HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 06/05/2012 - RESOLUTION 2012-043 APPROVING THE JEFFERSON STREETDATE: June 5, 2012
STAFF: Kathleen Bracke
Aaron Iverson
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 27
SUBJECT
Resolution 2012-043 Approving the Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Study, Authorizing Revisions to the Jefferson
Street/SH14 Access Management Plan and Existing Intergovernmental Agreement, Directing Staff to Update the City’s
Transportation Master Plan Capital Improvement Plan and Directing Staff to Pursue a New Intergovernmental
Agreement with the Colorado Department of Transportation.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Jefferson Street/SH14 Alternatives Analysis Study is a joint effort of the City of Fort Collins, Downtown
Development Authority (DDA), and the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). This Alternatives Analysis
Study included the development and evaluation of a thorough set of design options for the Jefferson Street/SH14
corridor, including the intersection of Jefferson/SH14 and Mountain/Lincoln Avenue, and the intersection of Jefferson
and Linden streets.
In response to concerns raised by community stakeholders and partnering agencies, City staff has revised the
recommendation for the proposed intersection improvements at this intersection of Jefferson Street and Mountain
Avenue to be improvements to the existing signalized intersection, rather than the previous roundabout
recommendation.
City staff continues to recommends reconfiguring Jefferson Street from the existing four lane configuration to a “3-lane”
street, with landscaped medians, on-street parking, pedestrian streetscape and urban design features from North
College to Mountain Avenue. This corridor alternative is agreeable to the City, CDOT, Downtown Development
Authority, and Larimer County, and has strong support from the community.
This Resolution will include the Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Study report documenting the recommended
preferred corridor and intersection alternatives as well as actions needed to amend the Jefferson/Riverside (SH14)
Access Management Plan and Transportation Capital Improvement Plan to reflect these changes for Jefferson Street.
Staff will also be seeking City Council support for entering into an Intergovernmental Agreement with CDOT regarding
the recommended changes for Jefferson Street.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Study began in May 2010. This current planning process builds upon prior
studies along the Jefferson Street/SH14 corridor and provides more in-depth, detailed technical analysis and design
to address City, DDA, and CDOT requirements. This Study has several purposes, including finding the most suitable
solution to improve the air quality, livability, and urban character of the Jefferson Street corridor, enhancing the
experience for pedestrians, bikes, and transit, and maintaining mobility of autos and trucks along this busy
arterial/highway road. The project seeks to balance interests among different agencies and organizations including
the City, CDOT, DDA, Colorado Motor Carriers Association, Larimer County, adjacent railroads, local
business/property owners, and the general public.
The Jefferson Street project budget is comprised of a combination of City ($250,000), DDA ($500,000), and federal
Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality (CMAQ) funding ($1 million). The Alternatives Analysis study used approximately
$400,000 of the project budget. The majority of the project budget ($1.3 million) will be used to fund final engineering
and design of the proposed improvements.
This project process included the development and evaluation of many options such as traditional roadway and
intersection designs, roundabouts, and other innovative, context-sensitive design solutions based upon local, state,
and national best-practices.
Through Project Management Team (PMT) and Executive Oversight Committee (EOC) meetings, the participating
agencies have agreed to the following purpose statement that highlights the key goals for the project:
June 5, 2012 -2- ITEM 27
The purpose of the Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis project is to improve the air quality, livability,
and urban character of the Jefferson Street Corridor while enhancing the experience for pedestrians,
bikes, and transit and maintaining mobility of autos and trucks. The Corridor begins at College
Avenue and extends along Jefferson Street and includes the Mountain Avenue/Riverside
Avenue/Lincoln Street, and Linden Street intersections.
Corridor Alternatives
The project team has developed a set of conceptual alternatives for the Jefferson Street corridor project to address
the project purpose, goals, and objectives.
• The corridor alternatives include several “3 lane” options for Jefferson Street between North College Avenue
and Mountain Avenue. The “3 lane” Options A and B include raised, landscaped medians. Option A includes
a raised landscaped median along the full length of the corridor, with openings at the Jefferson/Linden
intersection. Option B shows partial medians along the corridor with more openings at streets such as at Pine
and Chestnut streets as well as at major driveways. The “3 lane” Option C includes designated on-street
bicycle lanes instead of the medians (both the medians and bikelanes do not fit within the available corridor
width). All of the “3 lane” options include two travel lanes in the northwest bound direction and one travel lane
in the southeast bound direction. The determination for which direction has the two lanes versus the one lane
was made based on traffic analysis as well as the need to maximize on-street parking opportunities along the
“Old Town” side of Jefferson Street. The “3 lane” options include streetscape, urban design, and gateway
improvements along the corridor and at the intersections. In addition, the 3 lane options allow for more
functional on-street parking because there is enough width to provide a safety buffer area between the parked
cars and the vehicle travel lanes. The 3 lane options also allow for opportunities to improve the transit stops
along Jefferson.
• The project team has developed a “4 lane” option which shows two lanes in each direction on Jefferson Street
between North College and Mountain Avenue. Due to the width required for standard travel lanes, there is
limited space remaining for other project elements such as on-street parking, buffer areas, medians, transit
stops, and/or streetscape improvements.
• The team has also provided a combination “3 & 4 lane” option that includes 3 lanes between North College
Avenue and Linden Street and then shows the 4 lane option between Linden and Mountain.
• The cost of the corridor improvements is approximately $4.5 million.
Table 1: Summary Overview of Corridor Alternatives
Alternative Lanes Medians Bike
Lanes Parking Streetscape Areas
3 Lane Alt -
Option A Full Median 3
Yes
Full Corridor No
36-38
Spaces Median, Sidewalk
3 Lane Alt -
Option B Partial Median 3
Yes
Partial Corridor No
36-38
Spaces Median, Sidewalk
3 Lane Alt -
Option C Bike Lanes 3 No Yes 33 Spaces Sidewalk
4 Lane Alt 4 No No 38 Spaces Sidewalk
Combination
3 and 4 Lane Alt 3/4
Yes
Partial Corridor No 38 Spaces Median, Sidewalk
June 5, 2012 -3- ITEM 27
Intersection Alternatives
The project team has also developed two alternatives for both the Jefferson/Linden intersection and the
Jefferson/Mountain intersection.
1. Jefferson/Linden intersection options include keeping the existing designated left turn lanes for vehicles to turn
left off of Jefferson Street to Linden Street as well as an option that would remove the left turn lanes to create
more opportunities for on-street parking and provide raised medians to serve as pedestrian refuge islands at
the intersection.
2. Jefferson/Mountain/Lincoln/Riverside intersection options include improvements to the existing signalized
intersection as well as a roundabout intersection alternative.
Table 2: Jefferson / Lincoln Intersection Alternatives Overview
Alternative Cost Operating /
Maintenance Cost
Level of
Service
Air Quality
Savings
(Carbon Monoxide)
Right-of-Way
Signalized $2.7
million
$3,600 per year for
signals B No Change from Existing 2,000 sq. ft.
Roundabout
$4.3 to
$5.3
million
Depends on cost of
RR gate arm B
495 KG/yr - Short Term
809 KG/yr - Long Term 6,000 sq. ft.
Final engineering and design of the Jefferson Street improvements can move forward in mid-2012 based upon
approval of the recommendations by the City Council. The schedule for construction of the Jefferson Street corridor
improvements will be based upon the approved preferred alternative and implementation/phasing plan as well as the
securing necessary funding.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The cost of the recommended preferred alternatives, including both the corridor and intersection improvements, for
Jefferson Street is approximately $7.2 million. Funding is currently available to complete the next phase of the
design/engineering work for these improvements. Additional funding is need for the construction phase. Staff will
continue to pursue potential local, regional, state, and federal funding opportunities to complete this important, long-
term investment project for Downtown Fort Collins.
The recommended Jefferson Street improvements will have a direct economic impact on over 35 businesses fronting
Jefferson Street. The investment in the public infrastructure will support private investment along the corridor, which
has a number of areas with potential for redevelopment and/or reinvestment. This project will also help strengthen
the connection between Downtown, the River District, and the Lincoln Avenue corridor which are economic catalyst
areas for the City.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Transforming this corridor from the existing four lane highway configuration to a more urban, pedestrian-oriented,
context sensitive design solution will be a major enhancement for the Downtown environment and supports the City
Plan, Transportation Master Plan, and Downtown River District Plan goals for the heart of the community. The
improvements to Jefferson Street will calm traffic traveling through the corridor improving the pedestrian environment
and encouraging the use of walking, biking, and transit access to/from the corridor which will result in air quality
improvements.
In addition, in response to City Council suggestions, staff has researched potential opportunities to address noise
concerns along the corridor. One consideration is to explore the use of rubberized asphalt for the roadway paving
along the corridor. This technique is used by other agencies to help reduce roadway noise. The specifics regarding
this type of paving material will need further exploration during the engineering/final design phase of the Jefferson
June 5, 2012 -4- ITEM 27
Street project. Other project elements to aid in noise reduction could include features to promote traffic calming, reduce
speeding, and minimize vehicles accelerating and decelerating at the intersections and throughout the corridor.
Improvements to the existing signalized intersection which will include amenities to address pedestrian-scale
improvements, urban design, and entry way features in support of the quality Downtown experience we are seeking
to achieve with this project in accordance with the community’s expectations and sustainability goals.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
To be responsive to input received from partnering agencies as well as local and regional community stakeholders,
City staff has revised its project recommendation for the preferred intersection alternative to be improvements to the
existing signalized intersection rather than the roundabout option previously discussed with City Council in February
2012. City staff recommends improvements to the existing signalized intersection include amenities to address all
modes of transportation, as well as urban design and entry way features in support of the quality Downtown
experience.
Staff continues to recommend the 3-lane corridor alternative for Jefferson Street from North College to Mountain
Avenue. This corridor alternative is agreeable to the City, CDOT, Downtown Development Authority, and Larimer
County as well as strong support from the community.
Transforming this corridor from the existing four lane highway configuration to a more urban, pedestrian-oriented,
context sensitive design solution will be a major enhancement for the Downtown environment and support City Plan
and Transportation Master Plan goals for the future of the heart of the community.
To move forward with the recommendations from the Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Study, staff recommends
City Council approval of the following:
1. Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Study report documenting the recommended preferred corridor and
intersection alternatives.
2. Revisions to the Jefferson Street/SH14 Access Management Plan and existing Intergovernmental Agreement
with the Colorado Department of Transportation to reflect the 3-lane corridor alternative with raised,
landscaped medians and on-street parking for Jefferson Street (SH14).
3. Directing staff to update the City’s Transportation Master Plan Capital Improvement Plan to include the
Jefferson Street corridor and intersection improvements per the Study recommendations.
4. Staff is seeking approval from City Council to pursue entering into a new Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA)
with CDOT in order to implement the recommended 3 lane corridor improvements (if approved by City
Council). CDOT has requested this new IGA with the City in order to support converting Jefferson Street from
the existing four lane highway to the proposed “3-lane” configuration. The IGA would include specific
performance measures for monitoring the Jefferson Street (SH14) corridor before and after physical
improvements are constructed and identify inter-agency responsibilities for addressing any concerns and/or
potential changes. If City Council approves staff pursuing this IGA, staff will continue working with CDOT to
develop the specific IGA and bring this document forward for City Council approval at a later date (anticipated
by September 2012).
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Staff presented information related to the Jefferson Project and proposed alternative to the following boards or
commissions:
Downtown Development Authority: February 9, 2012: The Downtown Development Authority voted to support the
3-Lane with a median alternative and the Roundabout alternative
Transportation Board: February 15, 2012 and May 16, 2012: The Transportation Board voted to support the 3-Lane
with a median alternative and improvements to the Signalized Intersection.
Planning and Zoning Board: February 10, 2012: The Planning and Zoning Board voted to support the 3-Lane with
a median alternative and improvements to the Signalized Intersection.
June 5, 2012 -5- ITEM 27
Economic Advisory Commission: February 15, 2012: The Commission supported the 3-Lane with a median
alternative and the Roundabout alternative
A copy of the minutes from each board or commission is included as Attachment 2.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
The project team sought comments and input on the key tasks throughout the life of the project. See Attachment 3
for a list of the outreach completed during the project.
Stakeholder Coordination
This process included on-going coordination among multiple City departments, City boards and commissions, City
Council, CDOT, DDA, Larimer County, and various interested community and corridor stakeholders, including but not
limited to area property/business owners, residents, bicycle/pedestrian advocacy groups, trucking industry
representatives, UPRR, and Public Utilities Commission representatives.
Business and Property Owner Meetings
One-on-one coordination was needed with affected business/property owners to determine the impacts and mitigation
measures needed at each property. During the development and screening of alternatives, the consultant project
manager and the City project managers provided outreach to business/property owners along the corridor to update
them on the status of the project and seek their input. After the final screening of alternatives, when a preferred
alternative has been recommended, directly impacted business/property owners were contacted to follow up on
questions and concerns related to the project and work through remaining details for particular sites along the corridor.
Public Meetings
Public meetings were held on June 2, 2011, October 17, 2011, February 16, 2012 and May 30, 2012 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.
City Council and Board Meetings
Presentations were made on behalf of the project to the City Council at their work sessions on August 9, 2011 and
February 28, 2012. Updates were also provided to Boards and Commissions, including the Transportation Board,
Bicycle Advisory Committee, Planning and Zoning Board, and DDA Board meetings throughout the Study process.
The work session summaries are attached (Attachment 1).
ATTACHMENTS
1. City Council work session summaries, February 2012 and August 9, 2011
2. Board and commission minutes
3. Public outreach summary
4. Powerpoint presentation
Transportation Planning & Special Projects
281 North College Avenue
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580
970.224.6058
970.221.6239 - fax
fcgov.com/transportation
Planning, Development & Transportation
Attachment 1: City Council Work Session Summaries
‐ AUGUST 9, 2011 WORK SESSION SUMMARY – JEFFERSON STREET
PROJECT UPDATE
‐ FEBRUARY 28, 2012 WORK SESSION SUMMARY – JEFFERSON STREET
PROJECT UPDATE
ATTACHMENT 1
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 11, 2011
TO: Mayor and City Councilmembers
THROUGH: Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Diane Jones, Deputy City Manager/Policy, Planning, and Transportation
Karen Cumbo, Director of Planning, Development, and Transportation
Joe Frank, Advance Planning Director
FROM: Kathleen Bracke, Transportation Planning Director
Aaron Iverson, Senior Transportation Planner
RE: AUGUST 9, 2011 WORK SESSION SUMMARY – JEFFERSON STREET
PROJECT UPDATE
This memorandum provides a summary of the City Council Work Session discussion from
August 9, 2011 regarding the Jefferson Street Project Update.
Attendees:
City Council: Mayor Karen Weitkunat, Mayor Pro-Tem Kelly Ohlson, Councilmember Ben
Manvel, Councilmember Aislinn Kottwitz, Councilmember Gerry Horak
City Staff: Darin Atteberry, Diane Jones, Bruce Hendee, Karen Cumbo, Joe Frank, Kathleen
Bracke, Aaron Iverson, Mark Jackson, Matt Robenalt (Downtown Development Authority), and
Carrie Wallis (Atkins consultants).
Discussion Summary
City Council provided comments and suggestions to staff regarding the proposed
Jefferson Street corridor and intersection alternatives.
Jefferson Street project is important community project for this major transportation
corridor as well as the opportunities to provide connectivity between Downtown/Old
Town and the River District and change the character of the area.
Discussed multimodal transportation improvements needed as well as the importance of
Jefferson Street to serve as a community gateway into Downtown, Old Town, River
District, and Lincoln corridor.
Currently, Jefferson Street acts as a barrier to people trying to move between
Downtown/Old Town and the River District.
General agreement among Council regarding the proposed three lane alternative with
raised, landscaped medians.
Important to support high quality, pedestrian environment.
Discussed how bicyclists would be served by the proposed alternatives, including
wayfinding and system improvements to support cyclists using alternative routes such as
Willow and Walnut streets
Discussed characteristics of roundabouts in general as well as the proposed roundabout
alternative for the intersection of Jefferson Street/Mountain Avenue.
Follow-up Items:
Additional data requested by Council regarding comparative safety analysis of
intersection alternatives, in particular for the roundabout option, as well as costs for
improvements for both capital and operations/maintenance, parking impacts, and
potential business impacts.
Council requested additional data regarding roundabout performance, including
projections for these locations as well as data from other local roundabouts (before and
after data).
Additional data requested by Council regarding comparative safety analysis of
intersection alternatives, in particular for the roundabout option, as well as costs for
improvements for both capital and operations/maintenance, parking impacts, and
potential business impacts.
Intersection analysis of both alternatives needs to consider cost/benefit and factor in
safety, air quality, delay, urban design opportunities, etc.
Project team needs to research possible design solutions for addressing truck noise along
corridor.
Consider potential for shared off-street path for pedestrians and cyclists.
Staff appreciates the opportunity to discuss the Jefferson Street project with the City Council and
received valuable feedback and direction for the project.
The project team will be working to address Council’s feedback and suggestions as part of the
next steps of the Jefferson Street project.
For more information regarding the project, please visit:
http://www.fcgov.com/riverdistrict/jefferson.php
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 30, 2012
TO: Mayor and City Councilmembers
THROUGH: Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Diane Jones, Deputy City Manager/Policy, Planning, and Transportation
Karen Cumbo, Director of Planning, Development, and Transportation
Joe Frank, Advance Planning Director
FROM: Kathleen Bracke, Transportation Planning Director
Aaron Iverson, Senior Transportation Planner
RE: FEBRUARY 28, 2012 WORK SESSION SUMMARY – JEFFERSON
STREET PROJECT UPDATE
This memorandum provides a summary of the City Council Work Session discussion from
February 28, 2012 regarding the Jefferson Street Project Update.
Attendees:
City Council: Mayor Karen Weitkunat, Councilmember Ben Manvel, Councilmember Aislinn
Kottwitz, Councilmember Gerry Horak, Councilmember Wade Troxell, and Councilmember
Lisa Poppaw (via video).
City Staff: Darin Atteberry, Diane Jones, Karen Cumbo, Joe Frank, Kathleen Bracke, Aaron
Iverson, Joe Olson, and Mark Jackson as well as Matt Robenalt (Downtown Development
Authority) and Carrie Wallis (Atkins consultants).
Discussion Summary
City Council provided comments and suggestions to staff regarding the proposed
Jefferson Street corridor and intersection alternatives.
Jefferson Street project is important community project for this major transportation
corridor as well as for the bigger picture context for infill/development opportunities and
to provide connectivity between Downtown/Old Town and the River District and change
the character of the area.
Discussed multimodal transportation improvements needed as well as the importance of
Jefferson Street to serve as a community gateway into Downtown, Old Town, River
District, and Lincoln corridor.
Currently, Jefferson Street acts as a barrier to people trying to move between
Downtown/Old Town and the River District.
Staff presented a video of the existing and future/planned land use and transportation
conditions within the Downtown, River District, and Lincoln Avenue corridor.
Important to support high quality, pedestrian environment.
Important to link Downtown with areas to the north including the River District, Lincoln
Avenue corridor, and the North College corridor.
Discussed traffic, safety, air quality, and cost data and characteristics of roundabouts in
general as well as the proposed roundabout alternative for the intersection of Jefferson
Street/Mountain Avenue.
Discussed comparison information for both the roundabout and signalized intersection
options.
Roundabout questions/concerns included:
o How does roundabout option address large trucks using State Highway 14 as well
as local trucks traveling to/from businesses within the River District and Lincoln
Avenue corridor?
o Will Jefferson Street improvements, including the roundabout, cause trucks to
divert to other regional routes?
o Staff showed a video from a “ride along” with local trucking companies at the
existing roundabouts at Crossroad Boulevard and I-25 area.
o Cost concerns, particularly that roundabout is more expensive than signal option.
o Minimize property impacts and avoid eminent domain. Staff will continue to
work on refining design of options and outreach to property/business owners with
the goal of achieving mutually agreeable outcomes.
o How the does the roundabout option work with the trains are present? Staff
presented traffic data regarding the queue analysis as well as images of other
roundabouts around the country that are located in similar proximity to railroad
tracks as potential options for managing the traffic when trains are present.
o Can roundabout work overtime and what if changes or modifications are needed?
Poudre Fire Authority (PFA) expressed their support for roundabout option and noted
their work with the project team. PFA’s main concern is that Peterson Street needs to
remain open for right-in/right-out traffic as well as left-out emergency vehicle traffic to
access Mountain Avenue.
Needed more information in “green sheets” regarding the bigger picture reasons for the
project, the data/information currently provided doesn’t justify changes from the status
quo. Consider short-term modifications.
Like consideration of ideas such as rubberized asphalt to help minimize noise along
corridor, especially from truck traffic.
General agreement among Council regarding the proposed three lane alternative with
raised, landscaped medians.
Mixed opinions among Councilmembers regarding the roundabout and signalized
intersection options. Mayor Weitkunat and Councilmember Ben Manvel supported the
roundabout option, Councilmember Kottwitz and Poppaw were not sure which they
prefer at this time – each has pros & cons, Councilmember Horak and Councilmember
Troxell preferred the signalized option.
Follow-up Items:
o The project team will be working to address Council’s feedback and suggestions as part of
the next steps of the Jefferson Street project.
o Schedule is to return to City Council in April/May timeframe.
Staff appreciates the opportunity to discuss the Jefferson Street project with the City Council and
received valuable feedback for the project. For more information regarding the project, please
visit: http://www.fcgov.com/riverdistrict/jefferson.php
Transportation Planning & Special Projects
281 North College Avenue
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580
970.224.6058
970.221.6239 - fax
fcgov.com/transportation
Planning, Development & Transportation
Attachment 2: Summary of Board and Commission Comments
ATTACHMENT 2
5
May 21 , 2012 Transportation Board ‐ Letter to City Council Regarding Jefferson Street
2
Attachment 2a: Summary of Board Comments
Transportation Board/Bicycle Advisory Committee
May 16 , 2012 Transportation Board ‐ (Draft Notes)
***DRAFT***
MINUTES
of the
TRANSPORTATION BOARD
May 16, 2012
6:00 p.m.
215 North Mason – Community Room
Fort Collins, CO 80521
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: CITY STAFF PRESENT:
Garry Steen, Chair Mark Jackson, Policy, Budget, and Communications Director, 416.2029
Ed Robert, Vice Chair Polly Bennett, PDT Executive Administrative Assistant, 221.6601
Mary Atchison Kathleen Bracke, Transportation Planning Director, 221.6140
Olga Duvall Megan Bolin, City Planner, 221.6342
Pat Jordan
Eric Shenk
Shane Miller
Sara Frazier
Kevin O’Toole
ABSENT: OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE
Sid Simonson Councilmember Ben Manvel
Clint Skutchan Ray Burgener, Burgener Trucking, 222.6400
Robert Lyle, Nice Car,
Eric Sutherland
Bjorn Swenson
Troy Jones
8. ACTION ITEMS
A. Jefferson Street – Kathleen Bracke, Transportation Planning Director
We are ready to go to Council on June 5. This is an update and request for a letter we can share with
Council.
Overview: This is a partnership project between the City, the DDA, CDOT, and area businesses. We are
looking at a variety of improvements to improve the corridor. The goals are to maintain and enhance
safety, enhance the corridor’s character and to improve Jefferson Street consistent with environmental
3
and social values. The project includes Jefferson from College Avenue to the intersection at Lincoln
Avenue. The improvements on Linden greatly enhanced the area. It is an important project from both
Transportation and Land Use perspectives.
The 3-Lane option with full median is the preferred option recommended by staff. There are streetscape
and landscape improvements along Jefferson. Transit stops are included.
The recommendation for the Jefferson/Mountain Avenue intersection is an improved signalized
intersection. There will be enhancements to the existing intersection that will create an interesting
downtown entryway. There will be raised, landscaped medians to serve as pedestrian refuges. Some will
be shorter than others to accommodate large truck turning radiuses. Left turns will remain.
The corridor will be $4.5 million plus $2.7 million for the signalized intersection.
Study will complete in June with project Engineering beginning in fall 2012. Construction depends on
funding and coordination with the utilities project.
Next Steps:
Public open house on several projects including this one on May 30 in the Community Room.
Council on June 5
Intergovernmental Agreement with the City and CDOT to allow the 3-lane corridor
Update the City’s Transportation Capital Improvement Plan and SH14 Access Plan
The Board’s letter from February was included in the Council packets, but we want you to have an
opportunity weigh in again.
Frazier: Is the County a stakeholder?
Bracke: Yes, they have been involved.
Frazier: What are the safety considerations of bikes sharing lanes with trucks? Are we going to have
“sharrows”?
Bracke: There were a number of iterations considered (bike lanes, parking, pedestrian refuge islands,
etc.). With the space limitations we had to create trade-offs and maximize use of the space. The on-
street parking helps to slow traffic, and by lowering the speed, it becomes more conducive to bike use.
We have no plans for sharrows right now but they could be used in the future. We also looked at shared
bike facilities off-street in other areas. This plan meets the “complete streets” perspective.
Atkinson: I am curious about the 2-lane versus 1-lane.
Bracke: It is 2-lane from the northwest bound. When trucks enter Jefferson from College it is 1-lane, so
this design is conducive with what now exists. The River District side has parking for businesses.
Robert: Funding is set at $2.2/$2.3/$2.7 million. Where does the funding come from?
Bracke: We look at all types of funding options. It may take awhile to find it.
Robert: Where is the State in this? It is a big improvement for them. They should pay for it.
Bracke: CDOT likes it the way it is now. One of the possible opportunities we have is maintenance
money that CDOT may have available and be willing to contribute in the future. It is another reason
why these studies are important. It gets them “on the map” for future fund raising.
Frazier: This is what happened with the Mason Corridor. We were ready.
Bracke: That’s right. We started the Mason Corridor with an idea and 5-cents.
Steen: What is the current posted speed limit?
Bracke: 30 and 35 mph but observed speeds are 35 – 40 mph. We hope that this design will slow people
down. It is about calming the traffic down.
Steen: The calming aspect of the roundabout is eliminated in this option. Have you considered adding
camera radar?
Bracke: We haven’t, but I can discuss it with Traffic and Police Services.
4
O’Toole: The gateway/roundabout idea seemed like a good idea at the Riverside/Mulberry location. Has
that been considered? Trucks would only be making one right-hand turn into it.
Bracke: Given the concerns of the truck route component I’m not sure it is feasible.
Atchison: I really like the changes, both streetscape and the intersection.
Jordan: I do too. I really like this. I was never a fan of roundabouts.
Shenk: I struggled with the idea that a business might be taken and was concerned for the truckers. This
makes more sense and looks good. It will still be a gateway without being a huge point of contention for
the community.
Robert: Do you anticipate other features that will identify this as a gateway? It looks like an intersection
with trees.
Bracke: At the street view level there could be art features and detail that makes a statement. This is an
elevated view.
Manville: There could be a large FORT COLLINS sign at the intersection.
Atchison: Is the turn into Peterson maintained?
Bracke: With the signalized intersection there would likely be no changes there.
Atchison moved that the Board support this option and send a letter to Council. Frazier seconded it.
Steen added that he would like to encourage camera radar to enforce the calming.
The motion was approved unanimously.
6
February 15th , 2012 Transportation Board
A. Jefferson Street Project Update – Kathleen Bracke
This is a joint project with the City, the DDA, and CDOT. Each entity has funding invested in the
project. Jefferson is a throughput for the highway and an important of our downtown area. Right now it
is considered a barrier to downtown. We are trying to create linkages for the Lincoln Avenue Corridor,
the River District, downtown, and Old Town. This is a gateway area for those districts. We are looking
to improve this corridor for all modes of transportation and make it an investment and asset for the
future development of the downtown district. This has been an enormous balancing act between the
downtown objectives and the state highway objectives. The goal is to transform the area.
Alternatives:
4-lane
3-lane with bike lanes
3-lane with medians
Parking would be in a buffer area with different colored pavement to mark it off. The traffic volume
analysis shows a single southbound lane off of College Avenue for the recommended 3-lane with
medians option which maximizes the space. It helps create a more urban experience and visually
narrows the corridor, which makes it safer for pedestrians. Bikes would not be prohibited from using
Jefferson, but as vehicular cyclists, would use the travel lanes. Those who are not comfortable as
vehicular cyclists would be redirected to Willow and the alleyways by wayfinding signage. The
intersection at Linden would be designed to accommodate crossing pedestrian traffic.
Atchison: Is that the only pedestrian crossing location?
Bracke: A pedestrian refuge would also be at Pine and Chestnut, although CDOT is not comfortable
with a light at that location.
The intersection and Jefferson & Mountain had an enormous comparative evaluation that considered
safety, level of service, truck operations, property impacts, operations & maintenance, bikes and
pedestrians, CDOT coordination, air quality benefits, special event management, etc. Both a traditional
signalized intersection and roundabout were considered. Landscaped medians are included in the
signalized intersection design to be used as pedestrian refuges. Median noses would need to be reduced
to accommodate truck traffic. Travel lanes would be the same as currently exist. The roundabout option
includes more landscaping, two travel lanes, and medians that move traffic in a calm manner.
Robert: Why is the crosswalk on Lincoln north of the railroad tracks?
Bracke: Because of the vehicle movements at the intersection and the railroad track arms, we need to
keep the pedestrian traffic back.
Robert: If a pedestrian is headed west on Jefferson, they would end up crossing the tracks twice in order
to use that crosswalk.
Frazier: Pedestrians have to cross two travel lanes, which can be tricky if they can’t see the cars.
Atchison: What are the speed limits?
Bracke: 30 and 35mph on Jefferson. CDOT did a speed study on Jefferson and it is in the 40s. They
wanted to raise the limit, but we said no. The landscaping and physical design is to calm traffic and
lower the speed to 25mph. It is part of why it is important to change the lanes on Jefferson. The traffic
volume is actually quite low both today and projected for the future.
Simonson: Does the graphic represent the current existing entrances to Nice Car?
Bracke: It shows the current entrance off of Jefferson, but not the one in the railroad right-of-way.
Frazier: At the Transit Mobility Committee you indicated that vehicles would not be backed up when
the train comes, as they will be able to continue around the roundabout.
7
Bracke: Today, no matter where a train comes through, traffic is impacted. With the roundabout,
vehicles can clear the roundabout in several ways. Even if cars cue up to cross the tracks, the other lane
can handle through traffic.
Robert: Is Peterson Street being closed off?
Bracke: No, it was redesigned to remain open.
Frazier: How are you addressing the concerns of the truckers?
Bracke: All through traffic is being designed to accommodate large trucks.
Skutchan: We have not registered an official opinion on this option.
Bracke: We go to Council for a Work Session on the 28th. This is information sharing at this point.
Skutchan: To me, the roundabout exacerbates the problems at this location. It isn’t that you haven’t
done great work; I just don’t think it is the right solution.
Atchison: I like to think that I am forward thinking and open minded, but the constant flow of traffic
would scare me to death as a cyclist or pedestrian. It doesn’t feel like it will accomplish what you want
to accomplish.
O’Toole: I agree. When you talk about education, and people learning to negotiate them, I’ve had scary
encounters at the Ziegler roundabout because education doesn’t seem to happen that quickly.
Shenk: This is a thinking person’s roundabout, and frankly, I don’t think the people of Fort Collins think
enough. I grew up in Europe with roundabouts, and love them, but this one isn’t easy.
Bracke: Jefferson as it appears today is scary.
Atchison: A lot of drivers coming to this roundabout from Mulberry won’t be educated in their use at
all. This could be their first experience with one.
Bracke: Vail had that concern when they installed their first roundabout coming off the interstate. It has
since become normal.
Robert: You mentioned bicycles having alternative routes along Jefferson.
Bracke: Parallel routes existing today are Walnut Street, Willow Street, and the alleyway project on the
Old Town side of Jefferson Street. The Bike Plan has an off-street path from Lincoln to Mulberry
connecting to the trail system. If properties along Jefferson are redeveloped, sidewalks could be
widened to allow for bicycle traffic.
O’Toole: When I first heard of this you described it as a “Gateway” which seems odd because this is
central.
Bracke: Plan Fort Collins and City Plan call out multiple Gateways. We have Gateways for districts as
well. This is a district Gateway.
Frazier: Instead of the roundabout, perhaps a “barn dance” concept should be used.
Bracke: A “barn dance” is used in Downtown Denver. All four directions stop so pedestrians and bikes
can cross. We can take that idea to Joe Olson and to CDOT.
Simonson: I like the concept and think it fits perfectly into the plan. I am concerned about when the train
comes and have concerns for Nice Car’s business.
Robert: If you were to use the standard intersection, it could still be made an attractive Gateway with
the $2.1 million dollar difference in construction cost. I’m on the cusp.
Staff Recommendation:
The roundabout provides good traffic circulation, air quality benefits with a strong safety feature. It
provides more opportunity to transform the entryway into the Downtown, the River District, and the
Lincoln Corridor.
Skutchan moved that while the Board is generally in favor of roundabouts, we support a signalized
intersection at this location. Atchison seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Atchison: I am trying to understand why this feels different than Vail or Ziegler, and I think it is because
people are trying to get through on a highway to go north on College Avenue. I guess there are ways to
bring a downtown feel to this intersection without a roundabout.
8
After discussion the motion was approved with Sara Frazier abstaining.
June 15th , 2011 Transportation Board
C. Jefferson Street Project Update – Kathleen Bracke
Project Boundary: Jefferson Street between College and Mountain.
Project Partners: City of Fort Collins (City), Downtown Development Authority (DDA), Colorado
Department of Transportation (CDOT).
Schedule: Spring 2010 – Summer 2011
Funding: $1.75 million (Federal [CMAQ], Local, DDA)
History of Project: Downtown River District Plan 2008 – Linden Street is underway now.
Alternatives Analysis Process:
Design options & evaluation
Street & intersection alternatives
Urban design
Context sensitive solutions
Deliverables:
Preferred alternative
Implementation phasing plan & finance strategies
Project Purpose: The purpose of the Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis project is to improve the air
quality, livability, and urban character of the Jefferson Street Corridor while enhancing the experience
for pedestrians, bikes, and transit and maintaining mobility for autos and trucks.
Traffic congestion is not a primary issue for the project.
Conditions: 12,300 – 13,200 vehicles per day. 2035 forecast: 17,200 – 18,600 vpd. Intersection Level of
Service “B” or better (existing & 2035); On-street parking spaces: 53 existing (sub-standard, very
narrow due to width of travel lanes); future varies by alternative from 36 – 48, but they will be more
usable. There is a speeding problem on Jefferson. Lowering the speed limit is not easy to do without
changing the character of the street.
Alternatives range from 2-lane to 4-lane options. Fatal flaws include need for on-street parking; do not
drop level of service (LOS) more than one level; no major property impacts. Current alternatives include
3-lane options with/without medians & bike lanes; 4-lane option; combination 3/4 lane option. Existing
conditions are not good for people crossing and transitioning into and out of downtown.
3-Lane with Full Median – one lane southbound, two northbound. A buffer is built in to allow for easier
parallel parking; raised landscaped median creates a pedestrian refuge and visual interest along the
corridor as well as access management for increased safety and mobility through the corridor. On-street
parking is particularly important on the downtown side of Jefferson. The River District side of Jefferson
has off-street parking available. Intersection improvements include enhanced crosswalks.
3-Lane with Partial Median – allows access to more driveway entrances than with the full median;
features are similar to Full Median option.
3-Lane with Bike Lanes – there is not enough width for both bike lanes and medians. Alternative routes
in the area are being considered (Willow, Walnut, alleys, etc.). Some cyclists feel comfortable riding
Jefferson and take the travel lane. Others do not.
9
Skutchan: What is the trade-off between bike lanes versus raised medians and the impact on pedestrian
traffic?
Bracke: The raised medians do more to calm traffic and do more to help the pedestrian environment and
improve the visual character along Jefferson. Cyclists do need to cross Jefferson, especially at Linden.
Miller: Is there data that supports the increased safety of bike lanes/raised medians? Does it encourage
J-walking?
Bracke: It comes down to the time a pedestrian is exposed to traffic. A raised island provides a safer
refuge. There is data supporting the improved safety of only having to cross one direction of traffic at a
time.
Miller: Can the light be timed so a left-turning vehicle doesn’t have to stop?
Bracke: That is the progression that Traffic Operations considers on all signalized intersections along
arterial corridors.
Duvall: The demographic of the population (shelters in the area) needs to be considered.
4-Lane – 12-foot travel lanes. There could be inset parking and crosswalks at intersections, but it
doesn’t accomplish traffic calming. Basically, same as existing condition.
Combination 3 / 4 Lane – The alternative is a combination or hybrid alternative with 3 lanes from
College to Linden and 4 lanes from Linden to Mountain.
Proposed Roundabout at Jefferson & Mountain – Recommended from 2008 River District Report.
Being studied in-depth. Roundabouts achieve air quality and safety objectives and handle traffic
capacity well. It also provides a “gateway” entrance to downtown and the River District. Peterson Street
is being considered to become a cul de sac – more public outreach needed on that idea.
Off-Street Parking Options: Potential increase of off street parking spaces at the City-owned lot near
Rodizio Grill and the privately permitted Railroad lot on Linden Street.
Urban Design and Gateway Concepts: Signage, street wayfinding.
Next steps:
Continue individual property/business owner meetings.
Transportation Board & Bicycle Advisory Committee – June
Planning & Zoning Board Work Session – July
City Council Work Session – August
Project Team Meetings
The goal is to build consensus among agencies for Preferred Alternative
Develop Implementation Phasing Plan and Finance Strategies
Frazier: I like the roundabouts around the city, but am concerned about pedestrian safety in them.
Bracke: The raised landscaped medians break up the crossing length making it easier to cross.
Frazier: Trucks going south on College to turn onto Riverside back up past the railroad tracks at times.
Bracke: Overall, the intersection works at a Level of Service “B.” College Avenue has more congestion
than Jefferson/Riverside. Intersection alternatives for that intersection were considered when the North
College Avenue improvements from Riverside to the river were done.
Skutchan: With Mountain being bicycle friendly into this area, did the Bicycle Advisory Committee
express concern about bikes safely using roundabouts?
Miller: They said very little about bike safety in roundabouts.
Skutchan: Educating the public is a challenge.
Robert: Why do we have two different names for the same street?
Bracke: There are historical attachments to the names. Riverside was so named because it is located
along the side of the Poudre River. Lincoln was named because of the connection with the old Lincoln
Highway.
10
You can sign up for a project newsletter at: http://www.fcgov.com/riverdistrict/
July 20th , 2011 Transportation Board
B. Jefferson Street Project Update – Kathleen Bracke, Transportation Planning Manager; Aaron
Iverson, Senior Transportation Planner
We have a Council Work Session on August 9 and would like to share the Board’s feedback either as a
memo or as draft minutes.
This is a joint effort between the City, the Downtown Development Authority, and CDOT.
The project is on Jefferson Street from College Avenue to Mountain/Jefferson/Riverside. There have been
many alternatives examined. Outcomes will include a preferred alternative and implementation phasing
plan.
“The purpose of the Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis project is to improve the air quality, livability,
and urban character of the Jefferson Street Corridor while enhancing the experience for pedestrians, bikes,
and transit and maintaining mobility for autos and trucks.”
Currently 12,000 – 13,000 vehicles per day. 2035 forecast 17,200 – 18,600 per day.
Intersection Level of Service “B” or better along Jefferson Street (existing and 2035)
Existing parking spaces: 53 (substandard & very narrow). Future: varies by alternative from 36 – 48.
Existing conditions: four travel lanes, too narrow, not up to current standards. Public feedback says it is a
barrier between Old Town and the River District.
Alternatives:
3-lane with full median
Reallocating one lane for other uses.
Maximizing the on-street parking on the Old Town side of Jefferson Street is a primary goal. The River
District side has parking alternatives available. A buffer area between parking and travel lanes is common
on all alternatives.
Option A: includes raised landscaped medians for a more attractive streetscape, visually enhancing the
corridor and providing access management from a traffic flow perspective, and provide a pedestrian refuge.
Option B: includes partial medians providing some of the benefits as Option A.
Option C: includes on-street bike lanes instead of medians (no room for both).
4-lane alternative
Widens travel lanes to 11 feet. Does not include raised landscaped medians or bike lanes. No on-street
parking on the River District side.
3 and 4-lane alternative: features of both other alternatives.
Jefferson/Mountain Lincoln/Riverside intersection alternatives: signalized and roundabout alternatives are
being considered. The roundabout is the recommended alternative from the prior study. It is being
reevaluated.
The Jefferson/Linden intersection is also being evaluated. There are designated turn lanes off of Jefferson.
We considered removing those. It creates a shorter pedestrian crossing distance and increases available on-
street parking. The downside is limiting accessibility along both sides of Linden.
11
The project team recommendation leans toward the 3-lane alternative with a raised median. The team is
leaning toward keeping the turn lanes on the Jefferson/Linden intersection because of circulation patterns.
Jefferson/Mountain intersection roundabout provides a lower traffic delay compared to a signalized
intersection. Signalized intersection cost $1.4M; Roundabout $2.6M. Roundabout takes up more room. How
the intersection serves the area is a major consideration, as this is a gateway to Old Town. The team has not
reached a recommendation yet.
Off-Street Parking Options in the lot at Rodizio Grill: The project team is looking at options to add a 3rd row
of parking. Option 1 increases by 25 spaces. Option 2 increases by 16 spaces. The Union Pacific Railroad
owns a lot at Jefferson/Linden where the park is. They built a surface lot that has 10 permitted spaces. They
are investigating ways to partner with the railroad to use that lot.
Next steps:
Meeting with property/business owners/stakeholders
Boards & Commissions
City Council in August
Jordan: How will this impact existing bus routes?
Bracke: Our goal is to improve transit stops and make Jefferson more transit and pedestrian friendly. Long
term plans for downtown include a shuttle.
Thomas: I agree with the project team that the first alternative is best. It is going to be more difficult to go
south. Will trucks opt to go south on Willow?
Bracke: It is our goal to design Jefferson to accommodate all vehicle needs. Traffic congestion is not an
issue as indicated by a current and projected Level of Service “B.” Residual capacity is being examined in
the intersection study. 17,000 cars per day is not high volume. The intersections can accommodate traffic for
40 – 50 more years. We do not want to divert the truck traffic. The roundabout alternative is capable of
radius to accommodate the trucks. The Colorado Motor Carriers Association likes the one southbound lane
alternative because it prevents trucks from being passed.
Frazier: How does the BAC feel about this plan?
Bracke: The BAC gave mixed feedback. Some members felt that the bike lanes made it more bike friendly.
Others think it is too difficult to ride. Wayfinding and education can publicize alternative routes. Bike issues
on this project are more geared to crossing Jefferson to River District destinations rather than bikes traveling
on Jefferson.
Public comment:
Ray Bergner, Bergner Trucking, citizen. I met with Kathleen and Aaron yesterday. If we don’t learn from
the past, we will make mistakes in the future. I’m addressing the roundabout. Service and safety are
paramount. Roundabouts have their place. The one at Vine Drive and Taft Hill Road works well. Colorado
Motor Carriers doesn’t represent all of our interests. We are concerned that you consider the information
from 10 years ago when the roundabout on east Mulberry Street was considered. Safety in multi-lane
roundabouts needs to be considered. We are fine with the design of the road, but have concerns about off-
tracking in the roundabout. Multi-lane creates safety issues for trucks with a 300” wheel base. The high
center of gravity on these trucks is also an issue.
Bracke: Deflection of cars entering the roundabout is being examined. Most trucks will continue on
Riverside.
Robert: Have you looked at putting a bike lane on Willow?
Bracke: There are on-street bike lanes shown on Willow. No bike lanes are considered in the railroad right-
of-way.
Frazier: Have you done additional analysis for access to Peterson Street?
12
Bracke: That is part of the roundabout design study. More work is being done. If a roundabout is built there
will be a cul-de-sac at Peterson & Mountain Avenue.
Thomas made a motion that the Board recommend Option 1 but withhold a recommendation on the
roundabout pending additional information. Skutchan seconded.
Discussion:
Miller: Are sharrows considered on Jefferson under Option A?
Bracke: That hasn’t been discussed but we can ask.
Miller: Is it a safety issue for truckers to follow bikes in travel lanes?
Bergner: It isn’t a big issue from my experience.
Miller: Are maintenance costs available?
Bracke: O&M costs will be included in the final recommendation.
Miller: We are enhancing the parking experience, enhancing the pedestrian experience, but we don’t have
infrastructure for bikes. Motor carriers will be there. Enhancing parking while eliminating bike
infrastructure seems odd.
Bracke: The features we are including with landscaping and other features calm traffic and lower speeds,
making it safer for bikes.
Simonson: Does the Riverwalk design incorporate parallel bike paths? Big trucks sharing roads with bikes
doesn’t seem safe.
Bracke: The design for Willow Street includes on-street bike lanes. We are supporting and encouraging
alternative routes for cyclists.
Simonson: I like the idea of redesigning the City parking lot to gain additional parking.
After discussion, the Board voted for the motion with one descending vote (Miller) because of the lack of
bike lane infrastructure.
13
July 20th , 2011 Transportation Board ‐ Letter to City Council Regarding Jefferson Street
14
February 13th, 2012, Bicycle Advisory Committee
Discussion Items:
I. Jefferson Street Project
Kathleen Bracke –
I appreciate the opportunity to come back to the BAC. We were here a few months ago. Now we are
giving this presentation throughout the community, looking for feedback on the project, specifically
regarding the intersection at Jefferson and Mountain. It is a unique project we have worked on for
many years, even decades. It is complicated because we manage partnerships between several
stakeholders. We are searching for a better solution on Jefferson, from College to Mountain. We are
looking for a solution that will knit the area together; Jefferson is a barrier right now. We are
determining the purpose – it is a downtown corridor, truck route, and entry to an emerging river
district.
City Council adopted a resolution that we must look at signalized actuation and roundabouts at all
intersection improvements.
Dan Gould –
Do those medians act as pedestrian refuges?
Kathleen Bracke –
Yes. This is a place where pedestrians can take refuge. Mountain and College is a wide street, but the
islands act to make it welcoming and less intimidating. The medians will be 6 feet wide so a bike can
fit comfortably and they can be landscaped.
See the handout for more information about alternatives. Also, see the website:
http://www.fcgov.com/riverdistrict/jefferson.php
The staff recommendation is the roundabout; it works well for traffic flow and it is a great way to keep
Fort Collins innovative.
Please encourage your committees to attend the open house on Thursday.
Rick Price –
When you were considering the width of the lanes, did you consider whether an experienced cyclist
would share the lane?
Kathleen Bracke –
That is good input. We will consider more than or less than 14 feet as an indicator of whether cyclists
would share the lane.
Kim Sharpe –
Once you determine the lane widths, can you add shared lane markings?
Rick Price –
I think that is a great idea.
15
Tim Anderson –
Show of hands, who avoids Jefferson on bike? (majority) And is there any issue finding an alternative
route? If not, maybe we can use signage to indicate to cyclists where they can ride.
Kathleen Bracke –
That’s a good idea.
Rick Price –
The critical issue is whether we want to encourage riding on Jefferson with shared lane markings or
discourage it with re-routing.
Dan Gould –
I don’t think this is a good place to use shared lane markings.
Kathleen Bracke –
Just to clarify, shared lane markings are not meant to be an encouragement tool.
Josh Kerson –
I think the medians are a good idea. It makes crossing Jefferson toward New Belgium safer. At first I
wanted the option with bike lanes, now I like this option.
Shane Miller –
I’m distressed at this option. There is no median at Jefferson and Linden, so it isn’t a safe refuge for
pedestrians. It proliferates the status quo on automobiles while there is another option that is more
bike friendly. I would like to see the data that shows a median provides more safety than bike lanes. I
don’t think it is safer even if it is more attractive.
Rick Price –
Do you want bicyclists here or not? If not, make them 13’ wide, no more. Experienced cyclists won’t
share those lanes.
Kathy Cardona –
Are the sidewalks on Jefferson dismount zones?
Kathleen Bracke –
That is another good question. The dismount zone is on the old town side of the street, but not the
River District side. We’d like to widen the sidewalks on the River District side to have off-street
options for bikes. On North College, we have wider sidewalks with space for cyclists and pedestrians.
Those facilities could be developed in the future. This project is about trade offs. We are trying to
change the character of Jefferson. I hear what this group is saying about there not being specific bike
facilities, but we are looking for options for safe cycling.
Kathryn Grimes –
Did you consider doing an overpass or underpass at Mountain and Jefferson?
Kathleen Bracke –
They are hard to do in an urban setting because the ramps are long; people will walk up to roadways.
It works well for rivers and railroads.
16
Sylvia Cranmer –
Whether or not we are encouraging or discouraging cyclists, we must provide a safe route. We need
signage that indicates this as well as designating it a certain way on the bike map. I feel strongly that
we should do a field trip because I think it’s important for us to feel that facility.
Joe Piesman –
When I come out of the roundabout, how do I travel southbound?
Kathleen Bracke –
You must go to Matthews. Peterson will only be available for right turns in and right turns out. This is
an improvement requested by the Fire Station 1 for emergency access. If you are not comfortable
riding the roundabout, you can navigate it as a pedestrian.
Rick Price –
I’m interested what the DDA thinks.
Kathy Cardona –
We love it! We love it. Unanimously.
Rick Price –
Cyclists can be taught to navigate a roundabout. Others can use it as a pedestrian would.
Shane Miller –
Is there any safety data about roundabouts for cyclists?
Kathleen Bracke –
Data shows that roundabouts set up vehicles for slower crashes. Also, users can’t run a traffic light
and have broadside accident; side angle crashes are less severe.
Tim Anderson –
Will this be the highest traffic roundabout in Fort Collins?
Kathleen Bracke –
Good question. I will check traffic volume data at Horsetooth and Zeigler.
Tim Anderson –
I have ridden through the Jefferson and Mountain intersection hundreds to thousands of times. It will
change that intersection for people who ride there.
Kathleen Bracke –
Compared to College, there is half as much traffic on Jefferson and thousands of people cross College
every day. There is a perceived safety for pedestrians on College because of the streetscape.
Josh Kerson –
I am concerned about the train coming through. How will this work?
Kathleen Bracke –
17
That is the number one question we hear. First, we have to consider how to clear traffic off Lincoln so
the railroad arms can come down. Right now that is done with the traffic signal. There could be a gate
that closes at Lincoln. No doubt, there will be an impact on traffic flow, but traffic won’t be stuck.
Rick Price –
Any more thoughts?
Kathleen, did you get what you needed?
Kathleen Bracke –
This was great input. You can find more information on our website.
Rick Price –
If you feel strongly, please come to the public open house on Thursday.
June 13th , 2011 Bicycle Advisory Committee ‐ (see attached meeting notes)
- Had a question about the traffic volumes and if they were broken down by axel type and
vehicle weight
- Without parking would there be room for a bicycle track
- If there were bicycle lanes the transition onto College is important
- Stated that marked bicycle lanes reduce accidents
- Noted that trucks traveling south can be dangerous to bicyclist
- Number of bicyclist crossing Jefferson is growing at Linden and at Lincoln
- Jefferson doesn’t necessarily feel safe to ride on but it is more direct than other routes
- The environment of Jefferson doesn’t feel safe to some, in particular some of the activity at
the Jefferson Street Park
- Important to make sure it’s clear that bikes belong with or without bike lanes
- Discussed the need for improved pedestrian amenities
- Pedestrian refuge zones are a high priority
- Questioned if we are trying to accommodate too much on Jefferson
- Wanted to know if anyone on the project team had first hand experience with a roundabout
located near a rail line
18
DRAFT MEETING MINUTES of the
BICYCLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
June 13, 2010
6:00 PM
Community Room
215 N. Mason
Fort Collins, CO 80521
FOR REFERENCE:
Chair: Rick Price 970‐310‐5238
Vice Chair: Josh Kerson 970‐217‐9480
Staff Liaison: Kathleen Bracke 970‐224‐6140
Staff Support: Dave “DK” Kemp 970‐416‐2411
BOARD/CITY ORGANIZATION MEMBERS PRESENT
Air Quality Board: Michael Lynn
Bicycle Pedestrian Education Coalition: Kim Sharpe
Bike Fort Collins: Sylvia Cranmer
Downtown Development Authority: Kathy Cardona
Fort Collins Bicycle CoOp: Tim Anderson
Fort Collins Bicycle Retailers Alliance: Josh Kerson
Natural Resources Advisory Board: Glen Colton
Transportation Board: Shane Miller
AT LARGE MEMBERS PRESENT
At Large: Dan Gould
ABSENT
At Large: TBD
At Large: TBD
Colorado State University: Ben Miller
Economic Advisory Commission: Rick Price
Land Conservation & Stewardship Board: Kathryn Grimes
Parks and Recreation Board: Bruce Henderson
Poudre School District: Chris West
Senior Advisory Board: TBD
UniverCity Connections: TBD
City of Fort Collins:
Aaron Iverson, Senior Transportation Planner
Craig Foreman, Director of Park Planning and Development
David Kemp, Bicycle Coordinator
Kathleen Bracke, Director of Transportation Planning
Molly North, Assistant Bicycle Coordinator
Randy Hensley, Parking Services Manager
Timothy Wilder, Senior City Planner
19
Call to order
Meeting called to order at 6:07 PM.
II. Jefferson Street Project Update
See attached PowerPoint
Michael –
Your audience is families and people who will come downtown to shop and eat, right? So it
makes sense to separate this track with a curb or something more obvious.
Kathleen –
We are trying to make it useable for everyone, but we recognize that there are alternate routes
for people who won’t use this route.
Dan –
It seems like it would be hard to mesh the northbound flow onto N College.
Kathleen –
That is a good point.
Shane –
My concern is the alternative without bike lanes.
Kathleen –
The purpose is to calm the traffic that is out there, so ideally we can slow traffic to 25/30mph so
more users will take the lane. We will also work to improve way finding so people can choose
their route.
Shane –
All I have ever read is that shared lane markings on roads reduce crashes. Has anyone read any
different?
Kathleen –
It is important to think about the Jefferson corridor. Compared to N College where we can widen
the roadway and include all of the pieces we want, on Jefferson we need to work within the space
we have.
Josh –
I work at N. College and Jefferson and I walk that area often. The biggest issue is that truck
drivers are turning left onto Jefferson from College and speeding up so they can get through the
intersection at Linden without hitting the red light.
Sylvia –
20
You asked if we would ride there, I don’t know if I would. You asked if I would feel safe, no. I
don’t like the idea that it would encourage cyclists to ride there and increase the amount of
cyclist/truck interface. I also don’t feel safe with the transient community down there.
Kathleen –
Those are legitimate issues and we are addressing these concerns.
Kim –
I think the more “bikes belong” signs we have, the better. It sends a good message – like Josh
said – that it is downtown.
Dan –
I am concerned about the intersections and having refuges for pedestrians.
Kathleen –
We tried to include as many facilities as possible, but we were limited by curbs, traffic volume,
left turn lanes, etc. We did all we could to reduce pedestrian exposure. We will imitate the
pedestrian crossings that we have currently along the in other areas downtown to raise
awareness for drivers of pedestrian crossings.
Glen –
I’m not sure it is necessary to keep on street parking for the local businesses because I don’t even
know any of the shops on Jefferson.
Kathleen –
There is revitalization of this area and a lot of new businesses and residential development is
coming in.
What do you think of the roundabout at Jefferson and Mountain?
Shane –
Do we have an example of a roundabout adjacent to a railroad in Fort Collins?
Kathleen –
Not in FC, but they are used all around the world and there are a lot of examples of how it works.
Shane –
Is there a human being who has seen one? It would be worth the plane ticket to research the
actual implementations.
21
Attachment 2b: Summary of Board Comments
Planning & Zoning Board
February 16th , 2012 Planning and Zoning Board
Project: Jefferson Street Project
Project Description: The Jefferson Street/SH14 Alternatives Analysis Study is a joint effort of the
City of Fort Collins, Downtown Development Authority (DDA), and the Colorado
Department of Transportation (CDOT). The project team is supported by Atkins
consultants. This Alternatives Analysis Study includes the development and
evaluation of a thorough set of design options for the Jefferson Street/SH14
corridor. The corridor begins at College Avenue and extends along Jefferson
Street and includes the Mountain Avenue/Riverside Avenue/Lincoln Street, and
Linden Street intersections. The purpose of the Jefferson Street project is to
improve the air quality, livability, and urban character of the Jefferson Street
Corridor while enhancing the experience for pedestrians, bikes, and transit and
maintaining mobility of autos and trucks.
Staff is requesting input from the Planning and Zoning Board regarding the
Jefferson Street project, in particular to provide input on the intersection
alternatives as well as next steps for the project process.
1. What input would the Planning and Zoning Board like to share with the
project team regarding the Jefferson intersection alternatives?
2. Is there additional information the Planning and Zoning Board would like
to see regarding the Jefferson Street project?
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence
Transportation Planning Director Kathleen Bracke and Senior Transportation Planner Aaron Iverson
were in attendance. Bracke reported the Jefferson Street Project process has included the
development and evaluation of many options such as traditional roadway and intersection designs,
roundabouts and other innovative, context-sensitive design solutions based upon local, state, and
national best-practices.
Bracke said a full presentation on the project was made at the Board’s work session. Tonight, if it is
the pleasure of the board, she will present the highlights and they are available for questions. She
said when they refer to the Jefferson Street Project they are referring to a series of alternatives for the
Jefferson Corridor as well as for the intersection of Jefferson, Mountain, Riverside and Lincoln.
The two intersection types they are considering include improvements to the existing signalized
intersection and another alternative which would be a roundabout alternative for that location.
There is a variety of criteria they used to evaluate the intersections—it includes safety, traffic analysis,
how the intersections will operate for all modes of transportation and how the improvements will help
serve the area for the long term economic vitality and fit the land use character of the downtown, the
river district, and the Lincoln Avenue Corridor over time.
Bracke said many people when they think about the Jefferson Street Corridor today think about it in
terms of being a barrier or the “edge” of downtown. A fundamental principle of this project and their
goal is to transform Jefferson over time so it’s no longer a barrier but becomes a linkage between
those important parts of downtown. .
22
Implementation of the Jefferson Street improvements can move forward beginning in mid 2012 based
upon approval of the preferred alternative by City Council, Downtown Development Authority, and
CDOT. The schedule for construction of the Jefferson Street corridor improvements will be based
upon the approved preferred alternative and implementation/phasing plan as well as the available
funding. Bracke said they are seeking feedback on the alternatives for the project, in particular the
corridor and the intersection alternative.
Public Input
Robert Lyle, 100 Riverside Avenue, said he owns Nice Car, Incorporated at the corner of Riverside
and Mountain. He said he had a list of questions titled 26 Questions which he would like to share with
the Board. He said Kathleen Bracke has had an opportunity to review. Her responses are in light
gray. His biggest fear is eminent domain and going out of business. He said he can see the writing
on the wall—the thinks he’s not going to survive either a standardize intersection or a round-about. If
he had his “ruthers” he’d prefer a standard intersection but when the outcome is the same, he would
probably go for the round-about. He asked the Board the questions he’s submitted in their
deliberation.
Ray Bergener of Bergener Trucking/Transpro said they are the largest aggregate drive-ball
commodity carrier based in Fort Collins and the State of Colorado. They’ve done business for 66
years and he is a third generation operator. He said he represents a majority of the trucking industry.
They oppose this proposal for three distinct reasons: safety, safety, safety. He said Highway 14 is a
designated transportation network. He said thousands of tons of freight move through daily for both
intra and interstate commerce. He said there is no comparison to the roundabouts at
Horsetooth/Ziegler, Ziegler/Carpenter, and Taft and Vine to the proposed roundabout. This is a state
highway. He believes accidents will happen there.
Bergener said he’s also concerned about the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists in a round-about as
opposed to a signalized intersection. Truck rollovers are more than fender benders. He said trucks
will need both lanes (truck in one lane and trailer in the other) based on the size of the roundabout.
He believes severe damage will occur to vehicles and property not to mention bodily injury due to cars
trying to pass trucks in the round-about.
Bergener referred to the Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis document distributed to the Board at
their work session. He believes each of those columns (except the air quality column) support a
signalized intersection. He said before staff go to Council, the industry wants to talk about air quality.
Bergener said the cost of the round-about is estimated at between $4.3 to 5.3 million. A signalized
intersection would cost $2.7 million. Per the intergovernmental agreement if the proposed round-
about is built and fails (trucking thinks it will), the deconstruction cost and the installation of a
traditional intersection will become an issue.
Bergener said city policy states all types of intersection controls, including round-abouts must be
considered and evaluated. The preferred intersection control is based on providing a safe and
efficient transportation network to serve surrounding development and traffic volumes. A round-about
would be designed to accommodate all types of traffic including trucks; however, the slower speeds
and traffic movements associated with a round-about would help discourage through truck traffic.
Now, staff is recommending a round-about to serve truck transportation. He said there’s a huge
conflict there.
23
He distributed a letter to the Board from Hersch Trucking . Bergener said their paramount
consideration is safety. He thinks the best alternative is a truck bypass and a different route for
hazardous materials.
He plans to make his case before City Council when it comes before them.
Chair Smith asked staff to comment on the issues raised in public input.
Bracke said from a project team perspective, safety is very important to them as well. They’ve taken
that into consideration when evaluating the two intersection alternatives on safety of all modes (trucks,
cars, pedestrians, and bicyclist). She said one of the attribute of round-abouts is safety. When
vehicles approach a round-about, a slowing /yield condition occurs. She said design of the Jefferson
Street Project elements considered the largest truck type (CDOT specs) that uses State Highway 14.
Bracke said they want to make sure it can work safely for both through and local trucks.
Bracke said in terms of air quality, that is another attribute of the round-about. With the round-about
alternative, there is less delay and that translates into the air quality benefit.
Bracke said in terms of cost, the round-about is more expensive. They have looked at that very
seriously but they’re looking at this as a long term investment in the downtown--creating a gateway
entrance into the downtown and the river district. They’re looking at a 50 plus year return on
investment in terms of how they can transform this important area of our community.
Member Schmidt asked why Peterson Street does not change with a signalized intersection but does
change with the round-about…it says it would require closing or changing to right in/right out. Bracke
said in an earlier version of the design, they showed Peterson Street closed with a cu-de-sc and a
bicycle and pedestrian connection to Mountain. In working with PFA (Poudre Fire Authority), they felt
that access from Mountain to Peterson was very important due to the location of Station 1 and how
they use Peterson to access Jefferson and North College. Staff worked with the design team to
revise the design to a right in/right out access point. Bracke said with the way the round–about is
designed, it also facilitates the movement from Peterson to westbound Mountain. Once you make a
right turn out of Peterson, you can "make a u-turn" (complete the circle) and head west on Mountain.
They consider that an improvement over the current Peterson/Mountain intersection.
Member Schmidt said funding hasn’t really been decided for this round-about. When she studied the
analysis document, there were more “pluses” except for air quality for a signalized intersection.
Schmidt provided a summary of differences including level of service B time, railroad impacts,
uncertain PUC denial, property impacts, and special events management. She said based on the
analysis, there isn’t really a good reason for recommending a round- about especially when
considering the difference in costs. Schmidt said we are so desperately looking for funding the gap
for North College improvements. How can we justify spending double on a round-about here when
the analysis said the signalized intersection would work just as well.
Bracke said Schmidt raises some good points. When they developed that matrix, they wanted to be
as straight-forward in the analysis of the criteria involved but what we need to look at is not each of
those independently but the overall picture. What holistically is going to balance out for the overall
needs of the area? She said staff is considering mobility, transportation, land use, supporting the
economic vitality, and the visual entrance into this part of the downtown. Bracke said this project
brings together three distinct districts with Jefferson being the barrier between them. Bracke said a
signalized intersection will function just fine in that location but they are trying to do more than that
with this project. Bracke thinks it’s important when we talk about this project we don’t isolate just the
intersection component. Bracke said traffic that is traveling through there today is traveling very
fast—above the posted speed limit. To create a downtown urban/walkabout urban environment, we
need to create a different kind of place.
24
Bracke said the issues are not insurmountable. There are questions that can be addressed as we
move forward through the engineering process. We’re at the conceptual planning stage and based on
where we are in the process, some of those things do remain undefined at this point. She thinks that
holistically (for the overall impact and benefit they are trying to create to transform Jefferson); on
balance, the round-about is the better alternative. It provides a much greater area to do that type of
landscaping and the entry way features for which they are looking.
Board Discussion
Chair Smith suggested they make two recommendations—one on the cross section of the street
(three lane corridor option with raised landscape median) and the other being whether the Board
would support staff’s recommendation for a round-about or a signalized intersection.
Member Campana made a motion that they support staff’s recommendation with regard to a
three lane corridor option with the raised landscape median for that section of Jefferson.
Member Kirkpatrick seconded the motion. Motion was approved 5:1 with Stockover
dissenting.
Chair Smith said the staff report was very good. He appreciates the analysis that was put together.
He said before he did a weighted scoring analysis of the Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis, he
was very open to the idea of a round-about simply because of what it would do to create a gateway
feature. As we went through the staff generated comparison, he lost his enthusiasm. Smith said by
his calculations, the signalized intersection outweighed the round-about option by 10-4. He believes
traffic calming will be accomplished by the 3 lane with median option. He thinks with all things
considered, he’s going to support a signalized intersection at this time.
Member Kirkpatrick thanked staff for the late night/early morning attendance after what she knows
was a busy day that started at 7 a.m. As a transportation planner herself, she definitely respects staff
recommendation.. Kirkpatrick said when you consider the community health component, she’s heard
community members who say that round-abouts pose a barrier for them. For that reason she has
some significant reservations about the round-about in this area. When she looks through the
alternatives analysis; she has a hard time justifying spending so much more for a facility that to her
does not seem to promote a “stronger sense of place”. She agrees with Chair Smith that other
design elements may accomplish the gateways and traffic calming objectives. She said for the
reasons she’s listed, she would be inclined to support the more traditional intersection.
Member Stockover said it just boils down to it’s a pretty long stretch and if you’re looking at speed
they are going to speed up right after the round-about. He also with the landscaping being proposed,
there will be too much going on for the cars, truck, people and bikes. It is a truck route. He doesn’t
think we can justify spending that kind of money on a gateway when we already have a thriving
community. Stockover also thinks the parking gain along there isn’t as big as we think it is, He’d
recommend a parking structure. The money saved from that design element could be redirected to a
parking structure and would keep four-lanes so you have nice movement both ways. He thinks it’ll be
restricted too much especially after a train passes or when they close roads to Laramie or Cheyenne
and all the trucks that have been stopped will come all at once. He does not think we need what’s
proposed to accomplish the goals set out for this project.
Member Campana made a motion to recommend a signalized intersection in lieu of the traffic
circle (aka round-about). Member Stockover seconded the motion.
25
Chair Smith said he’s definitely a fan of round-abouts and he’d like to a proliferation of them
throughout town in the appropriate places. He loves the gateway feature but we’ll see the train tracks
there. Had it been pretty close on the analysis he did, he would have probably said yes to the round-
about. But it was pretty overwhelming in favor of a standardized intersection.
Member Campana said he likes the round-about idea as well. He just doesn’t like the idea of a truck
route and a round-about in the same place.
Motion was approved 6:0.
Other Business:
None
Meeting adjourned at 12:15 a.m.
July 15th , 2011 Planning and Zoning (Work Session)
- There was a concern/question as to whether or not the buffer lane would become a "drive"
lane
- Concern over how pedestrian crossing would be handled
- How to control lane encroachment in the bike lane alternative?
- Questioned if it was good idea to mix the truck traffic with bicycles?
- Questioned if Jefferson was required to have bike lanes?
- Questioned traffic volumes might go down once traffic calming features are added?
- Observed that alternatives were trading off various elements due to space constraints
- Questions about Peterson Street, asked if it would be closed, noted that there may be
businesses concerns
- Asked about CDOTs position on the project
- The board generally agreed that they like the 3 lane option with the full center median
o Supports effort to make area more attractive
o Supports making a stronger connection to the River District
o Supports improving the pedestrian environment
o Support maintaining on‐street parking
o Supports the roundabout, as a defining entry feature to indicate the entrance into
Downtown Fort Collins
26
Attachment 2c: Summary of Board Comments
Downtown Development Authority Board of Directors
February 9, 2012 Downtown Development Authority
‐ The DDA voted to support the DDA staffs position in support of the roundabout alternative for the
Jefferson/Lincoln intersection. (DDA letter is included in the Council materials)
June 9, 2011 Downtown Development Authority
- Asked if the cost includes implementation
- Asked about the condition of the sidewalks, and wanted to know if the project would include
sidewalk improvements
- Discussed the need for left turns at Pine and Chestnut, determined that there would not be a
large number of turns expected at these locations
- Concerned over the comfort level for riding bikes on Jefferson
- A gateway featured was highly encouraged
From the Minutes of June 9, 2011 Board of Directors Regular Session Meeting:
"Moved by Bill Sears, seconded by Jenny Bramhall: To support the stated downtown interests in the
Jefferson Street corridor discussions and to further support the recommendation to adopt a three‐
lane alternative for the project. The motion passed unanimously."
DRAFT Minutes:
DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Regular Directors' Meeting
MINUTES of June 9, 2011
The Board of Directors of the Downtown Development Authority met in Regular Session at 7:30 a.m. on June 9, 2011 at
Home State Bank, 303 East Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80524.
PRESENT
Jenny Bramhall; George Brelig; McCabe Callahan; Ben Manvel (Council Alternate); Wynne Odell; Kelly Ohlson; Bill
Sears; Patty Spencer; Ellen Zibell
ABSENT
Steve Johnson; Jerry Kennell; Cheryl Zimlich
STAFF
PPaattttyy SS
ppeenncceerr,,
CChhaaiirrppeerr
ssoonn 9977
00--440077--9999
0000
KKeellllyy OO
hhllssoonn,, CC
oouunncciill LL
iiaaiissoonn
997700--449933
-77222255
SStteevvee JJ
oohhnnssoonn,,
CCoouunnttyy LL
iiaaiissoonn
997700--449988
-77001100
JJooaannnnaa
SSttoonnee,, SS
ttaaffff LLiiaa
iissoonn 99
7700--448844--22
002200
27
Matt Robenalt, Executive Director; Kathy Cardona, Financial Coordinator; Derf Green, Programs Administrator; Joanna
Stone, Administrative Manager; Jim Martell, Legal Counsel
GUESTS INCLUDED
Darin Atteberry, City Manager; Peggy Lyle, DBA; Rich Shannon, Pinnacle Consulting; Aaron Iverson, Joe Frank,
Kathleen Bracke, Randy Hensley, Clark Mapes, Timothy Wilder, City of Fort Collins; Jim Reidhead; Justin Larson, VFLA;
Michel McMahon, 137 Mathews; Emily Elmore, The Group; Emily Thorn, Food Co-op; Rayno Seaser, The Egg & I
221-227 JEFFERSON STREET PROJECT
Owner Doug Holt has proposed the historic rehabilitation of 221-227 Jefferson Street and is requesting a façade grant
investment. The rehabilitation will focus on returning the building to its original historic appearance based on photo
documentation. This will include brick tuckpointing, painting, woodwork restoration, and replacement of missing
storefront glass on the north-facing façade. The south-facing façade fronts Old Firehouse Alley and work will return the
original first floor door opening, repair stucco,
and create a new deck on the second floor. The property is also home to the infamous drunk tank, which is not part of the
funding request, but will be improved with new doors, glass block window, restoration of the jail bars, and a fresh coat of
paint.
Architect Justin Larson presented the project to the Board. He noted that the building will lease commercial space on the
first floor to Phil & Ted’s. The owners will live in the upper level.
Kelly Ohlson expressed appreciation for the level of staff work, encouraging and supporting projects while looking out for
the public interest. Matt Robenalt responded that the recommendations of staff and the Executive Committee are coming
out of the recent financial discussions.
Moved by Patty Spencer; seconded by Ellen Zibell: To support the staff recommendation to commit funding up to
$20,850 as a façade grant investment and to authorize the Board Chair to enter into an agreement to acquire an
easement on the north-facing Jefferson Street façade and the south-facing Old Firehouse Alley Façade contingent
upon the owner’s submission of all DDA requirements for project reimbursement including actual cost accounting
documentation and certificate of liability insurance. The release of funds is conditioned upon cost accounting and
contractor documentation of deconstruction as a method for minimizing construction and demolition waste from
entering the landfill. The motion passed unanimously.
JEFFERSON STREET/ HWY 14 ANALYSIS
Matt Robenalt introduced the background to the Jefferson Street/Highway 14 analysis project. He has served on the
executive oversight committee for the project. This has been an eighteen month process for achieving consensus on urban
design and highway design on the Jefferson Street corridor. A watershed moment was reached last week when all parties
reached consensus on the basic components of the project. The process has been to find the most suitable alternative to
improve the air quality, livability, and urban character of the Jefferson Street corridor while enhancing the experience for
pedestrians, bikes, transit and maintaining the mobility of autos and trucks. The project seeks to balance interests of
different agencies and organizations including the City, CDOT, DDA, local business/property owners and the general
public. The DDA committed $500,000 in 2008 to fund future capital improvements related to the alternatives analysis.
DDA staff has advanced downtown interests throughout the analysis. The preferred alternative should feature on-street
parking; accommodate the continued use of the Jefferson Street corridor for trucks; provide access to individual businesses
to the greatest extent possible while striving to maintain the goals of the project; and, recognize that bike lanes, while
providing an important element of a multi-modal transportation system, are a lesser priority in this area than the elements of
pedestrian mobility, truck/traffic mobility, and on-street parking.
Kathleen Bracke of City Transportation Planning provided the status report, answered questions and received feedback on
the project from board members. Ms. Bracke reported that the process involved a huge team effort and there was a wide
divergence of views at the start. The current list of options includes 3-lane alternatives, a four-lane alternative and a
combination 3/4 lane alternative. Both on-street and off-street parking was also evaluated. Ms. Bracke reviewed drawings
of each of the options and discussed features of each. Board members George Brelig and Bill Sears met recently with the
City and consultant staff to review the alternatives and expressed a preference for the three-lane scenarios as the
alternatives that best reflect the interests of the DDA and downtown. In response to wide-ranging questions, Ms. Bracke
28
noted that the plan assumes the current level of truck traffic, which is about 7.4% of total. The project does include
sidewalk improvements. Some of the advantages of the three lane options are to encourage slower traffic. A full median
serves many purposes including raised landscaping; pedestrian refuges; and increased safety. Off-street parking options are
also being explored. These general concepts have achieved consensus from the partners.
The roundabout at Jefferson and Mountain is considered important to the project. It helps capacity, improves air quality
and provides the opportunity to create a gateway into downtown. City staff is working
closely with CDOT, PUC and the railroad on this aspect of the project and additional analysis will occur through the
summer.
Next steps will include working towards selecting the preferred alternative for the corridor this summer. This will be
followed by the development of an implementation plan and finance strategy. As the project develops there will be
individual outreach to property owners as well as public open houses.
Moved by Bill Sears, seconded by Jenny Bramhall: To support the stated downtown interests in the Jefferson Street
corridor discussions and to further support the recommendation to adopt a three-lane alternative for the project.
The motion passed unanimously.
29
Attachment 2d: Summary of Comments
Economic Advisory Commission
Minutes
City of Fort Collins
Economic Advisory Commission
Regular Meeting
300 LaPorte Ave
City Hall
February 15, 2012
11:00 a.m. – 1:30 p.m.
For Reference:
Bill Timpson, Chair 493-3673
Council Liaison Wade Troxell
Josh Birks, Staff Liaison 416-6324
Wendy Bricher, Minutes 221-6506
Commission members present: Commission members absent:
Blue Hovatter Jim Clark
Christophe Febvre Sam Solt
Michael Kulisheck Stu MacMillan
Bill Timpson
Rick Price
Channing Arndt
Guests:
Ann Hutchison, FC Chamber of Commerce
Dale Adamy
Eric Sutherland
Staff Present:
Megan Bolin, City Planner
Wendy Bricher, Minutes
Lindsay Ex, Environmental Planner
Kathleen Bracke, Director of Transportation Planning
Randy Hensely, Parking Services Manager
Timothy Wilder, Sr. City Planner
Agenda Item 1: Meeting called to order
Meeting called to order at 11:02 a.m.
Agenda Item 2: Approval of Minutes
Unanimous approval of minutes dated 1/18/12
Agenda Item 3: Public Comment
Eric Sutherland expressed his continuing concern with the financing of RMI2. He believes the memo
released regarding this issue is deficient and does not address his primary concern – that this project was a
giveaway. He stated four million dollars was approved for this project when in his opinion, would have
been sufficient at one million.
Financial Services
300 LaPorte Ave
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6505
970.224.6107 - fax
fcgov.com
2
Motion passed 6-0
Agenda Item 9: Jefferson Street Project Update
Kathleen Bracke, Director of Transportation and Special Projects, presented an overview of the Jefferson
30
Street Project, primarily the sections between College Avenue on the west and Lincoln on the East.
Several options have been considered and included two lanes with bike lanes and parking, three lanes
with bike lanes and parking, and three lanes with a median and parking. The original plan recommended
a two-lane, but has since been revised to a three lane with medians following further discussions with
CDOT and various other entities. In addition, the intersection at Mountain and Jefferson will be
addressed. Current considerations include a roundabout or a signalized option with the costs estimated at
4.3 million and 2.7 million, respectively. The goals of the project are to calm traffic, increase safety, and
create better air quality. After discussion, the Economic Advisory Commission generally agreed with the
option that includes the median and parking as the safest choice. In addition, after discussing return of
investment, gateway considerations, traffic flow, and traffic calming, the Economic Advisory
Commission also supported the roundabout as first choice for the intersection at Mountain and Jefferson.
Staff will be seeking various funding sources and will make recommendations for the engineering phase
to move forward in 2012/2013 with construction beginning 2015 +.
The following email copies are included as an addendum to the minutes as public record:
From: Wendy Bricher
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 10:46 AM
To: Bill Timpson; Blue Hovatter; Bricher, Wendy; Bruce Hendee; Channing Arndt; Christophe Febvre;
Emily Wilson; Jim Clark; Josh Birks; Kane, Sarah; Michael Kulisheck; Rick Price; Sam Solt; Stuart
MacMillan; Wade Troxell
Subject: FW: Revisiting Jefferson Street
Good morning EAC,
I will be including the following email in the minutes as an addendum. To date, the EAC has not
weighed in as to whether they with to change their original recommendation of the 3-lanes, median, street
parking option. Thank you.
Wendy
4
From: Rick Price [mailto:rick@experienceplus.com]
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 9:48 AM
To: Timpson,William
Cc: Wendy Bricher; Channing Arndt; Christophe Febvre; mike@kulisheck.com; Blue Hovatter; Bruce
Hendee; Emily Wilson; Jim Clark; Josh Birks; Sarah Kane; Sam Solt; Stuart MacMillan; Wade Troxell;
jkefalashd52@frii.com
Subject: Revisiting Jefferson Street
Importance: High
William Timpson
Chair, Economic Advisory Commission
Bill,
I don’t recall what direct action we took on the Jefferson Street project on Wednesday. Perhaps Wendy
can help clarify that when she sends out the minutes. But I’ve thought about this project and would like
to ask that we reconsider our position. I mention this specifically with respect your comments about the
road diet on LaPorte Avenue that took it from four lanes to two lanes with a center turn lane.
We were told by our transportation planners that since Jefferson St. is a state highway, they have to
accommodate the requirements of the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). We were further
told that even though City staff had suggested reducing Jefferson St. to two lanes, CDOT, opposed that
solution. This left our transportation planners in a position to compromise with three or four lanes while
trying to figure out how to make it safe for both pedestrians and bicycles.
As you know, I expressed concern about the safety of cyclists on the new three-lane design. But having
thought more about this I’d like to see EAC take the position that a two-lane street is the optimum
solution on Jefferson. This would allow an ample median as a pedestrian refuge and to calm traffic. It
would also allow bike lanes in both directions all along here.
We are told that traffic counts are low here (13,000 per day) and are projected to increase only to
17,000/day. So traffic flow is not an issue.
31
At issue, it seems to me, is Colorado Revised Statute 43-1-120 sponsored by our own state representatives
Kefalas and Fischer and our State Senator Bob Bacon in 2010. I’ve reproduced the statute below and I’ve
highlighted the critical language that applies to this street.
The bottom line is, CDOT is required to accommodate all users on this street. It seems to me that of all
state highways in the state, Jefferson Street qualifies for serious consideration under this statute. If a two
lane street accommodates all users safely, enhances the economy of Fort Collins and of Old Town,
contributes to the economic redevelopment of the River District and does so without slowing or impeding
traffic or the carrying capacity of this state highway, CDOT is required to make the proper adjustments
recommended by the City of Fort Collins.
How can we get this into Council’s packet for their work session for Feb. 28th?
Colorado Revised Statutes
Legislation adopted in 2010 and based on House Bill 10-1147 sponsored by Rep. John Kefalas, Rep.
Randy Fischer, and Senator Bob Bacon
43-1-120. Bicycle and pedestrian policy - codification - legislative declaration.
(1) The general assembly hereby finds and declares that:
(a) It is in the best interest of all Coloradans to promote transportation mode choice by enhancing
5
safety and mobility for bicyclists and pedestrians on or along the state highway system;
(b) The department has adopted a bike and pedestrian policy directive to further this goal; and
(c) It is necessary and appropriate to elevate the status of the bike and pedestrian policy of the department
to that of law by codifying it in subsection (2) of this section.
(2) (a) The department and its subdivisions shall provide transportation infrastructure that
accommodates bicycle and pedestrian use of public streets in a manner that is safe and reliable for
all users of public streets.
(b) The needs of bicyclists and pedestrians shall be included in the planning, design, and operation
of transportation facilities as a matter of routine.
(c) Any decision of the department to not accommodate the needs of bicyclists and pedestrians
shall be documented based on exemption criteria that were established by the commission before
the decision was made.
Source: L. 2010: Entire section added, (HB 10-1147), ch. 422, p. 2185, § 2, effective July 1.
Rick Price, Ph.D.
Meeting adjourned at 1:28 p.m.
The next meeting is scheduled on March 21, 2012 from 11:00 a.m. – 1:30 p.m.
CIC Room, City Hall
Transportation Planning & Special Projects
281 North College Avenue
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580
970.224.6058
970.221.6239 - fax
fcgov.com/transportation
Planning, Development & Transportation
Attachment 3: Summary of Public Comment
Public Open House May 30, 2012
4-7 pm at 215 N. Mason in the Community Room
Summary of feedback from this event will be presented as part of the staff presentation during
the June 5
th
City Council meeting for this project.
Jefferson Business Owners Focus Meeting
February 15th, 2012
3-5 pm City of Fort Collins Traffic Operation, 626 Linden Street
In attendance: Ross Harbo, Brendan Arnault, Jon Gentel, Mitch Busteed, Carl Glaser, Ray
Burgener, Ken Morrison, Robert Lyle, CC Jackson
Results of the comments are summarized below;
- Has there been any consideration for using the Jefferson Park for parking?
- If needed could Jefferson be widened into Jefferson Park?
- What is CDOT's position on bike lanes?
- There were concerns from about the proposed median on Jefferson restricting left turns into and
out of Pine Street. The concern is that circulation in the alleys and on Pine street for those
businesses is challenging already and the more restrict movements to and from Jefferson onto
Pine Street are a concern
- Why is there not a formal crosswalk proposed at Pine Street?
- One of the goals of the project is to slow down traffic which was generally supported by those
in attendance
- How will the median slow down traffic, they were concerned with loss of access
- Representatives from the Vogel Paint store commented that they would not support the
roundabout option if it cut off their driveway access to Lincoln Ave
- Robert Lyle owner of the Nice Car shop stated that he felt the roundabout will have a
significant negative impact to his business, particularly if he losses one or both of his driveway
access, additionally he is concerned with the loss of property that he currently uses to circulate
and park cars. He is in support of keeping the intersection as is or if improved to keep it
signalized.
- There were a number of questions and concerns about how pedestrians will use the roundabout.
Public Open House February 16th, 2012
7-9 am at the Opera Galleria and 4-7 pm at the Northside Aztlan Community Center
See attached comment sheets
See also attached letter from Hersh Trucking
ATTACHMENT 3
2
See also attached email from Ross Harbo representing the Diamond Vogel paint store
June 2
nd
: Public Open House
The open house was held on Thursday June 2 from 4 to 7 pm at the City Streets facility. There were
approximately 14 people in attendance representing business and property owners as well as residents
from the project area.
Results of the comment sheets are summarized below;
- The primary interest of attendees was business / property owner followed by area resident.
- The most selected priority for Jefferson Street was "pedestrian mobility" followed by
"improving safety and security" and installing "streetscape/landscaping amenities". Installing
"gateway features" was the next most selected priority.
- The majority of respondents preferred the 3-lane alternative.
- The majority of respondents which liked the 3-lane alternative preferred the "full-median"
option.
- For the intersection of Jefferson Street and Linden all the respondents supported keeping left
turns from Jefferson to Linden.
- For the intersection of Jefferson Street with Mountain/Lincoln the respondents were split
between a roundabout or a signalized intersection
Comments provided on comment sheets at the public open house included:
- "The full median option appeal to me most, because I feel that it would provide the most
attractive alternative"
- "As a business located at the intersection of Linden and Jefferson [Café Ardour] I feel strongly
that left turns should be maintained. I also like the idea of the roundabout to be used as a
gateway to Old Town / River District. I also like that it would help to improve air quality."
- "Very dangerous road, need to slow traffic to safeguard kids going to O'Dell's, and New
Belgium".
- "I think that roundabouts are confusing"
- "If we want to encourage people to head to the river we need to make if friendly and safe to
cross Jefferson!"
- "Suggest you start from the perspective that through-traffic on Jefferson should be re-routed to
Willow and merged with Mulberry at Timberline. This through route should be designed by
using pedestrian and traffic over/under passes."
- "Integrate Jefferson into the Linden area for local low-speed travel with lots of parking /
walking / biking opportunities."
- "Rather than accommodating anticipated increased flow on Jefferson, design an outcome
focused on enhanced quality of life."
- "Want 2-Lane alternative that slows traffic increases parking and is more pedestrian friendly."
- "Do not limit access to Linden from either direction of Jefferson."
- "Jefferson from College to Lincoln has been a barrier for decades to the northeast towards the
river, my priorites are:
3
o Reduce speeds on Jefferson in both directions
o Increase parking!!!
o Increase ease of pedestrian/bicyclist to go both directions on Linden across Jefferson
o Do not think of Jefferson or Riversides as bicycle/transit corridor!!
o No roundabouts - horrible when semi's, pedestrians and or bikes are present
o Promote access towards River District
As someone who lives/works here 24/7 you're looking for the wrong solutions
(suggest looking closer at Carl's (Carl Glaser) ideas!!!"
- "No bike lane"
- "No roundabout"
- "I like full median if the buffer zone was a bike lane, and the street parking is elevated. I think
it will slow the speeds, and create a better atmosphere along Jefferson."
- "I like the gateway notion of the roundabout. I think it's mostly a cost factor for me if there are
alternate funds outside of limited DDA funds, then I'm up for it!"
- "Add more on-street spaces on Old Town side of Jefferson, north of Linden."
- "The traffic on Jefferson is significantly reduced from what is use to be. The truck count after
5:00 PM and weekends is negligible. Use the third lane for alternative parking during these
times."
Jefferson Street – Individual Outreach Meetings May-June 2011
May 25
th
Encompass Technologies
- Concerned about dirt, dust and mud from trucks driving too close to the front of their building
- Does not use on-street parking due to the proximity of passing trucks
- Has parking lot for employees, also contract with businesses across the street for employee
parking as well
- Would like to see better pedestrian environment
- Interested in making improvements to the façade of their building
- Would like to make improvements to the back of the building, perhaps building a concrete
walkway along the back of the buildings between the track and the buildings
- Supportive of the three lane option, questioned why the 2 lanes were on their side of Jefferson
- Supportive of a median and landscape/streetscape improvements
May 27
th
Nice Car - Subaru Repair Shop
- Concerned over which side of Jefferson has 2 lanes versus 1 lane in the 3 lane options
- Questioned the need for on-street parking on Jefferson, would like to see it eliminated all
together
4
- Opposed to the roundabout
o Concerned it would kill his business
o Concerned with train activity
o Concerned with cost of right-of-way
o Questioned the need as the intersection seems to flow fine currently
- Very concerned with too many unknowns surrounding the project which has the property
owners very worried
- Agrees that the aesthetics of Jefferson need to be fixed
May 27
th
Pine Street Lofts Residents
- Concerns with truck traffic
- Safety concerns over the Jefferson Street Park
o Would like to see it turned into a plaza
- Is favorable to the roundabout, thinks it works well and would look nice
- Concerned about an empty lot across from the Pine Street Lofts, needs to be cleaned up
- Supports a full median
- Suggests bike lanes may not be appropriate on Jefferson
- Would like to see the on-street parking in front of the Pine Street Lofts retained which is use by
residents guests at times
June 17
th
Vogel Paint
- They need both existing driveways to get delivery trucks in and out
- They were ok with the roundabout
- Concerned over the safety of bicyclists on Jefferson
- They like the 3 lane option with the full median
- Very supportive of improving the corridor
- They do not use or support the use of the on-street parking in front of their business, dangerous
with the proximity to trucks
June 16
th
Local Trucking Interest: Burgener Trucking, Hersh Trucking, O’Leary’s Trucking
- Supportive of the full median to restrict left turns
- Very supportive of the 3 lane concept
- Cautious of the height of the median, needs to be a normal curb height in case they do run into
it
- Limited access is important, which minimizes conflicts with the trucks moving through the
corridor
- They didn’t like the idea of mixing bicycles with trucks on Jefferson
- They suggested a 2 lane configuration would be better, as it would eliminate passing, which is a
primary safety concern, and their contention is that this section of Jefferson essentially
functions as a 2 lane roadway currently, especially when larger loads are using the corridor
- Not supportive of the roundabout at this location
- They have a particular issue with multi-lane roundabouts, because cars try and pass the trucks
within the roundabout (signed or not) which is a significant safety issue with the truck taking
both lanes to maneuver through the roundabout. One lane roundabouts are safer in this respect
- They questioned if there was enough space to build the roundabout
5
- What size truck was used for the design?
- They are concerned as they have no other options within the City as this is the designated truck
route.
- If a roundabout is considered it needs to be specifically designed for through trucks, and make
consideration for the longer lengths now being used (average of 75’ to 80’, with oversize of
125’ long)
- They have concern of rollovers in roundabouts
- The mountable truck apron can be damaging to tires (which are expensive) if not designed
correctly, also if they are too high they can cause loads to shift leading to potential rollovers
- They want to continue to be involved in the process for this project
June 16
th
Rodizio Grill
- Major issue with the trucks on Jefferson including:
o Speed of trucks
o Vibration from the trucks
o Dirt and dust caused by the trucks and debris falling from trucks
o Clipping of cars parked in front of the restaurant causes lost side mirrors
o Dangerous situation with people walking across Jefferson at or near Pine Street
- Would like to see trucks eliminated or reduced on Jefferson
- Supportive of the 3 lane option with full medians
- Supportive of improved pedestrian safety particularly at the Pine Street intersection
- Does not consider the corridor to be bike friendly, would rather see pedestrian improvements
- Not supportive of the roundabout, unless the intent is to discourage through trucks
- Wants to slow down traffic, improve the pedestrian environment, improving the safety of
pedestrians crossing Jefferson and the idea of landscaping in the median
- Likes the idea of the inset parking in front of the restaurant
- Concerned about Jefferson Park, and the perception of safety and security, and how the current
situation discourage the connection (walking) to Linden and the River District
- They desire to be highly involved in the project moving forward
6
October 17
th
, 2011: Public Open House
The open house was held on Thursday October 17, 2011 from 4 to 7 pm at the Bas Bleu Theater. There
were approximately 15 to 20 people in attendance representing business and property owners as well
as residents from the project area.
Results of the comment sheets are summarized below;
- [In support of the 3-lane option] Lanes should be reduced for safety
- [In support of the roundabout] Slow traffic down ,currently trucks and cares race to beat light
or trucks run through lights
- [In support of the 3-lane option] The third lane is needed for conditions when traffic backs up
due to the train however it should be made into parking on weekends and evenings when truck
traffic decreases dramatically.
- [ In support of the signalized intersection] Pedestrian access is simplified. Alternatives need to
be developed that have the gateway amenities of the roundabout with a conventional
intersection.
- Parking in the park east of Rodizio is listed but needs to be shown and implemented as part of
the cost of the project to mitigate the loss of parking on Jefferson and to facilitate pedestrian
access across Jefferson.
- [In support of the 3 lane option] Makes strong improvements.
- [In support of the signalized intersection option] Signalized intersections are far superior in
pedestrian intensive areas. Roundabouts should be reserved for rural or primarily automobile
environments.
- Please provide striping for pedestrians at Pine and Chestnut to help slow traffic and provide
pedestrian activity.
- [In support of the 3-lane option] Less intrusion to existing businesses.
- [In support of the roundabout option] Traffic calming.
- Take into consideration pedestrians of all ages and disabilities.
- [In support of the 3-lane option] As much as the City has done to improve roads and
circulation, Jefferson has been woefully neglected for vehicular, pedestrian and bike safety,
now is the time to renovate this very busy and unsafe street.
- [In support of the roundabout] It makes sense - plain and simple!! Delays are shorter,
movement is easier, it's environmentally better!!
Other comments (recorded by staff):
- Manager of Rodizio Grill expressed concern over the loss of left turns into his parking lot.
- Representative from local trucking interest was present. He is supportive of the 3-lane option
but not the roundabout, primarily due to safety concerns.
7
Miscellaneous Correspondence
Aaron Iverson
From: Debra Unger on behalf of Darin Atteberry
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 9:35 AM
To: 'Ross.Harbo@diamondvogel.com'
Cc: Darin Atteberry; Bennet Manvel; Kelly Ohlson; Lisa Poppaw; Aislinn Kottwitz; Wade Troxell; Gerry
Horak; Karen Weitkunat; Diane Jones; Kathleen Bracke; Aaron Iverson; Joe Frank; Polly Bennett;
Mark Jackson; Karen Cumbo
Subject: RE: Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project (Council SAR #18598)
Page 1 of 2
5/29/2012
Hello Mr. Harbo,
Thank you for contacting the City Manager and members of City Council regarding your concerns about the
proposed roundabouts at the intersections of Jefferson/Riverside and Mountain/Lincoln. Please see the following
information provided by Senior Transportation Planner Aaron Iverson on behalf of the City leaders:
_____
We have not heard anything definitive about the second access for Diamond Vogel since the business owners
meeting you attended on February 15. In talking with the engineers, there seem to be options to potentially
allow that access to be built as a section of sidewalk and curb designed to be driven over to allow your trucks to
exit as they do now.
We understand your concerns and intend to find a solution that would allow you to continue your operations as
you currently do; if a roundabout moves forward, that is one of the design specifics that will have to be worked
out in detail.
_____
Please let us know if we can provide any further information.
Regards,
Debra Unger
Executive Administrative Assistant
City Manager's Office
Fort Collins, Colorado
From: Ross.Harbo@diamondvogel.com [mailto:Ross.Harbo@diamondvogel.com]
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2012 3:46 PM
To: Darin Atteberry; Bennet Manvel; Kelly Ohlson; Lisa Poppaw; Aislinn Kottwitz; Wade Troxell; Gerry Horak
Subject: FW: Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project
From: Ross Harbo
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 11:44 AM
To: 'cityleaders@fcgov.com.'; 'datterberry@fcgov.com'
Cc: 'kbracke@fcgov.com'; 'Aaron Iverson'
Subject: Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project
I’d like to weigh in on behalf of Diamond Vogel Paint on the Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project. Our
business is located at 416 Jefferson Street in Fort Collins. I attended a meeting on Feb. 15, 2012 concerning two
proposals for the intersection of Jefferson/Riverside and Mountain/Lincoln. The proposals put forth at this
meeting were that of a signalized intersection or a round a bout. As we reviewed the drawings of the signalized
intersection it appeared that we’d be able to function satisfactorily if this option is chosen. The round a bout, as
it was presented, poses some problems for us. In order for us to continue to receive our inventory via common
carrier or company owned truck we need to keep the two access points we currently have. The drawings shown
to us at this meeting indicate that we would lose one of our access points. Aaron Iverson indicated that he’s in
the process of seeing whether or not we can keep both access points if the round a bout option is chosen.
Keeping both access points is crucial to our business. As I sat in the meeting it was obvious that the majority of
the business owners in this area felt that the round a bout option would negatively impact their businesses.
I’d ask that you take the thoughts of all of the business owners who were present at this meeting into
consideration. We shared our thoughts with Kathleen Bracke and Aaron Iverson. I’m confident they can share
those thoughts with you and convey how strongly we all felt about going with the signalized intersection.
Please feel free to contact me on this matter.
Thanks for taking my thoughts into consideration.
Ross Harbo
Denver Division Operations Manager
Diamond Vogel Paint
4500 East 48
th
Ave
Denver, CO 80216
Phone: 303-333-3117
E-mail ross.harbo@diamondvogel.com
Page 2 of 2
5/29/2012
Aaron Iverson
From: Kathleen Bracke
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 9:44 AM
To: Darin Atteberry; Karen Cumbo; Diane Jones
Cc: Aaron Iverson; Joe Frank
Subject: RE: roundabout at the intersection of Jefferson Street and Mountain Avenue
Page 1 of 1
5/29/2012
Thank you for forwarding these messages to us.
FYI, I also received a phone call from Mr. Waterson, property owner along Jefferson, who is in favor of the roundabout
option.
The input on this seems to continue to be mixed….
We’re working on ideas for next steps given all of the various input from City Council.
We’ll set up a meeting to talk with the project team next week to float some of these ideas.
Please send us any suggestions that you have as well.
Appreciate everyone’s help with this,
K
From: Debra Unger On Behalf Of Darin Atteberry
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 8:37 AM
To: Kathleen Bracke; Karen Cumbo; Diane Jones
Subject: FW: roundabout at the intersection of Jefferson Street and Mountain Avenue
Fyi . . .
D
Darin Atteberry, ICMA-CM / AICP
City Manager
Fort Collins, CO
-----Original Message-----
From: Larry Bolt [mailto:rcripes@netzero.net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 2:01 PM
To: City Leaders
Subject: roundabout at the intersection of Jefferson Street and Mountain Avenue
Fort Collins Council Members:
I would like to go on record as being opposed to a roundabout at the
intersection of Jefferson Street and Mountain Avenue. I believe that
location is ill advised and it would create massive traffic backups in
addition to subsequent business degradation in the immediate area.
Regards,
Larry Bolt
____________________________________________________________
53 Year Old Mom Looks 33
The Stunning Results of Her Wrinkle Trick Has Botox Doctors Worried
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL3241/4f4e91ea233bb171fabfst03vuc
1
Aaron Iverson
From: Greg Carroll [greg@the-carrolls.net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 6:05 PM
To: Kathleen Bracke; Aaron Iverson
Subject: Jefferson Street project - please no roundabout
Kathleen and Aaron,
I would just like to take a moment of your time to express my disapproval of the proposed
roundabout proposal for Jefferson/Mountain. I had the opportunity to live and work in
England for an extended period of time.
During that time, I adapted to driving on the "wrong" side of the road, negotiating
roundabouts, 1 lane roads with two-way traffic and all the nuances of European driving.
I learned that there are some advantages to roundabouts and intersections for which they
work very well, particularly those that have traffic flowing on and off one major road but
not trying to cross it. For example, I think that the roundabout at Horsetooth/Ziegler
works well.
I also learned that there are many intersections for which they don't work at all. In
particular, heavy traffic in one direction can monopolize the roundabout preventing the
other streets access. (such might be true of Jefferson/Mountain). It was very common for
drivers to recognize this dilemma and slow or stop inside of the roundabout and flash
their lights to indicate that they were allowing the yielding vehicle to enter in front of
them. This worked because flashing of the lights is commonly used to signal yielding, such
as passing vehicles on a 1 lane road. For many busy roundabouts, traffic signals had to be
installed to control the flow of traffic into roundabout, so then you have a traffic light
and a roundabout.
I would also be quite concerned that a roundabout without traffic signals would fail when
a train blocked traffic on Lincoln. This traffic would certainly back up into the
intersection and create a grid-lock situation for all directions of travel except west on
Mountain until the train had passed.
I do not think that a roundabout at the Jefferson/Mountain intersection would be a
desirable solution and would like to ask you to support the traditional traffic light
solution.
Sincerely,
Greg Carroll
Aaron Iverson
From: Debra Unger on behalf of Darin Atteberry
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2012 11:56 AM
To: 'David Austin'
Cc: Kathleen Bracke; Diane Jones; Kim Newcomer; Polly Bennett; Karen Cumbo; Mark Jackson;
Claire Thomas; Joe Frank; Joe Olson; Aaron Iverson; Amy Lewin
Subject: RE: Old Town Roundabout and Various Other Things (SAR #18490)
Attachments: 83110_Jefferson_FAQs_2-22-12.doc
Page 1 of 3
5/29/2012
Mr. Austin,
Thank you for your email.
To help address your concerns regarding the Jefferson Street project, which includes both the corridor
improvements and intersection, please see the attached frequently asked questions.
The Mason Street Corridor project has undergone substantial changes since the concept was first
introduced. What was once a transportation project is now a comprehensive redevelopment effort
enabled by transit. You're correct that Mason appeared on the ballot twice, but never as a stand alone
item. It was part of two funding initiatives that included implementation of the Mason Corridor along
with funding for a variety of other community-wide transportation projects.
While the investment in the Mason Corridor is substantial, we believe the economic benefits will greatly
outweigh the costs. A third-party economic analysis of the projects found that the anticipated
redevelopment along the Mason Corridor will generate approximately $6.1 million in property tax revenue
between 2006 and 2031. In addition, the redevelopment will generate approximately $14.4 million in
retail sales tax revenue. Finally, construction alone will generate an estimated $108 million in direct,
indirect and induced economic impacts.
Eighty percent of total project costs will be funded by the federal government; the remaining 20 percent
of the project costs will be covered by the state of Colorado and local contributors. With MAX and
Mason, we are leveraging City funds with local and federal dollars; we felt it important to take advantage
of this opportunity.
MAX and the Mason Corridor are long term investments in our community. I encourage you to continue
to ask questions and learn more about the project as it comes to fruition. You may also visit
fcgov.com/mason and sign up for our e-newsletter.
Regarding your question about a railroad crossing for an east/west roadway and your concerns about
South College and Trilby, the City’s Transportation Master Plan (TMP) is the best resource for
information. The TMP, including the Master Street Plan, includes several roadway “grade
separated” (underpass or overpass) crossings of railroad tracks within Fort Collins. Examples include a
planned underpass of Drake Road to cross under the BNSF railroad tracks in the center of the community
as well as other grade separated railroad crossings in the northeast area including Lemay & Vine,
Timberline & Vine, and several others. The Trilby Road and South College corridor improvements are
also very important and included in the Transportation Master Plan.
City staff continues to seek local, state, and federal funding to bring these projects to fruition. For a map
showing the City’s Master Street Plan, which includes these planned grade separated crossings and
roadway improvement projects, please visit: http://www.fcgov.com/transportationplanning/msp.php. To
see the City’s Transportation Master Plan in more detail, including the Capital Improvement Plan, please
visit: http://www.fcgov.com/planfortcollins/transportation.php.
Thank you again for writing to express your concerns. I appreciate your interest and feedback.
Darin A. Atteberry, CPM/AICP
City Manager
Fort Collins, Colorado
From: David Austin [mailto:david@otherirs.com]
Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 5:57 PM
To: Darin Atteberry
Cc: Kathleen Bracke
Subject: Old Town Roundabout and Various Other Things (SAR #18490)
After reading the article regarding the Old Town roundabout, I decided to address some
questions and concerns I have had for quite some time.
First, it seems that the city is continually coming up with projects to enhance Old Town
as a priority to other issues that need to be addressed. This roundabout will save 3.4
seconds of wait time for a $10 million dollar cost? That sounds like one of the stimulus
deals to me. You know………. there is a part of Fort Collins that is not included in Old
Town.
Second, Mason Street Corridor was voted down by citizens of Fort Collins at least twice
before it was finally approved, still to the dismay of a lot of people in this town. The
development may very well be a good thing in the end, but I would stake a wager on the
success of the MAX Transit System. I’ll be very surprised if that doesn’t turn out to be
the boondoggle of the decades, especially given the cost.
Third, we came to Fort Collins in 1990 and I do not recall that there has ever been a
real discussion regarding, at the very least, one railroad underpass to connect the west
side of Fort Collins to the east side. I’m sure the costs are extreme and yet what are
the costs of the MAX system and the Mason Street Corridor and the roundabout in Old
Town and many more projects? One of the things that popped out at me in the
roundabout article, was one of the supposed selling points Miss Bracke made of
improved air quality. What do you think the effect on air quality is when there are
thousands of cars waiting on trains to pass every day, from Harmony Rd. to College
Ave. on the north? You would think that this issue would take a priority over any other
issue in Fort Collins! And air quality is the least of the concerns. How about people’s
lives at stake when an ambulance is unable to transport from the west side to the east
side? And no, I don’t live on the west side.
Fourth, this concern is a selfish one based on where I live, but a totally legitimate one.
Why do you consider the south gateway to Fort Collins to be Harmony & College? Fort
Collins, for the most part starts at TRILBY and College. This brings up the second part
of this concern. When was the last time you drove from Harmony to Trilby and how
many times have you been through the intersection at Trilby? This entire stretch of
College is a shambles! And how many cars a day go through the Trilby/College
intersection? That stretch of town was incorporated about three years ago and yet how
much has the city spent on it?
Maybe you can now see why my ire was substantially raised after reading the
Page 2 of 3
5/29/2012
roundabout article. There are numerous issues in this town that are not being
considered in lieu of fluff projects. MAX Transit System is a “fluff” project. Even though
there is a discrepancy in the cost, think how much more sense it makes, to have an
underpass at Horsetooth Rd. and Mason, instead of a fancy, overpriced bus sitting at
the intersection of Horsetooth Rd and Mason!!
David Austin
320 Strasburg Dr., Unit A5
Fort Collins, CO 80525
226-6018
david@otherirs.com
Page 3 of 3
5/29/2012
From: Debra Unger On Behalf Of Darin Atteberry
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 11:14 AM
To: Karen Cumbo; Kathleen Bracke
Subject: FW: Roundabout
Fyi . . .
D
Darin Atteberry, ICMA-CM / AICP
City Manager
Fort Collins, CO
From: Gerry Horak
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 2:41 PM
To: David Roy
Cc: Darin Atteberry
Subject: RE: Roundabout
David
As always thanks for your email, voice and all the work you have done and still continue to do. The
roundabout is marginally safer and is not being recommended for that reason. I think the intersection
improvements and the improvements along Jefferson will have the same positive effects NE of Jefferson
as the roundabout and the Jefferson Street improvements. So the extra $2 million in my opinion is not
for that area nor will it help - if anything I think it will hurt. It will be hard to cross the streets near the
roundabout.
Thanks
Gerry
From: David Roy [david.roy@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 6:10 PM
To: Gerry Horak
Cc: Darin Atteberry
Subject: Roundabout
Good evening, Gerry;
Hope that you are having a great day. Question; I saw your quotes this afternoon on line about
the proposed roundabout at Jefferson and Mountain.
In principle, I support working to extend Downtown across Jefferson to the North, as long as the
Poudre River riparian areas are protected and expanded over time.
Do you think that a roundabout would help with this? 2 million dollars is a lot of money – if
spending the money allows for more infrastructure to be built on the North side of Jefferson, and
creates an opportunity to grow downtown and taxes, negating this one time cost for a roundabout
(which is also safer than a traditional intersection), do you think it would it be worth it?
David Roy
2016 Evergreen Court
Fort Collins CO 80521
From: Debra Unger On Behalf Of Darin Atteberry
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 11:14 AM
To: Karen Cumbo; Kathleen Bracke
Subject: FW: Roundabout
Fyi . . .
D
Darin Atteberry, ICMA-CM / AICP
City Manager
Fort Collins, CO
From: Gerry Horak
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 2:41 PM
To: David Roy
Cc: Darin Atteberry
Subject: RE: Roundabout
David
As always thanks for your email, voice and all the work you have done and still continue to do. The
roundabout is marginally safer and is not being recommended for that reason. I think the intersection
improvements and the improvements along Jefferson will have the same positive effects NE of Jefferson
as the roundabout and the Jefferson Street improvements. So the extra $2 million in my opinion is not
for that area nor will it help - if anything I think it will hurt. It will be hard to cross the streets near the
roundabout.
Thanks
Gerry
From: David Roy [david.roy@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 6:10 PM
To: Gerry Horak
Cc: Darin Atteberry
Subject: Roundabout
Good evening, Gerry;
Hope that you are having a great day. Question; I saw your quotes this afternoon on line about
the proposed roundabout at Jefferson and Mountain.
In principle, I support working to extend Downtown across Jefferson to the North, as long as the
Poudre River riparian areas are protected and expanded over time.
Do you think that a roundabout would help with this? 2 million dollars is a lot of money – if
spending the money allows for more infrastructure to be built on the North side of Jefferson, and
creates an opportunity to grow downtown and taxes, negating this one time cost for a roundabout
(which is also safer than a traditional intersection), do you think it would it be worth it?
David Roy
2016 Evergreen Court
Fort Collins CO 80521
From: Debra Unger On Behalf Of Darin Atteberry
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 11:14 AM
To: Karen Cumbo; Kathleen Bracke
Subject: FW: Roundabout
Fyi . . .
D
Darin Atteberry, ICMA-CM / AICP
City Manager
Fort Collins, CO
From: Gerry Horak
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 2:41 PM
To: David Roy
Cc: Darin Atteberry
Subject: RE: Roundabout
David
As always thanks for your email, voice and all the work you have done and still continue to do. The
roundabout is marginally safer and is not being recommended for that reason. I think the intersection
improvements and the improvements along Jefferson will have the same positive effects NE of Jefferson
as the roundabout and the Jefferson Street improvements. So the extra $2 million in my opinion is not
for that area nor will it help - if anything I think it will hurt. It will be hard to cross the streets near the
roundabout.
Thanks
Gerry
From: David Roy [david.roy@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 6:10 PM
To: Gerry Horak
Cc: Darin Atteberry
Subject: Roundabout
Good evening, Gerry;
Hope that you are having a great day. Question; I saw your quotes this afternoon on line about
the proposed roundabout at Jefferson and Mountain.
In principle, I support working to extend Downtown across Jefferson to the North, as long as the
Poudre River riparian areas are protected and expanded over time.
Do you think that a roundabout would help with this? 2 million dollars is a lot of money – if
spending the money allows for more infrastructure to be built on the North side of Jefferson, and
creates an opportunity to grow downtown and taxes, negating this one time cost for a roundabout
(which is also safer than a traditional intersection), do you think it would it be worth it?
David Roy
2016 Evergreen Court
Fort Collins CO 80521
From: Debra Unger On Behalf Of Darin Atteberry
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 11:14 AM
To: Karen Cumbo; Kathleen Bracke
Subject: FW: Roundabout
Fyi . . .
D
Darin Atteberry, ICMA-CM / AICP
City Manager
Fort Collins, CO
From: Gerry Horak
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 2:41 PM
To: David Roy
Cc: Darin Atteberry
Subject: RE: Roundabout
David
As always thanks for your email, voice and all the work you have done and still continue to do. The
roundabout is marginally safer and is not being recommended for that reason. I think the intersection
improvements and the improvements along Jefferson will have the same positive effects NE of Jefferson
as the roundabout and the Jefferson Street improvements. So the extra $2 million in my opinion is not
for that area nor will it help - if anything I think it will hurt. It will be hard to cross the streets near the
roundabout.
Thanks
Gerry
From: David Roy [david.roy@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 6:10 PM
To: Gerry Horak
Cc: Darin Atteberry
Subject: Roundabout
Good evening, Gerry;
Hope that you are having a great day. Question; I saw your quotes this afternoon on line about
the proposed roundabout at Jefferson and Mountain.
In principle, I support working to extend Downtown across Jefferson to the North, as long as the
Poudre River riparian areas are protected and expanded over time.
Do you think that a roundabout would help with this? 2 million dollars is a lot of money – if
spending the money allows for more infrastructure to be built on the North side of Jefferson, and
creates an opportunity to grow downtown and taxes, negating this one time cost for a roundabout
(which is also safer than a traditional intersection), do you think it would it be worth it?
David Roy
2016 Evergreen Court
Fort Collins CO 80521
From: Debra Unger On Behalf Of Darin Atteberry
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 11:14 AM
To: Karen Cumbo; Kathleen Bracke
Subject: FW: Roundabout
Fyi . . .
D
Darin Atteberry, ICMA-CM / AICP
City Manager
Fort Collins, CO
From: Gerry Horak
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 2:41 PM
To: David Roy
Cc: Darin Atteberry
Subject: RE: Roundabout
David
As always thanks for your email, voice and all the work you have done and still continue to do. The
roundabout is marginally safer and is not being recommended for that reason. I think the intersection
improvements and the improvements along Jefferson will have the same positive effects NE of Jefferson
as the roundabout and the Jefferson Street improvements. So the extra $2 million in my opinion is not
for that area nor will it help - if anything I think it will hurt. It will be hard to cross the streets near the
roundabout.
Thanks
Gerry
From: David Roy [david.roy@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 6:10 PM
To: Gerry Horak
Cc: Darin Atteberry
Subject: Roundabout
Good evening, Gerry;
Hope that you are having a great day. Question; I saw your quotes this afternoon on line about
the proposed roundabout at Jefferson and Mountain.
In principle, I support working to extend Downtown across Jefferson to the North, as long as the
Poudre River riparian areas are protected and expanded over time.
Do you think that a roundabout would help with this? 2 million dollars is a lot of money – if
spending the money allows for more infrastructure to be built on the North side of Jefferson, and
creates an opportunity to grow downtown and taxes, negating this one time cost for a roundabout
(which is also safer than a traditional intersection), do you think it would it be worth it?
David Roy
2016 Evergreen Court
Fort Collins CO 80521
From: Debra Unger On Behalf Of Darin Atteberry
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 11:14 AM
To: Karen Cumbo; Kathleen Bracke
Subject: FW: Roundabout
Fyi . . .
D
Darin Atteberry, ICMA-CM / AICP
City Manager
Fort Collins, CO
From: Gerry Horak
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 2:41 PM
To: David Roy
Cc: Darin Atteberry
Subject: RE: Roundabout
David
As always thanks for your email, voice and all the work you have done and still continue to do. The
roundabout is marginally safer and is not being recommended for that reason. I think the intersection
improvements and the improvements along Jefferson will have the same positive effects NE of Jefferson
as the roundabout and the Jefferson Street improvements. So the extra $2 million in my opinion is not
for that area nor will it help - if anything I think it will hurt. It will be hard to cross the streets near the
roundabout.
Thanks
Gerry
From: David Roy [david.roy@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 6:10 PM
To: Gerry Horak
Cc: Darin Atteberry
Subject: Roundabout
Good evening, Gerry;
Hope that you are having a great day. Question; I saw your quotes this afternoon on line about
the proposed roundabout at Jefferson and Mountain.
In principle, I support working to extend Downtown across Jefferson to the North, as long as the
Poudre River riparian areas are protected and expanded over time.
Do you think that a roundabout would help with this? 2 million dollars is a lot of money – if
spending the money allows for more infrastructure to be built on the North side of Jefferson, and
creates an opportunity to grow downtown and taxes, negating this one time cost for a roundabout
(which is also safer than a traditional intersection), do you think it would it be worth it?
David Roy
2016 Evergreen Court
Fort Collins CO 80521
From: Debra Unger On Behalf Of Darin Atteberry
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 11:14 AM
To: Karen Cumbo; Kathleen Bracke
Subject: FW: Roundabout
Fyi . . .
D
Darin Atteberry, ICMA-CM / AICP
City Manager
Fort Collins, CO
From: Gerry Horak
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 2:41 PM
To: David Roy
Cc: Darin Atteberry
Subject: RE: Roundabout
David
As always thanks for your email, voice and all the work you have done and still continue to do. The
roundabout is marginally safer and is not being recommended for that reason. I think the intersection
improvements and the improvements along Jefferson will have the same positive effects NE of Jefferson
as the roundabout and the Jefferson Street improvements. So the extra $2 million in my opinion is not
for that area nor will it help - if anything I think it will hurt. It will be hard to cross the streets near the
roundabout.
Thanks
Gerry
From: David Roy [david.roy@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 6:10 PM
To: Gerry Horak
Cc: Darin Atteberry
Subject: Roundabout
Good evening, Gerry;
Hope that you are having a great day. Question; I saw your quotes this afternoon on line about
the proposed roundabout at Jefferson and Mountain.
In principle, I support working to extend Downtown across Jefferson to the North, as long as the
Poudre River riparian areas are protected and expanded over time.
Do you think that a roundabout would help with this? 2 million dollars is a lot of money – if
spending the money allows for more infrastructure to be built on the North side of Jefferson, and
creates an opportunity to grow downtown and taxes, negating this one time cost for a roundabout
(which is also safer than a traditional intersection), do you think it would it be worth it?
David Roy
2016 Evergreen Court
Fort Collins CO 80521
From: Debra Unger On Behalf Of Darin Atteberry
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 11:14 AM
To: Karen Cumbo; Kathleen Bracke
Subject: FW: Roundabout
Fyi . . .
D
Darin Atteberry, ICMA-CM / AICP
City Manager
Fort Collins, CO
From: Gerry Horak
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 2:41 PM
To: David Roy
Cc: Darin Atteberry
Subject: RE: Roundabout
David
As always thanks for your email, voice and all the work you have done and still continue to do. The
roundabout is marginally safer and is not being recommended for that reason. I think the intersection
improvements and the improvements along Jefferson will have the same positive effects NE of Jefferson
as the roundabout and the Jefferson Street improvements. So the extra $2 million in my opinion is not
for that area nor will it help - if anything I think it will hurt. It will be hard to cross the streets near the
roundabout.
Thanks
Gerry
From: David Roy [david.roy@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 6:10 PM
To: Gerry Horak
Cc: Darin Atteberry
Subject: Roundabout
Good evening, Gerry;
Hope that you are having a great day. Question; I saw your quotes this afternoon on line about
the proposed roundabout at Jefferson and Mountain.
In principle, I support working to extend Downtown across Jefferson to the North, as long as the
Poudre River riparian areas are protected and expanded over time.
Do you think that a roundabout would help with this? 2 million dollars is a lot of money – if
spending the money allows for more infrastructure to be built on the North side of Jefferson, and
creates an opportunity to grow downtown and taxes, negating this one time cost for a roundabout
(which is also safer than a traditional intersection), do you think it would it be worth it?
David Roy
2016 Evergreen Court
Fort Collins CO 80521
From: Debra Unger On Behalf Of Darin Atteberry
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 11:14 AM
To: Karen Cumbo; Kathleen Bracke
Subject: FW: Roundabout
Fyi . . .
D
Darin Atteberry, ICMA-CM / AICP
City Manager
Fort Collins, CO
From: Gerry Horak
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 2:41 PM
To: David Roy
Cc: Darin Atteberry
Subject: RE: Roundabout
David
As always thanks for your email, voice and all the work you have done and still continue to do. The
roundabout is marginally safer and is not being recommended for that reason. I think the intersection
improvements and the improvements along Jefferson will have the same positive effects NE of Jefferson
as the roundabout and the Jefferson Street improvements. So the extra $2 million in my opinion is not
for that area nor will it help - if anything I think it will hurt. It will be hard to cross the streets near the
roundabout.
Thanks
Gerry
From: David Roy [david.roy@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 6:10 PM
To: Gerry Horak
Cc: Darin Atteberry
Subject: Roundabout
Good evening, Gerry;
Hope that you are having a great day. Question; I saw your quotes this afternoon on line about
the proposed roundabout at Jefferson and Mountain.
In principle, I support working to extend Downtown across Jefferson to the North, as long as the
Poudre River riparian areas are protected and expanded over time.
Do you think that a roundabout would help with this? 2 million dollars is a lot of money – if
spending the money allows for more infrastructure to be built on the North side of Jefferson, and
creates an opportunity to grow downtown and taxes, negating this one time cost for a roundabout
(which is also safer than a traditional intersection), do you think it would it be worth it?
David Roy
2016 Evergreen Court
Fort Collins CO 80521
From: Debra Unger On Behalf Of Darin Atteberry
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 11:14 AM
To: Karen Cumbo; Kathleen Bracke
Subject: FW: Roundabout
Fyi . . .
D
Darin Atteberry, ICMA-CM / AICP
City Manager
Fort Collins, CO
From: Gerry Horak
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 2:41 PM
To: David Roy
Cc: Darin Atteberry
Subject: RE: Roundabout
David
As always thanks for your email, voice and all the work you have done and still continue to do. The
roundabout is marginally safer and is not being recommended for that reason. I think the intersection
improvements and the improvements along Jefferson will have the same positive effects NE of Jefferson
as the roundabout and the Jefferson Street improvements. So the extra $2 million in my opinion is not
for that area nor will it help - if anything I think it will hurt. It will be hard to cross the streets near the
roundabout.
Thanks
Gerry
From: David Roy [david.roy@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 6:10 PM
To: Gerry Horak
Cc: Darin Atteberry
Subject: Roundabout
Good evening, Gerry;
Hope that you are having a great day. Question; I saw your quotes this afternoon on line about
the proposed roundabout at Jefferson and Mountain.
In principle, I support working to extend Downtown across Jefferson to the North, as long as the
Poudre River riparian areas are protected and expanded over time.
Do you think that a roundabout would help with this? 2 million dollars is a lot of money – if
spending the money allows for more infrastructure to be built on the North side of Jefferson, and
creates an opportunity to grow downtown and taxes, negating this one time cost for a roundabout
(which is also safer than a traditional intersection), do you think it would it be worth it?
David Roy
2016 Evergreen Court
Fort Collins CO 80521
From: Debra Unger On Behalf Of Darin Atteberry
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 11:14 AM
To: Karen Cumbo; Kathleen Bracke
Subject: FW: Roundabout
Fyi . . .
D
Darin Atteberry, ICMA-CM / AICP
City Manager
Fort Collins, CO
From: Gerry Horak
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 2:41 PM
To: David Roy
Cc: Darin Atteberry
Subject: RE: Roundabout
David
As always thanks for your email, voice and all the work you have done and still continue to do. The
roundabout is marginally safer and is not being recommended for that reason. I think the intersection
improvements and the improvements along Jefferson will have the same positive effects NE of Jefferson
as the roundabout and the Jefferson Street improvements. So the extra $2 million in my opinion is not
for that area nor will it help - if anything I think it will hurt. It will be hard to cross the streets near the
roundabout.
Thanks
Gerry
From: David Roy [david.roy@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 6:10 PM
To: Gerry Horak
Cc: Darin Atteberry
Subject: Roundabout
Good evening, Gerry;
Hope that you are having a great day. Question; I saw your quotes this afternoon on line about
the proposed roundabout at Jefferson and Mountain.
In principle, I support working to extend Downtown across Jefferson to the North, as long as the
Poudre River riparian areas are protected and expanded over time.
Do you think that a roundabout would help with this? 2 million dollars is a lot of money – if
spending the money allows for more infrastructure to be built on the North side of Jefferson, and
creates an opportunity to grow downtown and taxes, negating this one time cost for a roundabout
(which is also safer than a traditional intersection), do you think it would it be worth it?
David Roy
2016 Evergreen Court
Fort Collins CO 80521
From: Debra Unger On Behalf Of Darin Atteberry
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 11:14 AM
To: Karen Cumbo; Kathleen Bracke
Subject: FW: Roundabout
Fyi . . .
D
Darin Atteberry, ICMA-CM / AICP
City Manager
Fort Collins, CO
From: Gerry Horak
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 2:41 PM
To: David Roy
Cc: Darin Atteberry
Subject: RE: Roundabout
David
As always thanks for your email, voice and all the work you have done and still continue to do. The
roundabout is marginally safer and is not being recommended for that reason. I think the intersection
improvements and the improvements along Jefferson will have the same positive effects NE of Jefferson
as the roundabout and the Jefferson Street improvements. So the extra $2 million in my opinion is not
for that area nor will it help - if anything I think it will hurt. It will be hard to cross the streets near the
roundabout.
Thanks
Gerry
From: David Roy [david.roy@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 6:10 PM
To: Gerry Horak
Cc: Darin Atteberry
Subject: Roundabout
Good evening, Gerry;
Hope that you are having a great day. Question; I saw your quotes this afternoon on line about
the proposed roundabout at Jefferson and Mountain.
In principle, I support working to extend Downtown across Jefferson to the North, as long as the
Poudre River riparian areas are protected and expanded over time.
Do you think that a roundabout would help with this? 2 million dollars is a lot of money – if
spending the money allows for more infrastructure to be built on the North side of Jefferson, and
creates an opportunity to grow downtown and taxes, negating this one time cost for a roundabout
(which is also safer than a traditional intersection), do you think it would it be worth it?
David Roy
2016 Evergreen Court
Fort Collins CO 80521
From: Debra Unger On Behalf Of Darin Atteberry
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 11:14 AM
To: Karen Cumbo; Kathleen Bracke
Subject: FW: Roundabout
Fyi . . .
D
Darin Atteberry, ICMA-CM / AICP
City Manager
Fort Collins, CO
From: Gerry Horak
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 2:41 PM
To: David Roy
Cc: Darin Atteberry
Subject: RE: Roundabout
David
As always thanks for your email, voice and all the work you have done and still continue to do. The
roundabout is marginally safer and is not being recommended for that reason. I think the intersection
improvements and the improvements along Jefferson will have the same positive effects NE of Jefferson
as the roundabout and the Jefferson Street improvements. So the extra $2 million in my opinion is not
for that area nor will it help - if anything I think it will hurt. It will be hard to cross the streets near the
roundabout.
Thanks
Gerry
From: David Roy [david.roy@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 6:10 PM
To: Gerry Horak
Cc: Darin Atteberry
Subject: Roundabout
Good evening, Gerry;
Hope that you are having a great day. Question; I saw your quotes this afternoon on line about
the proposed roundabout at Jefferson and Mountain.
In principle, I support working to extend Downtown across Jefferson to the North, as long as the
Poudre River riparian areas are protected and expanded over time.
Do you think that a roundabout would help with this? 2 million dollars is a lot of money – if
spending the money allows for more infrastructure to be built on the North side of Jefferson, and
creates an opportunity to grow downtown and taxes, negating this one time cost for a roundabout
(which is also safer than a traditional intersection), do you think it would it be worth it?
David Roy
2016 Evergreen Court
Fort Collins CO 80521
From: Debra Unger On Behalf Of Darin Atteberry
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 11:14 AM
To: Karen Cumbo; Kathleen Bracke
Subject: FW: Roundabout
Fyi . . .
D
Darin Atteberry, ICMA-CM / AICP
City Manager
Fort Collins, CO
From: Gerry Horak
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 2:41 PM
To: David Roy
Cc: Darin Atteberry
Subject: RE: Roundabout
David
As always thanks for your email, voice and all the work you have done and still continue to do. The
roundabout is marginally safer and is not being recommended for that reason. I think the intersection
improvements and the improvements along Jefferson will have the same positive effects NE of Jefferson
as the roundabout and the Jefferson Street improvements. So the extra $2 million in my opinion is not
for that area nor will it help - if anything I think it will hurt. It will be hard to cross the streets near the
roundabout.
Thanks
Gerry
From: David Roy [david.roy@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 6:10 PM
To: Gerry Horak
Cc: Darin Atteberry
Subject: Roundabout
Good evening, Gerry;
Hope that you are having a great day. Question; I saw your quotes this afternoon on line about
the proposed roundabout at Jefferson and Mountain.
In principle, I support working to extend Downtown across Jefferson to the North, as long as the
Poudre River riparian areas are protected and expanded over time.
Do you think that a roundabout would help with this? 2 million dollars is a lot of money – if
spending the money allows for more infrastructure to be built on the North side of Jefferson, and
creates an opportunity to grow downtown and taxes, negating this one time cost for a roundabout
(which is also safer than a traditional intersection), do you think it would it be worth it?
David Roy
2016 Evergreen Court
Fort Collins CO 80521
From: Debra Unger On Behalf Of Darin Atteberry
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 11:14 AM
To: Karen Cumbo; Kathleen Bracke
Subject: FW: Roundabout
Fyi . . .
D
Darin Atteberry, ICMA-CM / AICP
City Manager
Fort Collins, CO
From: Gerry Horak
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 2:41 PM
To: David Roy
Cc: Darin Atteberry
Subject: RE: Roundabout
David
As always thanks for your email, voice and all the work you have done and still continue to do. The
roundabout is marginally safer and is not being recommended for that reason. I think the intersection
improvements and the improvements along Jefferson will have the same positive effects NE of Jefferson
as the roundabout and the Jefferson Street improvements. So the extra $2 million in my opinion is not
for that area nor will it help - if anything I think it will hurt. It will be hard to cross the streets near the
roundabout.
Thanks
Gerry
From: David Roy [david.roy@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 6:10 PM
To: Gerry Horak
Cc: Darin Atteberry
Subject: Roundabout
Good evening, Gerry;
Hope that you are having a great day. Question; I saw your quotes this afternoon on line about
the proposed roundabout at Jefferson and Mountain.
In principle, I support working to extend Downtown across Jefferson to the North, as long as the
Poudre River riparian areas are protected and expanded over time.
Do you think that a roundabout would help with this? 2 million dollars is a lot of money – if
spending the money allows for more infrastructure to be built on the North side of Jefferson, and
creates an opportunity to grow downtown and taxes, negating this one time cost for a roundabout
(which is also safer than a traditional intersection), do you think it would it be worth it?
David Roy
2016 Evergreen Court
Fort Collins CO 80521
From: Debra Unger On Behalf Of Darin Atteberry
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 11:14 AM
To: Karen Cumbo; Kathleen Bracke
Subject: FW: Roundabout
Fyi . . .
D
Darin Atteberry, ICMA-CM / AICP
City Manager
Fort Collins, CO
From: Gerry Horak
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 2:41 PM
To: David Roy
Cc: Darin Atteberry
Subject: RE: Roundabout
David
As always thanks for your email, voice and all the work you have done and still continue to do. The
roundabout is marginally safer and is not being recommended for that reason. I think the intersection
improvements and the improvements along Jefferson will have the same positive effects NE of Jefferson
as the roundabout and the Jefferson Street improvements. So the extra $2 million in my opinion is not
for that area nor will it help - if anything I think it will hurt. It will be hard to cross the streets near the
roundabout.
Thanks
Gerry
From: David Roy [david.roy@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 6:10 PM
To: Gerry Horak
Cc: Darin Atteberry
Subject: Roundabout
Good evening, Gerry;
Hope that you are having a great day. Question; I saw your quotes this afternoon on line about
the proposed roundabout at Jefferson and Mountain.
In principle, I support working to extend Downtown across Jefferson to the North, as long as the
Poudre River riparian areas are protected and expanded over time.
Do you think that a roundabout would help with this? 2 million dollars is a lot of money – if
spending the money allows for more infrastructure to be built on the North side of Jefferson, and
creates an opportunity to grow downtown and taxes, negating this one time cost for a roundabout
(which is also safer than a traditional intersection), do you think it would it be worth it?
David Roy
2016 Evergreen Court
Fort Collins CO 80521
1
1
JEFFERSON STREET PROJECT
Seeking City Council approval of the following:
– Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Final Report
– Revisions to the State Highway 14 Access Management Plan
– Direct staff to update the Capital Improvement Plan
– Pursue entering a new IGA with CDOT related to the Jefferson
Street recommended improvements
2
JEFFERSON STREET PROJECT
Overview
• Why improve Jefferson Street?
• What is included and who is involved?
• What are staff recommendations?
– Corridor
– Intersection
• When will improvements begin?
• How much will this cost and who’s paying?
• Next Steps
ATTACHMENT 4
2
3
JEFFERSON STREET PROJECT
Why improve Jefferson Street?
Goal 1 - Maintain or improve safe and efficient
travel along Jefferson Street.
Goal 2 - Enhance the corridor's urban character
and vitality, creating an inviting place for
pedestrians and revitalization.
Goal 3 - Improve Jefferson Street in a manner
that is consistent with environmental and social
values.
4
JEFFERSON STREET PROJECT
What is included?
3
5
JEFFERSON STREET PROJECT
Who was involved?
– City of Fort Collins (City)
– Downtown Development Authority (DDA)
– Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT)
– Public and Jefferson Street Stakeholders
– North Front Range Metropolitan Planning
Organization
– Larimer County
– Union Pacific Railroad
– Trucking Industry
6
JEFFERSON STREET PROJECT
Alternative Analysis Study Process
– Reviewed Existing Conditions and Characteristics
• Parking
• Railroad
• Traffic
• Safety
• Future Conditions
– Developed Alternatives
• Comparative Screening
• Collaborative Decision Making
• Stakeholder and Public Involvement
– Developed Recommended Alternatives
• Corridor
• Intersections
4
7
JEFFERSON STREET PROJECT
What is the recommended corridor
alternative?
8
JEFFERSON STREET PROJECT
Pine St.
Linden St.
Chestnut St.
Lincoln Ave. Mountain Ave.
College Ave.
3-Lane: With Medians
5
9
JEFFERSON STREET PROJECT
What are the recommended
intersection alternatives?
10
JEFFERSON STREET PROJECT
Keep left turn lanes
Jefferson & Linden Intersection
Linden St.
6
11
JEFFERSON STREET PROJECT
Improve the Signalized Intersection
Jefferson
Lincoln
Riverside
Mountain
= Landscape Area
= Pavers or Colored Concrete
= Landscape Area
= Pavers or Colored Concrete
Jefferson & Mountain/Lincoln Intersection
12
JEFFERSON STREET PROJECT
Pine St.
Linden St.
Chestnut St.
Mountain Ave.
How Much $?
$ 2.2 million $ 2.3 million
$ 2.7 million
College Ave.
Total project = $7.2 million
7
13
JEFFERSON STREET PROJECT
When?
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015+
Study
Start
Alternatives
Development
Study
Complete
Engineering for
Preferred Alternative
Construction*
*Depends on funding and
coordination with utilities project
14
JEFFERSON STREET PROJECT
Seeking City Council approval of the following:
– Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Final Report
– Revisions to the State Highway 14 Access
Management Plan
– Direct staff to update the Capital Improvement Plan
– Pursue entering a new IGA with CDOT related to the
Jefferson Street recommended improvements
8
15
JEFFERSON STREET PROJECT
For more information:
Kathleen Bracke,
Transportation Planning & Special Projects Director
kbracke@fcgov.com or ph: 224-6140
Aaron Iverson, Senior Transportation Planner
aiverson@fcgov.com or ph: 416-2643
Project website:
http://www.fcgov.com/riverdistrict/jefferson.php
16
JEFFERSON STREET PROJECT
Review of Staff Recommendations
• Corridor:
– 3-Lane with full median
• Intersection of Jefferson / Linden:
– Keep left turns
• Intersection of Jefferson/Mtn/Lincoln/Riverside:
– Improved signalized intersection
9
17
JEFFERSON STREET PROJECT
Public Outreach
• Public Open Houses (most recent held on May 30th)
• Business Outreach
• Electronic Newsletters
• Presentations to Boards, Commissions and other
Groups
– Consistently strong support and feedback on the
3-lane option
– Mixed feedback on the intersection alternatives
RESOLUTION 2012-043
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
APPROVING THE JEFFERSON STREET ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS STUDY,
AUTHORIZING REVISIONS TO THE JEFFERSON STREET/SH14 ACCESS
MANAGEMENT PLAN AND EXISTING INTERGOVERNMENTAL
AGREEMENT, DIRECTING STAFF TO UPDATE THE CITY’S
TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
AND DIRECTING STAFF TO PURSUE A NEW INTERGOVERNMENTAL
AGREEMENT WITH THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
WHEREAS, the Jefferson Street/SH14 Alternatives Analysis Study (the “Study”) is a joint
effort of the City, the Downtown Development Authority, and the Colorado Department of
Transportation (“CDOT”), which Study sets out a plan for the development and evaluation of design
options for the Jefferson Street/SH14 corridor, including the intersection of Jefferson Street and
Mountain Avenue/Lincoln Avenue as well as the intersection of Jefferson Street and Linden Street;
and
WHEREAS, the Study includes the development and evaluation of various options such as
a traditional roadway and intersection design, roundabouts, and other innovative, context-sensitive
design solutions based upon local, state and national best practices; and
WHEREAS, in response to concerns raised by community stakeholders and partnering
agencies, City staff has revised its recommendation for the proposed intersection improvements at
the intersection of Jefferson Street and Mountain Avenue/Lincoln Street to recommend
improvements to the existing signalized intersection rather than the establishment of a roundabout
as previously recommended; and
WHEREAS, City staff continues to recommend reconfiguring Jefferson Street from the
existing four-lane street to a three-lane street with landscaped medians, on-street parking, pedestrian
streetscape and urban design features, extending from North College Avenue to Mountain Avenue;
and
WHEREAS, the three-lane corridor alternative is acceptable to City staff and to CDOT, the
Downtown Development Authority, and Larimer County, and has strong support from the
community, and is also supported by the Transportation Board, the Planning and Zoning Board, and
the Economic Advisory Commission and, accordingly, is determined by the City Council to be in
the best interest of the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Study, attached hereto as
Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference is hereby approved.
Section 2. That the revisions to the Jefferson Street/SH14 Access Management Plan and
existing intergovernmental agreement with CDOT to reflect the three-lane corridor alternative with
raised, landscaped medians and on-street parking for Jefferson Street/SH14 attached hereto as
Exhibit “B” and incorporated herein by this reference is hereby approved.
Section 3. That City staff is directed to update the City’s Transportation Master Plan
Capital Improvement Plan to include the Jefferson Street corridor and intersection improvements
as shown on Exhibit “B”.
Section 4. That City staff is authorized to pursue the negotiation and execution of a new
intergovernmental agreement with CDOT in order to implement the recommended three-lane
corridor improvements as shown on Exhibit “B”, which intergovernmental agreement should include
specific performance measures for monitoring the Jefferson Street/SH14 corridor before and after
physical improvements are constructed and should identify interagency responsibilities for
addressing any concerns and/or potential changes that may be needed.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 5th
day of June, A.D. 2012.
Mayor
ATTEST:
Interim City Clerk
JEFFERSON STREET ALTERNATIVES
ANALYSIS PROJECT
SUMMARY REPORT
Prepared For:
In Cooperation with:
Prepared By:
FINAL REPORT – JUNE 5, 2012
Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project Summary Report
Page ii June 2012
PROJECT TEAM MEMBERS AND AGENCY PARTNERS
Project Managers
Kathleen Bracke, City of Fort Collins Transportation Planning
Aaron Iverson, City of Fort Collins Transportation Planning
Executive Oversight Committee
Karen Cumbo, City of Fort Collins, Planning, Development, and Transportation Service (PDT)
Susan Grabler, David Evans and Associates (Representing the Union Pacific Railroad)
Carl Maxey, Colorado Motor Carriers Association
Matt Robenalt, Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority
Ina Zisman, Colorado Department of Transportation
Technical Advisory Committee
Mark Connelly, Colorado Department of Transportation
Carl Glaser, Jefferson Street Business Owner
Susan Grabler, David Evans and Associates (Representing the Union Pacific Railroad)
Dean Klingner, City of Fort Collins Engineering
Joe Olson, City of Fort Collins Traffic Operations
Matt Robenalt, Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority
Tim Tuttle, Colorado Department of Transportation
Martina Wilkinson, Larimer County
City Council
Karen Weitkunat, Mayor
Kelly Ohlson, Mayor Pro Tem, District 5
Ben Manvel, Councilmember, District 1
Lisa Poppaw, Councilmember, District 2
Aislinn Kottwitz, Councilmember, District 3
Wade Troxell, Councilmember, District 4
Gerry Horak, Councilmember, District 6
Transportation Board
Garry Steen, Chair
Ed Robert, Vice Chair
Mary Atchison
Olga Duval
Pat Jordan
Sid Simonson
Keven O'Toole
Shane Miller
Clint Skutchan
Sara Frazier
Summary Report Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project
June 2012 Page iii
Downtown Development Authority
Wynne Odell, Chair
Jerry Kennell, Vice Chair
George Brelig
Ellen Zibell
Cheryl Zimlich
Janet Bramhall
Kelly Ohlson
Steve Johnson
McCabe Callahan
Patty Spencer
Consultant Team
Jeff Kullman, ATKINS
Carrie Wallis, ATKINS
Dan Liddle, ATKINS
Kelly Leadbetter, ATKINS
Ourston Roundabout Engineering
David Evans and Associates
Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project Summary Report
Page iv June 2012
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................................................... 1
BACKGROUND ...........................................................................................................................................2
INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................................................3
Previous planning documents ......................................................................................................................... 4
COLLABORATIVE DECISION MAKING AND STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT ..................................................5
Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats ...................................................................................... 5
SWOT Findings .............................................................................................................................................. 6
Committee Structure and Project Organization.............................................................................................. 8
Executive Oversight Committee.................................................................................................................... 9
Technical Advisory Committee.................................................................................................................... 11
Project Management Team......................................................................................................................... 11
Stakeholder and Public Involvement............................................................................................................. 11
Stakeholder Coordination ........................................................................................................................... 11
Business and Property Owner Meetings..................................................................................................... 11
Public Meetings........................................................................................................................................... 11
City Council and Board Meetings ................................................................................................................ 12
EXISTING CONDITIONS AND CHARACTERISTICS........................................................................................ 13
Characteristics of the Corridor ...................................................................................................................... 13
Parking......................................................................................................................................................... 15
Railroad ....................................................................................................................................................... 15
Traffic Characteristics .................................................................................................................................... 18
Existing Operating Conditions..................................................................................................................... 18
Safety........................................................................................................................................................... 20
Future (2035) Traffic Conditions.................................................................................................................... 21
2035 No Action Operations......................................................................................................................... 23
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED.................................................................................................................... 25
Purpose Statement, Goals, and Objectives ................................................................................................... 25
Alternative Development .............................................................................................................................. 25
Initial Screening ............................................................................................................................................. 26
Traffic Operations........................................................................................................................................ 29
On‐Street Parking........................................................................................................................................ 29
Bicycle Facilities........................................................................................................................................... 29
Median ........................................................................................................................................................ 30
Safety........................................................................................................................................................... 30
Air Quality.................................................................................................................................................... 30
Summary Report Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project
June 2012 Page v
Urban Design (Landscaping and Aesthetics)............................................................................................... 30
Pedestrians.................................................................................................................................................. 30
Transit.......................................................................................................................................................... 31
Trucks .......................................................................................................................................................... 31
Implementability ......................................................................................................................................... 31
Comparative Screening.................................................................................................................................. 31
Corridor Alternatives ..................................................................................................................................... 32
3‐Lane Alternatives ..................................................................................................................................... 32
4‐Lane Alternatives ..................................................................................................................................... 32
Combination 3 and 4‐Lane Alternatives...................................................................................................... 32
No Action Alternative.................................................................................................................................. 32
Corridor Air Quality Benefits....................................................................................................................... 33
Off‐street Parking Opportunities................................................................................................................... 35
Intersection Alternatives ............................................................................................................................... 36
Linden Street ............................................................................................................................................... 36
Mountain/Lincoln Avenue........................................................................................................................... 36
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE................................................................................................................ 45
Cost of Recommended Alternative: .............................................................................................................. 47
IMPLEMENTATION AND NEXT STEPS ....................................................................................................... 48
June 2012....................................................................................................................................................... 48
Mid 2012 – 2014............................................................................................................................................ 48
2015+ ............................................................................................................................................................. 48
SUMMARY............................................................................................................................................... 50
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1: Project Area........................................................................................................................................ 3
Exhibit 2: Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats......................................................................... 5
Exhibit 3: Committee Structure and Project Organization ................................................................................ 8
Exhibit 4: EOC Meetings and Decisions............................................................................................................10
Exhibit 5: Existing Typical Section ....................................................................................................................14
Exhibit 6: Jefferson Street Area Parking...........................................................................................................16
Exhibit 7: Fort Collins Railroads........................................................................................................................17
Exhibit 8: Existing Jefferson Street Intersection Level of Service ....................................................................19
Exhibit 9: Existing Jefferson Street Mainline Level of Service..........................................................................20
Exhibit 10: Summary of Accident Data.............................................................................................................21
Exhibit 11: Traffic Forecast Comparison ..........................................................................................................22
Exhibit 12: 2035 No Action Jefferson Street Intersection Level of Service......................................................23
Exhibit 13: 2035 Existing and 2035 Jefferson Street Volumes and Intersection Level of Service ...................24
Exhibit 14: Two‐Lane Alternatives....................................................................................................................27
Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project Summary Report
Page vi June 2012
Exhibit 15: Three‐Lane Alternatives.................................................................................................................28
Exhibit 16: Four‐Lane Alternatives...................................................................................................................29
Exhibit 17: Annual Emissions Reduction Comparison Including Bike, Pedestrian and Transit........................33
Exhibit 18: Corridor Alternative Comparison Matrix .......................................................................................34
Exhibit 19: Off‐street Parking Opportunities ...................................................................................................35
Exhibit 20: Intersection Alternative Comparison Matrix .................................................................................36
Exhibit 21: Signalized Intersection Alternative ................................................................................................37
Exhibit 22: Roundabout Alternative (allows for northbound left turns for emergency vehicles at
Peterson/Mountain)......................................................................................................................................... 37
Exhibit 23: Signalized Bike and Pedestrian Movements ..................................................................................40
Exhibit 24: Roundabout Bike and Pedestrian Movements ..............................................................................40
Exhibit 25: Signalized Truck Movements .........................................................................................................41
Exhibit 26: Roundabout Truck Movements .....................................................................................................42
Exhibit 27: Simulation of Signalized Intersection at Jefferson Street/Mountain/Lincoln Avenue ..................46
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Previous Planning Documents
Appendix B Street Characteristics and Utility Information
Appendix C Alternatives Evaluated
Appendix D Plans for Recommended Alternative and Cost Estimates
Summary Report Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project
June 2012 Page 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Jefferson Street/SH14 Alternatives Analysis Study is a joint effort of the City of Fort Collins (City),
Downtown Development Authority (DDA), and the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). The
project team is supported by Atkins consultants. This Alternatives Analysis Study includes the development
and evaluation of a thorough set of design options for the Jefferson Street/SH14 corridor. The corridor
begins at College Avenue and extends along Jefferson Street and includes the Mountain Avenue/Riverside
Avenue/Lincoln Street, and Linden Street intersections.
The purpose of the Jefferson Street project is to improve the air quality, livability, and urban character of the
Jefferson Street Corridor while enhancing the experience for pedestrians, bikes, and transit and maintaining
mobility of autos and trucks.
The Jefferson Street/SH14 study process includes the development and evaluation of many options such as
traditional roadway and intersection designs, roundabouts and other innovative, context‐sensitive design
solutions based upon local, state, and national best‐practices.
The Study recommendations are based on extensive technical analysis of a wide range of corridor and
intersection alternatives, as well as input received through community engagement activities, and direction
from City Boards, Commissions, and City Council as well as partnering agencies such as the DDA, CDOT,
Larimer County and Colorado Motor Carriers Association (CMCA).
The study recommendations include a modified corridor configuration for Jefferson Street to a “3‐lane”
cross‐section, including three travel lanes, on‐street parking, streetscape improvements, and raised
landscaped medians. For the intersection recommendations, the study recommends maintaining the
existing left turn lanes at the intersection of Jefferson and Linden streets as well as enhancing the existing
signalized intersection at Jefferson and Mountain/Lincoln avenues. More detail is provided throughout this
report regarding the process behind these recommendations.
Design of the Jefferson Street improvements can move forward beginning in mid 2012 based upon approval
of the preferred alternative by City Council, DDA, and CDOT. Details of the corridor and intersection
engineering design will be further refined as the Jefferson Street project moves forward in accordance with
City and CDOT requirements and design standards. The schedule for construction of the Jefferson Street
corridor improvements will be based upon the approved preferred alternative and design/phasing plan as
well as the available funding.
Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project Summary Report
Page 2 June 2012
BACKGROUND
In accordance with the vision and goals of the Downtown River District Streetscape Improvement Project
that were adopted by the City and DDA in 2008, City and DDA staff set out to find resources to begin
implementation of the proposed improvements identified for the Downtown River District. City staff
secured Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) grant funding from CDOT and the North Front Range
Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO) to conduct the planning phase for Jefferson Street. The
CMAQ funding, in partnership with the City’s local matching funds and the DDA funds, provide for the
analysis of corridor and intersection improvements along Jefferson Street between College Avenue, the
intersection of Jefferson/Mountain Avenue, and the Mountain/Lincoln and Linden intersections.
This newly emerging Downtown River District is coming about through successful public and private
partnerships and economic development opportunities, celebrating the Downtown River District’s unique
past, present, and future. It is important for the local infrastructure with the District to be designed and
implemented in a high‐quality fashion to support existing land uses as well as the new infill and
redevelopment that will take place over time in accordance with City Plan and the Transportation Master
Plan.
The project budget is comprised of a combination of funding from the City ($250,000), DDA ($500,000), and
federal CMAQ funding ($1 Million). The study used approximately $455,000 of the project budget. The
remaining funding will be used to fund the next steps to implement the improvements as determined by
the study recommendation(s).
Design of the Jefferson Street improvements can continue to move forward beginning in mid 2012 based
upon approval of the corridor plan by City Council, DDA, and CDOT. Details of the corridor and intersection
engineering design will be further refined as the Jefferson Street project moves forward in accordance with
City and CDOT requirements and design standards. The schedule for construction of the Jefferson Street
corridor improvements will be based upon the approved preferred alternative and design/phasing plan as
well as the available budget.
Summary Report Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project
June 2012 Page 3
INTRODUCTION
The Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Study is a joint effort of the City, DDA, and CDOT. The Jefferson
Street corridor begins at North College Avenue and extends along Jefferson Street/State Highway (SH) 14,
including the intersection of Jefferson Street and Mountain/Lincoln Avenue, and the intersection of
Jefferson and Linden streets, as seen below in Exhibit 1.
Exhibit 1: Project Area
The Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis study began in May 2010 and builds upon prior Downtown River
District studies to provide a more in‐depth, technical analysis and design to address City, DDA, and CDOT
requirements. The study balances interests from different agencies and organizations including the City,
CDOT, DDA, Colorado Motor Carriers Association (CMCA), Larimer County, Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR),
local business/property owners, and the general public.
Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project Summary Report
Page 4 June 2012
The purpose of the Jefferson Street study is to improve the air quality, livability, and urban character of the
Jefferson Street Corridor while enhancing the experience for pedestrians, bikes, and transit as well as
maintaining mobility of autos and trucks. The study recognizes that there may be a variety of methods to
address future transportation demand and corridor capacity and therefore, the alternatives evaluated
examine various modes of travel and combinations of changes that would accommodate projected infill
and redevelopment as envisioned in City Plan.
The study includes the development and evaluation of a thorough set of design alternatives for the
Jefferson Street Corridor, including the intersection of Jefferson Street and Mountain/Lincoln Avenue, and
the intersection of Jefferson and Linden streets to address multimodal transportation improvements. The
project process included the development and evaluation of many options such as traditional roadway and
intersection designs, roundabouts, and other innovative, context‐sensitive solutions based upon local,
regional, and national best‐practices.
Previous planning documents
Adopted planning documents were used to document established visions, missions, and goals in and
around the project corridor. They also provide data and other insights that relate to social and physical
existing conditions including land use, safety, and parking. All plans that had goals and/or objectives and
included Jefferson Street in their study areas were incorporated into the development of this project. In
general, the following statements represent the overarching and most common themes articulated in the
identified plans:
Revitalization of land uses within the project area is important to the community to support
economic health
The sense of place and the quality and safety of non‐motorized travel within the study area
is important to the community
The safe and efficient movement of people, goods, and services including local and regional
auto and truck traffic is important to the community and CDOT
Environmental stewardship is an important value to the community and CDOT
Appendix A fully documents the reports reviewed in the development of this study. Some of these reports
include:
City Plan – May 4, 2004 (Update February 2011)
Transportation Master Plan – 2004 (Update February 2011)
Downtown River District Streetscape Improvement Project – August 1, 2008
US 287/SH 14 Access Management Report – April 4, 2000
Summary Report Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project
June 2012 Page 5
COLLABORATIVE DECISION MAKING AND STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT
Jefferson Street is a diverse and constrained corridor with many competing interests from various
stakeholders. This led to the development of a collaborative decision making process to manage
expectations, coordinate efforts, define processes, and help to achieve agreement on a preferred
alternative for the corridor.
This decision making process included representatives from partner agencies that were involved through a
group structure, described later in this chapter, which aided in the selection of a preferred alternative. This
agency outreach structure, combined with various public involvement techniques, provided a framework
for involvement by all interested parties. This type of collaborative decision process was intended to ensure
clear direction and minimize potential conflict among project partners.
Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats
One of the first steps in the Jefferson Street study was to identify perceived strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities, and threats of all of the stakeholders. Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats
(SWOT) is an analysis tool commonly used to identify factors that are supportive as well as unfavorable to
achieving a specific objective. The SWOT analysis was utilized by Jefferson Street project team‐members
to: (1) define parameters for problem‐solving strategies that fit within an organization’s concerns and (2)
identify areas of convergent and divergent opinions between the participating organizations.
The SWOT process is straight‐forward and lends itself to short in‐person workshops. Workshop participants
were asked to identify strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats as defined in Exhibit 2 and in the
context of the agreed upon objective statement. Factors surrounding the achievement of the objective
statement are discussed, and placed into one of the four SWOT categories based on if they are external
factors, being outside an agency’s control, or internal factors, meaning within an agency’s control, and
whether or not the factors are positive or negative towards achieving the specified objective.
Strengths (positive internal factors) Weaknesses (negative internal factors)
Factors and views held by the organization that
further or support the project
Factors and views held by the organization that
hinder the project
Opportunities (positive external factors) Threats (negative external factors)
Factors outside of the organization’s control that
further the project
Factors outside of the organization’s control that
hinder the project
Exhibit 2: Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats
The SWOT process used for the Jefferson Street project engaged each core organization, including the City,
DDA, and CDOT. The process was conducted individually amongst these agencies to ensure that agency
viewpoints were fully represented and could be expressed in confidence. Results from the individual SWOT
workshops were documented and compared to find convergent and divergent themes and ideas.
Commonalities amongst the agencies identified through the SWOT process were then used as a
springboard for defining the project’s purpose and need, building Jefferson Street goals and objectives, and
guide the Jefferson Street project in a direction that is mutually agreeable, and built on consensus. The
divergent viewpoints documented during the SWOT analysis were utilized in the alternatives evaluation
process to help establish constraints, performance measures, and screening criteria.
Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project Summary Report
Page 6 June 2012
Results were documented by the project consultant facilitator and returned to individual agencies for their
review. These reviewed documents were used to generate a draft purpose and need statement for review
and input, and to document convergent and divergent opinions for further discussion.
SWOT Findings
The following summary synthesizes the combined result of the individual City, CDOT and DDA SWOT
workshop meetings. Topic categories were used to group similar themes and ideas shared by the City,
CDOT and DDA to illustrate convergent and divergent opinions amongst the agencies. Based on the topics
discussed within each category, major findings could be determined. Major findings are observed
convergent and divergent opinions that result. Major findings are only reported when there are
comparable agency statements. For example, if all three agencies discussed parking, it is likely that
convergent and diverged opinions can be observed and reported; however, if only one agency discussed
parking, no agency comparisons can be made and no major finding can be reported. Major findings were
only intended to be statements identifying convergent and divergent opinions and the degree to which
agencies agree or disagree. Major findings did not establish baseline conditions, project vision, mission,
goals, or objectives. However, the findings assisted in the development of project vision, mission, goals,
and objectives by focusing language on areas of agreement, and allowing for flexibility in areas of
disagreement.
Generally, major findings showed that there is common appreciation for issues facing the corridor and for
the perspectives held by other agencies. Furthermore, most threats (such as actions that would force trucks
onto alternative routes) were understood by CDOT, DDA, and the City alike. Also, opportunities were
recognized by all of the participating agencies to improve the corridor for non‐vehicular uses, while also
maintaining its important function as a local and regional route. Differences existed in how and what
improvements should be made. Not only is this illustrated in direct comments about project strengths,
opportunities, weaknesses, and threats, but an across‐the‐board concern with the alternatives analysis
planning process and desire to use a comprehensive approach that values all viewpoints.
Although participating agency opinions generally agree within the topic categories identified below,
divergent opinions exist for on‐street parking and commerce. The major SWOT analysis finding include:
Overall Corridor Safety. All agencies were concerned about data and its use to (dis)prove
safety issues. Discussions touched on a need for mutually agreeable safety evaluation
criterion for the alternatives analysis phase of the project.
Street Edge Safety. There was universal recognition that there are safety conflicts between
moving vehicles and parked cars. There was also recognition that there are unquantified
perceptions of safety problems by pedestrians.
Vehicle/Truck Mobility. All agencies agreed that the corridor supports a high volume of
vehicle and truck traffic.
Sidewalks. There was recognition that pedestrians could benefit from the project through
sidewalk improvements such as increasing widths in some areas, adding bulb‐outs, etc.
Trucks. All agencies recognized that trucks must remain on Jefferson Street, and decisions
that would cause trucks to seek alternative routes must be avoided. It was also accepted
that trucks typically use only one lane when traveling the corridor.
Summary Report Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project
June 2012 Page 7
Air Quality Improvements. Agencies universally recognized that the project must result in
quantifiable air quality improvements and that failure to do so jeopardizes CMAQ funding.
Funding Opportunities. Each agency was optimistic about funding opportunities and the
willingness of local agencies to contribute funds.
Physical Constraints / ROW. All agencies recognized a weakness in that the corridor is
constrained by right‐of‐way and established land uses. It is believed that this constraint
hinders the fulfillment of each agency’s wants and needs from the project.
On‐Street Parking Capacity. There were divergent opinions on parking. CDOT explained
that parking on Jefferson Street is a safety threat to the project due to the street’s current
and future traffic volumes. While the City and DDA do not dispute these safety concerns,
they explained that on‐street parking is essential to the economic viability of Jefferson
Street and the benefits to urban design and sense of pedestrian safety that on‐street
parking offers.
Historic Buildings. Historic buildings were viewed differently by CDOT, DDA, and the City.
DDA and the City referred to historic buildings as strengths in that they bolster the street
setting, whereas CDOT is concerned about the environmental constraints that historic
buildings could bring to a potential project.
Cycling. The City and CDOT held different, but not necessarily divergent, views on cycling.
CDOT explained that bike access and connectivity is adequate within the vicinity, whereas
the City focused on poor bike mobility within the corridor.
Urban Design. The City and DDA were in agreement on matters of Jefferson Street urban
design. CDOT did not offer urban design related comments during the SWOT process. The
City and DDA agreed that the corridor is a gateway, a transitional area linking the
downtown and river districts, near locations of interest, and lacks a consistently desirable
sense of setting and pedestrian amenities.
Public Opinion. All agencies believed that inaccurate public perceptions could hurt the
progress of this alternatives analysis project. DDA and the City were particularly
concerned that neighborhoods will be upset if there is any indication that the project
might influence trucks to find alternative routes.
Commerce. There were divergent opinions on the role of Jefferson Street and development.
CDOT points out that a Jefferson Street project will not guarantee development. DDA and
the City, however, pointed to a successful Jefferson Street project as supporting existing
businesses and bringing economic development to the corridor.
Process. SWOT results showed universal concern regarding the process being followed by
the alternatives analysis project. The most common concern was not being comprehensive
enough to arrive at the best possible outcome. Both CDOT and DDA expressed concern
about predetermining outcomes or specific solutions. There were also cross‐agency
concerns that disagreements could stall the project or lead to poor decision making.
Access/Connectivity. There was complete agreement that Jefferson Street is an important
local and regional route. CDOT, DDA, and the City all agree that the project offers many
opportunities to benefit access and connectivity, including access to local businesses. DDA
and the City saw opportunities to use the Jefferson Street project to strengthen
connectivity between the downtown and river districts.
Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project Summary Report
Page 8 June 2012
Partnership. All participating agencies saw opportunities for partnership in the Jefferson
Street project, although partnership topics vary between the agencies. For example, CDOT
saw opportunities to partner into other related nearby projects (e.g. Cherry Street),
whereas the City saw opportunities to join with other departments and seek diverse
funding sources and the DDA saw partnership as a means to achieve big ideas.
Transit. Of the transit related comments made during the SWOT workshops, CDOT and the
City both agreed that there are few transit stops (and few opportunities for stops). Both
DDA and the City believed the project holds opportunities to increase multimodal
transportation in the area.
Committee Structure and Project Organization
For the Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project, a collaborative decision process (Exhibit 3) was used
to assist in gaining support from our partner agencies and key stakeholders. The Executive Oversight
Committee (EOC), Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), and Project Management Team (PMT) are
described in more detail following the exhibit. As the figure reflects, issues were discussed at the PMT level
and input was received from the TAC. Recommendations for key decisions were then presented to the EOC
for concurrence.
Exhibit 3: Committee Structure and Project Organization
Summary Report Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project
June 2012 Page 9
Executive Oversight Committee
The project used an executive level stakeholder group, referred to as the EOC, as a means to achieve
consensus. In this case, consensus was defined as an agreement built by identifying and exploring the
interests of all parties and assembling a composite agreement that demonstrates these varied interests
have been satisfied to the greatest extent possible. A consensus is reached when all parties agree that their
major interests have been taken into consideration and addressed in a satisfactory manner.
Consensus does not necessarily mean full or 100 percent agreement. Some parties may strongly endorse a
particular recommendation while others may accept it as a workable agreement. Members can participate
in the consensus without embracing each element of the agreement with the same fervor as other
members or having each interest fully satisfied. In a consensus agreement, the parties recognize that given
the combination of gains and trade‐offs in the recommendation package, potential impacts and options,
the resulting agreement is the best one the parties can make at the time.
The EOC is established to collaboratively identify a preferred alternative for the Jefferson Street Alternative
Analysis Project. The preferred alternative is intended to be consistent with numerous parameters
including: fulfilling the project’s established vision and goals, meeting design and safety standards, and
satisfying regulatory requirements. Other parameters of the collaborative process were outlined through
EOC discussions.
The EOC was comprised of vital and invested stakeholders. Each organization appointed one
representative to speak for their agency or organization to serve on the “solutions‐oriented and
problem‐solving focused” EOC. These representatives made decisions on behalf of their agencies and
served as a liaison to their respective agency with regards to this project.
EOC members included:
City of Fort Collins – Karen Cumbo, Director of Planning, Development, and Transportation
CDOT – Ina Zisman, CDOT Region 4 Traffic Engineer
DDA – Matt Robenalt, Executive Director
UPRR – Sue Grabler representing Kelly Abray, Manager Industrial & Public Projects
Colorado Motor Carriers Association (CMCA) – Carl Maxey, Past Chairman
Participating members of the EOC were asked to meet the following requirements for participation:
Able to represent the breadth of views of their constituency, rather than just representing
their personal views.
Empowered as a decision maker within their organizations or constituencies or otherwise
able to commit and bind their constituencies to any agreements of the EOC.
Familiarity with Jefferson Street/SH14 project area and the range of issues.
Able to be a statesman or a diplomat – all members should be proactive about seeking areas
of agreement and should look for mutually beneficial solutions.
Able to commit the time necessary to attend all EOC meetings during the project, and to
prepare in advance for each meeting by examining supporting information and materials.
Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project Summary Report
Page 10 June 2012
Members had the opportunity to bring staff from their organizations, agencies, or constituency groups to
support the problem solving process. EOC members could include those individuals in discussions when
their expertise is required or when requested by the committee as a whole. Exhibit 4 lists the dates of EOC
Meetings throughout the project and the decisions or major topics discussed at each meeting.
EOC Meetings Discussion Topics Agreed Upon Commitments or Decisions
September 22, 2010 Committee Role and Expectations
Summary of SWOT Analysis
Draft Purpose Statement
Approved items in working agreement
Committed to evaluate and consider all
alternatives
October 27, 2010 Project Purpose Statement
Alternative Screening Process and Fatal flaws
Future Traffic Conditions
Approved project purpose statement
Agreed on goals and objectives with
minor changes
December 8, 2010 Future Traffic Conditions
Alternative Screening Process and Evaluation
Criteria
Agreed to use a 1.4 percent growth factor
and methods for analyzing future (2035)
traffic conditions
Approved fatal flaw evaluation criteria
(except for parking related)
January 25, 2011 Full Range of Alternatives
Alternative Screening Process and Evaluation
Criteria
Informational meeting
March 22, 2011 Review of On‐Street Parking Memo and Decision
Level one screening, Alternative development, and
Level two screening
Approval of level one screening
Concurrence that all two‐lane alternatives
will be eliminated
Concurrence that alternatives with angled
parking would be eliminated
May 4, 2011 Corridor alternative layouts and preliminary analysis
Intersection alternatives
Public Outreach update
Informational meeting
June 3, 2011 Review operating protocols
Review feedback from public outreach completed
Review previous agreements
Alternative discussion
Agree that the solution is within the
alternatives being considered
Agreed on 3‐lane corridor alternative
July 11, 2011 Remaining Decisions
Mountain/Lincoln and Cherry/Willow Intersection
Off‐Street Parking
Near‐Term and Long‐Term Actions
Informational meeting
October 25, 2011 Remaining Decisions
Mountain/Lincoln Intersection
Implementation and Funding Plan
Informational meeting
February 17, 2012 Remaining Decisions
Summary Report Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project
June 2012 Page 11
Technical Advisory Committee
The TAC supported the collaborative process by ensuring that information and alternatives being elevated
at the EOC level were technically sound and adhered to federal, state, or local directives, regulations, or
procedures. The TAC encompassed a wide range of technical expertise and represents a variety of
disciplines and agencies. Agencies and organizations represented in the TAC include those of the EOC, as
well as North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization, Larimer County, UPRR, CMCA, and a
non‐agency affiliated citizen representative to represent local business interests along Jefferson Street. The
TAC met throughout the project at key decision points.
Project Management Team
The PMT supported the collaborative process by overseeing the day‐to‐day progress of the project and
ensuring that EOC and TAC decisions were incorporated. The PMT consisted of members from the City,
CDOT, DDA, and the project consultant. PMT meetings were used as work sessions to raise questions, make
decisions, and ensure that progress was in‐line with project goals and objectives. Specific discipline
representatives and consultant team members were invited to PMT meetings, as needed. As the project
progressed, PMT and TAC meetings were combined.
Stakeholder and Public Involvement
The goal of conducting a comprehensive public involvement program is to engage key stakeholders, policy
makers, and the public in the planning process. The project team sought comments and input on the key
tasks throughout the life of the project. This involvement effort was intended to establish and maintain a
two‐way exchange of information among the project team members with the public regarding corridor
issues and priorities. Another goal was to build consensus for the selection of a preferred alternative and
the development of the recommended phasing plan for implementation.
Stakeholder Coordination
This process included on‐going coordination among multiple City departments, City Boards and
Commissions, City Council, CDOT, DDA, Larimer County, and various interested community and corridor
stakeholders, including but not limited to area property/business owners, residents, bicycle/pedestrian
advocacy groups, trucking industry representatives, UPRR, and Public Utilities Commission representatives.
Business and Property Owner Meetings
One‐on‐one coordination was needed with affected business/property owners to determine the impacts
and mitigation measures needed at each property. During the development and screening of alternatives,
the consultant project manager and the City project managers provided outreach to business/property
owners along the corridor to update them on the status of the project and seek their input. After the final
screening of alternatives, when a preferred alternative has been recommended, directly impacted
business/property owners were contacted to follow up on questions and concerns related to the project
and work through remaining details for particular sites along the corridor.
Public Meetings
Public meetings were held on June 2, 2011, October 17, 2011, and February 16, 2012 to actively engage the
corridor property owners, businesses, residents, and general public in the process. The meetings were
Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project Summary Report
Page 12 June 2012
conducted as part of the public review process for the alternatives screening process and to help determine
the preferred corridor recommendation.
City Council and Board Meetings
Presentations were made on behalf of the project to the City Council at their work sessions on August 9,
2011 and February 28, 2012. Updates were also provided to Boards and Commissions, including the
Transportation Board, Bicycle Advisory Committee, Planning & Zoning Board, Economic Advisory
Commission, and DDA Board meetings.
Summary Report Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project
June 2012 Page 13
EXISTING CONDITIONS AND CHARACTERISTICS
Jefferson Street looking Southeast, toward Lincoln/Mountain
Intersection
Existing conditions describe the current state of various social and physical attributes along Jefferson Street
and the surrounding area. Conditions were documented using best available data or collected data, in
some instances. Existing conditions
were the result of objective synthesis
and were considered the baseline for
alternatives analysis. Existing
conditions were also used during
alternatives development to identify
constraints and as a “reality check” to
ensure alternatives being developed
were reasonable and would perform
to their potential through the
evaluation process.
Characteristics of the
Corridor
Jefferson Street is a four‐lane, urban arterial with a posted speed of 30 miles per hour including on‐street
parking allowed in some locations. The existing right‐of‐way (ROW) as measured from the back of the curb
is 58 feet wide. These characteristics are shown as cross‐sections in Exhibit 5. The two center travel lanes
are 11 feet wide and the two outside travel lanes, including parking, are approximately 15.5 feet wide
throughout the corridor. Left‐turn lanes are present at the intersections of Jefferson Street and Lincoln
Street, Jefferson Street and Linden Street, and Jefferson Street and College Avenue. On‐street parking is
not available where turn lanes are present.
Left Turn at Jefferson Street and Linden Street
There are multiple access points to
and from businesses along the
corridor and multiple locations along
Jefferson Street that allow on‐street
parking parallel to the curb. The
corridor is lined by commercial
properties, restaurants, private
residences, a park, church, social
services, and off‐street surface
parking. Generally, development
along the south or “Old Town” side of
Jefferson Street is historic in
character, is uniformly developed (few
vacant “gaps” in building facades), and buildings front the sidewalk. The character along the north or
“River District” side of Jefferson Street varies, with a park at Jefferson Street and Linden Street and a mix of
single‐story commercial structures with off‐street parking lots. This corridor serves a range of travel
including automobiles, trucks, buses, pedestrians, and bicycles.
Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project Summary Report
Page 14 June 2012
Exhibit 5: Existing Typical Section
Sidewalks are present on both sides of Jefferson Street. Generally, sidewalks are attached to the street;
however, sidewalks are detached from the curb and landscaped in a few instances. Sidewalk and landscape
areas vary in width along the corridor from 6 to 19 feet. Between Mountain/Lincoln Avenue and Linden
Street, the attached sidewalk is 6.5 feet wide. In some locations walkable sidewalk width, or “clear width,”
is 3.5 feet with the remaining width occupied by street light poles, signs, fire hydrants, and other hardware.
Sidewalks also have 1‐foot building setbacks in some locations, which also limit walkable sidewalk area. In
locations where a parking lane is not provided, pedestrians on the sidewalks are directly adjacent to the
travel lanes. Generally, minimal landscaping is provided and other aesthetic features are not present along
the corridor. Ramps at intersections are Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant as they are newly
constructed and contain components that are consistent with ADA compliant ramps such as truncated
domes to serve as tactile markings and warnings for intersections. Jefferson Street does not have bicycle
lanes; however, bicycle on‐street facilities exist on North College Avenue, Linden Street, Willow Street,
Walnut Street, and Mountain/Lincoln Avenue. Bicycle parking racks are available on Jefferson Street.
Summary Report Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project
June 2012 Page 15
Additional features located along Jefferson Street include bus stops and access to parking areas, driveways,
and alleys. Two bus stops are located at the intersection of Linden Street and Jefferson Street. Bus
operations were currently available from approximately 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., with one‐hour headways.
Numerous access points for parking lots, driveways, and alleys are located along Jefferson Street, including:
Eleven access points on northbound Jefferson Street
Nine access points to the southbound Jefferson Street
Five local street intersections (North College Avenue/Maple Street, Pine Street, Linden
Street, Chestnut Street, and Mountain/Lincoln Avenue,)
Three alley intersections
Appendix B includes drawings for street characteristics for the Jefferson Street Corridor and utility
information.
Parking
There are approximately 450 public parking spaces within a one‐block radius of Jefferson Street. Of these
public parking spaces, 51 are along Jefferson Street, 306 public parking spaces are within the southwest
block and 51 spaces in the northeast block. Exhibit 6 shows the general location of these parking spaces on
Jefferson Street. According to the Downtown Strategic Plan (2006), current parking supply slightly exceeds
demand in the general project area. The plan also indicates that a reasonable walking distance to and from
parking is up to 800 feet. By this measure, parking on Jefferson Street could serve land uses within a two‐
block radius which includes portions of Old Town and the River District. The City is currently updating the
Parking Plan for the Downtown and surrounding areas, including the River District.
Railroad
The UPRR operates two trains per day from LaSalle to Fort Collins. Each trip crosses Lincoln Avenue and
Linden Street within the general project area. In addition to these routine trips, UPRR and Great Western
Railway of Colorado perform rail car interchanges as rail cars make their way to the Burlington Northern
Santa Fe’s (BNSF) North Yard in northeast Fort Collins along Vine Drive, as indicated in Exhibit 7. There are
numerous train movements across Lincoln Avenue and Linden Street during these interchange moves.
Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project Summary Report
Page 16 June 2012
Exhibit 6: Jefferson Street Area Parking
Summary Report Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project
June 2012 Page 17
Exhibit 7: Fort Collins Railroads
Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project Summary Report
Page 18 June 2012
Traffic Characteristics
Traffic volume data was provided by CDOT and the City for the project area, on the surrounding local street
system, and for North College Avenue/US 287. The traffic data included daily traffic volume counts and
peak hour turning movement volumes at key intersections. Heavy vehicle (truck) percentages on Jefferson
Street east of North College Avenue average 7.4 percent of the total daily traffic.
As seen in Exhibit 11 on page 22, the existing daily traffic volume along Jefferson Street is approximately
12,000 to 13,000 vehicles per day. Traffic volumes along the corridor increase to the southeast, and just
outside of the project limits where the traffic is approximately 16,400 vehicles per day.
Peak hour turning movement counts (TMCs) for the morning and evening periods were collected in 2009 by
City staff and provided to the project team in the existing conditions traffic model. The following
intersections were included in the model:
Cherry/Willow Street and North College Avenue
Vine Street and North College Avenue
Laporte Avenue/Walnut Street and North College Avenue
Walnut Street and Linden Street (unsignalized)
Mountain Avenue and North College Avenue
Walnut Street/Mathews Street and Mountain Avenue
Lincoln Avenue and Lemay Avenue
Mulberry Street and Riverside Avenue/Jefferson Street
Existing Operating Conditions
An existing conditions operational analysis was conducted to determine the baseline performance within
the study area. This analysis methodology and data were agreed upon by the EOC (including the City,
CDOT, and DDA). Existing signal timing parameters and turning movement count information was included
in the calibrated SYNCHRO model provided by the City. The unsignalized intersection at Pine Street was
added to the models and the intersection geometry to the model was verified based on a site visit.
Traffic operations for each of the signalized and unsignalized intersections were analyzed using the
methods described in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM, Transportation Research Board, 2000) and were
reported from the SYNCHRO model output. According to the HCM, the overall performance of an
intersection is determined based on the level of delay experienced by motorists at the intersection.
Depending on the level of delay that is experienced, each intersection can be scored on scale that measures
level of service (LOS) and given a letter grade from ‘A’ to ‘F’, with ‘A’ being the best possible grade for the
intersection or the least amount of delay. For signalized intersections, the delay for each individual turning
movement is evaluated, then entire approaches are graded, and finally the intersection as a whole can be
given a single LOS. For two‐way stop controlled (TWSC) intersections, each minor approach is given a
separate LOS and the worst LOS is reported as a single rating for the intersection.
Summary Report Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project
June 2012 Page 19
LOS for the signalized and unsignalized intersections along Jefferson Street was determined for both the
morning and evening peak periods. Exhibit 8 shows the results of the existing condition LOS analysis. The
LOS calculations were performed for intersections with public roadways with no analysis performed at
driveways along the corridor.
The signalized intersections along Jefferson Street within the Project Area operate at an overall LOS B or
better during both the morning and evening peak periods. At the signalized movements, all approach legs
operated at LOS C or better during the morning peak period. During the evening peak, two movements
operated at less than a LOS C, which are the northwest bound left turn at North College Avenue (operates
at a LOS D), and the northbound right turn at Mountain Avenue (operates at LOS E).
Intersection with
Jefferson Street Peak Period Delay (Seconds per vehicle/Level of Service)
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Overall
North College
Avenue
AM Peak 9.5/A 7.0/A 27.6/C 10.4/B 8.9/A
PM Peak 9.3/A 5.6/A 27.2/C 19.3/B 10.4/B
Pine Street
AM Peak 13.4/B ‐ 0.0/A 0.6/A 0.5/A
PM Peak 11.5/B ‐ 0.0/A 0.9/A 1.2/A
Linden Street
AM Peak 29.9/C 29.2/C 1.8/A 2.3/A 6.5/A
PM Peak 30.7/C 29.8/C 2.8/A 2.4/A 10.0/A
Mountain Avenue/
Lincoln Avenue
AM Peak 22.0/C 27.8/C 3.1/A 3.9/A 10.5/B
PM Peak 42.0/D 26.1/C 4.7/A 5.3/A 18.3/B
Exhibit 8: Existing Jefferson Street Intersection Level of Service
Arterial LOS is another measure used to determine corridor traffic conditions and is based on the average
travel speed experienced along a segment of the corridor. Travel speeds were determined using the traffic
simulation software SimTraffic by modeling a 10‐minute seed time, and running the model for 60 minutes.
For each condition modeled, three runs were performed and an average time was used to determine the
travel times.
The existing mainline LOS and average speed (mph) on the mainline during the peak periods is shown in
Exhibit 9. This information was obtained from SimTraffic. Within the project limits, the southeast bound
direction of Jefferson Street operates at a LOS B/C during the morning/evening peak hour, and the
northwest bound direction operates at a LOS C/D during the morning/evening peak. All links operate as
nearly free‐flow speeds with the exception of the northwest bound segment between North College
Avenue and Pine Street, which experiences significant delay at the signal.
Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project Summary Report
Page 20 June 2012
Direction: Roadway Link
Average Speed
(mph) Level of Service
Southeast bound:
North College Avenue to Mountain/Lincoln Avenue
AM Peak 27.1 B
PM Peak 23.3 C
Northwest bound:
Mountain/Lincoln Avenue to North College Ave
AM Peak 19.1 C
PM Peak 15.9 D
Exhibit 9: Existing Jefferson Street Mainline Level of Service
Safety
Accident data for a seven‐year period (January 1, 1999 to December 31, 2005) was provided by CDOT for
the project area. Accident types are typically classified as one of the following categories:
Rear End. This accident occurs when one vehicle strikes the rear of the vehicle in front of it
because that vehicle is stopped or slowing down.
Fixed Object. This type of accident occurs when a vehicle travels off the roadway and
strikes an object along the roadside.
Broadside. This type of accident occurs when a vehicle traveling through an intersection in
the opposite direction strikes a left turning vehicle at a 90‐degree angle.
Overtaking Turn. This type of accident occurs when two adjacent approach vehicles, whose
paths are unintended to come in conflict, collide as a result of one or both vehicles over‐
or under‐turning. This type would also include a vehicle initially going straight, but leaving
its proper lane of travel and colliding with a stopped or moving vehicle on an adjacent
approach road or driveway.
Sideswipe. This type of accident typically involves the side of one vehicle making contact
with the side of another vehicle that is traveling in the same or opposite direction.
Approach Turn. This type of accident occurs when a vehicle traveling through an
intersection in the opposite direction strikes a left turning vehicle.
Pedestrian. This type of accident occurs when a vehicle and pedestrian collide in which the
collision between the two is the first event and also took place within the roadway.
Bicycle. This type of accident occurs when a vehicle and bicycle collide in which the collision
between the two is the first event and also took place within the roadway.
Parked Motor Vehicle. This type of accident occurs when a vehicle strikes a parked motor
vehicle that is within the roadway.
Exhibit 10 summarizes the total number and percentage of intersection and non‐intersection related
accidents for each type of accident that occurred along the corridor between 1999 and 2005. Within the
study area there were a total of 153 accidents during the six‐year analysis period. The intersection‐related
accidents were most commonly rear‐ends, broadsides, and approach turns. The most common non‐
intersection related accident was with a parked motor vehicle.
Summary Report Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project
June 2012 Page 21
Category
Total Number of
Accidents Percentage of Total
Location
At Intersection/Intersection Related 110 72
Non‐Intersection Related 34 22
Driveway Access 9 6
Total 153 100
Type
Rear End 46 30
Fixed Object 5 3
Broadside 26 17
Overtaking Turn 3 2
Sideswipe 20 13
Approach Turn 29 19
Pedestrian/Bicycle 6 4
Parked Motor Vehicle 18 12
Total 153 100
Exhibit 10: Summary of Accident Data
In addition to the accident data, a weighted hazard index was computed by CDOT for the study corridor.
The weighted hazard index determines if the frequency and severity of accidents on the study corridor is
higher than the statewide average for similar highways. The analysis of Jefferson Street corridor indicated
that the frequency and severity of accidents on the study corridor is lower than the statewide average for
similar highways.
Future (2035) Traffic Conditions
Many different methods were evaluated to determine future traffic conditions for the corridor. Many
meetings with technical staff from the City, CDOT, and NFRMPO were held to come up with an agreed upon
methodology for developing 2035 traffic forecasts to use for analysis of a no action scenario as well as build
alternatives. After reviewing several travel demand models and historic traffic volumes, the project team
decided to use a CDOT growth rate of 1.4 percent. All evaluated volumes are shown on Exhibit 11.
Several of the City’s travel demand models were reviewed including the 2035 Capital Improvement Plan
(CIP) constrained model. This model only assumes built and/or funded roadway improvements included in
the roadway network. This model also closely matches the NFRMPO fiscally constrained travel demand
model.
Another methodology for developing future traffic volume forecasts evaluated was to grow all traffic
volumes an agreed upon growth factor. Historic average daily traffic (ADT) volumes along Jefferson Street
indicate that the average traffic volume growth rate along the corridor between 1990 and 2009 is 0.85
percent. Historic ADT volumes from surrounding streets provided by the City indicate similarly flat growth
in traffic. CDOT also uses a standard annual growth rate of 1.4 percent. Overall City traffic growth over the
past 20 years indicates an average 1.5 percent annual growth rate. These various methods were presented
to the EOC in December 2010, and CDOT’s standard growth rate of 1.4 percent was agreed upon as the
method to determine future traffic volumes. This method was selected because it was thought to be the
most conservative approach, using the highest growth factor.
Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project Summary Report
Page 22 June 2012
Exhibit 11: Traffic Forecast Comparison
Summary Report Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project
June 2012 Page 23
2035 No Action Operations
To create the 2035 No Action model, the existing conditions model was used and turning movement
volumes were grown by a factor of 1.42. This growth factor is the result of using the agreed upon 1.4
percent annual growth rate and calculating the total growth over a 25 year timeframe (2010 – 2035).
Review of the individual intersection phase splits and time‐space diagrams indicated acceptable timing and
progression, so no traffic signal timing changes were made to the 2035 No Action model. The intersection
performance results for the 2035 No Action operational analysis are as shown in Exhibit 12.
Comparing the results of the existing conditions model and the 2035 No Action model, the results are
generally as expected with all the intersections having longer overall delays in 2035 than existing
conditions. There are a few approaches that are performing marginally better in 2035 than in existing
conditions such as:
Eastbound at Jefferson/College
Southbound at Jefferson/Linden
Westbound at Jefferson/Chestnut
The signalized intersections are showing slight improvement in 2035 because the higher volumes are
actually forcing the traffic signal (all of which are modeled as actuated‐coordinated signals) to use all of
their green time and raising the capacity for that approach.
Intersection with
Jefferson Street Peak Period Delay (Seconds per vehicle/Level of Service)
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Overall
North College Avenue 23.6/C 27.2/C 13.8/B 10.5/B 14.8/B
Pine Street 1.0/A 0.0/A 13.9/B ‐ 13.9/B
Linden Street 3.3/A 3.7/A 33.2/C 28.2/C 10.6/B
Chestnut Street 0.3/A 0.0/A 28.1/D ‐ 28.1/D
Mountain Avenue/
Lincoln Avenue 8.2/A 7.6/A 26.1/C 23.3/C 15.4/B
Exhibit 12: 2035 No Action Jefferson Street Intersection Level of Service
The 2035 No Action operations analysis also included an evaluation of the Cherry/Willow and College
intersection to verify the impact this location had on the Jefferson Street corridor. The overall intersection
delay at this location was similar for all future corridor scenarios that were considered (including No
Action).
A comparison of existing and 2035 peak hour volumes, average daily traffic, and intersection level of service
are shown on Exhibit 13.
Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project Summary Report
Page 24 June 2012
Exhibit 13: 2035 Existing and 2035 Jefferson Street Volumes and Intersection Level of Service
Summary Report Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project
June 2012 Page 25
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
The alternative development and screening process was used to allow decision makers of all levels and the
community to trace the successful and unsuccessful aspects of a proposed alternative and compare the
trade‐offs between alternatives. The project purpose, goals, and objectives as well as the SWOT analysis
were all used to identify the full range of alternatives and to develop screening criteria to evaluate
alternatives.
Purpose Statement, Goals, and Objectives
The project purpose was prepared by the project team using the results of the SWOT process and approved
by the EOC. The final approved project purpose statement is:
The purpose of the Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis project is to improve the air quality, livability, and urban
character of the Jefferson Street Corridor while enhancing the experience for pedestrians, bikes, and transit and
maintaining mobility of autos and trucks. The Corridor begins at College Avenue and extends along Jefferson
Street and includes the Mountain Avenue/Riverside Avenue/Lincoln Avenue, and Linden Street intersections.
Project goals and objectives are intended to define the project purpose through measureable criteria. Goals
define high‐level aspirations expressed in the project purpose statement. Objectives break‐out the different
topics that define a goal. This multi‐level approach allows decision makers to trace the successful and
unsuccessful aspects of a proposed alternative and compare the trade‐offs between alternatives. The
following goals and objectives were developed:
Goal 1 ‐ Maintain or improve safe and efficient travel along Jefferson Street. This will be achieved by:
Objective 1A: Maintaining or improving safe travel
Objective 1B: Maintain or improve the mobility
Goal 2 ‐ Enhance the urban character and vitality of Jefferson Street to make it an inviting place for
pedestrians and revitalization. This goal is accomplished through:
Objective 2A: Creating a welcoming and desirable thoroughfare for pedestrian travel
Objective 2B: Creating a welcoming and desirable place for revitalization
Goal 3 ‐ Improve Jefferson Street in a manner that is consistent with environmental and social values by:
Objective 3A: Improving sustainability in the study area
Objective 3B: Ensuring that Jefferson Street embodies responsibility to the general public in
its planning and implementation
Alternative Development
The project purpose, goals, objectives, and the SWOT analysis were all used to identify the full range of
alternatives. These included the alternatives from the previous Downtown River District Plan along with
additional alternatives identified by the TAC at workshop meetings. The corridor alternatives evaluated can
be categorized into two‐lane, three‐lane, and four‐lane alternatives. In addition, intersection alternatives
were evaluated for Jefferson/Linden and Jefferson/Mountain/Lincoln.
Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project Summary Report
Page 26 June 2012
Two‐lane alternatives reduce both the northwest bound and southeast bound through
travel lanes from two to one. Depending on the option, these alternatives may include
parking, center turn lanes, center raised or painted median, bike lanes, or center angled
parking.
Three‐lane alternatives reduce either the northwest bound or southeast bound through
travel lanes from two to one. Depending on the option (similar to two‐lane options), these
alternatives may include parking, center turn lanes, center raised or painted median, or
bike lanes.
Four‐lane alternatives maintain the existing two lanes northwest bound and two lanes
southeast bound. Depending on the option, these alternatives may include parking, or
center raised/painted median.
Initial Screening
The initial screening process filtered out alternatives that obviously do not meet project goals and
objectives. Alternatives are eliminated if they contain a “fatal flaw” that would make them implausible. The
level one fatal flaw evaluation criteria included:
Goal 1 ‐ Maintain or improve safe and efficient travel along Jefferson Street.
Fatal Flaw: LOS drops more than one level compared to a No Action condition
Fatal Flaw: Alternative would impede railroad operations
Fatal Flaw: Lane width would be reduced to less than 11 feet
Goal 2 ‐ Enhance the urban character and vitality of Jefferson Street to make it an inviting place for
pedestrians and revitalization.
Fatal Flaw: Complete elimination of on‐street parking
Fatal Flaw: Angled parking
Goal 3 ‐ Improve Jefferson Street in a manner that is consistent with environmental and social values
Fatal Flaw: Buildings would be part of ROW acquisition
Fatal Flaw: Alternative would require environmental clearance (Environmental Impact
Statement or Environmental Assessment)
The full range of roadway typical section alternatives is shown in Exhibits 14, 15, and 16 and are shown
along with a status of the alternative after initial screening. Appendix C includes a summary of the roadway
feature priorities identified in the project goal. A description of the roadway features evaluated for each
typical section is listed following the typical section figures. Alternatives carried forward were further
refined in developing the corridor alternatives.
Summary Report Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project
June 2012 Page 27
Exhibit 14: Two‐Lane Alternatives
Looking northwest along Jefferson Street
Note: All two‐lane alternatives were eliminated because the capacity of the roadway is reduced by half
(from four‐lane to two‐lane) which is a CDOT concern.
Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project Summary Report
Page 28 June 2012
Exhibit 15: Three‐Lane Alternatives
Looking northwest along Jefferson Street
Summary Report Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project
June 2012 Page 29
Exhibit 16: Four‐Lane Alternatives
Looking northwest along Jefferson Street
Traffic Operations
The project purpose included maintaining mobility of autos and trucks. A key consideration was lane
continuity and how the number of lanes would be reduced if going from four to a fewer number of total
lanes.
On‐Street Parking
The project goals included enhancing the vitality of Jefferson Street to make it an inviting place for existing
businesses as well as new infill redevelopment. To enhance the vitality of the downtown, alternatives that
increase or enhance the current on‐street parking are preferred. The presence of on‐street parking on the
southwest or “Old Town” side of Jefferson Street is more critical to maintain or enhance because the
majority of the businesses along the northeast side already have off‐street parking lots. On‐street parking
on the southwest or Old Town side of Jefferson Street between Linden Street and Pine Street was the most
desirable location given the physical constraints along Jefferson and the inability of widening the roadway
due to the existing buildings.
Bicycle Facilities
The project purpose included improving livability while enhancing the experience for bikes. The City
supports ‘complete streets’ solutions for all corridors. The inclusion of dedicated bike lanes specifically on
Jefferson was not a project requirement and consideration of enhanced cycling opportunities is desired.
There are adjacent ‘close proximity’ alternate bike routes to Jefferson Street that were taken into account
to serve cyclists including Walnut, Willow, improved alleyways, and Mountain/Lincoln. Bicyclists also have
options to share the lane and ride on Jefferson. Opportunities for off‐street bike facilities were also
explored and are recommended in conjunction with future infill/redevelopment projects along the corridor.
Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project Summary Report
Page 30 June 2012
Median
The project purpose was to improve air quality, livability, and urban character while enhancing the
experience for pedestrians. Medians, when of sufficient width, provide pedestrian refuge area at crossings
and can be landscaped to enhance the urban character and access management. The maintenance aspect
of a landscaped median in the street was considered.
Safety
Maintaining mobility of autos and trucks is also a component of the project purpose. Safety conflicts can
occur between two or more users of the same roadway and can include autos, trucks, bikes, and
pedestrians. An increase in conflict points between each of these modes, and within each mode, can cause
increased safety concerns. Conflict points can be reduced by restricting access and other street‐design
techniques. Access management helps to improve safety because there are fewer unexpected events
caused by vehicles entering and leaving the traffic stream, resulting in less interference with through traffic
as well as pedestrians and bicyclists. Conflicts can also be reduced by providing a buffer area between
travel lanes and parking areas. Concerns existed if this buffer area will be used as a bike lane, since conflicts
may occur between parking maneuvers and bikes.
Air Quality
The project is partially funded by federal CMAQ funds. One of the points in the project purpose is to
improve the air quality of the Jefferson Street Corridor. Projects receiving CMAQ funds are expected to
show an air quality benefit. Air quality benefits are typically determined through estimated reductions in
vehicle miles traveled, traffic congestion, vehicle idling, and vehicle replacements as well as bicycle,
pedestrian, and transit enhancements. If a project solution is selected that does not improve air quality, an
alternative funding source would be required for construction of the improvements. If lanes are reduced,
other mitigating measures to improve air quality need to be included. A consideration is if
additional/enhanced parking opportunities are provided then there will be an improvement to vehicle
trolling to find an open space resulting in improved air quality. Another consideration for air quality is
maintaining the high LOS as well as improvements for active modes of transportation, including bicycling,
walking, and transit.
Urban Design (Landscaping and Aesthetics)
The purpose of the project included improving the livability and urban character of the Jefferson Street
Corridor while enhancing the experience for pedestrians, bikes, and transit. In addition, a key principle of
Plan Fort Collins (City Plan and Transportation Master Plan) is community appearance and design which
discusses: designing the city’s streetscapes with consideration to the visual character and the experience of
users and adjacent properties; integrating public spaces throughout the community and designing them to
be functional, accessible, attractive, safe, and comfortable; recognizing gateways as important locations to
draw attention to and convey the character of the surrounding district; and requiring quality and
ecologically sound landscape design practices throughout the community.
Pedestrians
The purpose of the Pedestrian Plan, developed by the City of Fort Collins, is to promote a pedestrian‐
friendly environment that will encourage the choice to walk for visitors, students, and residents. It also
states that this pedestrian friendly environment where public spaces, including streets and off‐street paths,
Summary Report Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project
June 2012 Page 31
should offer a high level of comfort, convenience, efficiency, quality of experience, and safety within the
city. Sidewalks that are not properly planned, designed, constructed, or maintained are less likely to
encourage pedestrian activity. The landscape through which pedestrians travel can affect their decision to
walk, including physical obstacles such as transportation features (highways or arterials without signalized
intersections, railroads). Design features that can help limit physical obstacles to walking include pedestrian
scale lighting, pedestrian oriented design, street trees, and sidewalk enhancements (benches, wayfinding,
café seating).
Transit
The project purpose included improving livability while enhancing the experience for transit. At the time of
the existing conditions assessment, there are two bus stops located at the intersection of Linden Street and
Jefferson Street. One is located on southeast bound Jefferson Street. The second bus stop is located on the
northwest bound side of Jefferson Street, just north of the Linden Street intersection. With the 2 lane and 3
lane corridor options, the transit stops can be enhanced to improve the passenger waiting areas.
Trucks
Maintaining mobility of autos and trucks is a component of the project purpose. The existing truck route
through the City of Fort Collins extends along SH 14 (Mulberry Street) from I‐25 to Riverside
Avenue/Jefferson Street, then north along College Avenue. The percent of heavy vehicles that travel along
a roadway affect corridor traffic operations. Heavy vehicles typically travel at slower speeds than passenger
vehicles and require longer acceleration and deceleration distances. Heavy vehicle percentages on
Jefferson Street east of North College Avenue average 7.4 percent of the total daily traffic. For trucks,
impediments to operations could include the introduction of conflict points such as a decrease in the
number of lanes or single travel lane next to parking, or potential for increase stop and start operation.
Implementability
One of the goals of the project is to improve Jefferson Street in a manner that is consistent with
environmental and social values. To address this goal, the project identified any significant hurdles that
could arise during implementation that would impact the desired outcomes of the project. For example,
any improvements made to the highway that would narrow it compared to existing conditions may be
revocable in the future depending on traffic capacity levels and/or safety issues. Implementation features
that were evaluated include permanent or temporary improvements (painted striping versus constructed
modifications), amount of additional Right of Way (ROW) needed, and higher cost elements that may be
costly or difficult to change.
Comparative Screening
For comparative screening, the TAC agreed that two‐lane alternatives be eliminated from consideration
because the capacity of the roadway is reduced by half (from four‐lane to two‐lane) which is a CDOT
concern. Since this is a collaborative decision process, the EOC agreed to this decision.
Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project Summary Report
Page 32 June 2012
Corridor Alternatives
Following the screening process, the project team developed a set of conceptual corridor alternatives for
the Jefferson Street corridor project to address the project purpose, goals, and objectives. Corridor
alternatives are included in Appendix D.
3‐Lane Alternatives
The corridor alternatives evaluated include several “3 lane” options for Jefferson Street between North
College Avenue and Mountain/Lincoln Avenue. Options within the 3‐lane corridor alternative include
raised, landscaped medians along the full length of the corridor, with openings at the Jefferson/Linden
intersection or partial medians along the corridor with more openings at streets such as at Pine and
Chestnut streets as well as at major driveways. An additional option for the 3‐lane corridor alternative
includes designated on‐street bicycle lanes instead of the medians (both the medians and bike lanes do not
fit within the available corridor width).
All of the “3 lane” options include two travel lanes in the northwest bound direction and one travel lane in
the southeast bound direction. The determination for which direction has the two lanes versus the one
lane was made based on traffic analysis as well as the need to maximize on‐street parking opportunities
along the “Old Town” side of Jefferson Street. The “3 lane” options include streetscape, urban design, and
gateway improvements along the corridor and at the intersections. In addition, the 3 lane options allow for
more functional on‐street parking because there is enough width to provide a safety buffer area between
the parked cars and the vehicle travel lanes. The 3 lane options also allow for opportunities to improve the
transit stops along Jefferson. The project team recommends that future consideration be given to the
installation of off‐street bicycle facilities as opportunities are created through adjacent infill/redevelopment
projects and other potential projects.
4‐Lane Alternatives
The project team developed a “4 lane” option which shows two lanes in each direction on Jefferson Street
between North College and Mountain/Lincoln Avenue. Due to the width required for standard travel lanes,
there is limited space remaining for other project elements such as on‐street parking/buffer areas,
medians, and/or streetscape improvements.
Combination 3 and 4‐Lane Alternatives
The team has also provided a combination “3 & 4 lane” option that includes 3 lanes between North College
Avenue and Linden Street and then shows the “4 lane” option between Linden Street and
Mountain/Lincoln Avenue.
No Action Alternative
The No Action alternative features four travel lanes. This alternative does not include a median and left
turns are maintained at Linden Street. This alternative maintains the existing two lanes northbound and
two lanes southbound from Mountain/Lincoln Avenue to Linden Street. Narrow parking lanes are provided
on the southwest or Old Town side as well as the northeast side.
Summary Report Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project
June 2012 Page 33
The matrix below describes some of the differences among the alternatives considered for Jefferson Street.
All of the alternatives were evaluated using triple bottom line in evaluating the alternatives including:
social, economic, and environmental factors.
Corridor Air Quality Benefits
Air quality benefits derived from improvements to Jefferson Street take into account the emissions reduced
as a result of increased pedestrians, bike use, and transit ridership. Short term analysis is based on existing
conditions (2011) and the long term is based on 2035 projections. These air quality benefits are most likely
to occur with 3‐lane alternatives which provide greater opportunities for urban design and creating an
environment where the use of active modes increases and shifts from automobiles. The team utilized the
methodology based on the North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for calculating
Carbon Monoxide (CO) savings based on reduction in vehicle miles. Conservative assumptions of a shift of
6% to bicycle/pedestrian trips (this methodology combines bicycle and pedestrian trips) and 1.2% shift to
transit. These bicycle/pedestrian trip assumptions are less than half of the current mode split for Fort
Collins based on the North Front Range MPO Household Survey (2010). Based on this conservative
methodology, an estimated 9,200 kilograms (or 10 tons) of CO will be saved in the near term per year and
over 12,000 kilograms (or 13 tons) in the long term per year from the recommended Jefferson Street
improvements. Exhibit 17 below shows the assumptions.
Near Term Long Term
Projected Local Average Daily Traffic* 18,600 24,455
Percent Bicycle/Pedestrian Shifted 6% 6%
Estimated Bicycle/Pedestrian Trips / Day 1,116 1,467
Percent Transit Trips Shifted 1.2% 1.2%
Estimated Transit Trips / Day 223 293
Bicycle/Pedestrian Vehicle Miles Saved / Year** 379,663 499,175
Transit Vehicle Miles Saved / Year*** 282,469 371,387
Total Vehicle Miles Saved / Year 662,133 870,562
CO Kilograms Saved / Year 9,210 12,109
CO Tons Saved / Year 10.15 13.35
*This includes daily traffic volumes from Jefferson Street, Linden and Lincoln Avenue
** Assumes 90% are new trips, 252 travel days and an average trip length of 1.5 miles
*** Assumes 90% are new trips, 252 travel days and an average trip length of 5.58 miles
Exhibit 17: Annual Emissions Reduction Comparison Including Bike, Pedestrian and Transit
Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project Summary Report
Page 34 June 2012
Exhibit 18: Corridor Alternative Comparison Matrix
Summary Report Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project
June 2012 Page 35
Off‐street Parking Opportunities
The width on Jefferson Street available for improvements is limited, only 58 feet. Many different roadway
components are competing for this space including standard lane widths, medians, bikes and parking. In
order to maximize the available parking in the area, two off‐street locations are being looked at for
expansion opportunities. The first includes the City‐owned parking lot at Jefferson Street and North College
Avenue as seen below in Exhibit 18. In addition, the City will continue to explore ideas for additional
parking expansion with the UPRR for the lot located northeast of the Jefferson/Linden Street intersection.
Exhibit 19: Off‐street Parking Opportunities
Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project Summary Report
Page 36 June 2012
Intersection Alternatives
The project team developed two alternatives for both the Jefferson Street/Linden Street intersection and
for the Jefferson Street/Mountain/Lincoln Avenue intersection.
Linden Street
Jefferson/Linden intersection options include keeping the existing designated left turn lanes for vehicles to
turn left off of Jefferson Street to Linden Street as well as an option that would remove the left turn lanes
to create more opportunities for on‐street parking and provide raised medians to serve as pedestrian
refuge islands at the intersection.
Mountain/Lincoln Avenue
Jefferson/Mountain/Lincoln/Riverside intersection options include improvements to the existing signalized
intersection as well as a new roundabout intersection alternative. Exhibit 20 below highlights the
differences between these two intersection alternatives.
Signalized Intersection Roundabout
Construction Cost Estimate $2.7 million $4.3‐5.3 million
Operating Cost Estimate $3,600 per year for signal Depends on additional railroad
equipment
PUC Application May require application if signals are
moved
Will require application
Overall LOS LOS B (16‐17 seconds of delay) LOS B (13‐23 seconds of delay)
Air quality savings n/a (same as existing conditions) 495 kg per year short term reduction and
809 kg per year long term reduction
Right‐of‐way May require approximately 2,000 sqft May require approximately 6,000 sqft
Exhibit 20: Intersection Alternative Comparison Matrix
An evaluation of the two potential intersection treatments has been conducted including cost, safety, level
of service, air quality, property impacts, bicycle and pedestrian operations, truck operations, rail road
operations and public input. Exhibits 21 and 22 show the Jefferson/Mountain/Lincoln/Riverside intersection
options.
Summary Report Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project
June 2012 Page 37
Exhibit 21: Signalized Intersection Alternative
Exhibit 22: Roundabout Alternative (allows for northbound left turns for emergency vehicles at Peterson/Mountain)
Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project Summary Report
Page 38 June 2012
Cost
Cost range for roundabout alternative depends upon amount of right‐of‐way required for improvements
and the higher cost is if the project would need to buy the entire property on the NiceCar site.
Signalized Alternative: $2.7 million
Roundabout Alternative: $4.3 million ‐ $5.3 million
Safety
Over the past four years there have been eight reported crashes at the Jefferson Street and
Mountain/Lincoln Avenue intersection, one of which was an injury crash, resulting in an average of two
crashes per year and 0.25 injury crashes per year. This is a very low existing crash rate for an urban
intersection.
The City Traffic Operations department conducted an analysis of the expected crash frequency with a
roundabout. The analysis took into account the intersection volumes and crash history and applies a crash
modification factor (CMF) for the conversion from a signal to a roundabout. The CMF is based on national
data. The results show that we could expect 1.96 crashes per year and 0.25 injury crashes per year with a
roundabout installed. This analysis shows there would be no net change in crash frequency or crash
severity at that intersection with the installation of a roundabout. This is primarily due to the fact that the
intersection already has a very good safety record.
Roundabouts include features that are used in some cases to improve intersection safety at locations that
have safety issues (which is not the case at this intersection). National data has shown that roundabouts
reduce crash severity due to the accident type and speeds involved, which because of the function and
design of roundabouts are lower speed, side swipe type accidents. Also, roundabouts have fewer conflict
points (points where cars, pedestrians or bicyclists paths cross).
Although roundabouts have features that can improve the safety of an intersection, the intersection at
Jefferson Street and Mountain/Lincoln Avenue has a very low current accident rate and is expected to be
continue to be safe whether it is configured as a signalized intersection or a roundabout.
Level of Service
Traffic analysis conducted for the Jefferson Street and Mountain/Lincoln Avenue intersection, for both a
signalized and a roundabout configuration resulted in a projected level of service (LOS) of B for both
intersection options. The roundabout configuration does show an overall lower delay, ranging from 13 to
23 seconds versus 16 to 17 seconds. This lower delay is realized on the east/west legs of the intersection
(on Mountain and Lincoln). The northbound and southbound delays are higher with the roundabout
configuration.
Air Quality
As noted above the roundabout configuration is expected to have lower overall delay. This savings in delay
results in an air quality improvement due to less idling traffic and less delay. Air quality calculations that
take into account this reduction in delay show that a roundabout would achieve both short term and long
term air quality benefits in the reduction of carbon emissions, as follows:
Short term air quality benefits = 496 Kilograms/year
Long term air quality benefits = 809 Kilograms/year
Summary Report Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project
June 2012 Page 39
The air quality benefits increase over the long term as traffic volumes increase.
Property Impacts
The current estimates for property impacts assume the need for additional right of way for each
intersection option. The current designs also assume that all of the businesses will be able to continue to
operate after construction, even with the needed right‐of‐way. The estimated right‐of way needs for each
option include:
Signalized = Approximately 1,900 square feet (0.04 acres)
Roundabout = Approximately 7,600 square feet (0.175 acres)
For the signalized configuration, the right‐of‐way needs are due to the planned landscape medians and
landscaping areas at the corners and sidewalks.
The additional right‐of‐way for the roundabout is needed to accommodate the larger footprint of the
roundabout layout. The roundabout would require more property from each of the four intersection
corners than the signalized intersection alternative. The impact on businesses is most significant for the
Nice Car repair shop. The current design allows the gas station to remain and operate much like it currently
operates. The Nice Car repair shop will see the most significant impact to its operations, in terms of site
circulation, parking, and access to the site from Lincoln and/or Riverside. The level of impact to the Nice Car
repair shop will be fully determined with the refinement of the roundabout design and more detailed
engineering, and if the impact is significant enough may require the need to purchase the entire Nice Car
property.
The Diamond Vogel Paint Store currently has a driveway access from both Jefferson Street and Lincoln
Avenue. It is important that with either the roundabout or signalized intersection alternatives, the
driveways on Jefferson and Lincoln are needed for large truck deliveries, which allows for them to pull
through their parking lot and not have to back from or out onto Jefferson Street.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Operations
Bicyclist and pedestrians are an important consideration in the design treatment of this intersection with
the growth in bicycle and pedestrian traffic moving east/west along Mountain and Lincoln in recent years.
The signalized configuration would allow for typical bicycle and pedestrian movements. Bicyclists would
cross the signalized intersection either with traffic in the far right part of the travel lane (going from bike
lane to bike lane) or, if they desire, travel to the sidewalk and cross at the crosswalk. Pedestrians would
utilize the crosswalks and cross when the pedestrian signals indicate with the signalized option as seen in
Exhibit 23.
Bicycle operations under the roundabout option would allow the bicyclist to either travel through the
roundabout with traffic; yielding and moving through and merging as a vehicle or to travel to the crosswalk
and cross as a pedestrian. With the roundabout option, pedestrians cross at designated crosswalks,
crossing one travel direction at a time utilizing the medians as a pedestrian refuge. Pedestrians must wait
for a gap in traffic or for traffic to stop to allow them to cross as seen in Exhibit 24.
Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project Summary Report
Page 40 June 2012
Exhibit 23: Signalized Bike and Pedestrian Movements
Exhibit 24: Roundabout Bike and Pedestrian Movements
Truck Operations
Summary Report Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project
June 2012 Page 41
Both intersection options are designed to accommodate the expected truck traffic and maximum truck size
expected along this corridor, as well as trucks turning on and off Lincoln. Jefferson Street is also State
Highway 14, which is a designated truck route connecting through Fort Collins north to Wyoming and
beyond. The legal dimensions and maximum weight limit is defined by CDOT as follows:
“COLORADO’S LEGAL HEIGHT IS 13’ EXCEPT WHERE DESIGNATED 14'6" BY CDOT; MAXIMUM WIDTH IS 8’6” AND 80,000
POUNDS COMBINED GROSS VEHICLE WEIGHT ON INTERSTATE AND 85,000 POUNDS ON NON‐INTERSTATE HIGHWAYS. THERE
IS NO OVERALL LENGTH REQUIREMENT FOR TRUCK TRACTOR SEMITRAILER COMBINATIONS AS LONG AS THE TRAILER DOES NOT
EXCEED 57’4”. A COMBINATION OF VEHICLES COUPLED TOGETHER CANNOT EXCEED FOUR UNITS AND IS LIMITED TO 70 FEET
IN LENGTH.”
Additionally, oversized loads are allowed on this corridor (with an escort) but cannot exceed 17 feet in
width.
The local trucking interest has expressed concern with the roundabout option at this location. Their primary
concern is safety, with truck overtracking through the roundabout. The roundabout is designed to
accommodate large trucks with the understanding that in a multi‐lane roundabout (which this is designed
as) trucks will overtrack and use both lanes. This is the national and state standard design for trucks in a
multi‐lane roundabout. Signs warning car drivers to not pass trucks in the roundabout are installed at the
approaches. Truck turning movements are shown on Exhibits 25 and 26.
Exhibit 25: Signalized Truck Movements
Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project Summary Report
Page 42 June 2012
Exhibit 26: Roundabout Truck Movements
Railroad Operations
The Jefferson Street and Mountain/Lincoln Avenue intersection is adjacent to a UPRR crossing. The UP rail
line parallels the Jefferson Street corridor and crosses the Lincoln Avenue leg of the intersection
approximately 110 feet from Jefferson Street.
Improvements to the signalized intersection are not expected to change the current operations of the
railroad crossing. The crossing currently functions with two railroad crossing arms that blocks east/west
traffic along Mountain/Lincoln Avenue when a train is present and is coordinated with the signal operations
at the intersection. Widening Lincoln Avenue to accommodate raised landscape median will result in the
need to coordinate with UP and the Public Utilities Commission (PUC).
The roundabout configuration will require some changes to the railroad crossing and approval by the UP
and PUC. The roundabout is likely to be closer to the crossing, which may necessitate the need for more
crossing arms. The main concern with the roundabout option is the ability to clear traffic off the tracks
going westbound on Lincoln Avenue when a train is approaching. One proposed solution would be an
additional railroad crossing arm that would activate when a train is approaching to temporarily stop
northbound movements and allow the west bound traffic to clear (the typical number of cars waiting at
that location is estimated to be one or two cars). Once the queue of traffic clears, the gate arm would raise
and the westbound/southbound movement would resume. This gate arm would not be operated by the UP
railroad but would be operated and maintained by the City. This would be a new type of traffic control
device for the City, and the cost and level of effort to maintain and operate are unknown at this time. Other
potential solutions can also be pursued if needed through coordination with the City, UP and the PUC based
Summary Report Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project
June 2012 Page 43
on national examples. The PUC will make the final determination of the railroad related improvements that
must be made to accommodate the roundabout and all costs will be borne by the project.
Public Involvement
Development of the intersection alternatives has included an extensive public involvement process. This
included information on the City’s website, project “e‐newsletter”, public open house events, meetings
with individual property and business owners, meetings with the local trucking interest, presentations to
the Downtown Development Authority (DDA), the Transportation Board, the Bicycle Advisory Committee,
Planning and Zoning Board, the Economic Advisory Commission and the Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce.
Opinions on the intersection options have been varied. Some business owners and residents along
Jefferson Street have been supportive of the roundabout option. They typically like the traffic calming,
urban design, and gateway features offered by the roundabout option. Those opposed to the roundabout
and in favor of the traditional signalized intersection are concerned with the operations, in particular there
has been consistent concern raised over how the roundabout would operate for trucks, trains, bicyclists
and pedestrians.
Diamond Vogel Paint, which is located on the northeast corner of the intersection, is
concerned with the potential loss of its driveway access to Lincoln, which it needs for
deliveries to the store. If this driveway is closed, Diamond Vogel Paint does not support
the roundabout alternative.
Robert Lyle, owner of the Nice Car shop, stated that he felt the roundabout will have a
significant negative impact to his business, particularly if he one or both of his driveway
accesses are moved or closed. Additionally, he is concerned with the loss of property that
he currently uses to circulate and park cars. He has also stated that he would be willing to
discuss relocating his business with the City and/or Downtown Development Authority.
The local trucking interest has consistently been concerned with the roundabout option.
Their two main concerns are safety (overtracking through the roundabout) and the
amount of truck traffic on the State Highway.
The DDA Board voted to support the roundabout intersection alternative after concluding
that it provides a marginally stronger benefit to the overall corridor than the traditional
intersection for the following reasons:
• Greater ease of accessibility to more businesses and properties along the corridor.
Less overall circulation required by vehicles when accessing drive entrances along
the corridor that are restricted by the proposed center median.
• Infill redevelopment sites on Lincoln Avenue (northeast of study area) potentially
impacted less by future right‐of‐way dedication when tying‐in with intersection
improvements at Jefferson/Mountain/Riverside.
• Level of Service performance slightly higher
• Air quality benefits are higher
• Safety improvement: crash severity lessened
• Urban design enhancement on corridor greater from more prominent impact as
gateway feature
Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project Summary Report
Page 44 June 2012
• Anticipated to function at acceptable level of service longer than traditional
intersection if traffic volumes increase in the future
The Transportation Board while supportive of roundabouts in general was not supportive of
a roundabout at this location and approved a motion supporting the signalized alternative.
The Bicycle Advisory Committee had a number of questions on the corridor alternatives and
operations of the proposed roundabout in particular for pedestrians and bicyclists. The
Committee did not take a formal position supporting one alternative; however, the
discussion was favorable for the roundabout alternative and the 3‐lane corridor option.
The Planning and Zoning Board voted to support the signalized intersection alternative.
The Economic Advisory Commission, after discussing return of investment, gateway
considerations, traffic flow, and traffic calming, supported the roundabout as first choice
for the intersection at Mountain/Lincoln and Jefferson and the 3‐lane corridor option.
Additional EAC electronic discussion included the request to consider a 2‐lane corridor
option so that both the on‐street bikelanes and raised landscaped median could be
included along the corridor.
CDOT is neutral on the roundabout intersection option and the “3 lane” corridor alternative.
CDOT has requested an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with the City because
Jefferson Street is State Highway 14, and is part of a CDOT designated regional Truck
Route. CDOT is supportive of the 3 lane alternative. This is supported by a formal approval
by a Chief Engineer dated July 25, 2011. CDOT identified a number of risks associated with
the roundabout. CDOT continues to be neutral on this alternative to the intersection with
a condition that the City assumes all the risks associated with it as outline in the draft
Intergovernmental (IGA) submitted to the City.
The Larimer County Commissioners are supportive of the 3 lane corridor alternative given
the City’s commitment to monitor its performance and work collaboratively with the City,
CDOT, and Larimer County to address any future issues that may arise over time. Larimer
County Commissioners are not supportive of the roundabout option due to concerns it
would divert state highway truck traffic to other regional roadways.
Summary Report Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project
June 2012 Page 45
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
Based on the technical analysis, as well as community outreach efforts, the project team is recommending
the “3 lane” corridor option with a raised, landscaped median, pedestrian streetscape enhancements, and
on‐street parking along the “Old Town” side of Jefferson Street which will offer the most benefits, related
to the project’s diverse goals. Even though this option does not include designated on‐street bicycle lanes,
cyclists can still ride the corridor by taking the lane or traveling through the area on one of the existing, less
busy parallel streets such as Walnut or Willow streets which do have designated bikeways, or the recently
renovated alleys. As this area changes and corridor improvements are made, recommendations for future
off‐street bicycle facilities that could be installed as part of infill/redevelopment activities within the River
District should be evaluated and implemented as appropriate.
As previously described, the “3 lane” options include two auto travel lanes in the northwest bound
direction and one travel lane in the southeast bound direction from College Avenue to Chestnut Street.
From Chestnut Street through the Jefferson/Mountain/Lincoln intersection, the corridor expands slightly to
include the turn lanes at the intersection, allowing two southbound auto travel lanes in the southeast
bound direction.
The recommended corridor alternative includes streetscape, urban design, and gateway improvements
along the corridor and at the intersections to enhance the pedestrian experience. In addition, the 3 lane
options allow for more functional on‐street parking along the “Old Town” side of Jefferson because there is
width to provide a safety buffer area between the parked cars and the vehicle travel lanes. The
recommended corridor alternative also allows for opportunities to improve the transit stops along
Jefferson.
This corridor alternative is agreeable to the City, CDOT, DDA, CMCA, and Larimer County as well as strong
support from the community.
Regarding the Jefferson/Linden intersection alternatives, the team’s preference is to keep the designated
left turn lanes open for drivers to turn off of Jefferson on to Linden Street. These turning movements are
important to support the local businesses along Linden Street and assist with downtown circulation
patterns. Additional efforts to enhance the quality of the pedestrian crossings and the adjacent transit
stops are recommended for this intersection area.
For the Jefferson/Mountain/Lincoln intersection alternatives, both options offer advantages and
disadvantages to achieving the project goals. This intersection provides an opportunity for multimodal
transportation improvements as well as urban design and gateway features to welcome people traveling by
all of modes of transportation into the Downtown, River District, and Lincoln Avenue areas. Community and
partner agency feedback on these two alternatives is very important, particularly given the general
interests and concerns about roundabouts as well as the specific challenges for this location given the
proximity to the UPRR and the role that Jefferson Street serves as a state highway and designated truck
route.
To be responsive to this public input, City staff recommends improvements to the existing signalized
intersection which will include amenities to address pedestrian‐scale improvements, urban design, and
Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project Summary Report
Page 46 June 2012
entry way features in support of the quality Downtown experience we are seeking to achieve with this
project in accordance with the community’s expectations.
The final design/engineering phase will include developing detailed design plans for the corridor and
signalized intersections in accordance with City and CDOT design standards to address the safety needs for
vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycles as well as the urban design and downtown gateway features necessary
to achieve the project goals.
Of particular concern are the recommended raised, landscaped medians. The intent of the project is to
provide medians of sufficient width along the length of the corridor which will offer opportunities for high
quality landscaping, including street trees, as well as wider pedestrian refuge areas at signalized crossings.
The medians will also facilitate “U‐turns” at the signalized intersections. It is important for the detailed
median design to be refined during the engineering phase of the project to address safety for all modes of
transportation, including addressing the off‐set left turn movements at the intersection of
Jefferson/Mountain/Lincoln.
The final design/engineering phase of the Jefferson Street project will include developing detailed plans for
the corridor and intersection improvements to address the safety needs for vehicles, pedestrians, and
bicyclists as well as the streetscape, urban design, and gateway features to achieve the project goals. These
detailed engineering plans will be developed, reviewed, and approved by the City and CDOT as part of the
next phase of the project.
Exhibit 27: Simulation of Signalized Intersection at Jefferson Street/Mountain/Lincoln Avenue
Summary Report Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project
June 2012 Page 47
Transforming this corridor from the existing four lane highway configuration to a more urban, pedestrian‐
oriented, context sensitive design solution will be a major enhancement for our Downtown environment
and supports the City Plan, Transportation Master Plan, and Downtown River District Plan goals for the
heart of our community.
In addition, in response to City Council suggestions, staff has researched potential opportunities to address
noise concerns along the corridor. One consideration is to explore the use of rubberized asphalt for the
roadway paving along the corridor. This technique is used by other agencies to help reduce roadway noise.
The specifics regarding this type of paving material will need further exploration during the final
design/engineering phase of the Jefferson Street project. Other project elements to aid in noise reduction
could include features to promote traffic calming, reduce speeding, and minimize vehicles accelerating and
decelerating at the intersections and throughout the corridor.
Study recommendations also include enhancements for all of the pedestrian crossings along Jefferson
Street such as at Linden Street and at the planned informal pedestrian crossing at Pine Street. In addition,
enhancements are recommended for both of the existing transit stops located near Jefferson and Linden
streets to improve the passenger waiting experience, bus operations, and visibility of the transit stops.
Consideration will also be provided for future Downtown circulator bus service as recommended by the
City’s Transfort Strategic Operating Plan as well as by input from the UniverCity Connections Transit &
Mobility committee.
In addition, the project recommends pursuing the off‐street parking expansion opportunities for the City‐
owned Jefferson Street parking lot as well as potential expansion of the off‐street parking area at Jefferson
and Linden Street. The configuration of these additional spaces needs to be determined in the next phase
of the project and implemented as future funding is available.
Cost of Recommended Alternative:
The following is a summary of the overall project costs for the Jefferson Street improvements, including the
costs for the “3 lane” corridor alternative and improvements to the existing signalized intersections:
Corridor Improvements: Jefferson Street, from College to Linden: $2.2 million
Jefferson Street, from Linden to Mountain/Lincoln: $2.3 million
Total cost of corridor improvements: $4.5 million
Intersection Improvements: $2.7 million
Total cost for project: $7.2 million
Remaining project funding available: $1.3 million
Total unfunded portion: $5.9 million
Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project Summary Report
Page 48 June 2012
IMPLEMENTATION AND NEXT STEPS
June 2012
Design of the Jefferson Street improvements can move forward based upon City Council approval of the
preferred corridor and intersection alternatives as outlined in this Study.
The City Council approval of the Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Study is also recommended to
include approval of the necessary updates to the City’s Transportation Master Plan Capital Improvement
Plan and the US287/SH14 Access Management Plan which is managed jointly by the City, CDOT, and
Larimer County to reflect the 3‐lane corridor and signalized intersection recommendations of the Study.
In addition, CDOT has requested that the City enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement with their agency
to ensure that the Jefferson Street corridor and intersection improvements are monitored over time and
any traffic operations and/or safety issues will be addressed by the local, regional, and state agencies as
needed.
Mid 2012 – 2014
The next step in mid‐2012 is to move forward into the preliminary engineering, final design and right‐of‐
way acquisition phase of the project. This work will include both the transportation and utility
improvements planned for this corridor.
The goal is for this phase of the project to be completed by the end of 2014, keeping in mind schedule
impacts associated with working with the UP Railroad and the Colorado Public Utilities Commission.
Funding for this phase of the project will include the remaining local and federal transportation project
funding in the existing Jefferson Street project budget as well as funding from the City’s Utilities
Department for the underground water and stormwater elements.
2015+
The specific schedule for construction of the Jefferson Street corridor improvements will be based upon the
approved preferred alternative and agreed upon implementation/phasing plan as well as the available
funding.
City staff will continue to explore potential funding opportunities to advance the construction of the
Jefferson Street corridor and intersection improvements. Potential local opportunities include capital
project funding from sources such as the next‐generation of “Building on Basics” types of ballot measures
(post 2015), existing or future Downtown General Improvement District (GID) funds, and/or additional
funding from the Downtown Development Authority or other sources. Staff will continue to seek State and
Federal grant funding opportunities as well to leverage local dollars.
Summary Report Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project
June 2012 Page 49
The project team has identified several options for phasing the implementation Jefferson Street Study
recommended corridor and intersection improvements:
“Block‐by‐block” phasing which would include separating the corridor improvements into
smaller 1‐2 block(s) project segments working southeast from North College to Mountain
Avenue. For example, these smaller block projects could include the segment from North
College to Linden and then a subsequent project for the blocks from Linden to Mountain.
Completing all of the corridor improvements in one combined project from North College to
Mountain Avenue
Completing the Jefferson and Mountain/Lincoln Avenue intersection improvements
separately from the corridor improvements
Construction of all of the corridor and intersection improvements in one comprehensive
package of improvements.
One of the critical elements of evaluating the various phasing options for implementing the Jefferson Street
improvements is ensuring that the transportation related improvements (corridor and intersection) can be
engineered and built in collaboration with several major underground water and stormwater utility projects
planned by the City’s Utilities department.
While the concept of breaking the project implementation into smaller, less expensive, pieces was
attractive on the surface, the Jefferson Street Study project team recommends that the full corridor and
intersection improvements be complete at one time along the entire length of the project area (from North
College through the Mountain/Lincoln Avenue intersection) based on the importance of cooperatively
engineering and constructing the transportation and major underground utility improvements planned for
this corridor.
In addition, given the magnitude of scope and scale of impact for a major construction project of this
nature – the combined transportation and utility improvements – it will be less impactful to the travelling
public and the local business/property owners to endure one larger project rather than multiple smaller
projects.
Staff will continue to work together across City departments and with our local, regional, and state agency
partners to refine and optimize the phasing and implementation strategies as the project moves forward
over time.
Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project Summary Report
Page 50 June 2012
SUMMARY
In summary, the Jefferson Street Study has outlined recommendations for future corridor and intersection
improvement projects developed through a comprehensive technical planning process conducted in
conjunction with an extensive community engagement process.
The Jefferson Street improvements are envisioned as a long‐term community investment and it may be 5‐
10 years before all of the elements are completed based upon the funding needed for implementation and
the coordination efforts between the transportation and utilities infrastructure projects.
The ultimate goal is to transform Jefferson Street into high quality, welcoming corridor and integrated
within the overall Downtown context in support of the community’s land use, transportation, economic,
and environmental vision.
The City is committed to continuing to monitor the performance of the planned Jefferson Street corridor
and intersection improvements over time to ensure top quality, multimodal transportation service to local
and regional travelers using the Jefferson Street/SH14 corridor.
Should any concerns arise over time based on changing travel and land use patterns, the City agrees to
work collaboratively with our local community, DDA, Larimer County, North Front Range Metropolitan
Planning Organization, and CDOT to address any future needs for this important corridor. Additionally the
final design for the corridor and at the intersection will be developed and reviewed by the City and CDOT
for concurrence. The public engagement process is envisioned to continue throughout the timeline needed
to complete the Jefferson Street improvements as well as to monitor the performance over time.
The Jefferson Street project team is appreciative of the involvement from all of our local, regional, and
state partners and for the invaluable input we received from the Fort Collins community throughout the
Alternatives Analysis process.
The combined impact of the multi‐agency and community engagement efforts has led to an exciting vision
for Jefferson Street to serve people and all modes of travel for today, tomorrow, and future generations to
come.
For more information on the Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Study and recommendations, please
visit: http://www.fcgov.com/riverdistrict/jefferson.php.
Summary Report Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project
May 2012 Page 1
APPENDIX A
Previous Planning Documents
Planning Document Organization
Considered
for
Goals,
objs, etc?
Justification for Goals/Objectives Consideration
Plan data
used in
Existing
Conditions?
Justification for Existing Condition
Consideration
All FC Urban Renew Authority plans FC No Not in study area No Not in study area
CDOT agency vision, mission, value statements CDOT Yes Goals represent stakeholder values No Not applicable
2008 Bicycle Plan FC Yes New goal Yes Shows existing condition for bike issues
2008 Buildable Lands Inventory and Capacity Analysis – June 24,
2009 FC No Reconfirms City Plan goals. No additional goals. Yes
Documents progress/gaps in achieving some City Plan
goals
Campus West Community Commercial District Planning Study
Report – 2001 FC No Not in study area No Not in study area
City Plan – May 4, 2004 (Update February 2011) FC Yes The vision, goals, etc are fundamental to all planning efforts Yes Documents existing conditions (as of 2004)
City Plan Monitoring Project 1997-2007 Indicator Report – February
2009 FC No No goals Yes
Information is relevant to establishing baseline
facts/trends
Design Standards and Guidelines for Large Retail Establishment –
1995 FC No
Goal/plan addresses a structures response to roads, not the
reverse No
Guidelines for future projects, not an existing conditions
doc
Development Design Standards for the I-25 Corridor – May 2001 FC No Outside of project area No Outside of project area
Downtown and CSU Project Inventory – April 27, 2007 FC No No goals No 2007 snapshot, out-of-date
Downtown Development Plan – 1981 DDA Yes Objectives and purposes for downtown area No 1981 condition facts and findings are out-of-date
Downtown Plan – June 1989 FC Yes Vision expressed for downtown Yes Adopted vision for downtown. Past/future conditions
expressed
Downtown River Corridor Implementation Program Summary Report
– 2000 FC No Plan reaffirms 1997 City Plan; no additional goals expressed Yes Valuable condition information is documented
Downtown River District Streetscape Improvement Project – August
1, 2008 FC Yes Goal specifically refers to the project study area Yes Shows an existing and desired future condition
East Mulberry Corridor Plan – September 2002 FC No Outside of project area No Outside of project area
East Side Neighborhood Plan – March 1, 1986 FC Yes Expresses goals for project adjoining neighborhood Yes Discusses past/future conditions in project adjoining
neighborhood
Fort Collins Design Manual – May 2000 FC No Reaffirms City Plan vision, mission, goals, etc. Yes Comments on current conditions and desired conditions
Fort Collins Downtown Alleys Master Plan DDA Yes Goals specifically refer to the project study area Yes Data/analyses show existing conditions
Fort Collins Downtown Strategic Plan – February 17, 2004, Amended
06 FC No No specific goals, was a precursor to City Plan update Yes Establishes baseline (2004/2006) and recommendations
Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan – March 17, 1998 FC No Not in study area No Not in study area
Harmony Corridor Plan – February 7, 2006 FC No Not in study area No Not in study area
Harmony Corridor Standards and Guidelines – February 7, 2006 FC No Not in study area No Not in study area
I-25 Subarea Plan – August 19, 2003 FC No Not in study area No Not in study area
I-25/SH392 Interchange Improvement Plan – April 2, 2008 FC No Not in study area No Not in study area
Intergovernmental Agreements – 1980-2000 FC No Not applicable No Not applicable
Master Street Plan FC No Illustrates City Plan goals, objectives, etc.. Yes Shows existing vision for street network
Mountain Vista Subarea Plan – September 15, 2009 FC Yes
Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project Summary Report
Page 2 May 2012
Planning Document Organization
Considered
for
Goals,
objs, etc?
Justification for Goals/Objectives Consideration
Plan data
used in
Existing
Conditions?
Justification for Existing Condition
Consideration
Northern Colorado Regional Communities I-25 Corridor Plan – May
2001 FC No Not in study area No Not in study area
Northern Colorado Separator Study – 1999 FC No Not scale appropriate No Not scale appropriate
Northside Neighborhoods Plan – January 18, 2005 FC Yes Plan offers goals specific to a location that adjoins Jefferson St
study area Yes Identifies existing issues and problems
Northwest Subarea Plan – December 19, 2006 FC No Not in study area No Not in study area
Redevelopment Policies, Strategies and Future Directions – 2004 FC No Reaffirms City Plan vision Yes Documents market opportunities
Refill Fort Collins – 2006 FC No Restates City Plan goals. No additional goals. Yes Identifies redevelopment opportunities in study area
Region Between Fort Collins and Loveland (A Plan for the) – April
1995 FC No Not in study area No Not in study area
Regional Growth Opportunities: Select Industry Clusters in Fort
Collins – 2006 FC No Not scale appropriate No Not scale appropriate
Results of the Visual Preference Survey (City Plan) – October 26,
1995 FC No Not in study area Yes Documents community preferences
South College Corridor Plan – March 2009 FC No Not in study area No Not in study area
Streetscape Design Standards and Guidelines – January 2, 2001 FC No Is a guideline document, does not have goals Yes Establishes framework for identifying non-standard
streets
Transfort Strategic Operating Plan FC Yes New goals Yes Shows existing conditions (2009)
Transportation Master Plan – 2004 (Update February 2011) FC Yes Changes/builds upon City Plan goals Yes Recent Trends section establishes existing conditions
Trends 2006 – March 2006 FC No Is a data document, does not have goals Yes Contains relevant data
US 287/SH 14 Access Management Report – April 4, 2000 FC/CDOT Yes Contains access objectives Yes Specific plans identified for SH 14
West Central Neighborhoods Plan – March 16, 1999 FC Yes Establishes unique goals and objectives for overlapping study area Yes Documents current condition for the neighborhoods
West Side Neighborhood Plan – July 18, 1989 FC No Not in study area No Not in study area
FC = City of Fort Collins
DDA = Downtown Development Authority
Summary Report Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project
May 2012 Page 1
APPENDIX B
Street Characteristics and Utility Information
Summary Report Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project
May 2012 Page 1
APPENDIX C: Alternatives Evaluated
Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis TWO-LANE ALTERNATIVES
Alternative OPTION A OPTION B OPTION B-2 OPTION B-3 OPTION C
TYPICAL SECTION
Downtown River District Streetscape Plan
Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 NEW NEW NEW
Screening Results Forward to next level Recommended for elimination* Recommended for elimination* Forward to next level Forward to next level
Travel Lanes
Number of travel lanes 1 northbound, 1 southbound 1 northbound, 1 southbound 1 northbound, 1 southbound 1 northbound, 1 southbound 1 northbound, 1 southbound
On-Street Parking
Availability of on-street parking Parallel – both sides None Angled – center Parallel – both sides Parallel – both sides
Bicycle Facilities
Availability of formal bike lanes None Shoulder or bike lane – both sides Shoulder or bike lane – both sides Shoulder or bike lane – both sides None
Median (Raised or Striped)
Type if median (if any) Striped (Two-way left-turn lane) Raised (0-18’) Striped (parking) Raised (0-2’) Raised
Minimize Conflicts
Where might safety conflicts exist?
Travel lane – parking conflict, center turn
lane available for avoidance maneuvers
Creates NB traffic merge from 2 lanes to
1 lane
Travel lane – bike lane conflict
Creates NB traffic merge from 2 lanes to
1 lane
Travel lane – parking and bike lane
conflict
Creates NB traffic merge from 2 lanes to
1 lane
Travel lane – bike lane conflict
Creates NB traffic merge from 2 lanes to
1 lane
Travel lane – parking conflict
Creates NB traffic merge from 2 lanes to
1 lane
Air Quality
Where might air quality improvements exist? Reduced lanes from existing
Reduced lanes from existing
Access control with median Reduced lanes from existing
Reduced lanes from existing
Access control with median
Reduced lanes from existing
Access control with median
Landscaping/Aesthetics
Where are aesthetic improvement opportunities? Up to 2’ excess width Landscaped median Landscaped median Landscaped median
Landscaped median,
up to 8’ excess width
Pedestrians (Crossings, experience, safety, ADA)
Crossing experience for pedestrians Pedestrians cross 3 lanes
Pedestrians cross 2 lanes,
median refuge Pedestrians cross 2 lanes
Pedestrians cross 2 lanes,
median refuge
Pedestrians cross 2 lanes,
median refuge
Transit
How would transit situation change? To be determined To be determined To be determined To be determined To be determined
Total Width (Curb Face to Curb Face)
Corridor width (wider than 58’ indicated in red) 56’ min 40’ min 56’ min 58’ min 50’ min to 58’ max
Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project Summary Report
Page 2 May 2012
Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis TWO-LANE ALTERNATIVES COUPLET
Alternative OPTION D OPTION D-2 OPTION E OPTION F
TYPICAL SECTION
Bike lane for opposite direction is outside the
Jefferson Street corridor
Bike lane for opposite direction is outside the Jefferson
Street corridor
Downtown River District Streetscape Plan
Alternative NEW NEW NEW NEW
Screening Results Recommended for elimination* Recommended for elimination* Recommended for elimination* Recommended for elimination*
Travel Lanes
Number of travel lanes 1 northbound, 1 southbound 1 northbound, 1 southbound 1 northbound, 1 southbound
Conversion to one-way couplet; need an adjacent road
for alternate direction
On-Street Parking
Availability of on-street parking
8’ Parallel – east side
18’ Angled – west side 18’ Angled – west side 18’ Angled – west side
Bicycle Facilities
Availability of formal bike lanes
Shoulder or bike lane – west side
(one direction only) Shoulder or bike lane – both sides
Shoulder or bike lane – west side
(one direction only)
Median (Raised or Striped)
Type if median (if any) None None None
Minimize Conflicts
Where might safety conflicts exist?
Travel lane – parking conflict on east side
Travel lane – bike lane conflict on west
side
Creates NB traffic merge from 2 lanes to
1 lane
Travel lane – bike lane conflict
Creates NB traffic merge from 2 lanes to 1 lane
Travel lane – bike lane conflict on west side
Creates NB traffic merge from 2 lanes to 1 lane
Air Quality
Where might air quality improvements exist? Reduced lanes from existing Reduced lanes from existing Reduced lanes from existing Some traffic moved to adjacent road
Landscaping/Aesthetics
Where are aesthetic improvement opportunities? Up to 6’ excess width
Pedestrians (Crossings, experience, safety, ADA)
Crossing experience for pedestrians Pedestrians cross 2 lanes Pedestrians cross 2 lanes Pedestrians cross 2 lanes
Transit
How would transit situation change? To be determined To be determined To be determined
Total Width (Curb Face to Curb Face)
Corridor width (wider than 58’ indicated in red) 58’ min 55’ min to 58’ max 52’ min Varies
Trucks
Impediments to truck operations
Possible impediments – 1 lane with
adjacent parking
No new significant impediments No new significant impediments No new significant impediments
Implementability
Significant hurdles to implementation Matches existing width
Similar to existing width 6’ narrowing Significant difficulties to implement
Notes:
1. Landscape/aesthetic improvements will also be considered outside of curb limits.
2. Transit improvements will be considered by eliminating and/or reducing parking, median width, and bike lanes.
Summary Report Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project
May 2012 Page 3
Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis THREE-LANE ALTERNATIVE
Alternative OPTION G OPTION G-2 OPTION H OPTION H-2 OPTION I
TYPICAL SECTION
Bike lane for opposite direction is outside
the Jefferson Street corridor
Downtown River District Streetscape Plan
Alternative Alternative 3 NEW NEW NEW NEW
Screening Results Forward to next level Forward to next level Forward to next level Forward to next level Forward to next level
Travel Lanes
Number of travel lanes 2 northbound, 1 southbound 2 northbound, 1 southbound 2 northbound, 1 southbound 2 northbound, 1 southbound 2 northbound, 1 southbound
On-Street Parking
Availability of on-street parking Parallel – both sides None Parallel – west side None Parallel – west side
Bicycle Facilities
Availability of formal bike lanes None Shoulder or bike lane – both sides None Shoulder or bike lane – west side
Shoulder or bike lane – west side
(one direction only)
Median (Raised or Striped)
Type if median (if any) None None Striped (Two-way left-turn lane) Striped (Two-way left-turn lane) Raised (would require additional width)
Minimize Conflicts
Where might safety conflicts exist?
Travel lane – parking conflict on west
side
Travel lane – bike lane conflict on west
side
Travel lane – parking conflict on west
side, center turn lane available for
avoidance maneuvers
Travel lane – bike lane conflict on west
side, center turn lane available for
avoidance maneuvers
Travel lane – bike lane conflict on west
side
Air Quality
Where might air quality improvements exist? Reduced lanes from existing Reduced lanes from existing Reduced lanes from existing Reduced lanes from existing
Reduced lanes from existing
Access control with median
Landscaping/Aesthetics
Where are aesthetic improvement opportunities? Up to 2’ excess width Up to 2’ excess width Landscaped median
Pedestrians (Crossings, experience, safety, ADA)
Crossing experience for pedestrians Pedestrians cross 3 lanes Pedestrians cross 3 lanes Pedestrians cross 4 lanes Pedestrians cross 4 lanes
Pedestrians cross 3 lanes,
median refuge
Transit
How would transit situation change? To be determined To be determined To be determined To be determined To be determined
Total Width (Curb Face to Curb Face)
Corridor width (wider than 58’ indicated in red) 56’ min to 61’ max 50’ min to 55’ max 58’ min 52’ min 58’ min
Trucks
Impediments to truck operations
Possible impediments – 1 lane with
adjacent parking
No new significant impediments
Possible impediments – 1 lane with
adjacent parking
(center turn lane refuge)
No new significant impediments No new significant impediments
Implementability
Significant hurdles to implementation Similar to existing width
Similar to existing width Matches existing width Similar to existing width Matches existing width/raised median
Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project Summary Report
Page 4 May 2012
Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis THREE-LANE ALTERNATIVE
Alternative OPTION I-2 OPTION J OPTION J-2 OPTION K OPTION L
TYPICAL SECTION
Downtown River District Streetscape Plan
Alternative NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW
Screening Results Forward to next level Forward to next level Recommended for elimination* Forward to next level Forward to next level
Travel Lanes
Number of travel lanes 2 northbound, 1 southbound 1 northbound, 2 southbound 1 northbound, 2 southbound 1 northbound, 2 southbound 1 northbound, 2 southbound
On-Street Parking
Availability of on-street parking Parallel – west side
Parallel – both sides
(Similar to Option G) Parallel – west side Parallel – west side Parallel – west side
Bicycle Facilities
Availability of formal bike lanes None None Shoulder or bike lane – west side None None
Median (Raised or Striped)
Type if median (if any) Raised (would require additional width) None None Striped (Two-way left-turn lane) Raised
Minimize Conflicts
Where might safety conflicts exist?
Travel lane – bike lane conflict on west
side
Travel lane – parking conflict on east
side
Creates NB traffic merge from 2 lanes
to 1 lane
Travel lane – parking conflict on east
side
Creates NB traffic merge from 2 lanes
to 1 lane
Creates NB traffic merge from 2 lanes
to 1 lane
Creates NB traffic merge from 2 lanes
to 1 lane
Air Quality
Where might air quality improvements exist?
Reduced lanes from existing
Access control with median Reduced lanes from existing Reduced lanes from existing Reduced lanes from existing
Reduced lanes from existing
Access control with median
Landscaping/Aesthetics
Where are aesthetic improvement opportunities? Landscaped median Up to 2’ excess width Up to 2’ excess width
Landscaped median,
up to 6’ excess width
Pedestrians (Crossings, experience, safety, ADA)
Crossing experience for pedestrians
Pedestrians cross 3 lanes,
median refuge Pedestrians cross 3 lanes Pedestrians cross 3 lanes Pedestrians cross 4 lanes
Pedestrians cross 3 lanes,
median refuge
Transit
How would transit situation change? To be determined To be determined To be determined To be determined To be determined
Total Width (Curb Face to Curb Face)
Corridor width (wider than 58’ indicated in red) 53’ min 56’ min to 61’ max 53’ min to 58’ max 58’ min 52’ min to 58’ max
Trucks
Impediments to truck operations No new significant impediments
Possible impediments – 1 lane with
adjacent parking
Possible impediments – 1 lane with
adjacent parking
Summary Report Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project
May 2012 Page 5
Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis FOUR-LANE ALTERNATIVE EXISTING/NO-ACTION
Alternative OPTION M OPTION N OPTION O-1 OPTION O-2 OPTION O-3 OPTION P
TYPICAL SECTION
Downtown River District Streetscape Plan
Alternative Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Alternative 6 NEW NEW
Screening Results Recommended for elimination** Recommended for elimination** Forward to next level Forward to next level Forward to next level Forward to next level
Travel Lanes
Number of travel lanes 2 northbound, 2 southbound 2 northbound, 2 southbound 2 northbound, 2 southbound 1 northbound, 1 southbound 1 northbound, 1 southbound 2 northbound, 2 southbound
On-Street Parking
Availability of on-street parking None None Parallel or angled – west side Parallel or angled – west side Parallel or angled – west side Parallel – both sides
Bicycle Facilities
Availability of formal bike lanes None None None
Allowed in northbound and
southbound transit lanes
Allowed in northbound and
southbound transit lanes None
Median (Raised or Striped)
Type if median (if any) None Raised None None None None
Minimize Conflicts
Where might safety conflicts exist?
Air Quality
Where might air quality improvements exist? Lanes same as existing
Lanes same as existing
Access control with median Lanes same as existing Lanes same as existing Lanes same as existing Lanes same as existing
Landscaping/Aesthetics
Where are aesthetic improvement opportunities? Up to 10’ excess width Up to 4’ excess width
Pedestrians (Crossings, experience, safety, ADA)
Crossing experience for pedestrians Pedestrians cross 4 lanes Pedestrians cross 4 lanes Pedestrians cross 4 lanes Pedestrians cross 4 lanes Pedestrians cross 4 lanes Pedestrians cross
4 lanes
Transit
How would transit situation change? To be determined To be determined To be determined
Dedicated northbound and
southbound lanes
Dedicated northbound and
southbound lanes To be determined
Total Width (Curb Face to Curb Face)
Corridor width (wider than 58’ indicated in red) 48’ min to 58’ max 54’ min 58’ min 58’ min 58’ min
58’ (existing widths are non
standard)
Trucks
Impediments to truck operations No new significant impediments
No new significant impediments No new significant impediments No new significant impediments No new significant impediments No change
Implementability
Significant hurdles to implementation Potential narrowing
Similar to existing width/raised
median
Matches existing width Matches existing width Matches existing width Matches existing width
Notes:
1. Landscape/aesthetic improvements will also be considered outside of curb limits.
2. Transit improvements will be considered by eliminating and/or reducing parking, median width, and bike lanes.
3. Bike/shoulder area can be a striped shoulder, wide travel lane, or bike lane.
4. Existing sidewalk widths are between 6 and 19 feet
* The option was eliminated because it induces a merge of northbound Jefferson traffic from 2-lanes to 1-lane. This will increase traffic conflicts thereby reducing roadway safety. The
through northbound Jefferson movement will continue to have a high percentage of trucks which adds to the conflict issue.
** The option was eliminated because there is no parking.
Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project Summary Report
Page 6 May 2012
Summary Report Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project
May 2012 Page 7
Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project Summary Report
Page 8 May 2012
Summary Report Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project
May 2012 Page 9
Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project Summary Report
Page 10 May 2012
Summary Report Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project
May 2012 Page 11
Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project Summary Report
Page 12 May 2012
Cost Estimates Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project
Memo of Assumptions ‐ Final
May 16, 2012
Page | 1
APPENDIX D
COST ESTIMATES ASSUMPTION MEMO
The purpose of this memo is to document the assumptions and present the cost estimates for the preferred
alternatives. For purposes of the estimates the project has been broken down as follows:
• Linden Street to College Avenue
• 150 feet northwest of Mountain Avenue/Lincoln Avenue to Linden Street
• Mountain Avenue/Lincoln Avenue and Jefferson Street intersection – Option 1, Roundabout
• Mountain Avenue/Lincoln Avenue and Jefferson Street intersection – Option 2, Signalized
• City Parking Lot north of Rodizio Grill
The project costs have been estimated as separate stand alone projects.
The cost estimates were prepared using the following bid summaries for information and unit costs:
• Linden Street Streetscape
• North College Vine to Conifer Improvements, Federal Aid Project No. AQC M455‐079
• College Avenue and Harmony Road Landscape and Urban Design Improvements
• College Avenue and Harmony Road Intersection Improvements, STU M455‐077
The estimates do not include the City utilities work and the additional traffic control costs that are required for
that work. The full details for traffic control have not been determined. Assumptions for the Jefferson Street
reconstruction only include:
• Full closure and detour of State Highway is not proposed. SH 14 is a Truck Route and detouring this
traffic would require significant coordination but this can be considered further during the design phase.
• Within the overall 59‐foot roadway width, there is sufficient width to reconstruct Jefferson Street one
half at a time maintaining a minimum of one lane in each direction. This will likely require elimination of
turn lanes and parking for portions of the work.
• 4 message boards are assumed
Linden Street to College Avenue
1. Concrete pavement extends approximately 250 feet from College Avenue (to the Alley). This pavement
will not be reconstructed.
2. Between College Avenue and Pine Street on the Old Town side, the curb and sidewalk is in good (newer
condition) and will not be reconstructed. This section will include urban design amenities including
lighting, bike racks, benches, etc. There will be a new curb bulb out at the Pine Street intersection. Also,
there is a lowpoint in this section with a good street profile that does not require adjustment.
3. Between College Avenue and City Parking Lot on River District side, the right‐of‐way (ROW) is at the
back of sidewalk and the sidewalk was constructed as part of the North College Avenue intersection
reconstruction. No work is included in this area.
Cost Estimates Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project
Memo of Assumptions ‐ Final
May 16, 2012
Page | 2
5. The area in front of the Rodizio Grill presently has planters with large mature trees in this area (set back
approximately 7 feet from the existing face of curb). An option was considered to provide inset parking
however it was decided to not include any on‐street parking at this location for the following reasons:
a. Input from the current business owner was that not impacting the existing planters, landscaping
and entry area was desirable. The owner stated that it was preferred to remove the parking
allowing for a larger more inviting entry area in front of the business.
b. The TAC agreed to not include the parking because it eliminated a conflict point between
through travel lanes, parking movements, and pedestrian usage. It was also felt that the
existing parking at this location was underutilized at present.
c. The pedestrian crossing of Jefferson Street at Pine Street is not prohibited but it will also not be
formalized. Designated pedestrian crossings with cross‐walks, and pedestrian crossing signals
with push buttons will be provided at the College Avenue and Linden Street intersections. The
street median will be designed to allow visibility across Jefferson Street from Old Town at the
Pine Street intersection.
6. Between Rodizio Grill and Linden Street on the River District side, reconstruction of the detached
sidewalk or curb and gutter are not proposed. The existing grass detached area and trees would remain.
The street lighting would be replaced with new to match the corridor.
7. Between Pine Street and Linden Street on the Old Town side, the curb and gutter and sidewalk area (to
face of building) would be reconstructed. This area would include heavy urban design elements and
aesthetics considerations. Focus would be to extend/continue the improvements for the Downtown
Development Authority’s (DDA) alleyway improvements project. The use of green streets elements, in
particular stormwater into planting areas (bioretention or rain gardens) is desired and is included in the
estimates.
8. At the Linden Street intersection on the River District side, the curb ramps and sidewalk were recently
reconstructed as part of the Linden Street Reconstruction and would remain. The estimate does not
include any special urban design to the Linden Street/Jefferson Street intersection except the bulb‐outs
on the Old Town side. No colored crosswalks, no monuments, no colored signal poles, etc.
9. At the Linden Street intersection on the Old Town side, the curb bulb out construction on the south west
corner is included. A transit stop is proposed at this location. The curb ramps and corners would be
improved to include urban design components. A bike box is proposed on Linden Street.
10. City of Fort Collins Utilities is proposing to build a new storm sewer (36 to 60 inch), replace the existing
waterline (16 inch), and build a new sanitary sewer (8 inch). This work is part of the Downtown River
District Utility Master Plan. These improvements will be closely coordinated with the Jefferson Street
roadway and intersection improvements.
11. For the parking areas, a color contrast between the parking, buffer and travel lane is proposed. It is
assumed to use colored asphalt (Asphacolor or other similar) for the buffer space. Within the parking
area, options include concrete or possible permeable brick pavers for storm water treatment/Best
Management Practices (BMP). The cost estimate includes brick pavers.
12. For the pavement reconstruction, a 10‐inch hot mix asphalt over 12‐inch aggregate base was assumed.
Also, it is assumed that the street profile does not require major adjustment or correction.
Cost Estimates Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project
Memo of Assumptions ‐ Final
May 16, 2012
Page | 3
13. The total overall cost estimate anticipates a $2.06 million cost (2011). Assuming construction would be
in 2013 and an annual inflation of 3 percent, the estimated possible construction cost would be
$2.2 million in year 2013. The cost of the pavement reconstruction (excluding curb and gutter, parking
areas, buffer space, and medians) is $264,000 of this total.
14. ROW (see email from Dean Klingner for assumptions) may require coordination with UPRR for work in
Jefferson Park which is assumed to be minimal (replace lights) and possible temporary construction
easement. These are assumed to be no cost items for the estimate.
150 feet northwest of Mountain Avenue/Lincoln Avenue to Linden Street
1. The proposed work ends approximately 150 feet northwest of the Mountain Avenue /Lincoln Avenue
intersection. The proposed intersection construction cost estimates includes the work to the south.
2. Between Linden Street and Lincoln Avenue on the River District Side, the curb and gutter will remain at
its present location and the existing sidewalk width will be maintained. This allows for additional width
in the median for landscaping which was deemed more important than a wider sidewalk along the River
District side. The sidewalk width can be modified as the adjacent properties are redeveloped in the
future. It is desired for the sidewalk area to include vertical elements such as seat wall or planter box to
provide a barrier between traffic and pedestrians.
3. Between Linden Street and Mountain Avenue on the Old Town side, the curb and gutter, and sidewalk
area (to face of building) would be reconstructed. This area would include heavy urban design elements
and aesthetics considerations. Focus would be to extend/continue the improvements for the DDA’s
alleyway improvements project. The use of green streets elements, in particular stormwater into
planting areas (bioretention or rain gardens) is desirable and is included in the estimates.
4. City of Fort Collins Utilities is proposing to build a new storm sewer (36 to 60 inch), replace the existing
waterline (16 inch), and build a new sanitary sewer (8 inch). This work is part of the Downtown River
District Utility Master Plan. These improvements will be closely coordinated with the Jefferson Street
roadway and intersection improvements.
5. For the parking areas, a color contrast between the parking, buffer and travel lane is proposed. It is
assumed to use colored asphalt (Asphacolor or other similar) for the buffer space. Within the parking
area, options include concrete or possible permeable brick pavers for storm water treatment/ BMP. The
cost estimate includes brick pavers.
6. For the pavement reconstruction, a 10‐inch hot mix asphalt over 12‐inch aggregate base was assumed.
It is further assumed that the street profile does not require major adjustment or correction.
7. The reconstruction of the Linden Street intersection is included in this phase of the work. Curb, gutter
and sidewalk elements have been completed under previous phases.
8. The total overall cost estimate anticipates a $2.11 million cost (2011). Assuming construction would be
in 2013 and an annual inflation of 3 percent, the estimated possible construction cost would be
$2.3 million in year 2013. The cost of the pavement reconstruction (excluding curb and gutter, parking
areas, buffer space, and medians) is $310,000 of this total.
9. ROW (see email from Dean Klingner for assumptions); it is assumed to require purchase of a 5.5‐foot
strip on the River District side and possible temporary construction easement for vacant parcels and
parking lots.
Costs include parcel appraisals and acquisition costs above and beyond the actual land cost.
Cost Estimates Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project
Memo of Assumptions ‐ Final
May 16, 2012
Page | 4
Mountain Avenue/Lincoln Avenue and Jefferson Street intersection – option 1, roundabout
1. City of Fort Collins Utilities is proposing to build a new storm sewer (36 to 60 inch), replace the existing
waterline (16 inch), and build a new sanitary sewer (8 inch). This work is part of the Downtown River
District Utility Master Plan. These improvements will be closely coordinated with the Jefferson Street
roadway and intersection improvements.
2. The UPRR grade crossing will require complete replacement and the signalization equipment will require
an upgrade. Low and high costs have been used for this work.
3. For the pavement reconstruction, a concrete section was assumed per Fort Collins standards for arterial
intersections. It is further assumed that the street profile does not require major adjustment or
correction.
4. The total overall cost estimate anticipates a $4.1 to $4.97 million cost (2011). Assuming construction
would be in 2013 and an annual inflation of 3 percent, the estimated possible construction cost would
be $4.35 to $5.3 million in year 2013. The cost range is for a low and high cost for railroad crossing
modification requirements and right of way acquisition uncertainties. The higher cost includes the
potential acquisition of the Nice Car repair dealership. The need and cost for this will be further defined
during the design phase.
The City’s Utilities Department storm sewer, waterline, and sanitary sewer must be completed prior to
or as a part of the intersection reconstruction. The location of these facilities must be coordinated.
Mountain Avenue/Lincoln Avenue and Jefferson Street intersection – option 2, signalized
1. City of Fort Collins Utilities is proposing to build a new storm sewer (36 to 60 inch), replace the existing
waterline (16 inch), and build a new sanitary sewer (8 inch). This work is part of the Downtown River
District Utility Master Plan. These improvements will be closely coordinated with the Jefferson Street
roadway and intersection improvements.
2. The UPRR grade crossing equipment will not be touched and does not require any upgrade.
3. For the pavement reconstruction, a concrete section was assumed per Fort Collins standards for arterial
intersections. It is further assumed that the street profile does not require major adjustment or
correction.
4. The total overall cost estimate anticipates a $2.54 million cost (2011). Assuming construction would be
in 2013 and an annual inflation of 3 percent, the estimated possible construction cost would be
$2.7 million in year 2013.
The City’s Utilities Department storm sewer, waterline, and sanitary sewer must be completed prior to
or as a part of the intersection reconstruction. The location of these facilities must be coordinated.
City Parking Lot north of Rodizio Grill
1. The work includes curb and gutter and sidewalk along Jefferson Street.
2. The parking lot will not be reconstructed. It will be restriped only.
3. The total anticipated cost estimate is $100,000.
Attachment 1
ROW Coordination
1
Liddle, Daniel
Subject: FW: Jefferson Right of Way
Attachments: jefferson_property.pdf
From: Dean Klingner
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 4:36 PM
To: Kathleen Bracke; Helen Migchelbrink; Rick Richter; Karen Cumbo; Tuttle, Tim; Zisman, Ina; 'Wallis, Carrie'; Aaron
Iverson; Liddle, Daniel
Cc: Wally Muscott
Subject: Jefferson Right of Way
Kathleen –
I met today with Wally to look at the ROW information on Jefferson Street. We utilized all of the existing information we
have from the various surveys for the Downtown River District Plan, the Linden Street Improvements, etc.
Without doing a full survey for property corners and title work for all the properties, we obviously do not know the exact
property lines, but this information should be good for planning-level cost estimating and identifying where property will
likely have to be acquired.
Jefferson from College to Linden
River District Side:
The Jefferson lot is City-owned, so property acquisition is not required.
As was discussed, the Rodizio Grill property has recently dedicated property for the sidewalk, so property acquisition is
not required
The property line along Jefferson Park is the flow line of the curb and gutter. This means any changes or reconstruction
behind the curb will require permission and/or ROW acquisition from the UP. This is anticipated since we are planning on
lights and urban design features in this area.
Old Town Side:
The property line appears to be on the building face through this section, so no ROW is required. A Temporary
Construction Easement will probably be needed from the vacant parcel.
Linden to Lincoln
River District Side:
The ROW line through this section appears to be just behind the curb and gutter, so most of the sidewalk in this section is
not in the ROW. To rebuild and enhance the sidewalk in this section will require the purchase of a strip of property about
5.5-feet wide for the entire length. This is an odd situation, but has been verified by property corners we found in the field
for the Linden and River District surveys.
Old Town Side:
This is the section where we have the least amount of information, but it appears as though the property line is on the
building face and we will not require ROW acquisition. We will need Temporary Construction Easements from the vacant
parcels and parking lots.
I am not adding any additional information for the intersection alternatives since I think we have accurate property line
assumptions on those four corners.
Dean
_____________________________________________________________________
This message has been checked for all known viruses by MessageLabs.
Attachment 2
Urban Design Meeting
Urban Design Meeting Notes: October 25, 2011 Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis
1
MEETING SUMMARY
Meeting: Urban Design Coordination
Date/Time: Thursday, June 30, 2011, 3:30 PM to 5:00 PM
Location: 215 N. Mason Street, Conference Room 1B
Attendees:
Aaron Iverson, Fort Collins
Carrie Wallis, Atkins
Dan Liddle, Atkins
Dean Klingner, Fort Collins
Kathleen Bracke, Fort Collins
Bruce Hendee, Fort Collins
Matt Robenalt, DDA
Perry Palmer, DEA
Agenda:
1. Phasing and Implementation
2. Level of Urban Design
a. High/Medium/Low
3. Ultimate
a. Median
b. Parking/Buffer Area
c. Sidewalk
d. Intersections
4. Interim
a. Median
b. Parking/Buffer Area
c. Sidewalk
d. Intersections
5. Next Steps
1. Phasing and Implementation
• The ultimate urban design improvements will be determined and the costs associated
• Once the ultimate design and costs are known potential phasing can be evaluated
• Major considerations for phasing are the need to replace the storm sewer, waterline, and
sanitary sewer
2. Level of Urban Design
• Bruce Hendee provided a big picture overview of the urban design goals; 1) breakdown the
barrier between Old Town and River District and 2)create a sense of integration
• Bruce Hendee commented that pedestrian movements across Jefferson at Linden Street are a
major emphasis
• Bruce Hendee commented that that the aesthetics (highlight the historic buildings) is key to the
urban design. SH 14 is an historic byway.
• Level should be similar to Linden or the Mitchell block
3. Ultimate
a. Median
• The median will be raised (see sketch)
• Median should be designed to discourage pedestrian from crossing except at Pine
and Chestnut where a “soft crossing” will be provided.
• The planted width will be 5’ +/‐
• Median could include pedestrian railing/fence with plantings, trees (columnar or
American Elm type or similar), and possibly poles – need to check with CDOT on any
concerns with crash safety issues if this element moves forward
• Potentail for adding brick face or stamped patterns to the sides of the median
• The utilities need to be considered where trees are located
• As ROW allows, would like median refuge to be provided across Jefferson at Linden
b. Parking/Buffer Area
• It was decided to use brick pavers for the parking area, this will involve permeability for
the City’s green streets
• The buffer space will be a color contrast from the travel lanes, pavement markings or
colored pavement. This area will be have brick pavers due to maintenance concerns
c. Sidewalk Area
• Consider the use of green streets elements, in particular stormwater into planting areas
• Different areas along the corridor will have varying levels of urban design. Some areas
are already good and will not be improved significantly such as the Jefferson Park area
where there is a detached walk with trees
• Between Lincoln and Linden on the River District side, the sidewalk is being widened by
2’. A vertical element such as seat wall or planter is desired to provide a barrier
between traffic and pedestrians.
• Bruce Hendee commented that trees need air and tree grates may not be well suited.
Consider longer open strips where trees will be located.
• The sidewalks along the Old Town side will not be widened. There are many trees that
will be saved/incorporated into the urban design elements.
• Include recycle bins as well as trash receptacles
• Decorative street lights will be used throughout. These will cost approximately $10k
each plus wiring.
• The need for right of way was discussed. The only anticipated ROW required is at the
Lincoln Mountain Intersection.
• Contact Wally Muscott to verify that the sidewalk areas are within City ROW.
• Investigate the area in front of Rodizio Grill for ROW ownership. Some ROW transfer
was made when the planters were constructed.
d. Intersections
• Bruce Hendee and Matt Robenault stated that decorative cross‐walks and intersection
treatments are not a good use of funding as pedestrian use this area the least.
• Kathleen Bracke stated that the cross‐walks are for drivers visibility awareness –
concrete planting pots, etc
• Intersection corners are a good location to focus urban design elements
• Adding urban design at the Jefferson Park (on UPRR ROW) corner of Linden Street will
be considered. This is expected to be a major pedestrian crossing area due to work on
Linden Street and destination area in the River District
• Linden Street from Old Town to River District may be a good location for a bike box
4. Interim
• Additional evaluation will be required to determine potential interim or initial projects
• It is desirable to complete all the utility work at the same time, one traffic closure for all the
work.
• Matt Robenault comments were:
o Do not underwhelm the public with the initial improvement
Attachment 3
Cost Estimates
by: DAL
01/11/2012
201 Clearing and Grubbing LS $5,000 1 $5,000.00
202 Removal of Asphalt Mat SY $3.50 4,300 $15,050.00
203 Removal of Curb and Gutter LF $5.00 750 $3,750.00
204 Removal of Sidewalk SY $15.00 600 $9,000.00
203 Earthwork CY $10.00 2,200 $22,000.00
203 Muck Excavation CY $15.00 500 $7,500.00
208 Erosion Log LF $9.00 200 $1,800.00
208 Silt Fence LF $3.00 200 $600.00
208 Concrete Washout Structure EA $800.00 1 $800.00
208 Storm Drain Inlet Protection EA $400.00 2 $800.00
208 Stabilized Construction Entrance EA $1,000.00 2 $2,000.00
208 Erosion Control Supervisor HR $65.00 40 $2,600.00
210 Reset/Adjust Structures LS $25,000.00 1 $25,000.00
214 Landscape Maintenance (24 months) LS $15,000.00 1 $15,000.00
214 Tree EA $500.00 30 $15,000.00
214 Ornamentals/Shrubs EA $25.00 200 $5,000.00
304 Aggregate Base Course (Class 6) TON $15.00 2,200 $33,000.00
306 Reconditioning SY $3.00 4,300 $12,900.00
403 Hot Mix Asphalt (Grading S) (100) 64-28 TON $85.00 1,750 $148,750.00
403 Hot Mix Asphalt (Grading SX) (100) (Colored Buffer Area) TON $100.00 250 $25,000.00
504 Facing (Special) (6" Vertical Curb with Facing) LF $40.00 1,000 $40,000.00
604 Drainage Inlet EA $3,000.00 2 $6,000.00
607 Fence (Special) LF $30.00 500 $15,000.00
Stormwater Runoff Facility (Rain Garden) EA $5,000.00 2 $10,000.00
608 Permeable Brick Pavers (Parking Lane) SF $25.00 3,100 $77,500.00
608 Interlocking Pavers (6" concrete bed) (Sidewalk Area) SF $15.00 350 $5,250.00
608 Concrete Sidewalk SY $50.00 65 $3,250.00
608 Concrete Curb Ramp SY $75.00 80 $6,000.00
608 Street Name Text (Special) (Sandblast and Stain) EA $450.00 8 $3,600.00
609 Curb and Gutter Type 2 (Section I-B) LF $18.00 1,000 $18,000.00
609 Curb and Gutter Type 2 (Section II-B) LF $22.00 800 $17,600.00
610 Median Landscaping SF $20.00 2,500 $50,000.00
Irrigation (with new tap) LS $75,000.00 1 $75,000.00
620 Sanitary Facility LS $800.00 2 $1,600.00
622 Bicycle Rack EA $1,100.00 6 $6,600.00
622 Planter Box EA $900.00 25 $22,500.00
622 Bench EA $2,800.00 8 $22,400.00
622 Bollard EA $500.00 10 $5,000.00
622 Trash Receptacle EA $2,000.00 4 $8,000.00
Recycle Bin EA $2,000.00 4 $8,000.00
622 Conduits/Wiring LS $50,000.00 1 $50,000.00
622 Pedestrian/Street Lights (including foundation) EA $10,000.00 18 $180,000.00
626 Mobilization LS $80,000.00 1 $80,000.00
626 Public Information Services LS $5,000.00 1 $5,000.00
630 Flagging HR $20.00 1,000 $20,000.00
630 Traffic Control Management DAY $500.00 180 $90,000.00
630 Construction Traffic SignEA $80.00 30 $2,400.00
630 Portable Message Sign Panel DAY $75.00 60 $4,500.00
627 Pavement Marking & Signing (including bike box) LS $15,000.00 1 $15,000.00
S:\
SUBTOTAL: $1,199,000.00
FORCE ACCOUNTS AND MINOR CONTRACT REVISIONS 10% $119,900.00
UTILITY ADJUSTMENT CONTINGENCY 4% $47,960.00
GENERAL CONTINGENCY AND UNACCOUNTED ITEMS 20% $239,800.00
CONSTRUCTION COST TOTAL $1,606,660.00
DESIGN 15% $240,999.00
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 13% $208,865.80
ROUNDED ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE
by: DAL
01/11/2012
201 Clearing and Grubbing LS $5,000 1 $5,000.00
202 Removal of Asphalt Mat SY $3.50 5,300 $18,550.00
203 Removal of Curb and Gutter LF $5.00 1,250 $6,250.00
204 Removal of Sidewalk SY $15.00 500 $7,500.00
203 Earthwork CY $10.00 2,700 $27,000.00
203 Muck Excavation CY $15.00 500 $7,500.00
208 Erosion Log LF $9.00 200 $1,800.00
208 Silt Fence LF $3.00 200 $600.00
208 Concrete Washout Structure EA $800.00 1 $800.00
208 Storm Drain Inlet Protection EA $400.00 4 $1,600.00
208 Stabilized Construction Entrance EA $1,000.00 2 $2,000.00
208 Erosion Control Supervisor HR $65.00 40 $2,600.00
210 Reset/Adjust Structures LS $25,000.00 1 $25,000.00
214 Landscape Maintenance (24 months) LS $15,000.00 1 $15,000.00
214 Tree EA $500.00 30 $15,000.00
214 Ornamentals/Shrubs EA $25.00 200 $5,000.00
304 Aggregate Base Course (Class 6) TON $15.00 2,800 $42,000.00
306 Reconditioning SY $3.00 5,300 $15,900.00
403 Hot Mix Asphalt (Grading SX) (100) TON $80.00 2,400 $192,000.00
403 Hot Mix Asphalt (Grading SX) (100) (Colored Buffer Area) TON $100.00 100 $10,000.00
504 Facing (Special) (6" Vertical Curb with Facing) LF $40.00 1,200 $48,000.00
601 Masonry Wall SF $10.00 1,200 $12,000.00
604 Drainage Inlet EA $3,000.00 2 $6,000.00
607 Fence (Special) LF $30.00 600 $18,000.00
Stormwater Runoff Facility (Rain Garden) EA $5,000.00 2 $10,000.00
608 Permeable Brick Pavers (Parking Lane) SF $25.00 1,350 $33,750.00
608 Interlocking Pavers (6" concrete bed) (Sidewalk Area) SF $15.00 830 $12,450.00
608 Concrete Sidewalk SY $50.00 200 $10,000.00
608 Concrete Curb Ramp SY $75.00 30 $2,250.00
608 Street Name Text (Special) (Sandblast and Stain) EA $450.00 3 $1,350.00
609 Curb and Gutter Type 2 (Section I-B) LF $18.00 1,250 $22,500.00
609 Curb and Gutter Type 2 (Section II-B) LF $22.00 1,000 $22,000.00
610 Median Landscaping SF $20.00 2,500 $50,000.00
610 Median Cover Material (Patterned Concrete) SF $6.00 800 $4,800.00
Irrigation (with new tap) LS $50,000.00 1 $50,000.00
620 Sanitary Facility LS $800.00 2 $1,600.00
622 Bicycle Rack EA $1,100.00 6 $6,600.00
622 Planter Box EA $900.00 25 $22,500.00
622 Bench EA $2,800.00 8 $22,400.00
622 Bollard EA $500.00 10 $5,000.00
622 Trash Receptacle EA $2,000.00 4 $8,000.00
Recycle Bin EA $2,000.00 4 $8,000.00
622 Conduits/Wiring LS $40,000.00 1 $40,000.00
622 Pedestrian/Street Lights (including foundation) EA $10,000.00 16 $160,000.00
626 Mobilization LS $80,000.00 1 $80,000.00
626 Public Information Services LS $5,000.00 1 $5,000.00
630 Flagging HR $20.00 1,000 $20,000.00
630 Traffic Control Management DAY $500.00 180 $90,000.00
630 Construction Traffic SignEA $80.00 30 $2,400.00
630 Portable Message Sign Panel DAY $75.00 60 $4,500.00
627 Pavement Marking & Signing LS $10,000.00 1 $10,000.00
S:\
SUB TOTAL: $1,191,000.00
Right of Way (4,300 SF of Sidewalk Area) LS $50,000 1 $50,000.00
SUB TOTAL: $1,241,000.00
FORCE ACCOUNTS AND MINOR CONTRACT REVISIONS 10% $119,100.00
UTILITY ADJUSTMENT CONTINGENCY 4% $47,640.00
GENERAL CONTINGENCY AND UNACCOUNTED ITEMS 20% $238,200.00
by: DAL
1/11/2011
201 Clearing and Grubbing LS $5,000 1 $5,000.00
202 Removal of Asphalt Mat SY $3.50 2,400 $8,400.00
203 Removal of Curb and Gutter LF $5.00 650 $3,250.00
204 Removal of Sidewalk SY $15.00 200 $3,000.00
203 Muck Excavation CY $15.00 1,000 $15,000.00
203 Earthwork CY $10.00 1,200 $12,000.00
208 Erosion Log LF $9.00 200 $1,800.00
208 Silt Fence LF $3.00 200 $600.00
208 Concrete Washout Structure EA $800.00 1 $800.00
208 Stabilized Construction Entrance EA $1,000.00 1 $1,000.00
208 Erosion Control Supervisor HR $65.00 40 $2,600.00
210 Reset/Adjust Structures LS $10,000.00 1 $10,000.00
214 Landscape Maintenance (24 months) LS $10,000.00 1 $10,000.00
214 Tree EA $500.00 10 $5,000.00
214 Ornamentals/Shrubs EA $25.00 50 $1,250.00
304 Aggregate Base Course (Class 6) TON $15.00 1,500 $22,500.00
403 Hot Mix Asphalt (Grading SX) (100) TON $80.00 200 $16,000.00
412 Concrete Pavement SY $45.00 2,260 $101,700.00
504 Facing (Special) (6" Vertical Curb with Facing) LF $40.00 210 $8,400.00
607 Fencing (Special) LF $30.00 105 $3,150.00
608 Concrete Sidewalk SY $40.00 600 $24,000.00
608 Concrete Curb Ramp SY $100.00 80 $8,000.00
608 Interlocking Pavers (6" concrete bed) (Sidewalk Area) SF $15.00 3,200 $48,000.00
608 Street Name Text (Special) (Sandblast and Stain) EA $450.00 8 $3,600.00
609 Curb and Gutter Type 2 (Section I-B) LF $18.00 1,200 $21,600.00
609 Curb and Gutter Type 2 (Section II-B) LF $22.00 1,100 $24,200.00
610 Median Landscaping SF $20.00 310 $6,200.00
Irrigation (with new tap) LS $35,000.00 1 $35,000.00
610 Median Cover Material (Patterned Concrete) SF $6.00 1,900 $11,400.00
Sanitary Facility LS $800.00 2 $1,600.00
622 Planter Box EA $900.00 8 $7,200.00
622 Bench EA $2,800.00 4 $11,200.00
622 Bollard EA $500.00 10 $5,000.00
622 Trash Receptacle EA $2,000.00 4 $8,000.00
Recycle Bin EA $2,000.00 4 $8,000.00
622 Conduits/Wiring LS $40,000.00 1 $40,000.00
622 Pedestrian/Street Lights (including foundation) EA $10,000.00 4 $40,000.00
626 Mobilization LS $65,000.00 1 $65,000.00
626 Public Information Services LS $5,000.00 1 $5,000.00
630 Flagging (UPRR RAILROAD) HR $100.00 200 $20,000.00
630 Flagging HR $20.00 1,000 $20,000.00
630 Traffic Control Management DAY $500.00 180 $90,000.00
630 Construction Traffic SignEA $80.00 10 $800.00
630 Portable Message Sign Panel DAY $75.00 60 $4,500.00
627 Pavement Marking & Signing LS $15,000.00 1 $15,000.00
SUB TOTAL: $754,750.00
Traffic Signalization LS $300,000.00 1 $300,000.00
Right of Way (2,500 SF of take) LS $50,000.00 1 $50,000.00
Temporary Construction Easements LS $20,000.00 1 $20,000.00
SUB TOTAL: $1,124,800.00
URBAN DESIGN AND STREETSCAPE LS $500,000 1 $500,000.00
FORCE ACCOUNTS AND MINOR CONTRACT REVISIONS 10% $105,475.00
UTILITY ADJUSTMENT CONTINGENCY 4% $42,190.00
GENERAL CONTINGENCY AND UNACCOUNTED ITEMS 20% $210,950.00
CONSTRUCTION COST TOTAL $1,983,415.00
DESIGN 15% $297,512.25
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 13% $257,843.95
ROUNDED ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE
by: DAL
1/11/2011
201 Clearing and Grubbing LS $5,000 1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00
202 Removal of Asphalt Mat SY $3.50 7,700 $26,950.00 $26,950.00
203 Removal of Curb and Gutter LF $5.00 750 $3,750.00 $3,750.00
204 Removal of Sidewalk SY $15.00 450 $6,750.00 $6,750.00
203 Muck Excavation CY $15.00 1,000 $15,000.00 $15,000.00
203 Earthwork CY $10.00 4,000 $40,000.00 $40,000.00
208 Erosion Log LF $9.00 200 $1,800.00 $1,800.00
208 Silt Fence LF $3.00 200 $600.00 $600.00
208 Concrete Washout Structure EA $800.00 1 $800.00 $800.00
208 Stabilized Construction Entrance EA $1,000.00 1 $1,000.00 $1,000.00
208 Erosion Control Supervisor HR $65.00 40 $2,600.00 $2,600.00
210 Reset/Adjust Structures LS $10,000.00 1 $10,000.00 $10,000.00
214 Landscape Maintenance (24 months) LS $10,000.00 1 $10,000.00 $10,000.00
214 Tree EA $500.00 10 $5,000.00 $5,000.00
214 Ornamentals/Shrubs EA $25.00 50 $1,250.00 $1,250.00
304 Aggregate Base Course (Class 6) TON $15.00 3,800 $57,000.00 $57,000.00
403 Hot Mix Asphalt (Grading SX) (100) TON $80.00 500 $40,000.00 $40,000.00
412 Concrete Pavement SY $45.00 5,800 $261,000.00 $261,000.00
412 Concrete Apron SY $50.00 300 $15,000.00 $15,000.00
608 Concrete Sidewalk SY $40.00 1,100 $44,000.00 $44,000.00
608 Concrete Curb Ramp SY $100.00 100 $10,000.00 $10,000.00
608 Interlocking Pavers (6" concrete bed) (Sidewalk Area) SF $15.00 3,200 $48,000.00 $48,000.00
608 Street Name Text (Special) (Sandblast and Stain) EA $450.00 10 $4,500.00 $4,500.00
609 Curb and Gutter Type 2 (Section I-B) LF $18.00 2,300 $41,400.00 $41,400.00
609 Curb and Gutter Type 2 (Section II-B) LF $22.00 2,300 $50,600.00 $50,600.00
610 Median Landscaping SF $20.00 310 $6,200.00 $6,200.00
Irrigation (with new tap) LS $35,000.00 1 $35,000.00 $35,000.00
610 Median Cover Material (Patterned Concrete) SF $6.00 6,900 $41,400.00 $41,400.00
Sanitary Facility LS $800.00 2 $1,600.00 $1,600.00
622 Planter Box EA $900.00 8 $7,200.00 $7,200.00
622 Bench EA $2,800.00 4 $11,200.00 $11,200.00
622 Bollard EA $500.00 10 $5,000.00 $5,000.00
622 Trash Receptacle EA $2,000.00 4 $8,000.00 $8,000.00
Recycle Bin EA $2,000.00 4 $8,000.00 $8,000.00
Conduits/Wiring LS $20,000.00 1 $20,000.00 $20,000.00
Pedestrian/Street Lights (including foundation) EA $10,000.00 6 $60,000.00 $60,000.00
626 Mobilization LS $125,000.00 1 $150,000.00 $180,000.00
626 Public Information Services LS $5,000.00 1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00
630 Flagging (UPRR RAILROAD) HR $100.00 500 $50,000.00 $50,000.00
630 Flagging HR $20.00 1,000 $20,000.00 $20,000.00
630 Traffic Control Management DAY $500.00 180 $90,000.00 $90,000.00
630 Construction Traffic SignEA $80.00 10 $800.00 $800.00
630 Portable Message Sign Panel DAY $75.00 60 $4,500.00 $4,500.00
627 Pavement Marking & Signing LS $20,000.00 1 $20,000.00 $20,000.00
SUB TOTAL: $1,245,900.00 $1,275,900.00
Railroad Crossing Modification (LOW ESTIMATE) LS $500,000 1 $500,000.00
Railroad Crossing Modification (HIGH ESTIMATE) LS $750,000 1 $750,000.00
Traffic Signalization (of the roundabout) LS $300,000 1 $300,000.00 $300,000.00
Right-of-Way (LOW ESTIMATE) LS $100,000 1 $100,000.00
Right-of-Way (HIGH ESTIMATE) LS $500,000 1 $500,000.00
Temporary Construction Easements LS $25,000 1 $25,000.00 $25,000.00
SUB TOTAL: $2,170,900.00 $2,850,900.00
URBAN DESIGN AND STREETSCAPE LS $500,000 1 $500,000.00 $500,000.00
FORCE ACCOUNTS AND MINOR CONTRACT REVISIONS 10% $154,590.00 $157,590.00
UTILITY ADJUSTMENT CONTINGENCY 4% $61,836.00 $61,836.00
GENERAL CONTINGENCY AND UNACCOUNTED ITEMS 20% $309,180.00 $309,180.00
TOTAL ENGINEERS ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE
CONSTRUCTION COST 2011 $3,196,506.00 $3,879,506.00
1
EXHIBIT B
STATE HIGHWAY 14 ACCESS MANAGEMENT PLAN
State Highway 14 (Jefferson Street & Riverside Avenue),
SH287 (North College Avenue) to State Highway 14(Mulberry Street)
Larimer County, Colorado (1)
I. PURPOSE
The purpose of the Access Control Plan is to provide the City of Fort Collins (hereafter
referred to as the “City”), and the Colorado Department of Transportation (hereafter referred
to as the “Department”) with a comprehensive roadway Access Control Plan for SH 14
(Jefferson Street and Riverside Avenue) from the junction of State Highway SH287 (North
College Avenue) to the junction of Mulberry Street (hereafter referred to as the “Segment”).
The development of this Access Control Plan adheres to the requirements of the State
Highway Access Code (2 C.C.R. 601-1) (the “Access Code”), Section 2.12, 1998. It is the
agreement of all parties that all access decisions for this Segment of state highway shall be in
conformance with this intergovernmental agreement.
II. RESPONSIBILITIES
Responsibility for construction costs for roads, closures, traffic control and/or any other
features covered by this agreement and plan shall be based on a fair and equitable allocation
of the costs as agreed upon by the involved parties. No party shall be required to expend its
public funds for such undertaking without the express prior approval of its governing body
or director. Private development-related access improvements will be the responsibility of
the property owner in accordance with Code Section 43-2-147(6)(b)CRS.
III. ACCESS LOCATIONS
Accesses described in Section VII may be closed, relocated, or consolidated, or turning
movements may be restricted when in the opinion of the City, with Department
concurrence, or in the opinion of the Department, any of the following conditions occur:
a) the access is detrimental to the public’s health, safety and welfare, b) the access has
developed an accident history that is correctable by restricting access, or c) the
restrictions are necessitated by a change in road or traffic conditions.
IV. CHANGE OF LAND USE
(1) Revisions to this Exhibit reflect the recommendations from the Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Study conducted by the
City of Fort Collins, Downtown Development Authority, and the Colorado Department of Transportation (2012). Changes to
Jefferson Street include the addition of a raised, landscaped median with street trees, along Jefferson Street. Final design details
of the medians and other improvements will be determined and approved by the City and CDOT during the upcoming
engineering phase of the project.
2
If access to the local road system is available, existing direct private property access(es) to
SH 14 will be closed in conjunction with change of land use or future land development. If
access to the local road system is not possible, a Right In/Right Out (RIRO) will be allowed.
V. AUXILLARY LANES
Right turn deceleration or acceleration lanes to not be required along this historic corridor for
private driveway access points due to the limited Right-of-Way and building set backs as
allowed by the design waiver procedure (Code Section 4.12).
VI. AMENDMENTS
Any proposed access change or addition not identified in this Exhibit will require that an
amendment request be processed as described in Exhibit C.
VII. ACCESS TYPES
There are a number of existing access conditions on SH 14 which will be modified with
similar improvements in the future. Instead of providing a full description for each access
point, the following descriptions summarize this typical information and are referenced in
the Individual Access Point Descriptions (See Section VII).
Public Road Unsignalized Intersection (PRU)
These types of highway accesses are full or limited movement, at-grade, stop-controlled
intersections. Public roads along the corridor are city streets, alleys, or state highways. Right
or left turn acceleration and deceleration lanes will be constructed that meet the design
requirements and standards of the Access Code. These highway accesses will be modified
according to the following scenarios:
Scenario 1. Public Road Unsignalized Intersections with adequate intersection spacing
(PRU1). If adequate spacing can be provided for the installation of an ingress (inbound) left
turn lane, then ¾ movement access will be allowed. The length of the left turn lane shall
meet current Access Code standards. ¾ movement access may be provided for one direction
of travel without requiring the installation of a ¾ movement access in the opposing direction.
Signalization of these accesses will not be allowed, and if signal warrants are met (as stated
in the latest edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration) or if the intersection develops an accident
history (defined as four reported accidents in a 12-month period) that is correctable by
restricting access, then intersection will be reviewed for modification to a RIRO only access
point.
Scenario 2. Public Road Unsignalized Intersections with inadequate intersection spacing
(PRU2). At those locations where intersection spacing does not meet the Access Code
3
standards for installation of an ingress left turn lane, access will be restricted to RIRO or
Right-In only movements.
Public Road Signalized Intersection (PRS)
Public road signalized intersections are at-grade, full movement public road intersections
with a traffic signal. Signalized public roads include state highways and city streets.
Acceleration and deceleration lanes will be constructed to meet the design requirements and
standards of the Access Code.
Driveway Access (DA)
A driveway access can be a drop curb or other highway access that serves businesses or
private residences. These accesses will be modified, consolidated or closed under the
following circumstances:
1. Driveways will be closed if the land use changes or if there is a change that will
increase the peak hour trip generation and if access to the local street network is
available.
2. Driveways will be modified to RIRO only by installing a raised median or
regulatory signing.
1. Driveways will be consolidated if the redeveloped land has multiple access points
and/or reasonable access to the entire redevelopment cannot be provided from a
City street.
VIII. INDIVIDUAL ACCESS POINT DESCRIPTIONS
The following is a description of all existing and future access points, including their current
status and changes which are required. All locations are defined by the approximate
milepoint (in hundredths of a mile) along SH 14 at the centerline of the access. Due to
uniquely different access and land uses, the Access Control Plan for SH 14 is in two
sections, one for Jefferson Street and one for Riverside Avenue. The access changes and
corridor improvements are shown in Exhibit B. The improvements are shown in order from
west to east.
Jefferson Street
SH 287 (North College Avenue) to Lincoln Avenue/Mountain Avenue
North College Avenue MP134.72 This existing public road access currently functions as
a full movement signalized intersection. Modification to this intersection will include
4
signalization and/or geometric improvements to the northwest-bound right turn
movement from Jefferson Street onto North College Avenue. See PRS. [note: these
improvements completed per 2002 North College corridor plan and capital
construction project]
MP134.74 (north side of the street) Existing commercial driveway access. See DA.
MP134.75 (north) Existing driveway access. See DA.
MP134.75 (south side of the street) Existing commercial driveway access. See DA.
MP134.76 (south) Existing commercial driveway access. See DA.
MP134.78 (south) Existing alley access to be RIRO. See PRU- Scenario 2
MP134.80 (north) Existing driveway access to become RIRO. See DA.
MP134.81 (south) Existing commercial driveway access. See DA.
Pine Street (south) MP134.82 This existing public road access currently functions as an
unsignalized intersection. Modifications to this intersection will include converting to
RIRO with installation of raised, landscaped median.
MP134.83 (north) Existing commercial driveway access to become RIRO. See DA.
MP134.87 (south) Existing commercial driveway access to become RIRO. See DA.
MP134.88 (south) Existing commercial driveway access to become RIRO. See DA.
MP134.89 (south) Existing alley access to be RIRO. See PRU- Scenario 2
Linden Street MP134.92 (north & south) This existing public road access currently
functions as a full movement, signalized intersection. Modification to this intersection
will include the development of exclusive left turn lanes for both directions of travel by
eliminating parking on SH14 near the intersection [note: these improvements
completed by City & CDOT] See PRS.
MP134.94 (north & south) Existing commercial driveway accesses. See DA.
MP134.95 (south) Existing commercial driveway access to become RIRO. See DA.
MP134.96 (north) Existing commercial driveway access to become RIRO. See DA.
MP134.99 (north) Existing commercial driveway access to become RIRO. See DA.
5
MP134.99 (north) Existing commercial driveway access to become RIRO. See DA.
Chestnut Street MP135.01 (south) This existing public road access currently functions as
an unsignalized intersection. Modification to this intersection will include converting to
RIRO with installation of raised, landscaped median.
MP135.02 (north) Existing commercial driveway access to become RIRO. See DA.
MP135.03 (north & south) Existing commercial driveway accesses to be closed or
consolidated and become RIRO. See DA.
MP135.04 (south) Existing commercial driveway access to be closed or consolidated and
become RIRO. See DA.
MP135.05 (north) Existing commercial driveway access to become RIRO. See DA.
MP135.06 (south) Existing alley access to be RIRO. See PRU –Scenario 2.
MP135.06 (south) Existing shared commercial/residential driveway access to become
RIRO. See DA.
MP135.08 (north) Existing commercial driveway access to become RIRO. See DA.
Lincoln Street/Mountain Avenue MP135.11 This existing public road access currently
functions as a full movement, signalized intersection. Modification to this intersection
will include the extension of the northwest-bound turn lane and installing a left turn
signal phase to increase the left turn capacity (on the south leg of the intersection). A
median will also be constructed along the entire length of Riverside Avenue between
Lincoln Street/Mountain Avenue and Mulberry Street. See PRS.
6
Riverside Avenue (2)
Mountain Avenue/Lincoln Avenue to Sh14 (Mulberry Street)
MP135.14 (north & south) Existing commercial driveway and alley access to be RIRO.
See DA/PRU –Scenario 2.
MP135.19 (south) Existing alley access to be RIRO. See PRU- Scenario 2.
Whedbee Street (south) MP135.22 This existing public road access currently functions as
a full-movement, unsignalized public road intersection. Modifications to this intersection
will include restricting access to ingress (inbound) right turns only from eastbound SH14
on to Whedbee Street. See PRU – Scenario 2.
Oak Street (south) MP135.27 This existing public road access currently functions as a
full-movement, unsignalized public road intersection. Modifications to this intersection
will include restricting access to ¾ movements (RIRO, LI). A northwest bound left turn
deceleration lane will be provided as well as realigning the intersection to a 90 degree
angle with Riverside Avenue. See PRU – Scenario 1.
MP135.28 (south) Existing alley access to be RIRO. See PRU – Scenario 2.
MP135.32 (south) Existing commercial/residential driveway access. See DA.
Smith Street (south) MP135.35 This existing public road access currently functions as a
full-movement, unsignalized public road intersection. Modifications to this intersection
will include eliminating access to the highway by constructing a cul-de-sac at the
northern terminus of the street.
MP135.37 (south) Existing commercial driveway access. See DA.
Olive Street (south) MP135.41 This existing public road access currently functions as a
full-movement, unsignalized public road intersection. This will remain with full vehicle
movements; however, left turns from Olive Street onto Riverside Avenue will be
provided an acceleration lane/refuge area in the proposed median. A left turn
deceleration lane for movements from Riverside Avenue onto Olive Street will also be
provided.
MP135.44 (south) Existing commercial driveway access. See DA.
MP135.45 (south) Existing commercial driveway access. See DA.
(2) No changes are proposed to Riverside/SH14 access plan per the Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Study.
7
Stover Street (south) MP135.48 This existing public road access currently functions as a
full-movement, unsignalized public road intersection. Modifications to this intersection
will include restricting access to ingress right turns only. See PRU- Scenario 2.
MP135.52 (southwest) Existing commercial driveway access. See DA.
Magnolia Street (south) MP135.56 This existing public road access currently functions as
a full-movement, unsignalized intersection. Modifications to this intersection will
include restricting access to ¾ movements (RIRO, LI). Left turn deceleration lanes will
be provided in the median on SH14. See PRU – Scenario 1.
MP135.57 (south) Existing commercial driveway access. See DA.
MP135.58 (north) Existing commercial driveway access. See DA.
MP135.58 (south) Existing commercial driveway access. See DA.
Cowan Street (south) MP135.60 This existing public road access currently functions as a
full-movement, unsignalized public road intersection. Modifications to this intersection
will include restricting access to RIRO only. See PRU – Scenario 2.
MP135.64 (south) Existing commercial driveway access. See DA.
MP135.65 (south) Existing commercial driveway access. See DA.
MP135.67 (south) Existing commercial driveway access to be right-in only. See DA.
Mulberry Street MP135.69 This existing public road access currently functions as a full
movement, signalized intersection. Modification to this intersection will include the
addition of a second left turn lane for southeast and northwest-bound movements from
Riverside Avenue onto Mulberry Street. See PRS.
8
Exhibit _
SH 14 – JEFFERSON STREET
PLAN ILLUSTRATION
9
June 5, 2012
Revised text for US 287/SH14 Access Management Plan (pages 64 – 66, Jefferson Street
section):
“Access improvements for Jefferson Street/SH14 shall be based upon the “Jefferson Street
Alternatives Analysis Study” (2012) recommendations as approved by City Council. These
improvements are intended to improve safety and operations for the highway corridor for all
modes of travel and support the existing and future businesses along the corridor. These
improvements include the installation of raised, landscaped medians including street trees,
on-street parking along the south or “Old Town” side of the street, as well as streetscape and
pedestrian improvements along Jefferson Street between North College Avenue and
Mountain/Lincoln Avenue.
The raised, landscaped median will improve access management along the corridor by
creating right in/right out (RIRO) driveway accesses along the corridor as well as at the
public intersections of Jefferson Street and Pine Street and Jefferson and Chestnut Street.
Detailed design of the medians will be developed and approved by the City and CDOT
during the engineering/final design phase of the Jefferson Street project. The goal of the
project is to maximize the median width to provide opportunities for high quality
landscaping, including street trees. The median design needs to address safety concerns for
all modes of transportation, including addressing the off-set left turn lanes at the signalized
intersections.”
DESIGN 15% $479,475.90 $581,925.90
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 13% $415,545.78 $504,335.78
ROUNDED ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE
CONSTRUCTION COST 2011 $4,100,000.00 $4,970,000.00
CONSTRUCTION COST FOR 2013
(INFLATION OF 3% PER YEAR) 106% $4,350,000.00 $5,300,000.00
TOTAL
COST ESTIMATE RANGE
FINAL
PRELIMINARY DESIGN ESTIMATE OF ANTICIPATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS
MOUNTAIN/LINCOLN AVENUE ROUNDABOUT PROJECT
ITEM NO. ITEM Unit UNIT COST PLAN TOTAL
1/11/2012
CONSTRUCTION COST 2011 $2,540,000.00
CONSTRUCTION COST FOR 2013
(INFLATION OF 3% PER YEAR) 106% $2,700,000.00
FINAL
PRELIMINARY DESIGN ESTIMATE OF ANTICIPATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS
MOUNTAIN/LINCOLN AVENUE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION PROJECT
ITEM NO. ITEM Unit UNIT COST PLAN TOTAL
1/11/2012
CONSTRUCTION COST TOTAL $1,645,940.00
DESIGN 15% $246,891.00
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 13% $213,972.20
ROUNDED ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE
CONSTRUCTION COST 2011 $2,107,000.00
CONSTRUCTION COST FOR 2013
(INFLATION OF 3% PER YEAR) 106% $2,300,000.00
PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COSTS
JEFFERSON STREET IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT - LINDEN STREET TO LINCOLN AVENUE
(830 L.F. RECONSTRUCTION AND TOTAL LENGTH)
ITEM NO. ITEM Unit UNIT COST PLAN TOTAL
FINAL
CONSTRUCTION COST 2011 $2,060,000.00
CONSTRUCTION COST FOR 2013
(INFLATION OF 3% PER YEAR) 106% $2,200,000.00
PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COSTS
JEFFERSON STREET IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT - COLLEGE AVENUE TO LINDEN STREET
(690 L.F. RECONSTRUCTION/1,000 L.F. TOTAL LENGTH)
ITEM NO. ITEM Unit UNIT COST PLAN TOTAL
FINAL
No new significant impediments No new significant impediments
Implementability
Significant hurdles to implementation Similar to existing width/raised median
Similar to existing width Similar to existing width Matches existing width Similar to existing width/raised median
Notes:
1. Landscape/aesthetic improvements will also be considered outside of curb limits.
2. Transit improvements will be considered by eliminating and/or reducing parking, median width, and bike lanes.
3. Bike/shoulder area can be a striped shoulder, wide travel lane, or bike lane.
4. Existing sidewalk widths are between 6 and 19 feet
* The option was eliminated because it induces a merge of northbound Jefferson traffic from 2-lanes to 1-lane. This will increase traffic conflicts thereby reducing roadway safety. The
through northbound Jefferson movement will continue to have a high percentage of trucks which adds to the conflict issue.
Notes:
1. Landscape/aesthetic improvements will also be considered outside of curb limits.
2. Transit improvements will be considered by eliminating and/or reducing parking, median width, and bike lanes.
3. Bike/shoulder area can be a striped shoulder, wide travel lane, or bike lane.
4. Existing sidewalk widths are between 6 and 19 feet
* The option was eliminated because it induces a merge of northbound Jefferson traffic from 2-lanes to 1-lane. This will increase traffic conflicts thereby reducing roadway safety. The
through northbound Jefferson movement will continue to have a high percentage of trucks which adds to the conflict issue.
3. Bike/shoulder area can be a striped shoulder, wide travel lane, or bike lane.
4. Existing sidewalk widths are between 6 and 19 feet
* The option was eliminated because it induces a merge of northbound Jefferson traffic from 2-lanes to 1-lane. This will increase traffic conflicts thereby reducing roadway safety. The
through northbound Jefferson movement will continue to have a high percentage of trucks which adds to the conflict issue.
Trucks
Impediments to truck operations
Possible impediments – 1 lane with
adjacent parking
(center turn lane refuge)
No new significant impediments No new significant impediments No new significant impediments
Possible impediments – 1 lane with
adjacent parking
Implementability
Significant hurdles to implementation Similar to existing width Significant narrowing/raised median Similar to existing width Similar to existing width Narrowing/raised median
Notes:
1. Landscape/aesthetic improvements will also be considered outside of curb limits.
2. Transit improvements will be considered by eliminating and/or reducing parking, median width, and bike lanes.
3. Bike/shoulder area can be a striped shoulder, wide travel lane, or bike lane.
4. Existing sidewalk widths are between 6 and 19 feet
* The option was eliminated because it induces a merge of northbound Jefferson traffic from 2-lanes to 1-lane. This will increase traffic conflicts thereby reducing roadway safety. The
through northbound Jefferson movement will continue to have a high percentage of trucks which adds to the conflict issue.
Transportation objectives extend beyond study area Yes
Includes references to SH 14 as a safe, direct and
predictable for trucks and no travel time benefits on
realigned Vine. Travel time data is also included.
North College Corridor Plan – March 14, 2007 FC Yes Plan offers goals specific to a location with overlaps Jefferson St
study area Yes Identifies existing issues and problems
North College Urban Renewal Plan – Adopted December 21, 2004 FC No Not in study area No Not in study area
Mountain/Lincoln Intersection
Recommendation of the group to Fort Collins
Council
Agreed that the EOC will not have a group
recommendation to Fort Collins for the
Mountain/Lincoln Intersection due to
differences of opinion
Exhibit 4: EOC Meetings and Decisions