HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 02/28/2012 - JEFFERSON STREET ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS STUDY-PROJEDATE: February 28, 2012
STAFF: Kathleen Bracke
Aaron Iverson
Pre-taped staff presentation: available
at fcgov.com/clerk/agendas.php
WORK SESSION ITEM
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Study - Project Update.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Jefferson Street/SH14 Alternatives Analysis Study is a joint effort of the City of Fort Collins,
Downtown Development Authority (DDA), and the Colorado Department of Transportation
(CDOT). The project team is supported by Atkins consultants. This Alternatives Analysis Study
includes the development and evaluation of a thorough set of design options for the Jefferson
Street/SH14 corridor. The corridor begins at College Avenue and extends along Jefferson Street and
includes the Mountain Avenue/Riverside Avenue/Lincoln Street, and Linden Street intersections.
The purpose of the Jefferson Street project is to improve the air quality, livability, and urban
character of the Jefferson Street Corridor while enhancing the experience for pedestrians, bikes, and
transit and maintaining mobility of autos and trucks.
This process includes the development and evaluation of many options such as traditional roadway
and intersection designs, roundabouts and other innovative, context-sensitive design solutions based
upon local, state, and national best-practices. Implementation of the Jefferson Street improvements
can move forward beginning in mid 2012, based upon approval of the preferred alternative by City
Council, the Downtown Development Authority, and CDOT. The schedule for construction of the
Jefferson Street corridor improvements will be based upon the approved preferred alternative and
implementation/phasing plan as well as the available funding.
The purpose of this work session is to present a project status update, share the draft alternatives and
findings from the alternatives analysis process, share feedback received to-date from project partners
and the community and to focus on the intersection alternatives.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Staff is requesting input from Council regarding the Jefferson Street project, in particular to provide
input on the intersection alternatives, as well as next steps for the project process.
1. What input would City Council like to share with the project team regarding the Jefferson
Street intersection alternatives?
2. Is there additional information that City Council would like to see regarding the Jefferson
Street Alternatives Analysis Study, in particular regarding the intersection alternatives,
and/or the project process?
February 28, 2012 Page 2
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis project began in May 2010. This current project builds
upon prior studies along the Jefferson Street/SH14 corridor and provides more in-depth, detailed
technical analysis and design to address City, DDA, and CDOT requirements. The project seeks to
balance the interests of different agencies and organizations, including the City, CDOT, DDA,
Colorado Motor Carriers Association, Larimer County, adjacent railroad, local business/property
owners, and the general public. Please see Attachment 1 for a map of the project area.
The Jefferson Street project budget of $1,750,000 is comprised of a combination of City ($250,000),
DDA ($500,000), and federal Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality (CMAQ) funding ($1 million).
The Alternatives Analysis Study has expended approximately $435,000 of the project budget with
approximately $1.3 million available for implementation of the improvements as determined by the
Study recommendations.
The participating project partners, the City, DDA, CDOT and the Colorado Motor Carriers
Association, have agreed to the following purpose statement that highlights the key goals for the
project:
The purpose of the Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis project is to improve the
air quality, livability, and urban character of the Jefferson Street Corridor while
enhancing the experience for pedestrians, bikes, and transit and maintaining
mobility of autos and trucks. The Corridor begins at College Avenue and extends
along Jefferson Street and includes the Mountain Avenue/Riverside Avenue/Lincoln
Street, and Linden Street intersections.
Corridor Alternatives
The project team has developed a set of conceptual alternatives for the Jefferson Street Corridor
project to address the project purpose, goals, and objectives.
• The Corridor alternatives include “3 lane” options for Jefferson Street between North
College Avenue and Mountain Avenue. One of the “3 lane” options includes raised,
landscaped medians and the other includes designated on-street bicycle lanes instead of the
medians (both the medians and bikelanes do not fit within the available corridor width). The
“3 lane” options include two auto travel lanes in the northwest bound direction and one
travel lane in the southeast bound direction. The determination for which direction has the
two lanes versus the one lane was made based on traffic analysis as well as the need to
maximize on-street parking opportunities along the “Old Town” side of Jefferson Street. The
“3 lane” options include streetscape, urban design, and gateway improvements along the
corridor and at the intersections. In addition, the 3 lane options allow for more functional
on-street parking because there is width to provide a safety buffer area between the parked
cars and the vehicle travel lanes. The “3 lane” options also allowed for opportunities to
improve the transit stops along Jefferson.
• The project team developed a “4 lane” option which shows two lanes in each direction on
Jefferson Street between North College and Mountain Avenue which is very similar to how
Jefferson looks today. Due to the width required for standard travel lanes, there is limited
February 28, 2012 Page 3
space remaining for other project elements such as on-street parking/buffer areas, medians,
and/or streetscape improvements.
• The team provided a combination “3 and 4 lane” option that includes three lanes between
North College Avenue and Linden Street and then four lanes between Linden and Mountain.
• The “3 lane” option with raised, landscaped median is staff’s recommended alternative for
the Jefferson Street corridor based upon the technical analysis by the project team as well
as input from the community, boards and commissions, and City Council in August 2011.
(see Attachment 2).
Intersection Alternatives
The Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Study area includes two intersections along the Corridor:
(1) the intersection of Jefferson with Linden Street; and (2) the intersection of Jefferson Street with
Mountain/Lincoln Avenue.
Regarding the Jefferson/Linden intersection alternatives, the project team evaluated two options,
including: (1) leaving the left turn movements on to Linden Street as designated left turn lanes; or
(2) removing the turn lanes to narrow the width of the street to improve pedestrian crossings. The
team’s preference is to keep the designated left turn lanes open for drivers to turn off of Jefferson
on to Linden Street. These turning movements are important to support the local businesses along
Linden Street and assist with downtown circulation patterns and to avoid left turning vehicles from
blocking southeast bound traffic.
The project team has also developed two alternatives for the Jefferson/Mountain intersection and
staff is seeking input from City Council regarding these alternatives.
Jefferson/Mountain/Lincoln/Riverside intersection options include: (see Attachment 3)
1. Improving the existing signalized intersection, or
2. Designing a new roundabout intersection alternative.
Jefferson/Mountain/Lincoln/Riverside Intersection Options Analysis
An evaluation of the two potential intersection treatments has been conducted including cost, safety,
level of service, air quality, property impacts, bicycle and pedestrian operations, truck operations,
rail road operations and public input (see Attachment 4 for a summary of this analysis).
Cost
Intersection Improvements:
Signalized Alternative: $2.7 million
Roundabout Alternative: $4.3 million - $5.3 million1
1
Cost range for roundabout alternative depends upon amount of right-of-way required for improvements and the higher
cost is if the project would need to buy the entire property on the NiceCar site.
February 28, 2012 Page 4
Safety
Over the past four years there have been eight reported crashes at the Jefferson Street and
Lincoln/Mountain Avenue intersection, one of which was an injury crash, resulting in an average
of two crashes per year and 0.25 injury crashes per year. This is a very low existing crash rate for
an urban intersection.
The City Traffic Operations department conducted an analysis of the expected crash frequency with
a roundabout. The analysis took into account the intersection volumes and crash history and applies
a crash modification factor (CMF) for the conversion from a signal to a roundabout. The CMF is
based on national data. The results show that we could expect 1.96 crashes per year and 0.25 injury
crashes per year with a roundabout installed. This analysis shows there would be no net change in
crash frequency or crash severity at that intersection with the installation of a roundabout. This is
primarily due to the fact that the intersection already has a very good safety record.
Roundabouts include features that are used in some cases to improve intersection safety at locations
that have safety issues (which is not the case at this intersection). National data has shown that
roundabouts reduce crash severity due to the accident type and speeds involved, which because of
the function and design of roundabouts are lower speed, side swipe type accidents. Also,
roundabouts have a reduced number of conflict points (points where cars, pedestrians or bicyclists
paths cross).
Although roundabouts have features that can improve the safety of an intersection, the intersection
at Jefferson Street and Lincoln/Mountain Avenue has a very low current accident rate and is
expected to be continue to be safe whether it is configured as a signalized intersection or a
roundabout.
Level of Service
Traffic analysis conducted for the Jefferson Street and Lincoln/Mountain Avenue intersection, for
both a signalized and a roundabout configuration resulted in a projected level of service (LOS) of
B for both intersection options. The roundabout configuration does show an overall lower delay,
13 seconds versus 16.4 seconds. This lower delay is realized on the east/west legs of the intersection
(on Mountain and Lincoln). The northbound and southbound delays are higher with the roundabout
configuration.
Air Quality
As noted above the roundabout configuration is expected to have lower overall delay. This savings
in delay results in an air quality improvement due to less idling traffic and less delay. Air quality
calculations that take into account this reduction in delay show that a roundabout would achieve
both short term and long term air quality benefits in the reduction of carbon emissions, as follows:
• Short term air quality benefits = 496 Kilograms/year
• Long term air quality benefits = 809 Kilograms/year
The air quality benefits increase over the long term as traffic volumes increase.
February 28, 2012 Page 5
Property Impacts
The current estimates for property impacts assume the need for additional right of way for each
intersection option. The current designs also assume that all of the businesses will be able to
continue to operate after construction, even with the needed right-of-way. The estimated right-of-
way needs for each option include:
• Signalized = Approximately 1,900 square feet (0.04 acres)
• Roundabout = Approximately 7,600 square feet (0.175 acres)
For the signalized configuration, the right-of-way needs are due to the planned landscape medians
and landscaping areas at the corners and sidewalks.
The additional right-of-way for the roundabout is needed to accommodate the larger footprint of the
roundabout layout. The roundabout would require more property from each of the four intersection
corners than the signalized intersection alternative. The impact on businesses is most significant for
the Nice Car repair shop. The current design allows the gas station to remain and operate much like
it currently operates. The Nice Car repair shop will see the most significant impact to its operations,
in terms of site circulation, parking, and access to the site from Lincoln and/or Riverside. The level
of impact to the Nice Car repair shop will be fully determined with the refinement of the roundabout
design and more detailed engineering, and if the impact is significant enough may require the need
to purchase the entire Nice Car property.
The Diamond Vogel Paint Store currently has a driveway access from both Jefferson Street and
Lincoln Avenue. It is important that with either the roundabout or signalized intersection
alternatives, the driveways on Jefferson and Lincoln are needed for large truck deliveries, which
allows for them to pull through their parking lot and not have to back from or out onto Jefferson
Street.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Operations
Bicyclist and pedestrians are an important consideration in the design treatment of this intersection
with the growth in bicycle and pedestrian traffic moving east/west along Mountain and Lincoln in
recent years. The signalized configuration would allow for typical bicycle and pedestrian
movements. Bicyclists would cross the signalized intersection either with traffic in the far right part
of the travel lane (going from bike lane to bike lane) or, if they desire, travel to the sidewalk and
cross at the crosswalk. Pedestrians would utilize the crosswalks and cross when the pedestrian
signals indicate with the signalized option.
Bicycle operations under the roundabout option would allow the bicyclist to either travel through
the roundabout with traffic; yielding and moving through as a vehicle or to travel to the crosswalk
and cross as a pedestrian. With the roundabout option, pedestrians cross at designated crosswalks,
crossing one travel direction at a time utilizing the medians as a pedestrian refuge. Pedestrians must
wait for a gap in traffic or for traffic to stop to allow them to cross. For more detailed information,
including an interactive user guide that simulates different modes of travel using a roundabout,
please visit the Traffic Operations roundabout webpage:
http://www.fcgov.com/traffic/eng-roundabout.php.
February 28, 2012 Page 6
Truck Operations
Both intersection options are designed to accommodate the expected truck traffic and maximum
truck size expected along this corridor, as well as trucks turning on and off Lincoln. Jefferson Street
is also State Highway 14, which is a designated truck route connecting through Fort Collins north
to Wyoming and beyond. The legal dimensions and maximum weight limit is defined by CDOT
as follows:
“Colorado’s legal height is 13’ except where designated 14'6" by CDOT; maximum
width is 8’6” and 80,000 pounds Combined gross vehicle weight on Interstate and
85,000 pounds on Non-Interstate highways. There is no overall length requirement
for truck tractor semitrailer combinations as long as the trailer does not exceed
57’4”. A combination of vehicles coupled together cannot exceed four units and is
limited to 70 feet in length.”
Additionally, oversized loads are allowed on this corridor (with an escort) but cannot exceed 17 feet
in width.
The local trucking interest has expressed concern with the roundabout option at this location. Their
primary concern is safety, with truck overtracking through the roundabout. The roundabout is
designed to accommodate large trucks with the understanding that in a multi-lane roundabout (which
this is designed as) trucks will overtrack and use both lanes. This is the standard design for trucks
in a multi-lane roundabout. Signs warning car drivers to not pass trucks in the roundabout are
installed at the approaches.
Railroad Operations
The Jefferson Street and Lincoln/Mountain Avenue intersection is adjacent a Union Pacific (UP)
railroad crossing. The UP rail line parallels the Jefferson Street corridor and crosses the Lincoln
Avenue leg of the intersection approximately 110 feet from Jefferson Street.
Improvements to the signalized intersection are not expected to change the current operations of the
railroad crossing. The crossing currently functions with two railroad crossing arms that blocks
east/west traffic along Mountain / Lincoln Avenue when a train is present and is coordinated with
the signal operations at the intersection. Widening Lincoln Avenue to accommodate raised
landscape median will result in the need to coordinate with UP and the Public Utilities Commission
(PUC).
The roundabout configuration will require some changes to the railroad crossing and approval by
the UP and PUC. The roundabout is likely to be closer to the crossing, which may necessitate the
need for more crossing arms. The main concern with the roundabout option is the ability to clear
traffic off the tracks going westbound on Lincoln Avenue when a train is approaching. One
proposed solution would be an additional railroad crossing arm that would activate when a train is
approaching to temporarily stop northbound movements and allow the west bound traffic to clear
(the typical number of cars waiting at that location is estimated to be one or two cars). Once the
queue of traffic clears, the gate arm would raise and the westbound/southbound movement would
resume. This gate arm would not be operated by the UP railroad but would be operated and
maintained by the City. This would be a new type of traffic control device for the City, and the cost
February 28, 2012 Page 7
and level of effort to maintain and operate are unknown at this time. Other potential solutions can
also be pursued if needed through coordination with the City, UP and the PUC based on national
examples. The PUC will make the final determination of the railroad related improvements that
must be made to accommodate the roundabout and all costs will be borne by the project.
Public Involvement
Development of the intersection alternatives has included an extensive public involvement process.
This included public open house events, meetings with individual property and business owners,
meetings with the local trucking interest, presentations to the Downtown Development Authority
(DDA), the Transportation Board, the Bicycle Advisory Committee, Planning and Zoning Board,
the Economic Advisory Commission and the Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce.
Opinions on the intersection options have been varied. Some business owners and residents along
Jefferson Street have been supportive of the roundabout option. They typically like the traffic
calming, urban design, and gateway features offered by the roundabout option. Those opposed to
the roundabout are concerned with the operations, in particular there has been consistent concern
raised over how the roundabout would operate for bicyclists and pedestrians.
Diamond Vogel Paint, which is located on the northeast corner of the intersection, is concerned with
the potential loss of its driveway access to Lincoln, which it needs for deliveries to the store. If this
driveway is closed, Diamond Vogel Paint does not support the roundabout alternative.
Robert Lyle, owner of the Nice Car shop, stated that he felt the roundabout will have a significant
negative impact to his business, particularly if he losses one or both of his driveway accesses.
Additionally, he is concerned with the loss of property that he currently uses to circulate and park
cars. He has also stated that he would be willing to discuss relocating his business with the City
and/or Downtown Development Authority.
The local trucking interest has consistently been concerned with the roundabout option. Their two
main concerns are safety (overtracking through the roundabout) and the amount of truck traffic on
the State Highway.
The DDA staff supports the roundabout option, in particular, the urban design and gateway features
the roundabout would provide for the Downtown. The DDA board voted at its February 9th board
meeting to endorse the City staff position supporting the roundabout option.
The Transportation Board while supportive of roundabouts in general was not supportive of a
roundabout at this location and approved a motion supporting the signalized alternative.
The Bicycle Advisory Committee had a number of questions on the corridor alternatives and
operations of the proposed roundabout in particular for pedestrians and bicyclists. The Committee
did not take a formal position supporting one alternative; however, the discussion was favorable for
the roundabout alternative and the 3-lane corridor option.
The Planning and Zoning Board voted to support the signalized intersection alternative.
February 28, 2012 Page 8
The Economic Advisory Commission, after discussing return of investment, gateway considerations,
traffic flow, and traffic calming, supported the roundabout as first choice for the intersection at
Mountain and Jefferson and the 3-lane corridor option. Additional EAC electronic discussion
included the request to consider a 2-lane corridor option so that both the on-street bikelanes and
raised landscaped median could be included along the corridor.
The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) is neutral on the roundabout intersection
option and the “3 lane” corridor alternative. CDOT has requested an Intergovernmental Agreement
(IGA) with the City because Jefferson Street is State Highway 14, and is part of a CDOT designated
regional Truck Route. Staff is currently reviewing the elements of the proposed IGA from CDOT
and researching if any similar IGAs have been executed by other local jurisdictions and CDOT. If
an IGA is necessary, staff will bring forward the recommended agreement as part of the final
Jefferson Street plan approval process with City Council in April.
City staff also attended an Administrative Matters meeting with the Larimer County Commissioners
to provide a brief introductory overview of the Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Study. The
Board of County Commissioners requested that City and County staff return for a full work session
on this topic and this work session is now scheduled for March 22nd. The primary
concerns/questions from the County Commissioners include truck traffic being rerouted to Owl
Canyon if any changes are made to State Highway 14.
Project Team Recommendations
All of the proposed alternatives for the Jefferson Street corridor and intersection options have
advantages and disadvantages and the project team is bringing forward the information regarding
all of these potential choices to help the determine the option(s) that best accomplish the project
goals.
Based on the technical analysis, as well as community outreach efforts, the project team is
recommending the “3 lane” corridor option with a raised, landscaped median, which will offer the
most benefits related to the project’s diverse goals. Even though it does not include designated
bicycle lanes, cyclists can still ride the corridor by taking the lane or traveling through the area on
one of the existing, less busy parallel streets such as Walnut or Willow streets, or the recently
renovated alleys. In addition, the Jefferson Street report will also include recommendations for
future off-street bicycle facilities that could be installed as part of infill/redevelopment activities
within the River District.
The staff recommendation for the Jefferson/Riverside and Lincoln/Mountain intersection is for the
roundabout alternative. The analysis shows that both intersection options operate well, and the
roundabout provides more opportunity to transform the entry way into Downtown, the River District
and the Lincoln Avenue corridor. Through high quality urban design and landscaping opportunity,
the roundabout option can help transform the corridor to create a more welcoming gateway and
sense of place that connects downtown, the River District and the Lincoln Avenue corridor.
In addition, based on City Council questions at the prior work session, staff has researched potential
opportunities to address noise concerns along the corridor. One consideration is to explore the use
of rubberized asphalt for the roadway paving along the corridor. This technique is used by other
agencies to help reduce roadway noise. The specifics regarding this type of paving material will
February 28, 2012 Page 9
need further exploration during the engineering/final design phase of the Jefferson Street project.
Other project elements to aid in noise reduction could include features to promote traffic calming,
reduce speeding, and minimize vehicles accelerating and decelerating at the intersections and
throughout the corridor.
The following is a summary of the overall project costs for the Jefferson Street improvements,
including the costs for the “3 lane” corridor alternative and both options for the Jefferson/Mountain
intersection:
Cost Estimates for Jefferson Street Improvements
• Corridor Improvements:
Jefferson Street, from College to Linden: $2.2 million
Jefferson Street, from Linden to Mountain: $2.3 million
Total cost of corridor improvements: $4.5 million
• Intersection Improvements:
Signalized Alternative: $2.7 million
Roundabout Alternative: $4.3 million - $5.3 million2
• Total cost for project3:
With Signalized option: $7.2 million
With Roundabout option: $8.8 – $9.8 million
• Total unfunded portion4:
With Signalized option: $5.9 million
With Roundabout option: $7.5 – $8.5 million
Next Steps
The project team is in the process of presenting findings and draft recommendations to the
community, boards and commissions, and City Council to gather feedback from the project
stakeholders. Please see attachment 5 for a summary of the comments received from the City’s
Transportation Board, Bicycle Advisory Committee, Planning and Zoning Board, Economic
Advisory Commission, and the Downtown Development Authority. Attachment 6 provides a
summary of the public comments received from the project open house events as well as individual
meetings with business/property owners and residents, including the Chamber of Commerce Local
Legislative Affairs Committee.
Once the project team has completed the draft Jefferson Street Study report and incorporated
feedback received from project partners and community stakeholders, including City Council and
boards and commissions, staff will schedule this item for a regular City Council meeting (anticipated
2 Cost range for roundabout alternative depends upon amount of right-of-way required for improvements and the
higher cost is if the project would need to buy the entire property on the NiceCar site.
3 Implementation of Jefferson Street corridor and intersection improvements will be coordinated with major
underground utility project.
4 The Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Study report will include potential financing strategies for funding the
remaining costs for the project.
February 28, 2012 Page 10
in April/May 2012) to request approval of the Jefferson Street Study report, including the
recommended preferred alternative, implementation/phasing plan, and finance strategy.
Public outreach will continue via website, e-newsletters, small group meetings, public open house
events, and presentations to City Council, Transportation Board, Planning and Zoning Board, and
Downtown Development Authority.
Implementation of the Jefferson Street improvements can move forward based upon approval of a
preferred alternative and study recommendations. The next step would be to move into the
preliminary engineering, final design and right-of-way acquisition. The schedule for construction
of the Jefferson Street Corridor improvements will be based upon the approved preferred alternative
and implementation/phasing plan as well as the available funding. This project is envisioned as a
long-term community improvement and it may be 5-10 years before it is completed, based upon the
funding needed for implementation and the coordination efforts between the transportation and
utilities infrastructure projects. The ultimate goal is to transform Jefferson Street into high quality,
welcoming corridor and integrate it within the overall Downtown context in support of the
community’s land use, economic, and environmental vision.
For additional information visit the project website:
http://www.fcgov.com/riverdistrict/jefferson.php
ATTACHMENTS
1. Map of Jefferson Street project area
2. Recommended Corridor Alternative
3. Jefferson/Mountain/Lincoln/Riverside Intersection Options
4. Intersection Analysis Summary
5. Summary of Board/Commission Comments
a. Transportation Board/Bicycle Advisory Committee
b. Planning and Zoning Board
c. Downtown Development Authority Board of Directors
d. Economic Advisory Commission
6. Summary of Public Comments
7. Work Session Summary, August 9, 2011
8. Union Pacific Railroad letter
9. CDOT letter
10. Frequently Asked Questions
11. Powerpoint presentation
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
1
Planning, Development & Transportation
Attachment 1: Map of Jefferson Street Project
Jefferson Street Corridor Alternatives
1
Attachment 3: Intersection Alternatives
1
Signalized Alternative Roundabout Alternative
Attachment 4: Intersection Analysis Summary
Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project
Alternatives
Measure Signalized Roundabout
Design Considerations
Safety
Good safety history as signalized, expected to
continue
No significant change in accident rate.
Roundabouts in general provide lower conflict
points and crash severity
Overall Intersection Level
of Service *
LOS B, 16 – 17 seconds of delay estimated LOS B, 13 – 23 seconds of delay estimated
Truck Operations
Would operate similar to current conditions 6
sec. of delay/vehicle SEB, 13 sec. of delay/vehicle
NWB,
Median design needs to accommodate truck
turning movements
Designed to accommodate largest truck type
allowed. 12 – 21 sec. of delay/vehicle SEB, 15 –
21 sec. of delay/vehicle NWB
Railroad Operations
No expected impacts, would operate similar to
current conditions
Uncertain, potential need for gates to clear
roundabout, potential denial by PUC
Bikes and Pedestrians
No expected impacts, would operate similar to
current conditions
Requires additional design considerations,
possible PROWAG / ADA compliance
Special Event
Management
Similar to current conditions
Uncertain, may perform poorly when trucks re‐
route from I‐80
Address Project Goals
Air Quality Benefits
No expected impacts, would operate similar to
current conditions
Provides air quality savings, varies on range of
delay reduced
Public Support
Support from truck industry and those who do
not like roundabouts in general
Support from some Jefferson Street business,
some public support from and DDA. CDOT
neutral
Gateway Feature
Potential
Similar to current conditions, could provide
features at corners & medians (estimated 9,800
square feet of landscape space)
Provides strong gateway feature (estimated
12,300 square feet of landscape space)
Cost Factors
Construction Estimated to cost $2.7 million
Estimated to cost $4.3 million
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
1
Planning, Development & Transportation
Attachment 5a: Summary of Board Comments
Transportation Board/Bicycle Advisory Committee
February 15th , 2012 Transportation Board ‐ (Draft Notes)
A. Jefferson Street Project Update – Kathleen Bracke
This is a joint project with the City, the DDA, and CDOT. Each entity has funding invested in the
project. Jefferson is a throughput for the highway and an important of our downtown area. Right now it
is considered a barrier to downtown. We are trying to create linkages for the Lincoln Avenue Corridor,
the River District, downtown, and Old Town. This is a gateway area for those districts. We are looking
to improve this corridor for all modes of transportation and make it an investment and asset for the
future development of the downtown district. This has been an enormous balancing act between the
downtown objectives and the state highway objectives. The goal is to transform the area.
Alternatives:
4-lane
3-lane with bike lanes
3-lane with medians
Parking would be in a buffer area with different colored pavement to mark it off. The traffic volume
analysis shows a single southbound lane off of College Avenue for the recommended 3-lane with
medians option which maximizes the space. It helps create a more urban experience and visually
narrows the corridor, which makes it safer for pedestrians. Bikes would not be prohibited from using
Jefferson, but as vehicular cyclists, would use the travel lanes. Those who are not comfortable as
vehicular cyclists would be redirected to Willow and the alleyways by wayfinding signage. The
intersection at Linden would be designed to accommodate crossing pedestrian traffic.
Atchison: Is that the only pedestrian crossing location?
Bracke: A pedestrian refuge would also be at Pine and Chestnut, although CDOT is not comfortable
with a light at that location.
The intersection and Jefferson & Mountain had an enormous comparative evaluation that considered
safety, level of service, truck operations, property impacts, operations & maintenance, bikes and
pedestrians, CDOT coordination, air quality benefits, special event management, etc. Both a traditional
signalized intersection and roundabout were considered. Landscaped medians are included in the
signalized intersection design to be used as pedestrian refuges. Median noses would need to be reduced
to accommodate truck traffic. Travel lanes would be the same as currently exist. The roundabout option
includes more landscaping, two travel lanes, and medians that move traffic in a calm manner.
Robert: Why is the crosswalk on Lincoln north of the railroad tracks?
Bracke: Because of the vehicle movements at the intersection and the railroad track arms, we need to
keep the pedestrian traffic back.
Robert: If a pedestrian is headed west on Jefferson, they would end up crossing the tracks twice in order
to use that crosswalk.
Frazier: Pedestrians have to cross two travel lanes, which can be tricky if they can’t see the cars.
Atchison: What are the speed limits?
2
Bracke: 30 and 35mph on Jefferson. CDOT did a speed study on Jefferson and it is in the 40s. They
wanted to raise the limit, but we said no. The landscaping and physical design is to calm traffic and
lower the speed to 25mph. It is part of why it is important to change the lanes on Jefferson. The traffic
volume is actually quite low both today and projected for the future.
Simonson: Does the graphic represent the current existing entrances to Nice Car?
Bracke: It shows the current entrance off of Jefferson, but not the one in the railroad right-of-way.
Frazier: At the Transit Mobility Committee you indicated that vehicles would not be backed up when
the train comes, as they will be able to continue around the roundabout.
Bracke: Today, no matter where a train comes through, traffic is impacted. With the roundabout,
vehicles can clear the roundabout in several ways. Even if cars cue up to cross the tracks, the other lane
can handle through traffic.
Robert: Is Peterson Street being closed off?
Bracke: No, it was redesigned to remain open.
Frazier: How are you addressing the concerns of the truckers?
Bracke: All through traffic is being designed to accommodate large trucks.
Skutchan: We have not registered an official opinion on this option.
Bracke: We go to Council for a Work Session on the 28th. This is information sharing at this point.
Skutchan: To me, the roundabout exacerbates the problems at this location. It isn’t that you haven’t
done great work; I just don’t think it is the right solution.
Atchison: I like to think that I am forward thinking and open minded, but the constant flow of traffic
would scare me to death as a cyclist or pedestrian. It doesn’t feel like it will accomplish what you want
to accomplish.
O’Toole: I agree. When you talk about education, and people learning to negotiate them, I’ve had scary
encounters at the Ziegler roundabout because education doesn’t seem to happen that quickly.
Shenk: This is a thinking person’s roundabout, and frankly, I don’t think the people of Fort Collins think
enough. I grew up in Europe with roundabouts, and love them, but this one isn’t easy.
Bracke: Jefferson as it appears today is scary.
Atchison: A lot of drivers coming to this roundabout from Mulberry won’t be educated in their use at
all. This could be their first experience with one.
Bracke: Vail had that concern when they installed their first roundabout coming off the interstate. It has
since become normal.
Robert: You mentioned bicycles having alternative routes along Jefferson.
Bracke: Parallel routes existing today are Walnut Street, Willow Street, and the alleyway project on the
Old Town side of Jefferson Street. The Bike Plan has an off-street path from Lincoln to Mulberry
connecting to the trail system. If properties along Jefferson are redeveloped, sidewalks could be
widened to allow for bicycle traffic.
O’Toole: When I first heard of this you described it as a “Gateway” which seems odd because this is
central.
Bracke: Plan Fort Collins and City Plan call out multiple Gateways. We have Gateways for districts as
well. This is a district Gateway.
Frazier: Instead of the roundabout, perhaps a “barn dance” concept should be used.
Bracke: A “barn dance” is used in Downtown Denver. All four directions stop so pedestrians and bikes
can cross. We can take that idea to Joe Olson and to CDOT.
Simonson: I like the concept and think it fits perfectly into the plan. I am concerned about when the train
comes and have concerns for Nice Car’s business.
Robert: If you were to use the standard intersection, it could still be made an attractive Gateway with
the $2.1 million dollar difference in construction cost. I’m on the cusp.
Staff Recommendation:
The roundabout provides good traffic circulation, air quality benefits with a strong safety feature. It
provides more opportunity to transform the entryway into the Downtown, the River District, and the
Lincoln Corridor.
3
Skutchan moved that while the Board is generally in favor of roundabouts, we support a signalized
intersection at this location. Atchison seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Atchison: I am trying to understand why this feels different than Vail or Ziegler, and I think it is because
people are trying to get through on a highway to go north on College Avenue. I guess there are ways to
bring a downtown feel to this intersection without a roundabout.
After discussion the motion was approved with Sara Frazier abstaining.
June 15th , 2011 Transportation Board ‐ (Draft Notes)
C. Jefferson Street Project Update – Kathleen Bracke
Project Boundary: Jefferson Street between College and Mountain.
Project Partners: City of Fort Collins (City), Downtown Development Authority (DDA), Colorado
Department of Transportation (CDOT).
Schedule: Spring 2010 – Summer 2011
Funding: $1.75 million (Federal [CMAQ], Local, DDA)
History of Project: Downtown River District Plan 2008 – Linden Street is underway now.
Alternatives Analysis Process:
Design options & evaluation
Street & intersection alternatives
Urban design
Context sensitive solutions
Deliverables:
Preferred alternative
Implementation phasing plan & finance strategies
Project Purpose: The purpose of the Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis project is to improve the air
quality, livability, and urban character of the Jefferson Street Corridor while enhancing the experience
for pedestrians, bikes, and transit and maintaining mobility for autos and trucks.
Traffic congestion is not a primary issue for the project.
Conditions: 12,300 – 13,200 vehicles per day. 2035 forecast: 17,200 – 18,600 vpd. Intersection Level of
Service “B” or better (existing & 2035); On-street parking spaces: 53 existing (sub-standard, very
narrow due to width of travel lanes); future varies by alternative from 36 – 48, but they will be more
usable. There is a speeding problem on Jefferson. Lowering the speed limit is not easy to do without
changing the character of the street.
Alternatives range from 2-lane to 4-lane options. Fatal flaws include need for on-street parking; do not
drop level of service (LOS) more than one level; no major property impacts. Current alternatives include
3-lane options with/without medians & bike lanes; 4-lane option; combination 3/4 lane option. Existing
conditions are not good for people crossing and transitioning into and out of downtown.
3-Lane with Full Median – one lane southbound, two northbound. A buffer is built in to allow for easier
parallel parking; raised landscaped median creates a pedestrian refuge and visual interest along the
corridor as well as access management for increased safety and mobility through the corridor. On-street
parking is particularly important on the downtown side of Jefferson. The River District side of Jefferson
has off-street parking available. Intersection improvements include enhanced crosswalks.
4
3-Lane with Partial Median – allows access to more driveway entrances than with the full median;
features are similar to Full Median option.
3-Lane with Bike Lanes – there is not enough width for both bike lanes and medians. Alternative routes
in the area are being considered (Willow, Walnut, alleys, etc.). Some cyclists feel comfortable riding
Jefferson and take the travel lane. Others do not.
Skutchan: What is the trade-off between bike lanes versus raised medians and the impact on pedestrian
traffic?
Bracke: The raised medians do more to calm traffic and do more to help the pedestrian environment and
improve the visual character along Jefferson. Cyclists do need to cross Jefferson, especially at Linden.
Miller: Is there data that supports the increased safety of bike lanes/raised medians? Does it encourage
J-walking?
Bracke: It comes down to the time a pedestrian is exposed to traffic. A raised island provides a safer
refuge. There is data supporting the improved safety of only having to cross one direction of traffic at a
time.
Miller: Can the light be timed so a left-turning vehicle doesn’t have to stop?
Bracke: That is the progression that Traffic Operations considers on all signalized intersections along
arterial corridors.
Duvall: The demographic of the population (shelters in the area) needs to be considered.
4-Lane – 12-foot travel lanes. There could be inset parking and crosswalks at intersections, but it
doesn’t accomplish traffic calming. Basically, same as existing condition.
Combination 3 / 4 Lane – The alternative is a combination or hybrid alternative with 3 lanes from
College to Linden and 4 lanes from Linden to Mountain.
Proposed Roundabout at Jefferson & Mountain – Recommended from 2008 River District Report.
Being studied in-depth. Roundabouts achieve air quality and safety objectives and handle traffic
capacity well. It also provides a “gateway” entrance to downtown and the River District. Peterson Street
is being considered to become a cul de sac – more public outreach needed on that idea.
Off-Street Parking Options: Potential increase of off street parking spaces at the City-owned lot near
Rodizio Grill and the privately permitted Railroad lot on Linden Street.
Urban Design and Gateway Concepts: Signage, street wayfinding.
Next steps:
Continue individual property/business owner meetings.
Transportation Board & Bicycle Advisory Committee – June
Planning & Zoning Board Work Session – July
City Council Work Session – August
Project Team Meetings
The goal is to build consensus among agencies for Preferred Alternative
Develop Implementation Phasing Plan and Finance Strategies
Frazier: I like the roundabouts around the city, but am concerned about pedestrian safety in them.
Bracke: The raised landscaped medians break up the crossing length making it easier to cross.
Frazier: Trucks going south on College to turn onto Riverside back up past the railroad tracks at times.
Bracke: Overall, the intersection works at a Level of Service “B.” College Avenue has more congestion
than Jefferson/Riverside. Intersection alternatives for that intersection were considered when the North
College Avenue improvements from Riverside to the river were done.
Skutchan: With Mountain being bicycle friendly into this area, did the Bicycle Advisory Committee
express concern about bikes safely using roundabouts?
5
Miller: They said very little about bike safety in roundabouts.
Skutchan: Educating the public is a challenge.
Robert: Why do we have two different names for the same street?
Bracke: There are historical attachments to the names. Riverside was so named because it is located
along the side of the Poudre River. Lincoln was named because of the connection with the old Lincoln
Highway.
You can sign up for a project newsletter at: http://www.fcgov.com/riverdistrict/
July 20th , 2011 Transportation Board ‐ (Draft Notes)
B. Jefferson Street Project Update – Kathleen Bracke, Transportation Planning Manager; Aaron
Iverson, Senior Transportation Planner
We have a Council Work Session on August 9 and would like to share the Board’s feedback either as a
memo or as draft minutes.
This is a joint effort between the City, the Downtown Development Authority, and CDOT.
The project is on Jefferson Street from College Avenue to Mountain/Jefferson/Riverside. There have been
many alternatives examined. Outcomes will include a preferred alternative and implementation phasing
plan.
“The purpose of the Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis project is to improve the air quality, livability,
and urban character of the Jefferson Street Corridor while enhancing the experience for pedestrians, bikes,
and transit and maintaining mobility for autos and trucks.”
Currently 12,000 – 13,000 vehicles per day. 2035 forecast 17,200 – 18,600 per day.
Intersection Level of Service “B” or better along Jefferson Street (existing and 2035)
Existing parking spaces: 53 (substandard & very narrow). Future: varies by alternative from 36 – 48.
Existing conditions: four travel lanes, too narrow, not up to current standards. Public feedback says it is a
barrier between Old Town and the River District.
Alternatives:
3-lane with full median
Reallocating one lane for other uses.
Maximizing the on-street parking on the Old Town side of Jefferson Street is a primary goal. The River
District side has parking alternatives available. A buffer area between parking and travel lanes is common
on all alternatives.
Option A: includes raised landscaped medians for a more attractive streetscape, visually enhancing the
corridor and providing access management from a traffic flow perspective, and provide a pedestrian refuge.
Option B: includes partial medians providing some of the benefits as Option A.
Option C: includes on-street bike lanes instead of medians (no room for both).
4-lane alternative
Widens travel lanes to 11 feet. Does not include raised landscaped medians or bike lanes. No on-street
parking on the River District side.
3 and 4-lane alternative: features of both other alternatives.
6
Jefferson/Mountain Lincoln/Riverside intersection alternatives: signalized and roundabout alternatives are
being considered. The roundabout is the recommended alternative from the prior study. It is being
reevaluated.
The Jefferson/Linden intersection is also being evaluated. There are designated turn lanes off of Jefferson.
We considered removing those. It creates a shorter pedestrian crossing distance and increases available on-
street parking. The downside is limiting accessibility along both sides of Linden.
The project team recommendation leans toward the 3-lane alternative with a raised median. The team is
leaning toward keeping the turn lanes on the Jefferson/Linden intersection because of circulation patterns.
Jefferson/Mountain intersection roundabout provides a lower traffic delay compared to a signalized
intersection. Signalized intersection cost $1.4M; Roundabout $2.6M. Roundabout takes up more room. How
the intersection serves the area is a major consideration, as this is a gateway to Old Town. The team has not
reached a recommendation yet.
Off-Street Parking Options in the lot at Rodizio Grill: The project team is looking at options to add a 3rd row
of parking. Option 1 increases by 25 spaces. Option 2 increases by 16 spaces. The Union Pacific Railroad
owns a lot at Jefferson/Linden where the park is. They built a surface lot that has 10 permitted spaces. They
are investigating ways to partner with the railroad to use that lot.
Next steps:
Meeting with property/business owners/stakeholders
Boards & Commissions
City Council in August
Jordan: How will this impact existing bus routes?
Bracke: Our goal is to improve transit stops and make Jefferson more transit and pedestrian friendly. Long
term plans for downtown include a shuttle.
Thomas: I agree with the project team that the first alternative is best. It is going to be more difficult to go
south. Will trucks opt to go south on Willow?
Bracke: It is our goal to design Jefferson to accommodate all vehicle needs. Traffic congestion is not an
issue as indicated by a current and projected Level of Service “B.” Residual capacity is being examined in
the intersection study. 17,000 cars per day is not high volume. The intersections can accommodate traffic for
40 – 50 more years. We do not want to divert the truck traffic. The roundabout alternative is capable of
radius to accommodate the trucks. The Colorado Motor Carriers Association likes the one southbound lane
alternative because it prevents trucks from being passed.
Frazier: How does the BAC feel about this plan?
Bracke: The BAC gave mixed feedback. Some members felt that the bike lanes made it more bike friendly.
Others think it is too difficult to ride. Wayfinding and education can publicize alternative routes. Bike issues
on this project are more geared to crossing Jefferson to River District destinations rather than bikes traveling
on Jefferson.
Public comment:
Ray Bergner, Bergner Trucking, citizen. I met with Kathleen and Aaron yesterday. If we don’t learn from
the past, we will make mistakes in the future. I’m addressing the roundabout. Service and safety are
paramount. Roundabouts have their place. The one at Vine Drive and Taft Hill Road works well. Colorado
Motor Carriers doesn’t represent all of our interests. We are concerned that you consider the information
from 10 years ago when the roundabout on east Mulberry Street was considered. Safety in multi-lane
roundabouts needs to be considered. We are fine with the design of the road, but have concerns about off-
tracking in the roundabout. Multi-lane creates safety issues for trucks with a 300” wheel base. The high
center of gravity on these trucks is also an issue.
7
Bracke: Deflection of cars entering the roundabout is being examined. Most trucks will continue on
Riverside.
Robert: Have you looked at putting a bike lane on Willow?
Bracke: There are on-street bike lanes shown on Willow. No bike lanes are considered in the railroad right-
of-way.
Frazier: Have you done additional analysis for access to Peterson Street?
Bracke: That is part of the roundabout design study. More work is being done. If a roundabout is built there
will be a cul-de-sac at Peterson & Mountain Avenue.
Thomas made a motion that the Board recommend Option 1 but withhold a recommendation on the
roundabout pending additional information. Skutchan seconded.
Discussion:
Miller: Are sharrows considered on Jefferson under Option A?
Bracke: That hasn’t been discussed but we can ask.
Miller: Is it a safety issue for truckers to follow bikes in travel lanes?
Bergner: It isn’t a big issue from my experience.
Miller: Are maintenance costs available?
Bracke: O&M costs will be included in the final recommendation.
Miller: We are enhancing the parking experience, enhancing the pedestrian experience, but we don’t have
infrastructure for bikes. Motor carriers will be there. Enhancing parking while eliminating bike
infrastructure seems odd.
Bracke: The features we are including with landscaping and other features calm traffic and lower speeds,
making it safer for bikes.
Simonson: Does the Riverwalk design incorporate parallel bike paths? Big trucks sharing roads with bikes
doesn’t seem safe.
Bracke: The design for Willow Street includes on-street bike lanes. We are supporting and encouraging
alternative routes for cyclists.
Simonson: I like the idea of redesigning the City parking lot to gain additional parking.
After discussion, the Board voted for the motion with one descending vote (Miller) because of the lack of
bike lane infrastructure.
8
July 20th , 2011 Transportation Board ‐ Letter to City Council Regarding Jefferson Street
9
February 13th, 2012, Bicycle Advisory Committee
Discussion Items:
I. Jefferson Street Project
Kathleen Bracke –
I appreciate the opportunity to come back to the BAC. We were here a few months ago. Now we are
giving this presentation throughout the community, looking for feedback on the project, specifically
regarding the intersection at Jefferson and Mountain. It is a unique project we have worked on for
many years, even decades. It is complicated because we manage partnerships between several
stakeholders. We are searching for a better solution on Jefferson, from College to Mountain. We are
looking for a solution that will knit the area together; Jefferson is a barrier right now. We are
determining the purpose – it is a downtown corridor, truck route, and entry to an emerging river
district.
City Council adopted a resolution that we must look at signalized actuation and roundabouts at all
intersection improvements.
Dan Gould –
Do those medians act as pedestrian refuges?
Kathleen Bracke –
Yes. This is a place where pedestrians can take refuge. Mountain and College is a wide street, but the
islands act to make it welcoming and less intimidating. The medians will be 6 feet wide so a bike can
fit comfortably and they can be landscaped.
See the handout for more information about alternatives. Also, see the website:
http://www.fcgov.com/riverdistrict/jefferson.php
The staff recommendation is the roundabout; it works well for traffic flow and it is a great way to keep
Fort Collins innovative.
Please encourage your committees to attend the open house on Thursday.
Rick Price –
When you were considering the width of the lanes, did you consider whether an experienced cyclist
would share the lane?
Kathleen Bracke –
That is good input. We will consider more than or less than 14 feet as an indicator of whether cyclists
would share the lane.
Kim Sharpe –
Once you determine the lane widths, can you add shared lane markings?
Rick Price –
I think that is a great idea.
10
Tim Anderson –
Show of hands, who avoids Jefferson on bike? (majority) And is there any issue finding an alternative
route? If not, maybe we can use signage to indicate to cyclists where they can ride.
Kathleen Bracke –
That’s a good idea.
Rick Price –
The critical issue is whether we want to encourage riding on Jefferson with shared lane markings or
discourage it with re-routing.
Dan Gould –
I don’t think this is a good place to use shared lane markings.
Kathleen Bracke –
Just to clarify, shared lane markings are not meant to be an encouragement tool.
Josh Kerson –
I think the medians are a good idea. It makes crossing Jefferson toward New Belgium safer. At first I
wanted the option with bike lanes, now I like this option.
Shane Miller –
I’m distressed at this option. There is no median at Jefferson and Linden, so it isn’t a safe refuge for
pedestrians. It proliferates the status quo on automobiles while there is another option that is more
bike friendly. I would like to see the data that shows a median provides more safety than bike lanes. I
don’t think it is safer even if it is more attractive.
Rick Price –
Do you want bicyclists here or not? If not, make them 13’ wide, no more. Experienced cyclists won’t
share those lanes.
Kathy Cardona –
Are the sidewalks on Jefferson dismount zones?
Kathleen Bracke –
That is another good question. The dismount zone is on the old town side of the street, but not the
River District side. We’d like to widen the sidewalks on the River District side to have off-street
options for bikes. On North College, we have wider sidewalks with space for cyclists and pedestrians.
Those facilities could be developed in the future. This project is about trade offs. We are trying to
change the character of Jefferson. I hear what this group is saying about there not being specific bike
facilities, but we are looking for options for safe cycling.
Kathryn Grimes –
Did you consider doing an overpass or underpass at Mountain and Jefferson?
Kathleen Bracke –
They are hard to do in an urban setting because the ramps are long; people will walk up to roadways.
It works well for rivers and railroads.
11
Sylvia Cranmer –
Whether or not we are encouraging or discouraging cyclists, we must provide a safe route. We need
signage that indicates this as well as designating it a certain way on the bike map. I feel strongly that
we should do a field trip because I think it’s important for us to feel that facility.
Joe Piesman –
When I come out of the roundabout, how do I travel southbound?
Kathleen Bracke –
You must go to Matthews. Peterson will only be available for right turns in and right turns out. This is
an improvement requested by the Fire Station 1 for emergency access. If you are not comfortable
riding the roundabout, you can navigate it as a pedestrian.
Rick Price –
I’m interested what the DDA thinks.
Kathy Cardona –
We love it! We love it. Unanimously.
Rick Price –
Cyclists can be taught to navigate a roundabout. Others can use it as a pedestrian would.
Shane Miller –
Is there any safety data about roundabouts for cyclists?
Kathleen Bracke –
Data shows that roundabouts set up vehicles for slower crashes. Also, users can’t run a traffic light
and have broadside accident; side angle crashes are less severe.
Tim Anderson –
Will this be the highest traffic roundabout in Fort Collins?
Kathleen Bracke –
Good question. I will check traffic volume data at Horsetooth and Zeigler.
Tim Anderson –
I have ridden through the Jefferson and Mountain intersection hundreds to thousands of times. It will
change that intersection for people who ride there.
Kathleen Bracke –
Compared to College, there is half as much traffic on Jefferson and thousands of people cross College
every day. There is a perceived safety for pedestrians on College because of the streetscape.
Josh Kerson –
I am concerned about the train coming through. How will this work?
Kathleen Bracke –
12
That is the number one question we hear. First, we have to consider how to clear traffic off Lincoln so
the railroad arms can come down. Right now that is done with the traffic signal. There could be a gate
that closes at Lincoln. No doubt, there will be an impact on traffic flow, but traffic won’t be stuck.
Rick Price –
Any more thoughts?
Kathleen, did you get what you needed?
Kathleen Bracke –
This was great input. You can find more information on our website.
Rick Price –
If you feel strongly, please come to the public open house on Thursday.
June 13th , 2011 Bicycle Advisory Committee ‐ (see attached meeting notes)
- Had a question about the traffic volumes and if they were broken down by axel type and
vehicle weight
- Without parking would there be room for a bicycle track
- If there were bicycle lanes the transition onto College is important
- Stated that marked bicycle lanes reduce accidents
- Noted that trucks traveling south can be dangerous to bicyclist
- Number of bicyclist crossing Jefferson is growing at Linden and at Lincoln
- Jefferson doesn’t necessarily feel safe to ride on but it is more direct than other routes
- The environment of Jefferson doesn’t feel safe to some, in particular some of the activity at
the Jefferson Street Park
- Important to make sure it’s clear that bikes belong with or without bike lanes
- Discussed the need for improved pedestrian amenities
- Pedestrian refuge zones are a high priority
- Questioned if we are trying to accommodate too much on Jefferson
- Wanted to know if anyone on the project team had first hand experience with a roundabout
located near a rail line
13
DRAFT MEETING MINUTES of the
BICYCLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
June 13, 2010
6:00 PM
Community Room
215 N. Mason
Fort Collins, CO 80521
FOR REFERENCE:
Chair: Rick Price 970‐310‐5238
Vice Chair: Josh Kerson 970‐217‐9480
Staff Liaison: Kathleen Bracke 970‐224‐6140
Staff Support: Dave “DK” Kemp 970‐416‐2411
BOARD/CITY ORGANIZATION MEMBERS PRESENT
Air Quality Board: Michael Lynn
Bicycle Pedestrian Education Coalition: Kim Sharpe
Bike Fort Collins: Sylvia Cranmer
Downtown Development Authority: Kathy Cardona
Fort Collins Bicycle CoOp: Tim Anderson
Fort Collins Bicycle Retailers Alliance: Josh Kerson
Natural Resources Advisory Board: Glen Colton
Transportation Board: Shane Miller
AT LARGE MEMBERS PRESENT
At Large: Dan Gould
ABSENT
At Large: TBD
At Large: TBD
Colorado State University: Ben Miller
Economic Advisory Commission: Rick Price
Land Conservation & Stewardship Board: Kathryn Grimes
Parks and Recreation Board: Bruce Henderson
Poudre School District: Chris West
Senior Advisory Board: TBD
UniverCity Connections: TBD
City of Fort Collins:
Aaron Iverson, Senior Transportation Planner
Craig Foreman, Director of Park Planning and Development
David Kemp, Bicycle Coordinator
Kathleen Bracke, Director of Transportation Planning
Molly North, Assistant Bicycle Coordinator
Randy Hensley, Parking Services Manager
Timothy Wilder, Senior City Planner
14
Call to order
Meeting called to order at 6:07 PM.
II. Jefferson Street Project Update
See attached PowerPoint
Michael –
Your audience is families and people who will come downtown to shop and eat, right? So it
makes sense to separate this track with a curb or something more obvious.
Kathleen –
We are trying to make it useable for everyone, but we recognize that there are alternate routes
for people who won’t use this route.
Dan –
It seems like it would be hard to mesh the northbound flow onto N College.
Kathleen –
That is a good point.
Shane –
My concern is the alternative without bike lanes.
Kathleen –
The purpose is to calm the traffic that is out there, so ideally we can slow traffic to 25/30mph so
more users will take the lane. We will also work to improve way finding so people can choose
their route.
Shane –
All I have ever read is that shared lane markings on roads reduce crashes. Has anyone read any
different?
Kathleen –
It is important to think about the Jefferson corridor. Compared to N College where we can widen
the roadway and include all of the pieces we want, on Jefferson we need to work within the space
we have.
Josh –
I work at N. College and Jefferson and I walk that area often. The biggest issue is that truck
drivers are turning left onto Jefferson from College and speeding up so they can get through the
intersection at Linden without hitting the red light.
Sylvia –
15
You asked if we would ride there, I don’t know if I would. You asked if I would feel safe, no. I
don’t like the idea that it would encourage cyclists to ride there and increase the amount of
cyclist/truck interface. I also don’t feel safe with the transient community down there.
Kathleen –
Those are legitimate issues and we are addressing these concerns.
Kim –
I think the more “bikes belong” signs we have, the better. It sends a good message – like Josh
said – that it is downtown.
Dan –
I am concerned about the intersections and having refuges for pedestrians.
Kathleen –
We tried to include as many facilities as possible, but we were limited by curbs, traffic volume,
left turn lanes, etc. We did all we could to reduce pedestrian exposure. We will imitate the
pedestrian crossings that we have currently along the in other areas downtown to raise
awareness for drivers of pedestrian crossings.
Glen –
I’m not sure it is necessary to keep on street parking for the local businesses because I don’t even
know any of the shops on Jefferson.
Kathleen –
There is revitalization of this area and a lot of new businesses and residential development is
coming in.
What do you think of the roundabout at Jefferson and Mountain?
Shane –
Do we have an example of a roundabout adjacent to a railroad in Fort Collins?
Kathleen –
Not in FC, but they are used all around the world and there are a lot of examples of how it works.
Shane –
Is there a human being who has seen one? It would be worth the plane ticket to research the
actual implementations.
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
1
Planning, Development & Transportation
Attachment 5b: Summary of Board Comments
Planning & Zoning Board
February 16th , 2012 Planning and Zoning Board
Project: Jefferson Street Project
Project Description: The Jefferson Street/SH14 Alternatives Analysis Study is a joint effort of the
City of Fort Collins, Downtown Development Authority (DDA), and the Colorado
Department of Transportation (CDOT). The project team is supported by Atkins
consultants. This Alternatives Analysis Study includes the development and
evaluation of a thorough set of design options for the Jefferson Street/SH14
corridor. The corridor begins at College Avenue and extends along Jefferson
Street and includes the Mountain Avenue/Riverside Avenue/Lincoln Street, and
Linden Street intersections. The purpose of the Jefferson Street project is to
improve the air quality, livability, and urban character of the Jefferson Street
Corridor while enhancing the experience for pedestrians, bikes, and transit and
maintaining mobility of autos and trucks.
Staff is requesting input from the Planning and Zoning Board regarding the
Jefferson Street project, in particular to provide input on the intersection
alternatives as well as next steps for the project process.
1. What input would the Planning and Zoning Board like to share with the
project team regarding the Jefferson intersection alternatives?
2. Is there additional information the Planning and Zoning Board would like
to see regarding the Jefferson Street project?
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence
Transportation Planning Director Kathleen Bracke and Senior Transportation Planner Aaron Iverson
were in attendance. Bracke reported the Jefferson Street Project process has included the
development and evaluation of many options such as traditional roadway and intersection designs,
roundabouts and other innovative, context-sensitive design solutions based upon local, state, and
national best-practices.
Bracke said a full presentation on the project was made at the Board’s work session. Tonight, if it is
the pleasure of the board, she will present the highlights and they are available for questions. She
said when they refer to the Jefferson Street Project they are referring to a series of alternatives for the
Jefferson Corridor as well as for the intersection of Jefferson, Mountain, Riverside and Lincoln.
The two intersection types they are considering include improvements to the existing signalized
intersection and another alternative which would be a roundabout alternative for that location.
There is a variety of criteria they used to evaluate the intersections—it includes safety, traffic analysis,
how the intersections will operate for all modes of transportation and how the improvements will help
2
serve the area for the long term economic vitality and fit the land use character of the downtown, the
river district, and the Lincoln Avenue Corridor over time.
Bracke said many people when they think about the Jefferson Street Corridor today think about it in
terms of being a barrier or the “edge” of downtown. A fundamental principle of this project and their
goal is to transform Jefferson over time so it’s no longer a barrier but becomes a linkage between
those important parts of downtown. .
Implementation of the Jefferson Street improvements can move forward beginning in mid 2012 based
upon approval of the preferred alternative by City Council, Downtown Development Authority, and
CDOT. The schedule for construction of the Jefferson Street corridor improvements will be based
upon the approved preferred alternative and implementation/phasing plan as well as the available
funding. Bracke said they are seeking feedback on the alternatives for the project, in particular the
corridor and the intersection alternative.
Public Input
Robert Lyle, 100 Riverside Avenue, said he owns Nice Car, Incorporated at the corner of Riverside
and Mountain. He said he had a list of questions titled 26 Questions which he would like to share with
the Board. He said Kathleen Bracke has had an opportunity to review. Her responses are in light
gray. His biggest fear is eminent domain and going out of business. He said he can see the writing
on the wall—the thinks he’s not going to survive either a standardize intersection or a round-about. If
he had his “ruthers” he’d prefer a standard intersection but when the outcome is the same, he would
probably go for the round-about. He asked the Board the questions he’s submitted in their
deliberation.
Ray Bergener of Bergener Trucking/Transpro said they are the largest aggregate drive-ball
commodity carrier based in Fort Collins and the State of Colorado. They’ve done business for 66
years and he is a third generation operator. He said he represents a majority of the trucking industry.
They oppose this proposal for three distinct reasons: safety, safety, safety. He said Highway 14 is a
designated transportation network. He said thousands of tons of freight move through daily for both
intra and interstate commerce. He said there is no comparison to the roundabouts at
Horsetooth/Ziegler, Ziegler/Carpenter, and Taft and Vine to the proposed roundabout. This is a state
highway. He believes accidents will happen there.
Bergener said he’s also concerned about the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists in a round-about as
opposed to a signalized intersection. Truck rollovers are more than fender benders. He said trucks
will need both lanes (truck in one lane and trailer in the other) based on the size of the roundabout.
He believes severe damage will occur to vehicles and property not to mention bodily injury due to cars
trying to pass trucks in the round-about.
Bergener referred to the Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis document distributed to the Board at
their work session. He believes each of those columns (except the air quality column) support a
signalized intersection. He said before staff go to Council, the industry wants to talk about air quality.
Bergener said the cost of the round-about is estimated at between $4.3 to 5.3 million. A signalized
intersection would cost $2.7 million. Per the intergovernmental agreement if the proposed round-
about is built and fails (trucking thinks it will), the deconstruction cost and the installation of a
traditional intersection will become an issue.
Bergener said city policy states all types of intersection controls, including round-abouts must be
considered and evaluated. The preferred intersection control is based on providing a safe and
efficient transportation network to serve surrounding development and traffic volumes. A round-about
3
would be designed to accommodate all types of traffic including trucks; however, the slower speeds
and traffic movements associated with a round-about would help discourage through truck traffic.
Now, staff is recommending a round-about to serve truck transportation. He said there’s a huge
conflict there.
He distributed a letter to the Board from Hersch Trucking . Bergener said their paramount
consideration is safety. He thinks the best alternative is a truck bypass and a different route for
hazardous materials.
He plans to make his case before City Council when it comes before them.
Chair Smith asked staff to comment on the issues raised in public input.
Bracke said from a project team perspective, safety is very important to them as well. They’ve taken
that into consideration when evaluating the two intersection alternatives on safety of all modes (trucks,
cars, pedestrians, and bicyclist). She said one of the attribute of round-abouts is safety. When
vehicles approach a round-about, a slowing /yield condition occurs. She said design of the Jefferson
Street Project elements considered the largest truck type (CDOT specs) that uses State Highway 14.
Bracke said they want to make sure it can work safely for both through and local trucks.
Bracke said in terms of air quality, that is another attribute of the round-about. With the round-about
alternative, there is less delay and that translates into the air quality benefit.
Bracke said in terms of cost, the round-about is more expensive. They have looked at that very
seriously but they’re looking at this as a long term investment in the downtown--creating a gateway
entrance into the downtown and the river district. They’re looking at a 50 plus year return on
investment in terms of how they can transform this important area of our community.
Member Schmidt asked why Peterson Street does not change with a signalized intersection but does
change with the round-about…it says it would require closing or changing to right in/right out. Bracke
said in an earlier version of the design, they showed Peterson Street closed with a cu-de-sc and a
bicycle and pedestrian connection to Mountain. In working with PFA (Poudre Fire Authority), they felt
that access from Mountain to Peterson was very important due to the location of Station 1 and how
they use Peterson to access Jefferson and North College. Staff worked with the design team to
revise the design to a right in/right out access point. Bracke said with the way the round–about is
designed, it also facilitates the movement from Peterson to westbound Mountain. Once you make a
right turn out of Peterson, you can "make a u-turn" (complete the circle) and head west on Mountain.
They consider that an improvement over the current Peterson/Mountain intersection.
Member Schmidt said funding hasn’t really been decided for this round-about. When she studied the
analysis document, there were more “pluses” except for air quality for a signalized intersection.
Schmidt provided a summary of differences including level of service B time, railroad impacts,
uncertain PUC denial, property impacts, and special events management. She said based on the
analysis, there isn’t really a good reason for recommending a round- about especially when
considering the difference in costs. Schmidt said we are so desperately looking for funding the gap
for North College improvements. How can we justify spending double on a round-about here when
the analysis said the signalized intersection would work just as well.
Bracke said Schmidt raises some good points. When they developed that matrix, they wanted to be
as straight-forward in the analysis of the criteria involved but what we need to look at is not each of
those independently but the overall picture. What holistically is going to balance out for the overall
needs of the area? She said staff is considering mobility, transportation, land use, supporting the
economic vitality, and the visual entrance into this part of the downtown. Bracke said this project
brings together three distinct districts with Jefferson being the barrier between them. Bracke said a
4
signalized intersection will function just fine in that location but they are trying to do more than that
with this project. Bracke thinks it’s important when we talk about this project we don’t isolate just the
intersection component. Bracke said traffic that is traveling through there today is traveling very
fast—above the posted speed limit. To create a downtown urban/walkabout urban environment, we
need to create a different kind of place.
Bracke said the issues are not insurmountable. There are questions that can be addressed as we
move forward through the engineering process. We’re at the conceptual planning stage and based on
where we are in the process, some of those things do remain undefined at this point. She thinks that
holistically (for the overall impact and benefit they are trying to create to transform Jefferson); on
balance, the round-about is the better alternative. It provides a much greater area to do that type of
landscaping and the entry way features for which they are looking.
Board Discussion
Chair Smith suggested they make two recommendations—one on the cross section of the street
(three lane corridor option with raised landscape median) and the other being whether the Board
would support staff’s recommendation for a round-about or a signalized intersection.
Member Campana made a motion that they support staff’s recommendation with regard to a
three lane corridor option with the raised landscape median for that section of Jefferson.
Member Kirkpatrick seconded the motion. Motion was approved 5:1 with Stockover
dissenting.
Chair Smith said the staff report was very good. He appreciates the analysis that was put together.
He said before he did a weighted scoring analysis of the Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis, he
was very open to the idea of a round-about simply because of what it would do to create a gateway
feature. As we went through the staff generated comparison, he lost his enthusiasm. Smith said by
his calculations, the signalized intersection outweighed the round-about option by 10-4. He believes
traffic calming will be accomplished by the 3 lane with median option. He thinks with all things
considered, he’s going to support a signalized intersection at this time.
Member Kirkpatrick thanked staff for the late night/early morning attendance after what she knows
was a busy day that started at 7 a.m. As a transportation planner herself, she definitely respects staff
recommendation.. Kirkpatrick said when you consider the community health component, she’s heard
community members who say that round-abouts pose a barrier for them. For that reason she has
some significant reservations about the round-about in this area. When she looks through the
alternatives analysis; she has a hard time justifying spending so much more for a facility that to her
does not seem to promote a “stronger sense of place”. She agrees with Chair Smith that other
design elements may accomplish the gateways and traffic calming objectives. She said for the
reasons she’s listed, she would be inclined to support the more traditional intersection.
Member Stockover said it just boils down to it’s a pretty long stretch and if you’re looking at speed
they are going to speed up right after the round-about. He also with the landscaping being proposed,
there will be too much going on for the cars, truck, people and bikes. It is a truck route. He doesn’t
think we can justify spending that kind of money on a gateway when we already have a thriving
community. Stockover also thinks the parking gain along there isn’t as big as we think it is, He’d
recommend a parking structure. The money saved from that design element could be redirected to a
parking structure and would keep four-lanes so you have nice movement both ways. He thinks it’ll be
restricted too much especially after a train passes or when they close roads to Laramie or Cheyenne
and all the trucks that have been stopped will come all at once. He does not think we need what’s
proposed to accomplish the goals set out for this project.
5
Member Campana made a motion to recommend a signalized intersection in lieu of the traffic
circle (aka round-about). Member Stockover seconded the motion.
Chair Smith said he’s definitely a fan of round-abouts and he’d like to a proliferation of them
throughout town in the appropriate places. He loves the gateway feature but we’ll see the train tracks
there. Had it been pretty close on the analysis he did, he would have probably said yes to the round-
about. But it was pretty overwhelming in favor of a standardized intersection.
Member Campana said he likes the round-about idea as well. He just doesn’t like the idea of a truck
route and a round-about in the same place.
Motion was approved 6:0.
Other Business:
None
Meeting adjourned at 12:15 a.m.
July 15th , 2011 Planning and Zoning (Work Session)
- There was a concern/question as to whether or not the buffer lane would become a "drive"
lane
- Concern over how pedestrian crossing would be handled
- How to control lane encroachment in the bike lane alternative?
- Questioned if it was good idea to mix the truck traffic with bicycles?
- Questioned if Jefferson was required to have bike lanes?
- Questioned traffic volumes might go down once traffic calming features are added?
- Observed that alternatives were trading off various elements due to space constraints
- Questions about Peterson Street, asked if it would be closed, noted that there may be
businesses concerns
- Asked about CDOTs position on the project
- The board generally agreed that they like the 3 lane option with the full center median
o Supports effort to make area more attractive
o Supports making a stronger connection to the River District
o Supports improving the pedestrian environment
o Support maintaining on‐street parking
o Supports the roundabout, as a defining entry feature to indicate the entrance into
Downtown Fort Collins
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
1
Planning, Development & Transportation
Attachment 5c: Summary of Board Comments
Downtown Development Authority Board of Directors
February 9, 2012 Downtown Development Authority
‐ The DDA voted to support the DDA staffs position in support of the roundabout alternative for the
Jefferson/Lincoln intersection. (DDA letter is included in the Council materials)
June 9, 2011 Downtown Development Authority
- Asked if the cost includes implementation
- Asked about the condition of the sidewalks, and wanted to know if the project would include
sidewalk improvements
- Discussed the need for left turns at Pine and Chestnut, determined that there would not be a
large number of turns expected at these locations
- Concerned over the comfort level for riding bikes on Jefferson
- A gateway featured was highly encouraged
From the Minutes of June 9, 2011 Board of Directors Regular Session Meeting:
"Moved by Bill Sears, seconded by Jenny Bramhall: To support the stated downtown interests in the
Jefferson Street corridor discussions and to further support the recommendation to adopt a three‐
lane alternative for the project. The motion passed unanimously."
DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES
JUNE 9, 2011
JEFFERSON STREET/ HWY 14 ANALYSIS
Matt Robenalt introduced the background to the Jefferson Street/Highway 14 analysis project. He has served on the
executive oversight committee for the project. This has been an eighteen month process for achieving consensus on urban
design and highway design on the Jefferson Street corridor. A watershed moment was reached last week when all parties
reached consensus on the basic components of the project. The process has been to find the most suitable alternative to
improve the air quality, livability, and urban character of the Jefferson Street corridor while enhancing the experience for
pedestrians, bikes, transit and maintaining the mobility of autos and trucks. The project seeks to balance interests of
different agencies and organizations including the City, CDOT, DDA, local business/property owners and the general
public. The DDA committed $500,000 in 2008 to fund future capital improvements related to the alternatives analysis.
DDA staff has advanced downtown interests throughout the analysis. The preferred alternative should feature on-street
parking; accommodate the continued use of the Jefferson Street corridor for trucks; provide access to individual businesses
to the greatest extent possible while striving to maintain the goals of the project; and, recognize that bike lanes, while
providing an important element of a multi-modal transportation system, are a lesser priority in this area than the elements of
pedestrian mobility, truck/traffic mobility, and on-street parking.
2
Kathleen Bracke of City Transportation Planning provided the status report, answered questions and received feedback on
the project from board members. Ms. Bracke reported that the process involved a huge team effort and there was a wide
divergence of views at the start. The current list of options includes 3-lane alternatives, a four-lane alternative and a
combination 3/4 lane alternative. Both on-street and off-street parking was also evaluated. Ms. Bracke reviewed drawings
of each of the options and discussed features of each. Board members George Brelig and Bill Sears met recently with the
City and consultant staff to review the alternatives and expressed a preference for the three-lane scenarios as the
alternatives that best reflect the interests of the DDA and downtown. In response to wide-ranging questions, Ms. Bracke
noted that the plan assumes the current level of truck traffic, which is about 7.4% of total. The project does include
sidewalk improvements. Some of the advantages of the three lane options are to encourage slower traffic. A full median
serves many purposes including raised landscaping; pedestrian refuges; and increased safety. Off-street parking options are
also being explored. These general concepts have achieved consensus from the partners.
The roundabout at Jefferson and Mountain is considered important to the project. It helps capacity, improves air quality
and provides the opportunity to create a gateway into downtown. City staff is working
closely with CDOT, PUC and the railroad on this aspect of the project and additional analysis will occur through the
summer.
Next steps will include working towards selecting the preferred alternative for the corridor this summer. This will be
followed by the development of an implementation plan and finance strategy. As the project develops there will be
individual outreach to property owners as well as public open houses.
Moved by Bill Sears, seconded by Jenny Bramhall: To support the stated downtown interests in the Jefferson Street
corridor discussions and to further support the recommendation to adopt a three-lane alternative for the project.
The motion passed unanimously.
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
Attachment 6: Summary of Public Comment
Jefferson Business Owners Focus Meeting
February 15th, 2012
3-5 pm City of Fort Collins Traffic Operation, 626 Linden Street
In attendance: Ross Harbo, Brendan Arnault, Jon Gentel, Mitch Busteed, Carl Glaser, Ray
Burgener, Ken Morrison, Robert Lyle, CC Jackson
Results of the comments are summarized below;
- Has there been any consideration for using the Jefferson Park for parking?
- If needed could Jefferson be widened into Jefferson Park?
- What is CDOT's position on bike lanes?
- There were concerns from about the proposed median on Jefferson restricting left turns into and
out of Pine Street. The concern is that circulation in the alleys and on Pine street for those
businesses is challenging already and the more restrict movements to and from Jefferson onto
Pine Street are a concern
- Why is there not a formal crosswalk proposed at Pine Street?
- One of the goals of the project is to slow down traffic which was generally supported by those
in attendance
- How will the median slow down traffic, they were concerned with loss of access
- Representatives from the Vogel Paint store commented that they would not support the
roundabout option if it cut off their driveway access to Lincoln Ave
- Robert Lyle owner of the Nice Car shop stated that he felt the roundabout will have a
significant negative impact to his business, particularly if he losses one or both of his driveway
access, additionally he is concerned with the loss of property that he currently uses to circulate
and park cars. He is in support of keeping the intersection as is or if improved to keep it
signalized.
- There were a number of questions and concerns about how pedestrians will use the roundabout.
Public Open House February 16th, 2012
7-9 am at the Opera Galleria and 4-7 pm at the Northside Aztlan Community Center
See attached comment sheets
See also attached letter from Hersh Trucking
See also attached email from Ross Harbo representing the Diamond Vogel paint store
June 2nd: Public Open House
The open house was held on Thursday June 2 from 4 to 7 pm at the City Streets facility. There were
approximately 14 people in attendance representing business and property owners as well as residents
from the project area.
2
Results of the comment sheets are summarized below;
- The primary interest of attendees was business / property owner followed by area resident.
- The most selected priority for Jefferson Street was "pedestrian mobility" followed by
"improving safety and security" and installing "streetscape/landscaping amenities". Installing
"gateway features" was the next most selected priority.
- The majority of respondents preferred the 3-lane alternative.
- The majority of respondents which liked the 3-lane alternative preferred the "full-median"
option.
- For the intersection of Jefferson Street and Linden all the respondents supported keeping left
turns from Jefferson to Linden.
- For the intersection of Jefferson Street with Mountain/Lincoln the respondents were split
between a roundabout or a signalized intersection
Comments provided on comment sheets at the public open house included:
- "The full median option appeal to me most, because I feel that it would provide the most
attractive alternative"
- "As a business located at the intersection of Linden and Jefferson [Café Ardour] I feel strongly
that left turns should be maintained. I also like the idea of the roundabout to be used as a
gateway to Old Town / River District. I also like that it would help to improve air quality."
- "Very dangerous road, need to slow traffic to safeguard kids going to O'Dell's, and New
Belgium".
- "I think that roundabouts are confusing"
- "If we want to encourage people to head to the river we need to make if friendly and safe to
cross Jefferson!"
- "Suggest you start from the perspective that through-traffic on Jefferson should be re-routed to
Willow and merged with Mulberry at Timberline. This through route should be designed by
using pedestrian and traffic over/under passes."
- "Integrate Jefferson into the Linden area for local low-speed travel with lots of parking /
walking / biking opportunities."
- "Rather than accommodating anticipated increased flow on Jefferson, design an outcome
focused on enhanced quality of life."
- "Want 2-Lane alternative that slows traffic increases parking and is more pedestrian friendly."
- "Do not limit access to Linden from either direction of Jefferson."
- "Jefferson from College to Lincoln has been a barrier for decades to the northeast towards the
river, my priorites are:
o Reduce speeds on Jefferson in both directions
o Increase parking!!!
o Increase ease of pedestrian/bicyclist to go both directions on Linden across Jefferson
o Do not think of Jefferson or Riversides as bicycle/transit corridor!!
o No roundabouts - horrible when semi's, pedestrians and or bikes are present
o Promote access towards River District
3
As someone who lives/works here 24/7 you're looking for the wrong solutions
(suggest looking closer at Carl's (Carl Glaser) ideas!!!"
- "No bike lane"
- "No roundabout"
- "I like full median if the buffer zone was a bike lane, and the street parking is elevated. I think
it will slow the speeds, and create a better atmosphere along Jefferson."
- "I like the gateway notion of the roundabout. I think it's mostly a cost factor for me if there are
alternate funds outside of limited DDA funds, then I'm up for it!"
- "Add more on-street spaces on Old Town side of Jefferson, north of Linden."
- "The traffic on Jefferson is significantly reduced from what is use to be. The truck count after
5:00 PM and weekends is negligible. Use the third lane for alternative parking during these
times."
Jefferson Street – Individual Outreach Meetings May-June 2011
May 25th
Encompass Technologies
- Concerned about dirt, dust and mud from trucks driving too close to the front of their building
- Does not use on-street parking due to the proximity of passing trucks
- Has parking lot for employees, also contract with businesses across the street for employee
parking as well
- Would like to see better pedestrian environment
- Interested in making improvements to the façade of their building
- Would like to make improvements to the back of the building, perhaps building a concrete
walkway along the back of the buildings between the track and the buildings
- Supportive of the three lane option, questioned why the 2 lanes were on their side of Jefferson
- Supportive of a median and landscape/streetscape improvements
May 27th
Nice Car - Subaru Repair Shop
- Concerned over which side of Jefferson has 2 lanes versus 1 lane in the 3 lane options
- Questioned the need for on-street parking on Jefferson, would like to see it eliminated all
together
- Opposed to the roundabout
o Concerned it would kill his business
o Concerned with train activity
o Concerned with cost of right-of-way
o Questioned the need as the intersection seems to flow fine currently
4
- Very concerned with too many unknowns surrounding the project which has the property
owners very worried
- Agrees that the aesthetics of Jefferson need to be fixed
May 27th
Pine Street Lofts Residents
- Concerns with truck traffic
- Safety concerns over the Jefferson Street Park
o Would like to see it turned into a plaza
- Is favorable to the roundabout, thinks it works well and would look nice
- Concerned about an empty lot across from the Pine Street Lofts, needs to be cleaned up
- Supports a full median
- Suggests bike lanes may not be appropriate on Jefferson
- Would like to see the on-street parking in front of the Pine Street Lofts retained which is use by
residents guests at times
June 17th
Vogel Paint
- They need both existing driveways to get delivery trucks in and out
- They were ok with the roundabout
- Concerned over the safety of bicyclists on Jefferson
- They like the 3 lane option with the full median
- Very supportive of improving the corridor
- They do not use or support the use of the on-street parking in front of their business, dangerous
with the proximity to trucks
June 16th
Local Trucking Interest: Burgener Trucking, Hersh Trucking, O’Leary’s Trucking
- Supportive of the full median to restrict left turns
- Very supportive of the 3 lane concept
- Cautious of the height of the median, needs to be a normal curb height in case they do run into
it
- Limited access is important, which minimizes conflicts with the trucks moving through the
corridor
- They didn’t like the idea of mixing bicycles with trucks on Jefferson
- They suggested a 2 lane configuration would be better, as it would eliminate passing, which is a
primary safety concern, and their contention is that this section of Jefferson essentially
functions as a 2 lane roadway currently, especially when larger loads are using the corridor
- Not supportive of the roundabout at this location
- They have a particular issue with multi-lane roundabouts, because cars try and pass the trucks
within the roundabout (signed or not) which is a significant safety issue with the truck taking
both lanes to maneuver through the roundabout. One lane roundabouts are safer in this respect
- They questioned if there was enough space to build the roundabout
- What size truck was used for the design?
- They are concerned as they have no other options within the City as this is the designated truck
route.
5
- If a roundabout is considered it needs to be specifically designed for through trucks, and make
consideration for the longer lengths now being used (average of 75’ to 80’, with oversize of
125’ long)
- They have concern of rollovers in roundabouts
- The mountable truck apron can be damaging to tires (which are expensive) if not designed
correctly, also if they are too high they can cause loads to shift leading to potential rollovers
- They want to continue to be involved in the process for this project
June 16th
Rodizio Grill
- Major issue with the trucks on Jefferson including:
o Speed of trucks
o Vibration from the trucks
o Dirt and dust caused by the trucks and debris falling from trucks
o Clipping of cars parked in front of the restaurant causes lost side mirrors
o Dangerous situation with people walking across Jefferson at or near Pine Street
- Would like to see trucks eliminated or reduced on Jefferson
- Supportive of the 3 lane option with full medians
- Supportive of improved pedestrian safety particularly at the Pine Street intersection
- Does not consider the corridor to be bike friendly, would rather see pedestrian improvements
- Not supportive of the roundabout, unless the intent is to discourage through trucks
- Wants to slow down traffic, improve the pedestrian environment, improving the safety of
pedestrians crossing Jefferson and the idea of landscaping in the median
- Likes the idea of the inset parking in front of the restaurant
- Concerned about Jefferson Park, and the perception of safety and security, and how the current
situation discourage the connection (walking) to Linden and the River District
- They desire to be highly involved in the project moving forward
6
October 17th, 2011: Public Open House
The open house was held on Thursday October 17, 2011 from 4 to 7 pm at the Bas Bleu Theater. There
were approximately 15 to 20 people in attendance representing business and property owners as well
as residents from the project area.
Results of the comment sheets are summarized below;
- [In support of the 3-lane option] Lanes should be reduced for safety
- [In support of the roundabout] Slow traffic down ,currently trucks and cares race to beat light
or trucks run through lights
- [In support of the 3-lane option] The third lane is needed for conditions when traffic backs up
due to the train however it should be made into parking on weekends and evenings when truck
traffic decreases dramatically.
- [ In support of the signalized intersection] Pedestrian access is simplified. Alternatives need to
be developed that have the gateway amenities of the roundabout with a conventional
intersection.
- Parking in the park east of Rodizio is listed but needs to be shown and implemented as part of
the cost of the project to mitigate the loss of parking on Jefferson and to facilitate pedestrian
access across Jefferson.
- [In support of the 3 lane option] Makes strong improvements.
- [In support of the signalized intersection option] Signalized intersections are far superior in
pedestrian intensive areas. Roundabouts should be reserved for rural or primarily automobile
environments.
- Please provide striping for pedestrians at Pine and Chestnut to help slow traffic and provide
pedestrian activity.
- [In support of the 3-lane option] Less intrusion to existing businesses.
- [In support of the roundabout option] Traffic calming.
- Take into consideration pedestrians of all ages and disabilities.
- [In support of the 3-lane option] As much as the City has done to improve roads and
circulation, Jefferson has been woefully neglected for vehicular, pedestrian and bike safety,
now is the time to renovate this very busy and unsafe street.
- [In support of the roundabout] It makes sense - plain and simple!! Delays are shorter,
movement is easier, it's environmentally better!!
Other comments (recorded by staff):
- Manager of Rodizio Grill expressed concern over the loss of left turns into his parking lot.
- Representative from local trucking interest was present. He is supportive of the 3-lane option
but not the roundabout, primarily due to safety concerns.
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
Attachment 7: Copy of City Council Work Session Summary
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 11, 2011
TO: Mayor and City Councilmembers
THROUGH: Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Diane Jones, Deputy City Manager/Policy, Planning, and Transportation
Karen Cumbo, Director of Planning, Development, and Transportation
Joe Frank, Advance Planning Director
FROM: Kathleen Bracke, Transportation Planning Director
Aaron Iverson, Senior Transportation Planner
RE: AUGUST 9, 2011 WORK SESSION SUMMARY – JEFFERSON STREET
PROJECT UPDATE
This memorandum provides a summary of the City Council Work Session discussion from
August 9, 2011 regarding the Jefferson Street Project Update.
Attendees:
City Council: Mayor Karen Weitkunat, Mayor Pro-Tem Kelly Ohlson, Councilmember Ben
Manvel, Councilmember Aislinn Kottwitz, Councilmember Gerry Horak
City Staff: Darin Atteberry, Diane Jones, Bruce Hendee, Karen Cumbo, Joe Frank, Kathleen
Bracke, Aaron Iverson, Mark Jackson, Matt Robenalt (Downtown Development Authority), and
Carrie Wallis (Atkins consultants).
Discussion Summary
City Council provided comments and suggestions to staff regarding the proposed
Jefferson Street corridor and intersection alternatives.
Jefferson Street project is important community project for this major transportation
corridor as well as the opportunities to provide connectivity between Downtown/Old
Town and the River District and change the character of the area.
Discussed multimodal transportation improvements needed as well as the importance of
Jefferson Street to serve as a community gateway into Downtown, Old Town, River
District, and Lincoln corridor.
Currently, Jefferson Street acts as a barrier to people trying to move between
Downtown/Old Town and the River District.
General agreement among Council regarding the proposed three lane alternative with
raised, landscaped medians.
Important to support high quality, pedestrian environment.
Discussed how bicyclists would be served by the proposed alternatives, including
wayfinding and system improvements to support cyclists using alternative routes such as
Willow and Walnut streets
Discussed characteristics of roundabouts in general as well as the proposed roundabout
alternative for the intersection of Jefferson Street/Mountain Avenue.
Follow-up Items:
Additional data requested by Council regarding comparative safety analysis of
intersection alternatives, in particular for the roundabout option, as well as costs for
improvements for both capital and operations/maintenance, parking impacts, and
potential business impacts.
Council requested additional data regarding roundabout performance, including
projections for these locations as well as data from other local roundabouts (before and
after data).
Additional data requested by Council regarding comparative safety analysis of
intersection alternatives, in particular for the roundabout option, as well as costs for
improvements for both capital and operations/maintenance, parking impacts, and
potential business impacts.
Intersection analysis of both alternatives needs to consider cost/benefit and factor in
safety, air quality, delay, urban design opportunities, etc.
Project team needs to research possible design solutions for addressing truck noise along
corridor.
Consider potential for shared off-street path for pedestrians and cyclists.
Staff appreciates the opportunity to discuss the Jefferson Street project with the City Council and
received valuable feedback and direction for the project.
The project team will be working to address Council’s feedback and suggestions as part of the
next steps of the Jefferson Street project.
For more information regarding the project, please visit:
http://www.fcgov.com/riverdistrict/jefferson.php
1
Attachment 8: Union Pacific Railroad Letter
2
1
Attachment 9: Colorado Department of Transportation Letter
2
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
Jefferson Street “Frequently Asked Questions”
Revised 2-22-12
Why Improve Jefferson Street?
Jefferson Street is an important corridor for our community – it serves an important local and
regional transportation function as well as is a central linkage between the existing Downtown &
Old Town area and the emerging River District. In particular, the intersection of Jefferson Street
and Mountain Avenue is a main gateway into Downtown from the regional highway system
(SH14) as well as to the Lincoln Avenue corridor serving existing neighborhoods and emerging
businesses and craft breweries.
Improving Jefferson Street is important to address the existing and planned land use and
multimodal transportation needs for our community as well as to support the continued economic
vitality of Downtown and surrounding areas – creating an environment that is welcoming, safe,
attractive, and enjoyable.
The purpose of the Jefferson Street project is to improve the air quality, livability, and urban
character of the Jefferson Street Corridor while enhancing the experience for pedestrians, bikes,
and transit and maintaining mobility of autos and trucks.
What is included in the Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Study and who is involved?
The Jefferson Street/SH14 Alternatives Analysis Study is a joint effort of the City of Fort
Collins, Downtown Development Authority (DDA), and the Colorado Department of
Transportation (CDOT). The project team is supported by Atkins consultants.
This Alternatives Analysis Study includes the development and evaluation of a thorough set of
design options for the Jefferson Street/SH14 corridor, including the intersection of Jefferson and
Mountain/Lincoln Avenue, and the intersection of Jefferson and Linden streets.
What is an Alternatives Analysis Study?
This “Alternatives Analysis Study” includes the development and evaluation of many options
such as traditional street and intersection designs, roundabouts, and other innovative, context-
sensitive design solutions based upon local, state, and national best-practices. These various
alternatives are evaluated and compared to determine which option(s) best accomplish the
purpose of the project. Examples of the types of factors that the project team considers in
evaluating the alternatives include:
Existing and future traffic conditions
ATTACHMENT 10
Safety, mobility & accessibility for all modes of travel (cars, trucks, pedestrian,
bicyclists)
Impact to local businesses and properties
Parking
Railroad operations
Other factors based upon input from the project team, stakeholders and public.
The goal of the study is to determine a “preferred alternative” for the Jefferson Street corridor
from College to Mountain avenues as well as for the intersection of Jefferson Street and
Mountain Avenue.
What are the different alternatives considered for the Jefferson Street study?
Corridor Alternatives
The project team has developed a set of conceptual alternatives for the Jefferson Street corridor
project to address the project purpose, goals, and objectives.
The corridor alternatives include “3 lane” options for Jefferson Street between North
College Avenue and Mountain Avenue. One of the “3 lane” options includes raised,
landscaped medians and the other includes designated on-street bicycle lanes instead of
the medians (both the medians and bikelanes do not fit within the available corridor
width). The “3 lane” options include two auto travel lanes in the northwest bound
direction and one travel lane in the southeast bound direction. The determination for
which direction has the two lanes versus the one lane was made based on traffic analysis
as well as the need to maximize on-street parking opportunities along the “Old Town”
side of Jefferson Street. The “3 lane” options include streetscape, urban design, and
gateway improvements along the corridor and at the intersections. In addition, the 3 lane
options allow for more functional on-street parking because there is enough width to
provide a safety buffer area between the parked cars and the vehicle travel lanes. The 3
lane options also allow for opportunities to improve the transit stops along Jefferson. See
Figure 1.
The project team has developed a “4 lane” option which shows two lanes in each
direction on Jefferson Street between North College and Mountain Avenue which is very
similar to how Jefferson looks today. Due to the width required for standard travel lanes,
there is limited space remaining for other project elements such as on-street
parking/buffer areas, medians, and/or streetscape improvements.
The team has also provided a combination “3 & 4 lane” option that includes 3 lanes
between North College Avenue and Linden Street and then shows the 4 lane option
between Linden and Mountain.
Figure 1: 3-Lane Option with Median
Intersection Alternatives
The project team has also developed two alternatives for both the Jefferson/Linden intersection
and the Jefferson/Mountain intersection.
Jefferson/Linden intersection options include:
1) keeping the existing designated left turn lanes for vehicles to turn left off of Jefferson
Street to Linden Street, or
2) removing the left turn lanes to create more opportunities for on-street parking and
provide raised medians to serve as pedestrian refuge islands at the intersection.
Jefferson/Mountain/Lincoln/Riverside intersection options include:
1) improving the existing signalized intersection, or
2) designing a new roundabout intersection alternative.
Figure2: Intersection Options at Jefferson/Mountain/Lincoln/Riverside
In addition to being designed to work for autos, bicyclists, and pedestrians, all of the corridor and
intersection alternatives are designed to accommodate the largest trucks allowed to use Jefferson
Street/State Highway 14 as well as to turn on and off of Jefferson Street to/from Lincoln Avenue
and Mountain Avenue. This is very important because Jefferson Street/SH14 is a state-
designated truck route as well as the local businesses and industrial uses within the River District
and along Lincoln Avenue rely on this route for their local truck access.
Signalized Roundabout
The project team has also developed the intersection alternatives in relationship to the existing
Union Pacific railroad tracks. Based on historic data, there are approximately six trains per day
that cross Lincoln Avenue. The trains block the street for an average of approximately three
minutes and train activity varies by time of day, with most trains occurring between 10 a.m. and
2 p.m.. With the signalized option, traffic would function like it does today when the train is
approaching and when it is present. With the roundabout option, it is a newer type of
configuration and the City and CDOT will need to work with the Union Pacific railroad and the
Colorado Public Utilities Commission to determine the specific improvements that will be
needed to manage traffic when a train is approaching and present. These types of improvements
could include different types of railroad gates, signs, and/or signals. The details for the train
crossing improvements will need to be determined during the more –detailed engineering phase
of the project.
What are the Project Team’s Recommendations To-Date?
The project team is now in the evaluation phase of the project which includes analyzing and
screening the various alternatives for the Jefferson Street corridor as well as the intersections.
Based on the technical analysis as well as community outreach efforts to-date, the project team is
recommending the 3 lane corridor option with a raised, landscaped median. The team feels that
the 3 lane option will offer the most benefits related to the project’s diverse goals. Even though
it does not include designated bicycle lanes, cyclists can still ride the corridor by taking the lane
or traveling through the area on one of the less busy streets such as Walnut or Willow streets.
Regarding the Jefferson/Linden intersection alternatives, the team’s preference is to keep the
designated left turn lanes open for drivers to turn off of Jefferson on to Linden Street. These
turning movements are important to support the local businesses along Linden Street and assist
with Downtown circulation patterns and to avoid left turning vehicles from blocking southeast
bound traffic.
Regarding the Jefferson/Mountain intersection alternatives, both the roundabout and the
signalized intersection options offer advantages and disadvantages in achieving the project goals.
This intersection provides an opportunity for multimodal transportation improvements as well as
urban design and gateway features to welcome people traveling by all of modes of transportation
into the Downtown and River District areas.
The staff recommendation for the Jefferson/Riverside and Lincoln/Mountain intersection is for
the roundabout alternative. The analysis shows that both intersection options operate well, and
the roundabout provides more opportunity to transform the entry way into Downtown, the River
District and the Lincoln Avenue corridor. Through high quality urban design and landscaping
opportunity, the roundabout option can help transform the corridor to create a more welcoming
gateway and sense of place that connects Downtown, the River District and the Lincoln Avenue
corridor.
Community feedback on all of these alternatives is very important, particularly given the general
interests and concerns about roundabouts as well as the specific challenges for this location given
the proximity to the Union Pacific (UP) rail tracks.
How is the preferred alternative determined and when?
Final decision will come through technical analysis, community input, and direction from Boards
such as the Transportation Board/Bicycle Advisory Committee, Planning & Zoning Board, and
Downtown Development Authority (DDA) Board of Directors as well as the City Council. The
City Council will make the final decision about the preferred alternative for the Jefferson Street
corridor and intersections.
The Jefferson Street project seeks to balance interests from different agencies and organizations
including the City, CDOT, DDA, Colorado Motor Carriers Association, Union Pacific Railroad,
local business/property owners, regional considerations, and the general public.
This challenging project must overcome differences to find a solution that benefits each
stakeholder to the greatest degree possible, and find mutually beneficial outcomes or agreed
upon compromises to achieve the project objectives.
The goal of the project is to reach consensus among the project partners – City, DDA, and
CDOT – on the selection of the preferred corridor and intersection alternative(s) by March/April
2012.
Is the City going to install a roundabout at the intersection of Jefferson and Mountain?
The City, DDA, and CDOT are currently in the process of evaluating two potential alternatives
for this intersection – the roundabout option or an option that includes improvements to the
existing signalized intersection.
Factors being considered include how each alternative performs from a transportation
perspective – taking into account the many cars, trucks, bicyclists, and pedestrians that use this
intersection – as well as the urban design elements (landscaping, lighting, streetscape
improvements), costs, proximity to the railroad tracks, and potential business/property impacts.
These are all very important factors and the project team is taking all of these concerns into
consideration when evaluating the potential corridor and intersection improvements along
Jefferson Street.
The urban design elements are very important to ensure that the physical infrastructure
investments made along this corridor and at this important gateway are attractive, safe, and
welcoming to people and serve to support the economic vitality and lifestyle of our Downtown
and surrounding areas.
The project team has presented another round of public updates regarding the Jefferson Street
project to the community, Boards (Transportation Board, Planning & Zoning Board, Downtown
Development Authority Board, etc.), and City Council in February 2012 and welcome the
feedback from citizens and business/property owners throughout this process. We want to listen
to community concerns and questions about the various alternatives being considered for the
Jefferson Street corridor and intersection at Mountain Avenue. This community feedback will
also be shared with the Boards and City Council as part of the decision making process for this
project.
When will we see changes happening along Jefferson Street?
The Jefferson Street study also includes the development of a proposed implementation phasing
plan. The implementation plan will suggest timelines for construction to be funded by the
existing project budget, and it will identify potential financing strategies for any additional funds
needed to complete the preferred corridor alternative. The phasing and implementation plan,
along with the proposed funding strategies, will be developed by the project team and presented
to the community and agency partners as part of project outreach efforts in Spring 2012.
Implementation of the Jefferson Street improvements can move forward beginning in mid-2012
based upon approval of the corridor plan and study recommendations. This work will include the
engineering, final design, and Right of Way acquisition based upon the selected preferred
alternative. It is important to have this engineering work completed as soon as possible to help
the project be competitive for future construction funding sources (local, state, & federal). The
schedule for construction of the Jefferson Street corridor improvements will be based upon the
approved preferred alternative and implementation/phasing plan as well as the available funding.
It could be 5-10+ years before the Jefferson Street improvements are completed due to the
amount of funding required for the corridor and intersection improvements. In addition, the
timing of the transportation improvements will need to be coordinated with a major City Utilities
project.
How much funding is there for the Jefferson Street project at this time?
The Jefferson Street project budget is comprised of a combination of City ($250,000), DDA
($500,000), and federal Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality (CMAQ) funding ($1 million).
The majority of the project budget (approximately $1.3 million) will be used toward
implementation of planned improvements as determined by the study recommendation(s).
How do I find out more information?
The project includes an extensive public involvement effort comprised of individual and small
group meetings with business/property owners, public open house events, meetings with City
Boards, City Council and the DDA.
If you have questions or comments about the Jefferson Street project, please contact:
Kathleen Bracke, Transportation Planning & Special Projects Director, office (970) 224-6140 or
via e-mail: kbracke@fcgov.com or Aaron Iverson, Senior Transportation Planner, office (970)
416-2643 or via e-mail: aiverson@fcgov.com
Information about the Jefferson Street Alternatives can also be found on the City’s web site at
fcgov.com/riverdistrict/jefferson. Here you will find project history, updates, public meeting
details, an e-newsletter sign up, and information about Jefferson Street as part of the River
District Area.
1
JEFFERSON STREET PROJECT UPDATE
February 2012
2
JEFFERSON STREET PROJECT UPDATE
• Purpose of the City Council Worksession is:
– Present project update
– Share draft alternatives & findings
– Share feedback received to-date from project
partners & community
ATTACHMENT 11
2
3
JEFFERSON STREET PROJECT UPDATE
• Questions for City Council:
– What input would City Council like to share regarding
the intersection alternatives?
– Is there additional information that City Council would
like to see regarding the Alternatives Analysis Study
and/or the project process?
4
JEFFERSON STREET PROJECT UPDATE
Recommendations?
When and how much $?
Who, What, Why?
Corridor Alternatives?
Intersection Alternatives?
Overview
3
5
JEFFERSON STREET PROJECT UPDATE
City of Fort Collins
Downtown Development Authority
Colorado Department of Transportation
Many other stakeholders and participants
Who?
6
JEFFERSON STREET PROJECT UPDATE
What?
4
7
JEFFERSON STREET PROJECT UPDATE
Goal 1 - safe and efficient travel
Goal 2 - urban character and vitality
Goal 3 - environmental
Why?
8
JEFFERSON STREET PROJECT UPDATE
Corridor Alternatives
4-Lane
3-Lane:
Bike Lanes
3-Lane:
Medians
5
9
JEFFERSON STREET PROJECT UPDATE
Recommendation
Corridor
3-Lane: Medians
8’ 6’ 12’ 8’ 12’ 12’
10
JEFFERSON STREET PROJECT UPDATE
Intersection Alternatives
Signalized or
Roundabout
Keep left turn lanes or
Remove left turn lanes
Pine St.
Linden St.
Chestnut St.
Lincoln Ave. Mountain Ave.
College Ave.
6
11
JEFFERSON STREET PROJECT UPDATE
Intersection Alternatives
Recommendation:
Keep left turn lanes at Linden
Recommendation:
Keep left turn lanes at Linden
12
JEFFERSON STREET PROJECT UPDATE
Safety
Level of Service
Truck Operations
Railroad Operations
Bikes and Pedestrians
Special Event Management
Air Quality Benefits
Public Support
Gateway Feature Potential
Construction
Property Impacts
Operations & Maintenance
CDOT Coordination
Perception
Peterson Street
Corridor Alternative Compatibility
Comparative Evaluation
Jefferson & Mountain Intersection
7
13
JEFFERSON STREET PROJECT UPDATE
Signalized Alternative
Jefferson
Lincoln
Riverside
Mountain
= Landscape Area
= Pavers or Colored Concrete
Jefferson & Mountain Intersection
14
JEFFERSON STREET PROJECT UPDATE
Artist Rendering
signalized
8
15
JEFFERSON STREET PROJECT UPDATE
Roundabout Alternative
Jefferson
Lincoln
Riverside
Mountain
= Landscape Area
= Pavers or Colored Concrete
Jefferson & Mountain Intersection
16
JEFFERSON STREET PROJECT UPDATE
Artist Rendering roundabout
9
17
JEFFERSON STREET PROJECT UPDATE
Jefferson/Riverside & Mountain/Lincoln
Comparative Evaluation
Measure Signalized Roundabout
Safety Good safety history as signalized, expected
to continue
No significant change in accident rate.
Roundabouts in general provide lower
conflict points and crash severity
Overall Intersection
Level of Service * LOS B, 16 – 17 seconds of delay estimated LOS B, 13 – 23 seconds of delay estimated
Truck Operations
Would operate similar to current conditions 6
sec. of delay/vehicle SEB, 13 sec. of
delay/vehicle NWB,
Median design needs to accommodate truck
turning movements
Designed to accommodate largest truck type
allowed. 12 – 21 sec. of delay/vehicle SEB,
15 – 21 sec. of delay/vehicle NWB
Railroad Operations No expected impacts, would operate similar
to current conditions
Uncertain, potential need for gates to clear
roundabout, potential denial by PUC
Bikes and Pedestrians No expected impacts, would operate similar
to current conditions
Requires additional design considerations,
possible PROWAG / ADA compliance
Special Event
Management Similar to current conditions
Uncertain, may perform poorly when trucks
re-route from I-80
18
JEFFERSON STREET PROJECT UPDATE
Jefferson/Riverside & Mountain/Lincoln
Comparative Evaluation
Measure Signalized Roundabout
Air Quality Benefits No expected impacts, would operate similar
to current conditions
Provides air quality savings, varies on range
of delay reduced
Public Support Support from truck industry and those who
do not like roundabouts in general
Support from some Jefferson Street
business, some public support from and
DDA. CDOT neutral
Gateway Feature
Potential
Similar to current conditions, could provide
features at corners & medians (estimated
9,800 square feet of landscape space)
Provides strong gateway feature (estimated
12,300 square feet of landscape space)
Construction Estimated to cost $2.7 million
Estimated to cost $4.3 million
to $5.3 million, depending on extent of
property impacts
Property Impacts Minimal Moderate to major impacts, with the potential
10
19
JEFFERSON STREET PROJECT UPDATE
Jefferson/Riverside & Mountain/Lincoln
Comparative Evaluation
Measure Signalized Roundabout
CDOT No issues Requires IGA
Perception No issues
‐ If operation issues arise, fear impact to
future roundabout projects in other areas
‐ Public learning curve for new intersection
type
Peterson Street No issues
May require closing or changing to right in
right out at Peterson Street access to
Mountain Ave, depending on final design.
Poudre Fire Authority strongly prefers
Peterson Street not be closed.
Compatibility with
Corridor Alternative
Requires allowing u-turns, additional
intersection width may be needed to allow u-
turns
Facilitates u-turns
20
JEFFERSON STREET PROJECT UPDATE
Staff Recommendation
Jefferson & Mountain Intersection
Provides good traffic circulation
Provides air quality benefits
Roundabouts have strong
safety features
Provides more opportunity to
transform the entry way into
Downtown, the River District
and the Lincoln Corridor.
11
21
JEFFERSON STREET PROJECT UPDATE
Pine St.
Linden St.
Chestnut St.
Mountain Ave.
How Much $?
$ 2.2 million $ 2.3 million
$ 2.7 million: signalized
$4.3 to 5.3 million: roundabout
College Ave.
Total corridor (without Jefferson/Mtn intersection) = $4.5 million
Total project with signalized at Jefferson / Mtn = $7.2 million
Total project with roundabout at Jefferson / Mtn. = $8.8 to 9.8 million
22
JEFFERSON STREET PROJECT UPDATE
When?
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015+
Study
Start
Alternatives
Development
Study
Complete
Engineering for
Preferred Alternative
Construction*
*Depends on funding and
coordination with utilities project
12
23
JEFFERSON STREET PROJECT UPDATE
Public Outreach
Board of County Commissioners February 21st, 9:00 am
Jefferson Business Owners February 15th, 3-5 pm
Public Open House February 16th, 4-7 pm
City Council Work Session February 28th, 6:00 pm
Planning & Zoning Board February 16th, 7-9 pm
Transportation Board February 15th, 7:00 pm
Economic Advisory Commission February 15th, 11:00 am
Bicycle Advisory Committee February 13th, 6:00 pm
Planning & Zoning Board February 10th, 12:00 pm
Downtown Development Authority February 9th, 7:30 am
UniverCity Connections February 7th, 7:30 am
Meetings Date
24
JEFFERSON STREET PROJECT UPDATE
• Next Steps
– Prepare Draft Jefferson Alternatives Analysis
Study Report based on input (March)
– Present Draft Report to Community, Boards &
Commissions (April)
– Present Report to City Council (April/May)
– Based on selected preferred alternative,
implementation next steps can proceed:
• Engineering/Design/ROW (2012-2013/14)
• Construction (2014/15 +, depends upon funding & coordination with
major underground utilities project)
13
25
JEFFERSON STREET PROJECT UPDATE
• Questions for City Council:
– What input would City Council like to share regarding
the intersection alternatives?
– Is there additional information that City Council would
like to see regarding the Alternatives Analysis Study
and/or the project process?
26
JEFFERSON STREET PROJECT UPDATE
Kathleen Bracke,
Transportation Planning & Special Projects Director
kbracke@fcgov.com or ph: 224.6140
Aaron Iverson, Senior Transportation Planner
aiverson@fcgov.com or ph: 416.2643
Project website:
http://www.fcgov.com/riverdistrict/jefferson.php
Information
full take of one property/business
Operations &
Maintenance Similar to current conditions
Uncertain, depends on railroad issues and
PROWAG / ADA issues
to $5.3 million, depending on extent of property
impacts
Property Impacts Minimal
Moderate to major impacts, with the potential
full take of one property/business
Operations &
Maintenance
Similar to current conditions
Uncertain, depends on railroad issues and
PROWAG / ADA issues
Implementation
CDOT No issues Requires IGA
Perception No issues
‐ If operation issues arise, fear impact to future
roundabout projects in other areas
‐ Public learning curve for new intersection type
Peterson Street No issues
May require closing or changing to right in right
out at Peterson Street access to Mountain Ave,
depending on final design. Poudre Fire Authority
strongly prefers Peterson Street not be closed.
Compatibility with
Corridor Alternative
Requires allowing u‐turns, additional
intersection width may be needed to allow u‐
turns
Facilitates u‐turns
* LOS analysis was conducted using multiple methods, as such a range of delays are predicted