HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 07/02/2013 - RESOLUTION 2013-061 APPROVING THE HARMONY ROAD ENHDATE: July 2, 2013
STAFF: Aaron Iverson
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 29
SUBJECT
Resolution 2013-061 Approving the Harmony Road Enhanced Travel Corridor Alternatives Analysis: Final Report.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Harmony Road Enhanced Travel Corridor (ETC) Alternatives Analysis Final Report is the culmination of an 18-
month effort. This study has included in-depth review of existing conditions and a comprehensive development of a
variety of alternatives, ultimately resulting in recommendations for improved roadway, bicycle, pedestrian and transit
facilities for Harmony Road. The study was conducted with extensive public input and feedback; the Final Report is
a reflection of guidance from the community on the preferred future for Harmony Road.
The draft Final Report, along with all the technical appendices, is available for review at www.fcgov.com/harmony.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
This planning effort began in December 2011, culminating with City Council considering approval on July 2, 2013. The
Harmony Road ETC Alternatives Analysis is a direct outcome of a near-term action item in Plan Fort Collins/
Transportation Master Plan, adopted by City Council in February 2011. This Harmony Road ETC Master Plan is also
part of the City Council work plan. Funding for this project was approved by City Council from the voter-approved Keep
Fort Collins Great funds for the 2011-12 budget cycle. The purpose of the Harmony Road ETC Master Plan is to
augment and update existing transportation plans for the Harmony Corridor and to document the transportation, land
use, environmental, economic, and social needs of the corridor and to determine the most appropriate corridor
configuration.
Enhanced Travel Corridors (ETCs) provide connections between major activity centers like downtown, CSU, Midtown,
employment centers, shopping destinations, and neighborhoods. While ETCs share this similar purpose, each
individual corridor will have a different, unique way to provide those connections. In some corridors, ETCs may focus
on enhancing travel time through the corridor to connect primary destinations (Mountain Vista Corridor and Timberline
Corridor), while other ETCs may focus on enhancing infill and redevelopment along the corridor (Mason Corridor and
Harmony Corridor).
The boundary of this corridor plan is Harmony Road from Interstate 25 (I-25) to Shields Street, as shown in
Attachment 1. An influence area one mile on either side of Harmony Road was used for understanding land use,
socioeconomic, and other contextual factors that influence the Harmony Road corridor.
The Harmony ETC addressed, at a minimum, the following items (presented in no particular order):
• Provide mobility and improved safety to/from Fort Collins via this important regional gateway;
• Create an updated master plan that supports multiple modes of safe, affordable, easy, and convenient travel
to ensure mobility for people of all ages and abilities;
• Recommend improvements to support local goals of integrating land-use and transportation planning, with
economic development and environmental stewardship;
• Address regional connectivity between the City of Fort Collins and regional neighbors and the I-25 corridor;
• Link major employment, education, medical campus/offices, commercial, entertainment, and residential areas
within southeast Fort Collins;
• Provide connectivity to the Mason Corridor, the future enhanced Timberline Corridor and the regional
transportation system;
• Collaborate among City staff, private sector, and surrounding communities;
• Seek citizen input to help develop transportation design options, identify funding and build partnerships; and
• Create an updated master plan that supports sustainability to systemically, creatively, and thoughtfully utilize
environmental, human, and economic resources to meet our present needs and those of future generations
without compromising the ecosystems upon which we depend.
• Address the appearance, urban form, and the long term maintenance needs of the corridor.
July 2, 2013 -2- ITEM 29
Existing and Future Conditions
The findings of the review of existing and future travel conditions for the Harmony Corridor can be summarized as
follows:
• Harmony Corridor as we know it today is the result of numerous plans and programs throughout the years,
as well as a result of serving as Colorado State Highway 68 for nearly forty years.
• Harmony Road serves as both local commercial and residential land uses within the Harmony Corridor, but
also serves as an important regional connection to I-25 with significant thru traffic.
• Harmony Road is a wide six-lane facility (currently and planned) with large landscaped setbacks and informal
tree plantings creating campus-style settings as envisioned in the 1991 "Harmony Corridor Plan" (last
amended in 2006).
• Street design elements, such as medians, street lights and plantings have been inconsistent along the
corridor, with some of the corridor still maintaining a rural character.
• Most of Harmony Road does not incorporate any stormwater quality treatment mitigation as currently required
since it was largely constructed before these regulations went into effect. Stormwater issues are currently not
being address in a systematic way on Harmony Road.
• Traffic volumes are some of the highest in the City (just after College Avenue) ranging from over 19,000 to
almost 46,000 vehicles per day depending on location.
• Harmony Road has two intersections (Timberline and Lemay) with the highest crash totals in the City.
• The type of crashes occurring include, rear-end crashes, sideswipes, and in certain locations bicycle-related
crashes and crashes involving signs.
• Bus service is provided by three routes (route 1, 16, and 17) with average daily ridership of 1,149 for Route
1, 277 for Route 16 and 158 for Route 17.
• The design of much of Harmony Road makes the provision of safe, convenient, and efficient transit service
challenging due to long distances between signalized intersections, lack of sidewalk connections to land uses,
the lack of curb and gutter, and some physical barriers like drainage ditches.
• Harmony Road has six- to ten-foot bike lanes on both sides of the street from I-25 through the Shields Street
intersection, with a direct connection to the Mason Trail.
• Sidewalks currently exist along the vast majority of the corridor, and most sections of the sidewalk are
detached from the roadway.
• As a result of indirect pedestrian connections, limited and long distances between signalized street crossings,
large setbacks, rights-of-way and some physical barriers like drainage ditches, crossing Harmony Road as
a pedestrian is challenging.
• The corridor is adjacent to some potential historic resources, park and recreation facilities. Any future
improvements, must consider air quality or other environmental impacts, as well as impacts to the above
mentioned facilities.
• Employment and households are going to grow within the Harmony Road corridor area in the future.
• Automobile traffic will also grow and congestion will increase along the entire corridor in the future. This
growth in traffic is due in part to Harmony’s role as a regional connector and a primary gateway in and out of
the southern part of the community.
• Harmony Road is identified as an important regional transit connection in the future, as well.
July 2, 2013 -3- ITEM 29
Alternatives Development
The development of the Harmony ETC Master Plan included the definition, screening, and evaluation of alternatives
with the ultimate recommendation of one alternative as the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA). Alternatives were
evaluated based on their ability to meet the project’s Vision and Purpose and Need, environmental impacts, and
comparative costs. Screening criteria included a combination of quantitative and qualitative measures directly tied to
the Project Vision/Goals and Objectives. Figure 1 shows the alternative development process.
Figure 1. Alternative Development Process
Tier 1 alternatives were developed based on information from the Corridor Understanding, the established goals and
objectives and public input. Tier 1 alternatives were intended to be broad and capture a wide range of ideas. The
range of Tier 1 alternatives included:
• No action, keep conditions as currently exist
• Enhance the current bus service within the existing roadway
• Convert the outside travel lane into a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) lane, taking away one automobile travel lane
in each direction.
• Construct a BRT lane within the median, requiring the loss of one automobile travel lane in each direction
• Turn the outside travel lane into a BRT lane combined with a High Occupancy Vehicle lane, taking away one
automobile travel lane in each direction.
• Add a BRT lane to the outside of the existing roadway, widening the corridor and keeping three automobile
travel lanes in each direction.
• Add a BRT lane within the median but widening the entire corridor to keep three automobile travel lanes in
each direction.
• Combine the above transit and roadway improvements with bike lanes, shared use paths or protected bicycle
facilities like a buffered bike lane.
• Combine any of the alternatives with bicycle/pedestrian overpasses or underpasses at strategic locations.
• Combine any of the alternatives with intersection improvements
The Tier 2 evaluation process involved a detailed and quantitative comparison between corridor alternatives and
against the No Action Alternative. Interdepartmental and agency coordination, as well as public involvement, played
July 2, 2013 -4- ITEM 29
a major role in this process. The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was involved in each step of the evaluation
process, as well as during the development and refinement of the LPA.
Locally Preferred Alternative
The Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) for the Harmony Road Enhanced Travel Corridor (ETC), extending from
Shields Street to I-25, includes a series of multimodal transportation improvements to address the project Purpose
and Need, which is:
The purpose of the project is to implement multi-modal transportation improvements that enhance
mobility and safety along the Harmony Road Corridor. Improvements will support local and regional
travel needs, land uses, economic health and environmental stewardship goals
Roadway Improvements
The LPA includes raised, landscaped medians the full length of corridor. The LPA includes widening the final section
of Harmony to six lanes from Boardwalk Avenue to College Avenue. The ultimate widening of Timberline to six lanes
from Harmony north is also included. Additionally several intersection improvements were identified to address future
operational deficiencies, these include:
• Dual protected north and southbound left turn lanes at Boardwalk and Harmony
• Channelized southbound to westbound free right at Timberline and Harmony
• East and northbound right turn lanes at Ziegler Road and Harmony
• Channelized westbound to northbound free right at Ziegler Road and Harmony
• Eastbound right turn lane at Lady Moon and Harmony
Transit Improvements
The transit aspect of the LPA includes Express Bus along Harmony Road between the Harmony Transfer Center and
the South Transit Center. The bus would travel in the general purpose lanes along the extent of the route except
where queue jumps are provided. Queue jumps are dedicated lanes at the intersections allowing a bus to maneuver
around the main stack of traffic so that when the signal light turns green the bus is at the front of the queue. The LPA
includes queue jumps at three intersections along Harmony Road at Lemay Avenue, Timberline Road, and Ziegler.
Service along Harmony would operate every 20 minutes in the peak period and 30 minutes in the off peak periods,
with stops provided approximately every 1/2 mile (locations to be determined through the LPA refinement process).
Transit service along Harmony Road between Front Range Community College and College Avenue would be
provided by the Route 19.
Bicycle Improvements
The LPA includes enhancements to the existing bicycle lanes, including green colored pavement on the bike lanes
for the full length of the corridor, and a striped buffer between the bike lane and the adjacent travel lane from College
Avenue east to I-25. Additionally, many of the sidewalks parallel to Harmony Road have been built as multi-use paths
that are 8 to10 feet wide. Staff recommends that this parallel system be extended along the length of Harmony Road,
to facilitate travel by bicyclists who do not feel comfortable riding on the street.
Pedestrian Improvements
The existing meandering sidewalk will be retained on both sides of Harmony, with completion of the few missing
segments. The LPA also includes enhancements to bicycle and pedestrian crossing (both at-grade and grade
separated). Key grade separations that have been identified as high priority are at the crossing of the Power Trail and
the crossing of the Mason Trail.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The cost of the LPA for Harmony Road, which includes all modes and all recommendations, is approximately $53
million. Certain project elements may be installed in phases over several segments, without completing all design
elements in that segment. Project costs are summarized below in the four main travel mode categories:
July 2, 2013 -5- ITEM 29
1. Roadway: $16.8 million (includes design and construction)
2. Transit: $17.7 million (includes design, construction and buses)
3. Bike: $248,200 (includes design and striping)
4. Pedestrian: $18.1 million (includes design, construction and grade separations)
Staff will pursue potential local, regional, state, and federal funding opportunities to complete these important, long-
term investments for Harmony Road.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A cursory level environmental inventory of existing conditions and a preliminary assessment of the project impacts was
conducted for the for the Harmony Road ETC study area. The level of analysis performed for this project is
commensurate with the requirements of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for Alternatives Analysis.
The LPA is expected to increase total miles of travel in the corridor by approximately 5 percent over No Action, but
to the positive, corridor crossing time would decrease by approximately 13 percent and average corridor vehicle
speeds would increase by approximately 17 percent. These improvements should reduce tailpipe emissions on the
whole.
Transit ridership is expected to increase from about 600 daily boardings currently to over 2,000 estimated daily
boardings. The improved transit, bicycle facilities and pedestrian facilities will result in a mode shift. On Harmony
Road, with a projected 50,000 vehicles per day even a small shift away from an auto trip can make a big difference.
For every 1% (or 500 trips) shifted from a car to transit, bicycling or walking on a daily basis, that adds up to over
900,000 vehicle miles saved over a year (based on an average 5 mile trip).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Staff presented information related to the Harmony Road ETC to the following boards:
Transportation Board: July 18, 2012; March 20, 2013; June 19, 2013. At its June 19, 2013 meeting, the
Transportation Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the Plan.
Bicycle Advisory Committee: July 9, 2012; May 6, 2013. The Committee generally supported the recommendations
of the LPA and viewed the buffered bike lanes as an improvement over the existing bike lanes.
Planning and Zoning Board Work Session: May 10, 2013. The Planning and Zoning Board generally supported
the recommendations of the LPA.
Air Quality Advisory Board: May 20, 2013. The Air Quality Advisory Board had numerous questions about the
impact of the project on air quality. On one hand the Board felt improving traffic flow had the most potential to improve
mobile emissions, while there was also a strong advocacy for increasing mode shift to transit, bicycling and walking
to reduce vehicle miles traveled. The Board agreed to provide a brief, bulleted document with ideas regarding air
quality issues in this project.
City Council Work Session: October 23, 2012
PUBLIC OUTREACH
The project team sought comments and input on the key tasks throughout the life of the project. See Attachment
2 for a list of the outreach completed during the project.
July 2, 2013 -6- ITEM 29
Technical Advisory Committee
This process included on-going coordination among multiple City departments, and various interested community and
corridor stakeholders in the form of a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). The TAC met six times over the course
of the project providing guidance and feedback at key decision points. The TAC helped guide the development of the
alternatives, vetted the recommendations which ultimately became the Locally Preferred Alternative presented in the
Final Report.
Public Meetings and Outreach
Public meetings were held on May 3, 2012, September 13, 2012, and May 1, 2013 to actively engage the corridor
property owners, businesses, residents, and general public in the process. The meetings were conducted as part of
the public review process for the alternatives screening process and to help determine the preferred corridor
recommendation.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Study Corridor and Influence Area
2. Public Outreach Summary
3. City Council Work session summary, October 23, 2012
4. Transportation Board, Bicycle Advisory Committee, Planning and Zoning Board, Air Quality Advisory Board
minutes
5. PowerPoint Presentation
FC Moves
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: Study Corridor and Influence Area
FC Moves
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 2: Public Outreach Summary
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Appendix C
Public Input
C‐1
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Summary of Public Input – 1st Round of Public Involvement – May
2012
The first public meeting was held at the Spirit of Joy Lutheran Church on Harmony on May 3rd from 4:00
– 7:00 PM. The format of the meeting was an open house, with four stations: 1) Education, 2)
Identification of Issues (Problems), 3) Corridor Visions (Solutions), and 4) Survey (Trade Offs). While the
attendance was somewhat light, the input received was good. The City distributed flyers and sent
messages through Facebook and Twitter to direct people to the online survey, which was be open
through the end of May. The survey received 254 responses.
The following issues were identified at the public meeting:
Sidewalks are too circuitous for trip making
People frequently jaywalk
Wide crossing for pedestrian – high exposure
Bus route timing should be coordinated better with schools to avoid kids rushing to cross street
Transit service does not go to Transfer Center
Bicycles must travel adjacent to fast moving cars
The responses to the multiple choice online survey questions are charted on the following pages. A
summary of the corresponding comments follows the applicable charts. The themes that were most
common to the survey responses are listed below, in the general order of response frequency:
Separate bikes from travel lanes (buffer)
Provide a balance between different modes/provide travel options
6 general purpose travel lanes are needed
Support for landscaped median
Support for dedicated bus lane
Improve pedestrian crossings and/or provide grade separated crossings
Support for detached sidewalks
Maintain wide setbacks/open feel
Accommodate bikes on both sides
C‐2
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
C‐3
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
C‐4
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Traffic/Congestion
Signal timing – (19)
Too many traffic signals – (5)
Travel speeds slow/less than posted – (3)
Congestion at railroad crossings – (1)
Volume of traffic – (1)
Configuration
Transition from 3 to 2 lanes; should be 3 the whole way – (8)
Confusing – lane ends, merges, etc – (3)
Too few turn lanes at access points – (3)
Too many lanes – (2)
Too many access points – (1)
Bicycle
Safety issues at intersections for bicyclists – (6)
Not appropriate for/comfortable for bikes – (6)
Lack of bike underpass/overpass – (3)
Inconsistent bike lane configuration (shifting), not well marked – (3)
Bike lane/right turn conflict approaching intersections – (2)
Bikes are a hazard, remove – (2)
Too much traffic for bicyclists to turn left – (1)
Pedestrian
Missing sidewalk – (2)
Safety issues at intersections for pedestrians – (1)
Poor environment for pedestrians/not inviting – (1)
Transit
Buses block travel lane (especially at stop near RR tracks) – (2)
Wait time for bus service too long – (1)
Maintenance
Condition of road (Boardwalk to College, most notably) – (3)
Construction ongoing – (3)
Snow piled up in bike lane and sidewalk – (1)
C‐5
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Condition of bike lanes (pot holes) – (1)
Other
No concerns, it works well – (4)
Noise – (1)
Current land uses not bicycle and pedestrian friendly – (1)
C‐6
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
C‐7
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Other Destinations:
Medical facilities – (4)
MAX – (2)
Connections to other E/W and N/S bus arterials (GRID) – (2)
Libraries – (2)
Hughes Stadium – (1)
Timberline Road – (1)
Avago – (1)
Front Range Village – (1)
Senior Center – (1)
Denver – (1)
Work – (1)
Larimer County Detention Center – (1)
Schools – (1)
C‐8
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Positive Comments
Like the detached sidewalks – (22)
Good for bikes – (19)
Good for auto – (12)
Like the wide setbacks – (7)
Aesthetically pleasing – (6)
Like 3 travel lanes on Harmony – (6)
Each mode has its own space – (6)
Like the green space – (2)
C‐9
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Lane use appears understandable (user friendly) – (2)
Like the access control – (2)
Good for snow plowing – (1)
Auto is predominant mode – embrace – (1)
Realistic – (1)
Negative Comments
Too much emphasis on autos, freeway feel – (25)
Unsafe for bicyclists (high speeds, too close to cars) – (24)
Prefer separated bike lanes – (14)
Unattractive (especially depressed median) – (10)
Prefer a dedicated bus lane – (7)
Concern about pedestrian/transit users ability to cross the street – (6)
Not environmentally responsible/sustainable – (5)
Regressive/Proven to be ineffective – (5)
No “life” on the street, needs urban amenities, sense of community – (5)
Not good for pedestrians, shopping/residential too separated – (5)
Bikes should be routed to other streets – (4)
Bikes should be moved to the sidewalk (shared use path) – (4)
Unfair to non-drivers – (4)
Poor business access – (3)
Add landscaping in median – (2)
Depressed median seems unsafe – (2)
Encourages unhealthy mode of transportation – (1)
Buildings set back too far – (1)
Needs more dense land use to encourage other modes – (1)
Concern about ROW impacts – (1)
C‐10
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Positive Comments
Like the landscaped median – (42)
Like the increased emphasis on bus – (17)
Aesthetically pleasing – (14)
Like the detached sidewalks – (12)
Like the wide setbacks – (7)
Like the dedicated bike lane – (6)
Good for bikes – (6)
C‐11
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Good for auto – (4)
Friendly, vibrant – (3)
Good for pedestrians – (2)
Each mode has its own space – (1)
Negative Comments
Unsafe for bicyclists (high speeds, too close to cars) – (19)
Too expensive to implement and maintain (especially landscape median) – (11)
Prefer separated bike lanes – (9)
Concern about pedestrians crossing wide intersections – (6)
Visibility limited by over-landscaping – (6)
Too much emphasis on autos – (5)
Do not anticipate much bus ridership – (5)
Too wide, too many lanes, too much traffic – (4)
Not good for pedestrians (and transit users), shopping/residential too separated – (3)
Dislike the bus’s interference with traffic flow – (3)
Need more bike and ped friendly facilities – (3)
Wide median is wasted space – (3)
Prefer dedicated bus lane – (3)
Prefer grade separated pedestrian crossing – (3)
Bus/bike conflict – (3)
Difficult for bikes to turn left – (3)
Higher densities needed to support transit – (2)
Bikes should not be on Harmony – (2)
Regressive – (1)
Bus service is not as important as traffic flow – (1)
Seems too crowded – (1)
Raised median safer with 3 lanes – (1)
Add green bike boxes – (1)
Buses need designated pull outs – (1)
C‐12
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Positive Comments
Like the dedicated bus lanes – (41)
Like the separated cycle tracks – (37)
Supportive of all aspects/favorite – (13)
Improves safety for cyclists – (11)
Good multimodal options – (10)
Like the detached sidewalks – (6)
Like the landscaped median – (5)
Like HOVs using bus lane – (4)
C‐13
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Bus lane provides an extra buffer between cyclists and auto – (4)
More environmentally friendly – (3)
Like the less costly median – (2)
Aesthetically pleasing – (2)
Negative Comments
Too wide, too much traffic – (21)
Don’t need separate bus lane/not justified – (13)
Very difficult for pedestrians to cross – (11)
Concern about bus/right turn conflict – (8)
Concern about cycle track treatment at intersection – (7)
Not aesthetically compelling – (7)
Too much going on – (6)
More protection needed for bikes – (4)
Need grade separated bike/ped crossings – (3)
Cycle tracks should be two-way – (3)
Difficult for cyclists to make left turns – (3)
Confusing for out of town visitors – (3)
Bikes should not be on Harmony – (2)
Expensive – (1)
Concern about bus signal priority and driver confusion – (1)
If HOV, bus stop/HOV conflict – (1)
Don’t support use of City funds for bike/bus – (1)
Bus pull outs from GP lanes instead – (1)
Not human friendly – (1)
Would like to see roundabouts – (1)
Over-designed – (1)
No improvement over existing – (1)
Concern about ROW impacts – (1)
Don’t need 6 lanes with separate bus lane – (1)
Dislike raised median – (1)
C‐14
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Positive Comments
Like the median BRT – (18)
Supportive of all aspects/favorite – (17)
Like the downtown/community feel/minimal setback – (9)
Encourages alternative travel modes – (8)
Like the two-way cycle track – (8)
Like the bikes being separated from traffic – (7)
Improves safety for cyclists – (6)
Good multimodal options – (5)
C‐15
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Pedestrian friendly – (5)
Like having only 4 auto lanes – (4)
Like that it is less of an “asphalt jungle” – (3)
Traffic speeds would be slow (favorable) – (3)
Looks efficient/compact – (3)
Better for businesses – (2)
Would serve commuters well – (1)
More environmentally friendly – (1)
Negative Comments
Lacks needed auto capacity – (35)
Too cramped/too urban/big city – (16)
Bikes should be on both sides – (16)
Buildings too close to road – (16)
Too congested – (15)
Concern about how pedestrians would cross from station – (15)
Dislike the two-way cycle track – (11)
Not appropriate for Harmony – (6)
Not aesthetically compelling/no median landscaping – (4)
Concern for safety on two-way cycle track (esp at intersections and accesses) – (3)
Pedestrians too close to street, unpleasant – (3)
Concern median BRT would require more signals – (3)
Need grade separated bike/ped crossings – (3)
Too much emphasis on bus – (3)
Concern about buses passing each other – (2)
Dislike the bus in the median – (1)
No room for expansion – (1)
Concern about snow storage – (1)
Concern about safety for left turners – (1)
Don’t need separate bus lane/not justified – (1)
Median BRT would confuse drivers – (1)
Don’t support use of City funds for bike/bus – (1)
C‐16
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Summary of Public Input – 2nd Round of Public Involvement –
September 2012
The second public meeting was held at the Harmony Library on September 13th, 2012 from 4:00 – 7:00
PM. The format of the meeting was an open house at which the preliminary Tier 1 alternatives and
screen results were presented along with descriptions of alternatives recommended for further
evaluation in Tier 2. While the attendance was somewhat light, the input received was good. The City
distributed flyers and sent messages through Facebook and Twitter to direct people to the online
survey, which was be open through mid‐October. The survey received 126 responses. The following is a
summary of the public input from the open house and the subsequent online survey.
1. What is your gender?
Value Count Percent
Female 57 45.20%
Male 69 54.80%
2. Which category below includes your
age?
Value Count Percent
17 or younger 2 1.60%
18-20 3 2.40%
21-29 22 17.90%
30-39 45 36.60%
40-49 28 22.80%
50-59 22 17.90%
60-69 1 0.80%
70-79 0 0.00%
80+ 0 0.00%
3. What is your approximate average
household income?
Value Count Percent
$0-$24,999 7 5.80%
$25,000-$49,999 18 14.90%
$50,000-$74,999 31 25.60%
$75,000-$99,999 22 18.20%
$100,000-$124,999 25 20.70%
$125,000-$149,999 6 5.00%
$150,000-$174,999 5 4.10%
$175,000-$199,999 3 2.50%
$200,000 and up 4 3.30%
C‐17
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
4. Which Zip Code do you live in?
Value Count Percent
80521 13 10.20%
80524 5 3.90%
80525 37 29.10%
80526 50 39.40%
80528 17 13.40%
Other (please specify) 5 3.90%
5. Do you like the idea of a bus-only
lane on Harmony Road?
Value Count Percent
Yes 24 20.00%
No 44 36.70%
Not Sure 34 28.30%
Why or why not? 18 15.00%
Use bus priority shared lane at peak times
Not that many buses on harmony
I still want to have 3 lanes for cars, but it would be great to see more bus pull-offs. A corridor similar to what
they're building along Mason would be great to see in 10-20 years.
Not enough buses to warrant an entire lane just for them
Busses do not run frequently enough to justify this
Construction would be a pain and SE Fort Collins has been hit hard.
I think only the 16 runs that route and it is once in the half hour. See my response to #10. If there are
multiple busses, there should be a bus lane.
encourage alt trans.
Would like to see how a bus lane integrates with a bike lane.
NO - Because of two lane restriction at RR crossing west of Timberline
Not enough bus riders to warrant, Harmony is already extremely congested, would only work if you ADDED
an additional lane which isn't economically or environmentally sound.
No, I don’t see busses causing many problems with Harmony traffic
Is there really enough bus traffic to warrant their own lane??
No, because it's too congested as it is. To squeeze normal traffic from three lanes down to two would make
it much worse.
Only if bus service will increase, offering cont svc length of rd, 7d svc & evening svc
I have not seen significant enough bus traffic or congestion outside of "rush hours" to warrant an entire lane
dedicated to bus-only. Our resources could be spent on solutions that offer more "all day" benefits.
Seems like it would be better to have turn lanes for better traffics flow
C‐18
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
not enough room
6. Do you like the idea of a restricted lane for cars with
two or more people on Harmony Road?
Value Count Percent
Yes 18 15.00%
No 72 60.00%
Not Sure 13 10.80%
Why or why not? 17 14.20%
I am not sure how it would affect overall traffic flow. But it would be great to see less single-occupant cars
around town.
These lanes make sense in long stretches of controlled-access highway (I25 in Denver), but in urban arterial
streets they seem to be more trouble than they are worth, I.E. Santa Fe in Denver, IMO they don't work well
there.
Construction would be a pain and SE Fort Collins has been hit hard.
won't be enforced
encourage car pooling
I think it would be great, but ultimately it would be more efficient to have a train or a bus-only lane.
NO- Because of two lane restriction at RR crossing west of Timberline
seems hard to enforce
Again, Harmony is far too congested to start limiting lanes.
No, most drivers are commuting and not car pooling. There would be few cars with 2+ people.
Too confusing ESP to out of towners.
Is there really a NEED for a carpool lane? Or is this a feel good idea??
No. While I like this idea on the Interstate, I don't think the concept would work well on an arterial; it's just
not long enough of a stretch of road to work effectively.
If combined with bus lane. Not sure useful as most cars on harmony have 2+
Possibly, but I am not aware of statistics that demonstrate this will improve traffic flow on Harmony.
not enough room
7. How should bicyclists be accommodated on
Harmony Road?
Value Count Percent
Bike lanes (existing) 22 18.50%
Bike lanes with a striped buffer 22 18.50%
Bike lanes with a landscaped barrier 60 50.40%
Shared use paths (for bikes and pedestrians), next to, but away from the
road 57 47.90%
Bikes should be on a parallel street, not on Harmony Road 8 6.70%
Other (please specify) 3 2.50%
C‐19
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
also emphasize alternative routes
I've never thought about bike lanes with a landscaped barrier, but that would make me feel safer as well as
be aesthetically pleasing...but it would be very time and money intensive, so maybe just bike lanes.
As an avid cyclist, I use my bicycles for recreation and transportation on a daily basis. I STRONGLY
support the Fort Collins cycling community and increasing bike-specific routes to encourage increased
bicycle transportation and encourage safety.
8. How should pedestrians be accommodated on
Harmony Road?
Value Count Percent
Meandering sidewalks set away from the street (existing on much of the
corridor) 85 72.00%
Shared-use paths (for bikes and pedestrians), next to, but away from the road 59 50.00%
Other (please specify) 2 1.70%
minimally - the patterns out there don't encourage walking/ even if you build a pretty meandering sidewalk,
few will use it.
Light rail
9. What would make crossing Harmony Road on foot or by
bike easier?
Value Count Percent
More signing and/or more time for pedestrians to cross at signalized
intersections 39 35.80%
More places to cross (please tell us where in the next question) 17 15.60%
Underpass or overpass crossings (please tell us where in the next
question) 66 60.60%
Where? 39 35.80%
Front Range Village, Harmony & Timberline Area (Grade Separated [GS])
Harmony and Timberline (at grade improvements)
Lemay, Timberline (GS)
Power Trail (GS)
Shields, Boardwalk, McMurry (GS)
Timberline, Lemay, College (GS)
Half way between intersections maybe. I don't travel Harmony enough to visualize exact locations. (GS)
Trail connectors (GS)
Underpass at Timberline/Power Trail, College and Shields/Mason Trail (GS)
Power Trail!!!!!!! Underpass would be nice, but a grade crossing would be a big improvement
Lemay, Timberline, Bus depot on East end (either)
C‐20
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Wherever convenient for construction. (GS)
Timberline, Lemay, College, Shields (GS)
Power trail (GS)
Harmony House, bus stops (GS)
On busy streets (either)
near McMurry, near Snow Mesa, near FRCC (GS)
College, Timberline (GS)
major intersections along the corridor (GS)
Timberline, LeMay, College (GS)
at least near the trail near mcmurry (GS)
Lemay (GS)
At S College (GS)
would love to see additional underpasses such as the one that connects Spring Canyon Park to Cathy
Fromme Prairy, where existing grading would provide a feasible environment to do so. Additionally, I
believe pedestrian/bike only overpasses can be constructed in a very aesthetically pleasing manner, and
would be a great asset to Fort Collins bike routes. These would be ideal on the Mason trail where it crosses
Harmony, Horsetooth, Drake, and Prospect. I think this would be particularly beneficial for Prospect road as
much of the traffic from Mason trail is diverted onto Spring Creek Trail/Centre Ave. for people using it to
access the CSU campus.
Corbett and lady moon (GS)
Mason Bike Path, Timberline (GS)
Timberline and Boardwalk (GS)
mason near the railroad tracks (GS)
Lemay, Mason (GS)
It would be great to have a bicycle overpass/underpass for the powerline trail (GS)
power line trail (GS)
All bus stops (either)
Between Snow Mesa & Timberline; Gifford Ct (GS)
More time, but this may cause delays in traffic if they are waiting for pedestrians, so "pedestrian only"
periods might be a good alternative. (at grade improvements)
major streets – (GS)
Lemay, Timberline and Corbin (GS)
C‐21
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
10. How should bus service be improved along
Harmony Road?
Value Count Percent
No improvement needed, maintain the existing bus service 23 22.80%
More frequent bus stops 18 17.80%
Faster service 21 20.80%
Bus stops that are easier to get to 19 18.80%
One bus route all the way along Harmony Road 40 39.60%
One bus route connecting Harmony Road to downtown Fort
Collins 35 34.70%
A bus only (or bus/carpool only) lane 15 14.90%
Other (please specify) 12 11.90%
Multiple bus routes from other sections of town.
Bus ridership data would be interesting to see if any improvement needed at all.
more bus connections that make service easier to access rather than having to go to CSU campus for every
connection
Evening & weekend service
As MAX comes online, would be interested in service along Harmony that specifically connects to Mason.
11. Which alternative do you prefer for the west segment
(Shields to College)? Click picture for preference.
Value Count Percent
1a. No Action Alternative (maintain existing conditions) 10 8.80%
Enhanced Transit and Cycle Track 56 49.10%
Enhanced Transit and Shared Use Path 48 42.10%
12. Which alternative do you prefer for the central segment
(College to Ziegler)? Click picture for preference.
Value Count Percent
4a. No Action Alternative (maintain existing conditions) 11 9.70%
5. Enhanced Transit and Cycle Track 43 37.70%
6. BRT in HOV Lane and Cycle Track 24 21.10%
7. BRT in HOV Lane and Shared Use Path 36 31.60%
13. Which alternative do you prefer for the east segment
(Ziegler to I-25)? Click picture for preference.
Value Count Percent
4a. No Action Alternative (maintain existing conditions) 22 19.50%
5. Enhanced Transit and Cycle Track 37 32.70%
6. BRT in HOV Lane and Cycle Track 21 18.60%
7. BRT in HOV Lane and Shared Use Path 33 29.20%
FC Moves
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 3: City Council Work session summary, October 23, 2012
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 21, 2013
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
Mark Jackson, Budget, Policy and Communications Manager
FROM: Aaron Iverson, Interim Transportation Planning Director
RE: OCTOBER 23, 2012 WORK SESSION SUMMARY – HARMONY ROAD
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
Attendees:
City Council: Mayor Karen Weitkunat, Mayor Pro-Tem Kelly Ohlson, Councilmember Ben Manvel,
Councilmember Lisa Poppaw
City Staff: Darin Atteberry, Diane Jones, Karen Cumbo, Bruce Hendee, Mark Jackson, Aaron Iverson, and
Jenny Young (FHU consultants)
Discussion Summary
How would transit service tie into the Mason Corridor (MAX)
Make sure the study addresses the transfer station at I-25 as a hub for regional transit service
Several council members expressed concern about pedestrian accommodation on Harmony and that
it’s difficult to cross; there are clusters of pedestrians in certain activity centers along the corridor, but
people generally only walk short distances (e.g., to a very nearby store)
The land uses are not conducive to walking (large buildings, far away from street and from each other)
– what can/should be done in the future to prevent this problem from occurring as
development/redevelopment occurs; may want to consider identification of district identities as a next
step to clearly define campus vs. ped focused land uses
Why has growth in traffic along the corridor been so flat for the last decade?
Harmony as the premier gateway to Fort Collins
Follow-up Items:
Council would like follow up on crash rates subsequent to corridor improvements
The term “integrate sustainability” is not strong enough (the other goals use “improve” or “enhance”)
– sustainability needs to be on par with the other goals; consider stating sustainability element overtly
(prior to goals)
Staff appreciates the opportunity to discuss the Harmony Road project with the City Council and received
valuable feedback and direction for the project. For more information regarding the project, please visit:
http://www.fcgov.com/harmony
ATTACHMENT 3
FC Moves
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 4: Summary of Board and Commission Meetings
ATTACHMENT 4
Garry W. Steen, Chair
Transportation Board
June 22, 2013
Mayor Weitkunat and Councilmembers:
RE: Harmony Road Enhanced Travel Corridor Alternatives Analysis Final Report
Aaron Iverson, Senior Transportation Planner, presented the final report for the Harmony Road ETC
Alternatives Analysis to the Transportation Board on June 19th. This is the culmination of an 18 month
analysis resulting in a Locally Preferred Alternative blueprint for multimodal improvements to this high
volume corridor that serves south Fort Collins and the region. The Transportation Board has been
updated frequently on the analysis alternatives process over the 18 months, providing input along with
the outreach from a variety of other venues, public, technical teams, boards & commissions, as well as
City Council.
The Final Report identifies opportunities to improve transit, pedestrian, and bicycle travel as well as
roadway improvements that will “support local and regional travel needs, land uses, economic health
and environmental stewardship goals”.
Discussion involved clarification on transit improvements and functionality, pedestrian perception and
safety, costs of the improvements, and timeline to achieve the improvements. A funding strategy is a
concern, especially given the benefits that the improvements would provide on a timely basis.
Appreciation for the vision and goals included in the report were expressed to staff, especially for the
complexity and comprehensive inclusiveness of the report. A motion was made to support the plan,
which passed unanimously.
As always, I would be happy to discuss this further at your convenience.
Thank You
2
June 19 , 2013 Transportation Board ‐ (Draft Notes)
June 19, 2013
6:00 p.m.
215 North Mason – Community Room
Fort Collins, CO 80521
FOR REFERENCE:
Chair: Garry Steen 420.7557
Vice Chair: Mary Atchison 217.9213
Staff Liaison: Mark Jackson 416.2029
Administrative Support: Polly Bennett 221.6601
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: CITY STAFF PRESENT:
Garry Steen, Chair Mark Jackson, Deputy Director, PDT, 416.2029
Mary Atchison, Vice Chair Polly Bennett, PDT Executive Administrative Assistant, 221.6601
Pat Jordan Paul Sizemore, FC Moves Manager, 224.6140
Eric Shenk Aaron Iverson, Senior Transportation Planner, 416.2643
Sara Frazier Megan Bolin, Redevelopment Specialist, 221.6342
Sid Simonson Emma McArdle, Transit Planner, 224.6197
Clint Skutchan
ABSENT: OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE
Olga Duvall Eric Rollins, Citizen, 970.988.6408
Kevin O’Toole
Councilmember Ross Cunniff
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Steen called the meeting to order at 6:00p without a quorum. The meeting was formally
called to order with a quorum at 6:07p when Sid Simonson joined the group.
8. ACTION ITEMS
A. Harmony Road Enhanced Travel Corridor Alternatives Analysis: Final Report – Aaron Iverson,
Senior Transportation Planner
Iverson: I am seeking a recommendation to Council on the Final Report for the Harmony Road
Enhanced Travel Corridor (ETC) Alternatives Analysis.
Preferred Alternative: Widen Harmony from Boardwalk to College Avenue to 6 lanes with
intersection improvements. Enhanced bus service with queue jumps at major intersections,
increased frequency with improved bus plazas; Fill in missing sidewalks, pursue over or
3
underpasses and improve crossings at signalized intersections; Buffer bike lanes along detached
multi-use paths.
Boardwalk, Timberline, Ziegler, Lady Moon will need intersection improvements. Transit
improvements will be necessary in the same area. The Harmony Route runs every 20 minutes.
It could be configured to be a “one seat ride” to downtown. Larger bus plazas are proposed at ½
mile intervals. Bus queues give buses priority and provide timing benefits. There are currently
bike lanes the entire length of Harmony Road. We are suggesting buffered bike lanes from
College Avenue to I-25. They can be done with or without green paint and provide a higher
level of comfort for cyclists. Developers will be encouraged/required to build sidewalks to
wider specifications. The Mason Trail and the Power Trail are identified as two locations for
potential over/underpasses. We also want to improve intersections that have pedestrian refuges
and add them to those that don’t have them.
Simonson: How many intersections are you considering adding bus queues?
Iverson: Three high volume intersections were identified; Timberline, Ziegler, and Lemay.
There are a few slivers of right-of-way that need to be acquired. With 20-minute bus spacing,
buses won’t stack up in the queue.
Atchison: Are there identified funding schemes and/or a timeline?
Iverson: We have a timeline identified. The total cost is $53-million (approximately $10-
million per mile). We staged the timeline to be in line for FTA funding, Tiger Grants, etc.
Jordan moved that the Transportation Board send a letter in support of the Plan. Frazier
seconded the motion.
Discussion: Concerns about costs, pedestrians crossing Harmony north/south, and bus function
during the construction were expressed.
The motion was passed unanimously.
4
March 20 , 2013 Transportation Board ‐ (Draft Notes)
***DRAFT***
MINUTES
of the
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
TRANSPORTATION BOARD
March 20, 2013
6:00 p.m.
215 North Mason – Community Room
Fort Collins, CO 80521
FOR REFERENCE:
Chair: Garry Steen 420.7557
Vice Chair: Mary Atchison 217.9213
Staff Liaison: Mark Jackson 416.2029
Administrative Support: Polly Bennett 221.6601
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: CITY STAFF PRESENT:
Garry Steen, Chair Mark Jackson, Deputy Director, PDT, 416.2029
Mary Atchison, Vice Chair Polly Bennett, PDT Executive Administrative Assistant, 221.6601
Olga Duvall Kyle Lambrecht, Civil Engineer, 221.6566
Eric Shenk Aaron Iverson, Interim FC Moves Manager, 221.2643
Sid Simonson Dean Klingner, Civil Engineer, 221.6511
Kevin O’Toole
Pat Jordan
ABSENT: OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE
Sara Frazier Mike Angstadt, CSU Graduate Student, 518.225.5564
Clint Skutchan
Councilmember Ben Manvel
2. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Steen called the meeting to order at 6:00p with a quorum present
B. Harmony Road ETC – Aaron Iverson, Interim FC Moves Manager
Iverson: Harmony Road is similar in many ways to the North College project. We were looking
at alternatives last July when I came to the Board. Tonight I will show you our preferred
alternative.
5
The purpose of the project is to implement multi-modal transportation improvements that
enhance mobility and safety along the Harmony Road Corridor.
Harmony Road was a farm road in the 1950s. It became a State Highway in 1968, connecting I-
25 to College Avenue. The City took it back from the State in 2005. In the last 5 – 8 years we
have spent nearly $25 million on the corridor to widen it from I-25 to Boardwalk and make
other improvements as far west as Taft Hill Road. We still have parts of it to complete. Growth
projections are out to 2035, and show significant growth in traffic, which has nearly doubled in
the last 10 years. Harmony is classified as “congested” in peak hours from Timberline to 287. It
is projected to be classified as “congested” from east of Shields Street to I-25 in the future.
There are 3 bus routes serving Harmony Road. Bus stops need improvements. Walking
conditions are fairly good throughout the corridor with grassy areas separating sidewalks from
traffic. There are bike lanes the entire length of the corridor, however, with the high speeds and
volumes, many cyclists use the sidewalks instead.
We held two open houses, spoke to businesses along the corridor, and had online surveys to get
opinions. Congestion was the #1 concern, followed by travel options, safety issues, etc.
Locally Preferred Alternative: Enhanced Bus Alternative
Roadway & Intersection Improvements – finish widening from Boardwalk to College (6 lanes)
and College to Shields (4 lanes). Improve 4 intersections (Lemay, Timberline, Ziegler, Lady
Moon)
Transit improvements – institute a Harmony Route that runs every 20 minutes between the
Harmony Transit Center and the South Transit Center.
Bus Plazas will be built, which are not full stations like MAX, but are improvements over
existing bus stops…landing points.
Queue jumps will allow buses to stop in their own lane and jump ahead with an early light to
get ahead of stacked traffic.
Bicycle improvements – buffered bike lanes are separated from traffic lanes with a minimum 3’
painted buffer area. Part of the bike lane will be used to create the buffer zones.
Pedestrian improvements – underpasses/overpasses will be installed where possible (Mason
Trail, Power Trail). Improve crossings at signalized intersections, with pedestrian refuges
where possible.
Next steps:
Conduct final public outreach
Develop conceptual cost estimates
Develop implementation plan (phasing and funding)
Complete ETC Master Plan report
City Council for adoption this summer
Project website: fcgov.com/harmony
O’Toole: How much of Timberline Road will be 6-lane?
Jackson: It is shown in the Master Street Plan to be 6-lane to Prospect Road.
O’Toole: Widening these roads to 6-lanes is a major impediment to people trying to cross them
in any way other than a car.
6
Iverson: The challenge is to enhance this corridor for alternative modes without having to
deconstruct and reconstruct it.
Jackson: Another interesting aspect of the 6-lane footprint is whether they should include
dedicated lanes for transit/through traffic.
Simonson: I like most of the aspects you’ve shown, although I’m unconvinced about the bus
jump queue.
Atchison: It is challenging to be a pedestrian on Harmony. Crossing on bikes is challenging.
Have those crossings been timed for people with disabilities, seniors, etc. to make it to the
island in the middle?
Jordan: I can cross to the median at the Target quite easily, although there are some crossings I
won’t attempt. For those I take the bus and hit them on the return trip. It’s really pretty easy.
Iverson: Pedestrian signals alter the flow due to timing changes allowing longer crossings.
Jackson: As our population ages, the timing needs to change. It takes time from the “through”
on Harmony to allow for north/south pedestrian crossings, trains, emergency vehicles, etc.
Generally speaking, the flows work well, but it doesn’t take much to make it “burp.” Note:
That is a technical term.
Atchison: Is there a Harmony Business Group that you are working with? What is their
reaction?
Iverson: We have spoken with various businesses. They would like to be able to access transit,
the Harmony Poudre Valley Hospital Campus, restaurants, etc. so are supportive of plans that
support those desires.
Steen: I am intrigued by the queue jumps. Are there cities using them now?
Iverson: Yes, it is a proven technique. I didn’t bring examples from other cities. They have a
separate signal that allows them to go before other stacked traffic.
7
May 10, 2013 Bicycle Advisory Committee ‐ (Draft Notes)
MEETING MINUTES OF
BICYCLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
May 6, 2013
6:00 p.m.
Community Room
215 N. Mason St.
Fort Collins, CO 80521
FOR REFERENCE:
Chair: Sylvia Cranmer 970-493-5277
Staff Liaison: Molly North 970-224-6112
BOARD/CITY ORGANIZATION MEMBERS PRESENT
Bicycle Pedestrian Education Coalition: Kim Sharpe
Bike Fort Collins: Sylvia Cranmer
Downtown Development Authority:
Fort Collins Bicycle Co-op: Tim Anderson
Fort Collins Bicycle Retailers Alliance: Libby Harrow
Land Conservation & Stewardship Board:
Natural Resources Advisory Board: Joe Piesman
Parks and Recreation Board:
Colorado State University: Joy Childress
Transportation Board: Garry Steen
Air Quality Board: Michael Lynn
AT LARGE PRESENT
Dee Colombini
Michael Hinterberg
ABSENT
At large: Dan Gould
Economic Advisory Commission: Jim Clark
Poudre School District: MacKenzie Mushel
Senior Advisory Board: Ellen Lirley
CITY OF FORT COLLINS PRESENT
Molly North, Interim Bicycle Coordinator
Amy Lewin, Transportation Planner
Aaron Iverson, Senior Transportation Planner
Paul Sizemore, FC Moves Program Manager
CITIZENS PRESENT
8
Michele Dunlop, Minute Taker
Mike Knowles, Citizen
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 6:02 p.m. with a quorum present by Chair Sylvia Cranmer.
AGENDA REVIEW
No changes.
PUBLIC COMMENT
No public comment.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The following changes to the minutes of the meeting of March 11, 2013 were proposed:
Credit Molly North with inviting members of the Committee to the City of Fort Collins APB webinar.
Designate Garry Steen as Chair of the Transportation Board, rather than Interim Chair.
The March minutes were approved as amended on a motion from Michael Lynn, seconded by Libby Harrow, with all in
favor.
FOLLOW UP FROM PRIOR MEETING/FUTURE BUSINESS
Chair Sylvia Cranmer reintroduced discussion of the Idaho Bike Law, to be addressed later in the meeting. Tim Anderson
commented on a bicycle traffic issue going north on College, where the bike lane narrows at a new bridge, and advised
members of the Committee to be aware of a potential crisscross.
ACTION ITEMS
None.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
HARMONY CORRIDOR PROJECT
Aaron Iverson, FC Moves Senior Transportation Planner, gave a presentation on the upcoming Harmony Corridor Project,
scheduled for City Council review on July 2, 2013. The Harmony Corridor study is a long range alternative analysis that
looks at Harmony Road from Interstate 25 (I-25) to Shields Street. Harmony Road is an enhanced travel corridor, with
access to commercial and residential development and connections between major destinations. The purpose of the project
is to implement multi-modal transportation improvements that enhance mobility and safety along the Harmony Road
Corridor. Improvements will support local and regional travel needs, land uses, economic health and environmental
stewardship goals. FC Moves has investigated a broad range of ideas to improve Harmony Road not only as a huge
commercial corridor, but also as a regional corridor connecting College to the interstate.
Proposed improvements to the Harmony Road Corridor include:
Widening Harmony Road to six lanes (from Boardwalk to College).
Intersection improvements at: Boardwalk, Timberline, Ziegler and Lady Moon.
Enhanced bus service from the Harmony Transit Center to the South Transit Center, with fewer transfers, more
frequent service, stops at a minimum of every ½ mile, bus plazas and queue jumps. FC Moves anticipates as many
as 1400 riders a day on Harmony with these improvements. Aside from the South Transit Center, FC Moves is not
proposing any park-and-rides at this time.
Buffered bike lanes (a six ft. bike lane with a striped, painted three ft. buffer between traffic) in addition to
existing multi-use paths.
9
Connecting sidewalks, “pedestrian pork chops” at intersections, median refuges, and expanded over/under passes
at key locations. Over time, FC Moves plans to slow traffic and mature the landscape, so Harmony Road is more
comfortable for pedestrians. Harmony Road still struggles with the legacy of having been a state highway.
After completing an overview of the Harmony Corridor Project, Aaron Iverson opened the discussion up to questions from
the Committee. Mr. Iverson confirmed that closure of Harmony Road would take place at the end of May or early June, but
that the City of Fort Collins is still waiting on an exact date from the railroad. As soon as dates are finalized, they will be
made available to the public.
MAX
Kurt Ravenschlag, Transfort General Manager, gave a presentation on MAX. MAX is the first Bus
Rapid Transit (BRT) service on the Front Range and a spine and hub for future transit service in Fort
Collins and the region. BRT combines the efficiencies of rail service with the flexibilities of bus
service to add capacity and accessibility to very constrained facilities. With streamlined fare collection
and boarding and dedicated guideways, BRT provides rapid transportation down congested corridors.
Twenty years from now, when the travel time on College Avenue is diminished, travel time on MAX
will still be the same.
MAX features some of the following improvements to transit:
Passengers prepay for tickets and passes. Conductors will come by periodically to check
tickets.
Dual-loading platform stations are elevated to provide level boarding. When the doors open,
every type of user will be able to board quickly. Bicyclists and users with mobility devices or
wheelchairs will have the option of boarding without operator assistance.
Stations also feature bike parking, passenger waiting areas, ticket vending machines, digital
signage and audible announcements. Users may also take advantage of a mobile app for
passenger information.
A dedicated guideway begins south of Harmony Road, travels north to Horsetooth Avenue,
enters back onto a dedicated roadway through campus, to University Avenue, and finally enters
onto the existing Mason Street Corridor.
Stations are spaced every ½ mile. Users will have the option to park-and-ride at the South
Transit Center, Troutman, Horsetooth, Swallow, Drake and the Spring Creek Station. The
southern stretch of the corridor features close to 450 parking locations.
Buses will look more like light rail, and will offer free Wi-Fi to passengers.
MAX will operate from 5:30 AM – midnight (Monday-Saturday), with a regular fare of $1.25.
At peak frequency (7 a.m. to 7 p.m.), MAX buses will come by every 10 minutes. At off-peak,
buses will come every 15 minutes, and from 9 PM to midnight, every 30 minutes.
MAX offers multiple discounted pass options. Users under the age of 17 will be able to ride for
free, thanks to the generosity of the Bohemian Foundation. Full fee paying Colorado State
University students also ride free. Users who purchase a fare for MAX will be able to transfer
without paying an additional fee.
Construction on MAX is about 45% complete, with three main components: the guideway and stations,
the new South Transit Center (with a dedicated park-and-ride lot), and the expansion of the Trilby
maintenance facility to accommodate 60-ft vehicles. Construction also includes an underpass at
10
Troutman and an overpass as the Spring Creek Station. MAX is scheduled to come online in May
2014. Although Transfort does not have the additional resources to enhance the transit system outside
of MAX, it is planning a realignment of services to provide east-west feeder connectivity into the
MAX line (with optimal 30 minute service frequency). MAX is scheduled to come online in May
2014, with the possibility of a three month fare-free incentive period.
Kurt Ravenschlag closed with goals for coping with construction: keep businesses open and accessible,
minimize road closures and major travel delays, and keep the public informed via weekly updates. The
last major facility closure was on Prospect Road, which re-opened a week ahead of schedule. After the
month of June, there will be no more full roadway closures.
Afterwards, Mr. Ravenschlag opened the discussion up to questions from the Committee. Libby
Harrow inquired if bike parking would consist of more than a bike rack. Kurt explained that Transfort
has a multiple approach to dealing with bike parking. Initially, only bike racks will be available. The
South Transit Center features about 44 covered stalls. However, Transfort is looking at adding bike
cages in key locations, particularly at transit centers. Colorado State University is also interested in
adding a bike cage on campus.
Dee Colombini raised a question about transporting riders from the west side of College Avenue to the
east side, with businesses set 80 ft. back from the roadway. Kurt answered that Transfort is actively
pursuing a solution with the mall developers for an underpass at College, as well as looking at
opportunities to provide transit connections between that station and the mall (with 30 minute service
frequency). As redevelopment begins to orient around the MAX line, providing connections between
key locations will be a priority.
11
May 20, 2013 Air Quality Advisory Board‐ (Draft Notes)
AIR QUALITY ADVISORY BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
MONDAY, MAY 20, 2013
DATE: Monday, May 20, 2013
LOCATION: 215 N. Mason Community Room
TIME: 5:30 – 8:30 p.m.
For Reference: Greg McMaster, Chair 484-3348
Ross Cunniff , Council Liaison 420-7398
Melissa Hovey, Staff Liaison 221-6813
Present: Michael Lynn, Scott Groen, Dave Dietrich, John Shenot, Rich Fisher, Nancy York, Tom
Moore, Greg McMaster, Jim Dennison
Absent: none
Staff Present: Melissa Hovey, Alexis Hmielak, Brian Woodruff, Alan Iverson
Guests: Councilperson Ross Cunniff
Public Comments:
Call meeting to order: Rich Fisher called the meeting to order at 5:30 pm.
Harmony Rd. Transit Improvement Project
Aaron Iverson, Sr. Transportation Planner, presented information on the Harmony Road Alternatives
Analysis.
The purpose of the project is to implement multi-modal transportation improvements that enhance
mobility and safety along the Harmony Road Corridor. As the city grows, vehicle congestion in this
area needs to be addressed. Improvements will support local and regional travel needs, land uses,
economic health and environmental stewardship goals.
The project will be Harmony from I-25 to Shields.
Harmony Road was previously a state highway that was taken back as a city street in 2005. This
project will help to accommodate land uses for local traffic, bicycles and pedestrians that currently do
not exist on Harmony Road.
The Proposed Locally Preferred Alternative would address:
o Roadway and intersection improvements
Widen Harmony (Boardwalk to College) to 6 lanes and intersection improvements.
o Transit improvements
Enhanced bus service with increased frequency, queue jumps at major intersections, and
improved bus plazas
o Bicycle facilities
Buffered bike lanes with green marking, along with detached multi-use paths.
12
o Pedestrian facilities.
Fill in missing sidewalks, pursue over or underpasses and improve crossings at
signalized intersections
Next Steps
o Conduct final public outreach
o Develop conceptual cost estimates
o Develop implementation plan (phasing and funding)
o Complete ETC master Plan report
o Take to City Council this summer for adoption
Discussion:
Are there any safety issues with queue bus lanes for bicyclists crossing this many lanes of traffic?
(There is already a right turn lane and the light would help keep buses from encountering bikes. A
buffered bike lane would improve safety for cyclists. They also want to foster an off-street system.)
Is keeping traffic flowing with as few starts and stops as possible part of your plan? That would help
reduce emissions. It would also be helpful to have someone from Traffic Operations visit the AQAB to
explain traffic’s effects on air quality.(Traffic Operations has been involved in the planning but that is
not explicitly addressed.)
Will there be any separated grade vehicle railroad crossings? (There will be only one at Trilby.)
Will you finish Horsetooth east to Strauss Cabin? (It is under consideration because there is a potential
housing development there.)
I suggest you not look at Harmony road in isolation. Also look at Carpenter Road because the more
Harmony gets congested, people would use Carpenter Road as an alternative. (Carpenter Road is a
state highway. The City is not currently considering taking it over like they did Harmony Road. The
Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) is also studying installing commuter rail line from
Denver up I-25.)
I suggest phasing in these changes and building the bike/pedestrian/transit segment before widening
Harmony Road. This would work on alternative transportation first to relieve congestion; then widen
the road. (The question is funding.)
Fort Collins does not meet EPA health standards for air quality. It is important you solve transportation
problems with air quality as part of your decision making so what you do doesn’t make air quality
worse.
Is air quality being considered in your planning? (Yes. We looked it at a high level of impacts of each
alternative, mostly regarding reduction of vehicle miles travelled.)
This would be a good time to think beyond internal combustion engines and encourage electric vehicle
use in this area.
Building additional lanes of traffic will accommodate more vehicles. I don’t think we can build our
way out of this and am concerned the focus is not on ways to reduce VMTs and improve air quality.
AQAB agreed to provide Aaron Iverson a brief, bulleted document with ideas your group can respond
to regarding air quality issues in this project. Michael Lynn volunteered to compile this document.
2
City Council
July 2, 2013
slide
Direction Sought
This purpose of this action item is to
seek approval from City Council on the
Final Report for the Harmony Road
Enhanced Travel Corridor ETC
Alternatives Analysis.
2
ATTACHMENT 5
3
slide
PURPOSE STATEMENT
The purpose of the project is to
implement multi-modal transportation
improvements that enhance mobility and
safety along the Harmony Road Corridor.
Improvements will support local and
regional travel needs, land uses,
economic health and environmental
stewardship goals.
3
slide
4
4
slide
Existing Bus Stop
5
slide
Walking Conditions on Harmony Road
6
5
slide
7
slide
Locally Preferred Alternative
Widen Harmony (Boardwalk to College) to 6 Lanes &
Intersection improvements
Enhanced bus service with queue jumps at
major intersections, increased frequency with
improved bus plazas
Fill in missing sidewalks, pursue over or
underpasses and improve crossings at signalized
intersections
Buffered bike lanes with green marking, along with
detached multi-use paths
Bus
Bike
Walk
Road
8
6
slide
Widen College to 6 lanes
Widen Timberline to 6 lanes
Improve intersections with turn lanes
Widen Harmony to 6 lanes
9
slide
Harmony Rd.
Timberline
Lemay
College
Shields
Ziegler
Horsetooth
Boardwalk
Lady Moon
South Transit Center
Harmony
Transfer Center
Harmony Route
Runs every 20 minutes
10
7
slide
11
slide
12
8
slide
San Francisco Seattle
13
slide
14
9
slide
15
slide
Direction Sought
This purpose of this action item is to
seek approval from City Council on the
Final Report for the Harmony Road
Enhanced Travel Corridor ETC
Alternatives Analysis.
16
RESOLUTION 2013-061
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
APPROVING THE HARMONY ROAD ENHANCED TRAVEL
CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS FINAL REPORT
WHEREAS, for the past 18 months, City staff and City consultants have been engaged in the
process of preparing the Harmony Road Enhanced Travel Corridor (HTC) Alternatives Analysis
Final Report; and
WHEREAS, the HTC Alternatives Analysis Final Report includes an in-depth review of
existing conditions and a comprehensive development of a variety of alternatives which ultimately
resulted in recommendations for improved roadway, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities for the
Harmony Road Corridor; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of the HTC Master Plan is to augment and update existing
transportation plans for the Harmony Corridor and to document the transportation, land use,
environmental, economic, and social needs of the Harmony Road Corridor and to determine the most
appropriate configuration for the Harmony Corridor; and
WHEREAS, the HTC Alternatives Analysis includes recommendations for updates to the
HTC Master Plan which supports multiple modes of safe, affordable, easy, and convenient travel to
ensure mobility for people of all ages and abilities; and
WHEREAS, the financial impacts of the HTC Alternatives Analysis will be pursued by City
staff through local, regional, state, and federal funding opportunities in the future; and
WHEREAS, from an environmental impact analysis perspective, the HTC Alternatives
Analysis shows an increase in transit ridership as well as bicycle and pedestrian facilities which are
anticipated to result in a transportation mode shift for the environmental benefit of the Corridor; and
WHEREAS, after significant public outreach and receipt of favorable recommendations from
the Transportation Board, Bicycle Advisory Committee, and the Planning and Zoning Board, with
a mixed recommendation from the Air Quality Advisory Board, the City Council has determined that
the approval of the HTC Alternatives Analysis Final Report is in the best interests of the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS that the HTC Alternatives Analysis Final Report dated June 14, 2013, attached hereto as
Exhibit “A”, and incorporated herein by this reference, is hereby approved.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 2nd
day of July, A.D. 2013.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Harmony Road
Alternatives Analysis
ENHANCED
TRAVEL
CORRIDOR
FELSBURG
HOL T &
ULLEVIG
June 14, 2013
submitted by: in association with:
Harmony Road ETC Master Plan
FINAL DRAFT
EXHIBIT A
FINAL DRAFT
Prepared for:
City of Fort Collins
281 North College Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80522
Prepared by:
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
6300 South Syracuse Way, Suite 600
Centennial, CO 80111
303/721‐1440
In association with:
Nelson\Nygaard
BHA Design Incorporated
FHU Reference No. 11‐184‐01
June 14, 2013
i
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Table of Contents
Page
Acknowledgements......................................................................................................................................... iii
Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................................... v
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 1
Corridor Study Area ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Corridor Context ........................................................................................................................................... 4
Overview of Planning and Outreach Process ............................................................................................... 5
2. Purpose and Need ............................................................................................................................... 8
Purpose Statement ....................................................................................................................................... 8
Problem Statements and Travel Needs ........................................................................................................ 8
Goals and Objectives .................................................................................................................................. 15
3. Alternatives Development and Evaluation ......................................................................................... 16
Evaluation Criteria ...................................................................................................................................... 16
No Action Alternative ................................................................................................................................. 18
Tier 1 Alternatives Development................................................................................................................ 22
Tier 1 Evaluation and Screening Results ..................................................................................................... 22
Tier 2 Alternatives Development................................................................................................................ 26
Tier 2 Evaluation and Screening Results ..................................................................................................... 28
4. Locally Preferred Alternative ............................................................................................................. 37
LPA Decision Process .................................................................................................................................. 37
LPA Description .......................................................................................................................................... 38
LPA Performance ........................................................................................................................................ 49
Cost Estimates ............................................................................................................................................ 54
5. Implementation Plan ......................................................................................................................... 56
Phasing Options .......................................................................................................................................... 56
Implementation Considerations ................................................................................................................. 59
Recommended Implementation Plan ........................................................................................................ 61
Funding Strategies ...................................................................................................................................... 63
Summary..................................................................................................................................................... 65
ii
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
List of Figures
Page
Figure 1. Study Area ........................................................................................................................................ 2
Figure 2. Planning Process ............................................................................................................................... 6
Figure 3. Existing Daily Traffic Volumes .......................................................................................................... 9
Figure 4. Transit Boardings and Alightings .................................................................................................... 12
Figure 5. Traffic Forecasts and V/C Ratios (Existing and 2035 No Action) .................................................... 20
Figure 6. Harmony Corridor Segment Characteristics ................................................................................... 24
Figure 7. 2035 Traffic Forecasts for Tier 2 Alternatives ................................................................................ 29
Figure 8. 2035 PM Peak Hour Traffic Operations .......................................................................................... 30
Figure 9. 2035 PM Peak Hour Corridor Travel Times .................................................................................... 30
Figure 10. 2035 Average Daily Transit Boardings ............................................................................................ 31
Figure 11. Average Transfers per Transit Trip ................................................................................................. 31
Figure 12. 2035 PM Peak Hour Averages Speeds ............................................................................................ 32
Figure 13. Roadway Widening and Intersection Improvements ..................................................................... 39
Figure 14. Illustrative Example of LPA: Shields Street to College Avenue ...................................................... 39
Figure 15. Illustrative Example of LPA: College Avenue to I‐25 ...................................................................... 40
Figure 16. LPA Transit Routes .......................................................................................................................... 42
Figure 17. Illustrative of Queue Jump Lanes at Intersection ........................................................................... 43
Figure 18. Harmony Road Bus Stop and Station Locations ............................................................................. 45
Figure 19. Example Intersection with Enhanced Bicycle and Pedestrian Crossing Treatments ..................... 48
Figure 20. Pedestrian Grade‐Separated Crossing Locations ........................................................................... 48
Figure 21. LPA 2035 PM Peak Hour Traffic Operations ................................................................................... 49
Figure 22. LPA Typical Mid‐Block Cross‐Sections ............................................................................................ 54
List of Tables
Table 1. Evaluation Criteria .......................................................................................................................... 17
Table 2. Tier 1 Modal Elements ................................................................................................................... 22
Table 3. Summary of Elements Eliminated in Tier 1 .................................................................................... 25
Table 4. Tier 2 Alternatives1 ......................................................................................................................... 27
Table 5. Summary of Tier 2 Evaluation Results ............................................................................................ 36
Table 6. Summary Project Costs by Travel Mode ........................................................................................ 55
Table 7. Potential Sequencing and Costs by Corridor Segment (Excluding Bus Costs) ................................ 57
Table 8. Recommended Implementation Plan ............................................................................................ 61
List of Appendices
Appendix A. Existing Conditions
Appendix B. PEL Questionnaire
Appendix C. Public Input
Appendix D. Land Uses and Demographics
Appendix E. Transportation Analysis
Appendix F. Environmental Inventory and Evaluation
Appendix G. Tier 1 and Tier 2 Evaluation Matrices
Appendix H. LPA Conceptual Plans and Cost Estimates
iii
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Acknowledgements
City Council
Karen Weitkunat, Mayor
Bob Overbeck
Lisa Poppaw
Gino Campana
Wade Troxell
Ross Cunniff
Gerry Horak
Transportation Advisory Board
Garry Steen, Chair
Mary Atchinson
Olga Duvall
Sara Frazier
Rita Pat Jordan
Kevin O'Toole
Eric Shenk
Sid Simonson
Clint Skutchan
Project Management Team
Aaron Iverson, Project Manager, FC Moves Senior Transportation Planner
Amy Lewin, FC Moves Transportation Planner
Emma McArdle, Transfort
Technical Advisory Committee
City of Fort Collins
Megan Bolin, Economic Health
Tim Kemp, Engineering
Craig Foreman, Parks Planning
Bruce Hendee, City Manager’s Office
Aaron Iverson, FC Moves
Amy Lewin, FC Moves
Karen Manci, Natural Areas
Clark Mapes, Planning Services
Emma McArdle, Transfort
Darren Moritz, Streets
Joe Olson, Traffic Operations
Kurt Ravenschlag, Transfort
Glen Schlueter, Utilities
Ted Shepard, Community Development & Neighborhood Services
iv
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Other Agencies
Kristin Kirkpatrick, University of Colorado Health Systems
Suzette Mallette, North Front Range MPO
Larry Squires, Federal Transit Administration
Martina Wilkinson, Larimer County
Town of Timnath
Consultant Team
Holly Buck, Project Manager, Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
Jenny Young, Deputy Project Manager, Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
Rich Follmer, Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
Geoff Slater, Nelson\Nygaard
Angela Milewski, BHA Design
v
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Executive Summary
The City of Fort Collins conducted this study on Harmony Road to establish existing conditions, to identify future
transportation challenges (using the year 2035 as a planning horizon), and to create a vision that will serve as a
blueprint for multimodal improvements in the corridor. The study developed a Locally Preferred Alternative
(LPA) for multimodal transportation improvements along the 5 ½ mile corridor and presents a plan for
implementation and funding of those improvements.
Harmony Road Context
Harmony Road is one of six Enhanced Travel Corridors (ETCs) in Fort Collins that are “planned to incorporate
high frequency transit, bicycling, and walking as part of the corridor.” The Harmony Road ETC extends from
Shields Street to I‐25 and includes a variety of cross‐sections, land use characteristics, and travel patterns.
Harmony Road was named after the agricultural community named “Harmony” established in the area in the
1870s. Remains of the community still exist at the Harmony Road/Timberline Road intersection where the
buildings from the original Harmony Store and the Harmony School still stand.
Today, Harmony Road is an important regional connection; Harmony road is the first Fort Collins exit traveling
from the south on I‐25. Harmony Road is considered one of the best ways into and out of Fort Collins, and with
the limited number of I‐25 exits, a large amount of regional traffic is funneled to Harmony Road. Harmony Road
is one of the primary commercial corridors in Fort Collins and houses several large employment campuses
including Hewlett Packard, Avago, and Intel. The University of Colorado Health Harmony Campus is also a
prominent land use adjacent to Harmony Road. As a primary commercial corridor serving all of Fort Collins and
also as a regional destination, pressures on Harmony Road are significant. Both local and regional trips and will
continue to grow into the future; the future of Harmony Road corridor is tied to the future of Fort Collins and
the region.
Purpose and Need
The purpose of the project is to implement multimodal transportation improvements that enhance mobility and
safety along the Harmony Road Corridor. Improvements will support local and regional travel needs, land uses,
economic health and environmental stewardship goals.
vi
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Improvements are needed to address the following transportation problems:
The transit routes along Harmony Road are discontinuous
Traveling by bicycle along Harmony Road is uncomfortable
Pedestrian crossings are typically spaced a half‐mile apart
Traffic congestion is expected to increase due to growth in
population and employment along Harmony Road and the
surrounding area
The existing cross‐section does not accommodate potential
mixed‐use transit‐oriented development
Connections between modes to destinations along the
corridor are lacking
Harmony Road has the two intersections with the highest
crash totals in the City
Harmony Road is a wide corridor with few dedicated, safe
pedestrian crossing points
Harmony Road does not fully meet Fort Collins’ sustainability goals
The four goals of the project reflect the need to address the
transportation problems and are consistent with the City of Fort
Collins’ vision for the future. These goals are the foundation for
the evaluation criteria used to assess and compare improvement
alternatives.
Planning Process
The Harmony Road ETC Master Plan has been developed in a manner consistent with the Federal Transit
Administration’s (FTA’s) Alternatives Analysis (AA) study process. As described in the FTA’s Framework for
Alternatives Analysis, during an AA study process
“…the priority corridor identified in systems planning is
studied in detail, focusing on the effects of alternative
solutions to the corridor’s transportation problems.
Information on costs, benefits, and impacts of each
alternative is developed to provide a sound technical
basis for project decision making.”
The planning process was guided by a Project
Management Team (PMT), which is composed of two
FC Moves transportation planners and a Transfort
transit planner. The PMT and consultant team held
monthly or semi‐monthly conference calls throughout
the planning process to discuss findings and
preliminary recommendations and to prepare for
meetings with the larger Technical Advisory
Committee (TAC, which included individuals from
Goal #1: Improve Multimodal Mobility
Goal #2: Enhance Accessibility
Goal #3: Improve Safety
Goal #4: Integrate Sustainability
Residential growth within the Harmony Road
study area is expected to increase 42 percent, and
employment is expected to increase 71 percent.
vii
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
various City Departments, FTA, and adjacent jurisdictions) and public outreach efforts.
A variety of public outreach activities were designed and conducted to solicit input from residents, business
owners, employees, and travelers of the Harmony Road corridor and from the community at large. In addition to
the Harmony Road ETC public meetings, several other outreach mechanisms were successfully used to
disseminate information about the project and to receive input throughout the planning process:
Virtual public open houses – information from the public meetings was posted on the project website
along with electronic questionnaires which received over 350 responses in total (between two
questionnaires)
Presentations to City Boards and City Council
Booths at City events and other public meetings
Stakeholder meetings with neighborhood groups, business associations, and major employers
Alternatives Development and Evaluation
The fundamental philosophy in the
screening process was to
systematically identify the positive and
negative characteristics and tradeoffs
among alternatives resulting ultimately
in a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA).
The alternatives development process
began with the development of 18
corridor‐wide elements including a
broad range of improvements by travel
mode (four roadway, five transit, six
bicycle, and six pedestrian) that were
identified as having potential address
the project needs.
In the Tier 1 evaluation and screening
process, the alternatives were
evaluated at a high level for fatal flaws
and their ability to address the Purpose and Need.
Given that no single element would necessarily address all of the project needs as a stand‐alone improvement,
the intent of identifying these elements by mode was to combine elements together as part of packaged
alternatives in Tier 2. The Tier 2 evaluation process involved a detailed and quantitative comparison between
corridor alternatives and against the No Action Alternative. Inter‐departmental and agency coordination, as well
as public involvement, played a major role in this process. The TAC was involved in each step of the evaluation
process, as well as during the development and refinement of the LPA.
viii
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Tier 1 Cross-Sectional Elements
Travel Mode Element
Roadway 2 General Purpose Lanes per direction
3 General Purpose Lanes per direction
4 General Purpose Lanes per direction
High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lanes
Transit
Local Bus in Mixed Traffic
Enhanced Bus with Transit Priority Treatments
(queue jumps and/or transit signal priority)
Curbside Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
Median BRT
Light Rail/Streetcar
Bicycle Bike Lanes (shoulder)
Buffered Bike Lanes
Bike/Bus Lanes
Shared Use Paths
Cycle Tracks
Back Street Bike Lanes
Pedestrian Curvilinear Detached Sidewalks
Shared Use Paths
Crossing Enhancements at Signalized Intersections
Grade Separated Crossings
Criteria for evaluating alternatives were established to respond directly to the project’s Purpose and Need and
its goals and objectives. The criteria were developed to be appropriate for the evaluation level being conducted
and the alternatives being considered. The responsiveness of each alternative to the criteria determined
whether or not the alternative was reasonable and if it should be advanced for further evaluation. Elements that
best responded to the Purpose and Need and resulted in the best evaluation included:
Roadway: 2 General Purpose lanes per direction from Shields Street to College Avenue; 3 General
Purpose lanes per direction from College Avenue to I‐25, with spot intersection improvements
• Would provide traffic operational benefits without major ROW acquisition
Transit: Enhanced Bus service with queue jumps at congested intersections
• Would provide the best compromise of increasing transit ridership while retaining acceptable
traffic operations
Bicycle: Bike Lanes from Shields Street to College Avenue; Buffered Bike Lanes from College Avenue to
I‐25
• Would provide the best compromise between ROW and drainage/maintenance impacts and
mode shift potential
ix
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Pedestrian: Curvilinear Detached Sidewalks, crossing enhancements at intersections, and grade
separated crossings
• Would continue to provide a separate space for pedestrians along the corridor, and would
improve the safety and level of comfort for pedestrians crossing Harmony Road
Locally Preferred Alternative
The LPA for the Harmony Road ETC, includes a series of multimodal transportation improvements to address the
project Purpose and Need. The LPA includes widening the section of Harmony from College Avenue to
Boardwalk Avenue to six lanes, as well as intersection improvements at selected locations to address future
operational deficiencies.
The transit aspect of the LPA includes Enhanced Bus along Harmony Road between the South Transit Center and
the Harmony Transfer Center. The bus would travel in the general purpose lanes along the extent of the route
except where queue jumps are provided.
The LPA includes enhancements to the existing bicycle lanes including green colored pavement on the bike lanes
for the full length of the corridor, and a striped buffer between the bike lane and the adjacent travel lane from
College Avenue east toward I‐25. The meandering sidewalk will be retained on both sides of Harmony Road,
with completion of the few missing segments. The LPA will also include enhancements to bicycle and pedestrian
crossings (both at‐grade and grade separated crossings). The LPA includes raised, landscaped medians the entire
length of the corridor.
Illustrative Example of LPA from College Avenue to I-25
x
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Roadway Elements
In general, the LPA makes use of the existing roadway infrastructure without major capital
expansion. It includes widening a short segment (College Avenue to Boardwalk Drive) to six
lanes to better accommodate future travel demands, which is consistent with the City’s
Transportation Master Plan.
Two widening projects which are anticipated within the planning horizon will affect Harmony
Road. College Avenue is planned for widening to six lanes south of Harmony Road which will require
reconfiguration at the Harmony Road intersection to extend three northbound and southbound lanes through
the intersection. Likewise, the Timberline Road intersection will require similar geometric modifications to allow
six through lanes in the north/south direction. Timberline Road is expected to transition to four lanes south of
the Harmony Road intersection. Although these two widening projects are not a part of the LPA, the intersection
modifications to accommodate these projects are considered part of the LPA.
The LPA also includes intersection
improvements at four locations along the
corridor to address future operational
deficiencies and to enhance safety for
automobile travel along the corridor. Four
intersections identified for improvements
include:
Harmony Road/Boardwalk Drive
Harmony Road/Timberline Road
Harmony Road/Ziegler Road
Harmony Road/Lady Moon Drive
In addition to the widening and intersection improvements, the LPA includes urban design elements to provide
consistent aesthesis along the length of the corridor. It includes landscaped medians and curb and gutter
throughout the corridor.
Transit Elements
The LPA includes a new 4 ½ mile Enhanced Bus route along Harmony Road between the Harmony Transfer
Center and the South Transit Center. The route would begin at the Harmony Transfer Center, north of Harmony
Road and to the west of I‐25. It would travel west along Harmony Road stopping on demand at bus stops and
stations located approximately every ¼ mile along the corridor. At College Avenue the bus would turn south to
access the South Transit Center and connect to the planned MAX service that is currently under construction.
Route H would operate every 20 minutes in the peak period and 30 minutes in the off peak periods.
To the west of College Avenue, Harmony Road would be served by the existing Route 19 connecting the South
Transit Center, Front Range Community College and the CSU Transit Center. Route H would connect with the
Route 17 at Timberline Road and with Route 7 at John F. Kennedy Parkway.
xi
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
The LPA also includes queue jumps at three intersections along Harmony Road:
Lemay Avenue
Timberline Road
Ziegler Road
Buses using the queue jump and right turning vehicles cross the buffered bike lane as they approach the
intersection; right turning vehicles travel around the right turn channelization island while approaching buses
continue straight. With a green indication buses travel through the intersection concurrently with the other
through travel lanes to a receiving lane on the far side of the intersection and to the bus stop.
xii
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Enhanced transit stations
provide a comfortable and
safe respite location for
transit riders to gather while
anticipating the arrival of the
next bus. The intent is to
provide shelter, seating, bike
parking, waste and recycling
collection, and relevant
information regarding the
transit system (e.g., maps
and time of next bus arrival).
Transit stations are located
at key nodes in the transit
system and serve as
gathering places for users. These include locations such as major employers, the hospital, and schools. Stations
will be larger than a typical bus stop and provide more amenities.
Bicycle Elements
The LPA includes enhanced bicycle facilities along the full length of the
Harmony Road corridor. East of College Avenue, a buffered bike lane
will provide a visual separation and greater space between the
motorized travel lane and the bike. The buffered bike lanes will also
provide space for a bicyclist to pass another bicyclist, and generally
appeal to a wider cross‐section of bicycle users.
As a part of the LPA
refinement process, the
use of colored pavement
was identified as a desired
treatment for the bike lanes along the full length of Harmony Road
(Shields Street to I‐25).
Pedestrian Elements
Harmony Road is identified in the City’s Pedestrian Plan as a Pedestrian Priority Area (PPA). The
LPA seeks to enhance the pedestrian experience along the Harmony Road corridor by providing
continuous sidewalk connections along the length of the corridor (Shields Street to I‐25) and
improving the crossing opportunities along the corridor. The LPA includes completion of the
missing sidewalk segments that exist in several locations along the corridor.
Example of a green bike lane in San Francisco
xiii
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Crossing of Harmony Road has been identified as problematic by the community, and it will become more
difficult as traffic volumes increase in the future. All signalized intersections along the corridor should include at‐
grade crossing treatments to enhance the safety and convenience for pedestrians (and bicyclists).
Example Intersection with Enhanced Bicycle and Pedestrian Crossing Treatments
In addition to the at‐grade intersection crossing enhancements, six locations for future grade‐separated
crossings have been identified and are included in the LPA. These crossings are recommended periodically along
the corridor to connect land uses north and south of Harmony Road, to facilitate access to transit stations, and
to reduce the auto/pedestrian and auto/bicycle conflicts along the corridor.
Pedestrian Grade-Separated Crossing Locations
Implementation
The improvements needed to realize the LPA likely cannot be constructed at the same time. As such, an
implementation plan has been developed to minimize throw‐away costs, expedite high priority improvements,
and advance the capital projects needed to begin enhanced bus service. The City should leverage themselves as
xiv
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
well as private development when possible with development projects along the corridor to take full advantage
of other construction activities and magnitudes of scale.
The following table summarizes the recommended implementation plan in Immediate, Short‐Term and Long‐
Range timeframes. A description of the plan element, the responsible party, and the approximate cost for the
individual elements are included for each of these timeframes.
Recommended Implementation Plan
Locally Preferred Alternative
Element & Description
Responsible Party Approximate Cost
Immediate Improvements
LPA Design
Complete the design of vehicle, pedestrian and
bicycle elements
Conduct environmental resource inventory; develop
mitigation plans for impacted areas
Identify ROW impacts; prepare ROW plans; start
ROW acquisition process
Identify public and private utility conflicts; prepare
modification plans
Engineering with
Consultant
Assistance
$3.50M
(8% of estimated total
project cost)
Finalize the Operating Plan & Determine Vehicle Type
and other Requirements
Transfort
Completed by Transfort
staff
Create a Transit‐Oriented Development Overlay District
FC Moves/
Planning Services
Completed by FC Moves
& Planning Services staffs
Revise corridor striping to create the bike lane buffer;
install green epoxy paint in bike lanes
Engineering $0.24M
Construct missing sidewalks and neighborhood
connections
Engineering $0.61M
Construct landscaped medians Engineering $6.47M
Construct Mason Trail and Power Trail pedestrian grade‐
separations
Engineering $5.52M
Short‐Term Improvements
Identify and Secure Funding for Vehicle Procurement;
Begin Process to Procure Vehicles
Transfort
Completed by Transfort
Staff
Develop Enhanced Bus Operating Schedules and Begin
Public Information Program
Transfort
Completed by Transfort
Staff
Reconstruct the Lemay Avenue, Timberline Road
(including realignment of Harmony Road to the south),
xv
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Locally Preferred Alternative
Element & Description
Responsible Party Approximate Cost
Construct the Bus Stations and Bus Stops Engineering $4.02M
Finalize and Implement the Marketing Plan for the
Enhanced Bus Service
Transfort with
Consultant
Assistance
Completed by Transfort
Staff
Purchase necessary buses Transfort $2.51M
Begin Enhanced Bus Service
Long‐Range Improvements
Construct remaining roadway cross‐sectional elements
sequentially in a west to east manner. Major design
elements would include:
Roadway widening or narrower to match the
LPA cross‐sections (including irrigation ditch
enclosures where needed)
Intersection capacity improvements including
channelizing islands
Traffic signal modifications
Drainage modifications or new systems
Utility modifications
Engineering $9.47M
Construct remaining pedestrian grade‐separations at:
Between Boardwalk Drive and Lemay Avenue
Adjacent University of Colorado Health
Harmony Campus
Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet
Harmony Transfer Center
Engineering $11.04M
1
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
1. Introduction
Harmony Road is one of the six Enhanced
Travel Corridors (ETCs) identified in the Fort
Collins Transportation Master Plan (2011).
ETCs are defined as “uniquely designed
corridors that are planned to incorporate high
frequency transit, bicycling, and walking as
part of the corridor.” Harmony Road crosses
two other ETC’s: Mason and Timberline
Road/Power Trail. Construction of the Mason
Corridor Bus Rapid Transit (MAX) line is
underway and will bring high frequency transit
service across Harmony Road, with the BRT
line terminating at the South Transit Center,
just south of Harmony Road. Building on the
momentum of the Mason Corridor, the City
has identified Harmony Road as the next ETC
for multimodal improvements.
Harmony Road is also identified by the North
Front Range Metropolitan Planning
Organization (NFRMPO) as a Regionally
Significant Corridor (RSC) which is defined in
the NFR 2035 Regional Transportation Plan
Update as “An important link in a multimodal,
regional network comprised of existing or new
transportation corridors that connect
communities and/or activity centers by facilitating the timely and safe movement of people, goods, information,
and services.” Harmony Road’s designations as an ETC and RSC establish the importance of the corridor for both
local and regional travel.
This Harmony Road ETC Master Plan was conducted by the City of Fort Collins to create a vision that will serve as
a blueprint for future multimodal transportation improvements along the corridor. This report presents the
results of the Alternatives Analysis (AA) study which was conducted to assess existing conditions, identify future
challenges (using the year 2035 planning horizon), and identify a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) for
implementation.
Corridor Study Area
The Harmony Road ETC extends from Shields Street to I‐25; and the study area for the Harmony Road ETC
Alternatives Analysis includes a one mile buffer around this segment (see Figure 1). Harmony Road’s cross‐
section and character vary and three distinct segments have been identified for the purpose of alternatives
development and evaluation. These segments are described below.
Harmony Road is one of six Enhanced Travel Corridors in Fort Collins.
2
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Figure 1. Study Area
3
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
West Segment (Shields Street to College
Avenue)
The westernmost segment of the corridor has four through
lanes with a painted median. The primary adjoining land
use is residential, with houses backing to Harmony Road.
Front Range Community College is located in the southeast
quadrant of Harmony Road and Shields Street. The Mason
Corridor (including impending MAX BRT service and the
existing Mason Trail) cross this segment of Harmony Road,
as does the BNSF Railroad. The planned South Transit
Center is located approximately one‐third mile south of
Harmony Road adjacent to the Mason Corridor.
Central Segment (College Avenue to Ziegler Road)
While the entire central segment of the corridor is planned
for six lanes, only the segment between Boardwalk Drive
and Ziegler Road is currently six lanes with a raised median.
Widening for the remaining section (College Avenue to
Boardwalk Drive) is unfunded, however.
The urban design character of the central segment generally
follows the recommendations from the Harmony Corridor
Plan with large landscaped setbacks and informal tree
plantings. Some areas along this segment have redeveloped
into new activity centers that front the corridor, such as
near the Snow Mesa Drive intersection. Newer urban design
infrastructure improvements have been completed at the
College Avenue/Harmony Road intersection. Land uses along
the central segment are typically suburban‐style commercial development with some residential neighborhoods
backing to Harmony Road. The University of Colorado Health Harmony Campus is a prominent land use on the
south side of Harmony Road, east of Timberline Road. This segment includes the UPRR crossing and a future
Power Trail crossing just west of Timberline Road.
East Segment (Ziegler Road to I-25)
The eastern segment of the corridor has six travel lanes with
a depressed grassy median, providing a more rural feel. Most
of the land along this stretch is undeveloped farmlands or
natural areas. However, three large employment campuses
(Hewlett Packard, Avago, and Intel) are located near the
intersection of Harmony Road and Ziegler Road. This segment
has the highest potential for household and employment
growth.
Central Segment
East Segment
West Segment
4
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Corridor Context
Corridor History
Harmony Road owes its name to the agricultural community
named “Harmony” established in the 1870s. The community
of Harmony was centered on what is now the intersection of
Harmony Road and Timberline Road. Remains of the
community can still be seen at the intersection where the
buildings from the original Harmony Store and the Harmony
School still stand. To the west of Timberline Road is the
Harmony Cemetery. Harmony was a farming community with
crops such as grasses, wheat, corn, barley, oats, and timothy.
Harmony Road remained a rural
agricultural road until the late 1950s and
early 1960s with the construction of I‐25.
By 1965, I‐25 connected New Mexico and
Wyoming through Colorado from
Walsenburg to Wellington. In about 1968 Harmony Road became a state highway
connecting I‐25 to US
287 (College Avenue) and was designated
as State Highway 68 (SH 68).
Subsequently, the Colorado Department
of Transportation (CDOT) developed
Harmony Road into a divided highway
with a wide grass median/swale that also
acted as a drainage feature from US 287
to just west of I‐25. The width of the
roadway and rights‐of‐way set the tone
for a higher speed, limited access
roadway; a big difference from any other
arterial street in the City. In 2005 CDOT
returned all of SH 68 to the City of Fort Collins.
Regional and Citywide Importance
Harmony Road is an important regional connection. Traveling from the south on I‐25, Harmony Road is the first
Fort Collins exit; the next Fort Collins exit is Prospect Road three miles to the north. The nearest exit to the south
is State Highway 392 (the Windsor exit) which is also three miles away. Harmony Road as a six lane arterial is
considered one of the best ways into and out of Fort Collins, and with the limited number of I‐25 exits, a large
amount of regional traffic is funneled to Harmony Road. Harmony Road also connects to the Town of Timnath,
immediately to the east of I‐25. Timnath is a small but rapidly growing community with land use plans that add
an extensive number of new households. Timnath has also seen major employment develop along Harmony
Road with a large Super Walmart located just to the east of the I‐25 and Harmony interchange.
Harmony Road and College Avenue are the primary commercial corridors for Fort Collins. As a primary
commercial corridor serving all of Fort Collins and also as a regional destination, pressures on Harmony Road are
significant. It also serves both local and regional trips and will continue to grow into the future; the future of
Harmony Corridor is tied to the future of Fort Collins and the region.
The Harmony School on the northeast corner of
Harmony Road and Timberline Road is a designated Fort
Collins Landmark. The original school house was built in
1878 and the larger masonry school building was built in
1931.
5
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
A variety of plans have been completed by the City of Fort Collins and other agencies that address
transportation, access, and other issues along Harmony Road. Appendix A lists these plans and provides a brief
description of their relevance to the Harmony Road corridor. A description of the near term projects that will
affect the Harmony Road corridor are also included in Appendix A.
Overview of Planning and Outreach Process
The Harmony Road ETC Master Plan has been developed in a manner
consistent with the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA’s)
Alternatives Analysis (AA) study process. As described in the FTA’s
Framework for Alternatives Analysis, during an AA study process
“…the priority corridor identified in systems planning is studied in
detail, focusing on the effects of alternative solutions to the
corridor’s transportation problems. Information on costs, benefits,
and impacts of each alternative is developed to provide a sound
technical basis for project decision making.” The AA study process, as
well as the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA’s) Planning and
Environmental Linkages (PEL) process can be considered precursors
to the environmental review process required by the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The PEL process is intended to
improve and streamline the environmental process for
transportation projects by conducting corridor planning activities prior to the start of the NEPA process.
Although this ETC Master Plan is not considered a PEL, several NEPA process principles were followed and the
FHWA PEL questionnaire was completed and is included in Appendix B.
As shown on Figure 2, the Harmony Road ETC planning process
began in January 2012 and took approximately 18 months to
complete. The process diagram below shows the key tasks,
milestones, and meetings.
Coordination with several City departments and neighboring
agencies as well as input from the public was important
throughout the planning process.
The planning process was guided by a Project Management Team
(PMT), which is composed of two FC Moves transportation
planners and a Transfort transit planner. The PMT and consultant
team held monthly or semi‐monthly conference calls throughout
the planning process to discuss findings and preliminary
recommendations and to prepare for meetings with the larger
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and public outreach efforts.
Coordination with other Fort Collins staff and with neighboring
agencies largely occurred through the TAC. The TAC met six times
from March 2012 through the conclusion of the study to provide
input about the analysis of technical data for the City’s decision
making purposes.
The following NEPA process principles
were followed for this study:
Preparation of a purpose and
need statement
Evaluation of alternatives and
identification of a Locally
Preferred Alternative
Identification of potential
environmental impacts and
conceptual mitigation
strategies
Public involvement
The TAC included representatives from the
following City departments:
FC Moves
Transfort
Advance Planning
6
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Figure 2. Planning Process
7
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
A variety of public outreach
activities were designed and
conducted for the study to
solicit input from residents,
business owners, employees,
and travelers of the Harmony
Road corridor and from the
community at large. Two
public meetings were held for
the project:
The focus of the May
3, 2012 public meeting
was to present
existing conditions,
future growth
projections, and
transportation needs,
and to receive public
input and feedback on current traveling conditions and on ideas for improvements
The results of the Tier 1 Alternatives Development and Evaluation (as described in Chapter 3) were
presented at the September 13, 2012 public meeting, along with recommendations for alternatives to
be moved forward for further evaluation in Tier 2. Attendees provided input on the initial screening
recommendations
In addition to the Harmony Road ETC public meetings, several
other outreach mechanisms were successfully used to
disseminate information about the project and to receive input
throughout the planning process:
Virtual public open houses – information from the
public meetings was posted on the project website
along with electronic questionnaires which received
over 350 responses in total (between two
questionnaires)
Presentations to City Boards and City Council
Booths at City events and other public meetings
Stakeholder meetings with neighborhood groups,
business associations, and major employers
Others (Aaron)
A more detailed description of public outreach efforts and
public input is included in Appendix C.
This “Word Cloud” shows the words that were most
frequently included in public comments. Words that
occurred more frequently are given greater prominence.
8
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
2. Purpose and Need
A critical part of the Alternatives Analysis process is the development of a Purpose and Need statement and
articulation of goals and objectives of the project. The Purpose and Need statement is a key factor in
determining the range of promising alternatives and to guide the development of criteria for evaluating the
alternatives. This chapter documents the project Purpose and Need, transportation problem statements, goals,
and project objectives which were developed during a workshop with the TAC and were refined based on input
from the public.
Purpose Statement
The purpose of the project is to implement multimodal transportation
improvements that enhance mobility and safety along the Harmony
Road Corridor. Improvements will support local and regional travel
needs, land uses, economic health and environmental stewardship
goals.
Problem Statements and Travel Needs
The following sections summarize the identified transportation
problems followed by the existing and future travel needs by travel
mode: roadway, transit, bicycle and pedestrian. A detailed description
and analysis of the existing conditions is included in Appendix A, the
land use and demographic profile is included in Appendix D, and the
transportation analysis is included in Appendix E.
Roadway
Problem Statements:
Travel demand and traffic congestion along
the corridor is expected to increase due to
growth in population and employment along
Harmony Road and the surrounding area and
will result in additional pressure on the transportation
infrastructure
Harmony Road has the two intersections with the highest
crash totals in the City
Harmony Road is one of the primary gateways into the City of Fort
Collins. Harmony Road travels east/west through southern Fort Collins
from Horsetooth Reservoir to I‐25, through the Town of Timnath, and
into Weld County. Within the project limits of the Harmony Road ETC
(Shields Street to I‐25), the City’s Master Street Plan identifies Harmony
Road as a six‐lane major arterial between College Avenue (US 287) and
I‐25, and as a four‐lane arterial to the west of College Avenue.
Traffic operations Level of Service (LOS
Categories)
9
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Existing Traffic Operations
The existing daily traffic volumes along Harmony Road (shown on Figure 3) range from approximately 19,400
vehicles per day (vpd) on the west end of the corridor near Starflower Drive to 45,800 vpd just west of
Timberline Road. Traffic volumes near I‐25 are approximately 37,100 vpd. The majority of the signalized
intersections along the corridor operate at LOS D or better during the PM Peak hour. The only exceptions are the
intersections with South College Avenue and Timberline Road, which currently operate at LOS E during the PM
peak hour.
Figure 3. Existing Daily Traffic Volumes
Crash History
The top two intersections with the highest crash totals in the City (2007 – 2010) are the Harmony Road
intersections at Timberline Road and at Lemay Avenue. Based on a review of the top 50 intersections for overall
crash totals, there are seven intersections along Harmony Road that fall within the top 50.
Crash data were collected for the five‐year period from January 2007 through December 2011. During that time,
there were a total of 1,679 reported crashes at the intersections along Harmony Road and 122 mid‐block
crashes between Shields Street and Lady Moon Drive. There were three fatal crashes along the corridor during
the five‐year study period. Two were front to side crashes; one occurred at Lady Moon Drive and the other at
Snow Mesa Drive. The other fatal crash occurred at Stover Street and involved a pedestrian.
Overall, the proportion of injury / fatal crashes along Harmony Road (compared to property damage only
crashes) is generally better than expected when compared to similar arterial facilities. On most four or six lane
arterials, the injury / fatal percent of total is 30 percent on average. There are two intersections (Snow Mesa
Drive and Crest Road) and one segment (McMurry Avenue to Timberline Road) above that threshold. The
frequency of rear‐end crashes is higher than normal throughout the corridor as a result of congestion.
The frequency of bicycle related crashes is higher than normal at the Shields Street intersection. However,
overall, the corridor has a very low occurrence of pedestrian crashes (0.3%) and bike crashes (1.2%), which is
likely in part because of the relatively lower number of bicycle and pedestrian users on the corridor. These totals
are both better than expected for a four or six lane arterial which typically have bike and pedestrian crash
proportions around 1.5 percent.
Land Use and Travel Demand Growth
Between 2009 and 2035, the Harmony Road study area (which includes a one‐mile buffer around the corridor) is
expected to see a 42 percent increase in households and a 71 percent increase in employment. These growth
rates are generally in line with the remainder of Fort Collins. The highest concentration of household growth is
expected to occur in the eastern section of the corridor, in the currently undeveloped land south of Harmony
10
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Road between Ziegler Road and Strauss Cabin Road. Notable
household growth is also expected in the northwest
quadrant of Harmony Road and Ziegler Road and just west of
the Harmony Road ETC, between Shields Street and Taft Hill
Road. High concentrations of employment growth are also
expected in the eastern section of the corridor in the
undeveloped land south of Harmony Road, as well as in the
vicinity of College Avenue.
The western portion of the corridor (Shields Street to College
Avenue) is projected to experience an approximate 10,000
vehicle per day (vpd) increase in traffic, with 2035 forecasts
in the 30,000 to 35,000 vpd range. Forecasts in the central
portion of the corridor (College Avenue to Ziegler Road) are
in the range of 39,000 to 54,000 vehicles per day (vpd)
through most of the segment. The eastern segment of the
corridor (Ziegler Road to I‐25) is expected to have the greatest increase in travel demand with forecasts ranging
from 55,000 to 63,000 vpd (approximately 50 percent higher than existing).
In 2035, nearly the entire corridor is projected to be congested, even with the recent completion of the six‐lane
widening project between Boardwalk Drive and Timberline Road. Most of the study area intersections are
projected to operate at LOS E or F during the PM peak hour in 2035 if no additional improvements are made.
Transit
Problem Statements:
The transit routes along Harmony Road are discontinuous, making transit travel along
Harmony Road and to key activity centers throughout Fort Collins inefficient and
inconvenient
The existing Harmony Road cross‐section does not accommodate potential mixed‐use
and transit‐oriented development
Today’s transportation network does not provide sufficient connections between modes (e.g., transit to
pedestrian) nor between each mode and the destinations along the corridor (e.g., pedestrian
connections to commercial areas)
Today’s transportation network does not fully meet Fort Collins’ sustainability goals
Existing Service and Ridership
Transfort currently has three routes that provide service
along Harmony Road: Routes 1, 16 and 17. Routes 1 and 17
are primarily north/south oriented except for the portion of
the route serving the Harmony Road area. Route 16 generally
runs east/west between the Mall Transfer Point (MTP) and
Fossil Ridge High School, southeast of Harmony and Ziegler
Roads. Route 19 and the regional route FLEX provide
north/south connections from the corridor but no service
along the corridor. Existing weekday ridership on Harmony
Road is served primarily by Route 16 which serves
A typical Transfort bus stop along Harmony Road
Residential growth within the Harmony Road study area is
expected to increase 42 percent, and employment is
expected to increase 71 percent.
11
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
approximately 260 riders per day. In addition, Routes 1, 17, and 19 provide north‐south service through Fort
Collins with service to destinations on Harmony Road. As illustrated on Figure 4, there is currently no bus to the
Harmony Transfer Center, and traveling the length of the Harmony Road ETC would require transferring.
As can be seen on Figure 4, the highest concentration of transit boardings/alightings in the corridor is in
the vicinity of Harmony Road/Shields Street at the Front Range Community College. Other stops with
relatively high numbers of boardings/alightings include the stops east of Timberline Road, near John F.
Kennedy Parkway, and in the vicinity of Ziegler Road near the major employment centers (Hewlett Packard
and Intel Corporation).
Future Ridership
Based on the fiscally‐committed transit system included in the Transfort Strategic Operating Plan
(including MAX, general realignment of the transit system around the South Transit Center, and route
extensions around the University of Colorado Health Harmony Campus), it is forecast that approximately
650 riders per day would board along the Harmony Road corridor in 2035. These findings suggest a 250
percent increase in transit ridership over existing conditions.
Challenges for Transit Service
The design of much of Harmony Road makes providing safe, convenient and efficient transit service difficult for
Transfort and less appealing for users and potential users. These challenges include physical impediments such
as:
Drainage ditches located directly adjacent to the roadway along much of the corridor
Long distances between signalized
intersections
Wide right‐of‐way to cross (six travel lanes
with deceleration/acceleration lanes and bike
lanes in most locations)
Lack of sidewalk connections in some
locations
Lack of convenient sidewalk connections to
amenities along the corridor (80’ setbacks)
Lack of curb and gutter infrastructure along
most of the corridor
These physical barriers limit where transit stops are
located throughout the corridor and can discourage
potential riders from trying transit service.
Concrete‐lined drainage ditch creates a barrier for transit rides.
12
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Figure 4. Transit Boardings and Alightings
13
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Bicycle
Problem Statements:
Traveling by bicycle along Harmony Road is uncomfortable because Harmony is a high‐
volume, high‐speed corridor
Today’s transportation network does not fully meet Fort Collins’ sustainability goals
Fort Collins has an extensive bicycle network composed
of on‐street bike lanes, designated bike routes, and
multi‐use trails. Harmony Road has six‐ to ten‐foot bike
lanes on both sides of the street from I‐25 through the
Shields Street intersection.
The full length of the
Harmony Road ETC
currently provides a
bicycle level of service of A
or B, and this LOS is
expected to remain even
with the increased traffic
volumes associated with
the 2035 No Action scenario. Bicycle intersection LOS for movements along
Harmony Road (in the east‐west direction) are LOS A or B, with the exception of
the crossing of College Avenue, which is LOS C. Bicycle intersection LOS for
movements crossing Harmony Road (in the north‐south direction) range from A
to C, except at the College Avenue intersection where the bicycle LOS is D.
Although bike lanes are provided along the entire length of the study corridor, and the bicycle levels of service
are good, bicycle counts indicate low levels of biking activity in the corridor. The low bicycle counts may be an
indication that the perceived safety of bicycling along Harmony Road is not consistent with the calculated LOS.
There is a need to encourage bicycle travel along the corridor to provide a more balanced multimodal corridor.
Pedestrian
Problem Statements:
Harmony Road traffic signals (and pedestrian crossings) are typically spaced at half‐mile
intervals which require long, sometimes out‐of‐direction travel for pedestrians crossing
Harmony Road
Today’s transportation network does not provide sufficient connections between
modes nor between each mode and the destinations along the corridor
Harmony Road is a wide corridor with few dedicated, safe pedestrian crossing points
Today’s transportation network does not fully meet Fort Collins’ sustainability goals
Sidewalks along Harmony Road have been built as development has occurred. In general, the sidewalks conform
to the urban design character recommended in the Harmony Corridor Plan: wide setbacks with naturalistic
berming, and a meandering eight‐foot sidewalk. Sidewalks currently exist along the vast majority of the corridor,
Bicycle segment Level of
Service (LOS) represents a
measure of how
comfortable a bicyclists
within a variety of skill
levels would be when
using the facility. Bicycle
intersection LOS
represents the perceived
hazard of the shared
roadway environment
through the intersection.
A bicyclists riding in the Harmony Road bike lane.
14
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
and all but a few sections of the sidewalk are detached from the roadway. There are, however, a few sections of
the corridor that lack sidewalks, most notably between Ziegler Road and Strauss Cabin Road. Pedestrian counts
indicate low levels of walking activity in the corridor, despite the presence of sidewalks along the majority of the
corridor.
The existing pedestrian segment levels of
service along Harmony Road range from
A to F; LOS A, B, or C is typically observed
where the sidewalk is substantially
separated from the vehicular traffic,
providing a more comfortable
environment for pedestrians. LOS D is
observed where the sidewalk is attached
to the roadway, and LOS E or F is
observed where the sidewalk is missing.
All crossings of Harmony Road are currently at LOS C or D, while the
pedestrian LOS for crossing the side streets ranges from A to D. With the
increased traffic volumes associated with the 2035 No Action scenario, the
pedestrian segment levels of service are generally expected to degrade by
one LOS (e.g., from LOS E to LOS F).
In many ways Harmony Road provides a sheltered, pleasant walking
experience because of the naturalistic berming, abundant landscaping and
wide setbacks. However, the corridor also requires pedestrians to walk long distances out of their way and
across a large, busy road in the process. In addition,
connections to corridor land uses are not ideal.
Challenges for Pedestrians
Even with sidewalks provided throughout most of the
corridor, pedestrian connections are often inconvenient,
inaccessible and even lack safety considerations for
pedestrian users. Some of the challenges pedestrians face
throughout the corridor include:
Indirect pedestrian connections to destinations (e.g.,
connections ending at the back of buildings and lack
of desirable visual connection between the corridor
and the surrounding land uses)
Limited and long distances between signalized street
crossings, encouraging jay‐walking across Harmony
Road
Large 80’ setback from Harmony Road and adjacent uses
Large Harmony Road right‐of‐way for pedestrians to cross comfortably
Drainage ditches located between the detached sidewalks and street, limiting the available location of
bus stops
Pedestrian segment LOS can be
quantified to reflect the
comfort experienced by
pedestrians. Pedestrian LOS at
intersections is based on the
delay incurred by pedestrians
the pedestrians’ exposure to
and interaction with turning
vehicles.
This photo illustrates large setback adjacent to Harmony
Road and an example of a concrete lined ditch that
separates the roadway from the corridor land uses.
Wide meandering sidewalks exist
along much of Harmony Road.
15
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Goals and Objectives
The project goals listed below reflect the need to address four transportation problem areas (multimodal
mobility, accessibility, safety, and sustainability) and are consistent with the City of Fort Collins’ vision for the
future. The objectives provide guidance for attaining each goal and reflect the expected results to be achieved
during the planning horizon of the project. The goals and objectives are the foundation for the evaluation
criteria.
Goal #1: Improve Multimodal Mobility
Objectives:
Provide comfortable and convenient multimodal travel options that include auto, transit, walking and
bicycling
Provide a transportation system that supports existing and planned land uses, including future mixed‐
use and transit‐oriented development
Provide multimodal connections to the City’s system of Enhanced Travel Corridors and Regionally
Significant Corridors
Help accommodate future travel demand by increasing bicycle, pedestrian and public transportation’s
share of trips
Goal #2: Enhance Accessibility
Objectives:
Improve connectivity among various travel modes along and across the corridor
Enhance transit, pedestrian and bicycle connections to existing and future land uses
Provide a multimodal system that is accessible to all abilities and a broad demographic
Goal #3: Improve Safety
Objectives:
Improve multimodal travel safety along and across the corridor
Increase opportunities for pedestrians to safely cross Harmony Road
Goal #4: Integrate Sustainability
Objectives:
Increase the use of environmentally friendly transportation options
Implement affordable and cost‐effective transportation solutions
Implement a solution that complements the larger transportation system
Provide a system that supports planned land uses and economic vitality
16
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
3. Alternatives Development and Evaluation
The development and evaluation of
alternative improvements consisted of a
two‐tier process that began with a
broad range of potentially promising
cross‐sectional elements for each
corridor travel mode (roadway, transit,
bicycle, and pedestrian). The
fundamental philosophy in the
screening process was to systematically
identify the positive and negative
characteristics and tradeoffs among
alternatives resulting ultimately in a
Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA).
In the Tier 1 evaluation and screening
process, the alternatives were evaluated
at a high level for fatal flaws and their
ability to address the Purpose and Need.
The cross‐sectional elements were
combined to develop Tier 2 corridor alternatives. The Tier 2 evaluation process involved a detailed and
quantitative comparison between corridor alternatives and against the No Action Alternative based on the
forecasted conditions in 2035. Inter‐departmental and agency coordination, as well as public involvement,
played a major role in this process. The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was involved in each step of the
evaluation process, as well as during the development and refinement of the LPA. This chapter summarizes the
evaluation processes and the key findings of the Tier 1 and Tier 2 evaluation. More detailed information
pertaining to the evaluation process is provided in the appendices, as noted below:
Appendix C summarizes the public input received throughout the study
Appendix D provides more detailed transportation analysis completed in support of the alternatives
development and evaluation process
Appendix F describes the environmental resources inventory and evaluation
Appendix G documents the Tier 1 and Tier 2 evaluation results in a matrix format
Evaluation Criteria
Criteria for developing and evaluating alternatives were established to respond directly to the project’s Purpose
and Need and its goals and objectives. The evaluation criteria used in the Tier 1 and Tier 2 screening are shown
in Table 1. The criteria were developed to be appropriate for the evaluation level being conducted and the
alternatives being considered. The criteria and corresponding measures used in Tier 1 were primarily qualitative
in nature. The Tier 2 evaluation criteria were focused on those measures that could best be used to differentiate
the corridor alternatives and facilitate the selection of the LPA. The responsiveness of each alternative to the
criteria determined whether or not the alternative was reasonable and if it should be advanced for further
evaluation.
17
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Table 1. Evaluation Criteria
Objectives Evaluation Criteria Tier 1 Tier 2
Develop improvements that reflect
stakeholder desires.
Level of support received through public
outreach process
Goal #1: Improve Multimodal Mobility
Provide comfortable and convenient
multimodal travel options that include
auto, transit, walking and bicycling.
Provide a transportation system that
supports existing and planned land
uses, including future mixed‐use and
transit‐oriented development.
Help accommodate future travel
demand by increasing bicycle,
pedestrian and public transportation’s
share of trips.
Auto comfort and convenience
Traffic operations
Transit comfort and convenience
Transit ridership
Pedestrian comfort and convenience
Bicycling comfort and convenience
Balance multimodal needs
Support future TOD and mixed use
Provide multimodal connections to the
City’s system of Enhanced Travel
Corridors and Regionally Significant
Corridors.
Multimodal connections to transit centers/ETCs
Auto access to I‐25
Goal #2: Enhance Accessibility
Improve connectivity among various
travel modes along and across the
corridor.
Enhance transit, pedestrian and bicycle
connections to existing and future land
uses.
Provide a multimodal system that is
accessible to all abilities and a broad
demographic.
Ease of bicycle/pedestrian crossing
Quality of transit service
Accommodate a variety of bicycle and
pedestrian user types and abilities
Goal #3: Improve Safety
Improve multimodal travel safety along
and across the corridor.
Increase opportunities for pedestrians
to safely cross Harmony Road.
Improve safety at high crash locations
Potential crash reduction benefits (based on
crash modification factors)
Buffer between vehicular traffic and bicyclists
18
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Objectives Evaluation Criteria Tier 1 Tier 2
Bicycle and pedestrian safety
Goal #4: Integrate Sustainability
Increase the use of environmentally
friendly transportation options.
Potential ROW impacts
Potential environmental resources impacts
Drainage/impervious surface area
Mode shift potential
Implement affordable and cost‐effective
transportation solutions.
Consistent with potential demand
Cost
Implement a solution that complements
the larger transportation system.
Conformance with Transportation Master Plan
(TMP)
Provide a system that supports planned
land uses and economic vitality.
Consistent with land use plans/zoning
No Action Alternative
The 2035 No Action transportation network includes those improvement projects which are expected to be
funded by 2035. These transportation projects would be built regardless of any other improvements that are
identified as part of the Harmony Road Alternatives Analysis. The No Action Alternative does not address the
purpose and need but has been carried through the analysis for comparison.
Roadway
Planned Roadway Projects
Along Harmony Road, the No Action roadway network includes the recently completed
widening project (Timberline Road to Boardwalk Drive). The No Action alternative also includes
three widening projects in close proximity to the Harmony Road ETC:
The Town of Timnath’s Harmony Road widening project (four lane widening from CR 3 to CR 5)
College Avenue widening to six lanes from Harmony Road to Carpenter Road
Timberline Road widening to six lanes from Vine Drive to Harmony Road
Travel Demand Forecasts
The analysis of future travel demands along the Harmony Road is based on the NFRMPO’s 2035 travel demand
model, as modified by the City of Fort Collins for the development of the 2011 Transportation Master Plan to
represent the City’s 2035 Fiscally Constrained transportation network. The household and employment
forecasts described in Appendix D were used as input in the travel demand model.
19
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
A comparison of the existing and future (2035 No Action) daily traffic forecasts is presented on Figure 5. The
western portion of the corridor (Shields Street to College Avenue) is projected to experience an approximate
5,000 to 10,000 vehicle per day (vpd) increase in traffic, with 2035 forecasts in the 30,000 to 35,000 vpd range.
Forecasts in the central portion of the corridor (College Avenue to Ziegler Road) are in the range of 35,000 to
54,000 vehicles per day (vpd) through most of the segment. The eastern segment of the corridor (Ziegler Road
to I‐25) is expected to have the greatest increase in travel demand with forecasts ranging from 55,000 to 63,000
vpd (approximately 50 percent higher than existing).
Volume to capacity (v/c) ratios compare the capacity of a street to the volume of traffic that it carries or is
projected to carry in the future. A planning level capacity of 8,000 vehicles per day per lane was used to
estimate and compare the level of congestion today and in the future. Figure 5 shows those segments of the
corridor that are uncongested (v/c ratio less than 0.75), congesting (v/c ratio between 0.75 and 1.0), and
congested (v/c ratio greater than 1.0) today and in the future. Based on this planning level analysis, congestion is
currently experienced between College Avenue and Timberline Road, with most of the remainder of the corridor
“congesting.” In 2035, nearly the entire corridor is projected to be congested in the No Action scenario, even
with the recently completed six‐lane widening project between Boardwalk Drive and Timberline Road.
20
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Figure 5. Traffic Forecasts and V/C Ratios (Existing and 2035 No Action)
The inventory and analysis
of existing conditions was
completed prior to the
widening of Harmony Road
between Timberline Road
and Boardwalk Drive.
However, this widening
project (which was
completed in 2012) is
accounted for in the No
Action alternative.
21
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Transit
Planned Transit Projects
The No Action transit network includes the transit operational improvements recommended in
the Transfort Strategic Operating Plan (August 2009). Key aspects of this plan include the
construction of the Mason Corridor Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), construction of a new South Transit
Center southwest of Harmony Road and College Avenue, and general realignment of the transit
system around this new transit center that is designed to provide better service to areas of demand in 2035.
Along Harmony Road, it includes route extensions around the University of Colorado Health Harmony Campus.
Additionally, the No Action Alternative includes the capital cost associated with the recommendations in the
North I‐25 EIS Record of Decision, which includes Express Bus service along I‐25 connecting Fort Collins to other
Front Range destinations, including Loveland and Denver.
The Mason Corridor is currently under construction.
The corridor includes MAX BRT service and improved
non‐motorized facilities and is scheduled to be
completed in 2014. The new BRT service will run
north/south adjacent to Mason Street and the BNSF
Railroad, both of which parallel College Avenue. It will
provide a connection between the Downtown Transit
Center and the new South Transit Center (STC), which
is located to the south of the Mason Street and
Harmony Road intersection. This bus service, when
combined with the shared‐use trail along Mason
Street, will improve access to the corridor. MAX will link major destinations and activity centers along the
corridor including Downtown commercial, Colorado State University, Foothills Mall, and South College retail
areas. It is expected to operate nearly twice as fast as auto travel along College Avenue and provide high
frequency service every 10 minutes.
Transit Ridership Forecasts
Based on transit system changes included in the Transfort Strategic Operating Plan, transit ridership forecasts
for the 2035 No Action have been developed. In 2012, there were approximately 260 boardings per day along
the Harmony Road corridor on Route 16. It is forecast that approximately 650 riders per day would board along
the Harmony Road corridor in the 2035 No Action scenario, a 250 percent increase in transit ridership over
existing conditions.
Bicycle and Pedestrian
As described in Chapter 2, the bicycle and pedestrian segment LOS are impacted
by the level of traffic on the adjacent roadway. The forecasted increase in traffic
volumes in 2035 would result in some reduction in pedestrian LOS along the
corridor. In general, the pedestrian LOS would be reduced by one level of service
(e.g., from LOS C to LOS D) in the 2035 No Action scenario in comparison to the
current LOS (as documented in Appendix A). Where new sidewalk was recently constructed between Timberline
Road and the UP Railroad with the widening project, the future pedestrian LOS will improve to D (currently LOS
F). The bicycle LOS methodology application along Harmony Road is less sensitive to increases in traffic volumes.
The 2035 No Action bicycle LOS are expected to remain in line with current conditions (LOS A and B). However,
the existing low mode split for bicyclists and pedestrians (compared to other corridors in Fort Collins) would
likely be further decrease in the future if no improvements were made to the corridor.
MAX BRT service is scheduled to commence in May 2014.
22
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Tier 1 Alternatives Development
The alternatives development process began with the development of 18 corridor‐wide elements. As shown in
Table 2, these elements included a broad range of improvements by travel mode (roadway, transit, bicycle, and
pedestrian) that were identified to potentially address the project needs. Given that no single element would
address all of the project needs as a stand‐alone improvement, the intent of identifying these Tier 1 elements by
mode was to combine elements together as part of packaged alternatives.
Table 2. Tier 1 Modal Elements
Travel Mode Element
Roadway 2 General Purpose Lanes per direction
3 General Purpose Lanes per direction
4 General Purpose Lanes per direction
High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lanes
Transit
Local Bus in Mixed Traffic
Enhanced Bus with Transit Priority Treatments
(queue jumps and/or transit signal priority)
Curbside Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
Median BRT
Light Rail/Streetcar
Bicycle Bike Lanes (shoulder)
Buffered Bike Lanes
Bike/Bus Lanes
Shared Use Paths
Cycle Tracks
Back Street Bike Lanes
Pedestrian Curvilinear Detached Sidewalks
Shared Use Paths
Crossing Enhancements at Signalized Intersections
Grade Separated Crossings
Tier 1 Evaluation and Screening Results
In the Tier 1 evaluation, these elements were first assessed independently on their ability to meet the Tier 1
evaluation criteria, as set forth in Table 1. The evaluation was qualitative in nature, using measures of “Poor,”
“Fair,” “Good,” and “Best.” Those alternative elements that were deemed to meet the project Purpose and
Need were advanced to a secondary evaluation within Tier 1 in which the modal elements were combined to
develop conceptual cross‐section alternatives.
23
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
The cross‐section alternatives were then evaluated for each of three corridor segments using the Tier 1
evaluation criteria. The three corridor segments (as shown on Figure 6) were identified based on their unique
travel characteristics, adjacent land uses and corridor constraints (such as right of way). Evaluating the cross‐
section alternatives separately by segment facilitated advancing only those elements and cross‐sections that are
most appropriate and beneficial in each of the three segments. Table 3 summarizes the modal elements
eliminated through the Tier 1 evaluation and screening process. While most of the elements listed were
eliminated for all three segments of the corridor, there are two notable exceptions. Widening to six lanes was
eliminated only in the west segment (Shields Street to College Avenue), and bike lanes (as an element of a build
alternative) were eliminated only in the central and east segments (College Avenue to I‐25). The bike lanes have
been retained as part of the No Action Alternative for comparison purposes.
24
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Figure 6. Harmony Corridor Segment Characteristics
25
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Table 3. Summary of Elements Eliminated in Tier 1
Travel
Mode
Element Example
Segment(s) in which
Element was
Eliminated
Primary Reason(s) for Elimination
Roadway/
Transit
Major Widening
(6 lanes)
West
Considerable ROW impacts; would make Harmony more difficult to
cross; therefore, less accommodating of bicycle and pedestrian
modes
Roadway/
Transit
Major Widening
(8 Lanes)
West, Central, East
Considerable ROW impacts; would make Harmony more difficult to
cross; therefore, less accommodating of bicycle and pedestrian
modes
Transit Light Rail
West, Central, East
Prohibitive cost; inconsistent with potential demands; limited
operational and implementation flexibility
Transit Streetcar West, Central, East
Prohibitive cost; inconsistent with potential demands; limited
operational and implementation flexibility
Transit Median BRT
West, Central, East
Higher cost compared to other alternatives; would limit
opportunities for landscaping in median which is highly desired by
the community
Transit Bus only Lane
West, Central, East Would be detrimental to traffic operations
Transit/
Bicycle
Shared Bus/
Bike Lane
West, Central, East
Would not address the need to separate the bicyclists from
vehicular travel lanes
Bicycle Bike Lane
Central, East
Does not address the need to provide comfortable and convenient
multimodal travel options because of high speeds and traffic
volumes (retained in No Action only)
26
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Tier 2 Alternatives Development
The results of the Tier 1 evaluation process were presented to and discussed with the TAC, corridor stakeholder
groups, and the public. After considering and reflecting upon the input received during this outreach effort, the
Project Management Team discussed how to efficiently and effectively package the remaining cross‐section
alternatives for the more detailed analysis required in Tier 2. The Tier 2 Alternatives include improvements for
all travel modes; however, because the transit elements are the key differentiators between the alternatives,
the Tier 2 Alternatives are titled based on the transit service, as shown in Table 4.
As described previously, the No Action Alternative includes only those improvements that are fiscally
constrained. Along Harmony Road, the No Action improvements include fiscally‐committed transit service
modifications and widening of College Avenue and Timberline Road through their intersections with Harmony
Road.
The Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternative consists of lower‐cost alternatives that would still
produce meaningful operational improvements. The local bus service along Harmony Road would be expanded
to provide continuous service along the full length of the corridor. The TSM Alternative includes widening the
section of Harmony Road between College Avenue and Boardwalk Drive to six lanes. To address the operational
deficiencies in the No Action Alternative, four intersections along the corridor have been identified for capacity
improvements:
Harmony Road/Boardwalk Drive
Harmony Road/Timberline Road
Harmony Road/Ziegler Road
Harmony Road/Lady Moon Drive
For the purpose of the Tier 2 evaluation, specific intersection improvements (turn lane additions and
channelization) were identified to provide a minimum 2035 PM peak hour level of service (LOS) of E. These
intersection improvements, as well as the widening of Harmony Road (College to Boardwalk), were applied to all
build alternatives for consistency.
The Enhanced Bus Alternative would provide high‐quality, high‐
frequency bus service operating in mixed‐traffic with queue
jumps at select intersections. A queue jump is a special priority
lane at an intersection approach that allows transit vehicles to
bypass queued vehicles. A new Harmony Enhanced Bus route
would be developed that would operate from Harmony Transfer
Center (HTC) to Front Range Community College (FRCC).
There are two alternatives that would provide high‐quality, high‐
frequency Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service. The BRT service would
be provided in a curbside lane that is dedicated for use by buses
and High Occupancy Vehicles (HOV). In these alternatives, the BRT/HOV lane would use the existing outside lane
in both travel directions. Therefore, Single Occupancy Vehicles (SOV) would be limited to using of the inside lane
in each direction between Shields Street and College Avenue and the two inside lanes in each direction between
College Avenue and I‐25. There are two variations of transit service for this alternative. The End‐to‐End
BRT/HOV Alternative includes BRT service along the full length of the Harmony Corridor, and for trips to/from
downtown, passengers would transfer to MAX. The Interlined BRT/HOV Alternative involves interlining the
27
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Harmony Road BRT service with MAX; resulting in a one‐seat ride from any station along Harmony Road to the
Downtown Transit Center.
The bicycle and pedestrian elements that were retained from the Tier 1 screening could be paired with any of
the four Tier 2 build alternatives. Therefore, the bicycle and pedestrian options (as listed in Table 4) were
evaluated independently.
Table 4. Tier 2 Alternatives1
Alternative
Roadway
Infrastructure
Transit
Infrastructure
on Harmony
Transit
Service
on Harmony
Bicycle and
Pedestrian
Accommodation
No Action Existing Existing
Committed FY14 Transfort
service modifications
Existing
Transportation
System
Management
(TSM)
Widen Harmony
(Boardwalk to
College) to 6
Lanes; intersection
improvements
Existing
Expanded Local Bus service
(Phase 1 of Transfort
Strategic Operating Plan)
Front Range Community
College (FRCC) to Harmony
Transfer Center (HTC)
Options2:
Bike lanes +
detached
sidewalks (West
Segment only)
Buffered bike
lanes + detached
sidewalks
Cycle tracks +
detached
sidewalks
Shared use paths
Enhanced Bus Same as TSM
Queue jumps
at major
intersections
Enhanced bus service (FRCC
to HTC); increased frequency
End‐to‐End
BRT/HOV
28
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Tier 2 Evaluation and Screening Results
In the Tier 2 evaluation process, the alternatives were evaluated against the evaluation criteria that were
developed based on the goals and objectives and Purpose and Need as previously summarized in Table 1. The
Tier 2 evaluation criteria include a combination of qualitative and quantitative evaluation criteria. While some of
the Tier 1 evaluation criteria were used again in Tier 2, the Tier 2 evaluation considered the criteria in more
detail than the Tier 1 screening.
The NFRMPO’s 2035 travel demand model, as modified by the City of Fort Collins for the development of the
2011 Transportation Master Plan to represent the City’s 2035 Fiscally Constrained transportation network, was
used to estimate and compare travel demand and travel patterns for automobile and transit modes. The
following sections summarize the key findings from the Tier 2 evaluation by travel mode. More detail about the
transportation analysis is included in Appendix E, and the Tier 2 evaluation matrix is included in Appendix G.
Roadway
Traffic Forecasts
The forecasted 2035 daily traffic volumes for each of the Tier 2 alternatives are shown on Figure
7 in comparison to the existing traffic volumes. The TSM, Enhanced Bus, and BRT/HOV
Alternatives are expected to carry higher traffic volumes than the No Action Alternative
between College Avenue and McMurry Avenue as a result of the increased capacity (six‐lane
widening from College to Boardwalk). The traffic forecasts on the remainder of the corridor are expected to
remain approximately consistent with the 2035 No Action forecasts.
Traffic Operations
The outputs from the NFRMPO travel demand model were used to develop 2035 PM peak hour intersection
turning movements which were then analyzed in Synchro to compare the intersection operations for the Tier 2
alternatives as summarized in Figure 8.
29
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Figure 7. 2035 Traffic Forecasts for Tier 2 Alternatives
30
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Figure 8. 2035 PM Peak Hour Traffic Operations
In the No Action Alternative, four
intersections along Harmony Road would
operate at LOS E, and one intersection
(Ziegler Road) would operation at LOS F. The
roadway improvements (widening and
intersection improvements) associated with
the TSM Alternative and Enhanced Bus
Alternative would result in most
intersections operating at LOS D or better,
and two intersections (College Avenue and
Timberline Road) operating at LOS E. The
BRT/HOV Alternatives (both End‐to‐End and
Interlined) would result in some degradation
of intersection operations because SOVs
(which are estimated to make up 77 percent of the traffic) would be restricted from using the curbside travel
lanes. The intersection of Harmony Road and College Avenue would be most heavily affected by this
configuration, with PM peak hour operations at LOS F.
Corridor Travel Times
A comparison of corridor travel times for SOV and HOV travel along Harmony Road is provided in Figure 9. The
TSM and Enhanced Bus Alternatives would result in a 13 percent reduction in travel time (two minutes)
compared to the No Action Alternative. The two BRT/HOV Alternatives would result in a 28 percent reduction in
travel time for HOVs (four minutes), but a 20 percent increase in travel time (three minutes) for SOVs compared
to the No Action Alternative.
Figure 9. 2035 PM Peak Hour Corridor Travel Times
Summary of Findings
Key findings related to the traffic operations
include:
Intersection improvements are needed at
several locations to accommodate future
demand
Using the outside lanes for BRT/HOV
through the College intersection would
cause considerable operational problems
BRT/HOV alternatives would provide a
travel time savings of as much as seven
minutes for carpoolers
Travel time for SOVs would increase 20
percent in the BRT/HOV alternatives
Queue jumps in the Enhanced Bus Alternative could be most beneficial at about 3‐5 locations where
congestion and queue lengths are expected to be the longest
31
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Transit
Evaluation of the transit service performance for the Tier 2 alternatives was also completed
using the NFRMPO regional travel demand model (more detailed analysis results are included in
Appendix E). The No Action and TSM Alternatives assume 60 minute peak and off‐peak
headways; the Enhanced Bus and BRT/HOV Alternatives assume 20 minute headways during
the peak periods and 30 minute headways during the off‐peak periods. Figure 10 shows the
2035 average weekday ridership along the Harmony corridor and on MAX. MAX ridership is critical to effectively
compare the Interlined BRT/HOV Alternative with the other Tier 2 alternatives.
Figure 10. 2035 Average Daily Transit Boardings
As shown, the TSM Alternative would result
in a modest 15 percent increase in ridership
on Harmony compared to the No Action
Alternative. The Enhanced Bus Alternative
would result in a more than tripling of the
No Action ridership, and the End‐to‐End
BRT/HOV would result in a nearly
quadrupling of the No Action ridership. The
ridership for the Interlined BRT/HOV
Alternative includes those riders on
Harmony and MAX as is approximately five
percent less in total than the End‐to‐End
BRT/HOV ridership. However, this decrease
in overall ridership must be assessed in
combination with the number of transfers being made; by providing a one‐seat ride from any Harmony Road
station to downtown via the Interline BRT service, the total number of boardings decreases, but the average
number of transfers per trip is decreased substantially, as shown in Figure 11. A lower average number of
transfers per trips is representative of a more convenient transit system.
Figure 11. Average Transfers per Transit Trip
Summary of Findings
Increasing frequency results in
largest increase in boardings
Interlined service MAX to
Harmony east reduces transfers
and increases ridership
Interlined service to the west
competes with Route 19
Capital associated with HOV
conversion would be relatively low
BRT demand requires articulated
fleet
BRT shelters and fleet are very
costly
32
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Travel Speeds by Mode
In order to provide a direct comparison of the roadway and transit components of the Tier 2 Alternatives, the
average corridor travel speeds were evaluated by travel mode. The average travel speeds account for
intersection delays for all travel modes and dwell times to board and alight for transit. As shown in Figure 12,
corridor travel speeds (average per person) for SOVs are the highest in the TSM and Enhanced Bus Alternatives;
speeds decrease in the BRT/HOV Alternatives (primarily as a result of delays at the College Avenue intersection).
Corridor travel speeds for HOVs are the highest in the BRT/HOV Alternative because they have exclusive use of
the outside lanes (with transit). Corridor travel speeds for transit are highest in the Enhanced Bus and BRT/HOV
Alternatives. The average corridor travel speeds (average for all people in the corridor, regardless of mode) are
highest in the TSM and Enhanced Bus Alternatives, followed by the BRT/HOV Alternatives.
Figure 12. 2035 PM Peak Hour Averages Speeds
33
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Bicycle and Pedestrian
As shown in Table 4, the Tier 2 bicycle and pedestrian options could be paired
with any of the Tier 2 build alternatives (TSM, Enhanced Bus, End‐to‐End
BRT/HOV or Interlined BRT/HOV). The bicycle and pedestrian options are
described below along with the primary factors that were considered in the Tier
2 evaluation.
Bike Lanes + Detached Sidewalks
This alternative represents the existing conditions for much
of the Harmony Road corridor. However, this option would
involve completing the missing sidewalk segments that exist
in several locations along the corridor. As described in the
Tier 1 evaluation, bike lanes as an element of a build
alternative were eliminated for the Central and East
segments because of the perceived safety issue
demonstrated by relatively low utilization. Bike lanes in the
Central and East segments do not afford comfortable and
convenient multimodal travel options because of high
speeds and traffic volumes. This option has been retained
for the West segment, and the primary advantages and
disadvantages are described below.
Advantages
Provides a separate space for bicyclists and pedestrians; more accommodating of different abilities than
a shared use path
Minimal cost to complete missing sidewalk segments
Disadvantages
Less confident bicyclists may not be comfortable riding in close proximity to a travel lane
Buffered Bike Lanes + Detached Sidewalks
Buffered bike lanes provide greater space between motor vehicles
and bicyclists, provide space for bicyclists to pass another bicyclist,
and appeal to a wider cross‐section of bicycle users. This option
includes completion of the missing sidewalk segments that exist in
several locations along the corridor. The primary advantages and
disadvantages are described below.
Advantages
Would improve bicycle accommodation by enhancing
drivers’ visibility and awareness of bicyclists
Provides a separate space for bicyclists and pedestrians;
more accommodating of different abilities than a shared
use path or bike lanes
Heightened driver awareness of bicyclists and presence of buffer may provide improved comfort for
bicyclists (improved bicycle LOS)
Relatively low cost improvement to complete missing sidewalk segments and add buffer striping
34
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Can be accommodated on existing infrastructure in Central and East segments
Disadvantages
Would require widening (and higher cost) on East segment
Would not provide a physical separation between bicyclists and motor vehicles
Cycle Tracks + Detached Sidewalks
A cycle track is an exclusive bike facility that is physically separated
from motorized traffic typically by a raised median or bollards.
Although cycle tracks can be one‐way or two‐way, for Harmony
Road, the cycle track option that was deemed to be most
appropriate is one‐way cycle tracks on both sides of the street. A
cycle track is distinct from the sidewalk; this option includes
completion of the missing sidewalk segments that exist in several
locations along the corridor. The primary advantages and
disadvantages are described below.
Advantages
Would improve bicycle accommodation by enhancing drivers’ visibility and awareness of bicyclists and
providing a physical separation between auto travel lanes and bicyclists
Provides a separate space for bicyclists and pedestrians; most accommodating of different abilities
compared to other options
Heightened driver awareness of bicyclists and physical separation from travel lanes provides improved
comfort for bicyclists (improved bicycle LOS)
A recent study1 shows increased bicycling activity and lower risk of injury with implementation of cycle
tracks
Disadvantages
Raised buffer would introduce drainage and maintenance complexities
Highest cost compared to other bicycle/pedestrian options; including completion of missing sidewalk
segments and construction of raised median barrier between travel lane and cycle track
Shared Use Paths
A shared use path is a bikeway physically
separated from motorized traffic by an
open space or barrier and can be either
within the roadway right‐of‐way or within
an independent right‐of‐way. Shared use
paths may also be used by pedestrians,
skaters, wheelchair users, joggers and
other non‐motorized users. This option
would include a two‐way shared use path
on each side of Harmony Road (shared
use paths are also referred to as sidepaths
1 “Risk of Injury for Bicycling on Cycle Tracks Versus in the Street,” Injury Prevention, February 2011, Harvard School of
Public Health Researcher Anne Lusk.
35
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
when adjacent to a roadway) and would replace the existing meandering detached sidewalk with a more direct
and wider (minimum 10 feet) shared use path. The primary advantages and disadvantages are described below.
Advantages
Would provide a physical separation between bicyclists and motor vehicles
Disadvantages
Eliminates on‐street bicycling accommodation which is preferred by many advanced and non‐
recreational bicyclists
Bicyclists and pedestrians of all types and abilities would be forced to use this single facility
Would introduce safety concerns associated with operational conflicts between two‐way sidepath and
automobiles at intersections/access points; bicyclists riding on two‐way sidepaths incur much greater
risk of collision than those traveling with traffic2
The use of shared use paths adjacent to a roadway such as Harmony Road is not consistent with
guidelines in the AASHTO Bike Guide,3 which states the following:
• “Provision of a pathway adjacent to the roadway [sidepath] is not a substitute for the provision
of on‐road accommodation such as a paved shoulders or bike lanes…”
• “Best use of sidepath is adjacent to roadways with no or very few intersections or driveways”
Summary of Tier 2 Evaluation
Overall, the Tier 2 evaluation identified the Enhanced Bus, detached sidewalks, bike lanes west of College
Avenue, and buffered bike lanes east of College Avenue as the elements of the Locally Preferred Alternative
(LPA). Table 5 summarizes the Tier 2 evaluation results.
While the Enhanced Bus Alternative was identified as the strongest alternative for only four of the ten applicable
evaluation criteria, the criteria that largely influenced the selection of the LPA were public and agency support
and balance of multimodal needs. The Enhanced Bus Alternative provides the best compromise of increasing
transit ridership while retaining acceptable traffic operations.
Likewise, the Buffered Bike Lane + Detached Sidewalk is the strongest bicycle/pedestrian option for the LPA
because it provides the best compromise between ROW impacts/costs/drainage and maintenance (where the
bike lane + detached sidewalk was identified as the strongest candidate) and mode shift potential/
accommodation of a variety of users (where the cycle track + detached sidewalk was identified as the strongest
candidate).
2 “Risk Factors for Bicycle‐Motor Vehicle Collisions at Intersections,” ITE Journal, September 1994.
3 Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 2012, Fourth Edition, American Association of State Highway
Transportation Officials (AASHTO).
36
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Table 5. Summary of Tier 2 Evaluation Results
Evaluation Criteria
Strongest
Roadway/Transit
Alternative
Strongest
Bicycle/Pedestrian
Option
Public and agency support Enhanced Bus Cycle Track + Detached Sidewalk
Traffic operations TSM or Enhanced Bus N/A
Transit ridership Interlined BRT/HOV N/A
Pedestrian comfort and convenience N/A Buffered Bike Lane + Detached Sidewalk
Bicycling comfort and convenience N/A Cycle Track + Detached Sidewalk
Balance of multimodal needs Enhanced Bus Buffered Bike Lane + Detached Sidewalk
Quality of transit service Interlined BRT/HOV N/A
Accommodate a variety of bicycle and
pedestrian user types and abilities
N/A Cycle Track + Detached Sidewalk
Potential crash reduction benefits
TSM, Enhanced Bus or
BRT/HOV
N/A
Bicycle and pedestrian safety N/A Cycle Track + Detached Sidewalk
Potential ROW impacts TSM Bike Lane + Detached Sidewalk
Drainage/impervious surface area TSM Bike Lane + Detached Sidewalk
Mode shift potential BRT/HOV Cycle Track + Detached Sidewalk
Cost TSM Bike Lane + Detached Sidewalk
37
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
4. Locally Preferred Alternative
This chapter describes the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) resulting from the extensive alternatives
development and evaluation process conducted in this study. The conceptual engineering plans for the LPA are
included in Appendix H.
LPA Decision Process
The process of selecting the Locally Preferred Alternative for the Harmony Road ETC included the following
steps:
Performing a two‐tiered alternatives development and evaluation process
Soliciting input from the public, stakeholders, and City staff
Presenting the Tier 2 evaluation and public input to the TAC on December 19, 2012, at which time the
TAC requested follow‐up information related to the feasibility of infrastructure improvements identified
in the build alternatives and a direct comparison of corridor travel times by mode between Tier 2
alternatives
Presenting the requested follow‐up information to a sub‐group of the TAC
Making a preliminary recommendation for the LPA based on the strongest Tier 2 roadway/transit
alternative and bicycle/pedestrian option as described in Chapter 3. Consideration was given to the
technical analysis (including the follow‐up information), public input, and input from the Project
Management Team
Refining the LPA based on input from the TAC; the refined LPA was presented to and supported by the
TAC on February 27, 2013
Presenting the project and recommended LPA at a series of City board meetings and public meetings
• Transportation Board – July 18, 2012; March 20, 2013; June 19, 2013.The Transportation Board
acted on the Final Report at their June 19th, 2013 meeting. [Meeting results to be added]
• Bicycle Advisory Committee – July 9, 2012; May 6, 2013. The BAC generally supported the
recommendations of the LPA. They viewed the buffered bike lanes as an improvement over the
existing bike lanes.
• Planning and Zoning Board – May 10, 2013. The Planning and Zoning Board generally supported
the recommendations of the LPA.
• Air Quality Advisory Board – May 20, 2013. The Air Quality Advisory Board had numerous
questions about the impact of the project on air quality. On one hand the Board felt improving
traffic flow had the most potential to improve mobile emissions, while there was also a strong
advocacy for increasing mode shift to transit, bicycling and walking to reduce vehicle miles
traveled. The Board agreed to provide a brief, bulleted document with ideas regarding air
quality issues in this project.
The City Council…[when they have taken an action in support of the LPA, include date of adoption and
description of action]
38
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
LPA Description
The LPA for the Harmony Road ETC, includes a series of multimodal transportation improvements to address the
project Purpose and Need. The LPA includes widening the section of Harmony from College Avenue to
Boardwalk Avenue to six lanes, as well as intersection improvements at selected locations to address future
operational deficiencies.
The transit aspect of the LPA includes Enhanced Bus along Harmony Road between the South Transit Center and
the Harmony Transfer Center. The bus would travel in the general purpose lanes along the extent of the route
except where queue jumps are provided.
The LPA includes enhancements to the existing bicycle lanes including green colored pavement on the bike lanes
for the full length of the corridor, and a striped buffer between the bike lane and the adjacent travel lane from
College Avenue east toward I‐25. The meandering sidewalk will be retained on both sides of Harmony Road,
with completion of the few missing segments. The LPA will also include enhancements to bicycle and pedestrian
crossings (both at‐grade and grade separated crossings). The LPA includes raised, landscaped medians the entire
length of the corridor.
Roadway Elements
In general, the LPA makes use of the existing roadway infrastructure without major capital
expansion. As shown on Figure 13, the LPA does include widening a short segment (College
Avenue to Boardwalk Drive) to six lanes to better accommodate future travel demands, which
is consistent with the City’s Transportation Master Plan.
Two widening projects which are anticipated within the planning horizon will affect Harmony
Road. College Avenue is planned for widening to six lanes south of Harmony Road which will require
reconfiguration at the Harmony Road intersection to extend three northbound and southbound lanes through
the intersection. Likewise, the Timberline Road intersection will require similar geometric modifications to allow
six through lanes in the north/south direction. Timberline Road is expected to transition to four lanes south of
the Harmony Road intersection. Although these two widening projects are not a part of the LPA, the intersection
modifications to accommodate these projects are considered part of the LPA.
The LPA also includes intersection improvements at four locations along the corridor to address future
operational deficiencies and to enhance safety for automobile travel along the corridor. As shown on Figure 13,
the four intersections identified for improvements include:
Harmony Road/Boardwalk Drive
Harmony Road/Timberline Road
Harmony Road/Ziegler Road
Harmony Road/Lady Moon Drive
For the purpose of this planning study, geometric improvements were identified to address the operational
deficiencies (as noted previously on Figure 7). However, other types of intersection improvements may be
considered and analyzed in the design phase – roundabouts, continuous flow intersections (CFIs), and Michigan
left turns, for example. This study did not include an exhaustive evaluation of intersection improvements.
39
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Figure 13. Roadway Widening and Intersection Improvements
In addition to the widening and intersection
improvements described above, the LPA
includes urban design elements to provide
consistent aesthesis along the length of the
corridor. As illustrated in Figures 14 and 15,
the LPA includes landscaped medians and
curb and gutter throughout the corridor. The
typical streetscape and median landscape
should emphasize mixed plantings of
perennials, grasses, shrubs, and tree
groupings, with a loosely patterned mulch
surface. The landscape design should reflect
Fort Collins’ western regional character with regionally‐specific plants suited to the particular microclimate and
environmental conditions of the location. Typical features include native boulder groupings, varied cobble mulch
areas and urban elements such as street lights and decorative railings. Low impact water quality measures may
be incorporated into the design as conditions warrant.
Figure 14. Illustrative Example of LPA: Shields Street to College Avenue
40
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Figure 15. Illustrative Example of LPA: College Avenue to I-25
With a project of this size, utility impacts cannot be avoided. However, the
relocation or undergrounding of overhead utility lines, which is quite
common on some projects, is not needed since public and private utilities are
already below ground along the Harmony Road corridor.
Some of the common utility impacts that may occur during the preliminary
design process would be the relocation of some utility pedestals or manholes,
and existing street lighting may need to be relocated. Limiting impacts to
utility infrastructure should be undertaken to the best of the City’s ability
during the preliminary design phase.
Of particular note is that there are existing concrete‐lined irrigation ditches
along Harmony Road may need to be relocated or covered as part of the
future design. These ditches have a typical longitudinal alignment and are
used for capturing roadside drainage and, at one time, for irrigation flows
from the Larimer #2 Extension Ditch (specific to the south side of Harmony
Road). Visual verification of the location of the concrete‐lined ditch is
somewhat sporadic at times and it appears that it has been conveyed to
piping systems as parcels were redeveloped along the corridor.
The concrete‐lined ditch on the
south side of Harmony Road, just
east of College Avenue.
41
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
The locations of the visible concrete‐lined ditches are:
College Avenue to Boardwalk Drive: Sporadically along the south side of Harmony Road
Timberline Road to Ziegler Road: Along the south side of Harmony Road; the ditch proceeds southward
along the east side of Ziegler Road at this point, but continues along Harmony Road as a piped system
then as an open, unlined channel
Ziegler Road to Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet: Along the north side of Harmony Road
Coordination with the existing irrigation ditch companies should occur as soon as possible during the preliminary
design process to understand their concerns and their design requirements.
42
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Transit Elements
LPA transit elements include enhanced bus service, bus stations and stops, and queue jumps at select locations.
Enhanced Bus Service
The LPA includes a new 4 ½ mile Enhanced Bus route along Harmony Road between the
Harmony Transfer Center and the South Transit Center. Figure 16 illustrates the proposed
Harmony Enhanced Bus route referred to as Route H. The route would begin at the Harmony
Transfer Center, north of Harmony Road and to the west of I‐25. It would travel west along
Harmony Road stopping on demand at bus stops and stations located approximately every ¼ mile along the
corridor. At College Avenue the bus would turn south to access the South Transit Center and connect to the
planned MAX service that is currently under construction.
To the west of College Avenue, Harmony Road would be served by the existing Route 19 connecting the South
Transit Center, Front Range Community College and the CSU Transit Center. Route H would also connect with
the Route 17 at Timberline Road and with Route 7 at John F. Kennedy Parkway.
Route H would operate every 20 minutes in the peak period and 30 minutes in the off peak periods. In 2035, it is
estimated that the Express Bus along Harmony Road would serve approximately 2,000 boardings daily
depending on the route service pattern. Interlining the Harmony Road service with MAX would result in higher
ridership compared to the end‐to‐end stand‐alone service. This is the result of providing a single seat ride
between Harmony Road and downtown Fort Collins which results in shorter travel time and no transfers.
The service would require three buses plus a spare if the buses are branded for service specifically along the
Harmony Road Corridor. Buses would be low floor and articulated to accommodate demand and could
seamlessly integrate with MAX service. Stops would be provided approximately every ¼ mile. Drivers would stop
when a passenger is waiting to board at any of the stops along the route or when a riding passenger has
provided indication that they will be alighting at the approaching stop.
Annually the Route H service would run approximately 10,500 service hours assuming end‐to‐end service. Based
on Transfort's current hourly cost per service hour of $93, the annual operating and maintenance costs would be
approximately $990,000 (2012 dollars). A Route H service pattern interlined with MAX would require a similar
number of additional service hours.
Figure 16. LPA Transit Routes
43
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Queue Jumps
The LPA also includes queue jumps at three intersections along Harmony Road: 1) Lemay Avenue, 2) Timberline
Road, and 3) Ziegler Road. Buses using the queue jump and right turning vehicles cross the buffered bike lane as
they approach the intersection; right turning vehicles travel around the right turn channelization island while
approaching buses continue straight. With a green indication buses travel through the intersection concurrently
with the other through travel lanes to a receiving lane on the far side of the intersection and to the bus stop.
Figure 17 illustrates the queue jump in relation to the bus stop at a typical intersection.
Figure 17. Illustrative of Queue Jump Lanes at Intersection
Bus Stops and Stations
Enhanced transit stations provide a comfortable and safe respite location for transit riders to gather while
anticipating the arrival of the next bus. The intent is to provide shelter, seating, bike parking, waste and recycling
collection, and relevant information regarding the transit system (e.g., maps and time of next bus arrival).
Transit stations are key nodes in the transit system and serve as gathering places for users. These include
locations such as major employers, the hospital, and schools. Stations will be larger than a typical bus stop and
provide more amenities. Station amenities would likely include a custom shelter, bench, bike racks, lighting, a
small plaza area, and a trash receptacle. Spaces for future potential bike share parking should also be considered
when stations are being designed. Stops would have few amenities but would include a standard shelter,
lighting, bench, and trash receptacle. The proposed Harmony station and Harmony local stop locations are
depicted on Figure 18. The LPA conceptual plans (Appendix H) generally do not include bus pull‐outs at the local
stops or stations in order to facilitate the buses’ entrance back into the travel lane. There are a few exceptions:
44
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
At the three intersections with queue jumps (Lemay Avenue, Timberline Road, and Zieger Road), the
queue jump receiving lane will provide a dedicated space for buses at the station; after stopping at the
station, the buses will be required to enter back into the travel lane
A bus pull‐out is recommended at the station near Mason Street to provide buses with a waiting area to
facilitate timed transfers with MAX
The Harmony Transfer Center
would be the end‐of‐line
station and park‐and‐ride
facility for Route H. As such it
would be upgraded to
accommodate 60 foot
articulated buses and provide a
driver bathroom. In addition,
the number of parking spaces is
expected to be increased to 350
as part of the North I‐25 EIS
project.
The stop/station experience is
an important part of the rider experience. The integration of high
quality materials, modern messaging systems, and improved
functionality will serve to improve the image of and increase the
demand for the transit system. Enhanced transit stations support cultural exchange and community building by
providing comfort and safety in the public
realm.
Harmony Station Concept
Harmony Local Stop Concept
45
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Figure 18. Harmony Road Bus Stop and Station Locations
46
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Bicycle Elements
Fort Collins was recently designated a Platinum‐level
Bicycle Friendly Community by the League of American
Bicyclists. In recognition of the importance of bicycle
travel in Fort Collins, the LPA includes enhanced
bicycle facilities along the full length of the Harmony
Road corridor. East of College Avenue, a buffered bike
lane will provide a visual separation and greater space between the
motorized travel lane and the bike. The buffered bike lanes will also
provide space for a bicyclist to pass another bicyclist, and generally
appeal to a wider cross‐section of bicycle users. Buffered bike lanes are
depicted in Figure 15 for the section of Harmony Road between
College Avenue and I‐25. A buffer width of three feet and a bike lane
width of five is recommended, which exceeds minimum standards in the National Association of City
Transportation Officials (NACTO) Urban Bikeway Design Guide and could fit within the existing roadway
infrastructure on Harmony Road.
As a part of the LPA refinement process, the use of colored
pavement was identified as a desired treatment for the bike lanes
along the full length of Harmony Road (Shields Street to I‐25).
Colored bike lanes help to increase the visibility of the facility,
identify potential areas of conflict, and reinforce priority to
bicyclists. Motorists are expected to yield right of way to bicyclists in
the bike lane. Studies have shown that colored bike lanes,
particularly in conflict areas near intersections, result in increases in
motorist yielding behavior.4 Green colored pavement on Harmony
bike lanes are illustrated on Figures 14 and 15.
While the enhanced bicycle facilities along Harmony Road are
expected to encourage bicycling as a mode of travel along the
corridor, some bicyclists will not be comfortable riding on‐street with the levels of traffic volume and motor
vehicle speeds on Harmony Road. To
accommodate these less‐confident bicyclists, a
network of bike facilities including back street
bike lanes (that is, off the major arterial roads)
is needed. A relatively well‐established
network of bike facilities (primarily bike lanes)
exists within approximately a half‐mile of
Harmony Road. Bike lanes exist along a route a
half‐mile south of Harmony from west of
Lemay Avenue to Lady Moon (approximately
three miles) along Boardwalk Drive, Keenland
Drive, Battle Creek Drive, Stetson Creek Drive,
4 “Evaluation of Blue Bike‐Lane Treatment in Portland, Oregon,” Transportation Research Record 1705, 107‐115, 2008.
“Effects of Colored Lane Markings on Bicyclist and Motorist Behavior at Conflict Areas,” Center for Transportation
Research, City of Austin, 2010.
Example of a buffered bike lane in Seattle
Example of a green bike lane in San Francisco
An excerpt from the Fort Collins Bike Plan (2008) showing the Planned
Bikeway Network in the Harmony Road ETC study area.
47
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
and Rock Creek Drive. To bolster the use of these back street bike lanes, the following actions are
recommended:
Complete the missing connection across the UPRR (west of Timberline Road) with a tie‐in to the future
Power Trail
Provide signing and mapping to alert bicyclists of the option to use the back street bike network instead
of Harmony Road
Consider the extension of an east‐west bike route from Lemay to College, with a connection to the
South Transit Center
Pedestrian Elements
Harmony Road is identified in the City’s Pedestrian Plan as a
Pedestrian Priority Area (PPA). The LPA seeks to enhance the
pedestrian experience along the Harmony Road corridor by
providing continuous sidewalk connections along the length
of the corridor (Shields Street to I‐25) and improving the
crossing opportunities along the corridor. The LPA includes completion of the
missing sidewalk segments that exist in several locations along the corridor.
Crossing of Harmony Road has been identified as problematic by the
community, and it will become more difficult as traffic volumes increase in the
future. All signalized intersections along the corridor should include at‐grade
crossing treatments to enhance the safety and convenience for pedestrians
(and bicyclists). As shown schematically on Figure 19, these treatments could
include:
Pedestrian crosswalks
Use of TURNING VEHICLES YIELD TO PEDESTRIANS signs (Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices [MUTCD] R10‐15) to remind right‐on‐
green and permissive left‐turn movements of their obligation to yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk
Pedestrian activated signals (with the option of a leading pedestrian interval)
Channelized right turn lanes with raised islands
to allow pedestrians to cross the right turning
traffic independently of the rest of the
intersection; the design should encourage low
vehicle turning speeds and should provide
unobstructed sight lines between pedestrians
and motorists
Proper bike lane striping to avoid the right lane
conflict with right turning vehicles
Bicycle detection (particularly on the side street
approaches) and automatically adjusted signal
timing to allow enough time for bikes to cross
Harmony Road within the green time
The characteristic wide meandering
sidewalk along Harmony Road
Example of enhanced pedestrian crossing treatments at the
Harmony Road/Corbett Drive intersection
48
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Figure 19. Example Intersection with Enhanced Bicycle and Pedestrian Crossing Treatments
In addition to the at‐grade intersection crossing enhancements, six locations for future grade‐separated
crossings have been identified and are included in the LPA. As shown in Figure 20, these crossings are
recommended periodically along the corridor to connect land uses north and south of Harmony Road, to
facilitate access to transit stations, and to reduce the auto/pedestrian and auto/bicycle conflicts along the
corridor. Two grade‐separated crossing locations have been identified as the high priority:
Mason Trail (near the BNSF railroad)
Power Trail (near the UP railroad)
These two trails serve regional functions for bicycle and pedestrian travel, and also coincide with future
Harmony Road stations.
Figure 20. Pedestrian Grade-Separated Crossing Locations
49
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
LPA Performance
Traffic Operations
Provision of the roadway and intersection improvements in the LPA will result in improved intersection levels of
service (LOS) in the future. Most of the major signalized intersections along Harmony Road are expected to
operate at LOS D or better during the PM peak hour (refer to Figure 21). Two intersections (Harmony
Road/College Avenue and Harmony Road/Timberline Road) are projected to operate at LOS E during the PM
peak hour. The LPA is estimated to result in an average corridor travel time (from Shields Street to I‐25 or vice‐
versa) of approximately 12 ½ minutes during the PM peak hour in 2035, which equates to an average speed of
27 mph (including stops at the signalized intersections).
Figure 21. LPA 2035 PM Peak Hour Traffic Operations
Transit Operations
Enhanced Bus service along the corridor would see approximately
1,800 boardings daily, substantially higher ridership than the
service that exists along the corridor today. Service interlined with
MAX would result in somewhat higher ridership than the end‐to‐
end service pattern.
Bicycle and Pedestrian
The enhanced bicycle accommodation in the LPA is expected to
improve bicyclists’ experience and encourage bicycling as a mode
of travel along Harmony Road. The buffered bike lanes will
improve bicycling comfort; green bike lanes are expected to increase drivers’ awareness of bicyclists along the
corridor and increase motorists’ yielding to bicyclists in conflict areas.
The wide meandering sidewalk that exists along much of Harmony Road provides a pleasant walking experience
for pedestrians; completion of the missing sidewalk segments will further enhance the pedestrian experience
and encourage walking as a mode of travel along Harmony Road. At‐grade intersection crossing enhancements
will enhance the safety and convenience for pedestrians crossing Harmony Road, and the provision of grade‐
separated crossings approximately every 1 – 1 ½ miles will reduce the auto/pedestrian and auto/bicycle conflicts
across the corridor.
50
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Environmental
Environmental Resources
A cursory‐level environmental inventory of existing conditions and a preliminary assessment of the project
impacts was conducted for the for the Harmony Road ETC study area. The level of analysis performed for this
project is commensurate with the requirements of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for Alternatives
Analysis.
The purpose of conducting the environmental inventory and evaluation was to develop an understanding of the
existing physical opportunities and constraints of the corridor related to environmental resources. This
information was used to inform the alternatives screening process and help determine which alternatives had
physical limitations that could either eliminate an alternative from consideration or have an impact on an
alternative’s cost and/or public acceptance due to resource conflicts. The full environmental inventory and
evaluation is included in Appendix F.
The methods used to conduct the environmental inventory included a desktop review of existing information,
including existing geographic information system (GIS) data and available information from relevant agencies
(e.g., City of Fort Collins, US Fish and Wildlife Service). A field visit was not performed as part of the preliminary
environmental inventory. Mapping of the existing conditions within the study area is included in Appendix F.
A preliminary environmental evaluation of the potential project impacts was performed using the conceptual
design of the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) for several “priority” resources that were identified in the study
area. “Priority” resources are defined as the resources that could require avoidance or minimization of impacts
during design and/or resources that typically have lengthy environmental clearance process.
The following resources were identified as “priority” resources within the corridor:
Noise
Air Quality
Historic Resources
Park, Trail, and Open Space Resources/Section 4(f) Resources
Hazardous Materials
Wetlands/Other Waters of the US
A preliminary evaluation of priority resources revealed the following findings for each resource.
Noise
Noise sensitive receptors include exterior areas of frequent human use that can be disturbed by vehicle noise,
such as residential neighborhoods (FTA Category 2), and schools, parks or churches (FTA Category 3). Preliminary
review of the project corridor identified ten areas (Appendix F) with noise sensitive receptors adjacent to
Harmony Road. Harmony Road is already a major arterial corridor and generates substantial traffic noise. The
traffic expected to be added and/or changed by the LPA will be relatively minor and is not likely to have a major
effect on the corridor noise environment. For example, doubling the number of cars would increase noise levels
by three decibels, which would be barely noticeable to most people. However, a detailed noise analysis will be
completed during the NEPA study to identify specific noise impacts and identify minimization, avoidance or
abatement measures to reduce noise impacts.
51
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Air Quality
The Fort Collins metropolitan area has a couple of air quality challenges: the area is classified by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as an attainment/maintenance area for carbon monoxide, and is also
within the Denver regional non‐attainment area for ozone. Automobiles are major sources of these air pollutant
emissions. Increasing the volumes of vehicles or miles traveled can increase emissions of carbon monoxide and
ozone precursors, but improved vehicular progression (reduced delay) through congested areas can reduce or
offset those increases. Improvement projects in nonattainment and maintenance areas, such as the Preferred
Alternative, must be examined for air quality impacts under EPA’s Transportation Conformity Rule, which is
done as part of the regional transportation planning process. Projects that reduce delays at intersections or
improve vehicle speeds often have a side benefit of also reducing tailpipe emissions. The LPA is expected to
increase total miles of travel in the corridor by approximately 5 percent over No Action, but to the positive,
corridor crossing time would decrease by approximately 13 percent and average corridor vehicle speeds would
increase by approximately 17 percent. These improvements should reduce tailpipe emissions on the whole.
During subsequent NEPA study of this project, the proposed improvements will be evaluated through the
regional conformity process and travel demand modeling. Local air quality may need to be evaluated through a
“hot‐spot” analysis. Through these analyses, it must be demonstrated that the air quality requirements can be
achieved prior to implementation of the LPA.
Historic Resources
Seven properties have been identified along the corridor that are designated historic resources or potentially
eligible for historic designation under the Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Section
106 requires federal agencies to consider the effects of their undertakings upon significant National Register of
Historic Places listed or eligible historic properties. These resources include the cemetery located in the
southeast corner of Harmony Road/McMurry Avenue, Harmony Store, Harmony School, Preston Farm, Harmony
House, a farmstead, and the Fairway Estates.
Based on the preliminary evaluation, the Harmony Store could be impacted by the conceptual design of the LPA.
Avoidance of historic and potentially‐historic properties was considered throughout all stages of the conceptual
design process. For instance, based on the knowledge that the Harmony School is designated as a Fort Collins
Landmark, the conceptual design of the LPA was modified to realign Harmony Road south of its current
alignment to avoid impacting this property.
Based on the assumption that the funding source for any future corridor project would be federal‐based, any
future NEPA process would require compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA, which requires federal agencies to
consider the effects of their undertakings upon significant NRHP‐listed or eligible historic properties. It is
recommended that avoidance and minimization of impacts to historic or potentially historic properties continue
to be considered during preliminary and final design of the Preferred Alternative.
Park and Recreation Resources/Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources
Four park and recreation resources were identified within the study area. These include the Hidden Cattails
Natural Area, Mason Trail, Power Trail Bike Trail, and Arapaho Bend Natural Area. Properties within the project
area that are publicly‐owned are afforded protection under Section 4(f) as defined in 23 Code of Federal
Regulations 774. A Section 4(f) resource is a property that functions or is designated as a significant publicly‐
owned park, recreation area, wildlife or waterfowl refuge, or historic site.
52
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Based on the preliminary evaluation, the Mason Trail and Power Trail Bike Trail could be impacted based on the
conceptual design of the LPA. These two trail resources would potentially require realignment in conjunction
with the project roadway improvements. Any future NEPA process will require field verification of all of the park
and recreational resource locations and boundaries. Also, a Section 4(f) evaluation would be required for any
publically‐owned resources impacted by implementation of the project.
Hazardous Materials
Nine sites with potential or known hazardous materials issues (e.g., leaking underground storage tanks, leaking
aboveground storage tanks, drycleaner facilities) were identified within the study area. Based on the cursory
evaluation, two of the nine sites with potential hazardous materials issues may be directly impacted based on
the conceptual design of the LPA. Any future NEPA process would typically require a formal hazardous materials
assessment, including a site verification, to identify any hazardous materials issues within the study area.
Wetlands/Other Waters of the US
Wetland resources are protected under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and Executive Order 11990
Protection of Wetlands. Two areas with wetlands (i.e., wetlands associated with Hidden Cattails Natural Area
and wetlands associated with Power Trail Bike Trail) were identified based on a review of available geographic
information systems (GIS) mapping data. Based on the preliminary evaluation, the wetlands located west of the
Power Trail Bike Trail could be impacted by the conceptual design of the LPA.
Any future NEPA process would typically require a formal wetland delineation to verify the accuracy of the
wetland resources identified through the GIS mapping data, and any additional wetlands associated with
roadside ditches and/or streams that could be present and affected by the implementation of the project.
Avoidance and minimization of impacts to wetlands will continue to be considered during preliminary and final
design of the LPA.
Mitigation – Avoidance/Minimization
As for any project of this type, how project impacts will be mitigated is a crucial design element. In regards to
the roadway features of the LPA, there are two specific design elements included in the plan to reduce
environmental impacts:
To limit any potential widening impacts along Harmony Road between Shields Street and College
Avenue, the proposed cross‐sectional elements of this segment were developed such that the curb &
gutter along the existing outside edges of the roadway could remain in their current location. The cross‐
sectional elements include 11’ wide eastbound and westbound vehicle travel lanes, a 14’ raised median,
and 6’ bike lanes. At intersections, a 10’ left turn lane can be provided within the median such that a
resultant 4’ wide space can still provide some pedestrian refuge.
The Harmony School in the northeast corner of the Timberline Road intersection has played a significant
role in the history of the area and it is designated as a Fort Collins Landmark. As such, an attempt was
made to design the Harmony Road improvements such that these improvements would be outside of
the Harmony School ROW.
As noted previously, the Timberline Road intersection is one of the intersections that will include a future bus
queue jump lane on both the north and south sides of the street. As such, the roadway cross‐section at this
intersection is wider than the typical cross‐section, thereby requiring more space than some locations.
53
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
To mitigate ROW impacts, Harmony Road has been realigned towards the south as it proceeds through the
Timberline Road intersection. As can be imagined, there is a limit to how much realignment can occur without
starting to impact properties on the south side of Harmony Road. The realignment has been designed to
balance the roadway between existing buildings.
Additionally, some cross‐sectional dimensions have been modified to limit these impacts. Eastbound and
westbound travel lanes have been reduced to an 11’ width, with the eastbound and westbound left turn lanes
being reduced to 10’.
During the preliminary design process, ROW data that is more detailed than what was used for this project
should be obtained and verified so that the realignment of Harmony Road can be minimized to the extent
possible to limit impacts to adjoining property owners and to still provide a roadway cross‐section that meets
the needs of the traveling public.
54
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Cost Estimates
The typical cross‐sections for two primary segments of the Harmony Road corridor are represented on Figure
22. These typical cross‐sections represent the basic intent of each segment of the project corridor, recognizing
that minor modifications may need to be made during the preliminary design phase for special circumstances.
Figure 22. LPA Typical Mid-Block Cross-Sections
These typical cross‐sections were used to develop the conceptual roadway design plans shown in Appendix H.
Project costs were estimated by quantifying major roadway design elements such as curb & gutter, asphalt,
material removals, traffic signalization, landscaping, etc. Additional items that affect project costs, but that
cannot be quantified at this time are added to the estimates on a percentage of construction cost basis. Detailed
project cost estimates for eight project segments are included in Appendix H. The eight estimates are
summarized in the following eight segments:
1. Shields Street to the east side of College Avenue
2. East side of College Avenue to the west side of Lemay Avenue
3. Lemay Avenue intersection (queue jump location)
4. East side of Lemay Avenue to the west side of Timberline Road
5. Timberline Road intersection (queue jump location)
6. East side of Timberline Road to west side of Ziegler Road
7. Ziegler Road intersection (queue jump location)
8. East side of Ziegler Road to I‐25
55
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
There is a benefit to the City’s planning process to summarize project costs in a different manner, however. For
example, the City may choose to install certain project elements over several segments, but without completing
all design elements in that segment. As such, project costs are summarized below in the four main travel mode
categories: 1) roadway, 2) bike, 3) pedestrian, and 4) transit. The information in Table 6 summarizes these costs
for the entire project corridor (rounded for planning purposes).
Table 6. Summary Project Costs by Travel Mode
Cost Estimate Elements Approximate Quantity
Approximate Cost
(2013 $)
Roadway
Construction Elements (Minus Queue Jump Intersections)
‐ Removals
‐ Earthwork
‐ Asphalt
‐ Curb & Gutter
‐ Drainage
‐ Utilities
‐ Signing & Striping
‐ Traffic Signalization
‐ Lighting
‐ Construction Traffic Control
Several Items & Unit Types
35,345 Cubic Yards
10,610 Tons
65,200 Lineal Feet
Percent Estimate
Percent Estimate
Percent Estimate
Varies by Intersection
Percent Estimate
Percent Estimate
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
83,000
495,000
1,198,000
777,000
631,000
405,000
292,000
686,000
584,000
1,460,000
Landscaped Medians 514,250 Square Feet $ 4,688,000
Right‐of‐Way 10,000 Square Feet $ 254,000
Subtotal = $ 11,553,000
Mobilization & Contingencies (32%) Percent Estimate $ 3,696,960
Design & Construction Engineering (14%) Percent Estimate $ 1,617,420
Travel Mode Cost Estimate = $ 16,867,380
Transit
56
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
5. Implementation Plan
Implementation of the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) can take several forms relative to the sequence of
construction of the physical infrastructure and the introduction of the operational aspects of the Enhanced Bus
service. Since it is not likely that the City can construct the entire LPA at one time, a phased implementation
approach is recommended. The implementation plan is influenced by the needs of the bus service, lead time for
vehicle purchases, and by the construction of roadway facilities to support the Enhanced Bus service.
Phasing Options
Three phasing options could be used to construct the physical elements of the LPA when considering the overall
length of the project corridor, the differing roadway characteristics along the corridor, and the proposed cross‐
sectional elements of the LPA. These methods include a Segment‐by‐Segment Approach, a Congested Areas
Approach, and a Sequential Corridor Element Approach. The three phasing options are described below.
Option 1: Segment-by-Segment Approach
The cross‐sectional elements of the LPA can be constructed in a segment‐by‐segment, linear fashion. The City
could chose to construct the LPA in this way to build upon the relatively recent roadway construction (and on
upcoming construction) along Harmony Road that could construct the median, bike lane buffers, transit stations,
etc. in pre‐determined, one‐mile (+/‐) segments, potentially between major intersections. This approach has two
basic advantages:
All of the construction within a bounded segment can be completed at the same time, thereby limiting
construction interruptions and overall construction time for the traveling public (“Is construction ever
going to be finished?” factor)
If constructed in a west to east manner, construction can be completed in the more densely populated
areas first, followed by those segments that are more rural in nature regardless of the level of
congestion that may exist in any one segment
Main Disadvantage: Beginning of the Enhanced Bus service relies on completion of construction in all corridor
segments.
Potential Sequence Options if this Approach is Pursued
Option 1a: West to East Sequence – This option would construct the LPA beginning at Shields Street and
proceed towards I‐25. Beginning construction of the LPA in the segment from Shields Street to College Avenue
has two benefits:
1) This segment has the least amount of new infrastructure required of any segment. As such, it would be
the least expensive segment to construct (estimated as $4.8 million).
2) Construction issues related to the installation of the green, epoxy pavement marking for the bike lanes
could be evaluated on the most western segment initially and the selection of this method for
highlighting the bike lanes could be confirmed for the remainder of the corridor.
Construction of the remaining segments from College Avenue to Lemay, Lemay to Timberline, etc. can progress
in approximate one‐mile segments to address the LPA improvements in the more densely‐populated areas of
Fort Collins first.
Of note, while these segments are identified between major intersecting streets, construction should include
each of the major intersections in any one segment so that the entire intersection is constructed at one time.
57
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Option 1b: Least Expensive to Most Expensive Sequence – Under this option the City would begin with the least
expensive segment (Shields Street to College Avenue again) and progress to the more expensive segments so
that lessons learned during the construction process can be of value to the next segment. If this option is used,
the progression of constructed segments would be:
Table 7. Potential Sequencing and Costs by Corridor Segment (Excluding Bus Costs)
Sequence Corridor Segment Approximate Cost
1 Shields Street to College Avenue $4.83
2 Timberline Road to Ziegler Road1 $8.61M
3 College Avenue to Lemay Avenue $10.10M
4 Lemay Avenue to Timberline Road1 $11.15M
5 Ziegler Road to I‐25 $14.94M
1 As noted in the LPA description, the Harmony Road/Timberline Road intersection is proposed to be realigned to the south
to avoid the historic Harmony School. As such, construction at this intersection is likely the most expensive roadway
component of the project. Sequence 2 and 4 could be interchangeable depending upon which segment the intersection
reconstruction is coupled with.
Option 2: Congested Areas Approach
Corridor congestion is typically confined to, or influenced by, the operation of intersections. Traffic signals, for
example, require vehicles for any one movement to stop so that another movement can have the opportunity to
proceed through the intersection. This type of intersection traffic control inherently causes congestion and long
vehicle queues during the peak travel times.
This approach would “fix” problem intersections first by constructing the 2035 LPA improvements so as to
provide an optimal operating experience as quickly as possible. This approach would also be the opportunity to
install the Enhanced Bus queue jump lanes, lanes that require additional roadway width at three critical
intersections along Harmony Road: 1) Lemay Avenue, 2) Timberline Avenue, and 3) Ziegler Road.
Once construction is completed at the most congested locations, other improvements that are required
between intersections could proceed. These enhancements would include all of the physical cross‐sectional
roadway needs and the operational components of the Enhanced Bus System.
Main Disadvantage: LPA construction is completed in a disjointed fashion.
Potential Sequence if this Approach is Pursued
Reconstruct Queue Jump Intersections – Complete the reconstruction of the Lemay Avenue, Timberline
Road (including realignment of Harmony Road to the south), and Ziegler Road intersections to include
2035 capacity improvements and the Enhanced Bus queue jump lanes as a necessary improvement for
good Enhanced Bus service
Construct Bus Stations and Bus Stops – Construct all of the proposed bus stations and stops. Construct
ancillary improvements to provide good access to/from the stations and stops, i.e., complete the LPA
sidewalk connections where necessary and construct the pedestrian grade‐separations
Begin Enhanced Bus Operation – Procure new/spare vehicles during construction completion of the bus
stations and stops and begin operation of Enhanced Bus service
58
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Improve Roadway Segments and Other Intersections – Complete the LPA improvements along corridor
segments based on projected 2035 daily traffic volumes. Improvements would include all cross‐sectional
elements such as roadway widening, medians, drainage facilities, bike lanes, channelizing islands, utility
modifications, etc.:
• Ziegler Road to I‐25
• Lemay Avenue to Timberline Road
• Timberline Road to Ziegler Road
• College Avenue to Lemay Avenue
• Shields Street to College Avenue
Apply green, epoxy pavement markings ‐ installation of the green, epoxy pavement marking in the bike
lanes would need to wait until at least several continuous segments have been constructed to reduce
consistency confusion.
Option 3: Corridor Element Approach
A corridor element approach to implementing the LPA would construct certain corridor elements in a layered
way so that the Enhanced Bus service could be implemented as quickly as possible while also providing
amenities for other modal users before fully completing all of the roadway cross‐sectional elements.
For example, the likely first step would be to construct the bus queue jump areas at the Lemay Avenue,
Timberline Road (including realignment of Harmony Road to the south), and Ziegler Road intersections, followed
by construction of all of the bus stations. These two improvements would allow the Enhanced Bus service to
begin without requiring the installation of medians, the buffered bike lanes, or other roadway elements.
The benefit to this approach is that the Enhanced Bus system can become operational more quickly than other
approaches since the Enhanced Bus system still uses typical general purpose lanes along Harmony Road.
Main Disadvantage: This approach would construct sequential elements over time throughout the entire
corridor – motorists would be continually impacted by construction activities throughout the entire 5‐mile
project corridor, potentially over numerous years.
Potential Sequence if this Approach is Pursued
Reconstruct Queue Jump Intersections – Complete the reconstruction of the Lemay Avenue, Timberline
Road (including the realignment of Harmony Road), and Ziegler Road intersections to include 2035
capacity improvements and the Enhanced Bus queue jump lanes as a necessary improvement for good
Enhanced Bus service
Construct Bus Stations and Bus Stops – Construct all of the proposed bus stations and stops. Construct
ancillary improvements to provide good access to/from the stations and stops, i.e., complete the LPA
sidewalk connections where necessary and construct the pedestrian grade‐separations
Begin Enhanced Bus Operation – Procure new/spare vehicles during construction completion of the bus
stations and stops and begin operation of Enhanced Bus service
Complete Cross‐Sectional Elements – Construct the remaining roadway cross‐sectional elements such as
any roadway widening, medians, drainage facilities, bike lanes, channelizing islands, utility
modifications, etc.; include side street improvements
Install green, epoxy pavement marking – Apply green epoxy in bike lanes as a last construction item for
consistency purposes
59
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Implementation Considerations
Each of the phasing options described above are influenced by other factors that are described in the following
sections.
LPA Design
It is recommended that the City design the entire corridor to ensure that each phase fits appropriately within
the context of the entire project. This will help to minimize or ideally avoid reconstruction in later phases. While
completing design for the entire corridor will require a reasonably sized budget outlay at the beginning, it will
pay benefits throughout the life of the LPA construction by having a designed roadway for the ultimate LPA
system. The initial design efforts could also include an initial phase or two that could be part of the first
construction bidding package(s). Considerations when completing design are described below.
ROW Impacts
One of the benefits of completing the design of the entire LPA first (rather than designing in segments) is that
all of the ROW impacts can be verified at the start of the project. The ROW acquisition process can then begin
early in the project and help the project move forward in a timelier manner including preservation of ROW on
properties that are currently undeveloped.
Identifying ROW acquisitions during the initial design does not mean that all of the ROW would need to be
purchased at the same time, however. Properties could still be purchased when needed.
Environmental Inventory and Mitigation
Another benefit to completing the design of the entire corridor at one time is that environmental resources can
be inventoried and impacts identified. Impacted areas can be further analyzed during the design process to
minimize, avoid, and mitigate impacts as feasible. If federal funding is obtained for any part of the corridor at
any time, there would be benefits to having all of the environmental resources inventoried, and impacts and
mitigation understood so that the construction process can move forward smoothly regardless of the phasing or
timing of the improvements. If the project phases begin to stretch over quite a few years, it is likely that only an
update to the environmental documentation would be required. Once again, there should be benefits to the City
in conducting these investigations up front and on a larger scale than in a piecemeal fashion for any number of
project phases.
Utility Impacts
Completing the design of the entire LPA would enable the City to identify all utility impacts associated with the
LPA. Since some utilities are very longitudinal in nature and are not confined to any one segment of the corridor,
having a plan in place to modify or relocate utilities where necessary will provide long‐range benefits to the
project related to timing, coordination and cost implications. Discussions with irrigation companies related to
realignment or enclosure of existing ditches can begin early in the project to help reduce delays.
Enhanced Bus Implementation
The implementation of Enhanced Bus service along Harmony Road will require several steps beyond the
construction of the physical roadway elements:
60
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Finalize the Operating Plan and Vehicle Type
Transfort has not yet determined whether Harmony Road service will be operated as an extension of MAX BRT
service or as a separate route and, if it will operate as a separate route, whether it would have a unique identity.
Whether service is operated as an extension of the MAX BRT service or as a separate route, three new buses will
be required. Additionally, a spare bus will be required unless Transfort’s existing spare ratio is sufficient to cover
the needs of Harmony Road service. The decision on whether or not to brand the Harmony Road service
uniquely could have an impact on the type of vehicle that is used and, as a result, this decision will need to be
made before the procurement of new vehicles can begin.
Procure Vehicles
Vehicle acquisition can take up to 24 months for regular transit buses, and sometimes longer for more
specialized BRT vehicles. However, the acquisition timeline can possibly be shortened if Transfort can piggy‐back
onto an existing order – either one of its own (of MAX BRT vehicles for example), or that of another transit
provider. Because of the time required, vehicle procurement activities should start as quickly as possible after
the operating plan and vehicle type have been determined and funding commitments have been secured.
Develop Schedules and Broadcast Public Information
Transfort will need to develop public timetables as well as driver and vehicle schedules. This could be done
concurrently with Transfort’s regular service change process, with service most likely implemented as part of a
regular schedule change. Public information (schedule brochures, and updated system map, etc.) will also need
to be updated.
Develop and Implement Marketing Plan for the New Service
In the months leading up to implementation, Transfort will also need to develop a marketing plan for the new
service – one that can begin with basic information once funding has been secured, followed by a buildup to
higher levels of information as the implementation date draws nearer.
Transit-Oriented Development Overlay District Creation
The City may consider the development of an overlay district for the Harmony Road corridor to facilitate the
types of development and redevelopment that will both benefit and drive the success of the Enhanced Bus
system.
61
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Recommended Implementation Plan
The preceding sections outlined several project implementation approaches as well as considerations that
influence the overall procedure, design, procurement, and construction sequence to construct and operate the
recommended LPA
This section synthesizes the information in the preceding sections into a recommended implementation plan.
More detail on the implementation plan is included in Table 8, but in general, the overarching approach can be
summarized as a division of the LPA into Immediate, Short‐Term, and Long‐Range projects, a division that
recognizes the most important desires of the community, and one that strives to limit throw‐away project costs.
The improvements needed to realize the LPA likely cannot be constructed at the same time. As such, an
implementation plan has been developed to minimize throw‐away costs, expedite high priority improvements,
and advance the capital projects needed to begin Enhanced Bus service. The City should work with private
development when possible to preserve ROW, construct missing sidewalks, install bus shelters and amenities,
etc., that are adjacent to the development.
The following table summarizes the recommended implementation plan (which generally follows Options 1 & 3,
i.e., partially layered, partially sequential) in Immediate, Short‐Term and Long‐Range timeframes. A description
of the plan element, the responsible party, and the approximate cost for the individual elements are included
for each of these timeframes.
Table 8. Recommended Implementation Plan
Locally Preferred Alternative
Element & Description
Responsible Party Approximate Cost
Immediate Improvements
LPA Design
Complete the design of vehicle, pedestrian and
bicycle elements
Conduct environmental resource inventory; develop
mitigation plans for impacted areas
Identify ROW impacts; prepare ROW plans; start
ROW acquisition process
Identify public and private utility conflicts; prepare
modification plans
Engineering and
Transfort with
Consultant
Assistance
$3.50M
(8% of estimated total
project cost)
Finalize the Operating Plan & Determine Vehicle Type
and other Requirements
Transfort
Completed by Transfort
staff
Create a Transit‐Oriented Development Overlay District
FC Moves/
Planning Services
Completed by FC Moves
& Planning Services staffs
Revise corridor striping to create the bike lane buffer;
install green epoxy paint in bike lanes
Engineering $0.24M
Construct missing sidewalks and neighborhood
connections
Engineering $0.61M
62
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Locally Preferred Alternative
Element & Description
Responsible Party Approximate Cost
Construct landscaped medians Engineering $6.47M
Construct Mason Trail and Power Trail pedestrian grade‐
separations
Engineering $5.52M
Short‐Term Improvements
Identify and Secure Funding for Vehicle Procurement;
Begin Process to Procure Vehicles
Transfort
Completed by Transfort
Staff
Develop Enhanced Bus Operating Schedules and Begin
Public Information Program
Transfort
Completed by Transfort
Staff
Reconstruct the Lemay Avenue, Timberline Road
(including realignment of Harmony Road to the south),
and Ziegler Road intersections to include 2035 capacity
improvements and Enhanced Bus queue jump lanes
Engineering
Lemay Avenue
Intersection: $3.00M
Timberline Road
Intersection: $4.01M
Ziegler Road
Intersection: $2.51M
Construct the Bus Stations and Bus Stops Engineering $4.02M
Finalize and Implement the Marketing Plan for the
Enhanced Bus Service
Transfort with
Consultant
Assistance
Completed by Transfort
Staff
Purchase necessary buses Transfort $2.51M
Begin Enhanced Bus Service
Long‐Range Improvements
Construct remaining roadway cross‐sectional elements
sequentially in a west to east manner. Major design
elements would include:
Roadway widening or narrower to match the
LPA cross‐sections (including irrigation ditch
enclosures where needed)
Intersection capacity improvements including
channelizing islands
Traffic signal modifications
Drainage modifications or new systems
Utility modifications
Engineering $9.47M
Construct remaining pedestrian grade‐separations at:
Between Boardwalk Drive and Lemay Avenue
Adjacent University of Colorado Health
Harmony Campus
Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet
Harmony Transfer Center
63
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Funding Strategies
Funds for multimodal projects such as the Harmony Road ETC can be provided through a variety of sources
which typically consist of a combination of federal, state, and local public funds, and sometimes non‐
governmental funds. The following sections describe funding sources that could potentially be used to fund
Harmony Road infrastructure improvements and Enhanced Bus service.
Federal Funding
With Harmony Road designated as a Regionally Significant Corridor (RSC) by the NFRMPO, projects along the
corridor are potentially eligible to receive federal funding through the MPO.
Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Funds (CMAQ)
The CMAQ program, which is jointly administered by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the
Federal Transit Administration (FTA), provides funding to State DOTs, MPOs, and transit agencies to invest in
projects that reduce air pollution in areas that do not meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(nonattainment areas), which includes Fort Collins. CMAQ funds can be used for a wide variety of transit uses,
including programs to improve public transit, High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) facilities, Employee Trip Reduction
(ETR) programs, traffic–flow improvements that reduce emissions, bicycle/pedestrian facilities, park‐and‐ride
facilities, and programs to restrict vehicle use in areas of emission concentration. CMAQ funds can be used for
up to 88.5% of capital costs. In the Fort Collins area, CMAQ funds are allocated by NFRMPO, and projects
prioritized based on the reductions in ozone that they would produce. For FY 2012 to 2015, NFRMPO has
programmed a total of $8.4 million in CMAQ funding.
Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP)
FHWA’s Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) provides funding for programs and projects defined as
transportation alternatives, including bicycle and pedestrian facilities, infrastructure projects to improve non‐
driving access to public transportation, environmental mitigation, recreational trails, and safe routes to school
projects. TAP was authorized under MAP‐21; its predecessor was the Transportation Enhancements program.
FHWA Transportation Mobility Program Funds
The Federal Highway Administration’s Transportation Mobility Program (TMP), which replaced the former
Surface Transportation Program (STP), is a “flexible funding” source that allows states to shift up to 20% of its
TMP funds to other uses, including the FTA funding programs described above. In Colorado, CDOT, which
administers state highway spending, determines the amount of funds to be “flexed” to other uses.
FTA Funds
Since the passage of MAP‐21, the major sources of urban federal transit funding for bus services are:
5
FTA Section 5307 Urbanized Area Formula Grants
FTA Section 5309 New Starts Program
Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Funds (CMAQ)
FHWA Transportation Mobility Program (TMP)
5 One key element of these new programs is that there is not an equivalent to the former FTA Section 5309 Buses and
Bus‐Related Equipment and Facilities program through which Congress historically earmarked funds for a variety of
projects including Enhanced Bus services.
64
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
FTA Section 5307 Urban Area Formula Funds
FTA Section 5307 provides funding for transit capital and
transportation‐related planning, and for smaller transit systems
such as Transfort, operating assistance. In urbanized areas with
populations of 200,000 or more, which includes the Fort
Collins/Loveland urbanized area, these funds are apportioned by a
formula based on a number of population and service‐based
factors.
Transfort currently receives 5307 funds, and will continue to
receive them with or without Harmony Road Enhanced Bus
service.
6
Thus, while FTA Section 5307 funds could be used to
develop Harmony Road service, they would not represent a new
source of funding.
FTA Section 5309 New Starts Funds
The FTA Section 5309 New Starts Program includes “Small Starts”
and “Very Small Starts” components that can be used to fund
smaller scale BRT and Enhanced Bus projects (Small Starts funding
is the largest source of funding for MAX service). However, there
are a number of eligibility requirements for each program, as listed
to the right. Harmony Road Enhanced Bus service would fail to
meet the eligibility requirement in a number of respects (minimum
ridership, minimum service frequencies, unique branding, and/or
transit signal priority), and, thus, would not be eligible for funding
under either of these programs.
State Funding
Currently, the only source of state transit funding is the “Funding Advancement for Surface Transportation and
Economic Recovery (FASTER) program. This program provides funding for transportation projects through
vehicle registration fees, with a portion is set aside for transit purposes:
A Local share for “local transit grants”
A Statewide share to be used “for the planning, designing, engineering, acquisition, installation,
construction, repair, reconstruction, maintenance, operation, or administration of transit‐related
projects, including, but not limited to, designated bicycle or pedestrian lanes of highway and
infrastructure needed to integrate different transportation modes within a multimodal transportation
system, that enhance the safety of state highways for transit users”
These funds can be used for any items defined as capital expenses by the FTA, which would include all capital
elements of Harmony Road Enhanced Bus service, and can fund up to 80% of a project’s total cost. For FY 2014
and 2015, CDOT anticipates being able to offer $5 million for local transit projects and approximately $9 million
for statewide and interregional projects.
6 Since these funds are allocated based on a formula that includes the amount of service provided, the development of
new service would result in an increase in FTA Section 5307 funds. However, the increase would be relatively small and
would represent the proportional increase in Transfort service versus the rest of the country.
Very Small Starts Eligibility Requirements:
Transit Stations
Signal Priority/Pre‐emption (for
Bus/LRT)
Low Floor / Level Boarding Vehicles
Special Branding of Service
Frequent Service ‐ 10 min peak/15
min off peak
Service offered at least 14 hours per
day
Existing corridor ridership exceeding
3,000/day
Less than $50 million total cost
Less than $3 million per mile
(excluding vehicles)
65
FINAL DRAFT ETC Master Plan
Senate Bill 48 may provide another funding opportunity. This bill, which was signed into law in April 2013,
enables cities and counties to flex Highway Users Tax Fund (HUTF) dollars to transit, multi‐modal, bicycle and
pedestrian projects. The HUTF is funded through revenues raised from statewide gas tax, vehicle registration
fees, license fees and user fees. Historically these funds have been restricted to highway projects. With the
passage of the FASTER legislation in 2009, CDOT was authorized to expend HUTF revenues on transit and other
multi‐modal investments. This bill amends the original HUTF language to provide cities and counties the same
flexibility to spend HUTF dollars on transit and other multi‐modal projects.
Local Sources
Throughout Colorado, local funds provide the major source of funding for capital infrastructure as well as transit
operations. This is the case in Fort Collins, where the City provides approximately 70% of Transfort’s operating
expenses, and will provide over $7 million in local funding toward the capital costs of MAX service. In a similar
manner, and unless new sources of funds are developed, it is likely that the City would need to provide most of
the funding for operations, plus a local contribution to capital costs.
New Sources
As part of the development of its Strategic Operating Plan, Transfort identified a number of potential new
funding sources, which included:
A 0.1 to 0.25% dedicated sales tax
An $8 Transit Utility Fee that would be assessed on all utility accounts
A new (higher) negotiated fee with Associated Students of Colorado State University (ASCSU) and
potentially with other partners
A special assessment district in which a per household or square foot charge would be assessed on
properties within a special improvement district “identified as receiving a direct and unique "benefit"
from a public project,” which would most likely include MAX BRT, but could also include Harmony Road
To date, the City has not moved forward on any of these proposals. However, if it were to do so, the additional
revenues that would be generated could potential funds, at least in part, for both operating and capital costs for
Harmony Road Enhanced Bus service.
Summary
As with most transportation improvement projects, it is likely that Harmony Road infrastructure improvements
and Enhanced Bus service would need to be funded through a number of different sources. The most likely of
these would be:
Federal
• Congestion Management and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds
• Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) funds
• Transportation Mobility Program (TMP) funds
State
• FASTER funds
• HUTF funds
Local
• Additional City General Funds
FELSBURG
HOL T &
ULLEVIG
connecting and enhancing communities
6300 South Syracuse Way, Suite 600 | Centennial, CO 80111 | tel 303.721.1440 | fax 303.721.0832
www.fhueng.com
Small Starts Eligibility Requirements:
Substantial Transit Stations
Signal Priority/Pre‐emption (for
Bus/LRT)
Low Floor / Level Boarding Vehicles
Special Branding of Service
Frequent Service ‐ 10 min peak/15
min off peak
Service offered at least 14 hours per
day
Engineering $11.04M
Queue Jump Intersections (Lemay, Timberline & Ziegler) Numerous Items $ 7,520,000
Stations & Stops 17 Stations; 18 Stops $ 2,910,000
Buses 3 $ 2,505,000
Subtotal = $ 12,935,000
Mobilization & Contingencies (32%) Percent Estimate (Not on Buses) $ 3,337,600
Design & Construction Engineering (14%) Percent Estimate (Not on Buses) $ 1,460,200
Travel Mode Cost Estimate = $ 17,732,800
Bike
Buffered Bike Lane 4 Miles $ 80,000
Bike Lane w/o Buffer 6 Miles $ 90,000
Subtotal = $ 170,000
Mobilization & Contingencies (32%) Percent Estimate $ 54,400
Design & Construction Engineering (14%) Percent Estimate $ 23,800
Travel Mode Cost Estimate = $ 248,200
Pedestrian
Missing Sidewalk 13,650 Square Yard $ 444,000
Grade Separations 6 Each $ 12,000,000
Subtotal = $ 12,444,000
Mobilization & Contingencies (32%) Percent Estimate $ 3,982,080
Design & Construction Engineering (14%) Percent Estimate $ 1,742,160
Travel Mode Cost Estimate = $ 18,168,240
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST = $ 53,016,620
Same as TSM
Outside lanes
for bus/HOV
(one in each
direction)
BRT service (FRCC to HTC);
increased frequency
Interlined
BRT/HOV
Same as TSM
Outside lanes
for bus/HOV
(one in each
direction)
BRT service interlined with
MAX; increased frequency
1 All alternatives include: MAX BRT, College widening to 6 lanes south of Harmony, Timberline widening to 6 lanes north
of Harmony (including through the Harmony Road intersection).
2 Back street bike lanes, pedestrian intersection crossing improvements, and grade separated pedestrian crossings were
deemed to be needed and appropriate for all build alternatives; definition of these improvements was deferred to the
LPA refinement process.
Community Development
Neighborhood Services
Engineering
Streets
Traffic Operations
Utilities
City Manager’s Office
Economic Health
Natural Areas
And the following agencies:
North Front Range MPO
Town of Timnath
Larimer County
Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
University of Colorado Health Systems
and Ziegler Road intersections to include 2035 capacity
improvements and Enhanced Bus queue jump lanes
Engineering
Lemay Avenue
Intersection: $3.00M
Timberline Road
Intersection: $4.01M
Ziegler Road
Intersection: $2.51M