a rt_<<
Plan ,, Fort Collins
New Ideas and Directions
• Previous version of City Plan addressed "Economy" ;
Draft City Plan carries forward and updates these
goals and policies
• The number of principles and policies have increased ;
most finding their origin in the Economic Action Plan
(2005)
City
6
' trinS
in novate,sustain,connect
• Principles and policies for a variety of topics :
➢ Economy
• Business retention, expansion, incubation
and recruitment
• Targeted industries
• • Economic partnerships
• Support for local businesses
• Redevelopment
➢ Fiscal Stability
• Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO)
CItYof
Fort Collins
_ Plan ,,, Fort Collins
Community and Neighborhood
Livability
® H MilkPOW
Cityof
Fort Collins
f�
Plan ,,, Fort Collins
Community and Neighborhood
Livability Overview
• Vision : "A High Quality Built
Environment"
• Designed to integrate and support
City Council' s "Neighborhood
Livability" BFO category
9
art_<<
Plan ,, Fort Collins
New Ideas and Directions
• A new Chapter of City Plan
• Builds upon previous editions of City Plan
• Most extensive list of principles and policies
• Continues shifts focus toward redevelopment and
infill redevelopment
at
10
tr'�
Plan
in novate,sustain,connect
Principles and Policies for a Variety of Topics
• Growth Management
• Housing
• Community Appearance and Design
• Historic Preservation
• Noise
• City Structure :
— Neighborhoods
Districts
Edges
— Corridors
11
a rt_<<
Plan ,, Fort Collins
Transportation
® QM
131289208
12
�tfins
Pl
imam in novate,sustain,connect
Transportation Master Plan
• Purpose
— Vision for the community' s long-term
multimodal transportation system
— Policy direction for implementation decisions
— Support for land use, economic health, and
environmental stewardship objectives
s
• Component updates
— Master Street Plan, Pedestrian Master Plan,
Capital Improvement Plan
Fof
ort Collins
13
Plan ,, Fort Collins
• Connecting document with links to components
• Sustainability — Collaboration, TBL Analysis, Continuous improvement
• Innovate - Special Focus Areas
• Vision, Principles, and Policies link with BFO :
— Traffic Flow,
— Quality Travel Surfaces & Infrastructure,
— Integrated Land Use & Transportation Planning,
— Travel Mode Options,
— Increase Awareness
• Highlights of Modal Plans
• Implementation
— CIP, Funding, Performance Measures, & Action Strategies
Fort Collins
14 lw�
imp
Master Street Plan
:01uNI I loam snm rue Mn Y
• Revise street classifications B•.brS!MM-7w _Oa.„n_
to reflect new land-use ` Y,}
patterns and triple bottom 1 _
line analysis
`t .
• Overlay Map to Identify
corridors for "Context -
Sensitive Solutions" DRAFT
a rt_<<
15
Plan ,,, Fort Collins
Multimodal Capital Improvement Plan Update
• Update CIP criteria to incorporate the
Triple Bottom Line Approach and
Vision/Principles/Policies
• CIP project lists for:
✓ Streets, Bicycle, Pedestrian,
Transit, Parking, ATMS,
Railroad Crossings, Bridges
✓ New short-term plus 2035
Fort `3
16
Pedestrian Plan Update
• Reflects input from the public, Boards and Commissions,
City Staff, and City Council
• New themes
— Improved infrastructure and safety programs to enhance
pedestrian safety for people of all ages and abilities
— Improved maintenance of pedestrian facilities
— Linkages between pedestrian walkways and transit
— Promoting a mix of land uses and activity centers that can
maximize walkability
• Updates to priority pedestrian districts, crossing policies, and
pedestrian level of service
17
Fort Collins
� Plan ,,, Fort Collins
MINNOW
Appendix B : Finance Philosophy and
Funding Capital Improvements
18
r
in novate,sustain,connect
Overview of Appendix B
• A new Appendix in City Plan
• Appendix B documents :
— current funding philosophies
— current methods to fund capital improvements
— Plan Fort Collins long-range implications
• Future action - more detailed discussions on specific tools
and city-wide capital improvement projects
ctyor
-080000 "W"OT 19
Fort
iNO&M Plan , Fort Collins
Next Steps
20
tr
Plan ,,, Fort Collins
Public Review Schedule
By the end of January
• Public Draft documents available .
— Download from fcgov.com/planfortcollins
— Review copies at public libraries and City facilities
• Public comments welcomed !
— In person
— Written comments
E-responses — website
Public meeting and hearings
a rt_<<
21
Plan ,, Fort Collins
Public Review Schedule (cont.)
Month of January
• Boards and Commissions formal recommendations
• Transportation Board Public Hearing and
Recommendation — January 19
• Planning and Zoning Board Hearing and
Recommendation — January 20
t
22 . ins
in novate,sustain,connect
City Council Meetings
February 8 — Work Session
Immediate Implementation Actions — March 1 adoption
February 15 — Regular Meeting
City Plan and Transportation Master Plan Adoption
March 1 — Regular Meeting
Adoption of Immediate Implementation Actions — 1st ordinance
readings
March 22 — Adjourned Meeting
Implementation Actions Adoption — 2nd ordinance readings
Cltyof
23
�Ftf
Plan ,, Fort Collins
" THANKVOU,,
24
tr'
Plan % Fort Collins
®Specific Questions to be Answered
• Do the Principles and Policies of the Economic Health; Community and
Neighborhood Livability; and Transportation sections of the draft City
Plan set the direction the City Council wants to establish for the
community?
• Does Council have any questions or comments on Appendix B —
Finance Philosophy and Funding Capital Improvements?
• Does Council have any questions or comments on the Transportation
Master Plan, including the Master Street Plan, Capital Improvement
Plan, and/or the Pedestrian Plan?
25
Fort Collins