HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 10/23/2012 - HARMONY ROAD ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVESDATE: October 23, 2012
STAFF: Aaron Iverson
Pre-taped staff presentation: available
at fcgov.com/clerk/agendas.php
WORK SESSION ITEM
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Harmony Road Enhanced Travel Corridor Alternatives Analysis.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This purpose of this agenda item is to brief City Council on the status of the Harmony Road
Enhanced Travel Corridor Alternatives Analysis . City Council was provided with an update memo
in February discussing the start and intent of the study. Since that time, the project team looked at
existing conditions, modeled future traffic conditions, developed a vision and goals for the study,
conducted the first public outreach, and began the development of future concepts for Harmony
Road.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Harmony Road is, and will continue to be, a vital transportation corridor and one of the City's
primary economic districts. Staff would like City Council feedback on the following:
1. What is working well on Harmony Road; what needs to be corrected?
2. What is Council's input on the Purpose and Goals (the future of Harmony Road)?
3. What feedback does Council have regarding the initial alternatives developed?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Enhanced Travel Corridors
Enhanced Travel Corridors (ETCs) include existing and future key transportation routes that provide
connections between major activity centers like downtown, CSU, midtown, employment centers,
shopping destinations, and neighborhoods. Originally identified in 1997 as part of the initial City
Plan, ETCs are intended to incorporate high frequency transit, bicycling, pedestrian and automobile
solutions and options.
While ETCs share this similar purpose, each individual corridor may have a different, unique way
to provide those connections. In some corridors, ETCs may focus on enhancing travel time through
the corridor to connect primary destinations (Mountain Vista Corridor and Timberline Corridor),
while other ETCs may focus on enhancing infill and redevelopment along the corridor (Mason
Corridor and Harmony Corridor). Attachment 4 shows the designated ETCs within the City as
defined in the Transportation Master Plan (2011).
October 23, 2012 Page 2
To position Harmony Road for future funding opportunities, this study is being developed consistent
with the processes outlined in Federal Transit Authority's (FTA) Alternatives Analysis and Federal
Highways’ (FHWA) Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) programs. Following these
processes includes regular coordination with FTA and comprehensive documentation of the
alternatives development and screening process. Following Federal processes positions the City to
be eligible to compete for future federal funds.
Existing and Future Conditions
The existing and future travel conditions for the Harmony Corridor are provided in detail in the
Draft Corridor Understanding Report, which can be found at this link (www.fcgov.com/harmony).
The significant findings from that report include:
• Harmony Corridor, as we know it today, is the result of numerous plans and programs
throughout the years, as well as a result of serving as Colorado State Highway 68 for nearly
forty years.
• Harmony Road serves as both local commercial and residential land uses within the
Harmony Corridor, but also serves as an important regional connection to I-25 with
significant through traffic.
• Harmony Road is a wide six-lane facility (currently and planned) with large landscaped
setbacks and informal tree plantings, creating campus-style settings as envisioned in the
1991 “Harmony Corridor Plan” (last amended in 2006).
• Street design elements, such as medians, street lights and plantings have been inconsistent
along the corridor, with some of the corridor still maintaining a rural character.
• Most of Harmony Road does not incorporate any stormwater quality treatment mitigation,
as currently required, since it was largely constructed before these regulations went into
effect. Stormwater issues are currently not being addressed in a systematic way on Harmony
Road.
• Traffic volumes are some of the highest in the city (just after College Avenue), ranging from
over 19,000 to almost 46,000 vehicles per day, depending on location.
• Harmony Road has two intersections (Timberline and Lemay) with the highest crash totals
in the city.
• The type of crashes occurring include rear-end crashes, sideswipes, and, in certain locations,
bicycle-related crashes and crashes involving signs.
• Bus service is provided by three routes (route 1, 16, and 17) with an average daily ridership
of: Route 1 - 1,149; Route 16 - 277; and Route 17 - 158.
• The design of much of Harmony Road makes the provision of safe, convenient, and efficient
transit service challenging due to long distances between signalized intersections, lack of
October 23, 2012 Page 3
sidewalk connections to land uses, the lack of curb and gutter, and some physical barriers
like drainage ditches.
• Harmony Road has six- to ten-foot bike lanes on both sides of the street from I-25 through
the Shields Street intersection, with a direct connection to the Mason Trail.
• Sidewalks currently exist along the vast majority of the Corridor, and most sections of the
sidewalk are detached from the roadway.
• As a result of indirect pedestrian connections, limited and long distances between signalized
street crossings, large setbacks, rights-of-way and some physical barriers like drainage
ditches, crossing Harmony Road as a pedestrian is challenging.
• The Corridor is adjacent to some potential historic resources, park and recreation facilities.
Any future improvements must consider air quality or other environmental impacts, as well
as impacts to the above-mentioned facilities.
• Employment and households are going to grow within the Harmony Road Corridor area in
the future.
• Automobile traffic will also grow and congestion will increase along the entire Corridor in
the future. This growth in traffic is due in part to Harmony’s role as a regional connector
and a primary gateway in and out of the southern part of the community.
• Harmony Road is identified as an important regional transit connection in the future as well.
Purpose and Need
Through the process of developing the Corridor Understanding, the project’s Technical Advisory
Committee developed a guiding purpose and need statement complete with supporting goals and
objectives for the project.
Purpose Statement
“The purpose of the project is to implement multi-modal transportation
improvements that enhance mobility and safety along the Harmony Road Corridor.
Improvements will support local and regional travel needs, land uses, environmental
stewardship, and economic health goals.”
Goal #1: Improve Multi-Modal Mobility
Problem Statements
• The transit routes along Harmony Road are discontinuous, making transit travel along
Harmony Road and to key activity centers throughout Fort Collins inefficient and
inconvenient.
October 23, 2012 Page 4
• Traveling by bicycle along Harmony Road is uncomfortable because Harmony is a high-
volume, high-speed corridor.
• Harmony Road traffic signals (and pedestrian crossings) are typically spaced a half-mile
apart requiring long, sometimes out-of-direction travel for pedestrians crossing Harmony.
• Travel demand and traffic congestion along the Corridor is expected to increase due to
growth in population and employment along Harmony Road and the surrounding area and
will result in additional pressure on the transportation infrastructure.
• The existing Harmony Road cross-section does not accommodate potential mixed-use and
transit-oriented development, due to the lower density land use patterns established for the
corridor.
Objectives
• Provide comfortable and convenient multimodal travel options that include auto, transit,
walking and bicycling.
• Provide a transportation system that supports existing and planned land uses, including
future mixed-use and transit-oriented development.
• Provide multi-modal connections to the City’s system of Enhanced Travel Corridors.
• Help accommodate future travel demand by increasing bicycle, pedestrian and public
transportation’s share of trips.
Goal #2: Enhance Accessibility
Problem Statement
Today’s transportation network does not provide sufficient connections between modes nor between
each mode and the destinations along the corridor.
Objectives
• Improve connectivity among various travel modes along and across the corridor.
• Enhance transit, pedestrian and bicycle connections to existing and future land uses.
• Provide a multi-modal system that is accessible to all abilities and a broad demographic.
October 23, 2012 Page 5
Goal #3: Improve Safety
Problem Statements
• Harmony Road has the two intersections with the highest crash totals in the City.
• Harmony Road is a wide corridor with few dedicated, safe pedestrian crossing points.
Objectives
• Improve multi-modal travel safety along and across the Corridor.
• Increase opportunities for pedestrians to safely cross Harmony Road.
Goal #4: Integrate Sustainability
Problem Statement
Today’s transportation network does not fully meet Fort Collins’ sustainability goals.
Objective
• Increase the use of environmentally friendly transportation options.
• Implement affordable and cost-effective transportation solutions.
• Implement a solution that complements the larger transportation system.
• Provide a system that supports planned land uses and economic vitality.
Public Outreach
A public open house was held on May 3, 2012, presenting initial concepts, and gathering input on
issue identification. The following items were identified at the meeting:
• Sidewalks are too circuitous for trip making.
• People frequently jaywalk.
• Long crossing distance for pedestrians – high exposure to heavy volume traffic.
• Bus route timing should be coordinated better with schools to avoid kids rushing to cross
street.
• Transit service does not go to the Harmony Transfer Center.
• Bicycles must travel adjacent to fast moving cars.
Additionally, an online questionnaire was developed that provided the same input opportunities on
the project for those not able to attend the public open house. Over 250 people responded to the
questionnaire, a summary of the results are included in Attachment 5. As the project moves forward
into development of alternatives, additional public outreach involving stakeholders, businesses and
others will be ongoing. A second public open house was held on September 13, and a questionnaire
October 23, 2012 Page 6
to gain feedback on Tier 2 alternatives is currently available on-line (www.fcgov.com\harmony)
until October 31.
Alternatives Development
The development of the Harmony ETC Master Plan includes the definition, screening, and
evaluation of alternatives with the ultimate recommendation of one alternative as the Locally
Preferred Alternative (LPA). Alternatives are being evaluated based on their ability to meet the
project’s Vision and Purpose and Need, environmental impacts, and comparative costs. Screening
criteria include a combination of quantitative and qualitative measures directly tied to the Project
Vision/Goals and Objectives. Figure 1 shows the alternative development process.
Figure 1. Alternative Development Process
Tier 1 alternatives are currently being developed based on information from the Corridor
Understanding, the established goals and objectives and public input. These Tier 1 alternatives are
intended to be broad and capture a wide range of ideas. The range of Tier 1 alternatives includes:
• No action, keep conditions as currently exist.
• Enhance the current bus service within the existing roadway.
• Convert the outside travel lane into a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) lane, taking away one
automobile travel lane in each direction.
• Construct a BRT lane within the median, requiring the loss of one automobile travel lane in
each direction.
• Turn the outside travel lane into a BRT lane combined with a High Occupancy Vehicle lane,
taking away one automobile travel lane in each direction.
• Add a BRT lane to the outside of the existing roadway, widening the corridor and keeping
three automobile travel lanes in each direction.
October 23, 2012 Page 7
• Add a BRT lane within the median but widening the entire corridor to keep three automobile
travel lanes in each direction.
• Combine the above transit and roadway improvements with bike lanes, shared use paths or
protected bicycle facilities like a buffered bike lane.
• Combine any of the alternatives with bicycle/pedestrian overpasses or underpasses at
strategic locations.
• Combine any of the alternatives with intersection improvements
These Tier 1 alternatives will be evaluated against the projects goals and objectives and result in a
set of Tier 2 alternatives that are more focused and further refined in greater detail. The Tier 1
alternatives provide an opportunity to test some of the concepts and ideas learned to date against the
communities' expectations, and to look for any fatal flaws.
Tier 2 Alternatives
• The Tier 2 alternatives that are being considered have been divided by geographic areas,
including; the west segment, Shields Street to College Avenue, central segment, College
Avenue to Ziegler Road, and the east segment, Ziegler to I-25 The Tier 2 alternatives going
forward for detailed evaluation are as follows (and shown in Attachment 6):
West Segment
• Do nothing and keep the roadway configuration and bus service as is.
• Improve the bus service with more frequent, direct service and priority treatments at the
intersections.
• Improve bicycle facilities creating on street cycle-tracks or a larger off street shared use path.
Central and West Segments
• Do nothing and keep the roadway configuration and bus service as is.
• Improve the bus service with more frequent, direct service and priority treatments at the
intersections.
• Improve the bus service by using the outside lane for bus and high-occupancy-vehicles
(HOV) only, with more frequent, direct service and priority treatments at the intersections.
• Improve bicycle facilities creating on street cycle-tracks or a larger off street shared use path.
• Pedestrian improvements are included in all Tier 2 alternatives. At a minimum, completing
the missing segments of sidewalks is recommended. Additionally, improving pedestrian
crossings is a key need for Harmony Road. The range of options includes making upgrades
to the existing signalized crossings and also looking for opportunities to install grade-
separated (underpasses or overpasses) at key locations.
October 23, 2012 Page 8
Implementation
This study effort is intended to develop a long range vision for the next evolution of Harmony Road.
The product of this study will include a “locally preferred alternative”, which will include a number
of components, including:
• Recommended roadway and intersection configurations
• Recommended bicycle facilities, both along and crossing Harmony Road
• Recommendations for improving walking conditions, including addressing pedestrian
crossings
• Recommended transit improvements for Harmony Road, in conjunction with the Transfort
Strategic Plan
• Recommendations for updates to supporting plans such as the Harmony Corridor Land Plan
• Recommendations for updates to the City's Capital Improvement Plan.
Timing for implementation will be specified depending on each element as immediate, short-term,
mid-term or long-term. Timing implementation of recommendations will depend on funding as well
as community and Council priorities. This plan should be updated every five years to identify how
well elements are being implemented and to address changing conditions.
Next Steps
The next steps for the project are to refine the alternatives through a deliberative evaluation process
and community dialogue, present these alternatives (Tier 2 alternatives) to the community and move
towards a final preferred alternative. Figure 2 shows the phases of the study and where we are at
currently in the process.
Figure 2. Study Phases
October 23, 2012 Page 9
Below are milestones for the study effort:
September/October 2012 Ongoing public input
September 13, Public Open House
Online Questionnaire, Oct. 15 - Oct. 31
Tier 2 Alternatives Development and
Evaluation
December 2012: Development of Locally Preferred
Alternatives
January/February 2013 Phasing and Funding Plan
March/April 2013 Final public open house / public input on final
plan, including boards and commissions
April - May 2013 Develop draft final plan
June 2013 Present to City Council for adoption
ATTACHMENTS
1. PowerPoint presentation
2. Study Area Map
3. January 2012 City Council Update Memo
4. Enhanced Travel Corridors Map
5. Summary of questionnaire results
6. Sketches of Tier 2 Alternatives
1
City Council Work Session
October 23, 2012
Transportation Planning
2
1. Purpose of the Study
2. Existing Conditions
3. Project Goals
4. Public Input: Open House and Survey
5. Alternatives Development
Presentation Overview
ATTACHMENT 1
2
3
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Farm
Road
I‐25
Built
Becomes
State Hwy
Harmony Road
transferred to City
HP Builds
Facility
Harmony
Corridor Plan
Harmony
Bicycle Plan
6‐lanes
to Boardwalk
Harmony Road History
4
3
5
Harmony Road ETC Study Area
6
Projected Household Growth
Source: NFRMPO Travel Demand Model, as modified for Fort Collins Transportation Master Plan
4
7
Projected Employment Growth
Source: NFRMPO Travel Demand Model, as modified for Fort Collins Transportation Master Plan
8
Historic Traffic Volumes on Harmony Road
5
9
Legend
Current and Future Congestion
2009
2035
Uncongested
Congesting
Congested
XX, XXX Daily
Traffic Volumes
N
10
Historic Crash Rates on Harmony Road
6
11
College
Lemay
Timberline
High Crash Intersections on Harmony Road
12
Current Transit Ridership on Harmony Road
17
1 16
Harmony Rd.
Timberline
Lemay
College
Shields
Ziegler
Horsetooth
295 Daily on and offs
(for Harmony stops)
324 Combined on and offs
(for Harmony stops)
7
13
Walking Conditions on Harmony Road
14
Walking Conditions on Harmony Road
8
15
Walking Conditions on Harmony Road
16
Bicycling Conditions on Harmony Road
9
17
Bicycling Conditions on Harmony Road
18
Summary of Current Conditions:
‐ Employment and population will continue to grow
‐ Traffic and travel demand is increasing
‐ Congestion is likely to increase in the future
‐ There are safety issues
‐ Conditions for bicycling and walking need to be
improved
‐ Transit service is currently challenged
‐ Regional growth has (and will have) impact on
Harmony Road
10
19
Purpose Statement:
The purpose of the project is to implement multi‐
modal transportation improvements that enhance
mobility and safety along the Harmony Road Corridor.
Improvements will support local and regional travel
needs, land uses, economic health and environmental
stewardship goals.
20
Goal #1: Improve Multi‐modal Mobility
Goal #2: Enhance Accessibility and Connectivity
Goal #4: Integrate Sustainability
Goal #3: Improve Safety
Project Goals
11
21
• Supports land use
• Opportunities
• Provides travel options
• Cost effective
• Convenient
• Safety
• Connectivity
• Environmentally Sound
• Affordable
• Accessible
Project Objectives
22
• Sidewalks are too circuitous for trip making
• People frequently jaywalk
• Wide crossing for pedestrian – high exposure
• Bus route timing should be coordinated better
with schools to avoid kids rushing to cross street
• Transit service does not go to Transfer Center
• Bicycles must travel adjacent to fast moving cars
Public Input
12
23
Over 250 responses to on‐line survey
24
Alternatives Development
We Are Here
13
25
‐ Enhanced transit service
‐ Intersection improvements
‐ Bicycle facilities (cycle tracks, green lanes, off street)
‐ Improved pedestrian and bicycle crossings
Alternatives Development‐Examples
26
Next Steps
August / September: Ongoing public input
September 13, Public Open House
September/October 2012: Tier 2 Alternatives Development and Evaluation
December 2012: Development of Locally Preferred Alternative
January/February 2013: Phasing and Funding Plan
March/April 2013: Ongoing Public Input
April ‐ May 2013: Develop draft final plan
June 2013: Present to City Council for adoption
14
27
Council Feedback Sought:
1. Council's thoughts on Harmony Road current
conditions
2. Council's input on the Vision and Goals (the future
of Harmony Road)
3. Council's feedback on the initial alternatives
developed
28
For More Information
Project Website:
fcgov.com/harmony
Contact: Aaron Iverson
aiverson@fcgov.com
or
970‐416‐2643
Attachment 2: Study Area Map
Transportation Planning & Special Projects
281 North College Avenue
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580
970.224.6058
970.221.6239 - fax
fcgov.com/transportation
Planning, Development & Transportation
DATE: February 2, 2012
TO: Mayor and City Council
THROUGH: Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Diane Jones, Deputy City Manager – Planning, Policy and Transportation Services
Karen Cumbo, Director of Planning, Development, and Transportation
Joe Frank, Advance Planning Director
FROM: Kathleen Bracke, Director of Transportation Planning and Special Projects
Aaron Iverson, Senior Transportation Planner
RE: Harmony Road Enhanced Travel Corridor Alternatives Analysis – Project Overview
The purpose of this memo is to provide City Council with an overview of the Harmony Road Corridor
Enhanced Travel Corridor (ETC) Alternatives Analysis effort. This planning effort began in December 2011
and is expected to be complete in June 2013. The Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA), a major milestone is
scheduled to be determined by January 2013. The Harmony Road ETC Master Plan is a direct outcome of a
near-term action item in Plan Fort Collins/ Transportation Master Plan, adopted by City Council in
February 2011. This Harmony Road ETC Master Plan is also part of the City Council work plan. Funding
for this project was approved by City Council from the voter-approved Keep Fort Collins Great funds for the
2011-12 budget cycle. The purpose of the Harmony Road ETC Master Plan is to augment and update
existing transportation plans for the Harmony Corridor and to document the transportation, land use,
environmental, economic, and social needs of the corridor and to determine the most appropriate corridor
configuration.
Enhanced Travel Corridors (ETCs) provide connections between major activity centers like Downtown,
CSU, Midtown, employment centers, shopping destinations, and neighborhoods. While ETCs share this
similar purpose, each individual corridor will have a different, unique way to provide those connections. In
some corridors, ETCs may focus on enhancing travel time through the corridor to connect primary
destinations (Mountain Vista Corridor and Timberline Corridor), while other ETCs may focus on enhancing
infill and redevelopment along the corridor (Mason Corridor and Harmony Corridor).
The boundaries of this corridor plan will be Harmony Road from Interstate 25 (I-25) to Shields Street as
shown in Figure 1. An influence area one mile on either side of Harmony Road will be used for
understanding land use, socioeconomic and other contextual factors that may influence the Harmony Road
corridor.
Attachment 3
2
Figure 1: Study Corridor and Influence Area
The Harmony ETC is intended to address, at a minimum, the following items (presented in no particular
order):
- Provide mobility and improved safety to/from Fort Collins via this important regional gateway;
- Create an updated master plan that supports multiple modes of safe, affordable, easy, and
convenient travel to ensure mobility for people of all ages and abilities;
- Recommend improvements to support local goals of integrating land-use and transportation
planning, with economic development and environmental stewardship;
- Address regional connectivity between the City of Fort Collins and our regional neighbors and the
I-25 corridor;
- Link major employment, education, medical campus/offices, commercial, entertainment, and
residential areas within southeast Fort Collins;
- Provide connectivity to the Mason Corridor, future enhanced Timberline Corridor and the regional
transportation system;
- Collaborate among City staff, private sector, and surrounding communities;
- Seek citizen input to help develop transportation design options, identify funding and build
partnerships; and
- Create an updated master plan that supports sustainability to systemically, creatively, and
thoughtfully utilize environmental, human, and economic resources to meet our present needs and
those of future generations without compromising the ecosystems upon which we depend.
- Address the appearance and urban form and the long term maintenance needs of the corridor.
3
Project Overview
Project Management
The project will be managed by Transportation Planning/Advance Planning. A Technical Advisory
Committee (TAC) has been established at the onset of the project to guide the development of the ETC
master plan and to serve as a sounding board for the technical aspects of the project. The TAC will include
the members from the following organizations:
- City of Fort Collins
- Town of Timnath
- North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization
- Larimer County
- Front Range Community College
- South Fort Collins Business Association
- Federal Transit Authority
- Federal Highway Administration
Public Involvement
In order to reach out to and receive valuable input from the varied stakeholders in the corridor and
throughout the community, a multi-faceted public involvement plan is essential.
The public involvement process will be ongoing through the duration of the planning process. A project
website will be not only a clearinghouse for project-related information and documentation, but it will also
be a place where the public can provide comments and input when it is convenient for them. We will utilize
Twitter and Facebook feeds at regular intervals throughout the project. Information feeds might include
public meeting announcements, alerts to new project website postings, and links to survey questions on the
website.
In addition to web-based public outreach it is important to also provide traditional public outreach
opportunities. The public libraries located on both ends of the Harmony Road corridor would serve as ideal
locations for public open house forums to present project information and to solicit input. The public
meetings will be held at important milestones during the project including:
- Public Meeting #1 – Present corridor understanding; solicit input on the Purpose and Need, vision
for the corridor, and ideas for alternatives
- Public Meeting #2 – Present and solicit input on Tier 1 alternatives and preliminary evaluation and
screening results
- Public Meeting #3 – Present and solicit input on Tier 2 alternatives and preliminary evaluation and
screening results
- Public Meeting #4 – Present and solicit input on the Locally Preferred Alternative and
Implementation Plan
City staff will hold focus group meetings with business, environmental and other community groups.
Additional City staff will provide outreach and seek input from the Transportation Board, Economic
Advisory Committee, Planning and Zoning as well as other Boards, Commissions, and City Council during
the planning process.
4
Five Phases of the Planning Process
Phase 1 - Corridor Understanding (December 2011 - March 2012)
The development of a comprehensive understanding of the past, present and future conditions of the
Harmony Road corridor will provide the basis for the development of a vision and alternatives. Elements of
this task include the following:
History – Summarize a historical development and improvement timeline of the known progression of
roadway and access improvements along Harmony Road. The Harmony Corridor has changed dramatically
over its lifespan, from a rural state highway to one of the most heavily used commercial arterial corridors
within the City.
Regional and Citywide Context – Harmony Road serves as a regional corridor that connects the City of
Fort Collins with other key regional communities and the state’s major north/south transportation corridor, I-
25. It is important to understand the regional context and the nature of the users of the corridor both today
and in the future.
Existing Plans – Existing plans and programs influencing Harmony Road will be reviewed. Examples
include various City land use and transportation plans for the Harmony corridor, as well as CDOT’s regional
North I-25 Environmental Impact Statement. This task will include defining the immediate development
scenarios, i.e., those improvements that may occur during the progress of this project, such as new
commercial or residential developments. Understanding the plans and proposed developments for the
corridor is critical to formulating a base understanding of the opportunities and constraints that exist along
Harmony Road.
Existing Conditions – It will be important to understand both the existing operational and physical
conditions that the traveling public faces, as well as the projected future demands on the transportation
system. This process begins with a thorough understanding of existing travel conditions for motorists, transit
patrons, pedestrians, and cyclists. Travel movements, when combined with the physical and operational
corridor attributes, will provide a vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle level of service understanding related to
current operating conditions.
Future Baseline Conditions – The next step in understanding the Harmony Road corridor will be to
document the future demands on the corridor. The regional travel demand model which has been recently
modified by the City for City Plan and the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) will be used as the primary
tool to establish the baseline future conditions in 2035 (origins and destinations, trip purposes, trip lengths,
etc.).
The summary of future baseline conditions will be used to determine deficiencies in the ability of the
transportation system to accommodate future multimodal travel demands. It will also be used to establish the
project Purpose and Need Statement, the corridor vision, and the facility alternatives for consideration.
5
Phase 2 - Corridor Vision (March 2012 - May 2012)
This phase will update/refresh the vision for the corridor with supporting goals and objectives. The vision
will be based on findings from the existing and future conditions effort, initial public involvement, feedback
from stakeholders and guidance from City Council. It is anticipated that the development of a corridor vision
will be an integral outcome of the public involvement.
Establish Purpose and Need – A thorough understanding of the corridor today and in the future by the
project stakeholders will facilitate the development of a sound Purpose and Need Statement. Issues and
concerns will be solicited from the public and agencies early in the planning process. Obtaining this
information early allows the Purpose and Need Statement to be as comprehensive and specific as possible,
which supports further refinement of the alternatives that pass screening.
Establish Corridor Vision – While the Purpose and Need Statement will essentially act as a problem
statement (with respect to existing and projected future conditions), the corridor vision will define the
community’s desires for the Harmony Corridor in the future. The corridor vision will build upon previous
work in the corridor, including the Harmony Corridor Plan and the Harmony Access Control Plan. It will be
context-sensitive to the identified opportunities and challenges and will provide:
- An understanding of the desired modal components of the corridor,
- A vision for the interaction between land uses and the transportation system, and
- A basis for setting goals and objectives that reflect the values of the community and that will
translate into evaluation criteria for use in the analysis of alternatives.
The TAC and corridor stakeholders will be essential to developing the Corridor Vision. Goals and objectives
to support the corridor vision will be drafted, and we will rely heavily upon previously established citywide
goals and objectives in City Plan and the TMP.
Phase 3 - Master Plan Development (May 2012 - December 2012)
The development of the Harmony ETC Master Plan will include the definition and screening/evaluation of
alternatives with the ultimate recommendation of one alternative as the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA).
To ensure that this Master Plan moves the City toward its ultimate vision for Harmony Road, the master plan
will be developed and alternatives evaluated in a manner consistent with the processes outlined in Federal
Transit Authority's (FTA) Alternatives Analysis and Federal Highways’ (FHWA) Planning and
Environmental Linkages (PEL) programs. Following these processes will require regular coordination with
FTA and comprehensive documentation of the alternatives development and screening process, which should
minimize backtracking and costly reevaluation in the future. Following Federal processes positions the City
to potentially fund recommended corridor improvements with Federal funds.
The following elements will be defined for each of the alternatives:
- Street Network – The initial set of improvements may consider changes to the number of lanes, land
use, access control and signal spacing to meet the desired mobility needs of the corridor.
- Transit Network – It is anticipated that the initial set of build alternatives will be wide ranging from
light rail and streetcar to bus rapid transit and express bus. Potential station spacing, frequency and
headways will be defined.
- Bike and Pedestrian Improvements – This could include both on-street and off-street
improvements to better accommodate pedestrian and bicycle travel along the corridor. Such
improvements could also extend onto parallel routes.
Alternatives will be evaluated based on their ability to meet the project’s Vision and Purpose and Need, their
environmental impacts, and their comparative costs. Screening criteria will include a combination of
6
quantitative and qualitative measures that will be directly tied to the Project Vision/Goals and Objectives.
Performance measures derived from the refined travel demand model will be used to compare each
alternative’s ability to attract ridership, improve travel time, and to enhance overall corridor mobility. This
evaluation will also be closely tied to the tenants of sustainability and triple bottom line evaluation developed
in Plan Fort Collins.
These measures will be closely linked with Integrated Land Use and Transportation measures presented in
the City’s TMP. In addition, we will supplement those measures with others that are more specific to the
vision, goals, and objectives of the Harmony Road corridor. Following the development of the screening
process, we will calculate and assess the associated measures for each alternative, and combine the results in
an evaluation matrix that will present the relative results for each alternative. In collaboration with the TAC,
and considering stakeholder input, we will use the results to develop a shortlist of alternatives. Once refined,
evaluated and vetted through the public process the most supported Build Alternative will be recommended
as the LPA.
Phase 4 – Implementation Plan (January 2013 - March 2013)
Fort Collins’ TMP sets forth implementation strategies that tie directly to its vision, principles, and policies
to ensure that short-term actions help to achieve the long-term vision of the TMP and the City. As part of this
project, we will develop an implementation plan that ensures that Harmony Road improvements are
consistent with the City’s TMP. The implementation plan will include a financial plan, a list of priorities,
and a schedule including phasing schedules.
Once the physical and operational elements of LPA are fully understood, it is important to understand how
the project can be constructed over time. It is critical to structure the LPA into phases that meet the
operational goals of the project and provide significant operational improvements. Basic phasing options
could include:
- Constructing corridor-wide elements that provide corridor-wide benefits, but constructed in such a
manner as to layer one improvement onto another until all of the LPA elements are completed.
- Constructing all LPA elements on a segment-by-segment basis. For example, the Shields Street to
College Avenue segment could be constructed first to provide transit continuity between Front
Range Community College and the new South Transit Center.
Phase 5 – Plan Adoption Process (March 2013 - June 2013)
The final phase of the project process is plan adoption. This includes a final public review and comment
presentations and feedback from boards and commissions, and presentation to City Council for adoption.
7
Project Schedule for Harmony Road ETC Master Plan:
September – December 2011 Project Startup/Consultant Selection
December 2011 – March 2012 Corridor Understanding / Data Collection & Analysis
March 2012 – May 2012 Corridor Vision
Summer 2012 Council Work Session
May 2012 – December 2012 Alternatives Development and Evaluation
January 2013 Locally Preferred Alternative Selection
January 2013 – February 2013 Final Master Plan Drafted
March 2013 – June 2013 Adoption Process
June 2013 City Council Hearing
See attached Work Flow Diagram for detailed project timeline, including tasks and milestones. The project
website will provide frequent updates and information on the project, and can be found at the following
address: fcgov.com/harmony. The project manager is Aaron Iverson who can be contacted via email at
aiverson@fcgov.com or by phone at 970-416-2643.
Attachment: Work Flow Diagram
Attachment 4:
Enhanced Travel Corridors Map
Page 1
Summary of Public Input
1st Round of Public Involvement – May 2012
The first public meeting was held at the Spirit of Joy Lutheran Church on Harmony on May 3rd from 4:00 – 7:00
PM. The format of the meeting was an open house, with four stations: 1) Education, 2) Identification of Issues
(Problems), 3) Corridor Visions (Solutions), and 4) Questionnaire (Trade Offs). While the attendance was
somewhat light, the input received was good. The City distributed flyers and sent messages through Facebook
and Twitter to direct people to the online questionnaire, which was be open through the end of May. The
questionnaire received 254 responses.
The following issues were identified at the public meeting:
• Sidewalks are too circuitous for trip making
• People frequently jaywalk
• Wide crossing for pedestrian – high exposure
• Bus route timing should be coordinated better with schools to avoid kids rushing to cross street
• Transit service does not go to Transfer Center
• Bicycles must travel adjacent to fast moving cars
The responses to the multiple choice online questionnaire questions are charted on the following pages. A
summary of the corresponding comments follows the applicable charts. The themes that were most common to
the questionnaire responses are listed below, in the general order of response frequency:
• Separate bikes from travel lanes (buffer)
• Provide a balance between differernt modes/provide travel options
• 6 general purpose travel lanes are needed
• Support for landscaped median
• Support for dedicated bus lane
• Improve pedestrian crossings and/or provide grade separated crossings
• Support for detached sidewalks
• Maintain wide setbacks/open feel
• Accommodate bikes on both sides
Attachment 5
Page 2
Page 3
Traffic/Congestion
• Signal timing – (19)
• Too many traffic signals – (5)
• Travel speeds slow/less than posted – (3)
• Congestion at railroad crossings – (1)
Page 4
• Volume of traffic – (1)
Configuration
• Transition from 3 to 2 lanes; should be 3 the whole way – (8)
• Confusing – lane ends, merges, etc – (3)
• Too few turn lanes at access points – (3)
• Too many lanes – (2)
• Too many access points – (1)
Bicycle
• Safety issues at intersections for bicyclists – (6)
• Not appropriate for/comfortable for bikes – (6)
• Lack of bike underpass/overpass – (3)
• Inconsistent bike lane configuration (shifting), not well marked – (3)
• Bike lane/right turn conflict approaching intersections – (2)
• Bikes are a hazard, remove – (2)
• Too much traffic for bicyclists to turn left – (1)
Pedestrian
• Missing sidewalk – (2)
• Safety issues at intersections for pedestrians – (1)
• Poor environment for pedestrians/not inviting – (1)
Transit
• Buses block travel lane (especially at stop near RR tracks) – (2)
• Wait time for bus service too long – (1)
Maintenance
• Condition of road (Boardwalk to College, most notably) – (3)
• Construction ongoing – (3)
• Snow piled up in bike lane and sidewalk – (1)
• Condition of bike lanes (pot holes) – (1)
Other
• No concerns, it works well – (4)
• Noise – (1)
• Current land uses not bicycle and pedestrian friendly – (1)
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Other Destinations:
• Medical facilities – (4)
• MAX – (2)
• Connections to other E/W and N/S bus arterials (GRID) – (2)
• Libraries – (2)
• Hughes Stadium – (1)
• Timberline Road – (1)
• Avago – (1)
• Front Range Village – (1)
• Senior Center – (1)
• Denver – (1)
• Work – (1)
• Larimer County Detention Center – (1)
• Schools – (1)
Page 8
Positive Comments
• Like the detached sidewalks – (22)
• Good for bikes – (19)
• Good for auto – (12)
• Like the wide setbacks – (7)
• Aesthetically pleasing – (6)
• Like 3 travel lanes on Harmony – (6)
• Each mode has its own space – (6)
• Like the green space – (2)
• Lane use appears understandable (user friendly) – (2)
• Like the access control – (2)
• Good for snow plowing – (1)
• Auto is predominant mode – embrace – (1)
• Realistic – (1)
Page 9
Negative Comments
• Too much emphasis on autos, freeway feel – (25)
• Unsafe for bicyclists (high speeds, too close to cars) – (24)
• Prefer separated bike lanes – (14)
• Unattractive (especially depressed median) – (10)
• Prefer a dedicated bus lane – (7)
• Concern about pedestrian/transit users ability to cross the street – (6)
• Not environmentally responsible/sustainable – (5)
• Regressive/Proven to be ineffective – (5)
• No “life” on the street, needs urban amenities, sense of community – (5)
• Not good for pedestrians, shopping/residential too separated – (5)
• Bikes should be routed to other streets – (4)
• Bikes should be moved to the sidewalk (shared use path) – (4)
• Unfair to non-drivers – (4)
• Poor business access – (3)
• Add landscaping in median – (2)
• Depressed median seems unsafe – (2)
• Encourages unhealthy mode of transportation – (1)
• Buildings set back too far – (1)
• Needs more dense land use to encourage other modes – (1)
• Concern about ROW impacts – (1)
Page 10
Positive Comments
• Like the landscaped median – (42)
• Like the increased emphasis on bus – (17)
• Aesthetically pleasing – (14)
• Like the detached sidewalks – (12)
• Like the wide setbacks – (7)
• Like the dedicated bike lane – (6)
• Good for bikes – (6)
• Good for auto – (4)
• Friendly, vibrant – (3)
• Good for pedestrians – (2)
• Each mode has its own space – (1)
Page 11
Negative Comments
• Unsafe for bicyclists (high speeds, too close to cars) – (19)
• Too expensive to implement and maintain (especially landscape median) – (11)
• Prefer separated bike lanes – (9)
• Concern about pedestrians crossing wide intersections – (6)
• Visibility limited by over-landscaping – (6)
• Too much emphasis on autos – (5)
• Do not anticipate much bus ridership – (5)
• Too wide, too many lanes, too much traffic – (4)
• Not good for pedestrians (and transit users), shopping/residential too separated – (3)
• Dislike the bus’s interference with traffic flow – (3)
• Need more bike and ped friendly facilities – (3)
• Wide median is wasted space – (3)
• Prefer dedicated bus lane – (3)
• Prefer grade separated pedestrian crossing – (3)
• Bus/bike conflict – (3)
• Difficult for bikes to turn left – (3)
• Higher densities needed to support transit – (2)
• Bikes should not be on Harmony – (2)
• Regressive – (1)
• Bus service is not as important as traffic flow – (1)
• Seems too crowded – (1)
• Raised median safer with 3 lanes – (1)
• Add green bike boxes – (1)
• Buses need designated pull outs – (1)
Page 12
Positive Comments
• Like the dedicated bus lanes – (41)
• Like the separated cycle tracks – (37)
• Supportive of all aspects/favorite – (13)
• Improves safety for cyclists – (11)
• Good multimodal options – (10)
• Like the detached sidewalks – (6)
• Like the landscaped median – (5)
• Like HOVs using bus lane – (4)
• Bus lane provides an extra buffer between cyclists and auto – (4)
• More environmentally friendly – (3)
• Like the less costly median – (2)
• Aesthetically pleasing – (2)
Page 13
Negative Comments
• Too wide, too much traffic – (21)
• Don’t need separate bus lane/not justified – (13)
• Very difficult for pedestrians to cross – (11)
• Concern about bus/right turn conflict – (8)
• Concern about cycle track treatment at intersection – (7)
• Not aesthetically compelling – (7)
• Too much going on – (6)
• More protection needed for bikes – (4)
• Need grade separated bike/ped crossings – (3)
• Cycle tracks should be two-way – (3)
• Difficult for cyclists to make left turns – (3)
• Confusing for out of town visitors – (3)
• Bikes should not be on Harmony – (2)
• Expensive – (1)
• Concern about bus signal priority and driver confusion – (1)
• If HOV, bus stop/HOV conflict – (1)
• Don’t support use of City funds for bike/bus – (1)
• Bus pull outs from GP lanes instead – (1)
• Not human friendly – (1)
• Would like to see roundabouts – (1)
• Over-designed – (1)
• No improvement over existing – (1)
• Concern about ROW impacts – (1)
• Don’t need 6 lanes with separate bus lane – (1)
• Dislike raised median – (1)
Page 14
Positive Comments
• Like the median BRT – (18)
• Supportive of all aspects/favorite – (17)
• Like the downtown/community feel/minimal setback – (9)
• Encourages alternative travel modes – (8)
• Like the two-way cycle track – (8)
• Like the bikes being separated from traffic – (7)
• Improves safety for cyclists – (6)
• Good multimodal options – (5)
• Pedestrian friendly – (5)
• Like having only 4 auto lanes – (4)
• Like that it is less of an “asphalt jungle” – (3)
• Traffic speeds would be slow (favorable) – (3)
Page 15
• Looks efficient/compact – (3)
• Better for businesses – (2)
• Would serve commuters well – (1)
• More environmentally friendly – (1)
Negative Comments
• Lacks needed auto capacity – (35)
• Too cramped/too urban/big city – (16)
• Bikes should be on both sides – (16)
• Buildings too close to road – (16)
• Too congested – (15)
• Concern about how pedestrians would cross from station – (15)
• Dislike the two-way cycle track – (11)
• Not appropriate for Harmony – (6)
• Not aesthetically compelling/no median landscaping – (4)
• Concern for safety on two-way cycle track (esp at intersections and accesses) – (3)
• Pedestrians too close to street, unpleasant – (3)
• Concern median BRT would require more signals – (3)
• Need grade separated bike/ped crossings – (3)
• Too much emphasis on bus – (3)
• Concern about buses passing each other – (2)
• Dislike the bus in the median – (1)
• No room for expansion – (1)
• Concern about snow storage – (1)
• Concern about safety for left turners – (1)
• Don’t need separate bus lane/not justified – (1)
• Median BRT would confuse drivers – (1)
• Don’t support use of City funds for bike/bus – (1)
ATTACHMENT 6